January 1999
[Aaddzz Counter]

Current Issue
Back Issues
Article Index
A Herring!
Awards/Links
About Us







In Association With Amazon.com
CDnow
This page copyright 1998 The Shrubbery
Webmaster: Jason Morrison

Angry Dan's Column


Racial Profiling- Part 2 and The Big Guns of NATO


by Daniel Strohl


Remember my column about racial profiling? Here's something related to it.

In its 21. November issue, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that two of France's liberal papers, Le Monde and Liberation, were raising a ruckus over statements made by Emile Papiernik, a French obstetrician who said there is a one week difference between the time it takes blacks and Caucasians to reach term in a pregnancy, and the two races should thus be treated differently to have healthy deliveries.

I don't claim to know whether Papiernik is right or not. That's not the issue here. Rather, the reasoning for Elle magazine questioning if Papiernik is racist is the issue here.

As I stated in the column about racial profiling, there are differences between people which are race-related; this just happens to be another one of them. All men and women are not created equal.

But that is not to deny rights to any men or women based on physical inequalities. If there is indeed a difference in the reproductive systems of blacks and whites, we do not deny one or the other health care because of that difference. Yet we also do not ignore the possibility of such a fact because we are either afraid of telling blacks they are not physically equal to whites (or vice versa) or are afraid of being politically incorrect by saying so.


The new German government brought in Green party member Joschka Fischer as foreign minister, who, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, suggested that NATO relinquish its "first-strike" right to nuclear weapons use. Washington then criticizes him for this. But Washington (and more specifically, President Clinton) is facing similar suggestions from Senator Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), who wil get my vote should he decide to run for president in 2000.

Are we, as a nation and as a superpower, so attached to these phallic symbols of masculine power from the past that we cannot give them up? What reasons are there for keeping such an asinine arsenal? India and Pakistan? Aliens? Huge asteroids?

Nope, it's prestige and ego that make NATO and the United States keep their fingers over the buttons and it quite frankly scares me that we have people in these positions who are using nuclear weapons as their psychological safety blanket/viagra.

Places to go, things to see:
Dan's new, and nearly as cool, Ezine
Something Else

Last month's column

Has Dan made you angry?


If so, feel free to click on the image to the right and let him know just how wrong he is.


Back to Main