January 5, 2005 by s.z.

More From Human Events Online Human Events Online does more than give us the scoop on conservative movies.  Yes, it also features syndicated columns from Ann Coulter. But the movie reviews are pretty good.  Let's take a brief look at the one for that great pro-life movie The Island.  It was written by Jeff Rubin, who is "the editor of the Conservative Book Club and an award-winning screenwriter."  (Note: His only IMDB credit is for writing the story for a made-for-TV kids' movie called The Red Sneakers -- it's possible that his mother may have given him some kind of an award for his work on it.) The Island: Hollywood's Recovery of Moral Sanity? What if Hollywood made a profoundly conservative movie -- one that was also a rip-roaring entertainment -- and nobody came? That question isn’t rhetorical, or even hypothetical.  What apparently happens is that the producers of Parts: The Clonus Horror sue Warner for copying their movie, and ask that The Island be pulled from theaters -- but there's no need, since it's not in theaters for more than a couple of weeks anyway. But back to Mr. Rubin: So what makes The Island such a “conservative” film – indeed, one of the most politically incorrect I have ever seen? Let me back up a bit and tell you how I came to see it despite my initial near-total lack of interest. Let me shorten Mr. Rubin's story for him: he read a "reader review" at the NY Times site which said that "The Island might well become a cause célèbre for the radical right-to-life set,” so he "packed up the family – wife, and five kids aged 12 to 18 – and hightailed it to the local multiplex."  That's how he came to see it. Now we can get into what makes The Island a conservative film. Suffice to say that The Island, while a tad overlong at 2¼ hours, is never boring, and it builds to a conclusion that – incredibly for a sci-fi action film – brought me to the verge of tears (which is as close as I get). It also includes scenes and images so shockingly resonant of abortion, euthanasia, the mischaracterization of brain-damaged patients like Terry Schiavo as “vegetables,” and the medical exploitation of the unborn – all of which, in a scene near the end, is unmistakeably linked to the Holocaust -- that one can only ask oneself how such a movie ever got made – by the House of Spielberg, no less. Yes, the film made Mr. Rubin feel sorry for the poor, exploited clones, and it contains scenes and images that remind Mr. Rubin of abortion, euthanasia, Terri Schiavo, and the Holocaust -- so it must be conservative. So, why is such a terrific film such a colossal flop? Because it was kind of stupid and boring? Perhaps, too, Dreamworks, being inexplicably insensible to the moral-political implications of the film, never thought of marketing it specifically to conservatives and Christians, the way Mel Gibson did The Passion of the Christ. In any event, it’s probably too late to save the film’s theatrical run -- but here’s hoping they wake up in time to salvage its potential DVD sales. God willing, The Island will be just the beginning, not the end, of Hollywood’s recovery of moral sanity Well, I doubt that Dreamworks will take Mr. Rubin's advice and market the DVDs to conservatives and Christians using a "Passion of the Clones" campaign.  But maybe the producers of The Clonus Horror will.  After all, I doubt they're going to make much from their lawsuit. But like I said, Human Events Online is more than just a forum for claiming mediocre movies for the forces of conservatism.  It also has really wingnutty political commentary. Take, for instance, this great column by Nathan Tabor ("a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North Carolina") entitled "If Spying Works, Let's Do It." To spy or not to spy?  That is the question.  Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of unknown yet preventable terrorist attacks, and keep our precious civil liberties untarnished, or, take arms against a sea of possibilities, and by our own foreknowledge, oppose them?   Shakespeare’s famous soliloquy wasn’t talking about terrorism, Really?  Damn, no wonder I got a failing grade on that essay on Hamlet for 9th grade English! but the world is today.   The news has been full of stories about President Bush and his spying program, with most of the spin being against his actions.  Nathan, like so many wingnuts before him, believes that the President's only choices were : (a) Violate the FISA act and spy on U.S. persons without warrants, or (b) Allow terrorists to kill us all in our beds. But let's move on to where Nathan shows his own special wingnuttiness. Wake up world, America is at war. Not sure why we need to be reminded of this, but it’s a fact.  We’ve been at war for four years now.  Many American lives have been lost in fighting this war; many innocent American civilians have died in the attack that started this war.  Real lives, real people, fighting to stop terrorism.  These people give up their freedom, live in harsh conditions, and often do not come home. Ever.  They make the ultimate sacrifice for us, for our country.  So, um, many innocent civilians died in the 9/11 attacks, and they are real people who are fighting to stop terrorism, and they live in harsh conditions and often do not come home?  Whatever you say, Nathan. We owe them the best protection we can possibly give, to ensure each soldier the best chance of success and safety as they perform their duties.  We owe that to these Americans, fighting for us as we go about our daily lives.   We owe them. And that means spying.  So, President Bush couldn't retroactively request warrants to eavesdrop on Americans-- he owed that much to the troops.  He owed them illegal spying. Yes, spying. Recording those who have contacts with countries that harbor terrorists, monitoring groups or organizations that our government deems as a possible threat, and also detaining individuals who are deemed suspicious by our government.  Wow, so if you ever have contact (answer a phone call, open a spam email, go to a web page) with a country that harbors terrorists, then the government should be recording your phone conversations, reading your email, opening your mail, and probably placing video cameras in your home.  BTW, the State Dept's Counterterrorism Office indicated that terrorism attacks against Americans occurred in the following countries in 2003 (apparently no reports were prepared for 2004 or 2005): Kuwait, Columbia, the Philippines, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.  Presumably, some of the terrorists found harbor in the countries where they acted -- so, don't have any contact with any of these countries, if you value your privacy. Civil liberties are important, you’ll get no argument here to the contrary. Nathan will just argue that they're not that important, now that we're all in deadly danger every time we go to the grocery store, cross the Golden Gate, or eat a sandwich. However, what good are civil liberties when our country is under constant threat of an unknown attack, when we can no longer feel safe going to the grocery store?  Crossing the Golden Gate Bridge?  Flying cross-country?  Eating, drinking our food?  Turning a blind eye to possible terrorist planning makes all of these activities high risk.  We become prisoners, civil and liberated yet afraid to leave our homes. Yes, unless we allow President Bush to order the feds to spy on us without ever going to court to show probable cause for the spying, then Nathan will be afraid to ever leave his home. To suggest we curtail spying to protect our civil liberties is nothing more than liberal propaganda that will, in the end, cost us more innocent American lives.  There is nothing noble about that. The liberals are only bringing up this civil liberties crap because they want you and your children to die!   Oh, and it's clear that Benjamin Franklin (a known liberal) said, "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," because he was working for al-Qaeda. And lastly, here's regular HEO columnist Chuck DeVore ("Mr. DeVore (R.-Irvine) represents 450,000 people in coastal Orange County's 70th Assembly District") with a little number called "The Lying Left, Then and Now." Why is it that liberals, progressives, leftists, humanists and the like seeking a brave new world for the rest of us often resort to lying or cheating to turn their vision into reality? And why is it that earlier this year Chuck introduced a bill that called for an end to conjugal visits for violent felons in the California State Penal System, even though the prison system already closely restricted this privilege?  The answer: because "Most Californians believe it’s inappropriate for violent convicts to enjoy overnight visits that may result in a pregnancy." Yup, Chuck wanted to keep sodomy as the official type of prison sex. And why does Chuck think he deserves a 12% salary increase? (He and the other CA law makers now get about $111,000 a year, plus a daily, tax-free stipend of $153 when they're in session.) "For me to serve, I took a fairly good cut in pay. And I live in Orange County, have a big Orange County mortgage like my constituents do," said Assemblyman Chuck Devore, R-Irvine. Per a 2003 U.S. Census report, "the median income of households in Orange County was $60,118."  So, I guess it's only fair that Chuck make almost twice as much as the median household in his constituency -- because that's what representative government is all about.  (Oh, and "In 2003, 10 percent of people were in poverty. Fourteen percent of related children under 18 were below the poverty level." You probably won't see that on "The O.C.")   Anyway, Chuck's most recent HEO piece is kind of long and loony, so I'll summarize it for you: Upton Sinclair was an icky, old muckraker, but he was also something worse: a socialist. And he was the "the prototype for many leftist social activists to follow," especially Michael Moore.  Michael Moore is a big liar who doesn't use facts "when attacking anything American and good." "Which brings us back to Upton Sinclair."  But first, let's talk about "Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two leftists who murdered two men while stealing money to finance their revolutionary activities." Their lawyer claimed that their "political convictions were the real reason for their arrest amidst the beginning of the co-called Red Scare era." (That "Red Scare" label was just another lie dreamed up by liberals. Oh, since we're at war, like Nathan pointed out, wouldn't right now be a good time to take a tip from the tactics of the time and make it illegal to speak out against the govermen?. We could also order the Post Master General, the phone companies, and the internet providers to deny service to anybody suspected of being a dissenter. And since we've already decided that the President doesn't need warrants for anything he wants to do, we should do some Palmer Raids. But remember, kids, there was no "Red Scare," and anybody who tries to convince you otherwise is probably a lying liberal bastard out to destroy anything American or good.) After S&V were convicted, "Stalin’s secret propagandist, Willi Münzenberg" took up their cause in order to "weaken America in its fight against communism" by making it look like the USA was mean to the working class. This led to Alger Hiss and Hollywood joining the Stalinists. Michael Dukakis (a Democrat) later issued a proclamation "asserting that Vanzetti and Sacco had been treated unjustly." This made it hard for right-thinking individuals to oppose commies, which "made the Cold War all the more dangerous by disarming a large segment of the American population to the notion that the Soviet Union and communism was a deadly enemy to be resisted." See, people who are disarmed of their notions are at a real disadvantage when it comes to fighting colds. So, thanks to Upton Sinclair, who supported Sacco and Vanzetti, we could have lost the Cold War, except that we didn't. And now it turns out that Sinclair thought S&V were guilty all along! Remember that the next time you see the heirs to this shameful legacy with their banners and bumper stickers trying to break our resolve in the face of evil. Their forefathers did their best to weaken America. They succeeded to a certain extent and we are still struggling with their shameful legacy. But, thankfully, the American ideal is strong and resilient and most Americans see these self-loathing fools for what they are: liars for an unworthy cause. Yeah, whenever you see one of those pro-evil, resolve-breaking bumper stickers, know that its forefathers were lying commies bastards like Upton Sinclair.   And just to spite Sinclair, you should go out and eat some tainted meat.  I think you can now see that Chuck is worth every penny of that $111,000+ a year that the state of CA pays him And this concludes our tribute to Human Events Online.  To honor the occasion, here's a link to Mrs. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore's  "New York Pumpkin Pie Recipe," courtesy of Chuck's site.  Recipe back story: California's capitol denizens have now become acquainted with "THE PIE" as Diane, driven by her Sicilian cooking genes, recently baked over 180 pieces of pie in ten days in August.  Once word got out about Diane's pie, lobbyists, staffers, legislators, sergeants-at-arms, and the hungry and curious flooded into husband Assemblyman DeVore's office on the fourth floor to get their pie. The Speaker of the Assembly even commented on the floor that he hadn't gotten a piece of pie yet: Mrs. DeVore rushed down to his office and rectified the situation. Of course, what the Speaker of the Assembly wanted was just "a piece."  In any case, the situation was rectified. Note:  THE PIE "almost did in a CHP officer over Spring break" -- so, make it at your own risk. 3:45:51 AM

Best Excuse o' the Day It comes from the Rev. Lonnie Latham, who was arrested on a lewdness charge after he allegedly approached a plainclothes police officer outside a hotel and asked the officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex. "I was set up. I was in the area pastoring to police." You probably won't be surprised to learn that Pastor Latham, the former Director of Missions for the Tulsa Metro Baptist Association and a current member of the  Southern Baptist Convention's executive committee, has spoken out against the sinful, destructive homosexual lifestyle  . . . 2:48:40 AM