Ms Perkin’s Kickers are in a Bunch over Kentucky

 Courts, Featured, Gay Issues, Politics, Religion, Right Wingnuts, Society  Comments Off on Ms Perkin’s Kickers are in a Bunch over Kentucky
Feb 122014
This entry is part 14 of 35 in the series Gay Marriage

Tony Perkins, head of SPLC designated Hate Group, The FRCTony Perkins (who has often been a speaker at white supremacist meetings) of the Family Research Council (FRC-which got it’s start with a KKK mailing list, and is an SPLC designated hate group), is upset that a judge in Kentucky has apparently that the equal protection clause of the Constitution really does apply in Kentucky, and actually even requires that LGBT people be included in those protections. Oh, and once you meet Ms Perkins, you’ll know why I am prone to refer to him in the feminine.

Here’s what he had to say today after Judge John G. Heyburn said that Kentucky’s Constitutional ban prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages that might be performed in other states where legal, was unconstitutional:

“This ruling is another example of the deep betrayal of a judicial system infected with activist judges who are legislating from the bench. If these judges want to change duly enacted laws passed by the people and their representatives, they should resign their life-time appointments to the bench and run for the state legislature or Congress. Judge Heyburn is elevating his own ideology over that of three-quarters of Kentucky voters who voted to preserve marriage in their constitution as it has always been defined. This ruling comes at a time when the consequences of marriage redefinition are mounting. Increasingly, Americans are being forced to finance and celebrate unions that not only step on free speech and religious liberty but also deny children a mom and a dad. Rather than live-and-let-live, this court by redefining marriage will create a level of inequality that has never been seen in our country as people are forced to suppress or violate the basic teachings of their faith.”

Let’s take the old girl’s statement apart just a little, shall we: Continue reading »

W. – A Movie Review

 Culture, Movies, Politics, Presidency  Comments Off on W. – A Movie Review
Feb 232009

W Movie PosterW. takes viewers through Bush’s eventful life — his struggles and triumphs, how he found both his wife and his faith, and of course the critical days leading up to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

Genres: Comedy, Drama, Biopic and Politics/Religion; Running Time: 2 hrs. 11 min.; Release Date: October 17th, 2008 (wide); MPAA Rating: PG-13 for language including sexual references, some alcohol abuse, smoking and brief disturbing war images.

Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, James Cromwell, Ellen Burstyn, Thandie Newton

Directed by: Oliver Stone

Produced by: Elliot Ferwerda, Albert Yeung, Matthew Street

Lay and I watched this movie at home on DVD last weekend. It was more interesting than I expected. The film hopscotches through Bush’s life in an effort to compile all the seminal moments. Because of the number of “events” the film attempts to chronicle, this just all happens too fast.

Brolin, though he doesn’t look that much like W., creates a memorable character that might be W. with vitality in his certitude and confusion. The same goes for Cromwell, playing H.W. Bush,  who catches the patient, patrician nature of a family scion. Richard Dreyfuss is scary good as a Machiavellian Cheney. Wright’s Powell and Toby Jones’ Karl Rove are dead-on. Yet Glenn doesn’t quite get the smugness of the former secretary of defense. Ellen Burstyn doesn’t seem to know what to do with Barbara Bush, but has only one or two minor appearances.

We come into the story with a bull session in the Oval Office with speechwriters and top advisers that produced W.’s “Axis of Evil” speech about Iran, Iraq and North Korea.Here we are introduced to  Brolin as W., Dreyfuss’ as a dark  Dick Cheney lurking in the corner, Thandie Newton’s Condoleezza Rice, Scott Glenn’s Donald Rumsfeld and Jeffrey Wright’s Colin Powell. They all hit their parts well as they act, bluster and argue just like we thought they would — only they seem like figures in a wax museum. As one reviewer put it, “It comes perilously close to a Saturday Night Live sketch.”

A critic for the Hollywood Reporter wrote:

“W.” is not really a political movie per se; rather, it’s a movie about a man who went into politics but probably shouldn’t have. It’s about how a father can misread a son, how a son can suffer in the shadow of a famous dad and how temperament gets molded by events both internal and external.

I loved reading the viewer reviews on Yahoo Movies. Clearly people viewed the movie through the lense of their political persuasion. The user reviews had titles like: “Pointless Leftist Drivel;” “The liberal dumbocrats at it again;” and my personal favorite:

How Dare HE!
I cannot believe that a man would openly mock a sitting president, and a christian one at that!!!

Stone put up a website listing his sources for the events portrayed in the film, and I thought that W.’s “to-the-manor-born” arrogance came through well enough for me the find the film believable. And if the wingnuts are so up in arms about it, I’m guessing it hits too close to home for them, so I like the politics.

What I would say is that it showcases some decent acting with a mediocre script. It probably want have a lot of historical significance, as it will be many years before the final truth of this man and his administration comes out. Until then, we’ll have to settle for some “truthiness.”

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars (No Ratings Yet)