Front page Archive Why Arlen? Arlen is the TV home of "King of the Hill." It's a small conservative town that is threatened with ruination on a regular basis by twig boys, enviro wackos, diversity nuts, "PC" police and other ivory tower liberals. I like to think of Arlen as a metaphor for this here great nation of ours.

Friday, February 21, 2003 Posted 9:59 AM by Hank A GAY OLD TIME The Ithaca Times had an article this week entitled Gay men's group seeks to establish community "outside the bar scene". This article struck me as funny for a couple of reasons. The first is that this group, hoping to establish a community "outside the bar scene," is holding its organizational meetings in a gay bar. The other, more serious, but still "funny" aspect of this is that: The support group is being established with help from the Mental Health Association in Tompkins County. Beth Jenkins, executive director of the MHA, said the association has been supporting individuals with a variety of issues and concerns to establish different self-help support groups using training and workshops. "People will find strength within peers," she said. So let me get this straight (no pun intended): for years, the "enlightened" folks have been telling us that being gay is perfectly natural and A-OK. If that's truly the case...if being gay is not a "mental illness," then why do they need assistance from a mental health association? I'm sure the enlightened will tell us it's because gays are "stigmatized" and this causes them to have more mental health issues. Maybe that's true. But even if that is the case, is the solution really to establish a taxpayer-funded gay dating service? What am I saying? Throwing government money at a problem is always the solution with these folks. Saturday, February 15, 2003 Posted 7:00 AM by Hank TERRORISTS TO HIPPIES: "THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT" With the ever increasing likelihood of war with Iraq, it's interesting, and kind of sad, to watch the so-called "peace" protesters reveal more and more of their true colors. For months now, the peaceniks have been claiming this was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was building "weapons of mass destruction." They also claimed that there was no proof that Iraq was tied to September 11 terrorist Osama bin Laden. Over and over they told us that we should let the U.N. Inspectors keep working. Then, along comes Secretary of State Colin Powell who, on February 5, makes a masterful speech to the United Nations with all the proof we need that Saddam is guilty. Powell painstakingly explained the evidence of noncompliance--including: *satellite image of a weapons munitions facility, which is known to have held chemical weapons; *pictures of a ballistic missile facility two days before the inspectors arrived, with vehicles outside including a crane for moving missiles; *satellite photos showing truck convoys lining up at known weapons factories to transport forbidden material out ahead of the inspectors' arrival; *intercepted phone conversations in which Iraqi military men discuss their efforts to deceive the inspectors. In the intercept, Mr Powell says, one of the officers says: "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left." *proof that "Saddam Hussein has directly participated in the effort to prevent interviews" with Iraqi scientists; Powell also demonstrated that Iraqis visited Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and provided training to al-Qaeda members. And the response from the left was: "Powell didn't present any evidence....we need to let the inspectors keep looking." Then, on February 11, Osama bin Laden himself surfaced on videotaped, and practically admitted to ties between him and Iraq. And how did the anti-war crowd respond? You guessed it: There is no evidence of a Saddam-bin Laden connection. This is no clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Let the inspectors keep looking. And that's not all. Some of the pacifists are heading to Iraq to serve as "Human Shields" even though they admit: “Of course we are aware we may get used as propaganda or worse by Saddam Hussein." It sort of reminds you of little children having a temper tantrum, with their fingers in their ears, saying "I'm not listening," and singing at the top of their lungs. Of course, the anti-war crowd sees their stubborness differently. The anti-war crowd will try to tell us that this is because of their "principles." They have said, and keep claiming, that their opposition to war is solely because they are "pacifists." But the evidence is starting to pile up that this has nothing to do with principles or pacifism. As their arguments fall, more and more "pacifists" are starting to demonstrate that their real motiviation is hatred....against the United States. Daniel Flynn, in On the Street with the Protestors, describes who makes up the majority of the "peace" movement: While a small number of families, political moderates, and senior citizens salted the ranks of Saturday's march, a much-larger contingent escaped the notice of most journalists. Waving inflammatory signs, wearing scary costumes, and partaking in street theatre, the anti-American extremists who dominated the event were hard to miss. Yet, they were somehow overlooked in most of the press accounts of the protest. ....protesters labeled 9/11 "a drop in the bucket" and compared it to breaking a nail... [and] what did they see as a serious terrorist threat? A glance at the thousands of signs on the Mall revealed the answer. Placards read: "USA Is #1 Terrorist," "Bush Is a Terrorist," "The NYPD Are Terrorists Too," and "Get the Terrorists Out of the White House...A table display exhorting passersby to defend North Korea's right to nuclear weapons or an activist who cheered in vain for a policeman to fall off a fire-escape ladder 30-feet above a Pennsylvania Avenue restaurant were typical of the happenings at this weekend's rally ." . And Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly points out the anti-war movement: "cheers on...the speaker at the Washington rally who declared that "the real terrorists have always been the United Snakes of America [and] the former Black Panther Charles Baron, who said in Washington, "if you're looking for an axis of evil then look in the belly of this beast."****(They) marched last weekend with people who held signs comparing the president and vice president of their country to Hitler, and declaring, "The difference between Bush and Saddam is that Saddam was elected." To make matters worse, these "pacifists" aren't just confining themselves to attacking our institutions. Now, some of them, taking a page from "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, have started accosting the wives of our men in uniform, calling them "baby killers" and saying they hope the soldiers die. Supporting Korea's right to have nukes, comparing September 11 to breaking a nail and accosting the wives of solidiers with cries of "baby killers"...does that sound principled and pacifist...or anti-American? At this point, some of you might be saying "Well, that's bad. But aren't you blowing this a little out of proportion? Is this really support for Saddam and the terrorists?" Giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Sure is. But don't take my word for it. Take Saddam's. In a recent interview, Saddam was asked "I wonder whether you could say something yourself directly through this interview to the peace movement of the world that might help to advance the cause they have in mind?" His response: "...we admire the development of the peace movement around the world in the last few years. We pray to God to empower all those working against war and for the cause of peace and security based on just peace for all." In other words: "thank you for your support." Tuesday, February 04, 2003 Posted 5:19 AM by Hank THE FRATERNITY OF HARD KNOCKS A recent article about a Cornell fraternity got me thinking about Social Security. And not because looking at the year the members will graduate and comparing it to the year I graduated college makes me feel old (though it does). Instead, the article got me thinking about social security in terms of its funding. The Cornell Daily Sun reported that the Delta Chi fraternity was shut down because, simply put, they did not have enough money for operating expenses. As a result, the brothers had to move out and find alternate housing. Part of the problem was in the fraternity's decreasing membership. As the Sun explained: “In the past three years, the pledge class decreased from 17 to 10 to eight. The budget was written primarily by the seniors, the largest class (T)he budget did not account for decreasing membership and the increasing dues remained the responsibility of underclassmen...’It's pretty clear to us that if the seniors had supported the budget [by also living in the house], this probably wouldn't have happened,’.” In other words, the seniors were the ones with voting power. So they set a budget up that required younger members to pay into the system and support the seniors. But there were not enough younger members paying in to adequately fund the system. So it collapsed. Sound familiar? It should. It is exactly the problem facing social security. When Social Security began, we had enough workers paying taxes to adequately support retirees. In 1935 there were 30 workers for each retired person. But by 1955 the number dropped to 16 workers. Today, just three workers support each retiree. In order to keep the system afloat, Congress has already raised taxes 30 times in 60 years to bail out Social Security. Furthermore, this approach has proven to be a band-aid, not a fix. To continue to pay Social Security's existing debt, Congress would have to raise taxes another 50%. And the problem will only get worse. Soon the Baby Boomers will retire. Then we'll have only two workers paying for each retiree. The brothers of Delta Chi have learned a hard lesson in economics. Hopefully they will take it with them and apply it to “the real world.” They had better. We all had better. Otherwise, like the displaced brothers of Delta Chi, a lot of senior citizens may be looking for “alternate housing”: at the poor house. Home