by Sam Aurelius Milam III
Let's face it. Women don't want equal treatment. Women applauded when, on April 19, 1994, all seven female U.S. senators voted in favor of restricting Admiral Kelso's retirement benefits1 in reprimand for his alleged culpability in the '91 Winter Games at Las Vegas, sponsored by the Tailhook Symposium.2 The same day that the female senators were voting en bloc, the Supreme Court, reviewing J.E.B. vs. Alabama,3 decided that it's O.K. for a 12 woman jury to make a paternity ruling against a man. Women continued to applaud; they approve of sexist politics, just so long as it's the women who are doing it.
Ten months earlier, on June 23, 1993, part-time lunatic Lorena Bobbitt armed herself with a kitchen knife, crept into the bedroom where her husband lay sound asleep, and whacked off his penis. She said he deserved it. A jury let her off scot-free. The crucial argument in her defense was that she had experienced an "irresistible impulse" during a "moment of temporary insanity".4 The fact is that a man accused of date rape could honestly make exactly the same argument. And how about so-called sexual harassment? After all, women commonly jeer that men "think with their pricks". Surely that's a form of insanity. Obviously, if the insanity plea works for mutilation, it ought to work for sexual harassment or date rape.
Don't count on it. You'll be laughed out of court, and the reason has nothing to do with the severity of the offense or the intentions of the offender. The insanity plea worked for Lorena because she was female, and because she was allowed to "weep interminably during cross-examination".5 A man who behaved that way would probably be judged unfit to stand trial. A man who hacked a boob off of a sleeping woman would rot in prison until Hell froze over, however much the witch might have deserved it.
What women really want is more privileges and fewer responsibilities, vis-à-vis men. They want a man to be compelled to accept an all-woman jury in a paternity case as though it were a trial by an impartial jury of his peers. They want female senators to be a unanimous voting block on gender issues, while male senators are expected to vote non-sexist. They want women to intrude into any male arena they choose, whether or not the men want them there. Then they want the men to welcome every such intrusion, and pretend that any such woman is "just one of the guys" while continuing to treat her like a lady and respect her feminine sensitivities. They want each woman to be able to avenge any perceived wrong in any way she chooses, however brutal, devious, or inappropriate that vengeance may be, and then say it wasn't her fault; she was driven to it. Meanwhile, they require every man to always be responsible for the consequences of his actions, no matter what the circumstances or provocation, especially if a woman is involved. The most outrageous aspect of their wacky notions is that they don't perceive them as being either outrageous or wacky. Instead, they promote such arrogant hypocrisy as if it were their God-given right.
Naomi Wolfe6 has revealed how feminists plan to continue this agenda: women will simply demand 51% of every legislature in the land. Actually, that might be a good idea. A circus like that would hasten the end of the present government, and might even make C-SPAN worth watching.
Since women have chosen to define this thing as a conflict, I intend to win it. Naomi tells us that modern feminism has survived the backlash, but Naomi's in for a big surprise. I know how to think with my head, I'm tired of the bullshit, and I don't feel like compromising any more. Yes, Naomi, there is a backlash, but it has only just begun.
In The Woods
by Sam Aurelius Milam III
Paula Jones complains of "sexual advances" made by Bill Clinton,1 yet every woman who struts her stuff in front of a man does no less. Women just don't see themselves the same way men do. She says Clinton made her "not trust men." If so, she ought thank him for doing what her mother should have done years earlier. She complains of "intentional infliction of emotional distress". She should look in a mirror; women are far greater culprits in this regard than men. I noticed (for example) a woman at work one morning who hadn't buttoned the top two buttons of her blouse. I watched that blouse all day, thinking "It'll fall open just any time now!" I finally gave up and pointed out the buttons to her. "Oh, no," she replied coyly. "See?" she said, giving me a little glimpse, "I have a safety pin here on the inside, where you can't see it!" Another woman wore a T-shirt with a picture of sliced grapefruit halves; the caption said "Squeeze These Please." When I headed her direction, she squealed and ran. At first, I tried to regard this kind of crap as amusing, but when women started wearing T-shirts that said "Can't Touch This" over the boobs, they crossed a line in the sand. I resent being deliberately teased and I resent women who do it. They come to work as gorgeous or seductive as possible and then slap down the men who respond. If they don't like men's behavior then they shouldn't even be there. Remember, this feminist bullshit wasn't our idea. They forced their way into the man's workplace (where they weren't wanted) and immediately began to whine and nag about the men they found there. Well, what they found is what we are, take it or leave it. I regard Paula Jones as a naive young tease who learned an important lesson at little cost to herself. Instead of whining about it, she should be thankful that she now has a realistic set of expectations about men. My advice to her is, "If you can't stand the heat out here, Darlin', get back in the kitchen!" I'll grant her that Clinton's alleged actions might have lacked a little polish, but so what? I don't like the man either, but just this once I'll say "Bravo Clinton!"
Smart Cards is an excerpt from Clinton's ID-Card Attack On Our Privacy, which appeared in International Money & Politics (IM&P), Nov/Dec 1993. I'll provide a complete copy of the article upon request. The article, as it appeared in IM&P, was a reprint from the Ron Paul Survival Report, 18333 Egret Bay Blvd., Suite 265, Houston, Texas 77058. 713-333-4888, 1-800-766-7285
— The Emerald Forest
by Don Cormier
About five years ago, I went hiking with a friend in the hills above Villa Montalvo in Saratoga, California. We stopped at an interesting point in the trail, one in which we were surrounded by beautiful trees and foliage, but one at which we had a good overview of Santa Clara Valley, A.K.A. "Silicon Valley".
My friend asked me to be still, and to listen. I did so, and at first I heard nothing. Then, it came to me that the "silence" was not really silence. What I was hearing was a distant roar and hiss — the sound of Silicon Valley's hundreds of thousands of motor vehicles, engaged in the ordinary pursuits of an ordinary work-day. My friend remarked that it sounded like a distant forest fire. The comparison was apt, because each engine contained a miniature fire, and was helping to produce a smoky haze which hovered like a net veil over the valley.
In her book If You Love This Planet, Helen Caldicott writes:
All of this is a round-about way of introducing a review of an excellent, ecologically oriented film of a few years back — John Boorman's The Emerald Forest.
The Emerald Forest is an adventure film which tells of a small Caucasian boy who is kidnapped and raised by an isolated Amazon Basin tribe. Years later, the teenage boy (played by Charly Boorman) is reunited with his true father (played by Powers Boothe), and is given a chance to become part of European civilization. However, the son is happy with his Eden-like, hunter-gatherer life-style. To protect his son's choice, the father decides to blow up a nearly completed dam which would flood the tribe's jungle territory. During a big storm, the dam crumbles, and with encroaching civilization temporarily stopped, the ending is happy.
Despite some improbable plot twists and occasional slow spots, this is an engrossing and entertaining yarn. Director John Boorman deserves credit for piloting to completion an important work of art.
The actors do well, but their contribution is overshadowed by the fabulous location cinematography, and the meticulous visual realism with which tribal life is presented. One could probably watch this film with the sound turned off, and still have a satisfying experience, feasting one's eyes on kaleidoscopic views of lush vegetation, rushing streams, exotic animals, and scantily-clad humans.
Rospo Palenberg's script shows how Western civilization tends to destroy everything which it cannot absorb. Fragile wilderness areas can survive only if we "civilized" people make deliberate efforts to preserve them. Whether or not we will do so is arguable. The aboriginals in the film describe Europeans as the "Termite People", and it may be that our consuming tendencies cannot be curbed .
For libertarians, the film presents a philosophical riddle. It asks, which is the freer society — one which offers many options, but little independence, or one which offers few options, but much independence? It may be that the "free-est" lifestyle we can live is one which is as nearly primal as possible. If we evolved as hunter-gatherers, then we are probably well suited to that lifestyle in all ways — emotional and physiological. In an evolutionary time-scale, our mechanized world has existed for a mere instant — too short a time for our bodies to fully adjust to it. It may be that we would all be happier if we "went native". After all, it appears that the hunter-gatherer mode was primal, and that all that has come after is a kind of invention — an invention which could be revoked, if enough people decided to do so.
Of course, each person's ideal of freedom is personal, and opinions on what should be done will be various. But there is, in the film, a scene which can provide food for thought. The situation is this: The boy's father is trying to get the chief of the tribe to make the tribe members do something. The chief answers that, if he tries to make his people do something they don't want to do, then he won't be allowed to be chief.
If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and drop the newsletter back in the U.S. mail. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription.
Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.
Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in whole or in part, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. However no such reproduction may under any circumstances be sold or redistributed for profit.
I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise. Unless the author provides instructions to the contrary, I'll credit the author by name and town (or whatever) of residence.
This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and postage stamps. I'll discuss other arrangements but I don't accept checks, money orders, anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives, or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
TOCQUEVILLE, ALEXIS CHARLES HENRI MAURICE CLEREL DE (1805-59), French political writer and statesman, born in Verneuil, and educated in law in Paris. He served (1830-32) as assistant magistrate of the law court at Versailles. With the publicist Charles Auguste de Beaumont de la Bonniniere (1802-66), he was sent abroad in 1831 by the French government to study the penal system in the United States. They reported their findings in The Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Application in France (1833). After returning to France in 1832 Tocqueville wrote one of the earliest and profoundest studies of American life, Democracy in America (4 vols., 1835-40). This work deals with the legislative and administrative systems in the United States and with the influence of social and political institutions on the habits and manners of the people. Tocqueville maintains that the first full development of democracy occurred in the United States because conditions there best permitted the diffusion of European social and political ideas. Nevertheless, he was highly critical of certain characteristics of American democracy. For example, he thought that public opinion tended toward tyranny and that majority rule could be as oppressive as the rule of a despot.
As a member (1839-48) of the Chamber of Deputies, Tocqueville advocated a number of reforms, including the decentralization of government, and an independent judiciary. He became vice-president of the National Assembly in 1849 and subsequently minister of foreign affairs. After being imprisoned for opposing the coup d' etat (1851) of Napoleon III, Tocqueville retired from political activity.
His other important work, The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856), interprets the French Revolution as the result of gradual changes in the structure of government and in political attitudes toward equality and freedom. This work had great influence on the later historiography of the French Revolution. Among his other writings are Memoir, Letters, and Remains (1861) and Recollections (1893).
Tocqueville's major works comprise a penetrating analysis of the principal political and social ideas of his period. His outstanding contribution was emphasis upon the evolutionary developments underlying all changes in society.
FUNK & WAGNALLS Standard REFERENCE ENCYCLOPEDIA
JOSEPH LAFFAN MORSE, SC.B., LL.B., L.H.D., LL.D., Editor in Chief
Standard Reference Works Publishing Company, Inc., New York
© 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 by WILFRED FUNK, INC.
From the American Rifleman, May 1994, National Rifle Association of America, 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030
Robert White was reading his morning paper at his Tacoma, Washington home when his wife informed him there was an intruder in their basement. White, 73, got his revolver and went downstairs, where he found the housebreaker. He knelt at White's order, but then grabbed a bar stool and threw it. White ducked. As the assailant picked up another stool and prepared to throw it, White fired, killing him. (The Post-Intelligencer, Seattle, WA, 2/10/94)