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.
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Thursday, March 11, 2010
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.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Sarah Palin vs. Family Guy (Or, Liberals Hate Disabled People, Part II)
First Things is reporting on Sarah Palin's response to a Family Guy episode that makes fun of people with Down's syndrome, and in particular, her child.
Family Guy is one of those shows that pretends to be equally offensive to everyone yet always ends up slyly, sarcastically endorsing liberal ideas. The creators of the show are the type of Cheeto-eating, fat-ass Generation Xers who deride anyone who finds their humor offensive as "oversensitive" or "paranoid". They get away with both making political/social statements through their work while simultaneously claiming that they are not doing so and that anyone who takes them seriously is too uptight.
Family Guy sucks, as a show. Occasionally it features a funny moment or two (I laugh at Herbert the Pervert's teeth whistle). However, tangential gag writing, shitty animation, and an overuse of truly obscure pop trivia bog it down severely. (For what it's worth, Fox's King of the Hill is three times as funny and contains actual character development, stronger animation, and surprising thematic depth.)
Anyways, you can chalk this up as yet another example of liberal hatred towards the disabled, the likes of which I cited recently.
Family Guy is one of those shows that pretends to be equally offensive to everyone yet always ends up slyly, sarcastically endorsing liberal ideas. The creators of the show are the type of Cheeto-eating, fat-ass Generation Xers who deride anyone who finds their humor offensive as "oversensitive" or "paranoid". They get away with both making political/social statements through their work while simultaneously claiming that they are not doing so and that anyone who takes them seriously is too uptight.
Family Guy sucks, as a show. Occasionally it features a funny moment or two (I laugh at Herbert the Pervert's teeth whistle). However, tangential gag writing, shitty animation, and an overuse of truly obscure pop trivia bog it down severely. (For what it's worth, Fox's King of the Hill is three times as funny and contains actual character development, stronger animation, and surprising thematic depth.)
Anyways, you can chalk this up as yet another example of liberal hatred towards the disabled, the likes of which I cited recently.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Liar of the Week: U.S. Senator Paul Kirk
Ah, the pie crust promise: easily made, easily broken. After pledging not to endorse anyone in the race for the open Massachusetts senate seat, interim-Senator Paul Kirk has gone ahead and endorsed Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Mission accomplished: talk a good game to your constituents, make them think that you are going to stay above the partisan fray, and then go back on your word the second that people aren't paying attention (after all, Kirk is hardly a household name, and has kept a low profile in the Upper House; his endorsement's effectiveness does not trouble me, only the fact that he made it at all).
After all the cornball moralizing that the Democrats have engaged in for themselves and their annointed one Obama, with their gag-worthy "hope and change" and (my personal favorite) their "politics of transformation", it's reassuring to remember that they don't live up to one single blessed word of it. They are liars, and in this particular case, Paul Kirk is a liar. He has explicitly broken a promise made to the people of Massachusetts.
How come all of these educated adults with law degrees have the gall to say one thing, do another, and expect us not to care? Because we let them get away with it by re-electing them, by remaining ignorant of what they are actually doing, and by failing to hold them accountable.
He's far from perfect, but State Senator Scott Brown is looking like a better and better candidate these days (and a more viable one, at that). The complacent, fat-cat Massachusetts Democratic Party treats the people of our state like we're stupid. Let's prove to them that we know when we've been lied to.
After all the cornball moralizing that the Democrats have engaged in for themselves and their annointed one Obama, with their gag-worthy "hope and change" and (my personal favorite) their "politics of transformation", it's reassuring to remember that they don't live up to one single blessed word of it. They are liars, and in this particular case, Paul Kirk is a liar. He has explicitly broken a promise made to the people of Massachusetts.
How come all of these educated adults with law degrees have the gall to say one thing, do another, and expect us not to care? Because we let them get away with it by re-electing them, by remaining ignorant of what they are actually doing, and by failing to hold them accountable.
He's far from perfect, but State Senator Scott Brown is looking like a better and better candidate these days (and a more viable one, at that). The complacent, fat-cat Massachusetts Democratic Party treats the people of our state like we're stupid. Let's prove to them that we know when we've been lied to.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Coming Soon to the Western World: Chinese Reproductive Policy
According to the Canadian Financial Post's Diance Francis, the whole world ought to adopt China's one-child policy, due to our problems with overpopulation.
That anyone in the western world would seek to impose the Chinese government's brutal, totalitarian reproductive policy on anyone else is frightening. A couple's freedom to have more than one child is so basic and essentially sacred that only a complete left-wing fanatic could suggest this.
One imagines a white-washed office, staffed by people rehearsed in Pelosian talking points, with posters on the wall that boast sweet, politically-correct nothings like "Strength Through Selectivity", "Healthy Communities Now", and "Family Wellness Planning: Your Right". At bulletproof teller windows, smiling government bureaucrats will hand out reproductive licenses, process applications for babymaking, and so on. Behind the partition, a phone bank is set up, to which good citizens can call and report "unauthorized reproductive activity" to some DSS-style social workers who will promptly dispatch the offenders to punitive sterilization clinics (though these will be given some kind of nice, friendly-sounding name, like "Family Service Centers", or something). Illicit children? They can be retroactively aborted, of course.
Does this sound good to you, Ms. Francis?
Of course, if you call a communist a communist, outrage and whining ensue. Diane Francis, and those like her, are always the first to complain when their communist ideas earn them the accompanying monikers from all the mean, freedom-loving people who disagree with them. Yet what other adjectives can you ascribe to this stuff? It's the wishful thinking of the Obama age. The government should control everything, yes, even the number of children you have.
Sadly, I wouldn't put it past certain elements among the U.S. left to try to consolidate this kind of power with the federal government. They despise the family unit, and they value massive government intrusion on social matters, as the recent healthcare debacle shows.
I actually find it hard to muster much more of a rebuttal to the article in question, beyond my acute anger and disgust that such garbage is even published anywhere west of Beijing. Arguing with the devil is not difficult, but it is tiring. Francis' proposition is so blatantly opposed to the precepts of a free society, so brutish, so narrow-minded, so Orwellian, that picking it apart further would seem unneccesary.
If anyone does agree with this crap: please move to Canada. You will find plenty of other socialist morons that feel the same way, and you can set up whatever sort of reproductive police state you like. Hopefully, we'll still be here to laugh at you when your society has withered and failed.
That anyone in the western world would seek to impose the Chinese government's brutal, totalitarian reproductive policy on anyone else is frightening. A couple's freedom to have more than one child is so basic and essentially sacred that only a complete left-wing fanatic could suggest this.
One imagines a white-washed office, staffed by people rehearsed in Pelosian talking points, with posters on the wall that boast sweet, politically-correct nothings like "Strength Through Selectivity", "Healthy Communities Now", and "Family Wellness Planning: Your Right". At bulletproof teller windows, smiling government bureaucrats will hand out reproductive licenses, process applications for babymaking, and so on. Behind the partition, a phone bank is set up, to which good citizens can call and report "unauthorized reproductive activity" to some DSS-style social workers who will promptly dispatch the offenders to punitive sterilization clinics (though these will be given some kind of nice, friendly-sounding name, like "Family Service Centers", or something). Illicit children? They can be retroactively aborted, of course.
Does this sound good to you, Ms. Francis?
Of course, if you call a communist a communist, outrage and whining ensue. Diane Francis, and those like her, are always the first to complain when their communist ideas earn them the accompanying monikers from all the mean, freedom-loving people who disagree with them. Yet what other adjectives can you ascribe to this stuff? It's the wishful thinking of the Obama age. The government should control everything, yes, even the number of children you have.
Sadly, I wouldn't put it past certain elements among the U.S. left to try to consolidate this kind of power with the federal government. They despise the family unit, and they value massive government intrusion on social matters, as the recent healthcare debacle shows.
I actually find it hard to muster much more of a rebuttal to the article in question, beyond my acute anger and disgust that such garbage is even published anywhere west of Beijing. Arguing with the devil is not difficult, but it is tiring. Francis' proposition is so blatantly opposed to the precepts of a free society, so brutish, so narrow-minded, so Orwellian, that picking it apart further would seem unneccesary.
If anyone does agree with this crap: please move to Canada. You will find plenty of other socialist morons that feel the same way, and you can set up whatever sort of reproductive police state you like. Hopefully, we'll still be here to laugh at you when your society has withered and failed.
Ireland, the Pope, and Crappy '90s Musicians
Reuters is reporting monumental news today. It's news that could very well bring the Catholic Church to its knees. Sinead O'Connor wants the Pope to resign!
The androgynous '90s has-been from Ireland is apparently so cheesed off at the Pontiff over Ireland's Catholic sexual abuse scandal that s/he wants him to quit being Pope. Well, shit!
This kind of narrow-minded, hateful, ill-informed bloviating is dispiriting. However, it's also kind of funny. It's funny because no normal person gives a rat's ass about what Sinead O'Connor thinks. Good luck bringing down the papacy, Sinead. You may have found some faux "bishop" to ordain you, but generally speaking, nothing you do is front page news. I somehow doubt that you have the political capital to destory major world religions.
I'm not just saying this because I happen to be Catholic and believe that Pope Benedict XVI is a great Pope. I'm saying this because Sinead O'Connor is a laughable monument to the awfulness of 90s' alternative rock, and an avatar of radical silliness. Her words are charged with the usual pompous entitlement used by all crappy activist musicians in such situations. "I demand the Pope stand down for his contemptible silence on the matter and his acts of non-co-operation with the inquiry," says s/he. Demand? Well, how about I demand that you lick a toad?
I guess I shouldn't be so dismissive, as this is a serious and heartbreaking situation. Stil, it is obvious that Sinead's accusations are false, and that they are representative of a radical, Catholic-bashing few. The Pope does care about abuse victims, not just those victimized in Ireland but all over the world. Does no one remember the meeting between the Pope and several American abuse victims that occurred when he visited New York in 2008? Clearly, the man's heart is with those who were hurt. Any reasonable person can see this.
I am in no way defending those who perpetrated or covered up these horrendous acts of abuse. Genuine criticism of Church leaders in Ireland is fair game. Bomb-throwing, while it is to be expected, is not. Therefore, it's a shame that the public discourse has been hijacked thusly.
I happen to live in the Archdiocese of Boston. From 2001 until well into the last few years, the Church in my area was rocked by a similar scandal. What preceded the scandal? Decades of laxity. Decades of touchy-feely, pot-smoking, effeminate '70s ideology being presented as truth at the seminaries. Decades of a top-down refusal to foster a genuine, healthy masculine culture among priests. I won't get into it further in this post, but order this book and you'll get the straight story.
Therefore, it would seem that the very same permissive modernist ideology that Sinead O'Connor seems to embrace is the same ideology that has led to scandal in the first place. Let's not forget that before 2001, pedophilia was actually something that the liberal establishment wanted to legitimize. They previously defended it as an institution that isn't neccesarily damaging to the children involved. They don't dare do it (openly) anymore, because they would lose all credibility with the average American. One cannot argeu, however, that they used to.
Overall, my hope is that the neccesary cleansing of the Irish Church can take place, accompanied by a just and fair public discourse. Outrage will be an important part of that discourse, and rightfully so. However, as the Sinead story shows, there will inevitably be those who use the scandal as an opportunity to attack the Church and its teachings. It will not be the pursuit of justice, but rather mere hatred of the Church, that will ensue if the Sineads of the world take seize the microphone on this crucial issue.
P.S. Reinforcing my earlier point, I like this piece by Guardian commentator Gerald Warner. His article describes how the new age, touchy-feely religious movement is to blame for the current Irish problem.
The androgynous '90s has-been from Ireland is apparently so cheesed off at the Pontiff over Ireland's Catholic sexual abuse scandal that s/he wants him to quit being Pope. Well, shit!
This kind of narrow-minded, hateful, ill-informed bloviating is dispiriting. However, it's also kind of funny. It's funny because no normal person gives a rat's ass about what Sinead O'Connor thinks. Good luck bringing down the papacy, Sinead. You may have found some faux "bishop" to ordain you, but generally speaking, nothing you do is front page news. I somehow doubt that you have the political capital to destory major world religions.
I'm not just saying this because I happen to be Catholic and believe that Pope Benedict XVI is a great Pope. I'm saying this because Sinead O'Connor is a laughable monument to the awfulness of 90s' alternative rock, and an avatar of radical silliness. Her words are charged with the usual pompous entitlement used by all crappy activist musicians in such situations. "I demand the Pope stand down for his contemptible silence on the matter and his acts of non-co-operation with the inquiry," says s/he. Demand? Well, how about I demand that you lick a toad?
I guess I shouldn't be so dismissive, as this is a serious and heartbreaking situation. Stil, it is obvious that Sinead's accusations are false, and that they are representative of a radical, Catholic-bashing few. The Pope does care about abuse victims, not just those victimized in Ireland but all over the world. Does no one remember the meeting between the Pope and several American abuse victims that occurred when he visited New York in 2008? Clearly, the man's heart is with those who were hurt. Any reasonable person can see this.
I am in no way defending those who perpetrated or covered up these horrendous acts of abuse. Genuine criticism of Church leaders in Ireland is fair game. Bomb-throwing, while it is to be expected, is not. Therefore, it's a shame that the public discourse has been hijacked thusly.
I happen to live in the Archdiocese of Boston. From 2001 until well into the last few years, the Church in my area was rocked by a similar scandal. What preceded the scandal? Decades of laxity. Decades of touchy-feely, pot-smoking, effeminate '70s ideology being presented as truth at the seminaries. Decades of a top-down refusal to foster a genuine, healthy masculine culture among priests. I won't get into it further in this post, but order this book and you'll get the straight story.
Therefore, it would seem that the very same permissive modernist ideology that Sinead O'Connor seems to embrace is the same ideology that has led to scandal in the first place. Let's not forget that before 2001, pedophilia was actually something that the liberal establishment wanted to legitimize. They previously defended it as an institution that isn't neccesarily damaging to the children involved. They don't dare do it (openly) anymore, because they would lose all credibility with the average American. One cannot argeu, however, that they used to.
Overall, my hope is that the neccesary cleansing of the Irish Church can take place, accompanied by a just and fair public discourse. Outrage will be an important part of that discourse, and rightfully so. However, as the Sinead story shows, there will inevitably be those who use the scandal as an opportunity to attack the Church and its teachings. It will not be the pursuit of justice, but rather mere hatred of the Church, that will ensue if the Sineads of the world take seize the microphone on this crucial issue.
P.S. Reinforcing my earlier point, I like this piece by Guardian commentator Gerald Warner. His article describes how the new age, touchy-feely religious movement is to blame for the current Irish problem.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Senate Snooze-Fest
The Boston Globe, in an article surprisingly devoid of left-wing cheerleading, has outlined the opposing campaign strategies of yesterday's Massachusetts senate primary winners. The differences between State Senator Scott Brown (R-Wrentham, MA) and Attorney General Martha Coakley (D-Pittsfield, MA) are not surprising.
He is a true Massachusetts Republican, a trumpeter of financial responsibility, an opponent of socialized medicine, with liberal values akin to the umpteen other Democrats sitting on Beacon Hill.
She is a typical feminist liberal, the kind of person despised by the average Texan, so brazen in her socially progressive agenda that she initially refused to support the Senate's current health insurance reform bill because, apparently, it doesn't provide unfettered abortion access.
The Globe sums it up thusly: Brown is going to "go after" Coakley, and seek to expose her past foibles as Attorney General. Coakley is going to simply ignore Brown.
How will it end? With a handful of diverting headlines, a low turnout, and a victory for Coakley. Her ascension is pre-ordained. The party bosses, union leaders, and whiny activist groups will stump for any idiot who arrays himself (sorry, herself) with the blue jackass of the Democratic Party. It helps that Coakley is the consumate politician: quiet, cool, unemotional. Her primary campaign largely consisted of cautious, poll-supported posturing. She's as much a master of positioning herself as President Obama (only she has none of his public speaking chops).
I predict that this is going to be one of the most bland, boring political excursions the state has seen since...well, 2006, when Deval Patrick handily beat up on poor Kerry "Muffy" Healey. (More on Deval's doomed re-election bid later. I suspect he will lose, but he is losing strictly due to incomprehensible stupidity, and not misdirected party allegiance).
There is no chance for Brown. He cannot excite the conservative base of Massachusetts, should such a thing exist. Coakley's machine, which was revving even while Teddy was still warm on his deathbed, is unstoppable.
Even if the fiscally minded Republicans who own Financial District counting houses show up to vote, the Christians, so central to every GOP victory, likely will not. You can only cheat a man so many times before he refuses to play. Brown's centerfold photoshoot and his mousy support for abortion are telltale signs of his inevitable failure to live up to Republican ideals, and the grassroots right won't bother mustering any momentum for him. He smells, feels, and looks like the kind of Republican who acts pro-life during the campaign season and then laughs at the Evangelicals behind closed doors, once they've inked their ballots.
Granted, I hope I am wrong. The lesser of many evils is always my preference. I will vote for Brown.
Regardless of my hopes, we are left with a probable Democratic victory. Massachusetts seems incapable of thinking/reasoning/debating its way out of the status quo. These pre-programmed elections, in which watered-down, underfunded Republicans lose to wealthy, well-connected Democrats, will continue on and on. Turnout will stagnate further, as even liberals stop showing up to vote. When you've clinched it, why waste the gas?
Politics in Massachusetts remain a boring, frustrating spectator sport. The lack of competition and realistic alternatives to the liberal status quo have left us in the doldrums. Hopefully, we'll wake up before our state marches away into national irrelevancy.
He is a true Massachusetts Republican, a trumpeter of financial responsibility, an opponent of socialized medicine, with liberal values akin to the umpteen other Democrats sitting on Beacon Hill.
She is a typical feminist liberal, the kind of person despised by the average Texan, so brazen in her socially progressive agenda that she initially refused to support the Senate's current health insurance reform bill because, apparently, it doesn't provide unfettered abortion access.
The Globe sums it up thusly: Brown is going to "go after" Coakley, and seek to expose her past foibles as Attorney General. Coakley is going to simply ignore Brown.
How will it end? With a handful of diverting headlines, a low turnout, and a victory for Coakley. Her ascension is pre-ordained. The party bosses, union leaders, and whiny activist groups will stump for any idiot who arrays himself (sorry, herself) with the blue jackass of the Democratic Party. It helps that Coakley is the consumate politician: quiet, cool, unemotional. Her primary campaign largely consisted of cautious, poll-supported posturing. She's as much a master of positioning herself as President Obama (only she has none of his public speaking chops).
I predict that this is going to be one of the most bland, boring political excursions the state has seen since...well, 2006, when Deval Patrick handily beat up on poor Kerry "Muffy" Healey. (More on Deval's doomed re-election bid later. I suspect he will lose, but he is losing strictly due to incomprehensible stupidity, and not misdirected party allegiance).
There is no chance for Brown. He cannot excite the conservative base of Massachusetts, should such a thing exist. Coakley's machine, which was revving even while Teddy was still warm on his deathbed, is unstoppable.
Even if the fiscally minded Republicans who own Financial District counting houses show up to vote, the Christians, so central to every GOP victory, likely will not. You can only cheat a man so many times before he refuses to play. Brown's centerfold photoshoot and his mousy support for abortion are telltale signs of his inevitable failure to live up to Republican ideals, and the grassroots right won't bother mustering any momentum for him. He smells, feels, and looks like the kind of Republican who acts pro-life during the campaign season and then laughs at the Evangelicals behind closed doors, once they've inked their ballots.
Granted, I hope I am wrong. The lesser of many evils is always my preference. I will vote for Brown.
Regardless of my hopes, we are left with a probable Democratic victory. Massachusetts seems incapable of thinking/reasoning/debating its way out of the status quo. These pre-programmed elections, in which watered-down, underfunded Republicans lose to wealthy, well-connected Democrats, will continue on and on. Turnout will stagnate further, as even liberals stop showing up to vote. When you've clinched it, why waste the gas?
Politics in Massachusetts remain a boring, frustrating spectator sport. The lack of competition and realistic alternatives to the liberal status quo have left us in the doldrums. Hopefully, we'll wake up before our state marches away into national irrelevancy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
