Short Bursts
Defending “The Passion”; Blasting John Kerry;
Trash-Talk radio; Nitrogen Blankets
February 28, 2004
Defending “The Passion”
The attacks against the new movie about Jesus are just about as unfair as the attacks against Jesus that the movie depicts. One such article was recently passed along to me. Associated Press entertainment writer Christy Lemire writes that Mel Gibson’s presentation in The Passion of the Christ, “... is fetishistic in his depiction of the pain Jesus suffered during the last 12 hours of his life. The beating and whipping and ripping of skin become so repetitive, they'll leave the audience emotionally drained and stunned.”
When body parts are blown off (e.g.: Bruce Willis vs. Jack Black in Day of the Jackal), blood is spattered everywhere (too many movies to mention), and people are “terminated” for little or no reason in “action movies” (repeated ad nauseam), we don’t see this type of review. Rather, we see reviews that praise the producers and/or directors for “raising the genre to a new technical level” — or some similar blather. But, when the brutality against Jesus is depicted with brutal reality, we see these visceral reactions. When blood and pain were made light of by Arnold Schwarzenegger, audiences paid billions of dollars to see it, bought toys to memorialize it, and eventually elected him governor of California. (And, how many writers complained when Mel Gibson himself became famous via the Road Warrior series of movies?)
But, now that Gibson has the opportunity — and the money — to give a public airing of the foundation of his private epiphany, Hollywood is attacking him with the same visceral fury that the Pharisees employed against Jesus. Just in the event that he might be reading this, I would simply quote to Mel Gibson the words of Jesus. “If the world hates you, remember that it hated Me first.” Hang in there, Mel!
And, since Christy apparently didn’t quite get it, the audience was supposed to feel “emotionally drained and stunned.” The whole point of the movie was to present — in as much realism as possible — the reality of what Jesus suffered in order to accomplish God’s plan of salvation for all who would accept it. (Those that have deeply studied the life and suffering of Jesus know that, for all of the movie’s realistic detail, some of the brutality was actually left out. It was predicted by the Prophet Isaiah that the suffering Messiah would be barely recognizable as a man.)
Christy went on to write, “Just think of the trauma it will inflict on kids.” Hello! Are we talking about the same children that grow up blasting aliens (and humans!) in front of video games? (Or the latest “game” trend: stealing cars from innocent strangers.) Are we talking about the same children that witness various forms of violence every week on television dramas? Do those children ever read newspaper headlines? (Would the AP denounce those as too violent?) What about live coverage of various wars, televised at school? (And, those are “regular” children. What about the everyday real lives of children living in gang-infested areas?) No. The real “trauma” that Extreme Hollywood is worried about is the trauma that this movie, The Passion of the Christ, will have on their own bank accounts if they keep producing sleaze, filth, and Leftism — all packaged as “entertainment”. If the average viewer starts to take their Christian faith seriously, then they will stop patronizing Hollywood’s junk, and then over half of Hollywood will be unemployed within a year. As Jesus said, “You cannot serve both God and money.” As singer Rebecca St. James recently put it, Mel Gibson has been used as “an instrument of God” by presenting this movie.
Mel Gibson has simply given people the opportunity to see the depth of what happened on their behalf, so that they can more fully appreciate it. For that, he deserves our hearty thanks. (Sainthood might come later....)
John Kerry: Dangerous “Internationalist”
My regular readers know that I try to look beyond what is in the “mainstream”, and beneath what is on the surface. While all of the fuss is still being made about John Kerry and his patronizing use of the military veteran voting block, most writers are overlooking the true danger of Kerry.
That danger is revealed in a quote from the same article that I quoted recently regarding Kerry’s service in Vietnam. According to its own recent research, the campus newspaper The Harvard Crimson quoted John Kerry, on 13 February 1970, as saying, “I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”
OK, here is a guy that is running for the office of President of the United States. He has publicly declared, during an interview that he knew would be published, that he would voluntarily turn over command of United States troops to an outside entity. (Remember US Army Specialist Michael New?) In my opinion, that would be a form of treason. And, ironically, the United Nations has a dim view of America, and a long memory about the Michael New incident.
Does Kerry merely view the office of President of the United States as another “stepping stone” on his way to head the UN? His campaign Web site proclaims that he supports, “A bold progressive internationalism ...” Remember that I’ve warned readers what the word “progressive” really means, when spoken by modern politicians.
Kerry is even more dangerous than Wesley Clark. The reason is that Clark — a Rhodes scholar — withdrew from the presidential race three days after I exposed the Rhodes agenda in an article. (Rhodes “scholars” are dedicated to global Socialism.) Kerry, on the other hand, is not the least bit sneaky about his Leftist positions. He boldly and openly proclaims them. Kerry seems to be challenging the American voters to be able to do anything to stop him.
And, at the same time, Kerry has blocked support for the famed native warriors that helped our Special Forces in Vietnam. MensNewsDaily reported this almost two years ago. So, he wants to subject our troops to foreign command, and abandon our allies. I have to wonder, why is this man still in the Senate? And, how can anyone seriously consider him as a candidate for President?!
John Kerry – War “Hero”??
But, when thinking of Kerry and Vietnam, readers should consider a few things about this war “hero”. He was the commander of a Patrol Craft, Fast (PCF) — commonly called a Swift Boat, which was slightly larger than the more-famous Patrol Boat, River (PBR). (It is a little-known fact that Army MPs operated some PBRs. I saw one of these “Army-Navy” boats when I attended an Army school at Fort McClellan.) Together, the PCF and PBR resources were known as the Riverine Forces — nicknamed the Brownwater Navy. These forces patrolled the rivers of dangerous, enemy-held territory. As with any riverfront, the vegetation was thick, thus giving the enemy an added military advantage.
In the face of such a situation, special equipment and tactics were needed. Enter the Riverine Forces. In a strategy that would make Sun Tzu smile, our Navy used those small boats’ inherent weakness (its lack of armor) as its strength. Because the boats did not have overall armor (they were made of wood), they were fast and maneuverable. They were able to get in, shoot, and get out. That was their job. Remember: “get out”.
When fired upon in the situation that would ultimately “earn” him a Silver Star, skipper John Kerry steered his Swift Boat directly into the shore — and beached the boat! (Considering that Kerry grew up in the wealthy class, and spent some of his youth on sailboats, this could hardly have been considered an accident.) In the process, he startled a single enemy soldier, who popped up and was shot. But, Kerry admitted that he and his crew shot up South Vietnamese friendly troops. Those are the troops who, when they are pinned down by enemy fire, call the Swift Boats in for help. Some help: shooting our allies. For that, he got a medal?
I have direct knowledge of a senior military officer that directed a newly-promoted officer under his command to nominate him for a Bronze Star. The medal was for “heroic” actions during Desert Storm. (Thank God, someone prevented the medal paperwork from going very far.) One of the strongest supporters of Kerry’s presidential campaign is Del Sandusky, who was under Kerry’s command on that Swift Boat in Vietnam. Can anyone provide me with information about another incident in which a member of our military got a Silver Star for shooting just one enemy soldier? Some of our troops did heroic things every day, but never got one medal. Can anyone explain to me why the Swift Boat, with its twin 50-caliber machineguns, could not have strafed the shore while moving? (That’s what they’re designed to do.) How does violating the very strategy that put him in the area qualify John Kerry for any medal?
When I attended a 1986 speech by G. Gordon Liddy at a college campus, Liddy questioned the skill of then-Navy Lt. John F. Kennedy. In the incident that made him famous, Kennedy had steered his Patrol Torpedo boat (PT-109) into the path of a Japanese destroyer. The destroyer cut the PT boat in half, two crewmen died, and the survivors were stranded on a deserted island. Given that Kennedy grew up in the wealthy class on the Atlantic shore of Massachusetts, and grew up sailing, how did he manage to get into the path of the destroyer in the first place? Liddy posed that question about Kennedy in 1986. Now, given that Kerry also grew up with wealth and sailboats — and with John Kennedy — I must ask why Kerry beached his boat? Was it “the heat of battle”, as we are expected to believe? Or, was it an intentional maneuver, designed to make him become famous? Did Kerry put his crewmen in danger, just to build a “stepping stone” for a future political career? If so, then is that presidential material?
Or, should someone who endangered his crew for his own fame — which he used to denounce his own country — be labeled as a “war criminal”? You decide.
Trash-Talk Radio
It’s about time! Major broadcasting owners ClearChannel and Viacom have announced new voluntary guidelines for talk-radio. I find it terribly ironic, though. For years, disgusting “shock jocks” have gotten away with all manner of filth and obscenity on radio. (They’ve created a whole new way to “wake up” people during morning shows: make them so angry that they can’t relax.) Now, in the wake of the Jackson-Timberlake “flap” — on television — the companies are cleaning up the radio.
Regardless of the irony, or their real motive, the good news is that radio should start sounding better. Let’s see how long it lasts. For that period of time, things should get better for all listeners. (In the process, maybe things will get better for me, too.)
Nitrogen Blankets
This term sounds unusual, but get used to it. There will be more discussion of this term in the news soon. A “nitrogen blanket” is the short term to describe an “inerting system” that protects aircraft fuel tanks from certain types of explosions. Nitrogen, stored in pressurized tanks, is introduced into the fuel tank to displace air as the engines consume the fuel. This prevents oxygen from being available for combustion.
But, is this merely a false “security blanket”?
The news is supposed to make airline passengers feel better. “Mainstream” news media references (holding to the official government story) have mentioned TWA Flight 800 in parallel with the news about a new government mandate to install these nitrogen systems in the fuel tanks of airliners. (Nitrogen inerting systems have already been in use in military aircraft for years.) Because of the mention of TWA Flight 800, “average readers” are supposed to think that a nitrogen blanket will protect an airliner from exploding in midair. But, when held up to logic, this story does not entirely make sense. (Jack Cashill, writing in WorldNetDaily, has done a fine job of opening the discussion on this topic. I’ll be working on this topic in the near future.)
In short, a nitrogen blanket cannot protect an airliner from explosion caused by a missile, because the hole in the fuel tank will allow oxygen back into the tank. And, the mandate to install these “Linus blanket” systems in airliners right now could divert money away from more important technology. American airliners need to install — as Israeli airliners have already done — a system that uses infrared beams to direct an incoming missile away from the airliner. Right now, terrorist missiles are a much bigger threat than our government — or, especially, the airline industry — wants to admit.
If “faulty wiring” had really been the cause of the explosion of TWA Flight 800, then why did only one Boeing 747 explode “spontaneously” in thirty years of 747 flights? (And, keep in mind that the very same aircraft that became known as Flight 800 had survived a direct lightning strike a few years prior, and made a normal landing.) Nitrogen won’t stop a missile, nor the explosion caused by one. To think otherwise is to live behind a cloud of smoke.
