Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Hillary High Horse

According to both WorldNetDaily.com and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Senator Hillary Clinton is profoundly troubled by Vice President Cheney's use of a vulgarity in the Senate, claiming no one to her knowledge has ever before used that kind of language on the floor of that legislative body.

Frankly, she should be the last one to complain. As G. Gordon Liddy reminded when he mentioned her response on his show, as First Lady it has been reported that Hillary would hurl lamps and books when angered. Even Bill admits she is no stranger to profanity and anecdotes persist she once referred to someone getting on her nerves as an "F-ing Jew bastard". Makes Cheney's slip of the tongue pale in comparison doesn't it?

But more importantly, one wonders since she is going to get all worked up over ribald dialogue, was she as disturbed and condemnatory of the actions of her own husband in the Oval Office? During the Vice President's momentary lack of the control, at least he kept his pants on. Instead of worrying what came out of Cheney's mouth, she should be more concerned about what went into Monica's in a room where President Reagan felt too dignified to even remove his suit coat.

Though a bit more rambunctious than what Americans have grown accustomed to in the nation's increasingly bland politics, this verbal exchange in no way marks the downfall of the Republic. If anything, it shows a remarkable degree of restraint on the part of the Vice President yet a willingness to stand up for his personal honor and convictions and a testament to the flexibility of the U.S. political system.

Can you imagine what would have happened to Leahy if he had made such a buffoon of himself under Saddam's regime? Asian parliaments break out in fist fights all the time.

Even our Congress is not immune from such outbursts of temper. In May 1856, Senator Sumner was caned over the head for blasting the morals and chastity of a pro-slavery Democrat.

Those aspiring to be shirking violets more concerned for feigned propriety than standing up for truth should not get involved in politics. Maybe if we had more outbursts in the same spirit, even if in a more dignified tone, like that of the Vice President's, this nation would not be going to hell in a hand basket as quickly.

Copyright 2004 By
Frederick B. Meekins

Monday, June 28, 2004

Clinton Stooge Admits To Loving The "F-Word"


Former Clinton advisor and current leftist Crossfire antagonist Paul Begala said on today's episode that he just loves the "F-Word" and wishes he could use it on air during the course of the show's debates.

This revelation came out as Begala noted the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration in targeting Howard Stern's radio potty mouth but overlooking Vice President Cheney's Senatorial slip of the tongue. But actually these controversial utterances are two entirely separate matters.

The problem with Stern is that the entire purpose behind his media persona is to revel in the titillating and the salacious; the man has no goal other than to arouse the prurient interests of listeners and viewers as anyone whose come across his TV show characterized by buxom maidens parading bare-chested before him in the confines of his studio can attest.

The Vice President's remarks, on the other hand, while not the finest hour for Senatorial rhetoric, do not represent an ongoing pattern of linguistic misconduct, but rather one of those rare instances when an individual, who otherwise under normal circumstances comports himself with a considerable degree of dignity, just has to vent their frustrations against mental imbeciles who are incapable of high levels of intelligent conversation.

Of course Cheney isn't sorry. Sometimes putting someone in their place is one of life's greatest visceral pleasure, and I can't say I blame him.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick B. Meekins

Saturday, June 26, 2004

Reviews Published On Same Site As Those Of Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich


I have published reviews on the same website as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. While sounding impressive, it's not quite the honor and accomplishment it initially seems, but is, nevertheless, a testament to the kind of egalitarian meritocracy characteristic of the Internet where those can and willing are able to do.

According to the Weekly Standard, Gingrich has taken up the hobby of reviewing books online for Amazon.com. He has risen rather high in the bookseller's rankings, making their list of top 500 reviewers.

Since those logged onto the site are welcome to leave their comments regarding books and other media products, I figure it wouldn't hurt to add my own. Thus far, I have only posted two reviews I have already written, one for The Children Of Men by P.D. James and Pilgrims and Puritans (1620-1676) by James and Christopher Collier.

Hopefully, I will soon have more posted. It would also be deeply appreciated that if you enjoy the reviews that you'll vote for them as helpful in expanding your literary awareness. Eventually, if all goes well, I might outrank the former Speaker of The House.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick B. Meekins

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Thursday, June 17, 2004

Gipper The Real Deal: Strove To Live By The Values He Promoted

President Ronald Wilson Reagan, who died on June 5th because of pneumonia following nearly a decade of Alzheimer’s disease, will be remembered throughout the world as a great communicator motivated by faith, with innumerable contributions, most notably, ending the Cold War resulting in the collapse of Communism. He won two landslide elections with broad support from both Democrats and Republicans and invigorated conservatism. No other President had won an election by such a huge electoral margin since Franklin Roosevelt defeated Alfred Landon in 1936. Furthermore, President Reagan left office as one of the most likable presidents since WWII.

There are other contributions by Mr. Reagan that many people are unaware of. When a teenager, Reagan served as a lifeguard near Lowell Park, IL. He is credited with saving 77 lives and after each rescue, he would form a notch on a log near the swimming area. Once the log washed away, he was presented a bronze plaque by the community for his lifesaving accomplishments.

In America’s God and Country, by William Federer, I learned that President Reagan signed the bill into law on January 25, 1988 declaring the “first Thursday of each May to be recognized as a National Day of Prayer.” He also designated 1983 as the national “Year of the Bible,” as “authorized and requested by a Joint Resolution of the 97th Congress of the United States of America.” Both of these legislative actions would be especially difficult today, nearly 20 years later, because of the judicial activists on the irreligious Left. Mr. Reagan also published an essay propagating his views on the sanctity of human life entitled “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation” in The Human Life Review in 1983.

I heard a poignant anecdote by Michael Reagan as guest on Dr. Dobson’s radio program. Michael told the story of a woman who wrote President Reagan because she had a particularly needy child. President Reagan responded by personally mailing the mother a check for her troubles. Upon receiving the check, the recipient decided not to cash it because the value of the check from the President would be greater if not cashed. Somehow, Reagan discovered that the check had not yet been cashed and he made a personal phone call to the mother. To her consternation, Reagan instructed her to cash the check and then he stated that once he received the same check from his banker, he would be certain to mail it directly back to her. What an example of unconditional beneficence and compassion!

In Dr. Dobson’s June newsletter, I read a story regarding Gary Bauer, who served in the Reagan Administration. Bauer shares that he would regularly have lunch meetings with the President. According to Dobson, on one occasion, he told the President “about a little girl in Bloomington, Indiana, who was suffering from severe life-threatening complications associated with Downs Syndrome.” The child’s parents received poor medical advice and rather than seeking treatment, the baby was “rolled into the corner of the hospital nursery where a sign was hung on the crib” that stated, “Do not feed.” Evidently, a Christian nurse called the White House after observing this deplorable situation. As Gary told the President, he noticed that his colleagues “flinched” because they feared that such a story would not be deemed worthy of the President’s time. When Bauer looked at Reagan, he saw that “he had tears in his eyes.” President Reagan was so moved by Bauer’s account of the desperate child that he “ordered the Justice Department seek to protect her from those who would allow her to die.”

President Reagan was a man of compassion and conviction. Some of his harshest critics have come to acknowledge and respect his accomplishments. Mr. Reagan once stated “When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will be a bright dawn ahead.” Let us do our part as Americans, despite our political differences, to make America’s future more favorable, as President Reagan envisioned for upcoming generations.

Copyright 2004 by Matthew Pasalic

Wednesday, June 16, 2004

Liberal Media In Ideological Collusion With Iraqi Militants

A few weeks ago at Wallace Presbyterian Church where I occasionally attend, a member returning from a tour of duty in Iraq briefly addressed the congregation about his experience in the theater of conflict. Most interesting of his comments was his observation of how the media is only telling part of the story by focusing almost exclusively on the violent malcontents.

Rather, this returning serviceman remarked how many of the Iraqis he dealt with were happy to have the American military there, especially those amongst the Christian population we seldom hear about. He also told the congregation about how many Iraqis were eager to attend worship services on the base where he was stationed but whose numbers had to be limited for security reasons. If U.S. forces were such brutal occupiers as the media would have the American people believe, I doubt Iraqis would come sing Christmas Carols to American troops as described by this soldier.

The brief testimony was informative and caused one to reflect upon the disparity between what is going on over there and the spin put on it by those in the establishment media propagating a competing foreign policy vision. More importantly, such an observation causes one to wonder why the media would forego its solemn obligation to provide a comprehensive summary of events in favor of the same take on things embraced by anti-American thugs and malcontents.

Could it be internationalists in the media actually want the terrorists to prevail in order to undermine America’s predominance in world affairs in favor of global agencies and institutions more in line with their socialistic agenda? They hope to accomplish their goal in part by creating sympathy for the very fanatics who share their goal of destroying Western Christendom.

Thing is, though, the laws of revolution dictate that eventually those seizing power will eventually turn on and consume their vocal advocates in the intelligentsia. Those rooting for the terrorist rabble would be among the first eliminated and their livelihood’s based upon the free propagation of ideas abolished should these fanatics ever come to power. (Apart from permitting multiple wives, I guess Islamist rule is not without a few other benefits.)

The events taking place at Abu Gahrib Prison won’t be recorded as the proudest moment in U.S. military history. But neither do such unfortunate incidents characterize all Iraqi encounters with American armed forces. For some kind of amicable reporte has had to be established arising from kindness on the part of Americans if civilized Iraqis are clamoring to experience our troops’ chapel services.

Copyright 2004 by

Frederick Meekins

American WorldView Dispatch

Garfield Deemed Insensitive By Racemongers

Preferential Parking Another Handout Demanded By Crabby Pregnant Women

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

Healthy Woman Euthanized

Tattoos Can Give You AIDS

Sunday, June 06, 2004

Bulldozers Prove Too Dangerous For Human Usage

This is why we need to ban bulldozers all together. One dozer rampage is one dozer rampage too many. Sure dozers have their legitmate functions, but there is just too much of a possibility that they might be misused. Times have changed; bulldozers might have been needed in the past but now serve no legitimate function. We just can't take that chance. I hope you will join me in this bipartisan effort. Think of the children.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

Thursday, June 03, 2004

Spike TV Less Respect For Continuity Than Even Trek Writers

Star Trek is no doubt one of the most vibrant imaginary universes to be found in science fiction due to the franchise’s intriguing characters and willingness to explore the importance of moral values while most shows on TV won’t even acknowledge their existence. But despite the complexity of this mythos, continuity and consistency have never exactly been a top priority of its visionaries and imagineers.

Early on in Star Trek: The Next Generation, its hinted at that the Klingons had joined the Federation; yet later on it seems they are not part of that cosmic body but merely allied with it when it suits the Empire’s interests. Some have argued that the current series, Enterprise, barely fits into Trek orthodoxy at all since up until a few years ago it was assumed that Captain Kirk’s spaceship was the first interstellar vessel to bare that name. The failure to synchronize the various interpretations and versions has become so obvious to a number of fans that many of the novels publish a disclaimer that these books might not even fit into official Trek canon.

Recently Spike TV began airing episodes of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Though not the most popular Trek series since unlike other versions it’s set on a space station rather than a ship (thus considerably curtailing the opportunity to explore strange worlds and all that other), the program is not without its compelling aspects since as an orbital habitat the stories deal more with how interplanetary relations and politics develop over time.

Since it had been awhile since I had seen the show, I was anticipating seeing the episodes in order because, even though each is a self-contained one or two part story, many contain interconnected plot elements contributing to a larger comprehensive narrative spanning the course of the series.

The series begins with the Federation assisting the Bajorans after the withdrawal of the Cardassians. A wormhole cutting across the galaxy is discovered, making Bajor a strategically important planet.

As the newly discovered quadrant of the Milky Way is explored, those exploring it increasingly hear about an unfamiliar power known as the Dominion. They are unveiled at the end of the second and beginning of the third season.

Tensions build between the Federation and the Dominion throughout the third season, only to be downplayed as a war breaks out between the Klingons and Cardassians, shattering the alliance between the Klingons and the Federation. It eventually comes out that the Klingons were manipulated by the Dominion into the war with the Cardassians.

The Cardassian and Romulan intelligence services, the Obsidian Order and the Tal Shiar, try to launch a surprise attack against the Dominion but have their respective fleets wiped out as the Dominion was waiting for them. The Dominion vows vengeance against the Cardassians.

The Federation, Klingons, and Cardassians prepare for a Dominion assault on Cardassia only to learn that an influential Cardassian military officer has struck a deal with the Dominion for Cardassia to join the Dominion as a subservient Vichy-style puppet regime. The last season or so focuses on the war between the Federation, Klingons, and eventually the Romulans against the Dominion, Cardassians, and Breen.

As non-Trekkies or even Trekkies not fond of Deep Space Nine can deduce, enjoyment of the series is optimized when rebroadcasts are viewed in order. Things seemed to be going well with the first season’s worth episodes and perhaps a few into the next. However, it really grabbed my attention when the episode aired was the one where the crew finds what turns out to be a Jem Hadar baby.

I know I hadn’t seen since the series’ rebroadcast the episodes where the Jem Hadar make their debut since they rank among the best as these introduce the Dominion and reveal that Odo, the head of station security, is a member of the race of alien shape-shifters known as the Founders who rule the Dominion with an iron fist. Shame, though, even this formidable galactic empire doesn’t have the power to make sure the episodes are shown in the right order.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, June 01, 2004

History Professor Proposes Making Abu Ghraib a Museum

A friend of a friend asked if I would post his column:

Unrelentingly, during the past three weeks, or longer, the media has bombarded Americans with news of events in a prison in American-occupied Iraq. In April most Americans had not heard of Abu Ghraib Prison; now a majority of them probably know of this place. The flow of the rhetoric in the prisoner-abuse saga has unfolded in the following way: Print and TV news, including 60 Minutes, have shown pictures as damaging evidence of the conduct of the American military in Iraq, which some persons have also used as evidence of the negative nature of the American occupation in that country. Soon after the photographs’ release to the public, there were calls for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Other voices, especially those of talk radio, have come to the defense of the beleaguered Secretary of Defense and, outrages aside, have demonstrated support of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq War and the subsequent occupation. Often those who criticize the administration also accuse it and its supporters among the citizenry of being unwilling to face the horrible acts committed by Americans in Iraq. A few persons, some of whom have written me personally, are demanding that Abu Ghraib Prison be burned to the ground. In two areas I disagree with some of the voices that have been outspoken on this news item during the past two weeks.

First, one should not avoid or minimize the evil that has been committed; one should face it boldly and soberly no matter how disturbing and unpleasant a procedure this may be to endure. If America’s mission in Iraq or even the reputation of the United State has been irredeemably damaged, then, this must be accepted seriously. Inappropriate responses to news of man-made disasters and intentional acts of evil have a long history in the twentieth century. One should not respond as Noam Chomsky, the self-avowed leftwing critic of the USA, did to the genocide in 1970s Communist Cambodia by minimizing the extent of the killings. (See Paul Hollander’s Political Pilgrims, 1998, pages xxxviii & xxxix.) Neither should one attempt to construct absurd distinctions in human misfortune that serve only as fallacious diversions from a personally embarrassing event as the Americans Lefties to Castro’s Cuba often do. Suzanne Ross ridiculously excused dreadful medical practices in Cuba with the following comment: “We must understand that there are differences between capitalist lobotomies and socialist lobotomies.” (See Ronald Radosh’s Commies,2001, page 127.) Perhaps, the most egregious response to unnecessary human suffering in the twentieth century comes from Walter Duranty who was the NY Times columnist in Moscow between the two world wars. In response to the millions of persons who starved to death because of the official policies of the Soviet government, Duranty penned a poem in the NY Tiumes, some of which reads: “Russians may be hungry and short of clothes and comfort/But you can’t make an omelette without breaking an egg.” (See Paul Hollander’s Political Pilgrims, 1998, page lxi.) The government of Ukraine still waits for the apology from the NY Times for Duranty’s mis-reporting of a horrific evil on a staggering scale.

Secondly, I do not think that Abu Ghraib Prison should be burned to the ground; rather, I recommend that it be preserved as a museum open daily to the people of the world. As such an institution, the record of evil would be exposed, but this exposure would be incomplete if the focus fell exclusively on a few perpetrators during only a few months in Iraq. At least, one half the attention of the museum, if not more, should be given to the government-sponsored evil of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The acts of evil, those by Iraqis and those by Americans, should be set side by side for all persons of the world to survey. In this way many individuals, including Americans in the USA under the present press-barrage about bad Americans acting badly in Iraq, would not need the likes of a Chomsky or a Ross or a Duranty to interpret fact and morality for them. They, as well as all persons in the world, could judge for themselves just what evil Americans have done.

In closing, I would put a face on these contrasting evils. In the USA President Bush has apologized for acts, such as an Iraqi man being chained like a dog. In the Middle East the unrepentant Saddam Hussein is now succeeded by the unrepentant Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who decapitates an American on video. As far as I know, the Iraqi man, photographed on a leash, is still alive. The museum idea would constitute only the beginning of an appraisal of American action in Iraq. After all, only a few participated in the atrocities in Abu Ghraib Prison while there have been hundreds of thousands of Americans in Iraq since March 2003. We should know what their acts have been; we should know the rest of the story of American occupation.


George Sochan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of History
Bowie State University