Posts Tagged ‘history’

Oliver Stone projects…

Posted: July 26, 2010 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , , , , ,

Stacy is spot on concerning Oliver Stone to wit:

In the “context,” that is, of hating America. And Oliver Stone’s hatred of American is probably the best explanation for why a formerly successful feature director, an Academy Award winner, is reduced to directing crackpot “documentaries” for cable TV. Who wants to watch movies based on the theme that America is the unique embodiment of evil in the world?

There’s something frightening, really, when you realize how many people bought into the conspiratorial worldview of Stone’s JFK and then ponder the pathological destination to which this worldview has led Stone. And does anybody doubt that Stone has a handy scapegoat for his career problems? Blame the Jews!

When I look at the Newsbusters clip there is actually at least one point of Oliver Stone’s rant is worth considering.

Hitler did have a lot more support both within and outside of Germany that people care to remember, but I suspect Stone would like to forget that this includes the far left which just fawned over Adolph once he made is pact with the USSR and did a 180 as soon as he invaded the Soviet Union. As the saying went in France: “If everyone who claimed to be resistance were resistance, there would have been nobody left to collaborate.” It’s important to not forget that a lot of people bought what he was selling. This is is generally true for any purveyor of evil, they all have their acolytes that help make them possible.

The ultimate irony of this? This is exactly the role the Stone and people like him serve for Chavez (who he excuses) Iran (who he minimizes) and served for Saddam (Bush was worse).

Stone only valid point in his rant turns out to be a case of projection but he doesn’t see it. How could he? He is blinded to reality by the power of the “Jewish Cabel”.

Remind you of anyone?

Memeorandum thread here.

Update: The Volokh Conspiracy lays it out in case I was too vague:

Gibson was an easy target for Hollywood liberals and leftists. A right-winger and a religious Catholic, Gibson was the perfect manifestation of Hollywood liberals’ stereotypes of anti-Semites.

Stone, by contrast, is a Buddhist leftist of partial Jewish descent, the kind of person the Hollywood left usually thinks of as “one of the good guys.” Stone even was clever enough to follow his anti-Semitic remark about Jewish domination of the media, noted in the context of Hitler and the Holocaust, with some pablum about the Jewish lobby, Israel, and American foreign policy. This had nothing to do with the topic at hand, but Stone’s apologists will inevitably claim that his remarks were aimed at the “Israel lobby,” and not Jews per se.

Let’s see if stone gets the same play as Gibson, likely not, no baby mama in play here.

I actually watched all the Clinton Hearings and fully supported and still support the impeachment of Bill Clinton, I trace the decline in democratic honor from the moment of the disgraceful press conference after the initial vote.

That being said, Tancredo’s case for impeachment of president Obama is just off, it has no more justification than the left’s nonsense of the same toward George W. Bush.

I think this president has been disastrous domestically and adequate at best on defense (which was way ahead of my expectations for him) but certainly not impeachable. Most of what this president has done is bad policy, bad decisions, based on a bad philosophy but you don’t impeach that. (The virtual ceding of parts of Arizona to the Mexican Cartels has potential in that direction but we are nowhere near there yet).

Clinton directly lied to a grand jury, this is an actual crime, and he used the power of the presidency to cover that, he was disbarred for this.

There is nothing that Barack Obama has done to this point that rises to that level, being wrong or mistaken is not an impeachable offense and both legally and politically we waste our time going in that direction.

Memeorandum thread here.

Oh and one note, I’m not arguing that Clinton was a worse president than our current one or was worse for the country, I’m arguing the legalities and the purpose of impeachment as a constitutional tool. It should be used sparingly for actual crimes not as a political club.

Update: And of course here are the democrats also talking smack in the other direction, pure hogwash.

Director Blue has a history lesson on race

Posted: July 23, 2010 by datechguy in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

in this post. With one exception it’s pretty good, but lets take a look at the exception because it deals with the future of race in America.

DB hits Shirley Sherrod Maybe it’s just me, but if I had my father murdered in my teens by the Klan I might just have a chip on my shoulder for a bit. The fact that the chip is in any way off her shoulder is the amazing thing. Yeah her actual positions are wrong but I’m inclined to give her more of a pass.

More importantly it explains why in terms of race it will be another 60 years at least before conflicts concerning it are nipped in the bud. Consider:

To someone like me born in ’63 I look at this country and see us way past these things, but to those born just 10 years earlier who lived though a fight, this is not only something they experienced in their youth but their parents and grandparents told them about it and that will stick with them. That’s human nature, as long as the stuff of the 60’s and before is in living memory there will be people who carry it (and for some like Jackson, Sharpton and unfortunately the NAACP will make their living off of it) and let their opinions be shaped by them.

It will not be until the living memory of those times are gone that the next generation will be able to advance. The real danger here is that the race hustlers manage to keep the ball rolling or revive it in the same way that Griffith’s Birth of a nation did for the Klan.

Oh and if you want to understand how that can be done, read Roger Ebert’s review of the Birth of a Nation, it should be read by anyone who wants to understand film and history. (Ebert’s political views are nutty but he knows film)

is just plain ignorant.

What more needs to be said?