The Right, Our History, and The Fear of Understanding

The Modern American Right has always had an issue with the accurate portrayals of American History and it being displayed in text and film formats. That's always troubled me. And I'm not alone. Enter Oliver Stone and Showtime. The Right, whether in their more modest and farthers forms, have never liked Stone. I can almost see why - to a fault. From Stone's earlier works like Platoon to his forays into the world of documentaries like Persona Non Gratta, Stone has been cast in the character of a pariah for decades. Now he's about to complete another magnum opus for Showtime on American's "real" history. Enter William Bigelow and the serial distortionists at the Breitbart Media Complex

The polemic, which airs its final installment at 8 p.m. EST tomorrow night, intentionally distorts history in order to paint the United States as a terrible country that oppressed its people and hid the seamy side of its past. Ronald Radosh, in a brilliant attack on Stone and Kuznick in the Wall Street Journal, explains how they twist the truth in order to promulgate their attack on the noblest of nations. He begins by noting that Kuznick wrote in a book of essays that his role entails “creating a bridge between leftist and more moderate students … try to radicalize some of the more moderate and liberal students.” Kuznick said of the Vietnam War that America had gone so far "to the dark side" that "we were the wrong side." The authors deny that the Cold War was necessary, arguing that it only transpired because President Franklin D. Roosevelt dumped his socialist vice-president Henry A. Wallace (their hero) for Harry Truman in 1944. They assert that if Wallace had succeeded Roosevelt instead of Truman, everything would have been hunky dory with the Soviets.

While the documentary, regardless of subject matter, requires that somewhat of a common theme or narrative been reinforced throughout it's running time, the Modern American Right have clearly injected their own narrative without even the slightest attempt to understand that the history of this country isn't all waving flags, rhetorical flourishes from great men and women, and people prospering in the face of adversity. It was - and still is - at many times a bloody and scary place to call home and some of it's primary characters didn't always have a life that was white as snow. So here's the question - what does the Modern American Right have against even mentioning the seemingly more darker portion of our nation's history? They are all too willing at times to talk to us about "the truth", but are quite hesitant when that truth is revealed. This isn't to say that Stone's work on the Showtimes series didn't have historical plot-holes or spend longer stretches of time on subjects where more of a wealth of solid information is available or even hypothesize to a degree. Does that make it a documentary that is without merit? No. Does this mean that Stone is attempting to say that America is a place of nothing but evil and where not everyone is created equal? Not in the least. I'm not going to hold my breath in the hopes that the Modern American Right are going to even begin to accept the true history of our nation within my lifetime. Maybe never - based solely on the fact that they are creating their own dark history of this country, but it doesn't include anything about the Right - as the dark history revolves exclusively within the realm of anyone or anything that doesn't accept conservative or even libertarian beliefs as holy writ.

Trying To Trap A Freeman

In the immortal words of Adm. Akbar......



And that precisely what this is:

Dear Mr. Freeman,

My name is Ali Akbar. I’m a 26 year-old African-American small business owner and a tea party activist. I’m not writing to rake you over the coals in the way that many conservatives have done in the last 48 hours. Heck, I wrote a passionate open-letter refuting many of your claims already, but this is not that. This is an honest and standing invitation. I do believe that you are wrong in what you said about the tea party, but I would rather prove it to you than castigate you for your comments.

I also understand that your reflexive comments came from experience. You grew up in a different America than the one that I was blessed to be born into. We both grew up in the south, but I never saw ‘White Only’ signs. I’ve been called a name or two in my three decades, but racism has always been the exception in my life, not the rule, as it probably was in your youth. I understand your suspicion of conservative political movements. It is rooted in pain and fear and memory, and though I never saw the horrors of segregation that you did, we share that cultural heritage.


I’ve been a fan of yours all my life. From “Driving Miss Daisy” to “Lean on Me” to “The Shawshank Redemption,” I idolized you as a boy. Growing up without a father, you were one of the strong black men in my life who gave me a model to follow. Each of the characters you played had dignity and confidence. I tried to emulate the strength you projected. While many of my friends headed down the all-too-familiar path of drugs, unwed pregnancies and crime, I’ve striven to live a life with dignity, be an example for my brothers and make my mother proud.

My favorite of your movies was “The Power of One.” I must’ve watched it a hundred times, crying every time when your character Geel Piet was killed by the racist South African. Geel Piet was brave and heroic, even in the face of death, because he knew that the hate that killed him was a trifle in comparison to the love that PK’s anti-apartheid movement was spreading. It is with that spirit that I’m writing to you this morning.

I’ve attended dozens of tea party events. I’ve helped organize them, and I’ve even spoken at a few. The tea party is not what is often depicted in the news. It is people of all colors who are terribly concerned about the direction that America is heading. We don’t trust big government to make decisions for us. And we fear that the present administration’s spending is going to lead our country down a path to insolvency, much like what Greece is currently facing.

Yes, the Tea Bagger is actually named Akbar.

This is on par with high school kids cleaning up their parents house just hours before mom and dad arrive home from their long weekend, making sure that there are no empty beer cans and bottles of Jagermeister; no ash-trays filled with remnants of blunts, or stray pairs of lacy undergarments from any of the girls that got tipsy enough to dance on the coffee table. This is exactly what this is.

Of course, Morgan Freeman likely knows this and should speak out to this effect. Does Mr. Akbar actually think that one of the more intelligent and articulate humans on the planet is actually going to fall for such sophomoric pleading? I certainly hope he doesn't. If anything, he should arrive, completely unannnounced and unrecognizable - with hidden camera at the ready - to a Tea Bagger gathering in the near future to get a real sense of what an unsanitized conglomerate this reactionary lot truly is.

I'm certain that Mr. Akbar's intensions - at least deep down inside him somewhere - are well and good, but to see anyone within the African American community, regardless of socio-political stripe; where they live; or what they do for a living, be so blind to the verifiable incidences of unchecked racial animus within the Tea Bagger movement gives me great pause. Are they simply playing the role of ostrich in order to maintain a sense of moral superiority? Or is this something more sinister, that they see it and it doesn't bother them in the lease because it's "not happening to them"?

Regardless, the trap as been set and I'm sure that Morgan Freeman is all too aware of this. And once he doesn't show up, The Modern American Right are going to have their "he was too scared to show up" talking points at the ready. They really are that predictable.

Palin, Cinema, And Context - or - Did Conservatives Not Learn Anything From Their Atlas Disaster?

It's no surprise that The Modern American Right would start crowing like Peter Pan on crystal meth once the Sarah Palin mockumentary premiered in theatres across the US. But one has to ask whether or not these same people have forgotten even the most recent of Right Wing cinema flops that they claimed was a successful box office opening.

The much anticipated Sarah Palin documentary, “The Undefeated”, which chronicles Sarah Palin’s rise from mayor of Wasilla, Alaska to national prominence, will play exclusively in AMC Theatres starting today. You can vote for the movie to play in your town at The Undefeated website.

The Sarah Palin documentary “The Undefeated” opened to a huge opening day. They are selling out from Atlanta to Orange County.

Opens Friday, July 15th!

There are several reports that the audiences are standing and cheering in the theaters.

And while it's not unusual to witness cheering/shouting/standing in theatres during movies ranging from the latest sophomoric Wayans Brothers production to more serious offerings, The Modern American Right is in full framing mode with this one. After all, they have to, considering Palin has become somewhat of a religious figure amongst conservatives and some libertarians.

But lets look at this from an honest marketing and distributing perspective.

The Modern American Right have everything to lose should this mockumentary fail, so it works to their advantage to frame this opening as "groundbreaking". But what they aren't considering is the fact that we are talking about 10 cities, 10 specific theatres, and a cult following that really can't survive in a mass release.

And while some within the Modern American Right are poorly attempting to minimalize the reality of poor ticket sales, I can't but wonder what sort of "victimhood meme" they will conjour once the initial glow has worn off with members of the Tea Bagger set.

What Is July 4th For - A Progressive Perspective

The more I look around the blogosphere today, the more I see how The Modern American Right is making this day about themselves and not about the country we live in. I wrote about this yesterday, but I thought that it would be nice to parallel what progressives ( like myself ) and liberals have to say about the day versus those that are against us.

First, let me tell you what we - libs/progs - are not doing today:

- We are not out to deify a president.

- We are not out to prove we know that little known final verse in the National Anthem

- We don't care to worship someone who cares more about celebrity than country using July 4th as the backdrop

- It's not about claiming how only one type of music matters.

And there's so much more that the Modern Liberal/Progressive Movement believes shouldn't use July 4th as an anchor point.

But what do we believe?

- Celebrating the diversity of community rather than telling our socio-politicals that they have no right to do so

- Enjoying time with family and friends in a non-partisan atmosphere ( and some good BBQ would be nice too )

- Acknowledging that our Founding Fathers had no clue where we would be at this point in history while reflecting on what they managed to accomplish while the country was so young

- And finally, understanding that July 4th is not a religious holiday, but a day of reflection, introspection, and remembrance.

Whatever you do today' be safe, be happy, and appreciate what you have - regardless of socio-political stripe.

And now, let's have some fireworks:



As an aside, Kentucky recently allowed "the good shit" to be sold and my neighborhood - and those around me - took advantage of that fact. It was like a fucking war-zone last night up around the cul de sac. I can still smell the smoke.

This Is Their Metric For Election Results?

I'll be blunt on this - I can't stand American Idol. It's been pointless from day one. It showcases not true talent in the arena of music, but focuses almost exclusively on commercialism and gimmicks that are pushed to people who likely buy things because they think they will seem "important" or because the logo used is flashier. They are attracted by the "prettiest lights" that flash in front of them.

So when I read Jeannie DeAngelis' "article" over at Breitbart's "Big Hollywood" site about how the American Idol finale is a signifier that Obama is in trouble come election night 2012, it was revealed to me that the Modern American Right swallowed whole the notion that gimmicks and special effects are more important to them than substance.

After three endless years of Barack Obama being more popular than Jesus, God and country seem to be making a huge comeback. If this season’s American Idol outcome is any indication of what lies ahead in the next election, Barack Obama may be heading back to the home of Muddy Waters and the Chicago Blues.

Interestingly, on American Idol each week those eliminated, with the exception of a Rod Stewart wannabe from Alabama, returned home to blue states. Even the stunningly talented Pia Toscano, who was thought to be a shoe-in, was sent packing back to the blue shores of Howard Beach, NY.

Besides being entertained by judges J Lo, Steven Tyler and Randy Jackson, this season American Idol has showcased talent from all along the musical spectrum. America was wowed by James Durbin, whose voice embellished raucous heavy metal; Pia was crowned the queen of ballads; Casey Abrams entertained America with a scruffy eccentric brand of stand-up bass showmanship; Haley Reinhard emerged as a polished version of Janis Joplin; and a cuddly promise of Luther was reborn in the endearing Jacob Lusk.

Yet, throughout the competition and despite the huge talent pool, country singers Lauren Alaina and Scotty McCreery endured from week to week. One thing about Lauren and Scotty that stood out was their consistent profession of personal faith and loyalty to a patriotic genre of music that unabashedly celebrates both God and country.

One thing that troubles me is when people talk about "country music". There is no "country music" anymore. So to say that Lauren and Scotty embody that genre is to participate in an action of pure unblushing ignorance. And if you couple that with the actions of the "voters" or American Idol and the real voters in the Presidential Election, you've done more than jump the proverbial shark - you've completely inverted the fabric of space/time and have placed yourself into the race to become one of the dumbest people in the known universe.

If Lauren and Scotty were truly the embodiment of real country music, then they would talk about the suffering of farmers and beaten wives; the plight of families dealing with a father that drinks or a mother that is absent; or sing songs of celebrations of renegades, outlaws, and excess in the South. Neither of these two have the passion of a true country artist like Hank Sr., Johnny Cash, or Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson. And while it is true that these mentioned sang gospel songs, these were out of a sense of belief rather than a desire to posture to gain adoration.

Country music died decades ago and was replaced with a new form of "Top 40" fare that does nothing more than insult those that built the foundations of Country. Take a look at who's on the "Country" charts this week and then take those songs and compare them with the likes of Patsy Cline or Merle Haggard.

But there are those that take up the "appearance" of a Country purist but come off as nothing more than the current gimmicks that were the two finalists of the current American Idol season. Even some that once held the title of a true Country artist have become nothing more than supplicants of Right Wing theology. The name that immediately comes to mind is Hank Willians Jr.

It would be interesting to see the demographics for who voted on the American Idol finale and see how many of these people are even eligible to vote in the 2012 election, are even considering it, and if they are, what candidate they would vote for. I'm guessing that the results wouldn't mesh with DeAngelis' poorly constructed and utterly preposterous thesis.

Waiting For An Honest Review

I'm not foolish enough to believe that the modern documentary - save anything done by Ken Burns - isn't purely an ideological point of view. However, any good documentarian has to be able to engage the audience with a balance of factual analysis and an emotional element that will keep them engaged.

Far too many documentaries are predicated on "fear" ( see anything done by Alex Jones ) while some utilize "humor" to the point where you have to ask if the director is actually taking the subject matter seriously enough ( see everything Micheal Moore has done since his days with the television show TV Nation ). And while both have elements of truth to them, a good documentarian will make us dig deeper, to seek out what lies in between the visual lines.

With that as the preamble, I just have to state that I think all these machinations from the modern American Right in regards to Waiting For Superman and how it wasn't nominated for an Academy Award are grounded in nothing more than a poor understanding of what is really wrong with public schools in America and how Documentaries are nominated for the ultimate "golden statue".

The entire thesis of Guggenheim’s film is predicated on the notion that if only every American could send their kids to "charter schools" then everything would be just grand.

But seeing as how the bulk of "charter schools" not only espouse but teach from a very specific and very rigid religious and socio-political point of view, one would think that this would run completely contrary to the modern American Right's claims of being against indoctrination. But one would be wrong.

As far as how and why Guggenheim's film was not nominated, it has all to do with his fellow documentarians and NOT the average Academy Member. Also, there are two rounds of consideration, and "Waiting....." was an early entry into the second round but simply didn't make the final cut. If the Right is really looking for a target, they should talk to someone like Morgan Spurlock, director of "Supersize Me" and one of the newest member of the Academy Documentary Nomination Committee.

But should someone like Spurlock be the real focus of why this Documentary didn't make the final cut, or is Guggenheim's style indicative of a failing to show balance? I would say the later is most certainly the case - and the modern American Right's misappropriation of the material to attack the union members of Wisconsin is a clear example.

No one, and most certainly not me, are claiming that our public schools are perfect - as that would be an unattainable goal. What we have to look at is how we measure that perfection and how we can assure that every school has the same ability to improve infrastructure. And if you think the later doesn't matter then you are fooling yourself. I can virtually guarantee that sending a kid to a school that looks like a condemned housing project and sending one that has modernize equipment are going to produce two very different kids after 8th grade.

But that doesn't leave teachers off the hook - at least not totally. They are there to provide the best available educational process possible, given the material and environment at their disposal. And that is where we finally reach the "collective bargaining" process that the modern American Right are completely against.

Do you really believe that the average public school teacher in America enjoys this lavish lifestyle and a pension that they can live off of exclusively? Not at all, yet that is the false portrait that is being painted. Collective bargaining isn't going to get your the Mercedes and the 5 bedroom home. At best, it gets you a living wage with at least a minimal of guaranteed healthcare coverage.

But to be able to attend that "charter school" in your region, you would already have to be able to afford that Mercedes or that 5 bedroom house for it not to adversely effect your monthly budget.

And this is where we see how class warfare and public education plays a clear role in the arguments from the modern American Right.

You see, it's not such a simple topic to tackle like people are being led to believe it is. And it's not so much of an issue of "waiting for a superhero" to magically make it all better, but an issue of waiting for people to realize that complexities can't be oversimplified.

The Reality Of Box Office Revenue Decline

A recent highlight at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood ham-fistedly attempts to show that the types of films that are made in America are so "anti-American" that people are fleeing the lines at the box office en masse.

While that is clearly the intent of the author that re-posted the article from USA Today - and obviously punctuated by a picture of modern conservative "boogeyman" Matt Damon - what the majority of the commenters and the author fail to realize is that it's a multi-level reason as to why box office receipts have lowered.

Over the years, the increase in movie ticket prices has pushed more and more people away from theaters. The average price in my area for a non-matinee showing of a feature length film is $7.00 for an adult and $4.25 for a child under the age of 12. Couple that with concession prices - the actual revenue generator for your local theater - and you're looking at spending upwards of $40 per trip to the local cinema for a family of 3. In today's economy, it's no surprise that there has been a decline.

But what of "choice and competition"? You know, the conservative cure-all.

I can recall the long periods of time one had to wait during the 80s for a film to be reintroduced to the consumer on cable television and ultimately onto VHS. While that process could take upwards of a year to happen, films that are seen in theaters in May - the start of the summer movie season - are available on a variety of platforms within as little as two months. This is a great incentive for the consumer to wait just a short number of weeks to view a desired film - complete with extra features - for a fraction of the cost.

These releases can be picked up at your local video retailer - though those are disappearing at a rapid pace due to online film outlets like NetFlix and convenience locations like RedBox - and can have multiple viewings of the film and no longer have to face the risk of late fees that boarder on extortion. Not only that, but online film outlets often allow the consumer to stream to a variety of platforms to experience the movie in your desired setting.

Is it any wonder why box office revenues have dropped?

Now, this isn't to say that Hollywood is guilty of producing what amounts to visual crap, but there is a market for just about anything these days - just ask the Wayans Brothers. But what is more of an issue than most people will realize is how distribution works.

The film you might want to see is only playing in a specific market. After all, not everyone lives in a large metropolitan area like New York, L.A., Chicago, or Atlanta. What if you have to drive 2hrs out of your way just to see a film - that adds to the cost, and will be yet another reason why you would opt to wait until the film is delivered on your particular cable service or can be purchased or rented.

This notion that Hollywood is seeing decrease revenue because of story content runs completely contrary to the actions of the consumer and how they are willing to spend or save and opt for the sake of convenience.