 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
What They Thought September 19, 2004 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins The sight of John F. Kerry attempting to address the National Guard in Nevada last week was one of the most amusing things I have seen in years. He started off with what I thought was a pretty good joke: “The big difference between Washington DC and Las Vegas is that at least here you only gamble with your own money.” I laughed at the joke because it was pretty good even if he couldn’t possibly have made it up himself, not to mention the fact that he has promised to raise taxes so he has a better stake at the tables. I laughed a second time when I noticed nobody he was addressing laughed. A large number of them left before he was finished and the applause was minimal at best. John Kerry was sweating like a lady of the night in church. I suspect that’s the same expression he has when he gets his allowance from Teresa each week. This is the best example I’ve seen yet of what the military thinks of him. He betrayed his fellow soldiers when he returned from Vietnam and he is also performing the same role now as he was then. He is acting as a cheerleader for the other side. So it wasn’t a big surprise to me when they gave him a cold response. He used to be pretty noisy about the dangers Saddam posed to us in the west. Johnny was one of Bill Clinton’s big detractors and it was over Bill Clinton’s inaction in Iraq. These people know a fraud when they see one. Anyone who thinks the military is fooled by his “I’m on your side” shtick isn’t wired quite right. Since I’m talking about people who claim to be on our side that aren’t, I’d like to talk about the people that often use the new politically correct ‘N’ word (Neo-Con). They, like their political bedfellows, like to deal in the area of plausible deniability and black truth. Let’s talk about black truth for a moment. No I don’t mean like Jesse Jackson’s, Queasy [sic] Mfumay’s, Harry Belefonte’s or Al Sharpton’s alternate universes. As a matter of fact I’m talking about black truth from white guys. I’m talking about a certain lawyer and those such as Alex Jones. Here is what black truth is: It is ninety-five percent verifiable fact (far too close to reality to ever get it on CBS) and five percent lies. It works like this: You are told in this case that a certain chip is on an airliner and is used to fly it into a building. They toss in the caveat that everyone knows about this chip and it is common knowledge that it is on all airliners. You are also told that same chip is on the global hawk autonomous vehicle. Well, only certain people are allowed to know what everyone supposedly knows in this case so your only recourse is to check to see if it is actually on the Global Hawk. A little research might be able to dig that up. Voila! You don your foil beanie and you’re in with the in crowd. You are now assuming, just like someone wanted you to, that since one was correct so is the other. Ain’t you special? PrisonPlanet.com once had a piece of video that supposedly showed a missile being fired from the second jet just before it hit the WTC building. We slowed the video down to see what was actually happening and not too surprisingly we discovered that the jet even backed up a few frames. The flash underneath the jet may or may not have been faked but the sun was up that day. I didn’t watch the video for anything other than entertainment purposes. The prospect of firing a missile into a building before ramming it with a fuel-laden jet was really stupid. It is as sensible as shooting an elephant with a BB gun just before you let the hammer fall on the Howitzer you have pointing at the exact same spot. The point in this type of fraudulent journalism isn’t in the articles so much as it is on the top of the believers’ heads. The sad part about the modern day Tokyo Roses is that they aren’t smart enough to realize they are assets for foreign governments. The handlers of assets such as this prefer it that way though. These people actually view themselves as patriots and initiates into the underworld of the true ‘Body Politic’. The real problem with these people is that they are acting as modern day Tokyo Roses and energizing the enemies we have in Iraq and elsewhere. They are the reason we are seeing such an increase in enemy activity in Iraq. The enemy is pleased with the free advertising they are getting from the leftists and Pseudo-Cons over here. They want us to lose this war the same way we lost the Vietnam War: by breaking the will of the public. This election is about whether we are going to fight back against the current torrent of radicals claiming to be of the Muslim faith or whether we are going to be a bunch of Frenchmen. It is about whether we are willing to allow the leftists to continue to disarm us or not. The leftists are out to disarm the military and the populace. The Second Amendment isn’t about gathering food. It is about defending ourselves from the government if it comes to that. By being capable of defending ourselves, the matter never comes up except at the ballot box. Those who don’t understand that simple fact quite often rant about their First Amendment rights. Here’s one for those of you who think your First Amendment rights are carte blanche for treason: If us Second Amendment folks treated our right the way you treat your First Amendment rights, we would own our very own personal nuclear weapons and you wouldn’t dare to speak out. Yes, I can see all of these Tokyo Roses gathering in their little circles as they hug their very own copies of "Catcher In The Rye," but just don’t know why. I wonder if at dinner they aren’t occasionally yelled at for making flat-topped mountains out of the mashed potatoes as they frantically say, “This means something.” Many of them probably also have bumper stickers that say, “Humpty Dumpty was pushed!” R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
Dear President Bush, I certainly don’t claim to be an economist. I could never match wits with Wall Street brokers, or begin to comprehend all the jargon of the Neil Cavuto Show (Fox News). Reading the latest numbers on our economy from the business section of our local newspaper needs to be left to those who are the professionals. Numbers games aren't my thing, but having the ability to live comfortably in Middle America is, and on a daily basis our family understands this well. Our family represents the classic portrait of middle class America. We are a blend of third generation immigrants from one side and a mix of various races from the other. My husband works as a manager for an office technology company . He has been with his company for approximately a year now. He puts in long hard hours, but loves what he does. Motivating his sales staff and teaching the art of persevering to become the "cream at the top" is his forté. He drives an economy car that is approximately eight years old to work. He is the main breadwinner for our large family. We decided when we married that we'd do all we could for as long as we could to have me stay at home and care for our family. Over the years, to help us make it through lean spots, I have cleaned homes, sold my writing and art work, and most importantly, I've learned to spend our money prudently. We reside in a modest home, one that at times appears too tight for us, and at other times seems too much to keep up. Our abode sits within a typical middle class neighborhood: a subdivision filled with families who reflect similar family values, opinions, and economic status. We've parks, schools, places of worship, shopping centers and all anyone could possibly need to care for their own. No one around us is rich, but we're all comfortable. We've all some form of medical insurance, we can all take short vacations, all of us drive used automobiles, have more than enough to eat, and clothing to wear. All in all, this middle class family, sitting within a middle class neighborhood, is doing pretty good. Certainly, as middle class Americans, we slipped into the recession during Clinton's last few months of office, and then the horrid atrocity of 9/11 affected us all economically. We stopped, just as many did, buying anything that wasn’t necessary for our daily lives. We felt the unease and uncertainty of an economy already in a downslide, and then hit— literally—on 9/11 made us all a bit afraid. Job security was questionable, and many of our middle class friends became unemployed. But since that time —when our lives changed on 9/11—the unemployment rate has corrected itself into a positive upswing. Job security and small business opportunities have been bounding and are continuing to do so. Since you, Mr. President, took office, our family has always felt the hope of believing together we all can make America stronger, safer and proud. Whether we are talking of economic security or homeland security, President Bush, you've always taken a stand. Our children have more than one great man to look up to, and we desire to have you serve as our Commander and Chief. All our boys, since 9/11 and even though they aren't old enough to vote yet, have sharpened their knowledge of politics and what it means to their future and their freedoms. They have become engaged and educated. One son, in his freshman year of high school, joined Air Force ROTC as his way of serving in some fashion to support our military and their sacrifices. As one representative of middle class America, I am not saying I've agreed with all the stands you've taken or all the plans you've laid out. What I am saying is, just as children need a sense of constant stability and accountability of honesty, under your leadership there hasn’t been flip-flopping. Mr. President, you say what you mean and you mean what you say without wavering, something America and the world seem to have forgotten how to do. When words leave your lips, we as American voters can rest assured you have thought about what you're saying and understand the consequences of what you're espousing. Under your direction, honesty has returned to the White House, and perhaps those watching could learn a thing or two about the necessity of speaking truths. Wetting one's finger and holding it up to see which way the political winds are blowing from moment to moment isn't a good way to forecast weather or our country's direction. Whether our economic status brings us to rich, middle or poor, we are responsible for what we say and for what we do. Voting with the knowledge that your candidate is consistent in his direction is ultimately the most important thing to this middle class family. The tax cuts (real after-tax incomes are up by 10% since December 2000, the increased child credit, and the reduced marriage penalty) all have helped us immensely. Every penny in our household is counted, and we are not flippant about a tax cut of a few hundred dollars. Perhaps there are some on the far left that don’t feel a few hundred extra dollars a year makes a difference, but it does. It has helped us and many of our friends purchase new homes (some for the first time). We can all pay our mortgages on time, and for us it has helped our family save for our oldest daughter's wedding. I may never fully comprehend the economic layouts by any party, but I do understand tax cuts. The tax cuts have helped our savings account grow, made bill paying possible, and buying groceries to feed our large family possible. What your economic plan and vision for America reveals, President George W. Bush, is your honest, genuine concern for all classes is real and unwavering. "Waffles" is not what your "W" stands for. Your "W" stands for Winning for all Americans as we move forward together as one. Middle class America is moving forward under your guidance. Why would we want to return to higher taxes and less take home pay? America as a whole, (economics, race, religion, party affiliation—all Americans) can believe your words of playing offense on the war on terror. We must take the fight to where the enemy lives, or more than 3,000 souls may be murdered next time. America first in every way, our middle class family votes President George W. Bush—the only truthful, and steadfast man for the job. God Bless the United States of America, and may God help keep our Republic. Sincerely, A middle class family living in Suburbia, USA Kerry L. Marsala Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
It’s
been so long since I’ve been to a Philadelphia Phillies game that
the best I can do is tell you it was probably 15 years ago. I’m
not sure who played for them back then; the only thing I remember is
coming home with a souvenir batting glove. They were never my team,
the Phillies. I was always a Yankee fan. When you grow up in North Jersey,
being a Yankee fan is basically a birthright. Literally. My brother
and I got baseball jackets from our grandparents when we were kids.
I got the Yanks because I was older; he got the Mets. If I hadn’t
been born four years before him, I’d be a Keith Hernandez fan.
But anyway, since I live in the Philly area now—and since I no longer get the YES Network—I decided I’d go ahead and start following the Phillies. The way I figure, what the hell—they’re an NL team. It’s not like they compete with the Yankees anyway. So my wife and I went out and bought Phillies t-shirts (hers is Jimmy Rollins; mine is Jim Thome), and invited our families to join us two weeks ago as we attended a Saturday game. The Phillies took on the Mets that evening and thrashed them, seven to nothing. I think my brother was the only person to go home unhappy. Sucker. But we were all winners, really, because what were supposed to be nosebleed seats—in Section 310, the only place I could get nine tickets—turned out to be a wonderful place to watch a game. The Phillies have a new stadium, you see, which just opened up this year. I’m told there isn’t a bad seat in the house. I’m inclined to believe it. And I’m also inclined to go back a few times next year to find out for myself. I rather enjoyed the game that evening; I think I’ll get into this whole being-a-Phillies-fan thing. But here’s what I find funny about that new stadium of theirs: It’s nice and new, and very clean, with fairly snug seating and just the right atmosphere for that classic, magical baseball feel. Someone put a lot of thought into building this building. And then they went and named it Citizens Bank Park. Say it out loud with me, will you? Citizens Bank Park. Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, now, does it? You can practically taste that magical baseball feeling falling out of your mouth and onto the floor. It sounds so cold, so callous, so… corporate. It’s a jarring reminder that games aren’t just games, but business ventures. And players aren’t just players, but businessmen—like dear old dad. I have to admit the business side of baseball bothers me sometimes. But usually only when the players threaten to go on strike. And even then it bothers me more because they’re a union than anything else. The more I think about it, though, the more I begin to make peace with the fact that pro sports are just businesses. I used to want to believe my favorite players played for the love of the game. But how realistic was that? These guys have kids; their kids need to eat. And that doesn’t mean some—or even most—players don’t love the game. But let’s face it: If they played for love instead of money, they wouldn’t be playing at all. At least not professionally. They’d have desk jobs just like the rest of us. And where’s the fun in that? Now, don’t get me wrong: I’ll take Boston’s Fenway over San Diego’s PETCO Park any day of the week with a double-header on Sunday. I think calling Comiskey Park “U.S. Cellular Field" is an absolute travesty for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I prefer Verizon. ("Can you hear me now?") But there are good things about stadium naming rights, and we might as well learn to focus on them—I mean, it’s not like this practice is going anywhere anytime soon. Take Philadelphia, for example. Here’s a city firmly entrenched in the naming rights routine. Citizens Bank Park is named for Citizens Bank, which paid nearly $60 million for the privilege. Lincoln Financial paid twice that amount and then some to name the Eagles’ new football stadium Lincoln Financial Field. And finally, the 76ers and Flyers play in the nearby Wachovia Center, which used to be the First Union Center, while the Wachovia Spectrum, which used to be the First Union Spectrum, hosts some team called the Phantoms. There are so many banks in this parking lot, you’d think it’s one big ad for the FDIC. And it’s like this pretty much everywhere you look in professional sports these days. In baseball alone there are seven stadiums named after companies having to do with financial-type stuff. Three more are named after beers. And, yes, this can make even a packed house feel empty. Yes, it can make them seem heartless. Sports fans like to think of stadiums less like buildings and more like living organisms; only names like Candlestick Park and Camden Yards seem to accomplish that. But has the trend towards stadium naming rights really changed anything? How is naming two ballparks after orange juice companies—Minute Maid in Houston; Tropicana in Tampa Bay—any different than Chicago’s beloved Wrigley Field, which, for all intents and purposes, is named after gum? Big, gaudy billboards and neon signs represent what might be seen as the undesirable side of capitalism. No one wants to see ads for Spider-Man 2 on the bases at ballgames. No one wants to see ads for online casinos on pro boxers’ backs. It’s ugly, intrusive, and annoying. And it’s hard to think of sports as the distraction they’re supposed to be when they constantly remind you of the daily grind. But imagine the world of sports without corporate sponsorships. What are the alternatives? Ticket prices ten times more outrageous than they already are? State-run athletics like they have in Communist Cuba? It’s that, or probably no world of sports at all. I remember when they sold the naming rights for the Brendan Byrne Arena—home of the New Jersey Nets and Devils—a couple of years ago. It’s been known as the Continental Airlines Arena ever since. And at first I thought this was garbage; I hated it. But now I look back and wonder, what did former NJ governor Brendan Byrne ever do for me? Nothing, that’s what. His only accomplishment was bringing the Devils to New Jersey. After that, for all I care, he might as well have never existed. But Continental Airlines, on the other hand—they’re the only major airline I find consistently satisfying. I flew United and American recently, and neither of them—especially United—were nearly as good. So I guess what I’m trying to say is, Continental Airlines has done more for me than Brendan Byrne. So maybe the marriage of business and pro sports isn’t the end of the world after all. I mean, hell, next to baseball, NASCAR’s about as American a sport as you can ask for, and half its fans root for drivers based on their sponsors. And you know what? That’s okay. Mark Martin’s male fans can come out to the track and cheer for Viagra. To me, this means something’s right with the world. Again, I don’t like how commercial pro sports can be. Minute Maid ticket holders need only look back upon their stadium’s former name, Enron Field, to tell you corporate sponsorships are transient and ultimately unfulfilling. And to be sure, big business isn’t always a good thing—whether it funds pro sports or not. But as long as sports stadiums are publicly owned, the money to fund them will have to come from somewhere. And I say better corporate sponsors than taxpayers. Fans pay enough for tickets, parking, and beer as it is. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
"There
is a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue." A tolerant culture has long been acclaimed as a righteous society. While most social indoctrination is designed to foster this fanciful theme, few are willing to ask or examine if this is a desirable goal. A valid conclusion rests upon a correct definition of the nature of tolerance and how it applies to natural arrangements and relationships among different groups. Here are four options to consider:
Which do you accept as the logical and judicious meaning for tolerance? The chronological record suggests that history favors a world that conform to the first choice. Societies, races and cultures are different and seldom harmonious. Nevertheless, it has been a goal of social engineers to perfect human nature and renounce the reality of that nature. Enter the romantic, advocates that seek a playing field so level that everyone’s interests are advanced by way of respecting all beliefs and any practice. But do they have equal merit? The idealist claims unbound freedom is the answer - anything can go in a truly tolerant turmoil. Finally, the realist - the most defamed - offers the insight that self interest supersedes motives for contrived social equivalence. The interpretation you accept is crucial to properly understand the conflict and intentions of social crusaders. In a world that operates upon a foundation of distortion, it is easy for the ingenuous to believe the con that is the official doctrine: PEOPLE are EQUAL . . . If you are an imbecile, you will hold that the plight of the inferior is your responsibility. The solution to rectify cultural deficiency, is to sacrifice your own dignity and merge your heritage by shedding those qualities that create lasting achievements. Dumbing down is not enough, accepting primitive ritual as coequal is required. If you resist this atonement adjustment, your ability to overcome that nasty hate factor will necessitate additional harsh persuasion. Your re-education program will feature a reorientation degree with a major in Tolerance. The institution for this advanced level of reprogramming might well be the TOLERANCE.ORG That’s an auspicious name for a Southern Poverty Law Center project designed to enlighten the masses about the detestables. You know them, for they are you . . . No less a figure than the dissimulator, Morris Dees, will instruct you what hate is and why you are unworthy unless you grant universal tolerance. Offered as a fringe benefit is a tracking list for hate groups, yet to graduate from the course - denial in inequality. Their standard holds that - “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics”. In the Dees classroom there is no place for definition No 3 - a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior. So is Dees a hero or a charlatan? You won’t examine his real record on the tolerance.org site.
It’s hard to see the Dees mindset as conforming to definition No 2 - willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others; for there is no choice in his system of ‘TC’ Totalitarian Collectivism. Tolerance demands Fascism to ensue open-mindedness. So what’s left to define tolerance! No 4 - a permissible difference; allowing freedom to move within limits - distinguish that differences exist and that accepting those variances recognizes that your allowance is essential. The boundaries for accepting others is based upon your desire to include them into your own community. Consequently, to achieve willful tolerance, discriminating choice is necessary. For some, definition No 1 - the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions - will apply. Some may reject that option, but that disagreement does not abolish the right of those who avoid assimilation, while begrudgingly enduring coexisting. The Dees’ of this world want you to be consumed with a false guilt and an asinine self destructive surrender. Their version of tolerance is despotism disguised in a sugar coating that has a color of a clear black and white choice. It is entirely proper and moral to exclude those who are harmful, injurious or troublesome. Certainly no person who retains any degree of common sense needs the Tolerance Organization to assist in making that determination. A truly virtuous society distinguishes between forced integration and honest acceptance. Limits upon free association are no substitute for individual Liberty and assuredly, tolerance is no benefit when compelled. So which definition do you accept? If you follow Dees, you need not worry or ponder your decision, he will settle the matter. Surely, you would not want to risk being lumped into one of those hate group tribes! Or maybe you would?
|
||||||||
©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 Monday, September 27, 2004 5:57 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2004 site design by |
||||||||
