Oliver Stone - an ultra-liberal pissing on America - movie preview

It would seem that for some in the American ultra-liberal far left wing, otherwise defined as fanatics, it is not enough that Senator Obama stands a solid chance at winning the American Presidency. It is not enough that the major news media are fawning over Senator Obama – treating his recent trip overseas as if he were a sitting President, and refusing his opponent the opportunities they give him (ie. New York Times editorial). Even the fact that a movie highlighting the very liberal Democratic Presidential candidate is in post-production is not enough (and the film will be out just before the election – nice timing).

No for those like Oliver Stone something more must be done. Something over the top. Something insulting. Something that has never happened to a sitting President in any medium. Oliver Stone feels that now is the time to make up a movie about President Bush, while he is in office.

Why can’t Oliver Stone give up his citizenship, move to France (or Russia, or Iran), and make whatever slanted version of history he wants. I’m sure the Taliban, Al Quida and a few other “see an American, kill an American” hate groups will be more than happy to pack theaters for his biased derogatory slime on film.

Obviously I have a problem with the upcoming film W. My problem is not so much political as it is decency. I don’t care that Oliver Stone has a political agenda the size of the Empire State Building. I don’t care, as much, that he is seeking to portray historical fact in a manner more akin to a scifi movie about they year 300,000 A.D. I don’t care that he is going to get about as many people in the audience (stateside) as there are members of Moveon.org – I’m sure they will all go see it 2x.

What I care about is the power and prestige of the American Presidency and thus America. America is the President on an international level, whether we love or hate any particular President. And Oliver Stone is so obsessed with his personal hate that he doesn’t seem to care what damage he does. He seems willing to do anything to place a(nother) blemish on President Bush, even if it means hurting every American and every American President to come.

This film, a supposed biography of President Bush – that seems to be focused squarely on the past according to the trailer - looks dumb. What may be even more dumb is that it was greenlighted by a Hollywood studio, and that actors of ability have taken several prominent roles.

Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioann Gruffudd, Ellen, Burstyn, should all be embarrassed that they would do this to an American President. I really thing that James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, and Scott Glenn should have known better. I mean they couldn’t wait until President Bush finished his term of office?

And as for Jeffery Wright and Thandie Newton I am at a loss. Do they believe that a movie built upon diminishing the office of the President of the United States is going to help their careers or in any way highlight African Americans (who are routinely seen and expected to be Democrats only) in a positive light? Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice have succeeded in becoming exceptional political figures, a fact that did not exist in any other Presidency before President Bush. And Wright and Newton believe that a film that insults America is the best way to immortalize these 2 accomplished, educated, Black figures? I think they deserve far better.

I will show this movie trailer clip. Because I do believe in Freedom of Speech and artistic expression. But I in no way suggest that anyone should see this film. I in no way support any actor’s portrayal in this film. I denounce what Oliver Stone has done, and am angry at Thandie Newton and Jeffery Wright.



Could I be wrong about the film? Until it is released sure, and it is mathematically probable that I can fly, piss on the sun and put it out, and/or suddenly have a stroke and thus believe that Code Pink, Berkley, and San Francisco know what they are doing. But back in the real world, Oliver Stone is doing a wretched thing.

Imagine if someone did a hatchet job on President Clinton and Hillary back when he was in office while doing Ms. Lewinsky with a cigar; the Democrats and Hollywood would be raging and the nation embarrassed. How is this different?

The things you can get paid for

In the land of weird and dumb news I have found something that really blew past the mainstream. How odd is this? Well let’s just say that the secret to Warren Buffett’s may not be just his business ethic. It’s his name. The same reasoning may be why Britney Spears is the apparent mess that she is. Their names. Or more specifically their initials.

Oh yes. Someone convinced someone else to pay them to study the names and grades of 15,000 students over 15 years, and 93 years of professional baseball players. What they were looking for is what affect a person’s initials have on their grades and life choices. Seriously, someone did this. Just check the link if you don’t believe me.

I truly have picked the wrong career. Imagine that people get paid to figure out things like that. It’s insane. Can you imagine the amount of money they made off this study? As if anyone ever wondered this was important.

But what they found is that if your name starts with say a C or D you will be more likely to have lower grades than average, or someone with initials that have an A or B. If you are in baseball your chances of hitting that classic 9th inning winning homerun drop severely if you have a K initial. Basically it’s all because the initials represent good or bad things.

Now how this applies to real people is anyone’s guess. As I mentioned at the start there is the example of Mr. Warren Buffett. There is no question of his success. He is simply the best investor in the history of the stock market.

Other examples of success might be Bill Gates, Humphrey Bogart, Bill Blase, Brad Pitt, Bill Cosby, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Hope, Aristotle, Albert Einstein, and Archibald Anderson. Even the rise to success of Britney Spears could be claimed by this study.

Now on the converse side there are those who have done badly with bad initials. First on the list is Britney Spears. (The S could stand for stupid, sloppy, sluggish, slovenly, or slow) Then there is former President Gerald Ford (it’s debatable on how successful he his). Also Julius Caesar, John F Kennedy, the Confederacy, Diogenes of Sinope, OJ Simpson and Caracalla.

Seems like their findings make sense, until you just casually consider President Franklin D. Roosevelt (with 2 bad initials), Donnie Osmond, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler, Denzel Washington, Walt Disney, President William Clinton, Curtis Jackson (depending on your point of view), and George Clooney.

Like most loopy ideas this one has holes all over the place. Again I have to wonder, how much did they get paid to do this and who funded it? I just hope it’s not a federal grant. Can you imagine your tax dollars going to fund this “research”?

**This can also be found at All American Blog, where I am A contributing author.**

Counting 5 years plus - 9.10.2007.1

5 years and counting. What might that refer to? Could it be the Iraq war? It could also be the amount of time since R Kelly was supposed to go to trial for the alleged rape of a minor. It might be the amount of time that Michael Vick will be facing for his crimes.

Now hear is the tough question. Of those 3, which is the most prevalent in the media when discussing African Americans? The correct answer is OJ Simpson of course. But the second answer would be Michael Vick.

Whether it’s about how much time he will serve or if he will be allowed to re-enter football, it’s the main topic of discussion. I can’t imagine what might be worse.

Well that’s not true. The major news media could be focusing even more on the every move and comment made by OJ Simpson. Given that he has consistently given the major news media, actually tabloid fodder by definition yet covered as if it were major news, more than enough to discuss over the years. Still it’s a waste of time and space.

But where is the news on R Kelly? Why is there no seeming concern about his actions? There is a self-proclaimed pedophile being kicked out of Seattle and California (now living in Oregon at last report) yet an accused pedophile continues to go through his daily routine without a whisper of news on his case. Something is very wrong with that.

It’s similar to the news on Mr. Wesley Snipes. Huge announcements by the government on his indictment, while he is in a foreign country and cannot respond. Big media coverage, framed to look like a spontaneous move by law enforcement though it was an agreed upon surrender to law agents, and multiple legally neutral but implicitly accusatory statements were made then nothing. No word on his claims the charges are false. No word on his fight against, what I see as, trumped up charges. Nothing on the nature of the charges that sound as incredulous as the manner in which they were applied.

But when it comes to the war, the only commentary is what Senator Obama feels about how quickly we should end the war, and that we shouldn’t be there in the first place. Let me note something.

We shouldn’t have been in Iraq for the reasons we went there for. I was not convinced by the claims of WMD’s. There was no question that Saddam was a bad man, doing horrendous things to his people. There is no question that as far back as during the Presidency of Clinton, America was actively taking military action against that nation. Given that, it doesn’t matter.

Anger over why we started the war will not end it. Displeasure with President Bush will not alleviate the repercussions of the war. Pointing the finger of blame may make some feel better at night, but it does not factually improve anything and creates a means for some to gain political clout on the cheap by pandering to this emotional response. Why the war started has less to do with anything besides a stumping point for politicians.

Continued in part 2...