Monday, December 20, 2010

“The Dark Knight Rises” rumors – Tom Hardy to play Hugo Strange? reported “that the “Dark Knight Rises” is script expected in January and shooting set to start in May of 2011, the rumor mill for The Dark Knight Rises is cranking up. The latest speculation has the movie based on Prey, a story arc in the Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight graphic novel series.

This comic series is widely considered a follow-up to Frank Miller’s “Year One” and would easily be a good fit for the Christopher Nolan series. Nolan has confirmed that the Joker will not return and the Riddler will not be the villain in “Rises.

So, is this a manufactured frenzy to sell some comic book back issues?


At that same time Christopher Nolan describe this as the final chapter in his trilogy: “…complete a story that has begun. This is not starting over, this is not rebooting. We’re finishing something, and keeping a consistency with what’s come before has real value.”

Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight # 11-15: Prey

A story by Doug Moench:

Gotham City’s new psychiatrist, Hugo Strange, is obsessed with Batman. He convinces the mayor to prepare a special task force to capture Batman with Commissioner Gordon as its head. Gordon deploys the seemingly not-too-bright, overzealous Sgt. Max Cort to lead the task force. Later, it is found that Strange hates the Batman because he loves what the Batman does, becoming a creature of the night but he can’t do it. He deduces the Batman’s identity and plays psychologically with him by placing life-like mannequins of his parents in Wayne Manor with audio tapes. He then hypnotizes Sgt. Cort into donning a costume & becoming another vigilante, who then kidnaps the mayor’s daughter. Batman rescues the mayor’s daughter, while Hugo Strange is shot several times before falling into Gotham Bay. His body is never recovered.1

So enter Tom Hardy, who is confirmed to be playing a villain, would be a nice fit from the psychopath Dr. Hugo Strange. The human experimentation and mental instability parallel the Scarecrow and the Joker, so I can see the appeal to the Nolan universe.

Read more:

Christmas Memories: “Christmas Story” & the Leg Lamp

“Christmas Story” remains one of my favorite Christmas movies because of the how well it holds up to multiple viewings. My children tease me because I watch the film with the captions “turned on” to discover amazing line after line.

Old Man Parker: In the heat of battle my father wove a tapestry of obscenities that as far as we know is still hanging in space over Lake Michigan.

One of the most famous scenes in the film is the arrival of the “major award”: the leg lamp.

[Mr. Parker reads a side of the box with the prize that he won]
Mr. Parker: Fra-gee-lay. That must be Italian.
Mrs. Parker: Uh, I think that says FRAGILE, dear.
Mr. Parker: Oh, yeah.

This is a list of my favorite quotes from “A Christmas Story”

* Only one thing in the world could’ve dragged me away from the soft glow of electric sex gleaming in the window.
* Only I didn’t say “Fudge.” I said THE word, the big one, the queen-mother of dirty words, the “F-dash-dash-dash” word!
* We plunged into the cornucopia quivering with desire and the ecstasy of unbridled avarice. (as Randy dives into the presents)
* Over the years I got to be quite a connoisseur of soap. My personal preference was for Lux, but I found Palmolive had a nice, piquant after-dinner flavor – heady, but with just a touch of mellow smoothness. Life Buoy, on the other hand…
* Grover Dill! Farkus’s crummy little toadie. Mean! Rotten! His lips curled over his green teeth.
* Scut Farkus! What a rotten name! We were trapped. There he stood, between us and the alley. Scut Farkus staring out at us with his yellow eyes. He had yellow eyes! So, help me, God! Yellow eyes!
* Schwartz created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat!
* All right, I’ll get that kid to eat. Where’s my screw driver and my plumber’s helper? I’ll open up his mouth and I’ll shove it in.
* The old man stood there, quivering with fury, stammering as he tried to come up with a real crusher. All he got out was…(Old Man) Naddafinga!!!
* I left Flick to certain annihilation. But BB gun mania knows no loyalty.
* Strange. Even something as momentous as the Scut Farkus affair, which it came to be known, was pushed out of my mind as I struggled to come up with a way out of the impenetrable BB gun web, in which my mother had me trapped.


Read more at:

Monday, December 6, 2010

Leftists Delusions of Obama's Accomplishments

Read the complete article here at

This Facebook post is spreading through Democratic and leftist circles to mobilize support and tighten the buzzwords of support for their glorious leader.

Nancy Lloyd’s list is a utopian wishlist of campaign propaganda designed to program the disciples for the upcoming campaign without any serious analysis to truth or execution.

At the top of the list in “Ethics” is the Obama favorite – “Transparency”

Let’s forget for a moment that Congress pushed healthcare through Christmas sessions at midnight or the series of thousand page bills which were never read –no, let’s look at the President’s most recent move: Bob Bauer.

The “Ethics Czar” (Norm Eisen) has been relocated to ambassador detail for the Czech Republic leaving Bauer to head this “fictional” concept of “transparency” from the Oval Office. Bauer, a Democratic lawyer and opponent to Campaign Finance, has a reputation of ‘pushing the limits of how these rules are interpreted, he’s paved the way for more unethical outcomes.”

On a similar notion is the concept that there are “no lobbyists in the White House” – they use the phrase “placed limits on” them – no matter what color you paint the fence, it’s still designed to keep the chickens on the farm.

From President Obama’s State of the Union: “We’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs” which translates to “We told a bunch of people no, but we have 40 lobbyists currently working in the White House.” (Read Washington Examiner article here)

Nancy Lloyd Facebook article says: “* Note: After saying he would not hire lobbyists, a few have been hired in the Administration” — yes. “Few” = 40!

Promises broken are so easily redefined or ignored:

* Freedom of Information Act to be repealed – now, “respect” the act and overturn Bush era limits
* Close Guantanamo Bay Prison (“due to opposition”) – even though he’s had a super majority in Congress
* Afghanistan & Iraq: I love the spin here on “intentions and efforts” instead of results
* Ended the Bush-era “blackout” imposed on media coverage of the return of fallen US soldiers (CALVIN GIBBS!?!?!)
* On that same blackout: Wikileaks documents and the mysterious missile off the coast of California

Let’s continue the back and forth with Nancy’s proposed “Accomplishment” and the reality:

* Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office — apologized for America tour, bowed to Saudi and Japanese leadership and dissed Great Britain, our strongest ally on several occasions.
* Spoke on Arab television, spoke at an Egyptian university, and met with Arab leaders in an effort to change the tone of US-Arab relation — We’re Sorry
* Authorized a $789 billion economic stimulus plan – It’s NOT going to work because it was a spending bill for Democrat districts
* Authorized a continuation of the US financial and banking rescue plans initiated at the end of the Bush administration and authorized TARP funds to buy “toxic assets” from failing financial institutions — see Bush gets blamed for the mess, but Obama continued the horrible bailout bill, turning it into a slush fund for bankers
* Ended the Bush-era policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs – in India he describes outsourcing as having “enormous win-win potential” Read here

The post ends with “Share the Facts” – well, there are a ton of “half-truths” or skewed perspectives to share. So as I prepared for responses: “Let ‘er RIP!”

Read about the Calvin Gibbs case on DOB:

MSNBC anchor Lawrence O’Donnell: “I am a Socialist”

Read the complete article, with videos at

MSNBC Anchor O’Donnell: “I Am A Socialist. I Live To The Extreme Left Of You Mere Liberals!”

O’Donnell: “I don’t pretend that my views which would ban all guns in America, make Medicare available to all in America, have any chance of happening in the Federal government.”

Glory! Glory, is the truth.

Note: this is the first 40 seconds of the video and look at the face on that “poor Progressive liberal” – he’s in shock at the public pronouncement of their ideology.

Morning Joe – Kudos, praise…finally the truth!

O’Donnell: “If you think Socialism is bad, then you are against Medicare. You are against Social Security. Tell your Mother and Father to stop taking those Social Security checks.”

I want to personally thank Larry for his candor and honesty. Socialism is growing and the advocates are in the media, in our local governments and running the White House. They refuse to accept the history of failures and push this Marxist philosophy under a well-packaged, well-marketed campaign slogan of change.

Well, America doesn’t need change or transformation, it simply needs the Constitution.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Tonight is the night…the debut of the Teleprompter in Indian Parliament sponsored by US taxpayers

A new precedent for President Barack Obama today as he will break the barriers and be the first to use a teleprompter in Indian Parliament.

Indian reports say: “Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual–not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.”

Well, here in America, we’ve gotten used to the fact that our President needs a crutch. After President Bush’s series of bumbles and gaffes, most Americans look the other way or naively praise his oratory skills.

The authorities are also leaving no stone unturned to give a red carpet welcome to Obama.

There have been wild rumors about the trip costing $200 or even $300 million per day — EACH DAY!

“The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality,” said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor. “Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it’s safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated.”

So how much will it cost?

If security is such a HUGE issue – why is Michelle and the girls joining the President on the trip? Wouldn’t that be a greater risk, more to protect and again, more expensive?

Daily Mail reports:
“…the trip involves 40 planes, including Air Force One, and six heavily armored cars.
The president will be driven around in a Cadillac which has a built-in communications center. The car has the U.S. launch codes and the nuclear switch for the president. It can withstand a chemical, germ warfare or bomb attack.
The president’s entourage has booked the entire Taj Mahal Hotel for two days of his three-day visit, and the property will be a no-go area for non-hotel staff while he is staying there.
A heavy security cordon will surround the hotel. The Secret Service will have two command posts in Delhi and Mumbai for communications purposes. They will eye all movement by the president with real time satellite monitoring. Thirty dogs have been put in service to boost security arrangements during the visit.”
Well, it’s easy to see how a price tag in the millions came to be.

One reported comment by a staff member at the Parliament: “Thank god they won’t eat anything or have tea or coffee from our canteen. We would have to go through a tough security drill otherwise.”

Yes indeed.

Historic trip trip – yes. Maybe it’s not the most expensive trip ever, but it should be a nice vacation for the family as the President licks his wounds from the midterm elections.

If nothing else, he’ll have his faithful teleprompter there for comfort.

 Read on—-not-as-expensive-as-you-may-have-heard/1

30 Stupidest “Star Wars” characters – you decide

Simon Kinnear over at delivered an interesting list entitled: “30 Stupidest Star Wars” characters and there might be some surprises for the Fanboys.

C-3Po, Greedo, Boss Nass join the half dressed Oola near the bottom of the list with interesting arguments before we get to a controversial entry: Mace Windu.

Mace Windu: “Controversial choice, but for bad-ass Jackson to be hoodwinked by Palpatine (who couldn’t have be more obviously evil if he stopped mid-scene to kick a passing Ewok) shows serious lapse in the cleverness stakes.”

So, this is not so much a “Stupid” character, but a reflection of how idiotic Mace’s death scene transpired.
A hysterial is Jaxxon. Who is Jaxxon? I’ll let TotalFilm speak for themselves.


The Character: A Lepi smuggler and associate of Han Solo, introduced in Star Wars 8 comic.
Why So Stupid? Look at him.  It’s another rabbit.  Star Wars seems to have a bizarre obsession with giving heroes floppy ears, fluffy tails (and, for all we know, rampant libidos).  Sadly, Jaxxon isn’t the last such creature on this list.
I remember being a kid and looking perplexed at my Marvel “Star Wars” comic at the rabbit fighting alongside Han Solo and somehow pressed on. Little did we know the Jar Jar Binks was rolling around in George Lucas’ noggin, so Jaxxon isn’t as shocking now as it was 30 years ago.
I let you browse the list via the link below, but it’s filled with several characters from the comics and books – quite a let down.

What is NOT a let down and rather controversial is the appearance of General Grievous.

TF: “Why So Stupid? Grievous is the anti-Darth Maul, an alleged bad-ass who is easy to defeat (Kenobi slices off two arms almost immediately) and who fails to heed Maul’s credo that silence is golden, given a cough that’s as irritating for us as it must be for him.”

Cough – stupid. Four lightsabers – awesome. Losing to Obi-Wan (like Darth Maul I might add) – for from stupid.

I loved the date with my kids about Walrusman, Greedo, Anakin himself and yes, Jar Jar Binks.
Have fun Fanboys.
 Read the original post on

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Election Exhaustion and Voter Apathy

It will soon be over.

With the vote today I expect to hear the GOP exaggerate their victories, Democrats to cry “fraud” or “recounts” and voters to shake their heads.

Just as  President Obama was revealed to be another political ideologue, so it will be revealed that this midterm election will effect little other than deepen the wedge between the two sides and give credence to ignoring third party options.

There is a chasm between the far left and far right and that’s how our political leaders want it to remain. President Obama made a reference to Republicans as “enemies” (Read this and more of the President’s gems) and Sean Hannity’s condescending attitude bleeds down my TV screen if I wander onto FOX news.
If you’ve tried to follow the political races then your wading boots are covered in mud from the leeches slinging insults at one instead of discussing solutions. Alan Grayson for example felt it was acceptable to refer to his opponent as a terrorist and a draft dodger. (Read the article here) Republicans want us to ignore the years of spending and ignoring their electorate under Bush and empower them again.

Our media continues to fail us as they focus more on Christine O’Donnell’s dating habits nearly 20 years ago than our Floridians will pay for a high speed rail system.

So what’s new? Nothing.

In Winnipeg, this candidate attacks the incumbent, Sam Katz, for kicking children in the  face (accidentally during a soccer game) — “nice” (Canadian attack ad – kicking child in the face)

So it’s everywhere.

Some districts will report the low voter turnout or report on the frustrations and apathy of voters.
Ashame they’ll never seek out “Why” or offer solutions by fairly covering third party candidates.
We will return to a daily grind, a struggle in today’s economy with a background of instance news, lies, deceit – until they need us to vote again in two years.

Don’t get me wrong, I hold the power to vote as sacred and a responsibility but I feel your pain and I’m exhausted from the campaigning.

Let’s take a deep breath and start anew tomorrow knowing that the cycle is about to start over.

Read State of the Nation at are this article here:

Michelle Obama's speech divides right from left

Michelle Obama’s stump speech for Harry Reid really reveals the emotional drive of the left and how separated the right is from those on the left. While her husband calls the opposition the “enemy” and horribly articulates a metaphor of “driving the car into a ditch” and “drinking a Slupee” (Read many of the President’s quotes: here)

We are not just here because of an election. We are not just here because we support Harry, and we do. We are here to renew that promise. We are here to restore that dream. We are here because we believe in some simple truths, that no child’s future should be limited because of the neighborhood they are born in. We believe that if you get sick in America, you should be able to see a doctor.
We believe that if you work hard you should make a decent wage and have a secure retirement. We believe that if you fulfill your responsibilities every day you should be able to provide for your family, just like our folks did.
 ”We believe” — insinuating the other guys, those “enemies” don’t share these beliefs?

I disagree Madam. Most Americans, right and left, share many of those beliefs, but we differ in application, means and the role of the Federal Government as the executor of these “beliefs.”

What dream is being restored?

One minute the Obamas are fundamentally “changing” America and then the next, they are “restoring” something. Which is it?

The talking points are all here:
  • Insinuate that Americans can’t see a doctor (presumably without Obamacare) but we have illegal immigrants in emergency rooms.
  • Insinuate that the “other side” doesn’t care about the future of those poor kids.
  • Insinuate that the Republicans don’t care about your retirement or your prosperity.
So Mrs. Obama can even wave a finger, lecture American voters, but all she is really conveying is that the Obamas are ideologues….far leftists….statists.

The means to insurance, prosperity and life style are simply defined in our Constitution: life, libery and the pursuit of happiness. “Pursuit” offers no guarantees of outcomes (an issue illustrated through guilt on the left) and the solution is simple: Big Government or Less Government.

This dates back to Andrew Hamilton versus Thomas Jefferson.

“We believe” in many of the same things, but we disagree on “HOW” to get there.

Read here on

Michelle Obama quote page on DOB:

Joy Behar's mental comments reveal liberal hypocrisy

So Joy Behar doesn’t like Sharron Angle.  The right-wing opponent of Harry Reid has infuriated Behar to the point of screaming that Angle is “going to hell” calling her a “bitch” and proclaiming her to be evil. Read and watch video here.

Meanwhile, on another show, Juan Williams explains he gets uncomfortable and nervous seeing fully garbed Muslims on a plane – Juan was fired.

So why the incredible double standard?

I’ve read the left-wing bloggers excusing Joy’s rants because she’s an “entertainer” but these are the same folks crucifying every talk radio blowhard from Glenn Beck to Rush Limbaugh.
The firing of Juan Williams by NPR has set off a firestorm to stop taxpayer funds from fueling this hypocritical agenda. Jim DeMint has led the charge to end the federal funding of NPR.
NPR received $4 billion in federal money since 2001 and will get $430 million in the 2011. Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor and nearly every Republican running for office this year promised to seek an end to taxpayer subsidies for NPR and public television.
I seldom agree with Brit Hume’s narrow perspective, but Brit said: ”And I think it is simply this, that in the culture of NPR, appearing on Fox is a sin. And in the culture of NPR, for an African American man like Juan, regardless of his extraordinary stature, to be there and be kind of a Bill Cosby liberal, not a down-the-line liberal, is a sin as well.

A Bill Cosby liberal.

The progressives will tolerate the unhinged behavior of Joy Behar as long as the target is an enemy of the agenda. This is agenda is narrowly constructed that a slight misstep, one belief too close to Cosby or Williams and you can be banished from their playground.

Modern liberalism: intolerant, bigoted, mean spirited and most dangerous of all, without accountability.

Read "State of the Nation" at or this article at: 

Joy Behar Quotes on Desk of Brian, DOB:

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Bill Mahers offers Democrats advice to win

Bill Maher wrote a column for the Huffington Post slamming Christine O’Donnell and offering this amazing wisdom:
“Which brings me to the one succinct phrase that could keep the Democrats in power in 2012: “We’ll legalize pot.” I’m not saying this just to get cheap applause. I’m saying it because reliable surveys tell us that there’s only one thing that will rouse our precious youth to the polls the way Jackass in 3D got them out to the theaters, and that’s pot. It’s the unwritten second half of Obama’s slogan. “Yes We Can…Get High at the Mall.”
Read all of the gems from Bill Maher on DOB’s quote page Read it here.

The motivation is simple: Bill wants everyone to get high. He’d probably be funnier if the audience was stoned out of their minds, but Maher drives home another motivation:

Bill Maher has been using current events — particularly politics — as comedic fodder for more than a dozen years. Earlier this month, the comedian made his Internet television debut with "Amazon Fishbowl with Bill Maher," a 30-minute weekly program on Bill Maher has been using current events — particularly politics — as comedic fodder for more than a dozen years. Earlier this month, the comedian made his Internet television debut with "Amazon Fishbowl with Bill Maher," a 30-minute weekly program on Maher has been using current events — particularly politics — as comedic fodder for more than a dozen years. Earlier this month, the comedian made his Internet television debut with "Amazon Fishbowl with Bill Maher," a 30-minute weekly program on AP/Damian Dovarganes

In the legalization of marijuana, the Democrats finally could have something they’ve always wanted: a wedge issue. Remember wedge issues? Things like gay marriage and prayer in school and other bulls**t that Republicans used for years to get hillbillies to the polls? That’s how Bush got elected in 2004 — Karl Rove put gay marriage on the ballot in eleven key states, knowing that all the Christian s**t-kickers would come out against boys kissing and stick around to pull the lever for Bungles the Clown.”
Like most on the Left, Maher thrives on the opportunity to rail on the right, especially the Christian right. To Maher and the leftists on Capitol Hill, we’re all just a bunch of ignorant “hillbillies” who can’t think for ourselves and it was all just a grand conspiracy by Karl Rove to strike down gay marriage initiatives.
I wish I could ask Bill how that worked in California where 70 % of the Obama supporters, who were also Black, voted down gay marriage.

Read here:

Monday, October 25, 2010

Virgina Ironside: Abortion is Kindness

Virginia Ironside: If I were the mother of a suffering child I mean a deeply suffering child I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.
When I heard about this interview, I expected a screaming match, a miscue or a comment which would be followed by a retraction and an apology.
In fact, the others on the panel give Ms. Ironside an “out” and she refuses. “Abortion is the act of a loving mother” -  I was shocked.
“If a baby’s going to be severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother. Life is only a gift if the person living it feels cherished, loved and wanted and sadly, the world is full of unwanted children. To go ahead and have a baby, knowing that you can’t give it some kind of stable upbringing seems to me to be cruel.
“There is an argument that parents will love a severely disabled child and that a fatherless child will get all the love it needs from its mother, and some argue that the parents of a disadvantaged child will become better people. We all love the feeling of doing good, but to create a child who may well be going to suffer all its life is very, very unfair and no good parent, and no good mother, would want to impose that suffering on a child.”
The arrogance and condescending attitude isn’t really new, but is no less shocking and difficult to digest. Virginia Ironside almost drifts into citing Hitler with her visions of absolutes and having all of the answers.

Read State of the Nation at

This article here at:

Monday, October 18, 2010

Eric Stoltz in 'Back to the Future' - thank goodness for "change"

This summer we celebrated the 25th anniversary of “Back to the Future” and even though it’s months later, I felt it interesting to reflect on what could have been…or rather, what would not have been.
Eric Stoltz as Marty McFly
As most “Back to the Future” fans know, Eric Stoltz was cast in the role of Marty McFly for 6 weeks of filming before Robert Zemeckis and Steven Spielberg deemed him “too intense” for the role and let him go.
Thanks to Gary David Goldberg, the BTTF was then able to get Michael J. Fox, their first choice for Marty.  Fox had at first been unable to play the role, due to a scheduling conflict with his TV series “Family Ties” but now Goldberg allowed him to juggle the two projects, and the rest is history! For a while, this picture was one of the ones in existence of Stoltz as Marty McFly.
Interesting Note: The costume that Eric Stoltz is wearing was described as Marty’s 1985 outfit in the novelization of Back to the Future by George Gipe. A T-shirt with a U.S. Patent Office facsimile on it [of a guitar], and green [Converse] shoes.

Production started on November 26, 1984 and by Christmas, Spielberg had declared Stoltz wrong for the comedy.
Steven Spielberg, says that Zemeckis checked with him before making the switch.
“[Zemeckis] showed me the first five weeks of shooting that he had put together, aAnd he said, ‘I just don’t think we’re getting the laughs I was hoping we would get.’ ”
Spielberg feels the decision “was absolutely correct.”

Read more of the article, see the video and pictures here at:

Monday, October 11, 2010

NewWorldSon interview and Concert review

Listen to the new NewWorldSon CD, a self titled album featuring their hit song “There is a Way”, and you may scratching your head trying to figure out their sound. Before a concert near Tampa, I was able to spend time with drummer Mark Rogers who described NewWorldSon as “Four guys, with similar backgrounds, who love soul, jazz, reggae, ska, funk…our music can’t just be put in a single style.”


As I learned about the Canadian foursome, I was struck by their passion.
NewWorldSon was forged out of a Tuesday night jazz club gig, supported by their local church in St. Catharines in Ontario, Canada.
“People from the church supported us as a great outreach. It was good music. The more bolder we performed, the more successful we became” but Rogers went on to admit “We questioned if the audience would want to here gospel.”
It would be understated to describe the subsequent three years as a meteoric rise in popularity, including eight months on the road opening for the Newsboys.
“The performances all over the world were exciting. We all worship the same God and music brings people together” Rogers says of the tour. NewWorldSon surely sharpened their skills and the concert at Bell Shoals Baptist Church exceeded all of my expectations.

NewWorldSon, Rich Moore on bass 10/08/10 Bell Shoals Baptist Church Photo/Brandon Jones

Lead singer Joel Parisien immediately took control and energized the crowd during “You Set the Rhythm”, dancing a jig that engaged his fans and when Parisien opened “Listen to the Lord” with his beatbox, even the most stubborn concertgoer abandoned their seat to stand and cheer.
“Our prayer is to have a good time with you, fellowship with you and in all honesty, for some Southern hospitality” Parisien confessed to the crowd who then joined in a “spiritual calisthenics” with an organized “soul clap” to get everyone’s juices flowing.

Read article here:

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Ground Zero Mosque response: Fred Phelps to build anti-gay church near Stonewall

Maybe you see this coming since they are going to build a mosque next to ground zero. (Read Here: Commission clears way for ground zero mosque)

So, to the supporters of the mosque (the panel vote was 9-0 and the New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports the idea) so would a Westboro, anti-gay church build next to the location of the Stonewall riots be approved?

Where is the new line America?

Are we drawing lines for freedom of religion or freedom of speech?

I’m struggling with the concept of the mosque for many, many reasons, but be careful NOT to infringe on their freedom to practice religion. Are these wohabe (radical extremist) Muslims or peace loving American Muslims?

So, here’s the challenge:

To the supporter: would you support the Fred Phelps, gay hating Baptist Church being built adjacent to the Stonewall Inn as I stated?

To the opposition: weren’t you screaming about suppression of Christian practices, especially as Christmas and Easter?

What church would be acceptable at or near ground zero? What is politically correct or incorrect?
This is the modern fight for “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” – can you and will you fight for the opinion or RIGHT even if you completely disagree in your gut?

Read more here:

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Stimulus Bill: the latest receipt on Wasteful Spending

As we close in on the election, I’ve noticed Democrats aren’t touting their February 2009 Stimulus Bill, which as revised by the Congressional Budget Office, cost $862 billion.
In December 2009, the LA Times reported $157,8 billion in stimulus funds had been spent to save 640,320 jobs. Wow, that’s only $246,346 per job!
Woohoo! We redirected, borrowed, or printed nearly $250,000 to save a job.
Isn’t the government efficient?
In October of 2009 the government released the data that the “average payroll employee (for October 2009) was $59,867. The government spends FOUR TIMES the average salary to “Create a Job”. Using their ridiculous figures and the average payroll – that would have been 2.4 million jobs.
So this was the recent headline:
NIH, spent $823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009 on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex. (read
Let’s review what we’ve spent some of this money on…
Mapping Radioactive Rabbit Feces                                                       $300,000
University of Hawaii: Honey Bee Study                                               $210,000
Oregon Fishermen:Lost Crab Pot Recovery                                      $700,000
Mark Penn (repay Hillary Clinton campaign debt)                       $5,970,000
Univ. of Arizona/Ariz State: Ant Research                                          $970,000
Connecticut insect research                                                                    $2,300,000
Duluth, Minn. Snow Making Facility (15th in yearly snowfall)       $6 million
Minn. (Heart of Beast) socially conscious Puppet Show                   $100,000
Penn State fossil research in Argentina                                               $1,570,000
Lockheed Martin: study supersonic corporate Jet                        $4,700,000
Washington State visitor center(closed in 2007) repairs                 $554,763
National Institute of Health:study college students sex lives          $219,000
California College students to poll African election patterns          $230,000
Study how cocaine effects monkeys’ brains                                             $147,000
Study on ‘Why Young Men Don’t Like Condoms’                                    $221,000
Tennessee Mall: Geothermal heating (mall’s nearly empty)        $5,000,000
Study Buffalo, NY residents’ drinking habits                                          $400,000
Boynton, Oklahoma: replace 5 year old sidewalks                                  $90,000
Sunset Strip renovation                                                                                $1,000,000
Lancaster, PA Train Station(not used for decades) Renovation   $9.38 million
Facebook privacy study                                                                                  $498,000
Turtle Tunnel in Tallahassee, Florida                                                     $3,400,000
Wichita, Kansas: Spay and Neuter pets                                               $380,000 – this includes an undisclosed amount for roads as well
Georgia Tech University study on improvised music                      $762,372
“Dance Draw” – UNC: Charlotte (interactive dance)                           $750,000
Land purchase Arizona and Colorado Spring Training Facilities    $30 Million
Connecticut WNBA team’s practice facility                                             $50 million
Light rail tunnel under the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh              $62.5 million
Fire Stations in San Antonio (2 stations)                                                  $73 million

Read more:

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Does the Huffington Post have all of the answers?

Newsweek’s article on the Huffington Post and Arianna Huffington ask a very interesting question: Has the Huffington Post figured out the future of journalism?
“The Huffington Post, attracted 24.3 million unique visitors last month, five times as much traffic as many new-media rivals, more than The Washington Post and USA Today, and nearly as many as The New York Times. HuffPo’s revenue this year will be about $30 -million—peanuts compared with the old-media dinosaurs, but way better than most digital competitors. And HuffPo has finally started to eke out a profit.”
The article mentions how Newsweek is/was for sale and how these traditional journalism outlets are bleeding cash. Their costs are too high, the product can no longer compete with the timeliness of Internet news and are incredibly bias and prejudiced in their reports.
So how and why is the Huffington Post so successful?
They cashed in and built a brand attracting the “Bush haters” and are reaping amazing benefits. The Huffington Post is very timely with their news and have a flashy, attractive website that is incredibly user friendly.
I and, DOB, share a similar mission statement: “HuffPo’s mission, Huffington says, is “to provide a platform for a really important national conversation.”

Read the rest of the article:

Monday, September 20, 2010

Ryan Hughes interview

My family had the honor of attending a fundraiser for LifeCare of Brandon, a non-profit organization which offers counseling and support for women enduring an unplanned pregnancy or a past abortion.
This benefit concert was headlined by Ryan Hughes and his “To Be Determined” band which was an amalgam of artists playing guitar, sax, drums, and provided backup vocals. It was an amazing show and I took the opportunity to talk to Ryan briefly about the experience.
Brandon Jones: “New Day” is the first song on your album “Step Out Again” and, in my opinion, it’s a great concert anthem song, so tell me a little about how it came to be and how you approach it with the audience.
Ryan Hughes: I have always loved the verse in 2 Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! Romans 8:1 similarly reminds us, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.”
I believe that more than ever people need to know that they are not bound to be what they’ve been in the past. Instead there is new life and freedom moving forward in Christ. In many ways our lives are yet “to be determined” by the choices we make. Accepting Christ into our lives is a choice we can make which brings us into a “New Day”.
Brandon Jones: I think it’s a great message.
One of the great moments of the show was when you brought your two sons up on stage to join you and your wife, Patty, in a number. I know it makes you proud, but tell me did this experiment start and could we expect more of it.
Ryan Hughes: Life is full of blessings that we often are too busy to recognize, I appreciate you mentioning it. It was truly a highlight for me to share the stage and a ministry moment with my entire family. Prior to the night of the concert, we had only performed together as a family once before. I am glad I chose to include them, and I will continue to include them in the future.
Both boys are self-taught, and simply play from the passion that God has placed in their hearts. Patty has been with me since I started in ministry, and helps share the workload for keeping our group together.
BBJ: That’s amazing. God has truly blessed your family with an incredible musical talent.

Read more here:

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Stephen Hawking & his juvenile assault on God to sell a book

Stephen Hawking is one of the greatest minds of our century (that’s what we’re told), which is why it’s so frustrating to witness him being exploited, or worse, exploiting science to make a buck. His publisher was thrilled to release the following provocative anti-theisitic statements from Hawking’s new book “The Grand Design”: “Because there are laws such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself out of nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going” and “How did the universe begin?…does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god.”
I’ve received several emails asking if I’m planning to respond – I wanted to wait to see the book for myself. Meanwhile, atheists pound their chests as though they’ve just held up Madusa’s head to defeat the Kraken and they haven’t read one page. I personally laughed at some of the comments that I’ve read by atheists describing how “they’re basically smarter than the rest of us” and can don an arrogant smile like a Hybrid driver pulling away from the gas pump.
While Hawking and his comrades have made careers out of their wild speculations, their assertions are hardly new or prophetic. The theory of the “vacuum fluctuation” (to imply that matter can simply spontaneously appear, created out of “nothing”) has been combined with the string theory, M-theory and other elements of quantum physics to hypothesize scenario after scenario to support the “everything from nothing” (i.e. Big Bang) theory.
Hawking’s statement is no big deal. It’s not original, it’s not certain, and even it were true: it’s no threat to authentic faith in God.
From Hawking’s “A Brief in Time”
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.
The problem is that his statement of absolutism is just a theory. “In quantum THEORY” particles can do whatever the scientists dream up.
So in this latest send up, “The Grand Design”, the genius Hawking fails to illustrate any but another tier on the house of cards of “hypothetical science” My favorite is Hawking trying to explain “M-theory is not a theory in the usual sense. It is a whole family of different theories.”

Read the rest of the article:

Thursday, September 16, 2010

"Degrassi" is Disgraceful, even for teens

Life is not an episode of “The Waltons” or “The Cosby Show” but television shows, especially kids’ shows integrate the most liberal or extreme scenarios into their storylines normalizing the behavior.

“Degrassi”, or more specifically, “Degrassi: The Next Generation” is the flagship show of TeenNick which was revamped in 2009 and features the long running Canadian show. (Note to be confused with Canadien as in Montreal Candadiens, see comments below-BBJ)

TeenNick sounds like a safe haven for parents to unleash their children for some mindless television time. Unfortunately, you need to be concerned.

This is “Degrassi”:

*Jimmy tries to advance his sexual relationship with girlfriend Ashley, he learns that his physical disabilities have caused him to have some erectile issues
*Episode entitled: “It’s Raining Men” – teens Marco and Dylan go on a date, have their first kiss after season long tension including a GLAAD mixer
*One character is caught snorting cocaine and that character joins the first to “find out what it’s like”
*The Coach takes KC to a hotel, gets him drunk, watches porn with him, shows his gun and hires KC a hooker.

Sex, drinking, suicide, even some drug use, getting DRUNK…”Degrassi” delivers it all.

“Part of making stories about the next generation involves tackling social issues relevant to today’s adolescents, even if that means pushing the envelope of what’s conventionally seen in youth-oriented programs” said co-creator and producer Linda Schuyler.

Read the rest of the article:

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Why Faith Matters: Burning Quran, Ground Zero Mosque & Tony Blair - how to make sense of it all

With recent headlines of protests and animosity surrounding a "Community Center" aka mosque, being built at Ground Zero and a Preacher (Terry Jones) organizing a burning of the Quran, it is clear that we are witnessing a resurrection of religious tensions more publicly.

Blair discusses his concern for his atheist father's fate, telling a teacher: "I'm afraid my father doesn't believe in God." Amazingly the child received a healthy response: "That doesn't matter. God believes in him. He loves him without demanding or needing love in return."

Blair continues:

" matters because it inspires people to act and raise their sights beyond themselves. Sadly, religion can be distorted into violent extremism. Having spiritual beliefs has never rendered a person incapable of doing wrong or evil. But far more often, faith can be a force for good."

As the fervor surrounding the Quran burning stirred throughout the week, I discussed it with several individuals and my Pastor send me the response from the Assembly of God (my denomination) Superintendent, George O Wood:

Assemblies of God denounces burning of Qur'an

In what has become a national furor, a small non-denominational church, Dove World Outreach Center, in Gainesville, Florida, has announced plans to burn copies of the Qur'an on Saturday, September 11 ‹ the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.

As the church has reportedly made claims of Pentecostalism, the Assemblies of God, the overall ninth largest denomination in the United States and one of the largest Pentecostal denominations in the United States, has made it clear it has no ties with the church and has publicly objected to the burning.

"I don't believe that [burning the Qur'an] is respectful toward the
very people we want to love into the Kingdom," states AG General Superintendent George O. Wood. "It only drives Muslims farther away from the Lord Jesus and reinforces the false notion that followers of Jesus are crusaders from the Middle Ages."

Just as Blair calls for find "common values to bring us together", we need to strive to bridge gaps not divide people further.

Wood continued:

"Such actions as these only make it more difficult to effectively
witness to Muslims. Our focus should be on sharing the
amazing love of God that brought Jesus into this world to die for
our sins, not engaging in activities that only drive people farther away from Christ."


Read more at "State of the Nation" on

Thursday, July 1, 2010

The Declaration of Our Founders

"State of the Nation" is posted regularly on, read this post here:

The scene is the Continental Congress July 4th, 1776 as the thirteen colonies announce they are now independent states.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The war between the colonies and Britain waged on for over a year before that glorious day in July.

Thomas Jefferson had said (Nov. 29, 1775):
Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.
This most cherished documented is the greatest symbol of liberty. The concept of individual freedom was not new, but what the Jefferson draft provided was self-evident truths.
I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure it will
cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states. Yet through all the gloom I see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth all the means. This is our day of deliverance. - John Adams
Deliverance indeed.

Jefferson presented Natural Law instead of "natural rights theory" substituting "the pursuit of happiness" for property as an inalienable right. The emphasis shifted from personal choice to public service.

After listing the grievances with the King, the official Declaration is made:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.—And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The greatest document is forged.

So beyond the fireworks, parades and hot dogs is the birth of this country. As we look at the toils of the world we should recognize that these men sacrificed their reputations, fortunes and lives to make a dream come alive....America.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Why would Bill Clinton compare Tea Partiers to Timothy McVeigh?

Originally posted at "State of the Nation" at The Desk of Brian,

Bill Clinton commemorated the anniversary of the horrific Oklahoma City Bombing by comparing Tea Party protesters to Timothy McVeigh, blaming advocates of small government for the bombing fifteen years prior.
Clinton is claiming that McVeigh and others:

"...took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them."
For the most point, the Tea Party protesters have been non-violent, vocal dissent against big government, endless spending, encouraging the principles of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. Bill Clinton, along with the extreme left, the mainstream media want to stigmatize the group by associating them with Timothy McVeigh and his ilk.
One might jump to the conclusion that President Clinton is truly maligning the Tea Party members, strategizing with the Obama administration in the transparent campaign to marginalize the Tea Parties.
I'll take a different look and assert that Bill Clinton is behaving as Bill Clinton always has and always will, in his best interest.
President Clinton may want us to believe he's naive, but in fact, I believe is using the opportunity to re-write history.
Timothy McVeigh has revealed to the world why he bombed the Federal Office in Oklahoma City and that's the government's action in Waco, Texas two years prior.

"I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.
I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens. "
McVeigh equates the bombing to hitting a government location in Serbia NOT a protest against "big government" or massive government spending.
McVeigh's actions are heinous, criminal and deplorable on every level and Clinton's efforts to distort McVeigh's intentions to label Americans practicing their free speech is nearly as deplorable.
The Waco Siege ended on April 19, 1993 and two years later, to the day, Timothy McVeigh enacted his distorted and twisted form of justice. Fifteen years later, a former President attempted to politicize the horrors of that day to re-write and protect his legacy and slander protesters.
Pathetic day in history on every level.

"Avengers" taking shape & Mostow speaks on "Namor"

Originally posted at "State of the Nation" at The Desk of Brian,

A "Sub-Mariner" movie aka "Namor" made me snicker at first. The shallow character would be a super-hero version of "Species" or possible a "Frankenstein" tale, but never anything remotely interesting.

Well, then Universal hired Jonathan Mostow to write and direct the film.

Universal still holds control of "Namor" while Marvel pursues an "Avengers" climax to their growing universe. just reported the latest on the film and Mostow's commitment to a great script.

Mostow, director of "Surrogates" and "Terminator 3" said on camera that it's tangled in a "shroud of secrecy" as it is in development.

Meanwhile Hayley Atwell (TV's "The Prisoner", Woody Allen's "Cassandra's Dream") joins the cast on "The First Avenger: Captain America" as Peggy Carter. In the comic books, Peggy Carter is a French Resistance fighter that
hooks up with Steve Rogers and his team of Invaders during World War
II. Carter is the aunt of Sharon Carter, an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. and
Rogers' modern love interest in the current Marvel Comics continuity.

Joss Whedon will direct "The Avengers" and has been given unilateral control to tweek Captain America, "Ant-Man" and basically anything tied to the franchise. Edgar Wright, director of "Ant-Man" tweeted this week that he and Whedon have met:

“I just met Joss Whedon for the first time. Speculation commence!”

"Iron Man 2" director Jon Favreau speaks out that Cap and Thor make a cameo in "IR2":

"I want it to be completely self-contained because a lot is going to happen between now and the next chapter. You've got 'Thor,' you've got 'Captain America ' and you've got ' Avengers.' I
don't know how all of that is going to impact this little handmade
story of ours that we've been doing over the last two films…  You want
to leave some things open, you know, to be like a food cache for them
to set things up that can be paid off later and lean toward where we think
things are going… But we can't leave it like 'Empire' where you're
waiting to see it resolved. It's not a cliffhanger. We had to tuck this
whole story in. And that be said, we had like eight different
storylines going and opened up the door, especially with both the good
guys and the bad guys, for a larger story to be told. That's just
responsible filmmaking. But if you just watch this movie, it's
self-contained. It's not like 'Two Towers.' " - Favreau

An Italian website "BadTaste" confirms:

"One thing that will excite the public instead of enthusiasts is the extra scene that appears after the credits of Iron Man 2,"
says the site, based on their source which they consider "100% secure."
But what will the scene consist of? "Well, we say that the scene will
cover Captain America and Thor!"

Chris Evans as Captain America and Chris Hemsworth as Thor -- it's becoming a reality.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

What Can We Learn From Aldous Huxley?

Guest: Aldous Huxley

WALLACE: This is Aldous Huxley, a man haunted by a vision of hell on earth. A searing social critic, Mr. Huxley 27 years ago, wrote Brave New World, a novel that predicted that some day the entire world would live under a frightful dictatorship. Today Mr. Huxley says that his fictional world of horror is probably just around the corner for all of us. We'll find out why, in a moment.


WALLACE: Good evening, I'm Mike Wallace. Tonight's guest, Aldous Huxley, is a man of letters, as disturbing as he is distinguished. Born in England, now a resident of California, Mr. Huxley has written some of the most electric novels and social criticism of this century.

He's just finished a series of essays called “Enemies of Freedom,” in which he outlines and defines some of the threats to our freedom in the United States; and Mr. Huxley, right of the bat, let me ask you this: as you see it, who and what are the enemies of freedom here in the United States?

HUXLEY: Well, I don't think you can say who in the United States, I don't think there are any sinister persons deliberately trying to rob people of their freedom, but I do think, first of all, that there are a number of impersonal forces which are pushing in the direction of less and less freedom, and I also think that there are a number of technological devices which anybody who wishes to use can use to accelerate this process of going away from freedom, of imposing control.

WALLACE: Well, what are these forces and these devices, Mr. Huxley?

HUXLEY: I should say that there are two main impersonal forces, er... the first of them is not exceedingly important in the United States at the present time, though very important in other countries. This is the force which in general terms can be called overpopulation, the mounting pressure of population pressing upon existing resources.

WALLACE: Uh-huh.

HUXLEY: Uh... this, of course, is an extraordinary thing; something is happening which has never happened in the world's history before, I mean, let's just take a simple fact that between the time of birth of Christ and the landing of the May Flower, the population of the earth doubled. It rose from two hundred and fifty million to probably five hundred million. Today, the population of the earth is rising at such a rate that it will double in half a century.

WALLACE: Well, why should overpopulation work to diminish our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well, in a number of ways. I mean, the... the experts in the field like Harrison Brown, for example, pointed out that in the underdeveloped countries actually the standard of living is at present falling. The people have less to eat and less goods per capita than they had fifty years ago;

and as the position of these countries, the economic position, becomes more and more precarious, obviously the central government has to take over more and more responsibility for keeping the ship-of-state on an even keel, and then of course you are likely to get social unrest under such conditions, with again an intervention of the central government.

So that, I think that one sees here a pattern which seems to be pushing very strongly towards a totalitarian regime. And unfortunately, as in all these underdeveloped countries the only highly organized political party is the Communist Party, it looks rather as though they will be the heirs to this unfortunate process, that they will step into the power... the position of power.

WALLACE: Well then, ironically enough one of the greatest forces against communism in the world, the Catholic Church, according to your thesis would seem to be pushing us directly into the hands of the communists because they are against birth control.

HUXLEY: Well, I think this strange paradox probably is true. There is, er..., it's an extraordinary situation actually. I mean, one has to look at it, of course, from a biological point of view: the whole essence of biological life on earth is a question of balance and what we've done is to practice death control in the most intensive manner without balancing this with birth control at the other end. Consequently, the birth rates remain as high as they were and death rates have fallen substantially. (COUGHS)

WALLACE: All right then, so much, for the time being anyway, for overpopulation. Another force that is diminishing our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well another force which I think is very strongly operative in this country is the force of what may be called of overorganization. Er... As technology becomes more and more complicated, it becomes necessary to have more and more elaborate organizations, more hierarchical organizations, and incidentally the advance of technology is being accompanied by an advance in the science of organization.

It's now possible to make organizations on a larger scale than it was ever possible before, and so that you have more and more people living their lives out as subordinates in these hierarchical systems controlled by bureaucracy, either the bureaucracies of big businesses or the bureaucracies of big government.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Now the devices that you were talking about, are there specific devices or er... methods of communication which diminish our freedoms in addition to overpopulation and overorganization?

HUXLEY: Well, there are certainly devices which can be used in this way. I mean, let us er... take after all, a piece of very recent and very painful history is the propaganda used by Hitler, which was incredibly effective.

I mean, what were Hitler's methods? Hitler used terror on the one kind, brute force on the one hand, but he also used a very efficient form of propaganda, which er... he was using every modern device at that time. He didn't have TV., but he had the radio which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people. I mean, the Germans were a highly educated people.

WALLACE: Well, we're aware of all this, but how do we equate Hitler's use of propaganda with the way that propaganda, if you will, is used let us say here in the United States. Are you suggesting that there is a parallel?

HUXLEY: Needless to say it is not being used this way now, but, er... the point is, it seems to me, that there are methods at present available, methods superior in some respects to Hitler's method, which could be used in a bad situation. I mean, what I feel very strongly is that we mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology.

This has happened again and again in history with technology's advance and this changes social condition, and suddenly people have found themselves in a situation which they didn't foresee and doing all sorts of things they really didn't want to do.

WALLACE: And well, what... what do you mean? Do you mean that we develop our television but we don't know how to use it correctly, is that the point that you're making?

HUXLEY: Well, at the present the television, I think, is being used quite harmlessly; it's being used, I think, I would feel, it's being used too much to distract everybody all the time. But, I mean, imagine which must be the situation in all communist countries where the television, where it exists, is always saying the same things the whole time; it's always driving along.

It's not creating a wide front of distraction it's creating a one-pointed, er... drumming in of a single idea, all the time. It's obviously an immensely powerful instrument.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. So you're talking about the potential misuse of the instrument.

HUXLEY: Exactly. We have, of course... all technology is in itself moral and neutral. These are just powers which can either be used well or ill; it is the same thing with atomic energy, we can either use it to blow ourselves up or we can use it as a substitute for the coal and the oil which are running out.

WALLACE: You've even written about the use of drugs in this light.

HUXLEY: Well now, this is a very interesting subject. I mean, in this book that you mentioned, this book of mine, “Brave New World,” er... I postulated it a substance called 'soma,' which was a very versatile drug. It would make people feel happy in small doses, it would make them see visions in medium doses, and it would send them to sleep in large doses.

Well, I don't think such a drug exists now, nor do I think it will ever exist. But we do have drugs which will do some of these things, and I think it's quite on the cards that we may have drugs which will profoundly change our mental states without doing us any harm.

I mean, this is the... the pharmacological revolution which is taking place, that we have now powerful mind-changing drugs which physiologically speaking are almost costless. I mean they are not like opium or like coca... cocaine, which do change the state of mind but leave terrible results physiologically and morally.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, in your new essays you state that these various "Enemies of Freedom" are pushing us to a real-life “Brave New World,” and you say that it's awaiting us just around the corner. First of all, can you detail for us, what life in this Brave New World would you fear so much, or what life might be like?

HUXLEY: Well, to start with, I think this kind of dictatorship of the future, I think will be very unlike the dictatorships which we've been familiar with in the immediate past. I mean, take another book prophesying the future, which was a very remarkable book, George Orwell's “1984.”

Well, this book was written at the height of the Stalinist regime, and just after the Hitler regime, and there he foresaw a dictatorship using entirely the methods of terror, the methods of physical violence. Now, I think what is going to happen in the future is that dictators will find, as the old saying goes, that you can do everything with bayonets except sit on them!


HUXLEY: But, if you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled, and this they will do partly by drugs as I foresaw in “Brave New World,” partly by these new techniques of propaganda.

They will do it by bypassing the sort of rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions, and his physiology even, and so, making him actually love his slavery.

I mean, I think, this is the danger that actually people may be, in some ways, happy under the new regime, but that they will be happy in situations where they oughtn't to be happy.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you this. You're talking about a world that could take place within the confines of a totalitarian state. Let's become more immediate, more urgent about it. We believe, anyway, that we live in democracy here in the United States. Do you believe that this Brave New World that you talk about, er... could, let's say in the next quarter century, the next century, could come here to our shores?

HUXLEY: I think it could. I mean, er... that's why I feel it so extremely important here and now, to start thinking about these problems. Not to let ourselves be taken by surprise by the... the new advances in technology. I mean the... for example, in the regard to the use of the... of the drugs.

We know, there is enough evidence now for us to be able, on the basis of this evidence and using certain amount of creative imagination, to foresee the kind of uses which could be made by people of bad will with these things and to attempt to forestall this, and in the same way,

I think with these other methods of propaganda we can foresee and we can do a good deal to forestall. I mean, after all, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

WALLACE: You write in Enemies of Freedom, you write specifically about the United States. You say this, writing about American political campaigns you say, "All that is needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look sincere; political principles and plans for specific action have come to lose most of their importance. The personality of the candidate, the way he is projected by the advertising experts, are the things that really matter."

HUXLEY: Well, this is the... during the last campaign, there was a great deal of this kind of statement by the advertising managers of the campaign parties. This idea that the candidates had to be merchandised as though they were so-called two-faced and that you had to depend entirely on the personality.

I mean, personality is important, but there are certainly people with an extremely amiable personality, particularly on TV, who might not necessarily be very good in political... positions of political trust.

WALLACE: Well, do you feel that men like Eisenhower, Stevenson, Nixon, with knowledge aforethought were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public?

HUXLEY: No, but they were being advised by powerful advertising agencies who were making campaigns of a quite different kind from what had been made before. and I think we shall see probably, er... all kinds of new devices coming into the picture. I mean, for example, this thing which got a good deal of publicity last autumn, subliminal projection.

I mean, as it stands, this thing, I think is of no menace to us at the moment, but I was talking the other day to one of the people who has done most experimental work in the... psychological laboratory with this, was saying precisely this, that it is not at the moment a danger, but once you've established the principle that something works, you can be absolutely sure that the technology of it is going to improve steadily.

And I mean his view of the subject was that, well, maybe they will use it up to some extent in the 1960 campaign, but they will probably use it a good deal and much more effectively in the 1964 campaign because this is the kind of rate at which technology advances.

WALLACE: And we'll be persuaded to vote for a candidate that we do not know that we are being persuaded to vote for.

HUXLEY: Exactly, I mean this is the rather alarming picture that you’re being persuaded below the level of choice and reason.

WALLACE: In regard to advertising, which you mentioned just a little ago, in your writing, particularly in “Enemies of Freedom,” you attack Madison Avenue, which controls most of our television and radio advertising, newspaper advertising and so forth. Why do you consistently attack the advertising agencies...

HUXLEY: Well, no I... I think that, er... advertisement plays a very necessary role, but the danger it seems to me in a democracy is this... I mean what does a democracy depend on? A democracy depends on the individual voter making an intelligent and rational choice for what he regards as his enlightened self-interest, in any given circumstance.

But what these people are doing, I mean what both, for their particular purposes, for selling goods and the dictatorial propagandists are for doing, is to try to bypass the rational side of man and to appeal directly to these unconscious forces below the surfaces so that you are, in a way, making nonsense of the whole democratic procedure, which is based on conscious choice on rational ground.

WALLACE: Of course, well, maybe... I... you have just answered this next question because in your essay you write about television commercials, not just political commercials, but television commercials as such and how, as you put it, "Today's children walk around singing beer commercials and toothpaste commercials." And then you link this phenomenon in some way with the dangers of a dictatorship. Now, could you spell out the connection or, have... or do you feel you've done so sufficiently?

HUXLEY: Well, I mean, here, this whole question of children, I think, is a terribly important one because children are quite clearly much more suggestible than the average grownup; and again, suppose that, er... that for one reason or another all the propaganda was in the hands of one or very few agencies, you would have an extraordinarily powerful force playing on these children, who after all are going to grow up and be adults quite soon. I do think that this is not an immediate threat, but it remains a possible threat, and...

WALLACE: You said something to the effect in your essay that the children of Europe used to be called 'cannon fodder' and here in the United States they are 'television and radio fodder.'

HUXLEY: Well, after all, you can read in the trade journals the most lyrical accounts of how necessary it is, to get hold of the children because then they will be loyal brand buyers later on. But I mean, again you just translate this into political terms, the dictator says they all will be ideology buyers when they are grownup.

WALLACE: We hear so much about brainwashing as used by the communists. Do you see any brainwashing other than that which we’ve just been talking about, that is used here in the United States, other forms of brainwashing?

HUXLEY: Not in the form that has been used in China and in Russia because this is, essentially, the application of propaganda methods, the most violent kind to individuals; it is not a shotgun method, like the... the advertising method. It's a way of getting hold of the person and playing both on his physiology and his psychology until he really breaks down and then you can implant a new idea in his head.

I mean the descriptions of the methods are really blood curdling when you read them, and not only methods applied to political prisoners but the methods applied, for example, to the training of the young communist administrators and missionaries. They receive an incredibly tough kind of training which may cause maybe twenty-five percent of them to break down or commit suicide, but produces seventy-five percent of completely one-pointed fanatics.

WALLACE: The question, of course, that keeps coming back to my mind is this: obviously politics in themselves are not evil, television is not in itself evil, atomic energy is not evil, and yet you seem to fear that it will be used in an evil way. Why is it that the right people will not, in your estimation, use them? Why is it that the wrong people will use these various devices and for the wrong motives?

HUXLEY: Well, I think one of the reasons is that these are all instruments for obtaining power, and obviously the passion for power is one of the most moving passions that exists in man; and after all, all democracies are based on the proposition that power is very dangerous and that it is extremely important not to let any one man or any one small group have too much power for too long a time.

After all what are the British and American Constitution except devices for limiting power, and all these new devices are extremely efficient instruments for the imposition of power by small groups over larger masses.

WALLACE: Well, you ask this question yourself in “Enemies of Freedom.” I'll put your own question back to you. You ask this, "In an age of accelerating overpopulation, of accelerating overorganization, and ever more efficient means of mass communication, how can we preserve the integrity and reassert the value of the human individual?" You put the question, now here's your chance to answer it Mr. Huxley.

HUXLEY: Well, this is obviously... first of all, it is a question of education. Er... I think it's terribly important to insist on individual values, I mean, what is a... there is a tendency as a... you probably read a book by Whyte, "The Organization Man", a very interesting, valuable book I think, where he speaks about the new type of group morality, group ethic, which speaks about the group as though the group were somehow more important than the individual.

But this seems, as far as I'm concerned, to be in contradiction with what we know about the genetical makeup of human beings, that every human being is unique. And it is, of course, on this genetical basis that the whole idea of the value of freedom is based.

And I think it's extremely important for us to stress this in all our educational life, and I would say it's also very important to teach people to be on their guard against the sort of verbal booby traps into which they are always being led, to analyze the kind of things that are said to them.

Well, I think there is this whole educational side of... and I think there are many more things that one could do to strengthen people, and to make them more aware of what's being done.

WALLACE: You're a prophet of decentralization?

HUXLEY: Well, the... yes... if it... it's feasible. It's one of the tragedies, it seems to me. I mean, many people have been talking about the importance of decentralization in order to give back to the voter a sense of direct power. I mean... the voter in an enormous electorate field is quite impotent, and his vote seems to count for nothing.

This is not true where the electorate is small, and where he is dealing with a... with a group which he can manage and understand... and if one can, as Jefferson after all suggested, break up the units, er... into smaller and smaller units and so, get a real, self-governing democracy.

WALLACE: Well, that was all very well in Jefferson's day, but how can we revamp our economic system and decentralize, and at the same time meet militarily and economically the tough challenge of a country like Soviet Russia?

HUXLEY: Well, I think the answer to that is that there are... it seems to me that you... that production, industrial production is of two kinds. I mean, there are some kinds of industrial production which obviously need the most tremendously high centralization, like the making of automobiles for example.

But there are many other kinds where you could decentralize quite easily and probably quite economically, and that you would then have this kind of decentralized, like after all you begin to see it now, if you travel through the south, this decentralized textile industry which is springing up there.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, let me ask you this, quite seriously, is freedom necessary?

HUXLEY: As far as I am concerned it is.

WALLACE: Why? Is it necessary for a productive society?

HUXLEY: Yes, I should say it is. I mean, a genuinely productive society. I mean you could produce plenty of goods without much freedom, but I think the whole sort of creative life of man is ultimately impossible without a considerable measure of individual freedom, of initiative, creation, all these things which we value, and I think value properly, are impossible without a large measure of freedom.

WALLACE: Well, Mr. Huxley, take a look again at the country which is in the stance of our opponent anyway, it would seem, anyway it would seem to be there, Soviet Russia. It is strong, and getting stronger, economically, militarily, at the same time it's developing its art forms pretty well, er... it seems not unnecessarily to squelch the creative urge among its people. And yet it is not a free society.

HUXLEY: It's not a free society, but here is something very interesting that those members of the society, like the scientists, who are doing the creative work, are given far more freedom than anybody else. I mean, it is a privileged aristocratic society in which, provided they don't poke their noses into political affairs, these people are given a great deal of prestige, a considerable amount of freedom, and a lot money.

I mean, this is a very interesting fact about the new Soviet regime, and I think what we are going to see is er... a people on the whole with very little freedom but with an oligarchy on top enjoying a considerable measure of freedom and a very high standard of living.

WALLACE: And the people down below, the 'epsilons' down below...

HUXLEY: Enjoying very little.

WALLACE: And you think that that kind of situation can long endure?

HUXLEY: I think it can certainly endure much longer than the situation in which everybody is kept out; I mean, they can certainly get their technological and scientific results on such a basis.

WALLACE: Well, the next time that I talk to you then, perhaps we should investigate further the possibility of the establishment of that kind of a society, where the drones work for the queen bees up above.

HUXLEY: Well, but yes, but I must say, I still believe in democracy, if we can make the best of the creative activities of the people on top plus those of the people on the bottom, so much the better.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, I surely thank you for spending this half hour with us, and I wish you God speed sir.

HUXLEY: Thank you.

WALLACE: Aldous Huxley finds himself these days in a peculiar and disturbing position: a quarter of a century after prophesying an authoritarian state in which people were reduced to cyphers, he can point at Soviet Russia and say, "I told you so!" The crucial question, as he sees it now, is whether the so-called Free World is shortly going to give Mr. Huxley the further dubious satisfaction of saying the same thing about us.