Anne Rice: Christian Relativist?

Following up on the last post, there’s been some news recently concerning the world-famous novelist Anne Rice, regarded by many as the godmother of the modern vampire genre. In her own words, via Facebook:

“I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

And later, a second message:

“My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.”

To begin, it is of the utmost importance to acknowledge the immorality of casting judgement upon Ms. Rice as a fellow believer. Being that Catholicism is properly understood as a lifelong experience of gradual conversion, God knows it's hard enough just to focus on our own spiritual health. But since Ms. Rice has apparently taken it upon herself to cast that very judgement upon the whole of Christianity, well... it demands some friendly criticism.

What’s fascinating about this revelation by Ms. Rice, held up not long ago as a model convert who broke free of atheism to return to her Christian roots, is that this could just as easily have escaped the mouth of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or any number of other supposed “Christians” who reject the words of Christ himself. Now, to be fair, does it say anywhere in the Bible that “Thou shalt not support progressive statists”? No. For that matter, neither does it say “Thou shalt be anti-science, anti-life, anti-Democrat… etc.”, although this would apparently come as a surprise to the former vampire novelist, whose allegations against her fellow Christians seem little more than gross generalizations and malicious stereotyping.

For all her preaching, there can be little doubt that Ms. Rice, despite her supposedly Christian convictions, has never taken the time to study the basic tenets of her faith. Hers is a devotion born of sheer emotion, and we all know where that leads (See 'There Will Be Blood').

Sadly, Anne Rice seems to have become just another example of the phenomenon that has come to be known as “Christian Relativism”, meaning “Jesus represents whatever you personally believe to be good, because there is no ultimate truth, only people’s individual truths.” To believe this is to reduce Christ to a mere human idea, and in this way it is nothing more than atheism with a religious spin. The truth is true not because we believe it so, but because it IS so. Good and evil are separated by a line drawn by our Creator, with Nature herself standing as the ultimate icon of His will.

To quote Winston Churchill, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” Such is the Catholic view on the Natural Law, against which mankind’s struggles are ultimately futile.

While it would no doubt be intriguing to probe this issue further, it should suffice to revisit Ms. Rice’s original message- with a few links added for educational purposes, of course.

“I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

Amen indeed, sister, whatever you say...

Oliver Stone's Joe Biden Moment

Taking questions about his upcoming Showtime series, “The Secret History of the United States” (aka “One more attempt to propagandize US and world history in order to further a leftist agenda”), Oliver Stone dropped this little bombshell : He wants to portray Hitler and Stalin (yeah, THAT Hitler and Stalin) “in context.” Coincidentally, historians have been trying to do just that for the last half-century. But more particularly, Mr. Stone criticizes “the Jewish domination of the media” for preventing such a fair portrayal.

*Aims-gun-at-foot-and-pulls-trigger* BANG!!

Essentially immortalized- at least among male college students- after writing the screenplay for Brian de Palma’s ‘Scarface’ in 1983, William Oliver Stone went on to direct the left-leaning war film, ‘Platoon’, in 1986, among many other allegedly “classic” movies, proving himself to be a versatile filmmaker by tackling numerous genres. Personally, I liked his politically-neutral screenplay for 1982’s ‘Conan The Barbarian’ *wink*. Since then, liberal cinema has been his life’s greatest commitment, though he did pause briefly to direct 2006’s ‘World Trade Center.’ Considering these and the rest of the twenty-three films he’s directed since entering the scene in the early 1970s, one might anticipate that his relationship with liberal Hollywood should thrive for as long as he’s willing to direct, right? Well, maybe not.

As Michael Moriarty points out in his excellent blog on Big Hollywood, if there’s one historical group that Hollywood absolutely will not tolerate, it’s Hitler and the Nazis, and on this most of America agrees with Hollywood, since it IS pretty difficult to belittle the extermination of 6 million innocent people. Of course, Stone did just that, arguing: "Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed]."

*Reloads-gun-aims-at-other-foot-pulls-trigger* BANG!! BANG!!

So why hasn’t Stone received the kind of criticism from the mainstream media that was directed almost immediately towards Mel Gibson after his drunken anti-Semitic rant? Well, there are at least three reasons, the first being that Mel Gibson directed ‘The Passion of the Christ’. ‘Nuff said.

Secondly, Oliver Stone is not a Republican. Hurling the word “Nazi” at Republicans is a favorite pastime for the average progressive, and had a well-known conservative filmmaker made a similar statement, he’d be on the first flight out of California. Of course, being that there AREN’T any well-known conservative filmmakers in Hollywood, such an event is unlikely to transpire.

But the third reason is that, in reality, not a lot of people really care what Oliver Stone has to say about… well, anything, anymore. His earlier films were clearly propaganda, but what WELL-DIRECTED propaganda! Even the most hard-core conservative has to admit to the artful directing of ‘Platoon’ and ‘JFK.’ But thanks to poor productions like 2008’s ‘W.’ and the recently-released ‘South of the Border’(a gushing love-fest for Venezuela’s communist dictator, Hugo Chavez), Mr. Stone has been accelerating rather rapidly towards a very Michael Moore-ish state of irrelevancy.

When and if the media chooses to challenge Mr. Stone’s borderline anti-Semitic statements, he’ll likely answer that he’s just trying to see both sides of the story.

But as a man once said, the middle of a two-way street can be a dangerous place to drive.

Stand up for Molly Norris, Freedom of Speech

When Molly Norris announced the first annual celebration of ‘Everybody Draw Muhammad Day’, she knew that her activism wouldn’t come risk-free. Following the self-censorship by Comedy Central of a now-famous South Park episode detailing the controversy surrounding the representation of the “prophet” in question, everyone from the entertaiment blogosphere to Fox's Bill O'Reilly took notice. Of course, the fact that a mainstream television station had censored itself following threats from radical Muslim factions was, regrettably, not all that surprising.

But the station whose creative teams have made a fortune lampooning religions and ideologies of all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds? The same Comedy Central whose next project is an irreverent cartoon concerning the life of Christ and his relationship with his "oppressive father"? The plot thickens…

In any case, Norris and other artists disgusted by this self-censorship took their outrage and channeled it creatively, hence the birth of ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day’, which Wikipedia describes as “an annual protest in support of free speech, specifically in opposition to those who threaten violence against artists who draw representations of the prophet Muhammad.” Those interested in participating should mark May 20 on their 2011 calendar, but keep in mind the phrase “No guts, no glory,” because if the followers of American-born radical Islamic terrorist (yes, it DOES happen) Anwar al-Awlaki has his way, it’ll be the last doodle you ever… doodled?

Thanks to al-Awlaki- who is said to have had a hand in the near-miss attack on Times Square, as well as the shooting at Ft. Hood, Texas (read more HERE: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/07/11/2010-07-11_cleric_anwar_alawlaki_puts_everybody_draw_mohammed_cartoonist_molly_norris_on_ex.html) - Molly Norris has good reason to fear for her life. At this point, Norris has publicly apologized for her project, stating in an interview that “I regret that I made my cartoon the way I did.” In an ideal United States, no artist- activist or otherwise- would ever have to make such an apology.

The point here is this: Artists ought not to be commended for mocking any religion, but nor should they be prohibited from doing so. Comedy Central has become synonymous over the years with irreverence, mostly to followers of the Christian faith. But last I checked, Christian factions aren't gathering in angry mobs demanding punishment for misguided entertainers. For whatever reason, practitioners of the Muslim faith today are much more likely than their Judeo-Christian brothers and sisters to take serious offense at whatever rhetoric they view as blasphemous .

Returning to the case of Molly Norris, al-Awlaki had this to say about her in a recent web document: "A soul that is so debased, as to enjoy the ridicule of the Messenger of Allah, the mercy to mankind; a soul that is so ungrateful towards its lord that it defames the Prophet of the religion Allah has chosen for his creation does not deserve life, does not deserve to breathe the air." In other words, those who offend God ought to be killed by the faithful.

As Fr. Robert Barron of Word On Fire Catholic Ministries put it in a recent video commentary on blasphemy, God cannot be harmed by a verbal attack by a mere mortal. While we who worship and love God understand that blaspheming is harmful to the blasphemer, it helps NO ONE if the supposed “faithful” in the community respond with acts of violence, or even the threat of such action. If God is Love, and therefore we who live are created, sustained, and intended for that Love, then to respond to blasphemers with anything but compassionate and firm disagreement is utterly counterproductive.

Nothing is gained by cowering in the presence of bigots, especially when said bigot is out to eliminate our freedom of speech.

PS For more information on the Catholic view of blasphemy, look no further than Fr. Robert Barron.

Wonder Woman Goes Urban: DC's Biggest Mistake Ever?

“Diana is far too undervalued by this world. This must change.”

So states an unnamed character within the pages of “Wonder Woman” No. 600, reflecting the new direction that DC’s artists are hoping to take the third member (along with fellow Justice Leaguers Superman and Batman) of DC Comics’ so-called “Holy Trinity”, named so for the three characters’ enduring popularity amongst comic fans and the general public. The problem is that, despite her regular association with characters like the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel, Wonder Woman- aka Princess Diana of Themyscira- just doesn’t earn nearly as much at the comic book stand as her muscle-bound brethren.

Considering the character’s lack of development outside the realms of comics and animation, the fact that Wonder Woman has proven less profitable than her Trinity counterparts shouldn’t come as a big surprise. Unlike Batman and Superman, who have both added multiple film franchises to their names over the decades (with sequels and reboots aplenty forthcoming), Wonder Woman has never been afforded the opportunity to try her luck on the silver screen. Besides the famous role of Lynda Carter in the live-action TV show of the 1970s, the Amazon Princess has thus far been unable to procure the runway, a la cinema, on which she might strut her stuff- and kick some serious supervillain tail, of course. With Batman as popular as he’s ever been, and a revival of Superman just around the corner (thank you very much, Christopher Nolan), who wouldn’t want to see that golden lasso in live action and, who knows, maybe some gimmicky “eye-popping 3D”?

The trouble is, DC Comics has made a creative decision that may well spell doom- at least in the short term- for the unheralded Amazon beauty. Stripping her of her iconic armored one-piece and red heels, artists have redressed her thusly:

At first glance, the costume looks great. The character looks beautiful, stylish, and tough, especially with those nifty whatchamacallits armoring her knuckles. Most of her skin is covered, so it’s clearly an advantage if she’s trying to maintain a low(er) profile, and in general, it seems a heck of a lot more practical.

But there’s just one problem: This is NOT Wonder Woman’s outfit.

"What woman only wears one outfit for 70 years?" Asks DC artist J. Michael Straczynski. "What woman doesn't accessorize? And more to the point, as many women have lamented over the years . . . how does she fight in that thing?"

If comic fans were that concerned with the tactical maneuverability of superhero costumes, they’d just watch The Incredibles (which, by the way, is one of the best movies of the last decade). Hasn’t this “artist” ever heard the phrase “Don’t tug on Superman’s cape”? If women have such issues with Wonder Woman’s costume, why has it gone unchanged for the past 70 years (which is about the same amount of time that both Superman and Batman have gone almost totally unchanged)?

For an answer, let’s briefly examine the definition of the word “iconic”: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of an icon; Art executed according to a convention or tradition. The new costume is not at all characteristic of Wonder Woman, nor has it been designed in accordance with her traditional image, and therefore the artist has reduced an iconic character to a pop-culture fashion statement. Once again, while we all surely respect the sensibilities of Edna Mode, this development is nothing less than tragic. Does DC not understand that sacrificing Wonder Woman on the altar of ever-changing fashion trends could irrevocably hasten the demise of what ought to be the universally recognizable symbol of fiction’s greatest female warrior?

But there’s one more factor at play here that no one is talking about: The classic Wonder Woman costume is, if nothing else, one of the most patriotic superhero outfits ever designed. While progressives have often tried to use her as a symbol of radical feminism and advance the culture of death yet further, it’s hard to deny the overwhelming appeal of a supermodel armored by the stars and stripes beating the tar out of Stalin-esque villains to readers of a conservative, death-to-all-evil disposition (For more on how feminism tends to ruin Wonder Woman, check out this superb analysis by BigHollywood’s James Hudnall: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2010/07/02/wonder-woman-reboot-strident-feminism-is-the-problem-not-the-costume/). The new costume exhibits no such patriotism. As others have observed, the new Wonder Woman fails to stand out much at all, let alone in a manner indicative of her American origins as a character.

This new “global” mindset is one force that has done more damage to the superhero genre than any other. Superheroes are a uniquely American invention, and for good reason: Here we believe(d) in individual exceptionalism. Here we believe(d) in fighting against tyranny for the sake of individual liberty. Here we raise(d) our flags with pride when confronted by the forces of evil.

Raise the flag. Keep on believing.

The Unlikely Benefits of the 'Twilight' Plague

In the not-so-distant past, young males like myself led charmed existences wherein we were entitled exclusively to the mantle of immaturity. As our allegedly more “mature” female counterparts incessantly berated us, we nevertheless continued to indulge in the numerous tokens of our extended childhood. Comic books, video games, the occasional kung fu movie marathon- all have been repeatedly held up as proof of the intellectual inferiority of the male species, evidence of our inability to “think deeply” or be “intellectual.” Dudettes are all too eager to remind us dudes that they “reach adulthood” faster than us, and the line is repeated endlessly, starting in grade school. Those of us blessed with sisters have had our doubts as to the veracity of this claim, but not until the unmitigated success of Stephanie Meyer’s ‘Twilight’ series have we had enough proof to make our case. Having never read her books- and not possessing the faintest desire to do so- I can only speak of my mercifully limited experience with Summit Entertainment’s film franchise.

To state my reaction with specificity: ‘Twilight’ is twaddle. Malarkey. Tomfoolery. An inept attempt to revitalize the familiar teen romance blueprint by adding superficial genre elements to the same old, boring formula.

And, dare I say, the story just seemed so… shallow. Barren, even. After forcing myself at great pain to view a considerable portion of the series’ second installment on my university’s free movie channel, all I could ask myself was “Is that it?” Not only did I feel that I had just sat through a Lifetime Channel movie with an inflated budget, but I was also particularly struck by the total lack of... well… themes? Character development? ANYTHING? As someone who has spent more time watching horror/action-themed movies than I care to admit, it doesn’t bode well for a genre movie when the strongest entertainment factor is a supporting role played by Michael Sheen- the entertainment factor of which is quickly depleted as the viewer realizes “Yeah… I WOULD rather be watching ‘Underworld’ right now!” Sure, ‘Underworld’ had a cheap love story too, but the romantic elements were really just an excuse for getting vampires and werewolves tear each other apart. In ‘Twilight’, by contrast, the supernatural element is a blatant excuse for subjecting viewers to another corny teen melodrama.

But as I thought about it (not too much, mind you), there are at least a FEW elements to ‘Twilight’s’ success that we ought to find agreeable, if not commendable. Stephanie Meyer apparently knows something about what girls like to see in a guy- in a word, chivalry. Feminists just HATE that word. And when feminists hate something, I feel obliged to give it a chance. The character of Edward- played by some-guy-whose-name-I-can’t-remember-but-is now-universally-hated-by-heterosexual-males- possesses a mishmash of social attitudes that, quite frankly, young men are not taught by their society anymore.

In short, Edward 1.) wants what is best for the girl he loves, and thus resists converting her to the undead; 2.) Refuses to have intercourse before they have been bound in marriage; And 3.) he tirelessly works to PROTECT her from a hostile world. For a story with such a thoroughly bizarre plot, ‘Twilight’ is replete with underlying traditional messages like these, and if it weren’t for the intellectual arrogance of feminists in academia, they’d probably be more concerned with the number of women who seem naturally inclined towards such an archetype.

Another positive consequence of this mediocre franchise is the continued success of the production company Summit Entertainment, whose present standing in Hollywood has been built almost exclusively on the ‘Twilight’ series, and who are now looking towards aggressive expansion. What’s next for them, you ask? Why, an adaptation of ‘The Homelanders’ series by author and former movie scribe Andrew Klavan.

Lately quite active as a conservative blogger and youtuber, his unabashed love for America and Christianity got him kicked out of the Hollywood cool kids’ club years ago, and with Summit Entertainment facilitating a new film franchise based on his young adult thrillers, his ticket back to screenwriting may be forthcoming. Who knows, Summit Entertainment might well intend to use the flood of ‘Twilight’ revenue to fund a rebirth of value-centric films in Hollywood- hopefully, some that will raise the bar for the studio. Personally, I’m far too jaded to expect that much from ANYONE in Hollywood.

But I've got my fingers crossed.

*UPDATE* Check out this great blog by BigHollywood's John Nolte: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/07/10/the-twilight-phenomenon-the-kids-are-all-right/

"Trust me, no one’s benefited more from left-wing feminism than those shallow, sexist men who use, abuse, objectify and discard women like empty beer cans." - John Nolte, Big Hollywood

HBO's 'For Neda' compassionate, but avoids some harsh realities

We have to at least give HBO some credit for covering a story that desperately needs to be told. Here is the story that the new documentary presents us: One year ago, the airwaves were abuzz with by-the-minute updates concerning the mounting political unrest in the Islamic “Republic” of Iran, then the arena in which hundreds of thousands of protesters had taken to the streets of Tehran and other major cities across the country. Having been made infamous in the West for its vertically-challenged anti-Semitic political leader President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s constant verbal barrage against Israel and her allies (in other words, America alone), Iran and her governing body of dictatorial Sharia has long stood against the forces of democracy, and routinely gives the cold shoulder to international non-governmental organizations seeking redress for the state’s countless human rights violations.

All this considered, the Western world in general reacted with bewilderment at the sight of hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens standing up in protest, not against Israel, America, or other democracies, but against the regime of Ayatollah Khameini (the true, unelected ruler of Iran). At the source of this explosion of discontent was the blatantly rigged reelection of Ahmadinejad, in spite of the majority of support having been shown for presidential candidate and ex-Prime Minister Mousavi, whose supporters became outraged when the government announced Ahmadinejad’s reelection before the ballots had even been counted.

As the government became increasingly intolerant of the protests, military police were dispatched to quell the resistance, using deadly force if necessary. As the chaos spread, one of the victims, 27-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan was shot, bleeding to death on the street as her friends tried in vain to save her. Caught on camera, her death became a rallying point for the anti-Khameini movement, her story finally becoming so central to the resistance that the government initiated a wave of propaganda accusing her of being a CIA operative, an actress, and countless other allegations which have fallen flat except among the most fervent of Khameini-supporters. Her family was prohibited from mourning, and the government saw to it that they would be unable to bury her according to their religious tradition. Soon her face became a symbol of what many saw as a coming revolution- and still do, as the documentary’s conclusion makes clear.

The filmmakers devote considerable time to fleshing out Neda as an individual, an ordinary young woman, rather than as the symbol she has become for the so-called Green Movement for democratic Iranians. Her family is interviewed extensively, and each of her family members is granted time in turn to reflect upon their lost daughter and sister. What emerges is the image of a free-thinking, assertive young lady whose conscience led her to the rejection, not only of the corruption in the government, but in her educators' views of almighty God. Having possessed a deep faith in the divine, she had at first taken interest in courses covering Islamic religious law at her university, but quickly dropped out of the program. Some interviewees remember her explaining that the God she had come to know was "compassionate" and "merciful", not wrathful and prone to fits of rage against humanity like she was being taught in class. The film devotes precious little time to the examination of Neda’s personal religious identity, and viewers are left wondering from what source her convictions originated. From there, a portrait is painted of a girl who loved to dance, to be with her family, to speak her mind, and dreamed of travelling the world.

As the film concludes, the experts gathered by the filmmakers make final remarks about what they see as the coming revolution in Iran. As one woman asserts, “It’s over. It will take time but it’s over.” … Ok. In other words, she has no idea what is going to happen. Her statement alone is demonstrative of the odd naiveté on display from the “experts” in general, who all seem to come to the unlikely conclusion that the negative attention generated by Neda’s murder in the world media will somehow lead to the gradual demise of the Islamic “Republic.” Painful as it is to admit, the would-be revolutionaries of last summer’s protests are now deep in hiding, fearful of the latest brutal crackdown on political dissention (read about it here: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/inside-iran-underground-opposition-year-deadly-protest/story?id=10953946).

Furthermore, knowing full well the political slant HBO has given their films in the past, it would not be much of a stretch to suppose that this gushing optimism over the prospects for democratic victory in Iran is nothing but an attempt to distract viewers from a fact that, one year ago, was painfully obvious: When the military police were unleashed on the protesters, the United States government under President Obama did nothing. Sure, you might argue, he made a political statement- when pressured. But a general statement of dissatisfaction from Barack Obama’s mouth means nothing to the Iranian leaders who know full well that his is not an ideology that would permit action that would actually threaten them, leaving them free to oppress their people at their leisure. True, a clear plan of action at the time was nonexistent. But it is nonetheless true that someone in the West- land of democracies, birthplace of liberty- ought to have taken a stand.

But more painful, and even more obvious in hindsight, is that our president probably WOULD have been pressured into taking a stand- until the death of Michael Jackson. As a pro-democracy movement was beaten back by a dictatorial regime in a manner reflective of the repression in Eastern Europe decades ago, America was too busy mourning a dead pop star to care. Had HBO seen fit to observe these obvious facts, ‘For Neda’ would have had firmer ground to stand on.

Neda's story and those like it will remain of the utmost importance to free men and women everywhere. Hers was not an unusual fate in the eyes of history, but the norm. Tyranny thrives today as in ages past, and as has been the case for millennia, those who yearn for liberty face an uphill battle.

Appeal to Heaven.

Obama: CEOs Suck, So Boycott Oil

REPORTER: Have you spoken directly to Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I have not spoken to him directly and here's the reason. Because my experience is when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's going to say all the right things to me. I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions.

WILLY WONKA: After all, we have so much time and so little to do! Wait. Strike that- reverse it.

There it is, in black and white: The reason that President Obama has taken so long to sit down with BP CEO Tony Hayward- who, as head of not only the responsible party, but also the party whose resources are clearly the best equipped to handle the oil spill, ought to have been number one on Obama’s schedule- is due to the simple fact that the president just doesn’t like CEOs. There are a number of questions to address in response to what is a clear display of Obama’s bizarre political convictions: Just who is “like” a CEO, anyway? A businessman? A rich man? A private citizen whose company provides employment to several thousand people? (No thanks to the stimulus, thank you very much.)

The liberal prejudice towards the oil industry is no great secret, and thus this arrogant behavior, tactless as it was for a president speaking to the press, comes as anything but a surprise. True, he didn’t pull a James Cameron and accuse BP of being nothing but a pack of hopeless morons, but his disdain for the oil provider was evident enough- a disdain which, shared by most of the American people at this juncture, is hardly objectionable in and of itself. What proves more objectionable is the source from which the present Commander-In-Chief derives his particular brand of loathing. Turning back the clock a year or so, Obama didn’t object to the corporation's estimated $77,000 in campaign contributions over the course of his short political career- estimates which make Obama the biggest recipient of BP’s voluntary contributions in the last two decades. Predestined divine justice for the company? If the thought brings you satisfaction, I suppose so.

Unfortunately, much of the public at large has responded in like manner, with many drivers openly boycotting BP gas stations as a political statement of supposed solidarity with the affected residents of the Gulf Coast. BP gas station owners have been hit hard as they feel the weight of this allegedly compassionate protest. At my own place of employment, I have overheard coworkers angrily discussing this very topic, expressing nothing less than a potent hatred for the oil giant (No mention of the idiotic environmental policies which have forced oil workers to drill ever more dangerously far offshore in the first place, but that’s a separate issue). The conventional wisdom seems to be that hurting BP- including those they employ at gas stations across the country- will somehow result in a positive effect on the gulf.

In words of the immortal Gene Wilder, “WRONG, SIR!!”

I’m no expert in the economy, the oil industry, or in the causes and remedies of the country's ongoing unemployment problem, but you don’t need any credentials in those areas to expect, within a reasonable margin of error, that 1.) boycotting a large gasoline provider 2.) with employees in the upper tens of thousands 3.) in the middle of what some have called the worst recession since the Great Depression will cost possibly THOUSANDS of people to lose their once-secure jobs at BP and find themselves desperate for new employment, which they are less likely to find if economic woes persist. So much for compassionate boycotts, huh?

“So shines a good deed in a weary world", I guess...

Red Dawn in Red China

Besides the reelection of Ronald Reagan, 1984 goes down in history as the year that saw the release of the first ever PG-13 movie, the cult classic ‘Red Dawn’. Via Wikipedia, nineties-born folks like myself can read how, upon its release, the film was considered the most violent to date, and has since been recognized by columnists at National Review for its depictions of American youths courageously resisting a communist invasion. Despite what sounds like a heavy plot, many would argue that the film’s greatest appeal- or most evident weakness, depending on your perspective- is its blatantly cheesy portrayal of such a potentially dark adventure.

The advent of WWIII!? Russians and their Central American allies breaching the American borders to wreak havoc in an unsuspecting American town!? Teenagers forced to abandon their childhood bliss of football games and lovers’ lanes in favor of organizing an insurgency in defense of their liberty!? Sounds like a recipe for a depressing thriller a la Hart’s War if considered soberly. But in a time when the fears of Soviet aggression were all too real in the Cold War-stricken America outside the theater, perhaps the filmmakers felt obliged to provide moviegoers with a dose of much-needed escapism.

While we can never know what impact the movie could have had as a potential gritty, action drama, the choice to take a lighter tone would seem to have paid off in the long run, as the gods of Hollywood have chosen to smile upon a remake by long-time stunt coordinator and directorial newbie Dan Bradley. Due for release on November 24, the new film will focus not on the old Cold War plotline, but on a military-economic assault coordinated by a coalition of Chinese and Russian forces. One has to wonder how such a script could survive the vitriolic anti-Americanism of modern Hollywood. Interestingly enough, the first sharp criticism seems to be emanating from Red China herself.

Chinese state-run newspapers are reportedly complaining of the suspicion that such a film would cast on the so-called “People’s Republic”. The perception is that the American citizenry is prone to paranoia in regards to the Chinese agenda, and that ‘Red Dawn’ will aggravate those feelings. This is the second time in recent memory that China’s reaction to an American film has received attention in the press, the other being Roland Emmerich’s ‘2012,’ in which Chinese troops are portrayed as protagonists, if only briefly.

As it has grown into an ever-more influential presence on the world stage, the Chinese state has seen a proportional rise in political sensitivity in regards to the country’s portrayal in media around the world, of which ‘Red Dawn’ is only the most recent example. The Chinese oligarchy has, of course, become accustomed over the last several decades to stamping out political dissidents among their own citizenry however small the offense, so it does not exactly come as a surprise that they would seek to shame the “insensitive” American agitators for their “reckless” depiction of Chinese movie villains. But if the Chinese want to avoid American paranoia, pointing fingers at the free media is the last thing they should do.

Americans have grown accustomed to anti-American rhetoric not only from abroad, but from our citizens, our elected officials, our president’s czars, and, to the disappointment of many a voter, from the Commander-In-Chief himself. Conservative Americans have gotten used to fighting critics not by attempting to shut them down, but by forming logical counter-arguments and peaceful, if heated, discussions. We should not expect such an inherently democratic logic to spring forth from the mind of a Chinese communist just because they wish to claim the mantle of modernity.

If China really wants to quell our anxiety in regards to their agenda on the world stage, that very arena will afford them an opportunity in the coming week as Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pays them a diplomatic visit to discuss the threat of UN sanctions. As reported at Breitbart.com (read the article here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.91bd23e2c5fc004cdd77440e9dc6ec94.7f1&show_article=1) , China’s status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council gives it the power to veto resolutions against the Islamic “Republic”.

Such a decision by the Chinese state would do more to damage relations between our two nations than a hundred Red Dawns.

Peace Activists, Terrorists, and DINOSAURS!!

In the wake of the confrontation between Israeli soldiers and a boatload (pardon the pun) of violent anti-Israeli Islamist “peace activists”, the UN and our dear leader have come together to condemn the Jewish State for an "inappropriate response".

In other news, Lindsay Lohan likes to party!

Let’s look at the facts: As the flotilla neared the blockade of Gaza- from which about 10,000 missiles have been lobbed towards Israeli cities in the last eight years- the Israeli navy made radio contact urging the activists to halt their advance. What response did they get? “Go back to Auschwitz.” “Remember 9/11.”

Classic flower child!

From there, Israeli troops boarded the vessel with the firm intention of searching its cargo. And, in keeping with the handy dandy Islamist peace activist handbook, the passengers responded by charging the soldiers and bludgeoning them with anything and everything that wasn’t nailed down, from metal pipes to chairs, as this video shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

Was this a deliberate attempt to provoke the Israelis and draw an international media frenzy? Let’s see if name-dropping can point us in the right direction: Bill “Weather Underground” Ayers. Bernadine “Down-With-Capitalism” Dohrn. International activist organizers Code Pink (aka the “Marines Are Murderers” Club).

And let’s not forget the video showing these peaceful activists singing their favorite campfire tune, “Kahybar, Khaybar, Oh Jews, The army of Muhammad will return!”, referencing the battle which extinguished the remaining Jewish presence in Arabia. To modern Jihadists, “Khaybar” invokes the killing of Jews and seizing their property for Muslims- yes, an Islamic battle cry from the mouths of a would-be humanitarian vessel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk

Hmmm… Martyrdom, or reaching Gaza… Nah, I'm sure they had peaceful intentions.

Sadly, this whole fiasco recalls the incident in which Mr. Obama called out the Cambridge Police Department for what turned out to be a completely imagined offense against an academic who, in all likelihood, provoked the (justified) arrest. If only this case were just as harmless.

And now we even have Helen Thomas of the WH Press Corps coming out of the closet as the worst kind of anti-Israeli ideologue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14&feature=player_embedded .

Back to Germany! Back to Poland! Of course, why didn’t we think of that? Thanks so much for your insight Helen, we’d be lost without you.

Thus has a mere soundbite confirmed what paleontologists could only theorize before:

Anti-Semitism killed the dinosaurs!!

Steve Jobs: A Good Businessman?

Firstly, enough has been said already of the rise of Apple thanks to co-founder Steve Jobs. This blog entry is not a commentary on Apple’s business model, a summation of their financial successes, or a meditation on how Apple’s newfound dominance over competitor Microsoft will affect consumers and competitors in the world tech market. (Seriously, what does any of that MEAN, anyway?)

But despite the attention Jobs and his company have received for their ever-increasing market value ( which, as of Wednesday, stands at around $222 billion), little attention has been paid to a subtle decision by Jobs and, supposedly, his business partners as well: Under no circumstances will pornography be made available as applications on the iPhone or the iPad.



When asked about his decision by tech commentator “gdgt”, Jobs answered thusly: “You know, there's a porn store for Android....You can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That's a place we don't want to go - so we're not going to go there.”
On a separate occasion, TechCrunch posted an email by a disappointed customer who criticized the decision, accusing Apple of taking on the role of “moral police”. Jobs did not back down, however, and responded “We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone."

I should point out that I am not at all savvy when it comes to the devices produced at Apple, especially the iPhone and the iPad. That being the case, I have no idea whether or not this policy of “no porn applications” will actually make a difference to many users. For example, if the internet is available on these devices, what is to stop users from accessing their desired entertainment regardless of Apple’s policies? But even if that is true, it is unrelated to the real significance of the decision. While a number of businesses clearly profit by providing access to adult pay-per-view entertainment- hotel chains chief among them- Apple executives have chosen to stand out, regardless of what petty criticism they happen to receive.




It is a typically progressive viewpoint that morality, as a rule, ought to be legislated. To proponents of such a statist ideology, private citizens are not responsible enough to be trusted to make the right decision. This decidedly negative view of their constituents is in my opinion a prime reason that liberals have no moral qualms about driving businesses into oblivion with an ever-increasing rate of taxation. After all, if all businessmen are evil, profit-seeking slimeballs, who cares if you siphon off a chunk of their gains? Such is the ideology of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime.

Steve Jobs and his associates deserve our congratulations for making the right choice in what many would have perceived to be a trivial matter. That such respect would be shown to traditional tech users in an age dominated by the rejection of personal restraint is worthy of applause, and these men of business are to be commended.

Now if only we could say the same of the financial watchdogs at the SEC (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/02/sec-workers-investigated-porn-surfing/)... Oh government, what would we ever do without you…

Get Your Progressive Hands OFF My X-Men!

Dear Bryan Singer:

Thank you for possibly ruining the X-Men forever.

Since the not-so-recent adaptation of the X-Men comics by director Bryan Singer, better known, perhaps, for giving us ‘Superman Returns’- aka ‘Superman: The Chick Flick’- everyone’s favorite mutants have been caught in something of a cinematic purgatory from which there seems to be no escape. Hugh Jackman’s wonderful performance as Wolverine notwithstanding, the X-Men films thus far, while costly and at least somewhat well-directed, have become something of a pariah amongst comic fans. There are plenty of culprits at which we can point fingers and blame for this progression of disappointments, but there is one aspect I’d like to address that has particular relevance to us and to our nation in general.

Of late, it has become increasingly popular to view the X-Men through a narrow-minded lens of “social justice.” From this perspective, the adventures of Xavier’s mutants are symbols of progress in the fight against racism, homophobia, xenophobia… you name it. The fictitious politicians advocating programs like “mutant registration” express their logic in terms of national security interests- a realistic enough argument- but also campaign on platforms of exposing mutants simply because “they are different” or, as in the case of the comics’ Reverend William Stryker, because they represent the work of Satan on Earth. Angry mobs that gather to express their discontent with mutants frequently shout semi-racist slogans like “No more muties!” or “Send mutants to the moon!”

And in ‘X2: X-Men United’, in one of the most logically backwards scenes out of ANY recent superhero films, Bobby Drake/ Ice Man “comes out” as a mutant in a sequence of boring melodrama more befitting of the Lifetime Channel than a serious superhero flick, during which his parents ask him “Have you ever tried not being a mutant?”, a clear jab by the filmmakers at advocates of gay therapy programs, and a poorly-conceived one at that.

It was only one step up from the scene in Richard Donner’s otherwise entertaining film ‘Assassins’ in which two armed men in a gunfight pass by a bus with an anti-NRA banner.

A more entertaining and, arguably, more intellectually sound reading of the X-Men is this:

1. The X-Men stand for equal rights (as opposed to equal THINGS) under the law

2. Socialism’s leveling of the playing field is MORALLY WRONG

3. A person should expect to have the integrity of their body and their privacy both respected.

That’s it in a nutshell, anyway. The X-Men, if you follow their story’s implications to their logical conclusions, represent a reasonably conservative, pro-American message of individual liberty.

The mutants have a right to their powers not as their race or sexual preference, but as their God-given TALENTS. Neither the government nor the majority of voters in a constitutional republic like the United States possess the capacity to strip a human being of that talent without also trespassing on the sacred boundary of a person’s mind and body.

The government has no right to arbitrarily seize mutants and use them for a particular end against their will, as is the case with the notorious Weapon X program. Additionally, neither do other mutants have the right to force one another into indentured servitude, as is often the methodology of the Mutant terrorist Magneto (who may also be taken as a mutant version of Osama Bin Laden, but that’s a conversation for another day).

The fictitious crowds who gather to protest mutants do not fit the character of racists or homophobes, because they’re not protesting people whose skin color offends them or whose sexuality they find revolting. Race, for example, is a superficial difference- it is literally only skin-deep and does not affect a man's character unless he allows it to.

TALENT, on the other hand, is very tangible. The anti-mutant activists attack mutants so relentlessly because they see their power as an unfair advantage in a competitive society. Since they do not share the mutants’ capacity for super powers, they would like to see the government level the playing field for them. Yes, the anti-mutant crowds actually bear similarity to the socialist disciples of Saul Alinsky, forever incapable of accepting that talented and hardworking men and women possess the right to benefit from the fruits of their individual gifts.

All of these are intriguing arguments by my measure, but the truth becomes most clear when reflecting on just what X-Men fans actually talk about when watching the movies or reading the comics. The single most common discussion- and it never gets old- revolves around a single question: “Whose power would you want?” The conversation that follows is usually something along these lines:

“I’d want Magneto’s power. There’s just so many things you can do with the power to control metal.” “I’d rather have Wolverine’s than Sabretooth’s, but I’d take either one. I want to heal fast and have animal senses.” “What about Beast? He’s pretty tough, and he has great acrobatic abilities.” “No, definitely Shadowcat. Can you imagine walking through walls!”

Now ask yourself this: Would an X-fan EVER watch X-Men and then proceed to ask his friends “Dudes, would you rather be black and oppressed or gay and oppressed?”

… My point exactly.

Please, Hollywood, STOP politicizing our favorite characters and let’s just get back to the good stuff.

Obama Hates My iPod?!

"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter."

Like those of Saul Alinsky, for example?

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”

The point being that we ought to be using our xboxes to blow up real terrorists?

"All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."

Says the man with 8 million friends on facebook. Give me a BREAK!

Such are but a few quotes by our esteemed president to university graduates yesterday at Hampton University in Virginia, and while we cannot judge with certainty the degree to which this amateur lecture on the morality of Turok, Halo, and the Pussycat Dolls is reflective of Obama’s own perspective, the words themselves are troubling enough.

Let’s forget for a moment that Xboxes and PlayStations have NO place in a discussion concerning the 24/7 news cycle. Let’s forget that in 5 out of 10 photos, Obama is clutching his Crackberry like Gollum with the Ring of Power. Let’s forget that in China, “truth meter” is probably the technical term for the number of times you’re permitted to mention the Dalai Lama on national television before you find yourself sharing a cell at an undisclosed location with a Chinese practicing Christian who failed to adequately conceal his religious convictions. And, of course, let’s just forget that a democracy is by its very definition a safe haven for ALL political brands- except for those that express a desire to destroy that democracy, obviously.

And how does one attack democracy in the media? What are some of the typical arguments we can expect from a closed-minded ideologue intent on censoring and regulating any opposing political machines in the media? By condescending to the people of the United States, like in this speech. After all, every American teenager sitting at home playing patriotic games like Call of Duty really OUGHT to be spending their time reviewing the latest Rachel Maddow blog, right?

There have in the past been various leaders of countless nations who- whether possessing a nefarious agenda or some misguided sense of public service- have taken to the notion that societal ills can be cured if only the right people can be made to shut up. In the case of Mr. Obama, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment and assume he was trying to imply something about the blogs by certain Islamic extremists that led to the censorship of South Park and may or may not have been a factor in the motivation of the recent attempt to destroy innocent lives at Times Square. In addition, we ought to agree wholeheartedly with the president when he recalls the Jeffersonian notion of a republic’s need for an educated citizenry. But let us not stand idly by when the administration begins to slide into the ideology of censorship.

When it comes to the mass media, government knows what is best- for the government. We must be vocal in our opposition to any attempt by those in power to attack those forces in the media who do not share the regime’s collectivist agenda. An attack on the rights of a man or woman to express themselves politically- excepting calls to violence, naturally- is an open assault on the liberty of all Americans at every level of society, and it must not be tolerated.

But on some level we can understand why Obama is so frustrated. After all, it must be frustrating to observe the successes of Andrew Breitbart’s blogs, the commercial success of patriotic games like Call of Duty, and the proliferation of conservative fiction like The Dark Knight and Iron Man 2. Avatar or no Avatar, the ideals of conservatism are being further embedded in pop culture day after day.

And it’s making the statists VERY nervous.

European Tea Parties? You Should Be So Lucky...

Summer, 2010: Shouting “Liars!” among various other accusations at the riot police filling the streets, the protesters grow more and more furious. They refuse to be subdued; their voices will be heard, and they shall be loud. Suddenly, what was just barely a peaceful demonstration is no more. Below the resounding bellows of the mob, the almost indiscernible "whoosh" of a firebomb is heard as it is thrown into the building outside which the crowd has been demonstrating. Before the protest is over, three workers inside are dead, suffocated by toxic gases. And yet even as the police work to drive the protesters back, trying to communicate the gravity of the event that has just transpired, the crowd refuses to acknowledge the carnage they have collectively induced.

So what protest am I describing? Is it the Tea Party, made infamous in liberal circles who allege them to be nothing but a mad mob of injurious right-wingers, all but consumed by their virulent racism? Is this an account of their tempestuous outrage at the reality of an Obama presidency? To the contrary, filos! This was the scene Wednesday on the streets of Athens, Greece as throngs of left-wing protesters gathered outside a bank near the Temple of Zeus to voice their disapproval of parliament’s spending cuts, demanding that they receive what they see as their fair due of government hand-outs.

In other words, this assemblage represented precisely the opposite worldview of the American Tea Party movement, which proposes spending and tax cuts to limit the scope of the federal government. Accused of racial bigotry since the movement’s conception, their influence has only grown with the passage of time. As of April, at least 32 black politicians are seeking candidacy within the GOP and seeking support from the Tea Party itself as a major source of political capital. Today, the European continent herself has felt the influence of this American campaign, with a number of Euro politicians expressing anxiety that it has the potential to manifest some new wave of politically-motivated violence.

Because if the Greek protests have proven anything, it’s that only patriotic Americans are capable of political violence, right?

Right?

Yeah, right…

So when people like congressman Andre Carson (hear him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz_Qm3FuX_I&feature=player_embedded) make statements accusing passive American demonstrators of hate-mongering and pursuing an agenda of white supremacy when their only objective is the preservation of liberty for their children, stand your ground and be polite. After all, no good ever came from raising your voice in the presence of a delusory nincompoop (pardon the strong language, I’m very passionate about this).

We offer a prayer on behalf of those affected by the crisis in Greece, and we also pray that we might avoid such a crisis ourselves.

God Bless America.

Calderon's Hypocrisy and Hollywood's Complicity

By now, anyone with a political bone in their body is aware of the new law passed by the Arizona state legislature now being attacked from high and low as a blatant assault on the rights of immigrants by most of the left and even among elements of the right. Besides the expected verbal and written assaults by the liberal demagogues and their friends in the ever-politically savvy world of celebrities like singing sensation Shakira and SNL’s Seth Meyers, there a few unique elements to this backlash that are especially interesting to dissect.

Firstly, the reaction by the Mexican government, in particular Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Mr. Calderon wasted no time in accusing the Arizona lawmakers who formulated the bill of opening the door to hatred and intolerance. That his outrage is meretricious may be lost on some, but surely not on those poor souls who have had the misfortune to be caught sneaking illegally into Mexico, where the penalty for illegal immigration is two years in prison- and we all know how much value the Mexican prison system places on human rights. The next step is mandatory deportation, supposedly a policy of “hatred and intolerance,” as Mr. Calderon put it. As it happens, those currently attacking the bill’s supporters in Arizona may be surprised to learn that although 70% of Arizonans support their new immigration law, 53% of those polled also expressed concern that the law would lead to civil rights abuses. As National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg put it, some may see this as a contradiction, but it is actually quite telling. From this poll we can see that the people of Arizona are sympathetic to the plight of Mexican immigrants. What freedom-minded American wouldn’t, knowing they flee from a country that treats its own immigrants so harshly?

But due to the federal government’s failure to enforce the immigration laws already on the books, as evidenced by some estimates that illegal immigrants kill up to 2,000 Americans each year, mostly in gang and drug-related violence, Arizona’s voters have been forced to side with necessity. It is no coincidence that Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of the United States in recent years, further proof that our national security organizations have become so focused on the very real threat of Islamic extremism that they can’t even see what is happening in their own backyard.

So with the knowledge that drug cartels are taking advantage of an insecure border and your children are paying the price, what are you, the Arizona voter to do? What is the answer? The solution may not be the current law, but it’s a start, and at least it has sparked a lively discussion if nothing else.

But not every voice in this discussion is interested in the truth. Far from it.

Despite these and other dangers to Arizona’s people presented by the present lack of border security, the forces of “tolerance” in Hollywood have already taken it upon themselves to lend a hand in their demonization. On May 5, in a special “Cinco de Mayo message,” Hispanic actor and veteran action star Danny Trejo announced a new movie trailer as a special message “for ARIZONA.” What follows is a trailer for ‘Machete,’ a low-grade grindhouse flick ostensibly intended to celebrate an anti-government revenge fantasy centered around the issue of illegal immigration.

And they told us the Tea Party movement would fan the flames of unrest?

The movie sports an interesting cast- and by interesting, I refer to the inclusion of Jessica Alba and the undercast and underappreciated Michelle Rodriguez- which makes the nature of its political message all the more disappointing.
We all love a cheesy cinematic bloodbath, especially one promising at least one martial arts fight scene with the much-missed Steven Seagal, but I’ll be giving this one a pass. There is no force on earth that can compel me to lend my eight bucks to a movie that could very well bring a new wave of reckless politically-motivated violence down upon the good people of Arizona. And as is the case with the current crisis in Greece- where demonization of bankers has led to the mob killing of three bank workers yesterday- that possibility is all too real.

So the question arises: Do I have the constitutional right to sneak into such a movie illegally? Guess we’ll find out on opening night…

Watch the trailer for ‘Machete’ and make up your own mind (WARNING: Trailer is R-Rated): http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=65756

Angels of the Knight

Around the time that Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Dark Knight’ was still making headlines as the latest Hollywood blockbuster, much was said in regards to the film’s landmark performance by the late Heath Ledger as the nefarious agent of chaos, the Joker. But while most of the media attention was focused on the actor’s death and the possible link to the psychological effects of playing such a brainsick character, Nolan’s fresh take on the old battle of good vs. evil was seemingly lost on much of the audience.

Father Robert Barron, a Catholic priest and popular internet evangelist through his website, WordOnFire.org, chose to view the movie and post a video review. In this video, which can be found here (http://wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Father-Barron-on--The-Dark-Knight--(Spoilers).aspx) , Fr. Barron explains that the reason Batman fails time and again to beat the Joker at his own game is that the Joker can be viewed as a symbol of the evil of violence itself. In a nutshell, he means this: There is ultimately no effective means of combating violence with more violence, because violence by its very nature feeds upon itself.

(SPOILERS start here!)

Enter the interrogation room, the scene in which the Joker is not intimidated as he is thrashed by the caped crusader, but is instead visibly stimulated. He laughs and mocks him, saying “You have nothing, nothing to threaten me with. Nothing to do with all your strength.” Continuing his review, Fr. Barron concludes that, instead of polar opposites, Batman and the Joker are actually mirror images of each other: Both are theatrical, both are intelligent, both have agendas, and both are unquestionably violent- which is why, according to Fr. Barron, Batman cannot ultimately solve the problem of violence except by becoming a victim of it himself, as evidenced in the film’s conclusion.

Fr. Barron’s reflections are invariably insightful, but I believe there is a potential for symbolism here that he may have overlooked. Consider that as Batman and the Joker do battle on the upper levels of a tall Gotham skyscraper, the climax arrives as the “Clown Prince of Crime” threatens not only to cause the deaths of the passengers on board two ferries in the river below, but gives the passengers an ultimatum intended to shake the foundations of their morality: “Each of you has a remote... Blow up the other boat.” To the Joker’s dismay, the passengers make their choice and toss the detonators overboard. After a struggle, the Joker tumbles over the ledge, only to be saved from being splattered on the pavement below by Batman.

This scene- and the rest of the film as well- can serve to remind us, among other things, of the war between good and evil in general, but more particularly the battle between the Archangel Michael and God’s fallen angel, Lucifer. In his review, Fr. Barron concludes that you cannot perceive the two characters as polar opposites, but as mirror images of each other. But what if you consider the struggle between these characters as a kind of spiritual metaphor? We are told that when Lucifer rebelled against God and waged war on the natural order, it was Michael’s duty to cast the rebel out. Michael did not destroy his enemy, but cast him into Hell, similar to the way Batman sends the Joker to solitary confinement in a padded cell. But more important is the fact that in the battle between the better and worse angels, it is we mortals who are the true prize for the victor.

As it is said, Lucifer craves nothing more than for us to “Blow up the other boat,” as it were- to see us attack one another and wage war on our brothers and sisters. Michael, on the other hand, is the supreme enemy of the fallen angels, thus a protector of mankind. Just as Batman and the Joker are opposites in the world of Christopher Nolan’s Gotham City, so too are heavenly and fallen angels engaged in a never-ending contest for our salvation.

For better or for worse, the detonators are in our hands.

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle;

be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.

May God rebuke him, we humbly pray:

and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,

by the power of God,

thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits

who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen

The (Other) Movie Badasses

Thanks to upcoming films like Iron Man 2, Predators, and especially The Expendables- which features the majority of all red-blooded non-super heroes to ever grace the screen with their badassery- summer 2010 is likely to mark a very good season for men of action everywhere.
But since this thrilling display of fiery explosions, skewered terrorists, and butchered criminals is likely to bring us automatically back to the epic tales of John McClane, the Terminator, and Rambo, it seems only fitting that we also take a moment and reflect on those less-remembered quintessential badasses who, while they may not sport a pair of sunglasses or a chopped Harley, ought to be appreciated for the special brand of awesome they bring to movie-lovers everywhere.


Tequila (Hard-Boiled)

“If all cops were as selfish as you, Hong Kong would be dead.”



Sure, John McClane fended off a team of highly-trained terrorists and mercenaries, nearly demolishing Nakatomi Tower in the process. But could he do it while cradling a baby in his arms? Played by the Hong Kong superstar Chow Yun-Fat, Tequila is one seriously hard-core cop, and in the crime-stricken city of Hong Kong, that means he’ll be racking up quite a body count. Collateral damage is not out of the question, so if you see him walking down the sidewalk with a toothpick in his mouth and a gun in his holster, cross the street while you still can.
Of course, if you fancy jazz music, stop by the local bar and he'll happily play you a tune on his clarinet.


Spoon (Dog Soldiers)

“Little pigs, little pigs, we’ve come to nick ya video…”

The Governator gets lots of credit for facing down the Predator, and for good reason. After all, getting into a fist-fight with an eight-foot extraterrestrial in the middle of a war-torn Central American jungle is no walk in the park. But Private “Spoon” Witherspoon of the British Army not only faces down a pack of ravenous werewolves in the middle of the Scottish Highlands on the night of the full moon, but even engages in a bloody one-on-one brawl with a hungry lycanthrope using only common kitchen appliances- once he’s out of ammo, that is.

Let’s just be thankful that British soldiers weren’t this badass during the Revolutionary War.

The Man (The Naked Prey)

When a skilled hunter sets out into the African wilderness intent on gathering a few more trophies for the wall, a member of his hunting party forgets rule number one on the savannah: NEVER piss off the natives. After butchering his friends, the African warriors, sensing his extreme badassery, decide it would be more sporting to set him loose and then hunt him down. Two words: Big mistake. The Man- played by Cornel Wilde- is a must-have on the list, because he evades and kills his pursuers while simultaneously fighting for survival underneath the blazing African sun.

And he does all this without so much as a pair of pants.

Max Rockatansky (Mad Max)

“I’m just here for the gasoline.”

When asked to imagine the most brutal, dystopic setting on God’s green earth, Australia probably isn’t the first place that pops into your head. But in the future world of Max Rockatansky, better known as the Road Warrior, the continent that brought us Steve Irwin now wreaks of death and misery in the form of highway gangs that pillage, plunder, and burn all that they find. Without a law enforcement system, the people logically turn to the most badass Aussie around: Max, played by a youthful Mel Gibson.

Utilizing his sawed-off shotgun in emergencies, Max usually relies on his customized 1973 Ford Falcon to run aggressors into the pavement at top speed. Maybe not the best method for someone looking to conserve fuel in a wasteland, but it’s far too badass to complain about.


Spike Spiegel (Cowboy Bebop)

“Just a humble bounty hunter, ma’am.”

If you took Clint Eastwood’s gun-slinging and combined it with Bruce Lee’s martial arts, who would you get? Spike Spiegel, that’s who. A former enforcer for the Martian crime syndicates of the distant future, Spike eventually abandoned this dark chapter of his life and took to the streets as a butt-kicking bounty hunter. Cultivating the outward appearance of a youthful slacker, he routinely catches his bounties off-guard, usually turning them in with a few cracked ribs, if they’re even that lucky.

If you’re ever on Mars and find yourself with a price on your head, do yourself a favor and buy some Martian health insurance. You’re gonna need it.


Connor MacLeod (Highlander)

“I've been alive for four and a half centuries, and I cannot die.”

After receiving what should have been a mortal wound during a clan war in the highlands of Scotland, Connor MacLeod awoke from death to find himself revitalized by the mysterious power of the Quickening. Taught by fellow immortal Ramirez, played by the ever-awesome Sean Connery, MacLeod soon learns he is destined to wage war against the evil Kurgan in a contest for ultimate power known as the Gathering. It’s plenty tough to face an onslaught of immortal enemies seeking your decapitation.

But to do it for more than four hundred years? Now that’s badass.


Juno Caplan (The Descent)

“It’s the dark. It plays tricks on people.”

Not to be confused with the pregnant teen played by Ellen Page, Juno Caplan (Natalie Mendoza) is athleticism incarnate, a daredevil gal who makes it a point to travel the world to stare death in the face. Not one to take (necessary?) precautions, the outdoors adventuress and senator’s daughter makes the single greatest mistake of her life when she leads a group of her friends on an expedition into an uncharted cave system deep in the Appalachian Mountains. When the inevitable happens and a cave-in traps the group underground, Juno and her gal pals are forced to do battle with a tribe of subterranean humanoids hell-bent on making fast food out of the explorers.

If you want to know her fate, you’ll just have to watch the film yourself. But you can bet that more than a few of the beastly “crawlers” will have regretted ever crossing paths with this pickaxe-wielding diva by the time the climax rolls around.


Romney Wordsworth (The Twilight Zone: The Obsolete Man)

“I am nothing more than a reminder to you that you cannot destroy truth by burning pages!”

Resident of a future world controlled by the iron fist of the state, humble librarian Romney Wordsworth (Burgess Meredith) lives in peace until the day he is arrested for preserving his library. When confronted with the prospect of imminent execution should he refuse to burn his precious literature, Wordsworth not only defies his oppressors, but even goes so far as to publicly decry the heavy-handed government, making an urgent appeal for human freedom. Lacking weapons, fighting skills, or physical prowess of any kind, Mr. Wordsworth goes against a murderous regime knowing full well that his life will then hang in the balance, redefining badassery itself in the process.

If you haven’t seen this classic Twilight Zone episode, you’re missing out.

John Adams (John Adams)

“I avow to your majesty that I have no attachment to any country but my own.”

Here’s one for the history books- literally, of course. He never actually got his own movie, but then again, the life and character of the second President of the United States could probably never be sufficiently explored in anything shorter than a miniseries anyway. Played by Paul Giamatti in one of his most memorable performances, Adams begins as an attorney in Boston, in the British colony of Massachusetts. As the spirit of revolution begins to burn ever more brightly in the hearts of the citizenry, Adams quickly finds himself drawn into a war that will change the world and usher into existence a nation founded on the philosophy of liberty and self-government.

With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Adams knew he was making himself an enemy of the most powerful empire on earth, later sacrificing whole decades of his life to the cause of the new republic. If we could write one chapter in the history books, we would title it “John Adams: Badass Among Badasses.”