THE POLITICAL PRIESTHOOD AND THE CUTTING EDGE

News this morning of my favorite Episcopal Seminarian, the soon to be reverend McGreevey. It seems that he has given up worldly gain in pursuit of his religious mission. The soon to be former Mrs. McGreevey doesn't see why she can't get alimony commensurate with the lifestyle she came to expect as first lady of New Jersey. So the pious lad now must account for all the money he doesn't now make on account of turning down job offers. McGreevey does pay child support out of his 100k+ pension, or rather, the taxpayers of New Jersey are paying. Of course they are paying my pension as well. Having risked my life for mine, I take a dim view of the lavish amount this Tartuffe is getting. The press reports that resignation was the price Jimmy paid to avoid an Federal indictment for corruption. His sexual peccadilloes were not the apex of his disgrace, just the most amusing aspect. I took early retirement to get out of the swamp that is New Jersey Politics and Government. So I really can't complain. You can always make money but you can't make time. And it's nice to know that there is always one place open to political failure of any and all stripes, the Episcopal Priesthood.

In other news, Sir Igor Judge, the President of the High Court Queens Bench Division (Britain), announced that henceforth "most severe" sentences will be meted out to Britons found in possession of pocket knives. He explained his reasoning thus:

Carrying a knife or other offensive weapon without reasonable excuse is a crime which is being committed far too often by far too many people. Every weapon carried about the street, even if concealed from sight, even if not likely to be used or intended to be used, represents a threat to public safety and public order. That is because, even if carried only for bravado or carried for some misguided sense that it would be used in possible self-defense, it takes only a moment of irritation, drunkenness, anger, perceived insult, or something utterly trivial like a "look," for the weapon to be produced."

I have never seen such a perfect statement of the guiding philosophy of the liberal welfare state. We citizens, or subjects, are emotional children who have no right of self-defense. We must not be allowed to possess sharp objects lest we hurt ourselves or others. The epidemic of knifings that Judge Judge is trying to stop is just a symptom of an out of control criminal underclass composed largely but not exclusively of minority youth. That is just, like here. The belief that every British subject must give up every right being abused by drug addicted cretins, is exactly the same as saying that they have no unalienable rights at all.

When I was a school boy forced to go to public school with similar cretins, I learned that to go to school without a knife was to forfeit my lunch money, as the police had much better things to do than settle schoolboy tussles on the streets. So my method for dealing with muggers was to make it plain that I was prepared to inflict serious bodily harm or death on them if they pressed an assault. It worked like a charm.

Banning knives is in any case a very problematic issue. Many people actually do need blades of one sort or another on the job. While in law enforcement I knew that halfway house inmates were strictly prohibited from carrying any sort of knife. But many of them worked in warehouses, in which box cutters were mandatory equipment. I never took action in such cases. Especially when everyone on the street was better armed than they.