I apologize for my non-existent posting over the past few days. I had a busy week, and with all of the Reagan stuff going on, I haven't really had time to post. You'll see below that I've linked to some comments I believe are particularly appropriate. Jumping off from those, let me give a few of my own thoughts.
Peggy Noonan said "By Friday it was no longer a question, as it had been for years, whether he was one of our top 10 presidents. It was a question only whether he was in the very top five or six--up there with Lincoln and Washington...What is important now is that we continue to speak of the meaning of his leadership. Not bang away about what a great guy he was--there are a lot of great guys--but what huge things he did, not because he had an "ideology" but because he had a philosophy, a specific one that had specific meaning."
And she's right. Whether you agreed with that philosophy or not, you have to acknowledge that RWR was a spectacular leader. He united the country (remember that 49-state victory?), and defeated a common enemy of the world, setting millions free from bondage. He had a goal, and a message, and he got both across (the Great Communicator?). These are the things we need to look to and expect from our leaders, particularly our presidents. Not all presidents can be great men, as greatness is largely dictated by circumstances. But, in tough times, we need to make sure that we have a strong leader with a clear philosophy to run the country.
You can probably see where I'm going with this: we are in one of those trying times. We are in the great struggle of the 21st century, fighting for the preservation of our way of life, of our very liberty that we have taken for granted for the past several decades. In this time, more than any other, we need another Reagan, another Roosevelt (T and FD), another Lincoln, another Washington. At the very least, we need a man who can most closely approximate this.
We may not like our choices, but the necessary outcome is clear: that man is George W. Bush. He's no Reagan, or any of the others from that list. He is, however, the closest thing we have available. He is a man with a crystal-clear vision of the world. He knows the struggle we are in, and he knows what must be done to defeat it. He will not capitulate, or appease. He is willing to take the necessary steps to fight the battle so that we can win it.
In the alternative, we have John Kerry. I'll keep it short: does anyone know where his philosophy on the war on terror stands? Does anyone know what he would do to end the threat we face from Islamic extremists? I certainly don't. What we need is leadership, and the only game in town that offers anything approximating it is GWB.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Riddick-ulous is right
Riddick-ulous: "But back to the issue of conversion. The Necromongers have some sort of religious belief, and although we don't know what it is, it seems safe to assume it might be just a little bit evil. Their pillaging and forced conversions of an explicitly Muslim society suggest the crusades, although their regimentation suggests Imperial Rome, and the gauziness of their beliefs suggests L. Ron Hubbard.
Riddick, who is the last remaining member of a warrior race called the Furyans (again with the names), is prophesied to be the death of the Lord Marshal and so, after much to-ing and fro-ing, they square off, with the fate of the universe--or maybe it's the Underverse--hanging in the balance. I couldn't tell. I promise that if you last to this point in The Chronicles of Riddick, you won't be able to either."
I saw Riddick over the weekend, after watching Pitch Black last week. I came away from both saying similar things to this review.
I'm not a sci-fi nut, but I'd say I am a sci-fi fan. I love comic books, and always enjoy the good Aliens or Terminator movie. These films, however, are science-fantascy, more than science-fiction. The problem is, as both my brother and I decided, they're missing something. You don't know what the Necromonger religion involves. You don't know what the Underverse is. You don't know who the Mercs are, whether they're just bounty-hunters or more. It's too involved, and not elaborate enough, I think.
As Mr. Last mentions, there also seems to be some sort of social commentary, but even that comes through as extremely hazy. All-in-all, it was a good action flick with some great fight scenes, and incredible special effects. I'd recommend it, but don't be looking for the best movie of your life.