On national loyalty oaths

A Facebook friend — someone I hold very dear to me — recently shared the following:

 

Well, I am not afraid of offending anyone.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a socialist Baptist pastor named Francis Bellamy. Bellamy was so socialist, his own flock dismissed him for preaching socialism more than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Prior to the Civil War, Americans (both North and South) commonly viewed their primary political loyalty as belonging to their respective states — they considered themselves Ohioans or Texans first, and Americans second. Bellamy considered such views dangerous — having led to the Civil War — and thought it important to train school children to be politically loyal to the United States. This was his motivation in writing the Pledge.

Not only did Bellamy write the pledge, he also specified the original flag salute. For its first 40 or 50 years, you recited pledge with your right arm outstretched upward toward the flag. Numerous old photos and even film clips record the original posture. Some extended their arms palms up, others palms down. (Go ahead, I'll wait while you try this posture in the privacy of your home.) With the rise of Hitler in the mid-1930s, this fascist salute was abruptly abandoned in favor of the hand-on-heart posture we all grew up with.

Please, don't take my word for any of this. Contrary to my usual practice, I won't link to any articles in support of my claims. Just Google "pledge allegiance history" and see for yourself. Read the articles, look at the images, watch the videos. None of these claims re. the history of the pledge are in dispute — they are well-established (though now little-known) facts of history.

And so, dear Facebook friends, I am not ashamed to say that I haven't recited the pledge ever since these facts first came to my attention about 15 years ago or so. I've abandoned the pledge for two reasons.

First and foremost, the pledge is really a creed — a kind of religious act — and Christians of all people should suspect any activity in which fealty is publicly proclaimed to anything other than the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — the one true and living God. The social expectation that people utter such a public proclamation verges on idolatry.

Additionally, the pledge was birthed in big-government nationalism. Prior to the Civil War, we were known as the "united states of America" — small u, small s. In using violence to force the South to remain in the Union against its will, Abraham Lincoln radically altered the political nature of this country. Forescore and seven years prior, America was founded in secession — now Lincoln was prohibiting it! In the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln played the role of the British King, George III.

I realize that your personal convictions may differ from mine. Please understand that, even though the pledge was composed by a socialist for nationalist purposes, and even though it closely resembles a religious creed, I am not saying that people who choose to recite the pledge are, therefore, either idolaters or national-socialists.

But I do think it is important for people to know the history of what they believe, and to know why they believe it. We should not believe or practice anything merely because it sounds good, or gives us a warm fuzzy or a lump in our throat.

And we most definitely should not do things just because we might receive the scorn of others if we don't.

Besides, we shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to the flag or the United States of America to somehow demonstrate that we are good citizens. We should simply obey the law, work hard, and live at peace with our neighbors. Good citizenship is best demonstrated by actions, not words.

“The Emerging American Empire: Mammon Versus Allah” by Douglas Wilson

“The Emerging American Empire: Mammon Versus Allah”

by Douglas Wilson

This essay was originally published in the June 2005 issue of Chronicles, a paleoconservative magazine of American culture published by the Rockford Institute.

Let us begin by assuming that we agree that Islam is inherently militant. The words Muslim and Islam are derived from the Arabic word for “submission.” Submission to the absolute authority of Allah is essential. The heart of Islam is submission to the central credo that there is only one god, Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet. At the center of all Islamic thought is the driving necessity of submission to power. Christians should understand that the Koran is a revelation of Allah’s will and not a giving of Allah himself. Allah is unknowable by creatures. He may be obeyed, but he cannot be known. This is in radical distinction to the Christian Faith, where the central act of obedience is to know God by faith in His revealed Son.

This religion of total submission is very different from the emerging (and polytheistic) American empire that is currently in conflict with radical Islam. It seems strange to most Americans to speak of an American empire, but an acknowledgement of the facts is long overdue. Americans are willing to admit that our nation is a superpower, and, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it happens that we are the sole remaining superpower. But, for all that, we still think of ourselves as a reluctant superpower. For numerous reasons, this is not quite true. As Charles Beard once noted, empires are not built in fits of absent-mindedness. In American Empire, his compelling treatment of this subject, Andrew Bacevich notes that nothing is served by denying the facts. And facts they are, stubborn as usual. America has entered her imperium.

There are two different kinds of empire, however. The first kind is ideological, as the attempt at Marxist empire was. The god of such systems is overtly solitary. Things are run by the Party, the Party line is put out by the Newspaper, and ideological lockstep is the order of the day. The grand idea, whatever it is, is necessarily “unitarian.”

The second kind of empire is an economic empire, as ancient Rome was. America is becoming such an economic, pragmatic empire, only without the formalization of proconsuls and tributary states. In other words, American hegemony is being exerted with a great deal more finesse than was seen with the old-fashioned empires, but our cultural influence, economic domination, and military presence are not any less real for all that. We may call it “global leadership,” but this does not alter what is actually happening on the ground. You can still get a Hard Rock Cafe T-shirt from just about anywhere, and the U.S. Marines will help to keep it that way.

In many ways, economic empires can be far more benign than the empires built and run by ideologues. The commies wanted to haul us off to the Gulag and take all our stuff. The Americans just want the opportunity to sell us a Windows upgrade. Rightly understood, free trade can be a great blessing and benefit. Empires built by merchants are generally not the world-class human-rights disasters that ideological empires are. At the same time, they are empires, and this means the use of force to protect future sales. Establishing democracies may be the stated goal, but establishing markets is a close corollary. Nevertheless, by God’s common grace, empires of this kind can provide the Church with multiple opportunities. The Apostle Paul was not at all hesitant to use the perks of empire — from roads to citizenship — as he sought to establish churches upon the Gospel throughout the Roman Empire. Neither should we be shy about it.

With such opportunities, however, come many temptations. What does it profit a man, Jesus asked, if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul? Gaining the whole world is what empire is all about. Seeking first the Kingdom of God is what the Christian Faith is all about. The early returns do not indicate that American Christians are preparing themselves to see the discrepancy.

The public worship of such economic empires always includes an affinity for the pantheon. Many gods are necessary to keep all of the customers happy. A good example of this kind of thing was the interfaith deism on display at the National Cathedral after the September 11 attack. The worship was self-consciously polytheistic, and, consequently, participating Muslims and Christians were both compromised. The real god of this worship service was the god called America, the guarantor of economic stability.

There was no real commitment to any of the gods honored or invoked, but only a commitment to the bottom line. While ideological empire is overtly unitarian, economic empires have a unifying principle, too, though it is less obvious. Think of them as gigantic yard sales, with everything imaginable laid out for the shoppers. The most apparent thing about the yard sale is the incredible diversity. “Look!” one might say, getting out of the car, “Pluralism!” The avid yard saler can buy canning jars, water skis, jigsaw puzzles, tablecloths, and so on. Even here, however, there is a unifying principle — there is only one cash box.

In economic empires, the unifying principle is the economic vitality of the empire itself — the cash box. This is the implicit unitarian god of the system, the god that will be defended against blasphemy. The diversity and tolerance are only apparent in those things that are for sale; the right to sell anything is a right that will be defended to the death.

This also reveals why the theological currents within the Church have been running the way they have throughout the course of the last century. Despite all Her problems, the Church in America is still a thriving force in our public life. It is therefore important to do something that will prepare our nation’s millions of Christians for their assigned role in the empire. That “something” is to neutralize the Faith by making it just one more item in the yard sale. What is the unifying principle behind our current theological battles? What do openness theology, seeker-sensitive worship, and dumb evangelical T-shirts all have in common? All of them represent a shift from the worship of Jesus, King of kings and Lord of lords, to Jesus, competitor for market share. Modern evangelicals want the shoppers to buy Jesus instead of the old lampshade, and they do not care who runs the cash box.

The American commitment to the bottom line is real and abiding. It would, therefore, be a great error to suppose that America’s conflict with Iraq has been a conflict tantamount to a war between the Christian Faith and Islam. This is not a second Battle of Tours. Something far more complicated is going on. In recent years, the United States has armed and/or tacitly supported Muslims in their conflicts with Christians in Indonesia, the Sudan, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc. We have also supported Jews against Muslims (and Christians) in Israel. We have also supported Muslim against Muslim. The reason for all of this is ultimately the bottom line, Mammon, America’s great idol. This includes obtaining resources, such as oil, and establishing markets in which we may compete — otherwise known as “spreading democracy.” Because Money is our great idol, we want all the customers to stay contented, and one good way to do this is by honoring their household deities — the kind of gods that can be kept on a shelf.

The one rule is that all the customers must go along with this and not complain when the economic empire honors the tiny gods of the other customers. If we agree to have our God demoted, the merchants of empire will see to it that all the other traditional gods are demoted, too. The empire’s name for this kind of unctuous flattery is pluralism.

Think of the empire as a huge Wal-Mart that sets aside Mondays as Christianity Day; Tuesday, as Hindu Day; Wednesday, as Buddhism Day; and so forth. But every day is Money Day.

Of course, America is largely despised throughout the Muslim world for her residual Christianity, and this places Americans who want to be consistent Christians in an awkward position. We defend our civilization from this Islamic attack from outside because we are a Christian people. We critique our civilization from within because we are not a Christian people. Combining these two, we see that we must call our people back to our earlier covenants, the covenants we have broken. We are like ancient Israel just before the book of the Law was found in the days of Josiah. The Gospel message is constant: Repent and believe.

This means that consistent American Christians must refuse to worship any god within the pantheon, including our own. Within the pantheon, our own God retains His name but has become an idol. This demand places consistent Christians at complete odds with pluralism, our civic polytheism. Christians may certainly accept the pluralistic society around them as a fact, just as Saint Paul knew that Athens was full of idols. By contrast, the pluralist push is for American Christians to accept this state of affairs as principled and desirable.

It is certainly lawful for Christians to occupy various positions within idolatrous empires. Daniel was the chancellor of the University of Babylon; Joseph was Pharaoh’s chief of staff; and the centurion that Jesus praised beyond all the men of Israel was a military man in a pagan military machine. Such participation is possible, but it presents great challenges. One is the need to refuse to worship any of the other gods in the pantheon or to accept that it is legitimate for others to worship them. The stopping point is always on the question of worship, a point that was quite clear to Daniel’s three friends. They cooperated with their enforced scholarships to the University of Babylon, but they would not bow down and worship. It is lawful for a Christian to be in President Bush’s Cabinet, but he must refuse to participate in any way in the jumbled and corrupting world of syncretism.

In order to honor God’s name in such civil settings, Christians need to recover a right approach to Christian worship. We will not get out of this mess by seeking to “recover” the Constitution. We should not idolize the Constitution but should regard it as an exemplary document, now deceased. As one writer has observed, our current rulers treat the Constitution as the Queen Mum of American politics. She gets trundled out on the balcony periodically to wave at the crowds, but she has no real power. Case in point: We went into Iraq to topple the regime of another country. This was an old-fashioned war, pure and simple. The Constitution says that Congress, not the President, declares such wars. The Constitution, for all intents and purposes, is a dead letter, although certain parts of it are still arbitrarily observed because they are part of our unwritten constitution. The best thing would be to quit pretending.

Still, to acknowledge the development of an American empire, even a polytheistic one, is not to say that everything that comes out of it has to be bad. God extends His common grace in all sorts of ways. Such an empire is not necessarily wicked in everything it does, but a consistent Christian cannot give any fundamental religious allegiance to it. And, as American Christians participate (necessarily) in the growing fight between the open markets desired by our government and the closed minds desired by Islam, we must not see this battle as one between light and darkness. This is not a religious war, except in the sense that it is a war between two idols, Mammon and Allah. Christians may be present in the fray — there are many believers in the American military — but all Christians everywhere must not give way to the pressure to conform to the prevailing idolatry.

Neither may Americans on the home front give way to a quasireligious patriotic fervor whenever the shooting starts. I have seen more than one red-white-and-blue example of blasphemy in a Christian bookstore. One was a clever rendition of the ubiquitous “Jesus Saves,” but with the letters run together in a string of nine — Jesusaves. The middle three letters — usa — were inappropriately done up in red, white, and blue. But the worst image I have seen in this respect was one with Jesus holding a shepherd’s hook and extending His left hand in a compassionate gesture. Draped over His head, like a prayer shawl or something, was an American flag. What is to be done with people who think up things like this? One of the reforms that Christendom desperately needs is a return to stocks in the town square, with a ready supply of ripened vegetables and dead cats.

An important word of commendation is needed here. One thing that radical Muslims can do is follow an argument. If Allah is god, then other gods are not. It is precisely this ability to follow an argument that brings them into conflict with Christians who also can follow an argument. If the Triune God of Scripture is God, then Allah is not.

Radical Islam has not succumbed to the Hellenistic dualism that relegates faith to an internal compartment of the heart and therefore allows secularism to reign elsewhere. There was a time when Christians (considered generally) understood this as well, and the results of that understanding were called Christendom. The Christian Faith was thought of as a package deal. It was a different package from Islam, but they had this in common — they were both packages. Because of this common understanding of the total nature of all religious claims, and because Christendom and the realm of Islam bordered each other, the result was conflict and war over the course of many centuries.

If a Muslim who accepts the relegation of Allah to one option among many in our pluralistic marketplace is a compromised Muslim, then it follows that a Christian who accepts the same thing is a compromised Christian. A consistent Christian and a consistent Muslim are, in a strange way, in a state of agreement when they are at war. And when they agree to serve the idol of Mammon together, each is at war with his own foundational assumptions. Religious claims are total. If the Triune God is God, then serve Him. If Allah is god, serve him. If Mammon is god, then get ye to the mall.

Christianity proclaims the crown rights of Jesus Christ over all creation. There is no realm where His authority and glory are not felt. Jesus Himself declared this in the Great Commission, when He told His disciples that all authority in Heaven and on Earth had been given to Him (Matthew 28: 18-20). A key word in this commission is the word therefore. It is not enough for Christians to go: They must “therefore go.” The basis for the task is the fact that universal authority has been given to Jesus Christ, declared with power to be the Son of God by His Resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4). In the second Psalm, God promised the Son that all He had to do was ask, and God would make the nations His inheritance, the ends of the earth His possession.

Because this is true, and only because this is true, the nations belong to Him. He purchased Saudi Arabia with His Blood, as well as Iraq, Libya, and Iran. He requires us to be disciples to these nations, baptizing them and teaching them what it means to be a Christian nation. Of course, we cannot teach them that until we know what it means ourselves. And this means that we have some idols to topple at home before taking the show on the road. •

Douglas Wilson is pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, senior fellow of theology at New St. Andrews College, and the author of several books, including Angels in the Architecture: A Protestant Vision for Middle Earth, which he coauthored with Douglas Jones.
__________________________________

This post contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The Rabbit Trails weblog is making this material available in an effort to advance a better understanding of religious, political, economic, ethical and social issues. Rabbit Trails believes this constitutes a “fair use” of this material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is provided without fee, payment or profit to those who are interested in reading it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

Stuck in My Head: "When I'm Sixty-Four"

Radios, iPods, etc. are not allowed in my workplace. But that's not too big a deal for me, as my brain is filled with numerous tunes from a broad variety of genres, acquired in my 48 years of life. Consequently, I tend to sing or whistle — lots — throughout my day, whether I'm at work or not.

One day last week, a co-worker of mine got me whistling the Beatles' "When I'm Sixty-Four." As is often the case, I didn't know the lyrics, so when I got home, I pulled up the lyrics and a YouTube video of the song. It's really a cute and infectious little tune.

Ah yes, infectious.

The next day, a coworker I don't know said sardonically, "Thanks for the song yesterday." After hearing me whistle "When I'm Sixty-Four" in the locker room the night before, the tune was stuck in his head all day. Funny thing is, my manager at Pizza Hut often complains about the same thing when I start to sing or whistle a tune there: "That song had better not get stuck in my head!" (Well, sorry pal!)

Anyhow, their sad refrains have inspired me to launch this friendly (mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!) little blog feature called "Stuck in My Head," in which I share with you the music and lyrics that have been plaguing ... er, stuck with me for the last day or so.

Should prove to be quite an eclectic collection ... Enjoy!

"When I'm Sixty-Four" (Wikipedia entry)

(Lennon/McCartney)

from The Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

When I get older losing my hair,
Many years from now,
Will you still be sending me a valentine
Birthday greetings bottle of wine?

If I'd been out till quarter to three
Would you lock the door,
Will you still need me, will you still feed me,
When I'm sixty-four?

(oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oooo)
You'll be older too, (ah ah ah ah ah)
And if you say the word,
I could stay with you.

I could be handy mending a fuse
When your lights have gone.
You can knit a sweater by the fireside
Sunday mornings go for a ride.

Doing the garden, digging the weeds,
Who could ask for more?
Will you still need me, will you still feed me,
When I'm sixty-four?

Every summer we can rent a cottage
In the Isle of Wight, if it's not too dear
We shall scrimp and save
Grandchildren on your knee
Vera, Chuck, and Dave

Send me a postcard, drop me a line,
Stating point of view.
Indicate precisely what you mean to say
Yours sincerely, Wasting Away.

Give me your answer, fill in a form
Mine for evermore
Will you still need me, will you still feed me,
When I'm sixty-four?

Whoo!

There’s “illegal,” and then there’s unlawful — and in a righteous society, they would be the same

The distinction between an act being truly unlawful and merely “illegal” is that the former is rooted in God’s law, whereas the second is merely created by humanist judicial or legislative fiat.

Robert Ingram illustrates the distinction quite clearly [my italics]:

... Due process of the law means a proper and just conviction of a crime. No one may be executed, imprisoned or fined unless he is a convicted criminal. At the time of the adoption of this Constitution there was none of the present day confusion about crime which sees any infraction of statute regulations somehow as criminal. But the real criminal law, which is summed up, I say, in the Ten Commandments, is such that, together with universal principles of justice, many if not all these regulations are unlawful; they are themselves enforced only by criminal acts.

The Prohibition Amendment and the Volstead Act which made it operative furnish a clear illustration. The common law rights are guaranteed by laws that would punish anyone who takes unlawfully what belongs to another. Thus it is unlawful even for police authorities to put a man under arrest without either a warrant or personal immediate knowledge of a criminal act. It is therefore unlawful to search his person or his property apart from lawful arrest. Now there was no way to enforce the Volstead Act, which outlawed the possession of alcoholic beverages and also their manufacture, except by unlawful search and seizure.

If the Volstead Act was to be enforced, the authorities then had to break the law and violate the common law rights of every one. The result was an intuitive recognition by the general public of the fact that they no longer enjoyed the protection of the law (which is also known as the protection of God since it is God’s law): therefore they turned almost overnight to the protection racket — to gangsterism. The notorious lawlessness of the Prohibition era is quite wrongly explained as the consequence of men becoming accustomed to breaking the law by buying bootleg whiskey; it was simply the collapse of the common law caused when the power of government was used unlawfully.

Attempts to outlaw the possession and sale of narcotics today present the same problem. This is no argument for permitting unlimited use of narcotics; it simply is a recognition of the very precise and serious limitations facing rightful control. Perhaps all that can be done is to follow the ancient precedent used to deal with prostitution — outlaw solicitation. Fornication itself is unlawful under the common law (based on the commandment forbidding idolatry), but raiding a house of prostitution is highly questionable. On the other hand, solicitation, or making the offer to fornicate for a price, is necessarily an open and observable act and is unlawful. So narcotics might be controlled lawfully* by outlawing offering them for sale. No one would expect by these measures to “eliminate” either prostitution or traffic in and use of narcotics; but they probably would serve the common good by keeping these things within tolerable bounds.

The operative principle is to be noticed carefully. The usual common law rights are simply the reverse side of common law prohibitions. It is unlawful to take any of this world’s goods from a man — his person, his liberty, his family, or his goods. It is unlawful for the sheriff or the king to do so. Under the law, then, a man has a “right” to his life, his limbs, his liberty and his property simply because it is wrong to take them from him except in just punishment for breaking that same law. The law is a closed circle, a complete fence. Within it men are free and have innumerable “rights” if one wants to think of them that way. But these rights appear from the wrongs specified by the common law.

~ T. Robert Ingram, What’s Wrong With Human Rights (free PDF available here), pp. 53-54

Of course, it should likewise be stated that, where the civil magistrate acknowledges and honors God’s law, “illegal” does not conflict with “unlawful.”

__________

* The book’s original text reads, “So narcotics might be controlled unlawfully by outlawing offering them for sale.” But given the context and Ingram’s line of reasoning, I think that “unlawfully” is a printing/publisher’s error, which I have taken the liberty of correcting here.

"The warranty on your car is about to expire!" My letter to General Warranty Services

I was weeding out my gmail box this morning when I came across the following. I thought that someone else might be able to use it — whether against General Warranty Services, or some other persistent, nefarious, unscrupulous telemarketers — so I humbly submit it here for your consideration and free use.

From: Frank & Di [lastname] [mailto: ________@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 7:52 PM
To: bill@generalwarrantyservices.com; gary@generalwarrantyservices.com; compliance@generalwarrantyservices.com; ken@generalwarrantyservices.com; ray@generalwarrantyservices.com; media@generalwarrantyservices.com; kevin@generalwarrantyservices.com
Subject: Do NOT call!!
Importance: High


Frank [lastname]
_____ N. 43rd Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85306

14 June 2008

General Warranty Services, Inc.
282 Main Street
Salem, New Hampshire 03079

Bill Ranney, President
Gary Roberts, V.P. Operations
Peter Skouras, Compliance Manager
Ken Spencer, I.T. Operations
Ray Thayer, Customer Support
Kevin Hurley, Sales Manager

Gentlemen,

I am having a problem with your company. A MAJOR problem.

Almost daily, I receive a phone call on my cellular phone, number 602.696.0833, from one of your nationwide army of slave telemarketers. Since I don't recognize the area code from which the call is originating, I decline the call, but they leave a recorded message anyways.

When I get around to checking my messages later, it's always the same message:

THIS IS A COURTESY CALL TO ALERT YOU THAT THE WARRANTY ON YOUR CAR IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE!!

(A "courtesy call"?! That's **too rich!** And your "alert" would otherwise be really hilarious, considering that your company obviously has NO IDEA as to the status of my automobile warranties.)

Anyhow, when this whole song-and-dance first started, I simply deleted the calls.

But they kept coming.

So then I decided to try telling your nationwide army of slave telemarketers to PLEASE STOP CALLING AND REMOVE MY NUMBER FROM THEIR LIST.

I would press the necessary buttons to speak to somebody, but when I tried to tell them to PLEASE STOP CALLING AND REMOVE MY NUMBER FROM THEIR LIST, they either hung up on me, or said that they had removed me from their list — and THEN they hung up on me.

In short, I have asked to have my number removed from your call list dozens of times. BUT THE CALLS STILL KEEP COMING.

So when I received yet another call today, I finally asked the slave telemarketer the name of your company: "General Warranty Services."

When I told him that I have asked several times to have my number dropped from your list, but that I keep getting calls from his company anyways, he said "Sir, that's probably not the case, because there are dozens of companies selling extended auto warranties by phone."

And when I told him, "Gee, it's funny how every one of these companies uses the exact same recordings," he said that I had been removed from his call list and he would not call again — and he hung up on me.

(Fifty-second verse, same as the fifty-first ...)

So I Googled "General Warranty Services." As you are all likely aware, there is a firestorm of hatred and vitriol swirling about Internet telemarketer-complaint chat rooms about GWS. Here was my personal favorite:

Posted by Bill Ranney, Jr. on 23 May 2008

Hi, I'm the President of General Warranty Services, the company that's bothering you.

I'm a huge douchebag with a flimsy Product/Service that's been around for less than six months but has still garnered enough bad attention to fill posts and threads throughout the web with venom about my shady company. My business model is to have my poor employees call you constantly with no regard to "No-call lists" and requests to be removed from our sales list to try and trick you into thinking that this is your last chance to extend a warranty on a vehicle that I have no idea of the make/model/year or even if it exists.

It's likely that the person calling you has also been duped by my job ads stating they can make $700 - $1200 weekly, though there are many people like the girl who wrote this complaint about making $45 for 54 hours worked.

Whenever you receive multiple phone calls from General Warranty Services, and find yourself on the edge of losing your mind I encourage you call me, Bill Ranney at 603-685-6250 ext. 1141 as many times as my unethical company has called you and please let me have it.

P.S. I make love to children, animals and things that have died.

Now, I didn't want to simply call this "Bill Ranney" guy and unload on him, because that post could just as well have been fraudulent. (That is what is known as "being considerate of other people." You really should try it.)

So after Googling GWS/Bill Ranney a little more, I learned that Virtual Sun, LLC had designed a website for General Warranty Services — and Virtual Sun's home page actually has an audio-recorded testimonial from a "Bill Ranney" of "General Warranty Services"!

So I finally just Googled "General Warranty Services" — and bingo, I found your website!

To cut to the chase, I found your website's "DO NOT CALL" PHONE NUMBER field, entered my phone number (602.696.0833) and clicked "Submit" -- and GUESS WHAT?

A WINDOW CAME UP SAYING:

"The number: '6026960833', already exists in our do not call database"

THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE, GENTLEMEN, WHY DO I KEEP GETTING CALLS ALMOST DAILY FROM YOUR SLAVE ARMY OF TELEMARKETERS?!

No, I really don't care what the answer is!

JUST CONSIDER THIS E-MAIL TO BE LEGAL NOTIFICATION THAT:

1) YOUR NATIONWIDE ARMY OF SLAVE TELEMARKETERS ARE TO **IMMEDIATELY** STOP OR REFRAIN FROM CALLING MY TELEPHONE NUMBERS:

602.696.0697

602.696.0833

602.441.2569

2) YOU ARE NOT TO PROVIDE MY NUMBERS TO ANYONE ELSE.

I will be sending a copy of this letter to the office of the New Hampshire Attorney General, and I will be calling them at my first opportunity Monday morning to file a formal complaint against GWS.

Lastly, I am now keeping a log of all calls received from your nationwide army of slave telemarketers. (I found a handy "Do Not Call" log form at the NH AG's website!)

An acknowledgment of receipt of this e-mail and a statement of intent to immediately address my complaint would be greatly appreciated — and might, in fact, serve to assuage the anger I currently have toward GWS by the time I call the NH AG's office.

Very truly yours,
Frank [lastname]

cc: Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire

I sent that email on a Saturday, and received the following reply Monday morning:

From: compliance@generalwarrantyservices.com
To: ________@msn.com
Subject: RE: Do NOT call!!
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:29:52 -0400

Frank [lastname]
[address]
Glendale, AZ 85306

GWS - Mr. Frank [lastname] -000164

Dear Mr. Frank [lastname],

In response to your request for written reply to the above captioned reference number. Your name has been removed from our Telemarketing Program. In addition, we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or aggravation we may have caused you. We gladly send you this sincere written apology per your request. However, at this time, it is certainly not our intention to inconvenience or aggravate you any further.

Upon receipt of this letter could you please respond with your telephone number or numbers so we could absolutely confirm the complete removal of your entire information from our telemarketing program?

Also as a preventive nuisance practice, we do in fact "scrub" all of our outgoing telephone lists with State Do Not Call Lists and the National Do Not Call List so to remove any number from our outgoing call list that appears on the National DNC. As of January 3, 2008 we hired an independent company called Protus, Inc., who among other business practices specializes in such "scrubbing" procedures regarding the National DNC and as a result our current complaints are nearly non-existent.

As you may or may not be aware, there are at least twenty-two other companies nationwide with over two hundred call center under their direction conducting nearly the same business as General Warranty Services, Inc. GWS is one company with merely one call center under its direction. Therefore, it is at least possible that other similar warranty companies have called and will continue to call you or any other resident who is a member of the National DNC List. Obviously, we have no control of other companies using unethical or suspect business practices.

Also, GWS has a strict policy never to call residents of any state until the passage of at least thirty-one (31) days from the day we issue a campaign in that specific state. Therefore, it is probable that other warranty companies are responsible for at least some of the calls that you allege we made to you. In any event, your name has definitely been removed from our telemarketing program and once you inform us of your telephone number as requested above, you will NOT receive any further calls from GWS. However, as we previously stated, we have no control over any of the other similar warranty companies that may continue to call you.

Furthermore, General Warranty Services, Inc. does not condone any type of predatory practices and we continually remind our employees via daily employee meetings and weekly written memos of our policy regarding consumers requesting to be removed from our call list. General Warranty Services, Inc. has developed an easy and simplistic system for all of our employees to immediately remove consumers from our call list upon their request. At the bottom left on our home page @ www. generalwarrantyservices.com is a selection box where the consumer's telephone number is typed in and immediately removed.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me directly at the telephone number, e-mail or address listed below.

Respectfully,

Peter G. Skouras
Compliance Department
General Warranty Services, Inc.
282 Main Street
Salem, NH 03079
(603) 685-6156
compliance@generalwarrantyservices.com

Closing notes and observations:

• Those courtesy [sic] calls alerting me that my car's warranty was about to expire originated from a variety of area codes around the US. I wonder if GWS has subcontracted work out to non-GWS call centers who sell GWS's "service"? That way they can plausibly claim that their own (GWS) call centers adhere to a strict code of telemarketing ethics, while avoiding having to address the ethics of other call centers who still sell for GWS.
• Regardless, after my email to GWS, all such calls immediately ceased.
• Although I signed the national "Do Not Call" Registry shortly after moving to Spokane in August 2008 (despite advice to the contrary from Lew Rockwell), we still receive unsolicited calls from what appear on our Caller ID screen to be telemarketing firms. I either don't answer them, or I occasionally pick up the phone and hit the "O" (operator) key, which sometimes puts your number on their "Do Not Call" list.

Then of course, if you are mentally prepared and think you can pull it off with a straight face, there's always this approach [NB: some adult language].

Seven years of commercial-free, non-stop album rock!

I’m definitely no expert on radio or rock & roll. But I knows what I likes when I hears it ... and I likes KCDX 103.1 FM out of Florence, AZ!

Everyone knows that the playlists of most “classic rock” stations these days are gettin’ pretty tired: Zeppelin ... Floyd ... Stones ... Aerosmith ... repeat.

Well boomer-era rockers, point your browsers at KCDX’s “Listen Online” link and get ready to hear songs you haven’t heard since phones had dials.

I first read about KCDX in a September 2003 Phoenix New Times article called “Ghost Radio.” Sounded cool ... way cool! Problem was, the station is situated in the Sonoran desert between Phoenix and Tucson, and their low-power signal just plain didn’t reach up into my neck of the Valley.

I don’t know if they were streaming their audio online back then, but it wouldn’t have mattered anyway — I didn’t have a suitable internet hookup or computer. So KCDX fell off my radar.

Then one day about a year later — when we finally had high-speed internet and a newer Mac — I was working at the computer, and suddenly recalled that magical mystery transmitter I once read about. After a quick Google search ... BAM, I was receivin’!

KCDX boasts a repertoire that’s so classic it’s fresh ... no commercials or DJs ... and of course, an online playlist (to help you recall the songs and artists when those “senior moments” hit you) ...

So what are you waiting for, rock & roll fan? Go forth and check it out ... now!

(In addition to the original New Times story above, you can also read about Ted Tucker, KCDX’s reclusive owner/manager/disc-jockey here.)

You don't say ...

[ ... click on photo to read the sign.]

A Sabbath from the Slowdown?

Di wondered aloud the other day whether the recession might force stores and restaurants to cut back on their hours of business ... and if so, whether they might consider simply going back to that quaint old tradition of yesteryear: closing on the Lord's day.

(When Di was looking for work last year, it was bad enough that all the retail stores required their employees be available Sundays — no exceptions for sabbatarians. But she was particularly dismayed that every Christian book store required the same. Reasons given included, "It's our biggest sales day each week," and, "We consider our work here to be a ministry ... " Uh, yeah. Then maybe you should be giving your stuff away on Sundays? Just sayin' ...)

So at any rate, do you think it's possible that God might use the recession to (among other things) call us to rethink our 24/7 lifestyles and return the wisdom and validity of the Fourth Commandment?

An open letter to the Nanny State

26 November 2008

Spokane County District Court
P.O. Box 2352
Spokane, WA 99210-2352

Dear Spokane County District Court,

Enclosed please find our personal check for $124 in payment of a fine levied against my wife for driving — however briefly or unwittingly — without her seat belt.

Be advised, we are paying this fine under duress. It has been levied under color of law, and we do not recognize the state of Washington’s authority to punish people who have endangered only themselves, and thus have not committed a true crime.

But we are unable to mount a fight. The state of Washington simply holds all the cards: legislators, administrators and judges, all backed up by men with guns and badges. And all financed with a vast supply of tax dollars. As I have been unemployed since moving to Washington three months ago, we must focus on things like feeding and educating our kids, not spending hundreds of dollars to fight an unjust $124 fine.

So, okay, you win. But not without hearing our remonstrance against the Nanny State’s revenue enhancement scheme disguised as public safety policy.

On 11 November, my wife inadvertently pulled out of a parking lot with her seat belt unfastened. A few moments later, while stopped at a traffic signal, she realized her error and fastened her seat belt. And she did so out of concern for her own safety, not out of fear of being fined.

But it was too late. She’d already been marked for fleecing ... I mean “punishment” ... by an ever-vigilant WSP trooper. Regardless of the fact that she was both safer and in compliance with the law when she pulled away from the signal, the trooper still stopped and cited her. That she realized and corrected the unsafe situation was irrelevant. All that mattered was a violator needed to be punished — and revenue needed to be generated.

We are not some kind of anti-government anarchists. We are Christians who believe what the Bible teaches about civil rulers — namely, that they are ordained by God to bear the sword against evildoers (Romans 13:4). We praise God when criminals — those who actually prey upon and endanger others — are apprehended, tried and punished, because justice has been served. And we truly appreciate those in government — legislators and administrators, judges and hired men with guns and badges — who do their part in serving justice.

But people who jeopardize their own safety by not wearing seat belts or motorcycle helmets are not criminals. They don’t harm or endanger others. The reckless driver is a greater threat to public safety than one who doesn’t buckle up. But curiously, the Nanny State considers it just to punish the latter, who puts nobody but himself at risk, as well as the former.

When a cop is on the lookout for criminals and reckless drivers, he is acting as a genuine “peace officer.” He is keeping the peace of his community by citing or apprehending people who threaten or harm others. But when states enact “Click It Or Ticket” campaigns (for fear of losing federal highway funds), cops become little more than armed thugs, shaking down innocent citizens who have harmed or threatened no one.

The psalmist rhetorically asks God, “Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, have fellowship with You? They gather together against the life of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood” (Psalm 94:20, 21). Fining people who haven’t harmed or threatened others amounts to little more than exacting tribute — devising evil by law. And God Almighty has ordained government — that is, you — to punish evil, not perpetrate it.

It has been said, “For the law to be respected, it must first be respectable.” For the order and peace of our community, it is vital that citizens hold their government in proper esteem. But it becomes increasingly difficult for decent, law-abiding taxpayers to esteem rulers who make criminals of drivers who don’t buckle up.

We long for the day in America when government bears the sword against real criminals, earning once again the respect of those whom it exists to serve and protect.

Sincerely,
Frank [lastname]

cc: Washington State Patrol, Olympia
Washington 4th District legislators: Sen. Bob McCaslin; Rep. Larry Crouse; Rep. Lynn Schindler

What would that make Arizona?

Yeah, it's been a long time since I last posted. Oh well, other priorities, nothing urgent to blog about ... you know ...

Anyhow, we just moved from Phoenix, AZ to Spokane Valley, WA 3 weeks ago. When we put the plates on the cars, I noted that Washington calls itself "The Evergreen State":


To which Di asked, "That must make Arizona the everbrown state?"

Bada-boomp ...

Don't talk to the police!

(... at least, not without your lawyer present.)

If you’re like me, the vast majority of your exposure to the American legal system comes from TV and movies.

So, who is it that we usually see “pleading the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination”?

That’s right, the evil mafia don ... the guy who we in the audience know is guilty as sin.

I don’t know about you, but that experience has always left me with sort of a funny taste in my mouth about the necessity, the legitimacy — the justice — of the Fifth Amendment.

Well, no more.

In the brief video presentation Don’t Talk to the Police — In praise of the Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against yourself, Law professor James Duane (27 mins.) and police investigator George Bruch (21 mins.) explain why you and I should always “take the 5th”:

[A]ny lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances.

~ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson in
Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 59 (1949 - Justice
Jackson concurring in part and dissenting in part)

This constitutional protection must not be interpreted in a hostile or niggardly spirit. Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege.

~ Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956)

One of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth.

~ Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001 - internal
punctuation and citations omittted)

Prof. Duane is very easy to listen to — quick, personable and funny (if a bit toungue-tied at times). Bruch is a bit more reserved, but he gives you the same advice from the cop’s perspective.

Watch it, then pass it along to everyone you know.

The time to be aware of your legal rights is now … not when you find yourself in “a situation.”

Unbelief and the Deification of the Civil Magistrate:Insomnia

In the 2002 film Insomnia, Al Pacino is Will Dormer, a veteran Los Angeles homicide detective who isn’t above tampering with evidence — only “when necessary,” of course. (I.e., only to ensure the conviction of suspects that everybody knows are guilty.) He and his younger partner, Hap Eckhart, have been sent to Nightmute, Alaska to help the police chief, an old LAPD buddy, investigate the beating death of 17-year-old Kay Connell — and to get them away from a widening Internal Affairs investigation into the dubious ethics of certain detectives.

After arriving and getting settled in, Hap tells Dormer he’s decided to make a deal with IA so that things will go better for him in the long run. Dormer warns Hap that IA only wants to use him to get to Dormer — the “big fish” that will get IA the headlines they want.

Hap protests, “You’re not going to be involved. You’re a G-- d--- hero. With your reputation he can’t touch you. ... You’re clean, Will. ... They’ve got nothing on you because there’s nothing to get.”

“What about [the] Dobbs [case]?” asks Dormer.

“That’s different,” Hap replies. “Even [IA] doesn't want [feces] like Dobbs back on the street.” Everybody knows Dobbs is guilty, you see.

But Dormer also understands that all his prior cases will be jeopardized if Hap cooperates, and he expresses in no uncertain terms his disgust with his partner for deciding to do so.

The next day, Dormer, Hap and several Nightmute cops are in hot pursuit of Kay’s murderer along a rocky, fog-shrouded shoreline. Dormer accidentally shoots Hap, who dies in his arms — convinced that his own partner shot him in retaliation for his decision to cut a deal with IA. Of course, Dormer easily convinces his Nightmute colleagues that Hap was shot by the fleeing killer.

But the killer, Walter Finch (Robin Williams), witnessed the shooting and knows it was accidental. He also knows that Dormer will try to pin it on him. So he calls Dormer to express his sympathies — and to assure Dormer that his secret will be safe with him, so long as he works to convince the Nightmute cops that Kay — and now Hap — were both killed by Kay's high school boyfriend, not by Finch.

Now the race is on between Finch — the creepy, pathetic perv who seems to genuinely believe that Kay’s death was every bit as accidental as Hap’s — and Dormer, the renowned, “honorable” LA homicide detective who must manipulate the evidence to support his “innocence” in Hap’s death — everyone knows he’s innocent, you see — and implicate Finch instead.

Insomnia is an extremely well-crafted psychological crime drama that defends the vital importance of personal integrity. This is probably one of my favorite films — I can’t recommend it highly enough.

But after seeing Insomnia back when it first came out, I also began to consider how our society’s unbelief — our refusal to accept God’s word in faith — might cause us to excuse doing injustice in the name of justice, and thus, to deify the State. Maybe we would prefer to see a possibly innocent man punished in this life — even if a Detective Dormer has to “strengthen the case” against him to assure a conviction — rather than to allow a possibly guilty man to go free in the full confidence that, even if he escapes judgment in this life, he will face God’s judgment at the Last Day.

• Next post: “Unbelief and the Deification of the Civil Magistrate: Woodard v. Wade”

Gold – A political metal

Political rulers throughout recorded history have asserted a monopoly over money. They have argued that the State possesses legitimate authority over the creation and distribution of money. Because gold and silver have been widely used as money metals, the State has asserted control over the monetary uses of these two metals.

This is the origin of the war against gold. Gold is widely recognized and desired as an investment. It is a highly marketable commodity. This was far more true in 1913 than it is today. Prior to the de-monetization of gold, which began in 1914, a person could take a gold coin anywhere where international trade was common and buy just about anything. It did not matter which ruler’s image was on the coin. The coin was valuable because of its gold content. The image may have helped to convey information about the coin -- so much gold of a certain fineness -- but the face on the coin had merely a brand-name recognition effect. ...

Gold’s value is not independent of governments. This is because governments buy and sell gold. This activity affects its price. Gold’s value is also affected by laws against the circulation of gold coins. The Soviet Union had such laws. So did the United States, 1933-1974. But gold’s value as a money metal can exist independently of a government’s actions to subsidize or stigmatize gold’s use as money. Gold circulates as money precisely because it has a value independent of government policies. Or it did. It no longer does. Gold has been de-monetized by governments and their acolytes, the economists.

As with any scarce resource, gold moves to those holders who bid highest. The more widespread gold’s use as money becomes, the more likely that trade will accompany gold. Gold reduces risk by reducing the likelihood of default or fraud on the part of the State or its licensed agents, fractional reserve banks. A government can go bankrupt, but its gold coins will still circulate at gold’s market value. The same is true of any coin-issuing agency. The gold may be marginally more or less valuable in a particular form because of the degree of recognition of the producer, but a government that accurately certifies its gold coins will find that its coins circulate at full value even if the government itself faces bankruptcy or extinction.

Gold’s independence from the fate of governments points to a political truth that governments despise: governments are not the source of the value of gold. To the extent that gold is money, gold testifies against the sovereignty of the State in the realm of money. It testifies to the sovereignty of consumers in a free market. The free market, not the State, is the primary source of gold’s exchange value [emphasis added].

~ Gary North, The Gold Wars (free pdf book), pp. 44-45

The only good politician ...

Most of the world’s currencies and coins today have images of politicians, either dead or alive. By law, American coins and bills may not have the image of anyone living. (In this instance, I am strongly in favor this law. If I must daily look at pictures of politicians, I prefer the dead ones.)

~ Gary North, The Gold Wars (free pdf book), p. 18

White Roses for Uncle Sam(or, Passing the time at DTW)

I wrote previously about my encounter with the TSA upon leaving Phoenix Sky Harbor.

During my week in Ohio and Michigan, I pondered my experience. Remembering the fear I felt as my backpack went through the x-ray machine 3 times ... remembering the looks of resignation on the faces of my fellow travelers ... I think I felt the seeds of a plan begin to form in my mind.

Before leaving Phoenix, I had printed some interesting articles off the Internets and brought them with me, thinking I might engage my old friend and her fiancé in some political conversation. As it turned out, my girlfriend and I spent most of our time reminiscing, touching on current events only occasionally.

Anyhow, one evening as I was tidying up my guest room at their home, I took out the folder of articles and one of them caught my eye: "The White Rose: A Lesson in Dissent," by Jacob Hornberger. The non-violent resistance mounted by die Weiße Rose against Hitler's regime is one of the most inspiring stories to me. (I can't recommend highly enough the recent film Sophie Scholl: The Final Days — German language with English subtitles — about three students who were arrested, tried and executed for distributing anti-Nazi pamphlets on their Munich university campus.)

After reading Hornberger's piece once again, the seed that was planted at Sky Harbor Airport earlier that week started to germinate.

The articles I'd brought with me from Phoenix included some classics from LewRockwell.com, some speeches by Rep. Ron Paul, etc. I started looking for shorter pieces that didn't have a whole ton of underlined "hot links" which might prove distracting to readers of the printed articles. I narrowed it down to seven titles:

• The White Rose: A Lesson in Dissent by Jacob Hornberger
• I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty. by Prof. Andrew Bacevich, Col., USA (Ret.)
• Political Power and the Rule of Law by Ron Paul
• National ID Cards Won't Stop Terrorism or Illegal Immigration by Ron Paul
• Power Lust by Lew Rockwell
• The Wanna-Be State by Lew Rockwell
• The War Criminal in the Living Room by Paul Craig Roberts

Hmm. These should offer food for thought to folks with a lot of time on their hands, in a place where they may have just had a less-than-pleasant, up-close and personal brush with the federal government.

I could make copies and distribute them around the Detroit airport!

Yeah, silly, right? People can read this stuff on the Internet if they want to. Well, yes, they can, but while more folks have computers at home than ever before, I'd bet a whole lot of them don't frequent the same websites I do. In fact, I tend to think a lot of people just use the Internet for e-mail, or to shop for some doo-dad or gee-gaw or other, and little else.

Besides, I really wanted to do something for Ron Paul's presidential campaign. I've got a great sign on the back of my mini-van, but I've been itching to do something more. Two of the Ron Paul speeches were short and sweet ... I could hand-write "Ron Paul for President" and "Google Ron Paul" on those ... yeah, that would be great! The next day, I went down to Office Max and made a bunch of copies.

— • —

I had a couple of days before my flight back to Phoenix, giving me some time to consider what I was thinking of doing ... "What would I do if I were questioned?" Gulp!

"Relax," I told myself. "What's the worst that could happen?"

"I'll be forbidden to fly, and I'll have to hitch-hike home instead."

"No, no, that won't happen, just for distributing some political literature ... 1st Amendment, freedom of speech ... surely that still applies, even in the airport."

"Well, I seem to remember you can't say certain words in an airport, like 'bomb,' and some of my articles mention bombs, terrorists, 9/11, things like that."

"Okay, okay. You've got a point. So what? So it might be a bit risky. What's life without a little risk?"

"It's not just the 'authoritahs" I'm worried about. There are those constant P.A. announcements telling passengers to report anyone who looks suspicious to the airport authorities. It's not like I won't be nervous!"

"Look, you have a right to do this, and it's a great idea! If you chicken out now, how the heck do you think you'll hold up if the going ever gets really tough? Just do it. Speak the truth. It's way less dangerous than what Hans and Sophie Scholl did, and it'll honor their memory."

"Alright, I'll do it. If I don't go through with this, then I'm a miserable coward and have no right to consider myself a Gryffindor." (Sorry, it's a Harry Potter thing ...)

— • —

Fast-forward to Friday, 28 September. I woke up at oh-dark-thirty, showered and grabbed some coffee and a bite of toast. Didn't feel much like eating — too excited!

Got dressed for the day. Brought a long black rain coat on the trip with me. (Got to use it, too — rain's always a bonus for us desert rats!) I decided to try for somewhat of a ... dramatic look. Black jeans and chukka boots, dark red blouse, all under the black raincoat. At 5' 11", I'm rather tall, and brunette (Frank says it's more like auburn), and the effect was pleasing. Took a little extra care with the make-up, too — more than I usually would wear for a day of traveling.

Not much to throw in the rent-a-car: a black suitcase to check; and a black-and-red day pack for carry-on, stuffed with the aforementioned articles, some library books and a spiral-bound notebook.

My girlfriend wouldn't be up until well after I left, but I said a quick good-bye and thank-you to her fiancé as he left for work. Then I was off for Detroit Metro Airport (DTW), about 45 minutes away. Listened to the Dixie Chicks' latest CD on the way; thought it would be inspiring to someone who was aimin' to misbehave.

Got to DTW with loads of time to spare. Checked my bag, then headed for the ladies' room. I left a few articles there. Whew! That wasn't so hard! Then I found a coffee shop, ordered a tea and left a couple on the table outside the shop.

DTW's terminal is rather tiny. You can walk around the whole place in a few minutes. I dropped a few more articles here and there, at pay phones, at the little laptop workstations — even at one of the airport shops, on the shelves below the magazines for sale. On one of my go-arounds, I saw two TSA guys at one of the computer workstations, looking at an article I'd placed there earlier.

Unfortunately (for my purposes), the cleaning crew at DTW is very efficient. I saw one janitor pushing his wheeled trash bin along with one hand, and holding one of my articles in the other, reading it as he went. (And he had another one sticking out of his back pocket ... score!)

It then occurred to me that more folks would probably read these if I put them in the gate area, after they'd passed through security. After all, most people go through security, then spend lots of time waiting at the gate for their plane to arrive. A little "subversive" reading material might be welcome.

So I made my way over to "security central." Not busy at all — breezed right through. The gal at the x-ray machine wasn't the least bit interested in my bag.

I made my way to the gate.

The concourse was laid out in a semi-circle, with gates all around. I went up and down the rows and rows of chairs, placing one and two articles at a time. Several passengers saw me, but no one said anything.

Finally, I reached the end of my stack. Done! Now what?

I was sort of hungry. Went back down the long hallway to get a breakfast sandwich and a bottle of juice.

Sated, I headed back toward my gate. Noticed quite a few folks had picked up the articles I'd laid about, and it also appeared that the janitors weren't so prevalent around here. Lots of empty cups and used newspapers laying around, so I figured my articles might linger a little while longer, as well.

Oh. I almost forgot. I wrote across the top of each one: PLEASE READ, COPY AND DISTRIBUTE! I had no idea if anyone would, but just maybe. It might cause a few people to think about the state of our nation, or at least serve as an encouragement to others of like mind.

The flight home was bumpy, but otherwise uneventful. I cat-napped through part of it, since I hadn't slept much the night before.

My sweetie picked me up at Sky Harbor, and on the way home I told him what I'd done. I didn't tell him about my plan beforehand because I wanted him to be able to honestly deny knowing anything about it — just in case things went badly and he found himself being questioned about my activities! (Honestly now, do you think I was being unnecessarily paranoid, or not?)

Anyhow, Frank loved the story! And as we talked, I realized I want to do more of this. I could leave interesting pro-liberty essays, Ron Paul speeches, etc. at coffee shops, doctors' offices, those wire racks dispensing free magazines and classified ads in grocery stores ... I'm sure there are even more good places to do this that I haven't even thought of yet.

And many more Americans need to be awakened from their slumber.

Fear and loathing at Phoenix Sky Harbor

Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

~Frederick Douglass (1817-1895),
American Abolitionist

I recall a day long ago, before we slipped into our bizarre post-9/11 mindset, when you could arrive at the airport just a half hour before your flight left. Only time it took longer was over the holidays.

A couple weeks ago, I flew to Detroit to see my mom in Toledo, Ohio, for a few days. The following is an account of my experience prior to departing Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

— • —

Arrived at 7 a.m. Checked in, no problem. Went to the rest room, then headed toward the cattle chute.

Not too busy. Just a family in front of me, some of whom spoke English and were translating for other family members who didn't. I saw some passports out so I gathered they were taking an international flight. I think the other language I heard was Italian — sounded something like Spanish, but not quite.

One young woman in the party was helping an elderly lady, probably her grandma, with her bag. The rest of their party were up at a podium speaking to the TSA guy who was checking their papers. He was yawning, not saying anything. Looked as if he might have had a late night — shirt wrinkled, hair mussed up. I heard him direct them to Station Four. They'd started to head over when Mr. Jackboot shouted at the young girl (who was maybe 19 or 20) and the old lady, "Keep up! You need to stay with your party! Over to Station Four now!"

Well, I was next in line, and I noticed there were actually two TSA guys, at podiums maybe ten feet apart. The other one wasn't doing anything, so I headed toward him, only to hear a curt, "I'm closed — over there." He pointed me back to the other guy. (TSA: "Thousands Standing Around".)

Bracing myself, I went over to him, ticket and photo ID out and ready. He looked at it, handed it back and said, "Station Two." From where I was standing, I couldn't read the numbers above the various stations, so I backed up to see where Two was. Got it — last station on the left.

I began to head over to it, and there was a large concrete pillar in my way. I made to go around it on the right, as there was a bit of a hold-up on the left involving a lady in a wheel chair. As I attempted to go around, another TSA guy at a desk (don't know what his job was — he wasn't checking IDs or anything) barked out, "Don't go through here! Other side of the pillar!" No "please," no attempt at kindness. He sounded annoyed. (Hey, maybe that is his job — keeping people from walking around the wrong side of the pillar!) I did as he said, muttering "jackboot" under my breath — he didn't hear me. (The P.A. guy was droning on about something, and it was really loud.)

Made my way to Station Two. There was one couple ahead of me, retirement age, nicely dressed. I heard him speak with a British accent. I put my coat, daypack and shoes in the bin, placed the bin on the conveyor, and stepped through the metal detector — no problems. Waiting at the end of the conveyor for my stuff, I noticed the lady ahead of me — the other half of the British-sounding couple — was agitated. She was talking to the TSA gal, who was examining her bottled water. It was still sealed — a small bottle, about 16 ounces. Heard the passenger explain that she has to drink water every hour due to a medical condition. Her husband broke in: "We called the TSA last night, and they said it would be alright."

But it was a no go. Miss Jackieboot said she'd have to go back out of security and drink the water back there. (Question for Kip Hawley and the rest of the TSA idiots: Why not simply have her break the seal and take a healthy swig to verify that the bottle does not, in fact, contain a chemical component that could be used in a — ahem — "binary liquid bomb"?) The lady said she couldn't drink it all at once. Then her husband asked, "Can we purchase water past this point?" The TSA gal said yes, so the lady said, "Just bin that one, then. I'll purchase another." They were clearly annoyed. I felt badly for them.

Meanwhile, another gal at the x-ray machine had my bag, looking intently at its image on the screen. (Could she read my book titles?!) She called a supervisor over, and both viewed the image, consulting a small spiral-bound notebook. She told me she'd have to run the bag through again. I put on my shoes and took my coat. She scanned the bag a second time and made a few notes on a paper I couldn't see. Then she ran it through a for a third time.

By then there was quite a line behind me, and a bit of panic began to rise within me — what the hell was she looking for? She made a few more notes, still looking at her small spiral notebook, then gave me my bag.

Whew! I couldn't believe how nervous I was getting! I had a few books with me and some choice articles printed off the Internet — figured they'd come in handy for conversations with my old friend Connie, whom I hadn't seen in several years. I suppose the "authoritahs" — not to mention the current regime — might not like my choice of reading material: Chris Hedges' War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning ... Michael Scheuer's Through Our Enemies' Eyes ... and Iraqi bloggerette "Riverbend's" second Baghdad Burning compilation.

But as far as I know, the First Amendment still applies, even to us hapless folk who have to fly on airplanes. Still, I'd love to know just what the TSA lady was writing down about my daypack.

When I caught up with the couple who was in front of me, they were purchasing another bottled water. I told them I sympathized totally, and we mused how awful it is to fly anymore, at least in the US and UK. The couple turned out to be Swiss citizens, headed for home.

I told them I hoped they could keep their republic, and how inspiring the Swiss were to me personally. And how, sadly, we had lost our republic and were descending rapidly into a police state. They nodded, and the gentleman said, "America is not what it once was. So much has changed since 9/11, and not for the better."

The Bourne-Moby-Voldemort Identity

Just saw The Bourne Ultimatum yesterday.

On the plus-side: A fun, action-packed summertime popcorn thriller ... with a moral:

Never volunteer to be a remorseless, unquestioning killer for the State.

In the minus column: Gratuitous overuse of the "shaky-cam." You want to communicate to your viewers the chaos and disorientation that attend (I imagine) a man-to-man fight-to-the-death with an equally-trained and even more remorseless killer? Okay, fine. Shake away.

But in a quiet, subdued, face-to-face meeting in a café between a newspaper reporter and his mysterious insider source? C'mon ...

But I digress.

Each of the three films ends with the same song, "Extreme Ways," by a fellow named Moby. Since I'm a certified "credidiot" (one of those people you see in theatres sitting all the way through the final credits), I tried to pay attention to the lyrics this time. What I heard intrigued me, so I looked 'em up on-line.

Wow. In the context of the Bourne films, Moby's lyrics sure seem to express the lament of a remorseless, unquestioning killer for the State.

"So, just who is this Moby?" I wondered. So I went to his website. Where I read the following post in his journal:

i was just in washington dc for a day, and while there i was wearing my 'republicans for voldemort' t-shirt.

granted it's a fairly subtle literary reference (as the harry potter books have only sold, i believe, 300 million copies, and the movies have only been seen by a billion people or so), but i'm still surprised at how many people respond to the t-shirt as if i were really endorsing a republican candidate named voldemort.

every now and then someone will stop me and say 'your t-shirt is very funny, where'd you get it?', but more often than not i get dirty looks from democrats ('boo, hiss, dirty republican') and approving looks from republicans ('yahoo! another member of the cabal!').

but this isn't about politics, it's about my excellent t-shirt (and no, i don't remember where it came from. i think that someone might've given it to me in a bar?) and how surprising it is that the vast majority of americans seem to be unfamiliar with the central antagonist in the most successful book franchise of all time.

isn't that surprising?

i think it's surprising.

maybe if the t-shirt didn't look so authentic. ...

What a hoot! Pulling one over (quite unintentionally) on both Republicans and Dems, both sides thinking he's supporting a GOP candidate named Voldemort!