These guys pride themselves on being the vanguards of tolerance and understanding. They have been awarded by no less than GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) for their positive and outstanding representations of gays and lesbians in the media. They have been in the forefront of breaking down stereotypes and educating Americans on the dangers of intolerance against groups who don’t fit into the cookie-cutter molds that society would force them into.

So imagine my surprise when they did exactly the opposite to conservative Tea Party activists:

—–

Kathy Griffin, (herself a GLAAD “Vanguard” award winner for her outstanding contribution to the depiction of gays and lesbians in the media), played a “Tea Party Candidate” who was judging a glee club competition. Dressed all in red and with Palin-esque glasses, her character bursts onto the scene by proclaiming “I am not a witch!” [Insert pause for laughter here].

It’s more than just disappointing, it’s intolerance and bigotry in the name of tolerance and understanding.

The initial reviews of this episode are pretty lousy, even from the show’s fans. And they all seem to single out the Kathy Griffin character as a “dud”. But, none of them understand the real reason why her character was a dud. I’ll explain it for them: Because it was a two-dimensional depiction of a conservative that was not based in any kind of reality or truth. The character was a cartoon image of a “Tea Partier” drawn by a group of writers who probably have never had a real conversation with one of us.

So in this episode of ‘Glee’ the writers have pretty much come full circle in their bigotry and intolerance. They did to us exactly what they feel has been done to gay people on television for years: provided a false and stereotypical character meant to convey a negative image and message to the viewer. There’s a word for that: Defamation (for those of you paying attention, Defamation is what the “D” in GLAAD stands for).

Series creator Ryan Murphy has allowed his franchise to get sloppy and careless. In their desire to promote positive images of gay people, they have fallen back to the lazy and mean-spirited trick of painting the perceived “enemies” of gays in the same way they would hate to be portrayed, as caricatures of themselves.

Look at Mr. Murphy’s speech when accepting the GLAAD Award for Outstanding Comedy:

“(This show) is about education, it is about inclusion and we are using this show, I think, in a great way.”

He then goes on to describe all of the positive and heroic depictions they are planning for the gay teen character on their show. Which is worthy of applause and recognition. The problem is the writers have not figured out a way to promote positive images for their gay characters without showing insulting and false images of conservatives at the same time.

These guys can’t have it both ways. They can’t decry the depiction of gay characters on television while at the same time forcing a false image of conservatives into the homes of Americans every week. Where is the sympathetic religious character? Where is the honest portrayal of a Tea Party member? Where is the honest depiction of someone who respects and loves a gay friend or child, yet also wants to maintain the traditional definition of marriage?

I have a better question: Where is the conservative writer in the room who voices his opinion when he sees the direction the script is going? I’ll give you the answer: They don’t have one. And that, my friends, is the problem.

If ‘Glee’ really wants to be cutting edge and really wants to be inclusive, they’ll hire a conservative writer to help flesh out some of the characters the current staff seems to have trouble with.

What’s that Mr. Murphy? You don’t know any conservative writers? Hmm… Maybe that’s the problem. You sir, need to be a little more open minded.

I got “unfriended” on Facebook a few months ago by comedienne Elayne Boosler. Out here in the real world I wasn’t really “friends” with Ms. Boosler. We had met a few times and I think we may have shared a stage or two somewhere along the way but that was it. Our Facebook friendship was almost as brief. When I disagreed with one of her political postings I was soon scratched from her “friend” roster. It seems that Ms. Boosler does not like to have her opinions challenged. She is one of many “progressives” who believe in diversity of appearance but not of thought. Fair enough.  You want to be narrow minded and intellectually lazy so you don’t have to defend your opinions, that is your right as an American. Second in my mind only to the right to be as stupid as you want to be is the right to put your fingers in your ear when someone who disagrees with you is so rude as to start throwing facts at you.

A little more hurtful was another “progressive” friend who electronically dumped me last week. For many years when I lived in California I had supported this person artistically because I thought she was talented, and I still do. I helped her find gigs and talked her up to bookers and agents when I could.

I got a terse message from this now former Facebook friend: “Go f#*@ yourself!” The reason for this dismissal: I expressed a conservative viewpoint in a comment to something she had posted. She had posted a negative message about Sean Hannity insulting Elena Kagan’s appearance. I posted back that I agreed that personal appearance attacks are lowbrow and said I hoped she was as vocal about her distaste for personal attacks when the left was doing it to Sarah Palin. My ex-friend said that there had never been an appearance based attacks on Ms. Palin (I know, I know) and asked if I could supply some links to back up my position. I did with a link to the Letterman “slutty airline attendant” line. She posted back that that was just one example and when I when I took the discussion off the public board and sent her a personal message with several more links I got the GFY brush off.

This whole episode got me to thinking about the bigger question; what is the cost of being openly conservative in show business? A few years ago another friend who is a television producer told me about going to a meeting at a studio where a major “suit” went on for fifteen minutes during a creative meeting about Rush Limbaugh and how they would never hire anyone who listened to “that moron.”  My friend is a closeted conservative and since he was in the middle of trying to make a deal at that studio, he kept his mouth shut. Another friend has a job as a casting director on a show and is very careful never to express a political opinion even though many lunch discussions are strongly anti-conservative.

I look at folks like Dennis Miller, a guy who I have admired for years, and Drew Carey, and wonder what their brash conservatism has cost them. There used to be a cost if you were a drug addict or gay in Hollywood. Now those things are career boosters. A few years back when I was still in Hollywood, some people would attend recovery group meeting to “network” with those there for help. Being seen at AA or CA was a career move. Does anyone think Ellen DeGeneres’ coming out has hurt her? I may not remember correctly but I seem to remember her sitcom was on life support until she came out on the show and on Oprah. I wouldn’t doubt it if there were a few “ersatz” gays in Hollywood these days. Meanwhile, if you are conservative or Republican in show business, you better have a two bedroom closet because you are going to be there for awhile.

If you want to join my Facebook group for those dumped online for being too right, follow this link and post your story.

Do you have a little time to sit back and examine a classic movie that will absolutely shock you when seen through the prism of now? This is not my typical short article or essay. This is my own argument that what occurs in the 1941 picture “Meet John Doe” is exactly what has come to pass in America today with the Democratic Congress and their Presidential puppet. All the players and plays are clearly represented here and I was lucky enough to find the entire movie available on YouTube in small 7-10 minute scenes. I have selected only the scenes that I feel you must watch. But please, by all means, Netflix this movie before someone bans it.

“Meet John Doe” was released in 1941, written by Robert Riskin and based upon a treatment titled “The Life and Death of John Doe,” written by Richard Connell and Robert Presnell.  The film was directed by Frank Capra. The plot of the movie clearly shows how a media conspiracy could get a President elected and use him to “turn out the lights on freedom.” The similarity between the movie’s plot and today’s political situation is surreal. Add in the fact that Gary Cooper’s “John Doe” is modeled after Jesus Christ and you’ll be even more chilled at how a power hungry, ruthless political party figures out how to use a fake version of Him for their own gain. The claim by liberals that this is the practice of the religious right will be shattered once you’ve watched all the clips posted here.

So let’s go ahead and take a look at the opening sequence where you will see a sign being changed on a newspapers building. The old stone letters “FREE PRESS” are jackhammered away and replaced with a shiny new metal sign boasting a “new era of streamlined news.” It’s important to keep in mind that the movie takes place near the end of the great depression, with layoffs and widespread hardship everywhere, including this fictional newspaper. So in a desperate attempt to save her job, ambitious female reporter Anne Mitchell (played by Barbara Stanwyck), who has been given the pink slip, fakes a sensational news story as her last submission and convinces her boss to run it in order to sell more papers.

–

So just to recap some important highlights, so far we’ve learned that D.B. Norton, an oil tycoon with political ambitions buys a struggling newspaper. An ambitious reporter in a desperate attempt to save her job fakes a sensational story and convinces her boss to run it. Once the John Doe story runs it catches fire and the editor of the newspaper doesn’t learn that the letter was a fake until the end of this sequence.

I wonder if his reaction and Miss Mitchell’s (Stanwyck) sales pitch to keep up the gag for profits’ sake is similar to how things go down in some real world newsrooms?

Pass that Capra-corn please…

The next sequence is the continuation of the opening. The reason I added it is because the process by which they look for just the right fellow to play the part of their imaginary, yet highly relatable “John Doe” is similar to the passive aggressive casting process that happens in the left-leaning media world today. I’ve heard and read arguments that this movie promotes communism and I use scenes like this to counter it. What Long John Willoughby (Cooper) really needed at the time was lower taxes and less government in his life. That way he could have already had and paid for the surgery he needed to fix his throwing arm instead of allowing a newspaper to use him to lie to the public as his best option. The New Deal was a bum deal and today we conservatives know it.

–

Next we’ll jump way ahead because like most of the movies made during Hollywood’s golden era this one is rich with scenes and characters unlike anything the current crop of filmmakers are capable of producing. John Doe has become nothing short of a media sensation with the public being inspired and gripped by his story of pending self-sacrifice in a cruel and unjust world. John Doe represents the common man and now has a weekly article in the newspaper (written by Stanwyck’s character) that has set off a legion of dedicated supporters.

“John Doe” clubs are popping up all across the nation in response to the fake John Doe’s plea for more decency and care for one another. In return for playing the part, the newspaper keeps this formally homeless man in a nice hotel with room service and pressed clothes as they groom him for even more exposure so they can ride this fake story all the way to the bank. His only true friend, still in his hobo outfit, sees through the entire sham from the start and is always tugging at John’s sleeve to break away from the “helots” before they really do him in. Now he’s slated for his first live national radio address which has been timed to coincide with the political convention that will nominate a candidate for president.

–

There are two stunning revelations in the scene you just watched. While John Doe reads the speech that was written for him, Henry Connell, the newspaper editor-in-chief, realizes the potential misuse of the John Doe movement while at the same time powerful oil tycoon and newspaper owner D.B. Norton takes a sneak peek at his butlers and maids glued to the radio in their kitchen. Without either actor saying a word, Capra shows how two men in the same situation realize the same exact thing and then go in totally different directions from there. D.B. Norton realizes the power of John Doe for evil purposes, while Connell realizes that he’s allowed a sales gimmick to go to far.

Norton is cunning and realizes that he can form a coalition of votes to win by controlling the “John Doe vote” through mainstream media manipulation, the labor vote through paid off union bosses, and various other voting blocs with the promise of top political jobs. What comes next is one of the single greatest pro-America scenes in all of movies. It’s also where John learns the awful truth about his role in an evil political movement and thinks there’s something he can do about it. Boy is he wrong.

–

“Lighthouses in a foggy world.” Indeed.

With the ugly truth now revealed to him, John decides to confront Norton personally and what he finds waiting for him parallels where millions of Americans are finding themselves these days; helpless, manipulated and learning the shocking truth about the sinister relationship between the nations ruling political party and the mainstream media.

–

The final clip is the cliffhanger, because even with everything posted here you can still watch this movie as if you’ve never seen it. Anything more that this would ruin it for you.

Meet John Doe is a conservative film made by conservative filmmakers. Mr. Capra and Mr. Cooper were both Republicans who made this movie at the start of the New Deal. Mr. Cooper openly opposed FDR serving three terms, calling it “un-American.”  This is the kind of movie conservative Hollywood used to make. According to Wiki, Edward Arnold, who played D.B. Norton, became involved in Republican politics in the 1940’s and was mentioned as a possible GOP. candidate for the United States Senate. He lost a closely contested election for Alderman and said at the time that perhaps actors were not suited to run for political office. A staunch Conservative, he later took a strong stand against alleged communists in Hollywood while trying to protect actors from the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was also the co-founder of the “I Am An American Foundation.”