Boycott Hollywood, defund the freaks

Posted Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:42 pm

The last movie I saw in a theater was A Stranger Among Us, which - while I'm straining not to remember the circumstances - would have been around 1992. Without too much effort, I've managed to boycott Hollywood for almost a couple decades, and a good part of that is because I see no reason why I should subsidize things such as the drug habits of loopy celebrities and I see no reason why I should underwrite what is in effect profit-minded propaganda.

So, if you're offended by this recent story, vote with your dollars. If you really need Hollywood products, try to obtain them in a legal way that's least profitable to those involved, such as by watching free videos online, buying from bargain bins, and the like. And, don't promote Hollywood products in ways that might seem innocent. For instance, try to avoid using movies as analogies and referencing movie characters and the like, with the goal of minimizing the possibility that various movie-related entities will become part of the cultural fabric.

Yes, I realize to most people that's just too austere, but if, say, 10% of Americans cut back on movies and related products it might send a message.

Tags: 
hollywood movie

Comments

eh (not verified)

Thu, 10/01/2009 - 04:22

I also thought the clamor of outrage about his arrest was inappropriate. But I've had some trouble discovering the whole truth about what led to his decision to flee. In almost every article on his arrest, I see what I consider to be inaccuracies. For example here: _He is being held in Switzerland on a US arrest warrant over charges of unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl._ I wonder if this is literally true. Because as I understand it, he faced a number of serious charges, but was offered and accepted a plea bargain where he pled guilty to one charge of unlawful sex with a minor -- the other charges were dropped. He was required to undergo psychiatric evaluation, which he did -- it lasted 42 days, then he was released. This is where it gets confusing. I've seen it written that he believed that per the plea bargain, that would be it -- he'd not have to serve further time in confinement (i.e. go to jail). But when he got wind that the judge would abrogate the plea deal -- which was apparently reached with the DA -- and sentence him to jail (based on the result of his psychiatric evaluation?), he decided not to risk that and fled. So what really happened? What was the plea agreement? Did it promise 'time served' after the stay in the psychiatric hospital? Did the judge approve it? Does he have the right or responsibility to do that? Was the judge going to abrogate it? Can a judge do that? In any case he was wrong to flee. But it appears there were, let's say, extenuating circumstances. And I'd like to see a full, complete, and accurate account of what happened back then in order to clear all of that up.

eh (not verified)

Thu, 10/01/2009 - 08:00

Of course the deed itself deserved jail time. The DA probably let him plea to shield the girl.

Fred Dawes (not verified)

Thu, 10/01/2009 - 08:09

ok.

Mary (not verified)

Fri, 10/02/2009 - 18:31

The rich are different....never forget it.