The past few weeks actor Charlie Sheen has had considerable media attention. His life seems to be imploding in front of everyone. What we're seeing, I believe, is a slow overdose. While he certainly seems to have lost his grip, what I can't understand, for the life of me, why is this being covered in the news? Wednesday morning the Today Show led its first hour not with Libyan unrest, soaring fuel and grocery prices, public employees on strike, but with a Charlie Sheen update. Later in the the show they had a live interview with the troubled actor. All of this is, of course, under the guise of "news." Would David Brinkley or John Chancellor have interviewed Charlie Sheen? Clearly, it sells, and someone is buying. Are the "journalists" hoping he'll light a rock of crack cocaine during the interview, die, or at least continue his bombast?
Why anyone would be shocked at Sheen's crackup is beyond me. I first remember him from the movie, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, in 1985-his character was in jail for drugs. Then, Platoon, in 1986, smoking dope through the barrel of his M16 rifle. In real life, during this time, he had several run-ins with the law due to drugs. While married to model and actress Denise Richards he cuffed her up a few times all while continuing his drug and alcohol use. Now, he is living in a seedy open living arrangement with a female porn star and another woman, or women, and really hitting the drugs, even describing his use and his highs in recent interviews. Having watched a couple episodes of his popular CBS show, Two and 1/2 Men, clearly, he isn't acting now and never has, except only to gear back a bit from his real life for TV. His real life can't even be shown on late night TV.
What's amazing is that I've heard a few religious conservative acquaintances wonder what's wrong with him and that it's a shame because, "his show is hilarious." Really? A show that portrays drunken promiscuity, encourages a minor to experiment sexually, devalues sobriety and purity is hilarious? Why, then, aren't they laughing at his real life? Yea, what's going on with him right now is a real hootenanny! Truth be told, it has never been funny; not on 2 and 1/2 Men, or in his real life. He has left a trail of waste and pain behind him.
Get some help Charlie. As for the media, avert your cameras from this disaster.
Friday, March 4, 2011
I'm a non-attorney spokesperson
The Supreme Court of the US voted 8-1 this week in favor of allowing the folks of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) to continue their protests at military funerals. Members of Westboro believe that somehow or another a military death is a pronouncement by God on America's acceptance of homosexuality. This is the church whose web address is www.godhatesfags.com. This SC decision has met with quite a dust-up from "conservatives." While I completely disagree with what WBC is doing, the SCOTUS made the correct decision. Conservatives seem to approach this with the argument that this is hurtful and offensive speech, correctly so. The protests are abominable, insensitive, and stupid. However, that is exactly the type of thing that is protected under the right to free speech and to assemble. Many conservatives feel the SC should have made what is often considered a "politically correct decision." Ah, the knife has two edges. It is also interesting that these conservatives would vehemently support a groups' right to protest an abortion clinic or the home of a sexual predator. Do we realize that someone on the other side surely is offended by these protests as well? Should we rely on the SCOTUS to determine which offensive speech is allowed and which isn't? If we're going to do it this way could we start by limiting Michael Moore? Already, in this country, there are pastors who have had legal brushes because they called homosexuality sin from the pulpit. The day is already here when having certain beliefs and sharing them can get you in legal trouble. A Christian can witness in an effort to convert a non-Christian and it may offend someone (Christ himself said that He would be an offense to some.). However, isn't this protected by the first amendment? It is supposed to be. The only valid legal argument I see for the plaintiff and dissenting opinion in this case is if WBC is protesting a private ceremony or service. No one has the right to invade a private ceremony on private land, e.g. a church otherwise privately, owned cemetery.
Already the SCOTUS limits religious freedoms. Polygamy is not allowed at all even as a religious practice. Navajo indians are not allowed to ingest hallucinogenic peyote as a part of their religious practice. Practitioners of Santeria are not allowed to sacrifice animals. Some Holiness groups have been banned from handling poisonous snakes as part of their religious services. It seems that the SC has already, in these instances, at least by their decisions inferred an invalidity to certain religious beliefs. Interestingly enough, Old Testament Judaism would not be protected in America.
Already the SCOTUS limits religious freedoms. Polygamy is not allowed at all even as a religious practice. Navajo indians are not allowed to ingest hallucinogenic peyote as a part of their religious practice. Practitioners of Santeria are not allowed to sacrifice animals. Some Holiness groups have been banned from handling poisonous snakes as part of their religious services. It seems that the SC has already, in these instances, at least by their decisions inferred an invalidity to certain religious beliefs. Interestingly enough, Old Testament Judaism would not be protected in America.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
They do know Spiderman's not real, don't they?
Within the past few weeks the Broadway production of Spiderman, Turn Off the Dark, has premiered. It's the most expensive production ever on Broadway at a cost of $65 million, and music by U2's Bono and the Edge. Well, the other big news is that there have been myriad injuries, including one in which an actor is in serious condition at a New York hospital. From the highlights on TV they've shown characters, with wires attached, flying all over the theatre above the crowds. Seeing all this made me think about the Spiderman series of movies the past few years and how they were hailed for such an advance in special effects. Tobey McGuire, the actor who played Peter Parker/Spiderman in the movies, didn't have to do all the flying around with wires attached because of CGI (computer generated imagery)-the same effects that were praised as so advanced. Tobey didn't do all that stuff because it's too dangerous. Flying within a hair's breadth of street traffic hanging on a web, climbing buildings, falling from several stories high. See, that stuff didn't really happen, but with the aid of the computer software it was made to look so realistic (not all that realistic in my opinion, but I've always had difficulty with the willing suspension of disbelief). I find CGI distracting, moreso than old effects like those used in the Sinbad movies of the 60s and 70s. When I saw the last entry in the Indiana Jones collection, I was irritated by how much the directors had relied on CGI, with the army ants, and the aliens. All this stuff done to look so real looked, ...well, fake. The earlier Indiana Jones movies, and Star Wars worked within the technological limitations of their time, and as a result look better. Now, we see so much CGI in movies it's really off putting, to the point that filmmakers actually use it to make human-like characters in the movies. I mean, it's one thing if it's Toy Story and it's a caricature or cartoon. However, when you look at Polar Express or Christmas Carol, 2 recent CGI animated films, it's creepy. Look into the soulless distant eyes of the characters-they aren't looking at each other like real people do. They look like the talking mannequins at Disney's "Carousel of Progress."
Anyway, that was a big digression. My real point is that the folks who did the Spiderman movies used CGI because the stuff that Spiderman does is too dangerous for humans to really do. He is super-human, right? Which means beyond human-beyond what a human can do. The problem is they now have actors trying to do what Spiderman does in the comic books, and what CGI does in the movies. It's a long way from Mary Martin suspended above the stage as Peter Pan.
Maybe, the producers of Broadway Spiderman are the kids who watched all the Roadrunner cartoons and didn't understand you can't really do that stuff?
Anyway, that was a big digression. My real point is that the folks who did the Spiderman movies used CGI because the stuff that Spiderman does is too dangerous for humans to really do. He is super-human, right? Which means beyond human-beyond what a human can do. The problem is they now have actors trying to do what Spiderman does in the comic books, and what CGI does in the movies. It's a long way from Mary Martin suspended above the stage as Peter Pan.
Maybe, the producers of Broadway Spiderman are the kids who watched all the Roadrunner cartoons and didn't understand you can't really do that stuff?
Monday, December 20, 2010
Privacy? Libs contradict themselves again.
Years ago when I was a kid, a friend of mine stole his older sister's diary. He leaked her secrets from the diary out at inconvenient times. Of course, these were things like when she was mad at her parents, boys she liked, what she thought of certain friends' clothes, etc. It was all a good laugh, really. Well, of course when their parents found out they rewarded my friend for divulging such crucial information, right?
For medical information there are privacy laws called HIPAA-Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Basically, protecting virtually any leak of personal medical information even if it's not intentional. Which is why we don't know what goes on in celebrity rehab clinics, unless, of course, they do their rehab on VH1.
Whenever banks and other financial institutions lose personal information, it is sure to make the news sending customers scurrying out to buy LifeLock coverage and any other security they can get their hands on. But why? What's the big deal? Who really cares if their employer knows about their calls to family crisis centers? Why shouldn't it all just be out there? I'm John Q. Public, a bankrupt, AA member. No one needs to know this do they?
But wait! Again, our friends from the PC left think the sex offender down the street should have their privacy, but Julian Assange is a hero. Assange, just like my childhood friend, is the spoiled little kid, pulling a prank, divulging ill-gotten information; information funneled to Wikileaks from a disgruntled gay Army private. Why on earth would anyone protect and view this brat as a hero? He is not a journalist-no protections exist, nor should exist, to him under American law. This is just another contradiction from the PC left. I can't wait until Michael Moore's personal medical and financial information is exposed.
For medical information there are privacy laws called HIPAA-Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Basically, protecting virtually any leak of personal medical information even if it's not intentional. Which is why we don't know what goes on in celebrity rehab clinics, unless, of course, they do their rehab on VH1.
Whenever banks and other financial institutions lose personal information, it is sure to make the news sending customers scurrying out to buy LifeLock coverage and any other security they can get their hands on. But why? What's the big deal? Who really cares if their employer knows about their calls to family crisis centers? Why shouldn't it all just be out there? I'm John Q. Public, a bankrupt, AA member. No one needs to know this do they?
But wait! Again, our friends from the PC left think the sex offender down the street should have their privacy, but Julian Assange is a hero. Assange, just like my childhood friend, is the spoiled little kid, pulling a prank, divulging ill-gotten information; information funneled to Wikileaks from a disgruntled gay Army private. Why on earth would anyone protect and view this brat as a hero? He is not a journalist-no protections exist, nor should exist, to him under American law. This is just another contradiction from the PC left. I can't wait until Michael Moore's personal medical and financial information is exposed.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Who's really tolerant? The religion of peace?
The PC left in America often wants to portray Christians as intolerant, bigoted, racist, homophobes who want to censor everybody who doesn't agree with their views. They often try to show Timothy McVeigh as an example of Christian fanaticism, wrongly, because McVeigh was an avowed atheist (not unlike a lot of the PC left). They'll also cite the nuts from the Westboro Baptist Church, because, yea, they're so popular with us. They say we're anti-free speech because we get mad when our religious figures, i.e our Lord and Savior, is shown in various body fluids-we're so sensitive. We're homophobes and somehow we condoned what happened to Matthew Shepard. However, there really is a group tailor-made for the PC left to focus its ire, but we hear ne'er a peep from them.
Let me introduce you to Islam. You want a real group opposed to free speech, what about Muslims in Denmark, and everywhere else in Europe, setting cars , buildings, etc. on fire because of some cartoons about their pedophile prophet Mohammed (his favorite wife was a 9 year old girl)?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=12146
Good grief, a teacher gets put in jail in Sudan because her 1st grade class named a teddy bear Mohammed and they want to have her killed.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687755,00.html
Muslim women accuse a Christian woman of blasphemy because the water she brought them was defiled (they actually believe this about "infidels"). Now she is in a Pakistani jail, sentenced to death.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8120142/Christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-Pakistan-for-blasphemy.html
Religious tolerance, right? When they aren't busy killing Christians they blow up 2000 year old Buddhist shrines.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/03/afghanistan.lukeharding
Oh, don't worry they eat their own too. Women can be hanged, or stoned. You can google this and find numerous graphic depictions. Women may be stoned for adultery, as a matter of hearsay, or honor of family, like a woman refusing to wear the hijab, coming home late, and Allah forbid-leaving Islam. The next site is graphic.
http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/honor_killing.htm
If a woman is unfortunate enough to be raped, Islam understands that right? Look at this from Al Jazeera, no less;
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/11/2008111201216476354.html
...and here, a Muslim girl was gang raped, given 200 lashes then sentenced to 6 months in jail. Her violators were given between 1-5 years in jail. And to supposedly curb Islamic girls' sexual desires, there is genital mutilation;
http://www.meforum.org/1629/is-female-genital-mutilation-an-islamic-problem
And homosexuals? Well, of course there are no homosexuals in Iran, according to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/026-homosexuality.htm
All of these are bulwark issues of the PC left, womens' rights, free speech, gay rights, anti-death penalty. Yet, they say nothing about Islam. Why? I think we all know why. The PC left really aren't courageous at all-dissent and disobedience is one thing in America-going after Christians is safe. Speaking out against Islam puts a target on your back. The final point, the PC left sell out the things they say they care most about and actually ally with and defend Islam. Why? It's the old maxim, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Let me introduce you to Islam. You want a real group opposed to free speech, what about Muslims in Denmark, and everywhere else in Europe, setting cars , buildings, etc. on fire because of some cartoons about their pedophile prophet Mohammed (his favorite wife was a 9 year old girl)?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=12146
Good grief, a teacher gets put in jail in Sudan because her 1st grade class named a teddy bear Mohammed and they want to have her killed.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687755,00.html
Muslim women accuse a Christian woman of blasphemy because the water she brought them was defiled (they actually believe this about "infidels"). Now she is in a Pakistani jail, sentenced to death.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8120142/Christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-Pakistan-for-blasphemy.html
Religious tolerance, right? When they aren't busy killing Christians they blow up 2000 year old Buddhist shrines.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/03/afghanistan.lukeharding
Oh, don't worry they eat their own too. Women can be hanged, or stoned. You can google this and find numerous graphic depictions. Women may be stoned for adultery, as a matter of hearsay, or honor of family, like a woman refusing to wear the hijab, coming home late, and Allah forbid-leaving Islam. The next site is graphic.
http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/honor_killing.htm
If a woman is unfortunate enough to be raped, Islam understands that right? Look at this from Al Jazeera, no less;
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/11/2008111201216476354.html
...and here, a Muslim girl was gang raped, given 200 lashes then sentenced to 6 months in jail. Her violators were given between 1-5 years in jail. And to supposedly curb Islamic girls' sexual desires, there is genital mutilation;
http://www.meforum.org/1629/is-female-genital-mutilation-an-islamic-problem
And homosexuals? Well, of course there are no homosexuals in Iran, according to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/026-homosexuality.htm
All of these are bulwark issues of the PC left, womens' rights, free speech, gay rights, anti-death penalty. Yet, they say nothing about Islam. Why? I think we all know why. The PC left really aren't courageous at all-dissent and disobedience is one thing in America-going after Christians is safe. Speaking out against Islam puts a target on your back. The final point, the PC left sell out the things they say they care most about and actually ally with and defend Islam. Why? It's the old maxim, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Change the channel?
One thing you folks hear a lot whenever they raise a fuss about objectionable material on TV, music, art museums, etc., is "if you don't like it, change the channel, ...don't go to the museum, don't listen to that radio station...." Really, it's just that simple. Just tune out, turn off ... right. So when the NEA uses taxpayer funds to pay for such fine "art" as a Crucifix soaked in a jar of urine, a likeness of Christ covered in ants, the virgin Mary painted in elephant dung, just don't go see that exhibit. Never mind that there are any number of specialty museums or art hotspots in a city of more than fifty thousand where one can go see all the homoerotic art, etc. they could want to, and not on the public dime. We're not saying you can't create your crude little art projects or do that which is unseemly; just don't make the public pay for it. Yet, just bringing this up makes me a religious prude, a backwards, bigoted moron, to the PC left elite, and that's fine.
But what just a minute, the same PC left, ACLU types who defend any anti-western culture, anti-Christian garbage that comes down the pike and are so driven to push this tripe on us, make a most radical 180 this time of year. Atheists and other non-believers, "Remove the creche,...don't say Merry Christmas, no Christmas carols that mention Jesus (or joy, for that matter). These same folks who force the ugliest cultural statements on us, are offended at the baby Jesus in a manger. Yes, sweet little Jesus boy, the Prince of Peace. Well, Christians take heart. This is exactly as it should be. Christ himself said he would be an offense to the nonbeliever. He warned us that if they hate you, it's alright because they hated Him first. Rather than complain, we should glory in this. This is just one more proof of the validity of Scripture.
At this point I need to say that I have made a sudden turn. This is what Christians hate; the degeneration of decency, civil discourse, respect for others. We question, why would someone want to put a crucifix in a jar of urine, or cover a picture of Christ on the cross in ants? Yet, we are tolerant enough to admit they have a right to do this if they want. Just don't drag it out in front of folks who don't want to see it. I was thinking that progressives should do during the Christmas season what they tell us to do, "Change the channel." But then, I realized...they can't. This little baby in the manger offends them so much, and I understand it. Christ forces us to make a decision, every single time we encounter Him. This creates the visceral hatred and utter intolerance that we see. Don't believe me? Read any comments section on Daily Kos or the Huffington Post to see what these folks think about Christians. You will see things like, "they should be forced to understand that global warming, gay marriage, etc. is right." Really, forced? That sounds a lot like Mao's re-education camps or a Soviet-era gulag. I know a lot of conservatives, believers and not, and I have yet to hear any one of them say the left "should be forced" to accept the fair tax, Rush Limbaugh, Defense of Marriage Act, or Jesus Christ. So, who's tolerant?
I was going to say the PC left should just change the channel this year, but they can't-they are compelled. They sit and seethe about little Linus reciting the Christmas story on A Charlie Brown Christmas, or all those nativity scenes on church lawns, or carolers on their streets. Christians, too, are compelled during this season. Just as the angels told the shepherds to rejoice, we rejoice! Someone came, a king, to make all this better! Merry Christmas!!!
But what just a minute, the same PC left, ACLU types who defend any anti-western culture, anti-Christian garbage that comes down the pike and are so driven to push this tripe on us, make a most radical 180 this time of year. Atheists and other non-believers, "Remove the creche,...don't say Merry Christmas, no Christmas carols that mention Jesus (or joy, for that matter). These same folks who force the ugliest cultural statements on us, are offended at the baby Jesus in a manger. Yes, sweet little Jesus boy, the Prince of Peace. Well, Christians take heart. This is exactly as it should be. Christ himself said he would be an offense to the nonbeliever. He warned us that if they hate you, it's alright because they hated Him first. Rather than complain, we should glory in this. This is just one more proof of the validity of Scripture.
At this point I need to say that I have made a sudden turn. This is what Christians hate; the degeneration of decency, civil discourse, respect for others. We question, why would someone want to put a crucifix in a jar of urine, or cover a picture of Christ on the cross in ants? Yet, we are tolerant enough to admit they have a right to do this if they want. Just don't drag it out in front of folks who don't want to see it. I was thinking that progressives should do during the Christmas season what they tell us to do, "Change the channel." But then, I realized...they can't. This little baby in the manger offends them so much, and I understand it. Christ forces us to make a decision, every single time we encounter Him. This creates the visceral hatred and utter intolerance that we see. Don't believe me? Read any comments section on Daily Kos or the Huffington Post to see what these folks think about Christians. You will see things like, "they should be forced to understand that global warming, gay marriage, etc. is right." Really, forced? That sounds a lot like Mao's re-education camps or a Soviet-era gulag. I know a lot of conservatives, believers and not, and I have yet to hear any one of them say the left "should be forced" to accept the fair tax, Rush Limbaugh, Defense of Marriage Act, or Jesus Christ. So, who's tolerant?
I was going to say the PC left should just change the channel this year, but they can't-they are compelled. They sit and seethe about little Linus reciting the Christmas story on A Charlie Brown Christmas, or all those nativity scenes on church lawns, or carolers on their streets. Christians, too, are compelled during this season. Just as the angels told the shepherds to rejoice, we rejoice! Someone came, a king, to make all this better! Merry Christmas!!!
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
A right to be wrong? Who decides?
Here it is my first post.
Well, I've been hearing about the women's soccer coach at Belmont U. in Nashville. If you haven't heard, Belmont is a Christian college and the coach came out as a lesbian when her partner became pregnant. Evidently she resigned or was let go. Much has been made of Belmont being behind the times, etc. However, if it is their belief do they not have the right to act on that principle? A lot of the criticism has been from the PC crowd asking "what would Jesus do?" (Ironically, they never ask what He would do in myriad other moral issues.) This really, I believe, does come down to freedom of religion. If Belmont is going to act on what they believe, as an institution, is a Christian principle, do they not have the right to do so? Or are we going to let this become a legal matter baby (in the words of The Who)? Our constitution does not distinguish between the objective correctness of various religions. Nor would we want it to. Thus far, the courts in America have limited religious freedoms in situations that may place the general public in danger (actual physical harm), i.e. not allowing native Americans to take peyote in religious ceremonies (a danger if driving), or not allowing practitioners of Santeria to sacrifice animals (I don't want them to take my dog), or some Holiness groups handling snakes. Yet, we have the right to, even given to us by God, to worship the wrong thing. If my church believes that triangles have 4 sides, then so be it. Empirically, we know there is no such thing as a 4 sided triangle, but at the Church of 4 Sided Triangles, that's what we believe. Who, then, on Earth, decides which religious belief is correct? Let's face it, everybody thinks their religious belief is correct, but we shouldn't rely on the politically correct to determine the "rightness" of religious belief. The real problem arises when a religious group takes certain religious beliefs as justification and intends to cause harm to people (Islam, anyone?). I submit that Christianity is the one religion that really does practice tolerance, moreso than Islam and certainly more than the left PC group. Because see, the PC left wants to decide what beliefs are "right," and remove those thoughts and ideas they don't like. Who is tolerant? To the left tolerance means accept our views or be gone!
Well, I've been hearing about the women's soccer coach at Belmont U. in Nashville. If you haven't heard, Belmont is a Christian college and the coach came out as a lesbian when her partner became pregnant. Evidently she resigned or was let go. Much has been made of Belmont being behind the times, etc. However, if it is their belief do they not have the right to act on that principle? A lot of the criticism has been from the PC crowd asking "what would Jesus do?" (Ironically, they never ask what He would do in myriad other moral issues.) This really, I believe, does come down to freedom of religion. If Belmont is going to act on what they believe, as an institution, is a Christian principle, do they not have the right to do so? Or are we going to let this become a legal matter baby (in the words of The Who)? Our constitution does not distinguish between the objective correctness of various religions. Nor would we want it to. Thus far, the courts in America have limited religious freedoms in situations that may place the general public in danger (actual physical harm), i.e. not allowing native Americans to take peyote in religious ceremonies (a danger if driving), or not allowing practitioners of Santeria to sacrifice animals (I don't want them to take my dog), or some Holiness groups handling snakes. Yet, we have the right to, even given to us by God, to worship the wrong thing. If my church believes that triangles have 4 sides, then so be it. Empirically, we know there is no such thing as a 4 sided triangle, but at the Church of 4 Sided Triangles, that's what we believe. Who, then, on Earth, decides which religious belief is correct? Let's face it, everybody thinks their religious belief is correct, but we shouldn't rely on the politically correct to determine the "rightness" of religious belief. The real problem arises when a religious group takes certain religious beliefs as justification and intends to cause harm to people (Islam, anyone?). I submit that Christianity is the one religion that really does practice tolerance, moreso than Islam and certainly more than the left PC group. Because see, the PC left wants to decide what beliefs are "right," and remove those thoughts and ideas they don't like. Who is tolerant? To the left tolerance means accept our views or be gone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)