Think About It

Hollywood's War on our Children

There are many contributing causes to our current moral dilemma.  The family unit was pretty much intact prior to W.W.II, but after 1941 many housewives went to work in factories.  The majority of these wives continued working after the war was over, so thus was born the concept of the two income family.  It was now “normal” for both parents to work outside the home.  Americans began to trade family and child rearing time for consumer goods.  Thus began the erosion of the family unit.  It took only a couple of decades for this to become the American way of life.

Enter the age of television, which at first was beneficial in that it provided clean and wholesome programing.  We must remember that the current generation knows nothing of a television age where there were no curse words, the good guy always won, the government and the president were respected, and dramas and sitcoms had moral content.  Television began to change in the 1960s, when irreverence became revered. The Hollywood schlock meisters quickly discovered they could increase their ratings by making their programs more edgy, more titillating. Thus began the race to see who could air the raciest sitcoms.  Movies, also competing for the entertainment dollars, instituted their famous rating system for motion pictures.  The new rating system allowed them to ramp up the sex and violence, all under the guise of making Hollywood appear more responsible.

This was also the Vietnam War era, in which the prior rules of journalism were considered no longer valid.  Rancor, disrespect, and openly biased reporting became the norm.   Anything goes was now the rule.  The nightly news became “entertained.”  With the Vietnam War came the Hippies, who were the first generation of post war children born of parents who had traded their time with the  children for a bigger house and another car.  The Hippie generation didn’t have the quality upbringing that their fathers and mothers had.  They had more in terms of material goods (quantity), but not the quality upbringing that can only be given by spending time together.  Many of the latch key kids of that time spent hours in front of the television, hours spent soaking up what ever the Hollywood schlock meisters wanted to indoctrinate them with.

This irreverence, taught to them by Hollywood through movies and TV, quickly transferred to irreverence and a lack of respect for their teachers and public institutions.  Why not?  Not a day would go by, without television drumming this into their heads. 

The Hollywood schlock meisters did their most foul deed in the mid 1960s when they began to glorify drug usage in films and on television.  Their message was clear:  Drugs are OK.  Show those in authority how cool you are by using drugs.  Up yours, establishment!

Also growing out of the Hippie generation was that generation’s desire to have the greatest impact on our society.  They were smart enough to know that they could accomplish the most by taking over two professions:  1) Teaching and 2) journalism.  They knew if you control the minds of the young by indoctrinating them with one-world Marxism, these same kids would follow the party line when they become adults.  They also knew if they controlled the news media, they could control what adults think.  These young Hippies who entered teaching or journalism at the lowest levels in the ‘70s are the executives who run these professions, today.

Meanwhile, church attendance began to drop as mothers and fathers became too busy and too self-absorbed to attend.  This was fortified by something new in television, the questioning of the relevance of religion.
The scandals in the Catholic church and among the television evangelists didn’t help matters.

So, we have now arrived at where we are: High School dropouts are  at an all time high; teen pregnancy is at an all time high; drug use is at an all time high; violent crime would be at an all time high, but thanks to the three strikes laws, the hard core criminals are in the slammer.  Where do we start?

Questions:

Is it too late to turn this around?

Can Hollywood be influenced to produce wholesome movies?

Some of the top grossing movies are family movies; why aren’t there more?

Can TV networks be convinced to produce wholesome entertainment during prime time?

Can the FCC restrict programing content during prime time?

Where can pressure be applied to bring about a change in programing?

Should consumer boycotts of sponsor’s products be a part of this?

The Origins of the New Morality

"Ernie" has some thoughts on today's morality.

"I don't consider myself a conspiracy nut (though I am convinced a devious group is constantly at work keeping the Cubs out of a world series), so I'm totally confused about the downward plunge of American culture and values.  Is there a conspiracy afoot to destroy us from within, or is this just the normal outcome of a free society?  If it's a conspiracy, who's the architect and who's keeping it going?  Is it mush brained liberals?  Islamic terrorists?  Communists?  Rosie O'Donnell?  Reverend Wright?  Liberal media?  I don't know the answer, but I think we need to take whatever time is necessary to study this deterioration and get it reversed.  It's truly destroying us.

Look at today's immorality and the country's seeming lack of concern about it.  Whether it's drugs, porn, homosexuality, greed, corruption, rampant promiscuity, filth driven entertainment, supporting a Muslim for president, or any of the other deadly sins, it's obvious that the "problem" is growing and shows no signs of lessening.  It's sadly becoming the norm.  Even TV commercials are so full of sexual content they should be rated X.  I went into the bank the other day and the 2 young female tellers were wearing blouses that were barely keeping their un-bra'd boobs from falling out on the counter.  That kind of attire may be fine for hookers walking Sunset Boulevard, but not in a bank.  You have to ask why they think dressing that way is acceptable, and why bank managers allow it.  I guess when they see their Hollywood idols dressing that way and changing sex partners on a weekly basis, it's got to be OK.  Right?

In all this immorality I have to ask, "what is the purpose of it all?"  Why is it so important to those in influential industries to force this indecency upon us?  Is it just to see how far they can push the envelope, or is it part of a conspiratorial left wing agenda?  Why wouldn't it be more appropriate to force higher moral values on us?  Filth makes more money?  Probably as good an explanation as any.

And lastly, how do we stop it and start moving back to the moral values and Christian principles that formed this once magnificent country?  You can't look at the GOP for help.  They've not shown one inkling of willingness to buck the liberal agenda.  After all, what's more important?  Standing up for decency or getting reelected?  They've almost totally abandoned the conservative base of the party.  Think about it.  They had 8 years to prepare potential candidates for the presidential race and what did we get?   A 70+ year old democrat in Republican clothing named John McCain.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.  I'd like to hear yours.  Thanks.

Ernie"

Treason or Free Speech

Hollywood in the 1940s pitched in a did their bit for the war effort.  They not only made training films for the military, but they cranked out a steady stream of morale building movies for the troops and the folks at home.   There was no doubt whether Hollywood supported the American and allied armed forces.  Somewhere along the line, things changed and Hollywood has become a willing ally of our enemies.

One can expect an antiwar or antigovernment movie now and then, but recently there has been a spate of antiwar and antigovernment movies. In the past year, Hollywood has released the movies Redacted, Stop-Loss, In the Valley of Elah, and Rendition just to name a few.  There is also a noticeable absence of movies where the man wearing the white hat is a soldier or anyone from the government.

Fifty years ago, two things would have happened.  1) The American people would have been incensed by these movies, which would have led to boycotts, picketing and Congressional hearings.  2) The  word treason would be used, freely. 

The interesting thing is that none of these movies has made a lot of money.  Some are alleging these films are being made knowing they won’t do well financially  in the U.S., but there is a large secondary market for them in the foreign anti-American market.

The question is this: Who is putting up the money for these marginal movies?  Are they making them for the secondary foreign and DVD market or are they simply misjudging the mood of the American public?  These movies certainly don’t do anything for our troops’ morale.  At what point does this become “giving comfort and aid to the enemy”?  Is it treason or just free speech in a democracy?

The Media's Gift of the Magic Word for Obama

“Veritas” has some thoughts on a magical word that is currently in vogue.

“I have listened to many who would explain away the highly publicized inflammatory testaments made by the Rev Jeremiah Wright, Jr. The magical word that makes the statements vanish is "context." You must believe his supporters when they say all of the statements were taken out of "context." You must understand that the Rev Wright really did not say what we thought we heard him say; I did not hear any media type ask those who put forth this spin on the sayings of Rev. Wright ask wherein were the statements being taken out of context. To date, Rev.Wright has not been available for comment.

During his taped comments, Rev. Wright did not appear to be in a theatrical production nor did he appear to be quoting another person. I  thought that I knew the meaning of the word, but the consistent use of the word context made me want to know more about such a potent word  that can erase any statements made while undergoing an attack of foot in mouth disease.  I looked at a couple of sources to refresh my memory about the magical word "context." Below is what I found.

Context - Definitions from Dictionary.com
Context: That which surrounds, and gives meaning to, something else. In a grammar it refers to the symbols before and after the symbol under consideration. ...

Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus
Synonyms: ambience, background, conditions, connection, framework, lexicon, relation, situation, substance, text, vocabulary.

Had the defenders of the Rev Wright  said that the statements in question were "out of line,” but  weren't representative of the totality of Rev. Wright's sermons, I would have found it worthy of belief. To claim that his statements were taken out of context is unadulterated nonsense. It seems that there are many who have yet to learn that you cannot defend the indefensible.  It only makes matters worse.”

Barack Obama's Dilemma

Obama is coming under growing scrutiny about his 20-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright, Pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christm which is located in south Chicago.   Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama, and later baptized their children.  Wright is allegedly the inspiration for the title of Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

  What exactly has Wright been advocating?   He led his church congregation in the singing of “God D-mn America” instead of God Bless America.   He called Condoleezza Rice “Condamnesia”.  Pastor Jeremiah allegedly referred to the United States as the “U.S. of KKK A.”  The U.S. government intentionally provides drugs to blacks so they can be incarcerated in “bigger prisons”.  Moreover, Wright has accused the U.S. of inventing the HIV virus, then using it as a means of genocide against Africans.

  So, where is Obama on all this?  He has now made a “forceful” condemnation of Wright.  The question is this:  If Obama was so offended by the statements of Wright, why would he belong to his church for 20 years and be married by Wright, then have his children baptized by this racist?  Will the voters accept Obama's statement or does it ring hollow?

  And there is more.  The World Net Daily reported that Wright blamed the U.S. for the attacks on 9/11.  He  also has taken his shots at our government for supporting Israel.  Wright also condemned the U.S. for dropping atom bombs on Japan. 

  ABC News, to their credit, reported that Wright told his congregation, "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God d--- America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God d--- America for treating our citizens as less than human. God d--- America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

  ABC went on to report Wright said: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said in a sermon Sept. 16, 2001. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

Obama’s pastor has just retired and apparently isn’t giving interviews.  I don’t think this is the end of this discussion.  Stay tuned.

Black Culture

"Ernie" shares his thoughts on Black culture.

"Living in Memphis it's obvious to me that becoming part of the American culture is not a goal of most in the black community.  Instead we hear more and more about the "black culture" with loyalties towards Africa rather than the USA.  Since I'm new to this area I decided to try and find out what black culture is.  This turned out to me more complicated than anticipated.  The reason, there isn't just 1 black culture.  There are at least 3, maybe more.

 

(Group 1)  People who are proud of their country in spite of a turbulent black/white past.  These people are older, married, employed and often military veterans.  They consider themselves part of the American culture and see no need for a black culture.

 

(Group 2)  People who long ago realized that they could become wealthy and powerful by keeping the flames of hatred burning.  For example, the Jacksons, Sharptons and many black ministers of the world.  They disparage a country that allows them to amass enormous rewards while trying to destroy that very same country.  They are unmoved by the chaos that ferments and erupts in their wake.  They blame it on white racism.

 

(Group 3)  People who believe that because of slavery whites should be made to provide all the basic human needs required to live as comfortably as the upper-middleclass.  Needless to say, they're products of Group 2.   These folks have no intention of ever becoming a part of the American culture.  They want their own "black" culture to be dominant within the borders of the USA.

 

Below is a brief description to help you tell them apart.

 

(Group 1)  A small minority that stays somewhat anonymous.  They pay their bills, own their own homes, put their kids thru school, go to church and mingle easily with whites.  They make great friends, neighbors, coworkers, bosses and employees.  They are not a threat to anyone.

 

(Group 2)  A small group, but a very influential one.  They're easy to recognize because they love to be in front of TV cameras. Liberal democrats obey, revere and worship them.  They're not a threat to your life, but their followers definately are.

 

(Group 3)  The largest of the 3 groups, and the most recognizable.  They have shaved heads or weird hairdos, pants down below their buttocks, hooded sweatshirts (even on hot days), caps at all angles, earrings, jewelry, tattoos and gold teeth.  They are unemployed, uneducated, gang-bangers, own a hand gun and can easily find their way around a court house.  You can also identify them by their cars.  The more established drive Cadillac Escalades with 22" tires and chrome rims.  The rest ride with established members or on city buses.  This groups is definately a threat to your life.  They'd kill you for you sneakers, your car or to enhance their standing in the local gang.

 

This isn't a scientific evaluation, but my personal opinion.  To be fair my next article will be "Redneck Culture".  Or did Jeff Foxworthy already do that?"

 

                 

Media's Bias to the Right?

  I’m starting to see a new line of propaganda coming from the liberals.  I watched a documentary titled, Orwell Roll Over, that dealt with bias in the media.  The documentary tried to make the case that all of the major television networks, including ABC, NBC, and CBS are all part and parcel of the vast right wing conspiracy.  The case was made by several members of academia and a couple of reporters, one whom had worked for a short time for 60 Minutes.  I gather this lie is being spread to counter the public's ever growing suspicion that the media is in fact biased sharply to the left.  Numerous polls and studies show that journalists overwhelmingly vote Democratic.  A check of donor lists of contributions to Democratic politicians further bears this out.  This will be interesting to see where and how far this lie will go.

Al Gore's Double Standard

The Liberal gospel states that Republicans are the fat cats in our society.  They make up 100% of the group who control and manipulate greed in America.  It appears that one of the great Liberal icons may be talking out of both sides of his mouth.

   According to Business Week, Al Gore is reportedly in line to make around $50 million when Current TV, a TV channel that he co-founded, goes public.  Despite the fact that the parent company, Current Media, has lost $31 million over the past three years, the company is forging ahead with its plans with a stock issue, which will raise an estimated $100 million.  Some of the money, allegedly, will go to lenders, who include some major Democratic fund raisers.

  The article notes that Gore and his partner are collecting huge salaries from a company that hasn't shown a profit in three years.  Each of them reportedly drew down $491,677 last year - in cash.  This apparently was in addition to Gore receiving a bonus of $550,000 for helping the company put together affiliate agreements and a management team.

  The Business Week article further notes that Gore and his partner will control all of the company's B shares, which gives them 10 votes for each of their shares while the Class A stockholders would only have one vote per share.

The IPO price has yet be set, but estimates are in the $13-$15 per share price range.  Gore reportedly owns 3.7 million shares.

  It appears Mr. Green isn't above making a little green for himself and his friends.

Will Obama and/or Hillary End Free Speech?

If the Democrats win the White House in November there exists the real possibility that free speech as we know it will end.  I'm kidding, right?  After all, that's what the First Amendment is all about, right?   No folks, it's real.

The left wing of the Democratic party has longed to shut down conservative talk radio.  Many of them believe radio hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan and others were responsible for John Kerry's defeat.  If Obama or Hillary is elected in November there is the likely possibility that they will order the FCC to implement the so called Fairness Doctrine.  The Fairness Doctrine works like this:  Because public airwaves are being used, owners of radio and TV stations will be forced to broadcast "balanced" programing.  This is code for censorship.  Station owners will have three choices: 1) Order their talk show hosts to water down their opinions to the point there are no opinions; 2) Add another talk show host to espouse the opposition opinion; or 3) Discontinue all talk radio shows. 

Conservative talk radio hasn't had a problem in attracting sponsors.  Why?  Because they have a large listener base.  On the other hand, liberal talk shows, such as Air America, have experienced low ratings and  wobbly financing.  Under the current system, the left wing is welcomed to talk radio, providing they find sponsors to pay for it.  If the left wing is successful in implementing the Fairness Doctrine, radio and TV stations will face not only oppressive federal regulation, but will be faced with lawsuits from those radical groups who feel a particular station isn't being fair enough.  Watch this one closely.