Evan Pokroy at Big Hollywood decrypts the secret Conservative themes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
Money quote(s):
"The fact is that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is, at its core, an exceptionally conservative show. There are a few episodes that break this general mold but, as a whole, it is everything that Hollywood is not. There is a main theme that runs throughout the entire span of the show and is apparent in every single episode.
Evil exists and you do not negotiate with it; you fight it."
Never forget what Will Rogers had to say about diplomacy.
(I rather like dogs, and never throw rocks at them.)
"You don’t need special powers to confront evil."
That's why there's a Second Amendment, so everyone can have special powers to fight evil.
"Actions have consequences."
So do elections. And economies. And foreign policies. And wars.
"You are the master (or mistress, if we’re going to stay in context) of your own destiny."
We all have choices, every moment of every day. How we respond to them, how we make them, tells ourselves (and others) what kind of a master (or mistress) we are of that destiny.
"Government is suspect."
Again: this is why, in extremity, we have a Second Amendment.
(But let's keep going with elections in the meantime.)
" No one is so irredeemably evil that they cannot, after much hard work and rebuilding of self, find themselves unequivocally on the side of good."
Showing posts with label Big Hollywood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Hollywood. Show all posts
Friday, June 10, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
re: "PJ’s Poor Judgment"
Greg Gutfeld at Big Hollywood is experiencing an increasingly common symptom of distust.
Money quote(s):
"(W)hen I hear of an act of terror, an internal clock starts clicking.
I wonder, how long before we find out the suspect is a radical Islamist.
And then, how long before that affiliation is rejected as vital to the crime.
Witness the murderous acts against our military in Frankfurt: it was only a matter of hours before the killer’s links to radical Islam were exposed.
And it was only a few hours later, that we saw an Administration official dismiss that notion."
A/S Crowley (Colonel, U.S. Air Force Retired) has an unenviable job. I wouldn't take it at gunpoint. Well, not that anyone's likely to ever offer me any job anywhere near the assistant secretary level, but he has to walk a very fine line between needing to put lipstick (our lipstick) on a pig (our pig) and uttering any actual untruths.
Diplomacy can be like that.
Remember that we don't want the GWOT to devolve into an actual civilization-level all-out total war between the West and Islam. That's what UBL and Al-Qaeda would like.
(After all, an ideology designed to thrive in the 7th century might be just the thing to dominate the rubble remaining after such a conflict.)
Pres. Bush (43) got that (and several other big things) right.
"(A) killer can shout Allahu Akbar – just like at Ft. Hood – and the Administration still won’t “commit.” They only see a man with no affiliation–because decades of ingrained political correctness have taught them to be fearful of pointing out that affiliation. It’s bigotry, after all.
Look, making no mention of terror won’t make terror go away."
This is one of our American cultural blindspots, and it's something we can't afford to persist as a mental default position. At this point, short of firing squads the most effective remedy for this sort of knee-jerk political correctness is to ridicule it. Hold it up to the light and laugh at it; once enough comedians are poking fun at it and enough Americans realize what a laugh-line it is, it's bound to change.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
re: "Obama's Animated Ambassadors"
Tim Kelleher at Big Hollywood had the scoop on some upcoming ambassadorial appointments.
This truly is diplomacy at its most transformative.
Enjoy!
This truly is diplomacy at its most transformative.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
re: "Boxer Demotes Herself From 'Ma'am' to 'Senator'"
Jeffrey Jena at Big Hollywood managed to crack the code.
Money quote(s):
"I recently did a show at a military base where the commanding officer was a woman. I was unsure how to address this much decorated military person so I asked a tough-looking guy with a bunch of stripes on his arm to guide me. He told me that “Ma’am” was the proper term of address, just as I would say “Sir” if the commander were a man. Then he added some information for which I had not asked.
“Don’t address her only by her rank.” He said, “That would tell her you think she is a substandard officer.” In the military it seems that insulting an officer to his or her face isn’t tolerated very well. Military people, being a resourceful bunch, have developed a system for letting an officer know that they don’t think too much of them. They use the term of address which least fulfills the requirement of military respect which is using only the person’s title.
Imagine, for example, you are an enlisted man and you are under the command of a Lieutenant Smith. If Lt. Smith is a competent leader you would address him as “Sir,” “LT” or “Lt. Smith.” If Lt. Smith is an arrogant moron you would always address him simply as “Lieutenant.”
So when General Walsh quickly came back with “Senator” and not “Senator Boxer” I laughed because I knew what he meant; this is a substandard person for whom I have no respect!
Let’s all address her as “Senator” from now on."
Money quote(s):
"I recently did a show at a military base where the commanding officer was a woman. I was unsure how to address this much decorated military person so I asked a tough-looking guy with a bunch of stripes on his arm to guide me. He told me that “Ma’am” was the proper term of address, just as I would say “Sir” if the commander were a man. Then he added some information for which I had not asked.
“Don’t address her only by her rank.” He said, “That would tell her you think she is a substandard officer.” In the military it seems that insulting an officer to his or her face isn’t tolerated very well. Military people, being a resourceful bunch, have developed a system for letting an officer know that they don’t think too much of them. They use the term of address which least fulfills the requirement of military respect which is using only the person’s title.
Imagine, for example, you are an enlisted man and you are under the command of a Lieutenant Smith. If Lt. Smith is a competent leader you would address him as “Sir,” “LT” or “Lt. Smith.” If Lt. Smith is an arrogant moron you would always address him simply as “Lieutenant.”
So when General Walsh quickly came back with “Senator” and not “Senator Boxer” I laughed because I knew what he meant; this is a substandard person for whom I have no respect!
Let’s all address her as “Senator” from now on."
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
re: "Mr. President: War Is Not A 'Struggle' Or 'Situation' "
Mark Tapson at Big Hollywood is adamant about nomenclature (among other things).
Money quote(s):
"President Obama jettisoned the admittedly empty and useless phrase “war on terror,” a label which pleased pretty much no one, primarily because it didn’t specify an enemy"
"The aim of all this muting of the language in the War with No Name is twofold: for the Obama administration to distance itself from George W. Bush’s “politics of fear,” and to whitewash a plain fact that liberals are suicidally reluctant to acknowledge - that we are at war with radical Islam."
"“Our administration does not believe in a clash of civilizations,” Vice-President Joe Biden announced at his February address in Munich, referring to the now-famous title of Samuel Huntington’s prescient 1998 book The Clash of Civilizations. Well frankly, I don’t believe in it either; I believe instead that we’re embroiled in a clash of civilization versus barbarism, and that it is the defining conflict of our time."
Mr. Tapson should be forgiven if he overlooked that the 1998 book was based upon the late Prof. Huntington's 1995 article in Foreign Policy.
My nuanced take on Mr. Tapson's last point is that the whole objective of much of former Pres. Bush's soft-pedaling was to prevent the clash of global/Western civilization with certain Islamic barbarians from escalating into a true clash of civilizations and cultures.
There would be considerable differences of scale between our "global" war as we've fought it thus far and a "world war" as could have resulted (and might yet).
"(T)he left in general think the conflict is just one big cultural misunderstanding which can be resolved by reassuring fundamentalist Muslims (like the mythical “moderate Taliban“) that we’ll sit down with them, listen to their so-called grievances, and make whatever concessions are necessary (like throwing Israel under the bus) to move forward as mutually respectful partners in a brave new world of prosperity and inter-faith pablum."
"Muslim extremists have been hammering home the point for decades, all across the Muslim world, that America, the Great Satan, is the enemy. Believing he can defuse Islamist hostility by being more “respectful,” by engaging them in still more “dialogue,” and by offering to make their grievances right - all of which the Islamists consider signs of weakness - is a fantasy."
"(A)s much as Islamists would like us to believe this clash is about American foreign policy, it isn’t about their grievances, though their skewed perspective on our foreign policy sometimes provides them with useful recruiting points. In the words of a former Hezbollah leader: “We are not fighting you because we want something from you. We’re fighting you because we want to destroy you.”"
&
"(O)ur Islamist enemies love death more than life, reject freedom in favor of absolute submission to a totalitarian ideology, and won’t be happy until the world is entirely Islamic. They cannot be swayed from their goal by promises of economic prosperity and peaceful coexistence with infidels."
Money quote(s):
"President Obama jettisoned the admittedly empty and useless phrase “war on terror,” a label which pleased pretty much no one, primarily because it didn’t specify an enemy"
"The aim of all this muting of the language in the War with No Name is twofold: for the Obama administration to distance itself from George W. Bush’s “politics of fear,” and to whitewash a plain fact that liberals are suicidally reluctant to acknowledge - that we are at war with radical Islam."
"“Our administration does not believe in a clash of civilizations,” Vice-President Joe Biden announced at his February address in Munich, referring to the now-famous title of Samuel Huntington’s prescient 1998 book The Clash of Civilizations. Well frankly, I don’t believe in it either; I believe instead that we’re embroiled in a clash of civilization versus barbarism, and that it is the defining conflict of our time."
Mr. Tapson should be forgiven if he overlooked that the 1998 book was based upon the late Prof. Huntington's 1995 article in Foreign Policy.
My nuanced take on Mr. Tapson's last point is that the whole objective of much of former Pres. Bush's soft-pedaling was to prevent the clash of global/Western civilization with certain Islamic barbarians from escalating into a true clash of civilizations and cultures.
There would be considerable differences of scale between our "global" war as we've fought it thus far and a "world war" as could have resulted (and might yet).
"(T)he left in general think the conflict is just one big cultural misunderstanding which can be resolved by reassuring fundamentalist Muslims (like the mythical “moderate Taliban“) that we’ll sit down with them, listen to their so-called grievances, and make whatever concessions are necessary (like throwing Israel under the bus) to move forward as mutually respectful partners in a brave new world of prosperity and inter-faith pablum."
"Muslim extremists have been hammering home the point for decades, all across the Muslim world, that America, the Great Satan, is the enemy. Believing he can defuse Islamist hostility by being more “respectful,” by engaging them in still more “dialogue,” and by offering to make their grievances right - all of which the Islamists consider signs of weakness - is a fantasy."
"(A)s much as Islamists would like us to believe this clash is about American foreign policy, it isn’t about their grievances, though their skewed perspective on our foreign policy sometimes provides them with useful recruiting points. In the words of a former Hezbollah leader: “We are not fighting you because we want something from you. We’re fighting you because we want to destroy you.”"
&
"(O)ur Islamist enemies love death more than life, reject freedom in favor of absolute submission to a totalitarian ideology, and won’t be happy until the world is entirely Islamic. They cannot be swayed from their goal by promises of economic prosperity and peaceful coexistence with infidels."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
