Daily Archives: October 27, 2012

Obama’s misogynist virgin advertisement

How bad does a political ad have to be that within 48 hours there are numerous parodies that hit both the disgusting style and worthless content of the ad?…this bad:

I’m including it because it is so disturbing that it can only help Romney.  (I actually think Romney should buy ad time and just play this dumb video over and over again on TV with only a few comments added to drive home how little Obama thinks of women.) This treats women as utter ditzes who are only relevant because of their sexual organs…thank you for taking us back to the fifth century, Barry. The ad is just dumb on its face..but the fact that Obama has daughters and let this go out is a level of sick that I can’t quite describe because it shows how he really feels about women.

But there are some of the wonderful parodies (there are more, these are just the ones I liked the most).
@Communism_Kills

@JulieBorowski

@RepubGirlProbz

@scrowder

2 Comments

Filed under Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Mitt Romney, Obama

Movies that show the rich as good #5 Sabrina

 

“What’s money got to do with it? If making money were all there were to business it’s hardly worthwhile going to the office. Money is a by-product.”

First off let me say that it’s a good thing that they never remade this movie because that would have been idiotic and foolish and would have just a worthless piece of…what? They did what? With her? Are hallucinogenics a requirement to be the person who greenlights films?

Sabrina the story of a young woman who has always loved the young rich rake her family works for…but ends up falling for his older more serious brother. It’s a classic with some beautifully timed scenes of comedy and wit…and with the rare appearance of Bogart in a comedy.

However, while it’s a classic, I will be the first to admit you have to be in just the right mood for this film to enjoy it…otherwise there are just so many plot points that just don’t work. You spend most of the movie loathing William Holden’s character of David Larrabee: the younger son of a wealthy family who exhibits every cliché of the vulgar and useless rich. Yes lots of jokes are wonderfully made at David’s expense, but if you’re not in the right mood you just don’t understand why the family didn’t have the brat exposed at an early age. And you also have to be in right mood to ignore Audrey Heburn’s Sabrina, and her rather naïve and childish behavior. The only character you do like throughout most of the film is Linus Larrabee, Humphrey Bogart’s rather likable rich executive…and even then you have to overlook things like age and temperament difference (I will never understand Hollywood’s obsession with sticking Hepburn with significantly older men…Bogart, Peck, Grant…).* Complaints aside, it is a good movie, you just have to be in the right mood to ignore the odd setups.

So let’s get to the truly positive aspects of this film. Linus Larabee played by Humphrey Bogart. Now some people I know find him distasteful for keeping Sabrina and David apart via his shrewd and not-so-shrewd stratagems (Yeah, cause letting her go off with the eternal playboy David who would use her and throw her away would be so much more humane?).

But what I really love is that Linus, and by extension the writer of the film, understood the true and positive nature of capitalism, outsourcing, and globalization.


LINUS LARRABEE: What’s money got to do with it? If making money were all there were to business it’s hardly worthwhile going to the office. Money is a by-product.
DAVID: What’s the main objective? Power?
LINUS: Agh! That’s become a dirty word.
DAVID: Well then, what’s the urge? You’re going into plastics now. What will that prove?
LINUS: Prove? Nothing much. A new product has been found, something of use to the world. So, a new industry moves into an undeveloped area. Factories go up, machines are brought in, a harbor is dug and you’re in business. It’s purely coincidental of course that people who’ve never seen a dime before suddenly have a dollar. And barefooted kids wear shoes and have their teeth fixed and their faces washed. What’s wrong with a kind of an urge that gives people libraries, hospitals, baseball diamonds and movies on a Saturday night?

Capitalism creates prosperity and wealth where none existed before.

And while more data is presented even Bhagwati’s book In Defense of Globalization, does not put the power of capitalism so succinctly as Linus’ speech.

Capitalism, business, creation, innovation, this is what rich can bring us through investment and management…
…and occasionally a romantic plot line as well.

This is actually what motivates a lot of people—this is the motivation of Ayn Rand’s heroes that she could never actually articulate in a way that was acceptable to most people—this is why capitalism works, because people love creating things that make the world better AND get paid to do it! You mean I get to do something great AND make a fortune? Sign me up.

The romance, the comedy, the bizarre situations, for me all is secondary to the beauty of this one little speech.

*Not to mention this film would almost be more sympathetic from the viewpoint of David’s fiancée as her future brother-in-law distracts the gold digging chauffer’s daughter who seems to have no qualms about going after an engaged man…you really have to wonder how the original pitch session went, “So we’re rooting for the girl who is trying to steal a man from his fiancée over nothing more than an infantile crush? Oh, no, we’re rooting for the guy old enough to be her father to get her?” Granted, the movie is far better than my cynical side is suggesting…but still, it has these elements are just a little off kilter. **

**I think this election year is just making me more jaded than ever and I’m just nitpicking.

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives

Why I’m A Conservative and A New Ager

[I had a request to turn a comment I made on a previous blog into a blog of it’s own…so if this seems repetitive…that’s why…]

Recently a commenter left the following post:

I was really hoping to find a softer side of Conservatism here. I can’t seem to find that wherever I look. I also can’t understand how you can call yourself a New Ager and harbor so much anger? Completely hypocritical, as is most of the right… New Age = Love

It’s not hypocritical at all, and I’m sorry you feel that way.

New Age belief does not encourage or require that I turn off my brain or reason…and reason has a way of getting outraged when confronted with policies and actions that hurt others–you see it in the actions of Christ whipping the money changers, of Krishna telling Arjuna to slaughter his unjust relatives, in Lao Tzu talking about war needing to be conducted with the aim of peace, and in the actions and words of numerous other saints and enlightened beings in religions all over the world.

Yes New Age belief does believe in unqualified love of the soul…but not of the actions of the ego which hurts that soul. Those actions and the ideas that create them must be challenged both in ones own soul, one’s mind, and outside in the physical worlds. I cannot love the soul, and support the left which hinders the growth of the soul. And I cannot say obsequious appearance of concern for someone in the transitory moment is love, even thought the left tries to say it is. Love is caring for the true nature of the person, which is the soul and the soul’s journey to enlightenment.

May I ask you what you would consider “the softer side of Conservatism?” because is seems like all that term means is “a conservative who is willing to give in on any and every point, sacrifice any value, and capitulate on any policy just so liberals like you can be happy.”

If you’re repeating the liberal line about social conservatism, you’ll find none of that here. Social conservatism is simply liberal desire to control others by another name. As for my unwavering defense of capitalism and liberty, which parallel the New Age belief in free will, my support of charity over welfare, which parallel’s the New Age belief in spiritual growth…any moving from these points (other than in terms of practical compromise) to appear “softer” is to give into the manifestations of the ego in the physical world. I can’t be true to my beliefs in the New Age and not support them, defend them, and advocate for them. Yes I’m a little overzealous, (if you’re a New Ager you know it’s a habit of Indigoes to be passionate in the extreme)…but is there anything wrong in zeal for what is right and true?

Love is not opposed to reason, love and reason go hand in hand

But I would like to challenge your comment of “Completely hypocritical, as is most of the right…”
New Age belief believes in the free will. To support the leftist belief in government over the individual, entitlement over personal charity, control over choice…that would be hypocritical to support.
New Age belief believes that life is spiritual journey of learning. To support the left’s call for over-regulation that seeks to keep people from making mistakes takes away the ability to learn…that would be hypocritical of me to support.
New Age believes that every soul must make it to enlightenment on its own…thus the left’s call to force equality holds back individuals, and thus retards the day when all will make it to enlightenment…that would be hypocritical of me to support.
New Age belief believes in the quality of life, not the quantity…the left’s concern with income redistribution and entitlements of physical things places the focus on life on the wrong thing…that would be hypocritical of me to support.

In fact on every central tenet of New Age belief I can think of, New Age belief matched up with conservative economics and conservative foreign policy.

Almost every point of the left in economic and foreign policy is opposed the principles of New Age belief. And every belief of the left on social policy takes the correct idea to an illogical extreme. (I disagree with the social conservatism…but if you actually read a bit of my blog you would see that there are more than enough articles opposing that).

Is the right perfect. Nope. But it supports the individual. It supports choice and freedom and liberty. It supports my ability to grown and learn and develop. These are the bedrock principles of New Age belief as I understand them.

Leave a comment

Filed under Bhagavad Gita, Books for Conservatives, Books for New Agers, Capitalism, Conservative, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Love, New Age, philosophy, politics, Religion, Spirituality, Taxes, Tyranny