Get your own Free Home PageSuppose six foreign nations told the United States: Grant Puerto Rico full autonomy or we will slap you with trade sanctions and arms embargoes, and we will freeze any assets you have overseas.
Would you think that was an invasion of our sovereignty? I would think that, and I would tell the six foreign nations to butt out.
So why is the United States demanding that Serbia grant autonomy to one of its provinces, Kosovo? And threatening Serbia if it doesn't comply with our wishes. Serbia has a legitimate claim on Kosovo. That is more than we can say about Puerto Rico, which we just snapped up at gunpoint without so much as a pretense of asking the Puerto Ricans what their wishes were.
If you are a normal American, you probably never heard of Kosovo, which is perfectly OK. Kosovo, a small province of a little more than 4,000 square miles, was first under Serbian rule long before North America was even discovered. The Serbs themselves arrived in the areas they currently occupy in the 7th century A.D.
Theirs is a long and complex history full of great triumphs and great tragedies. You might say the Serbs have about 1,200 years of experience in warfare.
But what is key to Serbs in regard to Kosovo is that it was there that the great battle of Kosovo took place on June 15, 1389. The Ottoman Turks were pushing west. The Serbs had scored some initial victories, but at Kosovo they lost catastrophically. Prince Lazar, their leader, was captured and beheaded. The Turkish sultan, Murad I, also died in the battle. Fifty-nine years later at Kosovo, a joint Hungarian-Serbian army was defeated again by the Turks.
Turkish rule left deep scars. All Serbs were made slaves of the land. One Turkish ruler told his underlings in Serbia that they could kill any Serbian man they wished and sell the women and children as slaves.
The remarkable thing about Serbian history, however, is that they never stay defeated very long. They have a remarkable capability to resist their conquerors and were a pain in the Ottoman empire's tender parts for four centuries. Russia's ties to the Serbs date back to 1774, when Turkey formally acknowledged Russia's claim to champion Orthodox and Slav interests in the Ottoman Empire.
The point of all this is that Serbs have been around as a nation about three times longer than we have. They adopted Orthodox Christianity about 879 A.D. They were trying to institute a more democratic government long before we were even a nation.
It therefore ill behooves the American diplomats to insult and patronize the Serbs. And it is stupid to underestimate the Serbs. Why the United States decided to make the Serbs the villains in the Western-sponsored breakup of Yugoslavia is a mystery to me, though it could be as simple as the Croats', Muslims' and Albanians' hiring of a public-relations firm in Washington.
The Kosovo problem is difficult because about 90 percent of the population are an Albanian-speaking people. The Western powers, including the United States, already have committed a stupid blunder. By displaying their animosity toward Serbia and demanding that it grant Kosovo autonomy, they have encouraged the Albanian separatists to resort to violence. Why not? All the Albanians have to do is provoke Serbia, and the Western powers will intervene on their behalf.
No great power should ever put itself into a position to be manipulated by a minority of extremists, but that is exactly what the U.S. has done. President Clinton's comic-opera team of amateurs, however, will be making a big mistake if it thinks that Serbia will give up Kosovo. But then blundering is what Clinton's folks do best.
Everybody has his or her own theory about why Bill Clinton remains popular. My theory is that, early on, Clinton chose to be a celebrity rather than presidential.
People have low expectations of celebrities, especially these days, when the antics of most entertainers would embarrass Caligula. So, by becoming a celebrity rather than acting presidential, Clinton insulated himself from a lot of criticism.
In the professional world of political campaigns, there is an old saying that if you choose to go the ``white hat'' route, even a small spot will show up. But if you go the ``black hat'' route, it's harder to get hurt by the mud.
That's just another way of talking about expectations. If a candidate or officeholder presents an image of a righteous, moral person, then even a relatively small scandal will come as a shock. The public doesn't expect that of a righteous, moral person. We are not surprised that Clinton may have had a dalliance with an intern; we would be if the charges were made against Billy Graham.
Going on television and doing an imitation of the Blues Brothers; sitting around, talking about smoking marijuana; discussing his preference in underwear; and jogging through the streets with his fat, white thighs jiggling in the wind is not presidential. Clinton is clearly more associated with Hollywood -- look at the guest lists of his state dinners -- than with statesmanship.
It is also true, of course, that relative prosperity helps. Presidents actually have very little to do with the economy, but if it goes bad, they get the blame, and if it's good, they get the credit.
An economic slump will do a lot more damage to Clinton's popularity than anything the special prosecutor comes up with. The worst Kenneth Starr can do is present evidence that Clinton suborned perjury and obstructed justice. But that all hinges on covering up a sexual dalliance rather than some crime committed against the Constitution or the people.
Many Americans probably would say, ``Well, so what? He was just trying to keep Hillary from finding out about it and beaning him with a flower vase.'' Lying about betraying a spouse is something many Americans, male and female, have done. They will not likely consider it to be a high crime and misdemeanor even though technically it could be so construed.
And because the chief characteristics of the Republicans are that 1. they stand for nothing and 2. they are gutless, it is highly unlikely they will pursue impeachment.
Yes, the public has low expectations of Clinton. He reminds me of the guy who came home late one night, hoping to sneak in, but was confronted by his angry wife, demanding to know where he had been.
The man, thinking the jig was up, confessed that he picked up a girl in a bar and went to a motel.
``Don't lie to me, you dog,'' said his wife. ``I know you. You were out with that sorry Bill and Harry, playing poker again.''
Clinton is just about that lucky. The late James McDougal said the Clintons were like a tornado. They come into people's lives, wreck them and then move on.
I have no doubt at all that if some assassin tried to shoot Clinton, God forbid, he would bend over to tie his shoe at just the right moment, and the bullet would hit somebody else. It is certainly safer to be Clinton than to be around Clinton -- at least in this life.
I ran into a cynic the other day. It's easy to be cynical, especially if you are aware of the sorry state of affairs in Washington, D.C.
But cynicism, like pessimism and optimism, are internal feelings and attitudes and have no effect whatsoever on the outside world. Whatever our internal feelings and attitudes are, the world is as the world is. The only people these feelings and attitudes affect are ourselves.
Now, because neither cynicism nor pessimism make you feel good, why not choose optimism and faith, which make you feel better?
For a nation of folks, many of whom seem to be obsessive about their personal happiness, you would think that more people would have figured out that whether one is happy or unhappy is largely a matter of making the decision to be one or the other.
Yes, I know there are exceptions to that generalization. There are some pathological conditions of the brain that make people with that illness feel depressed whether they choose to be or not. But clinical depression is a lot more infrequent than the drug-peddling industry would have you believe.
There is also the normal amount of pain and grief that all humans, being flesh and mortal, must endure. Although we cannot avoid pain, grief and finally death, we can control our attitude toward those things.
An irascible Frenchman, the Constable de Montmorenci, dismissed offers of assistance when he received a mortal wound saying, ``I have not lived 80 years without learning how to stand dying for a quarter of an hour.''
The poet Alexander Pope, ever the wit, said on his deathbed, ``I am dying, sir, of a hundred good symptoms.''
And then there are those immortal words of a sergeant to American soldiers reluctant to leave the safety of the trench, ``What's the matter with you guys? Do you want to live forever?''
The worst thing about cynicism and pessimism is that they are debilitating. The cynic and the pessimist have fled the field. They have quit the struggle. They have surrendered to the enemy, or, as we say in the South, they've skedaddled and high-tailed it. Then like a slimy, traitorous fifth column, they spend their worthless time trying to demoralize those who still fight.
``It won't work.'' ``It doesn't make any difference what you do.'' ``They're too powerful.'' Etc. and so forth, to quote the stage version of the King of Siam.
Well, part of the Anglo-Celtic heritage is that no person of honor ever makes the decision to fight or submit based on the probability of victory. You fight for the right, win or lose. In the end we all die, and it is better to die on one's feet, defending the right, than on one's knees, kissing evil's smelly backside -- whether the fight is physical, political or intellectual. And, as for economic outcomes, Stonewall Jackson's chaplain, R.L. Dabney, said truthfully that ``only atheists define success in money terms.''
Besides all that, the cynics are just flat wrong. For every louse, I can show you a noble human; for every coward, a brave one; for every crook, an honest person; for every whore and whoremonger, chaste people who honor their vows. There are still people who value their honor more than their lives, much less mere comfort or money. Most of them wear uniforms, and few go into politics, but there are plenty out there, civilian, military and law enforcement.
Americans should never give up the belief that wrongs can be righted, that the disloyal and the immoral can be replaced by the loyal and the moral, that difficulties can be overcome, and that problems can be solved. Let's charge, not slouch, into the new millennium. It ain't final until the sun don't rise.
A nice lady wrote recently that, although she liked my column, she sure wished I would stop bashing President Clinton.
Well, ma'am, I shall accommodate you -- at least as far as Mr. Clinton's sexual predations are concerned. Frankly, not only am I so disgusted with this guy that I can no longer bear to look at his image or hear his oily voice, I'm bored with the perpetual scandals.
Keeping up with Clinton is like being trapped in a time warp where every day is the same. Accusation, denial, slime the critic, appoint a special prosecutor. Accusation, denial, slime the critic, appoint a special prosecutor. Over and over and over.
It would require a data base and a spreadsheet to keep up with the accusations, denials, guilty pleas, convictions and investigations, not to mention the incessant chattering of an army of lawyers that seems to spend more time on television than in a courtroom. Clinton's sins have turned into an industry. That may well be his legacy -- he industrialized sin.
The situation is the same as if a bunch of buzzards decided to roost on the presidential faces carved into Mount Rushmore. It would be pointless to report on a daily basis which buzzard perched on Teddy Roosevelt's ear, which one pooped on Tom Jefferson's nose, which one built a nest in George Washington's ear. The solution is get rid of the buzzards -- all of them.
The solution is to get the Clintons out of the White House -- peacefully and lawfully, of course. I still remember back in 1992 a man from Arkansas who was at a meeting where, in a speech, I expressed some optimism that Clinton might not be a bad president. The man laughed and said, ``We've been trying to get rid of him for 10 years. Good luck.'' Sir, you spoke truth to my error.
Until the grand exit, if you want to keep up with the scandals, go watch television. I'm finished with them until there is an indictment or an impeachment process started.
In the meantime, there are a few things you ought to think about other than the latest box-office figures for the movie Titanic:
1. Congress is up to its old fiscally irresponsible ways again -- overspending a nonexistent surplus.
2. The power and readiness of the American military continue to decline.
3. The Senate is about to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and thus hurt any hope of nuclear disarmament.
4. The dying Middle East peace process is gasping like a fish on a hot pier, thanks to the fact that the Israeli lobby seems to own the United States government. If I had known that the government was for sale, I might have bid 25 cents myself.
5. The immigration problem remains unresolved. We are adding the equivalent of a new Miami every year, and one is more than enough.
6. The USG (that's the federal government) is getting deeper and deeper into the Balkans, which is about as safe and sensible as deciding to groom monkeys infected with the Ebola virus.
7. Some folks in Washington are talking about expanding Medicare before it is rescued from pending bankruptcy. That's as smart as deciding to climb Mount Everest wearing only your underwear.
8. Special interests, it has been reported, spent $100 million in just the first six months of 1997 lobbying Congress. Wonder why you have a hard time getting your congressman's attention?
9. Jesus will probably return to Earth before Congress simplifies the tax code, at the rate Congress is going now.
I normally do not recommend litigation, but there are two class-action lawsuits that I think should be filed in conjunction with the pending settlement with the tobacco companies.
The first is by the smokers in any state that has sued the tobacco companies. They should sue the state government. If selling cigarettes has caused injuries and death, then the state government, which licensed the sale of those cigarettes and profited from the sale of those cigarettes, should be equally liable.
It is impossible for the tobacco companies to be guilty if the state that permitted, condoned and profited from the sale of tobacco is innocent. Seems to me the state is equally liable for any injuries caused by smoking.
The second class-action suit should be filed on behalf of Medicaid recipients.
There is a thing in lawyer-land called standing. Let's say my neighbor is run over by a truck. I can't sue the truck driver and his employer, because I have no standing -- I was not the injured party. In other words, to have standing to sue, you have to establish that the party you wish to sue actually caused you some injury.
To get standing, many of the states went into court with the assertion that cigarette smoking injured Medicaid recipients and therefore caused the state to spend more money on their treatment.
Well, if that's so, then all of the settlement, less attorneys' fees, should go to Medicaid.
After all, the state did not purport to have standing because cigarettes injured state transportation or public education or general administration or all the other things greedy politicians plan to spend the tobacco money on. Nope. The state said cigarettes injured the Medicaid recipients and caused the state to spend more money on their treatment.
OK, pay for Medicaid and nothing else.
Seems to me that in this colossal rip-off engineered by greed-maddened politicians and trial lawyers, the only folks not benefitting are those who are supposed to be the injured parties -- smokers and the Medicaid program.
You do realize, I hope, that this national hysteria and lynch-mob attitude toward tobacco companies is looney. Go to any good encyclopedia. Find the volume with T-stuff in it. Read the section about tobacco. You will find out that folks have been talking about the bad-health effects of smoking tobacco since about the day after it was first brought to Europe from the Western hemisphere in the 16th century. British scientists in the 1930s linked cigarette smoking to lung cancer.
In short, no rational person can purport to have been duped, deceived or misled by tobacco companies. Tobacco is tobacco. You want to smoke or chew, go ahead. It is what it is and does what it does. Same as liquor or anything else. Don't try to shift the blame for your own decisions and actions to someone else. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to buy cigarettes and smoke them.
It is looney for governments to subsidize, promote the export of, license for sale and tax cigarettes while at the same time screaming and hollering about how bad cigarettes are and how evil the companies that make them are.
Hey, politicians, you could have banned them. Because you chose not to, you can't blame tobacco companies for selling a perfectly legal product in a package with a clear warning on it about the potential bad-health effects. To do so is plainly irrational and unjust. You are as guilty or as innocent as the tobacco companies are.
The House has passed a bill that would allow Puerto Ricans to vote in a plebescite. They could choose statehood, the current commonwealth status or independence. The Senate ought to pass the bill and let them vote.
Before we consider this issue -- and all others, really -- we ought to ask ourselves if we are thinking on the basis of facts and the principles of justice or on the basis of prejudice.
Now I'm not one of those thought-police types who thinks that prejudice is a near-capital offense. There isn't a human being on Earth who doesn't harbor prejudice. Prejudice, after all, is just an opinion, and people can be prejudiced in favor of a group or against a group. The human brain cannot help forming generalizations.
The key thing to understand is that prejudice is an opinion too often based on insufficient data. Our brains do operate somewhat like computers. Our senses collect data, primarily images (real or fictional), and all are stored in a relational data base of sorts -- our memory.
For example, suppose the only contact you had ever had with Puerto Ricans was with street gangs you saw on television. That's the data that would be stored, and when something writes Puerto Rico in your ``search box,'' your data base would produce the only data it had -- images of gang members. On the other hand, if you were a fan of Pablo Casals, the great Puerto Rican cellist, a search would produce memories of Casals and his music.
No kidding. For years before I ever met a Puerto Rican, the words always triggered in my mind images of the great actor Jose Ferer, who won an Academy Award for his performance as Cyrano de Bergerac. Ferer, like many prominent people Americans know through their art, was born in Puerto Rico.
Any group, of course, will encompass the whole range of human behavior from criminal to saint. But humans have an odd quirk that can turn innocent prejudice into something ugly. We all know that our own group has bad guys, but we don't then conclude the whole group (including us) is bad guys. Too often, however, we will conclude that other groups are all bad guys just because of a few individuals. At any rate, prejudice is the enemy of clear thinking and justice. We ought always to delete it from our mental computers when we find it.
Now back to the issue. Puerto Ricans deserve an opportunity to determine their own status. They have a long history. In 1898, when the American elite got the crazy notion it wanted an empire like the British had, they looked around and saw that Spain was the weakest of the colonial powers and declared war. We invaded Puerto Rico (a year after, by the way, Luiz Munoz-Rivera won from Spain the right to set up an autonomous government) and other Spanish possessions and just took them. It was a violation of our own principles and a violation of their rights. Therefore we have no right to deny the Puerto Rican people the opportunity to choose their own destiny.
Personally, I think that they would choose either to retain the commonwealth status or statehood rather than independence. For reasons I don't understand, the independence movement has not been very strong lately. But whatever they choose is OK with me and their right.
Puerto Ricans have been American citizens since 1917. They have lived with us in peace, fought beside us in war, contributed to our art and culture. It's foolish to talk about problems of integrating Puerto Rico into America if it becomes a state. It already is integrated. Nor would language be a problem. A lot more Puerto Ricans than some critics think know and speak English and have for years. While the official language of the American government should be English, there is nothing wrong with Americans speaking whatever language they please in private life.
Want to know the definition of a stone-cold bigot?
It's anybody who is ``offended'' by the sight and sound of someone practicing, expressing or proclaiming his or her religious faith.
Such people are not only bigots, they are the south end of a horse traveling north. Their intolerance is exceeded only by their ignorance of the Constitution.
The First Amendment forbids the establishment of an official church or religion. Period. Nothing else. To establish an official church or religion would require legislation so designating it and taxes and appropriations to subsidize it. That's all Thomas Jefferson meant when he said there was a wall of separation between church and state.
You have to be an idiot to conclude otherwise because the same people who wrote and passed the First Amendment also provided for tax-paid chaplains to pray in Congress. The problem the founders of the country dealt with is nonexistent today in America. It was the common practice of governments in their day to adopt a church and to tax everyone to subsidize it. The practice had been brought from Europe to the Colonies.
But a private individual or a public official praying in a school or any other public place is not establishing an official church. For someone to say the mere sight of a Christian proclaiming his faith in a public place is ``offensive'' is to indict himself as a vicious bigot and an inconsiderate, self-centered boor. These boors apparently have no conception of civility and respect for others. They act as if religious faith were an infectious disease.
One of the most touching sights I saw in the Middle East was a poor man, a Muslim, in shabby clothes, kneeling on a newspaper (the only prayer rug he could afford) on the tarmac of the airport in Amman, Jordan, saying his evening prayers. His example of simple faith in his God touched my heart. He was as oblivious to the crowd of people and soldiers as he was to the cold wind and hard tarmac. He had a beautiful expression on his grizzled face. Clearly, here was man communing with the God he loved, and God must surely love such a man.
Truthfully, I cannot conceive how any decent human being could say that such a sight is ``offensive.'' People who find other people's religion offensive are demonstrating their hatred, not their interest in liberty.
The only way a free society can work is for everyone to respect everyone else. There is no respect when someone says, ``Your religion is offensive to me, so keep it out of my sight.'' That is hate speech. Nor is it being disrespectful to practice your own religion or to pray as your particular religion teaches you to pray.
I don't know about you, but I've had a bellyfull of rude, self-centered people. It's time to teach some people in this country some simple manners. Good manners are based on reciprocity. Respect for respect. Tolerance for tolerance. There are some who use Orwellian doublespeak and practice bigotry while proclaiming their support for tolerance. We should expose such people for what they are -- bigots.
If you are a nonbeliever and are present when believers are praying, don't pray. But out of respect and courtesy for them as human beings, don't be rude or make ugly remarks about them. Respect people as people, even if they practice a different religion. And respect their religion.
I'm fed up with seeing religious people browbeaten and insulted by bullies packing lawyers. We have too many mean-spirited tails trying to wag our dog in this country, and it may be time to bob some tails.
Get your own Free Home Page