Convervatives

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Hollywood Conservatives Encouraged to Come Out of the Closet

A once-timid group of social outcasts is emerging from the shadows in Hollywood. If the past year is any indication, Tinseltown may have to get accustomed to the loud presence of a growing minority.

After years of silence, conservatives are coming out of the closet.

Andrew Breitbart, the conservative founder of Breitbart.com and author of "Hollywood Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon," is launching a Web site he hopes will help challenge the status quo in what he believes has been a one-party, left-tilting town. Set to debut on Jan. 6, "Big Hollywood" will be a place where center, right and libertarian-leaning celebrities and industry-insiders can weigh in on Hollywood politics, offer film, television and movie reviews, and have an open forum for political discussion.

"Our goal," says Breitbart, who lives in Los Angeles, "is to create an atmosphere of tolerance — something that does not exist in this town."

Breitbart has invited a number of conservative politicians, commentators and journalists to write regularly about the cult of celebrity, liberalism in popular culture, and politics. Among the names who will be contributing, he says, are Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va), political commentator Tucker Carlson, and former Tennessee Senator and Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson.

The site will also feature the punditry of some well-known Hollywood actors, directors, producers, and writers, Breitbart says.

As celebrities like Jon Voight, Gary Sinise, Charlton Heston, Patricia Heaton, Stephen Baldwin and Kelsey Grammer came out publicly with their political ideas over the past few years, the news that there were, in fact, conservatives in Hollywood, had many wondering who would be next.

Recently, there have been rumors that Robert Downey Jr. is a closet Republican, though his publicist will neither confirm nor deny it, saying only, "We unfortunately have no comment, as RDJ does not comment on political matters."

But Breitbart says the goal of Big Hollywood is not to "out" conservative celebrities, and he will not pressure celebrities like Downey to jump into the fray. He says conservative celebs who aren't comfortable with full transparency will be allowed to write under an alias.

"I want them to come on their own volition," he says. "'Big Hollywood is going to have to be a compelling daily read that speaks to Hollywood conservatives' unique burden before some will stick their necks out and choose to speak up for what they believe."

Sticking their necks out has not always been good for business. Mark Vafiades, president of the Hollywood Congress of Republicans, says, "I'm hoping that one day politics won't make a difference in Hollywood. But because there is still subtle intolerance here, conservatives remain somewhat shy.

"If you come to an audition wearing a Bush or McCain button, the casting director will most likely pick another actor. Just being on a set you hear people bashing Bush and the right, because they assume everyone agrees."

Some have suggested the purported anti-conservative tilt in Hollywood is overstated — if it exists at all. Perez Hilton, the self-proclaimed "Queen of All Media" and author of his eponymous gossip site, said, "I think Hollywood is very tolerant. They may mock you for your political beliefs, but at least they'll do it to your face!

"It won't ever interfere with people getting a job. Kelsey Grammer still works!"

But some conservatives in the entertainment industry say there may not be a literal blacklist in Hollywood, but there is pressure to keep silent.

"Conservatives don't necessarily have to be covert about their politics, but in many cases they are because the liberals aren't fair and balanced towards those with differing points of view," says Jerry Molen, the Oscar-winning producer of big Hollywood hits like "Schindler's List," "Jurassic Park" and "Rain Man."

"In too many cases, conservatives are immediately labeled racist, homophobic, bigoted, hateful, demonic, or even un-American without the benefit of debate, and are locked out of the hiring process, with a few exceptions."

But the doors may be slowly opening "An American Carol," a conservative parody that lampooned liberal Hollywood this year, galvanized conservative celebrities like Robert Davi, Dennis Hopper, Kevin Farley, Voight and Grammer, all of whom had roles in the film.

And conservative film festivals, including the American Film Renaissance and the Liberty Film Festival, have also helped bring to market conservative projects that a few years ago might have had a difficult time getting made.

Some industry insiders credit John McCain with helping to embolden Hollywood conservatives during this year's presidential election. Andrew Klavan, a conservative author and screenwriter of psychological thrillers including True Crime and Don't Say A Word, said, "For people who had a lot to lose, McCain gave them some cover. He wasn't a true Republican like Bush was. He was someone even the left liked, whereas Bush was demonized. Hollywood conservatives could support McCain without necessarily supporting the GOP."

Klavan suggested that a spate of recent political movies like "Rendition" and "Redaction" also strengthened the conservative cause.z

"These movies are genuinely anti-American. Never before have we had anti-war movies made while our troops were at war. Many people like me were ashamed of the industry, and there's been a bit of a backlash."

Vafiades says increasing numbers of conservatives have joined his organization in the past year, and more organizations like his are sprouting up.

But hush-hush groups like "Friends of Abe," a secretive society of Hollywood conservatives, still operate well under the radar. And the increased spotlight on conservative celebrities has not changed the political climate as much as Breitbart, Vafiades, Molen and Klavan would like.

They say liberal celebrities still have an easier time "being political" than conservatives do.

"Sean Penn is out dancing with dictators, and no one gives him flak. Instead they give him Oscar nominations," says Klavan. "Jon Voight may have some semblance of job security, but he still has to be careful about what he says."[/quote]a

liberal tendencies is the norm, in the US.
but, also, i still say liberal is the dirty word.
'conservative' invokes solid, well blanced etc, and newscasters use it endearingly. can't be said for the word liberal.

[CatherineM]

I guess since Charlton Heston died, they have kind of lost their head guy.

[Mr_Private_Person]

Guns for all!

But we need to legalize Marijuana. That way all of us would be relaxed and would never shoot anybody!

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1745590' date='Jan 7 2009, 09:36 PM']a

liberal tendencies is the norm, in the US.
but, also, i still say liberal is the dirty word.
'conservative' invokes solid, well blanced etc, and newscasters use it endearingly. can't be said for the word liberal.[/quote]
Grented, one of the first things I learned in Politics class when we were case studying America is that the word 'Liberal' is a dirty word in US Politics that no-one really willingly applies to themselves. Well, no-one with genuine political aspirations that is.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Galloglasses' Alt

[Giolla]

[quote name='Mr_Private_Person' post='1745635' date='Jan 7 2009, 11:09 PM']Guns for all!

But we need to legalize Marijuana. That way all of us would be relaxed and would never shoot anybody![/quote]

agree with the gun part not the MJ I think we need to up the DEA 200%

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1745590' date='Jan 7 2009, 10:36 PM']a

liberal tendencies is the norm, in the US.
but, also, i still say liberal is the dirty word.
'conservative' invokes solid, well blanced etc, and newscasters use it endearingly. can't be said for the word liberal.[/quote]
Nice article. I'd linked to some similar stuff in the pop culture section.

(Coming from dairygirl, I was expecting something sophomoric about conservatives being gay or such)

It's long been standard knowledge that Hollywood is one of the most liberal segments of American society. Hollywood really can't be considered a microcosm of the country as a whole.

[quote]can't be said for the word liberal.[/quote]Gee, I wonder why.

[Guest couture]

[quote name='Mr_Private_Person' post='1745635' date='Jan 7 2009, 10:09 PM']Guns for all!

But we need to legalize Marijuana. That way all of us would be relaxed and would never shoot anybody![/quote]

Sorry, but trying to solve the problem of sin by making a sin more available doesn't quite work....

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='couture' post='1746636' date='Jan 8 2009, 10:38 PM']Sorry, but trying to solve the problem of sin by making a sin more available doesn't quite work....[/quote]
Welcome to PM!
First lesson: A beginner's field guide to trolls.

[Ziggamafu]

I am totally for the legalized control (and heavy taxation) of any and all drugs.

It would:

- make the drugs safer
- eliminate most (if not all) organized crime
- flush out our ridiculously overpopulated, money-sucking prisons
- provide major money to the government

...and I see no down-sides of which the same could not be said for alcohol and other drugs.

[Nihil Obstat]

They should get Clint Eastwood as their poster child.

I don't even really call myself conservative anymore. I'm trying to maintain a healthy distance from the Conservative Party of Canada.
Not that I particularly dislike them; they've definitely done good things, but silence is the norm on sexual issues.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1746679' date='Jan 8 2009, 11:02 PM']I am totally for the legalized control (and heavy taxation) of any and all drugs.

It would:

- make the drugs safer
- eliminate most (if not all) organized crime
- flush out our ridiculously overpopulated, money-sucking prisons
- provide major money to the government

...and I see no down-sides of which the same could not be said for alcohol and other drugs.[/quote]

These points are easily disputed Organized crime, like the black market and moonshine, will always exist because they are defined by the existence of legal limitations. The legalization of alcohol did not stop organized crime. I daresay the legalization of prostitution has not stopped (or even stunted) organized crime in Nevada. The legalization of all drugs in America would only cause organized crime to seek other avenues of profiteering.

Second, if you've every sneaked candy into a movie theatre, you know what happens when the price of a good sold legally is higher than what the market will bear: a black market is created to meet the demand at lower prices. While most consumers would purchase the legal drugs, those who become addicted or otherwise aren't willing to pay the higher price will seek them in the black market. That's where organized crime enters the picture.

Third, most illegal drugs -- probably all of them except marijuana -- are so dangerous and harmful that there is no such thing as "safer." What is "safer" methanphetamine? Maybe it kills you faster...

Fourth, densely populated prisons are more the result of an effective justice system than anything we, as a country, are doing wrong.

Fifth, is it desireable for lethal drugs to be a major source of income for our government? That's something organized crime can use to promote their own ends.


All those points aside, the greater point I want to make is this: there is [i]always[/i] a downside. If you don't know the downside to your position, you are blind. It's like claiming there is no downside to follow Christ. Then what is the cross? The question with any debateable position is, Do the benefits outweigh the sacrifice?

[Didacus]

A little Chuck Norris anyone?

[mcts]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1747100' date='Jan 9 2009, 11:25 AM']A little Chuck Norris anyone?[/quote]


haha i was going to suggest him.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1746848' date='Jan 9 2009, 12:28 AM']They should get Clint Eastwood as their poster child.

I don't even really call myself conservative anymore. I'm trying to maintain a healthy distance from the Conservative Party of Canada.
Not that I particularly dislike them; they've definitely done good things, but silence is the norm on sexual issues.[/quote]
Heh... don't get me started about Canada's politics... I'll take the blue over the orange and red (and green), though we're getting a coalition of the latter....

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1747098' date='Jan 9 2009, 11:14 AM']These points are easily disputed Organized crime, like the black market and moonshine, will always exist because they are defined by the existence of legal limitations. The legalization of alcohol did not stop organized crime. I daresay the legalization of prostitution has not stopped (or even stunted) organized crime in Nevada. The legalization of all drugs in America would only cause organized crime to seek other avenues of profiteering.[/quote]

Organized crime may exist until the Last Day, but surely its size and scope may be diminished? Also, comparisons with intrinsically immoral practices such as prostitution are not warranted. No drug is intrinsically evil; alcohol's abuse does not render alcohol evil. Perhaps you think prohibition was a good thing? Please, before anything else, reply to that simple question and explain your answer.

[quote]Second, if you've every sneaked candy into a movie theatre, you know what happens when the price of a good sold legally is higher than what the market will bear: a black market is created to meet the demand at lower prices. While most consumers would purchase the legal drugs, those who become addicted or otherwise aren't willing to pay the higher price will seek them in the black market. That's where organized crime enters the picture.[/quote]

Again, which is better: large and unrestrained organized crime or small, hampered organized crime? Since there is a huge black market for bootlegged CDs and movies, should we make CDs and moves illegal? Please justify your answer.

[quote]Third, most illegal drugs -- probably all of them except marijuana -- are so dangerous and harmful that there is no such thing as "safer." What is "safer" methanphetamine? Maybe it kills you faster...[/quote]

That's simply false. It is not the drugs themselves that are more harmful, but rather it is precisely the fact that they are unregulated and unchecked that enables users to so easily abuse them. A person could also kill himself by means of drinking a fifth of Bacardi 151 or by popping Aspirin. It is not the thing itself, but its quantity ("dosage") and regulation that can be dangerous. What do you make of controlled pharmaceuticals? Again, as my post stated, you are going to have to pin down the logic that separates drugs into moral categories; you should know that a thing is bad or it isn't.

[quote]Fourth, densely populated prisons are more the result of an effective justice system than anything we, as a country, are doing wrong.[/quote]

Is that what the dictators tell their oppressed peoples? It could also mean that there are bogus laws that the sense of the people recognize as idiotic. Mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug offenders cause our prisons to fill to capacity and cost unfathomable amounts of tax dollars. Is it really necessary?

[i]Fifth, is it desireable for lethal drugs to be a major source of income for our government? That's something organized crime can use to promote their own ends. [/i]

Again, please define and logically defend your usage of the term "lethal" as compared to other available drugs over the counter in pharmacies and liquor stores.

[quote]All those points aside, the greater point I want to make is this: there is [i]always[/i] a downside. If you don't know the downside to your position, you are blind. It's like claiming there is no downside to follow Christ. Then what is the cross? The question with any debateable position is, Do the benefits outweigh the sacrifice?[/quote]

First of all, the cross - along with all of the Church's redemptive suffering won in it - is not downside to those who place our hope in the final victory; it is the very opposite, it is our triumph.

Second, you ignored the context of my post. Please re-read it to correct yourself. I did not say that there was no downside to the legalization of drugs. So what, exactly, did I say?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1747343' date='Jan 9 2009, 03:01 PM']Heh... don't get me started about Canada's politics... I'll take the blue over the orange and red (and green), though we're getting a coalition of the latter.... [/quote]
I agree with you 100%. In fact when I'm able to start voting, I can't see myself voting for anyone else.
They're sure a lot better than our "socialists, seperatists", and however they labelled the equally deficient Liberals. Just plain lunatics, maybe?
...but no matter how much better they are, WOW! I'm disappointed that it's even possible for a government to avoid:
a) homosexual 'marriage'
b) abortion
c) euthanasia

for as ridiculously long as they have. Seriously. Stephen Harper may be an economist and 'tactician'. Fine, I think that's awesome in fact, but really, the government is about more than a strong economy and being 'tough on crime'.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']Organized crime may exist until the Last Day, but surely its size and scope may be diminished? Also, comparisons with intrinsically immoral practices such as prostitution are not warranted. No drug is intrinsically evil; alcohol's abuse does not render alcohol evil. Perhaps you think prohibition was a good thing? Please, before anything else, reply to that simple question and explain your answer.[/quote]

Okay... in your previous post, you proposed that legalizing all drugs would "eliminate most (if not all) organized crime."

I would argue that most illegal drugs [i]are[/i] intrinsically evil. Can you explain how LSD and meth are intrinsically good? We're not talking about alcohol... that's child's play compared to this stuff.

No, I don't think Prohibition was a good idea. It denied the intrinsic goodness of alcohol while creating a situation for organized crime to thrive. Not to mention the thousands of local breweries across the country that were forced out of business, never to be seen again, which allowed Anheuser-Busch and their kin to drown us with their watery swill. It's not surprising that watered down theology follows the development of watered-down beer.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']Again, which is better: large and unrestrained organized crime or small, hampered organized crime? Since there is a huge black market for bootlegged CDs and movies, should we make CDs and moves illegal? Please justify your answer.[/quote]

Again, music and movies and intrinsically good.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']That's simply false. It is not the drugs themselves that are more harmful, but rather it is precisely the fact that they are unregulated and unchecked that enables users to so easily abuse them. A person could also kill himself by means of drinking a fifth of Bacardi 151 or by popping Aspirin. It is not the thing itself, but its quantity ("dosage") and regulation that can be dangerous. What do you make of controlled pharmaceuticals? Again, as my post stated, you are going to have to pin down the logic that separates drugs into moral categories; you should know that a thing is bad or it isn't.[/quote]

Yes, alcohol is intrinsically good. It's the abuse of alcohol that must be controlled.

The difference between Bacardi 151 and most illegal drugs is shooting a single shot of 151 is not the least bit harmful to most people. Wine and medium-to-dark beers are actually healthy in moderation. But most illegal drugs are harmful even at the the smallest quantities. Do you know how meth is made?

As for pharmaceuticals, when taken appropriately for the proper symptoms, they are beneficial to our health. Again, it's the abuse of a good thing that must be controlled. LSD and meth are never good. If you ever take them at all, you are abusing the drug and your body.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']Is that what the dictators tell their oppressed peoples? It could also mean that there are bogus laws that the sense of the people recognize as idiotic. Mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug offenders cause our prisons to fill to capacity and cost unfathomable amounts of tax dollars. Is it really necessary?[/quote]

Yes, there are rehabilitation programs that can be more productive for society by turning criminals into productive members of society. It's also true that after being released from prison, many end up returning to crime because they can't get legitimate jobs with a record. But, all that is beside the point of this thread... but I concede your point here.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM'][i]Fifth, is it desireable for lethal drugs to be a major source of income for our government? That's something organized crime can use to promote their own ends. [/i]

Again, please define and logically defend your usage of the term "lethal" as compared to other available drugs over the counter in pharmacies and liquor stores.[/quote]

Lethal drugs are those that put the user's life at risk in any quantity.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']First of all, the cross - along with all of the Church's redemptive suffering won in it - is not downside to those who place our hope in the final victory; it is the very opposite, it is our triumph.[/quote]

Well... I think any kind of suffering, even when it is redeemed by the cross, is a "downside" or sacrifice. However, the redemption obviously far outweighs what we sacrifice, but that's a choice we have to make every day as we follow Christ while sojourning here.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']Second, you ignored the context of my post. Please re-read it to correct yourself. I did not say that there was no downside to the legalization of drugs. So what, exactly, did I say?[/quote]

You said, "and I see no down-sides of which the same could not be said for alcohol and other drugs."

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']Organized crime may exist until the Last Day, but surely its size and scope may be diminished? Also, comparisons with intrinsically immoral practices such as prostitution are not warranted. No drug is intrinsically evil; alcohol's abuse does not render alcohol evil. Perhaps you think prohibition was a good thing? Please, before anything else, reply to that simple question and explain your answer.



Again, which is better: large and unrestrained organized crime or small, hampered organized crime? Since there is a huge black market for bootlegged CDs and movies, should we make CDs and moves illegal? Please justify your answer.



That's simply false. It is not the drugs themselves that are more harmful, but rather it is precisely the fact that they are unregulated and unchecked that enables users to so easily abuse them. A person could also kill himself by means of drinking a fifth of Bacardi 151 or by popping Aspirin. It is not the thing itself, but its quantity ("dosage") and regulation that can be dangerous. What do you make of controlled pharmaceuticals? Again, as my post stated, you are going to have to pin down the logic that separates drugs into moral categories; you should know that a thing is bad or it isn't.



Is that what the dictators tell their oppressed peoples? It could also mean that there are bogus laws that the sense of the people recognize as idiotic. Mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug offenders cause our prisons to fill to capacity and cost unfathomable amounts of tax dollars. Is it really necessary?

[i]Fifth, is it desireable for lethal drugs to be a major source of income for our government? That's something organized crime can use to promote their own ends. [/i]

Again, please define and logically defend your usage of the term "lethal" as compared to other available drugs over the counter in pharmacies and liquor stores.



First of all, the cross - along with all of the Church's redemptive suffering won in it - is not downside to those who place our hope in the final victory; it is the very opposite, it is our triumph.

Second, you ignored the context of my post. Please re-read it to correct yourself. I did not say that there was no downside to the legalization of drugs. So what, exactly, did I say?[/quote]
Louisville dealt with this more thoroughly, but I cannot see [i]any[/i] good reason to legalize most illegal drugs. (I would even argue against marijuana, though there have been decent arguments both sides).

"Hard drugs" like crack cocaine, heroin, and meth are inherently deadly and destructive substances which serve [i]no[/i] good purpose. They cannot be "used in moderation" - and implying that they are essentially the same as alcohol or aspirin is blatantly false. Deliberately using or selling such harmful substances is just as immoral as prostitution.

To think that legalizing such substances would be a good thing for society shows a profound ignorance.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1748982' date='Jan 11 2009, 07:26 PM']Louisville dealt with this more thoroughly, but I cannot see [i]any[/i] good reason to legalize most illegal drugs. (I would even argue against marijuana, though there have been decent arguments both sides).

"Hard drugs" like crack cocaine, heroin, and meth are inherently deadly and destructive substances which serve [i]no[/i] good purpose. They cannot be "used in moderation" - and implying that they are essentially the same as alcohol or aspirin is blatantly false. Deliberately using or selling such harmful substances is just as immoral as prostitution.

To think that legalizing such substances would be a good thing for society shows a profound ignorance.[/quote]

[Ziggamafu]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the previous two posts that have challenged my position may be summarized as follows:

"'Hard' drugs are intrinsically evil and unable to be used in moderation and furthermore, in any quantity, pose reckless endangerment to life."

Okay. I will first point out that once again, this is a mere assertion and not a logical or factual demonstration of truth. If you can prove that illegal drugs are either:

a) intrinsically evil

or

b) gravely dangerous in any quantity or regulation

...then you will have proven me wrong. I have not called out for the reckless legalization of the so-called "hard" drugs as they are currently marketed. I have rather suggested that legalization would achieve precisely the kind of control and regulation necessary to curb abuse (and, happily, eliminate a majority of organized crime in the process). My assertion was, amusingly enough, not directly challenged. Yours seems to be the only contended assertion and it is therefore incumbent upon you to provide proof of your assertion. You say that the drugs [i]themselves [/i]are "intrinsically evil" and gravely dangerous in [i]any amount or form[/i]; and I call bull. Prove it.

It seems self-evident that legalization would almost certainly provide:

1. assurance of purity under Food and Drug Administration regulation;
2. labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose);
3. virtual obliteration of vigorous marketing ("pushers");
4. virtual obliteration of drug crime and reduction of theft crime
5. savings in expensive enforcement and
6. significant tax revenues

(The above list was more or less lifted - with the liberty of a few edits - from: [url="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/roe1.htm)"]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/roe1.htm)[/url]