"Their View" Archives:

June 13, 2004

• When Saprophytes Speak
  (Around The World In About Eight Hundred Words)
• Ladies Night of the Living Dead
• Gun Control = Government Security

June 6, 2004

• Mission Accomplished Sir!
  (So You Wanna Talk About Vietnam? - Part 5)
• "Click It or Ticket" Sticks It To Drivers
• Ronald Reagan - Man of the Century

May 30, 2004

• Colonel Dunn: A Gentle Reminder (So You Wanna Talk About Vietnam? - Part 4)
• Persecution at the Shoe Store

May 23, 2004

• Major General John Paul Vann: ‘The Cat’ (So You Wanna Talk About Vietnam? - Part 3)
• The Patriot Act is a Refuge for Scoundrels
• To Conspire or Not to Conspire, That is the Question

May 16, 2004

• Lyndon Banes Johnson: The Beagles Nightmare (So You Wanna Talk About Vietnam? Part 2)
• Abu Ghraib Ain't No Animal House
• Deconstructing the JFK Myth

May 9, 2004

• Vietnam And Current Demographics
  (So You Wanna Talk About Vietnam? Part 1)
• This Just In: John Kerry Is Dull
• None Dare Call It Conspiracy! 

May 2, 2004

• A Family Of Spies
  (Oh The Webs We Weave...)
• Grab Your Sweater: D.C.'s Feeling a Draft
• America First is Populism in Action

April 25, 2004

• A Place Called Perfect
• Articles of Confederation Was Preferable

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 June 20, 2004

R.A. Hawkins
Jonathan David Morris
SARTRE

Click here for columnist bios

R.A. Hawkins
In The Eyes Of The Beholder
(What You See Is What You Get)

Many years ago in church I was treated to an interesting story. The person reading the story couldn’t remember who wrote it and it is apparently an old one. I believe the author was somebody named anonymous. To whomever the credit goes, Thank you! Here it is.

In ancient Japan there were many wonderful gardens and many monks attending to their needs. It was said that one could gain knowledge and understanding by viewing nature so much time was spent doing just that. One day the gardens were closed and three acolytes went to the gate and rang the bell so they could gain the attention of the head priest. He was quick to answer their bell and asked them what they wanted. They each answered quickly.

The first one said, “I would like a small branch from a tree so that I may contemplate how it became so large from such a small thing as a seed.”

The second acolyte said, “I would like an herb plant so that I may contemplate how it became so useful having started from such humble beginnings as a weed.”

The third one quickly responded, “I would like a rose so I may contemplate the mixture of beauty and that which lies below the beautiful flower.”

The Priest nodded and walked away. He returned a few minutes later and gave each of them what they had requested.

The first acolyte said, “But there is a dead leaf upon this branch.”

The second one said, “There is dirt upon the roots of this herb.”

The third one, caught up in the new line of thinking, responded, “There is a thorn left upon the stem of this rose.”

The priest apologized and responded. “Forgive me please I have made a horrible mistake. Please return them to me and I shall correct my error.” He bowed to them and left. Returning a few minutes later he told each of them to close their eyes and hold out their hands. They complied without question. He placed in the first mans hand a dead leaf. To the second he gave a clod of dirt with roots in it. The third was given a handful of thorns. He then told them to open their eyes.

As one would imagine they were quite upset with what he had given them and commented on it. The Priest simply smiled and answered them quietly. “I gave you exactly what you asked for and yet what you each hold in your hand is all that you saw. Go and contemplate that instead. Because that is all you saw, ask yourself why.” He turned and left the three of them standing at the gate.

I’m sure there are a few of you who are wondering what this has to do with politics so here it is. The Reagan legacy is a good example. I was sent an article on Reagan’s real tax record. It said that taxes actually increased under him due to inflation and increasing social security taxes. What the article omitted was the fact that Reagan put in his new tax plan and made a nice little speech to the nation that he was suggesting a ten percent flat tax and if it came out the other end of Congress looking any different we would know who to blame. That wasn’t mentioned in the article that was sent to me. Another thing that was strangely omitted was Carter raiding Social Security and deleting tax write offs. I used to be able to write off my mileage to work. Carter got rid of tax write offs that affected the average person but he put a happy face on it by saying he was only shafting the rich. But a Pseudo-Con or a liberal shill wrote the article, so I shouldn’t have been surprised. A Pseudo-Con is a person who is a liberal demagogue but thinks they are a conservative and isn’t smart enough to know the difference between liberalism and conservatism.

One might ask if I can see anything good that came from Clinton’s administration. I see a lot of good that came from it and here it is. He finally killed off the Special Council Law that allowed corrupt Presidents to investigate themselves. He created a law that was meant to be used against political adversaries. That law allowed civil court testimony to be used in federal sexual harassment cases. The first time it came into play was against the administration that created it. His perjury in civil court led an impeachment of himself. The media slowly turned it into a case of personal business when in fact it was everyone’s business because it was perjury in the Paula Jones case and not personal business. Perjury is a Felony pure and simple. So what happened was a duplicitous media protected a duplicitous administration. The intelligent saw it and the stupid proclaimed his innocence. The Clinton administrations failure to do something real in reaction to terrorism emboldened what would become our major enemy, or shall I say tool of the enemy. So what I’m saying is that which was hidden came out from the shadows and into the open. I’m talking about the media enemies and the terrorist enemies.

Now we have those same enemies lining up against us in Iraq gleefully pointing to even the most minor event that goes wrong as a failure. Kerry is clearly on the wrong side as usual. I have heard a lot of Pseudo-Cons parroting his words lately. Make sure that after this election you don’t look down into your hand and find a clod of dirt, a dead leaf or a handful of thorns. Decent people see opportunity whereas wimps and cowards always see failure.

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:
The Bolsheviks of Baseball

There's been a lot of talk this year -- as there seems to be pretty much every year -- about how unfair it is to be anything other than a New York Yankees fan. This is because the New York Yankees have more money than any team in baseball, and because owner George Steinbrenner consistently spends it in order to win.

Case in point: Earlier this year, after tense negotiations, the Boston Red Sox failed to acquire all-star Alex Rodriguez from the Texas Rangers. With Boston unwilling to take on the $179 million remaining on A-Rod's $252 million contract, the Yankees stepped in and signed him -- with Texas agreeing to swallow roughly a third of the money owed. This prompted Red Sox owner John Henry to suggest Major League Baseball needs a salary cap to prevent the sport's wealthiest teams from spending like the sport's wealthiest teams.

"There is really no other fair way to deal with a team that has gone so insanely far beyond the resources of all the other teams," Mr. Henry said of baseball's winningest franchise.

And he's right: Shy of taking a sledgehammer to each Yankee's kneecaps, there's no other way to deal with 'em. But the question is, should they be dealt with at all?

The idea behind a salary cap is that it imposes parity on a professional sports league. And make no mistake: Parity isn't without its merits. It makes things interesting. It keeps you guessing till the end.

As a Yankee fan, I've got to admit I get bored with winning every year. Yeah, I know this sounds smug, but I mean it. Last fall I rooted for the Red Sox to take on the Cubs in the Series. Neither team has won in nearly a hundred years. Only an angry, vengeful God could've prevented at least one of the two from walking away a winner, and I would've enjoyed the drama.

I also find it hard, as a Yankee fan, to warm up to some of the superstars The Boss brings in every year. It's the fact that he needs to bring them in that bothers me. I like teams built on strong farm systems more than teams made up of free agent all-stars. It's more organic that way. But that's not the way modern sports are played. So I'll take a winning team over a losing one any day, no matter who's wearing the uniform. Most fans would. And Mr. Steinbrenner knows this. That's why he brings in the best players he can buy.

Mr. Henry tried to do the same with Alex Rodriguez, but failed. The team with baseball's biggest payroll outbid the team with baseball's second biggest payroll. Now he wants a salary cap to prevent it from happening again. The Yanks must be stopped, he says. They're out of control. And he's willing to sacrifice the financial advantages his Red Sox have over teams like the Brewers, Pirates, and Devil Rays just to "get even," so to speak.

But, of course, this has everything to do with helping out the Brewers, Pirates, and Devil Rays, and nothing to do with Mr. Henry's if-I-can't-have-A-Rod-no-one-can attitude.

Who's to say small market teams need help, though? Who's to say they can't compete? Just last year, the Florida Marlins rode one of baseball's lowest payrolls into the World Series, where they knocked off none other than the New York Yankees. What's more, the defending champs sit atop the NL East as we speak -- a stark contrast to 1998, when they followed up their first championship season by selling off their well-paid players and finishing dead last.

And who's to say parity can be imposed from above? A colleague, Randy Tyler, points out that, in 25 years since the start of ESPN, only 7 teams have won the NBA championship. "Interestingly, unlike in other sports, the NBA's relatively solid salary cap prevents rich teams from hoarding talent," he says. Yet the MLB has had 17 champions in the same time span -- more than any other sport. Parity may be apparent in the NBA on a game-to-game basis, but its experiment in social engineering has yielded fewer champs than baseball's reasonably free market.

Still, some say, the MLB can tinker with its product any way it sees fit. And inasmuch as the league created the teams -- which is sometimes true, but not always -- this is a fair point. But the teams that cry poverty act like they've got an immutable right to exist. Some clubs can't make an honest buck, though. That's the bottom line. Keeping them afloat through salary caps and revenue sharing only excuses this, while letting them fold would save everyone money -- including the wealthy teams forced to support them.

Baseball is a business, after all, and in business the strong survive. This means figuring out what people want and giving it to them. Relying less on taxes to pay for ballparks is a good way to start. As Reason's Matt Welch notes: "San Francisco's glorious Pac Bell Park was the first privately financed stadium to be built since 1962; not coincidentally, it generates the most revenue in baseball. Private owners are far more likely to upgrade facilities, seek creative revenue-generating schemes, and stay put in their host cities."

Indeed, and it seems self-defeating for teams to appeal to a higher authority -- be it Major League Baseball, or a local government -- in hopes of enhancing competition. If anything, intervening against the Yankees on behalf of the Red Sox, or against the Red Sox on behalf of the Devil Rays, is as anti-competitive as it gets. It specifically penalizes those who beat out their competition. Where I come from, we call this socialism. We also call it theft.

If Mr. Henry has his way, the Major Leagues will be only as strong as their weakest links. A better option would be to let the weak links meet their fate, and let flourish the baseball economy. At worst, a few teams will fold, and the market will correct itself. The talent pool will be spread out over a smaller number of teams, and this will create a parity all its own.

Jonathan David Morris      Web Site      Contact     Back to Top    

SARTRE Encore Presentation from 01-31-02
Bush the Next FDR?

"My call tonight is for every American to commit at least two years -- 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime -- to the service of your neighbors and your nation."

"We will be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

Text from State of the Union Address

These words seem to project calls to action that many will accept as being reasonable. But what exactly are the methods and consequences for following such goals?

The USA Freedom Corps! What exactly is: "extending American compassion throughout the world?"  It sure rings like nation building, doesn't it? When Bush seeks to expand the AmeriCorps, Senior Corps and the Peace Corps, it sure sounds like the Civilian Conservation Corps of FDR. Just what does "volunteerism" mean for George Jr?

Does our duty as a citizen extend to service to the State or to our neighbor and community?  Those who confuse legitimate charity for worthy causes with service in government programs enter a very dangerous arena. If the claim for national service rests upon a moral duty, where is the evidence that any national government has ever fulfilled its duty to American citizens?

We are living in a shadow vestige of what this nation once was. Government was about serving and protecting her people. Now the call is to serve the apparatus that serves itself, at the expense of the citizen. How fine it would be if social service organizations would be benign government programs, but the horrible record of State agendas destroys the noble purpose of volunteer compassion.

Have we lost all proportion when it comes to the miserable record of bureaucratic programs? If President Bush purports to be a Republican, why expand Socialism? We cannot accept hideous schemes in the spirit of bipartisanship. The correct role for government has been abandoned for over a century. Now we see emerging the West Texas version of Hyde Park.

The long fight to abolish the draft, may well need to be fought again. This time, the idea expands to a post graduate course in state service for our youth.  The task of indoctrination wasn't completed in the government schools, so on the job training becomes necessary. This is not the kind of public service that bears healthy fruits. And who among us cannot see the seeds planted for voluntary blending into a disguised form of compulsory?

Couple this domestic twist with the approach of the War Party for security, and we must wonder just who is being protected. It sure smells like preemptive strikes are on the horizon. In the fine tradition of the Israeli air strike against the Iraq's nuclear facility in 1981, we are being prepared for more tortured justification in international law. Preventive aggression without declaring war is an insult to any nation that holds itself out as the beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. If this 'axis of evil' is so diabolical, and must be confronted, do it legally and get Congress to declare war!

One need not defend a deviant tyrannical regime to implore their own country to observe constitutional requirements. The current course in interventionist rule, guarantees perpetual warfare. Attempts to validate arrogance of power as legitimate under the ruse of self defense, stretches common sense to unnatural limits. Bush views this quest as a fight against pure evil. Crusades without prudence end in carnage. If the goal is to protect America, how is this country served when three new enemies are being programmed into the GPS targeting system, when their abilities to strike our shores are limited to cells of fanatics?

Are Americans so bewildered that such unilateral assaults will have more in common with the desperation of imperial Japan, when they launched their attack on Pearl Harbor, than a holy cause for saving the world? If the weapons of mass destruction are ready to be used, does it make sense to initiate a doomsday scenario, when Red China may well side with her Asian cousins? It is one thing to correct inadequacies in political objectives after the Gulf War, with attempts to defuse the aggression of Saddam Hussein. But what exactly has been achieved with over ten years of flyover confrontations, while we still buy his oil? Real grass root dissent exists in Iran, so why is Bush so willing to regenerate national solidarity against that satan infidel?

No folks, this is a very dangerous policy to pursue. If the political elites are allowed to galvanize their "policeman of the world" strategy, America will act like a thug. Real and justifiable retaliation for active aggression from terrorist states deserves an effective response. But adopting unilateral preemptive raids, which virtually guarantees lethal reprisals, does not increase protection for our country.

Is Bush just preparing the American public for the aftermath of this war on terror when he calls for the USA Freedom Corps? Is this the first step back to conscription or is it going to be expanded into a FEMA disaster response backup of the home guard?

When Americans endorsed the Socialism of FDR, they bought into the deception of equating civic moral duty with government service. Linkage between these two vastly different approaches, has caused more damage to the American Nation than any terrorist plot. Bush has revealed his zeal for militant incursion, in defense of the New World Order. His father popularized the acceptability of what was once a shadow theory. Bush II is now taking the reality of the NWO and equating it with the defense of America. Buying into this prevarication would make Franklin Delanor Roosevelt proud.

The following is from the FDR inaugural speech March 4th, 1933:

"It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our national resources."

It seems that Bush has an updated rendition of the same message. Not exactly the Republican vision that the State serves the people! WWII changed America for the worse. We risk a WWIII that will destroy it forever...

SARTRE      Web Site       Contact       Back to Top