Every now and then, atheists claim they’re being discriminated against because polling data suggests many Americans wouldn’t want their children to marry an atheist. I don’t see any reason atheists should be offended by this. Why should a desire to marry, or to see your kids marry, somebody with similar values be taken to mean you think somebody with different values is inferior? The issue isn’t superiority, but compatibility: what will make a couple bond best, what will give children the clearest foundation and messages, and so forth. I don’t feel even remotely slighted by the fact that a Muslim would probably not want his daughter to marry me (whether or not Dad’s into honor killings, of course, is a different matter…). This claim is really grasping at straws.
Year: 2008
Tell a Lie Loud Enough and Often Enough….
The New York Times has a celebrated history of shame, up to and including disclosing government secrets, and their latest editorial is another disgusting affront to journalism:
–
We know that operatives in modern-day presidential campaigns are supposed to say things that everyone knows are ridiculous — and to do it with a straight face.
–
Still, there was something surreal, and offensive, about today’s soundbite from the campaign of Senator John McCain.
–
The presumptive Republican nominee has embarked on a bare-knuckled barrage of negative advertising aimed at belittling Mr. Obama. The most recent ad compares the presumptive Democratic nominee for president to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton — suggesting to voters that he’s nothing more than a bubble-headed, publicity-seeking celebrity.
–
The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.
–
Mr. Obama called Mr. McCain on the ploy, saying, quite rightly, that the Republicans are trying to scare voters by pointing out that he “doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills.’’
–
But Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, had a snappy answer. “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” he said. “It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.’’
–
The retort was, we must say, not only contemptible, but shrewd. It puts the sin for the racial attack not on those who made it, but on the victim of the attack.
–
It also — and we wish this were coincidence, but we doubt it — conjurs [sic] up another loaded racial image.
–
The phrase dealing the race card “from the bottom of the deck” entered the national lexicon during the O.J. Simpson saga. Robert Shapiro, one of Mr. Simpson’s lawyers, famously declared of himself, Johnny Cochran and the rest of the Simpson defense team, “Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck.”
–
It’s ugly stuff. How about we leave Britney, Paris, and O.J. out of this — and have a presidential campaign?
–
There’s no secret racist message in McCain’s ad, implicit or otherwise. The intent was to call Obama vapid and his hype overblown, nothing more. If you’re looking for vapid, overrated celebrities, you’d be hard-pressed to find more worthy examples of any skin color. Is there really any doubt that if the campaign had used images of, say, Halle Berry instead, that would have been called a clue to the Right’s deep-seated yearning for segregation?
–
And the supposed OJ allusion? To say it was deliberate is wishful speculation at best, and “dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck” seems to accurately describe both situations: a minority figure invoking race victimhood to divert attention from the real issue.
–
The Times has no evidence for their thesis other than that Barack said so (speaking of which, if that was Obama “call[ing] Mr. McCain on the ploy,” why did he initially try to deny it? And if his comments were in response to McCain, why did he say them back in June, too?). There’s no lie the Left, and their propagandists in the media and blogosphere, won’t tell or spread in the pursuit of power.
–
We know that operatives in modern-day presidential campaigns are supposed to say things that everyone knows are ridiculous — and to do it with a straight face.
–
Still, there was something surreal, and offensive, about today’s soundbite from the campaign of Senator John McCain.
–
The presumptive Republican nominee has embarked on a bare-knuckled barrage of negative advertising aimed at belittling Mr. Obama. The most recent ad compares the presumptive Democratic nominee for president to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton — suggesting to voters that he’s nothing more than a bubble-headed, publicity-seeking celebrity.
–
The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.
–
Mr. Obama called Mr. McCain on the ploy, saying, quite rightly, that the Republicans are trying to scare voters by pointing out that he “doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills.’’
–
But Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, had a snappy answer. “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” he said. “It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.’’
–
The retort was, we must say, not only contemptible, but shrewd. It puts the sin for the racial attack not on those who made it, but on the victim of the attack.
–
It also — and we wish this were coincidence, but we doubt it — conjurs [sic] up another loaded racial image.
–
The phrase dealing the race card “from the bottom of the deck” entered the national lexicon during the O.J. Simpson saga. Robert Shapiro, one of Mr. Simpson’s lawyers, famously declared of himself, Johnny Cochran and the rest of the Simpson defense team, “Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck.”
–
It’s ugly stuff. How about we leave Britney, Paris, and O.J. out of this — and have a presidential campaign?
–
There’s no secret racist message in McCain’s ad, implicit or otherwise. The intent was to call Obama vapid and his hype overblown, nothing more. If you’re looking for vapid, overrated celebrities, you’d be hard-pressed to find more worthy examples of any skin color. Is there really any doubt that if the campaign had used images of, say, Halle Berry instead, that would have been called a clue to the Right’s deep-seated yearning for segregation?
–
And the supposed OJ allusion? To say it was deliberate is wishful speculation at best, and “dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck” seems to accurately describe both situations: a minority figure invoking race victimhood to divert attention from the real issue.
–
The Times has no evidence for their thesis other than that Barack said so (speaking of which, if that was Obama “call[ing] Mr. McCain on the ploy,” why did he initially try to deny it? And if his comments were in response to McCain, why did he say them back in June, too?). There’s no lie the Left, and their propagandists in the media and blogosphere, won’t tell or spread in the pursuit of power.
Evil
While we can’t be entirely sure who will find salvation and who won’t, I think it’s pretty safe to say promoting the right to abortion while calling yourself a man of God is a surefire (no pun intended) way to reserve prime seating in Hell (hat tip: Eternity Matters).
Around the Web
It seems the federal Women, Infants, and Children program, ostensibly a low-income healthcare aid, is referring people to Planned Parenthood. Nice, eh?
–
“He doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency.” That’s the latest phony smear Obama claims the GOP is leveling against him. This race-baiting filth should be a cakewalk for any Republican candidate worth his salt. Unfortunately, we got Johnny the Wonder Dolt…who claims to be an “unabashed conservative.” Yeah, right.
–
This week, Ann Coulter’s column takes on the Edwards-love child story. Lord knows if anybody’s sleazy enough to do something like this it’s John Edwards, and his reaction to the charges haven’t exactly been the conduct of an honest man with nothing to hide. Still, I’d be wary of anything from the pages of the National Enquirer.
–
Religion of Peace update: evidently the Dutch no longer value freedom of speech.
–
Required reading: Walter Williams on “A Country at Mercy of Environmentalists” and Rick Moran on “House Issues Apology for Slavery, Jim Crow.”
–
“He doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency.” That’s the latest phony smear Obama claims the GOP is leveling against him. This race-baiting filth should be a cakewalk for any Republican candidate worth his salt. Unfortunately, we got Johnny the Wonder Dolt…who claims to be an “unabashed conservative.” Yeah, right.
–
This week, Ann Coulter’s column takes on the Edwards-love child story. Lord knows if anybody’s sleazy enough to do something like this it’s John Edwards, and his reaction to the charges haven’t exactly been the conduct of an honest man with nothing to hide. Still, I’d be wary of anything from the pages of the National Enquirer.
–
Religion of Peace update: evidently the Dutch no longer value freedom of speech.
–
Required reading: Walter Williams on “A Country at Mercy of Environmentalists” and Rick Moran on “House Issues Apology for Slavery, Jim Crow.”
Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is "Ethicist"
Alonzo Fyfe recently devoted an entire post to condemning misleading, context-free attack ads, and in another, chastised a reader for taking his own words out of context:
–
Words get their meaning from their context and it is impossible for a person to write anything or to carry on any discussion that will not contain elements whose meaning changes in a different context. For this reason, there is no option but for the burden of the responsibility to be on the reader to understand a statement in that context.
–
Isn’t that remarkable? It seems the Atheist Ethicist understands and values the importance of context more than he let on…
–
Words get their meaning from their context and it is impossible for a person to write anything or to carry on any discussion that will not contain elements whose meaning changes in a different context. For this reason, there is no option but for the burden of the responsibility to be on the reader to understand a statement in that context.
–
Isn’t that remarkable? It seems the Atheist Ethicist understands and values the importance of context more than he let on…
ALL Report: Baby Steps DVD
http://youtube.com/v/ZWfRvRiROfg
This past week, we had one of these videos constantly playing at Pro-Life Wisconsin’s booth at the Fond du Lac County Fair. They’re tremendously effective at catching attention. To most hearts, no amount of propaganda can overcome the power of these faces.
Movie Review: "The Dark Knight"
This weekend a friend and I saw The Dark Knight, the highly-anticipated sequel to Christopher Nolan’s celebrated franchise reboot, Batman Begins. I can confirm that the media hype is legit: this film is amazing.
–
Orphaned billionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has been Batman for about a year, and Gotham City is improving for the first time in ages—criminals are scared, the mob is in disarray, and the efforts of new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) leave Bruce hopeful for the day Gotham no longer needs his alter ego, leaving him to a normal life with his beloved Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Katie Holmes from Begins). But all of Gotham’s progress threatens to be shattered by the rise to power of a self-described “agent of chaos” known only as the Joker (Heath Ledger).
–
Knight excels as an action movie (the ambitious action sequences will thrill you all the more when you realize digital effects are used very little), as a crime drama, and as a case study in human nature. I can’t recall the last time I’ve seen a movie that took such a strong grip on my attention, and maintained it throughout a 2 ½ hour running time. Nolan, along with writers Jonathan Nolan (yep, his brother) & David Goyer, have imbued the story with a real sense of unpredictability, and at times even fear of what might lurk around the corner (by contrast, I thought The Incredible Hulk was both a respectable effort and a lot of fun, but there was virtually nothing surprising or unpredictable about it).
–
Aiding the immersion is the fact that, just like Begins, Knight is far more grounded in reality than the average comic adaptation. Granted, the technology at Batman’s disposal still has one foot firmly planted in science fiction, but it’s decidedly more James Bond than Adam West (plus, Batman’s the only one with access to hi-tech gear). As fanciful as the idea of costumed crusaders is, Nolan’s vision comes closer to making you believe what you’re watching could really happen than any other superhero film ever has. And none of this grounding comes at the expense of the source material’s essence (a refreshing departure from mangling things for no better reason than the whims of Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher…).
–
It’s also due in part to the film’s oft-mentioned darkness. If you’re expecting cartoonish villainy, or even something akin to the League of Shadows’ master plan from Begins, think again. This Joker isn’t some unscrupulous goofball out for world domination—he’s a sociopath and anarchist without the slightest hint of decency beneath his grubby clown makeup, and his actions reflect that. While there’s no real gore (save one character’s fate I won’t mention, but every Bat-fan knows who I’m talking about) and there’s no sex (indeed, it’s to the filmmakers’ credit that a sex scene doesn’t happen at a certain point where it would have in most other movies), Knight is violent, even brutal, and there’s a lot of disturbing imagery, harrowing situations, and tense buildups to disaster and tragedy. Young children simply should not see this movie. At the very least, parents should watch it in advance so they know which scenes to skip when watching the DVD with their kids.
–
But teen and adult audiences would be hard-pressed to find a fictional movie more powerful and rewarding. Everything you’ve heard about Ledger’s phenomenal, menacing performance is true (Jack who?), but as great as he is, he doesn’t overshadow the rest of the cast. As the protagonist, Bale perfectly conveys, and balances, Bruce Wayne’s public image of carefree excess and Batman’s obsession with justice. Without giving too much away about Harvey Dent, let’s just say Eckhart won’t disappoint in the role’s broad range of emotions. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman display wit and gravitas as butler Alfred Pennyworth and gadget guru Lucius Fox. Gary Oldman’s role as honest cop Lt. Jim Gordon is larger than in Begins, and he soars in it. I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal was a tad too spunky early in the film, but she proves her dramatic credentials later on—and then again, a little spunk helps lighten the load in a film this heavy (unlike some viewers, I wasn’t bothered by Katie Holmes in Begins, and I have no opinion on who is ultimately better).
–
On that note, don’t take all this talk of darkness to mean Knight is some sort of depression-fest. It’s not. Tragedy strikes and human depravity is on full display, but so are the heroism, courage and decency of Batman, his allies, and even the people of Gotham (refreshingly, the film actually affirms several basic conservative tenets: the futility of appeasement, the occasional need to do harsh, ugly things to defeat evil, and the importance of doing the right thing at the expense of public opinion). There’s wit, humor, and moments that are simply fun and cool. Without giving too much away, the film ends on a bittersweet note that drives home the sacrifices that make Batman compelling in a way few cinema or comic-book heroes can match.
–
Sure, there are imperfections here and there—a minor plot hole or two, if you look hard enough—but they are eclipsed by the film’s sheer quality. The Dark Knight is easily the best Batman film ever made—not only does the beloved 1989 version pale in comparison, but the contrast shows just how limited an application Tim Burton’s style really has. But it’s also the best example of the superhero/comic book genre, and an outstanding cinematic achievement in any genre. Simply put, it’s a masterpiece.
–
Orphaned billionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has been Batman for about a year, and Gotham City is improving for the first time in ages—criminals are scared, the mob is in disarray, and the efforts of new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) leave Bruce hopeful for the day Gotham no longer needs his alter ego, leaving him to a normal life with his beloved Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Katie Holmes from Begins). But all of Gotham’s progress threatens to be shattered by the rise to power of a self-described “agent of chaos” known only as the Joker (Heath Ledger).
–
Knight excels as an action movie (the ambitious action sequences will thrill you all the more when you realize digital effects are used very little), as a crime drama, and as a case study in human nature. I can’t recall the last time I’ve seen a movie that took such a strong grip on my attention, and maintained it throughout a 2 ½ hour running time. Nolan, along with writers Jonathan Nolan (yep, his brother) & David Goyer, have imbued the story with a real sense of unpredictability, and at times even fear of what might lurk around the corner (by contrast, I thought The Incredible Hulk was both a respectable effort and a lot of fun, but there was virtually nothing surprising or unpredictable about it).
–
Aiding the immersion is the fact that, just like Begins, Knight is far more grounded in reality than the average comic adaptation. Granted, the technology at Batman’s disposal still has one foot firmly planted in science fiction, but it’s decidedly more James Bond than Adam West (plus, Batman’s the only one with access to hi-tech gear). As fanciful as the idea of costumed crusaders is, Nolan’s vision comes closer to making you believe what you’re watching could really happen than any other superhero film ever has. And none of this grounding comes at the expense of the source material’s essence (a refreshing departure from mangling things for no better reason than the whims of Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher…).
–
It’s also due in part to the film’s oft-mentioned darkness. If you’re expecting cartoonish villainy, or even something akin to the League of Shadows’ master plan from Begins, think again. This Joker isn’t some unscrupulous goofball out for world domination—he’s a sociopath and anarchist without the slightest hint of decency beneath his grubby clown makeup, and his actions reflect that. While there’s no real gore (save one character’s fate I won’t mention, but every Bat-fan knows who I’m talking about) and there’s no sex (indeed, it’s to the filmmakers’ credit that a sex scene doesn’t happen at a certain point where it would have in most other movies), Knight is violent, even brutal, and there’s a lot of disturbing imagery, harrowing situations, and tense buildups to disaster and tragedy. Young children simply should not see this movie. At the very least, parents should watch it in advance so they know which scenes to skip when watching the DVD with their kids.
–
But teen and adult audiences would be hard-pressed to find a fictional movie more powerful and rewarding. Everything you’ve heard about Ledger’s phenomenal, menacing performance is true (Jack who?), but as great as he is, he doesn’t overshadow the rest of the cast. As the protagonist, Bale perfectly conveys, and balances, Bruce Wayne’s public image of carefree excess and Batman’s obsession with justice. Without giving too much away about Harvey Dent, let’s just say Eckhart won’t disappoint in the role’s broad range of emotions. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman display wit and gravitas as butler Alfred Pennyworth and gadget guru Lucius Fox. Gary Oldman’s role as honest cop Lt. Jim Gordon is larger than in Begins, and he soars in it. I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal was a tad too spunky early in the film, but she proves her dramatic credentials later on—and then again, a little spunk helps lighten the load in a film this heavy (unlike some viewers, I wasn’t bothered by Katie Holmes in Begins, and I have no opinion on who is ultimately better).
–
On that note, don’t take all this talk of darkness to mean Knight is some sort of depression-fest. It’s not. Tragedy strikes and human depravity is on full display, but so are the heroism, courage and decency of Batman, his allies, and even the people of Gotham (refreshingly, the film actually affirms several basic conservative tenets: the futility of appeasement, the occasional need to do harsh, ugly things to defeat evil, and the importance of doing the right thing at the expense of public opinion). There’s wit, humor, and moments that are simply fun and cool. Without giving too much away, the film ends on a bittersweet note that drives home the sacrifices that make Batman compelling in a way few cinema or comic-book heroes can match.
–
Sure, there are imperfections here and there—a minor plot hole or two, if you look hard enough—but they are eclipsed by the film’s sheer quality. The Dark Knight is easily the best Batman film ever made—not only does the beloved 1989 version pale in comparison, but the contrast shows just how limited an application Tim Burton’s style really has. But it’s also the best example of the superhero/comic book genre, and an outstanding cinematic achievement in any genre. Simply put, it’s a masterpiece.
What Is It with Atheists?
For being such a self-righteous guy, Richard Dawkins is quite the coward.
Tony Snow Passes Away
Tragically, he has succumbed to cancer at age 53. Tony Snow was the standard by which all future press secretaries should be judged. May he rest in peace.
Conservative Standards 