Michelle, Steyn, Hollywood - Academy Awards 2013

[The_Squid]

Mrs. Bush's appearance wasn't up to your standards so the conclusion is that there is a left wing Hollywood conspiracy to stick it to Republican first ladies and presidents? lol bizarre....

Reagen also did a taped appearance at the Oscars... ergo, Obama got the shaft from those Republican loving Hollywood types because he didn't get to appear at all! Do you see how ridiculous that argument sounds?

Edited February 26, 2013 by The_Squid

[guyser]

So...has Steyn in fact written anything about the Oscars?

[August1991]

Betty Ford was on the very liberal Mary Tyler Moore show in the 70s and was much loved. I don't know that Hollywood is as virulently partisan as people on here.

Betty Ford was an American liberal married to a RINO.

But I agree with your basic point MH (and it's Steyn's basic point too): American politicians have long used various media to attract voters. Celebrity is a curious characteristic. How do you make something known, draw attention?

There's no such thing as the exception proving the rule. It'a a fallacy. If I come up with a counter example to your point, it doesn't make your point valid - that makes no sense.

"There are many "... but ... I say not like on MLW.

And I say that Laura Bush would be given polite treatment at the Oscars. Reagan was Hollywood royalty, as are many right-of-centres.

No, Reagan was not Hollywood royalty (to the extent such exists). Reagan was like Charlton Heston - a right-wing curmudgeon.

Edited February 27, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

Except for the 2002 Oscars.

-k

I think she appears for a few brief seconds at 2:20 in this video, along with Donald Trump and Jerry Brown:

But you make the point of Steyn and MH above, Kimmy. To win votes, politicians in democracies have to appear to be "cool". As Steyn argues, Republicans are losing the "culture/media war".

Edited February 27, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

Enough of Steyn, Laura Bush, Michelle. Here's my point.

Hollywood is basically fraudulent. It's fake. What you see on the stage is not real life but an image of reality. Art works because we suspend disbelief.

Politics is not fraudulent. It's about very basic truths. Politics in a democracy may require celebrity to attract attention but truth (reality) has a way of infiltrating even democratic politics.

When France was occupied and Churchill (alone in the winter of 1940) confronted Hitler, he was confronting some basic truths. Churchill knew what Hitler planned for eastern Europe.

Or as Lincoln apparently said - ( what a thread for this quote) - "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

----

If Republicans want to win, and make America a better republic, they should simply tell the truth. While democratic politicians often seek celebrity to make their point, only a fool would confuse the arts and politics.

Edited February 27, 2013 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

Betty Ford was an American liberal married to a RINO.

But I agree with your basic point MH (and it's Steyn's basic point too): American politicians have long used various media to attract voters. Celebrity is a curious characteristic. How do you make something known, draw attention?

No, Reagan was not Hollywood royalty (to the extent such exists). Reagan was like Charlton Heston - a right-wing curmudgeon.

No, Charlton \Heston was also Hollywood royalty. He may not have had the worldwide fame of, say, Mitsou or Rene Simard, but he was Hollywood royalty all the same.

[kimmy]

Enough of Steyn, Laura Bush, Michelle. Here's my point.

Hollywood is basically fraudulent. It's fake. What you see on the stage is not real life but an image of reality. Art works because we suspend disbelief.

It's not an image of reality, it's someone's expression of their ideas. It's not any more or less "real" or "fake" than an editorial.

If Republicans want to win, and make America a better republic, they should simply tell the truth. While democratic politicians often seek celebrity to make their point, only a fool would confuse the arts and politics.

Telling the truth is good enough if one aspires to be a journalist. A politician must also offer a plan. And on both of these fronts, the minions of Team Elephant have failed badly.

-k

[August1991]

It's not an image of reality, it's someone's expression of their ideas. It's not any more or less "real" or "fake" than an editorial.

-k

I fundamentally disagree.

[August1991]

Telling the truth is good enough if one aspires to be a journalist. A politician must also offer a plan. And on both of these fronts, the minions of Team Elephant have failed badly.

-k

I fundamentally disagree.

(Gawd I hate Windows 8.)

Plan?

Art, like money, is a symbol of reality. (Money is a claim on something real.) Politics, like law, the terms of trade, is the real deal.

Edited March 2, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

IMHO, call me naïve, anyone who wants to do good for the World - tells the truth.

Isaac Newton told the truth. And I believe America still provides a place for such iconoclasts.

Edited March 2, 2013 by August1991

[CaptainChatham]

Hardner wrote "Reagan was Hollywood royalty, as are many right-of-centres."

- Reagan was Hollywood royalty not because but despite being a Republican and like most of the less than 10% of Hollywood royalty that supports the GOP he started out as an avid Democrat heading up the actors union and with his middle name Wilson given to him by his devoutly Democratic father after President Woodrow Wilson.

- At least 90% of Hollyweird is staunchly Democratic and I think you actually know this but simply want to stir the pot a little bit.

- In regard to Michelle on the Oscars, it was altogether fitting that the wife of a phony president who enjoys performing in public far more than he enjoys the essential executive work of governing in private should present the Oscar for a phony film that pretends to be real while treating the critical Canadian contribution to the safe accomodation and rescue of the hostages as an afterthought. People gullible enough to believe that Argo is an accurate representation of reality are gullible enough to believe the litany of lies from POTUS 44 including the latest ones that sequestration was a GOP idea that he opposed from the start and that a 2% cut pro-rated to a still increasing and bloated federal budget will usher in the apocolypse.

Edited March 3, 2013 by CaptainChatham

[kimmy]

I fundamentally disagree.

(Gawd I hate Windows 8.)

Plan?

Art, like money, is a symbol of reality. (Money is a claim on something real.) Politics, like law, the terms of trade, is the real deal.

Next election, we might find the Conservatives telling us that we need to strengthen the economy, and the NDP telling us that poverty is rising, and the Liberals telling us that the quality of public healthcare in Canada is declining. And they could all be telling us "the truth".

Telling "the truth" is only a small part of the challenge facing a politician. He must not just tell the truth, he must convince voters that the truth that he is telling is more important than the truth that the other guys are telling. I might sympathize with Mr Mulcair but vote for Mr Harper because I think that other problems will become more severe if the economy doesn't improve.

And second, and more important, is a plan. It is not good enough for Mr Harper to tell me that we need to strengthen the economy to earn my vote, he also has to articulate a credible plan as to how that can be done. I might agree 100% with what he thinks is the biggest issue facing our country, but if I think he is 100% wrong about how to solve it, I can't vote for him.

Why didn't Willard win the presidential election a few months ago? Was he not telling the truth? (well, he wasn't, much of the time, but let us carry on...) On the main issue of the election, he did tell the truth-- the economy sucks. Why didn't people vote for him? Did they not believe him? No, they believed him. They agreed that the economy sucks. What they didn't believe was that a plan of deregulation and tax-cuts would improve the economy.

-k

[August1991]

And second, and more important, is a plan....

A plan? A man, a plan, Panama!

Sorry, Kimmy. Everyone has a plan, just like everyone has an opinion. But everyone is not entitled to the truth. As the old saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Telling "the truth" is only a small part of the challenge facing a politician.

I've worked with a few and I can attest to the fact that politicians face myriad challenges. But it seems to me that the best politicians tell the truth, and succeed.

There's this perception that to succeed, politicians in a democracy must lie. I disagree. Poor or weak politicians typically lie but the good ones have no need to lie; they simply tell the truth.

Since we're in a thread about movies, let me make a comparison. If a Hollywood movie has a weak scene, the director typically brings in the music - violins or a crescendo to make the scene work. If the movie is boring, the producer throws in a car chase/crash to make it lively.

But a good movie does not need this kind of artifice. And similarly, if a politician in a democracy is telling the truth, and telling it well, the politician will succeed.

-----

What is the "truth"? Well, the truth is a target in a real world. Gravity and the Bernoulli Principle are facts of life, as any aircraft engineer knows. Hollywood can show planes that fly upside down but in reality, that's impossible.

Unlike an artist or Hollywood, a good, successful politician does not ask voters to suspend their disbelief.

Edited March 4, 2013 by August1991

[Wayward Son]

Reagan was Hollywood royalty not because but despite being a Republican and like most of the less than 10% of Hollywood royalty that supports the GOP he started out as an avid Democrat heading up the actors union and with his middle name Wilson given to him by his devoutly Democratic father after President Woodrow Wilson.

Odd that he got his middle name from President Wilson, considering his mother, Nelle Wilson, came from a family that had a long affinity for the name. The oddity increases when you realize that Ronald Reagan was named after President Woodrow Wilson before Wilson had become President....or even taken office as the Governor of New Jersey for that matter...in fact he had held no elective office at the time Ronnie was born. Impressive that he could see the future that clearly.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Wayward Son

[CaptainChatham]

Odd that he got his middle name from President Wilson, considering his mother, Nelle Wilson, came from a family that had a long affinity for the name. The oddity increases when you realize that Ronald Reagan was named after President Woodrow Wilson before Wilson had become President....or even taken office as the Governor of New Jersey for that matter...in fact he had held no elective office at the time Ronnie was born. Impressive that he could see the future that clearly.

- WS ... Thanks for correcting the historical error which I repeated from an internet site (not this one). You are, of course, right. Similarly, I am right on the substance of my post regardless of how Dutch got his middle name. He came from a Democratic family, he was a staunch Democrat for decades, he led the Democrats dominated screen actors union at one time, he was Hollywood royalty in spite of not because he became a Republican, and over 90% of Hollyweird royalty are Democrats. Likewise, I am correct that Argo was a phony depiction of what happened in The Iran Caper and that Obama being phony Hollyweird and the Oscars are made for him and his wife. Any comments on the substance of my post?

Edited March 4, 2013 by CaptainChatham

[Wayward Son]

- WS ... Thanks for correcting the historical error which I repeated from an internet site (not this one). You are, of course, right. Similarly, I am right on the substance of my post regardless of how Dutch got his middle name. He came from a Democratic family, he was a staunch Democrat for decades, he led the Democrats dominated screen actors union at one time, he was Hollywood royalty in spite of not because he became a Republican, and over 90% of Hollyweird royalty are Democrats. Likewise, I am correct that Argo was a phony depiction of what happened in The Iran Caper and that Obama being phony Hollyweird and the Oscars are made for him and his wife. Any comments on the substance of my post?

Well I brought up the middle name because it is an easily verifiable fact which you got wrong, and to me at least, it shows that the substance of your post is more likely opinion over fact. Is Hollywood more Democrat than Republican? Yes, the evidence seem to strongly support that. Are over 90% Democrats as you claim? Seems unlikely as that would indicate that almost every single person has a political membership. Most people don't have political memberships. A large number of people don't care about organized politics. I accept that the Hollywood elite may be far more likely to hold political party membership than other groups of people, but close to 100% seems like a pretty high bar. The only study I could find which looked at the Hollywood elite found that although Democrats were far more represented than Republicans, only about 25% had memberships in the Democratic party, and less than 50% had donated money to any democratic or left-wing cause.

Reagan has said that he didn't leave the Democratic party, but that it left him. I feel that was an exaggeration, for strategic political reasons, as some of Reagan's political views did indeed shift, while others did not. However, the Democratic and Republican parties did switch positions in many ways in the 100 years after the civil war. And Reagan's parents being democrats at the time of Reagan's birth and youth doesn't actually say much about where they stood on the political spectrum. This was just after the progressive Republican presidency of Teddy Roosevelt whose trust busting and massive increases in regulations on big business would be both the nightmare of modern Republicans and wet dreams of modern Democrats. And it is before the realignment that occurred with Roosevelt's new deal, before Truman in 1948 accepted the northern liberals plank of expanding civil rights which led to the formation of the Dixiecrat party in 1948 led by Thurmond, and before Nixon's southern strategy. Reagan, despite being a registered democrat in the 1950s supported Eisenhower and Nixon.

As for the SAG being dominated by Democrats, that may be true...although at the time we also the black-list of actors who were suspected of having communist sympathies, and it was lead by well known Republicans Reagan and Heston (those two had the second and third longest terms among Presidents of the SAG), and Pidgeon, another California Republican, took over after Reagan.

So, I don't know if the substance of your post is correct or not. It may be, although I think it far more likely that it is partially correct, but smothered in opinion and bias. I don't feel that you have supported your thesis very well and instead just parroted the claims of right-wing media.

As for the accuracy of the movie Argus....I don't care. It's a movie. I watch movies for entertainment value. A read books and articles for educational value.

[CaptainChatham]

- Son ... Lets stop splitting hairs and playing silly little semantical games and cut to the chase. The following column by Larry Elder will educate you on the matter of liberal and Democratic dominance in Hollywood today and in the national communications media in general.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/11/the_axis_of_liberalism_marches_to_re-elect_obama_115734.html

- I shall resist the temptation to pick your lefty screed apart such as where you claim that Reagan was a Republican leader of SAG when in actual fact he was a registered and professed Democrat at that time and remained so for more than a decade after he stepped down as the SAG president, etc., etc.

Edited March 5, 2013 by CaptainChatham

[Wayward Son]

- Son ... Lets stop splitting hairs and playing silly little semantical games and cut to the chase. The following column by Larry Elder will educate you on the matter of liberal and Democratic dominance in Hollywood today and in the national communications media in general.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/11/the_axis_of_liberalism_marches_to_re-elect_obama_115734.html

- I shall resist the temptation to pick your lefty screed apart such as where you claim that Reagan was a Republican leader of SAG when in actual fact he was a registered and professed Democrat at that time and remained so for more than a decade after he stepped down as the SAG president, etc., etc.

I am not really interested in partisan nonsense and screeds by any political ideology. I am interested in facts. I never said that hollywood was not democrat leaning, in fact I said that the evidence strongly supported that it was.

Here are the facts:

Ronald Reagan kept his democratic membership until 1962.

He last publicly endorsed a democratic candidate in 1950.

He endorsed Eisenhower and Nixon in 1952, 1956 and 1960.

He was last head of SAG in 1960.

He became the Republican Governor of California in 1967.

That is a 2 year gap between when he officially switched memberships and his last time as head of the SAG. Last I checked 2 years is not more then a decade.

During the last 12 years he held a democratic party membership he publicly endorsed zero democrats, while publicly endorsing all 3 Republican Presidential tickets. During that same period he strongly opposed civil rights legislation and was the mouthpiece for the AMA's fight against medicare. He was as Republican in thought and action as they get.

[Bonam]

What is the "truth"? Well, the truth is a target in a real world. Gravity and the Bernoulli Principle are facts of life, as any aircraft engineer knows. Hollywood can show planes that fly upside down but in reality, that's impossible.

Actually, it's not. It is entirely possible to design an airplane capable of flight in an upside down orientation. In fact, there are a number of production aircraft capable of inverted flight.

Anyway, if you think some politician is honest, chances are they are just a better liar, able to convince you that they are telling the truth.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Bonam

[kimmy]

A plan? A man, a plan, Panama!

Sorry, Kimmy. Everyone has a plan, just like everyone has an opinion. But everyone is not entitled to the truth. As the old saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I am not disputing the existence of objective facts, August. I am pointing out that there are millions of objective facts, and which ones are most important to the business of running the nation is a matter of opinion.

"Tell the truth" is a simplistic, childish outlook that ignores the realities of limited resources and competing and sometimes contradictory priorities.

I've worked with a few and I can attest to the fact that politicians face myriad challenges. But it seems to me that the best politicians tell the truth, and succeed.

There's this perception that to succeed, politicians in a democracy must lie. I disagree. Poor or weak politicians typically lie but the good ones have no need to lie; they simply tell the truth.

Since we're in a thread about movies, let me make a comparison. If a Hollywood movie has a weak scene, the director typically brings in the music - violins or a crescendo to make the scene work. If the movie is boring, the producer throws in a car chase/crash to make it lively.

But a good movie does not need this kind of artifice. And similarly, if a politician in a democracy is telling the truth, and telling it well, the politician will succeed.

-----

What is the "truth"? Well, the truth is a target in a real world. Gravity and the Bernoulli Principle are facts of life, as any aircraft engineer knows. Hollywood can show planes that fly upside down but in reality, that's impossible.

Unlike an artist or Hollywood, a good, successful politician does not ask voters to suspend their disbelief.

Voters are not all the same. Voters have different priorities. Joe wants the pot-holes fixed; Suzie wants better public transit. We don't have enough money in the budget to make both of them happy, so somebody is going to be disappointed. So how does "tell the truth" resolve this situation?

-k

[August1991]

"Tell the truth" is a simplistic, childish outlook that ignores the realities of limited resources and competing and sometimes contradictory priorities.

-k

In a democratic society, a civilized State, I disagree.

According to Kimmy and other Leftists, wise State Leaders (eg. Jack Layton) will guide us all to a good collective use of "resources and competing and sometimes contradictory priorities".

Giggle.

But what happens if your Dear Leader is not Jack Layton. What if the dear leader is Kim Il Sung - or worse, Stephen Harper?

----

Kimmy, "telling the truth" is easy.

4+5=9

The sky is blue.

Edited March 6, 2013 by August1991

[kimmy]

In a democratic society, a civilized State, I disagree.

According to Kimmy and other Leftists, wise State Leaders (eg. Jack Layton) will guide us all to a good collective use of "resources and competing and sometimes contradictory priorities".

Giggle.

That's not the premise at all.

The premise is that in a world of unlimited wants and limited resources, we have to set priorities. In a democracy, those priorities are set by our elected leaders. Those leaders are elected because the priorities they've stated appeal to more voters than the priorities their competitors stated.

The good politician doesn't just tell the truth, he tells the truths that are most relevant to the most voters. A reporter can tell you that the streets suck; a politician can tell you that if he is elected he will make repairing the streets a priority. A good politician will explain why repairing the streets is good for everybody.

We can fix potholes or we can add bus routes, but we can't do both. Pick one.

We can have lower taxes or expanded services, but we can't have both. Pick one.

If people opt for lower taxes rather than expanded services, that's their choice, that's democracy. They go vote for a politician who says that's what he stands for. And that politician's job is to go out and persuade as many voters as possible that lower taxes will help them more than expanded services. But we're outside the realm of objective fact now. It's a question of opinion, belief, and persuasion. Not "telling the truth".

But what happens if your Dear Leader is not Jack Layton. What if the dear leader is Kim Il Sung - or worse, Stephen Harper?

I've been on team Harper for longer than anybody else on this forum, you hapless boob.

Kimmy, "telling the truth" is easy.

4+5=9

The sky is blue.

If being a leader was as simple as stating obvious facts, anybody could have been Pierre Trudeau. If you think that the ability to state the obvious is what makes for a great leader, you are without a clue.

Truth: the streets need repairs.

Truth: transit service needs improvement.

Truth: there isn't enough money in the budget to do both.

Truth: "telling the truth" doesn't fix the roads, or fix the buses, or even address the budget for that matter.

Truth: a leader doesn't just tell the truth, he sets priorities.

What is your hypothetical truth-telling politician going to say when he is asked whether he will fix the streets or fix the transit system, August?

You won't and can't address that question, because to do so would be to admit how monumentally stupid your premise is.

Since this is a showbiz-themed thread, you might want to look up the phrase "jumped the shark". You've done so, in style that would make Henry Winkler jealous.

-k

[CaptainChatham]

We can fix potholes or we can add bus routes, but we can't do both. Pick one.
We can have lower taxes or expanded services, but we can't have both. Pick one.

Kimmy ... Your premise is totally fallacious. Perhaps this is not surprising seeing that you are a lefty from The Left Coast where monopoly public sector unions dominate government decision making and the grossly overstaffed public sector with its abysmal productivity, unmatched job security, inflated pay and grossly inflated pensions is the leading driver of unsustainable public spending, taxes and debt increases.

- In reality, the public sector's self serving waste and extravagance could easily be pared through attrition and pension reform and other productivity and public vs private sector employee equity measures so as to cut the public sector personnel costs by 50% which would mean a near 30% reduction in BC citizens' taxes.

- Also in reality, substantial tax cuts would fuel an economic boom that may very well result in an increase in net revenue to the government as more people work and save and invest and pay taxes and fewer languish on the dole and gourge themselves in the public trough.

- You mention needing better roads and fixing potholes in your post. This reminds me of the fact that monopoly public sector union contracts involving CUPE and some other unions require six workers to do a simple sidewalk repair job that is normally done by private contractors with three workers. It also reminds me of the time in Montreal in 2006 when city managers secretly videotaped two road repair crews of ten people during their 90 hours of paid time over a two week period. These public sector mugs, thugs and slugs were found to have actually worked a total of 7 out of 90 hours - or 7.7% - of their paid work time.

- So please save me this Obama style socialist silliness about how not a dollar of public spending or of taxes or of borrowing and debt can possibly be cut without things falling apart and the only way to improve public services is by hiking taxes.

- In reality, tax cuts which stimulate savings, investment and employment are positive policies and even bring in more net revenue to governments over time and the breaking of the monopoly public sector unions which have so ravaged the beleagured taxpayers especially in Quebec, BC and Ontario will also free up billions of which some can then be invested in expanded public programs and services and some (oh, the horror) actually left in the pockets of the private citizens who earned it to spend (gasp) as they see fit.

Edited March 6, 2013 by CaptainChatham

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Please stop prefacing your commentary with personal attacks.

Ch. A.

[CaptainChatham]

Everybody,

Please stop prefacing your commentary with personal attacks.

Ch. A.

- CA ... It appears that you have given me "one warning point whatever that is and whatever that means. `Perhaps you would kindly explain for the benefit of newcomers to this forum like myself what òne warning point`means for posters who receive such sanctions here. While you are at it, perhaps you could also explain why Kimmy and August 1991 who went at each other fairly vigorously on this thread didn`t get such a warning point and why I did for the single crime of calling Kimmy a lefty. After all, it doesn`t take Einstein on steroids or even Joe Biden after a lobotomy to figure out that she probably is a lefty and, furthermore, that she is unashamed to be identified as such. On the other hand, if Kimmy is insulted by being described as a lefty then I unreservedly apologize for hurting her feelings with such a horrible label.