Dear DC Metro

Let us henceforth call the escalators "staircases" and end the farce.

Yours,
Scott Scheule

Force, and the Rule of Law

I've heard many times that the Civil War answered the question of slavery, or states' rights, or something, which is exceedingly strange, because one would think the entire premise of the rule of law was that force, of which a war is just the most egregious example, doesn't answer anything. It may have results, but why would they be the correct ones, legalistically or morally? Did the answer as to the validity of secession under the United States Constitution really hinge upon, not the Tenth Amendment or substantive due process, but rather on whether or not a detailed copy of Lee's battle plans made its way into McClellan's hands?

If I force somebody to give me a piece of land, at gunpoint, I am not the proper owner, because I forcefully obtained it. But if an army of colonists forces the British crown, at gunpoint, to relinquish the sovereignty of thirteen of its colonies, then in this instance it seems pure power does result in a transfer of rights. Now, of course, colonists might have grievances that justify the revolt, but then again, so might I -- but the answer to the question of whether my grievances are justified will not depend on whether I can win a war, but rather, on whether I can win a legal argument. One imagines, at least.

Nearly all nations start with a violent bang. They revolt against a crown, or overthrow a government, etc. Then the revolutionaries begin implementing their own laws, laws that must be followed. Some of these laws prohibit theft, for example, because of course might doesn't make right, and the fact that you have the power to take something does not mean you are entitled to it. Yet the new nation did not follow the laws of its predecessor state, which surely prohibited the revolution just undertaken.

So it seems that might doesn't make right, except for really big issues. Therefore, legally, you're entirely in the right refusing to pay a parking ticket -- if you've got a big enough army to back you up.

The Dawkins Fish

Stanley Fish has discovered the new wave of atheists and devoted several blog posts to critiquing them. I find this lovely, because I don't think much of the new atheists.

Though I am somewhat torn. Most of the new atheists' arguments are bad, some ignorant and some stupid, and taken in total they don't merit a response. And if they do, well, that says something depressing about the sophistication of the audience.

There's an irony here. I've gathered Richard Dawkins has stopped debating creationists because he thinks the debate itself gives them more credibility than they deserve. That's a fair position, but if the topic were instead the existence of God, a refusal by any theologian to debate Dawkins could be justified on precisely the same grounds.

Fish's posts:

The anguish of this question and the incredibly nuanced and elegant writings of those who have tried to answer it are what the three atheists miss; and it is by missing so much that they are able to produce such a jolly debunking of a way of thinking they do not begin to understand.

The Three Atheists

Asking that religious faith consider itself falsified by empirical evidence is as foolish as asking that natural selection tremble before the assertion of deity and design. Falsification, if it occurs, always occurs from the inside.

Atheism and Evidence

The criticism made by atheists that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated is no criticism at all; for a God whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn’t be a God; he would just be another object in the field of human vision.

Is Religion Man-Made?

The authors of these tracts are characterized by professor Jacques Berlinerblau of Georgetown University as “the soccer hooligans of reasoned discourse.” He asks (rhetorically), “Can an atheist or agnostic commentator discuss any aspect of religion for more than thirty seconds without referring to religious peoples as imbeciles, extremists, mental deficients, fascists, enemies of the public good, crypto-Nazis, conjure men, irrationalists … authoritarian despots and so forth?”

Liberalism and Secularism: One and the Same

[Terry Eagleton] is angry, I think, at having to expend so much mental and emotional energy refuting the shallow arguments of school-yard atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins. I know just how he feels.

God Talk

So to sum up, the epistemological critique of religion — it is an inferior way of knowing — is the flip side of a naïve and untenable positivism. And the critique of religion’s content — it’s cotton-candy fluff — is the product of incredible ignorance.

God Talk 2


When, for example, I wrote three columns criticizing the atheist tracts written by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, I was motivated not by a belief in God — which I may or may not have, you’ll never know — but by what I took to be sloppy, schoolboy reasoning that was passing itself off as wisdom. I could have been an atheist myself, and I still would have found the so-called logic of these books weak and risible.

Todd tells me...

I don't update often enough. Well. Happy Birthday, Todd.

SMSing:

JAY: Чей это окно? Это мой окно.

SCOTT: Чье это окно? Это моё окно!

JAY: Shit. "I would have got that right," Emily says.

SCOTT: You'd both be wrong. The Party owns the window.

...

SCOTT: Just spoke to a Korean. Which meant I got to say Annyong! Awesome.

Draughts

SCOTT: I had a great line in Russian class. In the book, there was a blurb about how all Russians like to play chess, so I asked the professor if she played. She said, yes, and checkers, too, though in Russia checkers has different rules. And I said, 'Like what? Red team always wins?'

JAY: That's pretty good.

SCOTT: Right, but the first time I said it, no one responded. So I had to say it again louder, and then it killed.

Monarchy

I've decided I'm a monarchist. I have no principle for this, nothing utilitarian or legal, I just like the connection to the past that monarchy offers.

I'm mostly German, with a touch of British, so although I'd like to get behind Queen Elizabeth, I believe I have to, as a monarchist, be a German one. My great great grandfather lived in the Black Forest; he fought in Bismarck's army before coming to the United States. I don't know why he made the journey, but he did.

As far as I can tell, German monarchists are a ridiculously minuscule percentage of the population. As a libertarian, I'm used to political positions that are attractive to a ridiculously minuscule percentage of the population.

One of the many many people who aren't German monarchists is the pretender to the German throne himself, Prince George Friedrich Ferdinand. Irrelevant.

So I support the return of George Friedrich Ferdinand to the kingship. I don't want him to have any power--German monarchs have a tendency to start World Wars.

There is no chance of such a coronation. But nothing prevents a person from personally recognizing a King.

And I do. Long live the Kaiser.

Milestone!

I just had my first real Russian conversation. There were a few old babushkas on a bench outside the retirement home next door, and I, knowing that some of the residents there are Russian, tried a Здравствуйте, and followed up with a Добрый вечер. Conversation was stilted of course, but between the three of us and their basic English and my even more basic Russian we had a fine chat. I'm pretty sure I unleashed every noun I know, though working in Пуловер was tough, esp. given the balmy weather. And I'm pretty sure, though who knows, they invited me to come back and chat with them again.

Maybe when I knew some more verbs. Also, thinking back, I may have slipped into the familiar second person once or twice.

It's nice living in an international city. In the last hour I've also met people from Palestine and Bangladesh. An Afghani runs the 7-11, there's an Ethiopian in the local candy store, a Honduran at the pizza place, and last week I met an Eritrean downtown.

Works Cited

Ojo a la cita: "Que nadie me malinterprete, pero yo nunca fui uno de esos niños 'tories' con acné que tuvieron sueños semieróticos con Margaret Thatcher. Ella nunca me visitó por las noches enfundada en su vestido de azul imperial y con ese peinado magnífico de color de piña. Nunca me la imaginé inclinándose sobre mí, abriendo sus labios rojos y susurrándome al oído cosas sobre el monetarismo y el final del poder de los sindicatos".

Eduardo Suárez, "Fantasías sexuales con la 'Dama de Hierro'"

Acting

KISH: Take Anne Hathaway, for example. Not a very good actress.

SCOTT: Are you sure? I mean, she has really big breasts.

_______________________________________

HEATHER: It was an expensive haircut, but you have to understand, at the time, my hair was down to here.

SCOTT: Ah, so he charged you by the inch. ... I do the same thing.