iPandora

Moral equivalence is such a strange and ugly beast.

Consider this comment in a thread on one of the more entertaining sites on the internet:

And that response is exactly what is necessary, were we still living in a culture that predominantly believed in absolute truth and real morality and ethics.

Seeing joy in everything

Equating a person’s feelings for their cat bred with respiratory issues from a shortened snout with society’s considering mentally deficient people special, either as a politically correct label or as a true measure of our regard for that person, is pure and simple evil.

This is, no doubt, a person who’s in favor of aborting children if they’re found in pre-birth testing to be potentially mentally retarded or suffering from some other deficiency.

I’m glad there are people in the world willing to adopt these special children when their own parents do not consider themselves up to the task and that there are people willing to accept these children and give them full and rich lives.

So to this person who would deprive this world of the joy and delight that are people who have been blessed with something other than a sound mind, I say shame on you.

After reading Greg Koukl’s book Tactics, kindly sent by Neil, I’ve been listening to arguments looking for fallacies and inconsistencies which would prove the arguments false or unsustainable.

A New York-based sketch comedy group, Whitest Kids You Know, made this video which shows, humorously, the failure of Anarchist philosophy when brought face to face with human nature and need.

Enjoy.

It’s been all over the place and most everybody has the same thoughts: the world has lost wonderful talent as it has lost Michael Jackson.

Conservatives, Liberals, Christians, Heathens alike are, for the most part, mourning the loss of this skilled musician.

Mike Gallagher was the first I heard to ask the question: Why are we remembering only the talent and the skillful music made by this man?

Let me get the boiler plate out of the way: The death of anybody is sad. If a Christian dies, there is the grief of loss here on earth, but the balancing joy knowing they are truly home at last and that our grief ought to be for ourselves still toiling here away from our true home. When an unrepentant sinner dies, the grief is much worse. There is no welcome for this person. There is simply the immediate inability to deny God any longer as the force of His self and all His holy attributes is no longer held off by the rationalizing mind and the containing body.

There is no reasonable evidence Michael Jackson accepted the saving Grace of Jesus Christ prior to his death.

There is always hope: he may have, on his deathbed, cried out to an ever-waiting and ever-listening andever-ready Jesus. If this is the case, we’ll know when we get to heaven.

But for now, it is reasonable, from human judgement, to assume Michael Jackson died with the full guilt of his own sins resting weightily upon his own, weak, shoulders.

Sin is sin, and there is no variance to it’s result. The Hitler’s of this world will suffer the same intermnible punishment meted out by the same just God for the same rejection of the same Holiness as the girl and boy blown up because they were too close to the exploding suicide bomber on their way to market in Fallujah.

But human’s judge variance in sin, because we must rationalize our own faults as not being “that bad.” And because we must restrain and punish those whose actions convey and cause inordinate danger to those around them.

Michael Jackson was a sinner.

There is little doubt he was a pedophile: His grown up sexual appetite coupled with his child-like and stunted emotional state and the stories of the several young boys with whom he slept and subsequently paid off leave little room for exhonoration.

As a society of justice we punish those who hurt and damage others by their actions. Those who prey sexually on the young damage those children’s ability to grow normally and lead productive lives, and so we punish them severely.

And when pedophiles die, we don’t celebrate them as an entire society.

I don’t advocate burning Michael Jackson’s music or videos. There is no purpose served by destroying it.

But his life isn’t worth celebrating. He made some ok music. He had some cool moves on the dance floor.

But he sexually assaulted young boys to satisfy himself as he was unable, in his stunted mind, to appreciate their future.

And so now, barring a hopeful miracle, he is facing God.

God isn’t playing reel-to-reel Thriller.

God is asking him for an account of his life.

It is with grief for the true loss of a life precious to the Lord God that I say, I fear it is going poorly for Michael Jackson.

While the world burns around me:

• Obama and the leadership of the greatest nation in the world refuse to condemn the naked theft of a nation’s election allowing a despot and megalomaniac to continue his aggression against the lone hope of freedom in the Middle East, Israel. A conservative, however, can and does stand up.
• Socialized medicine fails someone else: woman delivers baby without trained medical attention while in a hospital. Shortage of medical staff in Canada means she can’t get a bed to have her child. I’ll be she still get’s a bill. Or at last the Canadians will.
• ABC News decides to air a live infomercial for our Comrade in Chief from the White House in place of the evening news. In true Marxist fashion there will not be opposition presented.
• Scientists admit they don’t know the slightest thing about the most studied fundamental force: gravity.

And I’m upset over a movie.

An early 90’s comedy even.

Father of the Bride, billed as good clean family fun.

It’s dangerous, folks.

I even got a few laughs in before it just got so bad I couldn’t even laugh at the, few, funny parts any more.

The father is an idiot. No self-control. Few moral qualms. He’s the butt of every joke, and not in a nice way either.

He is not wise or caring.

He has no personal charisma or drive that should make us want for him to mature and grow through the movie.

And his character is inconsistant and false. He runs a successful business, has the adoration of his children and wife, and adores them in return. Yet he sneaks and fears and bumbles about like a complete fool.

The “here he goes again” looks from his wife are supposed to evoke further chuckles, but I couldn’t.

What good does this kind of portrayal do?

Is the only purpose of this movie to make us laugh? It failed at that. The “humor” was too shameful.

Consistently, the other characters are smart and likeable and have depth and a future. It’s the dad we’re supposed to laugh at.

And supposedly Steve Martin is good at that.

As Inspector Clouseau, it’s a good thing. He’s supposed to be an idiot hero, a hapless savior.

But when he is portrayed as an “everyman” and a father it’s ugly and terrible.

As a husband and expectant father I took personal offense and umbrage at this portrayal of what I aspire to.

I’m no fool taking my queues from Hollywood. My dad and my heavenly Father are quite enough for me to aspire to, thank you very much.

But what about those who do not have a father or who do not yet know their heavenly Father? The father on the silver screen may be their only target.

What responsibility is borne for those who see this dad and despair because they recognize his idiocy and the fun had lampooning his foolhardy attempts to be involved in his daughters wedding?

The only victories he achieves occur when he gives up.

In real life, the only victory that occurs that way is the most important one: salvation. Everything else requires determination and purpose.

I’m not planning on being an idiot dad, and so I’ll gladly forget Father of the Bride and heartily recommend against anybody seeing that abomination.

Is it entertainment when fatherhood is played for the fool?

I was rather disturbed recently when reading about the Democrat’s need to suppress right leaning speech.

Here are a few quotes from the articles.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn’t seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan’s FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats – including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore – strongly support the idea of mandating “fairness.”

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of “fairness” is seductive.

But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome. . . One such measure would be to impose greater “local accountability” on them – requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. . . The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. . .Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.

It might just be me but does this sound like a direct attack on a multitude of the basic rights that freedoms that are supported and coveted by conservatism. Is this an attack on ideas like say . . . free speech, free market, free enterprise. Wait, I think I just had a revelation . . . Isn’t this a DIRECT attack on freedom.

Honestly, what are the liberal puppeteers trying to accomplish? Isn’t it clear that this is the suppression of dissention, the bridling of local choice, and forceful creation of unsuccessful enterprises in the name of equality (that last quote really sounds like what happened to housing in the United States).

To sum it all up, I know that tomorrow will be better because of what I have done today, but why does today have to be so bleak? I am sorry if this offends some, but I am almost at the point where I cannot look at the presidential candidates without a measure of disdain, distrust, and disturbance.

In other news . . . A government funded scientific study supports industial advances. However, the English government cannot stand the truth they themselves found and so there is a cover up (sounds like the fair and representative government has an agenda).

I love my life and am going to have a great day today. I just wish my loving, protective government would stop getting in my way.

I will admit it. I am sick of politics. In fact, I turned off the last Presidential debate after the first five minutes. I have become very concerned with the direction our country is heading with the spineless Republicans and arrogant Democrats running Washington. However, I just heard this song and was given a good perspective.

This is from the musical “Annie.”

The sun’ll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There’ll be sun!

Just thinkin’ about
Tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs,
And the sorrow
‘Til there’s none!

When I’m stuck with a day
That’s gray,
And lonely,
I just stick out my chin
And Grin,
And Say,
Oh!

The sun’ll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
‘Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
You’re always
A day
A way!

Now, I know this has nothing to do with politics but it has something more important, attitude. No matter what we are facing, remember, tomorrow is still ahead and, thanks to the Lord and the intelligence he has given us, it will be better than today.

In my personal opinion, there are really only two essential attitudes. This first, Grit is what most growing world power has used to establish themselves. The second is . . . a smile . . .? Yes, that is all. Or, if you want to look to “Annie” again, you can look up the lyrics to “You’re Never Fully Dressed Without a Smile.” I remember when my family was going through a hard time. Our family relationships were tense and nerves were being frayed. Then, for some weird reason (do not ask me why) I resolved to wear a smile every day all day long regardless of how I felt. I will never forget the result. My family, in a nose dive, did a U-turn.

Now, I doubt that I have the emotional energy to smile all the time now (growing up does that to one), but now I remember that tomorrow will come and I have a choice. Face it like another day and let the day define me or face it with a smile and make the day be defined by me.

To me, the choice is clear and I know what I will choose. Will you join me?

Lois Lane, finding herself in her hero/lovers arms for the first time in 5 too-long years says quietly “I’d forgotten how warm you are.” Superman is, after all, a man. He’s just, well… super.

The movie aside, why do we live in dreams? What is it about what-ifs and might’ve-beens that makes feel so warm inside. “When I was a child…” starts off the stereotypical father- or grandfatherly advice. “Don’t you remember when…” is the soft chiding of an old friend. “Hey, remember that time we…” is the standard greeting of a buddy at the reunion. For beings who cannot move through time at will we sure do keep gazing fondly through that dimension.

Dreams are cold and memories chilly. They are not for dwelling in. The arctic is for studying (from afar and in well-warmed rooms). There are people who become bitter at the world because it will not stop still for them. The saying goes you keep putting it off until tomorrow and all you’ll end up with is a bunch of empty yesterdays. As you’re climbing life’s ladders and you reach the top, will you look back and see nothing but empty rungs?

Not to say that dreams and memories are wrong and bad, they can help keep us close to those we love, they teach us when there are no teachers around, they protect us when the present seems to dark to bear. But they only have meaning and purpose when they are used in the present to protect and brighten the future. Yes, Superman left his lover jilted when he left to see if he might find a place he felt he could belong, and his dreams were cold. What he found at the end was that it was his place to be lonely, the Pandora of Pandora’s, and yet to be loved by an entire world and felt as their own by each and every one of them. And Lois found that in dwelling on the slight she forgot the hero, and it served neither of them well.

Anybody remember blackface? Considered to both be the advent of black culture growing in the entertainment industry and an evidence of racism based on exaggerated racial stereotypes. In its ugly form, blackface was white people laughing at white people acting like white people thought black people acted.

Courtesy of the CBS Website, I’ve been watching Numb3rs for the past few weeks and find it an enjoyable show. It combines some of the crime drama of CSI with some different forms of character development all arranged around some seriously stretched applications of mathematical models to extremely complex systems which in reality would require super-computers hundreds of years to compute, but with Charles Epps brain, can strung together into accurate models in matters of minutes.

Reality-stretching aside, I’ve enjoyed the show for the most part.

In the season finale “When Worlds Collide” however, the show tries to be political and shows that blackface is still alive an well in America.

The show’s tag was intriguing, to say the least:

A Pakistani non-profit group is suspected to have ties to Jihadist groups and is on the FBI’s terrorist watch.

It was a decent show for the most part, rife with moral quandary, suspense, relational tensions, etc. But as the plot moved along and it became clear who the bad guy was and what his relationship was with the rest of the members of the involved groups, I was rather disturbed.

Xenophobia

A typical xenophobic perspective of other cultures, and one based in sad reality across the world, is that other cultures see themselves the same way we do.

If you don’t know many people of a particular ethnicity, it is normal for you to find it difficult to differentiate recognizable differences and unique characteristics between individual members of that group.

The standard “they all look the same” is real and normal and definitely an indicator of the perceivers lack of familiarity with the perceived.

Blackface

The writers of Numb3rs had resorted to the crudest of blackface to create their villain. The bad guy ends up being an opportunistic former member of the IRA terrorist groups seeking money and markets for this illicit weapons trade.

Using face paint and a beard reminiscent of British military officers in the far east of the last century, he transformed himself into a swarthy quasi-pseudo-Pakistani.

The assumptions were:

• The members of the organization would not recognize this impostor as not being authentically a member of his supposed race.
• The members of this organization would not recognize this impostor for his lack of connection to their group through relationships.
• White people can pretend convincingly to be other races through extensive makeup and acting and survive extended contact while not being recognized.

Individually, these may be true in certain cases, and with dedication and a good makeup crew, they could indeed be accomplished. But the circumstances of the case where such that such foresight did not likely occur.

Just as in your race you are most able to recognize by look, action, and vocabulary, those who belong and those who don’t, and even more so in those groups you are involved in and even more so when those groups are primarily of one race.

So too, in the story premise, the writers of Numb3rs, in an attempt to bring the far-fetched possibility that we’re not really fighting against Muslims: after all, they’re a religion of peace, eh? But against opportunistic old-school European terrorists such as the IRA.

I know they’re not saying “all” such suspect charities are not funneling money to terrorists. I know the government in it’s dealings with Muslims right now is treading a thin line, and most likely, more often than not, abusing it’s responsibility and prerogative in it’s dealings with the same.

But our primary enemy right now, not of our own creation, but born of sheer necessity and self-preservation, is Muslim-based Islamo-Facist ideology and it’s supporters, both active and passive.

Much thanks to Tammi over in the Sunflower Desert for finding this gem:

Casino Royale is a gritty film with a bit more life than recent Bond films. This film apparently falls near the beginning of the Bond saga and tells of Bonds early days before and immediately following his receiving 007 status. There is much less gadgetry and the resulting action is more authentic for it. The classic Aston Martin Bond car is driven on screen for only a few moments before, well, that would be a spoiler. Suffice it to say, this is a very believable film as far as action goes.

This film also delves into who Bond is as a person. He has one supreme relationship in this film and he, well, that would be a spoiler too. There are the customary bedroom scenes but these are nothing more than a PG-13 film, with lots of kissing and a bit of off-screen bed-sheet pulling. I have only seen the Pierce Brosnan Bond films prior to this and I found this one deeper, richer and more enjoyable, even if it did not have quite as much “flash”. There’s still plenty of killing and maiming in creative ways, and the directors even made poker look enjoyable, which they had to considering that’s about half the movie.

Towards the end, there is quite a lull in the customary non-stop action, but this also serves to frame the final scenes and make it that much more, erm…, interesting shall have to be the word as most other adjectives might be used to deduce the eventual result.

Anyways, this is a recommend, with caution for younger peoples. If you like Bond, this is a good Bond. If you like action, there’s that in spades. And even if you’re a bit of a romantic, this has a classic romance woven throughout. So enjoy.