One of the nice things...:

about getting linked by Andrew Sullivan is that the quantity and quality of my email goes way up. Here is a nice one:

Hi,

I was just directed to your website -- very good work!


It was great to see such a nuanced, well written piece
on Bloom and Keyes, and special thanks go to you for
not just "reacting" to the name Strauss or Bloom, as
do so many (sadly). One thing I would like to add,
however, is just a mild caution on drawing such a
close line between Bloom and the modern theocrats --

First, the book was of course published before
Quayle's "family values" campaign, before he even
reached office; but that is a minor point. I am quite
sure that a well-read Constantinian Christian (the
moral majority folks) would recoil if they confronted
Bloom. On the surface, it appears to be merely a
demand that we distinguish license from liberty, which
is in part the aim of the theocrats. However, where
their revealed religion points the way to scriptural
guidance for the law, Bloom's argument is a bit
different. For Bloom, American liberalism was eating
itself from within (his point would require a larger
discussion for which I regrettably don't have time
right now). He taps into many critics of American
liberalism by claiming, in essence, that liberalism
cannot perpetuate itself, for it needs guidance from
outside, something to tell it (and tell us!) "what is
good? To what end should the laws work?" For much of
our history, religion had supplied a moral compass,
but with its demise -- or at least its contested
nature -- the need for a liberal education took root
(I'm playing a little loose with the timeline, because
even Locke himslef saw the need for liberal
education).

Thus if we lose liberal education, and the capacity to
teach us "what is good", we lose America itself. For
this reason, Bloom saw that the stakes were quite
serious in sounding the alarm about education's
demise. What's interesting is that if you read critics
of liberalism on the left (take your pick) they TOO
lament liberalism's effect on the soul, and its
inability to offer a vision of "the good" for which we
should all strive. Indeed, it is often amusing to see
how similar the critiques are between say, Strauss and
Sandel, yet how deep the hatred remains for Strauss.
It seems then, in a very simplistic way (!), that much
of the conflict is over where these critics look for
society's guidance -- Bloom looks to "The Great
Books", for example, but that would appease a theocrat
only so long (can you imagine Pat Robertson thumbing
through one of the homoerotic scenes from Plato's
dialogues? And of course, critics on the left often
seek guidance from democratic principles (that is,
from deliberation or majority rule).

By way of disclosure: I teach Constitutional law and
American politics at a large (too large) northeastern
university. I respect Bloom and Strauss, though I'm
not a member of any group that would call themselves
"Straussians" (for the record, I also like Sandel).
I'm also so orthodox in my Christianity that I'm a
flaming liberal on many religious issues. Such is life
...

Sorry I don't have more time to write ... must get
back to work ...

p.s. -- Keyes is out of his frickin' mind, in my
sober, unemotional, scholarly opinion (I hope you
appreciate sarcasm...)

This is a first:

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link!

Keyes on Mary Cheney:

From the Drudge Report:

Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, said Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary is a "selfish hedonist" because she is a lesbian.

His comments came during an interview with SIRIUS satellite radio. Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."

Asked whether that meant Mary Cheney "is a selfish hedonist," Keyes said: "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

Now if someone can get him to comment on his old philosophical mentor, the man whom Keyes describes as, “in terms of [his] academic and intellectual formation, the most important teacher [he] had,” Allan Bloom.

Oh come on!

What? Queen rock! Freddy Mercury had one of the best (if not the best) voices in rock in roll. Brian May is a fantastic guitar player. They played great as a band and wrote great songs.

They rocked with élan—playing at times very refined and fancy music. But they still rocked.

[Update: After reading Sandefur’s reasons for disliking Queen, I don’t think I would recommend to him Rick Wakeman’s The Myths & Legends of King Arthur & The Knights of the Round Table ( 1975). I liked this CD—I think it has its really neat moments (interesting musicial passages, etc). But, even I probably couldn’t have handled when Wakeman took this piece of music and put it on ice.]

Moving:

To a new place in Yardley, PA. Almost done. That's why blogging has been light of late. This semester I am teaching 21 credits (that's 7 different sections, although 5 of them are online courses) at three different colleges AND doing some corporate training. I plan to post regularly. But if posting seems a little or a lot lighter than it was in the summer, you'll know why!

Bailey on Fukuyama:

Great article at Reason by Ronald Bailey on Francis Fukuyama’s most recent book, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. Fukuyama is another one of those Straussians, in fact, a former student of Allan Bloom’s. Like most of the Straussians, he is a learned and intense thinker, and I think he has written much worth reading, and, even though he is decidedly not a libertarian, some of his ideas deserve praise.

(For instance, his book The End of History and the Last Man, —the book that put him on the map as a thinker—is, or at least, could be interpreted as a defense of democratic capitalism from the point of view of Hegelian historicism [I say “could be interpreted as” because some critics of his, notably Shadia Drury, argue that Fukuyama, like Strauss himself and his East Coast followers, are not real defenders of liberal democracy. And in this book, Fukuyama also writes about the downside of History ending at liberal democracy as well]. That is, the founding principles of modern politics take it as a priori true—because such rights derive from “the laws of nature and nature’s God”—that liberal democracy/democratic capitalism is the only legitimate form of government. But what if one doesn’t believe that rights are objectively grounded in nature? Fukuyama argues that History—that is Truth as it is historically, not objectively, determined [because Truth cannot be objectively determined]—will not evolve beyond liberal democracy, that all forms of government either have arrived at this destination or are moving towards it and eventually will get there. So Fukuyama offers another basis, besides natural right, for justifying democratic capitalism. That is something that I think we libertarians can appreciate).

But for whatever his virtues, this book in particular and his stance on biotech in general is not something that deserves praise. Fukuyama is a social conservative—although his social conservatism is quite moderate and reasonable on some issues, but rather reactionary on others. And his view on biotech is reactionary. The bottom line is that Fukuyama and like minded folks are against technological progress on this issue. And if there is one thing that makes the West so great is the way that we have been able to progress scientifically. Think of how much better life is now that it was just one hundred years ago. Bailey perfectly sums up this sentiment in this passage:

Our ancestors had no wings; now we fly. Our ancient forebears could not hear one another over 1,000 miles; now we phone. And our Stone Age progenitors averaged 25 years of life; now we live 75. Thanks to our knack for technological innovation, humanity has by far the largest extended phenotype of all creatures on planet Earth. Nothing could be more natural to human beings than striving to liberate ourselves from biological constraints.

Fukuyama’s mindset would have kept us in the stone age.

What a confused bunch of loons:

The Constitution Party is inaptly named, as their platform misunderstands and misrepresents the US Constitution and our founding principles. The following is my dissection of their preamble:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

The first part of their preamble explicitly does what the neither the US Constitution, nor the Declaration of Independence do: Invoke explicitly Christian language. The Declaration does invoke God, but eschews Christian language and instead appeals to a generic “nature’s God,” who most certainly is not readily identifiable as the God of the Bible. The Constitution leaves God out all together. If our founding documents did use this language that the Constitution Party uses (which many of the state governments at the time used), then their next claim might be accurate.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Boy does that language sound familiar. It’s taken verbatim from David Barton’s made up quote attributed to Patrick Henry, who never said it. But if it were true, by reading the plain text of the Constitution and the Declaration, which mention nothing of the sort, you could have fooled me.

For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

Nope: There is nothing in the text of the Bible or the first 1700 or so years of the historical practice of orthodox Christianity that demands, giving “peoples of other faiths…asylum, prosperity, and freedom to worship.” Arguably, this represents the antithesis of Christianity up until a particular point in Western history when Protestant dissidents began calling for tolerance. People of other faiths have the freedom to worship in American because “nature’s God” grants men the inalienable right to worship no God or twenty Gods (in Jefferson’s words).

If America were founded on Biblical Christianity and if “nature’s God” were the God of Biblical fundamentalism, then please tell me how to square God granting men the inalienable right to worship false gods (something that the Bible does not say God does and something that a jealous God probably would not do), with the First Commandment of the Bible. Good luck.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Jurisprudence and Biblical foundations? Constitutional boundaries? Given that the Constitution says nothing about God and the Bible, I find it hard to believe that these Biblical foundations exist in the American jurisprudence of Constitutional law.

Perhaps they were talking about the common law. So let me note a few things about the common law. First, it’s true that some judges, back in the day, held Christianity to be part of the common law. This doesn’t mean they were right. Just as present day social conservatives might argue that Roe v. Wade or Lawrence v. Texas got it wrong, so too did many believe that those judges who held Christianity or the 10 Commandments to be part of the common law got it wrong. Most notably, Jefferson believed this. In fact, he called holding the 10 Commandments as part of the common law to be a “judicial usurpation.”

Second, the common law is old—it goes back hundreds of years prior to even the formation or “discovery” of the modern principles of political and natural rights that found our nation. This nation was founded on such principles articulated by the Declaration and then secured by the Constitution (and the various state constitutions and laws as well). But it’s entirely possible -- and in fact this often occurred -- that certain decisions of the common law were just plain incompatible with the political principles that found this nation.

And there is no question which law would trump: Not all law was created equally. Natural law has the highest authority, then Constitutional law (if you are a positivist, then you would argue that Constitutional law is the highest authority). All the way at the bottom of the totem poll is the common law. The common law can be modified (or, as is often the case codified—and modified when it is codified) by a simple state statute!

Walter Berns, in Making Patriots, has written an instructive passage on Christianity as part of the common law and how this fits together with our founding principles:

Liberty of conscience was widely accepted at the time of the Founding, but this did not prevent some jurists and legislatures from insisting, at least for a while (and given our principles it could be only for a while), that Christianity was part of the law, meaning the common law. So it had been in England, and so, it was assumed by some (but not Jefferson), it would continue to be in America. But there was no disagreement about the place of the common law [my italics]. Indeed one of the first things done by the states after independence was to declare (here in the words of the New Jersey constitution of 1776) that “the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter [or constitution].”

But if the “rights and privileges” contained in the various state charters or constitutions included the right of liberty of conscience, and if, in turn, this right required, in Madison’s words, “a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters,” what did it mean to say that Christianity was part of the common law? Very little, as it turned out; and it turned out as it had to turn out. Consider, for example, the case of blasphemy in America…. pp. 32-33.

Berns then notes how blasphemy laws remained on the books, but in post-Founding America, the judges, in maintaining their consistency with the rights of conscience, had to “redefine the offense” to include utterances against any religion that would tend to cause a breach of the peace. In other words, the policy behind the offense was now to protect the peace, not the Christian or any religion. These state courts had effectively “stripped blasphemy of its religious character.” Leading Berns to ask, rhetorically, “who can quarrel over a blasphemy law that protects one and all [religions] alike”?

But the bottom line of all this is that our founding principles presuppose religious neutrality. And to the extent that old common law decisions contradict this, the common law gets trumped.

Back to the Constitution Party’s platform:

The Constitution of the United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

Huh—I’m glad they recognize Article VI. But it seems to me that most of everything else they stand for (what I have examined above), directly contradicts this. And some of what they write below contradicts Art. VI as well. For instance this:

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

What “no religious tests” has to do with “a Republic rooted in Biblical law” is beyond me. Please someone inform me.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;

Good, now if only they would recognize that these are Enlightenment platitudes that have nothing to do with orthodox Christianity.

That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights;

Ditto.

That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;

Ditto.

That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights; and

Ditto.

That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.

Ditto: I might add that such a government binds religious fundamentalists like those in the Constitution Party from using the state to enforce their particular version of “virtue.” Howard Phillips, their last candidate, is a Christian Reconstructionist, who believes that the state must enforce Biblical law, even going so far as to execute adulterers and homosexuals (last time I saw him on CSPAN, Phillips used “incest” as the classic case of a capital offense). However, they are wrong. Statecraft is not soulcraft. Our Founders understood this. They don’t.

Blair’s Childrearing Methods:

This story caught my eye.

Lisa Whelchel, who played Blair on the popular 1980s TV series Facts of Life, is an advocate and practitioner of "hot saucing." Whelchel, the author of Creative Correction: Extraordinary Ideas for Everyday Discipline, says the practice worked for her children when other disciplinary actions did not.

"It does sting and the memory stays with them so that the next time they may actually have some self-control and stop before they lie or bite or something like that," Whelchel said on ABC News' Good Morning America.

By the by, I am currently reading Blair’s book; although I am about halfway through, I haven’t yet gotten to the part where she lets us know whether it’s okay to beat your children.

I wonder what Mrs. Garrett would say about this. She was such a paragon of wisdom. "Giiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirls!"

Remember the episode where the girls smoked pot & bought bongs from a record shop. And Tootie & Natalie were told that bongs are for holding jelly beans. That was a classic.

Missionary Mushrooms:

Here is a story about one of those “ex-gays.” He is even used as an anecdote by prominent ex-gay activists. The interesting thing here is that this fellow‘s “born-again” experience, which in turn lead to his “change” away from homosexuality, was facilitated or even wholly caused by a trip on magic mushrooms:

Then it happened. I had a spiritual revelation of the reality that God does exist. It happened while I was using a hallucinogenic drug known as 'mushrooms' or 'shrooms'. While on this drug, I had a vision where Christ appeared before me wearing a shining blue robe. He spoke to me, showed me the reality of His being and told me that I must forgive my father for the wrong he had done against me and against my family. This experience led me to reignite my faith in Jesus Christ. The seed had been planted at 16 and again at 24 I was experiencing spiritual renewal. I began seeking God body, mind and spirit. I stopped using all drugs (including alcohol) and bought a bible. I began attending church regularly and started a practice of daily prayer. During one of these prayer times I asked God if He intended for me to be gay. You see, just because I had reinstated a dialogue with God I did not automatically assume He wanted me to be straight or that being gay was morally wrong. Instead, I asked and said, "The ball is in your court God--- if you don't tell me otherwise, I will assume this is okay with You." God did not remain silent. In fact, the three days following my having said that prayer I heard direction and received wisdom from God. In His answer God revealed to me that I was in fact comparing myself to other men as though I myself was not a man, in my own right. He showed me my own masculinity, hidden underneath shame. I received this truth and soon realized that I could not be attracted to other men now that I knew myself as a man. I looked at my lover naked and felt no attraction. I looked at other men naked and could not elicit the physical response of sexual excitement.

And where would this fellow be without “magic mushrooms”? Will conservatives now start to encourage dropping acid as a catalyst for “finding Jesus”? Will they demand the legalization of all hallucinogenic drugs? Will they at the very least give mushrooms the credit that they deserve for their decisive role in leading this man to Christ?

Off to Atlantic City:

To see Yes and Dream Theater at the Borgata.

Update: One word to describe the show: Phenomenal. Although I like many different styles of music, one thing I really dig about progressive rock is the respect that the musicians have for musicianship, i.e., playing music that is technically demanding (as is normal for jazz & classical music). A lot of rock bands out there are decent players and good songwriters, but their reliance on their raw creative talents and studio production in “perfecting” their sound often leads to lackluster live performances (Smashing Pumkins comes to mind as an example of this—they sucked live).

These two bands played their music—music that is highly technical (but that is still good, "heart & soul" music)—practically flawlessly. I was so impressed by how the guys in Yes—who are pushing 60—sounded every bit as good as they did 30 years ago. Jon Anderson has got to be the happiest man on Earth (he just exudes positive vibes). And his voice in particular sounds just like it did 30 years ago (this is important—many rock singers have no formal voice training and thus don’t know how to “take care of” their voices. Years and years of screaming on-stage takes a toll. And many prominent middle-aged rockers, for instance, Robert Plant, Greg Lake, Steven Stills, and even my favorite progressive rock signer, Steve Walsh [of Kansas] don’t sound like they did in their prime. Even some of the jazz greats—like Frank Sinatra—start to gradually lose the quality of their voices as they get on in years).

Dream Theater are of the next generation. But even they have been around for some 15 years or so. And the guys are starting to get into their mid to late 30s. Their music is arguably even more demanding than Yes’s and from what I’ve heard, Dream Theater mandates a “clean” lifestyle (no drugs or alcohol) while on tour and the members work out vigorously. You could tell that they keep their bodies in really good shape.

This is ashame:

THOR L. HALVORSSEN, although he no longer works for them, has done Yeoman’s work at the FIRE fighting for freedom on college campuses (he is now at something called The Commonwealth Foundation). Now he has to face this: He and his family are natives of Venezuela and oppose the Chavez thugocracy. And something horrible has happened there hits him close to home:

Within one hour of the gathering, just over 100 of Lt. Col. Chávez's supporters, many of them brandishing his trademark army parachutist beret, began moving down the main avenue towards the crowd in the square. Encouraged by their leader's victory, this bully-boy group had been marching through opposition neighborhoods all day….

A 61-year-old grandmother was shot in the back as she ran for cover. The bullet ripped through her aorta, kidney and stomach. She later bled to death in the emergency room. An opposition congressman was shot in the shoulder and remains in critical care. Eight others suffered severe gunshot wounds. Hilda Mendoza Denham, a British subject visiting Caracas for her mother's 80th birthday, was shot at close range with hollow-point bullets from a high-caliber pistol. She now lies sedated in a hospital bed after a long and complicated operation. She is my mother.

I don’t know what to say. If you are religious, please pray for Mr. Halvorssen and his family. If not, just keep him in your thoughts and let's hope for the best.

Alan Keyes: Allan Bloom’s “Gentleman”:

Most people who know of Alan Keyes know that he is a devout Catholic and his extremist views on social issues are informed by a very dogmatic belief in Catholic doctrine (but then again, one wonders why Keyes has only two children).

Even though I find him a bit nutty & extreme, anyone hearing him speak knows that he is smart (as many nutty & extreme folks are); what is less well known is that he is the product of a very refined education. He has studied at both Cornell and Harvard and has his Ph’d from Harvard. Folks might not also know is that Keyes has a Straussian connection. He studied with Harvey Mansfield, under whom Keyes completed his doctoral work. And before coming to Harvard, Keyes studied with Allan Bloom at Cornell. Not only did he study under Bloom, but Keyes considers Bloom to be his most important intellectual influence.

Keyes chided George Bush when the prospective Republican candidates were asked something like, “who is your favorite or most influential philosopher?” and Bush answered Jesus. Jesus, according to Keyes, is the Truth, whereas a philosopher is someone who searches for the Truth. While Keyes noted that the Founding Fathers were his favorite philosophers, he answered that Allan Bloom was the most important single philosophical influence over him.

From a CSPAN interview:

Q: Along the way, greatest influences among your teachers?

A: I think that, without any doubt, the greatest influence among my teachers was Allan Bloom, who was a professor at Cornell when I started there, went to the University of Toronto. I think ended his life and career at the University of Chicago, was well known as the author of a book called The Closing of the American Mind, which enjoyed some popularity a few years ago. Without doubt, Allan Bloom was, in terms of my academic and intellectual formation, the most important teacher I had.

Q: Can you explain why?

A: I think because, in a way that ended up, really, capturing my both interest and serious thought, he understood the moral foundations of politics--at least the importance of those moral foundations. And instead of approaching a political life and the questions that we are involved with in politics and morality, as is often popular these days, as if it is all somehow a consequence of material relationships, he took seriously what had been the view of societies and eras before our own, which saw a self-subsistent basis for moral things, and therefore for political life, and which took that seriously, going all the way back to ancient times with Plato and Aristotle and others. And I just felt, and still deeply believe, that there is more truth in that than in those approaches that try to reduce human things to some kind of sum of the material forces that operate upon us as material beings.

Keyes was such a big fan of Bloom’s that he followed him from school to school. They both sort of left Cornell together. And what many don’t know is that Keyes & Bloom were involved in a series of “incidents” that led them both to leave Cornell (no, it’s not what you are thinking).

It was the 60s and these were tumultuous times at Cornell. Student demonstrations had shut down campus operations, and the militant black students in particular had come in literally with guns a blazing.

Here is Bloom from Closing:

I became fully aware of this when I went to Cornell’s then provost…concerning a black student whose life had been threatened by a black faculty member when the student refused to participate in a demonstration. The provost was a former natural scientist, and he greeted me with a mournful countenance. He, of course, fully sympathized with the young man’s plight. However, things were bad, and there was nothing he could do to stop such behavior in the black student association. He, personally, hoped there would soon be better communication with the radical black students (this was a few weeks before the guns emerged and permitted much clearer communication). But for the time being the administration had to wait to hear what the blacks wanted, in the expectation that tensions could be reduced. He added that no university in the country could expel radical black students, or dismiss the faculty members who incited them, presumably because the students at large would not permit it.

I saw that this had been a useless undertaking on my part. The provost had a mixture of cowardice and moralism not uncommon at the time. He did not want trouble…The case of this particular black student clearly bothered him. But he was more frightened of the violence-threatening extremist and also more admiring of them. Obvious questions were no longer obvious: Why could not a black student be expelled as a white student would be if he failed his courses or disobeyed the rules that make university community possible? Why could the president not call the police if the order was threatened? Any man of weight would have fired the professor who threatened the life of the student. The issue was not complicated. Only the casuistry of weakness and ideology made it so. Ordinary decency dictated the proper response. pp. 316-7.

The black student was, of course, Alan Keyes. This incident prompted Keyes to drop out of Cornell, finish up his BA at and go onto get his Ph’d from Harvard. And this incident in particular, and the general way in which Cornell had handled itself amiss the campus turmoil, prompted Bloom to resign in protest.

Bloom went onto to become a visiting professor in Paris France, and then at Harvard. And Keyes followed Bloom to both places. Bloom went onto the University of Toronto and then Chicago while Keyes stayed at Harvard to finish up his Ph’d.

Okay. Now to the irony: During all of this time, Bloom was a practicing homosexual. And his students knew this. Paul Wolfowitz described Bloom’s relationship with his students as sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But as a gay man with no wife and children, Bloom could, and in fact did take a more active role in mentoring and nurturing his students.

Bloom’s homosexuality may have been “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but at some point in his life, Bloom partnered with a live in lover—Michael Wu. And from reading Ravelstein, when Bloom invited his students over to his apartment, Wu was right there helping to prepare the food for the “get-togethers.” When Bloom died, Wu was his chief mourner and in fact, his heir.

Now consider some of the cruel rhetoric that Keyes has used against homosexuals:

Gay marriage, Keyes warns, will cause "the destruction of civilizations," and he has equated the "homosexual agenda" as "totalitarianism." In fact, Keyes claims, "Hitler and his supporters were Satanists and homosexuals." To Keyes, "The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions," leads to totalitarianism, Nazism, and communism.

Says Keyes, "Since marriage is about procreation, and they can't procreate, it is a logical requirement that they can't get married." Never mind that heterosexual couples incapable of or unwilling to have children can get married, or that many gay couples have children. Keyes seems oblivious to this reality: "Homosexuals are not haunted by the prospect or possibility of procreation – because they're simply not capable of it. I think this is pretty obvious, isn't it?"

One other thing worries Keyes about homosexuality: lesbian couples having children by means of artificial insemination. Why? Well, because the children of lesbians who don't know their fathers might meet and be unknowingly related: "That means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society; it's more than likely to arise – not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication."

At a May 14 rally in Boston against gay marriage, Keyes even declared that gay and lesbian couples don't have sex: "It's not entirely clear to me you can call them sexual, because in point of fact, sex is no part of what they do. Real sexuality is about the distinction between male and female, as expressed in the body and its differences."

I wonder if Keyes attended Bloom’s funeral (based on his high regard for Bloom, I'm sure he did). I wonder how he consoled Bloom’s chief mourner—his partner.

Something else that’s a little odd: (Again, according to Ravelstein) One thing Bloom liked to do in Paris was cruise male prostitutes. I’m sure they spent much personal time together when in Paris; I wonder what Keyes would be doing while Bloom was off cruising guys over there.

Still, from reading Closing, Bloom supported folks like Keyes. That is, even though he was an atheist nihilist who lived an “unconventional” life, just like the other East Coast Straussians, Bloom wholly supported the religious conservatives and fundamentalists and their public policy positions. The Closing of the American Mind was, at heart, a support for Dan Quayle’s “Family Values” agenda and a rejection of the 60s. For all of the extravagances of his “esoteric” life, Bloom, in his politics (or at least in the politics of Closing—I haven’t read his work Love & Friendship, and I understand that his views there come off as more unconventional) was a 1950s style social conservative.

I termed Keyes a “gentleman” because, according to Straussians like Bloom, “philosophers” must make alliances with “gentlemen.” Philosophers are inherently nihilistic; they know there is no God; they are capable of gazing into the abyss without flinching; but they ought to keep philosophy secret. They should publicly support the “gentlemen,” those who believe in “noble lies” like orthodox Christianity. The public needs religion and it needs eloquent spokesman on behalf of religion, hence Alan Keyes. Bloom may have helped to create this “gentleman” Keyes. But in reading Keyes’s above mentioned screed against homosexuals, one wonders if Bloom helped to create, not a gentleman, but just a crank.

The Right Savages Keyes:

Alan Keyes’s senate campaign is off to a disastrous start. His endorsement of reparations is far likelier to alienate his right-wing supporters than it is to attract votes from the constituency that supports reparations. Moreover, as other bloggers have noted, it makes him look like a waffler.

This is from a piece from Frontpagemag savaging Keyes:

Mark your calendars: this is the earliest point at which Keyes has resorted to racial demagoguery, a staple of Keyes’ media appearances for nearly 20 years. When Keyes left the State Department in the late 1980s, he blamed his stalled career on a biased superior. Keyes referred to his inability to attract media attention during the 1996 presidential primaries as “a blackout, which means you keep the black out.” (Keyes last cited his racially charged dictionary in 1992, when he told Republicans they had gone colorblind, which “means that when a colored person walks in, you suddenly go blind.”) In 2000, the single-digit candidate accused the New Hampshire press corps of racism for not covering his presidential campaign to his satisfaction.

Beyond stirring ethnic animosities, Keyes also has a habit of engaging in genuinely neurotic behavior. Keyes chained himself to an Atlanta TV station in 1996, then went on a hunger strike to protest his exclusion from a televised debate. He deliberately provided fodder for Michael Moore’s camera during the 2000 primaries, body surfing the crowd at an alternative rock concert in return for Moore’s promised endorsement. (Moore predictably reneged.) Will this man convince Illinois voters that he’s the steady hand they want at the nation’s helm during a time of war?

Still, for some reason, I am greatly looking forward to the debates! (As nutty as he is, Keyes is fun to watch speak.)

Don’t get this bass-ackwords:

I must agree with Volokh and this article from TCS about poverty and crime. No doubt there is a correlation between the two, but the commonly proffered story about poverty causing crime gets things backwards. It is in fact a more plausible explanation that crime causes poverty, not the other way around. Here is Volokh:

Poverty, people say, causes crime; but what many people miss is that crime causes poverty. Crime disproportionately victimizes the poor, and it keeps them poor, partly by diminishing their assets (or making them invest their scarce money in anti-crime measures) but chiefly by keeping their neighborhoods poor. If you want to help the poor, work to reduce crime -- which in large part (though not entirely) means arrest, prosecute, incapacitate, and thus deter criminals.

My own feeling however, is that, while crime certainly exacerbates the problem of urban poverty, the high urban crime/urban poverty that we see occurring together are both caused by something else, something greater.

And when it comes to being in poverty, very few adults (and in that definition I include underaged young adults having children) are “poor through no fault of their own.” That is, the means of being in poverty and escaping it are within their control. And what they do that causes their poverty results from cultural forces that also lead to high crime as well. William Galston, a Democrat, and a moderate lefty (and as I understand, a Straussian to boot), lays out the case for escaping poverty (citing James Q. Wilson summarizing Galston):

[Y]ou need only do three things in this country to avoid poverty—finish high school, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20. Only 8 percent of the families who do this are poor; 79 percent of those who fail to do this are poor.

My opinion: The same cultural forces that lead individuals to decide not to do what Wilson & Galston admonish, result in higher levels of both poverty and crime.

Alan Keyes comes out for reparations?

Wow this is bizarre. Is this a political ploy for Keyes to attempt to get more black votes? Or is it because he himself has been having problems with the taxman?

Dungeons & Windbags & Wingnuts:

Instapundit links to an interview by Dungeons & Dragons’ creator Gary Gygax to score some points against Walter Cronkite, whom I, like Glenn, regard as a pompous windbag. I played D&D when I was younger, but gave it up around 13 when I got into comic books (my comic book store hosts D&D and other game tournaments; you’d be surprised at how old some of the players are. Or maybe you wouldn’t). I actually owned this version of the Dungeons Masters Guide. The interview is interesting. They talk about the smear of the D&D in the media. 60 Minutes did a horrific hatchet job on it.

Here is Gygax:

In many ways I still resent the wretched yellow journalism that was clearly evident in (the media's) treatment of the game -- 60 Minutes in particular. I've never watched that show after Ed Bradley's interview with me because they rearranged my answers. When I sent some copies of letters from mothers of those two children who had committed suicide who said the game had nothing to do with it, they refused to do a retraction or even mention it on air. What bothered me is that I was getting death threats, telephone calls, and letters. I was a little nervous. I had a bodyguard for a while.

Of course, D&D—with its Witchcraft & Demons—is a favorite whipping boy of the Christian Right. About a decade ago, I actually debated Bob Larson (as a caller to his show), who, back when he had his talk show, epitomized the "religious nut” (among other things, he liked to perform on-air exorcisms—today he takes his traveling exorcism show from city to city. Whoops…I just checked his website—he’s back on the radio. Check out this list of topics.).

I explained to Larson that I played D&D and I was fine; it didn’t adversely affect me at all (he told me that I really didn’t know if I were fine). And that many of these characters are “good” and actually fight evil demons like Asmodeus and Demagorgon. Larson told me that only “Jesus” had power over demons and thus, the game would only be legitimate if the characters invoked his name to defeat the demons. He asked me if that’s how I played the game to defeat Asmodeus (this demon, Bob had just featured in his new fiction book; but he was also featured in D&D’s first Monster Manual). I said, no, I preferred to use a vorpal blade to chop his head off. He replied that the only thing that got “chopped off” was my soul. Then I’d play the tapes of my phone calls to my friends in the dorm and we’d all have a laugh. Ah, the good old days.

Wow, that many?

Sometimes when reading Clayton Cramer’s blog, I get the impression that only gay men are interested in having sex with the underaged. But in reading it today, we learn, via this article, that, apparently, heterosexual men have got this problem quite bad.

It is difficult to know how widespread the crime of statutory rape is across the country, particularly among girls who willingly engage in sex with older men. Franklin said Virginia hospital records from 2001 show that in 70 percent of births to girls age 14 and 15, the father of the baby was at least three years older than the mother. That is a felony under Virginia law.

After a trial run of the program in Norfolk last year, officials conducted informal polling of men and found that 69 percent said they knew of someone having sex with a minor.

Grace Sparks, president of Planned Parenthood-Virginia, said studies show that the younger girls start having sex, the older their partners tend to be.

"If she starts at 11 or 12, her partner is more likely to be a decade or older," Sparks said. "It's pretty shocking."

Update on George Washington as a Freemason:

I have only recently taken an interest in George Washington’s status as a Freemason (his and other framers’ involvement with that group, coupled with the Mason's general influence on the times, [just look at the back of the dollar bill], and considering that fundamentalist Christians consider Freemasonry to be occultic and evil, helps to demonstrate that we weren’t founded by a bunch of Pat Robertsons & Jerry Falwells).

There is no doubt that Washington had more than a nominal relationship with the Freemasons. Yet, Washington’s involvement, and the tendency of some crackpots to see a Masonic conspiracy around every door, has lead to some myth and exaggeration.

Here is an interesting site that seeks to set things straight about the Masons. Earlier I had cited Gary North who held that Washington became a Grand Master Mason.

This site says:

Myth: Washington was Grand Master in Virginia.

Fact: Washington never was a Grand Master. At the instigation of American Union Lodge he was suggested for the office of Grand Master of a National Grand Lodge -- a non-existent body. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania and some others agreed, but too many others disagreed with the concept of a National Grand Lodge. Washington was appointed Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in Virginia by Grand Master Edmund Randolph when that Pennsylvania Lodge requested a charter from the Grand Lodge of Virginia. The following year he was elected Master, but there is no record of his installation into this office, nor is there any record of him presiding over this Lodge. To keep the record straight, there is much evidence of his respect, and perhaps even love for Freemasonry. Proof? He was buried with Masonic rites!

Myth: George Washington was Grand Master of Masons in Virginia.

Fact: Washington never was a Grand Master. American Union Lodge, on December 15, 1779, proposed Washington become General Grand Master of the United States! This proposal speaks volumes for the character of the Commander-in-Chief. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania agreed five days later! Too many others were frightened by the concept of a National Grand Lodge. It is highly doubtful that Washington would have accepted such an office.

Washington was appointed Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in Virginia by Grand Master Edmund Randolph when that Pennsylvania Lodge (No. 39) requested a charter from the Grand Lodge of Virginia. The new charter was dated April 28, 1788. In December of the same year he was elected Master, but there is no record of his installation into this office, nor is there any record of him actually presiding over this or any Lodge.

So Washington was a Master (at least he was elected), not a Grand Master. Yet, some other sites on the Internet claim that Washington was a Grand Master. But the site, in its balance, also goes after those who would downplay Washington’s involvement in the Freemasons:

Myth. George Washington never was interested in Freemasonry. He rarely, if ever, attended Lodge meetings.

Fact. To keep the record straight, there is much evidence of his respect and even love for Freemasonry. True, he seldom attended Masonic meetings. This is understandable when it is realized that from the day he was made a Master Mason until shortly before his death he worked for his country. Did he love and respect the Craft. The ultimate proof -- he was buried with Masonic rites! And this even before the Congress knew of his death. (For further study of George Washington and a complete account of his Masonic activities see George Washington: Master Mason, Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Co., Richmond, VA.)

Myth. George Washington renounced Freemasonry.

Fact. On the contrary he remained a member of the Craft from the moment he was Initiated into the Lodge at Fredericksburg, Virginia (No. 4) until the day he died. Even then his wife, Martha, asked the Freemason of Alexandria, Virginia, to hold and conduct his funeral (see above).

In 1837, at state expense, Joseph Ritner, Governor of Pennsylvania, endeavored to "save" the reputation of the first President. He had published a tract "proving" Washington had never participated in Masonic events. Earlier the Blanchards, father and son and heads of a so-called "Christian" anti-Masonic organization, were among the first "Christians" to "prove" Washington wasn't a Freemason. Much of the anti-Masonic diatribe they promulgated has been carried to the present day by crusading "saints" against "secret" societies.

So I guess in 1837, the then version of the religious right tried to “rehabilitate” Washington’s “Christian” reputation with some lies. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Here are some other interesting sites that I came across in my research. In particular, the following is one of their takes on Washington’s “Master” status:

Some highlights…. In 1778 he was deemed worthy to serve as the first Grand Master of the new Grand Lodge of Virginia -- but was not available. On April 29, 1788, he was appointed the Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 (which is today named Alexandria-Washington Lodge No. 22), and was serving (at least nominally) in that office when he was inaugurated President of the United States.

A worthy cause:

Check it out. And if you regularly give to charities, seriously consider giving to this one.

Brief Thoughts on McGreevey:

This story hits home in more ways than one. Right now I am living in Lumberton, NJ about a half hour outside of the capital of Trenton. I grew up in Yardley, PA (My folks still live there; I basically consider Yardley to be my permanent address). And I am leaving Lumberton and moving back to Yardley exclusively as of September. Yardley is right across the Delaware River from Trenton (literally 5 minutes away). And I teach at the county community college where Trenton is located; in fact I have taught in the inner city Trenton campus.

I had no idea. I guess it just goes to show that even though homosexuals have an equal right to marry members of the opposite sex—doing so is not necessary the best of ideas. Plenty of prominent homosexually oriented men have gotten married and sired children—Leonard Bernstein, Anthony Perkins, Bob Bauman, Cole Porter, Michael Huffington, just to name a few. And these marriages all have one thing in common: These gay husbands never give up the object of what they are primarily attracted to: Men.

On talk radio last night one host suggested that it’s perfectly understandable for a gay man to get married to a woman once—you know, trying to change, doing what society tells all men to do—but perhaps getting married a second time was morally wrong. Still, McGreevey, although he obviously has “issues” with Catholic doctrine, was raised as a devout Catholic. And we can never discount what the Church’s teachings might have done to his mind. I know firsthand that denial can do very odd things to one’s mind.

Obviously, my biggest problem is with what he did in appointing the man in question to an important post in NJ’s government in which this man obviously wasn’t qualified for. As someone working in NJ and struggling to eak out a living as a full time but adjunct college professor at three different colleges, I’d love to be making over $100,000 working for the state of NJ!