The Magpie and the Hawk -- A Parable for Our Times?

Observed one afternoon from my kitchen window.

A hawk swooped into the yard, apparently after another bird, looking for dinner. He missed, and decided to rest on the fence. A magpie mosied over and landed beside him, maybe a yard away. The hawk was alert but didn't move. The magpie eased over a step or two, and the hawk sat. The magpie did that maybe a dozen times, and was maybe a foot away. He was too close. The hawk took off, the magpie chasing him, squawking loudly.

This incident sent me to doing what I euphemistically call thinking. The magpie probably had a nest nearby and was defending it. Notice that I emphasize that he was defending it. The hawk was bigger but the magpie was motivated. But the magpie didn't see any point in attacking the hawk directly, even though he would probably survive the fight. No, he chose to try to intimidate the hawk instead. He succeeded. The hawk was only looking for something to eat. He had no interest in getting into a pointless fight, even though technically it was a fight he should have won. But he would have been weakened and rendered less capable of searching for and acquiring food. So he yielded the ground and left instead. The magpie won by avoiding a fight, not by seeking it.

Is there a lesson for the US here, specifically Bush? Is it really necessary to attack all these hawks around the world, especially since they are more like sparrows when compared to the US? Is it really smart to weaken ourselves
so that if we really do have to fight we will be less capable than if we had focused on defense? Think about it.

The End of Freedom in America

The Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution for us. By a close vote (5 - 4) the Supremes decided that a govenmental unit can take your property to turn it over to a commercial enterprise for development. Previously, Eminent Domain was considered reserved for public need, such as highways or schools. Under this ruling, your house or business can be condemned to turn the property over to Wal-Mart. The gap between the haves and have-nots has been made even wider.This means that private property has ceased to have any meaning. The very basis of our form of government has been summarily destroyed. Without private property the concept of the individual is meaningless. This decision, for the first time in U. S. history, makes the government unequivocally superior to the individual. There can be no free markets, nor freedom of action, with the shadow of government seizure looming in the background. Carried to its logical conclusion, this decision means that the government can seize your wrist watch if it perceives a higher use for it.