One Destination

2008-01-17T06:07:00.000-08:00

Junk Culture
Opinion © 2008, by Guy L. Evans

January 17, 2008

When you think of junk, you think of inferior quality and diminished value. You also think of disposable. Junk music. Junk art. Junk television. Junk food. Junk cars. Junk language. Junk relationships.

Americans accept junk as normal. Everything they have is junk, of inferior quality and diminished value, and therefore disposable. They value nothing. They care for nothing (except, oddly, their pets). If you become even mildly displeased, get rid of it and get another one.

I was watching a show on PBS. They were reviewing the history of television shows from the late 1940’s to the 1980’s.

The show that stood out from all the other variety shows previous to it was Laugh In. For those of you old enough to remember it, Laugh In was very popular. It really started the trend in sound bite entertainment. But, Laugh In was, in a word, incoherent.

You can’t make a show out of stringing together twenty-four minutes of three- to ten-second sound bites. Yes, Laugh In was popular at the time. Can you find any re-runs of Laugh In on cable or satellite networks today? You can find the Andy Griffith Show, I Love Lucy, and even the Twilight Zone. But, no Laugh In.

Junk is junk, and Laugh In was junk.

People still know how to sell junk, and other people still buy junk.

When it comes time to buy, though, ask yourself this: Does this help me, or does it just indulge me?

What do you think?

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2007-11-21T09:43:00.000-08:00

Turkey Day
Opinion © 2007, by Guy L. Evans

11-21-07

I find the use of the term “Turkey Day” disconcerting. Maybe I need to adjust my expectations. So, here are my thoughts on the subject of Turkey Day.

The functionality of Turkey Day is in being proactive with regards to fun. Additionally, the cooking and serving of the Turkey Day meal can be accompanied with the watching and enjoyment of the Turkey Day television parades and football festivities on that day.

Indeed, the use of the term “Turkey Day” also has the proactive impact of making Americans more open-minded to diversity. I can envision a time when Independence Day will be “Hotdog Day”, Columbus Day will be “Pizza Day”, St. Patrick’s Day will be “Corned Beef and Cabbage Day”, and New Years Day will be “Face Down in a Pool of Your Own Vomit Day”. No more American jingoism and bigotry inherent in being proud of your country and your history.

Thus, the naming of important days after food items may be expanded so that every day can be named after some popular dish. I, myself, am looking forward to Raisin Bran Day, and I can hardly wait for Mac and Cheese Day. Oatmeal Breakfast Burrito Day is just around the corner.

Mmmm. Chocolate Cake Day. Yummy.

Of course, “Fruitcake Day” may occur more than once a year, depending on whether or not you’re happily excited.

It is clear to me, at this time, that saying “Turkey Day” instead of “Thanksgiving Day” is an impactful expression of how much Americans have grown.

The world has turned to crap. Think of all the greedy people who won’t share with those who are less fortunate. Doesn’t that piss you off?

But, tomorrow there’s turkey and taters! Let’s eat!!!!!

Seriously, folks. Turkey Day is for escaping reality, and for stuffing your face until you forget how mad you are things don’t go the way that you want them to.

Thanksgiving Day is for reminding us that for everything we have--our food, our homes, our freedom--someone worked hard to make it happen.

Happy Thanksgiving Day.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2007-01-18T21:19:00.000-08:00

How Controlling People Think
(or fail to think, as the case may be)
Opinion © 2007, by Guy L. Evans

1-18-07

Happy New Year to everyone. I hope your holidays were wonderful.

Controlling people are arbitrary. Control is arbitrary. They control because they believe that all consequences are arbitrary. They believe this because the consequences from their parents were always arbitrary. Arbitrary parents. Arbitrary children. Arbitrary decision-making.

The ideas that actions have consequences and that every person is responsible for his own actions do not occur to controlling people. In their minds, all consequences are arbitrary; therefore, no one is responsible for his own behavior. The “S**t Happens” bumper stickers illustrate this point.

They judge all people, things, and events based solely on whether they feel that they like or dislike the person, object, or event. Their determination of liking or disliking anyone or anything is strictly arbitrary. They often have no idea why they like or dislike anything. It’s just a feeling, and that feeling can change from moment to moment (e.g., “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.”)

They never learn how to say, “I like this” or “I don’t like this”. Instead, they act out their feelings, often displaying irrational hostility.

Controlling people tend to be very self-controlling. They control themselves so that they don’t become the source of any problems. They control their moods, thoughts, and actions with the intent of convincing their inner critic that they are blameless for all things. Controlling people carry around an inner critic, usually an image of their critical, arbitrary parents. They substitute their parents’ reality for their own, and the inner critic stays with them for life.

To controlling people, blame is the ultimate truth. They believe that they have discovered the undeniable truth when they assign blame to someone, and that assigning blame is a matter of justice. To controlling people, justice demands that blame be justly assigned.

Controlling people don’t understand that blame is always arbitrary.

To controlling people, anything they don’t like is a problem. This gives them a very childlike quality. When something they don’t like happens, there is a problem.

To achieve the ends of justice, and to be blameless themselves, controlling people must blame all problems on someone other than themselves.

They associate the problem with some person. (This also applies to objects. In the minds of the controlling people, a person is no different from an inanimate object. Person and object are interchangeable ideas to them.)

They assign blame to the person. They think in terms of cause-and-effect. There was the effect (the problem), and there was a person associated with the problem; therefore, the person caused the problem. They think in terms of “you are causing a problem”.

Thinking that the person caused the problem, they try to control the person so that he can’t cause any more problems.

They believe that if you control the person, you control the problem and that if you eliminate the person, you eliminate the problem. In the minds of controlling people, the person is always the problem.

To controlling people, the idea that they may actually be part of the problem usually does not occur to them. They get target fixation--tunnel vision--and are incapable of coping with the problem by any means other than fight or flight (aggression, aversion, or distortion). They jump immediately into hostility mode, win-lose, run away, attack, dog eat dog, it’s either me or you, win at all costs, revenge, getting even, jealousy, etc.

In cases where controlling people blame themselves for their problems, the result may be drug abuse (drug abuse includes alcohol abuse), self-abuse, self-mutilation, or suicide. With the risks so high, it’s easy to understand why controlling people are intent of blaming others.

The greatest mistake that people make in problem solving is mistaking control for resolution. They believe that they have solved the problem when they have taken control of (what they believe to be) the source of the problem. They spend all their efforts trying to identify the source of the problem (by accusing, assigning blame, finding fault, discovering guilt, labeling, etc.), and then trying to control the source of the problem through aversion, aggression, or distortion.

Here are some ideas that may be helpful to controlling people:

Fire your inner critic. You need to be a helper to yourself, not a critic.

Eliminate blame. Stop blaming. Blame is the enemy of reason.

You have the right to feel your feelings. Feelings are involuntary. Feelings inform you of your condition; they don’t control you.

Positive self-talk. Stop blaming yourself. Learn to reward yourself for doing good. Be a friend to yourself, and you will learn to be a friend to others.

Learn to say, “I don’t like this” instead of “it’s all your fault”.

The person is never the problem; the problem is the problem. Focus on what you want to achieve instead of how you want other people to behave.

Your likes and dislikes are your responsibility.

Your behavior is your responsibility.

Other people’s behavior is not your responsibility.

Admit your losses and admit that you feel sorrow when you think about your losses. You aren’t weak or stupid or flawed for feeling sorrow.

Trying to control other people is much more stressful than simply identifying what you want to do.

Learn to listen to other people when they talk.

Learn to listen to yourself when you talk. Observe how you actually affect other people. Don’t be surprised when people don’t react the way you imagined they would.

Instead of imagining how you want other people to react to you, observe how they actually react to you.

Observe how the world really is, and then compare that to how you imagine you want the world to be.

I hope this helps.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-12-05T05:37:00.000-08:00

Good Locks Make Good Neighbors
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

December 5, 2006

Do you lock your front door before you leave your house or apartment? Why? Don’t you know that you’re unfairly discriminating when you do that?

Just teasing. It’s silly to suggest that you’re unfairly discriminating against anyone when you lock your doors. You are fairly discriminating against everyone. And rightly so.

I would certainly object if someone entered my home and tried to confiscate my private property on the assertion that I am less needy than he is. I don’t care how needy anyone is, no person has the right to personally confiscate my property. That’s why I lock my house. It’s my stuff. I earned it. It’s mine. And you can’t have it.

Locking my door before I leave the house is an act of brute force. By locking the door, I bar entry to everyone, including myself if I forget to take my keys with me.

When I lock my doors, I want to make certain that I have the keys. I want to have control of when my doors are locked. I don’t want to hand over that control to government. It would be ludicrous to suggest that some government agency should be responsible for locking and unlocking my doors for me. Government can’t defend my safety every minute of every day. Nor can government defend my rights every minute of every day. I have to do that myself. I understand and accept my responsibility in this matter.

Security is the first concern of every household. Without security, neither life nor property has any value. Your stuff isn’t worth anything to you if you don’t have it, and you certainly don’t want to trust your security to strangers. Security is accomplished by force. Any person attempting to enter my house without my permission will have to use brute force to enter.

Every claim of every right must be backed with the credible threat of brute force. Like the mercenaries say, you can’t get paid if you’re dead. In the same manner, you can’t exercise your right to free speech if you’re pushing up daisies. Since all people are susceptible to death, it seems to me that the first rule of life is to survive. If any person uses deadly force against you, you risk being killed if you do not use sufficient force to defend yourself.

History demonstrates that those who have the power make the rules. Political power cannot be maintained without a credible threat of force. A credible threat includes having some force to use in the first place, and periodically demonstrating to friend and foe alike that you can and will use that force at your discretion.

In your daily life, you use the credible threat of force every day by locking your doors. In international relations, and in any other situation where there is no law enforcement, those who exercise force exercise the greatest influence.

The practical fact is that the relationship between nations is similar to the relationship between rival tribes or gangs. Force is the final tool by which gangs, tribes, and nations exercise influence. If you don’t have force, or if you don’t use the force you have, then you have less influence. You can’t hit a home run if you don’t swing the bat.

My experience is that it’s easier on everyone if you back your opponent down before a fight than it is to try to beat him once the fight starts. It’s also easier to keep your stuff locked up than it is to try to recover it after some creep has stolen it. A credible threat of force accomplishes this in both situations.

Being American, I prefer that America, for better or for worse, be the most influential nation on Earth. If we wait until America is perfect to exercise our influence in the world, then we will never exercise any influence.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-11-09T05:58:00.000-08:00

What the Election Results Really Mean
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

November 9, 2006

Having birth-controlled themselves into the popular minority since 1973, Democrats now see their only chance of winning national elections by importing voters from Mexico.

The next six months will see a furious push by Democrats and their media mouthpieces to train the American people to accept Mexican nationals as voters. If this passes, get ready for President Clinton Part II.

There is a bright spot, however. I think that the Democrats and the media will pay a very severe price for this miscalculation. The American people sympathize with Mexican workers, but they don’t want to share power with them.

This puts Hillary in an un-winnable situation: If she supports voting rights for the very people she needs to win the 2008 election (Mexican nationals), then the other people she needs to win the election (Americans) will turn against her. For this reason, she will have to recruit other Democrats to do the dirty work for her so that she can remain unblemished.

This will be the big fight for the next six to twelve months. Watch for it.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-11-02T22:31:00.000-08:00

Forgetting the Most Important Thing
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

November 3, 2006

The most important thing to remember in next Tuesday’s election is that no matter how bad the Republicans are, the Democrats are much worse.

“Different” doesn’t mean “better”.

Don’t be a dummy, America. Don’t trade bad for worse.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

P.S. Osama bin Laden was right about you, America. You don’t have the guts to fight a war. You would rather lose than fight.

2006-11-02T21:01:00.000-08:00

Dear Critic
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

November 3, 2006

This is an open letter to all the critics out there (and in here).

Dear Critic,

When you criticize me...

What do you gain?
What do you lose?
What do you intend?
What do you expect?
What do you feel?
What do you think you sound like?
How do you think I should react to you?
How do you see that I react to you?
What do you think you are doing?
What are you doing?
Are you just amusing yourself?
Are you just indulging yourself?
Are you just emoting?
Do you just like to hear yourself talk?
Can you understand the harm you do to yourself, to others, to your reputation?
Can you understand that your criticism is actually an expression of FEAR?
What do you fear?
Do you fear criticism?
Is that why you criticize me?
Do you understand that when you criticize me you give me permission to criticize you, also?
Do you understand that you provoke the very criticism you fear?
Do you understand that you make your own misery?

Finally, dear critic, what good does your criticizing do me?

Why, no good at all.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-10-25T20:25:00.000-07:00

What Language Do You Speak?
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

October 25, 2006

Imagine a person who grew up in Japan. He has learned the language and the culture of Japan.

Now imagine that this same person moves to Brazil. He has not learned the language and the culture of Brazil.

What will happen to this person if he follows either of these two courses?

He condemns the people of Brazil as stupid, malicious, and incompetent because they do not understand the language and culture of Japan. He thinks they are idiots because they do not understand him.

He accepts that he is now among people who speak a different language and have a different culture. He also accepts that he can save himself a lot of trouble by learning their language and culture. And, he can save himself the greatest hardship by accepting that he has to learn to speak to them in a language that they understand.

Following the first course of action, the Brazilians may conclude that the person from Japan was insane. They wouldn’t be able to understand him. He would appear paranoid and hostile to them. If he attacked anyone, the Brazilians would probably try to put him in jail or deport him. If they felt he was a threat, they would try to contain him or get rid of him.

Following the second course of action, the Brazilians may conclude that the person from Japan is ignorant, but otherwise harmless. They might make fun of him at first, but as he demonstrated that he was not a threat to them and that he was making a good faith effort to understand their language and customs, they would probably come to accept him.

People who grow up learning the language and culture of blaming, criticizing, accusing, denigrating, and insulting find the culture of gratitude and appreciation as alien as the person from Japan finds Brazilian language and culture alien. The big problem for the blamers is that their first method of coping is to define other people as the source of the problem. They play an energetic game of “fault tag” (tag, it’s your fault that you don’t understand me), thereby avoiding any real chance of achieving mutual understanding.

If the person from Japan followed the first course of action, he would fail to understand his Brazilian neighbors and would blame the Brazilians for the problem. He would not admit that most of his failures could have been avoided by learning the language and the culture of the people around him. He would never learn that there is nothing wrong with him and there is nothing wrong with his new Brazilian neighbors. They just need to take some time learn each other’s language.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-10-23T20:40:00.000-07:00

You Get What You Give
Opinion (and a bit of a rant) © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

October 24, 2006

I got into it the other day with one of the young pouty-boys who thinks it’s cool to verbally abuse people who aren’t around to defend themselves. He’s one of those who thinks that slandering Jesus and President Bush makes him look smart. Then he bellyaches that no one understands him. You know the type.

So, I told him that enough is enough. I told him in so many words to shut his pie hole. Then I thought that if he would listen, this is what I’d like to say to him and all the other cry babies out there:

You want your precious autonomy, but you won’t allow anyone else to have theirs. You stick your nose into everyone else’s business every chance you get, and you think you are entitled to tell everyone else on God’s Earth how to live every minute of their lives.

You go nuts if anyone intrudes into your space, but you intrude on everyone else any time you like.

You don’t want to be judged, but you judge everyone else. You are an endless fountain of prejudices and negative opinions. You are a gold medallist fault finder in the bad-mouthing Olympics.

You want to be admired, but you refuse to show admiration for anyone else.

You want to be appreciated, but you can’t possibly show any appreciation for anything that anyone else does for you. “Thank you” is beyond you capabilities. And if anyone ever does show appreciation to you, you spit in their face. You don’t even know what a compliment is.

You want acceptance, but you refuse to accept anyone else. Cleopatra may have been the Queen of denial, but you’re King of rejection.

You want approval, but you refuse to grant your approval to anyone else. You are unpleaseable. You disapprove of everything. I’m sick of it. I don’t care if you’re unhappy. Why is that my problem? Be unhappy. It suites you.

You hate it when other people make demands on you, but you make demands on everyone else without even thinking about it.

You want legitimacy, but you won’t let anyone else have their own legitimacy.

You want people to listen to you, but you never, never, never listen to anyone else.

You want a voice, but you won’t let anyone else have theirs.

You want people to think that you are blameless, but you blame everyone else for everything that goes wrong in your life. What you are you, a frickin’ wall painting?

You have no social skills. You are un-socialized. I would tell you that you’re uncivilized, but you would think that that’s something to be proud of.

You want respect, but you can’t ever bring yourself to show any respect to anyone else. You are one of the most vicious, rude, rotten little cry babies I have ever known. And trust me, stud, I have known thousands.

You don’t understand why people hate you, but you don’t leave them any choice. Other people try to be nice to you, try to be civil with you, and all you do is attack, attack, attack. Your mouth spews hate like a fountain of karmic diarrhea. You’re never happy about anything. You’re always unhappy about everything. And people are sick of hearing it.

What a shame for all of us that you really weren’t born the Emperor of the Universe. Your life would be perfect if you could just get everything you demanded when you demanded it--like a little baby. If only everyone would take your advice, the world would be perfect for all of us, wouldn’t it?

You get what you give, moron. No one will give you respect if you don’t give it first. No one will listen to you if you don’t listen to them first. No one will care about you if you don’t care about them first.

If you don’t like what you see in other people, it’s because they’re reflecting back to you what you show them. They are showing you what you look like to them. You don’t like it, do you?

The world is not merely an extension of you. Other people have their own lives to live.

Snap out of it! Look at where you are. You’re in charge of your own life whether you like it or not. Now, shut it.

Okay. So I piled on a little. But I feel better.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-10-11T22:08:00.000-07:00

The “Punching Bag” Game
Rules of the game © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

October 11, 2006

Hey! Let’s play a nice game of “Punching Bag”. Okay? Great!

Here are the rules:

Find something that upsets you. You can score extra points by picking something that doesn’t actually affect you, like things from the past that no one can change or global problems that you can’t do anything about anyway. You can really score big points by being creative and dreaming something up. It is very important to remember to pick a fight that can’t be resolved. Just keep the fight going no matter what. Also, you can score huge points by setting up a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose scenario.
Identify a suitable target to be the “Punching Bag”. Heh, you can’t play “Punching Bag” without a punching bag, can you? Here you can score extra points by picking a fight with someone over nothing, and then convincing the other person that the whole problem is his fault. You can lose points here by actually confronting the situation that actually upsets you. Women, children, and public figures make the easiest targets because they can’t fight back.
Engage in senseless aggression. Verbal abuse is sufficient. Physical abuse of people and their property could get you disqualified (See 4. below). Senseless aggression must include at least one of the following, but may include all: blaming, scapegoating, scorn, denigrating, vilifying, name calling, foul language, pouting, complaining, gloom-a-thon (never happy about anything), negative demeanor, paranoia, contempt, arrogance, and inability or unwillingness to find pleasure in anything besides your own senseless aggression. At this point, putting yourself in the proper state of mind is important. You can increase your punching power by thinking that other people are malicious, incompetent, or down right stupid. You don’t score extra points by doing this, but it helps you generate more energy when you’re beating on your punching bag. Also, keep in mind that your senseless aggression is really nothing more than senseless self-indulgence. You’re not trying to make the world a better place; you’re just having a good time pounding on your “Punching Bag”.
Avoid consequences. If you suffer any consequences for your senseless aggression, you lose double the points you scored. Choose targets who either can’t or won’t set limits on your senseless aggression. Aggressively assert that your punching bag started the whole thing and deserves what you give him (you score double points for aggressively pursuing your aggression). If you ever, ever, ever become aware that your senseless aggression is actually harming anyone, then you are permanently eliminated from the game. And you don’t get to blame anyone for it, either. To avoid this unhappy fate, always aggressively deny that your aggression actually hurts anyone, and always assert that it’s the punching bag’s fault in the first place, and that he deserves what he gets. You can score a coupe by denying that you have any choice in the matter, and that your “Punching Bag” made you punch him.

CAUTION: If you take responsibility for your behavior, the game is over. If you realize that you actually hurt people when you engage in senseless, self-indulgent aggression, and worst of all, if this realization actually bothers you, then you are eliminated from the game for life.

And that’s pretty much the game in a nutshell. Get upset, identify a suitable target to be the “Punching Bag”, use that target as a punching bag, deny that you’re doing any harm, and then blame the “Punching Bag” for the whole thing. You won’t actually accomplish anything (that’s why it’s just a game), but you may feel a little rush while you’re indulging your aggression.

If you want to see some truly skilled “Punching Bag” players in action, cruise around the lefty bloggosphere and read some of the Bush bashing rants. They are brilliant examples of how to play the game, and you can learn a lot from them. They follow the rules, they score huge points, and they are really creative. They get upset about things that don’t really affect them, identify President Bush as the “Punching Bag”, senselessly and viciously attack him, and then blame him for causing the whole problem in the first place. The way they avoid taking responsibility for their own behavior is absolute genius--I didn’t have any choice. I love it! Innocence, it seems, wears the face of a crocodile.

If you play “Punching Bag” long enough, you can become a pathological narcissist! Think of the benefits--never having to be responsible for your own behavior no matter how destructive you are, never having to take the blame for anything no matter what you do, having an endless supply of targets to attack, and always feeling good about yourself. If anything ever bothers you, you can just indulge yourself in more senseless aggression. Of course, you’ll never grow up, but why should that be a problem? You can just blame everything on everyone else.

Get good at the “Punching Bag” game, and you’re set for life.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-09-19T05:57:00.000-07:00

Do You Know Anyone Like This?
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

September 19, 2006

Do you know anyone who treats you this way?

You don’t have a problem; you are a problem. You are a problem for being who you are, for being hungry and tired and needy and most of all for having wants and needs of your own and for expressing those wants and needs. You are a problem because you won’t control yourself. So, it is my duty to teach you to control yourself, to “correct” you, you scrub your inner, essential reality from your mind and then replace it with the reality that I want you to parrot back to me. I will tell you how you feel, what you want, what you need, what you should and should not think and feel, who your friends are, who your enemies are, and most of all, I will teach you to depend on me for your identity. I will define you. I will tell you when you are good and when you are bad. I will tell you when you are doing what is acceptable and when you are doing what is not acceptable. You will turn to me for your sense of self. Your life will revolve around pleasing me. But, I will keep control. I will be unpleaseable. And, my displeasure will always be your fault.

I will teach you not to think or feel or do anything without first considering whether I might not approve. As a result, you will become confused and frustrated. You will act out your frustration, and I will accuse you of attacking me, of trying to hurt me. Just control yourself. That’s all you have to do.

If you can’t handle the confusion and frustration of forever trying to please me when I am utterly unpleaseable, you will become the “rebel”. You will rebel. This suites me just fine. In rebelling against my authority over you, you legitimize my dominance over you. You affirm my “rightness”. You prove to me that I was right all along, that all you ever needed to do was control yourself and accept the identity that I have assigned you. You can’t control yourself, and now look at you.

But, I know the secret. I know how you can escape my control. Instead of controlling yourself, you just need to be honest with yourself. “To thine own self be true.” Stop trying to please me. Stop judging your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors against the contradictory, shifting, arbitrary, and capricious standards that I set. Stop trying to “correct” yourself.

When you’re hungry, eat. When you’re tired, rest. When you feel alone or angry or hurt or afraid, admit it. And admit that it feels bad. Be a friend to yourself, not a tyrant. Understand yourself. And, in understanding yourself, you will learn to understand others.

As for me, the Great Dictator of your life, let go of the struggle. I can’t control you if you won’t play along. If you fight with me, I still have control. That’s why I pick fights with you over nothing and everything. As long as we are fighting about something, or nothing, I still have a grip on you. I still am able to insert myself into your life against your will. As soon as you stop fighting with me, you strip me of my status of heroic victim, and you lose your mantel of villainy. When you stop fighting with me, then you give me no reason to accuse you of attacking me. Damn! Damn! Damn! Damn! Damn!

When I come back at you and try to pick a fight over nothing, I’m trying to re-establish my position as heroic victim. I want you to attack me so that I can feel offended and righteous. So, I will prod you and provoke you and nag you and dig at you and insult you and the things you love until you finally take up the fight again. I want you to fight with me. I want you to lose control, go nuts, have a fit, scream and yell and hit me and throw things. When you hurt me, then I know, I truly know in my heart of hearts, that you really don’t love me and that you really are bad person.

Never mind that I assaulted you ten ways from Sunday to trigger your rage. Not my responsibility. You lost control. I didn’t.

So, there you have it. I get to act like a big baby and then make you responsible for my feelings. That’s the trick. And you fell for it. And you will keep falling for it. And when you finally wake up and stop falling for it, and you finally say you’ve had enough and you leave, then I will be alone.

If you know anyone like this, save yourself first, worry about fixing the relationship later.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-07-24T10:32:00.000-07:00

My Prayer for Today
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

July 24, 2006

Dear Lord, please don't sneak up on me like that again. Thanks. Amen.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-07-18T06:01:00.000-07:00

What Would Happen If...?
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

July 18, 2006

After watching an episode of The Dog Whisperer (Cesar Millan) on The National Geographic Channel, I was confused by one idea that he put forward. He said that dogs that are “babied” become anti-social. This didn’t make any sense to me, and seemed counter intuitive. So, off I went in search of some answers.

As it turns out, he was absolutely right. When you reward any behavior, you will see more of that behavior. By “babying” a dog when he displays aggressive behavior, the dog thinks he is being rewarded for his behavior, and he will become more aggressive.

When children are “babied”, they don’t learn to make the connection between their behavior and the consequences of their behavior. They are mystified about how the world works and are suspicious of the motives of other people. They become dependent, anxious, and antagonistic.

Their antagonism provokes hostile reactions from other people, resulting in further anxiety and suspicion. It is the matter of not connecting their antagonistic affect with undesirable consequences that I wish to address. So, to everyone, I ask the following questions:

What would happen if...?

What would happen if everyone else behaved exactly the way you do?
What would happen if everyone else talked to you the way you talk to everyone else?
What would happen if everyone else treated you the same way you treat your parents?
What would happen if everyone else treated you the same way you treat your children?
What would happen if everyone else treated you the same way you treat your siblings?
What would happen if everyone else treated you the same way you treat your animals?

What would happen if everyone else believed everything you believe?
What would happen if everyone else believed the same things about themselves that you believe about yourself?
What would happen if everyone else believed the same things about you that you believe about other people?

What would happen if everyone else wanted you to do exactly what you want them to do?
What would happen if everyone else tried to exert the same level and intensity of power over you that you try to exert over other people?
What would happen if everyone else displayed their anger toward you the same way you display your anger toward other people?

Would the world be a better place, or not?
Would you feel more safe, or less safe?
Would people treat you better than they do now, or would they treat you worse?
Would you feel more welcome, or less welcome?
Would you have more privacy, or less privacy?
Would you feel that people were being more honest with you, or less?
Would you have more leisure time, or less leisure time?
Would you feel more trust toward others, or less trust toward others?
Would you feel that you were being treated fairly, or unfairly?
Would you feel that people understand you, or not?

What would really happen to you?
What would other people really say to you?
What would they really do to you?

What would happen if you had to soberly observe the real consequences of your behavior, your speech, and your beliefs? What would happen if you really knew the effect you have on other people?

It is impossible to learn to be a better person until you learn to connect the consequences of your behavior directly to your behavior. If you cannot learn from your mistakes, you are cursed, and you will inflict endless and unnecessary suffering upon yourself.

Reward the behavior you want to see more of, and set limits on the behavior you want to see less of. Simple.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-29T20:58:00.000-07:00

The Folly of Presumed Innocence
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 29, 2006

The idea that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is a bad idea outside the courtroom. Do you lock you doors at night? Lock your car? Stop at stop signs? Look both ways before you cross the street?

Why? If no one commits a crime, then you’re safe, aren’t you?

Of course not. You know that in real life, the life you have to live every day, the idea that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is nonsense. I take the position that everyone is largely untrustworthy, ignorant, and unsociable until proven otherwise. This does not mean that I believe that people are untrustworthy, ignorant, and unsociable. It means that I don’t care to leave myself open to assault until I have a good feeling about someone.

Presuming that every person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law leaves you vulnerable to assault. Why would any sensible person do that? It is less risky and more efficient to defend yourself against possible assault than it is to apprehend the perp and bring him to justice.

Government wants us to rely on them for our needs. They have told us for decades not to resist when someone attacks us. But, I disagree. Public timidity encourages boldness in criminals the same way that military timidity encourages boldness in our enemies.

It costs less to avoid a problem than it does to fix it once it has happened. The idea that we should sit passively and simply respond to problems as they occur is, well, dopey.

Let the criminals plead their innocent to the court. As for me, I’ll keep my doors locked and my home protection system at the ready.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-27T20:02:00.000-07:00

Delusional Innocence
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 26, 2006

The latest flap over the New York Times publishing information that the government says will harm national security caused me to think about how educated and well-intentioned people could do something so detrimental--detrimental possibly to their own safety--and still think that they have done anything wrong. From a purely practical point of view, these people have now made themselves more vulnerable to terrorist attacks by weakening the institutions that defend their safety.

I believe that they have succumbed to delusional innocence. Delusional innocence means believing in your own innocence without regard to how destructive or offensive your behavior actually is.

Delusional innocence results from the nonsensical idea that power equates to responsibility, that anyone who has power has total responsibility and that anyone who does not have power gets a free pass.

The people who work at the New York Times argue that the Bush administration is in power, and therefore that national security is the responsibility of the Bush administration, not the New York Times. Therefore, by their thinking, the New York Times gets a free pass.

Not being in power makes reckless and provocative behavior merely acts of self-expression. The leftie bloggers who spew invective believe that they can do whatever they like because they are not in power, and are therefore not responsible for anything.

Delusional innocence is irrational. This irrationality results from confusing blame with responsibility. It comes from a failure to understand who owns the problem.

If Bill dumps a load of wet concrete onto George’s lawn, Bill has just make a problem for George. Even though Bill is entirely to blame for the problem, the problem belongs to George.

You may think this is not fair. It is perfectly fair. The fact that Bill made a big problem for George does not relieve George of the responsibility of resolving the problem.

One of the reasons we have laws is to prevent George from killing Bill for making a big problem that wasn’t there before. In this case, Bill had a responsibility to not cause a problem in the first place. George has the right to demand restitution from Bill for the damages.

Delusional innocence asserts that only people in power have the ability to do harm; therefore, people in power are always to blame for anything bad that happens.

The reason that this nonsensical idea is delusional is that it is so rigidly and dogmatically held that its adherents are immune to persuasion by facts or reason. Adherents to this nonsense have substituted fantasy for fact. They do that a lot.

The idea of delusional innocence may be related to the idea that every person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Of course, this is nonsense. The actual idea is that, in legal matters only, very person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court of public opinion is not a court of law. There can be no presumption of innocence regarding the acts of the New York Times. They admitted that they took the law into their own hands. Their behavior was not only reckless; it was lawless.

So, how to cope with such people? If you run into someone like this, ask him if he locked his front door before he left. If he did, then ask him why he thinks that protecting his personal stuff is his responsibility. Every liberal acts like a conservative when he decides to take something seriously.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-26T19:52:00.000-07:00

The Chronicles of Hernia
A movie review © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 26, 2006

I watched The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe over the weekend. It was enjoyable, more of a children’s movie. If you could see the movie through the eyes of a child, you would be fully taken in.

I can’t do that.

I wanted someone to drown Edmund. Anytime. Soon. Now. Off him. Blabber mouth.

Father Christmas handing out weapons. Hmm. Okay. If you’re going to be the arsenal of freedom, give them something they can use, tubby. Santa, may I please have a Wand of Air Strikes and a Periapt of Nuclear Holocaust. Please?

But the clincher was the beaver in the chain mail. Please forgive me. Make up your own punch line here.

I couldn’t distinguish what made the “bad guys” bad and the “good guys” good other than the idea that the “bad guys” were led by a malevolent tyrant and the “good guys” were led by a benevolent tyrant. What did I miss?

Finally comes the battle where the “bad guys” mount their final attack on the “good guys”. Good, maybe. Dummies, absolutely. Outnumbered, the “good guys” charge headlong into certain defeat when they had a perfectly defensible hill right behind them. Which inspired this poem:

The Charge of the Lightweight Brigade
Dwarves to right of them,
Minotaurs to left of them,
The White Witch in front of them
Growled and snarled;
Stormed at with snouts and tummies,
Boldly they rode, that bunch of dummies,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the Terrible Fray,
And then they turned around and ran away

By this point, it was as good as a Godzilla movie--a lot of action, but you really don’t know what on Earth is going on. Why are they doing this? What was that all about? What?! Someone please skewer Edmund. Blabber mouth.

Don’t get me wrong. The story was enjoyable, but I seriously strained myself trying to willfully suspend my disbelief. And so the title, The Chronicles of Hernia.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-14T20:53:00.000-07:00

You Can’t Trust Timid People
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 14, 2006

Hugh Hewitt spent way too much time in my opinion interviewing Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post this afternoon. Joel seemed to be utterly intimidated by Hugh. Joel serves as a fine example of how intimidated people behave, and why you can’t trust them.

People who feel intimidated tend to be withdrawn, paranoid, passive-aggressive, evasive, secretive, uncooperative, manipulative, and generally unwilling to stand up for themselves. They are fearful. They reflexively withdraw from confrontation.

Democrats operate from fear. They are intimidated. Do you remember what Castro did to Clinton? They hate Bush and Rove because they are intimidated by them. They want to fight back, but they are afraid to stand up for themselves, so they play the role of spoiler, hoping that they will have some success denying the Republicans their just victory.

All they know how to do is to spoil the satisfaction of others, to thwart their ambitions. They interpret their own feeble, minimal efforts as heroic, while discounting the efforts of true heroes.

Such people cannot be trusted.

Having a degree in Law from Harvard and being a broadcaster and a teacher, I can imagine that the idea of feeling intimidated may be difficult for Hugh Hewitt to understand. But, for people who have spent their entire lives learning to go along to get along, to follow the rules, or to not speak up without permission, the idea of taking a stand must evoke pure panic.

The idea for the timid people is that you can’t be wrong if you never say anything meaningful. Evade, lie, babble, tell jokes, anything, but don’t ever make an assertion that anyone can challenge. That’s why you can’t pin them down. It isn’t that they don’t hold strong opinions; it’s that they are afraid to defend them.

Timid people believe that you can’t lose if you don’t fight. But, when someone is trying to kill you, not fighting means losing.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-12T20:44:00.000-07:00

Demand Drives the Market
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 12, 2006

Conservatives constantly preach market economics, and yet seem to have great difficulty taking their own message to heart. They talk about the laws of supply and demand. Maybe that’s their problem. It would make more sense to think of the laws of demand and supply.

Demand always precedes supply. If there is no demand, then supply doesn’t matter. To understand how markets work, you have to identify demand. What do people want, and why do they want it?

Here are some examples that conservatives seem to continually get wrong:

Demand: Mood regulating drugs.
Supply: Alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, downers, uppers, hallucinogens, etc.

Demand: Labor that is exempt from government regulation.
Supply: Mexicans and other foreign nationals who enter the country illegally, and employees who are classified as independent contractors.

Demand: Employment opportunities for people in Mexico and Central America.
Supply: Employment opportunities in the U. S.

By focusing on supply, conservatives fall victim to Petitio Principii, or Begging the Question, which means to use the conclusion that the argument is intended to prove as a founding premise for that argument. Conservatives want to prove that ending supply also ends demand. For example, they argue that ending the supply of heroin will necessarily end the demand for heroin. An analogous argument reveals the absurdity of this non-reasoning: Ending the supply of food will necessarily end demand for food.

But! But! But! But! Food is good for you and heroin is bad for you.

So what? Demand is demand. The answer to why people want things that are bad for them is not to stop the supply of such things; it is to understand why they want things that are bad for them in the first place. And besides, food isn’t always good for you, now is it?

Conservatives don’t seem to be the least bit interested in understanding the demand part of the process. They behave as though demand simply doesn’t matter. Which is puzzling to me, because every economist I can think of says that all markets are driven by demand. That’s what demand is. It’s the driving motivation behind all economic exchanges.

Why is there any demand at all for anything? Once you understand demand, you understand the market.

Why is there a demand for Mexican laborers by U. S. employers? Is it because Mexican laborers are more productive than American laborers? Of course not. If that were the case, then Mexico would be an economic dynamo. No, Mexican laborers are relatively less efficient and relatively more profitable than American laborers in some cases. It’s sort of like using a small car instead of a big truck--not as efficient, but a lot less expensive to operate, and it gets the job done.

Why is there a demand by Mexican laborers for U. S. employment opportunities? Because there are not enough employment opportunities in Mexico relative to employment opportunities in the U. S. If the supply of jobs in Mexico exceeded demand by Mexican laborers, then they would stay home, and there would be very few illegal border crossings.

Operating on the absurd idea that it is possible to control demand by controlling supply, conservatives argue against the very thing they value--free economic exchange. Attempting to control supply without addressing demand leads conservatives to behave like liberals, adding more and more restrictions to the free exchange of goods and services.

When you understand why people consume bad things, you can better determine whether restricting supply will have the desired effect. Failing to understand why people consume bad things leads to punishing people for harming themselves, leading conservatives toward the nanny State they claim to oppose.

I agree that we need to secure our border with Mexico. However, I also contemplate the consequences of doing so. I have heard that ten percent of Mexico’s population now resides on U. S. soil. Ten percent. What do you suppose Mexico will look like in ten years when the Mexican government is no longer able to export their excess population to the United States? Revolution? Starvation? War? What?

Do you think Mexico will simply correct its internal problems and everything will be hunky dory? I doubt it.

This begs the question of why U. S. companies aren’t fleeing to Mexico to take advantage of cheap Mexican labor. Mexico is economically and politically infirmed. The U. S. cannot resolve the illegal immigration problem as long as Mexico continues to languish. Building a fence will only bottle up the problem until it eventually explodes.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-06-12T12:52:00.000-07:00

Some Advice for High School Graduates
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

June 12, 2006

“They [Young People] have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things -- and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: Their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning -- all their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything they -- love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else.”
-- Aristotle

It’s the time of year when many high school graduates leave behind the only life they have ever known and venture out into the world for the first time. I have a few bits of advice that I hope will save you some trouble.

When you travel away from home, never take anything with you that you can’t afford to lose.

If your opinion of yourself is very high, lower it a bit. If your opinion of yourself is low, raise it a bit. Keep a sense of humility.

Never lend anything. Never borrow anything.

Stop blaming. If you blame others, you are admitting that you are incapable of handling your own problems.

Avoid blamers. They want to make you the bad guy. Don’t let anyone make you the bad guy. Most of all, don’t be the bad guy.

Avoid angry people. They will infect you.

The best way to stop being angry is to hold people accountable for their behavior.

You are under no obligation to try to make sense of nonsense.

Never bluff.

Don’t trust your memory. Take notes.

You have no authority to punish anyone. No one will accept your punishment.

You aren’t clever. Don’t try to be. Many high school aged people are very impressed with cleverness. However, adults have seen it all before. It isn’t new to them.

When you were sixteen, you knew everything. You’re not sixteen anymore.

Learn to listen. Listening is the most valuable skill you will ever learn.

Avoid callousness, and avoid handing out unearned sympathy.

Know the facts before you act. Supposition and assumption are not knowledge.

Not making a mess is easier than cleaning it up.

There’s plenty of trouble in the world; we don’t need to make more. Life will give you all the trouble you can handle. Don’t make trouble for yourself. Don’t make trouble for anyone else, either.

Your desires are not a grant of entitlement. Just because you want it doesn’t mean you deserve it.

There is no shame in being sick.

Knowledge is wealth.

Never drink on an empty stomach.

Tattoos, piercing, and implants are all forms of mutilation.

The future is not your property.

You are not responsible for anyone else’s behavior; they are.

You are entirely responsible for your own behavior.

The end of decision making does not come with assigning blame; it comes with accepting responsibility.

The first rule of fixing things is: If it doesn’t help, don’t do it.

The first rule of life is: Survive.

You are always free to look for work elsewhere. Good luck.

Many people are irretrievably messed up. They will only get worse with age.

Children are not responsible for making their parents feel safe and happy.

Allowing any other person to control your life brings the risk that you will become deaf to your own inner voice.

Rebelling, trying to be invisible, or trying to be perfect are ways of trying to cope with arbitrary parents.

Living your life in perpetual power struggles with others will only leave you exhausted, anxious, and chronically unhappy.

The more you know, the less you can be fooled.

If being a hero was easy, every body would be one.

You live in the world that your ancestors made. Learn what they have done, and why they did it, or else you will lose it all.

If you hate America, then by all means, pick a better country. The borders are open. You are free to go.

Show appreciation. There is no shame is saying “please” and “thank you”.

It’s up to the woman to say “no”.

Healthy relationships include listening to each other, valuing each other, and caring for each other.

The person is never the problem; the problem is the problem.

When you fight, attack the problem, not each other.

God won’t cook your breakfast. Have sensible expectations.

A moment of forethought can save a lifetime of suffering.

You will never have this chance again. I strongly encourage young people to enlist, serve our country, meet people, stick your neck out. You will never know what you are really capable of if someone else doesn’t challenge you. The armed forces offer that challenge. The freedom that you consume has been purchased at great cost. You can purchase the freedom of the next generation for the small cost of a few years of service. Serve your country or your community in some way. When you are too old, you will regret not having at least tried.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-05-08T21:05:00.000-07:00

Rules for the Fever Swamp
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

May 8, 2006

Hugh Hewitt, God bless him, came up with the term “the fever swamp left” to describe the radical elements of the Democratic Party and of leftist movements in general. Such people cause great consternation among rational people like Hewitt, and with good reason; they just don’t make sense. They’re not exactly crazy, but...

**************************************************************************************
I am not a mental health professional. Nothing in this article is intended to diagnose or treat any condition. If you think you or someone you know has a problem that requires attention, please seek professional help.
**************************************************************************************

...they are not capable of being sufficiently rational.

There is no clearly defined set of rules for the inhabitants of the fever swamp left. And to be fair, there is also a fever swamp right. It’s all the same swamp to me. But, if there were a set of rules, I think it would go something like this:

Rules for the fever swamp

Understand that your salvation lies in controlling the reality that other people experience. You cannot exist unless you (for want of a better word) inhabit the minds of other people.
Take control of how other people think, feel, and behave. Emotional outbursts, tantrums, and rage are useful for this. Become the biggest pain in other people’s lives, the focus of their attention day and night. Make them dread you.
Take control of what other people know and understand. Tell them that they can’t trust their own knowledge, feelings, experiences, and understanding. Tell them they are stupid and that only you can be trusted to tell them the truth.
Take control of the version of reality that other people will learn. As much as possible, control the media.
Take control of the lives, money, time, and resources of other people. Taxes and regulations are useful for this.
Take control.
Take control.
Take control.
Jealously defend your control.
Without ever admitting it to yourself, maintain an unrealistic and exaggerated sense of your own power. It helps to believe that you are invincible. Drugs and alcohol can help here. Political dogma can also be useful.
Hate people who have more control than you do.
Especially hate people who control their own lives. People who are independent of your control threaten your sense of your own power. This is particularly true if your sense of your own power is highly exaggerated. We can’t have reality intruding on our utterly fantastic dreams of power. I’m Superman, damn you!
Hate God. God judges you. Celestial busybody.
Always reassure yourself that you are perfectly capable of controlling others and that you undoubtedly possess the wisdom to know what is best for them.
Always reassure yourself that you are good, wise, heroic, and self-sacrificing, and that you are only doing what is best for other people. Especially deny to yourself that other people may actually know what is in their own best interest.
Always insist that people will be much better off if they will just accept your version of reality and reject their own. For God’s sake, why can’t these people see?
Always exert more control.
Rejection is a highly effective form of control.
You know how much you hate feeling rejected. Since you hate feeling rejected, it goes without saying that everyone on Earth is just like you and that they hate feeling rejected as much as you do. If you reject them before they reject you, and reject them with an extreme conviction in your own rightness, then you effectively take control, and you win.
Reject any version of reality that you do not judge to be acceptable.
Reject any person whom you do not judge to be acceptable.
Reject any thoughts, feelings, information, or behavior from other people that you do not judge to be acceptable.
Reject any thoughts, feelings, behavior, or aspects of yourself that you do not judge to be acceptable.

Badda freakin’ bing! It’s just that easy. Reject. Control. Believe in your own supremacy. And, above all, don’t let those pesky little facts stand in the way of realizing your dreams of mastering reality.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-22T11:37:00.000-07:00

Truth Denying Timid People
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 21, 2006

Traumatic events can induce dissociation, especially in childhood. Dissociation is a natural response to pain and to threats of pain. Dissociation isolates our decision-making selves long enough for us decide to fight or flee.

However, with repeated traumas, dissociation can become ingrained. When ingrained dissociation becomes the only learned method of coping with stress, people may become unable to function in society. Such people are said to have dissociative disorders. Dissociative disorders often include elements of paranoid, narcissistic, and passive-aggressive, negativistic personality disorders.

Another way to describe such people is to say that they are timid. They have been frightened too often, and they have not learned affirmative coping skills. Timid people operate more on superstition (supposition and how they feel about things) than on facts. They prefer to use their imagination to find relief from stress instead of using their analytic skills to affirmatively resolve the stressful situation. They prefer dreams to research.

They often retreat into rich fantasy lives. They prefer fantasies to facts because they can control their fantasies, but they can’t control the facts.

Timid people often poorly imitate their fantastic ideas of courage, so that running away (e.g., dodging the draft) is imagined to be courage, whereas actually confronting their enemies is imagined to be foolhardiness. They tend to be abrasive. As Hoffer said, rudeness is the weak man’s idea of strength.

Timid people tend to develop a “tough guy” routine. When the “tough guy” routine doesn’t work, they panic. They have nothing to fall back on. They may try to hide, escape, or to be so offensive that other people just give up and go away. The strategy seems to be to become invisible, and if that doesn’t work, run away, and if that doesn’t work, become so obnoxious that they leave you alone. Their primary coping method is to get sufficient distance between themselves and their stresses so that they feel safe. They have never learned how to simply stand up for themselves.

One particularly aggravating variation of truth denying timid people is the sullen type. For the sullen types, happiness is the enemy. Happiness brings only disappointment and heartbreak. Heartbreak is intolerable. Happiness must be perfect, utopian, without risk. Anything less than perfect happiness is intolerable. Happiness cannot be allowed. No one is allowed to be happy. Happiness is for fools. Happiness must be killed. Most of all, no one is allowed to be happy without the express permission of the sullen, truth denying timid person.

Truth denying timid people have learned to cope with fear by avoiding fearful things. Avoidance includes minimizing, denying, stuffing, projecting, misunderstanding, overreacting, and so forth.

Many truth denying timid people fear being controlled, bullied, manipulated, or intimidated by others. Fear of being controlled prompts them to preemptively take control instead of just leaving well enough alone. Taking control causes no end of unnecessary hardship for such people. Normal people don’t like truth denying timid people taking control of them, so they resist. Conflict ensues, conflict that could have been avoided if the timid person had just left everyone alone.

Truth denying timid people have no concept of consequences. They do not comprehend consequences. They consistently fantasize about the consequences of their own behavior or the behavior of others, and are consistently confounded by the actual consequences. They believe that consequences can be controlled by intense and sincere wishing. They believe that actual consequences can be avoided, that they didn’t actually happen, or that they don’t matter when they do happen.

Truth denying timid people swim in a sea of paranoid fantasies. To them, there is always greater danger than normal people can imagine. Imagining fantastic, virtually impossible dangers gives the truth denying timid people a sense of being special and enlightened. They believe that they can see danger when others can’t. They are right statistically often enough to convince themselves that they possess special insight. Here is an exercise in paranoia: Tell yourself everyday that you will be in a motor vehicle accident, then, when you are in one, you can say that you knew it all along. It is paranoid, not paranormal. What you usually find is that paranoid people are completely surprised when something bad does happen.

The difficulty for all of us is that once a person learns to cope with stress by denying facts, there really isn’t much we can do to communicate with them. Your best course of action is to learn to identify such people and defend yourself from them. Most of all, don’t let them pollute you with their paranoid fantasies.

As for the matter of happiness, there is no perfect happiness. There doesn’t need to be. All happiness contains risk.

It is impossible to experience the enriching, life affirming joy of love without knowing the crushing misery of grief. The only sure way to avoid grief is to become a stone. Stones don’t cry.

Denying the truth of the terrible things that happen to us causes us to become timid. We seek to avoid pain in life. And in avoiding the pain in life, we avoid the very experiences we need to become strong, able, and happy.

Give yourself permission to be happy no matter who objects.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-22T11:33:00.000-07:00

One Hot Tamale
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 21, 2006

Having already allowed millions of people from Mexico and Central America to enter the U. S. illegally, and having allowed millions of these same people to illegally enter the work force, America is holding one hot tamale. The old saying is, “You get what you pay for”. You also pay for what you get.

The bill for allowing these millions of people to enter America’s work force against the law will come due soon. The cost to send them back to their countries of origin will be catastrophic. The cost to absorb them into American society will also be catastrophic. The cost to add them to the welfare roles for the working poor and the unemployed likewise stands to bankrupt the country.

American business and government have been cheating for decades; cheating the law, cheating consumers, cheating tax payers, and cheating millions of illegal immigrants. America has been abusing millions of Mexican nationals for decades. Now the bills are coming due. The position of business and government that the law doesn’t matter has resulted in a crisis. Does government now enforce laws that they have chosen to ignore for over a generation? Does the private sector understand the long-term cost of ignoring the law? Will the voters put up with much more of this idiocy?

If you don’t enforce existing laws, don’t expect any new laws to have any deterrent effect. If you don’t move significant numbers of Mexicans and Central Americans out of the U. S., expect them to assert political and popular influence, and not necessarily for the good of our nation. If the voters don’t like what the politicians are doing, expect a bunch of them to get fired.

Allowing millions of semi-literate, unaccounted for non-English speakers into our country is another example of modern American bone-headedness, sort of like electing Bill Clinton as President for two terms. You remember Bill Clinton, don’t you? He is the spineless wimp who will be forever remembered as the President who got his butt kicked by Fidel Castro over the Elian Gonzalez affair.

Hmm. Send the illegals to Castro. Now there’s a thought.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-22T11:29:00.000-07:00

The Big Bamboozle
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 21, 2006

Since the 1970’s, I have watched Denver taxi companies skillfully manipulate the political and legal system in Colorado to effectively divest themselves of their responsibility to actually deliver taxi service. They have become little more than urban sharecroppers. They collect rents, and complain that the cab drivers are dishonest and that there is nothing they can do about it. It’s not their fault. They are helpless victims in the whole mess.

Such is the Big Bamboozle.

It is interesting to study the dynamics of the relationship between the regulators and the regulated taxi companies. It is a classic case of seduction and manipulation. Denver taxi companies, like taxi companies around the world, have seduced government into believing that they are merely hapless victims of unreasonable laws and regulations while manipulating the regulatory agencies into taking on responsibilities that rightly belong to the taxi companies, such as policing the behavior of the drivers and answering complaints from dissatisfied citizens. The shift of responsibilities from the taxi companies to government has been extremely detrimental to the taxi drivers, the taxi companies, government, and most of all, to consumers. So, who benefits and how?

Owners and managers of taxi companies along with the lawyers and lobbyist make out like bandits in this urban sharecropping system. The managers are relieved of the primary duties of overseeing the delivery of service. The owners are relieved of major expenses and of the headache of fighting with the regulators over prices and other matters. The lawyers and lobbyist remain gainfully employed fighting off any attempts to reform the system. Not bad work if you can get it, especially when you know which person to influence in the appropriate manner at the appropriate time. Seduce and manipulate.

Considering that the Denver taxi market with worth between thirty million and forty million dollars a year in gross revenues, there is always enough money to pay the hired guns to preserve the status quo. Taxi companies complain that they don’t have money to deliver prompt, reliable service, yet they always have enough money to pay the lobbyists and lawyers to stifle any attempts at reform. The taxi industry worldwide is notorious for dishing out bribes. However, if lobbyists do their job of keeping the right people in the legislature, the Governor’s office, and the regulatory agencies in line, then bribes are not necessary.

While the behavior of the taxi companies is interesting in itself, the real phenomenon to watch is the behavior of government. You would think that government would be very concerned with fulfilling their mission, namely, to protect the public interest. However, the public interest doesn’t have lawyers and lobbyists. Government officials who actually have to take the heat day in and day out react to the Big Bamboozle by assuming the role of the Great Nanny, becoming grossly overprotective of the regulated companies, and assuming responsibilities that rightly belong to the regulated companies. Government repeatedly swallows--hook, line, and sinker--the taxi company canard that if they have to obey the laws, rules, and regulations, they will go out of business.

The answer to this nonsense is that the laws, rules, and regulations have taken all this into consideration, and that the answer is to adhere to the law, not to constantly grant taxi companies exemptions from the law. Government might also suggest, in their politest tone of voice, that the taxi companies hire managers who actually know how to manage, and not let the door hit the incompetent managers in the backside on the way out. In other words, the answer to the Big Bamboozle is to hold the taxi companies accountable for their behavior, not to constantly let them off the hook and have government assume responsibility for the failures of the taxi companies. Once government takes responsibility for the managerial failures of the taxi companies, there will be no end. As long as government assumes more and more responsibility for the taxi companies, the taxi companies will eagerly hand over more responsibility, and more of the expenses of managing taxi companies, to government.

The worst thing that can happen to any government agency is to appear to be unnecessary. The Big Bamboozle serves the needs of the regulators by making them look necessary. Rather than hold the taxi companies accountable for their failures to provide service and adequate working conditions for their drivers, regulators choose to ride to the rescue of the taxi companies by granting liberal exemptions from the rules, and then by assuming many of the duties of management.

Over the years, I have watched Colorado government fly in headlong retreat from their own laws, rules, and regulations on the assumption that it is more important to keep any Denver taxi company from going out of business than it is to protect the public interest from abuses by taxi companies and taxi drivers. Saving the taxi companies from crippling laws and from their own mismanagement allows government to argue that they are necessary.

This dysfunctional relationship between government and public utility taxi companies reminds me of the books I have read on incestuous relationships within dysfunctional families. Everyone within the relationship must keep the actual goings on a secret. The Big Secret then becomes the driving force within the relationship. Outsiders must be kept away. No one must ever speak of it. Lying is accepted, expected, and ultimately demanded.

The relationship between the Denver taxi companies and the Colorado regulatory system looks like a dysfunctional, incestuous relationship to me. No one in the taxi companies or in government is allowed to talk about the Big Secret. So, what’s the Big Secret?

The Big Secret is that the taxi companies are leasing their licenses to the drivers in violation of Colorado law, that the PUC knows about it and is a party to it, and that everyone involved in the system, all the way up to Governor Owens, knows what is going on. Worst of all, everyone involved knows that the public suffers because of this, and no one in the system has the nards to blow the whistle on the whole thing. All they want to do is circle the wagons, keep telling the Big Lie about the Big Bamboozle, and hope that they can keep the lid on the whole thing just a little while longer.

Too late. Time’s up.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-22T11:21:00.000-07:00

Attila Goes to Washington
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 21, 2006

What do you suppose would happen if you handed the U. S. Constitution to Attila the Hun? That’s right. Attila would wipe his back side with it and keep on pillaging and generally behaving barbarically. The Constitution would have no civilizing influence on Attila because there would be no enforcement and no education. Without education in the principles of property rights and the Rule of Law and without actual enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution, it is little more than a piece of paper.

No population can succeed in self-government until they adopt the idea of personal self-restraint and until government enforces laws that mandate personal self-restraint. American culture has been hostile to self-restraint since the 1960’s.

Large segments of the American population, including lawmakers and law-enforcers, have abandoned the idea of enforced self-restraint in favor of an anything goes outlook. They think that the ability to do as you damned well please is more important than the greater public good. After all, this is a free country, right?

Not exactly. We cannot have absolute freedom without absolute anarchy. Under the Rule of Law, we retain those freedoms that are most important to us in exchange for other freedoms that are less important. For example, I preserve the limited freedom to vote for candidates and issues on the ballot in exchange for the absolute freedom to rampage through the streets and set fire to everything.

The question I pose is: Can the Rule of Law survive the barbarizing influences of mass media and American popular culture, war with fanatical fascist Moslems, and the influx of millions of semi-literate non-English speaking people who think that liberty means obedience?

If the Rule of Law cannot survive, then our Republic cannot survive. It will be no different than handing the Constitution to Attila the Hun.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

2006-04-18T18:56:00.000-07:00

Entertaining the Masses
Opinion © 2006, by Guy L. Evans

April 18, 2006

It occurs to me after listening to the babbling heads in the Bush-hating media that they are more entertaining than convincing, and that they misinterpret their audience’s approval of their entertainment as support for their political posture. The audience’s applause is in response to being entertained, not an indication that they have been persuaded.

Michael Moore serves as a fine example of this misunderstanding. The enthusiastic response to his propaganda pieces thinly disguised as documentaries has convinced Moore that he is being taken seriously. In light of the fact that it is impossible to take anything Michael Moore says seriously, Moore has managed to convince himself that he is much more influential than he actually is.

Many in the Hollywood loony left believe the same of themselves. It does not occur to them that it is not possible for any audience to take seriously such unserious tirades as the Hollywierdo’s and their fellow travelers consistently deliver. Anyone who mistakes entertainment for education is not capable of reasoning.

I think that people who mistake entertainment for education are looking for some emotional pay out from the event. They seek entertainment to escape feelings of anxiety and helplessness. Any show that provides emotional relief will satisfy this need, regardless of how senseless or impotent the actual content of the message. I think this pretty well sums up hippy-ism: Peace, love, understanding, and most of all, total escape from reality.

Rhetoricians throughout history have understood that entertaining the audience is one way to get the crowd on your side. They seem less aware of the fact that audiences are fickle, and when the audience is no longer entertained, they tend to kill the speaker.

Perhaps those who choose to slander public figures may want to consider that he who lives by slander dies by slander.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado