Mailbox Vox: Homosexuals, the Byzantines and a dead-cat bounce

The Supreme Court's finding of sexual privacy is entirely in step with the American public's values and opinions. I grew up in Texas and Oklahoma, and I can't recall hearing even the saltiest old cowboy say anything other than "What I do in my bedroom is no business of the government." Your (and Bill Frist's) appeal to hostility towards gays as a class will find ever-diminishing appeal.

– TJ

TRENDING: Biden offers grants to teach children U.S. 'inherently racist'

It may well be in step with the American public's values and opinions – of course, that's exactly what THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH is for. If the American public truly feels as you assert, then why haven't sodomy laws been overturned by all the various state legislatures, as they were in Minnesota a few years ago? With regard to Bill Frist's appeal, if the Defense of Marriage Amendment passes as quickly as the Defense of Marriage act did, I expect his political star will be shining rather bright.

As for my appeal, I could not care less.

Actually, the fictitious "right of privacy" was invented in Griswold v. Connecticut; that decision was then cited as precedent by Roe v. Wade et al.

– Jim

That's right. I should have mentioned Griswold as well.

So let me get this straight, even though you claim to be a libertarian, if the court ruled in a way that agreed with your libertarian attitudes and values, you would still oppose the ruling if it failed to comply with a particular ideological interpretation of the Constitution, despite the fact that the ruling increases personal liberty? You don't seem to support liberty so much as you oppose the federal government.

– Michael

That sums it up pretty well, yes. I am a stronger anti-statist than social libertarian, as I am far more concerned for those liberties that defend people's lives and property against the central state than I am for those relating to interpersonal behavior. The Supreme Court decisions on currency and taxation are far more inimical than the recent Lawrence monstrosity, however, they were made long ago and are not part of the current news cycle. Still, all three decisions tie closely into my theme of American decline.

Not that it's not painfully obvious where your frustration and animosity is coming from. But that's our little secret, isn't it?

– JP

I think it's amusing that homosexuals still believe hurling charges of homophobia, bigotry and secret homosexuality have any impact on anyone. Even the feminist hate mailers are more creative – this lot sounded like catty 13-year-old girls, only sillier.

When you argue against homosexuality, you are aiding and abetting a future totalitarian government. You are laying the philosophical groundwork, convincing the people that we are falling into decadence because we are allowing people the freedom to define their own values. You are spreading a fear of freedom, convincing people that liberty is frightening, harping on the point that when people are free, they do things we don't want them to.

– Marjorie

No, people always do things the government doesn't want them to. That's why the more a government attempts to control the populace, the more likely it is to start killing people, since there are always those who resist control without concern for the cost. However, you are mistaking behavioral freedoms for basic freedoms. Imperial Rome and many other societies demonstrate that even the most hedonistic behavior is quite compatible with a repressive totalitarian government, however, sacrosanct private-property rights, a stable currency and an armed populace are not. Regardless, Marjorie, would you seriously argue that we are not falling into decadence?

I've just read your piece "Supreme post-morality." Surely you jest – you can't possible believe it might take as long as 200 years for the Republic to collapse!

– Colin

Two hundred on the outside. The speed of societal change has increased in the last two millennia, and unanticipated change usually has a way of taking conventional wisdom off guard.

What about the Byzantines as an extension of the Roman world?

– Howard

The Republic of Rome lasted 421 years, until Gaius Marius seized control of Rome during the first civil wars. After a period of unrest and various dictatorships, the Roman Empire began with Octavian in 27 B.C. and survived another 1,480 years, in one form or another, until Mehmed II sacked Constantinople in 1453. I don't care how long a totalitarian successor state might call itself the United States of America, it would still not be the America in which I believe.

Do you think this bear market is over?

– Bernie

Not even close – this is just another bear-market rally and it's over. It even appears that I nailed the call on the Nasdaq top in my June 9 column, though I was a week early on the S&P 500. But whether one uses Elliott Waves, put-call ratios, volatility indicators, price-earnings ratios or Fibonacci timeframes, this rally is toast. Don't be fooled by the little pre-Fourth jump – the Fed always pumps in money during the short weeks, and a meager 2 percent gain on a four-day week is perhaps the most powerful sign that this rally is not only dead, but approaching rigor mortis.

Remember that the financial media always lie. For example, the "expected light volumes" for this holiday-shortened week were 12 percent higher than the previous week. Wall Street always likes to do its shady work when the masses aren't looking.

I'll leave you with an intriguing quote from Yahoo! Finance: "There's talk that the precipitous drop in the indices at around 10:40 ET was caused by an erroneous execution order, in which a major house sold 2000 SPX contracts instead of 200 and took the market down with it." This is a very interesting explanation for Thursday's 100-point drop, since the financial media, who always claim the markets cannot be manipulated, rest their case on the notion that buying index futures cannot possibly drive the markets up.