At the Wall Street Journal.
Steele expertly articulates what I have long believed: minorities are anti-GOP because we're not promising them anything special. That's not a bad thing. Yes, we want minorities in the tent with us, but we want them because they agree with our principles, not because we've promised them some funding here or special access there.
Government action based upon one's racial status is inherently racist. If we want to live in a world where race is no longer an issue then we have to stop making it one. No, we don't bury our heads in the sand and pretend that racism and discrimination doesn't happen; obviously it still does, albeit on a much lesser scale than in times past. As the old cliche goes, two wrongs don't make a right. We can't make up for actions and attitudes against one set of minorities from the past by instituting those same actions and attitudes but in the wronged minorities' favor.
As Steele says, standing on principle is the ultimate way to show minorities not racial dignity but "human dignity". And we have to get a lot better at articulating those ideas or we will forever lose minority communities to those who perpetually promise to "right" the wrongs of the past with fascist government intervention.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Very Frightening Stuff
This was posted at Manly's Republic. Basically a bill has been introduced into the House that, if it passes, will require citizens to spend 3 years in some type of "community service" and will create the "civil defense force" that Obama talked about in his campaign last year.
No, no, no. No one's gonna do that. That's just crazy talk!
Well, read it and weep people: HR 1388: The GIVE Act
Also courtesy of my frequenting of Manly's site, Thomas Sowell gives quite the response to the idea of mandatory community service.
No, no, no. No one's gonna do that. That's just crazy talk!
Well, read it and weep people: HR 1388: The GIVE Act
Also courtesy of my frequenting of Manly's site, Thomas Sowell gives quite the response to the idea of mandatory community service.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Hang on a sec....
Between closing in on 30 and my bouts with Momnesia I'll admit that my memory may be going; but I'm pretty sure I remember McCain being slammed by Obama and the Democrats for suggesting the same exact thing last summer:
Let's tax our HMO's!
Let's tax our HMO's!
Two excellent articles
The first is the Keynote Address to the 2009 ICCC, as delivered by Lord Christoper Monckton, who was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher and is currently the Chief Policy Advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute.
Read it and weep.
The second article is a wonderful bit of satire/snark by Kyle Smith, found in the NY Post.
With Republican Friends Like These...
Read and enjoy!
Read it and weep.
The second article is a wonderful bit of satire/snark by Kyle Smith, found in the NY Post.
With Republican Friends Like These...
Read and enjoy!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Gardening fun!
The Hillbilly Housewife is talking about gardening on her blog this week. I'm really interested in starting a vegetable garden and I even have a nice spot picked out on the north side of my house. Growing my own food would definitely start cutting down on some produce costs at the grocery store. I'm wary to start though because we're getting ready to start trying for baby #2 and the books and doctors now warn against gardening for fear of getting toxoplasmosis.
I have done some preliminary research on the subject and found some helpful sites:
The Garden Helper
The Helpful Gardener
Home-Vegetable Garden
Anyway, I'm thinking that when I do start my garden I will do a raised bed. That way there's no digging and treating the ground for ph and such. Info on raised bed gardening here.
In these times, it may be a good idea for anyone who is able to start planting their own food. As I said above, it's a money saver and having your own fresh fruits and veggies right outside your door should encourage you to start eating healthier.
Healthier Eating + Money Saved = WIN!!!
I have done some preliminary research on the subject and found some helpful sites:
The Garden Helper
The Helpful Gardener
Home-Vegetable Garden
Anyway, I'm thinking that when I do start my garden I will do a raised bed. That way there's no digging and treating the ground for ph and such. Info on raised bed gardening here.
In these times, it may be a good idea for anyone who is able to start planting their own food. As I said above, it's a money saver and having your own fresh fruits and veggies right outside your door should encourage you to start eating healthier.
Healthier Eating + Money Saved = WIN!!!
Save yourself some pain; Don't watch The Watchmen
At hubby's insistence, we went to see The Watchmen last night. I will be honest and tell you that hubby gave me a nutshell synopsis of the graphic novel a few weeks ago and I wasn't impressed at the time with the themes and ideas within his description. However, I went into the movie optimistic that my initial impression of the story-arc was due to some misunderstanding, as I didn't read the novel myself.
Alas, my optimism was for naught.
While the film was visually stunning, my problems with it are as follows:
1. Technical: The music choices were incredibly jarring and not fitting with the tone of the scenes in which they were used. According to hubby, the songs were chosen because they were directly quoted at the end of certain issues; however the manner in which they were used was just inappropriate. In particular, the songs during the funeral as well as the sex-scene both had a somewhat comical sound to them and made what should have been sober and serious scenes, respectively, feel incredibly silly instead. Seriously, people in the theater were giggling.
I also have to note that the story is set in an alternate 1985, but aside from the narrative actually stating the date once near the beginning of the film, as well as a few bad hairstyles and a token hoopty or two parked on the street, there's not much to indicate that we're in 1985. That's important because the ideas expressed in the novel were very relevant to that time. It just didn't feel like we were in 1985, and as a result the ideas and ideologies being expressed felt incredibly dated and stale.
Most of the acting was fine with two noted exceptions. The female lead (Silk Spectre II) was terrible. She made me think of Anna Farris from the Scary Movie franchise. Frankly, they probably would have gotten a better performance from Anna Farris. What's worse, some of the most poignant lines in the entire film were given to her to deliver, which was certainly a shame. Matthew Goode, who plays Ozymandias had a weird Germanic accent that came and went. Considering that the climax and resolution of the murder mystery/conspiracy plot-line revolves around him, we see very little of him and get almost no background on his character which would lead us to understand his internal motivations.
2. Story: In my husband's description of the graphic novel, as well as in subsequent conversations we've had about the film, it is apparent that the main goal of the novel was to explore two interlaced themes. The first being an intense psychological study of these fictional super-heroes; who are they and what motivates them to do what they do. The second theme is the exploration of the cultural obsession with hero-worship and the potential results of society placing so much faith and hope on a few individuals who are human beings, just like the rest of us; this theme is directly dependent on the first.
The "main story" (a murder mystery that turns out to be a conspiracy to commit a horrible act) is very thin and is more or less a plot device used to help us explore the first two themes; in other words the journey isn't what's important, it's the discoveries we make along the way (ie, the two themes I've identified) that are the meat and the depth of the novel.
The problem with the movie is that the focus is directly on the main story and the deeper themes are barely grazed in a few scattered flashbacks throughout. Because of my husband's admiration for the graphic novel and his insistence on the depth of the characters, I went into the film expecting substance and instead got a comic book movie that tried to do too much.
Unlike the new and improved "gritty" comic book movies such as Dark Knight, there aren't just one or two main characters to develop but 6-7. It's impossible to do more than scratch the surface of the characters and maintain a good pace as well as keep the film under 3 hours.
It also seems that the director, Zack Snyder was so focused on keeping the camera angles, dialog, etc., so close to the novel that he forgot to maintain the feel of it. For example: According to hubby, each issue ends with a panel showing the Doomsday Clock getting closer to midnight as well as intermittent scenes stressing the mounting tensions between the US and the USSR; obviously a way to show the growing fears over the nuclear war that may be on the horizon. There is little to no emphasis placed on getting that feeling right. In fact, when Laurie and Dr. Manhattan have their conversation on Mars, in which the latter changes his mind at the drop of a hat about "saving the world", I was almost totally lost as to what they were even talking about.
Nuclear annihilation? Huh??? We just spent the last hour watching Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl II bat their eyes at each other and suddenly we're talking about nukes??
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident.
So to make a long story short, despite the pretty scenery and nifty special effects the movie itself is largely devoid of the interesting narrative and character studies that my husband insists makes the graphic novel so appealing.
Alas, my optimism was for naught.
While the film was visually stunning, my problems with it are as follows:
1. Technical: The music choices were incredibly jarring and not fitting with the tone of the scenes in which they were used. According to hubby, the songs were chosen because they were directly quoted at the end of certain issues; however the manner in which they were used was just inappropriate. In particular, the songs during the funeral as well as the sex-scene both had a somewhat comical sound to them and made what should have been sober and serious scenes, respectively, feel incredibly silly instead. Seriously, people in the theater were giggling.
I also have to note that the story is set in an alternate 1985, but aside from the narrative actually stating the date once near the beginning of the film, as well as a few bad hairstyles and a token hoopty or two parked on the street, there's not much to indicate that we're in 1985. That's important because the ideas expressed in the novel were very relevant to that time. It just didn't feel like we were in 1985, and as a result the ideas and ideologies being expressed felt incredibly dated and stale.
Most of the acting was fine with two noted exceptions. The female lead (Silk Spectre II) was terrible. She made me think of Anna Farris from the Scary Movie franchise. Frankly, they probably would have gotten a better performance from Anna Farris. What's worse, some of the most poignant lines in the entire film were given to her to deliver, which was certainly a shame. Matthew Goode, who plays Ozymandias had a weird Germanic accent that came and went. Considering that the climax and resolution of the murder mystery/conspiracy plot-line revolves around him, we see very little of him and get almost no background on his character which would lead us to understand his internal motivations.
2. Story: In my husband's description of the graphic novel, as well as in subsequent conversations we've had about the film, it is apparent that the main goal of the novel was to explore two interlaced themes. The first being an intense psychological study of these fictional super-heroes; who are they and what motivates them to do what they do. The second theme is the exploration of the cultural obsession with hero-worship and the potential results of society placing so much faith and hope on a few individuals who are human beings, just like the rest of us; this theme is directly dependent on the first.
The "main story" (a murder mystery that turns out to be a conspiracy to commit a horrible act) is very thin and is more or less a plot device used to help us explore the first two themes; in other words the journey isn't what's important, it's the discoveries we make along the way (ie, the two themes I've identified) that are the meat and the depth of the novel.
The problem with the movie is that the focus is directly on the main story and the deeper themes are barely grazed in a few scattered flashbacks throughout. Because of my husband's admiration for the graphic novel and his insistence on the depth of the characters, I went into the film expecting substance and instead got a comic book movie that tried to do too much.
Unlike the new and improved "gritty" comic book movies such as Dark Knight, there aren't just one or two main characters to develop but 6-7. It's impossible to do more than scratch the surface of the characters and maintain a good pace as well as keep the film under 3 hours.
It also seems that the director, Zack Snyder was so focused on keeping the camera angles, dialog, etc., so close to the novel that he forgot to maintain the feel of it. For example: According to hubby, each issue ends with a panel showing the Doomsday Clock getting closer to midnight as well as intermittent scenes stressing the mounting tensions between the US and the USSR; obviously a way to show the growing fears over the nuclear war that may be on the horizon. There is little to no emphasis placed on getting that feeling right. In fact, when Laurie and Dr. Manhattan have their conversation on Mars, in which the latter changes his mind at the drop of a hat about "saving the world", I was almost totally lost as to what they were even talking about.
Nuclear annihilation? Huh??? We just spent the last hour watching Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl II bat their eyes at each other and suddenly we're talking about nukes??
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident.
So to make a long story short, despite the pretty scenery and nifty special effects the movie itself is largely devoid of the interesting narrative and character studies that my husband insists makes the graphic novel so appealing.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Cheapskate Resources: Depression-Era Cooking and more!
Right now the Hillbilly Housewife is running a series on Depression-Era cooking on her blog. Check it out for money saving tips.
Just found this site called FrugalFun.com. Has a lot of good tips on making your own cleansers at home.
Another new site with lots of useful hints is AllThingsFrugal.com.
Also try out KraftFoods.com. They have an entire section called "Budget Wise" with money saving recipes and tips. Kraft always has great recipes and their budget recipes are no different. They even have a "Healthy Loving" subheading for those who are looking to eat lighter on a budget.
Just found this site called FrugalFun.com. Has a lot of good tips on making your own cleansers at home.
Another new site with lots of useful hints is AllThingsFrugal.com.
Also try out KraftFoods.com. They have an entire section called "Budget Wise" with money saving recipes and tips. Kraft always has great recipes and their budget recipes are no different. They even have a "Healthy Loving" subheading for those who are looking to eat lighter on a budget.
A bit of a gripe
As anyone reading my political commentary can probably tell, I'm a conservative. Every day, after I get my son up, dressed and fed, read my Bible, and the little man and I do the day's lesson, I manage to find a bit of spare time to engage in one of my 3 hobbies: reading, crochet and politics. I don't have a ton of time to hang out on the internet and I don't tend to post a lot, but I do have a few sites I visit regularly because I enjoy their "quick hits" links for the news and they usually have excellent commentary.
Over the past week or so, with the Rush non-controversy rolling, one of my favorite blogs has gone all Hot Air on me and it's got me pretty peeved.
I can deal with differing opinions on a conservative blog. We're all human beings and we're not always gonna see eye-to-eye on everything. What I have a problem with is when the moderators on a site post what they consider "red meat" over and over and over in order to get traffic to their website and then proceed to chide the commentors for their passionate opinions on the subjects that they themselves post about. It's hypocritical and annoying. If you don't like Sarah Palin, don't post about her. If you are an atheist and don't care to see people of faith get riled up about something, don't post a faith-bashing thread. And if you think everyone should just move on from the Rush non-controversy then for the love of God, STOP POSTING ABOUT IT!!!
Hot Air is notorious about doing this exact thing (which is why I call this type of behavior "going all Hot Air") and it's so annoying that I've gone from checking over there daily to a brief look once every week or two.
So, yesterday I go to my favorite blog after being offline for most of the weekend. The very first post I see is one from the site owner calling everyone out for being so angry over the Rush thing. Of course, what's sparked the conflict on this site is that the owner and at least one of the mods refuses to acknowledge that the issue isn't just a matter of defending Rush's statement but of standing up for conservative principles and values on the whole; something which the GOP has failed miserably at in the past 8 years. That issue aside, I then look at the preceding posts for the day. The 3 post immediately before the one I've just described are all about the Rush thing, or some "cocktail party elitist" slamming Rush, or some website or another agreeing with the site owner's own view on the subject.
For an entire week every post about this issue has gotten a pretty significant backlash so if the site owner and mods had an issue with it- they claim to just want the whole thing to go away- you'd think they'd move on to something else. Alas no. We get 3-4 posts on this topic every day then a nasty diatribe about how unreasonable everyone's being. It's just too much.
As I stated earlier, I don't have a ton of time to hang out on the net. I get most of my news and commentary from a few select sites. So to see my favorite site engaging in what I can only imagine as traffic-whoring, and of the worst kind, it gets my hackles up a bit.
Anyway, I think I'm going to start frequenting Manly's Republic more often in place of my current favorite. Manly seems to have a good head on his shoulders and so far I haven't seen him traffic-whoring, so hopefully I'll find a new lurking home over there.
End rant.
Over the past week or so, with the Rush non-controversy rolling, one of my favorite blogs has gone all Hot Air on me and it's got me pretty peeved.
I can deal with differing opinions on a conservative blog. We're all human beings and we're not always gonna see eye-to-eye on everything. What I have a problem with is when the moderators on a site post what they consider "red meat" over and over and over in order to get traffic to their website and then proceed to chide the commentors for their passionate opinions on the subjects that they themselves post about. It's hypocritical and annoying. If you don't like Sarah Palin, don't post about her. If you are an atheist and don't care to see people of faith get riled up about something, don't post a faith-bashing thread. And if you think everyone should just move on from the Rush non-controversy then for the love of God, STOP POSTING ABOUT IT!!!
Hot Air is notorious about doing this exact thing (which is why I call this type of behavior "going all Hot Air") and it's so annoying that I've gone from checking over there daily to a brief look once every week or two.
So, yesterday I go to my favorite blog after being offline for most of the weekend. The very first post I see is one from the site owner calling everyone out for being so angry over the Rush thing. Of course, what's sparked the conflict on this site is that the owner and at least one of the mods refuses to acknowledge that the issue isn't just a matter of defending Rush's statement but of standing up for conservative principles and values on the whole; something which the GOP has failed miserably at in the past 8 years. That issue aside, I then look at the preceding posts for the day. The 3 post immediately before the one I've just described are all about the Rush thing, or some "cocktail party elitist" slamming Rush, or some website or another agreeing with the site owner's own view on the subject.
For an entire week every post about this issue has gotten a pretty significant backlash so if the site owner and mods had an issue with it- they claim to just want the whole thing to go away- you'd think they'd move on to something else. Alas no. We get 3-4 posts on this topic every day then a nasty diatribe about how unreasonable everyone's being. It's just too much.
As I stated earlier, I don't have a ton of time to hang out on the net. I get most of my news and commentary from a few select sites. So to see my favorite site engaging in what I can only imagine as traffic-whoring, and of the worst kind, it gets my hackles up a bit.
Anyway, I think I'm going to start frequenting Manly's Republic more often in place of my current favorite. Manly seems to have a good head on his shoulders and so far I haven't seen him traffic-whoring, so hopefully I'll find a new lurking home over there.
End rant.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Jay Nordlinger: Rock on!
Laying down the law at the NRO.
Thank you, Mr. Nordlinger, for putting things into perspective. Here's a taste:
And there's this:
YES!!!!!!!
Thank you, Mr. Nordlinger, for putting things into perspective. Here's a taste:
There are many things wrong with the Republican party today, and Rush Limbaugh, in my opinion, is not one of them. Donald Rumsfeld (another pet bogey) used to say, “America is not what’s wrong with the world.” That is true. And Rush Limbaugh is not what is wrong with the Republican party.
Frankly, Secretary Powell is more like what’s wrong: If he can’t discern the superiority of John McCain to Barack Obama, where the presidency is concerned, who needs him?
And there's this:
Rush Limbaugh is a Reagan conservative who thinks that what a united Democratic Washington is now doing is wrong and alarming. I agree. And conservatives would be a lot better off if they stopped spitting at Rush and stood up strong against Obamism.
I mean, here is a man who is putting Charles Freeman and Samantha Power and Dawn Johnsen in power. And we conservatives have our knickers in a twist about Rush?
YES!!!!!!!
An excellent articulation
Check out absentee's blog over at Redstate. It's excellent and proves that we Mongoloid Conservatives can be just as "intellectual" as our elites. Here's an excerpt to whet your palate:
It is on that basis that conservatives look at the failed War on Poverty and expect to be able do something better. We will consider, unlike liberals, ideas which do not start and end in the Treasury. We dare look outside the trappings of Great Society and New Deal. We believe in our time-honored institutions and traditions. In churches and charity and people. Not merely because we believe that often they can work better, but because they enhance liberty rather than limit it. The simplest of minds can understand that given is better than taken, and it is a sign of how pervasive the left’s dogma is ingrained in society that such a statement is neither heard nor would it be considered, despite that those who we oppose perversely insist they pursue “fairness.”
The real war on poverty ought to be against a poverty of thinking. It ought to be against surrendering to the absolutes on the left. We can no longer allow their witch-hunt methodology to quiet us into retreat or send us quivering to the New York Times for scraps of approval. We must do as Rush has done. We must point people to the truth with a loud voice and refuse to cower. The future of this nation, of our children and grandchildren, will be decided by how well we can accomplish our goal. We must, at long last, fight the fixing of liberal ideologies as inviolable truths of nature into the hearts and minds of Americans with our every breath.
I love reading and hearing the tenets of conservatism articulated so eloquently. Especially in the post-election war-like atmosphere generated by the newspaper-and-magazine-writer moderates.
It seems that the self-appointed "elites" and "intellectuals" who claim to be on the right side of the political fence can't understand why conservatives are so against big government intervention. They appear to be laboring under the impression that we are all Rush-ed up zombies who only rally behind a mantra like "We think taxes is baaaad, 'mkay." The likes of Frum, Brooks, Dreher, Parker, Noonan, et al, believe we aren't capable of thinking for ourselves and we need them to moderate our tone and set the agenda for us because they, the thinking class, know better.
Man, does that sound familiar. Wait a sec! That's right. That's the same sorry tune we get from the left ad infinitum. As the saying goes, with friends like these....
This attitude may be why you're getting so much "hate mail", Ms. Parker. It may be why most of us want you thrown out of the tent, Mr. Buckley. It could possibly explain why you've received so much disdain from readers and bloggers, Messrs. Dreher, Frum and Brooks. We get enough of this garbage from the left. The LAST thing we need is these and their ilk under the tent.
A good piece of advice: stop with the circular firing squad. Stop belittling the common conservative by labeling our beliefs as "oogity boogity" and our people as "mongoloids". No matter how you try to spin it after the fact, we still understand that your intent was to insult and slander those with whom you claim to have some political affinity.
So, for pete's sake, either stop it or get ye yonder to the liberal's tent; which is where we suspect you belong anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
