The War Against Free Speech

What do comedian Vince Vaughn, Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, and journalist Juan Williams (pictured above) all have in common?

In the past few weeks, each of these men has become a participant in the ongoing struggle against the symptom of cultural decay that has until recently held Western society in an unshakable stranglehold. I say “recently” for the obvious reason that the recent experiences of each of these men- Juan Williams in particular- have had a mildly deleterious effect on this not-so-silent killer of free speech, a morally relativistic sentiment more commonly referred to as “Political Correctness”- which Dictionary.com defines as “adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology,” and which the Urban Dictionary defines as “people who try so hard to say the right thing they end up just looking like twats.” I’m partial to the second definition, myself.

In case you don’t spend much free time watching the news, skimming political blogs, or listening to Whoopi Goldberg politely converse with Bill O’Reilly (NOT!) on ‘The View’ (the who?), here are a few headlines you might have missed, in no particular order:

1. Dutch politician Geert Wilders faces trial in his home country for expressing his negative feelings concerning Islam

2. (Former) Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris- whose brain-child “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day” caused her to receive numerous death threats- goes into hiding without so much as a murmur from most major news outlets

3. Gay rights organization GLAAD causes an uproar over a movie trailer in which Vince Vaughn makes a supposedly offensive joke concerning the masculinity (or lack thereof) of electric cars, but remains silent when Islamists demand that gay performer Adam Lambert cancel his Malaysian performance (which he did not, while agreeing to tone down certain aspects)

4. NPR fires reporter Juan Williams for making a statement about Muslims that the network found bigoted (but that clearly wasn't)

5. The Obama administration joins the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) in attempting to pass a resolution in the U.N. barring the “negative stereotyping of religions.”

If you can decipher the true intentions behind news item #5, you can see a clear pattern here. Despite the protections of the First Amendment, we are observing a trend in government and media to suppress speech linking terrorism to Islam. Which makes sense, because clearly there isn’t any link between Islamic fundamentalism and Jihadist violence. What, you mean you don’t think Islam is the “religion of peace?” Well, aren’t you just the stereotypical right-wing loony bird!

That the movement to criminalize any individual in a Western nation raising valid complaints against the basic tenets of the Islamic faith has gained so much traction is cause for concern, to say the least. Thanks to his legal team, Geert Wilders managed to evade his charges, but would he have had the same good fortune in any other European court? This is altogether unclear, and that fact alone should frighten us all- including truly moderate Muslims who still see the West as a beacon of hope.

Ask yourself this: What could be a more Western value than freedom of expression? Is this capacity for free discussion and debate not the cornerstone of our entire societal history? Is it not the source of reason with which good ideas flourish and bad ideas are banished to the ash heap of history? With what other underlying value in mind could we have possibly turned back the tides of the numerous communisms and fascisms of the twentieth century?

And yet, as the news items above have shown, our quaint little Freedom of Speech is not a liberty we ought take for granted.

Since I don’t have the resources with which to properly inform anybody adequately about these cases, here are a few links to follow for the best summaries (which all just happen to be from the National Review):

· What Wilder’s Trial Means: A column by the editors of National Review Online

· Context of the Wilders Case: Just as the title indicates

· Obstructed View: Concerning the effect of some of these recent events on free speech

· The Closing of NPR’s Mind: The plight of Juan Williams (pictured at top) and modern political discourse

· Islam And Totalitarianism: By Andrew C. McCarthy

Now, I wouldn’t want anyone to think that my source material is cut from singularly conservative cloth, so here’s my version of a curveball: A speech by the vocal British atheist Christopher Hitchens, concerning free speech in general. I’ve found myself watching snippets of this talk on Youtube quite often as of late, and I encourage everyone to take a look. Sadly, there are few public figures capable of arguing so passionately in defense of free speech, thought, and writing. Were it not for his positions regarding Biblical scripture, he’d make a great NRO columnist as well.

But since Mr. Hitchens tends to (sloppily) link his critique of extremist Islam to other Abrahamic faith systems, be sure to take a look at Word On Fire’s counterargument concerning organized religion here. Gotta love that Father Barron.

What's right with Resident Evil?

There are few things in the world of cinema less exciting than the prospect of a movie franchise based on video games. The problem is a simple one: Why would fans, or any other audience members for that matter, bother to pay the increasingly hefty ticket price when it costs roughly the same amount to rent the game itself for a week and totally immerse yourself in the world of interactive virtual storytelling? These were some of the challenges facing writer/director Paul W.S. Anderson as he prepared to initiate what would eventually become a major B-Movie franchise based on the bestselling ‘Resident Evil’ videogames.

Not surprisingly, critics didn’t see much of value in the series, and have successively panned each of the four films to date. Despite all that bashing, however, the series has only gotten more successful with time. The most recent entry, ‘Resident Evil: Afterlife’, has made over 250 million dollars worldwide thus far, all for a budget of 60 million. As a result, the as-yet-untitled 'Resident Evil 5' is already in the works for future release, notwithstanding the "wisdom" of the so-called top critics.

So let's take a few steps back and ask ourselves: How far off-base are the critics concerning the allegedly poor quality of Mr. Anderson's work? If the directing is so amateur, the acting so terrible, and the script so pathetically two-dimensional as reviewers would have us believe, what is it that keeps audiences coming back for more? What does Anderson understand about success that critics and the more artsy-fartsy members of the film community don’t? The answer is deceptively simple, and if there are directors out there who would rather entertain their audiences than come up with yet another botched attempt at leftist self-promotion, they’ll start to pay attention- if they care about the weight of their wallets, that is.

Hollywood has been coming out with zombie flicks ever since George A. Romero brought us ‘Night of the Living Dead’ in 1968. Since then, there has been a never-ending barrage of movies starring the walking dead, from “Day of the Dead” to “I Am Legend” (which, for all of it’s ‘Cast Away’-ness, is still a zombie movie in my book). Unfortunately for '28 Weeks Later,' the more graphic the gore and the more serious the tone, the more disturbing- and less enjoyable- the zombie genre becomes.

I haven't taken a poll or anything, but I’d be willing to wager that the average moviegoer isn’t too comfortable with graphic depictions of cannibalism. I know I’m not. Sure, ‘I Am Legend’ didn’t feature any gruesome violence (although much was implied), but that’s probably why there weren’t any people around for the zombies to eat in the first place.

Since 'Resident Evil' strikes the tone of B-Movie cheese right off the bat, the zombie-violence that follows registers as "cool" or "fun" rather than "gross" or "distressing." There's nothing traumatic about watching cute girls shooting big guns at big monsters, that's for sure.

There's also the fact that only in 'Resident Evil' are viewers treated to a variety of zombie-like creatures, as opposed to a legion of simple undead cannibals. Thanks to the experiments of the villainous Umbrella Corporation, the slow-moving, brain-craving drones are the least of our heroes' worries, especially compared with an invulnerable seven-foot axe-wielding executioner, or a pack of skinless Doberman Pinschers with a taste for live prey. And it doesn't hurt that whenever the protagonists are pitted against this fearsome menagerie, the result is a gloriously stylized fight to the death, slow motion style.

But the real reason the ‘Resident Evil’ series has been such a success (as far as zombie movies go) is a result of its relationship with ‘Walker Texas Ranger.’ Yep, as is the case with all things good in life, Chuck Norris was at least indirectly responsible. Don’t believe me? Here’s what you’re going to do:

1. Print out a copy of a ‘Walker Texas Ranger’ episode script.
2. Change the character of “Walker” from Chuck Norris to an attractive female lead (Milla Jovovich).
3. Cross out the name “Walker” where it appears in the script and replace it with the name “Alice.”
4. Cross out the word “Texas” anywhere it appears and replace it with the phrase “post-apocalyptic Earth,”, “abandoned research facility”, or something similar.
5. Cross out the phrases “drug smugglers,” “human traffickers,” “gang members,” or similar phrases. Now replace them with the word “zombies.”

If you have followed these steps correctly, you should currently be holding a script for one of the four ‘Resident Evil’ movies, finally grasping just how cool this franchise is. Oh, yes, and now you’re updating your Netflix queue.

Up In The Sky!

In the wake of the unexpected phenomenon that was Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Dark Knight,’ it would seem that the bigwigs at DC Comics are trying to seize an opportunity to match the sudden rise of Marvel Studios, currently raking in a considerable profit from ‘Iron Man 2’ DVD sales, with no fewer than three expected blockbusters- ‘Thor,’ ‘The First Avenger: Captain America,’ and the highly anticipated ‘The Avengers’- forthcoming.

While the writers at DC haven’t the luxury of their own film studio, next year will see the release of ‘Green Lantern,’ starring the action hero/funny-man Ryan Reynolds, and based on the fan-favorite hero of the same name. As with Marvel’s upcoming ‘Thor’, ‘Green Lantern’ is new to the big screen, leaving him plenty of space to thrill audiences with only a passing familiarity with the source material. And as we all learned from ‘Iron Man,’ a little originality can go a long way at the box office.

Of course, originality isn’t always such a good thing, especially when you’re dealing with, say, a character who has been around for over 70 years and whose storyline is familiar to most Americans born after 1938.

We’re talking, of course, about Superman, soon to return to theaters courtesy of producer/general overseer Christopher Nolan and director Zack Snyder (‘300'). Considering that Nolan and Snyder are respectively responsible for two of the most successful conservative films in recent memory (referring to ‘300’ and ‘Dark Knight,’ of course), news that they’d be working together on any project would be enough to thrill the countless blacklisted Hollywood conservatives, not to mention the legions of conservative audience members currently starving for an ounce of sanity from American filmmakers. But a SUPERMAN film, of all things?

Be still my comic-loving heart.

Now, is there still a chance they’ll screw it all up? Of course. With a character as near and dear to America’s heart as Supes, that chance is multiplied tenfold. But besides the challenge of locating a suitable actor, finding the right balance and style for the visual effects, and the innumerable technological difficulties presented by a film as large in scope as the newest addition to the Superman franchise is sure to be, let’s just hope the filmmakers don’t forget about Superman himself. The story may provide the bricks, but the characters bring the mortar.

Correctly identifying Batman’s unshakable reliance on Moral Law and sheer willpower was one of Christopher Nolan’s most important achievements in ‘Batman Begins,’ one that was only magnified in ‘The Dark Knight.’ Removing or diminishing this feature of Batman’s personality would remove the foundation upon which the new Batman franchise was built. In Superman’s case, the most important character trait that Snyder and Nolan must remember is Superman’s unshakable virtue. Like it or not, the king of the superhero genre is still just an old-fashioned Kansas boy, a Boy Scout who, despite all his godlike power, wouldn’t hurt a fly, unless this particular fly posed a danger to the Earth. Or maybe just Lois Lane.

Anyhow, here’s to you, Mr. Snyder, in the hopes that you can find it in your gory, Spartan heart to give audiences, especially children, the Superman they deserve, a Man of Steel who still fights for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

You know what they say: You don't tug on Superman's cape.

Learning From 'Kick-Ass'

“Hey… How come nobody’s ever tried to be a superhero?”

Such is the inquiry which lies at the heart of one of the strangest, most irreverent, and blissfully entertaining comic-book films of the decade.

Directed by British director Matthew Vaughn (‘Layer Cake’), and featuring performances by Nicholas Cage (‘National Treasure’, ‘Con Air’) and Chloe Grace Moretz (of the upcoming ‘Let Me In’), the 2009 superhero action/comedy ‘Kick-Ass’ is full to the brim with profanity, violence, and a fair measure of sexual innuendo, each applying at one point or another to shockingly underage characters. As a result, the film experienced a less-than-spectacular opening weekend, earning about $20 million at the box office. Though it narrowly overtook the Dreamworks animated film ‘How To Train Your Dragon’ for that weekend, ticket sales dropped rapidly in the following two weeks of its release, ultimately earning about $48 million domestically.

That said, the movie is likely on track to achieving well-deserved status as a true cult classic.

Based on Mark Millar’s graphic novel of the same name, ‘Kick-Ass’ tells the story of an average nerd, Dave Lizewski, living in an average New York suburb doing average stuff while hanging out with his average friends, all the while pining after the not-so-average girl of his dreams.

Needless to say, viewers expect this barrage of mediocre high-school drama to give way to something weird or extraordinary sooner or later- an expectation that is satisfied when, one day, after being robbed by a pair of alley-dwelling delinquents for the umpteenth time, Dave decides that enough is enough. Purchasing a perfectly ordinary, if not somewhat gaudy, green diver’s wetsuit, equipping himself with two fighting batons, and slipping on a pair of good old-fashioned Timberland boots for good measure, he assumes the identity of a masked vigilante, taking the titular name, “Kick-Ass.”

His initial exploits, however, are less than heroic. Without spoiling anything, Dave quickly gets in way over his head, and is literally on the verge of being castrated by a group of drug dealers when his salvation comes crashing down in the form of… an eleven-year-old girl.

No, the word “girl” doesn’t quite fit… More like a WMD wearing a skirt.

It is at this point that the film begins its gradual transition from outright slapstick to much darker comedy. Utilizing an array of edged weapons to deadly effect, the masked heroine “Hit Girl” (Moretz) quite literally decimates every foe that comes her way, leaving them broken, bloody, and invariably dead- except for the near-survivor sniped in the cranium by her father, the Batman-like “Big Daddy” (Cage, imitating Adam West’s Batman to hysterical effect). It is in light of this over-the-top, father/daughter version of Batman and Robin that the most morally valuable lessons from the film become clear.

If Big Daddy and Hit Girl have a motto, it’s this: Stand up against evil- as an individual, as a team, as a family- and don’t give an inch.

The city in which the main characters find themselves is one lacking any kind of moral center. As was Dave’s experience early in the film, muggings occur on a daily basis, and the citizens make no serious attempt to put a stop to such injustice. The people have lapsed into a state of complacency, leaving even the most petty crooks to do as they please. On top of this, the police themselves have been bought out by Frank D’Amico, the city’s leading drug kingpin, who also has an important role in Big Daddy and Hit Girl’s history.

So how do Kick-Ass and his fellow masked avengers respond in light of this seemingly insurmountable task? They strike, and strike hard.

Hit Girl, as many have already noted, is the film’s only true home run. While critics like Roger Ebert heavily criticized the use of a child actor in such a violent role, the fact is that Chloe Moretz’s brutal character is far and away a morally superior alternative to the inappropriately sexualized, self-concerned teen idols of Disney Channel fame.

To quote Big Hollywood’s John Nolte, Hit Girl is “heroic, selfless, completely self-reliant, and lives by a simple code that says evil loses. No angst, no handwringing, and no moral equivalency.”

Sounds like the ideal female role model to me!

Sure, this is an absolutely unacceptable film for those not mature enough for the ‘Restricted’ rating. But while nowadays such a rating usually indicates the level of a film’s moral decrepitude, the big bold "R" on the back of the 'Kick-Ass' DVD case is like a badge of honor.

After all, what fun is watching superheroes clobber criminals if the result isn’t the untimely amputation of a prosthetic limb or two? Or three, or four, or fifty…

Return of the Badasses (Pardon my French)

It’s Monday, August 09, 2010, and we’re counting down to ‘The Expendables’, starring every action hero you can imagine- well, besides Chuck Norris, Steven Seagal, and Van Damme. But seriously, everybody else is in it. From Sly Stallone to the high-kicking Jet Li, and even some cage fighter I’ve never even heard of, the newest film honoring the great American tradition of the action movie promises to provide a last-minute *BANG* to cap off what has been, for lack of a better word, a very DULL summer at the movies. Sure, it started strong with Iron Man 2, and audiences were privileged to enjoy the latest Chris Nolan mind-bender in ‘Inception,’ but those films were more like brief oases in a barren desert filled with… well, nothing anybody really wanted to see.

It is with this background in mind that audiences will more than likely flock to ‘The Expendables’ this weekend. And so, to mark this glorious occasion, it’s time to reflect once again on some of the movie badasses you might have missed in the last few years.

In my original post, we discussed a number of notable kickers of arse, whose stomping grounds range from the streets of Hong Kong to the dystopic, totalitarian future of the Twilight Zone. For your viewing pleasure, here is a link to the original selections in the category of “The (Other) Movie Badasses.”

And now, here are just a few more contenders who you won’t be seeing this Friday, but whose exploits you’ll want to catch up on at the first opportunity:

1. Hit Girl (‘Kick-Ass’)

“I never play.”

She can't see through walls, but she can kick your ass.

When Detective Damon Macready was framed as a drug dealer by cocaine kingpin Frank D’Amico, it wasn’t just his career that he lost. Unable to cope with life without him, his wife overdosed on sleeping pills shortly before going into labor, passing away just as their daughter, Mindy, entered a world wholly unprepared for her arrival.

Trained by her father following his release from prison, Mindy soon became proficient in the martial arts, as well as an accomplished weapons expert. Her birthday present at age eleven: A pair of razor-sharp butterfly knives, which she uses to great effect.

Donning a purple wig and a disguise equipped for mortal combat, Mindy became Hit Girl, a pint-sized weapon of mass destruction with one goal in mind: Wipe Frank D'Amico and his drug trade off the face of the Earth, by any means necessary. By the time she's finished, her foes will be begging for mercy... and shortly thereafter, more likely than not, they'll be dead. This movie received an R-rating for a good reason (actually, lots of good reasons), so for goodness' sake, VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

2. Eli (‘The Book of Eli’)

“We walk by faith, not by sight.”

It’s difficult to address this particular badass without giving away far too much of the plot, but suffice it to say that, when the dust clears after the imminent nuclear holocaust, Eli is civilization’s last hope. Charged with the sacred duty to protect a mysterious book, and guided by a power beyond the scope of his comprehension, Eli marches across the lifeless desert that was once the United States in order to deposit the seed of a world now lost. (Cryptic, ain’t it?)

Wielding his trusty machete, along with a few working artifacts from the days of the Second Amendment, Eli will let nothing stand in his path, even the vicious warlord Carnegie, played by the ever-terrific Gary Oldman.

Eli's capacity for survival ought not come as a surprise. Honestly, could anyone walk through the wilderness for thirty years straight and NOT end up a badass?

3. Walt Kowalski (‘Gran Torino’)

“Get off my lawn.”

War is hell- but he probably liked the heat.

Having spent his youth overseas in the service of his country, Walt Kowalski has lived what ought to have been the ideal life. He survived the war, found a stable job, married the woman he loved, and had sons who grew up to be successful.

But all is not well in Eastwoodville. Living in a run-down Detroit neighborhood, Walt has just lost his elderly bride. His sons are badgering him to check into a nursing home. His grandkids are a bunch of spoiled brats. And to top it all off, he isn’t all too happy about the Hmong immigrants who just moved in next door.

One night, Walt overhears a ruckus in his garage. Grabbing his rifle and bursting through the door with his sights trained, he meets Thao, a young man being recruited by the local gang. His initiation: Steal Walt’s Gran Torino. Logically, the first thing Walt feels for the would-be thief is animosity. Seeking to restore the family’s honor, Thao’s mother brings him back to work for Walt, who reluctantly accepts this gesture.

At first the situation is awkward for them both, and Walt is none too eager to offer forgiveness. But try as he might to reject the boy, and despite his deep-set racist attitudes, Walt may ultimately have one thing to teach Thao that his own sons never quite learned: What it means to be a man.

Most badass man on the planet? You decide.

Allen West: The Left's Nightmare Made Real

It was a dark and stormy night. President Obama had finally fallen asleep after another long, difficult day at the golf cour- er, Oval Office. As he lay asleep, he began to toss and turn violently, a cold sweat forming on his brow. As he began to scream in terror, Michelle shook him awake, whispering “What’s the matter?” Gasping for breath, he answered, “A nightmare. Good heavens, a terrible nightmare.” “Was it Al Quaeda?” she asked. He shook his head. “An Iranian nuclear attack?” He shook his head again. Frowning, she asked “Don’t tell me it was global warming again.” “No, Michelle,” he said, curling into a fetal position, “No, it’s much worse than that. It was… Florida 22.”

You may not have heard his name yet, but if the American people- more particularly the citizens casting their votes in Florida’s 22nd congressional district- have even an ounce of sense, then the political career of Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Allen West is about to take off like a rocket, red glare and all. His slogan, “Go West,” and his charismatic presentation are earning him fans around the country, with one of his speeches on Youtube, given in Ft. Lauderdale around October of 2009, receiving over 2 million hits since it went online.

Take a look, look-takers.

As many commentators have already noted, Col. West is one of 32 African Americans running for Congress this year as members of the GOP. Despite the left’s constant stream of racially-charged accusations leveled at conservatives in general and Tea Party members in particular (I’m looking at you, NAACP), Col. West has defended his supporters- and his own involvement- in the Tea Party, and strongly criticized the left’s stranglehold on the African American vote at every turn, referring to it as a “twenty-first century plantation.” Speaking about his plans for Congress, he made no attempt to disguise his feelings towards the current Democratic leadership of the Senate, vowing to march up to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and demand that she “Give me that damn gavel.”

Strong words, to be sure. But unlike the average congressional hopeful, Col. West has more than talking points to back him up. Following recent criticism of his conduct during an interrogation in Iraq, Col. West did exactly what politicians never seem to do: He told the truth. No spin. No apologies. As to the charges, Col. West was fined and given a written reprimand for… saving lives.

As he states clearly in the video, he managed to convince a detainee to give up valuable information, preventing the continuation of a series of deadly attacks on his troops in the region to which they were assigned. How did he accomplish this? He broke the rules of conduct, taking the prisoner outside and firing a shot over his head. And then the prisoner talked! Afterwards, he went straight to his superiors and, with full knowledge of the potential consequences, informed them of his actions.

Can you say awesome?!

Col. West is not a good candidate for office. He is the IDEAL candidate. While other politicians have spent their careers “community-organizing” while shouting “BUSH DID IT!”, Col. West has been commanding men and women in combat, a true patriot who is quick to remind anyone who will listen that the United States, far from being just one more on a long list of nation-states, is truly special, and that freedom must be cherished and protected above all else.

This is what real change looks like.

What more is there to say? GO WEST.

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...