Week of 05/15/2000

What’s In A Number?
- by David Matthews 2

"There is apparently no surer way of turning a thing into its opposite than by exaggerating it." - Eric Hoffer

As I am putting keys to the keyboard, the MILLION Mom March is going on in Washington DC. Well, it won’t exactly be ONE MILLION mothers. In fact, even the organizers of the march say that at best there will be two hundred thousand mothers participating.

But let’s face it.. which sounds more impressive to the sound-byte members of the media? Saying you will have one million mothers, or simply two hundred thousand? It’s not like anyone will be keeping count, right? Besides, when C-Span covers the show, even a thousand people looks like a million.

And of course, this would not be the first time the numbers are fudged for publicity’s sake. How about the so-called "Million" Man March a few years ago? Well, at least the organizers there tried to get a million African-American men to come to Washington. So they were off by a few hundred… Doesn’t really matter, right? It’s the fact that they were THERE that mattered, right?

In the world of politics, numbers are important. When reason and logic cannot be used to gain political support, numbers are used. In a democratically-elected government, where the majority often rules, politicians often vote not by political philosophy as much as whatever can ensure the highest number of votes come election time. That is why some politicians are heavily addicted to polls. They want to feel like they are following the wishes of the people… even if "the people" is maybe 55% of a sample segment of the populace.

This was true when it came to the so-called "Moral Majority" - the gang of highly religious moralistic thugs led by Reverend Jerry Falwell, who tried to run roughshod through the political world and over our constitutional rights in the 1980’s. In truth, though, the so-called "Moral Majority" was hardly a majority. It was, as with most gangs of moralist thugs, simply a very vocal minority. However, the name alone gave the illusion to politicians and to members of the media that they were much larger than they really were.

Politicians also fudge the numbers when it comes to the budget. Both Democrats and Republicans love to boast of "cutting" the budget while at the same time spending even more money than the previous year. How is this done? Simple. Let’s say an imaginary federal department watching widgets wants to increase their budget by $5 million for next year. The politicians overseeing the funding for the Department of Widgets asks if they could operate at $3 million over this year’s spending. The Secretary of Widget-Watching does his or her prerequisite teeth-gnashing, sighs, and then says they can operate at $3 million over this year’s spending. The politicians then claim that they just cut the budget by $2 million.

The truth, of course, is that the Department of Widgets is going to spend $3 million more than they did last year. However, in the world of politics, that $3 million is actually a $2 million "budget cut." See how that works?

Of course, budget numbers are not the only things fudged in the federal government. Military numbers are as well. Remember Vietnam? According to the number of battles we supposedly "won", Saigon should never have fallen to the North Vietnamese. That was our excuse to pull out of that conflict.. we "won" a certain number of battles, game over.

How our government taxes us is also a matter that is easily quibbled over. When Bill Clinton was running for President of the United States in 1992, he made a vow to cut taxes. A few months after he was sworn into office, Clinton went in front of the cameras and told America that he would have to renege on that promise, but "according to the numbers" his tax hikes would actually become a tax cut for middle-class families. The operative words, of course, are "according to the numbers." In truth, everyone got soaked with Bill Clinton’s tax hike.

Let’s get brutally honest here.. politicians love to fudge numbers. After all, who else would try to claim that fifty-one percent of the populace is considered a "mandate from the people"? Once upon a time a so-called "mandate" was when a politician won with the support of three-fourths of the voting populace.

It is, of course, another form of lying. Not as dramatic as, say, "Read my lips, no new taxes"… or as bold as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"… but it is lying nonetheless.

Worse yet, this is a kind of lie that destroys the credibility of any organization. The message that is presented is that the organization cares more about appearance than the cause they support. In other words, they value symbolism over substance.

It is one thing to give an approximate number to someone. The organizers of the Million Man March can say that approximately one million African-American men showed up in Washington DC. However, the organizers of the so-called "Million" Mom March didn’t even attempt to live up to their name. Instead, they relied on the name and their political agenda to skirt their little lie past the American public.

We expect our elected officials to be honest with us, but how can that happen when we don’t live up to our own level of honesty? If the founders of the so-called "Million" Mom March wanted to make a statement, they could have easily used a more honest name for their day of protest. Calling the event "Mother’s March For Peace", for instance, sounds just as impressive and more honest than trying to baffle people with exaggerated numbers.

Thomas Jefferson once said that "It is error alone which needs the support of government." Clearly the people behind the so-called "Million" Mom March organized their demonstration for purely political reasons, and that in itself is sad; because all they appear to be interested in, then, is to get government to pass laws instead of making real changes in society.

Real societal changes do not come from government, and they do not come from symbolic gestures fraught with over-exaggerations. Rather, they come from credible arguments and sound reasoning and persistence. The changes do not happen overnight, but they do happen, and without the need of legislation.. or rallies, for that matter.

Week of 05/08/2000

Zero Tolerance, Zero Intelligence
- by David Matthews 2

"Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self." - Eric Hoffer

Zero Tolerance!

Boy that sounds tough, doesn’t it?

Zero Tolerance!

You’re not going to take any gruff from anyone! No way, no how, no matter what! It’s your way or the highway!

Zero Tolerance!

No gray zones. No questions. No "varying degrees" of punishment. Quick, swift, and absolute! No method of appeals. No second chances. You get one shot, and if you blow it, you’re toast!

Zero Tolerance!

People like that, don’t they? Black-and-white, zero-sum, yes-or-no, right-or-wrong. People are comforted by some absolutes in their life. To know that there are explicit rules that one must follow, and that if you break those rules, you get punished, no questions asked.

Politicians love zero tolerance. It is the "double-dog dare" of political promises. You can’t get any stricter than that. What? You want to give a criminal THREE strikes before you throw the book at him? What a mealy-mouthed liberal wimp you must be! I’m going for zero tolerance.. the first infraction will be his last! Just like kids in the playground, the first politician who declares a "zero tolerance" policy wins.

Members of law enforcement love zero tolerance because it is the closest thing to running a totalitarian police state as they can get in a relatively free society. The slightest infraction is treated the same way as the most serious of offenses. They can even use the infamous "Nuremberg Defense" of "just following orders" when the people complain. Hey, it’s not their fault.. it’s the law.

School officials love zero tolerance because it takes away all discretion. They can’t be accused of "coddling" disruptive kids or being too lenient with them. Rules are rules, and if you break them, you pay the price.

Now let’s get past the political banter and take a close look at what a "zero tolerance" policy really means.

Zero tolerance is taking a rule to its absolute limit. If you’re on the highway, it means driving no faster than the posted speed limit. Simple, right? Some communities have become "speed trap" areas because they take zero tolerance of the speed limit so much to extreme that they can quite literally pay their own budget off of the speeding tickets generated from them.

But what happens when we talk about something a little more general, like a zero tolerance policy on drugs or violence?

Well, once again that no-brainer mentality in our authority figures kick in and says "no drugs.. and no violence… period. What part don’t you understand?"

Let’s ask Shannon Eierman about that. She was an honor roll student at Atholton High School. Supposedly she was on a school ski trip in Vermont when she picked up two cans of beer she had spotted and was in the process of dumping them out when she was spotted by one of the chaperones. Thanks to that area’s "zero tolerance" policy, she was suspended for five days, forced to undergo an alcohol treatment program, and she was suspended from all extracurricular activities for half the school year. All of that for emptying two cans of beers that were not even hers to begin with!

Zero tolerance on drugs has meant students have been suspended or expelled for bringing in aspirin. It has meant students being suspended for PRETENDING to be drug users, such as pretending to snort powdered Kool-Aid.

Zero tolerance on violence has produced even more freedom-busting rules. Students who have been suspended or expelled for bringing in plastic knives to cut their own lunches. Students who have been suspended or expelled for carrying nail clippers that contain a small fingernail file.

Even the inference of violence has been rewarded with strict punishment from school officials. When nine-year old Karl Bauman -- a fan of martial arts movies -- was asked to write up a fortune cookie message, he came up with "you will die an honorable death" and suspended from school for violating that school’s new "zero tolerance" rule of threatening messages. Charles Carithers was recently suspended from Boston Latin Academy for writing a horror story as part of his English assignment that was so vivid it scared his teacher. Two other students were recently suspended from school for playing "cops and robbers" on the playground, simply because they used their fingers to simulate guns!

But zero tolerance in schools have gotten even more tyrannical than that. Because of one school’s "zero tolerance" policy on crime, twenty-eight high school students in Virginia were strip-searched in a futile effort to find $100 that was reported missing by one student. A twelve-year old boy in Rhode Island was suspended for ten days simply because his name appeared on a list of students that were present during a shoving match. The boy supposedly did not take part in the shoving match, but was simply present, and thus was declared guilty by association. Kent McNew of Surry County High School in Virginia was suspended simply because he dyed his hair blue, apparently in violation of that school’s new zero tolerance of "unusual hair color" policy. Eleven students from Field High School in Brimfield, Ohio, were suspended because they contributed to a website that had gothic themes.

Even the protests of zero tolerance policies can be considered criminal. Jennifer Boccia in Allen, Texas, was suspended from school because she wore black armbands in protest of the school’s zero tolerance policies following the Columbine massacre in 1999.

Now let’s get brutally honest here.. we all want safe schools and safe communities, but following rules to their extreme is not the answer. Granted "no weapons" or "no drugs" should mean just that, but does punishing students who play "cops and robbers" with their index fingers fall under the category of "threat"? Or the kids who were caught trying to "snort" powdered Kool Aid fall under the same category as a "drug user"? No, they weren’t; and suspending them for doing so just to teach a lesson is in itself a lesson in administrative overkill.

Zero tolerance rules may be considered a no-brainer in terms of what is covered, but when implemented as it is designed, it also eliminates the very discretion that administrators are supposed to use. Our leaders are not supposed to be mind-numbed robots, blindly implementing rules to their absolute extreme nature.

Indeed, a zero tolerance policy may also be considered a zero intelligence policy; a policy where administrators are expected to check their brains at the door. How ironic, then, that zero tolerance policies are happening in the schools, a place where young people are expected to develop and utilize the very intelligence that is lacking from their authority figures.

Ultimately, though, the fault rests not with our leaders as much as it is with the general public. We, as a society, fail to recognize that zero tolerance in its truest form is extremism. Instead, we fall prey to our own desire to feel safe and secure and blindly trust whatever policy our leaders and public officials provide as long as they can guarantee that safety and security. We must, if we truly cherish freedom -- for ourselves if not for our children -- be able to challenge that extremist mentality and keep it in check.

True leaders, be they school administrators or politicians, must be balanced and just in providing discipline. There is a profound difference between playing "cops and robbers" with pointed fingers and a student who contemplates going on a real-life killing spree with a real gun. If an administrator thinks he or she can treat those situations identically, then they have no business whatsoever being in that job.

True leadership is not based on how rigidly one can hold to a set of rules. That kind of a person is not an effective administrator, but rather a spineless bureaucrat.

Week of 05/01/2000

Cutting Through The Elian Hysteria
- by David Matthews 2

"It is doubtful if the oppressed ever fight for freedom. They fight for pride and power- power to oppress others. The oppressed want above all to imitate their oppressors; they want to retaliate." - Eric Hoffer

I had told myself once upon a time that I would not talk about the situation over Elian Gonzales again.

I had examined this issue back in January. I pointed out that everyone involved with this situation have used that six-year old boy as a tool for their own purposes. I mentioned how this issue has been so politicized that not even King Solomon could resolve it. And I mentioned that, as much as it galled me, I had to admit that the Clinton Regime had done the right thing by saying that the boy belonged with his father and not with his extended family.

Unfortunately, that was in January. What a difference a few months make!

What was once a matter between the Cuban exiles of Miami and Elian’s father has escalated into national controversy. What was once a matter that was going to be settled in the courts became a matter of violence and threats of violence and a televised raid by federal agents that angered and surprised everyone… except for at least one person.

Now let’s get brutally honest here.. I was not surprised at the fact that Attorney General Janet Reno would order agents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to take Elian from the Miami home and reunite him with his father, Juan Miguel Gonzales. In fact, all of the hints that a raid was forthcoming were as plain as day.

First of all, there is the fact that one does not say no to the Clinton Regime without paying a price. Just ask Bill Gates and the executives of Microsoft. They said "no" to the Regime over censoring the Internet and over encryption, and they got rewarded with an antitrust lawsuit that could split the company in two. America Online eventually rolls over to the Regime, and they get to build a monopoly all their own that puts Microsoft’s dominance to shame.

The second sign that the raid in Miami was forthcoming was the triggering of Janet Reno’s panic button. As the events in Waco showed, Janet Reno has an incredible amount of reserve when it involves children. But once Janet Reno heard that children were being abused in the Branch Davidian compound, she changed her policy and allowed the FBI to begin the series of events that led to the fiery death of every man, woman, and child in that compound.

Even though Waco has served as a constant reminder of how abuse of power can go wrong, Reno’s hypersensitivity to the plight of children remained as her Achilles Heel. And it was that button that was pushed once reports were submitted to her office claiming that Elian was suffering from psychological abuse by his relatives over the media coverage of his life. The minute that report was made public, people should have prepared for Reno to act.

Finally, there was the public goading by Lazalo Gonzales --- Elian’s great-uncle, and the man who has been instrumental in turning this whole affair into a media circus. Was it the imagination of this commentator to see Lazalo get in front of the cameras at one point prior to the raid and tell the world that if Janet Reno wanted to get to Elian, she’d have to do it by force? You don’t make those kinds of statements to the media and expect members of the government to consider them as just idle boasting.

So the raid happened, almost exactly as this commentator had predicted it would.

And now we have the aftermath.

We have a Cuban community that is acting like a bunch of spoiled children that lost their scoop of ice cream. We have a mayor of Miami who is firing anyone within his grasp associated with the raid, and in the process acting very much like his tyrannical predecessor. We have a US Senator acting very much surprised that the President of the United States would go back on his word. (C’mon, didn’t "L’affair Lewinsky" teach the world to not trust Clinton?) We have conservatives throwing screaming fits until their faces turn red-white-and-blue, and Republican members of Congress demanding yet another investigation of the Department of Justice.

While our elected blowhards banter faux-patriotisim, let’s consider a few things here.

First let’s remember we’re talking about a six-year old boy here. A boy that mentally has no concept of what world politics is all about. He certainly is in no position to demand political asylum, and there is even a legal precedent here in America that says one must be at least twelve before political asylum could be considered. That means legally the responsibility defaults to the parents… or in Elian’s case, his father.

I’d like all of those parents out there who feel Juan Miguel Gonzales is just a tool for the Cuban government to picture this little scene: Imagine your child coming to you and saying that America is a repressive country, and that they would like to live in a country with a little more freedom. Maybe the Netherlands. Would you let your child claim political asylum? Of course not!

So here’s the question of the day for all of those "family values" conservatives out there.. why is it that parental responsibility - which you folks claim is the end-all, be-all in the world - does not apply to Juan Miguel Gonzales? Why are you people so eager to take away Juan Miguel’s rights as a father simply because he refuses to stay in America? Your hypocrisy in this matter could not be any plainer if you tattooed the scarlet letter "H" on your foreheads!

If Juan Miguel Gonzales freely decided to keep his family here in America, that would be one thing. But if, after staying here on American soil this long, he decides to take Elian and the rest of his family and go back to Cuba, we should respect that decision. We have no business forcing someone to stay in this country simply because we don’t like the leader of that country. The last time we forced a group of people against their will to live in this country, it was called slavery.

Then there was the amount of force used in the raid. Hey, I’ll be honest with you, you had a crowd of people ready to riot on a moment’s notice. If I was with that group of INS agents, I’d have asked to be armed and padded as well! I was actually surprised that the raid was conducted with so FEW members of law enforcement. I was expecting members of the military getting involved, much like they did in Waco.

Did the raid use excessive force? Of course. But unfortunately, there was little choice in the matter. All of the wrong buttons were pushed.

Could this matter have been resolved peacefully? Yes. Months ago when this whole matter started. Why wasn’t it? Because politics got involved. Too many people started waving flags and parading about faux-patriotic banners to prevent a peaceful solution to this whole matter.

So where does that leave us now?

Right now we’re stuck with a bunch of people throwing temper tantrums both in Miami and in Washington. There really isn’t much to do about the tantrum fits in Washington except to let them die out. But for the people in Miami, there is much that can be done.

If the Cuban people in Miami are really pissed off at this situation, why don’t they do something about it besides try to shut down their own community? Get some boats, get some guns, go back to Cuba and get rid of Castro! Don’t wait for the United States to do something. We did our part, remember? Bay of Pigs. And we did a half-assed job in the process! Don’t wait this time! Fidel doesn’t have the support of the Soviet Union anymore. If the Cuban community is really concerned about the kind of life Elian would be living in when he goes back to Cuba, they should be willing to go back to their homeland and make it a place they would once again be proud to call home.

And maybe it is time we washed our hands of this situation once and for all. The Cold War is dead, and it deserves to stay dead. We need to look beyond the pseudo-patriotic banners and flag-waving and public hysteria and really look at the big picture. If we truly cherish families, we must be willing to let parents make the decisions that they feel are in the best interests of their children. If we truly value freedom, we must also be willing to accept the decision of those who do not want our kind of freedom.

Free will is more than just being able to choose freedom over tyranny, but also to freely choose the opposite. Eliminate that choice, and we are the ones that become the puppets.

Week of 04/24/2000

Guilt By Coercion
- by David Matthews 2

"The sense of inferiority and the sense of guilt are exceedingly difficult to distinguish." - Dr. Sigmund Freud

Let me ask you.. are you feeling guilty?

You aren’t? WHY? Don’t you know what this past week was?

This was the one-year memorial over two punk kids who stormed their high school and killed thirteen people before killing themselves! You’ve GOT to feel guilty about that!

And if that wasn’t enough, this week also marked the five-year anniversary of two extremists blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma! All of those lives lost!

What? You aren’t feeling guilty over that? What’s wrong with you people? There must be something seriously wrong with you.

Granted, we have the two men responsible for blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City, and the two punk kids who shot up Columbine killed themselves… but that’s no excuse! You HAVE to feel guilty about those deaths!

Doesn’t that sound absurd? And yet that’s what we are being told we must do.

We’re being told this from members of government, who are eager to exploit each tragic occurrence for their own pet programs. We are told we MUST feel guilty over each tragedy.

The media, naturally, is eager to cooperate in this emotional form of mind-control. It doesn’t take much effort for them to put together a whole miniseries telling you how you should feel. They already have all of the news footage from the archives. All they have to do is cobble together a group of so-called "experts", get sound bites from the politicians, and run a few biased polls. Presto! A five-part miniseries to make people feel guilty about something they have nothing to feel guilty about!

Let’s get brutally honest here… there is NOTHING for most people to feel guilty about for the tragedies in Columbine or for Oklahoma City. NOTHING. They happened. They were tragic, and a lot of lives were needlessly lost, but there was realistically nothing any of us could have done to change or to stop them.

No new law or regulation would have ever stopped those tragedies. Indeed, when it came to Columbine, over one hundred federal and state laws were broken by those two punk kids. Even the friend who purchased the guns said that no background check would have prevented her from purchasing guns she had a legal right to purchase. No matter how many laws Bill Clinton wants to shove down our throats, none of them would have ever stopped that event from happening.

Ah, but there’s the rub! This is not really about remembering tragedies, but rather it is about getting laws passed and freedoms infringed.

Libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz once pointed out that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives think things through while liberals are concerned with what people feel. Well, I disagree. I think both liberals and conservatives try to play upon the emotions of the public, especially when they cannot use rational arguments in their favor. Certainly when it comes to the way things "used" to be, conservatives try to play upon a sense of insecurity and fear to sway the public to their side.

Politicians, then, want us to feel guilt over these tragedies. To make us feel guilty for having so many freedoms, and thus able to remove those freedoms through laws and regulations.

Consider, if you will, the recent anniversaries of tragedies the government wants us to remember. They want us to remember the tragedies of Columbine and Heritage high schools. They want us to remember the tragedy of Oklahoma City. According to Bill Clinton and his supporters, it’s our fault for having so much freedom in our lives that these tragedies can happen.

But what about another tragedy that happened on the same day as Oklahoma City just two years earlier? What about the tragedy in Waco, Texas, where dozens of men, women, and children were burned to death? Why were there no remembrance ceremonies? The answer, of course, is that the government has nothing to gain from this tragedy. In fact, the federal government is very much responsible for creating the events that led to that inferno. The only thing that can be remembered from this incident would be that of government failures and gross overkill. So rather than try to blame society in general for Waco, the federal government foists all of the blame on David Koresh and hopes that the people will forget that it ever happened.

Worse yet is that we are being told that we HAVE to feel guilty over things like Columbine and Oklahoma City just so President Clinton and the gun control lobbyists can shove new gun control legislation down our throats. Clinton even had the audacity to demand that Congress rubber stamp his gun control legislation just so he could proudly proclaim having passed it on the one-year anniversary of Columbine. What gall of any elected official to demand that Congress heed his will just to fulfill some manufactured ceremony.

You know, it is one thing to play upon feeling that already exist. People can get emotional over the most pathetic of situations. Just look at the number of people who cried when Morris the Cat died, or took the death of John F. Kennedy Junior personally. Even trying to tell people what to think has been a problem ever since the first governments discovered public relations. But to try to tell the public what they are supposed to FEEL just so they can get some kind of law passed is perhaps the height of arrogance for any body of government.

Emotions are temporary, dependant upon the situation of the moment. Laws are not. Those legislators who try to use emotions to push legislation are not the kind of legislators who should govern over a society that claims to cherish freedom.

Week of 04/17/2000

Defending Playboy
- by David Matthews 2

Never before in the city’s history was there ever a such ruckus over the name of a street. Protesters were abound, carrying flashy signs and proclaiming the crudest of allegations. Supporters were equally numerous, but rather reserved.

Over 800 people were honored by street names on Chicago’s Magnificent Mile. Men and women of Chicago who have stood out in that city’s history. Quite often it is merely a matter of protocol for the City Council to approve of a name. A mere showing of hands, and the deed is done.

But not this time.

So one has to wonder just WHO it is that is provoking so much hostility? So many protesters? So much.. dare I say it? .. HATRED over using that name for a street? You would think that people were talking about naming a street after serial killer John Wayne Gacy, or of legendary mob boss Al Capone.

But no, all this fuss is for a lonely magazine publisher named H. Marston.

Good old H. Marston who started in 1953 with nothing but an idea, some money, and an old typewriter. He had an idea for a publication called Stag, which would be a magazine for men’s interests. He included in this magazine some photos he purchased of a lovely young pin-up girl by the name of Norma.

It was a hit-or-miss idea then. Nobody knew if there would be enough interest in the magazine to even warrant a second issue. But a second issue was published. And then a third, and then a fourth. Before anyone knew it, H. Marston’s publication was a huge success.

That idea for a magazine for men’s interests became a worldwide sensation, enabling him to live the kind of life he had always dreamed of. And he would even share that idealistic life with his friends and associates, and eventually with others through clubs around the world. His philosophy of individual freedom over government-forced morality helped shape a whole generation of young men and women. The magazine would be published around the world, and would eventually have its own television channel, a line of highly successful videos, and a dominant place on the Internet.

Of course, you’ve never heard of a successful magazine called Stag. That name was changed just before the first issue hit the stands. The lovely nude blonde named Norma who graced that first issue? Well, her full name was Norma Jean Dougherty, but you knew her best as the legendary Marilyn Monroe.

And that successful publisher H. Marston? Well, the "H" stands for Hugh, although most people recognize him more for the first three letters of his last name. Hef.

That’s right. Hugh Marston Hefner, founder and publisher of Playboy Magazine, is the target of so much protest in Chicago.

And suddenly, the sides become clear. Once again, the bane of moralism has reared its ugly head to stop the city of Chicago from recognizing Hef.

Now, in the world of adult-oriented publications, Playboy is relatively tame. Most of the magazine is comprised of stories, in-depth articles, letters to the editor, interviews, and advice on all manners of questions from what kind of condom to wear to how to configure your stereo speakers so you can get that "theater-like" experience when watching Star Wars. The women who make up the delightful "eye-candy" appear sporadically, although their presence cannot be missed in the magazine. Their nudity is what many would consider to be "tastefully-done", emphasizing an overall appreciation of the female form instead of focusing on one specific body part like other publications do.

Some of the women who have appeared in the pages of Playboy have gone on to do much more bigger and better things. Many have become actresses. Others have become models. Who would have even heard of Cindy Crawford if not for her appearance in Playboy? It would also be a sure bet that Carmen Electra would have never gotten where she did in the entertainment world without her own appearance in that magazine.

Certainly the entertainment world has benefited from Playboy. Who would have heard of James Bond if Playboy didn’t first publish a little story by Ian Flemming called "Doctor No"? Other noteworthy authors whose works have appeared in Playboy include Ray Bradbury, Stephen King, Harlan Ellison, Arthur C. Clarke, and Kurt Vonnegut. Celebrities from actors, singers, writers, journalists, athletes, politicians, and even one president-elect have been interviewed by Playboy.

Even the women who have been honored with the title "Playmate" (as compared to those women who simply appeared in the magazine) can boast their own success stories. The ranks of the famous include Bettie Page, Jayne Mansfield, Stella Stevens, Cynthia Myers, Shannon Tweed, Kathy Shower, Pamela Anderson, and Jenny McCarthy.

Hefner, Playboy, and the Playmates have also taken part in events that have contributed society besides just offering pleasing images. The Playboy Foundation has been on the forefront in preserving the First Amendment from the very critics who would silence them. Playmate Rebekka Armstrong, the first and only Playmate with HIV and the AIDS virus, has been helping educate people on safer sex. Hefner, himself, has been instrumental in the restoration and preservation of the classic motion picture movies so that future generations will be able to enjoy them.

And yet, despite all the good things that Hefner and everyone associated with Playboy have done, the critics still manage to do everything in their power to demonize Playboy.

So who are these people who consider Hefner to be the devil incarnate?

Well let’s start off with that waste of oxygen that calls themselves the "American Family Association". Essentially it is a lobbying group with one goal - to turn America into a theocratic police state. Their leader, Gary Bauer, recently tried to run for President, and found out that people have a hard time supporting someone who resembles a cross between Adolph Hitler and that talking Taco Bell dog.

Let’s continue with the whining of Chicago Alderman Carrie Austin, who complains that Hefner made his money "on the backs of women." Austin was one of the people who used her power on that board to suppress the creation of "Hefner Way". So you want to talk about making money on the backs of women, Alderman? As compared to what? Using women as a human political shield to further your own legislative agendas? As exploiters go, politicians have done far more damage to women than any publisher ever could.

Then there is the Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Women, who claims Hefner furthers "his social agenda of irresponsible sexual behaviors." You want to talk about irresponsible sexual behaviors? Who is responsible for premarital sex? It certainly isn’t Playboy. Try it is the Catholic Church, which has piously decreed that sex is for procreation only. Who is more responsible for the spread of AIDS? Playboy, which has pushed for safer sex? Or the Catholic Church, which has encouraged ignorance?

And then there are all of the allegations made by the Council that Playboy uses "pictures of infants and children." Allegations that were supposedly based on a book by anti-sex feminist Judith Reisman. Well I hope the Council has good lawyers, because such allegations could be considered very slanderous without any kind of credible proof. Speaking of which, given the number of lawsuits involving priests and alter boys, the Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Women should rather be looking towards their own church for pedophilia than trying to find fictitious allegations manufactured by a discredited author.

Then there are the jackals of this quasi-Inquisition, the journalists themselves. The members of the media who are ever so quick to grab the most baseless of quotes by the critics of Playboy, but are hesitant to summon even a quick soundbite from those who would speak in support of Playboy. People like Peggy Wilkins, who spoke to the press in support of Hef, but never received even one reference. I have yet to read in any of the news services how while the City Council was in debate, hundreds of people were lining up just down the street to see Hefner and some of the beautiful women by his side. I say again, HUNDREDS of people. Eligible voters, one and all, who would shout down the critics easily if given the chance. The press loves to proclaim themselves to be unbiased, but clearly their own bias shows when they pander to the moralists instead of adhering to their own proclamation of journalistic integrity.

Let’s get brutally honest here… There is a reason why the moralists have pulled out all the stops in trying to prevent "Hefner Way" from becoming a reality, and it is a reason that nobody would ever admit to.

They’re scared.

Up until now, moralists and theocrats have all taken comfort in belief that their dysfunctional philosophy would be eternal. Publications come and go. Oui magazine certainly didn’t last for very long. Clubs come and go. The Playboy Clubs, even though making a resurgence overseas, went out of business in the 1980’s. The faces of buildings change with every owner. Societal attitudes shift constantly. What was once liberal is now conservative, and vice-versa. Men certainly come and go. Hefner himself is in his seventies. But some things are constant. Churches remain. Universities remain. Street names remain.

The naming of a street after Hugh Hefner is a terrible symbolic blow to moralists. It means that Playboy is considered to be more mainstream than they would ever admit it to be. It would mean that the changes that Hefner has espoused through his Playboy Philosophy are more than just temporary, but something that has become a permanent part of society. This would not be something that they could zone out of view, or regulate to oblivion, or banish outright like they have piously done in the past.

And what a slap in the face it would be to moralists to know that there is a street called "Hugh M. Hefner Way" in Chicago! To know that there would be buildings with a street address saying "Hugh M. Hefner Way" in phone books and directories. To know that people would be giving directions using "Hefner Way" as a reference point. To one day turning on the TV set and seeing an ad for a business on "Hefner Way".

In short, it would mean that the moralists have lost.

Sadly for them, the moralists can only blame themselves. It is their dysfunction which created the need that made Playboy such a success almost fifty year ago. It is their zeal to censor that which offends them that summoned the curiosity of the public.

Playboy and Hugh Hefner have contributed much to society. They have helped challenge traditional prejudices about sex, women, and civil rights, and encouraged individual freedom, and subsequently individual responsibility. Things that the dominant religions in America and the traditional political groups have only given lip service to at best.

It is right to recognize Hefner for his achievements, and a shame on those who would attempt to squash it.