Sunday, January 21, 2007

Pimping a 12yr old for an Oscar!

In her new movie Dakota Fanning will appear semi-naked and will simulate a violent rape. How can the Liberals claim to care about children when movies like this are honored and real child rapist are given fluff sentences. I personally believe Dakota's parents should be brought up on charges. Thanx to for the story.

'Hounddog': Fanning the flames of perversion
Posted: January 22, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Ted Baehr
Throughout the last 20 years, young actresses have fallen victim to the terrorism of the mass media by being swept up into the hedonism and moral decay that Hollywood and celebrity too often offers. Young actresses like Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Sara Rose Karr, Nicole Kidman, and most recently Dakota Fanning, have been lured by promises of celebrity and awards for starring in lewd, tasteless movies.

What these actresses, directors and agents do not understand is that movie goers tune out in increasing numbers after seeing their favorite stars disrespecting themselves on camera.
The Los Angeles Times recently polled a group of teens (ages 12 to 17). Fifty-eight percent of boys and 74 percent of girls said they were offended by material they felt was disrespectful to women and girls. Furthermore, the respondents who said they were offended often change the channel after viewing offensive material.

Caving to Hollywood pressures to take demeaning parts is career suicide for these young women. Looking at the career of Demi Moore exemplifies this. Young Demi had a very promising career, starring in successful movies like ''St. Elmo's Fire,'' ''Ghost'' and ''A Few Good Men.'' However, for whatever reason, in 1996 she decided to star in the controversial movie ''Striptease'' about a single mother who is a stripper.
The movie made her look silly, tanked at the box office, and Moore's career faded quickly. She no longer had drawing power among teenagers and the huge family audience. Not even a strong feminist role in ''G.I. Jane'' under popular director Ridley Scott could lift her career back to what it was. However sad Demi Moore's story seems, there is an even more heartbreaking one currently involving one of Hollywood's brightest young stars.

Today the movie ''Hounddog,'' starring Dakota Fanning, will premier at the Sundance Film Festival. The movie tells the story of a sexually and physically abused young girl who becomes sexually promiscuous. At the urging of her agent and parents, Dakota appeared semi-naked and filmed a simulated child rape scene. Her agent told the New York Daily News that the role in the movie challenged her as an actress, and ''not just the rape scene ... [but] in every scene she gets better and better.'' Her mother insists that her ''gritty performance'' will win her an Oscar.
What a tragedy that this bright, young, 12-year-old girl has been sacrificed to the golden statue of the Academy Awards!

During the Golden Age of Hollywood, the entertainment industry understood the value of a star's reputation. Especially young stars like Shirley Temple and Elizabeth Taylor. Good wholesome young stars were groomed to appear that way in every movie so that they would be seen as celebrities that moviegoers would admire and want to see again and again. Now, Hollywood chews them up and spits them out like the used prostitutes on Hollywood Blvd. in L.A. or the streets of Bangkok. This is reprehensible.

The sexualization of young children like Dakota is part of the sick ideology of Freudian Marxists, radical feminists, homosexual activists, and perverts who believe in the pseudo-scientific evolutionary theory that all children are born with an innate lust for sexual fulfillment.
Most of these politically correct moral degenerates tolerate sexual promiscuity, including sometimes pedophilia. They show little or no concern for protecting the innocence of children, much less the sexual purity of teenagers and young adults. It is truly a shame when young girls are led to evil by those who should be protecting their innocence.

Monday, January 15, 2007

"R" & 'D" no good for the Future at NASA

First Bush promises big things for the future then the GOP held congress makes him a lair. Now Dem congress is sealing the deal... Say goodbye to MARS!

WASHINGTON — Congress' failure to approve a new annual budget for NASA could force the agency to lay off workers, gut science programs or delay the development of spacecraft to return astronauts to the moon, according to lawmakers and space experts.
The crunch comes because Congress is freezing most 2007 spending at 2006 levels through Sept. 30. NASA's budget will be held at $16.3 billion, more than $520 million short of President Bush's request as part of his vision for exploration of the moon and Mars.
"Congress votes on what size space program they want to buy," NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told the agency's workers last week during a question-and-answer session broadcast on NASA TV. " ... And we will remove a half-billion dollars of content to match what they have told us to do.
"We will do what we have to do to get our programs into the budget that we are given," he said.
Griffin stopped short of saying what exactly will be sacrificed, and NASA spokesman David Steitz said the agency is waiting for guidance from lawmakers on 2007 spending and the White House proposal for the 2008 budget.
"It's like planning your family's budget," Steitz said. "Until you have the paycheck in the bank, you can't figure out what bills you're going to pay."
But in an internal NASA memo, posted recently on the independent NASA watchdog Web site, agency officials warned that the budget freeze could delay development of a manned spacecraft named Orion and its accompanying launch vehicle.
Orion is intended to replace the aging space shuttle fleet and carry astronauts to the international space station, the moon and beyond. The spacecraft, being developed by Houston's Johnson Space Center, is scheduled for launch by 2014, four years after the planned retirement of the nation's three remaining space shuttles.
Worrisome gapLawmakers and space fans are worried that the four-year gap, in which no U.S. spacecraft will be available for carrying humans into space, could widen.
The NASA memo also warned that funding for robotic explorers for the moon and other technology programs would be threatened because of the budget shortfall. Also in the endangered category are science and aeronautics programs that have been Griffin's favorite targets when NASA has needed money to fund the space shuttle and international space station.
Responding to questions from agency workers last week, NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale said she anticipates no layoffs at the moment but added, "I think we will all have to stay tuned."
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, working last year with Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., tried to add $1 billion to NASA's 2007 budget. They hoped the money would shore up all of the agency's programs, help NASA recover from the 2003 Columbia shuttle tragedy and repair damage to space facilities in Louisiana and Mississippi caused by Hurricane Katrina.
But after their amendment was approved by an appropriations subcommittee, it collapsed when the GOP-controlled Congress passed only two of the 11 federal spending bills for fiscal 2007 — those for the military and homeland security.
The incoming Democrats decided to concentrate on the 2008 budget proposals due in early February rather than try to patch together a 2007 budget in a matter of weeks.
Hutchison said her biggest concern is that Griffin will have to slash scientific research to keep the agency on course to complete construction of the international space station, retire the shuttle fleet and develop new spacecraft to return to the moon.
"The core focus, I think, is correct," Hutchison said. "The (new spacecraft), getting that up and running, and the shuttle, getting the space station finished so that we can retire the shuttles. That is the right priority because it's a safety issue for the astronauts.
"But when we have this cut, he's got to find the places that are on the margins, and I fear he's going to be looking at things like scientific research."
Across-the-board cuts
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, who has long served on the House Science Committee, also is concerned about NASA's science programs. She is urging Griffin to trim budgets across the board rather than abandon some programs to pay for others.
"NASA only has to survive until October," she said. "We're having these problems across the government, but the minute we panic at NASA and begin to start shifting major funds, I think that is a disaster waiting to happen.
"It's unfair to those of us who believe in basic research and human space flight, and that happens to be the bulk of the Science Committee," she added. "I don't think they'd take kindly to a major cut in science."
Jackson Lee said she intends to work with Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford, and others to see whether the departments of Defense or Energy, for instance, could help fund science research at NASA until fall. She said Bush's next budget request will be key.
"This is an opportunity for the president to make good on his commitment from his pronouncement three years ago on our mission to the moon and Mars by really putting forth a budget that we can work with for NASA — a long-term, solid budget that reflects the commitment to human space exploration and also the research aspects of NASA's work," she said.
If the White House comes through, she said, there is "sizable to enormous bipartisan support for NASA" in Congress.
Working out the details
Sean Kevlighan, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, declined to discuss plans for NASA's next budget.
"At this time we're working out the details," he said. "Final numbers will be released on Feb. 5."
Hutchison, other lawmakers and outside space policy experts agreed with Jackson Lee that if the 2008 budget for NASA is reasonable, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill will work together to pass it.
"NASA is well supported on both sides of the political aisle. This initial activity of the Democratic leadership certainly wasn't designed to single NASA out. They are simply trying to find a simple formula to move forward," said Joe Mayer with the Houston-based Coalition for Space Exploration. "The fact of the matter is that it will hurt NASA, but I don't think it can be read as a shift of the Congress under Democratic leadership or that now Congress is somehow less inclined to be supportive."
Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society, said the tension is not between Democrats and Republicans but between the White House and Congress. Bush's 2008 budget will affect NASA's fate more than congressional action — or inaction — on the 2007 budget, he said.
At stake in the budget to be released next month, he said, are not just NASA's science or aeronautics programs but also the Bush's own moon and Mars plan, announced three years ago today with much fanfare.
"I think the administration is caught," Friedman said. "They promised to put this lunar program forward on what they called a 'go as you pay' basis — they would go as long as they could afford it. What they did last year was renege on that. They said, 'Well, yeah, we can afford it by cutting other programs and cutting other important things that NASA does.' "
Congress has since endorsed the exploration plan, but lawmakers made clear they think NASA needs more money and needs to preserve funding for science and aeronautics.
Now, Friedman said, Congress will look to the White House for its response.
"Congress will say, 'Look, if you want to pay for (the moon plan), go for it,' " he said. " 'But if you don't want to pay for it, if you're not going to put up the money and the only way you're going to get it is to pay for it by cutting other things that are really important, then we'll wait.'