Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: Politics — Rick Moran @ 1:59 pm

Bill O’Reilly was in high dudgeon over the weekend, writing an Op-Ed in the Boston Herald in which he takes Hollywood to task for being “anti-American” based on his take of the new Jason Bourne flick that just opened:

I knew this movie was trouble when I read the reviews. Almost all the critics liked it. The only way American movie critics would like a violent car-chase film like this was if it bashed the USA, which, of course, it does.

The CIA guys are bad, bad, bad. And just to make sure Indonesian and Pakistani audiences get the picture, the CIA chief issues his evil orders with the American flag clearly seen on his desk. No language barrier here, no sir. The U.S. intelligence agencies are fiendish enterprises that want to hurt Damon and actually force Stiles to cut her own hair. How could they?

Actually, neither Damon nor Stiles has to do much acting. Damon does work for the far-left MoveOn organization and is on record as requesting that the Bush daughters serve in Iraq. The actor also told the Idaho Statesman that the CIA’s use of water boarding is an erosion of our American values.

Guess what? There’s a water-boarding scene in the flick. What a coincidence!

Stiles is also down with the far left. On a cable program she explained why she missed a MoveOn event by saying: “I was afraid that Bill O’Reilly would come with a shotgun at my front door and shoot me for being unpatriotic.”

First, for all you Ludlum fans out there, I will not name this new flick because you and I both know that the only relationship between the movie and anything Robert Ludlum ever wrote is the name of the title character. It is an insult to fans of that excellent series of novels to title those films the way they have. What happened to that extraordinarily rich and complex relationship with Marie? And what happened to The Jackal? How could you even think of doing a movie on the Bourne series without including Carlos the Jackal - the nemesis and motivation for everything he does? What about the settings from the novels? Expect Kowloon and you get Berlin.

Perhaps most egregiously, it is the character of Jason Bourne himself that, in typical Hollywood fashion, was absolutely butchered. For those not familiar with the novels, Bourne was never an assassin! He was trained as one but he was created for the sole and exclusive purpose of bringing Carlos the Jackal out of hiding by taking false credit for his kills! To make the man Marie fell in love with an assassin who loses his memory and then upon reacquiring his mind regrets his past life is outrageous even for Hollywood.

Yeah…but Matt Damon is cute.

At any rate, Bill O’Reilly must not have gotten out much lately. Perhaps he’s been taking care of a sick aunt for the last 50 years or so for him not to have noticed that there are precious few movies where the CIA aren’t the bad guys. Or the military. Or conservatives. Or religious people. Or CEO’s of big businesses. Or anyone and everyone in American society that might be admired by conservatives.

Is it that Hollywood is anti-American as Billy O says? Or anti-Conservative?

No to the first, although their idea of what sort of nation America actually is might be a little hazy - or wrongheaded. As for Hollywood being anti-conservative, surely you jest. Conservative heroes like Rambo or Arnie Schwarzenegger are always portrayed as not part of any ideological movement but rather loners who kill bad guys that threaten America, or little kids, or puppy dogs. They are also very careful to utter at least one, vapid, liberalesque line in every movie - just to show they’re human.

The answer to the question is not whether Hollywood hates America. The answer is Hollywood hates to lose money much, much, more.

Ask the average American and they are completely unaware that the CIA is forbidden by law to spy on Americans here in America. It might surprise most moviegoers that the CIA is also prevented from killing Americans in this country. But to Hollywood, those strictures don’t apply and they have the CIA murdering more Americans than Osama Bin Laden.

Why? Because it sells. It feeds the popular perception of the CIA as a bunch of cowboys who have nothing better to do with their time than kill you if you threaten to expose one of their nefarious plots by taking the story to the newspapers. Chances are that the New York Times or Washington Post would have already published every detail of those plots in real life but that doesn’t seem to count for much in Hollywood.

About the only films I can think of that have a positive portrayal of our intel agencies are those based on books by Tom Clancy; honorable men doing an honorable job of protecting the country. But those Clancy films are certainly the exception to the rule.

Then there are the films that portray an intel agency so secret, so evil, that no one knows about them. And they will kill to keep that secret. Usually, the more improbable the film’s premise, the more powerful this super secret organization is.

I’ll leave it to some of the intel experts who comment here (Andy? Dale?), but I find it highly implausible that such organizations exist in real life. Rogue elements of one agency or another I can believe. We’ve seen them in the news. But whole agencies not on the books? To my mind, its laughable.

Clearly, Hollywood has a grudge against the CIA. But does that make them anti-American? As I said, if Hollywood could make a lot of money with a picture that features conservatives as heroes and businessmen as the good guys, they would do it in a heartbeat. There is no red or blue in Tinseltown, only green. And this singular fact seems to escape Mr. O’Reilly who seems concerned that moviegoers in Pakistan will get the wrong idea about the CIA.

If they’re stupid enough to believe any old thing about the CIA, the flip side of that coin is that they would stay away from a film with a positive portrayal of our intel agencies in droves. It doesn’t fit their worldview ergo, it doesn’t exist. Same holds true for the more “sophisticated” audiences in Europe.

Hollywood has been making money for a very long time and they’re very good at it. They anticipate trends and movement in the electorate better than politicians. O’Reilly believes they should stop all that and simply make good old fashioned propaganda films as they did in World War II or at least ones that have a pro-American story and characters.

He and I would go so a film like that. But how many others? The director of the new Bourne film, Paul Greengrass, is also the director of United 93, the best movie about 9/11 to date and which portrayed those ordinary American heroes on Flight 93 in a positive and uplifting light. But Greengrass’s searing film experience made only $30 million at the box office. In these days where blockbusters rule Hollywood, that kind of box office doesn’t generate any excitement at all.

It’s not bias, Bill. It’s the money. It’s all about the money. These are people who would sell their grandmothers for money. Selling out their political principles would be nothing. For that reason, you know that if they believed that Bill’s kind of movie would be a blockbuster, they’d be rushing the projects into the theater as fast as possible.

Instead, we have bad guys who in real life are good guys. Par for the course in a place that for the last 40 years or so has had an enemy identification problem.


  1. I agree that money is the first thing on the list for Hollywood producers. But, I feel that a near second is to make a twofer–money and political hay–and to use actors that would be attracted to left wing political statements. Attractive actors and actresses bring in the money, and all too many of them are quite leftist.

    Comment by mannning — 8/13/2007 @ 2:38 pm

  2. For how many years did NSA stand for No Such Agency?

    Comment by SlimGuy — 8/13/2007 @ 2:51 pm

  3. Instead, we have bad guys who in real life are good guys. Par for the course in a place that for the last 40 years or so has had an enemy identification problem.

    Yeah - the CIA are “the good guys” … except when its convenient for you to accuse them of being a cabal determined to undermine the president even at the expense of the country.

    Make up your mind.

    Comment by r4d20 — 8/13/2007 @ 4:11 pm

  4. If it sells, they’ll make it.

    An interesting extension of your argument, Rick — if these movies are what Americans (on the whole) want, then the America that Mr. O’Rilley is trying to protect doesn’t exist, at least not anymore.

    As for finding it hard to believe that a “ghost agency” exists, it would sure be hard to hide the cash trail, but that the Government would try it is no stretch — hell, they denied the existence on Area 51 for decades, even though the damn buildings are clearly visible.

    Comment by busboy33 — 8/13/2007 @ 4:13 pm

  5. C’Mon. You can’t be that simple minded r4.

    A faction at the agency has been attempting to undermine the Administration from day one. The fact that WSJ, WaPo, the New York Times, have all said exactly the same thing seems to have escaped your notice.

    A “faction” is not the agency in general nor does it apply to the overwhelming percentage of employees who are loyal and leave politics out of their careers.

    Perhaps next time, you might want to think a little before making an ass of yourself with an inane comment like the one above.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 8/13/2007 @ 4:18 pm

  6. Actually, chase movies like The Bourne Ultimatum are a rarity around Hollywood these days. The last really great chase flicks were the last Jason Bourne movie a couple of years ago and The Fugitive from way back in the 1990’s.
    In 2007, the bread and butter of the movie studios aren’t searing dramas or car chase movies; they rely on massive budget CGI superhero movies and fantasy adventures. For example, the most anticipated movies for 2008 are already: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk (a reboot of the franchise), The Dark Knight: Batman Begins 2, and Watchmen.

    Comment by Jim — 8/13/2007 @ 4:22 pm

  7. Does Billo stand up for the CIA when Libby outed an undercover operative? I guess its okay if the neo-cons do that to the wife of a critic. Rick’s right about Hollywood, its the money stupid! Billo tries to stir up controversies where none exists.

    Comment by Joe Helgerson — 8/13/2007 @ 6:48 pm

  8. People in Hollywood will not make a conservative film for a variety of reasons, part of which is that there are very few successful and open conservative actors, writers, directors, producers, etc. Thus, the folks in Hollywood are exposed to only one world view, much like Pauline Kael’s comment about “How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon” in 1972.

    Next, it’s just not cool to be conservative in Hollywood, and the industry seems to be more concerned about being popular than 8th grade girls. Anyone seemingly comfortable in their Conservatism either announces it after they’re successful institutions or seems to find their careers side-tracked. The number of conservatives appears to be so small that you can probably count them on two hands - Bruce Willis, Charlton Heston, Tom Selleck, maybe Mel Gibson (not sure we’d want to claim Mel). And even Willis is willing to take roles supporting the liberal mindset of hidden government cabals (e.g. Die Hard II), which seems to keep his Hollywood cred.

    Conservative movies can be successful, see “The Passion of Christ,” but then look at what Jim Caviezel has been up to - no major roles of note. I’d say that “Team America” is represented South Park Conservatism, and you can’t imagine that Matt Stone & Trey Parker are being invited to any Film Actor Guild meetings anytime soon.

    I believe that there is a huge market for positive American films that show heroic military service, are pro-American, and fit an old fashioned stereotype. Blackhawk Down made $108 million in box-office and another $28 million in rental (and I don’t know when they cut off the totals) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/black_hawk_down/numbers.php

    Blackdown was a movie about a military disaster, and people still want to see a positive portrayal of American heroism.

    Why is John Wayne still frequently voted as the favorite actor in America?

    Finally, Hollywood wants to make “serious” movies and be considered “artistic.” Rick, if they were purely concerned about making money they wouldn’t make the recent spate of movies about “victims” from Iraq, families left in the lurch, soldiers with PTSD, and the rest of the litany of “serious” movies that have come out or are coming out. The New York Times profiled this subject matter about two weeks ago, and mentioned that Irwin Winkler’s (Fonzie) movie “Home of the Brave” a returning damaged vet film that came out last year made a whopping $44,000 at the box office - see NYT, July 25, 2007. And yet they’re willing to lose money to get they’re agenda across.

    Finally, United 93 may not have been a box office winner, but how much publicity did it get? Great movies can be undermined if they don’t get support from the studio. Also, it made more money than it cost, as I remember, and clearly the industry thought enough of Greengrass to trust him with a big budget pic like Bourne 3, so can you really say it was a failure?

    Here’s a simple and free suggestion to Hollywood - option “Not a Good Day to Die” about Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan by Sean Naylor, or “No True Glory” by Bing West about Fallujah, hire good actors, properly advertise and market them, and sit back and count $300 million.

    Comment by Publius — 8/13/2007 @ 8:42 pm

  9. You’ve got to be joking, right?

    Hollywood DOES NOT CARE ABOUT MAKING MONEY. This is the business reality of the Hollywood process.

    Producers, directors, actors, writers, even big stars and guys like Peter Jackson get cheated. Jackson is suing for his profits due him for Lord of the Rings series. They don’t get any “upside” i.e. a movie does well and they share in the profits, and don’t get any downside (they still get paid even if the movie bombs). This is a situation that will ALWAYS result in the producers, directors, writers, and actors making films that cater to their anti-American, anti-Average guy view.

    Almost 6 years after 9/11 and there is ONE film that shows Muslim terrorism (and most of the film focuses on the passengers and their families) and that one, Flight 93, was presented as a downer. EVERY terrorist is shown as European with no ties to Muslims. It’s not just Syriana, or Road to Guantanomo, or Munich, but all those films and countless others which present Muslims as innocents brutalized by Americans or Israelis.

    Hollywood makes about 500 movies a year. Out of those, only 3-4 actually make money in significant amounts and end up carrying the industry. And even those get elements removed because anti-American sentiment comes before profits. “Truth, Justice and all that” instead of “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” in Superman.

    Shareholders care about making money. But they have little leverage. Execs are canned and have such short spans (and significantly, don’t share in profits) so they need to find their next job by greenlighting anti-American projects that will lose money or not make much so they can be recommended by Steven or George when they get fired next year. Short-term focus makes network-building by catering to the hard-left and aristo pretensions of the Hollywood elite a slam-dunk.

    Look at 300, and the howls of derision against it in HOLLYWOOD. Because it made money, celebrated Western nationalism, and individualism, and the ordinary man, against a decadent and tyrannical eastern threat. Snyder and Miller should have shown a slam-dunk formula, but no one is copying the film at all.

    I get it. Hollywood is filled with Alpha males who hate/fear/loathe the ordinary guy and want him to just go away and die. They cannot make films celebrating teamwork, dedication, and the little guy. Fred Zinneman’s “Day of the Jackal” with it’s everyman police inspector against the aristo-clever lone assassin could not be made today.

    WHY Hollywood picks the CIA as the villain? Simple it’s a national security bureacracy, first and foremost Hollywood objects to America in and of itself (being wealthy, privileged aristos, many of the second-third generation), and next the ability of the bureacracy to allow the ordinary man enough power to rival that of an Ivy League graduating, connected, and “genius” A-Lister. We can’t have that.

    That Matt Damon is the lead in the Bourne movies is no accident. You would not find an “everyman” in that series, certainly no one with a blue-collar schtick like Bruce Willis in the Die Hard movies.

    [Hollywood probably loses money on most films. The Saw franchise might make a small profit, but it's not a money maker like the Spider-Man films, Pirates, Harry Potter, and other fantasy and comic-book movies where actual heroes and villains can be presented without Hollywood's social status/caste markers dictating that America, and everymen are the enemy and the cool, hip, edgy, socially privileged Hollywood A-Listers the heroes.]

    Comment by Jim Rockford — 8/13/2007 @ 9:07 pm

  10. Ever since I had the good fortune to spend time in the CIA, and to meet a good 30% of the staff via in-depth interviews, I have had enormous respect for the overt side of the agency.
    The covert side was not within my charter, however, and that is where the overseas action is. I have never met a more dedicated set of highly intelligent people, who were doing their utmost to bring home the goods for the nation.

    In recent times, there have been powerful indications that factions in the agency were in fact delving into the political side of our government, and leaking information in ways that the agency had not been known to do previously, at least not so blatantly. This must be stopped, and I trust that appropriate action has been taken to put an end to this practice.

    Portrayals of the agency by Hollywood have followed the pattern of spoofing or denigrating a secret organization which few people have sufficient knowledge of to be accurate, and even then, if they use advisers, what they can divulge about the agency is precious little. The government and the agency cannot indulge in defensive disclosures of sufficient detail to ward off the many spurious accusations that have been laid at their door for decades.

    Up to a point, it is a jolly good Hollywood game of spooks and conflicts, with imaginations running wild. But beyond that point, the nation can be hurt by the very existence of the agency. It is there to be blamed. That has happened over and over, such that a cult of anti-agency ideas has grown up, not only in Hollywood, but also in various nations worldwide. This cult is mostly ignored inside the government, since it cannot be prevented, and it cannot be debunked, not in public anyway. It is the price of doing business.

    Comment by mannning — 8/13/2007 @ 9:08 pm

  11. Rick:

    A slight counterpoint to your comments.

    First, I gave up on Ludlum about 15 years ago. His style is cumbersome at best, turgid at its worst, and his later novels were threatening to turn into parodies of his earlier novels. That said, I fully agree that the movies bear little resemblance to the books; however, I think that’s an improvement. :-)

    Second, while watching TBU, I realized that I didn’t really care that the CIA was painted as ‘the bad guys’. I chuckled at the realization that the CIA no long has any supporters anywhere. For years (starting with the Church Committee) the Left demonized the CIA; now with (as you noted) the CIA’s constant undermining of the White House over the past 6 years, the Right has no use for them, either. Heh.

    Third, ignore the trolls. I’m a lifelong registered Democrat, and _I_ think they’re idiots. ..bruce..

    Comment by Bruce F. Webster — 8/13/2007 @ 9:14 pm

  12. “The actor also told the Idaho Statesman that the CIA’s use of water boarding is an erosion of our American values.”

    Is he seriously arguing that it isn’t?

    Comment by Drongo — 8/14/2007 @ 2:05 am

  13. I walked out of this movie it was so filled with liberal poop. Chase, fight, chase, fight, zzzzzzz, also it was BORING! I should have gone to see Homer Simpson.

    Comment by Steve — 8/14/2007 @ 6:15 am

  14. Like most of the left wing who thinks that the war against Islamic radicals is nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan, Hollywood hasn’t got a clue either. They cry because they are not making the money they used to yet continue to pump out propagana pushing movies while they live a life style most Americans can’t even imagine. Sorry, I don’t want to pay over $10.00 to see some subliminal message about what a piece of crap my nation is and how some nefarious group is going to overthrow our republic.

    And it is obvious that Hollywood hasn’t gotten the message yet. Just taking a look at what movies have reaped the most for their investment should tell you everthing.


    Frankly, I would care if the whole place shut down, sent Sean Penn to clean Hugo’s bathrooms and let the rest of the Hollywood losers try to make it in the real world. Maybe they should all be given lessons about Charlie Chaplin.

    Comment by retire05 — 8/14/2007 @ 10:28 am

  15. I meant “I wouldn’t care if the whole place shut down”

    Comment by retire05 — 8/14/2007 @ 10:30 am

  16. @ Jim Rockford:

    “Shareholders care about making money. But they have little leverage. Execs are canned and have such short spans (and significantly, don’t share in profits) so they need to find their next job by greenlighting anti-American projects that will lose money or not make much so they can be recommended by Steven or George when they get fired next year. Short-term focus makes network-building by catering to the hard-left and aristo pretensions of the Hollywood elite a slam-dunk.”

    Damn! Now THATS a paranoid rant! You go, boy!

    “should we hire Bob? He made the studio 200 million.”
    “yeah, he made the studio money, but he hasn’t pissed on the flag in weeks.”
    “oh well, then he’s off the list. “

    Comment by busboy33 — 8/14/2007 @ 11:38 am

  17. RICK,

    “A faction at the agency has been attempting to undermine the Administration from day one. The fact that WSJ, WaPo, the New York Times, have all said exactly the same thing seems to have escaped your notice.”“A “faction” is not the agency in general nor does it apply to the overwhelming percentage of employees who are loyal and leave politics out of their careers.

    I’ve seen plenty of ACCUSATIONS in in the editorial pages of all three.

    Look - I have no doubt that there are CIA employees who are political opponents of Bush and/or disagreed with his policies and I have NO doubt that some of them did things that objectively conflicted with the agenda of the President and that some of them even broke the law (leakers), but definition of this so-called “faction” is more elastic than Mearsheimer & Walt’s “Israel Lobby”.

    Just like they defined the “Lobby” to include ANYONE who publicly advocated from pro-Israel policies, regardless of motive for doing so or their connection with one another, this “faction” is defined is defined such that it includes anyone who did ANYTHING that interfered the agenda of the Administration.

    It incorporates everyone from those who illegally and unethically leaked classified information (they broke their oath and I support punishing them) to those who, like Joe Wilson, legally went public with Non-classified information critical of the Administration or its claims, all the way to CIA officials who didn’t leak or write an op-ed but merely reported unpleasant facts.

    These allegations do NOT confine themselves to arguably “political” people like Joe Wilson, who I do not find sympathetic. They have been made almost ANY and EVERY time the CIA, or anyone in it, releases (not just “leaks”) information that does not support the Admins claims. When Dick Cheney claimed that there was evidence that just before 9/11, M. Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, journalists naturally asked for confirmation from the intelligence agencies. When the CIA responded that it could NOT verify these claims because it simply did not have evidence that such a meeting ever took place, accusations about this “faction” and their “politically motivated undermining of the president” duly followed!

    No one dispuited that the CIA answered the question truthfully - even if the meeting did happen the CIA had NO evidence for it and could not truthfully say otherwise. They didn’t say “the VP is lying” or even “the VP is wrong” - they just said “true or false, we have no evidence to confirm these claims”. If THAT is “undermining” then ANYTHING short of full support is too, and that means that 90%+ of the CIA is out to “undermine” the president.

    What the f@#$% were they suppose to do? Lie to make the VP look better? Thats not their job. The organization may be part of the “executive branch” but their job is to gather, store, and analyze foreign intelligence, NOT to help generate domestic support for the Admins policies - which is their own damn job! CIA employees take an oath to protect the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and the only thing they are obligated to be loyal to is the Consitution - not the president, his policies, or members of his administration like the VP

    — Furthermore —

    I have assumed that you meant “faction” in the sense of “a Group within a larger organization, such as a political party, that has similar beliefs but different goals then the whole of the organization.”

    Well, If you are going to talk about a “faction” in the CIA without being accused of smearing the whole organization, you had better have a coherent way of defining what makes a person a member of this “faction” - aka. what are their “different goals” and what standards of evidence can legitmately be used to prove that an individual shares these goals.

    Right now it appears that main “goal” shared by all the so-far-designated members of this “faction” was to inform the public of facts that contradicted claims made by the Administration and the only standard of evidence that their actions were “politically motivated” is their party registration, ANY affiliation with traditionally Democratic organizations or causes, or ANYTHING LESS than being a 100% Pro-Administration Republican. By those criteria 90% of the CIA is in this “faction” and THAT would be a slander of the entire organization.

    — Finally —

    I assume you know that these accusations regarding the CIA are NOT NEW. They were being made at least 30 years ago when Rumsfeld & others formed “Team B” for the explicit purpose of discrediting the CIA because it would not support their allegations of new, incredibly advanced, soviet weapons and their plans to use them to attack America - because all the information the CIA had indicated that they did not exist!!

    They made the same allegations then as they made now and for the same reason: The CIA will always be an albatross to agenda-driven idealogues because of the sheer volume of information it has access to will always include evidence that contradicts their claims - when the CIA has the ability to show (insofar as it can, given the nature of the intelligence business) that what you are saying is bullshit it becomes necessary to discredit the CIA! The people making these accusation know damn well that the CIA often cannot publically reveal the bulk of this evidence and so they know it will often come down to a he-said she-said where these kinds of smears can be effective.

    A private wrote some stories that purported to detail “rude” behavior by a few soldiers while NEVER claiming to be indicative of American Soldiers in general or any “faction” in the military, or anything other than a personal account of individual actions by individual soldiers. You and others claimed that, by doing so, he had knowingly and intentionally slandered the military and all his fellow servicemen - even though I heard stories of worse behavior by my Grandmother, and Army Nurse in the Euopean theater in WWII, including an attempted sexual assault, by GIs, that she narrowly escaped.

    Now you (and others) are assert that there IS a coherent faction in the CIA that willfully jepordizes American security for the sole purpose of scoring political points against Bush and dismiss it when I say that this borders on slander.

    Unlike you I will not “mind read” and assert that, because it makes no sense, you must be disingenous and have some ulterior motive. I think its much more simple; you simply have not examined some deeply held assumptions/stereotypes. You can believe the former because it agrees with the “liberals hate the troops” stereotype we both grew up with, but since there is no “Conservatives hate the CIA” stereotype you cannot even see that the “faction” talk is as slanderous as any of the conspiracy theories peddled by Hollywood liberals like Oliver Stone.

    Comment by r4d20 — 8/14/2007 @ 7:03 pm

  18. It doesn’t really take a faction to leak stuff that has the power to embarrass the Administration. It takes one person with the access, the motive, and the ear of discreet reporters to do the job. If you think that the agency has no people that would do such a thing, you are naive in the extreme.

    Comment by mannning — 8/14/2007 @ 10:43 pm

  19. @r4d20:

    Very well said!! This site has some great threads.


    No doubt there is at least one CIA employee who has access, the ear of discreet reporters (or could get them), and the motive to harm the Administration. Probably at least two — there’s lots of employees.

    “Faction” is one of those loaded words, and that’s the problem. It implies that there is an organized, cooperative, multi-party group. There’s absolutely no evidence for that, and that’s the part that seems far-fetched, at least to me. Labeling people in the CIA who discredit the Administration as a “faction” (or cabal, cell, etc.) implies that they are following orders. That implies that the motive for their action is loyalty to the faction, not loyalty to the truth (as in leaking because crimes are being covered up). Now, you can just discredit the information, because the source is an operative, instead of a whistleblower. Its a rethorical trick to undermine an opponents’ position, and its a dirty trick. THATS the objection I think d20 has.

    Its the reverse of the “Theory of Intelligent Design” game. Whatever your stance on Intelligent Design, it clearly isn’t the science class definition of “theory.” It isn’t even “hopythesis.” Calling it a “theory” implies a weighty, tested-and-verified credibility that even its proponents concede is lacking. Or calling everybody who shoots at us in Iraq AQ — it makes them much more evil, and avoids having to consider whether or not we should consider their motivation (if they are AQ then the motive is to eat American babies, so we have to keep shooting until we run out of bullets).

    Using loaded words like that is a trick to subconciously sends a message. In a frank discussion, its something that should be avoided at all costs.

    Comment by busboy33 — 8/15/2007 @ 10:01 am

  20. What I want to see is a movie where a real Conservative bitch slaps a ditto head and says:

    “Real Conservatism is about the marketplace, not whining about how unfair things are, if the ‘300’ can make a profit then there is a place for Conservative movies. We will get the message out using our Conservative power of free markets. Grow a set of balls and stop whining.”

    The ditto head would then realize the error of his ways and the two would race off in the Deficit Mobile, a vehicle powered by farm subsidies.

    Comment by grognard — 8/15/2007 @ 11:02 am

  21. of course we know the cia is not allowed to spy on us here in the country,but their history shows that they are not to be trusted to follow the rules.if you wanta believe them on on face value,then i have a bridge in baghdad to sell you

    Comment by high tides — 8/15/2007 @ 6:54 pm

  22. Grognard your argument makes no sense. It isn’t a free and open market because the barriers to entry are huge. It’s not as if I can open a Conservative lemonade stand and just start competing with Dreamworks. For one thing, how many actors are willing to jeopardize their careers to work on a conservative picture? Especially if they aren’t yet established and know how difficult it is to get steady-work. The libs talk about the black-list, well there are conservatives in Hollywood living in the “closet” to preserve their opportunities to work. Its about the same as being a conservative with a PhD looking to get hired by a faculty at most colleges.

    The media, academia, Hollywood, the music industry (except maybe Nashville) are dominated by the Left or at least the apathetic and a-political.

    The chances of relying on the “free market” to balance things out in Hollywood is as realistic as believing that a company could enter the aircraft market and challenge Boeing and Airbus. Just ‘aint goin’ to happen.

    Comment by Publius — 8/15/2007 @ 8:08 pm

  23. Thirty years ago Hollywood celebrated America and its virtues in films like “How the West was Won.’ Can you name a film like this in the past five years? Yeah Hollywood loves America, right.

    When one looks at the lossers Hollywood churns out one cannot help but make the connection that making money and making popular films are strictly accidential. Family friendly films make far more than the filth Hollywood vomits forth but how many family films do we get for each Brokeback Mountain? Look at the junk that Hollywood turns out for the boob tube and tell me that they are intereste4d in only making money rather than pushing an agenda.

    If I wanted to destroy America’s image overseas the KGB could do no better than ask Hollywood to make a movie about America.

    Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/15/2007 @ 10:45 pm

  24. @Thomas Jackson:

    ” Family friendly films make far more than the filth Hollywood vomits forth but how many family films do we get for each Brokeback Mountain?”

    Ever heard of Pixar? Disney Studios?

    Lets see . . . For each major Hollywood release with predominant homosexual theme (There’s Brokeback Mountain and, well . . . any others?) we have Cars, Shreck (I, II, III) High School Musical (I and II), Ratatouille, Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Shark Tale, The Nanny Diaries, 13 Going on 30, The Incredible, Herbie the Love Bug, Prarie Home Companion, March of the Penguins, Surf’s Up, Shaggy D.A., Christmas with the Cranks, the Santa Clause. These I just pulled off the top of my head.

    No, you’re right. The one gay movie (which was hugely controversial BECAUSE it was a gay movie) clearly is overwhelming the family friendly movie industry. It was so powerful, in fact, that there has not been a sequel, and there hasn’t been another major release that focuses on homosexual relationships primarily. Clearly an infection of hippie ideals designed to undermine American Values. After all, in Herbie the Love Bug, nobody sang God Bless America — Communists.

    Why did everybody flip at Brokeback Mountain? Its a friggin’ movie!! I don’t like date flicks, but I’m not threatened when they come out — I just don’t watch them.

    Comment by busboy33 — 8/16/2007 @ 10:11 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress