#3
Looks like a certain segment of the population has forgotten who's the boss. On both sides of the aisle. I believe that a public servant taking their position for granted is both a huge part and indicator of the problem.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2007 7:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
When he asks groups of Democrats if they think the American people are stupid because they elected George W. Bush twice, most respond that, yes, they do, he said. He said he thinks that attitude is a real problem for the Democrats, who fail to understand how smart and pragmatic the American people really are.
Which just might make Joe the smartest Democrat alive.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/11/2007 7:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Which just might make Joe the smartest Democrat alive
there goes Mr. Bobby, damning with faint praise. Rascal
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2007 7:39 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Democrats have lost faith in the American people.
#9
Weve got to trust the American people more, Biden said.
That's a pretty tall order, when your entire political philosophy is based on the belief that most people are too damn stupid to run their own lives without your "help," and that those who are smart enough to make it on their own need to be punished by being taxed to death.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/11/2007 7:57 Comments ||
Top||
#10
And they wonder whey we call them 'elites' or 'ruling class'?
#11
"Democrats...fail to understand how smart and pragmatic the American people really are."
I told a liberal sister largely the same thing a few years ago. But it's not about "leveling with" Americans, Joe. It's about faith in their moral compass.
#12
The donks are pissing away the gift the trunks handed them...and faster than I would have ever thought. The left wing donks have pushed the agenda far to the left, and the people (like it or not) are rejecting them.
I am hoping the trunks figure out hot button issues like immigration, NAFTA, tax increases, etc., when the pendulum swings back knocking pelosireid back to minority status.
#14
When he asks groups of Democrats if they think the American people are stupid because they elected George W. Bush twice, most respond that, yes, they do, he said.
This sort of general contempt for the electorate hasn't been seen since Richard Nixon. It goes beyond ingratitude andas P2k capably notessmacks of elitism. When I was in high school, it was already quite clear to me that you should run like hell from anyone who tells you, "It's for your own good!" Hillary's recent socialistic quotes are stark evidence that "she knows better than we do". I can only hope she is prepared to realize that Americans know better than to elect her.
If the democrats are not "leveling" with the American people, it is because they have ulterior motives and hidden agendas. The immigration issue made it pretty clear that both sides of the aisle possess such flawed intentions. It's just that the democrats compound their error by being weak on national security while we are at war and pushing their multiculturalist platform during a time when the flood of immigrationespecially in the form of illegal entryneeds to be curtailed rather dramatically.
For democrats to mistrust the electorate represents a fundamental abrogation of leadership skills. It is akin to calling all of your closest personal friends idiots yet continuing to seek their approval.
#15
The donks are pissing away the gift the trunks handed them...and faster than I would have ever thought.
That is what donks do...and it's going at about the speed I would have expected. The astonishing thing is that this cycle has been repeated SO MANY times, and still almost half the country never learns.
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/11/2007 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
That's a powerful story, but is particularly poignant today.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
11/11/2007 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I remember the story of a Czech college professor teaching in the US. One day, in 1968, he came to class visibly shaken, and told his students that the Soviet Union was invading his country, that tanks were rolling down the street of Prague and slaughtering anyone in the way.
"We are a peaceful nation! We threaten no one! Why are the Russians attacking us? America is the defender of the world. Why is it not helping us? How can you just sit there?" And with that, he left his class, and resigned, hoping in some way to fight for his homeland, and even though he was old he was willing to carry a rifle.
His nation fell to conquest, and the peaceful government of the "Prague Spring" was replaced with a harsh dictatorship by their conquerors.
But the professor continued his struggle. Within a year, he was part of the US Information Agency, which produced a movie, "Czechoslovakia 1968". It won the Academy Award for Documentary Short Subject.
Three years later, in 1972, New York Conservative Party Senator James Buckley obtained a copy of the movie he wanted to air on New York television, a move bitterly opposed by the Democrat chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator J. William Fulbright. The Republican administration refused to stop its presentation.
Senator Fulbright, anti-black and anti-Jewish racist and segregationist, on 30 July 1961, two weeks before the erection of the Berlin Wall, said in a television interview, "I don't understand why the East Germans don't just close their border, because I think they have the right to close it."
He also argued against investigating the successful communist infiltration of the US government and Pentagon, voting against the McCarthy hearings and objecting to the House Un-American Affairs Committee investingations.
Though he was later deeply concerned that patriotic right wing organizations, like the John Birch Society, might infiltrate the military.
As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Fulbright held several series of hearings against the Vietnam War. Many of the earlier hearings, in 1966, were televised to the nation in their entirety; the 1971 hearings included the notable testimony of Vietnam veteran, traitor, and future-Senator John Kerry.
Fulbright died of a stroke in 1995 at the age of 89 in Washington, DC. A year later, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary dinner of the Fulbright Program held June 5, 1996 at the White House, President Clinton said, "Hillary and I have looked forward for sometime to celebrating this 50th anniversary of the Fulbright Program, to honor the dream and legacy of a great American, a citizen of the world, a native of my home state and my mentor and friend, Senator Fulbright."
A despicable individual who always distrusted America, sought to undermine its power and influence in the world, sought to elevate the power of the United Nations and other international organizations over the United States. Fulbright always supported and encouraged tyrants and tyranny, yet despised the weak and oppressed and sought to keep them down.
I mention all of this to show how that for decades now, those "18 year olds with a rifle" have not just had to fight against evil and vicious enemies throughout the world, but even at home, equally evil and vicious enemies, opposed not just to them, but to their entire nation, have also tried to undermine and destroy them.
#5
Nukes and nerve gas make every tribal war an international crisis. Goodbye Tokyo, Moscow, or Miami because a sophisticated tribesman at war with his eternally despised neighbor decides that demolishing the global economy would make everyone pay attention to his neglected, forgotten grievance.
Glad to see that somebody understands just how nihilistic our foes are.
Tyrannies keep breeding this insanity. The only solution is consensus, wealth-producing societies, where everyone gets a say and everyone has a buy-in. If it sounds like democracy then call it that. Its sustainable stability, ever evolving sustainable stability when people police terrorists and dont promote them.
Mentioned in passing but a central point nonetheless. Bay's "sustainable stability" utterly relies upon something thatno matter how vitalsimply is not happening. Nor is it likely to happen in the near future, especially with the kid glove approachas mandated by our effete politicianscurrently being used by our military.
Muslims, by and large, simply refuse to police themselves for the purpose of eliminating terrorism. If they actually did so, I would not feel compelled to advocate disproportionate retaliation in order that this world's Muslim population finally be made to understand that neglecting their duty to quell extremism and terrorist activity will get them killed in large numbers for their inaction.
Self-policing is Islam's only hope for survival. As I have noted before, the West cannot possibly hope to clean Islam's house for it. Only Muslims are able to adequately identify and prosecute the extremist elements in their midst. Their unwillingness to do so makes them culpable in the extreme.
Given that the Koran's very core doctrine exhorts Muslims to extremism and terrorism, I see little hope that anything short of death on a truly massive scale will ever persuade Islam as to the error of its ways.
From now on, do us all a favor and substitute your rants with a simple code.
Like the one above for instance. Instead of the dribble about Muslims not policing themselves, you could just type, say, code 2. That way we all know what you're talking about without having to read it over and over and over again.
#8
Chris - you really are obviously a smart guy. What part of "get your own fucking blog" do you not get?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2007 17:40 Comments ||
Top||
#9
the REAL reason is you know just how much traffic you and your pontifications would get. So why do you parasite off Fred's blog. Keep your comments here short, terse, snarky even ( I like those), and cross-refer to your own blog for further reference. If you have any trust in the strength of your extended ideas, arguments, logic, debate ability, you'd do it. Your refusal to do so says volumes. Blogspot is free - you can't complain about cost. You know html, you can't use ignorance.... sack up, Zen, and make everyone happy, including yourself, with the droves that will flock to the Zen Site for enlightenment and instruction :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2007 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Zenster - Fullbright was Bill Clinton's mentor.
GET A BLOG ZEN!! your own. you hover over this one like a swarm of gnats. I figure you must take a lap-top into the bathroom with you and crap-blog Rantburg simultaneously.
Read a book, take a long hike, on a short pier.. get lost...
..
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
11/11/2007 18:28 Comments ||
Top||
The only feeling I've ever had that was more surreal than arriving in a war zone was returning from one.
I came home on R&R in 2005 after eight months in Iraq. Heading for the baggage claim in Detroit, I watched travelers walking and talking on their cellphones, chatting with friends and acting just the way people had before I'd left for Baghdad. The war didn't just seem to be taking place in another country; it seemed to be taking place in another universe. There I was, in desert camouflage, wondering how all the intensity, the violence, the tears and the killing of Iraq could really be happening at the same time that all these people were hurrying to catch their flights to Las Vegas or Los Angeles or wherever.
Riding home that day with my parents, I felt nervous, too exposed in their Ford Taurus. There was no armor on the car, and it felt light. We stopped at every red light and stop sign, and I saw potential dangers everywhere, even though I-94 heading into the city was nothing like Baghdad's Airport Road. There were no torched trucks or craters left by bomb blasts. I think it was the neatness of it all that made me uncomfortable. It seemed that staying alive shouldn't be so easy.
I've been out of Iraq for more than two years now. I have a different life, as a college student. But some of those feelings are still with me. After dedicating a year to a conflict of such enormous complexity, I find that college feels a bit mundane, and it's inexplicable to me that people here seem to be entirely untouched by the war. My son has been back about two years, in college, and has expressed some of the same reactions. He's a good deal more mature than many of his fellow students.
On Sept. 11, 2001, everyone said that the events of that day would change the lives of all Americans. I was a trainee in the interrogation course at the Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., at the time. At 18, I had dropped out of college and joined the Army earlier that year, because I felt that my life lacked discipline and direction. Six years later, 9/11 doesn't seem to have had much of an effect on most people's lives. But it has had an enormous effect on mine.
I arrived in Iraq in March 2005. My unit hurried onto a Chinook helicopter at Baghdad International Airport in the middle of the night. I was weighted down with more than 100 pounds of gear, and I never managed to strap myself in. Helicopters are violent machines, and we shook as we lifted into the air. The rear door was open, a machine gunner suspended over the ramp, and the lights on the ground receded as we flew off, like the scenery behind a taxi in an old movie. Before long, we were over a field of tents, lit up under spotlights as bright as day. We had arrived at Abu Ghraib.
I spent the next month and a half at that prison complex outside Baghdad. By then, the interrogation rules had changed substantially after the stories of abuse there came out in mid-2004. We were permitted to sit across from a detainee and talk to him -- everything else was banned. This was a good rule. Torture is easy to justify. Interrogators assume that everyone they question is culpable; it's part of the job. If a detainee can't provide information because he has none, the temptation to slip into brutality is very present. Without rules in place, I might have been brutal, but I never so much as raised my voice to a detainee.
On April 2, 2005, Abu Ghraib was attacked by dozens of insurgents armed with vehicle-borne bombs, rockets, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and Kalashnikovs. It was a terrifying experience -- but also an exhilarating one. I learned that I was capable of functioning through my fear, and that I could place my life, with absolute confidence, in the hands of my fellow soldiers and Marines.
I spent a few hours that night in an inner tower with Marines who responded to the rockets and small-arms fire with 50-caliber machine guns. I watched as a man in a tractor was killed by machine-gun fire and as a group of trucks was stopped by a barrage of bullets from the tower guards. Later that night, I interrogated some of the men who had been in those trucks. A few had been wounded; all were frightened. They were fish deliverymen, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. The man in the tractor turned out to be a suicide bomber. It's nearly impossible to tell the enemy from the innocent.
After my time at Abu Ghraib, I was transferred to Camp Cropper, which was then a small prison facility near Baghdad International Airport. Over the next year, I spoke with hundreds of detainees. I spent my days with members of al-Qaeda, Baathists, Sunni nationalist insurgents and Shiite insurgents. I listened to their life stories, and I wrote hundreds of reports about their experiences. It consumed every moment of my day.
I wasn't involved in the short interrogations where we try to learn where the next bomb is located or how many insurgents are in the next safe house. The interrogations I conducted lasted weeks and sometimes months. We were trying to understand the big picture: the support networks, the international connections and the enemy's motivations. The long-term nature of our conversations forced me to see the men I interrogated as human beings. Most were Iraqi. Many were extremely intelligent, and some had had a great deal of formal education.
Their levels of cooperation varied. Some were forthcoming with information; some were not. Some seemed to enjoy the solitude of prison; some were led to despair by it. They all remain in my thoughts, and I'm sometimes surprised by my feelings. Recently, I read in the International Herald Tribune that a man I'd interrogated had been executed in Baghdad. If anyone ever deserved execution, it was he. But I still felt a pang of regret. His life, for all its horrors, mattered to me.
While still in Iraq, I was accepted to Georgetown University as an undergraduate. The Army discharged me in July 2006, and I began college that August.
What a difference.
People on campus don't think about the war very much. It rarely comes up in conversation, either inside or outside the classroom. Some professors have encouraged me to share my experiences, and some students have expressed interest in my past. Last semester, one wrote an article about another Iraq veteran and me for the campus newspaper. And this semester I dedicated about 250 words of a 900-word paper to the problem of sectarian violence in Iraq for a class on international relations. But that was the first time in my three semesters here that I was asked to formally consider the war for a class.
Beyond that, my theology professor gave a lecture last year that challenged students to find God in Iraq. My philosophy professor used Baghdad to describe what the philosopher Thomas Hobbes may have meant when he said that life in the state of nature would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." But that's about it. One student actually told me to stop thinking about Iraq. "You need to get rid of all that baggage and let yourself live," she said. "We need to be shallow sometimes."
I find it frustrating that Facebook is a bigger part of most students' lives than the war. After my first semester, I decided to rejoin the Army by signing up with the ROTC. I felt a bit guilty for having done only one tour in Iraq while friends of mine have done two or three. And I didn't want to forget the war. I may be prejudiced, but many of my college peers seem self-absorbed. I didn't want to end up like that.
You could rightly say a lot of negative things about soldiers. Many are crude. Some visit prostitutes; some commit adultery. I've known some who are bigots. It would be a lie to say that every soldier behaves honorably at all times. When I was stationed in South Korea from 2003 to 2005, I was often embarrassed by soldiers who were loud, obnoxious and insulting to Koreans. Men in their early 20s act like men in their early 20s, whether they wear a uniform or not.
Nonetheless, the Army's values are important to soldiers. They may not always live up to them, but they do when it matters most. Soldiers are selfless; they are courageous; they are loyal. The most interesting intellectual conversations I've had have been with others in the military. They discuss things not to impress you but because they're trying to figure them out. They're faced with difficult situations, and they want to make sense of them. Though many privately question our government's policies, they do their duty, which lies beyond the political debate.
This culture of duty is at odds with the culture of individualism and self-promotion that seems paramount here in college. And yet, the divide between my soldier friends and my fellow students isn't the result of any fundamental differences between the people themselves. Many of my peers at school know much more about the world around them than my fellow soldiers do -- international relations is a popular subject at Georgetown. My Army friends used to laugh when they saw me reading the Economist; my friends here think everyone should read it. Students talk about refugees from Iraq, North Korea, Burma and Darfur with sincere compassion. One of my friends told me: "I want to dedicate my life to educating people about the sufferings of others."
That's a wonderful goal, but I often feel that the words ring hollow. Students' true priorities are demonstrated by their daily activities: They have friends to meet, parties to attend, internships to work at, extracurricular activities to participate in, papers to write and classes to attend. They're under a lot of pressure to build a strong r¿sum¿ for whatever company or graduate school they apply to after college. They're under no pressure to be concerned about those who are less fortunate -- or those who fight wars on their behalf.
I'm proud to be a student at Georgetown. Though I find some aspects of campus culture discouraging, I have a lot of respect for my professors and peers. But there are still days when I think about what it must be like back in Baghdad -- and wonder whether that's where I should be.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/11/2007 12:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
Sometimes the WaPo prints something worth reading. This is entirely consistent with what I know to be true.
#2
One student actually told me to stop thinking about Iraq. "You need to get rid of all that baggage and let yourself live," she said. "We need to be shallow sometimes."
Smart girl, you shoul try to develop this relationship, son.
#2
The Lego company are a bunch of litigous bastards. They don't like anyone having any fun with their toys unless it's the sort of fun that they approve of.
#3
Although they have been pretty successful with their robotics, Lego is largely a one trick pony. While I was in Denmark, I applied to Lego and sent them some pictures of a few really exotic architectural models I had built.
Essentially, they refuse to hire anyone who does not first work there several years for free as an intern. From what I was told, they are petrified of any corporate espionage and can be pretty xenophobic in their hiring practices.
They haven't yet come up with any of the innovations I would've proposed to them.
#4
Lego is a Danish corporation. I know I'm going to take heat for this, but why are we getting pissy because they will not donate to foreign soldiers? If it was a U.S. company, I'd feel differently, but it is not.
I would also like to see the correspondence in question here before unleashing generic web-based outrage.
#5
This is bull crap. From what I could tell Lego didn't have anything to do with picking out the winner. But you decide.
Except . . . had anyone, other than those 50,000 YouTubers, actually seen "Happy Springtime"?
"We were judging the basic creativity of the essay," says Lego spokeswoman Julie Stern.
Ah. That would mean no? Correct.
According to Stern, the folks at Lego did not watch "Happy Springtime" until after Kelsie had already been declared a winner, when her proud mother, Tatiana, e-mailed the company links to the video. "I'll be honest. We were a bit surprised," Stern says.
Plus it turns out that the little girl didn't write the work, her dad did. Who is her dad, get ready for this.
The credit for "Springtime" goes to Kelsie's dad, musician-activist Brett Kimberlin.
Remember that guy who lied from jail during the 1988 election saying that he'd peddled pot at a Burger Chef to a dude named Danny Quayle? That was Brett. His Quayle revelation came from the clink, where he was serving time for a series of Indiana bombings (the speedway bomber), one of which wounded a Vietnam veteran. He was convicted of perjury in 1974 for lying about -- surprise -- drugs
James S. Robbins should have read his own source. Legos is a Danish company and I will continue to buy their products. Not everyone will donate to a complete stranger...
Every morning I go to the gym and run on the treadmill. Every morning I am subjected to at least a dozen commercials for the new anti-war movie 'Lions for Lambs.'
Despite spend several million dollars on advertising and marketing, 'Lions for Lambs' will flop--just like 'Rendition' & and 'Valley of Elah.' They will flop because the human psyche, especially the American variety, prefers real heroes--like the original hero of the Valley of Elah, a young shepherd named David who killed Goliath then cut off the giant's head.
In the latest round of war movies the heroes are not the Soldiers and Marines who every day fight and defeat a vicious and barbaric enemy--the heroes are reporters, lawyers and activists. And since every story requires a villain, the real enemy--Mohammedan Jihadists--are replaced by neo-cons, politicians, Soldiers and Marines. This substitution of the traditional mono-myth away from a hero who faces physical danger and conquers an enemy is a result of cowardice of the modern story tellers.
The human mind craves the same narrative--this was illustrated by Joseph Campbell...also, we all want to be the hero.
But when confronted with a real life situation--like the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and larger war on terror few will step up to be heroes. The many who do not have the ability to step up fall into two categories--those who acknowledge their inability to be heroes and those who do not.
Being a hero is not a job for everyone, many accept this and give credit to those who are willing to take the challenge. But there is another group for who the sting of their own cowardice is too much to bear. They are not willing to accept that they cannot be heroes. They cannot accept that, even if they were younger or had the physical ability to confront a violent villain, they would shrink from the challenge.
To alleviate their guilt they invent a new villain--Halliburton, Cheney, neo-cons, politicians, military officers, Soldiers, Marines--in short, anyone who will not physically harm them. This substituted version of the traditional hero myth allows anyone to be a hero, but it does not fulfill the craving for a true hero--especially when so many know the true enemy.
The anti-war films are failing and 'Lions for Lambs' will fail as well, because even though they follow the arc of the myth our brains are seemingly encoded to crave, they do not encounter the reality of this point in time. These films are only marketable to a segment of society who desires the substitution myth to assuage thier guilt--but even then, getting the choir you want to preach to pony up $10 to hear your sermon is a losing proposition.
The first block-buster Iraq War movie will be about the battle of Fallujah or another life and death struggle showing Marines or Soldiers as heroes. This movie will follow the traditional monomyth with the heroes confronting a villain with violence and prevailing. But this movie will come out of nowhere. It will not be backed by a major studio or star name-brand actors.
And only then will the war hero return.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/11/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
Need to make a movie about the unit Yon was wiht in the fight for Mosul, the "Deuce-Four".
#2
The battle of Fallujah, the battle for the Three Stooges, Yon's fight, the SEAL fight in Afghanistan that only Lutrell survived. All would make great movies. Raven 42 and Brian Chontosh and Paul Smith's last stand, too.
#3
To alleviate their guilt they invent a new villain--Halliburton, Cheney, neo-cons, politicians, military officers, Soldiers, Marines--in short, anyone who will not physically harm them.
#4
"This substitution of the traditional mono-myth away from a hero who faces physical danger and conquers an enemy is a result of cowardice of the modern story tellers."
So true. As Lileks said about Lewis Black's book cover, supposedly daring and courageous for desecrating the Pieta, no Christian will saw his head off for doing so, no matter how loathesome the act. Therefore, there's no real courage in doing so. If Black was TRULY courageous, he'd be grabbing his crotch, making the heavy metal salute, and desecrating a Koran. But the inoftainment industry never takes on Islam - that would be bigoted, doncha know.
This bit about cowardice is true, but it only tells part of the dysfunction.
Beyond the cowardice, there is also intellectual laziness. The left has built its entire raison d'etre on a singular concept - that the white, Western, capitalist male whose life is informed by Judeo-Christian values is the greatest form of evil the universe has created. This is the BEDROCK principle of their worldview - it explains everything from multiculturalism to cultural Marxism to belief in collectivist economics to AGW etc.
Therefore, when confronted with the idea that something could be more evil than the archetype they have visualized (in their mind's eye, a guy who is part Marlboro man, part Marine, part business owner who calls women "ma'am", speaks with a Southern accent, and goes to church on Sundays), they are presented with a paradox that cannot be resolved. If something is more evil than their cherished bogeyman, then the entirety of their worldview is false. This is a daunting thing for anyone to confront, but even more so for the intellectually challenged in places like Hollywood. So, rather than do the honest, decent, and intellegent thing and admit that their main premise is wrong, they strive to explain away the real threat, leaving their world view intact and obviating the need to admit error to themselves and do the hard work of rethinking things.
Examples of this abound. JFK was killed by a Communist, so Hollywood explains his death by making movies where he is killed by anti-Communists. Tet was a huge victory for the American military, so the infotainment industry crafts the lie that it was a defeat. Moveon.org assails the patriotism and Americanism of General Petraeus,and many Democrats in congress refuse to condemn this, and the media along with said Democrats assail the patriotism of Rush Limbaugh in order to maintain the "integrity" of their narrative. Duke lacrosse players are accused falsely of rape, and Evan Thomas of Newsweek flatly states that the narrative of the rape is still valid, even if the facts are wrong. The infotainment industry goes nuts on a (false) report of flushing a Koran down the toilet, decrying it as "intolerant" and "bigoted", and at the same time celebrates Marilyn Manson ripping up a Bible or an artist putting a crucifix in urine and the highest forms of free speech.
Yes, there's plenty of cowardice there. But there are equal amounts of laziness, and garden variety stupidity.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/11/2007 8:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
There is talk about Bruce Willis pushing a movie about the Deuce Four. All very preliminary and not even a script yet. Given the present political climate in Hollywood, I would expect it to end up as a self-funded project like Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ. I hope it happens. It would be a helluva story. Same with the 2nd battle of Fallujah.
The main reason the current crop of politcal movies is tanking is because they are playing to a niche market. Most Americans are in the middle politically. They likely have family in the service or working for a Halliburton. They don't regard journos as brave crusaders. They see nothing heroic about reporters asking rude gotcha questions or sticking a mic in the face of some disaster victim while asking how do you feel? Americans still know what heroes are. They still want to see them on the screen.
Making products no one wants to buy is a business plan for failure. Like some studio head said back in the day, if you want to send a message, send a telegram.
#6
Detroit made auto that Americans had to accept, till the big oil bust in the 70s when people discovered very well made and cost efficient Japanese alternatives. Hollyweird is another monstrosity that thinks it dictates what America wants. New technology is their Japanese competitors. Detroit is somewhat stable and able to survive but struggles and its not the Motown that once was. May Hollyweird enjoy the same fate.
#9
I suppose there's no point in trying to think rationally about Hollywood but this does occur to me: one of Hollywood's advertised values is multiculturalism. But the WOT is, in a sense, the ultimate in multiculturalism. Luttrell survived because some Afghan villagers decided to take their lives in their hands by protecting him from the Taliban. Raven 42 was a classic story of a mixed-race, mixed-gender group prevailing against heavy odds. The assault force in Phantom Fury consisted of black, brown and white soldiers and Marines supported (IIRC) by three battalions of Iraqis. Apparently only certain types of multicultural activity get the Hollywood seal of approval.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/11/2007 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Uh, I don't have anything against raising money for the Burg, but why do we have to look at a "Lions for Lambs" ad on this homepage?
So that we can click on it, and be Enlightened, and also get the producers of the movie to toss some change in Fred's jar.
#12
A niche market here [USA]. They're doing quite well outside the country.
Pappy, are you saying that the Hollywood Red Diaper Doper Babies will ass kiss Dictators, people please Fascist and brown nose Islamic Terrorist for the almighty* BUCK?
Ima Shocked!!
/*a little less than almighty of late.
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
11/11/2007 14:40 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
