October 27, 1997
Have you hugged your paparazzi today?
There is no record in human history of a happy philosopher.
... H. L. Mencken
The modern skeptical philosophy consists in believing everything but the truth, and exactly in proportion to the want of evidence; and in making windows that shut out the light, and passages that lead to nothing.
... Charles Nisbet
RB: This is Redmon Barbry reporting live from Pasadena,
California, home of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where
the annual Neutrino Festival is taking place. We have a
long list of popular events to get through here. I am
going to try to get a word with some of the well-known
speakers that are appearing. Here's one. Dr. Podium? Can
we have a moment?
GP: Yes.
RB: We are speaking with Dr. Grabba Podium of the Cal Tech
physics faculty. Dr. Podium, what is the subject of your
address this afternoon?
GP: My subject is the Reagan-Bush education cuts in physics.
RB: Isn't that a little out of date?
GP: Not at all. The lingering effects are still with us.
RB: But how can you know that? You only came to this country
in 1993.
GP: Perhaps, perhaps. But we have been carrying an item
entitled the Reagan-Bush education cuts forward in our
budget for years. It never gets any smaller. Why should
it?
RB: I see. But what about physics?
GP: The heck with physics. What about tenure?
RB: OK. I think we get the drift here. Let's move on to
another speaker, Dr. Grava T. Wells. Dr. Wells, perhaps
you could comment a little bit on the physics being taught
here.
GTW: As one of the VERY few women to have broken through the
neutrino ceiling, I definitely have a few things to say.
RB: You are one of the newer faculty members here and the only
woman. Tell us what that is like.
GTW: Well, I received my PhD in Women's Physics last year from
UCal Berkeley. This year, I am teaching a course in the
economics of sexism in physics curricula. Naturally, I
have been continually harassed by the deans here who cannot
stand to work with a powerful female authority figure.
RB: But what area of research are you pursuing? Do you work
with any particular particles?
GTW: Just like a man! Particles, pfoo! Until we get justice in
the physics department, there will be no playing with
particles. True physics can only be founded on Marxist-
Leninist, feminist, liberation principles.
RB: I see. Well, let's move on. Who are you, young man?
TN: Twitchel Nerdemeyer. Call me Bugs. Let me tell you about
low-T neutrino decay.
RB: My physics is a little rusty, but do neutrinos decay?
TN: Heck, yeah. Like, I did my thesis on neutrino decay.
RB: And you would like to show me one decaying?
TN: Well, no one has ever seen one decaying yet, but I have a
plan for detecting one. Here is my proposal to Congress.
Take a look.
RB: Hmm... Bugs, this appears to require that we turn the
entire country into a gigantic physics lab for the next
thirty years.
TN: We have the manpower and the geographic area to do it. In
thirty years, we have better than a 50% chance of
observing neutrino decay.
RB: Well, yes. But doesn't that seem a little expensive? What
is the benefit to the country or the people?
TN: Hey, man, it would prove my theory, wouldn't it? Like,
instant Nobel. Know what I mean?
RB: Yes, but most people don't... Excuse me, what? what? a
breaking story? OK. Hold on...
RB: We now switch to our correspondent in Washington, Breta
Rever. Breta?
BR: Thank you, Redmon. This is Breta Rever on the Mall in
Washington, D. C., where two million people have gathered
in what is said to be the largest rally ever of its kind.
President Clinton, the Vice President, members of the
cabinet, the 435 members of Congress, the Justices of the
Supreme, representatives of the Justice Department,
Treasury, the IRS, the EPA, and many other institutions,
thousands of tax lawyers, tort attorneys, reporters,
columnists, and other media people have gathered here to
re-affirm their values. They say that they have faith in
America and the power of the dollar. Their message is, a
return to the values that made the current generation of
politicians and media moguls great. The group calls itself
the PromiseBreakers. Let's have a word with one or two of
them. Sir, what is your name and what do you do?
BS: My name is Bark Spongey, and I am in public relations on
the Presidential Status Quo Campaign. And I would like to
say how awesome the Prez was today.
BR: Do you mean during his speech on the Mall?
BS: I mean the whole time, he was taking such a courageous
stand against this whole honesty in government trip.
BR: You don't think that there needs to be more honesty in
government?
BS: Absolutely, not. The people don't want honesty, they want
effectiveness. The whole message is, we do the trick; all
it costs is a bit of someone else's taxes.
BR: That's a pretty neat spin. Thanks, Mr. Spongey. Now let's
talk to one of the main speakers, former Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development, Hermy Cisnosos. Mr.
Secretary, this movement seems to cut across racial and
ethnic lines, does it not?
HC: Prosperity does not need long explanations, Ms. Rever.
BR: Do you think that the President can hold the line against
his critics?
HC: Look how long I did.
BR: You are pretty abrupt with the media now, aren't you?
HC: I'm not running for anything... yet.
BR: But can you personally approve his policy?
HC: Let's look at the seven principles of PromiseBreakers:
1) Don't get caught.
2) Don't admit anything, even when you are caught.
3) Not being indicted is the same thing as being honest.
4) Keep up appearances.
5) Reward your defenders.
6) Never mind about purity; say that everyone does it.
7) If you need the money, don't worry about ethics.
That's all there is to it.
BR: By the way, are you planning to re-enter politics, Mr.
Secretary?
HC: Well, we still have plenty of time. The standard of
political rehabilitation is under two years now.
BR: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Let's move on, now, to this
gentleman, Washington lawyer Bib Bonnet. How are you
doing with the President's case, sir?
BB: What case? That little slut, we will bury her. I can't
comment on pending litigation.
BR: Doesn't it create a little internal conflict for you to be
the President's lawyer, while your brother travels around
the country talking about morals and virtue?
BB: They have no case. Hypocrisy makes strange bedfellows. I
really have no comment.
BR: Talk to me about this gathering. Does this send the right
message to America?
BB: Absolutely. The PromiseBreakers are the leaders; they are
the ones that get things done. Without them, where would
America be? Stand tall, Ms. Rever, for American values.
We will break her, on the stand if necessary. No comment.
BR: Thanks, Mr. Bonnet, for those inspiring words. Wait a
minute, here is the President himself. Mr. President, can
you spare us a moment on this important occasion?
BC: Ha, ha, why, sure, Breta, ha, ha.
BR: Mr. President, where is the middle-class tax cut you
promised in your campaign last year?
BC: Ha, ha. Well, Breta, that's PromiseBreakers for you, ha,
ha.
BR: Are you saying that a small clique in the White House is
blocking tax relief for the middle class, just to keep
class strife going in the country, so that your party can
keep being re-elected? Isn't that a rather selfish
approach?
BC: Ha, ha, are you suggesting that it is more selfish to want
taxes to be high, rather than low, ha, ha?
BR: Of course, it is. More people want taxes to be low.
BC: Ha, ha, wouldn't that add up to more selfishness, rather
than less, ha, ha?
BR: I see your point, Mr. President. Thank you for visiting
with us.
BC: Ha, ha, any time, Breta, ha, ha.
BR: This is Breta Rever at the Mall in Washington, at the
PromiseBreakers rally.
The twisting, ever-changing vapor that is the Clinton foreign policy has reached a new low, with the chief executive of the most powerful free country in the world kowtowing to the murderous butchers that lead China, whose chief is visiting the U.S. this week. But at least it is out in the open: Clinton characterized the alternative to his "engagement" policy as "isolation," which he termed "counter-productive and potentially dangerous." There we have the equation: "isolation" equals ideals and courage; "engagement" equals venality and cowardice. I didn't say it; he did. But it works for me.
Even with the example of the fall of the Soviet Union in front of him, a triumph of what Clinton would doubtless call isolation and confrontation, he cannot keep himself from embracing the enemies of humanity and freedom. Nixon and Kissinger did it to isolate the Russians in 1973 (also, probably, to try to save Nixon's presidency), but that excuse is long gone. Is it socialism, then? Does he secretly approve of Red China? Does he want to rule us the way his colleagues rule China? Or, is it money? Was Clinton paid off? Are his buddies' trade deals the key to understanding this craven gesture?
No matter. Jiang Zemin should not go home without a dose of protest from free people, in a still-free nation, exercising their freedom of speech. The cries of protest should dog his every step here, and even while he is shaking hands and making deals with the Clintons and their associated bigwigs, wetting their lips and whetting their appetites for the shiploads of treasure that are about to steal, the echoes of those cries should continually reach his ears. And if, by some chance, Jiang should be overthrown someday and hanged for his crimes, there can be no thought of ill fortune, but only justice done.
North Koreans are starving because they are imprisoned by the tyrants that rule their country like a personal fiefdom, and for no other reason. No one is starving in South Korea, and the only difference between the two is a line drawn across the country. The only conclusion one can draw is that North Korean communism is a hell of a poor way to run a country: it cannot even feed its own people. Over a million of them will starve to death, according to the most generous of estimates.
But in all the official and news appraisals of the North Korean disaster one can never hear that analysis. All you can hear is how there have been floods and crop failures. Of course, these things have happened, but they happen in the U.S., as well; no one starves here. The Western press's collaboration in the murder of the North Korean people cannot be forgotten, either. If they had been willing to report the facts, if they had been willing to take a stand, if they had called for the overthrow of the North Korean junta, something might have been done.
Even today, President Clinton could call for Kim Jong-Il to tear down the wall that separates the Koreas. If nothing else, it would retrieve a portion of the moral capital expended on appeasing that depraved tyranny. But, he won't. Pity. There's still plenty of room on the ash-heap of history.
Speaking of the ash-heap of history, the President's latest faux pas in the Middle East is turning worse by the minute. With quite a bit of luck, the President's representative there might return with no more than a bit of egg on his face, but that prospect is fast diminishing. And for good reason, namely, the President's position on the attempted assassination of Hamas' leader is patently absurd.
The notion that the assassination attempt is something to be ashamed of is so preposterous that I can hardly believe it. In fact, there are several "hard to believes" here: it is hard to believe that the Israeli government would apologize for trying; it is hard to believe that the U.S. thinks more highly of the "peace process" than of the innocent lives being lost to that group's terrorist acts; it is hard to believe that Jordan, where these terrorists find safe haven, and its leadership can be regarded as "moderate" in any worthwhile sense; it is hard to believe that any external pressure (including Clinton's) would be enough to force the Israeli government to knuckle under to Hamas' reign of terror; and finally, it is hard to believe that the Mossad missed. (They did get all the "Black September" gang eventually.) Well, the best-laid of plans, etc.
When are we going to learn that peace is impossible if one of the parties is determined to continue war?
The strongest argument against the IRS is not that it is corrupt (though it is exceedingly so), nor that it is bureaucratic (though there have never been paper-pushers like the IRS), nor that it strikes terror in the hearts of the people (though it surely does for millions of citizens). Rather, it has become clear, and for many people, it has been clear for a long time, that the IRS and its Code are not fit institutions for a free people to live under. Some of its current, widespread practices are specifically complained about in the Declaration of Independence, not to mention, forbidden in the Bill of Rights.
A citizen ought to be able to know the law and to walk confidently within its borders.
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.
... Radhakrishnan
All contents © Copyright 1995, 1996 by Redmon Barbry ¶ 11:22 PM
