The Skyline Newspaper

Cartoon: Created and Designed by Jonathan Smith, Sul Ross Senior

Why Government Will Always Triumph (Because Libertarians Are Dumb)

By David Johnson
Skyline contributor

There's an election going on, or, rather, elections for an election, I suppose. You'll catch it on the news sandwiched between updates on Britney Spears' relative mental health and speculations on the phone-dialing habits of deceased celebrity masseuses.

The celebrity is the deceased one, I mean. That's a Heath Ledger allusion. His masseuse found him and called Mary-Kate Olsen, but he was already dead (and not a cougar).

Anyway, pop culture references are to help prove I'm hip. And young.

It's important that I establish I'm young because that makes my political opinions more interesting somehow. I'm not black, nor a woman, and worst of all I'm not a black woman or else my opinion of Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton would be of extreme interest to pollsters wondering whether my political ideology can best be summarized by race or gender.

No, I'm just young, so I'm supposed to reflect or predict future political trends of my oh- so-influential generation and who they'll vote for, even though half of us won't vote for anyone at all. Well, I'll try to do my best.

Right now, the two most popular presidential candidates among young people are Barack Obama and Ron Paul. In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention the writer of this article is a Ron Paul fan.

That these two are so popular is stranger than you may realize at first glance. Other than wanting to leave Iraq and having a Y chromosome, Obama and Paul have nothing in common. Democratic senator Barack Obama is young, well-spoken, and ideologically nonexistent. This last bit isn't a criticism. He is running almost exclusively on "change," vague and inspiring as that is, and almost no one you ask, even his supporters, seem to know the specifics beyond that. Or care to. He stirs the emotions with a mic in his hand and looks damn good doing it.
What else is there to care about?

Meanwhile, Republican representative Ron Paul, who is quite old, whenever he speaks, seems to have just stood up and begun talking without any more forethought than that, and his entire candidacy is ideology. His supporters take his words like Muslims do the Qur'an and Paulhammedans can recite his position on most any issue flawlessly, no matter how obscure the issue is or complex his answers are.

Obama's meteoric rise is definitely worth talking about, just not here and not by me. As interesting a person as he is and as fine a political career as he has had, Obama's supporters and campaign are nothing out of the ordinary and nothing unexpected.

Paul is a different animal entirely. He's a duck, in fact, an odd duck, and the full scope of his beliefs put him near the fringe of the fringe of political discourse. He is an economic conservative to the point of being reactionary but quite socially liberal, too. He wants government devolution not just back to primates in the jungle, but all the way back to invertebrates in the ocean. He wants America out of Iraq immediately, and out of South Korea, and Germany, and everywhere else for that matter. He wants complete free trade without free trade agreements, to get rid of the Department of [insert here], to end all forms of government sponsored social welfare, leave all extranational organizations, and to abolish the Federal Reserve and IRS. Oh, and he wants us to go back on the gold standard.

Paul ran for president back in '88 and couldn't do better than the Morton Downing Show. He was saying the exact same things then as he is now, but then he was running as a Libertarian, and of course that was before Al Gore had invented the Internet.

Twenty years have changed a lot, and considering the above views that he holds, his current popularity is remarkable. I don't want to overstate this because as of this writing he hasn't come close to winning any state, and if he ran for president as a third party candidate again, even now he would be lucky to match Perot's '92 campaign, but for a man whose platform is made up of two hundred year old planks, it's amazing the support he's getting and where he's getting it from, all in spite of what amounts to a mainstream media blackout.

Young people love him -- love him -- and it seems like the younger kids are, the more they're enraptured by him. His message of, "Leave me the hell alone," is extremely attractive to teens and young adults who just want to live their lives without getting hassled or being obligated to take care of anyone else. His campaign is staffed by zealous volunteers (many of whom are young), and on the Internet the man is king due mainly to the efforts of young people talking about him and digging news stories related to him.

Alpine is a peculiar place in some ways because Paul enjoys a level of support here that is very atypical. It may come from the college, but the area also has a general sense of, "Leave me the hell alone," and I don't see Ron Paul signs plastered about the campus; I see them plastered about the city. Paul probably has more support here than all other candidates combined. Not popularity (he won't carry the county) but he does have more support.

Paul supporters have a kind of nigh-fanatical devotion that outweighs all others and can be quite frightening at times. Paul himself is not as crazy or stupid as some in the media try to portray him (when they bother portraying him at all). However, many -- not most, many -- of his supporters are. Paulhammedans, and really libertarians generally, are marked by a sort of faith in the utopian perfectibility of government by removing its influence. "If we get the government out of these and those and that, all our problems will be solved." This reminds me of those early Socialist writers who seemed to think that if we could just collectivize and get the means of production into the hands of the workers, life would get universally better for everyone. This is dangerous and unhealthy.

A lot people don't see -- don't want to see -- that Paul's ideas, even where good or true, have a lot of bad in them.
Laissez-faire and free market mean lots of bad things happen to lots of people but bad things happen to people under every form of government, so the important thing is to make sure as few bad things happen as possible and that those that do happen, happen for the right reasons. For people in need of certainty, that's not as assuring as "everything gets universally better," but it's true.

People who want certainty also want to believe Paul is a perfect candidate, but he is not by any means perfect, and good thing, too, or else we wouldn't be worthy to vote for him. He is a very clever politician, despite the general perception that he is honest and uncompromising to a fault. He is truthful when he says he's never voted for a budget increase, but he isn't honest because he has no problem with diverting ever-larger pieces of the federal pie into his own district. His reasoning that, "if someone is going to spend that unconstitutional money, it might as well be Texas's 14th District," is about as convincing as an anti-drug dope dealer saying, "Drugs are bad, but if people are going to buy drugs anyway, I might as well make some money off of it."

He allowed racist articles to be written for his newsletter in his own name, not because he was or is a racist, but because racists could help get him elected, and he knew it. Whether that's better or worse, I can't say.

And like many people, some of them professors here, he reveres Thomas Jefferson and makes the mistake of using "Jefferson" and "the Founders" as synonymous terms, forgetting the Constitution itself was the product of political disagreements and not a unified, sacred document. He conveniently forgets that the Constitution "from which we have so tragically strayed" complicitly accepted human slavery.

Most relevant to us, he supports the border wall, and I don't care where you stand on the immigration issue, building a wall is downright stupid for reasons I'd rather not get into, and I modestly propose we leave it at that.

For all this, I do support him. I believe he's genuinely committed to individual liberties, free markets, and non-aggressive foreign policy. If you support these things, you should vote for him. If you don't support these things, vote for someone else. That's all the election advice I'll give.

Ultimately, we know it doesn't matter who we vote for. By the time Texas holds its primary, the Republican nomination will probably already be locked up, and a Republican will carry the state in November even if Jesus Christ came down and ran as a Democrat. Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer and wouldn't even if by some miracle he won Texas.

But we don't vote to win. Democracy isn't a horse race; I don't care what CNN says. We don't vote for the perfect politician. He or she doesn't exist. We don't vote for our perfect ideological match. He or she probably doesn't exist, either. We vote to express our political opinion and make our voices heard by voting for the person we think is the best for the job. If we don't know enough to have an opinion or care, we shouldn't vote at all.

We should sit at home wondering why every ten minutes they keep interrupting coverage of Britney Spears and Heath Ledger with this political crap.

Just Another Fish Story, Evolving As You Read

Steve Lang
News And Publications

Fish at the same mentality of the fish." -- Cleve T. Lang

While reading a Newsweek article hinting that mankind's evolution includes descent from fish, my sister called.

"We're on our way to the Everglades for an eco-tour," she said. "We plan to swim with gators."

"Be sure to wear your water moccasins if you go wading around down there," I cautioned.

Naturally, this conversation evolved -- or perhaps dissolved -- into the latest fish story.

Several years ago, a paleontologist digging around in the Canadian Arctic found a fossil of a fish that seemed to have both neck and hands. This discovery fueled speculation that man once had fins and scales.

Of course, the evolutionary process must be proven in greater detail, but some criteria exist favoring a 375 million-year-old fish as a parent:

* Fish seem more difficult to catch, indicating that our alleged scaled relatives have adapted necessary skills to elude their so-called advanced descendants.

* Some species of suckers swim through water and others walk on land; both fall prey to more cunning and/or powerful members of their own kind.

Other scientists maintain that man continues to evolve, arousing a hope that politicians will someday morph into reasonable human beings. However, Albert Einstein's observation refutes the contention: "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."

Not wishing to abandon a promising fish story, I polled several students, colleagues, and my sister, asking them, "what fish would you have been in an earlier life?"

"A flounder," said D.J. "He looked cute in 'The Little Mermaid.'"

D.J. did not care that the flounder's eye migrates to the side of its head as it develops, nor that it loses one fin, a process somewhat similar to plate tectonics.

"A coelocanth (prehistoric), because I saw a 1950s horror movie about one," Trey noted. "Also, because I'm pretty old and never really evolved."

An oft-used argument pertinent to virtually every tenet of modern society and its participants.

M.A. opted for the puffer fish.

"They are very docile on the outside, but have innerly-explosive capabilities."

In fact, puffer fish are toxic, possessing enough poison to kill up to 30 humans, and lend weight to the saying, "they can kill you and they can eat you, but you don't have to taste good and you can stick in their craw."
Revenge remains a dish that tastes best cold, as the world continues to witness.

J.H. said he wanted to be an Oscar fish.

"Isn't he a Grouch?" I asked, referring to the "Sesame Street" character.

"Nope, they start out small, feed on other fish and outgrow the aquarium."

Ah, a business tycoon.

"I always thought I was a dolphin," Sis said, "but they're not a fish."

Thankfully, mankind retains those who think outside the box; free spirits sufficiently wary to elude the bait.

The Skyline Mailbox

Dear Editor:

It's insane. Completely insane. And I don't care who did it; it really wasn't up to the guy on the machine. I want to know why, because I can buy any decent justification for this insane act if someone was to sell me a good reason. But so far, I haven't heard even one explanation for this that makes any sense.

You see, someone has plowed Alpine Creek and turned it into a three lane highway. The creek no longer looks like a creek; it looks like the beginning of a construction project. The shrubs, grasses, crickets, frogs, snakes…even the rocky bottom…gone. The juvenile cottonwood tree and the willows next to the bridge…gone.

I can't even explain the amount if destruction that took place; you need to see it for yourself to understand.

And sure, I have a thing for native ecosystems. But I also own part of the creek. I live right next to the Gallego Avenue bridge. Part of the creek runs through the two lots I own. That means that I own a part of the eastern embankment of the creek, an embankment that is now gone. And with it, gone also is the trail I built down to the creek bed, the plants I put in the ground and the charm of having a house next to the creek.

If you tell me "flood control," I'll tell you this: take a look under the bridge. Check out the pile up. I'll show you where the bottleneck will occur and where water will back up, which, incidentally, is my yard. And then I'll show you the piles of earth that used to be the creek bottom pushed against what used to be the embankment, and I'll show the piles of formerly stable earth, now loose, that will wash away with the first flood. And after that, I'll show you where the trees used to be, the trees that hold the soil down in the event of a flood. It's not that anybody needs to ask for my permission to keep the city from flooding, but I am publicly questioning the motivations and decisions that led to these destructive actions. It's so senseless. It really is.

If you still tell me "flood control," then I tell you there must be another way. I am not a city planning expert, but I do know that violently and thoroughly eradicating all of the fauna and flora in Alpine Creek in the name of flood control is an action that can only be associated with the dark ages of urban engineering.

I challenge the leaders and decision makers of City of Alpine to answer my question, why?, and to find a better solution to whatever problem it is that could only be solved by destroying Alpine Creek.

Sincerely,
Sharon Collyer

Dear Editor,

I read David Johnson's article ["Sul Ross Is What It Is, Which Is Pretty Good"] and then Billy Branch's reply and must agree with Branch that college is going to be what you make it. I graduated from Sul Ross in '72 and can tell you with complete honesty that the fours years I spent in Alpine, Texas, were my best prior to having children (before they became teenagers). Upon returning this year for homecoming after a 35 year absence I can attest that those four years I spent there are still available to the students that attend Sul Ross now. Hasn't it changed? Nope, very little. I believe many of your students may not be taking advantage of the area.

I don't know about the food in the dorms but I do remember that the Mountainside cafeteria offered at least six different varieties of hamburger meat, none of them good. But I survived. The dorms? I lived in Fletcher hall, which at the time was an athletic dorm (the old one off campus). I called it the Alamo, because of a) its shape and b) I believe it was built around the same time as the Alamo. I loved it there. I didn't know that until I left, but the memories of the place and my time there overwhelm me.

I noticed that Johnson mentioned Texas, Texas Tech and A&M. I went to Tech for grad school and I've been to College Station and Austin on many, many occasions. Any of these towns offer a wide variety of bars and hangouts. So what? Lubbock does offer incomparable dust storms and a smell from the cattle feed pens so vile at times you literally have carry a bag with you in case of emergencies. Lubbock has a charming look from your rear view mirror.

But if not nightclubs and bars and lively entertainment what are you supposed to do? What is it about Alpine that I loved so much? Nature. Nature at it's finest. Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. NO university in the state of Texas or anywhere else for that matter, offers what you have in Alpine. None. And you should be taking advantage of it, because when you graduate and move on, wherever you move to, they're not going to have it like they do in Alpine. You've got the Chiso's, Glass and Davis Mountains and a vast frontier that looks very much like it did 1,000 years ago. All so very untamed and beautiful.

On many occasions we stopped by Herman's, picked us up some cold beer, drove out to the road side park, and sat in the back of my '59 Apache just to enjoy the weather, the scenery, or at night, do some stargazing. Boy, does Alpine have stars. It seems at times you can reach up and touch them. At ANY given time we could drive out and spot deer, antelope, javelina, mountain goat, roadrunners, even wolves.

While at Sul Ross as a student we took advantage of the "park" and the "rock house". We swam in the Rio Grande and we spent hours just looking, taking it all in and enjoying the scenery. We'd park at the roadside parks and spend hours walking the land. There's "mini" canyons, waterfalls and unbelievable scenery. Have you seen them?

Take your books and a lawn chair out to the road side park (towards Marfa) to study. Take in your surroundings, enjoy the weather, relax, watch a deer or antelope graze, watch (steer clear) for javelina's and enjoy what you have there. It's quite amazing and there's little difference in the scenery now and when I was there almost 40 years ago and THAT'S what's truly amazing.

You can experience bars and nightclubs, watch TV and play video games anywhere and anytime, but you can't experience Alpine unless you............well, experience Alpine. Enjoy your stay. Enjoy Alpine and the Big Bend area. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity. And I speak from experience.

Randy Wilson, Class of '72