Name:     Michael L. S.   [E-Mail]
      Location:  Earth
      Website:  Middle East Resource Center

Read my complete profile

 

HOME PAGE

---

RECENT POSTS:

Two news items caught my keen, cynical eye today. The first is the proclamation issued in the name of supposed 2.5 million Muslim users of Facebook "threatening" to desert Facebook. Why? Because Facebook apparently removed four pages with Islamic/Islamofascist content. They promise to make good on the threat unless Facebook accedes to their demands of which there are several. One is that the removed pages be reinstated. That is - in light of the fact that Facebook has all kind of crap on it, a lot of it offensive -, in fairness, not all that unreasonable.

The other 2-3 demands concern banning any and all anti-Islamic content. Now, let me get this straight: They want the freedom to proselytize their stone-age religion urbi et orbi but any criticism thereof should be muzzled to protect their "feelings." This type of belligerence, hubris and rank hypocrisy are what have turned previously tolerant people, such as myself, if I dare say so, into admirers and supporters of the Bush administration's unstated Weltanschauung. I now fully endorse the latest initiative by the Dutch parliament member Geert Wilders to awaken the people of the West to the dangers of unbridled Islamofascism by promoting a pro-freedom alliance.

I do not seek a destruction of Islam. I do, however, firmly contend that an Islam that is not secularized and neutered in the same way Xianity has been over the past three or so centuries is INCOMPATIBLE and ANTAGONISTIC vis-a-vis the values and life as practiced in the vast majority of the non-Muslim world. We ARE talking about a clash of civilizations and, having been living in Muslim countries for the past several years, I can speak from first-hand experience.

Anyway, if they end up leaving Facebook, I say: Goodbye, good riddance, don't let the virtual door hit your smelly ass on the way out, and STAY OUT! Insh3allah ;)

* * *

On another notion, Argentina just legalized gay marriage. I have something of a problem with that.

I have nothing against gays. I am not interested in the nature or nurture polemic because it is irrelevant. A person is homosexual and that is that; I fully accept it and think neither more nor less of that individual. I have a problem with "gay pride" parades in the same way I'd have problems with "straight pride" parades: Scantily clad freaks sticking their tongues down each other's throats while gyrating as if possessed and contorting their bodies, faces and voices is not a spectacle that edifies or empowers any human being, of whatever sexual orientation.

I divagate. I propose that marriage itself is an outdated concept and, rather than allowing it to take different forms as far as its constitution, I suggest that it be abolished altogether. If the economic systems calls for it, let two people be rewarded thru tax breaks, etc. by simply registering their union. Let that union be opened to two individuals, of whatever parameters, including sex. A few years or decades from now, who knows, perhaps the societal views change to such an extent that such a registered union could be opened to include more than two individuals.

I appreciate that this gainsays the received wisdom that the family (i.e. marriage between a man and a woman) is the cornerstone of civilization and that many social problems today can be traced to the breakdown of that model. That model, it is advanced, should therefore be propagated now more forcefully than ever before as the one toward which to strive. I reject this for two reasons. Firstly, it is doubtful, to say the least, whether the perceived social disintegration really owes solely or primarily to the disintegration of the traditional nuclear family. There are a number of other facets to consider and attribute it to, not least of all the pervasiveness of the "progressive" media, the ascendance and ultimate perversion of the "civil liberties"/"human rights," technological developments, etc. Secondly, the society has simply changed too much as far as long-term expectations and planning. I would say, and I have only anecdotal evidence to support this, that the preponderance of the members of modern societies are so accustomed to instant gratification and the ability to dispose of whatever does not suit one's needs that this is translated to their attitudes toward their personal partners and mates. Marriage is simply not seen as a lifelong union anymore but as a seal upon something that one enjoys at the moment and expects him-/herself enjoying for some, indeterminate, time in the future, but which is by no means permanent and which can be rescinded at any time with few (mostly financial) adverse ramifications. (For my part, I still hope to find the perfect woman and stay with her "till death do us part" but I may be in the minority here.) What, then, is the point of forcing the perpetuation of the concept of marriage?

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

*sigh* "The Day After Tomorrow" - the movie, that is. Like "2012" and dime-a-dozen others, it incorporated every woeful cliche of the modern theater.

• A "hero" with an I.Q. in quadruple digits who has a dysfunctional family but who is forced by circumstances to reevaluate his priorities and - willingly or not, wittingly or not - rebuild his family. Extremely powerful, dexterous and witty, often simultaneously.


• A kid with an I.Q. in quadruple digits who has a difficult relationship with the "hero" but who is forced by circumstances to ultimately realize he/she really loves the "hero." Extremely dexterous and witty, often simultaneously.


• A floozy attached to either the "hero" or the kid who has at least one near-escape from a certain death and/or watches/helps the "hero" or the kid avoid the same. Begins the movie with an I.Q. in double digits but progresses to high triple digits by the end.


• An anti-"hero" with an I.Q. in negative digits but in a position of high power of authority over the "hero" who ultimately gets put in his/her place by the "hero's" wit, prowess or his/her own idiocy.


• A close friend/associate of the "hero" who dies at some point in the epic (cue corny melancholic music) to either depict the "seriousness" of the situation or provide a stimulus to the "hero" to fight on. Either way, makes the "hero" even more badass and superhuman than before.


• A politically correct cast or, just as often, a token African American and/or other minority representative.


• A politically correct cause being portrayed. (Americans swamping the Mexican border!? Yank the other one!! (No pun intended!))


• A flesh wound - all right, this was missing, kind of. One of the characters - can't remember which one as they all obviously made an indelible impression on me...NOT - did get septicemia or some shit at some point but that doesn't quite count.

I wish there was one major blockbuster movie in which the "hero" is a dumbass who does NOT ultimately succeed in accomplishing and even exceed the mission parameters. Why can't someone try to do something different, yea opposite, from the above jaded formula?!?

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

Watched “2012” the movie today, starring John Cusack, Amanda Peet and a host of other forgettables.

*sigh*

Painful. Excruciatingly painful. Stupid, trite, cliched, cheesy, corny, predictable, platitudinous, illogical, shallow. Other than some awesome special effects and computer-generated scenes of apocalyptic devastation, this movie is a two-and-a-half-hour abomination. An abortion of talent, intellect, mental stimulation... It's so dumb that it cannot even constitute mindless (literally!) entertainment. You know those movies that are so pathetically fatuous that you end up cheering for the bad guy (or, in this case, willing the "good guys" to all be obliterated)? This is one such instance, par excellence.

It was only the cuddly company off whom I could bounce my searingly cynical comments that prevented me incurring brain hemorrhage about a half hour into it.

If you have the slightest temptation to watch it, don't. Give it a WIIIIIIIIDE berth.

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<