The significance of the Academy Award nominations Reply


By Tom Quiner

Quentin Tarantino's latest celebration of ultra violence garners an Oscar nomination

Quentin Tarantino’s latest celebration of ultra violence, “Django,” garners an Oscar nomination

Gratuitous violence is worthy of adulation.

THAT is what the Academy Awards is telling us with the announcement of the nominees for the very finest in this year’s films.

No, let me be more specific.  THAT is what Hollywood is telling us, that cloistered conclave of the most liberal of all Americans, that most supportive sub-group of the Democratic Party.  These are the folks who dominate the Academy.

In the wake of America’s latest mass murders, these same people are screaming for severe restrictions on gun ownership.

Fair enough.

At the same time, they are proclaiming “Django Unchained” one of the best films of the year.

Quentin Taratino’s latest blood orgy was nominated for best picture.

Yes, yes, they have also nominated some outstanding films for best picture, including “Lincoln” and “Les Miserables.”  These two films would be deserving of recognition in any year.  I was moved by both.  Even more, I was uplifted by both.  These are films that fulfill the artistic promise of cinema by uplifting their viewers.

Django, on the other hand, drags us down through a shameless glorification of bloodlust.

I have not seen Django, so feel free to discount my perspective.  I will not be offended.  I have seen some of Tarantino’s work.  Frankly, he is a superb story teller.  Frankly, his style is off the charts.  I like the way he tells stories.  He employs music, editing, graphics and all of the cinematic tools at his disposal masterfully.  Few are in his league.

But I didn’t have to see Django to know that it isn’t good for teenage boys, or for anyone.  My college aged son, to my chagrin, saw the film and loved it.  He sent me a movie review to make the case for Django.  Here is the first sentence of this supportive review:

“Django Unchained isn’t just a glorification of gratuitous violence and foul language, EVERYthing about Django is gratuitous.”

How on earth can the same people who say guns are the root cause of violence, glorify relentless murder by guns with an Oscar nomination?  Anti gun warrior and liberal icon, Michael Moore, gave it thumbs up.  And yet people who saw the film felt “moved” to publicly tweet the violent feelings this film welled up in their loins:

“Seeing Django reignited my desire to kill white people,” said “Flex.”

“After watching Django, all I wanna do is shoot whites,”  said another.

“We need a modern dy django to kill some white people (sic),” tweeted another.

wanna kill all white for 30min after you see Django Unchained (sic),”said “Joey Logan.”

“After watching Django all I want to do is eat baked beans and biscuits and shoot white people for money,” said “Rusty Nail.”

How on earth can liberals be so dimwitted that they can’t connect the dots that entertainment that glorifies “gratuitous violence,” to acknowledge that moniker from the film reviewer above, may be a bad influence on:

√ high testosterone teen-aged boys,

√ sociopaths,

√ anyone mentally unstable?

If these Hollywood liberals were truly serious about doing something about public mass murders that use guns to kill kids, well, they’d mock and revile films like Django.  They’d pull the plug on films that glorify gratuitous violence.

But they don’t.

They honor them.  The money is too good.

What a bunch of phonies.

Should you be free to choose? Reply


By Tom Quiner

What an interesting question!  It depends on the context, doesn’t it?  It depends on the principle involved.

I pose the question in light of the great exchange in the video above between the late, great Nobel laureate economist, Milton Friedman, and a college student who is allegedly Michael Moore.  (I don’t know if it is really Mr. Moore, nor does it matter for purposes of this discussion.)

You can’t help but appreciate the way  Mr. Friedman engages the young man and forces him to think, to wrestle with a principle.

The young man has a problem with Ford Motor Company’s decision to not put a $13 part on the Pinto back in the 1960’s knowing full well that two-hundred deaths could occur as a result of their economic decision.  His chagrin seems reasonable, don’t you think?

Mr. Friedman’s response is that “no one can accept the principal that an infinite value can be put on an individual life.”  This, too, seems reasonable.

The young man disagrees, but then offers that he is a supporter of abortion rights. He explicitly states that he does not believe that human life is sacred, that principles have to be balanced.

This young man very much articulates the triumphant philosophy of the Democratic Party today.  Human life is not sacred if it is in the womb.  It can be discarded, and even more, someone else should have to pay for it.  However, their philosophy categorically rejects Mr. Friedman’s central principle:  “Individuals should be free to decide how much they’re willing to pay to reduce the chance of their death.”

The recent healthcare debate touched on this principle.  Democrats reject Friedman’s timeless arguments.   Instead, they passed legislation which reduces the consumers freedom to choose, and in fact, goes either further by requiring someone else to pay.

Are we free to choose?  Yes, if it involves aborting your baby.  No, if you would prefer not to purchase health insurance.