Check out just one of his great videos here.
You are currently browsing JeffG’s articles.
One thing before I start: the producers would do well to remove stupid scenes like the one where Kirk is on top of a half-naked alien. That scene could have either been toned down or removed, and the movie would have made a lot more money. Many parents won’t take their kids, and there is good reason for this. The scene itself is not as bad as the preview suggests, but still should not have been there.
It’s not The Dark Knight (then again, what is?), but the newest Star Trek movie reflects things in the values category that show a step in the right direction, and leads me again to believe that this Obama craze and the “death of conservatism” is just a fabrication. How can Star Trek give me this pointer? To understand you actually have to jump over from Star Trek, and first look at James Bond.
Before Daniel Craig, Halle Berry nearly killed James Bond. How? Well, Hollywood producers were looking for a new character, a new Bond, a multi-cultural diverse whatever Bond, and she was going to be Halle Berry. The idea of erasing the hero for a diversity crusade had been going on for some time…you know, having the girl punch out the gorilla as opposed to the guy saving her — but with Bond, well they just went too far. Someone in Hollywood wanted to have a diversity crusade, and someone else wanted to make a movie that stuck with everyone (and cash in)…someone wanted to make a movie with a masculine hero. Why? Because people like it, and the other would fail. It goes back to the same mistake made continuously by liberals: a heroine need not become a man, but instead should show their strength in femininity (see Judy Dench as the “M” in Bond. Her character is compelling because she doesn’t compete with Bond. Her power is in her maternal approach. Anything else would just be stupid). Further, a man is compelling as a masculine leader, not a tool who lets the girl do everything…so let’s jump forward to Star Trek.
I don’t want to go into details on the movie, because I do not want to spoil it, but I will go to the theme. I am going to say, the movie has something similar to the rest of the hits this summer: men. Not only does Star Trek have real men, but have men coming of age, making decisions. Kirk, even as unruly and boyish as he is, is seeking to be something more, and within the plot are not stupid guys that everyone just wants to get out of the way, but real leaders.
This leadership, contrary to the relativism preached by all the no-money making diversity films, is something that strikes a person right at the center of their nature, and pulls at a string not often discussed in politics right now: nobility. I’m not talking about a title from the middle ages, as there is much talk about for that nobility in the Obama craze. What I am talking about is the concept nobility, which includes dignity, respect, perseverance, character, and sacrifice. The liberals, and many conservatives too fiscally focused would base their entire theory on selfishness or feigned compassion. The correct way to look at the world is to understand that men and women love and follow courage, and when it is in the movie theater, they will watch it in droves. When it is on Capitol Hill, and it is NOT fabricated, more than 53% of the country will vote for it…49 states will vote for it.
Only about a month ago, Squarewon reported on Notre Dame giving Obama an honorary doctorate and invite to Notre Dame’s Commencement Speech. Since then, there have been some pretty impressive moves, including 300k signatures to un-invite the President, Mary Ann Glendon turning down her invite to receive a prestigious award…and…look at this:
The bishops who have so far expressed disapproval of Notre Dame’s invitation to Obama (in alphabetical order) are:
1. Bishop John D’Arcy - Fort Wayne-South Bend, IN
2. Bishop Samuel Aquila - Fargo, ND
3. Bishop Gregory Aymond - Austin, TX
4. Bishop Gerald Barbarito - Palm Beach, FL
5. Bishop Leonard Blair - Toledo, OH
6. Archbishop Daniel Buechlein - Indianapolis, IN
7. Bishop Robert Baker - Birmingham, AL
8. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz - Lincoln, NE
9. Archbishop Eusebius Beltran - Oklahoma City, OK
10. Auxiliary Bishop Oscar Cantú - San Antonio, TX
11. Archbishop Charles Chaput - Denver, CO
12. Bishop Paul Coakley - Salina, KS
13. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo - Houston, TX
14. Archbishop Timothy Dolan - New York, NY
15. Bishop Thomas Doran - Rockford, IL
16. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty - Scranton, PA
17. Bishop Robert Finn - Kansas City-St. Joseph, MO
18. Bishop Joseph Galante - Camden, NJ
19. Bishop Victor Galeone - St. Augustine, FL
20. Cardinal Francis George - Chicago, IL; President, USCCB
21. Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger - Evansville, IN
22. Archbishop José Gomez - San Antonio, TX
23. Bishop Bernard Harrington - Winona, MN
24. Bishop William Higi - Lafayette, IN
25. Archbishop Alfred Hughes - New Orleans, LA
26. Bishop James V. Johnston - Springfield-Cape Girardeau, MO
27. Bishop Peter Jugis - Charlotte, NC
28. Bishop Joseph Latino - Jackson, MS
29. Bishop John LeVoir - New Ulm, MN
30. Bishop Jerome Listecki - La Crosse, WI
31. Bishop William E. Lori - Bridgeport, CT
32. Bishop Paul Loverde - Arlington, VA
33. Bishop George Lucas - Springfield, IL
34. Bishop Robert Lynch - St. Petersburg, FL
35. Bishop Joseph Martino - Scranton, PA
36. Bishop John McCormack - Manchester, NH
37. Bishop Robert Morlino - Madison, WI
38. Bishop George Murry - Youngstown, OH
39. Archbishop John J. Myers - Newark, NJ
40. Archbishop Joseph Naumann - Kansas City, KS
41. Bishop R. Walker Nickless - Sioux City, IA
42. Archbishop John C. Nienstedt - St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN
43. Archbishop Edwin O’Brien - Baltimore, MD
44. Bishop Thomas Olmsted - Phoenix, AZ
45. Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk - Cincinnati, OH
46. Bishop Glen Provost - Lake Charles, LA
47. Cardinal Justin Rigali - Philadelphia, PA; Chairman, USCCB Pro-Life Committee
48. Bishop Kevin Rhoades - Harrisburg, PA
49. Bishop Alexander Sample - Marquette, MI
50. Bishop Edward J. Slattery - Tulsa, OK
51. Bishop Richard Stika - Knoxville, TN
52. Bishop Anthony Taylor - Little Rock, AR
53. Bishop Robert Vasa - Baker, OR
54. Bishop Michael Warfel - Great Falls-Billings, MT
55. Bishop Thomas Wenski - Orlando, FL
56. Archbishop Donald Wuerl - Washington, D.C.
57. Bishop David Zubick - Pittsburgh, PA
Pat Toomey…future PA Senator. Check out his hammering of Arlen Specter.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/29/arlen-specters-betrayal/
While I am concerned about the filibuster-proof majority…I am very happy that Mr. Spector has now switched over, proving his true colors. As we have discussed in the past on Squarewon, Arlen Spector has been the turncoat in the Republican Party for some time (even more than the rest). I’ve been wondering why this man did not switch a long time ago.
Spector is a liberal. For those of you who did not notice, he voted for the Stimulus package, and is socially liberal. Let’s see: fiscally liberal…socially liberal…I think that makes a Democrat!. Now if we could just get Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to join him on the other side (since they both voted for the Stimulus Package too).
Spector’s voting has lead him into serious trouble in the Republican party. Pat Toomey, who narrowly lost to Spector last election, has announced his running against Spector, and has been beating Spector badly in the primary polls. Bottom line: Spector could not have won in the primary against Toomey, and so Spector HAD to switch. That’s what I’m talking about Pat.
You’re going to hear over and over…”the Republicans are going too far right! They’ve lost their way and are being hedged into something.” I remember this same thing being said about Reagan against the Soviets, and Bush in 2000. The only time the Republicans flounder is when they GO AWAY from conservative principles.
What is happening in the Republican party right now is a cleansing…and if I were you, I’d consider looking at Pat Toomey, and helping him, since he’s got conservative principles going for him. Now Toomey’s got the go ahead in the Republican Primary, and set up. Interestingly, the Democratic Party now has to run Spector…who is highly unpopular in the Republican party, and will fire up the base even more now.
What does this mean? I don’t think Spector had a choice, but I also don’t think he’s got much of a chance either way. Don’t get me wrong, the election probably won’t be a landslide for Toomey…but what you have is a VERY capable conservative who is not afraid to openly criticize Spector, nor the bad policies in Washington. This stance in the Republican party is a great thing at this point. People are looking for someone like him. And remember, Toomey would have beat Spector before, but for Bush coming down and campaigning (hypocritically) for the turncoat called Spector. Toomey’s got a real shot everyone. Expect a huge amount of Republicans coming to his aid.
It’s time for a reckoning people, and it looks like Spector is the latest casualty. Some are going to say this is the wrong direction. Note: it’s going to be people who are on the other side, because they are scared.
Like most people in the United States, I do not hold Global Warming in any high regard. In fact, I think its a farce…and a way to push other agendas like population control, or the new sin taxes that statists want to enact: no tobacco, no big cars, no big business, no fat people, and no unwanted people (Euthanasia and abortion).
All of that being said, I think that we conservatives should take a genuine and balanced approach to environmental issues. I myself have made some pretty rough comments about Mother Earth, although these comments are not because I disdain the Earth, or want to trash my planet, but rather because I am so annoyed at people throwing the environment in my face, and presenting their agenda as if it is the only way to discuss the environment. So to Mother Earth…I apologize, and…I’d like to introduce here a new perspective on the environment, and start the ball rolling on a simple question: what do conservative believe about the environment?
I’ll provide my thoughts.
1. It is good and noble to maintain a clean and beautiful environment. To encourage participation in good habits and a loving manner is also a great thing.
2. Man’s duty is to subdue the earth, not be governed by it. Man is a part of nature, and man stands above it. Man is not a parasite that feeds off the earth, although, as he can destroy a good environment, and he should, in a rational manner, work to order the earth.
3. Without man, animals and plants become savage and wild. With man, plants can and should be properly groomed and maintained, and animals should be properly managed, so that animals like deer to not overrun an area and end up starving to death because they eat all the grass. Animals should be trained. When in man’s proper domain, animals become happier, just like the plants, which when properly managed, look gorgeous on a landscape…and are healthier. Further, under man, raw materials cease to be just waste, and instead become powerful tools for communication, better standard of living, and show the might and power of mankind.
4. Local governments can and should manage basic issues, not a federal government. It is not that there shouldn’t be a law that can manage environmental policy (such as a simple fine for littering in the street), but to demonize businesses and people is irrational and has severe negative consequences both for people and for the earth.
5. Encouragement of stewardship through charities and non-profits is a great thing. Federal Tax warfare and severe penalties are a terrible idea. If we are talking about severely invasive human rights, then laws can and should be discussed. These mattters, of course, are one’s of prudential judgment, not radical policies proposed under pretty terms like “go green” and “carbon footprint.”
5. We are not a society of myths…and unfortunately, our global environmental policy has become a mythology. While Good stewardship over the earth is a must, panic and doomsday predictions are embarrassing, and historically speaking even more embarrassing. I would rather not be laughed at by those generations proceeding me, when they ask: “why did people believe in that global warming nonsense?”
So Happy EarthDay Conservatives. We do not “go green,” because we are not radical…we are rational, We love our hunting, our fishing, our outdoor hikes. We love taking bike rides, and going off road in a truck. We love taking a sportscar across the mountings. We love this gorgeous place called earth, and it is our duty to protect the earth, even from radical doomsday predictors, who would take our earth back to a savage time when Earth consumed itself.
Here’s to saving the Planet!
Recent Comments