Now I don’t know what people mean when they say "human rights," so I consulted Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition . According to that book "human rights" are rights — such as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution — regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons.

Because the key word in that definition is the word "unlawful," it seems patently clear to me that what constitutes human rights in any country is decided by the people with the guns because they’re the ones who get to say what’s unlawful.

It also seems patently clear to me that if people in a country are denied the rights they want, they can get those rights in only one way — they have to seize them at the point of a gun.

Isn’t that what we did? George III wouldn’t give us the rights we wanted and so we took them by fighting for them. Isn’t that what happened in Vietnam? And in a sense, isn’t that also what happened in Afghanistan? [Editor's Note: This refers to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Russians in 1978.]

So why do we continue to delude ourselves by thinking we can bestow rights on people in other countries just by working our mouths? Have we been able to do so in China? Iraq? Iran? Somalia? Libya? Bosnia? Not in the least. [Editor's Note: Please keep in mind that this piece was origionally written and broadcast somewhere around 1995 or 1996.]

Perhaps it’s because the guys with the guns in each of those countries remember a certain nursery rhyme from their childhood that we appear to have forgotten — sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me.

Think about it.