Before Benghazi became the media hit sensation, there was Gosnell. Then came the IRS scandal. Then came a myriad other “leaked” informations. If you’re the one who can sew all of these seemingly unrelated pieces of fabric together into a coherent narrative of what we’re now facing, now might be a good time to come forward and start demonstrating your craft.
Logging on after lazily watching a movie on the couch, to see all of the same old political pitchforks and torches, I realise maybe wasting the afternoon on the couch isn’t such a waste of time after all.
So, I watched this movie, Easy A. Before I review what others have said, (I already peeked, and it’ll colour my thinking, so let’s get this out first), l’ll have to say, at first I was a little like “what is wrong with the world?”, as people tend to do when we get older and look disapprovingly at youth culture. The movie had a couple hot girls in it, so it was easy on the eyes, and it actually had a lot to say about high school gossip in the digital age, which I found a little bit worthy of discussion. The actress is charming, conveying a sort of disaffection with expressions. So I liked the movie. Was a little uncomfortable with the gay student running off with a gay lover subplot, which seems to be a union requirement to include in everything in Hollywood movies these days. I mean, really. The kid drops out of school to run off with his gay lover, and Hollywood seems to want us to be okay with that? Sorry, I’m not. Whatever. I’ll have to admit, the ending of the movie was a little bit of a letdown, like they just ran out of ideas, and so, let’s end this just like a classic movie that everyone will remember. Or something.
But, anyway, there’s lots of topics for discussion in the movie, so I just thought I’d do something different and scribble down a few thoughts. What the hell, right?
At some point, I’ll have to address what I see as the problem with Christians in the conservative movement, of which I can’t fully claim part of, as many conservatives block me, presumably due to my propensity to say impolitic things. I like a lot of the benefits of living in a somewhat Christian society, so don’t take this as Christian-bashing. But we need to look at how Christians affect politics for the rest of us who might otherwise be considered Conservatives, if not for our impolitic way of speech.
Let’s start with birth control. The minute Sandra Fluke became the poster child for government sponsored birth control, the discussion immediately switched to “religious exemption”. Hey, I’m not religious. I don’t feel I should be forced to subsidize other people’s sex lives any more than the most devout Christian. Too late. The argument became about religious prudes, and was promptly squashed by a left that hates nothing more, seemingly, than anything to do with Christians. Christians became leverage to the left in shaping the argument. And we all will pay the price for it.
I should expound on this, some day, when I feel more up to it, should I be granted said time. Hate what the IRS did to Tea Party? Keep in mind, I myself feel like Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be receiving one red dime from the federal government out of my taxes. In a Conservative Utopia, Conservatives would go after leftists taking advantage of the tax code with an equal amount of fervor. Come on, you know you would.
Once an issue gets defined by Christians, the issue is lost. Want another example? I don’t condone persecution of muslims, but I’ve got my head out of the sand enough to realise, they’ll take advantage of any and all exemptions we grant Christians to spread their kind into our public life. What seems insidious to you, they find the same insidious in you. Another time, maybe I’ll get around to discussing why I think one is more insidious. My point is: What you argue against one group, can and will be used against your groups, or groups you favour. You need to be smart about the law, and that is what we’re talking about here. They’re trying to make blasphemy laws part of United Nations and United States laws. You’d better be paying attention, or you could end up ruined by a government grown too powerful by your own use of it against other people.
To me, restricting immigration is how you control who has an influence in writing your laws. If you’re like me, you probably want as little room for error in radical islam infecting our daily lives. There’s a lot at stake, here. I’m not saying “round ‘em up, and put ‘em in detainee camps”, or “let’s burn all the mosques”. I’m saying treat the ones who are here with respect if they deserve it, but let’s keep their numbers low, if they are more about putting their way of life above adapting to ours. I don’t want to come across as xenophobic, but there’s already politicians suggesting blasphemy laws should be implemented in the United States. If ever something needed the kabosh, that’s it. The free world depends on it.
Someone needs to sit down with Marco Rubio, and discuss what qualifies him to propose immigration legislation. Ask him about his views about immigration in Europe and across Asia. There are serious problems going on right now, worldwide, many directly related to immigration policy and refugees, and I’d like to know he has a grasp on the issues, rather is just seen as an expert because he might have political voter appeal to a particular demographic.
For the most part, I don’t care about the president’s silly look on a bicycle. Unless you’re out doing something in the way of physical fitness, I don’t think you have a lot to say about it on a personal level. In other words, personal attacks on him for looking like a book-learner trying to keep in shape seem a little petty to me.
On the other hand, and this is a much stronger hand, he seems deliberately projecting an image of, well, I don’t know what, but it isn’t that of a strong, masculine leader. I know masculinity is the devil in the eyes of leftists, but his imagery is really not very effective. We have Gary Johnson who climbs mountains, and manages to look cool riding a bike. We had Mitt Romney, who looked pretty comfortable on a horse. We had Bush and Reagan, both chainsaw-wielding Westerners.
It’s a bit humourous watching Obama trying to wield a mattock for an obvious garden photo-op, and once again, looking obviously unfamiliar with physical labour. And yet, he’s the one who the labour unions support?
From day one, Jimmy Carter made the best of his familiarity with swinging a hammer. When a lifetime academic talks about his support of the working people, the leftists could not have picked someone less credible.