Skip to comments.Hollywood Lunatics and Other Stories
Posted on 11/26/2010 8:59:41 AM PST by shibumi
-By Warner Todd Huston
Its a holiday and some might say we should be charitable to the unfortunate. By unfortunate usually they mean those that dont have as much as you and I. But one might construe unfortunate to mean being gut wrenchingly stupid, too. And when one thinks of the gut wrenchingly stupid one often thinks of the denizens of Hollywood above all others. Still it is awfully hard to be charitable toward such stupidity, I have to admit.
Today I have two members of the gut wrenchingly stupid Hollywood set to report upon. It might have been three but the terminal lunacy of Charlie Sheen just goes without saying.
This week Americans stood ready to wish each other a Happy Thanksgiving, to be sure. Well, everyone was but the vapid Angelina Jolie, that is. To her this holiday isnt a day to thank God for our fortunate bounty and to reflect upon the fortuitous founding of this nation, its little else but happy murder the natives day and she refuses to take part.
Angelina Jolie hates this holiday and wants no part in rewriting history like so many other Americans, a friend of the actress tells me. To celebrate what the white settlers did to the native Indians, the domination of one culture over another, just isnt her style. She definitely doesnt want to teach her multi-cultural family how to celebrate a story of murder.
I suppose we can be charitable and ignore this ninnys kitschy musings based on her woefully incoherent view of American history. Unfortunately, it is just the sort of vapidity that is de rigueur for the empty headed Hollyweird set. As they puff themselves up imagining they care more than you about the little people, they indulge a corresponding hatred of our country all too often.
But Jolies absurd notion pales in comparison to the outright lunacy of comedienne Whoopi Goldberg (real name: Caryn Elaine Johnson). Whoopi thinks that the world does not have a Muslim problem, thinks white men are terrorists, and thinks that Muslims in the USA are persecuted more than Jews. Oh, theres more. Goldberg also thinks that the Japanese didnt attack Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Those are truly gut wrenchingly stupid notions.
In a segment on the Bill OReilly show, Goldberg unleashed this risible steam of inanity on his poor viewers and proved that Jolie has nothing on the venerable, award-winning comedienne in the department of the absurd.
As she debated OReilly well, the word debated is also bestowing a charitable air to the appearance Goldberg burdened the viewers with the following deeply thought out truths:
OReilly: Do you have a problem in history when you were taught about World War II that Japanese attacked us? Do you have a problem with that?
Goldberg: I have a problem with that. The Japanese Army attacked us.
The foolishness of the assumption behind Goldbergs point is laughable. In her view the Japanese didnt attack us. Just their army did (and OReilly corrected her that it was the air force, not the army). So, I guess when any nations armed forces are engaged in battle, no one sent them into battle? No people stands behind its own military?
Unfortunately for the viewers, she went on.
Goldberg: Right now, everybody can say the Muslims are the terrorists. Two years ago, it was the white people that were the terrorists.
OReilly: What white people?
Goldberg: Oh, wasnt it white people that blew up Oklahoma City?
OReilly: Yes, two of them. Two of them.
Wow. So to Goldberg, two white guys that bombed the federal building in Oklahoma means that all white people are terrorists, yet that 19 Saudi Muslims perpetrated 9/11, that does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists? Her logic escapes me.
The truth is that neither all white people are terrorists because of the actions in Oklahoma of two of them nor are all Muslims terrorists because 19 of them perpetrated 9/11. But the fact is, in todays reality most terrorists are Muslims so Goldbergs whole underlying premise is idiotic all the way around.
OReilly: New study today, Jews in America are far more likely to be persecuted than Muslims, just came out today.
Goldberg: You know what? Im sure that someone believes that, but I believe that in neighborhoods where they dont want Muslims, they beat up kids.
Youre sure that someone believes that, Whoopi? Yeah, that someone would be the FBI whose latest hate crime statistics prove that in all of 2009 only 107 hate crimes against Muslims were reported all across the country. On the other hand, that same FBI release noted that 931 hate crimes against Jews were reported.
If hatred against Muslims was so wide spread in the U.S. as Goldberg imagines, why is there no corresponding rise in hate crimes against Muslims? And the 2009 report isnt an outlier year, either. In 2008 (see table 1) we find an equally whopping 105 anti-Muslim hate crimes reported.
There is no way to escape the conclusion that there really isnt much anti-Islamic hate crime in the U.S. even after 9/11. Despite the fevered imagination of one Whoopi Goldberg, there is many times more anti-Jewish hate crime happening in the U.S. than anti-Muslim hate crime.
Once again she proves herself uninformed, full of wild-eyed notions, and wholly devoted to devaluing America in favor of every other nation/ideology.
(See a full transcript of Goldbergs appearance at Newsbusters)
Sadly, these two geniuses are representative of the skewed, half informed, nonsense that passes for deep thought in Hollywood these days. Its hard to excuse such foolishness even on a holiday.
Name one such incident.
Actors are like ventriloquist dummies.
Unless someones hand is up their butts moving their lips they are total block heads.
Who knows; but she had a pretty name. Where she got Whoopi Goldberg; who knows?
No permission is needed to post full content from some blog.
His ramblings are posted in full on other sites, why not here?
He excerpts just to get blog hits, playing Freepers for suckers.
Don't be a sucker.
Your ignorance is obvious.
You need to learn about the legalities of " fair use" and copyrighted material.
It is his copyrighted material to post, NOT YOURS!
Yes he could sue FR. Your ignorance on past legal issues involving FR is so noted.
The material in this case qualifies for "fair use" protection on several grounds.
First, neither I, nor FreeRepublic, are using the material for commercial purposes or financial gain.
Your "fair use" argument is useless, evidence being all the blocked from posting material on FR.
This quote specifies altruistic intent on the part of the author, as opposed to commercial gain.
Quote has ABSOUTLY nothing do with republishing on your part.
Finally, the effect of exposure of the author's work on FreeRepublic enhances the author's market value, rather than diminish it, and since he, himself, makes his essays available, in full on many other websites, it does not diminish the value of this particular piece in any demonstrable manner.
You can't argue that: First, neither I, nor FreeRepublic, are using the material for commercial purposes or financial gain.
Then say his "market value" has increased.
You have failed in all four of your tests.
And you have failed in basic reading comprehension.
The writer is a blogpimp.
What’s he going to do, write a nasty blog post about it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.