Thursday, December 30, 2010

If Christians Were Treated Like Muslims

This article I've posted below was published in Human Events on December 28, 2010.

Read it in its original context here.


"Few Americans would deny that Judeo-Christian beliefs and values informed the Founding of this country and that they continue to shape much of American life today. Nor would many of us deny that Americans who embrace Islamic values are a distinct minority here.

"I raise these two facts because of an emerging reality: that, in a variety of contexts, American Muslims are treated better than American Christians. That might seem like a bizarre assertion, so think about it in another way: What if the Christians were treated like Muslims in America, and Muslims like Christians?

"If Muslims were treated like Christians in America, Muslims would have to tolerate the defamation of their holiest images in our national museums, acts which would be called "artwork" -- and, if particularly provocative, even given taxpayer-funded grants from the National Endowment for the Arts. They would also have to accept Korans being burned and thrown into toilets, which instead of inciting worldwide outrage and retribution would provoke a collective shrug of the shoulders.

"If Muslims were treated like Christians, Muslims would be mocked by late night TV talk show hosts and lampooned in crude cartoon parodies. If Christians were treated like Muslims, conspicuous Christianity would be celebrated by our elites as a sign of our diversity and open-mindedness, not disparaged as an embarrassment, a nuisance and a breach of the law.

"If Christianity were treated like Islam, our students would be taught a white-washed version of Christian history, with the troubling bits miscast or omitted from textbooks and lesson plans.

"If Christianity were treated like Islam, if an evangelical Christian committed an evil act in the name of his faith, he would be portrayed in the media as a deviation from, not a personification of, the Gospel message. Meanwhile, our political and media elites would hasten to assure the public that evangelical Christianity is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of evangelical Christians do not support terrorism.

"If Christianity were treated like Islam in America, our president, a professed Christian, would proudly attend Christian-themed dinners and events while skipping Ramadan dinners, not vice versa. And Muslim politicians would go out of their way to assure people that their faith would not affect their policy-making.

"If Christianity were treated like Islam,
Christmas and Easter would be publicly celebrated for what they are — the signature events of Christianity, marking the birth and the death and Resurrection of Christ — not stripped of all their theological meaning and transformed into secular holidays devoted to crass consumerism.

"If Christians were treated like Muslims,
NASA would be tasked with reaching out to Christians and recognizing their faith's profound achievements and contributions to science, math and engineering, instead of being told to make Muslims feel good about their rather meager scientific accomplishments.

"If Christians were treated like Muslims, the Catholic Church's stances on sex, contraception and human life would be revered as welcome departures from our over-sexed, self-obsessed culture, not condemned as a cause of disease and death in the less-developed world. And if Muslims were treated like Christians, the application of Sharia law around the world would be met not with stony silence but with the outrage it deserves.

"If Christians were treated like Muslims in America, amusement parks would celebrate "Christian Family Day," (Six Flags recently celebrated "Muslim Family Day"), and Christians would be asked to embrace, not set aside, their religious convictions at the door when they entered the public square. Meanwhile, Muslim imams, not Christian pastors, would fear hate crimes lawsuits for preaching orthodox views of sexuality and sin.

"The notion that American Muslims face discrimination, even to the point of violence, is often posited by America's elites. But that idea evaporates under scrutiny. Remarkably few hate crimes are reported against Muslims (fewer than one-eighth those against Jews). What's more,
Muslim immigration to America has risen sharply since September 11, 2001, and Muslims thrive, economically and educationally, once they arrive.

"In fact, it is
Christians, not Muslims, who increasingly encounter cultural elites who are hostile to their beliefs and values.

"Sadly, Christians will never be treated like Muslims by America's elites. Why? Because Christianity can be attacked without fear of retribution. The Christian response to insult and attack -- "to turn the other cheek" -- contradicts the knee-jerk call to violence of many Islamists.

"It's also because left-wing elites and radical Islamists are united in the common cause of upending the Judeo-Christian culture and roots of American society.

"I’m not in favor of burning the Koran, and I don’t think insulting or defaming symbols of any religion constitutes art. At a time of the year when intolerance for public displays of Christianity is most acute, it is my Christmas wish that Muslims and Christians would be treated equally."

- Gary Bauer, Human Events, Dec. 28, 2010

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

My Favorite Movies of 2010


1. Toy Story 3

Most have come to expect greatness from Pixar, but 'Toy Story 3' is undisputed Oscar material- and not just in the animated category, either. At the very least, it deserves a nomination for 'Best Picture,' and I'd venture that it deserves to win.

2. Harry Brown

Michael Caine is at his best - as if he ever isn't- in a brutal film which might be measured as a halfway point between 'Gran Torino' and 'Taken,' but, like those other two films, sits comfortably in it's own category.

"You failed to maintain your weapon, son."

3. Kick-Ass

It's difficult to describe the sweet surprise that comes with one's first viewing of 'Kick-Ass.' But one phrase would be "HELL YES!!" Not appropriate for audiences who disapprove of Quentin Tarantino-style violence.

The true star of the film: Chloe Moretz as Hit Girl.

4. The Book of Eli

*Spoiler Alert* 'Mad Max' meets Christianity. Denzel Washington as the wandering "Eli" proves that faith and manliness go hand-in-hand. Gary Oldman as the power-worshipping "Carnegie" helps make it a wonderful experience.

"We walk by faith, not by sight."

5. True Grit

A good, solid Western if I ever saw one. Not as intense as 'Unforgiven,' but arguably an improvement on the original (Besides John Wayne, of course). Hailee Steinfeld also makes an unforgettable debut as Mattie Ross, outperforming costar Matt Damon with ease. Jeff Bridges is no John Wayne, but he wears an eyepatch well and handles the role of Rooster Cogburn nicely.

6. Let Me In

As tender as it is terrifying (think Nicholas Sparks meets Stephen King). But mostly terrifying.

Believable performances by child actors Kodi Smit-Mcphee ('The Road') and Chloe Moretz ('Kick-Ass') as well as an old-fashioned, subtle filming style help make this the best vampire movie in decades, surpassing even the original Swedish film.

7. Iron Man 2

It may lack a "jump-out-of-your-seat" moment (i.e. when Iron Man punched an Islamic terrorist in the first film), but you just can't deny how damned entertaining this sequel is. Mickey Rourke plays the villain with gusto, and Scarlett Johansson proves once and for all that you CAN beat up henchmen and look good while doing it.

And did I mention the explosions?

8. Resident Evil: Afterlife

Sometimes you just can't trust critics. Or your friends, for that matter.

Despite bad reviews, I enjoyed every minute of the fourth entry in the 'Resident Evil' franchise. Milla Jovovich is one of the best genre actresses around, and she's not bad-looking either. Leave your brain at the door, and enjoy the party.

9. From Paris With Love

Bald is badass. 'Nuff said.

10. The Expendables

Sylvester Stallone, Jet Li, Bruce Willis, and every other action star under the sun, with the conspicuous absence of a certain Texas Ranger. Absolutely necessary viewing if you consider yourself a fan of action movies. There are no surprises here, but it's all worth it for a couple hours of mindless escapism.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Most Pirated Movies of 2010


Can a list of the

most pirated movies of 2010 tell us anything we don't already know about American filmgoers?


It's a pretty diverse list, with a few big surprises (7 million people actually bothered to download Green Zone?) No surprise that Avatar sits comfortably at the top, and with the money James Cameron and 20th Century Fox raked in on that venture, illegal downloading probably isn't too high on their list of concerns.


But despite most of the films on this list being blockbusters (even the disappointing Clash of the Titans earned enough to warrant a sequel), there are at least two movies that definitely suffered financially for their exploitation on the web: Matthew Vaughn's Kick-Ass and the critically acclaimed Hurt Locker - two of the best movies of the year, and certainly more deserving of reward at the box office than their earnings would indicate.


Here's the list:


1. Avatar / 16,580,000
2. Kick-Ass / 11,400,000
3. Inception / 9,720,000
4. Shutter Island / 9,490,000
5. Iron Man 2 / 8,810,000
6. Clash of the Titans / 8,040,000
7. Green Zone / 7,730,000
8. Sherlock Holmes / 7,160,000
9. The Hurt Locker / 6,850,000
10. Salt / 6,700,000


Monday, December 20, 2010

The Best And Worst Movies of 2010 (According to Michael Medved)


The Best and Worst Movies of 2010


WORST

Somewhere
Jackass 3D
Sex and the City 2
The Wolfman
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole
Remember Me
Dinner for Schmucks
Robin Hood
Jonah Hex
Black Swan


BEST

Tangled
Toy Story 3
Despicable Me
Hereafter
True Grit
The Town
Four Lions
The Social Network
The King's Speech
City Island


Visit michaelmedved.com for more!

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Steve Jobs, The Manhattan Declaration, and "The Offensive Christ"



What famous businessman falls into the category of "the offended" when it comes to the idea of supporting life and marriage?

The National Organization for Marriage has the answer (text copied from nationformarriage.org):

“Steve Jobs built his reputation as an iconic marketer in the famous 1984 commercial for the MacIntosh computer in which Apple promises to take on ‘Big Brother’” said Brian Brown, president of NOM. “Jobs has made billions taking on ‘Big Brother’ yet the irony is that in refusing to allow citizens to support pro-life and traditional marriage positions he’s become the very ‘Big Brother’ he has decried.”

The Manhattan Declaration has been signed by nearly 500,000 Christians who pledge their support for pro-life, traditional marriage and religious liberty. Launched in Manhattan in November 2009, the Declaration - called “A Call of Christian Conscience” - enjoys the support of prominent Christian clergy, ministers and scholars. The app was developed to facilitate other Christians to sign the Declaration. The app was approved by Apple reviewers and rated 4 plus, certifying that it contains no offensive content. Despite this, Apple pulled the app from the iTunes store when gay marriage advocates mounted an online petition. An Apple spokesperson defended the action saying that the Christian app was “offensive to large groups of people.”

“Apple happily allows all kinds of apps for pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage groups, yet when Christians develop an app to support traditional marriage and life, it is called offensive and is pulled from the iTunes store,” Brown said. “What is offensive is that Steve Jobs has targeted Christians for discrimination and religious bigotry, censoring our basic right to speech. Steve Jobs has become Big Brother and we call on Christians across America to contact Jobs to express their outrage at his unfair, discriminatory decision. Apple should immediately restore the Manhattan Declaration app and apologize to all Christians for their actions.”


Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Evangelion 1.11 - You Are (Not) Alone

Parental Advisory: Rated PG-13 for violence and some nudity

If you’re not a fan of good old-fashioned science fiction and/or giant monster battles, ‘Evangelion 1.11’ is a film you should avoid at all costs. But if any part of you cringed when the SciFi Channel became the “SyFy” Channel, then add it to your queue straight away. You’ll be glad you did. And then you’ll write an angry letter to those darned “SyFy” executives, threatening to boycott their programming forever if they don’t cancel ‘Ghosthunters’ immediately.

If there’s one thing I've learned from watching old reruns of ‘The Twilight Zone’ every New Year's Eve for the last five years, it’s this: The best science fiction hasn’t got a blessed thing to do with science. It doesn’t waste time trying to convince its audience to recycle, that we have to stop driving our cars, or that global warming is going to kill us all if we don’t stop shopping at Wal-Mart. The best science fiction, like all great storytelling, starts with characters – with people – and this is where ‘Evangelion 1.11’ tries to stand out.

Fourteen-year-old Shinji Ikari is on his way to meet his father in New Tokyo 3, a fortress city built fifteen years ago in the aftermath of a global cataclysm that claimed the lives of half the world’s population. En route, Shinji is caught in the crossfire between the military – now under command of a mysterious organization called NERV – and a monstrous being referred to as an Angel.” Not to be confused with the winged seraphim featured in Judeo-Christian art, these Angels come in the form of enormous shape-shifting behemoths that have more in common with the monster from ‘Cloverfield’ than they do with depictions of Michael or Gabriel.

As the film progresses, Shinji discovers that he has been chosen as the pilot of a weapon called an Evangelion (literally translated "the good news") – a gigantic “synthetic humanoid” constructed to repel Angel attacks. He also meets fourteen-year-old Rei Ayanami, the reserved female Evangelion pilot with whom he shares his new burden.

We learn that the Evangelions were created using data gathered during an encounter with the first Angel, the "Giant of Light" referred to as Adam (as in "the Garden of Eden"). There's also some vague references to the "Tree of Knowledge," and viewers are led to believe that the Angels might be holding a grudge against humanity for attempting to become God-like by eating of its fruit. Thankfully, the writers have avoided offense by treating these Old Testament elements primarily as plot devices. No erroneous arguments are made concerning the Judeo-Christian faith, nor does the film stoop to taking pot-shots against Christians (although the cross-shaped explosions might have been a bit much).

While these (non)religious elements are intriguing (Angels, huh?), the most compelling aspect of the story is Shinji’s quiet struggle with his own insecurity. Of course, insecurity in and of itself is never enough to hold my attention. Like any red-blooded American, I’d much prefer the heroic manliness of John Wayne to, well, anything less than John Wayne. But then again, nothing and nobody even comes close to measuring up to John Wayne. Did I mention I like John Wayne?

I can’t stand insecure, self-absorbed characters - the very sort of characters that have been explored ad nauseam by independent art-house films (which I also usually hate). But there is an important difference in the case of Eva 1.11’s characters, whose insecurity is rooted not in selfish nihilism, but in a collapse of family structure.

Shinji is a weakling, but he has also grown up without either a mother’s love or a father’s discipline.

Having lost his mother at an early age, and having subsequently been abandoned by his father, Shinji has apparently been living with different adult guardians for most of his young life, and this displacement has profoundly hindered his ability to relate to those around him. This insecurity has powerful ramifications, given Shinji’s responsibility as the pilot of an all-powerful super-weapon.

The boy must fight. He must be strong. He must become a man. That's a simple message, and one that isn't honored often enough when they hand out the Oscars.

On the negative side, my biggest complaint concerns the film's pacing. From one scene to the next, the plot seems to advance a little too quickly, often disorienting the audience as much as the characters on-screen. This isn't a huge problem, mind you (you haven't seen terrible pacing until you've seen 'The Last Airbender'), but there were probably a few scenes that could have been altered in the interest of a smoother scene-to-scene transition. There's also a bit of unnecessary nudity, but it shouldn't bother anyone younger than the Baby Boom Generation.

The next entry in the franchise, 'Evangelion 2.22 - You Can (Not) Advance', arrives on March 29th, 2011. Until then, consider checking out 'You Are (Not) Alone.' It's an imperfect movie, and I do hope the sequel corrects some of its weaker points. But this first entry proves that the Evangelion franchise has the potential to be one of the first great science fiction stories of the century.

And it most certainly possesses more artistic value than a big-budget 3D rip-off of 'FernGully."

Monday, December 13, 2010

12 Days of Winter - A Christmas Tune for the Left

The classic tune re-imagined to suit the tastes of modern liberals.


Thanks to the Heidi Harris show for delivering a new classic!

Flash Mob - Hallelujah Chorus

If Christmas doesn't feel close right now, it will after you watch this:

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Real Catholic TV vs. Global Warming/ Climate Change

Using solid faith-based arguments, Real Catholic TV's Michael Voris explores the hidden agenda behind the new eugenics movement.


For more messages from Michael Voris, check out RealCatholicTV.com, or just visit their Youtube page.

Friday, December 10, 2010

The TSA vs. India (and Baywatch!)


Ulterior motives for airport scanning? What gives you that idea?

In the wake of the new TSA airport security rules, which you might have heard include the strip-searching of children and the naked scanning of 'Baywatch' babes (like Donna D'errico, there), some commentators have predicted that the only group that will likely NOT be subjected to this humiliation will be members of government, that group of would-be royals who from time to time have fancied themselves our intellectual and cultural superiors.


... Thanks for that advice, John. Don't know what we'd do without you.

It should come as some consolation, then, that "India Thursday termed as 'unacceptable' the 'pat down' search Indian ambassador Meera Shankar was subjected to in the US, the second time in three months, and said it will take up the issue with Washington."

"Let me be frank, this is unacceptable to India. We are going to take it up with the government of US that such unpleasant incidents do not recur,' said Krishna." (India's External Affairs Minister)

Lacking familiarity with Mr. Krishna's character, I couldn't claim with certainty that he is afflicted with the same arrogance as was Mr. Kerry when he made his statement concerning the electorate. But here's how the TSA- or American government officials, for that matter- should respond if they want to save face:

"We regret that the envoy from the democratic nation of India felt himself humiliated by the new security measures, but he must understand that the position of the United States on this matter is that government officials be subjected to the same rules and regulations which affect the citizenry, and no government official who claims to be above such rules and regulations will be granted entry into the United States."

Just a friendly suggestion by a mild-mannered voter.

Not that I prefer the new TSA rules, mind you. But I'll accept them as long as politicians- both foreign and domestic- do the same.

But then again...


Thursday, December 9, 2010

Christians in Peril


From Catholic Online:

"In recent articles I have covered the plight of Asia Bibi, a Christian wife and mother in Pakistan whose "crime" is her love for Jesus Christ in a hostile Islamic State. She is scheduled for execution because she stood up for her faith in the midst of a crowd of angry persecutors. I have written about the horrid persecution against Catholics and other Christians in Mumbai India at the hands of Extremist Hindus and the continuous assault against Catholics and other Christians in Vietnam and China.

These are not isolated incidents. Sadly, they represent an ominous trend."

- Deacon Keith Fournier, Catholic Online

And here's some great video from the Austrian parliament, proving at the very least that sanity hasn't been totally wiped out.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Godzilla: Symbol of the Bomb, or Japanese Aggression?


Growing up watching AMC’s ‘Monsterfest’ (back when it still featured monster movies and not stupid slasher flicks), or TNT’s glorious ‘Monstervison’ marathons, many American kids of my generation were exposed to the gloriously cheesy spectacle of grown men in rubber suits tearing their way through miniature replicas of Tokyo, Kyoto, and Osaka, confronting toy airplanes and remote-controlled tanks as they made their way across the sound stage, and sometimes stopping to battle one another in royal rumbles that made professional wrestling look like classic theatre in comparison.

Hours upon weeks were spent vegetating in front of the tube, totally content and unaware of the wider world beyond the flickering screen.

But I’ll be damned if it wasn’t worth it.

More than a decade later, as an aspiring “mature” American citizen, I am now (mostly) concerned with the “real world”- the rough world of democratic election cycles, life-changing career choices, and the evening news programs that bored me terribly as a youngster. On yesterday’s anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I spent a little while sitting and wondering what it would have been like to know the veterans who witnessed that fateful tragedy, an event that effectively changed the course of history (and one that proved to be a huge mistake by the Japanese Empire).

And then, not surprisingly, I found my thoughts turning once again to Godzilla.

From 1954 to 2004, the “Big G” starred in no less than 28 movies (compared with 22 films for James Bond), not counting the much-disliked 1998 American adaptation. While many of these movies are about as deep as your average episode of ‘Power Rangers,’ some films in the franchise are conspicuously concerned with the terrible events that inspired the first film.

When ‘Gojira’ (renamed ‘Godzilla: King of the Monsters’ in the U.S.) was released in 1954, Japanese audiences clearly perceived the parallels to the experience of WWII, and most critics who are familiar with the film take it as a metaphor particularly for the horrors suffered by the Japanese in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Godzilla rampages through the crowded cities, engulfs buildings with radioactive fire, and annihilates any military force that dares oppose him, until (SPOILER!) finally being put to rest by Dr. Serizawa’s deadly super-weapon, the Oxygen Destroyer.

The atom bomb metaphor has been the conventional wisdom of fans for decades, but here’s my thought: What if the Japanese characters in the film were taken to represent American citizens and scientists? What if Godzilla’s unprecedented invasion of Japan were a metaphor for the Imperial Navy’s attack on Pearl Harbor and the war that followed? What if the use of the “Oxygen Destroyer” is in fact a symbol for – you guessed it- dropping the bomb?

After Hiroshima disappeared under a cloud of destruction, the co-pilot of the B-29 Bomber, the Enola Gay, famously wrote these words: “My God, what have we done? Clearly the feelings of those involved in the event that ended the Pacific conflict were clouded and ambivalent. How could they not be? But the war had to be brought to an end, and a possible land invasion of Japan was judged to be too great a risk at the time.

Hence the line uttered by the character Ogata that finally convinces Dr. Serizawa to unleash the Oxygen Destroyer on Godzilla, despite the effect that such a weapon may have on the world:

You have your fear, which may become reality. And you have Godzilla, which is reality.”

So then, Godzilla may not in fact be a symbol of the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at all, nor may he symbolize a mere natural disaster, as he has been portrayed in so many films since. Rather, perhaps the King of the Monsters is a symbol of the totalitarian behemoth that rampaged across China and Southeast Asia, and woke a sleeping giant with an attack on Pearl Harbor in the year 1941. And, like tyranny itself, he returns to plague mankind again and again, prompting the creation of new tactics, the production of more effective weaponry, and challenging each new generation to protect their nation's liberty.

And then again, maybe I’m just an adult shamelessly grasping for a reason to watch giant monster movies. (No apologies!)

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Friday, December 3, 2010

Father Barron on "Light of the World"


For more videos by Fr. Barron, head over to Word On Fire (check the Links on the right, below the eagle!).

The book, "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times," is available wherever books are sold.

So get on Amazon, you dirty infidels!

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

The Ten Commandments of the Code of Chivalry


From Chivalry, by Leon Gautier

I. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.

II. Thou shalt defend the Church.

III. Thou shalt repect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

IV. Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.

V. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.

VI. Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.

VII. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.

VIII. Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.

IX. Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.

X. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I certainly have a problem with number VI on a number of levels. "Making war on the infidel" is right out of the jihadist playbook, and mercy is a necessary value for followers of Christ. In any case, an explanatory footnote would seem merited.

But in general, this code promotes courage, charity, and justice in society.

Long live the knight in shining armor! (And the spirit of Mercy!)

More on Chivalry here: (http://www.astro.umd.edu/%7Emarshall/chivalry.html)

Self Esteem And Character

I came across this National Review article via Dennis Prager's facebook page. Check out more by Dennis Prager at www.dennisprager.com.

By Dennis Prager

National Review (link below the article)

Florida State University professor Roy Baumeister (Ph.D. psychology, Princeton University) has revealed that in a lifetime of study of violent criminals, the one characteristic nearly all these criminals share is high self-esteem.

Yes, people with high self-esteem are the ones most prone to violence.

The 1960s and ’70s ushered in what I refer to as the Age of Feelings. And one of the most enduring feelings-based notions that came out of that era was that it was critically important that children feel good about themselves. High self-esteem, it was decided, should be imparted to children — no matter how undeserving — whenever possible. That is why boys on losing teams are given trophies, why more and more high schools have ceased naming a valedictorian (lest the other graduates feel bad about themselves), why some states have abolished winning and losing in children’s soccer games (lest those on the losing teams suffer low self-esteem), etc.

A friend of mine provided me with a perfect illustration. At a Little League baseball game, he saw a pitch thrown a few feet above the batter’s head. Needless to say, the batter didn’t swing. But to my friend’s amazement, he heard both the batter’s father and coach yell out, “Good eye!”

For those who don’t know baseball, it does not take a “good eye” not to swing at a ball thrown over one’s head. It takes a functioning eye.

One result of all this has been a generation that thinks highly of itself for no good reason. Perhaps the most famous example is the survey of American high-school students and those of seven other countries. Americans came in last in mathematical ability but first in self-esteem about their mathematical ability.

But it turns out that feeling good about oneself for no good reason — as destructive as that is — is not the biggest problem.

Psychologist John Rosemond, a child-rearing expert, recently opened my eyes to the even more troubling problem: High self-esteem in children does not produce good character, and in fact is likely to produce a less moral individual.

This flies in the face of perhaps the deepest-held conviction among the present generation, as well as the baby boomers: that it is a parent’s fundamental obligation to ensure that his child has high self-esteem.

Though I always opposed undeserved self-esteem, I, too, had bought into the belief that self-esteem in children is vital. But as soon as Rosemond said what he said, I realized he was right.

And since he said that, I have analyzed the finest adults I know well. It turns out that none had high self-esteem as a child. In fact, most of them “suffered” — as it would now be deemed — from low self-esteem.

To cite one example, one of the finest human beings I have ever known — an individual of extraordinary courage, integrity, and selflessness — had a father who constantly berated this person as worthless and stupid.

Now, this father was, to put it mildly, a sick man. And he did indeed have a negative psychological impact on his child — to this day this person has low self-esteem. But it had no negative impact on this individual’s sterling character.

The more I have thought about it, the more I have put Baumeister’s and Rosemond’s insights together.

If Baumeister is right and violent criminals have higher self-esteem than most people, and if Rosemond is right and people who do not grow up with high self-esteem are more likely to be among the finest human beings, then society has the strongest interest in not promoting self-esteem among children. Society’s sole interest should be creating people of good character, not people with high self-esteem. And good character is created by teaching self-control, not self-esteem.

Now, let me be clear. No one is recommending that parents refuse to praise, or seek to cultivate low self-image in, their children. And children should know their parents love them. But if raising a good adult is the primary task of a parent — and it surely must be — trying to give one’s child high self-esteem is not helpful, and it can easily be counterproductive.

If you don’t agree with this conclusion, do the following: Ask the finest people you know how much self-esteem they had as a child. Then ask all the narcissists you know how much their parent(s) praised them.


Read the full article here: (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254092/self-esteem-and-character-dennis-prager)


Saturday, October 23, 2010

Superman, Thy Name Is Jim

In a recent post, I mentioned that there’s a new Superman reboot in the works, overseen by Christopher Nolan (‘The Dark Knight’, ‘Inception’) and directed by Zack Snyder (‘300’, ‘Watchmen’). While this definitely counts as a dream team, especially considering Mr. Nolan’s success in reinvigorating the Caped Crusader (that’s Batman for the non-fans out there), speculation has already begun regarding the most important factor of all: Who will (or can) play Superman?

According to Comingsoon.Net, actor Arnie Hammer (‘The Social Network’), who has apparently “made a lot of people’s Superman fantasy-casting lists”, reports that the studio may be seeking a more mature (35-40) actor for the role. As the interviewer notes, this could be taken as a sign of hope that Jon Hamm (‘Mad Men’, pictured below) could be up for the part.

While I think I could buy Mr. Hamm as Superman, I am not quite convinced he could pull off a Clark Kent. This is an important factor when casting the Man of Steel, because it means that the actor needs to be able to alternate between the almighty king of the superheroes and a clueless geek at the drop of a hat, as Christopher Reeve accomplished with ease in the classic ‘Superman’ films decades ago. Actors who could fill Mr. Reeve’s shoes aren’t too common in Hollywood either, as was made painfully obvious in Bryan Singer’s watchable entry ‘Superman Returns.’

I could dance around the subject, but instead I’ll just say it: Jim Caviezel should play Superman.

Best known for ‘The Passion of the Christ’ and ‘The Count of Monte Cristo,’ and recently starring in the independent sci-fi adventure film ‘Outlander’ and AMC’s mini-series ‘The Prisoner’ alongside Sir Ian Mckellen, Caviezel has appeared in just about every genre. His portrayal of Christ in ‘The Passion’ and Edmond Dantes in ‘Monte Cristo’ are of particular interest. As Dantes, Caviezel takes audiences on a whirlwind adventure of love and betrayal, and his strength of character carries the whole plot (along with an exceptionally despicable villain in co-star Guy Pearce). As for ‘The Passion,’ Caviezel’s casting was perhaps the most important factor in the success of the film, more so even than Gibson’s directing, and that strength of character will be a necessity if Nolan and Snyder want to be successful in reintroducing the "Last Son of Krypton" to a modern audience.



Now that’s a Superman. Sure, he might not have Jon Hamm’s chin, but neither did Brandon Routh (who wasn’t a great Superman by any means, but few could doubt Mr. Caviezel would have been a superior choice).

As for playing Clark Kent, Caviezel has such a traditional outlook on life that you’d think he’d been born in Smallville himself. Superman needs humility to complement his power, and Caviezel is as humble as they come. His ability to alternate between meek and powerful as an actor was made evident in 'Monte Cristo', which also showed us he can rock a cape in his role as the Count. In his personal life he’s an outspoken Catholic, and there’s more than a little Christology in the original Superman films for him to develop, which I’m sure he could accomplish beautifully.

And just imagine his future resume: “Have played both Superman and Jesus.” What more could an actor wish for?

UPDATE: It looks like Snyder and company will be pursuing an unknown actor for the role. So in that case... Caviezel for Jor-El!!