The Lady or the Tiger – Victim to the False Propositions of neo-Marxists?

Author Frank R. Stockton’s classic short story The Lady or the Tiger presents a solution to resolve the unresolvable:

From Wikipedia

The semi-barbaric king of an ancient land used an unusual form of punishment for offenders in his kingdom. The offender would be placed in an arena where his only way out would be to go through one of two doors. Behind one door was a beautiful woman hand-picked by the king and behind the other was a fierce tiger. The offender was then asked to pick one of the doors without knowing what was behind it. If he picked the door with the woman behind it, then he was declared innocent but was also required to marry the woman, regardless of previous marital status. If he picked the door with the tiger behind it, though, then he was deemed guilty and the tiger would rip him to pieces.

One day the king found that his daughter, the princess, had taken a lover far beneath her station. The king could not allow this and so he threw the offender in prison and set a date for his trial in the arena. On the day of his trial the suitor looked to the princess for some indication of which door to pick. The princess did, in fact, know which door concealed the woman and which one the tiger, but was faced with a conundrum—if she indicated the door with the tiger, then the man she loved would be killed on the spot; however, if she indicated the door with the lady, her lover would be forced to marry another woman, a woman that the princess deeply hated and believed her lover has flirted with. Finally she did indicate a door, which the suitor then opened.

At this point the question is posed to the reader, “Did the tiger come out of that door, or did the lady?” The question is not answered, and is left as a thought experiment regarding human nature.

The idea is that there are only two solutions to a problem, both being quite extreme.  This is the false premise that we are presented by the left at every turn: choose our extreme ideology, or face utter destruction!  If the conservative, tea party, or just run-of-the-mill Republicans don’t agree, then cries of  “the sky is falling” result.

My contention is that there are more than two ways to solve a problem. People in healthy families realize that both parties in any situation have to give way, sacrifice, and accept the ideas, wants, needs, and requests of the other family members, in order to come to a workable solution.  If dad wants to buy a fancy, expensive sports car that only fits two passengers of a four member family and mom wants a full blown minivan to hold the entire little league team… well maybe they settle on a mid-sized Outback; mom gets the room she needs and dad can off-road on the weekends.  Compromise is a two way street and all parties must be heard and considered.  Compromise is never “my way or else….”  that is bullying.

Let me demonstrate some of the issues that are being dealt with in this “all or nothing” method.  We must not be bullied, which means we must learn to deflect this controlling method of the left.

Reported at RedState:

The Ends Justify the Means: The Day Emma Goldman Shot President McKinley

Normally, I don’t like to stray too far from the topic of today’s unions but, on Saturday, two horrific acts of evil took place in America that were both sad and infuriating:

The first, most heinous act, occurred when six people were slaughtered (including a federal judge and a nine-year old little girl born on 9/11/01) and multiple others that were gunned down in Tuscon, AZ.

The second atrocity occurred within minutes after the violence in Tucson, when the nation’s hardcore Leftists and mainstream media tried—and failed—to convince America that Emma Goldman killed President William McKinley. By the logic of the Left, Emma Goldman, whose vitriolic rhetoric against the government, her opposition to Christianity, and general anarchist preachings was, from hundreds of miles away, somehow responsible for the death of President McKinley as surely as if her hand was on the gun and her finger pulled the trigger.


As Erick Erickson pointed out, ”the tea party movement won in November. Winners don’t go on shooting sprees.” The Left’s attack on Saturday, however, was not an impromptu misguided attempt to assign blame, it was nothing more and nothing less than an Alinsky-style lynching of the Right. The ends justify the means—even if those means are based on a lie.  The fact that the ‘guilt by association’ argument (a well-used propaganda technique) may have even been planned or coordinated, as the facts became more clear, the Left’s rush to judgment was not only evil, it was also flat-out wrong. Facts do not matter to the Left if it fits their narrative.

The Lady: Allowing crazy people to randomly shoot public officials
The Tiger: Confiscate all privately owned handguns.

Are these the only two possible solutions? Really?

The Democrats have passed a massive healthcare bill, many of its components have yet to be revealed.  Reportedly up to 80% of voters are against the bill and 60% want it to be repealed.  Yet the Democrats continue to cry that the sky-is-falling and they have presented a CBO report stating that one quarter of a trillion in additional costs will be incurred if the bill is repealed.

Reported in Kaiser Health News:

The Congressional Budget Office reports that if health-care reform is repealed the federal deficit will be raised by about $230 billion over the next decade and leave 32 million more Americans uninsured. The report also says most Americans would pay more for private health insurance.

However the Republicans have also elicited a report from the CBO which shows the true costs of the healthcare act over its 10-year implementation:

Included here from the Hill as it is difficult to find in a search engine:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated Thursday that the current health reform package before the House would cost $940 billion over the next 10 years, but save $130 billion over the same time period. The plan is expected to save taxpayers $1.2 trillion during its second decade in effect.

The Lady: Repeal the healthcare act and possibly raise the deficit by $230 billion.
The Tiger: Allow the healthcare act to stand and spend $940 billion.

Isn’t there a way to reform the present system and eliminate waste and fraud without a government takeover?

We are all well aware of the enormous oil spill last year in the Gulf, but is the solution really to shut down and refuse all drilling from the oil reserves located in American territory?

The Lady: Open all the oil reserves of America to unrestricted drilling.
The Tiger: Restrict all domestic drilling which costs more than 1 million jobs and untold billions of  dollars an continuing the dependence on foreign petroleum.  Add to this a program of “green energy” that increases the cost of energy and food.

I have included an energy industry source Master Resource as analysis:

How Much Will Obama’s Oil-and-Gas Tax Policy Cost Us? We Can Stop Guessing Now

by Donald Hertzmark
June 2, 2009

Over the past year, as the party in power has proposed one restrictive measure after another for the oil and gas production industry, analysts have been busy guessing how much this would cost us in foregone production and tax revenue. In an analysis featuring welcome candor, the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has estimated oil and gas production in the United States with and without restrictions. By the end of the next decade (2019), restrictive permitting and tax policies will reduce the potential annual government tax take from oil and gas production by more than the total expected yield of the Obama tax program in the oil and gas sector. In the ten years to 2019, the time-frame used in the government’s tax increase proposal, restrictions and new taxes will have reduced the tax take from oil and gas production by more than $118 billion, or about 4 times the expected yield of the new taxes. Some deal, eh?

Impacts of Restrictive Government Policies on Oil and Gas Production

Previous estimates of the impact of a Windfall Profits Tax on domestic oil and gas output have varied by assumptions on cost of production, oil prices in the future, and even the presence and size of secondary impacts from oil and gas production. One “clean” estimate (no secondary impacts) published last year gave probable 20-year impacts of a Windfall Profits Tax in the range of $300-800 billion, depending on the price of oil and how much production is reduced, among other assumptions. Another analysis, with greater scope and ambition, estimated the fiscal impacts of restrictions on oil and gas production at more than $1.7 trillion, including the economic impacts on communities.


Since a lone, delusional, mentally unbalanced liberal used a gun to kill 6, including a federal judge and critically wound a congresswoman and several others — and he used social media and the Internet, then the Federal government must take over the entire Internet and shut down Talk Radioand FOX News — “for our safety.”  Makes sense to me.

Reported June, 2010 in Bloomberg Business Week:

High-Speed Internet Rules Might Prove Costly

Giving the FCC the authority to impose net neutrality on broadband service could cost more than $62 billion if providers pull back, a study says

(The first paragraph of this story was corrected to show that the study was released by New York Law School.)

Proposed regulation of high-speed Internet service providers by the U.S. government could cost the economy at least $62 billion annually over the next five years and eliminate 502,000 jobs, according to a study released by New York Law School.

The report estimates that broadband providers and related industries may cut their investments by 10 percent to 30 percent from 2010 to 2015 in response to additional regulation. At 30 percent, the economy might sustain an $80 billion hit, according to Charles Davidson, director of the law school’s Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute, which released the report on June 16.

“There will be follow-on effects in the whole ecosystem,” said Bret Swanson, president of technology researcher Entropy Economics in Zionsville, Ind., who co-authored the study with Davidson. “A diminution of investment by the big infrastructure companies will reduce network capacity, new services, and investment by all the ecosystem companies,” such as application providers and device manufacturers, he said in an interview.

On June 17, the Federal Communications Commission is set to vote on taking public comment on Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposal to give the agency greater authority over broadband service providers such as Comcast (CMCSA), Verizon Communications (VZ), and AT&T (T). The agency wants the power to impose so-called net neutrality rules that would require providers of traditional broadband and wireless services to allow all applications and devices onto their networks. In April, a court ruled that the FCC currently lacks the authority to impose such regulations.


And that doesn’t even address the flagrant violation of the Constitution in the freedom of speech,  freedom of association and privacy (the right to be left alone) that would be affected by the government commandeering the extensive and pervasive communication network that we call the Internet

The Lady: Allow anarchists and “rightwing radicals” to freely plot and plan the destruction of the world as we know it.
The Tiger: Allow our benign, all wise,  liberal government appointed Czars to “regulate” this danger and monitor the danger… all for the common good, of course.

The old adage of  “He who asks the question shapes the argument,”  can be put to good use here.  Those who stand for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as set forth in the Declaration and the Constitution must take the reigns and set out the questions and form the arguments and demand concessions from both parties to the advantage of the citizens.

Government’s only legitimate purpose is to protect us from our enemies and promote the common welfare, not to control the citizen’s every waking moment.  We need to get back to some freedom from government control.  Legislators who accomplish this goal will be victorious at the ballot box.

The Democrats have for the past four years shut the opposition out of the process claiming that “they just say ‘no.'”  The Republicans claim that they “have been presenting solutions all along,” but have not been allowed into negotiations.  We now have the House in control of the tea party Republicans and the Senate under the control of the neo-Marxist Democrats and the question is:

Will we open ourselves to the Lady or the Tiger — or to real solutions to the vital issues before our People?  The answer will determine whether our established government will be “for us and our posterity,” or become part of a Marxist, global, one-world government.

Janet Smiles, a contributor to Gulag Bound, is an advocate of Internet and person-to-person activism, to overcome the false taboo, “never discuss religion or politics” with well-behaved and vital communication — all for the sake of love for our neighbors.

She welcomes comments directed to

Photos added by Gulag Bound

Speak Your Mind