What? Me? Wrong about something? Oh, that's never happened, right? (Do the math: 3 engagements, 2 marriages, 1 divorce, 41 jobs: Yeah, I've proven to myself and the world that *I* am my own worst enemy and capable of some really lame-assed choices....)

Just spent the last hour or so going over the website. Yes, the guy is "different" and has a refreshing, but not that "unique" of approach to things. Okay, it's that or I've been around way too long paying way too much attention to "authority figures."

Okay, confession time. True story. The conscious beginnings of a life dedicated to challenging authority figures.

Me. Third grade. Nine-years old. 1961. Teacher discussing "marriages" and "families." Says: "When a man and woman get married, the woman changes her name and takes on the man's name."

Me: "Why?"

All the kids busted out laughing. Teacher: "I don't know. It's just tradition."

Okay. I can accept that. But what I KNEW from the reaction of the other kids to my question was this:

1. They were too "stupid" to think of the question themselves. Or,
2. They were too "shy" to ask something that they "assumed" everyone else would probably know, and therefore, would rather remain "ignorant" than ask a perceived "silly" question.

From that moment, I've never let "authority figures" get away without at least giving me a pretense of an answer. *Anything" is acceptable as long as it is not "...because I said so..." (You know, "I'm the boss." "I'm a cop." And the one I hate more than all others: "I'm just doing my job.")

And from that moment, I gave caring what others thought about me in this search for the legitimacy of "authority figures." (41 jobs! See why?)

So, back to Mr. Stevens. In one of his excerpts he mentions how he "questions everything." That's precisely what I, and probably everyone else here at SJ, do. We are NOT being argumentative nor confrontational when we want honest answers to honest questions about those claiming power and authority over our lives.

And this is where perhaps "destiny" comes into play. To put it more precisely, a man's personal experiences simply must become, for him and him alone, THE deciding factor by which all further "truth" will be known and understood.

So, for me, the "truth" is this:

Authority figures perceive Mr. Steven's form of "non-confrontation" as precisely that: Confrontation. It is, in my life and my experience, a "no-win" situation.

E.G.: Claiming the "right to remain" *should* be viewed as the legal, correct, and intelligent thing for ALL persons to do when confronted by the police. More often than not, however, is not such silence *perceived* as guilt? I.E., "if you didn't have anything to hide, you wouldn't mind answering our questions, letting us search your car, etc...."

Simultaneously, "co-operating" is *perceived* as an acknowledgment and acceptance of a power and authority that I, for one, know they do not have, and serves only to reinforce and perpetuate an abusive situation.

I guess what I'm saying is this: If by nothing more than intuition only, you could say I've been doing this stuff for my entire lifetime. "It" doesn't work all that hot for me because, in the final analysis, I've yet to encounter an "authority" figure who cares about anything other than maintaining the status quo, perpetuating and perserving his own self-interest.

I've not yet seen a judge, for example, who cares one bit about showing his "true colors," that is, that he's abusing his power. Why should he care? What am *I* going to do about it?

In short, and again, in *my* experience, the passive method of "asking" has the exact same results as "demanding." From "their" point of view, it has always, always been perceived as "challenging their authority." And it has been met, each time, every time, with clear and open hostilit and resentment.

Now, as to whether I care or not? Why, hell no! I haven't stopped yet and have no plans to. Why?

Because I have lived by two laws, and only two, my entire life. These two are the ONLY absolutes I know: True for me, true for you, true for everyone:

1. People make choices.
2. Actions have consequences.

I choose no battle, take no action, until I have weighed ALL the possible consequences. Then I begin "pushing." I simply know, intuitively, when it's time to declare victory, or capitulate, cut my losses and run.

Mr. Stevens experiences in these areas clearly have had different results, and all I can say is "Hooray for him." But I will continue, for the rest of my life, to say it is completely and thoroughly disengenuous for anyone, at any time, to say, of any thing, any product, any plan--any "thing"--"Hey. It worked for me. It'll work for you."

The outcome of any confrontation--physical attack, legal challenge, anything--will never be 100-percent predictable.

I'm just sad that our weakness--"our" meaning the people here at SJ and all "regular" people--is our morality. "They" win by using our own innate sense of goodness, decency, and civility against us.

As Zorro's nemesis in "Zorro, The Gay Blade" (gotta see if you haven't!) said: "I have always counted on my enemies being nicer than me and I have never, ever been disappointed."

The old saying has it: "Evil prospers when good men do nothing." True. So very true.

But evil will always prosper simply because "good" men have limits. Evil does not.

Thanks, y'all, for not beating me too badly. I *almost* checked out his site before I said anything. But I thought, "Well, THIS time I'll go out on a limb...."

So I do stand corrected.

Randy