But that’s not what’s
going on with Hillary Clinton and her randy husband. She’s not defending
him out of friendship or sympathy. She’s defending him because without
him she is nothing. She’s in it for the power; therefore his enemies are
her enemies, and she’s willing to put up with anything from him in order
to keep her lofty position. Can you think of a single other woman who has put
up with so much from her husband? So it would not be out of character for her
to approach Juanita Broaddrick, for example, who her husband has allegedly just
raped, and issue a veiled threat, thanking her for everything she does for
And where did you ever get
this idea that Clinton’s mistresses were victims? Naive women awed by power?
Oh please. They knew what they were doing. They had a chance to have sex with
a powerful man and they grabbed it, and most women would do the same. It’s
particularly unsurprising given that most of them were his supporters, who are
not the brightest people to begin with.
Clinton’s victims were
the ones he threatened and harassed. Monica Lewinsky is not a victim–she
came on to him. This was her big chance to be like Marilyn Monroe, and
the brainless media worsened her delusions by making a fuss over her, instead
of treating her like the common slut that she is.
take issue with Alexander Cockburn’s statement (“Wild Justice,”
8/11) that “Women know that men are beasts and that part of the infinite
superiority of women is their capacity to persevere in the fact of this beastliness.”
First of all, though there
are some who do persevere in the face of this beastliness, merely because our
“first lady” allows this to happen in her life, does not mean it is
prevalent. Those of us who are faced with beasts fight it tooth and nail. Second,
saying that “men are beasts” is much like saying “boys will be
boys.” It grants permission for behavior that can be ascribed to the male
species–and gee, how can they help themselves? Everyone know that
“men are beasts.
Stop this crap. There are
many men who are not beasts, and I’m sure they do not appreciate being
called beasts. And those who are beasts should be helped to change.
appreciated George Szamuely’s piece, “Next War, Please” (“Taki’s
Top Drawer,” 8/11). As long as a few people are willing to openly challenge
Bill Clinton’s politically correct thinking, democracy and the spirit of
debate (which is necessary for the proper functioning of a democracy) still
have a chance for a comeback.
The current State Dept.
mentality can be summed up by two phrases: 1) divide and conquer and 2) perpetual
war generates perpetual commerce. The mainstream media is merely used as a tool
to mask the machinations of our government leaders, under the guise of “political
correctness,” to garner public support for “humanitarian” adventures.
Though oil is certainly
essential for our industrialized society and its ready availability is a necessity,
one must ponder whether NATO’s illegal and costly (to the U.S. taxpayer)
war against Yugoslavia was really worth it, and whether or not there might have
been a more gentler, diplomatic way to secure “America’s trade routes”
in the Balkans. The Serbs, who comprised more than 43 percent of the population
of the former Yugoslavia, were allies of the U.S. through two world wars. Up
until this past decade, they always held America in high esteem. They looked
up to America as a model of democracy and freedom. They saved more than 600
American pilots shot down by the Nazis and their allies during WWII alone. If
Yugoslavia, the largest Balkan country, was offered admission into the European
Union with the potential to later join NATO, stability in the Balkans would
have been guaranteed by the Serbs–the largest ethnic group in the region.
Yugoslavia has been crying out for democracy since the end of WWII. The rise
of the former Yugoslavia’s communist-turned-fascist dictators (from every
one of its republics) was as much catalyzed by Western meddling in Yugoslavia’s
internal affairs as by its corrupt upper classes. Instead, the U.S. went along
with Germany’s and the Vatican’s illegal recognition of Slovenia and
Croatia, and, subsequently, Macedonia, Bosnia and shortly Kosovo. Deliberately
ignored were the human rights of more than 2.5 million Serbians, who unfortunately
resided outside of Tito’s truncated borders of Serbia, provoking the civil
To date, the U.S., a multiethnic
democracy, has consistently supported the creation of neofascist, ethnically
and religiously “pure” banana republics complete with racist dictators
out of the wreckage of what was once a beautiful, multiethnic, peaceful and
highly respected nation. What kind of precedents are being set for the future
of our nation?
And what have been the fruits
of our labor? We have created more than 1.3 million Serbian refugees–more
than any other ethnic group since the end of WWII. This will guarantee NATO’s
costly occupation of the region indefinitely. We have worsened the previously
low-level Kosovo conflict tenfold. We demonized our former Serb Allies with
such viciously racist Serbophobia that it competes with anti-Semitism. We have
poisoned the entire Balkans–creating an ecological catastrophe–and
disrupted vital trade routes (like the Danube river), guaranteeing decades of
impoverishment and health-related problems for all in Southeastern Europe. Bill
Clinton and his cohorts have disregarded international and domestic law, thus
destroying the United Nations, which was established to allow for peaceful resolution
of conflicts, and returned to the laws of the jungle: might makes right. As
a result, global security has been irreversibly damaged.
Americans should be deeply
concerned by the flagrantly barbaric and illegal actions of their leaders. If
the human rights of the citizens of America’s arbitrarily chosen “enemy”
countries can be so easily trampled upon in the name of the New World Order,
it is only a matter time before we, too, will lose our freedoms to a government
that is no longer of the people, for the people and by the people as we enter
the age of Big Brother.
Where the Boys Are
Ordinarily I agree with about 98 percent of what you say in your articles, but
you dropped the ball big time on this gays-in-the-Boy-Scouts thing in your 8/11
Whether you or I like it
or not, the Boy Scouts is a private organization, regardless of the number
of members it has had in its hundred-odd-year history in many countries around
the world, and their First Amendment rights are being violated in this matter.
Also, your analogy to private
clubs is specious. It is safe to say that there is a nontrivial difference between
a private organization for kids like the Boy Scouts and, say, the Chevy Chase
or Burning Tree country clubs. If you think that there are not plenty of private
organizations that exclude people based on ethnicity, sexual tastes or for no
reason that can be determined in this country, I would suggest you think again.
After all, not all private clubs have as members politicians or others who would
find having a few hundred people from (fill in the blank) group picketing them
a bit of a bother. Like it or not, there is still freedom of association in
this country, and people who will assiduously defend same, regardless of who
gets their p.c. panties in a wad over it.
Besides, the issue at hand
is not whether you have a gay Boy Scout (my understanding of the case was that
there was no mention of any child’s sexual proclivities), but rather a
gay assistant scoutmaster. Again, another of those pesky nontrivial differences,
and here is the reason why.
Suppose your child joined
the local Scout troop, and his scoutmaster was not only gay, but molested him
to boot (and if you think such things can’t happen, ask the Catholic Church
about the trouble it has been in of late over gay priests molesting altar boys).
Now, if it were my kid, the perp would get a 9-mm attitude adjustment in short
order. But since you’re a Yankee who has a problem being around firearms,
we will assume you will get him kicked out of the organization, get a little
jail time…and sue the organization in question.
Look at the BSA’s side
of this (and if you want to dismiss its “moral values” argument, so
be it). If they start allowing gay scoutmasters, sooner or later they’re
going to be hit with cases in which said Scoutmasters take liberties with their
charges, with the result that the organization will be hit with copious amounts
of bad press, not to mention lawsuits, neither of which they could afford.
Also, I have a problem with
equating one’s sexual appetites with religion, skin color, etc. I do not
equate, as you apparently do, being homosexual with being black, Jewish, Asian,
etc. Nor do I equate an activity that someone does (ideally) in his bedroom
with another consenting adult–spending, if they are lucky, two or three
hours a week at it–with the “minority status” these other groups
And no, I am not a “gay
basher” or whatever other p.c. term comes to mind in this context. I have
friends and relatives who are or were gay or lesbian, and have worked around
same all my adult life. And because of this familiarity, I know what
can and does happen in a scenario such as has been discussed above.
Like it or not, deal with
No Responsibilities, No
surfing the Internet I came across an article/interview that was originally
published in the 6/23 issue of NYPress. (I’m not a regular NYPress
reader.) The article in question was about a movie called Rock ’n’
Roll Frankenstein and its maker, Brain O’Hara. The writer was George
Unfortunately, I was associated
with this movie–I play the role of a rather devious priest. I say “unfortunately”
because, although my experience in the movie was painless enough (I only worked
for one day), I was informed by other actors and crew members that all was not
well with the production.
At the cast and crew screening
of the completed Rock ’n’ Roll Frankenstein, I was quite disturbed
by numerous scenes in the movie (unfortunately I was never allowed to read the
entire script beforehand). The most disturbing scenes had to do with animal
cruelty perpetrated on gerbils. The main character (“the monster”)
has a perverse fascination with gerbils, and he either suffocates them or snaps
their necks (in one scene he even reverts to biting a gerbil’s head off).
These scenes made me uncomfortable not just because of the content, but also
because the animal cruelty taking place looked so real. I knew the film was
a low-budget affair and I got the queasy feeling that perhaps these scenes were
I commented to Mr. O’Hara
that his special effects person did an incredible job. O’Hara laughed and
said, “What special effects?” I spoke with certain friendly crew members
and they confirmed the fact that indeed Mr. O’Hara had personally killed
dozens of gerbils for the purpose of “getting the shot.” I feel deep
shame for being associated with this project.
Incredibly, at the website
for the film (www.rrfrankenstein.com), O’Hara brags about his inhumane
treatment of gerbils: “Gerbils (lots of them) had to die so Rock ’n’
Roll Frankenstein could live. So support Rock ’n’ Roll Frankenstein,
otherwise those poor little rodents will have sacrificed their lives in vain.”
And here’s a line from
the interview O’Hara gave to your own George Tabb: “It ain’t
a fucking snuff film, goddamn. Well, maybe with the gerbils it is, but we won’t
get into that.” In that statement it’s obvious that O’Hara is
admitting that he murdered gerbils. Where were the followup questions from Mr.
Tabb? He calls himself a reporter? This level of journalism is a joke. I’d
like to know what kind of standards NYPress requires of its journalistic