There's Backwards and there's . . .
BurkeWords
Monday, June 22, 1998
In this issue:
Does anyone out there still believe that the recently deceased tobacco deal was actually about teen smokers? You hear it all over the media, that the big tobacco companies poured money into Republican campaign funds and that's what caused the death of the "save the teens" package.
Yes, I know that Republicans receive money -- legal money, mind you -- from tobacco companies. Just as I know that President Clinton takes illegal money from the Chinese. However, he's still going to China to report in with his leaders and receive instructions.
Tobacco influence aside, this bill had nothing positive about it and deserved the death it got. Odds are it wouldn't have even passed constitutional muster if Big Tobacco sued.
Go back to the beginning of this bill: the major players and Attorneys General from most states reached their own agreement on how much money should be forfeited, timetables for reductions in teen smoking, and protection from future crippling lawsuits. That last item required Congressional approval.
Congress gets a hold of the bill and announces that the bottom line will be increase by over fifty per cent, new taxes will be added, new programs will be funded with the money -- Forget about saving Social Security with it -- new layers of bereaucracy will be set up. Oh, and one other thing, the protection the tobacco folks sought? That's been thrown out the window.
Hello? Without that protection, why would Phillip Morris agree to such a deal? And if they don't agree to the deal, how can you legislate forfeitures for the next quarter century for one particular industry?
Why not just cancel the current subsidies that go to tobacco?
And will someone, anyone explain to me how we know that raising the price of cigarettes will cause fewer teens to smoke cigarettes rather than cause the same number of teens to smoke fewer cigarettes? In the latter case, the same number of teens will become addicted. Too bad, we don't even know what that number is because there has been no study done on the matter -- despite what you've heard elsewhere. They're lying about the source of their statistics.
Frankly, if you want to prevent teens from smoking, mount the following ad campaign: get a couple of British chaps complete with accents. Have them point out that in Great Britain, cigarettes are called "fags". Then have one of them pull out a pack, look into the camera and ask,
"Would you like to put a 'fag' in your mouth?"
Great deterrent. And it should meet the approval of Sen. Trent Lott.
Return to Table of Contents.
When Trent Lott opened his mouth last week, he caused a bit of an
uproar about whether homosexuality is natural, inherited, genetic or
just a lifestyle choice. People on both sides can only point to what
so-and-so believes or what whathisname in the medical community stated
however-many years ago or something-else that is currently
believed-to-be-true (not "is known for a fact to be true", mind you).
I for one would welcome genetic proof that the homosexuality that
inflicts four percent of the population (and that's being generous,
don't let them tell you otherwise) is somehow inherited and determined
before we are born.
Just think about it: if there's a genetic sequence responsible for
it, then there can be a genetic test to detect it in the unborn!
Suddenly, there will be a demographic shift, albeit a small one, to the
pro-life side of the abortion battle and a very vocal
minority of our society tries to prevent the eradication of
homosexuality from the world.
Bet you hadn't thought about it in those terms, eh?
Return to Table of Contents.
Yes, you read that right. Why? Well, I'd like to say that you're
not alone in asking yourself that question, but chances are, you are
alone.
As much as I might like to express my opinion, I just don't have to
time for this and the Bill Clinton Joke-of-the-Day page and actually
still work for a living. As it is, this page keeps arriving later and
later even as the content becomes less and less. Successful opinion
pages are updated daily, I can hardly manage to get to one every other
week. And let's face it -- I don't think that there are many readers
out there who care about my opinions in the first place. And the odd
little tidbits of news I mention can be found elsewhere on the Web.
(Hey, I found them, didn't I?)
More audience participation might have been nice, but that's not it
either. I don't know what I was expecting. I wasn't expecting to be
the next Matt Drudge -- though if someone wanted to leak information to
me, I would love to have it. Blame it on the Year 2000. Not the
campaign, the computer glitch. That's what I do in my "spare time".
It's been fun. And if I don't get around to printing another issue
of this in the next month or so, I thank you all for reading.