Despite Today’s America Teachings, Some things in Life and its Art, are More Beautiful than Others

A  Case for Beauty and the “Lord of the Flies”

Nearly every form of art in America  exercised over  the last couple  generations has become magnificently and profoundly  forgettable.    And thank God!   Quantity of production has buried quality numbing the mind and soul of the beholder.

Its dominance  over all of  the human menus  of intellectual pursuits is the first noticeable proof that the culture of the civilization is in the throes of   death by suicide.

As a  culture becomes more confused about its purpose, about its goals, about its livings,  the  virus of doubt begins  its deadly path throughout the body,  downward  to its  ‘dusty death.”  

Art can expose  a snapshot of a  moment of the people’s health.   And it can reveal a story of a lifetime or a generation.    It can be beautiful, horrifying, forgettable or memorable,  inspiring or defeating.    In its greatest moments for human health, it  reveals the beauty of truth.  

Some experiences  in life,  however sensed,  are   more beautiful than others.    Just as some  horror   can be  more horrifying than others.

What is chosen as art reveals the nature of the soul of the culture. .

Western Liberal dogmatists have long pronounced “Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder.”…….a blatant lie at any time within any generation of any culture.    It is a Marxist twisting   a political and religious  drive to force  the   dream of ‘equality’ upon its subjects, thereby providing  hope, possible  wealth and  fame  to the deceitful, dull,  and inane  most complicit  to guarantee  success for  the   State’s  ‘equality’ mission.

Mediochrity becomes cherished and therefore protected.    Quantity not quality is  worshipped;  the act is honored, not the  results.   “The Act” becomes “The Goal” in Marxist life whether in art or life itself.

I just happened to click on Turner TV Classics as I sat to begin eating my morning oatmeal and raisin cereal, and one of the most meaningful pieces of art in my experience was in progress before my eyes……….Truth for any eye at any time to behold, Marxist or not,  ……must be taught to be  appreciated, cherished, remembered, and preserved, not in a closet or  museum, but in the alive  world of learning whereever human beings may occur.

The Turner Claasic Movie was the 1963 production of “Lord of the Flies”, the black and white one….the beautiful one, the truthful one, the one magnificent in all of  its art  displayed  in movie time and place, the Nature of the human being enacted before viewers’ eyes……..a Masterpiece within itself and the message to its viewers.

I had first seen it in 1963.    When I taught senior high school Social Studies,  it was the one movie I required students to view, but highly recommended  few others.

“Know thyself”………is an important Biblical commandment, one nearly universally ignored among  our modern American entitlement learnings.    

In the 1990s another Lord of the Flies was offered to American audiences.   It glittered in full color.  It’s sound ‘systems’  were sound.     Its setting made more catching  to the eye.

Yet, its story and speech are forgettable.    They fail the truth test.   See it for yourself  here by clicking on below……and then view  the earlier variety, the 1963 one,  below it.   Compare and record your notes.   

Whether you agree with the above assumptions or not, why might some claim one version is far superior in every aspect of its message than the other.

Some experiences  in life,  however sensed,  are   more beautiful in truth than others.    Just as what we see or feel   could  be  horrifying some more profoundly than others.

Civilized communities are frail, folks.

1990:     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nIJ1630By8

1963:     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxYrfB3O7Vg

James Taranto: Obama’s New Left Weaponizes Anti-White Bigotry

Most-Racial America

Antiwhite bigotry goes mainstream.

by James Taranto      at the Wall Street Journal:

“Everytime [sic] I think the Democratic race card players could not get more vile, more deranged, more patronizingly demeaning to blacks, someone manages to defy even my vivid imagination,” thunders blogger William Jacobson. He’s referring to a passage in a Washington Post editorial about critics of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice–a passage that in our view is useful for its clarity.

At issue is a Nov. 19 letter to the President Obama, written by Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and signed by 97 House Republicans, which declares that the signatories are “deeply troubled” that the president is considering nominating Rice secretary of state, and that they “strongly oppose” such a nomination.

“Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter,” the letter states. We noted Tuesday with some amusement that Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, was claiming that “incompetent” was the latest code word for “black.”

The Post focuses on the critics rather than their choice of words. Here’s the passage that outrages Jacobson: “Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy.”

U.S. House/Wikipedia.orgRep. Jeff Duncan is suspiciously pale, according to the Washington Post.

Let’s examine this argument carefully. The Post acknowledges that “we can’t know their hearts.” But it finds a (literally) prima facie reason to suspect them of invidious motives: Almost all of them are persons of pallor. The Post is casting aspersions on Duncan and his colleagues based explicitly on the color of their skin. And it is accusing them of racism!

A couple of other items related to race and politics caught our attention over the Thanksgiving weekend. First, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat and CBC member, resigned from Congress “amid federal ethics investigations and a diagnosis of mental illness,” as the Chicago Tribune reports. That sets up a special election to fill the vacancy:

Some Democrats quickly offered to broker a nominee to avoid several African-American contenders splitting the vote in the heavily Democratic and majority black 2nd Congressional District, which could allow a white candidate to win.

This passes with neither editorial comment nor a disapproving quote. It’s hard to imagine the same absence of reaction if a group of pols offered “to broker a nominee” with the goal of preventing a black candidate from winning a white-majority district.

Then there’s the email from the Obama campaign–yeah, they’re still coming, though at a slower pace than before the election–inviting supporters to take a survey. Among the questions: “Which constituency groups do you identify yourself with? Select all that apply.”

There are 22 boxes you can check off. Some are ideological (“Environmentalists” and perhaps “Labor”), some occupational (“Educators,” “Healthcare professionals”), some regional (“Americans abroad,” “Rural Americans”). There’s a box for “Women” but none for men, though there’s a separate “Gender” question, which hilariously has three options: “Male,” “Female” and “Other/no answer.” Touré will no doubt soon inveigh against the “otherization” of the Gender No. 3.

What caught our attention were the ethnic categories: “African Americans,” “Arab-Americans,” “Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders,” Jewish Americans,” “Latinos” and “Native Americans” (the last, of course, refers to American Indians, not natural-born citizens).

Notice anything missing?

One explanation for the absence of a “white” or “European-American” category (or, alternatively, several dozen specific European ethnicities) could be that whites tend to vote Republican, and the campaign is interested in Democratic-leaning voting blocs. But several other of the Obama survey categories lean toward the GOP, too: “People of faith,” “Rural Americans,” “Seniors,” “Small business owners” and “Veterans/military families.” Counterpart groups that are Democratic-leaning or swing-voting are missing from the list, too, including nonbelievers, urban and suburban dwellers, and the middle-aged (though there are categories for both “Young professionals” and “Youth”).

The reason for the absence of a “Whites” category is that white identity politics is all but nonexistent in America today. That wasn’t always the case, of course: For a century after the Civil War, Southern white supremacists were an important part of the Democratic Party coalition. They were defeated and discredited in the 1960s, and the Democrats, still the party of identity politics, switched their focus to various nonwhite minorities.

Obama’s re-election was a triumph for this new identity politics–but the Post’s nasty editorial hints at a reason to think this form of politics may have long-term costs for both the party and the country.

The trouble with a diverse coalition based on ethnic or racial identity is that solidarity within each group can easily produce conflicts among the groups. Permissive immigration policies, for example, may be good for Hispanics and Asians but bad for blacks. Racial preferences in college admissions help blacks and Hispanics at the expense of Asians.

One way of holding together such a disparate coalition is by delivering prosperity, so that everyone can feel he’s doing well. Failing that, another way is by identifying a common adversary–such as the “white male.” During Obama’s first term, the demonization of the “white male” was common among left-liberal commentators, especially MSNBC types. The Post has now lent its considerably more mainstream institutional voice to this form of bigotry.

This seems likely to weaken the taboo against white identity politics. Whites who are not old enough to remember the pre-civil-rights era–Rep. Duncan, for instance, was born in 1966–have every reason to feel aggrieved by being targeted in this way.

The danger to Democrats is that they still need white votes. According to this year’s exit polls, Obama won re-election while receiving only 39% of the white vote. But that’s higher than Mitt Romney’s percentage among blacks (6%), Latinos (27%), Asian-Americans (26%) or “Other” (38%). It’s true that Republicans suffer electorally for the perception that they are hostile to minorities, but Democrats also stand to suffer for being hostile to whites.

The danger for the country is that a racially polarized electorate will produce a hostile, balkanized culture. In 2008 Obama held out the hope of a postracial America. His re-election raises the possibility of a most-racial America.

Union Thugs to get Thuggier by Obamavoting

from the Washington Examiner:

Examiner Editorial:

A re-elected Obama rewards

his Big Labor friends

Let no one say that President Obama doesn’t remember his friends. Shortly after Big Labor took credit for the get-out-the-vote efforts in key swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Obama began doing his Christmas shopping for the unions.

Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that the Labor Department will introduce a new rule requiring employers to divulge all information on labor consultants they hire. The AP also reported that the National Labor Relations Board — which is nominally independent but whose majority the president appointed — will issue a new rule requiring employers to turn over all employee contact information during union organizing drives.

Individually, these actions may seem fairly innocuous, but they represent significant stocking stuffers for union bosses. With most workers turning away from unions, Obama is stepping up his long-standing effort to keep them alive as a political force by making it easier for unions to recruit members. It is clear that the “card check” law will never get through Congress, so this is their consolation prize.

“They are all about strengthening the right to organize within the confines of what’s politically possible,” Amy Dean, a former top official with the California AFL-CIO, told the AP. Both build on existing laws. For example, companies must currently disclose when they hire labor law consultants during organizing drives, but only in cases in which the consultant has any contact with employees, i.e., explaining to employees why joining a union may not be in their best interest.

There are other consultants, though, that merely advise employers on the law. The new rule would require businesses divulge their contracts with them too — many of whom are small firms that would fear being targeted by unions and would likely get out of the business altogether. Which would suit Big Labor just fine.

There is also the question of defining exactly what “consulting” would mean in this context. Under Obama, the Labor Department would probably interpret it broadly, forcing employers to divulge contracts with firms only tangentially involved in organizing campaigns.

The NLRB maneuver would expand an existing law giving union organizers employees’ name and addresses to also include phone numbers, email addresses and their shift times. This would make it easier for union organizers to track down individuals who’d rather not give part of their paycheck to someone as dues and “persuade” them otherwise. The ones who try to resist can count on multiple visits and a stream of emails targeting them.

Understand, the employee won’t have any say in giving this information out. If the employer has it, they’ll have to turn it over.

Elections have consequences and Obama won, so no one should be surprised that he is using the opportunity to reward his friends and punish his enemies, such as the Chamber of Commerce’s Tom Donohue, who fought card check vigorously when there was a chance it might pass.

But let’s not entertain any illusions that this is a helpful reform. Workers will have to deal with it when they hear the knocks on their doors and their inbox is clogged with union organizers trying to reel them in.