Friday, July 07, 2006


Posted by Jabawacefti

Victor Davis Hanson on the current political climate.

Ouch. The big Russian doesn't feel that now, but that's gonna hurt in the morning.

Thursday, July 06, 2006


Posted by Jabawacefti

I would like to apologize for being out of the loop in the posting. With the July 4th weekend and catching up from that, it's been a little difficult to get in a moment to catch up in the world. Will do soon. Promise.

Aww, Christ.

Posted by codemorse

From the Star Tribune:

A Christian-themed movie about a football coach's faith in God is finding an audience in Congress — not so much for its inspirational message, but for the PG rating it received.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and other lawmakers are demanding explanations after hearing complaints that the movie "Facing the Giants'' was rated PG instead of G due to religious content.

"This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence,'' Blunt said in a letter to MPAA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman.

After meeting with MPAA officials, Blunt and a handful of other House members said they remain concerned about the subjective native of the ratings process.

"I'm not satisfied," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who attended the meeting with Blunt. "We probably will want to revisit this ratings process to have some commonality in the standards that exist for movies, videos and video games."

Blackburn said she wants the House Energy and Commerce Committee to hold hearings on the issue later this year. (emphasis added - ed.)

An MPAA spokesman did not return calls seeking comment. But in a letter to Blunt earlier this month, the MPAA's Glickman insisted the rating for "Facing the Giants'' was not based on religious content.

"Any strong or mature discussion of any subject matter results in at least a PG rating,'' Glickman said. "This movie had a mature discussion about pregnancy, for example. It also had other mature discussions that some parents might want to be aware of before taking their kids to see this movie.''

I've helpfully italicized a portion of the above because I think it deserves the special mention. Yes, Representative Blackburn wants to involve the House Energy and Commerce Committee in an exploration of movie ratings.

What a marvelously conservative use of taxpayer monies. Perhaps next we could fund a congressional investigation into the American Idol results. It's outrageous that the voting goes on under such shadowy circumstances!

To paraphrase Blunt, this whole thing raises the disquieting possibility that Blunt and other members of our government are not only falling over themselves to spend our money on ri-donk-ulous shit, they also have absolutely no understanding of the ratings system.

For the MPAA to consider Christianity "more dangerous for children than exposure to sex and violence," the MPAA would have to have slapped this film with an R or NC-17. The PG rating clearly identifies films that lack significent sex and adult violence.

It does, however, denote the presence of more mature themes than a "G" rated film. Themes that parents may wish to consider before bringing their small children to a film. As Roger Ebert eloquently and succinctly puts it:

The PG rating does not permit sex, violence and profanity, so the MPAA is not equating that content with Christianity. The mild PG rating informs parents of young children that some of the material may be intended for more mature audiences. Assume for the sake of argument that the movie featured the coach telling the child, "Following Allah is the decision that you're going to have to make for yourself. You may not want to accept it, because it will change your life. You will never be the same." Would that be all right with you, or would that be an element you would want to be informed about? There is no official religion in this country. Not all parents are Christians, and the MPAA ratings should serve all parents.

Here's a synopsis of the film, provided by someone who thinks the MPAA definately rated t he movie PG for it's religious elements:

"Facing the Giants" is the story of a Christian high school football coach who uses his undying faith to battle the giants of fear and failure. Due to the Christian content, the MPAA rated it PG, placing it in the same offensive category as sex, violence and profanity. The plot includes several prayers being answered, a medical miracle, and a mystic who delivers a message from God. The scene the MPAA found most offensive was a discussion between the football coach and a boy named Matt. The coach says the boy needs to stop bad-mouthing his father and get right with God.The boy replies: "You really believe in all that honoring God and following Jesus stuff? Well, I ain't trying to be disrespectful, but not everybody believes in that."The coach responds: "Matt, nobody's forcing anything on you. Following Jesus Christ is the decision that you're going to have to make for yourself. You may not want to accept it, because it will change your life. You will never be the same."

On a side-note, it sounds pretty fun to be in government doesn't it? Sitting around all day, complaining old-manishly about video games, and movies, and youth, and how no one respects the flag or Jesus Christ. You get to drive your car into a barrier in the middle of the night, whacked out on "prescription meds" without the police so much as giving you a ticket. You get to slap security guards. You get to pour our tax money down an enormous, gaping sphincter-hole of ludicrious special projects and hearings.

Perhaps you'd like to let Blunt, Blackburn, and the rest of our thumb-twiddling representative government know what you think of them spending the taxpayers' monies over a percieved religious slight?

Here's Roy Blunt's contact number: (417) 889 - 1800

Here's Marsha Blackburn's: (901) 382 - 5811

Remember to be polite, and to use your indoor voice.

Lost: The Movie

Posted by codemorse

Lost fans may find this interesting:
"We'd love to end the show after four year, five years tops and do a movie.”

That's show co-creator Damon Lindelof talking.

On the one hand, who wouldn't enjoy a big-budgeted, cinematic episode of the best show on network television? On the other, is this Lindelof's hint that the true "finale" of the show won't be on the show at all, but rather, in a film?

Asking Lost's audience to pony up cash for the resolution of the show would be a bold new step in "synergy," and would tick me off to no end.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

!UPDATED! Jew Gotta Be Kiddin' Me !UPDATED!

Posted by codemorse


In a recent turn of events, Stop the ACLU published the home phone number and home address of the family on their website, highlighting it as the first instance of an ongoing "project" called "Expose the ACLU Plaintiff".

....the Stop The ACLU project is supported, by their claims, by a "team" of over two hundred right-wing bloggers. They've gotten positive attention from World Net Daily and Free Republic, been invited to low-class radio outfits, and been the benefactors of links from a passel of blogs that ranges from Debbie Schlussel and Michelle Malkin....

The biggest irony of the Stop the ACLU action against this family? That ACLU involvement in this case has been minimal: aside from putting the family in touch with a local attorney willing to take the case pro bono, and an ACLU speaker in support of the family at the hostile 2004 school board meeting, the organization is not otherwise involved in the case.

Here's an excerpt from Stop the ACLU's site:

To all you liberals who are reading this web page as a result of a link from Salon, the Daily Kos or one of your other obnoxious blogs, be advised that there have been some minor corrections made to this page, not as a direct result of your e-mails but because I believe it was the right thing to do.

Yet let me say that this individual below is not the sole target here. It's just that I have not had time to update this page. But now I will. And I assure you of this - the more e-mails you send, the faster I will get more individuals and groups posted. And believe me, I have a lot of them.So if you think you're angry at me now, just wait until we post more cases.

We love making you mad and will do all we can to see you become unglued.And for those of you who say I'm a Jew hater, you better have your facts straight about my nationality as I am part Jewish (on my mom's side) and proudly so.

Lastly, thank you for all the hits to our site and getting us so much attention. You are helping us become the number 1 pit bull against the ACLU.

Wow. Talk about passive-aggressive. "You dirty liberals didn't shame me into anything! I changed my site because I'm a good person! I'm part-Jewish!"

And check this out:

I am pleased that we had an effect in this case. We have others we want to put up on the site to shame them but have not gotten around to it.

Shame them? For what? For wanting to be treated as equal human beings?

Fascinating. And frankly disturbing to me. Part-Jewish or not, ol' Neddie is knowingly opening up an already-harassed family with small children to further and more finely-targeted harassment.


The Original Post:

From Jews On First:

A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The religion (if any) of a second family in the lawsuit is not known, because they're suing as Jane and John Doe; they also fear retaliation. Both families are asking relief from "state-sponsored religion."

Among numerous specific examples in the complaint was what happened at plaintiff Samantha Dobrich's graduation in 2004 from the district's high school. She was the only Jewish student in her graduating class. The complaint relates that local pastor, Jerry Fike, in his invocation, followed requests for "our heavenly Father's" guidance for the graduates with: I also pray for one specific student, that You be with her and guide her in the path that You have for her. And we ask all these things in Jesus' name.

The Dobriches said the prayers to Jesus' ruined the graduation experience for Samantha. Mona Dobrich, Samantha's mother, repeatedly called district officials to complain. A board member told her she would have to get the matter put on a meeting agenda -- then refused to put it on the agenda. The school superintendent slipped the topic onto the agenda and then told Mona Dobrich she would need to raise it during the public comment period.

The board opened the June 15, 2004 meeting at which Dobrich was prepared to speak with a prayer in Jesus' name. The board was not forthcoming to her request that official prayers be in "God's name" rather than in Jesus' name. The high school athletic director veered from his agenda topic to encourage the board to keep praying in Jesus' name. Board member Donald Hattier followed Dobrich out and offered to "compromise" by keeping graduation free of prayers to Jesus. And, according to the complaint, he warned her not to hire a lawyer. The complaint recounts a raucous crowd that applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him "take your yarmulke off!" His statement, read by Samantha, confided "I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy."

A state representative spoke in support of prayer and warned board members that "the people" would replace them if they faltered on the issue. Other representatives spoke against separating "god and state."

A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might "disappear" like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. She disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.

Wow. And Christians wonder why they're being "oppressed." Maybe it's because your average citizen fears the taunting and harming of their family as a direct result of their religious differences? Maybe calling kids "Jew boy," telling them they "killed Christ," and suggesting that their mother be dismembered are causes for some amount of alarm.

Maybe Christians feel oppressed because even fellow Christians see stories like this and feel the urge to mock this kind of "faith." Maybe showing massive intolerance and possibly physically-violent behavior toward non-Christians has made them just a little wary of the religion as a whole.

This brings up what I consider to be an interesting question. Namely, should we attempt to force people to get along? Or should we allow a sort of social natural selection to divide the country into more rarified camps?

And is allowing that sort of natural selection any different, really, from the concept of Separate but Equal? Was the forcing of school integration something worth doing?

Schools offer the potential to transcend barriers of class, religion and race by bringing together children of different backgrounds. But should we bother?

Or should the "Activist Judges" keep their noses out of it?

Superman: Obvious Communist. Probably Gay.

Posted by codemorse

Raise your hand if you're tired of having your patriotism questioned. You can't see it, but Superman just raised his hand.

From Debbie Schlussel:

In World War II, Superman's comic book inventors had him fighting
the Nazis. Today, they won't dare show him fighting contemporary
Nazis--Islamofascists. Lex Luthor working with Al-Qaeda terrorists, with both evil forces getting defeated--now that would have been dynamic and exciting, a great plot. But, unfortunately, too politically incorrect, current, and exciting for the Hollywood culturatti. Maybe that's why "Truth, Justice & the American Way," is now just "Truth & Justice (and all that other stuff)." Though, the studio didn't have a problem lying to its prospective American audience by using the
American flag and the full phrase (including "The AMERICAN Way")- both absent in the movie--in promotional posters for the movie.

Some have asked
whether Superman is still relevant post-9/11. He would be . . . if he were fighting the post-9/11 enemy and being a man while doing so.

Ooooh, snap!

There are two competing, idiotic assertions here. The first is that if Hollywood had, y'know, BALLS, they'd make a Superman movie where he takes down the terrorists like a righteous avenger clutching an American flag (which he then hoists skyward).

Let's not bother trying to explain to Ms. Schlussel that Lex Luthor, operating independently of any government or sponsoring entity, drunk on ambition and planning to kill billions of people by wiping out the continent of North America, is kind of the textbook definition of a terrorist.

Such concise logic might cause severe psychic harm. Apparently, when Ms. Schlussel says "terrorists," she means "Arabs." Because, as we all know, the only terrorists that matter are the middle-eastern ones.

Never mind that. What I'd like to focus on is this idea that by substituting "and all that stuff" for "the American way," that Superman Returns is somehow taking an enormous super-leak all over our country.

Superman has always been the most American of super-heroes (with the notable exception of Captain America). He's as American as Mom, Apple Pie, Jazz, or NASCAR. Just glance at the Superman we've seen on film thus far. The one who stood atop the White House and assured the President that he'd take care of things.

But somehow, because the writers of the film have Perry White making an off-the-cuff reference/homage to the classic Supes tagline, all that background ceases to matter. It's as if each film should include an obvious America shout-out to appease the concerned pundit comics-fanbase.

If Schlussel had ever, say, read a Superman comic, she'd see a character in love with his country, but filled with compassion for the world. She'd see a Superman that airlifts food to the starving in Africa. A Superman who has, in point of fact, taken on the occasional rogue dictator.

But of course, what matters here is that liberal Hollywood is once again attempting to denigrate America by reducing one of its icons to namby-pamby, multi-cultural, metrosexualness:

Instead, we get a dumbed down, girlie-man version of Superman in "Superman Returns." Like every sensitive, slacker metrosexual, Supe's gone off for five years to "discover himself." In the meantime, Lex Luthor gets out of prison because Supe failed to show up to testify at his trial. And the dullest Lois Lane ever has a child out of wedlock. Nice message to send to your kids who will be begging to see this.

In what is more reminiscent of a Maury Povich "Who's the Daddy?" show than a Superman plot, Lois apparently slept around and thinks the cutesy kid--very annoying and distracting in the film--is her fiance's child, not that of the other guy she was simultaneously sleeping with--the Man of Steel.

I think my brain just blew up. Nevermind that Lois doesn't think this in the film, and that it doesn't take much to figure that out. So, Superman is a "girlie-man. (code for gay)" Yet he's slept with Lois Lane. What, exactly, makes Superman girly? Never mind! Debbie doesn't have time for things like explanations! Next wildly-unsubstantiated point, please!

Still, aside from its dullness and the poor examples it sets for kids, "Superman Returns" is a fun, escapist film.

HUH?! She liked it? Mongo confused.

And I'm not the only one who's confused. Because apparently, everyone's buying into this ridiculousness.

From Michelle Malkin:

I sat through about half of Superman Returns yesterday. The movie was boring and gave me a headache. But that's just me. Guess I'm just one of those people who doesn't have the patience for Hollyweird escapism that pits softened not-so-superheroes against rootless, not-so-arch enemies. It's a 9/11 thing, I think.

Actually, it's sort of an ethnic thing. Explain to me again why Luthor isn't a terrorist? Other than the fact that his bald pate isn't wrapped in a turban?

It's moments like these that you wish Superman really did exist. I'd like to see him fly over to Debbie's place and ask her about the last time she saved a shuttle and an airplane at the same time, then tap his red-bootied foot impatiently as he waits expectantly for an answer.

Google This

Posted by codemorse


For a sneak peek at the future of computing, go to YouOS and click "Try a Demo." Your browser window turns into a desktop of its own, with sub-windows for e-mail, chat, and Web browsing. There are also links on the YouOS desktop for a sticky-notes program and a rich-text editor. But these programs aren't on your hard drive—they're running somewhere in the vast unknown Internet.

Check out YouOS for 10 minutes, then imagine the same project on a billion-dollar budget. Now do you think the mythical Google PC that's allegedly being secretly developed in Silicon Valley—or in China or on a Ukrainian IRC channel—will become reality?

You could still run Windows on a Google PC; it just wouldn't matter if you did or not. Most Google PC
rumors imagine a low-priced, Windows-less, entry-level computer for the Wal-Mart set. That could be part of the plan, but it would just be one more option. Instead of trying to convince every consumer on the planet to buy a new machine, it makes a lot more sense for Google to build a super-service that you could log into from any computer, phone, or television, or car and airplane seatback. You would be able to access your files anywhere by logging in, calling up your desktop, and popping into Google's array of Gmail-like applications for word processing, photo editing, and anything else you can think of.

Neat. But also spooky. Everytime I read a story like this, I can't help but think "Skynet is coming. The war against the machines begins soon."

Then I take my meds, and go back to drooling on myself.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

The Land of The Free, And The Home Of The Brave

I may whine and moan and complain, but I love this country. Love it like big boys love pie. The original American Bad-Ass, Jabawacefti, and I couldn't agree on that more.

More Spidey-Spoilage

Go on. Gorge yourself. Feast upon the hoary meat of plot; the gristle of character strung between your teeth.

Or something like that.