New Bond Makes Big To-Do Over Dislike Of Guns: Why Should We Even Care?
It has been reported that Daniel Crag, the actor slated to assume the role of James Bond, does not like guns.
And why do we need to know or even care about this? Frankly, those that are going to see the new James Bond movie are going to see the exploits of the famed super spy and are not going to see the film in order to support the radical politics of some messily actor few have even heard of before now.
James Earl Jones doesn’t wear a black cape, a space helmet, or breathe through a respirator either. I doubt Anthony Hopkins was really all that much into cannibalism. That’s why it’s called acting.
Since Mr. Crag has spoken out against 007’s propensity towards violence but not the spy’s tendency towards promiscuity, does that mean he has no problem with womanizing? Shouldn’t he be as uncomfortable being around such lustfully named dames as Pussy Galore, Honey Ryder, and Molly Warmflesh?
If firearms bother Crag that much, perhaps he should stand by his principles and forego his place in cinematic history.
Just because James Bond uses a gun in his line of work does not necessarily mean the character is some kind of gun nut. It’s kind of a job requirement.
Compromise and appeals to universal brotherhood hardly work with scoundrels such as Scaramanga, Ernst Blofeld, or Oddjob. Thankfully, despite their outlandish plots and gadgets, the Bond films are realistic enough to realize girlie men are not going to save the day with wimpy protestations in favor of disarmament and pacifism.
Copyright 2005 By Frederick Meekins
Looters Should Be Shot
In one captivating scene of Stephen Spielberg’s “War Of The Worlds”, a frenzied mob besieges a minivan until the character played by Tom Cruise relinquishes control of it with the drama heightened by a few brief moments of whether or not his preadolescent daughter was going to be part of the spoils. As someone that projects certain cultural and social trends into the future, the scenario reminded me of what would likely happen should an incident of overwhelming destruction ever occur within the United States.
Those with limited imaginations will brush it all aside and say such anarchy could never happen here. And under optimal circumstances, I would never have proof one way or the other as to the veracity of my sociological postulations regarding these matters. Unfortunately in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it seems I didn’t have to wait too long for a far off tragedy to receive confirmation.
Before the flood waters even had the opportunity to recede from this contemporary Atlantis, a wave of human scum far more deliberately malevolent than anything found in the forces of nature washed over the sunken city. For while most of the residents of the Gulf Coast were no doubt awed and humbled by the circumstances into which they were thrust, others less noble in bearing decided to exhibit behaviors proving they were barely worthy of membership among the ranks of civilized men by instead of aiding their neighbors in a time of overwhelming need deciding to prey upon them like common leeches.
Somehow thinking the laws of God and man no longer applied to them, these human rats descended on the remaining retail establishments of the city to conduct acts of unauthorized commerce outside the bounds of legal propriety. In other words for those with the same diminished reasoning capacities as those engaged in this pillage, old fashioned looting.
Those given over to the sunshine and moonbeam view of reality will whine but these people were only trying to provide for their families. Think so, do you?
Well, according to an Associated Press account titled, “Looting Begins In New Orleans”, these vandals had excess clothing and jewelry among their booty. Other reports claimed looters made off with televisions.
Now there is no kind of sob story that could possibly justify stealing a television in such a time of crisis. Much of that area won’t even have electricity for much of the foreseeable future.
As much as these criminals enrage law-abiding citizens, even more irritating are those justifying these social pathologies or that this human debris should not be dealt with with the strictest of responses.
In response to initial reports of looting, WMAL personality Chris Core suggested correctly that law enforcement in either the form of the police or national guard should shoot those refusing to desist in their acts of outright pillage. From the limp-wristed responses from a number of callers, it is safe to assume that these naive saps would have rather seen this radio personality tossed into the slammer rather than these darling looters.
Those wanting to go easy on the looters claimed that the items pillaged were only material items and not of equal value to a human life. But frankly, these things, especially beyond a days worth or so of food, are not for these people to take. Would those making such grandiose proclamations about the brotherhood of man feel so magnanimous if it happened to be their possessions and heirlooms being rifled through; would Celine Dyon get so worked up insisting these people get to touch these things if the things to be touched belonged to her?
Early on before all hell broke lose, Governor Blanco insisted that law enforcement personnel could not be diverted from rescue operations to protect what she dismissed as mere property. One wonders if she would have started off with the same anthropocentric sentiments if the pillagers had laid siege to the state house or governor’s mansion.
Those advocating an each according to his ability, each according to his need approach to disaster survival fail to realize that this failure to respect property is the first step down the path to devaluing someone else’s life all together. For just a short time after hearing about the looting of stores and such, reports started rolling in about shots being taken at rescue copters and rapists indulging their basest desires. Such acts certainly have a lot to do with survival, don’t they?
I guess these humanitarians wouldn’t want these scumbags shot either. Bet the wives of these spineless cowards feel safe and protected, but I guess women that wed such girlie men pretty much get what they deserve.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
What Does Albert Mohler Have Against Mentioning Global Government?
On the October 18, 2005 edition of The Albert Mohler Program the President of the Southern Baptist Seminary was discussing if America was ready for a female President in light of predictions of the 2008 electoral contest coming down to Hillary Clinton and Condolezza Rice and the popularity of the new ABC drama "Commander In Chief".
Around the 27/28 minute mark of the program, a caller remarked that with either Hillary or Condoleezza that both would take us towards a world government, with Hillary's version based on moral anarchy and Condoleezza's upon corporate globalism.
Instead of engaging this vital point, Dr. Mohler dismissed the caller's concerns with a condescending chuckle and said he would have to make such a topic a different show.
Was Mohler afraid the cat would get out of the bag that little separates the two main parties at that level of politics?
From Dr. Mohler's attitude towards the caller, I don't think he will be returning to the topic any time soon.
More importantly, Mohler's response makes you wonder why he is afraid to tackle this central geopolitical reality when in other instances he does not shy away from controversy, even having gone on the record as stipulating that one is living in a state of sin if not married by your early 20's even if living in a state of abstinence.
If we are to be so Biblical in our thinking as to caution against a female President because of teachings about women being submissive even though Condoleezza is not married and thus has no man she is obligated to subordinate herself to, why not take as seriously those warnings found in the pages of the Holy Book about the coming of a global government that will rain down terror upon mankind and curtail human liberty in the End Times?
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Can Students Be Compelled To Stand For Another Country's Anthem?
Wonder if the ACLU will step forward to defend the rights of a student that did not stand during a rendition of the Mexican National Anthem during a school assembly.
More importantly, if one cannot compel Jehovah Witnesses to say the Pledge Of Allegiance or make atheists bow their heads for a moment of prayer, on what grounds can a school demand students stand and render homage to a nation to which the students are not bound and owe no loyalty?
Could a school with a significant Arab or Palestinian population demand Jewish students pay tribute to portraits of Yasir Arafat or the Ayatollah Khomeni?
As an arm of the government, the public schools exist to promote the interests of American society and the citizens of the United States, not those of every other nation upon the face of the earth.
The primary mission of these places of what use to be called learning was at one time to inoculate into the minds of students a love and appreciation of American things.
From the "Jaywalking" segments on "The Tonight Show" and similar bits on "Sean Hannity", are the schools even imparting this most rudimentary of civic knowledge anymore; can American students even name our national anthem?
If not, then most certainly time should not be diverted promoting ideas of foreign lands and cultures when the ones around which life ought to be organized here are being so neglected.
Those whose hearts are elsewhere are always free to return to their places of origin if they find our way of life all that odious.
After all, they are the ones that came here in the first place and not vice versa.
One does not go into someone else's home, claim a room, and then expect the host to change his entire routine just to suit the uninvited guest.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Apparently Some Victims More Equal Than Others In Eyes Of Media
It is said that justice is blind meaning since we are all created equal in the eyes of God we should be treated the same when it comes to the application of the law. It, therefore, follows that evil deeds are not made any more heinous when perpetrated by members of one particular ethic group or upon members of a particular ethnic group.
Ashame the mainstream media does not aspire to this standard when it comes to reporting these horrors transpiring on the underside of life. For often crimes inflicted upon minorities by members of majorities receive much more condemnation than crimes inflicted by minorities upon members of the majority in order to adhere to their prewritten script of the American as world oppressor.
News organizations across the nation were quick to report on a horrible incident in Tifton, Georgia where a number of migrant workers were killed and a woman raped by three scumbags that made a career of robbing these day laborers. Why then, has not the mainstream media been as quick to highlight the plight of a woman one state over in Florida gang raped by fourteen Hispanic transients?
Thus far, the only national outlet I have come across getting out the second story is WorldNetDaily.com . Aren't these incidents of similar magnitude?
Not only was this poor woman defiled by this human detritus having only God knows how many horrible diseases since I doubt they are the most virtuous of gentleman, she was also kidnapped from her home, had her nose plugged shut, and alcohol poured down her throat. So much for this demographic consisting solely of wholesome, family oriented people with no purpose in life other than humbly providing for their families. Had this women dispatched these sorry excuses for human beings into Hell as she should have, her face would no doubt be plastered all across newspapers for acts of bias.
The Associated Press account of the Tifton, Georgia atrocity noted that the attack has sent chills through the state’s Hispanic community. Yet the liberal press regularly ignores these fears and violations of the sanctity of home and person when average Americans are on the receiving end of such heinous deeds in the nation’s border areas and paint as racist those rising up to restore the sense of order the state has abandoned that would benefit all lawful residents.
It has often been said that a liberal is a conservative that has not been mugged yet. Hopefully, it will not take the wife or daughter of one of these elite journalists being mistreated in such a terrible manner for these communicators to realize that all crimes are equally lamentable without reference to the backgrounds of the parties involved.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins