Todd Akin's Party: More Than 40 Republican Candidates Oppose Abortion In Cases Of Rape, Incest

My parents always said "stop when you are ahead."  Seems Republicans can't.

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) faced scorn and ridicule from members of his own party this week after expressing his belief that rape victims don't need to have access to abortion because "legitimate rape" rarely results in pregnancies. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, called his comments "wrong, offensive, and indefensible" and was just one in a chorus of Republicans calling on Akin to drop his U.S. Senate bid.

While many Republicans may not have used Akin's blunt wording, his sentiments are not unusual in the GOP. Just two days after he made his remarks, the party voted to incorporate strict anti-abortion language into its platform, with no exception for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.

So which is it?  Do Republicans "scorn and ridicule" his view or believe it?

There are more than 40 House and Senate candidates besides Akin -- including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the man who has been tapped as Mitt Romney's vice presidential running mate -- who want to ban abortion access even for women who have been victims of rape or incest.

Guess we have our answer.

In 2010, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle received a significant amount of national attention when she told young rape victims to make "a lemon situation into lemonade" -- the "lemon situation" being the rape, and the "lemonade" being giving birth to, and raising, the child. Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck stated, "I don't believe in the exceptions of rape or incest," and backed a constitutional ban on abortion.

Rotten lemons made for horrible lemonaide.  Seems the Republicans are rotten to the core.

Les Misérables –The Crime of Being Poor

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Inscription on the Statue of Liberty by Emma Lazarus.

The Statue of Liberty, perhaps the most iconic image of the United States of America, is a representation of Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, who strides forward, trampling a broken chain, and bearing a torch and a tabula ansata, a tablet evoking the law, upon which is inscribed the date of American independence. Designed by Frédéric Bartholdi and dedicated on October 28, 1886, the statue was a gift of the people of France.

The seven rays, which are a halo or aureole, evoke the sun, the seven seas, and the seven continents, and represent another means, besides the torch, whereby Liberty enlightens the world.

Sadly, Lady Liberty must be shedding tears.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Civil war? What does this mean? Is there any foreign war? Is not every war between men, war between brothers? War is modified only by its aim. There is neither foreign war, nor civil war; there is only unjust war and just war.

Today, Mitt Romney in introducing Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate, declared war on the poor, the LesMisérables.  Those who are deemed “The Miserable, The Wretched, The Poor Ones, The Wretched Poor, or The Victims.”  Wait, scratch “victims” because Romney/Ryan see them as only victims of their not trying harder.

Victor Hugo, the famous French novelist, perhaps addressed it best in his 1862 novel Les Misérables:

So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth, and complicates a destiny that is divine, with human fatality; so long as the three problems of the age—the degradation of man by poverty, the ruin of women by starvation, and the dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night—are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible; in other words, and from a yet more extended point of view, so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this cannot be useless.

____________________________________________________________________________________
“So long as there shall exist, by reason of  law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth…”

Welcome to 2012.

That Mitt Romney is a very rich man is a given.  That Mitt Romney understands the plight of average Americans is very much in doubt.

“I’m in this race because I care about Americans,” Romney told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien after his resounding victory in Florida. “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”

Mr. Romney says that his statement that "he does not worry about the poor" was taken out of context.  Yet reports show that Romney's tax plans would shift the burden of taxes toward the poor.  According to a recent survey by The Associated Press, the number of Americans living at or below the poverty line — now 16 percent — is at its highest point since President Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964.  Cleary we have not won this war.

“We’re accused, by the way — in our party — of being the party of the rich,” Romney said. “And it’s an awful moniker, because that’s just not true. We’re the party of people who want to get rich. And we’re also the party of people who want to care to help people from getting poor. We want to help the poor."

With help likes this who needs enemies?

A new ad from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney accuses President Obama of “gutting welfare reform.” According to an article by Joan Vennochi in opening this line of attack, Romney is resurrecting an old stereotype — the lazy, greedy welfare recipient, who will do anything to avoid honest employment — and reviving an old line of attack against Democrats as enablers.

Sister Campbell said “Recent advertisements and statements from the campaign of Governor Romney demonize families in poverty and reflect woeful ignorance about the challenges faced by tens of millions of American families in these tough economic times,” stated Sister Simone Campbell. “We are all God’s children and equal in God’s eyes. Efforts to divide us by class or score political points at the expense of the most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters reveal the worst side of our country’s politics.”

“He thinks they’re lazy,” Campbell said.

Franciscan Action Network (a group of Franciscan) spokesman Lonnie Ellis told The Huffington Post that what Romney is doing is "worse than ignoring" poor people. He said Romney is essentially criticizing President Barack Obama for helping out low-income individuals. "It's saying look, 'President Obama is actually supporting poor people too much, or he's just giving a free ride to poor people,'" Ellis said. "So it's actually using poor people in a really bad way."

_____________________________________________________________________________________
We see, like all new converts to a religion, his conversion intoxicated him, he plunged headlong into adhesion, and he went too far. His nature was such; once upon a descent it was almost impossible for him to hold back. Fanaticism for the sword took possession of him, and became complicated in his mind with enthusiasm for the idea.

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me," Romney said at a breakfast in New Hampshire.

Fellow Republican, Rick Perry, has said that Romney is "slightly out of touch with the economic realities."  Newt Gingrich characterized Romney’s actions at Bain Capital as "rich people figuring out pretty clever ways to loot a company," and has previously said Romney should give back the money he's earned from "bankrupting companies and laying off employees."

A-a recent report by the Wall Street Journal shows that 22 percent of the companies in which Bain invested either went bankrupt or shut down, and another eight percent lost all money Bain invested.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

He caught glimpses of everything, but saw nothing.

In a disturbing twist, Huffington Post reports that "Mitt Romney Started Bain Capital With Money From Families Tied To Death Squads."

_____________________________________________________________________________________

At a certain depth of distress, the poor, in their stupor, groan no longer over evil, and are no longer thankful for good.

The selection of Mr. Ryan, the chief architect of the Republican Party’s plan for tax and spending cuts and an advocate of reshaping the Medicare program of health insurance for retirees spells trouble for the poor.

Mr. Ryan has proposed sweeping changes in entitlement programs like Medicaid and Medicare, which insure more than 100 million people and whose costs account for more than one-fifth of the federal budget. Ryan’s budget plan would cut food, medical, education, and housing assistance from the neediest Americans. It would also transform Medicare from a guaranteed health insurance program, to a voucher plan that would hand government checks directly to for-profit insurance companies. The vouchers are designed to pay for only a portion of health care premiums, and does not contain any assurance that people with pre-existing conditions would even be able to find an insurance company willing to cover them.

When Representative Paul Ryan was 16 years old , tragedy struck his family. His 55 year old father had passed away from a heart attack. Young Paul Ryan found his father’s lifeless body and was burdened by the fact that he had to tell his mother and siblings of this horrible situation.

After his father’s passing, young Paul Ryan started collecting social security benefits until the age of 18 years old. He took this benefit and saved it for his college education. Representative Paul Ryan is one example of the millions of people whose lives have depended on our social contract with the American people. Without this benefit, his mother would have had to make even tougher decisions and Representative Paul Ryan may not have been able to pay for his college education. This social contract lifted him and his entire family out of a tough situation.

Hypocrisy?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
This brother... felt obliged to give alms to the poor whom he met, but never gave them anything more than coppers or worn-out sous, finding thus the means of going to Hell by the road to Paradise.

Not to be outdone, talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and conservative pundits are coming down hard on Romney’s point: that the poor have a safety net, “and if there are people that are falling through the cracks, I want to fix that.”

“The safety net is one of the biggest cultural problems we’ve got!” Limbaugh said. We had better be worried about it just like we had better get angry over Obamacare. Obamacare is worth getting mad about. Mitt said that it wasn’t. This biz, ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there’? Right, the safety net is contributing to the destruction of their humanity and their futures!"

Yes, Orwell would be proud. Limbaugh, a pseudo-spokesman for the Republican party, says that the very safety nets which Mitt Romney is not concerned about are the CAUSE of the destruction of the Les Misérables. Yes, providing food for the starving and shelter for the homeless is the reason “those people” are Les Misérables. Shame on us for not throwing them into the street so that they may better themselves.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Let us never fear robbers nor murderers. Those are dangers from without, petty dangers. Let us fear ourselves. Prejudices are the real robbers; vices are the real murderers. The great dangers lie within ourselves. What matters it what threatens our head or our purse! Let us think only of that which threatens our soul.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declared “The proposed cuts (by Representative Ryan) to programs in the budget reconciliation fail [the] basic moral test.”

In April 16 and April 17 letters to the House Agriculture Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee addressing cuts required by the budget resolution, Bishop Blaire said “The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.” Bishop Blaire also wrote that cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP- food stamps) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) will hurt hungry children, poor families, low-income workers and other vulnerable people. Additionally, he wrote that if cuts to the federal budget need to be made, savings should first be found in programs that target more affluent and powerful interests.

The truth is that his budget hurts those Jesus called the "least of these" in society and that is why so many religious leaders - including Roman Catholics - have blasted his budget proposals.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
How frightened hypocrisy hastens to defend itself.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) dismissed the concerns of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in an interview with Fox News on Thursday, after the powerful advocacy group criticized his budget for “failing to meet [the] moral criteria,” of protecting human dignity, prioritizing the needs of the hungry and homeless and promoting the common good. He also suggested that the criticism itself might not represent the Bishops’ consensus view — an insinuation the group directly rejects.

“These are not all the Catholic bishops, and we respectfully disagree,” Ryan said.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

It is a pity that I am ignorant, for I would quote you a crowd of things, but I don't know anything.

In a recent New Yorker profile, Ryan called Ayn Rand a key inspiration in his life. His coming-of-age moment featured Rand. Ryan went on to say that Rand's works are required reading for his staff. "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand," he went on to say. "And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."

Ayn Rand, an atheist and anti-religionist, is the heroine of the hyper-individualistic, anti-government wing of the Tea Party movement.

Faithful America has launched a campaign to encourage Ryan to put down the conservative writer Ayn Rand, who advocated selfishness, and pick up the Bible. The group said his budget plan “reflects Ayn Rand’s love of greed and contempt for the weak by giving huge tax breaks to millionaires while making deep and harmful cuts to programs that protect seniors, struggling families and the middle class.”

Sister Simone Campbell directs the group Network, organizers of a multi-state “Nuns On The Bus” tour by Catholic Sisters opposed to U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget. As the bus tour launched in Ames, Iowa, she said the Ryan budget hurts the poor while giving tax breaks to the rich – the so-called ‘job creators.’

[Sister Simone Campbell]: “Not only have I yet to see a job, I’ve yet to see any salary increases for folks who work so hard day in and day out. (Applause) But what I have seen are CEO salaries that continue to skyrocket. It’s shocking – that CEO’s would get an increase when the very people who create their wealth don’t. That’s wrong in a nation that holds itself out as a democracy of we, the people.”

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Not being heard is no reason for silence.

Catholic nuns have begun a bus tour to spread the word about what it means to be a Christian and how you cannot call yourself one if you support the Paul Ryan budget plan.

“It is one thing to have political differences, but to try to hide a budget that will devastate people and claim that it is supported by your faith is unacceptable. He is wrong and he needs to be told so,” Sister Simone Campbell told CNN.

In fact, the Ryan budget cuts focus squarely on programs that hurt the poor and help the rich, which is the exact opposite of the teaching of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Bible.

As ThinkProgress reported, NETWORK, a Catholic social justice advocacy group, has supported the national "Nuns On A Bus" tour, which is aimed at highlighting the negative effects of Ryan's proposed cuts, and invited Romney to spend a day with Catholic nuns helping the poor in their communities. _____________________________________________________________________________________

Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the grander view?

Keep the spirit of 24601 alive.

"Bully": Simply A Rite Of Passage? Hell No!

“Just kids being kids.”  "Just part of growing up.” “Just suck it up.”

Have you ever heard those words?

“Bully,” is the documentary by Lee Hirsch which addresses the tragedy of teenage children bullying other teens.  While bullying is often seen as physical abuse, the film shows that words are just as powerful.  Bully aims to show what teen bullying looks like in America, focusing on five families in Iowa, Oklahoma, Georgia and Mississippi, coping with bullying and the consequences of bullying.  And the consequences can be devastating, as shown by two of the families who lost their sons to suicide.

The movie comes at a time when “bullying,” long tolerated as a fact of life, is being redefined as a social problem.  Nevertheless, there are those who still respond (and critics who attack the film) that the issue is over-blown and that what is depicted is just part of growing up.  Ironically, that is the very heart of the film, which clearly demonstrates that unless we change our view that it is “just part of growing up,” we will have more children and their families who are forever changed by these acts of “kids being kids.”

Bully is a heartbreaking, moving, infuriating, and powerful film which is a must see for  those children in middle and high-school and their parents.  Bully will make you cry and make you angry.  Angry not so much at the bullies and the cruelty and tragic consequences of the bullying, but at the school administrators and other adults who turn a blind eye to the bullying and say “what can I do,” “just kids being kids,” and "just part of growing up.”  You are confronted by adults who empathize more with the bullies than the victims.  If that doesn’t make your blood boil, then you likely were a bully yourself.

Some have criticized the film for not focusing more on the bullies.  Aside from the difficulty of getting the parents of bullies to allow their children to be shown bullying, the broader message is that adults are as much of the problem as are the children.  Bully is really about the victims, their parents and the adults who let them down.

Just how blind can adults be?  The first parents we meet are Kirk and Laura Smalley from a small town in Oklahoma.  Their 11-year-old son, Ty, committed suicide due to bullying; which leaves behind devastated parents and a devoted best friend, but little if anything by those who should be there to protect him.  In Georgia, we are presented with a school superintendent that adamantly denies that bullying is a problem in her district, notwithstanding the suicide of Tyler Long, a 17-year-old student who took his life after enduring years of harassment and ostracism.

The heart of the movie Bully is 12-year-old Alex Libby; a gangly, awkward, yet innocent Sioux City, Iowa boy.  Before filmmaker Lee Hirsch began shooting the documentary "Bully," he walked into a school board meeting in Sioux City, Iowa, and asked for permission to film students and staff for a year while retaining full editorial control.

"We need to be in buses, classrooms, in the halls for one year," Hirsch recalls telling officials that evening in 2008. "And we're going to tell an honest story about what we find. And they agreed."

Bully documents the intensity of Alex's abuse, particularly on the bus.  Hirsch's cameras captured kids stabbing him with pencils, bashing his head into seats, and threatening to kill him.  Things got so outrageous and dire that Hirsch ultimately showed the more disturbing footage to staff members at Sioux City's East Middle School and to Alex's parents.

And if Alex is the heart of the film, then Kim Lockwood, the assistant principle at Alex’s school is the ultimate villain.  As depicted in film, Lockwood is one of many adults who do nothing in the face of blatant student harassment.  When a student at her school tells Lockwood that he had been getting death threats from other students, Lockwood didn’t offer counseling or any substantive resolution to the conflict.  Instead, she suggests that he shake hands with his tormentor and move on.  She goes so far as to criticize the victim of the abuse for not wanting to shake hands with his bully by saying “You’re just like him.”  The poor child shoots back, ‘Cept I don’t hurt people,” which simply falls on the deaf ears of Ms. Lockwood.  However audiences of the film are not silent and scream aloud at Ms. Lockwood.  I wanted to ask Ms. Lockwood if she had been raped, would she shake hands with her rapist?

Later, Ms. Lockwood goes so far as to blame the bullied students for not fixing the situation themselves.  That Ms. Lockwood doesn’t even pretend to take the parents’ complaints seriously, while on camera, just demonstrates how little she cares about addressing the issue of bullying.  Just how oblivious is she?  In a deeply disturbing and surreal scene in her office, Ms. Lockwood tries to empathize with Alex’s family when confronted with film showing Alex being brutally attacked while on a school bus, she responds that she had ridden on that particular bus route and that “Those kids are as good as gold.”  She then concludes by showing Alex’s parents pictures of her granddaughter and saying, “See my baby?”  “Who would want to hurt these Angels?”

At this point, moviegoers are left to gasp in horror and hoot with derision at Ms. Lockwood.  However much we might despise and hate Ms. Lockwood, the point is that she is not the only scapegoat.  Unfortunately, there are Kim Lockwoods in every school district across the country.  Denying that there is a problem or saying that you are powerless to stop it, are no longer acceptable excuses.  We must all expose and hold those accountable for allowing a culture of bullying to continue.

Bullying need not be a part of “just growing up.”  Children should not be forced to accept abuse and mistreatment as some sort of “coming of age ritual” and those adults who allow cruel and horrific treatment of children to continue must be punished.  As a pastor says in one poignant moment in the film: “If bartenders are responsible for their customers' intoxication, then why can't administrators be held accountable for bullying in their school?”

It reminds me of my own experiences in junior-high school where the “gym teacher” lined up kids and allowed the two “captains” to pick their team out of the assembled line-up until there was but one man standing.  Who could not see how cruel and devastating that is for those always chosen last?  And what kind of adult gets off on that power and allowing that to happen to kids?  When I told this story to a famous Hollywood agent and how shocked I was by this, he said “that is what decides who the winners and losers in life are.”  Needless to say I totally disagreed and think that it is that sort of attitude is which fosters and allows bullying to continue.  There are no winners when children abuse other children and adults stand by and do nothing.  Just ask the parents in the film.

Sarah Palin On Today Show – Is Someone Getting Used?

With much fanfare, NBC announced that, none other, than Sarah Palin would sit in as a co-host for NBC’s the Today Show. Yes, you read that right, the same network, who with Katie Couric, showed to the world some 4 years ago that Sarah Palin was of questionable talent to become Vice-President. In that infamous interview by Curric of Palin, Palin was at a loss to describe which newspapers she read in order to be informed as to world events. The fallout from that interview in large part doomed the McCain presidential run. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Following that interview it was widely reported that Sarah Palin felt as if she had been ambushed by NBC and was portrayed in an unfair light. Ms. Palin’s supporters expressed anger that NBC and the Today Show had tried to target Sarah Palin in order to “bring her down.” It also raised allegations of a “liberal media bias,” out to destroy Palin’s reputation.

So here we are April 2, 2012 (not April 1^st which could then be dismissed as an April fool’s joke) and Sarah Palin is returning to the scene of the crime to CO-HOST the Today Show. Again, this is not an April fool’s joke. Ms. Palin is to discuss the Wisconsin primary and join the Today Show’s panel to tackle the day's hot topics alongside Star Jones, Donnie Deutsch and Dr. Nancy Snyderman.

I am not a fan of Sarah Palin and her politics. I believe she is woefully underqualified to serve as Vice-President much less the role of Governor of the State of Alaska. Nevertheless, Palin has become a media super-star among her supporters and even haters. She has developed a very lucrative “brand” and commands hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaker’s fees, to address her adoring fans.

Then there is the Today Show. Morning “news shows” are a mix of general news stories and, for lack of a better term, “fluff.” It is meant to be entertaining and not as much a news broadcast; yet, there is still an element of reporting and news journalism.

So one must ask why would NBC and the Today Show invite Sarah Palin to co-host? Is it because Ms. Palin has important and probative information about the Republican Primary (here the answer seems clear that, yes she does have an important view-point as concerns the Republican election) and “other” news of the day; or, is it for the entertainment value of having Sarah Palin on the network in order to show what helped derail the Presidential bid of John McCain and her?

The answer may be more obvious than we think. On today’s Today Show, Sarah Palin called in about her guest appearance and Matt Lauer wasted no time in proving that Palin’s visit was nothing more than a garish and petty attempt to grab ratings.

"Are you reading some newspapers?" Matt asked, referencing her TV interview gaffe from 2008.

Palin, for her part, cracked up: "That's a fine 'How do you do,’" she said. "Here we go."

Clearly Ms. Palin does not feel as though she is being “trapped” now and has become part of the entertainment show. But in so doing, has NBC lost credibility and relegated the Today Show to simple circus theatre?

In an earlier article, Ms. Palin told Breitbart News: "We’re 'going rogue' (also the name of her Book) and infiltrating some turf for a day." For those not familiar, the term “going rogue” was attached to Ms. Palin during the presidential campaign by members of John McCain’s staff who felt that Sarah Palin would not listen to their advice and instead decided to do what Palin alone thought right (which became a book and HBO movie); which from a historical perspective is extraordinary as the Presidential nominee is the person who sets all agenda for the election. So Ms. Palin’s statement that she was “going rogue” is clearly advertisement and theatre to keep her “brand” alive.

Matt Lauer, not to let sleeping dogs lie, jokingly pressed Palin for an explanation of her “going rogue” statement, the former V.P. candidate was coy: "What do you think that means?" Palin said.

"You're taking over Matt's dressing room," Al Roker joked.

“Special guest” Meredith Vieira also joined in the comic routine with what can only be described as a condescending tone as to it all (doesn’t Meredith host a game show?).

So there, in those brief minutes, it is clear that NBC and the Today Show threw themselves in the gutter to garnish ratings. If anything, Sarah Palin comes out as the “better person” not only forgiving NBC and the Today Show for the incidents of 2008, but bettering them and showing that Sarah Palin has the “mystique” to draw a crowd.

It is often said it is NOT important who wins the battle, only who wins the war.

In this War, Sarah Palin has thus far proven the winner and NBC and the Today Show have shown they will wallow in pig’s shit if it will achieve a ratings boost. As “news-people????”, Matt and Vieira should be well aware of the saying: “If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.”

NBC needs to fumigate as they have sunk to a new low. And as to Sarah Palin (even though I am not a fan), I say bravo! Sarah, you are beating them at their own game.

Hunger Games –“May the odds be ever in your favor."

“Hunger Games” is the film version of Suzanne Collins' young-adult bestseller about a reality show that pits children (ages 12 to 18) as Gladiator against child Gladiator, in a deathly, survival-of-the-fittest “game” where only one survivor can win.

In her book “Hunger Games,” Collins presents a dystopian society called “Panem” comprised of “haves” and “have nots,” where the majority are alienated and individualism is restricted by the government, drawing similarity to the arguments about the 99%ers to 1%ers of today.  Collins says that she developed the idea from the myth of Theseus where kids were sent to die by a cruel dictator, from the Roman gladiators fighting to the death in the arena, and from being astonished at how people were willing to degrade themselves in TV reality shows.  Panem and the “Games” are presented as a society repressed and controlled by the state, under the guise of being a utopian society.

Every year on Reaping Day, a boy and a girl (ages 12 to 18) from each district are chosen by lottery to fight to the death in a televised gladiator event devised by head Games-maker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley, from “American Beauty” ), sporting the coolest beard you have ever seen shaped like a crown.  "The Games" were invented by the Capitol of Panem (formerly North America) for the 12 districts whose rebellion against the Capitol rule was crushed more than 74 years ago.  The Capitol is filmed as a “modern-day” city of high rises and cold-concrete buildings where the ruling class live a pampered life of all the finest that is offered.  Napoleonic (originally Greco-Roman) furniture intermixed with contemporary crystal chandeliers add a sense of privilege showing  the images of the Capital (capitalist??) as a people of “haves” that enjoy their daily lives, to be entertained once a year by the Games.  Adding to this sense of entitlement, the residents of the Capital are dressed in modern-day versions of the Court of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, with their blue wig-coiffed hair and white blush.  The Capital reeks of decadence and wealth.

Juxtaposed with the opulence of the Capital are the 12 Districts, where poverty and subservience are the norm.  We are introduced to District 12, a coal mining District where the 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), hunts for scraps to feed her sister and her widowed mother.  Residents of District 12 dress in drab greys and do not have enough even to feed themselves.  They are “guarded” by “peacekeepers” dressed in all white much like that in “Star Wars,” who seem in total modern/futuristic contrast to their downtrodden subjects.  It is also a startling resemblance to the police who have put on “riot-gear” to arrest members of OWS and, most recently, George Clooney during his protest over Sudan.

In each of the Districts, watching the Gamers is not an option as it is mandated by the Capital.  We are introduced to Katniss, the renegade hunter who kills with a bow and arrow.  Lawrence, 21, who plays Katniss Everdeen, is an acting dynamo with the skills to let us into Katniss' searching mind. Last year, Lawrence won an Oscar nomination for playing an Ozark girl in "Winter's Bone”.  She dominates the screen and presents a performance that is again Oscar worthy.

During the introduction to the Games where the Tributes (that's what contenders are called) are chosen, Katniss is presented with the moral dilemma of her younger sister being picked as a Tribute for the games.  Rather than let her die, Katniss stands up to take the place of her younger sister in the deadly Games.  In just those first scenes, Lawrence reveals a physical and emotional grace that is astonishing.

Katniss is first shown hunting in the wild forest with her fellow illegal hunter Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth, "The Last Song," with girlfriend Miley Cyrus).  He is a handsome young boy from her District 12, a hunk, with whom she has grown-up.  Hemsworth quickly establishes a strong and appealing Romeo to Lawrence’s Juliet.

She is then paired, for the Games, with, the baker's son, Petta (Josh Hutcherson, "The Kids Are All Right"), a boy who must quickly grow up to be a man.  It is revealed that he has secretly pinned for Katniss most of his life, thus setting up a love triangle with Hemsworth’s Gale.

What sets Hunger Games apart from other movies of the genre is the incredible acting.  In addition to Lawrence, Hutcherson and Hemsworth, the rest of the cast is brilliant.

Stanley Tucci (who needs no introduction), who is always brilliant, is Caesar Flickerman, the reality-TV host, who represents the dark side of Ryan Seacrest in the Game’s lethal version of "American Idol."  He is a demented host of the “Price is Right”  takes on Gladiator.  In his blue-coiffed wig, he is both circus master and salesman.

Elizabeth Banks (nearly unrecognizable, from Zack and Miri Make a Porno amongst many others), in a turn as High-School Principal turned “Freddy” from “Halloween”, brings a malicious wit to the bewigged and powdered PR guru Effie Trinket.  "May the odds be ever in your favor," announces Effie with total, and careless sincerity (which, in such a god-less, atheist society, eerily reminds one of the phrase "may God be with you").

In a stellar performance, Woody Harrelson (wearing the best California Hippie wig ever and coming off a fantastic performance in "Game Change") is the drunkard, Haymitch Abernathy, a former victor in the Games now acting as mentor to both Katniss and Peeta.  Haymitch is presented as the troubled victor who is the key to any chance of survival by Kitness and Petta, when he's not falling-down drunk.  In a perfect turn on the 99% vs. 1%, Haymitch instructs his protégés that they must ingratiate themselves to rich sponsors in the Capita, so that during the Games they may receive supplies and medicine as a Tribute wins audience favor.

In a turn of “The Swan” meets “Mad Max’, each of the Tributes is given a fashionista stylist to package and brand their warrior's image and veneer.  Katniss and Petta are “remade” as a his and her “Mercury” by “Cinna (Lenny Kravitz in a great cameo) with flames on fire riding into the Games of a chariot.  For her “beauty-pageant” style question and answer, Cinna , in order to have Katniss stand-out from the other Tributes, creates a dress that bursts into flame at the hem, making Katniss a “favorite” of the crowds.  Mixing beauty with the beast, Katniss is then shown in a test of skill, where, with her bow, she is a modern day Joan of Arc, with her determination and skill.

Finally the stage is set with the “overlord”, the President of Panem , President Snow (masterfully played by Donald Sutherland, who is frightening in his cold-evil).  His cry of "You screwed us, so we'll screw you” sets the perfect anthem for this dystopian society where good has been replaced by evil.  It is truly a “bad place” as is derived from the Greek origin of the word dystopian.

In the vein of today’s reality-celebrity, the Tributes must also learn to play and pander to the cameras.  Formerly shy and somewhat introverted, Katniss is forced to become a smiling Kim Kardashian plying for Sponsor’s attention.  In this false reality one is left to question whether Katniss’s and Petta’s actions are real or fake.  Is Katniss really falling for Peeta as she nurses his wounds, or is she faking it to save them both?

The movie is masterfully shot by Tom Stern ("Mystic River") with the scenes dramatically changing from the dark mining of District 12, to the Marie Antoinette opulence of the Capitol; only to be transported to the stark and brutal landscape of the battle zone.

At 142 minutes, "The Hunger Games" can go from fast paced to dragging; however, director Gary Ross ("Pleasantville," "Seabiscuit") does a good job of keeping the movie true to the book.

“Hunger Games” the movie, which opened on March 23, 2012, is already a huge financial success; yet, is fraught with controversy.  Is the movie original or just a take-off on other movies/books (Battle Royale, 1984, etc.)?  Is the subject matter (children killing other children) appropriate for children?  Do the premises glorify violence and desensitize children to violence?  And, of course, does the movie live up to the book?

While one could debate these points ad nauseum, such debate overlooks the merits of the story in and of itself and disregards the film without commenting upon the cinematic quality of what is presented.  Without belaboring such criticism I would suggest that (acknowledging that I may never convince people who differ):

Is the movie original or just a take-off on other movies/books (Battle Royale, 1984, etc.)?  Many authors borrow heavily from other works and it is fine. Imagine if Lerner and Lowe had tried to sell My Fair Lady as a wholly original work without acknowledging that it was an adaptation of G.B. Shaw's Pygmallion which itself is an adaptation of a Greekmyth.  Julia Roberts’ Pretty Woman was another adaptation.  Even Romeo and Juliet is just another version of Pyramus and Thisbe.

Is the subject matter (children killing other children) appropriate for children?  Do the premises glorify violence and desensitize children to violence?  The story involves violence, children killing children, so is not appropriate for everyone.  Nevertheless, the overall theme of “good” versus “evil” is a strong lesson for today.  It is a “1984” for 2012.

Does the movie live up to the book?  It is always difficult to compare books with movies, as seldom do readers find a movie “better” than the book.  When reading a book, we make our own visual interpretation of the written word, whereas in a movie, the film-makers present their interpretation of such book.  The question should more properly be framed as “whether the movie lives up to book?”  I will let you be the final judge.

Growing Pains - Kirk Cameron Still Has A Lot Of Growing To Do

Napoleon once said: "La religion est ce qui empêche les pauvres de tuer les riches" (Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich).

In other words, religion is for those who “drink the Kool-Aid” (and we all know how that ended for the followers of members of the Peoples Temple in the November 1978 Jonestown Massacre).

Not to be deterred, '80s sitcom star turned religious activist Kirk Cameron is isn't shy about sharing his feelings about religion, specifically Homosexuality.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

During the now infamous interview with Piers Morgan the "Growing Pains" "heartthrob" who transitioned from a "teen-idol" "in Hollywood and became a devoted follower of Jesus Christ in the middle of [his] career" explained that he believes homosexuality is "unnatural... I think that it's detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

So homosexuals are unnatural (notwithstanding that homosexuality has been around since “Adam and Steve”) and homosexuality is “destructive to … civilization?”

You have to ask why he would condemn a group of people and call them destructive.  It seems a harsh judgment (“Judge not least you be judged?”) which subjects a subset of Americans to attacks and personal hatred for simply being who they are.  So why?

Cameron: “I'm a Bible-believing Christian.”  ...  "Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part.” (Let's not forget that talking snake!)

But of course; the Bible.  But I am confused as to which portions of the Bible he "believes?"  The only provision of the bible which addresses Homosexuality is in the Old Testament; (Leviticus 18:22); yet, he doesn't seem to follow many of the other provisions of the Old Testament.

Does he condemn himself for not wearing all white clothes (Ecclesiastes 9:8: “Let your garments be always white.”)?  And he clearly doesn't have a beard (Leviticus 19:27 states: "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard").  So is he just picking and choosing which rules he likes and which ones he doesn't?  Click HERE for more on The Guide For Going To Hell For Kirk and Other Christians!

Maybe he self-flagellated after the show to make up for his condemnations (Matthew 7:12 “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”).
The real reason he was on the “talk-shows” was to sell his new movie. Yes money! He wants to make money and is schlepping his new movie. He has gone from selling a goofy character in a 80's situation comedy to now selling "GOD."

Isn’t it interesting that his discovery of “faith” was at the same time he failed as an actor in Hollywood.  He claims that at 17 he was an atheist (I wonder if at 17 he actually believed he was an Atheist and understood what that meant, or whether he simply says that he was so that he can "put down" Atheist for knowing less than he now knows and believes).

In a recent interview with Ramin Setoodeh (a senior writer at Newsweek), Mr. Cameron tells Ramin Setoodeh why Morgan was ‘insensitive’ and ‘heartless’ and how he really feels about gay people (of course he loves all people).  There he goes once again, judging (Morgan) and calling him names.  Not very biblical.  So what does he tell Ramin when he asks Cameron why Cameron thinks that he is a sinner at 17 and whether he was promiscuous?

"GOP's new POSTER BOY
for HATE AGENDA." (He looks very tough.)

"No. I think God was saving me from a lot of trouble, without me even knowing it, which was really cool. It was like helping someone who doesn’t even acknowledge your existence. I think my biggest problem was as a celebrity on a TV show, you get an inflated ego and you think you’re the center of the universe."

I think it is “really cool” how “God” wanted to keep the washed up sit-com star out of trouble.  And as for the “ego,” it seems alive and well (hawking his book on all the network shows, including Piers and the Today Show).  Also, Cameron speaks of how “he knows,” and how “God” has spoken to him. 

For his part, Piers Morgan has clarified why he objects to what Cameron said.  In a tweet, Piers Morgan said:

@piersmorgan  Re #KirkCameron, I respect his religious beliefs - just don't respect his use of bigoted, inflammatory language re homosexuality. End.

I agree with Piers.  Not simply did Cameron say that he objected to homosexuality because of his religious believes, he went on to condemn them and blame them for causing the destruction of society.

Perhaps he should re-read his bible.  Psalms 34:13: "Keep your tongue from evil …"

In Hebrew, evil tongue is called Lashon hara, and rabbis compare it to murder.  And as Paul said in Ephesians 4:29: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only which is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”

Cameron has stated that he believes that the Piers Morgan show was not the proper forum to discuss such issues; yet, Cameron did not hesitate to use such hate-filled words.  Maybe he should read Ephesians 4:29.

What is more destructive is a "celebrity poster boy" spreading archaic words from multiple different books written thousands of years ago and emphatically stating that it (the Bible) is the word of "God" and those that don't believe as does he are "unnatural" and responsible for the destruction of civilization.  Who anointed Kirk "God?"

It is a long road from being a teenage "poster boy" to becoming the poster boy for God-fearing Christians, but Mr. Cameron still has some growing pains.

The Guide For Going To Hell For Christians!

I am not a biblical scholar and do not profess to be one.  Nevertheless, I am always confounded by many Christians who are more than happy to tell me I am going to hell because “I don’t believe.”  So many are ready to judge others and condemn them to hell, without really looking at their own behavior.

What happened to judge not least you be judged (For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Matthew 4.24)?

Yes I know, many “Christians” have an answer for that too:

Cor. 6:2-3 Do you not know that the saints [the saved; Christians] will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Prov. 3:21 My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight;

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement

Jer. 22:3 Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness...

Phil. 1:10 so that you may be able to discern [judge] what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ...

Phil. 1:7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you [judge you]...

Darn, I have barely gotten started and I don't know whether judging is right or wrong?  Isn’t it all so confusing?  I mean, here the Bible says one thing, here it says another?  What does it mean?  I guess to be safe, just don't violate any rules.

And, then you have to ask yourself which version of the Bible do you mean?  Old Testament; New Testament?

Even more confusing did you know about The First Council of Nicaea?

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.  The council also promulgated twenty new church laws, called canons, (though the exact number is subject to debate), that is, unchanging rules of discipline (it included a prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days after Easter).

I was reared Catholic and we kneeled.  Are all Catholics going to hell?

Some argue that Christianity consisted of many sects and that Constantine (The Great) by converting the Paul heresy triumphed as the concept of trinity and the ending of the Mosaic law (which made swine flesh permissible) brought this version of Christianity very close to the Hellenic paganism that was practiced in Rome and Greece. At Nicea Constantine had 300 versions of the Bible burnt, thus legitimising and patronizing only the Paulic heresy.

So which is it? Do we read just the New Testament and/or the Old Testament?(Matt 5:18: For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law (the TORAH, including Leviticus) until all is accomplished).

For you “Conservative/Born Again Christians,”I would point out that when claiming that the Bible forbids homosexuality, most people point to Leviticus 18:22 which reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."  OLD TESTAMENT.  Darn, I guess all those Christians that say the Old Testament doesn't apply to them, must have no objection to Same Sex Marriage!

Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to do it when you had Jesus there, in front of you?  That way you could ask for clarification of the rules.  Did Constantine just pick and choose what went into the Bible?

Since we can't ask Jesus, what should we do?  To be safe, let's just try and avoid violating as many rules as possible.  Luckily for you, our guide includes things that are forbidden in all three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

But others have argued that the passage is merely one of many archaic religious laws that are no longer relevant to today's modern times and do not need to be upheld.

So, let’s look at our guide to going to hell.

********************************************

Let's start out easily on what we can do!!

A hot topic today among the GOP is whether President Obama is trying to establish a class/racial war.  Don’t you worry about that. 

Leviticus 25:44 states that; I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.

I think that explains a lot of why the GOP wants to “control the border;” so that they may properly process their slaves.  A friend of mine claims that applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Why can't I own Canadians?

Newt Gingrich has been talking a lot lately about being able to put children to work; you know, get rid of those pesky child labor laws.  Don’t worry, that will not send you to hell.

Exodus 21 provides that: I may sell my daughter into slavery.

My cousin asked me what might be a fair price for his daughter.  What do you think?

********************************************

Now let's move on to those "abominations" that will damn you to HELL!

Tattoos are also all the rage these days.  Thinking of getting a sweet little rose tattoo where “no one can see it?”

Leviticus 19:28 states: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Off to have your hair done

Leviticus 19:27 states: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

My girlfriend really gets this one!  She wants to kill her hair-dresser when he messes up.  Now she can!  Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden in Lev.19:27.  How should they die?

INow for us guys.  What is the worst thing most guys can imagine?  Yes it involves their "man-hood."  It's bad enough if you're a man who has had his private parts injured -- or heaven forbid cut off -- but to add insult to injury.

Deuteronomy 23:1 states: He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

How do circumcised men enter into the "congregation of the Lord" when Deuteronomy 23:1 forbids it?

Have you ever had your palm read? Or maybe you've consulted your horoscope for a little guidance?

Leviticus 19:31 reads:  Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

My friend believes in numerology.  Is that exempt? 
Writing the horoscope should be easy: "Read this and you will burn in hell!"  My newspaper has the horoscope in it, must I burn the newspaper as heresy?

Heard some juicy news about Harold in the accounting department? Can't wait to tell your BFF that you just read that Snooki is pregnant?

Leviticus 19:16 states: Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.

Gentlemen -- if you ever get in a fight and you get the feeling your lady might jump in and lend you a hand by squeezing your opponent's... ahem... "secrets," you'd better stop her.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 states: When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Almost Easter.  We use to have delicious hams at Easter.

Leviticus 11:7-8 reads:   And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.  Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

May I still play football if I wear gloves?

Kids these days -- you never know what's going to come out of their mouths!  But hopefully your child doesn't curse you.

Exodus 21:17 states:  "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

When it comes to the Bible, this is a big no-no.

Mark 10:11-12 states:  Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich must surely be going to hell; seven wives between them.  And they complain about Mormons having multiple wives.  Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).

My friend is always complaining that her boss makes her work late every night and sometimes on weekends.

Exodus 31:14-15 states:  "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Next time her boss tells her to work over-time, I suggested she cut off his manhood (instead of putting him to death).   That way he will burn in hell and be without his manhood.

Headed to church, ladies?

Corinthians 14:34-35 states:  Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Does this apply to nuns or are they exempt too?  I had a mean nun as a teacher.  I am sure she is burning.

Craving a big bowl of popcorn shrimp or lobster salad?

Leviticus 10-11 states:  And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:  They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Does that mean that all of the congregation of the church in my neighborhood that is advertising a "cat-fish" fry are going to hell?

And let’s not forget Rick Santorum, who must just love Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states:  But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Is there a limit on the size or number of the stones?  What if she doesn’t live with her parents, is it okay to pull her from her apartment?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have any defect in my sight.

My friend wears contacts, does that count?

My uncle has a farm.  He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).

My girlfriend also gets this one.  Nothing bothers her more than when people dress poorly, she calls them "fashion sitations."  Who know those sitations meant that those people would burn in hell too!

My neighbor tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.  Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 25:10-16).

********************************************

Why do I feel like I just read Santorum's campaign platform?

Are we all doomed?  Well, luckily if you are Catholic there is a way out!!!!!

No matter how horrible you are, you can do anything anytime you want; IF, you just pray after and ask for forgiveness.  Then amazingly you are forgiven.  So the “Golden Rule” is just don’t die unexpectedly, that way you can do whatever the “HELL” you want and just ask to be forgiven latter.

Sounds like the perfect "get out of jail free" card.  That is a rule I could live with.