subscribe or follow us:                    

Statism, Feminism, Homosexuality, and the Christian Right

4 comments

Posted by PunkJohnnyCash on May 13, 2009 in Gonzo | 4 comments

I am neither “Left” or “Right”.  I stand against statism and for liberty.  The problem we see though is the left and the right both seem to feel we must support their causes at federal levels with legislation.  Now what we have here is a constant tug of war with issues such as homosexuality, the misunderstood concepts of feminism being opposed by the Patriarchal Christian right and they claw each others eyes out.  I support many Feminist ideals.  Feminism is the radical notion that women are people too.  Feminism acknowledges more than just a woman’s right, it encompass many philosophical concepts that pertain to all races and genders.  The “Right” perception of Feminism is often a misunderstanding, leaving much of the right talking ignorantly about the subject.  Now this being said, I want to disagree and agree with both the Christian Right and the left at the same time. 

I am not arguing pro or anti any of these philosophies, what I am arguing to everyone is the federal government’s place in the moral issues we wish to legislate.  I may agree with certain concepts, but I want to handle the problems that arise.  I do not want government to do so for us.  The government has proven capable of getting rich and feeding bureaucrats in the name of “progress” while accomplishing nothing.  Federal government is not the answer.  If we want to truly change the world it will not happen as a Dictator tyrannically tells us how to believe, it will start by us slowly teaching the masses and building a new philosophy from the ground up.

Some become angered if I suggest that something is not the place of government on the left and the right.  This is not to oppose the ideal, but to question how we accomplish the desired result.  Government repeatedly grows rich as the subjects it claims to help grow hungry and the end result is failure to all but the bureaucrats who preached compassion and got their six figure salaries.  Just look at the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  Government takes your land, kills your people, and tells you that  you need it to make decisions about your life.  Why is this still around?  The Department of the Interior is one of the biggest scams ever pulled on the Citizens of the United States.

Government should protect us.  It’s job is not to control our thoughts or morals, it simply protects us.  Most of the protection needs to happen at a local level and not a federal level.  This leaves the federal government completely irrelevant to most issues.

Let’s talk marriage.  Why does government license marriage?  Why should it control marriage?  Was marriage not a function of the church?  Can government really tell us who to marry or how this marriage should look?  In a free country can federal government really regulate this?  When government does so it ends the separation of church and state concept by the state claiming the powers of the church.  Get the government completely out of marriage.  If two men wish to marry and can not find a church to acknowledge their marriage they should start their own institution to grant their marriages.  By our regulating marriage by government we see how government has stepped in and used it as a tool to extract more tax money and have more control of our lives through this control.  It is time we started cutting federal control out of every possible aspect of our lives and finding ways to deal with issues free of the Federal Imposition.

We should be fighting against this bloated Federal Imposition that has grown upon our liberty like a cancer, not fighting against each other.  We can worry about other issues at local levels or just accept that maybe we should re-evaluate our desire to control every other person on the planet.  I support protecting the oppressed, or those facing violations against their person, but most of the time when we legislate all we end up doing is slapping another wrist after the victim has been victimized.  It is the federal governments job to protect, and it seems to be failing at that, so let’s take the other stuff off their plate, take our money back they were going to use to accomplish certain failures, and take care of that while the government figures out why it can’t do the basic functions it was set in place for.

Pure torture – New crop of horror movies returns to gory, low- budget roots after years of dripping with irony, special effects

The Columbian (Vancouver, WA) January 16, 2006 | CHRISTY LEMIRE Associated Press writer Today’s horror movies are more likely to be dripping with blood than irony, with films like “Wolf Creek,” the “Saw” series and “Hostel” representing a return to their grisly, low-budget ’70s roots. see here horror movies 2010

While the “Scream” trilogy grossed hundreds of millions of dollars in the late 1990s with characters who winked at the camera in playful mockery of the genre’s conventions, horror flicks like “Hostel,” Eli Roth’s follow-up to his gory 2003 debut “Cabin Fever,” will show you a character whose eye is dangling from its socket after a long afternoon of torture.

“Self-referential, ironic humor ran its course,” said Roth, a 33- year-old writer-director who grew up loving the graphic slasher movies of the 1970s and ’80s and also cites Asian cinema as an influence.

“Kevin Williamson did it brilliantly,” he said, referring to the writer of the original “Scream.” “At the same time `Scream’ was huge, ‘Dawson’s Creek’ was the most popular show. People got tired of that. That was the gimmick. Even Kevin Williamson got tired of that.

“I think scary movies are back,” Roth added. “People clearly don’t want to see a -horror movie to laugh.” Lions Gate Films apparently thinks so, too, having released several of the really grisly horror movies that have come out in the past few years: Rob Zombie’s “House of 1,000 Corpses” and its sequel, “The Devil’s Rejects,” about a family of redneck serial killers; “Saw” and “Saw II,” about a kidnapper who torments his victims with elaborate mind games; the French “High Tension,” about two young women who are terrorized in the woods; and now “Hostel,” which follows a trio of twentysomething guys on a European vacation that begins as an orgy of sex and drugs and descends into brutal, bloody sadism.

Lions Gate President Tom Ortenberg says this particular kind of horror movie is alluring because “it’s got touches of realism that audiences today can relate to. What we can do as well or better than the studios, perhaps in retro fashion, is a gut-level, horror movie that doesn’t rely on special effects.” While they’re not exactly critical favorites — the first “Saw” received only 45 percent positive reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes Web site, with “Saw II” earning just 35 percent positive reviews — these movies can be enormously profitable. “Saw” had a $1 million budget and grossed $55 million-plus; the sequel cost $4 million and grossed nearly $87 million.

“Our economic model is much different than the studios,” Ortenberg said. “When a Rob Zombie movie like ‘The Devil’s Rejects’ grosses $17 million, or Eli Roth’s first movie grosses $20 million, that’s very successful for us.” Meanwhile, the Weinstein Co. is in theaters with the low-budget “Wolf Creek,” about a madman who targets tourists in the Australian outback. Harvey and Bob Weinstein released the star-studded “Scream” trilogy and several other horror movies under the Dimension Films branch of their former company, Miramax.

Bob Weinstein, who ran Dimension, bought “Wolf Creek” for $3.5 million a month before it screened at last year’s Sundance Film Festival because “it was very hard-edge, very real,” he said. The company released it on Christmas Day amid the family films and Oscar contenders.

“There were a lot of comedies out in the marketplace, a lot of prestige movies for older audiences. We thought this was for younger audiences,” Weinstein said. “We felt there would be an opening in the marketplace that wanted to see something like this at this particular time.” Paul Dergarabedian, president of the box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations, believes this kind of graphic fare is making a comeback because “when people want to be scared, they really want to be scared.” “With video games and all the entertainment options, it really takes a lot to impress audiences today,” Dergarabedian said. “The level of violence and gore cannot be too intense for a lot of people. Horror fans in particular are very keen on seeing the most intense, violent images they can. site horror movies 2010

“Some might say it’s a reflection on society, how desensitized we’ve become to violence,” he added. “I still believe people know the difference. It’s a vicarious thrill. I look at it more as entertainment: You can have that fear but in a safe environment.” The trend toward old-school terror has spread to television with Showtime’s “Masters of Horror” series, in which veteran directors including Tobe Hooper, John Landis, Dario Argento and Takashi Miike have created one-hour original programs.

Joe Dante’s contribution, titled “Homecoming,” takes traditional zombie movie imagery and turns it into an indictment of the war in Iraq: Soldiers return from the dead not to eat people’s brains but to vote the president out of office who sent them into battle.

Dante, a Roger Corman protege whose films include “The Howling” and a segment of “Twilight Zone: The Movie,” pointed out that zombie films have always had underlying social statements, from 1950s West Indian movies about race and class to George A. Romero’s 1968 classic “Night of the Living Dead,” with its subtext about the Vietnam War.

“It didn’t seem to me like much of a stretch to use that template for a political story,” he said. “The great thing about the ‘Masters of Horror’ series is that it was an opportunity that already existed — in lieu of money or time I was given creative freedom, so I was able to sneak in a political story into this series that I probably never would have gotten made.” As for the renaissance of grisly horror, Dante said: – “Everything goes in cycles.” “After about 15 years, there’s a whole new group of people who haven’t seen this kind of material. In the world we live in, we like to push the envelope, so today’s gory horror movies are gorier than the last generation’s gory horror movies. There is a limit to what you can do to horror, and frankly I thought we reached it in the mid- ’80s, but apparently not.” And more are on the horizon — specifically, remakes of the classic movies that provided the inspiration for this new wave in the first place. “When a Stranger Calls” is scheduled for release in February, with “The Hills Have Eyes” (from “High Tension” writer- director Alexandre Aja) following in March.

In October, expect a “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” prequel — there’s already been a remake of the iconic film, which grossed $80 million in 2003 — as well as “Saw 3.” Autumn also brings “Grind House” from Weinstein, in which -horror aficionados Robert Rodriguez and Quentin -Tarantino join forces to co-direct. John Jarratt, the serial killer from “Wolf Creek,” is the star.

“Everyone has a fascination with death,” said Roth. “Violence is cinematic. It looks great on film. It’s a great release watching the bad guy get it — seeing someone get brutally maimed in a movie, your worst nightmare, you see it and scream about it and it feels great.” Did you know?

Zombie films have underlying social statements from 1950s West Indian movies about race. The classic “Night of the Living Dead” has a subtext about the Vietnam War.

CHRISTY LEMIRE Associated Press writer

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • Ms. Mary

    Your words, once again, cut to the quick. You might say I am a recovering democrat. Your thought has opened my eyes to the real interests and values of the democrat political party. You have left me jaded with the system and turned my eyes toward the real source of power in this country–the "common" people. Thank you.

    I am a feminist and work toward the ideals inherent to feminism via my skills as a mental health counselor/advocate. I do not claim the stance of libertarian primarily, but feminist, because I believe that freedom is secondary and dependent on the creation of a society of peace, where those that are susceptible to being exploited and oppressed are protected and empowered to live full, creative lives. I can see how libertarian concepts and feminist overlap on some points. For example, feminism strives to equalize power among human/social relationships. Thus, the notion of decreasing the power of a classist, racist, sexist government which has become oppressive and redistributing that power among the people is both libertarian and feminist. However, I am also interested in the fundamental differences between the two bodies of thought, seeing as how libertarianism prioritizes freedom and non-intervention, while feminism's priority is the persistent obliteration of sexism, racism…discrimination and oppression of every kind. where do these differing priorities lead? If you have any thoughts on this, I would be interested in reading.

    "If one is oppressed, all are oppressed."

  • Ms. Mary

    I guess I'm asking: what role ought society to play in promoting equality and peace? Or, does society have no role or obligation in ensuring civility and justice? Does ensuring the freedom/liberty of citizens mean that society has no business intervening to guarantee the freedom/rights of women, children, the disabled etc.? In other words, don't some people's rights have to be limited in order to ensure the rights of others? Is there a difference between a governing body that violates the rights of others and a governing body that acts to protect the rights of its people?

  • http://www.gonzotimes.com PunkJohnnyCash

    youtube.comyoutube.com<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/muHg86Mys7I&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0×402061&color2=0x9461ca&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/muHg86Mys7I&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0×402061&color2=0x9461ca&border=1&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

  • http://www.gonzotimes.com PunkJohnnyCash

    Most groups that make changes in Washington are not- for profit groups like NOW and Right to life groups. If they put their money and resources into making changes instead of buying off politicians and paying lobbyists they could accomplish more for their cause.

    Freedom requires a full confrontation of such issues, only not by the few who will legislate and enforce failed laws which have yet to accomplish the desired result. Freedom will confront individuals with choices of their own. It will require not just a solution without understanding the problem, which often causes a larger gap and divide between people groups, but it will force one to think, and grow. I believe in a philosophical change that is occurring and is necessary to occur. Under this people will have to confront issues as they arise, not necessarily plan it all out. Solutions will not always be the same, and if worse comes to worse we will look to the leaders we have chosen for ourselves to protect us from oppression and force.

    A town without certain issues or instances of these issues may never face those issues, some may face more and may find need for more considerations. In the end we need to be asking how effective has government been in resolving these issues and how can we resolve these issues without intervention of the state.

    If you ask about the homeless and who is to take care of them I say you. Not someone like you, but you. Liberty is not a simple easy ideal. It is something that will require more from everyone. It will require action. It will not allow us to sit home and assume someone else will take care of everything else for us.