Conservative Liberals For Example

They are all-wise. They are the people. They understand all issues and can deal with them in the most intelligent way.

Right now they have evaluated the current administration and know it is wrong on every issue. And they lead others in protesting against it and them. Especially any change from what the previous administration decreed.

Health care, tax policies, administrative rules, military policies – all of what was passed in the past is better than any change that has been proposed, or might be offered by the opposition. They prefer the past to the present. Much like classic conservatives – only their standard for the past is the last administration and its bureaucrats rather than the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

Both liberals and conservatives agree on the concepts of equality and liberty, only their definitions and points of reference differ. For conservatives equality was judged on the basis of opportunity, while liberals considered equality of results to be the Holy Grail; for conservatives liberty meant being left alone while for liberals liberty requires that the government attend to all your needs so you won't have to worry about them. But both rely on what is past. To that degree the liberals are also conservative.

The liberals often accuse their opponents of error and inconsistency, of bias and class warfare – of defending the rich and scorning the poor. And, in some respects they are right. Liberals, however, are similarly guilty. They are inconsistent when they promote diversity to the point of demanding housing at universities for specific racial groups while applauding interracial marriage which guarantees the mixing of heritages and a form of assimilation. And they don't seem to be concerned that their desire for race-specific college dormitories or other housing is another form of segregation – no matter how righteous they are about it.

Nor do they realize that providing “entitlements” to the poor is a patronizing act. Indeed, liberals scorn the poor as they favor the “middle class.” It's not the “rich,” who, they insist, are benefited by the conservatives, but it is not the poor. Many of the poor recognize the hypocrisy and vote for the conservatives. This is not to suggest that entitlements are unwelcome, but the building of industry and the provision of more jobs would be better for the individuals involved and for our country as well. Some of the liberals would increase the laws that add to entitlements and oppose any change in past offerings. But, after advocating for the past, they would oppose any recollection of those parts of our history that offend them. They favor statutes over statues, as long as those statutes fit their ideology. And as long as it is more fashionable to eliminate uncomfortable history than to explain historical context and present the current point of view for all to consider.

What they propose is to compensate for the prejudices of the past. The way they choose to do it, however, is equally problematic. Subjugation of one race while benefiting another is indefensible. Sadly, there are many, primarily conservatives, who continue to promote the same biases, biases which should never have existed, but they did and should be left in the past.

Unfortunately the compensation that many propose, and many institutions accept, is a tool of the past. It is the award of preference to the descendants of those who suffered discrimination in the past. It is affirmative action most prominently practiced in academia. The obvious problem with this practice is that it is another example of bias – one favoring groups that previously suffered discrimination, but a practice that discriminates against non-members of the preferred group. In this instance they mimic uncomfortable history rather than explain historical context and present the current point of view for all to consider; they imitate past practices rather than living up to the principles they claim to espouse. Moreover, the principle of affirmative action – the display of preference – extends beyond the universities.

Those who subscribe exclusively to their own precepts would countenance complete freedom to say and practice anything that promotes the cause. Some liberals are not merely conservatives, but libertarians – as long as their political theory is advanced. But so are some staunch conservatives. Indeed, some are forceful in promoting new ideas to advance their goals.

Actually there are two types of people, politically speaking. I'm not referring to liberals and conservatives. Together, the good ones – the majority – in both groups, notwithstanding the faults on both sides, make up one of the categories of which I speak. (When I've used the terms up to now I was emphasizing the “outliers” – the squeaky wheels, the vocal leaders of the fringes, and the fringes themselves.) While the majorities may differ in terms of methods and approaches to solving problems, both are concerned about the same problems – the fate of the country, its needy, and the rest of us.

The other group, however, is concerned with the same problems, but not as final goals – only as tools for helping them advance themselves, both politically and economically, and to their dream of gaining power. Thus, for them, the needy and the country are tools, not ends. And another motivating force among them is ideology, which is more important than accomplishment to help the electorate. Its main value is for public relations: to attract the interest of lobbies and the voters.

Most see the value of debate with those having a different viewpoint, of compromise in order to achieve progress toward correction of the issues that separate us. Admittedly they have dissimilar ideas about how that should come about, but they are eager to discuss them. The aim is accomplishment, not obstruction. Not everyone – often no one – is happy with the results, but there are results.

There is value in much of what has already happened, though we may disagree over what should be emphasized, and we are hopeful of what the future holds, recognizing that there will be changes of which we disapprove. There will always be outliers (and all too many outright liars) but they will be far outnumbered by the “inliers” who need to make their voices heard. The silent majority – whether liberal or conservative – are better representatives of public opinion than the grandstanders who promote disunity.

August 23, 2017

Various Revelations

I've mentioned before that I want my essays to stay a year in advance, to outlive me, but that limits me to writing only once a week, and, if I only add to the end, I can't deal with current problems about which I want to comment. I think I've already mentioned the anecdote about the potential columnist who feared that he wouldn't have enough to say in columns twice a week He was asked if there were two thing in the news each week that made him angry. He answered in the affirmative and was told he should write about them.

There are more than two things a week that anger me. So I have more than enough material to increase my output. It's going to wind up at twice or thrice weekly. I've been writing these essays for quite a while, so it's likely that some of them are going to be repetitious, but those are the breaks of the game. Chances are you won't read them all anyway. This one will consist of a few unrelated thoughts that crossed my mind.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Today is the first anniversary of my cancer surgery and, surprise of surprises, I'm still alive and feeling reasonably well. Perhaps I was better in the past, but I'll take what I have, considering what might have been. Chemotherapy and its side effects are annoying but, they go with the territory. I look forward to suffering them for many years to come.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I've said on many occasions that there are too many protests and marches that seem to be going on. Typically they're by liberals who invariably claim that they are working for a peaceable and mannerly society, as well as the promotion of American values which are threatened by everyone but them. For them the way to achieve a peaceable and mannerly society is by demonstrations, protests, and what is more an American value than the squelching of opposition. That's what they do in academia, where they stifle lectures by those with whom they disagree, and create “safe spaces” for those with the “right” views. Have you ever heard of conservatives shouting down a liberal speaker? Or,if they do, coming away from such an act unscathed?

Similarly, most protest marches are carried out by liberals protesting what they view as negative changes in society. And they do so in an angry way rather than by utilizing the civil behavior that they demand of others. The reason for the protest is not important. There seem to be a horde or people who will protest whatever is the cause du jour. As Eric Hoffer said (in The Passionate State of Mind), "In every passionate pursuit, the pursuit counts more than the object pursued."

It's the mob action that counts -- and is far more satisfying and important to the discontented – than whatever they claim to want to protect.

Conservatives are accused of mob mentalities and mob action, but what I see in the papers doesn't seem to bear this out.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I keep hearing on the radio about an assortment of programs that will help get people off drugs. The implication is that the causative medications are those provided by physicians. At the same time more and more states are approving or considering the use of “medical” marijuana. Marijuana has been shown to be an “entry” drug for some addicts. It seems we have mixed views on the value to society of addiction. There are even states that approve “recreational” marijuana. It's very progressive, but it's hard to square such an approach with programs to cure addiction, or the fact that the government has provided funds for that purpose. I've written about drug legalization in the past and, I suppose it's time to do so again. I'll do it! But my essay won't be published until next year..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Radio ads recently have also included endless promises of relief – if I owe ten thousand dollars or more. It may be credit card debt or what is due in taxes. After all, it's what I “deserve.” And, of course, they'll get a cut or some other charge. They don't say it but I suspect they feel that that's what they deserve. There is never any mention that you owe money to the companies because you spent more than you have, putting off the day of reckoning. It's so easy to spend money if all you need is a pieceOver of plastic. Even easier if you use several. But overspending isn't your fault. You deserve to have your debts reduced or canceled.

And your taxes reduced. Even if you haven't been paying; even if you haven't bothered to file returns for many years; you're a good person. It's someone else's fault. You deserve help. And there are firms that offer it. One telephone call and all your problems will be solved. It must be true. They said it and they wouldn't mislead you. You do that well enough without help.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That's all of the unrelated thoughts for now. Maybe I'll do it again. It's easier than learning more about particular issues and formulating longer articles. We'll see.

The Truth About Conservationists

We tend to assume that all conservationists are liberals. In fact, that's the way most of them vote. As a matter of fact, we view some conservationists as radicals; they tie themselves to trees or hammer spikes into their trunks to keep others from harvesting them, or they sabotage fishing vessels to prevent what they fear will be the killing of animal life and the eventual extinction of species. It is, after all, their mission in life to prevent such desecrations from ever occurring. Like the danger to the spotted owl; or the snail darter; or some African jungle species.

It's noble, but it isn't liberal. Their designation designates what they do and what they are: conservationists conserve. They are conservative. In reality, in many ways from a philosophic standpoint they are themselves conservatives. They may not see it that way but their actions belie their self-image.

Let's get down to cases. Whenever a business attempts to advance its program – to make progress – conservationists (and “environmentalists”) are likely to put up roadblocks. These may be in the form of lawsuits or demands for environmental impact statements that will either prevent progress from occurring or delay it for many years. The delay of progress is their most important product. Maintaining that their goal is to prevent greedy businessmen from destroying the environment and eliminating the chance that our descendants have of enjoying the glories of nature that are available to us, they hope to ensure the maintenance of creation (of course they don't call it that) in the form we know it. They want to stop time. And they “Tweet” each other from their “smart” watches about the ways they can do so.

And it doesn't matter how their acts might affect their fellow citizens, who don't always agree with them. If an oil pipeline in Alaska might affect migration patterns of arctic species, that pipeline must be stopped; if nuclear energy has risks, it must be stopped; if a pipeline from Canada will bring more (evil) fossil-based gasoline at a lower cost to Americans, it must be stopped; and, of course, the use of coal must be stopped because it pollutes the environment. Less important considerations are the jobs of those involved in the industries affected, or the cost and limited availability of the alternatives the conservationists would impose or might imagine.

One of the arguments for preventing any species extinction from taking place is that there may be important (if undefined and unimagined) benefits we can derive from those that currently exist. And it's true. But it's also possible that the species that would replace them – and there will be new species that do so – might contain useful substances whose nature and benefits we'll never know because we delayed their development. Those who favor the idea of evolution – and as good liberals most of them do – would stop it where we are now. Had they lived in the Mesozoic Era, the time of the dinosaurs, they would have saved the world and the species then flourishing by stopping things there. But now they eschew fossil fuel – a benefit we can derive from the life that existed back in that era.

They are selective evolutionists. They would preserve all that exists now while preventing any progress. Thus they tend to oppose any genetic modification of the foods we eat even though genetic modification is the way evolution works. When it's done by human design, however, instead of chance, it's unacceptable. (And the same is even more true if someone should suggest that the design is by divine causation.) We're going too fast. Who likes Idaho potatoes or nectarines anyway? Let (random) nature take its course. It's of no consequence that no harmful effects have been found in foods designed by industry. The chances are good that the studies producing those facts have been designed to give results that help the business interests, so they can make more money at our expense. And they'll do so by altering what we have and enjoy right now.

Now, conservationists believe, is better than the future. But does that mean that the past was better than the present? Were we better off before we learned how to use fossil fuel? Were the disabled more able to function in our society before we taught comfort animals to help them? Or are we abusing non-human animal species by enlisting them to aid us? And was agriculture before the development of cross-breeding and hybridization superior to what is available to us now?

Conservation and environmentalism are good things. But those who favor them should understand the full picture of what they are doing and balance it against what they are preventing. And, as scientific conservatives, they should respect the views of other conservatives as well. Progress comes in a host of forms, and many of them are good. But as today's conservationists and environmentalists seem to realize, sometimes we go too fast. There are many who believe the same about societal and political changes during American history.

We call them “conservatives.”

Romeo And Juliet: Democrats

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

The quotation is usually attributed to Winston Churchill, although it's interesting that during his youth he was a conservative and joined the Labor Party later on. He did, however revert to his conservative philosophy after that. And there he remained. Whether or not he originated the idea, however, he expressed the same sentiment on several occasions.

It's not a new idea. Respect for age has long been a component of the philosophy of all peoples. The wise man of every culture is old.ⁱ His wisdom comes from long experience, and is, in large part, based a recognition of reality – the reality he has seen with the passing of the years.

But most people don't start out this way. They are passionate and optimistic. For a brief period there is perennial spring, and young love is all around. The young are always in love, or about to be. “In the spring a young man's fancy ...” Romeo and Juliet were in their teens,ⁱⁱ and they were very much in love.

The passion of the young, however is not only for opposite sex; it also manifests itself in their attachment to particular political ideas and causes. They display great concern for those less fortunate, and they see society as both the cause of that condition and the party responsible for its solution. So it's natural that they consider society responsible for righting the wrongs. But it's an attitude that started long before.

“Daddy. I want that.” “Mommy, I want all my friends at my birthday party.” “At school we're collecting for the hungry. Give me a few dollars to take in.”

Children, who don't understand what they are doing, are eager to have, and to give away, someone else's money.ⁱⁱⁱ And the inclination to do so persists as a habit even as they enter their earning years. When they're young, moreover, they see the good in everyone and view society as responsible for making certain that all those good people are taken care of. Even if the “rich” must do it. The later stories of Robin Hood illustrated this outlook. “Take from the rich and give to the poor.” It's socialism, which is seen by them as the most just form of economy – as long as they're on the receiving end, or at least not asked to pay. It's a continuation of the idea that there is virtue in giving away someone else's possessions.

What also develops during youth is the view that they will live forever and never age. There arises with that view some suspicion of those who are older, and of authority in general. Children are convinced that they know more than their parents, and they distrust those who are in charge.^iv In fact, they are wary of all those who are better off than they, and very openhearted when it comes to the needs and demands of those lower than themselves in society.^v There is no concern over the precise reason for their own position, or that of others: the better off you are, the less worthy. And vice-versa. They are liberal in their view of how the underprivileged^vi should be treated. And they are passionate in their beliefs. They are young^vii and sympathetic.^viii They view those in poverty as the virtuous^ix while those who are not impoverished are responsible for the poverty. They may not know who Winston Churchill was, but they exemplify the characteristics he described.

Conservatives view the world differently – especially their perception of their philosophic opposites. They forget that they were once young. From their perspective, liberals have no concept of reality. In their eagerness to right society's wrongs, the young are impulsive, reckless, and destructive. They give little thought to the likely results of their actions – only to the desired results. The possibility of unintended consequences, they believe, should not prevent action. Planning for the future should not delay acting in the present. And in the end if they work virtuously, good will triumph over evil.

Conservatives believe that the young accept, on faith, the idea that people are good and should be trusted. From their own point of view, however, it would be better not to trust any others and to plan for all possible contingencies. To a degree, they agree with their counterparts in respect to distrusting authority, but their reasoning is different. Liberals are likely to accept as it stands the teaching of Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Thus it is wrong to follow those who are “corrupt” and who are “almost always bad men.” Implicit in that concept is the idea that until they became powerful and great, they were pure and good.

But that is where they part ways with conservatives who consider many people bad – not just those in power. For most of us, though, our sins are practiced on a small scale because that is all that is available to us. When the corrupt become powerful, however, they become a threat to everyone else. A Hitler or a Stalin who is not in power may be malicious, but his influence is limited. It is the individual, not the office, that is the source of evil and corruption. And it is the office that magnifies malevolence.

It's oversimplification of course, but, for the most part, there are good people and there are bad people. And there are the rest of us.^x Unfortunately, those concerned about the plight of the downtrodden will try to aid them irrespective of the consequences, and others will prefer to consider those consequences before trying to help. What is often needed is a sensitivity by both groups to the views of the other. We cannot be blind to the needs of our brothers and sisters, but we cannot ignore the costs of our actions nor their possible results. And we cannot ignore the costs that we are imposing on future generations. They will be called upon to help the poor who exist among them, and may be unable to do so if we impose the cost of helping our needy on our descendents.

The ideas of discussion and compromise are neither original nor new. But we cannot make a headlong attack on the needs of the world's people without first discussing the best way to accomplish our goals without creating more problems than we solve. We cannot consider plans that will enrich the hearts of the planners and the pockets of those who implement the plans more than the intended beneficiaries. However we can't delay acting until we've devised a plan that will deal with all conceivable contigencies. We cannot place ideology above reality. It may be necessary to take some risks, as long as we know what they are.

No matter our age, we have to follow both our hearts and our brains.

Next episode: “The Bible And American Law” – You can't have one without the other.

 

 

 

I        Some of the young are, indeed, smart. They may even be smarter than their seniors as are some scientists, composers, chess players, and mathematicians. But they are rarely as wise.

ii       Using Churchill's criteria, that would make them liberal. In the context of American politics they would have been Democrats if they lived here now. (Of course if they had survived from Shakespeare's time to ours they would be quite old, and probably conservative by this time. At least if they had brains in addition to their hearts.)

iii       It's an inclination that persists during their school years but diminishes, and usually disappears, when they realize that it's their own money; that it causes their taxes to be higher.

iv       A special distrust of government and government officials exists, often with good reason. Surveys tell us that members of Congress, and politicians in general, rank very low among the various groups in our society when it comes to matters of confidence.

v        Ours, or elsewhere in the world.

vi      The word “underprivileged” suggests that they were not born into the wealthy class and that they have no responsibility for their condition. While that is often the case, it is not universal and the choice of that word prejudices the hearer and tells him that those so described have been placed in their unenviable situation by the “privileged” – those who undeservedly oppress the rest of us. Someone who started out underprivileged and, by dint of his own efforts, is now well-off, was good and has become evil.

vii      Not all liberals, of course, are young but, like Peter Pan, they may choose not to grow up. The philosophy may persist in some as a sincere reflection of their belief in equality. For others it may be a characteristic admired by their profession (it's important for one who wants to progress in academia for example to be a member of the right – politically left – clique, just as it is for little girls, though the cliques of little girls may have different criteria for membership, and they may not be as mean) or a self-serving property. Union members will certainly demand higher pay owed to them by the rich, and the poor, whether young or old, are certain that they are owed the support of society as a whole.

viii     In the terminology of coldhearted conservatives they are bleeding heart liberals.

ix       Of course they don't see virtue in poverty.

x        I'll discuss that issue at another time. Stay tuned.

Double-decker Democracy

                                                                              

In the beginning was the soup.ⁱ

There were a few elements and compounds in it, and a lot of gas and lightning outside. And, according to the scientists, it was from this brew that life arose.ⁱⁱ Eventually, though it took a bit of time, there developed both jungle and the animals within it. And survival of the “fittest.” “Kill or be killed.” It was the Law of the Jungle. “Live and let live” and “Turn the other cheek” were not viable alternatives when survival was at stake.

But the beginnings of civilization – of people living together – required a rethinking of the doctrine. “Every man for himself” might have been a necessity when early humans survived as individuals, but it was not suited to group living. So the “Social Contract” was developed. People banded together to form communities to which they surrendered some of their freedom in exchange for the protection that the group offered.ⁱⁱⁱ America's founders went a little beyond that in establishing a government whose primary responsibility was defense, but there were other jobs to be performed in governing and legislating for the newly fashioned nation, so they did so. Followers of Locke, among others, they favored the idea that freedom was a critical goal, one that any rational individual would accept, and that those who did not accept the idea of freedom should be forced to do so – or at least to a limited extent – by accepting the rules of American society.

The belief in “Natural Rights” was a major stumbling block to the acceptance of the Constitution since the Federalists were reluctant to include individual rights in the document, but eventually the original document was approved with the agreement of the Federalists to pass amendments which later became known as the “Bill of Rights.” In effect, the initial Constitution and the Bill of Rights together comprise the document by which our nation was originally defined.

But times have changed. And with them, so has our Constitution. There are new amendments and new laws. Lots of them. And there is “reinterpretation” of the Constitution itself, as well as the subsequent statutes designed to implement it. As for the Bill of Rights, there is freedom of speech and the press, except …; we're free to assemble, when we're not prohibited from doing so. Religious freedom is guaranteed – freedom both of and from religion – but within certain limits; there is protection against self-incrimination unless …; and certainly we have the right to bear arms – sometimes.

There have been numerous other changes in the law and new regulations as well, and many of our citizens believe them to be worthwhile. The conviction is widespread, in the United States and elsewhere, that it is the responsibility of the State to care for its citizens, especially those who cannot, or will not, care for themselves. And the cost of such care must be borne by those who can afford it. Some consider this to be socialism, others the granting of simple Natural Rights, including, the right to food, housing, health care, and the like. It's hard to dispute the wish to help those in need.

But not everyone believes that the provision of that help should be mandated by government at the expense of all. Perhaps the idea of Natural Rights is understood differently in the various cultures around the world. There is certainly disagreement in different nations about what a government must provide for its citizens and what it can demand of them. A quick reading of the newspaper^iv will illustrate this situation. Not only do we disagree on what these rights are, but we have different understandings about their origin. Are they man-made or are they divine? Have we the right not to have the definitions of others imposed on us? Or have we the obligation to force people to be free and equal?^v

It's the age-old disagreement between conservatives and liberals. Among liberals the concept of equality is paramount. The focus begins with Hobbes's laws of nature,^vi the fifth of which reads:

The fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, froward, intractable.

But they see every man's obligation as far greater. Not only should he “strive to accommodate himself to the rest,” but he should make sure that society provides equally for everyone. Being “sociable” may not be possible without the use of taxes. Hence it is perfectly permissible to mandate charity.

Conservatives, especially libertarians, reject what they regard as a “nanny state.” They seek a situation in which, beyond their own safety, there are few controls on what they do.

Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right "to be let alone."^vii

Warren and Brandeis were referring to privacy when they wrote this,^viii and it was a liberal concept, however conservatives would now apply it to all aspects of life. The uninterpreted Constitution is, for them, an estimable structure for society. The two philosophies are so different that accommodation between them is difficult to imagine. And compromise doesn't seem likely.

But there is a solution. It's a little radical, however it should not be dismissed out of hand. It would require the “reformatting” of our democracy into two parts – the first one that views the care of the needy as mandatory, and the second that wants “to be let alone.” Land would be distributed roughly in proportion to the number of those opting for each system with freedom of individuals to move from one to the other at any time, though land redistribution (according to population changes) would occur at fixed times.

Those in the first group – the one that viewed care of the needy as mandatory – would probably consist of those receiving aid from the state, as well as those who considered it their duty to provide such aid. There would eventually be an equalization of all resources so that everyone had a “fair share.”^ix People would, of course, be free to give more to the needy, but there would be certain minimums. There would be no exceptions from the mandates, including members of the government. Education would also be mandatory, but would be provided by the government, which would set the curriculum for it.

In the second group would be all those who want “to be let alone.” While they would be free to give charity, they would not be taxed to do so. Indeed, apart from what is in the Constitution/Bill of Rights, there would be no taxation. Thus, security would be provided by the State. Other services, however, would be provided on a “fee for service” basis. If you wanted your toilets connected to the sewer lines or your garbage collected, there would be a fee. And if you wanted water or other utilities you would pay for them. Schooling would not be free, and it would probably be expensive, but if you had no children you would have no bill.

Clearly there are some details that need to be worked out, but the choice of political philosophy is tempting. After all, choice is what America is all about. And the choice of where to live would give people a chance to “vote with their feet.” Chacun à son goût.^x

'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where you ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,

'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.^xi

Next episode:  "Fats, Fads, And Futility" -- All I know is what I read in the newspaper.

i     In France it was the potage.

ii    There are those, especially fundamentalists, who think that the scientists, themselves, were drinking a little too much brew when they came up with this explanation.

iii    It was a little like a union. Now we pay our union dues in exchange for the organization's clout. The original ideas were developed by, among others, Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, but existed long before.

iv    Or some other medium. Nowadays everything can be found on some hand-held electronic device.

v     Whatever that means. It most likely refers to political rights, but even these vary from country to country.

vi    In Leviathan. 1651. Hobbes writes of the need for defense but goes well beyond that.

vii    Thomas Cooley. A Treatise on the Law of Torts, 1880.

viii   “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, December 15, 1890.

ix    Whether the poor all over the world would be entitled to move to this Utopia is uncertain, but the ideals it embodies suggest that they would.

x     To each his own soup.

xi    Shaker hymn.