The last time I felt like this was the first day of my freshman year. My father parked his car in the circle in front of O'Hara Hall. My hand paused next to the door handle in that moment, unsure whether I should get out, and do all which that implied, or stay in the car and go home. It would have been easy to stay in that car, and I probably would have saved a dollar or two, but I opened the door on a venture that lasted four years.
Today I find myself gripped to that same door handle. And I am older now, and I cannot stay in the car. The time has come for me to quit my father's car.
It is natural for one so young to look forward, grasping the future with an innocent hand, but I would prefer to look backward, regarding the past as I would a saged learner, as a tool to see into my own nature, and the nature of all men and women.
I came to Stonehill a bit naive. I saw truth in all things, but someone was trying to hide it from me. There was a discrepancy between what I believed to be the natural state and the actual state. There were too many rules.
George Bernard Shaw once said that "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." I became unreasonable.
I became an "angry young man," disagreeing with almost any rule that might be arbitrarily imposed on me. Rules absorb truth. Truth is freedom. I was not free.
I spent a good deal of my freshman year banging my head against the wall, running off at the mouth, expecting answers without asking questions and receiving none. In my sophomore and junior years, practical action replaced talking. Previously, I had been involved in the shadows of student government. In my second and third years at Stonehill, I ran for student government president, losing both times.
In those same two years, I saw the way the game is played, and in my youth, I tried to change it. I was seeking freedom by altaring the rules.
My senior year has come and passed quickly. I haven't been very involved in Stonehill this year. I worked in the public affairs office writing nice things about the college. I lived with eleven fellow students in Manchester House. We talked.
In my senior year at Stonehill, I left the stage of action and went back to talking. I was wrong to think that what I wanted could be won by altaring the rules.
This year has been reflective. I appreciate the value of the academic experience. It tuned me like a fine engine. I affirm the importance of a balance between the professional and personal life. I fought for that in my sophomore year. I see the rules that I have fought so hard against as self-imposed. Every man and woman is as free as he or she chooses to be. Even at Stonehill, with all of its regulations, it is possible to be free. I am free. Stonehill is the foundation upon which to base an autonomous life. All of the structures of world order are here. We can see through them and be free.
Freedom does not lie in any parent’s rule. Freedom does not lie in any institutions rule. It does not exist under any government's rule. Freedom exists under one's own rule.
Freedom is not tangible. It does not exist in a schoolbook. It is not in any government document. It is not written in any bill of rights. Freedom is truth. It comes from within. It is not granted by any outside order.
There are free men and women in America. There are free men and women in the Soviet Union. Freedom exists in third world countries. Freedom exists wherever people are strong enough to see truth and say, "I am free."
Sovereignty is not gained by changing any earthly order. All orders are the same. All governments are the same. Some may seem to give freedom, and others may seem to limit freedom, but liberty cannot be granted by any government. Governments issue their own truths and thus limit freedom. Freedom comes to those who see it. Men on death row, behind prison walls, can be free.
As we grow older, we become caricatures of ourselves. We develop a philosophy and risk drowning in it, becoming increasingly narrow-minded. Let us hope that the young model upon which we base our life is free, for if it is not, we become prisoners in a deliberate world of imposed order which we allow to rule our sacred lives. We live in a time when we must be increasingly willing to take control. Our leadership has driven us to an age of destruction. We can die at the touch of a button.
Today I am leaving this campus. I may never return, although I probably will. I cannot leave what we lived here. I may never see things as clearly as when I saw things here. I will walk away, I will abandon my father's car, thanking him for driving me this far, and I will never forget what I saw here.
I leave Stonehill with a keener understanding of truth. I lost my innocence, and I regained it here. I still see the way I always do and now I know the rules.
Buy The Hierophant:
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wag the Dog II
SMASH CUT TO:
INT. OUTSIDE DOUG ALLEN’S OFFICE - DAYDOUG ALLEN is our hero. He’s the Chief Negotiator for the most powerful actor’s union, Screen Actors Guild. He’s a tough negotiator.
THE AMPTP, the villains, are afraid Doug will expose them. They will do anything to stop him.
JAMIE CROMWELL, RICHARD MASUR, NED VAUGHN, AMY BRENNEMAN, ADAM ARKIN, KEN HOWARD, AMY AQUINO, TOM HANKS, SALLY FIELD AND DANNY DEVITO, members of the “DIVIDE FOR AFTRA” coalition, huddle at the edge of Doug’s open door.
Jamie leans in to whisper in Richard’s ear.
JAMIE
Action.
RICHARD
This is it.
NED
Oakily doakily!
They enter abruptly.Oakily doakily!
INT. DOUG’S OFFICE - CONTINUOUS
Surprised, Doug stands to greet them, extending his hand.
DOUG
Welcome, brothers and sisters!
KEN
Hit the showers!
JAMIE
Cut!
AMY AQUINO
Checking the gate.
DANNY
That's a wrap, suckers!
THE MEMBERSHIP is stunned.Welcome, brothers and sisters!
KEN
Hit the showers!
JAMIE
Cut!
AMY AQUINO
Checking the gate.
DANNY
That's a wrap, suckers!
FADE OUT.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
SAG Talk on "the DAMage Report"
Here's a link to a radio show I did today:
The DAMage Report with guest James Tripp
We talk about the SAG coup d’état by the "Divide for Aftra" contingent in the second hour.
Comedy Nation This Week - The Inauguration
James Tripp, Carrie Snow, Rick Overton, Troy Conrad and Andrew Koenig join host John Fugelsang. Filmed January 21, 2009.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
From the Archives: 1984 Interview with Senator Gary Hart
In the summer of 1984, I was a reporter for The Martha’s Vineyard Times and I interviewed Colorado Senator Gary Hart, who had almost beat Vice President Walter Mondale for the Democratic nomination for President, and his wife, Lee. Here it is for posterity:
Q: Are you glad it’s over?
Sen. Hart: No, I wish I were the nominee, but I’ll campaign for the party nominee.
Q: Do you think you could have beat Reagan?
Sen. Hart: Sure.
Q: Would you have had a better chance than Mondale?
Sen. Hart: I don’t want to make that comparison. I’ll do everything I can to help the ticket. I hope Mondale wins, and I think he can.
Q: Do you think it’s hard to run for public office today? Everything is so scrutinized.
Sen. Hart: I think that the press has to cover politics differently.
Q: Do you think that you’re being fair?
Sen. Hart: I don’t want to get into that. I’m not in the business of judging the press, but I would just say, particularly for those who announce for the presidency…the personal kind of scrutiny that’s going to occur, ought to be done well ahead of time. The press does not need to wait. Sure, after you’ve won the New Hampshire primary, it does descend on you.
Q: With Geraldine Ferraro for example?
Sen. Hart: Her case is different.
Q: Nobody had time. Not even Mondale had time to scrutinize her background. Do you think what is happening to her husband is fair? Do you think he should be put through that? After all, he’s not the one running.
Sen. Hart: The family gets elected whether we like it or not. Lee is in the real estate business. If she had any shady or questionable dealings, I would have been pursued, and I think probably rightly so. I think it’s a question of not whether, but how.
Q: John Zaccaro has been vindicated for the most part, but they’re still making an issue out of it.
Sen. Hart: “They” are your profession. I’m not going to be in the business of judging journalism. Journalism has to be self-regulating. Politicians can’t decide what to write in journalism. You all have to decide yourselves whether you’re doing your job or not, and when the boundary line is crossed.
Lee Hart: I think it’s more of a partnership today. I think, frankly, when you seek the public trust, you owe every possible scrutiny that’s within legitimate bounds for the public to be able to place their trust in you. Unfortunately, those who are in public office or running for public office today are having to bear the burden because of abuses in the past.
When Gary first ran for United States Senate in 1974, there was no financial disclosure law. We disclosed every possible thing, including our income tax return and we’ve done that every year since.
Q: Do you file a joint tax return?
Lee Hart: Oh, yes.
Sen. Hart: It doesn’t matter. For 11 years now we’ve released our tax returns. When I ran in ’74, I said I thought it would take this country twenty years to get over Watergate. I think that’s exactly what’s going on.
Q: The public doesn’t want to be tricked again?
Lee Hart: I don’t know that the public has been fooled on this particular issue.
Sen. Hart: The public’s been told more than it wants to know.
Lee Hart: I do think the voters want to have confidence and place trust in people who are seeking office, particularly the two highest offices in the land. Therefore, I think that’s a part of it. The new problem that’s been coming about, and particularly with Ferraro, is that with more and more women running and holding public office, the spouse may well be the main breadwinner. It’s one of the things one has to take into consideration when they’re running for public office. We are partners whether we like it or not, in a far greater sense than a husband and wife ever were before.
Lee and Senator Gary Hart on Martha's Vineyard in 1984.
Q: What do you think are Mondale’s chances?
Sen. Hart: I’ve talked to him and he understands it’s an uphill fight. The polls show him to be a few points behind, but that can change very rapidly.
Q: What would four more years of Reagan-Bush mean?
Sen. Hart: An increasing escalation of the nuclear arms race, most frighteningly, a further decline in government commitment to a clean environment, a further deterioration of social programs necessary for children and the elderly, education and health programs, a complete abandonment by the administration of a meaningful social safety net and increased hostilities in foreign policy.
Q: Are we the “good guys” anymore in our foreign policy?
Sen. Hart: It’s mixed. In the third world, the more we conduct overt-covert wars in Nicaragua, the more we align ourselves with regimes like the Marcos regime and the former Somoza regime, the less we are.
Q: Should we have a “hands off” policy in Central America?
Sen. Hart: No, I think we have an interest there, both a national security interest and a spherical interest, but also an economic interest. We can promote democracy; we just don’t need to do it with the barrel of a gun.
Q: Let’s go through some of the Central American countries. What should we be doing in Guatemala?
Sen. Hart: I’m not going to give you a country by country synopsis. In the region, we ought to be cooperating more generally with other democratic allies---Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama---and there ought to be regional development banks, American manufacturing capability being exported and generally attempting to raise the standard of living, nutrition and so on.
Q: Should we be accepting the recommendations of the Contadora group?
Sen. Hart: Yes, very much so.
Q: What about reports that the CIA backed Contras are killing civilians? What should we be doing about that?
Sen. Hart: We shouldn’t be doing it.
Q: We shouldn’t be backing them?
Sen. Hart: I, for two years, very visibly and vocally, opposed this government’s policy, including that policy, in Central America.
Q: Should we be backing anyone down there? Should we be backing El Salvador as we are?
Sen. Hart: Only if they agree to end the death squads. Only when the death squads are completely eliminated should we be providing military assistance. And the economic assistance ought to be more carefully targeted.
Q: How much control do we have over our money once we give it to them?
Sen. Hart: Under this administration, very little, but it could be different.
Q: Do you think Walter Mondale having accepted PAC money is still an issue?
Sen. Hart: I’m not going to re-run this issue.
Q: What about ’88? Are you going to be there?
Sen. Hart: I hope Mondale is running for re-election.
Q: You’ll support Walter Mondale?
Sen. Hart: If he’s the President of the United States, I’ll be working to see that he gets a second term.
Q: And if he’s not?
Sen. Hart: That’s a long way off.
Q: Do you foresee yourself running again?
Sen. Hart: We have a national election on our hands right now and I think we’ve got to win that one.
[Note---Senator Hart was a front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1988 and withdrew after it was reported he was involved in an extramarital affair.]
Buy My Book:
Q: Are you glad it’s over?
Sen. Hart: No, I wish I were the nominee, but I’ll campaign for the party nominee.
Q: Do you think you could have beat Reagan?
Sen. Hart: Sure.
Q: Would you have had a better chance than Mondale?
Sen. Hart: I don’t want to make that comparison. I’ll do everything I can to help the ticket. I hope Mondale wins, and I think he can.
Q: Do you think it’s hard to run for public office today? Everything is so scrutinized.
Sen. Hart: I think that the press has to cover politics differently.
Q: Do you think that you’re being fair?
Sen. Hart: I don’t want to get into that. I’m not in the business of judging the press, but I would just say, particularly for those who announce for the presidency…the personal kind of scrutiny that’s going to occur, ought to be done well ahead of time. The press does not need to wait. Sure, after you’ve won the New Hampshire primary, it does descend on you.
Q: With Geraldine Ferraro for example?
Sen. Hart: Her case is different.
Q: Nobody had time. Not even Mondale had time to scrutinize her background. Do you think what is happening to her husband is fair? Do you think he should be put through that? After all, he’s not the one running.
Sen. Hart: The family gets elected whether we like it or not. Lee is in the real estate business. If she had any shady or questionable dealings, I would have been pursued, and I think probably rightly so. I think it’s a question of not whether, but how.
Q: John Zaccaro has been vindicated for the most part, but they’re still making an issue out of it.
Sen. Hart: “They” are your profession. I’m not going to be in the business of judging journalism. Journalism has to be self-regulating. Politicians can’t decide what to write in journalism. You all have to decide yourselves whether you’re doing your job or not, and when the boundary line is crossed.
Lee Hart: I think it’s more of a partnership today. I think, frankly, when you seek the public trust, you owe every possible scrutiny that’s within legitimate bounds for the public to be able to place their trust in you. Unfortunately, those who are in public office or running for public office today are having to bear the burden because of abuses in the past.
When Gary first ran for United States Senate in 1974, there was no financial disclosure law. We disclosed every possible thing, including our income tax return and we’ve done that every year since.
Q: Do you file a joint tax return?
Lee Hart: Oh, yes.
Sen. Hart: It doesn’t matter. For 11 years now we’ve released our tax returns. When I ran in ’74, I said I thought it would take this country twenty years to get over Watergate. I think that’s exactly what’s going on.
Q: The public doesn’t want to be tricked again?
Lee Hart: I don’t know that the public has been fooled on this particular issue.
Sen. Hart: The public’s been told more than it wants to know.
Lee Hart: I do think the voters want to have confidence and place trust in people who are seeking office, particularly the two highest offices in the land. Therefore, I think that’s a part of it. The new problem that’s been coming about, and particularly with Ferraro, is that with more and more women running and holding public office, the spouse may well be the main breadwinner. It’s one of the things one has to take into consideration when they’re running for public office. We are partners whether we like it or not, in a far greater sense than a husband and wife ever were before.
Lee and Senator Gary Hart on Martha's Vineyard in 1984.
Q: What do you think are Mondale’s chances?
Sen. Hart: I’ve talked to him and he understands it’s an uphill fight. The polls show him to be a few points behind, but that can change very rapidly.
Q: What would four more years of Reagan-Bush mean?
Sen. Hart: An increasing escalation of the nuclear arms race, most frighteningly, a further decline in government commitment to a clean environment, a further deterioration of social programs necessary for children and the elderly, education and health programs, a complete abandonment by the administration of a meaningful social safety net and increased hostilities in foreign policy.
Q: Are we the “good guys” anymore in our foreign policy?
Sen. Hart: It’s mixed. In the third world, the more we conduct overt-covert wars in Nicaragua, the more we align ourselves with regimes like the Marcos regime and the former Somoza regime, the less we are.
Q: Should we have a “hands off” policy in Central America?
Sen. Hart: No, I think we have an interest there, both a national security interest and a spherical interest, but also an economic interest. We can promote democracy; we just don’t need to do it with the barrel of a gun.
Q: Let’s go through some of the Central American countries. What should we be doing in Guatemala?
Sen. Hart: I’m not going to give you a country by country synopsis. In the region, we ought to be cooperating more generally with other democratic allies---Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama---and there ought to be regional development banks, American manufacturing capability being exported and generally attempting to raise the standard of living, nutrition and so on.
Q: Should we be accepting the recommendations of the Contadora group?
Sen. Hart: Yes, very much so.
Q: What about reports that the CIA backed Contras are killing civilians? What should we be doing about that?
Sen. Hart: We shouldn’t be doing it.
Q: We shouldn’t be backing them?
Sen. Hart: I, for two years, very visibly and vocally, opposed this government’s policy, including that policy, in Central America.
Q: Should we be backing anyone down there? Should we be backing El Salvador as we are?
Sen. Hart: Only if they agree to end the death squads. Only when the death squads are completely eliminated should we be providing military assistance. And the economic assistance ought to be more carefully targeted.
Q: How much control do we have over our money once we give it to them?
Sen. Hart: Under this administration, very little, but it could be different.
Q: Do you think Walter Mondale having accepted PAC money is still an issue?
Sen. Hart: I’m not going to re-run this issue.
Q: What about ’88? Are you going to be there?
Sen. Hart: I hope Mondale is running for re-election.
Q: You’ll support Walter Mondale?
Sen. Hart: If he’s the President of the United States, I’ll be working to see that he gets a second term.
Q: And if he’s not?
Sen. Hart: That’s a long way off.
Q: Do you foresee yourself running again?
Sen. Hart: We have a national election on our hands right now and I think we’ve got to win that one.
[Note---Senator Hart was a front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1988 and withdrew after it was reported he was involved in an extramarital affair.]
Buy My Book:
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Free Speech Show - "Predictions for 2009"
James Tripp, Bill Bronner, John Fugelsang, Carrie Snow, and Angela Shelton discuss what they think the future of America will look like. Filmed December 14, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)