In all fairness, this type of nonsense is prominent in Evangelical circles also as I remeber hearing of a similar thing going on at AWANA sporting events.
If woman not good enough to supervise youngsters at play, perhaps they ought to refuse to serve the snacks afterwards as well.
An excellent yet disturbing edition of the Albert Mohler discussing how many new houses aren't even designed with dining rooms as fewer families eating together.
This sermon goes a bit far in insinuating that to avowed the dangers of the flesh that grown daughters in their mid 20's should be sequestered at home under the control of their father's until the father permits the daughter to wed.
Almost get the impression that women are to be traded almost like commodities and all the fun and enjoyment sucked out of life.
The way these potential marriages are arranged behind the backs of the young woman with the father and would-be groom haggling as to whether or not they are suitable, maybe the two guys ought to run off together.
Throughout his time in the public limelight, Republican Mike Huckabee has made obesity awareness one of his pet issues having lost over 100 pounds himself. However, as is typical of most fanatics having come to a realization or a cause a little later in the game than most, it is not enough for them to keep what they have learned to themselves but now they are out to impose their new way of life to such an extent that they are willing to appeal to the mechanisms of the state in order to enforce their vision of reality.
As part of an initiative to combat childhood obesity, as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee implemented directives where each public school student in that state would have their weight cataloged by operatives of the educational system. From this assessment, a document similar to a report card would be generated and sent out at about the same time as the more traditional scholastic evaluation.
Those with their perceptions mired in what to them seemed more carefree times might respond, “What’s the big deal?” Perhaps they should stop and reflect for a moment.
As in the case of grades and such, once the state tabulates an individual’s weight,, it will become part of their permanent file and be used to track them for the rest of their lives. And don’t go around thinking the number will simply remain just another harmless statistic tossed into a file folder with no additional reference made to it.
In a FoxNews.com story posted 6/13/04 titled “Students To Be Graded On Weight”, the health coordinator is quoted as saying, “We’re going to know how many are overweight, how many are underweight, how many are normal weight.” It’s bad enough for the government to have such information in its possession, but it gets even worse when it serves as the basis for the implementation of concrete policies.
According to an article titled “Arkansas’ Battle Against Childhood Obesity Enters Its Second Year” posted on the website of the University Of Arkansas For Medical Sciences, at schools with a disproportionate number of obese students, “The incentives offered to students in some areas have changed from pizza or ice cream to yogurt parties or other more healthy food choices.”
Now what kid in their right mind is going to bust their hump for yogurt and carrot sticks? If that is all they have to look forward to, they might as well drag their feet and remain mired in mediocrity.
However, if readers still think this will be the only impact, they are still not waking up to the complete picture. For often with these kinds of government programs, using a carrot (an appropriate snack choice under the regimen of the food fascists) and stick approach, once the carrot has been dangled for a while, the stick is eventually brought out to whack those with a more independent streak. The director of the Arkansas Center For Health Improvement said, “We need schools, parents, and communities across the state to get onboard and become active in this effort that will make a profound difference in our children’s lives.”
These health officials might have say in how schools respond and even communities if once sees such social conglomerations as essentially under government control rather than as the organic dynamic relationships that develop uncoerced from the interaction of free people, but what if parents decide not to cooperate? One need only look at the last three words of the director’s statement to get a glimpse of where things are headed.
Unless he is referring to his own offspring when he says “our children’s lives” that statement is very revealing as to what this higher mid-level functionary is thinking. The state, ladies and gentlemen, according to this worldview, holds ultimate title to your progeny and you are merely a hired hand granted the privilege of overseeing them for a few years --- the number continuing to decrease as proponents of universal preschool and the like continue to make headway --- but who must ultimately raise them in accord with the will of the lord of the manor.
To those thinking they are so sophisticated in their moderation, don’t go dismissing with the flick of a wrist and the crinkling of a nose what I have to say. In this day and age, especially in certain Republican circles, you can pretty much get what you want by dressing it up in the name of national security or the war on terrorism.
That is exactly what Mike Huckabee has done. In comments before the Southern Governor’s association regarding what he perceives as an obesity epidemic, Huckabee said, “You’ve got a serious situation with a generation of kids coming up so unhealthy they won’t be able to pass the military physical. We keep talking about the war on terror --- who’s going to fight it if we don’t have enough people who are healthy enough to show up and pick up a backpack.”
Thus, it has finally been revealed why many government officials are feigning concern about the expanding waistlines of many Americans. They might initially start off claiming their efforts are for the purpose of increasing the expectancy and quality of life, but ultimately it is about nothing more than getting you healthy enough to die or toil for the glory of the Fatherland (or maybe rather “Homeland” as the aspiring totalitarians among us prefer to call it nowadays so much so that even Smallville producers are so frightened that they won’t speak the word preferring to call the agency “the Department of Domestic Security”).
Huckabee’s comments also reveal the kind of double standard being propagated by the ruling elites. According to Huckabee, the primary reason Americans must be compelled towards physical fitness is so that we might be able to fulfill our obligation of national service. However, it is quite obvious he exempts his own family from these expectations.
Normally, a person’s weight is the last thing I criticize as at about the age of 9 or 10 on a visit to the doctor’s office for an unrelated matter I was handed a diet plan with a rear-end of a hippopotamus splashed across it and even in Christian schools the vilest of taunts were often reserved for the overweight students. However, a man with a son the size of one of the Huckabee offspring (and the other two children don’t look like they have skipped many meals either) ought to be among the last to insinuate you are an unfit parent if your progeny happens to be bigger than Nicole Richie.
On the Drudge Report around 12/19/07 was featured a portrait of the Huckabee household. Standing behind his parents was a young man, it would not be an exaggeration to say, who was nearly as wide as his two parents put together.
Now, in this land of the free and the home of the brave, if the Huckabee spawn wants to be that big, that is his prerogative and most of the time, most of us should keep our mouths shut about it. However, I am not the presidential contender assailing the patriotism of those whose waistlines exceed the guidelines established by those implementing the New World Order.
But you see, it is not an obligation of those in the governing class such as the Huckabees to be ready at a moments notice to answer the call of the nation. Rather, that responsibility falls to you, ladies and gentleman, to hand over the lives of your children to sacrifice in wars the elites never intend to send their own children off into.
The Huckabee son is allowed to expand until his heart’s content or it bursts. Never will he have to face the embarrassment of being weighed in front of his classmates or his parents receive in the mail threatening letters on how this information was forwarded to government authorities Never will he face the embarrassment of having to be weighed in front of his classmates or his parents receive an intimidating letter in the mail from government authorities.
During the Christmas season, the media about had a coronary attempting to determine whether the intersecting boards of a bookshelf where a subliminal attempt to interject the cross into the campaign. Too bad they have not been as concerned about a plan that could potentially curtail basic liberties and bring yet another level of surveillance into the lives of the American people if applied at a national level.
by Frederick Meekins
The privacy of your own home might be one thing, but privacy in a public restroom?
Americans might be interested to know that to cross the Canadian border that the U.S. government will require them to be carrying a passport even if they have other legitimate forms of identification. However, most recall precious little is being done to stop the flow over our own borders of those with no proper reason to be here with no intentions of leaving.
Taken together, this dichotomy proves that the Orwellian notions of border security bandied about in the media and public policy circles have little to do with protecting the United States but are about controlling the American people.
These contradictions and inconsistencies not only have unsettling implications for the present but also even more startling consequences for the future.
Though not much is made about it in the mainstream press more titillated by Paris Hilton’s jailhouse fantasies, if one digs deep enough one uncovers increasing whispers about a so-called North American Union where the United States, Canada, and Mexico will be merged into a single world economic and strategic entity.
If those backing this geopolitical rearrangement are conspiring to allow millions to remain here that have no business staying as a prelude to a massive demographic realignment, kind of makes you wonder why all of a sudden elites are so eager to strengthen borders for those seeking to leave a specific jurisdiction while going out of the way to abolish them for those wanting to come in.
If the United States, Canada, and Mexico are on the verge of becoming a united continental territory while more tightly monitoring those with the intentions of returning home while doing little about those with no intentions of doing so, that can only mean that eventually if the borders between what were once sovereign independent countries are to become nothing more than the boundaries between states (or provinces it you happen to live in the land to the north), does that mean that eventually one will have to show one’s passport to cross the internal boundaries between states or provinces.
At this point in American history, such a possibility seems ludicrous since we are pretty much allowed to come and go as we please. However, police states such as the Soviet Union have been no stranger to the use of internal passports.
Some will respond, “But what does this have to do with the United States?” You’d probably be shocked to learn more than you might realize.
Following the 9/11 attack upon the United States, Charlotte Isberbyt in a number of columns posted at NewsWithViews.com titled “Former KGB Head To Help Spy On Americans” and “United States-Russian Merger: A Done Deal?” takes note of how a number of high-level administrators at the infamous Soviet security agency have been hired by our own government as consultants shuffled back and forth between various bureaucracies so as to maintain plausible deniability about having the scoundrels in any particular employ and to best share their perspectives on how to more efficiently control the population in terms of movement, travel plans, and all other sorts of activities we normally take for granted. Foremost among the proposals, Isberbyt notes, ranks internal passports (passed off to the American people under the slightly more palatable euphemism of “national identity cards” though just as odious when one considers how they will be used under the authorization of the Real ID Act).
Those lining up to come here legally, go elsewhere, or even citizens traveling within our own borders are not the ones threatening to undermine our nation nor the ones swarming here demanding we alter our way of life to suit foreign idiosyncrasies and proclivities.
By Frederick Meekins
Over the course of the past decade or so, leftist malcontents have set their ideological sites against Christmas no doubt as the holiday points to the birth of the Savior Jesus Christ who can often help or motivate the individual to work through many of their own problems without an over reliance on government aide and because many of the celebrations if not taken to extremes provide the individual with a sense of well being that undermines liberalism’s basic assumption that things are so miserable that the only hope of fixing them is handing control over to a state imbued with almost God-like powers.
Initially, many of these challenges and objections were couched in terms of the canard of the Separation of Church and State and all that other pluralistic mumbo jumbo about not offending other cultures even though the rest of us have the other cultures jammed down our throats the rest of the year to the point where if anyone objects to allowing hordes of radical Muslims or swarms of illegal aliens to settle here without question now you the one likely to be labeled a troublemaker or a threat to national security.
But now that the average American has just about enough of the efforts to banish the foundations of American culture even if they do not embrace the underlying worldview of these foundations, more crafty subversives are beginning to come out from beneath their dank rocks like cunning serpents to play on those abridgements of freedom already accepted by the good-natured but slightly dimwitted if they desire status as progressive members in good standing with the COMMUNITY.
Beloved by all but the most puritanical or revolutionary from either extreme of the socioreligious spectrum, even Santa Claus is no longer immune to postmodernist deconstruction.
In years past, some have sought to eradicate him as a symbol of the Christian ethos in which the icon either sprang up in or was grafted onto. However, rather than outright obliteration, the more crafty now want to alter his fundamental nature in such a way that most of us will no longer recognize him once our politically correct overlords have their way with him.
Those following the news first caught wind of this in a story from Australia where Santa Clauses from Downunder were forbidden from uttering “ho ho ho” because it might be “offensive to women” since other than a jolly greeting it is also slang for a woman of ill repute.
Though I’ll have to admit I have also used it as a double entede for comedic effect in a column about a strip club participating in a toy drive, frankly, if you are going to sit around and raise a fuss over this jolly phrase apparently the plight of women is so good here in the civilized lands of the West that there is nothing left to complain about.
As a recent country song laments there was a time when “a hoe was just a hoe.” The rest of us should not have to be punished because of the success of the Jerry Spinger and Maury Povich Shows in popularizing ghetto slang in the broader culture.
Most probably just stand back and scratch their heads at that one. However, the jolly old elf is now threatened by a new campaign those conditioned to blindly accept what those in lab coats and carrying clipboards will have a more difficult time countering.
Inherent to his accepted appearance along with his thick white beard and usually velvety suit is that Santa is renowned for being a bit on the stout or pleasingly plump side. However, in the attempt to pressure us all into being malnourished little minions of the New World Order, those now running a number of these agencies, regardless of whether or not the government even hold such influence, have declared war against Santa Claus.
The U.S. Surgeon General said in an interview to the Boston Globe, “It is really important that the people who kids look up to as role models are in good shape, eating well, and getting exercise.”
All Americans --- just not parents with children of Santa believing age --- should step back for a moment and cogitate upon this magistrate’s pronouncement. This statement not only applies to an icon trotted out once per year; for if the statement is taken to its logical conclusion it could be applied to anyone a little thick around the middle.
Should Oprah trot back up the scale again, does that mean she must forfeit much of her influence and stop playing her new role as “False Prophet” to Obama’s “Psuedo-Messiah”? More importantly, if this size bias continues to percolate, will there come a day when those deemed as overweight will be forced out of prestigious careers or professions? Even worse, will overweight parents lose visitation rights in divorce proceedings or even have children snatched from the home all together?
Furthermore, if the Surgeon General is going to come out against the impropriety of obese Santas, why doesn’t he also come out against supposed role models exhibiting other behaviors deleterious to health?
For example, if the obese are to be banished as role models, does this mean the same should be done about the sexually promiscuous in the media. Teens and adults, I think, would be more prone to emulate provocative behavior of that fashion since all physically healthy folks have lots more urges pushing them in that direction than a pre-school child would to want to look like Santa Claus who will just be an innocent playful memory too soon enough in a few fleeting years.
It seems the gift some could use the most this Christmas season is a little bit of good old fashioned common sense.
By Frederick Meekins
If she wasn't pale and blonde, I wonder if as much fuss would have been made.
With immigrant gangs taking over so much of the continent that that even police are afraid to go into some cities, I think Europe may have bigger things to worry about.
In his examination of the decision of a California diocese to sever ties with the Episcopal Church, Albert Mohler argues that the only justifiable reasons to leave a church are over doctrinal matters or ministry opportunities.
Therefore, according to this theologian, if your church that use to play hymns changes to ear-shattering rock music, you as a member are required to stay there.
Also, as one of those pushing marriage on the young, I wonder how he squares that with mandating single young adults stay in a congregation where there are very few to pick from with most of the members being septugenarians.
In Matthew 10:16, Christians are admonished to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. Often though, Christian organizations and ministries are the ones at the forefront of propagating the expectation in the mind of their respective supporters that sincere believers are --- in the words of the Washington Post --- to be uneducated and easy to command.
The Angel Tree Project is a program administered by Prison Fellowship Ministries where Christmas gifts are provided to the children of the incarcerated on behalf of their parents. While there is nothing wrong per say with such acts of charity even though Prison Fellowship mouthpieces such as Chuck Colson get heavy-handed at times that it is somehow the fault of the average American that these misunderstood souls are behind bars and that these convicts are the 21st century equivalent of Rousseau’s noble savage or somehow on par with Mother Teresa in terms of moral goodness as detailed in my column “A Big Helping Of Christmas Guilt” published in 2003, one way in which this charitable outreach markets itself to the broader Christian community might make some of Colson’s fellow Watergate conspirators blush in terms of its duplicity and slight of hand.
One of the techniques organizations across the religious and political spectrum use to get the unsuspecting and gullible to part with their hard earned money is direct mail fundraising where pity party letters are sent out laying the guilt on recipients that somehow if they do not respond with the requested contribution that the world is somehow going to come to an end. With such melodrama, the least one could ask for is at least a little consistency.
For the past several years and I offer as evidence the letters sent out in 2006 and 2007, though what prompted me to retain the 2006 letter in the first place was its startling similarity to the 2005 letter, that are worded almost identically each of these years. What’s the big deal, some may ask, as direct mail fundraising efforts don’t come cheap as those composing such epistles can command up to six figure salaries according to a classified employment ad that use to run in Human Events.
Maybe so, but for that price one should be able to get a letter where the errors and convenient oversights are not so easy to spot for the reader who has not left their discernment at the church house door as many have been conditioned to do in this age where it is assumed the statements made by Evangelical superstars are somehow above the scrutiny of we mere mortals.
Both letters center around the plight of an inmate named Richard --- the whys of his incarceration are conveniently omitted as most citizens of good conscience are usually adverse to the sob stories of ax murderers or serial rapists --- who contacted Prison Fellowship in the hopes of getting the Angel Tree Project to provide his daughter with a Christmas present. It is at this point the letters begin to breakdown.
The 2006 edition of the letter reads, “When he wrote this letter, Richard had not been able to send Jennifer a gift for four years.” In the 2007 edition of the letter, it reads, “When he wrote this letter, Richard had not been able to send Emily a gift for four years.”
So who is it? Is Richard’s daughter Emily or Jennifer?
If Richard has two daughters, when why isn’t that mentioned in the letter? Furthermore, why from one year to the next is the impression created that Emily and Jennifer are the same child?
Accompanying the more formal direct mail fundraising request was what looked to be a letter written by the convict mentioned in the letter. In both notes Richard writes, “For I haven’t been able to give her nothing for 4 years and I still have 9 years left.”
Which is it? If in 2006, Richard had not been able to give his daughter anything for four years with there being nine years left of his sentence, in 2007 wouldn’t he have not given his daughter a present in five years with eight years remaining on his sentence? I know jailbirds don’t usually have reputations as scholastic superstars, but it doesn’t take much mathematical aptitude to arrive at that piece of ciphering properly.
The minds of many are so clouded that they will probably be glad to accept just about anything they are told by the Evangelical celebrati. One might even give the benefit of the doubt that maybe the inmate has two children. However, there is one touch to the notes that goes beyond excusableness.
On the back of each of the hand written notes is a picture of a young girl. If the image of a child is to be used to elicit a sympathetic response in the hearts and minds of potential benefactors, shouldn’t marketers have the decency to use a different urchin each year? Is the girl on the letter Jennifer or Emily; for all we know she might be a child not even related to any of the parties in question even though the photo is passed off as such.
Though they mean well, the Breakpoint commentaries produced by Prison Fellowship Ministries have a tendency to make you feel guilty if one enjoys something less than highbrow culture. The very least the organization can do is to aspire to the same level of quality and excellence in the way it decides to raise funds.
by Frederick Meekins
Though the talking head has apologized for his remarks, I wonder if such words would be as easily dismissed if the youngster had made them against the celebrity.
So we remove corporeal punishment and now bring in the police because order cannot be maintained in our nation's classrooms.
On an episode of South Park taking aim at the airline industry, Mr. Garrison (still a man at that point) invented a mode of transportation where riders had to have a metal prod inserted into their backsides in order to avoid falling off the vehicle. The response of those enduring such discomfort and humiliation was that it was still less than what passengers had to endure at the airport. While the bit might have been a bit over the top in terms of propriety, it was pretty much on target in terms of how most Americans feel regarding the bureaucratic procedures implemented in the name of “transportation security” since September 11th.
As fairly good natured people content with the social order even if they don’t like the way the process is handled, most Americans deciding to utilize this form of transportation simply keep their comments to themselves and bear with the frustration. However, according to a McClatchy newspapers article titled “New Airport Check For Danger In Fliers’ Facial Expressions“, it may no longer be enough to stoically endure these indignations but one must also have a smile on one’s face about it.
A new specialty within the Transportation Security Administration known as Behavior Detection Officers (one could not devise a more Orwellian sounding division of the government if one tried) has been given the mandate to scrutinize those exhibiting unapproved facial expressions
If proponents of the theory get their way, certain facial expressions revealing whether an individual is feeling anger or disgust and, when taken together with heart rate, body temperature, and verbal responses, will be enough to get passengers shunted aside for further forms of interrogation such as having their baggage rifled through or being asked where they are going.
While one may make a case as to why some voyeur with a badge may need to run his hand through your underwear bag, beyond the destination on the ticket it is no security officer’s business where anyone is going. Frankly, such intrusions into private affairs are enough to get anyone’s heart rate rising and a look of disgust scowling across their brow.
Though this technology is promoted as a way to make terrorism prevention more foolproof, from comments made as to its accuracy, it sounds as if it will be yet another tool to curtail the liberties of everyday Americans while doing little to catch real terrorists. The article notes, “Different cultures express themselves differently.”
In other words, 86 year old grandmothers holding their heads a certain way as they are ordered to hold their arthritic arms over their heads will get pulled aside for additional harassment even if they don’t make a single peep. However, if certain minorities more prone to violent geopolitical outbursts comport themselves in the same manner it can be dismissed with a “that’s just the way those people are anyway”.
If the government is intent on stopping terrorism, there are signs to look for other than whether or not people have a giddy brainwashed look on their face. However, since political correctness has been deemed more important than survival, it is doubtful this great nation will survive much longer anyway.
by Frederick Meekins
Just as old episodes of Sesame Street are now being classified as adult entertainment because Oscar the Grouch use to smoke a pipe, I guess eventually a big fuss will be made about Jabba the Hutt for being mordidly obese.
Students to pay nearly $500 to pay for the privilege of being tracked by authorities.
PID Radio interviews prophecy researcher Terry James who ties together UFO's, Bigfoot and the End Times in a new fiction series.
In most science fiction stories, extraterrestrial technology is unveiled to the world when it is piloted to earth by proverbial little green men or bug eyed monsters. However, in Saucer, Stephen Coonts presents a scenario where man’s initial exposure to a civilization from beyond the earth does not occur overhead but rather from beneath our feet.
In Saucer, Coonts details the account of a spacecraft unearthed in the Sahara desert and the international intrigue that results as various nations conspire to acquire the vehicle from an egomaniacal Australian industrialist.
Though the novel focuses primarily on the actions of the factions jockeying to acquire the saucer, Coonts brings up a number of intriguing questions that he raises even if he does not answer them directly.
Scattered throughout the novel are a number of comments examining the philosophical ramifications of evidence suggesting life beyond this earth.
Some seem to be more the opinions of the characters themselves. For example, in discussing the saucer with the President, an advisor says, “You have to do something about these saucers. The Bible thumpers were freaking out yesterday...Already some evangelicals say we are at the end of the world. In Revelation...” The passage continues: “’All right, all right’ the President said, cutting Willard off. He hated it when people quoted the Bible (166).”
Other comments are made as well regarding the epistemological ramifications of extraterrestrials. One character remarks, “The college professor says it is time to acknowledge the presence of other life-forms in the universe. The religious types are going nuts. There’s a mob of a thousand or so across the street in Lafayette Park, waving signs and making speeches talking about the imminent arrival of the Antichrist (187).” An advisor to the President responds, “This is another rightwing conspiracy.”
Such an exchange adequately reflects the dismissive and condescending attitude secularists would enunciate concerning the reaction of religious conservatives to nonhuman intelligent life. However, it is through the more altruistic protagonists that one must consider that Coonts is elaborating his own convictions regarding this highly speculative topic.
If so, the reader is led to believe Coonts is predisposed to the theory of panspermia, the idea life came to earth from outer space. According to the novel, the saucer was flown to earth by beings not all that considerably different than ourselves in terms of appearance or physiology.
Rather, the craft was sent here as part of a mission the occupants knew was a one way trip because a society complex enough to produce a vehicle capable of interstellar travel would have to transport nearly its entire civilization if the occupants hoped to replicate the accomplishments of their home world not to mention being able to make a return trip (195).
But even some wanting to get out from under God’s direct gaze still long for an origin a bit more meaningful than slime oozing up onto some rock even though a number of them still can’t seem to break free from the grip evolution has over the minds of those predisposed to a more mechanistic explanation.
When asked if humanity’s arrival from among the stars discounted the perceived legitimacy of the fossil record, Professor Soldi (the character brought forward to make the grandiose pronouncements pertaining to man’s place in the cosmos) responds that even though mankind might have replaced the earth’s original hominid occupants there is no need to worry that the entire Darwinian enterprise being one colossal scam since, to invoke the tautologies for which this theory of origins is noted “..evolution follows similar courses when similar conditions exist (270).” Basically, even though man might have moved in from elsewhere and never arose from the apes found here, we should still accept the scant fossil evidence that is claimed to exist anyway.
Yet this plot element raises more questions than it solves. For example, if mankind did not originate on earth but rather on another planet, who’s to say humanity originated from this proverbial planet X either but rather having migrated from planet Y or Z as the human race plays interstellar flip this house skipping from planet to planet across the cosmos. Apparently, Coonts doesn’t have that high of an opinion of the cosmological argument. For not only does the origin of man stem back through a potentially unending regression of planets, Coonts tosses in a bit of Eastern mysticism as well.
Apart from the saucer’s hardware, especially valuable is the spacecraft’s computer which contains more than directions on how to operate a flying saucer. Believed to unlock nearly infinite knowledge, one character asks another character that accessed the database through the telepathic interface how the universe ends, Coonts writes, “ ‘It will be reborn,’ Egg Cantrell told her, ‘again and again and again....’ (311).”
Overall, Saucer by Stephen Coonts is a very engaging book. The action will titillate the reader’s sense of adventure while speculation about man’s place in the universe will intrigue the imagination even if one does not accept the worldview underlying it.
by Frederick Meekins
With what the naive considered the end of the Cold War and the fall of Communism, it was assumed the world would become a much safer and more peaceful place. Nothing could be farther from the truth as the danger has increased since the alleged demise of the Soviet Union. In Providing For The Common Defense: Thoughts Concerning The Nation‘s Enemies, political thinker and social theorist Frederick Meekins examines a number of these threats and exposes a number of the deceptions lulling Americans into a false sense of security.
Granted, while they did emphasize that the woman could theoreticaly get out of the house, the made it known that it was up to the church to decide whether or not the couple was to remain together.
If the woman (or the man for that matter) is required to remain with such a scumbag of a spouse at least technically on paper, what is to protect the credit rating and finances of the innocent party since usually the debt incurred by one mate is also to be shouldered by the other.
Frankly, while one spouse for life is an ideal worth aiming for, I am not so sure I want a church body exercising that much control over my life or that of my loved ones.
by Frederick meekins
Libertines (not libertarians mind you) will snap how dare you get into other people's private lives.
Maybe so, but their fornication stopped being a private matter when the rest of us had to start digging into out pockets to pay for it.
In classical Lutheran theology and homiletics, a two part approach is often taken referred to as Law and Gospel. For it is through this dynamic duo that the individual is made to realize that he is a sinner in need of salvation and what the solution is for this vexing dilemma.
In old detective movies and police shows, when a suspect was interrogated often a tactic was used referred to as “good cop/bad cop”. In this approach, the suspect is at first confronted by a seemingly harsh officer whose task is to bluntly tell the suspect what the suspect is alleged to have done, that the evidence as to such is overwhelming, and that the best thing the suspect can do for their own sake is to confess to what they have done. Once the suspect has been worked over psychologically, the good officer arrives on the scene to offer the best deal possible in terms of the suspect’s interests in exchange for cooperation.
Though the analogy is not perfect, one can roughly think of the Law as the bad cop and Gospel as the good cop.
Used of the Holy Spirit, the purpose of the Law according to John 16:8 is to reprove of sin, righteousness, and judgment. As the codified precepts of a just and holy God, the Law represents the standards we are expected to adhere to but they also serve as a reminder of just how pitifully short we fall as a result of our own sin natures. Romans 7:7 says, “Indeed, I would not have known what sin was except through the law.”
Despite reflecting the goodness of God and the embodiment of the ideal by which man was intended to live, since man is in such a wretched state before he is regenerated, the Law actually points out to us the extent of our sin. Romans 7:10 says, “I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.” Of this predicament, Paul writes in Romans 7:22-24, “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?”
Fortunately, God does not leave us in despair and the consequences of failing to keep His law in its entirety. And that is why this hope is called the good news or the Gospel.
The Gospel is succinctly summarized by I Corinthians 15:3-4, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” And whereas the Law requires that the individual must fulfill its every requirement if that is the contract through which one wants to seek entrance into the Kingdom of God (something no mortal human being could possibly hope to accomplish since to break one aspect of the Law is to break all of the Law according to James 2:10), under the terms of the Gospel, all that is required in terms of salvation is for one to believe on Jesus and be saved.
It is tempting to draw sharp distinctions between these concepts as diametrically opposed approaches. It must be remembered they are more like a team working together to cause the individual to realize that he is in need of a Savior, and once saved the principles behind the Law can prevent liberty from degenerating into license. Christ says in Matthew 5 “Think not that I come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
by Frederick Meekins
In the BBC series Hex, in the last season viewers were essentially given an interpreration of the Antichrist as a high school teen.
Though it's not quite the same, students at one British secondary school, according to a Yahoo News story, are getting a taste of what it will be like to live under that fabled tyrant's heal as a pilot program is being tested where uniforms have been fitted with RFID transmitters.
by Frederick Meekins
As the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell at one time (whether deservedly or not) had a reputation as a voice of sober realism in the arena of American foreign policy. However, as he ages and heads into his sunset years, he is so increasingly muttering to himself about assorted forms of appeasement that he is coming to remind the citizen cognizant of the efforts to undermine this great nation more of Neville Chamberlain than as a soldier the statesman most perceived him to be throughout the early 90’s.
During the 1930’s, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed a pact with Adolf Hitler granting the German tyrant Czechoslovakia as part of what Nazi doctrine referred to as Lebensarum or “Living Space”. For his part of this deal, Chamberlain has from that point forward pretty much been branded a coward for thinking such a policy would appease aspiring despots and those out to undermine individual liberty.
As disappointing as he was, at least it was some lesser power’s real estate Chamberlain was giving away. For today, his globalist descendants are such proponents of policide that they are no longer content to carve up the helpless corners of the earth but rather long to dismantle the strong nation-states in which they themselves reside in the hopes of accruing more power into their own hands and control over the lives of those under them.
Like the Pan-Germanists of previous eras seeking to expand their territorial claims into adjacent holdings, the Hispanosupremacists of today seek to infiltrate the United States in the hopes of subverting this geopolitical prize away from its primarily Northern European cultural base. And to the elites, since one group of slaves is pretty much the same as the other, many wishing to expand their power have decided to back these migrants as a way to bring about the end of the middle class and to reduce living standards to Third World levels.
As one of its most prominent mouthpieces and charismatic members, Colin Powell is reported as saying in a September 10, 2007 post on the USAToday.com On Politics Blog titled “Colin Powell: Terrorists Are Not The Greatest Threat To Nation” as saying, “America could not survive without immigration. Even the undocumented immigrants are contributing to our economy...That is the image we have to portray to the world: kind, generous, a nation of nations...That’s what people still want to believe about us... We’ve lost a bit of the image...And we can fix the image by reflecting a welcoming attitude and not by taking counsel of our fears and scaring ourselves to death that everybody coming in is going to blow up something.”
In other words, tolerance and diversity are more important than safety and survival. That is rather easy for someone probably with their own security detail to say.
Often concerns about immigration are couched in terms of preventing terrorism as often Americans have been so browbeaten in the name of preventing racism and the like that they are too afraid to raise other issues that hit even closer to home. For example, in his propaganda, Powell waxes on and on how America could not survive without illegal aliens referred to by the former warrior with the coward’s euphemism “undocumented immigrants”. One must ask if Mr. Powell would be as beaming about this demographic trend if it was his own standard and quality of living on the line.
For example, as a political superstar, Powell demands speaking fees of around $200,000 as he was paid in 2001 for a speech at Tufts University. How would Powell feel if orators were imported from abroad just as pivotal to events of the 20th and 21st centuries as he has been, just as entertaining, but who were willing to impart their perspective for considerably less? Are you going to tell me Powell is not going to want his standard of living protected if this is the only way he knows how to make a living?
Bigshots such as Powell do not care if property values are driven down or neighborhoods made less desirable by piling four or five families into single family homes with Mariachi music blaring well after midnight accompanied by conversation in a foreign tongue spoken so loudly that it sounds as if people are shouting it back and forth at each other across the Rio Grande.
One reader posted the following comment on the USAToday.com website about the article: “I think General Powell should publish his own social security number and let it be stolen by an illegal alien. Let his children be mugged, raped, and robbed by an undocumented worker. Let his neighborhood be overrun by flophouses with 45 people in one house and 15 stolen cars. Let his family members be killed by an unlicensed undocumented illegal drunk. Let his military retirement pay be taken from him and given to someone that did not earn it. It is amazing a man who supposedly respects federal law is encouraging the actions of those who violate our laws. Powell has been losing it since the Iraq War, but now he is total lunatic.”
America is, as they say, at a crossroads. Though a minimal level of human rights must be respected at all times, as a whole the nation must decide whether it wants to appear nice by the standards of grubby bums pandering for a handout or it can survive. Attempting to pursue both paths is an option whose time has about run out.
by Frederick Meekins
In an episode of Futurama that delt primarily with downloading piracy, it was also suggested that in the future the prospect of human robot intimate relationships might be a bit of a moral problem.
Particulary humorous was the line in a health film endorsed by the Space Pope that all of cilization was an attempt to impress the opposite sex.
If allowed to go to far, this could very well become a problem because faced with the choice between a nagging wife and one that can be programmed to keep its mouth shut, who wouldn't be tempted if all other responses seemed the same?
And don't think this would be a male only temptation; what woman wouldn't want a man that could be programmed to hand over the remote or put the toliet seat down as demanded?
by Frederick Meekins
Those thinking of adopting a dog from an animal shelter should really think twice if they want the grief, as from this story about Ellen Degneres, it seems you may not be the one to ultimately decide what is in the pet's best interests.
Before going on a fact-finding mission to Talladega Motor Speedway, congressional staff were directed to get immunized against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, tetanus, diphtheria and influenza.
One must stop and ask would such a suggestion been made had the fans of NASCAR not been White Southerners but rather illegal aliens, the homless, and practicing homosexuals.
One is more likely to find these diseases epidemic among these more politically protected classes.
But since these are the ones more likely to rampage through the streets in violent protest or more likely to drag you into court if you don't applaud their particular lifestyles, nothing is dare said to warn the American people of the more likely source of these pandemics.
By Frederick Meekins
The ethics of organ donation aside, interesting how this borderline apostate ecclesiastical body takes a laizee faire attitude among its ranks when it comes to abortion and even sodomites in the pulpit but now like a bunch of salivating vampires and zombies foment the notion that even our very organs are no longer ours alone but belong to the COMMUNITY.
Where are the keep your laws off our bodies banshees now?
An excellent essay by Albert Mohler on the importance of libraries, both public and personal. in the life of the scholastically inclined believer.
On a related note, though probably little more than a tool for the Department of Homeland Security to keep tabs on what you read, here is a collection of books I have posted on an interesting website called Shelfari.com.
From the account of Jenna Bush's marriage proposal, one almost has the impression that she is sleeping around, shacking up, and living in sin.
Simple minds apparently can't seem to grasp that this genius could have been happy yet sad all at the same time and seem intent on pinning him down to one emotional pole.
Interesting how the rest of us are suppose to procreate ourselves into the poorhouse while Mohler enjoys a jet-set lifestyle and only two kids.
While his advice on debt is to be commended, I don't think he fully realizes just how expensive a bear minimum existence is these days.
Often in the attempt to get their way, children threaten to hold their breath or refuse to eat until their parents agree to meet their demands. Usually, nothing much comes of it as most youngsters don’t have the will to resist the sway of their base appetites and most normally outgrow such juvenile displays as skills are acquired to navigate conflicts in a more rational manner or they learn to make peace with what they cannot change,
Of contrived social environments, among the most artificial and detached from reality is the college campus. Either as a result of having never matured as tends to be the case of many drawn to certain useless fields of study or the result of deliberate psychological regression on the part of academic faculty, a number of young adults often return to such behaviors during their college years.
Instead of employing the skills and knowledge they are sent to college to acquire such as communication and analysis that can be used to make the world a better place, some of those persuaded that they are so far beyond the rest of us along the continuum of enlightenment that they are not bound by the same set of expectations imposed upon the rest of us resort to behavior not all that much more advanced (and certainly less justifiable) then when they were toddlers.
Increasingly, protestors are coming to contend that it is not enough that they be given the opportunity to express their opinion as provisions have been made under the First Amendment so that they might be able to persuade the masses as to the correctness of their position. Rather, they contend it is the obligation of those of us on the other side of the political spectrum to not only listen to their ramblings and also to keep our own mouths shut if we happen to disagree.
To draw attention to the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act that would extend education handouts to illegal aliens, a group of largely Latino students went on a hungerstrike. In commenting on the foolish extremes to which some will go to coerce handouts from the American taxpayer, broadcast sage Michael Savage remarked, “Let them fast until they starve to death.”
For daring to say such, tolerancemongers have latched onto the remarks as an example as to why free speech needs to be abolished in favor of a system of regulations under the euphemism of “fairness” where nothing will make it onto the airwaves without first gaining the approval of leftwing subversives and moral degenerates. .
Recently in a column titled “Dark Ages Of Broadcasting Loom On The Horizon”, I warned that the conniption over the blather of Don Imus was merely the opening gambit in a stratagem where enthusiastic disagreement with the prevailing postmodernist orthodoxy will eventually be met with the same disapproval and censure as crude off-color comments. It would be easy to dismiss such a claim as an exaggeration since political speech is suppose to be protected by the First Amendment.
However, to a growing number of relativists, such legal niceties and moral courtesies apply only to those furthering the cause of the revolution. As such, one apparatchik from the San Jose Peace Center (a probable socialist front group) told the Mercury News in a 7/13/07 article titled “Student Protestors Want Talk-Show Host Savage Fired” that, “the airwaves should be reclaimed and the public shouldn’t be exposed to someone who spews hate speech.”
According to one shyster on the payroll of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle in a July 13, 2007 story titled “Immigrant Advocates Demand Radio Station Fire Host For Remarks”, Savage’s comments were as offensive as those made by Don Imus. In other words, Savage’s remarks are not even worthy of public consideration and debate.
However, upon closer reflection, Savage’s recommendation is the most rational policy to pursue in dealing with such malcontents and subversives. When dealing with hungerstrikers, they be allowed to starve to death? As free individuals, they themselves are the ones that have decided to deny themselves nutritional sustenance.
Ironically, these very same radicals have no problem with women who decide to have their unborn children hacked to pieces all in the name of the principle of having control over one’s own body. Then why are they getting all flustered about one individual endorsing the ultimate outcome of those deciding to make certain decisions regarding what they plan to do with their bodies. After all, unlike abortion, the only person harmed through self-imposed starvation is the person refusing to eat.
Though any hint of silencing those we disagree with is a political outrage an affront to the First Amendment and the greater truth that this statutory provision that the right to speak one’s mind is granted by God and by no human government, almost as disturbing is the assumption of those supporting the activists that the demands of the hungerstrikers should automatically be appeased. For in condemning Dr. Savage’s comments, one is saying one must do whatever is necessary to prevent hungerstrikers from starving themselves to death, and since it would be wrong to force nutrition on someone as the abortion and homosexual rights rackets have pounded into our heads relentlessly the impropriety of forcing a moral decision upon someone else’s body..
Just to what extent must society acquiesce to the demands of those threatening to starve themselves? For example, if a gaggle of Klansmen (or Klookies as they were referred to in Fletch Lives) threatened to go on a hungerstrike unless Separate but Equal was reenshrined as the law of the land, does that mean those opposing their foolish demands are hateful and insensitive and thus unworthy of the Freedom of Speech?
Others condemned Savage for likening the hungerstrikers to terrorists. But when you look at it, such a classification is not that far off target.
Though the September 11th attack brought terrorism to the forefront of the public’s attention, it also created the impression that in order to qualify for such a designation that the act in question had to involve massive loss of life and a catastrophic destruction of property. For since then, it seems officials simply refuse to apply the label to incidents smaller in scale such as when a lunatic shot up an Israeli ticket counter at an LA airport on July 4, 2002.
It use to be taught and accepted that terrorism was the use or threat of violence to achieve political ends. Though the only ones threatened with actual bodily harm are the hungerstrikers themselves, if those threatening to do themselves harm think we have some kind of ethical obligation to meet their demands, how is this all that different than what the terrorists expect if liberals claim their is no distinction between the harm inflicted upon the innocent and the harm fanatics might inflict upon themselves?
As a strategy, few tactics are as asinine as starving oneself. For only the most spineless are going to make a fuss and go out of their way to save an adversary willing to do themselves in.
by Frederick Meekins
Why not make it a crossover with Harm and Mac as the lawyers.
Despite their inherent stuffiness, one does not usually have to worry about conservative Lutherans such as those in the Missouri Synod falling for too many of the fads constantly popping up in the contemporary Protestant world.
Though conducted in the form of an open discussion, one gets the impression that the idea gaining momentum in the church probably thanks to Albert Mohler constantly beating this drum (one wonders if for no other reason to spread the misery) that the truly devout wed at an early age may be seeping into the propaganda organs of this denomination such as Issues Etc, a prominent LMS radio program..
Rather than counseling single Christians to wed earlier or later, shouldn’t both parents and clergy counsel those in their spiritual circle of influence to marry wiser?
For some, this may mean wedding early if they are so blessed; for some, this may mean waiting beyond that which is the accepted social norm.
Proverbs 21:9 says “[It is] better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” Replacing the word “woman” with “man” is no less valid as the essential meaning of this verse is that you are better off alone and miserable than married and miserable.
Relatedly, why should a Christian that has kept themselves from physical temptation have to settle for a secondhand partner that's already been around the block a few times if that is not what they want?
Often the hyperpious couch their support of early matrimony in terms of those postponing marriage are simply greedy.
But I ask, how can any young person seeking to earn their own way in life afford property tax bills pushing the $4000 per year mark in large part to pay for welfare programs to feed the offspring of those unable to keep their pants on or to buy a house nearly $400,000 that is less than 1000 square feet? Furthermore, why should they also have to settle for rundown apartments with a dozen people (none of which can speak a lick of English) piled in next door or running an unlicensed apothecary if you get my meaning?
If one wants to advocate a Biblical position on this matter, other than warning about the natural urge for carnal relations outside marriage that any healthy person has to deal with, one pretty much has to step aside and mind one’s own business as the Bible I read seems to admit that marriage is both perhaps life’s greatest joy and yet its biggest pain in the rear.
by Frederick Meekins
As usual, the Swansonites start off with good intentions but end up way off the mark some point in the show.
For example, in the 9/20/07 broadcast about media in the home, a number of good points are brought up about how music often has a greater impact on the formation of a child’s morals than parents these days.
However, things go a bit astray around the five minute mark when the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew are bashed as subversive and undermining of good character because these depict life as an engaging adventure rather than as grueling labor.
I think Swanson might have enjoyed the socialist realism of the Stalinist era where most heroes were depicted as laborers undertaking grueling toil for the good of the COMMUNITY.
Ironically, though there seems to be little difference between Nancy Drew and Paris Hilton in the eyes of this theonomist broadcaster, he then turns around and interviews Patch the Pirate.
Though Patch the Pirate is used to introduce numerous children to Christian values, if fundamentalists are going to make such a big deal over Harry Potter and now even the Hardy Boys, where is this highly vaunted sense of separation when it comes to “touching no unclean thing” when it comes to buccaneers and picaroons?
For even though one must admit that pirates have an inherent coolness and appeal to them in how they are depicted in literature and media, weren’t they essentially the carjackers and terrorists of the Age of Sail?
Thus, if Harry Potter is out of bounds because, according to Scripture, there is no such thing as a good witch despite the snippets of redeemable content dropped here and there in Rowlings questionable spiritual brew, than how can there be such a thing as a good pirate to those that wish to extend this stridency to the world of the imagination as well?
By Frederick Meekins
I wonder if the young skulls full of mush, as Rush Limbaugh use to call srudents, will greet the president of Iran with the reception as they did the Minute-Man project at Columbia Univeristy.
Seems to me that John Kerry protestor was tazed for considerably less disruption.
While hanging nooses isn't nice, how can it even compare to actually attempting to murder someone?
Would Rev. Jackson and his rabblerousers want a group of Whites let off the hook that attempted to kill a Black kid even if other Blacks had provoked the Whites?
Though there are a number of helpful observations in this broadcast of Generations Radio such as how many of the regulations in private schools are not so much about building character as about building dutiful statist minions, Rev. Swanson once again takes things too far in claiming that the genders should be segregated in a classroom setting since they are by nature a distraction to one another and inhibit learning.
I, on the other hand, posit that isn't learning to keep this distraction in check one of the most important lessons on has to learn in order to eventually function in society?
For example, if a young man does not learn how to do this in his teenage years, isn't he going to be an unproductive wreck in the workplace or is it that once this idiosyncrasy of the theonomist right is implemented that the next big rallying cry will be that females must be barred from the workplace since they are a distraction in the office as well.
One hates to raise the Taliban metaphor as it is often overdone, but when you hear this kind of stuff you are almost prone to wonder when are they going to start calling for burqas and the painting over of windows.
I also find it highly ironic that these very same people calling for the elimination of mixed education are the very same ones that insinuate you are some kind of pervert or deviant if you are not married by the age of 22.
If not in school, where are you suppose to meet anyone? Knowing these people, probably through practices bordering on arranged marriages.
by Frederick Meekins
Settles once and for all one of the biggest lies of all time the crock that women don't care about looks.
Around the 55 minute mark of the 9/17/07 sermon by the Pastor of Arlington in the suburbs of Baltimore, Md, it is argued that congregants have an obligation to feed and board missionaries.
Frankly, is motel 6 not good enough anymore.
This guilt trip is layed on in part to convince members to house missionaries during a mission's conference.
Unless one wants to reembrace certain aspects of Roman Catholicism, Christian workers are no more important than the rest of us.
In his homily, he goes on about the need of six familes to step forward to house them.
But with two pastors on staff, a Christian school attached to the church, and who knows how many deascons, I find it interesting how the burden is farmed out on us common folks viewed little better as stupid hicks the rest of the time.
by Frederick Meekins
Something sinister is afoot in the land when law enforcement is permitted to zap someone for merely asking inconvenient questions, one of which was what law did the victim actually break, while a new policy is being put into place in the U.S. prison system where jailers may taser incarcerated Americans with impunity while they are to refrain from doing so to detained illegal aliens in a move to placate Hispanosupremacists.
Law and order types will argue that the kid at the John Kerry speech got what was coming to him.
If so, I then ask how come at campuses across the country are radicals allowed to heckle Conservative speakers with impunity such as the time Dan Flynn of Accuracy In Academia was hooted down when discussing the Mumia Abu-Jamal case or whenever the Minute Men gather at a university to rationally discuss border security?
And perhaps most interesting of all, do note how police did not move in until the valiant questioner mustered the courage to ask about Illuminati recruiter the Skull and Bones Society.
by Frederick Meekins
Has been my experience that those with the most miserable marriages are the ones that push marriage the most on single adults.
As such, as much as he gripes about the trend of people wedding later in life, makes you wonder how things must be in the Albert Mohler household as he once again rehashes this theme.
Wonder how long until he losers his charm and becomes a wifebeater?
Contrary to the lazy-man's version of Flash Gordon now on the Sci-Fi channel that utilizes a whitetrash version of the Stargate to teleport between worlds, this one proves a rocketship is an integral part of the Flash Gordon mystique.
As a narrative form driven considerably by adversarial conflict, in science fiction a good story must have a villain just as interesting (sometimes even more so) than the primary hero or protagonist. As one of the archetypes from which much popular “space opera” is derived, Flash Gordon did much to perfect this template in the form of villains such as Ming the Merciless.
Part of the appeal of such characters in these contexts is that neither hero nor villain usually allow pressures short of overwhelming force influence the types of things either believed should be stood up for even if it happened to be their own lust for power or megalomania. However, had the original Flash Gordon been saddled with the same politically correct sensitivities as those weighing down the creativity of writers and producers of today, it is doubtful the character would have achieved name recognition as an icon of popular culture nearly on par with Superman and if he had been a real interplanetary swashbuckler our planet would have been laid to waste by Mongo long ago.
Though the series did not premiere until 8/10/07, considerably prior to that airdate publicists and producers had already fanned out across the Internet wringing their hands in an almost Phil Donahue-I-feel-so-guilty-to-be-an-American manner as to why it was necessary to alter the appearance of Ming the Merciless. For you see, in most interpretations, Ming is depicted with a Fu Manchu mustache and the flowing robes of an oriental despot.
Since the 1980’s or there abouts, Ming has become decreasingly Asian in his appearance to the point in a 1996 version of Flash Gordon he was no longer humanoid at all but rather reptilian. The reason often given is the need to avoid racial stereotyping (I wonder that the herpetological and animals rights lobbies have to say about lizards being depicted in such a light then).
Interestingly, this concern is only invoked when it benefits minorities. For example, in publicity shots on the SciFi.com website, rather than flowing robes or even a cape, the Emperor of Mongo is rather depicted in a more militaristic looking ensemble.
Furthermore, not only are all but the visually impaired able to ascertain that the actor portraying the role is blond but in the accompanying text, which is longer for Ming than any of the other characters as it goes on and on apologizing how Ming looked previously throughout comic book and cinematic history, closes by pointing out that the actor playing the part is blond.
Often, we have it so beaten into our heads that we aren’t even to think about race or physical characteristics that I was condemned up one side and down the other for criticizing a version of the Honeymooners featuring Black actors, which most other Americans didn’t think highly of either as the film was probably out no more than two weeks. And if we are to swallow the line that Ming’s evil does not depend on his appearance, then why is hair color being pointed out to us at all?
Furthermore, if we are to be told that a traditional portrayal of Ming the Merciless in inappropriate for fear of stereotyping Asians, couldn’t a pale blond in a moderately looking fascist uniforms lead to prejudice against Germans? But then again, since Germans are part of the White race, their sensibilities don’t count for much anyway.
To what extent should the anti-stereotyping mania be taken anyway? If we cannot enjoy a traditional Ming the Merciless for fear of propagating negative stereotypes about Asians, conversely, aren’t we hindering the imaginative expansion of the minds of minority children by casting the male lead as the typical statuesque blond most have come to expect to play Flash Gordon.
Why not a Black man, or better yet, how about a short, dumpy Jew? Wouldn’t watch Flash Gordon otherwise you say? Then why should we be entertained by a Ming that doesn’t even look like a Ming?
This fear of portraying a beloved character in a certain way could get ridiculously if fans do not speak up about it. For example, 50 or 100 years from now should Star Wars ever be remade, will disability advocates get all up in arms (if they happen to have any) that Vader’s characteristic wheezing is an offense against those on respirators? Likewise, retirees will claim that Palpatine’s gnarled and hunched appearance casts those of an advanced age in a bad light. Fans of the Borg from Star Trek will demand their moment of equity by claiming that the portrayal of what has become one of science fiction’s most nightmarish species does not depict absolutist collectivism and the elimination of individuality (concepts all the rage these days from leftwing secularist utopians all the way to certain Evangelical churches) in a balanced light.
And what about Hans Zarkhov? Though he is one of the protagonists of the series, in this interpretation it seems producers are playing up who could be categorized as the bumbling, nerdish aspects of his personality. If one is going to make all these self-congratulatory overtures towards the Asian community, then isn’t it just as wrong to disrespect the shows core base of fans who often fall into the “geek” demographic?
In the classic 1979 Filmation animated version of Flash Gordon, Zarkhov was not written as such. There, though hardly the man of action compared to Flash Gordon, he was depicted as a highly competent though slightly plumpish scientist around middle age.
Though concern about Ming is carefully packaged in terms of racism, a charge these days that even the most advanced deflector shields could protect not against, one must step back and wonder is that is really the underlying concern or if the offense goes to a much deeper level. For the write up on Ming in fact contains a glaring example of racism if one just happens to know where to look.
In elaborating the history of the character, mention is made of the 1980’s animated series “Defenders Of The Earth” where a number of King Feature’s Syndicate heroes joined forces to battle Ming as their primary foe. Mentioned as members of this team of adventurers are Flash Gordon, The Phantom, and Mandrake the Magician.
Those that remember the series will point out that a character named Lothar is conspicuously absent from the roster. For those with no idea who I am talking about, Lothar started his comics career as Mandrake’s Black man-servant but by the time of his appearance on Defenders of the Earth had, shall we say, risen in stature to that as an equal to these other crime fighters as the team’s strongman and primary gadget guy (hence his stanza in the memorable theme song, though hardly as memorable as Mandrake‘s, “His strength is a legend. His skills conqueror all. On with his power, we never will fall. Lothar.” If ever thing is to be second guess as an example of overt or institutional racism, then why not the continued perception of this character as a mere sidekick no more important than Batman’s Robin, Captain America’s Bucky or Superman’s dog Krypto?
Villains such as Ming were initially given their particular appearances as a reflection of the so-called “Yellow Peril” at that time in light of the fear of the threat posed by Asian powers, particularly Japan. Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same as nearly 70 years later we are frankly still facing similar dangers from that part of the world as one of the primary threats arrayed against us. Anyone thinking differently needs only need to be reminded of the swarms of illegal aliens (many from Asia) flooding the country, Islamic terrorists, the Red Chinese Army, and North Korean weapons of mass destruction.
However, unlike the 1930’s and 40’s, today our creative minds do not want to awaken us to the threat of annihilation by foreign empires constantly growing stronger while our nations grows considerably weaker. Rather, we are to be kept ignorant until its too late through either forced silence or by brainwashing the youth of America into thinking these despotic regimes are just as good and often even better than our own United States.
Casual observers will quip, “What are you complaining about? Ming still appears to be a rather loathsome individual.” True enough for the moment.
But what about in the next version of Flash Gordon produced 30 or 40 years hence from now if there is still a United States or even widespread advanced civilization or technology at that point in light of the threat posed by nuclear and electromagnetic pulse weapons. With the downward slide of ethics and morality, there will probably come a point where it will be considered an outrage on par with what spewed forth from the lips of Don Imus to categorize tyrants and despots as villains at all.
Rather, such characters are merely acting in accord with the social parameters acceptable within their particular culture. After all, who is Flash Gordon to impose Earth standards on the planet Mongo anyway?
Over the course of 10 seasons and in the movie prior to that, the producers of Stargate have been able to depict a variety of interstellar warlords such as Ra, Apophos, and Eu in the customary raiment of an Eastern despot and there have been no bias related crimes as a result. If the producers of Flash Gordon want to keep on insisting otherwise, fans of Battlestar Galactica just might say such statements are full of felgarcarb.
By Frederick Meekins
An old slur classifies a Puritan as someone worried that somewhere someone might be having a good time.
Whether such a classification is historically accurate might make for a matter of academic debate, however, it does certainly seem to apply to the good people at Generations Radio.
In the 8/31/07 broadcast, it is lamented about the declining numbers of older men in the workforce and that a life of leisure after decades of toil is somehow tawdy and sinful.
While Rev. Swanson might be energized by the kind of work that he does, I think it is about time some of these Christian leaders realize that most of us paying their salaries usually have day jobs that are not all that fulfilling and are in fact simply the drudgery we must endure to put food on the table.
Furthermore, if we carry this analogy to its conclusion that because a gentleman of a certain age reposes himself from standard gainful employment that he has by definition surrendered to a life of sloth, does it then follow that stay-at-home wives and mothers are sluggards as well?
For just because someone is not in the traditional workplace does not mean the individual is being idle as many of today's elderly do any number of things.
Firstly, since people are living longer, theoretically someone in their 50's or 60's may have to dedicate an extraordinary amount of time to settling the final affairs of their parents.
Second, retirement from traidtional employment frees up more time for other activiities such as activism and writiing For even though I might one day retire as early as possible, I plan to keep blogging until I drop, go blind, or get sent to a reducation facility.
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, if the man who retires in his 50's or 60's is married, doesn't that decision free up more time to tend to the needs of his wife who by that age is often an emotional wreck anyway?
by Frederick Meekins
