AIDS Conference

[betsy]

The reason why a film-maker should NOT be held responsible for polluting anybody's mind is simply because nobody is forced to watch movies. Period. End of story.

And yet bar owners were held responsible and penalize for "polluting" the lungs of people. Nobody was being forced to enter the establishments.

[betsy]

I agree that there is filth in practically every single movie. I agree that it contributes to perversion and anti-social behavior. However, I disagree with laying blame on the film-makers. I will fight to the death their right to make their filth.

I am not actually for censorship, believe it or not.

My point is: Why are the people behind the AIDS Conference deliberately ignoring the contributions of Hollywood to the problem?

It didn't have to end in more legislations. I do not want it to end in more legislations.

All I'm waiting is a rebuke (for the glamorization of promiscuity and drug use)...and/or a plea to Hollywood...to come and join the campaign in INFORMING and EDUCATING the people. Hollywood is very powerful in the influence it wields on the public.

For the AIDS Conference to overlook this powerful venue makes its credibility laughable. What they suggest is only a "band-aid" solution. They're not really serious about it.

[betsy]

Be practical:

Who the hell would police the censorship of movies??

Ha-ha! For a while they had some people "policing" the bars and restaurants just to make sure non-smoking is being enforced....until they realized how stupid it looked. Then they had the nerve to ask the bar-owners to do the "policing" for them!

[betsy]

That's why I say strong parenting. Would you let your very young kids watch these movies? Would you not try to instill a message to them that shows your values in the face of the media, their peer group?

What kind of strong parenting? Everybody meddles on how we parent a child nowadays!

The values a parent wants to instill in her child goes out the window as soon as the child steps into school! Then, it is the values of the school that prevails! And we know what values those are!

If the Liberals and the NDP will have their way, parents will even lose more ground in instilling their own family values on an infant...as soon as the kid enters a national daycare!

[betsy]

I would like to see more big-named hollywood stars refuse to portray glamorization of promiscuity and drug use....like some stars refused to be seen smoking in their roles!

[Hicksey]

This one

Should Hollywood be held to account and made to pay for the results of polluting the minds of our young people with attitudes and ideals that are likely to cause harm to them? Why? Why not?

And then this one.

Do you believe, as I do, that such sensonalization is akin to polluting the minds of our young people with dangerous habits and ideals? Why? Why not?

Strong parenting? What a joke! Kids listen to their Hollywood idols, but they largely ignore their parents during the years that matter the most. Kids already get taught all about sex, the methods of birth control in school these days and what could happen as a result of not taking proper precautions.

You list the "40 Year Old Virgin" as a movie that highlights the use of condoms. You forgot one thing. That movie is intended for adults and is rated R. How is that supposed to teach them anything?

I listed that movie because I someone asked about a movie that showed condom use. I wasn't asked about one for kids. However, let's be clear: There are no restrictions on kids seeing these movies when they become DVDs or when they appear unedited on movie channels. The only thing stopping that would be a parent.

That's why I say strong parenting. Would you let your very young kids watch these movies? Would you not try to instill a message to them that shows your values in the face of the media, their peer group?

And Hollywood is held to account. They have a rating system. They don't let minors into films with adult content. They are criticized in various reports each year. They suffer at the box office for movies that cross the line.

There used to be a censors board. They used to say that you couldn't show a husband and wife in the same bed. They had to have two beds. Later on when they could show one bed, they had to ensure that one of the people had one foot on the floor.

Do you advocate going back to a censor board, one that cuts all swearing, violence, sexual content and controversial material out of film and TV?

So don't skirt the issue. Do you believe in blanket censorship on all those things to protect young and older minds alike?

Did I ever raise the issue of censorship? You keep shifting the focus of the question asked.

We know smoking kills but still it is legal. If Hollywood wants to continue to produce what they do because they feel it is their right to free speech, then fine. But if the consequences of them producing what they do costs society, why should they not be responisble for paying the costs?

If we can continue to leave other things that create social ills legal, but require the makers to contribrute to the costs of correcting the ills, why can we not apply this to Hollywood too? We can balance free-speech and the needs of society but making those that cause the ills to help pay to offset what they cause.

Again, why can we not hold Hollywood accoutable for the social ills they cause?

A rating system holds no one accountable. It does make it easier for parents, but as you so astutely pointed out, once these movies come out on DVD they are there for anyone to view. While I may do my job, as parents we usually never find out about the parents that don't until its too late.

[jdobbin]

I am not actually for censorship, believe it or not.

My point is: Why are the people behind the AIDS Conference deliberately ignoring the contributions of Hollywood to the problem?

It probably hasn't even crossed their minds. Perhaps next conference, you can present some peer reviewed research to support your theory and and it will get the exposure it needs.

[jdobbin]

I would like to see more big-named hollywood stars refuse to portray glamorization of promiscuity and drug use....like some stars refused to be seen smoking in their roles!

Some stars already have such clauses in their contracts.

[jdobbin]

What kind of strong parenting? Everybody meddles on how we parent a child nowadays!

The values a parent wants to instill in her child goes out the window as soon as the child steps into school! Then, it is the values of the school that prevails! And we know what values those are!

If the Liberals and the NDP will have their way, parents will even lose more ground in instilling their own family values on an infant...as soon as the kid enters a national daycare!

They don't go out the window when they go to school. Raise them at home, send them to religious schools. That's called stong parenting. And more and more parents are taking those decision into their hands.

Withdraw your kids from the NDP/Liberal value system. Be a parent.

Or vote to have all child support and daycare taken out of the system. Be a parent.

[jdobbin]

Did I ever raise the issue of censorship? You keep shifting the focus of the question asked.

We know smoking kills but still it is legal. If Hollywood wants to continue to produce what they do because they feel it is their right to free speech, then fine. But if the consequences of them producing what they do costs society, why should they not be responisble for paying the costs?

If we can continue to leave other things that create social ills legal, but require the makers to contribrute to the costs of correcting the ills, why can we not apply this to Hollywood too? We can balance free-speech and the needs of society but making those that cause the ills to help pay to offset what they cause.

Again, why can we not hold Hollywood accoutable for the social ills they cause?

A rating system holds no one accountable. It does make it easier for parents, but as you so astutely pointed out, once these movies come out on DVD they are there for anyone to view. While I may do my job, as parents we usually never find out about the parents that don't until its too late.

What sort of accountability do you want? Legislative? Because no one is going to do it voluntarily if they don't see it as a problem.

[geoffrey]

Well jdobbin, no one saw smoking in movies as an issue 30 years ago, then everyone started dying of lung cancer and heart disease by following the lifestyle of the 'cool' stars. Then it became an issue.

When everyone starts dying and getting sick (already happening) when they follow the current lifestyle and contract STDs and AIDS, then maybe it will become a similiar concern.

Societies need a crisis to fix problems like that, an AIDS outbreak in Canada would be a first step. They say in rural schools, it's pretty much like everyone is having sex with everyone else how intermixed the sexual relationships are in the small population group. One person gets AIDS, they all get it, and now it's a serious issue in Canada.

[jdobbin]

Well jdobbin, no one saw smoking in movies as an issue 30 years ago, then everyone started dying of lung cancer and heart disease by following the lifestyle of the 'cool' stars. Then it became an issue.

When everyone starts dying and getting sick (already happening) when they follow the current lifestyle and contract STDs and AIDS, then maybe it will become a similiar concern.

Societies need a crisis to fix problems like that, an AIDS outbreak in Canada would be a first step. They say in rural schools, it's pretty much like everyone is having sex with everyone else how intermixed the sexual relationships are in the small population group. One person gets AIDS, they all get it, and now it's a serious issue in Canada.

There is still smoking in movies, less so on TV.

What do you suggest? Legislation?

[geoffrey]

Well jdobbin, no one saw smoking in movies as an issue 30 years ago, then everyone started dying of lung cancer and heart disease by following the lifestyle of the 'cool' stars. Then it became an issue.

When everyone starts dying and getting sick (already happening) when they follow the current lifestyle and contract STDs and AIDS, then maybe it will become a similiar concern.

Societies need a crisis to fix problems like that, an AIDS outbreak in Canada would be a first step. They say in rural schools, it's pretty much like everyone is having sex with everyone else how intermixed the sexual relationships are in the small population group. One person gets AIDS, they all get it, and now it's a serious issue in Canada.

There is still smoking in movies, less so on TV.

What do you suggest? Legislation?

Nope, just responsible parents that turn off the boob tube.

[betsy]

I would like to see more big-named hollywood stars refuse to portray glamorization of promiscuity and drug use....like some stars refused to be seen smoking in their roles!

Some stars already have such clauses in their contracts.

Which ones?

They need to be publicized. That's the whole point. The stars' lifestyles are often copy-catted by the public.

It says much about a star as a person if she/he doesn't want to contribute to the glamorization of promiscuity and drug use. I wish them well.

[betsy]

There is still smoking in movies, less so on TV.

But the big publicity about the crack-down on those stars....the pressure put on them.....it brought the issue to the people. Suddenly, smoking was not associated to "being cool" anymore.

And as you said, there is less smoking being portrayed now. And, the character is usually shown trying to quit smoking.

A far cry from how smokers were being portrayed on films before the anti-smoking campaign began.

[jdobbin]

Which ones?

They need to be publicized. That's the whole point. The stars' lifestyles are often copy-catted by the public.

It says much about a star as a person if she/he doesn't want to contribute to the glamorization of promiscuity and drug use. I wish them well.

Sarah Jessica Parker has a no nudity clause and no body double clause. Ditto for Jessica Alba, Neve Campbell. Charlize Theoren just put a no- nudity clause in her contract. All the above stars have had some previous nude or semi-nude scenes.

They've all done promiscuous movies though so it probably isn't as tough a standard as you might want.

Other celebrities have no smoking clauses and no drug use in their contracts.

There are some religious celebrities who have been trying over the years to steer their careers to more family oriented fare.

Hollywood is a tough business and celebrities doen't like to tell their age, reveal that they have had surgery or indicate publicly that they won't do certain movies.

[betsy]

I am not actually for censorship, believe it or not.

My point is: Why are the people behind the AIDS Conference deliberately ignoring the contributions of Hollywood to the problem?

It probably hasn't even crossed their minds. Perhaps next conference, you can present some peer reviewed research to support your theory and and it will get the exposure it needs.

Why hasn't it crossed their minds?

[jdobbin]

But the big publicity about the crack-down on those stars....the pressure put on them.....it brought the issue to the people. Suddenly, smoking was not associated to "being cool" anymore.

And as you said, there is less smoking being portrayed now. And, the character is usually shown trying to quit smoking.

A far cry from how smokers were being portrayed on films before the anti-smoking campaign began.

It is why artists often try to hide the cigarettes in paparazzi pics. It doesn't look good.

But sex continues to sell in the U.S.

One of the few people to go after promiscuity and violence in music and movies has been Tipper Gore, a Democrat.

[jdobbin]

Why hasn't it crossed their minds?

Because scientists don't communicate as much as they should with sociologists.

One of the things the conferences have done is bring scientists of different disciplines together. The cancer researcher talking to the demographer, the demographer talking to the psychologist, etc.

For many years, the anti-smoking lobby never looked at TV or film as being connected to smoking. Their initial thoughts were solely on the advertizing of the product. It took a while to look at TV and film content.

[betsy]

Why hasn't it crossed their minds?

Because scientists don't communicate as much as they should with sociologists.

One of the things the conferences have done is bring scientists of different disciplines together. The cancer researcher talking to the demographer, the demographer talking to the psychologist, etc.

For many years, the anti-smoking lobby never looked at TV or film as being connected to smoking. Their initial thoughts were solely on the advertizing of the product. It took a while to look at TV and film content.

Does it really needs rocket science to figure out the influence of Hollywood?

They don't even need to do massive research on that. Various researches and findings and editorials and news articles had already touched on this subject.

They've definitely touched on that when they found young teens were becoming increasingly anorexic....not surprisingly, along with young stars who looked like they've just come out of concentration camps! Bulimia became oh so very much in the limelight! Our kids are emulating bulimic stars!

Yeah, the anti-smoking lobby never looked at Hollywood.....but THERE'S NO EXCUSE for the AIDS Conference not to look FIRST and FOREMOST at...and take a very looooong look at Hollywood....thanks to the initiative of the anti-smoking lobby!

So, if this AIDS is indeed so dire a situation....I would say the AIDS Conference did not do its homework.

It's a hodge-podge. For them to deliberately overlook that venue to promote information WORLD-WIDE, something that wields quite an influence in changing habits, thinking and behaviour......it is nothing more than just another....typical posturing....something the liberals are very good at.

Nah. There's nothing to worry if you're not promiscious! And don't share needles. Is all.

[watching&waiting]

The aids conference is nothing more then a money making event where many people who want to be known for donating can do so at these events and then they can get the warm and fuzzy feelings the seek. There are many times this number who have donated the vast majority of the money trying to do so without the fan fare and recognition for doing so. The event is n0othing more then another charity looking to get funding by trying to sir in us emotions that we may not normally have.

I see no need for any celebrity to feel so compelled that they go to this, out of an obligation type feeling. If the event organizers feel that they have some how had their invitations snubbed by some, that is not a news worthy item, and they only do them selves harm by taking issue with this. I am quite familiar with aids and its mechanisms only because I was studying biochemistry in college when it was first found to be a growing issue here in North America. I learned many things and yes I do know how it can be caught and the ways and methods to be safe around this. But I would not want to be working in a hospice as a person donating my time for free. I am not comfortable around those who have aids, no matter how many precautions have been made. Yet I do not feel that level of uncertainty around people who are just HIV+.

Yes I do know that in Africa there are who populations that are HIV+ and they are going to die of aids because they can not get or afford treatment. But the same can be said for those who have ruptured appendixes and can not make it to a surgery etc. That stuff just does happen, even though it would not happen here in our cities etc. I find the whole aids conferences to be a huge publicity event aimed at getting maximum dollar and publicity for their cause. I can accept that, but to blame people for not coming, that just shows a level of entitlement that is equal only to the liberals that have been turfed. The PM sent the Health minister in his place, which was way more fitting and the GG in other aspects which again should have quenched the conferences thirst for celebrity.

It seems though that the Liberal youth group is determined to make this a political issue, even though there should be none. That tells me that it will be at least 2 generations before the liberla will be able to clease the stink of wanton thievery and entiltlement from their midsts. It already has infected the youth wing so it will need to wited for a new geration of children before they can remove the stink of the sponsorship and the rot within the bowels of their party. It is too bad that they have decided to make this a political issue which then will ruin the true nature of what the aids conference should have been. Even thought the conference is more a money raising issue, it would do better if the politics were left out of it.

[jdobbin]

Nah. There's nothing to worry if you're not promiscious! And don't share needles. Is all.

The only way to get Hollywood to do what you want is to re-institute the censor board. Then they could remove the undesireable components that you mention. Instead of ratings then, you would have a group of people ensuring that things don't get into production in the first place.

Hollywood has has it before, they can have it again if you pressure them to do so.

[jdobbin]

It seems though that the Liberal youth group is determined to make this a political issue, even though there should be none. That tells me that it will be at least 2 generations before the liberla will be able to clease the stink of wanton thievery and entiltlement from their midsts. It already has infected the youth wing so it will need to wited for a new geration of children before they can remove the stink of the sponsorship and the rot within the bowels of their party. It is too bad that they have decided to make this a political issue which then will ruin the true nature of what the aids conference should have been. Even thought the conference is more a money raising issue, it would do better if the politics were left out of it.

If Harper wanted to lave the politics out it, he would have let his health minister makes his AIDs announcement without interfering.

And the stink of the Mulroney years still seems to influence the Conservatives today when they end the military procurement policy for dubious "national security" reasons. No one is fooled by that code language for goodies for provinces that the Conservatives need to win.

[betsy]

Nah. There's nothing to worry if you're not promiscious! And don't share needles. Is all.

The only way to get Hollywood to do what you want is to re-institute the censor board. Then they could remove the undesireable components that you mention. Instead of ratings then, you would have a group of people ensuring that things don't get into production in the first place.

Hollywood has has it before, they can have it again if you pressure them to do so.

No one censored smoking in films...and yet Hollywood did its share to support it!

Hollywood knows the mastery of HYPE! If you manage to get Hollywood on the bandwagon, you've already got it made!

[jdobbin]

No one censored smoking in films...and yet Hollywood did its share to support it!

Hollywood knows the mastery of HYPE! If you manage to get Hollywood on the bandwagon, you've already got it made!

There is still smoking in feature films. It is TV where they have voluntarily eliminated it on major networks. You can still find it happening on cable.