One Destination

2008-01-17T06:07:00.000-08:00

Junk Culture
Opinion © 2008, by Guy L. Evans

January 17, 2008

When you think of junk, you think of inferior quality and diminished value. You also think of disposable. Junk music. Junk art. Junk television. Junk food. Junk cars. Junk language. Junk relationships.

Americans accept junk as normal. Everything they have is junk, of inferior quality and diminished value, and therefore disposable. They value nothing. They care for nothing (except, oddly, their pets). If you become even mildly displeased, get rid of it and get another one.

I was watching a show on PBS. They were reviewing the history of television shows from the late 1940’s to the 1980’s.

The show that stood out from all the other variety shows previous to it was Laugh In. For those of you old enough to remember it, Laugh In was very popular. It really started the trend in sound bite entertainment. But, Laugh In was, in a word, incoherent.

You can’t make a show out of stringing together twenty-four minutes of three- to ten-second sound bites. Yes, Laugh In was popular at the time. Can you find any re-runs of Laugh In on cable or satellite networks today? You can find the Andy Griffith Show, I Love Lucy, and even the Twilight Zone. But, no Laugh In.

Junk is junk, and Laugh In was junk.

People still know how to sell junk, and other people still buy junk.

When it comes time to buy, though, ask yourself this: Does this help me, or does it just indulge me?

What do you think?

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2007-11-21T09:43:00.000-08:00

Turkey Day
Opinion © 2007, by Guy L. Evans

11-21-07

I find the use of the term “Turkey Day” disconcerting. Maybe I need to adjust my expectations. So, here are my thoughts on the subject of Turkey Day.

The functionality of Turkey Day is in being proactive with regards to fun. Additionally, the cooking and serving of the Turkey Day meal can be accompanied with the watching and enjoyment of the Turkey Day television parades and football festivities on that day.

Indeed, the use of the term “Turkey Day” also has the proactive impact of making Americans more open-minded to diversity. I can envision a time when Independence Day will be “Hotdog Day”, Columbus Day will be “Pizza Day”, St. Patrick’s Day will be “Corned Beef and Cabbage Day”, and New Years Day will be “Face Down in a Pool of Your Own Vomit Day”. No more American jingoism and bigotry inherent in being proud of your country and your history.

Thus, the naming of important days after food items may be expanded so that every day can be named after some popular dish. I, myself, am looking forward to Raisin Bran Day, and I can hardly wait for Mac and Cheese Day. Oatmeal Breakfast Burrito Day is just around the corner.

Mmmm. Chocolate Cake Day. Yummy.

Of course, “Fruitcake Day” may occur more than once a year, depending on whether or not you’re happily excited.

It is clear to me, at this time, that saying “Turkey Day” instead of “Thanksgiving Day” is an impactful expression of how much Americans have grown.

The world has turned to crap. Think of all the greedy people who won’t share with those who are less fortunate. Doesn’t that piss you off?

But, tomorrow there’s turkey and taters! Let’s eat!!!!!

Seriously, folks. Turkey Day is for escaping reality, and for stuffing your face until you forget how mad you are things don’t go the way that you want them to.

Thanksgiving Day is for reminding us that for everything we have--our food, our homes, our freedom--someone worked hard to make it happen.

Happy Thanksgiving Day.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2007-01-18T21:19:00.000-08:00

How Controlling People Think
(or fail to think, as the case may be)
Opinion © 2007, by Guy L. Evans

1-18-07

Happy New Year to everyone. I hope your holidays were wonderful.

Controlling people are arbitrary. Control is arbitrary. They control because they believe that all consequences are arbitrary. They believe this because the consequences from their parents were always arbitrary. Arbitrary parents. Arbitrary children. Arbitrary decision-making.

The ideas that actions have consequences and that every person is responsible for his own actions do not occur to controlling people. In their minds, all consequences are arbitrary; therefore, no one is responsible for his own behavior. The “S**t Happens” bumper stickers illustrate this point.

They judge all people, things, and events based solely on whether they feel that they like or dislike the person, object, or event. Their determination of liking or disliking anyone or anything is strictly arbitrary. They often have no idea why they like or dislike anything. It’s just a feeling, and that feeling can change from moment to moment (e.g., “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.”)

They never learn how to say, “I like this” or “I don’t like this”. Instead, they act out their feelings, often displaying irrational hostility.

Controlling people tend to be very self-controlling. They control themselves so that they don’t become the source of any problems. They control their moods, thoughts, and actions with the intent of convincing their inner critic that they are blameless for all things. Controlling people carry around an inner critic, usually an image of their critical, arbitrary parents. They substitute their parents’ reality for their own, and the inner critic stays with them for life.

To controlling people, blame is the ultimate truth. They believe that they have discovered the undeniable truth when they assign blame to someone, and that assigning blame is a matter of justice. To controlling people, justice demands that blame be justly assigned.

Controlling people don’t understand that blame is always arbitrary.

To controlling people, anything they don’t like is a problem. This gives them a very childlike quality. When something they don’t like happens, there is a problem.

To achieve the ends of justice, and to be blameless themselves, controlling people must blame all problems on someone other than themselves.

They associate the problem with some person. (This also applies to objects. In the minds of the controlling people, a person is no different from an inanimate object. Person and object are interchangeable ideas to them.)

They assign blame to the person. They think in terms of cause-and-effect. There was the effect (the problem), and there was a person associated with the problem; therefore, the person caused the problem. They think in terms of “you are causing a problem”.

Thinking that the person caused the problem, they try to control the person so that he can’t cause any more problems.

They believe that if you control the person, you control the problem and that if you eliminate the person, you eliminate the problem. In the minds of controlling people, the person is always the problem.

To controlling people, the idea that they may actually be part of the problem usually does not occur to them. They get target fixation--tunnel vision--and are incapable of coping with the problem by any means other than fight or flight (aggression, aversion, or distortion). They jump immediately into hostility mode, win-lose, run away, attack, dog eat dog, it’s either me or you, win at all costs, revenge, getting even, jealousy, etc.

In cases where controlling people blame themselves for their problems, the result may be drug abuse (drug abuse includes alcohol abuse), self-abuse, self-mutilation, or suicide. With the risks so high, it’s easy to understand why controlling people are intent of blaming others.

The greatest mistake that people make in problem solving is mistaking control for resolution. They believe that they have solved the problem when they have taken control of (what they believe to be) the source of the problem. They spend all their efforts trying to identify the source of the problem (by accusing, assigning blame, finding fault, discovering guilt, labeling, etc.), and then trying to control the source of the problem through aversion, aggression, or distortion.

Here are some ideas that may be helpful to controlling people:

Fire your inner critic. You need to be a helper to yourself, not a critic.

Eliminate blame. Stop blaming. Blame is the enemy of reason.

You have the right to feel your feelings. Feelings are involuntary. Feelings inform you of your condition; they don’t control you.

Positive self-talk. Stop blaming yourself. Learn to reward yourself for doing good. Be a friend to yourself, and you will learn to be a friend to others.

Learn to say, “I don’t like this” instead of “it’s all your fault”.

The person is never the problem; the problem is the problem. Focus on what you want to achieve instead of how you want other people to behave.

Your likes and dislikes are your responsibility.

Your behavior is your responsibility.

Other people’s behavior is not your responsibility.

Admit your losses and admit that you feel sorrow when you think about your losses. You aren’t weak or stupid or flawed for feeling sorrow.

Trying to control other people is much more stressful than simply identifying what you want to do.

Learn to listen to other people when they talk.

Learn to listen to yourself when you talk. Observe how you actually affect other people. Don’t be surprised when people don’t react the way you imagined they would.

Instead of imagining how you want other people to react to you, observe how they actually react to you.

Observe how the world really is, and then compare that to how you imagine you want the world to be.

I hope this helps.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-12-05T05:37:00.000-08:00

Good Locks Make Good Neighbors
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

December 5, 2006

Do you lock your front door before you leave your house or apartment? Why? Don’t you know that you’re unfairly discriminating when you do that?

Just teasing. It’s silly to suggest that you’re unfairly discriminating against anyone when you lock your doors. You are fairly discriminating against everyone. And rightly so.

I would certainly object if someone entered my home and tried to confiscate my private property on the assertion that I am less needy than he is. I don’t care how needy anyone is, no person has the right to personally confiscate my property. That’s why I lock my house. It’s my stuff. I earned it. It’s mine. And you can’t have it.

Locking my door before I leave the house is an act of brute force. By locking the door, I bar entry to everyone, including myself if I forget to take my keys with me.

When I lock my doors, I want to make certain that I have the keys. I want to have control of when my doors are locked. I don’t want to hand over that control to government. It would be ludicrous to suggest that some government agency should be responsible for locking and unlocking my doors for me. Government can’t defend my safety every minute of every day. Nor can government defend my rights every minute of every day. I have to do that myself. I understand and accept my responsibility in this matter.

Security is the first concern of every household. Without security, neither life nor property has any value. Your stuff isn’t worth anything to you if you don’t have it, and you certainly don’t want to trust your security to strangers. Security is accomplished by force. Any person attempting to enter my house without my permission will have to use brute force to enter.

Every claim of every right must be backed with the credible threat of brute force. Like the mercenaries say, you can’t get paid if you’re dead. In the same manner, you can’t exercise your right to free speech if you’re pushing up daisies. Since all people are susceptible to death, it seems to me that the first rule of life is to survive. If any person uses deadly force against you, you risk being killed if you do not use sufficient force to defend yourself.

History demonstrates that those who have the power make the rules. Political power cannot be maintained without a credible threat of force. A credible threat includes having some force to use in the first place, and periodically demonstrating to friend and foe alike that you can and will use that force at your discretion.

In your daily life, you use the credible threat of force every day by locking your doors. In international relations, and in any other situation where there is no law enforcement, those who exercise force exercise the greatest influence.

The practical fact is that the relationship between nations is similar to the relationship between rival tribes or gangs. Force is the final tool by which gangs, tribes, and nations exercise influence. If you don’t have force, or if you don’t use the force you have, then you have less influence. You can’t hit a home run if you don’t swing the bat.

My experience is that it’s easier on everyone if you back your opponent down before a fight than it is to try to beat him once the fight starts. It’s also easier to keep your stuff locked up than it is to try to recover it after some creep has stolen it. A credible threat of force accomplishes this in both situations.

Being American, I prefer that America, for better or for worse, be the most influential nation on Earth. If we wait until America is perfect to exercise our influence in the world, then we will never exercise any influence.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-11-09T05:58:00.000-08:00

What the Election Results Really Mean
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

November 9, 2006

Having birth-controlled themselves into the popular minority since 1973, Democrats now see their only chance of winning national elections by importing voters from Mexico.

The next six months will see a furious push by Democrats and their media mouthpieces to train the American people to accept Mexican nationals as voters. If this passes, get ready for President Clinton Part II.

There is a bright spot, however. I think that the Democrats and the media will pay a very severe price for this miscalculation. The American people sympathize with Mexican workers, but they don’t want to share power with them.

This puts Hillary in an un-winnable situation: If she supports voting rights for the very people she needs to win the 2008 election (Mexican nationals), then the other people she needs to win the election (Americans) will turn against her. For this reason, she will have to recruit other Democrats to do the dirty work for her so that she can remain unblemished.

This will be the big fight for the next six to twelve months. Watch for it.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-11-02T22:31:00.000-08:00

Forgetting the Most Important Thing
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

November 3, 2006

The most important thing to remember in next Tuesday’s election is that no matter how bad the Republicans are, the Democrats are much worse.

“Different” doesn’t mean “better”.

Don’t be a dummy, America. Don’t trade bad for worse.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

P.S. Osama bin Laden was right about you, America. You don’t have the guts to fight a war. You would rather lose than fight.

2006-11-02T21:01:00.000-08:00

Dear Critic
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

November 3, 2006

This is an open letter to all the critics out there (and in here).

Dear Critic,

When you criticize me...

What do you gain?
What do you lose?
What do you intend?
What do you expect?
What do you feel?
What do you think you sound like?
How do you think I should react to you?
How do you see that I react to you?
What do you think you are doing?
What are you doing?
Are you just amusing yourself?
Are you just indulging yourself?
Are you just emoting?
Do you just like to hear yourself talk?
Can you understand the harm you do to yourself, to others, to your reputation?
Can you understand that your criticism is actually an expression of FEAR?
What do you fear?
Do you fear criticism?
Is that why you criticize me?
Do you understand that when you criticize me you give me permission to criticize you, also?
Do you understand that you provoke the very criticism you fear?
Do you understand that you make your own misery?

Finally, dear critic, what good does your criticizing do me?

Why, no good at all.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-10-25T20:25:00.000-07:00

What Language Do You Speak?
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

October 25, 2006

Imagine a person who grew up in Japan. He has learned the language and the culture of Japan.

Now imagine that this same person moves to Brazil. He has not learned the language and the culture of Brazil.

What will happen to this person if he follows either of these two courses?

He condemns the people of Brazil as stupid, malicious, and incompetent because they do not understand the language and culture of Japan. He thinks they are idiots because they do not understand him.

He accepts that he is now among people who speak a different language and have a different culture. He also accepts that he can save himself a lot of trouble by learning their language and culture. And, he can save himself the greatest hardship by accepting that he has to learn to speak to them in a language that they understand.

Following the first course of action, the Brazilians may conclude that the person from Japan was insane. They wouldn’t be able to understand him. He would appear paranoid and hostile to them. If he attacked anyone, the Brazilians would probably try to put him in jail or deport him. If they felt he was a threat, they would try to contain him or get rid of him.

Following the second course of action, the Brazilians may conclude that the person from Japan is ignorant, but otherwise harmless. They might make fun of him at first, but as he demonstrated that he was not a threat to them and that he was making a good faith effort to understand their language and customs, they would probably come to accept him.

People who grow up learning the language and culture of blaming, criticizing, accusing, denigrating, and insulting find the culture of gratitude and appreciation as alien as the person from Japan finds Brazilian language and culture alien. The big problem for the blamers is that their first method of coping is to define other people as the source of the problem. They play an energetic game of “fault tag” (tag, it’s your fault that you don’t understand me), thereby avoiding any real chance of achieving mutual understanding.

If the person from Japan followed the first course of action, he would fail to understand his Brazilian neighbors and would blame the Brazilians for the problem. He would not admit that most of his failures could have been avoided by learning the language and the culture of the people around him. He would never learn that there is nothing wrong with him and there is nothing wrong with his new Brazilian neighbors. They just need to take some time learn each other’s language.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-10-23T20:40:00.000-07:00

You Get What You Give
Opinion (and a bit of a rant) © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

October 24, 2006

I got into it the other day with one of the young pouty-boys who thinks it’s cool to verbally abuse people who aren’t around to defend themselves. He’s one of those who thinks that slandering Jesus and President Bush makes him look smart. Then he bellyaches that no one understands him. You know the type.

So, I told him that enough is enough. I told him in so many words to shut his pie hole. Then I thought that if he would listen, this is what I’d like to say to him and all the other cry babies out there:

You want your precious autonomy, but you won’t allow anyone else to have theirs. You stick your nose into everyone else’s business every chance you get, and you think you are entitled to tell everyone else on God’s Earth how to live every minute of their lives.

You go nuts if anyone intrudes into your space, but you intrude on everyone else any time you like.

You don’t want to be judged, but you judge everyone else. You are an endless fountain of prejudices and negative opinions. You are a gold medallist fault finder in the bad-mouthing Olympics.

You want to be admired, but you refuse to show admiration for anyone else.

You want to be appreciated, but you can’t possibly show any appreciation for anything that anyone else does for you. “Thank you” is beyond you capabilities. And if anyone ever does show appreciation to you, you spit in their face. You don’t even know what a compliment is.

You want acceptance, but you refuse to accept anyone else. Cleopatra may have been the Queen of denial, but you’re King of rejection.

You want approval, but you refuse to grant your approval to anyone else. You are unpleaseable. You disapprove of everything. I’m sick of it. I don’t care if you’re unhappy. Why is that my problem? Be unhappy. It suites you.

You hate it when other people make demands on you, but you make demands on everyone else without even thinking about it.

You want legitimacy, but you won’t let anyone else have their own legitimacy.

You want people to listen to you, but you never, never, never listen to anyone else.

You want a voice, but you won’t let anyone else have theirs.

You want people to think that you are blameless, but you blame everyone else for everything that goes wrong in your life. What you are you, a frickin’ wall painting?

You have no social skills. You are un-socialized. I would tell you that you’re uncivilized, but you would think that that’s something to be proud of.

You want respect, but you can’t ever bring yourself to show any respect to anyone else. You are one of the most vicious, rude, rotten little cry babies I have ever known. And trust me, stud, I have known thousands.

You don’t understand why people hate you, but you don’t leave them any choice. Other people try to be nice to you, try to be civil with you, and all you do is attack, attack, attack. Your mouth spews hate like a fountain of karmic diarrhea. You’re never happy about anything. You’re always unhappy about everything. And people are sick of hearing it.

What a shame for all of us that you really weren’t born the Emperor of the Universe. Your life would be perfect if you could just get everything you demanded when you demanded it--like a little baby. If only everyone would take your advice, the world would be perfect for all of us, wouldn’t it?

You get what you give, moron. No one will give you respect if you don’t give it first. No one will listen to you if you don’t listen to them first. No one will care about you if you don’t care about them first.

If you don’t like what you see in other people, it’s because they’re reflecting back to you what you show them. They are showing you what you look like to them. You don’t like it, do you?

The world is not merely an extension of you. Other people have their own lives to live.

Snap out of it! Look at where you are. You’re in charge of your own life whether you like it or not. Now, shut it.

Okay. So I piled on a little. But I feel better.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-10-11T22:08:00.000-07:00

The “Punching Bag” Game
Rules of the game © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

October 11, 2006

Hey! Let’s play a nice game of “Punching Bag”. Okay? Great!

Here are the rules:

Find something that upsets you. You can score extra points by picking something that doesn’t actually affect you, like things from the past that no one can change or global problems that you can’t do anything about anyway. You can really score big points by being creative and dreaming something up. It is very important to remember to pick a fight that can’t be resolved. Just keep the fight going no matter what. Also, you can score huge points by setting up a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose scenario.
Identify a suitable target to be the “Punching Bag”. Heh, you can’t play “Punching Bag” without a punching bag, can you? Here you can score extra points by picking a fight with someone over nothing, and then convincing the other person that the whole problem is his fault. You can lose points here by actually confronting the situation that actually upsets you. Women, children, and public figures make the easiest targets because they can’t fight back.
Engage in senseless aggression. Verbal abuse is sufficient. Physical abuse of people and their property could get you disqualified (See 4. below). Senseless aggression must include at least one of the following, but may include all: blaming, scapegoating, scorn, denigrating, vilifying, name calling, foul language, pouting, complaining, gloom-a-thon (never happy about anything), negative demeanor, paranoia, contempt, arrogance, and inability or unwillingness to find pleasure in anything besides your own senseless aggression. At this point, putting yourself in the proper state of mind is important. You can increase your punching power by thinking that other people are malicious, incompetent, or down right stupid. You don’t score extra points by doing this, but it helps you generate more energy when you’re beating on your punching bag. Also, keep in mind that your senseless aggression is really nothing more than senseless self-indulgence. You’re not trying to make the world a better place; you’re just having a good time pounding on your “Punching Bag”.
Avoid consequences. If you suffer any consequences for your senseless aggression, you lose double the points you scored. Choose targets who either can’t or won’t set limits on your senseless aggression. Aggressively assert that your punching bag started the whole thing and deserves what you give him (you score double points for aggressively pursuing your aggression). If you ever, ever, ever become aware that your senseless aggression is actually harming anyone, then you are permanently eliminated from the game. And you don’t get to blame anyone for it, either. To avoid this unhappy fate, always aggressively deny that your aggression actually hurts anyone, and always assert that it’s the punching bag’s fault in the first place, and that he deserves what he gets. You can score a coupe by denying that you have any choice in the matter, and that your “Punching Bag” made you punch him.

CAUTION: If you take responsibility for your behavior, the game is over. If you realize that you actually hurt people when you engage in senseless, self-indulgent aggression, and worst of all, if this realization actually bothers you, then you are eliminated from the game for life.

And that’s pretty much the game in a nutshell. Get upset, identify a suitable target to be the “Punching Bag”, use that target as a punching bag, deny that you’re doing any harm, and then blame the “Punching Bag” for the whole thing. You won’t actually accomplish anything (that’s why it’s just a game), but you may feel a little rush while you’re indulging your aggression.

If you want to see some truly skilled “Punching Bag” players in action, cruise around the lefty bloggosphere and read some of the Bush bashing rants. They are brilliant examples of how to play the game, and you can learn a lot from them. They follow the rules, they score huge points, and they are really creative. They get upset about things that don’t really affect them, identify President Bush as the “Punching Bag”, senselessly and viciously attack him, and then blame him for causing the whole problem in the first place. The way they avoid taking responsibility for their own behavior is absolute genius--I didn’t have any choice. I love it! Innocence, it seems, wears the face of a crocodile.

If you play “Punching Bag” long enough, you can become a pathological narcissist! Think of the benefits--never having to be responsible for your own behavior no matter how destructive you are, never having to take the blame for anything no matter what you do, having an endless supply of targets to attack, and always feeling good about yourself. If anything ever bothers you, you can just indulge yourself in more senseless aggression. Of course, you’ll never grow up, but why should that be a problem? You can just blame everything on everyone else.

Get good at the “Punching Bag” game, and you’re set for life.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-09-19T05:57:00.000-07:00

Do You Know Anyone Like This?
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

September 19, 2006

Do you know anyone who treats you this way?

You don’t have a problem; you are a problem. You are a problem for being who you are, for being hungry and tired and needy and most of all for having wants and needs of your own and for expressing those wants and needs. You are a problem because you won’t control yourself. So, it is my duty to teach you to control yourself, to “correct” you, you scrub your inner, essential reality from your mind and then replace it with the reality that I want you to parrot back to me. I will tell you how you feel, what you want, what you need, what you should and should not think and feel, who your friends are, who your enemies are, and most of all, I will teach you to depend on me for your identity. I will define you. I will tell you when you are good and when you are bad. I will tell you when you are doing what is acceptable and when you are doing what is not acceptable. You will turn to me for your sense of self. Your life will revolve around pleasing me. But, I will keep control. I will be unpleaseable. And, my displeasure will always be your fault.

I will teach you not to think or feel or do anything without first considering whether I might not approve. As a result, you will become confused and frustrated. You will act out your frustration, and I will accuse you of attacking me, of trying to hurt me. Just control yourself. That’s all you have to do.

If you can’t handle the confusion and frustration of forever trying to please me when I am utterly unpleaseable, you will become the “rebel”. You will rebel. This suites me just fine. In rebelling against my authority over you, you legitimize my dominance over you. You affirm my “rightness”. You prove to me that I was right all along, that all you ever needed to do was control yourself and accept the identity that I have assigned you. You can’t control yourself, and now look at you.

But, I know the secret. I know how you can escape my control. Instead of controlling yourself, you just need to be honest with yourself. “To thine own self be true.” Stop trying to please me. Stop judging your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors against the contradictory, shifting, arbitrary, and capricious standards that I set. Stop trying to “correct” yourself.

When you’re hungry, eat. When you’re tired, rest. When you feel alone or angry or hurt or afraid, admit it. And admit that it feels bad. Be a friend to yourself, not a tyrant. Understand yourself. And, in understanding yourself, you will learn to understand others.

As for me, the Great Dictator of your life, let go of the struggle. I can’t control you if you won’t play along. If you fight with me, I still have control. That’s why I pick fights with you over nothing and everything. As long as we are fighting about something, or nothing, I still have a grip on you. I still am able to insert myself into your life against your will. As soon as you stop fighting with me, you strip me of my status of heroic victim, and you lose your mantel of villainy. When you stop fighting with me, then you give me no reason to accuse you of attacking me. Damn! Damn! Damn! Damn! Damn!

When I come back at you and try to pick a fight over nothing, I’m trying to re-establish my position as heroic victim. I want you to attack me so that I can feel offended and righteous. So, I will prod you and provoke you and nag you and dig at you and insult you and the things you love until you finally take up the fight again. I want you to fight with me. I want you to lose control, go nuts, have a fit, scream and yell and hit me and throw things. When you hurt me, then I know, I truly know in my heart of hearts, that you really don’t love me and that you really are bad person.

Never mind that I assaulted you ten ways from Sunday to trigger your rage. Not my responsibility. You lost control. I didn’t.

So, there you have it. I get to act like a big baby and then make you responsible for my feelings. That’s the trick. And you fell for it. And you will keep falling for it. And when you finally wake up and stop falling for it, and you finally say you’ve had enough and you leave, then I will be alone.

If you know anyone like this, save yourself first, worry about fixing the relationship later.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-07-24T10:32:00.000-07:00

My Prayer for Today
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

July 24, 2006

Dear Lord, please don't sneak up on me like that again. Thanks. Amen.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-07-18T06:01:00.000-07:00

What Would Happen If...?
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

July 18, 2006

After watching an episode of The Dog Whisperer (Cesar Millan) on The National Geographic Channel, I was confused by one idea that he put forward. He said that dogs that are “babied” become anti-social. This didn’t make any sense to me, and seemed counter intuitive. So, off I went in search of some answers.

As it turns out, he was absolutely right. When you reward any behavior, you will see more of that behavior. By “babying” a dog when he displays aggressive behavior, the dog thinks he is being rewarded for his behavior, and he will become more aggressive.

When children are “babied”, they don’t learn to make the connection between their behavior and the consequences of their behavior. They are mystified about how the world works and are suspicious of the motives of other people. They become dependent, anxious, and antagonistic.

Their antagonism provokes hostile reactions from other people, resulting in further anxiety and suspicion. It is the matter of not connecting their antagonistic affect with undesirable consequences that I wish to address. So, to everyone, I ask the following questions:

What would happen if...?

What would happen if everyone else behaved exactly the way you do?
What would happen if everyone else talked to you the way you talk to everyone else?
What would happen if everyone else treated you the same way you treat your parents?
What would happen if everyone else treated you the same way you treat your children?
What would happen if everyone else treated you the same way you treat your siblings?
What would happen if everyone else treated you the same way you treat your animals?

What would happen if everyone else believed everything you believe?
What would happen if everyone else believed the same things about themselves that you believe about yourself?
What would happen if everyone else believed the same things about you that you believe about other people?

What would happen if everyone else wanted you to do exactly what you want them to do?
What would happen if everyone else tried to exert the same level and intensity of power over you that you try to exert over other people?
What would happen if everyone else displayed their anger toward you the same way you display your anger toward other people?

Would the world be a better place, or not?
Would you feel more safe, or less safe?
Would people treat you better than they do now, or would they treat you worse?
Would you feel more welcome, or less welcome?
Would you have more privacy, or less privacy?
Would you feel that people were being more honest with you, or less?
Would you have more leisure time, or less leisure time?
Would you feel more trust toward others, or less trust toward others?
Would you feel that you were being treated fairly, or unfairly?
Would you feel that people understand you, or not?

What would really happen to you?
What would other people really say to you?
What would they really do to you?

What would happen if you had to soberly observe the real consequences of your behavior, your speech, and your beliefs? What would happen if you really knew the effect you have on other people?

It is impossible to learn to be a better person until you learn to connect the consequences of your behavior directly to your behavior. If you cannot learn from your mistakes, you are cursed, and you will inflict endless and unnecessary suffering upon yourself.

Reward the behavior you want to see more of, and set limits on the behavior you want to see less of. Simple.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-29T20:58:00.000-07:00

The Folly of Presumed Innocence
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 29, 2006

The idea that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is a bad idea outside the courtroom. Do you lock you doors at night? Lock your car? Stop at stop signs? Look both ways before you cross the street?

Why? If no one commits a crime, then you’re safe, aren’t you?

Of course not. You know that in real life, the life you have to live every day, the idea that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is nonsense. I take the position that everyone is largely untrustworthy, ignorant, and unsociable until proven otherwise. This does not mean that I believe that people are untrustworthy, ignorant, and unsociable. It means that I don’t care to leave myself open to assault until I have a good feeling about someone.

Presuming that every person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law leaves you vulnerable to assault. Why would any sensible person do that? It is less risky and more efficient to defend yourself against possible assault than it is to apprehend the perp and bring him to justice.

Government wants us to rely on them for our needs. They have told us for decades not to resist when someone attacks us. But, I disagree. Public timidity encourages boldness in criminals the same way that military timidity encourages boldness in our enemies.

It costs less to avoid a problem than it does to fix it once it has happened. The idea that we should sit passively and simply respond to problems as they occur is, well, dopey.

Let the criminals plead their innocent to the court. As for me, I’ll keep my doors locked and my home protection system at the ready.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-27T20:02:00.000-07:00

Delusional Innocence
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 26, 2006

The latest flap over the New York Times publishing information that the government says will harm national security caused me to think about how educated and well-intentioned people could do something so detrimental--detrimental possibly to their own safety--and still think that they have done anything wrong. From a purely practical point of view, these people have now made themselves more vulnerable to terrorist attacks by weakening the institutions that defend their safety.

I believe that they have succumbed to delusional innocence. Delusional innocence means believing in your own innocence without regard to how destructive or offensive your behavior actually is.

Delusional innocence results from the nonsensical idea that power equates to responsibility, that anyone who has power has total responsibility and that anyone who does not have power gets a free pass.

The people who work at the New York Times argue that the Bush administration is in power, and therefore that national security is the responsibility of the Bush administration, not the New York Times. Therefore, by their thinking, the New York Times gets a free pass.

Not being in power makes reckless and provocative behavior merely acts of self-expression. The leftie bloggers who spew invective believe that they can do whatever they like because they are not in power, and are therefore not responsible for anything.

Delusional innocence is irrational. This irrationality results from confusing blame with responsibility. It comes from a failure to understand who owns the problem.

If Bill dumps a load of wet concrete onto George’s lawn, Bill has just make a problem for George. Even though Bill is entirely to blame for the problem, the problem belongs to George.

You may think this is not fair. It is perfectly fair. The fact that Bill made a big problem for George does not relieve George of the responsibility of resolving the problem.

One of the reasons we have laws is to prevent George from killing Bill for making a big problem that wasn’t there before. In this case, Bill had a responsibility to not cause a problem in the first place. George has the right to demand restitution from Bill for the damages.

Delusional innocence asserts that only people in power have the ability to do harm; therefore, people in power are always to blame for anything bad that happens.

The reason that this nonsensical idea is delusional is that it is so rigidly and dogmatically held that its adherents are immune to persuasion by facts or reason. Adherents to this nonsense have substituted fantasy for fact. They do that a lot.

The idea of delusional innocence may be related to the idea that every person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Of course, this is nonsense. The actual idea is that, in legal matters only, very person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court of public opinion is not a court of law. There can be no presumption of innocence regarding the acts of the New York Times. They admitted that they took the law into their own hands. Their behavior was not only reckless; it was lawless.

So, how to cope with such people? If you run into someone like this, ask him if he locked his front door before he left. If he did, then ask him why he thinks that protecting his personal stuff is his responsibility. Every liberal acts like a conservative when he decides to take something seriously.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-26T19:52:00.000-07:00

The Chronicles of Hernia
A movie review © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 26, 2006

I watched The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe over the weekend. It was enjoyable, more of a children’s movie. If you could see the movie through the eyes of a child, you would be fully taken in.

I can’t do that.

I wanted someone to drown Edmund. Anytime. Soon. Now. Off him. Blabber mouth.

Father Christmas handing out weapons. Hmm. Okay. If you’re going to be the arsenal of freedom, give them something they can use, tubby. Santa, may I please have a Wand of Air Strikes and a Periapt of Nuclear Holocaust. Please?

But the clincher was the beaver in the chain mail. Please forgive me. Make up your own punch line here.

I couldn’t distinguish what made the “bad guys” bad and the “good guys” good other than the idea that the “bad guys” were led by a malevolent tyrant and the “good guys” were led by a benevolent tyrant. What did I miss?

Finally comes the battle where the “bad guys” mount their final attack on the “good guys”. Good, maybe. Dummies, absolutely. Outnumbered, the “good guys” charge headlong into certain defeat when they had a perfectly defensible hill right behind them. Which inspired this poem:

The Charge of the Lightweight Brigade
Dwarves to right of them,
Minotaurs to left of them,
The White Witch in front of them
Growled and snarled;
Stormed at with snouts and tummies,
Boldly they rode, that bunch of dummies,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the Terrible Fray,
And then they turned around and ran away

By this point, it was as good as a Godzilla movie--a lot of action, but you really don’t know what on Earth is going on. Why are they doing this? What was that all about? What?! Someone please skewer Edmund. Blabber mouth.

Don’t get me wrong. The story was enjoyable, but I seriously strained myself trying to willfully suspend my disbelief. And so the title, The Chronicles of Hernia.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-14T20:53:00.000-07:00

You Can’t Trust Timid People
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 14, 2006

Hugh Hewitt spent way too much time in my opinion interviewing Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post this afternoon. Joel seemed to be utterly intimidated by Hugh. Joel serves as a fine example of how intimidated people behave, and why you can’t trust them.

People who feel intimidated tend to be withdrawn, paranoid, passive-aggressive, evasive, secretive, uncooperative, manipulative, and generally unwilling to stand up for themselves. They are fearful. They reflexively withdraw from confrontation.

Democrats operate from fear. They are intimidated. Do you remember what Castro did to Clinton? They hate Bush and Rove because they are intimidated by them. They want to fight back, but they are afraid to stand up for themselves, so they play the role of spoiler, hoping that they will have some success denying the Republicans their just victory.

All they know how to do is to spoil the satisfaction of others, to thwart their ambitions. They interpret their own feeble, minimal efforts as heroic, while discounting the efforts of true heroes.

Such people cannot be trusted.

Having a degree in Law from Harvard and being a broadcaster and a teacher, I can imagine that the idea of feeling intimidated may be difficult for Hugh Hewitt to understand. But, for people who have spent their entire lives learning to go along to get along, to follow the rules, or to not speak up without permission, the idea of taking a stand must evoke pure panic.

The idea for the timid people is that you can’t be wrong if you never say anything meaningful. Evade, lie, babble, tell jokes, anything, but don’t ever make an assertion that anyone can challenge. That’s why you can’t pin them down. It isn’t that they don’t hold strong opinions; it’s that they are afraid to defend them.

Timid people believe that you can’t lose if you don’t fight. But, when someone is trying to kill you, not fighting means losing.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-12T20:44:00.000-07:00

Demand Drives the Market
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 12, 2006

Conservatives constantly preach market economics, and yet seem to have great difficulty taking their own message to heart. They talk about the laws of supply and demand. Maybe that’s their problem. It would make more sense to think of the laws of demand and supply.

Demand always precedes supply. If there is no demand, then supply doesn’t matter. To understand how markets work, you have to identify demand. What do people want, and why do they want it?

Here are some examples that conservatives seem to continually get wrong:

Demand: Mood regulating drugs.
Supply: Alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, downers, uppers, hallucinogens, etc.

Demand: Labor that is exempt from government regulation.
Supply: Mexicans and other foreign nationals who enter the country illegally, and employees who are classified as independent contractors.

Demand: Employment opportunities for people in Mexico and Central America.
Supply: Employment opportunities in the U. S.

By focusing on supply, conservatives fall victim to Petitio Principii, or Begging the Question, which means to use the conclusion that the argument is intended to prove as a founding premise for that argument. Conservatives want to prove that ending supply also ends demand. For example, they argue that ending the supply of heroin will necessarily end the demand for heroin. An analogous argument reveals the absurdity of this non-reasoning: Ending the supply of food will necessarily end demand for food.

But! But! But! But! Food is good for you and heroin is bad for you.

So what? Demand is demand. The answer to why people want things that are bad for them is not to stop the supply of such things; it is to understand why they want things that are bad for them in the first place. And besides, food isn’t always good for you, now is it?

Conservatives don’t seem to be the least bit interested in understanding the demand part of the process. They behave as though demand simply doesn’t matter. Which is puzzling to me, because every economist I can think of says that all markets are driven by demand. That’s what demand is. It’s the driving motivation behind all economic exchanges.

Why is there any demand at all for anything? Once you understand demand, you understand the market.

Why is there a demand for Mexican laborers by U. S. employers? Is it because Mexican laborers are more productive than American laborers? Of course not. If that were the case, then Mexico would be an economic dynamo. No, Mexican laborers are relatively less efficient and relatively more profitable than American laborers in some cases. It’s sort of like using a small car instead of a big truck--not as efficient, but a lot less expensive to operate, and it gets the job done.

Why is there a demand by Mexican laborers for U. S. employment opportunities? Because there are not enough employment opportunities in Mexico relative to employment opportunities in the U. S. If the supply of jobs in Mexico exceeded demand by Mexican laborers, then they would stay home, and there would be very few illegal border crossings.

Operating on the absurd idea that it is possible to control demand by controlling supply, conservatives argue against the very thing they value--free economic exchange. Attempting to control supply without addressing demand leads conservatives to behave like liberals, adding more and more restrictions to the free exchange of goods and services.

When you understand why people consume bad things, you can better determine whether restricting supply will have the desired effect. Failing to understand why people consume bad things leads to punishing people for harming themselves, leading conservatives toward the nanny State they claim to oppose.

I agree that we need to secure our border with Mexico. However, I also contemplate the consequences of doing so. I have heard that ten percent of Mexico’s population now resides on U. S. soil. Ten percent. What do you suppose Mexico will look like in ten years when the Mexican government is no longer able to export their excess population to the United States? Revolution? Starvation? War? What?

Do you think Mexico will simply correct its internal problems and everything will be hunky dory? I doubt it.

This begs the question of why U. S. companies aren’t fleeing to Mexico to take advantage of cheap Mexican labor. Mexico is economically and politically infirmed. The U. S. cannot resolve the illegal immigration problem as long as Mexico continues to languish. Building a fence will only bottle up the problem until it eventually explodes.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-12T12:52:00.000-07:00

Some Advice for High School Graduates
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 12, 2006

“They [Young People] have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things -- and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: Their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning -- all their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything they -- love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else.”
-- Aristotle

It’s the time of year when many high school graduates leave behind the only life they have ever known and venture out into the world for the first time. I have a few bits of advice that I hope will save you some trouble.

When you travel away from home, never take anything with you that you can’t afford to lose.

If your opinion of yourself is very high, lower it a bit. If your opinion of yourself is low, raise it a bit. Keep a sense of humility.

Never lend anything. Never borrow anything.

Stop blaming. If you blame others, you are admitting that you are incapable of handling your own problems.

Avoid blamers. They want to make you the bad guy. Don’t let anyone make you the bad guy. Most of all, don’t be the bad guy.

Avoid angry people. They will infect you.

The best way to stop being angry is to hold people accountable for their behavior.

You are under no obligation to try to make sense of nonsense.

Never bluff.

Don’t trust your memory. Take notes.

You have no authority to punish anyone. No one will accept your punishment.

You aren’t clever. Don’t try to be. Many high school aged people are very impressed with cleverness. However, adults have seen it all before. It isn’t new to them.

When you were sixteen, you knew everything. You’re not sixteen anymore.

Learn to listen. Listening is the most valuable skill you will ever learn.

Avoid callousness, and avoid handing out unearned sympathy.

Know the facts before you act. Supposition and assumption are not knowledge.

Not making a mess is easier than cleaning it up.

There’s plenty of trouble in the world; we don’t need to make more. Life will give you all the trouble you can handle. Don’t make trouble for yourself. Don’t make trouble for anyone else, either.

Your desires are not a grant of entitlement. Just because you want it doesn’t mean you deserve it.

There is no shame in being sick.

Knowledge is wealth.

Never drink on an empty stomach.

Tattoos, piercing, and implants are all forms of mutilation.

The future is not your property.

You are not responsible for anyone else’s behavior; they are.

You are entirely responsible for your own behavior.

The end of decision making does not come with assigning blame; it comes with accepting responsibility.

The first rule of fixing things is: If it doesn’t help, don’t do it.

The first rule of life is: Survive.

You are always free to look for work elsewhere. Good luck.

Many people are irretrievably messed up. They will only get worse with age.

Children are not responsible for making their parents feel safe and happy.

Allowing any other person to control your life brings the risk that you will become deaf to your own inner voice.

Rebelling, trying to be invisible, or trying to be perfect are ways of trying to cope with arbitrary parents.

Living your life in perpetual power struggles with others will only leave you exhausted, anxious, and chronically unhappy.

The more you know, the less you can be fooled.

If being a hero was easy, every body would be one.

You live in the world that your ancestors made. Learn what they have done, and why they did it, or else you will lose it all.

If you hate America, then by all means, pick a better country. The borders are open. You are free to go.

Show appreciation. There is no shame is saying “please” and “thank you”.

It’s up to the woman to say “no”.

Healthy relationships include listening to each other, valuing each other, and caring for each other.

The person is never the problem; the problem is the problem.

When you fight, attack the problem, not each other.

God won’t cook your breakfast. Have sensible expectations.

A moment of forethought can save a lifetime of suffering.

You will never have this chance again. I strongly encourage young people to enlist, serve our country, meet people, stick your neck out. You will never know what you are really capable of if someone else doesn’t challenge you. The armed forces offer that challenge. The freedom that you consume has been purchased at great cost. You can purchase the freedom of the next generation for the small cost of a few years of service. Serve your country or your community in some way. When you are too old, you will regret not having at least tried.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-05-08T21:05:00.000-07:00

Rules for the Fever Swamp
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

May 8, 2006

Hugh Hewitt, God bless him, came up with the term “the fever swamp left” to describe the radical elements of the Democratic Party and of leftist movements in general. Such people cause great consternation among rational people like Hewitt, and with good reason; they just don’t make sense. They’re not exactly crazy, but...

**************************************************************************************
I am not a mental health professional. Nothing in this article is intended to diagnose or treat any condition. If you think you or someone you know has a problem that requires attention, please seek professional help.
**************************************************************************************

...they are not capable of being sufficiently rational.

There is no clearly defined set of rules for the inhabitants of the fever swamp left. And to be fair, there is also a fever swamp right. It’s all the same swamp to me. But, if there were a set of rules, I think it would go something like this:

Rules for the fever swamp

Understand that your salvation lies in controlling the reality that other people experience. You cannot exist unless you (for want of a better word) inhabit the minds of other people.
Take control of how other people think, feel, and behave. Emotional outbursts, tantrums, and rage are useful for this. Become the biggest pain in other people’s lives, the focus of their attention day and night. Make them dread you.
Take control of what other people know and understand. Tell them that they can’t trust their own knowledge, feelings, experiences, and understanding. Tell them they are stupid and that only you can be trusted to tell them the truth.
Take control of the version of reality that other people will learn. As much as possible, control the media.
Take control of the lives, money, time, and resources of other people. Taxes and regulations are useful for this.
Take control.
Take control.
Take control.
Jealously defend your control.
Without ever admitting it to yourself, maintain an unrealistic and exaggerated sense of your own power. It helps to believe that you are invincible. Drugs and alcohol can help here. Political dogma can also be useful.
Hate people who have more control than you do.
Especially hate people who control their own lives. People who are independent of your control threaten your sense of your own power. This is particularly true if your sense of your own power is highly exaggerated. We can’t have reality intruding on our utterly fantastic dreams of power. I’m Superman, damn you!
Hate God. God judges you. Celestial busybody.
Always reassure yourself that you are perfectly capable of controlling others and that you undoubtedly possess the wisdom to know what is best for them.
Always reassure yourself that you are good, wise, heroic, and self-sacrificing, and that you are only doing what is best for other people. Especially deny to yourself that other people may actually know what is in their own best interest.
Always insist that people will be much better off if they will just accept your version of reality and reject their own. For God’s sake, why can’t these people see?
Always exert more control.
Rejection is a highly effective form of control.
You know how much you hate feeling rejected. Since you hate feeling rejected, it goes without saying that everyone on Earth is just like you and that they hate feeling rejected as much as you do. If you reject them before they reject you, and reject them with an extreme conviction in your own rightness, then you effectively take control, and you win.
Reject any version of reality that you do not judge to be acceptable.
Reject any person whom you do not judge to be acceptable.
Reject any thoughts, feelings, information, or behavior from other people that you do not judge to be acceptable.
Reject any thoughts, feelings, behavior, or aspects of yourself that you do not judge to be acceptable.

Badda freakin’ bing! It’s just that easy. Reject. Control. Believe in your own supremacy. And, above all, don’t let those pesky little facts stand in the way of realizing your dreams of mastering reality.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-22T11:37:00.000-07:00

Truth Denying Timid People
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 21, 2006

Traumatic events can induce dissociation, especially in childhood. Dissociation is a natural response to pain and to threats of pain. Dissociation isolates our decision-making selves long enough for us decide to fight or flee.

However, with repeated traumas, dissociation can become ingrained. When ingrained dissociation becomes the only learned method of coping with stress, people may become unable to function in society. Such people are said to have dissociative disorders. Dissociative disorders often include elements of paranoid, narcissistic, and passive-aggressive, negativistic personality disorders.

Another way to describe such people is to say that they are timid. They have been frightened too often, and they have not learned affirmative coping skills. Timid people operate more on superstition (supposition and how they feel about things) than on facts. They prefer to use their imagination to find relief from stress instead of using their analytic skills to affirmatively resolve the stressful situation. They prefer dreams to research.

They often retreat into rich fantasy lives. They prefer fantasies to facts because they can control their fantasies, but they can’t control the facts.

Timid people often poorly imitate their fantastic ideas of courage, so that running away (e.g., dodging the draft) is imagined to be courage, whereas actually confronting their enemies is imagined to be foolhardiness. They tend to be abrasive. As Hoffer said, rudeness is the weak man’s idea of strength.

Timid people tend to develop a “tough guy” routine. When the “tough guy” routine doesn’t work, they panic. They have nothing to fall back on. They may try to hide, escape, or to be so offensive that other people just give up and go away. The strategy seems to be to become invisible, and if that doesn’t work, run away, and if that doesn’t work, become so obnoxious that they leave you alone. Their primary coping method is to get sufficient distance between themselves and their stresses so that they feel safe. They have never learned how to simply stand up for themselves.

One particularly aggravating variation of truth denying timid people is the sullen type. For the sullen types, happiness is the enemy. Happiness brings only disappointment and heartbreak. Heartbreak is intolerable. Happiness must be perfect, utopian, without risk. Anything less than perfect happiness is intolerable. Happiness cannot be allowed. No one is allowed to be happy. Happiness is for fools. Happiness must be killed. Most of all, no one is allowed to be happy without the express permission of the sullen, truth denying timid person.

Truth denying timid people have learned to cope with fear by avoiding fearful things. Avoidance includes minimizing, denying, stuffing, projecting, misunderstanding, overreacting, and so forth.

Many truth denying timid people fear being controlled, bullied, manipulated, or intimidated by others. Fear of being controlled prompts them to preemptively take control instead of just leaving well enough alone. Taking control causes no end of unnecessary hardship for such people. Normal people don’t like truth denying timid people taking control of them, so they resist. Conflict ensues, conflict that could have been avoided if the timid person had just left everyone alone.

Truth denying timid people have no concept of consequences. They do not comprehend consequences. They consistently fantasize about the consequences of their own behavior or the behavior of others, and are consistently confounded by the actual consequences. They believe that consequences can be controlled by intense and sincere wishing. They believe that actual consequences can be avoided, that they didn’t actually happen, or that they don’t matter when they do happen.

Truth denying timid people swim in a sea of paranoid fantasies. To them, there is always greater danger than normal people can imagine. Imagining fantastic, virtually impossible dangers gives the truth denying timid people a sense of being special and enlightened. They believe that they can see danger when others can’t. They are right statistically often enough to convince themselves that they possess special insight. Here is an exercise in paranoia: Tell yourself everyday that you will be in a motor vehicle accident, then, when you are in one, you can say that you knew it all along. It is paranoid, not paranormal. What you usually find is that paranoid people are completely surprised when something bad does happen.

The difficulty for all of us is that once a person learns to cope with stress by denying facts, there really isn’t much we can do to communicate with them. Your best course of action is to learn to identify such people and defend yourself from them. Most of all, don’t let them pollute you with their paranoid fantasies.

As for the matter of happiness, there is no perfect happiness. There doesn’t need to be. All happiness contains risk.

It is impossible to experience the enriching, life affirming joy of love without knowing the crushing misery of grief. The only sure way to avoid grief is to become a stone. Stones don’t cry.

Denying the truth of the terrible things that happen to us causes us to become timid. We seek to avoid pain in life. And in avoiding the pain in life, we avoid the very experiences we need to become strong, able, and happy.

Give yourself permission to be happy no matter who objects.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-22T11:33:00.000-07:00

One Hot Tamale
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 21, 2006

Having already allowed millions of people from Mexico and Central America to enter the U. S. illegally, and having allowed millions of these same people to illegally enter the work force, America is holding one hot tamale. The old saying is, “You get what you pay for”. You also pay for what you get.

The bill for allowing these millions of people to enter America’s work force against the law will come due soon. The cost to send them back to their countries of origin will be catastrophic. The cost to absorb them into American society will also be catastrophic. The cost to add them to the welfare roles for the working poor and the unemployed likewise stands to bankrupt the country.

American business and government have been cheating for decades; cheating the law, cheating consumers, cheating tax payers, and cheating millions of illegal immigrants. America has been abusing millions of Mexican nationals for decades. Now the bills are coming due. The position of business and government that the law doesn’t matter has resulted in a crisis. Does government now enforce laws that they have chosen to ignore for over a generation? Does the private sector understand the long-term cost of ignoring the law? Will the voters put up with much more of this idiocy?

If you don’t enforce existing laws, don’t expect any new laws to have any deterrent effect. If you don’t move significant numbers of Mexicans and Central Americans out of the U. S., expect them to assert political and popular influence, and not necessarily for the good of our nation. If the voters don’t like what the politicians are doing, expect a bunch of them to get fired.

Allowing millions of semi-literate, unaccounted for non-English speakers into our country is another example of modern American bone-headedness, sort of like electing Bill Clinton as President for two terms. You remember Bill Clinton, don’t you? He is the spineless wimp who will be forever remembered as the President who got his butt kicked by Fidel Castro over the Elian Gonzalez affair.

Hmm. Send the illegals to Castro. Now there’s a thought.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-22T11:29:00.000-07:00

The Big Bamboozle
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 21, 2006

Since the 1970’s, I have watched Denver taxi companies skillfully manipulate the political and legal system in Colorado to effectively divest themselves of their responsibility to actually deliver taxi service. They have become little more than urban sharecroppers. They collect rents, and complain that the cab drivers are dishonest and that there is nothing they can do about it. It’s not their fault. They are helpless victims in the whole mess.

Such is the Big Bamboozle.

It is interesting to study the dynamics of the relationship between the regulators and the regulated taxi companies. It is a classic case of seduction and manipulation. Denver taxi companies, like taxi companies around the world, have seduced government into believing that they are merely hapless victims of unreasonable laws and regulations while manipulating the regulatory agencies into taking on responsibilities that rightly belong to the taxi companies, such as policing the behavior of the drivers and answering complaints from dissatisfied citizens. The shift of responsibilities from the taxi companies to government has been extremely detrimental to the taxi drivers, the taxi companies, government, and most of all, to consumers. So, who benefits and how?

Owners and managers of taxi companies along with the lawyers and lobbyist make out like bandits in this urban sharecropping system. The managers are relieved of the primary duties of overseeing the delivery of service. The owners are relieved of major expenses and of the headache of fighting with the regulators over prices and other matters. The lawyers and lobbyist remain gainfully employed fighting off any attempts to reform the system. Not bad work if you can get it, especially when you know which person to influence in the appropriate manner at the appropriate time. Seduce and manipulate.

Considering that the Denver taxi market with worth between thirty million and forty million dollars a year in gross revenues, there is always enough money to pay the hired guns to preserve the status quo. Taxi companies complain that they don’t have money to deliver prompt, reliable service, yet they always have enough money to pay the lobbyists and lawyers to stifle any attempts at reform. The taxi industry worldwide is notorious for dishing out bribes. However, if lobbyists do their job of keeping the right people in the legislature, the Governor’s office, and the regulatory agencies in line, then bribes are not necessary.

While the behavior of the taxi companies is interesting in itself, the real phenomenon to watch is the behavior of government. You would think that government would be very concerned with fulfilling their mission, namely, to protect the public interest. However, the public interest doesn’t have lawyers and lobbyists. Government officials who actually have to take the heat day in and day out react to the Big Bamboozle by assuming the role of the Great Nanny, becoming grossly overprotective of the regulated companies, and assuming responsibilities that rightly belong to the regulated companies. Government repeatedly swallows--hook, line, and sinker--the taxi company canard that if they have to obey the laws, rules, and regulations, they will go out of business.

The answer to this nonsense is that the laws, rules, and regulations have taken all this into consideration, and that the answer is to adhere to the law, not to constantly grant taxi companies exemptions from the law. Government might also suggest, in their politest tone of voice, that the taxi companies hire managers who actually know how to manage, and not let the door hit the incompetent managers in the backside on the way out. In other words, the answer to the Big Bamboozle is to hold the taxi companies accountable for their behavior, not to constantly let them off the hook and have government assume responsibility for the failures of the taxi companies. Once government takes responsibility for the managerial failures of the taxi companies, there will be no end. As long as government assumes more and more responsibility for the taxi companies, the taxi companies will eagerly hand over more responsibility, and more of the expenses of managing taxi companies, to government.

The worst thing that can happen to any government agency is to appear to be unnecessary. The Big Bamboozle serves the needs of the regulators by making them look necessary. Rather than hold the taxi companies accountable for their failures to provide service and adequate working conditions for their drivers, regulators choose to ride to the rescue of the taxi companies by granting liberal exemptions from the rules, and then by assuming many of the duties of management.

Over the years, I have watched Colorado government fly in headlong retreat from their own laws, rules, and regulations on the assumption that it is more important to keep any Denver taxi company from going out of business than it is to protect the public interest from abuses by taxi companies and taxi drivers. Saving the taxi companies from crippling laws and from their own mismanagement allows government to argue that they are necessary.

This dysfunctional relationship between government and public utility taxi companies reminds me of the books I have read on incestuous relationships within dysfunctional families. Everyone within the relationship must keep the actual goings on a secret. The Big Secret then becomes the driving force within the relationship. Outsiders must be kept away. No one must ever speak of it. Lying is accepted, expected, and ultimately demanded.

The relationship between the Denver taxi companies and the Colorado regulatory system looks like a dysfunctional, incestuous relationship to me. No one in the taxi companies or in government is allowed to talk about the Big Secret. So, what’s the Big Secret?

The Big Secret is that the taxi companies are leasing their licenses to the drivers in violation of Colorado law, that the PUC knows about it and is a party to it, and that everyone involved in the system, all the way up to Governor Owens, knows what is going on. Worst of all, everyone involved knows that the public suffers because of this, and no one in the system has the nards to blow the whistle on the whole thing. All they want to do is circle the wagons, keep telling the Big Lie about the Big Bamboozle, and hope that they can keep the lid on the whole thing just a little while longer.

Too late. Time’s up.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-22T11:21:00.000-07:00

Attila Goes to Washington
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 21, 2006

What do you suppose would happen if you handed the U. S. Constitution to Attila the Hun? That’s right. Attila would wipe his back side with it and keep on pillaging and generally behaving barbarically. The Constitution would have no civilizing influence on Attila because there would be no enforcement and no education. Without education in the principles of property rights and the Rule of Law and without actual enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution, it is little more than a piece of paper.

No population can succeed in self-government until they adopt the idea of personal self-restraint and until government enforces laws that mandate personal self-restraint. American culture has been hostile to self-restraint since the 1960’s.

Large segments of the American population, including lawmakers and law-enforcers, have abandoned the idea of enforced self-restraint in favor of an anything goes outlook. They think that the ability to do as you damned well please is more important than the greater public good. After all, this is a free country, right?

Not exactly. We cannot have absolute freedom without absolute anarchy. Under the Rule of Law, we retain those freedoms that are most important to us in exchange for other freedoms that are less important. For example, I preserve the limited freedom to vote for candidates and issues on the ballot in exchange for the absolute freedom to rampage through the streets and set fire to everything.

The question I pose is: Can the Rule of Law survive the barbarizing influences of mass media and American popular culture, war with fanatical fascist Moslems, and the influx of millions of semi-literate non-English speaking people who think that liberty means obedience?

If the Rule of Law cannot survive, then our Republic cannot survive. It will be no different than handing the Constitution to Attila the Hun.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-18T18:56:00.000-07:00

Entertaining the Masses
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 18, 2006

It occurs to me after listening to the babbling heads in the Bush-hating media that they are more entertaining than convincing, and that they misinterpret their audience’s approval of their entertainment as support for their political posture. The audience’s applause is in response to being entertained, not an indication that they have been persuaded.

Michael Moore serves as a fine example of this misunderstanding. The enthusiastic response to his propaganda pieces thinly disguised as documentaries has convinced Moore that he is being taken seriously. In light of the fact that it is impossible to take anything Michael Moore says seriously, Moore has managed to convince himself that he is much more influential than he actually is.

Many in the Hollywood loony left believe the same of themselves. It does not occur to them that it is not possible for any audience to take seriously such unserious tirades as the Hollywierdo’s and their fellow travelers consistently deliver. Anyone who mistakes entertainment for education is not capable of reasoning.

I think that people who mistake entertainment for education are looking for some emotional pay out from the event. They seek entertainment to escape feelings of anxiety and helplessness. Any show that provides emotional relief will satisfy this need, regardless of how senseless or impotent the actual content of the message. I think this pretty well sums up hippy-ism: Peace, love, understanding, and most of all, total escape from reality.

Rhetoricians throughout history have understood that entertaining the audience is one way to get the crowd on your side. They seem less aware of the fact that audiences are fickle, and when the audience is no longer entertained, they tend to kill the speaker.

Perhaps those who choose to slander public figures may want to consider that he who lives by slander dies by slander.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-17T19:40:00.000-07:00

The Dirty Dozen of Control
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 17, 2006

Disclaimer: I am not a mental health professional. Nothing in the article is intended to diagnose or treat any illness. If you or anyone you know needs assistance, seek professional help.

In his book If You Had Controlling Parents (reprinted in soft cover by Quill, 2002), Dan Neuharth, Ph. D. identifies twelve methods of abuse that parents use to control their children.

Food control
Body control
Boundary control
Social control
Decision control
Speech control
Emotion control
Thought control
Bullying
Depriving
Confusing
Manipulating

Each of these methods of abusive control contain elements of dictating, dominating, interfering, intruding, discouraging, violating, ridiculing, blaming, shaming, scapegoating, overriding, prohibiting, harassing, intimidating, bullying, and depriving.

The common theme in abusive control is the idea that the abusive parent is primarily intent on asserting unconditional dominance without regard to the damage done to the child, to his own reputation, or to the relationship in general. In the mind of the abusive parent, dominance is prime. Failing to assert dominance can cause intense, uncontrollable anxiety. The controlling parent needs control. He has no interest in mutually beneficial, cooperative relationships with his children, and usually not with anyone else, either. Imposing your will on others is their idea of strength, and cooperating with others is considered weakness. To them, strength is virtue and weakness vice. Therefore, imposing your will on others, especially over their objections, is considered a virtue.

Most people are inclined by nature toward constructive, mutually beneficial interactions. They react very poorly to attempts to dominate and abuse them. They avoid people who demonstrate that they will take everything and give nothing in return.

Dr. Neuharth goes on to describe how abusive control affects children. He notes that the affects include decreased autonomy, increased dependence, distrust, gullibility, eating disorders and other addictive behavior, self-doubt, low initiative, no self-confidence, confusion about emotions, feelings of isolation and abandonment, distorted ideas about how people actually feel and behave, low expectations about self, depression, anxiety, obsession over who is right and who is wrong, poor impulse control, and rage.

The central theme in how children react to abusive control seems to be that they never develop into healthy adults. They remain stuck in their childhood methods of coping with their unhealthy relationship with the abusive parent. For example, a child who was subjected to constant humiliation and scapegoating may cope by feeling such intense rage that he feels momentarily invincible. Relying on rage to cope with stress can cause serious problems in school, and can be catastrophic in adulthood. Until the adult survivor of childhood abuse learns positive methods of coping with stress, he will revert to self-destructive methods of coping.

I find Dr. Neuharth’s ideas very interesting and very useful. I will explore some of the themes of the “dirty dozen” methods of abusive control in future posts. Stay tuned. It’s gonna get good.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-12T19:35:00.000-07:00

A Proposed Amendment to the Constitution
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 12, 2006

The greatest threat to the future of liberty in the United States is not abortion, illegal immigration, bans on firearms, tax cuts, tax increases, or the Patriot Act. It is socialized medicine. Once voters turn government into their primary health care provider, it will be impossible to sustain liberty.

The purpose of this proposed Amendment is to spare the United States the fate of Europe and Canada by outlawing Federal government delivered medical services. This proposed Amendment does not prohibit Congress to funding medical services, but does prohibit Congress from authorizing the Federal government to provide medical services. It also gives Congress until 2025 to repeal any existing laws that provide medical services directly from the Federal government. The Armed forces and veterans’ services are exempted. State governments are free to choose to provide direct medical services depending on the will of the voters.

The proposed Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law that authorizes the Federal government to provide medical services of any kind directly to any person at any time.

This Amendment shall not restrict the power of Congress to authorize funding for existing and future programs that provide medical services, nor shall this Amendment restrict the power of the courts to restrict the power of Congress to authorize funding for existing and future programs that provide medical services.

Congress shall repeal all laws that authorize the Federal government to provide medical services of any kind directly to any person at any time not later than 2025.

The Armed Forces of the United States, including veterans’ services, are expressly exempted from the provisions of this Amendment.

This Amendment shall not infringe on the right of the States to determine for themselves whether or not they will provide medical services of any kind directly to any person at any time.

I don’t want to hear any garbage about how this will never fly. Of course it will, especially if it is presented the right way.

All suggestions for how to improve the wording are welcome.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-11T19:19:00.000-07:00

Surrendering False Ideas
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 11, 2006

I was struggling with some way to cope with people who are unable to understand that their actions have real consequences. It seems that they reflexively retreat into fantasy when faced with the reality of their own behavior, in effect, manifesting dissociation by fantasy.

They reflexively fantasize about the outcomes of their actions. They also seem to reflexively fantasize about their problems. They vividly imagine what the problem is, but then don’t spend any time verifying what the problem is in reality. They seem to trust their imagination more than they trust their reasoning skills. Their behavior suggests that they are primarily concerned with avoiding being confronted with the consequences of their own behavior.

Imagination can be very helpful. In therapy, imagination is critical for recovery. Imagination frees us from the rigid restrictions of reality. For example, we cannot fly, but we can imagine what flying might be like, and we can find a sense of relief in imagining that we are flying.

Fantasy is necessary in research, also. Researchers can imagine what might happen if they take certain actions. However, simply imagining what might happen provides no value until it is verified. Fantasies that are verified to be true, or a least probable, are worth holding onto.

However, fantasies that are verified to be false become destructive when they are not surrendered. And, there’s the rub.

One of my greatest difficulties in solving problems is convincing people to surrender ideas that are verifiably false. They just won’t do it. I can’t reason with them. Even when they agree with me, they revert to their old ideas. Their ideas are their safety and comfort. God have mercy on the unsuspecting (and, therefore, untrained) philosopher who dares to challenge the ideas that give people validation, meaning, and that affirm their sense of their own ability to cope with things beyond their control.

As demonstrated by the ideas of the Imperial Army of Japan in World War II and by the fascists who blaspheme Mohamed in recent times, some ideas are more valuable than human life. Other ideas are more valuable than human happiness, freedom, safety, or prosperity. For example, the idea of allegiance as practiced in feudal societies is more important than public well-being.

In our time, I observe that the idea of “inexplicable malice” is more important than personal success to many, many people. The idea of “inexplicable malice” consists of the notion that some people are just corrupt, and that there is nothing that you can do about it. This is a clear manifestation of general paranoia, that is, unfounded and exaggerated anxiety. People who hold strongly to the idea of “inexplicable malice” are manifesting general paranoid ideation (as differentiated from psychotic paranoid ideation). (Old Klem would say, “Days a whole lotta paranoidy manifestin’ goin’ own out dayah!”)

Ideas that are verifiably false become destructive when they are not surrendered. Another way to say this is that people who believe that things will happen that cannot possibly happen are profoundly impaired in their decision making. The same is true for people who believe that things have happened which verifiably did not happen, with things they believe are happening that verifiably are not happening, and with things they believe did not or are not happening that are verifiably false. They’re not actually crazy, but sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.

People who do not surrender verifiably false ideas do not take their own behavior seriously. They do not take responsibility for their own behavior. As a result, many people, including and primarily themselves, suffer needlessly. Such people tend to be self-defeating and self-destructive, and they tend to inflict unnecessary harm on their community.

Surrendering verifiably false ideas can be heartbreaking. Some people would rather die than live with the grief of losing cherished but false ideas. I wish I could ease their pain.

The problem for me, then, is: How do I persuade people to take certain things seriously, to accept the idea that their behavior matters, that their behavior has consequences that can have irreversible effects on their own lives and on the lives of others?

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-06T20:37:00.000-07:00

Desperate Cab Drivers
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 6, 2006

Denver taxi companies have a policy of deliberately impoverishing cab drivers in order to make the cab drivers so desperate for money that they will jump any trip they can get their hands on. This policy is apparently supported by the PUC. The stated purpose of the policy is to ensure prompt, reliable service to all costumers.

The Denver taxi companies and the PUC assert that a cab driver who needs money desperately will take any trip that is available no matter how much or how little it pays. This begs the question: Does being desperate for money induce cab drivers (or anyone else, for that matter) to lose all their capacity to know the difference between adequate and inadequate?

For example, if you need $50, and someone offers you a job for only $10, would you settle for the $10 knowing that $10 is not adequate to meet your needs? Now ask yourself this: If your rent is due, will your landlord settle for less than the full amount? How about the grocery store? Can you walk out with a cart full of groceries without paying the full amount?

The answer in every case is no. When the desperate cab driver has to pay his lease fee at the end of the shift, the taxi company doesn’t settle for an inadequate sum. If the cab driver doesn’t pay up, he is out of a job on the spot.

Why is this reality any different for cab drivers? Why do the PUC and the Denver taxi companies expect desperate cab drivers to settle for compensation that is not adequate to meet their needs?

I use the word “adequate” with deliberate intent. If any cab driver is desperate for money, it is very likely that he is desperate because his compensation is not adequate. (The Denver taxi companies and the PUC argue that cab drivers who don’t make enough money don’t work hard enough. I will refute that argument shortly.) The idea that cab drivers’ compensation is adequate is important because Colorado law states very clearly that all transactions between every Colorado public utility (Denver taxi companies are public utilities) and every other party must be “adequate, efficient, just, and reasonable”. The fact that cab drivers in Denver are classified as “independent contractors” does not exempt them from the aforementioned provision of law.

At the same time that the Denver taxi companies and the PUC work hard to impoverish cab drivers, they vociferously and publicly complain that cab drivers are dishonest. This is particularly perplexing considering that the PUC is a creation of the Progressive movement, and that the Progressive movement has always asserted that poverty causes crime. I cannot disagree that desperation is a powerful incentive to disregard personal honesty in favor of personal survival. I have seen it happen often.

Yet, the Denver taxi companies and the PUC maintain a policy of deliberately impoverishing cab drivers on the belief that impoverished, desperate cab drivers will provide superior service while at the same time refraining from cheating their customers. If desperate cab drivers provide superior service, why is it not the policy of the Denver taxi companies and the PUC to impoverish all cab drivers? Why not unleash an army of desperate cab drivers on the public? Why not double the number of cabs on the street tomorrow? That should give the public the best service possible, if we are to believe the Denver taxi companies and the PUC.

I have seen no evidence that desperate cab drivers provide better service than satisfied cab drivers. However, even if desperate cab drivers did provide superior service, no desperate cab driver will provide any service, good or bad, for very long.

Denver cab drivers have to take in about $12 per hour on average to cover basic expenses, including lease fees and gas. This figure does not include any compensation for the driver.

If a desperate cab driver runs 4 trips per hour at $4 each ($16 per hour) for a ten hour shift ($160 total), he will make less than the minimum wage, even though he is providing the best service in town. It is impossible to argue that any driver who runs 40 trips in a ten hour shift isn’t working hard. Any cab driver who runs 40 trips per day, no matter how desperate he may be, will not survive in the business for very long, maybe only a few weeks until his savings and credit run out.

The rate structure for Denver taxi companies (the PUC is ultimately responsible for the rates Denver taxi companies charge) punishes hard work, and rewards gambling and dishonesty. To be fair to the cab drivers, dishonesty in this case is little more than any cab driver looking out for his own self-interest in light of the circumstances imposed on him by the taxi companies and by government.

The elephant in the living room that no one will acknowledge is the fact that the rate structure is inadequate and unreasonable for the stated goals of the PUC and the Denver taxi companies. The flag drop is too low relative to the mileage rate. This encourages cab drivers, desperate or not, to ignore some calls for in favor of other calls, or in many cases, in favor of simply parking their cabs and providing no service at all.

The PUC has the ultimate authority over the incentives that influence Denver cab drivers to be dishonest, and if Denver cab drivers are dishonest, it is ultimately the responsibility of the PUC to mitigate incentives that influence cab drivers to be dishonest. This includes the Denver taxi companies’ policies that transform normal, hard working people into desperate cab drivers.

The policy of impoverishing cab drivers clearly adds to the problem of cab drivers being dishonest, and I believe it is the duty of the PUC to put a stop to practices by Denver taxi companies that provide incentives to cab drivers to cheat consumers and in any other way to behave dishonestly. I also believe that the PUC must take seriously the allegation by the Denver taxi companies that cab drivers are dishonest, and not simply shrug their shoulders and complain that there is nothing they can do about it.

It is my position that government policies and practices significantly contribute to the problems of dishonest cab drivers, poor service, and for many indigent elderly, no service at all, and that government is bound by law to institute reforms that will protect the public interest. The current system of laws, rules, regulations, and policies not only rewards dishonest, reprehensible behavior in cab drivers, it also rewards taxi companies for not providing service. So, the next time you can’t get a cab, you know that government is at fault.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-05T21:22:00.000-07:00

Outside the Law
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 5, 2006

I’m staying up late tonight trying to get a grip on what America is turning into. Rich Lowry of National Review wrote a piece yesterday entitled Poor Trend, We’re importing Latin America’s poor. He makes a number of good points. The one that interests me the most is this:

Steve Camarota of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies estimates that illegal immigrants cost the federal government $10 billion a year. State and local governments lose even more. Illegals pay some taxes, but not enough to cover governmental expenses like Medicaid and treatment for the uninsured.

According to Camarota, if illegal immigrants were legalized, their net annual cost to the federal government would only increase, tripling to $30 billion a year. Immigrant workers don’t earn enough to pay much in taxes, while they qualify for all sorts of governmental assistance. As they become legal, they will get even more assistance -- the benefits that they get from the Earned Income Tax Credit, for instance, would increase by a factor of 10.

I inferred from this that American workers who are covered by labor laws and regulations cost employers and government three times more than undocumented workers. Undocumented workers may be covered by labor laws and regulations, but government doesn’t know about them, and they have little recourse to the courts. They are outside the law.

If Camarota is correct, operating outside the law saves employers and government agencies billions of dollars per year in mandated benefits to the working poor. Operating outside the law pays huge dividends to both the private and the public sectors.

Operating outside the law, however, is not limited to undocumented workers. Colorado has developed a sterling example of how government and the private sector work together to evade State and Federal labor laws, contract laws, and safety standards. Yep. It’s taxis.

Denver taxi companies with the cooperation of the Colorado legislature, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, and more than one Governor have successfully evaded existing State and Federal laws for over fifty years. From the 1940’s through the 1980’s, Denver taxi companies evaded tax laws by classifying their drivers as “independent contractors” for tax purposes and employees for labor purposes. The drivers wanted to keep their union, but not pay taxes. Depending on which government agency you were talking to, the drivers were either employees or they were not.

The State of Colorado didn’t fare any better. Depending on which legislative subcommittee the taxi lobby was talking to, the drivers were either employees or they were not. That all changed in the late 1980’s. The Denver taxi companies successfully evicted the drivers’ unions. From then on, all drivers have been classified as “independent contractors”.

The entire purpose of the “independent contractor” classification is to evade tax and labor laws that benefit employees but raise costs to employers. The Denver taxi companies probably decided that lowering overhead was the best way to support their profit levels. I’m not sure if they ever discussed raising service levels, and therefore, I don’t know if they decided that raising service levels would not yield satisfactory profits. It seems to me that when the law becomes overly complex or burdensome, evading the law is easier than trying to understand and comply with it. And to be fair to both the Denver taxi companies and the PUC, Colorado law regarding the regulations of taxis is Byzantine at best and self-contradictory at worst.

For Denver taxi drivers, and for undocumented workers in general, employers and government have worked together to deprive them of their benefits under law (I deliberately avoid the term “rights” because benefits mandated by law are not rights, and also because people who work in our country illegally do not have the rights of citizens). By depriving taxi drivers of benefits they would enjoy if they were classified as employees, taxi companies probably save a few hundred thousand dollars per year in overhead.

Big whoop. Now, let’s take a look at what this actually costs.

Because taxi drivers are classified as “independent contractors”, the Denver taxi companies do not require the drivers to respond to calls for service. Some laws and regulations require drivers to respond to some calls for service, for example, if you hail a taxi on the street. However, there is no meaningful enforcement. If a taxi driver doesn’t want to take you, say, because you are black, then all he as to do is say that he already has a call and that he can’t take you right now. Without enforcement, the law is impotent.

The result is that taxi service in Denver is generally unreliable, and for many indigent elderly, completely unavailable. Many consumers choose to take their business elsewhere. They do not use taxis.

I estimate that lost revenues due to unreliable or unavailable service costs Denver taxi companies two million dollars per year in lost revenues, possibly more. Two million dollars per year is a high price to pay for the privilege of cheating the tax collector. On top of that, the State of Colorado receives no tax revenue from the estimated two million dollars per year that the Denver taxi companies are giving up, as well as from potential income taxes from drivers.

The taxi drivers themselves also pay a huge price. In addition to the benefits they would receive as employees, Denver taxi drivers would earn about half the estimated two million dollars per year lost due to unreliable service. Lost revenue also means lost jobs.

The “independent contractor” scam ultimately hurts consumers. Consumers complain to the taxi companies, the PUC, the Governor, and the Colorado legislature, but nothing ever changes. The “independent contractor” system has the ultimate effect of silencing consumers. Consumers who have no voice in any economic relationship can and do take their money elsewhere (e.g., the Ford Motor Company of the 1920’s and IBM in the 1980’s).

Government and employers do not seem to understand the concept of value. Consumers certainly do. Consumers have limited funds and virtually unlimited choices. Government and employers do not have the power to dictate to consumers which products and services they will consume.

Yet, both government and employers think that they actually have the power to tell consumers what to do. In the case of the Denver taxi companies, this self-delusion costs government, the taxi companies, and “independent contractor” taxi drivers millions of dollars per year on lost business.

In the case of undocumented workers, the same applies. Employers who hire undocumented workers, like employers to engage in the “independent contractor” scam, have little or no understanding of the value of their goods and services to consumers. Nor do they understand that producers are obliged to respond to consumer demand or else go out of business.

I have noticed a very disturbing trend among people of my generation (TV, Disneyland, public school education). Instead of enforcing or amending laws they don’t like or understand, they simply cheat. It’s so much easier. On an aside, I think it’s more ignorance than malice. If you take a very good pilot who has been trained on single engine piston aircraft and plop him down behind the wheel of a 747, what do you think is going to happen? People of my generation just don’t know the law.

Rich Lowry makes a good point. As we continue to import Latin America’s workers, we also adopt Latin America’s way of life. Generation after generation, America descends into lawlessness and feudalism. Local and State governments as well as the Federal government have conspired with employers, owners, and shareholders for several generations to live outside the very laws they themselves passed. Living outside the law has reduced many parts of America to mere colonies of Latin America, lowering standards of living, lowering education standards, lowering the quality of goods and services offered, and worst of all, creating an entrenched, self-serving, self-important, unaccountable, irresponsible, and increasingly hostile upper class.

The Clinton years made it clear that America is becoming less government by representation and more government by tribute. Money grants access, and access grants influence. No money, no influence.

As I witness more assaults on the First Amendment and the Rule of Law, I also witness America becoming Europe, with its institutionalized class system. We cannot have liberty without the Rule of Law. Operating outside the law means the death of liberty.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-03-28T22:34:00.000-08:00

An Objective View
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

March 28, 2006

This afternoon, Hugh Hewitt aired an interview he had with Michael Ware, bureau chief for Time Magazine in Baghdad. The transcript of the interview is posted on Radioblogger. Enjoy.

In the entire interview, this exchange stood out:

HH: Michael Ware, what is the difference between what you’ve been doing, especially with the jihadists, though to a certain extent with the insurgents as well, and say a World War II-era reporter making numerous trips to the German side to talk with the Nazis, and then coming back and being ambivalent about reporting on the Nazis, or being candid about the Nazis?

MW: It [World War II] wasn’t a guerilla war. It wasn’t an insurgency that’s fought amongst the mix of a civilian population. … There was no great unknown to the extent that there is here, that people just don’t know what this war is really about. And getting to the bottom of that is extremely difficult, and requires you sifting through any number of filters that all of these players want to throw at you.

HH: But as you said at the beginning, the jihadis consider this to be one battlefield of a vast war. And the jihadis...

MW: Yeah, as does the West. Exactly.

HH: Given that you’re arguing geography is the reason you do this, I want to go back to the nature of actually doing it, and whether or not if, in fact, in World War II, someone had been offered in Portugal an assistance from the Abwehr to go back and forth to Germany to visit various Nazi encampments or policies, would that have been acceptable in World War II, Michael Ware?

MW: Well, I think the values would be different back then. But let’s think about it. What would be the value of doing that? I mean, imagine, okay, we know what we know about the German regime, or the Nazi party. We are inundated with their propaganda. We’re listening to their chatter. We’re getting their side of the story. Could you imagine having an objective view, go in and come out, and say this is what is really looks like? this is what it really feels like? This is what people in their quiet moments behind closed doors will actually tell you. Now imagine the value of that.

Ware makes three assertions in this brief exchange that perfectly define the inability of opponents of the war in Iraq and opponents of the Bush administration in general to pursue this war to its necessary conclusion:

1. People don’t know what this war is about.
This assertion denies that there is any clear mission or achievable objective. I disagree. The war itself was over a long time ago. We are now in mopping up operations until the government of Iraq takes over those operations.

2. The values would be different regarding war with Nazi Germany.
In other words, the war against Nazi Germany makes sense, but the war in Iraq doesn’t. This is willful confusion. War is war. You either win or you lose. In fact, the enemies in both wars are extremely similar. Both are totalitarian and homicidal.

3. Having an objective view in making decisions.
Having an objective view to understand the point of view of both sides, which in fact means being able to understand, and therefore give legitimacy to, the people who are killing Americans and trying to overthrow the elected government of Iraq. In the minds of the anti-Bush types, having an objective view does not mean finding the truth. It means disregarding facts that are inconvenient to your objectives. The supposition is that the motives of the Bush administration are wrong and must be opposed, that the jihadists oppose the Bush administration, and that there may be some propaganda value in reporting their point of view.

Michael Ware is no more a journalist than Michael Moore. They are both advocates for the anti-American position, deceivers masquerading as truth tellers. Ware’s reporting has a definite anti-American bent to it, though he is less overtly hostile to America than Moore. Both are in the same camp.

Ware believes that he is very clever, that he can mask his support of America’s enemies by taking “an objective view”. However, a truly objective view makes it clear that America is trying to save Iraq as a nation and to save the lives of Iraq’s first from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and now from the threat of dictatorship by so called insurgents.

Michael Ware and his fellow travelers on the left wish to excuse themselves from responsibility for their own behavior by assuming that “an objective view” grants them absolution for having to recognize and admit that the so called insurgents in Iraq today are the same enemies of humanity as the Nazis in World War II. The fact that Ware, et. al., do not report the positions of the government of Iraq or the Bush administration reveals the truth that they have no interest in being truly objective, and that, as Hugh Hewitt makes clear in this interview, they are just a little too sympathetic toward America’s enemies.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-03-20T19:32:00.000-08:00

The Badger Syndrome
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

March 20, 2006

Disclaimer: I am not a mental health professional. Nothing in this article is intended to diagnose or treat any condition. If you feel that you need assistance, please seek professional help.

“Badgers?! We don’t got no badgers! We don’t need to show you no stinkin’ badgers!”
-- Uno Nasty Bandito from “The Treasure of the Sierra Mod Tray”.

The Badger Syndrome is evidenced when a person faces stress and then retreats into familiar thoughts and behavior patterns regardless of whether those behaviors are effective or not. An example of the Badger Syndrome is reflexive, rigid blaming and guilt giving, in effect demanding the someone or something else change, but not the person facing the stress. The Badger Syndrome is acting out the message that the person facing the stress will stand his ground, will burrow deep and bark loud, but will never change. It is demanding that the entire world change to suit the wants and needs of the Badger.

The badger’s bark is a lot worse than his bite, but his bark is bad enough. Badger types are often obnoxious, rude, overbearing, bullying, bitter, angry, inconsolable, paranoid, passive-aggressive, narcissistic, in other words, immature. They are stuck in a behavior system in which they do not comprehend that they can actually stand up for themselves. They never learned how to effectively stand up for themselves. Instead, they try to thwart the attempts of others to assert any influence over them. They growl and bark and snarl. This keeps people away.

I believe that the Badger Syndrome works this way:

The person faces stress.
The stress triggers intense anxiety.
The person dissociates to protect himself from overwhelming anxiety.
The person dissociates himself from the fact that dissociating to protect himself from intense anxiety is generating greater stress and is causing more problems.
Smaller stimuli trigger more intense anxiety and stronger dissociation.
The cycle of trigger, anxiety, and dissociation continues until the person is effectively unable to communicate with other people, often complaining, “no one understands me”.

In his article EMDR as a Special Form of Ego State Psychotherapy: Part One, Mark Lawrence, MD, states in part (emphasis added):

Psychopathology from an Ego State Perspective
One could view all psychopathology as the failure to maintain optimal dissociative barriers among the ego states, that is, to maintain optimal permeability and fluidity--in short, a failure of the psychological system to do an adequate job of time-sharing. Since all of the ego states have a certain energy or need for self expression, if that energy or need is suppressed by the system, then that ego state that is suppressed will ultimately break through the suppression in the form of some sort of symptomatology. The symptomatic or problematic ego state is called the “hidden” ego state--hidden in the sense that it is unacknowledged or “disowned” by the predominant ego states. However, its presence is made known through the symptomatology. The ego state may be disowned because of an unbearable affect, such as anxiety or terror, or because of some “undesirable” behavior. However, the symptomatology generally does not give an indication of the full nature of the ego state driving it, ultimately requiring that the rest of the ego state associated with the symptoms become fully amplified and developed for therapeutic relief to occur. So, for example, in PTSD, intrusive feelings or thoughts present themselves, often without the patient’s awareness of where they come from.

For example, an overweight patient may identify with an ego state or a group of ego states that want to lose weight, but there may be one or more ego states with an investment in either eating or being overweight, and these other ego states persist in maintaining the weight problem, in spite of repeated brief periods of successful dieting.

First, there is either the dissociation by the predominant ego states of the hidden ego state, or the dissociation by each camp of ego states of the other camp of ego states. Second, there is the dissociation of the fact that this previous dissociative strategy isn’t working in either maintaining stability or in achieving the specific goals of the various ego states. Hence, dissociation may be conceptualized as the primary mechanism for maintaining psychopathology, not just of “dissociative disorders,” but virtually all psychiatric disorders. For example, defense mechanisms--repression, isolation of affect, splitting--are technically variations of dissociative phenomenology. It is extremely important to attend to the nature of the dissociative barriers in understanding and addressing all psychopathology.

Again, emphasis added. The Badger Syndrome results from the person under stress closing down communication and erecting “dissociative barriers” with a part of himself that he feels is too difficult or painful to deal with. Like physical pain, the emotional pain will try to find a way to make itself known so that it can be attended to. The emotional pain has been prohibited from speaking; therefore, it will try to make itself known by acting out, by manifesting in some non-verbal form.

The Badger reacts to these manifestations by further dissociating from them. He digs himself deeper into his burrow and growls louder and longer. But, the pain doesn’t go away.

This condition tends to get worse as the Badger gets older. Rigid dissociation worked at some point early in his life, and later in life becomes his primary coping strategy. When the going gets tough, the Badger shuts down.

I believe that any person can acquire the Badger Syndrome by trying to reconcile irreconcilable ideas. For example, as a matter of survival, abused children who depend on their abusers will try to adopt the idea that they deserve to be abused, which is entirely contrary to the reality that being abused really, really hurts. They cannot reconcile the need to escape with the need to be cared for. The tension between the two contradictory ideas triggers dissociation, which, if unresolved, can cascade into the Badger Syndrome.

I’ve had to face some of this in my own life. I growl and snarl and hide in my burrow. I have found that the most effective way to deal with my own badgering tendencies is to stop growling at people and learn to say, “I’m under a lot of stress right now. I’m sorry to be so crabby. I don’t mean to be such a pain. Sorry if I yelled at you.” This has saved my life several times.

Here is my list of good sites to look into, each addressing different aspects of the same problem:

Voicelessness
http://www.voicelessness.com

Denial
http://www.coping.org/grief/denial.htm

Denial Management
http://www.tgorski.com/clin_mod/dmc/DMC.htm

Developmental Needs Meeting Strategy
http://www.dnmsinstitute.com

And, to all the Badgers out there: The first rule of holes is, if you want to get out of one, you have to stop digging.

Best wishes.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-03-15T19:01:00.000-08:00

Sagan ad Absurdum
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

March 15, 2006

In Appendix 1 to the book Cosmos, Carl Sagan asserts that the assumption that the square root of 2 is a rational number is a reductio ad absurdum.

He constructs his argument using a square whose sides each equal 1. The diagonal is x.

Sagan states:

In such right triangles, the Pythagorean theorem holds: 1² + 1² = x². But 1² + 1² = 1 + 1 = 2, so x² = 2 and we write x = the square root of 2.

Pythagorean theorem on right triangles is:

A² + B² = C²

where A and B each denote the length of one side of the triangle and are connected at a right angle, and C denotes longest side of the triangle. We solve for C by finding the square root of the sum of A squared and B squared. The easiest way to remember the Pythagorean theorem is 3, 4, 5:

3² (9) + 4² (16) = 5² (25)

Sagan asserts that x² equals 2 and that x equals the square root of 2. Here’s how he arrives at this conclusion:

1² + 1² = 1 + 1 = 2, so x² = 2 and we write x = the square root of 2

When you test it for yourself, you will see that his original formula is correct, x = the square root of 2.

The following statement, however, caused my jaw to drop:

We assume the square root of 2 is a rational number...

“We” who? How would anyone assume that the square root of 2 is a rational number?

Wikipedia defines “rational number” this way:

In mathematics, a rational number (or informally fraction) is a ratio or quotient of two integers, usually written as the vulgar fraction a/b, where b is not zero.

Each rational number can be written in infinitely many forms, for example 3 / 6 = 2 / 4 = 1 / 2. The simplest form is when a and b have no common divisors, and every non-zero rational number has exactly one simplest form of this type with positive denominator.

and further offers the square root of 2 as its first example of an irrational number.

The absurdity of Sagan’s argument is revealed in the following statement:

The square root of 2 = p/q, where p and q are integers, whole numbers.

How is it possible for p and q in this case, without any further manipulation, to be whole numbers? The assertion is absurd.

Sagan wants the audience to play along without questioning the absurdity of assuming that p and q are whole numbers in the equation (the square root of 2 = p/q). He goes to great lengths to convince his readers that both p and q must be even numbers, and that therefore “they have not been reduced to their lowest common factor”. Yet, his manipulations of the figures make no sense. The full text may be found at http://www.angelfire.com/blog2/endovelico/CarlSagan-Cosmos.pdf, Appendix 1. See for yourself.

Sagan finishes with:

So the initial assumption must be wrong; p and q cannot be whole numbers; and the square root of 2 is irrational. In fact, the square root of 2 = 1.4142135 …

What a stunning and unexpected conclusion! How elegant the proof! But the Pythagoreans felt compelled to suppress this great discovery.

The conclusion that the square root of 2 is an irrational number and that p and q are not even numbers is “stunning and unexpected”? Well, Carl, who besides you made the initial assumption? Certainly not me or any other sensible person. The assertion that “we assume” that the square root of 2 is a rational number is absurd, and the assumption itself is nonsense.

The Pythagoreans didn’t “suppress” anything. In the equation (the square root of 2 = p/q), it isn’t possible that p and q can be whole numbers, nor is it reasonable to assume the same. In his statement, “We assume the square root of 2 is a rational number...”, Sagan reveals that he is being unreasonable at a minimum, and clownish at worst.

Sagan posits a silly comment at the outset, and then pretends to reveal his genius by refuting an obviously ridiculous assumption. Many in academia and the political left gratuitously assert nonsense as fact, supposing that their audience can’t distinguish between what is absurd and what is real. They use silly gimmicks like Sagan’s assumption that the square root of 2 is a rational number to demonstrate how smart they are. Sagan offers his audience sophistry masquerading as science.

However, Sagan’s presentation of a reductio ad absurdum is itself absurd, and ends up being nothing more than a Sagan ad absurdum, a grand waste of time.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-03-14T05:31:00.000-08:00

The Humiliation of Learning
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

March 14, 2006

I have struggled for years to understand why so many bright people are so averse to learning. Weak Little Men and their Opinionated Ignorance thwart my every effort to offer free knowledge. It’s free. Go on. Take it. Dummy.

But, like timid birds, they recoil.

Why would any sensible, mature person respond with such aversion to something that could be so useful?

Fear.

Fear of what?

Fear of humiliation. Fear of being made to look stupid. Fear of the incessant, senseless, merciless criticism that their parents, teachers, coaches, and bosses have heaped on them over the years. Fear of the humiliation, dejection, and self-loathing that results from being made to look stupid.

The result is a reflexive, resolute aversion to learning. They develop the posture that you can’t make me learn, I won’t learn, nothing you do will cause me to learn, you’re just trying to control my life, stay out of my life. It is a paranoid and passive-aggressive stance intended to protect the person from triggering new bouts of anxiety and depression. Better to be pissed off than pissed on. Better to be angry and feel alive than to be depressed and feel dead.

In the 1970’s, Archie Bunker was a cultural joke. His I-already-know-everything-so-don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts approach to life was funny. While Archie was a joke to the Northeastern academic snobs, the kernel of truth in the joke is that there are a lot more Archie Bunker’s than Albert Einstein’s. And, if you can’t be friends with the Archie Bunker types, you aren’t going to have many friends.

As long as you feel humiliated by learning, you will never learn.

People who encounter new information don’t want to feel humiliated. Unfortunately, some people feel humiliated no matter what you say to them.

Humiliation results from fear. It is a way of stopping yourself from risking any more harm. Admit your fear, accept it, acknowledge that it hurts, reassure yourself, encourage yourself, and then more ahead. Humiliation, after all, can’t hurt you.

And, to be honest, I have felt humiliated by learning new information, also. But, I understand that humiliation has limited effect. It is relatively easy to endure. It is much easier to endure when you understand that humiliation can help you learn.

The natural response to humiliation is to tell yourself, “#@*&! I’m never going to try that again.” Instead of avoiding the situation, try to learn how to master the situation. If you don’t try, you can’t learn.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-03-12T19:47:00.000-08:00

Why We Are Losing the War on Terror
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

March 12, 2006

In short, we are fighting the wrong war. Our enemy is motivated by a distinct ideology and uses terror tactics to pursue that ideology. Declaring war on a tactic will not achieve victory.

The very notion of calling the current war a “Global War on Terror” demonstrates that the objective is obscure. The “Global War on Terror” disregards America’s homegrown terrorists, the Ku Klux Klan and various incarnations of Nazism. The GWT also ignores the institutional terrorism that countries like North Korea, Communist China, and Cuba use against their own people.

The GWT is aimed exclusively at actively violent movements with strong ties to Islam. The obvious fact that Islam in general does not engage in violent attacks against non-Moslem targets, and that there is no general uprising amount Moslem people’s against non-Moslem targets, should make it clear that the violent elements of Islam are motivated differently than Moslems in general. So, what’s their motivation?

Their motivation appears to be ideological Puritanism. Historically, Islam has made its greatest advances by military force. Currently, there are no nations with strong enough military forces to further the spread of Islam. A small number of followers have taken it upon themselves to spread Islam through military action similar to the actions of the Viet Cong in the 1960’s.

The religious element of the war obscures the ideological motives. A tiny number of Moslems have adapted European totalitarianism to their religion to fashion a bastardized Arab fascism with Moslem trappings. Put a beard on Mussolini and you get the idea. Similar to Italian fascism of the last century, Arab fascism recalls the days of Arab supremacy, and seeks to revive that ancient glory.

We in the West cannot defeat an ideology that we do not understand or even acknowledge. The Global War on Terror, like the War on Drugs, will grind on with no clear goal and an unending cycle of violence and death, some profiting and others dying, and no end in sight.

Until one side or the other understands and accepts that they are truly defeated, neither side will stop fighting, and the war will not end. I suggest that the Global War on Terror, which explicitly ignores the terrorism of our purported allies like Saudi Arabia and Communist China against their own people, be named something more appropriate. We didn’t call the Nazis German National Socialists, we just called them “Nazis”, nor did we call the Japanese fascists Japanese Nationalist Militarists, we just called them “Japs”.

Any suggests on what we should call the Arab racist nationalist fascist Moslem Puritans?

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-03-12T18:41:00.000-08:00

We Will Never Be Defeated
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

March 12, 2006

The History Channel is a gold mine.

In a show on the tunnels of Cu Chi, one of the Viet Cong commanders made a statement to the effect that they did not view their losses as defeats. The same sentiment was echoed by the North Vietnamese commander at the battle of the Ia Drang valley. He said in effect that the Americans think they have won, but that losing 5,000 NVA was not considered a loss by the Communist government of North Viet Nam. With a population of millions, the loss of 5,000 soldiers was acceptable to the Communists.

Until you understand what your enemy considers defeat, you cannot defeat your enemy.

Until the Israelis understand what the Palestinian radicals consider defeat, Israel cannot defeat them.

Until the U. S. understood what the Empire of Japan considered defeat, the Japanese would not surrender.

Until the West understands what Osama bin Laden considers defeat, al Qaeda will continue to fight.

What do you suppose al Qaeda considers their final defeat will look like? Like the most faithful Nazis of the Third Reich, al Qaeda faithful do not believe that they can be defeated under any circumstances, including death. If soldiers do not believe that dying means defeat, then they have no motive to stop fighting.

It is troubling to me to know that the Arab fascist radicals believe that their defeat is impossible while Western liberals (read “cowards”) believe that the defeat of Western capitalist civilization is both inevitable and desirable. This position, as during America’s War in Viet Nam, only encourages America’s enemies to keep fighting against impossible odds.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-02-23T05:57:00.000-08:00

When Losing is Winning
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

February 23, 2006

The more I learn about personality disorders and passive-aggressive personality types, the more I understand how they see themselves and the world they inhabit. It is not what you or I might consider reasonable. But, to them, it makes sense. It also creates an impossible dilemma, namely, that losing equals winning. This is how it works:

Let’s call our subject Adam. Adam is highly passive-aggressive, and is also highly resistant to counseling. Adam’s capacity to initiate his own self defeat is greater than his counselor’s capacity to motivate or encourage him to succeed. In Adam’s view, he will always win because he is the only person on Earth who is allowed to have control over himself, and the only control he can exercise is to cause his own defeat. Adam is convinced that other people are trying to overpower him, but he will not allow them to defeat him. Therefore, he defeats himself before they get the chance. In Adam’s mind, other people are trying to overpower him, and his only hope is to escape their control. Adam can’t oppose them because they will crush him, so he seeks to escape. By escaping, Adam quits, fails, and loses. By quitting, failing, and ultimately losing, Adam thwarts his opponent’s attempts to overpower him. Like Masada, Adam cuts his own throat and deprives his opponents of their desired victory, what he feels is their desire to dominate him. Escaping domination is winning, in Adam’s mind. But, escaping is also quitting, failing, and losing. For Adam, losing is winning. Also, like the inhabitants of Masada, Adam seems to value nothing more highly than escaping. He is able, though not always willing, to surrender anything of value if doing so will secure his escape. He is willing to lose everything in order to win escape.

That’s Adam’s story. The two main choices for the passive-aggressive types is either escape or control, but under no circumstances is cooperation an option. Think about how this may apply to politicals.

Many leftist lunatic Democrats (what Hugh Hewitt calls the “fever swamp” Democrats) appear to be willing to lose everything, including their dignity and the trust of the American people, in order to escape what they feel is President Bush’s attempt to overpower them. It may seem far fetched to suggest that Bush hatred is really escapism, but, I think I may be on to something here.

The Bush haters don’t seem to have we would call a positive agenda, and seem to be united only on the idea of defeating Bush. This fits the escapist model. They obsess on the object that they feel threatens them. It haunts them. It eats at them. It disturbs them. It drives them to drink. Their only recourse, as they understand it, is to either escape the perceived threat (numerous promises by lefty radicals to leave the country if Bush won have gone unfulfilled, darn it) or to control it (they seem to think that name calling and screaming obscenities gives them control).

Many mental health professionals consider the obdurate behavior of their clients to be a form of communication. When clients act out by resisting, complaining, blaming, and so forth, they are in fact communicating valuable information about themselves. Political analysts may want to follow the lead of the mental health community and consider the crazy behavior of the lunatic left for its informative value.

Reasonable people understand that losing is not winning. People who are gripped with fear can convince themselves that losing is winning. In their minds, they win by changing the rules, changing the goals, or by just dropping out, anything to maintain the feeling that they really are in control.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-02-14T05:52:00.000-08:00

Developing “Mommy Deafness”
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

February 14, 2006

I heard a story some time ago from a young woman who was talking about a time when her mother nagged her into an absolute stupor. Mommy nagged and nagged and nagged and nagged, and the young woman, who was about four years old at the time, thought, “When is this going to end?” At that point, the young woman described a kind of curtain descending over her face, a sort of “I can see your lips moving, but I can’t hear a word you say” state of numbness.

I call this developing “mommy deafness”.

It’s not the only time I’ve seen it. In one case, I witnessed a young boy actually cover his ears with his hands every time his mother spoke to him, and he got a look on his face like a cannon had been shot off too close to his head.

In fairness to the mommies in these stories, I understand that they are good people with the best of intentions. However, they tend to get a little wound up, and they don’t seem to know when to stop. Also, they don’t tolerate any “talk back”. No one is allowed to converse with mommy when she’s in “nag” mode. Mommy nags; you shut up and take it.

Severe aggravation, helplessness, and an inability to speak out seem to contribute to “mommy deafness”. In listening to people talk about these situations, I get the impression that they decided that since they had nothing to say, all they wanted to do was endure the nagging long enough to get away and go do something fun.

“Mommy deafness” may be related to attention deficit problems in many children and adults. I can imagine that if this reaction becomes reflexive that the person with such a condition may have trouble staying focused in school, following orders, listening to other people, and many other attention related activities especially when stress levels rise. I can imagine that someone in this situation may have trouble reading, staying with the plot of a television show, or remembering to stop at the drug store on the way home.

I think that “daddy deafness” may also be a problem in some families. But, I think of “mommy deafness” as more prevalent because mothers are more prone to nagging, whereas fathers tend to bully. Nagging can be ignored; bullying can’t.

Developing “mommy deafness” is a way of learning to “tune out” the world and to reflexively ignore stressors. It is unconscious and may take training to learn to overcome.

When the mind becomes overwhelmed with input, it automatically shuts down the input systems. In severe cases, this becomes dissociation. I think of “mommy deafness” as a kind of mild dissociation, an automatic shutting down of input systems to prevent overload.

The dissociation process may become more acute as the mind anticipates stress. As the person begins to associate normal activities with previously experienced intense stress, the input system will begin to shut down earlier and earlier in anticipation. It may become so severe that the person may be unable to process normal input. This may result in emotional withdrawal, a sense of feeling misunderstood, social isolation, anxiety, resentment, reflexive hostility, substance abuse, and a host of symptoms associated with personality disorders. No matter how hard you try, you end up feeling that you just can’t get through to them.

Severe dissociation is fairly easy to spot. But, “mommy deafness” may be impossible to recognize, especially if the symptoms don’t have a significant detrimental effect on the person involved. I can imagine how “mommy deafness” may develop into habitually disregarding input even without significant stress.

I can also imagine how “mommy deafness” can result in sloppy performance at work, inattention to detail, and difficulty in tending to personal hygiene and house keeping. If you become deaf to your inner nagging voice, you have lost a significant motivator.

People who have never developed “mommy deafness” may have extreme difficulty understanding people who have. Comments like “you have a bad attitude” and other senseless judgments tend to provoke “mommy deafness”. It’s just more nagging.

I think that it is counterproductive to engage in nagging with people who have developed sophisticated defenses against nagging. All the literature I have read on the subject suggests the same thing. The professionals suggest that you should slow down the process, validate the other person’s position (e.g., “I hear you saying such and such. Did I get that right?”), and then ask the other person for permission to affirmatively move from the problem to the solution. People with “mommy deafness” tend to reflexively ignore instructions, rescuing, or schooling (irrefutable reasoning from the facts) as just more nagging. Without thinking about it, their “mommy deafness” kicks in, and communication effectively ceases. They stop listening, and they will tell you one way or another to shut up and go away.

Your voice is important. Give yourself permission to stop stifling yourself.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-02-10T05:47:00.000-08:00

Hurried Writings 4
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

February 10, 2006

Knowledge can be thought of as intellectual wealth that can be translated into material wealth.

Tolerance is not the contrary of prejudice. Prejudice is unjust discrimination. The contrary of unjust discrimination is not a complete lack of discrimination; instead, the contrary of unjust discrimination is just discrimination, also known as fairness. Being tolerant of everything to avoid the sin of unjust discrimination results in unreasonable tolerance and unwarranted exposure to risk and harm. You put locks on your doors. That means that you are justly discriminating against people who would unjustly steal your stuff. You are justly discriminating against potential injustice. How much harder can it be to justly discriminate against actual injustice?

Speaking of actual injustice, many countries in the Middle East have come under the control of governments that use the religion of Islam as a political tool. The counter to using any religion for political ends is to address the political matters involved and to leave the religious matters for another day. For example, the recent Danish cartoons flap: Imams in Iran do not have legal jurisdiction outside Iran. They may issue as many death threats as they like, but they have no authority to enforce such threats. It is the responsibility of the government of Denmark to ensure that Danish cartoonists are not attacked by Iranian agents. There is nothing religious about this. It’s a matter of law.

I’m typing so fast, my fingers are starting to smoke.

And speaking of not very smart people: The Europeans have not yet figured out that the governments of some Middle Eastern countries have learned to play the victimhood card with astounding aptitude. Countries like Egypt, Syrian, and Iran have learned that they can extract phenomenal concessions from European countries by playing the role of victim. Europeans seem to be all riddled with guilt of past (long past) colonialism. The Moslem countries then accuse Europe of further offenses (such as exercising their right to free if not somewhat repulsive speech), and then they demand appeasement. Get it? I’m offended! See how violent I am? My violence is an expression of the depths of my hurt feelings. Now give me something for free! This is how toddlers behave. It may seem perceptive to suggest that Moslem governments stop fomenting violence among their own people for the sake of intimidating the Europeans, but it may be more worthwhile to suggest that Europeans stop feeling guilty for the sins of the fathers.

There have been no Paris-style riots in Philadelphia with “Moslem youths” (or any other “youths”) rampaging, burning, shooting, stabbing, or raping because the Philadelphia police know how to put a stop to riots. There have been riots in Iran recently because the government of Iran staged the riots. There were riots in Paris last year because the French are not competent to govern themselves.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-01-30T17:52:00.000-08:00

Solving the Palestinian Problem for All Time
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

January 30, 2006

This morning, I heard an interview with a member of the newly elected government of the Palestinian Authority. In the interview, the newly elected representative explained that sending suicide bombers into Israel to slaughter unsuspecting civilians on buses and in shops was not “terrorism”, but that in fact terrorism was bulldozing the homes of families of suicide bombers, among other acts of terrorism committed by Israel against the Palestinian people.

Using the information provided by this interview, I have constructed the final resolution to the Palestinian problem. Here is the reasoning.

Using suicide bombers against unsuspecting Israeli civilians is a legitimate and acceptable form of warfare.
Using tanks, jets, and bulldozers against Palestinians is an illegitimate and unacceptable form of warfare.
Therefore, the solution to the Palestinian problem is for Israel to use suicide bombers to slaughter unsuspecting Palestinian civilians.

The complaint of the Palestinians is not about the endless, pointless, sadistic slaughter of unsuspecting Israeli civilians, but instead is entirely about the methods that the two opposing sides use to conduct the war. Israelis use tanks, jets, and bulldozers. That’s not fair. Palestinians use suicide bombers. That’s fair. If the comments of the newly elected Palestinian representative have any validity, then the solution to the entire problem is for the Israelis to use suicide bombers to kill Palestinians.

Simple. Glad I could help.

I think it goes without saying that if the tables were turned and the Israelis had nothing more for their defense than suicide bombers, and the Palestinians had tanks, jets, and bulldozers, then the Palestinians would slaughter the Israelis by the millions without a second thought, for the glory of Allah. Anyone who says otherwise is either seriously deluded or openly dishonest.

Appeasing the murderers and warmongers in the Palestinian community will only result in more murdered Israelis and more war against Israel.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-01-27T06:05:00.000-08:00

Relaxation and Orientation Response Exercises
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

January 27, 2006

Here are two exercises to help calm your mind and body and to help open your mind to new information. These exercises have been extensively tested. Most people who use them show short-term improvement in attention, stress levels, and their sense of well-being.

Relaxation response
From the Mind Body Medical Institute.
Elicitation of the relaxation response is not difficult. There are two essential steps to eliciting the RR:

Repetition of a word, sound, phrase, prayer, or muscular activity.
Passive disregard of everyday thoughts that inevitably come to mind and the return to your repetition.

The following is the generic technique taught at the Mind/Body Medical Institute:

Pick a focus word, short phrase, or prayer that is firmly rooted in your belief system, such as “one”, “peace”, “The Lord is my shepherd”, “Hail Mary full of grace” or “shalom”.
Sit quietly in a comfortable position.
Close your eyes.
Relax your muscles, progressing from your feet to your calves, thighs, abdomen, shoulders, head, and neck.
Breathe slowly and naturally, and as you do, say your focus word, sound, phrase, or prayer silently to yourself as you exhale.
Assume a passive attitude. Don’t worry about how well you’re doing. When other thoughts come to mind, simply say to yourself, “Oh well”, and gently return to your repetition.
Continue for ten to 20 minutes.
Do not stand immediately. Continue sitting quietly for a minute or so, allowing other thoughts to return. Then open your eyes and sit for another minute before rising.
Practice the technique once or twice daily. Good times to do so are before breakfast and before dinner.

Orientation response
Eye Movement Desensitization Response (EMDR):

Pick two points to look at, one to the left and one to the right.
Sitting still and not moving your head,
Look to the left point, then slowly
Look to the right point.
While you do this, focus on what is upsetting you, on your feelings, and on your physical state.
Repeat the eye movements about twenty times.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

P.S. A gigantimus THANK YOU to BLOGGER.COM for showing me how to do numbered lists.
Woo hoo!

2006-01-26T17:53:00.000-08:00

Interpret This
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

January 26, 2006

For about a hundred years, adherents of the progressive movement in America who have been appointed to the Supreme Court have engaged in the practice of interpreting the Constitution. To interpret means to find the meaning in. But, the progressives don’t seek to find the meaning in the Constitution. Instead, they seek to find meaning that never existed in the Constitution, in effect misconstruing the Constitution to fulfill their political agenda.

Progressives insist that the Constitution is a living document, and that new meaning can be found if only one looks closely enough. This makes as much sense as insisting that every contract is a living document, and that new meaning can be found with sufficient scrutiny. With this fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution, it has been possible for Justices on the Supreme Court to make such complete blunders as the recent so called campaign finance reform, in effect utterly failing to understand the meaning of “the Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech”.

Progressives denied the legitimacy of the Constitution by arguing that any sitting Supreme Court had final authority to determine what the Constitution actually means. They removed the legitimate authority to determine the meaning of the very words they wrote and ratified from the very people who actually wrote and ratified the various provisions of the Constitution. The result is that the Constitution has no authority except that which is granted by the party in control of government. Another result is that the people of the United States are no longer a party to the Constitution, and therefore have no rights except those granted by government.

The result of the practice of the Supreme Court determining by majority vote what the law shall be without restriction by words contained in the Constitution is that the Supreme Court has become the Supreme Legislature. This means that any appointment to the Supreme Court becomes a potential vote in favor of one political agenda or another.

The fight over the latest appointment, Judge Sam Alito, illustrates this point perfectly. Sam Alito has never demonstrated that he is not capable of understanding what the law means. And no one is offering this as a serious objection. Objections offered by opponents to his appointment consist only of arguments that he will vote in opposition to their agenda.

Assuming final authority to determine what the Constitution means only worked for the Democrats as long as they had control of government. It was a particularly dangerous game for them to play in the first place, especially since they arrogantly assumed that they would never lose control of government. Having turned it into a mere political document, Democrats now find themselves unable to rely on the Constitution to restrain the actions of a government now under the control of Republicans.

Today, the Democrats find themselves in the same position the Republicans were in back in the 1970’s. How ludicrous would it have been for the Republicans to claim that the Republican Party alone had final authority to determine the meaning of the Constitution after Jimmy Carter was elected President and after the Congress was solidly Democrat?

When they were not in power, the Republicans argued that the restrictions contained in the Constitution had to be honored based on the authority of the document itself. They argued that having the Supreme Court find new meaning in the Constitution was not a legitimate process for amending the Constitution.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have hoisted themselves on their own petard. They have constructed their own gallows and they have hanged themselves with their own rope. It is too late for them to argue original intent of the founders, having dismissed the founders as hayseed bigots and slave-owners.

The Constitution was always designed to permit the majority to rule while protecting the rights of the minority. By using the Supreme Court as the Supreme Legislature for three generations, the Democrats, now the minority party, find themselves unable to appeal to the Constitution for protection from their Republican rivals.

Democrats had no problem arguing that the Constitution was a living document as long as it was living on the Democrat plantation. Now that the Republicans have control of it, watch the Democrats argue that the Constitution has stopped living.

The Republicans will be in control of the Supreme Court for at least twenty more years. Which Constitution do you think the Democrats want now, the living Constitution that is little more than a plaything for the party in power, or the Constitution that ensures property rights, individual liberty, and the rule of law?

Interpret this: The Constitution of the United States means what it says.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-01-17T05:26:00.000-08:00

Rhetorical Vandalism
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

January 17, 2006

Rhetoric is the tool of demagogues. It is an appeal to the emotions of the audience with the intent of turning off their ability to think calmly and rationally. The great demagogue and rhetorician of literature is Mark Anthony in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. The great demagogues and rhetoricians of modern history include Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung.

Vandalism is a form of self-expression. Another, more accurate, term for “self-expression” is “acting out”. Vandalism is acting out with no rational concept of consequences. It is expressing the impulse to spoil things. It is pointless, futile, and tends to have the effect of making things worse for everyone, including the vandal.

Rhetorical vandalism refers to pointless and futile verbal attacks of political and cultural radicals on targets such as Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Pat Robertson, the United States of America, and the Constitution of the United States of America. The targets are not necessarily opponents or even people; they are just targets. Anyone or anything can be a target of these attacks.

Rhetorical vandals tend to be paranoid and emotionally overexcited, and their choice of target is usually irrational. They even target each other.

For rational people, rhetorical vandalism is destructive and pointless. It’s a waste of time. People who want to build a better life for themselves, their children, and their community don’t have time for futile rage, nor do they understand it.

What circumstances make rhetorical vandalism seem worthwhile for those who practice it?

1. Trauma induced paranoia
Trauma can induce paranoia. Symptoms can include fear, disgust, heartbreak, grief, disappointment, aversion, hate, loathing, and anxiety. Paranoia can lead to habitual and irrational defiance, hostility, resistance, opposition, aversion, and worrying. It often leads to distortions of trust, either trusting too much or not trusting at all.

2. Repetition compulsion
Repetition compulsion is said to be the tendency to repeat traumatic events in order to deal with them. People who engage in repetition compulsion relive their past traumas with the overpowering wish to “get it right this time”. Repeating the trauma tends to stimulate further paranoia and increases hostility, anxiety, and so forth.

3. Feel think
Feel think is the idea that the world is defined by the feelings of the individual. If the person is at ease, the world is good. If the person is angry, the world must be punished. If the person is anxious, the world is conspiring. Such people often indulge in drugs, alcohol, food, music, art, reading, sleep, or political activism to manipulate their moods.

4. All or nothing trust
All or nothing trust means that the person places either all trust or no trust in someone. They either completely trust or completely distrust the target. When people place all trust in a person, then that person can do nothing wrong. When they place no trust in a person, then that person can do nothing right. This helps explain the Bush hatred of the modern Democratic Party. The radicals among them completely distrust President Bush and completely trust the political purists on their side. It doesn’t matter how much President Bush tells the truth, they distrust him, and it doesn’t matter how much Howard Dean lies, they trust him.

The result of the synthesis of these four conditions is the rhetorical vandalism of our time. It isn’t new. The history of self-governing peoples is a history of name-calling, reckless rhetoric, and slander. Self-government can be an ugly business.

The phenomenon of rhetorical vandalism, of recklessly acting out with no rational concept of consequences, is interesting to study. However, actions matter more than rhetoric. Will the American voters, like the voters in Europe, place unconditional trust in candidates who promulgate an ideology of paranoia and reckless tantrums?

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-01-13T13:03:00.000-08:00

When the Going Gets Tough
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

January 13, 2006

When the going gets tough, bullies look for victims.

What brought this up? Watching the Democrats in the Judiciary Committee bullying Judge Sam Alito. Hugh Hewitt made the point that they way the Dems should have conducted the hearings was to question Judge Alito. Instead, they chose to verbally bully him, to try to belittle and humiliate him in front of the nation.

Did it work? Not to my mind.

The standard pattern of bullying is that bullies begin bullying when they are under stress. The Dems are clearly under stress.

Anger is often a result of feeling powerless. The Dems sense their powerlessness. They feel angry. Instead of understanding that their anger results from feeling weak, they think that their anger is actually a realization that they have uncovered some wrongdoing. When bullies get angry, they search for the guilty party. This is called “externalizing” their anger.

Externalizing anger makes it virtually impossible for bullies to understand their own participation in their own problems. Searching for victims to blame makes it impossible for bullies to understand that the resolution to their problem, the salve for the anger and hurt feelings, is for them to change their own behavior. The average bully is a one song juke box. No matter which buttons you push, you only get anger.

Bush hatred by the left fits this pattern of externalizing. They are trying to assign guilt to the President. They refuse to take responsibility for their own participation in the matter.

Bullies complain the loudest about being mistreated while doling out mistreatment without restraint. They construe any action by any other person as abuse while freely abusing others.

Bullying is an expression of narcissism, a fundamental assumption of one’s own rightness and self-importance. Narcissists are truly unable to comprehend the actual effect they have on others.

The Dems in the Judiciary Committee assume their own rightness and self-importance and therefore have no idea how they appear to the public. They appear to be incompetent bullies who, like the schoolyard bullies we remember from childhood, have arbitrarily chosen Judge Sam Alito as their “mark”.

But it’s been tough going for the bully Dems this week. The Alito nomination threatens the New Deal. In the next generation, government as cornucopia will come to an end. There will be choices and marginally more accountability. Government will become more like a business than a national grab bag.

As the bully Dems lose more and more ground, they will bully harder. They will become more angry. They will yell louder, level even more embellished accusations, enflame paranoia, and they will lie, lie, lie.

Bullies want to dominate. For them, there are no rules, no standards, and most important for the rest of us, no self-restraint. The Republicans would do themselves a favor by learning the dynamics of the bully/victim relationship, and stop thinking that they will be liked if they will just be better victims.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-01-11T13:11:00.000-08:00

How to Stop Being Angry
Instruction in mental health © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

January 11, 2006

Are you angry? Want to stop?

How to stop being angry: Hold people accountable for their own behavior.

That’s it. It’s just that simple.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-01-10T05:39:00.000-08:00

Unearned Sympathy
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

January 10, 2006

In liberal cultures, sympathy is thought of as a virtue. Being sympathetic makes you a good person. It shows that you have a heart...

...but not necessarily a brain.

Sympathy is best offered at a safe distance. Consider the poor sharks. Poor things. All alone in the ocean with no one to care for them. They are hated and hunted. Their numbers are decreasing. It tugs at your heartstrings to think of the plight of the poor, miserable sharks. Poor, poor, miserable sharks.

Reach out the hand of sympathy to a shark and you are likely to pull back a bloody stump. Sharks are, after all, sharks.

It’s not much different with many people. In The Ordeal of Change, Eric Hoffer says:

Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many. Hatred, malice, rudeness, intolerance, and suspicion are the faults of weakness. The resentment of the weak does not spring from any injustice done to them but from the sense of inadequacy and impotence. We cannot win the weak by sharing our wealth with them. They feel our generosity as oppression.

People who have a heart tend to feel sympathy for those who seem weak. These sympathetic people are often rewarded (or, more aptly, punished) for showing concern. I have seen more than a few instances of people offering to listen sympathetically to people who are down on their luck only to be viciously accosted and verbally abused for their efforts.

Weak people despise weakness. They inflict inexplicable cruelty on those they consider weaker than they are. They abhor weakness in themselves and punish others for showing weakness.

We may think of such people as heartless, and they probably are. They probably had kindness beaten out of them from an early age. But that doesn’t change the fact that they hate weakness and anything that looks like weakness such as compassion, sympathy, or concern.

People are smart enough to make up their own minds, so I don’t normally offer advice. In this case, however, I will instruct you to stay far, far away from such heartless people. People who admire strength and despise weakness are not human. They will pollute and corrupt you. Stay away.

Sympathy must not be offered without accountability. The fact that people appear to be suffering does not mean that they are not also hostile. If your offer of kindness is countered with hostility, then it is your responsibility to yourself to hold the other person accountable for his bad behavior. Feeling bad is acceptable. Attacking other people for their generosity is not.

Sympathy without accountability is folly.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-01-09T06:15:00.000-08:00

Preserving Self Government for the Next Generation
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

January 9, 2006

Mark Steyn makes a number of serious points in his article It’s the Demography, Stupid. Specifically, he notes that Western civilization has produced many resources necessary for survival and prosperity in abundance except for one: Children.

I wrote Mark a quick letter regarding his article. Here it is.

*****************************

The actions people take to preserve their cultures determine whether any culture will survive. Example of a culture that has been preserved by the actions of its members: The Jews. Example of a culture that was destroyed by the failure of its members to preserve it: Nazi Germany.

Western liberal culture has few members who will take serious action to preserve their culture. They behave as though their personal and cultural survival is not their responsibility. Tolerating medieval cultures that are utterly intolerant of modern liberalism is like hugging a python.

People who have never been required to take responsibility for their own defense seem to develop a notion that things will be all right if they teach themselves that there are no enemies, only aggrieved social groups. They believe that the term “enemy” is too primitive to be of value.

Giving unwarranted sympathy to anti-modern Moslems while cultivating a purely paranoid view of their political rivals suggests that Western liberals have no realistic concept of trust. They are not serious about their own survival.

In the end, survival and prosperity depend more on actions than on beliefs. Example: During the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the mythology of the aboriginal peoples of the Nicobar Islands instructed them to run to high ground when ocean recedes abnormally, while thousands of technologically and philosophically sophisticated Westerners were drowned.

Finally, the object of the war is not personal liberty; it is self-government. Without self-government, you can forget about individual liberty. What actions will we in our generation take to ensure that the next generation can withstand the assaults on self-government from Communist China, Islam, and Western liberalism?

*****************************

In order to preserve self-government for the next generation, you have to have a next generation.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-01-05T05:34:00.000-08:00

It Never Was a Good Idea
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

January 5, 2005

Over at HughHewitt.com, Mary Katharine Ham makes the following observation (They Tell Me It’s a Nice Idea):

They [socialists] truly do want the best for people. They think “equal” necessarily equals “good.” They, therefore, want equality enforced.

Sometimes during these conversations, my big-government buddies concede, “All right, so maybe it doesn’t always work in practice, but it’s a nice thought.”

In the last couple years, I’ve had to revise that. The truth is that it is not a nice idea, in theory. Well, not if you actually think about what the theory implies.

Socialism is enforced equality. But someone has to enforce. Someone has to take all that a country of dynamic, amazing, different people has produced and slice it up into dull, government-approved parcels that go to each according to his need.

The article is good overall. But, unfortunately, she drifts away from the obvious conclusion. Socialism defeats itself by the contradiction in its fundamental proposition: Inequality is necessary to create and sustain equality. However, every sensible person knows that you can’t have equality without inequality; therefore, you can’t have equality under any circumstances. It is impossible to have equality as long as inequality exists.

In order to enforce equality, the enforcers must necessarily be unequal to everyone else. Socialism cannot enforce equality because the enforcers must necessarily be unequal. The power of the enforcers cannot be limited by the people in the manner that the U. S. Constitution is intended to limit the power of government. In the name of the good of the people through enforced equality, the socialist enforcers become the ruling class. The final result of socialism is always the establishment of a new ruling class. Having attained that status, they behave like ruling classes throughout history, self-aggrandizement being their first priority.

Dictators have always found the promise of equality useful in subjugating nations. Once you give a dictator the power to take the freedom and property of the wealthy and powerful, there will be nothing to stop him from taking everything else.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-12-29T08:41:00.000-08:00

The Desire to Act Out Defiantly
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

December 29, 2005

I have an interest in understanding passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality types because I encounter so many people who fit that description, and because they pose an extreme challenge. The primary characteristic of this personality type is reflexive, reactive, pathological hostility. They are a one song juke box. Press any buttons, and you will only get hostility.

The psychology community generally agrees that such people are torn between a desire to act out defiantly and a fear of retribution for their aggression. This creates tremendous conflict within such people, and they display occasional explosive aggression.

Acting out defiantly sums up the entire leftist agenda. The issues they promote can all be seen as acts of defiance against history, religious doctrine, social norms, and social and personal obligations.

Socialism is defiance of market realities.

* *

Drug use is defiance of social norms and personal responsibility.

Abortion and birth control are defiance of nature, established religious doctrine, social norms, and personal responsibility.

Maniacal hatred of President Bush is defiance of reality at all levels, and also exhibits the reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility that passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality types display toward any situation they feel uncomfortable with. This explains why they hate President Bush. It’s what they do. They hate. The Nazis taught that unbridled, public hatred is acceptable and expected behavior, and we know what happened to them and their victims.

The most troubling aspect of passive-aggressive (negativistic) behavior is the extreme aggressive reaction to any negative input. The reaction is always grossly disproportionate to the provocation, whether real or imagined. In other words, it’s all just a great big tantrum. These people are just babies and they need to grow up. From Marx to Mao, the leftist agenda is nothing more than a colossal temper tantrum.

As for unlimited tax increases, unlimited government control, and unlimited social engineering, I see these as reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility toward the human race. After all, what have the people who instituted totalitarian governments actually achieved? They have actually achieved human slaughter on a titanic scale. I can think of no more profound and unambiguous expression of reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility toward the human race than Nazi Germany and the Communist States of Russia, China, and North Korea.

The modern Islamist movement--also called Islamofascism, they seek to destroy all people and things not purely and rigidly Moslem--exemplified by al Qaeda is another expression of reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility toward the human race. It is another homicidal tantrum on a par with Nazism and Communism.

The United States of America under the leadership of President Bush has issued the appropriate response for people who are gripped with the desire to act out defiantly by killing Americans: If you attack us, we can and we will hurt you, and you won’t be able to stop us.

May God bless America.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-12-14T05:45:00.000-08:00

Lethal Mythology of the Viet Nam War
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

December 13, 2005

Many people, including enemies of the U. S., continue to believe that the formula for defeating America was laid out in Viet Nam. For thirty years, they have constructed a lethal mythology that has needlessly cost the lives of tens of thousands of people.

The U. S. lost the war in Viet Nam for only one reason: The Congress of the U. S. under the control of the Democratic Party withheld the funding necessary for the ARVN (Army of Viet Nam) to continue to fight off a North Vietnamese invasion in 1975. That’s it, folks. And here is the terrible truth: The Congress did not cut off funding in 1975 to cause American troops to withdraw; the Congress cut off funding because most American troops had already withdrawn.

There was no popular uprising in favor of the Communists in 1975 in Viet Nam (or in any other year). It was a full blown, all out, old world style invasion with tanks and infantry.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban believed that they could draw American into a protracted bloodletting and eventually win (a stalemate on your own turf constitutes a win because the foreigners will have to withdraw). The Taliban invited the Americans to fight, and the Americans swept them out of power in about 90 days. Hardly the Viet Nam style ten thousand day conflict the Taliban and the other enemies of American had envisioned.

It isn’t going any better for the so-called insurgents in Iraq. Where are their tanks? Where will they get the funding and the unconditional support of any nation State? Where are their supply lines and avenues of retreat? Where are their safe havens?

Even if all allied forces withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, the enemies of self-government in Iraq will be outnumbered and slaughtered by the reconstituted Iraqi Army, and much more ruthlessly than the Americans. The terrorists don’t have the manpower and the arms to stand up to a nation State, even one as new as the Iraqi Republic.

The idea that an insurgency can overthrow an established government and set up a new nation when that insurgency is not supported by at least one nation State is a lethal fantasy that ensures the defeat of the people who believe it. The terrorists are throwing away their lives believing that the impossible is possible. Worse, they are throwing away the lives of innocent people for a war they cannot win.

The so-called insurgents, like American and European leftists, believe that America was defeated in Viet Nam. America was not defeated; America was distracted. In fact, the fall of South Viet Nam could not even be considered a military setback for the U. S. The U. S. didn’t lose territory and influence in the region.

America has sufficient manpower and resources to carry on several military actions even when public support is against one or more of those actions (American troops are currently active in Germany, Korea, the Balkans, the Caribbean, the Panama Canal, Iraq, Afghanistan, and several oceans).

As long as the terrorists believe they can win by fighting like the Viet Cong, then they will die like the Viet Cong. But then, if they had any capacity to understand simple facts, they wouldn’t be terrorists.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-12-08T05:55:00.000-08:00

Self-Hate
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

December 8, 2005

To the excessively fearful, the chief characteristic of power is its arbitrariness.
--Eric Hoffer

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
--H. L. Mencken

There’s nothing that has the power to immunize against thought so much as ideology -- and if you’re an ideologue, evidence doesn’t matter, facts don’t matter. You’re an ideologue, which means that you have a priori beliefs which cannot be dislodged by any evidence or any experience.
-- Bill Bennett

Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.
-- Eric Hoffer

Hatred is the coward’s revenge for being intimidated.
--George Bernard Shaw

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
-- Isaac Asimov

Rush Limbaugh says repeatedly that liberals can never understand conservatives. I won’t argue with that. However, conservatives aren’t having much better fortune understanding liberals.

By “liberals”, I really mean “radicals”, and I think that Limbaugh and other conservative talk-meisters have the same idea in mind. A true liberal does not seek radical change. People who seek radical change are radicals, not liberals. Liberals seek to amend the status quo. Radicals seek to overturn the status quo. In that regard, those seeking to establish massive Federal welfare programs in the 1930’s would be considered radical for their time, and those seeking to overturn those same massive Federal welfare programs today would also be considered radical today. For the sake of consistency with my conservative audience, I will use the word “liberals” instead of “radicals”, but I really mean “radicals”.

Conservative talk-meisters correctly identify hate as a primary motivation for liberals. They suppose that there must be some target for this hate. That’s how conservatives think. If someone offends you egregiously enough, it’s permissible to hate him. If there is no offense, then hate is not permissible or appropriate. Conservatives don’t believe that they have given offense sufficient to warrant the hate that liberals display. What could liberals possibly be so upset about?

In a word, “helplessness”.

Liberals consistently demonstrate that they feel overwhelmed by a sense of their own helplessness. They feel intimidated, even threatened by the normal events of life. They dread weakness in themselves and loath weakness in others. They mercilessly torment and bully those weaker than themselves. Other symptoms include anger, rage, depression, alcohol and drug use, hypersensitivity to criticism, pathological jealousy, a tendency to exaggerate facts, a tendency to fabricate facts, dramatizing ordinary events, over-dramatizing stressful events, blaming, complaining, guilt-giving, accusing, grudge holding, obsession with revenge, manipulating, intimidating, and lying.

The lying is perhaps their most confounding behavior. They will lie to you when they know that they are lying. They will lie to you when you know that they are lying. But, what is most astounding about these people is that they will lie to you when they know that you know that they are lying. They will lie to you about things that you know you have never done, as though they actually expect you to agree with them.

People who observe this behavior, people who are averse to lying because they are afraid of being accused of lying, don’t understand why people behave this way. There are two main reasons: 1) The lying helps the liar cope with the nagging sense of helplessness, and 2) they don’t think there will be any negative consequences for telling lies. Lying makes them feel empowered.

A general disdain for the truth and an unfounded faith in fantasy are consistent characteristics of liberals. They despise things that are and dream of things that can never be. David Horowitz calls a belief in utopianism the central failing of the left (meaning leftist radicals), that the world we live in must be deconstructed and a new, utopian order built in its place.

Utopia is a place of unassailable safety. People who feel helpless want to feel safe.

People who feel helpless despise people who do not feel helpless. Liberals feel helpless. Conservatives feel challenged. The only good end for liberals is to retreat into a place of safety, far away from problems. The only good end for conservatives is to resolve the problems so that they can feel safe wherever they go.

Liberals feel rage at conservatives because conservatives continue to confront the challenges that face them instead of seeking safety and comfort. Conservatives seek final resolution and in so doing make a lot of trouble. Liberals seek to avoid trouble. Avoiding trouble is more important to liberals than securing victory.

Liberals possess an unrealistic anxiety about the power of the people who threaten them. They fear winning because they fear their opponent’s revenge. Appeasement seems safer than victory to liberals.

Conservatives can’t understand this anxiety. They therefore can’t understand the rage that ensues. Conservatives can’t connect the rage that liberals feel with anything rational, and with good reason. There’s nothing rational about it. Conservatives conclude that liberals are afflicted with self-hate.

Conservatives recognize the hate, but they incorrectly conclude that liberals hate themselves. On the contrary, they tend to think much too highly of themselves. Thinking themselves much more capable than they really are helps liberals cope with their sense of helplessness. Feeling omnipotent helps ward off feelings of helplessness.

Rage gives liberals the sense of courage they otherwise lack. They direct their rage toward those they blame for causing their problems, the problems that they themselves are helpless to resolve. Lying about how terrible conservatives are serves to feed the rage. The lies have value for the emotional effects they provoke, not for revealing any substantial truth. The truth is finite; lies are infinite. Liberals could tell any lies at all, but the lies they tell about their targets have in common the intent to provoke rage against their target.

To be fair, many conservatives foment rage against liberals in much the same manner as liberals foment rage against conservatives for much the same reasons. Such people feel intimidated by their opponents, and look for any opportunity for revenge.

Confident, capable, accomplished people cause liberals considerable anxiety. People who can actually do what they say they can do antagonize liberals’ sense of helplessness, and tend to provoke extreme jealousy. Jealousy is most commonly expressed by denigrating and humiliating the target. Jealousy is not always a sense of coveting what others have accomplished. In many cases, jealousy is a feeling of having been bested or humiliated.

Rather than face the fact that they have lost, liberals tend to redefine the situation so that defeat is actually victory in some manner. Winners are redefined as oppressors, losers are redefined as victims, and victims deserve “justice”, usually meaning “revenge”.

Liberals feel easily intimidated. They feel like paper tigers, full are rage, but otherwise empty and ineffectual. When they are in a state of rage, they feel empowered, but if they are directly confronted, they crumble.

Liberals don’t suffer from self-hate. The hate that they feel is not directed inward. It is directed outward. This is called “externalizing” your feelings. People who externalize their feelings have difficulty taking responsibility for their feelings. They cannot admit that they feel angry. Their anger is always the fault of some external source. In their minds, liberals are not angry; they are innocent victims of unjust assaults. Something always makes them angry. In their minds, their anger is the unavoidable result of unjust misbehavior by malicious others.

The final determination of the legitimacy of any other person is the anger that liberals feel. If they feel angry, then the perceived external source of their anger is irrefutably and irrevocably at fault.

The sense of helplessness and intimidation, the overwhelming desire to avoid the necessary challenges of life, and the tendency to mete out condemnation solely on the basis of anger give liberals an infantile quality. Reason and facts do nothing to quell the anxieties of these fearful people, and if anything, tend to inflame their insecurities.

There is no happy ending. It is impossible to dissuade fearful people of their fearfulness. Give them a warm blanket and assure them that you won’t bother them as long as they don’t bother you. Sympathy, encouragement, criticism, advice, anger, or exasperation will only drive them farther into feelings of helplessness and provoke more passionate expressions of hostility. The harder you try to help them, the harder they will fight you. If you are so foolish as to extend the hand of friendship, expect to pull back a bloody stump.

Liberals are not afflicted with self-hate. They are afflicted with hatred of others. And they are, unfortunately, very comfortable with their own hatred.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-12-06T08:06:00.000-08:00

Hurried Writings 3
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

December 6, 2005

Not much time for posting these days. Between working for a living and having very little useable subject matter to work with, I haven’t found a reason to repeat what others have already said so well. Here are a few things that don’t warrant full blown posts.

The obsolescence of Islam
Islam reached its zenith the in modern times with the Turkish conquests. Since the Turks smashed themselves against the gates of Vienna in 1683, Islam as a political and military force has been on the decline.

Islam does not permit self-examination, and is therefore incapable of admitting to weaknesses. Failing to recognize weakness, Islam is incapable of strengthening itself. Islam tends to be rigid and doctrinaire, preferring to answer new challenges with old dogma.

The radical elements of Islam are attempting to rouse their religion from its sloth through hatred and violence, using money collected by doing business with the very infidels they have declared they will exterminate.

While some pundits foresee the Islamification of Europe within the next 50 years, I see the dilution of Islam by the Western consumerism even sooner. Calls for democratic elections in countries like Egypt and Syria make is certain that Moslems will keep Islam as a comforting relic, but reject it as a system of government.

Killing women and children
Critics of America’s war in Iraq complain bitterly about American troops killing women and children. Yet, these same critics never utter a peep about the tens of thousands of women and children American troops have saved from the fallen regime of Saddam Hussein, and from the so called insurgents how rape and murder civilians at will in the areas the Americans don’t yet control.

Don’t try to reason with them
The modern Democratic Party is a reflection of modern American culture. American children beginning in the 1950’s were taught to be consumers of entertainment, and therefore to be nothing more than passive spectators.

This learned passivity has resulted in a mentality of reflexive, reactive opposition rather than overt assertiveness. The expression of this reflexive, reactive opposition is mostly in the form of callousness and rudeness. Eric Hoffer said that rudeness is the weak man’s notion of courage.

The meanness that Americans take for entertainment is little more than an expression of personal impotence. People who actually stand up for themselves are considered to be overbearing and oppressive. People who verbally snipe from a safe distance are considered to be courageous. From what I have seen, what Americans consider to be acts of courage are little more than frantic expressions of impotent anger.

The left wing of the Democratic Party is the domain of impotent people. Impotent people are attracted to the Democratic Party by the promise of being cared for by big government.

You can’t reason with them because they hate you. They don’t hate you because you are strong; they hate you because they are weak. You can’t use the truth to counter their lies because the truth reminds them of their impotence. They hate the truth. You can’t sympathize with them because your sympathy reminds them of their impotence. They hate your sympathy. Your faith in God also reminds them of their impotence. They hate God.

They are spoilers. Their ability to upset you emotionally, to thwart your happiness, to ruin your dreams is all they have that makes them feel in any way powerful, so they use emotional provocation as their main tool. If you are not provoked, then they are impotent once again.

Don’t try to reason with them. Set limits where you must, and come to terms with the fact that they will never allow you to be their friend.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-11-09T05:29:00.000-08:00

Don’t Blame Debussy
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

November 8, 2005

Last Saturday, the local classical music station, KVOD, played a piece by Claude Debussy. Einstein must have had Debussy in mind when he was formulating his theory of relativity because Debussy’s music has the effect of causing time to slow to a crawl.

Wikipedia says this about Debussy:

Achille-Claude Debussy (August 22, 1862 – March 25, 1918) was a composer of European classical music. He developed the style commonly referred to as Impressionist music. Debussy’s music represents the transition from late-romantic music to 20th century music.

Also:

Debussy’s final music shows the composer at his most experimental. The harmonies and chord progressions frequently exploit dissonances without any formal resolution. Unlike in his earlier work, Debussy no longer hides discords in lush harmonies. The forms are far more irregular and fragmented. The whole tone scale dominates much of his late music.

“[W]ithout any formal resolution” is an understatement. There is no resolution, formal or otherwise.

I can picture Debussy’s compositions wafting irresolutely about the confines of a Parisian salon while quaffed patrons posture in the gentile manner, sip tea, and make small talk. (The thought of anyone sipping a fruity Chardonnay while listening to Debussy is unthinkable because of the temptation to slurp down the entire bottle, stagger outside, and throw oneself under the nearest bus.) These refined people make it a point to be pretentious (I was looking for a synonym for “foo foo snooty booger face” and “pretentious” was the best I could come up with.)

Debussy’s music not only finds no resolution, it is utterly unmoving. It doesn’t even move the audience to melancholy. It manages to be not unpleasant to the point of being indistinctly annoying. You barely notice it until you begin to wonder when, or if, it will ever end. No matter how intently you listen, you will never have any idea what Debussy had in mind, and you will eventually stop caring. You begin to wonder how long this thing has gone on, and how long will it last, and what’s the point of living.

Debussy’s music accurately expresses French culture. It is uncommitted, uninspiring, aloof, and self-important. To those of us who do not appreciate the fineries of French sensibilities, Debussy’s work is wimpy.

And therein lies the root of the problem.

If the French are wimps, the rioters who are rending the fabric of French life are barbarians. Wimps wish to be left to their indulgences. Barbarians wish to impose their will on others by force. The more the wimps withdraw and appease, the more the barbarians attack.

French culture since World War II has been a culture of institutionalized “wimpery”. (When wimps wimp, they may be said to be engaged in wimpery.)

Wimps assume a posture of weakness. Weak people complain, nag, blame, evade, lie, and refuse to take responsibility for themselves. If the smoke ever clears in Paris, the French will go about the business of deciding who is to blame for the destruction. (To wimps, assigning blame is vastly more important than taking responsibility.) They will reach the incomprehensible conclusion that the very people who set the fires are not responsible for the arson. This will invite the next round of riots.

But don’t blame Debussy. He didn’t cause the age of wimpery. He is just another symptom.

Juliette: “Pierre, the rioters are burning cars only half a kilometer away! What shall we do?”
Pierre: “Are you stupid? Can’t you see that the smoke will get in? Close the windows and get me a glass of wine.”

Long live the wimps!

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-10-26T05:39:00.000-07:00

A Prayer for Baby Scott
© 2005, by Guy L. Evans

October 25, 2005

Baby Scott,

May God bless you and keep you.

May God grant you the love, happiness, and safety in Heaven you could never find in life.

May your spirit bring comfort to the lonely children everywhere.

May you never be forgotten.

With love,

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-10-18T17:53:00.000-07:00

Shut Up and Vote
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

October 18, 2005

In case you don’t know by now, President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to be an associate Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. The flap and blather has become too much. I can’t stand to listen to talk radio any more.

Let me straighten everyone out on this one. Here’s how it works:

1. When a vacancy opens on the U. S. Supreme Court, the President (in this case, President George W. Bush, the second coming of Ronald Reagan, to listen to some people talk) nominates someone to fill the vacancy.
2. The Senate either approves or disapproves the nomination.

It’s just that simple.

My opinion of the President’s nominee is of no importance to the President, and shouldn’t be of any importance to the Senate, either. Neither should the opinions of any of the talking heads, either for or against the nominee.

Who cares what the talking heads think, anyway? If the talking heads on the right don’t trust President Bush by now, too stinkin’ bad because it’s too late to un-elect him.

Enough yappity yap. Tell the Senate to just shut up and vote already.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-10-04T05:44:00.000-07:00

Aborting Black Babies
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

October 4, 2005

Bill Bennett put forth the proposition that if all black babies were aborted, then the crime rate in America would go down. Bennett has been maliciously attacked for offering this proposition. In fact, Bennett offered the proposition in order to demonstrate that it was both absurd and reprehensible.

Bennett’s attackers accuse him of proposing that some social good can come from aborting the pregnancies of black mothers. However, Bennett’s attackers are hypocrites.

Every argument in favor of abortion is founded on the premise that abortion will result in greater social good. The very people who condemn Bill Bennett for suggesting that abortion can lower the crime rate have, in so many words, supported this very argument.

The argument since the 1960’s has been that poverty causes crime and that unwanted children cause poverty. The argument goes that one way to lower the overall crime rate in America is to encourage more poor women to get abortions.

Advocates of abortion need to face their own hypocrisy.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-09-28T19:23:00.000-07:00

How the Independent Contractor System Harms Taxi Companies
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

September 28, 2005

In Denver, taxi companies use independent contractor drivers, which means that the taxi companies lease their taxis to the drivers. The drivers then provide taxi service directly to consumers. The idea is that each driver is in business for himself, and that every driver is in competition with all other drivers, regardless of their company affiliation.

The argument goes that competition is good for business. But, competition at what level? Competition between players on the same football team will always result in a loss for the team. Likewise, competition between drivers who work for the same company always results in wasted effort, wasted resources, lost time, and lost revenues. It makes absolutely no sense for drivers from the same company to compete with each other for the same customer.

By analogy, what would happen to a real estate company if every real estate agent competed with each other for every sale? There will only be one commission per sale. If you pit three real estate agents against each other for the same sale, only one of them will receive a commission. The other two will make nothing, and will have wasted their time and the real estate company’s resources, time and resources that could have been used to promote another sale. It’s no different with taxis. How hard is this to understand?

I am astounded at how stupid the managers, owners, and regulators of Denver’s taxi companies really are. Think about this for just a moment. Two drivers from the same company chase after the same customer, who will pay $20.00. One driver gets there first and takes the call. The other driver just wasted his time and gasoline chasing a call that paid nothing. He is out $20.00. It is impossible to argue that this system is in any way efficient.

Ideally, the most efficient system would be to send one driver to answer one call, not five drivers to answer one call. Currently in Denver, there are too many drivers and too much competition among drivers. And consumers have to pay for this inefficiency in the form of higher rates.

The independent contractor system harms Denver taxi companies in another way because dozens of taxi drivers walk away from their companies each year without paying their lease fees. They collect revenues from consumers, but don’t pay the companies. I know of one case in which two drivers together owed one Denver taxi company over $5,000 in unpaid lease fees for over a year. I do not know, nor am I aware that anyone knows, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year taxi companies lose because independent contractor drivers don’t pay their lease fees.

Also, to my knowledge, Denver taxi companies never take drivers to court for unpaid lease fees. It seems that the contracts the companies have the drivers sign wouldn’t hold up in court, and could actually result on some taxi company employees going to prison for a long time. The result is that Denver taxi companies lose hundreds of thousands of dollars a year because drivers can’t or won’t pay their lease fees, and because taxi companies can’t or won’t try to collect the money they claim the drivers owe.

The Denver taxi companies opted for this system because they claimed that drivers were stealing too much money from them. How is the independent contractor system any different?

When the company lets a driver go $1,000 into debt to the company, and the company knows they can’t collect the money the driver owes, who is supposed to pay for that? The taxi companies have to raise the rents they charge all drivers. Rents that drivers pay the companies do not include drivers’ compensation or gasoline. Rents that drivers pay the companies provide no improvement in service, and provide no benefit whatsoever to consumers.

The inefficiency of having drivers of the same company compete with each other for the same customers, along with the money that the taxi companies lose from drivers not paying their lease fees, results in higher meter rates to consumers. Higher rates make taxi service less competitive with non-taxi alternatives. The net result is that Denver taxi companies lose millions of dollars per year in potential and actual revenues.

One other way the independent contractor system harms Denver taxi companies is that no matter how much the taxi companies raise their rents to drivers, company revenues never seem to improve. Two words: Supply and demand. The services the taxi companies provide independent contractor drivers are overpriced relative to the number of drivers on the street and the amount of available business. Every time the Denver taxi companies raise their rents, they push marginal drivers out of the system. Even with government protection from legitimate and necessary competition, Denver taxi companies’ total revenues are limited by the laws of supply and demand.

There is no demand for overpriced, unreliable taxi service (when you can get any service at all) delivered by bitchy, self-serving, disheveled, overworked, underpaid cab drivers who think they are in business for themselves and who are under no obligation to provide service to anyone.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-09-26T18:32:00.000-07:00

Shoveling Sand
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

September 26, 2005

My favorite example of wasting money on what seems like a good cause is set in the dessert. Give a man a shovel and pay him $12 per hour to shovel sand. He has a job and he’s making a living. That’s a good thing, isn’t it?

Here’s the problem: Someone is paying for this poor guy to shovel sand. What they get for their $24K per year is a very unhappy man with a shovel and a dead end job who is doing nothing worthwhile for damned little money. He isn’t providing any benefit for anyone. He isn’t making enough money to go to school and improve his lot. He can’t save a dime. He’s screwed.

I continue to argue that the only way to succeed is to define your objectives and argue about the methods later. The man with the shovel example above is a bad case of confusing the method with the objective. It isn’t how much you spend that matters; it’s what happens after you spend it.

It makes no sense to employ people in activities that benefit no one. It makes even less sense to spend tax dollars the same way. Building houses that no one can live in and roads that don’t go anywhere may benefit the construction companies involved, but after they leave, no one benefits.

Do you buy jars of peanut butter just to fill up your shelves? Do you buy bottled water just so you can pour it down the drain? I don’t know about you, but when I spend a dollar, I intend to get more than a dollar’s worth of benefit. Otherwise, why spend money at all?

Spending money to solve a problem is only warranted when some lasting benefit results. Otherwise, we might as well spend our time building sand castles on the beach, or shoveling sand in the dessert.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-09-20T15:44:00.000-07:00

Hurricane Rita Update
Weather report © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

September 20, 2005

As I stand atop Lookout Mountain just west of Denver, Colorado, I scan the eastern horizon for any signs of Hurricane Rita.

Nothing.

I’ll keep you posted if anything develops.

Later.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-09-15T06:02:00.000-07:00

To Pledge or Not to Pledge
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

September 14, 2005

While our nation is at war with a religiously motivated, fanatic, genocidal enemy, Americans fuss with each other over the wording of--get ready for this one--the Pledge of Allegiance. I’m not making this up.

At issue is whether school children can be allowed (not compelled, allowed) to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the words “under God”. (I am stupefied.)

What is the purpose of asking people to learn and recite the Pledge of Allegiance? What do the words of the Pledge actually mean?

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a binding oath. It seems to be more of a team building effort than a request for an actual commitment to act on behalf of our nation.

So, what’s the point? What good does it do to recite the Pledge, and what harm does it do to not recite the Pledge? In the converse, what harm does it do to recite the Pledge, and what good does it do to not recite the Pledge? More important, what is the point of asking children to recite a Pledge of Allegiance when they may not even understand what a pledge is or what allegiance means?

I suggest that a meaningful Pledge of Allegiance should be written for adults, not children. Here is my submission:

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America. I pledge my honor to defend the Constitution of the United States, and to defend our nation, our people, our laws, our liberty, and our heritage.

You could even throw in a “so help me God” at the end if you want to. But then, you’d be inviting the lefty crackpots to claim that you are establishing a religion.

For children, you might consider something more along the lines of promising to learn about America and to love our country, our liberty, and our heritage. It is worthwhile to teach children, and other Americans, that hundreds of thousands of people who lived before us gave their lives, their labor, their love, and their blood so that we could reap the benefits of liberty, so that we could live free.

I pray God bless America. And I pray that Americans will continue the revolution of individual liberty, private property, and the rule of law.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-09-13T21:37:00.000-07:00

Hurried Writings 1
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

September 13, 2005

I just don’t have the time I used to have to write full essays. So, here are some hurried writings from a hurried writer.

An Age of Suicide
While the West is attempting suicide through birth control (including abortion), drugs, and general over-indulgence, Islam is attempting suicide through al Qaeda. The number of Moslems being ambushed and slaughtered by the cowards of al Qaeda greatly exceeds the number of infidels al Qaeda is murdering. At this rate, with Moslems killing themselves in the act of killing other Moslems by the dozens, it won’t be long before there aren’t many Moslems left.

For the morally superior, it should be noted that the hundreds of Iraqi’s being blown to meat chunks by “suicide bombers” causes the Western eyebrow to scarcely rise, while a single attack in Britain arouses great consternation. It should also be noted that leftists have no sympathy for Iraqi’s slaughtered by the dozens unless Americans are doing the slaughtering.

Hitler Wore Pants
The left is fond of making analogies to Hitler, and calling people fascists and Nazis. In their narrow minds, if you do anything similar to Hitler, that alone is evidence that you are a closet Nazi.

For your information, one of Hitler’s first acts was to confiscate all private firearms. Hitler was an animal lover and a vegetarian. Hitler condemned the Soviet Union (something the American left never does). And, oh, by the way, Hitler wore pants.

Therefore, if you wear pants and are in favor of gun control, according to the weak-minded left, you must be a Nazi.

Culture is the Foundation of Civilization
You can’t have a Roman Empire without Romans. The Roman Empire became extinct because the population became de-Romanized.

You can’t have America without Americans. The left is trying to de-Americanize the population from within through the media, the courts, and the schools.

If you went back in time and gave the U. S. Constitution to Attila the Hun, all you would have is a barbarian lord with an extra piece of paper.

In other words, culture matters. The only way the United States will survive is to embrace and promote a culture that loves human beings, and that loves being human.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-09-10T12:39:00.000-07:00

The Case Against Transferability
Halting the abuse of government authority in regulating taxis
© 2005, by Guy L. Evans

September 10, 2005

In New York City, they are medallions. In Portland, Oregon and Dublin, Ireland, they are plates. In Denver, Colorado, they are Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity.

They are licenses to operate taxis for hire, and they are the source of all the troubles that government and the public experience with the taxi industry today. In this essay, I offer a concise explanation of the situation, the harm it causes, and the remedies.

Note: I owe a debt of gratitude to the Dublin Competition Authority for their research and insight into this matter. It seems the Irish have a knack for saving civilization.

Illusory property rights and their consequences:
Government issues licenses to permit people and business to do things that are otherwise prohibited, such as operating a motor vehicle on the public highways. I do not know of any case in which government sells licenses. (Hunting and fishing licenses aren’t actually sold. The license will expire without government compensation to the licensee, and government is under no obligation to buy the license back.) Government does not establish a property interest in licenses either for themselves or for the licensee. It was originally understood that creating a property interest in the license placed government at a disadvantage, making it difficult and sometimes impossible for government to enforce the law. This is why drivers’ licenses and professional licenses do not have property values, why the people who hold these licenses do not have an actual property interest in the licenses, and why these licenses have mandatory expiration periods.

However, for taxis, this is not the case.

Government and the people who acquire taxi licenses both presume that the license is the property of the licensee. (I want to emphasize the word “presume” because, if tested, neither government nor the licensees could establish a property interest in the licenses. Banks and other lenders will not accept licenses as collateral. It’s their money that would be at risk. They should know.) When and how this happened is unclear, but it seems to have happened during the Great Depression.

The proof that the license is not the property of the licensee is that government may revoke the license without compensating the licensee in any way. Government didn’t sell the licenses, and government is under no obligation to buy the licenses back.

The licensees use the presumption of their property rights to the license to argue that certain actions of government will constitute a “taking” of the license, creating such a severe devaluation of the license as to render it worthless. This turns the relationship between government and the licensees on its head. The licensees argue, and government agrees, that government can’t issue new licenses, revoke existing licenses, or even enforce the law in any way that might significantly diminish the property value of the license.

By asserting that the license has property value, the licensees are insinuating that they possess a title to the license, and that this title creates certain entitlements for as long as they hold the license. Using this mental slight of hand, the licensees transform themselves from mere entrepreneurs into titled property owners with distinct privileges of their class. They create a kind of neo-feudalism, casting themselves in the role of vassals of the State (both protected by and subservient to the State), effectively entitled to exercise State authority over other people.

By stating the proposition that licensees are authorized to exercise certain powers of government over other people and are protected against certain laws, rules, and regulations, the absurdity of their position is revealed. The license has no property value; therefore, the licensee is not protected against “takings”. There are no “takings” if government issues more licenses, or alters or revokes existing licenses. The licensee is not entitled to the license, and government is obligated to enforce the law against the licensees. Government is also obliged to issue sufficient numbers of licenses to meet public demands for taxi service.

To give the point a punctuation, in the mid 1980’s, one of the Denver area taxi companies proposed selling some of their licenses to a competing taxi company for about $240,000, and then applying for more licenses for the minimal cost of the new issuance fee. It would have been the easiest $240,000 they ever made if government hadn’t denied their request.

The entire system amounts to a grossly inefficient use of resources and labor with monumental overhead for nothing more than the enrichment of a privileged class of license holders. It seems that government and licensees are hell bent on turning America into Mexico one taxi license at a time.

Restricted licenses versus unrestricted entry:
Agreeing to the demands of licensees to protect the property value of the existing licenses, government restricts the number of licenses issued, thereby creating artificial shortages for taxi service. The licensees then capitalize on the artificial shortage by charging lessee taxi drivers exorbitant fees for the privilege of providing the taxi service that government refuses to allow. The difference is that government issues a license for a fee, whereas the licensees charge rent (lease fees, license fees, payoff, or any number of other terms--it’s still rent). Some licensees make tens of thousands of dollars a year on rents, far more than the fee government would charge to issue a new license.

While government protects the presumed property interests of the licensees by restricting the number of licenses they issue, the licensees grant unlimited entry into the market for as many lessee taxi drivers as they can sign up. In markets where this rent seekers versus urban sharecroppers system is in place, there are too many drivers fighting over too few high paying customers. (Low paying customers are ignored because, between unrestricted rents and restricted meter rates, lessee taxi drivers can’t afford to give them service.)

Licensees have usurped the role of government in allowing entry into the market, charging excessive rents, while allowing unrestricted entry into the market, and government has allowed them to get away with it. Licensees are profiting greatly from usurping the legitimate government function of allowing entry into the market. However, licensees are not entitled to compensation merely for holding the license. They have to perform some service, or offer something of value. Offering entry into the taxi market is not a service that the licensee is licensed to offer. Only government can offer such entry.

Government permits the licensee rent seekers to use the authority of the government-issued license to demand rent from lessee taxi drivers. The lease fee is a type of confiscation, more a tax than a rent. However, government does not profit from this tax; only the licensee rent seekers benefit. Government and the licensees are equally at fault.

Real harm:
There are grounds for action by both consumers and lessee drivers.

Lessee drivers and consumers are harmed by this system. Lessee drivers are paying a premium to the licensee rent seekers for entry into the market, a premium that they would not have to pay if government simply issued the number of licenses that public demand for taxi service requires. Compensation that is due to the lessee drivers for the service they provide is being confiscated by the licensee rent seekers for the privilege of being allowed to offer taxi service to the public--a privilege granted by government to the licensee but not to the lessee driver. I consider charging the driver a fee to rent the license an unjust and unlawful confiscation of the lessee taxi driver’s property (income, labor, and other compensation) for no benefit to the driver or to the public. The lessee is not receiving anything of value in return for the rents that he pays. You can’t legitimately enter into a contract to rent out something in which you have no property interest. Licensees have no legitimate property interest in their licenses, and in my opinion, the licensee rent seekers are defrauding the lessee taxi drivers to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Government is both a party to and a participant in this fraud.

The rent seekers versus urban sharecroppers system also has a corrupting influence on drivers that endangers the public. The lessee drivers pay a premium to the licensee rent seekers. The drivers have to make up the difference any way they can. They are motivated to cheat, and there are considerable financial rewards for cheating. Where cheaters have an economic advantage, cheaters prosper and drive the honest people out of the business. Also, drivers tend to chase high paying customers and ignore low paying customers. Drivers are also known to be abusive toward low paying customers.

The public has cause for action because most taxi drivers are not properly screened (it’s impossible to do criminal background checks on people from many African and Asian countries), are motivated by desperation because of restricted meter rates and unrestricted rents, and often swindle and otherwise abuse customers. Consumers also have cause for action because they pay for the premium the rent seekers charge either in the form of higher rates, lower service, or a combination of both. (In the case of some indigent elder in Denver, there is no service at all.) Consumers are being swindled out of millions of dollars a year by this system.

This is the critical point: The rents that licensee rent seekers charge the lessee taxi drivers provide no benefit to the public, and serve only to enrich the licensee rent seekers at the expense of consumers and lessee taxi drivers. Government has unjustly and unreasonably created a shortage of taxi service by restricting the number of licenses, and the current license holders capitalize on that shortage by acting as license brokers, in effect providing unlimited licenses for personal profit. The license holders are saying in effect, “Government won’t let taxi drivers offer service, but we will. All you have to do is pay extra.” The public is paying a premium for nothing more than the unjust (and I argue unlawful) enrichment of the licensee rent seekers.

The remedy:
All of the problems with the presumed property rights of licensees and most of the harm done to consumers and lessee taxi drivers can be rectified in a single stroke: Enjoin licensees from selling, assigning, encumbering, leasing, or in any manner or by any means transferring the license and any and all rights and interests under the license including the vehicle(s) that are licensed to be taxis.

Also, it is necessary to impose expirations on licenses and to require periodic renewal of licenses. Rates must also be liberalized to allow greater flexibility for taxi operators to provide different service for different markets. One-size-fits-all rates never work for any business.

The rule of law versus political agendas:
Permitting and encouraging licensees to charge rents for allowing entry into the taxi market is an abuse of government authority that harms the public. It is a direct challenge to the rule of law. However, both liberals and conservatives seem more interested in their political agendas than they are in defending the rule of law against the abuse of government authority.

Conservatives are fixated on the threat to property rights, and can’t seem to come to grips with the fact the licenses aren’t the property of the licensees. Liberals think that government is entitled to create a vassal class of privileged licensee rent seekers. Liberals think that deputizing licensees to be gatekeepers for entry into the market is perfectly legitimate, and that government can exercise sufficient control to prevent abuses by licensee rent seekers.

In a pig’s eye.

The other impediment to restoring the rule of law is institutional recalcitrance. Once government bureaucrats and their licensee vassals acquire the ability to abuse the authority of government, they never let go of it without a fight. It doesn’t matter what evidence you present, or how wrong they know they are, they will fight you.

Those of us who see the real consequences of this system, who see the real people who really suffer from the abuse of government authority, understand that the system must be corrected, and the rule of law must be restored. The suffering of the people harmed by this system is unnecessary and inexcusable.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-09-03T08:59:00.000-07:00

Choosing to be Poor
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

September 3, 2005

I heard another stupid conservative make the same stupid statement:

Poor people choose to be poor.

All right. Let’s get this straight once and for all. Poor people make choices that result in being poor. Expect for religious commitments, I don’t know anyone who chooses to be poor. Poverty is the result of the choices, not the goal. Get it?

Results are not always goals. This is called unintended consequences. For example, a multi-millionaire makes a poor choice in investments and ends up poor. Following the stupid reasoning of the stupid conservative, the investor chose to impoverish himself.

Nonsense.

I suppose I ought to conclude that the stupid conservative who made the stupid statement chose to be stupid, but I won’t. Enjoy your weekend.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-08-22T18:23:00.000-07:00

Why the Democrats Will Keep Losing
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

August 22, 2005

Hugh Hewitt links his readers to an article in the Washington Post by Peter Baker (Monday, August 22, 2005) entitled Democrats Split over Position on Iraq War.

Of interest is the strategy the Democrats are employing to guarantee that they will lose more and more elections.

The wariness [in criticizing Bush’s handling of the war]...reflects a belief among some in the opposition that proposals to force troop drawdowns or otherwise limit Bush’s options would be perceived by many voters as defeatist.

The reality is that voters already perceive opposition to the war as defeatist.

The internal schism has become all the more evident in recent weeks even as Americans have soured on Bush and the war in poll after poll.

It should be noted here that Baker never sites any actual data. If there are any such polls, you would think that the Washington Post would want them repeated here verbatim. Baker makes an assertion that he fails to verify.

In delivering the Democrats’ weekly radio address yesterday, former senator Max Cleland (Ga.), a war hero who lost three limbs in Vietnam, declared that “it’s time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out.”

The omission is glaring: Max Cleland “lost three limbs” in a motor vehicle accident, not in combat.

The Democrats resort to a strategy of defining victory as defeat. In two years of combat operations, the U. S. has lost more than 1,800 troops. The U. S. lost more than 6,800 killed in 36 days of combat on Iwo Jima. From September 5 through September 10, 1914, over 500,000 troops from both sides were killed or wounded in the First Battle of the Marne River. The dictatorship of Iraq has been defeated, disbursed, and abolished. The people of Iraq elected a new government last year. If the war in Iraq is not a victory, then please define “victory”. According to the Democrats, victory in Iraq is simply not possible because nothing the Bush administration does will please them. However, being impossible to please is not a strategy for winning elections.

As for getting out, why? We’re still in Germany and Korea. We still have bases in Japan. We maintain forces in Cuba. Why get out of Iraq?

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who rose to public prominence on an antiwar presidential campaign, said on television a week ago that it was the responsibility of the president, not the opposition, to come up with a plan for Iraq.

This is an admission by the Democrats that they aren’t going to take responsibility for the war in Iraq, and that they are going to hand over the entire operation, for better or for worse, to the Republicans. This makes the Republicans look like responsible adults, and the Democrats look like slackers. The “Hey! It’s not our problem” approach only guarantees that the voters will not look to the Democrats for leadership.

Steve Elmendorf, a senior party strategist whose former boss, then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq [said,] “The difficulty of coming to a unified position is that for a lot of people who voted for it, they have to decide whether they can admit that they were misled.”

Again, Bush “misled” the Democrats into taking America to war in Iraq. The unspoken assertion here is that if Bush is such an idiot, what does it say about Democratic congressional leaders who were “misled” into committing the United States to war in Iraq? If Bush is a moron, and the Democrats are too stupid to outwit him, why vote for Democrats?

[Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.)] said, “We have to go on the offensive to show the American people that we’re not afraid to disagree.”

That’s about it, folks. The Democrats are going to “show the American people that we’re not afraid to disagree.” Be still my spleen. Added to being impossible to please, disagreeing with Bush doesn’t amount to a campaign strategy. If all the Democrats have to offer is reacting to initiatives by the Republicans, then the Democrats have no chance of capturing the voters’ confidence.

Unscientific Internet polls showed support rising [among liberal Internet bloggers] for a Feingold presidential run in 2008.

Oh, please! Oh, please! Oh, please! Oh, please! Oh, please! Oh, please! Oh, please! Oh, please!

In a Washington Post-ABC News poll in June, just 42 percent of Americans approved of congressional Democrats, a figure even lower than Bush’s.

This is interesting. Above, Baker asserted but did not verify that public approval for the war in Iraq is dropping. Here, however, he sites an actual poll (by his own pro-Democrat paper) showing that Democrats are less popular than Bush. Considering that Washington Post-ABC News polls tend to be slanted toward the Democrat position by several points, it could be that only 32 percent of Americans actually approved of congressional Democrats. Apparently, the fact that Americans don’t approve of congressional Democrats hasn’t been processed by anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-American-victory-in-any-war Democrats. Americans hate war, but they hate defeatist Democrats even more.

“Many of us are talking about the war, talking about the costs,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.)

When you want to publicly oppose something, always talk about the costs, never about he benefits. Yes, war carries a greater cost than we would choose to pay under normal circumstances. However, the cost of any war is accurately judged only by the cost of losing it.

“The American people are much farther ahead in their thinking about the war than the White House or the Republican Congress,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). “They understand we can’t continue down this same failed course in Iraq.”

Ted Kennedy, mind reader. The term “the American people” is indeterminate in number. We can’t know how many people Kennedy is talking about. If he means a handful of Americans, then he is right. However, his statement makes it clear that he is one of the congressional Democrats the Washington Post-ABC News poll is referring to.

The Democratic Party resembles little more than a group therapy for people with passive-aggressive, paranoid, oppositional, and negativistic tendencies. They have no idea how obnoxious they are. They cannot understand their negative and defeatist tone puts people off.

They are self-deluded. They are able to apprehend facts, but unable to interpret them. Their position is rigid. Any facts that do not fit their vision of themselves (such as the Washington Post-ABC News poll numbers showing their low approval ratings) are simply not apprehended. They don’t even go to the trouble of refuting the facts; they just don’t see them. Stop sign, officer? What stop sign?

They are self-destructive. They would rather quit than do the hard work of finishing the job. You can always ensure failure by quitting before the job is finished.

They are spoilers. Democrats are more committed to spoiling life for the Republicans than they are in winning elections for themselves, even if it means ruining their own chances for victory in the future.

Their behavior is maladaptive. They insist on doing things the same way over and over, choosing to relive what they think is their victory over Richard Nixon rather than face the facts in front of them.

They refuse to take responsibility for their own behavior. When their actions result in failure, they look for enemies to blame. It’s the perfect strategy for continued defeat. Try something that can’t work, and when it fails, look for scapegoats. Humility and self-examination be damned. Bush lied! Blaming others ensures that Democrats will be unable to learn from their mistakes. What is worse, they will be unable to learn from their successes, either.

Planning to thwart Bush’s expectations and being defeatist, negative, and obnoxious only guarantees that Democrats will keep losing elections. This is all bad news for the Democrats, but good news for America--we just can’t trust our nation’s future to a mob of self-deluded spoilers.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-08-16T06:08:00.000-07:00

Feeling Better about the Democratic Party
Opinion ©2005, by Guy L. Evans

August 16, 2005

Hugh Hewitt points his readers to an article by Dean Barnett. Barnett’s article quotes some subject matter from a leftwing blog that is XXX rated, so be forewarned. Barnett makes some sound observations about the recent election in Ohio:

“While [Paul] Hackett shared little with the liberal blogosphere in terms of substantive positions, they did have one thing in common--a mutual fondness for bilious and spiteful rhetoric.”

“In spite of being a moderate, bloggers fell in love with Hackett based on little more than a shared fondness for juvenile insults and a mutual loathing of George W. Bush.”

“The shift from the DCCC to the blogs may signal that the Democratic party will no longer even pretend to be a party of ideas, but will instead become a party of oppositionism somewhat akin to Great Britain’s current sad sack of Tories.”

Barnett notes that the lefty bloggers are passing around something they are calling a litmus test for Democrat candidates, but which on examination appears to be nothing more than the usual pointless babbling that is standard among leftist hate-mongers. Daily Kos has a copy of this litmus test, and says this about the matter:

“In reality, it’s about who controls the money. And that’s why the DLC is becoming irrelevant (hence the importance to them of the Hillary pact), and why it is doomed to irrelevance.”

Barnett notes what I have thought for some time, that the lefty filth-mongers are interested in nothing more than an unending verbal diarrhea of obscenities and hate--the more repulsive, the better. My conclusion is that the image of the Democratic Party is taking on the character of these immature, nauseating, self-indulgent twaddle-heads who are too self-deluded to comprehend that their own behavior is the cause of their political loses. Never mind their politics (if they even have any), such people are too self-destructive to be trusted with power.

No one wants a skunk in their living room. The more vile they become, the better I feel about the Democratic Party.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-08-05T06:57:00.000-07:00

Seeing Only Evil
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

August 5, 2005

I just finished reading a great article by Barry Loberfeld at FrontPageMag.com,

Requiem for the Left
By Barry Loberfeld
FrontPageMagazine.com, August 5, 2005

The following excerpts appear on page 2 of the article:

On the face of it, the very concept of a “rape culture” is an absurdity. How does one logically contend that the crimes of sociopaths reflect the values of society? Are we similarly a pedophilia culture, a murder culture, etc.? What, then, do feminists gain from this demonization of everyone else?

The canonization of themselves. It is widely but erroneously believed that Nietzsche’s “beyond good and evil” refers to the rejection of any notion of right and wrong. He was in fact comparing two warring archetypes of right and wrong: “good and evil” vs. “good and bad.” Among the differences, the man of “good and bad” wants an “enemy” in whom “there is nothing to despise and very much to honor,” he explains in On the Genealogy of Morals.

Picture, on the other hand, “the enemy” as the man of [“good and evil”] conceives him -- and here precisely is his deed, his creation: he has conceived “the evil enemy,” “the Evil One,” and this indeed is his basic conception from which he then evolves, as a corresponding and opposing figure, a “good one” -- himself!
It is the evil of the Other that determines the good of oneself. Consequently, the greater the former, the greater the latter. What moral distinction did self-professed “feminists” gain from opposing only rape? Not much: Who doesn’t oppose rape? In contrast, the anti-pornography campaign cast them in the role of crusaders -- against violence and for “equality” and “civil rights.” But even this placed them only in the company -- i.e., on the same moral plane -- as the Religious Right and many other Americans. But the “rape culture”! Now their moral distinction, their moral superiority, was unmistakable when contrasted to the great evil of the masses.

No matter what language a person uses, the Left reserves the right to condemn it for bias -- and to damn him as evil.

(And to exempt itself from any standard. ...)

The “moral” impulse of the Left is (to borrow the poet’s terms) the passionate intensity of the worst who think themselves the best.

Loberfeld concludes with:

Leftism constantly reveals itself for what so many have called it: a religious dogma. The religious aspects are innumerable, including the doctrine of a sinful humanity that needs the saving gospel of an elect that itself cannot fall from grace, an elect ordained to construct and control an earthly theocracy. The dogma is to be found in the attempts to juggle internal contradictions and insulate itself from empirical falsification. When the vision before one’s eyes is eclipsed by the vision behind one’s eyes, dogmas become outright delusions. And just as the sun itself is useless to a blind man, all the reality in the world will not liberate a mind enslaved by delusions, be they of grandeur or anything else.

There isn’t much to add, except that I have to eat some crow. I have never been a fan of Nietzsche, and I usually tell people to avoid him. However, in his statements quoted above, he hits the nail on the head. For some people, the only good is opposition to some self-defined evil. Define something as evil, then oppose it. Bingo! Instant moral superiority!

When a person convinces himself that he is able to define good and evil on his own terms, there is no end to the evil he can commit. And , as Loberfeld points out, the whole purpose of this exercise is to gain self-importance. The greater the evil you oppose, the greater your own good. Such people define themselves by the greatness of their enemies. This is narcissism with paranoid and passive aggressive aspects. This is nothing but self-determined self-importance.

And that pretty much sums up all radical, hostile ideologies: Self-aggrandizing, self-admiring, self-righteous, self-defining, self-entitled, and utterly unaccountable to any authority except their own. The Leftism that Loberfeld describes is basically the expression of arrogant brats who feel that they get to make up the rules by which everyone else will live.

In fact, Leftism is not an ideology at all. It is merely a convenient vehicle for immature minds to excuse themselves from any responsibility they may have for ruining their own lives and the lives of other people. No matter what damage they inflict on themselves and others, their remedy is to always assert that they are heroically opposing some greater evil.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-07-15T05:58:00.000-07:00

Auditioning for Champion
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

July 15, 2005

The following is quoted from page 2 of this article from The Daily Standard:

The Electoral-Based Community
Why the rise of the left-wing blogosphere has been bad for the Democratic party.
by Dean Barnett
07/15/2005 12:00:00 AM

Perhaps most pathetically, these politicians’ earnest efforts to win Moulitsas’s affections often fall flat. On the Daily Kos, the “front page” gets the heaviest traffic; a typical diary languishes in obscurity, one of dozens of similar efforts offered each day by the community unless Moulitsas plucks it from relative anonymity and promotes it to the front page. The vast majority of diaries written by politicians for the site do not get promoted to the front page. Moulitsas didn’t even deem Ted Kennedy’s screed worthy of special note.

Yet the kowtowing continues. What makes the endeavor ridiculous is that Moulitsas and other left-wing bloggers want substance: They don’t want their rhetorical style aped--they want a politician to champion their far-left views. And yet the Democratic party has adopted the juvenile patois of the left-wing blogs without any corresponding shift in position, so they continue to pitch their woo in vain. These stylistic makeovers are transparent and therefore unsuccessful; the left-wing blog readers presumably see as clearly as anyone else that Harry Reid is an unconvincing firebrand, Ted Kennedy is not a credible champion of accountability, and Robert Byrd is a preposterous nominee for American hero.

I am reminded of the following quote:

“The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the single handed defiance of the world.” -- Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

It appears that the Left is shopping for their champion, for someone who truly believes their vision of the world. They want someone who with “single handed defiance of the world” will emerge from the wilderness and sweep America to a new age of enlightenment.

You have to feel sorry for them, in a way. After all, champions are rare. The problem for the American left is that you just never know if your champion will be Moses or Hitler. For example, just when the left thought that Howard Dean might be their champion, he turned out to be a fool.

The modern American left needs a champion. They are incompetent, immature people who rely on strongly held fantasies of exaggerated self-worth to fortify them against the frustrations and defeats they encounter in real life. They have lost their self-confidence. They feel defeated. And like defeated people throughout history, they dream of a champion to rescue them from uncertainty and disappointment.

On an aside, self-examination is not an option for these people. If they discovered that they could achieve their aims by simply changing their behavior, then they are afraid that they may actually turn into *gasp* Republicans! They prefer familiar, self-defeating behaviors to unfamiliar, self-fulfilling behaviors.

The Modern American left needs a champion because everything they do fails. A champion can’t fail. The big names in the Democratic Party continue to audition for the role of Champion, but so far, they are all falling short.

The problem for the paranoid, narcissistic left is in their maladaptive behavior, and ultimately in their incapacity to understand that they are defeating themselves. The good news (or, the bad news, depending on your point of view) is that they will only get worse as they grow older.

They are responsible for their own behavior, and are therefore worthy of little if any pity.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-07-13T05:40:00.000-07:00

Miso’s Warped Mind
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

July 13, 2005

The following is an excerpt of a letter that I sent to a family whose child is severely disturbed. I have changed the name and gender so that the child in question is presented as a male. I do this in the hope that you may see some similarities in people you know, especially people who provoke uncontrollable hostility in you.

I no longer communicate with this family. Their child’s capacity to provoke hostility in me is greater than my ability to dispel that hostility. Knowing my own limitations, I advised them to get their child into counseling, and let them know that I could not do anything for them. It is a sad situation. However, I am satisfied that I have done all that I can do.

Note: Miso is derived from the Greek word for hatred. The child in question possesses a pathological hatred for everyone and everything, and is gripped by paranoia.

[Begin text]

It has been quite the adventure learning what makes Miso tick. I have come to the conclusion that there is only one word to describe him:

“Invincible”

By his own set of rules (that no one else is privy to), Miso is invincible. He takes every fact that enters his mind and bends it and shapes it until it turns out magically that he is the pitiable, misunderstood victim of other people’s evil schemes. By his own judgment, Miso--who is deliberately rude, critical, hostile, abusive, contemptuous, manipulative, and dishonest--never does anything wrong. Yet other people who do exactly the same things to Miso that he does to them are evil, guilty, and incompetent. Miso’s capacity to warp reality is astonishing.

Miso is a jukebox that plays only one song. No matter what buttons you push, all you get is irrational, overstated hostility and inconsolable bitterness. If you are nice to him, he attacks you. If you are angry with him, he attacks you. Nothing you do or say can dissuade him from attacking you. In his world, other people are bad and he is good; therefore, anything he does is good, and everything you do is bad, even when it’s the same thing. He is so irrational that he can’t even admit that he is being abusive and hostile.

Eventually, reality and Miso will collide, and Miso will lose. It’s happened so many times before that you think he would have learned by now. But, he is incapable of learning. He is in a power struggle with the Cosmos, and the Cosmos is going to chew him up and spit him out.

He has constructed a system that permits him to excuse his own behavior by accusing other people of bad behavior. Excusing himself by accusing others makes Miso feel invincible. It’s so simple. The accusation that you did something bad, whether true or not, expunges all guilt from Miso. There’s no point in examining Miso’s behavior because yours is so much worse. In his mind, it works every time.

For him, his system of bending reality to suit his needs works so well that he has no incentive to change. He can get his emotional needs met by simply convincing himself that he is right about everything. He has developed the capacity to magically transform his ignorance into divine inspiration, and his imagination into reality. This is very damaging and dangerous for him, but he believes he is invincible.

He is convinced that he has found the perfect scheme for evading responsibility for his own behavior and taking advantage of other people. Miso is a manipulator.

Miso can’t give what he doesn’t possess. I find it impossible to image that Miso, so completely lacking in empathy, joy, education, and a sense of humor, can be a good [friend]. His ceaseless hostility, anger, pouting, blaming, criticizing, and gloom must be taking a terrible toll on [his friends]. His act about being impossible to please and putting other people into situations where everything they do is wrong [drives everyone] crazy.

He sees himself as the pitiable, blameless, Uber-Victim of other people’s meanness and incompetence. Other people see him as aloof, critical, ignorant, unpleaseable, uncompromising, unempathetic, hostile, abusive, dishonest, know-it-all, manipulative, and slightly crazy.

I don’t know if the rest of you can help him. Please try to stop enabling him. I know you feel guilty about being angry with him. Don’t feel guilty. Miso is responsible for his own feelings and behavior; you are not.

Miso needs to learn how to ask for favors instead of demanding obedience, issuing commands and threats, and engaging in crazy talk. And he needs to learn how to accept “no” as an answer without going to pieces.

I’d like to help him understand that making everyone else miserable is simply wrong. He has no right to make other people suffer any more than they have any right to make him suffer.

But, Miso is invincible, at least in his own mind. He is impervious. He doesn’t need to learn how to do things differently when he already knows how to transfer blame to the rest of the guilty human race that angers him so.

[End text]

The child in question is such a mess because the parents never held the child accountable for his/her behavior. The child has been able to evade responsibility by manipulating the parents, and now the situation is a catastrophe. The parents fear the child’s tantrums, and seek appeasement to keep him/her calm. They live in fear of their own child.

Please pray for these people. Thank you.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-07-11T05:55:00.000-07:00

The Joy of Hating Bush
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

July 11, 2005

While reviewing an article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I ran into this revealing comment:

NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) affect is generally nonchalant, imperturbable, and characterized by feigned tranquility. This changes when individuals with NPD experience a loss of confidence. Then they become enraged and may experience feelings of shame and emptiness. If these individuals lose their narcissistic feelings of easy superiority, they become irritable, annoyed, and subject to repeated bouts of dejection and humiliation (Millon & Davis, pp. 405-408).

Richards (1993, p. 249) notes that individuals with NPD frequently experience rage, indignation, and frustrated entitlement. Kernberg (1992, pp. 21-22) suggests that hatred is the core affect of severe personality disorders. He believes that the hatred derives from rage which, early in life, served to eliminate pain but became useful, later in life, to eliminate obstacles to gratification. Beck (1990, p. 235) suggests that individuals with NPD experience intense envy, fear, and rage. They are particularly angry when others do not accord them admiration or respect (Beck, 1990, p. 50).

NPD rage is more tolerable to these individuals than the shame and envy that is associated with helplessness, a sense of ugliness, and impotence (McWilliams, 1994, p. 172).

Of greatest importance is the comment, “Kernberg (1992, pp. 21-22) suggests that hatred is the core affect of severe personality disorders. He believes that the hatred derives from rage which, early in life, served to eliminate pain but became useful, later in life, to eliminate obstacles to gratification.”

In short, hatred serves to eradicate pain and to eliminate obstacles to gratification. The Bush haters hate Bush because it is the most effect method they have for coping with the unacceptable reality that he, George W. Bush, is actually the President of the United States. In their minds, it is better to fill your soul with hate than to calmly accept the unpleasant reality of the situation.

This seems bizarre to normal people. I think it is bizarre. But, with this understanding, it puts the Bush haters into perspective. They can’t handle reality. They can’t tolerate being told that they lost. They are spoiled, crybaby brats. They should go to their rooms until they learn to behave themselves.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If you hate George W. Bush, grow up.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-07-10T10:40:00.000-07:00

Controlling Hugh Hewitt’s Impulses
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

July 10, 2005

Last Friday, July 8, 2005, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant. Oliphant is on the record as calling government assertions that the U. S. is making progress in pacifying Iraq “bunkum”.

Hugh pressed his guest on the subject of attacking Iran. Hugh posed the hypothetical question of whether the U. S. should attack Iran if we could verify that Iran was within one week of having a nuclear weapon. Oliphant’s answer was that under no circumstances should be attack Iran because “we haven’t thought through enough this question of what we’d do the day after we satisfy our impulses.” The link to the transcript of the interview is at Radioblogger. Hugh ran out of time, and the interview ended.

In my opinion, Oliphant’s comment was a direct provocation. Hugh Hewitt is a bright guy. However, Hugh, like most conservatives, continues to make one critical mistake when dealing with liberals: He continues to presume that their thinking is rational.

Liberals are paranoid and passive aggressive. They experience anxiety. They interpret these feelings as evidence of maliciousness, callousness, and incompetence by other people. They assign blame to others without ever taking responsibility for their own participation in the matter. They feel strong hostility toward people they don’t trust. They tend to be impulsive. They act out their hostility, but are afraid to do so directly. So, they do what Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant did; they say or do something to provoke people, but they do it in such a way as to avoid direct confrontation.

By inserting the supposition that the U. S. attacks other countries out of impulse without leaving Hugh Hewitt the opportunity to respond, Tom Oliphant achieved his goal. He tweaked Hugh, and left him unable to respond--sort of an intellectual hit-and-run. This is what liberals consider to be a victory. I imagine that Oliphant went away from the interview thinking he really got in a good shot at the end.

Hugh Hewitt, and conservatives in general, need to familiarize themselves with the paranoid, passive aggressive personality types. Here are links to two outstanding articles that will help everyone understand the liberal state of mind, their outlook, their tactics, and their goals:

Paranoid types: http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm

Passive aggressive types: http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/papd.htm

The short answer is that liberals are cowards. Cowards are bullies. Bullies are pathologically hostile. No matter what you do, they respond with hostility. When they can’t bully you, they resort to deception. They are manipulators. But they are never your friends. You can’t be friends with people who are hostile to you.

They are afraid to express their hostility directly, so they are negative, contrary, disagreeable, blaming, complaining, moody, angry, and so forth. They will attribute malicious intent and incompetence to others, and assign blame as they see fit. They provoke hostility in others while refusing to take responsibility for their own provocative behavior, and use the hostility of others to justify their own hostility. They are manipulators.

Conservatives must get it into their heads that there will never be any compromise with liberals because such people are pathologically hostile to conservatives. Get your crayon and write this down:

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOU DO, THEY STILL HATE YOU.

They hate you because they feel irrational hostility. They always feel hostility. No matter what happens, what you say, what you do, or what you don’t do, they still feel hostility toward you. Understand this. Learn it. Know it.

How do you deal with such people? Treat them as you would treat normal people. If they react with hostility, it isn’t your fault. Stop blaming yourself.

If you are afraid of confronting hostile people, then you lose and they win. Confrontation should be even tempered, direct, and limited. Identify the specific behavior that you find unacceptable, and tell them that you don’t have to put up with that behavior.

Do not continue to make the mistake of dealing with these people in good faith. Their hostility is irrational and compulsive. They can’t control how they feel, and you aren’t responsible for their hostility.

You may feel some sadness that you can’t extend the hand of friendship to such people. You may also feel anger and disgust. You are justified in feeling this way. Train yourself to not return hostility for hostility.

To me there is no difference between leftists, liberals, paranoids, and passive aggressive types. They are all manipulators. Their primary coping skill is to provoke other people into behaving in ways we don’t want to behave. We don’t want to be angry and hostile, but they make us feel anger and hostility.

My personal approach to such people is to feel completely disgusted with them--their hostility is not justified, nor will I excuse them--and to move them politely but firmly away from me. I also try to deliberately provoke their paranoia just enough to make them feel very uneasy with me. I let them know that to me their fear is obvious.

Tom Oliphant was able to provoke and manipulate Hugh Hewitt by throwing an outrageous comment out at the end of the interview. The advice I give to myself, and which I offer to everyone else when confronted with such people, is to calm yourself and to advocate for yourself. Don’t let them see you get upset. It’s what they want.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-06-30T06:50:00.000-07:00

Original Intent Preserves Our Freedom
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

June 29, 2005

Listening to the Hugh Hewitt show last Monday, June 27, 2005, I heard Professors John Eastman and Irwin Chemerinsky go another round on the subject of the Founders’ original intent. Eastman’s position is that the Founders’ original intent must always be considered when interpreting the Constitution, and Chemerinsky’s position is that it is impossible for us to know the Founders’ original intent, and that the Founders’ original intent must never be considered when interpreting the Constitution.

To be clear on one subject, the original intent of the Founders’ is important only in those instances where the Constitution has not been amended. It is interesting to understand the Founders’ original intent on the prohibition against a Federal capitation tax; however, the passage of the 16th Amendment rebutted the Founders’ original intent.

The original intent of the Amenders of the Constitution must also be taken into account in any discussion of the Founders’ original intent. The Constitution stands on its own merits regardless of whether the Founders wrote the controlling passages or the Amenders wrote those passages.

Therefore, any discussion of the original intent of the Founders, Writers, and Amenders of the Constitution must include the original intent of the Ratifiers of the Constitution. The Constitution did not come into being merely because it was intended, written, or amended. It came into being and has the force of law because it was ratified. The rest of this essay will refer mostly to the Ratifiers of the Constitution and their original intent.

What does “original intent” mean?
The term “original intent” as used by Eastman and Chemerinsky means that the Ratifiers of the Constitution actually meant something when they wrote and approved the language that appears in the pages of the Constitution. The Constitution is a legal document. Every word that appears in the Constitution has been debated, challenged, and finally approved by both the House of Representatives and by the Senate. There are no words in the Constitution whose meaning has not been scrupulously examined and vigorously debated.

Chemerinsky’s argument that the original intent of the Founders cannot be known is absurd on two counts. First, the Founders wrote extensively about their original intent before, during, and after drafting the Constitution. They wrote so much about their original intent that it is daunting to try to read everything they actually wrote on the subject. Second, if it is impossible to know the original intent of the Founders, then it must be equally impossible to know the original intent of the Amenders and the Ratifiers of the Constitution.

However, it is not only possible, but in fact quite easy to understand the original intent of the Ratifiers. For example, we know the original intent of the Founders in prohibiting a capitation tax, and we know the original intent of the Ratifiers who approved the 16th Amendment which permitted a capitation tax. This is also true with the 13th and 14th Amendments, and all the other Amendments.

To be clear, Chemerinsky offers the argument about not knowing the original intent of the Founders for only one reason, and that is to assert that someone has the authority under law to construe the words of the Constitution to mean whatever they like. This assertion is also wrong. Disregarding, de-legitimizing, or refusing to acknowledge the original intent of the Founders and Ratifiers of the Constitution is no different from refusing to acknowledge the original intent of the parties who enter into a contract. Try this: Get on the Internet, and find a contract in Japanese. If you read Japanese, then look up a contract on some language you can’t read. Now, try to read the contract. You can’t make any sense of it, can you? Of course not. However, even if you can’t make any sense of the contract, you have no right under law to interpret or construe the contract as you choose. The only people who have such authority are the parties who ratified the contract. To deliberately misunderstand the contract would be fraud, and to unintentionally misunderstand the contract does not validate any resulting misbehavior.

A word about historicism.
Why does Professor Chemerinsky make the assertion that it is impossible to know the Founders’ original intent? A word about historicism is in order.

Historicism is the idea that the people’s understanding of the truth changes from age to age. For example, historicism argues that Aristotle has nothing to say to modern people because Aristotle understood the world so differently that modern people cannot comprehend what Aristotle is saying.

Gosh.

All truth is eternal. What was true in Aristotle’s time is equally true today. Aristotle stated that every proposition is a statement of fact, that wisdom is the knowledge of first principles and final causes, and that the Earth was in the shape of a globe (this from observing the shadow that the Earth casts on the Moon during a Lunar eclipse). Aristotle formulated the science of logic, which governs all the other sciences. Without Aristotle, it is unlikely that we would be engaged in any reasoned arguments.

Historicism means that each epoch can only be understood by the people who lived in that epoch, that literature, philosophy, religion, and science do not contain timeless arguments, that past generations have nothing to say to future generations, and that all ideas having reached a certain longevity have no validity.

Historicism must necessarily presuppose that historicism and all the ideas that emanate from it will become invalid after a certain number of years. The obvious question arises that if, for example, the idea of individual liberty was valid in one epoch, why is it not valid in another? Also, on what basis is any idea determined to be valid in any epoch? On what basis is historicism determined to be valid in this epoch or in any other?

Historicism defeats itself by its very definition. Historicism cannot verify its own validity in this or any other epoch. Historicism poses a serious threat to us today because it dismisses the idea of individual liberty on which our nation is founded as being quaint but incomprehensible, seeking to substitute the notion of rights (actually, privileges) dispensed by government.

Historicism incorrectly de-legitimizes the knowledge obtained at great cost from ages past, defames great people from ages gone by, and thereby deprives modern people of critical intellectual resources. It would be the apex of stupidity for each generation to waste time inventing the wheel or discovering how to harness electricity. Historicism is a method whereby lazy students excuse themselves from the hard work of learning.

Professor Chemerinsky relies on historicism to de-legitimize the original intent of the Founders. This removes the authority the Constitution has over government, and permits government to assert authority over the Constitution. Once government has the authority to determine how the Constitution limits the power of government, government will eventually discover that the Constitution doesn’t limit their power at all.

What does “interpret the Constitution” mean?
To interpret means to make something understandable. In interpreting the Constitution, we seek to understand what the Ratifiers meant by the language that they used. The 16th, 13th, and 14th Amendments serve as clear examples of the value of interpreting the Constitution in order to make it understandable. For example, neither the 13th nor the 14th Amendments mention secession or the Civil War, yet both Amendments were written in response to that war. Disregarding secession and the Civil War when trying to understand these two Amendments leaves the reader wondering why parts of the 5th Amendment are reasserted in the 14th Amendment, and why the slavery provisions of the original Constitution are overturned in the 13th Amendment.

Chemerinsky argues that the original intent of the Founders cannot be known, and that it is the duty of each generation to interpret the Constitution in a way that makes sense to only that generation. However, as used by Chemerinsky, the term “interpret” does not mean to make something understandable. The way Chemerinsky uses the term “interpret” actually means to change the meaning of something to suite your understanding and prejudices. In other words, when Eastman talks about interpreting the Constitution, he is talking about something entirely different from Chemerinsky’s meaning of interpreting the Constitution.

Chemerinsky means that whoever is in a position to assert the authority to interpret the Constitution (currently, several dozen judges) should have the authority at their sole discretion to change the meaning of the Constitution to suite their personal understanding and prejudices.

In its final state, Chemerinsky’s argument is that there is no truth contained in the Constitution, and that no true assertions can be made about the Constitution. His argument is that the meaning of the Constitution is nothing more than a matter of opinion, and that reasonable people can agree to disagree. Being nothing more than a matter of opinion, it is critical to the left to make sure that people who share their opinions maintain the authority to interpret the Constitution.

I have heard the argument between Chemerinsky and Eastman often enough to realize the Eastman either doesn’t understand what Chemerinsky is doing, or is too polite to confront him on this key point. They are not talking about the same thing. To interpret the Constitution means to make the words that the people who wrote and ratified the individual provisions of the Constitution understandable to the current audience. When Chemerinsky talks about interpreting the Constitution, he means that the meaning of the words that the people actually ratified should be disregarded and de-legitimized in favor of promoting the ideology, beliefs, and wishes of the people who currently have the authority to enforce the law.

What does “ratification” mean?
Ratification means that the people of the United States have agreed to be governed by the provisions of the Constitution. Their agreement is mostly passive in that each session of the U. S. Congress presents the people of the United States with another opportunity to amend the Constitution, and by not amending it, the people passively ratify it. Active ratification only happens when a new Amendment is ratified in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Constitution.

Any method of altering the effect of the Constitution, e.g., construing the language of the Constitution in such a way as to change its original meaning, is illegitimate, and in my opinion despicable. Such deconstruction of the meaning of the Constitution has been done mostly by the courts.

The consequences of disregarding “original intent”.
The first consequence of disregarding the original intent of the Founders is to de-legitimize the meaning of the language in the Constitution. De-legitimizing the language in the Constitution turns it into senseless babbling, and invalidates government. A question for the people who are unable or unwilling to understand the Founders’ original intent: Why does the Congress convene every two years if it is impossible to know the Founders’ original intent?

The Constitution of the United States is the legal document that by it’s original ratification and subsequent ratifications has been acknowledged by the people of the United States from generation to generation to possess authority over the structure, scope, and power of the Federal Government.

The Constitution sets and enforces limits on the behavior of government. The Constitution is the expression of the American people’s intent and determination to govern themselves.

De-legitimizing the original intent of the Founders also has the effect of de-legitimizing the original intent of every generation of Americans who either actively or passively ratified the Constitution. De-legitimizing the original intent of the Founders de-legitimizes the will of the people, and ultimately de-legitimizes self-government.

The final consequence, and the most thoroughly destructive, of disregarding the original intent of the Founders is that the power to enact and enforce laws is removed from the people of the United States and illegitimately vested in several dozen judges. By de-legitimizing the original intent of the Founders, the people of the United States have no foundation upon which to rest their argument in favor of self-government.

Under the doctrine of “the Constitution means whatever the people in power say it means”, popular government degenerates into power struggles between political groups vying for legitimacy in the eyes of the courts. Positive arguments in favor of reasoned positions are replaced by personal defamation. Reason is replaced by popularity, and wisdom by charisma.

No political or legal argument can be made on the basis of established law. What matters in our modern “the Constitution means whatever the people in power say it means” legal system is political influence. It becomes more and more difficult for people in the political minority to assert legitimacy for their claims.

The resolution.
It is the responsibility of each generation of Americans to educate themselves in the history and meaning of the Constitution. So fortified, they cannot be easily swayed by demagogues.

I still have many questions about the Constitution. However, with the little knowledge I do possess, I am utterly unmoved by Chemerinsky’s arguments in favor of bending the Constitution to suite the political ends of the left wing of the Democratic Party.

The United States is a nation of laws. The left’s attempts to gain power by de-legitimizing the original intent of the Founders have been, and will continue to be, a catastrophe for all of us.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-06-27T08:36:00.000-07:00

Incredible Perseverance
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

June 27, 2005

There is an old tale about a person hiding in a cave to evade capture. This hiding person watches as a spider repeatedly tries to spin a web across the mouth of the cave and repeatedly fails. The spider doesn’t give up. She eventually succeeds. When the people who are hunting for the hiding person see the spider web across the mouth of the cave, they conclude that no one could be hiding in the cave, and they search elsewhere.

The moral of the story is to never give up.

Let me add this. I found a spider in my bathtub while I was showering. I was convinced that the poor little thing had drowned, but I thought that I ought to give the little creature a fair chance at survival.

I placed her lifeless body on a piece of tissue, and placed the tissue in the wastebasket so that I could clearly observe whether the spider had moved. After an hour, I was convinced that the little creature was dead, and I felt sad.

The next day, she was gone. I took the wastebasket outside (I like spiders outside, not inside), and carefully removed the tissue. Sure enough, the spider was hiding underneath, alive and well and in a huge hurry to get away.

I let her go under a tree, wished her a happy spider life and a fond farewell.

The incredible perseverance of this little spider reminds me that even if you don’t give up, victory is not assured, but if you do give up, failure is inevitable.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-06-24T07:54:00.000-07:00

Karl Rove and the Barking Dogs
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

June 24, 2005

I found this piece by Karl Rove at the New York Post. The New York Post now requires a subscription.

Rove said some interesting things in his article, but I think he made one mistake, a mistake I think many conservatives make, and one which I wish they would learn to stop making. Rove said:

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban.

He later added:

Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation involved in a noble cause of self-defense. Liberals are concerned with what our enemies will think of us and whether every government approves of our actions.

The liberals Rove is referring to inhabit the denizens of MoveOn.Org and paranoid realm of Michael Moore. Paranoia is their defining characteristic.

Rove said, “Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies.” This is incorrect. The paranoid co-dependents who populate and influence the Democratic Party do not want to understand our enemies. They do not want to understand the terrible truth about the motives of our enemies, and they do not want to understand the hopelessness of seeking reconciliation with our enemies.

The liberals Rove speaks of are committed to a romantic fantasy that somehow we can find common agreement with the people who are giving their lives to kill us and defeat America. The liberals want to believe that somehow the insane fanatics will actually take sympathy on them. The liberals are desperate to believe that Hillary Clinton can persuade Osama bin Laden to stop being a terrorist the same way they believed that Bill Clinton could persuade North Korea to stop building nuclear weapons. He didn’t and they did.

The terrorists frighten the liberals. One way that liberals respond to being frightened is to grovel, and to offer restitution even when no restitution has been demanded. This is how they behave toward their foreign enemies. The other way is to become incensed and to display open, exaggerated hostility. This is how they behave toward their domestic enemies.

Both responses are inappropriate and self-sabotaging--in other words, foolish. The liberals have the idea that they can persuade their enemies not to hurt them. They believe that if they offer understanding and sympathy to the terrorists, then the terrorists won’t hurt them. They believe that if they display rabid aggression toward conservatives, then the conservatives won’t hurt them.

Both approaches demonstrate weakness. People who are in control of their own lives do not seek approval. Liberals in general, and paranoids in particular, are on a hopeless quest for their enemies’ approval. The enemies of liberals understand this weakness, and they take advantage of it.

Everyone who is not liberal understands how paranoid liberals are. Paranoid people can’t be reasoned with. They have no real capacity to cooperate. They sabotage others and they sabotage themselves.

The way to deal with them is to do what Rove has done: Provoke them. He’s not offering sympathy or understanding. He isn’t interested in their cooperation. He understands that they will never cooperate. So, he provokes them.

Provocation is not therapeutic for the liberals. But Rove isn’t in the business of offering therapy. Liberals are incapable of constructing and implementing solutions. They are spoilers. All they can do is criticize.

Liberals cannot participate in making things better; they can only make things worse. They have to be moved out of positions of influence. The most efficient way to do that is to expose them. The most efficient way to expose them is to provoke them. Score a big win for Rove.

I’ve said before that you can’t win an argument with a barking dog. A barking dog is not capable of reason. Paranoids are not capable of reason, either. They filter all information looking for the negative. They constantly search for the next conspiracy. They are obsessed by their own pathological prejudices.

The paranoid liberals interpret their feelings as reality. The more stress they feel, the more anxiety they feel. The more anxiety they feel, the more excited they become. The more excited they become, the less they are able to reason. In this sense, they are quite similar to barking dogs: A lot of noise, but nothing worth listening to.

Karl Rove knows better than to waste time arguing with barking dogs.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-06-22T12:35:00.000-07:00

The Truth About Guantanamo
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

June 22, 2005

Happy Summer, everyone!

The Democrats and their anti-American allies have embarked on a campaign to smear the U. S. as a fascist country by issuing unfounded allegations of torture and prisoner abuse at the Guantanamo, Cuba facility. Hugh Hewitt links to this article and quotes Nancy Pelosi:

The treatment of detainees is a taint on our country’s reputation, especially in the Muslim world, and there are many questions that must be answered. These questions are important because the safety of our country depends on our reputation and how we are viewed, especially in the Muslim world.

There are many questions that have gone unanswered: What was the atmosphere created that permitted detainee abuse, and why was it tolerated? What was the training and supervision of the troops? Who had this responsibility? What is it that the Republicans are trying to hide? How far up the chain of command does this go? Why is the Secretary of Defense not taking responsibility? This happened on his watch.

Many of the detainees have been in U.S. custody since October 2001. Why have they been in custody for nearly four years without being charged? Why has so little been done to resolve the status of the detainees?

Hugh then responds with:

If Democrats want to taken seriously as other than a desperate group of out-of-power ideologues willing to trash everything and everyone in an attempt to get some traction with the public that has evaluated their collective fitness for leadership in time of war and ejected them from power, they will begin by defending our defenders, articulating the necessity of long term imprisonment for would be terrorists and the interrogation of those terrorists, drop the absurd and dangerous demand for “due process” for unlawful combatants, and help shoulder the burden of explaining to the world that America is the most humane of all jailers, and rigorous in its prosecution of its representatives who violate the rules of detention.

Neither Hugh Hewitt nor Nancy Pelosi offer any evidence to support their allegations of good or bad treatment of prisoners. Pelosi is rumor mongering and Hewitt is cheer-leading.

Neither Hugh Hewitt nor Nancy Pelosi knows with certainty what is happening at Guantanamo. Pelosi and the Democrats are trying to build a straw man and then attack him. Hewitt’s defense is equally flimsy. There is no reliable source of information available to the general public precisely because the efforts to extract information from the prisoners must be kept secret.

It makes sense to counter the propaganda of the Democratic Party, but propaganda is not effectively countered with other propaganda. I don’t know what’s happening at Guantanamo. Hugh Hewitt doesn’t know what’s happening at Guantanamo. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t know what’s happening at Guantanamo. Dick Durbin doesn’t know what’s happening at Guantanamo.

All allegations about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, good or bad, are speculation. And they should remain so. The government is correct in keeping the intelligence activities at Guantanamo a secret from the American people.

The defense of our nation can be a horrifying business. Failure to defend our nation because the defense is too horrific to think about will result in even greater horrors. Our enemies do not want anything from us, and they do not want us to do anything for them. They want us to die.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-05-24T09:42:00.000-07:00

The Week of the Long Knives
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

May 24, 2005

In case anyone had any ideas that Republicans don’t criticize other Republicans, and that the Republican Party marches in lock step, see this.

The long knives are out. Let the massacre begin.

Democrats had better understand that this is not in their interest, and that they have really screwed up. If the Republican Party purges significant numbers of Democrat friendly members, the Democrats will be buried for a generation. There will be no deals at all.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-05-23T06:03:00.000-07:00

Good Complainers, Bad Complainers
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

May 23, 2005

Complainers come in two basic varieties: Good complainers and bad complainers.

Good complainers are people who by complaining are asking for help. Their complaining tends to be in the first person, such as, “I’m having a problem”, “I don’t feel good”, “I don’t know how to do this”, and so forth.

Bad complainers on the other hand use complaining as a form of aggression. Their complaints are usually in the form of aggression against some target. They engage in demeaning, invalidating, blaming, accusing, shaming, and other forms of aggression while giving the impression that they are innocent victims.

Bad complainers are guilt-givers. They drench their targets with blame and shame. They rarely take responsibility for their own feelings or behavior. Bad complainers want you to believe that they are inanimate punching bags for life’s gang of bullies.

What are bad complainers looking for? Is there any way to achieve a harmonious relationship with them?

They are looking for recruits. They don’t want to be helped; they want to be affirmed. They want you to agree with them. They want your loyalty.

There is no practical way to achieve a harmonious relationship with bad complainers without running the risk of betraying yourself. Bad complainers don’t care what you think. They don’t want to share anything with you. They have no intention of moving away from their position. This means that compromise is impossible.

Bad complainers are like obdurate children for whom this adulthood thing has just gotten to be too much of a hassle. Unit they learn that they can admit that they were wrong without going to pieces, your best bet is to steer clear of them.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-05-18T05:47:00.000-07:00

How I Got Rid of Some Rotten People in My Life
Adventures in life © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

May 18, 2005

From time to time, we all have people in our lives who provoke hostility in us. They make us angry, and we feel confused about what’s going on.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t like to be provoked. I don’t like to feel angry with people. I don’t like to be manipulated.

And that’s the point.

These people are manipulators. They provoke anger and hostility in other people, they sabotage relationships, and they sabotage themselves.

Well, my friends, let me tell you how I got rid of some of these people so that I am assured that they will not corrupt my life again.

A word of caution is in order. If you can’t control yourself, if you are uncomfortable with feelings of anger, disgust, and guilt, and if you think that other people are entitled to hurt you, then this process will not work for you. I did this, and I will do it again when it is necessary. Use this information at your own risk. I am not responsible for outcomes I cannot control.

The process that I followed to get rid of these people is as follows:

1. Identify them.
2. Recognize that they won’t listen to me, and that they can’t be reasoned with or persuaded.
3. Recognize that they are hostile and will attempt to control me.
4. Admit my feelings of anger and disgust, and admit that I can’t tolerate having them around.
5. Use their pathology against them.
6. Extract myself from the relationship without fear of retribution.
7. Get on with my life.

1. Identify them.
Characteristics include chronic anger, complaining, blaming, negative outlook, hostility toward authority figures, jealously, unrealistic self-importance, complaining about being misunderstood (comments like, “no one understands me” are a dead giveaway), paranoid ideas, grandiosity, arrogance, and constantly assuming the role of victim. These are all indications that they refuse to take responsibility for their own feelings, behavior, and well being.

2. Recognize that they won’t listen to me, and that they can’t be reasoned with or persuaded.
People who refuse to take responsibility for their own feelings, behavior, and well being won’t listen to you. They have an almost super-human capacity to block out incoming information, good or bad. You can’t get through to them, and the harder you try, the more they resist.

3. Recognize that they are hostile and will attempt to control me.
Such people are control monsters. They cannot trust anything or anyone that they cannot externally control. They experience intense anxiety about losing control. They will try to manipulate you anyway they can to change you into the person they want you to be, someone they can dominate. If they can’t dominate you, they are afraid of you.

4. Admit my feelings of anger and disgust, and admit that I can’t tolerate having them around.
I don’t like being manipulated or controlled. It makes me very angry. Anger is my radar. If someone makes me angry, that is evidence that I feel that they are a threat. I like to avoid threats that I can avoid. I can’t control such people, so I have no choice but to avoid them.

5. Use their pathology against them.
This is not for the faint-hearted. I did this. I urge you to use caution in your own situation. Remember that when you are doing this, you are in control; they are not.

Disagree with them. That’s usually all it takes. Find something that they said that is incorrect, and correct them. They can’t tolerate being corrected. To them, correction is rejection. In their minds, you have rejected them, or you’re about to reject them. This then gives them permission to reject you, and that’s exactly what you want them to do.

The entire object of the exercise is to manipulate them into rejecting you. This lets you off the hook. You have nothing to feel guilty about. Besides, you knew they were going to reject you anyway, so why fool around?

6. Extract myself from the relationship without fear of retribution.
The kind of people I have gotten out of my life have a strong paranoid streak. They live in fear of rejection, and they often initiate a rejection process in order to confirm their own irrational fears.

If you reject them, they blame you. If they reject you, you get to walk away without owing them anything. When they reject you, they own the guilt, as they should.

DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT take any parting shots. Do not injure them or threaten them. Do not give them any reason to feel threatened or hurt. Do not give them anything that allows them to vindicate their own malicious behavior. You are not trying to hurt them; you are trying to rescue yourself.

7. Get on with my life.
Accept your feelings of disappointment and anger. Face it, it hurts to be rejected even when it’s the best thing for you. Also, admit that they were going to reject you anyway, you couldn’t stop them, you couldn’t reason with them, it’s their pathology, too bad, so sad.

Find something constructive that you enjoy, help yourself heal, and have a good life.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-05-09T05:59:00.000-07:00

Picking Your Friends
A word of warning © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

May 9, 2005

You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can’t pick your friends’ noses.

I’ve spent a lot of time contemplating why it is so hard, even impossible, to be friends with some people. Here is the short list of characteristics that alert you that someone will not be a good friend:

He is always right.
Even when he’s wrong, or contradicts himself, he is still right.
What you think doesn’t matter.
It is difficult to communicate with him.
He pouts.
He wants you to do things for him, but doesn’t want to do anything for you.
His sense of humor is often at the expense of others.
He doesn’t have time for you, or if he does, he complains.
He insults other people liberally, but won’t tolerate having anyone say anything negative about him.
His moods are unpredictable.
He is demanding.
He ignores you.
His feelings are easily hurt.
He has difficulty standing up for himself.
You feel like you need to walk on eggshells around him.

And finally,

He makes you mad a lot.

This is all common sense stuff. But it’s important to pay attention to your feelings. How you feel about people is your early warning system kicking into action.

It is a well established fact that broken relationships cannot be made whole again. Take care not to enter into a broken relationship, and take care not to break the ones you have.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-04-29T06:03:00.000-07:00

Incentives, Incentives, Incentives
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

April 29, 2005

It’s so simple.

You can control how well or how badly people treat you. Pay attention.

It’s all about incentives, positive or negative.

If you give people rewards for being good to you, they will be good to you. Rewards include a pleasant smile, a sincere “Thank you”, gentle encouragement, showing that you are glad to see them, and so forth.

If you give people disincentives to avoid being mean to you, then they will not feel bad about being mean to you. This includes divorcing you, firing you, arresting you, punching you, shooting you, banishing you--well, you get the point.

If you bring out the worst in people, it is because you give them no rewards for being good to you, and no disincentives to stop being mean to you.

Follow along. Here’s how it works:

If someone says “Hello” to you and all give them back is aloofness, arrogance, anger, complaining, blaming, bitching, pouting, negative grumbling, trying to give commands and be domineering, then they have nothing to gain by being friendly to you, and they have nothing to lose by being mean to you. They don’t feel guilty punishing you, hurting you, or taking advantage of you. In their eyes, you’re such a miserable crud that they actually feel good beating you up.

If you want them to stop beating you up, you’re going to have to modify your behavior slightly. As painful as it may be, you’re going to have to learn to smile, tell jokes, say frightening things like “Thank you”, (HORRORS!) “I’m sorry”, and (*gasp* Call 911!) “I understand”. Trust me, you won’t die.

The beauty of it is that when you are nice to people, it actually forces them to be nice to you. They don’t want to look like the bad guys, so they are nice back to you. If you pout, cry, complain, are sarcastic, etc., then they don’t feel like the bad guys. They feel that you’re just being nasty to them, so they kick you around.

When you learn to give people incentives to be good to you and disincentives to be mean to you, you will be amazed at the good things that people will give you for free (that’s right, FREE).

It’s so simple. Figure it out.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-04-28T09:01:00.000-07:00

Crying Babies
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

April 28, 2005

It is natural for babies to cry. Babies do not demand and they do not request; they simply emote.

Babies are entirely dependent on other people for their needs. Other people interpret a baby’s crying to mean certain things. Some people interpret a baby’s crying to mean that the baby has a problem--that the baby is hungry, sleepy, wet, etc. Some people interpret the baby’s crying to mean that the baby is a problem--that the baby is being obnoxious, demanding, needy, etc.

The baby learns about rewards and punishment from the behavior of caregivers (or care deniers). If the crying results in rewards, then the baby associates crying with rewards, and learns to cry to elicit rewards. If the crying results in punishment, then the baby learns that he has no effective method of communicating.

If he is rewarded for crying, he will learn to demand rewards by crying. If he is punished for crying, he will learn to withdraw and evade. In both cases, the baby is simply emoting.

Until children learn how to speak, and until adults acknowledge that they understand what the children are saying, children will only be able to emote. They may emote with behavior, or they emote verbally, but either way, they are simply emoting.

Children who learn to get rewards by emoting tend to be demanding, and feel a sense of entitlement. They don’t know how they achieve rewards; only that acting a certain way gets them what they want.

Children who learn that emoting results in punishment or in being ignored tend to be passive-aggressive. They learn that the world is hostile or indifferent. They learn that they can’t get what they want no matter what they do, so they learn to deprive others of their expectations and satisfaction. They learn to sabotage themselves, and they learn to sabotage others. The worst ones become a social cancer.

Babies emote because they have no choice. Adults have a choice. Adults who emote are like babies. I believe you will encounter endless aggravation if you try to treat them like adults. I believe you will do much better if you treat them like babies. Your communication should be clear, honest, calm, simple, and dependable. You should also teach yourself the benefits of restraining from slapping them across the room. If you emote in response to their emoting, then even if they don’t win, you lose.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-04-23T07:39:00.000-07:00

Assigning Guilt
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

April 23, 2005

Assigning guilt where there is no evidence of guilt is a form of blaming. Assigning guilt where guilt is evident is appropriate. However, assigning guilt where guilt is not evident, where guilt is merely suspected, is an error in judgment.

Attributing negative qualities to others such as malevolent intent (evil), responsibility for actions when they are not responsible (guilt), substandard judgment (stupidity), or gross ignorance when such qualities are not evident but only suspected can be called bigotry or superstition. Bigotry and superstition distort judgment.

The method of attributing negative qualities to others, especially guilt, is to blame them. Blamers are guilt givers.

Assigning guilt has the effect of excusing the person who assigns the guilt from any responsibility for his own responsibilities. The person who assigns guilt is attributing all guilt to some other party, and expunging all guilt from himself. The person who assigns guilt either sees himself as pure and blameless, or wishes to be so. Blamers want to believe that they are blameless.

Blaming is a form of deception and manipulation. Blamers are trying to rid themselves of feelings of inadequacy and weakness. Blamers worship power and loath weakness. They believe that all of their problems would be over if only they had enough power.

Such people are drawn to drugs, religions, ideologies, or superstitions that give them a feeling of power. Their religions, superstitions, and ideologies of choice elevate them to positions of supremacy and often involve violent domination of others.

However, power is not wisdom, and dominance is not knowledge. By analogy, a pilot of a large airplane possesses no extraordinary power. He cannot take control of the airplane until he learns how to control the airplane. He must know the airplane intimately, and he must accept the airplane precisely for what it is. Attributing unsubstantiated defects to the airplane’s designers or ground crew can result in errors in the pilot’s judgment that could be fatal.

Blaming demonstrates distorted judgment. To paraphrase Marc Steyn, blamers try to pound the square pegs of their prejudices into the round holes of reality. Blamers cannot learn from their mistakes, nor can they learn from their successes.

Blamers are governed by anger and have difficulty accepting verifiable evidence. They believe that their anger gives them special insight into other people’s motives. Suspicion combined with anger results in distorted judgment, and distorted judgment results in mistakes. Blamers make mistakes.

Blamers make mistakes and then blame their mistakes on others. They descend into an endless cycle of messing things up, blaming others, failing to learn from the own mistakes, and then messing other things up in the same manner.

A lifetime of self-sabotage and blaming can cause blamers to become paranoid. They repeatedly encounter the same problems no matter where they go or with whom they are dealing. It begins to haunt them.

Assigning guilt where there is no evidence of guilt is also a form of self-defense. It vindicates the blamer. It is a quick fix to a complex problem. It excuses the blamer from any responsibility for his own feelings and behavior.

Blaming is intended to give shame to others. Blamers are shamers.

Blamers also feel shame. They go on the offensive to preempt feelings of shame. As the saying goes, “Better to be pissed off than pissed on.”

Blamers are easily angered, have difficulty learning, and demonstrate poor judgment in personal relationships. They also tend to be emotionally immature. All this makes it virtually impossible for them correct themselves, and extremely difficult for others to teach them effective relationship skills.

If you are a blamer and you want to get better, try this:
1. You don’t have to always be on the defensive. You don’t have to be continuously vigilant.
2. Calm down. You don’t need to control your anger; you just need to take a break and relax.
3. Rely on facts, not on your anger. When the evidence supports you, you will be much stronger.
4. Accept feelings of guilt, shame, and sadness. You will feel miserable, but you won’t die.

Finally, assigning guilt without evidence assures failure. Blamers are losers.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-04-19T05:52:00.000-07:00

Inside the Paranoid Mind
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

April 19, 2005

Disclaimer:
I am not a mental health provider. I am just an opinion writer. Nothing in this article is designed or intended to diagnose or treat any illness, mental or physical. If you need help with health problems, consult a professional health care provider as soon as possible.

I post this disclaimer because paranoid people have been known to be dangerous. If you are dealing with any person you think might be paranoid, avoid confronting that person, and seek professional help as soon as possible.
End of disclaimer.

I have spent many years trying to understand how to deal with hostile, argumentative, irrational people. I kept thinking that I was doing something wrong. I couldn’t understand their hostility. It was irrational and excessive. It bothered me. I thought there must be something I can do.

I found the answer at Dual Diagnosis, specifically this section on Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD).

The aforementioned site contains a great deal of information. What I present here is a summary of only one part.

For the sake of brevity, let’s call our paranoid person Gak, and the non-paranoid person Meelak. This encounter explains how the paranoid system actually works for the paranoid person.

In his childhood home environment, Gak experienced criticism, loss, abuse, hostility, and a parent who could not be pleased.

Gak carried that experience into adulthood.

In his interactions with Meelak, Gak feels suspicious of Meelak. Gak fears that Meelak will take away the things that Gak loves.

Gak’s feeling of suspicion convinces him that Meelak is up to something, and he has to discover what it is.

Gak’s feelings of suspicion constitute proof in his own mind.

Gak acts on his unfounded suspicions.

Gak takes preemptive action that in his mind is not only justified but necessary. He attacks Meelak in order to make Meelak understand that Gak is not to be trifled with, that Gak is formidable and fierce, and that if Meelak has any ambitions against Gak, he had better forget it.

In fact, Gak’s attack on Meelak is completely irrational. Meelak has never had any ambitions against Gak, and up until now has never felt hostile toward him.

Meelak is surprised and confused by Gak’s unprovoked and irrational attack. He feels betrayed and hurt.

Meelak responds with hostility and fear. This is natural and reflexive.

The hostility that Meelak shows Gak only confirms Gak’s suspicions the Meelak is hostile after all. The fear that Meelak shows convinces Gak that he can dominate Meelak. Domination is very important to Gak because he can’t feel safe until he feels he has dominated Meelak.

Gak provokes hostility in Meelak and uses that hostility to vindicate himself for his provocative actions. In Gak’s mind, winning equals vindication and losing equals guilt. Gak must either find a way to win, including cheating, or he must face feeling guilty. Gak will never let go of the fight until he feels he has won, until he feels he has achieved vindication.

Gak cannot comprehend that his feelings of suspicion are utterly irrational and do not constitute evidence. He cannot allow himself to feel guilty for having destroyed a good relationship. He blames Meelak, and pursues him with unremitting vengence.

Paranoids provoke hostility in other people without cause or justification. Paranoids are unable to understand that their unsuspecting victims are perfectly justified in defending themselves against what they feel are irrational and unwarranted attacks. Paranoids feel vindicated when the victims show hostility or fear. That’s all they really want. They will sacrifice their friendships, their jobs, their marriages, their families, as well as their reputations in order to feel vindicated. Paranoids disregard all evidence that is contrary to their suspicions.

Their feelings of suspicion, their feelings that they are being threatened dominate their lives. Paranoids are obsessed with fear of loss, abandonment, and humiliation. They fear that other people will come and take away the things they love. They long to be left alone, but when they realize that they really are alone, they panic.

Paranoids automatically presume that other people are always guilty. They experience chronic feelings of being threatened, and they scan their environment for the source of that feeling. To them, it’s always external.

They do not understand that their childhood experiences of harsh criticism, humiliation, shame, grief, and parental aloofness have left them with an abiding sense of fear. They think they have to relate their fears to a person, thing, or event. In fact, the persons, things, and events that caused them to feel overwhelmed are in their past, not their present.

The difficulty of trying to deal with paranoids is that they have already convicted you in their own minds of unforgivable sins against them in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and nothing you say in your defense will dissuade them. They know everything. They can sense your secret motives, and they know that you are evil. They feel threatened, and that is all the evidence they need to conclude that you are scheming to hurt them.

Everything you try--confronting them, offering them help, and trying to reason with them--just makes them feel more threatened. All the things you learned about communicating with normal people simply backfire when you try to communicate with paranoids.

When paranoids feel threatened, they respond by trying to take control and trying to dominate the situation. Paranoids interpret normal human kindness and understanding as threats. They feel that you are trying to take control away from them. Any challenge to their sense of control causes them extreme difficulty, and may precipitate panic. When paranoids become panicked, they can be unpredictable and dangerous. The kinder you are to them, the more panicked they may become.

How to cope? All the things you learned about getting along with normal people--being understanding, patient, and empathetic--cause paranoids to respond with reflexive, irrational hostility, and often with rage. If you encounter such a person, you must resist your natural impulse to either beat them to a bloody pulp or to try to intervene. Think of a paranoid as a junkyard dog. They are frightened, hostile, and easily provoked to aggression if you get too close. Keep a safe distance. Move slowly. Be predictable and trustworthy. Take control of your own reflexive hostility.

Seek professional help for them and for yourself if the situation is disrupting your happiness and your life. If they are provoking you to lose control, then get away from them quickly and quietly. Save yourself first. In the mean time, set strict limits, don’t tolerate abuse, don’t be submissive, don’t show kindness, compassion, or understanding, and try to do all this without appearing threatening to them. Keep in mind that each individual paranoid is afraid of different things; therefore, you will have to do considerable research to find out what they think is threatening behavior. I wish you all the best.

After you’ve done all that, go have a cold beer and hang out with normal people.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-04-13T05:51:00.000-07:00

The Feeling of Power
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Anger gives some people the feeling of power even when they in fact have none. This helps explain the anger that so many people embrace. It makes them feel like they have control when they actually have none.

Without the feeling of anger, these people feel despair. They feel powerless and vulnerable. They feel that they have lost what little control they had during that fleeting moment of anger.

When people do not learn genuine methods of taking control of their lives, and when they learn that anger makes them feel like they are in control as long as they are angry, they learn to get angry easily, and to stay angry. They choose to feel like they are in control without knowing that they are in control.

The problem arises when they can no longer get their anger fix, when their anger only accentuates their sense of helplessness. At that point, panic sets in and anger becomes hysteria.

This helps explain what Hugh Hewitt calls “the fever swamp” left wing of the Democratic Party. They need their anger fix. They are anger Jonesing. Getting angry isn’t giving them their familiar sense of feeling in control. Their anger degenerates into a tantrum, pointless, ineffectual, and self-destructive.

To these people, the fact that they don’t have control doesn’t matter as long as they can maintain their feeling of control by being angry. Feelings trump facts. They’re getting high on anger. Rage gives them a buzz. (I’ve had some leftists tell me that it’s not about policy; it’s just about hating Bush. It gives them a rush.)

Feeling powerful does not make you powerful. Feeling like you’re in control doesn’t mean that you are in control.

Feeling vulnerable is very uncomfortable. However, feeling vulnerable when you really are vulnerable is important information that could mean the difference between life and death.

Defining reality in terms of feelings while ignoring the facts guarantees failure. Ignoring the facts always guarantees failure.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-04-12T05:54:00.000-07:00

The Illusion of Power
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

April 12, 2005

The Angry Child
Tim Murphy, Ph.D. and Lariann Hoff Oberlin
© 2001
Three Rivers Press
www.randomhouse.com

Denver got snowed in Sunday and Monday, so I had some time to think. In the aforementioned book, the idea of power keeps coming up. The angry child struggles with power, his parents’ and his own.

For the undeveloped mind of a child, power makes sense. They can understand ideas like weak and strong. Children fantasize about being strong. They want to be strong. However, not being strong, they don’t know what power is. The best they can do is fantasize about what it must feel like to be powerful.

Children dream of usurping the power they think their parents have. They try to steal it in bits and pieces by manipulating the parents into handing over their power. They children who succeed in this manipulation become angry children.

They become fixed on their fantasies of power, and many children spend their lives trying to achieve their fantasy. Not being able to distinguish between fantasy and reality, they envy and resent the power they think that other people have, and seem oblivious to the power that they possess themselves.

They dream of being totally in control, invincible, and irresistible. They want the power that their parents had over them when they were tiny. Consider what such a person must be like. They feel entitled to dominate other people. They are offended when anyone disagrees with them. They become overbearing when anyone challenges them in any way. They are little despots.

Despotism makes sense to children. It is simple. Take power, keep power, crush anyone who challenges you.

Children are despotic by nature, and it is the duty of parents to civilize their children. Uncivilized children have not learned the lesson of mutual cooperation for mutual benefit. They struggle for power. They become demanding and obstructive. They become jealous with other people’s successes. They don’t like other people to be happy. If they can’t dominate, they will do what they can to make other people unhappy. They become destructive for the sake of making sure that no one is happy.

This sounds a lot like the left wing of the Democratic Party, doesn’t it?

Such obdurate children would do well to learn Judo. In Judo, you learn that you don’t need to be in charge to be in control. Control does not mean dominating events. Control means being able to direct the course of events.

People who have power have self-control. People who have no self-control have no power.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-04-04T05:53:00.000-07:00

Everyone is Suspect, Everyone is to Blame
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans

April 4, 2005

The Angry Child
Tim Murphy, Ph.D. and Lariann Hoff Oberlin
© 2001
Three Rivers Press
www.randomhouse.com

In taking notes on Chapter Three, Ten Characteristics of the Angry Child, I ran into this interesting insight:

Whether another person may truly share the blame for a child’s anger, the angry child will characteristically find a way to deflect the blame for the problems they [the angry children] generate. Everyone is suspect and no one is seen as the source of help unless they’re in agreement with the angry child’s blaming. With no one to turn to, the child’s feelings of rage bubble below the surface, and it takes very little to trigger them.

The emphasis is mine.

“Everyone is suspect and no one is seen as the source of help unless they’re in agreement with the angry child’s blaming.” Good Lord.

This explains the view that “no one understands me”. It also explains why it doesn’t matter what I say, I’m always the bad guy, I’m always wrong. Until I agree with their blaming, I’m a villain. Angry children demand that you see everything their way, and if you don’t, then you are a bad person. There is no compromise, no give and take, no effort to understand anyone else’s point of view, no attempt to keep an open mind, and above all, no acknowledgement that anyone else’s opinions matter at all.

In the mind of the angry child, if I agree with his outrageous assertions and slanders, then I can be trusted. But, if I disagree, that means I’m up to something, I’m “just like all the rest”, I’m “one of them”.

Two words come to mind: Narcissism and paranoia. Narcissism means believing that you alone determine reality. Paranoia means that you are afraid that people are trying to hurt you, even when there is no evidence to support that belief.

The angry child imposes completely irrational and unfair conditions on other people’s trust by demanding that they agree with assertions that no reasonable person can even understand. If you fail this absurd test, then you are rejected. This explains why people cannot understand how to get through to angry children. The conditions are absurd, arbitrary, and secret. The angry child never lets you in on his little test. You are expected to read his mind, to divine the truth, or simply empathize.

Placing such absurd expectations on people assures failure. The angry child seems incapable of understanding the trap he has set for himself, instead choosing to blame the victim of his little scheme.

This all circles back to the angry child’s belief that he has no control in his own life, and he chooses to use anger to gain control. The angry child has vastly more control than he realizes, and he can learn to feel more in control by learning better coping skills.

All of this unhappiness can be avoided if the angry child learns to take responsibility for his own feelings. If you feel angry, it is because you are angry, not because someone caused you to be angry, and not because someone else is controlling your life.

If you lose your leg in an accident, it is still your responsibility to learn to walk again. No matter how bad you feel, it is still your responsibility to cope with your feelings in a ways that do not cause you to sabotage yourself.

And, most important of all, the way to deal with your unhappiness, frustration, and anger is NOT to attack people, to blame others, or to find villains. It is to understand that your feelings are valid, that most people are not trying to make you feel bad, and that some people really do care that you feel bad.

You will cause yourself infinite self-inflicted torment by treating everyone in your life as though they are abusing you and trying to control you. And until you take responsibility for your own feelings, you can never gain control of your own life.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2005-03-28T06:36:00.000-08:00

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

2005-03-25T05:46:00.000-08:00

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 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

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 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

2005-03-23T15:33:00.000-08:00

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

2005-03-22T05:51:00.000-08:00

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

2005-03-18T05:34:00.000-08:00

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

2005-03-15T12:55:00.000-08:00

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

2005-03-09T08:09:00.000-08:00

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

2005-03-06T08:48:00.000-08:00

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

2005-03-05T08:41:00.000-08:00

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:

Bobo Doll 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)

It sounded a little silly when I first read it, but I got to thinking about the dynamics of this experiment.

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

2005-03-04T05:51:00.000-08:00

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

2005-03-02T05:56:00.000-08:00

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

2005-02-26T12:41:00.000-08:00

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

2005-02-25T06:17:00.000-08:00

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

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