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"
|Hypocrisy about Guns
Source Unknown: Forwarded by Robert Hayton
The NRA's bad press;
Letters to the Editor
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 ....
— 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.
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?
— 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.
Just Say No to the Sex Police
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
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Where's the best place to catch sand trout?
— Ready to Fish
Dear Ready to Fish
Don't know. Never heard of 'em. Dunes?
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