About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Some Things Can't Be Erased

Matea Gold has a piece on actor Ian McKellen in the Los Angeles Times because of new project in which he appears. Previous articles on McKellen have noted his ongoing defacing of the Holy Bible, and that is brought up again here.
"I increasingly see organized religion as actually my enemy. They treat me as their enemy," said the British actor, who came out 20 years ago. "Not all Christians, of course. Not all Jews, not all Muslims. But the leaders. . . . Why should I take the judgment of a declared celibate about my sexual needs? He's basing his judgment on laws that would fit life in the Bronze Age. So if I'm lost to God, organized religion is to blame."
This is the experience of far too many, I’m afraid.

I know Roman Catholic priests are required to remain unmarried and celibate, but most Christian denominations allow - even expect - that their leaders will marry.

McKellen may have been treated poorly by people being lousy ambassadors for Christ. But if he had always been treated with respect by all he encountered who identified themselves as Christian, would he then have no problem with "organized religion"? Somehow, I think the larger problem here is the Bible's teaching that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes.

I noticed one of the other actors in his recent project is Jim Caviezel, the Christian actor who portrayed Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ". I wonder how those two got along?
McKellen revealed his sexuality at age 49 on a British radio show during a debate about anti-gay legislation. He says it's the most important thing he's ever done, and when he's not acting, he spends much of his time lobbying for gay rights. He visits schools in England as part of a program to prevent gay bullying. When he finds a Bible in a hotel room, he rips out the passage in Leviticus that condemns homosexuality.
The problem with this approach is that the whole of the Bible teaches that sex is for marriage, and that marriage unites the sexes. There are also other passages that specifically note that homosexual behavior goes against the holiness of God, as does any other sex or sex-like behavior outside of marriage.
In his view, Hollywood still hasn't come that far in its attitude toward gays.
I think part of this has to do with Hollywood often trying to be all things to all people. Producers are afraid that too much of the audience will not be able to suspend disbelief when it comes to an actor’s sexuality. Even though audiences can believe McKellen is a wizard, they can’t believe him carrying on a romance with a woman – at least, that’s what the producers seem to think. I think they underestimate their audience.
"There are still times in my life where I pull back from being totally honest," he said quietly, "and I can't imagine a single straight person who would understand that."
There are a lot of Hollywood Christians who would definitely understand that.

Well, McKellen may deface the Holy Bible, Viggo Mortensen may be a Lefty whacko, and Sean Astin may be somewhat of a Leftist (and who knows about most of the rest of the cast and crew?), but I still love Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. J.R.R. Tolkien's Christian worldview shines through, and John Rhys-Davies is enough to offset the politics of his outspoken Leftist co-stars.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hey Lefty Feminists

I'm talking to Whoopi Goldberg and others.

Why is it that...

If a coed has sex and she later has regrets about it, that's rape.
But if a Hollywood darling director drugs and forcibly penetrates a 13-year-old girl, in the rear no less, that's not really rape?

If an office coworker tells a woman she looks especially beautiful today, but she has no interest in him, that's sexual harassment and he should be fired and sued.
But if a liberal President gets oral sex from a young intern and penetrates her with a cigar, it is nobody's business?

Oh, and does it surprise anyone that Woody Allen thinks it is no big deal to do a 13-year-old? He is the guy who took up with his wife's adopted daughter, after all.

Keep speaking out, Hollywood elites. You're revealing to decent Americans exactly what kind of characters you are, and more and more of them will respond with changes in their spending choices.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thirteen Will Get You Twenty, Unless...

Drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl will get the average adult male some serious time in prison. In Hollywood, as long as you flee from your sentencing and direct movies, it gets you a lot of sycophants who will excuse your evil behavior. Disgusting.

This is exactly when the the activists who claim to be feminists need to speak up and demand that justice no longer be delayed.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More CMA Whining

Gene Haagenson of Fresno's KFSN reports that the city council of Porterville is getting and earful about their endorsement of Prop 8 now that the California Marriage Amendment was upheld.
Porterville was the only city in California to officially endorse Prop 8.
I'm not a fan of municipalities getting involved one way or the other on things like this.  But if some see fit to officially oppose ballot measures like this, then why shouldn't others chime in with their support?
But now, with the effort to overturn Prop 8 underway local activists want the council to know they do not represent everyone in Porterville.
Well, yeah, isn't that always the case – that some of the residents will disagree with the majority of the council?
The Porterville City Council got an earful from residents who said the council's public support of Prop 8, hurt them.
Oh, this should be good.
Jamie Garza and her wife say the council's action was like declaring open season on gays in Porterville.
Oh, please.  This is ridiculous.  The amendment doesn’t say a word about gays or homosexuality.
They suffered verbal assaults, and tire slashing.
So someone was sitting around, behaving lawfully, but when they considered the county council’s action, they decided to commit some crimes?  I would also be interested in what is considered "verbal assaults".  "I don’t support neutering marriage licensing", or "No, I will not vote 'no' on Prop 8" is not a verbal assault, for example.
Pediatrician, Dr. Katherine Hall said the council's action was psychologically damaging to young gay people who already feel alienated.
It isn’t the council's job to cater to fragile egos.

(H/T: LATimes.com)

Celebrity tweets on the upholding of the California Marriage Amendment, thanks to Tina Daunt at the Los Angeles Times:
Demi Moore, twittering as mrskutcher: "Heartbreaking CA Supreme Court decision. I am ashamed. Let's raise some $ for a new ballot measure next year. I know we can do this."

Nicky Hilton, as MissNickyHilton: "This is disgusting. rejectprop8"
You know, because, the Hilton girls are good at deciding what is disgusting.
Ashlee Simpson, twittering as ashsimpsonwentz: " . . . So sad that California is backwards. Lame. So Lame . . ."
Emmy Rossum, as herself: "check out the calif. prop 8 transcript. We are a progressive state no more :( Iowa is now way cooler… "

And Ellen DeGeneres, as TheEllenShow: "Equality please."
Let's continue to drive these celebs batty by sticking up for marriage.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What The Stars Have to Say

No, I’m not talking about Astrology.  The Associated Press gathered statements from Hollywood "stars" on yesterday's California Marriage Amendment ruling by the California Supreme Court.

As if there was any doubt how the powerful in Hollywood come down on this:
Several of its heavyweights opened their wallets to oppose the [California Marriage Amendment] last year. Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw gave $100,000. So did Brad Pitt. [Ellen] DeGeneres made a public service announcement urging voters to oppose the ballot initiative and purchased $100,000 of television commercial time for her ad.
The quotes provided are not even worth answering.  I can sum them up: "It's not fair!"  And we should all care what a bunch of people infamous for shacking up, raising kids out of wedlock, adultery, serial marriages, gender confusion, and unapologetically appearing in "home made" fornication tapes found online have to say about the fairness of allowing the people of California to restore traditional marriage licensing in our state?

Would these people support your business? Should you support their business?

If you want some real news and opinion and the matter, click on my two most recent entries at the The Opine Editorials, HERE and HERE, where I analyze the news pieces and the opinion pieces in today's Los Angeles Times.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LA Times Prop 8 Stuff

Time to make up for what I wasn't posting over the weekend.

Jessica Garrison had a story on Saturday looking and how the fight over Prop 8 continues, including how the marriage neutering side may have a ballot initiative in 2010.  Hey, I look forward to all of those ads with all of those boring-looking married straight couples lecturing us on how we should give marriage neutering activists whatever they want.  It is one of the rare times Hollywood focuses on depicting happily-long-married heterosexuals.  And a constitutional amendment to neuter marriage licensing is exactly how change should be brought about – if it should be brought about.  Not the courts.
Many on the No on 8 side are also trying to figure out what went wrong with their campaign.
Not enough people have been re-educated into accepting judicial activism, the tyranny of the minority, and marriage neutering.
Leaders of the Yes on 8 campaign say their supporters have become the victims of threats, blacklisting, violence and vandalism, with churches desecrated, supporters told they are bigots and businesses and individuals picketed and harassed because they contributed money to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Hey, that's not just something the leader of Yes on 8 are saying.  It has been documented by mainstream news media.
The Rev. Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest at All Saints Church in Pasadena and a lesbian, said that supporters on both sides have engaged in some "unfortunate acts" but that the Yes on 8 side is trying to exploit those in a campaign of "disinformation."
Sorry, you’re not going to get moral equivalence on this one.

Rachel Abramowitz and Tina Daunt report that "liberal Hollywood" (now there's a redundancy) is pondering what to do next about Prop 8.  Funny, I don't remember Hollywood being one of the branches of government.

Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8?
That's the issue consuming many in liberal Hollywood who fought to defeat the initiative banning same-sex marriage and are now reeling with recrimination and dismay.
Again with the erroneous "banning" term.
Meanwhile, activists continue to comb donor lists and employ the Internet to expose those who donated money to support the ban.
Aren't these the same people that lecture us regularly about how the anti-Communist blacklist was a horrible injustice?  I've said it before – they only think blacklisting is wrong if it is done against them.
Araki says Raddon should step down. "I don't think he should be forcibly removed. The bottom line is if he contributed money to a hateful campaign against black people, or against Jewish people, or any other minority group, there would be much less excusing of him. The terrible irony is that he runs a film festival that is intended to promote tolerance and equality."
There is no irony there, and Prop 8 is not hateful towards anyone.  It is very clever to frame things that way, but they are lies.
One is Chad Griffin, a political advisor to Hollywood executives who says, "A dollar to the yes campaign is a dollar in support of bigotry, homophobia and discrimination."
Nope.  Not a bigot, not afraid of homosexuality.  But nice try.  Discrimination is used by everyone, including you.  Unless you are in favor of handing out marriage licenses to anyone who asks – singles, groups, siblings, or whatever – you are in favor of discrimination in marriage licensing.

The paper has a photo gallery online highlighting celebrity comments about marriage neutering.  Here are some of the gems.
Melissa Etheridge: "Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. Fifty-one percent of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now."
You are free to call her whatever you like.  I don't think you’re a second class citizen.
Christina Aguilera spoke out against Proposition 8 during an MTV interview.
"It just doesn't make sense to me why you would put so much money behind something that stopped people from loving each and bonding together ..."
Ms. Aguilera – Prop 8 doesn’t stop any of that.  Please stop listening to people who mistakingly say it does.
Loni Anderson is among many celebrities who were in a No on 8 Youtube presentation -
"I just recently got married myself to the person of my choice, and I would've been very upset if someone said that I couldn't do it."
Married again?  Ugh.  Again, people are free to "marry" anyone who consents.  They aren’t free to force the rest of us to license it.
On Margaret Cho's blog, she states: "The fact that there is now a ban on gay marriage just kills my spirit, hurts my heart."
Oh, well you can relax.  Nothing has been banned.
Marissa Jaret Winokur is among many celebrities who were in a No on 8 Youtube presentation - "I'm voting No on 8 because everyone deserves to be happy."
I voted yes on it because I deserve to be happy and I deserve my vote.  Thanks!
Dana Delaney is among many celebrities who were in a No on 8 Youtube presentation -
"There is a difference between having civil union and marriage."
Yes there is – and there’s a difference between bride-groom marriage and other kinds of voluntary associations.
Samantha Ronson, on the passing of Prop 8 (and the passing an animal rights bill) on her MySpace blog: "Yes, i am glad that the chickens will have more room and better conditions as they wait to die, but i just think it's frightening that people show more compassion for tomorrow's dinner than for the chef."
As I've written before, homosexual people are not kept in cages.  At least not against their will.  This is a stupid statement, and I think Lohan still thinks you are a boy.

Today, there are letters in the paper worth checking out.

Wim Scholten of Culver City wrote:
I always suspected that you only tolerated the democratic process as long as it furthered your causes. I never thought you would admit it.

I was wrong.

Today you called the outcome of a democratic process you don't like the tyranny of the majority. What would you have called it if Proposition 8 had been defeated? A benevolent dictatorship?
Richard Caton of San Diego wrote:
Perhaps it would benefit everyone if voters were required to pass a basic civics lesson before they were allowed to decide on initiatives that tell others how to live.
Prop 8 does not tell anyone how to live.  On the contrary, it restored the power of the people so that we couldn't be forced by a court to do something we do not choose to do.

Nancy Knupfer of Beverly Hills, president of the Beverly Hills Bar Association, wrote:
It is alarming that certain supporters of Proposition 8 are threatening to seek the recall of justices of the California Supreme Court who vote to invalidate Proposition 8.
It isn't alarming to me.  As Chairm wrote elsewhere, the people have a government – it isn’t the other way around.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Performing Artists on Prop 8

Our friends in Hollywood are going to tell us over and over again that they are really upset at us for voting our way, instead of theirs.  Derrik J. Lang, AP Entertainment Writer, reports.
Many celebrities grieved the passing of Proposition 8 in California this week. Some - such as Wanda Sykes, Rose McGowen and Lance Bass - attended a Wednesday protest criticizing the state's gay marriage ban. Others - like Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell, Samantha Ronson and Melissa Etheridge - vented their frustrations online, on TV, and onstage.

Blocks away from the Thursday rally of more than 2,000 gay-rights advocates outside the gates of a Mormon temple, several stars - including James Cromwell, Patricia Clarkson, Anjelica Huston and Sean Penn - said they supported the protesters while walking the red carpet at the BAFTA L.A. Brittania Awards at Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Hotel.
Well, good.  Provided you are legally registered to vote in California, you were free to vote "No" on Prop 8, and I was free to vote "Yes".
Etheridge, who exchanged vows with her longtime partner in a 2003 ceremony, declared she wouldn't pay her taxes in a blog entry posted Thursday on TheDailyBeast.com.
Good luck with that tax thing.  But notice that she had a ceremony in 2003 - no license necessary.  Did she get arrested?  Did she get sent to a camp?  Did Mormons come to her house and so much as protest?  No.  She is free to "marry".  She is not free to force the rest of us to issue a marriage license if there is no groom.

Just because you can sing, act, dance, write songs, tell jokes, or get tabloids to track your every move does not mean we have to vote the way you want us to.  Hollywood doesn’t control us, thank God.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Saw 'An American Carol'

You should, too.  I have been a paid movie reviewer, but this isn’t going to be quite like my other reviews, because this is an openly political movie and I’m an openly political blogger.

People go to the movies to have an emotional experience.  That was what I saw an expert on screenwriting demonstrate when he went over the list of history’s top grossing films.  They weren’t all masterpieces in cinema, but the audience had an emotional experience while watching those films in the theater.

"An American Carol" is not a cinematic masterpiece, but it certainly did deliver an emotional experience.  I – like the rest of the audience – was laughing throughout the picture.  I was laughing so hard at times I was crying,

Then there was a sequence that brought tears to my eyes for another reason. 
Jon Voight’s poignant and dead-serious portrayal of President George Washington led into a moment I did not expect.  It was a powerful and solemn moment in a movie that usually gets it point across with over-the-top silliness and slapstick.  Sometimes the film tickles, sometimes it delivers a noogie, and sometimes it swings and connects with a baseball bat.

As you probably know by now, the film plays on A Christmas Carol by having a character spoofing Michael Moore (Michael Malone, as played very well by Kevin Farley) visited first by JFK, then General Patton (Kelsey Grammer doing a bang-up performance through much of the film), President Washington, and the Angel of Death (country music star/Celebrity Apprentice stand-out Trace Adkins).  Through these encounters, Malone learns to appreciate America the need, at times, to go to war, including warring against Islamofascist terrorists.

Not only are we treated to a thorough slapdown (literally) of Moore, but a blistering portrayal of intolerant Leftist college professors, a derisive mocking of mindless mob protestors, a silly send-up of ACLU lawyers, and, of course, a poke to the eyes of terrorists.  Rosie O’Donnell even gets the kick in the rear, as does former President Jimmy Carter.  More importantly, though, our men and women in the military are portrayed as heroic.

I’ve always been a fan of good parody and satire, and David Zucker is one of the kings of bringing that to cinema, usually with a thorough dose of slapstick.  Zucker is in a good position to deliver this film.  Having long been part of the Hollywood game, he’s been steeped in the ideology and tactics of the Left.  However, his villains have often been Soviet Communists, Nazis, and Islamofascist terrorists, and over the years, seeing how the Left has treated Israel and has responded to 9/11, and how the Left has responded to his concerns, he was finally driven to make this film.

Zucker had already opened himself up to vitriol from the Left.  But the various other people part of this project are opening themselves up to all sorts of trouble from their Hollywood peers, and probably a few secretive “way to go!” encouragements from closeted Hollywood patriots.  Lord only knows the grief the extremely talented David Alan Grier is getting for his biting portrayal of a slave in the war-between-the-states-never-happened alternate reality.  Notice that the film is not playing on all that many screens, and was distributed by Vivendi (a minority owner of NBC Universal) instead of one of the major Hollywood studios.

Which brings me back to my suggestion that you go see this film in the theater.  Not only will it enhance your experience to hear strangers laughing along with you, but your dollar-vote will send a message to Hollywood.

Like I said, the film is not a masterpiece.  Some things could have been done better, but that’s true for most films.  I found some of the crude language unnecessary, but it wasn’t pervasive.  I would pay to see this film again, if for no other reason to catch some of the things I must have missed the first time around.  As is typical with Zucker, you have to keep your eyes open for quick sight gags that are often in the background, and the same goes for keeping your ears open for some of the auditory humor.  For example… listen closely for what the goosestepping Nazi soldiers are reciting.

"An American Carol" will not get good reviews from Leftists, who make up most of the Hollywood community.  But it is definitely worth seeing.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Congrats to Charlie Sheen

Congrats to Charlie Sheen for setting himself up for divorce #3.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

First Al Franken, Now Alec Baldwin?

Hey guys... just because Reagan and Schwarzenegger did it doesn't mean you can pull it off.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MSM Aids Publicity Stunt by Teen Star

The mainstream media, including newsrooms, go along with this even though they have to know what is going on.  I'm not mentioning names on purpose.  It is all over the news today, so it shouldn't be hard to guess what I'm writing about.

I don't care if she's a teenager. When an over-hyped celebrity claims that an upcoming photo spread in a a major magazine, taken by a famous photographer, embarrasses her, she's just trying to get more publicity for that issue of the magazine so MORE people will see the photos and talk about her.  C'mon... How long has she been around photographers?  She would not have put herself in front of the camera looking any way she would not want people to see.

She knew exactly what she was doing.

She knows exactly what she's doing.

Props to her publicists.

Jeers to the MSM, which should cover more important things instead.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (2) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »