Hollywood’s Oxymoronic Definition of ‘Liberal Tolerance’

Via Big Hollywood:

The left’s dominance over the media, entertainment and the classroom forms a triangular grip that seeks to denigrate and nullify intrinsic American values. Hollywood, in particular, shows an inability to embrace even a rudimentary understanding of opposing viewpoints, as celebrities who claim to be liberal and “open” continuously berate those who champion differing viewpoints.

Fortunately, the liberal seasoning that flavors Hollywood’s narcissistic lunacy has yet to permeate mainstream American society. While the ideologues that control Hollywood (not to mention the media and university classrooms) make it seem as though ultra-leftism trumped conservatism in a battle lost long ago, a surprising new poll shows that the plurality of Americans still see themselves as politically conservative.

According to research from Gallup, when asked how they would classify their political views, 40% of Americans call themselves conservative. This compares to a mere 21% who claim to be politically liberal. An additional 35% - the second largest ideological subset - are self-proclaimed moderates.

In a nation comprised of such a diverse set of ideologies - not to mention the presence of a clear right-minded majority - one wonders why Hollywood banishes projects that promote family values or right-minded ideals, for that matter. This lack of diversity is a symptom of a greater problem: A one-mindedness and intolerance that permeates the industry at every level.

Hollywood types are so removed from the mainstream American sentiment that they refuse to fathom the possibility that opposing ideals exist. Just look at what occurred in the aftermath of this year’s Miss USA Pageant.

The now infamous Carrie Prejean was asked a politically-charged question by none other than gossip blogger and perpetual-big-baby Perez Hilton. When Hilton didn’t like Prejean’s answer (that she does not, indeed, support gay marriage) he went nuclear. Within hours, he released a video rant, calling Prejean a “stupid b*tch” among other sentiments. Then, he took to his blog, insulting her intelligence and continuing to fuel a controversy that did little to help either side of the gay marriage debate.

This is the same Perez Hilton who recently called Black Eyed Peas member Will.i.am a “faggot.” Aside from the hypocrisy present in this infuriating example (imagine what would have happened if some foolish conservative used that language), it can safely be stated that Hilton symbolizes all that is wrong with Hollywood (assuming you consider an obnoxious blogger with fuchsia hair a member of the Hollywood elite).

Somehow, it’s not okay for Carrie Prejean to answer a question with honesty, but it is okay for Hilton to use a word that many people in his own community would find extremely damaging. Of course, this is only one anecdotal example.  But, rest assured: There are plenty more.  Let’s not forget Janeane Garofalo’s opinion of the Tea Party protesters.  Here’s what the gem had to say:

It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks. And there is no way around that.

Someone get Garofalo a newspaper. Stat. Tea Party protesters are railing against unprecedented government spending that will surely endanger America’s future. If she took a moment to put down the granola and adjust her bifocals, maybe she’d understand that being against the president, for most, has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his idiotic fiscal policy.

And then there’s Cher, who recently said:

…I just don’t understand how anyone would want to be a Republican. I just can’t figure it. I don’t understand.  If you’re poor, if you’re any kind of minority - gay, black, Latino, anything…If you’re not a rich, born-again Christian, I don’t get it.

Last but not least comes Madonna (who just screams “family values”). During the 2008 campaign, she used a photo montage during one of her performances to compare John McCain to Hitler. In Madonna’s world, she’s the hero, while McCain - a man who suffered years of brutal torture for his nation’s sanctity - is the villain. Go figure.

Why can’t people like Hilton, Garofalo, Cher and Madonna simply be good liberals and accept - as their self-professed doctrine would ask them to - that Americans have unique perspectives and life experiences? Surely, they don’t have to agree with we “rednecks,” but shouldn’t they, at the least, have the common decency to respect ideological diversity?

The answer is, yes. The reality is, until they experience what it means to be an everyday, hardworking American, it’ll never happen.

New York Governor to Introduce Gay Marriage Legislation

The New York governor's push for gay marriage tops this week's legislative charts.  Earlier today, The New York Times reported Patterson's intention to unveil legislation in support of homosexual unions. According to the governor, pushing for this legislation is a natural progression. As per the Times, he said, “The timing was always right...It’s just who is willing to take that step. And I am.” Considering his grim approval ratings, the move may be viewed as a strategic shift aimed at appeasing leftist voters.

Going back mere months, Patterson was catching heat from the left for his U.S. Senate pick. He selected Kirsten Gillibrand to fill former Sen. Hillary Clinton's seat, a move that was deemed unpopular by some liberals who viewed some of Gillibrand's more conservative stances unfavorably. Now, when the governor needs all of the political support he can get, he is taking on a tone that is undoubtedly more Democratically-pleasing.

Although he will surely gain support from the left, many New Yorkers on both sides of the aisle are disengaged with his policies following proposals for the “fat tax,” state levies on music downloads and other legislative gems.

Also, it's important to consider the impending effect the affirmation of his stance might have over his relationship with conservatives. According to the Times, “The governor also risks alienating socially conservative voters at a time when he can least afford to drive away any more support.”

Patterson's most recent actions might be construed as partisan, although one could also claim that his selection of Gillibrand, teamed with his support for gay marriage, provide an eclectic, somewhat moderate, take on a cornucopia of sociopolitical issues.

Either way, it is difficult to deny political motive in his timing, as he has had many months to make such a declaration, but has chosen to do so at the height of his unpopularity. Nonetheless, his announcement will be welcome news to gay marriage proponents both in-state and nation-wide who continue the fight for gay marriage.