Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Leading Political Scientist Points Out Media Hides Truth About Protestors

One of America's foremost Political Scientists, Larry Sabato, observes how the mainstream media covers up the rough edges of the shabby protest movement.

I watched part of the protest march on Sunday and frankly, the things these people said could not even be aired on television.

But whereas the media creates the impression that these malcontents are engaged in the noble American tradition of speech and assembly, much of what this riff-raff has to say isn't even fit to broadcast in forms of decency and propriety.

Some of the grand oratory diplayed during this hellfest included the following:

"F" Fox News

"F" The Republicans.

Long live the Intifada. (In other words, long live terrorism. So much much for these being peaceful protestors).

One protestor F'ed out a spectator who dared ask why do these people hate America so much.

One might dismiss it as Republican spin, but you can't argue with CSPAN's inflinching eye. Unlike other networks that either edits their footage to suit their agenda or to make it even fit to show on the evening edition, CSPAN, in the spirit of true bipartisanship, shows you all the truth --- no matter how ugly. The only one with a more complete view is God Himself.

Friday, August 27, 2004

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Monday, August 23, 2004

Sunday, August 22, 2004

Friday, August 20, 2004

Olympic-Sized Doubletalk


this is an audio post - click to play


Headline: “Puerto Rico beats the United States in Olympic Basketball.” What’s wrong with the above statement? Well, the last time I checked, Puerto Rico is part of the United States.

As such, shouldn’t Puerto Ricans pursuing Olympic glory be required to do so under the banner of the United States if they are going to enjoy U.S. citizenship? If they desire the beneficence of being Americans, shouldn’t they want to be on the U.S. Olympic team?

More importantly, if we are going to permit such geographic and cultural separatism, to what extent are we going to allow it and on what grounds do we extend it to some but not to others? Some smart alecks will counter that Puerto Rico is not a state and thus not fully part of the Union in the same sense as those jurisdictions represented as stars upon Old Glory.

But neither is the District of Columbia. Does that mean Washington, D.C. should be allowed to have its own Olympic team? Unlike residents of Puerto Rico who don’t pay federal income taxes, residents of the District of Columbia are saddled with this form of revenue bondage without enjoying full legislative representation. The least we can do is to allow the District to enjoy the other forms of favoritism extended to other non-state areas.

Other Ricanists will argue that Puerto Rico deserves its own Olympic team since it is culturally distinct from the rest of America since the island is majority Hispanic. If that’s the case, do Indian tribes get to field their own Olympic teams since, in the eyes of the law, these distinct groups are often viewed as nations within our nation? Furthermore, since no one holding public office is going to lift a finger to stem the tide of immigration flooding this country, will the Puerto Rican Olympic team lose its justification for existence as Spanish influences comes to dominate the once-American culture?

Interestingly, when the South tried to exert an independent identity, this country fought its most devastating war to keep that region in line. Maybe we ought to grant the Confederacy its own Olympic team in consolation. A shame those still bent on making sure the South never rises again aren’t as vigilant against those out to wrest the national fabric asunder in an even more violent manner.

If Puetro Rico does not want to be identified with the United States, so be. But when they go, just make sure they know they won’t be getting anymore handouts from their rich, fat uncle they don’t like anymore.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick B. Meekins

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

New York City Bribes Protestors Not To Riot

My grandparents had a hilarious cartoon they saved from the 1960's I suppose depicting two slovenly hippies listing the litany of welfare handouts they had to pick up before going to a protest rally. Seems more things change, the more they stay the same.

Terrorism Studies Latest Academic Fashion

Guess you might say I was counterterror before counterterrorism was cool and ahead of my time since I took a Political Science class on International Terrorism way back in 1996.

Had an interest in the topic ever since early high school as I figured it would be one of the major forces shaping what then seemed the distant geopolitical future. One reason I don't work in Downtown DC where I'd have to take the subway.

At least students might be studying something productive for a change rather than "queer theory" or other such PC drivel. Still wonder though how many of these classes will be cast in "It's all America & The White Man's Fault" frame of reference.

Witch Doctors Hack Away In South Africa

Thursday, August 12, 2004

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

Toys R Us Might Get Out Of Toy Business: Claims Kids Just Not Into Toys Anymore

Now that's just plain sad. The story says kids today are more into computers and video games. While these have their place, you just can't beat action figures, spaceships, and assorted military paraphenilia. Nothing quite like the thrill of a good old fashioned war toy.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

Speculated That Atlantis Ancient Ireland

Being Nice To Foreigners Deemed More Important Than Secure Borders At Department Of Homeland Security

Guest Analyst Observes Christian Bashing Growing In Regularity

It is an unpardonable sin in America to opine condescendingly about issues such as race, immigration, homosexuality, feminism, and multiculturalism. However, there remains one group of Americans that is unprotected from derisive comments, public mockery, and censorship. As columnist Pat Buchanan once reminded us, “Christian-bashing is a popular indoor sport.”

Recently, Linda Ronstadt was performing at the Aladdin casino in Las Vegas when she politicized her performance by advocating for Michael Moore and his controversial documentary, Fahrenheit 911. Vociferous protests greeted Ronstadt and she was eventually ejected from the Aladdin. In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, she said: “It’s a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment.”

In a commentary entitled, “It’s Open Season on Christians Again,” Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin, author of America’s Real War, came to the defense of Christians by putting forth the following considerations: “What do you suppose might be the reaction if an entertainer would say, “It’s a real conflict for me when I find out someone in the audience is Jewish. It can cloud my enjoyment”? Or what if some politician had once announced, “It’s a real conflict for me when I find out that someone in the audience is homosexual. It can cloud my enjoyment”? Such comments by any politician or entertainer would unquestionably constitute hatred and create serious consequences. Unfortunately, the media do not come to the defense of Christians because they are not entitled to the same protection that the aforementioned groups are. Furthermore, Rabbi Lapin acknowledges that “many ! Americans view Christianity as a problem, an execrable obstacle to America’s progress,” yet the rest of us, including “many serious Jews, view Christianity as part of the solution to America’s problems.” I commend Rabbi Lapin for defending Christianity, the foundation of Western civilization.

While recently speaking at a Democratic National Committee (DNC) event in Boston, actor Alec Baldwin affronted religious conservatives with some harsh remarks. According to a CNSNEWS.COM report, Baldwin told the audience that the Republican Party “has been hijacked by these fundamentalist wackos.” Such vitriolic comments are not surprising from Baldwin. Several years ago, on the Conan O”Brien Show, he shouted, “If we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together---all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death!” He continued with, “We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children! We would kill their families!” These threats are outrageous. Why are some Democrats associating with this hateful, irreligious, actor of the Heathen Left? Why is the media silent?

There are innumerable examples of Christian-bashing throughout the media, Hollywood, and the arena of public life and ironically among those who advocate tolerance for every ideology except Christianity. Have we forgotten when billionaire Ted Turner asked a group of CNN staffers if they were a “bunch of Jesus freaks” because they were observing Ash Wednesday? Turner, who labeled Christianity as a religion for “losers” years ago seems to enjoy assailing those who the media will not defend. The Washington Post once described followers of the religious right as “largely uneducated, poor, and easy to command.” To the consternation of many Christians, a retraction was later printed identifying the blatant categorization as “without basis in fact.” I believe that it is time for the hatred and bigotry against fundamentalist Christians (those who adhere to the fundamentals tenets of the faith) to come to an end. Americans should be indebted to the many contributions of Christianity that we often take for granted such as the establishment of hospitals, universities, charities, free enterprise, and countless other benefits.

Copyright 2004 by Matthew Pasalic

Monday, August 09, 2004

Sunday, August 08, 2004

Do Geeks Even Need Condoms?



Through the wonder of supermarination, the Thunderbirds used fantastic gadgets, rockets, and futuristic vehicles to rescue those in harm’s way from the most harrowing circumstances. However, there is one thing even the famed international rescue team couldn’t save and that seems to be the nation’s declining moral values.

Fans of the filth presented as acceptable broadcast fair today often counter critics of decaying entertainment standards with one does not have to watch the programming available if it is an affront to their convictions and beliefs. While that is true to an extent, it is not a charge as easy to make in regards to commercials since they often implant their messages in our minds and are over many times before we are even able to get up and change the channel or find the remote.

Despite the fact that much of television is not fit for children to see, it has been generally understood by both parents and broadcasters that Saturday morning should be a reasonably family-friendly time free of smut and sexual innuendo. One would think this would be especially true during classic shows one normally doesn’t have to be afraid of sitting their children down in front of to watch.

Depicting wholesome, clean-cut adventures rendering assistance to those in danger, one would think of “The Thunderbirds” as the kind of program parents would not find objectionable. However, it seems the eggheads at TechTV have figured out a way to defile even this most innocent of pleasures.

Throughout sci-fi and comic book history, most superheroes have been known for defending uprightness and propriety. However, a new costumed character named “Trojan Man” epitomizes and spreads what some hope will become the new American way of loose living and promiscuity by getting condoms to amorous couples in the nick of time without even first ascertaining their matrimonial status.

The promiscuity lobby will no doubt respond with their cliched lament of how dare you impose your values upon viewers. With that said, I retort a parent should be able to turn on what is considered a kid’s show without having to answer or cleverly evade “Daddy, what’s that mean?” type questions.

Good grief people. Have we become so licentious and unashamed that we can’t even wait to watch our filth until after the little ones have gone off to bed?

The purpose of placing a condom ad on mid-Saturday morning could only be to alter the values of those seeing it and ultimately those of the broader society. It’s definitely not about profit or even product placement, for how many Geeks do you know in the market for quality prophylactic?

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Are Dedicated Mothers The Next Threat To Homeland Security?: Nutty Professor Claims They Undermine Public Good

Nation's Capital Becoming A Sniveling Police State

Barney Fifes Refuse To Apologize For Mistaken Drug Raid: Consider Watermelon A Suspicious Veggie

Raising More Than Your Right Hand: Gays Growing More Blatant In Their Heterophobia

For the past several decades, the steady stream of sodomite propaganda has assured us that all gays want is a bit of privacy since what one does in the confines of one’s own bedroom is no one else’s business. But as these activists stand on the threshold of having their liaisons sanctified in the eyes of the law and thus the broader culture, it becomes more apparent that their interests do not lie so much with being left alone as in being granted special privileges and in compelling the rest of us to accept their aberrancy as legitimate.

During the Clinton administration, Americans were assured under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that, if we minded out own affairs, gays would be content to stay to themselves and out of everybody else’s way. However, in the decade or so since that policy first came before the public as a grand socioethical compromise, American politics has seen gays grow increasingly bolder about wearing their sexuality on their sleeves.

Equality use to mean that those aspects of an individual that set them apart from their peers were not taken into consideration when dispensing the rewards of achievement or the privileges of status. Yet as the cognitive and linguistic revolution continues to tear down the traditional understandings of the most basic concepts, equality now means conscientiously taking into account the very characteristics we were once told were of little consequence in determining who among a particular group is worthy of a specific honor.

Democrats, though the record of the Republican leadership is often little better on the issue, have become renowned as supporters of Affirmative Action, the idea that someone deserves a given accolade for no other reason than that the individual happens to belong to an identifiable social group. Now the party of the ass wants to take this controversial public policy one step further by extending it to homosexuals.

Claming they want to be a reflection of America, party leaders across the country are aiming for up to 10% of the delegates to be homosexual --- double the number fielded at the 2000 convention. Never mind the fact that actual estimates for those practicing buggery are considerably lower, giving this population an undue influence over party policy and proceedings.

Regardless of one’s position for or against quotas in relation to racial matters, at least with that issue they can be applied in a manner approaching at least a warped sense of objectivity. For in most instances, a Black person looks like a Black person and the same generally applies for most other ethnic groups.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a behavior. Though you can sometimes tell because of the overly feminized behaviors of gay men such as limped wrists and a propensity to squeal like schoolgirls and the tendency of lesbians to exhibit an affinity for flannel shirts and close-cropped haircuts, one cannot always spot a homosexual so easily or with the same degree of certainty of knowing you have stumbled across a Black person or a Chinaman.

Often the only way to ascertain someone’s sexual preference is to ask. But what about the fundamental tenet of the homosexual creed that it’s no one else’s business what goes on in another person’s bedroom between two consenting adults?

Conversely, if privileges are to be granted over aspects of an individual’s nature its practitioners assure us bears no impact upon their qualifications for the beneficence under consideration, aren’t we engaging in a new form of discrimination against those not answering questions about this specific characteristic in a politically correct manner? And if “discrimination”, meaning the application of arbitrary criteria by which to exclude a particular class of individuals from a particular prize or privilege who would other wise be qualified for it, is acceptable in this context, then why is it now unacceptable to apply the standards and qualifications inherent to traditional conceptions of marriage when adhering to these is not a form of discrimination since (to borrow terminology from the world of employment) they are bona fide occupational qualifications that can be met by anyone willing to abide by them --- unlike, of course, the inability to alter one’s race or ethnicity no matter how much one might like to.

Even those swept up in the intoxicating rush of revolutionary fanaticism have to stop and admit such a system is easily prone to abuse. For whereas most of the time you can look at a Black person and tell if they are being truthful about being Black, often you only have someone’s word as to whether or not they are gay.

How are you going to get them to prove it? Show them a bawdy picture and ask them to raise something other than their right hand if they find it appealing if you catch my drift?

Furthermore, in this day of privatized relativism, why should anyone be rewarded over how they like to have their fancy tickled? Some people are repulsed by redheads; does that mean those attracted to this particular follicular coloration deserve political favoritism and patronage made available through special interest groups?

Some just sit back and say, “What else do you expect from a bunch of liberals and radical Democrats? The Boston convention has little bearing on my life.” Thing is, though, radicals are never content to sit back patting each other on the back (maybe on the behind in the case of this crowd) over how broadminded and progressive they are but instead insist upon changing your mind --- or at least your way of life --- whether you want them to or not.

Metaphorically kissing the backsides of gays won’t confine itself to the corridors of Democratic lunacy and foolishness. It will eventually work its way out into the rest of society into places where those opposed to such practices cannot as easily avoid them as is the case with party membership or political participation.

People of sound moral character do what they can to avoid corruption by the debauched extremes of contemporary culture, often separating themselves from the institutions celebrating the most degraded tendencies. However, there some aspects of society such as public education whose demands and influence can’t be avoided absolutely by even the most fastidiously scrupulous citizen.

As part of the system of racial preferences set up under Affirmative Action, many institutions of higher education have funneled scholarship dollars and set aside programs for students who have accomplished little more than having been born into a certain ethnic group. As has transpired at the upper echelons of the Democratic party, some partaking of the same manner of blasphemies at similar levels of power within the corridors of higher education now want to extend preferential treatment to the libidinously aberrant.

At Michigan State University the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-gender Concerns and the Office of Financial Aide have set up a scholarship exclusively for Black homosexuals. Since this is a public university, much of the finances for this program have no doubt been hijacked from the pockets of taxpayers repulsed by the gay lifestyle.

But even more importantly, by setting up a system of academic recognition that celebrates and rewards perversion, educators are showing students (or as Rush Limbaugh use to call them years ago, young skulls full of mush) that these lifestyles are acceptable and perhaps even preferable if its going to set them up on easy street with all kinds of sweet handouts. After all, what’s permissible in the eyes of the state has a way of becoming a behavioral norm in the minds of many people.

Some natural laws are so fundamental to the moral order of the universe that should the finite, corrupt understanding of man try to recast things to his own twisted likening he will ultimately cause all of the rational foundations culture rests upon to come crashing down all around him. One cannot attempt to legitimize something as antithetical to God’s purpose as homosexuality and not expect such a decision not to impact all other facets of the complicated undertaking referred to as civilization.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins