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.

Monday, April 28, 2003 Posted 8:30 AM by Hank TAXING LESSONS Ithaca, New York, the most liberal city in America, has struck again. This time by looking to impose a tax directly on children. The Ithaca Journal reports that Board of Education officials have proposed a $180.00 per year parking fee to be charged students who drive to school. According to the Journal, the fee would be applied to "things that will benefit all students," which, it turns out, consist largely of "positions which involve communicating with new families at the schools." In other words, students are being taxed to pay for more bureaucratic fat at school. Niiiiiiccce... The mentality seems to be the typical liberal one: that students who drive must be able to afford the cost. So this is just another way of "taxing the rich." However, as with most liberal schemes, this ignores reality. Many of the students who drive to school do so because they have after school jobs, in order to pay for things that "rich" children may get from their parents gratis. But now, in addition to the usual taxes on their labor, such as payroll, they are being socked with Ithaca's own version of a commuter tax. Faced with this tax, the students are already planning to do what many business owners do when confronted with taxes: looking for ways to avoid it. The Journal article notes that "according to parents and students...students will get around the fee by parking on surrounding streets." So the kids now have their first lessons in loopholes. And this lesson may be another reason why this scheme will backfire. By imposing a fee so high that no one bothers to pay it, the school may actually lose money (a fact one board member acknowledges to the Journal). On the other, maybe this was a good thing. School is supposed to be a place for learning, of course. And, in this case, there would appear to be a lot of valuable lessons being taught: that higher taxes often cause a loss of revenue; that people will look for a way to avoid paying taxes; that taxes on "the rich" often hurt the middle class and the wage earner. As noted above, it looks like some of the children might even be learning these lessons. The real question is...are the adults? Friday, April 11, 2003 Posted 2:30 PM by Hank WHAT IF THEY GAVE A WAR PROTEST AND NOBODY CAME? Even though the hard-core anti-American protesters are still plotting against this war (see my April 9 post), it certainly appears that the movement has lost its momentum. The best evidence of that may be a recent announcement in Ithaca, New York: Subject: [Ithaca Sharks] April 12th DC Peace Bus Trip Cancelled Greetings Peace-Loving People of the Greater Cayuga Basin... The Peace Buses for April 12th have been cancelled. Currently, people are seeking alternative actions to express their dissent and opposition to this illegal, immoral, insane, unjustified, unjustifiable, injust [sic], racist, greed-driven, violent, destructive, horrible and deadly war. Not enough tickets were acquired to make a bus trip possible. To anyone who is unfamiliar with Ithaca, let me tell you: this is big news. Ithaca is widely considered the most liberal city in America, even more liberal than Berkeley. It's so liberal, the leftists at Utne Reader voted it "the most enlightened city in America," and some conservatives (myself included) refer to it as "The City of Evil." Ithacites protest at the drop of a hat (or beret). They protest businesses. They protest unemployment. They protest sex crimes. They even protest women having to wear shirts. Ithaca is so ready for a protest that, as the local newspaper recently put it, "in most places, youngsters spend their summers camping, or at the mountains or the beach. In Ithaca, they learn how to become social activists" In fact, less than a month, they were able, in a city of only 29,000 people, to get seven hundred and fifty hippies together to protest the war. And now? Protests are being cancelled for lack of interest. If the people in the City of Evil, the most liberal city in America, have to cancel a protest for lack of interest, then I think it's fair to say that this war is, in fact, won. Wednesday, April 09, 2003 Posted 6:11 PM by Hank PEACENIKS: RAILING AGAINST THE LIGHT? By many accounts, and with the grace of God, the war in Iraq is over. Even Iraq’s ambassador to the United Nations has effectively admitted this. This news, however, seems lost on the "anti-war" movement. The left-wing Indymedia sites are still discussing plans for upcoming rallies, and Craig Rosebraugh, the former spokesman for the the terrorist-group Earth Liberation Front, has called on anti-war protesters to take "direct actions'' against U.S. military establishments, urban centers, corporations, government buildings and media outlets. In other words, the leftists are still protesting a war that appears to be already over, except for the clean-up. I'm not sure why this is. Some of it is the fact that their movement is actually anti-America, not anti-war. But I have to suspect that some of it is simply residual energy. These clowns built up so much anticipation for a quagmire, during which they would protest like it was 1969, that now they have no way to dissipate their orgiastic, America-hating energy. Luckily for them, I have a suggestion: Take a cue from what liberal actress Janeane Garafalo promised to do if the United States "goes in, liberates Iraq [with] people in the street, American flags, hugging our soldiers." Apologize. That's right. Apologize to President Bush for calling him a reckless cowboy, for claiming this war could not be won, for claiming he was waging an unjust war, for claiming it would be a massacre. Apologize to the soldiers they attacked, called baby killers and called for the deaths of. Apologize, most of all, to the Iraqi people, for efforts at continuing the regime of their mass-murdering oppressor, Saddam Hussein. And, if they can't do that, if they don't have the integrity to admit they were wrong, then they should take the advice of some ecstatic Iraqis said on a banner directed towards the Human Shields: Wankers go home. Monday, April 07, 2003 Posted 3:09 PM by Hank MORE PROOF: THEY AREN'T ANTI-WAR THEY'RE JUST ANTI-AMERICA "Anti-war" demonstrators in San Francisco have asked that the police not wear American flags when policing protesters because the colors make anti-war demonstrators uncomfortable. Bonnie Weinstein, co-founder of Bay Area United Against War, said flag-wearing cops "might seem like kind of a threat...it's obviously meant to annoy people." In other words, the protesters admit our flag, the American flag, "annoys" them. So much for their "dissent is patriotic" argument. Wednesday, April 02, 2003 Posted 8:46 AM by Hank DO THEY REALLY SUPPORT THE TROOPS? The "anti-war" protesters like to claim they support the troops, even when they criticize the president. For example, today's Ithaca Journal has a letter from an "anti-war" advocate in which he writes "It is important to keep in mind that criticizing the president and his misguided decision to go to war unilaterally, without the support of a new U.N. security resolution, does not mean you do not support our young men and women in uniform. To be against the war doesn't mean that you are against our troops." At first glance, that seems reasonable. But, like so many positions held by the left, you need to take a second, or even third, glance. The letter goes on to state "...if you protest the war then you are against our president, not the young men and women who will be sacrificed in the name of avarice and imperialism." So this is how the anti-war crowd "supports the troops"? By telling them that they are fighting, not for freedom, but for "avarice and imperialism"? And this isn't the only example. More and more you see the "peace" protesters engaging in outright hostility toward our troops, such as incidents where they: Threw blood on a recruiting office; Carried banners stating "we support our troops when they shoot their officers;" Called soldiers "baby killers"; Taunted soldiers' children; and Threw stones at National Guardsmen. And it's not just the "extreme" side of the anti-war movement, nor is it a few "atypical" members. More and more, the people who claim to be supporting the troops, but aren't, include "mainstream" liberals. Just last week, a Columbia University professor "called for the defeat of American forces in Iraq and said he would like to see 'a million Mogadishus' - a reference to the Somali city where American soldiers were ambushed, with 18 killed, in 1993." The crowd applauded his call for our troops' defeat. And, that same week, a Democratic congressman, Maurice Hinchey, accused our troops of, in effect, committing war crimes in Iraq. A few days later, he received a standing ovation from the anti-war crowd for his comments. So, to summarize: the left claims that they support the troops. Their "support" is manifested by attacking their mission, attacking them physically, calling for their defeat and/or death and accusing them of war crimes? With "friends" like this, who needs the Iraqi army? Home