Weekending Enjoyable Video Thank You For Watching

Seth Barrett Tillman Spanks the Irish Left

NRC's own Seth Barrett Tillman recently appeared on Ireland's RTÉ Radio One Late Debate. [The Irish media apparently plays by the same rules of engagement as CNN and the rest of the American media--4 out of the 6 participants were left-to-far left.]

But Seth pretty much won the "debate" at the outset [it was pretty much a Donald Trump 'racism' bash] by pointing out that in 2004, Ireland herself voted 80-20 for their constitutional Amendment Twenty-Seven, which abolished "birthright citizenship."

The lefties did most of the talking [and talking over] as usual, but had no counter for Tillman's observations that the Irish constitution guarantees rights only to citizens; that Ireland has emergency criminal courts with no juries; that Irish law permits indefinite detention of suspects.

Trump is extremist?

Unable to engage on substance after Tillman asked, "What's more important, words or actions?," the Trumpthumpers were reduced to

"Words are literally the ammunition that can be used in extremists' weapons."

Huh?  Literally?

It got worse from there. Trump = Hitler. Noam Chomsky. Lincoln "founded" the United States. Oy.

Homosexuality: An Addictive Disorder

We know that addiction is a choice, not a brain disease,

if the promise of a ticket to the movies is enough to double the success rate of conventional addiction counseling, then it’s hard to say that substance users can’t control themselves....to clarify the point, if you offered a cancer patient movie tickets as a reward for ceasing to have a tumor – it would make no difference, it would not change his probability of recovery.

However, authorities also tell us gene predisposition accounts for about 50% of addictive disorders. 

Whether a person decides to use alcohol or drugs is a personal choice, influenced by multiple biological, familial, psychological and sociocultural factors. But, once a person uses alcohol or drugs, the risk of developing alcoholism or drug dependence is greatly influenced by genetics. Research shows that genes are responsible for about half the risk for alcoholism and addiction, and while genetics are not the sole determinant, their presence or absence may increase the likelihood that a person will become alcohol or drug dependent. 

Homosexuals have a higher rate of eating disorders than the general population:

• In one study, gay and bisexual boys reported being significantly more likely to have fasted, vomited or taken laxatives or diet pills to control their weight in the last 30 days. Gay males were 7 times more likely to report binging and 12 times more likely to report purging than heterosexual males.
• Females identified as lesbian, bisexual or mostly heterosexual were about twice as likely to report binge-eating at least once per month in the last year.
• Elevated rates of binge-eating and purging by vomiting or laxative abuse was found for both males and females who identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or “mostly heterosexual” in comparison to their heterosexual peers.
• Compared to other populations, gay men are disproportionately found to have body image disturbances and eating disorder behavior (STATS). Gay men are thought to only represent 5% of the total male population but among men who have eating disorders, 42% identify as gay.

Homosexuals smoke at much higher rates than the general population:

"Although few studies have examined the link between sexual orientation and smoking, it is clear that LGBT individuals have a higher smoking rate than the general population. Only six states have published reports on tobacco use by sexual orientation: Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. All six of these states found significantly elevated smoking rates in the LGBT community. A 2009 review of 42 separate studies measuring tobacco use among lesbians, gays, and bisexuals reported consistently higher prevalence of smoking among sexual minorities.2 Other studies have reported smoking prevalence among gay and bisexual men is 27% to 71% higher and for lesbians and bisexual women, 70% to 350% higher than prevalence observed for comparable gender groups in the general population.3"

They have higher rates of alcohol abuse:

In the LGBT community, research suggests that alcohol abuse and dependence occurs at even higher rates than in the mainstream population. Independent studies collectively support the estimate that alcohol abuse occurs in the LGBT community as rates up to three times that in the mainstream population. Said another way, alcohol abuse is estimated to occur in up to 45% of those in the LGBT community. 

They have higher rates of illegal drug use and abuse:

... new figures suggest that gay people are seven times more likely to take illegal drugs than the general population, with one in five of those surveyed showing signs of dependency on drugs or alcohol.  

More than a third of gay, lesbian and bisexual people took at least one illegal drug in the last month, according to the largest study of its kind.  

Homosexuals are over-represented in gambling addiction self-help organizations:

One of the few existing studies on problem gambling in the LGBT community was conducted by two prominent researchers in the field of problem gambling studies, Jon Grant of the University of Minnesota Medical School and Marc Potenza of Yale University Medical School (Grant & Potenza, 2006). The study was conducted in 2006 with a sample of 105 treatment‐seeking men who had sought treatment for pathological gambling. The researchers found a substantial overrepresentation of gay and bisexual men among this sample of pathological gamblers (21% of the sample self‐reported as gay or bisexual) (Grant & Potenza, 2006). The researchers also reported greater impairment and a higher incidence of impulse control and substance use disorder among these gay and bisexual men.

Homosexuals beat each other up. A LOT:

In 2013, the CDC released the results of a 2010 study on victimization by sexual orientation, and admitted that “little is known about the national prevalence of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking among lesbian, gay, and bisexual women and men in the United States.” The report found that bisexual women had an overwhelming prevalence of violent partners in their lives: 75 percent had been with a violent partner, as opposed to 46 percent of lesbian women and 43 percent of straight women. For bisexual men, that number was 47 percent. For gay men, it was 40 percent, and 21 percent for straight men.

Because homosexuals act out sexually with both sexes, they are more likely to be involved in an unintended pregnancy than are heterosexuals.

Overall, about 13 percent of heterosexual females and about 14 percent of females who only had male sexual partners had been pregnant, compared to about 23 percent of lesbian or bisexual females and about 20 percent of girls who had male and female sexual partners.

About 10 percent of heterosexual males and those who only had female sexual partners experienced a pregnancy, compared to about 29 percent of gay or bisexual males and about 38 percent of males with female and male sexual partners. 

For someone who has a genetic predisposition to become addicted, homosexuality is one way for that addictive predisposition to express itself. Addiction travels in clusters. Instead of, or in addition to, being addicted to alcohol, nicotine, or cocaine, the affected person is addicted to a maladaptive sexual expression. This maladaptive activity is just as physically unhealthy as alcoholism, drug abuse or any eating disorder. The homosexual should be viewed as an addict who is committing slow suicide.

We Don't Want to Hear It

After 9/11, everyone was up in arms about the vicious attack on America that killed 3,000 people. At the time, America's abortion clinics killed 3,000 children every 48 hours. Democrats, then and now, routinely ignore the violence of abortion. The MSM refused to point out that abortionists were as violent every day as Muslim terrorists. No one wanted to hear that second fact. It didn't fit the popular meme.

When a white cop shot a black perpetrator in Ferguson, the cities rioted. Despite the outrage, we know that, in this country, most blacks are actually killed by other blacks. In fact, 6% of the population (black men between the ages of 16 and 30) commit 50% of the murders in the United States. The victims of these violent young black men are almost always other young black men between the ages of 16 and 30. Democrats routinely ignore the violence within the black community. No one wants to hear that second fact. It doesn't fit the popular meme.

95% of black voters are Democrats, which means half of America's murders are committed by Democrats. No one wants to hear that. It doesn't fit the popular meme.

Islam is, according to Democrats, a religion of peace. 95% of the world's conflicts involve Muslim combatants on one or both sides. In 2015 alone, 450 of the year's 452 suicide terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims. Democrats routinely ignore the violence within the Muslim community. No one wants to hear those facts. It doesn't fit the popular meme.

Homosexuals have higher rates of addiction in every category of addiction you can name, including interpersonal violence. The homosexual community is very violent: they beat each other up. A lot. In fact, much of Islam's violence can arguably be traced back to Islam's essentially homosexual orientation. As with the blacks and Muslims, Democrats routinely ignore the violence within the homosexual community. No one wants to hear this. The facts don't fit the popular memes.

Homosexuals make up 1-2% of the American population. 69% of America's mass murderers have been homosexual. Everyone routinely ignores this. No one wants to hear this. The facts don't fit the popular memes

Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat, and a Muslim. He was also a regular at the homosexual bar, Pulse. Omar had an active profile on a homosexual dating app. In fact, reliable reports indicate he was homosexual. His ex-wife agrees that he was. The mass murder he committed, ending in suicide-by-cop, matches everything we know about how Democrats, Muslims and homosexuals act.

Today, people are blaming Christians and guns for the mass murder committed by a homosexual Muslim. Many will focus on the fact that he was a Muslim. They will claim he was inspired by ISIS. No one will mention that he was just one more in a long line of homosexual mass murderers.

No one wants to hear this.

The facts don't fit the popular memes.

Ronald Reagan's favorite Founding Father: Thomas Paine

Historian John Patrick Duggin's book on President Ronald Reagan is one of the better single-volume biographies of the late president and conservative icon. In Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History (2007, hardcover $24.51) Duggin brings up an interesting point that I hadn't realized, namely that Reagan was strongly influenced in his views by Thomas Paine. Paine is the Founding Father that Reagan quoted the most, and much of Paine's ideology (individual liberty, a suspicion of large institutions, hostility to taxation and government regulation) is evident in Reagan's general approach to conservatism & public policy.

In explaining Reagan's fondness for quoting Paine, Duggan notes that Reagan's brand of conservatism was remarkably untraditional in its rhetoric. In several different contexts, Reagan quoted Paine's stirring line, "We have the power to begin the world anew" -- a very untraditional sentiment. Reagan embraced Paine's idea that human beings can liberate themselves from corrupt and oppressive structures in order to create a new order of liberty and individualism. While Reagan appealed to voters of a more traditionalist perspective, he was no disciple of Russell Kirk & even less a disciple of Edmund Burke. Behind Reagan's conservativism was a streak of radicalism that is underappreciated both by many current conservatives who tend to be overly hagiographic when speaking of the former president & many modern progressives who ignorantly demonize him.

It is a fascinating twist of history that the most radical American revolutionary, Thomas Paine, serves as a primary philosophical influence on the most successful conservative president of the 20th century. Any attempt to understand Ronald Reagan must take into account the influence of Thomas Paine on his work. And any attempt to appreciate Thomas Paine's influence on America must look to the impact his work had on the ideas, rhetoric & program of Ronald Reagan.

Bruce Frohnen on why the Benedict Option isn't an option

The constitutional law scholar and lawyer explains why he thinks that the Benedict Option is doomed to failure:

Leaders of this society will not leave Christians alone if we simply surrender the public square to them. And they will deny they are persecuting anyone for simply applying the law to revoke tax exemptions, force the hiring of nonbelievers, and even jail those who fail to abide by laws they consider eminently reasonable, fair, and just. More is demanded of us than mere quiet. We are being commanded to celebrate what Saint John Paul the Great so rightly termed a Culture of Death. This culture denies God. It treats children as disposable, marriage as a mere public expression of current emotional attachments, and faith as meanings we posit for ourselves. It cannot long abide those whose very existence testifies to the shallow, self-involved, and fundamentally empty nature of its false vision of reality.

As the saying goes, read it all: There is No Benedict Option.

2016 in a nutshell

Rape Version of "Suicide By Cop"

You know, most people are familiar with "suicide by cop", wherein someone with mental problems sets themselves up as a danger to others, hoping that the cops will kill them. They aren't personally able to pull the trigger on themselves, so they goad others into killing them.

Family and friends called the sheriff's department when Dillon, who doctors said had a total break with reality and a blood-alcohol level more than three times the legal driving limit, started firing a gun in the house....Dillon's lawyers Richard Lubin and Jonathan Kaplan said recordings of the negotiations between deputies and Dillon reveal he repeatedly begged them to kill him.

Given the recent events, I wonder if there may not be a similar "rape by bystander" motivation, wherein someone with self-destructive tendencies sets themselves up in a dangerous situation in the hopes that a bystander will act in a degrading way towards them, thus giving them the satisfaction of "independent" confirmation that they should be treated badly. Take the example of the Turner case:

Turner’s victim was unconscious when police found her, and she had no recollection of the assault. Her blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit for driving. 

The victim's own statements about the events that night, even in the opening paragraph, indicates she had low self-esteem and a fairly lousy personal body image. She tries to imply both that she was an experienced drinker AND that she "accidentally" got to a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit, which is an interesting juxtaposition from a self-image point of view. She clearly went to a party where she had no friends, felt out of place. Events proved that even her own sister was, at best, not keeping track of her welfare or her drunken state. This is how she ended up in a sexual encounter with a random stranger behind a dumpster in an alley by a frat house, so drunk that she can't even remember if she attempted to give consent before she passed out, as the drunken man insisted she did.

None of this, of course, justifies the rape, anymore than it would be justified for police to deliberately kill a known suicidal victim. We already know sado-masochistic pursuits are popular among those with low self-esteem:

some....want to be beaten because they have low self-esteem and think they deserve it. They are forlorn, absent and unresponsive during and after a scene, in this case, S & M ceases to be play and becomes pathological.

We also know that being a rape victim can generate interest some people may find appealing.

Just as the majority of cop shootings are justified, so the majority of rape claims are valid. But not every shooting, not every rape claim, is as black-and-white as the involved parties claim. Is there such a thing as "rape by bystander"? It does not seem unreasonable to say that there is.

Harlow Giles Unger on Patrick Henry

When it comes to the Founding Fathers, most of the attention is paid to those who were major players in national politics, and in particular those who attained the presidency. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe get the lion's share of the glory in popular historical writing, while other major founders like Hamilton, Jay & Marshall receive significantly less attention by modern writers.  At the bottom of the heap nowadays are those Founders who were important for a brief period on the national stage but who spent most of their political careers working at the state or local level.  Names that were revered in the past, like Samuel Adams & Patrick Henry, simply don't get the kind of attention that they deserve given their historic impact on our nation's history.  Harlow Giles Unger, an historian and former visiting fellow at Mount Vernon, has written a delightful biography that tries to rectify the lack of attention paid to Patriot leader and Virginia politician Patrick Henry.  Lion of Liberty: Patrick Henry and the Call to a New Nation (2010, paperback $14.38, GoogleBooks preview here) hits just the right note  -- not too short, not too long -- and provides insightful glimpses into the life and work of one of the most important men who helped to bring about the creation of the American republic.

Unger provides a solid overview of the life of Henry, detailed but not too detailed for the general reader.  While certainly not exhaustive, Unger's book delves into key events in Henry's life, explaining how the episodes discussed helped to shape Henry's work and approach to politics.  Henry's commitment to liberty is explained within the context of Virginia's social and political climate, the prevalence of slavery and aristocracy in the Old Dominion, and the tension that existed between wealthy planters and hardscrabble farmers who were outside of the establishment of their day.

Unger demonstrates how Henry's opposition to what he viewed as oppressive royal government had roots that went back to Henry's earliest days as a backwoods lawyer, long before independence was even being discussed.   In fact, Henry's commitment to liberty is the thread that Unger uses to explain his subject's political career -- his support for the Patriot cause, his opposition to the Constitution of 1789, his support of the Bill of Rights, and his eventual shift from the Republican movement to the Federalist Party at the end of his life.  Henry's friendships and family life are explored as well, with particular attention paid to his legal career and his relationship with George Washington.

One aspect of the book that merits special interest regards the beginning of Henry's public life.  Henry's first major legal case was an argument in defense of a group of farmers who had refused to pay the church tax to support the established Anglican Church of Virginia colony.  Henry's opposition to what he saw as both a violation of religious liberty and the freedom of the people to be secure against oppressive taxation by distant imperial & colonial governments featured large in how Henry litigated the case.  Unger quotes a part of Henry's closing argument, where the colonial lawyer provided an eloquent condemnation of the desire of the Anglican clergy to feast at the tax trough:

Do they manifest their zeal in the cause of religion and humanity by practicing the mild and benevolent precepts of the Gospel of Jesus?  Do they feed the hungry and clothe the naked?  Oh, no, gentlemen!  Instead of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, these rapacious harpies world, were their powers equal to their will, snatch from the hearth of their honest parishioner his last hoe-cake, form the widow and her orphaned children their last milch cow!  the last bed, nay, the last blanket from the lying-in woman!

Henry's opposition to government support of religious establishment would fade after the American Revolution, but prior to the split with the British, he viewed the Anglican Church as parasitic to the people. In his closing argument, Henry contended that the royal tax in support of the Anglican Church breached the king's duty to provide for the well-being of his people -- the poor were being dispossessed to aid the affluent clergy. This charge lead to cries of "treason," against Henry, much as his later calls for American independence would elicit the same cry.

Henry's approach to the question of public funding of religious bodies was part of a much deeper and sophisticated critique of government power. For Henry, liberty & the common good were intertwined principles, principles which in different contexts might lead to a shift in political positions in order to defend those underlying principles.

It is that view by Henry that explains his shift, at the end of his life, to support the Federalist Party.  Long a dedicated opponent of centralized power and a relentless critic of any step by which the federal government seemed to move beyond a limited scope, Henry was also committed to the United States as a single nation, not simply a collection of confederated republics. While an opponent of the ratification of the Constitution of 1789, Henry leaped to the charter's defense during Washington's administration, when local tax revolts were springing up in the frontier areas. Shocked at the political machinations of Jefferson & Madison, Henry moved to support Washington & the Federalists as the political culture of the 1790's grew increasingly polarized.

In 1799, after pleas from both John Marshall & a retired George Washington, a dying Patrick Henry ran for election to Congress, blasting Jefferson & Madison for their support for efforts to undermine national unity via the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. While Henry, as Unger explains, had been "a bitter opponent of the Constitution, it was the law of the land, and he was, above all, a law-abiding citizen."  

Unger's book on Henry is well worth its price. A fascinating study of one of the most important public men of the founding era, Unger's work is a fitting reintroduction to the life & work of a pivotal Patriot leader.  Highly recommended.

How To Rape Yourself

A lot of people seem upset with the rape sentencing handed down in this instance. The argument is that the young man should have been much more harshly sentenced than he was.

Now, many commentators, such as the one below, have been pointing out that alcohol is the fuel that drives student-student campus rape:

Yet columnist Scott Herhold had called earlier in the day for the judge to follow a probation recommendation for the county jail term rather than state prison. He noted Turner wrote probation authorities that he “would give anything to change what happened” and said he “can never forgive myself” for the incident. 

“You don't have to buy Turner's story that he so was drunk himself that he did not realize she had passed out,” Herhold wrote. “But it's hard to review this case without concluding that it has roots in a culture of campus drinking, the unindicted co-conspirator here.”

Slate has even gone so far as to have a female columnist point out that college women wouldn't get so frequently raped if they didn't get so frequently drunk. None of this commentary sits well with the politically correct crowd.

The problem lies precisely in the argument that a drunk person cannot give consent. In this particular instance, the woman was so drunk (three times the legal limit) she remembers none of what happened. The only person who was there for the entire encounter, the young man, was also drunk. In short, neither is a very good witness to exactly what happened.

So, for the sake of argument, let us say she was conscious at the beginning of the encounter and attempted to give consent (failing, of course, because she was drunk). We don't know if she did because she was so drunk she doesn't remember anything. But, if she did attempt and fail, we have to remember that HE couldn't give consent to the sexual encounter EITHER because HE was ALSO drunk. So, according to the "drunk" rule, if they were having any kind of sexual interplay when both were conscious, they would - technically speaking - be raping each other.

That's bad enough, but it gets worse. Remember, according to the "too drunk to consent" rule, Person A cannot functionally form consent or intent. If Person B has sexual relations with A, it is rape, regardless of Person B's state of mind. Drunk or sober, it doesn't matter. We judge rape purely by A's ability to consent. B's intent and/or consent is irrelevant.

But, if  Person A (whether male or female) is stipulated to be too drunk to give consent to someone else, arguably Person A is even too drunk to be able to consent to his/her own actions.

Put another way, if Person A is drunk, and therefore cannot be responsible for his/her actions towards Person B when B is conscious, why would the drunk A suddenly become responsible for his/her actions when B is no longer conscious? Perhaps B was never conscious to begin with - why would that change A's inability to consent to the sexual actions? Remember, Person B's state of mind is not relevant here. The rape of A revolves entirely around A's ability to consent.

As in the case of the young swimmer above, Person A is drunk, too drunk to even notice whether or not B is conscious. So drunk, in fact, that A cannot give consent to sex. Precisely because A is drunk, all sex is rape for Person A, because A cannot consent. Thus, by sexually interacting with B, A is being raped by B regardless of whether B is conscious because A cannot give consent for his/her own actions. Now, as the unconscious B is raping A via A's actions, it certainly may be the case that B is ALSO being raped by A via A's action, But because A is drunk, A is now in the peculiar position of raping himself or herself, using B as the conduit, simply by engaging in sexual action while drunk.

If we accept the "too drunk to consent" rule, then Person A is not responsible for the sex, even if Person A was the only one conscious and the only one acting. Which means the logic can be taken yet another step. In this situation, Person A's body is engaging in sexual conduct while his/her mind is unable to form the consent necessary for sex. You have heard of the victimless crime? This now becomes the perpetrator-less crime - everyone is getting raped, but no one is actually doing the raping.

This is where political correctness and the "too drunk" rule has taken us.

Why the Benedict Option isn't an option

Journalist and blogger Rod Dreher has for awhile been proposing an idea for Christian engagement with the broader culture, an idea he labels "the Benedict Option." It's an interesting concept -- one based on the old example of how monks and local communities in the late Roman Empire dealt with the collapse of Imperial institutions and the influx of barbarians into what had been the settled polity of the Roman world. The idea is for Christians and other traditionalist believers take a defensive withdrawal from the public square to fortify themselves within their families, houses of worship, and other institutions (schools, hospitals, etc.). Strengthening their faith to withstand the onslaught of a hostile culture, the Benedict Option is designed not to signal an abandonment of the world by people of faith, but rather a defensive option designed to enable believers to withstand the criticism & attacks of secular cultures growing ever more hostile to the values & virtues of traditional religious believers.

[Dreher has a FAQ webpage on the Benedict Option for those interested in reading about his proposal in more detail.]

Let's applaud Dreher for thinking constructively about how people of faith can cope with a situation where a thick understanding of religious liberty is undergoing rapid erosion within liberal frameworks of secular society. I think, though, that there is a linked set of real-world objections to the Benedict Option's viability. The first and most fundamental objection is the most direct: the Benedict Option assumes that those who take the option will be left alone by an antagonistic state seeking to impose values & practices that contravene the values & practices of a dedicated Benedict Option community.

As various recent court cases demonstrate, the current regnant leftist approach to culture war issues does not provide for private space where religious believers can live out their values & virtues without interference from state action. The Arlene's Flowers case from Washington State (where the State government seeks to punish an evangelical Christian florist who would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding) and the Little Sisters of the Poor case at the federal level (where the Obama administration first sought to force a Catholic community of vowed women religious to provide artificial contraception in their health insurance plan) are representative of this reality. So long as the left holds government power, its current ideology simply will not countenance leaving religious believers and communities alone. A strategic retreat by religious believers is unlikely to be possible as a result.

The second objection builds off the first. There is an assumption behind much of the talk about the Benedict Option that believers will be able to concentrate themselves into like-minded communities, either isolated communities or communities in cities & suburban areas. How many people can afford to uproot themselves to do this? Given the economics of the country right now, having religious believers decamp to live next to monasteries or in rural enclaves or in dedicated urban communities is unlikely to be a successful strategy. Further, even it was possible on a large scale, once believers attempt to create communities of scale that reflect traditionalist values, such communities won't be left alone.

Despite its flaws, the Benedict Option remains a serious proposal, and one that can provide perspective for traditionalists moving forward. Without robust institutions & clear principles, traditionalists & other conservatives will not be able to pass on their virtues & values in the face of hostile culture. Yet, the Benedict Option, unfortunately, fails to understand the moment. Given the hostility of the regnant liberalism of American elites, it is highly unlikely that the Benedict Option will be given space to allow traditionalists to flourish. Absent active political & economic engagement by traditionalists & other conservatives, efforts to protect the integrity of traditionalist institutions & private spaces will fail. Given the day, politics remains a necessary avenue of engagement. Unfortunately, as I will detail soon, in the political arena traditionalists & other conservatives are now facing a situation of fragmentation between conservative elite opinion and the positions of the working & lower middle classes that have been a key part of the conservative movement. These are interesting times.

Update:

Thanks to fellow New Reform Club blogger and lawyer extraordinaire Tim Kowal, who passed along this discussion from Dreher's FAQ page on the Benedict Option's concept of dedicated communities in some detail:

Do you really think you can just run away from the world and live off in a compound somewhere? Get real! No, I don’t think that at all. While I wouldn’t necessarily fault people who sought geographical isolation, that will be neither possible nor desirable for most of us. The early Church lived in cities, and formed its distinct life there. Most of the Ben Op communities that come to mind today are not radically isolated, in geography or otherwise, from the broader community. It’s simply nonsense to say that Ben Oppers want to hide from the world and live in some sort of fundamentalist enclave. Some do, and it’s not hard to find examples of how this sort of thing has gone bad. But that is not what we should aim for. In fact, I think it’s all too easy for people to paint the Benedict Option as utopian escapism so they can safely wall it off and not have to think about it.

Tim noted that not only does this statement fail to address the problem of the Left not leaving traditionalists and conservatives alone, it prompts another objection to the Benedict Option, as Tim put it, that it "basically requires 'no-go zones'"—"self-policed communities that forcibly exclude outsiders." Not a viable or desirable outcome by any means. 

Gordon Wood on Benjamin Franklin

"Of making many books," the Hebrew Bible warns us, "there is no end" (Ecclesiastes 12.12b, RSV). In the last 10 or 15 years, that seems to be the case regarding biographies of Benjamin Franklin. Top-tier American historians like H.W. Brands and Edmund S. Morgan have solid overviews of Franklin's life and work, and popular writers like Walter Isaacson have written books on him as well. Editions of Franklin's Autobiography are numerous.

One recent biography from the last 15 years stands out, though, both in its tone and its approach to Franklin: Gordon Wood's book The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin (2005, paperback $14.19). A comprehensive yet reasonably-sized volume, Wood's book recounts Franklin's life through the lens of his shift from a dedicated proponent of the British Empire to one of the pivotal Founding Fathers of the American Republic.

Wood uses Franklin's intellectual and emotional journey from loyalist to revolutionary as a template for understanding Franklin's life and accomplishments. It is a fascinating way for Wood to approach his subject. Wood looks at Franklin's intellectual history through the prism of Franklin's various life experiences. From his extremely humble origins as a workingman printer's apprentice to the heights he reached as a diplomat and founding father, Franklin's shifts of opinion, of conviction and of purpose are not only well-documented by Wood, but perhaps most importantly, well-explained. Franklin is a remarkably difficult figure to understand for the most part. Part of this is due to his own practice of not revealing his own inner thoughts, part of it is due to the remarkable length of his career, a career that saw massive social, economic and political changes in Pennsylvania, the British Empire, and in the American nation.

Wood's approach to Franklin helps to clarify and make sense of much of Franklin's work, both as a businessman, diplomat and politician. While not every mystery about Franklin is resolved via Wood's approach, it does shed a great deal of light on the consistent aspects of Franklin's ideas, ideals and beliefs over time. Some examples of the topics that Wood explores and brings light to are:

• Franklin's early efforts -- prior to the French & Indian War -- to facilitate the creation of a Union of the English colonies in the New World.
• Franklin's devotion of the British Empire, grounded in a belief that the American colonists were full participants and members of that Empire.
• Franklin's initial loyalty to the King, and his happiness at the elevation of George III to the throne of the Empire. 
• Franklin's growing disillusionment with the King & the Empire as it became increasingly clear that the British would never consent to the full equality of the colonists within the Empire.
• Franklin's diplomatic efforts in France as an outgrowth of his love of Europe. 

In addressing all of these topics (and several more, it should be said), Wood examines the consistencies in Franklin's thought over time, as well as the events that caused Franklin to change his views as circumstances around him changed. What Wood makes clear is that most of Franklin's fundamental principles remained constant throughout his life. While Franklin was fluid when it came to the means and methods that he employed to achieve the realization of those principles, the principles themselves remained remarkable stable over a long career. Much of the value of Franklin's career as a teaching tool revolves around his willingness to be flexible in the methods he used to pursue his goals.

In addition to exploring Franklin's life, Wood also devotes space to exploring Franklin's reputation, both during Franklin's own life but also after Franklin's death. As a result of Wood's approach, this is one of the most insightful and helpful books about Franklin that I've read in quite some time -- it may in fact be the best single-volume book about Franklin available in English. That is not to say that the book is perfect--Wood spends relatively little time discussing Franklin's religious beliefs and his discussion of Franklin's troubled family life is uneven and lacks the revelatory insight that Wood brings to bear on Franklin's professional history. That said, Wood's biography of Franklin is top notch and well worth a read. As the lazy days of summer appear on the horizon, this would be a great book for a July beach vacation or an August bank holiday.