Mar
04
Westminster’s absolute tosh
By Katie Kieffer
British models. Image by Tim Walker for British Vogue.
Across the pond, the ministers of the Crown have a competition going on. A competition with the U.S. Congress. It appears that Westminster is downright determined to show Washington that it can grow government faster.
Her Majesty’s government appears to be a bit threatened by the way American politicians are acting like aristocrats. Keen on maintaining its reputation as the most proper “modern monarchy,” the British government has decided to go off its trolley in a mad attempt to expand its power over citizens.
The Brits are reminding wannabe aristocrats like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid who the real aristocrats are by bringing the power of government into the realms of fun and vanity. While American politicians try to control health care and the environment, the British, who have already regulated these “fundamentals,” are hastily taking steps to regulate the frivolous.
Don’t hit me with that pint glass!
Count on an aristocrat to come up with a cosmetic solution to Britain’s binge-drinking culture. The land of starched Buckingham Palace guards is deft at creating an image of control and perfection. This month, the British government revealed that it had designed two new shatterproof glasses for pub drinkers. Government officials praised their investment of time and research in developing these new glasses as a way to save billions in health care costs from glasses that couldn’t “double as a lethal weapon,” the Associated Press reports.
British Home Secretary Alan Johnson showcases prototype shatterproof pint glasses. AP Photo/PA, Stefan Rousseau
According to the British government, “‘glassing’ attacks cost the National Health Service roughly $4.3 billion per year.” Unfortunately, the government seems more concerned with aesthetics than with actually saving money on health care or ending pub violence:
Consider that the British government would not even consider advocating economical plastic pint glasses because the look and feel would not appeal to drinkers, admitted the government’s design squad creative director, Matt Cotterill, of Bridge Design. Consider also that the new rock-solid pint glasses could still be used as deathly weapons to knock out fellow pub patrons – without having to contend with glass shards flying up in your own face during the act.
Elephant's Head Pub in Camden, North London.
Creating shatterproof glasses almost seems like a way to enable rowdy pub crawlers to see what they can do with the new glasses. When Brits get rat arsed, they are still going to be inclined to violence. If they can’t use their pint glass, they’ll use their plate, chair, purse, or cell phone. Should the government encourage bars to strip patrons of all belongings at the door, bubble-wrap counters, and replace high-top stools with bean bag chairs to eliminate pub violence?
Government-sponsored shatterproof glasses are a waste of taxpayer dollars and a step toward insanity. The government has better things to do than design glasses that won’t break in the hands of drunken sailors.
Britain’s Design Council chief, David Kester, maintains that “We are launching the redesign of a British classic, the pint glass. We tried to find ways to make life better while saving money. We’re a creative nation.” Leave the creativity to private small businesses, Britain. You will save money and free up time to focus on core government functions.
There’s no way she can be that hot
Apparently, flawless models are a menace to society. If you gaze upon too many airbrushed models in magazine ads, you may be duped to believe that these people are physically flawless. And, this belief will cause you undue distress. Apparently, a mistakenly over-altered Ralph Lauren image, like the one below, causes disproportionate psychological distress in young women, say the Brits.
Problems to such a proposal include:
- How do you enforce this? What are the limits? Will advertisers be forced to include a disclaimer for minor alterations like crops or lightening the sky behind a model?
- How detailed does the disclaimer need to be? Anyone familiar with Adobe Photoshop knows that there could be hundreds of changes made to a single photograph before it is published, so the disclaimers themselves could be pages long. Are we going to start seeing ads for clothing and makeup that have two-page disclaimers similar to ads for drugs to treat depression?
- Advertisers will find ways to avoid posting disclaimers on their ads, such as using models that do not require airbrushing, as London-area fashion photographer, Paul Cable, warned. Models will be forced to take even more drastic dieting and plastic surgery measures to compete in the industry.
- Just in case you still think this British proposal has an ounce of credibility to it, consider that this study was authored by “psychologist and media personality Linda Papadopoulos, (who) said that “when girls evaluate themselves against unrealistic airbrushed images it cultivates a feeling of falling short, of not being ‘good enough.’ She recommended that ratings should be affixed to such images to make clear if and how models had been altered.” So, yes, if this proposal passes, Brits will see two-page disclaimers attached to a simple ad showing a model wearing a Ralph Lauren sundress.
Let me introduce you to Dr. Papadopoulos herself, star of the UK documentary, My Big Breasts and Me, who you can see has it all “together” when it comes to class and fashion (see below). Let’s learn from this aristocratic nonsense and demand election reform, limited government, free market principles and adherence to the Constitution from our U.S. elected officials. We do not want to give up our freedom to live in a regulated cocoon like our European neighbors.
Dr. Linda Papadopoulos. Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images.
Feb
24
Should’ve said no Taylor Tax
By Katie Kieffer
Taylor Swift
Do me a favor and turn on your radio. Wait five minutes and you’ll probably hear a DJ venting about the recording industry’s push for legislation that could effectively tax the next Taylor Swift or T.I. off free local radio.
I think local radio DJs are right to question this proposed legislation, since this hefty “tax” or fee would make it difficult for new artists to emerge. It would work as a financial disincentive for radio stations to take on the risk of featuring new artists.
The fee that current legislative proposals ask radio stations to pay in order to air a record would be split between the performer and the copyright owner. While some performers own the copyright for their record, often times a foreign-owned record company owns the copyright. So, in addition to moving cash away from the emerging artistic community, the performance tax would move capital out of the U.S. during a recession.
On the other hand, it is difficult for me to sympathize with music-based free local radio. Similar fees are already imposed on the more technologically advanced digital radio broadcasters, but traditional analog radio broadcasters think they deserve a break. Music-heavy local analog radio cannot expect to receive special treatment and exclusions from music distribution fees because it offered the “first” broadcast format. There should not be “squatters’ rights” in music distribution.
Local radio frames its concern over the proposed performance tax legislation thus: “The recording industry wants to impose a performance tax that would financially hurt local radio stations, stifle new artists and harm the listening public who rely on free local radio.” I think local radio needs to offer up a more convincing argument, or at least prove that the “listening public” will be harmed if “free local radio” disappears.
Free local radio should have to compete – and I mean really compete – with digital radio. If I can listen to the songs I want, when I want, on my iPod or computer, local radio needs to show me why I should tune into a local station with commercials and self-aggrandizing DJs that repeat Top 40 hits all day long.
Unless you are an antique radio collector, you’re probably not going to sit down and stare at a refrigerator-sized radio (like the girl below) when you could be multitasking with your sleek iPod playlist at the gym or blasting your personal set of tunes from Pandora on your laptop as you make dinner.
Image credit: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library Public Domain Photographs
There is no Constitutional right to listen to free music on the radio. There is also no evidence of inevitable “public harm” if the crass DJs who monopolize the local morning airwaves with ridiculous games and “news” consisting of celebrity gossip suddenly disappeared.
The public might breathe a sigh of relief if blasé local radio stations went extinct. Silence might be better than having Bad Romance perpetually in your head because it was played for the umpteenth time – in one hour – on multiple stations. Clearly, free local radio needs to make a better case for why it deserves an exclusion from the performance tax.
That said, government intervention will not resolve the issues facing the radio industry and the recording industry today. The government negatively intervened in satellite radio by severely restricting the number of radio spectrum licenses to two. This is why we only have one major mass-market broadcaster of satellite radio in the U.S., Sirius XM Radio, Inc., when there could have been multiple competing providers.
It is inconsistent for many elected officials to protest performance tax legislation where local radio stations would pay a fee to air records, while they seem to have no issue with fees imposed on digital radio, the modern broadcast format.
Let’s bring radio broadcasting back to a free market system where internet radio and free local radio compete with each other on a level playing field, and consumers can vote with their ears. In talk radio, the results just rolled in: Of the top ten radio talk show hosts, nine have conservative leanings.
Top conservative talk radio hosts, Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh. Image: Diamond/WireImage; Corkery/News; Lovekin/Getty
Neither the government nor the recording industry should be able to stalemate the future careers of up-and-coming young artists with a performance tax, impose a monopoly on new forms of radio or have a double standard for local and internet-based radio.
Feb
05
5 Super Bowl Party Ideas
By Katie Kieffer
Image credit: sports-odds.com
The Vikings didn’t make the Super Bowl this year. You can still have an awesome Super Bowl Sunday. Instead of apathetically watching the Colts steamroll the Saints, take my suggestions to increase the “fun factor” at your Super Bowl party.
Pre Game
You could listen to dancing-sensation, Katie Couric, interview President Obama before the Super Bowl. Or, you could ignore politicians who are trying to control college football, act as sports commentators and snag prime pre-Super Bowl slots instead of focusing on their real job. (We all know Underwear Bombers could care less about football.)
If you’d like the President to start focussing on serious matters like national security and spend less time having fun, here’s a better pre-game idea: Have your guests make the President a paint splash Valentine. Just be sure to finish reading this post BEFORE you start splashing paint, or you’ll end up like my “twin” sister, Blair:
Before the game, give each guest a different colored can of paint and a huge blank canvas. Let them have fun – this is modern art – not Michelangelo. They should write a message to the President such as: “Leave Football Alone!” They can finger paint, spray paint, dump the entire can of paint on the canvas – whatever rocks their boat. Let the canvas dry, and on Monday ship the canvas to the White House for Valentine’s Day delivery.
Food
The Vikings are a good team. Let’s stop moping and celebrate how far they came this season with:
- Energizing Sack-Man Smoothies to honor Jared Allen’s energy that, as Sports Illustrated reveals, carries fans on eagle’s wings. Or, as Brett Favre says, “Jared Allen is a beast, man.” Smoothies taste best Allen-style, when when you’re wearing your Wyatt Earp cowboy hat.
- Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese and wine to honor the strength, leadership and skill that Brett Favre brought to the Vikings this season. Wine and Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese get better with age, as does Favre. Whether Favre stays with the Vikings or not, I’ve shown how his leadership has improved the team, and we should celebrate that.
Party Favors
Send your guests home looking like Joe Montana and give them all Super Bowl rings. Get the Vince Lombardi Trophy engraved onto an inexpensive ring for each guest. Now that Roger Goodell seems to think it’s fine to mess with the Holy Grail of NFL tradition and alter the look of the Trophy on the Super Bowl logo, you need to preserve it for your friends. Some changes, like going from Sen. Kennedy to Sen. Brown are uplifting, while pointless change for the sake of change is less exciting. 
After Party
TiVo Tebow: Record Tim Tebow’s confident tribute to life and free speech in his Super Bowl ad. Whenever you’re tired of hearing about Tiger Woods’ secret life, turn on Tebow’s ad and restore your faith in super star athletes.
Jan
28
Tim Tebow terrifies feminists
By Katie and Amie Kieffer
Image credit: AP Images / Phil Sandlin
Heisman Trophy winner and Florida Gators quarterback, Tim Tebow, is a favorite heading into the NFL spring draft. A favorite among football fans and pro-life Americans, that is. Puppy-faced Tebow, who loves his mom and isn’t afraid to hug her in public, is on the receiving end of trash-talking, bitter feminists.
Radical feminists find Tebow’s life story threatening. Tebow plans to tell how his mother chose life for him, when her doctors advised abortion, in a CBS-approved and Focus on the Family-sponsored Super Bowl ad. The ad’s opponents seem to think that pro-abortion women who view this ad will suffer massive blows to their self-esteem and free will. Somehow, this ad – and Tebow’s mother’s choice of life – “threaten” the ability of other women to choose abortion.
In this short video, Tebow explains his role in the ad:
What do you think? Should Tim Tebow and other athletes be applauded or condemned when they take a public stand on principles they believe in? Why do feminists feel so threatened by public expressions of choosing life?
My sister, Amie, created the cartoon featured below to help generate thought-provoking discussion on this topic. I’m curious to know your thoughts!
Art by Amie Kieffer. Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Jan
20
Winning Monopoly on Fun
By Katie Kieffer
If you’re sick and tired of paying back your college loans – or, your tuition payments – here’s a tip: Don’t expect to get a bailout from the government. It’s bankrupt already. The real way to get your bailout is to win the collegiate community’s little political game. I teamed up with Parker Brothers and we’re calling the game “Monopoly on Fun.”
I created this game out of selfish motives. Basically, I would like to start getting Christmas and birthday presents again. I’m tired of my friends excusing their penny-pinching and re-gifting on their high tuition payments or their massive college loans.
I finally threw up my hands and said to myself, “I know my friends have to choose between buying a $116,092 house or a four-year private degree. And, yes, I realize, college tuition increases by eight percent every year. But, I don’t care. I want my presents.”
In desperation, I picked up the phone and called Parker Brothers. I said, “Here’s the deal, PB. I’ve got a great concept for a new game that will help you rake in the lettuce.”
Parker Brothers: Katie, your last game concept was too dry for the game-board crowd. Most people don’t understand or care about monetary policy and you wanted to make a game out of it!
Katie: I promise, this game concept is different. It capitalizes on people’s natural desire to put cash in their pockets during this recession. Most people are in survival mode now. This game will make surviving fun.
Parker Brothers: Intriguing. We’ll give you 15 minutes to sell your idea. Take any longer and we’ll hang up, Ms. Conservative.
Katie: Ok, well, all my friends – mainly young professionals or current students – are miserly. I keep having to pick up the tab because they say they have to pay back their loans or make tuition payments. They think the answer is for the government to step in and bail them out.
Parker Brothers: That will be a cold day in hell. Have they checked out the national debt clock lately? Our government is in the red, red, red. How could it bail out college students and alumni now too?
Katie: Exactly. It can’t afford another massive bailout. What my peers don’t realize is that their high college tuition and loan payments are due to the collegiate community’s monopoly on fun.
Instead of budgeting wisely and only hiring the staff they need to educate students, most colleges create a frivolous and expensive layer of bureaucracy to control the college campus’ atmosphere. Essentially, students pay thousands of dollars for “controlled fun” in addition to paying for an education.
Parker Brothers: Hold on, Katie. College students are the biggest partiers on the planet. They know how to have fun on their own. How can you say colleges are dictating it for them?
Katie: Good question. Check out this organizational chart from my alma mater, the University of Saint Thomas. You’ll notice that the school has an entire arm of administrators dedicated to overseeing the social environment on campus:
- Director and Assistant Directors of Multicultural Student Services
- Director of Personal Counseling and Testing
- Associate Dean of Orientation/Commuter/Transfer/Student Services
- Assistant Dean of Parents’ Ombudsperson
- Many other positions supporting these main roles
These positions are all overseen by two additional costly placeholders:
- Dean of Students
- Vice President of Student Affairs
As Power Line blogger, Scott Johnson, exposed recently, I personally experienced the wrath and ineffectiveness of the University of Saint Thomas’ VP of Student Affairs, Jane Canney. She oversees a department that effectively closes down real discussion and debate on campus – for no apparent reason other than to advance her own political agenda on campus. She reports up to President Fr. Dennis Dease, paid roughly $300,000 a year to, as Power Line blog also exposed, oppose student-organized free speech and debate on campus.
The University of Saint Thomas President Fr. Dennis Dease and VP of Student Affairs, Jane Canney, talk to a student during campus move-in day. Image credit: St. Thomas' The Scroll blog.
Furthermore, the “net effect” of St. Thomas’ multicultural student services is evidence of how ineffective Canney’s department is at promoting a vibrant college community.
Presumably, students pay top dollar to attend a premier private institution like St. Thomas in order to expand their minds and earn a well-paying job. The multicultural program – far from opening up the eyes of students to the merits of diversity – hides them. Canney’s division ensures multicultural students have their own, segregated mission statement, meeting rooms, staff, resources, retreats, homecoming tent, and social activities. Rather than uniting students, these programs divide multicultural students from – “unicultural,” I guess, students – by corralling them into a distinct group.
Why should students have to pay for these unnecessary levels of bureaucracy? It’s their campus.
While some college presidents are taking decreases in their mega-salaries, or slightly smaller bonuses, the real cost of a college education comes from the multiple, unnecessary layers of management beneath the presidents.
What college students and alumni need to realize is that their complaints successfully pressured these presidents to accept more reasonable pay. Now, they need to collaborate together and pressure colleges to eliminate the needless monopoly they have on “fun.” Students – left to their own devices – will be able to relate to each other, regardless of race. Students do not need to pay for do-nothing administrative staffers to dictate what kind of public speakers can come to campus or to segregate them into groups based on race or culture.
Fr. Dease publicly apologized for Ann Coulter's appearance on campus - without attending her speech. Here, I escort Coulter into the auditorium at St. Thomas.
Here are the rules of the Monopoly on Fun game:
This is no board game. It’s played in real time and, no, you can’t choose your teammates. You can only choose your strategy.
Skills required:
Similar to the board game, negotiation and resource management are key skills.
You must build a network of alliances with other students, alumni, parents, media, community members, and “double-agent” administration members who support you.
You must then use this network to help you manage your own resources (your money) and limit the amount that you pay out to the University – which starts the game out with a monopoly on fun (i.e. the social environment on campus).
Equipment:
Your favorite technology device to communicate with your network of alliances – such as a cell phone or laptop. If, for some odd reason, you prefer to actually talk to people in person throughout the game – you will pay a small fee of time for your inefficiency.
Players:
One +
Random chance:
College environment, peers, college administration and number of layers of bureaucracy.
Goal: Purchase – or repossess – as much “fun” as possible, and end the University’s monopoly. Unlike the board game, you will actually rejoice if a fellow teammate – like a student or community member – successfully repossesses some of the University’s monopoly on the school’s social environment. The goal is to end the monopoly, but not create a new one. By reducing the University’s monopoly, you will:
- Reduce tuition costs by removing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy.
- Put more power in the hands of the student body to freely interact with each other and openly discuss important issues.
I want Parker Brothers to create this game because I think it will empower current students and alumni to speak up and petition colleges to reduce costs by cutting out needless deans, directors and administrators of “fun.” Students will create their own positive atmosphere on campus – for free. They should only have to pay for an education – not for a micromanaging, misguided mother hen.
Parker Brothers: Katie, you’ve sold us. This is a great concept. We’ll have our board-makers draft up a game for your review.
Katie: Monopoly!
Dec
02
In Palin’s ring, Pacquiao style
By Katie Kieffer
Image credit: http://tinyurl.com/yle7ape
I’ve decided to give a fresh perspective on the energetic wave called Sarah Palin that’s sweeping our country by showcasing the opinions of her loudest bashers, haters and tomato-tossers. I think letting elite liberals speak for themselves has two benefits:
1.) Their criticisms are quite humorous and often do more harm than good to their own agendas.
2.) Hidden within their emotional, bitter criticisms are occasional “gems.” These are points that are worthy of consideration and debate.
Image credit: http://tinyurl.com/yh2pvsk
So, let me throw on my Everlast track suit and boxing gloves. Ding-ding-ding! Here are two of the best left jabs on Sarah Palin and my right hook responses:
Left Jab #1:
“Her career has become a vehicle through which the right-wing evangelical movement feels it can express its deepest identity … Palin is perceived by its leaders – and followers – not as another cynical politician or self-promoting celebrity, but as a kind of magical helper, the God-fearing glamour girl who parachuted into their backwater towns to lift them from the drudgery of daily life, assuring them that they represented the ‘real America.’” –Max Blumenthal in the Los Angeles Times on Nov. 15, 2009
Katie’s Right Hook:
This quote is elitist. You could essentially take the name “Palin” out of Blumenthal’s statement and replace it with the last name of a well-known minister – or an influential executive director of a non-profit. Blumenthal implies that anyone who relates to every-day Americans at their level is crazy.
Plus, Palin is clearly promoting herself by using the same language as ordinary people. Instead, she should subscribe to “liberal humility” and:
- Speak the language of an elitist. Don’t lie to the people and pretend to be one of them. That is a vice! Palin should be up-front and honest about her “obvious” ambitions for power and control.
- Never – under any circumstance – should Palin align herself with silly notions like God or Christianity. Those are pillars of sand. Instead, Palin should wrap herself and her followers in the protective mantels of Scientology and cosmetology. Those worked well for Tom Cruise and the late Michael Jackson, right? Ideally, Cruise would run for President in 2012 and Palin could be his Whitehouse maid – in charge of dusting his couches following sporadic jumping episodes.
Image credit: http://tinyurl.com/cx8gah
I know America is tired of elitist liberals like Blumenthal who express their hatred for Sarah Palin’s ability to relate to Joe Lunchbucket. 71 percent of Americans are angry with the Federal Government (currently run by liberals), reports the latest Rasmussen poll.
Still, elite liberals like Blumenthal think that politicians should be detached from and above the people – not one of them. Liberal elitists want power. The Palins of the world want to lead without forming a kingdom of serfs beneath them. Call it “magical” if you’d like, Max, but I think this sounds more like the “free” and “equal” America we signed up for under the Constitution.
Left Jab #2:
“It’s wonderful, I went looking for her book and I found it in the fantasy aisle. With Sarah you get the feeling that in high school she was voted least likely to write a book and most likely to burn one. You look at her and wonder ‘Where did they find her, Project Running Mate?’” – Robin Williams on the David Letterman Show, Nov. 23, 2009
Katie’s Right Hook:
Fantasy aisle? It sounds like Robin Williams shops at the “Hollywood Hills Disheveled Used Book Swap.” Was he wearing his favorite Star Wars mask to protect himself from any Palin-droids that might jump out an attack him as he read her book? And, what high school holds a contest for “Most Likely to Burn a Book” unless it’s Troll High?
The facts speak for themselves. Not only did Palin write (not burn) a Number One New York Times Bestseller, but now she will star in a children’s book by Katharine DeBrecht showcasing the value of capitalism and entrepreneurship.
One word sums up this little spoof by Williams: Disturbing – like many of the characters he plays. Aristotle – considered one of the greatest thinkers of all time – says: “Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting a particular way… you become just by performing just actions, temperate by performing temperate actions, brave by performing brave actions.” Thus, it’s no surprise that Williams is capable of eloquently painting Palin as a fruitcake – disturbia is near and dear to his heart as an actor.
I’ve taken out enough elite psychosis for one day. Undoubtedly there will be more challenges to come. For now, my protein shake is calling.
Nov
25
Raw power for Thanksgiving
By Katie Kieffer
Mayflower at Dawn by Mike Haywood: www.mikehaywoodart.co.uk. Art used with permission.
I’d like my turkey well-done and my government raw this Thanksgiving.
Many Americans scrupulously maintain their health. They’re “up in the gym, working on their fitness,” while their government is a bloated gourmand. Amazingly, a few of the same Starbucks Skinny Latte-loving, granola-popping, treadmill-trotting Americans cheer Uncle Sam: “Eat more, government! Indulge! You can have whatever you want, cute little Gov!”
Meanwhile, beautiful celebrities and health gurus are gushing over the benefits of eating “raw.” This means that they eat “whole food” that has never been cooked. Their rationale is that cooking food is not natural and that any temperature above around 116 degrees Fahrenheit alters the enzymes in food – greatly decreasing nutritional value.
Our government loves to crack the whip on public schools that serve too much sugar, smokers, and Americans with rather large abdominal areas. But, ask the government to cut its budget or go “raw?” Forget it!
As a young professional, I understand that the government’s gluttony is not compassionate. I’m no silly rabbit – I know the government snags its “tricks” from those who have earned a lot (and incidentally create jobs) and gives them away to those who haven’t earned them. This way, everything is fair but nothing is just or practical.
This Thanksgiving, as you share large meals with family or friends; I challenge you to think about the size of the Thanksgiving power meal the Senate is preparing for itself. If Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and the Whitehouse have their way – the government’s Thanksgiving next year will be beyond bloated – it will burst.
The “government” that the Pilgrims sought wasn’t bloated with massive spending and tricked out with imaginary “God-given” rights to universal healthcare, as Sean Hannity mentioned this week on his radio show. The Pilgrims made the hard, sacrificial journey to America for freedom and opportunity – not government handouts that force dependency and yield control for Uncle Sam.
As young, professional Americans, we have become accustomed to government’s role in a distorted sense. We need to take our government back to “raw” – back to its natural and proper state, which, John Locke said in his Second Treatise of Civil Government is primarily to protect private property.
I sense that some young people have become hopeless since the House passed the healthcare bill. They want the economic hope and access to the American Dream that they thought they voted for last November – and still haven’t seen materialize. They think we’re on a one-way train to socialism and are worried about the massive financial burdens and a pending low-quality healthcare system. I think our government is steering us in that direction, but, more importantly, I believe it’s not a one-way ticket – yet.
My positive Thanksgiving message is that we, as young Americans, are still in control of the direction OUR train takes. We need to keep speaking up and letting our elected officials know what we want. And, we need to support election reform so we are no longer burdened with career politicians.
It will be a challenge, and freedom is worth it. Happy Thanksgiving.
Nov
23
Sci Fi omens Senate bribery
By Katie Kieffer
Image credit: http://tinyurl.com/ydnxz6f
Here’s how to talk politics without throwing pumpkin pie at your mother-in-law this Thanksgiving. Don’t. I mean, don’t be obnoxious about it. Be coy and discuss “entertainment:” Talk about ABC’s series, V.
V offers a new kind of T.V. entertainment: Smart, relevant, prophetical and bold. It also makes you grateful for the freedom of speech, religion and political beliefs that we have in America.
The show is a contemporary reinterpretation of Sinclair Lewis’ book, “It Can’t Happen Here,” charting out the Nazi’s rise to power. Since the first episode of V, there have been numerous critiques of the series – from The Washington Post to the Chicago Tribune – pointing out connections between the series’ plot and characters and our current state of affairs in America.
V is essentially a political science fiction series about a group of lizard-like aliens that come down to earth and claim that they are bringing “peace and tranquility,” “change,” and “universal health care” to humans. They appear to be beautiful, eloquent humans led by “Anna” (Morena Baccarin) – an outwardly charismatic woman on a world power quest under the guise of peace and change. As the show’s FBI agent, Erica Evans (Elizabeth Mitchell), tells her friend, Father Jack (Joel Gretsch), when he says they need to fight the aliens: “Oh, we’ll fight. They’ve among themselves the most powerful weapon out there. … Devotion.”
The Visitors or aliens win over humans by bribing social leaders with rewards of “bliss.” They also win over throngs of naive youth by recruiting them into their Peace Ambassador program. Lastly, the Visitors have a strong hold on the media – Anna uses one key T.V. news anchor, Chad Decker (Scott Wolf), as her pawn to restrict any negative speech or protests against the Vs and get her message of “peace” and “change” out to the public. Anna tells her minions: “We must not underestimate the power of public opinion.” She charges her alien followers to “monitor,” and – if necessary – “shape” all public opinion.
Many critics have seen the generic promises of hope, change and universal health care coverage that the Vs promote as well as their stronghold over the media and youth as startling similar to the ideas and behavior of the current Administration.
Image credit: http://tinyurl.com/yfde8eb
As Michelle Malkin uncovered – the current Administration is supported by Senators who will not stop at bribery to accomplish their health care agenda. Furthermore, as I discussed, here, the current Administration has taken efforts to control free speech by demeaning peaceful tea party protests, attempting a ban on FOX news reporters, and demanding that the left-wing media provide, “not just good coverage, but great coverage, not just to be treated favorably but to be treated spectacularly.”
Interestingly enough, the White House seems a little defensive about its similarities to the Visitors and tries to laugh V off as irrelevant.
This is a fun, philosophical movie that is great for discussion of current events and reflection on history. V’s producers say there is no intended agenda to V. This may be true. I don’t think it matters whether they had a political agenda – the fact that V was written and produced now and has spoken so clearly to so many Americans shows that the sentiments, fears and emotions evoked by this T.V. series are relevant on multiple levels.
In case you’re tempted to write V off as a fun work of fiction, think about the power of artistic thinkers to predict and comment on history and current events: Great minds such as Dostoevsky, Nietzsche and Edmund Burke predicted historical evils and government impositions in the past. We should give V more than a passing glance and use it as a catalyst to discuss the best way to preserve freedom in an America of ever-growing government control.
I’m going out on a limb: I predict that tomorrow’s final episode of V’s first season will prove more enlightening than anything that comes out of the Senate on health care this week. Watch it.
Nov
16
Capitalism is the new cool
By Katie Kieffer
In the face of politicians trying to ram unfavorable, fiscally irresponsible health care proposals through the Senate that extend government control, raise taxes and reduce liberties, Americans have started to say: “Enough is enough.” It’s true that sometimes you don’t know how great your life is until something basic that you take for granted – like freedom – is at risk of disappearing.
It is not surprising, then, that the queen of capitalism, Ayn Rand, is making a roaring comeback among American professionals of all ages. Rand’s message of individualism and her fundamental understanding that market systems must work with – rather than against – human nature are resonating with American citizens as solid principles upon which to solve our economic crisis.
Left-leaning media giants like TIME Magazine try to dismiss Rand’s attractiveness to Americans because it is a sign that we are realizing and re-appreciating the merits of capitalism. While admitting Rand’s undeniable rebound in popularity, TIME recently made her out to be a loose “high priestess,” and “cult” leader, brushing over her philosophy’s re-gaining popularity and focusing on personal rumors.
TIME’s spineless, slanted articles allow me to tell the real story: Americans are reading Rand’s novels and subscribing to her philosophy of capitalism and individualism because they see it as the way out of recession and into growth and job creation. This is a helpful video to understand the numbers behind Rand’s popularity.
We’re all absorbing messages from the mainstream media that sometimes give the impression that Americans are jumping on-board with Washington’s proposals for more government control and spending. But, before you jump to this conclusion, consider reading what your fellow Americans are really reading: The novels of Ayn Rand.
Nov
09
Living in Oblockbusterville
By Katie Kieffer
Truman tries to escape the constricting set of the movie, The Truman Show. Image Credit: http://tinyurl.com/ykqsakb
Have you ever felt like you were living in a movie? This weekend, as I read the news and did my “blog homework” to catch up on current events, I had the surreal sense that I was living in a movie. I felt a little like Truman (Jim Carey) in the movie, “The Truman Show.”
I get the feeling that our country – the United States of America – is changing at an alarming rate. I’ll share some of my weekend findings with you.
The Obama Administration and the mass media – with rare exceptions such as Fox News and some bloggers, business associations and conservative magazines – are pushing changes in America that are blockbuster movie material. These are the sorts societal transformations that you might see in a movie trailer – and watch as entertainment – not changes you’d ever assume would happen in America where we have “checks and balances” of power, and rights and liberties enumerated in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Changes like:
- Health care bill passes in the House on Nov. 7, 2009 despite tea party protests and an overwhelming number of phone calls made by Americans to their elected officials. This will be the “most expensive program in U.S. history.” The House passed it even though Obama Care had been proven – as articulated by Stanford University’s Hoover Digest - to be laden with problems such as:
- “Limited access to specialists, state-of-the art drugs, modern technologies and safe treatments.”
- Limited “choice of doctors and treatments.”
- Limited “choice on coverage.”
- Limited access to leading health care innovations.
- One of our most fundamental rights as Americans – the freedom of speech – is under threat. Americans across the country are expressing their concern in letters to the editor. It appears that the Obama Administration has a deep distrust of any conflicting viewpoints to the point that it has taken extreme, unnecessary dictator-like measures to break down free speech. Where does this insecurity come from? Watch this video to learn more:
- Conflicting viewpoints are necessary for freedom. It is not under the government’s purview to monitor the internet or social media like Facebook®. Who else censors free speech on the internet? Oh yes, that would be communist China’s government. Do we want to model our country after China?
- This restrictive attitude toward free speech has and will continue to directly impact freedom of education, the arts, the press and religion. Watch this video, the first in a series of five, where Glenn Beck explains.
Think about the ramifications of these existing and pending changes. Think about how they have and will change your lifestyle. I don’t like the constricted, Truman-like feeling I get when I observe the changes our government is trying to impose on us. I prefer freedom, don’t you?
