San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

And The Oscar For Best Cinematography Goes To....

I watched about ten minutes of the Oscar presentations last week.  I noticed several things about them.  The first thing that really jumped out at me is how insecure most everyone associated with the movie business seems to be.  They spend a good deal of their time giving each other awards, in vain attempts to bolster their respective self esteems.  I don't think it is working.  The second thing I noticed is how there were no black people receiving awards, although most of the presenters and entertainers that evening were black people.  I was not surprised that the black folks providing the backdrop for the awards spent a good deal of their time insulting the white folks.  And I was not surprised that the white folks seemed to take great pleasure at being insulted.  I guess it helped them ameliorate some of their white guilt.  Who knows, it might have even helped to build up their self esteem.  Good for them.
The section of the program that I witnessed was devoted to a lot of the technical aspects of movie making.  I saw the awards for costumes, hair design, editing and other stuff like that.  It was then that I realized how non-diversified the winners were.  I was shocked as I saw one Brit after another mount the stage and give thanks to the Academy for their awards.  I think some of them also took the opportunity to thank the Queen, as a backhanded slap against the racist Academy giving them their awards.  Where is the diversity, I thought to myself?  The awards were clearly rigged to promote the Brits.  I was appalled.
One award that I did not see was for best cinematography.  I am not sure what that means but I think the person who does the best job with his camera at capturing whatever it is the director wants him to capture is given that award.  As I thought about who should win that award I realized that the two best candidates for it had not even been nominated.  Let me tell you their stories.
This news story, from the Los Alamos Daily Post, tells the sordid tale of a puppy mill.  You know what a puppy mill is, don't you?  It is the term used by people who oppose freedom in general and breeding dogs for profit in particular.  Dog breeders that don't make any profit and who breed for environmentally conscious purposes and goals, whatever that means,  are known as dog breeders.  Dog breeders who breed dogs to sell to satisfied customers for a profit are called owners of puppy mills.  Many a rookie newsman, and his associated cameraman, has made a reputation for himself by secretly recording what goes on inside these puppy mills.  Here is a part of the story as reported in the paper,  "After receiving a series of complaints from individuals who adopted from and/or visited McIntoch’s Southern Roc puppy mill, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) sent an undercover investigator who captured video, which confirm the allegations.  The ALDF filed a complaint against the breeder with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) identifying numerous violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) readily visible in video footage taken on their premise."
Well there you have it.  Some evil profit seeking businessmen were breeding dogs and some business-minding do-gooders decided that they did not like the way the dogs were being bred.  So they trespassed upon the property of the company breeding the dogs and, without the knowledge or permission of the company, secretly taped what was taking place.  Once they had their video they ran to their god, the federal government, and presented a case that the Animal Welfare Act had been violated.   As you would expect, the animal rights activists in the area are praising the brave cameraman as a hero.  He braved enormous risks to obtain the footage of abused animals.  He could have been stung by a bee, bitten by a dog, stepped into a pile of dog do-do or shot at by the owner of the company.  Certainly the man who shot that video should have been nominated for an Oscar.  If his story had been properly told I am certain he would have won.
Now let me tell you the tale of another cameraman who secretly recorded the goings on at another privately held company.  This story can be found here, in the Christian Science Monitor.  It says, "The accusers are now the accused in the case of the hidden camera videos that purportedly show Planned Parenthood staff in Texas discussing the sale of aborted fetal tissue – a crime in the United States if done for profit. The anti-abortion activists who captured the controversial footage last year now face criminal charges.  A grand jury in Harris County cleared Planned Parenthood's Gulf Coast affiliate and indicted David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, in a courtroom twist that surprised many. Both are charged with using fake driver's licenses, and Mr. Daleiden is charged with violating Texas' law against the purchase and sale of human organs – the same law he accused Planned Parenthood of breaking – based on his email to Planned Parenthood in which he sought to buy fetal tissue. Their lawyers say they have done nothing wrong....Planned Parenthood made prosecutors aware that Daleiden and Ms. Merritt supplied fake driver's licenses in April 2015 when they entered a Houston clinic claiming to be executives from a nonexistent company as they secretly captured conversations on film in the facility. That revelation is what led to the charges that they used fake government documents with the intent to defraud."  I suspect most people are aware of this case.  If you have not seen the video, you can see it here.
There are so many absurdities in this story I hardly know where to begin.  Note that using aborted fetal tissue in a way the government describes as "not for profit" is legal but doing the same thing with someone who wishes to make a profit is a grave immorality.  In that case the abortion mill is very similar to the puppy mill.  Also note that Planned Parenthood really has no clue on how to defend itself from the charges brought by the anti-abortion group with the sinister video footage.  Why do they not come out and declare what they believe to be true?  A baby is not a baby until it is born.  As long as a baby is in the womb it is tissue, nothing more and nothing less.  Selling tissue should not be an issue with anyone.  Isn't it strange that the pro-abortionists never make that argument?  I wonder why?
So let me get this straight....the anti-puppy mill people obtain video footage showing dog abuse illegally and they are heroes.  The anti-abortion mill people obtain video footage showing murder and the sale of human body parts illegally and they are felons.  You can watch the video for yourself.  There is no doubt about what was taking place.  The folks at PP were willing and able to sell parts of dead babies to anyone who wanted to buy them.  Furthermore, even a pro-abortion body of federal law still classifies the act of selling baby parts as a crime.  There is no question that the PP people were involved in a conspiracy to break the law.  But when the video was presented to a Grand Jury for the purpose of obtaining an indictment against PP a very strange thing happened.  Instead of bringing an indictment against PP, the Grand Jury indicted the cameraman for illegally filming the meeting where the conspiracy to commit a felony by selling human body parts for a profit was hatched.  What did he do wrong?  He used a fake ID to get into the room.
I do not need to describe this event in any more detail.  If your God-hating conscience is so seared you cannot see the bitter irony in this there is no hope for you and you are bound for the Lake of Fire if you do not repent.  Those who still have some semblance of a moral conscience can immediately see what has happened here.  Dogs are far more valuable than humans and cameramen who record dog abuse are heroes while cameramen who record human abuse are felons. That is precisely the way things should be in the immoral Socialist Democracy of Amerika.

No comments:

Post a Comment