Good Work, Scotty: Of all the original Star Trek cast members--heck, of all the Star Trek cast members, ever, the one I always sincerely enjoy in interviews and documentaries is James Doohan, who played Scotty.

While so many members of the cast either pretend to be half ashamed of the work they did on the show, while still raking in the cash it makes them, and the other half try to convince you that Star Trek is Shakespeare, Doohan always comes across as somebody who realizes what a strange and incredible thing Star Trek fandom is, what that's done for him, and what he feels responsible to do back.

I'm sad to learn of his affliction.

I am convinced his fans will be as supportive of him as he's always been of them.

Check Me Out: My short piece More Sorcery For Your Shekel: Magic On A Budget went online this week. Check it out free over at the very entertaining Eggplant Library.

Wooden Rockets: Part of me wants to congratulate the folks at Hatrack and Locus Online on winning the annual Wooden Rocket awards for best author website and best magazine website.

However, any award that could go to the Tor website apparently doesn't have much in the way of criteria. Check out their "upcoming" publishing schedule, going all the way up to "April 2004."

Update: Ah, it seems they've changed the word "April" to "August." But they didn't change it in the header, and the list still ends in April.

Of course, they may change it yet again, since this award is bringing them hits.

But it was there, and it's been there for months.

Can't Nail Me: To reply, at long last, to Sandefur, and hopefully affirm that some conservatives are, in fact, financially conservative:

I believe Sandefur knows of my intentions to someday write an alternate version of the Robin Hood tale in which Robin and his merry men are portrayed as incompetent muscle-heads who rob traveler after traveler of money that was destined to perform one good work or another--save sick children, pay mortgages on churches, that sort of thing. It probably will never get written, since stories need plot and conflict and all of those fun things but it does illustrate my feelings on the matter.

Robbing the rich to give to the poor is not heroic. It is wrong.

Involuntary redistribution of wealth is not generosity. It is communism and theft.

It shocks me that the left can call President Bush's Patriot Act oppressive, when they themselves would declare that everything you own belongs to them, that they get first dibs on all of it, and only once they have decided they have taken enough are you allowed the remainder. That's oppression. That's fascism.

I hope that puts it plainly enough for Mr. Sandefur.

Now, with that said, I stand by what I said before--if individual states wish to do it, I do not believe there is anything in the constitution to stop them from doing so. I am also opposed to gambling and abortion, but I do not believe there is anything in the Constitution to prevent states from opposing me on these issues, either.

I also believe that people, in their hearts, are more generous than the left thinks they are. If the federal government, today, put the responsibility for tending to the poor of this country back on the people, the people would rise to the occasion. And if the federal government put the tax money back in the pockets of the people they are currently using to fund the welfare state, the people could wisely place it in much more effective and efficiently run local institutions that could get people back on their feet in ways the folks in their ivory towers and government labyrinths could only dream of.

Just To Clarify: From Sandefur's post:

In the final analysis, Erik Peterson, just like George W. Bush, just like Hillary Clinton, believes the state may legitimately “take things away from you for the common good.”

This statement is true.

As a matter of political philosophy, he, like conservatives generally, and like liberals generally, does believe that the role of the government is to steal things from people who earn them and give them to people who do not.

This one is not.

I believe nothing in the constitution stops the states from doing it. This does not mean I would ever vote in favor of it.

I believe states have the power to do all sorts of things if they want, ban abortion, allow abortion, change the definition of marriage--you know, all the stuff people keep pretending is talked about somewhere in the Federal Constitution. This doesn't mean I would vote the same way on all of them.

When I said, "And if a state votes to give away a bunch of free stuff to a bunch of people, and they want to deal with the sudden influx of people ready for a handout, and exodus of people with income, that is that state's right," I was deliberately trying to make it sound like impractical and unappealing.

So just to clarify, it is something that the states can do if they want, but I'm against it, and it won't work.

I even think private sector wealth redistribution programs (like health insurance and car insurance) are doing terrible harm to those sectors of the economy, and are ultimately taking them in a direction that's very bad for the consumer--a direction it would likely not be going in were medical institutions actually forced to come up with prices you and I could afford.

But that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal.

Oh, And As For Bush: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about Conservatives.

Bush is about as economically conservative as I am capable of purchasing the nation of Borneo.

I mean, yeah, I could buy a few souvenirs, maybe. I could get in a taxi and see most of the place. I could even convince a couple of people I had bought it. But actually get the title to the place?

Look, I like him on foreign issues, and like I've said--I'm a one issue voter right now. War on terror, end of story.

But come on. Domestically, the guy's let stuff pass that congress wouldn't have let past committee under Clinton.

More Sandefur Stuff: As for the second part of Sandefur's reply, I am reminded of a Chevy Chase bit. It wasn't on SNL--it was around the time he was doing his talk show, but as I recall it wasn't on his talk show.

He was reciting the preamble to the constitution, and he was reciting it wrong. He said, "Promote the common defense, provide the general welfare . . ."

It cracked me up, because that was exactly what so many people advocated--a small, limited defense system that could sort of imply a defensive strategy more than actually be one, and provide every penny necessary to anybody that didn't have a job.

As important as the difference in those two words, is the specificity of the word "General." This clearly is the opposite word from individual. So to answer the question, yes, I would be 100% in favor of abolishing federal welfare.

What this means is, this is a States Rights issue. Individual states still have the power to do this as they please. And if a state votes to give away a bunch of free stuff to a bunch of people, and they want to deal with the sudden influx of people ready for a handout, and exodus of people with income, that is that state's right. They should not be stopped.

And if a state, or even better, a county, or, even better, a city, or, best of all, a neighborhood wants to get together and help somebody out who's having hard times--maybe one of them knows how to fix that bad plumbing, and the other can tar up that hole in the roof--that's where real help and support can come from. Volunteers, people who live in your city and know you and love you. Not some bureaucrat in Washington, to whom you are nothing but a set of numbers at an address.

And, if we stop pretending like there's an all-knowing, all-caring "Big Brother" watching over us, maybe one or two of us down here in the trenches will open up our eyes and see that there is no such thing as "society" or "people in general" or all the other boogeymen we like to blame for our problems. Those are just masks, and when you take them off, all that's left is you and me, brother.

So let's stop picking on the successful people who've got the game figured out and start learning how to play it ourselves. We can all work together as much as we want to, or keep our distance as much as we want to--that's our perogative.

But this idea that the ghosts can swoop into Scrooge's room and swipe his money to give to the poor, while leaving his soul to the chains, that this would make all be well in the world . . .

What's up with that?

Maybe It's Called Freespace Because There's Nothing Left In It: Sandefur and I usually end up having semantic arguments. If he and I just agreed on the same terms for everything, I think we'd never disagree.

But, if we never disagreed, then we'd probably never talk any more. So I stir up the pot.

As for his reply, well, to part A, the religion part, I agree with my original assessment.

Say what?

Freedom means that you may choose not to be exposed to something if you don't want to?? Since when? Freedom of the press means I somehow must not be exposed to books I don't want to read? Freedom of assembly means never having to be [exposed to] any crowd you don't agree with?

That's the silliest thing I ever heard.

Freedom of the press means quite the opposite. It means that people can create, market, distribute, and expose me to any book they want. Whether I read it or not is up to me, but it makes my jaw drop that any rational person would suggest I have a Constitutional Right not to be exposed to it.

Should the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade be shut down, lest we violate a passing Jehovah's Witness right not to be exposed to crowds who believe differently from them? Should protesters outside of party conventions be hauled away, lest a delegate be exposed to a crowd he does not believe in?

Here in LA county, we're having a round of legal suits with the ACLU over the county seal. To some people, "freedom of religion" means taking the cross off of that seal, lest people be "exposed" to religion while in a government building.

Do we subsequently take out all the literature in the county building, lest people be exposed to press in a government building? Do we stop the speeches given during the meeting, lest people be exposed to government-sanctioned speech during the course of their visit?

To me, this thin-skinned offense at any "exposure" to religion is a joke.

Would the ACLU, upon visiting, say, China, be offended at all the depictions of Buddha? Would statues of Indian gods be offensive in public places in India? Or would they be recognized as part of a culture, perhaps viewed as an integral part of getting the full experience of a visit to that country?

So then why, when dealing with this country, can't atheists accept religion culturally, if nothing else? That cross doesn't have to hold any more significance to you than the goddess Pomona, who figures much more prominently in the seal than the cross does.

The fact is, if you did the genealogy of the principles of religion and law, you'd find them all tied up in common philosophic roots. In fact, a good number of philosophers would have found the notion of philosophy without religion ludicrous. So yes, you're going to see the ten commandments in courtrooms, and you're going to see crosses on seals. You're also going to see Greek and Roman gods and a whole slew of religious icons that follow a similar pattern back through the ages as the philosophers and thinkers that set the course which led to modern philosophical discourse.

So when Sandefur states, "religious freedom by definition means freedom from religion," I don't see how that would be. It would seem to me that in order to insure people weren't exposed to other religions would require putting limits on the practice of the religion, and limits, by definition, mean diminished freedom.

To beat a dead horse, let us refer to the rights granted in the second amendment as "freedom of bearing arms." I would agree that this implies I am free to choose whether I wish to own a weapon or not. But can you really make the argument that "freedom of bearing arms" means I have the right to never be exposed to a gun? That it somehow implies freedom from guns? That I can demand a law enforcement officer, or a hunter, or Michael Moore, any guy with any gun please put it away until I leave, lest being "exposed" to the arm violate my rights?

Of course not! The rights in question at this point are his, and he's got the right to bear arms. If he turns it on me or fires it at me, that's a whole different ballgame--at that point, he has abused his freedom, and he's trampled on my rights, so that's another issue altogether.

But does the mere existence of the cross violate anybody's rights? Have you been forced into Christianity by seeing the cross on the seal? Is a person forced into Christianity by hearing a prayer at a graduation ceremony?

Now keep in mind that, being Mormon, I don't believe in the cross either. Although Mormons are Christians in every sense of the word, we avoid the cross as a symbol, because we feel it focuses too much on the death of Christ, rather than on his life and resurrection.

But I don't blink at it when I see it in public, because I understand that it's the culture.

The peace sign is also a religious symbol, a satanic one--it represents an upside down and broken cross. However, culturally it's lost any of that meaning. It's no longer associated with anything having to do with religion.

Can't folks at least accept religion on this level? Allow it to show up, at times, in our public life, the way every other aspect of our culture does?

Or does freedom of the press mean there's some way I can get those trashy romance books at WalMart off the shelves and out of my sight?

Happy Birthday To Me: My birthday is coming up. Here is my wishlist.

Freedom From Religion: Sandefur confirms something I have long suspected--that some people actually believe that freedom of religion somehow means freedom from religion. As if somehow, by allowing all men the right to choose their own religion means that, at no point, should anyone else be exposed to it.

Say what?

So then, freedom of the press means no books or newspapers?

Freedom of speech means never hearing anyone talk?

Freedom of assembly means never having to be in a crowd?

Welcome to the happy-dappy upside-down wacky fun world of the 21st century.

As for the actual content of his post--if he's really looking for any conservative who doesn't favor redistribution of wealth, well, his post almost exactly mirrors something Rush Limbaugh, of all people, said yesterday. Limbaugh was chiding a caller who thought Marxism was a "beautiful dream that could never work in the real world." Limbaugh then went on for a while about how there was nothing beautiful about it and how it was better to help people out of their situations than facilitate their staying in them.

So just about any conservative will tell you (as I'm sure Sandefur knows, which is what confuses me about his post) that they oppose welfare--what they're in favor of are programs that help people improve their situations for themselves. This was a large part of what the welfare reform packages were all about, and now that they're working, I think we'd all like to see them carried further.

What they're also not opposed to charities--and I think it would do conservatives a lot of good politically to be more visible in their work in that area.

Really, I think Sandefur has conservatives mixed up with Reagan Democrats.