Pushing the Limits
Well, now here's a dilemma. I decided, in a stroke of absolute genius, to make the address of this site www.liberalagenda.blogspot.com in an effort to allow myself to vent on various political events and the continuing eroding of America under the repressive regime of Bush. However, I haven't lived up to that to any real extent. For the most part, I write about the daily minutiae, which is ironic in due to my adamant dislike of said topics, that affect me and my acquaintances. Sure, I post an occasional brief about politics, none recently and very little in sum total, but most of my writing is rather innocuous in nature. In the last few weeks, though, I've been feeling a tad disgusted by the liberal wing of the press, particularly The New York Times, which, as we all know, is the bastion of liberal thought in America and a terrorist organization on par with the Taliban, at least according to the likes of Ann Coulter. Below, I detailed my suspicion that there's a tendency on the producers of this paper to repeat themselves frequently, in fact they did so again today with an article about Robert Johnson. This time I'm not about to spend time venting on that. No, I have a larger concern, a frightening possibility. Is it possible to be too liberal?

I ask this because I'm getting to the point where I can't digest the contents of the paper without a little disgust at their constant rantings and criticisms. Nothing seems to appease their editors, and the daily flogging the Bush Administration receives on the editorial pages is so relentless that it borders on the sadist in nature. In point of fact, it appears that there's absolutely nothing this man can do that will result in, if not praise, at least an objective appraisal. I've come to the realization that the Times has become exactly what they criticize: a group of writers who are on an extended witch-hunt for dirt on a president, which sounds oddly familiar. Deja vu, anyone? Admittedly, the crimes and misdemeanors of this administration are so beyond shady land deals and sexual escapades and involve human life on a grand scale that there's hardly any room for comparison. So, in most instances, the criticism is warranted, but it never seems to cease. The torrent never ends, and it never stops at just Bush; it extends to his cabinet and seems to belabor the point that there's something amiss about their actions.

The straw, though, that broke the camels back, in my case, was their unrelentless assault on Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ. Article after article in today's paper relentlessly thrashes this film for its portrayal of the final hours of Jesus. I saw the film last night, and although it's brutal beyond belief, there's still the matter of fact that it is a film and can be appraised as such. Having said that, I realize that it's also acceptable for critics to dismiss the film as not being particularly well made if that's their assessment. In what may seem to be me wanting to have my cake and eat it to, I do believe that films of this nature are held to different standards. Religious films, by the very nature of their content, appeal to a different audience altogether, and this should be kept in mind when assessing its merits as both a film and a portrayal of a highly religious event.

In my opinion, it's a well made film that, perhaps in some minds portrays certain groups in a poor light, but it also has an artistic side that can be admired. In their minds, however, this is the equivalent of a two hour snuff film that offers little or no redeeming value to the viewer. During the course of the day, I've read many reviews of the film, and I have to confess my mind is reeling from the information. Having read these reviews, and digested their constant criticism of the film for its portrayal of the Jews, I have to wonder how could Gibson have made the film any differently that would have appeased these critics? In short, my own answer is that regardless of how Gibson made the film, there would have been criticism. Why? Well, for the simple fact that it's a religious film, and this being a liberal newspaper, religion is treated, when not with kidgloves for the purpose of not offending anyone, with disdain and criticism.

What really disgusts me, though, is that, regardless of the content of certain "artistic" films, the Times seems to have no problem endorsing, what they believe, is a well-made film. It's got to the point where this entire artistic snobbery charade is becoming more and more tiresome. I'm sick of the fact that there's this notion that if so and so criticizes, likes, endorses, etc. a certain product, then it must be true because it's from a source that's been deemed to be intellectually superior. I'm talking specifically about both the Times and the "untouchable" NPR. I wrote of my dismay over the cancellation of Howard Stern below, and, as I suspected, there's been nothing in way of protest or disgust over censorship or freedom of speech issues. No one, as far as I can tell, in this town has cried foul over the censoring of the airwaves in an attempt to make the world a more family friendly place with wholesome values. Why is this? Because it's Howard Stern, a disgusting, vile man who makes his money by being offensive in every sense of the word. No one cares if his show is cancelled because it's seen as not offering anything redeeming in value. There's no outcry whatsoever. What would happen, though, if NPR got pulled off the air for offensive broadcasts? There'd be rioting in the streets by the intelligentsia. I've heard about their attempts at satire involving Gibson's film, but I haven't heard them, in which case, I can't make any real judgment on them. However, I feel that this type of double-standard is something that needs to be eliminated from the public discourse regarding these types of programs. This isn't easy, as I've mentioned before, as in the paradigm shift. There needs to be some line we can agree on, but I don't see it happening any time soon, especially in these turbulent weeks.