Frontiersman, August 1999

Notice:
This issue of the Frontiersman contains contact information that is out-of-date. For current contact information, click here.

Frontiersman, August 1999

Rebirth of Darkness
Sam Aurelius Milam III
What Slobodan Milosevic did might have been wrong, but I doubt that it was illegal in Serbia or that any other nation had a legal jurisdiction in the matter. What he did was judged not on the basis of legality, but of morality. Such a consideration is foreign to the rule of "law" (legislation), advocated by NATO¹. Unlike an alleged illegal act, which can be judged against an objective standard, everybody has a different opinion about what is moral. Mr. Milosevic doesn't believe that what he was doing was immoral. Whether or not his belief is correct is irrelevant. The fact is that the rule of "law" (legislation) can't operate when morality, rather than legislation, is the standard of behavior. It's unfortunate that NATO revoked the rule of "law" (legislation) in favor of the rule of opinion and then initiated war to enforce its opinion.
What NATO did was illegal because NATO is empowered only to protect parties to the Treaty from aggression (See the Treaty.) It isn't empowered to commit aggression against other nations which are not threatening the parties to the Treaty. If NATO has granted itself powers beyond the Treaty, then NATO is out of control.
What NATO did was cowardly because of the odds. An attack by 19 united nations against one little second rate country isn't an act of nobility. It's the cowardly act of a bully.
I believe that what NATO did was immoral because it declared that the virtue of a nation's internal behavior can be judged and regulated by intruding outside parties under the doctrine of Might Makes Right. It reduced the standards of judgment of the "international community" to the medieval practice of trial by combat.
Furthermore, NATO is far more dangerous than Slobodan Milosevic. His reach is limited and temporary. He can be replaced by leaders with different beliefs. NATO, on the other hand, has the immortality of a corporation, the leadership of a committee, the unlimited power of an empire, and the technology of tomorrow. It is capable of initiating a world-wide age of enforced morality more enduring and repressive than any that the Western World has ever known. If it isn't stopped, that is what it is going to do.

See the Preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty. A copy of the Treaty is available from this newsletter or from http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm.

Hypocrisy about Elections
Sam Aurelius Milam III

U.S. officials whined to High Heaven about the alleged Chinese attempts to influence U.S. elections. Now, they're openly debating how the U.S. can most effectively influence elections in Serbia. I'm disgusted by the hypocrisy of the U.S. government.

Hypocrisy about "Women's" Issues
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Did you watch the Senate debates about the so-called Patient's Bill of "Rights"? What do you suppose would have happened if several male senators had supported an amendment intended to provide special medical insurance protection for men who were being treated for prostate cancer? Do you suppose they'd have been condemned for advocating sexist policies? You bet they would! Women like Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe would never have allowed it.
What do you suppose would have happened if several female senators had supported an amendment intended to provide special medical insurance protection for women who were being treated for breast cancer? Nothing. That's exactly what Boxer and Snowe did, and nobody accused them of being sexist. Nobody.
Is this the "equality" that feminists preach? No. It's the hypocrisy that they practice. They can vote in a group for "women's" issues with impunity. If men vote in a group for "men's" issues, they're castigated mercilessly by whining, arrogant, hypocritical females.
I'm still disgusted

Frontiersman@ida.net

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

August 1999

Page 1

Hypocrisy about Guns
Source Unknown: Forwarded by Robert Hayton

The NRA's bad press;
'Elite media' spins gun debate.
A new doctoral thesis by Brian A. Patrick out of the University of Michigan tends to confirm heavy press bias against the National Rifle Association. In analyzing 1,500 gun-related news articles and editorials in the "elite media" (The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor), Mr. Patrick found:
•     That 87 percent of editorials and op-eds dealing with the NRA were negative.
•     That about 27 percent of news headlines dealing with the NRA used belittling jokes or puns — more than double the rate for other interest groups.
•     That anti-gun groups were routinely referred to as "advocacy" or "citizen" groups, while the NRA was most often termed a "lobby."
For those who believe in the NRA's pro-Second Amendment work, however, there is an upside to Mr. Patrick's research: The heavier the barrage of bad publicity, the more the NRA's membership increased.

Letters to the Editor
Dear Frontiersman

I know you don't like the Constitution very much, so here is the good news — Mr. Clinton will overrule it by his executive orders soon as a major emergency arises. And when will that be? Say Jan. 1, 2000. While businesses are spending much time & big money to make their computers "compliant", Uncle Sam hasn't moved a muscle. No government checks! Seems to me those guys in D.C. have promoted this.

So stock up on food — and water. And you'll need some way to keep warm if Idaho is as cool in winter as I think it is ....

Lotsa luck,

— Shirley; Urbana, Illinois

You're right about the executive orders, but will anybody even notice the difference? According to CRS Report for Congress, National Emergency Powers, December 10, 1992, the United States was continuously in a state of national emergency from 1933 to 1976, and thirteen declarations of national emergency occurred between 1976 and 1992. I recommend my essay "In Search of the Supreme Flaw of the Land: The Bill of Rights", in which I examined this and other constitutional matters.

— editor

Dear Sam —

If you would consult the great English scientists, like Newton, you would find that I am simply repeating their own arguments as to why they themselves used the continental measuring system rather than the British.

If you would dig up Herr Hammerstein, I'm pretty sure that he would largely agree with my understanding of poetry & his intended meaning.

I have tried to explain that a complete overhaul of the US education system is needed, which is impossible without a complete overhaul of the US government, & that until then real education, rather than brainwashing, much less competent teachers, is impossible. Apparently you miss my meaning because you yourself have lost your revolutionary fervor?

Sincerely,

— Elliot; N. Merrick, New York

Such proposals as "complete overhaul" are so vague as to be meaningless. You cloak your frequent advocacy of such generalities behind references to ancient thinkers, but you never suggest a specific remedy. Since you start with the assumption that your "complete overhaul" is impossible anyway, you conveniently relieve yourself of any need to actually try to solve the problem. If you want competent teachers, then I suggest that you try to forget the "impossible complete overhaul" approach and think of some kind of specific suggestions about how to get competent teachers.

If you really are interested in a complete overhaul of the U.S. government, then I suggest that you read my "Treaty for an Alliance of American States", or any of my several essays on the subject. They provide, variously, specific suggestions regarding a "complete overhaul" of the US government. They're available upon request and are posted on The Pharos Connection.

As to revolutionary fervor, I haven't lost mine. However, I understand what kind of revolution we need and what kind of revolution we don't need. We need the kind that happens in people's heads, when they learn to think for themselves. We don't need the kind where a centrally directed armed force of rebels overthrows a government, paving the way for a worse government. That kind, which I believe you advocate, is the remedy of choice of incompetent reformers.

Finally, I don't rely on past thinkers to do my thinking for me. I don't expect poets to interpret their poetry for me. I can think and interpret for myself.

— editor

August 1999
Page 2

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

Frontiersman@ida.net

A Call for Lustiness
Just Say No to the Sex Police
Camille Paglia

This article appeared in the March 23, 1998 issue of Time. It was forwarded to me by Eric, of Tehachapi, California. I asked Time for permission to reprint the article and was referred to Camille Paglia. My efforts to contact her failed. Therefore, I'm printing the article without permission.

Camille Paglia is professor of humanities at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia and the author of three books.

Liberal Democrats, who supported Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas in 1991, are waking up to the police state that their rigid rules have created. Now, as allegations fly about presidential sex, we can finally distinguish between genuine sexual coercion and free expression of sexual thought.

As a college teacher, I've long held that no person in power should demand sexual favors in return for a high grade or promotion. Nor should subordinates sexually involved with teachers or managers enjoy an unfair advantage over their peers. Those principles are a genuine contribution to feminist history.

But the secondary "hostile environment" policy, which allows employees to file lawsuits on nebulous grounds of psychological distress, is grotesquely totalitarian. It offends free-speech rights and is predicated on a reactionary female archetype: the prudish Victorian lady who faints at a sexual innuendo. This isn't feminism; it's Puritanism.

The Anita Hill case, far from expanding women's rights, was a disaster for civil liberties. That Hill, an articulate graduate of the Yale Law School, could find no job-preserving way to communicate to her employer her discomfort with mild off-color banter strained credulity. That Thomas could be publicly grilled about trivial lunchtime conversations that occurred 10 years earlier was an outrage worthy of Stalinist Russia.

An antiseptically sex-free workplace is impossible and unnatural. We want a sophisticated art of seduction. Feminist excesses have paralyzed and neutered white, upper-middle-class young men, as should be obvious to any visitor to the campuses of the elite schools. I want a society of lusty men and lusty women whose physical and mental energies are in exuberant free flow. While men must behave honorably (Governors and Presidents should not be dropping their pants in front of female employees or secretly preying on buxom young interns), women must also watch how they dress and behave. For every gross male harasser, there are 10 female sycophants who shamelessly use their sexual attractions to get ahead. We don't want a society of surveillance by old maids and snitches. The proper mission of feminism is to encourage women to take personal responsibility without running to parental authority figures for help.

The fanatic overprotection of women is fast making us an infantile nation. We need to treat sex with greater realism and imagination. Women should be taught not that they are passive wards of the state but that sex is a great human comedy where the joke is always on us.

Sex Addicts? Rubbish! Vive La Difference!!!
Sam Aurelius Milam III
In Walter Scott's Personality Parade (Post Register, Sunday, July 4, 1999), a reader asked about the so-called sexual misconduct of Darryl Strawberry, relating to soliciting a prostitute. Scott missed his opportunity to provide some honest information about men. Instead, he promoted the stupid idea of "sexual addiction".
If a woman's boobs are the first thing I notice when she comes into view, it doesn't mean I'm a pervert. If I admire her derriere, it doesn't mean I need counselling. If I don't care whether she can do triple integrals in her head, it doesn't mean I need some stupid 12-step program to help me "kick the habit". My perception of women as sexual creatures is normal for a healthy male, and I reject the gibberish about "sexual addiction". It's another ignoble attempt to discredit sexuality. I won't feminize my perception of women and I won't apologize for it.
The people who are promoting the idea of "sexual addiction" are members of the same sorry group that has, for years, promoted sexual repression in every possible way. They should be warned, however, that the repression of normal behavior promotes other kinds of behavior. They've tampered with our behavior in ignorance of the likely consequences and without causing any discernable improvement — probably just the opposite. If they don't like what they've achieved so far, then they should try something different — leave us alone.

Frontiersman@ida.net

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

August 1999

Page 3

Frontiersman
479 E. 700 N.
Firth, Idaho 83236

A good example
works better than
prohibition.

Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Dear Buck

Where's the best place to catch sand trout?

— Ready to Fish

Dear Ready to Fish

Don't know. Never heard of 'em. Dunes?

Acknowledgments
•     My thanks to Shirley, of Urbana, Illinois, Lady Helen the Gracious, and Sir John the Generous for their contributions.
Sir John's website is http://www.jwebster.com/.
•     My thanks to The Affiliate, of Vankleek Hill, Ontario for regularly printing reviews of the Frontiersman.
•     My thanks to Sir Donald the Elusive for paying the production costs of this newsletter and for his additional contributions.

— editor

Bumper Sticker Quotations
Source Unknown — Forwarded by Sir John the Generous

• I said "no" to drugs, but they just wouldn't listen.

• I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.

• There's too much youth. How about a fountain of smart?

• Where there's a will, I want to be in it!

• Forget about World Peace. Visualize Using Your Turn Signal!

• Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

• Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.

• Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.

Frontiersman

Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.

Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.

Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other publications. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.

Submissions — 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.

Payment — 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 U.S. postage stamps. I will accept checks or money orders only by prior arrangement. I don't accept 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 is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor

August 1999
Page 4

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

Frontiersman@ida.net

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue