Vin Suprynowicz wrote:

The campaign to ban land mines

Vin, I have long held to the "80/20 Asshole Theory." There are many people in life whose circumstances of birth, heredity, environmental influences and social status would, with everything being equal, be destined to turn out 80% Asshole and 20% Decent Person, or vice-versa. Since we can never really know what the life and circumstances of another person has truly encompassed, we can never be certain, upon meeting someone who is 60% Asshole, whether they were destined to be 80% Asshole, and raised themself, or whether they were destined to be 20% Asshole, and lost major ground, becoming 80% Asshole, instead. I understand the perspective from which you write about Princess Diana, but I cannot help but view her from the perspective of an upper class young woman who was subjected to the anal-retentive mind-programming-control of the monarchy and still managed to raise her children in a wider world than their predecessors had been exposed to. I consider myself to be an anarchist, libertarian free-thinker and a man of reason, but I also realize that if I were crowned King of England tomorrow, that I might be offended if you didn't bow three times when you entered a room where my divine presence was present. I truly believe that the best one can hope for in life is to raise their children to go beyond the boundaries that limit their parents. Diana's destiny within the monarchy was to become programmed to fit into the narrow confines of the role prepared for her. Perhaps if her Puppet Masters had been more patient, she may have become enslaved according to the wishes of her superiors, but the fact is that she was buffeted by trials and tribulations that resulted from her not going quietly into the dark night that the monarchy had planned for her. Diana used the position that was bestowed upon her to give comfort and hope to the halt, the lame, and the downtrodden. Did she do it out of self-serving egoism, or an attempt to gain recognition and fame as a humanitarian? I don't know, I don't care, and it is really none of my business. What *is* my business is to view my fellow man/woman and perceive if they are lifted up or further downtrodden by their interactions with myself and others. I have seen the faces of the AIDS children that she touched, when no one else would, and the lepers whom she shook hands with, when others were afraid to do so, and I have seen the light that she spread among those whom society had cast aside. You said: "They are, after all, born into a society where a person with the wrong accent, or skin color, can never hope to do more than dream of a royal marriage, and dinner at the Ritz." You are wrong. Even the peasant and the imprisoned can dream the dreams that come from the fairy tales that uplift us and give us hope, however unrealistic it may be. And, even if it is one in a million, someone will have that dream come true. Yes, in reality, the story of Diana, the commoner turned Princess, was overblown. No, you are doing the downtrodden no favor by trying to point that out to them. Why? Because no one will grasp the golden ring if no one tries. No one will rise above their predestined station in life if no one believes that it is indeed possible to do so. Perhaps Diana was a priveleged, rich cunt who had it 'better' than those whom she condescended to 'bless' with her presence and her attention. But she touched the untouchables and she lifted those who had been held down, and those whose lives she touched benefitted from her presence, no matter what her motivations or intentions. You write that Diana's campaign against the use of land mines is an unrealistic attempt to negate the cheap and effective defense of the poorer countries. Perhaps what was needed was for her to have the input of someone such as yourself who understands the need for cheap and effective self-defence, so that she could concentrate her efforts on removing landmines that are no longer needed, and preventing the dispersal of landmines which are not truly needed for self-defence, but are only serving as 'toys for boys' who want to play soldier. As far as I am concerned, you and Diana both have something very important in common--the world is a better place for your being here. We need more Vin's, so that there is someone to remind the bleeding hearts that weakness and capitulation can cost more lives and loss of freedom than are gained by seeking an unbalanced 'peace'. We need more Diana's, so that there is someone to remind the warriors that indiscriminate use of weaponry that is not essential may result in the loss of lives of the innocent, rather than the elimination of the threat that must be defended against. I guess what I am saying is that it no more matter to me whether Diana is a fraudulent invention of the media, than it matters to me whether you are a carpetbagger riding on the coat tails of the libertarian movement. What matters to me is that Diana inspires others to treat the untouchables as fellow human beings, and that you remind me to carry a big stick to beat the fuckers with if I find them sneaking up behind me. Besides, anyone who gets whacked out by the monarchy can't be all that bad... {:>}------< (Help! They knocked me down, and cut off my arms!) Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld "The Final Frontier" http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn