 |
What They've Thought
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
What They Thought January 16, 2005 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
|||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins Quite often, I tend to write from a strictly American perspective. I have discovered that many people have a problem with that. When I get finished discussing the perceptions of other nations, I’ll discuss that. First I’ll discuss Mid-East perceptions and some of the reasons for them. At the end of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire—which was the last of the great Islamic empires—collapsed. The Ottoman Empire was actually greater than the Roman Empire was in its glory days. The Mid-East was in shambles and the area was then ruled by various corrupt regimes, having been laid to waste by Europe as they had pushed back against the Caliphate. That sets the stage nicely for modern times. But before I fully engage in recent history, I’d like to add that Islam was at war with the world within a few years of Mohammad’s death. They had completely laid waste to large areas of India and executed anyone who didn’t agree with them. They carted off treasures and plundered temples using the materials for their own temples. For those of you now leaning forward and thinking I’m getting ready to let the Islamists have both barrels…Nope, not today. Just about every religion has gone through that phase at least once. Islam is just in one of those difficult phases right now, or at least some of its followers are. Now for the current times: Many of us in the United States look at what Clinton did in Kosovo and think, “Hey, we were helping out the Moslems then instead of the Christians.” The Moslems see it completely different, though. In their minds, we didn’t do a thing to help until Milosovic had wiped them out. So in their minds what we did was a token and fraudulent effort. When we left Somalia, we left in defeat and they became convinced that we could easily be beaten. Al Qaeda was there at the time, and Atta was the one who designed the attack on our Black Hawk which was the subject of the film Black Hawk Down. In their mind, we lost Desert Storm and Saddam won because we didn’t go all of the way to Baghdad. Never mind the fact that our stated goal was never to take Baghdad, but to push Saddam out of Kuwait which we accomplished! These are but a few of the views that they hold dear in that region. Now for Al Qaeda: Their goal in their attack on the United States was to deliver a crippling blow to prove that we can be beaten. When they hit the Pentagon, they hit the part of the structure that had already been upgraded for just this type of an attack. The flight that was supposed to hit the capital was rerouted into the ground by the terrorists because the passengers were taking the plane back. They did manage to hit our financial nerve center, but that healed pretty quickly anyway. Al Qaeda was formed in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. Carter’s friend Brezinski saw an opportunity to get even with the Russians and to bog them down in a quagmire. That was where the mujahadeen came from. After Russia left Afghanistan, we abandoned them completely; when many of them tried to go back to their countries, they weren’t welcome because they were some dangerous people and they had some serious attitudes. All of them were ripe with hatred towards America, Russia and their own regimes. The goal of Al Qaeda was found in a nice little letter found in a cave in Afghanistan. They had hoped to prove their abilities, and they also said that liberals rule the United States. I suspect they really meant reactionary wussies. I say that because of what they said they expected out of us. They expected us to lash out at the Mid-East in general. Then they would have a common enemy providing the uniting force they needed to pull the region together under a new Caliphate. That is the exact opposite of what we have done. We took down the Taliban and then we took down the Al Qaeda trainer Saddam Hussein. They didn’t get what they expected. Their dreams of a new Caliphate aren’t going too well. Because of the wrong lesson they learned from Somalia, we have no choice but to stay the course. That is but one of the lessons we are helping them unlearn. The other one is that Saddam won the first Gulf War. It is obvious that someone is helping them create a quagmire for us in the region. Remember Russia? One might wonder why they would decide to do something like this at this juncture. Don’t forget that Kosovo was a Russian ally and Clinton attacked them. They now view us as out of control because of that. China is an interesting one, too. Remember their Embassy being bombed during the war in Kosovo? That didn’t help matters one bit. The people in both countries were at odds with their governments, and after Kosovo aligned with them out of fear. China has always been a strange country, though. They are either weak and getting stomped by someone, or strong and doing the stomping. These are some of the enemy’s perceptions. I hope you enjoy them. For some reason, as I said earlier, many people have a problem with my writing from a strictly American perspective. Maybe the reason I tend to favor my country is because I love it, right or wrong. I still think we have the best thing going. Do those who have a problem with my view bother me one bit? In a pig's eye! R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||||||||
As tragedy strikes the west coast of the United States with devastating mudslides and flooding, we watch in terror as lives are destroyed, neighborhoods are buried and towns are covered in water. The state of California is already stretched to the maximum in its budget, and now millions of dollars are needed to rebuild once again the areas of destruction. The rest of the United States is strapped as they work to pay their monthly bills, donate to their local charities, and write out large donations to help the relief efforts in southeast Asia. So what can we do? Who will help? I must ask where the outpouring of help from the world is. I was wondering: When will the UN and others begin to help with our relief efforts? Aren’t the European countries sending monies and forming relief squadrons to help the victims suffering with their losses out west? Of course, I am being facetious. Why? Because I’ve had enough of our way of living consistently being bashed. It almost seems at any given time when tragedy strikes America, that there are certain people who find great pleasure in our pain. I can understand those who live in oppressed countries and do not understand our freedoms being skeptical as they glance at us. I cannot understand, though, the indoctrination by those in power teaching their masses to hate what they do not understand, and I really haven’t any tolerance for those who reside in our country and enjoy our country’s system of living and who yet seemingly find delight in our suffering when things go awry. Those who benefit from America and her political/economic system but who constantly blast our unique way of running a country need to get a grip. There is a deep, deep anti-American sentiment worldwide, and those who align themselves with these leftists even reside here in America. Just listen to those who walk along the same red line as a Michael Moore, Kofi Anan, Ted Kennedy, and Howard Dean! The hatred for our way of life is completely irrational. You cannot possibly make any sense out of the thinking process of those who indulge in the belief systems of secularists and the far leftists. Why would anyone want to continue to move further to the left and have a European socialist system of government? The Europeans don’t even like their own political structure; it’s far too expensive and restrictive. Balance was imprinted into the American design. Come on board! Realign your thinking, and enjoy the balance that comes with a democracy in a Republic. When have those who’ve hated us over the years ever stepped up and befriended the United States in any of our times of need? Whether we’ve needed help with war efforts, political persuasions, or economic dilemmas, hasn’t there usually been some noose tied around our necks? "We'll help you, if you give us so much money." Ever wonder how large the checks of help us in our tragedies have been? How many zeros have been placed behind that first number and how often has the demand of "forgive all our debts and we’ll help you" happened? How many times have those who despise us had their dirty, greedy hands stretched out to us for money, time, and help? How often have we said okay, and given to those who hate us? Too many! Is it time for the United States to close her large heart of giving to those who need? How much more should our hearts bleed for those who hate us? How much longer will we continue to tolerate the irrational hatred demonstrated by those who enjoy American benefits before we stop buying their books and movies, and supporting their idiotic ideals? We know anything tragically occurring to the United States, according to many leftist worldwide, is deserved. After all, we Americans are nothing but stingy, self-indulgent, power hungry, vicious mad dogs wanting to devour any opposing views outside the field of our Constitution. We all know the Republican Party’s main objective is global domination. That’s why we went into Iraq. It’s all about the oil baby, and at any cost. Why is it success, happiness and the ability to be free to choose how one wants to work, live and play is considered evil? Why are those who enjoy all of the aforementioned so dissatisfied with what they get to awaken to every day? Does living within a success story called America create irrational jealousy? It must; envy seems to be at the root of all the hate espoused by the leftists worldwide. We certainly wouldn’t want to be happy for the successes of others! Why would we want to push each other up and offer equal opportunity to all? Who wants freedom of choice, freedom to live, and the freedom to encourage one another? We know that the majority of the time America stands by herself. We realize most of the world and the subversive leftist communistic organizations that are allowed to protest and espouse their beliefs here in the land of the free really don’t love America and what we stand for. Jealousy of who and what we are will always leave those of us who love America on our own to care for our own and to care for others worldwide. Our rights come directly from God; our Creator (read our Constitution) who has endowed us beyond measure. We only enjoy our lives here in America because of our core beliefs. Americans largely believe in and practice some recognition of a Creator, just as our founding fathers did. Even those who are practicing atheists follow the ethical standards of sharing with others because of our foundational attitude towards our core beliefs. Americans will continue to give to others when they ask and even when they don’t; it is who we are as a people and as a nation. The hatred of America is currently seething within the terrorists' ideology, but the long term enemy of our freedoms is boiling up world wide through the secularists and the far left that are the minority and are working to destroy ultimately our way of life. If the far left and secularists over time continue to remove our foundational beliefs from our schools, our courthouses, and our government, will the world soon see America hasn’t anything left to give? Will America become like the rest of the irrational leftists worldwide? Our ability to understand that bad is bad and good is good is quickly being shattered. Many of the professors in our universities indoctrinate the young masses daily to believe the lines of morality are not clearly marked. Many institutions of higher learning and elementary public educational systems are encouraging our youth to live their lives within a blur. Our youth is being led to believe that those who behead innocents are nothing more than misunderstood and frightened insurgents who have a right to hate western civilization. If we continue along this path, America will become selfish, jealous, filled with hate, economically poor, and full of the rotting putrescence that has flooded a great portion of the rest of the world. Heaven help us if the far leftists and secularists win this war against the existence of a Creator. Heaven help the world if Captain America becomes like the far leftists and secularists and adopts their irrational ideologies. America will close her generous heart and bank accounts. Heaven help the victims of natural tragedies or the victims of those being persecuted by tyrannical thugs if America leaves her foundation drawn up by her forefathers. Heaven help us all, because all that is good, just and right will be destroyed. Kerry L. Marsala Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||||||||
“Better.” It’s a word we use often, but what does it mean? I spent the last week in L.A. and Santa Monica, marking the first time in 26 years I’ve been to California. My first day there, a rumor spread throughout the hotel that Britney Spears—yes, the Britney Spears—was seen downstairs in the gym, using a treadmill, listening to an iPod. I guess this sort of thing is common when you’re visiting so close to Hollywood. Still, I wasn’t that interested in meeting her (which I didn’t). I mean, what was I going to do—make out with her? Tell her how much I, like, totally love her songs? No. If I was going to meet people in California, I wanted to meet people people—people who still had their original body parts. I wanted to see real live Californians. I wanted to see how they live. And while it turns out I didn’t have nearly enough time to do that (sad emoticon), I saw enough to at least walk away with a general impression of what California is all about. Three things stick out in my mind. The first thing I noticed when I stepped off the plane was that I was able to make it out of LAX airport without magically becoming an outspoken gay marriage advocate or proponent of socialized healthcare. This went against everything I’d ever heard about that bastion of liberalism, the Left Coast. Whereas I expected a warm, political climate in California, it turns out the folks there are just like the folks back east: They have opinions, all right, but they have to open their mouths to voice them. You know, like human beings. Their values don’t hang overhead. That cloud you see? Yeah, it’s just smog. A second thing I noticed was that Californians have thin skin. Literally. It wasn’t a particularly warm week for the greater Los Angeles area. In fact, it was quite rainy and, I’m told, unusually cold. So one night, when I was getting ready for dinner, I decided to walk outside and check the weather. I saw a valet with his hands in his pockets, shoulders hunched over, coat zipped up to his mouth. “Excuse me,” I said. “Do you think I’ll need a jacket tonight?” He gave a friendly laugh. “Yeah, it’s pretty cold,” he told me. “It’s supposed to go down to 55.” 55. “Are you serious?” I said. “Where I come from, last week it was 9.” He just stood there. Quiet. As if the thought alone caused a short bout of brain freeze. Poor soul. I ended up bringing a sweatshirt to dinner—“just in case”—but I carried it on my arm. California wasn’t as warm as I had hoped for, but, for me, it was still short sleeve weather. Some people I passed on the street that evening wore knitted caps and scarves. The third and final thing I noticed were the homeless. I saw quite a few homeless folks in California. Mostly in Santa Monica. It was sort of a shock. Why? Well, to be honest: Most of ‘em didn’t look homeless. This is much different than what I’m used to seeing in New York City. There, the homeless wear multiple layers of dark, tattered clothing. They carry giant trash bags. And they say things like, “Ignore me? I’ll ignore you,” as you pass them by. These people represent the depths of human destitution. In Santa Monica? Not so much. I encountered one woman, for instance, who stood on a corner, rattling a cup, asking for change with all the desperation of Brad Pitt in an all-girls college. (FYI: I wrote that line before Pitt announced his split with Jennifer Aniston. Sorry if it lacks pizzazz now.) This woman, who I will call “Linda,” because she looked like a “Linda,” claimed to be homeless yet was well groomed, wore white sneaks, and sported a Mickey Mouse jean jacket. Now, I’m told the homeless in these parts look healthier—indeed, less homeless (if you can call it that)—because Californians care more, or take better care of them, or something. That may be. And if that’s what you say, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But from this outsider’s perspective, Linda seemed about as hungry as I am at the moment. And I’m not hungry at all. I just ate. So in other words, it was hard to believe she was homeless—and, in turn, it was hard to believe homelessness even existed in California. But, in this way, she serves as a metaphor. Linda was the first homeless person I saw in Santa Monica. Before long, I passed a few others just like her. At that point, I’d seen enough to make me believe California’s homeless aren’t as destitute as, say, New York’s. A day after crossing Linda’s path, however, I saw a homeless guy near the Staples Center—where the Lakers played, when they still had players—and far from combed hair and clean clothes, he was filling a jug in a fountain outside a building. This made me rethink what I thought about Linda. Maybe she didn’t look like a Linda after all. Maybe she looked like a Carla, or a Theresa. And maybe looks are deceiving. Maybe she really was a citizen of the streets. I liked what I saw of California. But I certainly didn’t see all of it. I didn’t even see the two places I’d like to see most (San Diego and San Francisco). What I saw, though, was enough to know it’s impossible to know what California, or any place, is “all about.” Once upon a time, when I leaned a bit Right, and still thought “Left” and “Right” meant something, I couldn’t imagine possibly liking—or even wanting to visit—the fabled Golden State. “I don’t care if it’s nice,” I would say. “It’s too liberal. I could never live there.” Well, who asked me to? No one. And yet I said it. And I suspect I’m not the only person who’s ever said something like this—not just about California, but other “too liberal” Blue States, “too conservative” Red States, and “too French” foreign countries. I’ve never been to Kansas. Nor have I been to Afghanistan. How can I say anything educated about them? I’m not sure I can. As someone who spent most of his life in New Jersey, I’ve heard a thousand times how my homeland is “ugly,” or how it “smells.” Well, sure, if you’re an out-of-stater passing the factories up north on the Turnpike, it is ugly and it does smell. But there’s more to the state than just those factories. And most New Jerseyans hate that area as much as out-of-staters do. Or maybe they don’t. I haven’t met “most New Jerseyans.” I will freely admit I am someone who makes generalizations (and if you’ve read my columns on Pennsylvanian drivers, you already know this). To say generalizations are a bad thing is much too general. They’re useful. You take someone like Britney Spears—it’s only natural I’d assume she’s as empty as her music. We encounter a lot of images and information these days; we’re a media-driven society. We make generalizations because we quite frankly don’t have time to process it all. Britney Spears may be brilliant, but, then, she may be as dumb as the Brad Pitt joke I made a few minutes ago. There are things I’d rather do with my time than find out. But that’s okay. I don’t owe her my fandom any more than she owes me meaningful songs. So be it. Good enough. A guy I know from the West Coast insists it is “better” than the East. His preferences are knee-jerk in nature, but he’s entitled to them. The only thing that bothers me is he fails to realize they’re just preferences; he acts like every place else is worthless. People hold true to the things they already know. That’s fine. But since few of us will ever see the whole world, maybe waiting to visit a place before condemning it is a fair compromise. Who among us has seen every single city on both coasts? Let him speak first. Having visited California, I can confirm it’s a place like any other—but only because no two places on Earth are exactly alike. I’d love to go back and see the rest of its cities, as well as its mountains, forests, and parks. I don’t think California’s better than the Northeast, but I don’t think the Northeast’s better than California, either. This “better” stuff means nothing to me. There is no “better.” Just “other.” It’s relative. People are idiots everywhere. To each his own. That said, I will stand by the broad, sweeping assertion that Pennsylvanians can’t drive until the end of time. And after sitting in traffic on the 10 Freeway for an hour, trying to get to the L.A. Auto Show—I’m telling you California’s highways aren’t so hot themselves. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||||||||
Funny, the kind of educational choice available in education is not a whole lot different than the kind of choice that a parent or teacher offers up to a child: “You may have a red one or a blue one;” “You may choose two cookies;” or “You may pick one show to watch after dinner.” These choices are within the boundaries of what the adult deems acceptable and reasonable. The child isn’t given any other options from which to choose and so won’t be overwhelmed or choose poorly, yet feels a sense of autonomy. Everybody is happy until the child eventually realizes that what is really wanted hasn’t made the list of choices. Depending on the circumstances, the child will accept that there is no bucking authority or have a tantrum and be sent to a “timeout.” In education, the kind of choices available to parents are mostly limited to the public school system. How is this so? Currently, the range of options available for parents who choose to educate their children outside of the public school system is (sad to say) none if the parents can’t afford to pay for independent schooling. Many independent schools offer a better educational experience than public schools. They might not be able to offer the wide range of programs, but they often cover the basics with more depth and understanding. Since the parents are paying for the product, they expect more of their children and the service they’ve purchased. It’s no different than when a parent signs a child up for football and pays for all the supplies. That child is going to play until they get their money’s worth! Up until NCLB (No Child Left Behind), the understanding was that kids attend their local public school. Some schools perform better than others. That has always been the case. But through implementation of NCLB, parents were to be given the option of sending their kids to better performing schools if their local school wasn’t providing an adequate education. Unfortunately, the vision isn’t always the realization. Instead of opening up that choice to independent schools, choice was limited to the public school system, in its “variety of configurations” in order to keep the tax dollars within the monopoly of public education. For wealthy people, this really isn’t an issue. They can pay taxes to the public schools and afford to send their children to independent educational institutions. But for parents who struggle to make ends meet, that is not a choice within their grasp. So the poor kids continue to attend the poorer schools and the wealthy continue to choose schools which are better able to meet their family’s needs. The authors of NCLB tried to break the class barrier to allow poorer families access to the tax dollars which pay for their local public school education and use that money to attend a school of their own choosing be it public or independent. That, however, was cut out of the final version of NCLB because of people like Teddy Kennedy and others beholden to the NEA. Instead, parents can only choose to transfer their kids within the public schools. In order to meet the higher academic standards decided upon by the states in order to be compliant with NCLB and its requisite of “choice” within the system, public school funding is becoming socialist in nature. People who choose to give up larger homes and vacations to live in a neighborhood with a good public school are, in effect; forced to share their hard earned money with those who either transfer their kids to that school and continue to live elsewhere or their tax dollars are now being put into a big pot to be split equitably amongst the schools though out the state. Irresponsible activist judges have ordered state legislators to earmark more funding for education with complete disregard for the constituents who voted them into office, local referendums and other forms of local authority over the schools. There are many incidentals that make transfers to other schools next to impossible. In many areas, “choice” is limited to certain subgroups of students. Many parents can’t provide transportation to alternative schools due to the distance and other considerations. Some parents would prefer their kids stay in the neighborhood. Some schools don’t have available space and have to turn people away. The transfer process is confusing and puts off potential applicants. “Choice” within the public schools doesn’t begin to approximate the wide array of education available outside of this education monopoly. Parents aren’t being afforded the opportunity to make the best decision available for their children’s education. The message is that the parents are unable to know how best to spend their money and it is best left up to the government. In any other venue, a person can decide the best value for a dollar. Why is this “choice” not afforded when it comes to education? Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||||||||
The way society is going, meaningful change is virtually impossible. One need not read into this statement that it is infeasible, only that the current attempts are doomed to fail. Conservatives, Libertarians and those who generally consider themselves to be on the right side of issues, are typically spinning their wheels when they propose changes to the social order. Most agree that society is 'out of control' and that fundamental reforms are necessary to save ourselves from the outcome of the 'collectivist culture'. So what mistakes are being made by those recommending a plan for combating the socialist progressives? In a masterful essay entitled "Death To Liberalism" - A Plan, by William Kaliher; the dilemma with the root failure in the Liberal ideology, is presented correctly. Only the truly misguided will take issue with their sorry record and those institutions that have promoted their bankrupt agenda. Even leftist political celebrities, like Ralph Nader, have on occasions been a vocal critic of the problems that stem from their policies. But few offer real potential for possible solutions. While Mr Kaliher's call to action is welcomed, and many of his specific suggestions could provide some promise, the central ingredient for true meaningful change is missing. Death To Liberalism - A Plan: by William Kaliher The task before us requires a metaphysical philosophy that accepts a different ontology, and embraces a true cosmology. Today's popular culture is based upon a false conception of the relationship between the individual and society. Government is viewed as a source authority and a necessary component of organization and order. Because people are conditioned to yield to peer influence and most aspire to be accepted by their community; they willingly surrender their natural rights, as a necessary price of living within society. The notion that it is obligatory to forfeit intrinsic rights, is at the core of the social corruption that allows the State to make a false claim for legitimacy. The problem is not that every form of government is illicit, but that all regimes in practice, denies the human rights of individuals. The State, then asserts that their laws, rules and policies, must be obeyed under the threat of coercion and punishment. At no time does the State establish an inherent right for authority, over people. The right resides within the person, and cannot, even with their consent; be transferred to a government. The failure of conservative proposals to implement this philosophy, is their doom. We are not engaged in a struggle to move out the current office holders, and replace them with a benign version, even if they accept conservative and traditional values. The goal requires that recognition of the supremacy in authority of the individual, must be the basis for any design of government administration. The overwhelming incoherent thinking of the mass population, is irrational about legitimate citizenship. Government is accountable to the people. But the people have become the fundamental driving force behind their demand for 'TC' Totalitarian Collectivism. The ultimate blame rests upon the fools that voluntarily surrender their freedoms to a tyrant. They accept the few and insignificant benefits, from a master that they created and continually allow, to inflict further injustices. The solution is quite simple, but how many possess the strength and courage to restore their personal dignity? The formula for a restoration in the balance of the natural order, is not in doubt; but as this title suggests, the dubious character of the American people is in question. So we will list the steps necessary to raise this sunken ship from the seabed, and refit her to once again sail with pride and honor. All government pensions must end. Employment at any level of government must be defined as true public service, and never a career. Sunset limits on all government agencies and laws. Elimination of institutional bureaucracy. Judges must be selected from general backgrounds, while excluding any practicing the law as a profession. Politicians serve at the pleasure of recall during only one term. Programs that collect public revenue, cannot be used to fund private benefits. Measures for security of society, allows community standards. Commerce to be encouraged, while removing protection for monopolies. Honest money and reformed equity markets. Residence implies responsibility to principles of a free society. This brief outline will stir the skeptic to conclude these concepts are ridiculous. Why? Would the criticism stem from intellectual objections or would it come from the risk of change or loss of privileges? The thief of personal wealth to run a Ponzi scheme called Social Security is indefensible, but who among our society is willing to refuse their check! What government civil servant, teacher, police or fireman, would renounce their benefits? Do you know any neighbor that does not make business decisions based upon their tax repercussions? And who is exempt from the fear of standing before a judge, who was a former prosecutor? The point is that the public has been programmed into taking the crumbs of the nanny state, and will resist any attempts to take the stale chow away. Their inability to measure the true costs and consequences of abandoning their self-respect and personal responsibility for a false protection, is the main reason that any well intended organized attempt to stop the insanity is futile. The true foe of America, are asinine Americans. At this late stage of national madness, only an implosion of this house of cards could ever offer the opportunity to reconstruct a sober society. Civil disobedience and withdrawal of your consent is all that is left. But before recruiting those rare persons of integrity and grit, who will accept this judgment and step forward to debate methods, they must reflect upon the nature of the struggle. Without understanding the character of the problem, all that can be achieved with the options that Mr Kaliher offers, is a last dance in the ballroom of the Titanic. We don't need a civil war, that will just change the faces of the folks who play the same game. But we must achieve a revolution in our own thinking, before we can reconstruct the mechanisms of organization. Power has never been relinquished by those who live for it, willingly. Applying counter force has never produced any significant lasting solutions. But with withdrawing your consent, from the machinery of government, the fraud that is dressed up in the garb of a legal process will fail to function. Most Americans would not tolerate overt mass repression, but they consistently accept incremental torture - much coming at the hands of your fellow neighbor, and often by your own request. Rejecting resistance for superficial adjustments, will never restore the essential balance in the distorted relationship that condemns all of us to mutual servitude. Government prevents solutions and destroys those who attempt to challenge their decrees. Unless this fact of history is acknowledged, there can be no hope for change. Since the probability for mass defiance is so remote, how can we possibly project that there can be any agreement on tactics, when so few are committed to the ultimate goal? Human Nature is replete with conduct of selfish self interest. That reality will not change. For now, the best we can do is "Just Say NO" !
|
|||||||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, January 23, 2005 2:26 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
|||||||||||
