Frontiersman, August 2001

Notice:
This issue of the Frontiersman contains contact information that is out-of-date. For current contact information, click here.

Frontiersman, August 2001

To Love, Honor, and Obey
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Some time ago, I was listening to someone complain that young men just don't want to get married nowadays. I'm not convinced that the stated observation is valid but, if it is, then a question follows. Why don't young men want to get married nowadays? Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that the observation is valid, and consider the question. My response is, why would a young man want to get married?
Sex? I suppose there was a time when women "held out" until they were married, or at least tried to maintain the appearance of doing so. At least, a pregnancy probably resulted in a marriage. That doesn't seem to be the case any more. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it does remove some of the considerations that might have motivated young men to get married.
Food? I'll admit that a wife who can cook is a blessing. As the old saying goes, "Kissin' gits old. Cookin' don't!" However, today most women seem to perceive cooking as a process that involves the freezer and the microwave oven, should be completed as quickly and as efficiently as possible, doesn't benefit from tender loving care, and (above all else) should never interfere with her career objectives. Why would a man accept the complications of marriage when the food is just as good at McDonald's and without the complications?
Companionship? Granted, the companionship of a wife is a good thing. However, the companionship of an "equal partner" isn't. A man has to deal with "equal partner" females at work all day. Why would he want to go home to another one in the evening? A man might appreciate a competitive, hard-bitten, uncompromising, career-oriented female at work (if he tries hard enough), but not at home. As Laura Doyle noted in her book,¹ a man doesn't want his wife's opinion. He wants her approval. I'd say that he certainly doesn't want her always trying to prove that she's a better man than he is.
Children? There was a time when children were a mother's raison d'être. Today, the idea seems to be to expedite the transfer from womb to day-care center as efficiently as possible, with minimum career disruption. Today, a "mother" can even skip the womb part, if she really wants to. She can even skip the sex part. If motherhood can be replaced by technology and licensed day-care centers, then why can't fatherhood be replaced by child support payments? What's the point of getting married?
Lifetime commitment? I'm not sure that there is any such thing any more.
Love? That would be a good reason except that a man can love a woman without marrying her and, maybe, love her even better that way.
I believe that there was a time when people got married, became parents, the woman was the wife and mother, and the man was the father and provider. That way of structuring marriages and families seems to be disappearing. Most people today seem convinced that it was based on mere stereotypes, not useful, and demeaning for the women. Most people seem to approve of its passing, if they think about it at all. However, as imperfect as the old method might have been, it just might have worked better than today's various alternatives. Its passing might be a relevant consideration regarding many of today's problems, including our hypothetical question. Why don't young men want to get married nowadays?
Why indeed? If a man is to want to marry a woman, then she herself must be the reason. She must be someone that he wants to have for a wife. Given that consideration, it becomes obvious that this isn't a question for us men to answer. It's a question for the women.

The Surrendered Wife: A Practical Guide to Finding Intimacy, Passion, and Peace With Your Man, Paperback - 285 pages (January 8, 2001), Fireside; ISBN: 0743204441

frontiersman@ida.net

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

August 2001

Page 1

Movie Review:
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Don J. Cormier

Disney's latest animated epic, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, opened on June 15 and, in the ensuing weekend, it grossed $20.4 million, according to the June 18 issue of the San Jose Mercury News. Although this opening figure was somewhat "soft" by Hollywood standards, it seems clear that the film will sail on to great financial success. Whether the film should be described as an artistic success is a cloudier subject.

It must be admitted that Atlantis is acceptable entertainment. This tale of an idealistic young scientist who leads a roguish band of adventurers to the sunken realm, where he finds treasure, treachery, and true love, evokes the excitement and wonder of earlier science fiction by such authors as Jules Verne and Edgar Rice Burroughs.

However, the film "works" almost in spite of itself. It contains a significant number of minor annoyances.

To begin, the script is so relentless in it's political correctness that it could have been written by Hillary Clinton. The "good guys" are an array of representatives from various groups which liberals typically define as victims. Not surprisingly, the villains are macho Caucasians. The invasion of Atlantis strongly parallels the real-life invasion of Mexico by the Spaniards. Personally, I tend to believe in many liberal perspectives, but the film's preaching is as subtle as a beached whale on a hot day in August.

Another problem area is that of historical authenticity. The story is set specifically in 1914, but there are many historically implausible details. I'm not referring to the film's futuristic technology, or geological absurdities, because these are crucial to the plot. I'm referring to needless minor errors, presumably caused by carelessness.

For example, the fashions of 1914 were quite distinctive. Fashionable women wore hip-length tunics over long hobble shirts or peg-top skirts. We see few of these in the film. In the opening museum scenes, the female visitors mostly wear bustles of the 1870 era. The elderly female phone operator who accompanies the expedition wears clothes reminiscent of the 1940's. The Teutonic villainess dresses like a cross between Jennifer Lopez and Lara Croft.

The hero is drawn to look about 25 years old, yet he has home movies of his childhood. Now think about it. The character would have been born circa 1890. The very first movies were being invented in the 1890's. It's technically possible that he could have been filmed as a child — but only if his parents knew Thomas Edison.

Another error involves the prominent display of the famous James Montgomery Flagg recruiting poster with the slogan "Uncle Sam Wants You". This picture was first revealed to the public in 1916.

There are many other minor errors, mostly in regard to proposing degrees of racial and sexual enlightenment which did not exist until many years later.

It might be argued that the teenage boys who are likely to be this film's main audience won't know or care about these discrepancies — but with it's gigantic staff and budget, should the Disney organization be praised for spreading misinformation?

Visually, the film is unsatisfying. Atlantis is supposed to be a supremely attractive paradise, but the overabundance of blues and greys in its color scheme renders it as inviting as yesterday's clam chowder.

The characters are drawn in varying styles, ranging from gross caricature to near-normality. The combination of real and unreal styles has worked in other Disney efforts but, here, the semi-realistic context renders them distracting.

Despite all these criticisms, Atlantis: The Lost Empire is worth seeing once — though perhaps not more than once.

Letters to the Editor
Dear Mr. Aurelius Milam III
.... I won't go into my anti-political beliefs and views, but rather stress my resentment toward an oppressing, slimy government bent on the sole mission of capital gain and complete control over the naive who chose to follow its structure.
I have recently had the privilege of reading your news letter, two of them [issues for June and June 11 — editor]. I want to congratulate you for your fearlessness and accomplishments in putting things the way you have. Yes my brother, I'm a motivated individual myself,

August 2001
Page 2

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

frontiersman@ida.net

thanks in part to what I have been so fortunate to read in your news letter. I have been at this point for some time, but you have been an inspiration to me ....

— Jason

Sathyu: Enjoyed your poem in the Frontiersman (July 2001). For an optimistic view of India's economic future under the current pro-market reforms, I recommend "India Unbound," by Gurcharan Das [Hard cover — 420 pages (March 2000) South Asia Books; ISBN: 0670882658].

— Ted; San Jose, California

Sam,

I've been chewing on this for a while, but your reflections on Tim McV [June 11 2001 special issue —editor] impel me to write. You have a reasonable theoretical understanding of government. I wonder, however, if your antipathy toward our own is not moderated just a bit when you consider what happened in places like Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo in the last decade and is happening in Colombia and Afghanistan at present? Mine certainly is.

The question I'm invoking is how to preserve order and still allow freedom. Occasionally, despite my disdain for this plutocracy of ours, I reflect thankfully that the overt violence is confined to the criminals and the subset of police who behave criminally. Spare me from living in Colombia.

And I can't imagine how things would be better under the sort of Posse Comitatus local government you seem to favor. Instead of competing economically (bad enough), everyone would have to be armed for self-protection as in the Barrio of East LA, while local government would enforce every local prejudice, unconstrained by the separation of powers inherent in our constitution.

— Jack; Scotts Valley, California

• Why should my "antipathy" toward the U.S. government be "moderated" by comparison to the low standards that you suggest. I judge the U.S. government not by comparison to other governments, but by comparison to American ideals.
• For a better understanding of the kind of government that I advocate, I suggest my articles "Anarchy, Monarchy, Malarkey" and "The Long and Winding Doctrine: Social Contract". Also, it seems like your gloomy view of the results of armed citizens might have resulted from watching too many westerns on TV. People don't usually go around looking for fights but, when such fights do happen, it is possible for the "good guys" to win without the intervention of Marshall Dillon, if the citizens are armed. Finally, you worry about armed citizens but then you cite as bad examples countries where the thugs, but not the citizens, are armed. I don't know if the citizens in East LA are armed, but I doubt it.

— editor

[The following letters are all in response to "Judicial Imperialism", July 2001, page 1.

— editor]

Generally, a crime can be prosecuted where the plan was made, where the act happened, or where the result happened. Or all three, since double jeopardy does not apply to separate sovereigns.

Since WWII, it has been agreed among nations that crimes against humanity can be tried anywhere.

That said, I would sure be pissed if my son had been injured arresting Manuel Noriega. And then there was the Mexican doctor kidnapped in Mexico by the DEA for the alleged torture and killing of a DEA agent. He spent about three years challenging US jurisdiction, lost, and was acquitted because, quite simply, the DEA had no evidence.

— Steve; San Antonio, Texas

•   Planning a crime — conspiracy — should not itself be a crime. A plan doesn't create a victim and, indeed, might not ever come to fruition. The criminalization of conspiracy is nothing more than a special case of Thoughtcrime.
•   Double jeopardy is part of the problem, isn't it? Double jeopardy protection doesn't apply, but the illegitimate authority to prosecute still does.
•   An "agreement" between nations isn't legitimately enforceable unless it is explicitly stated in a ratified treaty.
•   A "crime against humanity" cannot legitimately be a crime unless the specific behavior is explicitly defined and criminalized within the national boundaries in which it happened.   Even then, it is punishable only under the legislation of the nation in which it happened.   Behavior cannot be a crime in one nation simply by virtue of being a crime in a different nation.
•   Any crime, even a so-called "crime against humanity", cannot legitimately be tried by a court that lacks jurisdiction.

— editor

I would not use "de facto" in describing the authority by which the courts exercise their power out of their legitimate jurisdiction because that implies a general acceptance of that usage of their power.

Technically, an embassy is considered sovereign to the nation of that embassy under

frontiersman@ida.net

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

August 2001

Page 3

international treaty. If the crime took place within the grounds of the embassy, the jurisdiction rightfully belongs to the country of that embassy. The apprehension of the perpetrators on the grounds of the embassy means the country of that embassy holds full jurisdiction for the crime and the criminals. This breaks down if the perpetrators escape the jurisdiction by escaping from the grounds of the embassy. Once on foreign soil, extradition proceedings are required to regain custody of the perpetrators. The means by which the perpetrators have been captured and delivered to the jurisdiction of the court is the only deciding factor between the jurisdiction being de facto or de jure. Since I have not been following the story, I do not know the legitimacy of the court's actions.

— Sir James the Bold

I'm afraid that the illegitimate use of power outside of its legitimate jurisdiction has been generally accepted. Thus, de facto is probably good terminology.

— editor

"Increasingly, U.S. courts are hearing cases wherein they lack jurisdiction, exercising instead an illegitimate, de facto authority."

I'm not altogether sure about this being illegitimate. The US government would argue that its embassies are American territory (which they are, by international law); hence the "terrorists" can be tried under US jurisdiction (I use quotation marks insofar as the embassy attacks really are legitimate military actions, given US military presence globally).

More recently, the US has declared itself to be leading an international law and order crusade. I believe (not sure) that it has declared that the FBI has global jurisdiction. All this reflects a simple reality: with the globalization of capitalism, you are going to get the globalization of US law enforcement. Libertarians, conservatives, etc., need to confront the issue of globalization, but they are not ... which is worth an issue of the Frontiersman.

Part of the problem is that many libertarians and conservatives still have a vision of the US as it was in the 1930s, isolationist and with national industries. You rarely if ever see any reference in their publications to the economic system as it has developed since 1945: Bretton Woods System, World Trade Organization, transnational corporations, etc. The reality is that US business operates transnationally, hence requiring US military protection and CIA intervention (for ex: Iran 1953, Gulf War 1991). This in turn requires US participation in the UN to provide the political cover. You can no more get out of the UN than you can get the petroleum corporations out of the Middle East. In any event, US government and corporate leaders understand the system, operate transnationally, and therefore need a global law enforcement system to protect their interests.

Libertarians and conservatives need to confront these realities. But there is a blind spot among them, maybe because they are afraid of being accused of being "anti-capitalist". So they wave around copies of Atlas Shrugged at each other, then wonder why 'the liberals' keep winning. I'll note the anti-WTO demonstrators of the last couple of years have a closer handle on the situation than most "hard-headed" conservatives.

— Joseph; Burbank, California

•     There isn't any such thing as International Law except, perhaps, in the sense of a sort of international Common Law. Such law, however, could be applied only in a Common Law court having international jurisdiction. Such a court doesn't exist. Therefore, such law isn't judicially relevant and can be enforced only economically, diplomatically, or militarily. Furthermore, it is by definition enforceable only against nations and not against individuals. Lately, however, the concept has been perverted into a sort of international legislation-sans-legislature which is applied by courts lacking jurisdiction and which is imposed upon individuals without their consent. Such "law" is far more dangerous than any individuals against whom it could ever be applied. It will not cause justice. It will cause an international police state and international tyranny.
•     The U.S. government cannot legitimately declare its agencies to have global jurisdiction.
•     If a business operates within the national boundaries of a particular government, then it must seek what protection it needs from that government, or provide the protection itself. The globalization of capitalism doesn't justify the globalization of U.S. law enforcement. International business practices do not justify US military protection in other countries, CIA intervention in other countries, or a global law enforcement system.

— editor

Sam: Because you want to prove the USA at fault when it "indicted" 13 Saudis and one Lebanese in the Khobar Towers bombing, in Dhahran, you write: "Suppose ... Osama bin Laden sent people to arrest a U.S. citizen for

August 2001
Page 4

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

frontiersman@ida.net

violations of Muslim doctrine, took the U.S. citizen against his will to Afghanistan, ...." Two observations:

(1) Issuing indictments against ANY criminals is entirely allowed according to international law, and has been done very often by many countries. Not all countries have extradition agreements — which is a bilateral issue between two countries — but requests for extradition may certainly be made (e.g., recall the case of Gen. Pinochet recently). This is not a question of "jurisdiction." The U.S. is not at any time preempting another country's laws or rights; it is simply making a request. (Saudi Arabia has all along stated that they will deal with the terrorists, since Saudi laws and property were violated. They have also refused, so far, to extradite the terrorists to the USA.)

Re the bombings of the embassies, here are some interesting snippets from the Web:

"On October 20, 2000, defendant Ali Mohamed, a U.S. citizen, pleaded guilty to the five broad conspiracy charges against him. Mohamed, a bin Laden confidante, admitted staking out several possible U.S. targets including the Nairobi embassy. He has been cooperating with the government and is expected to be called as a key witness. Also in U.S. custody, is Mahmud Salim who allegedly ran training camps and guesthouses for bin Laden operatives. Salim was charged with taking part in the al Qaeda terrorist conspiracy.

"Three other defendants await extradition from the United Kingdom. They are Khalid al-Fawwaz, Ibrahim Eidarous and Adel Abdel Bary. All three have been charged in the al Qaeda conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens and military personnel. Eidarous and Bary have also been charged in the embassy bombings.

"Thirteen others, including accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and the top leadership of his al Qaeda organization remain fugitives. All are charged with being part of bin Laden's terrorist conspiracy to "murder U.S. nationals anywhere in the world, kill U.S. military personnel in Somalia and the Saudi Arabian Peninsula, and kill U.S. embassy workers."

(2) More importantly (to me) is your use of the bin Laden example. Bin Laden is not a chief of state ... he is not even a citizen of Afghanistan. Besides, he is (per a reasonable assumption) a terrorist, blowing up foreign embassies. Unless, of course, you morally condone his actions, you cannot use the faulty tit-for-tat logic (constantly invoked by adversaries, I know) which erases all distinctions between the aggressor and the victim. Since you are ultimately invoking international law — and, by extension, also moral law — it is incumbent on you to pay attention to such things as who initiated force, and who is responding with force. (For example: A case can be made that the USA was wrong to bomb Serbia. However, Serbia did more than just "protect" itself against the Muslim bandits from Kosovo: They essentially decimated Kosovo ... randomly killing women, children and civilians ... just like the Serbian nationalists attempted to "cleanse" Bosnia of non-Serbian elements. The USA just appeared as another bully on the scene, giving Serbia a taste of their own medicine (although, the U.S. probably had no business getting involved in that "European" mess). PUSHING an old lady into the path of a bus is not the same thing as PUSHING an old lady away from the bus.

— Ted; San Jose, California

•     I'm not invoking international law. What does it have to do with moral law?
•     If the legislation lacks jurisdiction, then the indictment is illegitimate. The 13 Saudis and the one Lebanese were indicted under the United States Code, which lacks jurisdiction in Saudi Arabia. The indictments are illegitimate, regardless of international custom to the contrary.
•     If the U.S. government really exercises only delegated powers, then it's authority isn't any more legitimate than mine, yours, Osama bin Laden's, or that of any other human being.
•     The U.S. government is a far more dangerous terrorist organization than Osama bin Laden's outfit. I believe that the U.S. government is the aggressor, not the victim. The "acts of terrorism" about which it complains are legitimate resistance. Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me to discover that the U.S. government is covertly promoting the terrorism, possibly even staging some of it, as an excuse to increase its own power. Consequently, I do condone the actions of Osama bin Laden as legitimate resistance. My only criticism of him would be regarding the excuse he provides for further increases in the repressive "anti-terrorist" measures being taken by the U.S. government. I'm trying to address that sort of thing in this newsletter. Insofar as he attacks the U.S. government, he is a hero and he is my ally. I applaud him. The U.S. government is my enemy and his enemy.

— editor

frontiersman@ida.net

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

August 2001

Page 5

Frontiersman
479 E. 700 N.
Firth, Idaho 83236

Conspiracy should not be a
crime. In and of itself, a
conspiracy doesn't create
victims. Indeed, it might not
ever come to fruition. The
criminalization of conspiracy is
nothing more than a special
case of Thoughtcrime.

Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Dear Buck

My big sister isn't having any luck at finding a husband and I'm doing real bad as a matchmaker. Can you help?

— Little Sister

Dear Little Sister

Why make the things? You can buy all the matches you want down to the Wal-Mart.

Acknowledgments
• My thanks to The Affiliate, of Vankleek Hill, Ontario, http://www.the-grand-barn.com/, and The Thought, of Glendale, Arizona, http://home.att.net/~guildmaster/wsb for printing reviews of the Frontiersman.
• My thanks to Sir John the Generous http://www.jwebster.com/ and Sir Donald the Elusive for their contributions.

— editor

Old Is When....
Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Cassandra, of Pocatello, Idaho
•     .... your friend compliments you on your new alligator shoes, and you're barefoot.
•     .... a sexy babe catches your fancy and your pacemaker opens the garage door.
•     ... going bra-less pulls all the wrinkles out of your face.
•     .... you don't care where your spouse goes, just as long as you don't have to go along.
•     .... you're cautioned to slow down by the doctor instead of by the police.
•     .... "getting a little action" means you don't need to take any fiber today.
•     .... "getting lucky" means you find your car in the parking lot.
•     .... an "all nighter" means not getting up to pee.

Frontiersman

Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.

Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.

Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.

Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.

Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and U.S. postage stamps. I will accept checks or money orders only by prior arrangement. I don't accept anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor

August 2001
Page 6

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

frontiersman@ida.net

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue