[kindbud]

Originally posted by version:
Who needs Follywood to mock bushy-eyed boy. I thought that virtually most people on this planet had this in-built mechanism to recognise a complete f***tard when they see one; except for those clouded sods who support him, like vmarks, zimpy, Simey, et al.

...and the majority of voters in America.

heh.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I thought we were talking about Hollywood. If we're segwaying into the media as a whole. maybe we should start a new thread.

"Segueing". We musicians know that much...

[version]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You sound like the scores of disgruntled musicians I come across who blame everyone else for their inability to achieve and sustain a successful musical career.

Oh shut up for once and get a grip.

[version]

Originally posted by kindbud:
...and the majority of voters in America.

heh.

I think you should go back and recount the ballot spliffy old chum, wasn't such a majority from what I remember.

Anyway, I'm glad the US is just a small blot on the world, in which just now they are stomping their foot around cause they can't get their way, not long till daddy comes along and smacks some well deserved sense into the bastard child.

hehe.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
"Segueing". We musicians know that much...

He's got one of those scooters? DAYUM!



^^^^ it's the Woz!

[phoenixboy]

oh, but of course it isn't hollywood and american movies what make the us highly popular around the world (in cultural terms, of course). no, millions of kids (and grown ups as well) around the globe worship and adore a$$croft, chumpsfeld and the bushwhacker instead of mr. pitt, mr. willis, mrs. aniston, mrs. bullock...!

america, be thankful for having hollywood. right now it is one of the few redeeming aspects that shed a positive light onto the "home of the free"!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by version:
I thought

There was your first mistake.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Really?

It always reminds me of really bad pop music: Too few ideas to last the song, repetitive to a point where you really can't stand it after having heard it the third time, and yet, the masses lap it up because they're told to.

-s*

scratched LP CD, same tunes, slightly altered, rearranged.
french novel...lol
liberals more creative, probably, conservatives are best for business, signing contracts.
why despise ("trend") those who do not like the administration policies?


The risk here is, if the situation gets worse, US might lose many artists of quality, writers, film makers, singers, and scientists.

[insha]

Originally posted by quandarry:
ahhh, i love a good party...pretzels anyone?

I have Pepsi, want to trade. Who knows you might win a song from iTMS.

[Johnny Lydon]

Originally posted by vmarks:
That's why when I looked up CBS (who MoveOn claims is refusing to air their ad) and saw where they contribute money, Viacom (CBS's owner) gave 24,500 to Democrats and 16000 to Republicans?

24,500 and 16000 what? Coconuts?

What is your point vmarks? Shouldn't you at least put your commas in?

So since CBS supposedly gave more to Democrats you think that all of us "liberals" should get off CBS's case? You just don't get it do you? After all this time you still have no clue!?

let me spell it out to you: the people vs. corporate power

Does that help?

It has little to do with Democrats vs. Republicans! You are all just dense!

[Johnny Lydon]

Oh, and you all better stop buying Macs and get the hell off our forums because Steve Jobs is a famous LIBERAL!!!

And take your neo-conservative tripe with you.

Truly creative people are liberal in their thinking. That is the very escence of what makes them creative. Duh.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Johnny Lydon:
Oh, and you all better stop buying Macs and get the hell off our forums because Steve Jobs is a famous LIBERAL!!!

Eh? That would be petty.

Truly creative people are liberal in their thinking. That is the very escence of what makes them creative. Duh.

That didn't sound pretentious at all.

Liberal also doesn't mean that in the political context.

Not anymore anyhow.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Johnny Lydon:

let me spell it out to you: the people vs. corporate power

Does that help?

It has little to do with Democrats vs. Republicans! You are all just dense!

In which case, you might reconsider your support of Mr. Jobs- after all, he heads a corporation. (ooooooh.... shudder.... )

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by vmarks:
That's why when I looked up CBS (who MoveOn claims is refusing to air their ad) and saw where they contribute money, Viacom (CBS's owner) gave 24,500 to Democrats and 16000 to Republicans?

Overall in the tv/Radio station market, 158, 450 dollars has been given to GW bush as of November while the closest democrat only has 32, 500. So seems that the media does favor liberals... oh wait...

Movie production and music is a little different but GW bush wins the "TV production" contributions. He also happens to have the most contributions from Cable tv industry.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Johnny Lydon:
Truly creative people are liberal in their thinking. That is the very escence of what makes them creative. Duh.

hello!

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by kindbud:
...and the majority of voters in America.

heh.

Since when did the majority of voters support bush? Certainly not in the last election anyway.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
"Segueing". We musicians know that much...

It was a play on words.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by swrate:
liberals more creative, probably, conservatives are best for business, signing contracts.

Kinda like blacks jump higher; whites are best for swimming sorta thing?

[eklipse]

Liberalism is best taken in conservative portions.

[zigzag]

I don't see anything alarming about drawing a correlation between creativity and liberalism - anyone who's been around genuinely creative people knows that they're more likely to challenge the status quo and are more likely to hold liberal views. Conservatives, by their very nature, are more conservative, more reserved, more status quo. Big surprise.

Conservatives are always complaining that liberals are too idealistic and not sufficiently realistic. Creative people also tend to be more idealistic. Peace, love, and all that. So there you have another correlation. It's not a rule, but there's certainly a correlation.

Would anyone be surprised or offended if I said "People who run corporations are mostly conservative"? No, at least not if they have any sense. I expect business people to be relatively conservative and creative people to be relatively liberal, it's only natural.

Obviously, the people at the forefront of the entertainment biz tend to be more flamboyant, more creative, more outspoken, more liberal. But as others have noted, the people who actually run Hollywood are businessmen who mostly care about what sells. They spend far more time trying to please the status quo and make uplifting, patriotic, mainstream movies than they do trying to rock the boat. The atmosphere on the movie sets is probably relatively liberal, the atmosphere in the boardrooms relatively conservative. No big surprise to me.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I don't see anything alarming about drawing a correlation between creativity and liberalism - anyone who's been around genuinely creative people knows that they're more likely to challenge the status quo and are more likely to hold liberal views. Conservatives, by their very nature, are more conservative, more reserved, more status quo. Big surprise.

Conservatives are always complaining that liberals are too idealistic and not sufficiently realistic. Creative people also tend to be more idealistic. Peace, love, and all that. So there you have another correlation. It's not a rule, but there's certainly a correlation.

Would anyone be surprised or offended if I said "People who run corporations are mostly conservative"? No, at least not if they have any sense. I expect business people to be relatively conservative and creative people to be relatively liberal, it's only natural.

Obviously, the people at the forefront of the entertainment biz tend to be more flamboyant, more creative, more outspoken, more liberal. But as others have noted, the people who actually run Hollywood are businessmen who mostly care about what sells. They spend far more time trying to please the status quo and make uplifting, patriotic, mainstream movies than they do trying to rock the boat. The atmosphere on the movie sets is probably relatively liberal, the atmosphere in the boardrooms relatively conservative. No big surprise to me.

What's a smart, reasonable post like yours doing in a thread like this?

[mr. natural]

Posted by thunderous_funker:
What's a smart, reasonable post like yours doing in a thread like this?

Why? Playing the part of Don Quixote.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Conservatives, by their very nature, are more conservative, more reserved, more status quo.

Not by their nature, but rather by the dictionary definition you choose to assign to them.

Most people who know me practically crap their pants when they hear that I side conservative on political issues. One girl who I hadn't seen for a few years was almost in tears when she heard my views os some issues that we stumbled upon. She said "I would think that you of all people would be liberal".

My point is that those adjectives do not and should not be used to describe the totality of one's being. Most people in the US live conservatively, yet a large chunk have liberal political views.

How one sides on a given political issue (or many) has absolutely no bearing on one's creative capacity, ability to manage money, or any other ability.

Claiming otherwise is bigoted, and by definition, very illiberal.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Not by their nature, but rather by the dictionary definition you choose to assign to them.

Most people who know me practically crap their pants when they hear that I side conservative on political issues. One girl who I hadn't seen for a few years was almost in tears when she heard my views os some issues that we stumbled upon. She said "I would think that you of all people would be liberal".

My point is that those adjectives do not and should not be used to describe the totality of one's being. Most people in the US live conservatively, yet a large chunk have liberal political views.

How one sides on a given political issue (or many) has absolutely no bearing on one's creative capacity, ability to manage money, or any other ability.

Claiming otherwise is bigoted, and by definition, very illiberal.

That's fine, I was generalizing and said so. I know people of all stripes too. But do you have a better explanation for why Hollywood, and the arts in general, are identified with liberals and the business world is identified with conservatives? I'd be happy to hear it, but if you deny that there's any correlation, I expect you to dispute jansar's post.

FWIW, the words "liberal" and "conservative" have roots. They're used to describe people of certain characteristics for a reason. In my lifetime, "free thinkers" have been associated with liberalism and "traditionalists" with conservatism. I recognize that they aren't universal and that their meanings have changed over time, but I think they still have meaning in this context. Conservatives aren't called "conservative" by mere chance.

That doesn't mean that conservatives are never active in the arts or that liberals always are. They're just generalizations, but generalizations are useful as long as you understand that they're generalizations. I'm always happy to see the stereotypes broken. Maybe someday there'll be no correlations.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that your own anecdote tends to show that you're the exception that proves the rule. You defy expectations. I applaud that, and I absolutely agree with you that adjectives should not be used to describe the totality of one's being, but it doesn't refute my general propositions.

Go to any major arts school and do a political survey. Then go to a business school and do the same. I'm willing to bet that the results will be consistent with my hypothesis.

If all such generalizations are invalid, can we dispense with the notion that the media is dominated by liberals? Can we also dispense with the complaint that academia is dominated by leftists? I don't think you'd be prepared to do that, and I wouldn't blame you.

I'm glad you defy expectations. I didn't mean to suggest that these are universal characteristics.

[Evan_11]

Nobody's mentioned the duality of man.

Why isn't it possible to be both?

This what's so interesting about the anti-Bush crowds spite towards the man. George W. Bush is a man of action. Right or wrong he pushes ahead with an agenda. Liberally minded people don't understand this. They figured a man of such seemingly limited mental capabilities to be a lame duck. They were proven wrong. It confuses them. They'd rather contemplate the issues. Like a philosopher contemplates the ego or a painter contemplates a pool of water. These liberally minded people rarely take action. Al Gore contemplates issues. Bill Clinton did the same though he appealed to the middle ground. What really did the man accomplish? Today, what they get is an interesting canidate that they rally behind named Howard Dean. He's the anti-bush but he seems to bear the man's most powerful asset, action. Dean's action is motivated by un-caged liberalism. Like PETA and GreenPeace the man has strange ideas and attempts to lead via activism. Strange ideas such as (ID badges) repelling tax breaks claiming of conspiracy theories. Anything to go against the status quo which in this strange irony of a world we live on often merges the extremes together. How can a guy like Joe Lieberman seem so right for President yet receive very little support? I believe it is because he like many of those who have failed before him don't exhibit the traits that George Bush or Howard Dean possess. That is the duality. The internal conflict that energizes us.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

How one sides on a given political issue (or many) has absolutely no bearing on one's creative capacity, ability to manage money, or any other ability.

Claiming otherwise is bigoted, and by definition, very illiberal.

But you have to admit, it was very creative.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Go to any major arts school and do a political survey. Then go to a business school and do the same. I'm willing to bet that the results will be consistent with my hypothesis.

If and only if we were to assume that these youngsters in school (1) have fully developed political views, experiences, and positions, and (2) that they accurately represent the entire population as a whole.

If all such generalizations are invalid, can we dispense with the notion that the media is dominated by liberals? Can we also dispense with the complaint that academia is dominated by leftists? I don't think you'd be prepared to do that, and I wouldn't blame you.

There's a huge difference. I am talking about a human ability (in this case the ability to be creative), not an educational interest or career choice.

If the quote was "conservatives shy away from occupations in the arts (or education)", I'd have no complaints. But "conservatives just aren't creative" assumes that an entire segment of the population is deprived of an ability because of their values.

As for generalisations - absolutely I'm prepared with my complaint that academia is dominated by leftists.

Link 1

A new poll of professors at Ivy League universities has found an alarming disparity between the numbers of liberal and conservative faculty on the campuses. Commissioned by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, the survey revealed that of those Ivy League faculty that voted in the 2000 presidential election, more than 80 percent voted for Democrat Al Gore while only nine percent chose Republican candidate George W. Bush. By contrast, the popular vote in America was evenly divided, with 48% going to each candidate.

The other findings of the poll are similarly startling, and reveal how wide the breach is between the views held by Ivy League professors and the beliefs held by ordinary Americans.

Link 2

In our examinations of over 150 departments and upper-level administrations at 32 elite colleges and universities, the Center found that the overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans we were able to identify at the 32 schools was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134 Republicans).

Although in the nation at large registered Democrats and Republicans are roughly equal in number, not a single department at a single one of the 32 schools managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two. The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern University where 80% of the faculty members we identified were registered Democrats who outnumbered registered Republicans by a ratio of 4-1.

Faculty registration is just as unbalanced at major research universities as it is at small colleges. At Columbia University, the Center could identify only 6 faculty Republicans. The Center could not locate a single Republican in the history, political science, and sociology departments. Cornell University was just as left-leaning: the departments of English and history were entirely devoid of registered Republicans.

Administrators lean just as far to the left: at schools like the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie Melon, and Cornell, we could not identify a single Republican administrator. In the entire Ivy League, we identified only 3 Republican administrators._

[Zimphire]

No wonder kids have been coming out of college brainwashed by liberal ideals.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No wonder kids have been coming out of college brainwashed by liberal ideals.

That is only because they are impressionable and are free from their parents so anything that is against them is attractive. They just have little real life experience and no real thoughts of their own so they latch on to anything that sounds cool.

Some grow up, and some do not.

[Zimphire]

You'll get flamed for that.

No matter how true it is.

[quandarry]

how did this thread get so intellectual...now i have to deal with a headache.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by quandarry:
how did this thread get so intellectual...now i have to deal with a headache.

Wasn't my fault, I'm going to blame that guy over there. => No wait over there <=

Whatevah.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
But do you have a better explanation for why Hollywood, and the arts in general, are identified with liberals and the business world is identified with conservatives?

First of all the distinction between �Hollywood� and �the business world� is non-existent, since �Hollywood� is ALL business. 100%. Being about �art� brings up the rear at a distance 4th or 5th place.

Secondly, the funny thing about Hollywood being �liberal� as related to liberals are supposedly more creative than conservatives (which is such a silly generalization I�m amazed that otherwise intelligent people could actually even try to float it) is that so much of the vocal �Hollywood� celebrity set, be they liberal or not, is made up of people who begin to believe their own scripted hype.

You have a lot of ego trip schizoids with bipolar disorders, who read lines that SOMEONE ELSE WROTE, who begin to think, �Hey, what I said in that movie was freakin� brilliant� [well of course, EVERYONE would speak constant brilliance with an army of highly skilled writers scripting their every line] and I looked freakin� good [so would most people with armies of craftsmen and technicians running around just off camera making sure of it] therefore� *** forehead slap***� I MUST ACTUALLY BE THAT FREAKIN� BRILLIANT!

That�s when the trouble starts.

The �logic� is: since people were lined up to see said ego trip speak sooooo �brilliantly� and look soooo good, and kick everyone�s ass without effort, and know all the answers to every problem, etc� why, the natural extension of all that is that everyone MUST want to hear this �great wisdom� sound off on everything else as well.

The problem is, once ego tripped schizoids with bipolar disorders spout off WITHOUT the benefit of the scripted lines and armies of techs scrambling behind the scenes, we�re treated to the bumps and warts spectacle of complete dunces sounding off about $hit they�re completely clueless about, yet believing themselves to be as brilliant as the lines others have written for them. (Witness the likes of Sean Penn, Johnny Depp, Madonna, Jane Fonda, Babs (BS) Streisand, and the list goes on and on�)

Off camera, where much of the real artistry takes place, there are all the people who write the lines, plan the camera angles, score the music, green light and sell the finished product etc., who are as a group as diverse as any other crowd. Lots of conservatives. Lots of liberals. Lots of moderates. All highly creative.

And as for the �business world� being identified with conservatives- hey, what can I say? Liberal fears are true: conservatives DO own everything.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If and only if we were to assume that these youngsters in school (1) have fully developed political views, experiences, and positions, and (2) that they accurately represent the entire population as a whole.

Schools are just a convenient reference point. I'm confident that a survey of people in the arts and people in the business world would demonstrate that they're not liberal and conservative in equal measures. I'm just too lazy to look for one.

There's a huge difference. I am talking about a human ability (in this case the ability to be creative), not an educational interest or career choice.

If the quote was "conservatives shy away from occupations in the arts (or education)", I'd have no complaints. But "conservatives just aren't creative" assumes that an entire segment of the population is deprived of an ability because of their values.

No argument there. The latter statement is obviously over-broad, but I suspect that the person who made it knew that.

As for generalisations - absolutely I'm prepared with my complaint that academia is dominated by leftists.

I wasn't asking you to prove it - I already knew it. My point was that generalizations can be useful as long as we understand that they're generalizations.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
First of all the distinction between �Hollywood� and �the business world� is non-existent, since �Hollywood� is ALL business. 100%. Being about �art� brings up the rear at a distance 4th or 5th place.

I agree, to a point.

Secondly, the funny thing about Hollywood being �liberal� as related to liberals are supposedly more creative than conservatives (which is such a silly generalization I�m amazed that otherwise intelligent people could actually even try to float it) . . .

Phrased as such, it is silly. However, I stand by the proposition that it's no mere coincidence that, as conservatives constantly complain, the most visible components of Hollywood culture - the actors and musicians - tend to be left of center. They tend to be iconoclasts and it stands to reason that iconoclasts would tend to have liberal as opposed to conservative (i.e. traditional, status quo) values. Just a general proposition, nothing more.

Off camera, where much of the real artistry takes place, there are all the people who write the lines, plan the camera angles, score the music, green light and sell the finished product etc., who are as a group as diverse as any other crowd. Lots of conservatives. Lots of liberals. Lots of moderates. All highly creative.

Yes, very true - life is a continuum, and I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise.

Must be on my way - there's a Bush fundraiser at the drama school tonight. Those artsy-fartsy types have such traditional values - it's really something.

Tomorrow I'm joining my banker at an Al Sharpton rally - bankers seem to be crazy for Al!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:

Phrased as such, it is silly. However, I stand by the proposition that it's no mere coincidence that, as conservatives constantly complain, the most visible components of Hollywood culture - the actors and musicians - tend to be left of center.

If that's what's trendy. The day being 'left' led to a marked decrease of movie ticket sales, Hollywood would suddenly be 'righter than right'. In a heartbeat.

I wouldn't be that the �most visible components of Hollywood culture� were right because people on the right are necessarily more creative, it would be because that's what sells movie tickets.

Sort of the way Talk Radio�s �most visible components' are right wing. Yeah sure, it'd be fun to say it�s 'cause the right is more creative, but in reality, it�s simply what�s selling right now. Suddenly left wing talkers will be all the rage, and it�ll shift, but who knows, everyone in Hollywood may outwardly become a Republican and start sucking up to the Governor.

Hollywood loves to be �radical� up to the point of losing money in middle America. But the bottom line, no one among the Hollywood power elite really gives a good crap where its bread winners stand politically, so long as they rake the bucks in.

They tend to be iconoclasts and it stands to reason that iconoclasts would tend to have liberal as opposed to conservative (i.e. traditional, status quo) values. Just a general proposition, nothing more.

This is a town that once BLACKLISTED itself to keep up with the 'times'. The bottom line? It was trendy at the time, and the suits running the show figured it would keep selling movie tickets.

[Johnny Lydon]

Originally posted by vmarks:
In which case, you might reconsider your support of Mr. Jobs- after all, he heads a corporation. (ooooooh.... shudder.... )

Yeah I heard that Johnatan Ive is now the exclusive designer for Lockheed Martin! All new warheads will now be translucent plastic coated brushed aluminum. That'll show 'em. You might want to compare Apple's market share with Lockheed Martin's also.

Feel free to make a relevant argument whenever you feel ready.

[Johnny Lydon]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
That is only because they are impressionable and are free from their parents so anything that is against them is attractive. They just have little real life experience and no real thoughts of their own so they latch on to anything that sounds cool.

Some grow up, and some do not.

Don't you have some TV to watch? You and Zim can get together and listen to people tell you what to buy and what to think and drink and eat and wear and do.

[Johnny Lydon]

Hollywood is "left?" Some of you are really confused.

Studios are corporate; studios are conservative

Artists may tilt "left" and true artists tend not to care what it is acceptable for them to be. The last thing a real artist is concerned with is you mayonaise slurping TV watchers and your opinion of them. I weep.

Go eat individually wrapped pastuerized processed cheese food slices and Kraft Macarooni and Cheese Dinner! Fried cheese sticks in garlic butter sauce for desert.

TV and movies are nacho cheese sauce for the soul. So totally devoid of any nutritional/informational value as to pass right through the mind and body.

Hollywood is diherea, puke and bloody stool.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Johnny Lydon:
Don't you have some TV to watch? You and Zim can get together and listen to people tell you what to buy and what to think and drink and eat and wear and do.

Eh? I don't watch TV.

Silly.