Hollywood's Monied Liberals And The President

It's a cliche, a stereotype that many folks love to trot out: Hollywood is full of liberal socialists, Democrats to the core, and their big money elitism has left them out of touch with the much more conservative American populace.

I can see where that image comes from. Of course it's full of holes. Big time actors/producers like Clint Eastwood, Jerry Bruckheimer, Jon Voight, Gary Sinise, Mel Gibson, Kelsey Grammer, Tom Selleck, and many more are self-described conservative/Republicans. And the bottom line is still the bottom line - money rules Tinseltown, no matter what the political persuasion of the creators.

But Hollywood is made up of people, and people who have enthusiastically committed (and contributed) to a political candidate are loath to give up that support even when their standard-bearer has let them down. And by this point in his presidency, are there any progressive/liberal causes that Mr. Obama has not let down?

That's why this story, "Obama And Hollywood: State Of Their Union" from The Hollywood Reporter, is so interesting. The richest political progressives in Hollywood gathered recently to raise money for Mr. Obama. And while they still support him, many are disappointed. "He had an opportunity to show he's a different generation, and he hasn't done it," said on interviewee. Hollywood liberals are disappointed that war continues in the Middle East, concerned that health care and Wall Street reforms are toothless, and upset that gay rights are not high on the Administration's agenda.

But no one among the many folks interviewed here are ready to throw in the towel. Of course, none of these extremely creative, imaginative people - whose movies and tv shows often dazzle with their unique ideas - seem able to visualize an America with more than two political parties.

Maybe that's because every one of these Hollywood entertainment industry players is ultimately in the employ of, or partnered with, major media corporations. They know the difficulties artists encounter when their creativity challenges the money men. And we all know where corporate America stands when it comes to progressive change.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i4a25a9f106904fc175e55b8dcf6b2e3e

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize - For Giving Hope

2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner - can we get an interview with some people on the streets in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I thought I had time-slipped somehow back to April 1, or maybe a it's really a headline from the reknowned satirical paper The Onion: "Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize." But here's the official statement from the Nobel organization:
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/home/announce-2009/

Quoting from the statment: "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Obama has been given a major "peace" award for giving hope and his alleged diplomatic philosophy. Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling - a Norweigian committee's view of "peace" looks like an Afghan man's bombed-out home filled with dead relatives.

Memo to the Nobel Peace Prize committee:

1) The largest defense/war budget in American history was requested by the Obama Administration for fiscal 2009.

2) In June of this year, an additional $106 billion "supplemental" funding bill for the ongoing Iraq/Afghan occupation was passed by Congress at the Administration's request.

3) Debate is underway on adding more troops to the Afghanistan debacle - on top of the 21,000 additional troops that the Obama Administration has deployed this year.

This is hope? This reflects the values and attitudes shared by the majority of the people of the world? These are the actions of a man working towards a better future?

The Nobel site extols the President's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Really? Can you give me the details, I've forgotten - it's been a long nine months in office. Just who have we had these efforts with? Honduras? Iran?

"The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons." There's been some work, some actual reductions? So far, there has been some talk with the Russians and agreements to talk further. No actions.

Past Peace Prizes have gone to folks with questionable credentials (Henry Kissinger) before. But this one is being awarded before any concrete steps towards peace have even been taken - so far the "peace" effort is all campaign promises, all talk and no actions. In fact, Obama's military moves since taking office fly in the face of his talk.

Did the Nobel Peace committee buy "hope and change" election promises? It's okay if they did. But it's another thing altogether to sell them to the rest of the planet as some sort of "peace" philosophy worthy of international recognition. George Orwell would be proud.