Mah Na Mah Na! New article at American Thinker

I might have broken whole new ground in op-ed writing by using the word "Pufnstuf".  But anyhoo, American Thinker this morning has published a new article by Yours Truly.  "And then they came for the Muppets..." delves into Disney's slapping an "offensive material" disclaimer on several episodes of The Muppet Show.

A sample from the piece:

These declaimers are micro-sermons about the virtues of inclusion. They are meant to “foster dialogue.” But anyone who sits the children down for a heart-to-heart discussion about Muppet morality probably doesn’t get the point of the Muppets anyway. These disclaimers, along with all the others that Disney is slapping onto Lady and the Tramp and Peter Pan and other films, accomplish nothing of the sort. They are nuisances at best. By the end of the show the average child will have forgotten all about them.

That's the second article in a row (counting the one about Gina Carano from last week) that's addressed Disney+. I'm not out to "get Disney", honest. But it has to be said: that company is pumping out some real fodder for opinion writing lately.

Anyway, cue the music, light the lights, and read my new article.  Do you think Statler and Waldorf would approve?

Read More

Bullying from Boy Scout big-wigs?! Executives manipulating data?! Gay policy under fire from on high?!

If true... IF this is at all true... this represents the most insane turn of events that I have ever seen coming out of the Boy Scouts of America in my thirty-some years affiliated with the organization.

The honor of a Boy Scout, painting by Norman Rockwell

First, I wish to direct your attention to an article by Austin Ruse on the website for Catholic publication Crisis Magazine.  Titled "Something Rotten in the Boy Scouts", Ruse raises a red flag about apparent manipulation of data at the Boy Scouts home office regarding the possible change of policy that would allow boys of homosexual orientation to have membership in the Boy Scouts.

Awright, let me be put it this way: the home office is ignoring the data from its own survey!  From the article:

There’s deception going on in the front office of the Boy Scouts. It includes deliberate misrepresentation of polling data, and threats to pack an upcoming meeting with anonymous and unqualified voters so that the Boy Scout policy on homosexuality gets forced on the majority of Scouts and parents who don’t want it.

The Boy Scouts are considering changing their policy of not allowing open homosexuality in either their Scout or leadership ranks. The policy has placed the Boy Scouts in the buzz saw of the zeitgeist and up until recently they have resisted. There are some weak-kneed leaders who want to throw over the policy and appear willing to violate the Scout Law to do it.

The Scout front office released the result of a national survey and “listening” process that purported to show that the Scouts—boys, parents, leaders and donors—favor a change in the policy. The Boy Scouts say the process reveals great changes in attitudes and that a majority of those at all levels of Scouting “tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting.”

This was dutifully and even triumphantly reported in the mainstream press. The only problem is the news reports were wrong. And the news reports were wrong because the Boy Scouts misrepresented the results. One close observer of the Boy Scouts calls the poll “a pack of lies.”

The results of the BSA Membership Standards Survey:
A solid majority polled want NO change
to the current policy.

Do Scouting parents want to overhaul the policy and allow open homosexuality in the Scouts? The Executive Summary of the Poll says, “yes”, but the numbers say “no.” Fifty percent of Cub Scout parents support the current restrictive policy while 45% oppose it. A whopping 61% of Boy Scout parents support the current policy.

How did Boy Scout leadership get anywhere near the assertion that a majority of those in Scouting support homosexuality in Scouting? Part of what they did was what is known as a push-poll, a questionnaire designed not to elicit an accurate opinion but one designed to change opinions.

(snip)

What is going on here? Deception, that’s what. There is a small group on the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts who want this policy to change. What they face is a membership that largely opposes the measure. So, they try to get their way by lying about a poll. But there is more deception than that...

The entire article cannot be recommended enough because Ruse's piece is by a wide margin among the best and most informative that I've found about the matter of homosexuality in the Boy Scouts.  Which, shouldn't be a matter at all.  The Boy Scouts are not meant to be a tool of politics.  Especially the politics of radical homosexuality.  The Girl Scouts of America let that happen to them and look at them now: a pitiful shadow of their former selves.  And one that has lost significant numbers of past and potential members to competing organizations for girls and young women.

But then comes this bit of information, which is even more full-tilt whacko.  A week ago I wrote about the Boy Scouts of America and how homosexuality is a concept which is in total conflict with the principles of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.  In that post I mentioned OnMyHonor.net: a group of Scouts, Scouters and supporters who "are united in their support of Scouting's timeless values and their opposition to open homosexuality in the Scouts."  OnMyHonor.net has become a significant presence in this discussion, its leaders appearing on nationally televised news broadcasts in recent days.

So look at what was posted on the official OnMyHonor.net Facebook page a short while ago...

"Today, top BSA officals contacted OMH coalition partners to ask them to stand down! LOL. (not a joke)."

What the...?!?!? 

Is this right?  OnMyHonor.net has been told to cool it by the executives of the Boy Scouts of America's national office?

How the hell is what the BSA head office doing honorable?  HOW is it at all honest, "morally straight", or respecting the Scout Law?

It is not.  It is NOT!!

There is other information which in recent days I have been made aware of regarding next month's vote to keep or change the policy.  I haven't had enough corroboration about that information to confidently write about it but if there is any substance to those as well, in the mind of this blogger the executive are guilty of even more shameful acts, apparently for the cause of political correctness.

And if there is the least shred of truth to these assertions, if the Boy Scouts top executives are behaving in such a manner, then they should do the honorable thing and step down and leave the Boy Scouts of America.  They should make way for true leadership which is sincerely dedicated to the principles of Scouting which Lord Robert Baden-Powell knew were needed for young boys to become the responsible leaders that this world sorely needs.

Read More

Dear News & Record: Opposition does NOT equal hate and fear of homosexuals

One of the front-page stories of today's edition of the (Greensboro, North Carolina) News & Record is about DC Comics delaying publication of science-fiction writer Orson Scott Card's story for the upcoming first issue of DC Comics' Adventures of Superman anthology.  Chris Sprouse, the artist assigned to illustrate the story, is refusing to work on grounds that the "controversy" about Card's publicly-stated beliefs that homosexuality is wrong.  Especially his opposition to "gay marriage" during the lead-up to last year's amendment to North Carolina's constitution affirming that legal marriage is between one man and one woman.

You won't find it in the story posted on the News & Record's website, but the article's synopsis in the print edition reads thusly: "An uproar over author Orson Scott Card's homophobic views leads illustrator to withdraw."

"Homophobic"  As in, literally, "Orson Scott Card is in fear of homosexuals".  The implication being that if he is in fear of homosexuals, Card also harbors hate of homosexuals.  That is certainly how such things are associated in the minds of too many journalists these days.

I don't know if Robert C. Lopez - the News & Record reporter who wrote the story - is responsible for his article's print synopsis.  Regardless, whoever wrote it is either terminologically ignorant or journalistically negligent.  Or, inexcusably driven by agenda.

But that's not the point of this post...

There is a difference between disapproving of a person's activity and disapproving of that person as a whole.  I know many homosexual individuals.  I sincerely believe that their behavior is wrong and even self-destructive.  But I have never hated them.  Some are even good friends who I have worked with and acted alongside on stage.  I like to think that they can disagree with me as well without harboring any animosity.

But through the prism most politicians and journalists and media "personalities" have demanded we see reality through, a failure to endorse the lifestyle of others is indicative of hatred toward others.

No wonder the political climate of this country is so polarized.  How can there possibly be earnest and sincere discussion about anything at all, when any side sees others as deserving scorn and ridicule, and lacking merit enough to be heard out?

Orson Scott Card is being charged - whether or not it will be admitted aloud - with inciting fear, hatred and intolerance toward homosexuals.  Curiously, the irony has gone woefully under-appreciated that those levelling such claims are inciting fear, hatred and intolerance toward Card and anyone else who believes homosexuality is wrong.  At the Mysticon science-fiction convention in Roanoke last weekend, my girlfriend overheard two people conversing with each other about how Card - the literary guest of honor - wasn't "very Christian" because of his statements against homosexuality.  I also heard one attendee claim that it was wrong for Card to have been invited because he was, quote, "hateful of people like me".

The only people I see demonstrating legitimate hatred of others are those who want there to be hatred of others.  When all else fails in an attempt at persuasion, hate is the time-tested tool of evoking deceit, distrust and division.  It is a coward's tool.  It is a tool of men of barbarity, not men of intellect.

The News & Record writers and editorial staff should bear that in mind, pertaining as much to their personal predilections as their professional ones.

Read More

It's late, I'm tired and maybe a little cranky...

I'm just getting back home from a few days and this is what I find...

Harry Harrison passed away last week, Tony Scott died yesterday and now tonight word is that Phyllis Diller has left us.

Augusta National Golf Club has caved and is now admitting women as members.

And some congressman named Akin is all over my news feed about "legitimate rape" or somesuch, whatever that is.

Last night Kristen and I saw The Expendables 2. 'Twas the most dumbest fun/funnest dumb gloriously loud hella awesome action movie I've seen since the first movie two years ago. And it still makes more sense than too much of real life that I'm looking at this late hour.

(Incidentally, this movie has the highest testosterone level I've ever seen in a film... and that's even before Chuck Norris arrives to show up everyone :-)

Seriously though: Harrison was a master science-fiction writer. His Make Room! Make Room! was the basis of the movie Soylent Green. Also should mention that his West of Eden was one of the first serious sci-fi novels that I ever read. Tony Scott left an indelible mark upon motion pictures with Top Gun, Crimson Tide, True Romance and a bunch of other movies (the opening titles of Days of Thunder alone are considered a masterpiece). And I've no doubt that Phyllis Diller is back onstage with Bob Hope tonight, playing to a crowed theater in Heaven.

Thoughts and prayers going out to their families.

Read More

Warner Bros. made Zack Snyder cut out smoking in WATCHMEN

Alan Horn, head of the movie studio at Warner Brothers, demanded that the smoking be cut out of the film adaptation of Watchmen to such an extent that Laurie won't be enjoying that weird but neat-looking pipe of hers. According to director Zack Snyder, it was either remove the smoking or "the movie wouldn't have been made, literally." Although the Comedian will still be puffing his cigars because he was deemed "evil" enough.

So let me get this straight: Watchmen is a story that includes a hero who is racist and anti-black (Captain Metropolis), another who speaks favorably of Hitler (Hooded Justice), features a brutal rape scene, shows a little girl murdered then cut to pieces and fed to dogs, has a main character who is struggling with sexual dysfunction, and maybe a dozen other very bad images and concepts...

...and yet showing a grown woman smoking is supposed to be worse than all of these things?

I can't figure that one out at all. Especially since Laurie's smoking, I thought so anyway, is foreshadowing for a certain big reveal about her character later on in the book (and presumably the movie).

This kind of "political correctness" all too often goes way too far. Studio execs like Horn really should take a more hands-off approach with stuff like this, and trust the directors and producers and script writers with how they want to bring their vision to life. I'm not saying forgo all accountability, but this situation really is micro-management to the extreme.

Read More

Vintage SESAME STREET is now adults-only

The very first episodes of Sesame Street are out on DVD. But they carry a warning label: "These early 'Sesame Street' episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child." And this is not intended to be a joke either, according to this New York Times article. Seems that a lot of things have changed since Sesame Street's first broadcast 38 years ago this month. Among the items listed as unacceptable for today's children: Cookie Monster smoking a pipe during "Monsterpiece Theater", Oscar the Grouch is now seen as having untreated depression, and how there are too many "rural — agrarian, even — sequences" in the early episodes.

I have a question: how many of the "child experts", who sit around all day finding stuff like this to nit-pick about, actually have children?

Read More