The Kerry campaign and McAuliffe's minions are a veritable propaganda factory engaged in malicious fabrication; mass producing cognitive dissonance and intellectual apoplexy. It's jamming; corrupt, duplicitious, deconstructionist jamming, pure and simple. This is what you get when you give a vain, hungry pack of failed lawyers a billion dollars, a soap box, aberrant celebrity, and then remove the constraints of a sitting Judge and the time-honored rules of American Jurisprudence.

Has anybody put the pieces together between UN/IAEA-head el Baradi's attempted tampering with the US election via his letter on 380 tons, his push for a waiver of the UN's 2-term rule so he can continue for an uprecedented third term, his wife's uncle who's a ruling Iranian Moo-lah, and the Moo-lah moolah that's been dripping into Kerry and DNC money coffers? This is stinky stinky.

"The man who was once hailed as a racist, homophobic supporter of spousal abuse is now the king of the leftie world because he made an anti-Bush video."

Just because he was "hailed" as these things does not mean that he was these things. These aren't self-proclamations. I can hail that the neocons are racist, homophobes, who support reversing women's rights, but that doesn't make it a fact. Besides, there were soccer moms galore rockin out to his last album after they dropped off their kids at practice.

He has the balls to speak out -- good for him.

"The most incurably frustrated - and, therefore, the most vehement - among the permanent misfits are those with an unfulfilled craving for creative work. Both those who try to write, paint, compose, etc, and fail decisively, and those who after tasting the elation of creativeness feel a drying up of the creative flow...are alike in the grip of a desperate passion. Neither fame nor power nor riches can still their hunger. Even the whole-hearted dedication to a holy cause does not always cure them. Their unappeased hunger persists, and they are likely to become the most violent extremists in the service of their holy cause. (p. 50)"

- The True Believer, Eric Hoffer

AS: It's not so much what Eminem really is or is not; it's that the same crowd that at one time criticized him rather harshly, is now all of a sudden embracing him because he now all of a sudden embraces their politics.

Have you read the article that Bill linked to? I think it explains the case rather well.

Also, let's face it...Eminem clearly is not some choir boy; he has indeed made some rather shocking songs and videos.

And does it really show that Eminem has much courage for him to speak out as he has; he is just parroting the same lines that are common in the entertainment community. So Eminem is taking no risks with his peers whatsoever by being anti-Bush. In fact, Eminem is just jumping on the bandwagon, probably to make some extra bucks.

Entertainers like Eminem, Springsteen, Streisand, et al would have far more credibility as champions of the people if they truly lived among the people, instead of in their universes of the rich and famous. They hoard the vast majority of their wealth for themselves; where is their compassion when it comes to their own money?

Yeah, I know they give away some of their money, but it's a spit in the bucket compared to what they have...their sacrifice is nothing.

When I see someone like Streisand live like Mother Theresa, then I'll take her seriously. When I see Springsteen or Eminem give up their many mansions and truly sacrifice and serve others, then I'll listen to what they have to say.

AT: I read the article. I heard the song, and I've listened to most of his music. But, I guess you are right, it was trying to make the point that he was hailed these things by a certain group that may be in support of him now (I had too much to drink last night). Just because there are hypocrites on the left, does not mean that we are all hypocrites you know? He is jumping on the bandwagon, and he will ultimately make money from this, but that's what he does. It's no different than somebody writing a politically charged book around election time (Coulter, Franken, Swifties, etc.). Still, I say his message was far bolder than most, and good for him.

"THE COMMUNISM OF BROADWAY AND HOLLYWOOD

The many to whom capitalism gave a comfortable income and leisure are yearning for entertainment. Crowds throng to the theatres. There is money in show business. Popular actors and playwrights enjoy a six-figure income. They live in palatial houses with butlers and swimming pools. They certainly are not prisoners of starvation. Yet Hollywood and Broadway, the world-famous centers of the entertainment industry, are hotbeds of communism. Authors and performers are to be found among the most bigoted supporters of Sovietism...

Under capitalism, material success depends on the appreciation of a man's achievements on the part of the sovereign consumers. In this regard there is no difference between the services rendered by a manufacturer and those rendered by a producer, an actor or a playwright. Yet the awareness of this dependence makes those in show business much more uneasy than those supplying the customers with tangible amenities. The manufacturers of tangible goods know that their products are purchased because of certain physical properties. They may reasonably expect that the public will continue to ask for these commodities as long as nothing better or cheaper is offered to them, for it is unlikely that the needs which these goods satisfy will change in the near future. he state of the market for these goods can, to some extent, be anticipated by intelligent entrepreneurs. They can, with a degree of confidence, look into the future.

It is another thing with entertainment. People long for amusement because they are bored. And nothing makes them so weary as amusements with which they are already familiar. The essence of the entertainment industry is variety. The patrons applaud most what is new and therefore unexpected and surprising. They are capricious and unaccountable. They disdain what they cherished yesterday. A tycoon of the stage or the screen must always fear the waywardness of the public. He awakes rich and famous one morning and may be forgotten the next day. He knows very well that he depends entirely on the whims and fancies of a crowd hankering after merriment. He is always agitated by anxiety. Like the master-builder in Ibsen's play, he fears the unknown newcomers, the vigorous youths who will supplant him in the favor of the public.

It is obvious that there is no relief from what makes these stage people uneasy. Thus they catch at a straw. Communism, some of them think, will bring their deliverance. Is it not a system that makes all people happy? Do not very eminent men declare that all the evils of mankind are caused by capitalism and will be wiped out by communism? Are not they themselves hard-working people, comrades of all other working men?

It may be fairly assumed that none of the Hollywood and Broadway communists has ever studied the writings of any Left author and still less any serious analysis of the market economy. But it is this very fact that, to these glamour girls, dancers and singers, to these authors and producers of comedies, moving pictures and songs, gives the strange illusion that their particular grievances will disappear as soon as the “expropriators; will be expropriated. There are people who blame capitalism for the stupidity and crudeness of many products of the entertainment industry."

- The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Ludwig von Mises

(www.mises.org/etexts/mises/anticap.asp)

Eminem is an idiot of course and a blight to pop culture. The use of his power against Bush is scary -- but how many of his fans vote? The campaigns are pushing anything they can at this point--it seems incredibly frenetic. Kerry's got Springsteen. Bush's is got Shilling.

OT: Salon has a new story on the bush 'bulge' -- bill, i think your investigative input would be very worthwhile on this. I've always thought this was a too-good-IF-true-but-its-not bunk for libs, but this article says otherwise

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge/

Snarky, buddy, you've been posting these same quotes in Michele's comment section.

Any chance you're going to get to the point?

It is called giving context to the discussion of why artists behave this way.

BB: I don't think Snarky has a point. Snarky isn't really posting anything that he/she has personally written, he is just filling up Bill's database with long winded passages written by Ludwin von Beethoven - or what have you... Ha!

Oh I have point Anon. Do you? Are you even a bit curious to learn more about my viewpoint? Or does it scare you?

Why do artists behave this way? Greed, failure, resentment, self-contempt.

It is called giving context to the discussion of why artists behave this way.

It's called spam, Snarky. Quotes are not a substitute for argument. For the record, I mostly agree with the quotes (and am a big fan of Hoffer), but it's annoying to see the same LONG quotes posted on multiple blogs.

Please make your arguments yourself. Surely you are capable of writing down your OWN thoughts and ideas. If you want to toss in a quote or two from a source to help you make a point, that's fine. More than fine, it's a common way of making a point. But don't spam people's blogs with long quotes. This is Bill's house, and you are a guest.

AS: I agree. Snarky is filling up Bill's bandwidth the way he's filled up Michele's. I keep expecting to see a quote from Edgar Allen Poe, Carl Sagan, or Mary Lou Retton.

Anon Sci: you can agree or disagree with Snarky, but it makes you look small to belittle Ludwig von Mises, one of the great economists of the last century.

Snarky: I decided to follow your lead. Here's one of my favorite quotes from Red Buttons, "Never raise your hands to your kids. It leaves your groin unprotected." See, my point is... Umm. Nevermind.

Snarko, I get what you are saying, but I don't need a whole article written by someone else. I would rather read your words.

AT: Take a pill. I was making a joke. It's Friday folks - let your hair down!

The Economist has just revealed itself as being equally as hypocritical and incoherent as the rest the Establishment.

Anonymous Scientist:

I can hail that the neocons are racist, homophobes, who support reversing women's rights, but that doesn't make it a fact.

You could certainly say those things about the neocons, but someone would have to be a delusional idiot whose views have little basis in reality, especially considering that the neocons largely embody - through vast achives of written and spoken word and deed - the opposite of those principles.

In contrast, Eminem entire oeuvre writes about raping and killing women, and denigrating "faggots."

Your analogy is absolutely terrible and reflects very poorly on your judgment.

And I'm being kind today.

ABC PrimeTime last night was a Democratic party lovefest: half an hour with Clinton talking about his surgery (riveting stuff!) and then Eminem's new video. However, it may blow up in their faces. Gee, I feel sorry for Bill and will vote for Kerry? As for Eminem, for every slacker he convinces to slouch towards the polls--and I sincerely doubt many of them are watching this show--they will convince five other normal people to vote against Kerry.

I don't think it is spam because it is relevent to the discussion. And there are TWO dicussions going on here, others might not be reading both threads.

I'll let Bill or Michele answer on the bandwith concern. Not sure how it is YOUR business.

AS:

"You can't always get what you want..."
-Rolling Stones

Here are my words: Don't read it then.

"You could certainly say those things about the neocons, but someone would have to be a delusional idiot whose views have little basis in reality"

Bill, that's why I'm not hailing it. I don't personally believe that either side is inherently evil, but there are people that do.

"In contrast, Eminem entire oeuvre writes about raping and killing women, and denigrating "faggots.""

Bill, as you may remember, I'm an ardent supporter of equal rights for the gay and lesbian population. Don't try to make it seem as if I'm supporting the use of denigrating words like "faggot". I'm just not sure if his lyrics were meant to be ironic, or if they were meant to be hurtful. Do you know?

Snarky, I'll address you here and on my site. It's spam because it moves the conversation away from the original intent of the post. I don't know about Bill, but I don't like that.

If you have your own words to say, that's fine. But don't post these long winded passages from someone else in blog comments and pass it off as discussion.

Snark: I'm quite sure it's not OUR business to worry about Bill's bandwith. It just seems more appropriate to link to, as opposed to copy and paste large articles in his forum. Pasting large articles has the effect of making a thread almost unreadable by interrupting the flow with four screens full of a single post (which was not written by you). But, I'm speaking from my own perspective here.

AS -

Regarding my comment about eminem, you misinterpret things:

Don't try to make it seem as if I'm supporting the use of denigrating words like "faggot"./i>

I'm not implying that in the least, and it's interesting taht you rush to that defensive conclusion. What I'm very pointedly saying is that your analogy is bad because you draw similarities between ...

1. people that malign one group with criticism that has no basis in the objective fact,

2.people that malign an individual that does indeed have an entire resume of maligning women and homosexuals

Beyond that, I occasionally listen to Eminem, but there are three points:

1. Objectively, his work is harmful to aspects of tha culture. He may rap ironically (though I think he's not totally ironic) about murdering women and calling them "bitches," but it has practical effect.

2. Groups that somewhat justly malign him for this focus are hypocrites for embracing him when it suits their other ideology. I may be a Republican-lite, but you'll never see me say a kind thing about Jerry Falwell, who will probably mirror my vote.

3. And my ultimate point, your analogy was bad. Very poor "if-then" process.

Any other conclusions that you draw about my comment are ultimately besides the point.

See I didn't see it as moving away original intent of the post. And the quotes were from obscure (but important books) on the subject.

I think it shed light on why artists such as Em are motivated to do these things.

But apparently I failed in my intent so I will cease posting here.

It was germane to the topic, but the problem lies in your inability to just provide a link, excerpt and boil down the nature of the reference in your comment.

The length of your attempt is pretty distracting. Summarize.

Bill: Fair enough. I don't think my original point was very good, and I somewhat retracted it when I said this to AT: "But, I guess you are right, [the article] was trying to make the point that he was hailed these things by a certain group that may be in support of him now (I had too much to drink last night)".

I don't think it was inappropriate for me to make a point that I don't support violence against women or use of denigrating language. You most likely understand that, but I could sense an attack at any minute from someone else. I just wanted to clarify my stance, that's all.

Thanks for being nice today ;-)

I wonder how our commanding generals will like keeping company with, and taking orders, from the guy described here...

http://conservativevoice.blogspot.com/2004/10/john-kerrys-dishonorable-discharge.html

The question seems to have shifted from the cognitive dissonance of the left to pop culture icons tending to lean leftward politically.

1. Cognitive Dissonance:

My definition of a liberal is one who can hold two opposite and opposing opinions at the same time. This often results in an irrational behavior called cognitive dissonance, i.e., the more you know something is false, the louder you holler that it's true or visa versa. This can be done with a straight face and allows for no hypocrisy. So if a pop culture icon with zero or less understanding of economics, political science, history, etc. supports your political position, this is good, however if an equally ignorant pop culture icon supports the opposite position, this is bad, horrible, and something should be done about it.

2. Pop Culture Icons Leading Leftward.

Artistic talent is inborn and takes no special intelligence. The excellent film, "Amadeus," depicts this phenomenon beautifully. Mozart was a brilliant genius who couldn't explain how or why the music came to him. He was childlike except when composing. Pop culture artists are no different than Mozart except in degree therefore the easy slogans of the left appeal to them. No difficult intellectualizing.

This is true, even of academics who are frequently childlike outside their narrow areas of expertise. In fact, just the other day, a law professor said that she goes to Starbucks even though the coffee is outrageously expensive because they provide "free" wireless access.

Obviously, the wireless access isn't free. The people who buy their coffee at Starbucks pay for it. This is true of everything that's "free" and that would include all services provided by the state.

Pop culture icons never think beyond the slogans and they certainly don't mean that they themselves would give up their extravagant life styles to share their wealth with the down trodden.

erp,

I don't argue your point about pop icons and politics, but what do you call a liberal who couldn't care less about what musicians and celebrities think? Who thinks that Sarandon and Moore and Penn are embarrassing?
On another note, you're right about the Amadeus movie, but I feel compelled to point out that Peter Shaffer's portrayal, upon which the movie is based, is a pretty inaccurate one. A good biography of Mozart is the one by Maynard Solomon. Mozart was not so much a "divine child" of inspiration as he was pressured by an overbearing father much the way some parents today pressure their kids to be sports stars from an early age. Not to critique the film too much though, I think Milos Forman is a great filmmaker.

I'd mock along with y'all, if I hadn't seen this so many times I'm convinced it's part of human nature.

If you want to call for the assassination of the President (and be given a pass) you'd better tell everybody you "deplore violence of all forms", like Charlie Brooker in the Guardian. If you want to use a racial slur, you'd better be known as firm liberal (examples off the top of my head: Carl Reiner [or was it Mel Brooks?], Margo Kingston). If you're a black liberal, you can get away with saying any damned thing about a black conservative (Harry Belafonte), assuming you can find one. If you want to grope women, you need to let people know how very much you respect them (Clinton). And, of course, you can make money hand over fist as long as you let everyone know you're automatic for the people, man (entertainers too numerous to mention, anyone selling Che Guevara T-shirts).

And, of course, on the other side, it's easier to get away with filthy unChristian sex if you constantly rail against filthy unChristian sex (Jimmy Swaggart) and spend money like no tomorrow if you're a Republican (Reagan, Bush).

Angie you have a really really good point there, I agree