 |
What They've Thought
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
What They're Thinking Now... R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
|||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins After hearing the usual culprits weigh in on the tsunami relief effort in Thailand and the numerous other places that were hit, I was struck by the differences in some of the comments made. Not to my surprise, the United Nations and the normal collection of leftist abnormal psych examples in our government treated us to the usual race-baiting and anti-Americanism that is so common these days. Some of these people, as in the case of the UN motor mouths, asked if we weren’t moving quickly to provide relief because it is a predominantly Moslem area. To some people this might be a kind of cute sort of way to spur us into action since they never do anything about anything anyway, but that isn’t why this comment was so loudly proclaimed by so many. The comment was made for the express purpose of further damaging our relations in the Middle East. By making this comment, any aid we gave after that could be claimed as another example of what they had accomplished or what they made America do. These are the same people who have thwarted our every effort to clean up Iraq. These are the same people who seem to think that writing a nasty letter to someone who doesn’t care will accomplish something. Why don’t these people do something that matters? I remember when we had people all over the world that could write some pretty good letters about world peace and then they would go out and light themselves on fire and leave us to deal with our Karma. Why don’t these sincere gesture-based clowns do that? They would at least be helping with the global noise pollution problem that I believe is a major cause of global warming. That and the major amount of heat released into our biosphere when Hillary Clinton or Teddy Kennedy are venting into a camera. I wasn’t surprised to hear the Minister of the Interior for Thailand speak regarding the aid effort. He said Colin Powell was the first person to call him at his level of government. He said that call was on Monday after the tsunami. For those of you who are living in Gesture Land and think Bush should have called immediately, let me explain a few things to you. Yes, Bush could have called sooner, but what would he have said? “Boy, that looks like it’s going to leave a stain. Is it as bad as it looks?” Give me a break. Yes, a lot of leaders called earlier. The French were probably the very first to call. They usually do because nobody really expects them to do anything other than offer condolences. That is probably the case with about everyone that called immediately. Bush, on the other hand, waited for preliminary information about how bad it was so we could determine not only what needed to be done immediately, but also what we could do immediately. For those of you in Nice Gesture Land, that is one of the primary differences between a conservative and a gesture-based weenie. Doing and talking are two different things completely. This is part of the war against the radical brand of Islam that can be won without a fight. The usual collection of dummies are trying to mess that up, too. Part of the war we are fighting in Iraq can be won right here, and the Bush administration knows it. That is why making a phone call was less important than actually doing something. One thing we must ensure is that our aid packages are marked as being from the United States of America. I get really tired of seeing the United Nations mark packages we give them as being from them when we pay something like sixty percent of the UN budget. You can be certain they pay a lot of money to re-identify those packages. When I see these swaggering anti-Americans running their collective mouths, I’m reminded of the thankless teenager that is driving Mom and Dad’s car and complaining about the lack of increase in their allowance and how they are now being forced to actually go out and get a job. I’m sorry if I offended any thankless teenagers out there. Most of them have better self-control than the political race-baiters out there. Mark Twain once said, “You can take in a sick and starving dog, feed it and nurse it back to health, and that dog will never bite the hand that feeds it. Therein lies the principal difference between man and dog.” To those of you in the United Nations, liberal media, and the Gesture Land citizens of the world, I find it hard to trust you. You and your friends undermine us at every turn. Oh, and get away from my leg! You aren’t even a real dog anyway. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||||||||
There are certain entertainers and wealthy tycoons with whom I don’t agree on many levels of political rhetoric, but it is so refreshing to read of some of the entertainment industries' best giving to causes that truly reflect the reality of those needing help during a catastrophic disaster. Out of the nonsense that so often spins itself around the entertainment industry (how much did Springsteen spend to stop the evil empire—the Republican Party—from taking the White House again?), it is a resounding glimmer of hope for humanity when stars really give of their means to help those in need. Fun can be poked at such as Madonna, Babs Streisand, Alec Baldwin, George Soros and others over their misguided laments and tirades against conservative thinkers, but we should never be backwards in giving praise when a generous heart steps up to the plate of giving. Sandra Bullock, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jay Leno, Willie Nelson, and others are contributing a large portion of their monies, or they are bringing together various artists to perform and raise money, for the victims of the tsunami. Donations made by various artists and entertainers are going to the Red Cross, UNICEF, and other relief organizations, all with the hope of helping the victims of the calamity in southeast Asia. Did you ever wonder why the mainstream media doesn’t play up these types of unselfish acts performed by well-known stars? The “Rock the Vote” crusade to oust President Bush had more coverage and hallelujahs of praise than it ever deserved. It will be interesting to see how the mainstream media will treat the rock n roll concert scheduled in Wales for January 22nd. With bands coming together, much like in the days of “Live Aid,” will U2, Coldplay, Franz Ferdinand, and the androgynous Boy George get the exposure to raise monies to help those left in the wake of the tsunami disaster? Let us hope so. This is a cause worth coming together over. The focus needs to be on raising cash to go to legitimate relief organizations to help those desperately in need. It should always be a concern in times of global or local disaster relief efforts that all the money donated is going directly to the cause. I don’t mean to sound cynical, but at times such as these when we have astounding amounts of cash flowing freely, there are those who will take advantage. Tragedy has many ugly sides to it, and at times the component to its ugliest side can be humans taking advantage of others' plight. Be sure you know to whom you are giving your donations. The time for utilizing ones talents, and using the availability of voice to a listening world, is now. The raising of cash for the victims and displaced should never hold within its purpose politics, greed, or stardom. Far too often, the mainstream media leads us to believe that all of the entertainment industry and the rich are nothing but self-seekers. There are facets of the entertainment industry and the powerfully rich that have misguided loud mouths, but there are those within the ranks of stardom and riches that are genuinely giving. More often than not, these stars and the well-to-do will only receive quiet accolades for their generous hearts. Whether we agree with their political views is but a moot point. Writing out a donation of upwards of more than a million dollars to those suffering and hurting is truly what American entertainers, American politicians, and the American successful entrepreneurs overall are about. (Side point: Maybe some should stop ranting about the rich not paying their fair share. Seems to me when someone needs money it’s the rich we run to.Something to think about, anyway.) It isn't only those whose star slie along the walk of Hollywood Boulevard or those who carry "Inc." after their business names, but it is Americans as a whole that are far more generous, forgiving, loving, and moved than any other people in any other nation the world over. Our freedoms allow us this privilege, the privilege to be so giving. Certainly, we did not receive the name “Captain America” for nothing. Too often, those who sit in an air-conditioned building in New York City around the United Nations table forget the definition of what stingy means. We will not mimic the “oil for food” swindle; that is not what America is about. Bullock, DiCaprio, Leno, and others who have given personally: We appreciate your munificent kindness. To share what you have with others is a great example to everyone. It should move us all to give of our means and ourselves wherever we stand. Helping with disasters such as the Oklahoma City bombing, September 11th, and the earthquake/tsunami of southeast Asia shouldn’t be about politics, moral values, bitter feelings, skin color, or economic standards. What relief efforts, open hearts, and willingness to care about others is all—and only—about is loving humanity. Reaching out to others who are hurting and encircling them in the love we can give them collectively. Whether it is by dollar amount, prayer, or participation in restoration efforts, this is but a small glint of a planet filled with millions of people just like you and me trying to survive on our journey here. Whether or not Sandra Bullock, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jay Leno, Willie Nelson, U2, Coldplay, Franz Ferdinand, or my next door neighbor ever read or hear of a small insignificant writer, I give to you my thanks for charitable hearts and placing your generosity where it belongs: in the love of helping humankind. In the months that lie ahead for a people devastated beyond comprehension, let us remember others in their struggles and help shoulder some of each other’s burdens. A gift of kindness—no matter the size—given from the heart is larger than any important name on the screen or name after the initials "CEO." Kerry L. Marsala Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||||||||
Jonathan David Morris: Pay Up, Sit Still, and Damage Your Bladder: Theater Economics You know how sometimes, when you’re so hungry that you’re borderline delusional, all you see when you look at someone is a nice, juicy turkey? Well, all right, I’m probably confusing real life with Looney Tunes again. But the point is, I think that’s how movie theaters see moviegoers nowadays. They’re so money hungry, these theaters, that they don’t see a human when you walk through the door. They see a nice, juicy bird on a silver platter. Only instead of a turkey, you’re a goose of the golden-egg-laying variety. I came to this conclusion last Monday, when I went to see “Meet the Fockers.” If you’ve been to a theater lately, you probably know where I’m going with this. The first beating took place at the ticket counter. Of course, this is nothing new—outrageous ticket prices are an age old complaint. But things are so bad now that prices will go up a dollar by the time you finish this article. Worse still, matinees are no longer a safe haven—no longer a nice way of taking a flick in for under ten bucks. You know how much I paid for two tickets? Twelve freaking fifty. And this was the early show discount. It’s insane. People were rummaging through their pockets, paying for tickets with spare change and string. Then comes the snack counter, or as I like to call it: The Place Where You Throw Away More Money. This is where theaters really get you. Now, I’ll be honest. I find every single thing about movie theater popcorn—the way it looks, the way it smells, even the way it contains nothing but sharp crumbs and kernels at the bottom—completely irresistible. For me, movie theater popcorn is basically crack-cocaine covered in canola oil (or whatever they’re dousing it in these days; it could be blood, for all I care). I’m addicted. I’ll pay any price they ask. And I’m all right with that. I just wish they weren’t so sneaky about it. For instance, some theaters hand out “coupons” for popcorn-and-drink combos when you buy your tickets. This is so you’ll walk away thinking, “Well, I wasn’t going to buy any snacks today, but it’s a special—so why the hell not?” Well, here’s why: Because these “coupons” aren’t coupons. Coupons offer discounts. These are just advertisements. The combos cost the same as both items purchased separately. There might as well be a disclaimer that reads: “If you fall for this, we’re selling a bridge behind the theater. Give us a call.” Then there are
size charts—the real heart and soul of snack counter deception.
I hesitate to call them size charts anymore, because the word “size”
traditionally refers to… well, size. And popcorn no longer comes
in sizes. It comes in concepts. Same goes for drinks. “Small,”
“Medium,” and “Large” have now been replaced
by “Child,” “Medium,” and “Value.”
No, seriously. (One of these days, I’d like to inject a theater owner with truth serum. I suspect “Child,” “Medium,” and “Value” would become “Surprisingly Little For Your Money,” “Take Out A Loan’s Worth,” and “Indentured Servitude,” respectively.) Finally, after getting your tickets and taking out a mortgage, you head into the theater itself. This is where the real fun begins… eventually. But first you must sit through a three-pronged ad attack. Stage 1: The Slideshow. This usually includes ads for your local proctologist, as well as ads for the slideshow itself (in case any other local proctologists are in attendance). There’s also a neat game where they jumble a bunch of letters, and you get to unscramble them to form the name of an actor. You have to be quick, though. They show the answer two slides later. And someone else in the audience will usually shout it out before that. (Hey, it’s not my fault you couldn’t get “Ben Affleck.") This game will make you hate yourself. It’ll make you long for the ads for local proctologists. But it’s just the beginning. Then comes Stage 2: The Commercials. We’re talking half a dozen or more TV-style commercials, only longer, souped up, and twice as painful. My favorite from the pre-"Fockers" experience was a mini-drama about a surfer dude feeling the rush of diving… or fatherhood… or something. Somehow, it became an ad for American Express. Lastly, Stage 3: The Coming Attractions. Now, lots of folks enjoy these previews, and I happen to be one of them. But when it comes down to it, they’re just another set of commercials. Yes, these movies are “coming soon to a theater near you,” but think about all that comes with them: high ticket prices; overpriced popcorn; ads for surfers with AmEx cards. And that’s to say nothing of the ads within the movies themselves. If memory serves, I saw two different Apple computers in the first five minutes of “Meet the Fockers.” Do you know how many Apples I’ve seen in people’s homes in real life? The same number. Two. One was the Apple II C that I owned 15 years ago. The other is my wife’s new iMac. By the time I had counted those computers in the movie, I was fresh out of popcorn, fresh out of soda, and badly in need of a urinal. I don’t think this was an accident. In fact, it pretty much sums up the modern movie theater experience. Pay up, sit still, and damage your bladder. What a great way to spend an afternoon. Look, I understand that advertising drives a large part of the entertainment industry, and, really, I’m fine with that. I’m just a little confused as to why prices rise along with the number of ads. Wouldn’t you think with all this extra advertising, theaters could keep prices stable—or even move them down? I don’t own a theater. I’ve certainly never managed one. And I won’t tell theater managers how to do their job. But if you cut this goose open, I’m telling you, you won’t find any golden eggs inside. Nor will you find any money in my wallet. You already took it all. And next time, I’m going to wait for the DVD. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||||||||
Bring on the hate mail. I know I’ll be receiving plenty of it from the people who don’t want to hear what I’m going to say. To begin with, I’m tired of the hard working people in the United States playing Atlas to those who don’t plan beyond the moment or to those who believe that the rest of the world exists to bail them out when they encounter disaster. Government spending of citizens’ hard earned tax dollars to bail out every victim of disaster, poor business practice, or persons lacking in motive to overcome adversity has led to a greatly expanded welfare state and unnecessary regulation of private industry predicated on the idea that the government knows the best way to spend our money and that we exist to take care of those “deemed” unable to meet the demands of society as we know it. Communism, which forces individuals to sacrifice their own interests for the good of the state, was allegedly defeated at the close of the Cold War. Yet our personal and intellectual freedoms are still under attack by many who play on the collective guilt of those who have achieved wealth through hard work and enterprise; suggesting that they be required to contribute a greater share of their hard earned dollars to take care of those who are not doing as well -without any expectation of return on their money. It has just come to my attention that Kerry Sieh, a professor of geology at California Institute of Technology, “repeatedly warned Indonesian officials that an earthquake and tsunami would soon strike their shores.” Because these officials weren’t acting on the warnings, he and his teams began warning people directly. Unfortunately, he couldn’t reach all of the people in time. Now, I have complete and utter sympathy for the people who have suffered and lost loved ones due to this tragedy, but I also feel resentment that, because their government didn’t heed the warnings, other countries have to bail them out. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. On any given day, you can be sure that people are rebuilding their homes in areas of known mud slides, hurricane force winds, and tornado alleys. People are eating fast foods, not taking care of their bodies, and driving cars irresponsibly. While it is no concern of mine that anyone should want to do such things, it becomes my burden when the government pays the disaster relief or Medicaid costs of those who choose to put themselves in harm's way, or allows exorbitant punitive damages to be awarded, raising everyone’s insurance rates. We should not bail out individuals who do not use “common sense,” or corporations—like Chrysler—who do not practice fiscal responsibility. Who can say what might’ve happened to GM and Ford had we let events unfold as a true Capitalist society mandates? We should not regulate some areas but leave others up to chance. The government should not involve itself in areas of private industry. period. In a true free market, the cream rises to the top. Others will adjust to succeed. Those willing to work will survive one way or another. Those truly unable will be the beneficiaries of the generosity of a people driven to success. We are not a welfare state. We are a free country and freedom means that you can build your house on a cliff or on the shore or even next to power lines. But with that freedom comes responsibility—for yourself. Buy more insurance, find storage for your valuables on safer ground, but don’t expect me to pay for your lack of concern or foresight. If I choose to contribute a sum of money to a charity on your behalf, that is up to me. Not up to the government. Should a person be made to feel guilty for living like the ant instead of running around like the grasshopper, who in the original fable dies because he does not live in a collectivist society which exists to take care of him no matter what? The moral of that fable is lost when those sworn to uphold the Constitution no longer believe it protects a person’s individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Geologist gave repeated alerts Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||||||||
Recognizing that the great bard himself asked this timeless question in another form, why do so many avoid it today? When Hamlet spoke the famous soliloquy,"To be, or not to be, that is the question . . .," he was contemplating suicide. Modern day Shakespeares could update the doubt of personal existence to encompass all of society. Why do the aggregate of masses deny confronting the record of power politics that shapes and determines the future of our collective reality? The convenient answer really is an excuse. To entertain that history is best understood as a study in the conflicts of competing factions for the ability to rule disturbs most people. Average folks would listen to the likes of Jeff Rense and come away shaking their heads. Others would read about the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown on "What Really Happened," and dismiss such accounts as preposterous. Even the infamous "magic bullet" of Senator Arlen Specter explains the JFK assassination so people can maintain confidence in their government. But the main reason that theories and evidential accounts that contest the standard approved versions of events are dismissed out of hand is to prove your loyalty. The acid test clearly is decided upon the degree that you accept the official world view. For those who have legitimate and logical questions, the best way to shut them up is to discredit them as kooks. Vicious attacks are only surpassed by the harshness shown to their examiners. The need to reply, answer, or provide evidential explanations is pushed aside when the seeker of understanding can be characterized as a crazed loon. Telling the truth has never been the strongest trait for any regime. No one should be naive to think any differently. The task is left to others to fill in the blanks and between the lines. So why are so many people intensely uncomfortable in facing facts when government accounts don't pass the laugh quiz? Living dumb means that you need not answer Hamlet. Escapists into the "Twilight Zone" of government reality are balanced and productive citizens. Or so they attempt to convince themselves . . . But who are the real enlightened ones? The collective depression is the product of official lies. Continuous melancholy results when the lies are known to be untrue, and hope is slim to stop the deceit. So why face the facts when you can just ignore them? Knowing the extent of the charade might just compel that some direct action would be required. Who wants to risk the wrath of the State and be labeled a nut? You don't need to be a member of good standing in that right-wing crew that HilLAIRy was so intent on smearing to be grouped with this whacked crowd. Right? Recently, the notion that the mainstream media is willing to lift the curtain of suspicion has been suggested by the Mr. Left Coast himself, Alexander Cockburn. In an example of courageous reporting by the Communist News Network—that pillar of the establishment—Richard Butler, now on the CNN payroll, discusses charges that the Bush administration "slowed down FBI investigators of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil." How interesting that approved "conspiracy theories" are acceptable when the interests of the power elites are being served. It is a cardinal error to conclude that any one group of "Mattoids" are pulling the strings on all world events. But it is suicidal to dismiss the vested interests in the known players when it comes to shaping political outcomes. If you think the Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, and the CFR are just social clubs, you are drinking too much Kool Aid. Political decisions are seldom benign to the general welfare, while ubiquitous to the interests of the ruling classes. To conclude that this is just coincidental is psychotic. Conspiracy only means that more than one person agrees to an evil act. When applied to politics, it normally refers to committing an illegal act. The rule makers define their actions as proper. But in fact they cooperate to institutionalize their own illegality under the guise and stamp of a legal process they enact. As in any era of history, those behind the scenes play a pivotal role that few of us ever know. Isn't it more probable that their influences direct the design of pupil policy more than the sentiments of the taxpaying voter? Than why do you censor inquiry into the belly of the beast when you should be condemning their dominion of plunder? Pollyanna populace betray their own intelligence. Misplaced optimism in a chimera account of current events, only serves the powers that be . . . One need not abandon rational attributes when seeking answers to serious questions. But if those inquiries are automatically tagged as the province of the extreme, how can their conclusions be disproved if they are with error? Prudence would demand that open inquiry is desirable. We need not have fear of the unknown, where we should properly dread that which can be understood. The lesson rests in how you answer Hamlet, he continues:
Will you resign yourself to exist in the dark or dare yourselves to uncover the schemes that rule the day? Illusion is more real for the timid, while scorn is the reward for having integrity in the truth. Those who conspire require the consent of those they pillage. Your silence allows the "perception of deception" to reign, as fact when the opposite bears more substance. The conspiracy that is discredited with the greatest disdain might reveal more than what the mind can imagine. The mysteries that must be concealed just could be the crimes that go unpunished. So what will it be? "To be, or not to be?" The society that is committing self-destruction just might be your own.
|
|||||||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:26 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
|||||||||||
