 |
What They've Thought
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
What They're Thinking Now... R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
|||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins I found an interesting quote in an article by Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times. It read, “Still, a fascist Russia is a much better thing than a Communist Russia.” There has been quite a reaction to it, and I do mean an overreaction too. I don’t agree with Kristof in his comments at all, but he does make an interesting point. Here is part of the comment he made that many of us right-wing scumbags are leaving out as we comment on this quote, “Communism was a failed economic system, while Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile and the others generated solid economic growth, a middle class and international contacts - ultimately laying the groundwork for democracy. Eventually we'll see pro-democracy demonstrations in Moscow like those in Kiev.” Most of the time, Socialism is a one-way street that leads to Communism. Those who hold power rarely give it up willingly. The passing of power usually happens because the tyrant is staring down the business end of a rifle. What Pinochet did was something that will not probably happen again for a long time. He had a vision that is, or was, quite different from Putin’s, whose vision I discussed last week as part of a long-range plan. Kristof does make a few good points, however. As he says, if the people of the Ukraine can stand up to Putin, so can we. Bush has been doing that, and that is why Putin is so mad at him. Putin made a lot of comments about the year 2000 election in the United States, and unfortunately for Putin, Bush remembers and has made accurate comments regarding Putin’s Russia. As they used to say, and probably are once again saying in Russia, “There is no Tas in Pravda and no Pravda in Tas.” Or if you prefer “There is no Truth in Proof and no Proof in Truth.” By the way, a good indicator as to how reliable any source of information might be would be in the name. Truth and Proof are excellent examples of this. Georgia managed to get rid of Shevardnadze, and that is what the Ukraine is trying to do with the pro-Russian leader that supposedly won the Ukrainian election. Part of what got Shevardnadze in trouble was his reaction to Russia regarding Cechnya. Russia wanted to enter Georgia to seek out the Chechen rebels who were operating in the region and seeking safety in Georgia. Georgia’s leader did the Russian thing and got caught in his web of deceit. He told the Russians to stay out of Georgia, but then he backed his troops up about twenty miles so that the Russians wouldn’t get caught when they came in looking for the Chechens. Unfortunately for Shevardnadze, he got caught out in a lie. He ain’t the boss no mo’. Now, since we’re talking about Chechnya, here’s one the media didn’t want to go into when it was happening and they will probably always be silent on it. If you’re trying to win a war against a bunch of terrorists (or freedom fighters, depending on which side you’re on), you are going to put your troops in there; and once they’re familiar with the enemies' tactics, you’re going to let them stay and win. That isn’t what they did, however. The Russians were rotating troops through that region on an incredibly short cycle of just a few months. Why? Because they needed to have some battle-hardened troops. Fortunately, as of this point they haven’t been put into play, and I suspect most of them are now out of their military. But what were they planning that never came to fruition? Fascism is the state running everything, with the people owning it but having no say in its use. Communism is the state owning everything and the people having no say in its use. In both cases, the state determines everything. Like I said in the title, the boot heel tastes the same. I find it hard to make the determination Kristof makes and I couldn’t agree with him less, except from the viewpoint that we need to continue to stand up to Putin. I would also like to see us yank "most favored nation" trade status from the Chinese since they are no different, and particularly since I know what they are planning. The Communists were well known for saying they would hang the Capitalist bastards with the ropes we sold them. When that is to occur nobody knows, but I suggest you all brace yourselves. Judge Roy Bean used to promise a fair trial before the hanging and so I guess I have to look to that for a good closing quote that was probably heard a lot in his cells. “For now…No noose is good noose.” R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||||||||
Jonathan David Morris: The Story of "A Christmas Story" It is impossible to be an American, and especially a child of the ‘80s, without having watched—a hundred times—the classic film, “A Christmas Story." “A Christmas Story” is narrated by the inimitable Jean Shepherd of pre-Limbaugh-Hannity-Savage radio fame. It’s based on a chapter in Shepherd’s book, “In God We Trust (All Others Pay Cash)," and it tells the story of 9-year-old Ralphie Parker’s quest for the ultimate Christmas gift: An Official Red Ryder Carbine-Action, 200-Shot, Range-Model Air Rifle. But, of course, that’s not the only thing it tells us. I first saw “A Christmas Story” on cable TV a few years after its ‘83 theatrical release. I don’t remember when it was, exactly, because I was pretty young back then, and I wasn’t acquainted with calendars yet. But it was only the first time of many anyway. I soon received a VHS copy taped off Showtime by a family friend. I wore that copy out (and can still remember the station logo appearing on screen when the Old Man heads outside to admire his leg-shaped lamp in the window). A few years ago, I bought a new copy on DVD. And then last year, I bought it again—this time, the 20th Anniversary special edition. You can call me a sucker, if you want to. I probably deserve it. I mean, with the countless times they show it on TV each holiday season, I could just as easily watch it for free (and I often do). But that wouldn’t be the same. I must own it. I must make it my own. All this hardcore fandom would probably lead you to believe I relate to this movie in some deep and meaningful way. But, strangely, I don’t. I identify with it, but I don’t relate to it. I’m not sure if that makes much sense. Let me put it this way: You know how some books or movies so resemble your life they might as well be written about you? Yeah, well, for me, that isn’t the case with “A Christmas Story.” (Incidentally, Carly Simon once wrote a song accusing me of thinking she wrote a song about me. But I wasn’t so vain as to think that one was about me, either.) Ralphie and I had much different childhoods, which is why I say I don’t “relate” to this movie. For instance, he lived in Indiana. But me? I lived in Jersey and never went west of Ohio. And whereas he campaigned for a B.B. gun, I wanted a “Masters of the Universe” Snake Mountain playset and later a hoverboard. (Note: I’m still waiting for a hoverboard.) More importantly, unlike Ralphie, I know nothing about the Great Depression, except for the stuff they taught me in high school and college. For me, the early ‘90s recession represents the depths of economic despair. It’s not nearly the same thing. So if you go based on look and feel, or time and place, or even a little bit of both, “A Christmas Story” is much more relevant to my grandparents’ generation than my own. It’s old fashioned, this movie. It’s a throwback, a wonderful life, a miracle on 34th Street. Which isn’t to say I can’t relate to a few individual scenes. I can. Like Ralphie’s mom, my mom washed my mouth out with soap once. And like Ralphie’s brother, my brother was a famously bad eater (though, actually, so was I). But unlike Ralphie’s dad, my dad has never made war with a furnace, or spewed jumbled curse words (preferring well-spoken ones). He’s never fallen in love with a leg lamp, either. Nor has my mom ever “used up all the glue… on purpose” after dropping said lamp on the floor. And unlike Ralphie, I have never—ever—looked forward to anything remotely connected to Little Orphan Annie. (All right, maybe once.) (All right, twice—but that’s my final offer.) But with all this in mind, what is it, exactly, that makes this movie so special to me? Is it just the fact that it accurately captures the magic—the simplicity of purpose—of being a kid? Well, it certainly does that, but a lot of movies do. If that’s all there was to it, I wouldn’t be writing this. It goes deeper, I think. Indeed, it comes down to this: “A Christmas Story” doesn’t remind me of things that have happened in my life. It reminds me of things it inspired in my life—all the times I quoted from it, or reenacted scenes. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who feels this way. “A Christmas Story” is something a lot of folks—especially folks my age—have in common. How many of us have copied Ralphie saying “fudge” (instead of that other F-word) to his father, with our own fathers standing in? How many of us have imitated Ralphie’s brother imitating a pig while eating meatloaf? Or contemplated sticking our tongues to frozen flagpoles? Or heard Jean Shepherd narrating stuff in the back of our heads? (Hey, it could be worse. It could be Daniel Stern doing his “Wonder Years” gig up there.) I’ve heard it said that human beings use art as a prism through which to understand life. Sometimes we do it with Carly Simon’s “You’re So Vain.” Other times we do it with “A Christmas Story.” Usually, we don’t do it with “You’re So Vain,” but I think you get the idea. The point is, I learned to read during the first Reagan administration. I can’t speak for everyone in my generation, nor will I try to, but as one member of many I can tell you this: Due to some strange alignment of time and space, “A Christmas Story” happens to be one of the constants in my life. When I first watched it, I was younger than Ralphie. Then I caught up. Then I surpassed him. And to date, I’m still watching, still finding new perspectives from which to enjoy it each year. In this way, I say I “identify” with it—because it helped shape a small part of my identity. “A Christmas Story” is one of my two favorite movies ever (behind only “Back to the Future;” and by the way, I’m still waiting for a hoverboard). Ten months out of the year, I barely know this movie exists. But when it swims into view again, I can’t help but watch it. My parents never charted my growth with marks on the wall when I was a kid; this movie sort of replaces that. “A Christmas Story” isn’t about Ralphie Parker’s quest for the ultimate Christmas gift. It isn’t even really about Christmas. It transcends the holiday season. It transcends schoolyard bullies, leg lamps, and triple dog dares. It transcends childhood and even transcends generational gaps. This is no longer a movie about traditions; it is now a tradition all its own. Many of us have seen it what seems like a hundred times. And the way TNT plays it 12 times each Christmas, maybe we’ve seen it even more. The only thing left for this movie is for characters in other Christmas movies to watch it; then it will take its place alongside “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “Miracle on 34th Street,” and the cycle of life will be complete. If you ask me, it couldn’t’ve happened to a better flick. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||||||||
|
No column this week - Holiday break. 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 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 2, 2005 6:15 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
|||||||||||
