On the Fourth of July, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) -- who helped promote the Insurrection -- decided to celebrate the freedoms of Independence Day for all Americans by demeaning the Freedom of Religion. He posted a tweet that quoted Patrick Henry as saying, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry, who is of course best-known for saying, "Give me liberty or give me death," is not known for saying this other quote, but that's for a very good reason. He never said it. Indeed, if you had suspected that might be the case when reading the quote Hawley tried to pawn off because the words seemed a bit modern, there's a good reason for that, too - they are. They were from an article about Patrick Henry for a magazine called The Virginian, written in 1956. That article was published 67 years ago, so it's been around for a long time. Though not nearly as long as if Patrick Henry had actually said it. The quote has been used a lot in the Christian community over the years, despite it repeatedly being debunked. But that's not the point here. It's that it's one thing for U.S. Senator Josh Hawley to have posted this non-existent quote that Patrick Henry NEVER SAID without checking it first. But it's another thing entirely that he's left it up, despite most-certainly knowing now it's a lie (and knowing its source). That is far-more important because it speaks volumes about Hawley's craven inability to be trusted. Indeed, it would near-impossible for Hawley to not know the quote is a lie, because Twitter has attached the actual attribution to Hawley's original posting. (By the way, the person writing the history of the magazine passage and noting the correction explains that "The language is twentieth-century. The word 'religionists,' for example. In Patrick Henry's time it meant a fanatic, a person obsessed with religion; not as here people of different religions (or something like that). Furthermore, he notes other clear red flags that this couldn't have been said by Patrick Henry, even if you didn't know it was from a 1956 article. Among them, he notes that Patrick Henry would have had to have been incredibly clairvoyant to know that "peoples of other faiths" are, in the future, going to be "afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship" in it. Something only really made clear in full over 150 years later.) And if you didn't know all that, if you missed the clues, it's right there linked to the original tweet. And Josh Hawley has chosen to leave the lie up. This profile in honesty and the courage to acknowledge your mistake comes from the same person who wrote a book called Manhood about (as the sub-heading says) "the Masculine Virtues America Needs". And the same tough, masculine guy who, after giving a fist-bump of support to the Jan. 6 Insurrectionists, later was spotted on video running away to safety after those same Insurrectionists broke into the U.S. Capitol. And Josh Hawley doesn't even have the masculine virtue to delete a tweet he got totally wrong. Or the human decency that most people learn in childhood to admit a lie when caught - or just say "Oops, I was wrong." But it turns out to be better in the World of Josh Hawley to be divisive and continue passing along a known lie and try to obfuscate religion, which I guess is ultimately what you should expect from a coward who promotes overthrowing democracy, and is such a fascist thing to do. And this is what Josh Hawley chose to do on Independence Day, when Americans celebrates it freedoms. Post what was an easy-to-know was wrong, and then leave it up because the false words served his needs. In the end, how telling that a guy named Josh is such a joke.
0 Comments
Okay, yes, that's a little bit harsh. But only a little-bit. Because it's well-earned by his own hand. Oh, my. If Alan Dershowitz hasn't been getting many party invites before back in Martha’s Vineyard, his Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday won't help. It's titled, "Elon Musk Is Right About George Soros—and Not Anti-Semitic." And no, I'm not kidding. He really wrote that. Honest. Putting aside other points to debate that Dershowitz want to argue on behalf of some of Musk's statements being "right" and "not Anti-Semitic," what the once-admired attorney much too conveniently is happy to overlook and give a kindly pass to is when Musk says (among other things) about Mr. Soros such deeply anti-Semitic smears as “He wants to erode the very fabric of civilization. Soros hates humanity.” Gee, hmmm, I don’t know, but to me that’s pretty hard to ignore when trying to insist someone is "right" and "not anti-Semitic". But then, hey, that’s me. (I was going to add that after saying that George Soros “wants to erode the very fabric of civilization” and “hates humanity” Musk didn’t bother to give any evidence to explain how he knew this was so. But then I figured the statement was pretty damning all on its own, without even having to add “Oh, yeah?? Prove it.”) There are certain basics in communication that are pretty well accepted, and as an attorney, I’m sure that Alan Dershowitz knows them. And one of the most basic – that I’m sure he's most-especially aware of – is that agreeing with someone on one point does not even remotely mean ALL things that person has said are therefore correct. So, the fact that Alan Dershowitz wants to insist (rightly or rightly) that one point or another that Elon Musk has made about George Soros are true does not even remotely mean all things Musk has said about Mr. Soros are therefore correct and not at all anti-Semitic. Like, for instance, as just a starting point, that George Soros “wants to erode the very fabric of civilization” and “hates humanity.” I am sure there are a great many things that Nick Fuentes – the white supremacist who Kanye West brought to dinner at Mar-a-Lago with Trump – has said about Jews and Black people that were completely valid (like, to make up one, “Jews don’t believe in Jesus Christ.” Or "Blacks work hard"), but to extrapolate that to then say, "See! Nick Fuentes is right about Jews and Black people and not a white supremacist in the slightest" misses the entire point by ignoring all the virulent white supremacist things Fuentes has, in fact, made a career saying. Like telling Jews to "get out fuck out of America.” And "You serve the devil. You serve Satan. ... I piss on your Talmud." As well as complaining about "flooding the zone with "ni**er votes". I am going to guess that even Alan Dershowitz would agree that things like that totally dismiss any – no, sorry, all – of the lovely, accurate things Nick Fuentes has said in his life. And that Fuentes is, in fact, a white supremacist. Yet he gives a pass to Elon Musk because Musk said a few things about George Soros that Dershowitz (rightly or wrongly) agrees with. In fairness to Dershowitz, he has maintained the ability for using hyperbole to make a point, which is always a top quality when trying to explain why someone’s anti-Semitic attacks should be ignored. In fact, his over-exaggerated comment, “The Hungarian-born billionaire has done more than anyone to turn Americans against Israel” was so important to Dershowitz that he made it his sub-headline. ("More than anyone," not bad. If that won't get your cockles up, what will?!) Two things leap out here – First is that I would suggest that America has not actually turned against Israel at all. Some Americans have, but then some Americans are actually anti-Semitic. And some Americans hate foreign aid to any country. And some Americans strongly support Israel, but don’t like the current extreme-right conservative leadership in Israel. But overall, America has very strong support of Israel. Including support from the religious right who absolutely love Israel with a fervent passion, though that’s because of it being the home base for End Times when all Jews will be consumed in flames unless they convert to Christianity. More to the point, even if Alan Dershowitz wants to argue that George Soros doesn’t support the current extreme-right leadership in Israel (which is the case for many Americans having zero to do with George Soros), I would suggest that the extreme-right, Trump-supporting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done significantly more than not just George Soros, but everyone to turn those Americans who are against the current regime in Israel against it. And second, Dershowitz’s oh-so adorable use of “Hungarian-born billionaire” to describe George Soros not only leaps out in attempting to smear him with images of xenophobic hatred, and outrage against totalitarian Nazis and oligarchs, but also ignores calling Elon Musk the “South African-born one-time richest man in the world.” Gee, go figure. In the end, Alan Dershowitz’s op-ed says far more about the descent of Alan Dershowitz than it does about George Soros or Elon Musk, the man who yesterday helped promote for president of the United States a governor who is banning books, removing Black history from education, undermining women’s health, blocking health care for transgender children, making it illegal to mention LGBTQ people in schools, tricking undocumented immigrants for deportation to other states, using the power of his political office to try to destroy a corporation for disagreeing with his law against gays, and outlawing how people dress when reading books to children...who Alan Dershowitz says is "right" and not anti-Semitic. The one good thing, though, about Alan Dershowitz complaining about not getting invited to parties for his growing outlandish positions is that it means more food for the rest of us. Back in 2008, I wrote a piece for the Huffington Post about new discoveries surrounding the holiday classic, Handel's "Messiah." Several months later, I followed it up with additional revelations with a twist. Given that 'tis its season yet again -- and oddly, more timely this year than before -- it seems like a fine time to repeat the story, as just another of the many holiday traditions. Sort of like a very early, 18th century version of "The Grinch." But have a glass of nog, as well. Fa la la... Over the passage of years, we lose track of the conditions that existed when artworks were created. When those years become centuries, the history vanishes, and all that remains is the work itself.That is, until someone researches that history, and puts the piece in its original context.
And that brings up Handel's "Messiah." By any standard, it's a brilliant piece of music, which has understandably lasted 250 years. Even to those who don't share its religious underpinning, the music is enthralling, and part of the celebration of the Christmas season. Oops. Now comes this detailed, deeply-researched article in the New York Times by Michael Marissen. "So 'Messiah' lovers may be surprised to learn that the work was meant not for Christmas but for Lent, and that the 'Hallelujah' chorus was designed not to honor the birth or resurrection of Jesus but to celebrate the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in A.D. 70. For most Christians in Handel's day, this horrible event was construed as divine retribution on Judaism for its failure to accept Jesus as God's promised Messiah." Oops. Mr. Marissen does an impressive, scholarly and even-handed job uncovering the history of Handel's "Messiah." If anyone is interested in that history, do read the article. At the very least, read it before stating an opinion on it... To be clear, this is not about political correctness. This is about correctness. The truth, we are told, shall set us free. Either we go out of our way to learn the truth in our lives - and embrace it - or we bury our heads in the sand and listen to the sounds of gravel. People will still listen to Handel's "Messiah" for centuries to come, whatever the reality behind it. The music is glorious. The words? Well, be honest, it's a fair bet that most people don't know exactly what's being sung about anyway - it's 2-1/2 hours, for goodness sake. Most fans wouldn't listen to "American Idol" for that long. People tend to tune out Handel's "Messiah" about six minutes in and let the music wash over them. When the "Hallelujah Chorus" is about to begin, they get nudged and sit up straight. And even at that, the only words most people know are "Hallelujah" and that it will "reign forever and ever." (Some people probably think it's about Noah's Ark.) So, in some ways, the libretto of Handel's "Messiah" is not of critical importance 250 years after the fact. And that might be the biggest joke on Charles Jennens, who wrote the text and apparently saw the work as a way to confront what he believed was "a serious menace" in the world By having his friend Handel set his pointed tracts to music, Jennens felt that would help get his point across more subtly to the public. The result, of course, was that the spectacular music swamped over the words, and over time they took on a completely different meaning. This is known as the Law of Unintended Consequences. Or also, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Somewhere up in heaven, or more likely down in hell, Charles Jenniens has been pounding his head against a wall for the last couple hundred Christmases, screaming, "No, no, no! Don't you people get it?!! It's supposed to be about celebrating the destruction of heathen nations, not the embracing love of mankind. You people are so lame!" And it gets worse, because starting the day after Christmas - until the next Christmas when Handel's "Messiah" starts playing again - Jennens berates himself all year, wondering if he screwed up his work and didn't make it clear. Like maybe he used too many metaphors, or commas. Or perhaps in Scene 6, when he wrote, "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron," he should have explained who "them" was or described a different bludgeon. No doubt there will be some people aghast by the revelations (no matter how valid) about the writing of Handel's "Messiah." I also have no doubt that almost all those who are aghast have never sat through the 2-1/2 hour work. Nor that most of those ever paid attention to what the precise words actually were. But they will be aghast anyway. On the other hand, most people who have sat and sat through a 2-1/2 hour performance of Handel's "Messiah" likely welcome having an excuse now not to have to do so again. Mr. Marissen concludes his study with a thought on the subject. "While still a timely, living masterpiece that may continue to bring spiritual and aesthetic sustenance to many music lovers, Christian or otherwise, 'Messiah' also appears to be very much a work of its own era. Listeners might do well to ponder exactly what it means when, in keeping with tradition, they stand during the 'Hallelujah' chorus." And while singing along, they might want to add a "Hallelujah" for the truth, as well. And that, I thought, was the end of the story. But it wasn't. A few months later, while reading Volume 9 of Will and Ariel Durant's majestic Story of Civilization, entitled "The Age of Voltaire," I came upon their extensive discussion of Handel. After the passage on "The Messiah," the Durants continue on with the composer's life and eventually reach five years later, April of 1747, when Handel had hit hard times. Not only had he written a string of failures and needed to close his theater, but he went into a sort of retirement, and rumor passed that he may even gone insane, though perhaps it might have been mental exhaustion. (The Earl of Shaftesbury remarked, "Poor Handel looks a little better. I hope he will recover completely, though his mind has been entirely deranged.") However there was yet more to Handel - and to the story relating somewhat to the controversy today about "The Messiah." The Durants write -- "...Handel, now sixty years old, responded with all his powers to an invitation from the Prince of Wales to commemorate the victory of the Prince's younger brother, the Duke of Cumberland, over the Stuart forces at Culloden. Handel took as a symbolic subject Judas Maccabaeus' triumph (166-161 B.C.) over the Hellenizing schemes of Antiochus IV. The new oratorio was so well received (April 1, 1747) that it bore five repetitions in its first season. The Jews of London, grateful to see one of their national heroes so nobly celebrated, helped to swell the attendance, enabling Handel to present the oratorio forty times before his death. Grateful for this new support, he took most of his oratorio subjects henceforth from Jewish legend or history: Alexander Balus, Joshua, Susanna, Solomon and Jephtha. By contrast, Theodora, a Christian theme, drew so small an audience that Handel ruefully remarked, "There was room enough to dance." No doubt, Charles Jennens, author of the text for "The Messiah," is spinning even faster and deeper in his grave. But quality does win out over time. And so does transcending decency. And that, perhaps, in part, and in the end, may well be what we're left with. Hallelujah, indeed. Yesterday on Alex Jones' show, he had Kanye West and Nick Fuentes as guests. No doubt the thought this was a great idea to “own the libs”. It didn’t go well.
Jones gave Kanye a softball set-up, saying, ““You’re not a Nazi, you don’t deserve to be called that.” And the singer came back with -- “Well... I see good things about Hitler also. The Jews...I like Hitler.” In fact, it went so poorly that even Alex Jones got uncomfortable after a while, finally commenting to West who kept bring Hitler up that he seems to have a “bit of a Hitler fetish going on.” But no doubt to Alex Jones’ continued discomfort (and how far does one have to go for that), Kanye West continued, later saying that “I don’t like the word ‘evil’ next to Nazis,” And “I love Jewish people, but I also love Nazis.” By the way, among the reasons Kanye West told Alex Jones he likes Hitler are that he says Hitler invented the microphone and highways. Putting aside the virulent anti-Semitism and that, no, "Hitler" himself did not "invent" any of these things -- Alexander Graham Bell patented the microphone in 1876, and highways were built in 1811. That reality aside, getting even more basic, one wonders if Kanye West has never heard radio and album recordings from, say. the 1920s. Clearly he’s also unaware of highways being built long before Hitler came to power. But one does wonder that if Kanye West learns that der Fuhrer didn’t actually invent the microphone or highways, maybe he won't like Hitler anymore! How bad was Kanye West’s meltdown? A couple of months ago, the House GOP Judiciary Committee posted a tweet that said, in its entirety, “Kanye. Elon. Trump.” And in the intervening months, they got a lot of ridicule on Twitter that they still had left it up. But today…finally, after expressing his support of Hitler…at last they deleted it! Yes, Kanye West was so extreme anti-Semitic that even the House GOP Judiciary couldn’t defend it. That's how anti-Semitic one has to be to get the GOP to say it’s too much. That’s how low the bar is in today's Republican Party. As Professor Peter Beinart of City University of New York put it, in today's GOP, "it's okay to be anti-Semitic, just not genocidal anti-Semitic." If you didn’t see photos of his appearance on Alex Jones’ show, Kanye West showed up with his head fully covered in what can best be describe as a sack. Not that West needs anything else to make him come across as crazy, but the "Fully covering his head" is such a sweet touch. As does having changed his name to now go by “Yes.” The thing is, if I had the views of Kanye West, I'd probably want to change my name, too. Though in fairness, I'd hide it a whole lot more than going by "Obert." Y’know, it seems that the whole "Nike can't do anything to me" hasn't worked out as good for Kanye West as he thought. And to be clear, none of this is on anyone else to blame. It's on him. He chose to say it all out loud in public. To be clear, Kanye West is entitled to his opinion. As are others to be aghast in sick horror in their replies. Yet on and on he goes. He later tweeted out -- “I love the first amendment! Long live Ye! I pray to Jesus that Elon is for real…” Hey, I love the first amendment, too, though it only pertains to the government making laws, not to any company that can't prohibit speech that it believes will hurt its business, like when people say things like, oh, that they love Hitler. And Fun Fact: Jesus was Jewish. But honestly, you have to love him writing about himself, “Long live Ye!” Every little bit that points to how loony he is helps undercut the sentiments he keeps repeating. [UPDATE: Alas, this tweet didn't age well after a whole day. Elon Musk confirmed this morning that Twitter has suspended Kanye West. This came after the short-lived Ye posted a swastika inside a Star of David. So, apparently, even Musk has limits (again) on his cries of "Free Speech!!!" Though it begs the question how far one has to go to get banned.] But for all this, for as much attention as was understandably and deservedly put on Kanye West for his latest, crazy anti-Semite meltdown, this is also on Alex Jones who knew full-well who Kanye West is and gave him a platform – because of knowing who Kanye West was. Even if Jones was surprised by the level of bile West spewed, he knew there was plenty of anti-Semitic hate there. And further, and perhaps most importantly, it's on Trump. He tried to distance himself from well-known anti-Semite Nick Fuentes by claiming that supposedly he didn’t know him, but that he only knew Kanye West. So, he can’t hide from that. Trump, by his own acknowledgement, knew Kanye West, knew his views, knew that West had lost hundreds of millions of dollars and most of his partnership and endorsement deals for violent anti-Semitic statements, and yet still gave him his ear and platform. Indeed, even putting aside the latest West fiasco, Trump trying to wipe his hands clean in a bucket of muck by saying, "But he never talked about Jews at dinner," is like trying to justify inviting Vladimir Putin over for a slumber party to exchange Best Friends Forever rings and saying, "But he never brought up blacklisting." In the end, many Republican officials have condemned Kanye West and Nick Fuentes (though they cowardly haven't condemned Trump for his involvement with those two). The thing is, though, for all these GOP officials condemning West and Fuentes's deeply anti-Semitic views and love of Hitler, then -- if they want people to believe they truly mean what they say -- it follows they must publicly condemn all neo-Nazi groups who hold and have voiced the same views, even if such groups support the Republican Party. I am not holding my breath on that. This is almost unbelievable, even in today's GOP politics and Trump World. But I swear this is true -- because there is video of her actually saying it. And without her soul shriveling before our eyes.
But here is video of one of Trump's lawyers, Jenna Ellis commenting on the Club Q shooting -- She says, "The five people killed in the nightclub that night, there is no evidence/that they were Christians. Assuming they have not accepted the truth/affirmed Christ as the lord of their life they are now reaping the consequences of eternal damnation.” Really. Honest. She said that. Here's the video. Though no client should be judged by what their lawyer says about their personal beliefs, it's still fair for Trump to be asked if he agrees with this statement by his lawyer Jenna Ellis if he is abhorred by its depravity. (As a side note, the utter depravity of her statement aside, which is A LOT to put aside, there is also no evidence that they were not Christians. It just isn't an issue that EVER gets reported in a mass killing because a person's religion isn't even remotely the slightest consideration an issue, unless the shooting took place in a church or temple.) So, Jenna Ellis sure seems to be saying that only Christians shouldn't be killed, because everyone else is reaping the consequences of not being Christian and will be eternally damned!!!! Well...I can think of one person who may be eternally damned. And even at that, I don't wish her what she wishes on others. I take comfort knowing that she has to live with herself, corroding and rotting from the inside. It's also worth noting that we haven't heard yet from Ms. Ellis, Esq. if she believes the mass shooting victims in Virginia (or any mass shooting victims, ever -- past and future -- for that matter) whose religion we don't know, all deserved to be killed because it's possible they might not take Jesus as their Lord and therefore are damned to hell. By the way, putting aside all other totally depraved things she says here, even Trump supporters should be sicked by what she says here since, by Jenna Ellis's standards she supports abortion because the fetus is not a Christian who has not accepted Jesus as its lord and is now reaping the consequences of eternal damnation. And in the end, ultimately, what a "Jenna Ellis, Esq." thinks is of almost zero consequence and would normally get no notice -- it has only gotten attention because she is tied to Trump as his lawyer. So, as long as she remains in his employ and good graces, it reflects on his support of her. Yesterday, the Senate voted for cloture, to end debate on the Respect for Marriage Act, the bill that would codify into federal law protections for marriage equality. Though just a procedural vote, it expectantly had substance. That’s because cloture passed with 12 Republican votes, two more than would be needed to stop a filibuster. And so, assuming the Republicans who voted for cloture will also vote for the bill (not a certain thing, but likely), it appears that the bill will pass in the Senate. And with a Democratic majority still in the House, it should pass there, as well. And President Biden has said he will sign it into law. While it’s amazing to see 12 Republicans vote for cloture (helped perhaps by some of them losing their race in the Midterms and therefore not having to face Republican voters in a primary), it’s equally amazing to see only 12 Republicans vote to push forward something that is currently, actually, already federal law (though only by Supreme Court ruling, hence the need for this bill because of the uncertainty what this court will do). In other words, 38 out of 50 Republican senators refused to vote to hear a debate on a bill that just confirms what is the law. But…it passed with 12 votes, and appears like this will become law. So, it maybe was really bad timing for actress Candance Cameron Bure, having her interview with the Wall Street Journal appear earlier in the same day where she discusses leaving the Hallmark Channel for the Great American Family Channel and saying that, while she will be making a slate of Christmas movies there in the future, one shouldn’t expect to see any gay marriages in any of the storylines. "I think that Great American Family will keep traditional marriage at the core." Ah, ‘tis the season for Peace on Earth, goodwill to men. (Just not all men, in her world.) She also added that “My heart wants to tell stories that have more meaning and purpose and depth behind them. I knew that the people behind Great American Family were Christians that love the Lord and wanted to promote faith programming and good family entertainment.” But then, she might want to clear that with the CEO of the company first. That’s because Bill Abbott seems like he's only partly on board with the actress. "It's certainly the year 2022, so we're aware of the trends," he waffled in the article, leaving out the ahem, er, cough-cough, not seemingly wanting to offend anyone on any side, at least just yet. "There's no whiteboard that says, 'Yes, this' or 'No, we'll never go here.'” While that’s not an especially courageous stand, and he might well-decide on the “No, we’ll never go there” on married gay fictional characters, it seems like he knows we’re no longer living in 1931. Because gay people are now a trend. (So, congrats to all you gay couples being a trend!! It’s really cool when the law can be so hip.) Then again, whatever GAF (which weirdly sounds like it’s commenting on Ms. Cameron Bure's interview) decides, what I'm most wondering is what she will do if carolers in one of the movies she gets hired for are singing "Deck the Halls" and get to the line, "Now, we don our..." The good news for Great American Family is that they won’t have to spend any extra money to buy the song rights for “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” in any movie the actress performs in. That means she'll still be able to "make the Yuletide gay" without it being too gay. On the other hand, despite his waffling on the issue, Mr. Abbott seems a wee bit more disingenuous when he explains that his channel’s formula is “soft faith,” what the article says he calls a “Christian message” that “is there for viewers who are looking for it but doesn’t aim to proselytize.” But since Ms. Cameron Bure explains her move to the GAF channel is specifically because the people behind it “were Christians that love the Lord and wanted to promote faith programming and good family entertainment,” that seems its soft core, chewy nugget center is much more hardcore. To be clear, any channel has the right to put on whatever programming it likes. There are religious channels throughout cable TV. At issue here is not that. It’s how in the season of brotherly love, Ms. Cameron Bure chose to pontificate by cutting out the “brother” part. (Not to mention the “love” part.) For what it’s worth, I did a little research, although exact, current information is hard to find. On the good side, the Great American Family channel she went to from Hallmark appears to be growing its audience. At the moment, though, it still has a very long ways to grow, being ranked #69 among all cable channels with 145,000 viewers in primetime, for a less than great American .05 rating. Meanwhile, Hallmark Channel which she left (and, make no mistake, has a pretty strong Christian-right pedigree, though is probably heathen compared to GAF) is the #10 rated cable channels with 1.1 million primetime viewers. (It’s companion Hallmark Movies & Mystery channel also makes Christmas movies among its regular fare and is ranked #21 with around 450,000 viewers in primetime.) So, clearly, having a large audience to watch your small-minded views was not a major priority for Ms. Cameron Bure. In some ways, a person gets points preferring to stick close to one’s personal beliefs and rather than have a huge platform, be a big fish in a little puddle. And who knows, GAF may indeed grow in popularity, as it’s been doing and spending money signing other recognizable actors. Though the risk is that there may be a ceiling to that because the formula Candance Cameron Bure wants doesn’t appear to fit in with the world’s, well… trend. It's also worth recalling her saying that that formula she embraces is about “traditional marriage,” which is a convenient and oft-used phrase. But if "traditional marriage" is our benchmark, it's worth going back in history – which, after all, is the very core of tradition – to the days of the Roman Empire. It’s those days, it was illegal to marry an actor. (Really.) So, as far as truly traditional marriage goes, Ms. Cameron-Bure herself would have been out of luck. (In fairness, I believe this was B.C., so I'm not sure if Jesus fixed this in the New Testament and OK'd marrying actors somewhere in the pages.) No word, too, if GAF plans to make any holiday movies -- or any movies at all -- with Jewish characters, whose tradition of marriage (and tradition, period) far, far-predates that of Ms. Cameron-Bure's guidelines. Though to be fair, her Lord and Savior was Jewish. So, maybe we’ll be getting a spate of Hanukkah tales! Whether Candance Cameron Bure will be appearing in them remains to be seen, since I’m not sure how they would fit in with her concept of a Great American Family. But then, if you’re going to call yourself “Great American Family,” I’d think you’d at least have the decency to include all members of the family. And for that matter, if you want to show your disdain for United States law that protects the civil rights and liberties of everyone, no matter if expressing that disdain is your own right, it’s probably a very embarrassing idea to call yourself “Great Americans.” Which brings us back to the start, and the Senate on the edge of passing the Respect for Marriage Act. Voted on by enough great Americans that it looks like it will become codified federal law and not only a Supreme Court ruling. Signed by President Joe Biden. Joy to the world. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|