Sic Semper Tyrannis

Don’t get me wrong, I have some issues with Jon Stewart from time to time.  But it thrills me to see him skewer the idiots who influence far too many people.  This bit from a couple of nights ago just cracks me up:

I’ve been watching with alarm the devloping situation between Russia and Georgia.  I first became aware of the issues at play earlier this year after reading a Slate.com piece describing the author’s visit to the contested area of South Ossetia.  He described the territory as pervasively pro-Russian and resentful of Georgia’s claimed authority, as well as locked in a Soviet-style, cold-war era state of existence.  I remember half-chuckling at the irony of a police state striving to “free” itself from one of the region’s most democratic, free-market governments.

I’m not laughing anymore.

However absurd it seems that a group of people would resist taking part in the freedoms offered by a Western-style government, the fact of the matter appears to be that both the South Ossetians and the Abkhazians would prefer home-grown (or Russian-administered) oppression to what they believe is a foreign government (Georgia’s) seeking to impose its rule upon them.  Each region fought mightily to gain independence in the early nineties, which resulted in a Russia-mediated ceasefire enforced by Russian peacekeeping forces.  The Georgian president, however, made it a central part of his policy efforts to bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia “back into the fold,” and, one way or another, his insistence on this point has led to the conflict taking place today.

As is frequently the case in war, we may never know who shot first - whether Russian sympathizers initiated attacks on pro-Georgian groups in order to draw Georgian forces into South Ossetia, or whether Georgia voluntarily initiated a crackdown in the breakaway region.  But we do know that Russia’s response seems, shall we say… disproportionate to the alleged offense, if not premeditated.  Whoever is ultimately at fault, it’s hard for me to believe that either side truly deserves to prevail.

Yesterday I saw this commercial for the new Planet Green network and about fell out of my chair laughing.

I absolutely love hiking.  I like nothing more than to strap on a backpack and go marching off into the mountains, although some of my trips are more successful than others.

A couple of years ago, when I was living in Washington, DC, I decided to take on a different kind of adventure.  Rather than heading to wilderness, I thought I’d plan an extended hike that stayed within the city.  This plan eventually developed into the “Monster Hike,” which took me 20 miles from my home in Clarendon, over the Potomac River, up through Rock Creek Park to the Maryland border, and back down to the White House before crossing back over the river into Arlington.  This route ended up being difficult in a totally different way than clambering over mountains and traversing boulder fields, and I kind of took a liking to it.  Over the past two years, however, I hadn’t taken much time to pursue similar hikes.  Two weeks ago, I was spurred back into action.

My friend Chris, who has been my stalwart companion on most of my backpacking adventures, emailed me a link to the journal of someone currently on the Appalachian Trail.  After reading it, I felt the fire rekindle inside me.  I was so stoked, that I decided to walk the three miles home from work that day, a trip that I have since repeated a half-dozen times.  Last weekend, I decided to take on a larger challenge, hiking from our home at the far west end of St. Louis down to the Gateway Arch on the Mississippi River, and back home, a circuit of some 14 miles.  And this weekend, having already journeyed east through the city, I set off to the south.  This time my path took me over and under two interstates and around the perimeters of Forest Park and Tower Grove Park, for a total of about 13.25 miles.

In these recent hikes, I learned a lot about the city of St. Louis.  As I was walking east toward the downtown corridor last week, I saw a startling number of vacant buildings and lots, most of which looked like they had been empty for a long, long time.  I kid you not, on the side of one of the decrepit buildings there was the faint remains of an advertisement for horseshoeing!  While the population of St. Louis is less than half of what it used to be (354,000 today versus 857,000 in 1950), it just seems crazy that all these properties would have remained neglected for so long.  Still, there were definitely signs of revitalization in various parts of the city, which does give one hope that decades of decline will begin to reverse themselves.

The southbound trip was a whole different experience.  There were areas composed of smaller, ill-kept homes, and there were definitely a few vacant buildings, but nowhere near the number that existed toward the city center.  For the most part, the homes that I passed were actually very well maintained and the neighborhoods seemed lively–especially the neighborhood surrounding Tower Grove Park.  The difference between the parts of town was pretty stark.

The other really intriguing element of yesterday’s hike was the “Pagan Picnic” that was taking place at Tower Grove Park.  I had several Wiccan friends in my days studying at the Vanderbilt Divinity School, although I think that most of the folks at this festival were cut from a rather different cloth.  Especially the big white dude dressed in what appeared to be a homemade Native American costume and wielding a big sword.  But the music was good, the people were friendly, and it seemed like everyone was having a great time.

So, despite the sunburn that I got from five hours in the great outdoors, I have to say that I’ve really enjoyed  both the exercise and the education that I’ve been gaining from these urban jaunts.  One of these days I’ll take a camera with me so I can give you guys a similar glimpse of this city.

Among the greatest irritations in my life are stupid commercials. I hate ‘em. Hate ‘em enough to throw things at the TV if a really bad one comes on, as my friends will attest. But countering my irritation with the bad ones is a healthy appreciation for well-done commercials. In earlier iterations of my blog, I noted my belief that Volkswagon’s “Pink Moon” ad is one of the greatest of all time for the way it utilizes a truly amazing song and marries it to beautiful cinematography that shows off the product (in this case, the Cabrio) and lets the viewer know why they might want to own it. Check it out:

I recently started seeing another commercial that I really like, this one for one of my favorite television networks. You see, Jenifer and I are geeks, meaning that we watch a whole lot of the History Channel, the Science Channel, and, of course, Discovery Channel. The most recent Discovery Channel commercial features many of their most recognizable personalities singing a kind of goofy song about the odd things they love about the world. I think it really captures and celebrates the oddness, yet coolness, of the shows on the network. Have a look for yourself and, if you’d like, share your thoughts in the comments.

One year ago today, Jenifer and I got married.

I never had any doubts that we would be a wonderful couple, but neither did I expect just how wonderful it would be to get to share my life so completely with my best friend.  What with our move from Washington, DC, to St. Louis, Missouri, and all the turmoil and job changes that such a move entailed, we definitely had strained moments, but neither of us ever doubted our love for each other or that we would come through the rough patches even stronger than we had been before.  While before our wedding I never would have thought this really possible, I can honestly say that this past year has been the best of my life.

I love you very much, Sweet Girl, and I can’t wait to see all the wonderful things that God has for us in our future.

My wife and I just spent our first anniversary basking in the luxury and hospitality of White Cliff Manor, an unobtrusive gem of a bed and breakfast.  Brian Helms, the innkeeper, has done a brilliant job of bringing this nineteenth century home back to vitality, imbuing it with stunning furnishings.  While I was impressed by the pictures on the inn’s website, I was not prepared to have my expectations so thoroughly exceeded!

We arrived on Friday evening.  Brian welcomed us with an admonition to take full advantage of the entire building, telling us, “You’re home now. Relax and enjoy yourselves.”  How true his statement was! Throughout our visit, my wife and I felt very much like we were visiting our own summer home, and Brian made sure that our every need was met.

We stayed in the Harriet Schaff room, in which Brian had (per my prior request) set out fresh roses for my wife as well as a nice, chilled bottle of champagne.  The room is, in a word, splendid.  Far more spacious than most hotel rooms, our accommodations fairly sparkled in the early-evening light.  The two concessions that the lovely space made to modernity were a small flat-screen TV and a small refrigerator.  The bed was beautiful and very, very comfortable.  As you will see from the pictures, the bedroom is extremely well-lit, which is precisely what my wife enjoys.

While we were thrilled with the bedroom, I was amazed by the elegance and attention to detail that was evidenced in the common spaces.  The library is a revelation, filled with stately, yet comfortable furniture, as well as a treasure trove of beautifully bound classic books.  The parlor is also the very definition of refined understatement.  And the formal dining room!  It is filled with spectacular antique china and silver, all of which amplifies the aura of period luxury while you enjoy your meals.

Of course, the meals are the proverbial icing on the cake.  Brian’s background includes training in culinary school, and it shows.  We were lucky enough to schedule four meals at the inn, every one of which was spectacular.  The first evening brought a scrumptious blueberry salad and shrimp pasta with a Tuscan sauce — light, yet flavorful.  Saturday morning we enjoyed the full champagne breakfast, with bacon-wrapped fillet mignon, English muffins, fresh fruit, eggs, and potatoes, a meal that far exceeded our already-high expectations.  Saturday evening we were graced with the deluxe three-course dinner, consisting of a tangerine and red bean salad with homemade Caesar dressing, expertly prepared rosemary chicken accompanied by roasted carrots and an incredible potato dish as sides, and finished off with lemon Charlotte, a delectable dessert with which I was not previously acquainted.  Sunday morning, Brian prepared hot homemade biscuits, fresh fruit, and the house specialty: chicken and cheese omelets.  Every meal was plentiful and excellent.

As an added bonus, Brian shared with us the history of the house, which in many ways is also the history of St. Mary.  He has painstakingly researched the Schaff family, who built the house, and the restoration of the house itself is the fruit of that research, as Brian went so far as to discover and replicate the original colors of the walls within the structure.

In short, our stay at White Cliff Manor was the most satisfying, relaxing experience we have ever had.  We enjoyed it so much that we have already made reservations for next year’s anniversary celebration.  I could not offer a higher recommendation for anyone desiring to visit southeastern Missouri.  If you give Brian the opportunity to impress you, he will not disappoint.

I previously posted this bit on the Show-Me Institute’s blog, Show-Me Daily.

——————————————————-

As I am writing this post on Thursday afternoon, I am not yet officially licensed to practice law in the state of Missouri. Tomorrow, when many of you will be reading this post, I will officially be licensed to practice law in this state. In order to convince the powers that be to give me their blessing to use my lawyering skills, in February I had to take and pass an arduous and mostly useless ritual called a bar exam. The test is insanely difficult, in no small part because it requires each examinee to demonstrate memorization of a range of legal concepts that they will likely never use in their practice. For example, even though my expertise is in constitutional litigation, I had to be prepared to answer — from memory — detailed questions related to wills and estates, family law, secured transactions, and commercial paper.

As with most people who have passed a bar exam, now that a couple of months have passed, I probably couldn’t tell you much at all about those subjects without first doing some research about the question asked — which is, in fact, what attorneys tend to do in the real world! In short, my ability to earn a living in the profession for which I am trained depended on my developing a (short-lived) command of information that would be thoroughly useless to me after the exam.

All of that is to say that the idea of licensing attorneys is little more than a convoluted way of restricting the services available to consumers and bolstering the rates we are allowed to charge clients, all under the guise of “protecting the public.” Well, that’s just silly and patronizing. People recognize the difference between gourmet restaurants and street hot dog vendors, and they can also recognize the difference between a white-shoe law firm whose attorneys graduated from Ivy League schools and a small-time local lawyer who went to night school so he could learn just enough to hang out his own shingle.

I’ll happily admit that there are some bad attorneys out there already, and that there would likely be more if you didn’t have to get permission from the state in order to practice. But academic credentials and a license from the state is no guarantee of quality, just as many fine, smart lawyers might have trouble passing the bar exam. In fact, the people most likely to hire a lawyer with questionable credentials are those who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford legal representation at all. So the issue really boils down to why the state should be in a position to tell citizens that they are not permitted to choose who could best fulfill their need for legal representation.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch carried a story today that touches on this question. Attorneys from Missouri’s Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel are trying to strip Mark Belz — an attorney with a distinguished 30-year career — of his law license because several years ago he used $175,000 of his clients’ funds for his own purposes. This is serious business, as attorneys are ethically bound never to breach their clients’ trust in this way, and those who do are almost always disbarred. But several facts make Mr. Belz’s case unique.

First off, he recognized that what he had done was wrong without being caught. He confessed, apologized, and made restitution for the funds used. Second, at the time of his wrongdoing he was suffering from bipolar disorder — an illness for which he is now being treated — and his psychiatrist has testified that he is unlikely ever to repeat such behavior. Finally, and most importantly, his clients forgave him and continued to use Mr. Belz as their attorney. To the best of my knowledge, no one is interested in pressing criminal charges.

No one, not even Mr. Belz, is contending that he is without fault. But the market provides a ready solution for situations like this, without depriving someone of their right to earn a livelihood. When any service provider, regardless of their profession, breaches the trust of a client or customer, word gets around. Potential clients or customers can discover these sorts of transgressions by exercising a little bit of diligence on their own part. Armed with such information, it should be up to the consumer rather than the government to decide whether they value the provider’s services enough to risk similar experiences.

Removing the state’s authority to exclude people from the legal profession is a market solution that would address a number of issues. Aspiring attorneys could apprentice under practicing attorneys, and thereby would not have to waste thousands of dollars and years of their lives in law schools whose courses are heavy on theory, but do little to teach students how to be lawyers. This would lower the costs of entry to the profession, relieving young attorneys of the pressure to charge high rates in order to pay off student debt. The larger pool of service providers would also result in lower-cost legal service, meaning that more people would be able to afford representation. And, most importantly, it would move us that much closer to being a society in which ordinary people are free to seek their own happiness and prosperity without first obtaining the government’s permission.

Today I had a conversation with Marcia, my office’s administrative assistant, about the initiative petition seeking to allow Missouri’s voters to amend the state constitution to forbid the government to grant any sort of preferences based on race. The amendment is sponsored by Ward Connerly, a Californian who has been campaigning to end race-based affirmative action programs nationwide. Marcia (who is black and who, I believe, trusts that I am sincerely interested in helping the black community) asked me to explain why any fair-minded person would be in favor of such an amendment. Her questions and comments as we spoke reinforced to me how ineffective (or, possibly, disinterested?) the freedom movement has been in understanding and responding to the concerns of minorities regarding efforts to end race-based affirmative action. I decided to write this post as a way of answering Marcia’s question, and so that those who currently favor race-based affirmative action will understand how a fair-minded person could come to a conclusion different from their own.

I think readers of this post need to know that I used to be a pretty solid liberal. I grew up in the South, amidst constant reminders of slavery, the Jim Crow era, the Civil Rights movement, and its aftermath. I have seen and continue to see that racism persists in our society, to the detriment of many individuals who would otherwise have more opportunity than is currently afforded them. Ever since I left high school, one of my strongest interests in law and politics has been to play some small role in improving the chances for minorities to overcome the legacy of poverty and the racism that still exists in our nation to realize the traditional American Dream.

With that as my background, it should be no surprise that I supported affirmative action. Initially, it was because I found persuasive Lyndon Johnson’s explanation that “[y]ou do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still just believe that you have been completely fair.” With racism still a significant factor in American society, how could anyone not support programs that would do something to help out those against whom the deck seems perpetually stacked?

In time, my perspective on the issue has changed. Not because I think that racism has ceased to be a factor in contemporary America, but because I realized that–by and large–race-based affirmative action programs create solutions that are every bit as unfair as the circumstances that motivated their adoption. For every minority student who sees their dream realized only because an affirmative action policy dictated that they should be admitted (and I am explicitly excluding those minority applicants whose achievements alone would have secured their admission), another student’s dream is shattered for no reason other than the color of their skin or the ethnicity of their parents. I became persuaded that we were misguidedly attempting to perpetrate a second wrong in order to make a situation “right.” After all, nothing guaranteed that the students gaining an advantage because of their race had faced the sort of disadvantages common to others of their race–consider children of wealthy minority parents or children of recent immigrants whose families had not been involved in the travesty of slavery or segregation. Likewise, these policies were designed to guarantee that a number of white students would be denied admission to schools for which they were qualified, only because of the color of their skin. In a nation where we are striving to achieve an ideal where people are not judged by the color of their skin, how can we condone overt racial discrimination?

These are vastly difficult questions, because ours is a world in which there are limited resources (limited seats in elite schools, limited jobs in prestigious industries or firms, etc.), and someone will inevitably find themselves missing out on the opportunities they desire. It reminds me somewhat of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon in which Calvin complains to his dad that something is not fair. The dad responds, “Life isn’t fair, Calvin.” And Calvin mutters under his breath, “I know, but why isn’t it ever unfair in my favor?” Of course, in the comic strip the quote was really funny because it was ironic. But there is no irony involved for those who have only been able to transcend racial barriers on the strength of raw determination.

There is plenty else to say on this issue, and I hope to address more points either in future posts or in response to comments on this post, but for me the question finally boiled down to a few simple ideas: We are a nation whose highest and best principles (if not their historically demonstrated ones) are firmly grounded in a philosophy of individual rights rather than notions of entitlement tied to class or social group. In the end, I decided that true fairness will not allow a government actor to intentionally and explicitly create a disadvantage for someone simply because of their skin color or ethnic heritage. If we ever hope to overcome the sordid legacy of racism, it must begin with a firm commitment that no government must ever again condone the notion that a person’s merit or value should ever be dependent on their race or ethnicity. While it is definitely possible that a person’s race or ethnic heritage may have resulted in their holding a unique perspective that a university admissions personnel would properly seek to bring to an incoming freshman class, it is the actual life experiences of the individual applicants that must make the difference in admissions decisions, not their race.

Many, many thanks to all of you who sent up prayers as I was preparing for the Missouri Bar Exam last February. We got word this week that I did, in fact, pass the test. On April 29, I’ll officially be licensed to practice in the state — meaning that Missouri’s freedom-stifling bureaucrats should consider themselves forewarned.

In other news, who remembers the eBay user that pissed me off so heinously by calling me a liar when I had fairly and honestly described my purchasing experience with him? I heard from that guy today, offering to withdraw his negative feedback rating. When I asked him what prompted his decision to withdraw the feedback, he offered this apology:

“You were correct. You provided truthful feedback. I felt bad about the situation, which is why I sent you the feedback rating removal. I definitely apologize for what happened.”

And so, gentle readers, you can all consider his apology accepted.

The third big item of the day is the fact that I missed out on the biggest earthquake to rock the Midwest since 1968! Don’t get me wrong… I have no desire to be in St. Louis when the New Madrid fault trips off the long-expected Big One. But I kind of hate not to have been around for this one because now everyone else will have such fun stories to tell about it and I won’t.