Saturday, December 31, 2005
In The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis, the White Witch forbids the celebration of Christmas in part because she thinks the celebration is a waste of resources. Likewise, in Politically Correct Holiday Stories by James Finn Garner, Scrooge is as much a New Age acetic as he is a miser.
A classic song entreats the listener to have themselves a merry little Christmas. However, if certain environmentalists have their way, Americans won’t be enjoying much of a Christmas. For according to these elites, the Christmas festivities most of us enjoy are to be listed on the indictment of environmental crimes of Western Civilization against the ecosphere.
These leftists who have made an entire cottage industry insisting that right and wrong do not really exist certainly don’t mind telling the rest of us what to do. Published in the December 2005 edition of National Wildlife is a proclamation the reader is expected to adhere to if they wish to observe an environmentally-aware solstice season or whatever else the tree huggers wallow in this time of year.
Some of the suggestions are just commonsense tips on how to save money on electric bills. Others are more blatantly agenda driven.
University of Edinburgh climate scientist Dave Reay is quoted as saying, “Consumption of everything...spikes enormously in December, from extra car trips, to overpackaged foods, to electronic kitchen gadgets that nobody needs.”
Of course, the pilgrimage to the bookstore to acquire the professor’s book is still one of the few permissible excursions allowed beyond the confines of one’s domicile. One speculates whether Professor Reay himself owns any of those swanky-dank kitchen gadgets “nobody needs” or still cooks his food over an open spit and campfire after capturing it by his own hand. But then again, if past experience is to serve as our guide, liberal bigshots making such grandiose proclamations of a seemingly progressive nature such as how environmental catastrophe looms unless we alter the fundamental way in which we celebrate Christmas seldom abide by their own decrees.
Yet these self-anointed overlords don’t stop at telling us how we will be permitted to get around or how we will be allowed to prepare our sustenance. In fact, it is their desire to tell us what we may consume as well.
Towards the close of the National Wildlife Federation article, this fruitcake professor intones that mere commoners are to avoid eating foods not indigenous to one’s respective biome since provisions shipped long distances increase greenhouse emissions. Likewise, consumers are admonished to eat less meat since it takes away land that could be used for other agricultural purposes.
If they attended the 2002 Earth Summit in South Africa, I wonder if delegates from the National Wildlife Federation partook of the 5,000 oysters, 1,000 pounds of lobster, 80,000 bottles of mineral water, 4,000 pounds of steak, 1,000 pounds of sausage, 450 pounds of salmon , and buckets of caviar made available for the attendees who usually get their jollies condemning the rest of us for how much higher on the food chain the average American eats than the rest of the world. But then again, I guess they’d tell us they deserve such special treats more than the rest of us since their consciousnesses are so much more advanced evolutionarily than what ours are.
Unfortunately, such lunacy does not confine itself to the babbling idiots that hold the vast majority of positions in education, the media, and public interest groups. Such lunacy has a way of turning into the stuff policy dreams are made of.
And while these grandiose declarations often find themselves promulgated by the highest levels of the global elite, don’t get the impression that these directives will be confined to matters far removed from your everyday existence. For even now local governments believe it is their place to dictate to us how we are to celebrate Christmas for the sake of the environment.
The recycling manager of Carroll County, Maryland told the local paper there that the county recommends residents “Cut out unnecessary details, and don’t buy extra things or impulse items that you don’t need while you are out shopping.” Frankly, it’s none of the government’s business what I do and don’t need. The role of the government is to crack open the heads of violent criminals endangering life and property, not to play Martha Stewart or provide hints from Heloise as to proper Christmas etiquette and decorum.
But while many within government at various levels prefer we adhere to a regimen of frugality over the course the Christmas season not so much for the sake of our own pocketbooks or in the name of our good credit records but rather for the sake of the COMMUNITY, certain officials will blow more in a single season than entire family lines will spend over the course of multiple generations. For by the time the Christmas season 2005 comes to an end, the President and First Lady will have hosted twenty-six Christmas parties according to Slate.com.
At the White House, 30,000 cookies will be eaten by 9500 guests. And President Bush is president not exactly known for his profligate ways; just imagine how much more was consumed during the more conservation-oriented hedonistic administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
Supporters will snap, “So? Many of these functions are supported by private funds.” But so are our own Christmas celebrations and government officials certainly don’t mind telling us what they think about how we commemorate December festivities.
And in response to increasing fuel costs, President Bush has suggested Americans cut back and tighten their belts to do their part for the benefit of all citizens. As the head of state, shouldn’t he be willing to set an example and a good place to start might be by cutting out these shindigs for multimillionaires whose lives are one big party to begin with.
Those brainwashed into accepting dutifully whatever the elites tell or demand of them will dismiss these observations as mere class envy. However, average Americans would not begrudge the rich and powerful so much for what they have if these self-appointed Overmen stopped taking it upon themselves to tell us what to do with the little that we do have.
The best gifts are those that satisfy the deepest longings of the heart. The best present any level of government can give us during the holiday season is to stay out of our business as to how we celebrate Christmas.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
According to USA Today many on the verge of retirement are in danger of losing their pensions.
Yet the President and many of his Conservative allies gleefully yammer away about the day when Americans will no longer depend on Social Security to finance their retirements.
Interestingly, they seem to not say much about what will happen when these vaunted private sector funds fail to materialize as well.
And with the costs of housing and education what they are, one cannot provide properly for a family and also save for your golden years. And if one foregoes offspring in order to sacrifice in order to achieve financial independence, one is castigated by the likes of Al Mohler for being a bad Christian.
Better get use to saying, "Hi, welcome to Wal-Mart."
Numerous preachers and the like often snoddily gleam through plastered on smiles that there is nothing in the Bible about retirement; but what they fail to realize is that not everyone derives the same sense of satisfaction as they do from their line of work and there are many occupations 70 or 80 year olds are just not going to be able to do no matter how much they might want to.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
But since little has been released as to the nature of the dispute, one has to reserve judgment as to whom was in the right or wrong since, given the authoritarian nature of contemporary airline passenger management, Mrs. Osteen might have very well had a valid point.
Frankly, one is better off staying home than jumping through all the hoops like cattle going to slaughter set up in order to be deemed fit in order to fly. Too bad the feds are not as fastidious about interdicting transborder vagrancy as they are about refusing to let airline passengers empty their bladders before permitted times.
Yet given her status, I wonder if she would have merely been let go if she had been the wife of a less renowned clergyman or instead locked away for violation of the Patriot Act or related legal whatnot without a trial or other niceties of procedural jurisprudence.
Wonder if hubby Joel will give his woman a stern lecture as to her attitude since he is in orbit around the charismatic brand of Norman Vincent Pealism with its name-it-claim, you-create-your-own-reality style of Christianity and seems to indicate in many of his sermons there is nothing a big smile won‘t cure..
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
A Scottish man has been charged with breach of the peace and such for composing an anonymous love letter to a bankteller that caught his fancy.
Even more disturbing is the fact he has been charged with crimes such as loitering for being in a place that was otherwise public.
So long as he was not actively pestering anyone with lewd or obnoxious comments, why is it any business of the state what his attentions were no matter how frisky or amorous they might have been?
Wonder if there would be much of a fuss if he looked like John Kennedy Jr.
Yet one more reason why these modern women are hardly worth fooling with.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Wal-Mart is renowned as one of America’s largest retail chains. The company earned this distinction in part by fostering a reputation based on traditional American values. However, in a manner similar to how the other institutions overseeing this nation have betrayed what this great country was originally based, this beloved weekend destination and rainy-day hangout has sold out to radical tolerance and diversity.
For retailers such as Wal-Mart, Christmas is really a joyous time since it is the time of year such establishments bring in the lion’s share of their profits. You would think these merchants would not be ashamed to publicly acknowledge the celebration contributing so abundantly to their own prosperity. However, from the shame exhibited at the mention of the word “Christmas”, you’d think the greeting was some lewd comment scrawled across a restroom stall.
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights brought attention to this linguistic trend by launching a brief boycott against Wal-Mart for censoring recognition of the festive occasion by muting the traditional greeting of “Merry Christmas” to the more subdued “Happy Holidays”. The boycott was originally started when it was discovered that searching “Christmas” on the Wal-Mart website returned “Holiday” results while Kwannza and Hanukah brought cybershoppers to results specific to these terms.
Insult was added to injury when the Catholic League learned of an email that essentially told Christians to sit down and shut up since the majority of the people in the world don’t celebrate Christmas and most Christian symbols have pagan origins anyway.
After considerable public embarrassment, Wal-Mart apologized for the snarky email and corrected its website so that a search for Christmas would take you to Christmas results. As such, the Catholic League called off the boycott since the group’s concerns had been met.
However, one must question whether the boycott was called off too quickly since merely one symptom of a deeper underlying disease was addressed. For while the website takes surfers to the proper destination, it will take more than fiddling with some HTML to cure an attitude prevalent throughout the secular culture of executive America.
Wal-Mart plays the matter off by appearing to do the right thing and take a stand for traditional values. Yet upon closer examination, Wal-Mart has done very little in this regard.
Their website might now take unsuspecting shoppers to the correct page, but Wal-Mart corporate elites are still insisting that their wage slaves mutter the bland “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas”. The justification for such yuletide speech codes is that, as a global corporation, they must appear to cater to the egos of all their customers.
Perhaps Wal-Mart should be reminded of where it was that Wal-Mart initially achieved the success it enjoys today. Even if Christmas is not celebrated in the distant lands where Wal-Mart hawks its wears, so what?
Here in America, the majority celebrate Christmas. If the immigrant swarms flooding across the border are offended by such a greeting extended in felicitude and goodwill, they are always welcome to return to the trash-piles upon which they originally dwelt or to remain in lands of unbounded opportunity where women aren’t permitted to drive and where religious dissidents are decapitated.
Those claiming to be economic pragmatists contend that saying “Happy Holidays” simply makes good business sense as the phrase covers Christmas, Hanukah, and Kwanza and keeps everybody happy. But frankly though, are that many Jews even going to be caught in Wal-Mart and Kwanza is no more a real holiday than if a group of Star Wars fans got together to celebrate the destruction of the Death Star since events in that saga are dated in relation to the Battle of Yavin.
Despite all the hand wringing as to whether or not the mere utterance of “Christmas” will shatter Hebrew sensibilities that have endured far worse over the course of that culture’s turbulent history, it must be pointed out that those claiming to oppose public recognition of Christmas because of their adherence to Judaism are actually the members of that community that abide by the tenets of that faith the least and often only invoke the faith of their forefathers as a way to manipulate the guilt complex rampant throughout postmodern Western society.
The Jews that strive to live by Biblical values actually don’t have all that much of a problem if their fellow theists celebrate Christmas. Columnist Don Federer, an Orthodox Jew, is quoted in the November 2004 edition of Concerned Women Of America’s Family Voice as saying, “I’ve never been offended by anyone saying ‘Merry Christmas’ to me.”
Thus, liberal Jews do not oppose Christmas so much as an affront as to what they profess to be their faith. Rather they get all jacked out of shape because those Christians that celebrate the birth of Christ embrace the shared ethical heritage of these faiths that these closet secularists have abandoned.
In light of these linguistic policies, are we to forego vocalizing the names of other holidays other special interests might find offensive? Should we not refer to the Fourth of July amidst an act of commerce for fear of alienating closet royalists?
Seems Wal-Mart has no problem whatsoever recognizing other festivities that exclude significant percentages of the population. Utilizing this pronunciation paradigm, does that mean from now on Wal-Mart will refer to February as simply “History Month” rather that qualify it with a particular ethnic classification?
Don’t count on it as in the past, in league with Kraft Foods, the retail chain has distributed Black History booklets. What about a publication containing so-called “White” recipes and if Wal-Mart’s scope as a global company is to be its central marketing principle, how are over a billion Chinamen going to feel about such a document as I doubt there are that many brothers in the hood over there.
From as far back as most can remember, we have been told that the true meaning of Christmas goes far beyond the things beneath the tree that provide a sense of temporary joy. Perhaps the corporate world should also take the time to consider this lesson or they might not find as much green in their stockings in Christmases yet to come.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Friday, December 09, 2005
Thursday, December 08, 2005
No Pleasing Some People: Liberal Jews Already Peeved At Mel Gibson's Plans To Accurately Depict The Holocaust
Part of the complaint about Mel Gibson's pending miniseries depicting a Dutchman hiding his Jewish girlfriend from the Nazis is that the movie will portray Catholicism in a positive light.
But doesn't everyone that puts forth a creative effort attempt to do this with their own respective viewpoint and worldview, even Jews?
If we are now permitted to make snide remarks about the religious backgrounds of those making movies, haven't Jews been allowed to produce more than their fair share?
Are similar criticisms going to be said about Spielberg's pending drama about the Munich incident at the 1972 Olympics and its aftermath?
While Jews bore the brunt of the evil during the time period to be depicted in Gibson's proposed film, I hate to break it to them, but they were not the only ones to suffer during that time or take heroic actions.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
When I dared criticize the remake of "The Honeymooners" for recasting the classic with a Black cast, I was condemned as "racist" and even banned from FreeRepublic.com.
However, the film was such a flop that I don't even remember seeing any previews for the movie and it was barely in the theaters two weeks. So apparently most American's had similar feelings even if they dared not say so publicly.
I guess I will get similar flack for drawing attention to Disney's plans to replace Christopher Robbin with a female human lead.
But if Disney wants to take enlightened progressivism to its limit, why must the animals of the Hundred Acre Woods be shackled with human ownership all together?
Furthermore, shouldn't Kanga toss Roo into a daycare center and forsake her calling as a mother for a career that takes her outside the home?
Why don't they end the movie with a scene reminiscent of the French Revolution with Pooh and the gang standing gleefully over the decapitated heads of their human oppressors?
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins