"Their View" Archives:

April 18, 2004

• The Day I Learned To Shoot
• The Problem With Shock And Awe
  (Cleaning Up The Rest Of The Mess)

April 11, 2004

• Look, Boys! Now You Can Fight Like Real Men!
• Benighted Brains
  (It Only Makes Sense To ‘Thems’ and ‘Dems’)

April 4, 2004

• The Governor is a Harsh Mistress
• Hanoi John and Mutha Theresa
  (Benedict Arnold Takes Aim at Benedict Arnold)

March 28, 2004

• 9/11: Blood On Bush's Hands?
• Entangling Alliances (Not On My Tires, You Don't!

March 21, 2004

• Creating Iraq In Our Image
• The New Face of America
  (Ranting Sheep Are But A Tempest In A Tea Pot)

March 14, 2004

• To Rock the Vote, Knock It, or Block It
• Why I Still Like Bush (A Word to the Pseudo Cons)

What They Thought April 25, 2004

R.A. Hawkins
Jonathan David Morris
SARTRE

Click here for columnist bios

Lady Liberty is pleased to welcome
well-known Internet columnist SARTRE to our selective group of regular editorial contributors. SARTRE is currently on hiatus from writing, but he has generously offered us encore presentations of some of his best commentaries of the past. Once he returns to his writing desk, we're pleased to say we'll continue his columns by offering the best of his current musings on these pages. Those of you who are unfamiliar with SARTRE's work are in for a treat; all of you who've come to know and appreciate his views over the years will enjoy revisiting his always relevant work. Welcome, SARTRE!

R.A. Hawkins

R.A. Hawkins is on a break this week. He returns with all new material next week.

R.A. Hawkins       Web Site       Contact       Back to Top

Want more opinions? Don't forget the Lady Liberty "Our View" and "Your View" pages!

Lady Liberty's "Their View" Contributors:

R.A. Hawkins
Richard Hawkins was born in Aurora, Colorado and grew up in Littleton, Colorado in a quiet little neighborhood nobody has ever heard of called Columbine Knolls. He has been married to the same woman for twenty-six years, and worked for the same aerospace company for twenty-eight. His primary interests over the years have been his family, sociology, mastering his survival skills, windsurfing, music, politics, raising wolves, art of all types, mycology, perma-culture, archeological anomalies, geo-politics and staying gainfully employed; not necessarily in that order. He often describes himself as a separate subspecies of human – ‘Eclecticus-Iconoclastimus’. His primary driving force is his unwavering belief that as sovereign citizens we are each responsible not only for our own beliefs and actions, but where those beliefs and actions take us in life: That the truly intelligent person learns to determine what the consequences might be for our beliefs and actions and then acts accordingly. Our individual actions always affect far more than we can imagine. R.A. Hawkins is the author of "Through Eyes of Shiva," available via Amazon.com. More of Mr. Hawkins' commentaries can be found on his web site, Entropical Paradise.

Jonathan David Morris
Jonathan David Morris is a political writer based in New Jersey. A strong believer in small government, JDM often takes aim at oppressive taxes, entitlements, and laws, writing about incompetence at the highest levels of culture and government. Catch his weekly ramblings on his web site.

SARTRE
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in history, philosophy and political science served as training for activism on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic public service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. SARTRE's intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common-sense moral and traditional value culture for America. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey.

Blue Ribbon Campaign
for Free Speech Online

Jonathan David Morris:
A Place Called Perfect

Walgreens. It's the self-proclaimed "Pharmacy America Trusts." Been there lately? I have. A few weeks ago, in fact, I went there to fill a prescription for Augmentin. That's the antibiotic my doctor prescribed to make my ears stop popping. See, I'd gone to a concert and messed my ears up pretty badly, and the onset of allergy season wasn't letting them get better again. Seems I'd earned myself a swollen eustachian tube. My days felt like plane rides, the way simple living so pressurized my ears.

"Morris, Jonathan," the pharmacist said, banging away at her keyboard as I approached Walgreens' Rx counter that evening.

To hear her call my name was like music to my ears. Nice, quiet music, I mean. Not the loud kind that messed me up in the first place.

She dropped the pills in a bag just then, stapled the top, and took out a clipboard. "You will need to sign this," she said.

"What is it?" I asked.

I know, I know: It was a clipboard.

"It is to say you received the pamphlet," she told me.

She then handed me a pamphlet.

I took it from her.

"NOTICE OF PRIVACY PRACTICES," it said up top. It then went on to say this:

"Dear Walgreens Patient" -- me -- "This notice talks about the privacy of your prescription information. That's nothing new -- we've always taken great care to guard your privacy. What is new is a government regulation requiring us to spell out your rights. That's what you'll find on the following pages, and that's why our pharmacy asked for a signature that indicates this notice was received."

The bottom was signed by Walgreens CEO Dave Bernauer, or by a printing press with a knack for impersonating Walgreens CEO Dave Bernauer's signature.

Well, that's nice, I thought. Walgreens takes privacy seriously. Finally, somebody "gets it." How refreshing.

Then I turned the page.

There, I found this disclaimer: "We are permitted to use or disclose your PHI [Protected Health Information] for the following purposes." It then listed just under 20 reasons why "The Pharmacy America Trusts" might entrust my Protected Health Information with other people.

Research.

Fundraising.

The list went on.

And, of course, it all sounded reasonable. "We may use and disclose your PHI when necessary to prevent a serious threat to your health and safety," for example, "or the health and safety of the public or another person."

But then I stumbled upon the "purpose" I liked best: "We may release PHI about you to federal officials for intelligence, counterintelligence, protection to the President, and other national security activities authorized by law."

Wait a minute. What?

"Protection to the President"?

How, exactly, is my swollen eustachian tube a threat to the President? How's it a threat to anything other than my ability to breathe like a human being?

This makes me wonder what other info the feds might need in their efforts to defend our democracy.

My high score on Tetris, maybe? Well, I'll have you know I made it to the 13th level once upon a time. Write that down. I'm hoping it comes in handy when we go toe-to-toe with those nuke-having, Tetris-inventing Soviets.

What else? Does the government need to know if I've got a gym membership? I don't. I'm fat and lazy. I do a few sit-ups every other morning, and that's about it in terms of a workout program. They're not even good sit-ups. I'm probably hurting my lower back more than I'm working my abs. But I do 'em so I can feel better about myself.

Does that help?

When do I get my Presidential Physical Fitness Award?

And, hey, since the feds are so keen on collecting library records, why not Blockbuster Video records, too? An overdue copy of Ishtar clearly poses a threat to national security -- especially if it isn't rewound. I pity the man who can't see this (and pity the man who's seen Ishtar).

And listen: Somebody, somewhere, is keeping Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen in business. Whoever he is, he needs to be dealt with on behalf of our homeland.

Pronto.

"You just need to sign this," the pharmacist said a bit louder just then.

I shook my head.

What's that? Who's there? Where am I?

Oh, that's right: I'm at Walgreens. Guess I got lost in a haze for a moment. It happens -- and more often than I'd like to admit, I'll admit. Usually whenever I go off on a rant about Big Gov't. I've been doing a lot of that, lo these last few months.

You know, there's a Walgreens commercial that talks about a place called Perfect, where every front lawn is beautiful and green. "Of course, we don't live anywhere near Perfect," it notes, "so we have Walgreens." What a utopian rut!

I swear to you, sometimes, I feel like Keanu Reeves in The Matrix after he takes the red pill and discovers the real world is hidden beneath this world of our own. I think I took the proverbial red pill the day I stopped buying into political rhetoric -- indeed, the day I stopped believing Blue States and Red States exist.

But let me tell you: The red pill isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's like any other medication. It's got very real side effects. Headaches and nausea. High blood pressure. Persecution complex. Possibly even death.

Some folks have also reported the strange urge to start a band called Dogstar. I've been fortunate enough to skip that one.

"I know you've got blue pills back there somewhere," I wanted to say to the pharmacist. "Let me have 'em. You've got to help me. I want to believe my swollen eustachian tube is crucial counterintelligence info. And I want to stop taking myself seriously."

But instead I just stared at the clipboard for a moment, my head pressurized to the point where it hurt to forget what I was thinking.

"Sir?" the pharmacist said.

"Yes?" I shot back.

"Please sign the clipboard."

"Well, what is this, like, Patriot Act stuff?" I asked.

"It is just about privacy," she assured me.

Oh.

So I sucked it up and signed the clipboard, took my meds, and headed on home. Thank God it's baseball season -- I need a break from this red pill/blue pill, political nonsense. I know I'll never live in a place called Perfect. That's life. This is Walgreens. I could do without the headaches already.

Next concert I go to, I'm wearing earplugs.

Jonathan David Morris      Web Site      Contact     Back to Top    

SARTRE Encore Presentation from 12-26-02
Articles of Confederation Was Preferable

Once upon a time there was a country that believed in Liberty. The people of this fair land fought a revolution to free themselves from the tyranny of a foreign king. It was called the “shot heard round the world”. The purpose for all the sacrifices, risks and sufferings was the goal of establishing a nation, where free men could create a government that rested upon the consent of the people. How very long ago that was. So many people have forgotten - about themselves, their heritage and the very purpose, their government was intended to render.

The 1776 Revolution was fought for a common cause, to secure the natural rights of Englishmen. Each colony was settled under a charter from the king. With colonial victory, the Crown lost their claim over their former citizens. Individuals were residents of particular communities that existed in geographic regions within the former distinct colonies. These territories emerged as separate and independent states. As with any recognized civil authority, the legitimacy of their regime rests upon the conferred consent based upon the conditional sovereignty granted to that government, from the people. Home rule of the State is lawful, only as long as it retains the confidence and permission of citizens, to continue its administration.

In relations with other states or governments, each unit of dominion preserves the authority extended, by the governed. Therefore, it should be self evident that combinations of cooperation or entry into agreed of federations, are based upon the voluntary compact that each unit of government, bestows upon the larger assembly. This elementary summary was the basic understanding that citizens of the new nation understood and accepted to be the result of the victory at Yorktown. The prize of independence meant the ability to establish governance with their permission.

We continually hear about restoring the meaning, intent and spirit of the Constitution. Few know that we had a far preferable blueprint for a federation before the 1789 U.S. Constitution. It was called the Articles of Confederation. Have you ever read it? If not you should. At the outset it’s opening declaration has - Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States. Some may want to misconstrue that perpetual means subordinate. In Article II, the basis for union is stated with total clarity - Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.

Concern for national defense, diplomacy and treaties, assumption of war debt, extradition to state courts, unencumbered travel and commerce, coinage and adjudicator of disputes between states are subjects of mention. Prohibitions on specific areas for states are listed, while the few sections of administration by "a Committee of the States" are noted.

In Article X, a loose option for consensus (stated to be nine states) could enact measures. The Committee of the States, or any nine of them shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine states in the Congress of the United States assembled is requisite.

The significance is in the lack of abundant powers and the need to require agreement from nine of the thirteen states,  69% + for any new enactments. This stringent requirement does not exactly seem like the model for a subservient role for individual states!

No doubt the U.S. Constitution, added valuable protections against a tyrannical central government in the Bill of Rights. But, the nature of the expanded roles for the executive and judicial branches in that same - U.S. Constitution - elevating them to a theoretical and dubious co-equal status, created the inevitable usurpation of the legitimate power of the independent states. We all know the tragic history of the unimpeded executive despotism in America. Far fewer understand the catastrophic precedent in the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury vs Madison - placing the Supreme Court as the arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation. The mere restoration to the constraints in the 1789 U.S. Constitution will not revive the Republic from its demise into an absolutist oppressor. Only a systemic dismantling of that central government, returning primacy back to individual states will restore the vision of the American Revolution.

The continued erosions of Liberty that used to take a decade to chip away, has gone on fast forward and has now been compressed into little over a year. The reason is unmistakable. Most Americans no longer understand the intended purpose in the struggle against King George III. They now accept a domestic grown variant that has a Texas drawl while imposing edicts that no 18th century “American Englishman” would ever tolerate. Can the Stamp Act be compared to the Patriot Act? Can quartering red coats be measured by Homeland Security? Hasn’t the dream of the Founding Fathers been transformed into an empire that august Rome would envy? From Cicero to Caesar - from Washington to Bush! Only an idiot would consider the progression an advancement in Liberty, and solely the fool would follow the contrivance of the latest version of ‘duce’.

If the U.S. Constitution can be so totally perverted to make it effectively non existent, what hope is there in it’s restoration when it mistakenly allowed for the creation of an empowered central government? The contrast, in the Articles of Confederation, offered modest functions for a federal legislature, a limited and rotating management of bureaucratic duties and a very narrow role for federal courts. By resorting to the pressures and the power ambitions of autocrats, the 1789 Constitution sowed the seeds for a worst tyranny that has eaten away at the protections that were so obviously intended, when it was written. Sovereign States have been reduced to beggars. Under the Articles of Confederation the “perpetual union between the States” might have been achievable. With the invention of a preeminent executive and a proscriptive judiciary, we have evolved into a rule by an imperial dictator blessed under the cloak and process of arbitrary sanction.

The attempt in the U.S. Constitution to design strict prohibitions and parameters for a central government have been ignored and transgressed by succeeding generations of power mad Statists that hate Liberty as much as they love mastery over citizens. The proof of the insanity, for allowing a transfer of conditional authority into a structure that inevitably fosters the rule of depraved domination freaks, is the sad story of our history. Evil men who lust for power over all else, will always be with us. Granting them an easy road to perfect their sinister plots in the name of allegiance to country is lunacy. The principles upon which the Articles of Confederation were conceived, respected the righteousness of self rule. Revitalize the autonomy of states and diminish the scope of central intrusion. The war for independence must be fought again, the impostor who would be king is still named George...

SARTRE      Web Site       Contact       Back to Top