Hush over Hollywood

I don't know if this is Ideology - or Conspiracy -

Interesting viewpoint of a conservative TV personality
in radical liberal Hollywood. Hmmmm... Wonder why
Hollywood is silent with this? I hadn't thought about
it before. Perhaps Pat Sajak (yes, the fellow from the
game show) is on to something???

************************************
A Hush Over Hollywood
by Pat Sajak
Posted Nov 30, 2004

Excerpt:

Picture this:

Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It�s a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.

So I�m trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.

The presumed murderer, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, attached a 5-page note to van Gogh's body with a knife. In it, he threatened jihad against the West in general, and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures. Van Gogh�s crime? He created a short film highly critical of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. So, again I ask, where is the outrage from Hollywood�s creative community? I mean, talk about a violation of the right of free speech!

Perhaps they are afraid that their protests would put them in danger. That, at least, is a defensible position. If I were Michael Moore, I would much rather rail against George W. Bush, who is much less likely to have me killed, than van Gogh�s murderer and the threat to creative freedom he brings. Besides, a man of Moore�s size would provide a great deal of �bulletin board� space.

Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they�re not Christians or Jews.

rest of article

Perhaps Pat Sajak should stop trying to pass the buck and act on his own words by leading a movement in honor of Van Gogh?

Maybe hollywood should sign a petition to elect Sajak as the leader.



Question is, would Sajak accept?

Originally posted by syntaxer
Question is, would Sajak accept?

Does he have anything else meaningful to do??
(no, he doesn't)

Maybe Pat doesn't realize this, but we live in an era where the actions of a scant few individuals are used to justify the wholesale slaughter of a group of people. In this day and age, if influential people come out against a single violent Muslim extremist act, it can and will be used by politicians and the media as some sort of twisted justification for the illegal actions the United States is taking in the Middle East. Therefore it is better to say nothing when isolated incidents like the muder of Van Gogh happens because recent history has proven the acts of few guilty severely affects the lives of many innocent through propogandizing the associations the innocent have to the guilty. Celebrities do indeed risk justifying what our government calls "collateral damage" by what they say.

Years ago this never happened either. At least when it turned out that terrorists could be associated through their religious beliefs with those holding power. Take for example IRA terrorist events, the Oklahoma City bombing, or Christian extremist abortion clinic murders. The entirety of Christianity was never villified and condemned to death as Islam has been in the post September 11 2001 world.

[edit on 1-12-2004 by Frith]

Frankly, I am happy there is finally a hush over Hollywood.

Never did understand why a bunch of actors/actresses/directors ever thought they had any political influence whatsoever.

Just make movies and keep you ignorant mouths shut.

Originally posted by FlyersFan


So I�m trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that this is a foreign story.

Pat Sajak is a joke. Hardly what I would call Hollywood.

from FlyersFan
So I�m trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.

C'mon, FlyersFan, where's your wink-wink smilie at? You must be kidding. You know the answer; you knew it before you posted this thread.

Hollywood and the liberals are enamored with the "freedom fighters". Sean Penn and Michael Moore (is this Hollywood enough for you, ECK?) are afraid to speak out about it, lest they be accused by the rest of the sissies as being tough on crime, and not sensitive enough to the plight of the oppressed murderer. Don't you know that it was society made him do that? If only he had been breast fed.... It's all BUSH's FAULT!

Get my point, FF?

FlyersFan

You forgot the #1 rule of liberalism. Support that which does not support the USA and do not criticise that which opposes the USA. There for, it is inherently against hollywoods nature to say anything but van Gogh got what he deserved - but then again that would expose the liberal hollywood elite for what they really are, so they can't do that.