 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
What They Thought March 27, 2005 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins But for one instance that I’m aware of, all of the school shootings have had one thing in common. The kids have been on some type of mood altering drug. The one case where that hasn’t been verified was the shooting in Mississippi. For some strange reason they didn’t want to release the medical records. The refusal to release the records says enough in itself. Who needs the records at this point? Medical bureaucrats and school counselors prescribed the mood altering drugs in most cases, so it seems to me that it is the bureaucrats and counselors who are the ones we should be focusing on, not the guns. All of the gun laws in the world wouldn’t have prevented the last kid from getting his gun. He used a gun that belonged to his grandfather who is, or was, a policeman. Maybe it would help these bureaucrats understand what kind of fire they are playing with if they had to live with these kids after prescribing this medication. The problem with most of these medications is that the effects on children aren’t fully understood yet because the drugs aren’t designed for kids. They are designed for adults who don’t have a hormonal rollercoaster ride going on as they experience everything else in life. Maybe it would be a good idea to not send them to school while medicated in this manner. Of course in the last case that wouldn’t have mattered either because after he killed his grandfather he took his patrol car too. Things such as this didn’t used to happen. Some will be inclined to say that society has changed. I agree with that. It has changed and not in a good way. Now when your child is out of control he’s sent to a chair for a few minutes for a “time out”. You aren’t allowed to knock some sense into them with a good old-fashioned spanking. That is how it used to be done. We learn through pain. So do children. Sometimes pain is the consequence of screwing up. Anytime something is working and it quits working you have to look at what changed. Our society used to work pretty well for the most part. Guns were always around and many people used to have them. Part of the difficulty with sorting through this problem comes from the simple fact that so much has changed. Here’s a nice little list of those changes: Parents who actually have the unmitigated audacity to punish their children often find themselves in court. Kids used to have disagreements and end up punching each other out. The end result would be that the two kids would agree to disagree or actually become friends because of some twisted respect they now had for each other. These days they aren’t even supposed to show their emotions in an exchange of hostile words or they get tossed out of school. So they just suppress the anger until they boil over and end up ventilating each other. But the really big change, and the one commonality, is the mood altering drugs. Yes, there is another commonality and that is the presence of guns, but I think the real culprit is the first commonality. Guns have always been around but the drugs are new. That is where the real change is evident. So maybe it is time to hold those who prescribe these drugs accountable. There is one interesting thing that is also quite common in the cases where somebody goes nuts with a gun, though. The shooting usually doesn’t stop until somebody shows up that shoots back. Maybe arming the teachers isn’t such a bad idea after all. I have no doubt that some liberal is going to email me and blame the guns for the entire thing, but that’s expected. More people are killed each year by slipping in the bathtub, so maybe we should all stop bathing. More people are killed by a doctor's improper diagnosis and errors on the table than are killed by guns, so maybe we shouldn’t go to doctors any more, either. Or drive in cars or fly in airplanes for that matter. But maybe there is hope for the liberals. Even Ted Kennedy learned not to drive off of bridges with young girls in his car. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
As an innocent life slips away due to methods used by those of Nazi Germany, the spinning heads of the media circus continue to flap their lips over the case of Terri Schiavo. Nothing within this mess makes any sense. Parents who love their children today here in the United States have had all their rights stripped from them by a system that has gone mad. What has happened, America, to our rights as citizens? What has happened to our freedoms? Where will this case take us, America? Where will we end up? Will we end up lying in limbo between life and death, between mate and parents, between judicial courts and mercy? I shudder to think of what our future holds now more than ever. I can’t help feeling numb in my utter disbelief over the fact that a husband (who obviously wishes release from his wife so he can pursue “marriage” to his common law wife and their two kids) would pursue the murder of someone he promised to love and honor. What happened to in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part? Prior to the seven year mark of Terri’s unfortunate state, Mr. Schiavo had been quoted as saying he didn’t know what Terri would have wanted. Now justification for her termination occurs due to sworn testimony given in court at that seven-year mark because Mr. Schiavo stated his wife wouldn’t want to be kept alive on life support. So which is it? Prior to the seven year marke,r Mr. Schiavo didn’t know what Terri would have wanted done because she never stated her wishes, but somehow around that seven year period, all of a sudden Mr. Schiavo had a revelation in the court room? Evidently, the surreal freezing of time we are experiencing within America this hour is being felt not only by the citizens of the United States, but by the world over. Remember when Lady Liberty used to sing with arms open wide: "Give us your tired, your poor, your hungry, your downtrodden…" Sadly, the world is witnessing the slow deliberate death of not only an American citizen, but of American justice, care and safety. When did we become as gods and decide to define what living a “higher quality of life” means? This case isn’t just a case of secularism or Christianity, nor a question of liberal or conservative. This is a case of an innocent human being—who is at the mercy of her legal guardian—being entangled in a web of selfishness, injustices. and ultimately her cruel death. Not only are we starving Terri to death, but also we have begun to starve the American public’s safety to death. Beware: Is this the path we really want to go down? As sides are sharply drawn, does Michael Schiavo realize he has within his power the ability to end this madness? Mr. Schiavo I plead with you, just let Terri’s parents take over her complete care and you, sir, may go on with your life. What do you have to lose, Mr. Schiavo? You’ve got your partner, your children, your quality of life that you desire; and you’ve given the Schindler’s a gift—their precious daughter that they love and desire to care for in her state. Take the questions out of whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state or not. Where are her rights of equal protection and due process? I am not a lawyer nor a great student of our judicial system, but something just stinks about this whole case. How are we letting an innocent human being lie upon her bed of death and not feeling sadness, anger and disbelief? Grasp this please: We are letting a runaway judiciary system and a husband deny a human being food and water. Terri’s kidneys are failing rapidly, her skin is becoming dry and cracked, her tongue is beginning to swell, her eyes are becoming sunken, and all the media can report to us is that, according to many doctors, dehydration leaves its victims in a state of “euphoria.” For all that is good and right, are we as a nation really going to find comfort in the statement that when humans find themselves without sustenance they feel “euphoria?” I am sorry; truly, I cannot fathom this turning point in our country’s history. When the United States began its journey into denying protection for those who cannot defend themselves several years ago, never did I imagine that one day this denial would begin to include those who are disabled or not living what one might deem as a life of quality. What else can be said? What other views can be explored? What else is next for a country that used to protect those who couldn’t protect themselves? Make out your living wills tonight, America. Pray that when you reach the point of being unable to communicate your own wishes that those who say they love you don’t begin to misinterpret your living will and push a judicial system, a governmental system, a country, a family, or you and I into the corner that is leaving Terri Schiavo as good as dead. Terri, I am sure at the time when your chemical imbalance occurred (which has caused this situation to arise), you hadn’t thought of writing a living will, nor had you ever thought that you might be needing your obituary written at 41 years of age. Terri, I never knew you personally, but without a doubt part of your memorial needs to include this: Parents, love your children; they are a gift from God. Your parents—Mr. and Mrs. Schindler—loved you so much, Terri, that they have been more than willing for the last fifteen years to care for you on a daily basis. Your parents and family have fought for your life all the way up to the Supreme Court of our land. Terri, you must have been a very special girl to all your loved ones. A nation, Terri—liberals and conservatives alike—has been writing letters on your behalf to help bring justice and protection your way. There have been people of all races, cultures, economic standards, and beliefs who have prayed for you, Terri, in their own way. Terri, most of this world never knew you, but you’ve left an impact that has rallied us all to take a good long look at our need to write laws of protection to save innocent life. Does our Constitution really mean anything in its desires to protect those who cannot protect themselves? This is what we need to ask ourselves, Terri. Mr. and Mrs. Schindler and family, you’ve moved the masses to action. Terri, you never intended to become such an important figure to the American people, nor to the world, but you’ve left your mark on this planet. Everyone—no matter who they are, no matter their religion, no matter their skin color, no matter where they stand—deserves the rights of protection under our Constitution. Terri, your life has not been in vain. Shine brightly on, Terri. Those of us who believe that life is precious will continue to fight for those who cannot defend themselves. Schindler family, thank you for sharing your daughter with the world. Take comfort in knowing that we all grieve with you and understand your pain. Parents, love your children while you have them. Life is short and it is precious. God be with you, Terri. Go in peace, and find the comfort and love you deserve. Remember a full and glorious life flows through the power of change. Let Terri Schiavo’s life be a catalyst for change. |
||||||||||
All
right, so now that Major League Baseball has testified
before Congress on the use of steroids, the time has come to answer
the question: Why? As in: Why, exactly, did Congress hold these hearings?
And what, exactly, did they have to gain?
Some would argue last Thursday’s carnival of the stars was “for the kids.” But if you ask me, that theory is for the birds. Yes, Congress trotted out the parents of children who died after emulating ‘roid-using players. And, yes, their testimony grabbed at your heart. It would be great if their stories helped raise awareness in the face of future tragedies. However, the idea that “the kids” are why Congress held these hearings is: (a) hard to believe, since Washington is the same town that routinely screws up public education and occasionally kidnaps little Cubans at gunpoint; and (b) no fun. So let’s examine a few other possibilities. First up, the “Congress Cares About Baseball’s Integrity” theory. Now, this one has some weight behind it—provided there are real baseball fans in Congress. Why? Because baseball fans tend to be purists. They’re very protective of the national pastime’s past. When Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth’s single season homerun record, people wanted nothing to do with it. Maris hit 61 in 162 games; Ruth hit 60 in 154. (Somewhere, boys were screaming: “Do over! Doesn’t count!") But now that Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa have all exceeded Maris’s total, his reviled 61* are suddenly revered. “Go ask Henry Aaron, go ask the family of Roger Maris, go ask all of the people who played without enhanced drugs if they would like their records compared with the current records,” says former player Sen. Jim Bunning. See what I mean? Baseball’s best days are perpetually behind it. (Sort of like Congress.) Don’t get me wrong. Steroids hurt the integrity of the game. I’d love it if Plastic Man played for my softball team. The guy’s got retractable arms, after all. That’s the kind of talent Bill Buckner would’ve killed for. However, the only excuse for using a superhuman player is if you’re playing in a superhero league. Same goes for steroids. Health risks aside, the problem is the fact that only some players use them. This means the field is imbalanced. Suddenly wins and losses don’t mean quite as much. Still, that’s no reason for Congress to hold hearings. For one thing, the words “Congress” and “integrity” go together like oil and whatever it is that oil doesn’t go with. (Water, is it? I’m not a cook.) Secondly, the words “baseball” and “integrity” don’t go together, either. Guys have been corking their bats since back when the Nazis were still using steroids to give women swimmers chest hair. Cheating isn’t new, and Congress knows this. Next, we have the “Congress Hates Mark McGwire” theory. This one is based on the idea that Congress hates Mark McGwire and wants to keep him out of Cooperstown. Now, I know this sounds like a stretch. But think about it. McGwire cries his way through his opening statement, then proceeds to answer every question with the standard: “I’m not here to talk about the past.” Suddenly folks are starting to wonder if Big Mac is Hall of Fame material. (And why shouldn’t they? The guy’s retired. His past is all he has.) Meanwhile, McGwire’s nemesis, Jose Canseco, uses the hearings to sell his stupid book. A couple of weeks ago, this guy tells 60 Minutes he recommends steroids. Last week, he changes his mind. And Congress gives him a pass? Something fishy is afoot here. For the first time ever, Canseco seems only marginally more scummy than McGwire. That’s a major coup. Congress gets its way; Canseco gets his. Coincidence? Read the book. Finally, forget the theories. You want to know why Congress held those hearings? I’ll tell you. Jealousy. Pure, freshly squeezed jealousy. With no added flavors or preservatives. The players who testified last week were asked if they thought they were role models. To a man, they said yes. They were also asked if they’d support a legislative solution to the steroid problem. Here, they gave the same answer. Talk about sending a message to the kids. “Hey, kids, we’re Congress. Respect us instead!” Tom Davis and Henry Waxman must’ve been drooling. Say what you will about ballplayers making million-dollar salaries. Just think about all the Americans who wouldn’t have jobs without them. There are 30 teams in Major League Baseball. For each, there are hundreds—even thousands—of men and women feeding their kids by selling beer and popcorn. Others direct stadium traffic. Still more design hats and t-shirts. A select few even get paid to write and talk about sports. Is it any wonder kids look up to players? These guys produce revenue. They’re true heroes of the U.S. economy. That’s more than we can say for the career politicians in Congress. Their idea of making money is voting themselves a raise. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
As I watch the murder of Terri Schiavo play out on television at the behest of her husband—who for all intents and purposes is practicing polygamy since he insists that he is still her spouse after he fathered two children with his new lover—I can't help but be appalled at the indifference of those who haven't bothered to investigate the true facts of the matter. Those not following the case assume that right wing busy bodies are interfering with Terri's "right-to die." Regardless of the true circumstances of the situation, because of the prevailing attitude that humans should have the right to be humanely put to death, there is the assumption that she would be better off dead —starved to death. The details are irrelevant. It adds insult to "injury" that the case of Terri Schiavo is touted in the mainstream media as more fuel firing the ongoing debate between those who are pro life and those who are pro choice. The inconsistencies about how she "fell" into her condition continue to be overlooked by grossly oversimplifying the situation in the traditional news outlets. There is a very real possibility that her husband tried to murder her back in 1990. There were lots of broken bones in her body and it was never verified that her being found face down on the floor was due to a heart attack. There is an order that she is to be cremated upon her actual death. There would be no autopsy and no evidence available for a full investigation, should it come down to that. Hearing about the progression of Terri Schiavo's murder on television doesn't make it any more real than any other atrocity broadcast on the evening news any given day of the year. Compare the facts of the Schiavo situation to those surrounding Marine Corps 2nd Lt. Llario Pantano, charged with murder after he made a split second decision in a combat situation last April to shoot two Iraqi suspects who rushed him and his men. The operative word here is "combat." This man was serving his country and decided to defend himself and his men—in a combat situation. How could this be allowed to occur? Why would anyone want to be a soldier and defend this great country of ours under these circumstances? According to Dennis Prager, leftist ideology, i.e. moral relativism, allows "feelings" to determine right from wrong. Conservatives base their positions on what is right rather than how they are feeling at any given moment. Certainly this second system allows for greater clarity when distinguishing right from wrong. Right leaning Conservatives might be seen as unyielding in their belief system, but as Ben Franklin is quoted, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?" Only moral relativism can explain why Mine Ener, a Villanova University professor who killed her infant daughter and later committed suicide, was honored posthumously by naming a library study area after her. She slit her own baby's throat, but because she suffered depression, she was not only excused from her behavior but seen as a tragic heroine. I imagine that the scariest thing about living under a dictatorship, such as occurred under Saddam Hussein, is you could never be sure how to frame the words you say or to couch your actions so that in the long run you weren't found deserving of torture or death. You would be living in a world where reality was suspended due to the widespread insanity that was your every day existence. The notion of an inherent right to life, liberty, and happiness would be as unlikely as being able to flap your arms and fly away. Contrast that with living in the United States of America, where there is no fear in speaking your mind and where opportunity is limited only by your imagination. Whether or not it is acknowledged, the major influence permeating our upbringing and which continues to allow our privileged existence, blessed as such, are the Judeo Christian values that form the foundation for this, the strongest country in the world. It was acknowledged by the founders and the framers that the creator endowed us with free will and the US Constitution was written to protect this freedom. We need to stop
trying to disallow religion in public places. We must stop promoting
moral relativism as an acceptable substitute for the Judeo Christian
principles necessary to distinguish right from wrong, accept personal
responsibility, respect others, and which make us all members of a community.
We must fight for what is right. 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 Saturday, April 2, 2005 6:32 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||||||
