Saturday, February 26, 2005
Addicted to the Feeling of Righteous Indignation
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 26, 2005
Recently, Powerlineblog was recognized by Time Magazine. (They thought is was a good thing, but I’m not so sure, as you will see.) As they tell the story, the crew at Powerlineblog were flooded with shameful and despicable e-mails from what they call Moonbats on Parade. [Caution to readers: The linked post is a verbatim e-mail from a hysterical moonbat. The language is vulgar to say the least, and not suited for children.]
The mass of negative emotional bile took its toll on John “Hindrocket” Hinderaker, and he sent some e-mails out that he regretted sending. Rocketman is only the latest target in an unending assault by the moonbats.
Good news sometimes comes from strange places.
In researching narcissism and behavior therapy, I ran into an odd little site run by an interesting woman named Neva Joan Howell. Ms. Howell is a new ager of the first order. Hardly the kind of person you would expect to give you answers to questions like:
Why are the leftist nut bags behaving the way they are?
She gives a short answer in her article entitled Responsible Anger: Breaking the Cycle of Destructive Expression. I highly recommend that you zip over there and read this piece. Be forewarned, it is new age, so it may seem a little odd to you at first, but there is nothing offensive, and I found it pleasant and informative.
From her section called “Lifting it up”, Ms. Howell says:
Righteous indignation is their primary interest and motivation. It is their drug of choice. It is fueled with anger, hurt, and a sense of injustice that borders on paranoia.
But the moonbats and Weak Little Men pay a heavy price for their addiction. Righteous indignation is an abosulte impediment to personal success. Instead of finding solutions, addicts indulge themselves in an orgy of impotent hatred. That’s what righteous indignation is, impotent rage. Screaming obscenities at people they have arbitrarily decided are their moral inferiors simply demonstrates that they are weak, hollow, and immature. And people with good sense stop feeling sorry for the moonbats, and turn away. The absurdity of the whole exercise is that the moonbats scream obscenities, rage, lies, blame, shame, and poisonous accusations because they want their victims to feel sorry for them. How am I supposed to feel sorry for someone who calls me a Nazi?
Michael Moore wants President Bush to feel guilty. Fat chance, fat boy. It doesn’t work. But, that’s the definition of insanity, isn’t it? Doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results every time.
Ms. Howell also says, “Many times, I simply couldn't let the other person be where they were but doggedly persisted in trying to force some kind of apology or acknowledgement from them and, if that didn't work, then I wanted them to feel bad so I unconsciously aimed for producing guilt.”
I think here she means that she was using anger to engage in hostile manipulation. She talks about “energy manipulation” in several places, and think she means manipulating other people’s emotions and using their caring and compassion against them. She wanted to make people feel bad so they would do things she wanted them to do for her. This is what the moonbats do, also. They tell you how much they hate you so that you will feel bad about how much they hate you, and you will change your life. Yeah. Right.
Whether or not any of this behavior should be condemned is beside the point. Those of us who are targets of this kind of hysterical, hostile manipulation need to train ourselves to become immune to it.
Here is what I suggest: Train yourself to understand that the person who is attacking you is responsible for his own behavior and for his own feelings. You are not! It is not your job to make sure they feel good about life. There is a threshold to appropriate anger. Learn where that threshold is. Beyond that threshold is just emotional abuse. Become sensitive to their abuse, set limits, and enforce them.
Don’t defend yourself, and don’t engage them in their argument. Understand that you are being used. Disengage. Say you don’t have time right now. Also, don’t forget that you are responsible for your own emotions, actions, and happiness. If they upset you, you have every right to turn them away.
The bottom line is that every person is responsible for his own behavior no matter how distraught they may feel. Hindrocket took responsibility for his actions and apologized. He is clearly a decent man.
The counter to all of the hate, lies, and accusations coming from the moonbats is to remind them that they are responsible for their own behavior, and to demand that they take responsibility for their own behavior. If they can’t discuss their grievances in a civil manner, they you have every right to cut them off. The choice is yours.
You have my permission to cut and paste this to your e-mail responses to moonbats:
I am not responsible for your happiness; you are. I am not responsible for your language; you are. I am not the source of your rage; you are. I will exchange ideas with you when you show me that you will take responsibility for your emotions, actions, and language. I have no interest in joining your cult of righteous indignation. The door is always open, unless you choose to close it.
We have no obligation to endure abuse, or to become victims of hostile emotional manipulation. If the moonbats can’t calm down and be reasonable, then we have every right to tell them to shut up. They can take their righteous indignation and fold it over double and stick it where the Sun don’t shine.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 26, 2005
Recently, Powerlineblog was recognized by Time Magazine. (They thought is was a good thing, but I’m not so sure, as you will see.) As they tell the story, the crew at Powerlineblog were flooded with shameful and despicable e-mails from what they call Moonbats on Parade. [Caution to readers: The linked post is a verbatim e-mail from a hysterical moonbat. The language is vulgar to say the least, and not suited for children.]
The mass of negative emotional bile took its toll on John “Hindrocket” Hinderaker, and he sent some e-mails out that he regretted sending. Rocketman is only the latest target in an unending assault by the moonbats.
Good news sometimes comes from strange places.
In researching narcissism and behavior therapy, I ran into an odd little site run by an interesting woman named Neva Joan Howell. Ms. Howell is a new ager of the first order. Hardly the kind of person you would expect to give you answers to questions like:
Why are the leftist nut bags behaving the way they are?
She gives a short answer in her article entitled Responsible Anger: Breaking the Cycle of Destructive Expression. I highly recommend that you zip over there and read this piece. Be forewarned, it is new age, so it may seem a little odd to you at first, but there is nothing offensive, and I found it pleasant and informative.
From her section called “Lifting it up”, Ms. Howell says:
This is not an exercise that seemed to work immediately for me [saying, “God, I feel so depressed”]. There was the doubt factor to be overcome. There was also a perverse part of my character that wanted God to feel sorry for me, and that could only happen if I held on to that about which I was complaining. Sometimes, I liked the feeling of righteous indignation and was too attached to “being right” to let go of my anger. Other times, I was too much in the grip of past programming to let go of “the way it’s always been”. Many times, I simply couldn’t let the other person be where they were but doggedly persisted in trying to force some kind of apology or acknowledgement from them and, if that didn’t work, then I wanted them to feel bad so I unconsciously aimed for producing guilt. It took discipline to get myself to the point where I could hold my intention long enough to actually let go of what I had lifted up. It was worth the effort because, at that moment, my world changed in a powerful, positive way, and it has never been the same. This technique works particularly well with anger.I nearly dropped my teeth what she says, “Sometimes, I liked the feeling of righteous indignation and was too attached to ‘being right’ to let go of my anger.” Doesn’t this sum it all up? This is what the America-haters, the Bush-haters, and the bitter, bitter, bitter Weak Little Men are all about. They are so addicted to their righteous indignation and their sense of “being right” that no reality, no facts, no affirmative information to the contrary can possibly enter their minds.
Let's say you are angry at someone and speak that out as a projection toward them, by saying I am very angry with you. No matter what it feels like, the reality is that you have engaged in a form of energy manipulation, designed to cause the other person to act in a different way toward you. (By the way, "I am very angry with you" is not the same statement as "I am feeling very angry because of what you said, or did". It may sound the same, but it is not the same statement nor is the same level of self-responsibility present in the former as the latter.) For example, if you feel someone is not respecting you and you speak out your feelings to them in anger, that is your personal energy attempting to manipulate the other person into seeing that they are not being respectful. Usually, the opposite result is achieved because when the aggressive energy hits the other person, they respond with even more resistance. Amazingly, it doesn't even matter if the words are spoken out loud; just thinking angry thoughts at someone has the same effect. Yet, it is an incredibly different experience if you add the word "God". If I say, God, I am so angry at (fill in the blank), you have lifted it up. The energy doesn't go out toward the other person at all. Even better, if you can manage the words to reflect more self-responsibility, such as "God, I am feeling so angry because of (fill in the blank), it is even more of a vibrational shift upward in frequency toward release. Then, if you further set your intent by asking that the anger be transmuted and delivered back in a form of energy you can utilize for your own healing and understanding, that is exactly what happens! Ask and ye shall receive...If you remember to do this as soon as the feelings flare up, it will often happen that a direct confrontation with the other person becomes unnecessary.
Righteous indignation is their primary interest and motivation. It is their drug of choice. It is fueled with anger, hurt, and a sense of injustice that borders on paranoia.
But the moonbats and Weak Little Men pay a heavy price for their addiction. Righteous indignation is an abosulte impediment to personal success. Instead of finding solutions, addicts indulge themselves in an orgy of impotent hatred. That’s what righteous indignation is, impotent rage. Screaming obscenities at people they have arbitrarily decided are their moral inferiors simply demonstrates that they are weak, hollow, and immature. And people with good sense stop feeling sorry for the moonbats, and turn away. The absurdity of the whole exercise is that the moonbats scream obscenities, rage, lies, blame, shame, and poisonous accusations because they want their victims to feel sorry for them. How am I supposed to feel sorry for someone who calls me a Nazi?
Michael Moore wants President Bush to feel guilty. Fat chance, fat boy. It doesn’t work. But, that’s the definition of insanity, isn’t it? Doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results every time.
Ms. Howell also says, “Many times, I simply couldn't let the other person be where they were but doggedly persisted in trying to force some kind of apology or acknowledgement from them and, if that didn't work, then I wanted them to feel bad so I unconsciously aimed for producing guilt.”
I think here she means that she was using anger to engage in hostile manipulation. She talks about “energy manipulation” in several places, and think she means manipulating other people’s emotions and using their caring and compassion against them. She wanted to make people feel bad so they would do things she wanted them to do for her. This is what the moonbats do, also. They tell you how much they hate you so that you will feel bad about how much they hate you, and you will change your life. Yeah. Right.
Whether or not any of this behavior should be condemned is beside the point. Those of us who are targets of this kind of hysterical, hostile manipulation need to train ourselves to become immune to it.
Here is what I suggest: Train yourself to understand that the person who is attacking you is responsible for his own behavior and for his own feelings. You are not! It is not your job to make sure they feel good about life. There is a threshold to appropriate anger. Learn where that threshold is. Beyond that threshold is just emotional abuse. Become sensitive to their abuse, set limits, and enforce them.
Don’t defend yourself, and don’t engage them in their argument. Understand that you are being used. Disengage. Say you don’t have time right now. Also, don’t forget that you are responsible for your own emotions, actions, and happiness. If they upset you, you have every right to turn them away.
The bottom line is that every person is responsible for his own behavior no matter how distraught they may feel. Hindrocket took responsibility for his actions and apologized. He is clearly a decent man.
The counter to all of the hate, lies, and accusations coming from the moonbats is to remind them that they are responsible for their own behavior, and to demand that they take responsibility for their own behavior. If they can’t discuss their grievances in a civil manner, they you have every right to cut them off. The choice is yours.
You have my permission to cut and paste this to your e-mail responses to moonbats:
I am not responsible for your happiness; you are. I am not responsible for your language; you are. I am not the source of your rage; you are. I will exchange ideas with you when you show me that you will take responsibility for your emotions, actions, and language. I have no interest in joining your cult of righteous indignation. The door is always open, unless you choose to close it.
We have no obligation to endure abuse, or to become victims of hostile emotional manipulation. If the moonbats can’t calm down and be reasonable, then we have every right to tell them to shut up. They can take their righteous indignation and fold it over double and stick it where the Sun don’t shine.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Friday, February 25, 2005
Bush Will Win against Senate Democrats
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 25, 2005
Hugh Hewitt reports on the situation in the Senate regarding Democratic Party obstruction of judicial nominations. There’s only one thing to add.
President Bush has a history of defeating difficult opponents and smashing opposition. The list of losers continues to grow: Texas Governor Ann Richards, Vice President Al Gore, the Taliban, the United Nations, Saddam Hussein, Senator John Kerry. His next victory will come against the Senate Democrats.
Bush doesn’t pick fights, but he defeats those who oppose him. The Senate Democrats have only one course of action now, and that is trying to make the most of a losing situation.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 25, 2005
Hugh Hewitt reports on the situation in the Senate regarding Democratic Party obstruction of judicial nominations. There’s only one thing to add.
President Bush has a history of defeating difficult opponents and smashing opposition. The list of losers continues to grow: Texas Governor Ann Richards, Vice President Al Gore, the Taliban, the United Nations, Saddam Hussein, Senator John Kerry. His next victory will come against the Senate Democrats.
Bush doesn’t pick fights, but he defeats those who oppose him. The Senate Democrats have only one course of action now, and that is trying to make the most of a losing situation.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Dysphoria and Anhedonia Part 1
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 22, 2005
Caution to readers: I am not a mental health professional, merely an informed layman. If you suffer from acute symptoms of depression, uncontrolled agitation, or if you have suicidal thoughts, seek professional help immediately. Nothing in this document is intended to diagnose or treat any mental health condition.
In researching narcissism and how to deal with narcissists, I ran into the concepts of dysphoria and anhedonia.
1. Dysphoria: a state of feeling unwell or unhappy, anguish, agitation, disquiet, restlessness, and malaise.
2. Anhedonia: a loss of the penchant for living, an inability to feel pleasure or joy.
[Note: This next bit of information is from a site on Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder. I post it here because it is a broader description of dysphoria.]
Dissociation provides immediate insulation from stress, and can allow the person under stress to think more clearly. However, the insulation is costly in terms of mental, emotional, and physical energy. It is a short-term fix, not a permanent solution.
Children who suffer trauma learn to rely on avoidance and escape as their primary coping methods. When they sense that trauma is imminent, they retreat inward. Constantly escaping or avoiding reality leads to a life of anxiety, distrust, frustration, unhealthy attachments, unhealthy separations, rage, self-doubt, unrealistic expectations, mental exhaustion, apathy, and nagging unhappiness--in other words, dysphoria.
People who suffer from dysphoria are convinced that all good things come to a bad end, and that little or no real enjoyment is possible. In their minds, they can’t see the point in doing anything. They take no enjoyment from their efforts or achievements. They feel a sense of futility that renders all activity pointless.
To them, life is an unending burden. Dysphorics are discouraged and disheartened. They feel that no one understands them. This is true. In fact, they don’t understand themselves. They don’t know how they got this way. They don’t know why they are so unhappy. They don’t know what to do about it, or even if there is any point in trying.
They are not pretending. They are not crybabies. They are not performing or putting on. They are not lazy. They are not selfish or self-centered.
They are in trouble.
Dysphoria is the basis of most mood disorders including narcissism, bi-polar disorder, borderline disorder, depression, and manic-depressive disorder. People who suffer from prolonged and intense dysphoria tend to self-medicate with alcohol, drugs, food, sex, and reckless activities. They often complain that they have no feelings, or that they don’t feel alive.
Dysphoria is confusing to people who are afflicted with it as well as to those around them. The feelings of unhappiness, hopelessness, and anxiety are very real, yet they do not seem to have a correlation in reality. People afflicted with dysphoria know that they are unhappy, but they can’t pin down what they are unhappy about.
They sound paranoid. Paranoia at least gives their sense of foreboding and disquiet some meaning. They complain, blame, pout, grumble, isolate, and occasionally lash out. All of this can be very disconcerting to those close to them.
People who are in contact with dysphorics sense the unhappiness and anxiety, also. They take the queue and start searching for the source of the unhappiness. They want to “fix” the problem. For both the dysphorics and those around them, it is a futile search. People who associate with dysphorics become exasperated. They can’t figure out what the problem is. They eventually blame the dysphoric for being an inconsolable and stubborn. However, the problem is internal, not external.
The greatest obstacle dysphorics face is their own sense of discouragement. They think about getting help, and people who love them encourage them to get help. But, in the minds of the dysphorics, it all comes back to an overwhelming sense of futility. What’s the point of seeking help? It won’t do any good anyway.
Help is available. No one has to live life discouraged, disheartened, bitter, and hopeless. Dysphorics are not to blame for their condition; however, every person is responsible for his own healing. Therefore, the first step in healing is taking responsibility for your condition. From there, the rest starts to fall into place.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 22, 2005
Caution to readers: I am not a mental health professional, merely an informed layman. If you suffer from acute symptoms of depression, uncontrolled agitation, or if you have suicidal thoughts, seek professional help immediately. Nothing in this document is intended to diagnose or treat any mental health condition.
In researching narcissism and how to deal with narcissists, I ran into the concepts of dysphoria and anhedonia.
1. Dysphoria: a state of feeling unwell or unhappy, anguish, agitation, disquiet, restlessness, and malaise.
2. Anhedonia: a loss of the penchant for living, an inability to feel pleasure or joy.
[Note: This next bit of information is from a site on Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder. I post it here because it is a broader description of dysphoria.]
Premenstrual Dysphoric DisorderDysphoria is a natural and involuntary reaction to intense, prolonged stress and to trauma. Stress can induce the fight-or-flight response to the point that it overwhelms the individual. If physical flight is not possible, the mind seeks to avoid and escape, to dissociate. Dissociation is a separation from reality.
Dysphoria includes four or more of the following:
Substantially depressed mood, feeling hopeless, or negative thoughts about oneself.
Increased anxiety or agitation.
Sudden changes in mood or greater emotional sensitivity.
Increased anger or irritability, or more frequent conflicts in relationships.
A loss of interest in regular activities.
Problems with concentration.
Being easily tired, loss of energy.
A substantial change in appetite, overeating, or cravings for certain foods.
Getting too little sleep (insomnia) or too much sleep (hypersomnia).
A sense of being out of control or overwhelmed.
Physical symptoms including headaches, weight gain, pain in muscles or joints.
The person's symptoms cause difficulty within relationships, social activities, work, school, etc.
The symptoms are not just the result of a complication of another mental health condition.
MedTerms online medical dictionary
Anhedonia: Loss of the capacity to experience pleasure. The inability to gain pleasure from normally pleasurable experiences. Anhedonia is a core clinical feature of depression, schizophrenia, and some other mental illnesses.
An anhedonic mother finds no joy from playing with her baby. An anhedonic football fan is not excited when his team wins. An anhedonic teenager feels no pleasure from passing the driving test.
"Anhedonia" is derived from the Greek "a-" (without) "hedone" (pleasure, delight). Other words derived from "hedone" include hedonism (a philosophy that emphasizes pleasure as the main aim of life), hedonist (a pleasure-seeker), and hedonophobia (an excessive and persistent fear of pleasure).
Signs and Symptoms of Depression
Major depression has three broad categories of signs and symptoms. These are:
• Mood
• Physical
• Cognitive
Mood symptoms include either the persistent feeling of sadness, or the reduced capacity to experience pleasure which, in its most extreme form, is called anhedonia. One of these two mood symptoms is required to make the diagnosis of major depression. Despite its significance, disturbance of mood is a relatively small component of the major depressive syndrome. Depressed mood may also present itself as irritability.
Physical symptoms include alterations of appetite and sleep, changes in energy level and disturbances of motor function. Most depressed patients experience anorexia with resultant weight loss but weight gain does occur in a substantial minority of depressed patients. Changes in body weight can be substantial. Sleep disturbance can take many forms, including excessive sleepiness. Most commonly, sleep disturbance refers to insomnia, including difficulties falling asleep, frequent awakening during the night or very early morning awakening. This last sleep disturbance, known as terminal insomnia, is most characteristic of major depression.
Patients with depression can complain of profound fatigue and lack of energy with accompanying lack of motivation. These symptoms collectively contribute to the "global dysfunction" associated with the disorder. Psychomotor retardation (an actual physical slowing of motor functioning) or psychomotor agitation are very prominent and disabling components of the disorder.
Cognitive Symptoms can take two forms: qualitative and quantitative.
With qualitative cognitive symptoms, patients' thoughts reflect the depression -- the patient thinks in a depressed manner. Thoughts can become coloured with feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and pessimism. The person can feel excessively and unreasonably guilty about things. They may also experience a loss of self-esteem and self confidence. These qualitative symptoms are extremely dangerous as they contribute to the suicidal behaviour of the depressed person. In fact, the depressive symptom most highly correlated with suicidal behaviour in depression is hopelessness.
The quantitative cognitive symptoms involve disturbances of attention, concentration and memory. Many patients complain of memory problems, and deficits are documented with neuropsychological testing. These quantitative cognitive symptoms can greatly contribute to the adverse effects on the person's performance at work that are often a consequence of depression.
Some people find the mnemonic SIGECAPS helpful:
S - Sleep
I - Interest
G - Guilt
E - Energy
C - Concentration
A - Appetite
P - Psychomotor activity
S - Suicide
Major depression may be diagnosed if the patient affirms 4 of these 8 symptoms in addition to a depressed mood or anhedonia.
These are conditions relating to mood disorders, specifically depression. Anhedonia tends to be limited in duration. Dysphoria, however, can last a lifetime.
Dissociation provides immediate insulation from stress, and can allow the person under stress to think more clearly. However, the insulation is costly in terms of mental, emotional, and physical energy. It is a short-term fix, not a permanent solution.
Children who suffer trauma learn to rely on avoidance and escape as their primary coping methods. When they sense that trauma is imminent, they retreat inward. Constantly escaping or avoiding reality leads to a life of anxiety, distrust, frustration, unhealthy attachments, unhealthy separations, rage, self-doubt, unrealistic expectations, mental exhaustion, apathy, and nagging unhappiness--in other words, dysphoria.
People who suffer from dysphoria are convinced that all good things come to a bad end, and that little or no real enjoyment is possible. In their minds, they can’t see the point in doing anything. They take no enjoyment from their efforts or achievements. They feel a sense of futility that renders all activity pointless.
To them, life is an unending burden. Dysphorics are discouraged and disheartened. They feel that no one understands them. This is true. In fact, they don’t understand themselves. They don’t know how they got this way. They don’t know why they are so unhappy. They don’t know what to do about it, or even if there is any point in trying.
They are not pretending. They are not crybabies. They are not performing or putting on. They are not lazy. They are not selfish or self-centered.
They are in trouble.
Dysphoria is the basis of most mood disorders including narcissism, bi-polar disorder, borderline disorder, depression, and manic-depressive disorder. People who suffer from prolonged and intense dysphoria tend to self-medicate with alcohol, drugs, food, sex, and reckless activities. They often complain that they have no feelings, or that they don’t feel alive.
Dysphoria is confusing to people who are afflicted with it as well as to those around them. The feelings of unhappiness, hopelessness, and anxiety are very real, yet they do not seem to have a correlation in reality. People afflicted with dysphoria know that they are unhappy, but they can’t pin down what they are unhappy about.
They sound paranoid. Paranoia at least gives their sense of foreboding and disquiet some meaning. They complain, blame, pout, grumble, isolate, and occasionally lash out. All of this can be very disconcerting to those close to them.
People who are in contact with dysphorics sense the unhappiness and anxiety, also. They take the queue and start searching for the source of the unhappiness. They want to “fix” the problem. For both the dysphorics and those around them, it is a futile search. People who associate with dysphorics become exasperated. They can’t figure out what the problem is. They eventually blame the dysphoric for being an inconsolable and stubborn. However, the problem is internal, not external.
The greatest obstacle dysphorics face is their own sense of discouragement. They think about getting help, and people who love them encourage them to get help. But, in the minds of the dysphorics, it all comes back to an overwhelming sense of futility. What’s the point of seeking help? It won’t do any good anyway.
Help is available. No one has to live life discouraged, disheartened, bitter, and hopeless. Dysphorics are not to blame for their condition; however, every person is responsible for his own healing. Therefore, the first step in healing is taking responsibility for your condition. From there, the rest starts to fall into place.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Friday, February 18, 2005
Legalized Extortion
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 18, 2005
A license is an extension of the power of government to enforce the law.
Colorado has mandated that licenses issued to taxi companies have no expiration, that they effectively become the private property of the license holder upon issuance, and that the license holder may charge any fee they deem fit without regulation or oversight to any authorized party for the use of the license or for the use of any equipment covered by the license.
By either mandating or allowing licenses to be treated as the private property of the license holder, government permits license holders to evade the law, and to use the power of government to enrich themselves at the expense of consumers and cab drivers.
Consumers are entitled to equal protection under the law, and to due process. The Colorado case is a prime example of the failure of government to provide equal protection under law, and to allow due process in defending the public interest.
The public’s right to due process is violated because license holders may create conditions that compel rate increases without any regulation, oversight, or input from the public. License holders do this by raising their lease fees to drivers. Some drivers are unable to pay the increased fees, so they quit. As the number of drivers decreases, service to the public suffers. The PUC is required by law to intervene to make service available, so they institute rate increases to try to induce more drivers to return to work. (What the PUC ought to do is sue the license holders to either lower their lease fees or provide justification for raising them. Keep in mind that no part of the lease fee is used to compensate the drivers.)
As you can see from this example, the rate making process is turned on its head. Worse, the public is denied their rights under Colorado law to protest rate increases because the license holders have created a crisis that compels government to act. The license holders have been granted exemption from the law, and effective control over the rate-making process.
If the license holders in Colorado have been granted exemption from the lawful rate making process, then consumers and cab drivers should also be granted the same exemption.
However, I prefer to state the case this way:
The cost of the medallion is built into the rate structure that consumers pay. The medallion itself is of no benefit to consumers. The medallion serves as a source of income to the medallion holder. However, the income received by the medallion holder is not derived from providing service to consumers; it is derived from the possession of the medallion.
The medallion holder uses his medallion to siphon profits from the operation of a taxi away from the driver. The driver is being swindled, to be sure. But, so are consumers.
The price the drivers pay for the use of the medallion is a premium. Consumers pay this premium in the form of either higher prices, lower service, or both. For example, the driver could use some of the premium he pays for the use of the medallion to buy a better car, or to provide additional amenities to passengers.
As it is, drivers tend to buy the least expensive car they can get because their profit margin is so small. Their profit margin is small because medallion owners use the power of the government issued medallion to extract a premium from the drivers.
The public has every right not to be required to pay this premium. The medallion holders have no right under law to charge a premium for the use of the medallion. They have no right to charge anything for the use of the medallion. The public has every right to good service at reasonable prices without having medallion owners or license holders using the power of government to elevate prices above reasonable market levels.
Taxi service has a ready-made market in short, local trips on demand. No other business can fill this need the way taxis can. However, medallion owners in New York City and license holders in Colorado are pricing themselves out of their niche market by demanding higher and higher premiums for the use of their government issued licenses.
On an aside, taxi drivers also have the right under the 14th and 5th Amendments not to be compelled to pay for the use of a government issued license or medallion. Charging a fee for the use of a government issued license amounts to improper use of government power by a private individual, improper use of police power to extract payment--legalized extortion.
Should your local police department be allowed to charge you a fee for arresting the guy who stole your car? Should your local fire department be allowed to turn their hoses on you before they turn their hoses on the fire that is burning your house to the ground?
The solution to the problem is to require periodic renewal in lieu of mandatory expiration, and by prohibiting the transfer of licenses in any form--lease, sale, inheritance, etc.--as well as prohibiting the transfer of any equipment covered by the license.
(The only question relevant to property values of licenses is did the government REQUIRE the current license holder to purchase the license from the previous license holder.)
No one is entitled to profit from the possession of a government license, and no one can be compelled under law to pay a premium to any party who holds a government license.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 18, 2005
A license is an extension of the power of government to enforce the law.
Colorado has mandated that licenses issued to taxi companies have no expiration, that they effectively become the private property of the license holder upon issuance, and that the license holder may charge any fee they deem fit without regulation or oversight to any authorized party for the use of the license or for the use of any equipment covered by the license.
By either mandating or allowing licenses to be treated as the private property of the license holder, government permits license holders to evade the law, and to use the power of government to enrich themselves at the expense of consumers and cab drivers.
Consumers are entitled to equal protection under the law, and to due process. The Colorado case is a prime example of the failure of government to provide equal protection under law, and to allow due process in defending the public interest.
The public’s right to due process is violated because license holders may create conditions that compel rate increases without any regulation, oversight, or input from the public. License holders do this by raising their lease fees to drivers. Some drivers are unable to pay the increased fees, so they quit. As the number of drivers decreases, service to the public suffers. The PUC is required by law to intervene to make service available, so they institute rate increases to try to induce more drivers to return to work. (What the PUC ought to do is sue the license holders to either lower their lease fees or provide justification for raising them. Keep in mind that no part of the lease fee is used to compensate the drivers.)
As you can see from this example, the rate making process is turned on its head. Worse, the public is denied their rights under Colorado law to protest rate increases because the license holders have created a crisis that compels government to act. The license holders have been granted exemption from the law, and effective control over the rate-making process.
If the license holders in Colorado have been granted exemption from the lawful rate making process, then consumers and cab drivers should also be granted the same exemption.
However, I prefer to state the case this way:
Consumers have been deprived of equal protection and due process BECAUSE the license holders in Colorado have been granted exemption from the lawful rate-making process.The case of medallions in New York City also helps make the case. Medallions have sold for as much as $275,000. Medallion holders who paid $275,000 have to recover that cost. They do so by leasing their medallions to cab drivers. The drivers pay the lease fee up front, and then try to recover their costs through the regulated meter rates.
The cost of the medallion is built into the rate structure that consumers pay. The medallion itself is of no benefit to consumers. The medallion serves as a source of income to the medallion holder. However, the income received by the medallion holder is not derived from providing service to consumers; it is derived from the possession of the medallion.
The medallion holder uses his medallion to siphon profits from the operation of a taxi away from the driver. The driver is being swindled, to be sure. But, so are consumers.
The price the drivers pay for the use of the medallion is a premium. Consumers pay this premium in the form of either higher prices, lower service, or both. For example, the driver could use some of the premium he pays for the use of the medallion to buy a better car, or to provide additional amenities to passengers.
As it is, drivers tend to buy the least expensive car they can get because their profit margin is so small. Their profit margin is small because medallion owners use the power of the government issued medallion to extract a premium from the drivers.
The public has every right not to be required to pay this premium. The medallion holders have no right under law to charge a premium for the use of the medallion. They have no right to charge anything for the use of the medallion. The public has every right to good service at reasonable prices without having medallion owners or license holders using the power of government to elevate prices above reasonable market levels.
Taxi service has a ready-made market in short, local trips on demand. No other business can fill this need the way taxis can. However, medallion owners in New York City and license holders in Colorado are pricing themselves out of their niche market by demanding higher and higher premiums for the use of their government issued licenses.
On an aside, taxi drivers also have the right under the 14th and 5th Amendments not to be compelled to pay for the use of a government issued license or medallion. Charging a fee for the use of a government issued license amounts to improper use of government power by a private individual, improper use of police power to extract payment--legalized extortion.
Should your local police department be allowed to charge you a fee for arresting the guy who stole your car? Should your local fire department be allowed to turn their hoses on you before they turn their hoses on the fire that is burning your house to the ground?
The solution to the problem is to require periodic renewal in lieu of mandatory expiration, and by prohibiting the transfer of licenses in any form--lease, sale, inheritance, etc.--as well as prohibiting the transfer of any equipment covered by the license.
(The only question relevant to property values of licenses is did the government REQUIRE the current license holder to purchase the license from the previous license holder.)
No one is entitled to profit from the possession of a government license, and no one can be compelled under law to pay a premium to any party who holds a government license.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The Shock of the Relief of Being Abandoned
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 17, 2005
Sam Vaknin has published dozens of articles on interpersonal abuse. In his article The Relief of Being Abandoned, he makes this observation:
If Vaknin is correct, the people he’s talking about are engaged in nothing more than emotional masturbation. They sabotage themselves, then whine and cry about how miserable they are. If they aren’t miserable, they aren’t happy. And being miserable gains them the one thing they cannot live without, and the one thing that they cannot generate through positive achievements: ATTENTION!!!
Isn’t that what John Kerry and Michael Moore are all about? Isn’t that what Ward Churchill has been struggling for all his life? Isn’t that the reason Howard Dean finagled his way into the position of Chairman of the Democratic Party?
ATTENTION!!!
Let’s be honest. How many hours do conservative talk shows spend dwelling on the strangeness of leftists? It’s all you hear. Turn on Rush, Hewitt, Rosen (at KOA in Denver), and you get a steady stream of you-folks-won’t-believe-what-those-crazy-leftists-said-today.
And it gives the leftists exactly what they want: ATTENTION!!!
Rush has said for years that all the left wants is power, and they don’t care how they get it. Maybe he should revise that to say that the reason they want power is because people in power get ATTENTION!!!
To be fair, it’s hard not to pay attention to people who push their “pronounced and public misery and self-pity” in your face (also called “emotional dumping”). It’s hard not to get upset at these people. But, that’s exactly what they want. Because by being upset with them, YOU HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THEM!!! They go out of their way to be a pebble in your shoe.
“The abuser’s pronounced and public misery and self-pity are compensatory and...[h]is tribulations and anguish render him, in his eyes, unique, saintly, virtuous, righteous, resilient, and significant.” There is no cry for help here, folks; they nail themselves to a cross so they can play the part of martyr. Well, gosh. Where’s my hammer?
So, here’s my plan. When they start their routine--when they initiate their pout-a-thon, their crybaby hate mongering, calling people Nazis and whatnot--act bored, act depressed, act self-absorbed, say you just don’t have time right now. Don’t spend time arguing with them. Don’t waste time defending yourself, trying to understand them, or trying to solve their problems. Explain that you’re not insensitive; you’re just lethargic. It’s too much to take in all at once.
Try it. I think it will work.
Remember, it’s okay to feel upset with these people, it’s even okay to feel sympathy for them, but don’t show it to them. Don’t attend to them. It’s what they want.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 17, 2005
Sam Vaknin has published dozens of articles on interpersonal abuse. In his article The Relief of Being Abandoned, he makes this observation:
The abuser directs some of this fury [at his disappointments in life] inwards, punishing himself for his “failure”. This masochistic behavior has the added “benefit” of forcing the abuser’s closest to assume the roles of dismayed spectators or of persecutors and thus, either way, to pay him the attention that he craves.I have to admit that I was dumbstruck when I read this. It sounds like a number of people I know, and it also sounds like most of the whacked out leftists I read about, like Michael Moore, John Kerry, Ward Churchill, and Howard Dean.
Self-administered punishment often manifests as self-handicapping masochism - a cop-out. By undermining his work, his relationships, and his efforts, the increasingly fragile abuser avoids additional criticism and censure (negative supply). Self-inflicted failure is the abuser’s doing and thus proves that he is the master of his own fate.
Masochistic abusers keep finding themselves in self-defeating circumstances which render success impossible - and “an objective assessment of their performance improbable” (Millon, 2000). They act carelessly, withdraw in mid-effort, are constantly fatigued, bored, or disaffected and thus passive-aggressively sabotage their lives. Their suffering is defiant and by “deciding to abort” they reassert their omnipotence.
The abuser’s pronounced and public misery and self-pity are compensatory and “reinforce (his) self-esteem against overwhelming convictions of worthlessness” (Millon, 2000). His tribulations and anguish render him, in his eyes, unique, saintly, virtuous, righteous, resilient, and significant. They are, in other words, self-generated narcissistic supply.
Thus, paradoxically, the worst [I think Vaknin means “worse”] his anguish and unhappiness, the more relieved and elated such an abuser feels! He is “liberated” and “unshackled” by his own self-initiated abandonment, he insists. He never really wanted this commitment, he tells any willing (or buttonholed) listener - and anyhow, the relationship was doomed from the beginning by the egregious excesses and exploits of his wife (or partner or friend or boss).
If Vaknin is correct, the people he’s talking about are engaged in nothing more than emotional masturbation. They sabotage themselves, then whine and cry about how miserable they are. If they aren’t miserable, they aren’t happy. And being miserable gains them the one thing they cannot live without, and the one thing that they cannot generate through positive achievements: ATTENTION!!!
Isn’t that what John Kerry and Michael Moore are all about? Isn’t that what Ward Churchill has been struggling for all his life? Isn’t that the reason Howard Dean finagled his way into the position of Chairman of the Democratic Party?
ATTENTION!!!
Let’s be honest. How many hours do conservative talk shows spend dwelling on the strangeness of leftists? It’s all you hear. Turn on Rush, Hewitt, Rosen (at KOA in Denver), and you get a steady stream of you-folks-won’t-believe-what-those-crazy-leftists-said-today.
And it gives the leftists exactly what they want: ATTENTION!!!
Rush has said for years that all the left wants is power, and they don’t care how they get it. Maybe he should revise that to say that the reason they want power is because people in power get ATTENTION!!!
To be fair, it’s hard not to pay attention to people who push their “pronounced and public misery and self-pity” in your face (also called “emotional dumping”). It’s hard not to get upset at these people. But, that’s exactly what they want. Because by being upset with them, YOU HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THEM!!! They go out of their way to be a pebble in your shoe.
“The abuser’s pronounced and public misery and self-pity are compensatory and...[h]is tribulations and anguish render him, in his eyes, unique, saintly, virtuous, righteous, resilient, and significant.” There is no cry for help here, folks; they nail themselves to a cross so they can play the part of martyr. Well, gosh. Where’s my hammer?
So, here’s my plan. When they start their routine--when they initiate their pout-a-thon, their crybaby hate mongering, calling people Nazis and whatnot--act bored, act depressed, act self-absorbed, say you just don’t have time right now. Don’t spend time arguing with them. Don’t waste time defending yourself, trying to understand them, or trying to solve their problems. Explain that you’re not insensitive; you’re just lethargic. It’s too much to take in all at once.
Try it. I think it will work.
Remember, it’s okay to feel upset with these people, it’s even okay to feel sympathy for them, but don’t show it to them. Don’t attend to them. It’s what they want.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Attack of the Blogosphere
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 15, 2005
Hugh Hewitt attributes this quote to a caller:
I am a consumer of news services, and I write a blog. I write about the media from time to time. I write about government. I write about Hugh Hewitt. I write and I write. I post my thoughts for public consumption.
If I had a major story to break, you can bet your favorite Chihuahua that I would be in contact with the major bloggers like Hugh, Lileks, CaptainsQuarters, Powerlineblog, and about a dozen others. I would not wait for them to discover me. I would be on them like a cheap suit.
But none of this makes any difference to the MSM (main stream media). No one in MSM reads my blog. If I had broken the Eason Jordan story on my blog, no one would have noticed.
Bloggers are separated into dozens of different categories. Only a handful actually have any real influence. The influential bloggers become the gateways for the lesser bloggers. If you get noticed by Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, then you have a chance of being read. Ask Rony Abovitz. He broke the Eason Jordan story. Has anyone heard from him lately?
We proud scribblers have no illusions. We are neither necessary nor of any particular concern to the MSM, or to anyone else, for that matter. But we do have a voice, such as it is, and we will not be silent.
I don’t see the blogosphere as heralding the end of the MSM as we know it. I see the blogosphere as heralding the end of the age of radicalism that started in the 1960’s. Slandering clowns like Eason Jordan and Ward Churchill are going to be held accountable for their lies.
This is good. This is very good.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 15, 2005
Hugh Hewitt attributes this quote to a caller:
“The blogosphere is to the media what internal affairs is to any law enforcement agency. Nobody likes them, and they are absolutely necessary.”Interesting idea, but not entirely accurate. The blogosphere is exactly what the media never wants: Direct input from consumers.
I am a consumer of news services, and I write a blog. I write about the media from time to time. I write about government. I write about Hugh Hewitt. I write and I write. I post my thoughts for public consumption.
If I had a major story to break, you can bet your favorite Chihuahua that I would be in contact with the major bloggers like Hugh, Lileks, CaptainsQuarters, Powerlineblog, and about a dozen others. I would not wait for them to discover me. I would be on them like a cheap suit.
But none of this makes any difference to the MSM (main stream media). No one in MSM reads my blog. If I had broken the Eason Jordan story on my blog, no one would have noticed.
Bloggers are separated into dozens of different categories. Only a handful actually have any real influence. The influential bloggers become the gateways for the lesser bloggers. If you get noticed by Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, then you have a chance of being read. Ask Rony Abovitz. He broke the Eason Jordan story. Has anyone heard from him lately?
We proud scribblers have no illusions. We are neither necessary nor of any particular concern to the MSM, or to anyone else, for that matter. But we do have a voice, such as it is, and we will not be silent.
I don’t see the blogosphere as heralding the end of the MSM as we know it. I see the blogosphere as heralding the end of the age of radicalism that started in the 1960’s. Slandering clowns like Eason Jordan and Ward Churchill are going to be held accountable for their lies.
This is good. This is very good.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Friday, February 11, 2005
It’s a Good Start
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 11, 2005
Q: What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.
The Associated Press issued the this story (Convicted Lawyer Didn't Hide Radical Ways by Larry Neumeister) on the conviction of Lynne Feltham Stewart, a lawyer representing a convicted terrorist. Neumeister says:
The miracle of this matter is that she was even arrested, much less convicted and sentenced to hard time. Stewart is a left-wing radical lawyer, a foot soldier in the peoples’ revolution for social justice, a darling of the left leaning media, a hippy turned enabler for terrorists. She is, and has been her entire adult life, an enemy of the United States.
With the Ward Churchill matter still fresh in our minds (he said that the victims of the terrorists attacks on the World Trade Center deserved to be killed because they were “little Eichmans”), it becomes more apparent that the left is openly rooting for the Islamists in their efforts to kill Americans. In the Stewart case, cheer leading became assisting.
Nuemeister included a key point that Stewart believed that “sometimes violence was necessary to bring about change in a world she believed was infested with racism, sexism and corporate greed.” Professor Churchill believes the same thing. So do many Democrats.
The radical left could argue that violence was used to bring about change in Afghanistan and Iraq. True. Violence was used to install the dictatorships of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, and also to remove them. It’s clear that the radical left is in favor of violence, but only for their own causes.
It may be tempting to argue that it’s a matter of law, and that the terrorists are lawless while the U. S. and our allies followed the law in deposing Hussein and the Taliban. This argument will fall on deaf ears when offered to Churchill, Stewart, and their kind. They will argue that the U. S. is lawless and that the terrorist murderers are justified in retaliating. (This ignores the fact that the terrorists are not attacking us because they want us to do something; they are attacking us because they want to kill us.)
If you concede that both sides are lawless in their actions, then the only question becomes one of loyalty. Stewart and Churchill openly support the terrorists.
Why? Is this another case of the lame argument that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Because if it is, the Islamists will use the leftist radicals for what they’re worth, and then slice their infidel heads off just like their other victims. Sleeping with scorpions is no insurance against being stung.
As for pitching Stewart into the slammer, good. One down. My feeling is that lawyers--the very people charged with representing the people in matters of law--get away with too much as it is. There should be lawyers whose only job is to prosecute other lawyers, sort of a legal version of white blood cells.
The faithful execution of their duties by people who actually operate the judicial system is critical to the survival and prosperity of our nation, and to the preservation of our rights and our liberty.
Q: What does it take to get a crooked lawyer prosecuted?
A: Anything short of treason, I don’t know.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 11, 2005
Q: What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.
The Associated Press issued the this story (Convicted Lawyer Didn't Hide Radical Ways by Larry Neumeister) on the conviction of Lynne Feltham Stewart, a lawyer representing a convicted terrorist. Neumeister says:
Stewart, a silver-haired mother of six grown children, was convicted of smuggling messages of violence from Abdel-Rahman to his terrorist disciples. She had represented the sheik for eight years until her 2002 arrest.A “silver-haired mother of six grown children”. Nuemeister does not report whether any of the people who were blown to bits by Abdel-Rahman’s bomb might have also been a “silver-haired mother of six grown children”. Neumeister also reports that Stewart said:
For the last three years, she has crusaded for her innocence, maintaining in public speeches to law groups and schools across the nation that her willingness to befriend and get close to radical, militant criminals should not mean she became one of them.
Preferring socialism to capitalism, she did not hide her sympathies for her more radical clients or her belief that sometimes violence was necessary to bring about change in a world she believed was infested with racism, sexism and corporate greed.
During the trial, she testified that she considered herself a “revolutionary with a small ‘r.’”
“I have to hope that I'll be brave and carry the fight on from the prison if I have to,” she said then. “They want to make me into a traitor and I'll just fight forever. I will fight forever.”Typical of the warped, narcissistic mentality of radicals, she has everyone to blame but herself. “They want to make me into a traitor...”. Ms. Stewart made herself a traitor.
The miracle of this matter is that she was even arrested, much less convicted and sentenced to hard time. Stewart is a left-wing radical lawyer, a foot soldier in the peoples’ revolution for social justice, a darling of the left leaning media, a hippy turned enabler for terrorists. She is, and has been her entire adult life, an enemy of the United States.
With the Ward Churchill matter still fresh in our minds (he said that the victims of the terrorists attacks on the World Trade Center deserved to be killed because they were “little Eichmans”), it becomes more apparent that the left is openly rooting for the Islamists in their efforts to kill Americans. In the Stewart case, cheer leading became assisting.
Nuemeister included a key point that Stewart believed that “sometimes violence was necessary to bring about change in a world she believed was infested with racism, sexism and corporate greed.” Professor Churchill believes the same thing. So do many Democrats.
The radical left could argue that violence was used to bring about change in Afghanistan and Iraq. True. Violence was used to install the dictatorships of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, and also to remove them. It’s clear that the radical left is in favor of violence, but only for their own causes.
It may be tempting to argue that it’s a matter of law, and that the terrorists are lawless while the U. S. and our allies followed the law in deposing Hussein and the Taliban. This argument will fall on deaf ears when offered to Churchill, Stewart, and their kind. They will argue that the U. S. is lawless and that the terrorist murderers are justified in retaliating. (This ignores the fact that the terrorists are not attacking us because they want us to do something; they are attacking us because they want to kill us.)
If you concede that both sides are lawless in their actions, then the only question becomes one of loyalty. Stewart and Churchill openly support the terrorists.
Why? Is this another case of the lame argument that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Because if it is, the Islamists will use the leftist radicals for what they’re worth, and then slice their infidel heads off just like their other victims. Sleeping with scorpions is no insurance against being stung.
As for pitching Stewart into the slammer, good. One down. My feeling is that lawyers--the very people charged with representing the people in matters of law--get away with too much as it is. There should be lawyers whose only job is to prosecute other lawyers, sort of a legal version of white blood cells.
The faithful execution of their duties by people who actually operate the judicial system is critical to the survival and prosperity of our nation, and to the preservation of our rights and our liberty.
Q: What does it take to get a crooked lawyer prosecuted?
A: Anything short of treason, I don’t know.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Monday, February 07, 2005
Profits Are Evil!
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 7, 2005
Anti-capitalists argue that profits are evil. They argue that profits exploit workers and cheat consumers.
What are profits? Profits are revenues that exceed costs of doing business. Profits are a benefit. The anti-capitalists argue that corporate profits are not justly earned. They argue that when a corporation earns large profits, this is prima fascia evidence that the corporation is swindling workers and consumers.
While the size of the profit margin can be debated, there is no question that workers make a profit. If they didn’t they would quit their jobs.
Anti-capitalists argue that workers are entitled to benefit from their efforts, while corporations are not entitled. What’s the distinction in the minds of the anti-capitalists?
In the minds of the anti-capitalists, the problem lies in the perception that the corporations have too much control. They produce the goods and services. They provide the jobs, pay, benefits, and pensions. The corporations are large, wealthy, callous, and very much in control. (Most people understand that government is just as large, wealthy, callous, and in control as any corporation, only more so. Worse, government doesn’t pay dividends.)
It is the matter of control that upsets the anti-capitalists so much. Control is always a problem for people who are dependent. Anti-capitalism is a political expression of a mentality of dependency. Socialism fosters dependency. The anti-capitalists don’t want people to be dependent on corporations; they want people to be dependent on government.
In the minds of the anti-capitalists, profits are evil because profits allow people to avoid dependency on government control. Profits also allow people to ignore the anti-capitalists.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 7, 2005
Anti-capitalists argue that profits are evil. They argue that profits exploit workers and cheat consumers.
What are profits? Profits are revenues that exceed costs of doing business. Profits are a benefit. The anti-capitalists argue that corporate profits are not justly earned. They argue that when a corporation earns large profits, this is prima fascia evidence that the corporation is swindling workers and consumers.
While the size of the profit margin can be debated, there is no question that workers make a profit. If they didn’t they would quit their jobs.
Anti-capitalists argue that workers are entitled to benefit from their efforts, while corporations are not entitled. What’s the distinction in the minds of the anti-capitalists?
In the minds of the anti-capitalists, the problem lies in the perception that the corporations have too much control. They produce the goods and services. They provide the jobs, pay, benefits, and pensions. The corporations are large, wealthy, callous, and very much in control. (Most people understand that government is just as large, wealthy, callous, and in control as any corporation, only more so. Worse, government doesn’t pay dividends.)
It is the matter of control that upsets the anti-capitalists so much. Control is always a problem for people who are dependent. Anti-capitalism is a political expression of a mentality of dependency. Socialism fosters dependency. The anti-capitalists don’t want people to be dependent on corporations; they want people to be dependent on government.
In the minds of the anti-capitalists, profits are evil because profits allow people to avoid dependency on government control. Profits also allow people to ignore the anti-capitalists.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Our Apologies to Professor Churchill
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 7, 2005
This is a letter I thought about writing to Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado. I thought better of the idea. After all, I really don’t want to have a conversation with him. Enjoy.
***********************************************
Dear Professor Churchill,
On behalf of the people of the State of Colorado, I wish to offer apologies. We are sorry that we failed to understand that:
1. Everything you say is true.
2. No one is ever justified in disagreeing with you.
3. You are the center of the universe.
4. If God exists, you are certainly Him.*
5. We are all evil.
6. We all deserve to pay a penalty for our evil.
7. We are obliged to kill ourselves, or at least not complain when al Qaeda
terrorists kill us.
Professor Churchill, could you lend me $10 so I can buy some ammunition to shoot myself? Thanks.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
P.S. If I shot my mouth off and it cost me a $114,000 a year job, people would be justified in thinking I was stupid.
* I know, I know. It should be, “If God exists, then you are certainly He”, as in “he is you and you are he”. You wouldn’t say, “Him is you.” Well, maybe you would. But “you are he” sounds awkward.
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 7, 2005
This is a letter I thought about writing to Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado. I thought better of the idea. After all, I really don’t want to have a conversation with him. Enjoy.
***********************************************
Dear Professor Churchill,
On behalf of the people of the State of Colorado, I wish to offer apologies. We are sorry that we failed to understand that:
1. Everything you say is true.
2. No one is ever justified in disagreeing with you.
3. You are the center of the universe.
4. If God exists, you are certainly Him.*
5. We are all evil.
6. We all deserve to pay a penalty for our evil.
7. We are obliged to kill ourselves, or at least not complain when al Qaeda
terrorists kill us.
Professor Churchill, could you lend me $10 so I can buy some ammunition to shoot myself? Thanks.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
P.S. If I shot my mouth off and it cost me a $114,000 a year job, people would be justified in thinking I was stupid.
* I know, I know. It should be, “If God exists, then you are certainly He”, as in “he is you and you are he”. You wouldn’t say, “Him is you.” Well, maybe you would. But “you are he” sounds awkward.
Friday, February 04, 2005
WLM Syndrome on Display
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 4, 2005
I am not a psychologist, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
The controversy surrounding Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado is a fine example of WLM syndrome on display. WLM stands for Weak Little Men, a somewhat derogatory term I use to describe bullies.
The kernel of WLM syndrome is a fundamental lack of courage. WLM substitute anger for courage. Anger makes them feel emboldened. However, feeling emboldened is not the same as having courage. People are often most courageous when they are most afraid.
The failure of courage in WLM leads to chronic anger. They are angry about everything, and often express their anger in broad political terms. They often find common cause with other WLM who channel their anger toward a common target. The target of their anger is what I call a McGuffin. McGuffin is a term used by Alfred Hitchcock to signify the object of interest to the characters in a story. The McGuffin to WLM can be anything or anyone, but it has to fit into the storyline of their fantasy life. To the Nazis, the McGuffin is the Jews. To the Ku Klux Klan, the McGuffin is black people. To Professor Churchill, the McGuffin is American popular culture.
WLM never confront their McGuffin unless they are at a safe distance, or unless they have overpowering force. The confrontation is usually in the form of an attack. WLM constantly fantasize about defeating and vanquishing their McGuffin.
Not knowing what courage is, WLM spend a great deal of energy imagining that their cowardice is actually courage. For example, the cowards who fled the U. S. to avoid the military draft during the 1960’s imagined themselves to be gallant heroes, and that the act of fleeing was somehow courageous.
The other significant effect of not knowing courage is that when WLM acquire power, they become tyrants. They bully and abuse those weaker than themselves. They are merciless. They gain their greatest satisfaction from crushing the will of others, stripping them of their dignity and uniqueness, and utterly devaluing them. WLM aren’t trying to build themselves up; they trying to tear everyone else down.
It’s impossible to have courage without trust. WLM are unable to trust. Failure to trust leads to personal isolation, attachment to material objects, and self-indulgence. People who are unable to trust have difficulty with religion and matters of faith. They can’t trust, therefore, they can’t trust God.
Failure to trust also leads to self-destructive behavior and self-sabotage. WLM habitually sabotage relations with their friends, lovers, and children. I didn’t mention parents because WLM tend to have very unhealthy relationships with their parents.
And the parents of WLM are the cause of the failure of courage and trust in WLM. The parents abused and deprived the boys who grew up to be WLM.
WLM spent their lives longing for the courage to stand up to their abusers and assert their personal legitimacy. They are afflicted with a deep dread that they just don’t matter. They fear that the rules imposed on them by their abusers are invincible. They have no real hope that they can ever accept themselves as they are.
To cope with the inability of assert their personal legitimacy, they learn destructive coping skills. They lie, they manipulate, they bully, they evade, they do whatever they think is necessary to avoid personal responsibility.
They adopt artificial identities that they think will astound the world. The artificial identity that Professor Churchill has adopted is one of a man who is threatened at all times by the very culture he lives in and is very much a part of.
If WLM took their artificial identities completely seriously, they would be institutionalized for paranoid delusions. But they don’t. The artificial identity is for dramatic effect.
WLM live in a self-made melodrama that closely mirrors their childhood experiences of abuse. In their adult melodrama, as in childhood, they are the victims of impenetrable injustice. They constantly relive the trauma of their childhood abuse by seeing life in general as traumatic. In their own minds, they are at war with forces of mindless evil. They conclude that anything confusing is necessarily evil. Considering the complexity of modern life and the limited education of so many WLM, it is easy to understand why they see the entire world as evil.
Professor Churchill displays all of these characteristics. He is a fine example of a Weak Little Man. To him, America, capitalism, Land-O-Lakes butter, and the Atlanta Braves baseball fans are all “just as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did.”
I don’t know Professor Churchill any more than I know millions of Weak Little Men, but I am confident that sometime in his childhood, he was severely and repeatedly traumatized by one or both of his parents. His view of his world reflects severe trauma.
As a recovering Weak Little Man, I had difficulty with all these things until I finally told my abuser, “YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to come into my life and raise hell with me.”
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 4, 2005
I am not a psychologist, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
The controversy surrounding Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado is a fine example of WLM syndrome on display. WLM stands for Weak Little Men, a somewhat derogatory term I use to describe bullies.
The kernel of WLM syndrome is a fundamental lack of courage. WLM substitute anger for courage. Anger makes them feel emboldened. However, feeling emboldened is not the same as having courage. People are often most courageous when they are most afraid.
The failure of courage in WLM leads to chronic anger. They are angry about everything, and often express their anger in broad political terms. They often find common cause with other WLM who channel their anger toward a common target. The target of their anger is what I call a McGuffin. McGuffin is a term used by Alfred Hitchcock to signify the object of interest to the characters in a story. The McGuffin to WLM can be anything or anyone, but it has to fit into the storyline of their fantasy life. To the Nazis, the McGuffin is the Jews. To the Ku Klux Klan, the McGuffin is black people. To Professor Churchill, the McGuffin is American popular culture.
WLM never confront their McGuffin unless they are at a safe distance, or unless they have overpowering force. The confrontation is usually in the form of an attack. WLM constantly fantasize about defeating and vanquishing their McGuffin.
Not knowing what courage is, WLM spend a great deal of energy imagining that their cowardice is actually courage. For example, the cowards who fled the U. S. to avoid the military draft during the 1960’s imagined themselves to be gallant heroes, and that the act of fleeing was somehow courageous.
The other significant effect of not knowing courage is that when WLM acquire power, they become tyrants. They bully and abuse those weaker than themselves. They are merciless. They gain their greatest satisfaction from crushing the will of others, stripping them of their dignity and uniqueness, and utterly devaluing them. WLM aren’t trying to build themselves up; they trying to tear everyone else down.
It’s impossible to have courage without trust. WLM are unable to trust. Failure to trust leads to personal isolation, attachment to material objects, and self-indulgence. People who are unable to trust have difficulty with religion and matters of faith. They can’t trust, therefore, they can’t trust God.
Failure to trust also leads to self-destructive behavior and self-sabotage. WLM habitually sabotage relations with their friends, lovers, and children. I didn’t mention parents because WLM tend to have very unhealthy relationships with their parents.
And the parents of WLM are the cause of the failure of courage and trust in WLM. The parents abused and deprived the boys who grew up to be WLM.
WLM spent their lives longing for the courage to stand up to their abusers and assert their personal legitimacy. They are afflicted with a deep dread that they just don’t matter. They fear that the rules imposed on them by their abusers are invincible. They have no real hope that they can ever accept themselves as they are.
To cope with the inability of assert their personal legitimacy, they learn destructive coping skills. They lie, they manipulate, they bully, they evade, they do whatever they think is necessary to avoid personal responsibility.
They adopt artificial identities that they think will astound the world. The artificial identity that Professor Churchill has adopted is one of a man who is threatened at all times by the very culture he lives in and is very much a part of.
If WLM took their artificial identities completely seriously, they would be institutionalized for paranoid delusions. But they don’t. The artificial identity is for dramatic effect.
WLM live in a self-made melodrama that closely mirrors their childhood experiences of abuse. In their adult melodrama, as in childhood, they are the victims of impenetrable injustice. They constantly relive the trauma of their childhood abuse by seeing life in general as traumatic. In their own minds, they are at war with forces of mindless evil. They conclude that anything confusing is necessarily evil. Considering the complexity of modern life and the limited education of so many WLM, it is easy to understand why they see the entire world as evil.
Professor Churchill displays all of these characteristics. He is a fine example of a Weak Little Man. To him, America, capitalism, Land-O-Lakes butter, and the Atlanta Braves baseball fans are all “just as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did.”
I don’t know Professor Churchill any more than I know millions of Weak Little Men, but I am confident that sometime in his childhood, he was severely and repeatedly traumatized by one or both of his parents. His view of his world reflects severe trauma.
As a recovering Weak Little Man, I had difficulty with all these things until I finally told my abuser, “YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to come into my life and raise hell with me.”
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Professor Churchill Controversy Additional Thoughts
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 3, 2005
Ward Churchill, Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder is under attack for making the following statement, and for comparing the victims of September 11, 2001, to Nazis:
Second, Professor Churchill receives a salary from the University of Colorado. He takes money from the State that is taxed from the very people Professor Churchill condemns as being equivalent to Nazis. I cannot recall a single instance of any Jew being on the payroll of the Third Reich. If Professor Churchill actually believes his own assertions, then how can he in good conscience take money from the very people whom he believes are committing crimes against humanity?
Third, you can’t see me, but I’m doing the tomahawk chop, saying, “Hey yay yay yay, Go Braves!” I’ve done this about three times. According to Professor Churchill, I have just committed “as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did.”
I don’t understand. In order for any act to be a crime against humanity, it must first be a crime against at least one single person. What is the crime in doing the tomahawk chop and saying, “Hey yay yay yay, Go Braves”?
Is it fraud? Murder? Rape? Breaking and entering? Is it incitement to commit violence? Is it a slander against American Indians? How? What is the crime, and who is the victim? “Hey yay yay yay, Go Braves!” *chop, chop*
Under what provision of the U. S. Constitution is the Congress empowered to make it a crime to say, “Hey yay yay yay, Go Braves!” and do the tomahawk chop? *chop, chop*
By taking money from the very people he condemns for doing things that are “just as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did”, Professor Churchill makes himself an accessory at least, a co-conspirator at worst, to those same crimes. By working for and receiving a salary from the State of Colorado, Professor Churchill has condoned the very actions he claims to condemn. By taking our money, he has said that he thinks it is perfectly acceptable to him to do business with people who commit crimes against humanity.
If Professor Churchill wishes to spit in the faces of the taxpayers who provide the funds that pay his salary, then I think he should demonstrate the personal honor and dignity to resign his position at the University of Colorado. To take money from the people of Colorado while denouncing them as Nazis and approving of terrorist attacks against them is to be perfectly despicable. And dishonest. And treacherous.
To be fair, Professor Churchill has engaged in hate speech against America and Americans for at least ten years. Until now, he was too insignificant to pay attention to. But, because he has called Americans de facto Nazis, he has gotten the attention he feels he is entitled to.
I draw an uncomfortable sense of justice from seeing Professor Churchill compare the American people to genocidal Nazis. It’s wrong, and I’m sorry that this happened, but...
...but the American people are being treated to a full dose of what Viet Nam veterans have suffered for over thirty years. Veterans have had this kind of hate speech shoved in their faces for a generation. And, unlike Professor Churchill, most of them have taken the abuse with dignity and patience.
Don’t like being called a Nazi? Don’t care to have some smug, self-righteous, hate-filled elitist Professor of Ethnic Studies (whatever that is) suggest that the only way for you to fully compensate for the crimes against humanity that you don’t even know that you committed is to be killed by al Qaeda terrorists?
Now you know how it feels.
It is clear from his publications that Professor Churchill has absolutely no concept of personal responsibility. This may explain why he has taken no responsibility for his own reckless behavior. But then, the failure to understand personal responsibility is a hallmark of the lunatic left, and Professor Churchill appears to be politically left of Leon Trotsky.
As for Professor Churchill, if he had any sense--and I see no evidence that he does--he would be furious with al Qaeda. He could have retired without incident if it weren’t for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He’s been calling Americans Nazis for years, and until he called the victims of 9/11 “little Eichmans”, no one cared what he said.
But after 9/11, Churchill’s hate speech isn’t just benign propaganda. People who talk just like Professor Ward Churchill flew jetliners into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the fields of Pennsylvania.
The American people are finally beginning to recognize their enemies.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 3, 2005
Ward Churchill, Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder is under attack for making the following statement, and for comparing the victims of September 11, 2001, to Nazis:
“[T]he treatment of Indians in American popular culture is...just as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did.”First, his personal vehicle was vandalized. This is shameful. The culprits are honor bound to turn themselves in and make full restitution to Professor Churchill. Spray painting obscene graffiti is not a valid rebuttal.
Second, Professor Churchill receives a salary from the University of Colorado. He takes money from the State that is taxed from the very people Professor Churchill condemns as being equivalent to Nazis. I cannot recall a single instance of any Jew being on the payroll of the Third Reich. If Professor Churchill actually believes his own assertions, then how can he in good conscience take money from the very people whom he believes are committing crimes against humanity?
Third, you can’t see me, but I’m doing the tomahawk chop, saying, “Hey yay yay yay, Go Braves!” I’ve done this about three times. According to Professor Churchill, I have just committed “as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did.”
I don’t understand. In order for any act to be a crime against humanity, it must first be a crime against at least one single person. What is the crime in doing the tomahawk chop and saying, “Hey yay yay yay, Go Braves”?
Is it fraud? Murder? Rape? Breaking and entering? Is it incitement to commit violence? Is it a slander against American Indians? How? What is the crime, and who is the victim? “Hey yay yay yay, Go Braves!” *chop, chop*
Under what provision of the U. S. Constitution is the Congress empowered to make it a crime to say, “Hey yay yay yay, Go Braves!” and do the tomahawk chop? *chop, chop*
By taking money from the very people he condemns for doing things that are “just as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did”, Professor Churchill makes himself an accessory at least, a co-conspirator at worst, to those same crimes. By working for and receiving a salary from the State of Colorado, Professor Churchill has condoned the very actions he claims to condemn. By taking our money, he has said that he thinks it is perfectly acceptable to him to do business with people who commit crimes against humanity.
If Professor Churchill wishes to spit in the faces of the taxpayers who provide the funds that pay his salary, then I think he should demonstrate the personal honor and dignity to resign his position at the University of Colorado. To take money from the people of Colorado while denouncing them as Nazis and approving of terrorist attacks against them is to be perfectly despicable. And dishonest. And treacherous.
To be fair, Professor Churchill has engaged in hate speech against America and Americans for at least ten years. Until now, he was too insignificant to pay attention to. But, because he has called Americans de facto Nazis, he has gotten the attention he feels he is entitled to.
I draw an uncomfortable sense of justice from seeing Professor Churchill compare the American people to genocidal Nazis. It’s wrong, and I’m sorry that this happened, but...
...but the American people are being treated to a full dose of what Viet Nam veterans have suffered for over thirty years. Veterans have had this kind of hate speech shoved in their faces for a generation. And, unlike Professor Churchill, most of them have taken the abuse with dignity and patience.
Don’t like being called a Nazi? Don’t care to have some smug, self-righteous, hate-filled elitist Professor of Ethnic Studies (whatever that is) suggest that the only way for you to fully compensate for the crimes against humanity that you don’t even know that you committed is to be killed by al Qaeda terrorists?
Now you know how it feels.
It is clear from his publications that Professor Churchill has absolutely no concept of personal responsibility. This may explain why he has taken no responsibility for his own reckless behavior. But then, the failure to understand personal responsibility is a hallmark of the lunatic left, and Professor Churchill appears to be politically left of Leon Trotsky.
As for Professor Churchill, if he had any sense--and I see no evidence that he does--he would be furious with al Qaeda. He could have retired without incident if it weren’t for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He’s been calling Americans Nazis for years, and until he called the victims of 9/11 “little Eichmans”, no one cared what he said.
But after 9/11, Churchill’s hate speech isn’t just benign propaganda. People who talk just like Professor Ward Churchill flew jetliners into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the fields of Pennsylvania.
The American people are finally beginning to recognize their enemies.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
As Much a Crime Against Humanity
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 2, 2005
Ward Churchill, Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder, managed to get some negative attention last week. In effect, he said that the victims the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, deserved to be killed because they were as bad as Nazis.
No trite comments here. Calling someone a Nazi is serious business.
An article explaining his views in detail entitled Crimes Against Humanity can be found here. It’s actually worth reading.
Here is Professor Churchill’s summation:
To clarify, Julius Streicher wrote material that incited Germans to attack Jews in the 1930’s, before Hitler came to power. Streicher was convicted of war crimes and hanged.
Professor Churchill makes one good point. I don’t think there is any further justification for calling a professional football team “Redskins”. Likewise, I don’t see lines of actual redskins waiting to be shot, gassed, or buried alive. A “gaggle of face-painted and war-bonneted buffoons” doing the “Tomahawk Chop” at a baseball game is in no way equivalent to rounding up American Indians, putting them in cattle cars, and shipping them off to die. Being a buffoon is not--repeat, NOT--a crime against humanity. (And the good news for Professor Churchill, either is being a smug, self-righteous, self-important crybaby.)
If all the Nazis had done was mock, belittle, and caricature Jews the way Americans mock, belittle, and caricature the “real people” Professor Churchill is defending, I think it is safe to say that six million Jews would not have been slaughtered during World War II. Six million mocked Jews would be six million very unhappy Jews. You have to still be alive in order to be very unhappy.
But, that’s the point, isn’t it? Professor Churchill is very unhappy, and very much alive. He has no fear of being rounded up and sent away to a concentration camp. None, whatsoever.
To conclude that Americans deserve to be massacred because they have offended Professor Churchill’s personal sensibilities suggests that he has adopted the very tactics he condemns. He is at least a hypocrite, and at worst an American Indian Nazi who decided it’s time to come out of the closet.
Professor Churchill takes pains not to apply the same all-or-nothing standards of guilt to himself that he uses to condemn his victims. Professor Churchill does not wish to acknowledge that he has been coddled and given a position of privilege and prestige at the University of Colorado by the very people he says do things that are “as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did.”
He is a sterling example of a Weak Little Man, an adult crybaby, a serial exaggerator, living only for the pleasure of being offended by other people’s immoral conduct, having no greater purpose in life than to blame and shame his victims, and a man bent on not taking responsibility for his own actions. If he honestly believes that “the treatment of Indians in American popular culture is...just as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did”, he would be packing his bags (as many thousands of European Jews did in the 1930’ and 40’s) and fleeing for his life instead of accepting a fat paycheck for a tenured position at a State University.
Professor Churchill needs to come to grips with the fact the Michael Moore has a firm hold on the position of America’s Number One Jerk. Sorry, Professor. Better luck next year.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
February 2, 2005
Ward Churchill, Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder, managed to get some negative attention last week. In effect, he said that the victims the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, deserved to be killed because they were as bad as Nazis.
No trite comments here. Calling someone a Nazi is serious business.
An article explaining his views in detail entitled Crimes Against Humanity can be found here. It’s actually worth reading.
Here is Professor Churchill’s summation:
In effect, a concerted, sustained, and in some ways accelerating effort has gone into making Indians unreal. It is thus of obvious importance that the American public begin to think about the implications of such things the next time they witness a gaggle of face-painted and war-bonneted buffoons doing the “Tomahawk Chop” at a baseball or football game. It is necessary that they think about the implications of the grade-school teacher adorning their child in turkey feathers to commemorate Thanksgiving. Think about the significance of John Wayne or Charleston Heston killing a dozen “savages” with a single bullet the next time a western comes on TV. Think about why Land-o-Lakes finds it appropriate to market its butter with the stereotyped image of an “Indian princess” on the wrapper. Think about what it means when non-Indian academics profess--as they often do--to “know more about Indians than Indians do themselves.” Think about the significance of charlatans like Carlos Castaneda and Jamake Highwater and Mary Summer Rain and Lynn Andrews churning out “Indian” bestsellers one after the other, while Indians typically can’t get into print.“[T]he treatment of Indians in American popular culture is...just as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did.” Got that, American Nazi swine?!
Think about the real situation of American Indians. Think about Julius Streicher. Remember Justice Jackson’s admonition. Understand that the treatment of Indians in American popular culture is not “cute” or “amusing,” or just “good, clean fun.”
Know that it causes real pain and real suffering to real people. Know that it threatens our very survival. And know that this is just as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did. It is likely the indigenous people of the United States will never demand that those guilty of such criminal activity be punished for their deeds. But the least we have to expect--indeed to demand is that such practices finally be brought to a halt.
To clarify, Julius Streicher wrote material that incited Germans to attack Jews in the 1930’s, before Hitler came to power. Streicher was convicted of war crimes and hanged.
Professor Churchill makes one good point. I don’t think there is any further justification for calling a professional football team “Redskins”. Likewise, I don’t see lines of actual redskins waiting to be shot, gassed, or buried alive. A “gaggle of face-painted and war-bonneted buffoons” doing the “Tomahawk Chop” at a baseball game is in no way equivalent to rounding up American Indians, putting them in cattle cars, and shipping them off to die. Being a buffoon is not--repeat, NOT--a crime against humanity. (And the good news for Professor Churchill, either is being a smug, self-righteous, self-important crybaby.)
If all the Nazis had done was mock, belittle, and caricature Jews the way Americans mock, belittle, and caricature the “real people” Professor Churchill is defending, I think it is safe to say that six million Jews would not have been slaughtered during World War II. Six million mocked Jews would be six million very unhappy Jews. You have to still be alive in order to be very unhappy.
But, that’s the point, isn’t it? Professor Churchill is very unhappy, and very much alive. He has no fear of being rounded up and sent away to a concentration camp. None, whatsoever.
To conclude that Americans deserve to be massacred because they have offended Professor Churchill’s personal sensibilities suggests that he has adopted the very tactics he condemns. He is at least a hypocrite, and at worst an American Indian Nazi who decided it’s time to come out of the closet.
Professor Churchill takes pains not to apply the same all-or-nothing standards of guilt to himself that he uses to condemn his victims. Professor Churchill does not wish to acknowledge that he has been coddled and given a position of privilege and prestige at the University of Colorado by the very people he says do things that are “as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did.”
He is a sterling example of a Weak Little Man, an adult crybaby, a serial exaggerator, living only for the pleasure of being offended by other people’s immoral conduct, having no greater purpose in life than to blame and shame his victims, and a man bent on not taking responsibility for his own actions. If he honestly believes that “the treatment of Indians in American popular culture is...just as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did”, he would be packing his bags (as many thousands of European Jews did in the 1930’ and 40’s) and fleeing for his life instead of accepting a fat paycheck for a tenured position at a State University.
Professor Churchill needs to come to grips with the fact the Michael Moore has a firm hold on the position of America’s Number One Jerk. Sorry, Professor. Better luck next year.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
