 |
"Their View" Archives:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
What They Thought June 13, 2004... R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||
R.A.
Hawkins It sure is interesting to watch France lately. Our relations with France are supposedly on the mend and I think it is somewhat obvious as to why. Chirac now wants to push for a new international anti-poverty tax. It seems to me that he is trying to matter again, most specifically at the United Nations. Like a typical Socialist he is waving other peoples money in everyone else’s face. France, who is nearly broke because of Socialism, will expect the United States to pay Frances fair share. He knows the idea won’t gain any traction here but that isn’t what matters to him. The primary idea is to create a division between the U.S. and everyone else. Mexico and Peru have recently severed diplomatic relations with Cuba. It seems they got a little tired of Cuba fomenting revolution in their countries. Vicente Fox doesn’t want to mess up relations with us because we might send his people home and seal the borders. That would ruin their chances of sucking us dry and acting as a vent relief valve for his country and its problems. Russia’s Putin had some interesting scolding for the Democrats that was quite amusing unless you’re paying close attention. He said the Democrats shouldn’t say a thing to Bush about invading Iraq since they did the exact same thing to Yugoslavia. That’s a very interesting view and an interesting piece of propaganda. There was no United States interest in attacking Yugoslavia. Clinton was quite proud of that fact, calling it a ‘selfless act’. We attacked a Russian ally and united the people behind their government against us and a Chinese Embassy was bombed with the same affect in China. A brief look at the two separate situations (Iraq/Yugoslavia) can show the clear differences between them. After the UN arms embargo against the Muslims in that region (Yugoslavia) the Muslims started getting wiped out on a regular basis. It seems the locals were still a little angry about the Muslims exterminating them a short while earlier and retaliated. It’s got to be something in the water over there because this has been going on for a very long time. Iran was allowed to smuggle arms into the area to a group known as the KLA. That came out eventually but not much was heard about it until Clinton’s nominee for the head of the CIA was forced to back off because he had a part in arranging that deal. The poor guy had to fall on his sword for Caligula. In the end Iran was given influence in an area they shouldn’t have been in the first place. Clintons Iran scandal was quietly swept under the rug by the media because it made Reagan’s Iran Contra scandal look as meaningless as it actually was. The KLA needed funding and became the heroine importers for the region and as a result Yugoslavia got a little tired of their games, particularly the ones involving guns and revolution. Clinton went in and backed the drug smugglers (what a shock) and legitimized them. Attacking Iraq was done for many reasons. There was the terrorist training facility at Salmen Pac with a jetliner on the ground for training in unconventional methods of hijacking an airliner. There were those SCUDS he shot at us but supposedly didn’t have. There are also those new reports from various UN officials about the WMDs being shipped out both during and before the war (something I’ve been saying for a while now). I guess the UN is standing on the same anti-poverty tax stump as Chirac and tossing Bush a bone. Either that or they are all creating a diversion for the LOST Treaty. But I haven’t quite gotten to the reason we went to Iraq, not that the above reasons weren’t enough. Pravda used to be a great information source but not anymore. Putin has clamped down on them and the old leaks are plugged. There won’t be another June situation again, that situation being the Tatyana Korigina discussions in the Duma in June of 2001. For those who don’t remember, or never knew because of our duplicitous media; The Russians were told to divest themselves of American currency because on or around August nineteenth of 2001 religious fanatics would bring us to our knees economically. It happened on September eleventh of 2001 instead. Russia has since moved on to helping Iran with their nuclear program. Iraq was their biggest client state in the region at the time. When I look at the current collection of protestors I see little Putins, or as Stalin called them, “Useful idiots”. China has recently said they are going to take a policy of prevention with us because they are pretty certain we will not let them attack Taiwan. Don’t believe it for a second folks. By the way, France was part of the recent naval maneuvers with China. If you have to buy from anyone over there, buy from Taiwan. Taiwan needs the money so they can defend themselves against our MFN trading partner and another duplicitous ally of the US. Let the French eat their own gooey cheese and wine. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||
Want more opinions? Don't forget the Lady Liberty "Our View" and "Your View" pages!
Lady Liberty's "Their View" Contributors: R.A.
Hawkins Jonathan
David Morris SARTRE |
||||
Ladies Night. It's the queen of bar and nightclub promotions, and it's popular nationwide. At the Coastline in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, for example, ladies get in without a cover charge -- and pay less for drinks -- one night a week. It's a good way to get girls to come and enjoy the establishment, and a good way to get guys to come and enjoy the girls. But at least one man hasn't enjoyed this promotion at all. His name is David Gillespie, and he's mad he's been paying full price. Last week, the state's Division of Civil Rights agreed with his claim that Coastline discriminates against men. It thus banned Ladies Night statewide. Now, it's hard to deny that Ladies Night is a discriminatory practice. That is, after all, the idea. But is it really a bane upon the progress of... well, mankind? Probably not. I spoke with a few men and women to get a sense of what I was up against in writing this article. Both sexes noted how Ladies Night brings girls out in droves, and both had one word to describe Mr. Gillespie: "Gay." Not that there's anything wrong with it. But this goes deeper than his relative sexuality, or even his frugality. It's a symptom of the spirit that's sweeping our country -- the belief that, goddammit, everyone owes us something. Bars can charge what they want to charge, with or without special offers. The same Miller Lite that costs $2.50 across the street will cost ten bucks in the Big Apple. And in many bars, big tippers get all sorts of discounts -- including free drinks -- at the bartender's discretion. Are these discriminatory practices, or examples of good business sense? And how about when drunk folks are cut off from alcohol altogether? Is that discriminatory, too? Lost in all this is the fact that human beings discriminate every day. You do it, and I do it. And it doesn't mean we're close-minded. It means we care about the situations we put ourselves into. We choose our friends carefully, for example. For whatever reason -- be it the way they're dressed, the way they smell, the way they walk, or whatever -- we choose not to befriend a large majority of the people we meet. That's discrimination. Maybe they should sue? We're also selective about our mechanics. A guy could be the reigning and defending Dad of the Year, but if he's greasy and grimy, and he twitches a lot, you might not trust him with your car. It would be your loss, but it would also be your right. Experience shows the best mechanics look dirty. Are you willing to take a chance? It's up to you. Discrimination is inescapable. We discriminate all day long. If we don't like Chinese food, we don't eat Chinese food. If we don't like Italian, we don't eat Italian. There's nothing wrong with this. And the same goes for nightlife. Some people prefer Irish pubs. Others go to gay bars. Some folks wouldn't enter either place no matter the discount. God forbid they should have an opinion! But Mr. Gillespie doesn't seem to get this. Ladies Night irks him, and it's his right not to like it, but it's also his right to get up and go somewhere else. He doesn't have to hang out at Coastline. There are plenty of bars in the Cherry Hill area. But instead, he sticks around and whines about fairness, and recruits the Division of Civil Rights to set a silly precedent. Here's an example: Here in the Garden State, there's a Six Flags theme park. About 15 years ago, the ride to ride was a rollercoaster called the Great American Scream Machine. Everyone was riding it that summer, and I wanted to ride it, too. A sign at the start of the line said passengers should be "this tall" to get on. I was a little kid. I wasn't tall enough, and I knew it, but I stood on my toes and convinced myself that I was. I got on line with my friends, and I waited for three full hours. When I got to the platform, the workers took one look at me and told me to scram. Now, I'm man enough to admit this little boy walked away crying like a little girl that day. But what if I'd cried "height discrimination" instead? In this day and age, it could've worked. I could've gotten on the ride. And I could've fallen out of my seat while going through one of the Scream Machine's many loops and corkscrews. I could've cracked my skull open in the interests of equal treatment. Lucky me. We're awfully concerned with discrimination in this country. That's fine when it means we take the feelings of others into account. The world is a better place when people are nice to each other. But let's be realistic. If an HR director decides not to hire you because of your color, your hair, or what have you, you shouldn't want to work with that HR director, much less the company that hired him. And likewise, if you don't like the way a store treats you, you shouldn't want to shop there. And the fact is, you don't have to. These are the things we concern ourselves with when we concern ourselves with discrimination. These are the things we sue over. Yet the authority to which we appeal is the greatest discriminator of all: The Government. It's true. Someone, somewhere, is always asking the government for something. And if, or when, their wishes are granted, it always comes at someone else's expense. Years ago, black kids were deprived due to segregation in publicly funded schools. Now, white kids are deprived due to affirmative action in -- you guessed it -- publicly funded schools. On and on it goes. And that's just one example of many. We can rationalize it, of course, but we can also rationalize discrimination against the Coastline's owners in favor of Mr. Gillespie. That doesn't make it right. And it doesn't change the fact that some people see discrimination as the government's most crucial role. But there's a reason why governments shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Governments kill people. And they use various forms of discrimination -- ethnic, economic, etc. -- to justify what they do. Hitler had his Holocaust, Stalin his gulags, Pol Pot his killing fields. All were government programs. All were rooted in sick, twisted visions of perfect societies. Against this record, Ladies Night looks tame. And make no mistake: It is. But even if we say it's wrong on principle, the fact remains that the Coastline is a private business, and Mr. Gillespie is a free individual. He doesn't have to go there, and they don't have to serve him. Though to tell you the truth, if I were him, I wouldn't try getting served there any time soon. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||
So says the latest reinvented panderer, a nefarious siren, from the clan of America's most disgraced political family. What a legacy from the extended progeny of the dysfunctional. But she is not speaking about mere policy direction. No; she is consumed with offending the common sense of the residents in "The Old Line State". Their motto is "Fatti maschii, parole femine" which can be interpreted as "strong deeds, gentle words" - it used to be interpreted as "manly deeds, womanly words" but it was officially reinterpreted in January 2001. This Black-Eyed Susan practiced the same carpet bag strategy that dear old dad used when RFK ran in New York State. No doubt she learned her form of bleeding heart mania on papa's knee. But her propensity to insult and offend may well have been perfected under the tutelage of Teddy the Lifeguard, the uncle that only drink can rescue. Consider the contention from Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Maryland's
Townsend Wants More Gun Control
This argument seems even mild. The fitting conclusion sound minded citizens should adopt is that the entire gun issue has nothing whatsoever to do, with public safety. Doesn’t the entire thesis of gun control advocates rest upon the claim that government has a duty to protect the citizen and society in general? Well John Lott Jr, is the source for factual data that must be ignored to keep the blinders on a public duped by fear and paranoia. In When It's Guns, Media Miss Big Part Of Picture, Lott puts forth the substance of real life examples where being armed deters crime. We all know that the media has a bias against fair and objective reporting about the statistics, so why would anyone give credence to the impulsive frenzy that drives the issue? With a non stop sniper hysteria being the latest ratings substitute for the OJ craze, the public allows themselves to be manipulated by sensation, rather than stable, rational and prudent measures. How is the track record of the biggest manhunt in memory doing? Is this the protection that the politicians have promised, when they scam you into supporting schemes like the Brady Bill? Politicians, especially from dynasty families, that adore the omniscience of government solutions, need to be rejected. When they attribute omnipresent compliance for guaranteed security, the results becomes omnipotent State control. But are people really anymore safe? Whoever the deranged shooter is or what lies as the motivation for such crimes, society has never achieved, nor will it - immunity from crackpots. If the crimes are part of an organized effort, isn't the failure of the government that much more severe? The gun grabbers have told the public for decades that they are personally safer because an effective means for self protection has been denied, by these same politicians. A sick and determined person will always find a way to circumvent laws. The duty of government is to defend the right of individuals to protect themselves, and that means that private gun ownership with proficient training in their use, should be the national policy. Advice on how to head-bob or zig zag is comical, if it was not so moronic and insulting. But that is the style of many public servants. The Keystone Cops have more competency. We'll leave the possibility that the self appointed mad SWAT impostor, is following a script that was written at central casting. But what is certain is that the mistaken policies of the Townsend's, benefits from the death of each victim, as they introduce and push added unconstitutional legislation. Her partisan opportunism is disgusting - not at all in the tradition of being either brave in deeds or gentile in assertion. The John Lotts of the world need to be heard. The Jezebels who betray the "The Old Line State" and the rest of us need to be scorned. No doubt that decent residents in Maryland, know all too well the attitudes of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and her gun grabber clones like Senator Barbara Mikulski. They are the defeatists that ensure your emasculation and impair your individual safety. Personal protection cannot be legally denuded by government decree and substituted by State "ballistic fingerprinting" salvation, and still insure genuine public security. Accepting the Kennedy Townsend polemic is like feeling solace that Teddy's picture is on a drivers license - it still won't prevent manslaughter from behind the wheel . . . Or is this just a gender boner? Could it be that the female fascists are the actual chauvinists, when it comes to protecting ourselves? They seem to want the State to do what they are incapable of doing; namely, solve the problem. How you answer the KKT question may well determined if Maryland can free herself from rule by a commissar, who thinks she should be royalty. SARTRE Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||
©2004 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, June 20, 2004 1:20 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||
|
site content ©2002-2004 site design by |
||||
