AirAmerica: The NEW Right Wing Celebrities List, a work in progress

The idea of keeping a Right Wing Celebrities List is not so that they can be boycotted or persecuted, unless they get altogether TOO gross and actually DO something justifying such action. It's a counter-propaganda operation to fight the Republican mantra of "Liberal Hollywood."

I offer a decent enough comment, since it is not absolute driveling idiocy of full of "flaming" or "cyberbullying" or "cybercyncicism". It is loopy and paranoid, but not otherwise wacky. Sadly, the link might not work; it is possible the posting person doesn't either, just sits around thinking about paranoid stuff all day:
Posted by: ZoWie Nov 2 2008, 06:54 PM
Here's a good article on how far along the self-described right wing conspiracy to take over The Industry really is:

There are several highly influential conservative action centers within The Industry. Along with the Wednesday Morning Club, there's a Sunday Evening Club, and a good portion of the USC School of Cinema Old Boy Network, plus an older buddyhood of mean Irish types (though they're dying off), and a rather dedicated neocon cabal run by a righty foundation that plants its people in The Industry and then describes on its web sites how the takeover is going. This group is now capable of getting projects made just on the basis of who they are, though by definition you'd never have heard of any of them any other way, since without the politics they'd be pretty small time players.

This is somehow not creepy? I mean the little "new" list at AirAmerica, but the commentary, too. 

Highly influential, indeed -- apparently there is not a single film, script line or song that a Republican can use in his campaign without drawing outright sniveling disgust from those involved. This from anything beyond country music and a thin line of Hollywood personalities, I mean. This post's author makes it sound as if the neocons and the Irish mob are committing a hostile takeover of the entire movie industry. How bizarre. But, there is no hostility like the hostility of a far-lefty's dislike of unrepentant conservatives. Check out that article, if it will load for you, or see this link: hardly about some devious taking over of Hollywood. These AirAmerica folks really are creeps!

This list is called counter-propaganda? That's rich. This version was launched by a 19-year-old, according to the individual's profile (which could mean nothing, since it is an online profile). I could tie my own shoes by that age, maybe this guy can, too. He started this list from another, apparently longer and less meaty list (it identified folks in the GOP, not specfically evil donators to and evil public supporters of the party of hate -- the GOP, I mean).

You'll note (see the posting) that the list includes not even 50 people. So how is it that "Liberal Hollywood" is an incorrect tag? This is the best that could be gotten of a list of active Republicans in Hollywood? I could write up that many Hollywood liberals -- rabid, serious liberals, not mere center-left folks -- from memory right now.

And ... done.

So how is it that this mere statement, above, is not some of the purest evidence of the one-sidedness, the blatant lack of openness, of lefty liberals? How does it not smack of a longing for fascism? This is not even fair to be called liberalism, it is one-partyism, one-sided, bread-line-standing, generic-jumpsuit-wearing, shrill creepiness. This list is party to the definition of an un-American spirit. Quite. The fact is, even rational and sincere Hollywood people would concede the fact of a liberal Hollywood today, this is not just the claims of the, ummmm, evil Hollywood Republicans.

The least this Fairness Doctrine dependent operation, AirAmerica, could do is call this list counter-counter propaganda. This is a reason why I am disgusted that any of these one-eyed ideologues call themselves liberals. These are the types of fanatics that make the idea of a Liberal Arts school offensive to me. Anything with the word liberal tied to it is despicable if I relate this kind of single-pattern, fall-in-line-or-go-away thinking to it.

They are off the rails, wandering in the desert with a gun and bullets but no water, traveling too far up the side of a cold mountain without proper boots. They are kooks, radicals, whack-jobs, silly bastards. Many of the AirAmerica Place commenters, you can see for yourself, insist on such things as signatures that are seven inches tall; some are even animated (thus, the point is not the comment, but, predictably, "look at ME!").  

What's frightening is, they can own guns; what's a relief is, they likely don't own guns because it is against their godless religion. These folks are the reason to justify far-right nut-jobs. However, on the far-right, the real nuts are the bloody KKK and Aryans, not the people running such an out front Web site as anything badged as AirAmerica!

Funny I didn't turn out one of these types seeing my history, which I will not go into. I guess I just did too much thinking things through, though. Odd.

This list here, this is a reason I didn't attempt a Hollywood career early in life: it was so obviously and insanely liberal by default that it discouraged me. The hypocrisy of that saddened me then, and has ever since. I was afraid of either being treated like a toy -- dropped at their will, or that I would be disliked purely for my non-fancy-boy rhetoric. I didn't need the uphill battle, frankly, so I chose another that for a time seemed to work well: news media.

I thought my talents were going to serve me well in media. Sorta right, I was. But that's another story.

This list on AirAmerica is outright creepy. They are saying "oh, I don't want this for any bad reason, except that I do want it -- when the time comes. Not now. Not if they stay out of the way of the truth, way and light of Hollywood, which of course is the liberals, but we are not going to admit to that!" This is not fascist? Nuts? Wacky? It is preparation for not only censorship, but what else? Blacklisting? Wasn't Sen. Joe McCarthy's madness enough for these idiots in Hollywood? Maybe this 19 year old and his cohorts (commenters, supporters, etc.)

Will this list go underground at some point? Perhaps, because it is not proper to let the infiltraters see that you are on to their infiltration. You cannot pounce on them with the utmost of surprise then.

So I wonder: Why is AirAmerica still going? Didn't it lose its shirt months ago? I have so many comments relating to this, to AirAmerica failing to draw an interested audience, to the regurgitation of the so-called "fairness doctrine" (fully supported by these "liberal" freaks). I should just stop here. Wait till later on this.

Surely, there will be more kooky things like this coming, since it is so clear that the Obama Administration is going to be all about AirAmerica's clan -- divisive, one-sided, highly partisan, highly left-leaning. Sad deal. So much for change. Glad I didn't have my heart in his success as a centrist or bipartisan. How about you? The current signs point to rhetoric that still insists on bipartisanship, but his appointments do not.

- jR (revised)

HSUS: Which national pet store chain supports puppy mills?

We are moving in the right direction with regard to abuse of living beings. But we need to keep moving against demeaning treatment of living beings of all kinds: humans (yes, there are still issues involving the inhumane treatment of humans, as if they are a mere commodity), livestock, and pet breeds. We ended slavery (though sex slavery and other crudenesses are still in existence, even in the U.S., though we rarely hear about it), we are seeing a response to the improper care of livestock. We must see an end to puppy mills and such other wrongs as well.

The message below says, in short, let PETLAND stores know what you think about puppy mills. Talk to them, in your area or at the corporate level, and tell them you have a problem with puppy mills. Note the lines I highlighted: "Most of the puppies bred at puppy mills are eventually sold over the Internet or through pet stores, including many Petlands in the U.S. The unseen victims are the mother dogs who are forced to live their entire lives behind bars."

This is wrong. Simple. Petland and other stores support this -- there is no reason for HSUS to make this stuff up. Someone is selling these improperly bred dogs -- its the whole point to raising them, the profit gain. The more profit, the better. This is the underbelly of capitalism. Let's rid of it. The message includes the stores in my area. Likely, online you can easily find stores in your area, perhaps from the HSUS site (links are below).

Puppy mills are despicable. I cannot comprehend -- aside from the same sickly, apathetic and self-serving way that people ignored Naziism when it did not negatively impact them selfishly -- why anyone would knowingly work in pet stores that were encouraging the continuation of puppy mills. It is simply inhumane. It leads to pets that are carrying disease, and other surface ills. It ought to be regarded as morally, socially and culturally wrong at every level.

So, how does this related to politics? Laws can and have been passed that get us beyond things such as abuse of livestock. Government policy is what can permanently (ideally) change the climate of humane treatment of animals used for breeding pets and livestock.

Just wanted to share. Check out the HSUS message by clicking on the first text link below.

- jR

Begin forwarded message:

The fall of rational liberalism, in 1968

What's wrong with liberal ideals? Part II

For American liberals, there seems to be selfish, ridiculous, outright ignorant, and spoiled-brat viewpoints on many issues that extend far beyond social fairness into a desire for the contortion or destruction of harmless traditions. Being assaulted are: the idea of marriage, First and Second Amendment rights, instilling a revamped "Fairness Doctrine" onto radio (but conveniently not on TV broadcasts or print media), and other such self-serving, limited sight, or non-issue issues. There are energetic evocations from the liberal end of politics that, like it or not, verge on Socialist ideals. And not positive ones, either. There's a running list of conservatives in Hollywood on the Internet, for instance. What, pray tell, for? Leftist Fascists can use it for reference? What?

Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who some on the left regard as a vicious Reagan Era ideological attack ogre, recorded her lack of taste for liberal ideas publicly - at a GOP convention during Reagan's leadership. Kirkpatrick was a Democrat, and at one time considered herself a liberal. The liberals went too far, from civil rights to running naked through the streets having sex rights. No, not literally, figuratively. They went a bit kooky, frankly, and somehow the rational liberals let to kooks and goof balls take center stage. Have a look at some reflections on her and that long ago time known as the early 1980s, in this posting and the links within it.

I took the following from a Time magazine article dated Nov. 13, 2008. It fairly well explains why I am freaked out by today's liberalism, though it loses some value in its desire to keep it short by bundling everything together with the Vietnam War protests. Perhaps there's something in this for you, too. Read this, read the whole piece since it goes somewhere with the liberalism definition. Then contrast that with Kirkpatrick, and you'll understand where I am coming from, almost. (Yes, the anonymous-author-of-this-blog me, "jR".)

Right up front I want to point out that I was not old enough to vote, not even old enough to wear underpants, in 1968. Second, I am white. My ideas, flatly, do not align with the comment on racial freedom (equaling riots and crime), but I suppose some folks saw it as such, in the racial sense, in some locations. I was not raised with any racial epithets passing the tongues of my parents. Never, ever. Perhaps some similar feelings are held today to some degree, by some far-flung whites, but not by me or the majority. If there's evidence I am wrong about the population at large, then feel free to pass it along.

Obama, if he is to personify the next wave of positive change, will be a sensible leader akin to FDR and Reagan, he will not be like clueless Carter or tread-too-lightly Clinton or, say, Abbie Hoffman as president. The parallels to JFK that Obama gets are missing the point: JFK stepped into office when the greatest social upheaval was television for the masses. Yes, there was civil rights activism, and we know how far things went after JFK was elected, racial and social equality became the great change of the 1960s, but this was after JFK was elected. We have more issues today - Obama must work at being FDR and Reagan.

The New Liberal Order - TIME
By the beginning of the 1960s, though, liberalism was becoming a victim of its own success. The post-World War II economic boom flooded America's colleges with the children of a rising middle class, and it was those children, who had never experienced life on an economic knife-edge, who began to question the status quo, the tidy, orderly society F.D.R. had built. For blacks in the South, they noted, order meant racial apartheid. For many women, it meant confinement to the home. For everyone, it meant stifling conformity, a society suffocated by rules about how people should dress, pray, imbibe and love. In 1962, Students for a Democratic Society spoke for what would become a new, baby-boom generation "bred in at least modest comfort," which wanted less order and more freedom. And it was this movement for racial, sexual and cultural liberation that bled into the movement against Vietnam and assembled in August 1968 in Grant Park.

Traditional liberalism died there because Americans — who had once associated it with order — came to associate it with disorder instead. For a vast swath of the white working class, racial freedom came to mean riots and crime; sexual freedom came to mean divorce; and cultural freedom came to mean disrespect for family, church and flag. Richard Nixon and later Reagan won the presidency by promising a new order: not economic but cultural, not the taming of the market but the taming of the street.

Powered by ScribeFire.

What is today's liberalism?

What's wrong with liberal ideals?
Part I

I consider myself a center-right conservative. I think that there is nothing wrong with certain liberal ideals. It is the outlandish, no-holds-barred "rights" and government funding and taxing that I have a problem with. Some so-called issues promoted by liberals extended to the absurd, offensive, amoral, fascist, one-party demagogic, and irrational, in my lifetime (I am around 40 yo). The issues were even more absurd just prior to my birth, in the 1960s. Civil rights is one thing, walking around naked, having sex with anyone and using drugs freely and openly (like pot, acid, etc.) was beyond idiotic.

Naturally, the same adjectives can be placed on some conservative ideas. However, renaming French fries as "freedom fries" was a goofy reaction to something that offended someone and it wasn't combative; calling nearly all whites racist, simply because they are the majority skin color and facial features in this country, is extreme and offensive. These two have been in the common dialog in recent years.

As an example of going liberally overboard, a guy who maintains a solid status among liberals despite his hate-filled agenda, Spike Lee seems to have in him a belief that non-liberal whites - especially George Bush and any aligned conservatives - hate poor black people. Or at least they hate all poor black people who are living in New Orleans, LA. Yet this guy is a champion of cinema (deserved, artistically) and is somehow an example of someone who stands up for civil rights (undeserved, for his irrational and paranoid viewpoint). Ignoring the truth that Hurricane Katrina was a one-in-400 storm seems awfully convenient, and his avoiding an outright damning as well of the Democratic operators of the city and the state pours gas on a fire of political bias. It is agenda over truth that Lee chose to favor in his movie about Katrina. It's sad. I would say it is pathetic, but Spike Lee knows what he is doing. Hardly pathetic - more like divisive.

I suspect one problem is that some people who are socialist or Marxist stumble into the liberal camp and they are welcomed to stay. If that's the liberal, or the Democratic Party, idea of inclusiveness -- welcoming bizarre, ineffective or dangerous ideologies -- then liberals will hopefully never succeed in becoming a long-term dominant force on America. That, or we will lose our position as a capitalist, freedom-loving society. It is simple. If Bill Maher represents your ideas, you are unsavory and never going to gain traction with self-respecting, self-motivated people. Perhaps such people are the minority in America now. I suspect that spoiled celebrities such as Maher, Larry King, and Al Franken are among the minority, though.

The Republican Party, or conservatives, are generally not interested in extreme right ideas, such as white supremacy, racial inequality, racial separatism, or any kind of fundamentalism. There was a time when a conservative would not be deeply troubled by liberal views. There was a time when the great dividing line was tradition and economics, not social issues. As such, calling rabid KKK members conservatives misses the point, just as immediately pairing fascists or socialists with liberals. Ideas such as racial equality are liberal; pay equity for women; non-prejudice against blacks, Latinos, Asians, women, homosexuals, and the disabled. If these are liberal ideals, then I am a liberal. But I am not a liberal. How so? Because I do not agree with the extremes brought about by those whose ideas are today considered liberal. And I am conservative where economics comes in.

For instance, FDR was a liberal - he'd gag at some of the obsessions of liberals today, I suspect. Woodrow Wilson was liberal. JFK was an old fashioned liberal, and he got us into Vietnam (much as his many worshipers want us to forget that).

Powered by ScribeFire.