To proclaim to the world, personally, that I am a strange bird is, needless to say, superfluous. Anyone who has given over 5 minutes of his time to reading this chronicle would have reached that conclusion spontaneously and without a great deal of difficulty. I make this confession not filled with pride ("See? I am not at all like the mob!") nor do I make it because I feel that I am in any way superior to the aforementioned mob ("Behold! I have read the greats of literature and philosophy and, therefore, know more than the dreadful booboisie about me!"). Rather, I make the acknowledgment to make a simple point: To wit, I am preternaturally and constitutionally immune to many of the ills that befall less...well....quirky men among whom (and from whom) I earn my daily bread. In perhaps clearer prose, I have a vacuum where many have a burning desire to be...well..."trendy".

You see, the world we live in is driven by what George Washington (and many others) called "self interest". It is known, in more common parlance, by another word, a less flavorful word, indeed, one of the seven deadly sins. The world of mice and men is driven by greed. This is particularly true in Democratic societies and has achieved its rather ugly pinnacle in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, America. Our society knows no greater driving force (and I include the desire for sex, drugs or rock and roll in this proclamation) than simple greed. The lust for material acquisitions is nurtured by democratic ideals and courses through the veins of every society which has ever adopted that mode of governance. Democracy is to greed as sunlight is to the growing flower, soil is to the earthworm and corruption and deception are to public officials.

Please allow me to explain. Democracy posits that "All men are created equal". The fact that this position is patently indefensible in any debate is of little consequence. We have been infused with the idea, it has been spliced into our DNA and, as such, we believe it from the cradle to the coffin. We are all equal under the law and, if that is true, then we must be equal de facto. If that is the premise, then let us see where it leads us. When we believe, to the core of our marrow, that we are all equal, we are disquieted to observe, all around us, inequity. There are men who have more money, better jobs, more comely wives and more opulent homes. Yet, we are supposed to be equal. After all, our most hallowed document, the Declaration of Independence declares it to be so. Thomas Jefferson penned it (though he surely didn’t really believe it) and, therefore, it must be true.

So, what is our reaction when we see those about us, presumably, born our equals but in possession of grandeur that we do cannot possibly acquire? We become envious and, even, often enough, grow to hate (or, at least, despise) these men. They must have achieved their wealth through stealth, skullduggery, thievery and deception for, after all, we were born equal! We seek respite from government and, as all governments which seek not to be overthrown are wont to do, it intervenes on behalf of the angry "have nots" (always a majority) to level the playing field. It’s snipers are affirmative action laws, its heavy artillery are suffocating taxes on the "haves" and its infantry proudly bears the crest of the IRS. It is the single goal of the democratic government to legislate equality. Which is to say, to make all men exactly alike, clones of one another, so that The Great Lie that "All men are created equal" can be finally achieved.

And, yet, inequalities remain, a blight upon the land, like offensive graffiti on the marble pantheons of democratic government, immune to bleach and the strongest cleaners. The presence of financial disparities were the prime source of propaganda in the 1950s and 1960s by those in the Communist Party and widespread socialist movements of the time. They bleated: "How can America be a ‘Land of Equality’ when people live in poverty and others in obscene grandeur? Where is the equality of the poor sharecropper in the South or the factory worker in the North?" It was eventually decided (at least by most of America) that the cure socialism offered was worse than the disease, but the movement still exists and, in some quarters, grows strong even today.

Each election, candidates promise to rid the nation of this heinous "inequality of wealth" - some going so far, recently, as to propose a "redistribution of wealth." And yet, those who "have" continue to have and those who "have not" continue to wallow in their envy and hate. And, so, society firmly believes that we must all be equal and if not equal de facto then, at least, equal in appearance. The inevitable result? The "have nots" spend money they do not have (nor are likely to ever have) to appear to be one of the "haves". This is altogether fitting and proper for it is ordained by law, sanctified in the Declaration of Independence and promised by every Democratic candidate since Roosevelt.

Since politicians dare not refute the lie upon which democracy is based, government has - particularly over last half century - allowed the disastrous process of "personal credit" to bloom like red algae, fed it with benign neglect and have brought about a suffocating desolation on the land. When the follow-the-herd American is driven by greed and constantly infused with the lie of the entitlement of equality of lifestyle and possessions (without the necessary equality of effort), disaster looms close to heel. Boobus americanus (lacking any personal control over the forces that drive them), therefore, buy not the necessities of life but the trappings of wealth. And they buy it not with money they have earned but by money that is not actually theirs, i.e. credit.

Thus, I assert that Democracy - based on and perpetuating the fallacy of equality - has brought us to the point we are in America today: in a word, bankrupt. We, as a nation and a people, are so financially destitute that if a depression is not already upon the land, it is a cat’s whisker away. The average American proudly carries on his person 7 or 8 credit cards (for which they simply pay the minimum payment due, i.e. interest charges, each month) and, deluded as they are, somehow believe they are acting responsibly. On average, we all owe upwards of $20,000 dollars in credit card debt. This does not include the heavier burdens of a mortgage or car loans. And our fraudulent pursuit of the fabled "equality" (about as real as leprechauns, unicorns, honest taxpayers and ethical attorneys) has brought us to this ignominious - if not ultimately fatal - state.

It is so bad that Russia’s President has placed the blame for the world economic crisis squarely on the broad shoulders of American greed. Even worse, he proclaims to the world that Russia’s financial solvency is the solution to the problem. And who is to refute him? The irony of the Chief Executive of the former communist empire claiming to be able to solve a financial dilemma for the greatest capitalist nation to ever exist is not lost on this observer. Krushchev once banged his shoe and declared that "We (the then U.S.S.R) will bury you". Who knew then that he meant his shovel would be our own greed and avarice and that he would bury us, not with missiles, but with little plastic cards with our names embossed on them?

The simple fact of the matter is that democracy, as an ideology, does not mean that all men are created with the same gifts - physically, mentally or socially - and that we are not equal in nature. Homo sapiens, like all species in nature, have variability and individual strengths and weaknesses within the individuals of the group. I cannot play basketball, fix an automobile, design a building, sew, balance a quadratic equation, open an ironing board, plant and harvest a crop, complete a marathon or wash dishes. Others are blessed with these unique talents but I, destitute of them, cannot come close to performing them with any degree of expertise.

Democracy is not a biological theorem. It is, simply enough, merely one of many methods of government. It declares that equality exists in all men under the law of the land. That law, when properly formulated, allows for equality of opportunity and guarantees that no man shall be unduly hindered from his rightful pursuit of "happiness" (whatever that might mean to that individual) by his fellow citizens or by government, itself. He cannot be denied any rights due any other citizens (except when that individual forfeits his rights, such as the right to vote currently denied to felons) due to any characteristic of the individual, himself. He cannot be hindered because of his race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc. And, thus unfettered, he is free to use the gifts nature has given him (and strive to overcome the weakness she has inflicted him with) to achieve and become anything he may choose to become. That is the "equality" - and the only type of equality - democracy can enforce. In brief, democracy is not a panacea for the cruel arbitrariness of nature; it is a system of governmental. If democracy could legislate equality, all men would look like George Clooney and all women would look like Catherine Zeta-Jones. And unappealing people (think Lyle Lovett) or women (think Rosie O’Donnell) would be extinct.

Some might argue that this is merely a dusty recitation of William Sumner’s "social Darwinism." In a sense, it is. Sumner believed that men differed and had, based on their biological gifts, varying chances to succeed in a competitive society. He also believed that government intervention, when taken to the extreme, will never solve the stark, cruel biological reality that some men will succeed in the world and others may not. Biology trumps legislation every time. History has shown that social welfare (a kinder, gentler writer would use the more P.C. phrase, "safety nets") actually hinders and neuters the natural instincts for man to compete. After all, why should someone compete to get a job and put his mental and physical skills on the line when he can sit at home and draw a government paycheck? Why toil for minimum wage when one can make more than that simply by staying at home and procreating?

And, so, here we are. We feel entitled to be "equal" and spend to make it so. But leasing a Mercedes and wearing the latest fashions levels no scale and fools few friends. If we really understood that what we drive, wear and live in has very little to do with who and what we actually are as human beings, perhaps we would rethink our lifestyles. I, for one, revel in the fact (a fact, incidently, that each of us can claim) that there is only one "me" and, quirks, warts and all, I am unique and like no other on this planet. For me, at least, that tops any futile attempt I may make to "be" anyone else. No amount of wishing or my part or democratic legislation will ever have me "be" George Clooney in wealth or appearance. Mores the pity.

Let the powers that be "redistribute wealth" and legislate economic equality to their merry heart’s content. I will never be the equal of any man, in any sense other than equal under the law, for I am simply me and, precisely so, one of a kind. I’m not saying that I am superior to anyone but will quickly affirm that, in some capacities, I am the inferior of many. I am the equal of no man simply because there is no one who is me.

And no matter how much I might wish it were not true, you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.