 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
What They Thought June 5, 2005 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins I have learned to appreciate my enemies. They can be useful as indicators as to whether I am on the correct path. Once again they are making me proud. When Kerry returns to Washington he says that he is going to bring up an impeachment issue regarding the WMD falsification charges. He has a memo written by Matthew Rycroft, who is one of Tony Blair's aides. The Downing Street memo, unfortunately for Kerry, doesn't have any quotes from either Blair or Bush. Worldnetdaily.com had a nice article on this new attempt by the left to regain power, with a quite stunning quote by Kerry. I say that only because he used the word ‘stunning’ twice in the same sentence. "When I go back on Monday, I am going to raise the issue, I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home." When I read that stunning statement, which was so profoundly important and unbelievably simple (like him) I was stunned. He is starting to remind me of Gore, Moore, Dean and Nader. What a colossal bunch of sore losers. Let's not forget that Kerry made a better case for invading Iraq than Bush did. That was of course before we actually did it. If Clinton had done it he would have been cheering and dancing around with his pompoms, just like the liberals did every time Clinton invaded somewhere. But that is why they keep losing elections. They are psychological contortionists who belong in a freak show. I hope they never figure it out. It would be nice to see the Communist wing of our government noisily go away in the night as they scream "Theocracy!" and "Fascists!" Like most intelligent people, I find it easy to ignore Moore and Gore. The most interesting is actually Nader, who has been a great Perot-esque payback for the liberals and their media friends. In this last election he didn't play much of a role however. The other most interesting leftwinger is Dean. He has issued some of the most stunning statements I have ever heard lately. He has done so at a time when the Democrats are making statements about being more inclusive. One might be inclined to ask why these noisy three stooges — Dean, Kerry and Nader — are becoming so talked about again and so vocal. The answer is quite simple. It reminds me of an old joke. "Why do the Rolling Stones keep Keith Richards in the band? To make Mick Jagger look healthy." As these three stooges move to the left and make Moore and Moore noise, Hillary starts to look Moore and Moore rational and centrist. What has been the most interesting to me, however, has been watching Hillary. She has been the spearhead of the culture war and the Democratic Party revolves around her. She knows it, too. One of my favorite quotes from her was: "Any President that lies to the people should be removed from office." Don't get excited though. She was talking about the guy that created the Environmental Protection Agency, started the nuclear weapon reduction talks, opened the door to China and started the end of the Vietnam War. Those were all things the liberals talked about doing, but like always they had no real plans. They just talked about it. Hillary wasn't talking about her own philandering husband. She was talking about Richard Nixon. You will continue to see Hillary standing tall amidst the mental midgets that surround her. You will continue to read about how evil the Patriot Act is, with continuing references not to the one that passed and was signed into law, but rather the draft (which Tom Daschle originally submitted) as if it were the law. You will continue to read about the illegal war in Iraq and how there were no WMDs there, knowing that it is widely believed that they were moved to Syria. Recently even the UN mentioned that much of the WMD equipment seems to be missing. Major media didn't touch that, however. Those who attempt to call Bush a Socialist are also unwitting members of this fine parade of clowns. I leave you with two quotes. Nicolai Lenin said: "We must build communism with non-Communist hands." George Dimitrov, a Soviet Dialectician, defines a Communist front: "Advice to the Lenin School of Political Warfare," as quoted in the report of the American Bar Association Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives--CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, August 22, 1958, page 17719. "As Soviet power grows, there will be greater aversion to Communist Parties everywhere. So we must practice the techniques of withdrawal. Never appear in the foreground; Let our friends do the work. We must always remember that one sympathizer is generally worth more than a dozen militant Communists. A university professor, who, without being a party member, lends himself to the interests of the Soviet Union, is worth more than a hundred men with party cards. A writer of reputation or a retired general are worth more than 500 poor devils who don't know any better than to get themselves beaten up by the police. Every man has his value, his merit. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
|
No column this week. |
||||||||
A short time ago—okay, okay, way back in January—I began a discussion on the definition of libertarianism, which I’ve been meaning to continue ever since. The January column focused on two things: (1) the average libertarian’s dislike for government; and (2) the average libertarian’s dislike for average libertarians. While it’s certainly true that most libertarians see the government as the mafia’s mildly retarded big brother, this really only scratches the surface of their intense dislike for it. (Yours truly excluded. Like I said, I love the government. It’s my source of material.) You see, libertarians dislike the government for reasons beyond inefficiency. For them, the very idea of it is immoral. That’s because libertarians abide by the Non-Aggression Principle. The Non-Aggression Principle, also called the Zero Aggression Principle, is the principle that states that human beings don’t have the right to initiate force against each other. (Early Christians called this “Christianity.") Libertarians are so serious about this principle that the ones who call it the NAP and the ones who call it the ZAP won’t even fight each other over their differences. (Though they have been known to dance around in circles, wielding knives, like the Sharks and the Jets in West Side Story.) For all intents and purposes, the NAP—or ZAP, or whatever you want to call it—is the same golden rule they drill into your head every year of school, starting with kindergarten. That is, that children should keep their hands to themselves. The simplicity of this premise is so fundamental to libertarianism that the NAP was originally called the Grade School Principle, but its name was changed because students kept confusing it with the Grade School Principal—who was merely the guy they hired to enforce it. This confusion raised all sorts of ethical questions on the nature of totalitarianism, which kept libertarians up late, which is why they forgot their math homework, they swear. So in order to avoid future confusion, they simply gave it two new names. Now, as I said, the NAP states that human beings shouldn’t “initiate” force against each other. “Initiate” is the keyword here. While many libertarians believe self-defense is justified, it’s the initiation of force they have a problem with. That’s where the grade school analogy ends. In grade school, you get in trouble for fighting back. In libertarianism, self-defense is usually held as an inalienable right. (Though not always. As the Iraq war shows us, self-defense can be used to justify anything—even a “preemptive” strike.) Of course, technically speaking, the grade school analogy ends before it begins, because libertarians view the taxes that pay for grade schools as an example of force. This brings us to the heart of the NAP matter. For most people, government is a given the same way earth, wind, fire, and water are. It’s simply a natural element. But the truth is that government—and not just our government, but every government—is, by definition, the perpetual use of force. You may think it’s a rational use of force, and that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. But the fact that it’s force cannot be denied. So how is it force? Well, let’s put it this way: At the other end of every single public policy issue—from speed limits and seatbelt laws to national IDs and steroids—there exists the barrel of a gun. And not just one gun, usually, but many guns. Whole police departments. Even armies. Or in America’s case, the most lethal arsenal ever assembled by mere human hands. So theoretically speaking, if the U.S. passes a law against smoking pot, then any American who rolls a joint risks facing the wrath of every weapon at the country’s disposal—including nukes. Granted, it’s farfetched. But the threat is there, and the punishment’s just as arbitrary as the law that it’s linked to. And in case you haven’t heard, marijuana now accounts for half of all drug busts. Now, obviously, no government’s perfect. And some, no doubt, are better than others. But libertarians would complain that that’s not good enough. Governments roam the planet like dogs marking territory. And the problem is, there’s no territory left. Folks who want better have nowhere left to go. “Democratizing” the world isn’t the answer, either. Libertarians aren’t giddy about Middle Eastern democracy, for instance, because while they’re fond of liberty, they realize liberty and democracy aren’t always one and the same. Terrible things can happen in democracies. All it takes is 51 people out of 100 to force 49 into slavery. At that point, the government’s role is simply to uphold the popular will. Which isn’t to say libertarians are utopians. They aren’t. Not all of them anyway. They understand bad things happen; it’s just that they don’t believe government should use force to monopolize the profits. That’s why I believe government would scarcely exist—if at all—in an ideal libertarian society. Lawmakers would work part-time and laws would be optional. Businesses would cater to customer satisfaction rather than government contracts (see: Halliburton, Verizon, et al). And the only crimes would be those using force against person and property. People wouldn’t be free to steal, or rape, or pillage and plunder, in an ideal libertarian society. Nor would they be free to murder, as non-libertarians claim. Indeed, in an ideal libertarian society, cats and dogs would live together. Blacks and whites would respect their differences. NAPS and ZAPS would converge over mutual interests. And even the Sharks and Jets would dance like angels on puffy white clouds. Maybe the ideal libertarian society would be all of these things. Or maybe there’s no such thing as an ideal libertarian society. I don’t know. But in a way, this uncertainty is the libertarian ideal. That, in a nutshell, is the Non-Aggression Principle. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
The ad campaign in which a line at the bottom of the screen reads, "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas," implies that Vegas is a place to break away from the constraints of normal existence and indulge your wildest fantasies without allowing people back home to know what you've done. There is a lot one can infer from this commercial. Depending on the personality of who is watching, the notion of going beyond self imposed limits in a place where nobody knows your name can be positively alluring. I would imagine that the goal of the commercial is to attract any tourist who wants to completely cut loose so that the traveler will end up spending more money while on vacation at this adult theme park. The commercial purposely leaves the viewer to come up with his/her own conclusions about what might actually happen. Ironically, while this commercial might seem risqué, behavioral expectations in many circles no longer include keeping particular personal preferences private. Though there are people who decline getting mixed up in situations which might in the long run cast a negative light on their character, many others see as a larger challenge forcing society to accept any and all deviances from what used to be considered the norm. Their goal is to ensure that there is no longer a universally recognized modicum of behavior to be followed in certain situations or the expectation of deference to those who by age or stature should command respect. What we have forgotten is that the ability to play out forbidden scenarios in our minds rather than acting on them is what differentiates the adult from someone who hasn't yet reached maturity. Although a kid might want to tell a teacher that he or she is a jerk, it is not permissible. Although a Democrat might not like the ideology guiding a Republican president or visa versa, it is not acceptable to have a public tantrum about the way things are being done. Public tantrums are what spoiled children have when things don't go their way. Moral relativism stunts the ability to see situations from another person's vantage; from being expected to respect another point of view while not necessarily agreeing with it. By undermining the credibility of traditional values and giving equal weight to every rationale, moral relativism creates an exception to every rule. This philosophy has effectively prevented the necessity of a meeting of the minds over what can collectively be adhered to as appropriate or inappropriate public or private behavior. We need accepted
rules of conduct. If the majority in a community agrees on the rules
by which they are governed, then it is expected these rules should be
followed whether or not they are found satisfactory by every single
person who must abide by them. In a Democratic society, not everyone
gets their way all of the time. We don't have philosophers like Confucius or Socrates to consult but we do have constitutional scholars who study the doctrines on which our country was founded. Advice from or respect for those who make it their life work to understand such things should be sought by those empowered to legislate. True dialogue can only occur when all the facts are on the table and every person is expected to take each question to its logical conclusion. Ben Franklin might have found "Sin City" an exceptionally fun place but he would not have expected his colleagues to necessarily agree. He would not have imposed his preferences on them; he would have kept his personal life private. The bottom line is that each person has the freedom to do what he or she wants, but at the same time must accept the consequences of his or her actions. When in Vegas… The idea of acceptable civil behavior is becoming extinct. Those in the minority who force their perspective on the majority are abusing the rights guaranteed to all under the US Constitution. The beauty of this country is that the rule of law, when applied as our founders intended, is meant to respect our values, not impose on them. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales, also applies to politics. Those yarns of fantasy are told by the wizards and witches and believed by the children. Make believe is their way of life and substance is a condition to be avoided. Lessons deserving to be taught, no longer fit the mold. In this palace no one lives happily ever after. Only sorcery has sway and the frogs do all the kissing. But they never smooch with a princess, only with a wiccan; and school all the little kids in the practice of hocus pocus. Are you one of those in the same class of the modern day Hansel and Gretels? What did they — or you — learn? Like those two children, many of today’s brood are insecure and uncertain. It’s almost like your motherland demands her children be sent away. Fear of being sent into the woods and not know your way home is a regular concern. Once it was clear that leaving a trail of pebbles for the moonlight to shine your way back, was the right way to go. Now, that path is marked with crumbs, from scraps of stale bread. Bettelheim explains this condition accordingly:
Distress and worry drives most to look for satisfaction. When the sight of a sweet dwelling made from confections of delight lays before their eyes, most will open the door and walk in. But is it a desert that brings content or will it bring sugar shock? What will you learn from the siblings? Hansel and Gretel saw a little house built of bread. Moreover, it had cake for a roof and pure sugar for windows" (Zipes 61). Promptly the children set to work at devouring the house and seeking the satisfaction of oral pleasure. Hansel, who liked the taste of the roof, tore down a great piece of it, and Gretel pushed out the whole of one round window-pane, sat down, and enjoyed herself with it. When an old woman came in the door she said: "Oh, you dear children, who has brought you here Do come in, and stay with me. No harm shall happen to you." The current wisdom from the obese public is that the abode from where they feed is a public house. The shelter it provides shrinks with each morsel devoured. Like Hansel and Gretel they say:
The masses of the mainstream keep feasting, but each additional bite lacks the bliss of the first chew. The house they wandered into was not the candy castle they thought.The old woman had only pretended to be so kind; she was in reality a wicked witch, who lay in wait for children, and had only built the little house of bread in order to entice them there. When Hansel and Gretel came into her neighborhood, she laughed with malice, and said mockingly: "I have them, they shall not escape me again!" Then she seized Hansel with her shriveled hand, carried him into a little stable, and locked him in behind a grated door. Scream as he might, it would not help him. Then she went to Gretel, shook her till she awoke, and cried: "Get up, lazy thing, fetch some water, and cook something good for your brother, he is in the stable outside, and is to be made fat. When he is fat, I will eat him." Gretel began to weep bitterly, but it was all in vain, for she was forced to do what the wicked witch commanded. “It is perhaps this regression and denial that also lead Hansel and Gretel into the clutches of the cannibalistic witch. The witch is symbolic of their stepmother and also their oral fixation personified. However, after their fixation is conquered by fear of being eaten, intelligence returns and Gretel conquers the witch, freeing her brother, and stealing her jewels. Food is no longer the first priority. When the children arrive back home they have become more mature, and find that the evil (the stepmother) has gone, and with the wealth of the witch’s jewels they will live happily with their father.” The lack of food is not the problem for most. But the fear of being gobbled up by unknown foes seems to dominate the majority. The confectionery factory that tempts with shelter from an ill wind that blows, has baked a cake that only makes one sick. The alarm of being devoured and swallowed by wild animals, is not as immanent as being boiled and cooked by the wicked witch. But the multitude continue to be attracted and enter into the gingerbread house. Their regression stems from their lack of courage in admitting and affirming the truth. The allure and promises of the sugar daddy dispensing a fix for every want or need is far too seductive for most to resist. Their denial of the aftermath for accepting the treats avoids the consequences of eating that “free lunch”. The desire for security at any price, ends inevitable in the clutches of demons. The appeal of an enchantress does not exclude the final outcome. The hag will boil you in oil if you escape the ovens. What kind of shelter does this lodge provide? Consuming government ‘goodies’ only weakens and removes the canopy and casements. The natural winds do not blow down shelters built with sound substance. Nevertheless, the wicked witches of administration deceive the many into entering their house. Dancing with the animals and being wild, risks the freedom of individual anxiety. There lies the attraction! Such a Grimm fairy tale that most live...
|
||||||||
©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, June 12, 2005 7:30 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||||
