test

Nancy Reagan and the Temple of Self-Righteousness

Former First Lady, Nancy Reagan, recently spoke out on the issue of stem cell research. She made a desperate plea so that this important research could gain funding within the United States. Many top scientists feel stem cell research would lead to treatments and even cures of such horrible diseases as diabetes, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s. Former President Ronald Reagan now suffers from Alzheimer’s and no longer recognizes his family.

Of course this begs the question on exactly how the former First Lady will be trashed by the present administration.

You must understand, the present administration must subject the former first lady to mountains of ridicule in order to convey the absolute atrocity of this science. The destruction of these cells with government funding in order to help humankind is next only to the Holocaust in the scale of evil. It matters not that hundreds of these same embryonic stem cells find their way to file thirteen or the icebox on a daily basis in the name of In Vitro Fertilization. Nay, the sick are only a burden on society and do not deserve the attentions of so many for so much. That is an evil unto itself. Better to use the cells for IVF in hopes of one day birthing a loyal soldier.

In the end, Nancy, along with the countless others waiting and hoping, will not be ridiculed, nor will they be listened to. Our sacred leaders are on a mission of greater importance and have no time to listen to the pleas of the hopeless. They can’t. There is no cure for self-righteousness.

Observations on Iraq

The following are some observations and questions I asked myself. It's not meant to get anoyone agitated, just my own observations. Thank you.

The Bush Administration Knew 9/11 was going to happen. I don’t think anyone believes that. History is full of people who new bad things were brewing, but did nothing about it. The US knew what Hitler was doing in the mid 1930s, but did nothing directly to stop it until Japan attacked the US in 1941. Even that is an example. There were people who warned the US Government of an attack by Japan on the US. Therefore, when the FBI gets a phone call from a flight instructor because his student wants to learn how to fly, but isn’t that interested in the landing, well something obviously was missed. That’s a failure of the system as a whole, not just one person. Who knew what when really doesn't matter unless you're going to sue someone and the only thing that does is make rich lawyers.

The people of the US were lied to about invading Iraq. That’s a yes and no kind of thing. President Bush did detail that the war on Terrorism would entail preemptive strikes against foreign targets. That’s what the war in Iraq was sold to us as. It’s because of 9/11. Well, that part is not true since there was a plan to oust Sadam before 9/11, however according to President Bush “regime change” had been a valid plan since the first Gulf War. Therefore the Iraq war was valid ... kind of.

Sadam Hussein had no WMDs. Again, yes and no. He did have chemical weapons, because he used them on his own people. This lead to the very convenient assumption that he must have more, maybe even stockpiles of the stuff. So, yes he [i]had[/i] them, but we were not sure if he had them anymore, but just to be on the safe side, let’s blast ‘em!

Did Sadam Hussein carry out 9/11? No. Was it a valid assumption to investigate the possibility that he carried out 9/11? Yes. Is it a good thing that Sadam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq? Yes. Does that justify the war? I think that is something that each individual will have to address him or herself.

So far my stance has kind of been in the middle. I see both sides clearly, but here is where I veer hard left. Why in the holy hell did we invade Iraq when we were not done in Afghanistan? We do not yet have Osama bi Laden and therefore we’re not done.

One final question. Why did we really go into Iraq? Sadam Hussein was a petty dictator who could have been bought off ten years ago. So, why did we go? Oil? A new World order for the Middle East? Holy Crusade? Because we could? We may never know.

Air America takes off! Yeah, I can hear some of you out there saying that nearly ALL media is liberal. Well, if you thought CNN was liberal, you don’t know what a leftie really is. ;) Have a listen to Air America … and, please take your time. There’s no Rush. ;)

The Passion of the Christ

This past Wednesday, before all the snow hit, I went to the movies. I like movies a lot and had not been in over a month. I was ready for my fix. The Passion of the Christ, directed by Mel Gibson, didn’t fill that fix the way I had hoped, but it was quite an experience. Although the movie has its cinematic faults, it is deeply moving. It is also horrifying to watch at times. However, it is ultimately one man’s expression of his own faith, who just so happened to have the money to pull it off. As an actor and a director, Mel is pretty good, but he’s not one of the greats. He knows what works at the box office and he knows how to give the people what they want while sneaking in a bit of integrity. “The Passion of the Christ” isn’t what people want, but it is full of integrity and beautifully made, even as it horrifies its audience.

The key issue I take with the film is that it assumes everyone who sees “The Passion” knows who Jesus was and why he was here. Within the context of this film, there are only glimpses, told in flashback, of who he really was. It’s almost Gibson said, “You know that part in every Jesus movie ever made that they kind of just gloss over, well here’s what really happened”. It plays like a segment of this man’s life and I think that’s exactly what it is supposed to be. Still, strictly as a film, we need more info on who this man was, who Gibson thought he was. It plays like a movie that you came in on late and so the emotional investment isn’t there within the context of the film. Of course, the argument could be made that this is an interactive movie and the audience must come in with their own presumptions on who Jesus was. In this way, the film works best is the most moving.

Another major problem of the movie is the way Pilate is portrayed. In the Bible, Pilate was conflicted. He didn’t understand why the crowds wanted this self-proclaimed “King of the Jews” executed, but washed his hands of the affair. In Gibson’s version, Pilate is portrayed as not just conflicted, but very sympathetic. The truth, as history has told us in recent findings, was that Pilate was down right ruthless and cruel. He was reprimanded by the Roman Empire for being too cruel to the people he controlled. Gibson claimed to steal his version of Pilate, as he did his Jesus, directly from the Bible. This seems to be more a problem of the Bible not fitting history, than it does Mel Gibson being anti-Semitic.

Is the film anti-Semitic? I’m sure it could be taken that way, but the crowd that screamed for Jesus to be crucified was Jewish only in the context of geography. They could have been of any race of people or denomination. Imagine a preacher in a Southern Baptist ministry preaching that gay marriage was okay. What would survivors of the victims of September 11 think of “Love thy enemy as thy would thy brother”. The point isn’t that a single group of people killed Jesus. The point is humanity as a whole killed him. That’s the message I got out of the film. Others may get something very different.

As a film, it is moving and even beautiful at times, but it is also barbaric. There are people who do not need to see it and I would not recommend children seeing this, although there were children in the audience where I saw it. I hope that their parents prepared them first. In the end, what will set this apart from every other Jesus movie is that it was made through the strength of one man’s convictions. If the movie is nothing else, it is inspiring for that.

Hi, this is Jamie Robertson, creator of Clan of the Cats. Within that comic strip I tackle various issues like the paranormal, abortion, homosexuality, religion and a little politics. These are broad issues and I mean to keep it that way. My Cat on the other hand has a different slant on things and wants a say on anything that pops into his mind. However since he can’t type, I was asked to fill the job. So, without further adieu, welcome to My Cat's Blog.