|
Obama keeps expanding his range of assholerly.http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/dan-choi?source=facebook
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/08/BAO71KKPEC.DTL&type=gaylesbian
S.F. gay married couple loses immigration battleTuesday, August 9, 2011   Bradford Wells hugs husband Anthony John Makk (right). Makk is the primary caregiver for the AIDS-afflicted Wells. Washington -- Citing the Defense of Marriage Act, theObama administration denied immigration benefits to a married gay couple from San Francisco and ordered the expulsion of a man who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse. Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, and Anthony John Makk, a citizen of Australia, were married seven years ago in Massachusetts. They have lived together 19 years, mostly in an apartment in the Castro district. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Makk's application to be considered for permanent residency as a spouse of an American citizen, citing the 1996 law that denies all federal benefits to same-sex couples. The decision was issued July 26. Immigration Equality, a gay-rights group that is working with the couple, received the notice Friday and made it public Monday. Makk was ordered to depart the United States by Aug. 25. Makk is the sole caregiver for Wells, who has severe health problems. "I'm married just like any other married person in this country," Wells said. "At this point, the government can come in and take my husband and deport him. It's infuriating. It's upsetting. I have no power, no right to keep my husband in this country. I love this country, I live here, I pay taxes and I have no right to share my home with the person I married." Husband's pleasWells pleaded with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and President Obama to intervene. "Anyone can identify with the horror of having the government come in and destroy your family when you've done nothing wrong, and you've done everything right, followed every law," Wells said. The agency's decision cited the Defense of Marriage Act as the reason for the denial of an I-130 visa, or spousal petition that could allow Makk to apply for permanent U.S. residency. "The claimed relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary is not a petitionable relationship," the decision said. "For a relationship to qualify as a marriage for purposes of federal law, one partner must be a man and the other a woman." Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder decided earlier this year that the law, commonly known as DOMA, is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds and that the administration would no longer defend it in court. House Republicans hired an outside counsel to defend it instead. However, the administration said it would continue to enforce the law, while exercising discretion on a case-by-case basis. ICE's director, John Morton, issued a memorandum in June that offered guidance to agents in making enforcement decisions. Because no law enforcement agency can pursue every case, they routinely prioritize where to commit the government's limited resources. The memorandum said prosecutions should seek to promote "national security, border security, public safety and the integrity of the immigration system." Makk meets several of the circumstances specified in the memorandum. Aside from being a spouse of an American citizen, he is also the primary caretaker of a citizen, has no criminal history, and has legally resided in the country under various visas for many years. The couple said they spent nearly $2,000 to file the petition that was denied, and now must decide whether to file a motion to reconsider the decision, which Wells said would almost certainly be denied, giving the couple at most another 30 days of residency. Makk gave up a professional career in Australia to be with Wells, and started a business in San Francisco and invested in rental property to meet various visa requirements. He said he has never remained in the country illegally. Poor alternativesWells could move to Australia, but he said doing so would require him to give up his extensive medical care and insurance in the United States. "We are appealing to the Obama administration to begin to put into action what they've said repeatedly they can do," said Immigration Equality spokesman Steve Ralls. "The Department of Homeland Security and ICE have said again and again that they can exercise discretion in individual cases, but they have not done so for a single gay or lesbian couple yet." In rare cases, lawmakers can introduce so-called private bills to shield specific immigrants from deportation, but only after deportation proceedings have begun. Such bills are considered a last resort. Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said Pelosi has contacted immigration officials on behalf of the couple and "will be working to exhaust all appropriate immigration remedies that are open to pursue." E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com. This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle |
Obama keeps expanding his range of assholerly.http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/dan-choi?source=facebook
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/08/BAO71KKPEC.DTL&type=gaylesbian
 | ARAB SPRING LONDON STYLE? Media refuse to report that it's Blacks and Muslims burning London to the groundbarenakedislam | August 9, 2011 at 9:47 PM | Categories: Islamic Britain | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-y2k |
Let's see. It's a good bet that it's a young Muslim male in the sweatshirt and face mask, strolling through the ruins of London, with hate burning from his eyes. HILL BUZZ - Just as the American media tried to cover up the fact that the "flash mob" at the Wisconsin State Fair were all [...]
 | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
 | Keynesian Economics: Economics Of Big Government Take Over!Volubrjotr | August 9, 2011 at 15:36 | Tags: Clarence Page, Government spending, John Maynard Keynes, keynesian economics, Michael Crowley, new world order, Rush Limbaugh, tea, The Tea Party, united states | Categories: bailout, barack obama, currency, economy, foreclosures, government, obama, political, politics, soetoro, subversion, treason | URL: http://wp.me/psXSG-bms |
The modus of this criminal venture is disarmingly titled 'New Keynesian Economics'. Its been done to many Countries for example; Argentina, China, India, Israel, Greece, Iceland, Russian Empire. Now the last Visage of Pure Power & Freedom The United States, stands in British Monarchy's way to gather them all together for subjugation ~ disarmingly titled New World Order. They do this by contriving [...]
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
 | Ah, ain't this cute?dcgere | August 9, 2011 at 5:50 pm | Tags: MoveOn.org, Van Jones | Categories: Children, Culture War, Economy, Education, Health Care, Idiots In General, Liberals, Taxes | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8Bt |
Commie Van Jones and the intellects at moveon.org have put together a video that outlines their "Contract for the American Dream". Course, to make you feel all "super cute" about the content, they have adorable little children telling you what needs to be done. Among them:
Do you really think these kids grasp what they are saying from this script? God help us if we invest in more public education, they'll actually grow up believing this "contract" is what's best for our country.
DCG
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
| | Not sure I like this...dcgere | August 9, 2011 at 6:40 pm | Tags: Consumer Genetics, Gender Selection | Categories: Children, Culture War, God's creation, Health Care, Pro-Life, Technology | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8BD |
CHICAGO -- Boy or girl? A simple blood test in mothers-to-be can answer that question with surprising accuracy at about seven weeks, a research analysis has found. Though not widely offered by U.S. doctors, gender-detecting blood tests have been sold online to consumers for the past few years. Their promises of early and accurate results prompted genetics researchers to take a closer look.
They analyzed 57 published studies of gender testing done in rigorous research or academic settings -- though not necessarily the same methods or conditions used by direct-to-consumer firms.
The authors say the results suggest blood tests like those studied could be a breakthrough for women at risk of having babies with certain diseases, who could avoid invasive procedures if they learned their fetus was a gender not affected by those illnesses. But the study raises concerns about couples using such tests for gender selection and abortion. Couples who buy tests from marketers should be questioned about how they plan to use the results, the study authors said.
The new analysis, published in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, involved more than 6,000 pregnancies. The testing used a lab procedure called PCR that detects genetic material -- in this case, the male Y chromosome. If present in the mother's blood, she's carrying a boy, but if absent, it's a girl.
Senior author Dr. Diana Bianchi, a reproductive geneticist and executive director of the Mother Infant Research Institute at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, called the results impressive. She noted that doctors in Great Britain are already using such testing for couples at risk of having children with hemophilia or other sex-linked diseases, partly to help guide treatment decisions.
Dr. Lee Shulman, chief of clinical genetics at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, said the testing "isn't ready for prime time." I would have a lot of difficulties offering such a test just for gender identification. Gender is not an abnormality," Shulman said. "My concern is this is ultimately going to be available in malls or shopping centers," similar to companies offering "cute" prenatal ultrasound images.
Recent research found that increasing numbers of women in India who already have daughters are having abortions when prenatal tests show another girl, suggesting that an Indian ban on such gender testing has been ineffective. The expense of marrying off girls has contributed to a cultural preference there for boys.
Evidence also suggests that China's limits on one child per couple and traditional preference for male heirs has contributed to abortions and an increasingly large gender imbalance.
Consumer Genetics Inc. a Santa Clara, Calif.-based company sells an "early gender" blood test called "Pink or Blue" online for $25 plus $265 or more for laboratory testing. It boasts of 95 percent accuracy, using a lab technique its scientists developed from the type of testing evaluated in the new analysis, said Terry Carmichael, the company's executive vice president.
Carmichael said the company sells more than 1,000 kits a year. He said the company won't test blood samples unless women sign a consent form agreeing not to use the results for gender selection. The company also won't sell kits to customers in China or India because of fears of gender selection, he said.
So Consumer Genetics makes the woman sign a consent form agreeing not to use the test for gender selection...how do they know she will comply with that consent agreement? And they won't sell kits to China or India. Couldn't someone in that country have another person in another country order it for them (and use it as the person who ordered it)? Or couldn't they be on an extended visit to the US and order it while they are here?
Consumer Genetics website says this kit "is a service providing information that has no impact on the health of the mother or the baby". Really? What if someone finds out they are having a girl, wanted a boy, and chooses to get an abortion?
Well, after reading through this again, I've decided I don't like it.
DCG
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
The Logan Act states, "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or [...]
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/08/why-he-should-run-for-president.html
In my view, John Bolton must run for president. The focus for 2012 so far has been exclusively on which Republican candidate is most electable. This is hardly the issue. The next presidential election is far more historically significant than a mere Presidential election. The next presidential election is not an election of a person, but a referendum on American independence and statehood.
The next American president must vow to return to the founding principle of the American idea: individual rights. The next American president must advocate and cheerlead for the most benevolent and productive human system in the world, capitalism.
The next American president must be a great patriot. He/she must have integrity, political will and spine (something in very short supply in Washington). We have to think out of the box.
On Deck: Why I May Run for President
by John R. Bolton
August 8, 2011
Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that "the first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force." Today, failing to protect our national security inevitably endangers our economic prosperity by making us vulnerable to global adversaries.
It is clear that President Obama does not agree with Smith's wisdom. Obama's policies are jeopardizing not only our national security and economy, but our constitutional sovereignty too.
That is why I have been considering running for President. The Republican Party must nominate a leader who, unlike Obama, understands instinctively that America's liberty, prosperity and national security are inextricably linked.
Sadly, last week's debt-ceiling legislation, potentially resulting in catastrophic cuts to our defense budget, only reinforces my deep concerns. This may have been the best we could get, and it is far better than we feared. But the deal risks massive defense cutbacks, potentially pointing a dagger at the heart of our security and sovereignty.
We now face a minimum of $700 to 800 billion more in defense cuts, in addition to the $400 billion Obama has already imposed, with potentially catastrophic consequences. The joint committee established to fashion the second tranche of spending cuts (or tax increases) is not likely to protect us from massive defense cuts. The liberals will be working feverishly to put conservatives on the committee in an untenable position: a Hobson's choice between tax increases and deep cuts in defense spending.
The debt-ceiling legislation's trigger mechanism, with its grave risk of disproportionate cuts in defense spending, is potentially even more draconian. America's national security is not just another wasteful government program, especially in perilous times like today. We are heavily involved in two major conflicts, the long-term global War on Terror and the critical effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Recent confirmation that Iran, on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, is materially aiding al-Qaeda only underlines the risk of massive U.S. defense cuts.
President Obama, unlike all his predecessors since Franklin Roosevelt, does not treat national security as his top priority. He does not see the world as threatening to U.S. interests. And he is comfortable with America's "inevitable" decline in the world, rather than being determined to prevent it. Obama is our first post-American President. He fancies himself to be above mere "patriotism." He is less an advocate for American interests than a "citizen of the world," in his own phrase.
For two-and-a-half years, Americans have witnessed the devastating results of Obama's "post-American" worldview. Russia has taken advantage of his naïve "reset" policy, while Iran and North Korea continue to aggressively pursue nuclear weapons. Staunch allies such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Japan question our resolve. Even France thinks he lacks leadership. China and the International Monetary Fund now openly cast doubt on the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. And Obama's policy toward Libya has been an abject failure to date. He entered the conflict for the wrong reasons, failed to allow our military to accomplish its mission, invited Russia in to mediate, and now seems content to allow Muammar Gaddafi to remain in Libya. An Obama adviser called his approach "leading from behind." Indeed it is, but it is not the American way.
Israel Victimized
No ally has been more victimized by Obama's worldview than Israel. As our most anti-Israel President, bar none, Obama fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the security threats to Israel and the United States in the Middle East. Iran's support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons goes unanswered. Radical groups around the region have been emboldened in the face of sustained incoherence in U.S. policy. In addition to Israel, Arab friends in the region, especially those producing oil and gas critical to the international economy, are shocked at the Obama administration's treatment of close friends and its inability to comprehend, let alone defend, core American interests.
In addition, Obama is enamored of European-style schemes for global governance. He has naïvely called for a world in which America voluntarily gives up its nuclear weapons in hopes that our adversaries do so too. He yearns to join the International Criminal Court and risks subjecting America's warriors to prosecutions and trial.Unable to achieve national gun-control legislation at home, he is seeking a backdoor route through an "arms trade treaty" now under negotiation at the United Nations. Despite his pro forma denials, Obama fundamentally does not believe in American exceptionalism, nor that American strength has ensured our peace and security since World War II.
Americans should understand that Obama's international policies have a direct and profound impact on our economic prosperity. One obvious example is the devastating impact of another terrorist attack here at home, especially one with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Instability abroad has a profound impact on oil and gas supplies, and therefore the price we pay to fill up the family car with gasoline. Global supply chains vital to America's jobs are threatened when our Navy is unable to protect U.S. shipping and vital sea lanes. Our failed border security policy allows the violence of drug cartels to spill across our borders and endanger our families. Obama's existing cuts in our defense budget, and the ones surely coming under the debt-ceiling bill, will only magnify our inability to protect ourselves.
No GOP Candidate So Far
In 16 months, Americans will again go to the polls and vote for the person they believe can best lead our country. Beyond question, Obama's economic policies have failed to renew the economy and are now a principal reason the recovery is stalled. His national security policies are even more dangerous. The American dream is under assault, and Obama is not fighting back. We need a real President in the Oval Office, someone who knows instinctively and by experience that, as Adam Smith said, "the first duty of the sovereign" is to protect and promote American sovereignty and national security. Otherwise, economic prosperity will count for little.
To date, in my view, no Republican candidate has persuasively argued that our economic recovery and long-term prosperity are completely intertwined with a strong national security posture. If no one else is prepared to make that case, I will.
http://www.ammoland.com/2011/08/08/careful-where-you-carry-pocketknives/
People like this. Be the first of your friends.
Monday, August 8th, 2011 at 7:51 PM
Tags: FloridaFlorida CarryGun BannersKnife BansKnife RightsKnifeRights.orgKnivesPocketknivesSecond Amendment
Careful Where You Carry Pocketknives – Firearms Preemption Was Only 1/2 The Answer
Florida Carry
Florida - -(Ammoland.com)- So, you have your Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm License (CWFL) and you know that Florida preempts all firearms laws throughout the state so that you don't accidentally break some ridiculous local ordinance and end up in the hoosegow for carrying your weapon.
You have a license from the state and we fought hard to make preemption enforceable last legislative session!
Well, you are half right. Your pistol won't get you in trouble but your pocket knife could put you away for a MINIMUM of six months, cost you a cool grand, and yeah… they'll take your knife too.
But wait! I have a license from the state to carry that! Yep you do, but not from Miami-Dade County and your assisted opening pocket knife just violated their laws.
See: Sec. 21-14. – Dangerous weapons; penalty; trial court.
(a) Concealed dangerous weapons. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear under his clothes, or concealed about his person, or to display in a threatening manner any dangerous or deadly weapon including, but not by way of limitation, any pistol, revolver, slingshot, cross-knuckles or knuckles of lead, brass or other metal, or any bowie knife, razor, dirk, dagger, or any knife resembling a bowie knife, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon, except as hereinafter provided.
(b) Switch blades. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer to sell, display, use, possess or carry any knife or knives having the appearance of a pocket knife, the blade or blades of which can be opened by a flick of a button, pressure on the handle, or other mechanical contrivance. Any such knife is hereby declared to be a dangerous or deadly weapon, within the meaning of subsection (a) and shall be subject to forfeiture to the County as provided by subsection (c).
…
(e) Penalty. Every person who is convicted for a violation of subsection (a) shall for first conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment for not less than six (6) months and by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00); for a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of subsection (a) such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00).
Come on Sean, nobody gets arrested for a pocket knife! Pulino's chef Nate Appleman arrested for pocket knife.
These Florida pocket knife charges still go all the way to SCOTUS ever after the Florida Supreme court said that knives with a blade length of 3.75″ or less are common pocket knives. See Bunkley v. Florida, 538 US 835 – Supreme Court (2003)
This gives us a bad mix of a patchwork of local laws and people thinking that they have a license that lets them carry the weapons that the license it good for statewide. We need a preemption statute to cover our other carry weapons and knives.
Florida Carry had just started kicking around language for a bill when out of the blue, Florida Carry Board Member Richard Smith ran smack in to our friends at Knife Rights. They just passed knife preemption in Arizona and are looking for help the rest of the states.
Time for round two of the preemption fight in FL. Hold on tight, it's gonna' be a bumpy ride!
About:
Florida Open-Carry.org is a grass roots organization of Florida residents who endeavor to raise awareness in the community of our second amendment rights. Our primary goal is to help educate others about their right to legally open carry and advocate for repeal of the general ban on open carry in Florida. Florida is one of only seven states where open carry is generally illegal. Visit: www.open-carry.com
A guy traveling through Mexico on vacation lost his wallet and all of his identification. Cutting his trip short, he attempted to make his way home but was stopped by the U.S. Customs Agent at the border." May I see your identification, please?" asked the agent.
"I'm sorry, but I lost my wallet," replied the guy.
"Sure buddy, I hear that every day. No ID, no entry," said the agent.
"But I can prove I'm an American!" he exclaimed. "I have a picture of Ronald Reagan tattooed on one side of my butt and George Bush on the other."
"This I gotta see," replied the agent. With that, the guy dropped his pants and showed the agent his behind." By golly, you're right!" exclaimed the agent.
"Have a safe trip back to Chicago ."
"Thanks!" he said. "But how did you know I was from Chicago ?
"The agent replied, "I recognized Obama in the middle."
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/?q=node/570
Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 212
9th August 2011
Review Article by Sean Gabb
Sweeter than Wine
L. Neil Smith
Phoenix Pick, Maryland, 2011, 151pp
(ISBN 978 1 60450 483 5)
One of the many things that makes vampires so interesting if the fundamentally plastic nature of how they are regarded. Let us compare them with demons. These appear to have entered the Western consciousness because of Plato. Doubtless, the loose paganism of the Greeks allowed for many other beings beside the established Gods of the pantheon. But it was Plato, I think, who first regularised the notion that we are surrounded by a large number of invisible and immensely powerful creatures, whose interventions in the world of appearance could be seen in unusual events, and who could, with appropriate words and actions, be made to obey the will of those who understood them. This notion was taken over and elaborated by the Church Fathers, whose main contribution was to announce that demons were invariably evil. It reached something like its fullest development in a long essay by Michael Psellus, the "learned Constantinopolitan" who wrote nearly a thousand years ago. Since then, belief in demons has gone through cycles of increase and diminution – but with very little change.
It is different with vampires. I grant that belief in the reanimated dead, who feast on the blood of the living, seems common to mankind. The Greeks believed in vampires. So did the Chinese. So, I think, did the South Americans before Columbus. The details, though – and it is the details that are so important – have never been settled. When I first discovered vampires at the age of twelve, I made the mistake, natural to children, that what I had discovered was a settled class of being. A vampire was an invariably evil, and usually aristocratic and sexually alluring, being, that was active by night, and able to communicate its taint, and that could be repelled by the Cross and destroyed by a stake through the heart or by the rays of the sun. It was only as I read my way through every vampire novel and short story I could find, plus the works of Montague Summers, that I realised the truth. And this is that the notion of vampires, as I had come across it, was a mid-twentieth century synthesis based almost entirely on the literature and films created during the two generations that had followed the publication of Bram Stoker's Dracula and the release of the German film Nosferatu. There are precursors to Dracula – John Polidori, Sheridan Le Fanu, whoever wrote Varney the Vampire, and so forth. But it was largely Bram Stoker who began the synthesis, and it reached its canonic form in the Hammer films of the 1960s, with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.
Even as the Hammer films were being made, the synthesis was breaking down. Most important in this breakdown is the shifting relationship between vampirism and religion. Like demons, the pre-literary vampires of Europe were enemies of God, and were, by definition, frightened of crosses and holy water and the other objects of Christianity. This was carried over into Dracula and Nosferatu. It was unquestioned in other stories and films, even when these were partly or entirely created by American Jews. But it could be sustained in the Hammer films only because these were set in a universally Christian Central European past. It could not be maintained in a present world where not every character could be assumed to be a Christian, or even a believer.
The first change seems to have been made by Richard Matheson, in I am Legend. In his America taken over by vampires, some of whom had once been Jews, the Cross only frightens those who had once been Christians. Former Jews are frightened by the Star of David. This is an important change, as fear of the Cross is degraded from fear of God to a purely psychological quirk of some vampires. The change was parodied in Roman Polanski's Dance of the Vampires, but was soon replaced by the different change made by Stephen King in Salem's Lot. Here, the Cross works against every vampire – but only so far as the person using it believes in its power. There is no endorsement of the Christian Faith – only an acceptance that certain religious symbols are useful to focus an independent repulsive power. What we can see, then, is a shift in the portrayal of vampires that follows shifts in popular attitudes.
More recently, we have seen changes even in the fundamental nature of vampires. A creature that must survive by drinking the blood of the living must, on first inspection, be evil – or at least as hostile to mankind as wolves and mosquitoes. And the Hammer films rejoiced in this evil. But there was an American television series of the 1970s – I never saw this, and have now forgotten the details – in which the hero was a reluctant vampire. There was, of course, Interview with a Vampire, by Anne Rice, in which the hero is a vampire who tries, so far as he can, to behave decently. But the idea remained fixed that, however restrained some might be, vampires on the whole enemies of mankind by virtue of their being. This is obscured, though not challenged, by all those vampire novels written for teenage girls. So far as I can tell, by making all the flitting about by night, and the blood drinking, rather sexy.
What L. Neil Smith has done, in his latest novel, is to break clean away from the idea of necessary evil. J. Gifford happens to be a vampire. He was made one in 1944, when, as a soldier, he got lost in France and met up with a vampiress who turned him during several weeks of frenzied sexual enjoyment. Since then, he has come back to America, and has become a popular and productive member of his community. Some of those round him know what he is, and do their best to help keep his secret. His powers come in useful for his career as a private detective. He will live forever. He will stay young and beautiful forever. He will enjoy the good things of life forever. Other than this, he is a pretty ordinary, gun-loving American libertarian.
It is difficult to say much about the novel without giving away its rather tense plot. However, I read it with great enjoyment in one sitting, and do assure you that Sweeter than Wine is first class novel by a writer at the top of his form. I am not sure if it is better or worse than his most famous novel, The Probability Broach. I can only say that it is different. But this is in itself a compliment. The problem with many novelists is that they have one early hit, and spend the rest of their lives in various forms of self-imitation. This is certainly not the case with Neil. He is a fantasy writer. But fantasy is a very wide genre, and he has never stayed in any one area of it. It is impressive and admirable, after thirty or so novels, still to be able to come up with something as unexpected and original as Sweeter than Wine.
You do not need to be one yourself to appreciate the technical excellencies of other novelists, but I suppose it does help. Something I do greatly admire about this novel – and Neil's work in general – is its seamless integration of opinion into plot. Most novelists have strong opinions about politics, or religion, or sex, or whatever. The difference between a good and a bad novelist is how he manages to express his opinions without interrupting the flow of the plot. I may be uttering a gross heresy among libertarians, but I have always wished that Ayn Rand had given Atlas Shrugged to a ruthless editor. The resulting text might not so effectively have converted generations of the young to a form of libertarianism. But it would have flowed rather better without all those ten page speeches.
Where Neil is concerned, look at a passage in Chapter 18, where Gifford is being retained by a woman who wants her husband tracked down, so he can be dragged into court and made to work himself to death to pay her maintenance. In this, he manages to pass scathing judgement on the divorce laws and their entitlement culture without once stopping the flow of narrative between Gifford and his client, or stepping outside his main plot. He finds time for asides like this one:
The trouble here, of course, was judges, full of law school drivel in no way connected with real life, and two centuries of the insanity of justification by precedent, giving away other people's money, and destroying their lives, a process bound to continue until the American people rediscover the fact that a lamppost can serve more than one purpose. [p.96]
It takes skill to work this sort of thing into a narrative without breaking the flow. And there is much more like this.
But let me come back to the wider matter of evil. In the synthesis that culminates in the Hammer films, there is a duality so strong that it never requires explicit statement. This is that vampires are evil – and that the forces of state and church arrayed against them are good. There is a priest in one of the Hammer films who is seduced by evil. But he returns to good at the last minute, and his own defection only emphasises the otherwise fixed duality. Magistrates are on the side of good. So are priests and doctors. Monasteries are places of refuge. Village elders mean well when they cry "Don't go up to the Castle!" The forces of good are often weakened by scepticism – "Vampires? Don't be absurd!" – "But I'm a man of science!" – and so forth. But they always accept the evidence of their senses in the end, and then do what is right to preserve a good moral order.
What we see in Sweeter than Wine is a full acceptance that the moral order in which we live is not necessarily good, and that it raises systematic barriers to the good life for mortals and immortals alike. In this sense, what Neil has written is as much a departure from the synthesis as I am Legend. Matheson divorced vampires from a religious view of the world. Neil divorces vampires from the idea that they are the enemy of all that is good. And this is an interesting development. One of the reasons why ruling classes have always taken an interest in the arts is that poets really are the legislators of mankind. The propaganda that pours off the pages of our newspapers, or from the television screen, is of purely local use. In itself, it produces cognitive dissonance. It can, for example, stop people from fully accepting the evidence of their senses or the conclusions of their common sense. It can tell us that this is "the hottest summer since records began," or that we are richer in every sense that matters than our parents were, or that bombing countries full of non-whites into the stone age is an humanitarian act. Coupled with a police state, this sort of propaganda can stop people for very long periods from shouting the truth. But it is the arts – nowadays, films, television programmes, novels, popular music – that change the way that people think. When vampires change sides, and are no longer seen as the enemies of mankind, this may indicate a general shift of attitudes towards the established order.
There is one further, though associated, consideration. This is the immortality of vampires. In the old synthesis, vampires lived for a very long time. But this was usually a longevity that only put off the ever-lasting torments of Hell. This was one of the reasons why vampires were so malevolent – the longer they managed to put off the inevitable, the worse it would be. But the Fires of Hell are nowadays a minority belief, and many more people like the idea of unlimited life-extension. Whatever they may hope, few believe that death is the gateway to a better and ever-lasting life. At the same time, we have lived for the better part of a century with the firm promise that scientific progress would eventually allow us to live out our maximum span of life, and would then extend that span.
The problem is that science has been largely co-opted by a ruling class that does not regard its progress as self-evidently a good thing. I see no reason in itself why we should live in a world where getting to ninety is almost as astonishing as it was for the Ancient Greeks. But I see many reasons why this will not be allowed to change in time for me to avoid those last few weeks in a hospital bed with tubes sticking out of me.
And so Neil has given us vampires who do not spend their days sleeping on coffin dirt and their nights driven mad by thoughts of their final punishment. As said, J. Gifford is forever young and forever beautiful – and he can spend the whole of eternity playing with guns and eating pizza and having wonderful sex with the vampiress who turned him in France. It is an enjoyable fantasy. It may also be powerfully subversive propaganda against an established order that grows more obviously evil by the day.
A few years ago, I sat down with David Carr and laid out the plot of a vampire novel that covered similar themes. Sadly, David has not so far written this novel. Now that L. Neil Smith has given us his triumphant Sweeter than Wine, I do feel half inclined to write one of my own.
Postal Address: Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1J 6HL, England
http://www.libertarian.co.uk
http://www2.libertarian.co.uk
http://www.seangabb.co.uk
http://richardblake.me.uk/
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com
http://www.facebook.com/sean.gabb
http://vimeo.com/seangabb
Wikipedia Entry: http://tinyurl.com/23jvoz
What would England and the world have been like in 1959 if there had been no Second World War? For one possible answer, read Sean Gabb's new novel "The Churchill Memorandum". If you like Bulldog Drummond and Biggles and the early James Bond, this will be right up your street: http://tinyurl.com/39lpade. Don't be frightened of the TinyURL - the original is just too long for a sig file.
View All Images 