More Trash from the Village Voice
You know, I never liked the Village Voice when I lived in New York and this film review of Homecoming, a horror film with--get this, dead veterans, coming out of their graves to get to the voting booths to eject the president who sent them to war-- makes me like the paper even less. The review was so childish that I thought it was a parody at first, but alas, it was not.The only good news from this review is the following quote from the director:
Thank goodness something good came from Moore's last picture. Thanks to Larry's Blog for pointing out this review.
What I love about these liberal filmmakers (which is, like, all of them) is that they have never gotten past the adolescent idea that what they are doing is the progressive work of genius that tells the real truth about what is going on. It's not. It is just simple boring propaganda that no one wants to see--unless you are at an Italian film festival, a self-righteous American Filmmaker or the Democratic National Committee who spent millions on DVD's of Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Dante says that that the point of his pitiful zombie B-rated flick (I'd give it more of an F for poor imagination) is to inspire other filmmakers to make better versions of films about the atrocities of Iraq.
Perhaps, instead, it should be a wakeup call to right-leaning filmmakers to make films that expose the nonsense these liberals spout. We are already off to a great start with filmmakers like Evan Coyne Maloney with Brainwashing 201 and Michael Moore Hates America
by Michael Wilson.
Update: This comment is too funny to leave in the comment section--"Dead people voting for Democrats? That's just art imitating life." Here is some video that explains the whole thing.
Update II: In honor of giving more money to right-leaning books and art etc.--here is the book
I am going to request for Christmas (actually--that would be Hanukkah for me).
You can't do theatrical political movies; people don't go to them. You can't do them on television, because you've got sponsors," he says. "Michael Moore's last picture made a lot of money, but he was vilified for it so much he's practically in hiding."
Thank goodness something good came from Moore's last picture. Thanks to Larry's Blog for pointing out this review.
What I love about these liberal filmmakers (which is, like, all of them) is that they have never gotten past the adolescent idea that what they are doing is the progressive work of genius that tells the real truth about what is going on. It's not. It is just simple boring propaganda that no one wants to see--unless you are at an Italian film festival, a self-righteous American Filmmaker or the Democratic National Committee who spent millions on DVD's of Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Dante says that that the point of his pitiful zombie B-rated flick (I'd give it more of an F for poor imagination) is to inspire other filmmakers to make better versions of films about the atrocities of Iraq.
Perhaps, instead, it should be a wakeup call to right-leaning filmmakers to make films that expose the nonsense these liberals spout. We are already off to a great start with filmmakers like Evan Coyne Maloney with Brainwashing 201 and Michael Moore Hates America
by Michael Wilson.Update: This comment is too funny to leave in the comment section--"Dead people voting for Democrats? That's just art imitating life." Here is some video that explains the whole thing.
Update II: In honor of giving more money to right-leaning books and art etc.--here is the book
I am going to request for Christmas (actually--that would be Hanukkah for me).
posted by Helen at 2:13 PM
96 Comments:
Dead people voting for Democrats? That's just art imitating life.
Good day to you , Dr Helen.
Now as a psychologist, can you explain why pretty much all the poets, writers of literary fiction, visual artists, film-makers and musicians tend to be of the leftist persuasion? I have never managed to figure that out. I am involved in producing a quality a literary journal here in Ann Arbor, and I have yet to meet a writer/poet/editor type that is even close to the political center. I think, people like you and I and the Instapundit and the majority of the readers of your 2 blogs, are ill-served, and our beliefs are not heard, cuz, seems no-one of our political persuasion seems to be doing much in making films/documentaries , writing novels, short-fiction, poems etc. I wonder why this is so.
ronin1516:
Good question. I have a few thoughts and a link to a post of Glenn's that you might find interesting.
I think that art, film etc. has to have a great amount of emotion involved in order for it to affect people. If a poet, artist, filmmaker can make the audience feel--that is the hallmark of success. Those who are left-leaning seem to base reality more on feeling than logic--whereas libertarians and others seem to use logic more than emotion.
If you are a thinker and you follow through consistently, you tend to go into business, computer science etc. where those talents are rewarded. Have you tried hanging around with most filmmakers? I did while producing my film, "Six", and I can tell you, I was the only one who was adamant about a schedule, making sure everyone was on time, working methodically. The filmmakers did things when they could, did not follow through on comittments unless I threatened them at times etc. I think one also has to be extremely introspective, almost to the point of being rather narcisstic and self-indulgent to create. And even if one is talented at creating--the lifestyle that some of these writers, artists etc. lead is rather parasitic and as a result, they want others to care for them--hey--they have genius or so they think and someone-the government etc. should pay for the privilege of just having them around to create--just for the sake of creating. Most right leaning types do not feel this way--they are out making money to support themselves and I think, are geared more toward personal responsibility which means less time to create.
The other problem is we are not usually welcome in these circles. I used to keep a big George Bush sticker on my car to irritate some of these artists. The networks are not that interested in producing shows that are right leaning as it goes against their politics. I think if we started putting more emphasis and money in the form of programs and grants to younger right-leaning artists--things might change. Here is a link to some more info:
http://instapundit.com/archives/002252.php
“I see dead people.”
“In your dreams?”
[Shakes his head no]
“While you’re awake?”
[Nods yes]
“Dead people like, in graves? In coffins?”
[Shakes his head no again]
“At the polls. . . I see dead Democrats at the polls.”
Ronin1516 aka: 4:13 PM -
The other night, in an inspired moment of rooster crowing imitations, I took my friends to school by throwing myself into the part – it was a glorious performance. I bobbed and weaved and scratched the floor and from the depths of my fowl soul I summoned all that was within me as I cried out to the imagined rising sun. O, to be so lost in character – I was a barnyard God for a moment. It was thoroughly liberating. But I think the lesson here is clear: You try throwing yourself into the role of a chicken and then try thinking clearly about politics.
Also, I’ve had serious discussions with other artists about the validity of a story, in which a man is purported to have lived for years on only cigarettes and sunshine. Where do you begin an assault on such reality flaunting illogic?
“Can’t we all just get along?”
“Man is born free, but everywhere he’s in chains.”
“My reality is. . .”
Dude, I’m an actor, and a photographer — I’m a designer by trade — and I can act like a chicken all day long, but I sleep with a .45 under my pillow. I love my liberal friends, but I love my wife and family first, and when a strong man comes to my door and says he wants my home or he’ll cut my head off, I bar the door, go to my bedroom and pull out my .45 – it’s okay to act like a chicken, but it isn’t okay to be a chicken.
Jeff
My guess is that if "dead veterans of the current conflict crawl out of their graves and stagger single-mindedly", they'll probably be heading to the New York Times building.
DR Helen, thanks for explaining. Until recently, I used to manage Ann Arbor's only hi-end guitar store, and I had to deal with the "dude, I am a musician" crowd, various other "artist" and "performance artist" types. so, my personal experience led to the question about this phenomenon. Thanks for explaining.
BTW, one "performance artist's" art project last fall was to go up to folks wearing Bush/Cheney '04 buttons or stickers or clothing, and scream profanities right in their faces!!! While a fellow "video artist" taped the episode. Their art project lasted till 2 men subjected to their art project beat up both 'artists" rather severely, and took away the video artist's camera!!!
Jeff - I guess I too am somewhat like you, I am a fiction writer, and dabble in B&W photography. However, I dont relate to other writer/photographer types around here, in the Peoples Republic of Ann Arbor.
seems no-one of our political persuasion seems to be doing much in ... writing novels, short-fiction, poems etc. I wonder why this is so.
Check out Alan Sullivan.
http://bilge.seablogger.com/
Does this film explore the question of why the dead vets didn't vote against the candidate when they were, you know, like alive? Does being dead cause you to have a 180 change of thinking?
Actually, there may be something to that - every zombie movie, no matter how decent or friendly or tidy or vegetarian the living person is, the first thing they do once dead is start messily eating brains. Raw.
Yuck. I sure wouldn't do that while still alive.
"I think that art, film etc. has to have a great amount of emotion involved in order for it to affect people. If a poet, artist, filmmaker can make the audience feel--that is the hallmark of success. Those who are left-leaning seem to base reality more on feeling than logic--whereas libertarians and others seem to use logic more than emotion."
With all due respect, this seems a little bit too much like the argument liberals use to explain why there's so few conservatives in the academy (i.e. that conservatives are dumb).
I think this:
"The other problem is we are not usually welcome in these circles."
is probably closer to the mark. Artists form little cliques -- they've been doing it for years, even before the whole Bloomsbury group thing -- and like all cliques, they tend towards a certain insularity. It just happens that, for whatever reason, the most influential cliques today are extremely left-wing.
Now, there may be something more -- and perhaps your description of the lackadaisical lifestype of the artist is part of it -- but I think that the fact that conservatives are unwelcome in the present art-world power structures is nearer the mark than any distinction in liberals' and conservatives' tendency towards feelings vs. thought.
Just taking Waugh as an example, Brideshead Revisited is, for all that it is full up with a romantic throne-and-altar conservatism, an extremely moving book. Now that I mention Waugh, though, it comes to me that libertarians may pose a different problem, because Burkean conservatives have a decidedly romantic strain in them -- recall Burke's little ode to Marie Antoinette -- and this romanticism might translate well into great emotive art. Yukio Mishima might be another, slightly more modern example of that sensibility. I'm unaware of any great artists who were specifically libertarian, but perhaps they are yet to come.
Piggybacking on Dr. Helen's comment, I would add that those who make their living with words don't like to think that words are not the solution to everything. Working at a psychiatric hospital, you see a lot of that. Staff, I mean.
Listen to Garrison Keillor get rolling on how it's the artists who eventually mean the most and make the changes. Yeah sure. It was Mongol poets who put Europe in such fear. 1% of artists do effect some culture change. The other 99% think they are in that 1%, or would be if this horrible society of ours didn't have such terrible values.
I have a son graduating from a conservative evangelical college this year, interning as a filmmaker in LA this semester. I think I'd better send this along.
Y'all pray for him, thank you.
" It was Mongol poets who put Europe in such fear."
But imagine if they were Vogon poets!
"Dude, I'm an artist."
Freely translated: "Dude, I never learned to think for myself, so I gotta be liberal."
gmroper. leave out the m and its groper.
"im loaded"
Freely translated: "Ive got to be Republican."
In our country we have saying: "If a Republican were to be elected mayor of Chicago, the voters would turn over in their graves!"
One more thing. What kind of cognitive spacewarp causes people to use the term "liberal" for pro-tax pro-hyperregulationists, then turn around and refer to tax cuts and deregulation as "liberalization?" The answer is that in an act of moral looting, collectivists have cloaked themselves in the word so they can pose as upholders of liberty even as they box in our lives and pick our pockets. I think you will agree with me and Orwell that corrupting the language is an abominably dishonest way to advance a viewpoint. Defying the fraud means never calling a left-wing statist a "liberal." Outside of those parts of the world where it is still used accurately, this means giving up on the word altogether. Sorry.
...can you explain why pretty much all the poets, writers of literary fiction, visual artists, film-makers and musicians tend to be of the leftist persuasion?
I ain't no puh-sychologist but that's pretty easy to 'splain.
You see, such artsy types are also embued with an outrageously HUGE feeling of superiority.
What most often goes unnoticed is, in parallel with their seeming devotion to socialism is a streak of elitism that cannot be got 'round.
Examples are the armed bodyguards accompanying the likes of Rosie O'Donnell, the massive "compound" featuring five large homes and numerous outbuildings that serves as the domicile of exactly TWO human beings, Barbra "Everyone Needs To Learn To Get Along With Less" Streisand and husband James Brolin (their annual water bill is in excess of $20,000--so much for "using resources wisely.")
In effect, Leftists KNOW they are so much smarter than the rest of us. Witness the fact that John F'in Kerry was hailed as "the thinking person's Presidential candidate" while Pres. Bush is still reviled as a nincompoop--even though both attended Yale, and Bush's GPA was actually HIGHER than Kerry's!
You see, they're SO much smarter than us because they say such "smart" things. Oh, not in actual words, but they THINK right....
I mean with 2,000 votes you can't influence much. I mean Ohio was so close right. Even with an 100% Dem vote you're still 98,000 short. I guess they're rooting for another 100,000 deaths. But if you include veterans from the past 100 years voting against the party that sent them then Bush would win by millions. (Nam, Korea World War 1,2.)My Blog
I read an interesting article somehhere, probaly FrontPage, that outlined the history of lefty politics on poular American music.
The gist of it was that the Popular Front types of the 30's wanted to promote communism and radicalism through folk music: "This Land is Your Land", etc. This led to the folk/rock crossover of the 60's, after which leftism was de rigeur for rock.
see this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1459
Personally, I'd say it's just a myth that the "majority" of "artists" are "liberal."
What we really mean is that within the established cliques and channels of the art world, only artists who tow the line gain any level of notoriety. What we're looking at here is a huge number of self-reinforcing network effects.
However, what we're not looking at is the rest of the world. If you look at people who are engaged in creative acts every day, the overwhelming majority of creative endeavors are not pursued with propagandistic ideological motivations. While liberalism might be overwhelmingly the expression of what considers itself "high art," art that takes place everywhere else doesn't share that ideology. The perception of creative endeavors as being aligned with liberalism/statism is just the result of our particular historical coincidence and selective blindness in only looking at a very tiny segment of all art.
"What we really mean is that within the established cliques and channels of the art world, only artists who tow the line gain any level of notoriety. What we're looking at here is a huge number of self-reinforcing network effects."
Yes! That's what I meant to say! Well, more or less.
I tend to think that the artist types who express leftist tendencies are merely doing it as a fashion statement and nothing more. All the other cool people within their circles (or the circles they would like to be part of) believe it, so they do too. I mean, be real. If you asked a ditz like Barbara Streisand about the labor theory of value or any of the theoretical underpinnings of leftist doctrine, she wouldn't have the vaguest idea of what you were talking about. I suspect that the majority of the strident left-leaning artistic types fit in the same category.
oh oh where have i heard the argument that libertarians are logical and artists are emotional?? oh yeah, the good ol' men are rational and women are emotional.
what crap.
Joe Dante could go down as the Liberal Leni Riefenstahl, instead of Michael Moore.
So depressing...
I can barely watch anything anymore because the stupid actor is usually out there flapping his or her gums about how evil I am for supporting the war in Iraq.
I once befriended a musician in a high-profile band. He'd invite me to his house and play his unreleased tapes for me. He was very laid back and thoughful, with a huge library of books on eastern philosophies.
Eventually, I discovered that he thought the Jews were behind 9/11, and he also told me that our troops in Iraq were slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians with bayonet and napalm, but it was being covered up by the coporate media.
I had to purge my CD collection of his work.
I think there is another, perhaps less lofty, reason many artists, musicians and writers are leftists, especially the legions of the less than fully commercially successful: thinking that their creative product is the true worth of our civilization (a notion certainly encouraged by much of the high culture historically and the liberal arts college generally even today), they believe that society is insufficiently appreciative of them -- that is society should reward them more handsomely for their creative efforts.
That is does not is an indictment of society and the capitalist system which rewards only that which is in fact in demand.
Socialism and marxism, recognizing the value of the arts for propaganda, of course made (and makes) a big deal of the creative artist (as long as he or she toes the party line) and rewards them with the privileges of the nomenklatura. Teachers, too.
It is natural, I think, for creative types to be drawn towards an ideology that tells them they're more valuable than our current society does. And promises to pay them well relative to other workers.
Historically, it has not always been the case that great writers and thinkers were of or on the left. I think the close association of the "cultural workers" with the "left" really begins with the French Enlightenment. (As an aside, the English/Scottish had a much more libertarian cast and gave us the classical liberalism that undergirds most modern conservatism. The German Englightenment was much more closely associated with the levers of power than the French and less political - it was the Romantic movement that became so political in Germany in opposition to French conquest; hence its tendnency to conservatism)
I should add that in our society, it is the liberals/leftists who promise (and have delivered) government support for the arts, beginning with the WPA in the 1930s and continuing with various National and state endowments for the arts, arts councils and the like. And, it is the left-run liberal arts colleges who encourage students to pursue the arts (for which their is no conceivable commerical market in the quantity they churn them out), and then tell them their lack of commercial success is the result of hard hearted capitalists who don't value the arts.
Commercially successful artists's views are very often a product of their own salad days, and it is a delicious irony that the scale of their success when their creative product resonates with the buying public is possible only in our capitalist system.
The fact that artists tend to be emotional -- I know, that cliche must rear its head -- comes into play, too. Because so few of them are intellectually curious (as opposed to artistically creative) and believe their success is only their due, they rarely reflect on the underlying economic and psychological phenomena that give rise to the irony of their success while casting stones at the source of success.
Well according to Carribean theology “zombies” (a French word of African origin) are “dead men walking”…
And while listening to the latest wave of robotic Neocon platitudes churned out by the US military’s PR and Information Management Department, I remembered the words of a famous 19th century American philosopher of Gallic descent who once said of brainwashed pseudo-patriots “Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?…
Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts—a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments…The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense”
Truly, Thoreau’s prose was prescient in many ways…
The only exception to the rule on liberal bias in filmmaking I can think of is Ron Howard. Wouldn't it be great if he could get a few proteges into the industry and then follow Arnold into politics.
dr victorino de la vega,
On this blog, I would at least like original trolling--no sloppy seconds please--you have left this same message on at least two other blogs--for goodness sakes, come up with some original content!
I think CatoRenasci pushes close to the key. I live in a large Univesity town with a pretty active local music scene. Since I make some music on the side, I've gotten to know many local "artistes." These opinions are just my own experiences, based on small unrepresentative samples.
Within that community, there's an intrinsic dislike for any art that's perceived as "corporate" -- record labels, mainstream radio, American Idol, etc. Unfortunately, that stuff tends to be quite popular and commercially successful. This leads, I think, to a pervading disdain for "regular" people. After all, if they're so bad at liking music, they're probably bad at other stuff too. Add to this the fact that most artistic types are intelligent and well-educated, and it's easy to end up with a technocratic mindset: government should be dominated by those that "know," because the regular folks are just too provincial, easily manipulated, or just plain dumb to really do what's best for the country.
Second, making art for a living is financially hard. If you're dedicated to art as a career, you're probably not working a traditional 9-5 job. Rock musicians I've known tend to work relatively low-paying service industry jobs, and classical musicians wind up doing a lot of private teaching. It's unsurprising that people in these situations tend to have a negative view of the private sector, and can't really sympathize with the economic ideas that are a huge part of modern conservatism.
Finally, and I think this is a big one, there's not really a tradition of conservative themed art. Liberalism is fundamentally utopian in character -- that's both its strength and weakness. It's easy to write songs about what's wrong with the world, and how it should be: war is bad, all you need is love, one day the workers will be free, etc. With the notable exceptions of patriotism, religion, and family -- which aren't popular art themes with the culturally liberal -- there just aren't many conservative ideas that lend themselves to artistic expression. How are you going to write a song about the flat tax?
Overall, though, I don't think most artistic people make a conscious, informed decision to embrace liberal ideologies. But when you combine all the factors of personality, education, lifestyle choices, and economic prospects you end up with a powerful bias towards the political left.
So how many illegal immigrant jihadists zombies get to vote in this movie?
From The Ghost Breakers (1940):
Geoff Montgomery: A zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.
Larry Lawrence: You mean like Democrats.
La plus ca change…
Ah, the black arts of the US government. . .
US Military:
Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble;
Fire, burn; and caldron, bubble.
Secretary of Defense:
O’ well done! I commend your pains,
And everyone here shall share in what we get. . .
Good Lord, Dr. Victorino de la Vega, where on earth would your freedom to limit discourse in academia to the confines of your ideology be without a well disciplined military? Maybe Thoreau had the luxury of contemplating a military peopled with poet warriors who brandished their predilections before duty and honor – but it’s not a practical solution to real world problems, is it? Without a military composed of well disciplined men and women willing to hold the line under fire, what would happen to the Machiavellian plot of the modern academic to enforce political correctness on campus?
By all means, celebrate your bourgeois Walden – your postmodern enclave of academic elitists – while men and women of character subjugate their gut twisting fears in the name of duty and honor to protect your freedom. Have a holiday. Rejoice in the irony that while you condemn the military for understandable public relations strategies, academics like yourself inexcusably limit the free exchange of ideas on campus – but isn’t that essentially the same as an Information Management Department? Bask in your hypocrisy.
Such uncivil discourse in a time of crisis – these are difficult days indeed. Dr. Victorino de la Vega, come to my home and I’ll ply you with Schnapps, we’ll dance with our women to the joyous strains of Eagles of Death Metal, and celebrate our freedom. If we’re drunk enough, and you’re very good, I’ll teach you, as an actor, how to throw yourself into the role of a chicken. Who knows, if it comes naturally to you – and I think it will – I might even write a part for you in my next play, and you can take the stage and cluck to your hearts content.
Jeff
Well, the only thing I want less than conservative artists is liberal artists. We have too much political agitprop as it is and personally I just find it boring. Real art doesn't come with a voter registration card.
You know, the really sad thing about all this is that we aren't even talking about a movie. It's a 60-minute episode of a cable-TV horror anthology show.
Yes, that's what all this fuss is about. And that's Joe Dante's level in Hollywood these days...
Why are they liberal?
Try writing a simple script about a bunch of poor, good-hearted, young, energetic, uneducated, migrant workers trying to get what they feel they deserve out of their middle-aged, mean-spirited, lazy boss.
Now write a simple script about an inspired, hard-working, entrepreneurial, ingenius inventor, trying to keep the profits he earned before they are taken away by poor, young, uneducated, energetic migrant workers who somehow think he owes them something.
Put the two scripts side-by-side, and see which one is more engaging.
Entertainment is all about becoming disengaged from reality. Sometimes, oftentimes, while lying to yourself, pretending that you're immersing yourself in it.
There are conservative artists. I've read a number of them. I am one. Some are at the Storyblog Carnival where I've read stuff that should be published, but might well not be.
The Baen Books folks, at the other end, of the commercial success scale, are still not likely to win awards because they don't fit in with the network at the top of the publishing industry. And I don't think they ever will...which just means that conservatives who don't want to yield the propaganda field to socialists should try to create their own networks.
Offer grants and such, as our hostess suggests. I'm more than willing to accept such since I write conservative themed novels and short stories. :) Free money, yeah!
But expecting the leftwing propaganda networks to 'play fair' is a vain hope.
The Libertarians have their Prometheus Award...a good idea.
Frankly, I think if you give ten thousand a year to the Republican Party, you would do well to stop that, and buy a little art. Finance an award for conservative artists for that year. You will probably get more bang for the buck, and considering the recent lack of conservatism in the Republican Party, you will engage in duo-aviancide monolithically. Punishing the R's, and encouraging good ideas.
Hi Eric,
I think that setting up networks for right-leaning writers, filmmakers, etc. is a great idea. It is difficult to break into the liberal media. On a small scale, when I have given interviews or done a talk show etc. and said something that the host does not like, they just edit it out! I once pointed out to a host of a talk show that he had mistakenly blamed the gun culture for the violence of girls by pointing out that all the girls on the show had killed their victims with a knife. The actual show aired without a mention of my words. Hmmm... wonder how we get people to fund right leaning artists and writers?
Oh, yes, as to the post. If you are going to write a 'bash Bush' movie, then try to be at least a little subtle. Try to use metaphor, and situation changes to make it less obvious, and that will be 'the spoonful of sugar'.
Hmm. How to improve this dreck? (If I was a flaming liberal.)
First set in the Korean War. A little historical interest there. Plus a vibe from the fears of North Korea.
And the problem in that war was that some people said even if we killed a 100 Chinese to every 1 American, we still lost.
Have a bold senator from some western state like New Mexico. He's visiting, and being awful chipper about the war, even though its not going that well. He's a SuperHawk, but give him a few good lines so as to not be completely obvious. Mostly have him stand around with his chin out, and occasionally have him in perplexity at a good anti-war arguement. Give him a nice moment as he weeps over the dying American soldier. See, he really is a good guy, just mistaken.
And then have the lines being overrun by unspeakably huge amounts of Chinese soldiers who just won't die right...zombies...and when they kill an American soldier, he becomes a zombie...and as the Americans are forced back by the alliance of the new dead and the old dead, and the dead of past centuries of war(heightens the notion that this is a land that will never be at peace..especially with a foreign invader)...and the living are encircled in the command center...have the Senator say "I knew I should have stayed in Palm Springs." (Americans should stay home out of quagmires.)
End movie with zombie reaching for the Senator.
And thats off the top of my pointy head. Not a lot better, but some better, I think.
Eric R. Ashley
An up and coming actress (sorry, can't remember her name) said, 'why should I express a political opinion and offend half my audience?'
Do any of them really believe they change their fans' opinions? Or even educate them? I can't recall any one telling me they changed their mind on an issue because an actor showed them the error of their ways.
As the lady said: Shut up and sing.
Retread
Dr. Helen,
We could point out that conservative writers and moviemakers will be 'happy' to write the eulogy for the capitalist state if one side keeps not showing up for the propaganda war.
Or we could ask people to support the CAP, the Conservative Artists Patrol, which provides air support to conservatives on the ground, instead of supporting the R Party which has annoyed more than a few people. Of course, this CAP doesn't exist yet, but it could.
Or we could form an award for the conservative artist that was most egregiously insulted by a liberal mainstream news mediot in the past year. Perhaps call it the Goldwater Award in honor of the infamous Nuclear Bomb over a Pasture advertisement. Have the statue be a nuclear mushroom cloud, or perhaps a person getting pie-tossed in the face.
Helen,
One way to promote conservative artists would be to create a web portal leading to artist’s blogs and websites. Conservative political blogs could give the portal(s) high visibility, generating traffic for the artists, and giving their work exposure to appreciative audiences.
Eric: I agree with you. I don't mind so much a political message i disagree with. I at least want them to buy me dinner and a movie first.
I think though their are many political themes of a conservative american nature that get ignored.
not to mention of a social conservative nature.
I think they are ignored because the folks "in power" in the media empires don't relate to those experiences because most of them have lived in privilege their whole lives.
The struggle of a man to raise his family, and get ahead in a system where he's taxed to death and up to his eyes in debt because of a media that is toxic which promotes "lifestyle" desires.
This man suffers from a daughter who is raised to believe by the schools that every man is a rapist and his son becomes distant from him.
This man is isolated from his family and his community and just holds tightly to his work. Then one day he has an idea, a great idea, and gets ready to take on the system to become a Man in a society where manhood is scorned and become a father to his children, who has a real active part in the lives of his children.
I could come up with some more ideas... good compelling stories don't need a political stamp they need to be -good- stories
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- Helen,
Just like words such as “Engaged”, “Liberal”, and “Cause”, “Artist(e)” came to our vocab from French at a time when Paris attracted the best and brightest among young American and British aspiring writers, politicians, and diplomats.
Concepts such as “militant artist” or “liberal intellectual” were born in19th century France, at a time of exceptionally high political polarization whereby painters, sculptors, and poets were encouraged to leave the “ivory tower of Romanticism”, participate fully in public life, and take sides with “the oppressed” be they workers, miners, immigrants, Blacks, Jews...etc.
It’s no coincidence that the main artistic school of thought of the era was called “Naturalism”, the underlying assumption being that a “progressive artist” should always “imitate” real life as much as possible, and therefore stay away from frivolous/right-wing “romantic” metaphors…blah blah blah
Emile Zola is the ultimate representative of that 19th European school of thought…Ironically, in those Halcyon days, the American artistic elite held radically opposed views- not anymore unfortunately...
Emerson, Thoreau and their neo-“individualist” disciples despised the European propensity to deliberately mix art with politics and economics. To them, the urban proletariat was not more worthy of sympathy than say big-city bureaucracy be it corporate or governmental: they searched for creative inspiration and artistic meaning within themselves, far from the vulgar noises and chatters of Paris, Washington or Hollywood!
Vic is a fraud, by the way, the lone staff member in a think tank that exists only in name. I skip right over him now. He has become ubiquitous among the blogs I frequent.
Daniel and Cato hit the nail on the head. I was an early 70's theater major -- what a maroon.
C.S Lewis bemoaned the fact in his day that there were no literary and culture magazines which were anything but modernist and leftist. He encouraged severl startups.
We now have New Criterion, First Things, City Journal -- I'm sure I'm leaving something important out. If you want to encourage a more conservative -- or at least not doctrinaire liberal -- culture I recommend you seek these out.
assistant village idiot--
It is difficult to address you with the word idiot--you seem too sensible. Thanks for the info on alternative books and art--I have already found a book I want to order from New Criterion-others can check it out at:
http://newcriterion.com/constant/books/rama/
These ideas for a pro-Bush response to the liberal artistic establishment are a start, but what you really need for it is Pentagon money. We are at war, after all, and the Fifth Column is attacking from its Hollywood base.
Contemplate the fact that "artists," as we usually interpret the word, are and have been for centuries social parasites. Their withdraw from the stressful humdrum into a make-believe world of "creative pursuits" is justified by self-serving rationale. Some very few produce enduring works. The overwhelming remainder produce dreck that, with some luck, reduces to recyclable refuse.
In the absence of business endeavors and constructive creativity (scientific research, engineering, architecture...) that occur in advanced cultures, there is no discretionary wealth. Without discretionary wealth there is no investment in "art" or a viable "art scene." And, for that matter, various general subsidies that enable "art" will not develop.
My personal bias is that artists TEND to fall into a broad grouping of people from many callings who, for whatever reason, either avoid or are incapable of critical thinking. Their worldview is based on how they *feel* about an issue, not a logically defensible position arrived at by (internal or external) analysis, argument and debate.
And yes, there are recognized sources (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator comes to mind) which suggest that more women than men (75% versus 35% respectively according to the MBTI) have a propensity toward feeling-based decision mechanisms. This is not a bad or good thing, just a difference thing and one that nature probably has a use for.
General Mola Vidal, Senator McCarthy and Adolf Hitler were damn right: we must immediately get read of all these Mohammedan “FIFTH columnists” and their suspiciously complacent friends be they Soviet-style Pinkocats à la Nancy Pelosi, or even worse Buchanan-style Republican “enemies of freedom/liberty/Zion”….blah blah blah….ZZzzzzzzzzz”
Frankly, it’s no coincidence Koranic collaborators are called “fifth columnists”: ever heard of the proverbial fifth pillar of Islam?
Not to mention these bastards’ subversive penchant for “five prayers per day”!
I’m sure our liberty-loving authorities keep a tab on the frequency of their suspicious knee-flexing prayers…etc.
Down with converts!
Long live freedom!
Long live el presidente Bush!
auld pharte,
Yes, there is definitely an artistic temperament that is more prone to feeling, etc. as described by the Myers-Brigg. According to Jung (which the Myers-Brigg is based on), the introverted intuition type can be either an artist, seer or crank. Such a person has a visionary ideal that reveals strange, mysterious things. These are enigmatic, 'unearthly' people who stand aloof from ordinary society. They have little interest in explaining or rationalizing their personal vision, but are content merely to proclaim it. Partly as a result of this, they are often misunderstood.
I took the Myers Briggs a long time ago and was an INTP--the T being the thinking component and I believe the type I was described as was a kind of intropective mad scientist type. I was not sure whether to take that as an insult or a compliment.
Dr Helen,
I test as an INTJ, a type that tends to go into engineering and is proportionally dominant among business executives. The MBTI is a useful tool in discussions of this and related subjects because Thinking (T) and Feeling (F) occupy the same dimension and therefore are represented by the tool as "type opposites."
PS
And I was born in Knoxville, many moons ago.
This vic guy is like performance art moonbattery I think.
Personally, having been married to a fundamentalist (fundamentalist feminist, that is), I tend to lean toward the "liberals know they are both right and righteous" point of view, which in and of itself would contribute to thinking they are vastly superior to the Republican thugs who are running the AIDS victim concentration camps. For me, the best proof in (virtual) print is the Jane Smiley piece about the Unteachable Red States. Liberals just get weirded out when the American people don't listen to their betters like Jane Smiley or Jane Fonda.
lord jiggy:
Yeah--I guess we can ask Ted Turner how that went!
Also, I would like to thank Helen for the heads up about this belligerent review in the Village Voice of Joe Dante's "Homecoming". Particularly where the reviewer accuses the Bush White House of hypocrisy. Childish indeed.
But that's just the review; what about the movie itself? We have no television and we are unlikely to ever rent this movie. If someone here could watch the show from beginning to end and explain everything terrible about it, that would be very useful.
Hey greg,
Since you have set yourself up as our armchair critic here--why don't you take the honor yourself?The movie is on Showtime--you can report back after you have seen it and we can critique your critique.
As I said, we don't have a TV. We have a TV display for movies, but we have no antenna and no cable.
Besides, even if I did see "Homecoming", I'd be in danger of liking it.
Greg,
I thought you would.
"Michael Moore's last picture made a lot of money, but he was vilified for it so much he's practically in hiding."
I think moore was vilified for lying throughout most of the movie, not for making a lot of money
I also liked review by Dennis Lim. That's because I'm a childish person. I like calling people hypocrites.
Actually I only like calling some people hypocrites. Only Presidents of the United States. Every President has been a hypocrite. The only difference is that when conservative Presidents betray their principles, they harm only themselves and their families; when liberal Presidents do it, they damage the nation.
For example, the official biography of George Bush says that he is for limited government. I think that that is a hypocritical claim. I see little semblance of limited government in his spending policies; the only real limits are on the tax side. On the other hand, while this may be privately embarrassing to the Bush family, where is the harm to the national interest?
....and THERE goes Greggie the Troll! I think he scented the other troll, and decided to pile on.
Helen, no reason to reply to him (heck, or to any of us). It's like the saying about wrestling with a pig: it wastes your time, gets you all muddy, and the pig likes it.
Debate is one thing. Trolls are quite another.
The difference between hypocrisy and putting your best foot forward is mainly one of self-honesty. That, in turn, drags in the concept of humility. As Lewis wrote "He who thinks he is not conceited is very conceited indeed."
Humility is certainly not President Bush's strong suit. Pat Robertson said that he was like "a Christian with four aces".
It occurs to me that a lot of Americans generally want a president who is a zealous nationalist. How much humility can you really expect from any such politician?
Perhaps all of us could be a bit more humble, yes? Including commenters on this blog?
Y'know, having read through this thread, the consensus seems to be that the vast majority of filmmakers are a bunch of lazy, navel-gazing, illogical nincompoops who could barely accomplish the sort of burger-flipping that would undoubtedly be their station if Hollywood wasn't around to bail them out.
Now, as Helen can no doubt tell us, filmmaking is an incredibly difficult process, even on a small scale. It requires more than just "feeling" and a narcissism-fueled sense of purpose to make a movie. One must do an inordinate amount of boring, detail-oriented business such as planning individual shots, getting finances together, choosing and working with some fairly complex equipment, etc., and that's just for something small and "indie." Big-budget productions (headed by all those dunderheaded Hollywood liberals, remember) have a small galaxy of other concerns to address.
Thus, I can only conclude that filmmaking does not, and never has existed, and that Hollywood is all some collective fever dream of the good, hard-working conservatives of the world. Quite an accomplishment, when you think about it.
Hmmm. Just because people work hard doesn't mean that the product is "good," friends. That is the Marxist conceit, that hard work creates excellence.
Of course filmmakers and directors work hard. But in the name of things that ACLU won't let one say in public, look at the bizarre stuff that many filmmakers say and believe! Spike Lee thinks that HIV was created in American labs to destroy the Black population of this country. Oliver Stone believes just about everything paranoid and conspiratorial one could imagine.
And Michael Moore...well, enough said.
All of these people work hard, and some of them make good movies. But why that is thought to have ANYTHING to do with national policy or politics is beyond me.
Lexington: What really bothers people here about the TV movie Homecoming is that they disagree with it. I'm not sure that anyone in the discussion has actually seen it, for one thing. If there is to be any criticism of the war in Iraq, it should be the effete kind that can be swatted away easily. It is very nice to have Hannity and Colmes instead of a real debate. Anyone less obsequious than Alan Colmes can be thrown out as a "hypocrite", a "fascist", "childish", or a "troll".
Personally I would like to see postings that directly address the war in Iraq, instead of ad hominem evaluations of war critics.
Greg sez: "Personally I would like to see postings that directly address the war in Iraq, instead of ad hominem evaluations of war critics."
I suppose you would, but of course that's irrelevant to the topic of leftist wankers in media. [/sarcasm]
That said, my theory on liberal tendencies amongst artistes is that it represents a birth defect, wherein both reason and accountability are absent to some degeree. Magical thinking predominates, and self-congratulatory behavior marks their productivity, all the way from diaper-filling to moviemaking about zombies.
Mapplethorpe was the reductio ad absurdum of the self-absorbed artist-nihilist, trying to pass off urine and porn as art, declaring the rest of us philistines who simply didn't understand how wonderful he was. Feh.
can you explain why pretty much all the poets, writers of literary fiction, visual artists, film-makers and musicians tend to be of the leftist persuasion? I have never managed to figure that out.
By stubbornly clinging to the well-rehearsed and even more well-funded myth that anyone of the majority of americans who opposes the current government of this country can be neatly tagged "leftist" or "liberal" only sets you adrift further and further from the reality of this country. The reality is that in addition to artists, writers, filmmakers and musicians, there are also millions of doctors, lawyers, policeman, fireman, civil servants, and, most importantly, military personnel and their families who adamantly oppose bush and his band of cowardly, thieving corrupt liars. By desperately perpetuating the myth that anyone who opposses religious zealotry at the expense of science, mendacity at the expense of truth, character asassination at the expense of dialogue and debate, not to mention corruption and jaw-dropping incompetance at the expense of both freedom and security, you not only undermine any veracity your own point of you may have once had, but you make all of us look even more clueless than bush himself. Most people oppose bush because even someone of a questionable intellect could see that his time in power has been a complete disaster, unless your a soulless billionaire, a saudi prince or a bible-thumping hypocritical clock-stopper, then you've been doing better than everyone else in the country and planet, then he's your man.
I suppose you would, but of course that's irrelevant to the topic of leftist wankers in media
More mythology. Which media are you referring to? Fox news? MSNBC? NewMax? Rupert Murdoch's global empire of disinformation? The majority of the media in America is corporate-sponsored, government-approved pile of steaming horseshit, designed to make you just afraid enough to support incompetant leaders but not so afraid you shouldn't go shopping.
That said, my theory on liberal tendencies amongst artistes is that it represents a birth defect, wherein both reason and accountability are absent to some degeree.
As statement so laughable in it's stupidity and ignorance it almost has credibility because it would force one to conclude that it's author would have quite a bit of knowledge of birth defects, having so obviously suffered from one himself.
Contemplate the fact that "artists," as we usually interpret the word, are and have been for centuries social parasites. Their withdraw from the stressful humdrum into a make-believe world of "creative pursuits" is justified by self-serving rationale. Some very few produce enduring works. The overwhelming remainder produce dreck that, with some luck, reduces to recyclable refuse.
Social parasites like Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, John Singer Sargent, Thomas Eakins, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway, Ayn Rand, John Lennon?
Another birth defect survivor, I see. Social parasites? Beyond the pale. The list of contributions that artists have provided our species dwarfs many other fields, and closely parrallels the accomplishments of scientists, engineers, architects, intellectuals and other men of mind.
There is so much to easily refute on this thread that there aren't enough hours in the day. The fact that as the bodies of our soldiers pile up, in the wrong country for the wrong reasons, the cowards who created the scenerio haven't a clue as to how to rectify it. The continued collective madness and deperate gullibility of the apologists of this disgrace of a president and his ilk will only have to explain to their children one day how a country as great as this one could fall so far and so fast with their complicity. That is, if there anything remotely recognizable left by that point.
Please wake up, for the sake of all of us.
Just because a cowardly senator's son isn't mentally capable of admitting he's wrong doesn't mean you have to imitate the same sickness, not when so many lives are being lost as a consequence.
Mr. Levittown Irish –
You must chill! That said, I’m right with you on the artists aren’t parasites thing. I think it might be argued art is the world’s oldest profession – heh. Shaman priests and troglodyte artists – they’re as much a part of us today as they were then, and they’re just as important. I say this with only one caveat in mind: Today’s artists are no longer accountable to the larger community, and they’ve created enclaves in a disjointed society – the result is many have fallen victim to group think, only to wandered off the reservation. Still, a world without art is unthinkable – it’s naïve to imagine that creative expression and artistic inclinations are not a part of the fabric of our social psyche. Good call on naming just a few of the giants, (I have a fondness for John Singer Sargent, and Whitman’s “O Living Always, Always Dying” has always been a lovely lifelong companion – “o to disengage myself from those corpses of me, which I turn and look at where I cast them, to move on, always living, and leave the corpses behind!”).
On the bad Bush, war thing – you know, bodies piling up and all. Well, how about an honest debate. Or better yet, as I’m tired of flailing at the walls of denial with all of these so freely available nasty facts. For God’s sake do a little homework. I mean, I might have made an effort here, but you’d have to have at least thrown me a bone. Look, go read the Robb, Silberman report – page one I think is about all the farther you’ll have to go. If you dig a little more, you’ll find Joe Wilson selling a book while valiantly protecting the secret identity of his not-so-covert wife on the pages of Vanity Fair. Talk about liars!
Here’s a thought for you – if you’re all up in arms about the lies this administration is supposed to be telling all over the place, at least have the decency to represent yourself as something other than a partisan hack, by looking for just one minute at all of the idiotic shenanigans your hooligan Democrats are up to these days.
I’ll give you a few criticisms of Bush, but lying us into a war isn’t one of them – the Democrats, on the other hand are trying to lie themselves out of the war they voted themselves into. Charming cut and run bunch they are, I’ll tell you. I surely want them to be looking out for my posterior when the worst you can imagine hits the fan. It’d be comforting to someone like John Kerry had my back before he didn’t have my back.
Look, here’s the short of it: If you want to eat your puddin’ Dear Heart, you’ve got to pull your wooly head out of your arse.
All of my Love and Affection,
Jeff
Perhaps, instead, it should be a wakeup call to right-leaning filmmakers to make films that expose the nonsense these liberals spout. We are already off to a great start with filmmakers like Evan Coyne Maloney with Brainwashing 201 and Michael Moore Hates America by Michael Wilson.
Go forth, young wingnuts, and reclaim the glorious conservative filmmaking tradition that begin with The Birth of a Nation.
Helen wrote;
"If you are a thinker and you follow through consistently..."
(Allow me to finish the thought)
...then you MUST be a liberal. I've seen no evidence of thought or consistency from the right in the last 5 years.
Jeff wrote:
"I’ll give you a few criticisms of Bush, but lying us into a war isn’t one of them – the Democrats, on the other hand are trying to lie themselves out of the war they voted themselves into"
Did Bush lie? To be honest, we don't know, although from the reality-based side of the world, it sure looks that way.
Is admitting you made a mistake lying? Interesting thought, which would explain a lot about Bush et al. You might want to go back and count the House votes for the war.
By the way, you forgot "indeed". Heh.
“Go forth, young wing nuts, and reclaim the glorious conservative filmmaking tradition that began with The Birth of a Nation.”
Okay, that was pretty funny.
The Birth of a Nation was a sad piece of work, which is what the whole premise of Homecoming seems to be as well. Schlock is schlock.
Art can be subversive – many of the great Christian works of art have hidden critiques of the church, but I doubt Raphael, Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci would be thrilled by Dung Mary or Piss Christ. They were probably a bit too conservative
Jeff,
You must chill
It's difficult to chill when you're being called a social parasite, as I am a professional artist, tax payer & citizen. I am also a small business owner, as well as the son of a retired New York City Fireman with some family members and friends currently mired in sands of Bhagdad who would much rather be in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fighting those who attacked my home some four years ago. The onus is not on those of us who are angry, it is on those of us who are not.
Well, how about an honest debate. Or better yet, as I’m tired of flailing at the walls of denial with all of these so freely available nasty facts. For God’s sake do a little homework.
I'm all for an honest debate, and there is scarcely anyone that I wouldn't debate regarding this matter. Despite that for years just the mere act of questioning the competence and honesty of this administration led to people calling me a traitor and a terrorist appeaser. That's not a debate, that's name calling, and I can give you every assurance it would never be permitted to happen to my face. But I digress.
For God’s sake do a little homework. I mean, I might have made an effort here, but you’d have to have at least thrown me a bone. Look, go read the Robb, Silberman report
Oh, I have done my homework. One needs to in order to sift through the mountain of bullshit that's been piled upon all of us. I read the entire report the day it was released back in March, it utterly fails to paint a complete picture of the breakdown that led to the invasion of Iraq because it was "not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community." Thus, the American public is left without any assurance that the same mistakes will not be repeated when confronting regimes such as Iran and North Korea. How can we find out why we were terribly misled if they're not allowed to investigate how they reached their conclusions ( which we now know to be bullshit).
The administration needed something to deflate the issue before the election. They got the product they wanted. It blamed the intelligence community for giving the administration exactly what they wanted to hear. A sellable reason for the war. Plenty of people in the CIA knew it was horseshit. Some said so. Most were ignored. Others were punished.
It's abundantly clear that the intelligence was cooked to meet the administration's desires and developing a strategy for public dissemination of a blend of true and false intelligence, all aimed in one direction -- to whip up support and a false legal basis for military action against a country that had not attacked us, while those who had still plan. You may want to read the Downing Street memo for further clarification. In short - they knew they were lying. All of the available evidence points to that conclusion, more so every day. That is treason.
I’ll give you a few criticisms of Bush, but lying us into a war isn’t one of them
Oh no? Here's ten, easily verifiable.
LIE#1 "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete horseshit. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."
LIE#2 "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."
LIE#3"We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.
FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.
LIE #5:: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.
LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?
LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.
LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.
LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.
FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.
LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.
There are but only TEN huge lies they told. There's plenty more, if you're still interested in an honest debate.
the Democrats, on the other hand are trying to lie themselves out of the war they voted themselves into. Charming cut and run bunch they are, I’ll tell you.
This tactic always floors me. If a busdriver is drunk and crashes a bus full of seniors... who's fault is it? Is it the old people who trusted the bus driver not to be drunk? Or is the driver?
The onus is one those who lied. Not those who mistakenly thought that they wouldn't lie about something so serious. Contrary to recent, desperate claims by the bush and dickhead cheney, the democrats did NOT have access to the same intelligence the white house did. The PDB from ten days after 911 states quite clearly that there was no evidence of any collusion of collaborative relationship between Hussein & 911 or Hussein and Al Qaida. The White House saw that, knew that, but spent the next few months doing everything they could to make us believe the opposite.
the Democrats, on the other hand are trying to lie themselves out of the war they voted themselves into
Bears repeating because it's untrue. The voted to give him the authority to wage war to defend us. Not to spin a load of horseshit and then blame them for believing it. It's the republicans fault that Clinton got some head from intern and lied about it, they never presented an anti-intern blowjob initiative. Sound stupid doesn't it? A related comment would be that many of wish Bush could get some oral so we can impeach him. But that wont happen, so soldiers and innocents will continue to die in the wrong place for a pile of lies. Not shrinking from that horrible fact lends more to support the troops than any bullshit, made in china ribbon magnet on an SUV. Unfortunately, most people would rather believe a convenient lie than an uncomfortable truth, otherwise these amoral cunts would be on trial right now for crimes against the constitution, crimes against humanity, and treason.
Invading Iraq has made Al Qaida stronger than ever, and us all in grave danger. Their recruitment is through the roof, and ours is through the floor. It's a goddamn outrage.
Look, here’s the short of it: If you want to eat your puddin’ Dear Heart, you’ve got to pull your wooly head out of your arse.
Arse? You a brit?
While I'm sincerely touched that you would call my heart dear, thus trying to warm to me , I must take issue with characterization of my head as "wooly" as it most assuredly not, but rather it is a seething, samsonesque mane of pulchritude that invites much envy. Also despite my innate tolerance for all of the various sexual peccadillos in the world, my ass, (or arse if you prefer) remains an exit only orifice.
Thank you,
Matt
“Did Bush lie? To be honest, we don't know, although from the reality-based side of the world, it sure looks that way.”
Well, that’s on the right track – the Bush lied contingent doesn’t “know” he lied, but gosh darn it, it sure feels like he did. I’m sorry, but calling for a man’s head because you have a feeling doesn’t constitute “reality-based”.
“Is admitting you made a mistake lying? Interesting thought, which would explain a lot about Bush et al.”
Kind of like Jay Rockefeller’s original declaration of Saddam as an “imminent threat”, and his amazing, admitting no mistake, proclamation that Bush lied. Explains a lot about the Rockefeller et al, eh?
“You might want to go back and count the House votes for the war.”
You’re losing me here.
“By the way, you forgot "indeed". Heh.”
Now what the hell are you talking about?
Matt,
“While I'm sincerely touched that you would call my heart dear, thus trying to warm to me , I must take issue with characterization of my head as "wooly" as it most assuredly not, but rather it is a seething, samsonesque mane of pulchritude that invites much envy. Also despite my innate tolerance for all of the various sexual peccadillos in the world, my ass, (or arse if you prefer) remains an exit only orifice.”
Matt, you’re beautiful indeed. What a wonderful closer. Bravo! I certainly would enjoy looking at this issue with you over a beer or two. It would be much easier than doing this online, and I suspect much more entertaining.
Listen, I appreciate your effort – it was as Herculean as your hair is Samsonesque! I’m presently under the gun – I’ve been developing my personal website after the fashion of Zen Garden, with a variety of style sheets twisting the structure this way and that (my graphics are hot, buddy!). The very wrong thing about this is my wife and I have a magazine about to go to press, and I’m supposed to be doing real work! Bwaaa! Here’s the deal – I’ll print out your post and give it a fair shake. A quick assessment leaves me with my convictions intact, but I want to honor your hard work.
Oh, and for the record: If you have hair, I’m jealous.
Jeff
Matt,
Did you just cut and paste all of your “Ten Lies” from a piece by Christopher Sheer? I just found the copy after I responded to your post. Dude, I’ve seen all of these assertions and I’ve listened to the rebuttals, but where’s my damned cut and paste source? I’m feeling slightly ripped-off.
Jeff
Jeff,
I'll see that beer and raise you several pints.
The effort wasn't exactly Herculean, that list and several variations have been posted before by many others. I could easily get you the reference link if you need it, as I am yet to read or find a convincing rebuttle anywhere, particularly from the white house. It's merely a laundry list of justifiable gripes and inconsistencies that confound almost as much as they enrage. Those quotes from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice can easily be verified though any lexis search. For those ten, there are literally dozens more ( and more every day, indeed, cataloguing the mendacity of this admistration has become an industry unto itself ) Once you go down the rabbit hole, there's no coming out. I rarely post on blogs such as these, however after reading the "artist = leftist = trotskyist = weakling" comments I couldn't help myself.
As far as having a magazine about to go to print, I can relate. I'm behind the 8 ball on a catalog and two portrait commissions, and my rambling shot my morning to shit, so now my night is gone as well. There are worse problems to have though.
Convictions are only deeply held beliefs. Some beliefs can shrivel under the cold light of fact. I appreciate the fair shake though.
My hair grew several inches while writing that post, which is my right as a parasitic artist.
All the best,
Matt
Jeff,
That prior post was posted before your last. Although I addressed your point in the last one, in order to keep you from feeling ripped off you should read the findings, comments and questions of Lawrence Wilkerson, Seymore Hersch, Mark Morford, Paul Waldman, Barry Grey, Richard Clark, Paul O'Neill, David Corn, Steve Perry, Nancy Skinner, Frank Rich, Michael Schwartz, Jonothan Landy, and many many others. There are far more people questioning them than defending them these days.
We're all talking about the same thing, and the absence of convincing, verifiable answers is one of the most troubling things.
Matt,
I’ll add your latest (12:47 PM) to my list and continue to read around the subject, though I have precious little time for a serious go at all of this business. Topics like this are always a bit of a bear.
You said, “Convictions are only deeply held beliefs. Some beliefs can shrivel under the cold light of fact.” I hope so. . . If I ever ask for a fair shake, I intend to give one – just so we understand one another.
My friend, I fear I’ll be pulling an all-nighter again tonight as this day is going to the dogs, but that there are worst problems to have is something we can agree upon. You, I gather are in for a similar evening, and I hope it goes well. Matt, I would definitely prefer a pint or two – I still think it would be a fine time, and maybe we’d both walk away just a little bit the wiser.
In lieu of détente on neutral ground, I’ll raise a glass here and wish you well as you come to see my point of view!
Jeff
Jeff,
I'll see that all-nighter and raise ya. I'm in the same scenerio. Ironic that some people lose precious time trying to get our heads around these matters concerning people who don't seem to lose much sleep at all regarding the same matters. We all deserve better.
Topics like this one are the biggest bears around, and I've read that bear hunting season started yesterday in Jersey. Even though I'm in NY... ah forget it. Weak metaphor.
Cheers,
Matt
Great to see disagreements with passion, but still with politeness and manners. I think that the political system likes Red and Blue types to fight. Not simply to disagree, but to fight and demonize one another.
Three cheers for Matt and Jeff above, who disagree while treating each other with respect.
That is how change can really happen, I think.
Just my two cents.
"Eric Blair"
Mr. Blair,
You are exactly right--if we stick to being civil here despite our differences, (easier said then done) we can all learn something.
It's really okay if you convert to the Instahack's religion. What is that again? I know it involves worshipping asses.
...and there we go with what sure looks like an attempt to insult our hostess. Thanks very much, quxxo.
Matt –
I FTP’d the magazine to the printer at 2 AM last night. Thank God! So I’ve been walking around like a zombie all day today. Anyway, here’s my thinking on the questions so far:
Holy Crap! What a mess! Sorry I can’t do this in a more timely fashion and get right to the whole job, but I thought I’d just look at 1 – 3 on the list for a start.
LIE#1 "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
“. . .the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:
I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate.
Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was convinced:
People say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.
In explaining its dissent on Iraq’s nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program.
But, according to Wilkerson,
The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?
In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, “the consensus of the intelligence community, as Wilkerson puts it, “was overwhelming in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.
Norman Podhoretz
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12005029_1
LIE#2 "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well-founded.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
LIE#3"We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
Matt – I think this one is interesting because the quote given in the 10 lies piece so selectively cut the quote as to give a whole new meaning to what Cheney said. - Jeff
And I think that would be the fear here, that even if he were tomorrow to give everything up, if he stays in power, we have to assume that as soon as the world is looking the other way and preoccupied with other issues, he will be back again rebuilding his BW and CW capabilities, and once again reconstituting his nuclear program. He has pursued nuclear weapons for over 20 years. Done absolutely everything he could to try to acquire that capability and if he were to cough up whatever he has in that regard now, even if it was complete and total, we have to assume tomorrow he would be right back in business again. . . .
We know he's reconstituted these [biological and chemical weapons] programs since the Gulf War. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons . . . .
Well, I think I've just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons. . . .
And over time, given Saddam's posture there, given the fact that he has a significant flow of cash as a result of the oil production of Iraq, it's only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons. [All emphases added.]
By Eugene Volokh
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh063003.asp
I'll be looking at the others as well, but I don't know if I'll have the time to add them to this thread - as I said, I've seen these all before, but I like to track down my sources before I throw them up.
I hope you're catching up with your workload! (Still rather wanting a pint or two)!
Jeff
Oops, just looked at that last post (7:34 PM) and duly noted it was formatted in the least reader friendly manner possible.
*Note to Self: Edit then publish. Edit then publish.
Jeff
The VILLAGE(idiot)VOICE is no more different then the New Yotk Times just your avrage birdcage liner
Jeff,
A few comments. Indeed, some valid points, although this debate almost always brings the image of an ourobouros in my head.
However several things just don't seem right to me. Leaving aside for the moment the seemingly endless shifting rationale for the invasion, as well as the extensive list of contradictory statements by the administration, here's what puzzles me ( and many others ) the most:
How, while the world trade center was still in smoking ruins, did our enemy morph from Bin Laden ( who, it bears reminding, remains at large ) into Saddam Hussein? Both men had some common traits. Both, prior to 911, could be justifiably classified as our enemies, although both owed a large measure of their power to American sponsorship. By the way, the sheer shortsightedness of funding Hussein to hedge our bets against Iran, and funding Bin Laden to hedge our bets against the Soviets, has truly laid bear the immense lack of wisdom, foresight and common sense in our government.
However, my question is how did Hussein become such an urgent threat? Why - when there was far more evidence proving ill intent from quite a few foreign governments against us ( North Korea and Iran to name but two ) - why was it such a damn emergency to invade Iraq? Kim Jong Ill was practically bragging that he was making nuclear weapons. We had just been attacked by mostly saudi arabians and all of the sudden we had to go to war with Iraq for a second time? They said we could easily fight two wars on two fronts. Well, they also said that we would greeted as liberators, that the war wouldn't be expensive in money or blood and mushroom clouds were looming. In sales terms, they were way overselling the argument. When something, whether it's a used car or simply an idea, is oversold like that it's almost always because the product they are offering is garbage. The whole thing positively reeked of bullshit, but the only way it couldn've been done if the people of this country were afraid enough, and angry enough. 911 provided that atmosphere in spades.
So there we were. Bin Laden was still alive and releasing more videos. Pakistan - our supposed ally - was filled with enemies. Likewise with Saudi Arabia. and in the midst of all of this..... all of the sudden we have to invade Iraq or Saddam's gonna attack us?????? If all of those countries agreed with our threat assessment why didn't they join us? Why the opposition? Why was there a neccessity for Colin Powell to go to the UN and and prove the case using examples that have all since been debunked? Logically, it doesn't hold.
Several points could be made from this. If a war is justified, and plenty are, why is there still a debate about it's justification three years after it's start? Why, if the initial reason was to disarm a tryant, has the reasoning changed from first these weapons of mass destruction, then to a fictional link to the man who attacked us, then became about spreading "freedom" and democracy? Let me get this straight.... we were attacked on 911 by saudis, based and working in Saudi arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and now our soldiers are serving out 4th and 5th tours of duty in Iraq??? The job wasn't finished in Afganistan, Bin Laden's still alive, our military unforgivably lacks body armor, and now we're mired in an guerrilla war that will has no foreseeable end in sight, all while the body count grows higher and it's costing, financially a billion dollars every single week?
Now, we could go back and forth about half-truths, spin and lies about the lead up to the war, ( each one very cleverly open to some degree of interpretation - thanks Karl ) but the amount of horseshit they've been saying since it started could fill canyons. It goes beyond mistakes. Their own generals warned them. Our former allies warned them. But those who weren't on board were fired, then subsequently vilified and smeared. No one in the region felt that Saddam was an immediate threat, save for some israeli hard-liners ( who also incidentally believe a whole bunch of religious nonsense ). Forget about the irony of ignoring UN resolutions to invade a country for ignoring UN resolutions. This war has put us in far more danger than we were before. They are creating far more enemies than they can possibly kill, enemies who were not enemies prior. We squandered any possible moral high ground with abu graib, secret CIA prisons, rendition, patriot act, and the suspension of due process. We given someone unprecedented power to do as he sees fit to keep us safe when this same man didn't hold down a steady job until the age of 40, never set foot on a battlefield, thinks that god is talking to him, and hasn't held anyone accountable for all of this madness.
Now, let me point out several things. Firstly, I'm not a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist, only because of the staggering incompetence they've illustrated, but you must admit it is very strange that were attacked on 911 by someone who had a history of business dealings with both the Saudi royals and the Bush family. Imagine for a moment if we had learned that Timothy McVeigh's family had a prior business relationship with the Clintons. Public execution doesn't sound like an exagerration when you can get impeached for lying about something as trivial and as private as a blowjob.
Yet with this matter, indeed, practically all matters, bush gets a free pass. No accountability. No questions answered. No reckoning. No nothing. Instead of a plan, they have slogans. Instead of debate, they smear and villify. Instead of taking responsibility, they blame someone else, anyone else. No weapons of Mass destruction? CIA's fault! Horrible news every day from Iraq? Blame the news. Too rich, too spoiled and too cowardly to have served in war themselves? Change the topic to dan rather getting duped. United we stand? Nope, seas of blue and red on TV. Shared sacrifice? Nope, tax cuts for the rich. Honoring our dead? Nope, hide the caskets, don't call them caskets, fire anyone who takes pictures, then don't forget to smear and hide from any mothers of the dead soldiers who demand answers to so they can make sense of their grief. This is madness. Sheer madness. Slap another ribbon magnet on the SUV and don't forget to buy gas. Of course it's only a coincidence that the country with 1/3rd of the planet's energy reserves just happened to be the one we invaded by mistake. It's like a constant double bluff, and the cost is human life, this country's credibility, and, most importantly, our security.
You said you'd give me a few criticisms about Bush. A few?
The list grows daily my friend. You seem like a decent guy. I'm sure you can tell I'm not some crazed polemic marxist. At a certain point you've gotta ask yourself if you've been sold a bunch of bullshit. If you've backed the wrong horse, if it's worth throwing your own credibility behind a guys like these. In the past 5 years, things have gotten far worse for all of us.
this was an extremely interesting thread. want to hear conservative artists? turn on your local country music station.
p.s. i'll see your pint and raise you a shot of absinthe
Perhaps we went after Iraq because they had the weakest army out of our enemies. I would support attacks against: Iran, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But I'm not sure if our military could handle that many war fronts. Plus I think such an act might increase terrorism in the short run. Attacking Iraq might have increased terrorism, but I think more likely it just brought them out from hiding. Do you think terrorism will decrease if we pull out? There was terrorism before Iraq: 1970s Olympics, Cole bombing, embassy bombings, and 9/11.
希望大家都會非常非常幸福~
「朵朵小語‧優美的眷戀在這個世界上，最重要的一件事，就是好好愛自己。好好愛自己，你的眼睛才能看見天空的美麗，耳朵才能聽見山水的清音。好好愛自己，你才能體會所有美好的東西，所有的文字與音符才能像清泉一樣注入你的心靈。好好愛自己，你才有愛人的能力，也才有讓別人愛上你的魅力。而愛自己的第一步，就是切斷讓自己覺得黏膩的過去，以無沾無滯的輕快心情，大步走向前去。愛自己的第二步，則是隨時保持孩子般的好奇，願意接受未知的指引；也隨時可以拋卻不再需要的行囊，一路雲淡風輕。親愛的，你是天地之間獨一無二的旅人，在陽光與月光的交替之中瀟灑獨行.................
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
免費影片成人影城免費a網 免費視訊辣妹彩虹頻道免費短片交友av1688天使娛樂網辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室小魔女免費影片色情聊天室 ut我愛78論壇辣妹哈拉視訊聊天室台灣論壇女生免費視訊辣妹北台灣視訊aaa的滿18歲卡通影片視訊交友90739a片欣賞本土自拍天堂aa片免費看影片 情色小說免費成人卡通kiss168成人電影視訊妹 aa片免費看aa 片免費看sex888sex999免費影片免費視訊聊天
Post a Comment
<< Home