Monday, March 28, 2005
Emperors in Exile
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 27, 2005
What is it about Weak Little Men (WLM) that makes them so impossible to deal with? What is it that they do that makes them so completely uncooperative, so abrasive, so contrary, so defiant, so obtuse...well, you get the picture.
In spite of all evidence to the contrary, WLM are determined to convince themselves that they are always in control. They envision themselves as dominant, superior, sophisticated, and entitled to be in charge of everything.
To WLM, life is an endless competition for dominance. They feel compelled to dominate relationships with everyone around them. When we normal people object to being dominated, the WLM reject us as mean, evil, stupid, dishonest, unethical, etc.
They have all the answers, even when the answers are obviously absurd to their audience. (A fine example of this the WLM who pronounced to his dubious audience that the so called energy crisis could be solved by simply rigging up a Solar heating unit on top of each car to boil water and use steam power to propel automobiles. It was impossible to convince our self-anointed Einstein that such a scheme had already been tested and failed. To him, we were just a bunch of idiots.) They deal with their ignorance, which is so obvious to the people they talk to, by simply denying it. They’re not uninformed; they just have a more advanced point of view.
WLM are completely incapable of acknowledging their own shortcomings. This failure to apprehend facts that are obvious to other people makes it difficult for them to communicate effectively.
WLM become dictators. People who talk to them are simply not permitted to talk about certain subjects such as their obvious failings or their confounding ignorance. If you do, the WLM will recite the list of enemies they blame. If you don’t agree, they will accuse you of being one of them. If you persist, they will punish you in some way such as a tantrum, banishment, verbal abuse, or even physical assault.
The world of WLM is populated with enemies. Their compulsion to dominate transforms every relationship into one of enmity. To WLM, all people are either enemies or potential enemies. Because WLM demand unjust entitlement for themselves they provoke hostility in other people. The WLM then interpret this hostility as enmity, which in many cases it is not, and then congratulate themselves for “discovering” how mean and vicious the other person was.
To WLM, correction is rejection. They dismiss all attempts at correction, no matter how well intentioned, as arbitrary abuse. When you offer them advice, in their minds you are ruthlessly tearing them down. Because any contradiction causes them acute pain, when you offer them helpful advice, they think you are trying to hurt them.
This junkyard dog mentality makes it virtually impossible to offer friendship, understanding, or assistance of any kind. WLM reject it. They reject you.
In their own minds, these situations are always the fault of others. In their self-promoting fantasies, WLM are always the victims of other people’s meanness and stupidity. They are convinced that they are unappreciated, and that if people knew them for who they really are, people would admire them.
But, they won’t let people get to know them for who they really are. WLM create the very conditions that guarantee their failure and rejection.
Sensing that rejection is imminent, WLM often preemptively reject others. When they think that they will have to face a confrontation that they cannot win, they bail out of the relationship. If you don’t fight, you can’t lose.
Unable to communicate with people who have the impertinence to discuss taboo subjects (the failings of the WLM), unable to recognize significant aspects of their own character, unable to accept friendship on any terms, and often arbitrarily rejecting other people, WLM gradually withdraw, and eventually become isolated.
To the WLM, there is comfort in isolation. There is no one left to disturb their illusions of supremacy. In their own minds, and in their own little worlds, Weak Little Men are Emperors in exile. And someday--oh, yes, someday--they’ll show the world how great they really are!
If you live with such a person, get out if you have a choice. If you don’t have a choice, then you truly deserve sympathy and understanding.
If anyone is interested, the cure for WLM and their exiled Emperor syndrome is for them to understand that they are not entitled to admiration and adoration. They are not entitled to be in control of other people’s lives. Most of all, they have to eventually understand that their fantasies of supremacy and dominance are a toxic substitute for reality, and that such fantasies are enfeebling, not empowering.
If WLM wish to be empowered, they have to learn to serve others. The following fact is completely antithetical to the self serving fantasies that WLM dream up for themselves: When you learn to take care of other people’s needs, you learn how to take care of your own needs.
When you display hostility, you will receive hostility. When you display respect, you will receive respect. Do unto others, remember?
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 27, 2005
What is it about Weak Little Men (WLM) that makes them so impossible to deal with? What is it that they do that makes them so completely uncooperative, so abrasive, so contrary, so defiant, so obtuse...well, you get the picture.
In spite of all evidence to the contrary, WLM are determined to convince themselves that they are always in control. They envision themselves as dominant, superior, sophisticated, and entitled to be in charge of everything.
To WLM, life is an endless competition for dominance. They feel compelled to dominate relationships with everyone around them. When we normal people object to being dominated, the WLM reject us as mean, evil, stupid, dishonest, unethical, etc.
They have all the answers, even when the answers are obviously absurd to their audience. (A fine example of this the WLM who pronounced to his dubious audience that the so called energy crisis could be solved by simply rigging up a Solar heating unit on top of each car to boil water and use steam power to propel automobiles. It was impossible to convince our self-anointed Einstein that such a scheme had already been tested and failed. To him, we were just a bunch of idiots.) They deal with their ignorance, which is so obvious to the people they talk to, by simply denying it. They’re not uninformed; they just have a more advanced point of view.
WLM are completely incapable of acknowledging their own shortcomings. This failure to apprehend facts that are obvious to other people makes it difficult for them to communicate effectively.
WLM become dictators. People who talk to them are simply not permitted to talk about certain subjects such as their obvious failings or their confounding ignorance. If you do, the WLM will recite the list of enemies they blame. If you don’t agree, they will accuse you of being one of them. If you persist, they will punish you in some way such as a tantrum, banishment, verbal abuse, or even physical assault.
The world of WLM is populated with enemies. Their compulsion to dominate transforms every relationship into one of enmity. To WLM, all people are either enemies or potential enemies. Because WLM demand unjust entitlement for themselves they provoke hostility in other people. The WLM then interpret this hostility as enmity, which in many cases it is not, and then congratulate themselves for “discovering” how mean and vicious the other person was.
To WLM, correction is rejection. They dismiss all attempts at correction, no matter how well intentioned, as arbitrary abuse. When you offer them advice, in their minds you are ruthlessly tearing them down. Because any contradiction causes them acute pain, when you offer them helpful advice, they think you are trying to hurt them.
This junkyard dog mentality makes it virtually impossible to offer friendship, understanding, or assistance of any kind. WLM reject it. They reject you.
In their own minds, these situations are always the fault of others. In their self-promoting fantasies, WLM are always the victims of other people’s meanness and stupidity. They are convinced that they are unappreciated, and that if people knew them for who they really are, people would admire them.
But, they won’t let people get to know them for who they really are. WLM create the very conditions that guarantee their failure and rejection.
Sensing that rejection is imminent, WLM often preemptively reject others. When they think that they will have to face a confrontation that they cannot win, they bail out of the relationship. If you don’t fight, you can’t lose.
Unable to communicate with people who have the impertinence to discuss taboo subjects (the failings of the WLM), unable to recognize significant aspects of their own character, unable to accept friendship on any terms, and often arbitrarily rejecting other people, WLM gradually withdraw, and eventually become isolated.
To the WLM, there is comfort in isolation. There is no one left to disturb their illusions of supremacy. In their own minds, and in their own little worlds, Weak Little Men are Emperors in exile. And someday--oh, yes, someday--they’ll show the world how great they really are!
If you live with such a person, get out if you have a choice. If you don’t have a choice, then you truly deserve sympathy and understanding.
If anyone is interested, the cure for WLM and their exiled Emperor syndrome is for them to understand that they are not entitled to admiration and adoration. They are not entitled to be in control of other people’s lives. Most of all, they have to eventually understand that their fantasies of supremacy and dominance are a toxic substitute for reality, and that such fantasies are enfeebling, not empowering.
If WLM wish to be empowered, they have to learn to serve others. The following fact is completely antithetical to the self serving fantasies that WLM dream up for themselves: When you learn to take care of other people’s needs, you learn how to take care of your own needs.
When you display hostility, you will receive hostility. When you display respect, you will receive respect. Do unto others, remember?
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Friday, March 25, 2005
Struggling in Vain
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 25, 2005
One of my favorite quotes is:
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
When confronted with stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.
(Literally: With the simplemindedness struggle gods themselves vainly. Mit kämpfen, to struggle with; vergebens, vainly, or in vain.)
Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller
German poet, dramatist and historian
(1759 - 1805)
Maid of Orleans (act III, sc. 6)
It is in my opinion a waste of time to appeal to attributes and characteristics that people simply do not possess. Some people may consider this a challenge. To them I say, “Help yourself.” For my time, I don’t bother.
It really is a waste of time trying to form a relationship of cooperation or even charity with someone whose only real coping skill is to be defiant, when all that person knows how to do is bark like a dog. I often warn people that you can’t win an argument with a barking dog. But, sometimes, you just have to show the son of a bitch who’s boss.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 25, 2005
One of my favorite quotes is:
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
When confronted with stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.
(Literally: With the simplemindedness struggle gods themselves vainly. Mit kämpfen, to struggle with; vergebens, vainly, or in vain.)
Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller
German poet, dramatist and historian
(1759 - 1805)
Maid of Orleans (act III, sc. 6)
It is in my opinion a waste of time to appeal to attributes and characteristics that people simply do not possess. Some people may consider this a challenge. To them I say, “Help yourself.” For my time, I don’t bother.
And most difficult of all, it is impossible to ask people to examine themselves, their beliefs, their actions, and their lives when they abhor their own image.
It is often impossible to appeal to the of people who are humanity inhuman mercy merciless shame shameless knowledge ignorant tolerance intolerant honor ignoble friendship hostile altruism selfish decency indecent maturity childish caution careless common sense fanatical impartiality stubborn strength weak courage cowardly sanity insane humility arrogant concern unconcerned responsibility irresponsible commitment uncommitted sobriety addicted seriousness trivial humor humorless compassion self-absorbed serenity agitated bravery afraid
It really is a waste of time trying to form a relationship of cooperation or even charity with someone whose only real coping skill is to be defiant, when all that person knows how to do is bark like a dog. I often warn people that you can’t win an argument with a barking dog. But, sometimes, you just have to show the son of a bitch who’s boss.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Choosing Evil
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 23, 2005
In his article entitled The strange death of the liberal West, Mark Steyn says that the practice of abortion has convinced people that life is a “choice” or an option. I had to think about this for a while to make sure I understood his point.
The idea of “choice” has come to mean the complete absence of obligation, duty, love, and commitment. After all, when you have an obligation, you have no choice in the matter.
Our culture teaches that “freedom” means evading any obligations and denying any personal responsibility. It’s a very small step from denying responsibility for your own life to denying responsibility for anyone else’s life. This is illustrated by expressions of righteous indignation over the mistreatment of other people, while taking no action to stop the abuse.
The pro-abortion camp has convinced us to believe an impossible situation. There is no “choice” involved in abortion. Once the pregnancy begins, the mother is fully obliged to take all reasonable and prudent measures to ensure that the child will be born healthy and whole. After all, abortion is no choice at all for the fetus.
Every living thing is endowed with the will to live. In civilized cultures, the will to live and the right to live are necessarily presumed unless and until specific evidence to the contrary is verified. This is what differentiates us from the barbarians.
Considering life to be a “choice” or an option is nothing more than choosing to deny personal responsibility, moral obligations, duty, love, and commitment. Choosing to kill a deformed infant, a brain damaged woman, or to abort a healthy fetus is denying the personal obligation to defend and sustain helpless and innocent fellow human beings.
It is nothing more than choosing evil.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 23, 2005
In his article entitled The strange death of the liberal West, Mark Steyn says that the practice of abortion has convinced people that life is a “choice” or an option. I had to think about this for a while to make sure I understood his point.
The idea of “choice” has come to mean the complete absence of obligation, duty, love, and commitment. After all, when you have an obligation, you have no choice in the matter.
Our culture teaches that “freedom” means evading any obligations and denying any personal responsibility. It’s a very small step from denying responsibility for your own life to denying responsibility for anyone else’s life. This is illustrated by expressions of righteous indignation over the mistreatment of other people, while taking no action to stop the abuse.
The pro-abortion camp has convinced us to believe an impossible situation. There is no “choice” involved in abortion. Once the pregnancy begins, the mother is fully obliged to take all reasonable and prudent measures to ensure that the child will be born healthy and whole. After all, abortion is no choice at all for the fetus.
Every living thing is endowed with the will to live. In civilized cultures, the will to live and the right to live are necessarily presumed unless and until specific evidence to the contrary is verified. This is what differentiates us from the barbarians.
Considering life to be a “choice” or an option is nothing more than choosing to deny personal responsibility, moral obligations, duty, love, and commitment. Choosing to kill a deformed infant, a brain damaged woman, or to abort a healthy fetus is denying the personal obligation to defend and sustain helpless and innocent fellow human beings.
It is nothing more than choosing evil.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
A Public Act of Evil
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 22, 2005
The modern Hippocratic oath says in part that the physician should avoid “those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.” The term “therapeutic nihilism” means that the medical arts are useless and that no efforts should be taken to counter the effects of nature.
Understanding the term “therapeutic nihilism” helps us understand the similar concept of legal nihilism, meaning that the law is pointless, which then leads us to the concept of nihilism. Nihilism is the idea that life is pointless, that everyone is going to die, and therefore that life is cheap.
It is necessary to come to the conclusion that life is cheap in order to tolerate inflicting unnecessary suffering on other people. The reasoning (such as it is) goes something like this: They’re going to die anyway, so what difference does it make if they suffer?
If it doesn’t matter if they suffer because they’re going to die anyway, then it is a very small goose-step to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter if I am the cause of their suffering. With this set of premises, the argument now becomes: Everyone who suffers is going to die anyway, therefore it doesn’t matter how much people suffer, therefore it doesn’t matter how much suffering I cause other people.
Now consider the case of a convicted criminal who has been sentenced to death. What do you suppose would happen if the government executed a prisoner by starving him to death?
There would be a worldwide outcry about the cruelty of such an act. Starving a man to death is cruel. There is no disagreement about this. Inflicting avoidable and unnecessary suffering is evil. Therefore, starving a prisoner to death would be a public act of evil.
So, why are they starving Terri Schiavo to death? She is brain damaged due to circumstances beyond her control. She never left instructions to anyone on how and why to end her life in the event that she was incapacitated. Her parents want to care for her. She doesn’t understand what is being done to her, and she does not have to capacity to inform anyone that she doesn’t want to die. She cannot speak for herself.
Starving Terri Schiavo to death is as much a public act of evil as starving a condemned criminal to death. If fact, it is worse.
The people who are responsible for starving Terri Schiavo to death, including the doctor(s) who performed the act, are personally responsible for inflicting unnecessary suffering on a helpless woman. Deliberately inflicting unnecessary and avoidable suffering on a helpless victim is no accident. It is willful evil.
It is no less evil than turning the handle on the pipe that released the gas that killed the women and children in the showers in Auschwitz. That was evil. This is evil.
What is so extremely disturbing about the Terri Schiavo case is that I have to explain to people how cruel it is to starve her to death. Read that again.
Some of the people talking about this are completely unable to recognize this obvious act of cruelty, this public display of inhumanity. To me, this is unnerving.
I got furious with Professor Ward Churchill calling the victims of the Twin Towers attacks “little Eichmann’s”. Adolf Eichmann willfully inflicted suffering on people. He organized efforts to inflict horrendous suffering on innocent people. He intended to make people suffer.
At first glance, this would seem to be the significant difference between a Nazi war criminal and the American people. The American people would object to starving a convicted criminal to death. So, why do they want to starve Terri Schiavo to death?
It is upsetting to me to talk to people who make no effort to consider the suffering of others, or worse, who consider the suffering of others to be “necessary” for the greater good.
If you make suffering a necessary component of your culture, then what do you have? You have barbarians. But then, this only serves to affirm my earlier conclusion that most Americans are barbarians with cell phones.
I am sorry for what is happening to Terri Schiavo and her family. I am terrified by what this reveals about the American people. It reveals that the American people will buy anything, including torture and murder, if it’s properly packaged.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 22, 2005
The modern Hippocratic oath says in part that the physician should avoid “those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.” The term “therapeutic nihilism” means that the medical arts are useless and that no efforts should be taken to counter the effects of nature.
Understanding the term “therapeutic nihilism” helps us understand the similar concept of legal nihilism, meaning that the law is pointless, which then leads us to the concept of nihilism. Nihilism is the idea that life is pointless, that everyone is going to die, and therefore that life is cheap.
It is necessary to come to the conclusion that life is cheap in order to tolerate inflicting unnecessary suffering on other people. The reasoning (such as it is) goes something like this: They’re going to die anyway, so what difference does it make if they suffer?
If it doesn’t matter if they suffer because they’re going to die anyway, then it is a very small goose-step to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter if I am the cause of their suffering. With this set of premises, the argument now becomes: Everyone who suffers is going to die anyway, therefore it doesn’t matter how much people suffer, therefore it doesn’t matter how much suffering I cause other people.
Now consider the case of a convicted criminal who has been sentenced to death. What do you suppose would happen if the government executed a prisoner by starving him to death?
There would be a worldwide outcry about the cruelty of such an act. Starving a man to death is cruel. There is no disagreement about this. Inflicting avoidable and unnecessary suffering is evil. Therefore, starving a prisoner to death would be a public act of evil.
So, why are they starving Terri Schiavo to death? She is brain damaged due to circumstances beyond her control. She never left instructions to anyone on how and why to end her life in the event that she was incapacitated. Her parents want to care for her. She doesn’t understand what is being done to her, and she does not have to capacity to inform anyone that she doesn’t want to die. She cannot speak for herself.
Starving Terri Schiavo to death is as much a public act of evil as starving a condemned criminal to death. If fact, it is worse.
The people who are responsible for starving Terri Schiavo to death, including the doctor(s) who performed the act, are personally responsible for inflicting unnecessary suffering on a helpless woman. Deliberately inflicting unnecessary and avoidable suffering on a helpless victim is no accident. It is willful evil.
It is no less evil than turning the handle on the pipe that released the gas that killed the women and children in the showers in Auschwitz. That was evil. This is evil.
What is so extremely disturbing about the Terri Schiavo case is that I have to explain to people how cruel it is to starve her to death. Read that again.
Some of the people talking about this are completely unable to recognize this obvious act of cruelty, this public display of inhumanity. To me, this is unnerving.
I got furious with Professor Ward Churchill calling the victims of the Twin Towers attacks “little Eichmann’s”. Adolf Eichmann willfully inflicted suffering on people. He organized efforts to inflict horrendous suffering on innocent people. He intended to make people suffer.
At first glance, this would seem to be the significant difference between a Nazi war criminal and the American people. The American people would object to starving a convicted criminal to death. So, why do they want to starve Terri Schiavo to death?
It is upsetting to me to talk to people who make no effort to consider the suffering of others, or worse, who consider the suffering of others to be “necessary” for the greater good.
If you make suffering a necessary component of your culture, then what do you have? You have barbarians. But then, this only serves to affirm my earlier conclusion that most Americans are barbarians with cell phones.
I am sorry for what is happening to Terri Schiavo and her family. I am terrified by what this reveals about the American people. It reveals that the American people will buy anything, including torture and murder, if it’s properly packaged.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Friday, March 18, 2005
Dictatorship of the Minority
Opinion by Guy L. Evans
© 2005
March 18, 2005
Hugh Hewitt directs our attention to Radioblogger for transcripts of the MoveOn.org rally in which the national Democratic Party leadership campaigns to preserve the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to bring a bill to a vote by the full Senate (also known as cloture). This rule empowers a minority of only 40 Senators to stifle action in the Senate.
Cloture enables Senate Democrats to stop the Senate from voting. And that’s the point.
The Democratic Party considers it good government to stop the Senate from voting. The Democrats know that they are going to lose the vote, so they prefer to avoid losing by preventing the entire Senate from voting.
In campaigning for the cloture rule in the Senate, the Democratic Party is campaigning against representative government. This isn’t news. The Democratic Party should have changed their name in the 1940’s to the Autocratic Party. In 1992, when the Democrats were the majority in both houses of Congress, not only did they not allow the Republicans to speak, they tried to enact rules that effectively made the Congress a one Party State.
With this latest rally, the Democrats are demonstrating that they openly oppose representative government, that they will not tolerate the political majority exercising their right to govern, and that in their minds, the national interest is always subordinate to the interests of the Democratic Party.
They had their chance to make their case to the American people, and they lost. They need to stop denying this reality. I agree with the Senate’s intention to amend the cloture rule and permit the duly elected representatives of the American people to get on with the business of governing.
Under our system of laws, the minority is entitled to protection from crimes committed by the majority. The minority has no right to obstruct or sabotage the lawful activities of the majority. Allowing them that power would amount to dictatorship.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion by Guy L. Evans
© 2005
March 18, 2005
Hugh Hewitt directs our attention to Radioblogger for transcripts of the MoveOn.org rally in which the national Democratic Party leadership campaigns to preserve the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to bring a bill to a vote by the full Senate (also known as cloture). This rule empowers a minority of only 40 Senators to stifle action in the Senate.
Cloture enables Senate Democrats to stop the Senate from voting. And that’s the point.
The Democratic Party considers it good government to stop the Senate from voting. The Democrats know that they are going to lose the vote, so they prefer to avoid losing by preventing the entire Senate from voting.
In campaigning for the cloture rule in the Senate, the Democratic Party is campaigning against representative government. This isn’t news. The Democratic Party should have changed their name in the 1940’s to the Autocratic Party. In 1992, when the Democrats were the majority in both houses of Congress, not only did they not allow the Republicans to speak, they tried to enact rules that effectively made the Congress a one Party State.
With this latest rally, the Democrats are demonstrating that they openly oppose representative government, that they will not tolerate the political majority exercising their right to govern, and that in their minds, the national interest is always subordinate to the interests of the Democratic Party.
They had their chance to make their case to the American people, and they lost. They need to stop denying this reality. I agree with the Senate’s intention to amend the cloture rule and permit the duly elected representatives of the American people to get on with the business of governing.
Under our system of laws, the minority is entitled to protection from crimes committed by the majority. The minority has no right to obstruct or sabotage the lawful activities of the majority. Allowing them that power would amount to dictatorship.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Mistakes Weak Little Men Make
Opinion by Guy L. Evans
© 2005
March 15, 2005
Mistake 1:
Presuming that his opinion, outlook, or point view is legitimate, AND,
Mistake 2:
Presuming that no one else’s opinion, outlook, or point of view is legitimate.
Mistake 3:
Demanding that everyone else accept the legitimacy of his point of view.
Mistake 4:
Judging people who disagree with him as stupid or evil, and labeling them as idiots, morons, evil, worthless, etc.
Mistake 5:
Believing that people who disagree with him deserve to be punished, and that he has every right to hurt people.
Of course, I have described the textbook definition of narcissism. The narcissist believes that he alone has a valid point of view, that other people can’t possibly have the same point of view, and that other people are just objects. The narcissist believes that no one understands him, and that he has the right to hurt people in any manner he chooses. After all, they deserve it.
The central mistake that WLM make is failing or refusing to admit the legitimacy of anyone else’s point of view. They make no serious attempt to understand anyone else’s point of view because they can’t understand why anyone else’s point of view is worth the effort to try to understand. WLM have all the answers, so why is anyone else bothering to say anything?
WLM have a strong compulsion to be right about everything, even when they have the facts wrong. If they say it, it’s true. If they believe it, it’s right. It’s true because they say it, and it’s right because they believe it. End of discussion.
The problem for the WLM, and for those of us who have to put up with them, is that the discussion does not end simply because the WLM say so. They are unwilling or unable to entertain any differing points of view. Disagreement is inconvenient to them. It’s annoying to have to sit quietly and listen to other people. To the WLM, your opinion doesn’t matter because you don’t matter, so why don’t you just shut your face?
For WLM, when talking over you isn’t enough to shut you up, then bullying usually does the trick. (As a recovering WLM, I wish to apologize to all the people I talked over and bullied. Now stop bothering me about it, would you?)
If WLM can’t win the argument by talking over you or bullying you, then they will banish you. If the only way they can silence your disagreement is to stop hearing from you, then they are happy to do that. Friendship and family relations mean nothing to WLM. They suffer no remorse from losing friends and relatives. It’s more important to them that there is no one around to contradict them. In their minds, better that you were dead than that you should disagree with them.
What is to be done with such people? Either leave them alone, stand up to them, or live with their abuse. Finally, give up on the idea that you will have a healthy relationship with them. Weak Little Men are broken children who grew up to be broken men. Until they seek professional help, it is highly unlikely that they will change.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion by Guy L. Evans
© 2005
March 15, 2005
Mistake 1:
Presuming that his opinion, outlook, or point view is legitimate, AND,
Mistake 2:
Presuming that no one else’s opinion, outlook, or point of view is legitimate.
Mistake 3:
Demanding that everyone else accept the legitimacy of his point of view.
Mistake 4:
Judging people who disagree with him as stupid or evil, and labeling them as idiots, morons, evil, worthless, etc.
Mistake 5:
Believing that people who disagree with him deserve to be punished, and that he has every right to hurt people.
Of course, I have described the textbook definition of narcissism. The narcissist believes that he alone has a valid point of view, that other people can’t possibly have the same point of view, and that other people are just objects. The narcissist believes that no one understands him, and that he has the right to hurt people in any manner he chooses. After all, they deserve it.
The central mistake that WLM make is failing or refusing to admit the legitimacy of anyone else’s point of view. They make no serious attempt to understand anyone else’s point of view because they can’t understand why anyone else’s point of view is worth the effort to try to understand. WLM have all the answers, so why is anyone else bothering to say anything?
WLM have a strong compulsion to be right about everything, even when they have the facts wrong. If they say it, it’s true. If they believe it, it’s right. It’s true because they say it, and it’s right because they believe it. End of discussion.
The problem for the WLM, and for those of us who have to put up with them, is that the discussion does not end simply because the WLM say so. They are unwilling or unable to entertain any differing points of view. Disagreement is inconvenient to them. It’s annoying to have to sit quietly and listen to other people. To the WLM, your opinion doesn’t matter because you don’t matter, so why don’t you just shut your face?
For WLM, when talking over you isn’t enough to shut you up, then bullying usually does the trick. (As a recovering WLM, I wish to apologize to all the people I talked over and bullied. Now stop bothering me about it, would you?)
If WLM can’t win the argument by talking over you or bullying you, then they will banish you. If the only way they can silence your disagreement is to stop hearing from you, then they are happy to do that. Friendship and family relations mean nothing to WLM. They suffer no remorse from losing friends and relatives. It’s more important to them that there is no one around to contradict them. In their minds, better that you were dead than that you should disagree with them.
What is to be done with such people? Either leave them alone, stand up to them, or live with their abuse. Finally, give up on the idea that you will have a healthy relationship with them. Weak Little Men are broken children who grew up to be broken men. Until they seek professional help, it is highly unlikely that they will change.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Two Major Conservatives Support Dictatorship in the Workplace
Opinion by Guy L. Evans
© 2005
March 9, 2005
Two major conservative talk show hosts, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager, have made comments to the effect that employers should have the right to do anything they like with their employees without the employee’s consent.
Among Medved’s favorite assertions is the idea that every employer should have the right to fire any employee for any reason, which really means that employers should have the right to fire employees for no reason.
Having heard this from both Medved and Prager, I presume that this notion is widely held.
Though neither has said so in these words, they are both advocating totalitarianism for employers. They are advocating that employers should not be held responsible for their actions, nor should employers be subject to the law. Without saying so, they are advocating European feudalism. They want to turn America into Mexico.
I have no doubt that both Medved and Prager know about the Law of Contracts. Yet, they talk as though the employment contract is an admission of servitude by the employee, that the employee is not an equal in the agreement, merely a subject of the employer as the British are subjects of the Crown.
They don’t want employees; they want servants.
Their position effectively advocating employer totalitarianism is completely contrary to their political positions supporting individual liberty. If I understand them correctly, you can have all the individual liberty you like, but you surrender your liberty when you agree to go to work for an employer.
Nonsense! An employee may agree to suspend certain liberties in exchange for employment, but no employee ever surrenders any liberties.
To set the record straight for Medved, Prager, and all other conservatives, no employer has any right do dictate to any employee what that employee shall do. Employers only have the right to negotiate. They can ask; they cannot demand.
Employees likewise have no right to dictate to employers; they only have the right to negotiate.
If the American people decide to write certain elements of employment contracts into the law, e.g., the National Labor Relations Act, then they have the authority under law to do so. If employers don’t like it, then the borders are open, and they are free to leave. Personally, I think that one-size-fits-all employment arrangements are detrimental to all parties. But, nobody asked me.
I find it extremely disturbing that Medved and Prager advocate individual liberty out of one side of their mouths when they warn of government intrusion, but advocate absolute subjugation of employees by employers out the other side. To me, this is crazy talk.
As long as Medved, Prager, and other conservatives continue to suggest that employees forfeit their liberty when they sign an employment contract, that employers may alter the terms of any employment contract without the consent of the employee, and that employees are nothing more than puppets for employers, they will guarantee the resurgence of the Democratic Party.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion by Guy L. Evans
© 2005
March 9, 2005
Two major conservative talk show hosts, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager, have made comments to the effect that employers should have the right to do anything they like with their employees without the employee’s consent.
Among Medved’s favorite assertions is the idea that every employer should have the right to fire any employee for any reason, which really means that employers should have the right to fire employees for no reason.
Having heard this from both Medved and Prager, I presume that this notion is widely held.
Though neither has said so in these words, they are both advocating totalitarianism for employers. They are advocating that employers should not be held responsible for their actions, nor should employers be subject to the law. Without saying so, they are advocating European feudalism. They want to turn America into Mexico.
I have no doubt that both Medved and Prager know about the Law of Contracts. Yet, they talk as though the employment contract is an admission of servitude by the employee, that the employee is not an equal in the agreement, merely a subject of the employer as the British are subjects of the Crown.
They don’t want employees; they want servants.
Their position effectively advocating employer totalitarianism is completely contrary to their political positions supporting individual liberty. If I understand them correctly, you can have all the individual liberty you like, but you surrender your liberty when you agree to go to work for an employer.
Nonsense! An employee may agree to suspend certain liberties in exchange for employment, but no employee ever surrenders any liberties.
To set the record straight for Medved, Prager, and all other conservatives, no employer has any right do dictate to any employee what that employee shall do. Employers only have the right to negotiate. They can ask; they cannot demand.
Employees likewise have no right to dictate to employers; they only have the right to negotiate.
If the American people decide to write certain elements of employment contracts into the law, e.g., the National Labor Relations Act, then they have the authority under law to do so. If employers don’t like it, then the borders are open, and they are free to leave. Personally, I think that one-size-fits-all employment arrangements are detrimental to all parties. But, nobody asked me.
I find it extremely disturbing that Medved and Prager advocate individual liberty out of one side of their mouths when they warn of government intrusion, but advocate absolute subjugation of employees by employers out the other side. To me, this is crazy talk.
As long as Medved, Prager, and other conservatives continue to suggest that employees forfeit their liberty when they sign an employment contract, that employers may alter the terms of any employment contract without the consent of the employee, and that employees are nothing more than puppets for employers, they will guarantee the resurgence of the Democratic Party.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Dysphoria and Anhedonia Part 2
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 6, 2005
In “Dysphoria and Anhedonia Part 1”, I described dysphoria and anhedonia as:
Not everyone in the Democratic Party is dysphoric or depressed. However, the culture of the Democratic Party encourages these characteristics. Thinking that people who show signs of depression are somehow enlightened, people who are not depressed begin to imitate those who are. After a while, you have perfectly normal people sounding like paranoid teenagers.
Public displays of hysterical fantasy such as those offered by Senators Kennedy and Byrd--insinuating in no uncertain terms that Republicans are Nazis--are applauded as heroic defiance of oppression. These embarrassing displays are similar to outbursts by troubled teenagers who haven’t learned to express themselves in a responsible manner, and how haven’t yet learned to take responsibility for their own behavior.
Adolescent tirades such as those offered by Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and Ward “Weird” Churchill (and a number of other people I know whose names you would not recognize) are mostly for public display. They are performing. They are looking for an audience who will applaud their courage. (Children who are dependent and unable to care for themselves mistake defiance for courage.) If you approve of their belligerent misbehavior, you are enlightened; if you don’t, you are evil.
It’s difficult to cut through the smoke screen of this kind of pronounced and public misery and agitation. It’s nearly impossible to have a civil conversation with such people. For my experience, there’s really no point in trying.
My advice to people is to be on guard. Don’t fall for it. They want an audience, not a conversation. If you enjoy their antics, then by all means, help yourself. However, if you are like me and you find their behavior highly upsetting, then take it as a performance, not a cry for help, and go somewhere where you can calm yourself down. Don’t let them be in control of your feelings. They are manipulating you, not trying to appeal to you.
We cannot choose how we feel most of the time, but we can choose how we behave. I choose to see dysphoria and anhedonia as symptoms of mood disorders, not as a way of life or a political stance.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 6, 2005
In “Dysphoria and Anhedonia Part 1”, I described dysphoria and anhedonia as:
1. Dysphoria: a state of feeling unwell or unhappy, anguish, agitation, disquiet, restlessness, and malaise.People who suffer from mood disorders do not stop displaying symptoms when they engage in political activity. The feeling of being discouraged and disheartened influences their political judgment the same way it influences their personal judgment. The result is a political stance characterized by weakness, risk aversion, appeasement, fear of innovation, dissociation (inability to comprehend reality), paranoia, rage, dependency, and self-pity--in other words, the Democratic Party.
2. Anhedonia: a loss of the penchant for living, an inability to feel pleasure or joy.
Dysphoria 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.
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.
Not everyone in the Democratic Party is dysphoric or depressed. However, the culture of the Democratic Party encourages these characteristics. Thinking that people who show signs of depression are somehow enlightened, people who are not depressed begin to imitate those who are. After a while, you have perfectly normal people sounding like paranoid teenagers.
Public displays of hysterical fantasy such as those offered by Senators Kennedy and Byrd--insinuating in no uncertain terms that Republicans are Nazis--are applauded as heroic defiance of oppression. These embarrassing displays are similar to outbursts by troubled teenagers who haven’t learned to express themselves in a responsible manner, and how haven’t yet learned to take responsibility for their own behavior.
Adolescent tirades such as those offered by Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and Ward “Weird” Churchill (and a number of other people I know whose names you would not recognize) are mostly for public display. They are performing. They are looking for an audience who will applaud their courage. (Children who are dependent and unable to care for themselves mistake defiance for courage.) If you approve of their belligerent misbehavior, you are enlightened; if you don’t, you are evil.
It’s difficult to cut through the smoke screen of this kind of pronounced and public misery and agitation. It’s nearly impossible to have a civil conversation with such people. For my experience, there’s really no point in trying.
My advice to people is to be on guard. Don’t fall for it. They want an audience, not a conversation. If you enjoy their antics, then by all means, help yourself. However, if you are like me and you find their behavior highly upsetting, then take it as a performance, not a cry for help, and go somewhere where you can calm yourself down. Don’t let them be in control of your feelings. They are manipulating you, not trying to appeal to you.
We cannot choose how we feel most of the time, but we can choose how we behave. I choose to see dysphoria and anhedonia as symptoms of mood disorders, not as a way of life or a political stance.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Saturday, March 05, 2005
The Echo Chamber of Aggression
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 5, 2005
Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt. Yesterday, I ran into this on Hugh’s web site:
What happens if you take people, keep them relatively isolated from outside influences, and then start the Bobo Doll experiment?
You end up with an echo chamber of aggression manifesting as anger, bitterness, cynicism, and gloom that resembles morbid depression. To people on the outside, it appears that everyone inside the group is afflicted with serious emotional disorders.
You end up with rage, aggression, hostility, resentment, gloom, and bitterness, in other words, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Howard Dean, and the fever swamp wing of the Democratic Party. (As I think about it, these people are more interested in finding an audience for their antics than they are in finding targets.) I’ve spent a lot of time wandering where all this came from and if they are in need of professional help.
One important fact from the Bobo Doll experiment that cannot be over-emphasized: When you show anger and aggression toward other people, they will show it back to you. When people see anger and aggression in you, they will absorb it against their will, and turn it against you.
The consequence of this is that the more anger and aggression you demonstrate, the more anger and aggression will be inflicted on you. This is something you can control. When you tone down the aggression, anger, rage, complaining, bitterness, and criticism, other people change.
People interpret anger, rage, bitterness, criticism, and complaining as aggression. They feel that you are being aggressive, and they become aggressive toward you. The next thing you know, you have a completely unnecessary fight on your hands.
America used to be populated with friendly, optimistic, forward looking people. They had a good sense of humor. They had taste. They looked for answers, not merely for enemies to blame.
I miss them. I don’t know where they went.
The young people in particular have morphed into swamp things, dripping with rage and resentment. They sound for all the world as though they are in the throws of deep, chronic depression. What happened? Young people have their lives ahead of them. They have more reason than anyone to be hopeful. Instead, they are full of rage, resentment, and self-pity. It seems that the Bobo Doll effect has taken over the American psyche, an echo chamber of aggression, hostility, and bitterness where no good thought, no humor or joy, is allowed.
I am deeply concerned that the constant diet of aggression, passive aggression, rage, hate, hostility, and bitterness that that is fed to America’s children will cripple them for life. They absorb it like a sponge. You can’t hide anything from them. You can’t fool them. Children see through adults. They see what’s in our hearts, and they take it as their own. Is this really what you want for them?
There is one other, very serious, consequence of anger. Anger impedes learning. Angry children don’t learn as quickly as children who are calm and centered. This is the worst time in their lives for children to experience anger and hostility, there own or someone else’s.
I understand that there is nothing I can say that will change people’s lives. But I don’t understand why so many people think it’s acceptable or normal to be miserable and angry. What do they get out of it?
I wish I had a magic wand that would let me take away all your worries. But, as usual, I’m fresh out of magic wands.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 5, 2005
Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt. Yesterday, I ran into this on Hugh’s web site:
Bobo Doll ExperimentIt sounded a little silly when I first read it, but I got to thinking about the dynamics of this experiment.
Albert Bandura believed that aggression must explain three aspects: First, how aggressive patterns of behavior are developed; second, what provokes people to behave aggressively, and third, what determines whether they are going to continue to resort to an aggressive behavior patterns on future occasions (Evans, p. 22, 1989). In this experiment, he had children witness a model aggressively attacking a plastic clown called the Bobo doll. There children would watch a video where a model would aggressively hit a doll and ‘...the model pummels it on the head with a mallet, hurls it down, sits on it and punches it on the nose repeatedly, kick it across the room, flings it in the air, and bombards it with balls...’ After the video, the children were placed in a room with attractive toys, but they could not touch them. The process of retention had occurred. Therefore, the children became angry and frustrated. Then the children were led to another room where there were identical toys used in the Bobo video. The motivation phase was in occurrence. Bandura and many other researchers founded that 88% of the children imitated the aggressive behavior. Eight months later, 40% of the same children reproduce the violent behavior observed in the Bobo doll experiment. (Isom, 1998)
What happens if you take people, keep them relatively isolated from outside influences, and then start the Bobo Doll experiment?
You end up with an echo chamber of aggression manifesting as anger, bitterness, cynicism, and gloom that resembles morbid depression. To people on the outside, it appears that everyone inside the group is afflicted with serious emotional disorders.
You end up with rage, aggression, hostility, resentment, gloom, and bitterness, in other words, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Howard Dean, and the fever swamp wing of the Democratic Party. (As I think about it, these people are more interested in finding an audience for their antics than they are in finding targets.) I’ve spent a lot of time wandering where all this came from and if they are in need of professional help.
One important fact from the Bobo Doll experiment that cannot be over-emphasized: When you show anger and aggression toward other people, they will show it back to you. When people see anger and aggression in you, they will absorb it against their will, and turn it against you.
The consequence of this is that the more anger and aggression you demonstrate, the more anger and aggression will be inflicted on you. This is something you can control. When you tone down the aggression, anger, rage, complaining, bitterness, and criticism, other people change.
People interpret anger, rage, bitterness, criticism, and complaining as aggression. They feel that you are being aggressive, and they become aggressive toward you. The next thing you know, you have a completely unnecessary fight on your hands.
America used to be populated with friendly, optimistic, forward looking people. They had a good sense of humor. They had taste. They looked for answers, not merely for enemies to blame.
I miss them. I don’t know where they went.
The young people in particular have morphed into swamp things, dripping with rage and resentment. They sound for all the world as though they are in the throws of deep, chronic depression. What happened? Young people have their lives ahead of them. They have more reason than anyone to be hopeful. Instead, they are full of rage, resentment, and self-pity. It seems that the Bobo Doll effect has taken over the American psyche, an echo chamber of aggression, hostility, and bitterness where no good thought, no humor or joy, is allowed.
I am deeply concerned that the constant diet of aggression, passive aggression, rage, hate, hostility, and bitterness that that is fed to America’s children will cripple them for life. They absorb it like a sponge. You can’t hide anything from them. You can’t fool them. Children see through adults. They see what’s in our hearts, and they take it as their own. Is this really what you want for them?
There is one other, very serious, consequence of anger. Anger impedes learning. Angry children don’t learn as quickly as children who are calm and centered. This is the worst time in their lives for children to experience anger and hostility, there own or someone else’s.
I understand that there is nothing I can say that will change people’s lives. But I don’t understand why so many people think it’s acceptable or normal to be miserable and angry. What do they get out of it?
I wish I had a magic wand that would let me take away all your worries. But, as usual, I’m fresh out of magic wands.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Friday, March 04, 2005
The Democratic People’s Republic of the Los Angeles Times
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 4, 2005
Another hat tip to Hugh Hewitt for exposing the Los Angeles Times as a propaganda organ of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, also known as North Korea.
This incident connects the final dot. Since the end of World War II, there has been an active anti-American movement in this country. This week, the Los Angeles Times openly published Communist propaganda from North Korea as news.
It is not possible to deny that the Los Angeles Times is profoundly anti-American. By demonstrating this week that they are not only anti-American but also pro-Communist dictatorship, they connect the final dot.
As Americans, there is no reason to be anti-American unless you are pro-Communist dictatorship. The Los Angeles Times demonstrates that since the end of World War II, and with the rise of the Soviet Union, the anti-American movement intended to support Communist dictatorship, and that they intended to do so by opposition to the U. S.
There is a distinct difference between the loyal opposition and the disloyal opposition. Most of the anti-American crowd since the end of World War II has been disloyal. They have worked for the defeat of the U. S. in all theatres, and in every way imaginable. What more proof do you need?
Hugh Hewitt has called for subscribers of the Los Angeles Times to cancel their subscriptions. He has posted the number to call on his web site. Please click the link on the right side of this page to go to Hugh’s web site to get the number. The more hits I can give Hugh’s site, the better.
As for Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, and all the other people associated with the disloyal opposition, I still contend that they are enemies of the United States. There can be no doubt that the Los Angeles Times is an enemy of the United States. I now feel more comfortable saying that their final end is Communist dictatorship for America.
The defeat of the Soviet Union didn’t end the Cold War. Communist sympathizers and apologists are now running the Democratic Party and the Los Angeles Times. Whatever else to decide to do, for your own good, STOP GIVING THEM MONEY!
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 4, 2005
Another hat tip to Hugh Hewitt for exposing the Los Angeles Times as a propaganda organ of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, also known as North Korea.
This incident connects the final dot. Since the end of World War II, there has been an active anti-American movement in this country. This week, the Los Angeles Times openly published Communist propaganda from North Korea as news.
It is not possible to deny that the Los Angeles Times is profoundly anti-American. By demonstrating this week that they are not only anti-American but also pro-Communist dictatorship, they connect the final dot.
As Americans, there is no reason to be anti-American unless you are pro-Communist dictatorship. The Los Angeles Times demonstrates that since the end of World War II, and with the rise of the Soviet Union, the anti-American movement intended to support Communist dictatorship, and that they intended to do so by opposition to the U. S.
There is a distinct difference between the loyal opposition and the disloyal opposition. Most of the anti-American crowd since the end of World War II has been disloyal. They have worked for the defeat of the U. S. in all theatres, and in every way imaginable. What more proof do you need?
Hugh Hewitt has called for subscribers of the Los Angeles Times to cancel their subscriptions. He has posted the number to call on his web site. Please click the link on the right side of this page to go to Hugh’s web site to get the number. The more hits I can give Hugh’s site, the better.
As for Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, and all the other people associated with the disloyal opposition, I still contend that they are enemies of the United States. There can be no doubt that the Los Angeles Times is an enemy of the United States. I now feel more comfortable saying that their final end is Communist dictatorship for America.
The defeat of the Soviet Union didn’t end the Cold War. Communist sympathizers and apologists are now running the Democratic Party and the Los Angeles Times. Whatever else to decide to do, for your own good, STOP GIVING THEM MONEY!
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Judicial Despotism
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 2, 2005
The following is an e-mail that I sent to Hugh Hewitt and John Eastman.
++++++++++++++++++++
Hugh and John,
The latest decision of the Supreme Court of the United States illustrates the fatal flaw in our Constitutional Republic: We the people of the United States of America do not posses the final authority under the laws of the United States to govern ourselves.
That authority has been unlawfully usurped by the Supreme Court of the United States. That usurpation threatens our Republic. The current situation raises the very real possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn one or more critical portions of our Constitution (if they have not done so already), rendering our Constitution impotent to defend the right of the people to self-government.
How, then, shall we the people proceed to recover and assert our final authority under law to govern ourselves. (Please do not confuse rights with authority. We have the right to govern ourselves; but that right is impotent without final authority under law.)
This is no longer an academic debate. Our liberty is in jeopardy. I am eager to hear your comments.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
March 2, 2005
The following is an e-mail that I sent to Hugh Hewitt and John Eastman.
++++++++++++++++++++
Hugh and John,
The latest decision of the Supreme Court of the United States illustrates the fatal flaw in our Constitutional Republic: We the people of the United States of America do not posses the final authority under the laws of the United States to govern ourselves.
That authority has been unlawfully usurped by the Supreme Court of the United States. That usurpation threatens our Republic. The current situation raises the very real possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn one or more critical portions of our Constitution (if they have not done so already), rendering our Constitution impotent to defend the right of the people to self-government.
How, then, shall we the people proceed to recover and assert our final authority under law to govern ourselves. (Please do not confuse rights with authority. We have the right to govern ourselves; but that right is impotent without final authority under law.)
This is no longer an academic debate. Our liberty is in jeopardy. I am eager to hear your comments.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
