Hurt Locker

Just watched The Hurt Locker. What struck me about the movie is how people with differing political views would react to the movie. It is a gut-wrenching portrayal of what it's like to be in Iraq. It sucks. People die, you see things one should never see, and it takes a huge toll on the soldiers. It also makes you realize how much we owe our soldiers for putting them though such an ordeal.

But the movie also reminded me of how differing our views of the world are. When I watched the movie, I was massively grateful that there are people in our country who are willing to subject themselves to this kind of suffering in order to keep us free and/or safe. But I was acutely aware that others who watch the movie would be angry that our country would subject our soldiers to this type of suffering for an unjust cause.

And I thought, how can this perception gap possibly be overcome? I don't think there is an answer. You either think one way or another about it. Facts and argument won't change your opinion because you evaluate those things based on your fundamental orientation.

For me, I was impressed by the sacrifice our military makes for the sake of our country. When these guys sign up, they don't know what's in store for them, but for some reason, often not clear to themselves, they accept the burden. I imagine many are pushed beyond their limits and resent the trials thrust upon them. I can understand that sentiment, and I sympathize with them massively.

But I also believe that in this very strange conflict in which we're now engaged, there is no clear way forward. It is fraught with peril, ambiguity, and moral compromise. The terrorists know this and hope that eventually our ability to stomach the grimmer realities of this conflict will fail and we will in some way give in. Terrorism has worked in the past. They scared us out of Lebanon in the 80's and cowed the Germans in the Munich incident.

But in the end, I think going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan was the right thing to do in these circumstances. Not because I'm some mindless right-wing drone, but because I'm really not sure how else we should have handled it. And, regardless of the arguments for or against it, we're there now and ought to commit 100% to victory. Pulling out prematurely would waste the sacrifices made by our military and send a clear signal to the terrorists that their tactics have won.

I'm just damned glad there are people in our great country who are willing to do this sort of work while the rest of us sit back and enjoy wine and cheese.

Who knew destroying embryos didn't work?

The State of California, in its misplaced zeal to cure disease and be on the leading edge, approved $3b worth of bonds 6 years ago to fund embryonic stem cell research. Why a state which had just elected a governor whose primary issue was fiscal responsibility would turn around and vote for a huge amount of money for unproven science says something about the dark power of the appeal of destroying embryos to save other humans. Seriously, it is very strange how intent people are on pursuing ESC (embryonic stem cell) research. Why the zealous determination? Why the insistence on demonizing the opposition as un-scientific (like Obama did) and insensitive to the health needs of others?

This is especially perplexing when you learn the simple fact that adult stem cells (ASC) have already yielded 50 treatments and more are coming. This is one of the main reasons ESC researchers needed government funding: ESC wasn't considered plausible enough to justify investors putting money into it, while ASC was and as a result receives healthy investment.

Now, I guess the ESC's offered some promise due to their pluripotency (the ability to morph into a large variety of cell types), but early testing had shown that ESC development was nearly impossible to control and very unstable. ASCs, on the other hand, were stable and developed predictably.

Assuming pro-ESC folks are decent hearted, one could assume they honestly believed in their power. But now that the CA project has come up empty, we need to move on. But I have a feeling we won't.

There's a reason certain types of people are for ESC research. They need to destroy embryos to prove that they are not human life. This bolsters their contention that abortion too does not result in the death of a human, but rather simply the premature of death of a clump of cells.

The two are connected and require zealous adherence and constant reaffirmation lest the believers' arguments begin to crack and collapse. If that happens, they will have to accept the horrible reality that they have been advocating murder their whole lives. The conscience simply doesn't want to accept that. They also would have to accept that crazy, toothless, fundamentalist freaks were right, and they were wrong. That simply won't do, even though the same people (liberals) drone on night and day about their overwhelming compassion for the poor working class. They do this, but then disdain and constantly make fun of those some people, putting them down for their Wal-Mart clothes, simplistic religion, idiotic pastimes (NASCAR), etc.

It's a sad state of affairs, but there you go.

Of course, I must end by saying that liberals, pro-choicers, feminists, culture-of-death protagonists, etc., are not the enemy. They need to be cured, prayed for, converted. The real enemy, the one behind this desire to destroy nascent life is the great liar himself, Satan. In this war, he is the enemy and his defeat is what I and many others seek.

Sound crazy? Well, that's what I believe. Satan is real, he's smart, and he's BIG. He's at work and needs to be stopped.

Please help us St. Michael!

The New Intimidator

One thing I don't get about Obama is his penchant for bullying. Those who disagree with him about ANYTHING are called out, insulted, harrassed, denied access, etc. He has almost made disagreement with him a crime.

The latest example is his criticism of the Supreme Court. Not only was it inaccurate substantively, it was unprecedented. Criticizing the Court like this, during the State of the Union, followed by a standing ovation for his comments by the Democrats, clearly sent a message to the Court. It was intimidation more common to 3rd world dictators than presidents of the U.S.

Find me an example of Bush, the evil one, coming anywhere near such blatantly bad behavior. Whatever his faults, Bush didn't constantly complain about the previous administration even though Bush inherited a collapse in the stock market (the telecom bubble burst) and then 9/11.

Obama does it all the time, but I guess in the liberal world view, it's okay to be rude, nasty, and petty as long as "you're on the right side of history." That's how Obama defended Harry Reid's "negro" remarks. That's why Martha Coakley and her minions could accuse Scott Brown of supporting violence against women (when in fact Coakley failed to prosecute a child molester because he was a local union boss).

That's how it is. Republicans have to maintain perfect decorum and conduct at all times or risk being villified and chased out of office. The same goes for Christians and the Catholic Church. Saul Alinsky said that the revolution would be accomplished not by violent takeover, but by using the other side's arguments and standards against them. Since the Democrats take great pains to deny they have personal moral standards, they cannot be criticized when they lie, cheat, or steal. Republicans, for the great crime of recognizing that personal morality does indeed exist, pay a huge price and put themselves and their agenda and the morals themselves at constant peril to charges of hypocrisy.

They are always suspected of being racist, sexist, anti-poor, xenophobic, etc., and are on "the wrong side of history," meaning, they do not buy into the Democratic agenda of social change through government activism to achieve liberal, left-wing ideals.

But, Our Lord himself said repeatedly that speaking and defending the truth doesn't exactly make you friends. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Republican political platform is equivalent to revealed truth. But certain things they generally stand for--no abortion, traditional marriage, personal liberty and freedom, limited government, the goodness of religion--are based squarely on truth and so earn them the vitriol and hatred of the left, but it is a cause worth suffering for.

Welcome!

Because being political on Facebook is no good, I'm going to air my various thoughts on politics, religion and culture here. I invite my friends and family to comment as much as possible, but I will try at all times, and no doubt fail from time to time, to express myself with "gentleness and reverence" to all.