Liberty at Notre Dame

Vote Libertarian This Election (Unedited)

2006-11-14T21:34:00.000-08:00

By Mark Poyar

(This is the version that I originally wrote to be published in the Observer. Considering the fact that the most remotely controversial thing the Observer ever publishes is the word "vagina" and even that is only when it is followed by the word "monologue," I knew there would be no way they would ever put it into print. Therefore, I rewrote it. The rewritten version is the next post.)

“The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge piñata – a paper donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budget and other goodies. The American voter is blindfolded and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some sense into the silly bastard.” These lines ring as true today as they did fifteen years ago when PJ O’Rourke published his classic, Parliament of Whores.

I personally think that the election process is more like a frat party at a state school. Two young men, Ed Elephant and Danny Donkey, go to a party in search of the pleasure that only a woman can provide. Since there is a poor girl to guy ratio, the two young men are forced to compete for the same sorority girl all night. As the night progresses and each frat boy gets drunker, each becomes gradually more repulsive – uglier, hornier, more disheveled, and stupider. Their boasting and actions get correspondingly more ridiculous as each tries to outdo the other in a pathetic attempt to prove that he is a more suitable companion. The night winds down and each asks the young lady to retire to his respective quarters. Since she has taken a vow to uphold the fine reputation of her sorority among the minds of college men everywhere (whorish and fun), she is forced to choose one to hook up with. As she walks back to the winner’s dorm room, she can’t quite get rid of the nagging feeling that neither is worthy to have her.

Like the frat boys, both parties get increasingly repulsive as the election approaches. In an effort win the approval of their constituents, the politicians imply that if they or their party wins the election, the impossible will become possible – the blind will see, the President might actually say something intelligent, John Kerry might actually become principled. While he depicts himself as the savior of mankind, he employs character assassination techniques to slander his opponent. After watching a few Chris Chocola commercials, I am forced to conclude that not only does Joe Donnelly cheat on his taxes by withholding his employees’ taxes and hate Hoosier families, he probably also eats babies and kills puppies for a living. The first thing that I learned in philosophy was that ad hominem attacks are invalid, but the first thing I learned in the political world was that they were the only type of attack used.

Like the frat boys, the two major parties have been in bed with so many unsavory characters that they are in dire need of a STD check. One party is in bed with the with the religious socialists, who seem to have forgotten that Jesus didn’t die so that we could have universal health care, a not so subtle socialist scheme combining the efficiency of the DMV with the compassion of the IRS. They also seem to have forgotten that Jesus, the fulfillment of the Ten Commandments, wouldn’t condone stealing from one group of people through taxes and giving the stolen wealth to those who do not own it. The other party is in bed with the born-again religious, occasionally smaller children (in the case of Mark Foley), or 50 year old gay male prostitutes (in the case of evangelist Ted Haggard). This group seems to have forgotten that Jesus didn’t die so that we could have federally funded religious charities and initiatives to promote marriage. Both of their attempts to distort religion for reasons of power is pathetic and dirty, just like the frat boys.

While each party would have you believe that their party represents a clear alternative to the other, the difference is largely one of rhetoric, not of principle. Neither has a problem with taking your money and giving it to someone else to whom it does not belong; the only debate is over who should be the recipient of this confiscated wealth. Whether your wealth goes to pay people not to work through welfare, to pay old people because they are old through Social Security or Medicare, or to pay corporations because they are well connected through no-bid contracts, really doesn’t make too much of a difference; both parties either view the citizen as a sheep to be fleeced or a constituent to lavish the money of others upon. Each views the citizen as something to be controlled, both economically and socially.

If you actually believe that the Republicans represent an alternative to the tax and spend Democrats, consider the fact that between the years 2001 and 2006, federal spending has increased from $1.657 trillion to $2.488 trillion, all years of Republican control of both the House of Representatives and the Presidency. The Republicans have been in full control of both the Executive and Legislative branches since 2002, yet the self-proclaimed “party of small government” has been responsible for this unprecedented increase in federal government spending, unrivaled in the last 50 years except for the “great spender” LBJ.

This election, vote for the party of peace, freedom, and free markets. Vote for the only party that wants you to keep what you earn. Vote for the only party that believes that what you do in your personal life is none of the government’s business unless you hurt someone else. Vote for the party that believes the Constitution means what it says. This November, do as PJ O’Rourke would have us do and “knock some sense into the silly bastards.” Give the nice guy standing in the corner a shot. I guarantee he isn’t as pathetic as Ed or Danny. Vote Libertarian.

Vote Libertarian This Election (PG Version)

2006-11-14T15:46:00.000-08:00

By Mark Poyar

(This is the article that was published in the Observer)

“The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge piñata – a paper donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budget and other goodies. The American voter is blindfolded and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some sense into the silly fool.” These lines ring as true today as they did fifteen years ago when PJ O’Rourke published his classic, Parliament of Whores.

Election time always brings out the worst in the candidates. While there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with negative ads that attack the opposition candidate’s voting record or policies, this is seldom the type of ad used. After taking a few actions of the opposition candidate out of context, the commercial not-so-subtly implies that not only does the other guy cheat on his payroll taxes and hate his constituents, he probably also eats babies and kills puppies for a living. These types of ad hominem attacks are cheap attempts to distract from the real issues in an election, yet character assassination is usually the only strategy used. In the minds of the two major parties, there is no right or wrong, there is only power.

While each party would have you believe that their party represents a clear alternative to the other fiscally, the difference is largely one of rhetoric, not of principle. Neither has a problem with taking your money and giving it to someone else to whom it does not belong; the only debate is over who should be the recipient of this confiscated wealth. Whether your wealth goes to pay people not to work through welfare, to pay old people because they are old through Social Security or Medicare, or to pay corporations because they are well connected through no-bid contracts, really doesn’t make too much of a difference; both parties either view the citizen as a sheep to be fleeced or a constituent to lavish the money of others upon. Each views the citizen as a thing to be regulated and controlled.

Similarly, while each party would have you believe that their party represents a clear alternative to the other on social issues, the difference is again largely one of rhetoric, not of principle. Neither actually believes that a person owns himself - since he owns himself, he has the right to do what he pleases with his own body and property, as long as he doesn’t infringe on the right of others to do the same. No one’s rights have been violated when a person decides he wants to play poker with his own money online – it is his property and he has the right to use it as he pleases. No one’s rights have been violated when a person decides that he wants to use drugs in his own home – he owns himself and therefore has the right to put whatever he wants in his own body, even if it hurts him. No one’s rights have been violated when a person decides he doesn’t want to live any more – since he owns himself, he has the right to die if he wants. No one’s rights have been violated when a person says something offensive on a college campus. Victimless crimes are not crimes, yet internet gambling is illegal (except for a few exceptions), the Drug War persists, euthanasia is illegal in most states, and speech codes are prevalent. Again, the citizen is viewed as a thing to be regulated and controlled.

This election, vote for the only party that wants you to keep what you earn. Vote for the only party that believes that it is none of the government’s business what you do as long as you don’t hurt others. Vote for the party that believes the Constitution means what it says. Vote for one of the only parties that has consistently stood against the war. Do as PJ O’Rourke would: knock some sense into the silly fools. This election, vote for the party of peace, freedom, and free markets: vote Libertarian.

The US Government v. the Dorm Drunk: Which Is Better?

2006-11-14T15:42:00.000-08:00

An Objective Analysis

By Mark Poyar

Each week, my view towards the government more closely resembles my opinion towards Fisher Hall’s dorm drunk – when he throws up on the side of the building on Monday night, it is hardly an unexpected event, yet still quite pathetic. Similarly, as the government continues to spew bad laws and make poor decisions on a daily basis, it is still disgusting, but it happens so frequently nowadays that I’m never surprised. However, there are a number of reasons why the dorm drunk is preferable to the United States government.

Firstly, the “legislation” emanating from the dorm drunk rarely impacts me, despite the fact that I live in Fisher Hall as well. Sure, I might catch an occasional whiff of upchucked Blazing Sea Nuggets (rightfully so). I might have to side-step them on the second floor stairwell on the way to lunch on Tuesday afternoon. I might even have to help the dorm drunk stumble into his loft and turn him on his side so he can pass out. But the dorm drunk’s actions rarely have a lasting impact on me; they are fleeting college experiences that I will one day look back on and laugh about. I’m never worried that the dorm drunk is going to install surveillance cameras in my room or steal my money and call it the income tax. The dorm drunk will never ban drinking or gambling and tell me it is for my own good. If he attempted to do any of these things, he would be ResLifed. The government, on the other hand, does all these things with impunity.

Secondly, dorm drunk doesn’t even attempt to rationalize his actions. He knows his actions are corrupt and doesn’t make vague references to incoherent concepts in an Orwellian fashion. He doesn’t claim he did the technicolor yawn all over the 3B bathroom last night for the common good, moral values, national security, spreading democracy, the poor, or the children. He isn’t foolish enough to tell me that banning online gambling protects “American values” (apparently freedom of choice, personal responsibility, and the right of contract aren’t “American values”). He won’t attempt to persuade me that I have a “right” to universal health care (apparently, the “right” to steal other people’s money through the tax code and use it for your own purposes was what John Locke was talking about when he talked about “rights”). He doesn’t start wars and then pretend the purpose was to spread “democracy” or “freedom.” He doesn’t pretend that his actions are anything other than what they are – he engages in no double-speak. The US government and its politicians, on the other hand, do all these things.

Thirdly, the dorm drunk usually limits his partying to the area directly around the dorm. He is seen as a good-natured fellow (albeit a drunk one) by the rest of Notre Dame community who rarely does them wrong. Yes, he might occasionally wander in a drunken haze all over campus and pee on the side of another dorm, but he parties almost exclusively in Fisher Hall. Unless one of the other dorms hurt his person or steal his booze, he has no motivation to venture outside the walls of Fisher. His actions are confined to his home. He exists peacefully alongside everyone else. The dorm drunk wouldn’t go braying into battle like a learning-disabled jackass against another dorm that did him little or no wrong. The dorm drunk isn’t foolish enough to give those who already don’t like his partying ways another excuse to hate him. He does not warmonger. The US government, on the other hand, does all of these things.

Finally, the dorm drunk isn’t too much of a burden on society. Yes, perhaps he will mistake a fellow Fisherman’s laptop for a urinal in the wee hours or the morning or pass out naked in Ellie’s bed (our rector’s dog) in the middle of the first floor entrance way, but at least his shenanigans provide much needed college stories to a college that is relatively tame compared to other schools. Although it is true that he wreaks havoc on other people’s belongings, he is still personally fiscally responsible for whatever damage he causes. He cannot legally take 39% of my earnings without repercussion. He is not endowed with the power to take half of the belongings of my dead relative without suffering the consequences of doing so. He can’t institute programs to punish the productive for being successful. The US government, on the other hand, does all of these things.

While there is certainly a resemblance between the US government and our dorm drunk, the dorm drunk is obviously preferable to the US government. Let’s replace our representatives with dorm drunks this election. It can’t get any worse.

Man Continues Fight Against Civilization-Threatening Hornets

2005-11-07T05:06:00.000-08:00

Taken from the Enduring Vision

By Scott Wagner

John Carlson, a resident of Atlanta, Georgia, recently expressed deep concern when he was viciously attacked by several hornets. The hornets stung him repeatedly, which caused his skin to swell and put him in "grave pain." Carlson called the hornets "cowards" and began a full-scale invasion of their nest, equipped with a semiautomatic AK-47.

Carlson is described by his neighbors as a "patriot with a spine of steel" who would not let his wounds "be in vain."

"He’s one damn fine American," said his friend and neighbor Gary Detch. "I know that all of us in the neighborhood support him."

"It’s what has to be done," said Detch’s wife Sandy. "It’s hard, but we all know it’ll be all right." She stuck a yellowish-red ribbon on the back of the family’s SUV and said: "Until the fight is over."

Carlson originally served in the US Marine Corps as a first lieutenant during the first Gulf War, and returned as a Major in the second Gulf War.

"I remember those days," he said in an interview with a smile. "And when those bees attacked me I could remember the feel of battle like it was yesterday. I knew what I had to do."

"He makes me proud to be an American," said his son, Army Private John Wayne Carlson Jr., who lost his legs and an arm when his military convoy was attacked by insurgents in Baghdad. "Protecting the freedom of the American people is what our family does. Now he’s protecting the freedom of our household -- the freedom to take a stand against having our freedom attacked."

Emotions flew high on the night of the invasion. Carlson, who is trained in the use of semiautomatic weaponry, unleashed a fury of bullets into the nest, which hung suspended fifteen feet above his front door on his roof. The bullets ripped through the nest and the house, destroying the wall and a portion of the roof. His daughter Celia was killed in the initial stages of the invasion.

Carlson proudly declared all major combat operations complete, and his family was subsequently stung repeatedly by a swarm of hornets, both from the original nest and abroad. Carlson used the weapon to shoot the hornets as they attacked his family, though his wife and mailman were killed by "friendly fire" in the process.

"They killed my wife," he shouted before unleashing a third torrent of bullets into the Enduring Vision news van. One hornet was killed and the tires of the van were destroyed.

"It’s difficult," said his neighbor Donald Catalano. "But it’s war. War isn’t pretty. If it was, it wouldn’t be called war. It would be called 'Walker Texas Ranger' or something else. But it's not."

He then added: "It’s war."

Carlson grieved for the loss of his wife and daughter briefly before steeling himself for a second invasion. "It may be years before I get every last one of those hornets. It would send the wrong message to tell you when exactly I’ll be done, and here’s the message I want to send to them: my wife and child will be avenged."

His eyes glowed with resolve, and he concluded: "I’ve got some C4 in the truck."

"When you’re doing the right thing, you just know it," said Carlson Jr. "And when you've got the power, you've got to stand up for what’s right. It makes me so damn proud to be an American."

He stuck another yellowish-red ribbon on the back of the SUV.

Diversity "Awareness"

2005-10-11T18:30:00.000-07:00

By Dave Mangold

There are myriad divisions that cause separation, necessarily or arbitrarily, right or wrong, implicitly or explicitly, within our society. Having grown up in hunter-gatherer groups of small size that exhibit classical primate social structure, human nature is to identify differences first. Individual identity, essentially an abstraction, is, at least in part, defined within those differences. However, those differences also (perhaps invariably) corrode the nature of individual identity, in that 50% of that identity exists outside the protective confines of the consciousness, in at-large perception. A black man who thinks he’s a white man still gets identified as a black man by everyone else; identity is not an act of conscious will. Anything that corrodes the individual identity does likewise to the cohesiveness of the social unit, no matter the size of said unit. Contemporary liberal ideologies gravitate towards the idea that this is avoidable or reversible, and somewhere along the way ‘awareness’ became the buzzword for the strategy taken to that end.

Whether ‘awareness,’ changes the nature of race perception and interaction does not require debate; whether it improves the nature of race perception and interaction is difficult to determine. Deconstructionist philosopher Pablo Derrida once said that naming something is an act of violence. One must ask: is attempting to gain an understanding of what it is to be black destructive to racial differences, or racial identity? Ideally the comment repeated so often on the tape, “I don’t see you black,” should have a certain kind of truth; a social structure null of racism would ostensibly not attach the connotation of “blackness” to the color of one’s skin. One could label such a state a sort of “blissful ignorance.” While clearly not attainable, perhaps approaching this sort of condition is desirable. Furthermore, no more attainable is a condition where a white person understands sufficiently what it is to be black– has enough awareness – to bridge the gap that separates them. In fact, much that appears as ‘racial sensitivity’ is laden with a sense of artificiality – the term ‘token black guy’ comes to mind. Indeed, if one is to use the model of a one-on-one friendship, it becomes clear that a high degree of sensitivity to prickly racial issues, in one direction or the other, is a stifling factor. It would seem that in order to take the first step towards racial unity, it would be better to ignore racial disunity as much as possible. That is not to say that it is not beneficial to know about racism, just as it is to know about the Holocaust or the Inquisition. But racism as a social pretext is not likely to prove itself a panacea.

Fear the Political Class

2005-10-07T13:32:00.000-07:00

By Scott Wagner

----------------------------------
And the real motives and spirit which lie at the foundation of all legislation---notwithstanding all the pretences and disguises by which they attempt to hide themselves---are the same to-day as they always have been. They whole purpose of legislation is simply to keep one class of men in subordination and servitude to another.
----------------------------------

Lysander Spooner wrote the above quotation in his piece “Natural Law,” published in the year 1882. His words resound today as clearly—if not more clearly—than they did 130 years ago.
The political class regards itself as divided. The Left and Right stand before us, constantly bickering amongst themselves about what would be the best way to rule everyone else.
This is a show. A grand, theatrical lie.
Using surveillance powers invented by the Patriot Act, the right-wing Attorney General Albert Gonzales has begun building up an FBI attachment to investigate the purveyance of “obscene” materials. Forget that the Federal government has no authority to do so.
The left-wing politicians in power have fought long and hard to collect income taxes and redistribute the money in charitable social programs. Forget that the Federal government has no authority to do so.
Forget all of these things.
The Constitution has become a nuisance to the goals of the political class. They provoke wars without declaring them; they suspend trial rights and presume that the innocent are guilty; they pander out to whatever interest groups promise them more and more power. They attack the foundations of liberty and free trade that built this failing nation.
Politics in America is now about divvying up the spoils of the plunder. The political class passes laws every day that make criminals out of innocents and terrorize their own people. Through it all, of course, they smile through their teeth at us; they promise us better government, faster government, friendlier government. They are here for our own good, they say.
But like Spooner said, they are nothing more than thieves. They are liars. They are extortionists. They have no desire to change anything; the system already gives them so much.
Forget what they say, and what they have taught you to believe. They do not have the rights and powers that they so underhandedly usurp. Forget everything they have ever told you, for it is all lies.

Political Correctness

2005-10-05T20:36:00.000-07:00

By Dave Mangold

----------------------------------------------------------------
Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them and to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again , to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. – George Orwell, 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------

When did being politically correct take over for simply correct?

It seems to me that there is no morally relevant significance to niceties and euphemisms; granted that there’s something to be said for the dodgy sort of conversational elusiveness that allows a person to talk about taboo subjects while sounding like a Times correspondent (does the Times have correspondents? CNN does, and they’re very proper). But there’s a meaningful transition from doublespeak into Newspeak … which in turn turns into Doublethink. I’m not a particular fan of Orwellian analogies – in themselves they ironically tend more toward rhetoric and alarmism about Orwell’s fictional world than circumspect consideration of the real world. But the Newspeak/Doublethink concept seems oddly current and perceptive right now, and I often wonder about how cautionary tales that everybody knows can do so little to focus attention. I shouldn’t wonder this; I should simply consider how long ago J.C. (messiah, not Bach) said “let he without sin,” and realize that the logic can be ingrained all the way into the consciousness and have no effect.

Social criticism is a bit hairy; how do you point a critical lens at everyone? I tend towards giving over human failings to human nature and not fight it. More importantly, does social criticism require that you share in the blame? Anyone who would voluntarily remove themselves from the set-of-all-humans ought not to be seriously considered in their complaints, suggestions, etc. After all, if you’re not one of us, then who are you really to make suggestions? This is my great escape route from true moralism; I count myself among that set-of-all humans who, by now, can’t be argued to have higher purposes, aspirations, or authorities. We’re all bad little selfish utilitarian Skinnerettes, who, when it comes down to it, would go Kurtz and never consider “the Horror.” It’s a hard thing to love, but I’m trying. Of all the terrible affronts I’ve ever made to my Christian heritage, that’s probably the worst, but then of course in my book that counts for having the serenity to accept the thing I cannot change. After all, what conception is there of any wickedness beyond what humans have already done at least twice?

This is aberrant logic, I realize. Knowing of what horrors man is capable makes it necessary for some to have faith in a greater goodness. To some it’s in the next life, in the gentler aspects of human nature, in some animistic, unbalanced positive energy innate to humans (i.e. spirit or soul), or maybe the continuing refinement of social contrivances that differentiate us from animals. But mostly this faith centers around the pursuit of a more idealized here and now, and that’s where social criticism comes in. It’s the motivation for political correctness and taboo subjects and euphemisms and all of those little white ones.

Personally I don’t subscribe to any taboos, and it always frightens me when encountering others who don’t share my detatchment inspire confusion in me. Whether or not I have a stomach strong enough or an outlook cynical enough or a mentality stoic enough, I should relate to that instinct of humans toward unmentionability. True, I take pride in my boldness, but on those occasions where I outright fail to understand why a taboo is necessary, I honestly wonder whether that makes me a sociopath. My initial reaction is to categorize the offended as a mental eremite, but it is inescapable that I have never met somebody as inoffensible as myself.

So the social critic’s position becomes the relevant concern. Is the whole world beset by posturing? Familiarity and comfort with verboten subjects (Thoughtcrime?) carries a stigma of immorality in it’s own right; I’ve often said that you can pick out somebody with a misspent youth by their ability to convert from ounces to grams. (28 grams to the ounce, Domers. An eight-ball of cocaine is 3.5 grams and knowing the right people can land one in your hand for under a hundred bucks in my hometown. I have no idea how many people that would serve.) Willingly discussing sexually deviant behaviors you’ll never engage in is enough to make a ‘pervert,’ heaven forbid discussing religiously or racially sensitive topics. But I personally just don’t get it. Maybe it’s a side-effect of being the ignominious WhiteSuburbanMiddleclassHeterosexualMale, but I can’t think of what somebody would have to say to me to truly offend me. And when I see someone offended over something I or somebody said, more often than not I just don’t get it. I want to tell people to drop the act; nobody will judge them for being real (which, of course, is only true in select company. My home town is the most closed-minded open-minded place in the world. My college is second. Pride, baby.) But I don’t, and usually it occurs to me that the reasoning I ascribe to their outrage is not the same reasoning they would.

So then, must I count myself out of the set-of-all-humans? Is there something wrong with me? I’m inclined to think not, but what else is new. So how do I examine this particular leaning toward political correctness? Being a selfish little utilitarianist of the highest order (business major), I could apply a cost-benefit analysis. In my mind, the ability to avoid the sensation of indignity and regard rhetoric with indifference is a most desireable benefit, for all the frustration it inspires. Mental separation from my fellows is, for all its benefits, a real cost. (for the sake of full disclosure, the greatest benefit of lax standards of propriety is the lack of sexual inhibition) The balance tips when the “he without sin” edict occurs to me; as sick and twisted and base as humans are, it’s lovely to be human. I enjoy casting no stones , and I would rather relate to humanity at it’s lowest, most honest point. As inseparable as the doublethink of high-mindedness is from the human character, it’s still dishonest, and thus will always impede the plodding escape from the unexamined life. Whether such internal veracity is possible or even desirable is certainly in doubt – it seems entirely probable that meeting life will only serve to prove how mean it is, and how nasty and brutish we are. But it seems to me that accepting your humanity beats denying it – even if accepting it makes you the exception. That is to say, in not the political or even the moral sense but the epistemological one it is “correct.”

So what then of political correctness? Well, if it were morally or epistemologically correct, they wouldn’t call it that, would they? But of course this is trite; I owe more commitment than that. Though I have a hard time reconciling it with Derrida’s credible insistence that meaning proceeds from language and not vice-versa, my admonition would be to exercise incredible skepticism toward rhetoric. This is of course anathema to this entire article; though I’ve tried to make it self-evidently cogent, I’ve also dotted it with literary references that amount to authoritarian appeals – textbook logical fallacy. Hopefully my thoughtlines are whole enough on their own to justify my position, though. That, after all, is my entire point: justifiable positions. Perhaps it's more often than not a justifiable position to be offended at this, that or the other, to lash out pitifully against the immutable injustice of it all, but I've yet to hear the justification. So, soft hearts, virgin ears and precisely balanced sensibilities: is there something wrong with you? How doubled is your think? I won't deny it of myself, only explain.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Postscript:
"In the paper of 1892, two different functions were assigned to the ego in the course of the development of hysteria: (a) Most hysterical symptoms were recognized as being consequences of traumata. Any experience which could elicit intensive painful affects could become a trauma, depending upon the sensitivity of the ego. This sensitivity was the only factor through which the ego contributed to the development of the disease, but nothing further was said about it."
(The effect of the structure of the ego on psychoanalytic technique, Kurt R. Eissler. Refers to Breuer & Freud)

Diversity - Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

2005-10-04T19:05:00.000-07:00

By Mark Poyar

For 2/3rds of last semester, all Notre Dame students were forced to attend a class called "Contemporary Topics." Among other things, I learned that I am a binge drinker, which the class defines as someone who has had more than 4 drinks in one night sometime within the last two weeks, that people who had taken this class (every Notre Dame student) experienced "increased self-esteem" as a result, and that “diversity” is good. In Notre Dame's attempt to appear diverse, a "diversity expert" came into our class and lectured us on how the white man is bad, everyone else is good, and how racism and sexism are still prevalent all over the United States (while in the same breath commenting on the greatness of affirmative action, which I guess proves her point, a point which she was too dull to see). In order to better demonstrate the irrationality of racism, the diversity expert showed us a small documentary. It followed a diversity Nazi who would visit classrooms and attempt to make the students feel inferior. First, she would treat everyone with brown eyes like they were completely worthless by calling them “boy” or some other derogatory name. Then she changed her mind and decided to repeat the exercise with the blue eyed people. She made one completely insecure dumbass high-school girl burst into tears within about thirty seconds, which made me laugh. If you can’t stand being yelled at for about thirty seconds by someone you don’t know about something that really doesn’t matter, what does that say about you?

Anyways, we had to write a two page paper on what we had learned both from the movie and from the diversity expert. The following was my response.

“Diversity”

I won’t lie. I learned virtually nothing during this video or presentation. The only point that was really driven home was that racism was bad, which any moron would have known before watching a video. If that “woman” entered a classroom and attempted to do that to me, I would have torn her a new one. I despise most of this “diversity crowd.” To me, they represent the politically correct do-gooders that have come to symbolize the American Left. Strictly speaking, the whole concept of “diversity” is merely politically correct racism.

The underlying tenants of the diversity movement are quite scary to think about. According to the “diversity crowd,” we supposedly gain valuable insights from the viewpoints of minorities. Apparently, everyone benefits from this system. However, this view requires that you accept the fact that one’s race determines what is in one’s mind. Hispanic people have Hispanic ideas and black people have “black” ideas. Thus, people have worldviews based on their ethnic identity. This is a very similar belief to that of any racist. Racists believe that a person’s ethnicity determines their thoughts and actions. A person’s character is predetermined by his race, not by his reason and experiences.

An individualist, on the other hand, does not hold any of these racist views. He judges each person on their merits as a person, their rationality, their character, not by the color of their skin or something else equally arbitrary. The diversity crowd of today, such as the NAACP, has ceased to demand government “color-blindness” and now demands government enforced racism, such as affirmative action (both in colleges and the workforce) and minority set-asides. To quote Ayn Rand:

"So long as the Negro leaders were fighting against government-enforced discrimination-right, justice and morality were on their side. But that is not what they are fighting any longer...Instead of fighting against racial discrimination, they are demanding that racial discrimination be legalized and enforced. Instead of fighting against racism, they are demanding the establishment of racial quotas. Instead of fighting for 'color-blindness' in social and economic issues, they are proclaiming that 'color-blindness' is evil and that 'color' should be made a primary consideration. Instead of fighting for equal rights, they are demanding special race privileges."

Equally ridiculous is the notion that females are being discriminated against on a wide scale. It does not stand to reason that a competent employer (employers have to be competent or they will go down in flames) would discriminate based on the sex of the person. If it was true that women really earned 76 cents for every dollar a man makes for the exact same work (with the same experience), then the employer is pretty damn stupid for not maximizing his profit by firing all adult males and hiring cheaper women in their place, who will do the exact same work for less money. The Independent Women's Forum says, "The average wages of women are lower than those of men because the average woman has less work experience and is more likely to choose a lower-paying job that provides flexibility to combine work and family responsibilities." Numerous other studies have confirmed the conclusion that women that do the same work with the same experience make virtually the same amount of money as men. This is merely common sense. Likewise, an employer is pretty stupid if he won’t hire someone because of their skin color. In a capitalist society, the profit motive will trump most racism and sexism through the economy.

While the multicultural/diversity/”ethnocentrism is the devil” people have a few legitimate points, for the most part, they have their heads up their backside. No logical person would ever support such racist policies as affirmative action or racial set-asides because no logical person supports racism. Rational people understand that a person’s ideas are not determined by the color of one’s skin and that the color of skin does not determine the way a person thinks.

"Gay rights and all rights"

2005-09-29T19:58:00.000-07:00

By Scott Wagner

Letter to the Editor of the Observer
RE: Gay rights and all rights

Jacob Zipifel’s September 29^th letter is astounding. It is so full of doublespeak and rhetoric that it is difficult to decipher whether or not he actually believes what he says, or simply is regurgitating what he has learned from year after year of Catholic schooling.

If interracial marriage were illegal, but it were legal for a black man and a black woman to get married (which once was the case in this country), Zipfel’s argument completely justifies this type of legal discrimination; because, according to his “logic,” black people could marry each other. They were thus equal citizens, right?

Give me a break.

The fact is, in our secular society, a marriage between two people confers hundreds of rights—visitation rights, tax breaks, you name it—on both the state and the federal levels. Thanks to people like Zipfel, an adult who wants to marry another adult is not necessarily allowed. I don’t remember giving Mr. Zipfel or the government the authority to ban anyone’s wedding (or grant their wedding either…where is that in any Constitution?).

Of course he must mention NAMBLA. Let me be clear, then: children, Mr. Zipfel, are not consenting adults. How many years of law school does it take before they teach you that small detail? Your analogy is, at best, ineffectual; at worst, it is ignorant.

If we, the students of Notre Dame, held a vote to disallow you from ever marrying, Mr. Zipfel, would the outcome of that referendum give it any moral or ethical authority? Absolutely not. You are an individual, and your sovereignty as such is not open to the outcome of any election. The same applies to gay people, whether you like it or not.

And no, despite what you say, moral conduct of a minority is very clearly delineated without the help of the Bible. Individual liberty, the bedrock upon which this nation was founded, and a principle in which our deist Founders believed, does that for you. You may appeal to the Bible all you want, Mr. Zipfel, but it will not help you in court when you become a lawyer. I hope that makes sense, or you’re going to have some difficult cases in your future.

Appealing to liberty is not demagoguery. Appealing to the Bible, NAMBLA and “gay men can marry women” is.

In fact, it is more desperate than anything else.

The Idiocy of the Supreme Court Nomination Process

2005-09-23T21:52:00.000-07:00

by Scott Wagner

Somehow, a left-wing Internet group got my name and sent me an e-mail declaring that the confirmation of Judge John Roberts “could undo all progressive decisions of the past century!” Apparently, they would have me believe, a conservative judge will undoubtedly rule against “progressive” court decisions and set back American “progress.”
I hope I am not the only person who sees the incongruous sentiments behind that statement.
I know very little about John Roberts, and have become so disillusioned with the Supreme Court that I honestly care very little about him. However, here is a sample of the questions posed to Roberts by senators during his confirmation hearings:
Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) asked: “What role would you play in making right the wrongs revealed by Katrina?” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) demanded to know: “What is the best way for our society to protect ourselves against terrorists not affiliated with a nation-state[…]?”
Here is my question: what does any of this have to do with the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court does not set foreign policy or determine the best way to protect Der Vaterland. The Supreme Court does not control disaster relief. The Supreme Court has one job, and it is a simple one: listen to America’s legal problems, look at the Constitution, and decide if it gives the government any authority to bother with their problems. It is not difficult.
However, the Supreme Court has become a grandstand for “activist” judges of the left and right wings. Recently, in Gonzales v. Raich, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the Court’s decision that medical patients who grow and smoke marijuana in their own homes are seriously affecting interstate commerce, and therefore the federal government has a right to regulate (read: outlaw) it. In Kelo v. New London, left-wing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg supported the majority decision to allow the appropriation of private property in order to generate higher tax revenue for local governments. Both of these decisions illustrate two of the myriad of unclear interpretations of the Constitution the Court has made, and both exemplify the type of agenda-pushing that occurs on the level of the nation’s highest Court.
Does the Commerce Clause allow for regulation of locally grown marijuana? Does the Fifth Amendment allow private property to be stolen on behalf of private developers?
No, of course not. Sadly, common sense is lacking in our government today.
The political debate that has been raging about Roberts and his place on the Court is fundamentally misguided. The Constitution is apolitical; it does not lean left and it does not lean right. However, no one seems to notice.
The Left has the sophomoric belief that the Constitution is some kind of “living document” whose interpretation changes with time. The Constitution is not perfect, but nothing could be further from the truth. This assumption is founded on the idea that as American society grows, bigger government and more laws are needed in order to control it. Such disingenuity is as politically sound as the Marxism that grounds it. If anything, as American society becomes more efficient and liberal (not left-wing; I mean the real kind of “liberal”), there should be more restrictions on the power of the government to control its citizens. We are not moving in that direction, unfortunately, and will continue to see increasing politicization of our desecrated Constitution.
As has become more usual, the conservatives seem to agree. Instead of sticking to the strict constructionism that should be governing rulings of the Court, they are just as willing to sacrifice their supposed ideals of limited government in favor of the right-wing brand of social engineering.
Supreme Court justices are not elected officials. Far be it for me to extol the virtues of limited republican democracy, but at least we have one-quarter of ourselves to blame for electing the politicians who are ruining the nation. With the Supreme Court, however, there is no accountability. These are people who are appointed by the Politician-in-Charge, and they remain in power as long as they want. There is no reason the American public should tolerate judicial “activism;” if the Constitution does not give the government explicit authority to do something, it is reserved to the States or to the people. It is very clearly enumerated.
I do not know what future-Chief Justice John Roberts will do to stain the fabric of American liberty. I almost do not want to think about it. What I do know, however, is that the politicians in Washington will continue doing what they have been doing for decades, and America will remain blissfully unaware of the political destruction that occurs every single day.

Race is an issue

2005-09-07T05:36:00.000-07:00

Taken from The Observer Viewpoint

By Alex Forshaw

It's been a while since I've seen so many falsehoods packed in a single letter, as I did when I read Matt Hamilton's Sept. 4 letter, "Race on the Levee." Paul Krugman is probably already consulting Hamilton for his next New York Times column.

Why is it any surprise, when the overwhelming majority of whites, who are disproportionately wealthier than the blacks, left New Orleans, which was 67 percent black before the evacuation? How is it not "Third World" to have locals indiscriminately machine-gunning policemen and rescue workers? (It sounds pretty indistinguishable from Mogadishu to me.) Who is Hamilton to complain about the consensus opinion of the locals, who, unlike Hamilton, were actually there when it happened?

As for pointing fingers, of course two-thirds-black New Orleans' mayor, who is black, had nothing to do with the cleanup fiasco, other than bumping his cronies to the head of the evacuation line. Neither did the New Orleans police chief, who is also black. (Note the highest per-capita murder rate and most corrupt police department in America including Washington, D.C., and less than a quarter of the city's murders resulting in a conviction - before Katrina.)

Neither did the Louisiana governor, who is white, and whose decisive votes came in David Duke's most loyal parishes, thanks to a last-minute race-baiting ad against her Indian-American opponent. Luckily for her, though, she's a Democrat. Maybe we need to review the criteria here? We need someone who's white, male, Republican, powerful and preferably rich ... I've got it: "Bush to New Orleans: Drop Dead." Has a nice ring, doesn't it?

Finally, since Hamilton has no problem with looting, somebody should give me his address. (I'll take care of the U-Haul.) And if he says I'm too rich to deserve everything he's worked for, I'm sure there are plenty of meth tweakers and crackheads - er, "dispossessed people" in South Bend who are just as deserving of those household appliances and possessions as Hamilton is. Just think of "the human dignity, the self-government and the triumph in the face of adversity!"

I don't mean that all dispossessed people are addicts, just that some are (and thus not necessarily deserving of indiscriminate aid or loot).