By: Eddie Clements
The President attempts to sell the so-called stimulus bill as a necessary step to avoid economic catastrophe. Aside from being an un-Presidential remark from the person who should be motivating Americans, instead of scaring them, the warning is patently false. Isnâ€™t this the person who, as a candidate, offered â€œhope, not fear?â€ Unquestionably we need to recover from the current economic problems, but we always have before and some adverse adjustments have to be accepted. However, wholesale renovation of our system of government and remaking the marketplace is not the right prescription.
The saddest part of the current mess is that millions voted for it. Some were enamored of the idea that the first black will assume the Presidency, including the mainstream media, and many blacks who see this as a heretofore unattainable opportunity. Some political professionals backed him in hopes of attaining positions of power and career-enhancing influence, understandable for acting in their own self-interest. The overwhelming majority of Obamaâ€™s backers, though, are people who have been deceived with their eyes wide open. For those, it is a testimony not only to the failure of our education system that does not teach students to analyze, subjecting them instead to propaganda, but also the toxicity of popular culture as portrayed by Hollywood. The constant drone of leftist nonsense has dulled the intellects of too many voters.
Years of negative images have been impressed upon people, both young and old. Some should have known better, some not, but the constant drone of negative images saturating movies and television have been nearly impossible to avoid.
Take a simple movie, a love story where boy meets girl, they endure trials and tribulations, maybe itâ€™s a comedy, or a drama, no matter; say they both have jobs. One or both might be a teacher, social worker, nurse â€¦ doctors and lawyers are favorites. Then there are policemen (a favorite action movie theme), or private detective, government agent, firemen â€“ a person thought of as being a good person, a contributor, who looks out for the welfare of others. When was the last time you saw some protagonist cast as a successful businessman, research scientist for a drug company, or a petroleum geologist, an accountant or economist (how dreary!), a salesman, real estate agent, or market analyst, perhaps a stock broker â€“ and was not crooked, evil, murderous, or eaten up with all consuming greed?
Positive images are only available to certain professions or subsets of those professions â€“ there are plenty of geologists who monitor volcanoes or earthquakes. The classic scenario has the terrible fire mountain spewing forth certain death for all in its path. Our sensitive geo-hero, with the aid of a comely schoolmarm, leads the poor indigenous hominids having no hybrid cars in which to escape down the tortuous mountain paths, upon which the greedy developer sold them untenable homesteads. How many times we gotta tell these natives â€“ location, location, location?
Perhaps a movie character slaved through hot chemistry labs in graduate school to get that high-paying job with XYZ Pharmaceuticals, a squalid corporate death merchant. Unless the clueless chemist blows the whistle on the boss, forget about him being portrayed as anything but a money-grubbing purveyor of stupefying, environmentally damaging chemicals.
All the positive male images are portrayed by brooding, two-day-bearded, jeans-and- t-shirt wearing, jobless twenty-something mouth-breathers exuding androgyny whose father is a filthy-rich capitalist swine unfit to be accorded normal courtesy by his even more swinish progeny. These types usually attract the most desirable women in the movie, who beg the objectionable drifter for a roll in the hay after a two-line conversation. These women often cast as the six-foot tall, leggy, shapely, flat bellied show-girls, are rejected out of hand by the hero. He prefers the less physically attractive but still beautiful, cerebral Legal Aide attorney who not only donates time to the homeless shelter soup kitchen but helps drug addicts find clean needles so they wonâ€™t get AIDS. Such is the typical protagonist female role.
Then there is the portrayal of what we used to call â€œthe bad guysâ€. These are the thieves, the grifters; the smooth talking cheats who help old ladies cross the street instead of cheating them out of their life savings. They are big time, high rollers, fancy dressers, who only steal from, again, those greedy capitalist too-rich developers. They are inevitably witty, sharp, and far too smart and physically fit to be caught by the bumbling squad of keystone kops and assorted hirelings of the antagonists that pursue them. When the caper is finished and they all wax philosophical about retiring from the thief trade, they give one last effort to helping out that hapless guvmint elevator inspector unwittingly used by the hero as a ladder to scale the heights to the loot.
As we see from the above, the best the petroleum geologist can hope for is to be consumed by an avalanche of fast-moving red-hot lava, as redemption for his unforgivable sin of working for the oil company, whose explorations caused the earth shifting and resultant catastrophe in the first place. The accountant or economist must finally see the light; that he is an unwilling dupe of the greedy capitalist boss. The hero clerk frees the money owed the underpaid factory workers, if either the bean-counter or his boss expects to achieve nirvana. Chemists are doomed to melt alive in a roiling pot of their own ethyl-methyl-death concoction unless they make that overdue call to the proper authorities squealing that the boss is responsible for the death of five hundred million Americans this month alone! (Thanks to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for that line). The theme of grasping rich person is repeated endlessly, as is the theme of the overworked but underpaid government regulator or enforcement officer who has the thankless task of catching them. Every now and again there is the evil or crooked politician, just to even it up â€“ conservative, of course.
Thus the task of demagogic Democrats has been made easy. Wall Street executives are by mere accusation convicted of crimes the public knew they committed all along. Oil companies must be evil, because they make so much money. Never mind oil field work is deadly dangerous, exploration risky, and the company gets no pay for dry holes. Never mind that businesses create jobs, making the money people use to attend these movies or buy TVâ€™s possible. It is the means that has been hammered home to the less-well off; everyone except the rich are victims. The rich are the victimizers, who have exploited the poorer among us to obtain ill-gotten gains. Classic Marxism is the inescapable root from which the tree of modern liberal Democrat ideology grows.
So how come no one seems to resent the wealthy in Hollywood? The people who create these negative images are among the richest around. The answer must be that wealth earned through the â€œartisticâ€ professions is perceived as deserved, or that the products are desired. Never mind it may be ill-gotten wealth, such as that by a portly and less than handsome maker of alleged documentaries that contain shoddy fact finding, non-sequiters, and misleading editing. Never mind some of the wealth is made by purveyors of soft or hardcore pornography, or makers of titillating giggle, unfunny comedies, or thrill-horror nonsense. The once-respected arts of portrait painting or sculpting have devolved into pseudo-intellectual nonsense, which is mostly insulting. Examples are the obscene â€œPiss Christâ€, an image of Jesus in a jar of urine, or Andy Warholâ€™s can of soup, or the blank white canvas. Whatâ€™s to observe in these, other than functional inanity?
To criticize wealth gained by these means is to be judgmental. Criticizing wealth gained by grittier work, such as oil exploration, or smart work like stock trades, has become part of the Democrat agenda which seeks to divide, not unite. Democrats know the less well-off will succumb to emotional appeals that make them feel better about themselves, saying things like they will â€œsoak the richâ€ with tax increases and give it to the poor. Any Democrat claiming the title of â€œuniterâ€ might be sincere, but the first reaction should be suspicion. Democrat opportunists who exploit the negative images to gain votes are never questioned about their motives in doing so. Hollywood is in fact among liberal candidatesâ€™ largest monetary contributors. Celebrities who misuse their stage to promote favored candidates, mostly liberals, betray their God-given gifts. Not because they shouldnâ€™t have the right to speak freely, but because they are generally ill-informed about politics. How would he like it if a well-liked prominent senator used his public stage to urge people not to go to George Clooneyâ€™s movies, saying heâ€™s a bad actor and a know-nothing loudmouth?
Any fool with a paintbrush or camera or willingness to look ridiculous onstage can get rich, and itâ€™s OK. Acquiring wealth through knowledge and hard work, wellâ€¦thatâ€™s different. How, you might ask one of the acceptable protagonists described above? His possible but acceptable reply to liberals: I donâ€™t know, it just is.
Negative images have diminished us all, and Democrats have exploited those voters who have taken those images as accurate portrayals. We have made that possible by the most mundane acts: patronizing the movies and watching TV â€“ and voting for those politicians.