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
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Local Weatherman Sticks By Meteorological Overkill
Viewers of Washington, D.C. affiliate WUSA Channel 9 missed most of the Navy: NCIS season finale because of the station’s decision to interrupt the program in favor of an alert detailing a pending thunderstorm and rumored tornado. This decision so irritated viewers that Chief Meteorologist Topper Shutt made an appearance on Derrick McGinty’sUSA Tonight to justify the extended disruption of regularly scheduled programming.
Topper presented no new line of argumentation. Instead he reiterated the same reasons he emphasized the night before about how the FCC requires the station to take such action when danger to life and property is imminent. Ashame they are not as vigilant looking out for commonsense.
There is no sane reason why news about the storm had to take up the lions share of the hour. Much of the yammering was not even directly related to the threat posed by the particular storm in question. Instead, Shutt spent much of the broadcast lecturing the viewing audience as to the steps to take during severe weather and fixating on his radar’s colors as if he was on some LSD trip. Couldn’t this be done at some time other than prime time and during a season finale no less?
Viewers are not so much in danger from the forces of nature unleashed as from television news people run amok. With their fancy computerized toys such as doppler this and storm center that, weathercasters have grown dangerously fascinated by the sound of their own voices and I would not put it past them to exaggerate atmospheric conditions for no other reason than to maximize their own airtime.
Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
American Idol Outranks Navy: NCIS During Storm Coverage
It seems American Idol even outranks storm coverage here in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area.
While watching the NCIS season finale on the CBS affiliate WUSA Channel 9, the program was interrupted by severe thunderstorm and tornado alert coverage. One cannot argue that this is not important news, but I don’t see why a news ticker scrolling across the bottom of the screen could not suffice. Apparently, a modified version of such a warning was sufficient Friday night during the JAG season finale when the picture was shrunk half the size and a weather map placed off to the side.
No doubt as a result of getting numerous complaints, meteorologist Topper Shutt snapped the show just had to be interrupted pursuant to public safety and FCC licensing requirements and that the popular military crime procedural would be rebroadcast at a later time or date. Channel 7 WJLA with Doug Hill and Channel 4 WRC with Bob Ryan followed suit with the same overkill.
Channel 5 WTTG, the local Fox affiliate, at first did not alter their feed but eventually split the screen with a severe weather icon and a scrolling ticker. However, their regularly scheduled programming did not come to a screeching halt in favor of “the sky is falling and its the end of the world” style coverage.
Guess the management at Channel 5 would rather take their chances with a tornado than incurring the wrath of disgruntled American Idol fans. Given my recent run-ins with Idol worshippers, can’t say I blame Channel 5 for their decision.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Monday, May 24, 2004
Simpsons' Episode Assailing Patriot Act Will Rank Among Program’s Classics
The Simpsons is a series at its wittiest when it pokes fun at issues with broader social implications. Classic episodes that come to mind include the ones spoofing the Masons, the UFO cult, and Homer’s Drudge-style webpage. Joining these will no doubt be the one alluding to the Patriot Act.
The episode begins with the Simpson kids off to get their inoculations. Bart unexpectedly goes deaf from his and Homer inadvertently signs a waiver forbidding him from holding Dr. Hibert legally responsible. From there, the Simpsons become town pariahs as it is assumed a deaf Bart deliberately mooned the flag after a donkey ate his gym shorts.
Things get considerably more hilarious when ATF-style shocktroops raid the church and arrest the Simpsons for violating the Government Knows Best Act. The Simpson gang is sent packing to a prison camp euphemistically referred to as a “reeducation center”.
Though a poignant, timely episode in light of the danger posed to American liberties by certain governmental provisions claiming to fight the war on terror such as the Patriot Act and various executive orders making toilet paper of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, the episode’s primary drawback stemmed from the fact that those interned were depicted as leftists of various stripes when in reality there are probably even more Conservatives and Libertarians opposed to such systematic infringements of our civil liberties. Yet even this skewered presentation was not without humor.
One inmate whined all he did was drive a truckload of explosives over the Canadian border. One old coot claimed he was the last registered Democrat. He then blathered, “Tax and spend. Tax and spend”, a clear indication he was out of his mind.
The Simpsons escape and are rescued by a French freighter whose captain remarks upon the irony of the French hatred of America despite being saved by the United States in two world wars. After living in Paris for a while, the Simpsons return to the U.S., observing that if there’s one group America will let in its immigrants without identification.
For years, Conservative interest groups have castigated The Simpsons as inappropriately subversive. Instead, Conservatives ought to look to the show as a source of satire occasionally allied with their movement exposing in a humorous manner the folly and stupidity regularly gaining an upper hand throughout society as a result of misguided policies and faulty assumptions inherent to the liberal way of life.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick B. Meekins
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Thoughts On “60 Minutes” Tribute To Don Heweitt
Watched the tribute to “60 Minutes” executive producer Don Hewitt. Was pretty well done. Have not watched “60 Minutes” in quite a while. Ed Bradlee looking bad, even worse with that earring dangling from his ear.
The show brought back quite a few memories as my grandfather use to watch it quite a bit. Guess the world has him to blame in part for sparking my interest in news and politics as I remember him watching “The McLaughlin Group” especially. As a kid, I remember that classic story about the bulbous crook who turned back the odometers. Also, the first time I remember seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton was on that “60 Minutes” post-Super Bowl Interview in about 1992 where they tried to gloss over Bill's infidelities.
Watching this look back at broadcast history, I wondered if fifty years or so hence if there will be a counterpart special honoring the pioneers of Internet news. We could sit around lauding Drudge or tooting our own cyberhorns in praise of our own contributions to this new medium.
These tributes or retrospectives are usually quite interesting. They also give me an idea for a cable or satellite channel airing nothing but old news and magazine programs. The History Channel is already one of the most popular stations on cable. I am sure such a channel would find an enthusiastic audience. Of course, the idea probably wouldn’t get too far since it would primarily appeal to the elderly, the educated, or family-oriented viewers and you know they don’t count as viewers anyway.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Quotas Command Society Elites Answer To Everything
Leave it up to liberals to create new problems in their attempt to solve others of their own making.
Throughout the course of contemporary educational history, the phenomena of grade inflation has come to plague the assessment of students as academic standards are relaxed and professors grow reluctant to be overly critical of students for fear of various kinds of reprisals --- be they administrative, collegial, or even violent in nature.
Instead of applying a solution inspired of the rigors of the free market and the glories of individual achievement where professors increase the quality of their courses and where students must actually apply themselves to earn the grades they receive, leave it to a bunch of half-wit educators mired in untenable theories to devise a solution as devoid of commonsense as the useless courses most of them teach.
To combat the issue of grade inflation at Princeton, it has been proposed that the number of “A’s” be capped at 35% in any undergraduate course. Seems some people can’t get over the thrill of imposing solutions from above.
Like the socialism upon which the proposal is modeled with its appeal to centralized authority to solve all of life’s problems, grade quotas will be a flop in real life.
The primary concerns that arise are if the course content remains the same, what happens to students falling outside the 35% limit and how will it be determined on what side of the divide a student happens to fall if by objective assessment criteria more than 35% of the students actually deserve an “A”? Will it be alphabetical with tough toenails to those further down the list towards the middle and the end?
Even worse, those addicted to quotas in addressing other contentious social issues might apply their same specious reasoning to the matter of scholastic evaluations.
To get around growing opposition to minority preferences, the University of Texas has gotten around the issue by factoring race in what administrators characterize as a “holistic approach” in determining whether an applicant is worthy of matriculation.
In the minds of those favoring such nonsense, Blacks and other minorities are “more whole” because of the hardships these groups have endured and enjoy harping about to no end, thus making them more worthy of academic spoils than your run-of-the-mill White person. But why anyone thinks Bill Cosby’s or Jesse Jackson’s brats have overcome more adversity than an Appalachian hillbilly is beyond me.
Such an asinine train of thought could be utilized by professors constrained by the grading quota and with a penchant for social manipulation.
Since there would be only so many “A’s” to go around, race mongering academics might argue that no longer can they be dispersed solely on the basis of objective epistemological effort. Instead, high grades must be dispensed holistically to students from deprived and underprivileged backgrounds (code words meaning non-Whites of courses, primarily Blacks and Hispanics).
It’s holistic all right; those advocating this nonsense --- be it in reference to admissions, grades , or Affirmative Action in general --- are full of a whole lot of you know what.
Thanks to big government interference in America’s system of higher education, a college degree isn’t what it use to be with subsidies making such a credential available to almost anyone ---- whether they deserve it or not --- making a degree little more than a glorified high school diploma and next to worthless in setting the individual ahead of the pack in terms of employment prospects. It’s doubtful the nation’s colleges and universities could withstand anymore misguided tinkering.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick B. Meekins