The History of Music in Five Minutes!

Lift Up Your Head O Ye Gates - Handel (I've been tagged!)

All right, I've been tagged by Graydon. One little exception to the rules I have made is that if a song in my playlist has no real 'name' (as many of them do) except numbers such as 'Symphony 3 in E Flat Op. #45" I have skipped ahead to the next song. 

Enjoy!

Instructions:

1.Put your iPod/Playlist/CD Player on random shuffle
2. For each question, press the next button to get your answer.
3. YOU MUST WRITE THAT SONG NAME DOWN NO MATTER HOW SILLY IT SOUNDS!
4. Tag/Link 5 (or so) friends who might enjoy doing the meme as well as the person you got the meme from.

Here's my answers:

IF SOMEONE SAYS "IS THIS OKAY" YOU SAY?
The Stars and Stripes Forever - Sousa

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
The Bridge of Kazad Dum - Howard Shore  (Hmm, I like it)

WHAT DO YOU LIKE IN A GUY/GIRL?
Never Weather-Beaten Sail - Timothy Seaman

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE'S PURPOSE?
The Glory Days - Michael Giacchino (The Incredibles)

WHAT IS YOUR MOTTO?
Swing Low, Sweet Chariot/Balm in Gilead - Timothy Seaman (scary)

WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?
When You Believe - The Prince of Egypt Soundtrack (Oh, come on, I have more potential than that!)

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?
Tryn' to Love Two Women - The Oak Ridge Boys (Ouch)

WHAT IS 2+2?
Cab Ride to Kingston - Gaelic Storm

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BEST FRIEND?
O Holy Night - Celtic Woman (???)

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Following Tzipporah - The Prince of Egypt Soundtrack (My that's handy, all I have to do now is find someone named Tzpporah and I'll know I like her.)

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?
Skating - Vince Guaraldi (Charley Brown Christmas) (That's not very good, I can't skate to save my life)

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?
Drowsy Maggy/Radish Paddy - CBD (Zzzzzz)

WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
The Doors of Durin - Howard Shore (Cold and hard, cold and hard)

WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?
The Kings and Queens of Narnia - Harry Gregson Williams (Read: Spoiled)

WHAT WILL YOU DANCE TO AT YOUR WEDDING?
The Black Gate Opens - Howard Shore

WHAT WILL THEY PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?
The Soundtrack to Spy - Samuel Y (My favorite piece) 

WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTEREST?
Friends in Low Places - Garth Brooks (Not True.)

WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST SECRET?
Punjab Paddy - Gaelic Storm (If Paddy ever opens his mouth, I'm dead)

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?
Introduce a Little Anarchy - The Dark Knight Soundtrack (All right guys, confession time...)

WHAT'S THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN?
Billy the Kid - Aaron Copland

HOW WILL YOU DIE?
The New Greg - The Dialtone Soundtrack (Ah, yes, the alternative ending to Dialtone where Greg, instead of learning his lesson, becomes a mass murderer and kills all of the crew...)

WHAT IS THE ONE THING YOU REGRET?
Mr. Huph Will See You Now - Michael Giacchino (Not Mr. Huph! NOOOOOOO!!!!!)

WHAT MAKES YOU LAUGH?
The Crusades - Dr. George Grant (OK, it's a lecture, but it's still funny)

WHAT MAKES YOU CRY?
One Yellow Rose - Jeff Victor (With two yellow roses, I'm just fine, it's just one yellow rose *sniff*)

WILL YOU EVER GET MARRIED?
I've Got My Eye on You - Hans Zimmer

WHAT SCARES YOU THE MOST?
Pride and Prejudice (opening title music) - Carl Davis (I'm telling you when you hear those strains coming from the TV, it's every man for himself, run for your sanity!!!)

DOES ANYONE LIKE YOU?
Qui-Gon's Noble End - John Williams (I'll take that as a No)

IF YOU COULD GO BACK IN TIME, WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE?
The Unicorn Song - Brodingnagian Bards (But I don't even like unicorns.)

WHAT HURTS RIGHT NOW?
Augie's Great Municipal Band and End Credits - John Williams (Don't get it either)

WHAT WILL YOU POST THIS AS?
Lift Up Your Head O Ye Gates - Handel

The Gettysburg Address - 145 Years Today

More than 160,000 American solders fought in the Battle of Gettysburg. Lasting from July 1-3 1863, more than 7,500 men died, along with several thousand horses. Days later, the bodies were still out on the field, and were creating an overpowering stench. 

A wealthy local attorney named David Willis was of the opinion that the state should purchase some land and create a national cemetery for the dead. After writing to the Governor of Pennsylvania, Willis received authorization to to purchase 17 acres for the purpose suggested. 

David Willis had planned to dedicate the cemetery on October 23rd, and had invited famed orator Edward Everett to speak at the ceremony. However, Everett objected to such short notice and requested that the date be moved back roughly one month to Thursday, November 19th. 

As a last minute idea, Willis also requested President Abraham Lincoln to say a "few appropriate remarks" at the ceremony as well. Although Pres. Lincoln was given only seventeen days notice for the event, he accepted the invitation and arrived in Gettysburg the day before. 

At 9:30 AM on November 19th, a procession of dignitaries, townspeople and widows entered the cemetery and the ceremony began. Mr. Everett orated for two hours that morning, his first, humble sentences being:

"Standing beneath this serene sky, overlooking these broad fields now reposing from the labors of the waning year, the mighty Alleghenies dimly towering before us, the graves of our brethren beneath our feet, it is with hesitation that I raise my poor voice to break the eloquent silence of God and Nature. But the duty to which you have called me must be performed; — grant me, I pray you, your indulgence and your sympathy."

Mr. Everett's 13,607 word oration was well received and would probably have been remembered more in the annals of history were it not to be totally eclipsed a couple minutes later. After a hymn was sung, Abraham Lincoln slowly stood up, and delivered a short address. It was only ten sentences and 272 words long, but it has become to be one of the most famous speeches in American History: 

The Gettysburg Address.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Resurrecting the Mammoth

Would anyone like a pet mammoth? Well, if you've got $10 million dollars burning a hole in your pocket, you might just be able to get one. And I'm not talking about a run of the mill stuffed one, but the living, breathing sack of potatoes. 

According to the New York Times this morning, scientists have stated that they believe that they have the ability to isolate the mammoth genome (genetic code) from the hooves, horns, and hair left to us. If they were able to decode it, they should be able to slowly, over many generations, change an elephant egg into the equivalent of a mammoth egg and plant it into the uterus of a modern day elephant. Sort of the same technology that they used to make Roundup-resistant corn. Right now they're looking for the $10 million dollars that they estimate it will take to perform this experiment. 

These are some very interesting developments, and it's hard to form an opinion on them. I mean, who wouldn't get excited about the idea of seeing animals at the zoo that have been extinct for thousands of years? However, in spite of the 'coolness' factor, we should keep in mind that this technology, if highly developed, could be used for many other uses besides resurrecting really cool animals. 

For instance, many scientists are talking about isolating the genome of the neanderthal. I'm sure many anthropologists would give their back teeth to be able to study what they believe is a 'half human' missing link, however we should find that prospect scary and revolting. 

Another direction this could go is if this were applied to more recent people. One could envision a world where scientists were created out of the genome of Albert Einstein, political leaders created in the image of Caesar Augustus or Winston Churchill, and military generals developed out of the remains of of Napoleon or Alexander the Great. 

These prospects may be a little far fetched, but by this experimentation we are stepping in this direction. I'm not sure what the future of this will hold, but it is essential to remind ourselves in the meantime of the potential of a new technology to uses other than that which were sold to us. 

Update on Navy/Sonar Case

My readers may recall a past post entitled Navy vs. Environmental Procedure where I brought up the discussion of whether there should be limits on the Naval use of sonar in the presence of marine mammals. 

You may be interested to know that the U.S. Supreme Court just published their ruling on the case, and have decided in favor of the Navy 6-5. 

You can read an article about it HERE.

Blog Motto

Well, I'm back. I hope you've enjoyed reading about the different socialistic cliches and ideologies that have permeated our American society. I've had a couple of great weeks away from it all, which, as you all know, ended in the rather inglorious climax of watching our nation elect the most liberal candidate presented to it in years. More on that later.

However, I have had time to do a bit of reading, and in one of the books I have been going through by the name of Reel Spirituality, I came across a quote that I have decided to adopt as my blog motto:

--------------------------------------------

"The question is not what you look at, but what you see."

- Henry David Thoreau

-------------------------------------------

I feel as though it really speaks to the heart of what I try to do here, not simply providing information, but guiding the thoughts of my readers over tough issues in a biblically/freedom oriented way. 

Hope you like it!

ELECTION DAY!!! - Cliche #21

"Tell me, just what liberties have you lost?"

People who bemoan the loss of freedom have this cliche hurled at them repeatedly, not only by devotees of omnipotent government but my many so-called conservatives who think they are faring all right under the status quo. 

Anyone sensitive to what's going on politically in this and other countries is aware of lost freedom. Indeed, it is axiomatic that freedom is lost in direct ratio to the imposition of governmental restraints on productive and creative efforts; the more political controls, the less freedom. But to proclaim this conviction is to invite the question, "Tell me, just what liberties have you lost?" Unless one can respond intelligently he only lends credence to the fatal fallacy that we are suffering no loss of freedom.

Why is the question so difficult to answer? Because for one thing, it is impossible to describe erosion in precise terms. It is like asking a sexagenarian, "Just what abilities have you lost?" "Well," he reflects, "I can see, hear, smell, taste, feel, remember, think, walk, run, play golf - why, there are no lost abilities. I can do everything I could do in my youth." Yet, further reflection will reveal an erosion of most abilities. He has to wear glasses; his false teeth aren't quite as efficient as the teeth he once had; his walk isn't as spry; if he runs, he runs out of breath; his golf swing takes more out of him but puts less on the ball; and, frankly his memory has lost some of its keenness. But how to be precise in describing these erosions?

A rough - but not precise - measure of eroded freedom may be observed by the growing take of the people's earned income by government. It has now reached the all-time high of 35 per cent [now closer to 50 per cent], and grows apace! 

However innocently asked, "Just what liberties have you lost?" is a trick question. To devise a trick answer would only make this a contest in cleverness - no help in advancing an understanding of freedom. A logical and sensible response would be in the form of a rebuttal question, "Do you happen to have at the tip of your tongue a list of all the restraints to productive and creative action imposed by the federal government, the fifty state governments, and the more than 200,000 other units of government during the last thirty years? If you will recite these restraints, you will accurately answer your own question." The list, of course, is enormous.

While most of our lost freedom is in the form of a gradual and indefinable erosion, there are instances where the loss is already completed and, thus, can be specifically named. These instances, however, are not at all impressive or persuasive except to the few individuals to whom a specific instance applies. Suppose for example, one were to reply, " I have lost the freedom to plant all the tobacco I please on my own land." Who cares, except that infinitesimal part of the population who might want to grow tobacco? Or "I have lost the freedom to work for anyone at less than $1.25 an hour [minimum wage]." Again, who cares, except those unfortunate individuals whose services aren't worth this much? Or, "I have lost the freedom to pick up a passenger at the Greater Cincinnati Airport in my own taxicab." Who cares, except Cincinnati taxicab operators? Or, "I have lost the freedom to competitively price services rendered by my own railroad." Who cars, except the few owners of railroads? Or I have lost the freedom to raise whatever grain I please to feed my own chickens." Most voters don't raise chickens and, thus, have little concern for the plight of the few.

What is most important to any individual is not the freedom he personally has lost, but the freedom someone may need to do things beneficial for him and for others. This freedom we can assure to the unknown person only by giving it to everyone. 

LEONARD E. READ

One Day! - Cliche #20

"Equality should be enforced by law."

According to the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal." 

But man is a creature of limitations. He is limited as to height, weight, strength, health, intelligence, beauty, virtue, inheritance, environment, everything. Since these limitations vary from man to man, no man is equal to another, not physically, mentally, morally, or spiritually. In fact, all men are created unequal, except in one sense: All men are created equal under the Law. All men are equally subject to the same physical laws, the law of gravity, nutrition, growth, and so on. And all men are equally subject to the same moral laws: Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not kill, and the like. Since civil law is, or ought to be, an extension of moral law, all men should be equally subject to civil law. Whether a man is rich or poor, strong or weak, black or white, influential or a nonentity, should make no more difference under civil; law than under physical or moral law. This is what is meant by the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal under law.

Some well meaning people, however, observing the limitations and consequent inequalities among individuals, now seek to go beyond mere equality under law and to enforce equality by law. Whereas equality under law protects unequal persons equally, equality by law penalizes some and rewards others for being unequal. This is Marxism: From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Christ, on the other hand, said: "Sell what thou hat and give to the poor." The only difference is free will. Marxism is an attempt to achieve Christianity by force.

The Fair Employment, Fair Housing, Re-Training, and Public Accommodation bills, while motivated by Christian concern for the victims of prejudice, involve the taking of jobs, housing, funds, and accommodations by force from the rightful (although prejudiced) owners and bestowing them upon others in the cause of equality.

Such equality by law is wrong for three reasons:

First, it requires taking by force what belongs to another. This is stealing, and the Law is, "Thou shalt not steal." Worse, it threatens the owner with fine or imprisonment and actual death if he resists. This is killing or threat to kill  and the Law is, "Thou shalt not kill."

Second, if mere need or inequality confers upon the state the right to steal or kill, then each of us can, and many of us do,, demand that the state steal or kill in our behalf, for we are all needy and unequal. If it is right for the state to steal or kill on behalf of a minority, how much more right to steal or kill on behalf of the majority! Since the state is controlled by the majority, it is inevitable that the minority find itself legislated out of the very jobs, homes, subsidies, and accommodations sought through legislation. And life itself may be the cost! The liquidation of countless Kulaks in Russia and Jews in Germany was the foreseeable consequence of conceding to the state the right to steal and kill in the cause of equality. 

The only safety for minority and majority alike, since each of us is a minority, is to affirm and defend the individual's absolute and inviolable right to life, liberty, and property, including his right to hire, sell, accommodate, and subsidize whom he pleases. That a man is prejudiced in the exercise of these rights does not confer upon the state the right to initiate or threaten violence against him. Every man has a right to his prejudice, which is his opinion. He does not have a right to enact his prejudice into law. 

Third, being created unequal, the only equality a human can aspire to is perfection, moral and spiritual. Such perfection is achieved not by using force against my neighbor, but by using force against myself. If I set out to perfect society by perfecting my neighbor, I must ultimately kill my neighbor for only my neighbor has any power to perfect himself. But if I set out to perfect society by perfecting myself, and my neighbor does the same, there is some hope of a more perfect society. If perfecting myself is my goal, the fact that my neighbor is imperfect does not oblige me to kill him, but to tolerate his imperfections as an aid to perfecting myself. 

This, then, should be the goal of all individuals and groups. Instead of struggling outward for equality, struggle inward. Let us spend our energies enlightening ourselves and our own groups, beautifying our our own neighborhoods, curbing our own propensity to violence and crime. Instead of trying to cultivate virtue in others, concentrate on cultivating  virtue in ourselves. As this is done, true worth will command respect and the last barriers will fall. This goal can be achieved not by force and violence, applied by law from without, but only by free will and discipline exercised under law from within.

ROBERT W. BLAKE

2 Days - Cliche #19

"General Motors is too big."

[Note: Although General Motors is no longer the corporate behemoth that it was fifty years ago, I still think that this article is still very much relevant to our modern society in determining our attitudes towards businesses, such as Walmart, that seem just a tad too big.]

For several years now, a competitor of General Motors has gained national attention by claiming we would all be better off if that giant company were broken up by our government. His plan has been endorsed by several important people, including an influential senator who spends much of his time devising ways and means to accomplish the objective. 

Apparently, many millions of sincere Americans are quite willing to accept the "unselfish" efforts of these gentlemen to save us from the clutches of the world's largest industrial corporation. But before you and I join them, perhaps we should think a bit more deeply into this issue of bigness and the resulting power that General Motors has over us. 

As far as I know, there is not even one person in the entire United States who has had to buy anything from General Motors. If GM were closed down tomorrow, there would be only a temporary shortage of cars; for even that unselfish competitor who wants the government to break up General Motors would be happy indeed to double his own production. And so would the 12 other domestic producers of automotive vehicles. And, of course, all foreign producers would like nothing better than to triple their shipments of cars to the U.S. Similar sources of both domestic and foreign supply also exist for diesel locomotives and the various other products now sold by General Motors. 

There is only one reason you now buy any product. You think you are getting the most for your money. Otherwise, obviously, you wouldn't buy it. Thus the only thing the senator and the GM competitor wish to save you from is your freedom to patronize whomever you choose. 

When we consumers voluntarily choose to buy most of our cars from one company, that company necessarily becomes the largest in the industry. We consumers make that decision when we buy the cars. And the more we buy, the bigger that company will grow. The only way the government can stop that is to tell you and me we can't buy from whom we choose. That's what breaking up General Motors means- depriving you and me of freedom to buy what we please from whom we choose and in whatever amounts we can afford. 

I do not know nor care why you think a Chevrolet (or whatever) is a good bargain; that's your business, not mine. Personally, I prefer my little non-GM car. My sole concern here is that both of us shall continue to have absolute freedom of choice in the matter. 

There can be no freedom of choice, however, except in a free market. For if producers can't produce what they please - and if you and I can't patronize whom we choose - obviously we have all been deprived of freedom of choice. I am astounded at the number of intelligent people who can't understand that simple truism. When you get right down to it, there are only two ways we can ever be deprived of freedom. And both of them involve government in one way or another - either positively by laws against freedom of choice,  or negatively by the government's refusal to stop gangsters who interfere with our freedom to choose. 

If we consumers think General Motors is too big, to inefficient, or too anything else, we can easily change the situation. All we need do is stop buying GM products. Then the world's largest industrial company will go out of business within 90 days - and we will still have all the cars, trucks, finance companies, and locomotives we want. 

That giant corporation has no control over you and me in any way. It cant force us to buy anything. The secret of General Motors' "power" is its remarkable ability to produce what we fickle consumers most want to buy. A decision to stop that would be the perfect example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. 

In 1911, and again in 1920, powerful General Motors ceased to be the people's choice. In both instances, it almost went bankrupt. Only by reorganizing, bringing in new management, and borrowing large amounts of capital did it manage to stay in business. 

Meanwhile, Ford Motor Company had more than 60 per cent of the entire automobile market. And "Old Henry" was doing everything he could to get it all. Since the American people happily bought his "rough and ready" Model-T's by the millions, naturally his company became the largest in the industry. Then something happened - we ungrateful consumers began buying Chevrolets and Overlands. And we willingly paid double the price of a Model-T to get those enclosed cars with a new type of gear shift and a self-starter. In due corse, Ford Motor Company closed down - and stayed closed until its engineers could produce a car we consumers wanted.

That's the free market and progress. That's also freedom. And if you and I permit that senator and that GM competitor to "save" us from it, we will no longer be free to choose. We will lose the most effective and beneficial control ever devised - our right to determine with our purchases which company shall grow large and which shall fail. The government will then decide for us. And that, of course, is the opposite of freedom.

DEAN RUSSELL

3 Days - Cliche #18

"The way to peace is through the U. N."

One hundred years ago, the most perfect "United Nations" the world has ever know erupted into war. That organization had everything (and then some) that anyone could possible desire to insure the success of a central government over a group of independent states. 

The members of that particular United Nations all spoke the same language, Even so, they still used every weapon known to man to exterminate each other. 

They had the advantage of a common religious, racial, and cultural background. Even so, for four years they slaughtered each other at every opportunity. 

There were no restrictions against travel or trade among the member states. And still they did a superior job of killing each other. 

They had a "Charter" that was generally recognized as ideal for the purpose of uniting independent nations. And still they fought each other in one of the most destructive wars in history.

For years member states openly debated the issues that divided them. But as always happens when truly vital issues are discussed by politicians in public, the resulting inflammatory speeches for "history and home consumption" made the situation worse instead of better. 

Those United Nations had the most favorable opportunity yet known to man to prove the thesis that a formal organization can unite nations and preserve the peace when there is a major difference in the philosophies and aims of the member states. And as any objectve student of history and government could have predicted, events proved once again that it never works. 

You know, of course, that I am referring to the United States and our Civil War. But the same story (in essence) has happened hundreds and thousands of times throughout history - in Greece, in China, in France, in Russia, everywhere and in all ages. 

But in spite of that sad history, millions of my fellow citizens continue to put their entire faith in the United Nations as an instrument for world peace. "The United Nations is our last hope to avoid war," they sincerely plead. "Thus we just must support it, whatever the cost."

The reality of our situation is this. The peace of the world and the future of mankind rests today on one issue, and on one issue only: Can Russia and the United States co-exist on the same earth. I do not know the answer; I know only that our childish faith in a sterile organization has prevented us from facing the issue realistically. 

The time for wishful thinking is long past. The Russian and American camps are separated by fundamental philosophies and goals, not by the absence of a place to meet and to record any agreement the leaders may accept. 

The Russians are aware of this. That's why they have always realistically tolerated and used the United Nations when it advanced their cause, and denounced it totally when any decision went contrary to their wishes. Let us also begin to view that organization objectively. 

In our world, there are two fundamental concepts of government and human rights: (1) the source of rights is government itself; (2) rights come from a source other than government. 

These two concepts are best illustrated by the constitutions and practices of the Soviet Union and the United States. Here is a typical example from the Soviet Constitution:

"Article 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law: (a) freedom of speech; (b) freedom of the press; (c) freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings; (d) freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

"These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities, and other materiel requisites for the exercise of these rights."

Under the Soviet concept, all rights come from government. And thus it is the responsibility of government to specify what they are and to provide the people with the means to exercise them.

The other concept is found in our own Constitution: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." And "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . . shall not be violated." And no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Under the traditional American concept, all rights come from a source outside of government; the government is specifically forbidden to violate these pre-existing rights that belong to each individual. And since the rights do not come from government, obviously the state is not responsible for providing the people with the material means for exercising them.

The United Nations is unmistakably modeled on the Soviet concept of rights To a startling degree, its official documents use the same phrasing found in the Russian Constitution. That fact is discernible in the U. N. Charter itself, but the true philosophy if the United Nations is, of course, most clearly observed in the documents and proceedings of the operating units of the organization - UNESCO, the Commission on Human Rights, and so on. Here is a random sample from the Covenant of Human Rights, sometimes referred to as the "bill of rights" of the U. N.: 

"Article 21. The states parties to the covenant recognize the right of everyone to just and favorable conditions of work, including: (a) safe and healthy working conditions; (b) minimum remuneration which provides all workers: (1) with fair wages and equal pay for equal work, and (2) a decent living for themselves and their families; and (c) reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." 

Other sections of that covenant specify the right of everyone to "social security," "adequate housing," medical service," and so on. And all of them are paraphrased from the Soviet Constitution. Under the United Nations concept, all rights clearly come from government, and the government must thus provide all the people with the material means to enjoy them. 

As the chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Dr. Charles Malik, said, "I think a study of our proceedings will reveal that the amendments we adopted to the old texts under  examination responded for the most part more to the Soviet than to the Western promptings."

We American people sponsored and endorsed a completely alien concept of government when we joined the United Nations. But such a dramatic change seldom, if ever, happens overnight. I am convinced hat we American people really " joined the U. N." from 1930 to 1945, as we increasingly rejected the traditional American concept of government as a protector of pre-existing rights and decided instead that the government should become the source of these rights. 

If that is what we really want, we can have it. I am convinced that only a frantic search for world peace keeps us from seeing the United Nation for what it really is - a golden calf that induces blind worship instead of objective reasoning.

DEAN RUSSELL

4 Days - Cliche #17

"Wars bring jobs and prosperity."

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker's shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this, they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? A hundred dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $100 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $100 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace,was a public benefactor. 

Now let us take another look, The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $100 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $100 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer. 

The glazier's gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor's loss of business. No new "employment" has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye. 

So we have finished with the broken window. An elementary fallacy. Anybody, one would think, would be able to avoid it after a few moments' thought. Yet the broken-window fallacy, under a hundred different disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics. It is more rampant now than at any time in the past. It is solemnly reaffirmed every day by great captains of industry, by chambers of commerce, by labor union leaders, by editorial writers and newspaper columnists and radio commentators, by learned statisticians using the most refined techniques, by professors of economics in our best universities. In their various ways they all dilate upon the advantages of destruction. 

Though some of them would disdain to say there are net benefits in small acts of destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see "miracles of production" which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a world made prosperous by an enormous "accumulated" or "backed-up" demand. In Europe they joyously counted the houses, the whole cities that had been leveled to the ground and that "had to be replaced." In America they counted the houses that could not be built during the war, the nylon stockings that could not be supplied, the worn-out auto mobiles and tires, the obsolescent radios and refrigerators. They brought together formidable totals.

It was merely our old friend, the broken-window fallacy, in new clothing, and grown fat beyond recognition. 

HENRY HAZLITT

5 Days - Cliche #16

"Tax the rich to help the poor."

Few people realize it, but 84 per cent of all the revenue obtained by the personal income tax comes from the basic 20 per cent rate and only 16 per cent of the revenue arises from progression. If the income presently taxed in excess of 50 per cent were taxed only at that rate, the direct loss in revenue to the government would be approximately one per cent of federal revenue collections. 

If all progression were to stop, the encouragement to new enterprise would be so great that, after a slight time lapse, net returns to the government would increase because of a expanding economy and higher revenues from greater economic activity. 

Let me illustrate. Although I shall not identify him by name, but refer to him only as Mr. X, this is an authentic case of a wealthy man who was approached by a group of people who wanted him and some associates to put up approximately $7,500,000 for a pulp and paper mill, which they proposed to build in the South a few years ago when there was an intense shortage of paper. 

This was the equity capital in a total investment of $25 million, the rest of which a financial corporation was prepared to lend. The pulp supply had been located, the project had been carefully engineered, and it showed the probability of earnings on the total investment, after interest on the senior capital, of $2,500,000 a year. That would have been a 33 per cent return on the $7,500,000 risk capital investment - a very attractive proposal.

But the 91 per cent income tax to which Mr. X and his associates were liable compelled them to turn it down. They pointed out that if they undertook the project, it would mean first that the $2,500,000 annual earnings would be subject to a 52 per cent corporate tax. And then, with a normal pay-out of about 50 percent of earnings in dividends, he and his associates would have had left, after paying their own taxes, a net return of 67 cents per $100 of investment - just two-thirds of one per cent. "No, thank you," he said. "We couldn't take the risk to get that kind of return." The plant never was built and the paper it would have made is being imported from Canada. 

Now, let us see who was hurt in this instance. Not Mr. X. He eats just as well as if he had gone into this venture. But the 500 to 700 people who would have ben employed in the small Southern town where the plant would have been built, and which town, incidentally, needed economic stimulation, have been seriously hurt. Some of them certainly don't eat as well because the 91 percent tax remove all incentive from Mr. X. The small businessmen and the people of the town have been seriously hurt, because they didn't get the stimulation of a new plant with all the payroll and all the purchases that it would have made in this community.

Now, how did the government make out? Did it get any more taxes out of Mr. X? Not a dime. But if the high-bracket tax rate had been low enough to tempt Mr. X and his associates, and the project had gone through, the government would have received a 20 per cent income tax revenue on the earnings of the 500 to 700 people thus employed. It would have received a corporate tax of 52 per cent on all earnings of the corporation, and income taxes from Mr. X on any dividends declared. And this would have been not just for one year but would have gone on continuously year after year. 

The point is that, when you discourage initiative, you put brakes on the economy which hurts everyone - government which doesn't receive revenue, hurt people who are not employed, and hurt small businessmen who don't get the stimulation of increased sales. 

Every day across this country, instances such as this occur by the scores, if not by the hundreds, although most of them involve smaller amounts and fewer people. The fact is that people in these high brackets are not interested in acquiring income subject to such a tax if they have to take any risk at all to get it. 

The 91 per cent rate hurts most, not the people who pay it or who even pay 50 per cent or 40 per cent or 30 percent, but the people who never come within the length of the George Washington Bridge of paying it at all - the poorest and most desperate in the country - who are out of jobs because of this tax. 

HAROLD BRAYMAN

6 Days - Cliche #15

"The government ought to do it."

[Note: This article was written before the interstate highway system was in place. Although this would appear to invalidate the argument of the article, I would encourage you to look through the specific example and see the underlying principle which would be that the vast majority of innovative and note-worthy achievements brought to mankind have been produced by individual endeavors, not by the government.]

Private ownership, private initiative, the hope of reward, and the expectation of achievement have always been primarily responsible for he advancement of mankind. Continued progress - be it spiritual, mental, or material - rests squarely upon a better understanding of the idea of individual freedom of choice and action, with personal responsibility for one's own decisions. 

For the purpose of illustrating this idea, let us suppose you had lived in 1900 and somehow were confronted with the problem of seeking a solution within 64 years to any one of the following problems:

1. To build and maintain roads adequate for use of conveyances, their operators, and passengers.

2. To increase the average span of life by 30 years.

3. To convey instantly the sound of a voice speaking at one place to any other point or any number of points around the world. 

4. To convey instantly the visual replica of an action, such as a presidential inauguration, to men and women in their living rooms all over America. 

5. To develop a medical preventative against death from pneumonia. 

6. To transport physically a person from Los Angeles to New York in less than four hours.

7. To build a horseless carriage of the qualities and capabilities described in the 1964 advertising folder of any automobile manufacturer. 

Without much doubt you would have selected the first problem as the one easiest of solution. In fact, the other problems would have seemed fantastic and quite likely would have been rejected as the figments of someone's wild imagination.

Now, 64 years later, let us see which of these problems has been solved. Has the easiest problem been solved? No. Have the seemingly fantastic problems been solved? Yes, and we hardly give them a second thought. 

It is not accidental that solutions have been found wherever the atmosphere of freedom and private ownership has prevailed wherein men would try out their ideas and succeed or fail on their own worthiness. Nor is it accidental that the coercive force of government - when hooked up to a creative field such as transportation - has been slow, plodding, and unimaginative in maintaining and replacing its facilities. 

Does it not seem odd that a privately-owned automobile company found it expedient to sponsor a national contest with tremendous prizes and to conduct its own search in order to correct the faults of the publicly-owned and inadequate highway system? The highway dilemma has become more and more acute until someone other than the public owner seeks an answer. If the points of ownership had been reversed in 1900 - that is, motorcar development in the hands of the government, and highways left to private individuals - we would today likely be participating in a contest sponsored by the privately-owned  highway companies to suggest how to improve the government's horseless carriage so that it would keep pace with the fine and more-than-adequate highways.

How could roads be built and operated privately? I do not know. This is a subject to which none of us directs his creative attention. We never do think creatively on any activity preempted by government. It is not until an activity has been freed from monopoly that creative thought comes into play.

But go back to 1900. Could any of us then have told how to solve the six problems to which solutions have been found? Suppose for instance, that someone could at that time have described the looks and performance of a 1964 automobile. Could any of us have told him how to make it? No, no more than we can describe how privately to build and operate highways today.

What accounts, then, for the 1964 automobile and other "fantastic" accomplishments? Government did not preempt these activities! Instead, these have been left to the area of free, uninhibited, creative thinking. Millions of man-hours of technically skilled, inventive thought have been at work. And the end is not yet. Nor will there be an end as long as the inhibitory influence of government is confined to its proper functions of protecting equally the life, liberty, and property of all citizens; as long as men are free to try their ideas in a competitive and voluntary market. 

JOHN C. SPARKS

One Week - Cliche #14

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

As a teacher in private and public schools for 35 years, I found that the socialist-communist idea of taking "from each according to his abilities," and giving "to each according to his needs" was generally accepted without question by most of the pupils. In an effort to explain the fallacy in this theory, I sometimes tried this approach:

When one of the brighter or harder-working pupils made a grade of 95 on a test, I suggest that I take away 20 points and give them to a student who had made only 55 points on his test. Thus each would contribute according to his abilities and - since both would have a passing mark - each would receive according to his needs. After I juggled the grades of all the other pupils in this fashion, the result was usually a "common ownership" grade of between 75 and 80 - the minimum needed for passing, or for survival. Then I speculated with the pupils as to the probable results if I actually used the socialistic theory for grading papers.

First, the highly productive pupils - and they are always a minority in school as well as in life - would soon lose all incentive for producing. Why strive to make a high grade if part of it is taken from you by "authority" and given to someone else?

Second, the less productive pupils - a majority in school as elsewhere - would be relieved of the necessity to study or to produce. This socialist-communist system would had sunk - or had been driven down - to the level of the low producers. At that point, in order for anyone to survive the "authority" would have no alternative but to begin a system of compulsory labor and punishments against even the low producers. They, of course, would then complain bitterly, but without understanding. 

Finally I returned the discussion to the ideas of freedom and enterprise - the market economy - where each person has freedom of choice and is responsible for his own decisions and welfare. 

Gratifyingly enough, most of my pupils then understood what I meant when I explained that socialism - even in a democracy - would eventually result in a living-death for all except the "authorities" and a few of they favorite lackeys.

THOMAS J. SHELLY

8 Days - Cliche #13

"Without legislation, we'd still have child labor and sweatshop conditions."

Prevalent in the United States and other industrialized countries is the belief that without governmental intervention, such as child and hour legislation, child labor laws, and rules concerning working conditions for women, the long hours and grueling conditions of the "sweatshop" would still exist. 

The implication is that legislation, in the days of Abraham Lincoln, for instance, were cruel and inconsiderate of the poor - no better than the caricatured factory owners of the times who would employ men and women and children at low wages, long hours, and poor working conditions. Otherwise, had they been humanitarians, legislators of a century ago and earlier would have prohibited child labor, legislated a forty-hour week, and passed other laws to improve working conditions. 

But the simple truth is that legislators of a few generations ago in the United States were powerless, as Mau Tse-tung or Nehru or Nasser or Castro are powerless now, to wave a wand of restrictionist legislation and thereby raise the level of living and abolish poverty among the people. If such a miracle were possible, every dictator and very democratically chosen legislator would "push the button" without hesitation. 

The reason why women and children no longer find it necessary to work for low wages under poor conditions from dawn to dusk, 6 days or more a week is the same reason why strong, healthy men can avoid such onerous labor in a comparatively free industrialized society: surviving and earning a living are made easier through the use of tools and capital accumulated by personal saving and investment. 

In fiction, the children of nature may dwell in an earthly paradise; but in the real life of all primitive societies, the men and women and all the children struggle constantly against the threat of starvation. Such agrarian economies support all the people they can, but with high infant mortality and short life spans for all survivors. 

When savings can be accumulated, then tools can be made and life's struggle somewhat eased - industrialization begins. And with the growth of savings and tools and production and trade, the population may increase. As incomes rise and medical practices improve, children stand a better chance of survival, and men and women may live longer with less effort. Not that savings are accumulated rapidly or that industrialization occurs overnight; it is a long, slow process. And in its early stages, the surviving women and children are likely to be found improving their chances as best they can by working in factories and "sweatshops." To pass a law prohibiting such effort at that stage of development of the society would simply be to condemn to death a portion of the expanding population. To prohibit child labor in India today would be to condemn millions to starvation.

Once a people have developed habits of industry and thrift, learned to respect life and property, discovered how to invest their savings in creative and productive and profitable enterprise, found the mainspring of human progress - then, and only then, after the fact of industrialization and prosperous expanding economy, is it possible to enact child labor laws without thereby passing a death sentence. 

A wise and honest humanitarian will know that a death sentence lurks behind every minimum wage law that sets a wage higher than some individual is capable of earning; behind every compulsory 40-hour week that catches a man with a family he can't support except through more than 40 hours of effort; behind every legislated condition of employment that forces some marginal employer into bankruptcy, thus destroying the job opportunities he otherwise afforded; behind every legal action that virtually compels retirement at age 65.

Rarely in history has there been an advanced industrial society able to afford as much labor legislation and related socialistic measures as constitute the present laws of the United States of America. Never in history have a people lifted their level of living by passing such laws. Whether the present level of living can be maintained under such laws seems highly improbable, for such restrictions are fundamentally sentences of death - not gifts of life. 

Men will take their children and women out of "sweatshops" as fast as better job opportunities develop - as fast as the supply of capital available per worker increases. The only laws necessary for that purpose are those which protect life and private property and thus encourage personal saving and investment. 

To believe that labor laws are the cause of improved living and working conditions, rather than an afterthought, leads to more and more "welfare" legislation. And the ultimate effect is not a boon to mankind but a major push back toward barbarism.

PAUL L. POIROT

9 Days - Cliche #12

"Business is entitled to a fair profit."

This is actually a cliche of socialism, but it often goes unchallenged because the businessmen who repeat it are rarely suspected of endorsing ideas with socialistic overtones. 

The notion that business is entitled to a fair profit has no more to commend it than does the claim that workers are entitled to a fair wage, capitalists to a fair rate of interest, stockholders to a fair dividend, landlords to a fair rent, or farmers to a fair price for their produce. Profit (or loss) regardless of how big, cannot properly be described as fair or unfair. 

To demonstrate why fair should not be used to modify profit as a right to which someone is entitled, merely imagine a businessman, heedless of the market, persisting in making buggy whips. If no one were willing to exchange dollars for whips, the manufacturer would fail; not only would he have no profit but he wold lose his capital to boot. Would you have any feeling of guilt or unfairness for having refused to buy his whips? Most certainly not!

We do not think of ourselves as unfair when we search for bargains. We have no sense of unfairness when employing a competent as against an incompetent helper, or borrowing money at the lowest rate offered, or paying a low instead of a high rental. The idea of guaranteeing a fair dividend to one who invests in wildcat schemes never enters our heads. When we shop around, our choices cause profits to accrue to some businessmen, losses to others. We do not relate these exercises of free choices to fairness or unfairness or consider that anyone's rights have been infringed.

In market-place parlance, there is no such thing as a right to a "fair" profit. All that any person is entitled to in the market place, be he businessman or wage earner, is what others will offer in willing exchange. This is the way believers in the free market think it should be. 

However, when it is claimed that business is entitled to a fair or reasonable profit, the claimers must have something else in mind than what they can obtain in willing exchange. Otherwise, they wouldn't mention the matter. 

While the "something else" these businessmen have in mind is rarely understood in its full implications, it must, perforce, mean something other than individual freedom of choice. In short, it must mean the only alternative to freedom of choice: authoritarianism. When the market - freedom in exchange - is cast aside, there remains but one other determiner as to who will get how much of what, namely, government! And when government determines or controls profits, prices, wages, rents and other aspects of production and exchange, we have socialism, pure and simple. 

When "fairness" is demanded as a substitute for what can be obtained in willing exchange, the asker, consciously or not, is insisting on what naturally and logically follows: a planned economy. This means all forms of protectionism, subsidies, maximum hours, minimum wages, acreage allocations, production schedules imposed by the state, rent control, below market interest rates, free lunches, distressed areas designated and financed by governmental confiscation of peoples' capital, federal urban renewal, TVA, state unemployment insurance, social security, tax discrimination, inflation and so on. These measures - socialism - are government's only means of "fairness" and they institutionalize unfairness!

The declaration that business is entitled to a fair profit connotes equalitarianism; that is, a coerced evenness in reward to the competent and incompetent alike. From what does this type of thinking stem?

It may very well be a carry-over from the static society which, as in a poker game, can award no gain to anyone without a corresponding loss to someone else. It is to overlook the economics of the free market and its willing exchange where each party of the exchange gains. If each party did not believe he gained, there wold be no willing exchange. There couldn't be!

Or, this type of thinking may stem from the labor theory of value which holds that the worth of a good or service is determined not by individual evaluations but by the amount of effort exerted: if as much effort is used to make a mud pie as to make a mince pie, they are of equal worth! Marx, acting on this theory, evolved his system: in essence, to have the state take from the mince pie makers and give to the mud pie makers. After all, goes the cliche, aren't the mud pie makers entitled to "a fair profit"?

Assuming the market is a free from fraud, violence, misrepresentation, and predation, the economic failure or success of any individual is measured by what he can obtain in willing exchange - fairness being a state of affairs that is presupposed in the assumption. Everyone, according to any moral code I would respect, is entitled to fairness in the sense of no special privilege to anyone and open opportunity for all; no one is entitled to what is implied by a fair price, a fair wage, a fair salary, a fair rent, or a fair profit, In market terms, one is entitled to what others will offer in willing exchange. That is all!

LEONARD E. READ

10 Days - Cliche #11

"If the government doesn't relieve distress, who will?"

President Grover Cleveland, vetoing a congressional appropriation of $10,000 to buy seed grain for drought-stricken Texans, may have given us all the answer we need to this cliche: 

"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune.... Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

No doubt many of the congressmen who voted this appropriation were sincerely asking, "If the federal government does not save these poor Texans, who will?" President Cleveland had only to veto the measure and write an explanation. But we private citizens have no power beyond reason and suasion. What, then might we have said? This would be one honest answer: "I am not clairvoyant and, thus, do knot know who will relieve these people. However I do know that Texans acting on their own initiative and with their own resources will take care of themselves better than they will be taken care of by any number of politicians imitating Robin Hood and applying the theories of Karl Marx. 

The question, "If government does not relieve distress, who will?" is illogical. No one  can ever answer, who will? Thus, the cliche-maker wins his implied point without a struggle - unless one lays claim to clairvoyance or exposes the fakery of the question. 

Every reader of these lines can prove to himself, by reflection on personal experiences, that the relief of distress is an unpredictable event. Time after time, each of us, with no preconception, has observed distress and then taken steps to relieve it - with his own income! 

Prior to the nineteen thirties, before the federal government assumed responsibility for "relief," no one could have foretold who would come to whose rescue; yet, since 1623 there is no record of famine or starvation in this country. Among a people where the principles of freedom were more widely practiced and government more limited than elsewhere, here has been less distress and more general well-being than history had ever recorded. Societies saddled with bureaucracy have no record of coming to the aid of free societies; it has always been the other way around. 

Charity is a personal virtue. When government does not undertake police grants-in-aid - "relief" - millions of adults stand as guardians against distress. Their available charitable energy is totally at work observing distress in its neighborly detail, judging and coming to the rescue with the fruits of the labor of each charitable person. And on occasions of major disaster, there has been a voluntary pooling of individual resources, often extravagant. 

What happens when a government takes over? Charity gives way to politics. Funds coercively collected are dispensed to individuals according to group, class, or occupational category. This has no semblance of charity; it is the robbery of Peter to pay Paul. Further, when government constructs a feeding trough and fills it with fruits forcibly extorted from the citizenry, it creates new claimants and aggravates the problem it set out to solve. 

It is not only the so-called "relief" projects that are based on this same tired cliche, but most other cases of government intervention in our society: "If the government doesn't do the job, who will?" If the government doesn't level mountains and fill valleys, drain swamps and water deserts, build highways over waters and sea-ways over land, subsidize failure and penalize productivity and thrift, send men to the moon and promise the moon to mankind and a thousand and one other projects - if the government doesn't do these things, that is, force taxpayers to do them, who will? And more often than not the answer is that probably no one in his right mind would ever think of doing such things - at his own risk, with his own money. Eventually, a time might come when some ingenious person would see a way to do one or more of these jobs, in hope of profit, and would take the chance. But there is no way to determine in advance who that pioneer might be. The most that can be done is to leave men free, for only among free men do pioneers emerge. Freedom affords every opportunity, in charitable enterprises or on the market, for the best - not the worst - to rise topside. 

LEONARD E. READ