Taste My Squirrelly Wrath!

Jane Fonda is at it again. This time she’s traveling across the country on a bus in the hopes of ushering an end to the Iraqi occupation. Now opposition to the war is one thing, but what Fonda is asking is that we abandon the people of Iraq, leave them to fend for themselves, and embolden the terrorists who share Fonda’s vision of an unoccupied Iraq. President Bush was absolutely right when he said in his last State of the Union address that setting a timetable for leaving Iraq “would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out.”

But tell that to Jane Fonda.

Fonda has apologized numerous times for her conduct in Vietnam over thirty years ago, and one might give her the benefit of the doubt, assuming it was merely an ignorant youthful error to entertain and encourage the enemy. But Jane Fonda isn’t a kid anymore. Even if she doesn’t have a Ph.D in political science, she should realize the foolishness of her pursuit. Yes, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and yes, many people have died, but what on Earth does she hope to accomplish by protesting a war that has already been fought? Where was her bus and entourage when Colin Powell was making his case before the United Nations, BEFORE the war began? All she can hope to accomplish now is securing an abandonment of the Iraqi people (if you think the rest of the world hates us now...).

I thought about how I’d like to ask Fonda myself what she hopes to accomplish, but then I remembered, Jane Fonda is a celebrity, and celebrities are known for their leftist political activism. Jane Fonda will continue to be Jane Fonda, Robert Redford will continue to be Robert Redford, and Danny Glover will continue to make no sense at all. When I saw images of Jody Foster at the premier of Fahrenheit 911, I thought (quite cruelly) to myself, ‘Is she trying to get another president shot?’ That one is in bad taste, I know, but it remains a curious thing why such a large number of famous celebrities are involved in liberal activism.

As always, I have a theory.

Hollywood is quite a Darwinian environment. You will never find a place more loyal to the concept of “survival of the fittest.” In short, Hollywood isn’t exactly a cozy environment for social conservatives. Hollywood’s ten highest paid actresses are all sex symbols (Julia Roberts, Cameron Diaz, Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon, Drew Barrymore, Halle Berry, Angelina Jolie, Sandra Bullock, Renee Zellweger and Jennifer Lopez), all of whom have done nude scenes (sometimes research is fun), with the exception of Renee Zellweger, who has nonetheless done simulated sex scenes and once worked as a bartender in a strip club.

Now let’s look at a few successful male actors. Can you think of one highly paid actor today who has done strictly PG material? I can’t think of any, but I can think of a few who resist the Hollywood debauchery and can’t get good acting jobs to save their lives. Take, for instance, Chuck Norris. For over a decade, Chuck Norris was one of the ultimate action heroes, right up there with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. In the 90’s, however, Chuck Norris had a spiritual transformation and became a committed Christian. Now when is the last time you have seen Chuck Norris in ANYTHING? Then of course there is Mel Gibson, formerly one of the most in-demand actors in Hollywood, now the scourge of the Hollywood elite.

So what’s the point?

The most successful actors are the most flexible actors; those willing to take on different types of roles and be “open-minded.” This presents a problem for social conservatives, who are more often unwilling to strip down for the camera or dance around saying, “Do I make you horny, baby?” I don’t like to use the word sellout, but unfortunately the road to success in Hollywood is paved with compromise. And it isn’t just Hollywood. It is the entertainment industry in general. Just look at the evolution of Britney Spears, America’s favorite “virgin.” Bob Saget was once America’s favorite wholesome TV dad; now the only acting work he can get is in raunchy cameos in films like Dumb & Dumberer and Half Baked (remember, he was the guy who infamously became known for the line, “I suck d*** for coke”). Even the Family Channel, which was once evangelist Pat Robertson’s safe TV haven for audiences young and old, is now laden with sexually explicit shows like “Wildfire” and syndicated episodes of “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” and “Gilmore Girls.”

And what about Hollywood’s famed conservatives? Well, most of them are liberal. I know it sounds like an oxymoron, but that’s why I specifically used the term “social conservative” in the previous paragraph. Most of the people in Hollywood often cited as conservative, people like Tom Selleck, Clint Eastwood, Drew Carey and Kurt Russell, are in fact libertarian. So you see, even the conservatives in Hollywood aren’t conservative. The only exceptions I can think of offhand are Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and Bo Derek, who often stand up for neoconservative values. I’m sure there are others, but they are in short supply. Simply put, liberals have an easier time surviving in Hollywood because Hollywood is a place of liberal demands, just as giraffes survive in environments with tall trees because of their long necks suited for eating the leaves high above.

Survival of the fittest.

The question remains, however, if there are varying degrees of liberalism, why does all the activism in Hollywood seem to be leftist? Well for one thing, the libertarians and conservatives (despite their growing numbers) are still vastly outnumbered. As I mentioned before, most of the rightists in Hollywood are libertarian, and liberals already outnumber libertarians in general, and by vast margins. But despite the minority status of the libertarians in Hollywood, they do at times involve themselves in activism. It just isn’t always as heavily reported as the leftist rallying. Tom Selleck is an avid 2nd amendment advocate, for instance, and former MTV VJ Kennedy often speaks out about her libertarian views. And did someone say Arnold Schwarzenegger?

I’m not saying that liberals and libertarians are, by nature, immoral. I myself am of the libertarian persuasion and try to maintain the moral decency with which I was raised, but some degree of liberalism is nevertheless a necessary prerequisite for the demands of a successful acting career. Even the most committed moralists have to compromise to stay on top, as demonstrated by Natalie Portman, who performed semi-nude in the film Closer after declaring numerous times that she would never exploit herself physically on film.

There are other theories about the Hollywood slant as well. Some have speculated geographic influences, since many celebrities hail from liberal states like California and New York, and I am sure there is some validity to that. Conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham theorized in her book, Shut Up and Sing! that many celebrities feel, based on their own struggles to break into the business, that success is based on luck, and therefore big government is necessary to ensure everyone has their fair share. I am sure there is some validity to that as well. By and large, though, I think it’s a big Darwinian rat race. A young girl moves to LA from the Midwest with stars in her eyes, willing to do ANYTHING to make it big, and soon becomes immersed in a community surrounded by people who have already done anything and everything. Either she becomes one of them, or she makes a living doing Burger King commercials.

Nobody said it was easy.

Who Is the Left Inspiring?



Have you shown your appreciation to your favorite political pundit lately? One year ago, the minds behind windsofchange.net showed their appreciation for journalist Christopher Hitchens by launching “Operation ‘Buy Hitchens A Drink.’” I thought it was a rather neat idea, which entailed collecting PayPal donations to buy Hitchens bottles of Johnnie Walker Red Whiskey along with a letter of appreciation including the names of all those who contributed. Hitchens, ever the philanthropist, requested that the money earned ($650) be donated to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.

I personally admire Hitchens very much, and had I known about the campaign when it was going on, I think I would have contributed a few dollars. I found out about it only this week while surfing around hitchensweb.com, and it led me to consider the following question: Do liberals inspire anything positive? I don’t mean that as a smear against Hitchens (a liberal war supporter), as he is my favorite journalist out there today, nor do I intend it as a smear against liberals in general (though I am certain that many liberals will call this a smear article), but it illustrates one key difference between right-wing and left-wing commentators.

Larry Elder the other day received a call on his radio show from a young black man claiming that Larry was his hero and had changed his life. Rush Limbaugh (whatever you may think of him) frequently receives calls from listeners saying variations of, “Thank you for inspiring me to stop relying on the government and make something of my life.” I can identify with these callers, because I too have been inspired by the conservative message of self-reliance.

Case in point: When I began attending college in 2001, I accepted large amounts of federal financial aid without giving a thought to where it came from. I lived off campus and things were expensive, and so I felt that my use of taxpayer funds was justified, even though I slacked off that entire first year anyway. These days I rely entirely on student loans to pay for my tuition and books, and I have made the decision to remain with relatives while I finish my education, because I recognize now that it is not the government’s responsibility to keep me in a luxury apartment ten feet from campus. Of course there is still the temptation to apply for Cal Grants and other entitlements, especially since I don’t pay rent and could use the money for pretty much whatever I wanted, but the conservative and libertarian commentators have helped me to realize that that is wrong (and if you aren’t already aware, you should know that millions of college students are using your tax dollars to buy ipods and designer hubcaps). In other words, they have inspired me to stop using the government and start demonstrating some self-respect.

But who is the left inspiring? Or more importantly, WHAT are they inspiring? Most responsible liberals would agree that it is wrong to take money from the government without a sincere need for it, but unfortunately their message does not inspire individual responsibility in the matter. Left-wing ideology insists that women are oppressed, minorities are underrepresented, working class citizens are exploited, and basically that most of our problems are the result of societal imperfections. In other words, you are a victim. If you can’t support your family, it’s a minimum wage problem (as long as you understand that when we raise the minimum wage for you, thousands of other people will lose their jobs); if you didn’t get accepted to Stanford, it’s because you’re black and grew up in a poor learning environment (even though Asians from impoverished backgrounds manage to excel far above the rest of us); or, if you are a woman who just lost a promotion to a man, don’t bother working harder for next time. Just blame sexist hiring practices! I could give hundreds of examples, but I think the point has been made. While it is important to address injustices where they exist, the leftist ideology is, by nature, uninspiring.

If we are made to believe that society is unfair and the cards are stacked against us, why should we bother trying to better ourselves? Why not steal money from the federal government if that government is just trying to screw us anyway? If Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy and Gloria Steinem are right, then there really is no point in believing in ourselves for success, because the game is rigged. I call it political predestination, the only solution to which is governmental action.

Liberals would argue that their intention is not to polarize people but to create opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach. This was a pivotal theme at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and it is certainly a noble goal, but noble does not always equal effective, nor does it necessarily equal wise. These things are debatable, but I personally just don’t see the inspiration in being told that I need the government’s help to succeed in life.

Sometimes the road to success is paved with tough love. When Bill Cosby scolded the black community for what he sees as a lack of proactive parenting, many civil rights activists became upset. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson even wrote a book about it, called “Is Bill Cosby Right?” in which he criticizes Cosby for being overly critical and failing to take difficult social circumstances into consideration. But Cosby himself grew up in a poor neighborhood where nothing was handed to him, and yet managed to become one of the most successful entertainers in the country through hard work and persistence. He is an accomplished actor, producer, writer, comedian and musician, and has a Ph.D in education, among other impressive academic achievements. This poor boy from Philly boasts a list of accomplishments that most of us only dream of, and he made most of these accomplishments during a time when race relations were far more turbulent than they are now. Cosby is an inspiring figure, from whom we can all learn something.

So who is right on the issues that face us? Issues like affirmative action, gay rights, entitlements, abortion, and the like? I obviously have my opinions, and you can make good cases for both sides of each of these issues, but perhaps we should remember what’s more important than the issues themselves: Personal accountability. Regardless of where we stand on the government’s role on things, we should be able to agree that the potential for success lies within each of us, and in order to achieve it, we have to be willing to work for it. Democrats and Republicans share this belief for the most part, but I do think that our friends on the left could do a much better job of articulating it once in a while.

Steers and Queers and Christian Fears



When people ask me why I became a libertarian, I usually blame it on the Department of Motor Vehicles, as I tend to see it as the painful microcosm of big government. Anyone who has spent any time at the DMV can recall long lines, strict organization and the intimidation of being at the mercy of government employees. I suppose there is some truth to the DMV having played a role in the shaping of my political philosophies, but all joking aside it is actually far more complex than that.

Admittedly I was much more of a hardline conservative in the aftermath of 9/11, a quality I attribute to my Christian upbringing as well as the inspiration I received from President Bush’s actions in response to the terrorist attacks. Before 9/11 I was a registered independent with very little concern for the world of politics, but I suppose we were all changed in some way by the horrendous attacks on our country. I should also note that in the months following the September 11th attacks, I really didn’t know what American conservatism entailed, even though I was decidedly a Republican. I figured abortionists were murderers, homosexuals were heathens and Democrats were accessories to murder and sodomy (thankfully I’ve grown up quite a bit since then). However, if you would have asked me about gun control, I probably would have supported strict firearm laws with the misguided assumption that gun control results in less crime, and if I were asked about smoker’s rights, I would have stood boldly in favor of smoking bans in public facilities. After all, secondhand smoke kills, right? Needless to say, my political education had not yet begun.

For me, libertarianism came in the form of an epiphany. In 2002, when my newfound political whoredom was fully under way, I began reading endless stacks of books. At first I only read books by conservative authors: Slander, by Ann Coulter, Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats, by Star Parker, What’s So Great About America, by Dinesh D’Souza, The Way Things Ought To Be, by Rush Limbaugh, so on and so forth. This one-sided emphasis only reinforced my assurance of the infallibility of the right wing, and I did learn quite a bit along the way, but unfortunately I really wasn’t prepared for debate because I understood only the conservative arguments. I didn’t know how the liberal mind worked, and in fact after reading Ann Coulter, I just assumed that the liberal mind was far too nefarious to even analyze.

Upon realizing my ineptitude in understanding the leftist point of view, I stepped out of my comfort zone and began reading books by Michael Moore, Al Franken, Al Gore, Arianna Huffington, Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal. In some ways the socialist tendencies of many of these authors drew me further to the right, but in other ways I was challenged to look critically at my narrow social views and reevaluate my priorities. As much as I hated to admit it, the socialists (for all their faults) had a point in criticizing conservatives who simultaneously spoke of less government and more social intervention.

The epiphany came after I began examining the gay marriage debate. On the one hand I was inclined to oppose the legalization of gay marriage, and yet at the same time I was conflicted by my rightist belief that government intervention should be present only where necessary. For quite a while I struggled with this dilemma, and then finally the epiphany came: Both sides are wrong, because both sides have been duped. Suddenly it all made sense. Homosexuality is not at the center of the debate; GOVERNMENT IS! The whole reason our nation is divided over this silly issue is because of government. Our government, the government whose primary purpose is to protect us from real threats, has led us to believe through generations of conditioning that it alone is the provider of matrimony. Does anyone else see a problem here?

Marriage is supposed to be a spiritual union, transcendent of manmade laws and regulations, and yet today it has somehow become a “right.” Where did we go wrong? Well, apparently in the mid 1800’s. Traditional marriage advocates often argue that marriage laws must be protected because it is the “glue” that has held civilized societies together for centuries. You’ve probably heard this argument at some point or another. But did you know that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and even Abraham Lincoln lived long, fulfilling married lives without government intervention? That is because before the mid 19th century there was no such thing as a marriage license in America.

But wait, it gets worse. Marriage licenses were established not to unite couples in love and help them with their taxes, but to monitor the flow of interracial unions. The first marriage licenses in America were designed specifically to give interracial couples a mandate to marry in states that would allow them. So if anything, the government-issued marriage license is an historical reminder of the racial bigotry that plagued 19th century America.

But as we all know, once the government gets its talons around something, it only squeezes more tightly as time goes by. Today not only is marriage a government-regulated enterprise, it is also a prime factor in determining income tax status. Originally, I thought this was why homosexuals wanted to marry, but since the gay community has made it clear that civil unions aren’t good enough, the issue has obviously grown far more complicated than that.

Homosexuals (forgive the generalization; I don’t mean ALL homosexuals) now see this is as a battle of principle, a valiant struggle to overcome a history of second-class citizenship. That’s certainly a noble goal, but why should marriage be at the center of the struggle if marriage is (as we have already established) a spiritual union? Well, at the risk of sounding redundant:

GOVERNMENT!

(let’s all count how many times I use the word ‘government’ in this article)

I point this out because it illustrates why I am a libertarian. The struggle between left and right is the struggle for greater representation and power, and government is at the center of every political debate on the table. Reagan was right when he said that government is the problem, and the gay marriage debate is just one powerful example. If marriage had been left out of the government scope as it should have been, then homosexuals would have no reason to feel that their marriage ceremonies are any less valid than those held in conservative churches. Anybody can hold a ceremony with witnesses and vows and call it a wedding. Getting married is not like applying for citizenship. It is supposed to be about publicly declaring commitment between individuals, or about uniting spiritually before God, if that’s your persuasion.

When evangelicals protest about the need for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, they are in fact hindering the very institution they are trying to defend. Their intentions may be good, but they are diminishing the spiritual value of marriage by trying to increase the involvement of a faceless public authority. I fully understand that the main purpose of President Bush’s amendment proposal was to send a message to activist judges about legislating from the bench, an important problem that needs tackling, but unfortunately he went about it entirely the wrong way. This decision was especially irresponsible considering that it was announced during a time of war, as if we didn’t have enough reasons to hate each other. Instead of dealing with the rogue judges themselves, our president decided to take a page from the Liberal Handbook and employ further government regulation with the foolish belief that federal expansion would quell the problem in question. Unfortunately I’ve learned that that never works, and that it only leads to more problems. That is why I am a libertarian.

With that said, I do empathize with some of the concerns coming from the right. Frankly, conservative Christians are fearful that a national acceptance of gay marriage will inevitably endanger religious freedom. It may sound crazy, but it’s a valid concern. As conservative Christian activist Dr. James Dobson points out in his book “Marriage Under Fire,” we’re already seeing these effects in Canada. The Canadian government is cracking down on “hate speech” over the airwaves, which basically includes any words that can be interpreted as intolerant to the homosexual community. In other words, if a preacher quotes Romans 1:27, he can be deemed a perpetrator of hate speech. Gay activists are no longer interested in mere tolerance; they want complete, uncompromised acceptance. Of course everybody wants to be accepted and loved, but I think it is safe to say that this is one issue on which we are not going to reach a consensus in the near future. So what’s the solution, then? Say it with me now: LESS GOVERNMENT! Conservative and gay activists alike should realize that less government benefits us all. If government would keep its nose where it belongs and just focus on protecting us from psychos, gays would have no reason to feel oppressed by marriage laws, and Christians would have no reason to be fearful of having their rights trampled on by speech codes and discrimination laws. That is why I am a libertarian.

So in closing, Americans constitute the most diverse group of people on the planet. Our great nation represents every imaginable race, creed, and persuasion, and while that in itself is a beautiful thing, it carries with it the consequence that we will always have disagreements. If we rely on our government to settle these disagreements for us, the advantage will always rest in the hand of the interest with the most power at a give time, and that only leads to a more dangerous kind of disagreement; the kind that begets an unhealthy lust for power and a belief that not only are we all different, but we are all victims of a biased power structure. For this reason we have political parties, political action committees and an endless stream of hatred and animosity that stems from a fear of being underrepresented. Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Reagan was never more right.

That is why I am a libertarian.

Long Live the Union Jack



I spent the greater part of this week working on a post that was supposed to be uploaded today, but this morning's events in London have compelled me to say a few words about something far more important. The post I was planning to use was largely an analysis of the gay marriage debate, but I'm going to save that one for next week. Don't get me wrong. The gay marriage debate is an important one, as is the abortion debate, the economy, censorship and all the other things we like to quibble about, but it takes a tragedy to remind us that politics, in the big scheme of things, is (for a serious lack of a better word) bullshit.

The important things in life are not legislated, nor mandated nor subsidized. The important things are made up of love for one's friends and family, laughter, growth, kindness and compassion. Life is short, and any of us can go at any time, whether by terrorist attack, car accident, physical ailment, natural disaster or one of a million other causes. We can debate the issues until the cows come home, and we should, but let's remember today that they are only issues. In spite of our differences, we are united in grief when the lives of the innocent are cut short, and most of us are just trying to live day to day to the best of our abilities.

When I was in 11th grade, one of my teachers told the class that the best way to excel and make the most out of life is to wake up each and every morning and ask ourselves, "How can I be a better person today than I was yesterday?" I never forgot those profound words, though I must admit I haven't always followed them either. I was reminded of them by this morning's tragedy, but I would even take it one step further. How can I be a better person today than I was yesterday, and how can I live my life as though today is my last day on Earth?

Randy Travis has a song called "Three Wooden Crosses," in which he says, "It's not what you take when you leave this world behind you. It's what you leave behind you when you go." The lives of at least 37 people were ended suddenly and tragically in London this morning, and we weep for them because their deaths were injust, because their friends and families are now suffering for them, and because it was not their time. How many of us would live our lives differently if we fully understood how fragile they are? Would we remain closer to our families and do a better job of demonstrating how much we love and appreciate them? Would we show more kindness to strangers and let go of the trivial things that we let weigh us down? Would we realize that political issues for the most part are not life-and-death issues? We should all remember that today, not only to honor those who died, but to remind us that life is way too short not to make the most of it.

Long live the Union Jack.