Just last week, Pew Research released the results of a big religion survey, which found, among other things, that non-religious people were more educated on matters of religion than actual believers.  Now, given that the questions on the survey were insanely easy, I was not inclined to pat atheists and agnostics on the back for scoring 20/32 over believers’ 16/32.  Religious literacy is a problem in this country!  Here to illustrate the point for us is Big Hollywood‘s Leo Grin, whose “Catholic grade school” clearly failed him.  Recently Grin went to see The Last Exorcism and Let Me In.  To his, and no one else’s, surprise, they were terrible!  But rather than write a review that was all, “Dudes, these movies were terrible.  Don’t go see them,” Grin takes a classic Big Hollywood lateral approach and tries to make a big deal about how there’s not enough God and Jesus and crucifixes in horror movies.  He starts with a long bit from Stoker:

“It is the eve of St. George’s Day. Do you not know that tonight, when the clock strikes midnight, all the evil things in the world will have full sway?”

Those are words spoken by a superstitious old woman to Jonathan Harker in Bram Stoker’s novelDracula (1897). Fearing for the outsider’s safety, she gives him a crucifix. “I did not know what to do,” Harker writes, “for, as an English Churchman, I have been taught to regard such things as in some measure idolatrous, and yet it seemed so ungracious to refuse an old lady meaning so well and in such a state of mind.”

But later, overcome with terror in the bowels of the Count’s Transylvanian castle, he has reason to be most grateful:

Bless that good, good woman who hung the crucifix round my neck! For it is a comfort and a strength to me whenever I touch it. It is odd that a thing which I have been taught to regard with disfavour and as idolatrous should in a time of loneliness and trouble be of help. Is it that there is something in the essence of the thing itself, or that it is a medium, a tangible help, in conveying memories of sympathy and comfort? Some time, if it may be, I must examine this matter and try to make up my mind about it. In the meantime I must find out all I can about Count Dracula. . . .

Now, as anyone with a passing familiarity with the history of Christianity in Europe knows, the reason Harker balks at accepting the crucifix is its status as a Catholic symbol, with England’s political and cultural three-way tug-of-war between Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Puritanism over the previous centuries enough to give any late-Victorian “English Churchman” (ie, Anglican) pause.  In fact, a lot of Dracula is about the nearly-modern English identity struggling against its older, European roots:  London on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution vs. rural Eastern Europe, no-nonsense Anglicanism vs. superstitious Catholicism, old European aristocracy vs. the new professional British middle-class, etc etc.

Grin’s takeaway from this passage, however, is that there aren’t enough crucifixes in tween Mormon vampire fiction:

Over a century later, Stephenie Meyer managed to write four bestselling books concerning vampires (later translated into a quartet of popular movies) without the word crucifix appearing even a single time in her hundreds of thousands of words.

Meyer is a Mormon!  LDS doesn’t use crosses or crucifixes.  And while Jesus himself never makes an appearance in the Twilight novels, it does not take a genius to catch the constant usage of Mormon imagery, and the relentless advocacy of Mormon values.  Does Grin expect horror novels and films to be not only overtly Christian, but specifically Catholic?  Zah?

Man, what is with conservative columnists having epiphanies about AMERICA while dragging their kids to museum-of-boomer-rock shows?  First David Brooks tossed his advanced degrees in the gutter in favor the “emotional education” given to him by Bruce Springsteen (yeah, I don’t know what the fuck he was talking about either), and now Big Hollywood’s Joseph F. Connor has learned, with some help from Tom Petty, that everything about America statehood is awesome, except for, you know, the American government, which is evil.

I have never heard Tom Petty talk politics. When it comes to performers, that generally is a good thing.

Connor really hates it when musicians get all political.  That is the WORST.  He’d like to sit at home and vibe on “Soak Up the Sun,” but instead he’s got to listen to all these terrible NUGE records to maintain his pristine conservative earspace.  Now that Connor’s done admonishing artists for having political views and speaking about them, he’s going to spend the next few hundred words straining to read a political message into a Tom Petty song (spoiler: it lines up perfectly with his own ideology!  Who would have thought?):

Last week my wife and I took our kids, 13 and 11, to see Petty and the Heartbreakers…

As the band played “Refugee” I couldn’t help but focus on the audience, including my children, singing in unison “everybody’s got to fight to be free.” Like many Petty lyrics, its a simple, direct, powerful line; easily repeated but probably rarely internalized.

Dude, next time just let little Johnny and Susie go see Soulja Boy like they wanted to.  Or get a sitter and just take your wife; she deserves a night out if she’s dealing with preteens belting out “Refugee” around the house.

We, as Americans, do have to fight to be free.

Who am I supposed to be fighting again?  The British?  The concept of tyranny?  I guess terrorists, maybe, but that’s not something “we, as Americans” all have to deal with.  It’s not like those guys are running up all in my and Joseph F. Connor’s grills, personally, telling us we can’t do stuff.  Just for you, Joseph F. Connor, next time a jihadist comes up to me all, “Hey, dieblucasdie, stop being free,” I’mna punch that guy and sing “You Don’t Know How It Feels” to him.

The upcoming generations need to understand that. Our grandparents had to fight to be free of Nazism. Our parents and my generation (though we can discuss The Who at another time) fought to be free of Soviet style communism.

But for this generation and the at least the next, not only do we have to fight to be free of radical Islam but more insidiously we have to fight to be free from the tyranny of our own federal and even local governments’ designs on our liberty. We, who are parents, have a responsibility to educate our children. Our freedoms are threatened by those within and without.

Oh, I see, it’s my local aldermen I should be punching.  He isn’t clear about which liberties my local government might have “designs” on, so how am I supposed to educate the kids?

We must teach our children about the Declaration, the Constitution, our God given individual rights, the brilliance, morality, sacrifice, and bravery of our forefathers and instill in our kids the motivation to become active participants in guaranteeing their own freedoms. Pink Floyd asked, “Mother, should I trust the government?” The answer is “no.” It is filled with too many people who would gladly step in and decide our freedoms for us.

I’ve often wondered how the paranoid anti-government right manages to reconcile such an intense distrust of American institutions with a stringent, no-caveat dedication to American exceptionalism/American nationalism.  My pet theory has always been, “They just don’t think about both at the same time,” but here’s Connor, disproving it.  For him, hatred of American government isn’t just compatible with true American patriotism, it is American patriotism’s defining feature.  Oh, whatever, let’s just go watch some VH-1 Classics.

Bruce Carroll has a piece up today at Big Hollywood that’s a nice twofer of hilarious right-blog fake-controversy tactics.  First, he get all red-in-the-face over how YOU LIBERALS! might overreact given certain circumstances that don’t actually exist.  Maybe one day right-bloggers will stop arguing with the LIBERALS in their heads, and start talking to actual liberals, and we can begin to move forward as a political culture, but, hey, in the meantime at least I have this bitchy blog.  In the second part of Carroll’s outrage-over-meaningless-shit doubleheader, he sees an affront to his values in something completely innocuous.  You may wonder how, rhetorically, it’s possible for Carroll to take LIBERALS to task for being easily offended and himself become offended over something minor in the same piece, but oh, he manages it.  Part one:

This article is nearly three months in the making.  For the second year in a row, my partner John and I attended the Country Music Association (CMA) Music Fest in Nashville, TN in early June.  As a side note, if you ever get the opportunity – GO!  It is a weeklong celebration of great country music and the great American city of Nashville.

But this isn’t a tourist agency pimping of Music City.  Nope, it is a damning indictment of Hollywood’s natural, auto-immune liberal bias.  Let me explain.

I wish Carroll would actually explain that metaphor, because I’m pretty sure he doesn’t know what “auto-immune” means.  I’m unsure as to how an ideological bias could be “auto-immune” or “natural,” but I’m pretty sure by “auto-immune” he means “defensive” and by “natural” he means something like “inherent” or “ingrained.”  If it were “auto-immune” (ie, attacking its own host), you would think Carroll would like that.  Similarly, if it were “natural,” I’m not sure what Carroll would have to complain about.  Would he prefer an unnatural conservative bias?  Oh, whatever, I’ll just move on.

Carroll spends some time lovingly describing CMA Fest for uninitiated, and randomly complaining about Twitter, before finally getting to outrage number 1:

When viewers saw Tim McGraw sing “Southern Voice” last night on ABC, there was an important moment that the network cleverly edited out and actively hid from America.  Why? Because it was inflammatory and would have exposed McGraw, a passionate Democrat activist, to extreme ridicule today.

In what looked like a throwback to the Black Power days of the 1960s, but in reverse, McGraw raised his fist during the chorus of “Southern Voice.” The first time he did it, I was surprised.  The second time I was prepared.

[Youtube video uploaded by Carroll, titled "White Power fist - Tim McGraw]

Not that I would make a big deal out of it, but imagine, if you will, if this was a known conservative singer who had raised his or her fist in the air while singing a song called “Southern Voice.”  But where’s the outrage?  Nowhere.  McGraw actively campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008 (which makes the “white power” fist action even more surreal).  In fact, McGraw lent his vocal talents in January 2010 to a soundtrack compilation, ‘By the People: For the People,’ inspired by the film, ‘By the People: The Election of Barack Obama.’  McGraw joined other notable left-wing artists such as Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews, the Dixie Chicks and Sheryl Crow on the album paying homage to President Obama.

I’d like to ask the ABC producers of the CMA broadcast last night why they chose to do a tight shot of McGraw during the white power fist move.  And if he thought it was an okay move to make, why they felt they had to shelter him with their clever close-up and editing job.

I actually have two responses to this argument, which is two more than something this patently absurd deserves.  First of all, if, say, Toby Keith raised his fist in the air during a CMA performance, I promise you that no one would be outraged.  Not a single person.  No one would care.  No one.  Seriously, no one.  There’s nothing remotely racially charged about the move McGraw pulls in the video Carroll posts, except in the fevered mind of someone who sees Black Panthers everywhere.  I’ve seen probably a dozen or more musicians do the exact same thing on stage.  It’s a very, very common rockstar pose.  And Carroll’s argument is weirdly circular.  Is he angry at McGraw because he’s a liberal who did something Carroll believes is racist?  Or is he just angry because he thinks a conservative couldn’t get away with the same thing?  If he thinks it’s racially-charged, why would he want a conservative to be able to get away with the same thing?  Zah?

But that’s the common sense response, and since common sense is unlikely to appeal to Carroll, I’ll meet him on his level:  Here is the official video for “Southern Voice.”  In it, at the same point in the song, McGraw does the “white power fist,” and the video moves in to the same close-up that ABC’s editors chose.  McGraw likely raises his fist in the air every single time he performs this song, and ABC’s editors were likely just mimicking the style of his own music video.

But on to part two.  I’ve already quoted Carroll’s piece extensively, so I’ll just recap his second argument; feel free to read his piece in full if you feel I might be mischaracterizing it.  Carroll is upset that ABC chose to air two Carrie Underwood performances (“Cowboy Casanova” and “Undo It”) and not a third (a medley of “Jesus, Take the Wheel” and “How Great Thou Art”) and cites this decision as evidence of an ABC agenda that “actively and aggressively demotes the importance of Christianity – and God – in American society and pop culture.”

It’s a weird accusation to level at ABC, the major network most dedicated to traditional family programming, and even aggressively Christian programming (The 700 Club runs in syndication on ABC Family).  Setting aside Carroll’s fantastic claim of systemic anti-Christian program editing, tt’s far, far more likely that ABC chose to air “Undo It” and “Cowboy Casanova” because they are Underwood’s most recent #1 hits (reaching #1 on the country charts August 7th, 2010, and November 21st, 2009, respectively; “Jesus, Take the Wheel” was last at #1 in 2005).  Furthermore, ABC did air Underwood’s performance of “Jesus, Take the Wheel” during its 2006 CMA Fest special.  I guess the idea is that if they don’t air it every year, it’s an affront to Christians?  Maybe Carroll’s beef is really with Underwood herself; lady needs to write some new Jesus-ey songs.

And of course, how else would a Big Hollywood piece close, but with a random dig at Obama:

Not incidentally there was a third performance missing from the ABC broadcast.  And it was missing from the entire week at CMA Music Fest in June.  And it was not seen in Nashville at all since that city was devastated by a thousand-year flood this past May.

What would that be, you naturally ask?  The fact is that President Obama has never visited Middle Tennessee and never properly acknowledged the devastation faced by its residents.

Obama did declare a disaster in Tennessee.  Here’s TN Governor Phil Bredesen on the White House response to the disaster:

I have to say that FEMA and the White House have been absolutely supportive. Very quickly FEMA was on the ground here before the raindrops started falling. … The President was on the phone to me before the sun came up practically on Monday morning. Slightly after it came up, other people from the White House had called and checked in with us and helped. … I’ve never seen this kind of a response to things that have happened. We’ve had our share of tornadoes and those kinds of things. … I’m very, very pleased with the response we’ve gotten from the administration.

Carroll has me a little exhausted, so I’ll just leave him with one final link that may help him with future pieces: http://www.google.com

August must be a slow month even for those brimming with manufactured outrage, because over at Big Hollywood today, the best James Hudnall can come up with is a dashed-off piece about how Jimmy Carter sucks and Sylvester Stallone rules.  No, seriously.

After the moribund Carter years, the age of Reagan issued in a new era of American confidence. And with that confidence came a wave of films full of male bravado after a decade of paranoid, navel gazing films with negative endings.

I’m not going to quote the piece more extensively than that, since that’s basically his whole argument right there.  The “New Hollywood” films of the 1970s were the perfect pseudo-intellectual, hollow, self-obsessed type of the Carter Administration, just as the hyper-masculine action hero pictures of the 1980s were  perfect type of the Reagan-era’s Nietzschean vitality.  While it’s worth nothing that Hudnall is not so enamored of Schwarzeneggerian masculinity as to hit the free weights and slug the whey protein himself, the idea of art-as-a-mirror is certainly a familiar and tempting one.

The problem, though is that he’s comparing the arthouse picture of one era with the summer blockbuster fare of the next.  After all, the first Superman movie, Grease, Saturday Night Fever, and two Bond movies all grossed in the top 10 in the 1970s, and Platoon, The Killing Fields, and Ordinary People all won Oscars in the 1980s.  And of “Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis, Gibson, Norris, Van Damme, Seagal,” only Stallone had a movie in the 1980s that out-grossed Platoon.

I’m not trying to make the point that the 70s were better than the 80s for film, or vice versa.  We’re talking about fucking ten-year periods here; they both had a lot of movies, and when you try to generalize this broadly, you only open yourself up to death by a thousand counterexamples.  For every Taxi Driver there’s also a Do the Right Thing, and for every Lethal Weapon 2 there’s a Smokey and the Bandit.  But if this is the way Hudnall wants to kill some time in late August, I don’t really hold it against him; I just worry about the type of person who curses Jimmy Carter under his breath while watching The Graduate and gets a hard-on for the Great Communicator mid-way through Bloodsport.

I’ve generally given up posting about Greg Gutfeld’s (ugh) “Gregologues,” in part because they mostly conform to a link-oneliner-plug format that doesn’t leave a lot of room for discussion, and in part because he’s the one member of Big Hollywood‘s sub-Caroline-in-the-City comedy team who at least tries to crack jokes instead of acting like creepy, seething, passive-aggression is comedy.  Maybe he’s only tolerable relative to the likes of Crowder, Jena, or Hudnall, but I’ve developed a bit of a soft spot for the big lug.

It must also be said, in the interest of giving credit where credit’s due, that Gutfeld is generally judicious when singling out figures or initiatives or soundbites from the left that are worthy of mockery.  My usual reaction to his column goes something like, “Wow, it’s a little sad that Greg is 35 and still pining for the ol’ frat days, but yeah, that was a silly thing Obama said, there.”

Today, though he’s getting his smirk on because there’s a harmless GOTV video where Obama doesn’t pander enough to “middle-aged white dudes”:

So, for this upcoming November election, here’s an idea to help restore American strength and prosperity. White middle-aged men must band together and throw the idiots out.

That’s all there is to it.

At least, if I follow President Obama’s lead. For, in his mind, his victory requires splitting the populace apart – and only these folks matter: young people, African Americans, Latinos, and women.

I like how Gutfeld acts like “white middle-aged men must band together and throw the idiots out”  hasn’t been his employer’s plan since, oh, I don’t know, Tax Day ’09.  But that shit aside, the video Gutfeld links to is completely harmless.  Obama talks about engaging and energizing people who didn’t normally vote before 2008, who came out specifically for him, and who are now in danger of slipping back into apathy.

Yes, that largely means women, black, Latinos, and young people.  Now, it may surprise Gutfeld to learn that women alone account for over 50% of the population.  Shocking!  I did a quick-and-dirty calculation based on census data, and those groups combined account for about 72% of the US population.

But Obama actually spent two minutes directly addressing the majority of Americans, while not addressing its most privileged sub-sub-sub-group, “middle-aged white dudes,” so clearly he’s a racist.

Acknowledging that people other than “middle-aged white dudes” exist is not the same as excluding them!  Is Gutfeld so used to seeing “middle-aged white dudes” pandered to that he can’t see the difference?  Guys, he works for Fox.

When Victoria Jackson kept displaying a brand of insanity that’s weird and disturbing even relative to her Big Hollywood cohorts, I had sort of assumed, perhaps naively, that John Nolte would eventually just change her login password and stop answering her emails.

I don’t respect much about Nolte’s writing or editing, but it can at least be said about him that he takes conservatism seriously, and wants to advance its interests.  So I’d thought a sideshow hot mess like Jackson would eventually get cut out, if for no other reason than that she makes them all look fucking crazy.

Silly Blucas, what were you thinking?  This is the far-right, where one can only fail upward, so of course Victoria Jackson’s joined up with the Tea Party Express, and has been traveling the country on the GOP’s dime. Being a low-level GOP-shill has its advantages, of course, one of which is the ability to come within poking distance of Sarah Palin:

Happy mayhem surrounds Sarah Palin.  Pushing, snapping, hugging.  I couldn’t get near her if I tried, so I just stood in the back watching the circus.  At one point, I couldn’t resist, while she was signing Ron Rivoli’s guitar, I reached out my arm through the crowd and touched her red jacket with my finger!

There is, in fact, PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE of Jackson’s creepy-subway-groper behavior:

Uhhhh, that’s her, in back left next to the bumper sticker, straining her neck to get into the shot.

But hey, we all have celebrities we’d spaz out over if we got to attend something like this with them, so I won’t make fun of her too much over this.  And if this were a dorky “ZOMG SARAH!!! DRILL BABY DRILL!! DRILL THOSE COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS RIGHT IN THE FACE!!!” bit by Jackson, I probably wouldn’t have posted about it.  It’s the weird, out-of-nowhere detour about race that really makes it awesome:

There were a few protesters on the outskirts of our rallies, but I only saw one up close.  In Albany, NY standing next to a statue of George Washington was an angry black woman holding a sign that said, “Yes, We Can.”  She looked very angry.  The media was on her like flies.  They got shots of our Tea Party crowd with her in the foreground.  I was asked to pose next to her for a group shot.  I kept glancing at her face.  It takes a lot of energy to keep a frown that long.  Finally, I asked her, “Why are you so angry?”  She whipped her head around,  her eyes on fire with hate, and snarled, “Don’t talk to me, Whitey.”  I walked away slowly, wondering why she was so mad at me.

I suspect she doesn’t like white people.

I used to think that black people didn’t like me because of the slavery thing a hundred years ago.  But, I just learned from Lloyd Marcus’ book “Confessions of a Black Conservative” that blacks are taught since the day they are born that “Whitey is keeping them down.”  No wonder why she hates me.  She doesn’t know it is a Liberal lie.

Now, while I do think that “Don’t talk to me, Whitey,” is a perfectly reasonable, measured response to being approached by Victoria Jackson, I’ll eat my hat if this woman actually said “Whitey.”  Do black people even say that anymore?  I’m pretty sure Victoria Jackson is getting reality confused with bad movies from the ’70s again.

In Lloyd Marcus’ book he talks about growing up in the “projects.”  He says that his family moved into a brand new building that within two years was filthy and dangerous.  Lloyd says, “All I kept hearing from the majority of adults was that everything was the ‘white man’s fault.’  Even at the tender age of nine, I sarcastically thought to myself, ‘How can we stop these evil white people from sneaking in here at night, peeing in the stairwell, leaving broken wine bottles on the ground, smashing the light bulbs, and attacking people.’”

He explains that the “liberal cradle-to-grave government dependency programs kill incentive and ultimately hurt people.  Meanwhile, Conservatism is branded as mean and heartless.  What is ultimately heartless is an ideology that enslaves people in a system that rewards sloth and discourages achievement.”

Lloyd continues to explain that he has “witnessed the devastating effect of liberalism in his own family.”  He writes, “My forty-something drug addicted cousin is a serial ‘impregnator’ with several out of wedlock children.  And yet, he enjoys a new townhouse, food stamps, free health care, and methadone all funded by working taxpayers.  In essence, the government is enabling and funding my cousin’s irresponsible life-style.”

So Jackson-by-way-of-Marcus’s argument is that black people simplistically blame white people for all the problems in their community when they should be… simplistically blaming liberals?  Awesome.  Way to break the cycle.

I know nothing about Marcus, but that weird detour about his cousin has me thinking he’s got to be playing white conservatives.  ”Yes, we are all related, and we are all deadbeat welfare queens!  I can say so ’cause I’m black!  Just give me a book deal and you can quote me whenever you want to be racist, and no one will be able to call you on it!”

Jackson’s not done, though, and proceeds to post a picture of her “teenage daughter.. on the front of the bus flirting with David, a black teenager.”  Welcome to post-racial America, Victoria Jackson’s daughter, where your mother will post a completely unflattering photo of you sitting next to a hot black guy, with your mouth hanging open, in order to prove she’s not racist!  This might help.

Apparently, though, the simple beauty of young love in first blossom is not enough to quiet Jackson’s rage:

His black father William is sitting near me sleeping.  Reporter Richie keeps bringing up the race thing, for over an hour.  Finally, I explode, “The President is a Racist!  The “police acted stupidly” comment Obama made about the Crowley-Gates affair was the most racist thing I have heard in a long time.  And shame on the President for purposefully stirring up racial conflict!  It popped out of his mouth at the end of a health care speech when he was off Teleprompter!  Oops!  His Jeremiah Wright training leaking out!”  I immediately realized I’d given the NBC guy the fodder he was after.   I was caught in a tired moment and I didn’t even have my make-up on.  Well… Obama is a racist, but I don’t want to be involved in childish tit-for-tat whining.

I just want my country to be FREE.

Now, even if you didn’t like the “police acted stupidly” thing, and thought it was knee-jerk or irresponsible or whatever, how is it racist, unless you think a black guy criticizing a white guy is inherently racist?  And even if you think Gates contributed to the situation or escalated it, and/or you think Crowley made an honest mistake, he clearly wasn’t, you know, right.

You gotta love how she’s going to prove she’s not racist by going off on an incoherent rant, immediately namechecking Gates and Wright.  I thought this thing was about taxes?

All of Jackson’s tribulations at the hands of scaaaarrry black people were worth it, though:

In Boston, after I had touched Sarah’s jacket with my finger, I had gone back to watching her talk to her fans when suddenly Sarah had turned around and our eyes met.  She did a double take and said, “Oh!  I love you!”  She hugged me and then she said, “Thanks for all you’re doing.  I want your autograph!”

For the rest of the day I was speechless with a dumb grin on my face…

Just the rest of the day?

Remember the Maines: Is Miley Cyrus the Next Leftist Trojan Horse Into Country Music?

This is a freakin koan if I’ve ever seen one.  How does one answer this question? “No”?  ”Yes”?  Neither reply seems to make much sense.  The best answer I can come up with is “Are your parents cousins or something?” but I always shy away from answering a question with a question.

Now, I’m so old that I can remember way back to May of 2009, when Big Hollywood editor-in-chief John Nolte was trying to rally good Christian soldiers around the banner of Ms. Montana:

Miley’s a target-rich environment for celebrity enforcers because she’s openly opposed to the spread of Gomorrah and therefore a threat who must be marginalized through ridicule at every opportunity.

What, pray tell, could Miley have possibly done in the last 11 months to have gone from conservative Christianity’s last bulwark against Hollywood excess to diabolical leftist sleeper agent?

Liberals failed miserably when they tried to take over the talk radio industry with Air America.  It reminded me a lot of the time that Pearl Jam took on Ticketmaster, which in turn reminded me a lot of a bowl of jell-o taking on a herd of wildebeests.  The left can’t compete in the Christian market.  Let’s face it, the folks who declare Robert Mapplethorpe “art” simply have no credibility in that particular market.  With that said, Country is a family friendly format they still think they have a chance of corrupting, and Miley Cyrus may be their perky little Trojan horse into that industry.

You mean a pop star might have a manufactured persona?  This is worse than I thought.  Pray for Toby Keith, my friends.  But wait, what actual evidence is there that Cyrus might be insincere in her publicly stated Christian beliefs?

A good example of her more questionable behavior is that she was involved in a scandal that included some pictures she took of herself with her camera phone.  Her actions bordered on sexting, and she was involved with this before she was old enough to bug her dad for the keys to the pickup.  The photos were pictures of her in her underwear, wetting herself down in a shower wearing only a white t-shirt, and lounging in the arms of boy in what appeared to be a sort of early teen afterglow.  Of course she apologized, but apparently didn’t learn anything from the incidents.  Soon after she, and her parents, allowed her to be photographed for Vanity Fair magazine in a manner that would suggest her core audience was a rampaging pack of pedophiles.  Once again, she apologized.

When that whole Vanity Fair thing went down, I just assumed it was an entirely media-generated controversy designed to sell copies of US Weekly and get Perez Hilton and TMZ page views whenever some perv googles “Miley Cyrus sexy” for the rest of eternity, and that no sentient human being could actually be offended by those photos.  Thanks for sorting me out Brian Cherry!

You know, if Cherry really thinks that all it takes to negate the conservative movement’s cultural influence and threaten its institutions is a teenage girl’s bare shoulder, he might want to consider betting on a different horse.

But the fact that Miley Cyrus is human female with a human female body that sometimes gets photographed isn’t his only evidence against her.  Behold:

While Miley is portrayed as type who can be found in Church on any given Sunday morning, she is even moving away from the official religion of the entire industry, and experimenting with Buddhism.  When talking about her religious beliefs, Miley put herself out of step with the core country audience when she made this statement:

“The one thing I’m really strong about regarding my religious beliefs is that you should know a little bit about everything before you define your own beliefs. I think all religions have a good practice in them. Liam and I have been reading about Buddhism lately and it’s all about hope and love. To me, faith is about having a clean slate and a clean start.”

Expressing a desire to be religiously literate apparently puts one “out of step with the core country audience.”  I went to Catholic school.  We were assigned books about Buddhism.  Buddhism is a major world religion, and if you’re a person who takes religion seriously, you should probably be educated about it.

As for the “I think all religions have a good practice in them,” well, that’s no different than what the Catholic Church teaches, at least.  And most mainline Protestant denominations generally articulate the same line that non-Christian religions are imperfect expressions of humankind’s relationship with God.  Cyrus isn’t saying anything here that most Christian ministers wouldn’t also say.

What Miley has that others don’t though, is a father who can get her through the Nashville gauntlet and into the club without paying any real dues.  While it is nearly inevitable that she will one day take advantage of a country music plan B, the problem is that she could be a corrupting, left-leaning, influence on an industry that so many liberal elites want to see taken out of the “red state” column.

It should be obvious to anyone that country music is hardly the sole purview of strict conservative values, but I won’t belabor a point that’s been well-documented elsewhere. What funniest to me is that Brian Cherry is actually worried about the political implications of Miley Cyrus.

So Big Hollywood has been going after Rock the Vote lately.  I’m not entirely sure why, other than that it’s an election year.  If the whole ACORN mess taught us anything (and it didn’t), it’s that assholes like those in BREITBART’S CREW just flat-out don’t want more people to vote.

Resident in-house ummmmm artist Alvaro Alvillar went so far as to post this awesome piece the other day, clearly created in the version of MS Paint that shipped with Windows 95.  The Big Hollywood position isn’t “Vote!”; it’s “Get smart, then vote.”  In this context, Alvillar’s implying that A) young people are stupid, and, B) if you haven’t had the requisite indoctrination, you are not qualified to vote.

Being the crazy LIBTARD that I am, I actually think that everyone has the right to vote, and everyone should be free to exercise it as he or she sees fit.  If the self-styled martyrs at Big Hollywood think the voting public is insufficiently educated as to the evils of the NEA, NOW, the SEIU, the United Nations, socialism, and um, “transparency,” and “steal,” that’s not a failure on the part of the voting public to “get smart,” that’s a failure on the part of the BREITBART’S CREW to get their message out without looking like crazy people.

But anyhow, that’s not what this post is about.  This post is about Pam Meister, Internet Detective.

Back in December, Rock the Vote came out with a video featuring Eva Amurri and Zach Gilford – who the hell are they, anyway? Guess I’m not young enough to rock — and a bunch of  other unknown wannabe actors encouraging young people to “rock the vote” by withholding sexual favors from anyone who dares to believe that a government takeover of health insurance is a bad thing.

Oh yeah, I remember that video.  Why are we talking about it now that the health bill is stalled?  Whatever.  Also, Zach Gilford is fucking awesome.  I’m always a little surprised that conservatives don’t give Friday Night Lights more love.  It’s about a strong nuclear family with a tough and eminently capable patriarch going around being traditional and awesome, all deep in the heart of red-state country.  I guess there’s not enough Muslim-bashing or something.

But anyway, yeah, that Rock the Vote ad was pretty dumb and cheesy.  That’s how Rock the Vote rolls.

Traditionally used to sell items like beer and aftershave, sex is now being utilized to encourage citizens to give in to an unconstitutional take over of one sixth of the American economy. Has sex really become that commonplace and tacky?

Yes, sex has become exactly that “commonplace and tacky.”  Where has Meister been since, oh, I don’t know, the invention of communication?  And I find “commonplace” a bizarre word-choice there.  Sex should be… rare?  elusive?  zah?

Rock the Vote is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Because of their tax status, non-profits are…

…prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Basically, what this means is that non-profits can’t come out and say, “Vote for so-and-so,” or “Vote NO on this proposition,” or “Tell your senator to vote yes/no!” However, voter education activities are not prohibited if they are conducted in a non-partisan manner.

Tell me exactly how a group that comes out and tells people to support the current form of “health care reform” is non-partisan.

Happy to oblige!  Issues-based advocacy is different from political advocacy, ie, 501(3)(c)s can advocate for health care, but they can’t advocate for Obama.  That’s a pretty simple distinction, one that the IRS makes here.

Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying.  For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

It’s pretty telling that Meister simply can’t fathom a difference between policy and politics.

But, just in case that’s not clear, here’s a quick (obviously incomplete) list of conservative organization with 501(c)(3) status, found after 5 seconds of googling:  The Cato Institute, The Conservative Caucus Research Foundation, the American Conservative Union, the m’fucking Christian Coalition. Not to mention the many churches and other religious organizations that advocate against gay rights and still enjoy 501(c)(3) status, or the host of other conservative organizations that enjoy tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status.

Enough tax code, though, things really get good when Meister goes deep cover to expose the LIBTARDS behind Rock the Vote’s insidious efforts to engage young people in the process of governance.

According to Ayeroff’s TimeWarner bio, he is “Co-Chairman of Rock the Vote, a non-partisan, non-profit organization he founded in 1989 in response to a wave of political attacks on freedom of speech and artistic expression. Rock the Vote is dedicated to protecting freedom of expression and helping young people realize and utilize their power to affect change in the civic and political lives of their communities. To date, the organization has registered more than a million young people to vote.”

Take a look at Ayeroff’s campaign contributions for 2008 – nary a Republican in sight. And back in 2007, following the Dixie Chicks brouhaha and their subsequent sympathy win at the Grammys, theNew York Times said that “Ayeroff, a longtime music executive and an academy member, said the resounding endorsement of the group reflected the fact that the academy represents ‘the artist community, which was very angry at what radio did, because it was not very American.’ Mr. Ayeroff said he voted for the Dixie Chicks in at least one category.”

What, voting with your wallet is un-American? And since the government doesn’t control radio – yet – it’s up to radio stations to decide if they want to play music from a particular group or not. Besides, when’s the last time we heard from the Dixie Chicks? Is Ayeroff still a big fan? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Actually, it’s hard for me to think of an issue I care less about than Ayeroff’s ties to the goddamn Dixie Chicks.  And his personal political contributions are evidence of what, exactly?  That he’s a Democrat?  That disqualifies him from running a charitable organization the simply registers people to vote (in a highly-regulated and non-partisan manner), how?

I won’t belabor the point by rehashing all the googling Meister does for various RtV board members.  One’s Linked-in profile says she’s in favor of high-speed rail!   Quelle horror!  One advocates against coal power!  Hitler!

One was… present on election night?

In the question and answer portion of the bio, Smith is asked what the “biggest explosion you have ever seen/caused” is. Her answer? “Rallies, spontaneous dancing, and other expressions of pent of hope and fear and frustration and happiness on Election Night 2008… I was at the White House.” So, was she amongst the mob who was screaming at George W. Bush “na na hey hey goodbye” and people saying such tasteful things as “you can suck my **** Bush“? That certainly gives Smith her non-partisan props, wouldn’t you say?

She was in the same room as people who said mean things about Bush.  We’ve uncovered something big, here, guys.  Get Glenn Beck on the phone!

I just want to address one thing really quickly:

How can a group whose stated mission is “is to engage and build the political power of young people in order to achieve progressive change in our country” possibly run a “non-partisan voter registration campaign”?

RtV has registered millions of young conservatives.  RtV holds events at the GOP conventions, has young Republican street teams, and conducts polls on the issues important to young Republicans.

Ever notice that the chronically poor nearly always share one thing in common? They are some of the most greedy SOB’s on the planet. I know it seems sacrilegious to say so. You’re just not supposed to criticize the poor.

Yeah, they’re always trying to get “food” and “shelter.”  Greedy fucks.

Now, I hate to throw a Proverb at you (particularly as it’s not of the trendy Chinese variety, but one of those scary Old Testament scribbles) but no matter what your faith, I would imagine that Proverbs 28: 22 would still have to be incredibly insightful.

A stingy man is eager to get rich and is unaware that poverty awaits him.

See, God isn’t condemning rich people. He’s condemning actions followed by a solemn warning of where they would lead. God seems to think that actions are a reflection of your heart. He’s a freaky dude when it comes to that kind of thing. Yes, I said “dude.” Feminists, start sending your letters.

Now statistically, it’s true. Poor people (particularly liberals) donate a lower percentage of their income than middle and upper-class Americans. To be fair, they have less to give… But then I guess it becomes the whole “chicken or the egg” deal. Do they have less to give because they’re stingy/greedy, or are they greedy because they have less to give?

The poor don’t… give enough money to the poor?  What?  And what does that random Proverb have to do with a goddamn thing?  Seems to me the Bible actually addresses the question of poverty and charity pretty directly:

He sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury.  Many rich people put in large sums.  A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents.  Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, “Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury.  For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood. (NAB, Mark 12:41-44)

I agree with Crowder, though, that actions can reflect the heart.  So what does writing sarcastic blog posts attacking the least privileged members of society say about his?  Oh wait, the Bible has something to say on that, too:

Amen, I say to you, whatever you did to one of these least brothers of mine, that you did unto me. (NAB, Matthew 25:40)

Re: John Nolte’s yawn-inducing list of the Top 25 Christmas Films.  It’s a third unassailably canonical Golden-era shit that no one actually enjoys watching, a third treacly and/or poorly-aged family films, and a third various versions of A Christmas Carol.

But it’s biggest flaw?

No motherfucking Die Hard.  He’s probably just mad that Hans Gruber wasn’t a Muslim.