28 February 2004
Wild, Wild West?
If all you know about the 'west' was learned from the movies, maybe you should give this a read. The premise of this essay is that the American West of the 19th century was not the violence plagued land of desperadoes, vigilantes and other neer-do-wells. Rather, it was populated by enterprising individuals who sought escape from the east coast in order to make their own way in the world:
". . .the actual settling was always done by men and women looking to make a better living in a new land. In other words, civilization was brought to the West by private citizens, private entrepreneurs, and private law enforcement.."
Economic issues can be a powerful driving force in ensuring that peace is maintained:
". . . Robert Dykstra published Cattle Towns which included an examination of the violence in Kansas cattle towns like Abilene, Wichita, and Caldwell. In novels and on the silver screen, these towns became known for their shootouts. But, as Dykstra tells us, the reality was quite different. These cattle towns had an economic interest in ensuring as little violence as possible—and they delivered."
Found via Kim du Toit. Give it a read.
". . .the actual settling was always done by men and women looking to make a better living in a new land. In other words, civilization was brought to the West by private citizens, private entrepreneurs, and private law enforcement.."
Economic issues can be a powerful driving force in ensuring that peace is maintained:
". . . Robert Dykstra published Cattle Towns which included an examination of the violence in Kansas cattle towns like Abilene, Wichita, and Caldwell. In novels and on the silver screen, these towns became known for their shootouts. But, as Dykstra tells us, the reality was quite different. These cattle towns had an economic interest in ensuring as little violence as possible—and they delivered."
Found via Kim du Toit. Give it a read.
26 February 2004
"If It Feels Good, Do It!"
22 February 2004
"When The Terror Ends . . .
. . . so will the need for the fence." So proclaims a new video produced by the Israeli government, which can be found by clicking here. It's in english and runs for over seven minutes. Using our broadband connection, it seemed to take forever to download. It's worth the wait, though. The case for the security fence is made succinctly and effectively. But then, they're preaching to the choir here. Check it out.
21 February 2004
A Note From the Editor:
Nobody asked me, but. . .
This whole 'gay marriage' thing is starting to get me really irritated. For years now, gays and their sympathizers have made the effort to gain a measure of respect and acceptance for their 'lifestyle choices.' For the most part they have succeeded and for the most part, peacefully.
I really don't care if Bruce and Frank drill for mud in the privacy of their bedroom. It's none of my business. It's certainly not the government's business either. Most people, I think, would agree with me. It's when they insist on beating people over the head with their 'lifestyle choice' and demanding this, that and the other thing, that's when I start to bristle. From suing to march in St. Patrick's Day parades to resisting bathhouse closures to this marriage nonsense, the gay movement is in danger of squandering whatever goodwill, tolerance and acceptance that has accrued over the years.
The demand for 'equal protection under the law' is a smoke screen. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a 'right to get married.' What I am sure of is the 'right to the pursuit of happiness.' If I were to determine that I would advance my pursuit of happiness by getting married, then I would do so. Now, the gay man would say to me: "Sure, you can get married, but I can't." I would say to him: "Yes, I can marry a woman, but, like you, I can't marry a man either (not that I would want to)." I could demand to marry my brother, should I be allowed to do so? I could demand to marry a male first cousin. Should I be allowed to? A demand on the part of one does not confer a responsibility on the part of another to meet that demand. State legislatures can try to change their respective marriage laws, if they so wish. However, with polls showing a majority of Americans opposing gay marriages, this may not happen.
Hospital visitation: I don't understand the problem here. I've been able to visit friends who have been hospitalized with no difficulty. The real issue is individual hospital visitation policy which can be changed. What may have thrown a wrench into the works is HIPA (the Health Information Protection Act). The congress enacted HIPA, the congress can amend HIPA. Contact your congressional representative.
Taxes: Yes, married couples derive some benefits through tax law. I'm not a tax expert, but, I'm willing to bet that co-habitating couples can't take advantage of these benefits, so why should gay couples? Are unmarried 'straight' couples any more or less loving than gay couples? Using the equal protection argument, I could demand that I receive the same benefits that married couples do, even though I'm single (and prefer to stay that way). The real problem here is the tax code, which is the responsibility of the congress. The best solution here is to scrap the damned thing and institute a national sales tax (but that's another topic for another day).
Health insurance and other employment benefits: It is strictly the domain of the employer to make a determination that benefits be extended to gay couples. Government has intruded too much already into the employer/employee contract. The bottom line is: If it (benefits for gay couples) is good for the bottom line, then a private employer may decide to extend benefits. If I don't agree with that change in policy, I'm certainly free to seek employment elsewhere. As for government employers, the taxpayers are the ones footing the bill. Therefore, it is for the taxpayers to decide.
As you can surely see, the equal protection argument is a smoke screen. What all this gay marriage noise boils down to is money.
This whole 'gay marriage' thing is starting to get me really irritated. For years now, gays and their sympathizers have made the effort to gain a measure of respect and acceptance for their 'lifestyle choices.' For the most part they have succeeded and for the most part, peacefully.
I really don't care if Bruce and Frank drill for mud in the privacy of their bedroom. It's none of my business. It's certainly not the government's business either. Most people, I think, would agree with me. It's when they insist on beating people over the head with their 'lifestyle choice' and demanding this, that and the other thing, that's when I start to bristle. From suing to march in St. Patrick's Day parades to resisting bathhouse closures to this marriage nonsense, the gay movement is in danger of squandering whatever goodwill, tolerance and acceptance that has accrued over the years.
The demand for 'equal protection under the law' is a smoke screen. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a 'right to get married.' What I am sure of is the 'right to the pursuit of happiness.' If I were to determine that I would advance my pursuit of happiness by getting married, then I would do so. Now, the gay man would say to me: "Sure, you can get married, but I can't." I would say to him: "Yes, I can marry a woman, but, like you, I can't marry a man either (not that I would want to)." I could demand to marry my brother, should I be allowed to do so? I could demand to marry a male first cousin. Should I be allowed to? A demand on the part of one does not confer a responsibility on the part of another to meet that demand. State legislatures can try to change their respective marriage laws, if they so wish. However, with polls showing a majority of Americans opposing gay marriages, this may not happen.
Hospital visitation: I don't understand the problem here. I've been able to visit friends who have been hospitalized with no difficulty. The real issue is individual hospital visitation policy which can be changed. What may have thrown a wrench into the works is HIPA (the Health Information Protection Act). The congress enacted HIPA, the congress can amend HIPA. Contact your congressional representative.
Taxes: Yes, married couples derive some benefits through tax law. I'm not a tax expert, but, I'm willing to bet that co-habitating couples can't take advantage of these benefits, so why should gay couples? Are unmarried 'straight' couples any more or less loving than gay couples? Using the equal protection argument, I could demand that I receive the same benefits that married couples do, even though I'm single (and prefer to stay that way). The real problem here is the tax code, which is the responsibility of the congress. The best solution here is to scrap the damned thing and institute a national sales tax (but that's another topic for another day).
Health insurance and other employment benefits: It is strictly the domain of the employer to make a determination that benefits be extended to gay couples. Government has intruded too much already into the employer/employee contract. The bottom line is: If it (benefits for gay couples) is good for the bottom line, then a private employer may decide to extend benefits. If I don't agree with that change in policy, I'm certainly free to seek employment elsewhere. As for government employers, the taxpayers are the ones footing the bill. Therefore, it is for the taxpayers to decide.
As you can surely see, the equal protection argument is a smoke screen. What all this gay marriage noise boils down to is money.
18 February 2004
No Title
Added a few new links.
Shabazz? Shazbat!
Today, Ilyasah Shabazz, daughter of Malcolm X, made an appearance at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs to deliver a talk entitled "Ethnic Diversity in Education." The audience of mostly young females seemed to hang on her every word. Unfortunately a transcript of the talk is not available, but, we distinctly recall Shabazz saying that "Africa is the first civilization" and that all knowledge was derived from that 'stolen' from Africa.
Overheard while giving an interview to a local tv station: Shabazz, when asked why affirmative action was still a good idea, answered (after much hemming and hawing) "Lots of things." Speaking of interviews, a transcript of an interview given to another tv station will be posted here soon. Stay tuned.
Overheard while giving an interview to a local tv station: Shabazz, when asked why affirmative action was still a good idea, answered (after much hemming and hawing) "Lots of things." Speaking of interviews, a transcript of an interview given to another tv station will be posted here soon. Stay tuned.
02 February 2004
Janet (YAWN) Jackson
We thought that we should keep the CWMG reader(s) abreast of this titillating story, but we find it hard to really care.* It should be self-evident that most "artists" and "entertainers" are just big f***ing idiots. What is more pathetic is that there are people out there who actually buy the crap that these morons produce. As long as there are all these gullible dupes out there, nothing will come of this pitiful episode. Why should the record companies, movie studios and networks do anything when the dollars keep rolling in?
Sure, the FCC could threaten to fine someone, but whom? Not CBS, because the network does not have a broadcast license. CBS affiliates could be fined because they carried the game. But, they could plead, with some justification, that they had no way of knowing what was going to happen. The bottom line is that there is little, if anything the government can do. As a matter of fact, the government should not even be in the broadcast business. The matter could be better handled in the private sector.
We are willing to concede that NFL, CBS and MTV did not have advance knowledge this stunt would occur. We do believe it was planned, but, not rehearsed by the two parties directly involved. But, what to do about it? One could write and complain to the above. We doubt that would have much effect, since they rely on the above mentioned gullible dupes to keep them in business. The entities that spent millions of dollars to promote their products are considerably more sensitive to consumer opinion. We have no idea who the advertisers were as we didn't watch the stupid game, but, letting them know of your displeasure and that you'll not buy their product/service would be a fair guarantee that this sort of thing will not happen again.
*We do care a little bit. We here at CWMG are not prudes. We like to look at naked women like, well, like most guys at least. We just believe that there is an appropriate time and place for 'dirty dancing.'
This post turned out to be longer than we had intended. We'll close with this quote from Jeff Murdoch, a character from the funniest show on the tube, Coupling:
"I need breasts with brains. I don’t mean individual brains, obviously... I mean, not a brain each. You know, I like intelligent women, but you’ve got to draw the line somewhere... I think breast brains would be over-egging the woman pudding."
Sure, the FCC could threaten to fine someone, but whom? Not CBS, because the network does not have a broadcast license. CBS affiliates could be fined because they carried the game. But, they could plead, with some justification, that they had no way of knowing what was going to happen. The bottom line is that there is little, if anything the government can do. As a matter of fact, the government should not even be in the broadcast business. The matter could be better handled in the private sector.
We are willing to concede that NFL, CBS and MTV did not have advance knowledge this stunt would occur. We do believe it was planned, but, not rehearsed by the two parties directly involved. But, what to do about it? One could write and complain to the above. We doubt that would have much effect, since they rely on the above mentioned gullible dupes to keep them in business. The entities that spent millions of dollars to promote their products are considerably more sensitive to consumer opinion. We have no idea who the advertisers were as we didn't watch the stupid game, but, letting them know of your displeasure and that you'll not buy their product/service would be a fair guarantee that this sort of thing will not happen again.
*We do care a little bit. We here at CWMG are not prudes. We like to look at naked women like, well, like most guys at least. We just believe that there is an appropriate time and place for 'dirty dancing.'
This post turned out to be longer than we had intended. We'll close with this quote from Jeff Murdoch, a character from the funniest show on the tube, Coupling:
"I need breasts with brains. I don’t mean individual brains, obviously... I mean, not a brain each. You know, I like intelligent women, but you’ve got to draw the line somewhere... I think breast brains would be over-egging the woman pudding."
