Challenged to Civility, Part 2

In one of the very, very few posts that have appeared on this blog this year, I happened to mention that I had stopped paying much, if any, attention to Ann Coulter for her use of a pejorative term that I would prefer for people not to use.  Now, thanks to Bill Maher (to whom I pay little attention, though others seem to give him as much ego stroking as he desires), that word is being discussed yet again, thanks to Mr. Maher's reported use of it to describe Trig Palin.

Yes, Trig Palin, the five-year-old son of Sarah Palin. 

And then to see some of the women of "The View" trying to justify it...well, all I can do is shake my head and get further burned out on the political process.  When someone says it's okay to insult a child just because of who his mother happens to be, that person is not a helpful component of any political discussion.  Ever.  (It's amazing that "The View" never had an hour-long celebration of that purveyor of eloquence, Jack Stuef.)

Thankfully, others have responded in a much better manner.  Take, for example, this video:



I don't recognize who this is in the video, but what he says is well put, and simply put.

Just for the record, this is not in any way an attempt or a desire for anyone's speech to be regulated.  You have every right to use that word, just as I have every right to discount your opinion for thinking that word is acceptable.

And one last thing:  Adrienne Ross, an online friend who writes a blog called MotivationTruth, wrote recently on her Facebook page:

And I would say, as I've said many times, putting "tard" after "Lib' is also not acceptable, conservatives.

Very true.  It's not helping.

I'm sure I've said something like this before, but here goes:  yes, we can debate on the ideas.  Yes, I'm sure I don't agree with some of yours, and I'm sure you don't agree with some of mine.  But if we cannot have political discussions without throwing around words like "retard" (may this be the last time I ever write it on this blog), then we've lost a lot more than an argument.

Useless celebrity of the month: Spike Lee

For many months now, I have been moving away from my previously much more frequent posts labeled "useless celebrity".  I had wondered, in a somewhat recent entry under this label, whether spotlighting celebrities for saying ill-informed things was rewarding them for their behavior; indeed, I didn't even name the celebrity who inspired that particular post, as he probably could have used the attention, and I did not wish to give any to him.

However, when a celebrity crosses the lines of decency and honor, they need to be called out and shamed, and, in my opinion, people who agree with me ought to decide not to patronize any of the celebrity's work until he apologizes for what he has done.

I refer here to Spike Lee, who, as many people know (and many more don't), retweeted what was purported to be the address of George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin.

(Aside:  I am not going to address anything further about the killing in this post.)

Notwithstanding that tweeting anyone's address is a violation of Twitter policies, and also notwithstanding that this would have been little other than inciting of confrontations even if it were Mr. Zimmerman's address, Mr. Lee (and many others) retweeted an address belonging to people entirely unrelated.

Per Fox News:

An elderly Florida couple have been forced to move into a hotel after their home address was wrongly tweeted as belonging to the man who shot teen Trayvon Martin.

The tweets were traced back to a man in California and the address was also reportedly retweeted by director Spike Lee to his almost 250,000 followers.

The couple, aged 70 and 72, have been harassed with hate mail, been hassled by media and had scared neighbors questioning them since the tweet, their son Chip Humble told the Orlando Sentinel.

Fearful for their safety, and hoping to escape the spotlight, the couple have temporarily moved to a hotel.

Well, at least there's a good reason for all this:

The confusion seems to stem from the fact the woman's son is named William George Zimmerman and he lived briefly at the address in 1995.

Way to do your research before doing something utterly stupid, unnamed California tweeter.  But I'm certain that once confronted with the error, the originator corrected it, right?

When William Zimmerman pleaded with the man who tweeted the address, the man responded, "Black power all day. No justice, no peace" along with an obscenity.

Oh.  Spike Lee, by the way, has had nothing to say about this in days.  Certainly he has not apologized to the terrorized couple as of this writing.  Now, he may have been distracted by the racial tweets some have directed at him (which, just to be clear, I do not condone in any way), but I think he owes something to this couple.  Perhaps seven figures' worth of something.

And until he makes this right (if he can), he is deserving of little more than scorn.  And maybe a little pity.

Update 3/28:  Spike Lee has apologized (hat tip to Jim Treacher).  But is it too little, too late?  I know the McClain family has already lawyered up, so I'd be surprised if this story ends here.

Update 3/29:   And he's settled with the McClains.  Good.  I'm glad he did.  I'm not so thrilled, however, at the original idea of tweeting out the address of anyone, killer or not.  And Mr. Lee is now paying for such stupidity.

The Roots drag Jimmy Fallon's show down into the depths

I happened to turn on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon last night and was surprised to see Michele Bachmann as a guest.  And they seemed to be having a good, friendly conversation; it was enjoyable to watch.

That was before I learned about the message that Mr. Fallon's house band, The Roots (yes, I know they're famous for more than just being his house band, but that is what they are in regard to the show) sent with their intro music.  As most people who watch late night television know, guests occasionally are greeted by the band with some sort of fitting music.  Usually, it's pretty funny.

But it is certainly not funny to greet Michele Bachmann (or, really, anybody) with Fishbone's "Lyin' A** B****".  (No, the real title does not have any asterisks in it)



Tasteless.  Classless.  I would not condone this type of behavior toward anyone.

And this was not a random occurrence.  No, it was planned, per the tweet of Questlove of The Roots (and yes, this tweet was sent before Ms. Bachmann appeared):

Since this has come out (apparently most of the people I follow on Twitter aren't familiar with songs like this one, and neither am I), reaction has been swift on conservative fronts, at least.  For example, Dana Loesch wrote, "I can’t wait for the day when progressive males can evolve to a higher intellectual level and debate conservative women on facts, not on sex."  She then compared this incident (which, from what I have seen, has generated no reaction whatsoever from the MSM) with all the hand-wringing over the booing of Michelle Obama at a NASCAR event.  Which is worse, booing someone or calling someone a bitch, really?

And Glenn Beck, for all his over-the-top antics, hit it on the head in his calling for Mr. Fallon to fire his band.  Video courtesy The Right Scoop:



Do you think any other conservatives would want to be a "guest" on a show in which the band is going to be flat-out hateful?  I don't.

And what does Jimmy Fallon have to say about this:  not much.

I'm sorry, but I think there needs to be more said.  An apology during tonight's monologue would be a good start.  But only a start.  It's time for a message to be sent that this type of behavior is not going to be blindly accepted anymore.

Another day, another celeb taking a cheap shot at Sarah Palin

I have a theory that goes something like this:  a fading celebrity, in a desperate attempt to get some attention and thereby jump-start a flagging career, will get just the attention they are craving by saying something outrageous and totally over-the-top and, of course, insulting to some conservative or another.  In the past three years the conservative target has, more often than not by my observation, been Sarah Palin.  And that makes sense; after all, Sarah Palin has been the most prominent voice speaking out against the largesse of government for the past three years, even if she isn't a presidential candidate.

In the past, celebs such as Ashley Judd have singled out Governor Palin for abuse and scorn, and in most cases, those celebs have been rewarded with several days of attention because of it.  This blog has certainly not helped in that respect, what with its "useless celebrity" label, possibly best exemplified by this post from February 2009.

This week has offered yet another piece of evidence that my theory is correct, as another actor offered liberals advice consisting of "kill Sarah Palin".  At this point, naming the actor, who, honestly, I don't think I've seen in anything since about 2002, would be rewarding him for his abhorrent behavior, and I don't think it's worth my time to do much more of that.  (I linked the story on Twitter this morning, so you can go search through my ~150-200 tweets from this day if you're that interested.)  Seriously, the guy has half the followers that I do, so what other reason would he tweet such slime?  Because of this, he has gotten a bunch of conservatives to start Twitter conversations with him, and he's probably gotten more press today than he has since he advertised a second-rate soft drink (was that even during this century?).

And so I am done with this story.  It's not worth it for me to say more about it, as all it will do is give the would-be celeb the attention he apparently desperately misses...which, per my theory, was exactly the reason that he said what he said.  Plus, it would probably inspire more of this nastiness.

Prince Charles called a hypocrite

While I'm sure everyone celebrates with Prince Charles on the recent wedding of his son, there are still many things with which some people, myself included, take exception, with regard to his lifestyle.  This blog, in fact, has made reference to at least one of these things before.  I was surprised, though, to find that I had never made reference to the fact that Prince Charles jets all over the world to tell people that the environment is in trouble.  It seemed a little hypocritical to me, but I guess I never mentioned it on here.  (I'm pretty sure I've tweeted about it, for those of you who tweet.)

Well, in the meantime, someone else has brought the environmental hypocrisy of Prince Charles to light.  As Guy Adams of The Independent put it:

Phelim McAleer, an Irish-born film-maker, who lives in Los Angeles, specialises in short polemics poking fun at bossy celebrities who preach green living while travelling in private jets and limousines (previous targets include James Cameron and Robert Redford). Now he’s turning his artistic howitzers upon the heir to our throne.

(See, this is why Guy Adams writes for The Independent, while I just write a seventh-rate blog; I would never think to use phrases like "artistic howitzers".)

The video appears, in its entirety, well, right here.



And I didn't have to jet around the world to tell you about it.

American Idol, you are dead to me

I'll admit it:  I've watched American Idol more than a few times in the past several years.  I particularly have enjoyed the auditions, to be sure, as they have provided lots of opportunities for the judges to give some fairly entertaining feedback.

One of the things I've liked about American Idol was the way in which it could appeal to everyone, regardless of creed, color, politics, or whatever.

Until now.

When the revolving door of AI judges stopped this time around--in case you've been living under a rock or truly don't care about pop culture, or both--three of last season's judges were gone and two new judges were ready to take their places alongside the only remaining original judge, Randy Jackson.  And those two new judges seemed to be people who would have the same universal appeal:  Steven Tyler and Jennifer Lopez.

Sounds good so far, right?  I mean, Steven Tyler fronted Aerosmith for what, as long as I've been alive, at least, and J-Lo is, well, J-Lo.

But something nagged at me.  And I've finally remembered what it was.

J-Lo, on national television, called Sarah Palin a bitch.

See for yourself, if you can stand watching her:



And since, as people have implied to me before, it's not a long road from thinking little of Governor Palin to thinking similarly of people who happen to agree with Governor Palin's politics, who's to say that J-Lo doesn't think similarly of me, as well as many, many other conservatives and/or Tea Partiers?

And before it's asked:  no, I don't think that everyone in the public eye has to shut up about their opinions.  But there is a respectful way to air one's opinions, and Ms. Lopez severely missed the mark.

So, then, is Jenny from the Block someone who deserves to be on my television, as she put it, "discovering and nurturing that spirit [of success]?  Is this someone that I want to present to my children as an example of someone worth my respect?  Not even close.  No, Ms. Lopez, you are definitely a useless celebrity.

American Idol/Fox/whoever is calling the shots, you blew it on this one.  And I'm done watching AI.

Not all libs are misogynists, but some sure are...

Courtesy Andrew Breitbart's Big Government:

When people try to convince you that conservatives are hate-filled so-and-so's (whereas liberals are, of course, filled with love and understanding for their fellow man), you should direct them to the following video compiled by the Media Research Center's Culture and Media Institute.  The not-exactly-timely-but-who-cares video spotlights five incredibly offensive attacks by (mostly well-known) liberals on conservative women.

(Aren't you male, Snowed?  Yeah, but I'm married to a conservative woman, and if anyone spoke this way about her, I would not be happy.)

Some of these attacks have been covered in this blog before, such as the incredibly stupid comment about Willow Palin by a prominent late-night host I do not wish to mention.  Others were made by people like Chuck Nice (who?) and Keith Olbermann.  It's a veritable smorgasbord of hatred toward conservative women.



The CMI's full report contains more accounts of this type of attack against conservative women.  Sadly, it's all too common.

Wow, it *is* possible to go lower than the D-List!

Occasionally talented actress and self-styled comedienne Kathy Griffin really doesn't like Sarah Palin.  Not one bit.  Ms. Griffin has previously been quoted as calling Mrs. Palin "such an idiot and such a moron," and apparently she has decided to center her entire celebrity status around the former governor.

In what appears to be a desperate grab for attention, Ms. Griffin has taken to going out to such prestigious social events as the Teen Choice Awards with a certain person that this blog no longer wishes to mention.  (No, I'm not linking to social event coverage; go look it up if you're so inclined.  I'm certainly not.)

Per Radar Magazine through Hot Air, she has also filmed an episode of her not-so-successful series My Life on the D-List with this same person.  And as part of this quasi-adoption, Ms. Griffin has made her feelings about Sarah Palin quite clear

“We shot a scene where I show her [Kathy] Levi’s Playgirl magazine and she reacts to it,” a Playgirl rep, who came along for the trip, told RadarOnline.com exclusively. “Then we went to a gay bar called Mad Myrnas. I asked Kathy what star she’d like to see take a ‘celebrity spill’ and she said ‘I’d like to push Sarah Palin down the stairs.’”

Stay classy, Kathy.  With such statements, is it any wonder you haven't gone further with your career?

Ever-so-slight retraction:  Fine, the show's been on six years, so I guess if you wanna call that successful, go for it.  But good grief, the show's on Bravo, a network that most people I know watch just slightly less than cable access.

Quite possibly the last word I have to say about Levi Johnston

Joseph Lindsey had a great post at Big Hollywood last week warning people about what celebrity does to some people.  He presented a pretty sad example from modern history:  Levi Johnston. 

The main point of Mr. Lindsey's column is pretty obviously stated in the first paragraph:

Fame is that place where character is rarely able to sustain itself. I don’t know how much character Levi Johnston had as a boy, but as a young man in the grips of the Hollywood culture machine he’s lost it all.

The whole thing is worth your time, if you ask me--and in a sense you did, since you're here--but two quotes sum up how Mr. Johnston allowed himself to be used to try to attack Sarah Palin:

When one unknowingly trades character for fame the recipient has only one recourse, attack the catalyst that brought them the opportunity in the first place, in Levi Johnston case it’s Sarah Palin and the mother of his child.

Getting your high school girlfriend pregnant is hardly worthy of fame, that is unless her mother is the Governor of your state, a vice-presidential candidate and conservative woman. Only then do the leftist vampires of Hollywood come out of their dark corners and offer you the glowing flame of fame. But what they didn’t tell Levi is that he’s just another one of their moths and the moment he’s served their purpose they’ll push him into the flame and exterminate him.

Like the author of this column, I hope Mr. Johnston can change course.  The course he's currently following is going nowhere good.

I guess we won't be seeing Tori Amos at any Tea Parties anytime soon

Courtesy Contact Music through Fox Nation:

Add Tori Amos to the list of celebrities who think they're smarter than Sarah Palin without anything to justify that belief.  Says Ms. Amos, should Mrs. Palin choose to run for office again, then she will run against the former governor.  Quoth Ms. Amos:

If Palin runs again, I'm going to run on a Republican ticket. What I know about Middle Eastern policy could fit on a thumbnail, but I still know more than she does. You have to ask, how could a nation nearly vote in somebody who isn't qualified for the job?

Like I said, Ms. Amos offers no proof to her assertions, but given that Governor Palin has been to the Middle East at least twice and has made numerous statements about events ongoing there, and given that, to the best of my knowledge, Ms. Amos has no qualifications to talk about Middle East policy, it certainly appears to me that Tori Amos is yet another celebrity who is compelled to made statements she can't back up simply because she hates Sarah Palin.


Plus, her chances of winning on a Republican ticket are roughly the same as my chances of winning six gold medals in Vancouver.

(Hopefully) The Last Thing I Have To Write About Letterman And Palin

Note (7/11/09): I started writing the following entry during my extended absence from my blog (something about a lot of work before taking a well-deserved vacation), with the intention of finishing it before my vacation. Well, that didn't happen, and since then, Sarah Palin announced her forthcoming resignation as Alaska's governor. More on that later. In the meantime, I present what eventually became an overly rambling piece that is still better than anything Peggy Noonan has written in over a year. Ignore the post date of 22 June; that was when I started it.

As a fan of Sarah Palin (and if you've been reading this blog for a while...or seen the calendar on my office wall, you know that), I suppose I've gotta make a blog entry about David Letterman's tasteless joke. Now, before you, gentle reader, jump to conclusions ("he said tasteless...he must be an idiot hard-right conservative Repuke"), let me clear some of them up: I'm not an idiot. There.

If you follow me on Twitter (and why not? It's a lot easier to write 140-character pithy items than it is to write, y'know, something actually thought out.), you know that after the story first broke, I had a lot to say about David Letterman. Here's why:

On Monday, 8 June, I happened to be watching David Letterman's monologue, and I noticed he took a cheap shot at the Palin family by saying that Sarah Palin had an awkward moment at the Yankees game; during the 7th inning her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez. Hardy har har. I brushed it off when I first heard it, thinking, correctly, that going after the Palin family is pretty typical for late-night comedians, and Letterman in particular...he had become steadily more bitter and more overtly liberal in his statements and/or rantings. (I have previously mentioned Mr. Letterman as being a "useless celebrity" (as defined here) for displaying this same type of behavior before. (Mr. Letterman also made other rude comments during his Top Ten list that I won't explore in this blog.)

In any case, I wasn't too concerned about Letterman's comment. Sure, it was rude, but, as I said, it was typical. Then I found out which daughter had made the trip: it wasn't Bristol, but Gov. Palin's middle daughter, Willow, who is 14. You know, I suppose that could be a simple mistake to make...that is, if you don't have a crack writing staff and the resources of CBS at your disposal. In any case, perhaps Mr. Letterman was unaware of which Palin daughter was in New York when he made the joke the first night. However, it was fairly well-known that it wasn't Bristol by the time he taped his Tuesday night show, in which he made yet another joke about Willow, this time involving disgraced ex-NY-gov Eliot Spitzer, "doubling down", as Jim Treacher would put it.

(It should be noted that I'd embed a YouTube video of this in here somewhere, but for some reason CBS has been very diligent in getting these videos removed almost as soon as they are uploaded.)

Well, you're probably aware of how it all turned out. It was pointed out that any reference to a 14-year-old girl having sex is, by definition, a reference to statutory rape. Then, Letterman made an incredibly lame well-you-didn't-understand-blah-blah-blah type of non-apology, and generally made things worse. And then he finally apologized to the wronged parties, all of them, by name, a week later, and Gov. Palin accepted the apology.

The question is: what, if anything, is there to learn from this? Well, I would say there are several things to be taken from this:

• Apparently, some people think that the correct response from Governor Palin should have been to shut up and take it.
• It is also apparent that some people think families, at least of conservatives, are fair game for any joke imaginable.
• These same people think that any companies that pull their advertising (or do not renew it) as a result of pressure brought to bear are supporting censorship.
• Apparently a lot of people don't realize the limits of the 1st Amendment. Private companies, such as, say, Southwest Airlines, can do what they want with their advertising budget; the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with it.

I've seen an outrageous amount of vitriol directed at the people who are continuing to press not only sponsors of The Late Show to cancel but also CBS to fire Mr. Letterman (disclosure: I am not part of this group...he apologized, and Gov. Palin accepted. I'll move on, though I probably won't be watching Mr. Letterman nearly as much in the future.). People are told to get a life (by people unaware of the irony of saying that while commenting anonymously on blogs written by people with whom they know they'll disagree vehemently), and that is the tamest thing said. (Use your imagination, if you must.)

Here's the long and short of the way Republicans are treated, both online and in the MSM: this is a form of bullying. The constant message being sent is that if you don't toe the party line of the loudest people, then you deserve what you get. It's basically the same treatment given to Carrie Prejean by, well, a lot of people, but particularly Perez Hilton, who will get a link from me sometime after hell freezes over. And we, in general, comply with the message being sent to us because: 1) it's the simplest way to deal with it; 2) we want to be accepted by

Obviously, I meant to say that we, for some reason, want to be accepted by those who vilify us. It's one thing to get cordial...it's another thing totally to call the behavior of those people toward our side acceptable.

And one correction: I did, indeed, tweet about Letterman the night he made the first jokes, so I suppose it's not totally true that I "wasn't too concerned" about the comments. With that said, I figured I'd say my piece, and then everything would fade quickly. I did not make that tweet expecting the story to blow up as it did.

And now I'm starting to ramble again. I've gotta stop that. So I will.

An Open Letter to Anderson Cooper, Janeane Garofalo, Mike Dahmus, and way too many others to mention

Dear people who think that the use of the word "teabagging" (in talking about the over 300,000 people nationwide who attended the various Tea Parties on April 15) is the funniest thing since President Obama insulted the Special Olympics:

It's not: 1) funny; 2) original; 3) worth responding to. Mr. Dahmus, at least, had a point to go with his slam. (Said point was, however, totally irrelevant, and if Mr. Dahmus believes that taxes really are going to be decreased for 95% of the American people, he seriously needs to research how much cap-and-trade policies will cost the average household.) As for the rest of you, feel free to continue to destroy whatever credibility you guys still have. I'll probably not be watching you, because I'll most likely have to cancel my cable to help pay for our portion of the cap-and-trade tax.

What Defines a "Useless Celebrity"?

With the biggest self-congratulatory exercise of the year over with (that'd be the Oscars), I thought it would be a good time to expand on what exactly is meant by my repeated use of the phrase/label "useless celebrity".

Are all celebrities useless? Is any child of God truly useless? I would say no to both. However, I would say that someone who either has gained their celebrity status in a totally worthless-to-society way (like, for example, Paris Hilton), or has used their celebrity status to make some sort of incredibly shallow political statement (like, for example, Scarlett Johansson), qualifies to be called a useless celebrity. They're not useless people, but things they say and do may very well be useless in and of themselves and should be considered as such.

(Incidentally, the Scarlett Johansson entry is still my most visited. If nothing else, I suppose that keeps me humble about the reach of my so-called punditry. And I guess it does illustrate how much we, as a world, seem to care about the irrelevant and trivial instead of what's truly important.)

I guess the fact that so many people care about what the beautiful people do and say makes it important for us to discern what statements, if any, are useful, and which are useless. Sadly, those making the useless types seem to vastly outnumber the others.

For example:

• Ashley Judd's silliness (as documented here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) regarding Sarah Palin has come and gone, as has, apparently, Ms. Judd's acting career, which is why she has to make such a courageous stand against someone hated by virtually all of Hollywood. Seriously, what has she done since Ya-Ya Sisterhood? What has she done worth watching since Double Jeopardy? (Disclaimer: the previous sentence is my opinion, as is the entire entry. Duh!)
  
• Tom Hanks has made and then backed away from rather divisive statements about California's Prop 8 supporters.
• Cher stated, in the midst of an anti-Republican rant, that living under Republican "rule" almost killed her. (See also here.)
  
• In addition to the venerable Ms. Judd, it appears to be becoming mandatory for liberal celebrities to concentrate their vitriol onto Governor Palin. It should come as no surprise to anyone to hear from people such as Janeane Garafalo, the once-great David Letterman, the supposedly objective Gwen Ifill, and, of course, the supposedly worthwhile and generally unfunny Keith Olbermann that they think Sarah Palin is apparently either such an idiot as to be unable to tie her own shoes without help, or a bimbo fantasy. Or both.
• And, of course, we can't forget the pledge of many celebrities to act more responsibly now that President Obama is in office. Of course, you should have been acting this way all along if you really meant it...
  

The best example of this type of "useless celebrity" behavior, at least this week, is the Oscars. The ceremony seems to be a magnet for lame manifestos (really, whose idea was it to give Bill Maher a bully platform for his anti-religion statements?). Sean Penn had his screed written well before he accepted Mickey Rourke's award. (Disclaimer: I've seen neither Milk nor The Wrestler; in fact, I've seen nothing nominated for pretty much anything at this year's ceremony, but I guessed the Academy would give the award to Mr. Penn due to the obvious political statement.) Past years have shown similar types of rants; for example...eh, never mind, I'm not giving Michael Moore a link.

Enjoy your awards and your fame, you guys. Just don't expect me to fall in lockstep with you because of them.

The World in Which We Live

From the gotta-see-it-to-believe-it department: Miley Cyrus apparently made a not-well-thought-out decision to make a slant-eyed gesture in a picture. So, what's the proper response? Why, sue the pants off her, of course!

TMZ reports that the Los Angeles woman, Lucie J. Kim, has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all Asian Pacific Islanders living in Los Angeles County. And she's seeking quite a payout: $4 billion.

If there is any common sense left in the greater Los Angeles area judiciary system, this will be laughed out of court. But if it isn't...who's up for suing a bunch of Hollywood celebs for offending conservatives?

(H/T: Michelle Malkin)

In Which I Eat a Mixture of Crow and My Own Words...To a Point

Recently a friend delivered a rebuke to me regarding my recent postings and their apparent discord. In my last two postings, I pretty much stated that President Obama benefits from a cult of personality, and then I said that I don't terribly appreciate the messages sent by several people (mostly the MSM) who said that we should all be not only happy about Obama's inauguration, but that there was basically no room for dissent. Like I said, President Bush had people protesting on his very first day. Whether that was a reaction to the lousy treatment some Republicans gave President Clinton or a boiling over of feelings about perceived injustices in the Florida debacle (and like my friend, I would prefer not to revisit that), it was nothing less than tacky.

So let's return to my friend's assertion. Is there a conflict in decrying boorish behavior from one side while pointing out what I believe to be a rather superficial reason why the leader of the other side inspires such loyalty? Perhaps, if my own behavior in doing so may be found to be boorish in and of itself, which makes the $64 question whether I was.

To be sure, many people were inspired by the optimism Barack Obama presented. I myself remarked on another forum in 2004 that Obama was like Bobby Kennedy in terms of his hopefulness. However, there are many people who never looked beyond his personality, or who went for Obama simply because Bush was blamed for everything that happened in the past eight years, deserved or not. It's those people to whom I referred with the video. These are people like Demi Moore, who said in this video, “I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind.” This type of sentiment was never directed toward President Bush, and to me it seems a little creepy. This movement appears to include a lot of people who posted on this site and told "the world" that those of us who thought Bush was a better president than Kerry would have been were, among other things, "witless", "bastards", "idiots", "blind", and much, much worse, and then tries to foment unity with those same people they slammed four years earlier. They came across as a movement which can't think for itself. Again, I don't refer to all Obama supporters in this manner, but a lot of them qualify. And yes, it ticks me off.

But was my referring to that movement as a cult of personality boorish and/or rude nonetheless? It probably was. Is it my place to repay rudeness in kind? I would hope not, but I did. The person I respect most once said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." I definitely did not do that. Regardless of how I feel about it, it was not good form. So to my friend I say: do please accept my apologies for pretty much acting like a jerk. And call me on it again if it recurs. (And in addition, I will also acknowledge that a fair share of Sarah Palin's supporters belong to a similar cult of personality. In both cases, the actual policies of the cult's subject need to be examined; otherwise, you might be following the wrong person...)

With that said, what, then, should be the best way for me to act toward an administration with which I don't agree? Andy Levy has a pretty good list of how NOT to behave. The last item, I think, applies here:

DON’T use the fact that many on the left behaved abominably for the past eight years as an excuse to behave the same way. America needs adults. And if it bothered you when they did it, it’s a good sign that you shouldn’t do it.

Good grief, even I had a fairly good list of how to act in the current political climate. It's a pity I didn't follow my own advice.

And, as my list says, I do believe that policies and programs may be opposed, but Obama is my president. Romans 13:1-7 says "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." Does it mean I fall into lockstep with him? Of course not. But it does mean he deserves the honor of the office, whether or not somebody else (or, say, a whole group of somebodies) refused to give Bush similar treatment.

To expand on this: "submit" is not the same as "obey". Not all leaders deserve to be obeyed, certainly. (Robert Mugabe, for instance.) A rethinking of the Christian response to civil government may be found here. It's worth pondering.

In the meantime, it is time that I started doing a bit more measuring of my own words. And it is time to be more responsible--not because of Obama, because God expects it of me.

(All biblical quotations are taken from the NIV. All copyrights acknowledged.)

Beyonce's New Album, Jay-Z's New Smear

This just in: Beyonce would like to be known as "Sasha Fierce". (Per Yahoo! Music)

But, at this point, I think I'll just think of her as someone married to a severe misogynist. Is this really someone Senator Obama wants associated with his campaign?

(Note: "Misogynist" was by far the nicest term I could come up with to describe him.)

Way to listen to your viewers, KVUE

KVUE's 10 pm newscast tonight (which we watched with the sound off) featured, as did every other newscast in the country, Paris Hilton's return to jail. Right after that, some poll results appeared on-screen stating that 83% of the respondents did not want to see any Paris Hilton stories on any KVUE newscasts.

So, KVUE producers:

1. Why had you just shown that story?

2. If you were going to show the story regardless, why give people a poll to make them think their opinions counted for anything?

Prince Charles: Expert on Everything

Apparently when you're the Prince of Wales, you have to think up new and exciting ways to be relevant. Per this article:

"Prince Charles today said banning McDonald's fast food was the key to a healthy lifestyle."

No word yet on whether he also pointed out that not fooling around with your friend's wife was one of the keys to a healthy marriage.

Al Gore loses historical perspective

In the middle of Matt Lauer's fawning interview of Al Gore this morning on Today (when Mr. Gore could get a word in edgewise, what with Mr. Lauer's continual pleading with Mr. Gore to run for President, and his shilling of Mr. Gore's DVD), Mr. Gore stated that Iraq is the "worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States". (I believe "worst strategy mistake", as the page reads currently, is a typo.)

Ummm...not to downplay the admitted mistakes made in the Iraq conflict, but I can immediately think of at least one strategic mistake that was much worse, and that is Jimmy Carter's disastrous mishandling of Iran in 1979, withdrawing of support for the Shah, and basically setting the stage for everything that has happened in the Middle East since then, including the current Iraq conflict.

But I don't really think Mr. Gore was nearly as concerned with historical accuracy as he was with rhetoric and sound bites.

Scarlett Johansson as much as calls herself a slut...

In the midst of criticizing President Bush for his "staunch conservative views on sex", Scarlett Johansson made some of the dumbest statements I've heard in a while. To wit:

* She is so "socially aware" that she gets an HIV test every six months. No, honey, that just means you sleep around a lot.
* The article doesn't make this completely clear, but it appears that Ms. Johansson thinks President Bush wants to make abortion illegal in all states. I don't remember him bringing that up in the last, well...ever.
* This is an actual quote, referring to President Bush's so-called views: "Every woman would have six children and we wouldn't be able to have abortions." Or maybe you'd have to learn something called personal responsibility. Anyway, I don't seem to recall the president stating this desire, either. If you're going to make up someone's views, try making up worthwhile viewpoints for yourself first.

Anyway, why do we have to rely on schools for our sex education? Why is it that so many people are unwilling to teach their own children, well, anything? Why are so many willing to let their kids watch badly written, badly acted "love scenes", but won't say a word to them about the subject?

Perhaps if parents, collectively, would grow a spine and have the kinds of talks with their children that life demands, they would learn that "love" in the media has nothing whatsoever to do with real life love. Real life relationships, romantic or not, require character development. TV, by and large, doesn't show this. And Ms. Johansson could use it.