Something Clever

The Horny Politicians Club

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:33:00 +0000

There must be something in the water these days, because lately it seems prominent politicians just can't seem to keep it in their pants. So here's a fun little list of some of the horniest politicians of recent memory.

Eliot Spitzer - Club President
David Patterson - Club Vice President
Kwame Kilpatrick - Member
Larry Craig - Honorary Member*

Witty comments chock full of innuendo appreciated. Oh and if there's someone you think should be on this list let me know.

*We may not have caught him having sex, but we did catch him trying to catch some nasty in a bathroom. And that alone nets him an honorary membership.

President for Sale!

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:13:00 +0000

I'd read several times before that many in the press consider Obama a master question dodger, but I had never really seen it for myself until last night.

While on Larry King Live Obama was asked by King if he would consider Clinton as a possible Vice President if he were to win the primaries. His answer was essentialy that it would be far to presumptive and arrogant for him assume that he'll even win at this point. King went on to ask Obama about his feelings about McCain, Obama answered that he respected McCain and that he looked forward to facing him in the general election.

Huh? Obama says he can't answer a question because it presumes that he'll be the Democrat in the general election, and then moments later, after being asked a question totally unrelated to the general election, he makes an unqualified claim that he'll be the one to face McCain in the general election. This is the man of honesty and integrity everybody loves?

Obama is a set of vague ideals and values meticulously packaged into one charismatic man being sold to the American people. Watching him is more like watching a television ad than it is like watching a Presidential candidate. This is why he dodges questions, because he has a specific image manufactured by his campaign that he cannot deviate from; because he isn't campaigning on the issues, he's campaigning on that image.

Obama Linked to Weathermen Underground

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:19:00 +0000

Sometime in 1995 then State Senator Alice Palmer introduced Obama as her hand picked successor to a group of prominent liberals at the home of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers and Dohrn were both part of the radical anti-war group, the Weathermen Underground; the group was responsible for several bombings in the 70's meant to protest the war. The couple remain unrepentant, as recently as 2001 Ayers told the New York Times, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

Obama sat on at least two panels with Ayers, and from what little those involved are willing to tell the press they were at least on friendly terms with each other. This uniter's radical left leanings are becoming more clear every day.

You can read more here, here and here

You Fail!

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:49:00 +0000

Orwellian Double Speak disguised as Political Correctness strikes again.

Next thing you know failing grades will be relabeled as 'grades that represent your best! :D' And we wonder why our nation's youth continue to fall behind in education; we've failed our future.

Obama's a Fascist

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:00:00 +0000

Oh shit! Did he really just say that?

Ya...I did. And here's why:

"Fascism, above all, demands a leader sensitive to the feelings that course dimly through the crowd, someone who gives voice to its yearnings, however vague, who can magnify them, make them important, and focus them back onto himself so that he appears as their inevitable embodiment: 'Obama ’08.'"

The above comes from this review of Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism (which I look forward to reading soon) and it really strikes at what it is about Obama that truly terrifies me.

Now of course simply being charismatic doesn't make one a fascist; as Goldberg argues in his book fascism is not simply a synonym for 'evil', it was a particular ideology that in it's time was seriously considered by many, including many prominent American liberals of the time. So, what about Obama would drive me to call him a fascist? Just think of the bumper stickers one would expect to see sharing space with an "Obama '08!" sticker; again I quote from the review of Liberal Fascism,

"Fascism is inveterately hostile to religion: 'Curb Your God.' It thrives on action and grand designs: 'Think Globally, Act Locally.' It fetishizes youth: 'Listen to the Wisdom of Children.' It seeks to persecute an enemy it blames for all grievances, real or imagined: 'Impeach Bush, Torture Cheney.' It points the finger at international conspiracies: 'War Is Shell & ExxonMobil & Halliburton & Conoco-Phillips & ChevronTexaco & BP . . . ' It’s collectivist, expansionist, and nature loving: 'One People, One Planet, One Future.'"

Yup, Obama sure seems like a fascist to me; and what a shock, he isn't a scary evil Republican. I'm reminded of a comment George Carlin made on HBO's 'Real Time With Bill Maher', "when fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley."

The Transformation Is Complete!

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:11:00 +0000

I am officially a Reagan fan. While I may never be able to forgive President Reagan for ignoring the AIDS crisis as it slaughtered tens of thousands of men and women in the queer community, I can at least respect and admire his political vision, integrity and courage as on display in his first inaugural address. Though his religious speech in this address may send chills down the spines of those of us who have now seen the catastrophic results of the union of the Religious Right and Conservatism, I am convinced President Reagan would undo the damage caused by this union if given the chance.

As the 2008 Presidential candidates continue to campaign across the country we as a nation ought to look for the candidate who can deliver this kind of vision, honesty and pragmatism as they take the oath of office in 2009.

Let the Summer Blockbuster Season Commence!

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:25:00 +0000

Iron Man looks like its gearing up to be the next great comic book movie. Now let's just hope the movie is as fantastic as this trailer.

Oh, and Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is just brilliant.

Hold Your Breath, It Gets Better

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:08:00 +0000

They took our jerbs! has been the cry of the working class for decades, and the most oft blamed entity is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Now as Clinton and Obama try to court voters in Ohio, a state were an estimated 200,000 jobs have supposedly been lost due to NAFTA, both are scrambling to reinvent their records so as to seem in opposition to the agreement.

Yet again the Democrats pander to the most base of emotions (in this case fear and insecurity) in order to 'connect' with voters. But anti-globalization sentiments, and anti-NAFTA sentiments in particular, are growing among Americans in general as more and more industrial jobs move out of the country.

While Democrats continue to pander to these feelings of anger Republicans have been the only ones with the balls to tell the truth: our economy has shifted away from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. And as we speak we are shifting yet again, now towards an information economy. Does this hurt? Yes! 200,000 jobs lost hurts, but there is nothing that can be done about unless we want the government to attempt to prop up a dead industry.

It should be pointed out that we tried to protect agriculture as well when industrialization hit, and now we have subsidized farming; in 2004 alone the government spent over eight billion dollars in agriculture subsidies. Not only does this burden the federal government and increase our already atrocious debt, but it also wreaks havoc on the agriculture of third world countries that have yet to industrialize and thus still rely on agriculture; because the government hands out so much money to our farmers those in third would countries cannot come even close to competing with American agricultural exports and imports.

Consider for a moment that fifty years ago China had one of the most protectionist economies on the face of the earth. Now, as they have opened up to international trade and begun to privatize industry they are excelling economically, so much so that this once third world nation is set to out pace America as the worlds economic super power if it's growth continues as expected. On the other hand the few remaining protectionist, anti-globalization states remaining (Myanmar, South Korea, etc.) are faltering, unable to pull themselves out of third world status.

So I'll say it again, stop being pussies America! Yes globalization hurts, but it will get better, I promise. Americans only stand to gain from a wealthier world at large (wealthier world = more consumers = greater economic growth at home and abroad = more consumers = ...you get it), and globalization is creating a wealthier world. China, the poster child for globalization, has seen a dramatic decrease in poverty rates over the past twenty years; the percentage of people living on less than one dollar a day in East Asia and the Pacific has decreased 80% since 1981; the proportion of the world's population living in countries where per-capita food supplies are less than 2,200 calories a day decreased from 56% in the 1960s to below 10% by the 1990s; the percentage of the worlds children in the labor force has decreased from 24% in the 1960s to 10% in 2000.

Is globalization the world's savior? No! Far from it, there are several problems facing the world in regards to globalization; agricultural subsidies in America (and other major nations such as the UK) have greatly hindered the progress of third world nations abroad, as I previously mentioned; international trade agreements are creating situations in which national sovereignty is being undermined and in the end we will all have to face the eventuality of some sort of one world governing power. The road ahead will be difficult; but we only have two choices, we can either face the future and keep moving forward or we can attempt to turn back and fight the inevitable. Let's stop fighting the inevitable and start finding ways to move forward into a more prosperous and secure tomorrow.

Stop the Insanity! Seriously!

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:20:00 +0000

I used to constantly try to convince my conservative friends that as much as I and other liberals hated the Iraq war and hated how it started, the majority of us were smart enough to realize that we need to remain in Iraq until the country is stabilized. Now I've drifted far enough to the right to comfortably call myself a conservative (and even a *gasp* Republican, or at least a small government Republican) and I've found myself on the defensive, and it turns out I must have been wrong, because I can't find anyone outside of the conservative movement who doesn't think we should immediately withdraw troops from Iraq.

Is this really what we have come to as a country? We march up and down the street decrying the death caused by this war but we're more than willing to abandon the Iraqi people to violent civil war (not to mention aggression from Iran). People, I plead with you, stop being pussies! Yes, I said 'stop being pussies!' People die in war, its what happens, that does not make war inherently evil. Now whether this war was justified is a debate for another day; but regardless of the rational for war, regardless ineptitude of it's execution, we owe it to the Iraqi to rebuild the infrastructure that we've destroyed. Even more, we owe it to them to protect their country until they can develop and maintain an effective government and a military that can maintain the peace.

What frustrates me the most is the way people will use the death toll in Iraq to argue that we should withdraw. I was watching Jack Cafferty reading viewer mail on CNN today and I couldn't believe some of the things I heard. The question had been about McCain's support of the war and the majority of the replies trashed him for supporting something Americans no longer support.What struck me were the comments about the 'egregious loss of life' as one writer put it. Egregious? Really? So far there have been less than 4000 U.S. deaths in the five year war; and less than 5000 in total. The United States lost more than 400,000 military personal in World War II; the total human loss of WWII, which includes soldiers and civilians on both sides, is estimated at over 70 million.

So here's my message again: suck it up America! Please, stop screaming 'no blood for oil', and stop using the memory of dead soldiers to oppose the cause they died for; grow some balls, buck up and let's do what needs to be done, and THEN let's bring the troops home.

If you think this war was a political or strategic mistake I can deal with that, and I'm more than willing to debate with you on that point. But to point to the death toll of the war, which is one of the lowest death tolls for any war America has ever waged, and call it egregious is to blatantly use the death of soldiers to manipulate people into abandoning the cause those soldiers died for; and that is egregious.

Don't You Disappoint Me Indy...

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:29:00 +0000

So this isn't usually the kind of thing I would post, but I've been waiting for this movie for a long time, and this trailer is giving me hope that the new Indiana Jones movie won't be the train wreck many fear it might be.

The Golden Controversy

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:41:00 +0000

Nicole Kidman's new movie, The Golden Compass, premiered yesterday in theaters across the country and while critics seem unsure (its garnered a 43% at Rotten Tomatoes and hardly astounding 53 at MetaCritic) Christians have reacted with varying degrees of concern and outrage over the expressly atheistic theme seen throughout the trilogy of children's books, His Dark Materials, the movie is based on.

Many Christians, chief among them Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, claim that the movie is little more than a ploy to get children interested in his books so they will read them. That this seems like a foreign idea to anyone is beyond me, but the real accusation lies in Pullman's (author of the His Dark Materials trilogy) motives. Christian groups claim the movie was purposefully toned down in order to lure in unsuspecting parents who would then go buy their children the books, which would in turn destroy their children's faith. This is obviously a bit far fetched, the more obvious reason Weitz (the movie's writer) toned down the anti-religion theme is that most of the target audience is religious, and Christmas block busters designed to make their creators lots of money tend to try to avoid alienating half of their consumer base.

Furthermore I feel it should be mentioned that the movie is PG-13. I don't understand why all these pious parents so concerned with their little one's souls would be taking them to see a PG-13 movie in the first place, my parents surely wouldn't have. If you're concerned your teenager will have their faith unwittingly destroyed by a children's book you probably don't have much faith in your child. I can understand a parents desire to protect their children from ideas they disagree with, children are not equipped with the capacity to critically analyze the media put in front of them, and it's unethical for anyone to play on that weakness; but teenagers, contrary to popular opinion, are not idiots. They know when someone is trying to convince them of something, and they have the ability to analyze and consider the arguments and ideas brought up in The Golden Compass for themselves.

chippy

Oh Sexual Repression

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:40:00 +0000

I was browsing my old blogging grounds, WordPress, the other day when I noticed this article on 'Purity Balls'. I was so disgusted I set out to write a scathing comment, but soon realized there was so much wrong with this that I decided to write up this here post. Enjoy.

Rebuilding our shattered culture and tattered families after decades of neglect may seem like a daunting task. I’m sure that many scoff at the very idea: it simply cannot be done. One month from now, fathers and daughters will take a brave step to prove the naysayers wrong.

The annual Purity Ball in Colorado Springs, already in it’s eighth year, is next month. And this is a wonderful concept that should be implemented across the country. If every father encouraged his daughters to take the pledge, there would no longer be any need for the atrocious practice of abortion. Young women should not be viewed as sex objects to be exploited, but as regal princesses to be cherished and protected. And father knows best.

Of course we won't need any more abortion, because everyone knows that when teenagers make commitments they always follow through, especially when it comes to things like love and sex. And as for the connection between teenagers having sex and abortions, since when did every act of sex outside of marriage lead to pregnancy? I was under the impression that people could wrap their privates in this nifty new rubber thing to make it highly unlikely that such an unwanted pregnancy would occur.

Furthermore I'm offended for all the teenage women I've known who have had to deal with an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy, and brought they child to term because of their belief that abortion is wrong. Too imply that all young women who unexpectedly become pregnant have abortions is disgusting.

And of the course the "father knows best" line. A typical fundamentalist line emphasizing the dominance of the male in family. He's the leader not because he is better at it, but because 'God' makes it clear that all good Christian women better make themselves subservient to their men lest they fall back into their 'natural' inclination of being be silly whores.

The Father Daughter Purity Ball is a memorable ceremony for fathers to sign commitments to be responsible men of integrity in all areas of purity. The commitment also includes their vow to protect their daughters in their choices for purity. The daughters silently commit to live pure lives before God through the symbol of laying down a white rose at the cross.

And what loving father could be more happy than in a memorable moment like this?

First of all, I would love to know how many of these 'pure' fathers are screwing around on their wives. As for protecting their daughters, I have a feeling most of these young women will wish their fathers would protect them a little less by the time they're about sixteen.

One of the most memorable highlights of the ball is when the fathers stand in the middle of the ballroom and form a circle around their daughters standing all aglow in their lovely ball gowns. The fathers place their hands on their daughters, and together we pray for purity of mind, body, and soul for generations to come.

As one proud daddy put it:

“How can you measure the value of your eleven year old looking up into your eyes (as you clumsily learn the fox-trot together) with innocent, uncontainable joy, saying, ‘Daddy, I’m so excited!’”

Wait, did I read that correctly, eleven? An eleven year old girl shouldn't even know what sex is, let alone be trying to make decisions about it. I would think that the very people who claim to be about integrity and honesty would also be the kind of people who would see the irresponsibility of having an eleven year old girl make a serious commitment about something she doesn't even understand yet.

Indeed. A daughter given love by her doting father and encouragement to remain pure and clean is a daughter who will not be clumsily groped in the back seat of a car by the local degenerate. She will not be trading her honor for a bag of crack. And she will not be heading once again to the local abortion mill to correct her latest mistake.

Statistics please. How would anyone know whether these kinds of 'commitments' actually work? My guess would be that not only do they not work, but they leave a young woman woefully unprepared for the reality waiting for her when she begins to awaken sexually. And what exactly is the bag of crack about? Since when did having premarital sex equal being a drug addict? I also enjoy the use of 'degenerate' to describe any teenage guy who wants to get in a girls pants. Not to burst anyone's bubble, but if groping his girlfriend makes a teenage boy a 'degenerate' then I doubt there are many 'non-degenerates' left out there.

Rather she will be saving herself for a real loving man just like her strong daddy. A man who will respect her and knows that the package is clean and new and pure. Something worth waiting for.

Here’s papa’s pledge:

I, (DAUGHTER’S NAME)’S FATHER, CHOOSE BEFORE GOD TO COVER MY DAUGHTER AS HER AUTHORITY AND PROTECTION IN THE AREA OF PURITY. I WILL BE PURE IN MY OWN LIFE AS A MAN, HUSBAND AND FATHER. I WILL BE A MAN OF INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABLITY AS I LEAD, GUIDE AND PRAY OVER MY DAUGHTER AND MY FAMILY AS THE HIGH PRIEST IN MY HOME. THIS COVERING WILL BE USED BY GOD TO INFLUENCE GENERATIONS TO COME.

Did he just call these young women packages? Huh, that seems to be a radical change from the 'princesses' mentioned in the first few paragraphs. I think this particular word usage betrays the true motivation behind this sort of thinking, a double standard seen all through out the Bible and most other holy books, women are inferior, and seen as a commodity to be traded by her father to the best suitor. This view is seen yet again in 'papa's pledge', where the father is depicted as the 'high priest' of the family, always in the lead, with unquestionable authority. It's like fascism for families.

She’s daddy’s little girl, and once she’s felt his sincere dedication to her purity, a young lady can’t help but feel special and encouraged to save it for his successor:

“As all the dads stood to read the covenent over their daughters, I felt the power of those words sink right into my heart. My father pledged to protect me and promised to lead a life of integrity and purity for me. He signed his name and I signed as a witness to his words. And as he escorted me to the dance floor I felt empowered by his promise to spend the rest of his life warring for my heart through his life of purity. And I knew my life would never be the same…”

Not to diminish the role of a strong male figure in a young woman's life, but to insinuate that without her father telling her too be pure a young woman will become some sort of slut is simply more blatant sexism. The simple fact that these young women never even make a commitment of their own other than to sign as a 'witness to her father's purity' is another example of the woman's role being downplayed and subverted to that of the male's.

That young lady will be on the front lines, renewing our culture and rebuilding the family. If there is not an annual Purity Ball in your town, it’s time to stand up for what is right: it’s time to stand up for all those beautiful young ladies and their doting fathers in your town.

A recent article on the Purity Ball phenomenon shows both great support for the idea from those who desire to preserve the family and much resistance from those who favor pre-marital sex as a way of life without consequences and abortion on demand. It’s very clear which side is right.

And who exactly are these people who favor premarital sex without consequences and on demand abortions? I've never met anyone like that, and I keep pretty liberal company. I have met people who favor sex education that acknowledges the fact that many young people will choose to be sexually active before marriage, and equips them with knowledge that will keep them safe, I have also met people who believe that whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not is a decision that should be left up to the woman not the government. This is just more demonizing of those who would dare disagree with the author.

While abstinence education programs — such as Extreme Commitment and its counterpart for girls, a “purity ball,” formal gatherings for young women and their fathers — have grown in number, detractors say they leave teenagers unprepared for the real world.

If the real world is about having unprotected sex outside of wedlock, that’s just fine. That’s something no teen should ever be expected to prepare for and it’s never the road they should go down.

Who exactly is for unprotected sex? The charge that this ideology leaves young people unprepared is exactly because they will be unaware of how to have protected sex! This assertion that anyone is for unprotected sex is idiotic at best.

Joan Douglas, executive director of Care Net Pregnancy Center, which hosts Extreme Commitment and purity balls, said promoting abstinence among young people emphasizes the importance of sex in a marriage.

“It’s a focus on staying pure for the one you’re going to marry,” she said. “It’s a gift.”

A gift is something you give to someone you love, not just to feel good for a impersonal sweaty encounter before your next trip to the abortion clinic. The “free love” generation still haunts us today — life is cheap, they say. But only if you exchange it for magic beans and a feel-good, yet empty moment whose consequences can be very dire indeed.

I'm not even going to address the 'abortion clinic' line, as I think I've clearly demonstrated this author is far more interested in vilifying his opponents then having a real dialog. What I will comment on is the idea that all premarital sex is lustful anonymous sex, I wish someone would show me the difference between two people who love each other but haven't gotten married, and two married people.

Andy Lee, a father who took his son to Extreme Commitment last year, said abstaining from sex is the only way to be safe.

Wow. All I have to say is poor kid. Oh, how naive can a father get?

“The only 100 percent effective way to avoid teenage pregnancy is abstinence,” he said.

Lee doesn’t understand why anyone would oppose events such as Extreme Commitment and purity balls.

Because they’re sick and evil and mentally ill. They represent the say anything, do anything if it feels good cynicism that permeates our debased society. And they’re absolutely wrong.

Of course, anyone who relies on reason and science to tell them that we are sexual being and therefore our children are likely to experiment with sex at some point must be evil and debased.

A pro-abortion advocate put it this way: “The purity balls leave you unprepared. If they (teenagers) become sexually active, then they are not prepared and are at greater risk for unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.” So let’s give them condoms, a kama sutra and a get one abortion free card. Hey, dummy! The purpose of the purity balls is to keep young women from fornicating outside of marriage. You want to teach them to do the opposite! Do you not see the disconnect?

I think what the nameless 'pro-abortion advocate' (I won't even comment on the use of the label pro-abortion instead of pro-choice) is trying to say is that kids who aren't prepared for a reality other then abstinence they will have trouble in the real world where they are likely to become sexually active (gasp) before marriage. How that implies that anyone thinks we should hand out the kama sutra and 'free abortion cards' is beyond me.

So the choice is clear. Should we encourage purity or debauchery? The answer is obvious. Run the pornographers and abort-firsters out of your town and start a lasting tradition to preserve the family unit and to foster respect for the value of all life.

Launch a purity ball in your town and dare to change America. Do it with your daughter. Encourage her to join with you on that special night. She’ll thank you for it and respect your gentle guidance in the years to come. So will her future husband. And so will America.

– Psycheout

Right...

chippy

Hostel & Home Alone 2

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:25:00 +0000

Home Alone 2

Hostel

As I sat watching Home Alone 2 on HBO Family today I had an epiphany, Home Alone 2 was 92's version of Hostel. Then it occurred to me, when did we relegate obscene violence from the world of children's cinema to the world of adult cinema? When did violence stop being about making us laugh, and start being about disturbing us? Don't get me wrong, I understand that violence has always permeated theatre, but never before has it been so crude, popular and prevalent.

It wasn't that long ago that violence told a story, was used as a tool in film rather than becoming the primary focus. When you actually felt something other than disturbed when some one was brutally beaten, burned, stabbed etc. on screen. Remember what it was like in American History X, watching Derek Vinyard curb stomping someone? That was possibly one of the most gruesome moments in film, but it wasn't just because of dark creepy surroundings, cliche horror film shots and gallons of blood. It was gruesome not only because it was terribly violent, but because we could feel the hate behind the violence, that made it even more gruesome then any special effects could. Not only is it gruesome, but it actually serves to tell a story, it changed radically the way you felt about Derek Vinyard, and then the movie challenged you again by redeeming him. Hostel and cohorts (The other Hostel movies, The Hills Have Eyes, Saw*, Touristas) exist simply to dwell on violence for violence's sake, simply to evoke the strongest feelings possible, fear, hate, disgust and hopelessness. And, I have to give it to them that they do a superb job of evoking all those emotions.

The real questions is, why would anyone want to pay eight bucks to watch hours of soul sucking pain? And clearly many many people do, otherwise there wouldn't be sequels to all of these movies, and copy cats popping up every other month. So whats happened? Back to my original question; when did we stop using violence because it's blunt crudeness makes us laugh and start using it because it's dark implications can horrify us? What's happening in our lives and world today that makes us gravitate towards pain and suffering, instead of hope and laughter?

*I admit that Saw (the first one, the others sucked) had some cinematic merit for it's story and even message to a degree, but in the end, why did millions go see it? Not because of it's deep story telling or interesting message, but because there was going to be blood and guts, and it promised to disturb it's viewers.

chippy

Safety Concerns Or More Fear Mongering?

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:51:00 +0000

I was just innocently watching some television when one of the Homeland Security's new PSA spots came on. I had seen the Ad before, it features a nice middle class family in a nice middle class home, focusing mostly on some cute kids asking questions like "what should we do?"; "where should we meet you?"; "what if I'm at school, will you pick me up?". The idea is that as Americans we need to start preparing for a terrorist attack in order to protect our children.

Here's my question...

How exactly does one prepare for a terrorist attack? Isn't a terrorist attack, by it's very nature, impossible to plan for? What exactly is having a meeting place going to do for you if for some reason a terrorist where to decide to attack the suburban America depicted in this video? I mean, let's say you're supposed to meet at the mall, oops, thats where the biochemical attack was launched, now what?

And lets be honest with each other, we all know what we're waiting for, the suitcase nuke, and I hate to break it to the American people, but hiding under your desks in the 60's wouldn't have done shit, and having some sort of meeting place, or a stock pile of green beens, or a generator or any other number of preparations aren't going to save you if someone decides to detonate a nuclear weapon in your nice little town.

So if the purpose of these Ads isn't too keep the American people safe, what is it? To scare us. Parade a bunch of white middle class families in front of us so we'll remember that if we don't stay 'tough on terrorism' our kids are gonna get it. Honestly I think the Ads reek with desperation, I mean any idiot can see the obvious problems with trying to 'prepare' for a terrorist attack, and I like to think that most American's can cut through that kind of bull shit and see it for what it is, fear mongering.

chippy

Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality

JohnBltz@gmail.com (John Blatzheim) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:26:00 +0000

I just finished reading "Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality" and have to say it's one of the most intelligent, articulate and well written critiques of the modern debate on homosexuality I have ever read. Andrew Sullivan, a gay man himself and former editor of The New Republic has crafted and argument so reasoned and compelling, while also being profoundly personal and moving, that no reader, whether conservative or liberal, could walk away without having some sort of new understanding of homosexuality and how the homosexual population has operated in todays society, and how it should operate in a liberal society.

The book begins with an epilogue that eloquently speaks to the 'homosexual experience' through the author's own experiences and understanding. Andrew Sullivan's writing and style shine an incredible light on what it is to be homosexual. To any heterosexual who wants to at least attempt to grasp what it's like to grow up homosexual in America I would suggest at least read the first and last chapters of this book, you will undoubtedly come away with a greater understanding of what it is to be homosexual, and why certain stereotypes exist, and often do present themselves in the homosexual community.

The meat however of Sullivan's book lies in the first five chapters, which focus on the four prevailing political arguments about homosexuality, and in the fifth chapter, Sullivan's own suggestions. The four arguments that Sullivan examines are prohibition, liberation, conservative and liberal.

The prohibitionist being along the lines of those in the Catholic church who, while admitting that homosexuality is an immutable condition not brought on by choice but by a mixture of nurture and nature, still cling to the idea that the centrality of sexual acts should be on procreation, and because homosexual sex cannot achieve this, it should be discouraged, and the homosexual should be lead to a life of celibacy. The problem here obviously occurring with the admittance of the fact that homosexuality occurs naturally, thus confusing the natural law argument that supports a centrality on procreation in the first place.

Those under the banner of liberation of the other hand are those in the gay community (particularly in the 1980's) who, following many of the ideas of Michael Foucault, shunned the idea of normalizing homosexuality, and loathed any public discourse on the topic because discourse, according to their interpretation of Foucault's work, is simply another form of power and control. The problem here of course being that liberation quickly became a politics of non-politics and began to die out. I think it important to mention that he was right, 12 years after the release of the book the liberation movement has all but died out, leaving only a few marginalized 'followers' left.

The conservative politics is one that is more concerned with regulating society as a whole in order to achieve a better, more ethical and moral society as a whole. The question then is whether homosexuality is good or bad for society. Beyond that though Sullivan looks at the history of conservative thought an makes an interesting point that much of the conservative opinion on homosexuality has been private tolerance coupled with public disapproval. In essence, as long as the homosexual never became a public entity (via coming out or otherwise) then homosexuality could be tolerated in private, and the discussion of the issues it raises kept taboo. The problem here of course being that this politics requires the stifling of the homosexuals very being, something that was doomed from the start, as it could simply never last.

Finally the liberal perspective is analyzed in chapter four, which is probably one of the most interesting. Sullivan points out that classical liberalism was about creating a distinction between private and public, and ensuring that the state treated all public citizens equally, while still allowing the private lives of citizens to remain private. This has clearly changed in the last decade, largely due to the civil rights movement and the new emphasis on 'minority rights' and protecting minorities. Sullivan claims that the problem with this view is simple, it's not truly liberal, and actually undermines liberalism by forcing private entities to behave in a way they would prefer not too, something that is the antithesis of a liberal government.

The solution that Sullivan comes up with is one genius in both it's simplicity and ability to allow for compromise. End the ban on homosexuals in the military, and legalize same sex marriage, while dropping anti discrimination laws. Sullivan posits that because there is no reason the believe that homosexuality is changeable or a detriment to society the state should treat homosexuals as equal citizens under the law. He argues for the dropping of anti discrimination laws because they have nothing to do with the state, and in a liberal society the state has no right to dictate to private individuals or organizations what they can or cannot do.

What makes Sullivan's arguments so persuasive is his amazing ability to rationally look at another persons point of view and understand, even sympathize with it, while still seeing the logical and ethical problems therein. The book never comes off as preachy; avoids the common pitfall of simply dismissing any anti-gay arguments as bigotry; respects the views of those the author disagrees with and even has the courage to attack, or at least question, many views commonly held among the gay community itself. The book is a must read for anyone who wants to be able to debate the topic of homosexuality in politics with intelligence and civility.

chippy