2.27.2004

An Excellent Review of The Passion (CNN)

Paul Clinton, a reviewer for CNN, pretty much echoes my opinions about the movie. He says:

""The Passion" is ultimately a movie -- and a masterful one at that, obviously the work of an extremely talented filmmaker. "

"With little actual dialogue, James Caviezel is astounding as Christ."

"The Passion... is not anti-Semitic, nor do I believe Gibson promotes any such feelings in the film. But... anyone who is predisposed towards anti-Semitism could easily twist this film... This, however, is nothing new. People have been distorting the Bible to fit their own beliefs for centuries. "

I urge you to read the whole article.

EXTRA: Without any prior knowledge of the story or the history of the Western world, no one would be incited to violence against the Jews. I do honestly think that one might say, though, that the Romans are incurably evil, and must be eliminated. We shall see. I predict that anti-Italian riots will start soon.

2.26.2004

The Passion

Alright, here are my initial responses to The Passion:

1) It was not anti-Semitic. Jesus is clearly a Jew, as are his followers. Yes, all of the other Jews turn against him, but it is not a part of their "Jewishness," but rather an example of Jesus' saying that only in his hometown is a prophet without honor.

2) The movie WAS anti-Roman. All the Romans were protrayed as either sadists or cowards, with the exception of Pilate's wife. She overcomes her "Latinness" by identifying herself with Mary and Mary, when she gives them the towel. The movie rather obviously biased against Romans. Not only were they the occupiers of Israel, but they also were extremely evil.

3) 1984 and the Passion are parallel stories. Both protagonists are betrayed and then tortured by the political and religious leaders. The difference is that Jesus overcomes, and still loves with his dying breath. Winston Smith fails and betrays his love.

4) Warning: It is very gory and intense. Don't go on a full stomach.

Fetus accorded rights

The House voted to consider a fetus a seperate entity when a pregnant mother is killed. Two murder charges could be brought against the murderer.

Yes, this is a crack in Roe v Wade. I am willing to admit it fully. I don't know if the sponsers intended it to be, but it seems to give legal precedent for further limiting abortion.

It seems pretty clear that fairly soon, Roe v. Wade will be challenged, and overturned, with exceptions for the endangering the life of the mother or rape. The cultural pulse is strongly for this, in my experience.

2.24.2004

Bush [finally] proposes constitutional admendment

This morning, President Bush announced that he will pursue a constitutional admendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Is it too late? When we have to fight over the definition of a term that has remained constant for thousands of years, the country is in trouble. That said, even though I support this definition of marriage, I don't think that this is a good idea.

A constitutional admendment is to be reserved for matters of the highest civil importance. Marriage is important in the the societal and religious spheres, but it is not important civilly. Once again, the only solution to the problem is to abandon all governmental influence on marriage. The government, with Britney Spears-esque idiocies and common-law marriages, has debased and devalued marriage to an incredibly low point. Get it out before marriage hits rock-bottom.

Oh yeah... here's a link to the full text of the President's speech.

GWB points out what we've always known about Kerry

George W. Bush got into the presidental campaign with a sharp, witty salvo at John Kerry:

"The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions: for tax cuts and against them; for NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement] and against NAFTA; for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act; in favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts."

I couldn't find the original text. This exerpt was on Andrew Sullivan's site.

2.22.2004

The Terminator is hunting the White House

Arnold Schwarzenegger wants foreign-born US citizens to be able to run for president. While he may say that he hasn't considered it, I think he is lying to me. Heck, I know he's lying to me. What kid has never at least thought about being president?

A word of warning to the Republican party: If the Terminator is nominated for president in the future, then I will drop my support for you guys. Liberal Republicans are the worst type of politician. However, at least it would clarify the position of the Republican party. Right now, they are an amalagamation of conservative statists and libertarians. Schwarzenegger would complete the move away from Reagan's small government policies that the Bush dynasty has been working on.

2.21.2004

Haiti

I confess that I am rather confused about Haiti. The US is in a coalition looking at military intervention in Haiti. Rebels have taken a lot of northern Haiti. And, to quote the public CIA files, "a political crisis stemming from fraudulent legislative elections in 2000 has not yet been resolved." This is not even the first time that President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has been under serious attack. He was deposed for most of his first term, back in 1991.

With all that in mind, I have one question: Why are we even thinking about going down in that hell-hole? It seems that both sides are the bad guys, and America should not get involved. Iraq was one thing: Saddam very clearly was evil. I do not see that moral clarity in this case. If someone knows something I don't, please help me.

2.20.2004

Ladies, Here's a Planner...

I used to think I knew what weird was.

Thanks to Dave Barry for finding this.

2.19.2004

Kerry Satire

The Onion has a brilliant satire that quite nicely shows Kerry's hypocrisy about attacking President Bush for not being on the side of the common man. Thanks to Max Goss at worldmagblog for this link.

2.18.2004

Dutch to Expel 26,000

We are seeing a backlash against cultural globalization in Europe. The New York Times reports. (You may have to create a free account to view the article.)

"THE HAGUE, Feb. 17 — The Dutch lower house of Parliament voted on Tuesday to expel up to 26,000 failed asylum-seekers over the next three years, a move that could give this country one of Europe's most restrictive policies."

The article goes on to say that the "center-right coalition government" is behind this. I am skeptical that it truly is center-right, because, down on the 12th and 13th grafs, the rationale for expelling old immigrants and restricting new ones is given. Most of the immigrants are Muslim, and they oppose "traditional Dutch values like equal rights for women and gays." This sounds much more like a left-wing policy. I don't know the specifics in this case, but I do know that Pim Fortuyn, who brought the Muslim immigration debate to the forefront, was misidentified as a far right-winger by most American media. He held the same position on the subject as the current government does. He wanted to ban all Muslim immigration because they are against homosexual rights.

The confusion lies in the inherent limitations of the right-left labels. The idea of a diamond reveals much more. Here is a 10 Y/N question quiz that shows the diamond in action. Pim Fortuyn and the Dutch government lie on the line between left-liberal and authoritarian. The NY Times assumes that only right-wingers can be authoritarian, and only left-wingers can be libertarian. This is ridiculous. I am definitely a hybrid between a libertarian and conservative, and I know many liberal statists.

2.16.2004

A few thoughts on gay marriage. For those of you who aren't aware, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that denying marriage licenses to homosexual couples is against the state's constitution. In addition, San Francisco has started to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in direct violation of Proposition 22, which limited marriage to a man and a woman in California. The proposition had passed in 2000 with 61% of the vote.

The American people are just starting to realize that our marriage laws were meant for another time. Why does the government issue marriage licenses at all? This is patently ridiculous in a society that is not completely in agreement that marriage is the only morally acceptable choice. The proper compromise in this case with gay marriage is to put marriage back where it has always belonged: in the religious sphere. The religious sphere and the state sphere are only the same in a theocracy, and we are certainly not a theocracy. This would allow both sides of the homosexual marriage debate to win. Discrimination against homosexuals is eliminated, and religious right can protect the sanctity of marriage in their churches.

I predict this compromise would satisfy 80-90% of the people in America. The only people that would be unhappy would be the right-wing Nazi bigots, and the left-wing activists that want nothing less than a law making everyone hold hands and sing happy songs about gay people.

I am opposed to homosexual marriage because I think that it is against natural law, but I don't think that the government has any right to get involved in it. This is yet another example of the government exceeding their Constitutional rights, and restricting ours.
Hello everyone! And by everyone, I mean my two cats, Rum Tum Tugger and Leonardo. I'll be posting sporadically on various random topics that impact our day-to-day lives, like this.

I should give you some background on me... Not! For those of you who don't know me, I am enough of a country boy that I might actually post my credit card number online, or not lock my car doors in a movie parking lot. (Sorry, Maureen!)

The title of the blog is Kierkegaard's first chapter in Fear and Trembling, a book attempting to understand the faith of Abraham as incompatible with Hegel's views on ethics. It reflects the immediancy of blogging and how I will often be throwing out an initial reaction.