Archive for the ‘Idiocracy’ Category

Open Carry Follies

October 11, 2014

I happen to be a staunch supporter of the second amendment right to bear arms, and naturally I oppose strict gun control laws. This is not because I have a great love of guns. I have never owned a gun of any sort and I don’t have any plans to acquire any sort of firearm. I have never even shot a gun in my entire life. I am certain that if I did happen to have a gun, I would be more dangerous to myself than to any potential enemy. My support for the second amendment is entirely on libertarian grounds. If you want to own and carry a gun, that’s your right and I wouldn’t want to stop you. I have no use for guns, but I respect your right to have one.

Having said all that, I must confess that I find that the thinking of some of the more enthusiastic gun lovers to be a bit, well, dumb. What I mean is the idea some of them seem to have that they will happen upon the scene of a crime in progress or will be confronted by a mugger and they will whip out their trusty sidearm and take care of the situation. I think they must have a scene rather like this one playing in the theater of their minds.

I wish I could have found that clip without the commentary. Anyway, this story relates a somewhat more likely outcome.

A Gresham, Oregon open carry enthusiast was robbed of his weapon on Saturday by another man with a gun.

According to KOIN Channel 6, 21-year-old William Coleman III of Gresham was standing and talking to his cousin shortly after 2:00 a.m. on Saturday when another man approached him and asked for a cigarette.

The other man — described as a black male around 6 feet tall with a lean build and wavy hair — asked Coleman about his weapon, a Walther P22 pistol.

He then pulled a pistol from the waistband of his pants, pointed it at Coleman and said, “I like your gun. Give it to me.”

Coleman did as he was told and the man then fled on foot. He was reportedly wearing gray sweatpants, flip flop sandals and a white t-shirt and had a small patch of facial hair on his chin.

Coleman told police the suspect appeared to be between 19 and 23 years of age.

Now, concealed carry makes sense in that if the bad guy doesn’t know you are armed, you can give him a nasty surprise. That element of uncertainly whether a potential victim is armed may act as a deterrent to a criminal. Openly carrying a gun makes less sense, since a criminal can see that you are armed and take precautions, such as pointing his own weapon at you and disarming you, or even deciding to shoot first.

But the real lesson in this particular story is that it is easy to concoct fantasies about what you might do in a dangerous situation but the simple truth is that none of us can possibly know what we might do until the situation is actually occurring. Unless you are specially trained or have actual experience, chances are that you will not engage in a shootout with a criminal. You will not stop a madman shooting up a shopping mall. You will be running and hiding like all the other people. Carry a gun, either openly or concealed if you wish, but don’t take for granted that you will be a hero when the time comes.

I should say that I am likely to prove a bigger coward than most if I were confronted with an armed attacker. Since this is not something that occurs in my environment, I would have no idea how to react and would probably freeze and stand looking at the shooter stupidly, not even being able to panic. I say this in case anyone reading the previous paragraph might imagine that I am trying to make myself look braver or smarter than others. I know myself better than to imagine that would be the case. (Although, the one time I was robbed while working the night shift at a convenience store, I was not afraid but irritated. I do not know whether they were actually armed. One of them had his hand in his jacket pocket as if he were holding a hand gun, but I think he was bluffing. They tried to open the cash register but it locked and when they told me to open it, I told them I couldn’t because they had messed it up. A customer entered the store and they fled with nothing for their trouble. I cannot say I was especially brave, just irritated because they really had messed up the cash register.)

I should also say that looking over the comments of this story is a really depressing experience. I don’t know whether the ignorant and the vindictive are drawn to the comments section of stories like this, or commenting on such stories brings out the worst aspects of human nature. Either way it is depressing.

Obama Ready to Declare Martial Law

October 6, 2014

I criticize and make fun of the hysterical emails I get from liberal groups, so it seems only fair that I should criticize and make fun of the hysterical emails I get from conservatives. I actually have less patience with idiocy from conservatives since they ought to know better. I expect conservatives to be at least somewhat more rational and sensible than liberals, though we do have our idiots on our team.

Anyway, here is an email I recently received.

Dear Fellow Patriot,

Our country is in trouble. We need you.

President Obama and the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington care more about power, wealth and their own selfish desires than they do about our country and its citizens.
The Washington Establishment has created the worst recession since the Great Depression … cut $700 Billion from Medicare under Obamacare … destroyed our privacy rights by spying on every phone call, email and fax communication … endangered our Constitutional rights under the First, Second, Fourth, and other amendments…and much more. They’ve even threatened to nationalize whole industries by Executive Order alone.

And there’s something else. On Friday, March 16, 2012 America ceased being a Republic and became a dictatorship in one swipe of a pen. That dark day Obama committed the boldest assault on America since the Revolutionary War—while Americans weren’t looking.

Barack Hussein Obama quietly gave himself the power to impose Martial Law, bypassing both the Constitution and Congress through Executive Order.

Executive Order No. 13603—Obama’s National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order—gives Barack Hussein Obama unprecedented power to bring about socialism in America and create a regime so powerful, so vile, it is Soviet-like in nature.

Martial Law can and will happen whenever he chooses. It may happen one fateful night while we sleep—he can manufacture a crisis to make it happen.

And when it does, we will find ourselves waking up to a complete police state and news that Obama has declared himself supreme dictator over all the land.

This is very serious my fellow Patriot.

How can we stop this power grab destined to tear the heart out of America, leaving us with little but the clothes on our backs?

For starters, I’m writing to urge you to donate today so we can DERAIL OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDER TO IMPLEMENT MARTIAL LAW!

As a full-fledged, active member of the Tea Party I fully support this movement.

Please, there’s no time to wait. Please make a contribution to the Tea Party in support of their efforts to fight government tyranny.

The Tea Party represents the best, perhaps the only, hope for our nation.

We have to stand up and fight this shocking power grab. If we do not, we’re destined for Martial Law.

Obama’s Executive Order “National Defense Preparedness” No. 13603 gives Obama a free pass to unrestricted, unprecedented power held only by those deemed “dictator.”

This Executive Order allows Obama to hijack our country, run roughshod over Congress and stick it to Patriots. It’s a frightening abuse of power that must be stopped—that’s why we need you to support the Tea Party with a donation without delay.

It goes on and on but is basically a plea for money, with dire consequences if Obama is allowed to get away with his nefarious plan.  The only really important part of this message is the reference to Executive Order 13603, which apparently allows President Obama to declare martial law and suspend the constitution.

President Barack Obama signs the executive ord...

President Barack Obama signs the executive order declaring himself Maximum Leader and Grand Poobah.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This Executive Order allows Obama to hijack our country, run roughshod over Congress and stick it to Patriots. It’s a frightening abuse of power that must be stopped—that’s why we need you to support the Tea Party with a donation without delay.

This is a violent assault on our personal liberty, privacy rights and the rule-of-law. I’d like to give you a few examples of what this means to you, to me, our children, grandchildren and loved ones.

With the stroke of his pen Obama gave himself the power to:

✔   Bailout any person or company he wants
✔   Break existing labor contracts
✔   Cut back health care for citizens
✔   Fix food prices
✔   Force the production of electric cars
✔   Halt consumer production and replace it with government work
✔   Increase airfares
✔   Raise gas prices to any level
✔   Reduce our pay and dictate pay scales to employers

There’s so much more, too. Don’t you see? This is Obama’s communist utopia—the dreams of his father. Those dreams were meant to kill capitalism, create a society of “fair share” and income equality no matter whether or not you are deserving of it or whether you earned it. Patriots, this is oppression at its worst.

Sounds serious, doesn’t it? Is any of it true? Well, there really is an Executive Order 13603 and the language of the order might lend itself to the interpretation above, but this isn’t something that Barack Obama came up with. According to snopes.com, this executive order is nothing more than an update of similar orders issued by President Clinton, which was an update of previous such orders.

On 16 March 2012, President Barack Obama issued an executive order (EO) covering National Defense Resources Preparedness, prompting Congresswoman Kay Granger to pen the (since-removed) missive quoted above. Despite claims that the executive order provided the President with unprecedented new powers such as declaring martial law, seizing private property, implementing the rationing of food, gasoline, and drugs, restarting peacetime conscription, and nationalizing America industry, merely by declaring a national emergency, the National Defense Resources Preparedness EO issued by President Obama was simply a minor updating of a similar order issued by President Bill Clinton in 1994 (which itself had decades-old predecessors) and amended several times since.

If you think that snopes.com has a liberal bias, they cite a post from the conservative blog hotair.com.

We’re getting a lot of e-mail this weekend about an executive order issued on Friday afternoon by President Obama titled “National Defense Resources Preparedness.”  While the timing of the EO is curious — why send it out on a Friday afternoon when an administration is usually trying to sneak bad news past the media? — the general impact of it is negligible.  This EO simply updates another EO (12919) that had been in place since June 1994, and amended several times since.

Why the update?  If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the Cabinet itself.  In 1994, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS.  In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (ten in all).   Otherwise, there aren’t a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.

In fact, that’s almost entirely what it is.  The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives.  It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush.

Barack Obama may be arrogant, and the timing of this release might have looked a little strange, but this is really nothing to worry about at all.

So basically, this is nothing more than a routine update of a policy that was put into place at the beginning of the Cold War to ensure that the government could still function if the Russians nuked us. And, if you look at the date of the posts at snopes and hot air, you will notice that this particular rumor has been going around since 2012. If President Obama is really planning to make himself a dictator, he is taking his time about it.

Frantic messages about martial law like this one only distract from the real dangers to our freedom. I don’t think the danger to our liberties is that President Barack Obama is going to announce that he is a dictator tomorrow morning. It is the precedents he is setting that worry me, this steady increase of the power of the presidency and the federal bureaucracy at the expense of our elected representatives. President Obama didn’t begin this process. It has been a bipartisan effort. Even our history books are part of it. Have you ever noticed that it is the presidents who increased the powers of their office that get the most praise from historians, whether the circumstances warranted extraordinary action or not. Presidents who minded their own business and let the country run itself are forgotten or derided as do-nothings.

What I fear, is that this process will continue until eventually we end up with something like an elected dictator, a Caesar ruling over us. A ruler who governs arbitrarily and is himself above any law or restraint. This is the real danger, and being one that grows very gradually, over the decades, and is reinforced by the natural human desire to look to a Leader, is one that is a lot more difficult to fight against than the fantasies of martial law invoked by this email.

Jesus Never Existed, Religion is False

September 29, 2014

Those are the conclusions made by one Nigel Barber writing at the Huffington Post. He bases this claim on a recently published historical survey by Michael Paulkovich in a magazine called Free Inquiry.

 

As someone raised in a Christian country, I learned that there was a historical Jesus. Now historical analysis finds no clear evidence that Jesus existed. If not, Christianity was fabricated, just like Mormonism and other religions. Why do people choose to believe religious fictions?

Given the depth of religious tradition in Christian countries, where the “Christian era” calendar is based upon the presumed life of Jesus, it would be astonishing if there was no evidence of a historical Jesus. After all, in an era when there were scores of messianic prophets, why go to the trouble of making one up?

Various historical scholars attempted to authenticate Jesus in the historical record, particularly in the work of Jesus-era writers. Michael Paulkovich revived this project as summarized in the current issue of Free Inquiry.

 

I am sure the article is thought provoking, but unfortunately I cannot read it. Access to the articles at Free Inquiry is limited to print subscribers only. So much for Free Inquiry.

 

Paulkovich found an astonishing absence of evidence for the existence of Jesus in history. “Historian Flavius Josephus published his Jewish Wars circa 95 CE. He had lived in Japhia, one mile from Nazareth – yet Josephus seems unaware of both Nazareth and Jesus.” He is at pains to discredit interpolations in this work that “made him appear to write of Jesus when he did not.” Most religious historians take a more nuanced view agreeing that Christian scholars added their own pieces much later but maintaining that the historical reference to Jesus was present in the original. Yet, a fudged text is not compelling evidence for anything.

Paulkovich consulted no fewer than 126 historians (including Josephus) who lived in the period and ought to have been aware of Jesus if he had existed and performed the miracles that supposedly drew a great deal of popular attention. Of the 126 writers who should have written about Jesus, not a single one did so (if one accepts Paulkovich’s view that the Jesus references in Josephus are interpolated).

Paulkovich concludes:

When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not – and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions – I must conclude that Christ is a mythical character.

He also considers striking similarities of Jesus to other God-sons such as Mithra, Sandan, Attis, and Horus. Christianity has its own imitator. Mormonism was heavily influenced by the Bible from which founder Joseph Smith borrowed liberally.

 

There is more on the origins of Mormonism which is irrelevant to the question of whether Jesus existed as a historical person, so I’ll let it go and go straight to the question.

 

I have to wonder that the Huffington Post sees fit to waste the time of its readers with such nonsense. The idea that Jesus is a mythical construct from pagan deities is one that few, if any, historians familiar with the first century Roman Empire would endorse. Skeptical historians naturally do not believe that Jesus was the son of God, but even the most skeptical concedes that there was a person named Jesus of Nazareth who lived during the time of the Roman Emperor Tiberius. The mythical Jesus concept is an example of pseudohistory, on par with Dan Brown’s ideas about Jesus’s descendants or or whether the lost continent of Atlantis really existed.

 

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Yes, he really existed.(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The truth is that the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is better attested than many figures of ancient history. Josephus did mention Jesus, even if the statements claiming his divinity were added by later Christian copyists. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger both referred to the early Christian movement, writing around AD 100, within 70 years of his crucifixion. Even better we have biographical material written by his followers, the Gospels, from perhaps AD 70-100, although the Gospel of Mark may have been written before 60 and the passion narratives were certainly composed before the rest of the Gospels. Paul refers to Jesus as a historical person in his letters which were written from around 50-65. in other words, we have materials written about Jesus within living memory of eyewitnesses to his life. That is far better than we have for many historical figures of ancient times.

 

The earliest biography of Mohammed was written about 150 years after his death. That work has been lost but is extensively quoted in later biographies of the prophet. Because much of what is known of Mohammed is from the oral transmission of his sayings and deeds,we cannot be certain to what extent the traditions of his life are accurate or if Mohammed even existed. The earliest biographies of the Buddha were not written down until 500 years after his death. His teachings were also not written down for centuries and there is no way to know to what extent the Buddhist religion actually reflects the teachings of the historical Buddha. Even a secular figure like Alexander the Great had to wait about two hundred years before a biography was written about him. We are lucky to have as much material on an obscure person like Jesus as we do.

 

But perhaps Mr. Barber would counter that the Gospels ought not to be relied upon. They were clearly works of fiction written by the early Christians. But, on what basis should we dismiss the historicity of the Gospels? Much of what we know of many persons of ancient times is derived from the writings of their admirers. We know of Socrates from the writing of his pupils Plato and Xenophon. We know if Confucius by his successors. These writings may be biased but no one would suppose that Socrates or Confucius were fictitious. Ought the New Testament be held to a different standard simply because billions of people consider it to be a sacred text? Why?

 

The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles do not seem to be fictitious. There are no major anachronisms. Many of the people mentioned; the various Herods, Pilate, Gamaliel, Festus, Felix, Annas, Caiaphas,and many others were real people, attested in non-Biblical sources and the depictions of them in the New Testament seem to be accurate. The places mentioned are real locations that one can visit today. If you take away the miracles and the resurrection, you have a completely credible account of a Jewish preacher who managed to offend the religious and secular authorities and ended up being crucified, and whose followers somehow believed, had risen from the dead. The men who wrote the Gospels really believed what they were writing. This does not make the Gospels true, but they are not forgeries or fiction. If it were not for the prejudice against Christian scripture shown by certain secular humanists, no one would doubt they were as reliable historical documents as any produced by Herodotus or Plutarch.

 

It is understandable that someone wouldn’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I wouldn’t expect anyone but a Christian to believe that. After all, believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ is what makes a Christian. I do not understand why this idea that he never even existed crops up about every twenty years or so. It seems like overkill to me. Perhaps they hate Jesus, and by extension God, so much, they would rather he not exist at all.

 

I want to say something very briefly on the related idea that Christianity borrowed the idea of Christ from pagan myths, like Horus, Attis, Mithra, and the like. If you really examine these myths, you find only the most superficial resemblances between these mythological figures and Christ. The god who dies and comes back to life is rather common in mythology, but none of these gods suffered a humiliating death by crucifixion, nor do the stories of their lives resemble the story of Jesus in detail. I should also note that much of the historical information we have about these ancient cults derives from sources after Christianity began to be established so there is some question which way the influence really went.

 

 

 

Banned Books Week

September 23, 2014

This is Banned Books Week, a week to raise awareness of the problem of books being banned in the United States. I read about local efforts to raise awareness in my local newspaper, The Madison Courier.

Books that have been hidden, challenged or banned are being highlighted this week during Banned Books Week. The annual celebration of all banned literary works happens during the last full week of September.

Nathan Montoya, co-owner of Village Lights Bookstore in downtown Madison, said the bookstore celebrates Banned Books Week every year.

“We’re proud to say that every time we begin assembling our Banned Books Week displays, we find that we already have most of the top challenged titles on our shelves,” he said.

There is just one minor problem; no books have been banned in the United States, at any level of government for many years, as Mr. Moytoya admits.

Montoya said that no literary work has been banned by the federal or state government since the famed Allen Ginsburg poem “Howl” was banned in 1957. The poem was banned because of its explicit references to drug use and homosexuality. Montoya said that today, books are banned on a much smaller level.

“We do it to ourselves,” Montoya said.

What in the world is he talking about? We ban ourselves from reading certain books?

Local libraries, school libraries and book stores often ban books they don’t think are appropriate, Montoya said.

“We do such a good job of restricting our own freedoms. It’s a problem that will not go away. And, of course the books that we have are not just books banned in this country, but works banned around the world,” he said.

Village Lights, along with several area libraries will have displays, in honor of Banned Books Week.

Linda Brinegar, Media Specialist for Madison Consolidated Schools, said she’s putting together a display at the front of the school.

Brinegar said that in her time as a librarian she has found that books aren’t so much banned as they are challenged. A challenged book is one that has been attempted to be removed or restricted, because of objections from a person or group, she said.

“(This week) brings an awareness to the readers’ choices,” Brinegar said. “They have access to a wide variety of reading materials.”

It is not that the government is banning us from reading books, it is that libraries are sometimes asked not to stock certain books or other materials that might be deemed inappropriate for the patrons of the library. This is not the same as banning books, nor is it really denying access to reading materials that anyone might want.

English: Eighth Day Books in Wichita, Kansas

None of these books are being banned (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The truth is that parents have every right in the world to object if they believe that there is a book in the school library that is not appropriate for children of their age level. They may have good reason not to want their first or second grader to have access to a sexually explicit  or violent book. The local library is funded by local taxpayers. They might want some control over what they are paying for. They may not want books that they consider inappropriate paid for with their tax dollars. And, I hope that I don’t need to add that if I happened to own a book store, I can sell whatever books I please. If I don’t like a certain author and prefer not to sell his books, that would be entirely my business. Again, in none of the cases I mentioned are books or any other material really being denied to anyone who wants to read or view them.

So, if there are no books actually being banned in the United States, what is the point of Banned Books Week? I don’t know. There is, of course, a need to be vigilant. We do not ban books in the United States right now, but this country is very much the exception. In many parts of the world the idea that people should be allowed to read whatever they want is still considered to be controversial, and who can tell what the situation here will be like twenty years from now. Nevertheless, I don’t think the greatest danger to freedom of expression in this country comes from parents who do not want their children to read Catcher in the Rye or Captain Underpants. I think the greatest threats to our freedom are from the sort of tolerant. leftists who think that Banned Books Week is a terrific idea, and then go on to ban conservative or Christian books.

So, maybe Banned Books Week has some use, even if it is something of a humbug. I just wish the people promoting it didn’t come across as a bunch of self-righteous doofuses who strut around proclaiming their support of the freedom to read against the non-existent mobs who are gathering to ban books and burn down libraries.

English: 1933 May 10 Berlin book burning -- ta...

What the ALA thinks of us (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Oh, and it would also help if the American Library Association didn’t consider freedom of expression to include allowing people to watch pornography on library computers.

And, Thomas Sowell said it so much better than I ever could back in 1994.

By the way, I wonder if Mr. Montoya stocks The Turner Diaries. There’s a real banned book, if ever there was one. Maybe I should ask.

Drowning the Libertarians

September 22, 2014

Last week, Ann Coulter threatened to drown anyone considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election thereby threatening the Republican’s chances of gaining a majority this year. This was a little over the top, perhaps, as only Ann Coulter can be, but her point is well taken. Another Townhall.com columnist, Nick Sorrentino didn’t much care for Ms. Coulter’s advice.

Is it possible that Anne Coulter’s cocktail dresses are cutting off oxygen to her brain? Is it possible that Ms. Coulter is just naturally a busybody who despises libertarians because she can’t help but stick her nose into other people’s business? Is it possible that Ms. Coulter is little more than a partisan hack with little philosophical meat to her positions?

Yes.

I get her point. Don’t let the Dems keep the Senate by voting Libertarian and thereby killing the chances of the GOP candidate.

But generally most people who lean libertarian are at least open to voting for a libertarian leaning Republican. There are a few who exist. (And their numbers are growing.) What many libertarians and conservatives can’t palate any longer is voting for another big government neocon just because he or she happens to have a R next to their name.

We killed Romney’s election and we will kill others until the GOP understands that it can’t get people elected unless the candidate is generally inclined in the libertarian direction. It’s not that the libertarians need to “suck it up” as Coulter who seems permanently lodged in 2004 thinks, it’s that Coulter and other old school big government Republicans have to suck it up and recognize that the GOP is going in a new direction whether they like it or not. Either get with it Coulter and Beltway GOP, or we are going to remain on strike.

So, libertarian leaning conservatives killed Romney’s election. How did that work out for you. We got another four years of the most left-wing president in American history. In other words you managed to accomplish the exact opposite result that you intended, more big government and intrusions on our liberties. If libertarian leaning conservatives stay home this November or vote for the Libertarian candidate, all you will accomplish is another two years with a Democratic majority in the Senate, voting to confirm all of President Obama’s appointments to the federal judiciary, no matter how radical.

The American political system is structurally designed to be a two-party system. Because the United States has first past the post, winner take  all elections, it is almost impossible for any third-party candidate to get elected to any office. Since this is the case, a vote for a third-party candidate is, in a very real sense, a vote for the candidate of the opposing party. A vote for the Libertarians helps the Democrats. A vote for the Green Party helps the Republicans. The proper time to register your discontent with the party establishment is during the primaries. Once the candidate of your preferred party is nominated, you can either vote for the person who shares at least some of your ideological preferences, or you can decide he isn’t liberal/conservative enough, stay home or vote for a third-party candidate,  and let the person who is your ideological opposite win. No doubt the people who vote Libertarian or Green feel very proud of themselves for not compromising their principles, but they are responsible for making sure those principles are never enacted. By the way, this holds true for party establishments who would rather support the opposing party’s candidate than their own that they feel is too “extreme”. This kind of back stabbing is despicable.

Any conservative who would rather have another two years of a Democratic majority than vote for a candidate that does not meet their exacting criteria deserves to have Ann Coulter come to their house and drown them.

The Tapeworm Diet

September 15, 2014

The holidays are coming up and before you know it we will all be putting on pounds from Halloween candy and Thanksgiving and Christmas feasting. By January, we will be regretting the previous months’ excesses and trying to lose the weight we gained. Now, we could try the old standby of eating less and exercising more, but who has the time and willpower for that? We need a cheat, a quick and easy way of losing weight naturally. If that is what you need, then why not try the Tapeworm Diet?

Tape worm diet, sounds insane and disgusting right? Well, after this article you will understand how this diet actually works, the theories behind the results and maybe even consider a tape worm or two of your own. Or not.

Tapeworms Balance Our Immune System

Many years ago before the modernization that we have become accustomed to today, it was common for the human body to have a variety of worms. Diet, hygiene and other lifestyle changes have meant that most if not all worms in the body have been removed in developed nations.

Now some believe that our bodies have not evolved to a point where it is accustomed to being free of worms. Consequently, our bodies are still undergoing the process of looking for the worms that our bodies inhabited for so many years. But they’re not there now. What does this mean? This means that the body becomes more sensitive to other foreign material creating an immune system imbalance. This immune balance is responsible for conditions that are currently rife in society, for example in the common form of allergies such as psoriasis, hay fever etc. This is the theory anyway. And the fix? Introduce not just any old worm back into the human body, but specific worms that help to keep the immune system in balance.

A side effect, which we are focusing on in this article, is that of weight loss.

How Does the Tape Worm Diet work?

The way that tapeworms aid in weight loss is reminiscent of urban myth and in fact, the concept of using tape worms for weight loss has been around for almost a century.

Tapeworms Reduce Calories

The idea is that introducing tapeworm into the body means that the food you eat is split between your own body and that of the tapeworm. You are a host and tapeworm uses you by attaching suckers to your stomach and feeding on the foods that you eat. To expel calories, we are usually required to expend energy through exercise as an example. The tapeworm is an additional means of reducing the amount of calories that you absorb WITHOUT reducing the calories that you consume. Supporters of the tapeworm will praise this idea of dieters being able to eat whatever they choose to eat while still losing weight.

How to Ingest a Tapeworm

The traditional way of becoming infected with a tapeworm is by eating raw meat, being in contact with infected faeces and other foods containing tapeworm. However, for the purposes of dieting, methods would include the tablet form.

Life cycle of the Tapeworm

After being ingested, the tapeworm makes its way through the digestive system, attaching itself and feeding as it goes. Eventually, it will make its way out of the body with bowel movements. This is a very unpleasant experience both physically and psychologically. People have been known to take drugs designed to reduce the lifespan of the tapeworm so that it is already dead when it is removed from the body.

There you have it. The tapeworm diet is natural, organic, and proven way to lose weight. What is more, tapeworms make perfect pets. You don’t have to worry about feeding them, walking them,  changing litter boxes, or buying expensive cages. They go with you wherever you go so you need never feel lonely.

Beef tapeworm

Little Friend  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Of course there are a few disadvantages that come with being infested with parasites. Tapeworm eggs cannot be bought legally in the United States, or anywhere else that I am aware of. There may be a few health problems associated with having tapeworms.

Tapeworm Diet Review – Risks and Critics

  • Ingesting a tapeworm is basically infecting your body with a foreign living organism which the body will try and fight off. Tapeworms are not intelligent or obedient, they won’t stay in your stomach just because you tell them too, it is possible for tapeworm to deviate into other parts of your body through your blood system, even your brain, where of course it can have deadly results
  • Tapeworms do not just eat calories they are nutrient hungry. Remember, you are the host and the tapeworm is a parasite, using you as nourishment. This means that the tapeworm can actually result in vitamin deficiencies.
  • The amount of actual calories ingested by the tapeworm is not significant enough to allow a dieter to ignore other healthy lifestyle habits made up of good eating and exercise.
  • Remember that the tapeworm is a living organism and as such maybe felt inside the digestive system and one its way out.

And there are some minor side effects, including,

  • Abdominal pain
  • Weakness
  • Headache
  • Nausea
  • Diarrhoea
  • Constipation
  • Bloating

But I am sure they are worth it to lose weight. Well, maybe not. I think  I’ll try eating right and exercising first.

 

 

Sibling Love

September 7, 2014

I admit to being a little behind the times when it comes to the question of marriage equality. I have seen the light, however, and have changed my mind. I now support marriage equality for all. What changed my was this story I read from the Atlanta affiliate of CBS News, which got me to thinking about the matter.

An Effingham County brother and sister were arrested after allegedly having sex inside a tractor trailer parked in a church parking lot, according to the Savannah Morning News.

Deputies were investigating reports of a prowler about 4:30 a.m. Tuesday when they found Christopher Buckner, 20, and Timothy Savoy, 25, walking near the Countryside Baptist Church in Guyton. According to the report, the deputies determined the pair were siblings and had just had sex.

They later admitted to having sex in the semi three times after watching the movie “The Notebook,” a Sheriff’s Office spokesman said.

Both were charged with incest, aggravated sodomy, and prowling. Buckner was released on $9,000 bond while Savoy remained in the Effingham County jail on $13,400 bond, according to booking documents.

Why is their relationship a crime? These are two consenting adults who obviously feel a great attraction for one another. Why shouldn’t they be allowed top have sex, even though they are brother and sister? Why shouldn’t they be able to get married, if they so desire? If two men or two women can be married, why not two brothers or two sisters? Why not a brother and a sister? I want to be the first to demand marriage equality for incestuous couples.

I am not really serious, of course, except that in a way, I am. If marriage can be arbitrarily redefined to include same sex couples, regardless of tradition or of any consideration of the actual purpose of marriage, why can’t it be redefined to include incestuous couples? Why can’t polygamy be permitted? There is actual precedent for polygamy. Why should marriage be confined to human beings? Perhaps I should demand marriage equality for cross-species relationships. I cannot think of a single reason why any of the circumstances that listed shouldn’t be permitted, if any imaginable relationship could be defined as a “marriage” and if what the left considers to be “fairness” and “equality: are the only considerations

But what if they are not? What if there are, in fact, good reasons to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman? What if the people opposed to redefining marriage are not simply motivated by blind hatred and bigotry as the progressive haters and bigots would prefer to believe?

The purpose of marriage is to create and preserve families. Because human beings are not hermaphrodites but are divided into two genders, male and female, in order to conceive, it is necessary for one of each gender to have intercourse. No act of homosexual intercourse can possibly result in the creation of a new life. Because male and female have differing roles in the process, male and female are built differently, both physiologically and psychologically. The two sexes are equal in legal and social terms, but they are not interchangeable. A man cannot bear children. A woman cannot conceive children. Mothers and fathers play different and complementary roles in child rearing and in the marriage generally. Marriage, by definition, must include at least one of each gender. In the West, marriage has always been considered to be between one man and one woman. This is what makes marriage different from every other relationship that human beings engage in, the fact that marriage must include both genders. Two men or two woman can have many kinds of relationships, as friends or lovers, but they cannot be married. To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples takes away the characteristic that makes marriage, well, marriage. If you expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, you are essentially defining away  the concept of marriage altogether.

Of course making the simple observation that same-sex marriage cannot really be a marriage at all is now a thought crime and I suppose that I will be denounced as a hater and a homophobe. So be it. Calling me names will not change what is true.

Jimmy Carter Should Stick to Building Houses

August 7, 2014

James Earl (Jimmy) Carter was without question the most inept president of my lifetime, at least until the present occupant of the White House was elected. One might think that after a four year tenure of abject failure both in domestic and foreign policy, such a man would slink away back to Georgia and never make any public statements about subjects he obviously knows very little about. We are not that lucky. Ever since the American people decided to pass on another four years of having this grinning idiot in the White House, Jimmy Carter has insisted on butting in and speaking his piece where he is not wanted and not needed. Just now he has taken it upon himself to present his resolution to the crisis in Gaza with a column in Foreign Policy which he co-wrote with Ireland’s former president and current left-wing whack job, Mary Robinson.

Jimmy Carter, former President of the United S...

Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States and current jackass (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A quick summary of this column would read, it is all Israel’s fault. Israel has committed war crimes by not allowing Hamas to continue to attack its citizens and should withdraw, end the blockade on Gaza and allow Hamas to continue to try to kill the Israelis. Then we will have peace in the region. Here is the column. You decide if my summary is fair.

Israelis and Palestinians are still burying their loved ones as Gaza’s third war in six years continues. Since July 8, when this war began, more than 1,600 Palestinian and 65 Israeli lives have been sacrificed. Many in the world are heartbroken in the powerless certainty that more will die, that more are being killed every hour.

Who has started these wars? If Hamas would stop trying to kill the Israelis, the fighting would stop. Israel is not dedicated to the destruction of the Palestinians either on the West Bank or Gaza. Hamas is openly dedicated to the destruction of the Jews. Fatah is just as dedicated to the destruction of Israel but they have the good sense not to say so, at least not in English. What they say in Arabic may be quite different.

This tragedy results from the deliberate obstruction of a promising move toward peace in the region, when a reconciliation agreement among the Palestinian factions was announced in April. This was a major concession by Hamas, in opening Gaza to joint control under a technocratic government that did not include any Hamas members. The new government also pledged to adopt the three basic principles demanded by the Middle East Quartet comprised of the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and Russia: nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and adherence to past agreements. Tragically, Israel rejected this opportunity for peace and has succeeded in preventing the new government’s deployment in Gaza.

It is all Israel’s fault for somehow not trusting the good intentions and good faith of the people who have sworn to destroy them. Has Hamas recognized Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state? Has Hamas adhered to past agreements? When Israel withdrew from Gaza and handed over control to the Palestinians, they promptly elected Hamas as their leaders and began to attack Israel.

Two factors are necessary to make Palestinian unity possible. First, there must be at least a partial lifting of the 7-year-old sanctions and blockade that isolate the 1.8 million people in Gaza. There must also be an opportunity for the teachers, police, and welfare and health workers on the Hamas payroll to be paid. These necessary requirements for a human standard of living continue to be denied. Instead, Israel blocked Qatar’s offer to provide funds to pay civil servants’ salaries, and access to and from Gaza has been further tightened by Egypt and Israel.

Israel must end the blockade so that Hamas will have a chance to import more rockets to attack Israel. Why does Carter think Israel imposed the blockade? Does he really think the Israelis want to starve the Palestinians? They do allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. They do not allow any weapons or any item that could be made into a weapon. They do not allow construction materials since those materials are used to build tunnels for evading the blockade.Israel imposed this blockade after Hamas began to fire rockets into Israel. Israel would probably lift the blockade if Hamas stopped trying to kill Israelis.

This next section is the best (worst) part of the column.

There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defense Forces are conducting this war. Israeli bombs, missiles, and artillery have pulverized large parts of Gaza, including thousands of homes, schools, and hospitals. More than 250,000 people have been displaced from their homes in Gaza. Hundreds of Palestinian noncombatants have been killed. Much of Gaza has lost access to water and electricity completely. This is a humanitarian catastrophe.

There is never an excuse for deliberate attacks on civilians in conflict. These are war crimes. This is true for both sides. Hamas’s indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians is equally unacceptable. However, three Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinian rockets, while an overwhelming majority of the 1,600 Palestinians killed have been civilians, including more than 330 children. The need for international judicial proceedings to investigate and end these violations of international law should be taken very seriously.

The reason so many Palestinian civilians have been killed is because Hamas wants them to be killed. Israel protects its civilians. Hamas uses its civilians as human shields.

There is a larger issue here and I am afraid that what I am about to say will seem to be very ugly. Well, war is ugly. For a person who has lived through World War II and served in the United States Navy, Jimmy Carter is astonishingly obtuse about the nature of war. If we had fought the Second World War as he expects Israel to fight, we would have responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor by bombing one Japanese base. Anything more would have been disproportionate. We would not have bombed the Japanese home islands or sunk Japanese cargo ships. That would have been an unacceptable attack on civilians. We certainly would not have dropped incendiary bombs  on the residential quarters of Tokyo, knowing that their wooden houses would burn readily nor would we have dropped the atomic bombs. The war might have been conducted more humanely as a result. We would probably still be fighting the Japanese.

The way to end a war and bring about peace is the utterly destroy the enemy’s will and capacity to fight. This might mean bombing the factories that produce the weapons the soldiers use. This might mean killing civilians to break the enemy’s will to fight. War is hell. General William T. Sherman said this out of personal experience. During the Civil War, his soldiers burned down plantations and destroyed railways in order to destroy the Confederates’ ability to wage war. Jimmy Carter might have considered these actions to be war crimes, but they ensured that the South would not rise again. It is a cruel irony that the most likely chance for peace in the Middle East would be if Israel really were the villain people like Jimmy Carter think it is. Because Israel is a decent nation, the fighting will go on.

Jimmy Carter probably thinks he is on the side of peace. He is not. By his statements, he is giving hope to Hamas that they need only hold out until Israel is pressured to withdraw without finishing the job of destroying Hamas’s ability to fight. He is not promoting peace in the region. He is paving the way for continual war.

Carter goes on.

The U.N. Security Council should focus on what can be done to limit the potential use of force by both sides. It should vote for a resolution recognizing the inhumane conditions in Gaza and mandate an end to the siege. That resolution could also acknowledge the need for international monitors who can report on movements into and out of Gaza as well as cease-fire violations. It should then enshrine strict measures to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Early discussions have already taken place. The Elders, an international group of elder statesmen of which we are a part, hope these discussions will continue and reach fruition.

At the Palestinians’ request, the Swiss government is considering convening an international conference of the signatory states of the Geneva Conventions, which enshrine the humanitarian laws of warfare. This could pressure Israel and Hamas into observing their duties under international law to protect civilian populations. We sincerely hope all states — especially those in the West, with the greatest power — attend and live up to their obligations to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of populations in occupied territory.

I am sure that any action by the UN will be completely impartial and will only serve the interests of peace. That was sarcasm.

Unity between Fatah and Hamas is currently stronger than it has been for many years. As Elders, we believe this is one of the most encouraging developments in recent years and welcome it warmly. This presents an opportunity for the Palestinian Authority to reassume control over Gaza — an essential first step towards Israel and Egypt lifting the blockade.

Why is unity between these two factions desirable? What has been drawing them closer? Has Hamas given up its goal of destroying the Jews?

The Palestinian Authority cannot manage the task of administering Gaza on its own. It will need the prompt return of the EU Border Assistance Mission, an international effort to help monitor border crossings that was launched in 2005 and suspended in 2007. EU High Representative Catherine Ashton has already offered to reinstate the program, covering not only Rafah but all of Gaza’s crossings. Egypt and Israel would, in turn, cooperate with international monitors to be deployed in Gaza and along its borders, backed by a U.N. Security Council mandate to protect civilian populations. A valuable precedent for trust-building between Egypt and Israel is the international peacekeeping force operating in the Sinai, mandated by the peace treaty signed by the two countries in 1979.

The international community’s initial goal should be the full restoration of the free movement of people and goods to and from Gaza through Israel, Egypt, and the sea. Concurrently, the United States and EU should recognize that Hamas is not just a military but also a political force. Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise. Only by recognizing its legitimacy as a political actor — one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people — can the West begin to provide the right incentives for Hamas to lay down its weapons. Ever since the internationally monitored 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power in Palestine, the West’s approach has manifestly contributed to the opposite result.

We could have said something similar about the Nazis and the Japanese military government. Both the Nazis and the militarists represented a substantial portion of their respective countries. Ultimately we brought about their demise. Why don’t we give Israel the chance to bring about the demise of Hamas. We ought not to recognize the legitimacy of a political actor as movement that has genocide as its goal.

Ultimately, however, lasting peace depends on the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel.

Leaders in Israel, Palestine, and the world’s major powers should believe that policy changes are within reach that would move Israelis and Palestinians closer to a day when the skies over the Holy Land can forever fall silent.

A lasting peace will only occur when the Palestinians realize that they cannot defeat or destroy Israel and that Israel is here to stay. They must come to understand that they have more to gain by making peace than waging war. This is why Egypt made peace with Israel. Anwar Sadat  realized that Egypt could not defeat Israel and that the continuing hostility with Israel was wrecking his country. Unfortunately the antics of people like Carter make this realization, and peace, unlikely. Jimmy Carter should stick to what he knows, building houses for Habitat for Humanity.

Prince Charming

July 28, 2014

There comes a time in most little girls’ lives when they go through a princess phase. They fantasize about being princesses, dress up as princesses for Halloween and watch the videos from the execrable Disney Princess franchise. If you happen to ask a little girl in her princess phase what is so great about princesses, she will likely reply something to the effect that princesses get to live in castles, wear beautiful gowns, and when they grow up they marry handsome princes. All of this is true, though it leaves out a few pertinent details. Castles are uncomfortable and drafty, gowns require tight corsets to wear, and you don’t get to choose which prince you marry. In fact, the prince is more likely to look like this

Rey_Carlos_II

 

than to be handsome. That is King Carlos or Charles II, the last Habsburg king of Spain. He reigned from 1665-1700 and he was a mess. His subjects called him Carlos el Hechizado or Charles the Bewitched and he also believed himself to be cursed. He was indeed cursed, not by witchcraft but by generations of inbreeding among his ancestors. As a result he was physically and mentally disabled. He was retarded and could not talk until the age of four or walk until he was eight. He suffered from epilepsy and his tongue was abnormally thick, making it difficult for his speech to be understood. His Habsburg Lip was so pronounced he had difficulty chewing his food. He was often ill and confined to his bed.

Charles’s sad story began centuries earlier with the rise of his ancestors, the House of Habsburg. The Habsburgs began their ascent to power around AD 1000 as the Counts of Habsburg, a castle in what is now the canton of Aargau in Switzerland. Over the centuries they worked their way up becoming Dukes of Austria and various other lands, Archdukes of Austria, and finally by 1440 Holy Roman Emperors. The Habsburgs, like other noble and royal families liked to expand their holdings and gain more titles, but unlike most others, they preferred strategic marriages to gain power rather than fighting wars. This was, no doubt more humane than sending men off to be killed, but the Habsburgs ended up paying a terrible price for their acquisitions. In order to keep the lands and titles they gained by marriages, they ended up having to marry each other. The results were not pretty.

The Hapsburgs gained the crown of Spain when the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I (1508-1519) arranged the marriage of his son Philip to the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella ( the ones who sponsored Columbus’s voyages) Juana el Loco or  Joanna the mad in 1496. As her name indicates, Joanna was indeed mad, most likely she had some form of schizophrenia, and eventually she was confined to a convent. Philip became Phillip I of Castile in 1506 and then died that same year.

Their son, Charles, was born in 1500 and  became Carlos I King of Spain in 1516, ruling with his mother, and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V in 1519. With his many titles, Charles V perhaps ruled over more territory than any single human being has before or since. Along with Spain and its colonies and Austria, Charles V ruled over the Netherlands, most of Italy, Burgundy, and the frontier with the Ottoman Turks in central Europe. Charles V abdicated in 1556 and died in 1558. When he abdicated he divided his lands between his younger brother Ferdinand, who received the Habsburg territories in Austria and central Europe, as well as the title of Holy Roman Emperor, and his son Phillip who got  the Spanish Empire along with the Netherlands and Italy. Philip ruled as Phillip II from 1556-1598

Phillip II married four times, including a marriage to Mary I (Bloody Mary) of England who died before producing an heir. His other three wives died in childbirth. His last wife was Anna of Austria, the granddaughter of Ferdinand I and the daughter of Phillip’s sister Maria, making her parents first cousins and her his niece . Their son was Phillip III of Spain who ruled from 1598-1621.

 

Phillip III married Margaret of Austria, She was the granddaughter of Ferdinand I and the sister of Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II, making her Phillip III’s cousin. Her parents were Charles II Archduke of Austria and his niece Maria Anna of Bavaria. You may notice a pattern forming here. Phillip’s son was Phillip IV who ruled from 1621-1665.

 

 

Phillip IV’s second wife was Mariana of Austria, the daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III and Phillip’s sister Maria Anna of Spain, making her Phillip’s niece. Her parents were first cousins. Only two of their children survived to adulthood, a daughter Maria Theresa and the unfortunate Charles II.

 

 

If the genealogy of Charles II seems confusing, here is a handy chart I found on the Internet that will make it all clearer.

Charles_II_Inbreeding

 

 

Charles II was only three years old when he became king, so his mother was appointed regent. Regencies were often difficult times in the history of most kingdoms. In most kingdoms a certain mystique about the person of the king in encouraged by his court. The king is held to be a special person, one with a direct line to the gods or God, and perhaps even divine himself. This sort of mystique helps to discourage rebellions and assassinations. The problem is that while regent may rule in the name of the king, he is not the king and cannot have the same authority as the king. As a result, while the king is a minor, the nobility begins to intrigue in ways they would not dare if a mature king were on the throne and also the regent cannot often initiate bold new policies, so the kingdom tends to drift. If the kingdom is lucky, the king will prove to be a strong leader, carefully trained in statecraft when he becomes an adult. If a kingdom is unlucky, the king will grow up to be a weak, spoiled brat under the control of his favorites. Spain was very unlucky. It soon became clear that Charles II would never be able to rule, so for thirty-five years the country drifted aimlessly at a time when the Spanish Empire was decaying rapidly and only firm, decisive policies had any chance to reverse the decline. The Spanish government was under the control of favorites of his mother Mariana, and of his two wives, yes he was married, Marie Louise of Orleans and Maria Anna of Neuburg. Neither marriage produced an heir and Charles was almost certainly sterile if not completely impotent. This may have been a blessing since any child of Charles would have inherited all of his deficiencies, but Spain was unlucky again. A king without a clear heir was certain to bring about a war for the throne.

 

Mariana died in 1696 and Charles at last ruled without a regent. He was still incapable of governing so there was no real difference in the Spanish government. He did call for an investigation of the Spanish Inquisition just before he died and it may be that if Charles had lived longer and had been less crippled, he might have ended that institution a century earlier. Unfortunately the report that investigation produced disappeared after his death. Charles died in 1700 at the age of 38 and almost immediately after his death, the War of the Spanish Succession began. This war lasted from 1701-1714. Charles had named Philip, the son of his half-sister Maria Theresa, Philip IV’s daughter by his first wife, Elizabeth of France, as his heir. Philip was the second son of Louis the Dauphin, the son of King Louis XIV of the Bourbons. The problem was that there was the possibility that Philip could inherit the French throne and so unite France and Spain as one kingdom. No one really wanted that to happen and eventually, Philip agreed to renounce any claims to the Kingdom of France. The Habsburgs were not willing to give up Spain and had candidates of their own for the Spanish crown. There were also disagreements over how Spanish possessions in the Netherlands and Italy should be divided. No one bothered to ask the people of Spain who they might want as their king. In the end Philip got to be Philip V of Spain and a branch of the Bourbons have ruled in Spain to this day.

I don’t know if there are any deeper morals in the sad story of King Charles. The efforts the Habsburgs made to keep Spain by interbreeding between the Austrian and Spanish branches of the family eventually caused them to lose it. Spain suffered under a series of increasingly incapable monarchs and for thirty-five years was effectively leaderless when leadership was badly needed. Maybe the moral of this story is that royal families should marry outside their immediate circle. Maybe a system that encourages such inbreeding is not a very good one and we are well rid of it. Maybe little girls should aspire to something more meaningful than being princesses.

Obvious Child

July 11, 2014

Obvious Child is the name of a new film which seems to be a romantic comedy exploring the lighter side of abortion. Apparently some critics like the idea while most conservatives hate it, along with the audience, whose opinion should matter most considering they are the ones who are expected to buy tickets to see the movie. Jonah Goldberg has some things to say about the wider implications of this film’s failure at the box office which I caught in his column at Real Clear Politics.

In the film Obvious Child, Jenny Slate plays Donna Stern, a stand-up comedian who specializes in making jokes about her private parts, with the occasional foray into fart humor. She is about to go onstage. Her friend offers her some encouragement: “You are going to kill it out there!”

Donna replies: “I actually have an appointment to do that tomorrow.”

Donna’s talking about her abortion appointment.

Get it? It’s funny because it’s true. Or if you’re like me, you think it’s not funny because it’s true.

Many critics think it’s funny. One dubbed it “far and away the most winning abortion-themed comedy ever made.” Of course, as an artistic genre, that’s setting the bar pretty low, like serving the best gas-station sushi in the state of Oklahoma.

Since it opened last month, the film has grossed less than $2 million. Compare that to 2007’s Juno, a brilliant film widely seen as pro-life (at least among pro-lifers), or Knocked Up, a raunchier romantic comedy also hailed by abortion foes, both of which grossed more than $140 million domestically. Obvious Child, then, seems less like the cultural watershed its friends and foes make it out to be and more like a barely successful art-house flick.

 

My late friend Andrew Breitbart liked to say that politics is downstream of culture, meaning that any truly successful political turnaround needs to start by changing popular attitudes. Adam Bellow, a storied editor of conservative books, has a similar conviction and is trying to launch a conservative revolt in the world of fiction.

I wish them great success. Still, I think there’s something missing in this ancient conversation on the right (conservatives have been making such arguments since the 1950s — if not the 1450s, with the publication of the Gutenberg Bible). Conservatives refuse to celebrate, or even notice, how much of the popular culture is on their side.

Sure, Hollywood is generally very liberal, but America isn’t. Judging by their campaign donations, Hollywood liberals are very supportive of abortion rights. But there’s a reason why sitcoms since Maude haven’t had a lot of storylines about abortion. Indeed, nearly every pregnant TV character treats her unborn child as if it’s already a human being.

The Left may be anti-military, but such movies tend to do poorly, which is why we see more pro-military films. Similarly, it’s a safe bet that Hollywood liberals loathe guns. But you wouldn’t know that by what they produce. Not many action stars save the day by quoting a poem. Most Hollywood liberals probably oppose the death penalty, yet they make lots of movies where the bad guy meets a grisly death to the cheers of the audience. The Left rolls its eyes at “family values,” but family values are at the heart of most successful sitcoms and dramas.

I think he is right, as far as it goes and certainly Hollywood is missing opportunities for profit by taking up such a position of opposition to the values of so many mainstream Americans, but I think there is a more fundamental reason why Obvious Child is not doing better at the box office. Abortion is not funny.

Abortion is a serious matter. As with most matters of life and death, it is not a subject that can be taken lightly. For people on the pro-life side, abortion is murder on a large scale and a comedy about abortion is in as much poor taste as a comedy about the Holocaust. People on the pro-choice side may not feel quite the same way about abortion, but except for a few extremists, the sort that Rush Limbaugh used to call “feminazis”, they are aware that it is a serious and controversial subject. Thus, a movie like Obvious Child which seems to treat abortion as of no greater significance then getting a pedicure, is going to offend everyone but those few extremists.

I am glad that Obvious Child is not doing well. The degeneration of our popular culture seems to be accelerating at an ever faster pace and I am glad for any sign that there are still limits to  what we are willing to watch.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 411 other followers

%d bloggers like this: