GULLIBILITY ABOUT THE "RELIGION OF PEACE"

On the "Compass" (religious affairs) program of Australia's public broadcaster (the ABC) and on the "60 Minutes" program of commercial broadcaster Channel 9, Islam regularly gets whitewashed -- at the expense of Israel. One of my Australian readers wrote them a letter of protest. The letter is reproduced below

I am not a Jew, but cannot allow another of Richard Carleton’s biased and partisan reports on Israel to pass without comment, and in particular with regard to the security wall. He attempted to give the appearance of balance, but it was very inadequate and quite transparent. His very demeanour, facial expressions and commentary appeared illuminated with extreme anti- Semitism, and yes, hatred was in his eyes. He did a grave disservice to the intelligence of his viewing audience.

With a rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout Europe, spawned by Islamo-fascists and extreme left wing ideologues, whose interests will not be served by a two States solution, this sort of reporting is not only mischievous but dangerous. The Jews have made concession after concession after concession to the Palestinians outrageous demands. Arafat has reneged each and every time, why? Because he has vowed to kill all the Jews drive them into the sea, his desire is to have the whole of Israel and Palestine under his personal control and that of his corrupt and evil regime. What he states in English to the Western Press is not in context that which he speaks in Arabic, to the Palestinian people, 'Arab street' and to Al Jazeera.

Whilst he maintains the status quo, Arafat and he PA are in receipt of billions of dollars of aid from the USA and the EU, Saudi Arabia Russia, China and Iran, none of which reaches the suffering populace. Arafat collects commission on virtually all goods and products entering the area under his control, meanwhile his wife Sufa, and their daughter live in ostentatious extravagance in Paris. If a State comes into being, he would lose all this, his personal 'cash cow', his power base and his life at risk, for this reason alone he is content to beggar the people of 'Palestine' and keep them enslaved.

ALL deaths sustained by the 'Palestinians' are as a direct consequence of Arafat’s murderous regime, not one death would have occurred at the hand of Israel had the Arabs not deliberately slaughtered innocent Israelis, who ask only the right to live in peace.

Richard Carleton referred to the girl age thirteen who was shot by the Israeli Captain, an act the Israeli’s take very seriously indeed and will be investigated thoroughly. We could wish the same of the Palestinian thugs who think nothing of butchering a young pregnant mother and her four little daughters or babes in kindergarten or in their own beds at night, you know the sort of thing, newsworthy for five minutes then forgotten, but no doubt like Abu Ghraib, this will be pursued ad nauseum.

Israel gave up Sinai and her oil wells to Egypt as part of the Oslo 'Peace Agreement' and what did they receive for their sacrifice? further death and destruction. They are entitled to retain all lands seized in Gaza and the West Bank under the International Rules of War and engagement.

When any foreign power initiates an act of aggression against a Sovereign State and subsequently is defeated, the country which has been subject to such attack, without any provocation, is entitled under International Law lay to claim any land acquired in the wake of the aggressors defeat. This territory may legally be retained by Israel, until such time an agreement and settlement is reached and signed into being. Arafat seeks to avoid any form of compromise and remains intransigent, despite being offered 99% of all he has demanded he walks away on every occasion.

The Palestinians use every ruse possible to create mayhem and death and they need look no further than their own evil leader and his gangster thugs to thank for the wall/fence. Can anyone truly imagine, that if we were to face on daily basis what Israel has had to endure, that we would have shown the restraint that Israel has always shown? Mr Howard has rightly stated that we would go after anyone who seeks to terrorise and threaten Australian citizens and in a pre-emptive strike if all else failed.
The wall has saved many, many lives so far. Israel has stated that when the PA stops the murders the wall will be torn down. The ball is in Arafat's court.

The Jews have never abused the hospitality of ANY country in which they have sought refuge, they do not exploit the taxpayers by being consumers of social welfare, they are industrious, very hard working, create businesses and employment for others regardless of colour race or creed, many are great Philanthropists and many a hospital, school, and university are the grateful recipients of their munificence

They are law abiding, respectful of society, they teach their children to honour and accept the laws of their adoptive country. In their schools they educate and encourage their children to attain the highest standards and to develop a strong sense of service to the community. They do not have their religious, the Rabbis, teaching students to hate all who are not of their faith, nor incite them to disrupt and kill, despise and consider all other unclean. I am left to ponder, why so many who have little belief in any faith of their own, can find it in their hearts to despise a people who have never in history done them any harm? In the 21st century, we just cannot continue to allow the blame for Christ’s death, for all eternity, to reside with the Jews.

Jesus was a Jew, a radical thinker who incurred the wrath of a few corrupt priests and officials who sought support from the Romans to remove this 'nuisance', the ordinary citizens no more sought his death than we would today. It was politics, at its most venal. At that time in history most of our Western antecedents were tribal barbarians, pagans, garbed in wolf skins butchering all and sundry. The Jews by contrast, were monotheistic had a highly developed society and system of law of developed over 3000 years, at the time of Christ. I would ask people to consider what other group or communities have contributed so much to the betterment of any society wherein they have sought refuge? In the realms of education, science, medicine, music, art, comedy, literature, theatre and film as a group they have no equal.

It is with urgency, I ask each to examine their conscience, and not allow this rising tide of anti –Semitism to get a foothold in this great country. Too many turned their heads, eyes, ears ignoring the warning signs prior to WW2. We must NEVER let that happen again. The Jews have never asked for special privileges, they adapt and blend within the society they domicile and are an asset to the betterment of us all.

There are many who have a vested interest and agenda in trying to focus blame for their own inadequacies, lack of success, power or perceived victim status onto to the shoulders of others and the Jews in particular. They have served as society’s 'whipping boy' for long enough. If there is no Israel, where can the Jews go next for refuge? And if Israel and the Jews are destroyed, ask, who will replace them as the recipient of the venom and hatred of the frustrated and malcontent. Israel is our 'canary in the mine' she has the knowledge, the language and the ability to infiltrate as do few others, the’ rogue’ states that would do us harm- she is at the battle front and we must support this noble country, whose citizens are amongst the bravest on earth.

ONLY in Israel can an Arab or Muslim vote, sit it parliament and receive justice. Israel pays millions of dollars US each year to the PA, Palestinian injured and sick beg to be admitted to Israeli hospitals where they are treated according to urgency, not race or creed, even when those who are severely wounded incurred those injuries whilst attacking and fighting the Israelis. How many others could trust their enemy not to do them harm when in a comparable situation. If the situation were reversed the Israeli injured would be dragged from their sick beds and torn to pieces whilst the onlookers danced and ululated. The Israelis return the bodies of all Palestinians killed in battle to the families for burial, the Palestinians however steal the bodies of dead Israelis, mutilate and desecrate their remains and refuse to return the corpse for ritual burial thus enhancing the anguish of the bereaving families.

We keep hearing about 'Right of return' most of the so called 'Palestinians' are Egyptians, as is Arafat, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese and Arabs whose former countries refuse to let them return and resettle. What is little commented on, is the 900,000 plus Jews from the Diaspora, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Arabia Lebanon who were forced from their homes and businesses, taking only what was on their backs and what they were able to carry in their hands and sometimes not even that. This does not include the thousands of dispossessed Christians, Zoastrians and Suffis that little Israel has also absorbed from these self same Arab countries, people the Arabs, neither acknowledge nor want, but to whom was also home from the dawn of time. All the dispossessed from Arab /Muslim controlled lands, were deprived of their all, not solely in material assets, homes, businesses, bank accounts, many had their identity stolen with the confiscation of passports and birth certificates, their whole life’s work misappropriated /stolen by the voracious Arab, but, their cultural heritage obliterated in their wake. No reparation has been offered nor ever will be, but the Arabs demand this of Israel.. Twenty years ago Bethlehem was 80% Christian now it is 80% Arab Muslim

Certain other groups enter our shores by illegal and devious means, then seek to have special privileges, social security and free housing as well as claiming special rights under our laws, then presume to abuse the very people who gave them succour and opportunities. They do not assimilate nor intend to, rather they would seek to burden and have us submit to the very regimes they escaped from. They are racist and self centred- this can never be said of our Jews most who now have been here for several generations.

For the past three years since 9/11, freed from the burden of paid employment, I sought to increase my knowledge of Islam, the Middle East and Israel. At first it was in part, a seeking to understand Islam and Muslims for whom I felt genuine concern, fearing a hate campaign against those who had no part or connection to Islamic terrorism. I spend many hours each week reading books on Islam and searching the internet, which provides much knowledge that would take many years to research in a library. What I have learned has made me a committed supporter of Israel any who value freedom will support her also.

In every society there are those who will never be content for whatever reason, and rather than work to enhance society, seek to destroy the fabric of the existing one, to replace it with some mystical utopian socialist paradise. They ignore the realities of the totalitarian states that saw millions tortured, starved and killed in the 'great' experiment to build a socialist utopia. Palestine is run by such a man, no Muslim Arafat, rather a fanatic who learned his role at the knee of his fascist Uncle- who was Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WW2, a staunch admirer of Hitler who shared Hitler’s dream to destroy all Jewry worldwide. We should never ally ourselves to such a man or such a brutal and devilish regime- we do so at our peril. Deceit, lies and broken agreements are to him and his follower’s considered a code of honour.

"60 Minutes" to its credit has been responsible for some wonderful reporting and stories over the years, but its moral equivalence with regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict leaves one with no option but to draw the conclusion that they would rather promulgate a lie than lose access to the PA which would be the case if they showed some integrity, reported with honesty what is really is occurring under Arafat's leadership to the benighted Palestinians and ceased peddling what the PA propaganda machine directs. If the media wish to aid the Palestinian cause, they should use their knowledge and talents to report the truth. The public needs to learn of the corruption within Arafat's fiefdom and the complicity of that other corrupt body the UN.

All governments should cease all funding to the PA forthwith, financial aid is appeasement, it serves only to swell the pockets of Arafat and his henchmen and enables the purchase of sophisticated armaments and of suicide bombers to murder even more innocents within Israel, nothing to ease the suffering people under their control.

Israel, the ONLY democracy in the Middle East who is not even allowed a seat at the UN, who is constantly accused of atrocities, though its defence forces are careful in the extreme, of where and whom they target and always in direct response to an outrage on their civilian population. Yet the amount of print, film and recording, denigrating and decrying Israel is in stark contrast to the deafening silence and absence of comment on the corruption endemic within the UN, the role of Sudan sitting on the Human Rights commission whilst allowing the 'ethnic cleansing' of Darfur, Husseins brutality and China's treatment of Tibet to name but a few.

In conclusion, the viewing audience is becoming increasingly informed and demands much more of the MSM than the selective pastiche that passes for information and trusted in the past. If the Media wishes to remain relevant in the future it has to lift its game and treat its audience as intelligent beings, a lesson that should have been learnt from CBS and Dan Rather’s "60 Minutes" with regard to the fraudulent "Bush Memos".

On the Nature of Spirit

by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

The nature of spirit may be understood by a glance at its direct opposite -- Matter. As the essence of matter is gravity, so, on the other hand, we may affirm that the substance, the essence, of spirit is freedom. All will readily assent to the doctrine that spirit, among other properties, is also endowed with freedom; but philosophy teaches that all the qualities of spirit exist only through freedom; that all are but means for attaining freedom; that all seek and produce this and this alone. It is a result of speculative philosophy, that freedom is the sole truth of spirit. Matter possesses gravity in virtue of its tendency towards a central point. It is essentially composite; consisting of parts that exclude each other. It seeks its unity; and therefore exhibits itself as self-destructive, as verging towards its opposite [an indivisible point]. If it could attain this, it would be matter no longer, it would have perished. It strives after the realization of its idea; for in unit it exists ideally. Spirit, on the contrary, may be defined as that which has its center in itself. It has not a unity outside itself, but has already found it; it exists in and with itself. Matter has its essence out of itself; spirit is self-contained existence. Now this is freedom, exactly. For if I am dependent, my being is referred to something else which I am not; I cannot exist independently of anything external. I am free, on the contrary, when my existence depends upon myself. This self-contained existence of spirit is none other than self-consciousness -- consciousness of one's own being. Two things must be distinguished in consciousness; first, the fact that 1 know; secondly what I know. In self-consciousness these are merged in one; for spirit knows itself. It involves an appreciation of its own nature, as also an energy enabling it to realize itself; to make itself actually that which it is potentially. According to this abstract definition it may be said of universal history, that it is the exhibition of spirit in the process of working out the knowledge of that which it is potentially. . . .

This vast congeries of volitions, interests, and activities, constitutes the instruments and means of the world-spirit for attaining its object; bringing it to consciousness, and realizing it. And this aim is none other than finding itself -- coming to itself -- and contemplating itself in concrete actuality. But that those manifestations of vitality on the part of individuals and peoples, in which they seek and satisfy their own purposes, are, at the same time, the means and instruments of a higher and broader purpose of which they know nothing, -- which they realize unconsciously, -- might be made a matter of question; rather has been questioned, and in every variety of form negatived, decried, and contemned as mere dreaming and "Philosophy." But on this point I announced my view at the very outset, and asserted our hypothesis, -- which, however, will appear in the sequel, in the form of a legitimate inference, and our belief that reason governs the world, and has consequently governed its history. In relation to this independently universal and substantial existence -- all else is subordinate, subservient to it, and the means for its development. The union of universal abstract existence generally with the individual, the subjective, that this alone is truth, belongs to the department of speculation, and is treated in this general form in logic. But in the process of the world's history itself -- as still incomplete, -- the abstract final aim of history is not yet made the distinct object of desire and interest. While these limited sentiments are still unconscious of the purpose they are fulfilling, the universal principle is implicit in them and is realizing itself through them. The question also assumes the form of the union of freedom and necessity; the latent abstract process of spirit being regarded as necessity, while that which exhibits itself in the conscious will of men, as their interest, belongs to the domain of freedom. As the metaphysical connection (i.e. the connection in the idea) of these forms of thought, belongs to logic, it would be out of place to analyze it here. The chief and cardinal points only shall be mentioned.

Philosophy shows that the idea advances to an infinite antithesis; that, viz. between the idea in its free, universal form -- in which it exists for itself -- and the contrasted form of abstract introversion, reflection on itself, which is formal existence-for-self, personality, formal freedom, such as belongs to spirit only. The universal idea exists thus as the substantial essence of free volition on the other side. This reflection of the mind on itself is individual self-consciousness -- the polar opposite of the idea in its general form, and therefore existing in absolute limitation. This polar opposite is consequently limitation, particularization for the universal absolute thing; it is the side of its definite existence; the sphere of its formal reality, the sphere of the reverence paid to God. To comprehend the absolute connection of this antithesis, is the profound task of metaphysics. This limitation originates all forms of particularity of whatever kind. The formal volition (of which we have spoken) wills itself; desires to make its own personality valid in all that it purposes and does; even the pious individual wishes to be saved and happy. This pole of the antithesis, existing for itself, is -- in contrast with the absolute universal being -- a special separate existence, taking cognizance of specialty only, and willing that alone. In short it plays its part in the region of mere phenomena. This is the sphere of particular purposes, in effecting which individuals exert themselves on behalf of their individuality -- give it full play and objective realization. This is also the sphere of happiness and its opposite. He is happy who finds his condition suited to his special character, will, and fancy, and so enjoys himself in that condition.

The history of the world is not the theater of happiness. Periods of happiness are blank pages in it, for they are periods of harmony, -- periods when the antithesis is in abeyance. Reflection on self, -- the freedom above described -- is abstractly defined as the formal element of the activity of the absolute idea. The realizing activity of which we have spoken is the middle term of syllogism, one of whose extremes is the universal essence, the idea, which reposes in the penetralia of spirit; and the other, the complex of external things, -- objective matter. That activity is the medium by which the universal latent principle is translated into the domain of objectivity.
***

What is the material in which the ideal of reason is wrought out? The primary answer would be, -- personality itself -- human desires -- subjectivity, generally. In human knowledge and volition, as its material element, reason attains positive existence. We have considered subjective volition where it has an object which is the truth and essence of a reality, viz. where it constitutes a great world-historical passion. As a subjective will, occupied with limited passions, it is dependent, and can gratify its desires only within the limits of this dependence. But the subjective will has also a substantial life -- a reality, -- in which it moves in the region of essential being, and has the essential itself as the object of its existence. This essential being is the union of the subjective with the rational will: it is the moral whole, the state, which is that form of reality in which the individual has enjoys his freedom; but on the condition of his recognizing, believing in and willing that which is common to the whole. And this must not be understood as if the subjective will of the social unit attained its gratification and enjoyment through that common will; as if this were a means provided for its benefit; as if the individual, in his relations to other individuals, thus limited his freedom, in order that this universal limitation -- the mutual constraint of all -- might secure a small space of liberty for each. Rather, we affirm, are law, morality, government, and they alone, the positive reality and completion of freedom. Freedom of a low and limited order, is mere caprice; which finds its exercise in the sphere of particular and limited desires.

Subjective volition -- passion -- is that which sets men in activity, that which effects "practical" realization. The idea is the inner spring of action; the state is the actually existing, realized moral life. For it is the unity of the universal, essential will, with that of the individual; and this is "morality." The individual living in this unity has a moral life; possesses a value that consists in this substantiality alone. Sophocles in his Antigone says, "The divine commands are not of yesterday, nor of today; no, they have an infinite existence, and no one could say whence" they came." The laws of morality are not accidental, but are the essentially rational. It is the very object of the state, that what is essential in the practical activity of men, and in their dispositions, should be duly recognized; that it should have a manifest existence, and maintain its position. It is the absolute interest of reason that this moral whole should exist; and herein lies the justification and merit of heroes who have founded states, -- however rude these may have been. In the history of the world, only those peoples can come under our notice which form a state. For it must be understood that this latter is the realization of freedom, i.e. of the absolute final aim, and that it exists for its own sake. It must further be understood that all the worth which the human being possesses -- all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the state. For his spiritual reality consists in this, that his own essence -- reason -- is objectively present to him, that it possesses objective immediate existence for him. Thus only is he fully conscious; thus only is he a partaker of morality -- of a just and moral social and political life. For truth is the unity of the universal and subjective will; and the universal is to be found in the state, in its laws, its universal and rational arrangements. The state is the divine idea as it exists on earth. We have in it therefore, the object of history in a more definite shape than before; that in which freedom obtains objectivity, and lives in the enjoyment of this objectivity. For law is the objectivity of spirit; volition in its true form. Only that will which obeys law is free; for it obeys itself -- it is independent and so free. When the state or our country constitutes a community of existence; when the subjective will of man submits to laws, -- the contradiction between liberty and necessity vanishes. The rational has necessary existence, as being the reality and substance of things, and we are free in recognizing it as law, and following it as the substance of our own being. The objective and the subjective will are then reconciled, and present one identical homogeneous whole. For the morality of the state is not of that ethical reflective kind, in which one's conviction bears sway; this latter is rather the peculiarity of the modern time, while the true antique morality is based on the principle of abiding by ones duty (to the State at large). An Athenian citizen did what was required of him, as it were from instinct: but if I reflect on the object of my activity, I must have the consciousness that my will has been called into exercise. But morality is duly -- substantial right -- a "second nature" as it has been justly called; for the first nature of man is his primary merely animal existence.
***

Summing up what has been said of the state, we find that we have been led to call its vital principle, as actuating the individuals who compose it, -- morality. The state, its laws, its arrangements, constitute the rights of its members; its natural features, its mountains, air, and waters are their country, their fatherland, their outward material property the history of this state, their deeds; what their ancestors have produced belongs to them and lives in their memory. All is their possession, just as they are possessed by it; for it constitutes their existence, their being.

Their imagination is occupied with the ideas thus presented, while the adoption of these laws, and of a fatherland so conditioned is the expression of their will. It is this matured totality which thus constitutes one being, the spirit of one people. To it the individual members belong; each unit is the son of his nation, and at the same time -- in so far as the state to which he belongs is undergoing development -- the son of his age. None remains behind it, still less advances beyond it. This spiritual being (the spirit of his time) is his; he is a representative of it; it is that in which he originated, and in which he lives. Among the Athenians the word Athens had a double import; suggesting primarily, a complex of political institutions, but no less, in the second place, that goddess who represented the spirit of the people and its unity.

This spirit of a people is a determinate and particular spirit, and is, as just stated, further modified by the degree of its historical development. This spirit, then, constitutes the basis and substance of those other forms of a nation's consciousness, which have been noticed. For spirit in its self-consciousness must become an object of contemplation to itself, and objectivity involves, in the first instance, the rise of differences which make up a total of distinct spheres of objective spirit, in the same way as the soul exists only as the complex of its faculties, which in their form of concentration in a simple unity produce that soul. It is thus one individuality which, presented in its essence as God, is honored and enjoyed in religion; which is exhibited as an object of sensuous contemplation in art; and is apprehended as an intellectual conception in philosophy. In virtue of the original identity of their essence, purport, and object, these various forms are inseparably united with the spirit of the state. Only in connection with this particular religion, can this particular political constitution exist; just as in such or such a state, such or such a philosophy or order of art.

The remark next in order is, that each particular national genius is to be treated as only one individual in the process of universal history. For that history is the exhibition of the divine, absolute development of spirit in its highest forms, -- that gradation by which it attains its truth and consciousness of itself. The forms which these grades of progress assume are the characteristic "national spirits" of history, the peculiar tenor of their moral life, of their Government, their art, religion, and science. To realize these grades is the boundless impulse of the world-spirit -- the goal of its irresistible urging; for this division into organic members, and the full development of each, is its idea. Universal history is exclusively occupied with showing how spirit comes to a recognition and adoption of the truth: the dawn of knowledge appears; it begins to discover salient principles, and at last it arrives at full consciousness.

Having, therefore, learned the abstract characteristics of the nature of spirit, the means which it uses to realize its idea, and the shape assumed by it in its complete realization in phenomenal existence, -- namely, the state, nothing further remains for this introductory section to contemplate, but -- the course of the world's history.

Excerpted from Lectures on the Philosophy of History, by Georg W.F. Hegel

http://radicalacademy.com/adiphiloessay16.htm

Saint Bob's defence of dads is the real deal

By Amanda Platell


Lectures from "saint" Bob Geldof on Africa are one thing. Hectoring us about marriage and motherhood is quite another. The raw pain of his separation and divorce from Paula Yates is so apparent that it has always swamped his message. But Sir Bob's message that marriages need both parents to make them work, and that dads have got a raw deal over the years, moved me with its sheer logic. For all his damaged pride, he touched on one of the great injustices of our age. In a post-feminist world where equality is the measure by which everything is judged, how is it that men came to be such second-class citizens before the law?

Let's put aside Geldof's theory on why modern marriages are failing - he blames intolerant, ephemeral, sex-crazed women with unrealistic expectations - and concentrate instead on his message about fathers. Geldof pointed out that family law works on the presumption that only mothers are capable of caring for children and that, except in extreme cases of addiction or abuse, the mother is always deemed the more capable nurturer. Divorced dads, he claims, do not play an equal and active role in raising their offspring, often because the law prevents them from doing so.

This is anathema to voices in the liberal media, for whom any attempt to question a woman's rights is seen as old-fashioned sexism rearing its ugly head. And I agree. Sexism is still alive and kicking. But this time, it's the men who are the victims.

Men aren't all the same, any more than all women are the same. But the fathers of today are very different from my own father's generation. You would be hard put to find a more loving dad than my own, yet he would be the first to admit he could never have raised my brothers and me alone. He taught us how to swim and ride and fight, but he never changed a nappy. When Mum was in hospital when we were kids, we were farmed off to an aunt or grandma to feed and clothe us.

But it's not like that any more. Most of my male friends are dads, aged from their 30s to their 50s, some with young children, some with teenagers, some with both. What unites them are the midnight feeds,the nappy-changing, the cooking, the cleaning, the nose-wiping, the worrying and the loving.

I'm not saying they do the same amount of housework and nurturing as their wives. Usually, they're not in a position to, because they work full-time and their partners work part-time, a happy arrangement for all of them. Nor are they "New Men" - that urban tribe lamponned 10 years ago for being in touch with their feminine side. They are ordinary blokes who love their children and want to play an active role in their upbringing.

The important point here is that modern dads not only have the desire to raise their offspring, but the ability to do so. Yet the law decrees that when a couple divorce, in the majority of cases the children stay with the mothet. How is that fair or equal?

For that matter, why do we take it for granted that when a couple split up, the woman will be awarded the vast majority of the assets -- including the family home? Is it not possible that in some situations, at least, the father is the more capable parent? The very idea is heresy to many feminist campaigners, for whom all things must be equal... so long as that doesn't mean acknowledging that some women can be equally bad parents as some men.

Again and again we are told: in the eyes of the law, the children come first. And they should. But there must be some occasions when the man can provide a better home than the woman for his children?

Much as we would all love a world where every family is whole and secure, that is not our generation's reality. As Sir Bob pointed out, it is too easy to get into marriage and too easy to get out. But in Bob's World, where mothers and fathers had equal rights, there is an intriguing possibility. If mothers did not get automatic custody of the kids and guaranteed financial support; if instead they faced the risk they would end up with the bills and without the kids, I suspect our divorce-rate would plummet



The above article appeared in the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" of October 17, 2004, p. 54. Below is a brief article on Geldof from the same publication, issue of October 10th, 2004, p. 44




Geldof changes his tune

As a foul-mouthed punk rocker fronting The Boomtown Rats, Bob Geldof delighted in upsetting parents everywhere. More than 25 years on, he has become a champion of the traditional family. The singer, who battled his late ex-wife Paula Yates for custody of their three daughters, has attacked the selfishness which leads to marital breakdown. "The truth of every study is clear -- dual-parent upbringing produces healthier, better-educated children. That's it", he said.

In a British documentary on marriage, Geldof, 50, says divorce has appalling consequences for children, partners and the state. "Children of divorced parents are much more likely to do worse at school, commit crimes, go to prison and commit suicide.''





More details of Geldof's views here

THE DECONSTRUCTED DERRIDA

An email from a reader

It has occurred to me that Derrida and his cohorts are in some ways similar to the List Makers of Ancient Ur.

The priests and temple scribes of that ancient city were separated from the peasant mob largely by virtue of their skill at reading and writing. It was an arcane and little-understood skill. The skill was almost entirely used in making and maintaining lists - store inventories, tax rolls etc.

These guys spent their lives immersed in this list-making, for which they were highly regarded, but still servants. They were the eo-experts: always on tap, never on top.

Over time they became so enamoured of their precious lists that they imbued special powers to them. Which was fortunate, because although they still weren't getting the respect and power they deserved they were able to run a nice little earner on the side making up 'magic lists' and selling them to the gullible.

A large proprtion of the surviving lists are just these 'magic lists'.

Our modern day scribes, locked up in the academy, spending all their days immersed in books ('texts' in post-modern speak) have become so enamoured of them that they are imbueing them with special power - the 'text', the 'narrative' is the reality - all else is flimsy conjecture, etc.

And, like the List Makers of Ur, they are trying to get the respect they so richly deserve by peddling this textual snake-oil to the gullible.

THE AUSTRALIAN LEFT

Some reflections sent in by an Australian reader

It's pathetic to see Labor blame everyone but themselves for their recent election loss. When Labor grows up and is able to take responsibility for its mistakes and is truly honest then maybe the majority of Australian's will vote for them. If it makes Labor feel better to invent a fictitious scapegoat like interest rate scare campaigns then go right ahead - but Labor will be entirely wrong.

Such a notion is an insult to people that are well educated and hold a conservative political worldview. Blaming a scare campaign is like saying that most people who voted for the Coalition are gullible and less than intelligent. A constant theme of Labor's unfounded campaign of lies. Yes Labor lies continually too, that's why accusing John Howard of lying revolts many Australians - it's the sheer hypocrisy.

Well people have a longer memory than Labor believes possible. The sheer quantum of Labor lies and Labor's record on 'scare campaigns' is horrendous. Think about the selective Labor GST campaign that attempted to dupe the public into thinking that all goods would go up 10%. Labor conveniently forgot to mention the abolition of a swag indirect sales taxes. That is just one of many scare campaigns Labor has conducted on a massive scale. Such campaigns attempt to dupe the public and rely on a premise that everyone is stupid and won't see through it. But we do! It's a form of selective honesty that equates to filthy dishonesty in the end. People who may have votes Labor remember these things.

One should remember that most people consider omission a lie as well and Labor are very good at omissions when it comes to painting one side of a particular story.

Do you think that there people can't remember the swaggering sneering arrogant Keating, the continual budget deficits, the pandering to inefficient work practices and union self-interest.

Before you typecast me as some well heeled conservative, I'm out of work and dislike exploitation in the workplace too. But Labor thinks the world owes every "battler" a living and conveniently forgets that people who have worked hard all their lives to gain qualifications to better themselves (against the odds) should redress the incomes of those who made life choices that did not involve the extra effort towards career and qualification. Those who have forgone children and other pleasures do not feel kindly to labor thieves who try to steal hard earned possessions to give back to the people who did not make the hard choices from whence many people who have bettered themselves once came themselves. Basically it is Labor's policies to take from the middle class and give to the lower class.

Enough said - you can bet Labor/leftists will not listen to a word of the above because their minds are simply left orientated. But let it be said that the left worldview is no more or less educated than any perception leftists may hold about a right wing world view.

There are plenty of other politically incorrect views that people hold that are not born of ignorance but are actually truths. Labor's ridiculous insistence on the politically correct to the exclusion of the truth in the name of so called education of the "ignorant" masses makes me vomit. Take the lie that we were always multicultural. Just look at the emblem in the corner of our flag. If we say that multicultural means Irish v British then go right ahead and make the distinction but in my books I would put Irish an British and northern Europeans in the same category in terms of compatible cultures and ethnicity. Yeah so we had a few thousand Chinese immigrate during the goldrush - yeah we must be multicultural (not). This is patent bullshit. Take a look at my class photos from the early 70's and tell me we were always multicultural - then go to the inner-west of Sydney today and take a snapshot of demographics at a shopping centre.

Leftists, Wake up, stop reinventing history and lying and maybe Labor might win the next one and change peoples minds. Don't apologise for things that may have occurred in the life span of our (or at least my) forefathers - at least until the Queen of Denmark apologises to England for Viking invasions. Labor, don't steal from middle Australia to fund your lifestyle decisions. According to the Left, rich means anyone on an income slightly above the poverty line. Not everyone deserves the same lifestyle. Some people work for theirs (which is true justice, fairness and equity). Middle Australia should not have to work even harder while people those who benefit either don't work or have cushy government jobs or didn't work hard enough at school. Effectively, middle Australia is being made to pay for the life decisions of leftist/lower class Australia. Stop stealing from those who made sensible decisions. True equity, justice and fairness takes into account effort and skills acquired and does not rob those who acquired them to pay those who didn't bother. NO-one paid for my education and I had to work graveyard shifts to gain education. Let lower Australia do the same. Labor politicians can get stuffed for the hypocrisy of their upper class wages and super while professing to represent lower income Australians - this is truly dishonest and disgusting.

John Kerry's Viet Cong Clone - A Parallel Life?

By: Wayne Lusvardi, Vietnam Veteran, Pasadena, California (wlusvardi@yahoo.com)

What prominent political person comes to mind with the following description? A person who lived in France and went to French boarding schools; who met with the world-renown leader of his country as a youth; when a military deferment was denied he enlisted in the Navy; was involved in an ambush of navy fast boats in the Me Kong Delta in Vietnam; went on a secret mission to Cambodia; was one of the leaders of the anti-war movement opposing the Viet Nam war; was arrested for anti-war activism; who went to meet with the Marxist rebel leader of a foreign country; as a lawyer came to head a governmental justice department; became a "proselytizer" of the upper classes against American "imperialism" in Vietnam; married twice; and ran a large food company? If you answered U.S. Senator John Kerry, you are right (for a biography of Kerry see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry). But this description could eerily also fit another lesser-known political figure on the other side of the world during the same era.

Although many differences can be found between them, the above could also describe the uncanny parallel life of Truong Nhu Tang, who became the Viet Cong's Minister of Justice after the end of the Vietnam War as told in the book by Truong Tang, Viet Cong Memoir: An Inside Account of the Vietnam War and its Aftermath (Vintage Books, 1985). The lives of John Kerry and Truong Nhu Tang beg a comparison with the biographies written in 75 A.D. by Petrarch in his classical Parallel Lives of the leaders of the Roman and Greek Empires.

Kerry grew up in France and Tang was schooled in French colonial schools in Vietnam as well as going to university in Paris. Kerry personally met with President John F. Kennedy as a youth; while Tang had an exclusive meeting with Ho Chi Minh in Paris as a university student. As a college student, Kerry delivered a speech where he said: "It is the specter of Western imperialism that causes more fear among Africans and Asians than communism, and thus it is self-defeating." Similarly, Tang wrote in his memoirs that he was sympathetic with the huge crowds that hit the streets in Saigon during French colonial rule shouting "down with the Imperialists." When military deferments were denied them, both enlisted in the navies of their respective countries. Kerry was involved in several military missions on a fast boat in the Mekong Delta, including an ambush; Truong was marginally involved in a river ambush of French patrol boats in the Mekong Delta during the French war in Indo China. Kerry returned home after the war and became involved in anti-war protests including being arrested for demonstrating; Tang was arrested by the Thieu regime in South Vietnam for his anti-war activities and accused of being a double agent for the Communist Party. Kerry claims he went on a secret mission on a swift boat into Cambodia; Tang fled to the secret Central Office of South Vietnam (COSVN) on the Cambodian border after release from prison. During the Reagan Presidency, in sympathy with the Marxist Sandinistas Kerry went to Nicaragua to meet with leader Daniel Ortega during his fight against the CIA-backed Contras; Tang served as a North Vietnamese emissary to Communist Albania and Bulgaria. Kerry became a prosecutor in the District Attorney's Office in Massachusetts; Tang completed licensure as a lawyer and became his country's Minister of Justice who naively tried to establish a uniform legal code to prevent arbitrary arrests by Communists of South Vietnamese after the war. Kerry investigated the drug trafficking and corruption of the Bank of Commerce and Credit (BCCI), which funded terrorist Abu Nidal; Tang ran the corrupt Industry and Commerce Bank of Viet Nam. Kerry married into the H.J. Heinz family; Tang was appointed to run the national sugar company of Vietnam.

Drawing Parallel Lines

History may not repeat itself but it certainly parallels itself in the lives of intellectual and social elites in democratic societies who are willing to collaborate with Communism to accomplish their seemingly sincere and just political goals. They are often nationalists, patriots, and democrats who abhor corrupt despotic regimes in favor of liberal reform and a just foreign policy. They rationalize their coalition with Marxist Communism by claiming that no viable alternative exists and by deluding themselves that Communist pledges of solidarity and reform are genuine. Unfortunately and tragically, they learn too late that the victory of the "progressive" forces and the expulsion of the foreign occupiers don't bring peace and prosperity but a far more oppressive totalitarian system.

Such is the life story of Truong Tang who naively deluded himself most of his adult life that collaborating with Communists offered the best opportunity for South Vietnamese independence. Ironically, Tang was arrested and tortured under the regime of President Thieu in South Vietnam and was only released when he could be exchanged for American prisoners of war, whose presence in his country he detested. After the U.S. pullout from South Vietnam and the fall of Saigon, at least 300,000 people were arrested and none of them ever freed except a few elites whose relatives bribed Communist officials. Tang was so self-deceived that after the war he drove his own two brothers to Communist re-education camps only to learn that they were never to be freed. One of Tang's collaborators in his National Liberation Front (NLF) and Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) pointedly asked after the American pullout from South Vietnam:

"Do you think it was such a wonderful idea to chase the Americans out? At least when the Americans were here, we had food. Now what do we have? International solidarity? The cadres are always talking about serving the people. At last we're supposed to be the masters of our own country. Funny how the masters are walking around bare foot, and the servants are riding around in cars."

Ironically Truong Nhu Tang ended up one of the "boat people" who fled ruthless Communist rule in South Vietnam. He reportedly ended up living in exile in France. Tang was trapped in a tangled web with no perceived alternative, although Communism appealed most to his Confucian patriarchal upbringing. Tang could not see at the time that the only hope of an independent Vietnam was in America winning the Vietnam War. But knowing what we know now about Vietnam and the atrocities of Pol Pot in Cambodia after the Vietnam War, one can only conclude that those who continue to sympathize with Communist rule are engaged in a monumental quasi-religious delusion (see Joshua Muravchik, Heaven and Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism, Encounter Books, 2002). It is interesting to note that an anti-colonialist in Vietnam with the Chinese surname of Tang would entertain Marxism at all, another European morality which led to amazing widespread suffering.

Certainly, John Kerry's former war actions and anti-war activities and his current Presidential candidacy can not be morally equated with the complicity of Truong Tang in the massive "killing fields" in Vietnam and Cambodia and the tragedies of the "boat people" after the war. But the tragic historical consequences of the dreamers, idealists, and revolutionaries that often come from the elite classes of a society bodes a word of caution for any candidate for the Presidency of the United States who may be sympathetic with like-minded elites in the Middle East or elsewhere.

In Plutarch's classical Parallel Lives he usually took people in similar circumstances and showed how superior character led to a superior moral life. Truong Tang's life is a sad reminder of the consequences of those who sup with the devil of Communism with a short spoon. Even so, Tang dealt with hardship over a long period of time for his idealism about independence for his country. Did Tang do better for his people than Kerry his? Did Tang or Kerry do better for the masses of people caught up in the Vietnam War? For those who want to elect Kerry based on his record in the Vietnam War they should think a second time.

Louis Napoleon Bonaparte

When Louis Philippe fled France February 24, 1848, a handful of Bonapartists gathered at the Vendôme column with shouts of "Long live the Emperor!" There were few other early signs of support for this 40-year-old nephew of Napoleon I. Yet, by the end of the year he was president of France.

In February 1848 Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, heir to the throne of Napoleon I, lived in exile at No. 9 Berkeley Street in London. Despite his status as an escaped prisoner after trying to topple the Orleanist monarch in 1840, he boldly landed at Boulogne and arrived in Paris February 27, three days after Louis Philippe abdicated. He stayed with his brother's former tutor, M. Narcisse Vieillard, in the rue de Sentier and sent a letter to officials at the Hôtel de Ville via M. Persigny, his most steadfast supporter. "Gentlemen, ... hurry from exile to place myself under the banner of the newly proclaimed Republic."

Louis Napoleon spoke with the Provisional Governments most prominent member, Lamartine, but leaders of the new republic firmly insisted he return to England. He sent a second letter, protesting this treatment. "Gentlemen, after thirty-thre e years of exile and persecution, I believed I had acquired the right to find once more a refuge on the soil of the fatherland . . . I therefore withdraw for the time being."

He arrived back in London March 2. Beginning April 10 he served as "a man of order" and a special volunteer constable in Piccadilly to calm the restless British, stirred up by Chartist demonstrators. "The peace of London must be preserved," he said. Two women, Miss Elizabeth Harriet Howard and his cousin Mathilde (to whom he had been engaged to marry in 1836), helped Louis Napoleon financially. Miss Howard loaned him over a quarter million dollars and Mathilde pawned her jewels and gave him the money.

In March Louis Napoleon sent Persigny to France to ascertain if he should be a candidate for the April elections. Advised against this, he refused to stand for election. Nevertheless, three of his cousins, including Pierre Bonaparte (son of ex-King Jerome of Westphalia) and Lucien Murat (son of Caroline, ex-Queen of Naples) were elected to the national assembly on April 23.

On May 11 Louis Napoleon wrote M. Vieillard, "I feel that my position in France must be very difficult, tiresome, and even dangerous." He evaluated the situation correctly. A few days after this letter, an attack on the assembly was erroneously attributed to Bonapartists. The deputies retaliated, renewed the 1814 ban on Bonapartes living in France and, again, Louis Napoleon protested.

On June 2 there was a move in the Assembly to repeal the law exiling the Bonapartes. On June 4, with Persigny's and Laity's initiative, Louis Napoleon won by-elections from four departments--Paris, Yonne, Charente-Inferièure, and Corsica. He immediately wrote, "Citizens, your votes fill me with gratitude."

As a result of Bonapartist demonstrations, his two close friends and major agents, Persigny and Laity (both involved in his attempted coup d'état in 1836), were arrested on June 12. Louis Napoleon himself was fleetingly threatened with arrest if he returned to France. Despite the opposition of Lamartine and Ledru-Rollin, after a debate in the assembly Louis Napoleon was admitted as a member on June 13, with the support of Louis Blanc, Victor Hugo, and Jules Favre.

Demonstrators once again shouted, "Long live the emperor!," General Cavaignac protested, and Louis Napoleon graciously wrote a letter of resignation on June 15. Thus, twice in 1848 he withdrew from the political arena. Fortunately for him, he was not involved in the bloody June Days of 23-26.

Louis Napoleon had agents in Paris: Persigny, Laity, Vieillard, Ferrère, Montholon, Piat, Orsi, and his cousins. Bonapartist newspapers increased dramatically in July and August. Nevertheless, he became temporarily discouraged. On August 24, 1848 Louis Napoleon wrote, "Nothing can be done at the moment...I cannot and will not try again." Only four days later he resiliently wrote to General Piat, who had asked for instructions concerning the September elections, "You ask me if I would accept the post of representative of the people were I to be re-elected. I reply without hesitation, Yes!"

Election posters and supporters' speeches announced, "There is one name which is the symbol of order, of glory, of patriotism; and it is borne today by one who has won the confidence and affection of the people." On September 17 voters in five departments cast 300,000 votes to re-elect Louis Napoleon in supplementary elections for the Constituent Assembly. Significantly, he headed the list in Paris and defeated General Cavaignac, who had repressed the June insurrection. A torch-light procession celebrated his victory and the band of the national guard played, "Veillons au salut de l'Empire."

Louis Napoleon left London, returned to Paris September 24 and took his seat on the left benches September 26. He made the Hôtel du Rhin in the Place Vendôme his headquarters.

Uncertainty plagued him. Thouret sponsored an amendment on October 9 to bar pretenders as presidential candidates. In response Louis Napoleon, perhaps intentionally, made a poor speech in halting French with a German accent and Thouret then withdrew his objection.

The November 4, 1848 constitution (inaugurated November 12) was politically democratic and based on universal suffrage. There was a seven hundred fifty member unicameral legislature, elected for a three-year term, and a strong president independent of the assembly, elected for a four-year term.

Although Louis Napoleon's presidential campaign centered on the restoration of order, even Cavaignac's supporters cheered when reminded of his courageous attempted coup at Strasbourg in 1836. Results of the presidential election on December 10, 1848 became known on December 13 and were formally proclaimed on December 20, the date he was sworn in as president.

Louis Napoleon Bonaparte won by a landslide with 5,434,226 votes. His nearest rival, General Cavaignac, received 1,448,107 vot es and other candidates fell far behind: Ledru-Rollin, 370,119; Raspail, 36,920; Lamartine, 17,910; and General Changarnier, 4,790.

Louis Napoleon initially encountered some difficulty in forming his first cabinet. When Lamartine and Thiers declined the premiership, he turned to the Orleanist moderate, Odilon Barrot, lawyer for Louis Napoleon's colleagues in the 1836 Strasbourg coup.

Louis Napoleon at once moved into the Elysée palace where he hosted a private banquet for veterans of the Strasbourg and Boulogne coups. A new Bonapartism had come to power in France 

http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/ip/louisnap.htm

End of Another Progressive-Era Relic

• 

William L. Anderson

Most of our present governmental institutions (and many private ones) are a creation of that era which lasted from the late 19^th into the first quarter of the 20^th centuries. Progressivism could not have made the strides it did, however, had it not been for the advent of what we would call modern journalism.

From the "muckrakers" of the turn of the century (who really were nothing more than socialists trashing capitalism and calling it reporting) to the vaunted 1925 "Canons of Journalism," the modern press was re-created in the image of a "scientific" institution in which the "objective" reporter would replace the "non-objective" political hack.
Furthermore, when radio (and later television) news broadcasting emerged as competition to newspapers, Congress "regulated" that medium as well, putting the government squarely in the business of regulating the content of news.
Like many other institutions created during that sorry era, "objective journalism" was an attempt by journalists to change their image following the "Yellow Press" era of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, who vied with each other to see who could make the most outlandish (and mostly untrue) claims about Spanish rule in Cuba.
In fact, it is the supreme irony that a news organization that used forged documents in an attempt to break a "big story" (CBS) is in large part a creation of an institution that was born partly of a reaction against "news" organizations that used forged documents and doctored photographs in an attempt to influence U.S. foreign policy and make war against Spain.
The Progressive Era is a period of one big lie after another, crafted upon the false belief that modern government somehow could replace a free market, private property order and create an economy marked both by prosperity and "fairness."  From "scientific" management to "enlightened" religion (called theological liberalism and, later, secularism) to Prohibition to "objective" journalism, the belief was that modern society had found the key to "onward and upward" progress.
Not surprisingly, each of these institutions has collapsed, always with disastrous effects. Prohibition led to gangland warfare and a permanent plague of organized crime. It also spurred on the current drug war and all of its evil results. "Tax reform" and other amendments to the constitution ultimately resulted in high income taxes and the gargantuan growth of government. The "War to End All Wars" had the opposite effect, and the 20^th Century was the bloodiest in all of world history.
The implementation of John Dewey's "vision" of public education has created generations of semi-literate people. Ultimately, the supreme irony of "Progressivism" is that it turned back the real advances of the age of classical liberalism and turned back the clock of civilization. To put it another way, "Progressivism" resulted in large-scale social and economic regression.
"Scientific, objective" journalism certainly fits into the category of the Progressivist "big lie."  Ever since the Progressive Era, American journalism mostly has been about the promotion of government. For all of the blather about the mainstream press serving as a "watchdog of government," most journalists—and especially those who are "prestigious"—are little more than political operatives, along with being cheerleaders for the growth of the state. The alleged watchdogs of the state in reality are government's lapdogs.
Such words are meant as condemnation of the mainstream press, but the fact that the press acts in such a fashion should not surprise anyone. After all, modern, mainstream journalism is a product of the Progressive Era, and Progressivism was—and is—about the expansion of government power.
One of the campaign issues this past year has been alleged "concentration" of media companies. Some political candidates have called for government authorities either to disallow media mergers or even to "break up" some of the larger firms. (This is in the name of having "competitive" news firms.)
Of course, what the critics fail to point out is that regulation of broadcasting has served as a cartel device that for many years gave viewers just three networks for news. The fact that government "regulated" these broadcast news organizations did not "preserve" competition; it had the opposite effect.
To further highlight the blatant bait-and-switch hypocrisy from politicians and their media allies, many "good government" advocates, including a number of mainstream journalists, campaigned against the Bush Administration's proposal to change ownership requirements for the various media outlets that could be owned by one firm. What the critics failed to mention was that the Nixon Administration established that very rule as a way to punish the Washington Post for its critical coverage of that president's administration. Thus, a policy that was put in place as a way to damage a newspaper critical of a president is now touted as a way to "protect" freedom of the press.
Prior to the Progressive Era, newspapers tended to be the voices of political parties or individuals who wanted to have a forum for their own political and social viewpoints. Papers had names like the Arkansas Democrat or the Hicksville Republican, and people immediately could recognize the particular political angle from which the paper's reporters wrote their stories.
Today's blogs represent a much-welcome recapturing of that original spirit: aggressive reporting, aggressive rhetoric, aggressive partisanship, and reader beware. Bloggers both on the right and the left provide a useful service, since they are politically motivated writers and investigators.  Yes, one always should be careful in accepting everything they say at face value, but then one also should say the same about the products that come from mainstream news organizations, which claim that they are hampered by supposedly presenting both sides of a story, or are hampered by other things.
For example, in the wake of criticism of her handling the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas, in 1993 (in which 80 people died after the F.B.I. attacked their building), Attorney General Janet Reno ordered a "re-enactment" to see if F.B.I. agents actually fired their weapons.  (The F.B.I. was denying it, but a documentary, "The Terms of Engagement," had made a powerful claim otherwise, and Reno wanted to destroy that claim.)
After examining the tape of both events (using a heat-seeking tape called FLIR, which could detect heat flashes coming out of a barrel of a gun), investigators concluded that the flashes coming from the gun barrels during the re-enactment were shorter than the flashes detected in the FLIR film of the real assault.  Thus, Reno concluded, there was no gunfire from F.B.I. agents when they assaulted the Branch Davidians.
Mainstream news outlets presented all of this as fact, and it fit the conclusions of the political classes: the Branch Davidians were "gun nuts" and deserved what they got.  However, James Bovard wrote a much different account.  According to Bovard, the agents in the re-enactment used flash-suppression ammunition and guns with 20-inch barrels (instead of the guns with 14-inch barrels that were used the day of the assault).
Here was a story of a major government deception—and criminal deception at that—yet the information came out only because of an ideologically-oriented website.  Not surprisingly, mainstream news organizations missed—or ignored—the story, but at least it was able to see the light of day, something that could not have happened before the advent of the Internet.
There is nothing wrong with this kind of journalism; in fact, it is to be expected, for no writer is going to be neutral on a political subject. For that matter, when one reads an article in the New York Times, one should expect something written from a secularist, left-of-center viewpoint by a registered Democrat. Likewise, when one listens to the latest pro-war drivel on Fox News, most likely the words are being spoken by a Republican.  However, there is an important difference between the old press arrangement and what is in existence today.
A newspaper named the Arkansas Democrat or the Hicksville Republican was engaging in truth in advertising. The principals of the New York Times or Fox News, on the other hand, continue to try to promote the fiction that they are "unbiased" purveyors of news.
Perhaps one should not be surprised at the spin and outright lies coming from CBS and its defenders, and they are not limited to concerns over Bush's National Guard duty.  Progressive Era institutions have been disastrous failures, but they do not lack for supporters. From promoters of government schools who quote John Dewey as an "authority" on learning to economists who champion antitrust laws, there is a never-ending line of shills for these failed institutions and its poisonous ideology of statism.
Historians are fond of saying that the Progressive Era ended at the end of World War I. In truth, it is an era that never has ceased. If one should doubt that statement, just watch the statist nonsense on Fox News or CBS or read the Washington Post. When David Broder, the erstwhile "dean" of the Washington press corps, lamented in a recent column that journalism has "lost its way," he was wrong. The press has not taken a wrong turn or become confused and disoriented.
No, journalists—including Broder—have been trying to lead the rest of us down the same dark path toward the Leviathan State for more than a century. Except for those few people who understand the horrors of unchecked government, it has been a long and dreary episode of the blind leading the blind.
------
William Anderson, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, teaches economics at Frostburg State University. Send him MAIL. See his Mises.org Articles Archive.