Thursday, April 29, 2004

FYI to Readers
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

While cruising around the blog-osphere, I ran across this from the evangelical outpost concerning comments from readers.

“Increasingly, every post -- no matter what the subject -- has degenerated into a spat over the Bush’s administration’s policies or the political differences amongst liberals, libertarians, and conservatives. At best the comments tend to veer off-topic; at worst they degenerate into unacceptable name-calling.

It has become so bad that even I don’t take the time to read most of the comments. I even actively avoid responding so I don’t appear to be endorsing the nonsense that goes on. But this is my blog and, like it or not, by keeping silent I am condoning the activity.”

Believe me, I understand.

This is the reason I stopped sending my opinion pieces by e-mail. The few comments that I received were almost always off topic, usually containing some irrelevant rant about some unrelated subject, and occasionally containing such vile language that other readers were horrified.

It seems that people who comment on articles have little to offer besides complaining and name-calling. They don’t want discourse. They don’t want to be involved in serious discussion about issues. They just want to sling verbal shit at me and at each other.

I had enough of it, so I quit doing it. I doubt that I will ever offer a comments option for readers. Those who know me have my e-mail address and are welcome at any time to comment on my articles. But, please understand that I have already blocked e-mails from particularly offensive name-callers, complainers, and people who just want to rant. Also, I will no longer share comments I receive from friends and family unless I have the express permission of the person who sends them to me.

The cyber-plaza of public debate has been adulterated with an epidemic of intellectual graffiti, senseless babble, and inane blather. I have no time for it, and I will not inflict it on others.

Thank you for your understanding.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Helping Colorado's Drought
Just a thought © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

April 29, 2004. It's raining and snowing lightly in the Denver metro area today. It's cold. We don't care for the bad weather, but we need the moisture.

Having heard statements like, "We need ever drop of moisture we can get" one too many times, here are my suggestions for how each of us can help mitigate Colorado's drought.

Instead of swallowing your saliva, run outside and spit.

Pee in your yard.

If you have diarrhea, you could be a boon to the State!

Bleeding? Runny nose? Get your butt out there and do your part for Colorado!

Work up a sweat, role around in the grass.

Other suggestions come to mind, but they make me gag.

Remember, Colorado needs every drop you can spare.


Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Chicken Hawks
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

The term "chicken hawk" has come back into vogue after nearly thirty years of disuse. It first appeared on the American scene in the 1960's, popular with anti-American-victory-in-Viet-Nam protesters. (The people who protested America's war in Viet Nam, including candidate for President, Senator John F. Kerry, never uttered a peep about North Viet Nam's war in Viet Nam, especially the invasion in 1971, and another invasion in 1975 the eventually fulfilled Ho Chi Mihn's lifelong dream of the military conquest of South Viet Nam. So, Senator Kerry and all the other protesters of that era cannot call themselves anti-war, only anti-American.)

A chicken hawk is supposed to be any person who advocates war, but who does not actually serve in the military. My goodness.

The idea of the chicken hawk is that only people who have experienced the trauma of military service are wise enough to understand how horrible war can be (as though people without military service have never read a book or watched television). However, the actual supposition is that no one should ever advocate using military force for any reason.

Using this idea, Franklin Roosevelt would have to be America's number one chicken hawk, followed by Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, and Abraham Lincoln, to name a few.

The latest target of this name-calling is Vice President Dick Cheney. As a veteran of America's war in Viet Nam, it is my honor to grant Vice President Cheney full absolution (as if he needs it) for not having served a day in uniform. In fact, Mr. Cheney's over thirty years of service to his country vastly outweighs my four years in the Army. And, just between you and me, I trust Dick Cheney to understand America's interests and capabilities a hell of a lot better than the clowns who are calling him a chicken hawk. Military service notwithstanding, he is fully qualified to advise the President on national defense policy.

If promoting war and not serving in the military makes a person a chicken hawk, then what is Bill Clinton? He dodged the draft by lying to the draft board. That fulfills the chicken requirement. He is also opposed to using American military force. That makes him a chicken chicken.

As for veterans who advocate not using American military force to defend our national interest, what does that make them? Hawk chickens, of course.

However, Bill Clinton used military force many times, including in Waco, Texas. I guess, by the standards set down by the anti-American-victory-under-any-circumstances Democrats--including candidate for President, Senator John F. Kerry--Bill Clinton is also a chicken hawk. Hmmm.

As for me, I prefer chicken hawks to chicken chickens like Clinton and hawk chickens like John Kerry. Hawks are hawks and chickens are chickens. Clinton, Kerry, and all the other run-away-and-hide-from-reality Democrats are just chickens.

Listening to the Democrats question the courage and judgment of Republicans is bizarre. The number one Democrat of the day, John Kerry, is an overt coward. He can't stand up for himself even in front of friendly audiences. He thinks everyone is picking on him. He can't stand anyone questioning him for any reason. To the Democrats: Doctor, heal thyself.

Having spent four years in the U. S. Army, I cannot qualify for the designation of chicken hawk. I am a hawk hawk. But, if I did earn the moniker "chicken hawk", I would wear it like a crown.

There is no shame in advocating defending the United States of America when you have no military service. As a veteran of America's war in Viet Nam, I would like to offer complete absolution for everyone who never served a day in the armed forces and who advocates defending America's interests by using military force. It just means that you have the good sense to understand that defending the United States of America is the right thing to do.

Since the Democrats want to use the term "chicken hawk" as a slander against sensible, patriotic Americans, the same way they used the term "pigs" to slander the police, chicken hawks need to turn the tables the same way the police did with "Pride, Integrity, Guts."

How's this for a bumper sticker?

Chicken Hawks Fly. Chickens Just Run Away.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Cortisol: Essential Facts
Information © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

With increased interest in cortisol controlling supplements, I thought it was necessary to investigate cortisol and report to you some essential facts.

Cortisol is a steroid hormone produced by the adrenal glands during stressful situations, either physical or emotional. It mobilizes fuels such as amino acids (proteins), glucose (sugars), and free fatty acids (fats). Normal levels of cortisol are 6 to 23 mcg/dl (micrograms per deciliter). Cortisol stays in the blood for about two and a half hours.

Effects of cortisol:
Stimulates protein catabolism (protein breakdown in muscle tissue)
Stimulates liver uptake of amino acids and the conversion to glucose (gluconeogenesis)
Inhibits glucose uptake and oxidation by body cells (insulin antogonism, insulin resistance), but not by the brain
Stimulates triacylglycerol (triglyceride) catabolism in adipose (fat) tissue, with release of glycerol and fatty acids into the blood
Enhanced vascular reactivity, increased ability to maintain vasoconstriction in response to norepinephrine and other stimuli
Inhibition of inflammation and other immune responses

Effects of cortisol on organic metabolism:
Increased protein catabolism
Increased gluconeogenesis (glucose production from protein)
Reduces the ability of insulin to stimulate glucose uptake
Decreased glucose uptake by cells
Increased triacylglycerol (fat) breakdown

Normal levels of cortisol are essential to good health. Cortisol helps regulate energy, healing, and water retention.

However, chronic stress can induce chronic elevated levels of cortisol. Chronic elevated levels of cortisol can lead to serious health problems:
Increased appetite, especially for carbohydrates
Increased appetite for alcohol
Weight gain, or difficulty losing weight
Fat deposits around the abdominal area instead of the hips and thighs
High blood glucose levels
Pervasive sense of distress, gloom, or unhappiness
Anxiety, depression, and panic attacks
In women, irregular menstrual cycles and increased facial hair

Your body responds to emotional stress the same way it responds to physical stress. In fact, your body doesn't know the difference. After all, emotional distress is part of the learning process, learning to recognize threats before actual injury occurs. Perception of a threat causes the same physiological response as an actual injury, preparing the body for potential injury.

Because cortisol causes your body to convert protein to glucose and interferes with insulin and the uptake of amino acids and glucose into the cells, chronic elevated levels of cortisol can actually defeat high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets, resulting in elevated blood sugar levels, weight gain, out of control appetite, depression, and fatigue.

Chronic elevated levels of cortisol can cause insulin resistance and can lead to Type II (insulin dependent) diabetes.

Chronic elevated levels of cortisol can cause physiological and psychological burnout, causing your body and mind to give up, resulting in physical and emotional exhaustion, desperation, dread, and panic.

Before discussing what to do about chronic elevated levels of cortisol, read the following cautions.






Cortisol supplements contain four major ingredients, all of which tend to reduce elevated levels of cortisol, but do not lower regular levels of cortisol. Use them at your own discretion. I have not tried any of them myself.

The most reliable method for reducing chronic elevated levels of cortisol is to manage stress in your life. Regular exercise, meditation, yoga, acupuncture, and prayer can all help bring cortisol levels down to normal. Talking to friends and family, telling jokes, listening to music, laughing, and singing can also help reduce stress. Chocolate and chili peppers (the hotter, the better) can also increase endorphins, which help to counter elevated cortisol levels.

High intake of caffeine can increase cortisol levels, as can alcohol and tobacco. Extended strenuous exercise can also elevate cortisol levels. Fasting will elevate cortisol levels.

Cortisol is essential to good health. Chronic stress can cause chronic elevated levels of cortisol, which can result in increased appetite, weight gain, insulin resistance, fatigue, and depression. Regular exercise, a good diet, and just kicking back and relaxing can help you feel better, have more energy, and help you lose unwanted pounds.

There you go. I hope this helps.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Whither Viet Nam?
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

The Democrats are trying their level best to portray John Kerry as a hero of the Viet Nam War, and George W. Bush as a slacker. But, whither Viet Nam?

The Democrats seem to have forgotten that their own core constituents, the anti-anti-Communists, still oppose the Viet Nam War. Portraying Kerry as a hero is appealing to the wrong audience. People who think that John Kerry is a war hero are going to vote for Bush because they do not oppose America's use of military force for national defense.

Kerry and his handlers ought to revert to the position that he took in 1971 when he publicly opposed the war. That would strengthen his position among the Democratic Party faithful, and establish him as being in opposition to America's use of military force for any reason not approved by the United Nations. This would appeal to the Chinese, the Russians, the French, the Germans, and most of the rest of the world.

The problem for Kerry and the Democrats is that the election in November is an American election, and frankly, we Americans don't give a rusty rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks. Our nation is under attack by crazy people--crazy enough to use nuclear weapons against our cities--and we must kill them. That means that we have to travel to foreign lands, meet interesting and exotic people, and kill them. To get rid of termites, you have to kill the nest.

For Kerry and the Democrats to have a ghost of a chance, they have to oppose this position firmly and clearly. But, they don't have the guts. They want us to believe that John Kerry was a hero even when he opposes using American military force for national defense. The utter hypocrisy of it stinks to the stars.

Kerry wants to be recognized as a hero in a war that he opposed, and in which he asserts that he committed war crimes. His position is that the war was wrong, and that he was a villain for helping to make that war happen, but that he should be honored as a hero today by everyone, those who supported the war, as well as those who opposed it.

This is analogous to saying that an SS officer in Nazi Germany should be treated as a hero because he fought bravely, and saved the lives of fellow Nazis. If America's war in Viet Nam was wrong, then Kerry and all the rest of us who were there are also wrong. It is impossible to be a hero in a war against humanity.

If, as Kerry and the core constituent Democrats assert, America's war in Viet Nam was wrong, then all those who took part in it were wrong for doing so. The war didn't make itself; we made the war.

Add to this the irreconcilable position that Kerry also wants to be honored for opposing the war. What are we supposed to believe? Kerry was a hero in a war in which he committed war crimes, a war that he publicly opposed? What?

It is disgusting to watch the Democrats of today--who when they were of that age opposed the war, spit on veterans returning from Viet Nam, dodged the draft, rioted, protested, burned their draft cards, and in some cases disgraced their country by throwing their medals over the fence at the White House--now declaring that John Kerry's service in Viet Nam was honorable.

These people are pieces of garbage!

Tell it to the thousands of vets who were spit on, attacked, fired from their jobs, and discriminated against in a thousand ways. Tell it the to vets who are still viewed as criminals, baby-killers, drug addicts, and freaks.

It's time for Kerry and the Democrats to live with the mess they made for everyone else. As for the rest of you, stop calling John Kerry a war hero. He opposed the war. He asserted that he committed war crimes. He threw away his medals. He behaved shamefully. His shameful behavior has wiped away any good he may have done just the way ruthlessly murdering his wife has forever wiped away any honor that might have been bestowed on O. J. Simpson.

Yes, it's about the medals. And this is one more reason (like I don't have enough already) that I will vote against John F. Kerry in November. Please join me in honoring America's real heroes of the Viet Nam War and vote against John F. Kerry in November.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Friday, April 23, 2004

God Willing
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

The transcript of a tape released by Osama bin Laden was published at the BBC's web site on April 15, 2004. The text contains the following from bin Laden:

"The act that horrified the world, that is, the killing of the old, handicapped [Hamas spiritual leader] Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, may God have mercy on him, is sufficient evidence [of American terrorism].

We pledge to God that we will punish America for him, God willing."

This is a fine example of a terrorist, a man who is responsible for hundreds of atrocities, pledging to commit more atrocities, "God willing". But, why?

One of the essential teachings of Islam is that nothing will happen unless it is the will of God. This raises some obvious problems, such as free will and the source of evil. However, as used by Osama bin Laden, free will and the source of evil are not in question.

To the terrorists, their mission to defeat America, Israel, and all non-believers will be fulfilled, God willing. All acts of killing, including violations of Islamic law that forbid killing children, are excused as being the will of God. The fact that the terrorists committed the act is proof that God willed them to do it.

This leads to two obvious conclusions: 1) God forbids no acts, and 2) the acts of America, Israel, and all non-believers are also the will of God.

It is possible that the failure of the terrorists to defeat their enemies is the will of God. This idea does not seem to have occurred to the terrorists. The idea that flying jetliners into buildings full of innocent people is a violation of Islamic law, and for that reason has never been done before, does not seem to impede the vision of the terrorists as the instruments of God's will. Why not?

The terrorists are only nominally Moslem. They are primarily Nazis. They have discarded the racial supremacy arguments of Nazism and adopted the love of killing that makes Nazism so dangerous. Their mission, God willing, is to kill. They do not intend to defeat their enemies by persuasion, only by killing.

The reason Arab Moslems may find Nazism to be attractive is that Arab Islam achieved their acme after only a few centuries. Arab Moslems have not been a force in history for hundreds of years. Arab armies got slapped around by the Byzantines, the Persians, the Spanish, and finally the Turks. Arab populations were subject to often brutal Turkish domination, and later to European imperialism.

With the advent of demand for oil by Europe and North America, Arabs in the 1970's had enough money to start having some influence. Most of the ruling Arabs chose economic and diplomatic means to get their points across. However, Arab rulers still dominated Arab people, and the terrorists were not included in the new Arab ruling classes.

Which brings us back to the value of Nazism to Arab Moslems. Nazism is a powerful force. Nazis overturned the ruling classes in Germany. Nazism offers subjugated Arabs a method for overturning their own Arab rulers.

There is only one problem: the will of God. Nazism is not permitted under Islamic law. Nazism is the politics of Godless infidels. So, how do the terrorists get away with spreading Nazi doctrine wrapped in an Islamic package?

In many quarters of Islam, they do not. However, millions of Moslems yearn for a return to the good old days when Arab armies swept across the land converting the infidels to the way of God, and creating a perfect society in their wake. At least, that's how they see their own history.

The assertion of power by the terrorists is viewed as the assertion of Arab power. Arab Moslems are finally striking back against the infidel Westerners and their lackeys, the ruling Arab classes.

By claiming that their acts are the will of God, the terrorists place themselves into a state of grace, excused in advance for adopting the doctrines of Godless infidel Nazis. With this doctrine in hand, the terrorists are unrestrained from committing atrocities.

The inability to restrain oneself from committing atrocities is regarded in Western culture as the very definition of insanity. To the terrorists, it is their duty. Besides, the idea of sanity is a Western tool of oppression.

One question is answered: How did the people of Germany appear to go completely insane during the Nazi era? Adherence to political or religious doctrine that requires adherents to disregard their own lives and the lives of others seems like insanity. In other words, adherence to insane doctrine makes the adherents seem insane.

People who are considered clinically insane exhibit no identifiable cause for their destructive thoughts and behavior. Such people can be restrained and treated.

People who strictly adhere to doctrine are loyal followers. Loyal followers of benign doctrines are benign. Loyal followers of dangerous doctrines are truly dangerous. As Aristotle said, "A good citizen of an evil State is an evil man."

It is the duty of civilization, therefore, to defeat evil doctrine. How we do that now becomes the next great debate. But, then, that has always been the great debate of every civilization.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Thursday, April 22, 2004

Every Standard of Decency
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

Hugh Hewitt reports that the Kerry campaign said:

"The Bush Campaign has violated every standard of decency by attacking John Kerry's military service. When it comes down to it, this is an attack on all veterans, soldiers and their families. And so we're asking for help from all Americans to hit back now."


First, as a veteran of America's war in Viet Nam, the Bush campaign did not attack me. Believe me. If Bush and his attack dogs question John Kerry's service record, that doesn't mean a thing to me. Considering that John F. Kerry betrayed the trust of all veterans of America's war in Viet Nam, he has no business now trying to suck up to us. It's too late, John, you lying bastard. You and Jane Fonda did a lot of damage to us, damage that many of us still live with. So, kiss off, jerk wad. You're on your own. Don't come crying to me when Bush kicks the crap out of you. It's about time someone did.

Second, the Bush campaign never attacked John Kerry's military service. That's a bald-faced lie.

"Every standard of decency" sounds like a lot, doesn't it? After all, it's "every", which means all, actual or potential. And so, we are led to believe that the Bush campaign has violated them. Every one. How is that possible? That's a lot of violating by simply attacking Kerry's military service (which, by the way, never happened), don't you think?

Also, I cannot make sense of the term "standard of decency". What could that mean? My copy of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "decency" as "standard of propriety" and "conformity to standards of taste, propriety or quality", among other things. Therefore, a "standard of decency" could mean a "standard of standards". Okay. So, what's a standard?

As a noun, the word "standard" has many meanings, all of which suggest that a "standard" is a rallying point, a flag, a banner, etc. As an adjective, "standard" means essentially conforming to an established law or custom.

However, Kerry didn't use the word "standard" as an adjective. He used it as a noun. To be fair, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary does the same thing in defining "decency" as "standard of propriety". It seems that common usage permits converting an adjective into a noun while retaining its modifying properties.

Therefore, considering common usage and meaning, the term "every standard of decency" as used by the Kerry campaign most likely means "every conformity to established custom of propriety".

Really? The Bush campaign violated "every conformity to established custom of propriety"? How? What does he mean?

This is typical of John Kerry: say something that no reasonable person can understand, then clarify what you actually meant after you hear the criticisms. "I wasn't talking about…" seems to be Kerry's favorite parry when questioned about controversial statements. Well, John, what the hell were you talking about?

That's the point. No one knows what John F. Kerry is talking about. He deliberately makes incomprehensible statements so that he can wiggle out of any problems that might arise from taking a clear position. This is characteristic of people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and I am concerned that Senator Kerry is truly disturbed and needs professional help. Whether he has an identifiable psychiatric disorder or not, there is something seriously wrong with Senator John F. Kerry, (D) Massachusetts. He is not fit to be President of the United States.

But Kerry didn't say "every standard of decency" because he meant that the Bush campaign violated "every conformity to established custom of propriety". He was being dramatic, like a teenager trying to convince his recalcitrant parents to let him have the car on Saturday night.

In other words, "every standard of decency" doesn't mean anything; it's just more harrumphing and huffing from John "Arrogance Personified" Kerry. That's all you're every going to get from Kerry; harrumphing and huffing, but never, never, never a meaningful, genuine conversation.

Keep Kerry out of the White House. Vote Bush. Vote Nader. Vote Mickey Mouse. Vote Mo, Larry, or Curly. Just don't give John Kerry your money or your vote.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Sunday, April 18, 2004

Run Away Liberals
Movie Review © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

On the advice of family, my wife convinced me to watch Run Away Jury starring Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman.

The movie was good. The performances were good. The plot was good. However, my advice to you is to run away from this movie.

Run Away Jury is a radical leftwing propaganda piece posing as a movie. The leftist propaganda severely detracts from the movie. They could have chosen a different subject matter, and the movie would have been interesting and enjoyable. As it is, saturated with leftist slogans, paranoia, and stereotypes, it is annoying and ludicrous. It's like sucking on sour apple candy for two hours.

For the benefit of those wishing to see the movie, I won't give away any of the secrets. I will tell you that the premises of the movie are straight out of the leftwing-crackpot-paranoid-conspiracy-mongering-lunatic's playbook.

The movie is full of lies about deaths and injuries related to firearms. The Second Amendment is disregarded by the left, and cynically dismissed by the right.

The villains are corporate greed, cynicism, and callous disregard for the lives of the people all personified by old white men with stern ambitions and bad tempers. They growl. They point fingers. They bark orders. The people who represent the gun lobby are not human beings; they are two-dimensional caricatures (puppets, actually) constructed by the filmmakers to represent the self-serving enemies of the people. This is silly enough. However, what comes next is absolutely putrid.

The heroes are standard form, categorical Marxist protagonists. They are defending the public from reckless corporate greed and profit making, never mind the public's input or their rights. The public needs to be defended, whether they like it or not, and by golly, our heroes are going to defend them. By the time you get to this point in the movie, you realize that all you really have here is a remake of Bowling for Columbine.

The protagonists take special pains to inflict unbearable aggravation on a number of people, the apparent intent being to make them lose their temper and blurt out the truth. This is an incredible (and by "incredible" I mean wholly unbelievable) tactic. Does any serious lawyer ever try this? Would any serious lawyer think this would work? Would any serious judge allow this in the courtroom? No. No. And, no. It's childish, and in the actual practice of law, unethical.

Here are some of the premises the filmmakers offer:
The government is under the control of evil, wealthy interests.
The people need to be defended from corporate greed.
Only the pure of heart leftists can defend the people from corporate greed.
Getting rid of all guns will stop needless killings.
The legislature won't outlaw guns because the wealthy gun lobby stops them.
We have no choice but to change the law by getting the courts to rule in our favor.
We can stop school shootings by outlawing all guns.

This last claim is not overtly stated; it is insinuated. Let me take just a moment of your time to deal with this. The reasoning (such as it is) is that school shootings can't happen if there are no guns. Technically and simplistically, I suppose that would be true. However, guns don't shoot themselves. They don't pick the targets. They don't feel hate or rage. They don't do anything until someone picks them up and uses them.

Guns in the hands of police don't seem to be a threat to the leftwing lunatics, even though the police fire more shots and are responsible for more killings per capita than every other segment of the population. Yes, guns are powerful. They are supposed to be. However, guns are not dangerous unless they are in the hands of dangerous people.

The problem in the case of school shootings is not gun control but crazy teenager control. If you get rid of all the guns on the planet, school shootings will certainly stop. What you will have, however, will be a whole lot worse. Can you guess what it is?

Not yet?

Figured it out?

Keep thinking.

It's getting clearer.

It's a blast.

It's more fun than barrel of dynamite.

You guessed it.

What you will have after you get rid of all the guns on the planet are school bombings. If you think that thirteen dead at Columbine is high, wait 'til some crazy teenage boy straps a suicide bomb belt to himself and takes out an entire auditorium full of students and staff. Or burns the school down with everyone in it. Or drives a car into a crowd. Or...

The point I'm making is that the promise of the radical, Constitution-hating left that they can stop needless killings and school killings by taking away your freedom to keep and bear arms is a false promise. Teenaged boys are going to flip out and kill other teenagers. How they do it depends on what weapons are available.

The crackpot-lunatic-conspiracy-mongering leftists haven't offered a solution. All they have done is cast themselves as heroes in life's grand drama. But, really, what kind of heroes do we have by the time the movie is over?

I won't give away plot secrets, so I can't tell you everything that happens. What I can tell you is that the self-anointed heroes patently disregard the Constitution, the law, and the legislative process in their attempt to make law in the courts. Your rights don't matter. The Constitutional process doesn't matter. All that matters is defeating the evil corporate power brokers, even if it means flushing your rights down the toilet.

Heroes? I think not. The anti-gun, anti-corporation, anti-profit leftists prove themselves to be anti-liberty, anti-rule-of-law, and anti-Constitution. They are lawless champions of the people's revolution against evil corporations. They are aged hippies, well birched suburban Communists of the old school, determined to create a perfect world as they fantasize a perfect world to be for no better reason than that it suits them to do so.

It is never mentioned that taking guns away from good people will not prevent needless killings because the bad people will still have guns (re: Iraq, Australia, England, Jamaica, etc.) Taking guns away from good people makes them vulnerable to bad people who still have guns. The facts show that violent deaths increase drastically when government takes guns away from law-abiding people. But, facts that are contrary to the vision of the radical left are dismissed with suspicion. Facts that don't fit their fantasy can't be real facts.

Oh, how nice it must be to live in the hippy dippy fantasy world of the left, always being able to make yourself a hero by simply accusing other people of being evil. Gosh. It must be nice to have a Utopia to dream of. It must be nice to find simple solutions to complex problems, to offer your services for the good of the people (even when election after election they tell you to bugger off). It must be nice to live in a state of grace, exempt from the consequences of your own behavior, always knowing in your heart of hearts that you really are good, no matter what you actually do.

Hey. Wait a minute. These guys are starting to sound like religious fanatics. Hmmm.

To the moviemakers, next time, either drop the harangue or be honest with the audience. Tell us in advance that your movie is nothing more than a political advertisement for the Democratic Party.

Run Away Jury was sufficiently aggravating to detract from the wonderful performances by Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, and the rest of the cast. See it at your own risk.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Friday, April 16, 2004

The Bridge at Dong Ha
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

Hugh Hewitt mentioned yesterday that while he was visiting the Naval Academy he talked to John Ripley. It took me a minute to remember where I had heard the name. Then my jaw hit the floor.

"The Bridge at Dong Ha" by John Grider Miller (© 1989 by the United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, and published by Dell Publishing) details the longest day in Captain Ripley's life. The book is available at Walmart.

An excellent article by Richard Botkin at WorldNetDaily sums up the events of the day. If you search the web, you can find a number of fine articles on the matter. I can't add any more to the story.

After reading the book, I added terms to my lexicon like "jaw-boning" and "three finger Jack". "Jaw-boning" still makes me cringe, and you just don't run into many people like "three finger Jack". Maybe that's a good thing.

Three finger Jack bears mentioning because his life and death puts the lie to the story that the Vietnamese weren't willing to fight. Three finger Jack was, in my estimation, one of a rare class of exceptionally dangerous men who lived in exceptionally dangerous times. He understood the world he lived in, and he mastered it. No heroics. No showing off. No big talk. Quiet. Alert. Extremely capable. You could trust him to keep his word.

I am stunned at what Captain Ripley actually did. I know that I could not have done it myself.

When you have time, please read about John Ripley and the bridge at Dong Ha. Thanks.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Thursday, April 15, 2004

Chessie Logo
A bit of history © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

My entire life, I have not been able to make sense of the logo on the side of Chessie Systems railroad cars. The logo also appears on cars for Chesapeake or C & O. Well, paging through James Lilek's site, I ran across this explanation of the logo.



All this time I thought it was either a mutant angry cougar (facing left, jaw agape) or an outline of the Chesapeake Bay.

A freakin' cat. Whoodathunkit?

For those not old enough to remember the original picture of Chessie, find it here and here.

Awww. How cute.

And that, friends and neighbors, is that.

Ciao bella.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Clinton Bashing is Necessary
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

In a reply to Mark Steyn's article on Rwanda, Len Bennati writes, "My request to you is to focus on the present and quit bashing Clinton."

For Clinton supporters, critics of Clinton are "bashing Clinton" while critics of Bush "focus on the present". The difference in terms confuses me.

Calling Bush a "total disaster" and a "total failure" is not considered "bashing", while criticizing Clinton for his failures in Rwanda is "bashing".

What--I wonder--could the term "bashing" possibly mean in this context?

Criticizing President Clinton is not frivolous; it is necessary. President Clinton set standards for sex scandals, impeachment, perjury, and bribery that we, the American people, do not want future Presidents to repeat. His failures in foreign affairs and national security have placed America in grave danger, and we do not want these failures repeated by future Presidents.

Criticizing President Clinton is intended to send a message to the Democratic Party that we, the American people, do not want to see any more candidates like Clinton, or any candidates who espouse his views, or are reckless and self-serving.

It is clear that the Democratic Party is not listening. Either are Clinton apologists like Len Bennati. To him, and those like him, we don't have a problem; we are a problem. We are not pointing out Clinton's failure to make any real effort to abate the slaughter in Rwanda ten years ago; we are "bashing Clinton". Can it be possible, in the minds of Clinton apologists, to ever criticize him without "bashing"?

The Democrats have made political "bashing" an art form. They don't make reasoned and serious criticisms (with a few notable exceptions like Mort Kondracke of Roll Call); all they do is bash, bash, bash. They have made bashing a cause unto itself, discourse with Republicans being neither possible nor necessary (re: Kerry's "mind your own business" comment).

So, here's my proposal: I'll stop "bashing Clinton" when Democrats stop bashing Bush. I'm not holding my breath.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Weak Little Men Explained
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

It's not often that I get my hat handed to me so decisively. But, it happened.

I've spent a lot of time complaining about Weak Little Men and what an insufferable pain in the ass they are. I've never fully understood what makes them the way they are. I thought I was pretty smart. Then, I read this:

"Within [the narcissistic] family structure, it is not possible for the child to have faith in the constancy and predictability of his parents' actions, as he is [ignorant] of their motivations. He is, then, uniquely positioned to develop belief in only what he can externally control--like food, drugs, spending, and sex."
The Narcissistic Family: Diagnosis and Treatment, p. 97.

This knocked me right off my high horse. I thought I had it all figured out. WLM were just juvenile, self-destructive, cowardly, grandiose, and generally not very bright. It never dawned on me why they would be this way. The point made in the quote above set me straight.

The child of the narcissistic family trusts only what he can control. Add to the above list:
The truth (by studying philosophy)
His moods (drugs, alcohol, supplements)
His health (diet and exercise)
Other people (manipulation, deception, intimidation)
Pets (the more submissive and obedient the better)
Hobbies (gardening, camping, games, etc.)

What is not mentioned, but what is understood, is how the child of the narcissistic family copes with things he cannot control. The child of the narcissistic family trusts only what he can control, and becomes phobic about what he cannot control. Phobia includes distrust, dread, or intense aversion. I will deal with the development and consequences of the phobic outlook of WLM and children of narcissistic families in a later piece.

Do you know someone who for no apparent reason hates you? I've known a few. Well, this explains their behavior. They can't control you, so they become phobic about you. Their behavior can range from avoidance to overt aggression.

This explains a lot of apparently unprovoked hostility. Survivors of narcissistic families are phobic about people and things they cannot immediately control. Not being able to control people and things reminds them of repeated and seemingly inevitable failures, and reminds them of how much it hurts to fail. It reinforces the idea that no matter how hard they work, everything will come to naught in the end. Their favored method of dealing with people they feel phobic about is to dispose of them (you can't see me, but I'm raising my hand).

The understanding that children of narcissistic families and WLM trust only what they can immediately control and become phobic about things they cannot control makes me very sad because I've been doing it for most of my life, and getting worse about it as I get older. I also know a lot of people who are doing this as well. They are angry, depressed, paranoid, controlling, and bitter. I see them struggle. I see them hurt.

I wish I could help them. I offer the hand of friendship and usually end up pulling back a bloody stump. It's very disappointing, but at least now I understand better what is happening.

The phobia, the sense of failure and hurt that Weak Little Men feel so deeply is not their fault. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder they end up this way. Their parents' behavior and moods were unpredictable. The children of narcissistic families can never understand when their parents will keep their word, and when they will not. The children think there is something wrong with them, and develop the idea that they are never going to be capable of doing anything right. They become more controlling over time. To other people, they appear overbearing and angry.

I never would have figured this out in a thousand years. I am eternally grateful to Dr.'s Pressman for their knowledge and understanding of this baffling subject.

Weak Little Men have been explained to me. I said before that I am a recovering Weak Little Man. I understand where we went wrong, and now I can start to think about where we go from here.

Weak Little Men need most of all to learn to trust themselves, to trust in their capabilities, their intelligence, their strength, and in their good heartedness. We must learn that we have the right to feel our feelings and to express them in a non-hostile, non-threatening way. We must learn to stop hurting ourselves, to stop hurting others, and to trust that no matter what happens, some good will come of it. We must learn that the distrust and phobia we develop is not helping us. If anything, the phobias we develop are making our lives much more difficult than they have to be.

Trust re-connects us to ourselves and to other people. Do you remember what life was like before you started distrusting everyone? People were good. You had fun. You enjoyed life.

When you are hurt, it is better to express your disappointment and move on than it is to hold it all inside and relive the same situation over and over.

Trust has a calming influence. In the calmness of reflection, we can do great things.

But, dad gum it! Now I won't have Weak Little Men to kick around anymore. Fudge!

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Bush's Apology
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

President Bush was asked if he should apologize to the American people for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. That's his decision to make. However, if he does, it ought to sound something like this:

"I regret that the government was not able to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001. The attacks came as a complete surprise to us.

The fact is that the attacks were a complete surprise to the American people and apparently to some of the terrorists as well. To the best of our knowledge, only a handful of people within al Qaeda even knew about the plan. There was no real opportunity for our intelligence agencies to discover the plan, and therefore to prevent it.

At the time, we did not feel that the security measures we have taken since September 11, 2001, would have been accepted by the American people. The people would not have accepted random searches at airports on the basis of the information that we possessed at that time, nor did we think that such measures were needed. In the case of the attacks on September 11, 2001, we were wrong.

As of December 6, 1941, the U. S. military did not feel the need to go to a war footing, even though they knew about Japanese military build up and aggression. Neither the government nor the American people at that time felt the need to declare war on Japan. That all changed when U. S. forces were attacked. That's the way America is. In the age of nuclear weapons, however, we can no longer wait for the enemy to strike the first blow.

Since September 11, 2001, increased security and personal diligence on the part of individual agents has thwarted dozens of plans to attack American targets.

War is upon us. We have no choice except total victory."

I would advise President Bush to learn how to say new-klee-err. Otherwise, I don't think he really needs my advice.

As for Presidential apologies, I haven't seen Bill Clinton apologizing for the failure to stop terrorist attacks, especially considering how many of them took place on his watch. But, so what? Bill Clinton would apologize for the Spanish Inquisition if he thought it would get him some face time on national television. Clinton made a big deal of apologizing for slavery. However, the one thing you will never see Clinton apologize for is anything that Clinton is actually responsible for.

While we're at it, why doesn't the liberal media apologize for failing to stop the attacks on September 11, 2001? After all, one of them interviewed Osama bin Ladin in 1998. But then, Osama successfully deceived the press, too.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Plunger Technique
Plumbing advice © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

With the advent of low flow toilets and high fiber diets, I have burned many calories unplugging toilets. I have used the plunger in the same manner that I was taught, pushing down hard to blast any obstruction to atoms. Yesterday, I discovered a new plunger technique.

Make sure the toilet is at least half full with water and whatever. Place the plunger over the toilet orifice where the yucky stuff flushes away. Plush down slowly. Pull up quickly and firmly. When you pull, feel for resistance to make sure your plunger has formed a seal around the orifice.

By pulling instead of pushing, you are creating a vacuum that should dislodge the hideous fecal mass, or other unmentionable object, that is blocking the flow of water. You may have to do this exercise several times, but be patient. It has worked for me every time I've tried it.

The value of pulling instead of pushing is that pulling does not risk damaging the water seals that keep sewage from draining out of the toilet into your house. If you have ever endured the Herculean adventure of replacing those seals, you can appreciate the value of not damaging them. It's also easier than using the steel snake.

It's nice to learn something new. Happy plunging.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Monday, April 12, 2004

Soft, Decadent, Cynical People
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

Mark Steyn makes the following statement in his article entitled, "One day, Germany will have had enough", about Germany's funding of the EU:

The so-called "free world" was, for most of its members, a free ride. Absolving wealthy nations of the need to maintain credible armies softens them: they decay, almost inevitably, into a semi-non-aligned status...

..This weekend, for example, nearly 60 per cent of French electors voted Socialist, Communist, Fascist or Green. Most of the rest voted for the "ruling centre-Right" - ie, Chirac.

As it is with nations, so it is with individuals. The professional military and paramilitary forces of the modern age have turned people into soft, decadent cynics. Not being required to take responsibility for their own defense, they lounge around carping at the people who put their lives on the line to protect them. They think that defense is unnecessary and that people who advocate defense are fascists, arriving at the insane conclusion that the police officer who patrols your street to keep the burglars at bay is an oppressor.

Having been one of the people who put their lives on the line to protect the soft, decadent, cynical people, I have tremendous admiration for the defenders, and little respect for the complainers. Complaining is a way of making your problems someone else's responsibility.

The next time you find yourself with thirty minutes of free time, sit down and calculate to the nearest $100 amount how much it would cost you to defend yourself and your property if there were no professional police. Add up the cost of firearms, ammunition, training, time away from work, and time spent in meetings with neighbors discussing the common defense. Trust me, you couldn't afford it.

When you're done with that, calculate how much it would cost you if there were no professional military. Be sure to throw in the cost of putting down domestic insurrections and mutinies.

Yes, I am suspicious of the police. Yes, I hated my time in the Army. But I don't gripe about paying my taxes to support the people who defend me and my property from the bad guys.

People who take responsibility for their own well-being are serious people. People who do not are like children, frivolous and silly. Frivolous, silly people are a lot of fun to party with. But, when the time comes to dispose of serious threats, I prefer serious people.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Self-inflicted Defeat Part 1
How the Democratic Party has ensured their defeat in 2004
Analysis © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

This election cycle, the Democratic Party has run on one theme: George W. Bush is not competent to be President of the United States.

Core Democrats don't need to be told this. They will vote for any candidate their Party nominates. This fact is illustrated by the core Democrats' support for Senator John Kerry. Senator Kerry is a liar, a coward, and a bore--Bill Clinton without the charisma. No matter to them; Kerry isn't Bush.

Core Republicans won't listen. They will vote for Bush no matter how many mistakes he makes.

The message that Bush is not competent is intended for the undecided voters. Democrats think that the undecided voters will be sufficient in number to swing the election in their favor. However, even if the numbers are in their favor, their strategy will ensure their defeat.

Americans are equally cynical about both Republicans and Democrats. They are cynical about Bush, and they are just as cynical about Bush's critics.

To the point, the power of incumbency works for Bush. If things are not terribly wrong, then undecided voters will conclude that Bush is doing well enough to deserve a second term. If undecided voters do not accept the Democrat's paranoid vision of Bush, then Bush wins.

Most Americans have some misgivings about Bush. I certainly do. However, I think most Americans feel that he's doing well enough under the circumstances, and a second term isn't going to be as painful as a Kerry Presidency.

Basing their campaign on convincing American voters to be as paranoid about Bush as the Democrats are will result in a catastrophic self-inflicted defeat for the Democrats in 2004, regardless of the state of the economy or the war on terror. Americans are cynical; they're not crazy.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Al Gore Must Have Known
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

The latest notion to hit the media is that the Bush administration had sufficient information and that the Clinton administration had a plan in place (that the Bush administration ignored) that could have prevented the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. This presumes (I think intentionally) that if Al Gore had been elected President, the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, would have been averted.

This is pure nonsense.

If you remember the news coverage from that time, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and all of the advisors to the Clinton administration were just as surprised as the rest of us. They didn’t know any more about this attack than the Bush administration did.

Let’s see the 9/11 Commission grill Al Gore the way they grilled Condi Rice. Maybe they could throw Bill and Hill on the barby while they’re at it. But, what would be the point? The Clinton administration couldn’t provide any greater insight into the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, than the Bush administration has already done. That’s why the press (mostly apologists for the Clintons) aren’t pursuing the story that Al Gore could have prevented 9/11.

They just can’t win. Either Bush is a complete moron who knows nothing and is completely incapable of doing anything right, or he knows everything and could have prevented 9/11.

The logical conclusion is that if Bush could have prevented 9/11, then Gore could have prevented 9/11 also. If Gore could have prevented 9/11, then Clinton could have prevented 9/11. So why didn’t he?

Because he couldn’t have. There was insufficient information, and Clinton’s plan against terrorism had nothing to do with hijacking jetliners and using them as missiles. Neither Bush, nor Gore, nor Clinton, nor all the King’s horses and all the King’s men could have prevented the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Face it people, we got ambushed just like we did on Dec. 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor. It happens. Our enemies plan well, and they execute well. They are good. They are also stupid to the point of being crazy. That’s why we need to defeat them. There are no alternatives.

Any questions?

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Thursday, April 08, 2004

Cowards Invite Terror
Opinion, © 2004 by Guy L. Evans

Terrorists took Korean and Japanese citizens hostage today (April 8, 2004), and demanded that Korea and Japan withdraw from Iraq. The Koreans and the Japanese may thank Spanish voters and the socialists they elected for this latest atrocity.

Having demonstrated to the terrorists that sufficient violence, brutality, inhumanity, and horror will be rewarded by concessions, the Spanish voters and the socialists they elected have opened the floodgates for additional terrorist attacks. The terrorists have obtained a stunning victory (Spain will withdraw their troops from Iraq) at minimal cost (a few bombs and a few terrorists killed). The amount of explosives used and terrorist lives lost, if used in Iraq, could not have driven the Spanish troops out.

The terrorists are gradually learning when, where, and how to strike. This will only get worse.

If the Koreans and the Japanese acquiesce, then terrorism, having been duly rewarded, will spread like a plague. The cowards thought that giving the terrorists an inch would make them happy. It made them happy, all right. Now, they are going to take the whole mile (1.6 kilometers for our foreign friends).

The cowards will have to stop blaming themselves for the horror they have suffered. They will have to fight at some point. They will have to realize that giving anything to people who only want to kill you makes you weaker and your enemies stronger.

This is going to be a bad year. The cowards have invited the terrorists to strike. And they will strike.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Kerry's Censors
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

In his accounts of press coverage of Senator Kerry's comments on the war in Iraq (3-7-04), Hugh Hewitt notes that the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the New York Times made no mention of Senator Kerry's statements regarding the war in Iraq.

Censorship is more than the prohibition of speech; it is the willful omission of speech. Censorship may be imposed on others, or practiced voluntarily. We all engage in some self-censorship to avoid revealing information that we want kept private.

So, what could be the thinking of the three newspapers mentioned above to remain silent on such an important matter, especially knowing that the information will be spread through other means? Do they think that artificially enhancing Senator Kerry's image will help either him or them?

Senator Kerry is a bozo. He has no business in public life. He should take his wife and her money and go live a happy life away from the public eye. He doesn't have what it takes. He makes George W. Bush look like a genius.

If the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the New York Times want to practice self-censorship for the sake of furthering Senator Kerry's political ambitions, then they should register as lobbying organizations.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

Jungles of Iraq
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

Senator Ted Kennedy said yesterday (April 6, 2004) that Iraq is “Bush’s Viet Nam”. Well.

It never would have occurred to me to think of Iraq as anyone’s Viet Nam. But, maybe Senator Kennedy has a point. Let’s consider the situation.

In order for Iraq to be another Viet Nam, the U. S. would have to be engaged in a war to defend South Iraq from Communist North Iraq (The People’s Democratic Republic of Iraq), and from indigenous militia called the Iraq al Cong.

Communist North Iraq would be funneling tens of thousands of troops down the Saddam Hussein Trail that would run through Syria and Jordan. They would also have to funnel hundreds of tons of supplies and ammunition provided by the Soviet Block and Communist China.

The jungles of Iraq would have to be laced with thousands of footpaths that only the Iraq al Cong know about. The mountainous jungles and highlands would have to be populated by non-Iraqi natives. Let’s not forget about the rice paddies and the Tigris Delta.

Entire divisions of North Iraq troops could hide in the tunnels of Basra waiting for the signal to attack, and American troops would be in danger of suffering a humiliating defeat at Din Bien Fallujah.

However, the similarities to America’s war in Viet Nam and America’s war in Iraq are limited primarily to the presence of American troops. The weapons, landscape, political climate, and the enemy are all different. So, on what basis could Senator Kennedy, or anyone, assert that Iraq is “Bush’s Viet Nam”?


In fact, by doing so, Senator Kennedy damns himself and his colleagues. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson did not make war in Viet Nam without the approval of congress. They could not. President Bush does not make war in Iraq without the approval of congress. He cannot. Senator Kennedy is a member of congress. Therefore, “Bush’s Viet Nam” is congress’s Viet Nam, and by association is Senator Kennedy’s Viet Nam.

It’s even worse than that. Asserting that there is no clear plan to finish the job in Iraq supposes that there can be a clear plan. Iraq has been under the control of a dictatorship for thirty years. It is impossible to determine with accuracy how the survivors of this dictatorship will behave once they are liberated. Any plan, Republican or Democrat, is going to go badly until the planners have more information. Things may never go well in Iraq regardless of who is in charge. Things haven’t gone well in Italy for sixty years, but who’s complaining?

Setting a standard that says that anything less than perfection is a failure is folly. Senator Kennedy has no plan. But he has a lot of spare time to throw around foolish criticism of President Bush.

As a veteran of America’s war in Viet Nam, I think that Senator Kerry is the worst possible nominee the Democrats could have offered, and that Senator Kennedy is a fool. After they’re done cleaning out the anti-American forces in Fallujah, perhaps the Marines could clean out some of the anti-American resistance in Massachusetts.

The two Senators from Massachusetts (and Paris Hilton) clearly demonstrate that the spoiled brats of the capitalist aristocracy don’t belong in positions of responsibility.

Senator Kennedy, with all due respect, shut up.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Monday, April 05, 2004

Spain Learns the Hard Way
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

Having given in to terrorists’ demands to pull their troops out of Iraq, Spain is now threatened with further slaughter if they do not pull their troops out of Afghanistan and quit their alliance with the U. S.

Did the Spanish voters who brought the Socialists to power really think the terrorists would make peace with them? The lesson of Spain should teach all nations that terrorists will not stop until they are killed.

By turning away from their commitment to fight terrorism on the terrorists’ home turf, Spain’s tragedy is compounded. Instead of fighting terrorists in Baghdad, Spain must now fight them in Madrid. The rest of Europe should take notice of the fate of appeasers.

My sympathies go to Spain and the families of the fallen. If Spain does not act with utmost force, more hundreds of Spanish people will be slaughtered by maniacs.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Sunday, April 04, 2004

Guns and Losers
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

I don’t have extensive information about gun-owning cultures and gun-banning cultures. However, some characteristics emerge over time.

I draw comparisons between European cultures and American culture. Europeans for three generations have depended on the U. S. for their defense. Having evaded responsibility for their own defense, and having been devastated by the two most destructive wars in history, European cultures have developed a fantasy that war is too horrible to contemplate, even when it is to their benefit to make war, and that they can defend themselves merely by talking. The notion that pacifism can prevent war has influenced European legislatures to outlaw personal ownership of firearms. All the reports I have read indicate that violent crime is much higher in cultures that ban guns.

Gun-banning cultures are timid, risk averse, effeminate, and afraid of the tools that are required to guarantee their own freedom. When war looms, they seek appeasement. When attacked, they retreat. They are horrified by war. They seek a way out. To them, war is the greatest evil, and must be avoided at all cost. They blame themselves for the hatred their enemies feel, and think that if they change their ways, their enemies will not hate them. They are shell-shocked. Gun-banning cultures teach their children to fear firearms, to regard their own defense as ridiculous, and the disregard the importance of national defense.

Gun-owning cultures are bold, risk taking, masculine, and comfortable with the tools that are required to guarantee their own freedom. When war looms, they arm themselves. When attacked, they advance. They are averse to war. They seek a way to win. To them, defeat is the greatest evil, and must be avoided at all cost. They blame their enemies for the hatred their enemies feel, and think that it doesn’t matter what they do, their enemies will hate them. They inflict shell-shock. Gun-owning cultures teach their children to be responsible with firearms, to take responsibility for their own defense, and to understand the importance of national defense.

The comparisons go on. However, one the founding premises of these two cultures is:

Gun-banning cultures: Violence is the greatest evil.

Gun-owning cultures: Violence is not the greatest evil.

History demonstrates that the latter premise surpasses the former in all cultures and at all times. Cultures that take up arms historically overrun cultures that lay down their arms.

Never bring a knife to a gunfight. Firearms are the prevailing technology. Gun-owning cultures prevail. Gun-banning cultures fail. The gun-owning culture in America will prevail.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Thursday, April 01, 2004

Evil, Stupid People 2
Commentary © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

I said before that concluding that people who disagree with you are either stupid or dishonest is laziness, chic suburban bigotry, and drawing simple conclusions to complex situations. However, there’s more to it than that.

For the sake of brevity, let’s say that Bob disagrees will Tom, and Tom concludes that Bob is either evil or stupid.

Tom knows that the facts support his position. Knowing that Bob is saying things that are obviously false, Tom is left to question Bob’s motives. Tom questions what would motivate Bob to say things that are not true. Tom concludes that Bob is corrupt, meaning evil or stupid. Tom fails to understand why Bob behaves the way he does.

Tom is practicing mind reading. Tom has drawn a conclusion about Bob’s motives that only Bob can verify. The error is obvious. Bob’s behavior appears to be nonsensical to Tom, but instead of wondering if he has missed something, Tom concludes that Bob is corrupt. By concluding that Bob is evil or stupid, Tom relieves himself of further responsibility; it’s Bob’s fault.

Tom may be trying to avoid confrontation. After all, you can only say “Yes it is” and “No it isn’t” back and forth so many times before you start to sound like Monty Python.

Tom may feel more comfortable concluding that Bob is corrupt, avoiding having to confront his own shortcomings.

Tom may be frustrated. Concluding the Bob is corrupt permits Tom to exit the conversation with little additional effort.

However, by concluding that Bob is corrupt, Tom has made a huge problem for himself. Tom has determined that Bob is pathologically untrustworthy, and has drawn conclusions about Bob’s future behavior that cannot be verified. Tom now runs the risk of Bob doing something that Tom predicted Bob would not do, thereby refuting Tom’s assumption about Bob, and making Tom look stupid.

Having been through this situation a few times myself, I find it safer to never conclude that someone who disagrees with me is evil or stupid. More likely, they are angry, afraid, or ignorant of an essential fact. They have probably assumed a false premise based on their experience, and they are not prepared to defend that premise.

I also find it best to focus exclusively on the subject matter, saying, “I think that’s incorrect” instead of “You’re wrong”, denying the accuracy of the assertion instead of accusing the other person of being defective.

The consequences of concluding that people who disagree with you are evil or stupid are disastrous in politics. Concluding that the opposition is corrupt precludes negotiation. There can be no common ground with the infidels.

In a nation whose government depends heavily on the legislative process, antipathy toward the political opposition degenerates into slander and obstruction. Nothing good can come of one side completely obstructing the other. At that point, progress stops, and no one benefits.

I dread to think where our culture is headed with such sloppy habits. Concluding the people are evil or stupid is easy. It is also wrong, and invites unnecessary trouble. The next time you conclude that someone who disagrees with you is evil or stupid, ask yourself what you would do if you were in his place. Walk a mile in his shoes. Be prepared to be learn something new.

It seems unwise and sad to carelessly discard the trust of others, and to draw conclusions about their motives without asking them why they do what they do. There’s enough trouble in the world; we don’t need to make more.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?