Sarah Palin is going to have a TV show where she takes viewers around Alaska and shows them the wonder of it.
This is interesting. Is Sarah ruling out any further political ambitions? Not many presidential candidates film reality television series' about their home states. Is she trying to make a buck for her family? It would be understandable, even though the result will be that she will be taken less seriously as a leader. The left-wing media outlets MSNBC and CNN will ensure that people laugh at her for this by employing the usual exagerating and fact-twisting (and if people don't laugh, then, well...MSNBC will say that they are laughing).
Huckabee's foray into TV has had some success, and now Palin is following along. Will they jump back into the political fray in 2012, or will they stay on the tube? It will be fascinating to see how their TV career choices impact their actions and decisions.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Jacksonian Democracy
Last week, I finished reading American Lion by Jon Meacham. It is a colorful and enlightening read about a fascinating man. Rather than piling on minute biographical details, Meacham strives to present Jackson's life and doings in broader terms. His book is just as concerned with American politics during the 1830s and 1840s as it is with Jackson's personal doings.
President Jackson, the sixth of our nation's chief executives, was a strange blend of southern gentleman, warlord, kindly grandfather, and violent sociopath. When he wasn't literally playing Santa Claus at Christmas, bringing bundles of presents to D.C.'s orphans, he was horsewhipping his political foes and purging the southern states of their Native American inhabitants. With one hand, he drove the Native Americans on to a western death march; with the other, he chastised big bankers in the name of making America a better place for the downtrodden.
If you consider Jackson the first modern Democratic president (I use that term loosely here), a fascinating progression can be seen. Jackson was a big-government, federally-minded ruler, who expanded executive control over the country and sought to put capitalist "fat cats" into place. His dismantling of the National Bank is an eerie forerunner to the meddlesome regulatory ways of President Obama. However, Jackson was more politically incorrect than mostly any other president in the nation's history. His Indian removals are the fodder of public school moralizing (rightfully so). He saw absolutely no value in racial equality, and considered abolitionists a danger to the country.
In addition, he believed firmly in the use of violence and force to bend and break his opponents, be they tribal, international, or personal. If Jackson didn't like you, he might just shoot you, horsewhip you, or challenge you to a duel. As an army general, he even carried out unauthorized military actions against foreign powers (imagine if General McChrystal marched into Iran and destroyed the place without consulting the White House first). The tenderness of Jackson's domestic life is almost silly in its polar opposition to his public persona.
No doubt he was a complicated man. In my opinion, he is too complicated for the age of the soundbite. That is why Meacham's book is so fascinating: ultimately, we don't know what to do with President Jackson. Progressive politics have marched so far beyond anything he could have imagined that his own Democratic successors are afraid to even mention him.
Politicians today will cite Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Reagan, and FDR as they try to position themselves. No one ever mentions Jackson. Libraries, colleges, and streets are named after the aforementioned, but far fewer landmarks and roadsigns bear the sixth president's name.
It is not for lack of importance that we leave him out of the presidential superstar club. In particular, Jackson left an indelible mark on the character of the executive office (one that subsequent presidents did not live up to; nobody remembers Martin Van Burn, John Tyler, or James Buchanan precisely because their vision of the presidency was less proactive than Jackson's). His use of the veto was hugely controversial in a time when American presidents were expected to let Congress do the lion's share of the governing.
Rather, it is the discomfort of his legacy that leaves Jackson on the back burner. Jackson was not unlike Obama, in that his basic governing philosophy called for massive federalization with anti-capitalist rhetoric. But you will never see Obama refer to himself as "a member of the party of Jackson". The racial and personal issues surrounding Jackson are too insurmountable.
What would Jackson think of the Democrats of today? He might be vaguely impressed with their social programming. He would also think that they were a pack of wimps, and it is not a stretch to imagine him firing pistols at them.
President Jackson, the sixth of our nation's chief executives, was a strange blend of southern gentleman, warlord, kindly grandfather, and violent sociopath. When he wasn't literally playing Santa Claus at Christmas, bringing bundles of presents to D.C.'s orphans, he was horsewhipping his political foes and purging the southern states of their Native American inhabitants. With one hand, he drove the Native Americans on to a western death march; with the other, he chastised big bankers in the name of making America a better place for the downtrodden.
If you consider Jackson the first modern Democratic president (I use that term loosely here), a fascinating progression can be seen. Jackson was a big-government, federally-minded ruler, who expanded executive control over the country and sought to put capitalist "fat cats" into place. His dismantling of the National Bank is an eerie forerunner to the meddlesome regulatory ways of President Obama. However, Jackson was more politically incorrect than mostly any other president in the nation's history. His Indian removals are the fodder of public school moralizing (rightfully so). He saw absolutely no value in racial equality, and considered abolitionists a danger to the country.
In addition, he believed firmly in the use of violence and force to bend and break his opponents, be they tribal, international, or personal. If Jackson didn't like you, he might just shoot you, horsewhip you, or challenge you to a duel. As an army general, he even carried out unauthorized military actions against foreign powers (imagine if General McChrystal marched into Iran and destroyed the place without consulting the White House first). The tenderness of Jackson's domestic life is almost silly in its polar opposition to his public persona.
No doubt he was a complicated man. In my opinion, he is too complicated for the age of the soundbite. That is why Meacham's book is so fascinating: ultimately, we don't know what to do with President Jackson. Progressive politics have marched so far beyond anything he could have imagined that his own Democratic successors are afraid to even mention him.
Politicians today will cite Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Reagan, and FDR as they try to position themselves. No one ever mentions Jackson. Libraries, colleges, and streets are named after the aforementioned, but far fewer landmarks and roadsigns bear the sixth president's name.
It is not for lack of importance that we leave him out of the presidential superstar club. In particular, Jackson left an indelible mark on the character of the executive office (one that subsequent presidents did not live up to; nobody remembers Martin Van Burn, John Tyler, or James Buchanan precisely because their vision of the presidency was less proactive than Jackson's). His use of the veto was hugely controversial in a time when American presidents were expected to let Congress do the lion's share of the governing.
Rather, it is the discomfort of his legacy that leaves Jackson on the back burner. Jackson was not unlike Obama, in that his basic governing philosophy called for massive federalization with anti-capitalist rhetoric. But you will never see Obama refer to himself as "a member of the party of Jackson". The racial and personal issues surrounding Jackson are too insurmountable.
What would Jackson think of the Democrats of today? He might be vaguely impressed with their social programming. He would also think that they were a pack of wimps, and it is not a stretch to imagine him firing pistols at them.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
It is Finished
The healthcare debate is over. The quasi-socialist Democratic party is rejoicing in the orgasmic throes of victory, having successfully wrested control of the U.S. health insurance industry from the private sector. In a 219-212 vote, the healthcare bill passed. Not a single Republican voted for it.
I am in a blind rage. I can only offer my fragmented thoughts in the following paragraphs. Other more adept pundits have explicated the severity of this situation far more deeply than I ever could. I can only offer you a common man's fury.
The sheer numbers are dizzying. Over ten years, this bill will cost over $900 billion. Subsidized insurance will lead to soaring deficits and higher taxes. President Obama has consistently lied through his teeth about the economic ramifications of his pet project. Do not be taken in. You cannot spend $900 billion and claim that doing so is "deficit neutral".
It is safe to say that the United States will never again in its history be able to pay off the national deficit. We will owe other countries money until the end of our republic's existence (whenever that may be). Our inability to live within our means, and our addiction to the unfabricated concept of an all-powerful, all-helpful federal government, have brought us to this point.
Rest assured, President Obama is surely happy. He's made that quite clear, what with his arrogant, gloating pontificating: "This is what change looks like!" I agree with him. This is what his party's idea of what change looks like: ugly, divisive, inefficient, impractical, morally bankrupt. Everything about the Democrat's healthcare policymaking, from their use of bribes and kickbacks to their unfettered support of abortion, smacks of absolute moral cluelessness. They lied to the American people about the contents of the bill. They made it clear that they would pass it by any means neccesary, ignoring established procedures and the fact that only 30% of the country wanted the bill to pass. And they have disregarded the sacred desire of pro-life Americans to abstain from funding infanticide with their own tax dollars. The rape of my earnings by taxation each week is bad enough; that those dollars are now going from my paycheck to some bullshit "community health center", and ultimately to abortion providers, sickens me. The colonists rebelled against the British Empire for a hell of a lot less.
An aside to Representative Bart Stupak, the "pro-life Democrat" (there is no such thing): you, sir, are a dishonest, useless bastard. Your posturing as a pro-lifer means nothing in light of your ultimate weak capitulation to the White House. I take back every positive thing that I may have said about you. You have proven that, like every other Democrat in America, your natural sense of right and wrong is trumped by dollar signs and matters of political expediency. This is why I hate everyone of your ilk, and why I sincerely hope that the Democratic party is obliterated in November. The only good Democrat is an unseated Democrat.
In the past year Obama has directed the federal takeover of significant chunks of the U.S. banking industry, the U.S. car industry, and now the U.S. health insurance industry. When the market is bad, it's the perfect time to buy. The President has used the current economic downturn as an excuse to carry out the hyper-regulatory fantasies that Democrats have only been able to grasp at for the past fifty years.
This bill will be a massive burden on our country. Instead of real reform, we have a mere power grab. Liberals hated it when George W. Bush listened in on the phone conversations of terrorists, but they don't care about the protection of privacy when industry is concerned.
May God bless us with a repeal, whether now or some other day.
I am in a blind rage. I can only offer my fragmented thoughts in the following paragraphs. Other more adept pundits have explicated the severity of this situation far more deeply than I ever could. I can only offer you a common man's fury.
The sheer numbers are dizzying. Over ten years, this bill will cost over $900 billion. Subsidized insurance will lead to soaring deficits and higher taxes. President Obama has consistently lied through his teeth about the economic ramifications of his pet project. Do not be taken in. You cannot spend $900 billion and claim that doing so is "deficit neutral".
It is safe to say that the United States will never again in its history be able to pay off the national deficit. We will owe other countries money until the end of our republic's existence (whenever that may be). Our inability to live within our means, and our addiction to the unfabricated concept of an all-powerful, all-helpful federal government, have brought us to this point.
Rest assured, President Obama is surely happy. He's made that quite clear, what with his arrogant, gloating pontificating: "This is what change looks like!" I agree with him. This is what his party's idea of what change looks like: ugly, divisive, inefficient, impractical, morally bankrupt. Everything about the Democrat's healthcare policymaking, from their use of bribes and kickbacks to their unfettered support of abortion, smacks of absolute moral cluelessness. They lied to the American people about the contents of the bill. They made it clear that they would pass it by any means neccesary, ignoring established procedures and the fact that only 30% of the country wanted the bill to pass. And they have disregarded the sacred desire of pro-life Americans to abstain from funding infanticide with their own tax dollars. The rape of my earnings by taxation each week is bad enough; that those dollars are now going from my paycheck to some bullshit "community health center", and ultimately to abortion providers, sickens me. The colonists rebelled against the British Empire for a hell of a lot less.
An aside to Representative Bart Stupak, the "pro-life Democrat" (there is no such thing): you, sir, are a dishonest, useless bastard. Your posturing as a pro-lifer means nothing in light of your ultimate weak capitulation to the White House. I take back every positive thing that I may have said about you. You have proven that, like every other Democrat in America, your natural sense of right and wrong is trumped by dollar signs and matters of political expediency. This is why I hate everyone of your ilk, and why I sincerely hope that the Democratic party is obliterated in November. The only good Democrat is an unseated Democrat.
In the past year Obama has directed the federal takeover of significant chunks of the U.S. banking industry, the U.S. car industry, and now the U.S. health insurance industry. When the market is bad, it's the perfect time to buy. The President has used the current economic downturn as an excuse to carry out the hyper-regulatory fantasies that Democrats have only been able to grasp at for the past fifty years.
This bill will be a massive burden on our country. Instead of real reform, we have a mere power grab. Liberals hated it when George W. Bush listened in on the phone conversations of terrorists, but they don't care about the protection of privacy when industry is concerned.
May God bless us with a repeal, whether now or some other day.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Vote on Healthcare
Today is the day. I will say more later. For now, I merely hope this monstrosity of a bill does not pass.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Would You Wear Soda Cans In Your Hair?
Lady Gaga is now walking around with soda cans in her hair. This passes for news at 5:00 AM on a Saturday morning. I am taking this opportunity to state that Lady Gaga grosses me out and that underneath her outlandish costumes she is suprisingly...dudish.
Worse, her music. She sings, and I quote: "La la ah ah ah- ro ma, ro ma ma, ga ga ooh la la- stuck in a bad romance!"
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why do all her songs have the same beat? No wonder people are getting progressively stupider. Their heads are being pumped full of this stuff.
Worse, her music. She sings, and I quote: "La la ah ah ah- ro ma, ro ma ma, ga ga ooh la la- stuck in a bad romance!"
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why do all her songs have the same beat? No wonder people are getting progressively stupider. Their heads are being pumped full of this stuff.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Disgusting
Donna Simpson, of New Jersey, has only 400 pounds to gain before she reaches her goal of weighing in at 1000.
This is one of the saddest, most digusting things I have ever seen. Here is everything that is wrong with America: the laziness, the utter lack of moderation, the feeling of pride in one's vices, the lionizing of personal choices that ought to be seen as shameful.
Her "boyfriend" (eeeeew.......) supports this. He supports the fact that this woman is destroying herself with food. He must be one truly sick, mentally compromised son-of-a-bitch, to be frank.
And the fact that anonymous online creeps pay to watch her eat? Whoever those people are, they ought to be kept far away from the rest of civilization. This is even worse than the fact that "midget porn" exists.
This is one of the saddest, most digusting things I have ever seen. Here is everything that is wrong with America: the laziness, the utter lack of moderation, the feeling of pride in one's vices, the lionizing of personal choices that ought to be seen as shameful.
Her "boyfriend" (eeeeew.......) supports this. He supports the fact that this woman is destroying herself with food. He must be one truly sick, mentally compromised son-of-a-bitch, to be frank.
And the fact that anonymous online creeps pay to watch her eat? Whoever those people are, they ought to be kept far away from the rest of civilization. This is even worse than the fact that "midget porn" exists.
Wishful Thinking
The Boston Globe says that Catholic opposition to President Obama's awful healthcare plan is "crumbling".
Bullshit. There is still an enormous number of Catholics who oppose this bill, on the grounds that it is undoubtedly going to lead to taxpayer-funded abortions.
I have more to say on this later, but know this: if the Catholic Church supports the Obama administration on this healthcare reform bill, it will reap the consequences. There will be stronger government promotion/coverage of abortion (if Obama can muscle, cheat, and lie this bill through Congress, he will surely defeat its abortion-restricting stipulations similarly). There will be a stronger Democratic party, willing to continue its march towards moral obliteration for all. And there will be an association of Catholicism with the American left that will weaken and hurt Catholicism's position opposite liberal licentiousness on many issues.
Bullshit. There is still an enormous number of Catholics who oppose this bill, on the grounds that it is undoubtedly going to lead to taxpayer-funded abortions.
I have more to say on this later, but know this: if the Catholic Church supports the Obama administration on this healthcare reform bill, it will reap the consequences. There will be stronger government promotion/coverage of abortion (if Obama can muscle, cheat, and lie this bill through Congress, he will surely defeat its abortion-restricting stipulations similarly). There will be a stronger Democratic party, willing to continue its march towards moral obliteration for all. And there will be an association of Catholicism with the American left that will weaken and hurt Catholicism's position opposite liberal licentiousness on many issues.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Biting the Hand That Feeds You
What the fluff? Patrick Kennedy, having ruled out reelection, went on a paradoxical House floor tirade. His target? It wasn't the GOP. Nor Scott Brown. Nor George Bush. Nor "the past eight years".
What was it? The media. Of all things, the media. The "cynical" media, as he calls "it"*. Railing against the lack of press coverage of the Afghan war, Kennedy pointed up at the gallery, shook his fist, gnashed his teeth, and decried the newsmen.
Was this a stunt? Are you kidding, Patty? The press has praised, promoted, covered for, and lied to protect the Kennedy family for 50 years. After all they have done to shield America's royalty from negative public opinion, Patrick blasted away. Left-wing reporters across the nation must be feeling as though they've been had.
This is the ultimate betrayal. In liberal eschatology, Kennedy will be in a lower circle of hell than Brutus, Cassius, and the Iscariot...and Joe Lieberman.
*One should not refer to the media as "it", since "media" is plural. The singular usage would be "medium".
Plural: The media are sadly devoted to left-wing causes.
Singular: The medium of print news is dying.
What was it? The media. Of all things, the media. The "cynical" media, as he calls "it"*. Railing against the lack of press coverage of the Afghan war, Kennedy pointed up at the gallery, shook his fist, gnashed his teeth, and decried the newsmen.
Was this a stunt? Are you kidding, Patty? The press has praised, promoted, covered for, and lied to protect the Kennedy family for 50 years. After all they have done to shield America's royalty from negative public opinion, Patrick blasted away. Left-wing reporters across the nation must be feeling as though they've been had.
This is the ultimate betrayal. In liberal eschatology, Kennedy will be in a lower circle of hell than Brutus, Cassius, and the Iscariot...and Joe Lieberman.
*One should not refer to the media as "it", since "media" is plural. The singular usage would be "medium".
Plural: The media are sadly devoted to left-wing causes.
Singular: The medium of print news is dying.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Pro-Life QB Tebow Heading to the NFL
Apparently, Heisman-winning quarterback Tim Tebow's Focus on the Family commercial during the Super Bowl isn't going to keep NFL teams from drafting him. Despite last month's whining from Planned Parenthood, Tebow will be conducting private workouts for the Buffalo Bills and Seattle Seahawks. He is expected to be taken early in the NFL draft this month.
My two cents: the Bills should sign him ASAP. They have not had much success at the quaterback position in quite some time. Stints by Doug Flutie, Drew Bledsoe, Trent Edwards, Kelly Holcomb, and J.P. Losman have all proven fruitless. Perhaps the Bills can revive their sad-sack franchise by building a team around a premiere young QB. They are in a tough division: playing the Patriots and Jets twice a year each is not easy, and adding a dominant young passer to the mix would surely make for some memorable clashes against old foes in the fall.
Tebow might just be a dream player, from a public relations standpoint. True, his pro-life views are controversial. But he's a driven, image-conscious young man, and he has shown courage by speaking his mind. Who would you rather have as the face of your team: Tim Tebow, or the party-animal/potential rapist Ben Roethlisberger? Look for some major discomfort amongst Pittsburgh Steelers players, fans, and management this year. Big Ben is a nightmare off the field and his once-promising career has almost been destroyed. Bringing in a nice, Christian guy like Tebow is safer for business, it would seem.
I intend to keep monitoring Tim Tebow on this blog. Charting the impact of his own beliefs (and the media covergae of those beliefs) on his NFL career will make for interesting study.
My two cents: the Bills should sign him ASAP. They have not had much success at the quaterback position in quite some time. Stints by Doug Flutie, Drew Bledsoe, Trent Edwards, Kelly Holcomb, and J.P. Losman have all proven fruitless. Perhaps the Bills can revive their sad-sack franchise by building a team around a premiere young QB. They are in a tough division: playing the Patriots and Jets twice a year each is not easy, and adding a dominant young passer to the mix would surely make for some memorable clashes against old foes in the fall.
Tebow might just be a dream player, from a public relations standpoint. True, his pro-life views are controversial. But he's a driven, image-conscious young man, and he has shown courage by speaking his mind. Who would you rather have as the face of your team: Tim Tebow, or the party-animal/potential rapist Ben Roethlisberger? Look for some major discomfort amongst Pittsburgh Steelers players, fans, and management this year. Big Ben is a nightmare off the field and his once-promising career has almost been destroyed. Bringing in a nice, Christian guy like Tebow is safer for business, it would seem.
I intend to keep monitoring Tim Tebow on this blog. Charting the impact of his own beliefs (and the media covergae of those beliefs) on his NFL career will make for interesting study.
Publius: I Was Wrong About the Oscars
I was wrong about Scott Brown's chances and I was wrong about Avatar. It didn't win Best Picture. The Hurt Locker did, and deservingly so. I just want to be transparent on this one, so that no one can hold it over me.
Sunday was quite a big night for the Iraq War drama, as the list of winners shows. It won six trophies.
Credit where it is due: Avatar won Best Special Effects and Best Cinematography, both of which it deserved.
Also, it is worth noting that Star Trek won as Oscar (Best Makeup). Star Trek. Oscar. How strange is that?
All in all, I believe that the cause of worthwhile, engaging filmmaking won the day this time. The Hurt Locker is the first Iraq War film to strike a chord with audiences. It is well-crafted, apolitical, and thrillingly plotted.
Sunday was quite a big night for the Iraq War drama, as the list of winners shows. It won six trophies.
Credit where it is due: Avatar won Best Special Effects and Best Cinematography, both of which it deserved.
Also, it is worth noting that Star Trek won as Oscar (Best Makeup). Star Trek. Oscar. How strange is that?
All in all, I believe that the cause of worthwhile, engaging filmmaking won the day this time. The Hurt Locker is the first Iraq War film to strike a chord with audiences. It is well-crafted, apolitical, and thrillingly plotted.
Embarassing
The United States has apologized to terrorist-harboring dictator Muammar Gaddafi of Libya for criticizing his calls for Jihad against Switzerland.
Go ahead and click on that link. Read the story. This is one of the most humiliating and embarassing diplomatic blunders that Obama's White House has yet committed. Gaddafi's government has openly assisted terrorist groups that have killed American citizens in the past. And we are apologizing to him because we were critical of his calls for more terrorism?
If President Obama does not immediately rectify this situation, than he will cement his place the weakest, most impotent American president since Carter, as far as international relations are concerned.
Go ahead and click on that link. Read the story. This is one of the most humiliating and embarassing diplomatic blunders that Obama's White House has yet committed. Gaddafi's government has openly assisted terrorist groups that have killed American citizens in the past. And we are apologizing to him because we were critical of his calls for more terrorism?
If President Obama does not immediately rectify this situation, than he will cement his place the weakest, most impotent American president since Carter, as far as international relations are concerned.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Whacky PETA Activists Make Cheese From...Breastmilk???
This is one of the most bizarre and creepy things I have seen in months. PETA is trumpeting the arrival of a new kind of cheese. It is a cheese that does not involve animal dairy products. It is breast milk cheese. Luckily, this is only being done in one restaurant in New York. However, it strikes me as degrading, in light of my unshakeable belief in human exceptionalism. Mother's milk is meant for the nourishment of human infants. Shouldn't that be intuitive enough for most people?
Also, as far as sheer social niceties are concerned, can you imagine the social awkwardness and relational complications of eating something made from an adult woman's breast milk? Sorry, Katie, your stuff is okay, but I prefer the Brie. It could get awkward.
I despise PETA, and always have. Their radicalism is frightening. I would be more amenable to hearing about why KFC is evil for abusing its chickens if the people telling me about the abuse weren't a bunch of bullying, psychotic, left-wing nutjobs.
It's no secret that this group has done unsavory things. They handed out comic books to kids that proclaim Your Mommy Kills Animals. How low is that? And for a group that promotes animal rights, they sure kill a lot of animals. PETA admits to putting down critters on this awesome website, aptly titled PETA Kills Animals.
Additionally, PETA's highly sexualized ad campaigns have done more to degrade gullible, attractive women than they have to win over people's minds to the animal rights cause. When I look at PETA's materials, all I see are naked girls in cages and on billboards. Forgive me for not getting past that imagery. One recent stunt, involving a naked pregnant girl in a cage on Mother's Day, ranks as one of the least tasteful things since dead-animal jewelry hit the market.
My take: animals are made out of meat. Meat has been incredibly useful to human society. How we treat animals does say something about our own humanity (those kids who post themselves burning bunny-rabbits on YouTube are worthless hoodlums). However, animals in and of themselves do not share in our humanity. We ought to treat other creatures well because of our own dignity, not theirs.
Also, as far as sheer social niceties are concerned, can you imagine the social awkwardness and relational complications of eating something made from an adult woman's breast milk? Sorry, Katie, your stuff is okay, but I prefer the Brie. It could get awkward.
I despise PETA, and always have. Their radicalism is frightening. I would be more amenable to hearing about why KFC is evil for abusing its chickens if the people telling me about the abuse weren't a bunch of bullying, psychotic, left-wing nutjobs.
It's no secret that this group has done unsavory things. They handed out comic books to kids that proclaim Your Mommy Kills Animals. How low is that? And for a group that promotes animal rights, they sure kill a lot of animals. PETA admits to putting down critters on this awesome website, aptly titled PETA Kills Animals.
Additionally, PETA's highly sexualized ad campaigns have done more to degrade gullible, attractive women than they have to win over people's minds to the animal rights cause. When I look at PETA's materials, all I see are naked girls in cages and on billboards. Forgive me for not getting past that imagery. One recent stunt, involving a naked pregnant girl in a cage on Mother's Day, ranks as one of the least tasteful things since dead-animal jewelry hit the market.
My take: animals are made out of meat. Meat has been incredibly useful to human society. How we treat animals does say something about our own humanity (those kids who post themselves burning bunny-rabbits on YouTube are worthless hoodlums). However, animals in and of themselves do not share in our humanity. We ought to treat other creatures well because of our own dignity, not theirs.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
School: "Don't Talk About Faith Here"
Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, was promised to us by our founding fathers. The cornerstone of the American ideal is that we may pursue happiness and live without fear that our beliefs will be forcibly quashed by the authorities.
Tell that to the Wisconsin school principal who has given his Bible-reading high school student a talking to. Why? His open discussion of religion with other students was "disruptive".
Again we see that for all their talk of openness, the politically-correct are the first ones to silence those with whom they disagree. Luckily, this story has a happy ending, or at least not a negative one. The student was not officially rebuked or reprimanded.
However, it is not hard to see where an incident like this could ultimately lead. Talking about sex, drugs, and how awful George Bush was? That's fine. But talking about God? Mention Him and you'll earn you a trip to detention.
Tell that to the Wisconsin school principal who has given his Bible-reading high school student a talking to. Why? His open discussion of religion with other students was "disruptive".
Again we see that for all their talk of openness, the politically-correct are the first ones to silence those with whom they disagree. Luckily, this story has a happy ending, or at least not a negative one. The student was not officially rebuked or reprimanded.
However, it is not hard to see where an incident like this could ultimately lead. Talking about sex, drugs, and how awful George Bush was? That's fine. But talking about God? Mention Him and you'll earn you a trip to detention.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Hypocrisy
A black Tea Party protester who was selling buttons and flags outside a meeting was viciously, brutally attacked by Service Employees International Union members in Missouri last August. Today, Gateway Pundit announces that the perps will face trial.
I didn't know that this incident happened until today. Where are the cries of racism? Where is the NAACP? Why aren't the lefties speaking out on behalf of a man who was beaten, stomped on, and verbally assaulted with racist remarks simply for professing his political beliefs?
Because he disagrees with them. The left loves to talk about how it champions racial equality, but they will not raise a finger to defend a black man who opposes them. This shameful, disgusting selectivity undermines everything that liberals "stand for". Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and every other race-baiting mouth out there should be ashamed that they have let this incident pass in silence.
As for the SEIU: this incident is proof positive that big labor has still not moved away from its 1930s-style thug tactics. Union neanderthals use the same brutal tactics today that they did nearly one hundred years ago. The SEIU will do anything to stomp on those who don't enshrine the President that they stumped and cheated for.
The next time a liberal tells you that he or she supports free speech, laugh in his or her face.
I didn't know that this incident happened until today. Where are the cries of racism? Where is the NAACP? Why aren't the lefties speaking out on behalf of a man who was beaten, stomped on, and verbally assaulted with racist remarks simply for professing his political beliefs?
Because he disagrees with them. The left loves to talk about how it champions racial equality, but they will not raise a finger to defend a black man who opposes them. This shameful, disgusting selectivity undermines everything that liberals "stand for". Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and every other race-baiting mouth out there should be ashamed that they have let this incident pass in silence.
As for the SEIU: this incident is proof positive that big labor has still not moved away from its 1930s-style thug tactics. Union neanderthals use the same brutal tactics today that they did nearly one hundred years ago. The SEIU will do anything to stomp on those who don't enshrine the President that they stumped and cheated for.
The next time a liberal tells you that he or she supports free speech, laugh in his or her face.
Delahunt is Done
Finally. After decades of holding elected office, Rep. William Delahunt of the Massachusetts Tenth Congressional District has said that he is not seeking reelection in November.
Delahunt is not just a whiner and a spendthrift. He is possibly complicit in the cover-up of a murder or, at best, has been found to have acted negligently as a District Attorney.
Good riddance, and may another truck-driving, tax-cutting, hopefully pro-life Republican take his seat. The Scott Brown effect will hopefully continue.
Delahunt is not just a whiner and a spendthrift. He is possibly complicit in the cover-up of a murder or, at best, has been found to have acted negligently as a District Attorney.
Good riddance, and may another truck-driving, tax-cutting, hopefully pro-life Republican take his seat. The Scott Brown effect will hopefully continue.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Oscars
This weekend, a band of elite, far-left personalities will get together and congratulate itself for all of its hard work in 2009. Having taken a vote amongst its members, this group will then tell the American people about how wonderful its products are and use the world stage it has erected to promote them.
No, it has nothing to do with healthcare reform. It's the Oscars, brought to you by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
That was a cheap shot, I know, but you cannot deny that the Oscars are at least partially a political affair. In recent years, message movies like Million Dollar Baby (euthanasia = good), Brokeback Mountain (gayness = good), and Crash (racism = bad) have provoked "controversy" (I hate using that word; it's what THEY want us to say) by becoming Academy-sanctioned winners. Blowhards like Michael Moore have taken the stage at ceremonies, yelling "Shame on you, George Bush!", and the like.
To be fair, however, the Academy has also made some laudable choices in recent years that have bred public acceptance of cinematic work that might otherwise have been lost upon the masses. This, in spite of its politicking, mind you.
In 2007, the Coen brothers' bleak, bloody, philosophical adaptation of No Country For Old Men won the big prize. I can only quote the review on the back of Cormac McCarthy's paperback: it's a story "with themes as old as the Bible and as bloodily contemporary as the morning's headlines". Were I to explicate the film's value and its relevance to post-millenium America, I would be sitting here all day. Maybe it calls for its own post some time.
Also in 2007, one of my favorite films of all time was raised to prominence as a result of its many Oscar nominations. Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood is the Citizen Kane of the 21st century, a parable on greed and personal corruption that never veers into the realm of heavy-handed, anti-capitalist tripe like so many similarly-themed pictures.
Going further back, you can't knock the academy's love for Lord of the Rings from 2001-2003. In the wake of a new era of war and strife, the Academy wasn't so attached to its deconstructionist, relativist worldview that it couldn't honor one of the greatest good-versus-evil stories of all time.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. My point is, the promotion of worthwhile films that stimulate a better understanding of human nature and the world is an important undertaking. When the Academy gets it right, I am appreciative. When they get it wrong, which is fairly often (just look back at the sheaf of message movies that were nominated last year), I get indignant. I do not look to the Academy's vision as far as my own film choices go; however, mostly everyone else does, and so the Academy's failure bothers me for their sake.
Let us segue into this year's nominees. For the first time since the '40s, there will be ten Best Picture nominees. They are:
-Avatar
-The Blind Side
-District 9
-An Education
-The Hurt Locker
-Inglourious Basterds
-Precious
-A Serious Man
-Up
-Up in the Air
I admit to only having seen five of the ten: Up, Avatar, District 9, The Hurt Locker, and Inglorious Bastards. From what I have seen, the most deserving film nominated here is Up...almost. Almost, I say, because I was awfully fond of The Hurt Locker, and it has grown on me since I watched it.
Up is one of the most profound meditations on aging, loss, and love that I can remember seeing on a movie screen. It's a Pixar cartoon, meaning that its emotional power is complemented by strong writing, animation, and character development. In a now-famous opening montage, a couple's life together is vividly, beautifully telescoped into just a few short minutes of footage, from its hopeful beginning to its touching end. Who would have thought that the medium of 3D animation would be capable of such depths?
The Hurt Locker is an Iraq war film for people who are sick of preachy Iraq war films. Recent stuff like Lions for Lambs and The Valley of Elah got so lost in anti-war messaging that they were ignored by audiences. The Hurt Locker is different: it's about characters within the war. In particular, the film follows Staff Sergeant William James, an IED bomb squad soldier whose strange addiction to the adrenaline rush of war compromises his relationships with other soldiers and his family at home. The story works on various levels. As an action film, it is relentlessly thrilling. I've seen too many movies, so I usually don't get pushed to the edge of my seat, but The Hurt Locker left me slack-jawed. In addition, James' bizarre obsession with insanely dangerous situations is engaging. There are men like him, men who lose themselves so completely in their martial pursuits that the rest of life becomes a blur. The movie has little to say of "the cause", of "George Bush", of "blood for oil", etc. It is focused on more primal issues, and hence, it is a living, breathing motion picture and not a screed.
Which film will win the big prize? Probably Avatar. A cornocopia of liberal ideas and strong special effects, James Cameron's sci-fi epic is the biggest, brawniest contender, and the highest-grossing film in history. It will not be denied.
This is disappointing. Up and The Hurt Locker represent the best filmmaking of the year, from what I've seen. Even Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds and Neil Blomkamp's District 9, neither of which strike me as "great" films in the classic sense, both qualify as far more interesting and more competent than Avatar (and, as sci-fi, District 9 is far more inventive).
Liberal ideals will win the day this year. Avatar is entertaining schlock, and I enjoyed experiencing its trippy worlds and its blue aliens. It is, however, representative of the Academy's political priorities, and all that implies. Perhaps next year, we'll see another victory by something more worthy, in the fashion of 2007. As usual, don't hold your breath.
No, it has nothing to do with healthcare reform. It's the Oscars, brought to you by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
That was a cheap shot, I know, but you cannot deny that the Oscars are at least partially a political affair. In recent years, message movies like Million Dollar Baby (euthanasia = good), Brokeback Mountain (gayness = good), and Crash (racism = bad) have provoked "controversy" (I hate using that word; it's what THEY want us to say) by becoming Academy-sanctioned winners. Blowhards like Michael Moore have taken the stage at ceremonies, yelling "Shame on you, George Bush!", and the like.
To be fair, however, the Academy has also made some laudable choices in recent years that have bred public acceptance of cinematic work that might otherwise have been lost upon the masses. This, in spite of its politicking, mind you.
In 2007, the Coen brothers' bleak, bloody, philosophical adaptation of No Country For Old Men won the big prize. I can only quote the review on the back of Cormac McCarthy's paperback: it's a story "with themes as old as the Bible and as bloodily contemporary as the morning's headlines". Were I to explicate the film's value and its relevance to post-millenium America, I would be sitting here all day. Maybe it calls for its own post some time.
Also in 2007, one of my favorite films of all time was raised to prominence as a result of its many Oscar nominations. Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood is the Citizen Kane of the 21st century, a parable on greed and personal corruption that never veers into the realm of heavy-handed, anti-capitalist tripe like so many similarly-themed pictures.
Going further back, you can't knock the academy's love for Lord of the Rings from 2001-2003. In the wake of a new era of war and strife, the Academy wasn't so attached to its deconstructionist, relativist worldview that it couldn't honor one of the greatest good-versus-evil stories of all time.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. My point is, the promotion of worthwhile films that stimulate a better understanding of human nature and the world is an important undertaking. When the Academy gets it right, I am appreciative. When they get it wrong, which is fairly often (just look back at the sheaf of message movies that were nominated last year), I get indignant. I do not look to the Academy's vision as far as my own film choices go; however, mostly everyone else does, and so the Academy's failure bothers me for their sake.
Let us segue into this year's nominees. For the first time since the '40s, there will be ten Best Picture nominees. They are:
-Avatar
-The Blind Side
-District 9
-An Education
-The Hurt Locker
-Inglourious Basterds
-Precious
-A Serious Man
-Up
-Up in the Air
I admit to only having seen five of the ten: Up, Avatar, District 9, The Hurt Locker, and Inglorious Bastards. From what I have seen, the most deserving film nominated here is Up...almost. Almost, I say, because I was awfully fond of The Hurt Locker, and it has grown on me since I watched it.
Up is one of the most profound meditations on aging, loss, and love that I can remember seeing on a movie screen. It's a Pixar cartoon, meaning that its emotional power is complemented by strong writing, animation, and character development. In a now-famous opening montage, a couple's life together is vividly, beautifully telescoped into just a few short minutes of footage, from its hopeful beginning to its touching end. Who would have thought that the medium of 3D animation would be capable of such depths?
The Hurt Locker is an Iraq war film for people who are sick of preachy Iraq war films. Recent stuff like Lions for Lambs and The Valley of Elah got so lost in anti-war messaging that they were ignored by audiences. The Hurt Locker is different: it's about characters within the war. In particular, the film follows Staff Sergeant William James, an IED bomb squad soldier whose strange addiction to the adrenaline rush of war compromises his relationships with other soldiers and his family at home. The story works on various levels. As an action film, it is relentlessly thrilling. I've seen too many movies, so I usually don't get pushed to the edge of my seat, but The Hurt Locker left me slack-jawed. In addition, James' bizarre obsession with insanely dangerous situations is engaging. There are men like him, men who lose themselves so completely in their martial pursuits that the rest of life becomes a blur. The movie has little to say of "the cause", of "George Bush", of "blood for oil", etc. It is focused on more primal issues, and hence, it is a living, breathing motion picture and not a screed.
Which film will win the big prize? Probably Avatar. A cornocopia of liberal ideas and strong special effects, James Cameron's sci-fi epic is the biggest, brawniest contender, and the highest-grossing film in history. It will not be denied.
This is disappointing. Up and The Hurt Locker represent the best filmmaking of the year, from what I've seen. Even Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds and Neil Blomkamp's District 9, neither of which strike me as "great" films in the classic sense, both qualify as far more interesting and more competent than Avatar (and, as sci-fi, District 9 is far more inventive).
Liberal ideals will win the day this year. Avatar is entertaining schlock, and I enjoyed experiencing its trippy worlds and its blue aliens. It is, however, representative of the Academy's political priorities, and all that implies. Perhaps next year, we'll see another victory by something more worthy, in the fashion of 2007. As usual, don't hold your breath.
Congratulations, First Things!
This month's issue of First Things is now online/in print. The issue merits special attention because it marks the twentieth anniversary of First Things' publication.
There is no other comparable journal of religion and public life. First Things provides the most stimulating, useful, and generally well-written commentary I've ever encountered.
One must be thankful that giants such as Father Richard John Neuhaus, Joseph Bottum, and George Weigel have walked in our time.
There is no other comparable journal of religion and public life. First Things provides the most stimulating, useful, and generally well-written commentary I've ever encountered.
One must be thankful that giants such as Father Richard John Neuhaus, Joseph Bottum, and George Weigel have walked in our time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
