| Author |
 Topic  |
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
 Posted - 02/20/2006 : 2:45:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
You're never going to see a movie sypathetic to McCarthy because McCarthy doesn't deserve sympathy. He isn't a misunderstood character; he's one of history's villains. It's isn't a liberal thing. It's a historical thing. The fact that so many conservatives can't see the forest for the trees is the only misguided point of view in this case.
Foywonder puts up a conservative strawman in order to make his argument. Tell me, FW, outside of Ann "Raghead" Coulter, how many conservatives "can't see the forest for the trees"? Conservatives long ago concluded that McCarthy was indeed the villain that history has made him out to be.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
And since I'm willing to guess that I'm one of the only people commenting in this thread that has actually seen GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK let me take this opportunity to break some news to you: the film is about journalism, not the McCarthy era. Murrow vs. McCarthy is an example of what hard hitting journalism is supposed to be about. One of the most respect newspeople (something almost unheard of today) was willing to take on a reckless, powermongering politician who was undermining our very values in the name of protecting them at a time when virtually no one would.
Yada yada yada. You're missing the point. The point is, why do we need yet another movie on McCarthyism? In the span of little more than thirty years, we've already had The Way We Were, Fear on Trial, The Front, Tail Gunner Joe, Guilt by Association, Citizen Cohn, and now Good Night and Good Luck. (Not to mention The Crucible, wink wink.) Is there anyone out there who doesn't know that Joe McCarthy was a Red-baiting witchhunter? By contrast, those Communists who really did spy against the U.S. apparently don't rate a movie; the stories of Rudy Baker, Margaret Browder, Alger Hiss, Julius Rosenberg, and others of their ilk have largely gone untold.
So why has Hollywood devoted so much time to a relatively brief period of American history? I'll tell you, and it's real simple:
Because HUAC so viciously went after Hollywood.
Years and years after the fact, whining bruised Tinseltown egoes are still moaning and groaning, "How dare Washington come after us?!" If HUAC had spent all its efforts exposing sedition in the, I don't know, the upholstery industry but had left Hollywood in peace, I seriously doubt even one third of these movies would have gotten made. |
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 02/20/2006 2:47:10 PM |
 |
|
|
Long Cut
Archdeacon of Jabootu
19 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 2:55:15 PM
|
quote:
"So why has Hollywood devoted so much time to a relatively brief period of American history? I'll tell you, and it's real simple:
Because HUAC so viciously went after Hollywood.
Years and years after the fact, whining bruised Tinseltown egoes are still moaning and groaning, "How dare Washington come after us?!" If HUAC had spent all its efforts exposing sedition in the, I don't know, the upholstery industry but had left Hollywood in peace, I seriously doubt even one third of these movies would have gotten made.
I thought it needed repeating. Words so true often do.
--------------------------------------------------
"My father was a drunk, a gambler, and a womanizer. I worshipped him!"...CWO Paul Brenner |
|
|
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 7:56:02 PM
|
BrainFromArous, go outside and get some oxygen. The fact that you flipped out over my use of the phrase "may have been" was one of the most irrational overreactions I've seen in quite a long time. I don't doubt that there were Communists at work nor am I trying to insinuate that there weren't. I didn't read anything else in your long winded diatribe because your flipping out over semantics that don't meet your political approval tells me all I need to know about your heavy handed point-of-view.
This is why I usually stay out of political discussions. Just when I think some of the smarty pants liberals I work with are annoying I can walk into a thread on this message board and be reminded of just how insufferable those on the right can be too. McCarthy is one of history's villains. End of story. There may have been... (Ooops, better rephrase that before Arous flips out again) THERE ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY WITHOUT QUESTION AND DON'T DARE ANYONE EVER TYPE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT WITHOUT USING SUCH COMMANDING TERMINOLOGY Communists, argue amongst yourselves all you want, history has been written and McCarthy and his committee are amongst history's villains and the focal point of one of the ugliest periods in American history. Feel free to keep arguing about there being actual Communists or that McCarthy had the right idea even if he went about it such a way to undermine his own agenda, it doesn't change how history is going to look back upon it.
And Zombiewacker, I can name a conservative that can't see the forest for the trees - YOU! I told you that GOOD NIGHT & GOOD LUCK is a movie about JOURNALISM, not COMMUNISM. Either that went completely over your head or you were too wrapped up in getting a few more shots in at the Hollywood elite to satisfy your own ego.
Don't bother replying because I'm not going to waste my time clicking on this thread again. Like I said, I generally stay out of politics because objectivity is a rare thing and certainly in short supply here.
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Schlocktoberfest.Com:
BALLAD OF THE NASTY HERO - An overlooked gem of 80s action cheese gets it due
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 9:28:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Prankster
But let's imagine an EC-based election. All the states go the way they did last election, with the exception of Ohio. Candidate X wins all "his" states by a vast majority. Candidate Y wins all his states--but just barely. X is already sitting on a popular-vote majority bigger than the ENTIRE POPULATION of Ohio. Yet now the entire election comes down to that one state. A mere few thousand votes rigged by candidate Y could tip the balance in his favour. If the same election had been popular-based, vote rigging probably wouldn't have helped, or at the very least would have been far more difficult as it would have required far more votes rigged--an impractical amount.
Popular-vote based candidates really can't afford to alienate anyone any more than they already do. The strategies are always going to be complex.
Prankster,
The Frankenstein monster of my posting has mutated into a debate about the Electoral College - sowing disagreement and acrimony amongst Jabootu's faithful servents - and for that I stand chastised.
As food for thought, however, let me flesh out further some of Terrahawk's and Triviachamp's arguments. I wouldn't have had a horse in this race 10 years ago, but I think that the results of the last two elections actually form a strong argument in favor of keeping the Electoral College.
Consider the 2000 election between Bush and Gore. A big block of electoral votes was going to swing the election and the recipient of that block depended on a few thousand votes in Florida. Lawsuits ensued in Florida and escalated to the Supreme Court which ended the stand-off. I would argue that the EC actually confined the litigation to one state and provided a quick end to the crisis. Given the closeness of the election, if the election hinged on the popular vote either candidate could have sued in any number of states, counties or municipalities. Instead of a quest for a few thousand votes in Florida, there would have been a wave of litigation seeking to squeeze out a few votes here and there in every county in the country. The EC turned the whole affair into a combinatorial mathematical optimization problem. Sue in FL and get F votes, sue in IA and get I votes, sue in NM and get N votes, etc. Neither Bush nor Gore would have rationally gone down the sue in every state route given the fact that the all or nothing outcome would be all but impossible to forecast.
The Bush vs. Kerry election also gives food for thought on the subject of voter fraud. In any election, there is almost certainly a soupcon of voter fraud from either side. Kerry's loss in 2004 hinged on a 100,000 vote deficit in Ohio which led to his loss in the EC. Given that the size of his loss was localized in a particular state by the EC, there was no incentive for his supporters to commit fraud. Turning up a few thousand Kerry votes in a Cleveland bathroom might past muster from Federal regulators, but a hundred thousand votes discovered behind the couch cushion most certainly would not. Not only would Kerry have lost in the end, but his Ohio fraudsters might have ended up in a Federal pokey. If the election had been decided by the popular vote, however, there would have been every incentive for both sides to commit as much voter fraud as possible. Kerry or Bush supporters could have tried to cheat by a thousand vote here or there again in every county or municipality in the U.S. While a 100,000 votes in Ohio would have been suspicious, a few 1,000 in IA, or MO, or HI, or AL, or NY, or ... etc. would be all but impossible to tag as such. |
|
|
|
Icrywolf
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
Australia
144 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 10:48:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by R. Dittmar
quote:
Originally posted by Prankster
But let's imagine an EC-based election. All the states go the way they did last election, with the exception of Ohio. Candidate X wins all "his" states by a vast majority. Candidate Y wins all his states--but just barely. X is already sitting on a popular-vote majority bigger than the ENTIRE POPULATION of Ohio. Yet now the entire election comes down to that one state. A mere few thousand votes rigged by candidate Y could tip the balance in his favour. If the same election had been popular-based, vote rigging probably wouldn't have helped, or at the very least would have been far more difficult as it would have required far more votes rigged--an impractical amount.
Popular-vote based candidates really can't afford to alienate anyone any more than they already do. The strategies are always going to be complex.
Prankster,
The Frankenstein monster of my posting has mutated into a debate about the Electoral College - sowing disagreement and acrimony amongst Jabootu's faithful servents - and for that I stand chastised.
As food for thought, however, let me flesh out further some of Terrahawk's and Triviachamp's arguments. I wouldn't have had a horse in this race 10 years ago, but I think that the results of the last two elections actually form a strong argument in favor of keeping the Electoral College.
Consider the 2000 election between Bush and Gore. A big block of electoral votes was going to swing the election and the recipient of that block depended on a few thousand votes in Florida. Lawsuits ensued in Florida and escalated to the Supreme Court which ended the stand-off. I would argue that the EC actually confined the litigation to one state and provided a quick end to the crisis. Given the closeness of the election, if the election hinged on the popular vote either candidate could have sued in any number of states, counties or municipalities. Instead of a quest for a few thousand votes in Florida, there would have been a wave of litigation seeking to squeeze out a few votes here and there in every county in the country. The EC turned the whole affair into a combinatorial mathematical optimization problem. Sue in FL and get F votes, sue in IA and get I votes, sue in NM and get N votes, etc. Neither Bush nor Gore would have rationally gone down the sue in every state route given the fact that the all or nothing outcome would be all but impossible to forecast.
The Bush vs. Kerry election also gives food for thought on the subject of voter fraud. In any election, there is almost certainly a soupcon of voter fraud from either side. Kerry's loss in 2004 hinged on a 100,000 vote deficit in Ohio which led to his loss in the EC. Given that the size of his loss was localized in a particular state by the EC, there was no incentive for his supporters to commit fraud. Turning up a few thousand Kerry votes in a Cleveland bathroom might past muster from Federal regulators, but a hundred thousand votes discovered behind the couch cushion most certainly would not. Not only would Kerry have lost in the end, but his Ohio fraudsters might have ended up in a Federal pokey. If the election had been decided by the popular vote, however, there would have been every incentive for both sides to commit as much voter fraud as possible. Kerry or Bush supporters could have tried to cheat by a thousand vote here or there again in every county or municipality in the U.S. While a 100,000 votes in Ohio would have been suspicious, a few 1,000 in IA, or MO, or HI, or AL, or NY, or ... etc. would be all but impossible to tag as such.
RDitt, here's where I ask you take a leap of faith: the tight races of '00 and '04 were created, in the first place, by the Electoral College system. A century of bi-partisan politics created conglomerate parties incapable of coherently representing the multifarious factions of political and philosophical thought in a diverse country that values free expression. As a result, each party clings to a power base of radicalism while spending entire election campaigns grabbing at the straws of the unrepresented center. Why? Because the EC prevents third parties from fully competing or participating in a national election. (New parties came into being in the years before the 20th century due to a smaller, loosely-connected population and restricted suffrage: the less people you have voting, the easier it is to begin splinter movements.) The lockjaw elections of the late 19th Century led to the last great flowering of third party politics. It's time for history to repeat that movement, in order to capture the centrist spirit of the true American majority. I would rather see a Democrat-Republican ticket battling with the Greens and Libertarians and Christian Conservatives and Christian Socialists and Communists and Teenagers Who Want The Drinking Age To Be 18 than suffer through another 50/50 election of arbitrary choices made between identical twins. And when the splinter happens, I'd like to see the EC abolished, so we don't tread down this path again when national politics atrophy during another extended period of prosperity.
As for the fraud angle, systems don't fight fraud. Fraud must be policed vigilantly no matter what voting system is used. Believing that an electoral system will naturally deter fraudsters is like believing a centrally-controlled economy will naturally deter inequity. There are no shortcuts. The only self-regulating large scale systems are ones that are free and equal -- they may not be perfect systems, but, like a market economy, they tend to throw bad people with bad intentions into sharp relief. The EC is not free (it tabulates national votes by residency, which seems fair until you move the week or two before an election), and certainly not equal (see my earlier comments about disenfranchisement in a winner-take all tabulation). And, on top of all that, it is not logical in a world with chock full of machines capable of processing massive amounts of data accurately and instantaenously.
You may be able to argue that the EC saved us from Gore and Kerry (even a communist economy produces a decent product from time to time). But you will never be able to convince me that it is fair or free.
-----------------------------
BUY MAKE A KILLING TODAY
"Proof positive that microbudget film making might finally be headed in the right direction." -Hollywood Bitchslap
"This is a hilarious mockumentary, much like the work of writer/director Christopher Guest." - Upcoming Horror Movies
http://www.make-a-killing.com |
|
|
|
UnknownSubject
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Australia
212 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 11:17:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Long Cut
See, what you posted here and what I've reproduced is a classic example of what I was saying. Whilst "the consequences of denying who you are" might make for some drama in calm times, in the midst of a world war they are, to put it bluntly, irrelevant to the point of insignifigance. Sorry, but the love story of two gay cow(sheep)boys in love simply pales before the monumental task of defeating hordes of Islamist radicals bent on murdering all of us and reducing the concepts of freedom and liberty to historical footnotes.
Okay, we aren't even going to come close to seeing eye-to-eye on this. I must have missed the memo when the attack on radical Islam became a world war and all movies should support the actions of the US military.
Oh, and I noted the irony of you quoting "Casablanca" - a very human story set during a world war - to justify dismissing another human story as being pointless during wartime.
Spandex Cinema
http://sc.thebeholder.org
Latest Review - Two more "Bibleman" reviews from Heckler King and I take a look at "The Crow" |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 02:05:35 AM
|
Foywonder, it's a good thing you don't like getting into political arguments because you're not very good at it.
Your statement that "so many conservatives can't see the forest for trees" was in regard to McCarthy's villainy. I called you on it: who besides Ann "Raghead" Coulter today thinks J.M. was a great guy? You can't think of anyone, but rather than concede the point, you go ad hominem.
Your statement that Clooney's film was about journalism not the McCarthy era is also intellectually dishonest. That's like saying All the President's Men was about journalism not Watergate.
quote:
Originally posted by The Foywonder
Don't bother replying because I'm not going to waste my time clicking on this thread again. Like I said, I generally stay out of politics because objectivity is a rare thing and certainly in short supply here.
Irony, thy name is Foywonder.
|
|
|
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 03:41:42 AM
|
You're right, zombie. I did a lousy job defending myself because I was too flabbergasted by the sheer amount of far-right circle jerking going on in this thread. Hell, some guy decides to join the message board just to get in on it. Political discussion these days feel like they've turned into a pseudo-intellecutal form of pro wrestling. It really is quite ridiculous how polarized political discussions are, especially ones like this when everyone seems to be repeating their particular brand of indoctrinated rhetoric rather than actually expressing a personal opinion. People complain about Hollywood idiots spouting their own poltical nonsense. I say why get so riled over the rich and famous doing the same thing that the average person does every single day. So, very well, I'll make one last post on the subject.
You want me to name a conservative that defends McCarthy other than Ann Coulter. Well, BrainFromArous seems to be coming close, but I really can't name one off the top of my head. I'm sure you'd call that proof of my ignorance. I'd call it proof that I don't waste my time on political websites reading what the supposed intellectual giants on the subject matter have to say. I always find it amazing how people that often complain about too much bias in the media often gravitate towards news outlets that are blatantly biased to their own personal worldview, but then that is the reality of the right and the left, particuarly the right though, these days. Too many these days only want to hear an affirmation of their own ideals and anything that doesn't completely do so is immediately denounced or dismissed. I'm sure there are some that do, many that don't and quite a few more, as evidenced by this very thread, others that don't but are too stubborn to admit the taint he brought to the whole crusade against Communist insurgents.
Now as for being intellectually dishonest about the film's subject matter, the movie is about journalism, specifically, Edward R. Murrow taking on McCarthy, his tactics, and the climate of fear he generated. You're the one being intellectually dishonest. The film never says there are no Communists trying to undermine the country; Murrow vs. McCarthy was about whether or not there were Communist insurgents at work. Murrow vs. McCarthy was about a television journalist taking on a powermad politician who was recklessly destroying lives and engaging in acts of gross intimidation of anyone that stood up to him. Yeah, there were others that took some shots at McCarthy (and, ironically, often got scoffed at in much the same way that conservatives do to anyone today whenever they speak out against the current administration's policies) but Murrow was a respected television journalist and his battle with McCarthy is considered a seminal moment in 20th century journalism, particuarly TV journalism. And that's really what the movie is about - the power and importance of hard journalism on television. For you to attack the film in the manner you are you'd have to be one of those McCarthy apologists. Now that's irony, my friend.
Zombie, flat out, have you actually seen GOOD NIGHT & GOOD LUCK? I'm guessing that's a big fat "NO". So which conservative blog, talk show, or radio program has "enlightened" you to all you need to know about the movie? You clearly seem to believe you know more about the film and its content than a person that actually saw it, a person who didn't go into it with a idealogical axe to grind. I know it might be hard to believe that George Clooney could make a movie like this that isn't just some leftist soapbox but it really isn't. SYRIANA, this is not.
"Yada yada yada. You're missing the point. The point is, why do we need yet another movie on McCarthyism? In the span of little more than thirty years, we've already had The Way We Were, Fear on Trial, The Front, Tail Gunner Joe, Guilt by Association, Citizen Cohn, and now Good Night and Good Luck. (Not to mention The Crucible, wink wink.)"
Hey, you forgot THE MAJESTIC. So you're being all whiny and pissy because you think Hollywood is all whiny and pissy because they've made less than a dozen films about this particular subject matter in a span of thirty years? Hell, Hollywood has produced more films about the Holocaust in the past dozen years; more Vietnam films in the Eighties alone. But, apparently, since you clearly see the world through a spectrum of conservative ideology, you somehow see 9 movies over the course of multiple decades as some sort of holding pattern that proves your point when in fact it proves my point about your complete lack of objectivity.
See, this is why I prefer to stay out of modern political debates, whether it be with the the loony left wing conspiracy theorists that constantly call Bush a Nazi and thinks that his administation caused the Southeast Asian tsunamis or self-aggrandizing rightwingers that feel themselves to be intellectual giants because they're able to repeat stuff they've read or heard like political zombies. Objectivity is a rare thing. What's a moderate like me to do when the left has taken leave of its senses and the right has given way to behaving like the obnoxious, self-righteous a-holes they're often caricatured as. I guess I'll just have to continue thinking for myself. Free thinking can be as frustrating as it is liberating. Not enough people try it. Perhaps some of you will actually bother to see some of these films before you judge them to be leftist propaganda.
I think I'm going to just go back to sticking with discussing bad movies on a bad movie message board. Let the circle jerk commence.
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Schlocktoberfest.Com:
BALLAD OF THE NASTY HERO - An overlooked gem of 80s action cheese gets it due
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
|
nshumate
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
464 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 07:59:38 AM
|
quote:
Don't bother replying because I'm not going to waste my time clicking on this thread again. Like I said, I generally stay out of politics because objectivity is a rare thing and certainly in short supply here.
The internet's like a toilet, Foy. What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.
Nathan Shumate
http://www.coldfusionvideo.com |
|
|
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 11:29:34 AM
|
And on that note, lets flush this thread, and let go of the argglebarggle.
It looks like some things are like a horney porcupine...just too prickley to get near.
I have my opinions about this and that. I try to avoid argument, cause it solves nothing. When you reach the point of diminishing returns, its time to relax, shake off the irritation, and get back to makeing fun of the concept of useing rabbits as monsters.
And on that note, i say, "Dammit Jim, i'm a veternarian, not a doctor!"
"Cole, stop handing Dr. Doom the Keys to the Baxter building." Brent Sienna/PvP.
"I speak 34 different languages. But gibberish is not one of them."- Danger Mouse.
|
|
|
|
TheKusabiBringsThePain
Altar Boy of Jabootu
8 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 12:28:14 PM
|
Foywonder, I must wonder whether you lump my query about
quote:
Originally posted by TheKusabi who worded it fine the 1st time around
if McCarthy had never operated, that Hollywood would now or at any time be producing well-funded, well-made movies (i.e. not John Wayne's efforts) concerning Communist infiltration into and intended subversion of Western societies?
under your definition of 'far right circle jerking'. Funny, many other, perhaps less agitated, people would see it as a fair question. And considering you refer to me (I presume) as 'some guy who joined up just to join in political argy bargy', I at least did you the courtesy of assuming you had good reasons for thinking that Hollywood might be happy to tackle Communism if McCarthy had never operated against them. That is, unless I'm wrong to assume that that's what you think, and in fact you think it more likely that Hollywood wouldn't have given a damn about Communism either way.
Again, this is not 'circle jerking', this is an invitation in good faith for you to answer a fair and honest question. Someone who approves so highly of 'objectivity', such as yourself, should jump at the chance to answer a question that I believe would provide a great deal of clarity here. Or are you going to accuse everybody of being obnoxious assholes so as to avoid making a proper comment?
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
words
The Repentance will come. |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 3:32:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
You're right, zombie. I did a lousy job defending myself...
Okay, I agree with you so far...
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
because I was too flabbergasted by the sheer amount of far-right circle jerking going on in this thread.
Unfortunately, bad habits die hard.
First of all, FW, enough with the name calling. The nastiest thing I said to you was "Yada yada yada." Oh, yeah, I also said you were ironic. Alanis, shoot me.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
It really is quite ridiculous how polarized political discussions are
"... it's like R-A-I-N on your wedding day..."
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
especially ones like this when everyone seems to be repeating their particular brand of indoctrinated rhetoric rather than actually expressing a personal opinion.
In the case of some of the posters, that may be true. Not in mine. But we'll leave that aside for the moment.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
You want me to name a conservative that defends McCarthy other than Ann Coulter. Well, BrainFromArous seems to be coming close, but I really can't name one off the top of my head. I'm sure you'd call that proof of my ignorance. I'd call it proof that I don't waste my time on political websites reading what the supposed intellectual giants on the subject matter have to say.
So it turns out that my first comments were on the mark. Ann Coulter is the exception, not the rule.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
I'm sure there are some that do, many that don't and quite a few more, as evidenced by this very thread, others that don't but are too stubborn to admit the taint he brought to the whole crusade against Communist insurgents.
But I'm one of those who agreed with you that McCarthy was the villain that history has made him out to be. Read my posts.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
Now as for being intellectually dishonest about the film's subject matter, the movie is about journalism, specifically, Edward R. Murrow taking on McCarthy, his tactics, and the climate of fear he generated. You're the one being intellectually dishonest.
Specifically, I said the argument you made was intellectually dishonest. There is a difference between attacking an argument and attacking the person. The latter is known as ad hominem, and you're engaging in it right now.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
The film never says there are no Communists trying to undermine the country
Once again, you're putting up a strawman. I never argued that point. Read my posts.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
Murrow vs. McCarthy was about whether or not there were Communist insurgents at work.
Here is a helpful definition of McCarthyism from Dictionary.com:
Mc·Car·thy·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-kärth-zm)
n.
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
Note that nowhere in this definition do the words "deny the existence of Communist insurgents" appear. Any more than the phrase "wild goose chase" implies there are no wild geese. Hence, yours is a distinction without a difference. Once again you make an effort to debunk a claim I never made.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
Murrow vs. McCarthy was about a television journalist taking on a powermad politician who was recklessly destroying lives and engaging in acts of gross intimidation of anyone that stood up to him.
In other words, McCarthy was engaging in McCarthyism. I'm flummoxed as to why this is such a hot button issue with you.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
Murrow was a respected television journalist and his battle with McCarthy is considered a seminal moment in 20th century journalism, particuarly TV journalism.
No argument.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
And that's really what the movie is about - the power and importance of hard journalism on television. For you to attack the film in the manner you are you'd have to be one of those McCarthy apologists. Now that's irony, my friend.
"Attack the film in the manner" I have? Where did I do that? I said the movie was about McCarthyism. That's all I said. If you find that my statement paints too broad a brush, how about this: the movie deals with McCarthyism. Still not good enough? Okay, I'll take one more swipe at it: the movie is about how journalism dealt with McCarthyism.
Did you even read my posts?
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
Zombie, flat out, have you actually seen GOOD NIGHT & GOOD LUCK? I'm guessing that's a big fat "NO".
You're correct. I haven't. So what? Since I never criticized the movie itself, either in terms of quality or content, my argument is still valid.
Again, for the umpteenth time, I'm criticizing a trend. The point isn't that Hollywood shouldn't make some kinds of films. The question is why does Tinseltown steadfastly refuse to make others?
Interestingly though, I find your comments once again "ironic" (cue music). You admit you don't follow politics very closely, yet you feel free to make sweeping statements about people on the right and left. You feel free to disparage me, even though you don't know the first thing about me, let alone my politics.
BUT... no one has any right to form any opinion about Good Luck and Good Night unless they've seen it first... even if that opinion (in my case) amounts to nothing more than, "This movie deals with McCarthyism."
"... it's a free ride when you're already there..."
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
So which conservative blog, talk show, or radio program has "enlightened" you to all you need to know about the movie? You clearly seem to believe you know more about the film and its content than a person that actually saw it, a person who didn't go into it with a idealogical axe to grind.
See previous comment.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
So you're being all whiny and pissy because you think Hollywood is all whiny and pissy because they've made less than a dozen films about this particular subject matter in a span of thirty years? Hell, Hollywood has produced more films about the Holocaust in the past dozen years; more Vietnam films in the Eighties alone.
Um... sorry? The Holocaust? Vietnam? Again, more non sequiturs. Apparently, you missed the point of my earlier post entirely (what a surprise!)
Here is what I wrote:
"Is there anyone out there who doesn't know that Joe McCarthy was a Red-baiting witchhunter? By contrast, those Communists who really did spy against the U.S. apparently don't rate a movie; the stories of Rudy Baker, Margaret Browder, Alger Hiss, Julius Rosenberg, and others of their ilk have largely gone untold."
Nothing you've spewed on these boards refutes that.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
But, apparently, since you clearly see the world through a spectrum of conservative ideology, you somehow see 9 movies over the course of multiple decades as some sort of holding pattern that proves your point when in fact it proves my point about your complete lack of objectivity.
Incidentally, Foywonder, how does being anti-communist automatically get someone pigeonholed as being conservative? The logical inference would be that liberals are not anti-communist. Now before you fly off the handle, I know that's not what you meant. But that's how it could easily be interpreted.
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
See, this is why I prefer to stay out of modern political debates
All hands signify by saying "Aye".
A-Y-E!!!
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
Objectivity is a rare thing. What's a moderate like me to do when the left has taken leave of its senses and the right has given way to behaving like the obnoxious, self-righteous a-holes they're often caricatured as.
"... it's the good advice that you just didn't take..."
|
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 3:48:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Long Cut
See, what you posted here and what I've reproduced is a classic example of what I was saying. Whilst "the consequences of denying who you are" might make for some drama in calm times, in the midst of a world war they are, to put it bluntly, irrelevant to the point of insignifigance. Sorry, but the love story of two gay cow(sheep)boys in love simply pales before the monumental task of defeating hordes of Islamist radicals bent on murdering all of us and reducing the concepts of freedom and liberty to historical footnotes.
Wow. Just...wow.
I think what you mean to say is "Didn't you hear? Bush critics are not allowed to win arguments anymore, because of 9/11."
If Hollywood is wrongheaded in making movies about homosexuality because you personally don't find it "relevant" (though I suspect both homosexuals and those who are adamantly opposed to them would disgree with you) then perhaps I can take issue with the concept of devoting discussion after discussion to the eeeeeeevils of Hollywood by the party that currently holds all the political power in America, and which is abusing said power to horrendous degrees?
Let's face it, we all know what this McCarthy debate is really about. It's about the superficially-but-not-really-similar current debate about Guantanamo Bay, government wiretapping, etc. I guess I don't really know enough about McCarthy to weigh in in that regard (though I do know a fair amount about some related events--I once initiated a whole argument on this board about Frederic Wertham and the Comics Code Authority, which came out of the whole atmosphere of the time, and in that particular case government intrusion based on paranoia had an inarguably and inexcusably negative on the lives and artwork of those caught up in it) but if McCarthy, HUAC, and the rest were operating in the same manner as the current administration, then frankly it's no surprise these guys have been demonized by history, no "liberal bias" needed.
The argument always seems to circle around to a simple formula: There WERE Communists in Hollywood. There ARE Muslim extremists who want to kill us. Therefore, the government can do whatever it wants. We can hold people without trial or any real indication that they are terrorists, because hey, we're not as bad as Stalin! The worst example we can think of! We can violate freedoms that our forefathers fought and died to preserve, because people want to kill us! After all, in America's 200+ year history, they never fought a war before, so now the situation is totally different! Those laws and rights were just for the endless, idyllic period that was the 20th Century. After 9/11, they've become inconvenient. I'm sure Jefferson would have agreed.
The sad fact is that Neitzche was right. He who fights monsters runs the risk of becoming a monster themselves. The black and white, us vs. them mentality that's dominated for the last 4 years is precisely what fosters this mistake. "Enemy bad" does not equal "us good". So kindly stop screaming that liberals "don't understand that there are people who want to kill us", then or now. We understand just fine, thanks. We just don't think that excuses any decision you care to make. And we don't think that making anti-Osama movies are going to do much to change the mind of al-Qaeda agents. But making movies about Americans or westerners, critical or otherwise, might affect a difference, because Americans and westerners are capable of absorbing viewpoints other than their own. (Actually, plenty of Muslims are too. But you know what I mean.)
And no, I don't think we should "flush this thread" and stop talking about it, because 2 months from now it'll pop up again, in another form. In the meantime, Bush will remain unimpeached, congress will remain blatantly partisan, atrocities will continue to be committed in the name of freedom, the spinmeisters will continue to spin, and people will continue to treat Fox News and Instapundit as the only sources of information they need. And yet, somehow, it's the conservatives who will have been ill-served. And indeed they will have been, along with everyone else--but they'll be complaining about Hollywood, or university professors, or whatever scapegoats are left, instead of directing the blame where it deserves.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 4:23:11 PM
|
Zombie, if I misinterpreted anything you wrote and got personal in my attacks then I apologize. I'm venting more thany anything else. I've come across far too much of it over the past few weeks and months. I've seen too many dismiss GOOD NIGHT & GOOD LUCK sight unseen as leftist propaganda and being intellectually dishonest because it doesn't contain any scenes where the actual Communist threat is discussed; all of which is total bunk considering the actual theme of the film is the role journalism. ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN does not open and close with speeches about the importance of journalism on TV. This is a damn good film that people really ought to see for reasons that have nothing to do with McCarthy.
And then there's CAPOTE, which is apparently now a gay advocasy film according to some on the right simply because Truman Capote was gay. It doesn't matter that his sexuality isn't neither the focus of the film or even dealt with much in the film; he's gay, it's a Hollywood film, and that means that there must be an agenda. If anything, one could take CAPOTE as an anti-death penalty movie, but too many of the conservative pundits out there only seem to want to focus on Capote being gay and that automatically puts it in the same category as BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. Frankly, I'm just fed up with the whole, as I put it, conservative circle jerk that's been going on whenever the spin-mongers (my term, I ought to copyright it) discuss this year's Oscar films solely as some sort of liberal circle jerk, which in certain aspects it may be but not entirely. Let's stick it to those Red State hating liberal idiots in Hollywood by painting everything with an overreaching liberal/conservative brush - the exact same thing they complain about whenever some limosine liberal in Hollywood decides to mouth off about the state of the country and engage in some Republican bashing. I've heard just so much of that in the past few months that some of the stuff in this set me off.
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Schlocktoberfest.Com:
BALLAD OF THE NASTY HERO - An overlooked gem of 80s action cheese gets it due
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
|
BlamWalker
Archdeacon of Jabootu
USA
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 4:39:31 PM
|
Wow prankster, I do believe yours is the only liberal voice in this entire thread. That's pretty courageous. In the name of diversity, I salute you!
P.S. - I'm a moderate libertarian, but we won't get into that. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked