Liberals Openly Embrace Media Violence

There was a shocking commentary recently by a film critic named Betsy Sharkey in the Los Angeles Times (from called Critic's Notebook: Movie violence must not be stopped

Unbelievable. That title says it all.

The Democrat left wants this violence to continue for two equally significant reasons:

*Because Hollywood, and consequently the Democrat party, gets rich on movie violence and does not want to see the cash flow interrupted. It is simply a way for ignorant people to make money.

*Because the leftists in Hollywood want to undermine America through the violence that they disseminate. So then they can demand more of their laws to “save” us like gun-control laws and other rules controlling every behavior, i.e., schools must preach a ‘pacifist’ (left-wing) curriculum etc.

Here are excerpts from the Sharkey article with a comment after each.

Sharkey writes: The problem isn't Hollywood, it's real life, where killing long predates film. What we see on the silver screen can be helpful. Comment: Helpful? Are you kidding? Then when a mass murderer directly cites a Hollywood film as the basis for his actions – as the Columbine killers did – the liberals somehow claim that it isn’t so.

ShakrySharkey writes: I abhor violence. As a rookie police reporter years ago I saw the damage guns, knives, broken bottles, metal pipes, hands — humans — can inflict. Comment: So if Sharkey does truly “abhor violence” then why is she saying that violence in movies can be “helpful”? Actually she does not “abhor violence”. She embraces it like most liberals do. That is why violence is greatest in cities where Democrats have total control. Meanwhile what is their precious “woman’s right to choose” but an act of violence against a defenseless unborn child?

Sharkey writes: As good as Hollywood is at reimagining the intrinsic brutality that roams our streets, burrows into twisted minds, plays havoc with our world, nothing I've seen in movies comes close to what I witnessed firsthand. Comment: So then why is Hollywood continuing to magnify violence and violent people?

Sharkey writes: Perhaps that is why movie violence doesn't offend me. I may be unsettled by it, but no matter the saturation level, I rarely turn away. Comment: Yes, but never goes to see this stuff. Because I am offended by it beyond measure. And we conservatives who avoid it are infinitely better and more peaceful people than the liberals who make it and promote it and tolerate it.

Sharkey writes: I want Steven Spielberg to keep reminding me in “Lincoln”, “Saving Private Ryan” and “Shindler’s List” what evil looks like and the fortitude it takes to face it down. Comment: This is the deceptive way that liberals defend violence: They point to a few historical movies. Meanwhile we conservatives are warning about the gratuitous violence in the other 99.9% of the media every day.

Sharkey writes: You can't tell that to the politicians or the talking heads on TV. They see in Hollywood an easy, highly visible — and disturbingly simplistic — target after tragic events… Comment: Easy target? Please… Hollywood has every Democrat and media figure in America covering for it. Like Betsy Sharkey.

Sharkey writes: To denounce movies for the violence of our times, when unimaginable atrocity has been with us since the dawn of mankind, is at best misguided, at worst damaging. Comment: OK, but that still does not explain why Hollywood continues to make these violent movies. It takes the same effort to make a peaceful movie as a violent one. But in the end it is not as profitable. And violence is all about making the ignoramuses in Hollywood rich. Period. End of story.

Sharkey writes: Hollywood is not the reason for the wreckage made by madmen with guns. The troubled will always be with us. Comment: It is too the reason. Just look at the Columbine killers. They were acting directly on a film called Natural Born Killers by lefty director Oliver Stone. The Columbine killings and millions of other acts of violence across America would never happen without Hollywood/TV leading the way. Because certain fringe people love to see their crazy version of the world validated in the movies, on TV etc.

Sharkey then astonishingly writes a whole paragraph about Natural Born Killers but never talks about its connection to Columbine. Amazing.

Sharkey writes: I'm not suggesting filmmakers have no responsibility for what they make — they do. But that responsibility is to the art as well as the audience. Within the mayhem, there is nearly always a message. Comment: Oh, sure, the “art” angle.  Forget art. Just give us non-violent movies. It’s easy… if Hollywood really wanted to do it. Which it does not.

OK, now look at this absolutely stunning news item from CBS/Associated Press about Democrat New York governor Andrew Cuomo:

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — Just a month after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the strictest gun control law in the country, state officials plan to make some exemptions.

The law toughened restrictions on military-style rifles and high-capacity semiautomatic handguns, but those restrictions will be changed so those types of weapons can be used on the sets of television shows and movies being shot in New York.

Just think – the liberals want guns banned everywhere except where gun violence directly influences the most people in the most negative way… in movies and TV shows.

Amazing. Absolutely astounding. And terrifying.

Now here are excerpts from another violence apologist named Todd Martens also writing on in an article called Violent video games: Pushing wrong buttons in blame game. This is about the debate over curbing violent video games after the news came out that the Newtown killer Adam Lanza was a video game addict.

Martens writes: Twice now I have failed to finish the 2011 film “Drive.” The first time I left the theater. The second time, encouraged by friends who love the movie, I tried to watch it at home. Shortly after Ryan Gosling smashed a man to death in an elevator, I was out. Comment: Yes, because for decades Hollywood has been incrementally bumping up the violence and so moviegoers need more and more of it. That is exactly what these movies have done to our whole society – they have sustained and cultivated a violent culture.

Martens writes: In the wake of last year’s tragedy in Newtown, Conn., Vice President Joe Biden met with representatives from the video game industry. The conversation was about how to limit gun violence in games. Earlier, the National Rifle Assn. also tossed out the expected names — “Mortal Kombat,” “Grand Theft Auto” — in its own war on violent pop culture. After all, Newtown gunman Adam Lanza was reportedly addicted to the “Call of Duty” war games. Comment: How did that fact get into the LA Times? Martens has committed the First Sin of Gun-Control Liberalism – he discussed a possible link between real-world violence and video games and media violence, i.e., that violence is caused by something other than “the gun”.

Martens writes: Instead of a story, 505 Games’ “Sniper Elite V2” boasts a “kill-cam,” which breaks from the game narrative to detail exactly how a bullet wreaks havoc on a victim’s innards. “Borderlands 2,” from Gearbox Software and 2K Games, is so efficient in its line-’em-up, shoot-’em-down formula that it makes a joke of it. Here’s an example: There’s a character named Face McShooty, a mohawked buffoon who hollers and yelps until you shoot him in the face. Comment: Could this stuff possibly twist the minds of unstable people? Of course it could, and it does. But Martens and all the others on the Democrat left somehow deny it. Incredible. Meanwhile public schools suspend kids for doing something innocuous like pointing a bubble gun at another student. How about discussing the link between media violence and real-world violence in these schools? If conservatives were making all of this media violence, it would be discussed in every school in America. But since liberals make it, it is ignored.

Martens writes:  Violent images in most games come fast — too fast for them to linger in one’s mind. The next mission is always just seconds away, and the development of most characters stops at the name. Face McShooty isn’t anything resembling a real person; he’s a punch line. Comment: This is Martens’ tortured explanation of why these games are not causing real-world violence. This is so transparent as to be laughable – if it were not so serious.

Martens writes: I’ve had fun playing some of these games and don’t deny they can be, well, a blast. Each year, shooters get a little more refined in their controls, and the settings become a little more expansive or outlandish (witness the island sex and savagery of “Far Cry 3”). Yet these are tweaks to a well-honed formula rather than creative advancements. It’s violence, with a different-style template. Comment: Boy, this is really constructive criticism in the shallow, money-grubbing world of the LA Times, Hollywood and the Democrat party.

Martens writes: It’s true, when 10 or 15 seconds of the game are flashed on the news, it does indeed look garish, and early in “Black Ops II” gamers even watch a character get incinerated. Yet blink and you’ll be behind in the action. I, for instance, had no idea my character was talking to a real-life figure such as North until I played the game a second time. The story is an accessory and not an examination of war or shooting. Comment: Martens thinks he is writing an art review about the Metropolitan Museum. This is scary.

Martens writes: Yet it would be nice if the video game industry used the current gun debate as an opportunity, a chance to openly discuss whether its use of violence is artistic or gratuitous. It’s the time for self-evaluation and to ask whether the industry’s biggest games — the so-called AAA titles — are pushing the industry forward or simply finding new places and new ways to kill things. Comment: This guy is nothing but another apologist for the media violence that is destroying us.

(Please bookmark this website; and buy a book from the offerings to the right to help this site. And please click the Google button (g+1) at the top of this page and recommend this site to all of your friends. Let’s make the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. Thank you, Nikitas)

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,500 previous editorials!) and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.