Orson Scott Card is one of my favorite authors. I really enjoy his “Alvin Maker” series and I have quite of few of his books. I met him probably ten years ago at a convention and we had a nice talk.
He’s also a homophobic right-wing idiot who has absolutely hateful views about gays and gay marriage.
A movie of his most famous book (“Ender’s Game”) is being released soon, and there is a movement to boycott the film because of his politics. “Don’t give him any money!” they’re saying.
While I agree that his politics are hateful, I’m not sure we should be judging art based on the artist’s politics, and it seems like maybe that’s where this is headed.
Oh, I understand — you don’t want him to get rich off of this, and you don’t want your money going to causes you don’t agree with. Nothing wrong with that — that’s what boycotts are for. In that sense this isn’t any different from boycotting Chik-Fil-A.
But, I dunno, when dealing with creative stuff like books or art or music … should we always ask “Does this person have political views I agree with?” before enjoying their work? There are many artists who were terrible people (Picasso comes to mind) but does that diminish their work? I hope no one is refusing to read my books because they don’t like my politics …
Years ago, many conservatives boycotted the Dixie Chicks because they were mad about their politics, and liberals criticized them for doing so. I hate to think liberals are being hypocrites here. Either boycotting artists for their political views is fine or it isn’t.
And with things like movies, do we look to all the people who will profit from this film? Movies involve thousands of people, not a handful (like a band) or an individual (like an author). Do we need to know what the key grip thinks about gay marriage? Should we ask all the Foley artists to submit to a questionnaire before deciding whether we should see the film?
So while my heart says, “Yeah, I don’t want Card to think I agree with him,” at the same time I also ask “Should I boycott art that has nothing to do with the issue I am boycotting?”
No, they’re not the same thing.
Certainly MSNBC is the liberal news network and Fox is the conservative one. No one disputes that.
But to say “MSNBC is the liberal version of Fox” is just plain wrong.
Why?
First of all, MSNBC admits its bias. It wears its bias proudly. They’re liberal and proud of it.
Fox lies. Fox claims that it is an unbiased news source; that’s it’s “fair and balanced.” I’d say that even their own viewers know that they’re not, but many of them exist in that Bubble of Deniability where facts don’t matter — where Benghazi was a conspiracy and climate change isn’t real and Obama is the anti-Christ. They may actually think Fox is unbiased.
Second, MSNBC tries to be truthful. Oh sure, they make mistakes but they apologize and correct themselves when it is discovered. They see themselves as journalists — well, journalists who write editorials, but journalists just the same.
Fox doesn’t care about truth. They’ve been proven wrong again and again and they just don’t care. I hope I don’t have to provide links for this claim — they’re easily enough found on your own. They lie about conspiracies that don’t exist and then claim that the fact that no one else talks about them proves everyone else is part of the conspiracy (a sure sign of paranoia). They claim the economy is falling apart when it is constantly improving. They edit Obama’s speeches to make it look like he said the opposite of what was actually said. The media watchdog groups that call out lies features Fox News almost daily.
They’re not a news network; they are a propaganda network, and they do a great job at it, including denying that they are a propaganda network. And their clueless rubes buy it.
Watch whatever you want; just don’t be stupid. Watch MSNBC knowing they are biased, and take all their reporting with that in mind. And watch Fox knowing that they’re a bunch of lying propagandists who will say whatever will work to make you agree with their politics.
I wonder how much of the anger over the Obama administration is because of the decline of the male WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant)?
Much of the debate against immigration seems to center around the “problem” of America not being the province of WASPs any more. And much of the “war on women” seems to decry the decline of the male in power. Conservative commentators like Pat Buchanan have written books about how terrible this is for our country, claiming that the U.S. “won’t look like the U.S.” in the future.
For those people who think that having a ruling class of the male WASP is what America is all about, the Obama administration must have seemed like Hell when it first came into office. We had:
… not a male WASP among the most powerful people in the United States. And then he goes and appoints two women to the Supreme Court — a Catholic one and a Jewish one.
Then, by his second term, he’s letting women and gays into our military front lines!
So is this why there is such a radical movement by the right to fight immigration and to push back against women and gays? Is it because they fear losing their male WASP hierarchy?
I think in the long run, the Obama administration’s greatest legacy may be the breaking down of so many of these barriers. The acceptance of women and gays in the military is as important as when Truman desegregated the army in the 50s.
And those male WASPs will just have to learn to share.
It’s our Independence Day, and mindless patriots are popping up all over the internet bragging about how much they love America while hating a majority of the people in America.
Usually, these “patriots” rant about how we need to protect America from immigrants and liberals and those who would change America from its original greatness. They proclaim their love for America and see any criticism of it as treasonous. “Love it or leave it!” they scream. (Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that many of these people never see their own criticism of liberal Presidents as treason.)
That’s the exact opposite of true patriotism. Our country was not founded on the idea that we should never challenge our government.
So let’s be true patriots. Let’s work to make America better. Replace “Love it or leave it” with “Love it and improve it.”
As (now-Senator) Al Franken once said, “Conservatives love America like a child loves his mommy, and mommy can do no wrong. Whereas we [liberals] love America like an adult loves someone, recognizing our mate has faults and taking the good with the bad, and always working to appreciate what’s there, being critical of what’s wrong and trying to help and make it better.”
That’s patriotism.
Republicans are claiming that Hillary Clinton, who will be 69 in 2016, is “too old” to be President.
They then retreated to their evil lair, where John McCain (72 when he ran for President) and Bob Dole (73 when he ran for President), led the prayers to their God Ronald Reagan (69 when he ran for President, 73 when he ran for re-election).
ventrellaquest.com 