Here’s my picture with Mark Steyn—pundit, humorist, free-speech defender, and all-around cool guy.
http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
Boehner vs. the FCC
House GOP leader John Boehner claims the FCC is up to no good:
–
Under the rubric of “broadcast localism” it is clear the Commission is proposing no less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media. The proposals and recommendations for Commission action contained in the NPR amount to the stealth enactment of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy designed to squelch the free speech and free expression of specifically targeted audiences.
–
Forcing licensees to recreate so called “advisory boards” of a by-gone era will encumber broadcast media with onerous bureaucratic burdens not faced by cable, satellite, or Internet. The report’s assertion these boards would help stations “determine the needs and interests of their communities” or promote “localism and diversity” borders on fantasy. The recreation of pre-1980s advisory boards will place broadcast media squarely on a path toward rationed speech.
–
Two other proposed rules completely disregard a generation of technological and media advancement. Both the Main Studio Rule and rules regulating the physical operation of stations suggest the Commission has apparently decided to regulate broadcast media based on the needs of 1934 (the year FCC was created) instead of the proven realities of 2008.
–
Licensees and stations should serve the needs of local citizens. But adding more restrictions and Washington mandates is retrograde considering the constant technological evolution of the media market. I urge the Commission to rescind these proposed rules.
–
Under the rubric of “broadcast localism” it is clear the Commission is proposing no less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media. The proposals and recommendations for Commission action contained in the NPR amount to the stealth enactment of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy designed to squelch the free speech and free expression of specifically targeted audiences.
–
Forcing licensees to recreate so called “advisory boards” of a by-gone era will encumber broadcast media with onerous bureaucratic burdens not faced by cable, satellite, or Internet. The report’s assertion these boards would help stations “determine the needs and interests of their communities” or promote “localism and diversity” borders on fantasy. The recreation of pre-1980s advisory boards will place broadcast media squarely on a path toward rationed speech.
–
Two other proposed rules completely disregard a generation of technological and media advancement. Both the Main Studio Rule and rules regulating the physical operation of stations suggest the Commission has apparently decided to regulate broadcast media based on the needs of 1934 (the year FCC was created) instead of the proven realities of 2008.
–
Licensees and stations should serve the needs of local citizens. But adding more restrictions and Washington mandates is retrograde considering the constant technological evolution of the media market. I urge the Commission to rescind these proposed rules.
–
Unfortunately, this also highlights yet another Republican deficiency: if this sort of thing is going on, it’s not enough to “urge” your opponents to change course in letters nobody except for political junkies are ever going to see. It’s not enough to count on Rush and Hannity to be their personal spokesmen. Our elected leaders have to go on the offensive, grabbing every camera they can, putting very public pressure on the other side to explain their actions to the American people.
The Content of Obama’s Character; UPDATE: Now with Kos Feedback!
My latest letter to the editor:
–
A recent letter asked, “Why does everybody have such a problem with a member of a minority achieving a position of either prominence or power in our society?” as if racism is why voters really oppose Barack Obama. That’s completely false, and this voter opposes Obama because of his utter lack of competence, courage, and character.
–
Competence: Iran and North Korea’s nuclear pursuits, and the desire of Islamic jihadists for nuclear weapons, make today’s world very dangerous, yet Obama pledges to cut investments in missile defense. He also voted against the recent bill preserving our intelligence-gathering capabilities, which received broad bipartisan support, passing 68-29.
–
Courage: On June 4, Obama said Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital. But after a single day of Palestinian complaints, he backpedaled, now saying the Jews and Palestinians will have to negotiate it for themselves. Such cowardice leaves little doubt that Obama would fold like a house of cards in his no-precondition, direct talks with Iran’s Ahmadinejad.
–
Character: No responsible father who values honesty could possibly expose his children to the foul lies of Jeremiah Wright. And nobody with a shred of decency or compassion could reach Obama’s extremes on abortion. In Illinois he fought against legal protection for fully-born babies who survived their abortions. Even after being separated from their mothers and gaining full physical independence, Obama thinks these children should be starved to death. Delivery-ward nurse Jill Stanek testified twice before Obama for born-alive infant protection, offering her firsthand experiences and pictures of premature births. She says her efforts “didn’t faze him at all.”
–
Conservatives are judging Obama not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. Unfortunately for him, that’s a contest in which he doesn’t stand a chance.
–
A recent letter asked, “Why does everybody have such a problem with a member of a minority achieving a position of either prominence or power in our society?” as if racism is why voters really oppose Barack Obama. That’s completely false, and this voter opposes Obama because of his utter lack of competence, courage, and character.
–
Competence: Iran and North Korea’s nuclear pursuits, and the desire of Islamic jihadists for nuclear weapons, make today’s world very dangerous, yet Obama pledges to cut investments in missile defense. He also voted against the recent bill preserving our intelligence-gathering capabilities, which received broad bipartisan support, passing 68-29.
–
Courage: On June 4, Obama said Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital. But after a single day of Palestinian complaints, he backpedaled, now saying the Jews and Palestinians will have to negotiate it for themselves. Such cowardice leaves little doubt that Obama would fold like a house of cards in his no-precondition, direct talks with Iran’s Ahmadinejad.
–
Character: No responsible father who values honesty could possibly expose his children to the foul lies of Jeremiah Wright. And nobody with a shred of decency or compassion could reach Obama’s extremes on abortion. In Illinois he fought against legal protection for fully-born babies who survived their abortions. Even after being separated from their mothers and gaining full physical independence, Obama thinks these children should be starved to death. Delivery-ward nurse Jill Stanek testified twice before Obama for born-alive infant protection, offering her firsthand experiences and pictures of premature births. She says her efforts “didn’t faze him at all.”
–
Conservatives are judging Obama not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. Unfortunately for him, that’s a contest in which he doesn’t stand a chance.
–
UPDATE: It seems I’ve made a new friend on the Daily Kos! Unfortunately, Pan Zareta’s refutation is so devoid of substance it’s laughable. If you’re out there, Pan, I’d be happy to clear up any confusion you might have; comment away!
UPDATE: It seems I’ve made a new friend on the Daily Kos! Unfortunately, Pan Zareta’s refutation is so devoid of substance it’s laughable. If you’re out there, Pan, I’d be happy to clear up any confusion you might have; comment away!
Around the Web
“The Barack Obama I knew,” according to, er, a Palestinian anti-Zionist activist. Wonderful company this guy keeps….
–
Political personalities, coming to a Nintendo Wii near you.
–
Nobody should take pleasure in Ted Kennedy’s recent medical woes, and most conservatives have offered him and his family their condolences and prayers, as well they should. But for John McCain to go so far beyond that as to say it’s “a great privilege to call” this guilty-of-manslaughter demagogue “my friend” is pathetic.
–
In the wake of California’s latest same-sex marriage decision, Dennis Prager has some must-listen segments on the matter.
–
Pot, meet kettle.
–
Political personalities, coming to a Nintendo Wii near you.
–
Nobody should take pleasure in Ted Kennedy’s recent medical woes, and most conservatives have offered him and his family their condolences and prayers, as well they should. But for John McCain to go so far beyond that as to say it’s “a great privilege to call” this guilty-of-manslaughter demagogue “my friend” is pathetic.
–
In the wake of California’s latest same-sex marriage decision, Dennis Prager has some must-listen segments on the matter.
–
Pot, meet kettle.
Atheists Crying Wolf, Part 1
A while back I took on charges of anti-atheist bigotry leveled against an Illinois lawmaker by atheist blogger Alonzo Fyfe. Beyond that, Fyfe claims a whole host of things amount to prejudice against poor, innocent atheists:
–
(1) A sitting president said that atheists are not fit to be judges – and the statement can still be found on the White House’s own web site.”[W]e need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.”
–
(2) We have atheists who stand and feign support for a Pledge of Allegiance that says, “As far as this government is concerned, atheists (those not ‘under god’) are the moral equivalent of those who would commit themselves to rebellion, tyranny, and injustice for all.”
–
(3) We have a national motto on our money and going up in more and more places in this country that says, “If you do not trust in God, you are not one of us.”
–
(4) Atheists are routinely blamed for everything from terrorist attacks to school shootings to hurricanes to the Holocaust.
–
(5) On this latter point, there is a movie that will officially debut around the country on April 18th that is making a blatant attempt to link atheism to the Holocaust.
–
I intend to show that these victim-centric interpretations are wrong, and that, when not distorted by atheist activists, none of them constitute bigotry against those who don’t believe in God. My case will be divided into three posts: this one on atheism and the judiciary, a second on ceremonial references to God & religious symbolism, and a third on atheism and violence.
–
(1) “[W]e need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God.” President Bush is right, and if a statement like this is enough to send Fyfe flying off the handle, methinks he needs to re-read the Declaration of Independence, brush up on American history, and take a couple deep breaths.
–
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” So says the Declaration of Independence, the guiding light of American governance. Examples of the Founding Fathers echoing and elaborating upon this sentiment are abundant. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government assumes men to be “the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker.” The concept that our rights come from God was a sharp departure from prior conceptions that rights originated either from government or from cultural lineage. Its implications are powerful: it divorces human rights from intellectual, physical, or racial superiority, or from bloodline. All individuals deserve equal treatment simply because they are human beings. Accordingly, under this conception of God-given rights, government becomes a servant of the people, rather than the master.
–
If one believes in judicial originalism, that the purpose of judges is to faithfully glean and apply the original meaning and intentions of a law, then why wouldn’t it be legitimate to consider a potential judge’s understanding of the Framers’ conception of rights? A judge who sees our rights as God-given understands that he doesn’t have the authority to thwart them by judicial fiat, no matter how much he might think his personal views on any given case might be better. I, for one, think that sort of humility is highly desirable in a public figure, especially one wielding the power of an unelected, unaccountable, lifetime position.
–
Granted, the Constitution prohibits faith-based legal disqualifications from public office, and Bush didn’t propose any. But that isn’t the same as the individual in charge of choosing a candidate—the executive making his appointments or the voter casting his ballot—having a preference for the type of ideas which he or she believes can best serve the office. Unlike skin color or sex, religion and atheism are ideas (or the absence of particular ideas) with implications relevant to society. Therefore, it’s reasonable for people to use them as criteria when judging potential public officials. Surely many atheists think believing Christians are less-than ideal officeholders, as is their prerogative. I’d passionately disagree, of course, but it’s not bigotry to take religion, or lack thereof, into consideration. Then again, perhaps the actual goal isn’t tolerance, but rather to insulate one’s worldview, via intimidation if necessary, from critical evaluation by the people.
–
(1) A sitting president said that atheists are not fit to be judges – and the statement can still be found on the White House’s own web site.”[W]e need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.”
–
(2) We have atheists who stand and feign support for a Pledge of Allegiance that says, “As far as this government is concerned, atheists (those not ‘under god’) are the moral equivalent of those who would commit themselves to rebellion, tyranny, and injustice for all.”
–
(3) We have a national motto on our money and going up in more and more places in this country that says, “If you do not trust in God, you are not one of us.”
–
(4) Atheists are routinely blamed for everything from terrorist attacks to school shootings to hurricanes to the Holocaust.
–
(5) On this latter point, there is a movie that will officially debut around the country on April 18th that is making a blatant attempt to link atheism to the Holocaust.
–
I intend to show that these victim-centric interpretations are wrong, and that, when not distorted by atheist activists, none of them constitute bigotry against those who don’t believe in God. My case will be divided into three posts: this one on atheism and the judiciary, a second on ceremonial references to God & religious symbolism, and a third on atheism and violence.
–
(1) “[W]e need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God.” President Bush is right, and if a statement like this is enough to send Fyfe flying off the handle, methinks he needs to re-read the Declaration of Independence, brush up on American history, and take a couple deep breaths.
–
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” So says the Declaration of Independence, the guiding light of American governance. Examples of the Founding Fathers echoing and elaborating upon this sentiment are abundant. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government assumes men to be “the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker.” The concept that our rights come from God was a sharp departure from prior conceptions that rights originated either from government or from cultural lineage. Its implications are powerful: it divorces human rights from intellectual, physical, or racial superiority, or from bloodline. All individuals deserve equal treatment simply because they are human beings. Accordingly, under this conception of God-given rights, government becomes a servant of the people, rather than the master.
–
If one believes in judicial originalism, that the purpose of judges is to faithfully glean and apply the original meaning and intentions of a law, then why wouldn’t it be legitimate to consider a potential judge’s understanding of the Framers’ conception of rights? A judge who sees our rights as God-given understands that he doesn’t have the authority to thwart them by judicial fiat, no matter how much he might think his personal views on any given case might be better. I, for one, think that sort of humility is highly desirable in a public figure, especially one wielding the power of an unelected, unaccountable, lifetime position.
–
Granted, the Constitution prohibits faith-based legal disqualifications from public office, and Bush didn’t propose any. But that isn’t the same as the individual in charge of choosing a candidate—the executive making his appointments or the voter casting his ballot—having a preference for the type of ideas which he or she believes can best serve the office. Unlike skin color or sex, religion and atheism are ideas (or the absence of particular ideas) with implications relevant to society. Therefore, it’s reasonable for people to use them as criteria when judging potential public officials. Surely many atheists think believing Christians are less-than ideal officeholders, as is their prerogative. I’d passionately disagree, of course, but it’s not bigotry to take religion, or lack thereof, into consideration. Then again, perhaps the actual goal isn’t tolerance, but rather to insulate one’s worldview, via intimidation if necessary, from critical evaluation by the people.
–
By all means, atheists like Alonzo Fyfe should have equal opportunity to seek public office. But that doesn’t mean they get to pretend the philosophical foundations of the nation never existed, or to exempt their ideas from public consideration.
Around the Web
The Left’s devotion to mature, principled, open debate is on display yet again.
–
Barack Obama’s been caught dead-to-rights in yet another lie. Clumsy, dishonest…this guy’s simply not ready for primetime. Of course, the Bush White House had to chicken out as soon as Barack started his hissy fit—way to display leadership, Dubya!
–
Are you ready for plant rights?
–
The latest food for thought from Thomas Sowell.
–
Michelle Obama railing against “whitey?” On video?! Should be an interesting campaign…(hat tip: IMAO)
–
Barack Obama’s been caught dead-to-rights in yet another lie. Clumsy, dishonest…this guy’s simply not ready for primetime. Of course, the Bush White House had to chicken out as soon as Barack started his hissy fit—way to display leadership, Dubya!
–
Are you ready for plant rights?
–
The latest food for thought from Thomas Sowell.
–
Michelle Obama railing against “whitey?” On video?! Should be an interesting campaign…(hat tip: IMAO)
The Marriage Battle Continues
The California Supreme Court has discovered a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Now it’s up to their state’s pro-marriage movement to pass a marriage protection amendment.
–
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had a pro-marriage candidate this year…
–
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had a pro-marriage candidate this year…
"You know we just think, the less black kids out there, the better." "Understandable."
It seems Planned Parenthood isn’t above flirting with racism. Here’s the latest on their most recent PR fiasco.
Just Sickening
Press release from ALL:
–
MORE DEAD BABIES FOUND IN MICHIGAN DUMPSTERS
–
WASHINGTON, D.C. (08 May 2008) – Shortly after the gruesome discovery of aborted babies in a dumpster behind Dr. Alberto Hodari’s Womancare abortion facility in early March, Citizens for a Pro-Life Society discovered the mutilated bodies of aborted babies in another dumpster at Women’s Advisory Clinic in Livonia, Michigan, owned by Dr. Reginald Sharpe.
–
“It is indeed representative of the evil times in which we live that we must stop and take time to grieve the loss of children whose parents clearly believed they were disposable in much the same way that rotting garbage would be,” said Brown “America is losing her soul.”
–
MORE DEAD BABIES FOUND IN MICHIGAN DUMPSTERS
–
WASHINGTON, D.C. (08 May 2008) – Shortly after the gruesome discovery of aborted babies in a dumpster behind Dr. Alberto Hodari’s Womancare abortion facility in early March, Citizens for a Pro-Life Society discovered the mutilated bodies of aborted babies in another dumpster at Women’s Advisory Clinic in Livonia, Michigan, owned by Dr. Reginald Sharpe.
–
“It is indeed representative of the evil times in which we live that we must stop and take time to grieve the loss of children whose parents clearly believed they were disposable in much the same way that rotting garbage would be,” said Brown “America is losing her soul.”
–
The bodies of at least six aborted babies were discovered in trash bags containing McDonald’s food wrappers, Olive Garden crackers, medical records and bloody medical waste. Following an April 30 investigation by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Sharpe received only a warning and no fines, as was the case with Hodari.
The bodies of at least six aborted babies were discovered in trash bags containing McDonald’s food wrappers, Olive Garden crackers, medical records and bloody medical waste. Following an April 30 investigation by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Sharpe received only a warning and no fines, as was the case with Hodari.
–
“Dr. Monica Miller’s most recent discovery is not only bone chilling, but a somber reminder of the total disregard for the rights of those human beings who have not yet been born,” said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. “We are told that the bodies of the babies found behind Reginald Sharpe’s abortion facility are legally defined as mere biohazardous waste and are thus treated as such. After all, that is the law.”
“Dr. Monica Miller’s most recent discovery is not only bone chilling, but a somber reminder of the total disregard for the rights of those human beings who have not yet been born,” said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. “We are told that the bodies of the babies found behind Reginald Sharpe’s abortion facility are legally defined as mere biohazardous waste and are thus treated as such. After all, that is the law.”
–
Earlier this week, Bishop John Quinn of the Detroit diocese offered a funeral Mass for the 25 aborted babies found behind Hodari’s facility in Lathrup Village. “We are grateful to Bishop Quinn for giving these babies the dignity and respect they were denied when they were tossed in the trash,” said Brown. “We pray that the remains of these most recent victims will be treated with equal respect.”
Earlier this week, Bishop John Quinn of the Detroit diocese offered a funeral Mass for the 25 aborted babies found behind Hodari’s facility in Lathrup Village. “We are grateful to Bishop Quinn for giving these babies the dignity and respect they were denied when they were tossed in the trash,” said Brown. “We pray that the remains of these most recent victims will be treated with equal respect.”
–
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or media inquiries, please contact Michael Hichborn at 540.659.7900.
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or media inquiries, please contact Michael Hichborn at 540.659.7900.
–
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
–
Citizens for a Pro-Life Society: “More Aborted babies Found in Dumpster” (07 May 2008) (Warning: Disturbing Images)
–
–
–
Michael Hichborn
Director of Media Relations
American Life League
1179 Courthouse
RoadStafford, Virginia 22554
540.659.4171 
540.226.9178 (c)
540.226.9178 (c)Movie Review: Iron Man
This weekend, Marvel Comics’ latest big-screen superhero adaptation, Iron Man, hit theatres. The film has garnered some attention for touching on political themes, and some liberal reviewers are trying to claim it as their own. Is Iron Man a lefty propaganda piece? I saw it last night, and will give my answer in the following review. Be warned, though: I’ll try to hide plot spoilers as best I can, but if you don’t want to know anything at all about the film until you see it, here’s the bottom line: conservatives (and pro-military Democrats) can rest easy buying a ticket for this one.
–
When we first meet Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), he hardly seems like hero material. Though a quick-witted charmer and technological genius, the billionaire weapons manufacturer is also a gambling, womanizing, hard-drinking scoundrel, much to the exasperation of those around him: indispensable personal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and best friend Air Force Lt. Col. Rhodey Rhodes (Terrence Howard). All that changes, though, on Stark’s own Road to Damascus, which happens to run through Afghanistan. While visiting the warzone to demonstrate Stark Industries’ newest toy, the Jericho Missile, his convoy is hit by a roadside bomb. He wakes up to find himself in a terrorist camp, and is horrified to discover his name stamped on a whole lot of their arsenal. Ordered to build a Jericho for the bad guys, Tony instead builds a makeshift suit of armor with which to escape (and kick terrorist butt in the process, of course). Upon his return to America, he announces that his company will cease weapon production, and secretly builds a new hi-tech suit with which he plans to destroy whatever other Stark Industries weaponry has fallen into enemy hands. Naturally, business partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) is none too pleased about this, and villainy ensues.
–
First, is Iron Man any good as a movie? The answer is a resounding yes. The writing is coherent and certainly doesn’t ask for any more suspension of disbelief than the average superhero or sci-fi film. The casting of Downey Jr. as Stark is absolutely perfect. From wisecracking and sleazy to courageous and driven, Stark has a wide range of traits throughout the story, and Downey nails them all, never letting his changes of heart seem unnatural while doing so. By contrast, while I’ve come to like Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker in the Spider-Man films, he does take some getting used to. Not so here: from the opening scene on, there’s no doubt that Robert Downey is Tony Stark. Paltrow is smart and charming as his right-hand gal, and the chemistry between the two is genuinely sweet. Howard doesn’t have a whole lot of material to work with as the responsible straight-man to Downey’s wild card, but he works out just fine, and as comic fans know, he’ll have his time to shine in the sequels. Bridges is great as the main villain, too, though by the time he goes into full bad-guy mode for the climactic showdown, his performance is a bit on the generic side, if still enjoyable. The special effects are excellent, and while not every shot of the hero’s digitally-animated stand-in looks photo-realistic, many do, and the CGI blends quite well with the actual constructed suits. Overall, Iron Man is a faithful adaptation of the comic book and Marvel’s best big-screen offering yet (though not necessarily better than the crown jewel of the genre, Batman Begins, or its forthcoming sequel, The Dark Knight). If you like comic books, science fiction, or action movies in general, you simply have to see it. (Oh, and comic book diehards probably already know this, but be sure to stick around after the credits…)
–
OK, then, what about the politics? In Time’s review, Richard Corliss describes Iron Man as a “semi-pacific” hero who “resolves to study war no more” and is on a mission “to dismantle his own company.” While it’s true that Tony puts the kibosh on his company’s weapons program, it doesn’t come across as a blanket condemnation of military force, for a few reasons. First, it’d be a sensible move for anyone in that position—yes, even evil, heartless conservatives—to stop the weapons flow, at least until figuring out how terrorists are getting a hold of them. Second, both the United States military and the government are portrayed as benign and heroic, without the slightest hint that America’s current conflicts in the real world are unjust—a refreshing image, and Iron Man deserves credit for bringing it to the screen. And third, there’s no way somebody can even remotely be called a pacifist when his armor is packin’ that much heat! Furthermore, the line about “dismantl[ing] his own company” is simply false—Tony only [Spoiler; highlight to read] plans to destroy the weapons he discovers Stane has been selling to terrorists.
–
Also noteworthy is the depiction of the terrorists. All are portrayed by Middle Eastern-looking actors, dressed in the same sort of grimy fatigues we’ve all seen jihadists wearing on the news. The imagery of a captive Tony bound in a chair, flanked by armed terrorists as a hostage video is being filmed, is chillingly similar to the videos of captured journalists like Steve Centanni and Daniel Pearl. This, along with another scene of [Spoiler; highlight to read] the militants terrorizing an Afghani village and almost executing a defenseless father, helps ground the film in reality and leaves the unmistakable impression that the people our nation is fighting in the Middle East are truly evil, with no rationalizations or excuses for their behavior, be it Western imperialism or economic depression, anywhere in sight. Granted, they are not overtly portrayed as Muslims with religious motivations, but this is not for reasons of political correctness—their group [Spoiler; highlight to read] is called the Ten Rings, which is a reference to Iron Man’s longtime archenemy the Mandarin, and is likely intended to lay the groundwork for the villain’s appearance in a sequel. In addition, it’s worth mentioning that when Tony initially refuses to meet their demands, he’s waterboarded, which is certainly portrayed as an ugly, painful procedure. But it does no lasting damage to him, and the conservative position on waterboarding has nothing to do with whether or not it’s pleasant to go through.
–
Iron Man is a great movie—equal parts excitement, humor, and heart, with political undertones that shouldn’t divide audiences, but do offer a healthy dose of moral clarity about our armed forces and our enemies, which should always be welcome on those rare occasions it comes out of Hollywood.
–
PS: While we’re on the subject, here’s an interesting snapshot of Robert Downey’s real-life political leanings.
–
When we first meet Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), he hardly seems like hero material. Though a quick-witted charmer and technological genius, the billionaire weapons manufacturer is also a gambling, womanizing, hard-drinking scoundrel, much to the exasperation of those around him: indispensable personal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and best friend Air Force Lt. Col. Rhodey Rhodes (Terrence Howard). All that changes, though, on Stark’s own Road to Damascus, which happens to run through Afghanistan. While visiting the warzone to demonstrate Stark Industries’ newest toy, the Jericho Missile, his convoy is hit by a roadside bomb. He wakes up to find himself in a terrorist camp, and is horrified to discover his name stamped on a whole lot of their arsenal. Ordered to build a Jericho for the bad guys, Tony instead builds a makeshift suit of armor with which to escape (and kick terrorist butt in the process, of course). Upon his return to America, he announces that his company will cease weapon production, and secretly builds a new hi-tech suit with which he plans to destroy whatever other Stark Industries weaponry has fallen into enemy hands. Naturally, business partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) is none too pleased about this, and villainy ensues.
–
First, is Iron Man any good as a movie? The answer is a resounding yes. The writing is coherent and certainly doesn’t ask for any more suspension of disbelief than the average superhero or sci-fi film. The casting of Downey Jr. as Stark is absolutely perfect. From wisecracking and sleazy to courageous and driven, Stark has a wide range of traits throughout the story, and Downey nails them all, never letting his changes of heart seem unnatural while doing so. By contrast, while I’ve come to like Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker in the Spider-Man films, he does take some getting used to. Not so here: from the opening scene on, there’s no doubt that Robert Downey is Tony Stark. Paltrow is smart and charming as his right-hand gal, and the chemistry between the two is genuinely sweet. Howard doesn’t have a whole lot of material to work with as the responsible straight-man to Downey’s wild card, but he works out just fine, and as comic fans know, he’ll have his time to shine in the sequels. Bridges is great as the main villain, too, though by the time he goes into full bad-guy mode for the climactic showdown, his performance is a bit on the generic side, if still enjoyable. The special effects are excellent, and while not every shot of the hero’s digitally-animated stand-in looks photo-realistic, many do, and the CGI blends quite well with the actual constructed suits. Overall, Iron Man is a faithful adaptation of the comic book and Marvel’s best big-screen offering yet (though not necessarily better than the crown jewel of the genre, Batman Begins, or its forthcoming sequel, The Dark Knight). If you like comic books, science fiction, or action movies in general, you simply have to see it. (Oh, and comic book diehards probably already know this, but be sure to stick around after the credits…)
–
OK, then, what about the politics? In Time’s review, Richard Corliss describes Iron Man as a “semi-pacific” hero who “resolves to study war no more” and is on a mission “to dismantle his own company.” While it’s true that Tony puts the kibosh on his company’s weapons program, it doesn’t come across as a blanket condemnation of military force, for a few reasons. First, it’d be a sensible move for anyone in that position—yes, even evil, heartless conservatives—to stop the weapons flow, at least until figuring out how terrorists are getting a hold of them. Second, both the United States military and the government are portrayed as benign and heroic, without the slightest hint that America’s current conflicts in the real world are unjust—a refreshing image, and Iron Man deserves credit for bringing it to the screen. And third, there’s no way somebody can even remotely be called a pacifist when his armor is packin’ that much heat! Furthermore, the line about “dismantl[ing] his own company” is simply false—Tony only [Spoiler; highlight to read] plans to destroy the weapons he discovers Stane has been selling to terrorists.
–
Also noteworthy is the depiction of the terrorists. All are portrayed by Middle Eastern-looking actors, dressed in the same sort of grimy fatigues we’ve all seen jihadists wearing on the news. The imagery of a captive Tony bound in a chair, flanked by armed terrorists as a hostage video is being filmed, is chillingly similar to the videos of captured journalists like Steve Centanni and Daniel Pearl. This, along with another scene of [Spoiler; highlight to read] the militants terrorizing an Afghani village and almost executing a defenseless father, helps ground the film in reality and leaves the unmistakable impression that the people our nation is fighting in the Middle East are truly evil, with no rationalizations or excuses for their behavior, be it Western imperialism or economic depression, anywhere in sight. Granted, they are not overtly portrayed as Muslims with religious motivations, but this is not for reasons of political correctness—their group [Spoiler; highlight to read] is called the Ten Rings, which is a reference to Iron Man’s longtime archenemy the Mandarin, and is likely intended to lay the groundwork for the villain’s appearance in a sequel. In addition, it’s worth mentioning that when Tony initially refuses to meet their demands, he’s waterboarded, which is certainly portrayed as an ugly, painful procedure. But it does no lasting damage to him, and the conservative position on waterboarding has nothing to do with whether or not it’s pleasant to go through.
–
Iron Man is a great movie—equal parts excitement, humor, and heart, with political undertones that shouldn’t divide audiences, but do offer a healthy dose of moral clarity about our armed forces and our enemies, which should always be welcome on those rare occasions it comes out of Hollywood.
–
PS: While we’re on the subject, here’s an interesting snapshot of Robert Downey’s real-life political leanings.
Conservative Standards 