Friday, March 16, 2007

The Problem with Firing the Prosecutors

I don't know how long I can stand the media anymore. I get sick at looking at all this coverage about the firing of the 8 attorneys. It's just mind-boggling, I can't understand it. So people, you mentally disabled losers at NY Times, CNN, CBS, LA Times and so on: US attorneys are named by the President, they are employee of the federal government, and they can be fired at will! Bill Clinton fired ALL 95 US Attorneys in 1993 (the reason? one attorney was investigating a crook, good friend of the Clintons) ! So the only 2 problems I see here are:
  1. Why only 8?
  2. Why so late, in the 6th year of his presidency??
The US attorneys have been a disgrace since Bush took over the White House. THEY SHOULD ALL GO!

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Is 300 a Conservative Movie? No. Illiberal? Yes

There were some discussions about whether the new movie 300 is an attack on Bush's militarism? Or is it in support of it? So why do every war movie have to have a political message? Maybe it's just a simple historical movie with awesome CG graphics. The answer to "Is it a conservative movie"? is a simple NO. Why? Because if it were, it couldn't have been made in Hollywood. But what it is for sure, it's an illiberal movie. Our friends at Libertas clearly explained why it is illiberal: 300 is about bravery, freedom, honor, and country. These are universal themes. But universal themes that will offend liberals because they’re not defended in a PC fashion. Liberals believe bravery is being brave enough to kiss despot hiney in the corrupt UN. Liberals believe freedom is porn in school libraries. Liberals believe honor is leaking national security secrets to the New York Times. Liberals believe ”country” is about everybodys counry but ours, so it’s okay to give mass murderers autographed basketballs and ask them to dance. The men in 300 believe they are good, their families are good, their country is good, and worth dying and fighting for. Now, that is not a conservative value. But it is an illiberal one.

Now the best take on 300 that I found is the article on National Review. David Kahane hits a lot of right notes about the movie. Among them: When, early in the film, a sneering Persian emissary insults King Leonidas’s wife, threatens the kingdom, and rages about blasphemy, the king kicks him down a bottomless well. And yet nobody in Sparta asks, “Why do they hate us?” and seeks to find common ground with the Persians on their doorstep. The Spartans mock the god-king Xerxes (whose traveling throne resembles a particularly louche Brazilian gay-pride carnival float), mow down his armored “immortal” holy warriors and generally give their last full measure to defend Greek civilization against superstition and tyranny. Where are the liberal Spartan voices raised in protest against this blatant homophobia, xenophobia, and racism?

After seeing the movie, I found out it has a lot of other anti-liberal themes. Mocking the metrosexual fags, like Mr. Kahane said, is one of them. Going to a pre-emptive war to face the enemy away from home is another one. Reminds me of a team sports principle, that offense is the best defense. But aside from this, it was a great movie, and anybody who liked Lord of the Rings, Gladiator or even Kill Bill should like it.

Friday, March 9, 2007

Again on the "net neutrality" nonsense

There was an interesting article in NRO today about the Net-Neutrality Nonsense. With Dems in power, we could have expected the rebirth of this socialist idea, which is clearly against free markets and technological development. But you know, Dems are back in Congress, and there main economical philosophy is to regulate everything that moves. As Dena battle says in her closing remarks: If you want the Internet to both grow and grow faster, leave it to the private sector. If you want to keep it equal and equally slow, bring in the government to regulate it.