• Right Place Photo Caption Contest Hall of Glory Top 25

    meister.jpeg About Me
    BlogmeisterUSA's Guidelines for Commenting
    My Blog at Newsbusters
    My Writings at Family Security Matters
    My Writings at The American Thinker
    I Also Blog at Lifelike Pundits
    National Summary Interviews Me
    Read "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair
    PELOSI_DEMOCRAT_TREASON-1.jpg More About the Fighting 101st Keyboardists

November 11, 2010

The Last Post

This is my last entry. I had hoped to keep the site going until "The Blogmeister" recovered her enthusiasm, but mine has certainly flagged also.

So here is the last entry, and who better to say it than...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

September 17, 2009

Quick, Who Said This?

Quick who said this? (He was a Republican by the way)

"...where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

So here we are in the next millenium - and it appears these noble words have been twisted to mean:

"we will always judge you by the color of your skin because you dislike the content of our character."

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

June 06, 2008

Faith in Humanity Is Hard to Maintain...

...when I see something like this story from Hartford, which first made the news yesterday:

A 78-year-old man is tossed like a rag doll by a hit-and-run driver and lies motionless on a busy city street as car after car goes by. Pedestrians gawk but do nothing. One driver stops briefly but then pulls back into traffic. A man on a scooter slowly circles the victim before zipping away.

The link includes a video. If you watch it, be warned: you will actually see 78-year-old Arce Torres get slammed by a car and flop back down on the street.

What's worse than that, however, is witnessing the witnesses simply ignore him and go about their daily business. No one paid attention until the police showed up, and then the usual crowd of gawkers gathered. As my friend Jeanette asked, "WTF is wrong with people?"

What's wrong indeed? I felt a chill go through me when I watched that video. This episode brings to mind the infamous case of Kitty Genovese who, back in 1964, was stabbed to death near her Queens apartment building and none of the neighbors who heard her cries for help could bestir themselves to do much about it. "Don't get involved," we often think to ourselves - probably in a bid to protect our own hides.

"It was one of the most despicable things I've seen by one human being to another," the Rev. Henry Brown, a community activist, said in an interview. "I don't understand the mind-set anymore. It's kind of mind-boggling. We're supposed to help each other. You see somebody fall, you want to offer a helping hand."

We all hope and pray that should our time of need come, someone will have the decency to step forward and help. No one came to the aid of Arce Torres, now paralyzed and fighting for his life, even though according to this report he was a well-known figure in the neighborhood.

"Everybody knew him, but nobody helped," said Anthony Jenkins, 45, of 87 Park St. "I guess everybody is different. Some people are just out for themselves."

That about sums it up.

Keep Arce Torres in your prayers. He's going to need them.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

September 04, 2007

Socialism is More than Just Economics

While reading a post over at Moonbattery about John Edwards' plan to make us all visit the doctor on his schedule under his proposed health plan, I came across the following gem in the comments section from "Ian from the EUSSR":

Speaking here from the UK, this is the very basis of the "Social System". Socialism is more than an economic system, indeed that's largely a side issue (especially these days). The illogic of these people is simple; if you wish to benefit from a system, you must act "responsibly" by doing as you're told. But you're not allowed to opt out. IOW, you're *obligated* to "benefit" whether you want the benefit or not, and unless you fully comply with what is decided by ideologically driven nutters is best for you, you're a social defector pissing in everybody else's bathwater, and thus no sanction against you is too great.

Americans should do all they can to avoid this imposition, though they'll probably be unable to stop it as the Social Movement have spent the past century worming their tendrils into every political and social institution. Enjoy the waiting lists, lack of choice and bureaucratic dictators, guys.

My only other observation is, at the risk of anti-Americanism, (which isn't my purpose); American intellectuals contributed a vast amount to the creation of the Social Movement, so it's probably poetic justice that you should suffer its full horrors along with the rest of us.

The only hope left ISTM is if we can pull the rug out from under the Global Warming hoax, the rest of the horrendous ideology can be destroyed as collateral damage. I suspect that's too optimistic though.

Ian's right about everything, including his assertion that American intellectuals should be accorded their fair share of the blame. American intellectuals believe they know more than us about everything -- not just their specialized areas of study. This is why we have people like Noam Chomsky, who is a linguist, spouting off about the evils of capitalism. What's worse is that people actually take him seriously, along with the other intellectual "giants" who think their prowess in the lecture hall means they should be able to lecture all of society.

If you want this to be your fate, vote Democrat in 2008.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:57 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

July 12, 2007

High School Politics vs. the Real World

My Family Security Matters article today likens journalists to those obnoxious "beautiful people" who believed themselves to be the trendsetters back in high school. Check it out.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

July 11, 2007

Thinking the Best of America

I know I've been MIA today, but it's been a busy day at the office. However, I'd like you to read a great piece written by my friend Jonathan Strong. He's a Canadian living here in the US (and hoping to be a citizen someday), and wonders why Americans today tend to dwell on the worst of their country, rather than the best:

The mistrust of government is compounded by the lack of historical perspective and knowledge that exists in the citizenry itself. This reality is a result of the failure of the education system to inform students of Americas great history, despite its faults. Every nation has its faults, but many Americans seem intent on dwelling on their nations past wrongs when it is much more valuable and important to recall how America has recognized its failings and then gone to great effort to right these wrongs (i.e. affirmative action, the Civil Rights Act, etc.).

You can read more here at Family Security Matters. Jonathan is now going to be contributing regularly to FSM (yay!), and he also blogs at StrongConservative.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

May 07, 2007

Where's Sean Penn?

Where's Sean Penn? Where's John Travolta? Oprah, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie? They were all on hand to help out in the wake of Katrina in one way or another, but I hear nothing of their jetting off to Greensburg, Kansas to help residents of this town of 1,500 rebuild after 95% of their town was flattened by a horrific tornado last Friday.

Maybe it's because only 10 people died. Maybe it's because Kansas, one of those red "flyover" states, doesn't have the gritty glamour of New Orleans (and as a red state, Kansas' electoral votes went to Bush in 2004). Or perhaps it's because it's more difficult to place blame for a tornado on George W. Bush than it is to pin the blame of a hurricane on him. After all, we all know that hurricanes in America are caused because Bush didn't sign on to Kyoto. There doesn't seem to be a protocol that can fix tornados in the Midwest. Besides, it's all farms, small towns and trailer parks there, right?

Come on, guys...now's your chance to get your name in the headlines in the name of another good cause. I'll bet Sean hasn't fired that rifle in a while, and Travolta's planes should be all lubed up, gassed up, and ready to go. And I'm sure Angelina would love to get out her pink scented stationary to send letters to Congress, asking for increased relief efforts.



Greensburg could use Sean to keep looters at bay

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:38 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

April 12, 2007

Thomas and Coulter on Imus

Here are a couple of takes on the Don Imus flap by two conservative pundits.

Cal Thomas:

During the 1980s, social conservatives who tried to control pornography, including that subsidized by the National Endowment for the Arts, were told such things were the price we must all pay for a "healthy First Amendment." Artists must be free to express themselves. If certain people object to what is on TV, they can change channels, or turn it off.

Why aren't these keepers of the First Amendment flame coming to the defense of Don Imus? It's because they have a double standard. Evangelical Christians, practicing Roman Catholics, politically conservative Republicans, home-schoolers and others who are not in favor among the liberal elite are frequent targets for the left. Anything may be said about them, and it frequently is. But let someone insult the left's "protected classes," be they African Americans, homosexuals or to a lesser extent, adherents to the religion of "global warming," and they must be silenced and punished.

and Ann Coulter:

The reason people don't like what Imus said was because the women on the Rutgers basketball team aren't engaged in public discourse. They're not public figures, they don't have a forum, they aren't trying to influence public policy.

They play basketball -- quite well, apparently -- and did nothing to bring on an attack on their looks or character. It's not the words Imus used: It would be just as bad if he had simply said the Rutgers women were ugly and loose.

People claim to object to the words alone, but that's because everyone is trying to fit this incident into a PC worldview. It's like girls who say, "It's not that you cheated on me; it's that you lied about it." No -- it's that you cheated.

Both make valid and reasonable points.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:39 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

April 05, 2007

My New Weekly Column at FamilySecurityMatters.org

I've been invited to write a weekly column at FamilySecurityMatters.org, which is pretty exciting, considering the talent there includes Brigitte Gabriel, Joel Mowbray and Peter Brooks. My debut column can be found here.

I also have a piece running at American Thinker today. Check it out!

UPDATE: Both of my articles referenced above discuss Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats, and their attempt at a power grab. This editorial by the Washington Post echoes some of the sentiments I discuss. This paragraph really brings it home:

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

I had discussed the Republican congressmen's visit in this post. Seeing the WaPo editorial helps clear things up quite a bit. It's also nice to see that, unlike the New York Times, the Washington Post is an outfit that still has some common sense about them.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:16 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

April 03, 2007

Chicken Hawks, Defeatists, and the Debate About Iraq

If the left had its way, very few citizens at home would be allowed to lend moral support to our soldiers in the field because the majority of us have not served in the military. This is the so-called logic behind the chicken hawk argument: If you have not served, or are not currently serving in the military, then you cannot under any circumstances support a war where real soldiers are dying. Suit up or shut up! When are you going to enlist?

Using this logic, if chicken hawks cannot support a war because they know nothing personally of warfare, then what makes those on the left who have not served more qualified to speak out against the war? Who are they to criticize the goings-on in Iraq? Do they know more than the president and the top military brass in the field? Why is it that leftwingers who havent served are qualified to say, Bring the troops home now, while rightwingers who say, We support the troops and their mission are hatemongers who pooh-pooh the very real dangers our soldiers face every day?

No one I know who supports the troops wants them to die. We would love for each and every one of our men and women in uniform to come home safely to their families. Unfortunately, we know the realities. Soldiers sign up for military duty for various reasons, but they all do so knowing that they might someday be called upon to go to war. They sign the dotted line knowing that even if they disagree with the mission, they have sworn to uphold it or face the consequences of a court martial and possible jail time. And they do this even though there are people at home who think they are either ignorant or have no other options than the military. They do this even though some of their fellow citizens consider them to be murderers and baby killers.

By putting their lives on the line, our volunteer military allows us to continue to have the freedom to say whatever we would like, including the freedom to insult the very ones who keep our freedoms secure.

I believe part of the reason the atmosphere surrounding this war is so toxic is because of the Internet. The Internet is a wonderful thing in many ways: it allows information to be disseminated without being filtered by the old media, so that we are truly more informed now than ever before. It also allows average citizens to become actively involved in the debate, something that once was nearly impossible unless one had a letter to the editor published. Unfortunately, the ease with which people can either post blog entries or comment on blog entries made by others anonymously makes it easier for them to let out whatever pent-up rage or frustration that they may have about a situation. Rather than debate an issue civilly online, many prefer to unleash the kind of vitriol that would not be acceptable in face-to-face conversation. Personal, ad hominem attacks are frequent on both sides of the political fence. The only thing that does for the debate is to cheapen it.

Whether you approve of the war or not, its important to be able to support your reason. And like it or not, what we say here at home has a definite impact on how our soldiers function in the field. I would rather err on the side of supporting our troops and the mission they uphold than to demand they come home simply because war is an uncomfortable thing, with the consequence that our enemies would consider this our defeat.

And calling me names or telling me Im full of hogwash certainly isnt going to make me change my mind about these and other important matters.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:00 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

Living-Room Warriors

If this were 1776, this Congress would be in danger of the tar-and-feather brand of American displeasure for using our battlefield troops as pawns in their childish game of mere politics and public posturing. This is not a photo-op for Nancy Pelosi and her grandchildren. Nor is it a bar-hopping night for Ted Kennedy. This isn't American Idol and it most assuredly is not a sing-along happening with Joan Baez. This is WAR! Our real sons and daughters are gallantly shedding their blood in a National effort to prevent even greater atrocities than 9/11, and our Congress is behaving like this is an interactive video game without genuine consequences. A presumed "Culture of Corruption", however deep, is far, far better than a Culture of Cowardice when it comes to protecting our children from maniacs who see them as nothing but fodder for their senseless Jihad. And anyone who cannot make that distinction should be home baking cookies and watching American Idol - not running the Country.

This entire must-read by Kyle-Ann Shiver is over at American Thinker.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:57 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

March 26, 2007

Why I Think France Sucks

Over the weekend, I received an e-mail from someone named Maxime Phillip, asking me to tell her why I think France sucks. Since I haven't posted on France's suckiness in some time, I figure she must have seen this post of mine that had a "France Sucks" graphic on it.

I was happy to oblige, and thought I might share what I wrote to her with my readers. Enjoy!

While it purports to be a US ally, France does everything it can to stymie US interests. The last time France really helped the US was when the US was fighting for independence from the British...and even that was because France was more interested in poking a stick in rival Britain's eye.

The French press and self-anointed elite take every opportunity to blame everything bad that happens in the world on the US. These days, they specifically blame George Bush, although even when Bush is out of office in 2009, America-bashing will likely remain in vogue.(This is by no means a French-only phenomenon, however.)

France's commitment to socialism means that unemployment is high and economic development is slow. Those hardest hit by this are young people, and more importantly, Muslim immigrants. By giving the immigrants a reason to be angry, France gives radical Muslims a foothold that the French government is unbelievably blind to. The government is signing France's death warrant, both economically and in the fact that Islam will likely become dominant.

France's commitment to the EU has nothing to do with making individual countries stronger, but to create an unelected body that makes laws that affect all Europeans, with France and co-conspirator Germany at the top of the bureaucratic heap.

The French government is, and has been for many years, cowardly, preferring to give in to would-be conquerers rather than fight for sovereignty.

France is whiny. For example, rather than accept that French is no longer the language of business and diplomacy, they complain about it, conducting studies on how to make French more influential. Aren't there more important things for the French government to be worrying about, like the unemployment and slow economic growth noted above?

While baselessly calling the US an imperialistic country, France ignores its own imperialist and colonial past, refusing to admit its role in the mess that is now Rwanda, among others.

Aaron added the following:

They name their streets after convicted cop killers (Mumia).

They coddle and celebrate child molesters cum movie directors (Roman Polanski).

And the always funny Wyatt Earp couldn't resist:

They smell badly. It's called deodorant, kids. It's not expensive.

They think Jerry Lewis is a motion picture icon.

They rolled over and surrendered themselves for the Nazis quicker than Paris Hilton does for stray men.

Needless to say, Mademoiselle Phillip has not replied.

UPDATE: A commenter, Lauriane, has told me that Maxime is a man's name. I stand corrected. As for the "fake rivalry" Lauriane mentioned, it's difficult to think that French people think America is great, when most of what we read and hear from their media and government is how rotten America and its culture is. I'm happy that Lauriane is enjoying her (his?...don't want to get caught in that trap again) life here in America, and if we were to meet, I'm sure she/he would actually find me to be a pleasant person. And believe it or not, the majority of Americans (including me) welcome immigrants from all countries with open arms, as long as they're here legally. But when it comes to France, I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Am I wrong about why I think France sucks? Possibly. But I'm not holding my breath to hear the French who love to vilify America admit that maybe they can be wrong too.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:46 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

March 23, 2007

Best Comment I've Read in a Long Time

While reading this opinion column in the Telegraph, where Con Coughlin hopes the US will intervene in Zimbabwe to remove the tyrant Robert Mugabe, I came across this gem in the comments section:

Kosovo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Congo, Rwanda, etc: The number of european leadership failures of are legion. From the US perspective dear friends in England, "WE'RE BUSY"!!! Take care of your own business.......do it yourselves. We Yanks know what the Brits and other Europeans think of us; stupid, foolish, immature, brutish, etc. We read your papers, listen to your politicians. We see the Germans compare us to Nazi killers, and the French go out of their way to discredit and obstruct us in every manner possible. Dear friends; it's time to conclude the great divorce. I for one am more than willing to pull the US from NATO, tear up the GATT, ignore DOHA, and turn the defense of Europe over to the good graces of the French and the Germans. WE DON'T NEED YOU, AND WE ARE TIRED OF ALL OF YOU. I know the feelings are mutual. We needn't think badly of each other; we needn't think of each other at all.
Posted by Dave on March 23, 2007 4:12 AM


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:22 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

March 19, 2007

Not All Liberals Love Al Franken

Just read this to find out why...ouch!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:09 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

March 14, 2007

Open Letter to Immigrants

Vasko Kohlmeyer makes many excellent points on American Thinker today. Here's one:

Being an immigrant myself let me say something that needs to be said, but which Americans - the genial hosts that they are - are reluctant to do: If you do not like it here, you should seriously think about going back to where you came from. Ultimately such a move may prove to be the best thing for you, because living in a country you dislike is probably more damaging to you than you realize. For one thing, in the long run this kind of festering dissatisfaction tends to embitter the heart, a condition which should always be a matter for concern.

Read it all.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

March 02, 2007

Without George, Who's to Blame?

An excellent op-ed piece by Gerard Baker in today's Times UK Online discusses that question:

Its been a great ride for the past six years, hasnt it? George Bush and Dick Cheney and all those pantomime villains that succour him the gay-bashing foot soldiers of the religious Right, the forktailed neoconservatives with their devotion to Israel, the dark titans of American corporate boardrooms spewing their carbon emissions above the pristine European skies. Having those guys around for so long provided a comfortable substitute for thinking hard about global challenges, a kind of intellectual escapism.


Some day soon, though, this escapism will run into the dead end of reality. In fact, the most compelling case for the American people to elect a Democrat as president next year is that, in the US, leadership in a time of war requires the inclusion of both political parties, and in the rest of the world, people will have to start thinking about what is really the cause of all our woes.

Well, I don't know as I'd go so far as to think that electing a Democrat in 2008 is vital. After all, I don't want to find out when it's too late what will happen if the official Appeasement Party manages to worm its way into the Oval Office in these uncertain times. But Baker is indeed correct: who will become the scapegoat during "smart dinner-party conversation?"

It's so easy to say that George Bush occupying the White House is the reason Islamofascists have it in for us. Of course, it's convenient to forget all of the terrorist acts that happened before the 2000 election, especially those that happened on the Democrats' favorite rogue's watch (USS Cole, Khobar Towers, World Trade Towers 1993, etc.).

But radical Islamists hate the West. No matter how much we want to say we understand them, how much we want to "talk," they will hate us and continue to hate us until they either destroy us or we destroy them.

Writing for the American Thinker today, Ken Boyette describes an encounter he had with some young men in South Lebanon back in 1985, when he was working as a contract producer for Middle East Television:

[A]s we were preparing to leave two young men that tailed us for some time finally approached. One spoke English well and said he had something to say. I offered to put him on camera but he refused. Suddenly, he launched into a diatribe and made a blood chilling promise.

"We are holy warriors chosen of God. We are coming to America to kill Americans. You cannot stop us. You'll see."

"Are you Hezbollah?" I asked.

"Yes," he replied. "Some day we will make you pay for all the evil you have done. We'll come to America. You'll see!" With that he and his companion congratulated each other and walked quickly away.

1985? W's dad was vice president to Ronald Reagan, while W himself was dabbling in business interests at that time. He didn't even become governor of Texas until 1994. If Islamofascists today hate America because of George W. Bush, why did these two young men hate America then? Boyette continues (emphasis mine):

Did the two Hezbollah recruits in Bent Jbeil keep their promise? You bet. Last I checked they mayor [sic] of Bent Jbeil, Lebanon is from Dearborn, Michigan. And the Hezbollah stronghold has sent thousands of its residents to the US. I'm no genius, but with where I've been and what I've seen, I can connect the dots. They're here, waiting.

But what drove them to our shores is another matter. In Islam there are four enemies, two of which qualify for a holy war. Those two are the unbelievers and the apostate. Of the four enemies of Islam the apostate is the worst. In the case of the apostate all those who leave the faith and those who persuaded them are to be put to death. By their very existence apostates betray all Muslims.

According to the Iranian Shiite Revolution, the modern state of Israel is an apostate government in the heart of Islam, and America is viewed as the supporting resource, the persuader of the apostasy. So the Ayatollahs call America the Great Satan and Israel the Little Satan and Hezbollah chants; "Death to America. Death to Israel".

I fear the left will never be done with Bush. Vile invective will continue to be poured on his head until the day he dies, because when hatred runs that deep, it's hard to let go. Being able to point the righteous finger of blame at someone else is comforting. But when that person is no longer around, some uncomfortable facts will need to be faced.

I'm not looking forward to that day, because it'll mean we're in much hotter water than we are now.

Others blogging: Dr. Sanity, Betsy's Page

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:46 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

February 23, 2007

Two Good Reads for Your Friday

Jack Lacton (who blogs at Kerplunk-- Shaken, Not Stirred) gives us 10 Signs That You're a Moral Idiot, and Benjamin Duffy (writing for the Daily Collegian) gives us Making the Right Decision. Both skewer liberalism and leftism nicely.

h/t: Right Wing Nation

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 03:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

February 21, 2007

A World Without America

From 18 Doughty Street, h/t Right Wing Nation:


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

February 19, 2007

The Disenchanted Voter

My take on American Thinker today.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:33 AM | Comments (29) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

February 16, 2007

Emotion vs. Logic in Politics

Joe at geosciblog has a thoughtful post on the differences between emotional liberals and thoughtful conservatives. I urge you to head over there to read it.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

January 26, 2007

Dreaming of American Idol

Now anyone who knows me can tell you that I am not an American Idol fan. Last year and the year before I watched some of the auditions and that was it. I didn't, and don't, want to get sucked up into the hype. Give me an episode of Forensic Files on Court TV any day!

But tonight, my oldest daughter and I entertained ourselves by going to YouTube and watching many of the Idol reject auditions that can be found there. I saw the young man whom Simon Cowell likened to a "bush baby," and one young lady who admitted that she was a terrible singer, but that with the help of the American Idol judges, she could become the first Idol who was unable to sing a note when she first auditioned. Then there was the girl who sang one of guest judge Jewel's songs, trying to sound exactly like Jewel...and failing miserably. (Jewel herself looked thoroughly embarrassed.) And what about the gal who imitated the Cowardly Lion and sang the Lion's song from the Wizard of Oz?

Some people on Idol accept the judges' decision gracefully. Others argue. And still others use profanity to let us know what they think. Like that's going to win hearts and change minds...

Why do these people put themselves through this? More importantly, why do we? (My daughter and I squirmed uncomfortably during more than one performance.)

I didn't see any of the contestants so far this year who are any good, although I am sure they are out there. But so many people who have absolutely no talent whatsoever go on this show! And so many of them say that they had family, friends, or co-workers urge them to try out. Either their cheerleaders are as tone deaf as they are, or they are sadistic b*stards, laughing at the failures that are broadcast for all of America to see.

The dream to become a pop star in America is very tempting. If I thought I had even half a chance, I might consider it. However: one, I'm too old for AI's age bracket, and two, my singing is just not up to par. Perhaps with some professional instruction (that I have no time or money for), who knows? But I know my limits. And I'm sure Simon would cut me off within the first few bars of whatever song I chose to sing. Paula would shake her head sympathetically. And Randy would say, "No, dog, the vocals just aren't there."

Part of the appeal of Idol, at least in the early stages, is seeing people make absolute fools of themselves. It's part of human nature to laugh at the expense of others. Rosie O'Donnell (who makes a living by deriding others, by the way) can complain all she likes about Simon Cowell's insults, but that is what people tune in to see. And everyone who auditions realizes they are taking the risk of having some of those barbs thrown at them. The entertainment world is a dog eat dog one. If you can't take the heat, you have no business being in the kitchen.

One of the things we are told as children is that we can do absolutely anything we want to do if we just want it enough. It's a lovely sentiment, but it simply isn't true. There are many things that sound great to me, but I know that there is no way I could possibly carry them off: being a model (too short), joining the Army (not enough stamina for boot camp), being a pro tennis player (I suck at tennis)...this is just a partial list! Even the things I am good at do not guarantee fame, fortune or a fabulous career. It's just the way life is.

Dreams are all well and good, but a bit of realism is important in those dreams. Instead of being told that we can do absolutely anything, we should be encouraged to follow a path based on our strengths, whatever they may be. Like you, I imagine, I have a few dreams. And perhaps maybe one or two of them may come true! But in the meantime, I try to live a life that's based in reality. It makes for less heartache and less need for Tums.

Unfortunately for some, getting caught up in the dream means crashing down to earth when the castle in the sky is shattered by the blunt honesty of people like Simon Cowell.

But it makes for great television ratings.

They're not going to lie to you!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:12 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

January 19, 2007

Anti-Americanism in Europe

The American Thinker includes my thoughts about it today.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:49 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

December 21, 2006

Mary Grabar Takes On "The View"

Mary Grabar, whose commentary can be found on Town Hall, gives the ladies on The View a b*tch slap worthy of one of the show's own hosts.

But its a sign of our crumbling civilization that a bunch of girls of varying ages and ethnic backgrounds, sitting around all dressed up for a coffee klatch, some of them with cleavage spilling out of Victorias Secret Infinity Edge Push-Up bras, spout off opinions borrowed from disturbed teenagers and Michael Moore, and call it a talk show.

This was the danger of giving women the vote. The danger to conservatives (and the survival of this country) is the voting bloc of single women, i.e., those who lack the guidance of a man in the form of a husband or intellectual mentor.

Read it all here.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:38 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

November 29, 2006

Life is a Cabaret

This is a must-read post over at Kitty Litter. Go there now!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:09 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

November 07, 2006

Wisdom Across the Millenia

So true:

"When the scholars of today discuss good government, many of them say, 'Give land to the poor and destitute so that those who have no means of livelihood may be provided for.' Now if men start out with equal opportunities and yet there are a few who, without help or unusually good harvetys or outside income, are able to keep themselves well supplied, it must be due to either hard work or to frugal living. If men start with equal opportunities and yet there are a few who, without having suffered from some calamity like famine or sickness, still sink into poverty and destitution, it must be due either to laziness or to extravagant living. The lazy and extravagant grow poor; the diligent and and frugal get rich. Now if the ruler levies money from the rich in order to give alms to the poor, he is robbing the diligent and frugal and indulging the lazy and extravagant. If he expects by such means to induce the people to work industriously and spend with caution, he will be disappointed."

It was said by a Chinese gentleman, Han Fei, born circa 280 B.C. He was from a royal family of aristocrats but what he says has been true for over two thousand years so far.


Stolen shamelessly from Dissecting the Left

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:00 AM | Comments (36) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

November 03, 2006

Two Americas? More Like Double Standards

One of my pet peeves is double standards: one rule for me, another for you regarding the same issue.

Apparently, Town Hall columnist Burt Prelusky also dislikes double standards, and likens them to the two Americas John Edwards opined in the last election:

Every black minister can count on being trotted out for photo ops every time a Democrat runs for dog catcher, but let a white parson speak out on an issue, and leftists start running around, screaming about separation of church and state.

If a Christian wears a cross in the work place, the ACLU will be only too happy to nail his hide to the wall of the nearest courthouse. But let a 25-year-old Muslim with a Syrian passport be searched at the airport, and the liberals will hold a candlelight vigil in his honor.

Great stuff. Read the whole thing here.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:35 AM | Comments (63) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

October 24, 2006

The Era of Big Babyism

I discovered this thanks to husband-dude. It's from a book called Big Babies by Michael Bywater, and is excerpted for us by the Telegraph UK. It basically discusses what many of us have suspected all along: that modern society is out to infantilize us.

Here is a random sample of what is implicit in the assumptions that are made about all of us: We are unable to control our appetites;

We cannot postpone gratification;

We have little sense of self, and what we do have is deformed;

We have no articulable inner life;

We are pre- or sub-literate;

We are solipsistic;

We do not have the ability to exercise responsible autonomy;

We require constant surveillance and constant admonition;

We are potentially, if not actually, violent;

We have no social sensibilities beyond the tribal;

We have no discrimination.


Infantility, indefinitely prolonged, is also the indefinite prolongation of (false) promise.

It's never too late never too late to stomp, cadaverous, around the stage singing 'Can't get no satisfaction'.

Never too late to cast off the old wife and find a new one. Never too late to make the big killing, to score the goal, to find the perfect shoes, to acquire the perfect six-pack, rack, complexion, butt, pecs or thighs. Never too late (hell, someone must be answering the spam) to get the perfect dick, pumped up with a scoopful of mail-order Viagra; never too late to give her the perfect orgasm, get the perfect house, fill it with the perfect furniture, take the perfect vacation, drive the perfect car

Bywater suggests we act like the adults we purport to be. Here are a few of his suggestions:

Ignore celebrities, except when they are doing what they are celebrated for doing: acting, playing football et cetera. Skill does not confer moral, political or intellectual discrimination. (Except in the case of writers. Writers know everything and can lecture you with impunity.) If a celebrity is not celebrated for doing anything but being a celebrity, smile politely but pay no notice


Consider our own motivations. We may rail about being treated like children, ordered about, kept from the truth, nannied and exploited but are we complicit in it? Could the reward actually be infantilisation itself?


Do not love yourself unconditionally. Such love is for babies and comes from their mothers. Ignore fashion, particularly in clothes. You don't want to look like a teenager for ever

Never do business with a company offering 'solutions' as in 'ergonomic furniture solutions which minimise the postural strain associated with sitting' (chairs) and 'Post Office mailing solutions' (brown paper). The word suggests we have a problem, but since we are grown-ups, that is for us to decide.

Denounce relativism at every turn. Shouting 'not fair' is childish. Demanding respect without earning it is childish. Don't fear seriousness. Babies aren't allowed to be serious.

Think about it: New York City is currently proposing a ban on trans fats in restaurant cooking. Al Gore jets around the world while telling the rest of us to ride bikes in order to reverse the global warming he claims is about to end life on Earth as we know it. Celebrities, who are paid gazillions of dollars for singing, acting or tossing a ball around, are asked their opinions on everything from raising a family to politics -- and we are expected to take them seriously.

Read it...it'll get you thinking.

We're becoming an infantile society...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

October 03, 2006

Did You Ever Notice?

...that people who are against the death penalty for violent criminals are often for no-holds-barred abortion?
...that Communist countries usually have some kind of "democratic" designation in their names? (i.e. North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea")
...that the people who are the strongest advocates for Communism usually have never lived under Communism?
...that "peace" activists have no problem using violence to get their message across?
...that those who lecture the rest of us about the dangers of man-caused global warming often fly on private jets to exotic destinations?
...that certain newspapers that complain about President Bush not doing enough to protect American citizens don't mind leaking classified security documents that our enemies can read?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:36 AM | Comments (176) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

August 23, 2006

Guilt vs. Gratitude

Guilt pervades the mindset of the left. Whether consciously or unconsciously, there are too many who believe that the success of the "Western" world is because of our past involvements with slavery and colonialism. Therefore, any type of moral equivalency becomes excusable because of past sins of the West. For example, Abu Ghraib become synonymous with Nazi genocide. Self-defense by Israelis becomes inexcusable. Noam Chomsky can excuse the genocide of millions of Cambodians. The list goes on and on.

Alfred Nobel was perhaps the man who made guilt an official coda of the West. He was horrified to read in his obituary, mistakenly published when his brother died, that he was the man "who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before" due to his inventing dynamite. He then established the Nobel prizes, the most important of which being the Peace Prize.

If we look at the winners of the Nobel Prize in the 21st century, one sees the guilt factor being played with no bearing in reality for a most of its recipients.

2000: Kim Dae-Jung is awarded the Peace Prize for engaging North Korea in peace talks. Later, it was discovered that he had to pay the North Koreans to make the meeting happen. The Sunshine Policy in no way advanced the cause of peace in Asia, and North Korea continues to advance its criminal policies and continues to starve its own people.

2001: The United Nations and Kofi Annan are awarded the Peace Prize for their work in making a more peaceful world. That this work includes UN Peace Keeping forces acting as hostages for terrorist groups and prostituting the people they are supposed to protect does not seem to apply. The UN perpetuates the status quo -- and that is not a good thing, yet the UN continues to be heralded as an agency that will save the world from the excesses of the West. The UN is yet another example of the leftwing guilt factor working overtime.

2002: Jimmy Carter -- the epitome of guilt. This is a man who, in the interest of "human rights," demanded the lame but compariatively benign Shah of Iran to hand over power to the Ayatollah Khomeni. He advised the Shah's top military advisers to step down...they listened...and all but one were murdered by the Ayatollah when he took power. Afterward, Carter stood wringing his hands while American hostages were held for 444 days by radical Iranian Islamists...hostages that were not released until shortly after Ronald Reagan took office. This one act caused massive destabilization in the Middle East, and anti-Westernism, anti-Americanism, became the rule of the day. Human rights have not improved in Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East...no thanks to Jimmy Carter.

2003: Shirin Ebadi seems to have actually won the Nobel Peace Prize for the right reasons.

2004: Wangari Maathai also seems to have also won the Nobel Peace Prize for the right reasons. However, upon receiving the award, she went right after Western guilt by claiming that HIV was a bio-engineered weapon released in Africa to punish blacks.

2005: The International Atomic Energy Agency and Mohamed ElBaradei receive the Peace Prize. This is an example of a completely ineffectual bureaucrat and bureaucracy that have accomplished nothing. ElBaradei sees no problem with Iran going nuclear -- because the greater crime is the fact that America and other Western nations already have nuclear weapons. The fact that Iran is more likely than Western nations to push the button without a qualm does not enter into his thinking.

The Nobel Peace Prize was brought about as a result of guilt, and is awarded with the same intentions. The UN is about guilt. Amnesty International and Greenpeace are about guilt. And, since guilt can be manipulated by the unscrupulous, the results have been disastrous.

The problem is one of intent. There should be prizes for gratitude. Instead of wallowing in pity and self-condemnation, we should highlight those among us deserving of our gratitude instead of wallowing in a miasma of guilt. By such a criteria, who would be truly deserving of praise and who of condemnation?

Written with the help of husband-dude

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:24 AM | Comments (58) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

August 04, 2006

History Repeating Itself

According to Victor Davis Hanson, the world is reliving the mistakes of the 1930s. Only today, instead of Hitler and his Nazis, we have Islamofascists to worry about.

Read his brilliant column here.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

July 21, 2006

On Peace Movements

Thomas Sowell's latest column is entitled Pacifists vs. Peace, and discusses the ineffectiveness of "peace movements."

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

Read the whole thing.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

July 19, 2006

On Israel

I have not commented fully on the situation regarding Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon before due to an overly-busy schedule, but I have been doing plenty of reading, listening and thinking on the subject. I would like to state here and now why I support Israel's current efforts, and why I support Israel overall.

Since its inception in 1948, Israel has been the butt of derision and scorn of not only the Arab world, but many so-called allies in the rest of the free world. The Jewish people have been persecuted for thousands of years, and giving them a country to call their own has not slowed that down one whit.

Until just a few years ago, with the advent of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel was the only democratic country in the Middle East. And you don't have to be Jewish to be a citizen with voting rights! Plenty of Arabs are living peacefully in Israel, supporting themselves and their families and enjoying the rights accorded all citizens.

This is, I think, what irks Israel's enemies the most.

Despite having had official statehood for less than 100 years, Israel is a successful and dominant force in the Middle East. Other Arab countries, under the thumbs of mullahs and kings, continue to wallow in medieval attitudes an mores, despite the oil wealth of some of these countries. Those countries that don't have oil wealth are also saddled with the burden of struggling economies.

Combine the above with deeply-rooted hatred of the Jewish people and you have a stewpot ready to boil over.

Israel has been blamed as an oppressor of the Palestinian people, but it is the Palestians themselves who have dug their own proverbial graves. Yasser Arafat, for example, signed peace accords and promptly violated them. He was a terrorist, first and foremost, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, certainly as grotesque an idea as someone like Kim Jon-Il winning it. (Who knows, maybe North Korea's "Dear Leader" is on the short list as I write this?)

In spite of all this, Israel decided to once again make peaceful overtures. They pulled out of Gaza and the West Bank, forcing settlers to leave their homes and businesses. Palestine has also had elections. Unfortunately, Hamas has now made inroads in the Palestinian government, proof that Palestinians have no interest in peace. If they wanted peace, why would they elect a slate of leaders from a terrorist group?

Now we have the situation with Hezbollah and Lebanon. The issue isn't Lebanon, but the terrorist organization Hezbollah, which has been ensconced in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese government, still recovering from its own civil war, has been unable to dislodge them. And so they have had a place to arm, plan, and bide their time. The time is now.

Hezbollah makes no secret that it wishes to drive Israel out of existence. It kidnapped Israeli soldiers and sent explosives into Israel. These are hardly friendly overtures, and so Israel jumped into the driver's seat and began bombing Lebanon with the hope of squashing Hezbollah.

And the world looks on, calling Israeli reaction "disproportionate force." Countries such as France and Russia are calling for an immediate cease fire. As usual, Israel is the one being criticized when they are the ones who were attacked first. The UN now wants to bring in peacekeepers. But the UN, which has called for the disarming of Hezbollah in the so-far uninforced Resolution 1559, hardly has a great track record with its peacekeeping forces (consider the sex scandal involving peacekeepers and children in the Congo).

We constantly hear gripers here in the US calling for our government to withdraw all support from Israel. Not only does this mirror isolationist tendencies, but it reflects a hatred of Jews that continues to flourish in our so-called tolerant society. By withdrawing support from Israel, we may well be condemning it to its doom. And by doing so, a beacon of freedom in the Middle East is also extinguished.

Do the naysayers think that if we give Israel the cold shoulder we won't be in danger of terrorist attacks? Just like they think if we pull out of Iraq (and Afghanistan) today we will be on good terms with the terrorists? If so, they are more naiive than a newborn baby. Islamofascists want to establish radical Islamic rule across the globe. We will be the Great Satan no matter what we do because we, as well as Israel, represent everything that Islamofascists hate: freedom and democracy.

Hezbollah and its sponsors (Iran, etc.) want Israel demolished. Palestine wants Israel demolished. And if they succeed, they will be one step closer to installing radical Islamic rule over that corner of the world and, if they have their way, the rest of the world.

This is why Israel must succeed, and why we must continue with our support.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

July 16, 2006

Israel's Tactics vs. US Tactics

This letter, printed in the NY Post, says it all:

Two Israeli solders are kidnapped, and Israel launches a major attack.

American soldiers are kidnapped and publicly decapitated, and Congress orders that terrorist prisoners receive the same rights as American citizens and that the air conditioning be made colder at Gitmo.

Boy, are we in for it.
John Comparetto

More on the situation in Israel soon...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:19 PM | Comments (57) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

July 06, 2006

On Ken Lay

When I heard of the death of Ken Lay yesterday, I wasn't sure what to think. He'd been found guilty in one of the biggest corporate scandals in recent history, and was awaiting sentencing to the tune of at least 20 years. At his age, that was akin to a death sentence.

Then he died of a heart attack.

He wasn't an evil man. (We save...or should save...that designation for cold blooded murderers and their ilk.) He rose from having nothing to having more than anyone could dream of. He got greedy. A lot of people lost money because of the decisions he made. He got caught, and was preparing to receive his punishment.

Someone I ride the train with made a derisive comment that Lay had found a way to "get out of" going to prison. I am sure he is not alone in his lack of sympathy. Yet I can't help but feel sorry for him and his family. While I don't think he should have gotten away with what he did, he ultimately paid the price with his untimely death. This ordeal obviously took a great toll on him. And no matter what the rest of us may say about him, he had a family who loved him.

Peggy Noonan's take:

Putting aside all judgments and conclusions, all umbrage, outrage and indignation, and all debates on who was most responsible for the Enron scandal--putting all those weighty and legitimate concerns aside--isn't it obvious that Ken Lay died of a broken heart? We forget that people do, or at least I forget, but they do.

His life was broken and would never be healed. Or if it was to be healed it would happen while he was imprisoned, for the rest of his life, with four walls to look at. All was wreckage around him. He died, of a massive coronary. But that can be another way of saying broken heart.

Is this Shakespearian in the sense of being towering and tragic? I don't know. I think it's primal and human. And I think if we were more regularly conscious of the fact that death through sadness happens we'd be better to each other. I'm thinking here of a friend who reflected one day years ago, I cannot recall why, on how hard people are on each other, how we're all complicated little pirates and more sensitive, more breakable, than we know.

He said--I paraphrase--"It's a dangerous thing to deliberately try to hurt someone because it's not possible to calibrate exactly how much hurt you're doing. You can't know in advance the extent of the damage. A snub can leave a wound that lasts a lifetime, a bop on the head with a two-by-four will be laughed off. One must be careful. We'll always hurt others by accident or in a passion but we mustn't do it with deliberation."

We are human beings, and to each other we are not fully knowable. There's a lot of mystery in life. The life force can leave before we even know it's withdrawing.

Beautifully said.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

July 05, 2006

Flag Epidemic: A New Disease?

From the headline, that's what one might think:

US 'flag epidemic' reaches peak on Fourth of July

It's a true epidemic: the red, white and blue, stars-and-stripes banners are everywhere in the United States - on house facades, front lawns, cars and clothes.

Hitting an high point on the July 4 US Independence Day holiday, it is a genuine phenomenon of American national pride that, inevitably, gets a good but also sometimes unwanted boost from commercial exploitation.

"It's a little strange, this obsession of the flag," French author Bernard-Henri Levy wrote after traveling across the country.

"Everywhere, in every form, flapping in the wind or on stickers, an epidemic of flags that has spread throughout the city," Levy wrote in "American Vertigo" of the riot of banners he saw.

As usual, people from other countries simply don't "get it" when it comes to Americans and their pride in their flag, a symbol of their country. And that's their problem.

To some, America might be just another place to put your feet under the table. But most of us realize how fortunate we are to live in a country in which we have the ability to make the most of our opportunities and try not to take our grace and freedoms for granted.

Flying our flag proudly is just a small part of that.

So don't worry about the opinions of snooty Europeans and a few American elitists who turn their noses up at patriotism. Fly the flag proudly...not just on July 4th, but throughout the year.

UPDATE (6:47 pm): Michelle Malkin shows some instances of French patriotism. But since these photos look like they might have been taken at sporting events, I guess that makes them OK in the eyes of Le French...

A source of pride, not embarrassment

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

June 09, 2006

The Ann Coulter "Godless" Flap

Ann Coulter has the hounds nipping at her heels. And, after some of you read this, you may be nipping at mine.

In her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann Coulter takes on the Jersey Girls in her usual, take-no-prisoners style:

A group of New Jersey 9/11 widows - Kleinberg, Kristin Breitweiser, Patty Casazza and Lorie Van Auken - created headlines by pushing for a wide examination of intelligence and security failures that eventually led to the creation of the 9/11 commission.

In 2004, they endorsed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, fiercely denounced President Bush and participated in political ads using images from the attacks - actions that prompted Coulter's attack.

"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony," Coulter said.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."

Coulter accused the four widows of "trying to convert their personal tragedy into a weapon to dictate national policy."

And then she got personal.

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy," Coulter said.

Coulter usually riles a few people with her writings, but this really raised the roof. Not only are those on the left decrying her comments, but there are plenty of those on the right who disagree with her as well. Coulter is receiving equal opportunity condemnation.

Naturally, she is unapologetic. She always stands behind what she says and writes. But is she truly wrong? Writing for World Net Daily, Kevin McCullough thinks not.

Read More "The Ann Coulter "Godless" Flap"

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:18 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack (1) | Commentary

June 02, 2006

Next Time You Worry About What the World "Thinks" of Us...

...remember these words of wisdom from the Good Lieutenant over at Mein Blogovault:

Do we just sit here paralyzed becasue somebody is upset or "has an opinion of us?" Were they upset on September 10, 2001? 9-11 was hatched starting in 1998, and Clinton (the man that made us "beloved" to the "world") couldn't stop it from happening with his schmoozing with international leaders and pariahs. Somebody was already pissed (al-Qaeda), they still are and we need to exterminate them - not lie down and cry like a bunch of pansies just because everyone else in the world appears to be pansies as well.

Read the whole post here. And be sure to visit the Good Lieutenant regularly!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

May 24, 2006

Commencement Speeches: No Longer Inspirational

It used to be that college commencement speakers would give speeches designed to inspire and congratulate the students who just completed an important part of their lives.

Now, it seems, commencement speakers have decided to use the podium as a pulpit for their own political beliefs, taking advantage of a captive audience to further a particular agenda.

There have been plenty of examples in the news of late, but this is probably one that won't be in your peripheral because the university is not a high profile one. Catherine Crier, former lawyer and judge who hosts Catherine Crier Live on Court TV, gave the commencement address at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury, Connecticut.

My alma mater.

I didn't attend my own commencement because I graduated mid-year, and decided not to bother walking down the aisle in the spring. If Crier is the kind of speaker that WCSU is in the habit of engaging, I can see I didn't miss much.

Crier thought her speech was so important that she posted it on HuffPo. You can read it in its entirety if you wish to know how Crier took what is supposed to be a happy, uplifting occasion to criticize the Bush administration and our presence in Iraq. (Hey, if the usual ploys don't work, use that captive audience to advantage!)

It seems that some in the audience didn't take kindly to Crier's hijacking the graduation.

Western Connecticut State University graduate Krista M. Lindstedt wants an apology from commencement speaker Catherine Crier, who turned Sunday's graduation ceremony into "more of a political rally than a commencement speech that should be positive, motivational and happy."

"Overall she offended a lot of people," said Lindstedt, 33, of Crier's speech, which lasted at least 20 minutes. "It was completely, completely inappropriate. It was a slap in the face to veterans" — and soldiers like herself.

Linstedt didn't just sit mum. She stood up and told Crier what she thought.

"I said this is wrong. It is not about you, about politics. It is about graduation. This is an insult to graduates and guests who have family members over there (in Iraq). They didn't come to sit at a political rally."

Lindstedt and others stood and turned their backs to Crier to show their opposition to her message. Many people came up to Lindstedt later and shook her hand or patted her on the back for standing up for her beliefs.

"I did not plan on that happening," she said. "It was not about our moment that we were living. It was not about our achievements, expectations and moving forward, but a slam on the (Bush) administration."

According to the News Times article quoted above, Crier was not surprised by the reaction of the crowd.

"I know that these issues are very sensitive issues on all sides of the fence, all sides of the debate," said Crier. "I wasn't completely surprised (at the protest). I didn't walk away upset because it wasn't perfect.

"In an ideal world," she said, "it be great if you could sort of propose different points of view, engaging in ideas, engaging in healthy debate."

Newsflash: a commencement speech is not healthy debate. It's one person in front of a crowd of people, speaking without having to answer questions regarding what is said. It's also a day to honor graduates and inspire them, not a day to rail against an administration whose policies one does not agree with.

This bit, from Crier's post on HuffPo, is particularly telling of her attitude toward different points of view:

I gave a commencement speech this morning at Western Connecticut State University. Skipping the usual themes, I addressed political concerns. My remarks inspired a number of hecklers, parents and students alike, who tried to boo me from the podium. My thanks to the many people who applauded, and those brave young graduates who stepped out of line when receiving their diplomas to shake my hand.

Stepping out of line to shake her hand was brave? Puh-leeze. How about Linstedt, who stood up in the middle of a large crowd to tell Crier she thought the speech was inappropriate in such a setting? One would think that Crier, a progressive thinker, would applaud Linstedt's move, even if she didn't agree with the sentiment behind it.

Silly me.

Catherine Crier motivates from the left

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

May 10, 2006

Richard Lamm: Plan to Destroy America

You may have seen this before. I had heard of it, but tonight on his radio show, Mark Levin read it, and I thought I'd share it with those of you who have not seen/heard it.

Richard Lamm is the former governor of Colorado. He is a Democrat. He made this speech at an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington D.C. Here it is in its entirety:

"If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'

Here is how they do it. Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.

Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'

I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.

Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.

My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.

E. Pluribus Unum — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'x! xenophobes' halt discussion and debate.

Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.

Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book." (note: should be Victor Davis Hanson -- ed.)


Makes you think, doesn't it?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:33 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1) | Commentary

April 17, 2006

My Beef with Movie Theaters

I took today off (my kids are off for Easter vacation...oops, it's now called "spring break") and took the girls to see Ice Age: The Meltdown. It was a fun film, just about as good as the original. We all enjoyed it.

Here's what I didn't enjoy about the outing:

*Paying $19 ($7 for me and $6 each for the kids) to see 10-15 minutes worth of commercials and previews. In fact, I think this time there were more commercials than there were previews.

*Having to tell my 10-year-old over and over that I'd rather take them out for ice cream after the movie than spend another $20 or so on snacks.

*Listening to the little kids next to us who simply wouldn't shut up during the most exciting part of the movie (whose parents obviously had no control over them)...not to mention the guy behind us who burped loudly. Whatever happened to civility and manners?

*Why on earth are all the cartoons these days voiced over by actors who I don't usually even want to see in the flesh? It used to be we loved the character...now we just go to see (insert celebrity name here) as (insert cartoon character here). But that's a different post subject entirely...

Needless to say, we don't go to the movies often, as I don't enjoy spending my hard-earned money for (often) mediocre films while having advertisements and rude fellow audience members ruin the experience for me.

Thanks for letting me get that out of my system!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 05:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

March 27, 2006

On Being Proud to Be Conservative

Burt Prelutsky, who writes a regular column for Town Hall, has written an excellent one this week, entitled Proud to Be A Conservative. (Apparently it's a rerun from late last year.)

The other day I was listening to a talk radio show, and heard a caller announce that there’s no freedom of speech in this country, that, because of the fascistic administration in Washington, people are afraid to criticize the government. His proof was that Cindy Sheehan had been rebuked for merely exercising her constitutional right to mouth off against authority figures. The show’s host correctly pointed out that the 1st Amendment guarantees her freedom to speak her mind, such as it is, but that doesn’t in any way curtail the right of other Americans to call her an idiot.

What the host didn’t point out was that even as the caller spoke, he was contradicting his own statement. He was freely sharing his own foolish thoughts with millions of listeners.

That's a great observation. Was this caller rounded up and hauled off to the gulag for daring to say what he did? Used for horrible medical experiments? Overworked and then starved to death? Give me a break. Whenever lefties have their views criticized, they give the rallying cry, "My free speech is being violated!" The only thing being violated in this instance is common sense.

Frankly, I’m amazed that liberals can be wrong so often about so many things. One of the few issues they are occasionally right about is protecting the environment. But even when it comes down to that, the radical element that infests their ranks like termites are always trying to stop any and all forms of development, the source of homes and jobs for those of us who don’t want to live in trees. Their love for Mother Earth leads them to blow up buildings, bomb car dealerships, and sabotage logging sites, all with an air of moral authority. They don’t, in fact, love snail darters, spotted owls or Alaska’s caribou, anymore than the rest of us; they merely hate western civilization in much the same way that Islamic fascists do.

A fact worth noting is that during LBJ’s administration, a group of tree huggers got an injunction to prevent the feds from working on a certain project in the South, for fear it would harm the environment. The project involved shoring up the levees of New Orleans.

Here's a link regarding that injunction. Why has this gotten less play than that of the current administration's role in the Katrina mess? Because being a leftie means never having to say either "I was wrong" or "I'm sorry."

I too am proud to be a conservative. Like Prelutsky I tend to vote for Republicans. Likewise, I know that all politicians have flaws. There's plenty I disagree with regarding President Bush's policies. An example I cite often is his handling of the illegal immigration problem. However, that doesn't mean I throw the baby out with the bathwater. An "all or nothing" ideology doesn't make for a strong party. Which is why, I think, the Democrats are in the trouble they are. The radical left is making it hard for moderates to come to the fore. And if Republicans aren't careful, they'll end up having the same problem.

Looking back on my own political metamorphosis, I realize how typical it is that, as one matures, takes on responsibilities, deals with tragedy and loss, one tends to drift from left to right, and how rarely the reverse occurs.

I've made this journey myself, and therefore believe it to be true.

Oh, and if anyone decides to leave a comment disagreeing with what I've said here, I promise not to claim that my First Amendment rights have been violated.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

March 07, 2006

Picking and Choosing a Cause

Some feel that conservatives are a bit, well, hypocritical in the recent spate of support for Denmark regarding freedom of speech and the publishing of Muhammed cartoons that have caused (well planned) rioting throughout Europe.

You know what's funny? American conservatives generally hate Europe. Especially France, of course, but the loathing is generally quite continental. Europe may have given birth to Western Civilization, but now it's a socialist secular wasteland that's rapidly sinking into oblivion and irrelevance, that is, in essence, becoming extinct, dying. At best, conservatives want Europe to be more American, hence their enthusiastic support of Italian conservative Silvio Berlusconi and German conservative Angela Merkel. Indeed, it wasn't so long ago that they enthusiastically supported a French conservative by the name of Jacques Chirac.


So how funny it is, in an odd sort of way, to see conservatives falling all over themselves in support of that great European power, Denmark, just because a Danish newspaper published a few provocatively offensive cartoons that belittled Islam (see here, here, and here). It's a case of free speech, conservatives argue, but the fact that speech is free, and ought to remain so, doesn't make it right. Are we witnessing a rush of conservative support to Holocaust-denier David Irving? Not so much. But conservatives are jumping gleefully aboard their self-made pro-Denmark bandwagon — see here, here, and here.

The Moderate Voice makes some interesting points. I'd like to address them. This is a long post; you'll need a few minutes to read it if you can spare the time.

Read More "Picking and Choosing a Cause"

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:45 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

January 13, 2006

What About the Children?

This story literally made me cry. Seven-year-old Nixzmary Brown was beaten to death by her stepfather while her mother sat in the next room feeding another baby.

Apparently Nixzmary had been the subject of physical and sexual abuse, as well as neglect, for a long time. Her school alerted child welfare authorities in New York City when they suspected abuse, but bureaucracy and incompetence worked against Nixzmary. The reason for her stepfather's final outrage? She had taken a yogurt without permission, after all the other children had gotten some (but she had been denied). Nixzmary was seven, but she only weighed 35 pounds.

If you are especially sensitive, don't read the article. However, if you are at all concerned with child advocacy, you should.

Normally, I am against government meddling in private lives. However, when the health and well-being -- the actual lives -- of innocent children are at stake, all bets are off.

Read More "What About the Children?"

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:30 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

January 05, 2006

Say "No" to Death Wishes

A friend of mine and I were having an IM conversation today, and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) came up. Now both my friend and I share political views, and we find Reid to be a particularly odious member of the Democratic party. So odious, in fact, that my friend wished Reid would "just die."

My reply was that Reid is not evil like Saddam Hussein, just a jerk. She said yes, a "dead jerk."

I said, "You would be having a fit if someone wished President Bush would die," and told her not to fall into the trap of wishing those whom you don't like politically would drop dead tomorrow.

She agreed that I was right. (Now she reads my postings regularly, and her face is probably red reading this right now, but my intent is not to embarrass her--note that I am not naming names--but to make a point. She usually makes many good points during our political discussions!)

This whole "die" thing being hurled at politicians whom people don't like, despise, or just plain hate, is getting to be a little tedious. Criticize the oafs all you want. Call them out on their policies, and help their opponents campaign against them at election time in order to boot their butts out of office. But wishing them dead is not only a waste of time, it smacks of barbarism.

It seems to be popular on the fringe left to call President Bush and his administration evil and wishing for their imminent and painful death. But they obviously aren't really thinking about all of the truly evil people in our world. Here's a sampling of people who are truly evil (alive and dead), who caused endless pain, misery and death for millions:

-Saddam Hussein
-Pol Pot
-Fidel Castro
-Che Guevara
-Mao Tse Tung
-Robert Mugabe

This list is far from complete. But suffice it to say that none of our own politicians, past or present, belong on such a list. There are plenty of useless clods who get elected, but the best way to handle them is to vote them out. The loss of power and loss of face is plenty satisfactory (especially when we get to watch has-been presidential candidates like John Kerry try to keep his hat in the ring).

So keep the death wishes out of American politics--on both sides of the political spectrum.

Crossposted to Lifelike Pundits

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:20 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

January 02, 2006

10 Myths: Busted!

John Stossel busts 10 popular myths for your reading pleasure. Click here for the details.

10. We have less free time.
9. Money can buy happiness.
8. Republicans shrink government.
7. The world is getting too crowded.
6. Chemicals are killing us.
5. Guns are always bad for us.
4. We're drowning in garbage.
3. We are destroying our forests.
2. Getting cold can give you a cold.
1. Life is getting worse.

h/t: Weekend Pundit

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

December 19, 2005

Ben Stein's Heroes

Sorry I didn't post at all over the weekend...with it being the last weekend before Christmas (and I hadn't done any shopping or decorating) I spent the entire weekend catching up.

OK, on to more important things.

Today, someone sent me Ben Stein's final column for E! Online. Let's hope he continues to write elsewhere. In the meantime, we can enjoy what he writes here, because it's great. Apparently, Mr. Stein is no longer impressed by the Hollywood stars he has come to know over the years (and, in my opinion, with good reason):

Beyond that, a bigger change has happened. I no longer think Hollywood stars are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.

How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model?

Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails. They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer.

A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.

Read it all, and hats off to Ben Stein for telling it like it is.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:26 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

December 07, 2005

Coulter on Republicans and Murtha

acoulter.jpgClassic Ann:

On the House floor, both Republicans and Democrats repeatedly gave Murtha rousing standing ovations. There was so much praise for Murtha that one of his Democratic colleagues asked him if he still had to attend Murtha's funeral.

What is this? Special Olympics for the Democrats? Can't Republicans disagree with a Democrat who demands that the U.S. surrender in the middle of a war without erecting monuments to him first? What would happen if a Democrat were to propose restoring Saddam Hussein to power? Is that Medal of Freedom territory?

Read it all here.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

November 22, 2005

Mutton Dressed as Lamb: Myrna Blyth on MoDo

Myrna Blyth isn't too impressed with Maureen Dowd these days:

Yet whenever I see Maureen on TV, that wonderful old English phrase "Mutton dressed as lamb" pops into my mind. And, note to her stylist: That little shell she was wearing under her jacket on Chris Matthews was much too tight. It pulled so much it made her look round-shouldered!


But it isn't only that this 53-year-old mutton is shopping in the wrong boutiques; what's really striking is that Maureen acts so lamb-like in these interviews, gamboling and simpering, giggling and flirting and telling everyone she is "such a ditz." To the New York magazine reporter, she admitted that she is always losing cell phones and laptops — just the kind of behavior a mother would find intolerable in any child older than 16.

Rrrowr! Here's more:

The point of her book, she says, is that feminism has failed because men don't want smart women — and that nowadays women don't want to achieve but only want to be some man's stay-at-home trophy wife.

Of course, as Howard Fineman noted somewhat gingerly on Chris Matthews — he obviously didn't want to get between Maureen and her theory — today in America, both spouses often have to work for economic reasons. And, of course, all statistics show that most educated men marry equally educated women. Nowadays when a woman decides to stay home it is usually because both husband and wife agree that it is the better way to raise the children.

But how would Maureen, unmarried and childless, with a high-paying job and a string of boyfriends that has included a movie star, a top television writer and producer, and a couple of top editors, really know about the financial or family concerns of most women in this country?

What indeed? I'll take Myrna Blyth over Maureen Dowd any day. She's smart, funny, and not afraid to act her age.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

Michael Bowers: Don't Let 'em Take the Car!

Michael Bowers, columnist for The Star, thinks that liberal gun grabbers have their eyes on your car next.

You see, the car shares many characteristics of the gun, that other invention which is so loathed by the progressive. He dislikes the car for two main reasons:

*First, just like the gun, the car can be expensive. I suspect many a progressive has trouble affording the car he really wants, because he works for a nonprofit Bush-bashing group, rather than a company that actually manufactures a useful product. Why should greedy conservatives get all the heated leather seats?

This is the gripe of the broke progressive.

*Second, just like the gun, the car provides the ordinary citizen extraordinary empowerment. As Stephen Moore wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, it's a lot harder for the government to manipulate the working man when he can travel anywhere he wants to, at any time, for any reason.

This is the gripe of the wealthy progressive.

Read it all here. It's funny...but also has a scarily truthful ring to it.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:56 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

November 09, 2005

On France Bashing

My friend Joe over at Geosciblog has this to say about what's becoming an American pastime:

France-bashing has been an ongoing endeavor for many, at least in my case, it is not because of the enjoyment, but out of a sense of frustration. France doesn't seem (on a national level) to be able to say to itself "OK, that didn't work, let's try something with a track record of success." If France had more tangible successes upon which to stand, we might tolerate their arrogance a little more. I am not making any blanket condemnations of all French citizens, but France itself has readily (if unwittingly) nurtured the stereotypes. Though socialism sounds good, it has a long history of stifling creativity and creating decades of misery (or in France's case, centuries of weakness). For wealth to spread throughout the society, it has to be nurtured and allowed to grow.

Read it all, and you'll soon discover why Joe is one my favorite bloggers.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

March 17, 2005

Ann on She-Cops

Ann Coulter's weekly column focuses on last week's tragedy involving a rapist on trial overpowering his female deputy escort, taking her gun and shooting four people, killing three. Here's her suggestion for future scenarios:

I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should be able to run the numbers on this one.

Read the whole column for yourself. As usual, Ann is right on the money.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

    ENDORSEMENTS "Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
    "One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial