Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
This Just In: Michael Jackson Still DEAD.
When watching the news the night of Michael Jackson's death, I came to the realization that we were all in for a looooooooong ride. After all, in addition to singing and dancing, MJ also walked on water, fed the multitudes, and, oh... wait... nope. Turns out it was just the singing and dancing, and the obligatory throwing of money to pet causes in which nearly all rich celebrities partake. Other than that, his contribution to humanity has been nil. So why, oh why, oh WHY are we CONSTANTLY being told what a hero he was? A hero to whom, exactly? He's a black man who did everything he could to look like a white woman. So we can't say he was out championing racial or sexual issues (at least not in such a way that would normally garner one recognition). And let's not even get started on all of the accusations of pedophilia. Please.
American society (and actually, in this case, the society of the Western world as a whole) has severely warped the meaning of the word "hero." According to dictionary.com, the definition of hero is:
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal
Someone please tell me when, according to the definition above, Michael Jackson behaved heroically?
Allow me to introduce you to some real heroes:
-Lt. Brian Bradshaw, 24, died in Kheyl, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.
-Pfc. Aaron Fairbairn was killed in a suicide bombing, also in Afghanistan.
-The seven soldiers killed Monday in Afghanistan.
-The four soldiers killed on the eve of withdrawal from Baghdad in Iraq.
This is a very short list, I've taken the most recent items from a very brief google search.
These are people who fully embody the definition of the word hero. Michael Jackson (pardon the pun) pales in comparison with these people. Next to these people it becomes obvious that a well-trained monkey could have done what Jackson did (except a monkey would have had to do all of the lyrics in sign language).
So again, why, oh why, oh WHY are so many people trying to hold up Michael Jackson as a hero? Please, let's be honest with ourselves. A lot of people liked Michael Jackson. He had talent, and, before all the weird settled in, a lot of people thought he was really cool. But by the time of his death, he had pretty much faded into obscurity, and because of his death we'll never know if he could have made a big comeback. But at the end of the day, even if he did make a comeback, his contribution to society will never measure up to the contribution of any of the dead soldiers mentioned above.
Please, don't forget who the real heroes are, America.
American society (and actually, in this case, the society of the Western world as a whole) has severely warped the meaning of the word "hero." According to dictionary.com, the definition of hero is:
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal
Someone please tell me when, according to the definition above, Michael Jackson behaved heroically?
Allow me to introduce you to some real heroes:
-Lt. Brian Bradshaw, 24, died in Kheyl, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.
-Pfc. Aaron Fairbairn was killed in a suicide bombing, also in Afghanistan.
-The seven soldiers killed Monday in Afghanistan.
-The four soldiers killed on the eve of withdrawal from Baghdad in Iraq.
This is a very short list, I've taken the most recent items from a very brief google search.
These are people who fully embody the definition of the word hero. Michael Jackson (pardon the pun) pales in comparison with these people. Next to these people it becomes obvious that a well-trained monkey could have done what Jackson did (except a monkey would have had to do all of the lyrics in sign language).
So again, why, oh why, oh WHY are so many people trying to hold up Michael Jackson as a hero? Please, let's be honest with ourselves. A lot of people liked Michael Jackson. He had talent, and, before all the weird settled in, a lot of people thought he was really cool. But by the time of his death, he had pretty much faded into obscurity, and because of his death we'll never know if he could have made a big comeback. But at the end of the day, even if he did make a comeback, his contribution to society will never measure up to the contribution of any of the dead soldiers mentioned above.
Please, don't forget who the real heroes are, America.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Happy Independence Day!!
Posting has been spotty as of late, and I would like to apologize. The biggest culprit is the fact that it's currently summer vacation, and thus I am constantly being pulled in ten different directions at home, as well as travelling all over the county in an attempt to keep the kids amused! August should net more content! That said, the point of today's post:
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!! (I realize the actual holiday is tomorrow, but I will be very busy tomorrow getting ready for our annual 4th of July family/friends shindig!)
Please remember WHAT we are celebrating tomorrow, and most importantly remember that we ARE worth celebrating! The USA is the single greatest country in the world-- let's work to keep it that way!!
Stay safe tomorrow, and God Bless America!!
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!! (I realize the actual holiday is tomorrow, but I will be very busy tomorrow getting ready for our annual 4th of July family/friends shindig!)
Please remember WHAT we are celebrating tomorrow, and most importantly remember that we ARE worth celebrating! The USA is the single greatest country in the world-- let's work to keep it that way!!
Stay safe tomorrow, and God Bless America!!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Quote of the Day
Actually the quote is from a few days ago, but "Quote of the Day" seemed like a much more concise title. The quote I'm referencing comes at about the 7-7 1/2 minute mark in the video: "They have more czars in five months than the Romanovs had in three hundred years!"
(Still no luck embedding the video clip. If anyone knows how to do that on here, please enlighten me!!)
(Still no luck embedding the video clip. If anyone knows how to do that on here, please enlighten me!!)
The White House: No "Fly" Zone
I was so excited, thinking that this was going to be the day that I figured out how to embed a video clip. Alas, 'twas not to be. Maybe you just can't do it on blogspot? At any rate, it kept giving me an "error" message. Now, on to the actual point of this post:
Headline: Obama & the Fly
Now, I'm usually the first in line to say, "Oh geeze, is there anything this man does that doesn't immediately receive oodles of media attention?" But this one actually made me laugh. Not to mention that as soon as I saw the headline I thought, "Haha, the White House is a 'No Fly Zone!' It's like a pun!" (No, seriously, that was my exact thought process. I probably shouldn't admit to things like that!) So I couldn't just pass up a perfectly packaged post title! Plus, it's kinda funny when the camera pans down to the dead fly on the floor-- such melodrama!
Headline: Obama & the Fly
Now, I'm usually the first in line to say, "Oh geeze, is there anything this man does that doesn't immediately receive oodles of media attention?" But this one actually made me laugh. Not to mention that as soon as I saw the headline I thought, "Haha, the White House is a 'No Fly Zone!' It's like a pun!" (No, seriously, that was my exact thought process. I probably shouldn't admit to things like that!) So I couldn't just pass up a perfectly packaged post title! Plus, it's kinda funny when the camera pans down to the dead fly on the floor-- such melodrama!
Double Standard
PBS board members have decided, after nearly 25 years, to enforce a law that went down on the books in 1985 to eliminate any programming that could be considered partisan or sectarian. This includes religious programming, such as the morning "Mass for Shut-Ins," which is popular among elderly Catholics who would otherwise miss out on such services. According to the decision, the station can keep these shows, however, no new religious programming will be allowed.
There is no federal law barring religious programming on public television, but PBS is worried about their image: They don't want to be seen as endorsing these programs. I don't watch much PBS, so I'm not sure about how they present their programming, but it would seem simple enough for them to make a disclaimer before the shows in question like other networks do before airing church services (or even infomercials, for that matter)-- "The following program in no way represents the views or opinions of so-and-so-station or it's subsidiaries, parent company, friends, siblings, uncles, or cousins..."
Things get a little stickier when you consider that PBS receives some of its funding from taxpayers. Critics feel that allowing the programming to continue at all amounts to taxpayer funded evangelism. But let's think for a minute about some other organizations who receive taxpayer money. Let's take, for example, Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood offers abortion services. It also receives federal funding. So, taxpayers-- many of whom oppose and even abhor the practice of abortion-- are indirectly funding abortions in the same way that the irreligious or antireligious are indirectly funding religious programming on PBS.
My point is this: PBS was formed to provide localized programming for communities across the nation. There are many communities across the nation who both benefit from, and appreciate religious programming. PBS should continue to air religious programming, and continue to proudly add new religious programming to their line-up, as long as Planned Parenthood is still performing abortions in the name of women's rights.
There is no federal law barring religious programming on public television, but PBS is worried about their image: They don't want to be seen as endorsing these programs. I don't watch much PBS, so I'm not sure about how they present their programming, but it would seem simple enough for them to make a disclaimer before the shows in question like other networks do before airing church services (or even infomercials, for that matter)-- "The following program in no way represents the views or opinions of so-and-so-station or it's subsidiaries, parent company, friends, siblings, uncles, or cousins..."
Things get a little stickier when you consider that PBS receives some of its funding from taxpayers. Critics feel that allowing the programming to continue at all amounts to taxpayer funded evangelism. But let's think for a minute about some other organizations who receive taxpayer money. Let's take, for example, Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood offers abortion services. It also receives federal funding. So, taxpayers-- many of whom oppose and even abhor the practice of abortion-- are indirectly funding abortions in the same way that the irreligious or antireligious are indirectly funding religious programming on PBS.
My point is this: PBS was formed to provide localized programming for communities across the nation. There are many communities across the nation who both benefit from, and appreciate religious programming. PBS should continue to air religious programming, and continue to proudly add new religious programming to their line-up, as long as Planned Parenthood is still performing abortions in the name of women's rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
