Clone. There are some very good meds available for paranoia. You should look into them.
Oh... MQAblog... Snap... You did GC good man... Yeah, Baby. That was some clever stuff man... Damn... I don't want to cross your path... You the BOMB!!!
What is with you?
You never deal with any of the issues raised. You never present a cogent argument. You never present an opinion with substance or support. I guess you are what is called a "troll."
I suppose I just fed you.
Is it too much to hope that you will choke?
You know, to be honest, I was right with you on this until this line [t]o give this movie anything higher than a PG-13 rating suggests to me that the MPAA is letting its leftist leanings, rather than their alleged objective criteria for evaluating movies, shine through.
Seriously, you were convincing until the usual "liberals are responsible for everything I don't like" snark reared it's ugly head. Neither you (as admitted) nor I know the content of the film (I've only seen one preview, which as you know are usually so edited rearing content to be misleading at best). So to blithely assume that there are people at the MPAA, or anywhere for that matter, who's sole purpose is to try and prevent people from seeing the film because they are liberal, is simply absurd, even for you. If they're were really "liberals" in Hollywood that didn't want the film to be seen, then I am sure there were numerous other ways they could have stopped it. They, however, did not. The film was produced, directed, acted in, edited, and apparently distributed and marketed all by the same "Hollywood elites" that you're criticizing for the bad rating. Maybe they blew the rating, maybe they didn't, we won't know until one of us sees the film.
Like I said at the outset, I agree with your substantive point and also ca not see anything inherent in this subject matter that merits an R rating. Then again, as you pointed out, nothing prevents parents from taking under 17 people to see the film. So your fears about the rating deterring people, especially young people, from seeing the film is ludicrous. Besides, when was the last time the age limits were actually enforced at the box office? I've been going to movies with friends (sans parents) since I was 11 years old (now 27) and at no time either in CA, MA, VA, DC, or MD, have I been asked for proof of age before being admitted. That said, I sincerely doubt any interested young historian who wants to see United 93 will be denied their opportunity.
Ack, darn editing errors. Damit, I guess I was typing too fast again. It's all GC's fault, I swear he get's me so worked up sometimes...Anyway I know about the "rearing" that should have been "regarding" and the "they're" that should have been "there." Please forgive my poor grammer, but I think my point came through.
Okay, Mouldy, if it makes you feel better, take out the lefty sentence. I still think that the revisionist history argument is a valid one and that the MPAA is a firm believer in it (based upon their rating of not only this movie, but others).
Keeping in mind that I haven't seen United 93, and basing this solely upon what I believe is probably going to be in the movie from anecdotal accounts about what actually happened on the flight, I can't see this movie getting any higher than a PG-13 rating, perhaps even a PG rating (since the PG standard has been so eviscerated -- remember when a PG rating for a movie like "Splash" was hotly debated? today, it might even get a G rating).
What do you guys think should be its rating?
Also:
when was the last time the age limits were actually enforced at the box office? I've been going to movies with friends (sans parents) since I was 11 years old (now 27) and at no time either in CA, MA, VA, DC, or MD, have I been asked for proof of age before being admitted.
The theaters by me when I was a mere youth actually did enforce the age limits -- which is why resourceful ones like myself bought tickets for G movies in order to see R movies. Call it stealth protest of the MPAA rating system. 
Well, G-Veg, it is an honor to know that our humble blog merits its own troll. At leat you can feel appreciate that.
Okay, Mouldy, if it makes you feel better, take out the lefty sentence.
Which leaves you with a parinoid rant about the rating system and a baseless, wild eyed conspiricy theory.
I suppose we have been too long enveloped in the backwash of political correctness to appreciate that there , in the rating of this movie, an attempt to conceal history and fact from the American people.
To hear anyone who has supported the Bush administration complain about attempts to conceal history and facts... is laughable. Clearly you are so programmed in your thinking that you are far removed from reality.
For a generation we have listened to right wingers like yourself make broad declarations based on nonsense. Look at the polls - your jig is up. No one believes you anymore.
MQAblog, I await substance. Any time you are ready.
Substance?
My point is that your argument is without substance. Perhaps what is obvious to me is hidden to you. So let me make just 2 points.
First, what evidence do you have that the rating systems has a liberal bias? It is your opinion based on what appears to be a knee jerk tendency to lable anything you don't like as wrong and from some vast left wing conspirocy. Do you really feel that victimized?
Second, how would an R rating prevent anyone from seeing it? In an era where many families don't event want to expose their kids to public schools, an R rating should be welcomed. Kids could go with their parents without a problem. What could be more family friendly than that? I am sure you are aware of the emotional reactions by viewers in theatres just from the movie trailers. From all I hear this is a fantastic - but emotionally powerful film. Not for all kids. An R rating sounds like a fair call - not a result of some boogie man sneaking in from the left.
Seriously GC, you and Ann Coulter should hold a private screening party...
Perhaps, MQAB, you might have gotten further in your argument had you started out with your more reasonable third post, instead of rushing in headlong with a crappy ad hominem attack.
Perhaps.
MQAblog, I will do you the great service of pretending you had legitimate points and answering them in kind:
1) I do happen to think that historical revisionism is alive and well, and I can safely say two things on follow-up: (a) this revisionism is largely a by-product of the American left; and (b) this revisionism can fairly be placed in the laps of the liberal elite because, by their own admissions, they tend to be the ones governing the institutions that control educational and entertainment messages.
(In other words, if you were planning on telling me that either Hollywood or public schools are bastions of conservatism, I strongly suggest you lay off the sauce.)
The Hollywood aspect speaks for itself -- rank-and-file members are predominantly and admittedly liberal -- but teachers's unions bear responsibility for thirty years' worth of re-education at the expense of our history, and this bothers me far more than anything Hollywood could ever do. When I was in grad school (I am 29 now), I was always left with the impression that America was positive. We were taught that the Founding Fathers were brilliant men who founded a great nation. We were taught that America, for all its flaws (and it had/has many), was one of the greatest countries in the world, if not the greatest, because of the freedoms we have. We were taught that Americans have a responsibility to defend that freedom in whatever way they can, both at home and abroad.
Granted, some of the above has a subjective quality to it, but I also remember learning substance that backed up those subjective impressions: the Revolutionary War, the Constitutional Convention, the Civil War, and so on were all taught with depth. In other words, this was not mere propaganda -- this was my coming to an opinion on America's worth based upon objective criteria.
Not only are the messages given to schoolchildren today decidedly anti-American, which is troubling enough, but they are largely devoid of substance. Concrete example (and for those parents out there with kids in school, ask your kids what they know about the following): socialist teachers spend a lot of time telling schoolchildren that the Founding Fathers were slaveowners (which is true; many did), but probably spend very little time discussing the nuances of the Federalist Papers or the tension between pro- and anti-slavery camps at the Constitutional Convention. They spend a lot of time telling schoolchildren that Abraham Lincoln was a racist who wanted to maintain slavery (which is untrue), but probably spend very little time discussing how Lincoln had to tread a fine line to keep on-the-fence slave states on the Union's side or risk losing the Union altogether.
I know I have gotten a little off-topic here, but I still believe it is generally relevant: whether it be the UFT or the MPAA, there are groups out there, with left-leaning affiliations, whose power is staked in their ability to make reality go away. Our repub
(continued)
I know I have gotten a little off-topic here, but I still believe it is generally relevant: whether it be the UFT or the MPAA, there are groups out there, with left-leaning affiliations, whose power is staked in their ability to make reality go away. Our republic suffers as a result.
2) To hear anyone who has supported the Bush administration complain about attempts to conceal history and facts... is laughable.
I will assume this is your clumsy reference to our post-September 11th situation. I am not getting into another discussion about Saddam Hussein and WMD -- you clearly didn't learn anything from previous discussions. I would, however, like to know exactly what it is this administration did in the way of concealing history and facts.
3) An R rating sounds like a fair call . . .
Again, when you match this movie up against other movies that have been (a) fictional and (b) far more graphic, I don't see how you can agree with the R rating. Again, my take is that the MPAA is hoping the R rating has a chilling effect on the movie's viewing. I take solace in knowing that millions, young and old, will see this movie, nothwithstanding what the MPAA has to say.
GC- I have largely stayed out of the discussion b/c I have no great desire to see the movie, even though the idea that an heroic group of passengers challenged unimaginable evil (and won) is very attractive to me. Frankly, the loss of human potential due to terrorism and the number of destroyed lives left in its wake tends to dampen the entertainment value of such movies for me. I just don't enjoy them.
What interests me is the discussion about what we teach our children of history. Both Right and Left want to talk about "truth" as it relates to historic events. Absolutely, there is a knowable truth to human history... but it is rarely found in history books.
Sometimes it is the practical problem of a mere hour a day dedicated to an ever increasing topic. Sometimes it is the "balancing" decisions of school-boards and curriculuum writers. Sometimes it is bias.
I think that the difference between the teaching of history and social studies prior to 1980 and now is in our treatment of "myth."
Human history is often presented as myth... and with good reason. Not knowing the minds of the actors and having to take their often contradictory words and actions into account, we seek to give purpose to the "great figures" of history.
Washington becomes incapable of telling a lie and Lincoln becomes an uncompromising protector of liberty and nationhood. We "create" characters of the actions and words of those long gone so as to teach a lesson to our children.
Modern social studies courses concentrate on human history as a larger human movement. It isn't about individuals anymore. From the earliest ages we teach our children that history is the story of peoples, not individuals. We seek to put the great figures into a broader context of social and political movements.
The problem is that, although adults should be able to accept the human qualities of historical figures, children are often not ready for such honest assessments. Where, for me the knowledge that Washington was both a "great" man and a flawed individual is comforting (there is hope for me yet), children simply lose faith.
As usual, I am showing up late to this thread. But it reminds me of when a friend was upset that Braveheart was given an MO ("morally objectionable") rating by the censors at the US Catholic Conference. In a pique, he blamed it on the lefties at the USCC. This seemed absurd to me at the time, because while the USCC was chock-full of lefties, they are precisely the people who don't believe the USCC should rate movies.
G-Veg:
Modern social studies courses concentrate on human history as a larger human movement. It isn't about individuals anymore. From the earliest ages we teach our children that history is the story of peoples, not individuals. We seek to put the great figures into a broader context of social and political movements. . . . The problem is that, although adults should be able to accept the human qualities of historical figures, children are often not ready for such honest assessments.
I don't disagree with you in the sense that we use a national myth ("myth" in the sense of legend rather than fiction) to educate -- in a sense, I guess that was what I was referring to when I said we are (or should be) given a sense of the greatness of America as children, before the world becomes to serious.
I differ only in that I think you need to couple the mythos with reality or risk having the mythos crumble. Belief in a positive image of America hinges upon the ability to present enough factual material with which growing American minds can conclude(at some point), "Yes, I was taught the American mythos in my youth, but the empirical stuff I have seen in the years since only affirm the good things I thought way back when." (Of course, it is possible that one will not walk away with this view. To each his own.)
I think you and I are probably on the same page, however, in our belief that the "devil's advocate" approach to American history (i.e., giving younger and younger generations the warts-and-all view of America, almost to the point where they barely, if at all, get a glimpse of the positive ethos) is ill advised. Or am I being presumptuous?
Don't you love how threads evolve?
We are on the same page and I would love to see a sep. post on this topic.
I suspect that our friends may have some different views on the value of "myth," "legend," and "truth." It might be interesting to dig into that topic.
Commenting by HaloScan
