"The radical left refuses to accept media images that could be seen to be sexist, racist, violent, homophobic even if, holistically, the work is reaffirming of progressive values. The radical right likewise refuses to accept images that are sexy, racy, violent, or celebratory (or even tolerating) of homosexuality.I fail to understand how refusing to accept certain images as described by Graham because they make a person uncomfortable or because one is following a set of principles, which by the way, I do not consider "self-righteous", hurts "Wedding Crashers" or anyone wanting to see it or act in it. Everyone who wants can still see the film, even though I choose not to. I think to condemn another person's principles as "self-righteous" shows a grave lack of understanding of individual morality. Why is it morally wrong for someone to want to feel comfortable?
"But it's not just that. Not only do people want their reality confirmed, they want it confirmed in a manner that is comfortable, reliable, and predictable for them. It's about orthodoxy and blindly and unthinkingly following a set of self-righteous principles."
Sunday, July 17, 2005
McCain's Wedding Crashers
I wrote a couple of posts about Senator John McCain's cameo role in the movie, Wedding Crashers. (John McCain Goes Hollywood) My first post was just wondering how he finds the time. I had previously mentioned it once before here: McCNN New News Network. Then I commented on Susan Estrich's review of the film. (John McCain's Raunch Fest - perhaps I got carried away a bit.) I was taken to task by Matthew at Pretentious Blowhard for criticizing McCain and the film when I had never seen it. Well, no one should wait for me to give a first hand review and no one has to, as Matthew has posted a well written treatise of the film's redeeming qualities and McCain's actions. I bow to his superior insight. However, there are two short paragraphs I take issue with and it is this from Matthew:
Posted by Edna Barney at 11:01 PM