||[Mar. 9th, 2004|09:34 am]
caught Bill O'Reilly explaining who the 'media elite' are. Now most of my liberal friends tell me not to pay attention to people like O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, that they're a sideshow, but ... how can someone get away with stringing together paragraph after paragraph of unsubstantiated assertions with the air of complete authority? People take O'Reilly seriously, even though every time I've seen him he's been spewing non-stop idiocy.I managed to flip through Fox News last night and |
"In the world of The New York Times, Ludacris is good; "The Passion" is bad." -- duh. I'm not a Ludacris fan, but WTF. His stage name is a corruption of Ludicrous, meaning whatever he's doing you're not supposed to take it seriously. He exaggerates thug life to hold it up to ridicule, and he makes party music. IT'S A JOKE O'REILLY.
"The Passion" is straight up torture porn. Which might sound flippant, but it's just the latest chapter in a theme of Christian mysticism that equates physical pain with spiritual ecstasy. There's a lot of uncomfortably erotic-sounding love for Jesus in some Catholic writing as well. "The Passion" is all about getting off on pain and torture. While this might be part of a sincere Christian's spiritual life, I for one feel like there's no disrespect in calling attention to how creepy it is.