Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

TERRY’S TIDBITS

By Terry Gray

GAY BASHING

There was an incident recently where someone was the victim of a physical attack.  While the victim was being beaten the attackers spewed out gender-based remarks.  Now this beating is being called a Hate Crime.

If I were getting my ass kicked, the last thing I would be worried about or even conscious of would be what my attackers were calling me.

“Hey, time out.  What did you call me?  That’s what I thought.  You will be hearing from my attorneys.  Ok, time in.”

Will it never end?  Seriously?  What if the attackers were gay and were beating up a straight guy and said, “Here’s what you get you straight guy you?”  What if the victim was gay and the attackers were gay yet they beat him up while calling him, “Homo?”  What if everybody was straight but called each other “Fags?”

We already have a law against battery, shouldn’t that be enough?  Why complicate matters? 

The biggest problem as I see it with this whole “Hate Crime” thing is that once the ball is rolling it could go anywhere.  “They beat me up because I have blue eyes.  They kept screaming things like, ‘Nazi’ and ‘Arian’ and well, just horrible things.”  This is silly. 

NEWS TEASERS

“Will the weather improve for tomorrow?  Will George Bush bring peace to the mid-east?  These and other stories coming up after the break.”  JUST TELL ME! 

I caught WAVE 3 in a good one Wednesday night, or should I say that they failed to catch themselves.  The six-thirty national news had just finished up and WAVE’s seven o’clock news was coming on.  The national news had just informed us that Sammy Sosa’s 78 bats had been confiscated and x-rayed and no cork was found.  The WAVE anchorman’s tease went something like this.  “All of Sammy Sosa’s bats have been confiscated.  What did they find?  Stay tuned to WAVE 3 for the story.”

Now we’re talking about a span of only minutes between the full story on national news and a tease on local television.  If they think that teasing me with the promise of hearing a story that I just heard is effective, well…  For God’s sake, if you are going to tease me, at least please me.

SEAT BELTS

I keep hearing about seat belts and how we need a tougher law.  Bob Hill with the Courier-Journal just hit us with an article in Thursday’s paper that addressed the issue.  I like Bob but I think he missed the mark on this one.

He starts with, “I can’t for the life of me-or, for that matter, the life of you-understand why people refuse to wear seat belts.”  Well Bob, I know a lot of people that wore seatbelts until Big Brother got involved.  They just refuse to be told what to do.  But beside that point, it really isn’t your business or mine.

He goes on to say, “…If you believe the government has no right to tell you how to drive, then go live in a world without stoplights, stop signs and speed limits.”

 Bob, Bob, Bob.  First of all, running away isn’t the answer.  What if our founding fathers had said, “Forget the tea, let’s get out of here,” instead of staying here and terrorizing the British?  Secondly, the comparison between stoplights, stop signs, speed limits and seatbelts is crazy.  Whether I’m wearing a seat belt or not makes no difference to the flow of traffic or the safety of others on the road. No one will scream out, “Look out Marge, he isn’t wearing a seatbelt!”

He then uses the, ‘It’s for the children’ approach when he says, “My worst fear ever as a parent was seeing my children drive off alone for the first time, knowing the terrible dangers involved, realizing they would have to face them to get on-the-job training. Every parent comes to know that feeling.  Wouldn’t it be a little better if we could let them go with some certainty they would have to buckle up or be heavily fined, perhaps lose their driving privileges?  Shouldn’t the same be true for adults?  Somebody tell me why that isn’t the law?  Please.”

Kids have parents.  Mommy and Daddy saying, “Wear your seatbelt or you lose the car,” should suffice.  If folks want to know their kids are safe behind the wheel then they need to take the initiative to make it so.  Don’t push it off on the government.  It isn’t the government’s place to raise our kids.  As for adults, it isn’t the government’s place to raise them either.

Mandatory seatbelt laws are a form of preemptive punishment and punishment for no wrong that I can see.  Has the lack of a seatbelt ever caused an accident?  Does it cause one to speed, run stop signs, or drive drunk?  A seatbelt is personal protection and should remain personal.

ANTI-SMOKING/ANTI-AMERICAN.

The Jefferson County Smoke Free Coalition will release the results of a second-hand smoke poll today, Thursday.  I wonder who oversaw the method of the poll and tallying of the results?  I wonder who wrote the questions and what kind of questions are they?

“When others smoke in your vicinity are you overly offended?”                                   

Now the same question looking for the right answer:

“Do you believe that we should pass a law protecting our defenseless children from the dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke?”

They want to ban smoking from public buildings in Louisville.  This of course will include bars and restaurants.  City Council member and Republican Caucus leader Kelly Downard says he, “…would consider an ordinance banning cigarettes in bars and restaurants,” but he wants to hear from others first.  Like whom?  People that want to keep other people from smoking?

You people might have a just cause if smokers were dragging you into places where people are smoking.  I have yet to witness a non-smoker, kicking and screaming, being dragged into an establishment where smoking is okay.  Nobody is forcing you to be there. But you, on the other hand are trying to force others to obey your wishes.

Now, talk about crazy.  State law does not allow the Metro Council to ban use of cigarettes in City Hall or any other government building, but last year a law that would keep local government from banning smoking in private buildings that are open to the public failed.  What does this mean?  It means that City workers, by the grace of State law, cannot be stopped by the Metro Council from smoking at work.  However, they can tell Joe down at the pub that smoking is no longer permitted in his bar.  I say we all go down to City Hall, get drunk and light up.

Council Member Ellen Call, a Republican from the 26^th District, said that when she lived in California it was nice to have a ban so that she didn’t have to subject her baby to smoke.  She was worried about second hand smoke in one of the most smog-ridden places in America.  Come on, lady.  Did you and the baby use the transporter to get from your home to wherever you were going, or did you drive those smoky city streets?

I really thought that Republicans were conservatives, interested in personal freedoms.  I guess not.  You folks do realize that this kind of legislation concerning privately owned buildings is against the Constitution of the United States of America, DON’T YOU?

John Dent, owner of the Back Door bar said he would oppose the ban.  You need to do more than that, John.  You should be willing to go to jail for it.  This isn’t some little scraped knee during a minor league game.  This is beyond roughing the quarterback.  This is a clothesline tackle that knocks the wind out of our basic Constitutional rights and personal freedoms.  You need to go out and whip up pro-smokers to meet the frenzy that the anti-smoking coalitions whip up.  I would say that most non-smokers don’t care one way or another if I smoke in a bar or restaurant.  But when these oppression farmers till the soil, they are going to get otherwise neutral people to join the fight.  These anti-smoking people are nothing more than a lot of troublemakers insistent upon forcing their ways on everyone else.

My suggestion to John and other restaurant and bar owners?  Make your establishments private clubs.  It would be much harder for these sad sack socialists to touch you then.  They also wouldn’t have anywhere to go for a decent meal unless they joined the club under the club rules.

I have one other thing to say to these anti-smoking folks. If so many people are so opposed to smoking in restaurants why isn’t there an abundance of strictly non-smoking eateries?  

Terry Gray 

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN