Justified Right

Chuck Schumer – An Arizona Republican?

 

 

With all the hand-wringing in the news the past couple of days over Arizona making it illegal to be in America illegally (wait…what?  Redundant redundancy!), and requiring folks once arrested to prove legality with an ID, I’ll bet you’ll think these quotes came from an Arizona legislator about that law:

 

“It’s the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking.”

 

“If you say they can’t get a job when they come here, you’ll stop it.”

 

Holy Minuteman, Batman!  Those quotes given to the Wall Street Journal are from uber-liberal Senator Chuck Schumer!!  But he wasn’t talking about Arizona’s law.  He was talking about his own proposed law.

 

Coinciding with Arizona’s effort to make people who are legally in America prove it with an ID, Schumer and Republican Senator Graham (I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Lindsey) have been working on a FEDERAL law to make people carry a National ID to prove they are legally in America.

 

Schumer’s card won’t just be a piece of paper with your name on it.  Chucky has “census envy.” He’ll have you report a variety of personal information to the government to get your card, and it will be biometrically signed with your fingerprints or vein patterns from your hand.  Vein patterns?  Must be for skinny people.

 

And you can forget about illegal aliens being abused by scurrilous employers who give them jobs.  Under Chuck’s plan it will be illegal to give out work without the card.  Economic totalitarianism rocks!

 

So contemporary is Chuck and Lindsey’s work on ID cards with Arizona’s law on ID cards that they met with President Obama about the idea just last month.

 

I can understand Arizona’s need to deal with cross-border illegal immigration because they are on the border and the problem there is both acute and chronic.  I’m not sure of the urgency in Schumer’s New York, although I would chip in for a fence there to keep out all the hipsters from Hoboken, New Jersey.

 

So last night I made the big bowl of popcorn to watch the fireworks against Chuck Schumer on TV.

 

I expected President Obama to call Schumer “misguided.”   He only said it about Arizona.

 

I expected Al Sharpton to point at Schumer and scream “raaaaaaaacist!  He only did that to Arizona.

 

I expected Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney to compare Chuck Schumer’s compelling people to carry ID papers to Nazi Germany.  He only said it about Arizona.

 

I think I see the pattern here – If a conservative proposes an immigration policy, it’s racist.  If a liberal proposes the same policy, it’s not.

 

Good grief.

 

 

 

Muhammad Cartoons vs Piss Christ – A Comparison

 

 

Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.  This is the law of the prophets.  Matthew 7:12

 

This past week the creators of the adult cartoon South Park, as they have in the past, wrestled with network Comedy Central about showing the Islamic prophet Muhammad on their show.  Muslims do not allow Muhammad to be represented as an image, and they consider it a great insult when someone does it.

 

When a non-believer shows Muhammad as an image, extremists have been known to resort to revenge murder.  When 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, world-wide protests ensued resulting in shooting deaths and the burning of Danish embassies.  One of the artists, Kurt Westergaard, has had to fend off at least two murder attempts since making his drawing.

 

A radical Muslim group last week suggested that South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone may end up like Theo Van Gogh, a newspaper columnist and movie maker gruesomely killed on a city street for his criticism of Islam.

 

While I condemn the violence and threats, as a Christian I’m obligated to follow the book of Matthew and at least consider the insult Muslims are feeling when Muhammad is drawn, and ponder how I would react if the sacred icons of my religion were similarly disrespected (it matters not that I don’t understand how a drawing is disrespectful, it matters to them).  I can think of two times in my own lifetime where similar insults happened to Christian images.

 

In 1987 artist (loose use of the term) Andres Serrano photographed a crucifix in a bottle of his own urine, and titled it “Piss Christ.”  It caused a public uproar first because of the insulting treatment of the symbol of Christianity and second when it was revealed Serrano received a $15,000.00 prize, partly from the tax-payer funded National Endowment of the Arts.

 

In 1999 NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani made news when he cut funding to the Brooklyn Museum when they displayed a painting by artist (loose use of the term) Chris Ofili.  The painting depicted the Blessed Mother Mary surrounded by pornographic images and covered in elephant dung.  A judge later reinstated the funding.

 

As a Christian I was no less outraged by the disrespect of the symbols I revere than Muslims are when they see any depiction of Muhammad. I find an insult to religion as unnecessary in discourse as they do.

The difference of course is that unlike extremists, I’m bound by a religious covenant against violence, a legal covenant against violence and a personal morals covenant against violence. When my religious symbols are disrespected I suffer the great frustration of not being able to do anything about it. It hurts. Muslim extremists do something about it.

 

This leads to the question, why should the Muslims or I be put in the position of having to do anything about it?  The beginning of our inquiry into this problem should not start with what the reactions of the insulted are to be.  The first inquiry is – what does the folks hurling the insults get out of doing it?

 

What does it bring to the cartoonist drawing Muhammad or the painter disgracing Mary for them to do those things?   I can’t think of a benefit to them or anyone else when those things are done.  The hurt and pain to the religious are obvious.

 

Some will argue the non-sequitur “They have the freedom of speech to do it.”  So what?  With freedom comes responsibility.  I’m free to say a whole wide mess of things that can insult and hurt people.  I don’t.  I live in a society with others – and while I’m not going to curb my behavior for subjective claims over arguable insults – when something is widely understood as being hurtful to many, I’m a better person to refrain from doing it.  I don’t use racial epithets, and I wouldn’t draw Muhammad or put Christ in a glass of urine.  Why not?  It would hurt others, and I gain nothing,

 

One can criticize Islam without drawing a picture of Muhammad.  One can criticize Christianity without creating horrid images of Jesus or Mary.  The purpose of criticism is persuasion, and not one person has ever been persuaded by being insulted.

 

I’m certainly not suggesting anything be outlawed.  It shouldn’t be.  Here’s what I am suggesting:

 

Fight like hell for the right to draw a picture of Muhammad – then choose not to.

Et Tu Again, Steve Adubato?

Steve Adubato is still my favorite example of an Italian-American, Jersey-bred celebrity.   He’s a writer, TV host and political/social pundit.  I like him because the reality that is Adubato belies the fake pop-culture stereotype of Italian-Americans as killer gangsters or people so dumb they only work for killer gangsters.

 

Steve tested my faith in him two years ago when he penned a piece for MSNBC about the finale of HBO’s “The Sopranos,” and he bought into the wrong idea that there’s even a scintilla of reality about the characters.  Bizarrely, the hardworking, honest (and real) Adubato just couldn’t resist aligning himself and his family with the murderous, corrupt (and fake) Soprano family, with words like this:

 

For those of us who are Italian-American and live in New Jersey and have uncles or cousins who went away “to college” because they were somehow “connected,” "The Sopranos" has been a terribly guilty pleasure.  Sometimes the series felt way too close for comfort.  So provincial, yet so profound.  There really are mobsters like Tony Soprano, even though guys like Silvio, Bobby Bacala, and Paulie Walnuts are a lot more typical.  "The Sopranos" was true to life in so many ways.  Talk to any guy who knows about the mob and they’ll tell you, “Chase got it right.”

 

Oh bullshit. Neither Steve Adubato nor anyone else in New Jersey ever knew a guy who killed one person a week including family members such as his cousin and nephew as the COMPLETLY FAKE character Tony Soprano did.

 

In response, I wrote a piece in the triCityNews called “Steve Adubato, Stunod, What Are You Thinking?” and took him to task for furthering the myth that the Italian aesthetic is fake guys like Corleone and Soprano when the truth is we are Michelangelo and Scalia.

 

Steve dropped me a note and complimented me on the column, which I thought was a class move from a real Italian-American, in contrast to what any of the fake and insulting stereotype Italian characters would do.

 

I thought I had Steve straightened out.  Then I read this month’s New Jersey Monthly magazine. 

 

While faulting the very anti-Italian MTV show “Jersey Shore,”  for some reason, Adubato took a time out to say that when he would come to the shore in the summer,  he “knew girls just like Snooki,” a character from the show.

 

Good grief.  Can some psychologist please tell me why Adubato is compelled to find comradery with fictional characters that make Italians look awful?  Particularly when he is walking, talking, living proof to the contrary?

 

MTV’s Jersey Shore show is even worse than the Sopranos.  At least the Sopranos advertised that the characters are fictional.  So are the characters on Jersey Shore, but the show tries to hide it.  That makes it even more insidious and insulting to Italians.

 

The whole point of the show “Jersey Shore” is to show Italian-Americans as awful people.  They paint the Italian flag on the house garage, have continuing references to Italians and even have the cast talk about Italian family values (in between all the causal sex and punching people).  The producers glorify and promote the violence to make Italians look bad.

 

But here’s the rub – the actors on the show aren’t Italian – they’re just pretending to be.  Reality show?  Nope.  Just actors playing a part.

 

Steve, did you ever wonder why on the whole season of the show they never used the cast member’s last names?  Because their last names aren’t Italian. 

 

The violence?  It was all done by non-Italians.  The cast member Ronnie who was arrested for punching someone has the last name Ortiz.  The cast member “JWoww” who punched several people?  Her last name is Farley. 

 

And as for Snooki, well Steve Adubato, you’ve been snookered.   She is Chilean, not Italian.

 

So I ask you Steve, when you came to the Shore as a young man, did ever really meet a Chilean actress hired by a TV network to act like a putana, the result of which is to make women with Italian surnames like your mother, sister, wife and daughter look bad?  No, you didn’t.

 

The “Jersey Shore” actors are the 21^st Century Step ‘n Fetchit.  They are playing an acting role to promote a terrible stereotype for money, the only difference being that Lincoln Perry was black, where Snooki and the gang aren’t Italian.  That’s worse.  It’s akin to Al Jolson’s blackface.

 

I’m still your fan Steve, but this is strike two.  The next time you feel the urge to join in the destructive stereotype of Italian Americans, please – remember the neighborhood!

Congressman Hippocratic Hypocrite #tcot

Alan Grayson (D)

Florida urologist Dr. Jack Cassell exercised his Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association recently, which apparently were at one time rights protected by the First Amendment or something.  He placed the following sign of political expression on his office door:

 

If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere.  Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.

 

Florida Congressman Alan Grayson (D) is incensed at that overt act of disagreement with the Obama regime junta administration.  This is, after all, the bunch that just passed a law that takes control of your discretionary spending by forcing you to buy a product from a private insurance company even if you don’t want it or need it.

 

Disagreement with His Highness President Obama will NOT be tolerated, and expression of that disagreement WILL be punished.

 

So Congressman Grayson filed an ethics complaint against Dr. Cassell, which could jeopardize the man’s license to practice medicine.  I guess anyone who opposed ObamaCare on the grounds that there will be fewer doctors because of it just won a bet.

 

Congressman Grayson has been making the rounds of liberal TV.   I saw him on both Anderson Cooper and Keith Olbermann.  Like the other two people watching those shows, I wondered why Grayson wasn’t filing an ethics complaint against his barber.

 

What spilled from one of the sides of Grayson’s mouth was rather peculiar:  He said that Dr. Cassell violated the “Hippocratic Oath” because his sign meant he was turning away patients.

 

First, the Hippocratic Oath isn’t binding on doctors, so a doctor can’t really get in trouble for not following it.  Second, on this business of turning away patients – the Hippocratic Oath doesn’t even mention that (pesky little fact).

 

But the Hippocratic Oath does say a doctor can’t give a woman an abortion.

 

So the question becomes – being the equal and fair defender of the Oath, why has Congressman Grayson not filed an ethics complaint against every abortion doctor in Florida?

 

The answer of course is that Grayson is a Hippocratic Hypocrite.  He doesn’t really care about the oath and implications it has on medical ethics.  He’s a Democrat – which means standards don’t matter and whatever serves his purpose at the moment will rule – even if it damns the 1^st Amendment.