The one annoyance is that the secondary villain (and the buffoon of the novel), Eugene Irving, is a Republican (emphasis mine):

His appointment as director had been partially due to his performance at the FBI, where behind his back his colleagues had called him the Charmer, as in snake, and partially because his cousin was a Republican congressman from Kentucky with plenty of pull on the National Intelli­gence Committee.

[page 114]

Irving's face was as stern and demanding as he could muster, but in­side, he was beaming. The speech had been a bit melodramatic in places, but overall it showed great political promise. I can work a crowd, he thought. He imagined himself standing at the pulpit of the Republican National Convention, his arms outstretched, his fingers giving the V for victory, the deafening roar of the crowd below him, and tens of thousands of balloons and confetti raining down around him. He would have to give some thought to a running mate.

[page 116]

Sidenote:

Conservatives rightly see bums lounging around public areas as a lose-lose situation – the bums are a blight on public areas, and they also don’t get the help they need.

But when conservatives express the desire to take bums (called “homeless” by the liberals) off the street, liberals view them (the conservatives) as similar to fascist James Bondian villains who are trying to recruit the unwilling into a “new world order.”

The antagonist of “Invasive Procedures,” George Galen, is in fact a fascist James Bondian villain trying to recruit the unwilling into a new world order, and in the following excerpts boasts of his grand plan to one of the novel’s heroes, Dr. Monica Owen.

But the sad truth is that this is what liberals actually think of conservatives.  As you read the following, keep in mind that the authors probably think of Galen as conservative and Dr. Monica Owen as liberal. As Dennis Prager says, conservatives think liberals are wrong; and liberals think conservatives are bad:

[George Galen] paused for a moment to study Monica's face. "You think I'm cruel, don't you?" he said.

Monica said nothing.

"We've rescued him, Doctor. Think of that. We took a young man who was dead to the world and we gave him a second chance at life. I know you may think our methods are a little unorthodox, but consider what we're accomplishing here. The world has turned its back on these people. We're giving them a life they never thought possible."

He smiled.

"Of course, they don't see that yet. They don't comprehend what we're doing for them. And frankly, I suspect neither do you. But again, I don't fault you for it. It's too new. It's too different from the world of medicine you know. But believe me, Dr. Owens. When all is said and done, I feel confident you'll agree that we were in the right all along."

He opened the door and led them inside.

[page 78]

This was the real George Galen, Monica thought: not the one who talked fancy about gene sequencers, but the one who kidnapped and used people and acted as if he were doing them the biggest of favors. He was the most dangerous of men, because in his actions, he saw only good. He saw himself as a hero.

[page 79]

Sidenote #2:

The following is my politically incorrect rewriting of a passage from the YA science fiction novel "Web of Fire" by Steve Voake.

I don’t want you to think the novel is political; it is not.

But for fun, I took out the made-up names of the society of villains and substituted the words Democrat and socialist; and I took out the made-up names of the society of heroes and substituted the words Republican, Christian, and conservative.

The result shows what the modern liberal is up against. She believes in the liberal fantasy. For the scales to fall from her eyes requires a big paradigm shift:

Alya spent the next few days searching through classified files stored on the computer system. Although she knew it was strictly forbidden, her encounter with the Republican boy at the airbase had merely added to her growing suspicion that the Democrat Party was very selective about what it allowed the people to know. Her history lessons at school had portrayed liberals and atheists as brave heroes who would ensure the fulfillment of ancient prophesies. Conservatives and Christians, on the other hand, were monstrous, evil creatures who would destroy the world unless they were eliminated.

But although Alya's quicksilver mind had led her to discover the keys to their ultimate destruction, it now made her question the morality of it. She wanted to be sure that it was necessary as she had always been led to believe. So, using the high-level clearance that her newly found success had given her, she had started to comb through the powerful computer database, entering keywords like Republican, Conservative, and Christian in an attempt to discover the truth.

And what she discovered was nothing short of a revelation to her.

Initially, she as reassured by the fact that there was plenty of evidence to back up the lessons that she had been taught. Time and again she found examples of pollution, violence, suffering, and countless wars waged by Republicans. But gradually her careful research began to reveal that many of them were apparently peace-loving, responsible stewards of the Earth. And to her mounting horror and shame, she discovered that some of the most terrible, unspeakable acts of brutality had been done by liberals and socialists. For the first time, Alya saw with her own eyes the carefully catalogued records of methodical cruelty, meted out by atheists and socialists.

And as she sat alone at the computer watching images of ordinary Republicans going about their daily business, Alya realized two things; firstly, that it had not been conservatives who had killed her family, and secondly, that she had been lied to all her life.

Conservatives and Christians were not monsters; they were people, just like her.

The monsters, it seemed, were much closer to home.

Unless you are a liberal or a female. If you are, you may very well disagree with my assessment. And if you’re a both a liberal and a female then it’s likely you will disagree with me.

Three story events that ruin the movie for me:

Early on the two protagonists, Noah and Allie, are about to engage in an act that may result in her pregnancy when they are rudely interrupted by her outraged parents. That’s fine. What is bad is that this interruption is shown as a bad thing – akin to coming between Romeo and Juliette. Sorry, filmmakers, but I see stopping pre-marital sex between teens as a good thing.

Seven years later, Allie is about to marry Lon when she discovers Noah again and they fall into each other’s arms and have wild sex at his place. Noah goes out to get breakfast. Allie hears what she thinks is Noah returning but it’s actually her scandalized mother at the door. So far so good. But then Mrs. Hamilton reveals to her daughter that she too had a summer fling with a boy “from the wrong side of the tracks” when she was Allie’s age. Okay, so I think that this may not be bad; it may be the filmmakers making Allie’s mother into a more well-rounded character, even if it will send her daughter mixed messages about Noah. But it’s worse than that. Mrs. Hamilton actually implies that she regrets not following through with that long ago love affair. Then she gives Allie all the love letters from Noah that she had intercepted at the mailbox seven years ago. Well, that’s not even a mixed message; rather it’s a full-on message in favor of Noah, a reversal which goes against everything Mrs. Hamilton has done up to this point in the story. Sometimes character reversals are good; not this time.

Allie: “I made a promise to a man! He gave me a ring and I gave him my word!”

Noah: “This is not about keeping your promise! And it’s not about following your heart! It’s about security… Money! He’s got a lot of money!”

Noah (and the filmmakers) clearly think that “following your heart” is a good thing. Not I.

May 26, 2008

The California Supreme Court decision lifting the ban on gay marriage succeeded in subjecting citizens to a subtle violence by declaring the legislative process a farce. Dictatorial judges, not people, make the rules in this land. And liberals incessantly label Republicans fascist? Aside from the adulterated legal process which led to the infamous ruling, other natural law kinds of issues arise and will continue to play out as the gay community, along with rogue judges, seek to force their will upon the people. The ever compelling Michael Medved recently expounded on those issues

article here

...and reject the preacher’s endorsement. What a shame! It’s moves like this that make it so tough for his conservative constituency to fully embrace him

blog here

the characters Jack Donaghy of "30 rock" (played by alec baldwin) and Dwight Schrute of "the office" are both conservative.

they have deep character flaws that are related to their being conservative.

conservatism is bad in the world of "30 rock" and "the office"; to be conservative is to be, on balance, a negative influence on the world.

the good thing is that both characters, even tho they are making things bad for all the other characters on the show, are interesting as characters.

it's a tribute to the writers that they can incorporate a few non-negative attributes into a conservative character. they at least acknowledge that conservatives aren't all bad.

donaghy is a conservative stereotype in that he is rich, greedy, arrogant, and self-serving.

as a comedic character, dwight is like homer simpson and maxwell smart in that he is a weird combo of idiotic and brilliant.

as a liberal's idea of a conservative, dwight is like the liberal's idea of george bush and ronald reagan -- not only greedy, arrogant, and self-serving, but also incredibly moronic.

in addition to dwight, a secondary character on "the office" (dwight's love interest, angela) is also conservative. as befits a secondary character, she's more two-dimensional. hollywood's idea of a conservative christian, angela, when she sees a female coworker wearing orange, remarks that the color orange is "whore-ish." later, when the same character is wearing green, she says that the color green is whore-ish.

maybe that's funny to liberals, but it's not an example of the best comedy-writing the writers of the show are capable of.

"30 rock" is funnier. but "30 rock" is also more blatantly liberal; at least once a show, there's a gratuitous cheap shot at conservatives. for example, in one show, tina fey makes fun of the way condi rice talks. that line had absolutely no relation to any other line in the scene. it was just put in there.

"the office" is more realistic; less like a stand-up comedy routine. if the writers make fun of conservatives, at least the comedy usually grows out of the characters.

it's widely known that villains are more interesting than heroes. and so, donaghy and dwight, while not the heroes, are the two most interesting characters in their respective shows.

--Swordfish

I recommend this 337-page novel for Democrats, liberals, atheists, and anti-Christians, especially those who like the movies “I am Legend” with Will Smith and “Cast Away” with Tom Hanks.

The story is told in the form of diary entries by the protagonist, Miranda, a normal 16-year-old girl living in a Pennsylvania suburb with her divorced mother, college-age brother Matt, and younger brother Jonny. The interesting premise is that an asteroid knocks the moon into a lower orbit, which in turn causes global disaster. The ensuing hardships toughen Miranda and her family and cause them to grow closer.

It’s too bad that the editor or publisher didn’t request a light rewrite to make the novel more palatable for Republicans, conservatives, and Christians (thereby broadening its appeal) because the author, while not as good as, say, Meg Cabot, is certainly good enough to do justice to the story’s promising premise.

In the remainder of this review, I’ll talk a little bit about the anti-Republican and anti-Christian parts of the novel. First I’ll mention the superficial anti-Republican parts, then the more substantive anti-Christian parts, and lastly I will briefly criticize the story’s conclusion, from a dramatic as well as an ideological standpoint.

There are spoilers below, so you might not want to read on if you intend to read this novel.

The anti-Republican Parts

On page 20, right after the asteroid hits the moon, CNN goes off the air:

         “Should I try Fox News?” I asked.

         Mom shuddered. “We’re not that desperate,” she said.

Miranda’s mother also doesn’t like President Bush. And the dialogue the author writes for Bush, though not too bad, rings false. On page 25, they’re watching TV:

        “Idiot,” Mom muttered, and she sounded so normal we all laughed.

On page 43 and 44:

        The president was on TV tonight. He didn’t say much that we didn’t already know. Tsunamis and floods. Untold numbers of people dead, the moon out of its orbit, etc. Monday is a national day of mourning, and we should all pray a lot.

        He did say, and he didn’t look too happy about it, that we needed to prepare ourselves for even worse. Jonny asked Mom what that could mean, but Mom said she didn’t know, but she guessed the president did only he didn’t want to tell us because he was an evil jerk.

        That was the first normal-sounding thing Mom’s said in days, and we all laughed.

On page 321, after being isolated for a while and not knowing what’s going on in the rest of the world, Miranda and her family get radio reception back:

        “In other news today, the president said the country has turned the corner. Better times are predicted for the weeks to come with life being back to normal by May.”

        “The idiot’s still alive!” Mom cried. “And he’s still an idiot!”

        We burst out laughing.

It would be easy to simply cut out these parts; the story would lose nothing and would instantly gain appeal for those who don’t dislike President Bush, not to mention those who like him.

The anti-Christian Theme

Because the anti-Christian parts are more intrinsic to the novel, the best thing to do would be to rewrite them; but cutting them out completely would hardly hurt the story.

The backstory of the anti-Christian sub-plot: Miranda’s best friends used to be Megan, Becky, and Sammi. By the time of the story, they’ve grown apart, not just because of the normal growing apart of friends, but also because Becky has died after an illness. This causes Megan, formerly Miranda’s best friend, to convert to Christianity, and Sammi to become promiscuous. Miranda, presented as the level-headed atheist, has stayed pretty much the same.

This backstory could have been developed into theme of how different people react to tragedy. Instead, the author develops it into a theme on the destructiveness of Christianity.

With a little re-writing, the novel could have presented arguments both for and against Christianity and let the reader read into it what he will.

Just as the author’s dialogue for President Bush rings false, so does the dialogue for Megan the Christian. But even more so. On page 53 and 54, Megan and Miranda talk about the disasters afflicting the earth:

        “This is the first time in a week that I’ve left Reverend Marshall,” she said. “We’ve been sleeping at the church, just getting an hour or two of sleep each day so we can keep praying. Isn’t it wonderful, what God is doing?”

*             *             *

        “What does your mom say about all this?” I asked. Megan’s mom used to like Reverend Marshall, but she’s never been as crazy about him as Megan.

        “She doesn’t understand,” Megan said. “She’s a good woman, really she is, but she lacks faith. I pray for her soul, just the way I pray for yours.”

        “Megan,” I said, like I was trying to grab the friend I’d loved for years and bring her back to reality. “There are no more hot lunches. Half the time there’s no electricity. I live five miles from school and gas costs nine dollars a gallon and we can’t use the pool anymore.”

        “Those are just earthly concerns,” Megan said. “Miranda, admit your sins and embrace Our Lord. You won’t care about hot lunches and the cost of gas in heaven.”

I could quote more passages like that, but you get the idea. The author doesn’t seem to know too many Christians (if any) and it shows in her characterization of them.

Later in the novel, Megan starves herself to death. Her mother, a single mother like Miranda’s own mother, hangs herself. When Miranda hears that Megan and her mother are dead, she visits Reverend Marshall, who is an even flatter character than Megan and who has even fewer redeeming qualities. On page 222:

        “You’re eating,” I said. “Your congregation is starving and you’re eating. Do you make them give you food?”

        “My congregation chooses to bring me food,” he said. “I merely accept what they offer.”

        “You’re despicable,” I said, and I don’t know which one of us was more surprised that I even knew the word. “I don’t believe in hell so I’m not going to say I hope you end up there. I hope you’re the last person living on earth. I hope the whole world dies before you and you’re left here healthy and well fed and alone. Then you’ll know what Mrs. Wayne felt. Then you’ll know what impure really is.”

        “I’ll pray for you,” he said. “As Megan would have wished me to.”

        “Don’t bother,” I said. “I don’t want any favors from your God.”

The politically correct conclusion to the story

Just as Miranda and her family, holed up in their home, are about to starve to death, the local government arrives with free food, and the promise of more to come. They’re saved. The end.

From a dramatic point of view, this is not that satisfying because it is a deus ex machina.

Also, if the novel didn’t have its anti-Republican and anti-Christian parts, this ending might be easier to take, deus ex machina or not. But in light of the anti-Republican and anti-Christian themes, the reader is much more apt to see this happy ending as politically liberal because it’s a government hand-out.

It’s not federal government welfare, because that would be giving President Bush some credit, which is something the author has demonstrated she doesn’t want to do.

And it’s not a Christian hand-out (such as the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities).

No. It’s secular welfare from the local government that saves the day.

--Swordfish