At one point in its history, one could argue that the West was too sure of itself as the foremost of civilizations. However, such is no longer the case today.

At one point in its history, one could argue that the West was too sure of itself as the foremost of civilizations. However, such is no longer the case today.

In theory, pluralists and multiculturalists contend that no way of life or culture is better than any other. Thus, one would think that Western and American perspectives and traditions would be welcomed into this expanded showcase of human achievement.

Yet unless one wants to bash the West for its past short comings, they had better think again. If anything, one is expected to feel the same kind of shame in regards to the most innocuous of traditions that was once reserved for more carnal subjects during exceedingly Victorian times.

As an endearing symbol of all that is good and beautiful in the world, one would think there would be no reason whatsoever to get all flustered over a Christmas tree. However, liberals in media and education who any other time believe next to nothing should be hidden even for the sake of propriety and decorum can't even seem interestingly to speak this festive decoration's name nor even that of the celebration in which this symbol has come to play an integral part.

Plastered across the front page of the Gazette papers of the Washington, DC Metropolitan for the week of 12/25/08 in bold oversized typeface was an otherwise bland "Happy Holidays".

Above that and below a photo of an illuminated Christmas evergreen was a caption reading, "Crowds gather around the 60-foot tree for the lighting ceremony and fireworks show to kick off the holiday season on Nov. 28 at National Harbor." What holiday is this editor referring to --- Arbor Day?

Martin Luther King Day and Black History Month are just around the corner. Will this same paper tiptoe around these celebrations as well?

If not, why not? Christmas is probably celebrated by nearly 90% of the American population so we are basically forced to go out of our way to avoid stepping on the toes of a very miniscule demographic.

By default, there is probably a higher percentage than that among the White community who have thought to themselves (even if they lacked the backbone to vocalize their ruminations for fear of repercussions at the hand of the fanatically tolerant) that Black History Month is inherently racist since there is no officially designated counterpart for White folks to be applauded for simply being White folks. But then again, since those raising such concerns are usually conservative, their sensibilities will not be addressed.

Martin Luther is believed to have said that man is like a drunk reeling his head from one wall to the next. This can be interpreted as an analogy of how society careens back and forth between deleterious extremes.

In response to the efforts to expunge Christmas from American culture, some have not simply responded by declaring more than "Merry Christmas" irrespective of the consequences but rather by wearing to work what ostensively amounts to a Jesus costume consisting of a robe and a replica of a crown of thorns. Of this, I am reminded of a quote from King of the Hill where the titular character responds to a longhaired, tattooed preacher, “I’m sure Jesus is plenty of places he doesn’t want to be.”

While nothing should be done to employees that exercise their right of conscience by saying “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays”, supervisors should not put up with subordinates showing up to work like this especially if the position deals with the public. It is, after all, the workplace under consideration and not a costume party.

Chesterton said, "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense." From how many respond to Christmas in either censoring it entirely or becoming so consumed by it they end up looking like fools, it seems America may be tottering along the abyss of total lunacy.

by Frederick Meekins

In the 6/25/07 edition of U.S. News & World Report, New Age luminary Deepak Chopra was interviewed about his novel about Buddha interestingly titled "Buddha". Though many will no doubt fawn all over this narrative in search of some new spiritual insight or revelation in much the same way as they did with "The Da Vinci Code" these past few years, however, it seems some of the answers provided by this guru renowned by millions had as much thought put to them as the titling of this novel.

When asked what he thought the meaning of enlightenment was, Chopra responded, "The meaning here is that your real self is not a person, that there is no such thing as a separate self, that a person doesn't really exist...So enlightenment here means transcendence to that level of existence where the personal self becomes the universal self.”

If the separate self and the person does not exist, I wonder what Dr. Chopra would think if some tragedy befell his friends or family members? Is he simply going to brush it off by saying they did not exist anyway? If that is the case, I bet Mrs. Chopra and the children feel loved knowing that, in the eyes of dear old dad, out of sight will be out of mind.

With Christianity on the other hand, while the believer is admonished by I Thessalonians 4:13 not to mourn as the heathen as if there was no hope, the Christian legitimately pines for the departed loved one as one would for any friend or family member that has moved far away that you know you are probably not going to see for quite awhile but whom has nevertheless retained the same degree of distinct individuality as the day you met them.

Though Chopra has manipulated his followers into accepting his teachings and in the process made himself a very wealthy man (so much for desire causing suffering as basic Buddhism postulates), one can't help notice that Chopra doesn't exactly comport himself by the Eastern dictum that the self does not exist. For if the self does not exist, why has Chopra placed his name on the novel? And his photograph in the U.S. News & World Report profile is not of some disheveled lunatic consistently living out the implications of his worldview that appearance is just an allusion but rather of one who poses deliberately with his arm over his knee and his head cocked just so in a statement to the world that he is just a bit better than you.

More importantly, if a person doesn’t really exist since the individual is merely a “transient behavior of the total universe”, is Chopra going to forego the proceeds of what will probably be a bestseller and instead distribute the revenues to every person on the planet equally if “the universal self” and we are all the same person anyway? If Deepak Chopra doesn’t really exist, then why is the name slapped across his Center For Wellness?

But then again, such common sense and logic aren’t an integral part of Chopra’s worldview. When asked in the U.S. News & World Report interview if there is a fundamental tension between spirituality and religion, Chopra responded, “It [spirituality] has very little to do with religious dogma, ideology, or even self-righteous morality.”

Isn’t that itself a dogma? Are those that do not share in such metaphysical open-mindedness in the wrong? Doesn’t saying so imply a morality?

If ultimately morality does not really exist, on what grounds does Chopra have to complain should his publisher abscond with the proceeds of his novel? More importantly, if some horrible crime befell Mrs. Chopra and the kids, would such be wrong beyond the breaking of society’s arbitrarily derived laws?

That must really make his family feel special. Some might point out I already made that point. However, if you have no problems with the Eastern worldview espoused by this cultic guru, repetition and second go-arounds float your boat anyway.

by Frederick Meekins

One of the simple delights in the age of vehicular travel is coming across an empty parking space that still has time on the meter. Since the beast --- namely the municipalities obtaining revenue from the meter --- is still getting the amount of money it is due whether the spot is occupied by one or two cars in the purchased amount of time, one would think the taxmasters wouldn't care and simply let the lucky motorist enjoy one of the few pleasures remaining in our increasingly bleak and overcontrolled world.

However, it seems that technology is being used once more to tighten the noose of government around the neck of the law abiding citizen.

According to a Washington Post story titled “Meters Deny Parking Handouts“, a number of companies are developing devices sensitive enough to reset themselves once they detect that the space is no longer occupied. Instead of harassing motorists, perhaps these tech-heads should turn their sophisticated detection sensors towards securing America's border.

Especially revealing is the statist mentality of those supporting these Cylon parking meters (it's a wonder they don't have that little red light pulsating back and forth). The chief executive of IntelliPark (one of these companies out to get rich dreaming up new ways to further curtail human liberty) told the Washington Post, "You take away that free lunch, but on the other hand that's tax revenue."

If the primary concern here is that no one should get a "free lunch", wouldn't research efforts be better directed towards not developing a meter that resets itself as soon as a vehicle pulls away but rather makes change from the unused time?

"Why you skin-flint Conservative or tight-fisted Libertarian, how miserly of you to want back a few messily cents.” If we are to happily relinquish what is rightfully ours simply because it is just a few mere cents, just see what happens should you skimp on your IRS tax bill by the same amount.

If we are to view the motorist sneaking onto a spot where the meter has not yet run out of time as taking something out of the coffers of the state, why shouldn’t we cast the same glare of disapproval upon the state for pocketing a profit from time in which it’s space is not leased?

After all, to whom does the coinage for the unused time ultimately belong? For does it not actually belong to the original motorist that has since driven off?

Thus, it is the state (not the driver “sneaking” into the space) that is actually the small scale thief. Shouldn’t technology allow the original motorist to decide who gets to keep the change?

by Frederick Meekins

From at least 1994 when I remember writing my first column on the subject, despisers of the Almighty and liberals of the most spineless of stripes have conspired to undermine Christmas as a national celebration in the attempt to downplay and ultimately eliminate public recognition of God in general and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ in specific. These efforts have been so widespread that I was able to compile columns written about them over the years into a book titled "Yuletide Terror & Other Holiday Horrors".

Though the American people have been manipulated and their resistance worn down on a number of fronts to the point that they now let slide any number of outrages that would have caused considerable uproar in the past, for the most part citizens have been quite vocal about attempts by secular leftists to ban acknowledgement of the Christmas season. However, now that traditionalists have asserted the right to publicly affirm their god-given heritage, secularists are responding with alternative displays of their own promoting their own particular worldview.

Foremost among these is an ad campaign targeted at Washington, DC’s public transportation system. The posters sponsored by the American Humanist Association read, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake..” This simple question and accompanying reply are in need of a complex response.

For starters, whether we like it or not, if an atheist front group wants to pony up the cash, they have the same right to buy public advertising space like any other organization with too much money on its hands. Responses such as the one presented in a 11/17/08 USA Today article titled “Atheism: A Positive Pillar” where an Illinois state legislator told an atheist activist, “It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!...You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying.”

Such an attitude may itself be of a greater danger than the outright atheism. For it is wrong on a number of philosophical and apologetic grounds.

For starters, it is not really all that dangerous for children to know atheism exists. Granted, one might not want to, as in the example used by D. James Kennedy in a classic sermon, hand one’s child over to a thoroughgoing secularist who on the first day of kindergarten proceeds to indoctrinate the hapless pupil as to the alleged reasons why God does not exist and why Jesus Christ is not His Son.

However, part of protecting children is to warn them of the dangers out there bent on destroying them in body and soul. Thus, just as parents eventually one day have to have that discussion with their young ones about the existence of pedophiles and where to aim the kick should some sicko every try to rob the young ones of their innocence, parents also have the obligation to warn to warn that there are those out there that hate God so much that they’d like nothing more than to persuade you to give up your belief in Him as well.

The cause of Christ is not served by hiding these things from young minds and then finally exposing them to such apostasies upon adulthood. It’s challenging enough when you are taught about these things and then find your self surrounded by the products of an education system advocating such a viewpoint reeking of what you always heard pot smelled like and another hooligan wearing a t-shirt with decals of copulating skeletons as I remember the first day of college.

Secondly, lack of a belief in something is a belief about it. For too long, Christians and allied theists have played into the hands of atheists and agnostics by going along with the notion that those professing unbelief are objective and unfettered by preconceived epistemological commitments and that the believers are the ones holding onto bedrock dogmatic foundations. Many atheists are just as rabid in their assumptions as the most zealous of pulpit-pounding evangelists.

The anti-God Christmas placards intone the reader to "Just be good for goodness sake." But without God, can good truly exist? For if He does not, mankind is left with the alternatives of either nihilistic anarchy or regimented totalitarianism.

For example, if God does not exist, who is to say whatever the individual thinks or does is right or wrong? As has been said, in some cultures they are suppose to love their neighbors and in others they eat them. To the cannibal the adage is not so much finger licking good but rather good to lick fingers.

Furthermore, if God does not exist, on what grounds do the institutions of society such as the government have the right to tell you to do anything whatsoever? Without God and His revelation, the "IS" automatically becomes the "OUGHT" with rules and laws merely being those promulgations which keep the strongest in power.

But what about the individual, the timid may ask unsettled by the door that has been opened but too prideful to grasp Christ's outstretched hand. What about the individual?

If the individual is no better than all the other animals who are themselves just products of random chance, his welfare means nothing in comparison to the welfare and even the convenience of the larger group. Though it is a somewhat different philosophy, according to a Caryl Matrisciana column titled “An Enlightened Race?” New Agers who believe similarly to atheists that there are no absolutes rooted in the character of an eternal personal God don’t even want to say Hitler did anything wrong but rather merely things that were misguided at worst.

The New Atheists claim that the suspicions their worldview elicits are unfounded because as humanists they only have the betterment of the species in mind and that traditional religions are the ones responsible for the atrocities of history.

Margaret Downey of the Atheist Alliance International is quoted in the USA Today article as saying, "We atheists simply add an 'o' to our belief system --- we believe in good." However, that is in spite of rather than because of their unbelief.

If anything, what atheists exhibit when they manifest goodness is remaining Judeo-Christian moral capital. These individuals professing godlessness remain largely good because they have been acculturated in a milieu largely Biblical in its underlying ethical orientation.

However, as time marches on and these foundations are eroded as succeeding generations will become less familiar with this heritage. Future atheists will not be as eager to embrace the balanced approach to life we in the West have come to categorize as good.

Incidents where traditional forms of religion have been invoked to justify abridgements of individual liberty are horrifically tragic but because they betray the values espoused by the founders of these systems of belief. However, by default, that does not make those claiming to lack a religious faith are not necessarily more laid back in their approach to life and less prone to violence.

If anything, lack of divine restraints seems to send man's compulsion to prey (not pray) upon his fellow man into overdrive. One only need to look at the histories of regimes with an explicit antipathy towards the God of the Bible such as Soviet Russia, Red China, and Nazi Germany. And even in the United States where human dignity is for the most parts respected, numbers are appallingly high in terms of the millions slaughtered in the names of abortion and so-called “reproductive rights”, a charge led primarily by the godless along with the wishy-washy easily whipped up into a frenzied enthusiasm over the joys of baby-killing.

As commuters putter about this Christmas season and viewers watch the battle of the broadsides, there is more at stake than an esoteric debate as to the nature and origins of goodness. Both our very lives and our eternal destines could very well be on the line.

by Frederick Meekins

 

Each Thanksgiving, the President pardons a turkey --- an actual barnyard fowl and not a member of Congress. For the most part, the custom is itself harmless and mildly cute; however, should taxpaying citizens learn what is done with the turkey, they will likely end up with a case of indigestion.

According to a Fox News account, after the White House ceremony the turkey was to be flown first class to Disneyland in California. There the gobbling celebrity was to serve as the grand marshal of the park's Thanksgiving parade.

Many would dismiss this story as something not to get worked up over. Yet in this dawning era where we are constantly reminded how our very way of life must change or face collapse along various fronts, escorting a turkey to Disneyland in stratospheric luxury raises a number of questions.

First, is the turkey being sent there at taxpayer expense? If Disney wants the bird, that corporation is the party that should pick up the airfare.

Relatedly and even more importantly, shouldn't those that have set themselves up as our betters and the ones out to impose the new paradigms upon the rest of us have to live by their own standards?

For example, a letter to the editor published in the Prince George's Sentinel attempts to guilt-trip the reader into foregoing the turkey dinner by insinuating that this traditional culinary centerpiece is somehow bad for the environment. But what about the resources expended to get the turkey from Washington to California, and, even more importantly, what about the "carbon footprint" (the term used by beatniks of expanding girth like Al Gore to make themselves feel better about their own ostentatious consumption) left behind each year by the Disney corporation.

I for one have no problem with amusement parks and similar resorts. However, I am not the one haranguing the average American, who can hardly afford luxury vacations these days, into giving up one of the few remaining pleasures available, namely a reasonably priced turkey dinner.

by Frederick Meekins

As the nation's capital, Washington DC is often looked to for various approaches on how to handle a number of growing issues around the country. Usually government eggheads like to formulate their grandiose schemes from their comfortable halls of power and impose them upon areas of the heartland so far from scrutinizing eyes that very few end up seeing what is actually going on. However, there are now a number of policies being implemented within the city that will soon be at the forefront of efforts to undermine life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In the episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" titled "Past Tense", areas called Sanctuary Districts were established in mid-21st century America as places in major cities in which to corral the economically challenged irrespective of their criminal status. Though initially established in the name of the well being of those assigned to reside there, according to the entry at Star Trek Wiki Memory Alpha, "This internment, in fact, amounted to nothing less than imprisonment."

Those thinking their feet are more firmly planted on the ground and heads out of the clouds will no doubt respond that all that is just a story that could never become reality. Think again.

In order to curb the crime in the Trinidad neighborhood of Northeast, Washington, DC, police established "Neighborhood Safety Zones" where checkpoints were set up blocking access. It's bad enough if law enforcement just about literally points a gun at the head of everyone coming into the neighborhood compelling motorists to permit officers to ransack through vehicles regardless of whether or not anything suspicious is going on.

However, things have gone beyond the limits of conscience when American citizens that have neither been convicted nor accused of a crime are then forbidden from proceeding down a free public street. Supporters of these police state tactics will counter that those entering the neighborhood with a “legitimate purpose” such as “going to a doctor, to church, or visiting a relative” could be granted access.

For starters, who are police to determine if an activity that does not violate pre-established law is of a legitimate purpose or not? Secondly, people that must divulge their law abiding activities to law enforcement who then pass judgment as to whether or not such innocent undertakings are appropriate are dangerously close to losing one of the most basic of fundamental liberties that at one time set this country apart from the lesser nations of the earth. Do we really want to further condition the American people into embracing their status as docile little Pavlovians who eagerly wag their tails every time the government blows its whistle and demands that we reveal additional information about ourselves?

Though it was claimed motorists would be granted access if they had legitimate reasons to enter the neighborhood, individuals with valid reasons in fact claim they were turned away. What part of public in "public street" don't these Keystone Cops not understand?

For now, these blockades are often temporary. What is to prevent them from being made permanent and expanded in the future?

What is to stop authorities from turning the entire federal city into a Neighborhood Safety Zone with anyone barred entry that cannot prove either residency or occupational status in the district? Already in the name of preventing terrorism, Americans are denied access to structures we are repeatedly told through propaganda belong to all of us such as the Capitol building in Washington, DC and the Statue of Liberty in New York City.

If there is power now to tell us whether or not we are to be granted access to structures belonging to "the people" and once deemed public, makes you wonder if there might come a day that they might tell you what otherwise lawful discretionary activity you can and cannot enjoy in your own home. Wait, they are already trying to do that now.

If these checkpoints are constitutional, what is to stop them from being implemented across the United States either independently by various municipalities or through the promulgation of a presidential executive order such as those already quietly drafted basically saying the government can essentially take from you anything it wants and do to you anything it wants including compulsory civilian involuntary servitude during a time of so-called "national emergency". Through implementing nationwide "safety zones", only those granted police or bureaucratic approval would be permitted to move within or without specified jurisdictions. There are likely those such as Al Gore and even Barack Obama (who chastised Americans for eating too much and driving SUV's even though he has been seen locomoting in this particular kind of vehicular conveyance on numerous occasions who would probably have no qualms about implementing such measures in the name of the environment.

The way in which the Nazi and Soviet regimes were implemented would not be successful here in the United States. Those seeking to control every last aspect of people's lives have noticed that at least here in America they must quietly implement their policies step by step so that Americans are stealthfully goaded into eventually embracing the future being planned for them by the elites of the New Order.

According to social planning, the new urbanism, sustainable development, or whatever other flurdelore you want to dress it up with, it is no longer satisfactory to allow concentrated areas of population to develop, expand, or contract in compliance with forces attributed to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Rather, these areas are to be remodeled into the image seen fit by heavy-handed public-private partnerships even if it means ruining the lives of upstanding citizens in the process so long as it gives corporate tycoons what they want and makes politicians intoxicated on the narcotic of media attention look good in the press.

Social welfare programs instituted by government are often justified on the grounds of improving the lives of those experiencing hardship. However, often such assistance has very little to do with getting the unfortunate back on their feet but rather about fostering a state of dependence that will keep the tentacles of the government expanding often at the price of the individual's well-being, especially if the individual could actually get their life back together though private charity rather than public means.

In the District of Columbia where the city government is dominated by Democrats and the like who claim government's most important function is safeguarding the economically disadvantaged, it seems playgrounds for the hyperrich (commonly referred to as ball stadiums) are a greater priority than those struggling to make it on their own. According to a March 26, 2008 Washington Post article titled "Straining In The Stadium's Shadow", a number of those providing charitable and business services in the vicinity of the Nationals' stadium where in fact forced out using a variety of strategies.

One of the hardest hit is the group known as Positive Nature, which counsels troubled youth. In the course of about two years, taxes on the organization's property went from $9000 to $83,000. As a result, Positive Nature may have to close up shop, possibly causing those getting assistance from the organization to be taken away from their parents and placed in a variety of state run institutions such as psychiatric hospitals and possibly even in prison.

Maybe that is exactly what those thinking government is the only solution for what's plaguing the human condition want. Instead of providing for oneself or seeking assistance from other private sources, the individual is to seek purpose and solutions to life's problems from the state.

Others already capable of sustaining themselves through the efforts of their own toil might no longer be able to do so. Those trained to salivate on cue for their government handout might snap businesses ought to be soaked to provide for the havenots.

Oh really? Does this include small businesses and sole proprietorships with tax bills that went from $600 to $16,000 and from $1500 to $22000. If that is the bribe one must pay to the state, why not just throw in the towel and become a welfare leech and suckle off the system as well?

According to the Washington Post story, the stadium was marketed to citizens forced to pick up the tab for this playground for millionaires as a way to raise revenue for schools, roads, and subsidized housing. But as with all the other grandiose promises made by tax boosters throughout history, downplayed is how these assessments are also enacted as a means of social and economic engineering with any money raised a secondary matter compared to the implementation of a far more comprehensive agenda.

Considerable grassroots backlash has arisen against the Kelo decision in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of forcing owners to sell property to developers in the name of economic improvement. But now, instead of drawing out this process as reluctant owners might put up a fight in an attempt to retain homes and businesses, all governments have to do to get people out is to raise taxes to either force owners to sell or (even better in the eyes of bureaucrats) get the owner to fall behind in their taxes so revenuers can move in to seize the property without having to pay a dime in order to acquire it.

Furthermore, by tinkering with tax rates and the like, governments, developers, and other organizational monstrosities such as public-private partnerships can economically corral undesirable populations into parts of town deemed appropriate for those not deemed worthy of living amongst the elite even if those no longer deemed worthy of an area have lived their for decades. Ultimately, such populations can be forced into low-cost housing where the movements of such individuals can be more effectively monitored, controlled, and even curtailed. Thus establishing, in essence, “sanctuary districts” quite similar to those described earlier in this essay in a manner less shocking than they may have sounded initially.

The concepts of private property and freedom of movement as we once knew them are endangered species going out of existence. In their place will arise a new system where those once knowing liberty will be manipulated into clamoring for more and more control all for the rotting pottage of prosperity and security.

By Frederick Meekins

Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. If the proposals of one pedagogical theorist are implemented, students will in all likelihood never know anything about the figure believed to have uttered such an astute observation.

According to a Daily Mail story titled “Drop middle class subjects says school adviser”, in the United Kingdom, education officials are considering a proposal that would eliminate traditional academic subjects such as English, History, Science, and Geography because these disciplines are “middle class”. In the place of the old curriculum, schools will emphasize a series of “personal aims” such as energy conservation, sustainable development, and personal relationships.

Such change must be made because these “middle class values” are a holdover from the 19th century as “mere stepping stones to wealth” and “alienated many youngsters...from disadvantaged backgrounds.” These comments exhibit a desire to tear down and reconstitute more than the public education system but rather the entire society.

For example, first and foremost the remarks are a rallying cry against Western civilization’s Judeo-Christian foundations. Across Europe, the spineless and effeminate are afraid to raise their voices against Islamic encroachment for fear of radicalized adherents of this particular faith flying into homicidal hissy fits. By undermining the legitimacy of the values upon which society (and thus the educational system as part of society) rests, revolutionists hope to rebuild what they tear down in their own image.

In the Judeo-Christian worldview, the individual is imbued with considerable moral value for having been made in the image of God. However, in secular theory of education, since God is taken out of the picture, the individual loses much of his distinctive worth and becomes little more than an extension or cog of the group from which values and worth are alternatively derived.

The ultimate threat to such intentional collectivism is the ability to think and provide for oneself. In fact, part of the criticism of the traditional academic subjects is that they are "mere stepping stones to wealth."

State forbid (can't say heaven anymore since that is likely to offend some philosophical deviant), the individual (yet another ontological concept out of fashion in the New Order) that the individual should provide for himself. Rather one is to be taught reliance and dependence on the group and to aspire no higher than the station predetermined for them by committee.

In pursuit of this goal, students are instead to be taught a series of themes and personal aims such as civic responsibility, commitment to sustainable development and valuing personal relationships. Thus, students are not to be instructed in how to evaluate claims and policies made in regards to these matters but rather what to think about them.

Under the old regimen of traditional subjects, students assimilated and synthesized facts which they then utilized to weigh the different sides of an argument and then adopted the position they felt was closest to the truth. Under the new way of doing things, students are being told ahead of time what (to use a word popularized in the 1990's when this kind of nonsense percolate to the surface of mainstream pedagogical theory) "outcomes" they are to embrace.

For example, students not taught geography or science don't really know if they are being told the true state of the environment or being sold a total crock about sustainable development. Likewise, if students are not being taught the lessons of history and literature, how are they to know whether or not what they are being told presents a balanced perspective, what constitutes good citizenship, or that they are merely being brainwashed into sacrificing everything they have on the altar of the Fatherland (or rather the "Homeland" as it is becoming known as today).

Relatedly and more importantly, what if by some slim chance a student managed to transcend the intellectual shackles placed around their mind and did not embrace the presented outcomes? Will it be annotated in the student's file as has been suggested by the proponents of Outcome Based Education in this country with one's station in life no longer determined by one's talents but rather if one has embraced the values and outlooks one has been told to by elites.

Furthermore, while the educational system ought to teach students basic values such as treating others with a basic level of respect regarding person and property (what use to be called the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments before we were told to be all jittery about mentioning God and the Bible), do we really want bureaucrats assessing whether or not our children "value personal relationships"? These days this is probably psychobabble for applauding homosexuality, shacking up outside of marriage without guilt, and additional welfare handouts for each additional mouth brought into the world as the result of such unions, thus making what usually gets tossed into the face of the disapproving as a private matter into a very public one.

Though improvement could be made in informing students as to how these subjects are applied to life beyond the classroom, the liberal arts have earned their name as those bodies of knowledge worthy of a free man. Any reform that does more than tinker around with the edges of the system that has for the most part proven itself for centuries is not about improving the life of the individual but rather about devising more efficient ways to enslave it.

by Frederick Meekins

With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the alleged demise of Communism, it was assumed that the Olympic games would no longer be as much of an arena for showcasing the competing ideologies of individual liberty and nearly total social control.  And even though East German woman with mustaches no longer quite raise eyebrows and hushed chuckles the way they once did, the Olympics are as much a battle for the minds of men as they have always been.

On the surface, it would be easy to conclude that the success of a country's Olympic efforts would be determined by its medal count, particularly gold.  If that is the case, the world is once again presented with contrasting examples provided by the United States and Red China.

On the one hand, China won the most gold but the United States won the most medals overall if silver and bronze are also factored into the tabulation.  To some athletic diehards, though, it is only the gold that counts.

A story titled "U.S. Will Be Rocked By China's Heavy Medals" by Yahoo Sports posted 8/22/08 analyzes the situation as follows: "The difficult thing for the Americans to stomach is this is unlikely to change in future games.  This isn't a one-time surge by a host nation...Whether the U.S. holds on this time or not, eventually China's system, coupled with it 1.3 billion people, should be unstoppable."

Of this development, Peter Uberroth of the United States Olympic Committee said in the story, "It's going to be difficult (to dislodge China).  The resources that they put toward their Olympic team and the population base and the dedication is fantastic."

Even though it is inspirational when Americans take the gold in these events and our flag and national anthem are lifted above all others for the world to see and hear, this country needs to stop and think for a moment if emulating the Chinese approach to obtain gold is really worth it.  For if we do, we will have turned our backs on the values that made America --- not China --- the beacon of hope to the world.

In the United States, individuals pursue athletic glory because that is that they want to do with their lives free of state coercion.  In China, there is no such choice.

In “U.S. will be rocked by China’s heavy medals”, Dan Wetzel writes, “In China, they wouldn’t have had a choice.  A sports star, like the property a house is built on, is owned by the government...China selects athletes at young ages and pushed them into sports in which their expected body types might thrive.  In the U.S., an athlete is allowed to follow his own path to success and failure.”

Those having embraced the communitarian outlook growing in popularity in this country that conditions us more and more into accepting the arbitrary whims of the group as superior to the prerogatives of the individual might not be able to fully grasp what this means really without explanation.

Though even in America those aspiring to athletic greatness must dedicate a seemingly inordinate amount of time to perfect their skills, often family especially in the form of parents are there in the background providing the kind of emotional and logistical support necessary to obtain this goal.  However, things are quite different in China.

One report that aired on the NBC Nightly News during the course of the Olympic games showed a training facility where children no more than six or seven years old were warehoused around the clock like livestock as they were drilled in gymnastics by their Communist taskmasters.  These children detained at the training camp were permitted to see their families only a couple of times per year.

Some made uncomfortable by such living arrangements that defy God’s intentions for the family of parents being the primary caretakers and source of guidance in a child’s life will try to console their consciences by positing that, even if we don’t like it, it might be the only path to a better life for these children.  Even through this grueling toil, there is little chance of that.

In the United States, since the interests of the individual also carry weight and just not those of the larger group, there is emphasis (even if there are instances where the results have fallen short of this goal) of cultivating athletes capable of providing for and looking after themselves once their time in the limelight has transpired even if the life the athlete ends up with is less than the one dreamed of.  However, in China where the individual is viewed primarily as a cell within the broader social organism,  this aptitude is honed at the expense of other skills since under Communism the person's worth is derived from what they can contribute to the overall group or nation.

Some will argue that this is all merely the rantings of an individualistic borderline-libertarian conservative who doesn't like Communism very much reading back into all of this.  However, a quote from a 5/6/07 Los Angeles Times store titled "Athletes Are Run Into The Ground In China" proves that my assessment is not all that far off the mark: "The athlete's entire training is financed by the state, and successful athletes...are considered government properties who must do as their leaders say.  Their job is about gaining glory for the country, not pursuing personal interests."

Some today who have an admittedly milder and diluted philosophy similar this pounded into their heads by government, academia, and increasingly even by the nation's churches might initially respond, "What's so wrong with that" as they proceed to spout rhetoric about the wonders of community and the evils of self interest.  However, in a land of over one billion people where the government owns you, once you break or are outdated by the newer model rolling off the assembly line, there is nothing to protect you from being tossed aside like yesterday's garbage.

For example, marathon runner Guo Ping thought that, once her days as an athlete were over, the government would reward her with a position as a police officer as her coach (who also beat those training under him with a whip or knocked them to the ground with the bumper of his car) promised.  The coach's defense in court was that the beatings "weren't severe".

Unfortunately, such a case is not so much a rarity as it is the norm.  According to a similar article titled "China's Disposable Athletes" published in the 7/17/07 issue of Time Magazine, nearly 3000 athletes retiring each year in China end up unemployed with educations barely beyond the primary level.    One distraught female Chinese athlete lamented, "I gave my youth to sport, but in return, I was thrown out like garbage with no knowledge, no skill, and a barren womb."

However, the liberal media is only willing to take its critique of world socialism so far.  It has been jokingly said that the few remaining Communists in the world can be found on American college campuses;  however these subversives and their fellow travelers can still be found in many more places, especially among the ranks of prestigious journalists

For instead of blaming these outrages on the systematic dehumanization inherent to all forms of collectivism, the Times article says, "The root of Zou's troubles, like so many things in China today, can be traced back to the country's wholesale adoption of capitalism."

Are you going to tell me things were hunky-doory under Communism when millions were starving to death and the hungry resorted to cannibalism?  Are you going to tell me it's Capitalism's fault today that house church pastors rot in prison?

What links each and everyone of these is a fundamental devaluation of the individual.
Frankly, if that is what it takes to excel in the Olympic games of the 21st century, perhaps the United States should be proud of its diminished Olympic prospects.

Dan Wetzel writes, "In the U.S., the athlete's goal is most often himself," and in appraising the decision of an athlete that pursues opportunities other than the Olympics, "No one in their right mind in the States would expect him to do anything else."  Who needs a gold-plated trinket when you can buy the real thing?

by Frederick Meekins