News-Record.com

Ah yes, the clash of good versus good. Measures to protect against the real threat of terrorism and modest, almost, unoticeable ( and exaggerated ) loss of civil liberties.

I think Michael Medved's review gives a clearer idea of what this movie is all about than your somewhat equivocal post.

" V for vile, vicious, venal, verminous and vomitaceous "

" It smites the evil conservative "

Its " leftwing propganda remains heavy-handed and unmistakable " , glorifying terrorist violence.

Please, I get enough of America bashing on shows like last week's episode of Boston Legal. I think I'll pass on " V ".

How about a good "Shaggy Dog" story instead ?

I miss the good old days when liberalism stopped at making moral equivalencies between good and evil. Not satisfied with that we now get movies that define terrorism as the righteous indignation of oppressed peoples and the measures used to counteract it as evil.

I wonder how Jill Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor would feel about this movie? Pity, though, we can't ask her because while trying to cover the Middle East from a sympathetic perspective terrorists have seized her and threatened to murder her. Daniel Pearl would be another good newspaper reporter to ask these questions, were it not for the fact that he was beheaded by the people this movie wants us to 'understand'.

The bottom line is that Hollywood and alot of academics in this country forfeit any reasonable expectation of being thought of as serious people when they smuggly condemn the institutions that make their art and academic freedom possible.

So, Dudley, have you seen the movie?

"Ah yes, the clash of good versus good. Measures to protect against the real threat of terrorism and modest, almost, unoticeable ( and exaggerated ) loss of civil liberties."

I wonder what he's talking about? I know that in the real world, we are not experiencing unnoticable losses of civil liberties. Nor are they exaggerated. When ANY American citizen loses the right to due process of law, it's not an insignificant event. Just remember that when you go to see this fantasy, or when you read its spiritual cousin, 1984. If you ever do, that is...

Eric,

Puleeze. The Patriot Act was renewed this month 89-10 in the Senate.

Not a single instance of abuse of the Act has been cited by any court, the Congress or the DOJ IG.

And Dudlly you did right Excellent comment!

" V " is for vulgar.

Give us a break, Fred. Do you recall the Cold War? You know, when it was "unAmerican" to speak your mind if it went against the mainstream, and only a few people were brave enough to stand up to Senator McCarthy? We have the same situation today, with nearly all pols being afraid to appear "soft on terror."

"Not a single instance of abuse of the Act has been cited by any court, the Congress or the DOJ IG."

Uh huh. First off, we're not talking only about the so-called "Patriot" act. Beyond that little bit of scope creep, tell me... what makes you think that an administration department's inspector general -- particularly one in THIS administration -- is a reliable, objective source of information? What makes you think that Congress has unrestricted access to all the things that the spooks at NSA are doing?

We have only seen the tip of the iceberg. Less than that, most likely. And as with an iceberg, it's the stuff you don't see that will kill.

Eric,

I guess we really need V to come and clean-up our town. Yeah, a few blown-up buildings and trains will sure get their attention and intimidate them into respecting civil liberties. Yeah, boy.

I guess this is what I get for trying to engage in a serious discussion. Isn't it strange that when some folks come across the heterodox, they feel some urge to deal with them using strawmen? Is this truly the best that one can expect when trying to get others to consider another point of view? That would be a sad state of affairs... one that bodes ill for our country.

Eric:
I don't agree with the "hero's" motivation in "V" but I do agree that fascism can give birth to a cure worse than the disease -- and ultimately to more of the very terrorism that it was supposed to squash.

Eric,

Yes, I for one remember the Cold War but not your delusional version. I remember two American Communists, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were tried , convicted and executed for giving our atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. For years the liberal elite protested their innocence. Well, at least until Soviet cables were decrypted by the Verona project which proved their spying activities.

Your lack of in-depth knowledge regarding the McCarthy era is woefully obvious. Actually it is pitiful. Your distorted view of this period in our history is an emabarassment for you and for those who taught you. A Jay Bennish type, no doubt.

Serious discussion. Not hardly when you sling around the spectre of " McCartyism " and feebly attempt to link it to the dangerous world we live in today and our response to those who have said they will destroy us.

Maybe you just picked up the habit of using that talking point by swallowing the myth of "McCarthyism " as portrayed in George Cloney's second rate movie about the pious Edward R. Murrow ( Good Night and Good Luck ). Eric, back then there were 100s of Communist spies holding positions of trust in our government and I defy you to show us one person falsely accused by McCarthy. Clooney airbrushes over that and other facts in the movie.

Eric, are you aware that Murrow's good friend Lawrence Dugan was a Soviet spy responsible for having innocent people murdered. Do some more research next time before you pop off about a subject on which you are dismally ignorant.

And, Allen, are you coyly suggesting that we are near facism in this country ? That's the impression you left with your last comment. Dangerously close to Godwin's law there Mr. Editor. ( Bush/Hitler )

Nah, I simply meant what I said. No hidden messages.

A fair point. I haven't seen the movie. It's just that after "Munich" and "Syriana" it's pretty hard not to form a negative impression of the Hollywood point of view with regard to terrorism. I think it says something that the movies tend not to have problems with the concept of good and evil until it comes to our own society. Then it demands 'balance'.

The movie "V" was actually written when Margaret Thatcher was in power in Britain and reflected the writers' view that she was taking Britain towards fascism. My criticism of that would be that, from an historical perspective, considering Thatcher to be a fascist (compared to real fascists) is a bit laughable.

That said, I am going to try and see the movie. If nothing else there should be some nice Guy Fawlkes references. Maybe I'll see something more nuanced than I'm expecting.

"Eric, back then there were 100s of Communist spies holding positions of trust in our government and I defy you to show us one person falsely accused by McCarthy."

Gee whiz, JayCee. All I said was that a lot of politicians are afraid to vote against some bills for fear of being labeled "soft on terrorism." I think the parallel is useful. McCarthy and his henchmen were accusing anyone they didn't like with the "communist" label. I understand there was an article written by one staff member called "Reds in Our Churches," accusing Protestant clergy of being communist sympathizers. The "red scare" went to some pretty irrational lengths... and it seems to still have a pretty firm grip on your mind.

I haven't been able to find a list of people that McCarthy accused. If you have one, I'd like to see how many were convicted of spying. I understand that most often, he claimed to have lots of evidence but failed to actually present it... but seeing as I have to rely on accounts in history books, I recognize how that information could be less than 100% accurate.

But there's no point in rehashing all that. The point today is that terrorism is a hammer used for political battle now. And it is used in much the same way that Communism was long ago. Surely there's no harm in questioning the validity of such misuses, considering how they've already gotten us into a war that should not have been, and cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

JayCee:

"I defy you to show us one person falsely accused by McCarthy."

Ok. General George C. Marshall:

"In November of 1945, President Truman made Marshall his personal representative to China, where he tried to broker a settlement of the civil war between the Nationalists and Communists. The failure of the mission, coupled with the "loss" of China to the Communists in 1949, resulted in vicious attacks on Marshall and members of the State Department from anti-communist crusaders like Senator Joseph McCarthy. Given Marshall's unquestionable patriotism and postwar role in formulating the Truman administration's strong anti-communist policies, such attacks were ludicrous."

Beyond the arguments over historical facts, there is a personal side to the issues surrounding the Cold War. Again there are parallels that are valid in the real world today and that I might expect to see mentioned in the movie (I plan to go see it soon and I'll know more about it then).

My own experience will serve as an example. When I was 14 years old, I was a paper boy for this very newspaper. I wrote my very first letter to the editor, in which I praised the ideals of Socialism. In my letter, I never mentioned the Communist Party, and I was in no way affiliated with it, nor was any member of my family. However, the next day, I received notice from one of my newspaper subscribers that he no longer wanted to be my customer... because he didn't want any of his money going to Moscow. This happened to me in 1972.

Now JayCee, explain to me how I am wrong about people in this country being cowed into conforming to the "anti-communist" orthodoxy of the day. Surely anyone can see the same thing happening today. Any time someone writes into the paper, even hinting that perhaps a Muslim extremist might have a valid point, they are vilified as an enemy sympathizer and possibly even a traitor. And all for expressing an opinion. If ever there was an "unAmerican activity," surely that would be it.

I was going to bring up a point, but Dudley beat me to it:

V for Vendetta was a graphic novel written in the 1980s - long before 9/11 and the current war on terrorism. That's not to say you can't look at this movie in the context of current events, but that wasn't author Alan Moore's original intent.

Anyone who has read the original story (something Michael Medved, whom Fred cites, would never bother to do) would know that the character V hardly is portrayed as an unequivocal hero. In fact, he often is as ruthless and cruel as the people he's fighting against. As Allen said, it's a story that makes you feel uneasy, not good.

It's also not accurate to say this is an America-bashing film, considering it's set entirely in Great Britain and written by a British author. The story is strongly based on the real-life account of Guy Fawkes - an anarchist who tried to blow up Parliament and assassinate King James I in the early 1600s.

That's not to say Hollywood isn't cranking out unabashed America-hating movies and TV shows - it is. But if this movie is faithful to the source material, it isn't one of them and shouldn't be lumped into the same pile.

I am still curious. How many of you actually have seen the movie?

Allen,

I saw it Saturday, and I thought it was great. Like most comic books and movies, though, I don't think it's going to do much to change the thinking of the electorate in this great nation.

I think the fact that some on the right-leaning side of the political spectrum are uncomfortable with it is interesting in that no one ever questioned whether Rambo or the Terminator had pure motives or should be cheered as heroes.

Us liberals didn't get all defensive when Rambo spouted his marble-mouthed monologues about how politicians kept him from winning Vietnam. Still, I guess that didn't hit quite as close to home as V's efforts to send up the ludicrous excesses of the right wing

Stew,

Pay attention. I said to be falsely accused, as in proven to be falsely accused.

The little googeled blurb you linked proves nothing.. the cube root of zero. Nada

Truman sent Marshall to China to help form a unity goverment. When he arrived the Communist forces consinted of a few hundred thousand poorly armed troops . When Marshall's mission was complete Mao's army was 2,000,000 strong, well equiped and in a position to crush the Nationalist forces. He played a key role at Yalta in selling out the Eastern bloc contries to Stalin.

Either these were calculated and deliberate activities which promoted Communist aims or he was the greatest naive serial blunderer of all time. I suggest perhaps you read " America's Retreat From Victory " and make a judgement on him.

Eric,

There you go again jumbling up history . There were two " Red Scares ". Suggested reading for your continuing education : " Only Yesterday" by Frederick Lewis Allen which chroniciles our social and cultural history of the years between 1918 and 1929. Now that was a truly scary time. There were anarchists, Communists, out of control labor unions and all sorts of other mischief during that period. The Wall Street bombing killed over 3 dozen people. Letter bombs were mailed to scores of prominent elected officials and business leaders. ( the US Attorney General's home was bombed ) The Sedition Act was passed in 1917 which made it illegal to criticize the government. The Espionage act was passed in i918.

Eric, the reason liberals today wring their hands and squeal that the dawn of a new era of Fascism is upon us is to keep the public from focusing on their constant blame America first tactics, which play well in Europe.

As Ann Coulter says in her well documented and best selling book " Treason " ( also required reading for you ): McCarthyism means pointing out that positions taken by liberals are unpopular with the American people "

If you are searching for something " 100% " accurate let me help you out. Secret US and Soviet intelligence files recently declassified expose that the degree of infilttration by Communist agents in the US power structure was on a massive scale. More required reading:"Witness" by Whitaker Chambers a former editor at Time magazine a Communist whose testimony helped convict State department official Alger Hiss of spying for the Soviets.

The uncontroverable evidence contained in these files, not available at the time, prove that Hiss, the Rosenbergs and other so-called innocent victims of McCarthy were in fact guilty.

As for all these required reading assigments, I was persuaded that what you posted over on Nancy's blog was sincere. You did say something along theses lines didn't you ? A " free thinker" like yourself might want to be exposed to something that would change his mind. Git-Er-Done.

Eric,

BTW that is a pathetic little ancedote about your newspaper boy experience. Pardon me but I am skeptical. Please provide the exact date of your letter to the editor. I would like to read it.
Now in 1917 you would have been put in the slammer. Free speech is alive and well in America,
Eric. even Hellen Keller could see that

Wasn't it Thomas Jeferson who advocated a new revolution every twenty years? Kevin Phillips' new book, "American Theocracy" indicates the Bushes have had 25 or so now.

Maybe a few of us could get together and actually see the movie, then discuss it.

JayCee:

"I said to be falsely accused, as in proven to be falsely accused."

You seem to have a basic principle turned on its head. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. There are people, Marshall being one of them, for which there is no evidence showing them to be guilty of the things McCarthy accused them of. Push harder on those goalposts.

"BTW that is a pathetic little ancedote about your newspaper boy experience. Pardon me but I am skeptical. Please provide the exact date of your letter to the editor. I would like to read it."

Yeah, I expect you would. Tell me... do you have a diary of exact dates you did things when you were 14 years old? Enjoy your skepticism regarding my experiences. It can be a fine tool for avoiding points by your enemies.

"Now in 1917 you would have been put in the slammer. Free speech is alive and well in America..."

So it's alive and well now, but it wasn't in 1917? Is that what you're telling us? So when did free speech actually start, according to your version of American history?

"Maybe a few of us could get together and actually see the movie, then discuss it."

I'd really love to do that. I was hoping to get some time to go see it with my son when he's home the weekend after next. If that's too long to wait, I'd understand.

Allen,

Are you offering to treat us to a free movie ? Sorry I am not tempted.

BTW I emailed you Don Feder's review of " V '.

I challenge you to post it on this blog

Eric,

Post your date of birth and I assure you that i can find you LTE, if it indeed does exist and is not just a fantasy.

(Posted by Lex because Fred was having trouble getting through)

"A" for 'Avoid V for Vendetta'"

For the record (though I'm sure hardly anyone is still watching this thread), I went out to see "V" over the weekend. Very good film, indeed. But I can't help wondering why conservatives are so dead set against it.

It seems to me that the movie was about fighting for freedom, of speech and thought. Surely, conservatives aren't against those things... are they?