 |
"Their View" Archives:
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
What They Thought August 1, 2004 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
R.A.
Hawkins “Any nation that protects its citizens from their own folly will eventually become a nation of fools.” The shrill and stampeding herd of the left can’t seem to get anything right these days. Bush hasn’t ended all funding for AIDS. There has been a serious battle over how medicine will be administered to deal with this problem. The U.S. doesn’t want to be administering a cocktail. It wants to hand out something a little more specific. The specific drugs idea has been rejected because there is a belief that the sick and needy won’t take the pills at the prescribed times. That is a valid argument. If they weren’t willing to abstain or protect themselves in the first place, they won’t get that right either. It has been decided that they will go with the cocktail instead. There is something far more fundamental to the whole argument though. First how did AIDS become the major problem that it has become? There are two vectors that produce victims. Those are blood transfusions and birth. There are also two vectors that affect only the volunteers. Those are indiscriminant sex and drug abuse. Many cry out for a vaccine so they can go back to having indiscriminate sex with anything and anybody and swapping needles. Never mind the fact that is what got them into the fix in the first place. The problem has its roots deeply buried in liberalism and the politically correct culture. Many people blame Reagan because he didn’t do enough, quick enough. I happen to be one of those people, but for different reasons. Once gonorrhea and syphilis were curable, it opened wide the doors of thoughtlessness. It was finally safe to do what you wanted to do when you wanted to do it. All it took was a shot or some pills if you made a judgment error. This gave birth to the free lust movement and a lot of other foolish ideas. It finally felt safe to really spit in the eye of old time worn values. That is what a large number of people did. “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.” What a classic line to show how stupid and thoughtless people can be. This thinking grew and grew. There were no more consequences for our actions. Technology had cured their problems. I find it interesting to hear the same people who found themselves unfettered by technology now saying technology is evil. These same people want technology to cure their problems for them again. They want to bulldoze the world flat and coat it with ‘green friendly’ foam rubber so nobody gets hurt anymore. They never grew up. This childish group of people eventually got to an age where they could get into politics and start ‘making a difference’. More and more things became relative and inconsequential. There was no longer a difference between wrong and right. The lines between the two got fuzzier and fuzzier and they finally ran like a watercolor picture in a rainstorm. This generation of no consequences has led us to the brink of Socialism. They want more foolishness and they want to still live their Peter Pan lives. In Africa, there has been one success and a lot of failures. The one nation that taught its people to abstain and to be moral is starting to turn the tide. That nation is Uganda. The nations where they just hand out condoms and say party on are still flailing. Now, I did say I blamed Reagan for not having done enough. As you will see when I get done here, there’s plenty of blame to go around on this one. At the time AIDS first reared its head, the political correctness movement had just started to take root in our society. We had the liberals backing the gays and demanding a solution to the problem. We had a bunch of medical experts who said it was a problem caused only by things that gays did. It posed no threat to anyone outside the gay community. In retrospect, what Reagan should have done was to take everyone that had it and put them in some kind of quarantine until the experts were certain. The reaction to that from the left would have been quite vociferous to say the least. Because of that, he failed to do what should have been done. Reagan was lulled
into a false sense of security by the experts and a desire to not upset
people who were doing what they wanted to do. He was a conservative,
and, like Jefferson, didn’t care what his neighbor’s religion
or activities were unless they affected him. His act was an act of kindness
whereas the acts of the left were, as usual, violent and knee-jerk.
Look where we are now because of "them." 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 Kerry
L. Marsala Jonathan
David Morris SARTRE |
||||||
Frankly speaking, I think Ann Coulter and her sarcasm is a gas, but evidently the editors of USA Today don't get it. This is a prime example of censorship -d isagreeing with someone's opinions and not offering anything constructive in editing requests that make sense - so we just insist on "going our own ways" to take care of it. Sharp-tongued conservative writer Ann Coulter was asked by USA Today to write comments on the DNC convention from Boston. Coulter offered her version of what she referred to as "the spawn of Satan convention" in Boston with her usual style of biting commentary. It's what Ms. Coulter does best and when her perceptions bit hard, it would appear the Kool-Aid drinking editors of USA Today pulled the plug by stating, "It was just differences over editing of a fairly ordinary kind." Bull. I read the edit requests; the editors need a class in Sarcasm 101. Several times in the edit requests made by the editors of USA Today it states, "Not funny," "I don't get it," "You sure lost me," and "Is that last sentence sarcastic?" That was the gist of the requests for editing changes. How is that editing or working with a writer to create clarity of thought? I certainly don't buy into Anderson's (USA Today) statement of desire to bring about "a fresh approach to events that have largely become four-day commercials for political parties." If USA Today really wants "wry" columns that would appear under the heading "Crashing the Party," then for the Democratic National Convention you couldn't request anyone wrier than Ann Coulter. "Fresh approach." Hah, what bunk! Did the editors of USA Today do their homework on Ann Coulter? Coulter is "only" a syndicated columnist and has sold nearly a million copies of her various works. Maybe USA Today's editor's need to get out of their printing offices once in awhile and read something else besides their own rag. Did Coulter's article bite too close to the heart of the Democrats and their convention goers? The editor's of USA Today certainly wouldn't want to soil their newspaper with truths about Sharpton, Clinton, Kennedy, Kucinich, Gore, Clarke, the French, or those protesters locked up in the cage of the "truth free zone." How convenient it always seems to be for the far left to cry "censorship" (Ronstadt, Pearl Jam, Eminem, Michael Moore) when it comes to their strident portraits of American hatred, but when a conservative is censored, it's justifiable and proclaimed to be "not funny, I don't get it." Perhaps USA Today's flatulence meters are about to burst from being too full of themselves. A good dosage of "Gas X" might take care of that. USA Today has hired Michael Moore to write in "wry" style when the Republican National Convention comes to town. It will be interesting to compare Moore's strident and hate-filled commentaries of the RNC and compare it to Coulter's censored take on the DNC. What will the humorless editors do with Moore's comments? Wouldn't it be great if Moore showed up with a video camera to the Republican Convention? He can make another million off distortions and lies told the far-left liberal way. He could call the documentary "Conservatives: the Little Green Worm of the Big Apple." To read the complete article by Ann Coulter, visit: www.anncoulter.org. Kerry L. Marsala Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
As
I’ve said a couple of times in this column, I’m leaving
New Jersey after 26 years when I get married in August. My soon-to-be
wife and I are leasing a townhouse in a magical paradise called Pennsylvania.
In fact, we began moving stuff in this past weekend. We won’t
be living there till after the wedding, though. We don’t want
to live in sin. But anyway, all the shuffling around I’ve done
lately has led me to think long and hard about the way laws differ from
state to state—especially when it comes to liquor laws. Some states
are better than others, but none are ideal. All want to stand between
you and your idea of a good time.
Take New Jersey. We make it tough to buy beer. Does this surprise you? It shouldn’t. We make it tough to do just about anything. Buying beer is just an example. Here, if you want to bring beer home for consumption, you’re only allowed to buy it in a beer, wine, and liquor store. To me, this is like saying you can’t buy a lawn mower except in a lawn mower, shovel, and garden hoe store. It’s like saying you can’t buy an ice pick except in an ice pick, anvil, and murder weapon warehouse. How inconvenient. Whatever I buy, I should be able to buy at Target and Wal-Mart. And if I can’t buy it at Target and Wal-Mart, it should be Target and Wal-Mart—not a room full of empty suits in Trenton—deciding why. That’s not how it works, though. No. Because that would be too easy. Also in New Jersey, liquor stores are forced to close at 10 p.m. So suppose for just a second that it’s 9:45 when you decide you want a beer. What are your options? Well, you can race to the store, and risk getting a ticket in a state with three types of doubled-fine zones, or you can go to a bar, where liquor is served until 2. Which is fine if you want to go to a bar, but what if you don’t? What if you don’t like bars? What if you don’t like the idea of drinking and driving home? “So what?” you say. “Decide to drink earlier.” That’s just my point. What’s it your business what time I decide to drink? What’s it the State of New Jersey’s business? What are you, my mom and dad now? Are you going to tell me when I can’t have ice cream, too? What if I had a night job? What if I worked late just to keep my family fed? Are you going to tell me I’m not allowed to have a beer because I get off at 11:15? That’s garbage. Complete and utter trash. Then there’s Pennsylvania. Now, here’s a state with a much freer spirit than New Jersey. There are lots of things you can do in Pennsylvania that you can’t do in my homeland. For example, it’s easier to buy fireworks and guns. But the grass isn’t always greener on the other side of the Delaware River. Pennsylvania has some pretty zany liquor laws of its own. If you’re looking for a six-pack—no problem. Head down to the corner deli. But a case of beer? Forget it. That’s an altogether separate trip to the beer distributor, where, by law, they sell cases but can’t sell six-packs. Imagine having separate supermarkets for Coca Cola and Diet Coke. That’s the kind of law this is. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not complaining. I happen to like beer distributors. They’re like little warehouses, the best of which are drive-thru. You can’t beat that. It’s one of the greatest ideas of all time. You pull in, pop the trunk, and tell the guy what you want. He loads it up for you. You don’t even have to get out of your car. It’s wonderful! But suppose you’re buying a case of beer for a party. And suppose you want to serve wines and spirits, too. Well, you can want ‘em all you want, but you can’t buy ‘em here. That’ll require yet another stop on your way home. This time you’ve got to stop at a State Store. That’s right. A State Store. And, no, the name isn’t deceiving. The state—I’m sorry, commonwealth—of Pennsylvania is in the business of getting people blitzed, and has been since the end of Prohibition. State-run establishments control the flow of wines and spirits statewide. And you’re not even allowed to buy wine outside the state—where it’s cheaper—and bring it back across state lines. Why? Because then the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board wouldn’t get its cut. When the mob monopolized liquor like this, we called it illegal. When a state does it, we call it the law. Pennsylvania knows how annoying this is, but they won’t give up the ship. There’s too much money in it. So instead they’re just trying to keep up with the times. To that end, the PLCB now runs an online catalogue, complete with Chairman’s Selections chosen by—you guessed it—board chairman Jonathan Newman. This probably sounds pretty good, though, right? What could be easier than ordering online? Well, not so fast: Web orders aren’t sent to your home. They’re sent to a State Store of your choosing, and you’ve got to go pick them up. So much for convenience. Somehow, ordering wine is now a 12-step program. And listen, for what it’s worth, I’m not sure I trust the Chairman’s Selections, either. I remember the story of Socrates, and I don’t like the idea of drinking something suggested by the government. So thanks, but no thanks. I’ll pass. You know what I do like, though? I like New York. Of the three states where I regularly buy beer, New York is the best. You still need to go to a separate store in order to buy wines and spirits. That stinks. But you can buy beer in a gas station. They even let you buy it in a grocery store. And why shouldn’t they? There’s no reason why Garden State grocers can’t sell beer, too. I’m not buying any arguments about “the children.” If you’re worried about kids getting their hands on a longneck, don’t sell it to them. And if you’re worried they’re going to steal it, that’s another problem altogether. It’s called theft. Look into loss prevention. Problem solved. As far as I’m concerned, the only thing better than consumer freedom is an ice cold beer. Lawmakers should get out of the beer business and leave the drinking to professionals. After a long weekend of unpacking boxes, hanging up pictures, and tripping over ottomans, that would be something I could drink to. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
As the exodus of well rewarded jobs leave our shores or evaporate as downsizing efficiency marches onward, we are left with an inevitable conclusion. Life is getting harder, earning a livable income is more difficult, and the prospects for the future are less upbeat. Covering all the reasons for this shift - away from a secure future - are continuous themes for pundits and reporters. The world is quite different from the fabulous fifties when a father could support a family without working overtime. Today the rat race has become a segment on "Survivor." Eating rodents may not yet be part of a steady diet, but there is no doubt that Big Macs are on the way out. Men are becoming endangered species in the work place because most are unwilling to toil for minimal wages. Women are more often single mothers and have far less pride when it come to feeding their brood, the end result of instant delight. The outcome of this kind of education means increased females cashing a paycheck, while more men flounder in a sea of sinking lifeboats. Drowning is the fate for many men; their preserver can no longer keep them afloat. Is this condition poetic justice, as so many of those nurturing feminists would have you believe, or are the root causes for gender transposition a reversal of fortune designed to permanently alter political alignments? The most striking movement in society is the ceaseless determination of the State to protect its own interest. They have the power, they will die to keep it. Expanding its reach and scope is the foremost means upon which government preserves its dominance. The task of selling a beneficial character for a bureaucratic nightmare is made relatively easy when your subject operates upon an emotional compass. Is it really female bashing to state a factual truth? Are women so insecure that they are unable to analyze their own genetic deficiencies? All too often the sad answer is: they are . . . Relying upon emotional shifts for making practical decisions is not an intellectual basis for sound social policy. Can anyone really and honestly dispute that the predominant appeal, when selecting a candidate for public office is based on principle, by either sex? If pragmatism was the standard, the public would vote for those who can and would improve our mutual plight. But that is not the case. Women have a propensity to want a politician that will make them feel better, and avoid those that offer authentic and practical opportunities to encourage them to earn a better life. Earning is not the same as an after-tax paycheck. Securing personal prosperity is not the proper role or function of government. It is the obligation of each person to make their own way in life. However, the caretaker culture targets the female voter as the most likely candidate to buy the soap that politicians spew from their platform boxes. The "goodie" bake sale has a very high cholesterol factor that often causes a communal cholera epidemic. Basic support for an all-encompassing administration for achieving egalitarian parity is a fundamental flaw in womankind alignment. Femininity impersonating as logic causes political campaigns to offer cradle to crypt promises. Deliberating upon pressing and determinative political policies, using a form of decision-making that fosters continual expansion of the State, is counter to the fundamental goals and aspirations of our founding country. The cohorts that reconcile an ideology of socialism as advantageous to their gender wage war upon their masculine brothers. Not just those femi-nazis; even moderate feminists reject the natural partnership with men when they cast their votes for 'pols' that advocate the systemic emasculation of men from the workplace. Denying natural, distinct and different roles between the sexes has caused untold social discontent in the last fifty years. Collectivist politicians are the beneficiaries of the woman's movement, and men have been paying the price for their unholy alliance. Do women truly believe that they have profited from their so called 'equality coming out' party? Career often means family is defined by a monthly support check. Exhaustion and burn-out are inescapable results from a culture that says you can have it all. The new age, free marketplace, international interdependent corporate world wants women employees. They can still be intimidated more easily, will work like a dog, and mostly lack the killer instinct to rise to the top. Men are now expendable. They have been replaced with a more docile robot model. Men laboring in steel mills and supporting families are becoming fond memories. Women now sell more than cosmetics. Men are left to till the fields, lay the concrete, grease the cars and fight most of the fires, while women appraise houses, analyze stocks, become judges, and love being government administrators. Is our society better off over the last half decade that introduced such equality? Ask the politicians. They will say they are well worth their pensions! But what about the disenfranchised family man who is labeled a bigot for challenging the all inclusion nanny state run by mothers of the Oprah gender who want it all to be free . . . fair . . .and equal? The class of women in Congress are hardly an improvement over the men demagogues, charlatans and scoundrels. Who elects them, any of them? More women voting translates into more prescription plans, and day care for an entire society that has eliminated an independent work force. Now government is the employer of last resort, and soon it will be the only well paying job available. If you want earnest employment, rid the system of pandering professional politicians. If you want personal self respect, keep the wives and purge the political process from feminist ideology. And if you want society to return to the natural order, allow men to be men and not just a spectator at a WWE wrestling match. The connection is evident and establishes a clear linkage in the decline of social institutions, stemming from the growth of big government. Women vote overwhelmingly for inclusive policies, when the real solutions lie in regional and local self determination. Good jobs vanish with every increased infusion of government intervention. If the legacy of women in society is the NEA, we all got gypped on our education. Voters are not equal in the quality of their vote. The Fourteenth Amendment abolished the 'three-fifths' as applied to "original persons not free" for drawing districts. Too bad that our suffrage continues because that concept wasn't included and applied to voting in the 19th. Boys, the woman you date may well turn into the patron that runs the establishment. Now answer, just how well is the current system doing? Lady Liberty has lost her way . . .
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, August 8, 2004 2:53 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2004 site design by |
||||||
