Just me

Just me
: I supported the war and people called me a right-winger and refused to accept my liberal credentials. Now I go after the Bush administration over free speech and Howard Stern and also don’t like Gibson’s Passion and the right-wingers call me a left-winger. Those who hated me one week love me the next; those who loved me one week hate me the next; and a few smart people sit back and laugh. Life becomes very confusing when you have only one litmus test by which to judge mankind.

  • http://www.bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    Your comments on Stern and Bush were over-the-top, even though there was a small kernel of truth in them, and I suspect your reaction to Die Hard with a Cross were also somewhat hyperbolic. But don’t feel too bad, there’s a lot of it going around these days, you fascist commie hippie warmonger, you.

  • Doctor Slack

    Well, I for one didn’t start reading your blog purely to snark at you.

  • http://www.anildash.com/ Anil

    Yes, but have you stopped beating your wife?
    And Richard, I think the official fake name for Gibson’s film is Good Friday the 13th.

  • http://www.citycynic.com/ Anthony

    Welcome to politics. :)

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    Welcome to the world of partisan bloggery. Just sign away your soul to either the left or the right and remember, if you change sides you will be torn apart by the attack dogs.

  • Catherine

    If it makes you feel better, I never saw you as anything but, liberal. A 9/11 liberal, but a liberal. I mean, even Rosie O’Donnel became pro-war for a while in 2001.
    You in the last few weeks have slowly stopped making any sense. You have an IDEA and come up with a conclusion with out facts to back them up. Stern says X and all of his fans are going to do what he says (“this is important” you said with out any evidence to support your statements). There is no logic with you. It’s all emotional.
    It’s hard to imagine after railing against Mel and his movie for weeks now that you would go in and see it with anything but bias. The fact that you link Stern and Mel (radio sponsors screenings all of the time) shows how far out on a limb you are. Other than Stern currently referring to himself as Jesus, I don’t see the connection between the two media events.
    It doesn’t make you more of a liberal, it just makes you seem like a guy who is having trouble seeing things objectively. That’s what a lot of people have been trying to point out to you, that you aren’t making sense. Unfortunately, you are too stubborn and self righteous to consider anyone elses angle but your own. For a liberal, you are so, not “open-minded.”

  • Hipocrite

    I never called you a right-winger, I just doubted your liberal credentials, and asked you to substantiate them, which, by the way, you have now done in spades.
    Thus, the shift from questioning your liberal credentials to accepting you is due to you doing what we asked – take a liberal position.
    By the way, did you read JFK’s speach on fighting the war on terror right by doing more, not less?

  • Jess

    Jeff, I for one thought you were disengous about you liberal views during the war. To be honest, it was because I felt there were moves the Bush Administration was making that were to be plain, bad for the United States, and not very liberal. The determination to scuttle international orginazations during the run-up, and as it became more obvious that Bush and his co-horts didn’t have a good plan for the aftermath, you were still tottaly for war. I, as a liberal, was supportive of the idea of taking out Saddam, but the bush administration lost me in Jan. of last year, with the threat rhetoric, and the politicization. Anyhow, how i came to personally question your views was because
    a.) you seemed to mirror the right wing meme that Democrats were bad for defense, and the war on terror, and I knew that to not be true. And it bothered me more because a liberal was making the case than it did when it was rabid right wingers.
    b.) You didn’t give legitimacy to the the questions and qualms that I felt some strong on defense liberals had during the run up.
    c.) I thought you were making the case for liberals to vote for George Bush even though, we as liberals have lots of disagreements with his policies.
    That being said the line from earlier in the week, about you never having though you would actually vote for him gave me a bit of faith.
    I think Democrats need to be strong on security, and I’m sure some leading democrats views on security would be in line with your own.
    One thing I’ve learned in reading blogs is that, you can’t always expect someone to make the same arguments as you. Would I have wanted you to preface each hawkish post with, let’s get Saddam, but I wish the bush administration hadn’t done such and such. Yes, but I can’t expect it from blogs that I read.

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    >For a liberal, you are so, not “open-minded.”
    You see, Daniel san Jeff. If you walk on right side of road, you will be okay. If you walk on left side of road, you will be okay. But if you try to walk in the middle of the road. . .SPLAT! You get squashed like bug.

  • angell

    I was Ok with your opinions till you decided Bush’s stance on gay marriage was more important than 911 and the war on terrorists.
    However, I think I understand because if Bush was pro-gay marriage, I’m not sure I’d vote for him.

  • http://www.geocities.com/vodyanoi Half Canadian

    What? Politics isn’t binary?
    People normally like to think that if someone agrees with them on Topic A, then they must agree with them on Topic B. The disonence can be difficult, but I’ve gotten over it.
    In short, Jeff, you may be wrong on Stern, Gibson and FMA, but that’s OK. That’s what tolerance is about.
    At least you understand the necessity for the war on terror.

  • http://www.photodude.com/ Reid

    Jeff, the time to worry is when people aren’t talking about whether you’re liberal, and aren’t talking about whether you’re a right wingnut, but aren’t talking about you at all. Agree or diagree, your site generates a lot of discussion, so you must be doing something right.
    Just what that is, of course, depends on who you ask.

  • daudder

    a person should be allowed to have a range of opions and views; it is how one explains, rationalizes, supports and acts on the contradictions in those views that is revealing.
    what has been most disturbing about the current political environment is how doctrinaire it has become. it is not so much liberal v conservative, but democrat v republican: you are either for or against the entire agenda. no dissenting or independent thought allowed, or you get fried…
    Witness Andrew Sullivan reacting so forcefully against Bush’s DOMA support and finding a whole new reality that is not as simple as “good v evil”
    by the way, I thought your position and comments on howard stern were spot on; your position on the iraq war was wrong but can also understand how they ca come from the same person

  • http://site-essential.com/ Kathy K

    Yeah, as Robert said: “Welcome to the world of partisan blogging.” If you don’t fit neatly into a stereotype, that’s what you get.
    Never could fit into stereotypes myself, the things tend to pinch in the darnest places…

  • http://www.gapingvoid.com hugh macleod

    Just be true to yourself, Jeff. Nobody cares what the polarized Left of Right has to say, anyway. They’re too busy being polarized to be of much use to anybody except their own kind, and even that’s debatable.

  • Anonymous

    Jeff, you are paying the price of consistency.
    In an environment in which the words “liberal” and “conservative” have been hijacked by marketeers, anyone who manages to know what they believe, and why, will draw the ire of those hapless types who gave up thinking for themselves a long time ago and, instead, draw solace from the pundits who validate their bigotry.
    Although I don’t agree with you about the nature or implications of the Stern flap (not that Clear Channel deserves a pass for blatant toadism), that’s an unusual example. Stick to your guns.

  • billg

    Last post by me. Damn, this wine is good.

  • http://jimtreacher.com Jim Treacher

    “And Richard, I think the official fake name for Gibson’s film is Good Friday the 13th.”
    Lethal Weapon 5: Christ Almighty.
    “Thus, the shift from questioning your liberal credentials to accepting you is due to you doing what we asked – take a liberal position.”
    Wow, Jeff, doesn’t it feel nice to be accepted? It’s kind of a tingly feeling, isn’t it?

  • djohn66

    I still read you even tho your a rightwing-leftwing wingnut.:)

  • scott orrell

    I just want to agree with Catherine.

  • JB

    Pitching a fit over Howard Stern doesn’t make you look like a “left-winger” – it just makes you look selfish and hypocritical (because you have ignored many others in media losing their jobs under similar circumstances in the recent past, and because you feel you are entitled to censor your blog but outraged that other people want to censor other forms of media).
    Claiming that we face a censorship crisis doesn’t make you look like a “left-winger” – it just makes you look foolish and hysterical (considering the overwhelming evidence that broadcast standards are much looser now than they were 5 or 10 or 20 years ago).
    Refusing to take seriously any of the MANY opinions that disagree with you on this issue doesn’t make you look like a “left-winger” – it just makes you look stubborn.
    Blaming the Bush administration doesn’t make you look like a “left-winger” – it just makes you look ignorant (considering how pro-censorship the Clinton administration was, and considering how many Democrats in Congress have been screaming for the FCC to crack down).
    I don’t think that being hypocritical, hysterical, stubborn, and ill-informed is reserved to any particular political movement.
    So if it makes you feel any better, my opinion on your “liberal-ness” hasn’t been changed at all by your performance this week.

  • gib s.

    From Instapundit
    HOWARD STERN UPDATE: Reader Jeffrey Bartash emails:
    As someone who covers the FCC for a living, I can assure you that the pressure for a crackdown on broadcast indecency did not originate in the White House. In fact, critics have accused Michael Powell of being too lax. The main driver of tougher enforcement, at least on the FCC, has been Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, a former aide to S.C. Sen. Fritz Hollings. In the Congress, there’s been bipartisan support for a crackdown coming from the likes of Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Fred Uption, R-Mich. The White House has not been at the forefront of this issue.

  • bonk

    I love it! Half the commenters are absolutely justifying your post, basically saying “well, I wouldn’t criticize if you weren’t so damn stupid when you don’t agree with me.”
    Keep up the good work, Jeff. Not many liberals like you blogging; we need at least one or two.

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    Like I said before, please show me the two s**ts Bush gives about Howard Stern… I’ll bet he didn’t even catch Janet’s floppy Superboob. [SARCASMOTRON ON] You know how clueless Dubya is. [SARCASMOTRON OFF]

  • mikeb

    Jeff, go look at Instapundit. Interesting letter:
    From Instapundit:
    HOWARD STERN UPDATE: Reader Jeffrey Bartash emails:
    As someone who covers the FCC for a living, I can assure you that the pressure for a crackdown on broadcast indecency did not originate in the White House. In fact, critics have accused Michael Powell of being too lax. The main driver of tougher enforcement, at least on the FCC, has been Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, a former aide to S.C. Sen. Fritz Hollings. In the Congress, there’s been bipartisan support for a crackdown coming from the likes of Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Fred Uption, R-Mich. The White House has not been at the forefront of this issue.

  • Richard Heddleson

    I’d like this blog a lot more if you’d send me posts prior to making them generally available so that I could assure that they agree with me; isn’t that what editors are for?

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    Let’s see — so if I’ve followed this correctly, you’re either (a) a hero or (b) a villain because you’ve either (c) revealed your real right wing leanings (d) revealed your true left wing leanings, or (e) hidden your true feelings, and what you need to do is (f) stop letting the right-wing positions take you over, (g) stop letting your right-wing leanings take over, and (h) study the bible and stuff so you’ll learn what your mistakes are in those positions.
    Gee, Jeff, I hope this clears it all up.

  • http://www.eyeranian.net Pedram

    For the record, I never called you right wing. I believe I said your point of view of Iraq’s invasion matched those in the far right of the political spectrum. Still believe it too, but there’s always the opportunity to admit you were wrong! :o)

  • http://www.rogerlsimon.com Roger L. Simon

    Feel the exact same way you do, mon semblable, mon frere.
    Here’s Hitchens on The Passion, in case you haven’t seen it (his review, that is.
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13993739_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-I%2DDETEST%2DTHIS%2DFILM%2D%2D%2DWITH%2DA%2DPASSION-name_page.html

  • http://mithras.blogs.com Mithras

    Those who hated me one week love me the next; those who loved me one week hate me the next
    Well, if it makes you feel any better, Jarvis, I still hate you.

  • Catherine

    Regarding your response to Glenn R – you think Glenn’s stance on the second amendment is just a bug up his butt? It’s not. He posts on first and second amendment issues constantly. He just comes across as reasonable, thoughtful, informed (he thinks before he posts and does not assume he is right) and not like a man who just fell off his rocker. A full and coplete understanding of the law helps. You seem to post without thinking.

  • Tonto

    Nuanced political views … even contradictory political views … are all very nice. Lord knows, I have plenty of both. But to vote meaningfully in November will require a binary choice. Howard Stern and the Islamofascists will be on the same ticket.

  • JorgXMcKie

    I always found it hard to fly without two wings. I think maybe you’re on to something here Jeff. Try it with both wings.

  • syn

    Remember back in 1998, Susan Sarandon successfully lead a boycott which pressured the corporation who hired Dr. Laura to end Dr. Laura’s show.
    Now we are all complaining about Howard Stern’s right to free speech?
    Spare me from this hypocritical self-serving bullshit.

  • FKS

    Hypocrisy…thy name is liberal…Jeff Jarvis. Defending the right of Howard Stern to use ‘free’ public airwaves, while condemning Mel’s right to free speech in a ‘only for pay’ zone? Any hypocrisy here? Bueller? Jarvis?
    If you don’t want to see it, don’t go. But don’t tell me he doesn’t have the same rights as Stern and ‘Piss Christ’ Serrano. The latter, recall, used NEA funds to put Christ in urine…to spectacular reviews from Rich of the NYTimes, et al. You know, the same crowd now condemning Mel for using his own money to make HIS artistic statement. Whatever happened to artistic freedom? Oh yeah, only for the left and only when Christ is bashed or dunked in piss. More Mapplethorpe please, Andrew Sullivan. Rogering a man up the butt at Brooklyn Museum on NEA’s dime, that’s the ticket.

  • http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/ Sissy Willis

    LOL.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    FKS: I said below that I defend Mel’s right to make the movie and theaters to show it and people to see it — and my right to disagree with him. That’s what free speech is all about: the right to discussion.

  • FKS

    And bravo to you for that Jeff. Unlike Roger, who slammed the door shut when 90 percent disagreed with him…funny, finding him here peddling scurillous hated of Mel. Hmmm. But your own tone on these two linked issues was unmistakeable…re: Stern. Chilling, free speech and all that…defending his right and calling those who disagreed with you hypocrites. But Mel? With his own money?
    While Roger shut down criticism of his personal critique of ‘The Passion’ and his bashing of Mel…has now problem migrating elsewhere and apparently wants the dialogue–or monologue–to continue. He flogs the most negative garbage he can find (Hitchens’ take on Mel) while ignoring anything contrary (how ’bout Richard Corliss…who is a FILM critic’s defense in Time and his review?) Cherry picking? How ’bout Rabbi Lapin? How ’bout Ezra Levant? Katzenberg hasn’t seen the film, nor has Geffen, etc. Yet they just know they don’t like it and can’t help publishing their views. Real smart. The No-Nothing Party isn’t dead yet…it’s just the left now.
    And Rog, how do you stand on NEA funding of Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’? Liberal outrage of censorship…even when using public money to bash Christ…Rich and the whole liberal NYT crowd raved. Mel used his own money to make an artistic statement. Then gets bashed by Katzenberg, Geffen et al. And blacklisted. Where’s the liberal outrage re: censorship? McCarthyism?

  • KMK

    I second what Hugh said. Diversity works. Your a conversation starter. When you read buzzmachine comments at least you get a variety of opinions. Agree or disagree you walk away with more of an understanding then when you came into it. I don’t quite understand the compulsion in the blogsphere to label bloggers and your harshest critics continue to return and challenge your opinion which can’t be anything but good for the fabric of the blog. Keep on keeping on!

  • http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_02_01_archive.html Donald Sensing

    Jeff says, I supported the war and people called me a right-winger and refused to accept my liberal credentials. Now I go after the Bush administration over free speech and Howard Stern and also don’t like Gibson’s Passion and the right-wingers call me a left-winger. Those who hated me one week love me the next; those who loved me one week hate me the next.
    Jeff, you’re a Christ figure! To wit:
    Matt 11:16-19
    16 “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
    17 “‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’
    18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’
    19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ‘But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”
    And —
    Matt 27:22
    22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify him!”

  • Bryan C

    I don’t particularly care about anyone’s “credentials” or stated political leanings. I lean rightward, but I can see most issues both ways, if only in the abstract, and understand how reasonable people’s opinions may differ.
    I’ve always seen you as a sensible and eloquent left-leaning guy who was willing to think his positions through and change his mind if the facts required. I still do, but I think that lately you’re not thinking things through very well. It’s clear to me that you’re conflicted about voting for Bush on national security grounds and flailing about for a reason to change your mind even if it’s not really justified by the facts, or even if the other candidates are much worse in every way. I don’t envy your position; Andrew Sullivan’s got it even worse, and it drove CalPundit to credibility suicide over that AWOL nonsense.
    Fine, work out your frustrations and shade it as finely as you want, but I’m nearly certain that when the time comes you’ll hold your nose and vote for Bush.

  • http://classicalvalues.com Eric Scheie

    “Life becomes very confusing when you have only one litmus test by which to judge mankind.”
    If I told you I loved you for saying that, you might take it the wrong way. But I couldn’t have said it better.
    I held my nose and voted for Bush. At the rate things are going, this time holding my nose may not be enough; I might need anesthesia!
    Give ‘em all hell!

  • http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm Dann

    Jeff-
    I came because of a link.
    I stayed because I found someone willing to think rather than to respond based on a pre-printed position card.
    I post because you are a gracious host.
    Thanks for all three. Ignore those that can’t find more than two positions on any issue.
    -Regards

  • http://www.rogerlsimon.com Roger L. Simon

    Whoa, FKS (whoever you are), you certainly are angry at me. Two points– one: I cut my comments at two hundred and thirty plus because I was warned that Greymatter, my rather old blogging system, and my hosting company as well, may not be able to sustain this, particularly since I had a previous post a few days ago with comments over three hundred. If you would like to pay my bills to switch all this over (not to mention reimbursing me for the time that it takes to do this when I have paying work to do), I would be pleased for you to do it.
    As for the “Piss Christ,” of course I heard about it, but did not see it. Sounds like an execrable work and complete kitsch as well. As a matter of fact, it may astound you to know that I question the whole idea of public finance of the arts (of course it’s fine for individauls to donate to orgs for opera,etc.). But the NEA, I dunno. All art has some political content and I think it’s dangerous for the government to be involved in the finance of it, which always means some form of ideological choice. Not for me, at the moment.
    As for THe Passion, I have not changed my view one iota. And I see that I am far from alone. Over at Rotten Tomatoes it is just barely over fifty percent fresh overall (therefore not considered a critical hit by them). In the category of major critics, it does a lot worse. So I’m not such a weirdo, even though many oppose me.

  • http://www.bopnews.com MattS

    Jeff,
    I like your blog because of your interesting and consistent curiosity towards the media universe and how people take in and create information. It seems to me that the ideological backbone of liberal/conservative bears little resemblance to the team sport late 1990s/early 2000s atmosphere of vicious partisanship. What strikes me as problematic is your constant wrapping yourself in the flag of strident centrism as a way of insulating yourself from criticism.
    I supported the war and people called me a right-winger and refused to accept my liberal credentials.
    Well, not exactly. I too supported the war, but turned against the way it was done when it was clear that the dishonesty was horrifically deep, and when it seemed that an alternative multi-lateral type of war a la Kosovo could have happened but did not because of Bush’s mistakes. Wrapping yourself in the idea that all Democrats are unserious about terrorism because they didn’t support a poorly executed invasion, and therefore that liberals are bankrupt, seems to me just an excuse to lecture Democrats on incompetence and hold yourself above pragmatic politicians that must make moral choices. This was not an easy choice, and the hypocrisy of both sides was obvious. This does not mean, however, that both sides were equally culpable. They were not. The Republican support for war was purely partisan and not rooted in humanitarian concern; just look at Delay’s attacks on our actions in Kosovo (and no, the Democrats and the left didn’t fall in lockstep behind that action). 9/11 was exploited – viciously – for partisan gain; witness Max Cleland’s loss in Georgia, and the claims by Bush that he was on the side of Osama. And the Democrats are not peaceniks; it’s well known that Al Gore was the most hawkish member of Clinton’s staff, and pushed heavily for intervention in Kosovo. It’s possible – even probable – that a Gore administration would have deposed Saddam, but in a very different way and using a very different rationale, and including such obvious moves as cutting our dependence on fossil fuels, which Bush has neglected to do.
    You see, Bush’s individual actions in certain contexts are justified, which a lot of Democrats have a hard time admitting, but the overall pattern of his politics – which is the important stuff because that’s the legacy he leaves behind – is deeply illiberal and problematic. His attempts to bankrupt the government so as to enable cutting entitlements later – regardless of your feelings on entitlements – are simply a way of evading a dialogue on our social safety net and sneaking in their destruction. That’s a bad way of doing politics, a terrifying way of running our country, hiding the grand political choices we as a society make in appeals to latent cultural bigotry like homophobia and racism (Bob Jones University, anyone?).
    But then, the attacks on Howard Stern and free speech are at the core of Bush’s ideology; using cultural fissures to promote authoritarian partisan gain. It’s like the impeachment, a fairly disgraceful episode in which no side was blameless, but the trashing of the meaning of impeachment was really done by some very partisan people who were not even supported by the likes of Barry Goldwater. You pronounce yourself on the side of freedom and free speech, but also help to promote the politics of those who inhabit a different moral universe, one in which the media universe exists to promote the views of the authorities, and not represent a diversity of views. Your love of technology comes from a deeply felt belief that the tide of diversity in media is unstoppable, regardless of politics. That may or may not be true (I suspect that it’s very hard to stop, but not impossible), but regardless, that does not mean that supporting the politics of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party – which is what George W. Bush – makes you a centrist, nor does it validate your liberal credentials. I think it makes you gullible, because I don’t really care if you support Civil Rights or the ACLU or any other liberal litmus test, when you support the President gutting those principles and tut-tut from a destructive and not constructive perch the only political force – the Democratic Party – that is effectively opposed to them.
    So the bottom line here is that any liberal credentials you have are undercut by your political support for people who are deeply inimical to those ideals. Your response, to wear liberalism or support for war as a quasi-fashionable way of being contrarian to everyone involved in the debate who has picked a side, is not a satisfying or appropriate response to an incredibly high-stakes political environment. It is effectively an evasive stance.

  • http://www.bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    I suspect some of the criticism of Mel’s movie is motivated by Hollywood’s pathological fear that a self-financed project will be hugely successful and the usual suspects don’t get a piece of the action.
    The buzz that Mel’s generated for the flick is a threat to the whole Hollywood financial system, and it may be a harbinger of the things to come.
    In the Age of the Internet, who needs the studios? Finance flicks with angels, create buzz on the web, and distribute them through direct contracts with theater owners and later on with consumers.
    Hollywood, with all its shallowness and hostility to normal life, can go take a leap.

  • angell

    Required reading for those unable to find themselves. And why I’m with Bush–the alternative is frightening.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12384

  • Doctor Slack

    I love the title of that article. “SOCIAL JUSTICE: CODE FOR COMMUNISM.” Someone needs to clue the folks at FrontPage in that it’s not the 1950s. For proper hysterical rabble-rousing points it should be CODE FOR ISLAMOFASCISM.

  • Doctor Slack

    I suspect some of the criticism of Mel’s movie is motivated by Hollywood’s pathological fear that a self-financed project will be hugely successful and the usual suspects don’t get a piece of the action.
    Which “usual suspects” would those be? That network of ghastly Jews who control Hollywood? Their paid cronies at newspapers across the country and around the world? Maybe the “communists”? As we know from angell, after all, the Red Terror is still alive and well. And of course, they must all be funding the Islamofascists of SPECTRE… tell us how, Richard. Follow the network.

  • angell

    Well it’s just an ‘ism’ by another name–islamosfascism, Communism, Leftism, Naziism,Marxism–same poop different pile. “Marxism scores over traditional religion for a certain kind of person because in Judaeo-Christian thinking you are supposed to examine your own conscience and feel bad about yourself; Marxism allows you to place all the blame onto other people and feel proudly self-righteous and anti-bourgeois when you do so. ‘Mea culpa’ becomes ‘tua culpa’.

  • http://www.rogerlsimon.com Roger L. Simon

    “I suspect some of the criticism of Mel’s movie is motivated by Hollywood’s pathological fear that a self-financed project will be hugely successful and the usual suspects don’t get a piece of the action.”
    Richard, say anything you want about Hollywood, but as one who has much greater personal reason to complain, I can tell you–and you know I like you–that the above is patent nonsense. Gibson is a Hollywood player through and through and is part of the system. This movie was distributed by the normal H’wood distrib system (new company, but same old-same old) and the normal network of exhibitors. Many films have idiosyncratic original financing–this is far from the first, although the budget is certainly on the higher end for that sort of thing. In fact if you were to go out and make a movie you could then–if you could afford it… big if in this case… do what they call in the business rent-the-system. It’s been done many times. Lot of the crappy action movies we all hate were made independently and then someone came along and rented Warner Brothers or whoever is interested this year. And of course a huge number of the best films are indendently financed and then sold (if the are lucky) to the so-called specialty distribs, which are usually no more than subsidiaries of Universal, Sony, now Paramount and Warners. Same old game. This will have no longterm effect on that at all. It will, however, bankroll Gibson to the degree that he can make his own films anytime he wants and then distribute them through the H’wood system.

  • NashvilleCat

    Jeff, in this instance, you’re being hypocritical and you’re being intellectually dishonest – I Hate That!

  • http://www.linkspider.us Lee Little Wing

    I like it very much, i should get one site like this too

  • http://www.41b.net Xanax

    Buy cheap Viagra Cialis Xanax Valium Codeine online, 100% lowest price guaranteed!

  • http://www.2ndmortgageinterestrates.com refinance mortgage refinancing

    Interesting website. Also if you think my site is a good resurce,
    maybe you’ll review it and comment it. Or even have a small link in your links area.
    Thanks in advance.

    second mortgage interest rates , refinance mortgage , mortgage refinancing , low mortgage rates

  • http://cell-phone.150m.com/ cell phone batteries

    i’m looking for http://cell-phone.150m.com/ but google sent me here

  • http://www.male-masturbation-technique.info sex toy

    I know nothing about sex because I was always married.

  • http://www.best-cell-phone-batteries.info cell phone batteries

    great blog – awesome post

  • http://www.enlargement-free-penis.info penis enlargement

    But love is blind and lovers cannot see The pretty follies that themselves commit; For if they could, Cupid himself would blush To see me thus transformed to a boy.

  • http://www.2livewebcams.com/ web cams

    BIG TIT WEB CAM – TEEN GIRL WEB CAM
    LIVE WEB CAM
    FREE BLACK WEB CAM
    TEEN WEB CAM
    WEB CAM TIT
    COUPLE WEB CAM
    TEEN WEB CAM CHAT
    ASIAN CAM
    YOUNG TEEN CAM
    GAY WEB CAM
    TEEN CAM
    BBW CAMs
    CAM COUPLE FREE
    EBONY WEB CAM
    TEEN WEB CAM CHAT
    GAY WEB CAM
    ASIAN WEB CAM GIRL
    FREE WEB CAM
    TEEN HIDDEN CAM
    VOYEUR CAM CHAT
    ASIAN CAM GIRL
    LIVE WEB CAM GIRL
    YOUNG TEEN CAM
    NUDE WEB CAM
    ASIAN WEB CAM
    LIVE SPY AND HIDDEN CAM
    BLACK WOMAN WEB CAM
    AMATEUR WEB CAM
    FREE TEEN GIRL WEB CAM
    ADULT LIVE CAM CHAT
    FREE GAY MALE WEB CAM CHAT ROOMS
    TEEN CAM
    TEEN NON NUDE WEB CAM
    gf43-Hello, nice site!-gf43

  • http://www.online-sites-dating.com online dating sites

    online dating sites. the best sites for online dating. adult dating. online dating sites online dating sites