I am tired. I know all of you have heard me say that before but this time I mean it. I am tired of watching the news and hearing these "spin doctors" (most people call them reporters) sit there in their comfy chairs in their climate controlled offices complaining about the war in Iraq. This also includes any of these spitting, spinning bastards that are whining about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and how "he doesn't care about the soldiers in Iraq." Guess what, if he didn't care he wouldn't have a job. As far as I'm concerned these maggots need to get a field position for a few weeks and send their butts to Iraq to see how safe it really is. Perhaps if someone is shooting at them they will change their tone. But I am getting off the subject that I wanted to touch on.
I was watching the news and saw that terrorists are now posting videos on how to make bombs in chat rooms on how to make bombs. Now, this is no different than going out on the Internet and downloading the anarchist’s cookbook but what you do with the information is the problem. I also saw that there was a family that was interviewed. Now you would normally think that the family interviewed would be an American military family that has family members in Iraq. I'm sorry my friends, you would be wrong. The family interviewed was the family of an Iraqi man that killed himself a few months ago in a suicide bombing! They were very proud of their son (it was his parents that were interviewed) for his actions. Why is our American news interviewing these bastards? Why would we care if these terrorist assholes were proud of their son for doing a cowardly act of terrorism like blowing up civilians (their son detonated himself in a bus full of civilians.) Then it hit me! It all adds up! The reason they are proud of their son is because they profited from his "sacrifice." That's right kids. They now live in a nice new home and got a paycheck from one of the various terror groups that operate in that area.
I say, "It's time to get nasty." If the reporters can find these families then our military should be able to as well. I think we need to start seizing assets of the families of the terrorists. I say we go to their house, remove them from it, and they lose everything. Their clothes, their house, their cash, their goat, their cow, everything. If the families are "proud" enough for their family's "sacrifice" then they can live on that pride. We need to show that there will be no profit in terrorism for anyone and your family will pay for what you do if this is the path you choose. If you don't like it then stop blowing people up. Cowards.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Monday, October 11, 2004
In Memory Of...
In memory of Christopher Reeve.
Sept. 25, 1952 - October 10, 2004
You will always be my SuperMan
Sept. 25, 1952 - October 10, 2004
You will always be my SuperMan
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Milton 'Bad'-ley
Ok, as many of you know I'm not a sports fan. I watch the occasional football game and I enjoy watching hockey but I don't get the chance to watch many games. I did happen to watch the news and see the reaction Bradley had to having a water bottle thrown at him during a game. You would pretty much have to be a glutton for punishment to pick up the bottle, go up to the fan and throw it back at him but that is exactly what the Dodgers outfielder did. Considering the fact that he has been ejected from 4 other games this season I feel that the fine/suspension for the rest of the season is the perfect thing to do. He has said that he will "seek help to deal with his anger and wouldn't appeal the suspension." My main question is what ever happened to letting things slide off your back? Have we become such a vindictive society that we feel we have to get back at everyone that has ever wronged us? I am glad that he is going to get help but don't you think it's a little late when he is throwing stuff back at fans?
By the way, the fan who allegedly threw the bottle, Mario Garcia, was arrested and charged with "throwing an object on the field with the intent to interfere with play or distract a player." Is this an actual law on the books or is this just another LAPD way of arrested one person and not the other? Why was Bradley not charged with throwing an object at a fan with the intent to piss off or damage a person? Hey, if the police can make up charges why can't I?
By the way, the fan who allegedly threw the bottle, Mario Garcia, was arrested and charged with "throwing an object on the field with the intent to interfere with play or distract a player." Is this an actual law on the books or is this just another LAPD way of arrested one person and not the other? Why was Bradley not charged with throwing an object at a fan with the intent to piss off or damage a person? Hey, if the police can make up charges why can't I?
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Missle fuel in my milk?
That's right kids, it's uncle Cliff Claven to bring you the newest info from California. Seems that Cali is having a small problem with Perchlorate (a toxic chemical used in rocket fuel) ending up in their milk. From what I have deduced the Perchlorate has gotten into the Colorado River, which is the major source of drinking water and irrigation in Southern California and Arizona. It is then given to the cows and used to irrigate the crops used to feed the cows and is transferred to their milk. So, yet again, we have scientists telling us that something that used to be good for us is now bad for us. But, not really. A healthy adult can consume up to 100 parts per million of the explosive substance (I guess I forgot to mention it's the stuff that makes rocket fuel go boom) and no suffer any ill effects. The recent study by the University of California did not draw conclusions about perchlorate’s impact on pregnant women, children and infants, though. So I guess it's ok for everyone to drink milk except for pregnant women, children and infants, the people that need it the most (sorry little Timmy, you have to eat your Captain Crunch with a crushed calcium supplement and water because the milk is POISONED! Enjoy.)
Why do we allow doctors to get away with this stuff?
I read today of yet another case of a "fertility doctor" making a mistake. That's right kids, another one. And this is just one in a series of "boo-boos" that these supposed "doctors" make. One happened in New Haven Connecticut and the other in (wait for it Mike) California. In New Haven a doctor used the wrong semen (oops, we may have used someone other than your fiancee to impregnate you, sorry) and then the "doc" actually have the gall and balls to suggest an abortion and prescribed her the "day after" pills to end the pregnancy. I think this lady deserves more than cash from this doctor, she deserves an apology then this guy needs to be tarred, feathered and ran out of town like an old fashioned snake-oil salesmen.
But wait, it gets better with the California case. Apparently this "doc" implanted the lady the wrong embryo and then hid it until she found out when her baby was 10 months old. Even though the doctor knew of the mix up minutes after the surgery was complete he said and did nothing out of fear that it would "possibly cause the patient to end the pregnancy." I have to cry BS on this one because the real reason (in my opinion) that he said nothing was out of fear of him getting sued into the dark ages. There are two really bad things that have developed from this case. The parents (providers of the sperm and embryo) are now trying to get full custody of the now 3 year old boy. This will surely devastate the woman that gave birth to and has been raising the boy for the last 3 years. The second bad development is that the doctor, Dr. Steven L. Katz, is being investigated by the Medical Board of California but continues to operate his fertility clinic. I must say that I am highly disappointed by the medical board and the people in the community in general for allowing this doctor to commit errors like this and still be able to operate in the state of California. What are we thinking when we allow doctors to continue to spit in our faces then we thank them for it like we asked for it in the first place. Well, this falls under my favorite saying, "Meteorologists and doctors are the only two professions that you can be wrong ever day and still have a job the next day."
But wait, it gets better with the California case. Apparently this "doc" implanted the lady the wrong embryo and then hid it until she found out when her baby was 10 months old. Even though the doctor knew of the mix up minutes after the surgery was complete he said and did nothing out of fear that it would "possibly cause the patient to end the pregnancy." I have to cry BS on this one because the real reason (in my opinion) that he said nothing was out of fear of him getting sued into the dark ages. There are two really bad things that have developed from this case. The parents (providers of the sperm and embryo) are now trying to get full custody of the now 3 year old boy. This will surely devastate the woman that gave birth to and has been raising the boy for the last 3 years. The second bad development is that the doctor, Dr. Steven L. Katz, is being investigated by the Medical Board of California but continues to operate his fertility clinic. I must say that I am highly disappointed by the medical board and the people in the community in general for allowing this doctor to commit errors like this and still be able to operate in the state of California. What are we thinking when we allow doctors to continue to spit in our faces then we thank them for it like we asked for it in the first place. Well, this falls under my favorite saying, "Meteorologists and doctors are the only two professions that you can be wrong ever day and still have a job the next day."
Monday, July 12, 2004
FCC polices radio and TV but who do we turn to for the newspapers.
Many of you know that I have been going on lately about how much the heavily opinionated newscasters (supposedly journalists but they are really just "opinionists") upset me with their skewed news reports. I believe that truth in broadcasting should be looked into for most of news reports out there right now. Mike has been very good at pointing out the fact that the news reporters aren't really lieing but merely telling one side of the truth and then adding their opinion to the story (they are "opinionists" after all.) Well, this weekend I was leafing though some of my digital newspapers (much cheaper than the print version and I get them faster) when a headline caught my eye. Did you know, according to the New York Post, Kerry named Gephardt as his running mate?!?! This was news to me since I was heard that Kerry tabbed fellow U.S. Senator John Edwards for the veep slot. I thought I was just losing my mind but then I remembered that they had done this once before with the "Yankees loss to the Boston Red Sox" editorial (actually the club tied the game in the eighth inning and won it on Aaron Boone's walkoff home run in the 11th) that had been drafted while the Yanks were losing but was not pulled before the papers hit the press. I just want to know, who the hell do we call to get some of these idiots fined, fired, strung up, drawn and quartered, etc and what do I have to do to get an honest news report? I am getting tired of having to cross check every "fact" that I find in the news stories with five other sources just to make sure that I have not been thrown into an alternate reality world. Is there an "FCC" for the newspapers? If there is please let me know so that I can write them and let them know what I think about their wonderful job of policing newspapers like the New York Post. I have searched and have found nothing even mentioning an agency that checks on newspapers and their "truth in journalism." Does this mean we are leaving it up to the newspapers to be honest with us when they report on a story? If it does then that makes me never want to read another news story from the New York Post and many other newspapers for a very long time.
Why do we allow politicians to talk?
Ok, I know Mike loves these stories that seem to filter their way out of California so I just had to post this one.
Seems education commissioner of California Richard Riordan(who is also the former Republican mayor of Los Angeles) decided to make a joke that got him into a hair bit of trouble last week. At a publicity event last week at a Santa Barbara library, he was reading to some children when Isis D'Luciano, 6, asked Riordan if he knew her name meant "Egyptian goddess." To this Riordan said "It means stupid dirty girl." He apologized later saying he was just teasing the child and that his joke was a "misunderstanding." His boss, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who called the crack "unacceptable in any context," has not moved to can Riordan.
Want to see a clip of the memorable event? Check it out.
Seems education commissioner of California Richard Riordan(who is also the former Republican mayor of Los Angeles) decided to make a joke that got him into a hair bit of trouble last week. At a publicity event last week at a Santa Barbara library, he was reading to some children when Isis D'Luciano, 6, asked Riordan if he knew her name meant "Egyptian goddess." To this Riordan said "It means stupid dirty girl." He apologized later saying he was just teasing the child and that his joke was a "misunderstanding." His boss, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who called the crack "unacceptable in any context," has not moved to can Riordan.
Want to see a clip of the memorable event? Check it out.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Letter from Dad
This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.
--------------------------------------------------
Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,
As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt - WWII: President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961); [footnote 1] eight presidents (5 Republican &4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [footnote 2] So besure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.
Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). [footnote 3]
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
4. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
5. What is the Muslim population of the World {footnote 8}?
25%
6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).(http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.. [foootnote 5] The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
7. So with whom are we at war?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the attached article on the French condition by Tom Segel. [footnote 6]
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
- President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
- Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
- Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
- We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.
Love,Dad
Footnotes:
[1] By the way on Vietnam, the emotions are still so high that it is really not possible to discuss it. However, I think President Kennedy was correct. He felt there was a communist threat from China, Russia and North Vietnam to take over that whole area. Also remember that we were in a 'cold war' with Russia. I frankly think Kennedy's plan worked and kept that total communist control out, but try telling that to anyone now. It just isn't politically correct to say so. Historians will answer this after cool headed research, when the people closest to it are all gone.
[2] As you know, I am a strong President Bush supporter and will vote for him. However, if Senator Kerry is elected, I will fully support him on all matters of international conflict, just as I have supported all presidents in the past.
[3] Source for statistics in Par. 1 is http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
[4] The Institute of Islamic Information and Education. http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html
[5] Note the attached article by Tom Segel referred to in footnote 6 the terrorist Muslim have already begun the havoc in France. (Comment - The article was not attached to the E-mail I received)
[6] I checked Segel's article with two sources - Hoax Busters and Urban Myths. It does not come up as a Hoax on either. I also then E-mailed Mr. Segel and he confirmed the article was his.
[7] "I don't think the Army or any branch of service runs any type of war any more. It's done by senators and congressmen. There are too many civilians involved." Returning Iraq veteran, Sgt. 1st Class Greg Klees as quoted in the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette on May 13th, 2004.
[8] There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not count countries like Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists or France which is 20% Muslim.
--------------------------------------------------
Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,
As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt - WWII: President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961); [footnote 1] eight presidents (5 Republican &4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [footnote 2] So besure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.
Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). [footnote 3]
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
4. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
5. What is the Muslim population of the World {footnote 8}?
25%
6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).(http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.. [foootnote 5] The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
7. So with whom are we at war?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the attached article on the French condition by Tom Segel. [footnote 6]
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
- President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
- Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
- Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
- We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.
Love,Dad
Footnotes:
[1] By the way on Vietnam, the emotions are still so high that it is really not possible to discuss it. However, I think President Kennedy was correct. He felt there was a communist threat from China, Russia and North Vietnam to take over that whole area. Also remember that we were in a 'cold war' with Russia. I frankly think Kennedy's plan worked and kept that total communist control out, but try telling that to anyone now. It just isn't politically correct to say so. Historians will answer this after cool headed research, when the people closest to it are all gone.
[2] As you know, I am a strong President Bush supporter and will vote for him. However, if Senator Kerry is elected, I will fully support him on all matters of international conflict, just as I have supported all presidents in the past.
[3] Source for statistics in Par. 1 is http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
[4] The Institute of Islamic Information and Education. http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html
[5] Note the attached article by Tom Segel referred to in footnote 6 the terrorist Muslim have already begun the havoc in France. (Comment - The article was not attached to the E-mail I received)
[6] I checked Segel's article with two sources - Hoax Busters and Urban Myths. It does not come up as a Hoax on either. I also then E-mailed Mr. Segel and he confirmed the article was his.
[7] "I don't think the Army or any branch of service runs any type of war any more. It's done by senators and congressmen. There are too many civilians involved." Returning Iraq veteran, Sgt. 1st Class Greg Klees as quoted in the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette on May 13th, 2004.
[8] There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not count countries like Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists or France which is 20% Muslim.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Michael Moore, Reckless Republican, Daunting Democrat, or just plain Other?
Well, I finally decided to get back into the swing of things with a doozy here at the MaDMaN Journal. Ok, I am sure everyone has heard of the big hoopla that Michael Moore's new movie (Fahrenheit 9/11) has caused in the movie industry. Starting with the fact that the movie company (Disney) would not send it to the theaters after spending some good sized dollars on it to it being the #1 grossing documentary to hit the theaters (the trick to this is that it is one of the only documentaries to hit the big screen.) Someone recently said that Michael Moore (hereafter referred to as "Mikey") was just another pissed Democrat because they lost the last Presidential election. To this Mikey replied "I am an Independent. I'm not a member of the Democratic party." Well, I have run across a tidbit of information. Seems that Mikey is not being totally honest with his adoring public. It looks like Mikey is registered as a Democrat in the state of New York. He registered in Gotham in 1992 and has not voted since an October 2001 Democratic runoff election. But wait, there's more! He is also registered to vote in Michigan (they do not have you put your political affiliation on the records.) He registered there last April in Antrim County. Now, call my nutty, but I think there is something slightly immoral (is it illegal?) about being registered to vote in two different states. Well, lets chalk it up to being forgetful. Maybe he forgot he was a registered voter in the state of New York. Ok, that's fine, but he still said he is a Independent but is registered as a Democrat in New York. Well, we must remember that he forgot he was registered in New York so that argument goes out the door. But that is pretty interesting that a guy would forget that he was registered to vote already when he preaches so ardently on his website about his "Pledge of Democratic Allegiance." He actually wants people to register ten new voters this summer and spend one October weekend in a swing state. Now, this is a good idea but it sounds like Mikey is, what's the word I'm looking for? Ah, yes. A hypocrite of the highest order.
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Ramblings of a hypocritical cubical farmer
Whatever medical science may profess, there is a difference between Life and survival. There is more to being alive than just having a heartbeat and brain activity. Being alive, really alive, is something much subtler and more magnificent. Their instruments measure blood pressure and temperature, but overlook joy, passion, love, all the things that make life really matter. To make our lives matter again, to really get the most out of them, we will have to redefine life itself. We have to dispense with their merely clinical definitions, in favor of ones which have more to do with what we actually feel.
As it stands, how much living do we have in our lives? How many mornings do you wake up feeling truly free, thrilled to be alive, breathlessly anticipating the experiences of a new day? How many nights do you fall asleep feeling fulfilled, going over the events of the past day with satisfaction? Most of us feel as though everything has already been decided without us, as if living is not a creative activity but rather something that happens to us. That's not being alive, that's just surviving: being undead. We have undertakers, but their services are not usually required; we have morgues, but we spend most of our time in office cubicles and video arcades, in shopping malls, in front of televisions. Of course suburban housewives and petty executives are terrified of risk and change; they can't imagine that there is anything more valuable than physical safety. Their hearts may be beating, but they no longer believe in their dreams, let alone chase after them.
But this is how the revolution begins: a few of us start chasing our dreams, breaking our old patterns, embracing what we love (and in the process discovering what we hate), daydreaming, questioning, acting outside the boundaries of routine and regularity. Others see us doing this, see people daring to be more creative and more adventurous, more generous and more ambitious than they had imagined possible, and join us one by one. Once enough people embrace this new way of living, a point of critical mass is finally reached, and society itself begins to change. From that moment, the world will start to undergo a transformation: from the frightening, alien place that it is, into a place ripe with possibility, where our lives are in our own hands and any dream can come true
As it stands, how much living do we have in our lives? How many mornings do you wake up feeling truly free, thrilled to be alive, breathlessly anticipating the experiences of a new day? How many nights do you fall asleep feeling fulfilled, going over the events of the past day with satisfaction? Most of us feel as though everything has already been decided without us, as if living is not a creative activity but rather something that happens to us. That's not being alive, that's just surviving: being undead. We have undertakers, but their services are not usually required; we have morgues, but we spend most of our time in office cubicles and video arcades, in shopping malls, in front of televisions. Of course suburban housewives and petty executives are terrified of risk and change; they can't imagine that there is anything more valuable than physical safety. Their hearts may be beating, but they no longer believe in their dreams, let alone chase after them.
But this is how the revolution begins: a few of us start chasing our dreams, breaking our old patterns, embracing what we love (and in the process discovering what we hate), daydreaming, questioning, acting outside the boundaries of routine and regularity. Others see us doing this, see people daring to be more creative and more adventurous, more generous and more ambitious than they had imagined possible, and join us one by one. Once enough people embrace this new way of living, a point of critical mass is finally reached, and society itself begins to change. From that moment, the world will start to undergo a transformation: from the frightening, alien place that it is, into a place ripe with possibility, where our lives are in our own hands and any dream can come true
Friday, May 21, 2004
Nuke em all.
Yes, I remember hearing that quote. I also remember hearing about 8:15 in the morning of August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima. This falls very much along the lines of what Heinlein was talking about. We placed 2 very strategic warheads right where they would make the Japanese government surrender. I don't think we need to turn the entire country of Iraq into a glass parking lot but maybe we should pull soldiers out of a certain town (perhaps Karbala) and wait for all the "holy warriors" to gather and make a "stategic attack" of a atomic type. I realize this will not happen anytime soon since our economy would have to take a huge nose dive before a President would even think of doing this. Ok, I can hear you out there screaming "We are a more civilized race now and we would never Nuke anyone." Well, I hate to break it to you but when the stock portfolio of all of the professional politicians starts to bomb they will think differently, I guarantee.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Heinlein
There are people at work with No War in Iraq signs. I have friends that want to know why we didn't just turn the Ragheads into glass. This is the best quote I've ever heard regarding war and its from 50 years ago. What do you think?
War and Sly & the Family Stone
"If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off?”
“Why . . . no, sir!”
“Of course not. You’d paddle it. There can be circumstances when it’s just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it’s not your business or mine to decide the purpose or the control. It’s never a soldier’s business to decide when or where or how — or why — he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people — ‘older and wiser heads,’ as they say — supply the control. Which is as it should be. That’s the best answer I can give you. If it doesn’t satisfy you, I’ll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can’t convince you — then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier."
Robert Heinlein
S.T.
1959
“Why . . . no, sir!”
“Of course not. You’d paddle it. There can be circumstances when it’s just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it’s not your business or mine to decide the purpose or the control. It’s never a soldier’s business to decide when or where or how — or why — he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people — ‘older and wiser heads,’ as they say — supply the control. Which is as it should be. That’s the best answer I can give you. If it doesn’t satisfy you, I’ll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can’t convince you — then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier."
Robert Heinlein
S.T.
1959
Monday, March 22, 2004
Israel Takes Out Yassin
I could be all witty and sarcastic, but the question is just too simple.
Hell yes, Israel was right to take out Yassin. No question. For that matter, I don't know why they didn't take out Arafat when they had him pinned down. You can't sit back and hope and pray that your enemies will come peacefully to the bargaining table and give you peace. You go get them and hit them where they live. Israel doesn't want to fight terrorists in the streets of Tel Aviv any more than we do in New York City.
"Oh, you can't do that. That's against international law. We have the U.N. to settle difficulties. You can't assassinate people. You're mean. You're bad."
Yeah, it's really too bad. Israel and Palestine were really on the verge of settling all their difficulties. They were even going to open a jointly-owned Starbuck's and a KFC on the West Bank. Janet Jackson was going to perform at the opening ceremony. All they needed was a little time and some help from the United Nations.
I've said this before and I'm going to keep saying it: Islamic radical fundamentalists want us dead. They don't want money, they don't want tolerance, they don't want MTV or better cell phones or Marlboros. They want us DEAD.
It's sad that they feel that way, but that is their choice. That leaves us with the choice of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq or New York and Los Angeles. Sorry, but I choose to fight them on their own turf. The diplomats and terrorist-huggers may not like it, but taking the war to them has proved highly effective thus far.
I keep wishing the liberals would wake up and realize that appeasement doesn't work. It never has worked with any of our enemies and it never will. The only thing these people understand is strength and force. The U.N. can pass resolutions until it's blue in the face. That is meaningless to terrorists. You might as well pass a resolution and read it to your dog. Your dog would probably pay more attention to the subtleties and nuances in your voice than terrorists ever will.
Hans Blix is touring the world and promoting his book. The book is--gasp!--critical of the United States. He says the U.N. would have found a solution to the Iraq problem if it had been given more time. Time to do what? Wait for Saddam to die?
Jacques Chirac has said that only international cooperation will keep terrorism out of Europe. He called for an emergency meeting of European Union countries to discuss ways to deal with terrorism. The EU machine is so well oiled that it only took eight days to convene the "emergency" meeting. By the way, that's nice forethought, Europe. It's only been two and half years since 9/11 and you're just now ready to discuss the fact that Europe may be a terrorist target. Brilliant.
Just the other day, ABC's Peter Jennings said the Iraqis view their liberation "as something of a campaign of humiliation." Yeah, I can hear them chanting, Peter: "Bring back the rape rooms! Bring back the torture! We like poverty! We like starvation! U.S. go home!"
Where do the liberals get these wild notions? What are they smoking that makes them think that way? Have we not learned time and time and time again that weakness invites attack and strength backed up with action repels it? When are the liberals going to learn?
Enough rant. I'm going to go to bed, secure in the notion that the next terror attack will be in Baghdad, not Wichita. I hope I don't have a nightmare about President John Kerry raising my taxes to pay for reparations for al Qaeda.
Hell yes, Israel was right to take out Yassin. No question. For that matter, I don't know why they didn't take out Arafat when they had him pinned down. You can't sit back and hope and pray that your enemies will come peacefully to the bargaining table and give you peace. You go get them and hit them where they live. Israel doesn't want to fight terrorists in the streets of Tel Aviv any more than we do in New York City.
"Oh, you can't do that. That's against international law. We have the U.N. to settle difficulties. You can't assassinate people. You're mean. You're bad."
Yeah, it's really too bad. Israel and Palestine were really on the verge of settling all their difficulties. They were even going to open a jointly-owned Starbuck's and a KFC on the West Bank. Janet Jackson was going to perform at the opening ceremony. All they needed was a little time and some help from the United Nations.
I've said this before and I'm going to keep saying it: Islamic radical fundamentalists want us dead. They don't want money, they don't want tolerance, they don't want MTV or better cell phones or Marlboros. They want us DEAD.
It's sad that they feel that way, but that is their choice. That leaves us with the choice of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq or New York and Los Angeles. Sorry, but I choose to fight them on their own turf. The diplomats and terrorist-huggers may not like it, but taking the war to them has proved highly effective thus far.
I keep wishing the liberals would wake up and realize that appeasement doesn't work. It never has worked with any of our enemies and it never will. The only thing these people understand is strength and force. The U.N. can pass resolutions until it's blue in the face. That is meaningless to terrorists. You might as well pass a resolution and read it to your dog. Your dog would probably pay more attention to the subtleties and nuances in your voice than terrorists ever will.
Hans Blix is touring the world and promoting his book. The book is--gasp!--critical of the United States. He says the U.N. would have found a solution to the Iraq problem if it had been given more time. Time to do what? Wait for Saddam to die?
Jacques Chirac has said that only international cooperation will keep terrorism out of Europe. He called for an emergency meeting of European Union countries to discuss ways to deal with terrorism. The EU machine is so well oiled that it only took eight days to convene the "emergency" meeting. By the way, that's nice forethought, Europe. It's only been two and half years since 9/11 and you're just now ready to discuss the fact that Europe may be a terrorist target. Brilliant.
Just the other day, ABC's Peter Jennings said the Iraqis view their liberation "as something of a campaign of humiliation." Yeah, I can hear them chanting, Peter: "Bring back the rape rooms! Bring back the torture! We like poverty! We like starvation! U.S. go home!"
Where do the liberals get these wild notions? What are they smoking that makes them think that way? Have we not learned time and time and time again that weakness invites attack and strength backed up with action repels it? When are the liberals going to learn?
Enough rant. I'm going to go to bed, secure in the notion that the next terror attack will be in Baghdad, not Wichita. I hope I don't have a nightmare about President John Kerry raising my taxes to pay for reparations for al Qaeda.
Missed posts.
I have to apologize to everyone that posts and reads the topics. I have been very lax on posting new topics (thanks Mike for helping me out) and replying to those topics as well. My wife has been in the hospital (she was released this weekend) and even though some people would say "That's not a good excuse" my friends know that family comes first (right Terry) especially when it comes to my wife. So, on with the freakin' rants!
The Passion of Christ
I must say that I went into this movie with a totally open mind. Most of you know that it is pretty hard for a guy that was raised Roman Catholic and went to a Christian school for many years to not go into a religious movie either hating or loving it before buying his popcorn. I decided I was going to go into this movie not seeking a "religious experience" but to watch it from a psycological standpoint. I wanted to see what kind of effect it would have on the audience. I have seen the commercials (some people call it the evening news but it was really just a commercial to get everyone to go see it) that shows the people coming out of the theater looking like Tammy Faye Baker (-director "Running mascara looks great, now walk out of the theater and ACTION!") and giving interviews saying it was the greatest movie of all time. I wanted to go see if this effect was real or was just a handfull of people having a "divine moment" after seeing a religious movie. I want to start by telling everyone to get to the theater at least 30 minutes before you normally would. I don't mean 30 minutes before the movie starts but 30 minutes before you normally get there. We left at an OK amount of time before the movie started and the parking lot was packed (the HUGE revival tent in the parking lot didn't help but that's ok.) We got into the theater and the lobby was packed. We got into our theater and it was totally packed. The only seats that were available were a handfull in the center front row. Now for anything else (football game, hockey game, concert, etc) these would be prime seats but at the new theaters of today these are the worst seats there are. Normally this would be ok but for this movie it was a pretty big headache because, since the entire movie is in Aramaic and Latin, it is in subtitles and your head is swiveling back and forth trying to keep up with the dialog. But we coped because we didn't show up 30 minutes before we normally would have and had to take the seats we could find. The movie starts and I notice something. It is absolutely and totally quiet. I look around (since I am in the front row I just have to look over my shoulder and I can see everything) and people are staring at the screen. This went on throughout the entire movie (with a few exceptions, those being the scourging scene and a couple others) and I was amazed (much like Mike said) when the credits started. Normally when the credits start the theater staff starts turning up the light and they rush in to start cleaning, people get out of their chairs to stretch and chat about the movie and everyone starts to move out of the theater. The lights stayed dark throughout the entire credits until the actual film ran out and then the house lights started to come up. I looked around and not a single person had left the theater. Not one! Everyone was so shocked at seeing a portrayal of a scourging and a crucifiction that they were totally speachless. At this point people started filing out of the theater and you could still hear a mouse fart in there it was so quite. I friend from Shana's church went with us and she said when she went to the women's bathroom it was totally quite in there as well.
Now I hear the crazed hounds of war out there screaming "It was anti-semetic!" The only way I can see that this movie hurt anyone is if those thoughts were in the viewers mind to begin with. This movie did not make me want to go out and blame the Jews of killing Jesus. The only people I hear saying that it made them think of this are the Jews (feeling guilty are we?) Like someone said "Who lived in that area? The Romans and the Jews. Who killed Jesus? It must have been those damn Norwegians!" I don't blame the Jews or the Romans (hard to blame a race of people that are no longer around.) They had no choice in the matter. It was going to happen one way or the other. I do have to say, on this subject there was a critic that got it right when he said "This movie is like a spiritual Rorshacht test. You are going to see what you want to see and it will stengthen whatever your beliefs already are."
What is that? It's the hounds baying "It was just another gore-fest!" Well, yes it was. But I ask those same people if they have done any research on scourging and crucifiction and they usually (99.9% of the time) reply no. Well, I have and it aint no day at the park sweetheart! I had to explain this to my wife in the car after the movie. The Roman soldiers that had the job of torturing people weren't just crazy, they were perfectly crazy. They had very few laws that were punishable by death (for a Roman soldier stationed in Isreal) and one of them was torturing a prisoner to death. The Roman soldiers knew this so they got very good at what they did. They knew exactly how far they could push a man before he died. They knew exactly what they had to do to keep a man alive after being tortured. They knew what it took to not be the next person strapped to the block with a whip across he back. They were artists in pain that knew exactly what they were doing. They spent as many years learning and perfecting their profession as the average person would spend on theirs today (especially if you knew messing up at your job meant you would be put to death yourself.) A scourging is VERY bloody and VERY painfull. The fact that any human (Jesus was still human at this point) could still be awake and alive at this point amazes me to this day. But I digress. Fast forward to the actual crusifiction. There were very few points in this part of the movie that were "bloody" per say. When they put the first nail in there was a spurt of blood. That's about it. So the fact people are screaming that the movie is overly bloody is based on two "sections" of the movie, the scourging and the crusifiction. Waitaminute... So your telling me people are complaining about something (the scourging) being bloody that really was bloody in real life and something (the crusifiction) that wasn't all that bloody in the movie. Come off of it people! People are screaming that it will damage our children if they see this. Guess what! It's rated R, if your kids are watching it then you are a bad parent! It's as easy as that. Go home and tell me that they don't see blood sprays on regular TV (I've seen more blood spraying on ER than during the crusifiction.)
I'm not going to go on and on about this because I have a limited amount of time to spend on this topic tonight but I may touch on it later. I will post my thoughts on the other topic in the morning and expect a new topic in the morning as well. Good night all!
The Passion of Christ
I must say that I went into this movie with a totally open mind. Most of you know that it is pretty hard for a guy that was raised Roman Catholic and went to a Christian school for many years to not go into a religious movie either hating or loving it before buying his popcorn. I decided I was going to go into this movie not seeking a "religious experience" but to watch it from a psycological standpoint. I wanted to see what kind of effect it would have on the audience. I have seen the commercials (some people call it the evening news but it was really just a commercial to get everyone to go see it) that shows the people coming out of the theater looking like Tammy Faye Baker (-director "Running mascara looks great, now walk out of the theater and ACTION!") and giving interviews saying it was the greatest movie of all time. I wanted to go see if this effect was real or was just a handfull of people having a "divine moment" after seeing a religious movie. I want to start by telling everyone to get to the theater at least 30 minutes before you normally would. I don't mean 30 minutes before the movie starts but 30 minutes before you normally get there. We left at an OK amount of time before the movie started and the parking lot was packed (the HUGE revival tent in the parking lot didn't help but that's ok.) We got into the theater and the lobby was packed. We got into our theater and it was totally packed. The only seats that were available were a handfull in the center front row. Now for anything else (football game, hockey game, concert, etc) these would be prime seats but at the new theaters of today these are the worst seats there are. Normally this would be ok but for this movie it was a pretty big headache because, since the entire movie is in Aramaic and Latin, it is in subtitles and your head is swiveling back and forth trying to keep up with the dialog. But we coped because we didn't show up 30 minutes before we normally would have and had to take the seats we could find. The movie starts and I notice something. It is absolutely and totally quiet. I look around (since I am in the front row I just have to look over my shoulder and I can see everything) and people are staring at the screen. This went on throughout the entire movie (with a few exceptions, those being the scourging scene and a couple others) and I was amazed (much like Mike said) when the credits started. Normally when the credits start the theater staff starts turning up the light and they rush in to start cleaning, people get out of their chairs to stretch and chat about the movie and everyone starts to move out of the theater. The lights stayed dark throughout the entire credits until the actual film ran out and then the house lights started to come up. I looked around and not a single person had left the theater. Not one! Everyone was so shocked at seeing a portrayal of a scourging and a crucifiction that they were totally speachless. At this point people started filing out of the theater and you could still hear a mouse fart in there it was so quite. I friend from Shana's church went with us and she said when she went to the women's bathroom it was totally quite in there as well.
Now I hear the crazed hounds of war out there screaming "It was anti-semetic!" The only way I can see that this movie hurt anyone is if those thoughts were in the viewers mind to begin with. This movie did not make me want to go out and blame the Jews of killing Jesus. The only people I hear saying that it made them think of this are the Jews (feeling guilty are we?) Like someone said "Who lived in that area? The Romans and the Jews. Who killed Jesus? It must have been those damn Norwegians!" I don't blame the Jews or the Romans (hard to blame a race of people that are no longer around.) They had no choice in the matter. It was going to happen one way or the other. I do have to say, on this subject there was a critic that got it right when he said "This movie is like a spiritual Rorshacht test. You are going to see what you want to see and it will stengthen whatever your beliefs already are."
What is that? It's the hounds baying "It was just another gore-fest!" Well, yes it was. But I ask those same people if they have done any research on scourging and crucifiction and they usually (99.9% of the time) reply no. Well, I have and it aint no day at the park sweetheart! I had to explain this to my wife in the car after the movie. The Roman soldiers that had the job of torturing people weren't just crazy, they were perfectly crazy. They had very few laws that were punishable by death (for a Roman soldier stationed in Isreal) and one of them was torturing a prisoner to death. The Roman soldiers knew this so they got very good at what they did. They knew exactly how far they could push a man before he died. They knew exactly what they had to do to keep a man alive after being tortured. They knew what it took to not be the next person strapped to the block with a whip across he back. They were artists in pain that knew exactly what they were doing. They spent as many years learning and perfecting their profession as the average person would spend on theirs today (especially if you knew messing up at your job meant you would be put to death yourself.) A scourging is VERY bloody and VERY painfull. The fact that any human (Jesus was still human at this point) could still be awake and alive at this point amazes me to this day. But I digress. Fast forward to the actual crusifiction. There were very few points in this part of the movie that were "bloody" per say. When they put the first nail in there was a spurt of blood. That's about it. So the fact people are screaming that the movie is overly bloody is based on two "sections" of the movie, the scourging and the crusifiction. Waitaminute... So your telling me people are complaining about something (the scourging) being bloody that really was bloody in real life and something (the crusifiction) that wasn't all that bloody in the movie. Come off of it people! People are screaming that it will damage our children if they see this. Guess what! It's rated R, if your kids are watching it then you are a bad parent! It's as easy as that. Go home and tell me that they don't see blood sprays on regular TV (I've seen more blood spraying on ER than during the crusifiction.)
I'm not going to go on and on about this because I have a limited amount of time to spend on this topic tonight but I may touch on it later. I will post my thoughts on the other topic in the morning and expect a new topic in the morning as well. Good night all!
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
The War on Terror--2 1/2 Years Later
It is amazing to think how the war on terror has progressed since 9/11/01. The Taliban has been driven from power in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is a fugitive hiding in caves. Saddam has been driven from power and captured. Libya has voluntarily disarmed its weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda has been driven from several of its strongholds and has been 75% destroyed, if you believe President Bush.
Here at home, intelligence has been improved to the point where we can now cancel individual flights suspected of being terror targets. The Patriot Act, although we should keep an eye on it, has helped law enforcement efforts. The Homeland Security Department is coordinating security services on an unprecedented scale. Americans are even starting to cope with and accept the heightened security at airports.
All things considered, the war on terror has been a huge and costly failure. It has been a disaster of epic proportions. It has been unnecessary and wasteful. It has needlessly cost human lives. It has made the world a more dangerous place. It has stirred up new terrorist sentiment around the world. Clearly, the Bush administration has done too little to protect American lives. In fact, George W. Bush has placed the world in harm's way and gambled with the lives of our children.
Huh?
Ok, now, wait a sec. I'm confused. Maybe I've been watching too much CBS Evening News or reading too much New York Times. We drove the terrorists from their strongholds, smashed their organizations, brought down two terror-supporting regimes, beefed up our security, weathered a severe economic downturn, and convinced a terrorist nation to lay down its arms voluntarily. Yeah, that's failure. We should be ashamed of ourselves and we should definitely hate the man who stepped up to defend us.
Spain is right. Let's quit fighting the terrorists. Let's send al Qaeda a clear message that the next time they bomb something, we'll just give up. Let's start a program of love and understanding. Let's reach out to Islamic extremists and pledge our support. Let's give them a big, fat check for reparations with an apology for ever daring to oppose them. If we're nice to them, I'm sure they'll just love us and leave us alone in the future.
We've got some work to do at home too. First, we need to kick George Bush out of office. Europe doesn't like him, al Qaeda doesn't like him, the U.N. doesn't like him, North Korea doesn't like him, so he's gone. We need a president like John Kerry. We need someone who will vote to withhold supplies from the military. We need someone who will repeal the Patriot Act instead of using it to prosecute terrorists. We need a president who will turn over our foreign policy to the United Nations and put the world's interests ahead of our own. And man, we better hurry, because the terrorists are getting really pissed of at the United States. The sooner we throw down our defenses, the better.
Just like Spain did.
You know, I'd laugh at that kind of "thinking" if the stakes weren't so deadly serious. Within days of the bombing in Spain, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is still downplaying the threat of terrorism. He said, "Most people are much more directly threatened by such things as extreme poverty, hunger, disease, environmental disasters, or by low-tech violence, when order breaks down in their country or civil war breaks out."
In point of fact, you're probably right about that, Mr. Annan. There probably are a whole lot more people worried about where their next meal will come from or when their government will torture them next, rather than being worried about terrorism. But those people don't live in New York City and they don't live in Madrid. And your comment is completely beside the point. You can't be prosperous, well fed or healthy if you're dead.
In essence, what Annan was saying is that the U.N. can either fight the terrorists or they can perpetate the welfare state in Third World countries. Gee, which one do you think they'll chose?
I can almost understand the resistance to fighting terrorism in Europe. The "Old Europe" countries, led by France and Germany, used the end of the Cold War as an excuse to slash defense spending and return to socialism. Having failed to learn their lessons in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, these countries have built up huge welfare states at the expense of industry and productivity. They can no longer afford to maintain an effective military or activate security measures to protect themselves. They almost have to bow to Islam and beg for mercy. I feel sorry for that kind of helplessness, but they brought it on themselves. Unfortunately, Spain's capitulation will only embolden al Qaeda.
What I cannot understand, and what scares the hell out of me, is that American Democrats, led by John Kerry, appear to be buying into the old "blame America first" nonsense. Instead of blaming the terrorists for 9/11, they blame America's policies around the world. They keep repeating the mantra--the absolutely insane, demonstrably false mantra--that the world is less safe since we started rooting out the terrorists. Apparently, about half of Americans believe that! Are Americans really about to fold like a cheap tent the minute a bomb goes off? Are we really going to elect a president who wants to negotiate with terrorists and appease them? Seriously?
While we're mentioning Senator Kerry, let's look at who is supporting him around the world. Well, he has been endorsed by Kim Jong Il of North Korea. France is ready to elect Kerry as their president. Said the director of the French Center on the United States: "He is the closest thing that you will have to a French politician....He is more like a leader would be in Europe."
Those are two very telling endorsements. If our enemies hate President Bush badly enough to endorse his opponent, then he must be doing something right. Who would you suppose Osama bin Laden will be endorsing?
The extreme elements of Islam want us dead. Period. They see our way of life as a threat to their religion. They see our freedoms as a corruption of their souls. They see us as their enemy in a life and death struggle to maintain their way of life. And that is exactly how we must view them. That's unfortunate, but it is inescapable. We can talk and reason and appease them until we're blue in the face. While we're talking and spreading a message of love and hope and tolerance, they will be plotting the next bombings.
The only thing our enemies understand is force. History has proven that to us time and time and time again. When we show resolve, our enemies back down or are defeated. When we show weakness or indifference, they attack us. It has always been that way. It will always be that way. The choice is ours. We get to make it November 2nd.
Here at home, intelligence has been improved to the point where we can now cancel individual flights suspected of being terror targets. The Patriot Act, although we should keep an eye on it, has helped law enforcement efforts. The Homeland Security Department is coordinating security services on an unprecedented scale. Americans are even starting to cope with and accept the heightened security at airports.
All things considered, the war on terror has been a huge and costly failure. It has been a disaster of epic proportions. It has been unnecessary and wasteful. It has needlessly cost human lives. It has made the world a more dangerous place. It has stirred up new terrorist sentiment around the world. Clearly, the Bush administration has done too little to protect American lives. In fact, George W. Bush has placed the world in harm's way and gambled with the lives of our children.
Huh?
Ok, now, wait a sec. I'm confused. Maybe I've been watching too much CBS Evening News or reading too much New York Times. We drove the terrorists from their strongholds, smashed their organizations, brought down two terror-supporting regimes, beefed up our security, weathered a severe economic downturn, and convinced a terrorist nation to lay down its arms voluntarily. Yeah, that's failure. We should be ashamed of ourselves and we should definitely hate the man who stepped up to defend us.
Spain is right. Let's quit fighting the terrorists. Let's send al Qaeda a clear message that the next time they bomb something, we'll just give up. Let's start a program of love and understanding. Let's reach out to Islamic extremists and pledge our support. Let's give them a big, fat check for reparations with an apology for ever daring to oppose them. If we're nice to them, I'm sure they'll just love us and leave us alone in the future.
We've got some work to do at home too. First, we need to kick George Bush out of office. Europe doesn't like him, al Qaeda doesn't like him, the U.N. doesn't like him, North Korea doesn't like him, so he's gone. We need a president like John Kerry. We need someone who will vote to withhold supplies from the military. We need someone who will repeal the Patriot Act instead of using it to prosecute terrorists. We need a president who will turn over our foreign policy to the United Nations and put the world's interests ahead of our own. And man, we better hurry, because the terrorists are getting really pissed of at the United States. The sooner we throw down our defenses, the better.
Just like Spain did.
You know, I'd laugh at that kind of "thinking" if the stakes weren't so deadly serious. Within days of the bombing in Spain, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is still downplaying the threat of terrorism. He said, "Most people are much more directly threatened by such things as extreme poverty, hunger, disease, environmental disasters, or by low-tech violence, when order breaks down in their country or civil war breaks out."
In point of fact, you're probably right about that, Mr. Annan. There probably are a whole lot more people worried about where their next meal will come from or when their government will torture them next, rather than being worried about terrorism. But those people don't live in New York City and they don't live in Madrid. And your comment is completely beside the point. You can't be prosperous, well fed or healthy if you're dead.
In essence, what Annan was saying is that the U.N. can either fight the terrorists or they can perpetate the welfare state in Third World countries. Gee, which one do you think they'll chose?
I can almost understand the resistance to fighting terrorism in Europe. The "Old Europe" countries, led by France and Germany, used the end of the Cold War as an excuse to slash defense spending and return to socialism. Having failed to learn their lessons in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, these countries have built up huge welfare states at the expense of industry and productivity. They can no longer afford to maintain an effective military or activate security measures to protect themselves. They almost have to bow to Islam and beg for mercy. I feel sorry for that kind of helplessness, but they brought it on themselves. Unfortunately, Spain's capitulation will only embolden al Qaeda.
What I cannot understand, and what scares the hell out of me, is that American Democrats, led by John Kerry, appear to be buying into the old "blame America first" nonsense. Instead of blaming the terrorists for 9/11, they blame America's policies around the world. They keep repeating the mantra--the absolutely insane, demonstrably false mantra--that the world is less safe since we started rooting out the terrorists. Apparently, about half of Americans believe that! Are Americans really about to fold like a cheap tent the minute a bomb goes off? Are we really going to elect a president who wants to negotiate with terrorists and appease them? Seriously?
While we're mentioning Senator Kerry, let's look at who is supporting him around the world. Well, he has been endorsed by Kim Jong Il of North Korea. France is ready to elect Kerry as their president. Said the director of the French Center on the United States: "He is the closest thing that you will have to a French politician....He is more like a leader would be in Europe."
Those are two very telling endorsements. If our enemies hate President Bush badly enough to endorse his opponent, then he must be doing something right. Who would you suppose Osama bin Laden will be endorsing?
The extreme elements of Islam want us dead. Period. They see our way of life as a threat to their religion. They see our freedoms as a corruption of their souls. They see us as their enemy in a life and death struggle to maintain their way of life. And that is exactly how we must view them. That's unfortunate, but it is inescapable. We can talk and reason and appease them until we're blue in the face. While we're talking and spreading a message of love and hope and tolerance, they will be plotting the next bombings.
The only thing our enemies understand is force. History has proven that to us time and time and time again. When we show resolve, our enemies back down or are defeated. When we show weakness or indifference, they attack us. It has always been that way. It will always be that way. The choice is ours. We get to make it November 2nd.
Friday, March 05, 2004
The Passion of The Christ
Jason, I'm hijacking your blog for a moment. Please excuse me. I just saw "The Passion of The Christ" and have a few things to say about it.
This movie has been analyzed to death. CNN ran real intuitive analysis the other day saying that the movie had been overanalyzed. No kidding. It was precisely because of the "controversy" that I wanted to see the movie for myself. I thought that would be a particularly wise thing to do in light of the fact that few "reviewers" or "critics" or "pundits" had actually seen the movie they were writing and speaking so passionately about.
What I Got From the Movie
I don't share the same faith that many of the viewers do, therefore I see the film in more logical, clinical terms than most people. Consequently, my opinions are my own and certainly won't be reflective of what everyone will feel.
I think the title of the movie is quite apt, but not in the way most people will. In my mind, the "passion" is not about Christ's passion or the passion he will arouse in any religious movement. Rather, I think the "passion" is about the level of compassion and feeling the movie will arouse in those who watch it. I defy anyone to watch with an open mind and not feel compassion toward a man who is mercilessly beaten, mocked, humiliated and ridiculed. I defy anyone to watch the movie and not feel passionate about injustice, persecution, torture, abuse, betrayal and lack of moral character.
If you strip away all the religious overtones of the movie, you will be left with a story about a man who was subjected to unbelievable hardship and came away unbroken and unbowed. In that completely secular context, this is an extremely well done film about human nature. Although you may not think so at first, it is also a quite uplifting film.
It occurred to me as I watched the movie that it must have a tremendous effect on people of faith. If nothing else, it takes a well-known, yet somewhat abstract story and puts it right up in the face of the viewer. Said another way, it's one thing to read the Bible and learn about the crucifixion of Christ from a book. It's a whole other feeling to see it unfold in front of you. This film must surely hit Christians squarely between the eyes.
I saw something today that I have never seen in any movie ever before. When the film was over and the credits started to roll, everyone in the theater sat absolutely still. There was no applause or chatter or sobbing. Everyone sat stock still for a good thirty seconds. Any movie that can garner that kind of reaction is ok in my book.
Lessons To Be Learned From the Movie
To really analyze this movie and get all of the many themes out of it, I'll have to see it again. This is one of those movies that you can see over and over again and come away with something new every time. However, let me throw out a few themes that stick in my mind.
Loyalty--Judas betrayed Jesus and Peter disavowed him. Both men were shamed by their actions and learned something about loyalty in the process.
Injustice--The mob mentality ruled Jesus' "trial." Precedents, laws and traditions were cast aside as it became clear that Jesus was "so obviously" guilty. Boy, that will give you something to think about in the context of today's "trials by media."
Persecution--I have been studying the persecution of Christians in today's society, so this theme leapt out at me in the movie. Christians were mocked, scorned, humiliated, and stripped of their rights, freedoms and dignities. That has always been the case throughout history, to one degree or another, but the persecution theme really rings in my ears in a modern-day context. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Gratitude and Ingratitude--Compare Jesus' compassion and lack of prejudice toward Mary Magdalene to the way he was treated. She didn't forget it. Contrast that with Peter's failure to stand by Jesus in his hour of need.
Self Sacrifice--Simon of Cyrene was ordered to help carry the cross. His initial reaction? "It's none of my business. Don't bother me. I want to stay out of it." How many times have we let injustice go unpunished or let wrongs go unchecked for those very "reasons?"
Lack of Character--Pontius Pilate knew what was right. He knew Jesus was being persecuted and wronged. And yet, at the moment of truth, he waffled. He changed his position, he backed down, he compromised, he took the easy path, he tried to please both sides. Does that sound like some of the politicians we have today? You have to know what you stand for and you have to have the backbone to defend it. Pilate didn't and look how history has treated him. More importantly, look at the consequences.
Torture--As I saw Jesus chained and whipped, my first thought was of Cuba. Think about the places in this world where cruel and unusual punishments still prevail. Think of what happened in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq and many, many others. Think about the places where fear and torture are still in full force: China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Sudan and the list goes on and on and on. The liberals love to make excuses for the brutality in those countries, but the fact remains that those countries are human rights violators. Seeing that kind of torture played out on a movie screen should make you appreciate the protections we enjoy in America.
I'm sure many more such themes will leap out at me when I see the movie again.
Are these things presented in a religious movie with religious overtones? Absolutely, but that doesn't make the message or the ideals bad or wrong. You can see the movie with a humanist point of view and still get the full good out of it. But you know what? "Many" people did not. Let's turn the spotlight on the people who disliked or hated the movie and see where they are coming from.
Why They Gave the Movie Two Thumbs Down
Boy, did the liberals ever hate this movie! Wow! I think most of them hate Christianity more than they hate President Bush. The liberal power structure really came together in orchestrated opposition to this film.
The liberals have been doing an excellent job of erasing Christian faith from the public eye. They have gotten prayer out of schools, God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, religion out of the Christmas holiday and the Ten Commandments out of the law. They have sneered and mocked Christians to the point where many of them avoid all references to faith and have gone "underground" and "into the closet" for fear they will offend someone with their beliefs. Take a conservative position these days and the liberals will almost invariably brand you as part of the "religious right."
The liberals had turned Christianity into a dirty word and had the Christians on the run. And then this movie stirred the whole thing up again. Dammit!
Anti-Semitism
In the two weeks before the movie opened, I must have seen a dozen rabbis on TV complaining about it. Every one of them expressed various levels of condemnation and concern because there was "a possibility" that it would spark anti-Semitic fervor. With one exception, none of these "experts" had yet seen the movie.
First, if you're going to critique the movie you have to SEE IT. Second, any number of things MIGHT spark anti-Semitism, but just because I don't like bagels, that doesn't mean I hate Jews. Third, the movie is what you make of it. If you expect to come away hating someone because of what their ancestors did to Christ, then you are already beyond help.
While we're on the subject of hate, let me say this: If you came out of that movie hating someone--the Jews, the Romans, anyone--then you're a fool. If you couldn't come away with positive themes and fuel for thought, then you either prejudged the movie or you're an idiot. There is no polite way to say it.
This is bound to offend someone, but I'm going to say it anyway. The Jewish community needs to lighten up. I realize Jewish people have been persecuted throughout history and treated unjustly. I realize that the Jews, perhaps more than any other people, have to be on their guard for signs of persecution. On the other hand, this knee jerk rush to the ramparts only serves to increase religious tension. If I hadn't seen a dozen rabbis warning me of impending hatred, I never would have dreamed the movie might have had the slightest anti-Semitic message (which it certainly does not). Everyone can relax now.
Hollywood
The Hollywood Machine worked overtime to trash this movie and Mel Gibson in particular. No less a person than billionaire David Geffen, the High Priest of Hollywood, came down from on high and made this statement about Mel Gibson:
"It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally, that's all I can do." Read: Mel Gibson will never work at Dreamworks and he'd better not work at your studio either.
Another unnamed studio chieftain said: "I think I can live without him." Hollywood sits up and takes notice of those kinds of proclamations.
John Lesher, an agent with Endeavor, down played the anti-Gibson attitude: "People here will work with the anti-Christ if he'll put butts in seats." Nice sentiment, John. That's a very telling remark and all too true.
I think Hollywood hates the movie for another reason too. Gibson put up his own money to produce and publicize the movie. He didn't have a fat $100 million budget. He didn't have to beg and scrape before the Lords of Hollywood to get it made. He did it on his own. And guess what? The movie that Gibson spent $25 million to bring to the screen has grossed more than $160 million and still counting. Gee, I guess there is a market for religious films after all. Who would have thought it?
The Critics and The Media
Recognizing that some reactions to the movie will vary widely, let me say again that if you hated this movie for its themes, you either prejudged it or you made yourself hate it. That is exactly what the critics did.
I have a large stack of movie reviews printed out and sitting beside me. Not a single one of them gives the movie a good review. Not one. With all the legions of movie critics in this country, you would think that one or two in the mainstream media would have something positive to say. Not so.
The reason the reviews were bad is simple: The reviewers were expected to hate the film. Hollywood expected it, the liberals expected it and their editors expected it. So instead of writing an honest review, the critics came up with reasons to hate it. The most common reasons for hating "The Passions of The Christ" were that it is too violent and anti-Semitic.
Now I don't want to prejudge anyone, but with two exceptions, each one of the negative reviews was written by someone with a Jewish surname. That's more than coincidence, that's collusion.
Even Senator John Kerry toed the company line: "I am concerned," the half-Jewish candidate told reporters. "I don't know if it's [anti-Semitism] there or not but there's a lot of it around now. I think we have to be careful." Nice waffle, Senator. That should be worth an extra million in contributions from the Hollywood elite.
The most ironic argument given by critics is that the movie is too violent. Let's talk about that for a minute. This isn't a case where the movie uses gratuitous violence. Each scene where Jesus was tortured or physically abused had a purpose. Each time he was beaten, the camera turned to one of the principal figures in the movie for a reaction. The Christians, Romans and Jews were ALL shown to be shocked, shamed, disgusted or outraged and the context for their feelings was given. Yes, there was a lot of violence, but it certainly wasn't a case where they put in an extra shooting or decapitation just because it has been ten minutes since the last violent act.
Contrast that with other movie reviews. No one said "Kill Bill" was too violent. No one said "Texas Chainsaw Massacre II" was too graphic. No one protested the violence in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." And yet that darn Mel Gibson went and made a movie that was just over the top. Uh, huh.
Roger Friedman wrote that the film was "graphic beyond belief, and unrelenting. There is blood, blood everywhere." Friedman goes on to say, "The violence toward Jesus is sadistic and grotesque." Gee, Roger, I think you got the point and missed it all at the same time.
Friedman's review was among the more bitter and hateful reviews I read. He actually bitched about having to buy his own ticket because Gibson wouldn't give him a free pass. Friedman walked in the door with a chip on his shoulder, but he wasn't alone in the press.
A Special Shout Out to Andy Rooney
The 134-year-old 60 Minutes commentator had an extra special criticism for Mel Gibson. Mocking Christians by pretending that God had spoken to him, Rooney (speaking as God) said, "Anyway, as I was saying, Mel is a real nut case. What in the world was I thinking when I created him? We all make mistakes."
Rooney went on Don Imus' radio show five days later. When Imus asked him if he had actually seen the movie, Rooney replied, "I don't want to pay nine dollars for just a few laughs."
Hit the showers, Andy. You're no longer a lovable curmudgeon. You're just a nasty, bitter, disrespectful, old man now. See ya. If a Christian news personality had spoken that way about any other religion, he'd be out the door in a split second.
Conclusion
What did Mel Gibson have to say about it all? First, he said, "For a year, it's been nothing but nasty editorials and name-calling." Then he went on to say that he would try to adopt a loving attitude "even for those who persecute you." Yeah, I can see why the liberal establishment hates this guy.
Don't take my word for what the movie is like. Go see it and make up your own minds. Just don't call me afterward and tell me you thought it was a violent, Jew-bashing movie. I've heard far too much of that already.
This movie has been analyzed to death. CNN ran real intuitive analysis the other day saying that the movie had been overanalyzed. No kidding. It was precisely because of the "controversy" that I wanted to see the movie for myself. I thought that would be a particularly wise thing to do in light of the fact that few "reviewers" or "critics" or "pundits" had actually seen the movie they were writing and speaking so passionately about.
What I Got From the Movie
I don't share the same faith that many of the viewers do, therefore I see the film in more logical, clinical terms than most people. Consequently, my opinions are my own and certainly won't be reflective of what everyone will feel.
I think the title of the movie is quite apt, but not in the way most people will. In my mind, the "passion" is not about Christ's passion or the passion he will arouse in any religious movement. Rather, I think the "passion" is about the level of compassion and feeling the movie will arouse in those who watch it. I defy anyone to watch with an open mind and not feel compassion toward a man who is mercilessly beaten, mocked, humiliated and ridiculed. I defy anyone to watch the movie and not feel passionate about injustice, persecution, torture, abuse, betrayal and lack of moral character.
If you strip away all the religious overtones of the movie, you will be left with a story about a man who was subjected to unbelievable hardship and came away unbroken and unbowed. In that completely secular context, this is an extremely well done film about human nature. Although you may not think so at first, it is also a quite uplifting film.
It occurred to me as I watched the movie that it must have a tremendous effect on people of faith. If nothing else, it takes a well-known, yet somewhat abstract story and puts it right up in the face of the viewer. Said another way, it's one thing to read the Bible and learn about the crucifixion of Christ from a book. It's a whole other feeling to see it unfold in front of you. This film must surely hit Christians squarely between the eyes.
I saw something today that I have never seen in any movie ever before. When the film was over and the credits started to roll, everyone in the theater sat absolutely still. There was no applause or chatter or sobbing. Everyone sat stock still for a good thirty seconds. Any movie that can garner that kind of reaction is ok in my book.
Lessons To Be Learned From the Movie
To really analyze this movie and get all of the many themes out of it, I'll have to see it again. This is one of those movies that you can see over and over again and come away with something new every time. However, let me throw out a few themes that stick in my mind.
Loyalty--Judas betrayed Jesus and Peter disavowed him. Both men were shamed by their actions and learned something about loyalty in the process.
Injustice--The mob mentality ruled Jesus' "trial." Precedents, laws and traditions were cast aside as it became clear that Jesus was "so obviously" guilty. Boy, that will give you something to think about in the context of today's "trials by media."
Persecution--I have been studying the persecution of Christians in today's society, so this theme leapt out at me in the movie. Christians were mocked, scorned, humiliated, and stripped of their rights, freedoms and dignities. That has always been the case throughout history, to one degree or another, but the persecution theme really rings in my ears in a modern-day context. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Gratitude and Ingratitude--Compare Jesus' compassion and lack of prejudice toward Mary Magdalene to the way he was treated. She didn't forget it. Contrast that with Peter's failure to stand by Jesus in his hour of need.
Self Sacrifice--Simon of Cyrene was ordered to help carry the cross. His initial reaction? "It's none of my business. Don't bother me. I want to stay out of it." How many times have we let injustice go unpunished or let wrongs go unchecked for those very "reasons?"
Lack of Character--Pontius Pilate knew what was right. He knew Jesus was being persecuted and wronged. And yet, at the moment of truth, he waffled. He changed his position, he backed down, he compromised, he took the easy path, he tried to please both sides. Does that sound like some of the politicians we have today? You have to know what you stand for and you have to have the backbone to defend it. Pilate didn't and look how history has treated him. More importantly, look at the consequences.
Torture--As I saw Jesus chained and whipped, my first thought was of Cuba. Think about the places in this world where cruel and unusual punishments still prevail. Think of what happened in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq and many, many others. Think about the places where fear and torture are still in full force: China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Sudan and the list goes on and on and on. The liberals love to make excuses for the brutality in those countries, but the fact remains that those countries are human rights violators. Seeing that kind of torture played out on a movie screen should make you appreciate the protections we enjoy in America.
I'm sure many more such themes will leap out at me when I see the movie again.
Are these things presented in a religious movie with religious overtones? Absolutely, but that doesn't make the message or the ideals bad or wrong. You can see the movie with a humanist point of view and still get the full good out of it. But you know what? "Many" people did not. Let's turn the spotlight on the people who disliked or hated the movie and see where they are coming from.
Why They Gave the Movie Two Thumbs Down
Boy, did the liberals ever hate this movie! Wow! I think most of them hate Christianity more than they hate President Bush. The liberal power structure really came together in orchestrated opposition to this film.
The liberals have been doing an excellent job of erasing Christian faith from the public eye. They have gotten prayer out of schools, God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, religion out of the Christmas holiday and the Ten Commandments out of the law. They have sneered and mocked Christians to the point where many of them avoid all references to faith and have gone "underground" and "into the closet" for fear they will offend someone with their beliefs. Take a conservative position these days and the liberals will almost invariably brand you as part of the "religious right."
The liberals had turned Christianity into a dirty word and had the Christians on the run. And then this movie stirred the whole thing up again. Dammit!
Anti-Semitism
In the two weeks before the movie opened, I must have seen a dozen rabbis on TV complaining about it. Every one of them expressed various levels of condemnation and concern because there was "a possibility" that it would spark anti-Semitic fervor. With one exception, none of these "experts" had yet seen the movie.
First, if you're going to critique the movie you have to SEE IT. Second, any number of things MIGHT spark anti-Semitism, but just because I don't like bagels, that doesn't mean I hate Jews. Third, the movie is what you make of it. If you expect to come away hating someone because of what their ancestors did to Christ, then you are already beyond help.
While we're on the subject of hate, let me say this: If you came out of that movie hating someone--the Jews, the Romans, anyone--then you're a fool. If you couldn't come away with positive themes and fuel for thought, then you either prejudged the movie or you're an idiot. There is no polite way to say it.
This is bound to offend someone, but I'm going to say it anyway. The Jewish community needs to lighten up. I realize Jewish people have been persecuted throughout history and treated unjustly. I realize that the Jews, perhaps more than any other people, have to be on their guard for signs of persecution. On the other hand, this knee jerk rush to the ramparts only serves to increase religious tension. If I hadn't seen a dozen rabbis warning me of impending hatred, I never would have dreamed the movie might have had the slightest anti-Semitic message (which it certainly does not). Everyone can relax now.
Hollywood
The Hollywood Machine worked overtime to trash this movie and Mel Gibson in particular. No less a person than billionaire David Geffen, the High Priest of Hollywood, came down from on high and made this statement about Mel Gibson:
"It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally, that's all I can do." Read: Mel Gibson will never work at Dreamworks and he'd better not work at your studio either.
Another unnamed studio chieftain said: "I think I can live without him." Hollywood sits up and takes notice of those kinds of proclamations.
John Lesher, an agent with Endeavor, down played the anti-Gibson attitude: "People here will work with the anti-Christ if he'll put butts in seats." Nice sentiment, John. That's a very telling remark and all too true.
I think Hollywood hates the movie for another reason too. Gibson put up his own money to produce and publicize the movie. He didn't have a fat $100 million budget. He didn't have to beg and scrape before the Lords of Hollywood to get it made. He did it on his own. And guess what? The movie that Gibson spent $25 million to bring to the screen has grossed more than $160 million and still counting. Gee, I guess there is a market for religious films after all. Who would have thought it?
The Critics and The Media
Recognizing that some reactions to the movie will vary widely, let me say again that if you hated this movie for its themes, you either prejudged it or you made yourself hate it. That is exactly what the critics did.
I have a large stack of movie reviews printed out and sitting beside me. Not a single one of them gives the movie a good review. Not one. With all the legions of movie critics in this country, you would think that one or two in the mainstream media would have something positive to say. Not so.
The reason the reviews were bad is simple: The reviewers were expected to hate the film. Hollywood expected it, the liberals expected it and their editors expected it. So instead of writing an honest review, the critics came up with reasons to hate it. The most common reasons for hating "The Passions of The Christ" were that it is too violent and anti-Semitic.
Now I don't want to prejudge anyone, but with two exceptions, each one of the negative reviews was written by someone with a Jewish surname. That's more than coincidence, that's collusion.
Even Senator John Kerry toed the company line: "I am concerned," the half-Jewish candidate told reporters. "I don't know if it's [anti-Semitism] there or not but there's a lot of it around now. I think we have to be careful." Nice waffle, Senator. That should be worth an extra million in contributions from the Hollywood elite.
The most ironic argument given by critics is that the movie is too violent. Let's talk about that for a minute. This isn't a case where the movie uses gratuitous violence. Each scene where Jesus was tortured or physically abused had a purpose. Each time he was beaten, the camera turned to one of the principal figures in the movie for a reaction. The Christians, Romans and Jews were ALL shown to be shocked, shamed, disgusted or outraged and the context for their feelings was given. Yes, there was a lot of violence, but it certainly wasn't a case where they put in an extra shooting or decapitation just because it has been ten minutes since the last violent act.
Contrast that with other movie reviews. No one said "Kill Bill" was too violent. No one said "Texas Chainsaw Massacre II" was too graphic. No one protested the violence in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." And yet that darn Mel Gibson went and made a movie that was just over the top. Uh, huh.
Roger Friedman wrote that the film was "graphic beyond belief, and unrelenting. There is blood, blood everywhere." Friedman goes on to say, "The violence toward Jesus is sadistic and grotesque." Gee, Roger, I think you got the point and missed it all at the same time.
Friedman's review was among the more bitter and hateful reviews I read. He actually bitched about having to buy his own ticket because Gibson wouldn't give him a free pass. Friedman walked in the door with a chip on his shoulder, but he wasn't alone in the press.
A Special Shout Out to Andy Rooney
The 134-year-old 60 Minutes commentator had an extra special criticism for Mel Gibson. Mocking Christians by pretending that God had spoken to him, Rooney (speaking as God) said, "Anyway, as I was saying, Mel is a real nut case. What in the world was I thinking when I created him? We all make mistakes."
Rooney went on Don Imus' radio show five days later. When Imus asked him if he had actually seen the movie, Rooney replied, "I don't want to pay nine dollars for just a few laughs."
Hit the showers, Andy. You're no longer a lovable curmudgeon. You're just a nasty, bitter, disrespectful, old man now. See ya. If a Christian news personality had spoken that way about any other religion, he'd be out the door in a split second.
Conclusion
What did Mel Gibson have to say about it all? First, he said, "For a year, it's been nothing but nasty editorials and name-calling." Then he went on to say that he would try to adopt a loving attitude "even for those who persecute you." Yeah, I can see why the liberal establishment hates this guy.
Don't take my word for what the movie is like. Go see it and make up your own minds. Just don't call me afterward and tell me you thought it was a violent, Jew-bashing movie. I've heard far too much of that already.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Deadline In Iraq
Ok, I'll start this week. Again.
I read an article today in which a wounded soldier was asked if the Iraq mission was worthwhile. His answer was candid and cuts right to the heart of the matter:
"I can't answer that question yet. If Iraq becomes a democracy, yes, but if it all falls apart, I think it will be in vain. We'll have to work that out."
The soldier didn't ask how much it cost. He didn't ask if there were intelligence failures. He didn't criticize the Pentagon. He didn't impugn the President's motives. He didn't even bitch about the hot weather and shitty food. The only issue to him was whether we could help to establish a democracy in a troubled and repressed part of the world.
There are no shortage of problems with the Iraq mission, many of which are being exacerbated by the Democratic Party in an election year. To say that we can set any exact and absolute date for withdrawal is a lofty, if unrealistic, goal. Sure, we want out as quickly as possible, but to rush off the field would be a certain disaster. If we quit and run, we betray the Iraqi people (again) and we dishonor the memory of the soldiers who lost their lives giving Iraq a chance at a bright future.
To those who want to put a limit and a deadline on U.S. participation, I would give the same answer as your dad gave to your 10,000th "Are we there yet?" My answer is: "Shut up. We'll get there when we get there."
I read an article today in which a wounded soldier was asked if the Iraq mission was worthwhile. His answer was candid and cuts right to the heart of the matter:
"I can't answer that question yet. If Iraq becomes a democracy, yes, but if it all falls apart, I think it will be in vain. We'll have to work that out."
The soldier didn't ask how much it cost. He didn't ask if there were intelligence failures. He didn't criticize the Pentagon. He didn't impugn the President's motives. He didn't even bitch about the hot weather and shitty food. The only issue to him was whether we could help to establish a democracy in a troubled and repressed part of the world.
There are no shortage of problems with the Iraq mission, many of which are being exacerbated by the Democratic Party in an election year. To say that we can set any exact and absolute date for withdrawal is a lofty, if unrealistic, goal. Sure, we want out as quickly as possible, but to rush off the field would be a certain disaster. If we quit and run, we betray the Iraqi people (again) and we dishonor the memory of the soldiers who lost their lives giving Iraq a chance at a bright future.
To those who want to put a limit and a deadline on U.S. participation, I would give the same answer as your dad gave to your 10,000th "Are we there yet?" My answer is: "Shut up. We'll get there when we get there."
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Do we need to be in Iraq until the end of 2005?
I'm betting on a few important points coming out on this one. I will not be waiting until the end of the week to get my word in on this one so get your opinion in early.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Bias In Media: The Proof
As I organized my thoughts for this article, I kept overlooking the fact that not many people realize how pervasive, common and omnipresent media bias really is. It has become quite obvious to me in the time I have been studying the subject. However, it occurred to me that the average Joe and Jane on the street may not necessarily see it that way. So, I will devote this first article to citing examples of media bias. After this, we can get into a deeper debate about the forms of media bias and how to look for it. Once you start looking for it, the examples will come flying at you from all quarters.
Anti-Republican Bias
Margaret Carlson on CNN's "Capital Gang" July 24, 1999: "I mean, the only thing that could explain this love of tax cuts is a lowered IQ."
Howell Raines, former editor of the New York Times: "Reagan couldn't tie his shoes if his life depended on it."
Hayley Kaufman wrote a fashion column for the Boston Globe on November 16, 2000. Then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris was the subject of her "fashion" column that day: "One wonders how this Republican woman, who can't even use restraint when she's wielding a mascara wand, will manage to use it and make sound decisions in this game of partisan one-upmanship....Why should anyone trust her?"
When interviewing then-presidential candidate George W. Bush, the Today Show's Matt Lauer asked, "So you can look me in the eye and say that you are a president committed to cleaning up the environment?" When asking Hillary Clinton to comment on the allegations against her husband in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" interview on January 27, 1998, Lauer did not ask the First Lady to "look him in the eye" as she sat there and lied through her teeth.
From a Media Research Center article on February 17, 2004: "ABC, CBS and NBC aired 63 morning and evening show segments about the [Democrat allegations that the President was AWOL from the] National Guard from February 1 through February 16 -- more than double the coverage of Bill Clinton's 1992 draft-dodging scandal."
Anti-War Bias
To be honest, I doubt anyone has a PRO-war bias. I don't think any reasonable person would want a war to happen. In spite of what the liberal medial would lead you to believe, the United States uses force as a last resort.
Nevertheless, the media goes far out of its way to promote the anti-war agenda. Liberal media outlets editorialize against it, which is fine. An editorial is not hard news, of course. It is the opinion of the network, newspaper, radio station or magazine. But just to show you how deep the anti-war bias is, I'm going to slip an editorial among these "news" stories. See if you can spot it.
In the days following 9/11/01, the New York Times ran a series of "news analyses" claiming America would drown in the "Vietnam-like quagmire" of Afghanistan.
Eric Alterman of The Nation wrote, "Is [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz really so ignorant of history as to believe the Iraqis would welcome us as 'their hoped-for liberators'?" Gee, Eric, I don't know who those guys were who pulled down the Saddam statues. They must have been Berkeley students.
MIT professor and liberal hero Noam Chomsky warned the world that if America attacked the Taliban it would lead to "genocide." Sorry, Noam, that prediction missed the mark. The New York Times said Chomsky was "arguably the most important intellectual alive." Arguably? Fine. I'd happy to argue that point.
Vivian Gornick of the Village Voice wrote, "A military strike? Where? What? When? Above all, against whom? If you hit them in Iraq, they'll regroup in Libya. If you squash them in Libya, they'll rise up in Afghanistan....Force will get us nowhere. It is reparations that are owing, not retribution." Excellent analysis, Vivian. You're dead wrong. You want us to pay "reparations" to Osama bin Laden? Fine. Just tell me where to deliver the check.
The one that sucked me in big time was the "reporting" that the Iraqi National Museum had been looted because U.S. troops were guarding the Oil Ministry. That was an AP wire story that got circulated all over the globe. Yeah, Mr. Liberal Reporter, we were guarding the oil ministry. We were also guarding hospitals and neighborhoods and the lives of Iraqi citizens. Thanks for the bias and the taint, jackass.
Now I have to admit to a little deception here. With the exception of the oil ministry story, all of the above quotes were editorials, not news reporting. (Yes, even the New York Times' "news analyses.") But stop and think about something for a moment. All of the above items appeared in print where it should be obvious to the reader that those articles were in an editorial context. What would the average Joe or Jane think if they saw a television reporter saying those things or heard a radio commentator saying them? There would be no way to distinguish hard news fact from editorial fiction. The days of our youth when TV stations ran the "Editorial Content" banner at the bottom of the screen are long gone. For that matter, I wonder how many people realize newspaper editorials are not hard news.
Beyond that, it just stuns me that any American would say those types of hateful things about our country. And there are worse examples, believe me. I'm even more flabbergasted that people would say them in the media. There's such a thing as being wrong or misinformed about an issue, but talking trash on your own country is a whole other matter. Poisoning the minds of millions each day on the air waves is worse still.
Anti-American Bias
I don't mind liberals being consistently wrong about U.S. foreign policy. In fact, I hope they continue to be wrong. But when it comes to defending our nation, I don't think the liberals deserve to take the bully pulpit and not give equal time to those of us who might want to defend our country and our way of life.
Gary Kayima of Salon.com wrote: "As long as millions of Islamic and Arab people hate America because of its Mideast policies, we will be in danger." Well, Gary, please tell us what we can do to appease the Arabs. Maybe if we crash a 747 into an Israeli neighborhood, that will calm things down a bit. Maybe we should strap some explosives to ourselves and blow up a bus or two. Idiot.
"Let me tell you what is impressive. You're not wearing a flag. Well, I don't want to damn you with my praise, but I say hip-hip-hooray for that, and I think you gave the right answer when you spoke at Northwestern University. Remember what you said? Did somebody ask you, say 'why didn't you wear a flag?'" That was Phil Donahue, July 25, 2003, talking to NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw on Donahue's since-canceled program.
Barbara Kingsolver in the San Francisco Chronicle: "The American flag stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder. Who are we calling terrorists here?" The amazing thing to me is that our Constitution provides free speech protection for "citizens" like this.
In an article titled "Put Out No Flags" in The Nation on November 8, 2001, Katha Pollitt wrote: "My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks from the World Trade Center, thinks we should fly an American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war....I tell her she can buy a flag with her own money and fly it out her bedroom window." What a horrid thing to tell your own child. If I had known about this at the time, I would have bought the girl a flag, tracked her down and sent it to her with an apology for her mother's revisionist, anti-American view of history.
Random Examples of Bias
"Is it fair to call him [Jimmy Carter] the best former President in, at minimum, modern American history, and perhaps, well, I guess, the last 200 years?" Those words were uttered by Brian Williams on CNBC, October 11, 2003. The name of his program? "The News with Brian Williams." Not "Editorial Content with Brian Williams"--the NEWS with Brian Williams.
Here's a gem from Terry's pal Bill Maher on Larry King Live, November 1, 2003:
Maher: "Not for the rest of the world. We take pride in being big charity givers. We're in fact dead last among the industrialized nations. We give an infinitesimal amount of our money to people around the world. I think what people around the world would say is it would take so little for this rich country to help and alleviate so much misery and even that is too much for them. We're oblivious to suffering."
Larry King: "And so we are hated because of this?"
Maher: "Yes I think so. I mean, I think, Iraqis, I think, feel that if we drove smaller cars, maybe we wouldn't have to kill them for their oil."
Think about what Maher said. What an insulting thing to say to Iraqis, not to mention the fact that he's just dead-on wrong about the mega-billions of dollars we give in foreign aid each year. If we give even more to the Arabs, they'll love us? What a great way to buy their respect. Why is Maher still on television? I feel like bringing this up again:
"We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away, that's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, not cowardly." Bill Maher on Politically Incorrect, September 17, 2001.
I just found this, so I'm going to hit this fool with his own words one more time:
Maher: "I do think, if it turns out that this beautiful young girl [Chandra Levy] is gone, I think, and he [Condit] is responsible in some way, you have to look to Ken Starr for a little bit of guilt."
Larry King: "Why?"
Maher: "Because, you know, Ken Starr made it so that you, in the old days, you had an affair with somebody, and you know, okay, you had an affair. The press didn't report it. They didn't make a political criminal case of it. Now, it's almost like you have to get rid of them." This man is dense beyond belief.
"If we'd really been watching and paying attention we could have headed off 9/11. But the German prosecutorial system was pretty laid back and didn't want to be John Ashcroft, you know, they didn't want to be the SS, they had that worry there, no Gestapos. And so it was a great place for terrorists to operate." That was Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas talking about German surveillance of an al-Qaeda group before 9/11. Yeah, you know, God forbid we act more like that horrible Nazi John Ashcroft and make it harder for terrorists to operate. Read it again, kids. I didn't make it up.
What could be more telling than this: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist....To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."--Steven Jukes, global head of news for the Reuters News Service, in an internal memo cited by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz in a September 24, 2001, article.
Wrap Up
In my mind, there can be absolutely NO doubt that the media has a liberal bias. If you're still doubting it after reading this, let me know. I can back it up with statistics as well as examples.
It's late and I've spent hours researching this, so I'm going to quit for now and see if someone else would like to wade in. Obviously, we could write whole books about media bias. Several authors have, in fact.
I'll try to follow up later with another article about how to recognize media bias. I think it's vitally important that we be able to recognize it on sight. Rule #1: Just because you don't like what the article has to say, that doesn't mean it's biased. On the other hand, just because they say it on the news, that doesn't mean it's true or accurate.
Anti-Republican Bias
Margaret Carlson on CNN's "Capital Gang" July 24, 1999: "I mean, the only thing that could explain this love of tax cuts is a lowered IQ."
Howell Raines, former editor of the New York Times: "Reagan couldn't tie his shoes if his life depended on it."
Hayley Kaufman wrote a fashion column for the Boston Globe on November 16, 2000. Then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris was the subject of her "fashion" column that day: "One wonders how this Republican woman, who can't even use restraint when she's wielding a mascara wand, will manage to use it and make sound decisions in this game of partisan one-upmanship....Why should anyone trust her?"
When interviewing then-presidential candidate George W. Bush, the Today Show's Matt Lauer asked, "So you can look me in the eye and say that you are a president committed to cleaning up the environment?" When asking Hillary Clinton to comment on the allegations against her husband in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" interview on January 27, 1998, Lauer did not ask the First Lady to "look him in the eye" as she sat there and lied through her teeth.
From a Media Research Center article on February 17, 2004: "ABC, CBS and NBC aired 63 morning and evening show segments about the [Democrat allegations that the President was AWOL from the] National Guard from February 1 through February 16 -- more than double the coverage of Bill Clinton's 1992 draft-dodging scandal."
Anti-War Bias
To be honest, I doubt anyone has a PRO-war bias. I don't think any reasonable person would want a war to happen. In spite of what the liberal medial would lead you to believe, the United States uses force as a last resort.
Nevertheless, the media goes far out of its way to promote the anti-war agenda. Liberal media outlets editorialize against it, which is fine. An editorial is not hard news, of course. It is the opinion of the network, newspaper, radio station or magazine. But just to show you how deep the anti-war bias is, I'm going to slip an editorial among these "news" stories. See if you can spot it.
In the days following 9/11/01, the New York Times ran a series of "news analyses" claiming America would drown in the "Vietnam-like quagmire" of Afghanistan.
Eric Alterman of The Nation wrote, "Is [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz really so ignorant of history as to believe the Iraqis would welcome us as 'their hoped-for liberators'?" Gee, Eric, I don't know who those guys were who pulled down the Saddam statues. They must have been Berkeley students.
MIT professor and liberal hero Noam Chomsky warned the world that if America attacked the Taliban it would lead to "genocide." Sorry, Noam, that prediction missed the mark. The New York Times said Chomsky was "arguably the most important intellectual alive." Arguably? Fine. I'd happy to argue that point.
Vivian Gornick of the Village Voice wrote, "A military strike? Where? What? When? Above all, against whom? If you hit them in Iraq, they'll regroup in Libya. If you squash them in Libya, they'll rise up in Afghanistan....Force will get us nowhere. It is reparations that are owing, not retribution." Excellent analysis, Vivian. You're dead wrong. You want us to pay "reparations" to Osama bin Laden? Fine. Just tell me where to deliver the check.
The one that sucked me in big time was the "reporting" that the Iraqi National Museum had been looted because U.S. troops were guarding the Oil Ministry. That was an AP wire story that got circulated all over the globe. Yeah, Mr. Liberal Reporter, we were guarding the oil ministry. We were also guarding hospitals and neighborhoods and the lives of Iraqi citizens. Thanks for the bias and the taint, jackass.
Now I have to admit to a little deception here. With the exception of the oil ministry story, all of the above quotes were editorials, not news reporting. (Yes, even the New York Times' "news analyses.") But stop and think about something for a moment. All of the above items appeared in print where it should be obvious to the reader that those articles were in an editorial context. What would the average Joe or Jane think if they saw a television reporter saying those things or heard a radio commentator saying them? There would be no way to distinguish hard news fact from editorial fiction. The days of our youth when TV stations ran the "Editorial Content" banner at the bottom of the screen are long gone. For that matter, I wonder how many people realize newspaper editorials are not hard news.
Beyond that, it just stuns me that any American would say those types of hateful things about our country. And there are worse examples, believe me. I'm even more flabbergasted that people would say them in the media. There's such a thing as being wrong or misinformed about an issue, but talking trash on your own country is a whole other matter. Poisoning the minds of millions each day on the air waves is worse still.
Anti-American Bias
I don't mind liberals being consistently wrong about U.S. foreign policy. In fact, I hope they continue to be wrong. But when it comes to defending our nation, I don't think the liberals deserve to take the bully pulpit and not give equal time to those of us who might want to defend our country and our way of life.
Gary Kayima of Salon.com wrote: "As long as millions of Islamic and Arab people hate America because of its Mideast policies, we will be in danger." Well, Gary, please tell us what we can do to appease the Arabs. Maybe if we crash a 747 into an Israeli neighborhood, that will calm things down a bit. Maybe we should strap some explosives to ourselves and blow up a bus or two. Idiot.
"Let me tell you what is impressive. You're not wearing a flag. Well, I don't want to damn you with my praise, but I say hip-hip-hooray for that, and I think you gave the right answer when you spoke at Northwestern University. Remember what you said? Did somebody ask you, say 'why didn't you wear a flag?'" That was Phil Donahue, July 25, 2003, talking to NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw on Donahue's since-canceled program.
Barbara Kingsolver in the San Francisco Chronicle: "The American flag stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder. Who are we calling terrorists here?" The amazing thing to me is that our Constitution provides free speech protection for "citizens" like this.
In an article titled "Put Out No Flags" in The Nation on November 8, 2001, Katha Pollitt wrote: "My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks from the World Trade Center, thinks we should fly an American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war....I tell her she can buy a flag with her own money and fly it out her bedroom window." What a horrid thing to tell your own child. If I had known about this at the time, I would have bought the girl a flag, tracked her down and sent it to her with an apology for her mother's revisionist, anti-American view of history.
Random Examples of Bias
"Is it fair to call him [Jimmy Carter] the best former President in, at minimum, modern American history, and perhaps, well, I guess, the last 200 years?" Those words were uttered by Brian Williams on CNBC, October 11, 2003. The name of his program? "The News with Brian Williams." Not "Editorial Content with Brian Williams"--the NEWS with Brian Williams.
Here's a gem from Terry's pal Bill Maher on Larry King Live, November 1, 2003:
Maher: "Not for the rest of the world. We take pride in being big charity givers. We're in fact dead last among the industrialized nations. We give an infinitesimal amount of our money to people around the world. I think what people around the world would say is it would take so little for this rich country to help and alleviate so much misery and even that is too much for them. We're oblivious to suffering."
Larry King: "And so we are hated because of this?"
Maher: "Yes I think so. I mean, I think, Iraqis, I think, feel that if we drove smaller cars, maybe we wouldn't have to kill them for their oil."
Think about what Maher said. What an insulting thing to say to Iraqis, not to mention the fact that he's just dead-on wrong about the mega-billions of dollars we give in foreign aid each year. If we give even more to the Arabs, they'll love us? What a great way to buy their respect. Why is Maher still on television? I feel like bringing this up again:
"We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away, that's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, not cowardly." Bill Maher on Politically Incorrect, September 17, 2001.
I just found this, so I'm going to hit this fool with his own words one more time:
Maher: "I do think, if it turns out that this beautiful young girl [Chandra Levy] is gone, I think, and he [Condit] is responsible in some way, you have to look to Ken Starr for a little bit of guilt."
Larry King: "Why?"
Maher: "Because, you know, Ken Starr made it so that you, in the old days, you had an affair with somebody, and you know, okay, you had an affair. The press didn't report it. They didn't make a political criminal case of it. Now, it's almost like you have to get rid of them." This man is dense beyond belief.
"If we'd really been watching and paying attention we could have headed off 9/11. But the German prosecutorial system was pretty laid back and didn't want to be John Ashcroft, you know, they didn't want to be the SS, they had that worry there, no Gestapos. And so it was a great place for terrorists to operate." That was Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas talking about German surveillance of an al-Qaeda group before 9/11. Yeah, you know, God forbid we act more like that horrible Nazi John Ashcroft and make it harder for terrorists to operate. Read it again, kids. I didn't make it up.
What could be more telling than this: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist....To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."--Steven Jukes, global head of news for the Reuters News Service, in an internal memo cited by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz in a September 24, 2001, article.
Wrap Up
In my mind, there can be absolutely NO doubt that the media has a liberal bias. If you're still doubting it after reading this, let me know. I can back it up with statistics as well as examples.
It's late and I've spent hours researching this, so I'm going to quit for now and see if someone else would like to wade in. Obviously, we could write whole books about media bias. Several authors have, in fact.
I'll try to follow up later with another article about how to recognize media bias. I think it's vitally important that we be able to recognize it on sight. Rule #1: Just because you don't like what the article has to say, that doesn't mean it's biased. On the other hand, just because they say it on the news, that doesn't mean it's true or accurate.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Boobs, boobs everywhere (and I'm not just talking about the FCC commissioners.)
First off, I am a huge supporter of free speech (hell, I was a radio dj at one point in my life) but there are times you can not have even the remote possibility of nudity and the Super Bowl halftime show is one of them (Saturday morning cartoons being a very close second) due to the number of families watching. I do have to agree with Mike when he said (essentially) that this is what you get for letting MTV produce it. I do have to say that I was not really surprised when I heard what happened (I chose to read a book instead of watching the Super Bowl.) I do think that the FCC's investigation is something of a joke since nothing has happened as of yet. Also, to all the people that complained to the FCC, I hate to sound like an ass but there were (supposedly) 88 million+ people that watched the Super Bowl and around 250,000 complained about the incident as being indecent. According to the FCC's own rules (An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value) this does not conform to ALL of the requirements to be offensive. Seeing as how the "average person" (the 87,750,000+ that didn't complain) did not find it offensive the FCC, according to it's own rules, should not be able to fine anyone over this incident.
This brings me to the other point that I brought out in the opening of this topic. The FCC is fining Todd "Bubba The Love Sponge" Clem and Clear Channel Broadcasting $755,000 dollars over his supposed indecency of his Florida based morning radio show. The main reason that this has come to light is that it is the second largest fine the FCC has levied ever. I did some research on this and found out this fine stems from one show in 2001 that one man recorded and sent to a New York lawfirm. The lawfirm then wrote up the case/complaint (I'm sure throwing every hotshot lawyer they had into it) and sent it to the FCC. That's right, one man complained and the FCC listened. The "Bubba The Love Sponge" show is rated #1 in the three markets they broadcast in Florida but the feelings of one man outweigh the feelings of the community. When I was in radio this would have ground the radio community to a standstill. Contrary to what most people hear about radio stations not getting along with other stations is mostly untrue because they know that when one dj or station is getting railed by the FCC it is only a short time before the crosshairs are on you.
I have to piss off Mike here a second by saying "Times, they are a changin." This is true as much as Mike and other people don't want to admit it. When Playboy and Hustler magazine went to the newstands it was a huge deal! People were picketing and complaining to their Senators about this blatant pornography. Now you can go to your local Walmart (the place where no pornography is sold, yeah right) and pick up a woman's magazine with the topic "50 ways on how to please your man in bed!" printed right on the cover or a "lowrider" car magazine with a woman on the cover almost wearing nothing at all. Don't get me wrong, much like Mike, I enjoy these things as much as the next guy but this is showing how much times are changing. By the way, Mike, Nick-at-Nite still plays things like I Love Lucy, Happy Days, CHiPs and shows like that (Ponch wasn't gay but I do have suspicions about Chachi, no matter how much Joanie loves him.)
Again, I have to say that I , and many others out there, believe in freedom of speech, and TV and Radio is a public forum as much as the town square, the newspapers and, later, the internet is. If someone starts to read these posts and doesn't like it they have two choices (and I guess a third if emailing, writing or calling the FCC and complaining is an option.) They can click on and ignore what we have said or they can email me and express their opinions and it will get posted here so that they can be part of the discussion process. This is essentially the same thing they can go when it comes to TV or radio, listen to it or turn it off.
I have the freedom to say what I want but I do not have the freedom to force you to listen to it. You have the freedom to ignore what I say or not listen to what I say. You also have the freedom to complain about what I say but be prepared for me to exercise my freedom of speech about what I think about your complaining when you are done.
"The First Amendment says nothing about a right not to be offended. The risk of finding someone else's speech offensive is the price each of us pays for our own free speech. Free people don't run to court -- or to the principal -- when they encounter a message they don't like. They answer it with one of their own." -Jeff Jacoby
"Everybody is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." -Winston Churchill
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either." -Mark Twain
"Our First Amendment expresses a far different calculus for regulating speech than for regulating nonexpressive conduct and that is as it should be. The right to swing your fist should end at the tip of my nose, but your right to express your ideas should not necessarily end at the lobes of my ears." -Alan Dershowitz
This brings me to the other point that I brought out in the opening of this topic. The FCC is fining Todd "Bubba The Love Sponge" Clem and Clear Channel Broadcasting $755,000 dollars over his supposed indecency of his Florida based morning radio show. The main reason that this has come to light is that it is the second largest fine the FCC has levied ever. I did some research on this and found out this fine stems from one show in 2001 that one man recorded and sent to a New York lawfirm. The lawfirm then wrote up the case/complaint (I'm sure throwing every hotshot lawyer they had into it) and sent it to the FCC. That's right, one man complained and the FCC listened. The "Bubba The Love Sponge" show is rated #1 in the three markets they broadcast in Florida but the feelings of one man outweigh the feelings of the community. When I was in radio this would have ground the radio community to a standstill. Contrary to what most people hear about radio stations not getting along with other stations is mostly untrue because they know that when one dj or station is getting railed by the FCC it is only a short time before the crosshairs are on you.
I have to piss off Mike here a second by saying "Times, they are a changin." This is true as much as Mike and other people don't want to admit it. When Playboy and Hustler magazine went to the newstands it was a huge deal! People were picketing and complaining to their Senators about this blatant pornography. Now you can go to your local Walmart (the place where no pornography is sold, yeah right) and pick up a woman's magazine with the topic "50 ways on how to please your man in bed!" printed right on the cover or a "lowrider" car magazine with a woman on the cover almost wearing nothing at all. Don't get me wrong, much like Mike, I enjoy these things as much as the next guy but this is showing how much times are changing. By the way, Mike, Nick-at-Nite still plays things like I Love Lucy, Happy Days, CHiPs and shows like that (Ponch wasn't gay but I do have suspicions about Chachi, no matter how much Joanie loves him.)
Again, I have to say that I , and many others out there, believe in freedom of speech, and TV and Radio is a public forum as much as the town square, the newspapers and, later, the internet is. If someone starts to read these posts and doesn't like it they have two choices (and I guess a third if emailing, writing or calling the FCC and complaining is an option.) They can click on and ignore what we have said or they can email me and express their opinions and it will get posted here so that they can be part of the discussion process. This is essentially the same thing they can go when it comes to TV or radio, listen to it or turn it off.
I have the freedom to say what I want but I do not have the freedom to force you to listen to it. You have the freedom to ignore what I say or not listen to what I say. You also have the freedom to complain about what I say but be prepared for me to exercise my freedom of speech about what I think about your complaining when you are done.
"The First Amendment says nothing about a right not to be offended. The risk of finding someone else's speech offensive is the price each of us pays for our own free speech. Free people don't run to court -- or to the principal -- when they encounter a message they don't like. They answer it with one of their own." -Jeff Jacoby
"Everybody is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." -Winston Churchill
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either." -Mark Twain
"Our First Amendment expresses a far different calculus for regulating speech than for regulating nonexpressive conduct and that is as it should be. The right to swing your fist should end at the tip of my nose, but your right to express your ideas should not necessarily end at the lobes of my ears." -Alan Dershowitz
FCC Follow Up 1
Darn it, I meant to say something about simply changing the channel if you're unhappy with the programming, but I forgot. Terry said it very well though and he's exactly right. If you don't like the trash being peddled on TV, change the channel. Better still, turn the TV off and read. Broaden your mind and form your own opinions. The biggest protest you can make is to not watch (or listen or read) if you find the message offensive.
Now, Terry, my good friend, here's where we go off at a 90 degree angle....
The media not only caters to people, they do it very consciously. They do it all the time. They do it with razor-sharp precision. They are excellent at catering to audiences. It's not an exact science. Some programs fail and go off the air. However, the airwaves are chock full of programs that zero in on specific demographics and segments of viewers. If the media didn't cater to their audiences, no one would watch.
Queer As Folk didn't get developed because a million soccer moms wrote in begging for a show about man-on-man love. The show was developed to bring in a gay male demographic. Trading Spaces wasn't created because millions of men like to sit home on Saturday nights and watch interior design shows. The show was created to cater to the tastes of women.
You're right, Terry, if there wasn't an audience for these shows, they wouldn't be there. And you're also right when you say that people should change the channel if those shows aren't their cup of tea. But you really cannot deny that those programs, indeed every program, are catering to a target audience. That is exactly what those shows are meant to do.
The point I was trying to make is that we are sometimes being forced to see and hear things that aren't in the public interest. Let's speculate for a moment that CBS announced ahead of time that they were going to show a naked breast at the Super Bowl halftime. What do you think would have happened? Those who would have been offended might have changed the channel. They would have had the opportunity to tune out. But at the same time, every teenage boy in America (and most adults) would have been glued to the set, watching for this "historic" moment in "Must See TV." It would have been a great big joke and a publicity stunt unmatched since the days of P.T. Barnum.
But we weren't given that choice. Instead of being warned that something possibly offensive might be about to occur, 90 million people were shocked by it. We weren't given the opportunity to go read a book or listen to the radio. If you were watching the Super Bowl, you were, in essence, forced to see the incident. Actually, there's no pussyfooting about it. You were definitely forced to see nudity.
The standards are in place. The FCC just needs to wake up and enforce them. That's when the fines need to be handed out. And I'm real close to deciding that criminal prosecution for that kind of stunt might not be totally out of line either. If you showed a picture of a naked breast to a child, you'd go to jail. What happens when you show it to 10 million children? Think about that.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell said the commission has asked Congress for the leeway to levy greater fines on offenders. He suggested raising the fines from $27,000 per outlet to $270,000 per outlet. Instead of paying a $10 million fine and laughing it off, Viacom/CBS/MTV might have had to shell out $100 million. That takes the fun out of pushing the decency envelope. Handing down a 30-day jail sentence to Justin Timberlake might have wiped that laughing smirk off his face when he "apologized" at the Grammy Awards.
Let me give you a little prelude to one of my arguments next week on bias in media. If you want to watch TV then you are forced to watch what they show you. Yes, you can most certainly go read a book, but if you want to watch TV, you have to eat what they feed you. I have 100-odd channels available to me and still can't ever find anything to watch because the shows are all the same. Imagine what a parent goes through when trying to find a family-oriented show. It's all T&A and bad language and demented themes. Television is a literary wasteland and we are treated to a steady diet of it. It's like eating at McDonald's every day.
Well, enough rant. I look forward to more discussion on this topic and I can't wait to wrestle bias in media next week. Stay tuned.
Now, Terry, my good friend, here's where we go off at a 90 degree angle....
The media not only caters to people, they do it very consciously. They do it all the time. They do it with razor-sharp precision. They are excellent at catering to audiences. It's not an exact science. Some programs fail and go off the air. However, the airwaves are chock full of programs that zero in on specific demographics and segments of viewers. If the media didn't cater to their audiences, no one would watch.
Queer As Folk didn't get developed because a million soccer moms wrote in begging for a show about man-on-man love. The show was developed to bring in a gay male demographic. Trading Spaces wasn't created because millions of men like to sit home on Saturday nights and watch interior design shows. The show was created to cater to the tastes of women.
You're right, Terry, if there wasn't an audience for these shows, they wouldn't be there. And you're also right when you say that people should change the channel if those shows aren't their cup of tea. But you really cannot deny that those programs, indeed every program, are catering to a target audience. That is exactly what those shows are meant to do.
The point I was trying to make is that we are sometimes being forced to see and hear things that aren't in the public interest. Let's speculate for a moment that CBS announced ahead of time that they were going to show a naked breast at the Super Bowl halftime. What do you think would have happened? Those who would have been offended might have changed the channel. They would have had the opportunity to tune out. But at the same time, every teenage boy in America (and most adults) would have been glued to the set, watching for this "historic" moment in "Must See TV." It would have been a great big joke and a publicity stunt unmatched since the days of P.T. Barnum.
But we weren't given that choice. Instead of being warned that something possibly offensive might be about to occur, 90 million people were shocked by it. We weren't given the opportunity to go read a book or listen to the radio. If you were watching the Super Bowl, you were, in essence, forced to see the incident. Actually, there's no pussyfooting about it. You were definitely forced to see nudity.
The standards are in place. The FCC just needs to wake up and enforce them. That's when the fines need to be handed out. And I'm real close to deciding that criminal prosecution for that kind of stunt might not be totally out of line either. If you showed a picture of a naked breast to a child, you'd go to jail. What happens when you show it to 10 million children? Think about that.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell said the commission has asked Congress for the leeway to levy greater fines on offenders. He suggested raising the fines from $27,000 per outlet to $270,000 per outlet. Instead of paying a $10 million fine and laughing it off, Viacom/CBS/MTV might have had to shell out $100 million. That takes the fun out of pushing the decency envelope. Handing down a 30-day jail sentence to Justin Timberlake might have wiped that laughing smirk off his face when he "apologized" at the Grammy Awards.
Let me give you a little prelude to one of my arguments next week on bias in media. If you want to watch TV then you are forced to watch what they show you. Yes, you can most certainly go read a book, but if you want to watch TV, you have to eat what they feed you. I have 100-odd channels available to me and still can't ever find anything to watch because the shows are all the same. Imagine what a parent goes through when trying to find a family-oriented show. It's all T&A and bad language and demented themes. Television is a literary wasteland and we are treated to a steady diet of it. It's like eating at McDonald's every day.
Well, enough rant. I look forward to more discussion on this topic and I can't wait to wrestle bias in media next week. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Different perspective of the FCC
Here's a thought...if you don't like what your seeing or hearing, turn the channel. Nobody is forcing these people to take part in these media broadcasts. It's not like some Clock Work Orange style tie them down, strap them in, force your eyes and ears open and spoon feed you information. If you know that a specific channel airs programming that doesn't suit your pallet then find another form of entertainment. This is not a situation where you shoot the monkey into space and hope he pulls the lever in the space pod. This is common sense people. This is the same difference as the periodicals you read on a day to day basis. You don't like this magazine so your not going to buy it. Nuff said. I get really mad when I keep hearing people say that these media sources are "catering" to people. No, people are actually watching, reading, hearing all these things. They are inquisitive and wanting to experience new things. And the first time they see something that pisses them off they start crying foul. How about they have a little middle ground, a little rational thought before they take a running leap to go off the deep end on this stuff.
I happen to be a huge believer in freedom of speach and press. I enjoy the thought that because of my nationality, my right that citizenship guarantees me, that I can say what I think. Let's be honest free speach and press create ideas. These ideas spark what this country is all about. Just because the idea or thought is out there doesn't mean you have to buy into it. F*** it here's a thought...have your own ideas. Watch what programs you like. Read the books that entertain or inform you. Listen to the radio. If it isn't your cup of tea, the walk away from it.
I happen to be a huge believer in freedom of speach and press. I enjoy the thought that because of my nationality, my right that citizenship guarantees me, that I can say what I think. Let's be honest free speach and press create ideas. These ideas spark what this country is all about. Just because the idea or thought is out there doesn't mean you have to buy into it. F*** it here's a thought...have your own ideas. Watch what programs you like. Read the books that entertain or inform you. Listen to the radio. If it isn't your cup of tea, the walk away from it.
The FCC: Is Anybody Listening?
The Super Bowl Incident
I suspect Mr. Devil's comments about the outraged mothers were meant to express his frustration at being bombarded by the calls. In this case, the cable company had no control over the Super Bowl incident, so I can't say I blame him one bit for feeling helpless. However, it did raise an interesting question in my mind and one the equally helpless moms apparently could not answer: Who do we complain to?
First off--and let's not just graze past this point--it is the FCC's job to enforce decency standards in broadcast medium. This isn't something the commissioners just suddenly decided while watching the Super Bowl. Federal laws are already written and in place that define what is decent, what is indecent, and what can and cannot be broadcast. By holding hearings into the matter, imposing fines, censuring, etc., the FCC is doing the job it was created to do. The laws don't give the commission the power to call an incident a "shenanigan" and I don't see how investigating a "shenanigan" is a "crock."
Apart from a legal mandate, the FCC has been given broad power to define what is indecent, what is obscene and what is in the public interest. That was slightly scary to me until I discovered that the rules are real clear and unambiguous. Even the areas that you would expect to be a little gray, like "what is indecent?" are clearly spelled out. I lifted this right off the FCC web site at:
http://www.fcc.gov/parents/content.html
"The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as 'language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.'" In other words, you can't show boobies on TV. No debate, no bitching, no whining about censorship, no talk about it being a "crock." If you did it, you're just plain breaking the law. End of story.
"I'm not an FCC commissioner, but I play one on TV."
So where have you FCC jokers been all this time? Why did it take the Super Bowl incident to wake you guys up? Why is indecency in broadcast a big deal all of a sudden? Do you people not watch TV or listen to music?
Columnist Peggy Noonan answered the shock value question best, I think. I highly recommend taking a moment and reading this column with an open mind:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004649
In essence, Noonan's article says that we have become so desensitized to vulgarity, indecency, immoral behavior, or whatever you want to call it, that we no longer notice it. To use her analogy, it's like putting a frog in a pot of water and slowly turning up the heat. If it is done slowly, the frog doesn't notice he's being boiled to death. On the other hand, if you throw the frog into an already boiling pot of water, it is a definite shock to the system. That's what happened at the Super Bowl. Viacom/MTV/CBS thought they could get away with a little fun and push the edge of the envelope by throwing the viewing public into a pot of boiling water. But who's in hot water now?
Now let me pause here for a moment. You boys know me and you know I'm no prude. I like boobies as much as the next guy. But do we really need to say "son of a bitch" on prime time network TV? Is it really necessary for every network to carry a show that openly discusses gay and lesbian issues? Is it really essential to the storyline that the main female character appear clad in a bikini or lingerie? No. They do that for the very reason Terry mentioned: Sex sells. Counterculture sells. Rebellion, violence, cursing, ranting, raving, and shocking all sell. If we can only lower our standards enough, everyone will watch!
And that's exactly what the FCC is supposed to stop. Again, from their website:
"Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:
An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Now that is a pretty flexible definition. In fact, lack of literary or artistic value describes most of the programs on TV. Nevertheless, if you pick any broadcast network on any given night during prime time, I guarantee you will find examples that run contrary to the FCC's broad guidelines. I don't even need to cite examples here. You can think of some yourself. If you can't think of any, hold your nose and turn on the TV or radio for a while.
The First Amendment
Now that the FCC has decided to crack the whip (a little) we're going to start hearing cries of censorship from now to doomsday. It will be a matter of days, if not hours, before someone starts beating the "McCarthyism" drum again. The ones crying the loudest will be the ones making the most money from sleazy TV.
I am a strong believer in the precept of "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." On the other hand, when you start baring breasts when kids are watching and when you start cursing on a regular basis and when you start depicting violence as an accepted way to solve problems, then you're on your own. Not only am I not going to watch the valueless programs you're airing, you just might find me writing a protest letter to the FCC. I think there are probably a few million Americans that feel the same way right now.
It's All About the Dollars
Don't even start with the "times are changing" and "it's all around us" and "everybody wants to see it" and "TV is no worse than movies." If that were the case, the Playboy Channel would have 100 million subscribers and Larry Flynt would be co-hosting the Today Show with Katie Couric.
On the contrary, everyone doesn't want to see a steady stream of nudity and vulgarity. It is for that reason that the broadcast networks keep pushing the envelope on decency standards. They feel they can only get our attention by shocking us, enraging us, flashing us and making fun of others. It's not about entertainment or what the public wants. It's about attracting viewers and bringing home the advertising dollars. That's the bottom line. If NBC or CBS or ABC thought it would attract viewers, they would stage live murders and show torture. Don't kid yourselves. They'd do it in New York minute if they could get away with it and it put a buck in their pockets.
Bring Back Little House on the Prairie
I'm going to get a little freaky here, so bear with me minute.
Why not bring back Little House on the Prairie? Why is that less entertaining than "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" or "My Two Mommies" or "CSI: Grisly Murder Squad" or "Naked Celebrities Eating Bugs in the Jungle?"
[By the way, if you hesitated for just a split second and wondered if "My Two Mommies" is an actual show, then you're starting to see my point about decency on TV. Bonus points if you thought the show was on ABC.]
When we younger, we watched Cosby and Happy Days and Emergency and CHiPs and we thought that was great entertainment. Sure, those shows pushed the envelope a little from time to time, but you didn't hear Bill Cosby saying "shit," Fonzie didn't grab his crotch and Ponch wasn't gay. Ok, that last one was a bad example, but you get the idea.
"People are changing. TV is changing. Morals are different. The old shows were boring. Kids are more sophisticated now. People wouldn't watch shows like those now. There are more choices on TV now. Blah, blah, blah."
Would it surprise you to know that Bonanza had more viewers in the 18-34 demographic than Friends? Would it shock you to discover that Touched By An Angel had a longer run than Ellen DeGeneres? Would you be amazed to know that (adjusted per capita) more people watched the final episode of I Love Lucy than saw this year's Super Bowl halftime "show?"
The point of all that is that sex, violence and counterculture really aren't selling at all. The big three networks are scared to death because teenage audiences are deserting them in droves. That's why they tried very hard to get the word f**k on TV this year and pulled the boobie stunt at the Super Bowl. That's why song lyrics are getting increasingly nasty and music videos are getting more racy. They are doing anything they can to bring back the kids. And the more vulgar they get, the more kids are going to tune out, if for no other reason, because it's commonplace and unexciting.
How Do We Fix It?
I guess that question presumes that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. If you don't mind sitting down with your little girl and explaining why a woman got her clothes ripped from her body during the Super Bowl, then it probably doesn't effect you. If you're ok with watching "Will and Grace" with your 8-year-old boy and explaining the relative merits of a gay man coming out, then don't worry about it. But if you're just a little bit uncomfortable about those things, and if you're wishing there was a Little House on the Prairie marathon on TV, then read on.
The first thing we need to do is clean up the FCC. The commissioners are awake right now, but they will go back to sleep when the spotlight turns away. When their terms are up, replace them.
Congress should rewrite the law to allow seven members on the commission instead of five. The majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate should appoint one member each. The President should appoint one member, not all five. The remaining two should be nominated by a new FCC advisory committee that would be made up of an equal number of industry representatives and spiritual leaders, moral guardians or whatever you want to call them. In this way, a much broader representation of people could be chosen to sit on the commission, instead of industry toadies and political hacks.
Another good idea is to make the commissioner's terms four years instead of five and stagger them so the entire commission isn't up for reappointment at the same time. That should stop some of the political wrangling. While you're at it, make a rule that no FCC commissioner can have worked in the past three years for company regulated by the FCC, nor can he go to work for a company regulated by the FCC within a year of leaving the commission. That should stop some of the payoffs.
Next, and I know this has been said for decades, parents need to start getting involved in what their kids are watching. If there is something grossly inappropriate on TV, write to the FCC. There is a simple procedure for making a complaint about what you saw. You can even do it by e-mail if you like. Make your views known. Don't be afraid to write to the media moguls too. If they get enough letters, it might give them pause for thought. In fact, that does happen, but only when Joe and Jane Citizen start speaking out.
The biggest thing you can do to combat indecency is to turn off the radio, TV, CD or whatever you're exposed to. If CBS knows you won't watch their shows because you're unhappy, they will eventually take notice. It's all about the dollars, remember?
Last, and I know I'm living in a fantasy world when I say this, but it shouldn't take a boobie show at the Super Bowl to get people involved in the world around them.
I suspect Mr. Devil's comments about the outraged mothers were meant to express his frustration at being bombarded by the calls. In this case, the cable company had no control over the Super Bowl incident, so I can't say I blame him one bit for feeling helpless. However, it did raise an interesting question in my mind and one the equally helpless moms apparently could not answer: Who do we complain to?
First off--and let's not just graze past this point--it is the FCC's job to enforce decency standards in broadcast medium. This isn't something the commissioners just suddenly decided while watching the Super Bowl. Federal laws are already written and in place that define what is decent, what is indecent, and what can and cannot be broadcast. By holding hearings into the matter, imposing fines, censuring, etc., the FCC is doing the job it was created to do. The laws don't give the commission the power to call an incident a "shenanigan" and I don't see how investigating a "shenanigan" is a "crock."
Apart from a legal mandate, the FCC has been given broad power to define what is indecent, what is obscene and what is in the public interest. That was slightly scary to me until I discovered that the rules are real clear and unambiguous. Even the areas that you would expect to be a little gray, like "what is indecent?" are clearly spelled out. I lifted this right off the FCC web site at:
http://www.fcc.gov/parents/content.html
"The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as 'language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.'" In other words, you can't show boobies on TV. No debate, no bitching, no whining about censorship, no talk about it being a "crock." If you did it, you're just plain breaking the law. End of story.
"I'm not an FCC commissioner, but I play one on TV."
So where have you FCC jokers been all this time? Why did it take the Super Bowl incident to wake you guys up? Why is indecency in broadcast a big deal all of a sudden? Do you people not watch TV or listen to music?
Columnist Peggy Noonan answered the shock value question best, I think. I highly recommend taking a moment and reading this column with an open mind:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004649
In essence, Noonan's article says that we have become so desensitized to vulgarity, indecency, immoral behavior, or whatever you want to call it, that we no longer notice it. To use her analogy, it's like putting a frog in a pot of water and slowly turning up the heat. If it is done slowly, the frog doesn't notice he's being boiled to death. On the other hand, if you throw the frog into an already boiling pot of water, it is a definite shock to the system. That's what happened at the Super Bowl. Viacom/MTV/CBS thought they could get away with a little fun and push the edge of the envelope by throwing the viewing public into a pot of boiling water. But who's in hot water now?
Now let me pause here for a moment. You boys know me and you know I'm no prude. I like boobies as much as the next guy. But do we really need to say "son of a bitch" on prime time network TV? Is it really necessary for every network to carry a show that openly discusses gay and lesbian issues? Is it really essential to the storyline that the main female character appear clad in a bikini or lingerie? No. They do that for the very reason Terry mentioned: Sex sells. Counterculture sells. Rebellion, violence, cursing, ranting, raving, and shocking all sell. If we can only lower our standards enough, everyone will watch!
And that's exactly what the FCC is supposed to stop. Again, from their website:
"Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:
An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Now that is a pretty flexible definition. In fact, lack of literary or artistic value describes most of the programs on TV. Nevertheless, if you pick any broadcast network on any given night during prime time, I guarantee you will find examples that run contrary to the FCC's broad guidelines. I don't even need to cite examples here. You can think of some yourself. If you can't think of any, hold your nose and turn on the TV or radio for a while.
The First Amendment
Now that the FCC has decided to crack the whip (a little) we're going to start hearing cries of censorship from now to doomsday. It will be a matter of days, if not hours, before someone starts beating the "McCarthyism" drum again. The ones crying the loudest will be the ones making the most money from sleazy TV.
I am a strong believer in the precept of "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." On the other hand, when you start baring breasts when kids are watching and when you start cursing on a regular basis and when you start depicting violence as an accepted way to solve problems, then you're on your own. Not only am I not going to watch the valueless programs you're airing, you just might find me writing a protest letter to the FCC. I think there are probably a few million Americans that feel the same way right now.
It's All About the Dollars
Don't even start with the "times are changing" and "it's all around us" and "everybody wants to see it" and "TV is no worse than movies." If that were the case, the Playboy Channel would have 100 million subscribers and Larry Flynt would be co-hosting the Today Show with Katie Couric.
On the contrary, everyone doesn't want to see a steady stream of nudity and vulgarity. It is for that reason that the broadcast networks keep pushing the envelope on decency standards. They feel they can only get our attention by shocking us, enraging us, flashing us and making fun of others. It's not about entertainment or what the public wants. It's about attracting viewers and bringing home the advertising dollars. That's the bottom line. If NBC or CBS or ABC thought it would attract viewers, they would stage live murders and show torture. Don't kid yourselves. They'd do it in New York minute if they could get away with it and it put a buck in their pockets.
Bring Back Little House on the Prairie
I'm going to get a little freaky here, so bear with me minute.
Why not bring back Little House on the Prairie? Why is that less entertaining than "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" or "My Two Mommies" or "CSI: Grisly Murder Squad" or "Naked Celebrities Eating Bugs in the Jungle?"
[By the way, if you hesitated for just a split second and wondered if "My Two Mommies" is an actual show, then you're starting to see my point about decency on TV. Bonus points if you thought the show was on ABC.]
When we younger, we watched Cosby and Happy Days and Emergency and CHiPs and we thought that was great entertainment. Sure, those shows pushed the envelope a little from time to time, but you didn't hear Bill Cosby saying "shit," Fonzie didn't grab his crotch and Ponch wasn't gay. Ok, that last one was a bad example, but you get the idea.
"People are changing. TV is changing. Morals are different. The old shows were boring. Kids are more sophisticated now. People wouldn't watch shows like those now. There are more choices on TV now. Blah, blah, blah."
Would it surprise you to know that Bonanza had more viewers in the 18-34 demographic than Friends? Would it shock you to discover that Touched By An Angel had a longer run than Ellen DeGeneres? Would you be amazed to know that (adjusted per capita) more people watched the final episode of I Love Lucy than saw this year's Super Bowl halftime "show?"
The point of all that is that sex, violence and counterculture really aren't selling at all. The big three networks are scared to death because teenage audiences are deserting them in droves. That's why they tried very hard to get the word f**k on TV this year and pulled the boobie stunt at the Super Bowl. That's why song lyrics are getting increasingly nasty and music videos are getting more racy. They are doing anything they can to bring back the kids. And the more vulgar they get, the more kids are going to tune out, if for no other reason, because it's commonplace and unexciting.
How Do We Fix It?
I guess that question presumes that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. If you don't mind sitting down with your little girl and explaining why a woman got her clothes ripped from her body during the Super Bowl, then it probably doesn't effect you. If you're ok with watching "Will and Grace" with your 8-year-old boy and explaining the relative merits of a gay man coming out, then don't worry about it. But if you're just a little bit uncomfortable about those things, and if you're wishing there was a Little House on the Prairie marathon on TV, then read on.
The first thing we need to do is clean up the FCC. The commissioners are awake right now, but they will go back to sleep when the spotlight turns away. When their terms are up, replace them.
Congress should rewrite the law to allow seven members on the commission instead of five. The majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate should appoint one member each. The President should appoint one member, not all five. The remaining two should be nominated by a new FCC advisory committee that would be made up of an equal number of industry representatives and spiritual leaders, moral guardians or whatever you want to call them. In this way, a much broader representation of people could be chosen to sit on the commission, instead of industry toadies and political hacks.
Another good idea is to make the commissioner's terms four years instead of five and stagger them so the entire commission isn't up for reappointment at the same time. That should stop some of the political wrangling. While you're at it, make a rule that no FCC commissioner can have worked in the past three years for company regulated by the FCC, nor can he go to work for a company regulated by the FCC within a year of leaving the commission. That should stop some of the payoffs.
Next, and I know this has been said for decades, parents need to start getting involved in what their kids are watching. If there is something grossly inappropriate on TV, write to the FCC. There is a simple procedure for making a complaint about what you saw. You can even do it by e-mail if you like. Make your views known. Don't be afraid to write to the media moguls too. If they get enough letters, it might give them pause for thought. In fact, that does happen, but only when Joe and Jane Citizen start speaking out.
The biggest thing you can do to combat indecency is to turn off the radio, TV, CD or whatever you're exposed to. If CBS knows you won't watch their shows because you're unhappy, they will eventually take notice. It's all about the dollars, remember?
Last, and I know I'm living in a fantasy world when I say this, but it shouldn't take a boobie show at the Super Bowl to get people involved in the world around them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)