Egalitarian, Totalitarian, Socratic?
The flurry of talk prompted by my entry into the discussion of race, etc. has confirmed the wisdom of my reticence in the first place. The fact that I jumped in anyway is likely good cause to dismiss my claims to prudence and wisdom below, but those chips will fall where they may.
I am trying to decide whether it is worthwhile to post a longer defense of my arguments and some answers to critics, but in the mean time, there is one interesting dynamic that ought to be pointed out. Much of the knee-jerk reaction to my “noble fiction” argument, from bloggers and commenters both, has been to assume that I must be in the grips of egalitarian ideology and politically correct dogma. Nothing could be further from the truth, as anyone familiar with my past writing can attest.
In fact, Paul Gottfried was closer to the truth when he accused me, early on, of totalitarianism (a charge I likewise deny). Those who charge me with egalitarianism just aren’t paying close attention to my actual argument, which is staunchly elitist and assumes—without needing to shout about it—that all men are not equally adept at ruling. I have argued, in essence, that what is needed is an honest conversation driven by a humble elite who understand civilization, society, mores, and the human heart. This honesty includes acknowledging the noble fictions where necessary. The necessary noble fiction is always a balancing act, a resolution of social tension through the moral character and spiritual strength of a ruling elite capable of bearing that tension without breaking.
My respondents who claim that I am trying to “censor” science are ignorant to my argument and in fact are the ones in the grips of a latent egalitarianism which says that all men are equally entitled to all knowledge in the marketplace of ideas.
My point about the ghetto and minority crime, etc., is that of course it’s bad--just like any of the many current and past examples of societies composed of incestuous and violent little tribes. My ancestors came from Scottish clans up to the 18thC who were into extreme violence, grudge killings, incest, rape and probably worse things. In Appalachia, one can find that ethos still. Any functioning good and noble elite will always have to “look down” on people in this category as an underclass that is not fully “equal”—but this presents obvious problems and tensions of its own which can be negotiated by official moralities which create healthy motivations and don’t poison human relationships. That is what being a ruling elite is all about, and that is what I see painfully lacking from those who pretend to that role here in this discussion.
In the context of a ruling elite which has lost its spiritual substance and has believed the fiction or ceased to believe that it functions as a social tension reliever, failure is achieved by abdication and a loss of nerve. These days egalitarianism also goes along with not just the denial of difference but a hatred of such concepts as “norms,” “standards,” and “ruling class,” most of all by members of the ruling classes.
The following from Voegelin’s commentary on The Republic is very relevant:
Cephalus represents the ‘older generation’ in a time of crisis, the men who still impress by their character and conduct that has been formed in a better age. The force of tradition and habit keeps them on the narrow path, but they are not righteous by ‘love of wisdom,’ and in a crisis they have nothing to offer to the younger generation which is already exposed to more corruptive influences. The venerable elder who arouses our sympathy will not lose it on closer inspection, but the sympathy will be tempered by a touch of condescension, if not contempt, for his weakness. For the men of his type are the cause of the sudden vacuum that appears in a critical period with the break of generations. All of a sudden it appears that the older generation has neglected to build the substance of order in the younger men, and an amiable lukewarmness and confusion shifts within a few years into the horrors of social catastrophe. In the next generation, with Polemarchus, the understanding of justice is already reduced to a businessman’s honesty. And it comes almost as a relief when in the sophist Thrasymachus there appears a real man who pleads the cause of injustice with luciferic passion. He at least is articulate, he argues and one can argue with him, and Socrates can come to grips with a problem that remains evasive when represented by a respectability and venerable tradition without substance.
So I am caught between two generations, the elder egalitarians on the one hand and the sophist Roaches who plead the cause of injustice with luciferic passion on the other. But I give Roach the same credit Voegelin gives Thrasymachus—at least one can argue with him in hopes of clarifying and coming to grips with a very evasive problem.
Comments
I feel like I’m back at Chicago, listening to the neoconservatives praise equality and condemn the Bell Curve because it might demoralize the lower classes. I’ll just repeat my questions and points from before, Caleb, which you have yet to answer. I believe you are not familiar enough with the literature to make the sharp IQ/Moral distinction you make, because moral behavior depends in part upon habits and perceptions, which are indeed filtered by and predicted by IQ in individuals(and thus trends vary by race just as IQ varies by race).
Caleb, have you read the Bell Curve? Are you at all familiar with the literature? We’re not talking about who can finish a Sudoku puzzle here.
IQ predicts things like crime rates, illegitimacy, on the job accidents, wages, school success, child abuse, etc. If it weren’t illegal, insurance companies would use IQ and race (and not the proxy “zip code") to use this information to predict risk even more precisely.
It’s true, it’s not a one-for-one prediction, just as not all 18 year olds drive like crap. Most of the important truths about human nature are statistical and probabilistic in nature. IQ is relevant, and it shouldn’t be ignored when we live in a world where risk must be measured and probabilities must be dealt with. We live in a self-governing state where errors flowing from Boasian egalitarian myths are very tangible, e.g., No Child Left Behind.
We don’t need to use racial heuristics when we have good IQ data, in situations like hiring, school admissions, etc. Color awareness is unnecessary when we have superior and individualized data.
But cops and law enforcement and girls walking alone in parking garages must use these data about trends and probabilities based on what we can perceive about strangers. (SAT scores and 1040 forms are not stamped on most peoples’ foreheads.) In policy these groups trends matter too. There is a world of difference if OJ Simpson is found guilty and if Robert Blake is. And the difference is the dominant attitude, culture, and average IQ of the group concerned. Of course, it’s not determined for individuals; but deciding to deploy police or avoid living (or even passing through) a particular neighborhood is a judgment made on group averages not individual cases. This is all a bad thing or something we should lie about, I suppose.
We should not forget, in looking at this complex world of ours, that some blacks acted heroically in the LA Riots, including the handful of homeowners that went to save truck-driver Reginald Denning. But a very high proportion (even then it seemed less than a majority) acted like the famous “motorist” Rodney King himself: violently and criminally. When you’re dealing with crime there’s a world of difference of a population with 5% versus 35% criminals.
Your moralizing, Caleb, won’t hide the facts. Because these facts and tendencies are known from everyday life. They are merely confirmed by statistics and academic study. I find it stunning, though, that a so-called conservative would call my arguments sophistry when I began my earlier post by noting the facts about intellectual difference should be mollified by Christianity and compel us to be charitable.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Roach: “I feel like I’m back at Chicago, listening to the neoconservatives praise equality and condemn the Bell Curve because it might demoralize the lower classes.”
This raises the uncomfortable truth that society is better off with a neocon elite than
with dangerous fools like Roach at the helm who do not understand how power and order
work.
I’m sure this is as close to heresy as I can get here at Taki, and I say it as someone
with a firmly established record as an anti-war, Old Republic loving, Ron Paul voting,
“Ain’t my America,” Jeffersonian, anti-Federalist, agrarian, localist, decentralizing,
prairie populist, anti-mobility, anti-liberal, free loving communitarian---but it needs
to be said.
Until the paleos understand this, their clan will forever remain a squawking sideshow.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It looks like Mr. Roach is back pedelling.
Reiterating an important point and one
which both Justin and Caleb were pointing out
Murray himself states:
“The differences I discuss involve means and distributions. In all cases, the variation within groups is greater than the variation between groups. On psychological and cognitive dimensions, some members of both sexes and all races fall everywhere along the range.”
No one is arguing that IQ varies and can be predictors of behavior.
Thw argument is there is little to no correlation to race and IQ
except working backwards from statistics on crime.
The fact that most “white collar crime” is committed by whites doesn’t make
ant connection to race, crime and IQ.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Roach says:
“Most of the important truths about human nature are statistical
and probabilistic in nature.”
Important truths? So are we to assume that because the pornography
industry is run predominantely by Jews that there must be an
underlying genetic disposition to “deviant behavior”?
The truth that white color crimninals are predominately
white doesn’t mean that higher IQ whites are genetically
disposed to crime.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
My apologies for all the typos. I’ll make
sure and proofread from now on.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Caleb,
I’m basically right there with you on the whole “skeptical of democracy” thing, and I agree that we should work to develop a wise and responsible elite. My point has always been, is “egalitarianism” a good noble lie? Using your own criteria, has this philosophy actually inspired a social order worthy of conservation?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Richard, that is a very good and pertinent question. I would say that, yes,
broadly construed, “egalitarianism” has historically been a healthy noble fiction.
Though I would give it a different name, something along the lines of the official
bootstrap moralism of the American founding--call it bootstrapism--which in
conjunction with traditional structures and mores (which carried with them embedded
generational memory, virtue, order, care, and skill) created a largely free republic
of “equal” men and harnessed the vitality of males in service to the life of the
spirit and to women and children (which are at the heart of any successful
civilization).
This fiction is erroding badly due to a corrupt and foolish elite squandering this
capital in the stew of intesifying pluralism, resource scarcity, and generalized sins
of the fathers being visited on the children to the tenth generation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What nonsense. Toiling away from sun up to sunset six days a week at minimum and most often in someone else’s mine or plantation or factory was hardly a “life of the spirit” nor was it an egalitarian fiction that anyone believed in.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Stegall: “I would say that, yes, broadly construed, “egalitarianism” has historically been a healthy noble fiction.”
This sentiment runs contrary to much Rightist thought of the past 200 years. In fact, it is quite close to the Straussian position. And the fact that you want to silence those who question this (left-wing) myth is discomforting to say the least.
Institutions and nations have always had elites who censored and always will. The question is which elites and what are they censoring. The elites today, products of the 1960s Left (and their neoconservative brethren), wish to silence voices that deviate from the norms of political correctness (e.g. those who question the false religion of egalitarianism). In essence, you say, conform to the neoconservative position (worship at the shrine of egalitarianism), or remain a paleoconservative “squawking sideshow.”
Isn’t this a bit of sophistry in itself?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Prior to the 20th century, the West go along just fine without the need to foster the “noble lie” of egalitarianism. In fact, any traditionalist would say it got along much better than it is today. History does not bear out this idea that unless elites promulgate a myth of egalitarianism society will crumble. In fact, as Russell Kirk pointed out Roots of American Order, the belief in egalitarianism has done more harm than good. The fact that this myth today is so widely peddled is a symptom, if not a partial cause, of our decline.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“My ancestors came from Scottish clans up to the 18thC who were into extreme violence, grudge killings, incest, rape and probably worse things. In Appalachia, one can find that ethos still. “
I’m curious as to what your definition of incest might be. Would, say, 3rd cousins be incestuous?
There’s an intriguing Ludovici article related to this: Eugenics and consanguineous marriages:
Ludovici writes: “As a formula for the respective effects of inbreeding and out- or cross-breeding, I suggest the following:
Inbreeding canalizes and isolates health and desirable qualities, just as it canalizes and isolates ill-health and undesirable qualities. Cross-breeding conceals and spreads ill-health and undesirable qualities, and thus contaminates desirable stocks. But it also tends to improve poor or degenerate stocks at the expense of sound stock.
The chief effects of miscegenation on the constitution are: firstly, degeneracy, by the reversion that is induced; secondly, dysfunction and disease owing to the production of individuals whose bodies are discordant jumbles of parts from various unlike stocks; and thirdly, increasing morbidity, owing to the fact that there is no canalization of disease, none of health, and deleterious hereditary factors are spread even among sound stocks.”
Also see: Couples Who Are Third or Fourth Cousins Have More Kids, Grandkids Than Other Couples.
---
I suspect this attack on “incest” is just a way to encourage the Appalachians you mention to mix with outsiders, thus destroying the Appalachian ethnic group.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“I would say that, yes,
broadly construed, “has historically been a healthy noble fiction. Though I would give it a different name, something along the lines of the official bootstrap moralism of the American founding--call it bootstrapism”
Egalitarianism = bootstrapism…
the latter is a very tortured neologism...and has nothing to do egalitarianism, which is a pernicious lie...no amount of rationalization will change this reality. This culture seems to be addicted to lying...enough with the happy talk…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Perhaps we could agree that egalitarianism is a “noble fiction” as long as
it is understood that nobody entering a serious discussion believes it to be
objectively true. It is just one of those things that you periodically nod toward
in order not to be thought offensive and then go on with your argument as though it
has nothing to do with serious thought, as indeed it does not.
There are simply some accommodations that you must make in order to live in the
environment that we do.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ah, I meant attacks on incest by the mass media and such, not by this author. The comments here seemed to echo the negative stereotype that’s been created regarding hill billys and such.
And, obviously I’m opposed to true incest, but I’m not opposed to preserving an ethnic group.
Anyway, I’ll comment on the main issue shortly, but I thought this issue of incest could be interesting as well.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The Jewish community says there are 15 steps from truth to beauty, so not everything true is beautiful. E.g. I do have to go to the restroom occasionally.
But lies can never be noble.
And there is a very significant difference between an ignoble truth and an allegedly noble lie.
As Jesus put it “Your father is the devil who was a liar and murderer from the beginning”. Or as in the film Excalibur, Merlin puts it “Truth is the most important virtue of a Knight; When you lie, you murder some part of the world”. Or Pontius Pilate “What is truth?” just before ordering the crucifixion.
Is the assassination of abortionists or the bombing of their clinics a noble or ignoble act?
“They are just removing tissue blobs” is another “noble lie”.
Fr.Vincent Macelli wrote in “the roots of violence” that it would happen because of the rejection of the truth.
Calling lies noble means you will eventually murder. Not unlike Hitler, Stalin, Mao, who all had their noblesse oblige killing fields, or any of our country’s leaders on either side. And murder, not just kill. For the lie conceals but does not eliminate the intent and the hatred.
But even funnier is to ask for a “humble elite”. Ron Paul is the most humble politician I can think of, and one of the smartest (and I can number a few others who have both virtues in their circle).
The “Humble Elite” will tell you point blank they don’t know how to run the economy, or your life, or much else, but at best can make an attempt to restore the government to the role of referee and defender of borders, but probably won’t get that completely right.
How many times and in how many ways does Lord Acton’s “Power Corrupts” need to be repeated for people to listen? How many demonstrations? We can argue about Darwin and Global Warming, but Lord Acton’s rule is as demonstrable as Newton’s laws of motion.
Yet here is a truth, and a noble one, and everyone shuts their eyes and covers their ears and shouts “lalala” so they won’t hear it. Then they seek another liar, another elite that says they have a better answer. They want power that doesn’t corrupt but always does good. Only God can do this. It is not something fallen man is capable of.
If there is no power - no coercion - then the truth - ignoble or not - should not be a threat. Nature or God might force me to face and accept the truth. No man has that authority, or is corrupt to the extent that he exercises it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It’s just not true that American or Western society depends on a (false) notion that all men, or all groups of men, are of equal potential ability. This is a very modern idea, and it owes more to Marx than to Locke. American society *does* depend on an idea that you can achieve in proportion to your effort, but that remains true even accepting that our inherent abilities are unequal.
That’s why you’re wrong.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Chris Roach wrote
“IQ predicts things like crime rates, illegitimacy, on the job accidents, wages, school success, child abuse, etc....
So what then would you have society do with this IQ information that would somehow eliminate those things that you mentioned above that would not constitute some sort of liberal totalitarian program?
Would you sterilize lower IQ people? Prevent lower IQ people from working dangerous jobs? Do you somehow imagine individuals with above average IQ will be suddenly inclined to take up the slack in the work force working high steel, commercial fishing, clearing trees, etc.?
Would you group individuals in schools based on their IQ rather than give everyone a fair chance to succeed? Would you take the children from low IQ individuals so the state or higher IQ individuals could raise them?
My point is exactly what is the benefit other than that insurance companies should be allowed to use this information if they wish?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
M. Nucci:
“So what then would you have society do with this IQ information… ...Prevent lower IQ people from working dangerous jobs?”
Of course, we already do this. The US armed forces’ AFQT test is an IQ test, which is used to deny admission to the military to almost everyone with an IQ below 90, on the reasonable grounds that they’d be a danger to themselves and others. Likewise the medical profession, among others, has extensive systems for weeding out low IQ applicants.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Tests are used for entry to many jobs but they are not called IQ tests and the person is not denied the job based on their IQ but their on their inabillity to score a number on a standardized test. I have no problem with specific tests being used in this manner. In the cases you mentioned there is no need for IQ data because there is a test that is given at the point of entry to the specific job. Considering that the military do have in effect an IQ test it is amazing then the number of soldiers killed by their above average IQ comrades. Our wiping out of 50 Canadians in Afghanistan comes to mind as do the numerous friendly fire deaths not to mention the crashing of multiple helicopters in the middle east.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There have been a half a million or more troops who have passed through Iraq and Afghanistan. A few dozen friendly fire deaths, particularly from an airplane flying at 300 miles per hour, is not exactly excessive. You have no reference point to make this judgment.
I think intelligent, white collar people literally have almost no idea what life is like for people with 70-90 IQs.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think I understand where Caleb is coming from, but I think he is badly misguided. In a paleo, natural order and I would argue Christian society, I think it would be rude and tacky to discuss openly the lack of equality. You certainly wouldn’t lord it over people or use it in a way that is condescending. This is inviting social discord. Much like inequality of wealth and the inequality of the accident of birth. (For example, the less than equal but fortunate child of privilege.) Didn’t “well bred” “old money” used to make a conscious effort to not be too overt with their displays of wealth?
Interactions with people on a one to one basis should generally be carried out as if among equals. And conversely, with the respect that comes from the understanding that people are not equals with regards to this earthly realm. (Read George Washington’s Rules of Civil Behavior and see how often he speaks of how one should act in the presence of one’s “better,” and this was not just formalized hierarchies such as in the military.)
What we could decry as conservatives is the breakdown of civility. As civility waned, the children of privilege cast aside the wisdom and restraint of their parents and bought thousand dollar outfits and drove Porsches. So as civility has waned, some conservatives have taken to gloating about the IQ issue in an almost “Ha Ha. We’re smarter than you type of way.” This is unhealthy and tacky.
But the problem is that the current “noble lie” of equality is not meant to stabilize and conserve. Far from it. It is meant precisely to destabilize and transform. To scrap unegalitarian institutions and societies in favor of a new egalitarian order. (For example, the egalitarianism behind the push for gay marriage is meant to destroy an institution, not preserve it or perfect it.) That this is true is almost undeniable. There is no conservative conspiracy behind the current reign of silence. It is entirely in the service of left-wing revolution. That is why some of us conservatives are so bothered by any hint of conservative support of political correctness. It is sleeping with the enemy.
I think there has been an over-reaction and over-compensation among some conservatives along the lines of wearing their politically correct opinions on their sleeves. This can at times be grating, and it is likely unhelpful. I hope this is what Caleb is objecting to. I have probably been guilty of this myself at times since I am so anti-PC, but I have tried to avoid the whole IQ thing and just decry PC attitudes, especially ones that border on delusional. (Race does not exist.)
So the correct formulation, IMO, is more that inequality is a generally accepted but unspoken (not suppressed) truth instead of equality being a noble lie. Is this more what you are perhaps getting at Caleb?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Oops…
“I think there has been an over-reaction and over-compensation among some conservatives along the lines of wearing their politically correct opinions on their sleeves.”
Should be “their politically incorrect”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Red, I can pretty much sign on to everything you are saying (except for the part
about me being misguided of course).
If anyone cares to read this entire exchange (many commentors appear to have actually
read virtually none of it) they will see that I have been a harshly critical of 20thC
notions of egalitarianism (and, I might add, substantively critical as opposed to the
fear mongering over the word itself which has mostly occured in the comboxes).
So I appreciate Red adding his common sense take.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Caleb Stegall,
Thrasymachus was wrong due to his lack of virtue, not his honesty.
Usually only Straussians argue his fault was honesty.
---
It can be acceptable for a leader to produce white lies, including about his personal beliefs of race, in order to win an election or otherwise gain popularity, but it is not acceptable to lie about larger issues, e.g. religion or a bedrock principle. And lying is meant to serve one’s people’s best interests - not one’s own selfish interests…
As Mr. Roach points out, race is a truth that does serve a positive goal. Perhaps you too have different objectives?
---
You attack and criticise your own people and a core segment of old stock America - that is real America.
I wonder who you think is superior to them: cosmopolitans and new immigrants living in New York and San Francisco?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The most interesting discussion might be raised on inbreeding, which is an issue I suspect most writers wish not to discuss out of a desire to protect their reputations.
Inbreeding is wrong due to social problems it creates and due to the creation of separate clans within a population.
It is not wrong due to any genetic problems, and as Ludovici pointed out it can actually produce genetic strength.
---
Ludovici’s arguments are in favor of smaller, more separate communities and nations - a less global order of proud, distinct nations.
===
I’m not vying for popularity, so I always try to be honest.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
That is to say: one can balance the social issues with the genetic issues and come to a conclusion that kin may marry and that marrying within one’s ethnic group is best, but inbreeding leads to social problems and is thus wrong.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Not exactly. He was wrong because he put honesty in the service of his lack of
virtue which made him a monstrous liar. The honest liars are always the most
monstrous.
Believe me, I am fiercely committed to the “old stock” and the old republic. They (we)
desperately need to recover our freedom and self-reliance which has been stolen
away. This is one of the reasons it is so important to preserve the myth/ethos of what
I called bootstrapism (a terrible neologism, as someone points out above).
Or do you not think the old stock is ruined just as, if not more, effectively by entitlement/determinism
as it is by illegal immigration?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m not so interested in freedom except where it serves the old stock really.
I don’t think that the founders fully believed in bootstrapism - it was meant more as a myth against elites and aristocracies. It was not then fully viewed as meaning racial egalitarianism.
Jefferson Davis, I’m a Southerner, certainly didn’t believe in bootstrapism. The Southern secession’s very foundation is largely on white supremacism and defense of slavery, though I happen to disregard this part of my heritage as a bad tradition.
“Or do you not think the old stock is ruined just as, if not more, effectively by entitlement/determinism
as it is by illegal immigration?”
I think the old stock gains a sense of identity when IQ is used to argue the existence of race against those who wish for a global new world order. It is a small step from American humanism and global humanism, and many Obamaniacs have taken that step. If American nationality is to survive, it must regain an identity.
And currently whites are in a more powerful position than are other minorities, especially relative to how things will be in 20-40 years.
If whites act now and push for entitlements, then they can retain more now than they will if they wait 20-40 years, when they may well be run out of the country they founded.
Determinism builds good class relations. Those who lack the ability to become lawyers should not waste expenses on law school, nor should they be resentful against those who become lawyers.
The reason many become lawyers is they are gifted. The reason many others do not is they are not gifted.
Desire and monetary means certainly play a role as well, to be sure, and being more capable than another does not make one absolutely superior.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Paleos have been lulled by the libertarian muse.
Government entitlements aren’t ideal, but culture matters and there is the Tragedy of the Commons.
If whites begin competing along side minorities for the same government handouts, a white identity will emerge.
And if whites do not partake in the Entitlement game, they will continue to be losers in it due to the Tragedy of the Commons.
It is liberal for us to sit back and argue that none should eat from the trough while all others eat from it. Liberalism is suicide - our wealth and rights are being eaten away.
If old stock America is to survive, and by extension anything “American”, then it must start fighting back. It must assert itself as a distinct nation that will not be consumed by alien nations.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“I don’t think that the founders fully believed in bootstrapism - it was meant more as a myth against elites and aristocracies.”
I though that’s what I said.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There’s a difference between equality within a race and equality of races though.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“My ancestors came from Scottish clans up to the 18thC who were into
extreme violence, grudge killings, incest, rape and probably worse
things. In Appalachia, one can find that ethos still.”
Whew, what a relief.
I just got back from an extended Memorial Day weekend in eastern Kentucky
and I didn’t get mugged, murdered, or sodomized.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.