This morning, March 31, Terry Schiavo passed. After fifteen years of living in a most pitiable condition, severely brain-damaged, wholly dependent, and markedly changed even in facial appearance, the 41-year-old woman expired.
Terri Schiavo
The prolongation of her predicament affects the reaction, and even judgment, of us all. Murder doesn't usually take 15 years to commit, so, most of us can't grasp that aspect. Instead, most people cashed in their emotions, their sentiment, their natural feeling for an innocent, helpless, dying woman.
An American poet once pointed out the power of such a woman, and her overwhelming appeal to the heart. Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849) wrote about it on more than one occasion. The death of a young, beautiful woman, was the pith of poetic sentiment, the apogee of beauty. (See, The Poetic Principle, and The Philosophy of Composition.) This poetic sentiment was dramatically displayed by the world when Princess Diana was killed in the tragic car 'accident.' No one living can forget that.
Terri Schiavo was a young, attractive woman too, 15 years ago, when she "died" to the world. The pictures of her younger days have deeply affected public sentiment, yet, the poetic sentiment beauty is a different kind of feeling than the moral sentiment of duty. E.A.Poe distinguishes the two, and a third sentiment, Truth, to which the intellect responds. It seems that in the case of Terry Schiavo, the triumvirate of the human soul is engaged. It is a remarkable phenomenon.
Pope John Paul is close to death, but he is a man, and an old man. The sentiment toward him is of an entirely different nature. The circumstances are different. The Pope has had a long, meaningful life. His death will come with no surprise, hence, no air of tragedy. It was more or less expected.
Pope John Paul
Johnny Cochran, the famous attorney for O.J.Simpson, died March 19, 2005. He wasn't seventy years old. But the world has shown little attention to his passing at all. He died of an inoperable brain tumor. Perhaps the world didn't consider him "innocent."
Then there are the victims of the Red Lake Indian Reservation. Indian "leaders" complained that there wasn't enough attention paid to this event. Not enough national media coverage. Not enough federal government response.
Let's face it: as a society, and as individuals, our emotions judge our dead, and our dying. There is an inevitable evaluation, to which our psychal triumvirate arrives, regardless. It isn't about equality, it isn't about political values, or even about law. It's about emotion.
And what about the media? They follow whatever story they think will sell the best, will get the most mileage, will give them their best opportunities. They follow what they think people are interested in, and will buy. Yet, therefore, there may be a certain natural current in the media which instinctively responds to the Collective Conscious, the social soul, as it were. Is the media right in this? On target?
We may grow weary of death and dying, as news stories, but, we cannot reconstitute our natural, intuitive evaluations of the story, the event, the poem.
Terri Schiavo is gone, but her passing shall ever remain one of the most provocative stories in modern times. The full soul of humanity responded, on all levels, for all reasons. It is we, the people who are helpless, just as helpless as Terry was. We, the people, are indeed like sheep. It is the price of civilization. It is the trade-off of government. It is the result of choice--the choice of having a society.
Did we fail Terri? And who fails society? Who lets us die, helplessly?
"Thou destroyest the hope of man. Thou prevailest for ever against him, and he passeth: thou changest his countenance, and sendeth him away." Job. 14:19,20.
It is the present plight of earth: death. Yet, while we're alive, we are to sound the depths of reality. Eternity is a possibility, at least. We cannot presume Divinity. And in this very vagary, this intense anxiety, we touch the truth.
"Is Ahab, Ahab?" said the agonizing captain, in Moby Dick. "Is it I, God, or whom, that lifts this arm? If the great sun move not of himself; but is as an errand boy in heaven...then how can this one small heart beat...unless God does the beating...and not I?
"Where do murderers go, man! Who's to doom when the judge himself is dragged to the bar?"
The Terry Schiavo story is a humbling story. It shows how uncertain we really are, about everything. We cannot distinguish fate from chance, or providence. We are left with a call to faith, that's all. Faith that there is Divine and positive regard for each and every one of us. This is the choice of each individual. Such a faith may not be reflected in the media coverage of stories about death, because faith is not a social act. It is an individual act.
Ashley Smith
An individual act like that shown in the Ashley Smith story, and the positive outcome that positive regard can bring about.
Clyde Bellecourt thinks Indians are more pitiful than a dying, helpless woman.
Clyde Bellecourt is bringing down the image of the American Indian to the lowest moral depravity in history.
He is continually criticizing President Bush for not giving paramount attention to the Red Lake shootings, in which an Indian kid shot and killed other Indians kids, and instead giving top governmental attention to the dying Terri Schiavo, in a hopice in Florida.
Clyde Bellecourt, the Beggar, in earlier days
The liberal Washington Post reported Bellecourt's bellyaching last Friday (March 25), but there's more. Reuters reports that Bellecourt has dramatized his lament to further depths of self-denigration, to the unspeakable embarrassment of Indian people.
Clyde Bellecourt...said Bush's response came too late. "He should have been the first one to reach out to the Red Lake Indian community," he said.
"He does not have any problems flying in to restore the feeding tube to Terri Schiavo. I'm sure if this [shooting] happened in some school in Texas and a bunch of white kids were shot down, he would have been there too," Bellecourt said
There you have it all, in just a few sentences. Bellecourt is professional whiner, who preaches that Indians must have national attention, national media coverage, in order to be validated. Indians must have equal time in the news, or we're just not equal.
This is the pith of cowardice, and the pit of spiritual depravity. This is articulated weakness beyond any other attempt. That such a pretended Indian "leader" would say such a thing, at such a time, shows just how execrable these Leftist-trained Indian "leaders" really are. They live for the camera, the reporter, the attention.
They themselves have accomplished little or nothing in the way of helping youth, improving Indian attitude and productivity. Why? They base everything on negativity, on parasitical complaining, on autolytic analysis of perpetual plight, a condition to which they themselves contribute.
In the hour of need, Bellecourt, and other pretended Indian "leaders," proves himself a traitor to Indian pride and honor. His complaint betrays that self-serving warp that he learned from the Communists back in the '70's, that "you ow me" attitude, based on obvious racist positions. That was the American Indian Movement then, and with Bellecourt "leading," it's AIM today.
Bellecourt is a racist, as shown clearly in his statements: "If it were white kids shot down," he poses. I don't remember President Clinton going to Columbine when white kids were shot down there, by white kids. As a matter of fact, Clinton nixed a $50 million compensation fund requested by a Colorado attorney.
Bellecourt is just using the circumstances of the occasion to bash Bush and the Republicans. This is the usual fare for mindless liberals. But in this case, Bellecourt's racism and low-down racial envy is so pronounced that he should be forever degraded and shunned in the eyes of any Indian with pride. Indians should cross him off as a horrible example of indignity and disgrace.
It is time for Indians to be the proud and independent people we once were. We need to snap out of this delusive notion that we are dependent on the news for affirmation, that we need national attention to improve ourselves. This is damnable slavery, nothing else! Away with it!
Away with Bellecourt and the rest like him. They've have their chance. They've accomplished little or nothing. How criminal that the media is so wedded to them that the media itself perpetuates their delusion, and the media itself keeps the Indian image in diapers, in total dependency.
Clyde Bellecourt, the
professional traitor
'Indians deserve more pity than a helpless, dying woman.' Thus Bellecourt has cursed the Indian image in America. He deserves more loathing than any Indian in history.
"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities". Isaiah 53:11
No doubt, our own hearts speak to us of that travail. Deep inside, we know what caused it. The Collective Unconscious screams out the truth. We are part of it. We know our part in it. It isn't a cultural specialty. It is universal. We are the world, indeed.
But that travail procured eternity for many. That travail opened a new dimension, not yet part of history. Therefore, he shall be satisfied. He wanted many to share in everlasting life. (Indeed, he is not willing that any should perish, 2 Peter 3:9). It is the voice of prophecy, the inevitable exigency in the imago Dei, the unanswerable urge of in the soul of man.
Und durch seine Erkenntnis wird er, mein Knecht, der Gerechte, den Vielen Gerechtigkeit schaffen; denn er traegt ihre Suenden. (Lutherbibel, 1971).
"And through his understanding will he, my servant, the righteous, create righteousness for the masses..."
Righteousness definitely has to be created for us. We can engender no such commodity. We can make no such exchange. That he should behold the results of his travail--many made righteous, and be satisfied, is a glorious moment. Do we not all intuitively, instinctively yearn for such a moment?
There is encouragement.
"Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong." Isa. 53:12
Those whom his vicarious sacrifice has made "righteous" are called "the great." "The strong." Does not the servant of the Lord inherit the nations? (Ps.2; 68:29; 72:11) Do not kings bring their glory and honor to him? (Rev. 21:24). Do not sons of men reign with the divine servant, for ever? (Rev. 5:10; 22:5).
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Rev. 3:21
Can it be? We, who have caused little but ill and woe in the world; we, who cannot control ourselves, cannot think straight, cannot forgive; we, who have brought nothing but more strife, confusion, sorrow, and tragedy by our own birth and death, even naturally; we, who cannot discern between our right hand and our left hand, we, or some blessed portion of us, shall share the immortal throne of the Almighty?
What unspeakable travail must this wonder have wreaked in those unknowable regions of the heart of God. How daunting the aspect of such an affect as the eternal scars.
The travail of his soul. How terrifying a thought.
He shall be satisified. How redeptive a feeling. How sweet the sound.
The travail of his soul is the conversion of ours. If we accept the invitation, if we believe, we are accounted "great," and "strong." We are called kings.
And what is the cost of such a belief in us, that so many refuse? What shall be the travail in our souls, that we should be called great and strong? Why is the way which leadeth unto life so narrow, and why so few find it? (Matthew 7:14)
It appears that the servant of the Lord was willing to bare the sins of many, though few recongized and appreciated it. Though most refuse, the number that believe is sufficient that he is satisfied. The travail of his soul brought to him "the pleasure of the Lord." (Isaiah 53:10)
The Washington Post claims that Indians across the country are crying because President Bush hasn't shown the concern over the Red Lake shootings that he showed over the Terri Schiavo case. He has responded "with silence," the paper says the Indians are saying.
Whom does the liberal Post quote? Clyde Bellecourt, still one of the biggest liberal "breeds" in the business--the business of belly-aching.
Clyde Bellecourt, 1983
The whole problem is a mistaken assimilation. Whose fault is that, Mr. "Indian Elder?" Who likes to imitate Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and the race pimps? Who likes to set the youth on the path of perpetual dissatisfaction, frustration, and depression? Who preaches "I've been wronged?" You, Mr. Bellecourt, and the Leftist Indians like you. You have assimilated, to the Communist ideal of "you owe me." You're the one that breeds discontent, and stifles the natural aspirations of Indian youth.
You and all these professional Leftist Indians represent no one but yourselves. You merely use their racial association.
As I pointed out in my article on today's FrontPageMagazine, "Indians, Nazi's and The School Shooting," young Jeff Weise was disturbed about racial intermarriage, and about Indians losing their identity. All he'd seen was Indians mixing with whites, acting like blacks, and white liberal teachers at Red Lake high school wanting everyone to mix in, and condemning and ostracizing Jeff for wanting to keep Indians Indian. All he knew was white leaders promoting the genocide of Indians and Indian culture. All he'd seen was white people using Indian "leaders" like Clyde Bellecourt to take down all the Indian images from all the schools in the country.
Yes, Jeff was a very disturbed young man, and understandably so. And when the mind cracks, what comes to the surface is often what was of greatest concern to the individual. Jeff had courted the Nazi stereotype, only in the sense that he wanted to preserve the Indian race. He was looking for support, that's all. But even the neo-Nazis didn't take him seriously. Nevertheless, in this matter of racial pride, Jeff Weise was a much greater Indian leader than Clyde Bellecourt will ever be.
Now, what is the point of asking for national media attention for Red Lake? What is the point in expecting President Bush's personal attention? Isn't that must more assimilation? Isn't that acting like everyone else? "Indians are people, too," the mascot opposers say. So, to be a "people" means you must belly-ache, like Bellecourt? Isn't that just more of the dependency doctrine coming through again? that famous "I'm a poor victim" line?
Why should Terri Schiavo get all the attention? Let's compete for it. We Indians will demand it. Let's win the pity party. After all, we're big brave Bellecourt Indians, aren't we?
But the media is wrong. Not all Indians are feeling this way. Only the Leftist-trained, professional "Indians" are crying out about the lack of attention to Red Lake. Real Indians can take care of our own. We appreciate sympathy, but to professionally bleed it out of non-Indian is a total disgrace. It is NOT the Indian way. This is more outrageous than removing Indian logos from schools.
President Bush hasn't made any statements probably because he doesn't know what to say. Few people do. My FrontPage article says what hardly anyone will dare say: Indians cannot afford to assimilate. We are a vanishing race. Jeff Weise felt that fear. Yes, he had other problems, but this does not obliterate or invalidate his concern on that point.
Let the media continue to lie, lie, and lie again. The media lies about everything, constantly. The Washington Post article is nothing but liberal propaganda.
Jeff Weise, at age 9.
That fact is, that kid, Jeff Weise, needed BadEagle.com, and all the discussions we hold on our forums. To love one's race is not a crime. To love one's race is the only basis for understanding how to love and appreciate someone else's. The liberals cracked Jeff, not the Nazis. The white liberal teachers and counsellors at his school were must more than he could take. He finally blew up.
He needed me. He needed Indians. Real Indians. He needed the strong, the proud, and the brave. He did not need Clyde Bellecourt.
Shall the people take hold of common sense, and physically over-power the forces guarding Terri Schiavo's death process, and simply deliver her?
Force has been suggested, but so far it's only legal, official force. Richard Poe calls it the Elion Gonzalez Option, government intervention. Anne Coulter suggests National Guard intervention, or the Florida state police. Why not? It's been done before, in other kinds of non-life threatening crises.
But what about the people, the simple, awesome power of "we the people?" Any volunteers? Anyone up to being a hero? This would be a dramatic sacrifice, indeed. Former Green Beret Bo Gritz promised intervension, but, unless he's waiting until the now eleventh hour, he hasn't been able to bring it about.
That leaves the simple protesters, the common people, the non-professionals. Remember Paul Hill? He killed a doctor for killing helpless fetuses. Few considered him a hero. He was executed in 2003, by the state of Florida, no less.
But the Schiavo mission is different. The people want Terri saved, not doctors and judges killed. The Hill Agenda may be latent in some people, but it is not a general motivation here. Nevertheless, it would be a risky, dangerous, life-threatening thing for the people to use force to intervene on Terri's behalf.
Is this what it comes to? Does it take violence to save an innocent woman's life? This country had a Civil War once, over what many people like to think was human rights. It seems that states rights are winning in Florida, however. But then, which rights? There are many.
Opting for "people's rights," as well as Terri's rights, I don't know how the use of force can be refrained from, or restrained. When Terri dies, there will certainly be no heros. There will be no victory celebrations.
This is the sociology of the affair.
The psychology is a different matter altogether. Terri's parents have rights, if being parents means anything. Michael Schiavo would have rights, if her were any kind of husband, but he really isn't. The family has a right to support and sustain Terri, but, does the state have the same responsibility? And could there possibly be any objection, from anyone, if there is no cost to the state, and the family sustained Terri? And even if there is cost, why sustain felon lifers in prison, and not innocent Terri?
But this is all moot. Barring a miracle, Terri will die, and there will be those who will justify it, and those who will object. But for those of us who could have acted, but did not act, like Starbuck (of Melville's Moby Dick) when he had the chance to save the Pequot and crew by shooting Cpt. Ahab, we will console ourselves with the words of Melville:
Herman Melville (1819-1891), author
of Moby Dick, 1851.
For it is a thing most sorrowful, nay shocking, to expose the fall of valor in the soul. Men may seem destable and joint-stock companies and nation; knaves, fools, and murderers there may be;...but man, in the ideal, is so noble, and so sparkling, such a grand and glowing creature, that over any ignominious blemish in him all his fellows should run to throw their costliest robes.
That immaculate manliness we feel within ourselves, so far within us, that it remains in tact though all the outer character seem gone, bleeds with keenest anguish at the undraped spectable of a valor-ruined man.
Would that we shall all have such sentiments toward one another, upon the death of Terri Schiavo.
Having made a modest effort to understand more fully the case of Terri Schaivo, the 41-year-old woman with severe brain damage, a new image surfaces. The hideous, unspeakable impression looms up that she is in fact being murdered. This image is slow to form in the minds of many, due to the fact that the case has gone on for so long, and most of the critical details have been withheld by the mainstream media.
Mrs. Terri Schiavo, 2003
Just last month, February, 2005, the parents of Terri, Mr. and Mrs. Robert and Mary Schindler, file complaints with Department of Children and Families of the State the Florida, and applealed for intervension. The appeal cited approximately 30 allegations of "abuse, neglect and exploitation." This brought a lot of attention to the details of the case.
According to Bonnie Chernin Rogoff, the real abuse was known as early as 1991, from the results of a bone scan of Terri Schaivo. "The main evidence comes from a bone scan taken on March 5, 1991. As Terri's guardian, Michael Schiavo denied her family access to Terri's records, the results of which were not made available until November, 2002. This scan indicated numerous broken bones in various stages of healing, including compressions fractures, a broken back, pelvis, ankle, bone bruises and ossifications." If one dares to read this article, one comes away with quite a different idea of the case than the media-generated euthanasia issue. It is a case of studied abuse and neglect on the part of Michael Schiavo toward his wife. He has refused all rehabilitation efforts in his wife's behalf. She could have, and should have recovered from all injuries.
Richard Poe's assessment of the politics behind the whole story is telling. Though the case has gone on for years 'undetected,' it has become now the convergence of desperate Democratic dispositions of death, manifest in the abortion issue, the euthanasia issue, and it even seems as though the whole race to departure (as it were) may be connected to medicare costs. The American economy simply cannot sustain the health care cost of the baby-boomers who will soon crowd the health care system in overwhelming numbers, at impossible costs. The Schiavo case, if she is allowed to die by judicial order, will set a precipitous precedent of death in the future. The law, specifically a judge, decides whether you live or die, not your family, not your loved ones.
Of course, one would hope that living wills, or other such legal statements, would prevent any such predicaments. It is a fact that no such written document expressing the will of Terry Schaivo exists. This is most unfortunate. Her life has been in the hands of her dubious husband, who is growing more and more suspect.
It seems then that the Democratic disposition of death is critically interested in this case, and that the judicial system add one more dimension of power to its arsenal: authority to command the death of the innocent and incapacitated. Thought it might appear compassionate toward the mindless, those in abject agony, or the permanently disoriented and dangerous, and toward society as well, it opens the door to wholesale genocide in one way or another. It will inevitably include the elderly, who's families have abondoned them. Considering the gargantuan nursing home industry, it seems most families tend to abandon their elderly, unable or unwilling to personally care for them.
So then, if the health of society is a priority, what exactly is its relationship to the health of the individual?
There are those who believe AIDS was created by the Department of Defense. Henry Kissinger has been named, along with President Nixon, in an alleged plan for massive "depopulation" of the Third World in order to keep control of the economic system under the superpowers. Pharmaceutical companies are also alleged culprits, naturally.
Killing people, in massive numbers, is certain to have economic effects. It is as if to say, those in power are trying to secure the best future for the most people, and that is relatively few people. Masses must be sacrificed.
Is this what Terri Schiavo's case is all about? Is this where it leads? Population control? Murder of the innocent, so others can maintain the life style they want? That's what abortion often seems like. But, with a legal precendent allowing the judiciary to dictate who lives and dies, outside of death penalty court cases, outside any criminal case whatsoever (--save that of the judge making the ruling!), sounds indeed like a formula for genocide.
This fearful possibility is coming about due to the Leftist media not informing the public of the real story behind the Schiavo case. The public is not only misinformed, but disinformed. The usual Leftist prodedure. Critical details about the case are simply absent. Others are mistated. "Kept artificially alive," it was said, in January, 2004, "since 1990." CNN said (2003) that she "collapsed from heart failure," but said nothing of the bone scan revelations.
It is a most disconcerting day when, not only does the public have to do its own investigation and deduction, but the public simply cannot trust what the media is saying. In fact, the public must actively distrust the mainstream media.
Editor's Note (March 22, 2005, 6:25 pm): Although this blog addresses legitimate questions, further research on the case has revealed that this blog has not addressed the most serious issue pending--intentional murder, though prolonged, of an innocent victim. This matter is addressed in the next blog.
How cruel it seems, that a federal judge should order the death of an innocent woman. (This is David Horowitz' take on the circumstances.) U.S. District Judge James Whittemore has rulled that the feeding tube of Terry Schiavo, the tragically and wholly disabled woman in a Florida hospice, shall not be reinstated. This is the third instance of removal of the tube, and the judge is determined that it shall not be reinstated.
The case has caught the attention of even President Bush, as Congress continues to dramatize every aspect of the case. (Congress has really been grandstanding lately, with a stellar display of moral and spiritual refinement. The steriods issue was just the beginning of this new phase of concern for ruling the public. Apparently Congress is feeling a bit less than righteous before the people, and is desperate to regain their confidence. Then again, maybe they're just riding their own wave of dominance and power.)
The case of Terry Schiavo, however, is quite complex, in that the basic question is unanswerable itself. It is not just about life, it is about quality of life. In a political environment where everyone expects a Cadillac, by rights, how can it be argued that an essentially 'wholly dependent' entity qualify for life on the same basis? Horowitz asks, "Where are all the opponents of capital punishment and why aren't they defending her?" But the other question is, Why are the conservatives, who eschew dependency, so dramatic about keeping alive a wholly dependent, barely conscious body? The potentiality of Terry Schiavo becoming a full human being is not comparable to that of an unborn fetus. Conservatives are pro-life, indeed, but, that principle applied to the Schiavo case seems a bit confusing.
Dependency has to do with the quality of life. Conservatives decry dependency when referring to indolence, irresponsibility, and the general Communist principle of "you owe me." But they also defend the helplessness of the unborn child--who will become a person, and now they defend the helplessness of an permanently brain-damaged adult. Terry is not responsibile for what happened to her. She is not guilty of moral failure or rebellion against responsibility. Therefore, her right to life is to be differentiated from the right to life of the willfully dependent leeches of society. Terry forfeited nothing. Therefore, nothing should be taken from her. Indeed, all, save her life, has already been taken from her. Dare anyone take her life?
Perhaps something can be learned from other cultures that might contribute to an answer. Consider a lesson from Indian country. In the old days, among the plains Indians, anyone who could not keep up with the rigorous pace of the hunter's life, was left behind. The community did not bend to pick up the slack of the slacker. Whether elderly or crippled, or even in some cases, unwanted babies in the womb, if the community demanded it, the life of the dependent was sacrificed--simply left behind. Leaving the incapable behind, wildly contrasting as it may seem to today's "Leave no child behind" slogan, was a standard concept of survival. The hunting bands and raiding tribes simply could not afford the upkeep of the non-contributors. It was a matter of social logistics, not justice, not equity, nor compassion. It was only about survival.
In the luxurious complexity of modern society, however, and the interminable indulgence of moral philosophy and spiritual refinement, such simple practicalities of survival seem lost. We idolize the individual. Some believe this is the difference between Communism, which idolizes the state, and American democracy, which lauds the value of the individual.
In the old days, Indians had a balance of both extremes. The community simply could not carry you, beyond a reasonable effort. While you were strong, you had the opportunity to distinguish yourself as a person. You could be honored for your achievments and prowess. But the community, the "nation," must survive beyond you as an individual. Your individuality could not be allowed to threaten the long range welfare of the group.
An old Comanche woman, Wes-seh-vahp-pe,
my mother.
My elderly Comanche mother, who doesn't quite understand the details of the Schiavo case, remarked instead on the whole issue of life support systems for the mentally incapacitated: "Pull the plug on all of them. It's too expensive. Enough of our taxes have been spent on this. It isn't right."
To an elderly Indian, herself approaching the end, it is unnatural to dramatize avoidance of the inevitable. She knows the meaning of the "death song." When it's time, it's time, for whatever reason.
Last week (beginning March 17), Congress held official hearings over the use of steroids by Major League Baseball players. Seven players, including Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa, were issued subpoenas to appear before Congress and testify regarding their alleged use of certain illegal performance-enhancing drugs called steroids. There was some issue as to whether the players would honor the intrusion of Congress, but, it turns out they did, to a considerable extent.
New stars were born, in the public eye, or so media would have us believe. Among those who newly doffed relative social insignificance and donned the guise of mass media imagery, were Ray Garibaldi and Don Hooton, both fathers whose young aspiring sons had committed suicide in depression caused the use of steroids. Hooton's son Taylor, the more recent case, gave an intense testimony approaching professional melodrama. The rhetoric was elite. It is the power of politicized grief.
Don Hooton gestures while he testifies during a House committee
hearing on steroids Thursday. Hooton's son, Taylor, committed
suicide after using the drugs, as did the son of Ray Garibaldi, left,
and his wife, Denise Garibaldi, second from left. Dr. Nora Volkow,
far right, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, also
testified. Pool Photo/The Associated Press/Win McNamee.
Don Hooton said. "I am convinced that Taylor's secret use of anabolic steroids played a significant role in causing the severe depression that resulted in his suicide." That is, of course, a perfectly rational statement, at least on the surface. But Hooten evinced a critical moral position when he declared that MLB players were cowards for not accepting the responsibility they bear toward young, aspiring athletes. "Our kids know that the use of steroids is high amongst professional athletes," he said. "But instead of convicting you, they have decided to follow your lead. And in tens of thousands of homes across this country, our 16- and 17-year-old children are injecting themselves with steroids -- just like the big leaguers do."
Certainly no parental responsibility there. Certainly no power in the parent to instill the right values in their children. No efficacy of moral instruction by parental word and example apparent. Hooton offers a complete and utter evasion of parental responsibility. In a classic Leftist disposition, so ubiquitous in American society that people operate on it apparently without even thinking, Hooton blames others for whatever failure comes his way. It's the professional players fault. It's indirectly then the government's fault for not controlling the business of baseball. Nothing could express the weakness of American society more accurately and effectively. Hooton, in all his grief, is a new champion of the Left, the "you owe me" crowd.
This is a terrible blight on the purity of his own fatherly sorrow, and it is almost completely missed due to the universal sympathy toward a grieving father. The loss of a son, in this moment of supreme menschkeit--athletic performance, is an insurmountable sell. Any position can be slipped in on the powerful wave of sympathy and outrage, and the Left is always there to take advantage. We now see how completely mindless Leftism truly is: you owe me. That's the long and short of it. No matter what happens, or how, if I come up short, it's your fault, not mine.
Many parents have allowed their children, even encouraged their children, to value success to the point that cheating has become an almost automatic consideration for the youth.
And notice that, according to Hooten, the illegal steroids used by the kids in Texas are all low grade animal drugs, illegally brought into the country from Mexico, and illegally obtained. So, Hooton can also blame the US government there, too. Failure to control the borders, failure to inspect the trucks--not to mention that Leftist-based federal law that forbids such inspection. But Hooton won't mention the parental failure to teach the sons the right values.
If the pros cheat, then the youth can cheat. That's the value that the kid picked up. Now, where exactly did the parent fail? The parent failed to teach the son moral independence. The intense and visceral imitative nature of athletic performance seems to short circuit any such moral independence. Imitation carries with it whatever the pro is doing. The youth follow. That is a strong factor, indeed.
But the failure is the parents' and not the pros. That a child would "secretly" use illegal steroids speaks immediately of the parent's failure.
Yes, Mark McGuire felt terrible about the suicide deaths of the sons. He was nearly in tears, as he was made to feel that his example contributed to the deaths of the young athletes. Or, perhaps he just felt sad that they did what they did. Everyone feels sad about that. Did McGuire actually feel guilty? Was he actually a coward as Hooton accused?
In this case, I'd say Hooton is the coward. Of course, in his instinctive Leftism, his apparently natural disposition to blame, he does not see this. He believed he was being courageous, no doubt, as did everyone else who is focused on stopping the use of steroids. Hooton's voice was greatly appreciated, and his argument was most welcome.
But, in the volume of his lament, the sheer force of emotion, his own fall of valor went unnoticed. We must respectfully call upon Hooton, and all parents, to be brave enough to accept their own responsibility for failures in their children. Yes, there is the matter of free will, and there is a point where the parent's power ends. But to blame others, even in the athletic arena, without acknowledging one's own influence and culpability, is shameful. No laudations or political advantages created by articulate accusations of others should be allowed to camouflage such shame.
About the time we were wondering about Nichol's background and upbrining, we get the news that he came from a "good family." Mark Nichols, Brian's brother, is "very upset"; Brian's uncle, Reginald Smalls, is bewildered; "He didn't come from a broken home," Brian's sister-in-law Felisza Nichols said. " He's not a person who hung out in the streets and was always in jail. He came up living a good life. He didn't want for anything." Brian's parents are both professionals, and of late been working in Tanzania for the government there.
Fulton County Judge, Roland W. Barnes, murdered by
Brian Nichols who behaved like he never had a mother.
Something went wrong somewhere. Do we need a psychological explanation? Will it be of any preventative value? Whatever it is, it won't comprise anything the average good mother doesn't practice on a daily basis. Life is about self-control. The child first learns it from the mother. Brian Nichols seems to have suddenly forgotten everything he was taught.
But maybe not so suddenly. Brian went to college in Kutztown, Pennsylvania. He was into martial arts, as well as football, and was arrested three times in a year (1990-91) for disorderly conduct and making threats. He dropped out after three semesters, then went to Newbury College (North Carolina), and played some football there (1992-93). However, he was expelled from the team and the school, for stealing from a dorm room.
To Ashley Smith, he called himself a "soldier." Was that one of the "soldiaz" from the gangsta rap crowd, the white-hating, murderous ideology of false racial pride?
With a such a fury fomenting in him, the stupidity manifest in the Atlanta law enforcement circumstances was fatal. A 51-year old black female deputy sheriff, nearly a foot shorter than Brian, and in no way capable of handling him, was, alone, put in charge of him en route to the court room. He simply and easily over-powered her. This was on serveillance tape, which was missed because the security people were not watching. The rest is history.
Brian turned monster, simple as that; and such a monster, that one has trouble believing that he did not have serious problems as a child and young adolescent. That story is not yet told.
What is told, however, is the Ashley Smith testimony. Given this, if Brian is a real man, he will confess all, and forgo a trail. If he is guilty, and he knows it, why put everyone through such a wasteful, pathetic farse of a legal circus? For notoriety? If Brian is sincere in his repentence, the only right thing to do is to refuse the trial, refuse any defense, and take the death penalty. He murdered three people, pre-meditated, intentionally, and not by accident. How clear can it be?
Ah, but we tend to pity monsters. Brian, like the old Frankenstein monster, hunted down, burned alive by the villagers, appeals to an unconscious identification in us, a natural, vicarious sympathy in us for the suffering monster. Such a feeling no doubt exists for Brian Nichols, in some quarters. We must indulge the monsters, we feel.
There are Christians who would love to see him converted, at least before his execution. With the example of Ashley Smith, who could deny God-given human sympanthy to a repentant man? She gave him full status as a human being, even in the face of his murderous, mindless, animalistic rage. In the face of the devil in him, Ashley stood her ground, the holy ground, with compassion, even the compassion that expresses itself in obedience to the law, and respect for human life. She stood on God's ground.
But while we're at it, let's not idolize The Purpose Driven Life, (Rick Warren, 2002) like the news media is doing. If this had happened to Ashley before that book was written, it would have been a different piece of literature Ashley would be reading. Christian experience, though is often initiated by certain words, writings, or testimony of another person, it is not forever dependent on such. Each Christian's life is his own, ultimately. The scriptures, the Bible, is the source of Christian instruction. The secondary literature is only an appetizer.
The Passion of Mel Gibson, for instance, cannot be referenced as the cause of a new social era in Christian devotion. Neither will The Purpose Driven Life (though it is much more likely reading material will influence positive spiritual life than a movie will.)
Maybe Brian will get to read some spiritual literature in prison. Maybe he will read The Purpose Driven Life. Maybe he will read the Bible. We can all hope for that.
But, for those of us a little less monstrous in our lives, repentant or no, monsters need to be eliminated, quickly. Fascination with perversity is too costly in this day and age. Marketing mayhem is worse than a bad sell. It's an evil sell. We are at war with forces which are clearly evil. We must move decisively and quickly, else we will lose to the Brian Nichols's or the Osama Bin Ladens of the world. Man is not the judge of the soul, but man is responsible for society.
Old King David, on his death bed, advised Solomon: "the sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands: but the man that shall touch them must be fenced with iron and the staff of a spear." 2 Sam. 23: 6,7. Sons of B's will always be around, and will always need to be dealt with, and David advised Solomon to use a strong, iron hand. Such are the kingdoms of men. Only at our intense peril do we indulge our enemies, at home or abroad.
And certainly, murderers are not soldiers, not warriors, and not real men, whether like Brian Nichols, or Osma Bin Laden. They are simply enemies, with or without mothers.
Ashley Smith exemplifies everthing glorious about the white woman savior image. She is a Christian woman, and she encountered the intrusion of a violent, murderous black man. She showed herself a monarch of self-control, compassion, and justice. America has produced no finer woman, and no finer patriot. Let this be noted, forever. This modern, Southern white woman, this Christian woman, in all her simplicity, humility, and sincerety, showed the character of a conqueror, and, in unutterable contrast to someone like Amber Frye, Ashley Smith truly deserves to be known and emulated. In a state of nervous exhaustion, she was still able to hold herself together, and to present herself nobly on national media. She has the fortitude of the mightiest men of earth. She cannot be praised highly enough. (Of course, her response will be, 'To God be the glory.')
Ashley Smith, modern saint of the South
I have written on the subject of the "white woman savior" for some time. While I have rejected the kind of professional racist white woman who, without religion or faith, presumes superiority to the dark peoples of the world, and sets herself up as their social manager, I commend Ashley Smith as an example of a true white woman savior, a simple Christian woman, with indefagitable integrity.
I've also written on the strange, yet obvious and powerful psycho-sexual dynamics that exist between white women and dark men. Many people are offended by this subject, or rather my opinions about it. I've posted different aspects of the dynamic as they have appeared in news stories, such as the Koby Bryant case, or the Janet Jackson episode. However, in the case of Ashley Smith and Brian Nichols, I believe the truth of what I have said is most clearly manifested.
Ask the simple question: Would Brian Nichols acted the same way if Ashely Smith was a young black Christian mother with a child? I say, No. It wouldn't have done the trick. The desires of a dark man, in the presence of white woman, are particularly strong and the fact that Ashley was sincerely Christian--pushed those desires over the top. Nichols would either rape and murder her, or submit to her. He chose the latter. It is an unanswerable strength, Christianty, in the face of terror. This, combined with the fact that Nichols was himself exhausted, enervated, and ready to break, all spelled the end.
Ashley said she wanted to gain his confidence (a standard concept among evangelical Christians, by the way), but the truth is, Brian also wanted her confidence. "And angel of God," he called her. In his distorted emotional state, it no doubt did definitely seem as though she was the savior he needed. She was the person to make it end, as peacefully as possible. She didn't make a deal. She didn't give in, an inch. She told him, quietly, confidently, he needed to end this. She offered nothing but the truth to him. From her, he accepted it. He wanted to be accepted by her. He wanted her understanding, he wanted some kind of positive regard. She gave him the truth, with sincere compassion and integrity. Nothing could have been more noble on her part. Nothing, on anyone's part.
Indeed it was providential that Ahsley was a white Christian woman. The murderous rampage was over. Had it been someone else, perhaps anyone else who wasn't female, young, white, attractive, Christian, and completely sincere, the story wouldn't have ended the way it did.
I have an understanding of Mr. Nichols. I feel for him, with sincere pity. The difference between me and him, as dark men (that is, "medium complexion"), is I have racial pride. He doesn't. He missed it. He wasn't taught about it. He doesn't have the understanding. In this case, his immaturity proved his salvation, or, I should say, the salvation of the public.
The emotional frustrations that can fester in the dark male are well known in psychological clinics, and in literature. Eldridge Cleaver knew all about them, and wrote about them in Soul on Ice (1968). I say, however, that the solution is racial pride, not slavery to Siren seductions of the white woman's beauty. Ahsley was nothing but herself, in all her glory as a white Christian woman, of the modern South. But, Brian Nichols was not fully himself. He bowed in servile desperation. I do pray that his 'self' will come to him, in time. I pray that he can come to accept himself.
Eldridge Cleaver, in the earlier days. He
was a minister in the latter days of his life.
There are many dark men in the world who have still slaves to anger, sexual frustration, and rage. Perhaps the media market, which plasters the white female, in provocative manner, in everyone's face constantly, ought to think about the effects. I'm not saying blame, but explantaion, is due here. Dark men need to be men, in the sense of self-control. They need to love and honor the women of their own races. This is the manly thing to do.
However, in a society of forced integration, everyone has to suffer the consequences of the beauty of the white female. The problem is, these women are not all Christian, like Ashley Smith.
Yesterday, (late Saturday morning), Brian Nichols did the right thing. He surrended. Of course, this was not before killing another person, and terrorizing another, but, he finally saw the light. And, after all, he is only a "suspect." None of the people he murdered are evidence of any crime on his part. None of this has been proven in court. Why, Brian is an innocent man. And obviously a reasonable man, of strong character and intelligence.
Murder suspect Brian Nichols is led to a waiting vehicle by an unidentified police officer at the FBI office in Atlanta, Saturday, March 12, 2005. Nichols, accused of killing a judge and two other people at a courthouse Friday, was captured at a suburban Atlanta apartment complex hours after an federal immigration agent was discovered shot to death miles away. (AP Photo/John Bazemore) Note the blonde police officer holding Nichols' arm. Does it ever occur to anyone that this is especially provocative and humiliating to a man like Nichols? Does it ever occur to law enforcement professionals down there that kind of thing is asking for trouble? Are they going to have an angelic blonde by Nichols when and if he gets the lethal injection?
Now the media fest to follow will demonstrate that Nichols is also a great man. He is brilliant, quick-thinking, and they're already saying he has changed America's courts forever. Just like the Arab Muslim murderers changed the world on September 11, 2001. Great men, they are. Tremendous power in the world.
Even though we have very little of the story to date, it is remarkable how Nichols was able to accomplish what he did. The serious of incidental stupidities on the part of Atlanta law enforcement will never be recognized as such. What will come out of this story is how brilliant, deft, and astute Nichols is. Perhaps he will find employment as a consultant to law enforcement. Intenational computer criminals have, upon their discovery and conviction, been hired by world class computer companies. Why not violent criminals? Why can't they find usefulness in the world? Why can't their talents be employed?
Just imagine how quick Nichols was to see opportunity. Think how rash, how bold, how courageous. Now, it's true, we don't have the story of what happened in the court room, like, where were the other deputies, where were the other law enforcement agencies, how did Nichols get in range to shoot the judge, the clerk, and later another deputy, etc.
Anyone who has ever handled a hand gun knows that, unless you are at point blank range, or have plenty of time to aim ever-so-carefully, 90% of the time you will miss your target. I don't know the standard issue of Atlanta sheriff hand guns, but I imagine it was a .38 of some kind. (A .45 would have likely been much to large of a female to handle anyway.) The point is, Nichols must have been a very experienced marksman, else he could never have shot and killed anyone. He must have had the gun point at his victims from five feet away, or less. This brings up the question: How in the world did he get that close? And how did he manage to shoot the second deputy? (We have no information on the encounter with the armed immigration officer whom Nichols apparently shot dead.)
No, it all looks like Nichols is headed for heroism. He took the law into his own hands, in his own behalf. He holds his head high in pride, and all other criminals will look to him for solace and validation.
It may never be revealed openly, but, the racial factor in Atlanta is significant also. Historically, since Civil War times, the city has always had a large Negro population, usually as much as half or more. There exists a certain dignity in the white/black relations in the city, because of the history. The Atlanta law enforcement agencies reflect this high Negro population, obviously, in their ranks.
What this means is simply this: the social relations that exist between blacks are very strong, and very effective. There is black pride in Atlanta, however underdeveloped the racial culture may be as compared to other adjacent cultures. Black people there have a special regard for one another, if I may be so bold as to suggest. They have seen professional success a lot longer than blacks in other cities in the south. Atlanta has always been progressive. I think perhaps these conditions made for the presumptuousness, the carelessness, even the indifference, in law enforcement. I don't think blacks in law enforcement are so likely to be hard on black criminals in their care. This is rather logical, and should always be considered. This circumstance is probably unique in American culture, too. Justice is a many-splendored thing.
I suspect this social environment has a part in the attitude of Brian Nichols himself. This will all be fodder for future media response in the story. Nichols will be around a long time, most likely. His experience will itself provide the foundation for law enforcement consultation, regardless of the outsome of his personal trial(s). He's in, and he won't get out, but, he is already one of the most effective prisoners in the 21st century. He has made history.
This is how morally anemic American society has become. This is how sick media has made the country. Complexity, or, "diversity," as progressive's call it, often makes for weakness, rather than strength. It may be marketable, politically and otherwise, and fits nicely into the Clintonian "stupid economy," but it is indeed stupid to think economy is independent from morality, or that economy can survive without morality.
It's the immorality, stupid, that destroys the society.
The American Negro has vanished. On the morning of March 11, 2005, the news media of America has declared that there are no longer any black people.
Brian Nichols, 6'-1", 200 lbs, who just publicly murdered three people, and attempted four, is "medium complexion," or "medium to dark." He is not black, not Negro, not African, not African-American. He's just a man, with medium complexion.
Brian Nichols, murderer, rapist, etc.
The media wants to make sure that the only criminals that can be identified by race now are white males. Remember the recent murder case in Chicago, where Judge Joan Humphrey Leftkow came home from court to find her husband and mother murdered in their home? Why, the suspect was a white supremist, Matthew Hale. Now, was this because he was white, or because he was part of a group identified as a white group? Do we need to consider Dave Chapelle's comedy skit on the blind black man who was ideologically a white supremist, but didn't know he himself was black? "The Black White Supremist?" Can a member of any race be a white supremist after all?
Brian Nichols, currently at large, after publicly
murdering three people, attempting four.
Brian Nichols, an old fashioned criminal, is of "medium complexion." That's the official description. Look for a man with medium complexion. Don't look for a black man, or a Negro. (Remind anyone of Chief Police Charles A. Moose, and the Washington sniper killings? Moose, a "black" man, insisted that the sniper was a white male. It turned out to be two "black" males, Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Mohammad. Moose resigned in April, 2003, to write a book about it all. Of course, that was back when Negroes were "black.") Today, this is what it's come to now. No one is black. There are no blacks. Even on FoxNews. There are no Negroes. There are no more blacks. Atlanta is a city of human beings. The murdered Judge Rowland Barnes is not white, but only a human being. There is no race to be mentioned in this case. The aspect of race has been eliminated from professional news reporting.
There are no criminals either. Nichols, the violent man held in jail on charges, was not shackled, for that would prejudice the jury against him. He was not to be treated as a criminal, before convicted. This, in spite of the fact that he had a history of violence and crime.
Yet, the most outstanding element is the complexion. Nichols is medium complexion.
Michael Jackson waves to fans while departing the Santa Barbara County Courthouse in Santa Maria, California March 10, 2005. Jackson's teenage accuser told jurors of taking part in nights of heavy drinking with the entertainer as the sex abuse trial resumed on Thursday. The boy, a cancer survivor, told of how Jackson gave him wine, calling it 'Jesus Juice,' and then plied him with vodka, whiskey and rum. The 46-year-old Jackson showed up late for court and was threatened with jail and forfeit of his $3 million bail by Santa Barbara County Judge Rodney Melville. REUTERS/Phil Klein
So, where does that leave Michael Jackson? White? NPR's Carrie Kahn reported from Santa Maria, California yesterday that when Michael Jackon entered the court, late, coming from the hospital, "his face was pale." Pale! Michael Jackson surgically and chemically bleached his face white years ago. How could he be described as "pale" by illness? Ah, the undying sympathy of the liberal press. The distorted perspectives liberal reporters faithfully render. Pale face, Michael.
Michael Jackson is escorted into the court house by his father Joseph Jackson(R) after arriving late for his molestation trial at Santa Barbara County Superior Court in Santa Maria, California, March 10, 2005. Jackson, looking pale and shaky, arrived at his sex abuse trial from a hospital a few minutes after the deadline set by the judge who had given him one hour to get to court or risk jail and forfeiture of his $3 million bail. (Pool/Reuters)
But now, FoxNews says Brian Nichols is "medium complexion."
We've entered a new era in the history of American culture fantasy. Black people are no longer black. And only white people are to be referred to by "color." March 11, 2004. Make a note of it.
Professor Charles Townes (89), formerly of the University of California at Berkeley, was recently awarded the $1.5 million Templeton Prize for progress in spiritual knowledge. Townes shared the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in quatum electronics, and was also the co-inventor of the laser. Townes plans to donate the Templeton prize money to academic and religious institutions. Townes was considered radical and shocking when he suggested that religion and science were converging back in the '60's, when it seemed just the opposite, at least in the public view.
Charles Townes, co-inventor of the laser and a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, speaks after winning the Templeton Prize in New York Wednesday, March 9, 2005. The prize honors advancement in the field of religious studies. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)
So, a physics professor is awarded one and a half million dollars for suggesting that there may be something to religion after all. How quaint. A professional scientist is recongized for the radical suggestion that religion's offer of "meaning and purpose" in life is important, and might make a useful merger with science. He recently said, "Science tries to understand function and structures. If there is any meaning, structure will have a lot to do with any meaning. In the long run they must come together."
And Townes wants to donate the prize money to the fine institutions that have existed for the sole fuction of separating science from religion. It appears that professional obfuscation and intellectual obstipation have their rewards. The aura of respect that centuries of cumulative academic pursuit have generated, the awsome profundity of the human mind in it's collective effort to know the truth clearly obliterate the very possibility that truth could ever be recognized even if it appeared in the nude. Philosophy and academics are about human methodology, which is all that man can control. Truth has been made dependent on the competing methodologies of recognition. The very concept of truth is made wholly subjective, thus marketable, thus vascilating. Whatever "truth" comes out of science or the university is not the kind of truth to which one entrusts one's hopes for eternity.
Yes, eternity is the issue. Eternity is the only real element of thought which concerns "meaning and purpose." If there is no eternity, there is no posibility of justice, and thus, no meaning. Human methodology precludes the supernatural, eliminates necessary options of thought, and represents the chief obstacle in the way of comprehension of spiritual things.
"Spirituality prize," the headline reads. There's nothing spiritual about methodology. Methodology is the antithesis of spirituality. Rabbi David Blumenthal once said, "Truth is not a proposition. Truth is an experience." This makes much more sense. The mind is only part of the human experience. Any "truth" created or deduced through humanly devised methodology, important as it is, cannot be considered complete. It is frightfully limited. Truth is rather an integration.
Rabbi David Blumenthal, of Emory University
Scientific, laboratory knowledge is always descriptive, never causative. This is the greatest intellectual error generated by the university and academics. To describe something's status or process, is not the same as identifying the cause behind its existence or function. This is perhaps where Prof. Townes dares to touch. Why, meaning must have to do with cause. And religion is the only human effort in thought which addresses the issue of meaning.
So let it be. Let the scientists fumble forever in their assumed humility and ironic idolization of their methodologies. Let them meekly whisper their confession, like Townes, that science really can't address the issue of meaning. Let them eek out a scribbled note that science can't provide meaning. Science can only attempt to describe, in technical, mechanical terms, what appears to be here and now.
But don't let them suggest that methodology can handle meaning, either. It can't. That's what theology has been trying to do, to make respectable that which Paul already had declared was "unto the Greeks, foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:23).
Religion is grief management. Religion seeks to address our pain and our fear. Religion gives hope. This is not the realm of science, as science has functioned for the last millennium. The pain of life, the fear of death, the hope of eternity, these are the issues that matter. This is what "meaning" is about. Science, as we know it, as it has been proffered upon us, has no part in this.
Townes humble, even timid suggestion, that meaning is something that might pair up with science, is a confession of the failure of science, really, and the expression of a faint hope that science might salvage itself, might redeem itself, by at least trying to come to the issue of meaning.
Science has been a bad boy? No worse than theology. No worse than any other human endeavor which idolizes human methodology above divine revelation or true spiritual experience. Spirituality is not up for grabs, either. Spirituality is concerned with life, death, and eternity. If there is to be a marriage, or even a co-habitation of science and spirituality, there will be the most egregious whoredom of spirituality since the Garden of Eden, when the serpent said, "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4).
So now University of Colorado president Elizabeth Hoffman has resigned. Sounds powerful, but, remember, Ward Churchhill "resigned," too--but only from being Chairman of the Department of Ethnic Studies. And, even from the brief news reports about Hoffman's "resignation," it doesn't sound like she suffering from unemployment.
University of Colorado president, Elizabeth Hoffman
"It appears to me it is in the university's best interest that I remove the issue of my future from the debate so that nothing inhibits CU's ability to successfully create the bright future it so deserves," she wrote. In an interview with The Associated Press, Hoffman said her decision to resign would give her time to help the university resolve the controversies.
Churchill's "resignation" resulted in a lower pay, from well over $100,000 as Chair, to $94,242, as "professor," reportedly. How crippling. So what will Hoffman's "resignation" cost her? Probably a similar re-positioning on the University administration. She has supported Churchill. Hoffman said last week that Churchill would not be fired if the review turns up only inflammatory comments, not misconduct.
The problem is the professional structure of the state unversity, and the magical, medieval status of "tenure." It takes more than an act of Congress, it seems, to rid the university of an unwanted professor. It's a job security establishment that excels all others. The professor not only claims the right to have it, but does so in order to justify his "activity," whatever that happens to be.
There is the issue of words vs. actions. Liberal activist-type professors at the University of Colorado claim that Churchill is being unfairly persecuted due to his writings, "not his performance." Hoffman is on the same track. Inflammatory comments are not "misconduct," according to her statement.
So what is misconduct? When I was a graduate student at Yale, the word was, "publish or perish." Professors were expected to do research and publish it. If they did not, they were not "performing" as a professor was required to. The distinction between words or writings, and performance, was not existant. Your writings [i]are[/i] your performance, as well as teaching. Most professors teach what they write, especially if it's published.
Now, the university has always been a place for hair-splitting. And now, the whole matter of "resignation" on the part of a prominent university figure has become a gesture, a vapid professional front, carrying no real consequence, but posed as a mere face-saving manoeuver for the institution. Once again, the university plays the part of language deconstruction. The university usurps words, so that they have a different meaning than what they are generally understood to mean. It's a word robbing factory, the campus is. Everyone learns how to steal meaning. It's the stuff of communist revolutions.
Resignation ought to mean "out of the system." Those who resign, in cases like Churchill's especially, where they remain in essentially the same postion, should not be allowed to use the word. It is not a resignation, in fact. It is merely a re-positioning. Churchill doesn't deserve the power that the word resignation actually carries with it.
The final question is, Who hire and fires whom? Colorado Governor Owens feels the state is responsible for what goes on at the state university. Tax payers feel they have a say, too, since it's their money that supports the university in great part. The university has too long enjoyed a very improprietous status of free indulgence of fantasy, and, as all other financially guaranteed institutions and their professional positions, that very guarantee invites havoc, dishonesty, lack of integrity, foolishness, and generally waste.
Freedom is not the issue at all. We all have freedom. The issue is whether or not we have the right to get paid for it, and paid well, by the state. Just because one isn't paid for one's ideas, doesn't mean he is not free. The university has created the most infantile concept of freedom, demanding state money for it's ideas, and has rather promoted a destructive and dangerous kind of irresponsibility.
Education should be conducted like business. It should be competitive and based on free-enterprise. Universities should be sold to the highest bidder, and the state be relieved of this cumbersome weight. No university should be guaranteed students, either. Students will go where they want, to get what they want. They won't be forced either way. There is this matter of student freedom, too, underneath all these petty professional issues.
The case of the Italian Leftist reporter Giuliana Sgrena truly begs the question of who represents whom. Does the communist reporter, the anti-American journalist, represent Italy? All modern societies are quite complex, and there is desperate competition for control. Achieving the mere image of "representative" requires a desperate struggle. Such conflicts may be due in great part simply to modern media. It is possible that propaganda itself is to blame for much of the conflict in the world. In such an intense, violent environment, the Left, in the example of Giuliana Sgrena, once again shows itself capable any means to achieve desired ends.
Anti-American Italian dramatist and
reporter, Guliana Sgrena
Sgrena was taken captive, we are told, in Baghdad, on February 4th. We are told that Iraqi insurgents held her, made a video tape of her pleading for her life, but more importantly, of her demanding that Italy remove all troops from the coalition forces in Iraq. That was the message she wanted to give.
We are told her release was negotiated by diplomat Nicoli Calipari, and she was driven from the place of captivity to a coalition military check-point. Here the story splits into two versions: 1) the military says her car refused to stop, thus invited forceful intervension; for all the military knew, it was a car bomb; 2) Sgrena says there was no attempt to stop the car, but the military simply opened fire when it came near.
Furthermore, Sgrena suddenly remembered that her loving, caring Iraqi captors (otherwise known as murderous thugs) warned her that the Americans would not want her to be free, and that the US might intervene.
These last statments demonstrate clearly that the whole release, and probably the kidnapping, was not negotiated at all, but literally staged. It is nothing more than an old style Italian drama. It was an act, from start to finish, an act created by the desperate Left.
Italian Prime Minister Sylvio Berlusconi of course was outraged at the "friendly fire" accident, and demanded an investigation. Bush promptly apologized and promised a thorough investigation.
But, Berlusconi has been under great pressure from the Italian Left. Sgrena works for the major Leftist paper, Il Manifesto. Berlusconi has been a staunch ally in Operation Iraqi Freedom from the start, and has been derided for it. The Italian people are divided over the issue, as are most societies in most countries.
So, who represents whom? Leftist stunts like Sgrena's sometimes can back-fire. They probably meant to draw some kind of violence against themselves, but not for anyone, certainly not a Leftist, to be killed in the act. The point is this: who represents whom is become a question nearly impossible to answer in the realm of media. Media is a fantasy world, and in free societies, anyone can say anything. The Left has employed the media to create images which are false. The Left has perfected the art of propaganda through the studied usurpation of words. The Left has added to this art the ancient element of bloody coercion. Yet, there remains the question, Who represents whom?
When the realm of representation is media, we know we have a duty to doubt. This Sgrena story is a classic case of professional chicanery on the part of pathetic Iraqi hoodlums vying for international recognition, and a dramtic journalist stunt on the part of an Italian dramatist, willing to fake a kidnapping, in order to call for the removal of Italian troops from Iraq! Then afterwords willing to risk havoc at a coalition check-point, in order to "suddenly remember" how her loving captors warned her the American would not want her to be free! Misericordia!
Sgrena represents political desperation, falsehood, violence, and good ol' fashioned Italian drama. Unfortunately, one of her comrads was actually killed. That was the price of such drama.
It would be a good thing if conservative Italians would lift their voices at a time like this, and make sure the world doesn't think Sgrena represents Italy.
Richard Poe has been busy these days managing FrontPageMagazine's new web site (DiscoverTheNetwork.org) and blog (Moonbat Central), but his own blog (RichardPoe.com) is awfully hot these days. Poe's posts all make the Ward Churchill image even more confusing and suspicious. One could easily conclude that Churchill has been some kind of double agent all along, working for the law, or the government, infiltrating anti-American groups, at the same time participating with the atrocious groups, and advocating their causes. But such might be giving him the benefit of the doubt, and the doubt is really too great.
On March 3rd, Poe suggested another aspect of Church that deserves attention. Ward Churchill, apparently, was definitely involved in the Weathermen, an anti-American terrorist organization branching off from the Socialist group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), of the late '60's. According to WND, he actually instructed their terrorists in bomb making.
But, even more interesting was the Weathermen's revolting attack on the Judeo-Christian sexual mores and morals of American society. They at one point commanded homosexual acts of all members. Of course, Churchill's precise relationship to the Weathermen, according to Poe, is yet unclear. He may or may not have participated in crashing this last taboo.
Interestingly, there is a rumor in Indian country as well, that Churchill may somehow be involved with homosexuality. It is only a rumor, and unsubstantiated. But, so much of what was supposedly substantiated about Churchill has proven false, it might be appropriate to start reconsidering the rumors!
Ward Churchill, from earlier years.
It seems that one of Indianz.com forum members, Steve Russell (an Indian Law buff, who asserts that he is also part Cherokee), has been accused of being a homosexual, and that Ward Churchill is his partner. (Frankly, it's hard to take, since Russell is apparently married, and his wife happens to be ill currently, or so say the usually untrustworthy, juvenile, bar-room style forums of Indianz.com.) "Steve's Gay Lover is Guilty of Artistic Plagerism," the topic is headed. The homosexual connection has been questioned, of course, by other forum members. It was noted, however, that since the Churchill crisis heightened, Steve Russell seems to have disappeared from the Indianz.com forums. It seems there may be a coincidence of the Churchill crisis, and Mr. Russell's responsibilities to his ailing wife.
This is most outrageous on the part of the Indianz.com forums, but, Mr. Russell loves the forums, loves to post himself on them as an authority. Perhaps he will learn something from this experience. Indianz.com forums inivite pretenders of all races, and most of these have an aversion to whites anyway, or at least, it bolsters their preferred internet "Indian" image to pretend to be so.
Mr. Steve Russell, from the prestigeous Indianz.com!
I have only one thing to say for certain, which connects the two men, Churchill and Russell: they despise Indian blood. I managed to get this confession out of Russell back on December 10, 2004: "there should be no concern for blood as blood does not carry culture," Steve wrote. His status begin to go down on Indianz.com after this, as other picked up on the idea. The real Indians there were offended. (There are many, many non-Indians on the Indianz.com forums, who nevertheless professs to be bonified Indians, and are the most aggressive in their assertions, naturally.) Churchill reportedly said, in 1994, "You don't measure identity by either pounds or percentage points unless you're some kind of Nazi."
This anti-Indian ideology definitely ties the two men together, at least in thinking. As for any rumors or surmisings beyond that, I cannot say. We know Churchill was involved with the Weathermen, and other outlandish groups with anti-American values. We know that he does not believe in Indian blood. We know Russell does not believe in Indian blood. That's as far as the facts take us in any association to be made between the two men (except for the fact they both claim to be "Cherokee.") Indianz.com, in their puerile revelry, may have done Mr. Russell a terrible disservice. However, his attitude about Indian blood certainly deserves serious confrontation, since it represents a profoundly anti-Indian attitude, like Churchill's. It is a risk to say anything, in public; it is a risk to say anything about anyone. Indianz.com, though the best Indian news digest on the net, has the most disgusting forums of on the net as well, with no monotoring, no respect, and little useful information. However, it is a human encounter, and things said there have their place. The truth can be pronounced by knaves, as well as noblemen.
And in case everyone has forgotten what an Indian looks like these days, with the white invasion of Indian country and all, here's a reminder: Heap Wolves, of the Comanche:
Heap Wolves, Comanche
Don't tell me there's no blood. They that despise the blood are enemies of Indian country. The culture clubs of the world are of no service to Indians.
Though he never achieved the status of a John Wayne, Michael Landon is probably one of the greatest actors ever to invest his influence in true, simple, pure American patriotism. More than any other actor, Landon manifested love of country, and moreso the older he became. He was a true pioneer for the use of TV as a medium to emphasize not just American family values, but specifically, Judeo-Christian values.
"Little Joe," from the series, Bonanza (1959-1974)
Most Americans knew Landon first as Little Joe, on the TV series, Bonanza. Though he'd done a lot before that, Bonanza was his real debut in the American home, for the American family. No show at that time emphasized family values like Bonanza, along with American social values, economic values, and everything else. (This, despite the fact there was no mother in the show!)
But that wasn't enough for Landon. Little House on the Prairie gave him the opportunity to really sketch out the real American frontier family, in a frontier community. He was married, with children. This was the real thing. Everyone who has ever watched any segment of that series knows how idyllic, how dramatized, how beautiful were the human values emphasized. And it was all American apple pie, formed in the first stages of American individualism on the frontier.
"Charles Ingalls," from Little House on the Praire (1974-1983)
But this still wasn't enough for Landon. Then came Highway to Heaven. Michael Landon played the part of an angel, in human form, helping people through incredible personal crises.
"Jonathon Smith," from the series Highway to Heaven (1984-1989)
Landon, interestingly, was born Jewish, Eugene Maurice Orowitz, in 1936. His personal life was full of tension and strife, but, judging from the major TV series he helped create, he knew what he wanted in life, and he wanted to emphasize it for everyone.
No actor, through no series, has ever aggrandized the Judeo-Christian values of American society more effectively than Michael Landon. This is a most unusual phenomenon in Hollywood history. Of course, Landon chose to do it through TV, in which more Americans are actively involved, than through movies. This reflects his true motives of mission. Landon was a dramatically American, and clearly had a message for the country. He loved everything America was, is, and hopefully, will continue to be.
Michael Landon, from a Johnny Carson episode.
Landon died in 1991, of pancreatic cancer, at the age of only 54. What a loss to American society. What a loss to the acting industry. Yet, Landon accomplished much. He demonstrated that the real values in life, human relations, provide the finest drama available. His guide in communicating these values was the American Judeo-Christian tradition. Surely, there is no finer example in media.