posted on September 11, 2002 09:24:16 PM new
maybe intolerance can be lumped into one big "culture"...they seem to have a lot in common with the fundamentalist right in the US...only they're willing to die for their beliefs.......
posted on September 11, 2002 10:01:33 PM new
The American "entertainment" industry is, with a few exceptions, In the Sewer.
There is very little culture clash between the hatred of and disdain for women in the Muslim culture and the hatred of and disdain for women in rap "music."
We watched in the early 90s as Western pornography flooded into Eastern Europe, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and how it changed those cultures, for the worse, almost overnight.
Not trying to defend the Muslims, mind you, but honestly, parents in our own country try to protect their children against some of the worst in the entertainment industry. Why shouldn't other cultures want to do the same? Of course, the Jewish reason they give for wanting to destroy our industry is nutso. And I do not condone violence.
But I think many if not most of us in this country wouldn't mind seeing something drastic (and non-violent) happening in or to our entertainment industry. The pendulum seems to have gone as far as it can go. . . .
posted on September 11, 2002 10:12:12 PM new
Actually, the Hollywood film entertainment industry was created by the jewish people who had recently immigrated to the USA and then went west from New York. They were the studio owners, most of the movie producers, the actors and actresses, and they made nearly every film to come out of Hollywood until at least the McCarthy era. I have no idea after the McCarthy era what the ratio of jewish:gentile is since then.
posted on September 11, 2002 11:01:46 PM new
It doesn't make one wit of difference what the make-up is of the movie industry.
It doesn't make one wit of difference if you think the culture is in the sewer.
The point is that you can make the decision about what you watch or listen to yourself.
Anyone will find fault with some music, movies, or literature at one time or another. Some people don't like the Mona Lisa or Sesame Street. But as with free democracies that honor basic human rights, you don't have to consume what you don't like, nor can you prevent others from consuming it either.
posted on September 12, 2002 08:04:02 AM new
With the exception of art, literature and music, choices are becoming limited in my opinion.
The media, for example, is owned and controlled by corporate political interests. Yesterday was a fine example of that control. So, like you suggested, I had the choice to turn it off and I did.
In my opinion, the computer offers more choice and better entertainment than television. In fact, if it was my choice to make, I would remove the TV from my house. Just think! No more football. LOL!
In some cases the choices are there but so limited that the only option is to choose not to be entertained.
posted on September 12, 2002 09:22:47 AM new
It still boils down to a matter of repression of individual rights. In the Middle East, trial by jury amounts to being dragged into the street and shot as a sympathizer. The accusations about Western media are nothing but rhetoric. Oil-rich sheiks live in palaces, while their subjects live in mud shacks. That is the basis of the problem, not Hollywood movies.
posted on September 12, 2002 09:39:40 AM new
If I hear that old goodie, "If you don't like it, turn it off," one more time I'm going to frow up!
We can protect our children all we want to, but unless the others are, too, the risk is that our children will marry someone who grew up in The Sewer.
AND - I don't know what the answer is, because I believe in free speech, also. I'd just like to see Hollywood etc. take a little more care with what they make their money on.
Probably won't happen. . . .
posted on September 12, 2002 10:17:11 AM new
I agree with Helen: I spend much more time being entertained on my computer than on the TV. The variety on the Internet is incredible and you can even make your own content.
As far as the content of the movie media is concerned, it has changed over the years. Now, don't hold me to the years her, but I recall about 1992 when Hollywood that year produced their usual spat of R rated films and some PG rated ones. The PG rated ones did extraordinarily well and the R rated ones did not fare as well. The next year, 1993, saw a lot more PG rated films and less R rated films and the PG rated films blew away all the box office records and R rated films were dismal. Since then there are few R rated films produced each year and the majority are PG rated.
And why was that? Well, at least around here, the movie chains reversed the 1970's trend of taking larger screen movie theaters and chopping them up into doubles or quads or worse, with tiny screens that the local bar used to show football on sports nights. They revamped the sound systems of the old theaters and made the screens larger or replace the old ones. Many new locations opened up as well. Then, to attract the crowds, they made matinee prices $2.50 to $3.00 a head!
Heck, at those prices, a family could afford to take the kids out to the movies. With so many family swarming into the theater with BOTH the parents and the kids, you can see why the G and PG rated films took over.
Content changed too. I forget who the producer/director was back in the 1970s, but he incorporated the "Obligatory Sex Scene" in each film, which was a smash hit. So every film producer began to incorporate the sex scene as well, which was absurd in so many films as the sex was obviously put there just to get the film rated higher and to attract the adult crowd. Even Walt Disney Films put the Make-Out scenes in their feature-length animated films. That got tossed out in the early 1990s.
Nowadays? If you were smart, you went to go see the film this summer Xxx. Triple X. Incredibly action oriented, but with a lot less violence than you'd expect, NO swearing and NO sex and NO nudity whatsoever! Heck, you could take your kids to go see it!
The point, as you may have guessed, is that the entertainment industry responds to its audience, not the other way around. I hear the Blue comedians are falling like rocks and they're having to learn to be funny without swearing and saying MotherF' every other word to try to be funny. It might get back to the old days where comedians had to by FUNNY and to use HUMOR in order to entertain the audiences, not try to shock them.
So, if the Arab world doesn't like the films that America produces or the way that it portrays Islamic terrorists, then they can go produce their own films to compete!
posted on September 12, 2002 11:17:24 AM new
So is it the Jews they hate or the movie stars that the Jews 'created', or is it that they think sex shouldn't be in films? What a bunch of radical garbage. If this is the way they've felt, why has it taken them 75 years to act?
The only thing that shouldn't be shown on TV is the hate speeches and threats made by these blockheads. I don't need to see or hear about it because it does NOTHING to further their cause except make me despise them more. Where are all the Muslim leaders in the world? Surely they must be embarrassed as hell to have these radicals spouting off their version of a holy war. That's what needs to be on TV... all we get is what the Americans & Tony Blair think. Are there no Muslims siding with the U.S.?? It makes me think ALL Muslims feel this way.
I agree with you too Helen. TV is a waste of time.
posted on September 12, 2002 01:01:54 PM new
The issue with these radical muslim leaders is that their people have access to western culture, and guess what, they like it.
This is a matter of the muslim religious leaders losing control. It is hard to command one of the flock that she can not drive a car when she sees the whole of womankind driving - even other muslim woman. Sex is not acultural transmission. As I pointed out in another thread, the Puritan colony in America had a 20% out of wedlock birth rate, without movies or TV.
Religions won't give up control any easier than any other entity. Look at the wars, death and destruction that occurred when the Catholic church was deposed in Europe.
This is about a culture of muslim religion that despises and is frightened of individual freedom.
posted on September 12, 2002 02:31:55 PM new
"Are there no Muslims siding with the U.S.?? It makes me think ALL Muslims feel this way."
Most do. In the Mideast the people who run things are "westernized". They have college educations from western schools, listen to music, talk to unmarried women, et al. Now, in Saudi Arabia, for example, this made the ignorant religious wackos very angry. They spent most of their time trying to overthrow the gov. So to keep them quiet, the princes gave them control of the courts and the schools. That's why you have women being stoned in the streets and murder cults.
Initially this stuff starts only with ignorant savages. But now it doesn't matter that the oil billions are rolling in and everybody is being sent to school because the priests control the schools. Leslie Glass visited Saudi and everyone on the street was very polite and didn't even glance at the uncovered head etc. But when interviewed, these people are full of the most absurd notions. It's all what they've been taught since they've been born.
It's like this country, when you see a 2 yr kid at a demonstration carrying a "my mommy didn't abort me" sign. Some of them will be fire bombers.
Eventually this will all end when we have to smash one of these countries, and we or the UN will have to "administer" it for 20yrs.
posted on September 12, 2002 02:34:41 PM new
The Great Charade
by John Pilger
Akhbar
September 02, 2002
Exerpt
I was in the US last week and glimpsed that other America, the one rarely seen among the media and Hollywood stereotypes, and what was clear was that it was stirring again. The other day, in an open letter to their compatriots and the world, almost 100 of America's most distinguished names in art, literature and education wrote this:
'Let it not be said that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression. We believe that questioning, criticism and dissent must be valued and protected. Such rights are always contested and must be fought for. We, too, watched with shock the horrific events of September 11. But the mourning had barely begun when our leaders launched a spirit of revenge. The government now openly prepares to wage war on Iraq - a country that has no connection with September 11.
'We say this to the world. Too many times in history people have waited until it was too late to resist. We draw on the inspiration of those who fought slavery and all those other great causes of freedom that began with dissent. We call on all like-minded people around the world to join us.'
posted on September 12, 2002 02:44:48 PM new
The pragmatic side of me says to let these bassackward muslim countries stew in their own soup. But they are exporting their BS to many other countries. 9-11 is a result of that exporting.
I agree that we will have to collapse one or two of these countries before the problems cease.
Even if we accept for argument that Iraq poses no threat, it would be the easiest regime to collapse and democratize. Once a successful democracy is established and protected, the other countries come under extreme pressure to change as their own people see how much better it is.
posted on September 12, 2002 02:56:09 PM new
The other thing I don't understand about these discussions is the "Iraq poses no threat to the US" idea.
All Hussein has to do is launch a ricketty scud nuclear tipped to the Straits of Hormuz and you have instant worldwide depression.
The next silly left wing question is "why would he do that?" Which always brings back the quizzical expression when you answer: "Because he thinks he might gain something from it."
After all he's not really such a bad guy. His mistress has said he felt real, real, bad when he tried to have his oldest son assasinated and only paralyzed him.
posted on September 12, 2002 02:57:03 PM new
It is a battle of cultures, but I somewhat agree with profe51. It is a battle of fundamentalism against the modern secular state, as exemplified by the US and exported by Hollywood. Remember Jerry Falwell and the Teletubby that he claimed was homosexual? Remember the response by Pat Robertson to 9/11? Fundamentalists of many varieties see outsiders as the enemy.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on September 12, 2002 02:59:18 PM newEven if we accept for argument that Iraq poses no threat, it would be the easiest regime to collapse and democratize.
What a scary statement... and a very strong argument for the dangers of having only one Super Power in the world. There are no counter balances to prevent one nation from trying to impose its will on the rest of the world to suit whatever agenda it feels suits its own national interests at the moment.
Some might agree with the current agenda but they might not with the next agenda as it might be a danger to their own liberties.
posted on September 12, 2002 03:07:36 PM new
But that is the beauty of a democracy. The agenda is set by the people, not some nut in the pulpit or a despot.
Bush knows that he can not succede without the political support of the people as expressed through Congress and other means. It could be argued that he may modify his agenda if the international community doesn't go along.
In any event, democracy is not a static experience, nor a cookie cutter system. Look at the differences in democracies between Europe and the USA.
How is it "scary" to "impose" free will upon the peoples of the world ?
Are you suggesting that having a perverted super power like the former USSR around is better for mankind ?
The US isn't really a super power. The US doesn't impose its will without a series of checks and balances any more than any other democratic country does. China controls more of the world's population than any other government, and it does so as a totaltarian regime.
I find it scary that someone would suggest the enslavement of a population in order to have a competing element to democracy in the world.
Would we really have a better world if the muslim extremists formed a political union repleat with nuclear weapons in order to "compete" with democracies ? 9-11 was a taste of what that "competitive" world would be like.
[ edited by Reamond on Sep 12, 2002 03:17 PM ]
posted on September 12, 2002 03:13:37 PM newhe can not succede without the political support of the people as expressed through Congress and other means
So Americans have a "vote" on what it going to happen in other parts of the world but other nations who are affected have no "vote"? That's not very democratic, Reamond.
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Sep 12, 2002 03:22 PM ]
posted on September 12, 2002 03:23:39 PM new
Other democratic countries do have a vote. The US pays close attention to what other democracies have to say in international matters as well as some domestic issues.
The nature of democracies is inclusive domestically and internationally.
Everyone is effected by outcomes in a democracy. If a democracy goes to war, it is the sons, daughters, husbands, wives, of voters that do the fighting. It is a free press that reports it. The politicians reputation and career that is on the line. There is no faulty feedback in democracies, and that feedback brings about change.
edited to add- I think the UN should be dismantled and re-constituted to include voting priveleges to only democratic nations.
The tirades and obstinance the Western democracies get in the UN all come from undemocratic members. The democracies align along the lines of the peoples of their countries. Despots and totalitarins should have no voice in this world.
There is a dangerous disconnect between the people and despotic regimes. We have that problem now in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and all the other regimes.
A democratic people uses great restraint in using deadly force. Tyrants do not. Do you think al Qaeda or the Taliban debates the death of innocent civilians ? Israel does, and their is a political price to be paid by going against the will of the poeple.
But in any event, democracies will protect themselves with deadly force, not just as a fundemental right, but because they sincerely feel that the lives they live and the system they have are worth protecting.
posted on September 12, 2002 04:13:30 PM new
OMG!! Irene has joined the political threads. LOL Welcome, Irene.
kraftdinner - There are a few muslim countries that have. According to Geostratgy [The Global Intelligence News Agency] Jordan, and the Gulf Cooperation Council States [GCC] which include Behran, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are offering support of varying degrees. Other than Tony Blair...you're right.
But -
America alone was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and America alone would most likely be attacked in the next Sept. 11 situation, most probably with weapons of mass destruction. So my opinion is we NEED to act in our own best interests even if it means standing totally alone.
Besides, since when did "standing alone" become a bugaboo? It used to be a sign of heroism, or spur towards action -- not an excuse for inaction.
[i]Our founding fathers chose to "go it alone" when creating the world's sole democracy in 1776. Our founding fathers never considered it shameful, or even regrettable, to "go it alone." They envisioned America as a singular, shining "city on a hill" inspiring others to adopt freedom in their own good time[i].
That's precisely what happened. From being the world's sole democracy, we're now accompanied by 120-plus freely-elected democracies, according to the non-partisan Freedom House.
The giant of last century, Winston Churchill, took pride in Britain "standing alone" to resist Adolf Hitler, the world's previous scary totalitarian tyrant.
posted on September 12, 2002 06:35:01 PM new
>Even if we accept for argument that Iraq poses no threat, it would be the easiest regime to collapse and democratize. Once a successful democracy is established and protected,
My fear is that once we conquer Iraq and stay there to "proterct it", a cultural gruella war will be waged on us, both in Iraq and Afghanistan and at home. Once we leave Afghantistan and Iraq, they will instantly convert to Fundamentalist Islamic regiemes. So, by our own efforts are we creating the thing that we are trying to get rid of. You can't kill an Idea by conquering it, you have to use other means ~ means that Bush and Blair aren't willing to try.
posted on September 12, 2002 06:39:44 PM new
It's pretty close to 50/50 ....those that want war with Iraq and those that don't in this country. I would hope the white house resident wouldn't take that as a "go". If only half of this country is interested in going after Iraq and the rest of the world is against it exactly what makes it ok to do it?
I thought we wanted to get Bin Laden still. Is he living with Saddam? That's the only justification I see in going into Iraq.
posted on September 12, 2002 06:53:56 PM new
This rhetoric about going over to the Muslim world and "civilizing" the natives sounds an awful lot like the doctrine of Manifest Destiny to me. We'll go over there and do to the local natives what we did the American Indian and the Hawaiians. Who's going to be the first to chip in a smallpox-laden blanet for the Iraqi natives?
posted on September 12, 2002 06:57:19 PM new
That's right raw, there isn't any justification for going into Iraq. Bush laid it our like he was a lawyer pleading a legal case, but the UN is not a courtroom. This is the MAJOR mistake on his part. Plus, the White House admitted yesterday that TERRORISM was the least likely reason for starting a War with Iraq! Seems that Terrorism, Osama bin-Laden, Al-Queda, and those who masterminded the attack and ARE STILL AT LARGE are also not hiding out in Iraq!
posted on September 12, 2002 07:38:09 PM new
What if Iraq already has nuclear weapons? North Korea has nuclear technology, so what would hold them back from selling to Iraq? If the U.S. does go ahead and strike, then they can retaliate with whatever they have, which could be more than the U.S. planned on.
posted on September 12, 2002 09:20:10 PM new
The US planned on Iraq using WOMD in the Gulf war. But this goes right to the heart of the problem of dictators.
Dictators do not operate in the best interests of the populations of their countries.
Which some may find to be irrelevant if they don't have WOMD and missles.
But why wait until they do have them ? Either way we have to go in and get them.
Non-alignment of the country also makes a difference with WOMD. Iraq is non-aligned. Iran has as much to fear from Iraq as anyone. Iran is after a nuclear program more so to thwart Iraq than anyone - Iran has good reason to fear that Iraq will use the weapons against Iran. Pakistan was helped/permitted to have nukes when India got them. However, as the Persian Gulf arms with nukes, they all have a common enemy- Israel.
The bottom line is, we have to keep these weapons out of the hands of these nut case countries, unless we want to see them used.
