Politics is, of course, the preferred method
of
implementation of new social rules.
The Problems Adhering to Governance
by
Law
February 1, 1990
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
In response to Ricky Baldwin's column of January 31, 1990
regarding the lumbering industry in this country:
First, I think if Ricky would avoid the use of inflammatory and
pejorative phrases in making his points his argument would be more
compelling.
Second, his view is one-sided. He concludes that Congress is
being paid to show favoritism towards a small group of business
men at the expense of the people, so that they can get rich. To reach
this conclusion he notes that some businessmen get rich in this
business and that congress has passed laws regarding public lands
and the trees they contain. To conclude that our representatives are
immoral on this kind of evidence truly deserves the epithet
sophomoric.
To take a more evenhanded view of the situation, it was
concluded at some time in the past that America's best interests lay
in supporting industry of whatever kind in order to support job
creation. This has been a basic goal of our government for a long
time. When we had an apparently endless supply of trees and a
need to build many homes, the policy looked good. It is beginning to
look bad now that the trees are dwindling.
There are some unfortunate consequences to governance via
laws. Laws get old and out of date as do clothes. However, in the
case of laws, people will base their livelihoods on the existence of
laws and the expectation that they will never change. If people
become powerful as a result of laws they will use their power to see
that the laws don't change.
Our system includes some mechanisms for changing laws, but
we wouldn't like to see it become too easy. If it were, laws would
change by the day and we would have no capability of predicting
our futures.
So, if you think the laws concerning harvesting of timber on
public lands should be changed: use the existing mechanisms for
changing them (write your congressman). But don't slander our
lawmakers because the times have changed. By the way, the
underlying causative factor here is population growth.
Joe Schiller
August 10, 1994
National Review
150 East 35th Street
New York, NY 10016
Sir,
I congratulate George Weigel and William Kristol for their Pro-
Life Strategy for Republicans, but...
They fail to recognize that one of the complex set of arguments
supporting the Pro-Choice movement is the overpopulation issue.
Therefore, difficult as it is, a statement should be included that
attempts to clearly define just what the problem is and the proper
stance to be adopted by Republicans in response to it.
I propose the following:
* Overpopulation of the globe by humans is recognized by the
Republican Party as a current problem that could have the effect of
dramatically altering our value system if some solution to it is not
identified and a start made towards addressing it. It is recognized
that overpopulation is possibly an issue of such complexity, that no
political party can expect to deal with it in any comprehensive way.
None the less, the GOP also feels that not making an attempt can
only be viewed as an abrogation of responsibility on such a grand
scale as to tend to make the party appear impotent or worse,
meaningless.
* Overpopulation has the general effect of reducing the quality
of life of humans. As a problem, it has the potential over time, to
destroy the culture if some counter force is not provided for or
allowed to occur naturally.
* Programs designed to counter this threat have a tendency to
oppose traditional values adhered to by most members of our society
from time immemorial.
* There are, however, signs that nature will solve the problem
for humans, if allowed to continue and indeed build over time. Two
such factors spring to mind: 1) The decline of male potency as
recently discovered and described in American medical journals,
and 2) The rising incidence and metamorphosis of the AIDS virus,
also described in the same journals.
* The platform, therefore, should include language proposing
that these and other similar natural tendencies be allowed to run
their course without interference by humans. Towards that end,
government agencies should be restrained from spending money in
any endeavor which would tend to work against the continuation of
these natural tendencies.
* This policy runs counter to traditional wisdom, but, if the
long view is taken, we believe that it can be seen and communicated
to the American people that this is actually a pro-life stance.
* We also recognize that this policy runs counter to the desire
of commercial and political interests to increase the number of
humans in order to increase the sum total of political power and
human exploitation of the natural world, but we believe that these
are short sighted goals that are self defeating in the long term.
* Finally, we also recognize that these policies can be
interpreted as running counter to certain biblical requirements. We
have concluded however, that humans have misinterpreted the
Bible in this instance, that the Bible is pre-eminently concerned with
survival of the species and since overpopulation, if not dealt with in
some fashion, will have the exact opposite effect, we are constrained
to attempt to align our policies with that realization.
* * *
Association of cultural problems with population pressure is
difficult. Humans are great problem solvers, so they naturally try to
solve problems at the source, and this has the effect of masking the
genesis of problems as viewed at the policy level. As an example, I
reject the notion that something inherent in the black race produces
the grand flight of fathers from their filial responsibilities. Instead,
I postulate (an unprovable postulation) that black males flee
overfeminized wives who refuse conjugal responsibilities.
As population increases, government policy becomes more
complex. To test this statement think of the solution to a crime
problem in Dodge City, Kansas 100 years ago and the solution to the
same problem today. In the one case the solution was to find a good
Marshall. Today, due to population increase, the Dodge City problem
is related to the same problem in every American city, so it is
comprehensive and requires, apparently, a comprehensive solution,
which cannot be devised by the federal government due to local
variations in the problem.
Passivity in pursuit of governmental policy is an unexplored
alternative that used to be greatly admired. It should be re-explored
as a means of achieving an end that lacks the disadvantages of
activist programs.
Please do not critisize this statement on the grounds that I no
less than any other wish to protect myself from the AIDS virus. It is
time to discuss the fact that the responsibilities of government are
not coincident with those of the individual. Because it is my
responsibility to survive at all costs, it does not follow that the
responsibility of government is to see that all its citizens survive at
all costs. The government is a corporate entity, not an individual,
and therefore has different responsibilities. Its view should be to do
the greatest good for the greatest number, and in so doing to
recognize that the long term is its domain. It is also necessary to
recognize that good is ultimately about survival. Morality is about
survival, not of the individual but of society.
Of course the problems of democracy are by now all too
apparent. They flow from the practise of buying votes. This is
wrong because it distorts the government view to that of the
individual. The individual must, in a moral society, be left to his
own devices, when it comes to his own personal survival. My
prescription for the various levels of government would be that they
restrict themselves to the relations between entities of their own
scope. Thus, national governments should concern themselves with
the relations between nations and state governments should
negotiate with other states, cities with cities, and so on.
You may feel that these issues are too large, since they amount
to reconstituting our governing institutions, but that is what we must
do in these momentous times.
Sincerely,
Joe Schiller
Editor,
After reading Mr. Sheets' condemnation of Ross Perot, I am
driven to the conclusion that our problems with politicians mainly
come from an inability to discern character.
I listen to all the criticism heaped on Mr. Perot from all sides
and as time goes on start leaning towards this view, and then he
appears on the Today Show and reconvinces me that he is a man of
character. We can expect him to be criticized widely, because he is
neither a Democrat or Republican and therefore not part of the
political establishment. Those committed to the establishment, such
as Rush Limbaugh, will not be able to support him.
This is not to say that he is a good politician. Good character
doesn't necessarily coincide with good politics, in fact they can work
against each other due to the need for politicians to adopt the views
of their patrons from time to time.
Character is difficult to discern with confidence. Good actors
can feign good character up to a point.
I would say that the following qualities should be looked for
when character is wanted:
* Honesty: Watch to see if the spokesman says things
that are important to him even though they are not PC. Political
ideology is always concerned with creation of a new society and
therefore cannot be too concerned with honesty. Ideologues will
always emphasize news that strengthens their ideology and ignore
news that weakens it.
* Concern for others: Watch to see if he concerns
himself with others when there can be no expectation of political
gain.
* Wisdom: Watch to see if he endorses Biblical values,
or in the negative whether he has acted in an immoral way.
* Family: Look at his family and see if they are
genuinely in awe of his fathering/husbanding. This can be difficult,
since they will always want to support him.
* Real patriotism: Look at his work life for signs that he
has acted to strengthen his country in difficult times.
* Look for acts rather than words: Remember that the
cheapest tool available in a political contest is the lie.
Joe Schiller
How Minorities Gain Control of the Political
Mechanism
Democracy has a serious defect. The problem is that it is subject
to domination by minorities. Democracy is a system wherein the
electorate votes on issues, directly or indirectly. A republic, on the
other hand, uses representatives of the electorate to vote on issues.
The distinction may seem minor but consider how it works in
practice.
A large electorate will vote on both sides of any adequately
explained issue in approximately even numbers. This is because any
issue has an indefinitely large number of positions available to the
individual voter. If one could vote on any position relating to a
particular issue, the result would be the well known bell curve. At a
deeper level, this is because there is no issue that is black and white.
The individuals reaction to an issue is a function of the development
of the personality of the individual.
A small electorate, however, may well have a particular point of
view on any issue, and that will allow it to organize itself into a
voting block. Thus, the majority will likely vote the average or
middle position on any issue, thereby canceling itself out, while the
minority will vote coherently, thus becoming the only electorate of
consequence.
In a democracy, therefore, the minorities will decide issues.
This is an untenable state of affairs. The majority will only put up
with it as long as it doesn't understand what is happening. Our
country was established as a republic. We therefore have
representatives, but they have been convinced to run on issues,
which causes the electorate to vote in terms of issues.
Representatives should run on personality and reputation and
vote their own view on issues to reestablish the republic.
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
In response to Ms. Benton of The Committee Against Western
Aggression: she states, "Imperialism is, in fact, the systematic
domination and exploitation of peoples around the globe." (my
underline)
One could wish people would refrain from assigning the status
of fact to political rhetoric. The above paragraph is an invention of
politicians who wish to reduce the power of aggressive states with
political institutions based on the concept of royalty. Kings and
queens are not inherently bad, there have been and are both bad
and good kings. There also have been and are both bad and good
democracies. In fact humanity has never been able to identify any
completely good entity. Before you object, read Job.
The attribute of most interest about groups like this committee
is their apparent interest in reducing the power and effectiveness of
their own society. Surely there is a touch of masochism in this?
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
Today, I was unsurprised to hear an NBC report saying: 20
years after Watergate the special prosecutor says he thinks he may
be able to trace Iran/Contra to President Reagan. This statement
displays all of the contempt of the national news media for the
American people. We know that Watergate and Iran/Contra aren't
related. We also know when we are being manipulated.
I find it bizarre that the media seems surprised by the mood of
the electorate this year. I would say that I am surprised that it has
taken so long to reach the inevitable conclusions driving this
election. While the President and Mr. Clinton figuratively spread
their hands saying lets remain calm, the electorate is saying the time
for calm is past. We know that the endless spending of the various
levels of government cannot go on and that a day of reckoning is
coming. We don't know precisely what the reckoning will be, but it
is coming, and soon. We know that endless pollution of the
environment cannot go on without incurring a reaction by nature,
probably one that will work against us. We don't know when or
what form the reaction will take, but we know it is coming. We
know that endless presentation of more and more immoral material
in the media will eventually result in the wrath of God falling upon
us. We don't know how this will operate or when it will arrive, but
it will surely come.
Joe Schiller
Editor,
In response to Mr. Herzfeld's column of February 2, and
paraphrasing Billy Joel: It's all propaganda to me!
The feminists, driven by compassion, wish to expunge or at least
reduce suffering in the world. Well, that has been the common
philosophy for many years. It drives the whole medical profession
for example. Is it good philosophy? One's first reaction is positive
and for most that is the only reaction there is.
All ideas have an up and a down side. Anyone noticed that the
world is overpopulated and therefore polluted? This is the direct
result of reducing suffering.
Creativity, when applied to human society, uses as its primary
tool discrimination. If we wish a society that doesn't resort to
murder, we discriminate against murderers. If we didn't, murder
would be a much more common device than it now is. This simple
idea, much utilized in the past to promote such things as Christianity
and science, and to demote such things as single parenthood and
drug use, has now become too difficult for us to understand.
Therefore we must assume that creativity will no longer be applied,
at least to society. But civilization is a result of creative effort
applied to society. In the past we have discriminated unmercifully
against the uncivilized (we used to call them savages and pagans).
One has only to look at the treatment of the American Indian to get
the flavor of it. Are we then to discard civilization in the service of
compassion? Remember, this means oil!
I have a difficult time convincing myself that academic liberals
and American blacks, the force behind feminism, understands this
relationship, so I suppose that this is an example of unconscious
behavior, so common in the affairs of men.
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Mississippian
Editor,
In response to Ms. Higgins very thoughtful letter of Dec. 3,
wondering about my intentions.
First, Jonathan Swift was reacting to a problem, that problem
being that in Ireland there was too little food and too many people.
Swift had his ideas about the cause of the problem, I have mine.
You will never demonstrate the veracity of either. You can only
draw your own conclusions.
Second, intellectualism is a tool developed over many a long
century, that can under some circumstances provide understanding.
So is a telescope.
Third, my letters and columns have suggested that we should
look to overpopulation as a causative factor in the area of social and
political problems. As an example: at home, I could care less about
the racism of an individual if I never come into contact with him.
As population density increases however, it becomes ever less
possible to avoid contact with more and more people with more and
more diverse views. In the middle east, if there were land enough
to supply the needs of both the Israelis and the Palestinians, we
would be hearing nothing about the problem of sharing.
At one time overpopulation problems could be dealt with
through immigration, this outlet no longer exists. It is as if a pot of
water on a stove has had its lid sealed.
Joe Schiller
The Tools of the Demagog
Editor
In response to the column by Chris Fitter of 16 October: Mr.
Fitter uses some common techniques of political activists interested
in enhancing the political fortunes of their group at the expense of
others.
The first is the technique of extreme representation. With this
technique he suggests that if one cannot abide by all injunctions in
the Bible, they should give up trying to live by any.
His second technique is to suggest that uncritical acceptance is a
true manifestation of love. As most parents know, this is the least of
love. One must apply one's critical faculties in order to raise a child
who will know what will bring success and what will lead to failure.
This will require sanctions to enforce, which will be painful to both
parties, but will have a positive result in the end.
Finally, Mr. Fitter uses the crude technique of suggesting a
connection between those he dislikes and another group disliked by
the majority.
The use of manipulative techniques such as these suggests that
Mr. Fitter is intellectually dishonest, at least to us, and perhaps to
himself.
Joe Schiller
Editor,
In response to Mr. Cole's thoughtful letter regarding the Dixie
controversy, I would like to congratulate Mr. Cole for actually
thinking about the problem and then to criticize him for what I
would call mischaracterizations.
First, I don't think any reasonable person could characterize the
pre Civil War South as the location of a holocaust, as I understand
the term. Also, I don't know where he got his history from, but I
don't believe the statement that millions upon millions of black
people were murdered, tortured and dehumanized, unless he means
that some few were killed, some very few tortured, and millions
were maintained in a state of slavery, which some would consider
dehumanizing.
Of course, I wasn't there, but my understanding of the South, is
that it was made up of a conservative people, many of whom
considered honor to be the most important possession that a man
could have. The flag and the song, recall to many of us those
people.
The issue of slavery is a controversial one, but I would caution
against accepting the faddish dismissal of it as unredeemably evil.
For most of the period of history we characterize as civilized, slavery
has been an accepted institution, most have thought worthwhile.
Our founding fathers apparently found it problematic but necessary.
Probably even some slaves thought it worthwhile. Again, I don't
know, I wasn't there.
The important point raised by Mr. Cole is, should we, as a
people, place the pre Civil War South in the same mental category,
we have reserved for the Nazi regime? Should we walk around in a
state of perpetual guilt, as do liberal Germans, in penance for what
are now thought to have been the crimes of our ancestors? I think
not.
Joe Schiller
The Daily Mississippian
University, Ms. 38677
Editor,
In response to Chris Baker's column on funding state
universities: The problem is continual failure to get approval from
the voters on increasing educational budgets. This problem has
existed since Proposition 13 was passed in California about ten years
ago. Since then very few bills proposing increases in funding for
education have passed and most politicians run on a policy of no
new taxes.
This climate has not changed and no lawmakers are going to
defy the electorate because it would cost their jobs. So, if you want
something done, you have to ask why people refuse to pay for it. It
does no good to demand that legislators pass new laws providing
more funding when the money is not coming in.
The people aren't talking about why they refuse to allow new
funding bills to pass. One of the problems with democracy is
interpreting the way people vote. Experts spend their whole lives
trying to analyze it and getting very mixed results, but until it is
understood, not much can happen.
Complex questions require complex answers, so there will be a
number of reasons, some more palatable than others. I would
suggest the following:
* The educational system does not teach the values of the
parents, they therefore see no reason to support education. This is
the big reason I think. It is very hard to spend money for a system
that gives implicit support to activities that parents do not
approve.
* There has been a gradual decline in real income for
Americans over the last 20 years or so, so there is less to give.
* Value received does not match the cost. Education costs keep
going up and the value of the service keeps going down. The quality
of the education is not what it was, political propaganda has been
substituted for the classics as we were told by Bill Bennett just last
year. The plant and equipment are decaying because a larger and
larger share is going to teachers and a much larger share to
administrators. And, worst of all our children aren't as safe as they
were.
So, if you had children and this was offered to you at very
inflated prices how would you vote?
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Mississippian
Editor,
In response to the recent articles about the Nazis: certainly it is
most difficult to disbelieve the many media productions about the
treatment of prisoners by the Nazis. However, writing emotional
diatribes to try to counter expressions of pro-Nazi sympathy do little
to bring about a sense of realism about this episode in our history
(the history of humanity). The Nazis certainly incarcerated humans
over which they had power and whom they thought were opposed
to their (the Nazis) success. This is not new, we did the same, as has
every nation at war in the history of the world. The issue is the
treatment afforded these prisoners and what standards humanity
wishes to impose in these circumstances. This issue is still working
itself out.
Historically, humanity has treated prisoners of war, we could
also say prisoners of ideology, very harshly. There are many
examples as bad as the Nazis: The Russians under Stalin, the
Mongols under Ghengis Khan, the Kmer Rouge under Pol Pot, the
Jews under Joshua (read the Bible), the U.S. Cavalry against native
Americans, the Spaniards against the native South Americans, the
South in the Civil War at Andersonville. Why the Jews get special
notice in this case is not clear.
Perhaps the time has come for a new world order to provide
enforceable standards to try to eradicate this kind of behavior. But if
so where does one draw the line. Why are we so outraged when
white humans are destroyed in this way and not when humans of
other colors are.
Perhaps the outrage comes from the medical experiments
performed on the Jews? I have heard the Japanese did the same to
the Chinese, and certainly we use animals in this way to this day.
What's the difference, do animals feel less pain?
Perhaps the outrage comes from the number of prisoners killed
in this case? If so I might point to the number of fetuses we kill
every year in this country. And they can claim to innocence as
profound as that of Jesus. Or, what about the number of people
killed on our highways by drunks?
So, personally I feel the need to vomit at the sight of what the
Nazis did, however I feel constrained to avoid pointing my bloody
finger at them in hopes that God will forgive me if I forgive
them.
Joe Schiller
Institutional Compassion
Governor Lamb of Colorado recently said
on Public
Television that the American economy is locked into a course that
will lead to a depression, probably in this decade, due to the
corrosiveness of luxury. A corrosion that deprives a culture of the
ability to sacrifice. This is a luxurious country. I recently listened to
a food stamp applicant in Maryland say that she had left her job as a
salesperson in Walmart because it didn't match her personality. She
thought she would better like a job as a clerk or secretary. Our poor
aren't very hungry or such considerations would not arise.
Looking back on the political movements that trace their birth
to the upheaval of the sixties, the black revolution, the feminist
movement, and gay rights, one must be struck by the unrelenting
demand for "fairness", with no attempt to define that concept. The
only attempt to define fairness that comes to mind is the communist
contention: "to each according to his need, from each according to his
ability." This phrase, while it sounds good must be judged
inadequate, from the result witnessed in the last few years. The
USSR is currently experiencing what I would describe as a
depression, certainly it is far worse than the recessions I have seen
in this country, and I agree that we cannot be far behind.
The blacks demanded that they were owed compensation for
many years of discrimination that deprived them of their just
deserts. An argument hard to deny. The feminists demanded
compensation for their centuries of deprivation at the hands of
males. All they want is equality. The gay's want only to be treated
as equals, to get what their qualities as human beings entitle them
to. All want fairness and reparations for past suffering. Seems fair.
And as Americans, what are we if not fair?
No political movement, or any other human enterprise, can
expect success in the long term unless some sacrifice is tendered at
the point of request. This is a law of the cosmos. This is a
psychological equivalent to Newton's laws of physics. Especially the
one that demands an equal and opposite reaction for every action.
This statement is unprovable, but each of us can inspect our lives for
corroboration. Have you gotten anything from life on your own
without paying a price? Will you get a college degree without
sacrifice? Has anyone been clothed without paying for it? How
about your daily food? Has someone not paid for it? Try to think of
something you got for nothing. It's never happened. Even when
you forget your friend's name, you pay. And when you give, you
get. This is not cynicism, this is the nature of the mechanism. It's
also fair.
Politics in our times suggests that the answer is political power.
If you have enough you can get congress to pass a law taxing
someone else and giving the proceeds to you. It has worked for
some time now, but this cash cow is pretty near to falling over.
Where does money come from? Someone must be producing goods
that others are willing to pay for. Those of us that don't produce
goods are overhead. How much overhead is there now? How many
unproductive people are riding on the producers? How many are
actually working to produce goods? What are the percentages? We
are told that we are becoming a service industrial country. All
services are, however, overhead.
Manufacturing produces wealth. All the rest is overhead. Of
course efficiency can go far. Machines can compensate for overhead
humans up to a point. But how far? In addition one can survive
without producing if he specializes in trading to advantage, but we
don't seem to be a nation of traders.
The USSR lasted a long time. About 80 years, I think. How is it
that it lasted so long without taking into account the need to supply
motivation? I would say that they just spent their capital. They had
a large population of serfs who knew nothing but labor and they
continued to supply it when the politics changed. But, eventually
they died out and the younger people saw that in overhead lay a
more pleasant life. Besides that, in the early years, fear could be
substituted for the capitalist goad of survival. Unhappily, or
perhaps not, eventually they became comfortable enough to concern
themselves with liberal values. Suffering had to be banished and
when it was, no motivation remained. What do they have to look
forward to? They will have to wait until a large proportion of the
population concludes that work is the only road to survival. It
seems very doubtful to me that can happen without a lot of
bloodshed.
We have congratulated ourselves on avoiding this simpleminded
philosophy. But, have we really? We have not adopted so
revolutionary a method of disposing of the wealthy, but we have
done it just as effectively, by taxing them out of existence. Now we
have arrived at such a state that congress has seriously considered a
surtax on athletes. About the only noticeable group in our society to
make more than a million a year. This cash cow is about gone. They
reckoned they could come up with a billion a year in this way.
We are now staring at the possibility of spending the entire
income tax on interest. Surely this is poetic justice. In order to
defend our luxury and still eliminate the poor, which we find
ourselves too weak to gaze upon, we have borrowed from ourselves
to such a point that the money we took to buy off the poor is going
to have to be given to our creditors (us) instead. And still the poor
keep coming. Could it be that the will to procreate works well, even
when the belly is empty? Will the babies always be in number just
5% beyond what we can support?
The trouble with political movements is they never consider
what can be done, only what they wish.
At some point in the evolution of man, perhaps at about 20,000
years ago, society was tribal and man wished for power.
Mankind therefore established institutions to provide leadership
and a focus for contributions to the general welfare. He named the
focus King and the activity of contributing, taxation. Money was
invented to provide a convenient method of accounting for the new
system.
As might have been predicted, the creation of money worked
well but there was always a need for more. To solve this new
problem, the delivery of goods and services had to be made more
efficient, therefore economics was invented.
The new system was widely admired and soon caught on as a
method of organization of society. Eventually, all societies who had
heard of the system adopted it. Then the kings became rich and
powerful. They used their power and wealth to create armies and
wage war so that they could grow and become even more rich and
powerful. Successful societies developed written communications as
a method of recording economic transactions.
The institution of king led to the institution of royalty and the
nobility because a class of people very close to the king would not be
the same as ordinary people. They would share in royal perquisites
and be first thought of when the king wished some problem to be
dealt with, for which he paid from his treasury. This led to a
privileged class with different moral codes and manners.
Eventually money tended to accumulate with these people and
to be quickly separated from those people not in this group. This
created further problems as specialization in manufacturing made it
more and more necessary to have money to buy goods.
It also became necessary to develop laws to organize the people
and to identify those activities to be proscribed. This created
another high class to interpret the laws. This class also found means
to accumulate money and the rest of the people became further
impoverished.
As economics became more organized, a merchant class
developed, many of whom became richer than anyone because of
their expertise in the exchange of goods.
Ultimately a lower class resulted with nothing, they were
exploited for labor and were therefore the ultimate producers of
wealth, though completely dependent on the upper classes for the
concepts needed for exploitation of raw materials and labor.
The first great society in the West developed from these ideas
was the Egyptian Empire of 10,000 years ago. No known effort was
made to deal with the problem of the poor and concentration of
wealth in this society. Subsequently, Greek civilization developed to
the point of experimentation to try to deal with some of the most
glaring problems, but to no avail. Finally, the Romans attempted to
deal with these problems in a variety of ways, mainly by conquest
and expansion, and during this period a radical solution was
proposed.
The solution was introduced by Jesus of Nazareth. His view was
that wealth would have to be taken from the rich and given to the
poor, and his method was to introduce the notion of compassion for
their suffering, and an institution to administer it. We can guess
that he knew what the result of this change would be from His
statement that, "The meek shall inherit the earth."
The greatest symbol of early civilization is the great pyramids.
They were built during the period of expansion of the concepts of
politics and economics. They were deserted after the decline of the
Egyptian civilization, and they have now become hollow and
decayed. Eventually they will collapse into heaps of stones and
beyond that will return to sand.
Taking from the rich and giving to the poor was implemented in
a very gradual way, such that the political system divided itself into
conservatives who attempted to slow the change, and liberals who
attempted to speed the change.
In the first instance it was necessary to build a new institution
with power enough to challenge royalty. This new institution was
made up of the common people and was called the church. Taxes
were also paid to this institution and eventually it could not be
ignored by the aristocracy, but the result was a merger. This took
about 700 years. The church took to itself the role of guardian of
the rules upon which the law was built. Unfortunately, after the
merger the church lost sight of its roots among the common people,
but by now the liberal wing of the body politic was well established
and it managed the developing trend of taking from the wealthy and
giving to the poor.
Once the church was established, the first order of business was
to defeat the upper class. This was largely accomplished by
revolution, due to the incapacity of the upper class of realization that
they had to go. After that it became clear that the church was
among the wealthy, and it became a target of the liberals. The
commoners had taken to themselves the power to create law when
they overthrew the upper class, so they used it to overcome the
church.
Next, it became clear that the male sex had to be defeated, so
the law was again used to give the vote to women. This was only
partly efficacious however, so other ways were searched for and
found. Women in the priesthood would end the moral authority of
men. Abortion on demand would give to women control of
reproductive customs. Equal pay and easy divorce laws would give
them control of wealth.
Since we started this process as a disorganized group of tribes,
perhaps we must expect to end the same way.
This is reporting, no judgment is contained herein. If you see
any, you have supplied it.
Perot as Leader
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
Desperate times call for desperate measures. To identify the
problems and their probable solutions requires leadership. A leader
is one who can see through special interests harping from all sides to
reality. Once seen, problems suggest their own solutions.
Politicians are mediators and conciliators. They therefore might
provide leadership when such abilities are needed, but we should not
expect to see them provide insight into root causes. Therefore Bush
and Clinton will not succeed as president in identifying root causes
and therefore solutions for American internal problems. Perot
might.
Are these desperate times?
Violence has become widespread as the accepted solution to
intractable problems by individuals. Violence has become the staple
content of the entertainment media. Rioting has become a means to
draw attention to local problems, in hopes of getting national or
world wide coverage. This suggests that riots have followed
demonstrations as demonstrations followed establishment political
action.
We are now as a country at the mercy of a mountain of
economic debt. We have seen, in the case of Russia, what can
happen when debt is allowed to grow unrestrained. Of course, in
their case the debt was hidden because the currency was not related
to foreign currencies. In our case we see it happening, and what
political reasons are behind it.
So, it would appear that we need a new vision of the future,
something that will allow us, as a culture to aim our energies at a
worthwhile and defensible goal.
Perhaps Perot can do that.
Joe Schiller
Would Legalization Significantly Alter the Crime
Rate?
The Daily Mississippian
University, Ms.
Editor,
Mr. Broussard's column against drug legalization is
unconvincing, to me. None of his fantasies seemed likely to prevail
should this step be taken. And that is the trouble, predicting just
what the result of legalization would be.
Most seem to agree that a precipitous drop in drug related crime
would occur. The FBI just reported a 10% increase in violent crime
over 1990. Just how long can we allow this to go on? There are no
jail spaces remaining now. And how much of that crime is drug
related? If you can believe the police chiefs interviewed on TV,
about 80-85%.
The problem seems to lie in just what the government would be
teaching by implication if they legalized. We had some experiments
in decriminalization of pot. That didn't seem to produce any
identifiable trend.
Interestingly, the extreme left and the extreme right seem to
approve of legalization, for different reasons, while the great middle
seems to oppose. More and more issues turn out this way these
days. War has almost become good again. The McCarthy era reborn
on campus in the notion of the Politically Correct.
Getting back to Mr. Broussard, legalization of recreational drugs
does not imply legalization of advertising of them. It does not
suggest the anti-drug educational program has to stop. Penicillin is
not advertised. The problems associated with indiscriminate use of
this drug are widely publicized, and apparently effective. Of course
penicillin does not make one high.
Of course it would help if our leaders could verbalize just what
they are against. That's really why we lost the Viet Nam war. Our
political leaders could never say convincingly why the war needed
to be fought. We all know they don't like many of the
manifestations of the drug culture. But those manifestations are the
result of the laws against these drugs. What is it we are against
when they are legal?
Perhaps we are against people getting high instead of taking
care of their families? I understand people are not reliable workers
when under the influence. Perhaps it is an affront to one's
sensibilities about the sanctity of one's body and the pollution of it
with unnatural substances?
My feeling is that drugs are most antithetical to the goals of
education. And if education goes away, just where are we
headed?
Well, as you see, being a middle of the road person, I reach no
well defined conclusion.
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Mississippian
Editor,
In response to Bill Kaul's excellent discussion of the rebel flag
issue, which was in response to Anne Wood's response.
Bill expresses some confusion about why students see the flag as
a positive symbol. I think this subject should be considered. The
confederate flag is associated with the term rebel most closely. This
is because the South rebelled against the wishes of the federal
government. They did so because they wished to continue a life
style that they considered valuable, even though it included slavery.
The values of interest are honor (the notion that a man's word
should be binding, even when it is unenforceable) and the chivalric
view of women as pure and chaste, and requiring the protection of
males against the unscrupulous due to the naiveté that
accompanies this role.
Rebellion in this case is seen as positive. It can become
negative, as for instance when it is simply a means of destruction for
selfish goals. Say, when a political group wishes to gain power
because of a desire to have power. This was not the general case
here and perhaps is never the case in the beginning. Usually it
becomes the case in the end because of the corrupting effects of
power. If the South had won, it might have turned negative but it
lost and therefore its idealism has lasted as an inspiration to the
children of the fighters and to those who have studied the war, or
even those who have felt only the reflection of those ideals in a
work like Gone With the Wind.
In any case rebellion is natural to humans. Every son wishes to
defeat his father and thereby gain what his father has. Sometimes
this rebellion is strictly selfish in nature, but many times it is a
competition that results in the development of talent to a very high
pitch, as in the arts, for instance.
In our case at Ole Miss, no doubt some of the flag wavers wish
to bring back white dominance over blacks as a given, but I prefer
to believe that most are expressing their sorrow at the loss of a high
ideal.
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
Following up on my recent letter regarding the concepts
lady
and gentleman: I would like to point out that the
primary
function of the Fraternity and Sorority system in times past was to
pass on these ideals from generation to generation. Having given up
that responsibility, it is no longer clear what their function, beyond
hedonistic experimentation, is.
Secondly, all environmental problems we know of flow from one
cause, population pressure. It should be clear that in an
overpopulated world, one way to enhance the quality of life and
reduce pollution is to emphasize the qualities embodied in these
concepts.
Thirdly, in case no one remembers what the terms lady and
gentleman meant, the following is submitted:
* A lady or gentleman values chastity.
* A lady or gentleman admires humility and despises
arrogance.
* A lady or gentleman considers that his or her word has a
religious quality and that he or she would rather die than defile
it.
* A lady or gentleman is ready to sacrifice his or her life in
defense of the concepts lady and gentleman.
Finally, one of the distinctions between the North and the South,
and the one that was most important to many, and the one that
many considered the distinction of this University, was the high
value placed on these concepts.
So, maybe the time has come to consider the proposition that
carrying the concept of democracy to the extreme of destroying these
concepts may be carrying it too far.
Joe Schiller
February 1, 1989
Editor, The Mississippian
University, Ms.
Editor,
In response to Mr. Gilmore's review of The Last Temptation
of Christ, I find myself asking why he is so well instructed on
American constitutional freedoms, and so poorly instructed in
religion? My feeling is that this is commonly true in our society.
We have reached the unwarranted and egoistic conclusion that our
constitution, remarkable document that it is, is superior in wisdom
to a document designed to transmit that most elusive subset of
knowledge, and honed to perfection over millennia.
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Mississippian
Editor,
In response to Tyer & Norton: The thing that always
puzzles me about liberals is the feelings from which they operate. Of
course we all attempt to devise stratagems to deal with our feelings
and, if necessary rationalize them through thought. I think this is
the basic mechanism at work here, but what could those feelings
be?
They say they are motivated by altruism, but historically, the
number of famous people motivated by altruism can be counted on
one hand. Perhaps Florence Nightingale or Joan of Arc or Mother
Therese? Also this group seems to be completely female.
Masochism is a possibility, but surely there could not be
that many masochists in the world?
Greed and envy are possibilities. Liberals are usually young and
have little power or money. I mean compared to an Armand
Hammer, say. Then one could postulate that they wish to bring
down the establishment so that when everything is up for grabs
they can grab some.
Another possibility that recommends itself is guilt. Perhaps
they feel they don't deserve their high station in life especially
when confronted by the poor, who seem to blame them. Most are
college educated.
Of course the young always wish to be part of a group, and
liberalism has been very popular on campus in recent years.
Well, it's probably all of the above.
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
The Liverpool England incident (toddler killed by children)
recently leads me to reflect on the changes in society over the last
30 years, (since the sexual revolution) that have led to these kinds
of events.
The most important change relating to this event has been the
empowerment of children. We, in our liberal desire to egalitarianize
our world, have moved toward the enfranchisement of children. We
have moved the voting age down to 18, passed laws disallowing
child labor, and worst of all, encouraged children to hold their elders
in disrespect. We have done that by ridiculing men, especially white
men, at every opportunity (The Dagwood Bumstead syndrome).
The result is that children are a bad deal. They contribute
nothing to the family and in fact, drain it of resources. In the
distant past, they worked and contributed materially to the family
life. After that they at least made their elders feel good by sitting
respectfully and listening to what they had to say. But now? The
liberals tell us we should value them as God's gift, and some of us
do. But plenty of us are of a more practical mood. The result is that
the children are neglected. They contribute nothing so they get
nothing or as close to nothing as can be gotten away with.
Naturally, the children run loose and form their own societies
where such decisions as that in Liverpool are made.
We liberals would do well to consider the nature of causality. In
the psychological realm too, there is a reaction for every action.
Joe Schiller
Sep. 30, 1991
Editor
The Mississippian
Editor,
I would like to suggest that the U.S. government is modeled on
the institution of marriage.
First, the President bears a striking resemblance to the father.
He makes policy for the country just as the father traditionally
makes it for the family. In addition, he is male and there is
resistance to the idea of a female candidate for the job. His is the
first family, therefore he is the first citizen, as the father is
considered first in the family and provides his name for it.
Second, the congress fulfills the role of mother of the country.
While the father makes policy, the mother implements it as does
congress by funding it or not. The mother supports her husband or
not via sex. That is, she provides sexual satisfaction if she approves
his leadership or withholds it if she doesn't. Congress does the same
with money. We can therefore conclude there is a connection
between money and sex. No great surprise. Both are used to
produce a sense of material well being.
Third, the judiciary plays the role of arbitrator by interpreting
the rules whereby the relationship is defined. This is equivalent to
the social arbiters that regulate marriage (social morays, the church,
the legal system).
There is a constant tension because of the desire of each side to
gain some of the other's power. Congress therefore is constantly on
the lookout for some scheme whereby it can define some aspect of
foreign policy, and in the same way women are constantly criticizing
men, usually for their lack of compassion, in an attempt to gain more
power in the marriage relationship. Men have tried for long to find
some way to break the female's hold on them via sex. For a long
time sex in marriage was minimized and sex for psychological
equanimity was sought outside of the marriage relationship. In
modern times, however, women have used the equality issue as a
threat to put a stop to this practice.
Joe Schiller
"Tradition is unfair and religion is intolerant." Thus Mr. Etzioni
rejects the two necessary bases of any moral order. Philosophers,
statesmen, and common folk have all recognized through the ages,
that we must look outside ourselves to nature and to God if we are
to discover the rules by which we must live. Societies differ on
many specifics of religious worship and proper conduct. But, by
whatever name they are called in a given society, the religious
precepts embodied in such Biblical texts as the Ten Commandments
and the Golden Rule constitute the bases of civilization. Civilization is
impossible without such rules, and without the fundamental
character-forming institutions of family, worship, and local
association they promote. From the National Review, May 10,
1993.
The above excerpt is undoubtedly true but, while we are edified
by the need for religion and tradition, we would like to know why
they are unfair and intolerant. To answer this question we need go
no further than describing appropriately the goals of tradition and
religion. Tradition seeks to identify a path into the future that
enhances the prospects for success of the human race. Success
means long life. Long life is promoted by long life of the individual,
since he can procreate longer and therefore produce more children.
Long life was enhanced by greater numbers of individuals. Good,
therefore is enhancement of the prospects for survival of humans
and bad, the opposite.
So, tradition and religion are not concerned with fairness and
tolerance, in fact they are actively opposed to it because if we have
to be fair to one who practices that which promotes death for
humans we, as promoters of life, are rendered meaningless.
However, this logic assumes that promoting long life will promote
survival for the species. Once a truism. Now, not so sure, since the
planet seems to be overpopulated and therefore adding to the
population would have the reverse effect to that desired.
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
In response to the Will column on Perot, Mr. Will seems to be as
outraged by his candidacy as the Democrats and Republicans. Are
these the bleats of the establishment under threat of ouster?
Mr. Perot may be a vast gamble on the part of the American
people, but considering where the Democrats and Republicans have
landed us after their long stewardship, I think it fair to say that we
are surely doomed if we stay the course with them.
Of course, we don't know exactly where Perot stands on many
issues, but surely what we want is a man of high moral and ethical
standards with a proven record of leadership. Stating one's position
on the issues of the day ensures the alienation of 50% of the
electorate and obscures the values of the candidate. I don't approve
of Mr. Perot's position on choice, but I seem to see a strong and
highly moral person. What else should I want?
Perhaps Clinton is strong and moral. Thus far it hasn't shown.
No doubt Bush is a very moral person, but his strength is
questionable. No leader is going to keep us from the experience of
national failure. It is growing out of forces much larger than any
individual, but, some leaders may be able to guide us with a sure
hand because of unshakable values.
Joe Schiller
George Will
The Washington Post
Washington, DC.
Sir,
In response to your column on the importance of the Clinton
administration: I think you are rationalizing to evade the importance
of the fact that you, along with Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Perot, are
primarily responsible for giving the executive back to the
Democrats. I'm sure that at the time you decided to cast those
spears at President Bush, you thought the Dems had no chance, but
there you are.
In fact, I would say that the '92 election is the most important
since FDR and Reagan, and likely more important than that. The
Clintons are going to push feminism to the limit, thereby inducing a
violent reaction, especially in the areas of abortion and
homosexuality. The best scenario will be that Clinton serves to
discredit liberal government for a very long time, but more likely he
will induce an American economic crisis that the world economy will
not be able to handle and whatever flows from that.
I would say that Mr. Clinton is the significant change that led to
the abortionist's death in Florida and this will be a harbinger of
things to come because of the feeling of powerlessness that will
afflict the RTL movement.
Personally, I have adopted a new creed along the lines of
affirmation of my race, sex, and heterosexuality and involving the
recognition that denial of violence has failed as an effort to redefine
manhood.
Joe Schiller
The anti-smoking lobby becomes more irrational and difficult to
believe with each passing day. The idea that the used smoke in the
atmosphere can harm anyone in any detectable way is ludicrous on
its face. Therefore this idea is a tool devised by the anti-smokers to
confuse and weaken their opposition. What is their real motive?
The anti-gun lobby has passed several initiatives recently that,
by all rational analysis can have no useful effect against the elements
of society supposedly being targeted. Why then do these people
want the laws passed?
Why do these people refuse to see that legalizing drugs will
instantly dispose of the largest and most violent criminal activity
currently in progress in the United States?
Why did these same people foist prohibition on us fifty years
ago, thereby unleashing the greatest wave of violent crime seen up
until that time?
The answer to all these questions is the same. The people
behind these measures are in all cases liberals who also favor
feminism. All of these prohibitions have and will have the same
effect, the creation of a black market with its attendant violence and
disrespect for the forces of law enforcement. That is to say they will
have a destructive effect, further weakening an already weak social
structure. Since it has that effect, one should ask if the effect is
intended. This question is hard to answer. I am not a conspiracist,
but I do believe in unconscious motivations.
Feminism wishes to alter or replace existing institutions with
others that are more appealing to it. This is one of the schemes
designed to bring that about. Besides raising the level of crime in
this country, it is also a means whereby the damage done can be
portrayed as societal and best dealt with via federal programs, in a
word, healthcare, thereby making the populace more dependent on
government and therefore individually weaker.
From the previous point, other explanations emanate, the best is
that drugs tend to strengthen or weaken one's inclination towards
feminism/masculinism. We can therefore expect that nicotine is a
masculine drug and marijuana, for example, is a feminist drug. This
is because of the effect they have on the ego or conscious
complex.
In a column by Peter A. Brown of Scripps Howard, in The
Commercial Appeal of April 7, 1991, Mr. Brown describes a political
movement within academia in this country. "PC" stands for
politically correct. The proponents of the PC group, according to
Professor Jan Blits of the University of Delaware, contend that
"There is an oppressor class consisting of white males and there is an
oppressed class which consists of everybody else. The oppressor class
can be ridiculed and cannot respond. The victims can say whatever
they want."
To expand their followers, this group has attempted (with some
success as we saw last year when Stanford altered their view of
those books traditionally described as "The Classics") to devalue
traditional academic studies and replace them with courses
describing the political trials of minorities, women, and
homosexuals.
According to The London Times, this group is known as "The
Deconstructionists" there. They say such things as, "The choice
between Shakespeare and a comic book is exactly the same as the
choice between a hoagie and a pizza."
One is struck by the similarity of approach offered by this group
and that of the government in Orwell's "1984". And, when you
consider that Orwell was afraid of the excesses of the conservatives
and viewed the liberals as those anointed to save us from this
horrible fate, it is a wonderment.
The writer of the above mentioned article suggested there is no
small similarity between this group and the McCarthyites of the
1950's, long used by the liberals as an object lesson in why one
should distrust conservatives.
In fact one is pushed to the conclusion that just as McCarthy was
a reaction to the extreme liberalism of his period, this group is a
reaction to the rise of conservatism in ours. Consider, the liberals
had control of all three branches of government in the 50's and
continued to do so until the death of Kennedy. One suspects that the
Kennedy assassination, which was described at the time as the end
of the modern equivalent of the Arthurian era in English legend, was
exactly that. In any case, two thirds of the national government can
now be described as conservative, while, with the success of Desert
Storm, many think the other branch cannot long survive in its
current ideological orientation. Desperate times bring on desperate
measures.
Liberalism is the politics of change. Extreme liberals apparently
feel that change is good in and of itself. Thus, any championship
football team should wish for nothing more than to be unsuccessful
in future. Or, that America, having ridden a marvelously successful
political ideology to economic dominance should now pursue policies
aimed at relegating it to the ranks of the also rans. And liberalism
has changed us in this century. It has changed us from a culture
based on the traditional notions of family structure where divorce
was an extreme remedy, and in which sexual relationships were
considered by the overwhelming majority to be best confined to
marriage, to one in which divorce is used to solve every marital
problem and in which sexual morality is viewed as archaic. The
result has been epidemics of every kind. From AIDS to teenage
pregnancy to a state in which fatherless families are the norm in
some sectors. And, can we doubt, it also brought us the drug
culture.
I think we can reasonably draw the conclusion from these
uncontested facts that ideological change is something to be avoided
except in the most extreme kinds of circumstances.
Finally, the above mentioned PC group reminds one of the
concept of political relativism. Just as, in Einsteinian physics, since
space is curved, one would expect when headed west for a long
enough time to wind up in the east, so in politics, heading leftwards
will eventually place one on the right.
October 20, 1988
The Mississippian
The University of Mississippi
Editor,
From the letter of October 20th from Mr. Gandhi, I see that he
(perhaps not surprisingly) is somewhat confused by the presidential
campaign. The following answers to his questions I believe to be
realistic.
The President of The United States is not envisioned as an
autocrat by the constitution, nor however is he envisioned to be a
committee chairman. The presidency is conceived of as one third of
the government, and the president as the commander and policy
maker for that institution. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for
the presidential candidate to be questioned on policy issues relating
to taxation. It is not necessarily true that his policies will be
implemented, if congress disagrees with them.
The question on liberalism is an interesting one. Historically,
the United States government was converted to liberalism by
Franklin D. Roosevelt by virtue of his long tenure and therefore his
ability to replace every bureaucrat and judge in the federal
government. After years of effort, the Republicans have managed to
reverse that trend, and in the process, point to the errors and
excesses of unremitting liberalism for so many years. This has
resulted in the remarkable circumstance that the conservatives have
succeeded in identifying liberalism with the results of too liberal
interpretations of the constitution. Those results being: dramatic
increases in crime, drug use, a reliance on pornography by the
advertising industry, and a decay in the values of self-reliance and
fairness in the conduct of one's personal business.
Finally, America (as opposed to The United States) is not
committed to democracy as an article of faith. It is an experiment,
as has been well documented over the years. It has shown promise
in the past, but given the problems of recent decades, I would say it
is unlikely to prove the final word in human government.
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
In response to the column by Robert Cummings on Jerry Brown.
I sympathize with his desire to replace the current crop of
politicians with a new set in hopes of getting something better, but,
one has to ask why the people from whom we select politicians are
different from those which produced the politicians of old. The
answer is, in bygone days we had a standard known as gentleman
(and lady). This standard required that one treat his fellow man
with courtesy and to abstain from cheating him. Unfortunately, this
standard is anti-democratic, since the gentleman will discriminate
against the non-gentleman. Therefore, we have discarded it.
With that in mind, we can be assured that were we to replace
the current residents of Washington, DC., we would almost certainly
get a worse group.
Joe Schiller
The Cause of the Political Spectrum
Recently Rob Waters wrote a column criticizing the Ole Miss
faculty for its overly liberal orientation. I think Rob is correct in his
evaluation of the political orientation of the faculty, but I think he is
incorrect in assuming that preferences of those doing the hiring is
the only factor at work. I think it indisputable that the vast
majority of academic faculties everywhere in the world are liberal
in their orientation, and have been since the institution was
established. I think one could say the same for the media. So
perhaps, to explain this one should look at the type of personality
attracted by these vocations.
First though, it is important to decide what is meant by the
terms liberal and conservative. In this country, liberals favor civil
rights, feminism, gay rights, recycling, protection of the
environment, the first amendment, abortion, higher taxes for the
rich, subsidizing the poor, free health care. They don't favor capital
punishment, favoritism for the successful. Conservatives favor
individual responsibility, Christianity, honor, discipline. They don't
favor pornography.
These are not exhaustive lists, but clarity will be lost if items
are mentioned that are favored or disfavored in degree only. In the
Soviet Union, liberals favor free market economics, while
conservatives favor the retention of state ownership of all means of
production. The relativism of these lists is made clear by the fact
that liberals favor saving the environment which can be
paraphrased as conservation which comes from the verb to conserve
which is the root word in conservatism. It would be better to come
up with a general term to describe the tendencies of these groups.
That generalization should be that conservatives don't in general
favor change, while liberals do. Conservatives have an innate sense
that they will lose more than they gain through change. Easily
understood in the wealthy and the older segment of the population.
Liberals feel they have more to gain than lose. Easily understood in
the poor and young.
So, perhaps it is valid to conclude that academics and media
people favor change. That is, those who wish the world were
different than it is tend to find their places in the arts and
academics. Assuming the general truth of this conclusion, why
should it be so? I guess that it goes back to the idea prevalent in
the West up until 1900 or so that the family inheritance should go to
the eldest son. This left a big problem among the younger sons in
finding a way to support themselves and no doubt a deep feeling of
the unfairness of the system. Trollope's novels are encrusted with
the problems flowing from this situation and it plays a prominent
role in the books of all other prominent writers of this period
concerning themselves with the upper class. Which is to say most of
them. Parenthetically, what does it cost us as a culture, not having
an upper class to write about anymore?
One could guess that this system (primogeniture) would activate
rebellious feelings among a group that, being from the upper class,
would not favor violence and would be particularly attracted to the
notion that the pen could be mightier than the sword. Visualize a
bookish younger son, contemplating being cut off without a cent and
casting about for a way to both support himself and right a
perceived wrong.
Of course the primogeniture system no longer prevails, but still,
the way to success lies along two paths. One is to try to make
oneself valuable to the current holders of power and thereby share
in it, while the other is to attack the holders of power and try to
wrest it from them. Those who choose the second path are in favor
of change. Changing the old guard for the new, themselves. To do
this they must find some way to attack that will hold some promise
of eventual success. That method would seem to be to identify some
excess in the old system and to expose it through the printed word,
then to identify a solution and to associate oneself with the solution
by advertising. This method has been applied endlessly and
continues to be applied, with academia supplying solutions
(technology and social programs) and the media advertising
them.
It should also be pointed out that overly conservative cultures
will not adapt to new conditions and will eventually become
maladapted and so die out. Overly liberal cultures will change faster
than their environment and suffer the same fate.
From this one can conclude that faculties and the media are
inherently liberal. This is of course not comprehensively explanatory
(nothing is), since it doesn't seem to explain Rob Waters.
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
In response to the Rush Limbaugh columns: how can you expect
to reach any conclusion when you don't understand the nature of
the debate?
On the one hand you have masculinism, spirit, God, creativity.
On the other hand you have feminism, nature, weeds, passivity.
Why is there a debate? Because it has become clear that
creativity, in the hands of a species of limited understanding, leads
to pollution of such magnitude that it threatens not only the polluting
species but every other living thing.
On the other hand, we are considering giving up civilization,
which means oil and plumbing.
Spare us your vitriolic hatred towards people on the other side
of the debate. It is about life and death and nobody knows for
certain which is the side of life and which the side of death.
Joe Schiller
Rush Limbaugh
515 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
Rush,
Your shows, both TV and radio have recently penetrated
Mississippi, and I have, therefore, carefully listened to your views. I
agree with you about 90% of the time, which is more than I do with
Buchannon or Will. Isn't it amazing that with about a zillion liberal
columnists, after three we have exhausted the conservative wing of
the media?
First, you don't completely understand feminism. Please
announce that masculinism, opposite of feminism, is the proper
name for the philosophy underlying our culture and including both
Judaism and Christianity. People aren't told this and they therefore
labor under the misconception that possibly feminism can coexist
with the traditional values of our culture. No chance. Feminism is a
dagger aimed at the heart of western culture.
Second, you haven't completely thought out environmentalism.
I agree that it has been coopted by the feminists and has a natural
connection to it, but, please look at the population curve. This is the
unarguable basis of all scare talk about the environment. Humans
produce that which threatens the environmentalists and produce
more of it with each passing hour. The fact is we have solved
problems with immigration for a long time and that solution is no
longer available. We therefore live in a pressure cooker which will
explode from time to time. Events like that at Waco and in Bosnia
will occur.
Third, you haven't bothered to look very deeply at Bosnia. First,
the basis of the war is a conflict between democracy and private
ownership. Second, why should we go to the aid of the Muslims?
Because they are losing? You have sucked up the description of
events produced by the liberal press as readily as the most naive
reader. Surely you are the last person to do this. Weren't you
tipped off when Biden came back from Bosnia and starting spouting
the Muslim point of view?
Joe Schiller
Rush Limbaugh
515 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
Rush,
I just completed your chapter on environmentalism and feel
constrained to protest slightly. Of course they are wackos and of
course we can't destroy the earth, but that isn't the point. If you
would look at the population curve, you would see it is exponential
as are most growth functions in this world. Out of control growth
will eventually call into being that which will bring it back into
balance with the rest of nature. And so it has happened, those
wackos are nature's attempt to deal with a species that has hit upon
too effective a method of self protection. Of course they can't destroy
the earth but they can destroy a culture, which amounts to the same
thing for us. And where did they come from? They saw the all too
apparent garbage littering the earth, nothing mysterious.
In fact if you think about it a little more, you will see that
humanity has always dealt with population pressure, which
manifests itself through culture clash, by immigration. This method
no longer exists, since our culture can't survive in the remaining
uninhabited places.
Finally, when cultures clash, both are right. Their tactics are
wrong, but the bottom line is right. Of course traditional values are
the only way we wish to live, but they have produced
overpopulation which kills the possibility of retaining them.
Hollywood has to be restrained, but they are just exploiting the
freedoms given to them by the founding fathers.
The solution to the trashing of the earth is to cause the
population to view the earth as a deity. Unfortunately, that will kill
the culture.
All real problems, have no apparent solution.
Joe Schiller
Rush Limbaugh
515 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
Rush,
Yesterday, Memorial day, on your radio show, a repeat, you
reviewed the article, very profoundly, "Dan Quayle was right!". You
outlined the ideas presented and wound up with the thought, "...and
the liberals, for some unknown reason, press on with this
obviously destructive behavior, encouraging the breakup of the
family by selfishly making decisions in their personal best interest
instead of the family's."
It is critical that the unknown reason become known. As you
said, "Why do we need a study to find out what is patently obvious,
two parent families are far superior to all other forms." So, in
casting about for suitable reasons, the following occur:
1. Selfishness, as you suggested certainly plays a role. This
selfishness is released by experts who suggest it is also important for
the mother to fulfill herself, and that remaining together may be
more destructive than breaking up.
2. So, more to the point is our failure to discriminate against
those who opt for destructive alternatives.