What Makes Sick Viewing?

Note: I asked my brother, a patron of the Saw films, who also saw the film how the violence compared. His response “It was like Sesame Street”. I suppose if you want to kill “Tickle Me Elmo” (and who of us hasn’t?) that would be a true description.

Recently I went to go see a new movie called “Untraceable”. But I had many qualms about it before hand due to the reviews it received it the papers I read. The Detroit Free Press called it “torture porn”, The Detroit News called it “torture porn” and The New York Times called it (surprise) “torture porn”. Leave it to members of the media to turn anything into porn. The movie plotline is that a killer is streaming video of the killings on his website, with the FBI close on his heels. I wondered if I were to see this film, was I no better than the people clicking on his fictitious site? And really how violent was the movie? The MPAA gave the movie an R rating for ” some prolonged sequences of strong gruesome violence and language”. That sounded bad. But on the other hand the film had an awesome preview and starred two of my favorite actors Diane Lane and Colin Hanks (son of Tom).

Finally I decided to go see it with the understanding that if it got too violent, I would walk out. But then something interesting happened. The film was if anything underwhelming with the sort of “hype” it received by the reviews. Something I was extremely happy for. There’s something about graphic violence that makes me get a little queasy (morally). But then with my over analytical mindset, I grew concerned again. Had I become so desynthesized by the media that watching a few brief (very brief) scenes in which someone dies didn’t bother me? Yes and no.

I don’t watch films fake snuff films like “Saw” and “Hostel” or anything in which mutated aliens eat everyone like “The Hills Have Eyes”. I like mysteries, grew up reading Agatha Christie progressed into Grisham and then finally to books like Patterson (a step backwards). My personal tastes are much more light like Christie and detail orientated like Grisham. But ultimately what really matters is whether or not in a fictitious story, book or film, is whether the focus is on the killing or on catching the killer, and Untraceable while many will disagree, belongs with the later category. But to the whole question of being desynthesized, the film was no worse than an episode of CSI, the number one show enjoyed by millions of Americans across this country. Does that make them sick? No. Crime is by itself fascinating, fraught with so many pieces that for many of us, it captures our attention a real life version of a jigsaw puzzle.

What really is disturbing is my daily copy of The New York Times, though not for the usual Republican reasons. What the Times does is actually give coverage to world events that barely make a few sentences in most of the daily papers that most of us read, if the stories get mentioned at all. Seeing the actual pictures of a victim of a suicide bombing, a child whose face though covered has been killed by ethnic fighters, and even in this nation a young black man covered with his own blood by gang violence and his own self-destruction.

Everything else seems kind of fake after that. And even a good film like “Untraceable” never gets rid of the feeling that we are watching an actor pretending to get killed by another actor. After you see the absolute devastating effect of humans killing one another, whether by a glimpse in the news or in real life situations, everything else pales in comparison. Somehow though, I doubt the average teenager who while sneaking into see “Saw 5″ (trust me it will be made) cannot name our Secretary of State (sad but true factoid) will leave with that mindset. That’s what scares me.

Electable: That Little Thing

I’m a logical person. So I can’t get around how we as voters in the two major political parties have gotten so illogical. Polling clearly showed John Edwards was the best Democrat to win for the party. He’s stands on positions were equal to that of Obama-Clinton. So why did Democrats pass on Edwards? The answer clearly is that the party wants to be the first to nominate a half black candidate or the first woman. Talk about going double or nothing, because physical diversity is fine but the candidates that inhibit those traits are not. One is Barack Obama who yes has won the hearts of many a wealthy, white liberal. But the average voter still doesn’t know the junior Senator. And when they find out he was a state senator just three years ago, some will have serious doubts. The other candidate is Hillary Clinton with her high negatives, though she is winning over some skeptics (myself included). Even though this is a “Democratic” year as we are told by the mainstream media, if there’s a way to screw up an election, leave it to a Democrat to find it.

I’m used to Democrats making stupid decisions. But we Republicans are generally more given to common sense. That’s why, it’s so remarkable that so many in our party want to lose in 08. Last time I checked the office of President was something we wanted to retain. So unless, there are huge, and I mean huge, deficits in a certain candidate we would do well to pick the most electable. Many Republicans across America are now choosing (wisely) John McCain to be our candidate for the 2008 election. McCain if given the nomination will face an extremely tough race and could very well end up losing. That’s the reality. Only after FDR and Truman did one president get a “third” term. That of course being Reagan. And as much as I love President Bush he is no Reagan (in terms of national love). In fact the nation does not often give a party with a President with a 29% approval rating a third term and none of our candidates could bring success. Obama though certainly will face tougher scrutiny by the voting public is coming close to unbeatable should he get the nomination (the good news is the Clinton should end up getting it). Clinton can win, even against our best and certainly against our worst (yes you Mr. Romney). And America will survive.

We now have five candidates (six scenarios) that could conceivable get the nomination. Just take a look at them faced off. And then envision their numbers come next November.

Obama vs. Huckabee              Clinton vs. Huckabee 
Obama vs. Romney                 Clinton vs. Romney
Obama vs. McCain                   Clinton vs. McCain

We need a winner. It just happens that the only one who can win is McCain and yes I like him the best. But at least I could understand the logic of picking another candidate if they could actually win. Romney has been shown that he cannot in various articles that document his failings. I’ll talk later over the lesson I learned about a Romney politician in 06 and how he went on to a huge defeat. Huckabee is a nice man, but can you actually see independents going for him? And what about the “country club” Republicans. Obviously he’ll lose the Northeast by the biggest margin in modern political history. He speaks well for a certain part of the base and no one else. So in closing, I plead for a return (and for what’s it worth, it seems to be coming) to common sense and logic. Not from the Democrats but for the party I love. We could build a lasting legacy on the Supreme Court, continue fighting a strong foreign policy and protect our homeland, continue to make sure taxation doesn’t kill the middle and lower class, and protect human life by finally turning over Roe vs. Wade. We can do all of that with a McCain nomination or we can ensure the next president will be Obama or Clinton. The choice is up to us.

The Latest From Romney HQ

A part of me wants Romney to win the nomination just to keep giving me such good material. It’s extremly hard  to see him getting the nom. in any way whatsoever, so I’ll have my fun now.Tom Tancredo endorsed Romney. Romney will now start airing ads in Florida in Spanish. However to Romney’s non-flip-floppin’ credit he is saying “el deporto”.

Romney adviser Barbara Comstock calls Mitt Romney “Daddy” on MSNBC’s Tucker. And the Romney campaign gets a little bit stranger.

Mitt Romney is now saying that the reason none of the other candidates like him is because he is from outside the D.C. scene. What he doesn’t realize is he is a pr*ck by Washington standards.

Mitt Romney tried to get black kids to sing “Who Let The Dogs Out”. Making him a very “in” candidate…for the 2000 election when the song actually came out.

Romney then went over to an African American baby and call his neckless “bling-bling”. Making him a very “in” candidate… for the 2004 election.

And finally from Huckabee HQs, Chuck Norris called John McCain too old to be President. There are many things Norris can advise on such as how to use a PowerGym and to do angry eyes into the camera. But hasn’t Norris been too old for Hollywood for the last thirty years?

Don’t Let John Kerry Talk

                          

Whenever John Kerry speaks, I remember to thank God that we as a nation were protected from at the very least a four-year Kerry presidency. Kerry’s voice is irritating enough, a mixture of snobbery, stupidity and self-rightness. Than of course there are the actual words that flow out of his mouth, which make’s matters worse as just recently seen on ABC’s This Week where George Stephanopoulos showed Kerry lying and called him on it over the Edwards section in Bob Schrum’s book. But of course it had to get worse. Kerry was there to discuss his endorsement of Barack Obama.

Now there are a few good reasons to endorse Obama, recently even my cold heart has warmed up to him slightly, very slightly. He seems nice, eloquent and a person who could bring racial unity to America. Maybe. But why was Kerry endorsing him? Because and I quote “He can talk to black people in a way a white person cannot”. The senator may be confusing himself with your average white person after all who can forget his 2004 address to the NAACP.“What up my *itches and ho*s. I be here, asking for your support. We need a Democrat is the White House, that’s our crib, baby. And if a Republican ends up on our turf, we just cap them. For sizzle, my nizzle. Oh, complimentary malt-liquor and cornbread on the way out.”

The thing that most annoyed me about Kerry and it was a tough contest was when he was discussing black people, he sounded remarkably like Jane Goodall discussing chimpanzees. It was so incredibly offensive. Regardless of who gets the Democratic nod, African Americans will support them and when we have our first black President or in the case of Obama our first half black President it will be a nice moment in history and an important act of symbolism but it doesn’t change the fact that they will be our leader for the next four years. The person who will be entrusted with every life in this land we hold dear and that a simple good PR moment cannot sustain a country.

Right This “Time”

A new line has emerged from the campaign trail for Republicans bashing TIME magazine’s decision to name Vladimir Putin as Person of the Year. Each candidate has criticized it, Mitt Romney’s called it “disgusting” (Governor more or less disgusting than Larry Craig, a former supporter you threw under the bus, and ran repeatedly over back and forth with said bus?). At a campaign rally for John McCain which I attended (details to be posted later) the crowd reliably booed when McCain told them of the naming of Putin. And of course, those who continue to harp on about the liberal media (yes it exists, get over it) it became another reason to call them anti-American.

All of this is very nice and well, but it ignores history by using a false sense of patriotism. And let’s be honest, after TIME named everyone as person of the year last year, the title lost a lot of it importance. I can’t see, Putin smiling and bragging “the Americans love me, see I’m on their magazine”. Ok, I can’t see Putin smiling period but the point remains.  And about that disregarding on history, is it a rule that history can only be made by good honorable men? I know some men named Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, and Hussein that might disagree. What TIME does is name the person who has the most impact on America or the world in that year. Whether or not that impact is good or bad, is obvious. It can either be an honor or an indictment of the person, and Putin falls into the latter.

TIME has been picking soft choices for years, from whistleblowers to good Samaritans to the universally hated “You” cover; it was nice to see a person of substance, evil but substance on the cover by themselves again. I fall into the category who thought Ahmadinejad should have been chosen last year. This year I actually think Anthony Kennedy would have been the best choice, followed by Nicolas Sarosky but that’s me. If anything the realization of the effect villainous leaders has on the world stage, tells us what we must do to make sure their poisonous policies (literally with Putin) never amount to enough to earn the magazine’s title again.

Losing It

I was struck by ABC’s back to back debate with all the major candidates from the two parties, where we finally got to see the candidates show themselves for who they are. And how it helped one candidate and killed another.

               

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton who while doing a cautious but calmly reasoned campaign finally grew tired of the petty attacks from Edwards/Obama as they constantly claimed to be the only two candidates of ”true” change. Her voice starting from a calm monotone raised ever so upward until she started yelling forcefully saying her work for the last thirty five years making change was evidence of what she would produce and that the empty rhetoric of Obama, though appealing was also very dangerous. And she was right. My sister turned to me and said “I like angry Hillary” to which I replied “I do to”.  Later in a very public moment of honesty, Hillary, when asked a question of how she puts herself up to be judged day after day came close to tears. I know many Republicans are saying it was a made up moment, and she’ll never win certain people like that over. I was moved and felt a need, call it the southern gentleman inside me, to defend her. I don’t like to see women attacked, and while of course she gives as good as she gets, I can’t get away from my feelings of protection about her.

She of course went on to win New Hampshire last night, through a multitude of factors, including her emotional honesty and her bringing light to Obama shortcomings.

Then there was Mitt Romney, Satan himself, who now knows there is no way he win be the Republican nominee and is angry. But what was so interesting about the debate, was the hatred that Romney has caused that crosses ideological groups. In the fun movie Ocean’s Thirteen, the men in the movie operate under unwritten rules known only among themselves. That doesn’t mean they don’t fight like hell for what they want, but certain things are off limits and if you cross them you pay. One couldn’t escape the feeling that Romney has broken every rule of decency and the other four major players went up and made him suffer. From McCain to Huckabee, Thompson to Giuliani every single one was brutal to Romney from McCain’s “You are the candidate of change” to Huckabee’s “Which one?” line to body language, Romney was enemy number one. Romney responded by whimpering “No personal attacks” and acting like the school yard bully who got his and cried home to mommy. And when it comes to comedy it does matter who delivers the line, Huckabee’s when hearing Romney saying “I don’t want this to be personal, I want it be based on my positions on issues” said “Which one?”. The audience went crazy with laughter. Later on Fox’s debate the day after Romney attacking Huckabee’s speech style “faster than your lips move and that’s saying something” drew silence and one could feel people saying “What a  ___”. Romney went on to lose New Hampshire like he lost Iowa in absolute embarrassment. His money is no good to voters trying to decide about honest candidates like Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain and Thompson. Men who believe what comes out of their mouths as opposed to their pocket book.

Clinton learned honest emotion is rewarded and Romney learned that any form of honesty is better than the campaign he has put forward.

Love-Hate 08

It is a new year and so a new way of doing things. In 2008, I plan on posting once a week perhaps more but mainly under the form of a column called “Love-Hate 08″. In it politics will still be at the forefront but mainly anything that draws my adoration or lack there of will be a contender so without further ado…

Love 

 

David Brooks

Brooks a former editor at The Weekly Standard, became a twice weekly op-ed columnist for The New York Times where his column now once overlooked has become a must read for many conservatives. Brooks is appealing because of his demeanor and common sense conservatism and week after week I find my ideas be eloquently and calmly stated. A McCain man, Iraq War and gay marriage supporter he’ll be a columnist fun to read in the coming months of the election. His one flaw, he likes Obama. While I’ve tried to just put bloggers on my blog role, Brooks column will be on as well.

I originally read the Times for Maureen Dowd’s witty column and soon found Brooks as well. I’ve read his column for a year and a half but became a fan of his five months ago. Some of my favorite recent quotes…

On Mitt Romney

“The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn.”

On Clinton/Obama

“Hillary Clinton has been a much better senator than Barack Obama. She has been a serious, substantive lawmaker who has worked effectively across party lines. Obama has some accomplishments under his belt, but many of his colleagues believe that he has not bothered to master the intricacies of legislation or the maze of Senate rules. He talks about independence, but he has never quite bucked liberal orthodoxy or party discipline.”

On John McCain

“Everyone will make their own political choices, and you might plausibly argue that the qualities John McCain possesses are not the ones the country now requires. But character is destiny, and you will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men.”

Hate

Iowa Voters

We should call Barack Obama’s win in Iowa for what it was affirmative action. There is a funny scene in The Office, where Michael decides who will replace him. He picks four candidates likable Jim, crazy Dwight, Cornell grad Andy and Stanley because quote “of all the good black people have done”. Watching the episode after getting The Office Season Three for Christmas everyone watching laughs at the line. While of course some black people have done great things, some have done horrible things like white people and Latino people and fill in the blank with whatever ethnicity you want. What kind of person would be so shallow to pick someone on the basis of his or her skin color? Apparently your average Iowan Democratic voter. In interview after interview, shockingly Obama supporter after Obama supporter (all white) said that they had voted for Obama to show “how far we’ve come” and said that experience for the greatest and most challenging job on earth wasn’t important, “change” was. Hell, why not pick that fat black woman from The View she has as much experience as Obama and she makes me laugh almost as much as the thought of Obama in the presidency.

So love David Brooks and hate Iowa voters.

Endorsement Time

Well with a winner from Iowa tonight, I thought it best to write my endorsements before I become tainted with election results. I do not like primaries. It’s gut wrenching, horrible and puts people normally one the same side against one another. Words are exchanged and then we are all so supposed to put on a happy face the day after. It’s like asking every customer in a restaurant to agree to one entrée and expecting everyone to jump for jubilee. Add the mystery factor, the simple irritant, of having no clue what’s going to happen for long periods of time and emotions run high. The actual election is fun, nerve wrecking but fun. Choice A, Choice B (and no Choice C you third partiers). Simple, easy, enjoyable.

My support for the Democratic and Republican candidates is as follows.

The Republicans

                             
                                       John McCain

No surprise here, I have said, I’m supporting the Senator and will continue to do so. Recently I was in a bookstore and saw a McCain 08 calendar. I couldn’t buy it though, I’m mean how depressing to see a candidate not even get the nom. and then go through another 10 months of looking at him. I felt guilty. Was my doubt bad? No, not really if McCain wins the nomination the word comeback will seem too weak. McCain a longtime friend to the pro-life community and consistent supporter of the Iraq War is a candidate any Republican should be happy to support though I can understand other choices. He is also electable, a trait that is becoming increasingly rare among Republicans. If you want to surrender pick a Romney or a Huckabee, but if you want to replace Judge Stevens with another Roberts any Republican would be crazy not to support McCain in the general at the least.

The Democrats

                                 
                                      Hillary Clinton

No this is not an I hope she gets it because she will be easier to beat come November endorsement. I sincerely believe that Senator Clinton is the best candidate the Democrats have. She is a smart, talented women and I feel she’d be a wonderful leader for America. While I would support McCain, Rudy, or Thompson in the general against her, she has shown through her bi-partisan work in the Senate and her consistent support for the Iraq War that she will provide the country with another four years of a Clinton presidency minus everything that was hideous about the Clinton presidency mainly the sex, weak foreign policy and Bill Clinton. Many voters across the country are taking another look at Clinton, minus the characture colored glasses and seeing a candidate of substance.

The Anti-Huckabee Campaign

The person who I hold the most venom for is without a doubt Mitt Romney, regardless though I have been silent about Mike Huckabee. Part of the reason for this is that I like the former Governor. He is extremely likable. But charm can only cover up so much. So while I do not hate or for that matter even dislike him, I would most likely not support him if he receives the nomination, a possibility I saw months ago and one that carries even more serious thought now.

What changed my mind was when I actually read an interview with Huckabee in Human Events. In it he came off as so quick to pander, it amazed me. He actually interrupted the interviewer repeatedly to take the most extreme position available. During the PBS African American debate, he went and came close to crying over how unfair the death penalty was. I don’t actually think he flip-flops like Romney, he just changes his tone dramatically with the same position.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20421&keywords=mike+huckabee+interview

Now the fact that the conservative media world doesn’t like him is well known. I turned on Rush for the first time in about six months and heard him attack Huckabee and receive call after call defending the candidate. Make no question about it, they want Romney and they believe (most likely rightly) that Huckabee will lose and lose badly. They want a conservative, they rule out Rudy because of his social views, McCain because their idiots, Thompson because he’s so boring. Romney…Huckabee…Romney…Huckabee. Both would probably lose by the same margin come next November, but whatever.

I hope Huckabee wins in Iowa or more specifically comes one point ahead of Romney in every primary. I rather a way too conservative Christian win, than someone who uses way too conservative Christians for his own personal gain. Huckabee’s a good guy…he’s just not my guy.

Loving My Inner Grinch

Well I knew I’d have to write this to get it under the December 25th deadline, so here it is. In the crazy world of conservative politics, we have some people under the guise of conservatism and worse Christianity not supporting the War against Christmas. This cannot be allowed. Christmas is a foe that consistently irritates and berates the good people across this country. Forget Al-Qaeda, who hasn’t attacked us since September 11th, 2001, during that same time Christmas attacked America six times counting this year. And what’s worse rumors persist that 2008 will also be hit. Now any true Christian can tell you, the only part Christmas has to do with Christ is that fact that Christ is the first six letters of the word. Cue scene of my childhood-

“Alright kids time to hear a Christmas story” my mother beckons us to come sit on the floor as she holds a book decorated with Christmas icons. Surrounded by perennials she starts “Along time ago, in a land far away a man made it his life mission to give toys to poor children and was later sainted by the Catholic Church and soon nicknamed St. Nick also known as Santa Claus. Then he died. The End.” 4 children with mouth a gasped.

Ah, memories. So the holiday wasn’t about giving gifts to each other but helping the less fortunate. Hmmmm but surely that most famous reindeer of all had to be true. Cue next scene-

“Mom, what about Rudolph?” I ask with eyes pleading for hope that some facet of Christmas was true. “He was made up in 1934 by Montgomery Ward.”

As an environmental Republican, I’m extremely displeased with the slaughter of pine trees to decorate our houses for the season. Why do we spend millions of dollars for a plant that kinda sucks? I could get behind a baby maple tree maybe a cute oak but pine? But I guess it’s worth it to actively express our faith in Christ…oh wait.

“Mom, I love decorating our tree with our homemade decoration. I bet Jesus smiles when he sees it.” I say with a smile. “That’s nice Little Chris, but the tree comes from paganism not Christianity.” Mother replied.

So yes, I hate Santa and his little reindeer to. I hate Christmas trees. But what I hate most of all are those hideous manger scenes. Get them the hell off public government property. That’s step one, then get rid of the ones on private property. Why the hostility?

“”Mom, look at that beautiful manger!” I said riding in the backseat of our car. “Well Little Chris, actually the wise men didn’t show up until two years after Jesus was born. And he was born in a cave not in a wooden stable. Oh and it happened in May not December. Oh and trust me honey, Mary would not be happy and calm after what she had just been through”. Sure a part of me loves Christmas. I like presents. But forget the rest, and if you want to celebrate the birth of Christ talk to me in May