Song of the South

[meeko_33785]

I am not sure if this has been posted on this board before, but I ran into something rather unusual at disneyvideos.com checking out DVDs, a page about Song of the South. It says it is unavailable (of course), but also has a form to email Disney if you want it on video or DVD. I though this may be of intrest of some of you on this board. Click here (http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/moviefinder/request/requestvideo.html?itemid=0153103&itemname=Song_Of_The_South) to go to it.

[Another Voice]

‘Song of the South’ has been very troublesome for Disney for a long, long time. Rumors are that a introduction by James Earl Jones was filmed several years ago to put the film in a historical perspective, but the release plans were scrapped when several large interest groups began making unfavorable noises. And with the recent problems Disney had with ‘Pearl Harbor’, it’s unlikely that they’ll even think about releasing ‘Song of the South’ in the United States ever again.

Disney is going back and altering a lot of animation. The uncontroversial release of the “corrected” ‘Make Mine Music’ where cowboys neither smoke nor carry guns was seen as a good sign by some at the studio. There hasn’t been much of a flap over the altered versions of programs in the “Walt Disney Treasure” DVD releases either, but those changes were made mostly to avoid royalty payments.

There are the whispers that some attempt to “correct” ‘Song of the South’ might be possible: Drop the live action sequences, redub the voices, alter the animation where necessary, perhaps shoot some other scenes, and definitely don’t call it ‘Song of the South’. It would be a lot of effort for a very uncertain end product and I really wouldn’t expect to see it. It’s probably more cost effective for Disney simply to lock this film in the vault and forget it was ever made.

[raidermatt]

Kinda hard to forget about it when we're reminded everytime we go on Splash Mountain...

I don't disagree with AV about what it looks like Disney will do, but I believe the film could be released successfully, though it must be done carefully.

The intro would be a good start. But what about an agreement to donate a portion of the proceeds to African-American groups like the United Negro College Fund? I'm pretty confident Disney could get the support of some prominent African-Americans before even announcing the release. The key would be to get their involvement and buy-in up front.

It would take some work, but it could be done successfully.

[April76]

I'd love to see SoS released... I remember seeing SoS when I was little and I honestly don't remember every scene; but I remember the wonderful stories and music and a kind black gentleman. I thought it would be wonderful if everyone went around with his cheerful attitude. Of course, I saw it through the eyes of a child... ;)

I wouldn't want to see Disney start donating parts of proceeds in order to appease any group of people... that would surely open a huge can of worms.


Thanks for the link -- I will take a look. I think that SoS has a lot of "good" to offer and I wish more people could have access to it.

[Banzai]

My request is in!

[MiknMinMouse]

Thanks for the link ~ I've sent my request in. My son grew up watching the Disney Sing along that had the song featuring Uncle Remus on it. When he was about 3 he would call every older black gentleman with a beard Uncle Remus because he Loved Uncle Remus. Most of the men thought it was really cute, I think only one got offended. I don't remember much about the movie so I don't know what would be objectionable, but I think if people went and remade every movie that might have something that offended someone, no movies would ever be re-released. And example~ Gone with the Wind.

[OnWithTheShow]

I'm sorry but I have never seen the movie. What is so objectionable about it?

[disneefamily]

Disnee Dad Says.............................................. ........ I have seen the film and would like to ask what is wrong with it?? Showing what really happened is good. I am half Japanese, and got mad that they tried to tone down Pearl Harbor, even making a special version for Japan. It's not like they sent flowers and chocolates before the attack. It was cold and ruthless and should not portraited in any other way. They could make the slaves in SOS more articulate, but the fact remains the hero of the movie is the Uncle Remus, who shows grace under fire, extreme patience under adverse conditions, and great wisdom, far more than the terrible white mother.

[STLfan]

I found it on a United Kingdom website and the purchase would go like this: The UK tape will not work in US VCR's. But they will sell you the UK tape and make a copy of the UK tape that will work in US machines. You will get the UK tape (that you can't use) and a copy that you can. This satisfies the copyright laws.

As I remember, the cost for the two tapes was about $70. No, we didn't send for them but it is tempting. If anyone has newer info, please post it.

St. Louis Fan

PS - Leaving for WDW with the family is 5 days!!!:bounce:

[HorizonsFan]

Isn't it sad that in this era of political correctness, corporations have to be as careful about percieved racism as they do about actual racism. The line between actually harming someone and simply offending someone has been almost erased...
We all have the power to keep from harming someone but just about anything we say will offend someone.

[disneefamily]

Disnee Dad Says.............................................. . Hey,HorizonsFan, I am offended that you said "just about anything we say will offend someone." I thought about who that could offend and couldn't come up with anybody, so I am stepping up to the plate and am becoming the victim of your vicious attack!! LOL. You can buy SOS on ebay, and bring it to videographers that that can format it for US VCRs. We were able to borrow a UK copy from a fellow Disney fiend, and it cost us $20 to make a US copy, and I know many places are cheaper than that. I stand by my earlier post, and ask once again, what is wrong with this movie??

[Another Voice]

Most of the objections to ‘Song of the South’ deal with the live action segments. Many people believe these show a wildly inaccurate representation of slavery at the time – happy, carefree slaves and kind, caring owners. While it’s clear that the film makers were trying to depict an idealized and simplified background for the stories, these scenes are disturbing for many because they come off as nostalgic and seem to yearn for the “better times” of the past – while completely ignoring the evil that lay at the core of the story’s setting.

The film was first released immediately after the Second World War when many of the civil rights and societal changes brought on during the war years where trying to be reversed. A film whose basic premise was seen as “things weren’t so bad back then” – whether that was the intent of the movie or not – caused a reaction. And the reaction grew stronger during the film’s re-release in the 1960’s and the Civil Rights Movement. What was once seen as an “idealized” setting became viewed as a wrongfully romanticized portrait of the past, and then seen as a deliberate falsehood created to distort history.

[debbie fields]

My vote is in, too. Wish Disney would release this film. I don't think I've ever seen it in the theaters (I'm
26 and it's doubtful that it's been released since my birth, mainly because of what's been written on this
board) but I would really love to see it sometime. I think you'd have to watch this movie in the frame of
mind of the 1940's and the world at that time, not today's world. I do agree it probably is a 'sweetened'
version of what life was really like for slaves, but that's why this movie is a FANTASY. It is not biographical,
to my knowledge. If they can release Gone with the Wind w/Scarlett slapping a slave, what's so bad about this?

[MiknMinMouse]

Originally posted by debbie fields
If they can release Gone with the Wind w/Scarlett slapping a slave, what's so bad about this?

I think that's exactly right. And besides this really is a children's movie, making things sunny for children is fine with me. They have enough time to learn about the real horrors in this world as they grow up.

[johare]

I think they should release it also. I was lucky enough to come across a VCD copy of the Japanese Laserdisc version and we watched it earlier tonight (hmmm...good choice for MLK day?!? :) ). I think people who might have a problem with it need to grow up and realize that it's just a movie and doesn't reflect reality.

[Luv2Roam]

That's what I have never understood! SotS gets slammed. GwtW is praised!:rolleyes:

[d-r]

Hi-

SOTS was released to theatres in the US in the early 80's (1984, I think? I could be very wrong about this, I'm going off memory).

FWIW, SOTS is set during the reconstruction. The African American characters are share croppers, not slaves - there is a poor white family of share croppers as well. That said, it is clear that the rich white folks in the big house are in charge, and there is a tone of subjegation to it. For example, even though Uncle Remus is wise and kind, he is clearly scolded by the white folks and "knows his place." I think that the scenes of the "happy darkies" singing as they go out to the fields, and gathering at the big house to sing for the health of the poor sick white boy are insulting today even though they weren't seen as such at the time the movie was made. The matriarch of the big house definitely holds the power, and it isn't clear if the source of her power is money or her race. To me, these are the two elements that are clearly rascist (e.g., 1. the stereotypical 1940's view of the happy darkies, and 2. the inherent power that the white folks hold over the black folks). FWIW, I think that this film could be a good opportunity for parents to talk to their children about streotyping, about historical views of white-black relations (particularly in context of media portrayals of this), and about power in relationships between people of different races. There are other movies that directly and indirectly approach both of these subjects, and they are important subjects to tackle.

Unfortunately, the more I think about it though, I am glad that this film is not in release, because I am afraid that there are many parents who would see "nothing wrong with it" themselves and not bother having those important conversations, but would use it as a video baby sitter rather than a teaching opportunity. Even worse, I hate to think about those who believe in a revisionist glorified version of the history of the south, who would see this as a tool to teach their children how great things were before the yankees ruined everything. I think it was Roger Ebert who said something along the lines of "I wouldn't want to be the black kid in school the day after this was released." For Disney collectors, animation buffs, historians, and confederate glory nuts, this movie is readily available and relatively easy to get. It really doesn't bother me that it you have to jump through a couple of hoops to get it. Maybe someday we as a society will be ready to watch this movie with our children and talk about the subtle racism that prevades it and help them think about that, but unfortunately I don't think we are there. That is just my opinion of course. I hope I am being to cynical, and that actually the film could be released with an opening segment setting the tone and other background information included on the dvd.

DR

PS I edited this post to add this after thought - there isn't much in sots that is more stereotypical than the crows in Dumbo or the Indians in Peter Pan. I think that the Indians in Peter Pan are probably more offensive, with their sloped foreheads, and the song about "when the red man first said Ugh." Not to mention "we're off to fight the injuns." That thing is just full of stereotypes. Pocahontas shows us how our stereotype of native americans has changed over time, from the primitive teepee-dwelling, sqaw-slapping, uggh-saying injuns, to the almost mystical, spiritually in tune with nature, glorified noble savage.

[Luv2Roam]

I could make a long list of Hollywood movies offensive to women. But that doesn't seem to matter. :rolleyes:
IMHO we have reached the point where something is offensive to everyone.

[Another Voice]

I want to second Mr. D-R’s post, an insightful analysis of the issue with this particular film. There is no such thing as “just a movie” – all movies teach and children are very eager learners. Everything they are exposed to becomes part of their world because there is no difference between “make believe” and “reality on my TV” for them (or for most adults for that matter).

‘Song of the South’ crosses that that vague line between just being offensive and being deeply disturbing. Most of the political correctness in Hollywood deals with pushing one group’s agenda over another group’s. It is all to do with perceived power and the ability to extort money. And it would all be rather silly if the idiots in charge of the town and the universities didn’t use if for such harmful results.

‘Song’ however is not about politics or today’s buzzwords. It turns something that was evil at its core into something that is pleasant, light, and in its most troubling aspect – a way of life that seemed better than the one we lead today. In its own way, the film creates if own form of “political correctness” by intentionally distorting the past to hide the obvious.

There is a lot of lore that has been built up around this film within Disney. The actor that protruded Uncle Remus was supposed to have been the first live-action actor that Walt Disney had hired since the ‘Alice’ comedies in the 1920’s. The actor, James Baskett, also won a special Oscar for his work. But when ‘Song of the South’ premiered in Atlanta, he wasn’t able to attend. No one in town would rent him a hotel room because of his color.

The lessons of the past need to be remembered because they affect us today.

[johare]

Unfortunately, the more I think about it though, I am glad that this film is not in release, because I am afraid that there are many parents who would see "nothing wrong with it" themselves and not bother having those important conversations, but would use it as a video baby sitter rather than a teaching opportunityAnd how is that different from any other video. The movie is entertainment...it doesn't have to teach anything, send a message or even be polically correct. It's a classic Disney film which tells a good story and even has a great theme park attraction based on it. It should be released. What parents do with the film isn't anyones business except for the parents themselves.
Even worse, I hate to think about those who believe in a revisionist glorified version of the history of the south, who would see this as a tool to teach their children how great things were before the yankees ruined everything...and it's Disney's job to prevent this from happening by not releasing one of their classic movies?
For Disney collectors, animation buffs, historians, and confederate glory nuts, this movie is readily available and relatively easy to get. It really doesn't bother me that it you have to jump through a couple of hoops to get it. Fortunately the internet is making it even easier to get this film. It been recently posted in LD quality to alt.binaries.multimedia.vintage-film and alt.binaries.vcd and probably isn't too tough to come across using a peer-to-peer client like Morpheus.

[johare]

‘Song of the South’ crosses that that vague line between just being offensive and being deeply disturbing. One must be deeply disturbed to find this movie deeply disturbing...

Using the 'logic' that people use to justify not releasing this movie we could also say that...

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is offensive to drarves/short people. Also, is Snow White the fairest/prettiest of all because she has fair/white skin? Why?
The Three Caballero's might be offensive to Mexican people.
Cinderella is offensive to women with big feet.
Lady and the Tramp is offensive to homeless people.
Aladdin is offensive to middle-easterners.
The Sopranos should be cancelled because it's offensive to Italians.
Lucky Charms and Irish Spring commercials are offensive to the Irish.
There are many movies which might be offensive to Japanese.
Jacob the Liar should not be released because it didn't accurately portray the holocost.
...and as Luv2Roam stated, there are probably too many movies which are offensive to women to even list.

Why do we worry so much about offending one group of people and not the rest?!?

[raidermatt]

As my previous posts were lost in the "black hole" between 1/8 and 1/17, I'm going to repost, but will try to be brief. :D

Inaccurate portrayals of bad things is no reason not to allow an old film to be seen. If it is, than we should pull all of the old westerns off of the shelves, for there are very few that could not be seen as insulting to Native Americans. Some even contain offensive scenes to Chinese people. Certainly many war films made in the 40's and 50's have very offensive scenes to Japanese people.

The fact is, SotS was made. It exists. Not allowing it to be released on moral grounds is a big mistake. True, it is not an accurate history lesson, but it is a lesson in our country's attitudes about history. It is not enough to just know that our forefathers practiced slavery. We must also know that as recently as 60 years ago, there was no problem with releasing this film. Does that mean our parents and grandparents were evil? No, but we must understand that good people sometimes make bad decisions and do bad things. And the same can happen to anyone who refuses to see their own imperfections today.

As for Disney's decision, it is merely business related. They do not want to deal with the backlash. Were it a moral decision, the film would not be available in Europe. While I can't fault them for this decision, I believe that if the film were released in the proper context, and buy-in from African American leaders was obtained, the backlash would be limited.

[d-r]

I agree with you, Raidermatt. It just seems to me that anyone who really wants to obtain this movie can, and it doesn't bother me that you have to jump through a couple of hoops to do so. I think that there will be a time to release this movie, but I'm not sure we are there yet. I understand what you are saying. I understand Johare, too. And I agree it isn't a moral decision on Disney's part. I agree 100% with what raidermatt said in "We must also know that as recently as 60 years ago, there was no problem with releasing this film. Does that mean our parents and grandparents were evil? No, but we must understand that good people sometimes make bad decisions and do bad things. " This is what I was trying to say when I wrote that this film could be a great teaching and learning opportunity. I'm just too cynical about it I guess. I really do not think that the time is right.

DR

[Geoff_M]

The ironic thing is that for such a racially "disturbing" film, no group has spoken out against the film today. There's a common belief that the NAACP had something to do with Disney not releasing the flick for home viewing, but they're on record as saying they have no opinion (http://www.snopes2.com/disney/films/sots.htm) for, or against, the release of the film.

Call me insensitive, but I do not find the film objectionable as children's entertainment. It's a children's film, not a documentary on the South during the Reconstruction. As was pointed out, it's extremely difficult to find a film, especially ones envolving cartoon characters, that doesn't draw on some form of stereotype. I'm content in letting my children have a childhood. As they mature I can teach them about the darker side of human nature and some times in our past that weren't so nice. "The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman" can wait until they get a little older.

For a more in-depth look at the issue HERE (http://www.songofthesouth.net/movie/overview/defense.html)

For what it's worth, my kids really get a kick out the original Little Rascals. But it doesn't shape their opinions of their African American friends because of the way Buckwheat and Stymie are portrayed within the episodes. I find the Little Rascals a lot less worrisome than 3/4 of the stuff I see on the Cartoon Network.

[DisLUV]

that right now as i am typing this I am watching SOTS. I am watching it for the first time since 1985 when it was last released in theaters. It is a copy of a UK PAL and it is not the best quality but I love SOTS and so that I can watch it until the real copies are released I am glad that i paid 20 $. FO rme to complete my video collection it was worth it. I also got an unopened Alladin for $20. SO tonight I finally finished my disney classics video collection for a whild until they release something else. I am A happy camper tonight:bounce: :bounce:

[ksdave]

While we are on this subject, can anybody tell me what people found objectionable in the movie Pearl Harbor? My son bought me this film on DVD for Christmas and I have watched it twice now. I find that, although the love story portion is a bit tedious, the film, overall, is very well made, exciting, fairly accurate to what I have learned about the time, both in terms of people's attitudes and feelings, etc. I even found the things such as the descriptions of the US aircraft versus the Japanese Zeroes accurate (I work in aircraft for a living and know them very well). I cannot understand who would be insulted by this film. The Japanese? It was well documented exactly how they attacked, why, etc. The veterans of Pearl Harbor? This film shows them as very courageous individuals who would do anything for their country, which is accurate. African-Americans? I think Cuba did a great job of displaying their dedication and commitment to the military.
I just cannot understand who was insulted or upset about this movie. Does anybody have any information about this?

[Another Voice]

As an interesting aside to this discussion, I recently was shown some clips from some “children’s movies” that are being distributed in the Middle East these days. Movies showing Americans as murderous, money-grubbing, amoral vermin. Another showed a six year old proudly wishing to grow up to be just like his “martyred” father. None of the films had any violence in it, and the as for sex – the ‘700 Club’ on ABC Family would approve of the “family values” that were displayed. Yet I wonder how many parents here would be willing to let their kids be entertained by those movies?

“But that’s different!!!” I hear the keys clattering already in response. My answer is “how is it different?” If movies are just entertainment, if children are to be kept ignorant until some future date, if nothing sends a message… why wouldn’t you let you children watch these films? Or a Soviet children’s film about life on the collective (and they made some good ones, too)? Or how about the uncut version of ‘Saving Private Ryan’? Why don’t we abolish the movie rating system – let every child see every movie.

And if movies have no effect on children – how come they all cry when Bambi’s mother is killed? It’s also interesting that in a posting in this thread someone mentioned that their child called every elderly African American man “Uncle Remus”. If the child could not separate the fictional character from reality, is the child sophisticated enough to separate the all the other elements of the movie?

All stories, all movies, teach. To believe otherwise is foolish and dangerous.

I have never said, nor do I believe, that ‘Song of the South’ should be locked away forever in some vault. But the filmmakers and The Company have an obligation to understand the impact of their work and to make business judgments based on that obligation. ‘Song’ is a film, but it is no longer a kid’s movie. Properly presented in context there is no reason why it can’t be shown – just as Warner Brothers has done with the numerous ‘Bugs Bunny’ cartoons that feature stereotypes far more offensive than ‘Song of the South’.

[johare]

Or how about the uncut version of ‘Saving Private Ryan’? Why don’t we abolish the movie rating system – let every child see every movie. Because not all movies are appropriate for children. To believe otherwise is foolish and dangerous. :) On the other hand, a movie is NOT inappropriate just because it happens to be politically incorrect.

All stories, all movies, teach. To believe otherwise is foolish and dangerous. Foolish AND dangerous? Give me a break.

‘Song’ is a film, but it is no longer a kid’s movie. Sorry, but it IS a kids movie. I sat and watched it with my two boys (8 and 5) tonight and they really enjoyed it, though they seemed slightly bored during some of the 'non-animated' scenes. The older one especially enjoyed relating some of the songs/scenes to Splash Mountain. No explanation or lesson was necessary...we just enjoyed a great Disney classic. No harm done.

[disneefamily]

Disnee Dad Says.............................................. ..... Although I do not agree with Another Voice, his/her opinion, it should be taken very seriously. Sir/Mam, you are very articulate, probably far more than I will ever be. I see your points. But I still feel, that the producers didn't mean to be racist, in fact I still believe the real hero of the movie, is clearly Uncle Remus. I sure wished I had an Uncle Remus, when I was growing up. But I just got a mom, and she is worth five Uncle Remus, so I guess I got lucky! I disagree on one point, I do not understand how propaganda films can be compared to Hollywood films, but i guess I'll get an answer shortly!

[tar heel]

debbie fields -- it has been shown in theaters in your lifetime. My oldest son will be 18 next week and it was the first movie we took him to -- I think he was 3.

[johare]

Although I do not agree with Another Voice, his/her opinion, it should be taken very seriously. Sir/Mam, you are very articulate, probably far more than I will ever be. I see your pointsSomeones opinion should not be taken 'very seriously' just because they are articulate. A person can put their opinion in words very well and still lack knowledge on a subject.

Besides, how articulate is this comment: "‘Song’ is a film, but it is no longer a kid’s movie. "?!?

[johare]

Why don’t we abolish the movie rating system – let every child see every movie. Because it's there for a purpose. If a movie is deemed to be inappropriate for a certain age group it is rated accordingly, not withheld from release like SotS has been. A simple solution would be to release the movie and rate it 'PG', which stands for PARENTAL GUIDENCE suggested. It should be up to parents to decide what's appropriate for their kids to watch, not some big company who's overly concerned about appearing publicly correct.

As for Song of the South, what might have my kids learned from this movie? That it's better to use your brains than get into a fight? That people can get along and be best of friends regardless of whether they are rich or poor, black or white and even young or old. That's it's good to use your imagination? Nope, don't want the kids learning any of this do we...might as well let them watch the 'uncut version of Saving Private Ryan'.

[MiknMinMouse]

Originally posted by Another Voice
It’s also interesting that in a posting in this thread someone mentioned that their child called every elderly African American man “Uncle Remus”. If the child could not separate the fictional character from reality, is the child sophisticated enough to separate the all the other elements of the movie?


I'm that poster and my child did call elderly African American men Uncle Remus when he was 3 because to him that was a huge compliment. And might I add during all the time he was going through this phase, only one man was offended, the others took it as the compliment it was ment. It's like a little girl calling her mom Cinderella (yep my daughter calls me this) does this mean that Cinderella teaches bad messages and should be banned. This is one of those times to get real and stop being so PC, as many have said, we're talking a movie for children, not a movie that will change the world, unless you consider teaching kindness changing the world, then again, maybe it will change the world on that note.

[iluvdisney]

Since they can re-release ROOTS on tv, then why not release Song of the South here. There are many of us who would enjoy having the freedom to watch it in our living rooms!

[MelissathePooh]

I think it is in the portrayals of the people in the movies - "Roots" doesn't exactly depict the african americans as happy go lucky field workers content to sing songs and do what their master tells them.

The depiction of the people in SOTS is what is objectionable to some people as it is not only inaccurate, but pretty insulting. I would still have a hard time explaining to a young african american child why SOTS is a great movie with nothing wrong.

It boils down to this though - WDW owns the rights to the movie and if they don't want to release it they don't have to regardless of the reasons.

[Another Voice]

The current political correctness movement is really an attempt to alter the past and to deny the present in order to fit a group’s ideology. It is an attempt to create a fiction (which can be controlled) in place of history (which doesn’t always neatly fit into one’s own agenda). In this way, ‘Song of the South’ is very much a “politically correct” movie – it creates a fictional world in place of the historical only because the fictional world is far easier to understand, and far less painful to think about. The issue is whether this particular part of real history – and the lessons it teaches – should be obliterated to spread a little bit sunshine.

There is a vast difference between simplifying history and altering history. There are some backgrounds that are appropriate for a children’s movie, and some that are not. Yes, teaching children to be nice and to use their imagination is a wonderful goal – but a background that teaches them that owned people are happy and carefree is not.

Movies do teach and all television instructs. And yes – it really is dangerous and stupid to think otherwise. These days, it is the media that shapes our view of the world. It’s not education, it’s not life experience; it’s the flickering images on a screen. It is the parent’s role to understand this, and it is the artist’s role as well. Any company that simply churns out product without care is as wrong as any parent that lets their children see anything that turns up on cable television. Disney’s decision on ‘Song of the South’ is hardly high minded and is entirely driven by economics. And although I may not fully agree with their current “lock it up” stance, I’d rather have them err on the side of caution until they can figure out a good solution.

Since Mr. Johare brought up the subject of credentials that entitle me to have an opinion – I have spent over twenty years working in the entertainment industry. I am a parent. I know what goes into making a movie, and how it affects the audience. I am a registered Republican working in Hollywood and have fought battles with the political correctness brigades that would singe your eyebrows to the roots. I believe motion pictures are important, like all stories are, because they connect us to all of those that have lived before us; and because stories will connect us to all those who will come after.

Perhaps others would now like to list their expertise on this matter so that their opinions might been "taken seriously". If you believe a reasoned, articulated, experienced opinion is only to be countered with outbursts, insults and emotionally-based denials – you have far, far more in common with the politically correct crowd then you probably want to know.

[johare]

If you believe a reasoned, articulated, experienced opinion is only to be countered with outbursts, insults and emotionally-based denialsI don't believe your opinion is articulate, experienced or reasoned.
I have spent over twenty years working in the entertainment industry. I am a registered Republican working in Hollywood ...and there is the proof I was looking for! Since when does the entertainment industry (or the Republican party) have a clue what's in the publics best interest.