Revealed Truth

Visit this site for verifiably accurate opinions on all things political - in contradistinction to the INcorrect opinions you are likely to find elsewhere. I'm an American Libertarian Nationalist Republican. Ponder that one a while. Almost all are welcome, but at the request of management: no vegetarians or soccer fans, please. We have our reasons. Thank you and welcome to: Revealed Truth.

New for 2005!
51 Things You Can Do To Annoy The Politically Correct

Links Worth a Look:

Blogs That Reveal Truth
  Ace of Spades HQ
  Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
  Dissecting Leftism
  Eric Cowperthwaite
  Eternity Road
  Ipse Dixit
  Iraq the Model
  Kim's Daily Rant
  Michael The ArchAngel
  Right Thinking
  Ravenwood's Universe
  Right Wing News
  Smallest Minority
  Zebra Report

The Anti-Establishment
  Ann Coulter
  Best of the Web
  Cafe Hayek
  Cato Institute
  Claremont Institute
  Enter Stage Right
  Free Republic
  Front Page
  Green Watch
  Heritage Foundation
  Hugh Hewitt
  Institute for Justice
  Kudlow's Money Politic$
  Mackinac Center
  Media Rsrch Center
  Michelle Malkin
  National Review
  Poor and Stupid
  Tech Central Station
  Thomas Sowell
  Tongue Tied
  Walter Williams

Mere Amusement
  Flags of the World
  Postmodernism Generator
  Project Denny's
  Yours is a Very Bad Hotel

Unintentionally Hilarious Leftist Paranoia

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on Blogwise

email me

Thursday, March 03, 2005

That's the headline on this wonderful story in today's New York Post.

Wow, I didn't realize it was quite this bad for Ted Turner's orphan.

"CNN's ratings dipped 16 percent overall and 21 percent in prime time during February, according to Nielsen Media Research, as some of the cable news channel's biggest stars lost viewers.

Fox News was the only one among the four cable news networks to post ratings gains during the month....

Fox saw its ratings rise 18 percent to an average of 1.57 million viewers. This compares with an average of 637,000 viewers for CNN.

I will have pleasant dreams this evening.
< |
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Will we get ANWR drilling at long last?

The prospect makes me almost giddy. And to be completely honest, only half because its the right thing to do. Don't get me wrong, this should have been done twenty years ago. The Scum of the Earth and its congressional co-conspirators have foiled this eminently sensible project for far too long.

But I have to admit that this rightness is only half the reason I'm so happy over the prospect. The other half - and it's wrong I know, but I can't help myself - is that I can't WAIT to watch the left go into unmitigated apoplexy. We've already got Senator Byrd comparing the GOP to Nazis because they're threatening to break the Democrats' unprecedented filibustering of Appellate Court nomination. Not to mention the ongoing hyperventilation over Bush's Social Security proposal.

This, though, might just push them over the edge. It looks like the Senate might just have the votes it will need to get ANWR drilling passed. They can do it with only 51 votes because they're including it as part of a budget measure, and as such, it cannot be filibustered.

"Environmentalists have been lobbying hard to keep oil rigs out of the refuge's coastal plain, a breeding ground for caribou, home to polar bears and musk oxen, and site of an annual influx of millions of migratory birds.

They concede that this year they face the most difficult challenge in their efforts to protect the refuge.

Development of ANWR's oil has been approved repeatedly in the House as part of broad energy legislation, only to run into staunch opposition in the Senate from most Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans.

In 1995, an ANWR drilling provision made it into a budget measure - the same tactic now surfacing again - only to have the bill vetoed by President Clinton, an opponent to drilling.

Bush strongly supports ANWR development. He argued for it in two election campaigns and made it a key part of the energy blueprint issued in 2001 by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The prospect of watching Teddy Kennedy bust a blood vessel on the Senate floor over this is enough to make C-SPAN must-see TV.
< |
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Religion of Peace Update:
Killing Disobedient Muslim Women - Peacefully, of Course

This piece in Sunday's Telegraph says that five Muslim women have been killed in so-called "honor killings" in the past few months IN BERLIN ALONE.

"The five Muslim women killed in recent months were murdered by their husbands or partners because they had 'insulted' the family honour by wanting to end the relationship.

One woman was strangled; another drowned in a bath. In another case, a 21-year-old Turkish woman who was forcibly married to her cousin was stabbed to death on the street by her husband in front of their three-year-old daughter. Police records show that 45 'honour killings' have been committed within Germany's two million-plus Muslim community in the past eight years. Now that at least five have occurred in just four months in Berlin alone, the German authorities and local Turkish leaders are desperately trying to find out why....

According to this article, the United Nations estimates that about 5,000 Muslim women worldwide are killed annually "because their families felt they brought dishonor on them." Considering both the ideological leanings of the U.N. and its comprehensive incompetence, the number's probably 10 times that.

"Fadime Sahindal, a 26-year-old Turkish university student with a Swedish boyfriend, was murdered by her father in Sweden in 2002. He insisted she marry a man from Turkey.

In Britain last year, Abdalla Yones, a Kurdish Muslim who stabbed his 16-year-old daughter, Heshu, 11 times and slit her throat after she started a relationship with a Christian boyfriend, was jailed for life.

'Honor killings,' as the phenomenon is known, usually involve women being murdered, usually by brothers and fathers, for having sex outside marriage, dating, refusing an arranged marriage, wanting to go to university or even having been raped. The practice is not uncommon in traditional, male-dominated Arab societies.

Fadime's and Heshu's cases and others like them in Europe have prompted calls for urgent action to protect young immigrants who fall out with their families and for police to reinvestigate murders suspected of having been honor killings....
< |
Monday, February 28, 2005
I know I shouldn't bother.

But I can't help myself.

I know I should just ignore the whole lot of boorish, overindulged, undertalented, pretentious, preening, dimwitted members of the most overestimated cadre of self-congratulating, undereducated, excessively glorified dullards this side of the San Francisco City Council.

And I could. Easily. As a libertarian, I have an ideological leg up on most in that it doesn't bother me in the slightest that many of this underwhelming lot are wealthy beyond even the imagining of most Fortune 100 CEOs. A person is worth what another is willing to pay him, after all. If movie producers are willing to pay eminently replaceable actors $20 million per film, why shouldn't the actors take it? And whose fault is it if this makes little economic sense?

Yes, I could let it all pass. Honestly, I could. I could ignore their tragically ill-informed and uninformed geopolitical pronouncements. I could let their sophomoric leftist rants pass without giving them a second thought - or a first for that matter. I could even, under proper sedation, sit still for a Susan Sarandon diatribe on police brutality.

But for one thing. In the manner of a Hollywood screenplay (think "The Sting"), Tinseltown has constructed one enormous fraud on the foundation of another.

How so?

Try this little experiment. Ask a friend to provide an example of narcissism. After you explain to him what "narcissism" means, he's highly likely to point to Hollywood in general or one of its glitteratti in particular. The city's endless fascination with ten thousand dollar gowns and quarter-million dollar necklaces hardly seems designed to discourage such a response.

But the Beautiful People of Hollywood certainly know that the great unwashed view this sort of garishness with bemusement at best; contempt at worst. So why the ostentatious display of wealth? Why not try to deflect attention from the fact that the folks paying $10 a ticket to watch their movies are subsidizing the Lifestyles of the Rich, Famous, and Shameless?

Why, indeed. UNLESS there's an infinitely more dangerous truth being obscured by all the attention to necklaces, gowns, and George Clooney's steamroom.

I submit that there is.

Like most great truths it is profoundly simple. It is also the one essential fact that made it impossible for me to let last night's Oscar travesty pass without comment. That truth is this:

Film actors are NOT artists. They are not even craftsmen. They are just random people who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

This means ALL of them. Brando, DeNiro, whatever alleged "genius" you might care to name.

I don't mean to detract from your enjoyment of any particular actor. I have my favorites like most everyone else. I've always been partial to Sidney Portier, for example; but I harbor no illusions that Portier is any "better" an actor than any other. I just happen to like him. And that's the crux of the matter. Movie actors heap such endless praise upon each other that most moviegoers have bought into the myth that these people are artists.

I listen to actor after actor extol the virtuoso performances of his colleagues and I don't hear sincere praise. Here is what I hear:

"This is very difficult, what we do! Actor X is one of the precious few who can do this very difficult job of pretending to be someone else on film. Just like me. You should love and appreciate us both."

Listen carefully the next time and tell me if you think I'm wrong.

Is Julia Roberts - one of Hollywood's highest paid stars - an artist? Hah!

In 1990, Roberts was chosen to play the lead role in a movie called Pretty Woman. Her best friend was played by an actress named Laura San Giacomo. The movie was a smash hit, and Roberts went on to become Hollywood's highest paid leading lady for the next 15 years.

But think about it. If the roles of Roberts and San Giacomo had been reversed, would the movie have been any less successful? It doesn't seem likely. So then Giacomo might now be the one commanding $20 million salaries, and more importantly, SHE might be the one getting the invites to Clooney's party pad.

I have nothing against Roberts. Or Sean Penn, really. Well, other than that he's an idiot. But seriously, this is a guy who made his name in a 1982 movie called Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Hardly a classic by any yardstick. But his portrayal of the perpetually stoned Jeff Spicoli caught SOMEONE'S eye. One thing lead to another, and now, 23 years later, we're supposed to take him seriously?

Why is that, exactly?

Movie actors aren't artists. If they are, then there's an Art Gene that we've got to isolate to see if we can crank out some more Da Vinci's once they get that cloning thing going. Henry Fonda's kids all beat the million to one odds against becoming a highly paid movie actor. As did Donald Sutherland's son, Keefer. And Kirk Douglas' son Michael. And Goldie Hawn's daughter, and Jon Voight's daughter, and Blythe Danner's daughter......

Enjoy the movies - I sure do. But don't make the mistake of thinking your favorite actress is any more of an "artist" than the girl playing Ado Annie in your local community theater's production of Oklahoma. Which isn't a bad comparison come to think of it. Because if you really knew the truth about how that actress got her first big break, Ado Annie probably put it pretty well in one of the tunes from that musical:

"I'm just a girl who can't say no........."

< |
I am disgusted with Blogspot

How depressing. I have spent the last two hours composing a post about Hollywood actors and why I loathe them.

Blogspot lost it.

I'm going to bed.
< |