Sick of Politics

Maybe it's the ridiculously long primary season, I don't know, but I am so sick of politics being injected into everything. Last night I wanted to relax and watch some TV. I had DVR'ed the Andromeda Strain a while back since I typically like Chriton's stuff. I read the book in high school and saw the original movie version so I thought it would be a cool remake. Well, color me dissappointed. It had so many pointed jabs at the Bush administration and the gov't in general that I just couldn't enjoy it. It was just annoying. It seems like they way to sell a movie these days is to make the evil gov't out to be killers who will do anything, including torturing/killing their own citizens. I just want to watch a movie for goodness sake. Disgusted, I turn it off a little over half way through it and watch some Top Gear reruns instead. Of course, then I have to deal with Jeremy's comments about the US not being a free country and them showing some low-life car salesman down in Miami who keeps two guns handy at all times. One (a Ruger 10/22 with a scope) so he can shoot people who are really far away. I guess the point is to make the evil USA look like the Wild West!

Sorry for the rant, but sometimes I just want to enjoy myself without having to worry that I am getting somebody's political agenda thrown in for good measure!

Clay wrote: It was just annoying. It seems like they way to sell a movie these days is to make the evil gov't out to be killers who will do anything, including torturing/killing their own citizens.

Hey they stole that plot from the Bush Administration. Patriot Act FTW!

Look up "rendition" , but it's OK cause it's not happening to you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644_pf.html

You really don't want to read the book 1984. They spend the whole bloody thing dissing the UK and US governments, among others.

Point: A lot of works of art involve some sort of reference to politics, sometimes they're pointed at a specific group in real life, sometimes the relationship is whatever you make it out to be in your mind and is just a coincidence. I haven't watched Andromeda Strain...I think I'll have to rent it and get back to you.

On that note, I wonder what people would think if all 6 Star Wars movies were released in quick succession starting 2 or 3 years ago? (Well we'd be less disappointed at the prequels, for one thing )

Or maybe we should stop acting out the gun-crazy, government run amok cowboy stereotype for them.

I mean, I'm not saying their right, I'm saying their getting this stuff from somewhere, and they're not mistaking Americans for erudite bookworms with an appreciation for 18th century poetry and fine woodwork.

Maybe we should be a little concerned when the popular stereotype for americans is "fat, stupid and ready to shoot"? It's not the kind of reputation that tends to do you much good.

Yeah, the movie Rendition is another wonderful example. I refuse to watch it as I know the premise already. My inlaws saw it and were all upset about how aweful waterboarding is (they called it torture) and how it's being done "all the time." They were trying to tell me, "it's not a political movie." But they admitted the DVD has some added features that openly attack the Bush administration. Yeah, sounds balanced. I mean, just make a left-wing documentary if that's your goal. Don't try to sell it as a regular movie. I'm sure some don't mind being inundated with it if it agrees with their viewpoint, but for the rest of us who just want to see a movie, Keep politics out of it.

I agree some of the stereotypes on BBC are based on fact, but I think alot of what other countries think about the US is just fed to them. Everyone loves to demonize the US. When I lived in Japan the news reported how the Dixie Chicks were being boycotted by country fans because of their anti-Bush views. The newscaster then made a snide remark about the "so-called home of the free." I guess boycotting something is not a sign of freedom these days.

rendition is a movie? I thought it was a practice of taking US citizens to siberia and torturing them until they admit to terroist acts. Ohhh wait it is..

Well, the original intent of this post was to point out how everything gets twisted into a political statement and I guess this thread is no different. I should have known better.

I think it depends on what movie you are going to see. If you go see Ironman, political overtones are not really appropriate (I am pretty sure it had none), but if you go see something like the "The Day After Tomorrow" prepare to be smashed over the head with it.

I agree though, a lot of time the Hollywood types just can't resist getting their diggs in. Ya, ya, we get it, Bush is an idiot, we've heard it before, move along!

The thing I find even more irritating though is when there is an obvious (and expected) political movie, such as any of Micheal Moores, or The Day After Tomorrow. They may be trying to make a very relevant point, but they just can't resist wildly over doing it (creating things that just aren't true, WAY over stating thing, absolutely refusing to recognize an apposing view). The end result is that they supply huge amount of ammo for anyone who might want to refute their argument.

OK, ignorant, name a single U.S. Citizen that got sent somewhere else for his bath. Just one. Seems like the only one they had in Club Gitmo they moved to VA. What they do to non-U.S. Citizens they catch trying to kill U.S. Citizens I really don't give a shiite about.

Clay, I agree that the politics infused through so-called entertainment is just too much. It is really brain washing. I haven't seen the new Andromeda Strain, but the original movie was an anti-US Government rant at that time, and about the only thing in common with the book was the bug.

GameboyRMH, 1984 and Animal Farm are attacks and expose's on the evils of Socialism/Communism, something that SOME PEOPLE on this site even, wish to use to enslave us. The Thought Police is a fine example. Today we have Political Correctness and a court system enforcing it.

Okay, speaking as an English major who has studied a lot of literature: Politics and art/literature are virtually inseparable. For a piece of work to have real value, it has to speak to what people really care about. Fluff pieces don't do that. Only pieces that make us slightly uncomfortable by shining a light on a portion of ourselves that we're not totally comfortable with; whether that be personally, politically, or as a general society.

The Illiad is rife with political statements about the nature of war and suffering of common soldiers due to the aspirations of kings. The Canterbury Tales, were also incredibly satirical of the society and establishment. Let's see: Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, Gilbert and Sullivan, Victor Hugo, Pablo Picasso, Jimmy Hendrix... umm... do I need to go on?

On some of the pieces mentioned recently:

Iron Man: not blatantly political. But was making statements about the extents of corporate greed and the nature of war mongering. And it was badass.

Day After Tomorrow: the creators flat-out stated they were blowing things out of proportion, because the movie would have been really boring otherwise.

1984: Not so much a warning against Socialism/Communism as much as against totalitarianism and the corruption and abuse of power. One of the scariest things it got right is that the ultimate purpose of power is to gather and collect more power. It is also an anti-war book.

Animal Farm: similar deal. It was more against totalitarian Stalinism than against Communism. Remember, the animals were quite happy when living in an equal collective. The bad guys were the elitist/capitalists. The pigs were evil at the end because they turned into exactly the same sort of elitists that had been ousted.

Remember, Socialism and Fascism taken to their ultimate extremes are essentially identical. The government in V for Vendetta was a fascist one. It looks almost like a proto version of the 1984 gov't.

Dr. Hess wrote: OK, ignorant, name a single U.S. Citizen that got sent somewhere else for his bath. Just one. Seems like the only one they had in Club Gitmo they moved to VA. What they do to non-U.S. Citizens they catch trying to kill U.S. Citizens I really don't give a shiite about.

Can't name anyone... the lists are secret. This isn't gitmo I'm talking about.. I'm talking about the prisons in old eastern bloc countries, Turkey, and Siberia..

The point is that in the land of the free, secret prisons shouldn't happen.... It's OK to imprison some people in secret prisons, but not me..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel <-- ever heard of him.. "to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ewieselperilsofindifference.html

"Socialism/Communism as much as against totalitarianism and the corruption and abuse of power..."

They are the same things... don't even have to be taken to their extremes... Socialism doesn't work without totalitarianism. You can have Fascism without socialism but not the other way around.

And what's ironic are the ones complaining the most about Government abuses (see the post above) think the solution is... wait for it... MORE power ceded to the Government.... that's why today's "liberalism" is actually the polar opposite of actual liberalism... it's pure statism moving toward other ism terms....

Bill

ignorant wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: OK, ignorant, name a single U.S. Citizen that got sent somewhere else for his bath. Just one. Seems like the only one they had in Club Gitmo they moved to VA. What they do to non-U.S. Citizens they catch trying to kill U.S. Citizens I really don't give a shiite about.

Can't name anyone... the lists are secret. This isn't gitmo I'm talking about.. I'm talking about the prisons in old eastern bloc countries, Turkey, and Siberia..

And what does it matter if they're detained on U.S. soil or not, if we're still suspending habeas and not giving them the opportunity to defend themselves in trial? What of the people not caught doing anything, but being held on suspicion?

This is very interesting. I made the mention of 1984 to show how political overtones that were not intended to target a real-life group can be interpreted by the viewer/reader to be targeting a real-life group, e.g. 1984 which might have targeted fascist dictatorships in Europe, but does not target any real-life groups today, can be seen to target the US or UK governments. I actually have not read the book (I should get around to it) but my 10 minutes of frantic research can't turn up references in the book to any political ideology other than totalitarianism in general, other than the fact that the party called themselves socialists. So you're interpreting 1984 in your own way as well.

Animal farm was sort of a half cautionary tale/half satire of communism. I can't find any references to socialism.

I don't see political correctness as any form of thought policing, just the unfortunate side effect of many people having feelings as fragile as wet tissue paper. You can be as politically incorrect as you like without breaking any laws, you just might seem like an shiny happy person, at least until you get into hate speech. If anything, political correctness and hate speech should be a censorship issue. After all, you have to say something.

I hate politics as well. I watched Andromeda Strain on OnDemand the other day, as I too like Crichton and thought it might be a good way to zone out with the girlfriend for a few hours. I was getting pissed about all the "homeland security" crap, so much so that I made a point of mentioning it to my girlfriend that the book was published (1969) LOOOOONG before homeland security existed (2002) and they completely overshadowed the plot with a new plot of their own in the made-for-tv movie. I'll spare the spoilers, but obviously Crichton didn't write the book with intentions of showing how Bush and his boys were out to destroy all of humanity.

I don't expect much out of made-for-tv movies, but this went way beyond bad actors and poorly sequenced scenes. The book is sci-fi gold and the actors were actually pretty talented, the producers just destroyed it with all the current-day-political crap.

Bryce

wcelliot wrote: "Socialism/Communism as much as against totalitarianism and the corruption and abuse of power..." They are the same things... don't even have to be taken to their extremes... Socialism doesn't work without totalitarianism. You can have Fascism without socialism but not the other way around.l

And fascism works without socialism? If you're going to completely control a society, you need to control the means of production as well.

The difference is, socialism begins by having the government control the means of production. It then has to control all aspects of life to prevent a degradation of the system. Fascism begins by controlling people's personal lives, then has to take over the means of production in order to cement its authority and control.

The enemy is totalitarianism. There are multiple roads that lead there.

Socialism and communism can work on small scales. In order to function, the entire population has to voluntarily operate under the exact same system. Check out Kibbutzim in Israel. If you can't get the vast majority of a population to agree to operate under a single system, your system will either collapse, or you will be forced to maintain the system by use of force. We did no depose of Hussein because his regime was communist.

GameboyRMH wrote: This is very interesting. I made the mention of 1984 to show how political overtones that were not intended to target a real-life group can be interpreted by the viewer/reader to be targeting a real-life group, e.g. 1984 which might have targeted fascist dictatorships in Europe, but does not target any real-life groups today, can be seen to target the US or UK governments. I actually have not read the book (I should get around to it) but my 10 minutes of frantic research can't turn up references in the book to any political ideology other than totalitarianism in general, other than the fact that the party called themselves socialists. So you're interpreting 1984 in your own way as well.

You should read the book.

The Party follows the system of "English Socialism" or EngSoc. The origins of it are shrouded in mystery, but appear to have begun when a socialist uprising overthrew a collapsing decadent capitalist society. The goal of the party is solely to perpetuate its own power. They control the means of production, which is all funneled into a never ending war. The idea is, you can only control a people if there is a shortage of vital goods, and you are the only source.

The party does not have a central leader, although "Big Brother" is a figurehead, but ultimately fictional. The core of the party is a collective. No one really uses money. Everything is handed out by ration.

People are mentally conditioned to hate a vaguely identified common enemy. Although the country can't really be attacked, there are occasionally shellings that occur against the main population to keep them afraid. It is unclear whether these originate from the party itself, or if the party allows its "enemies" to get close enough to launch an occasional attack. Either way, it keeps the "threat" present to the population.

The primary means of control is "Crimestop - Black/White - Doublethink". When you're about to commit a thoughtcrime, you stop as soon as you start; then you flip what you just saw or thought to be what you should be thinking; then you completely forget that you ever did that. The past is exactly what you think it was now. You were never at war with your current ally. You have always been at war with your current enemy. You have never held different beliefs than you hold now.

Scary parrallels to our current situation some?

Anyone remember why we got into the war in Iraq? I don't know how many times the official reason has changed. Each time it changes, the previous reasons never existed. The reason we started this war was always to free the poor Iraqi people.

Note on 1984: this time of book is meant to be a "self-defeating prophecy". That is, by spelling out the worst case scenario, we're meant to be paranoid that it could ever end up that way, and try to steer as far away from it as possible.

Read the book so that it never comes to be.

Salanis wrote:

ignorant wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: OK, ignorant, name a single U.S. Citizen that got sent somewhere else for his bath. Just one. Seems like the only one they had in Club Gitmo they moved to VA. What they do to non-U.S. Citizens they catch trying to kill U.S. Citizens I really don't give a shiite about.

Can't name anyone... the lists are secret. This isn't gitmo I'm talking about.. I'm talking about the prisons in old eastern bloc countries, Turkey, and Siberia..

And what does it matter if they're detained on U.S. soil or not, if we're still suspending habeas and not giving them the opportunity to defend themselves in trial? What of the people not caught doing anything, but being held on suspicion?

Salanis is right.. check my edits.

This is an interesting discussion. GameboyRMH, you should read 1984. It isn't at all like the movie or what you've been told. Draw your own conclusions. It is probably available as an E book somewhere if you look hard enough. And I don't know how things are in your country, but in the UK (based on my reading the news) and increasingly in the US, there is PC speach and anything not PC is banned, as in you are not even allowed to think in those terms and could be punished for such thoughts. I could give you plenty of examples, but they would not be PC and I wouldn't want Tim to ban me for saying something like Pavement Challenged. Political Correctness is nothing but Thought Control. Don't fool yourself. Communism and Socialism are the same. Well, theoretically, Communism has the dwindling away of the state. Not sure if Socialism has that. Not that it has ever happened, because once people get into power, they grab more power for some reason. I believe it involves interns, blue dresses and cigars.

ignorant, are you trying to give U.S. Citizen Legal Rights to shiny happy persons picked up on the battlefield of Afganistan when they ran out of ammo (because their AK wouldn't jam, too rare)? I don't care what they do to those people, if it will save US lives. If they want to give them baths in Siberia or talk real mean to them or smear fake menses on their faces or have a dog bark at them, I don't care. They were trying to kill one of our citizens just before that, might have been you, and were planning on killing more. Let them have a bath. Now, if they pick up a US Citizen, that's different. Show me a US Citizen that has had his rights trampled in this. I only can think of two that they picked up: That Left Coast kid they got trying to shoot US soldiers in Afganistan, now happily in a Federal pen somewhere, and that other one that wanted to set off a dirty bomb in the US, also in a pen somewhere, both in US pens on US soil. Claiming "oh, there holding more but it's a secret so we don't know" isn't much of an argument. It could be a secret that they are holding none at all. Did the Japanese we picked up during WWII when they were trying actively to kill us with everything from incindiary baloons to nuclear bomb armed kamakazi submarines get full U.S. rights and a Miranda warning (had it existed at time)?

Well those Japanese soldiers had uniforms on so they should be given the same rights as any armed combatant who wares a nation’s uniform.

I don't understand the problem with political correctness.

Seems to me, it just refers to people in politics correctly labeling certain subjects as to not offend members of the community they are to represent.

On the public side of that, you can't just go around throwing racial slurs, insulting generalizations and other stereotypes at everyone and expect everyone to agree with you. GRM ain't a public place. It's owned and operated by a private entity that can regulate its users however it sees fit.

Whether the movie Rendition is truth or not, it simply raises the question "if you think this is bad, you should write your representative and tell them you don't agree with it".

Many movies don't necessarily portray the truth, but sometimes they can portray the future. They are simply trying to get across a message, truth or not.

What about the Canadian guy (Maher Arar) who was sent to Syria? Not a US citizen, but not guilty of anything other than having the wrong ethnic background either...

Also if the US decides to not give those who were trying to kill US soldiers any rights, they're not much better than the Afghanis(sp?) capturing US soldiers and beheading them, etc.

Hess: social control has always existed and always will. If you step outside of the confines of accepted social morality, you will be reprimanded. The politically incorrect sayings you enjoy are not government controlled. Freedom of speech still protects your right to say them, but you have to accept the social repercussions of doing so.

There's also a difference between saying something provocative to attempt to broaden a persons perspective, and saying something to wantonly provoke someone. In that respect. I'd lump Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern in the same camp.

Do you broaden anyone's world view when you call people "pavement challenged" or do you just insult people and piss them off wantonly?

If we're talking WWII Japanese. How about internment camps? Virtually none of the people detained actually had any desire to hurt this country. And the fact we committed an atrocity once should not give us the right to do it in the future. It should serve as a lesson to never do again.

And "nuclear bomb armed kamikaze submarines"?!? WTF?!? I hope that was a joke.