I'll take the risk. A week after Election Day, wondering aloud about whether the spike in gun sales is prudent or panicked, I wrote this:
"...with far more pressing economic issues on center stage we can be relatively sure that Obama-Biden won't launch its gun-control agenda right away. Provided the new president can keep an anxious Congress in check, we likely won't see new law in the first 100 days, probably not before the 2010 State of the Union address."Now that the new administration is halfway through its first hundred days, I'm not so sure that I still believe what I said back in November.
In less than two months, I've watched Pres. Barack Obama put the political pedal to the metal -- on the economic crisis and a range of other issues, he's shown that he's not at all bashful about damning the torpedoes and pressing his agenda. Especially after eight years of a propaganda presidency, his purposeful approach is refreshing. In some ways, putting policy differences aside, it's even admirable.
With that as prologue, I can predict that Obama-Biden-Holder will make good on its promise to push for a permanent assault-weapons ban sooner rather than later. Incidents like Tuesday's massacre in southern Alabama, in which the killer reportedly used an AK-47 and an "M-16" (an AR-15, more likely), increase the ominous prospect. Yesterday's school shooting in Germany doesn't help, either, despite it having happened over four thousand miles from Washington, DC.
It's beyond dispute that Obama-Biden-Holder constitutes a threat to individual citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Now the constitutional danger appears to be as present as it is clear.
So is it time now for law-abiding American gun owners to panic? No, I don't think so -- but we'd damned well better accelerate our prudence.
None of the above (The Movie)
My wife and I watched Religulous last night. In light of what I said in Tuesday's post, you might suspect that this 2008 anti-religion docu-comedy would be right up my alley -- and you'd be wrong.
With comic-pundit Bill Maher in front of the camera and director Larry Charles (Borat) behind it, I didn't expect a cerebral film, but I did expect it to be funny. It wasn't, really, at least not to me.
Maher has a satchelful of well-founded reservations about organized religion. He opens Religulous by musing to us (sincerely, I think) about seeking the reasons why people believe and gather and worship one god or another.After a promising start, however, the movie descends into unrelenting mockery, usually in the form of a gotcha interview or a rambling soliloquy on the idiocy of religion -- and knowing Maher and Charles, I suppose I should've seen that coming. With the possible exception of anything that skewers Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or conspiracy theories, I'm not big on mockery.
Oh, there is humor in Religulous. Organized religion is more than capable of making itself look ridiculous -- "It's so shamelessly invented," Maher correctly observes -- and the film is chock-full of clips, some thought-provoking and others downright hilarious, that allow the faithful fringe to embarrass itself quite thoroughly.
That's genuinely funny stuff on its own, but grad-school editing, wretched direction and Maher's interruptions rob it of its comedic potential and, as an unfortunate result, sabotage any chance that Religulous has of making a credible social point. It ends up being the kind of movie that keeps reminding us that it's not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. Considering what might've been, that's a shame.
Despite its many flaws, I consider Religulous recommended viewing and I'm glad to have seen it. I simply have no particular interest in watching this disappointing film more than once.
None of the above (The Magazine)
While I'm on the subject of religion (or the lack thereof), I also can recommend Paul Starobin's cover story in the March issue of National Journal."Rise of the Godless" -- which, by the way, was published prior to the release of the survey discussed in my previous post -- is a smart, well-written piece about the growing influence of secularism in America. Beyond statistics and politics, Starobin does a good job of covering the growing pains of the "movement," exposing tensions disconcertingly similar to those afflicting theistic groups.
From the National Journal article, here's Lori Lipman Brown, the former director of The Secular Coalition for America:
"There are people who want to focus more on explaining their conclusion about whether there is a deity than making the country feel comfortable and safe for people like themselves."Well, you'll have that. It's the sort of thing that happens, in my experience, every single time that we humans try to organize into groups around our personal beliefs. The individual is absorbed by the collective, faith becomes ideology and independence fades.
"Rise of the Godless" doesn't pretend to draw any grand conclusions, but I found it informative as hell (you should pardon the expression). Inspirational as well as cautionary, it's worthwhile reading for truly independent critical thinkers.
Read the National Journal article: "Rise of the Godless" (pdf).
