I’ve heard it said that it is impossible to love another person unless you love yourself. I say to that, perhaps. But really, in order to love another person it is only necessary to love God. If you do, it follows that you will love yourself, and if you don’t, it follows that you will be unable to.

 

I’ve also heard it said that many people replace love of God with love of Self, but of course this is impossible. It is impossible for the same reason that you cannot replace a mountain with a thimble, or you cannot replace something very large with something very small. The result would be a very small thing surrounded by a great void, and that is a description of exactly what happens to the person who tries to replace love of God with love of Self.

 

That he will have fear there is no question. That he will have need there is no question. That he will have desire there is no question. But that he will have love there is no chance.

Posts may come to resemble a 1970’s King Crimson album – hard then soft, shocking then relaxing – but this isn’t intentional. It’s a matter of time constraints. More serious posts are time-consuming.

 

I was explaining to my sons yesterday that my relationship with music is somehow connected to smell. I can smell remembered odors – or, that is, remember the smell so vividly that I seem to be – when such a memory is triggered by a particular piece of music. Crimson’s first album brings to mind pipe tobacco, incense, marijuana, and candle wax. I call this evocative atmosphere ‘my happy place,’ and indeed, listening to the album today instantly brings me to this blissful state.

 

Perhaps a brain doctor would be able to explain precisely what chemicals are being released by my brain in order to produce this effect. Perhaps any of you who avidly read those magazines devoted to ‘Science-Lite’ may do the same.

 

An old friend of mine, a fellow who has since moved away, used to periodically give me his periodicals. He was convinced that since I was a reader I would want to read them, and he knew that I subscribed to none.

 

One day, at my print shop job a few years ago, a fit of boredom drove me to the desperate measure of rescuing his gift of glossy magazines from the wastepaper basket next to my desk to read them. They included titles such as “Natural History,” “Smithsonian,” and stuff like that there. A journal of the William and Mary graduate program in History offered interesting subject matter tainted irredeemably by the authors’ lack of writing skill. More interesting were the ‘Science-Lite’ and ‘Nature-Lite’ offerings – mind candy, as it were.

 

I spent that afternoon absorbed in String Theory, Information Science, Quantum Physics, and New Evolution Theory – whatever that may be – all of which were presented quite slickly in well-written articles that left me with a sort of empty feeling inside, like the feeling I get from watching television. This emptiness may best be described as a feeling of having been inserted into a world without music or smell.

 

There is nothing of the Transcendent in these offerings, just as there is nothing of the Transcendent in the popular culture. In contrast, the way I routinely see the world around me – without subjecting myself to these influences – is laden with such a quality I can only describe as transcendent just as a sponge may be laden with water.

 

The information contained in the articles was not new to me, although many of the terms were new. In the simplistic manner in which these subjects were presented, the areas of scientific inquiry in question seemed to be devoted to the study of the bloody obvious: things are not as they appear to be. How the articles managed to present such exciting subjects of inquiry in a manner totally devoid of life – well, I must assume it’s a special talent – just as National Public Radio announcers can present the most exciting music ever written in a monotone evocative of a funeral procession in the grayish gloom.

 

Some people – perhaps most people – don’t hear music when they listen to it, and don’t see the world when they look at it. They hear and they see, (and perhaps they smell, and perhaps they touch), a netherworld of substance which by nature doesn’t really have any substance.   

 

How well I can imagine that a person who spends all of his leisure time connected to ‘Science-Lite’ and ‘Nature-Lite,’ and ‘History-Lite’ documentary channels on television – or in these magazines - may have lost his ability to experience the larger part of life which is not material, but from which all things find their eternal Source. It is an awareness of that larger part that I possess and sometimes take for granted, and it is probably this that gives me the ability to smell long-gone odors as a result of listening to music. That’s Time Travel, purely and simply.

 

I think people spend their lives waiting for dramatic miracles to occur, and therefore completely miss the miraculous experience of everyday life.

 

Of course, every time I write about ‘people’ you must know I mean everybody in the world except you and me.

 

   

Promised some time ago was a post on Law and Order – no, not the TV show but the body of laws that govern us and the enforcement of them. If we, as individuals, were bloggers (which we are), and the society were a computer, then Law and Order would be the user interface. I am speaking generally of the way in which government, in all its under-the-umbrella forms, relates to us – the people – on a day-to-day basis. Our laws are basically what we see when we cast our eyes (brains attached) in the direction of government in its many levels.

 

I will start by stating that every single one of you is a law breaker, and so am I. (The Squabbler, being whatever-he-is, is apparently beyond most laws.) Every single one of us is by definition a criminal because every single one of us breaks laws. Often we do this routinely and without premeditation. Often we do this in ignorance of whatever the law we are breaking might be. Often we do this accidentally.

 

For instance, how many times have you, in your wisdom and by your certainly justified reasoning, transformed a Stop sign into a Yield sign? How many times have you exceeded the speed limit? Traffic laws in particular provide dozens of examples because traffic laws are laws which affect us most directly on a daily basis. There are literally hundreds of enforceable laws governing the manner in which we drive our cars, where we may park them, what sort of condition they may be in – or, how well we take care of them, what we may also do whilst driving them, what we may wear whilst driving them, and so on. (Yes, it is against the law in most places to drive nude.)

 

I once received a warning from a policeman employed by the citizens of a particular village through which I was passing for drinking a cup of coffee whilst driving. Why? Because that village – all of a half mile stretch of highway – happened to have a local ordnance prohibiting open containers (beverages) in automobiles. The municipalities surrounding this particular village did not have such ordnances. Now – I understand that the ordnance was probably written in order to give the police force cause for stopping motorists who may be intoxicated, the usual signs – weaving, erratic driving, and so forth – having been deemed by that government insufficient. Perhaps the village is a college town with a higher-than-average incidence of drink-related events. Or, perhaps the ordnance was written in response to a singular event. Whatever the case, I was grateful for the policeman’s discretionary warning because he might as easily have written a ticket.

 

Staying off the subject of the constitutional issues pertaining to law enforcement methods, (Did someone say “Traffic Stop?”), I would suggest that there are several hundred too many laws which have to do with the way we go about our business each day, and having said so, I will not be surprised to find that more of you agree than disagree, even if you are not as libertarian or as individualistic as I am. We may differ on which laws are redundant, but… there it is.

 

We have all heard the feminization of society analysis which attempts to explain the phenomenon of laws breeding like rabbits or celebrities, which makes a few points with which I don’t disagree. There is also an analysis presented by proponents of tort reform which suggests that an ever-more burdensome body of regulation is fueled by the profit motive. That view also has some credence by my way of thinking. More generally, I have heard it said that ‘people’ – that would be everybody except you and me – have become less individualistic, or that ‘people’ are in favor of burdensome regulation because their instinct for safety and security is stronger now than their desire for individual liberty. In other words, ‘people don’t want to be free; they want to be taken care of.’ There may also be something to be said for that idea.

 

But I was thinking rather differently whilst sitting in my bath the other night – and I do hope after making that admission that thinking whilst bathing is legal. It occurred to me that Americans may be just as freedom-loving and individualistic as ever, but another aspect of character which they may also share is a feeling of exceptionalism. Here I am referring not to “American Exceptionalism” which has its own specific meaning, but a general idea held by many-perhaps-most people that they are natural exceptions of the rule – whatever the rule may be. If that is the case, one may assume that many people believe themselves to be exempt from laws just because they are all that, and as a result they are not threatened by their staggering proliferation.

 

In other words, the uncontrollable ‘piling on’ of legislation affecting one’s individual health and welfare which seems to be the stock-in-trade of politicians on both sides of the political spectrum may not be entirely caused by a reduction in individualism – in fact, our individualism coupled with our exceptionalism may even contribute to it. The fact that you and I, and millions of others, so blithely and routinely break laws supports this view.

 

One bizarre development in the collective consciousness that I have been bemusedly observing is the apparently slavish devotion to, rather than abject distrust of, government authority in general. A large number of people seem to believe that government – and therefore yet more laws – can provide a solution to every imaginable difficulty that may arise in a person’s life. This is, of course, psychotically incorrect. But, when I look back into the archives of recorded thought in – say, the 1920’s, 30’s, 40’s – I notice that there were many people who suffered from that same delusion even then, so I don’t think it’s necessarily increased. But certainly it’s a factor in the following scenario:

 

Not long ago a car-load of teenaged girls all perished in an automobile accident. One thing about our world that has changed dramatically in recent years – which was not the case in the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s – is the instantaneous and almost universal communication of News Media delivered 24 hours a day. And, since the details of the girls’ accident were particularly gruesome, appealing as entertainment to the blood-thirsty aspect of human nature, the local tragedy involving several families became national news. That’s new. Human Nature hasn’t changed – it never does. Access to information has changed.

 

So – millions of people now have an emotional investment, however small, in the lives (and deaths) of a few girls they never met, and now never will. It is in their minds and on their hearts what otherwise would not be. Perhaps they have teenaged daughters of their own – (it’s been known to happen) – and they identify on that impossible-to-criticize level of pure empathy. While thinking in this purely emotive way no one will dare to suggest that – perhaps as the result of many rather sensible laws, adequate drivers’ education, and so on – this tragedy is really an extremely rare occurrence. Oh yes, thousands die in car accidents – thousands out of millions – but no one is likely to throw a wet blanket on this pity party for perfect strangers (which actually disrespects the genuine grief of the families in my view) while it is going on. Such events seem completely immune to any application of reason.

 

What happens next? Well, the next thing you know a legislator comes to the party. His (or her) chief goal in life is to be reelected. As a subsequent police investigation of the accident reveals, there is a possibility that the driver of the vehicle was distracted by sending a text message on her cell phone. The legislator then declares that he will introduce a new piece of legislation prohibiting the sending of text messages on a device which is already illegal to use whilst driving.

 

It will be named “So-and-so’s Law” for the poor dead girl, of course. When election time comes, this particular legislator will proudly advertise his introduction of this profoundly redundant piece of legislation. It is legislation that, for all intents and purposes, reads “It is in violation of the laws of this state to drive a motor vehicle while stupid.” Moreover, had the law been in existence before the accident there is absolutely no way to determine if the tragedy might have been prevented.

 

More times than I can count in the last several months I have had lengthy telephone conversations with people – usually women – who are calling me from their moving vehicles, hardened criminals that they are - desperadoes, bad-landers, outlaws, pirates all. Yet, these very same criminal types who would so flagrantly abuse the society’s Order to the detriment of us all may very well have been completely in favor of “So-and-so’s Law.”

 

Why not? What’s one more law to such desperate criminals? They certainly felt much better about themselves knowing that they supported it.

 

So – I don’t know that we, as a people, have become less individualistic somehow. There may be some of that going on, but it’s really impossible to say. What I see instead is people reacting to a whole new world of information from a standpoint of unchanging, unchangeable Human Nature, and government (as power-hungry individuals and as a bloated whore of a whole) doing everything it can to take advantage of that for all it’s worth. 

 

 

I am pleased to see that my latest posts have driven any mention of vitamins out of the banner advertisements at the top of the page. At present there is no reference to mail order brides or escort services either, so it must be I’m behaving myself.

 

Today is called Black Friday for reasons unknown to me. I associate the blackness of a day with the collapse of the stock market, and I know for certain that such an event will not occur today. I have no tips to offer, though, not today.

 

Elizabeth is going shopping today, as are many. I only learned the day before yesterday – from her – that the reason people stampede like dumb animals to retailers on this day is tremendous discounts are in the offing. I sincerely did not know that. I had always assumed it was merely a herd mentality thing.

 

Yeah, I heard mentality. It was just a few minutes ago. Don’t you hear it?

 

I sometimes receive surveys in the mail – junk mail, you know. I assume they are sent out by publishers’ representative firms whose stock-in-trade is targeted marketing. In this way they are able to determine what advertising rates might reasonably be charged in print media – magazines and the like. The only time I ever open a magazine is in the beauty parlor. Barber shops don’t seem to exist anymore. Why is that? But it’s OK having a skinny young lady run her fingers through my hair – for only 20 bucks. But I digress. Looking at magazines whilst waiting is an indispensable feature of the whole experience. I look at the women’s magazines since I’m not interested in Sport and I am interested in women. I’m glad that I will shortly be shampooed because I always feel a little dirty afterwards. But when I get those surveys in the mail I usually take the time to fill them out.

 

Why? Probably for the same reason I write a blog – a compulsive desire to express myself. Yes, until there’s a cure there’s The White Lodge.

 

But what I have discovered about myself by filling in these surveys is that I’m really not a consumer. They usually ask me to choose from any number of lists my preferences for various products, and I find that I have no preferences. In most cases, I have had absolutely no cause to purchase the products they are asking me about at all – nevermind doing it often enough to have formed an opinion that Brand A is superior to Brand B.

 

I’ve just come from answering comments from some of you who think my knowledge of the world is superlative, but I assure you I am ignorant of many things. For instance, what the hell is a “Time Share” and why should I be interested in selling one?

 

Ahhhhh – who cares? I think I’d prefer not to know. I’ve come this far…

 

So, I shall be hard at work doing what I love to do today – getting to know some folks, making some money. I’ll be doing this in Rhubarb Valley, my favorite place, which is a bonus.

 

Best of luck to you on the exams.

Since I posted Lincoln’s 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation yesterday, and threatened to write more about Lincoln today, I thought I might begin with another of the first Republican president’s famous Proclamations. No, it’s not the Emancipation Proclamation, (though there were two of those), but his Proclamation suspending the writ of habeas corpus in 1862. It was by far the most controversial thing the 16^th president of these United States did – at the time – and there are many who suggest today that the current president has effectively done the same thing, though they are assuming U.S. Constitutional rights are somehow automatically extended to non-citizen enemies of the nation, which is rather a new idea, but… there it is. Being armed with some knowledge of history, even in summary, helps us to understand current events and, wherever necessary, discern distinctions between political polemic and fact.

 

This is the second such Proclamation by Lincoln, by the way. Habeas Corpus, which I will define, was restored by the Supreme Court in 1866.

 

 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;

Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:

Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Squabbler of State.

 

In 1861 President Lincoln was stuck “between a rock and a hard place.” He had only just arrived in Washington, with intelligence of a plot to assassinate him. In this day and age, just as soon as the caterers have served their last pig-in-a-blanket during the Inauguration ceremony, the opposing political party forms a committee to investigate impeaching him. In Lincoln’s time it appears the opposing political party immediately formed a committee to assassinate him. I know – I’m splitting hairs. Let it suffice us to say it was not a very stable period in our nation’s history.

 

By April of ’61 the Civil War had begun, and Washington was about to be attacked in an eerie replay of the War of 1812, still remembered at that time. Adjacent Maryland was a slave state whose legislature was scheduled to vote on secession within hours. Lincoln had hoped that regiments from New York and Massachusetts would arrive to convince the still neutral state to side with the North, and to defend the capital. On April 25 he had just about lost hope that the North would indeed come to his defense. With the siege of Washington D.C. drawing closer in imminence by the hour, Lincoln found himself faced with the prospect of having to assume unprecedented power in order to prevent the fall of his government, urged to do so by his military advisors and condemned by congress and the judiciary; to wit, the suspension of habeas corpus specifically to disperse Maryland citizens who had rioted, cutting off supply lines into the capital city.

 

Also on offer was an opportunity to place under arrest the entire Maryland legislature, a move the president was loath to make, but which was urged by Gen. Ben Butler of the Eighth Massachusetts.

 

Just to give the full picture now, congress wasn’t in session because Lincoln decided to postpone convening congress until July 4. Why? So that they wouldn’t be breathing down his neck. He was already accused of despotism by his political opponents who fully believed his actions so far had made him a dictator. He had miscalculated the timely intervention of the military, and that’s why he now found himself alone in a city about to be overrun by rebels.

 

The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 9, paragraph 2 states: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” There was tremendous argument then, as now, as to whether Congress or the Executive should rightly assume the decision to do so. Congress was absent.

 

What’s the big deal about habeas corpus? Well, I’ll put a detailed legal definition in comments, but basically habeas corpus was – and is – the most important freedom wrestled by humanity from the hands of kings and tyrants, the demand that anyone arrested by a government be brought before a court of law to determine whether his arrest was right and proper. Without it any soldier, policeman, or deputized officer could enter any home, arrest the occupant and throw him or her in prison without legal recourse.

 

Basically, suspending the writ of habeas corpus is the act which establishes military rule.

 

The New York Seventh Regiment arrived at last, and marched down Pennsylvania Avenue between lines of spectators, some cheering, others sullen. Lincoln went out onto the front steps to watch them come, along with General Winfield Scott, John Hay, and several others. With the most immediate threat of siege now overcome by the arrival of reinforcements, Lincoln still had Maryland’s rebelliousness to overcome. He had already summoned a militia and formed a blockade without permission from Congress, but did he have the legal right, even in wartime, to jail an entire state legislature?

 

He decided that no, he did not have the justification to do so. What he did end up doing was writing this note: “To General Scott: You are engaged in suppressing an insurrection against the laws of the United States. If at any point between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington, you find resistance which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety, you personally, or the officer in command at the point at which resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ.” This in effect gave absolute power to any officer in the field to detain any person deemed suspicious, throw him in jail, and throw away the key.

 

A few things to bear in mind here: When we learned history in school – or, at least when I did – the famous “A house divided against itself” speech was used to explain Lincoln’s justification for going to war in the first place. Of course, he had the option of accepting the secession of the southern states, and there was a great deal of sentiment in favor of accepting secession, basically allowing the nation to become divided into North and South, each with its own national government. So, his decision to go to war was not supported by a “mandate” of public opinion by any means. Many who abhorred slavery were nevertheless opposed to war for any reason. Others believed that there were still political and diplomatic avenues to explore – even after Fort Sumter, which was far enough away from the North to seem rather vague to the people there.

 

As a child I had the impression that Lincoln made his speech, people chose their sides, and it was just so. But to be there – or, to imagine being there – by reading the details of the period’s events more deeply, I gained a very different perspective. I often hear people say that political divisions in our country today are very “deep,” and I find I must ask them what do they mean by that? On what basis are they making a comparison of the relative “deepness” of political division? Are they saying our political divisions today are deeper, or as deep as, political divisions in 1861? How about in 1968? Or, shall we say 1783? What is the context of their statement?

 

What they are really saying is that they have the impression that political divisions in our country today must be rather “deep.” That is their perception. But, in every historical period – except perhaps in cases of major generalized calamity – a large number of people may very well live their entire lives in utter ignorance of whatever is going on politically, so long as it does not negatively affect them. One may ask them what they think too, and of course come up with a different answer. The reality is that political divisions, ideological divisions, disagreements, and so on, are only as “deep” as one’s own participation in them. Many people have an imagined ideal of domestic tranquility in mind – perhaps based on their youthful perception of the world which would have been informed differently – and it is upon that imagined ideal that they are basing their comparison.

 

Just a thought.

 

Abraham Lincoln did some things which many people in his time believed made him a dictator. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt would do a few things during his presidency which drew the same accusations.) Lincoln did not actually suspend the Constitution, as I’ve heard, because the Constitution clearly gives him the power to do what he did. But, for all intents and purposes, military rule does suspend the assumed guarantee of constitutional rights. So, here we have the U.S. Constitution suspending itself. One may argue that the power Lincoln assumed for himself belongs more properly with Congress. Sure – why not? - since the Constitution doesn’t say.

 

I guess my main point is this: Why is Lincoln revered rather than reviled? Why do we learn in school that he was a great president and not an awful one? Why do we pull out his famous Proclamations, including the Emancipation Proclamation, to quote from, to celebrate? Why do we memorize the “Gettysburg Address?” (apart from the fact that it’s flipping good oratory?) Why do we celebrate Thanksgiving?

 

Because he won his war. That’s why.

 

On January 27, 1996 President Bill Clinton began his State of the Union address by saying, “The Era of Big Government is over.” I laughed. Am I the only person in this country with a sense of humor? Who needs Comedy Central? I thought the guy was just amazing. What we don’t always remember about Abraham Lincoln is that he’s really the one who started Big Government in the first place. James Buchanan was the last of the Federalists. In that sense, we owe Lincoln a depth of gratitude tinged somewhat by a large portion of his legacy which is rather dubious. To try to put ourselves in his shoes, in his stovepipe hat, in his situation, and see how he came to set in motion inexorable changes in our democratic republic, I think helps us greatly to put current events into a meaningful rather than emotional context.

 

For a long list of reasons, the subsequent impeachment of Andrew Johnson (in 1868) may reasonably be attributed to revenge on the Executive Branch by a legislature still hurting from the effects of the Lincoln administration’s excesses, whether mandated by necessity or not. I’ll get to that one another time.