Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Monday, September 20, 2004
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Schauungtown Chronicles: Part 1, The Bible Peddler
He silently slipped into the back pew as those gathering for the day’s service quietly talked amongst themselves. Since he had never been here before, most simply ignored him. A few nodded cordially, but did not really pay much attention since they had never seen him before.
Others glanced as they walked by, trying to win a glimpse at the slim black object the visitor held in his hand. They strained their necks in an effort to get a look at what it was, but did not want to appear to be rude to the visitor who was able to keep the object concealed in a polite manner.
Those gathering hurried to their seats as the music began to play. The visitor kept an eye on the bustle around him. He usually didn’t attend these kinds of functions, but his curiosity had gotten the best of him and he just couldn’t resist at least a peak to see for himself how things were being done now. Besides, he might be able to do some good here or at least plant some kind of seed that could germinate into such.
The visitor looked straight ahead to the front of the auditorium. Upon the platform located there he noticed the circular, upright lectern.
It looked like wood, but the visitor knew it was not since few who regularly came here would want to inconvenience a tree in such a manner and would find it appalling to impose upon such a noble creature in such a way. The visitor continued to study the lectern’s deliberate craftsmanship. He could tell from the way light and shadow played off it that it was a multidimensional representation of the sign of peace, the symbol of everything this grand hall claimed to stand for.
The visitor continued to look forward towards the platform. His eyes looked up from the peace sign lectern to the peace sign tapestry adorning the wall at the back of the room high above the floor. Interestingly, in the days of Before it was said that the arms of the broken cross pointed in another direction. The mind of the visitor wandered back to the days of Before prior to the time of the Change.
The Change. The thought of it hung in the visitor’s mind.
When did it happen? He wasn’t sure. Seems no one really was. No one remembered when it happened. Just that there had been a Before. Little by little, the time of Before slid into the days of the Change, but so infinitesimally no one conscientiously realized it while it was happening but soon enough those sensitive to such things had an inkling something was going on even if they couldn’t quite put their finger on it.
The thoughts of the visitor came back to the proceedings transpiring around him. The music came to a conclusion as just about everybody was in their respective seats and were eager to get the service underway. The visitor himself felt a tinge of anticipation to see just how things had changed since the time of Before.
A cloaked figure ascended the platform. From that distance, the visitor could not tell if it was a man or a woman. Many of the celebrants prided themselves on the degree to which they could blur the distinctions of such a trifling human characteristic as gender.
The celebrant smiled, “Good morning. Before we get started, I’d like to welcome those gathered to the Schauungtown Toleration Fellowship. My name is Sibling Cecilia and this is my partner Catherine.” Catherine briefly stood to wave to the congregation.
As much as she tried to downplay her natural features with the short buzz-cut and silver stud protruding from her eyebrow, the visitor concluded that “the Sibling” was in all likelihood a woman no matter how much “she” did not want to admit it. At times, even ideology had to yield to biology, but for whatever reason, the most dedicated celebrants within the Toleration Fellowship insisted upon expressing their devotion to Oneness by using the title “Sibling” rather than more gender specific appellations such as “Brother” or “Sister” carried over from Before and still used by celebrants who --- despite their devotion --- just couldn’t seem to rid themselves of those pesky ingrained inclinations leftover from less progressive times.
Sibling Cecilia continued, “Won’t you all stand, please, as we render supplication unto Oneness.”
The congregation rose. The visitor stood along with them even though he would not be joining them in spirit. He clutched the concealed object close to his chest.
“Transcendent Oneness, we approach We now. Looking to the unity within to overcome the degraded apartness for the sake of the All. And forgive us still so ensnared by our individuality to still require the confines of language to share these aspirations between consciousnesses. In Diversity’s name, Ahumyn.”
The visitor hadn’t assented to the words as they were said aloud; but he nevertheless felt spiritually soiled upon hearing them, almost like he had no business being there. But he knew that even in this setting he was not alone, a table having been set for him in the midst of his enemies. There was work, even here, that needed to be done.
The congregation sat back down at the conclusion of the invocation. Sibling Cecilia stepped to the side of the podium.
“Now, it gives me great pleasure,” she smiled, “to introduce this morning the latest addition to our Toleration Fellowship and to welcome her into our midst. I’d like to introduce you to little Sally Witherspoon. Won’t you bring her on up, Betty and Cal?”
A young couple probably in their early 30’s stood up and brought their newborn to the front of the sanctuary. The congregation cooed with the obligatory “Awwwww!”
The family joined Cecilia at the bottom of the raised stage, slightly to the left of and below the hewn peace-symbol lectern. “As responsible parents, Betty and Cal, inform me they want to raise Sally in reverence of the values espoused by the Toleration Fellowship. As part of this dedication ceremony, we must ask each of you a series of questions to determine your degree of sincerity in wanting little Sally to grow up in the ways of the Fellowship. So Cal and Betty, whom do you say gave you the gift of little Sally.”
Her mother responded, “The forces of nature.”
“Correct, Betty.” Cecilia replied. “And who controls the forces of Nature?”
The baby’s father answered, “The All.”
“That’s right, Cal. And how does the All manifest itself to us?” questioned the Sibling.
Betty answered, “In the form of the universe, in the Earth and our relationship with Her, and the Holy within all of us.”
Cecilia asked, “Since we are all part of the All and since we are all of one another and ultimately none unto themselves, who is it that bears final responsibility for this child?”
“The Community,” both parents answered without hesitation.
“Realizing such, do you swear to abide by the wisdom and decisions of the Community --- in all its diversity --- in having the final authority over your fami......” Cecilia caught herself. “...excuse me, domestic collective.”
Cal responded, “Yes, without the Community, we are nothing.”
Cecilia smiled. “I now present to you the latest component of our communal body.”
The “domestic collective” turned around smiling to face the congregation. They dutifully returned to their seats.
Cecilia took her place behind the distinctively-shaped podium. She fiddled through her note cards as she prepared to begin her homily.
“The ceremony we were just privileged to experience spoke to one of the universal suggestions which me must all recognize: the fundamental realization that we as mere humyns are nothing without the approval and sanction of the Community.”
The visitor both listened and tried to gauge the reactions of those seated around him in the congregation.
Cecilia continued, “In the time of Before, it was often believed the individual possessed a certain status apart from that bestowed by the Community. As strange as that sounds to us, in those days many believed their value and worth was something found within themselves. Some thinking this way even believed certain social privileges they called rights came from God rather than from the Community.”
The visitor could hear the faint, audible gasps and sighs of disbelief of a few of those seated around him.
“That’s right,” Cecilia continued, “at one time quite a number believed God stood above the Community and even above Nature itself instead of believing as we do that the concept once understood as ‘God’ arises from the intersection of the totality of All. Those living under such a disjointed perspective were alienated from reality by such an absolutist hierarchy that they failed to recognize their own, shall we say ‘god within’. Instead, of realizing that as a part of the All that all that happened also happened to themselves, they would compete with one another --- even inflicting harm upon one another --- in hopes of bettering their status or acquiring additional resources. They failed to realize that by harming others they were harming themselves. Today we have overcome such primitive notions from the time of Before. And even though we still come across an occasional misguided individual holding to these notions to be pitied and assisted in anyway possible in helping them achieve the awakening that comes so easily to some but not to others, most of us have embraced our cosmic and communal obligation to accept whatever place the Community, in its unquestionable wisdom assigns to us, in its pursuit of actualizing the All.”
Cecilia stopped, lowered her head, and intoned as the congregation stood, “Dear Oneness, we come before ourselves now as the glorious manifestation and embodiment of the All asking ourselves to muster the power within to do as the Community requires of us, no matter how low it might seem through our perceptions of individuality and by submitting to its wisdom find fulfillment as part of the greater social organism. In Diversity’s name, Ahumyn.”
The congregation opened their eyes knowing that the service had now concluded. The visitor knew his moment to act, the reason he came here this day, had arrived.
The visitor looked down at the leather-bound object concealed in his hand. Amid the bustle of activity as members of the congregation bid farewell to their friends for the day and probably the week, the visitor found the opportune moment of anonymity to carry out his mission as those around him were too caught up in their own conversations to notice a congenial but quiet stranger.
The visitor held the black leather rectangle to his chest a moment longer as he quickly bowed his head for a moment. He gently placed the object on the seat he just occupied and slyly exited the pew.
With others making their way out the door or so engrossed in their conversations so as not to have to notice those making their way out the door, the visitor extricated himself unnoticed under such chattering cover. He hoped, however, that the small rectangular object he left behind would not go as unnoticed.
Worshippers continued to linger in the sanctuary for awhile after the visitor had slipped away. The object the visitor left behind occupied the same seat as the visitor with the same quiet dignity as the one in whose hand it had just previously rested.
But whereas most had avoided making contact with the visitor out of shyness or a desire simply not to be bothered, most passing by the rectangular object could not resist the urge to take a quick glance at it. But since few could really make out what it was, they just kept walking.
Eventually, the final barriers of reluctance eroded as one college-aged student lingered a little longer than most to catch a good glimpse of the object. He stopped and edged closer towards it.
He bent over and scooped it up. His eyes focused on the unfamiliar words printed across the textured leather.
“Holy Bible,” he read. The words seemed strange yet familiar all at the same time. For some reason, they conjured images in his mind of dignified yet loving grandmothers: judgment yet acceptance. A sense of well-being swept over him as a tinge of terror also panged deep within his soul.
The young man wanted to run. Instead he yielded to an even more compelling urge to study the book further.
He carefully opened the cover. The message scribbled across the title page caught his eye.
The young man felt overwhelmed with confusion. He called out, “Sibling Cecilia, I think you need to see this.”
“What is it?” She rushed over to the miniscule throng gathering in the vicinity of the now-empty pew. They stood aside to make way for their spiritual leader.
Cecilia took the mysterious book into her hands and read the message scribbled across the title page: “To whom it may concern: It is obvious that the words contained within these pages are desperately needed within this place. It is my prayer that this book will serve as an island of truth amidst this sea of error. Courtesy of the Bible Peddler.”
So much anger began to well up within her normally composed facade that the piercing above her eyebrow began to jingle. “By Tolerance, how dare this filth undermine this Community’s diversity and inclusion!”
The congregation watched and wondered as she frantically ripped pages from the book and threw them across hall built as an expression of the equality of all ideas.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, September 11, 2004
You Scratch My Blog, I'll Scratch Yours
Here’s a little shameless cross promotion.
Louis Petolicchio formerly of LancasterInternet.com recently moved to another Pennsylvania location and has rechristened his newspage PoliticalBackwash.com.
The site focuses a great deal on news and politics from a South Central Pennsylvania perspective, but also provides considerable coverage of wider national issues. As such, Mr. Petolicchio has been gracious enough over the past couple of years to publish a number of my columns on his site.
To publicize the relaunch, Mr. Petolicchio has sent out a press release to various media outlets informing these organizations of this online journalistic undertaking. As part of the outreach, I was invited to contribute a quote regarding news of, shall we say, the “redigitalization” of this quality source of information.
Mr. Petolicchio does a classy job of incorporating my comments into the text of the release. By identifying me as Frederick Meekins of Washington DC, the reader gets the impression I possibly wield a bit of power or influence. Such an aura of mystery and sophistication lends a degree of credibility to both of our websites.
Unlike the mainstream media, independent websites do not have vast marketing or advertising budgets. However, through word of mouth (or rather blog) hopefully an information revolution can be triggered putting the power back in the hands of individual Americans where it belongs.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Friday, September 10, 2004
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Guest Analyst Admits GOP Best Political Friend Black Folks Ever Had
I would like to offer words of commendation to Governor Bob Ehrlich and Lieutenant Governor Michael S. Steele. On Monday, August 30th, Governor Ehrlich asserted that he saw a message coming out of the Democratic convention. The message is that “if you happen to have black skin, you have to believe one way.” Otherwise, “you are a traitor to your race.” Lt. Gov. Steele, who delivered an outstandingly auspicious speech at the Republican National Convention, can relate to the governor’s words of wisdom. Have we forgotten that supporters of former Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend threw Oreo cookies at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002? It was people on the Left who did this malicious, racial act.
Steele recently did a national talk show on an African-American station and the first question presented to him was “How can you be a Republican?” He cleverly responded by asking the caller, “How can you be a Democrat?” To suggest that Steele is traitorous to his race because he is a registered Republican is the most invidious, baseless accusation. Why should Steele be targeted as one who abandoned his race because of his political identity? Is the evidence that the Democratic Party best represents black Americans?
During the period from the 1940s to the 1960s, there were some leaders in the Democratic Party who advocated civil rights protections, most notably Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. According to a black history issue of The WallBuilder Report, Truman “introduced an aggressive civil rights legislative package that included an anti-lynching law, an anti-poll tax law, desegregation of the military, etc.,” however, he fought strong opposition from his own party. Truman was able to include civil rights language in the platform for the National Democratic Convention, but a “walkout of southern delegates resulted.”
In 1964, President Johnson, a Democrat, was unable to garner support from his own party to pass the Civil Rights Bill and the Democrats controlled two-thirds of the seats in Congress. It was necessary for Republicans to work with Johnson to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. As a result, millions of African-Americans were able to register to vote in southern, Democratic-controlled states where literacy testing was abolished and the federal government intervened to oversee voter registration.
The WallBuilder Report further indicates that in “Democratic-controlled States, rarely are African-Americans elected statewide (with the exception of US Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (IL, 1992-1998) and African-American Democratic Representatives to Congress usually are elected only from minority districts (districts with a majority of minority voters).” However, members of minority groups running as Republicans are “elected statewide in Republican States, or in congressional districts with large white majorities.”
Furthermore, in 2000, US Rep. JC Watts (OK) became the “third African-American to chair a National Republican Convention (the first was US Rep. John Roy Lynch (MS) in 1884 and then US Sen. Edward Brooke (MA) in 1968.” Why is it that there has never been an African-American to chair or even co-chair a Democratic National Convention?
President Bush has an administration that is more racially diverse than that of any other in US History! Why aren’t the multiculturalists celebrating with elation? This is because they despise a Republican President who appoints minorities to high positions in government but who do not adhere to radically liberal ideologies. Any minority member who serves in the Cabinet under a President who is a conservative Republican is viewed as disingenuous and disloyal to his race by people on the political Left. I find such tactics to be utterly reprehensible and blatantly racist.
Bush campaign spokesman, Terry Holt, articulated the facts well when he said that “all families should ask whether or not the party they’ve supported is best for them.” (Newszap.com) Holt contends that Republicans generally appeal to African-American voters on issues such as values while “Democrats have tended to take a different approach.”
Copyright 2004 by Matthew Pasalic
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Gold Medal In Arrogance: Olympic Officials Assume Godlike Powers Over Human Lives
During the Cold War, both sides used the Olympic games as a forum to rally world sympathy for their respective causes. But with the conclusion of that ideological conflict, it seems an act of Hegelian synthesis has taken place surrounding this international festival that would make Marx’s whiskers tingle in delight.
Incorporating aspects of monopolistic capitalism and command socialism into their managerial approach to the games, Greek officials and the International Olympic Committee planned to exercise a degree of control over spectators no human being should be allowed to exert over any other. It has become common practice for major corporations to pay millions of dollars to have their names emblazoned across the public consciousnesses as being affiliated with the Olympiad. But instead of accomplishing this with witty advertisements during commercial breaks or less than inconspicuous billboards in every broadcast shot, marketers schemed to establish product dominance not through the rigors of free market competition but rather by emulating practices more in common with the arrogance associated with pompous bureaucrats and centralized planners.
According to the Sunday Times of London, spectators could be refused admittance to the games for sipping the wrong brand of soda or told to flip their shirts inside-out for displaying logos of corporations not coughing up the dough for the vacuous honor of being an Olympic sponsor. Just because these tycoons aren’t confident as to the soundness of this investment is no reason to take out their insecurity on unsuspecting spectators.
It would be bad enough if game officials concocted the excuse that no outside beverages could be brought into the venues for fear of protestors or other related leftwing Euro-trash using cans and bottles as projectiles and then sell gullible sports enthusiasts marked-up, water-downed soft drinks in dainty, sissy-sized cups. But how in the name of homeland security can you justify allowing someone to bring in a Coca Cola but refuse entry to someone should they have Pepsi or the local Wal-Mart off-brand equivalent let alone demand someone obscure unobscene clothing logos if no functionally justifiable dress code has been delineated?
The last I heard, onlookers weren’t the ones receiving the obscene amounts of money. Spectators are not under any contractual obligation to blithely do as they are told regarding matters not even remotely connected to those of public safety.
Fortunately, despite the socialist grandiosity of Olympic organizers, the public thwarted some of the ambitions of these aspiring potentates by utilizing the strengths of the free market system to thumb their noses at these petty micromanagers. Rather than subject themselves to such control, many Greeks forsook attendance and viewers tuned out to avoid being brainwashed or to at least to avoid the severe nausea that often results from exposing oneself to such globalist blather.
One disgruntled Greek told the Sunday Times, “I don’t see why, after all the money that Greek taxpayers will end up paying to host the games, McDonald’s should dictate what I can eat in my own city.” While it’s nice to cheer for your country’s team if you are from a country worth loving, there is nothing anywhere saying we have a duty to pay attention to the Olympics: game overlords have not yet discovered a way to coerce such interest.
If International Olympic Committee officials and their sycophants in multinational corporations continue to undermine basic human freedoms --- foremost among them being the right to consume whatever foodstuffs one has legally acquired irrespective of brand --- hopefully this antiquated pageant of feigned brotherhood and other hypocritical drivel will once again go the way of the heathen deities such athletic spectacles were invoked to venerate as curious but best forgotten footnotes of ancient history.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Thursday, September 02, 2004
We Have A Name Don’t You Know: Bush Campaign Ashamed Of The Words “Protestant”, “Evangelical”, Or “Christian”
Someone forwarded me an email about volunteering with the Bush Reelection Campaign . Curious, I clicked on the link for no other reason than to see what was up --- or to phrase it in a more sophisticated manner ---- to gather intelligence.
As part of the volunteer registration process, those logging onto the site have the option of participating in various outreach efforts targeted at specific demographic groups or policy interests. Among the groups potential volunteers can direct their efforts towards include Arabs, Hispanics, African Americans, and Young Professionals. There are even efforts targeted at faith-based communities, Jews and Catholics being specifically mentioned.
It would seem the remaining one-third of America ecclesiastical triad, Protestantism, is not named. Sure, there are a number of policy categories that would appeal to Protestants such as pro-life and homeschool efforts, but if you are going to mention Jews and Catholics by specifically, don’t Evangelicals or Protestants deserve the same courtesy?
The form does provide the nebulous choice of “Religious Conservative”. But when you come down to it, that can cover just about anything. One could argue that within his own faith Osama Bin Ladin is himself a “Religious Conservative” as well as is the Utah polygamist who ups and marries the local junior high cheerleading squad.
If one is not going to mention Evangelicals or Protestants, then why extend such recognition to Jews and Catholics? After all, aren’t the ones within these respective groups likely to vote for the President come November religious conservatives anyway?
Defenders of these campaign tactics might counter that these groups are more denominationally homogeneous than their religious counterparts on the Protestant side of the ecclesiastical divide. However, while there might be fewer independent denominational organizations to deal with among Jews and Catholics, in many respects these communities are as theologically fractious even if not so obvious on the surface.
The most prominent voices of Jewish leadership are so pathetically leftist as evidenced by rackets such as the Anti-Defamation League that it’s frankly a waste of money and a lost cause for Republicans to try and persuade these people since most belonging to groups such as this one barely embrace anything even remotely resembling Old Testament values.
The same can be pretty much said about Roman Catholics as well. For while all Catholics might belong to the same church, does anyone believe Bills Bennet and Buckley have that much in common with the Brothers Berigan.
Still others will counter that Jews and Catholics are more cultural identity than anything. But why not the same with Evangelical Protestantism?
As with Jews and Catholics who embrace these sociological classifications as their primary cultural identity, those embracing Protestantism often share enough behavioral characteristics unique to their way of life to qualify as what Randall Balmer termed the “Evangelical subculture” in his Mine Eyes Have Seen The Glory. Likewise, as with Evangelicals, Jews began as a community organized around a shared system of belief, but so many have abandoned that faith and must now organize around the less noble foundation of ethnicity in order to maintain some kind of identity.
Even if one accepts the previous points as valid, one might still argue its best not to mention Evangelicals by name since many people find them offensive. And in this age of radical inclusion, inoffensiveness and tolerance have become the highest values to which we are to aspire --- even surpassing in importance those of less enlightened eras such as truth, self-reliance, and liberty.
Going back to our previous examples, there are critics to the theological left and right of the Catholic Church offended by beliefs held by that particular denomination; but apparently the Republican Party has no qualms about publicizing their desire to appeal to Catholic voters. Even more importantly, the GOP has no problem with pandering to immigrants by also providing a translation of the website in Spanish even though, despite the fact most are terrified to admit it for fear of being labeled “racist” or whatever other slur the hyertolerant are using this week to beat the common man into submission, the vast majority of Americans are sick and tired of the ongoing surrender to foreign tongues uttered by freeloading aliens harboring no intentions of acclimating to our way of life and catered to by elites using these unsuspecting transnational vagrants as a tool through which to undermine the foundations of this republic.
If the Republican Party is so ashamed of its Evangelical supporters perhaps it should try winning elections without their votes. I doubt they’ll get very far electorally since the reprobate vote is pretty much sewn up by the Democrats.
Matthew 10:33 reads, “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” If the higher-ups in the Republic Party continue to distance themselves from Evangelical voters, maybe Evangelical voters should reciprocate the gesture come election day.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick B. Meekins
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
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.
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Friday, August 27, 2004
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
We Have A Name Don't You Know: Bush Campaign Ashamed Of The Word's “Protestant”, “Evangelical” & “Christian”
As part of the registration process, those logging onto the site have the option of participating in various outreach efforts targeted at specific demographic groups or policy interests. Among the groups potential volunteers can direct their efforts towards include Arabs, Hispanics, African Americans, and Young Professionals. There are even efforts targeted at faith-based communities, with Jews and Catholics being specifically mentioned.
It would seem the remaining one-third of America's ecclesiastical triad, Protestantism, is not named. Sure, there are a number of policy categories that would appeal to conservative Protestants such as pro-life and homeschool efforts. But if you are going to mention Jews and Catholics specifically, don't Evangelicals or Protestants deserve the same courtesy?
The form does provide the nebulous choice of “Religious Conservative”. But when you come down to it, that can cover just about anything.
One could argue that, within his own faith, Osama Bin Ladin is himself a “Religious Conservative”. Nearly the same thing as well could be said about the Utah polygamist who ups and marries the entirety of the local junior high school cheerleading squad.
If one is not going to mention Evangelicals or Protestants, then why extend such recognition to Jews and Catholics? After all, aren't the ones within these respective groups likely to vote for the President Bush religious conservatives anyway?
Defenders of these campaign tactics might counter that these groups are more denominationally homogeneous than their religious counterparts on the Protestant side of the ecclesiastical divide. However, while there might be fewer denominational structures to deal with among Catholics and Jews, in many respects these communities are as theologically fractious even if not so obviously on the surface.
The most prominent voices of Jewish leadership are so pathetically leftist as evidence by rackets such as the Anti-Defamation League. It's frankly a waste of money and a lost cause for Republicans to try and persuade these voters since most belonging to groups such as this barely embrace anything even remotely resembling Old Testament doctrines and values.
The same thing could pretty much be said about Roman Catholics as well. For while all Catholics might belong to the same church, does anyone believe Bills Bennett and Buckley have that much in common with the Brothers Berigan?
Still others will counter that Jew and Catholic are more cultural identity than anything else. But why not the same with Evangelical Protestantism?
As with Jews and Catholics who embrace these sociological classifications more as their primary cultural identity rather than as a religion, those embracing Protestantism often share enough behavioral characteristics unique to their own way of life to qualify as what Randall Balmer termed the “Evangelical subculture” in his “Mine Eyes Have Seen The Glory”. Likewise, as with Evangelicals, Jews began as a community organized around a shared system of belief, but so many have abandoned that faith and must now organize around the less noble foundation of ethnicity in order to maintain some kind of identity.
Even if one accepts the previous points as valid, one might still argue it is best not to mention Evangelicals by name since many progressives and secularists find the term offensive. In this age of radical inclusion, after all, inoffensiveness and tolerance have become the highest values to which we are to aspire, even surpassing in importance those of less enlightened eras such as truth, self-reliance, and liberty.
Going back to the previous example, there are critics to the theological left and right of the Roman Catholic Church offended by beliefs held by that particular denomination. Yet apparently the Republican Party has no qualms about publicizing their desire to appeal to Catholic voters.
Even more importantly, the GOP has no qualms with pandering to immigrants by also providing a translation of their website in Spanish. Despite the fact most are terrified to admit it for fear of being labeled “racist” or whatever other slur the hypertolerant are using this week to beat the common man into submission, the vast majority of Americans are sick and tired of the ongoing surrender to foreign tongues uttered by freeloading aliens harboring no intentions of acclimating to our way of life and catered to by elites using these transnational vagrants as a tool through which to undermine the foundations of this republic.
If the Republican Party is so ashamed of its Evangelical supporters, perhaps it should try winning elections without their votes. I doubt they'll get very far electorally since the reprobate vote is pretty much sewn into the Democratic Party.
Matthew 10:33 reads, “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” If the higher-ups in the Republican Party continue to distance themselves from Evangelical voters, maybe Evangelical voters should reciprocate the gesture come election day.
By Frederick Meekins 2004
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Monday, August 23, 2004
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Friday, August 20, 2004
Olympic-Sized Doubletalk
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
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.
Friday, August 13, 2004
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Toys R Us Might Get Out Of Toy Business: Claims Kids Just Not Into Toys Anymore
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
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
Friday, August 06, 2004
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
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
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Friday, July 23, 2004
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
CBS Believes Creativity Determined By Race
CBS Execs have established the CBS Diversity Institute providing mentors for "writers of color", or to shorten it a bit, "colored writers" word economy being a good thing and all.
We are always told that if we were seriously ill we wouldn't care what color the doctor would be or if trapped in a burning building about the ethnic background of the firefighter sent in to rescue us.
Why, then, should we care about the color of those scripting the television shows we watch since we never see the behind-the-scenes talent?
By establishing programs targeted at getting minorities into the television industry, aren't TV executives implying these individuals are not as inherently creative as their White counterparts?
Since most of these TV producers come from Jewish backgrounds, are we going to have set-asides for Protestants or Catholics?
But bet you one thing, regardless of the color of the new crop of script writers selected through this program, they will likely continue to spew forth the same kind of liberal filth that has come to dominate the nation's airwaves these past few years.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Linda Rondstadt Hates Christians
Singer Linda Rondstadt claims she does not like having Fundamentalist Christians or Conservatives Republicans in the audience.
Who, then, does the aging country has-been thinks buys tickets to her concerts since these are the groups prone to listen to her brand of music? Definitely not "hip", young liberals.
If all else fails, maybe she can go shack up with former hippy governor Jerry Brown once more
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Monday, July 19, 2004
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Noisy Bugs Aren’t Only Ones Making Irritating Racket
Every seventeen years, periodical cicadas emerge from their otherwise sedate underground burrows to serenade their ladies fair and to inconvenience humans unsettled by the disturbing countenance and unique musical tastes of these creatures. But unlike environmentalists and evolutionists, these pests are gracious enough to subject us to their whining only once every decade and a half and aren’t nearly as nerve-wracking.
In this age of postmodern subjectivism, it is never enough for the purveyors of secular scientific understanding to present philosophically unencumbered facts and allow individuals to draw their own conclusions about them. Since we are little more than buffoons in the eyes of the technocrats, we must be catechized as to what to think about the processes of the world around us to an extent exceeding anything taking place in any run-of-the-mill Sunday school or Bible college.
Along with a diagram detailing the life cycle of the cicada from its lengthy period of subterranean singleness sucking sap to its emergence and molting from its nymph to adult form as well as explaining the mechanics and purpose of their symphonic performances, the experts interviewed for a Washington Post Metro Section feature on May 16, 2004 waned ideological rather than keep things purely scientific.
To a number of so-called scientists and researchers, the vast numbers of cicadas are to serve as recruits in the cause of anti-human, anti-technology evolutionary environmentalism. Biologist David Dunn is upset that people compare the sound cicadas make to mechanical sources and laments these as “the sounds with which we have replaced the patterns of the natural world.”
If it weren’t for those pesky machines, Mr. Dunn wouldn’t be able to bombard readers with such Luddite foolishness. He probably wouldn’t even have the leisure time to cogitatively formulate such nonsense, idle hands being the Devil’s workshop and all.
Of course, should those like this researcher gain power, they won’t be the ones foregoing the comforts of modern life for the sake of environmental preservation; his ilk won’t be the ones forced to endure a life of drudgery, malnutrition, and disease all for the sake of getting back to nature. The likes of the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Kerrys and Bushes will always live in opulent luxury; it is you and I, dear reader, who will be forced to live lower than dirt and that at least will have the soil erosion lobby to look out for its interests.
Already the plight of cicadas is being used to pound additional nails into the coffins of development and environmental policy. According to the BBC, insect supremacists are lamenting that the cicada faces possible extinction since construction projects such as paved roads, houses, and other buildings block the immature cicadas from reaching the surface.
Woopteedo! Frankly these things are the bug world’s equivalent of welfare recipients in that they do nothing but eat, smell bad, and reproduce while contributing little or nothing productive to society in return for their upkeep. Why should we care if these pests become nothing more than a footnote in the annals of entomological history?
If the expanse of civilization does pose such a threat to cicada kind, does that mean human happiness and progress must come to a screeching halt? For in the minds of environmentalists, animal rights theoreticians, and the rest of those more infatuated with the creation that the Creator, you and I are no more important than that slimy slug slithering across your aluminum siding.
One bug brain composing cantatas as an act of worship of the cicada told the Washington Post of his musical composition in their honor, “I want to reflect the insectlike character of our own lives. The Post ads, “...his ambition for his...piece is not to emphasize difference.”
Heaven (rather Earth forbid in the minds of these fruitcakes) we acknowledge the distinction and hierarchy of species, something the animals --- dumb as they are --- don’t seem to have much of a problem with. Hegel, the father of the modern pantheism from which much of contemporary environmentalism ultimately flows, when confronted by a student that his audacious theories did not square with the facts of reality is alleged to have railed, “Then the facts be damned.”
As with its cousins Communism and Socialism, it is this callous disregard of the world as it really is in favor of how they’d like it to be that makes environmentalism especially dangerous. As such, the related movements of environmentalism and evolutionism are not so much based on testable scientific propositions as faith-based presuppositions.
Another scientist romantically swooned in the Post that these swarms of cicadas suggest “...what North America was like an eon ago, when these bugs rose to the top of an unpopulated continent’s vast forests...It gives me a sense of awe at the scale of evolutionary time.”
Things might be a little less crowded if we didn’t have these scientists playing philosopher to deal with. For anyone that comprehends cicadian engineering and ends up feeling all warm and fuzzy on the inside in praise of evolution has clearly been educated beyond all usefulness.
A top the Post feature article where tenured scientists waxed hysterical like convulsing holy rollers all over the church carpet was an informative diagram and flowchart detailing the life story of the cicada as well as mechanics behind its unique brand of music. Anyone thinking this ability came about on its own has a few cicadas of his flying around in his belfry.
According to the article, the male cicada is able to crease his tympana so as not to deafen himself as a result of his own racket. Does it make more sense that these powers and abilities were bestowed upon these creatures deliberately by a wise God or came about helter skelter by pot luck?
If God didn’t, did the cicadas all get together at a convention in Vegas and decide it would be prudent for amorous cicadas to close their ears and synchronize their friskiness so as to ensure safety in numbers and that the maximum number find love? If it’s all just the role of the dice, wouldn’t the cicada either end up all alone or blow out his ear in pursuit of his lady love?
Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til observed that each of us looks at the world through the rose colored glasses of certain presuppositions that mold everything we see. Those who deny the handiwork of God throughout creation are just as religious as those who see the purposes of the Lord written throughout the pages of His handiwork.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Sunday, July 11, 2004
County & City Sponsor Festival Promoting Racism
Blacks get all of February and most of January for all that matter as they fill the time from Kwanzaa at the end of December through Martin Luther King Day and the time leading up to Black History Month. Hispanics get most of October. Now even Asians, once considered the model minority for their former tendency to provide for themselves and not expect the rest of us to fill their outstretched hands, get their own month to wallow around in what they are. As usual, the White man gets forgotten in all of this as it becomes his duty to sit there quietly and simply nod in agreement as to what a wretched human being he is.
With a goodly portion of the year given over to ethnological naval-gazing and occidental denigration, one would think even the most fanatical mulitculturalists would grow weary of all this and find another way to entertain themselves over the weekend. But in Prince George’s County, Maryland in general and in the City of Hyattsville there in particular it seems the minds of liberals are so one track they can’t ever get too much of the same thing.
The weekend of July 10, 2004, the first annual Heritage Carnival of Prince George’s County will be held to celebrate “...the culturally diverse experience of African, African American, American Indian, Brazilian, Caribbean, Filipino, Italian American, and Latin American cultures. “ For supposedly being held for the purposes of, as Municipal Liaison for the County Obie Pickney told the Gazette, “...uniting Prince George’s County as ‘one people, one community’’ most Caucasian groups --- especially those of Northern European extraction --- are conspicuously missing from the list.
In order to be “one” as county propaganda urges, don’t you have to include Whites also? After all, though we might be fewer in number than we use to be, we all haven’t died off yet. Liberal racemongers will have to wait a while longer before they can celebrate our ultimate demise and finally forget about us all together.
The dogmaticians of diversity will respond that, if we are to enjoy an age of brotherhood and understanding, we can no longer look to race or ethnicity as a source of personal value and individual identification. If we are to ever be truly equal, we must think of ourselves as human beings only.
Why, then, are those who exploit such a sentiment the most organizing a festival where certain minor cultures are deemed more worthy of celebration and study than those from which the nation’s values, institutions, and way of life actually derive? Our children, as well as ourselves, would be much better off learning about the constitutional ideals of the Founding Fathers than about how some insignificant African tribe with a name hardly anyone can pronounce shakes their boody around the camp fire.
But then that’s probably the point about holding a celebration such as the Heritage Festival. By filling our minds with entertaining trivialities, those in power hope we won’t realize what’s going on and, even more importantly, what we might be able to do to correct the situation.
Those assembling around diversity as the highest principle of social organization don’t exactly muster the keenest argumentation in defense of their questionable cultural assumptions. For example, Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson writes in support of the Heritage Festival, “Our county’s population is the most diverse of any jurisdiction, and our greatest asset.”
An area or country is not great because of its alleged diversity but in spite of it. Isn’t greatness, as Martin Luther King whom professional racialists usually just about deify noted, determined not by the color of skin but by the content of character?
Aren’t race and color just accidents of birth and do little in determining what kind of person an individual will become? Both Walter Williams and Mumia Abu-Jamal are Black; but the first happens to be one of the wittiest social and political commentators of our day and the second a skuzzy-looking cop-killer convicted of murder.
Leftwing social engineers have conditioned the American people to applaud any minority conga line coming down the pike. Maybe it’s time we stepped back and examined such volkish posturing.
Suppose for a moment there was a population of pale-skinned redheads. Should we assume it is their redheadedness that endows them with their values and skills? Should we hold pale-skinned redheaded history month and convene pale-skinned, redhead festivals since in the past pale-skinned redheads weren’t appreciated as they should have been since most of us have heard of things denigrated by likening them to redheaded stepchildren?
Seems silly, doesn’t it? Then why do we put up with such silliness when Blacks or Hispanics are involved?
Even if you lack the courage to stand up for true American ideals in this age of radical tolerance, the spineless citizen can still oppose the Heritage Festival on purely economic grounds if they have not been fully communalized into thinking their tax dollars are better off in the hands of officials with no intentions of spending them frugally or wisely.
As of August 7, 2003 back when the Festival was planned for Sept. 26-28 but was called off as a result of a hurricane mercifully sent by Providence, the City of Hyattsville designated $12,000 to help defray Heritage Festival expenses. Though I can’t really say for sure if the City council eventually reneged its position in the year ensuing the Festival‘s September cancellation, such an outlay of revenue is foolish in light of the hoopla over the municipality’s looming budget crisis.
Though property tax rates are the same this year as last, that was not decided until there was a multi-session debate where members of the police and firefighters’ union paraded their sob stories before the public access cameras of the televised meetings lamenting how their pensions would go underfunded unless conscientious residents did the civic-minded thing by agreeing to higher property assessments. Maybe if the Council made their legitimate expenditures their top fiscal priority instead of surrendering other people’s money to trendy elitist causes just to show everyone how politically correct they are and how guilty they feel about being White people, maybe they’d have enough to properly reimburse those who actually do the city’s assigned tasks. Before you put the statutory gun to my head demanding I fork over more, make sure you’ve properly spent what I have already been forced to give you.
Neither diversity, nor its accompanying heavy-handed approach to social organization made American great. Rather that is a distinction that belongs to the individuals who realized that they couldn’t expect the group or government institutions to float their boats on the seas of life.
We should not trample the memory of such valiant pioneers by patronizing a festival designed to undermine our identity as Americans while robbing us of our financial resources in order to do so. Rather the spirit of hearty individualism should be honored by keeping government sponsored activities to a minimum thus allowing the productive to retain more of what’s theirs to begin with. That would be something we could all celebrate.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick B.Meekins
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Hillary High Horse
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
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Bulldozers Prove Too Dangerous For Human Usage
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, June 05, 2004
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