Let us assume, for the moment, thatnwe will not be facing the 82nd or 101stnAirborne, but rather the BATF, DEA,nFBI, and other guardians of the publicnweal. In case there are more Wacos,nshould we not be able to load our assaultnrifles with armor-piercing ammo (outlawed,nby the way, in popular and cheapn7.62/39mm steel-core “armor-piercing”nform by a Clinton edict last year) tonmake it a fairer fight against the Kevlarcladnfeds? Should we not be allowed tonhave assault rifles with full-auto capabilitynto give us at least a chance against thenBATF’s new ground-attack aircraft withninfrared night-fighting equipment?nWhat about Stinger missiles, whichntaxpayers paid for and our governmentngave to Afghans for use against Sovietnhelicopters? Without heavy antitanknweaponry, how are we going to combatnthe Bradley fighting vehicles and MlAlntanks that the FBI used to scorch thenBranch Davidian compound at Waco?nWhat about sophisticated chemicalnwarfare gear to offset that dastardly CSngas (outlawed for use against foreign enemies)nso prized by the FBI and BATF asnan immobilizer of women, children, andnold men? If the British had played thisnunfaidy in the 1770’s or our forebearsnhad quietly knuckled under to arms restrictionsn. . . well, you know.nBefore our Second Amendment rightsnare whittled away to the point where allnwe are allowed to own are single-shot .22ncaliber rifles and 410-gauge shotguns,nthe law-abiding among us must steelnourselves and brook no interference withnour right to keep and bear whatever armsnwe think necessary to preserve our liberties.nWe need more folks like SheriffnArpaio and those in the three westernmostncounties of the Florida Panhandle,nwho are not fearful of taking collectivenself-defense as the very serious matternthat it is. After all, why should a nationalngovernment that purports to protectnsuch liberties object if the people arenequipped simply to help it do its job?nBut as the readers of this publication wellnunderstand. Leviathan wishes to disarmnus because a well-armed and vigilant citizenrynis all that blocks it from its ultimatengoals: subverting the Constitution,nimposing a police state, and merging thenUnited States into the “New Worid Order.”nMichael Hill is a historian and presidentnof The Southern League. He writes fromnTuscaloosa, Alabama.nACADEMIAnThe CreativitynProfessionnby Clay ReynoldsnIt has always been my impression thatnpeople who talk and write most aboutnthe creative process are not usually veryncreative. It’s sort of like a corollary tonthat old maxim, “Those who can’t do,nteach”; those who can’t create, analyzencreativity. Conversely, 1 must confessnthat as a book critic who also publishesncreative material, I find no apparent contradictionnin attempting to write strictlynfrom my iriiagination and then—oftennon the same day—grinding out a booknreview. Sometimes 1 criticize a work fornbeing unimaginative, or, in the contextnof this essay, “unereative.”nWhen 1 conduct workshops for aspiringnwriters, I often tell them that thencreative process is something that cannotnbe measured, developed, or enhanced.n”You either got it, or you ain’t,” 1 say,nwhich often gets wry smiles from mynaudience. “You can’t coach speed.”nMost of them think I’m lying, of course.nThey have been taught somewhere thatnwriting (or painting or composing) is all anmatter of learning the closely guarded,nsecret tricks of the trade and then diligentlynapplying them. A failure to succeednin a creative endeavor is merely anfailure of effort, not a lack of talent,nimagination, or originality. To admitnthat creativity was required would be tonadmit that they might not have it.nThe ambition of many of my studentsnis reflected in any hundred or so titlesncurrently available to aspiring writers.nHow to Successfully Publish for Moneyncould well be the title of all of them, repletenwith the split infinitive; but, as anynbook publisher will tell you, the only surenway to publish successfully for money isnto write a book on how to publish successfullynfor money. P.T. Barnum wasnright about suckers, or at least aboutn”wannabe” writers.nA recently published book on a relatednsubject is Creative Being: The Crafting ofnPerson and World by Eliot Deutsch, latennnof Columbia and Harvard, currently ofnWaikiki. Now, this book is hardly a “hownto” treatise filled with helpful hints for anwannabe’s inquiring mind. Rather, it is anscientific-philosophical analysis of personalitynand the relationship of experiencento the expression of original (i.e.,ncreative) thought, bringing together, as itnwere. Western and Eastern philosophynin an attempt to figure out why we are,nas individuals, in possession of uniquenpersonalities that prompt us to “create,”nor perhaps “recreate,” our own world. Innshort, it’s philosophy. Even so, while Innormally eschew such manuals and selfhelpnguides, I was eager to read this newnstudy when the editor of a literary journalnasked me to review it.nWith a Ph.D. from a fairly goodnschool, and having long taught at thenuniversity level and published somethingnin the neighborhood of 500 pieces, fromnone-paragraph reviews to full scholarlynbooks, with a novel or two thrown in forngood measure, I figured I could read,nenjoy, and learn from a philosophicalntreatise dealing with the creative mind.nI was wrong. I was no more than tennpages into Professor Deutsch’s booknwhen I realized that I had no idea whatnhe was talking about. I stopped, regrettednthe hour or so it had taken me to getnthat far, and started over, this time withna dictionary in hand. It didn’t help.nOnly a few of the unfamiliar terms andnexpressions Professor Deutsch uses appearnin Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary,nand none of them is defined in anynway that aids the understanding of hisnthesis. He doesn’t bother to define mostnof them either.nI’m speaking here of such words asn”atemporal,” “relatedness,” “ontic,”n”physicalist,” “mentalistic,” and so forth,nalong with other expressions I have comento associate with current literary criticism,nwhich I call “new-wave lit crit,” orn”punk philosophy,” but which is morenpropedy identified as “postmodernism.”nI had to stop again and ask myself whynany writer, particularly a distinguishednscholar such as Dr. Deutsch, wouldnchoose to express himself this way. Hisnprose is not “lucid,” as the book’s dustnjacket claims; it’s obtuse. It is truly a lessonnin the use of jargon, something Inshould have suspected from the selfsamendust jacket, which offered the termn”contextualizes” as a bonus for any read­ner brave enough to essay forth into Pro­nfessor Deutsch’s treatise.nThe book is, I suppose, creative, in thenMARCH 1995/47n