HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug. 16, 2005 Before I submit this question for serious consideration, I feel I should interject a comment or two on the word “punk”. The word “punk” has two very different meanings. Usually, in white parlance, a “punk” is a youth in his teens or twenties whose chief activity is loitering, petty crime and displaying contempt for ordinary white values. This is usually accompanied by visible “badges” or “emblems”. A punk may wear a leather jacket, ride a motorcycle, or comb his hair in a duck tail. His crimes are usually no more serious than street-fighting, picking pockets, shop-lifting, creating graffiti and the like. Generally, he is involved in drugs to one degree or another, but if he is into hard drugs, his crimes usually graduate to something more serious. So he would no longer be called a “punk”. Once he advances to armed robbery, carjacking and trafficking in narcotics, he is thought of as a genuine “criminal”. In black parlance, though, a “punk” is a male homosexual who adopts the feminine role to please a usually larger and stronger male who functions as his “husband”. In addition to affording sexual gratification, a punk may also perform several other ancillary duties, like cooking, washing clothes, ironing, housework and the like. Ordinarily, the husband treats his punk fairly well, but sometimes, if he gets angry, he will resort to the most wicked verbal and physical abuse, against which, of course, the punk is helpless. In fact, the punk may just be an interim substitute for a real woman. When the husband gets out of prison, if that is where he is, or when he lands a job or starts receiving checks from SSI or another agency, he will get a real “bitch” and the punk will be history. Of course, when I suggest that George W. Bush may be a “punk”, I am just using a figure of speech. I don’t mean to say that he really is or ever has been a minor street-corner troublemaker, and I certainly don’t mean to suggest that he is a homosexual of any kind. But there are resemblances between his attitude and the attitudes of punks, in both senses of the word “punk”. I think the resemblances are marked enough that George W. Bush may fairly be called a “punk”. He is a punk, in the white sense of the word “punk”, in his stance towards the American public, a smart-aleck who thinks he’s tough and is always posturing as macho. In reality though, he is more like mâché, as in “papier mâché”. He is a punk, in the black sense of the word “punk”, in his stance towards Israel, always doing exactly what is expected of him, and bowing as low as he can bow. If the Israelis ignore his instructions, he just accepts it fatalistically, as if there’s nothing he can do about it. He’s a mere yes-man and errand boy, always ready to do just as he is told. George W. Bush puts on a nice show, with that determined little look his consultants must have taught him to adopt, and with those $5000 suits the public buys for him, but I’m afraid that, at bottom, he is just a “punk”. (Parody) ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
