The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is the latest school doing everything they can to shut down and silence any conservative voice on campus. I am an alumnus of this school who luckily had great teachers while acquiring a major in film studies (of all things). Unfortunately, there was nothing but horror stories from my friends taking courses in communication (some of which I took) and sociology. Even worse was trying to find anyone who would refer to anything conservative as something other than “controversial.” This is a university that prides itself on bringing Martin Luther King to campus decades ago when he was a “controversial” speaker. Today, controversy is anything Right of the leftist mafia on campus.

It took me a while to realize how radical the campus was because my film professors (even the far-Left ones) were willing to have civil discussions about politics, which were always pleasant and welcomed. In fact, most of them would avoid politics altogether because it wasn’t a pivotal part of the coursework in the majority of classes. What opened my eyes was the first time I saw how conservative guest-speakers were treated on campus by the students. I’ve long heard about issues of indoctrination in humanities courses, that’s not what I saw here. Instead, what I witnessed at UWM was bigger than a single academic department.

As with any conservative speaker at most universities there is always an attempt from the Left’s foot soldiers to shout down the guest in an attempt to silence their voice. When I was still a student at UWM, I attended a speech by conservative activist David Horowitz which endured consistent and disrespectful disruptions (not to mention that he was subject to an anti-Semitic cartoon being distributed around campus prior to the event). The atmosphere was even worse when former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat was invited to speak about the threats of radical Islam. Neither of these speakers are “Right-wingers” by any means, but their voice was not tolerated. Because of threats, both events required security which should not have been necessary.

On April 25th the UWM College Republicans invited Karl Rove to speak at their campus. Able to predict how the Left would try to disrupt the event, the College Republicans found a way to thwart leftist attempts to shout down an invited speaker to campus. They were able to distribute tickets themselves and through local conservative radio host Vicki McKenna. This helped fill the front rows with donors or supporters and also helped for security purposes. The reaction from the democrats and allies in the Student Association (SA) on campus was to attack the College Republicans, fighting to cut their funding.

Read the rest at Big Government

When a new episode of South Park airs, it is generally available for streaming shortly thereafter from South Park Studios. In the case of “201,” we got this message:

Following this message, there was a long list of people upset that the network, who has courageously stood by South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone over the years, decided to cower in the corner and bleep important sections of episode “201.” In fact, Muhammed was shown in a bear suit, an obvious play on the fear of showing Muhammed on TV. Even that was censored out (important note: Comedy Central has allowed South Park to show Muhammed in the past). As the dust settled, many people (including myself) felt that the truth would be told and free speech will prevail, on some level, when the episode comes out on the season 14 DVD.

Continue reading….

Political intimidation is alive and well in this country. Anyone who believes that Hollywood has the power to make any film they want without consequence must be dreaming. You may remember what happened to the excellent docudrama The Path to 9/11 in 2006. The scared-to-death Clinton camp was so terrified that they pushed with all of their might to get the program pulled from the air. Fortunately it did get one single airing in two parts.

Regardless, the Clintons used their pull at Disney (who owns ABC) to intimidate producers, writers and anyone else involved in the project. People like Bob Iger and Anne Sweeney at Disney were pivotal in trashing the series. To this day the DVD is not available for this film and is strategically locked in the Disney vault. Anyone who has seen the film knows that it is not libelous to anyone and is a fair depiction of the events leading up to 9/11.

This trend continues as political intimidation proves useful while freedom of speech is constantly threatened.

Over the last week or so we’ve seen a similar fate to a new series, The Kennedys, which was supposed to air on The History Channel. Members of the political Left rounded up the usual suspects and theories to blame this series on purposeful misinformation by the Right. The History channel ultimately dropped the series but it did spark the interest of Showtime who also backed out. If there is any good to come out of this, maybe the filmmakers who worked on The Kennedys will be spared the death threats that were flung at those involved with The Path to 9/11. That is, unless DirecTV picks it up.

The New York Post reports on how the Kennedy Machine forced The History Channel into taking a 30 million dollar bath:

Caroline Kennedy had leveled an ultimatum to the companies — dump the reportedly warts- and-all miniseries or lose her cooperation in the planned fall release of never-before-heard conversations with her mother.

Hollywood insider Nikki Finke reports the real motivation for the cancellation:

I hear the stunning cancellation, which was done after the mini had been completed, was done under political pressure from the Kennedy family who were not comfortable with the project coming out in the year of the 50th anniversary of Camelot. History is part of the A&E Networks, which is co-owned by the Walt Disney Co. Disney’s interest in the company is overseen by Disney-ABC TV Group president Anne Sweeney who is an A&E Networks board member.

The companies offered to send DVD copies to the Kennedys to approve before airing but they declined. This only proves that they believed the spin created about the project. This is eerily similar to how Bill Clinton wouldn’t take the time to see The Path to 9/11 before calling for its burial. I have it from a good source also confirming that Anne Sweeney was pivotal in getting this project scrapped (and was obviously pressured by the Kennedy family’s Iron Fist). It should surprise no one that she was also in part responsible for banishing The Path to 9/11 and has cited that as a good reason to do away with The Kennedys.

In addition, filmmaker Robert Greenwald led a campaign to “correct” the problems with The Kennedys which he felt was driven by Right-wing conspiracy brought on by conservative producer Joel Surnow (of 24 fame). He didn’t find the series accurate and blames Surnow’s involvement as the primary problem (then goes on a rant against FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, etc). I have also been hearing that Greenwald has been spreading lies about this show around Hollywood for some time. Greenwald appears laughably offended over this new series and is called out as not understanding artistic license in the video below.

Greenwald was just a foot soldier for the Kennedy family and clearly aided in the kind of censorship that the Left was up in arms about in 1950s Hollywood. Did they not learn anything from the HUAC hearings? Do they now condone the kind of blacklist mentality their peers condemned 60 years ago? Hollywood cannot be afraid of political relics and needs desperately to prove they will not be silenced. It is scary to know that they will bow to this thinly veiled intimidation. We didn’t see the Bush family show any insecurity when a film was being made about George W. Bush being assassinated while he was still a sitting president.

In fairness, we should note that about ten years ago something similar happened to a series about the Reagan family that was bounced around after conservative uproar. The fact is that trying to silence projects, regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum is destructive. The series ended up playing on Showtime anyway, rendering any outcry about the show pointless. The Kennedys is still scheduled to air in Canada and will likely get a DVD release which will make the noise in the US over this project that much more unnecessary.

Today there are so many options from Hollywood, an endless number of stories told from different angles. There is no reason anyone would believe that a single film or series is the final word on anything. Hollywood’s role in such projects is to dramatize history and more times than not to “print the legend.” In this Age of Information everyone can find dirt about these high profile families in a single Internet search. The Clinton and Kennedy families are so disconnected that they actually feel one hour of TV might change what we already know. Hollywood should be stronger than to bow to such ignorance.

See original post at Parcbench

Originally published October 10, 2010.

For many, South Park is one of the most important shows on television because of how it consistently punches the left. A few years ago, Brian Anderson wrote South Park Conservatives, which discussed the growing trend that is a new brand of youth conservatism. The politics of my generation, Gen Y, have been discussed at length by myself and David Swindle among others here at Newsreal Blog (Click here to read more). Many of us identify with the show’s countercultural approach to leftist establishment, which has become a societal norm in the form of destructive political correctness.

Before South Park was known for being the irreplaceable social commentators that they are, the show was seen by many as useless toilet humor. Today, it is known for powerful messages that are thinly hidden underneath lowbrow humor. Even in the early seasons we can see the makings of the series we know and love today.

South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have a keen eye for calling out BS when they see it. In addition, they also have the courage to stand against any threat to our freedoms. Earlier this year, the show made waves by taking on a radical Islamic group in New York City who threatened the show’s creators after they depicted Mohammed in a bear suit. Unfortunately, the show was censored by the once unafraid network Comedy Central. To this day, you cannot see “episode 201” at SouthParkStudios.com, where every other episode can be seen in full.

The tenacity of Parker and Stone, as well as willingness to lampoon even the most powerful politicians and celebrities is why so many have continued to appreciate what these guys bring to the table each week. In the subsequent pages, I will discuss my five favorite episodes that ridicule and take down the Left, in only the obscene and hyberbolic fashion that South Park has perfected.

Warning: videos in the following pages contain foul language

Anyone going to see the new DreamWorks animation film Megamind this weekend will notice something interesting midway through. There are actually people in Hollywood who will mock President Obama’s campaign, showing “No, You Can’t” signs that represent the “Yes, We Can” signs that were plastered all over college campuses and hybrid vehicles two years ago. While showing such a thing may or may not be a poke at Obama’s policies, it’s nice to see that he is not so holy that Hollywood is afraid to have any fun with him.

Hollywood has long been a place of untouchable superstars and mega-corporations. It is hard to imagine something like Disney or Warner Brothers going into the ditch. But, alas, the once monumental MGM studios has filed for bankruptcy protection. An obvious parallel to our current state of government can be drawn here. Maybe the posters in Megamind are unintentionally on to something; while the country is going down the drain even the Tinsel Town elitists have found a way to say “No, You Can’t!” without actually saying it.

While California is still a solidly blue state, others recently turned red including my home state of Wisconsin where all private businesses are releasing a collective sigh of relief. Even if Hollywood is the oasis of hard core leftism, Variety’s Ted Johnson is reporting that such a landscape may change slightly as the Right begins to gain momentum by using entertainment to their advantage. However, that is by no means to say the industry is going to turn into a safe-zone for the Republicans:

Hollywood’s investment in this year’s midterms was substantial, but rather than pull away from Democrats, Hollywood doubled down, showering the party and its candidates with even greater sums than in 2006, when the prospects were much better. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, showbiz donors gave $15.7 million to Democrats this cycle and $5.9 million to Republicans, a 72%-27% split that reflected the industry’s continued leftward tilt.

Anyone hoping to have the American film and entertainment world turn into a water carrying entity for the Right needs to dream on. However, it will be nice to see some conservative candidates utilize their contacts in Hollywood to at least balance its political exposure somewhat. For example, Sarah Palin has obviously capitalized on her fame with book deals and television shows. Maybe President Obama should takes notes from Palin and quit office before going on a constant campaign for popularity.

Sequels are a big risk in Hollywood, especially when they are driven by ideology. Sure, some franchises can carry their audience through multiple films, but not all of them are Harry Potter. Many of the best filmmakers working today such as Clint Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, the Coen Brothers, David Fincher and Christopher Nolan have been successful thanks to their enthusiastic originality. Sure, Nolan brought back the Batman legacy (and is slotted to do a third installment) but also took a break to prove his respect deserves tenure with Inception last summer.

The latest director to try and milk a franchise is James Cameron, who put together the wildly successful Avatar last year. From a financial perspective this makes sense, but we know Cameron has the coin to provide the freedom to pursue his environmentalist creed. The latest word is that the film will have two sequels, coming out in 2014 and 2015. Though Avatar was a box office home run, not everyone should be excited about the return to Pandora…or the thought of six more hours of recruitment for eco-terrorists.

Even Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times, who often carries water for the Left, weighs in on his concerns about sequels and Cameron specifically:

When you leave the theater, you feel somewhere between disappointed and ripped off. I’ve never felt that way leaving a Jim Cameron movie, because his films were invariably cause for great anticipation. I know “Avatar 2″ isn’t coming until 2014, but, for now, I’m thinking about the whole project with far more dread than desire.

Cameron, while one of the standard Left-leaning filmmakers in Hollywood, has been known for being one of the more original artists behind the camera. Thinking back, many of my favorite films have the Cameron stamp on them. The Terminator, Aliens, Terminator 2 and True Lies are what many of us remember him for. Of course, until one day when he checked his hard earned credentials at the door and got behind the beloved chick flick Titanic. After which he waited long enough for most of us to write him off only to show up again with another film that was in deep need of an editor. Only this time he injected his leftist ideology into every frame.

Most if not all directors have movies they wish they didn’t make when it was all over. In addition, film lovers usually forgive their favorite filmmakers for a movie or two that strays from his or her usual style. After all, the best writers and directors are usually willing to take risks with their standard content as well as with new material. In Cameron’s case, most of us forgave him for Titanic and maybe even let Avatar slide because Terminator 2 was so frickin’ awesome. The problem now is that Cameron has made the decision to take the next decade and devote it to his radical ideology, pumping it into two more lengthy yarns about blue people crying about the evil Americans and their ignorance regarding the environment.

Threatening two more Avatar films doesn’t sound like the best idea to me. In fact, it sounds a lot like a filmmaker desperately trying to become relevant again after taking over a decade off. Cameron clearly didn’t learn when he fully expected to win the best picture Oscar only to have it go to his ex-wife for her great film, The Hurt Locker. Something must be up when Hollywood doesn’t give an Oscar to a popular film full of eco-terrorism. Maybe there actually are some on the Left that didn’t drink the Cameron kool-aid.

It should be of no surprise that the man who played Dirty Harry wouldn’t be carrying water for our celebrity-in-chief Barack Obama. Katie Couric recently interviewed Clint Eastwood about his new film, Hereafter, but also discussed politics towards the end of the video. The actor/director, who has long been one of the level headed people working in Hollywood, expresses frustration with politicians who make good speeches but have no clue how to do their job.

Eastwood was a one term mayor of a small city in California and he left the position because it’s important to have someone else come in. Term limits are something many of us can agree with right now given the current state of Washington. When asked about Obama, Eastwood responded:

I think he is a nice fellow and I enjoyed watching him come along and enjoyed watching him campaign and win the job but I’m not a fan of what he is doing at the moment.

Couric asks him why, he responds:

Because I just don’t think he is governing, I don’t think he has surrounded himself with the kind of people he could have surrounded himself with and he’s doing just what we were talking about. He is having to lay out a certain line and hope people will believe it so he can stay in the position.

At 80 years young, Eastwood is as smart and talented as he has ever been. Continuously rolling out films ahead of schedule and under budget, Eastwood’s storied career shows no signs of standing for the games Obama is playing. We wouldn’t expect anything less from Dirty Harry.

It should be of no surprise that the man who played Dirty Harry wouldn’t be carrying water for our celebrity-in-chief Barack Obama. Katie Couric recently interviewed Clint Eastwood about his new film, Hereafter, but also discussed politics towards the end of the video. The actor/director, who has long been one of the level headed people working in Hollywood, expresses frustration with politicians who make good speeches but have no clue how to do their job.

Eastwood was a one term mayor of a small city in California and he left the position because it’s important to have someone else come in. Term limits are something many of us can agree with right now given the current state of Washington. When asked about Obama, Eastwood responded:

I think he is a nice fellow and I enjoyed watching him come along and enjoyed watching him campaign and win the job but I’m not a fan of what he is doing at the moment.

Couric asks him why, he responds:

Because I just don’t think he is governing, I don’t think he has surrounded himself with the kind of people he could have surrounded himself with and he’s doing just what we were talking about. He is having to lay out a certain line and hope people will believe it so he can stay in the position.

At 80 years young, Eastwood is as smart and talented as he has ever been. Continuously rolling out films ahead of schedule and under budget, Eastwood’s storied career continues while he shows no signs of standing for the games Obama is playing. We wouldn’t expect anything else for Dirty Harry.

Comedians have been using humor as a way to comment on serious matters as long as I can remember (and even longer than that). Growing up I enjoyed listening to comics like George Carlin who always called it like they saw it. One didn’t have to agree with everything Carlin said to appreciate how he despised the political correctness common on the Left. There is something about comedy that allows us to say things we are otherwise afraid to say.

Liberal guilt has spread itself so deep that far too many people have lost the courage to stand up against evil if it means the smallest chance of offending “someone else.” After all, the wars in the Middle East are more than a dust up between two sissies in a sandbox. Thankfully we have South Park who is able to use comedy to make certain points that are taboo in Hollywood.

South Park, like Carlin, uses comedy to make harsh social criticisms. Where the series steps further is in acknowledging that true evil exists and needs to be fought. This is something that Hollywood often forgets and assumes that the thought of stopping terrorism is something for the far Right loonies.

Earlier this year, creators of South Park Matt Stone and Trey Parker were threatened by a video posted at revolutionmuslim.com. The controversy started with the show’s 200^th episode “depicting” the prophet Muhammad in a bear suit. This, of course, was reason enough for extremists to threaten death to Parker and Stone, hoping they end up like murdered filmmaker Theo Van Gogh. The show aimed to hit back with a rant about censorship and intimidation, but was silenced by Comedy Central and Viacom who were cowering in fear.

Last Wednesday’s episode took on the guido crowd from New Jersey who has been made famous by the notorious Jersey Shore program on MTV. In a stroke of bad luck usual for the residents of South Park, Jersey had taken over half of the United States and is now closing in on their town.  Complete with orange skin, overworked biceps, gold chains and enough hair products to withstand a hurricane; the garden state’s stupidest and loudest come marching into town.

The locals decide to set up a barricade and stand their ground by arming themselves at the border. The problem is that the number of guidos is uncontrollable and South Park will need help. After being denied assistance from all of our allies, Randy decides to take a drastic measure and reaches out to one of our enemies, Al-Qaeda. Though, Randy’s motivations are not quite what we think.

"Who ya gonna call?"

One of my favorite films growing up was Ghostbusters. Great comic talents Dan Aykroyd (who plays Dr. Ray Stantz), Harold Ramis ( Dr. Egon Spengler) and Bill Murray (Dr. Peter Venkman) were scientists studying supernatural phenomenon on a university grant until one day their funding was cut. Upon discussing where they could work, knowing no other university in the area would take them, the idea of looking beyond state funding came up. “I’ve worked in the private sector before,” says an unconfident Ray, “they expect results.”

One day Ray finds a solution and buys a hearse to turn into a cruiser and a rundown fire station to fix up to fit their needs. “This building should be condemned,” says an unimpressed Egon, “and this neighborhood feels like a demilitarized zone.” Looking beyond their concerns, the Ghostbusters decide to try a private sector solution to their financial problems. Once their mortgage was on the line, they needed to deliver.

We all had superheroes to look up to when we were young. Some of them were fictional, like Superman, Batman or even the Ghostbusters, showing off their unique abilities and gadgets for us to marvel at on the big screen. Others were real such as our parents, relatives or teachers (if you were lucky) that directly influence our everyday life. Both of them are important in shaping our lives.

Great teachers are like superheroes. This is the mindset of Geoffrey Canada, an educator and social activist who took on the worst education system in New York State and narrates a good bit of Waiting for Superman. One of the most frustrating elements of the film is not that horrible teachers cannot be fired; it’s that the unions are set up to prohibit rewarding the good ones.

Anyone who has gone through the public school system knows that not all teachers are created equal. I was quite fortunate to have had good teachers while some of my friends were stuck with the duds, so to speak.  Waiting For Superman chronicles the journey of a few families with a glimmer of hope of a better education for their kids. Some are fortunate enough to get in to private schools through a lottery system, others are not as fortunate. The problem is that parents who try to do the right thing for their kids are not always allowed to.

Education is broken in our country, as the film shows us, with kids falling way behind in every category except for confidence. This highlights an illusion from both students and teachers alike of what is acceptable performance. There is no accountability from today’s public school teachers who blame parents and even students for their poor grades. What this film proves is that the system needs reform when we see good parents and administrators rendered helpless due to the iron fist of destructive teachers unions.

For many, South Park is one of the most important shows on television because of how it consistently punches the left. A few years ago, Brian Anderson wrote South Park Conservatives, which discussed the growing trend that is a new brand of youth conservatism. The politics of my generation, Gen Y, have been discussed at length by myself and David Swindle among others here at Newsreal Blog (Click here to read more). Many of us identify with the show’s countercultural approach to leftist establishment, which has become a societal norm in the form of destructive political correctness.

Before South Park was known for being the irreplaceable social commentators that they are, the show was seen by many as useless toilet humor. Today, it is known for powerful messages that are thinly hidden underneath lowbrow humor. Even in the early seasons we can see the makings of the series we know and love today.

South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have a keen eye for calling out BS when they see it. In addition, they also have the courage to stand against any threat to our freedoms. Earlier this year, the show made waves by taking on a radical Islamic group in New York City who threatened the show’s creators after they depicted Mohammed in a bear suit. Unfortunately, the show was censored by the once unafraid network Comedy Central. To this day, you cannot see “episode 201” at SouthParkStudios.com, where every other episode can be seen in full.

The tenacity of Parker and Stone, as well as willingness to lampoon even the most powerful politicians and celebrities is why so many have continued to appreciate what these guys bring to the table each week. In the subsequent pages, I will discuss my five favorite episodes that ridicule and take down the Left, in only the obscene and hyberbolic fashion that South Park has perfected.

Warning: videos in the following pages contain foul language

For many, South Park is one of the most important shows on television because of how it consistently punches the left. A few years ago, Brian Anderson wrote South Park Conservatives, which discussed the growing trend that is a new brand of youth conservatism. The politics of my generation, Gen Y, have been discussed at length by myself and David Swindle among others here at Newsreal Blog (Click here to read more). Many of us identify with the show’s countercultural approach to leftist establishment, which has become a societal norm in the form of destructive political correctness.

Before South Park was known for being the irreplaceable social commentators that they are, the show was seen by many as useless toilet humor. Today, it is known for powerful messages that are thinly hidden underneath lowbrow humor. Even in the early seasons we can see the makings of the series we know and love today.

South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have a keen eye for calling out BS when they see it. In addition, they also have the courage to stand against any threat to our freedoms. Earlier this year, the show made waves by taking on a radical Islamic group in New York City who threatened the show’s creators after they depicted Mohammed in a bear suit. Unfortunately, the show was censored by the once unafraid network Comedy Central. To this day, you cannot see “episode 201” at SouthParkStudios.com, where every other episode can be seen in full.

The tenacity of Parker and Stone, as well as willingness to lampoon even the most powerful politicians and celebrities is why so many have continued to appreciate what these guys bring to the table each week. In the subsequent pages, I will discuss my five favorite episodes that take ridicule and take down the Left, in only the obscene and hyberbolic fashion that South Park has perfected.

Warning: videos in the following pages contain foul language

I'm pretty sure this wasn't Secretariat...

A few years ago, my girlfriend (a devoted horse lover) made me sit through Seabiscuit. I spent the whole time wondering why Jeff Bridges signed on to the project. It an act of consistency, I also eventually sat through the atrocious Flicka, though I refuse to watch the sequel (I have to draw a line somewhere).

I like horses, but lets be honest, films based on them are usually less than stellar. At worst, they are mildly annoying. At best, they give me no reservations about getting up to grab another beer. While there are a ton of reasons for a critic to destroy these films in a review, one thing I never thought would be a focal point when discussing the new Secretariat film is master-race paranoia.

In the midst of “Hope and Change,” Bush Derangement Syndrome is still alive and well with a never ending barrage of Hitler analogies two years into Obama’s first term. This child-like tactic, triggered by fear, is exactly what prompted the Clinton Machine to scare Disney and ABC into silencing The Path to 9/11 miniseries that was wildly successful (more info here).  However, according to some fire breathing leftists at Salon, “family-friendly” is just code for fascist entertainment.

Oozing with leftist paranoia, Salon writer Andrew O’Hehir weighs in on Disney’s Secretariat:

I enjoyed it immensely, flat-footed dialogue and implausible situations and all. Which doesn’t stop me from believing that in its totality “Secretariat” is a work of creepy, half-hilarious master-race propaganda almost worthy of Leni Riefenstahl, and all the more effective because it presents as a family-friendly yarn about a nice lady and her horse.

For those who don’t know, Riefenstahl was a filmmaker hired by Adolf Hitler to make propaganda films. In fact,her talent, regardless of her fascist sympathies, inspired many influential filmmakers; including George Lucas who wanted to duplicate some of her technical expertise from Triumph of the Will in his Star Wars films.

Of course, O’Hehir’s intentions are not to refer to talent but to cry “master-race” at a movie about a horse. He thinks that the Right is using sneaky Alinsky tactics to push a radical agenda in a film produced by a company that has been controlled by the intimidation of leftists. This makes absolutely no sense, one has to wonder which film this clown was actually watching.

Editor’s Note: Click here for past installments of the series.

Are Nascar drivers (and fans) stupid? Certainly not, but South Park’s Eric Cartman swallows the stereotype hook, line and sinker. In order to fulfill his dream of becoming a race car driver, Cartman decides he has to become “poor and stupid.” By giving his money to Butters (the show’s most impressionable character) and drinking copious amounts of Vagisil, Cartman becomes broke and dumb enough for professional racing.

However, Cartman’s ignorance comes through with flying colors. It’s clear that Nascar drivers and fans are not stupid and Cartman’s charade is based off of an incorrect stereotype. During a press conference, we hear other drivers talking intelligently about the upcoming race while Cartman butts in (with a horrible southern accent) and says the dumbest things he can think of. Shortly thereafter, he puts out a podcast talking about how “friggin gay” President Obama is.

While playing on such stereotypes is humorous, it ultimately shows us how actually believing them is truly stupid. Dishonest assumptions like this are made all of the time about conservatives for many reasons, culminating in the Gold Standard “stupid, racist, conservative Christian.”

The “stupid Nascar fan” is an extension of the view that everyone with a southern accent is dumb. We can see the same assumption the Left makes about Sarah Palin based on the way she speaks. One thing that ties all of these stereotypes together for the Left is the brain-dead assertion that these people and groups are also religious fanatics, which is what really makes them intolerant, racist, and of course idiots by default.

In my experience growing up, I only had to deal with one extreme or the other. It was either Godly zealots or anti-Christian pessimists (usually in the form of a union-bred teacher). My family was not very religious, so it was up to me to find my own ground. Without seeing many moderate Christians, it was difficult for me to assume they exist. As an agnostic, I began to develop a level of contempt for the religious Right, though it did not hinder my belief in conservatism.

Even though I grew up in an area dominated by the far Right, there were none of these “hate mongering religious fanatics” the Left often rails about. However, my disagreement with my spiritual friends over abortion and gay rights often made me wonder if these social church-going Right-wingers really were terribly out of touch.

As my understanding of Left and Right grew, it became clearer that one side was obviously worse than the other. While dealing with one leftist professor after another in my first years as an undergraduate, it became clear to me that the progressive’s own faith was far worse than that of any social, spiritual conservative.

Click here to buy Iron Man 2 and support pro-American themes in Hollywood

Hooray for Hollywood!! Yes, we can celebrate because the DVD of Iron Man 2, a conservative superhero, is currently flying off the shelves, soaring over the one million copy mark on the day it was released (five million at end of week)! It certainly appears that a hero that knows how to combat true (not cliche) evil, can be a great business decision. Maybe Hollywood missed that memo (and the one before that).

Corporate and Middle America, our military and national defense teams, as well as Christians are the usual suspects when Tinsel Town is looking for a standard enemy. Many of us were raving when this film came out, understanding exactly why it would be so successful:

Just like Iron Man, its sequel has all of the elements for a guaranteed commercial success. Acknowledging the fight between good and evil as well as the importance of the free market is something that resonates with many Americans in today’s political climate (and was also proven with the success of the first film). Tony Stark endures as a hip personification of capitalism with his humorous charm and eternal drive for success not to mention interest in national security. Stark Industries has privatized world peace, what could be better?

As I recently discussed, having real world villains and heroes is always going to be a winning combination. Look at the difference in how you feel when you watch Jason Bourne battling our own CIA versus when you see Jack Bauer help take down a terrorist cell. While the Bourne films are exciting from a visual standpoint, movies and shows like 24 are satisfying in a “don’t mess with the free world” kind of way.

Bravo to Director John Favreau and the Iron Man franchise who were able to not once, but twice advocate small government, private enterprise, national defense and wave it in the face of leftist Hollywood.

The action genre has long provided a safe zone for conservatives. Where else could Jack Ryan, John McLane, and Jack Bauer do their dirty work? There are plenty of films that depict evil without apologizing for the desire to destroy it. Films like Die Hard, Patriot games, Air Force One, and True Lies work because the enemies are made up of real world, evil villains.

So what can ruin a great action film? Well, one that is riddled with so-called liberal villains (you know, traditional America).  Some popular action films in the last decade, The Bourne Identity series, give us the typical, America-hating, leftist wet dream. This is typical from writer Tony Gilroy, who wrote the first three films and is slotted to direct the fourth (The Bourne Legacy).

Most action films work because they depict true evil and seek to destroy it, something the left has yet to figure out.

It isn’t difficult to make a trigger happy action junkie heroic when you put him up against real evil instead of the tired and cliché progressive enemies (American military, government and capitalism). The difference between a forgettable action film and one worth multiple viewings is in the justification of the conflict we are watching. Over time seeing a “hero” attack Americans gets old, however, seeing someone take on the heinous and very real sex trafficking trade provides useful satisfaction. This is precisely the case in Luc Besson’s Taken, a must see for conservatives sick of leftist Hollywood.

The Left even took issue last year with Inglourious Basterds that had a group of vigilante soldiers scalping Nazis in World War II. Since when were we supposed to feel bad for the Nazis? By all means, we should be able to collectively justify (or not cry about) violence against a group who tried to ethnically cleanse an entire race into extinction. The reason the Nazis were a standard bad guy for numerous films over the decades is because no honest human can sympathize with them.

Films like Taken and Basterds have justified violence because the villains are truly evil. Having an American business, government organization, or private enterprise as the enemy is not only dishonest, it’s proof that the filmmaker is terribly misinformed about the nature of evil. That isn’t saying that leftist filmmakers need to embrace conservative ideals, though they could mix up the bad guys in their films outside of the standard capitalist/entrepreneur or American military/CIA/FBI (etc).

America does have enemies, who are real villains, oozing with true evil. After all, Big Business isn’t trying to make the United States “Sharia compliant.” Radical Muslim fundamentalists are, however. If there is any easier way to justify a villain than one who condones the stoning of women and gays, feel free to let me know. Very few Hollywood productions have the courage to depict terrorists as they are in this post 9/11 world. This is what made a show like 24 so great, the creators understood evil.

The Bourne films can be fun to watch (if you can handle the nauseating shaky cam), the series lacks no energy and is extremely fast-paced. This is all spoiled, unfortunately, when we realize that America (our own CIA) is the villain. Why can’t the Left understand who the real enemies are? Why can’t Jason Bourne take on the Taliban? I guess I’ll keep dreaming.

There are over 500 million Facebook users, half of which sign in every day and seventy percent of those users are outside of the United States. 150 million users access the site through their mobile phone; these users are twice as active as those who use a computer. I personally use Facebook a great deal and many of you reading this review do as well.

So how did the site get the huge global outreach that is has today? Lauded director David Fincher (Seven, Zodiac, Fight Club) shows us the controversial start of the famed social network and gives us a seat in the front row. As the film’s enticing tagline says, “You don’t get 500 million friends without making a few enemies.”

The film begins in 2003 when Mark Zuckerberg (Jessie Eisenberg) is having a drink with his girlfriend, Erica (Rooney Mara). After obsessing about the Final Clubs at Harvard University and insulting Erica’s “lesser” education (at Brown University), she leaves him. Mark keeps the beers flowing and blogs about Erica’s faults for everyone to see. Multitasking, Mark borrows an algorithm from his best friend Eduardo (Andrew Garfield) to create a site where people can rate the attractiveness of their classmates.

The stunt gets the attention of the Winklevoss twins, who belong to a final club, and want Mark to begin working on a website for their club. Mark agrees, but deceives them by instead going into business with Eduardo, who puts up a thousand dollars to start “The Facebook.” The Winklevoss twins, along with their friend Divya Narendra (Max Minghella) decide to take Zuckerberg on under violations of school conduct. The president of the university laughs them off and they are left to find a new plan of attack.

After “The Facebook” expands and grows in popularity, Mark and Eduardo find themselves with a lot more attention, which included the interest of two young women. Eduardo’s girlfriend eventually introduces them to Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), the inventor of Napster. Parker’s party boy mentality and his “screw authority” attitude landed Mark’s attention, though it alarmed Eduardo. This is where the wheels begin to wobble and tensions begin to rise. As soon as the idea of a billion dollar product was in the air, Mark put his work on overdrive and refused to slow down for anyone.

The film is not told in a chronological fashion and jumps around between the early days of Facebook and meetings with attorneys and clients who are suing Mark for numerous reasons and incredible amounts of money. At first, the past to present leaps frustrated me a little, though it was only because I always wanted to see the continuation of the scene we just left. Maybe that is a testament to the screenplay written by Aaron Sorkin, it kept me wanting more at all times.

Newsreal Blog’s Concession Stand section has grown considerably in the last few months, but we’re not about to let the momentum stop. I am looking for a few more people who want to write about politics and pop culture.

Popular culture is one of the best ways to reach a massive audience. It is also a great way to hook a reader into a useful political discussion. While our entertainment can seem meaningless on its surface, there is always another agenda or motivation.

Writers should be willing to cover a wide range of topics but also be interested in covering a specific beat. For example, we have writers covering Bill Maher, Vanity Fair, The Tea Party (when Hollywood is involved), Jon Stewart, South park, etc. You should be creative and able to put together a focused story that deals with the intersection of politics and popular culture. There is still a lot we would like covered in the worlds of television (Family Guy, Red Eye on Fox News), music, fashion, sports, celebrity culture, literature, high art, as well as the entertainment sections of the New York Times and other publications.

Our writers have a good understanding of the Left and how it uses entertainment to further a given agenda. In addition, they also love pop culture and are equally willing to provide support when something is done right. Finally, writers should be willing to contribute weekly.

We could also use bloggers who are educated on Islam, terrorism, Israel, and anti-Semitism who can look at pop culture with those subjects in mind.

Please use the contact form below to contact myself, assistant managing editor Michael van der Galien, and managing editor David Swindle. Tell us what you’d add to The Concession Stand and where you’ve written before. (Links to writing samples is helpful!) Strong potential bloggers will be provided with applications.

When someone comes out with an anti-American comment and then quickly tries to backtrack, usually it means they don’t want the truth out about their real feelings. A perfect example is Reed Hastings, Netflix CEO, who recently called Americans “self-absorbed” in an interview. Hastings wrote the following, buried deep within the Netflix site:

My Big American Foot is in my mouth. Yesterday, I made an awkward joke with a reporter in Toronto about Americans (like me) being self-absorbed relative to Netflix pricing in Canada. I was wrong to have made the joke, and I do not believe that one of the most philanthropically-minded nations in the world (America) is self-absorbed or full of self-absorbed people.

A joke? When looking at the context of the interview, there was no joke. What is the best part about the apology? Customers don’t buy it. Check out some of the comments from Netflix customers:

Matt S. said…

Too late, subscription canceled. Ciao.

Anonymous said…

Time to look for a new movie service-you just got caught saying what you (and your management team) think.

As both consumer and a business owner. I’ve learned over the years if a vendor doesn’t respect its customers there is little value to be had in the relationship- price, convince or not.

You view your customers a rubes to be manipulated not the kind of company I want to spent my money with.
Yours truly,
MFG

GWardHome said…

Good for you that you make enough money off all your silly “self absorbed” American customers that you can afford to be so arrogant in how you talk about us. Blockbuster just filed for bankruptcy…. Netflix can be next if we all switch to their service instead. Maybe you should try an apology that is NOT buried in an obscure blog page.

Maybe next time Hastings will think twice before he tells us all what he really thinks. Regardless, the cat is out of the bag. We know who this guy is and his comment was clearly a standard play out of the self-loathing, leftist business manual.

When a celebrity comes out and proves how narrow minded and ignorant they are it comes as no surprise. Sean Penn and Oliver Stone sucking up to dictators again? Yawn. Michael Moore is spewing neo-Communist poison over his audience again? So what else is new? However, if the CEO of a major company that benefits from the American Dream opens his mouth about Americans who pay for their product, it should by all means be something positive.

We don’t see Apple CEO Steve Jobs saying that people buying his computers in foreign markets are better than those in his own country. Jobs is a moderate guy, but he is also a good businessman who provides people with employment across the country. This summer, when the tech assassins were out to destroy the new iPhone, Jobs responded with confidence, “if you don’t like our phone, don’t buy it.” Note that he didn’t  address critics by attacking them.

No, that is what the CEO of Netflix does. Only a so-called liberal could be so ungrateful of their own success.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings revealed what he really thinks of Americans. The company is expanding to Canadian markets and will be offering the country a discount. When asked if Reed thought Americans will want to be treated with the same break, he responded with the following:

How much has it been your experience that Americans follow what happens in the world? It’s something we’ll monitor, but Americans are somewhat self-absorbed.

Americans are self-absorbed and wouldn’t notice what is going on in another country? That must be why we are fighting terrorism on the other side of the globe, right? If we pay any less attention to Canada for any reason it is because they aren’t trying to kill us. Regardless, according to Wikipedia (who knows if this is accurate), Hastings lives in San Francisco…no wonder he thinks America is self-absorbed, he lives in smug central!!

This isn’t the first time Hastings has made a comment doused in unconscious self-hatred. In a 2009 interview, feeling guilty about his earnings, Hastings weighed in on how much other CEOs should pay in taxes:

President Obama should celebrate our success, rather than trying to shame us or cap our pay. But he should also take half of our huge earnings in taxes, instead of the current one-third.

Celebrate success by taking half of it?? Someone should tell Hastings that taxes usually go towards bigger government these days, which hasn’t been helpful as advertised by the Left.  If anyone is self-absorbed it is our current government. It’s time to stop this leftist guilt train and quit treating Americans like they are stupid and selfish. Why does Hastings feel a CEO deserves less, because we don’t have what they have? Talk about self-absorbed.

It’s clear that Hastings has no appreciation for his success. He has told other companies what their leaders should pay in taxes, assuming they don’t earn their keep (and showing unconscious self-disgust). Further, he has called all Americans self-absorbed, which shows us that he also has no respect for the people in his own country. Hastings is trying to appeal to regular folks by attacking CEOs (pretending he “isn’t like the others”) and is now trying to appeal to a foreign market by attacking America (pretending like he isn’t “one of us”). This, my friends, is a business plan right out of the self-hating, leftist playbook.