Saturday, July 30, 2005
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
In promoting racial equality, it is often harped that on the inside we are all the same regardless of color or background. Apparently that isn't quite the case since we are now being bombarded by yet another celebration pandering to minorities.
Minority Transplant Organ Awareness Day (try putting that on a greeting card) seeks to, well, raise awareness of transplant organs and minorities. While one can hardly oppose the quest for good health, like many other causes promoted by the liberals, this one should also be subjected to closer scrutiny and critical thought.
For starters, if we are going to have a Minority Transplant Organ Awareness Day, shouldn't we also have a Caucasian Transplant Organ Awareness Day? Not every White person that needs a transplant organ gets one.
So why is it inherently more tragic if this tragedy befalls a minority than your run of the mill White person? Furthermore, if there was only a single organ available, can anyone justify why Jesse Jackson would be more deserving of it than Ted Kennedy? Even more importantly, are those White big shots that enjoy imposing minority favoritism on the rest of us in order to show how enlightened and progressive they are going to forego an organ for themselves or a loved one in favor of a minority should they ever find themselves in such a situation or is this merely another burden they expect to pass on to the average White American?
From the way these public campaigns are expressed, you'd think the average White guy was as immortal as Ducan McCloud of the Clan McCloud from the Highlander series.
However, seems to me White folks drop dead from the same afflictions.
In one news story justifying this day of ethnic guilt, one AP story laments that American Indians make up 34& and Hispanics 42% of those awaiting kidney transplants in New Mexico. Maybe if these communities learned to lay off the booze a bit, they could reduce the numbers instead of shifting the blame to Whitey.
Even among conservative circles, it is now popular to claim that racial differences do not exist. While that should be true in the eyes of the law, if it is so in terms of biology, shouldn't organs be interchangeable between various groups if these distictions are nothing more than arbitrary cosmetics?
Seems this issue will force the proponents of radical multiculturalism to make a decision in favor of either their fantasies of absolutist egalitarianism or the system of demographic spoils they have devised to ultimately lavish power on themselves as the administrators of a new ethnic feudalism.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Monday, July 25, 2005
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Dr. P. Bradley Carey, president of the Institute For Christian Works, has posted a Biblical analysis of Pottermania in an article titled “HARRY POTTER: ENEMY Of GOD“.
He does an excellent of job of martialling the Biblical evidence for his argument and placing the book in the context of these scriptural teachings.
Those concerned about this phenomena but not sure exactly how to put their finger on it will find this to be a vital apologetic resource.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Monday, July 18, 2005
In DVD's I have of the classic Max Fleischer Superman cartoon's, Lois Lane is depicted as the embodiment of American femininity as she carries herself simultaneously with spunk and lady-like decorum.
As the foremost expression of American popular culture, the changes in Superman over the years can be used to map the extent of the nation's moral decline.
For example, in the current Smallville series, the females of this subset of the DC comics universe no longer adorn themselves like the classy dames of the 1940's or even the elegant look of Margot Kidder or Annette O'Toole in the movies of the 1980's but rather drink and whore around with the best of them all the while leaving little to the imagination as to the appearance of their bellies and lower backs.
Now it seems the saga of this hero flying high for truth, justice, and the American way might be crash landing into perdition as a SciFi.com scifiwire story seems to indicate that Lois Lane might have an out of wedlock child in the upcoming film.
If this is what now passes as upright American womanhood nowadays, we might be so bad off that even Superman is unable to save us. Frankly, not even Superman should be expected to take responsibility for another man's indiscretions. Having been unable to exercise restraint in these matters, the best Ms. Lane should be able to hope for is a second-tier costumed adventurer such as Reed Richards, whose already had a child himself, or his brother-in-law the Human Torch, whose already been divorced.
Superman is superman, after all. He can have any woman he wants. Why should he settle for one that's already been marked as someone else's property and on top of that one that treats him like bilge when he's disguised as Clark Kent?
If it was the other way around and someone ignored Wonder Woman when she had a little librarian outfit on but threw themselves at her drooling all over her when she stripped down to that bosomy patriotic number she pours herself into, fans would insist she move on to someone that cared more for her as person with mind and feelings and all that other sensitivity blather. Why doesn't Superman deserve the same? Don't tell me broads aren't into looks as much a dudes.
If filmmakers are going to keep insisting that Superman must continue to change in order to reflect the times in which we live, one wonders how many more decades will pass until a version is released where Luthor is the hero and Superman the villain if the Man of Tomorrow continues to insist upon imposing his standards upon common criminals and would be galactic conquerors.
As in regards to my columns daring to question Harry Potter and certain ethical undertones of the Star Wars universe, some (even many so-called "Conservatives") will dismiss me as a lunatic and a greater danger to the world than the most wicked of supervillians. Those that do should not go crying when their children come home practicing withcraft or as teenage parents if we are to now smile upon these practices as wholesome in what should be the innocent realms of the imagination.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Friday, July 15, 2005
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Normally, I would be reluctant in encouraging someone to read an occult-laced tract like Harry Potter as one has to judge for themselves whether such material might be harmful to their spiritual walk. However, in a case where a Cananadian supermarket inadvertently released the text ahead of its debut date, those getting their hands on it now have a civic duty to read the manuscript in order to take a stand against government intrusion into our minds and homes.
A Justice with the Supreme Court of British, Columbia has ruled that those acquiring the book ahead of time must not speak about the book, copy it, or even read it. Furthermore, the lucky customers must also surrender the book they purchased in good faith to the publisher until 12:01 am, July 16th when the dark lords of the New World Order have decreed their obedient minions among the ranks of mere mortals may finally gaze upon this work of juvenile necromancy.
Apart from its glorification of Satanic rituals, numerous Christian thinkers have warned of the Potter Series because of Harry's tendency to break the rules when it suits his purpose. Since this is the worldview J.K. Rowlings and her publisher wish to promote among the young, shouldn't they applaud those refusing to comply with the ruling?
Since outfits such as the ACLU and the like go into more spasms than a werewolf having its belly rubbed whenever the specter of government threatens to interfere with what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom or when authorites exert control over what one is permitted to read, you'd think this would be a case right up their alley. Furthermore, especially among those that bought the book with cash, how can such a ruling possibly be enforced? Those having the book ahead of schedule should go ahead and read the book anyway before the approved date knowing that in doing so they take a stand for intellectual liberty.
Unless the practicioners of the dark arts have another nefarious purpose in mind such as mass manipulation or fear they might turn into a pumpkin if someone gazes upon their runes before the appointed hour, J.K Rowlings and these gnarled crones in the publishing industry have no right to complain as they will be getting the same amount of money whether these fourteen copies are sold at 12:01 am or a mere week earlier.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Does this now mean we are to target prevention and treatment campaigns towards White folks and try to make everybody else feel guilty that White folks suffer from this dreaded affliction --- believe me, as a sufferer it can be rough --- as is the case with other diseases that supposedly afflict minorities in disproportionate number such as diabetes, heart disease, and prostate cancer even though these are the things most White folks keel over from eventually as well?
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Throughout the Star Wars saga, fans have been led to believe that the Jedi stood for justice and goodness throughout the galaxy. However, the actions of one of the characters renowned as the embodiment of the principles expounded by the sect compels such an assumption to undergo careful reevaluation.
Most no doubt think I am referring to Anakin Skywalker since the final installment of the series details his transformation into Darth Vader. However, I am actually referring to Yoda, the diminutive space troll so hideous he is actually kind of cute.
In a Pepsi commercial, the Jedi master is seen sitting at a lunch counter here on earth. But instead of politely waiting to order his lunch like a good little elf, he instead resorts to a level of trickery that would put Q from Star Trek to shame.
Yoda employs Jedi sorcery by casting a spell on the guy next to him to give Yoda his fries. The victim complies, but when the imp tries to exert his will to acquire a disputed Pepsi, the victim reasserts himself to retain ownership of the coveted soft drink.
While the commercial is somewhat humorous, it also gives us a bit of clairvoyance into the moral worldview of the Jedi. In the final analysis, the Jedi end up not being all that different than the Sith.
For starters, anybody thinking there is nothing unsettling about a psionic adept waving their hands and getting a weak-minded subject to fork over whatever the space swami desires is in for a rude awakening. Some might think it’s a joke, saying those under a Jedi’s sway get exactly what they deserve.
But if Jedi are allowed to roam the cosmos pilfering what they please, what’s to prevent one with more ambitious appetites from using his powers of beguilement to have his way with unsuspecting space damsels? Can’t very well cry rape when you approve of soft drinks being taken from those under psychic manipulation when someone with a bit more force flowing through them uses their powers in a slightly more provocative manner. Just because Yoda’s 800 and some years old doesn’t mean the rest of the Jedi have as much trouble extending their lightsabers.
Those with the power to take advantage of the common people in this kind of manner should be controlled by a strict code of behavior. Though the system proved inadequate, at least on Babylon 5 the earth government had an agency known as the PsiCorps to regulate telepaths from infringing upon the privacy of so-called “mundanes” or normal people.
At least J. Michael Stravinski had the foresight to realize power no matter how well controlled or intentioned is going to end up being abused. Apparently Lucas is naive as Jar Jar Binks in having no similar worries about one person crawling around in the mind of another and seeing it as something to encourage as positive by making it a practice his heroes engage in with shocking regularity.
The principles and aphorisms espoused by the Jedi sound noble upon an initial hearing but end up justifying larcenous behavior. For example, throughout the recent trilogy, Jedi elites such as Yoda remind that fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side.
I guess such is taught so --- as with the elites of our own little corner of the universe such as government revenuers and welfare bureaucrats --- the Jedi can take whatever they want and dare anyone to say anything about it. For shouldn’t it be a greater wrong to take something that doesn’t belong to you than to not want what is rightfully yours taken away?
One statement from “Revenge Of The Sith” that stands out to the philosophically sensitive is Obi-Wan’s declaration that only a Sith lord deals in absolutes (an absolute itself, by the way). But even if the proclamation is taken at face value, then how can one even say there is any difference between Jedi and Sith since distinctions cannot be made in a moral universe where absolutes are said not to exist?
The last installment of the Star Wars epic is marketed as depicting Anakin Skywalker’s betrayal of the Jedi. But perhaps instead of betraying this sect of mystic galactic warriors, Darth Vader represents that cults ultimate fulfillment.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins