Opinion

Dear Editor,

A Reader's Column comment in the May 18, 2014 edition proclaimed annoyance that some Native Americans may be insulted by the team name Washington Redskins. The commenter also likened the use of Blue Devils or Saints to offensive terminology disrespecting their Catholic beliefs.

Rest assured, the individual commenting is not likely a Devil nor a Saint and probably not Blue. Furthermore, they are conflating two different issues. Comparing the use of Catholic symbolism with derogatory comments about fellow human beings is extremely insensitive.

While my research has found that the term redskin may not have begun as a negative or demeaning phrase, it has culminated in being both. Centuries of attempted extermination of tribes starting with Columbus and continuing through the twentieth century with forced government boarding schools could be why some Natives feel insulted.

Often, American soldiers followed orders to deliver gifts of blankets to the Natives knowing the blankets were contaminated with smallpox. In 1863 a Minnesota paper printed this announcement, "The state reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth." Also, there was Wounded Knee (1890) where hundreds of unarmed Lakota were massacred, including women and children.

Centuries of trauma have been inflicted upon these people in the name of civilization. From 1870 until 1970 (into the 1980's in Canada) children were stolen from their homes at 5 years old and sent to live in government boarding schools. There, the priests and nuns abused them - physically, sexually, mentally, - and tried to beat the Indian out of them. Visits from family were not tolerated. Speaking their Native language was punished. Some children were starved to death. Healthy children were forced to play and sleep with children infected with tuberculosis. Canadian boarding schools have been found to be responsible for the murder of at least 50,000 Native children. Assuming American boarding schools were any different would be naïve.

This genocide started with the first Europeans to land in this hemisphere and continued for hundreds of years into this lifetime. Knowing this, one can understand if some Native Americans are insulted by the term redskin. An ounce of compassion could be all that is needed to heal the Native's deep spiritual wounds.

What difference would it really make to change the football team's name and image? Probably none. I'll even offer an alternative name for them. It's Washington's other favorite past time. Let's call them the Washington Warmongers.

A Hopeful Voluntarist,




 

Dear Editor,

In light of the weekly name calling and finger pointing that occurs in The Reader's Column concerning the differences of our two political parties, maybe it is time for us to consider their similarities. I have compiled a short list to illuminate how like most humans, Republican and Democrat politicians are more alike than different.

1. Both parties aggressively steal from us every day. This theft is disguised as taxation.

2. Left and Right alike make regulation and legislation based on their “superior” knowledge which trample our human liberties and deny our prosperity.

3. Both sides agree that possessing a green, leafy plant is a crime. Consequently, you will be locked up with violent criminals for this behavior.

4. Left and Right - might makes right. Both parties gleefully wage international wars to spread their “correct” form of government.

5. Republicans and Democrats in office earn more money than the average American. Their friends have even more money. These friends “donate” some of their money to Left and Right in order to influence their decisions and get them re-elected.

6. Each party knows it is in their best interest to maintain control of us. This is started early, at the age of 5, with compulsory public schooling where we are indoctrinated and subordinated daily for 13 years.

7. Both sides appease us with “free” benefits like welfare, social security, food stamps, government cell phones and endless other subsidies.

8. Republicans and Democrats know that independent organizations can provide better goods and services at much lower costs and both insist government does it better.

9. Both parties allow and encourage their friends with lots of money to pillage the earth and harm the environment in an attempt to get more money.

10. Republicans and Democrats love to overspend taxpayer dollars and have crippled our nation with debt. They then steal more of our money via taxation to “pay” this debt.

11. Left and Right are both aware that if the majority of us finally see their illusion of safekeeping for what it really is – enslavement and thievery- we would put them out of business and send them packing to Antarctica.

There are undoubtedly hundreds, perhaps thousands of similarities but the list would be too long for this column. Instead of quibbling over the few differences of our Republican and Democrat politicians, let's embrace their many likenesses! 

A Hopeful Voluntarist, 

 

Dear Editor,

With the advent of the internet two decades ago I had hoped most Americans would take advantage of it's benefits, the most important being the abundance of information. With last week's single letter to the editor declaring the Obama cabinet “anarchist” I find myself corrected. While Mr. Zechman didn't explain his definition of anarchism, there was negativity attached to it in his letter.

Being an anarchist, it's insulting to be likened to any presidential administration. Please stop comparing anarchists to fascist warmongers; they are polar opposites.

If one uses Google and types the word anarchy they will find two definitions. The first definition is what most are taught by their Federal and State run compulsory school systems and reiterated by our political mouthpieces called news media. This definition is, “a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.” This is blatant fear mongering. Obviously government teaches this definition to their populace to legitimize itself. If an entire country's people knows that Statism is unnecessary, then the status quo is rendered obsolete.

The second definition displayed is, “absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.” Mr. Zechman stated, “I love my country and its freedom and liberty.” Anarchy is the essence of complete liberty.

If you look a little further at the Greek roots of the word you will find the most basic, original definition which is an 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler'. This is hardly a “state of disorder,” this is the absence of tyranny.

While I understand those supporting the State truly believe it is helping people and necessary, I would like to introduce another term.

Democide: "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder."

This occurs due to governments everywhere in many ways. Historically, it is found in Russia with the starvation of Ukranians from 1932- 1933. Indigenous populations slaughtered worldwide for centuries. The Rwanda genocide in 1994 killing between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people. WWII's Holocaust that could not have occurred if it weren't for the mass obedience training enforced by the Prussian public school systems which all public schools are now modeled after.

Some overlooked ones are people who are ill and can't get a new drug because it is pending approval by the FDA. Or the opposite, where hundreds of thousands of people are dying due to pharmaceutical side effects that have been approved. Police brutality is another example of State violence sometimes resulting in the loss of life. All are examples of democide.

As an anarchist, I prefer the world being free of oppression. Throughout history, governments are the biggest oppressors of humanity existing.

A Hopeful Voluntarist,



 

Dear Editor,

A Reader's Column comment in the December 7, 2014 Pennysaver called for “digital classrooms” which could “save enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars.” While I agree, the public school system is unlikely to go away soon, despite the advantages of self-directed learning and the informative ease of access internet technology has afforded individuals.

According to the Digest of Education Statistics (2011), the US spends $607.2 billion/year on public schools and employs 3,099,095 teachers. These figures are immense and prove the institution is big business. A bureaucracy of this magnitude will not disappear without a fight, regardless of it's ineptitude.

Even with such large sums, there are three scenarios imaginable which could bring the school machine to a halt.

1. The collapse of the dollar resulting in lack of school funding. 2. The disintegration of the State, voiding school attendance law. 3. The acquisition of mass social awareness culminating a movement of numerous parents withdrawing their children from school henceforth trusting the children to capably self-educate in their choice of subject matter.

Catastrophe one and two aren't likely to happen presently. The third proposition is equally discouraging.

Eight consecutive generations of State worship indoctrination within the confines of a church called School has rendered American society maniacally dependent. A nation addicted to experts and authority figures, waiting for them to determine every person's worth.

Americans no longer trust themselves or their ability to learn. From an evolutionary perspective, the survival of the species requires that humans continuously self-educate.

Countless studies have shown that instructing people what to learn and when to learn it does not result in gaining insight. Rather, it is an exercise in short term memorization for tests, rewarded or punished with grades. Each factoid is promptly forgotten making room for the next series of lessons; the cycle repeating throughout the school year.

Basing the premise for school on the notion that learning can only happen within a brick building, segregated by age, barely allowed to speak, move or question without teacher's permission is preposterous.

As the comment stated, self-directed learning “will be opposed by the teaching cabal” and also by 150 years of generational brainwashing. Unfortunately, social discord concerning school is not widespread enough to change the perception of knowledge and learning.

Until children are free to learn what they wish, the complex social problems endured will continue. Forcing minors into a prison environment, disguised as education, for the infraction of being young and helpless to change their situation, is nothing less than child abuse.

A Hopeful Voluntarist,



 Dear Editor,
 

I am writing to address a past letter by Mr. Joe Chartrand. While I admire his desire to reduce the area's school taxes, I feel a different perspective needs to be expressed. Frustration with the rising costs of the education system is certainly recognizing the symptoms of an illness, however it is not diagnosing the disease. The very nature of our public school systems, federally and state funded by tax dollars, is a monopoly. There is no competition for these schools. Yes, there are private schools and homeschooling is an option but these too must meet state and federal regulations.

With minimal research into how a monopoly works, one will quickly find that monopolies have little to no innovation and zero incentive to cut costs. The public school monopolies are our only option and we tax payers are forced to use their service. Our willingness to sit through school board meetings is not going to fix this problem. The disease is nationwide and far bigger than just our local school district.

If we truly desire to lower public school costs our battle is one of fundamentally shifting a philosophy of an entire nation. Persuading Americans that government funded public schools are not the answer is an overwhelming task, especially when the majority of us have been educated by these institutions and taught that it's the best way.

The only way to compel a monopoly to lower costs is to introduce competition. Competition comes from a free market. If schools were privately owned and operated we would have an enormous variety of schools to choose from and the costs would be drastically reduced. Furthermore, these schools would be competing for the best and brightest and our global education statistics would soar! Choices like these would benefit all students, the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy. The opportunity for every student to excel would be a priority for all of the schools simply to compete with each other. There would be a place for every child and their individual interests.

In addition, our teachers could benefit as well. With privately run schools the teachers have the incentive to strive for better teaching techniques which will result in them working at a better paying school. Free from the stifling pressure of state and federal mandates, our teachers' creativity would blossom and they could truly hone their craft. This healthy, constant competition by the teachers will continuously enhance our children's education.

Our current 'one size fits all' education system is failing our children and demanding more and more tax dollars to try and succeed. Requiring our communities to fund and utilize a service that is declining rapidly is absurd! If we want to effectively reduce the costs of educating our children the best option would be privatizing schools and eliminating the monopoly.

A Hopeful Voluntarist, 



 

Dear Editor,

A message in the Reader's Column read: “From Moms Demand Action: Did you know that in the fourteen months since the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., there have been at least 44 school shootings including fatal and nonfatal assaults, suicides, and unintentional shootings – an average of more than three a month. Of the K-12 school shootings in which the shooter's age was known, 70 percent (20 of 28 incidents) were perpetrated by minors. Among those shootings where it was possible to determine the source of the firearm, three-quarters of the shooters obtained their guns from home.”

While these statistics are tragic, what is the point being made? Upon visiting the Moms Demand Action website I found that the group wants “stronger laws and policies to save lives.” This may be a noble objective however, it is a misunderstanding of a deeper issue than gun laws. Blaming an inanimate object for complex social problems will solve nothing and create criminals out of law abiding citizens. There are other underlying factors involved in school violence that need to be examined.

First, the majority of Americans are schooled in government institutions. There is no free choice in what we learn, we are told what we must learn by authority figures. This system is based upon coercive force and promotes the violence we see in our society. If it weren't for this schooling, Americans wouldn't celebrate when our country spreads “democracy” across the globe at gunpoint. Solving the world's problems with violence is what we have been conditioned to believe is acceptable behavior. Public (government) school is a system based upon a punishment or reward mentality and the rewards are minimal. Currently in our local school our children are punished with lunch detention if they are found having a cough drop in their possession. This type of zero tolerance is not only ludicrous but also devoid of compassion and respect. It's no wonder young people get angry.

Second, 90% of the acts of school violence committed are done so by individuals who are on psychotropic drugs. Allowing another authority figure (a doctor) to compel parents to solve their children's emotional problems by giving them a pill is insane! As a parent it is imperative that we foster the development of vital coping mechanisms in our children, not simply cover up any symptoms they may have of being human. Children should not be harmed in this way. They deserve to have feelings, outbursts and the freedom to be themselves.

The deep-rooted social issues we witness stem from the violent system we are subjected to as citizens of this nation. We have been sufficiently schooled and systematically disciplined into the docile, obedient citizenry that a nation state needs to continue it's existence. When tragedies happen many are unable to solve the problems. Instead, most look to an authority figure. Conversely, without relying upon authoritarian decision making perhaps we could try empathy, compassion and understanding when dealing with our fellow human beings.

A Hopeful Voluntarist,

Dear Editor,

The quote from Chris Hedges' speech “The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies” in last week's Reader's Column, was on point about fascism. Unfortunately, after listening to the full speech I realized Hedges is promoting Communism. He blames solely corporations for the misery existing in the world and ignores the role of the State granting those corporations special privileges and not holding them accountable when they create a disaster or cause human hardship.

The goal of these multinational corporations is exactly the same as Mr. Hedges' - world communism. The corporate elites in society along with world leaders have been planning this for over 100 years. Either Hedges is an unwitting accomplice or he is preaching to the proletariat how to save the world from fascism via communism on corporate behalf.

The Club of Rome (just one of the elitist's many organizations) was founded in 1968 at Accademia dei Lincei in Rome, Italy. It consists of current and former heads of state, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists and business leaders from around the globe.

The first report produced by the Club of Rome was “The Limits to Growth” (1972) and was succeeded by “The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome,” (1991) and intended as a blueprint for the 21^st century.

Following, are two quotes to demonstrate the elite mentality. The first admits creating anthropogenic climate change and the second concedes that politics are a joke.

1. “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that ... the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” — Club of Rome

2. “It is simply not good enough that access to leadership be achieved through good television performances and simplistic speeches aimed at manipulating the masses into enthusiastic support with empty promises and avoidance of realities.” --- Club of Rome

This can be stopped. Do not be afraid of examining the reality of the world no matter how distressing. As Lao-tzu said, “There is no greater illusion than fear...Whoever can see through all fear will always be safe.”

A Hopeful Voluntarist,