Over and over and over we keep reading about how Hollywood’s holiday box office was some sort of silver lining in an otherwise dark cloud. But once again, the context-challenged entertainment media only tells us half the story. Here’s a sampling:

Box Office Mojo:

Based on studio estimates, the four-day weekend will end up at over $201 million, or up around 10 percent from the same four-day period last year.

DHD:

Let’s party hearty with the end-of-holiday box office for end-of-year 2011. Or let’s not (and say we did.)… [S]ources tell me this final weekend will definitely be up over last year.

Los Angeles Times:

Most films sold more tickets over the New Year’s holiday than the Christmas holiday, with family films benefiting from the biggest bumps. Overall, the weekend was up 10% compared with the same period in 2010.

Cinema Blend:

Sales were up considerably from last weekend’s Christmas holiday and the new year is off to a solid start.

Except…

Between Dec. 16 and Dec. 25 of this year, the following films went into wide release:

Alvin and the Chipminks: Chipwrecked
Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows
Mission : Impossible – Ghost Protocol
The Adventures of Tintin
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
We Bought a Zoo
War Horse
The Darkest Hour

That’s a total of eight big-budget, high profile offerings. However, in 2010, only four high-profile, big-budget films went into wide release during that same time period:

Tron Legacy
Little Fockers
True Grit
Yogi Bear

In other words, in order to get that 10% bump in sales, Hollywood had to invest in twice the amount of product.

For argument’s sake, let’s assume that after production and marketing costs, a mainstream film averages out to a cost of $100 million. If that’s the case, the industry invested $400 million more than they did last year — twice as much — to make 10% more in gross sales. That doesn’t sound like much of a success to me.

From what I can see, only The Wrap deserves credit for not buying or pushing that spin:

Conversely, distribution executives might think twice about celebrating their Christmas-week performances, given that they’re comparing their 2011 Yule haul to a 2010 holiday period that featured only two new wide releases — “Little Fockers” and “True Grit” — doing any significant business.

In fact, even though nearly twice as many movies were released in the run-up before Christmas this year, the market only grew marginally.

Ho, ho, ho …

You can’t fix a problem until you admit you have a problem. Too many in the entertainment media are too invested in the culture wars to look at the motion picture business as a business. They see a rejection of Hollywood as a rejection of their own personal values; they take it personally and therefore don’t want to believe or report it.

This is why we get spin instead of the kind of analysis that tells the real story.

—–

The media is saturated with glorified gaunt glamour that has either been photoshopped or obsessively abused through eating disorders or drug use. This prototype of the supermodel body is painted as the epitome of attraction, and thus promotes an unattainable goal for most young women. When 69 percent of 5th to 12th grade girls say the images in magazines affect their idea of what a perfect body is, and 47 percent admit to wanting to lose weight as a result of these images, society has a problem and the media is responsible for corrupting the minds of our youth by poisoning their self-esteem. Although being healthy is ideal and definitely a goal that should be actively pursued, this dangerous misconception of having to be less than perfectly healthy to be attractive is what has to change.

This past week at the MTV VMA Awards, Disney actress, Demi Lovato, hit the red carpet looking gorgeous and healthy in a silver sequin dress. Some tweeters had posted in response to her body that “her arms were looking chunky.” Lovato, who is currently recovering from a battle with anorexia and bipolar disorder, strongly and proudly retorted, “Get over it… I’m healthy and happy.” This is an advancing step for young women in the media who are taking a stand toward their critics and promoting a healthier lifestyle.

Emphasizing the need for social change, The Dove Foundation created a PSA campaign that draws attention to the reality behind the doctored images of female models. One video in particular highlights the manipulations of a photo shoot, turning an average looking woman into a supermodel. She goes through radical transformation with makeup, hair, and digital adjustments of her physical features to be more symmetrical. By the end of the video, the model is featured on a huge billboard which presents the difference between fantasy and reality.

It’s refreshing to see companies and celebrities alike bring awareness to image issues that face society today. More and more females in pop culture are surprisingly embracing their flaws and empowering their fans to do the same. Singer/songwriter, Adele, is a prime example of a young woman who undeniably exhibits beauty contrary to the popular status quo of what is considered attractive. Her talent and elegance outweigh any judgements about her appearance. On the other hand, Jennifer Hudson, who recently became the spokesmodel for Weight Watchers, went from a size 16 to a size 6, proving that women can shed pounds through good old fashioned diet and exercise. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be thin and fit, but it’s not easy and it doesn’t happen overnight.

Anyone who works out and watches what they eat will admit that it comes down to willpower and determination. Yes, society tells us being thin is beautiful. Yes, there is a serious obesity crisis in the United States. And yes, we should be mindful of our health related choices. But give a mouse a cookie and you feed insecurities that perpetuate the psychological extreme of either purging or binging. Neither are beneficial and neither should be encouraged. It’s a day-to-day struggle that we all face – the inner dialogues we have , “Am I getting fat?” “Why can’t I lose 10 pounds?” “Diet starts Monday” create a mentality that is toxic to our social environment. Instead of embracing our personality, we allow doubt to consume our physical presence.

It’s empowering to see this small, but effective shift in modern pop culture. It starts with star power embodying the true essence of beauty within the soul, then slowly creeps into the minds of fans who will then spread this new ideology of self worth being more powerful than self image. This is not to say that being aware of self image is wrong or that wanting to look good isn’t a natural reaction, but negative obsessions about minor details are not helping to change anything. Motivation to improve yourself should stem from within instead of the devaluing pressures that emanate from the media.

To become involved in the movement or to learn more about how to prevent or work through these issues please visit http://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/index.php

—–

“Whaddya Know” describes itself as “part 60 Minutes, part Oprah, and 100% like nothing you’ve ever seen before,” but there is a crucial difference between Joe and the hosts of those other shows.  Whereas Oprah and others fought tooth-and-nail to get where they want to be and thus try to make their shows all about themselves, Joe is an accidental celebrity.  He’s quietly taken on the role of a household name without adorning any of the ego that normally comes along with it, and that completely flavors the tone of the show.

Instead of taking place in a bright TV studio with a trained-seal audience, the set for the talk show-esque portion of the show looks like it was built inside a barn; the tone is folksy, intimate, humble.  Instead of hogging the spotlight in every conversation and interview, Joe is completely content to give guests his full attention and let them speak at length.  It’s a refreshing respite from the all-but-scripted, pandering-for-applause fake style of conventional talk shows.

However, those worried about Joe not having the chops or charisma to carry an entire show, rest your troubled hearts; he’s got plenty of backup.  Like Ed to his Johnny, like Andy to his Conan, like Garth to his Wayne, co-host Rodney Lee Conover is a quirky, energetic counter to Joe’s laid-back, dry humor. Their interplay with each other and guests such as Nick Searcy from the show Justified finds all parties comfortable and casual yet lively.

But an important thing about Joe is that its cameras aren’t stuck in one little room. As a multi-genre show, it features news packages that are truly educational while still featuring the show’s informality and wry humor. It’s a much-needed departure from the cookie-cutter templates of MSM news segments with their maddening poseur objectivity and condescending 5th-grade narration.

Now, when I say that the news segments are “educational,” I will admit that I was genuinely surprised by many of the revelations in these portions of the show– how California beaches experience more pollution in the absence of oil drilling due to seepage, or how Mexican military troops have escorted drug cartels across the border into Texas.

Other regular segments provide perspectives from an even wider range of voices. “Street Smarts” with Lewis Brown, a man who either is homeless or just looks it, shares his thoughts, promising, “My mouth don’t write checks my ass can’t cash.”  The segment “Ladies Out Loud” is fly-on-the-wall view of girl talk with a group of women, mostly mothers, discussing how local and national issues affect them and their families. It’s like The View, just with thoughts.  In “Joe’s Bar,” our plumber host interviews people who aren’t celebrities or conservative activists, just boots-on-the-ground individuals like teachers who share their personal experience and opinions on issues such as public unions in education.  For political junkies, YouTube star “Thomas Paine” hams up some common-sense punditry in response to viewers’ mail.

And this inclusion of diverse voices has continued into further episodes; during the recent demonstrations in Wisconsin, he’s been visiting residents of the state, filming and talking, asking open-ended questions, getting insider information. It’s engrossing, because unlike the vain celebrity flattering meant only for self-promotion of other talk shows, there’s a genuine interest in people and what they have to say. You can tell that Joe’s fundamental philosophy is that everyone has something to contribute in understanding our nation, and that sort of respect for all people, abandoned for decades by a cynical television establishment focusing only on the grotesque voyeurism and empty glamor, is more than refreshing.

I don’t make any excuses for conservative media; either it’s well-crafted and entertaining, or it isn’t. “Whaddya Know, Joe?” has been a very pleasant surprise, and I’ve found myself constantly checking the RightNetwork website for updates and new videos.  If your cable provider doesn’t carry RightNetwork, you can contact them and demand they do, but in the meantime, don’t wait to view “Joe” from their site.  It’s an engaging, delightful program that just might be bound for greatness.

So roughly a year ago, reporters went batpoop crazy over possessed Toyotas that accelerate without your consent – smashing into other sedans, running into and over people, or worse: ruining floral mailboxes that look like miniature versions of stately homes.

Well, if you’re like me, you knew this might be B.S.

And while I felt bad for the victims – I also felt for the car company – which would lose billions trying to remedy a mechanical problem that may not exist.

But reporters never met a hyped-up story they didn’t love, and in this case, they grabbed it by the neck and dry humped it to the ground.

Well, now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, along with NASA, have found that there were no electronic flaws in the cars that would “create dangerous high-speed unintended acceleration incidents.”

Their conclusions? The most likely cause of the acceleration was… pedal misapplication.”

That’s a nice way of saying it’s your fault.

I’m sure some people will disagree. But my gut tells me that cars are the safest thing about driving. Elderly drivers, pedestrians and girls frantically searching for breath mints frighten me more.

Which leads me to one thought: why isn’t there some kind of punishment for reporters who fall for false, hyped up crap like this?

As far as I can tell, you can write about the dangers of DDT, and be wrong; you can scream about the dangers of nuclear power – and be wrong; you can babble about the coming ice age – and be wrong; and you can then clamor over climate change -and really be wrong.

But everyone forgets.

Which is why, as punishment, they should all be driving Pintos.

And if you disagree with me, you probably drive a Pacer.

A yellow one.

Tonight:

Allen Covert!

Imogen Lloyd Webber!

Stephen Kruiser!

other stuff!

So let me focus instead on the media’s coverage, particularly the nonsense on the web, which seemed a stark contrast from the actual facts, as they unfolded. After all, it’s the facts that matter, not the opinions of an editorialist with an axe to grind. What bothered me most – the drooling opinionating that sprinted from the gate, faster than the facts could keep up.

And this rush to judgment reveals the media’s not-so-secret biases toward certain political personalities and movements. Among a few prominent leftist columnists, celebrities and talking heads, their responses barely concealed a morbid glee in getting their assumptions met – using incendiary rhetoric that they themselves pretend to condemn. The shooting was the best thing that ever happened to their own reservoir of anger. It was a leftwing Lalapalooza.

Actually, it was like watching an opening at Walmart, with sweaty hacks in a tug of war over a table of identical, knee jerk assumptions. All designed to control the narrative. To get there first, to fill a void. It was the world’s worst cocktail party, without the cocktails – featuring Jane Fonda, KooKoo Krugman, Piers Morgan, the puppets at Daily Kos and Media Matters – and even WaPo columnist Courtland Milloy, who wanted “to spit on” the tea party, now blaming the right for the shootings. Capping it off, we have a Democrat who wants to ban symbols that may seem threatening to elected officials. I believe that’s symptom one in the diagnosis, “God, You’re Stupid.”

It even reached the other side of the pond, as Morgan, the ruddy replacement for Larry King, leapt into the fray, with a tweet….

“This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications.”

This, from a man who ran- on the cover of his old newspaper- a faked image featuring a British soldier urinating on a prisoner. What “political ramifications” did that have for the British military? Thankfully, not much, compared to Piers – who was fired.

And so, on Saturday, Twitter was a feeding frenzy of amnesiacs, galloping to one singular conclusion, forgetting that doing so with the Fort Hood shooter was mindless bigotry.

As a rightie, I wanted to go after the ghouls capitalizing on this tragedy to score political points. But you realize, as Congressman McCotter once said to me, quoting someone famous: wrestling with a skunk only leaves you smelly and the skunk happy.

There were a lot of skunks out there this weekend, and boy did they stink.

Tonight:

Bill Hemmer

Harris Faulkner

Reason’s Matt Welch

Bill Schulz

Throw us a bone – how about more than just one or two flicks a year not targeted to the demographic that thinks Lady Gaga is a boundary-pushing icon of limitless creative vision?  Maybe a couple that are not focused on shiny supernatural creatures who chat about their feelings and stare longingly into the eyes of dead-eyed starlets acting as the surrogate for the millions of lonely shut-ins who adore them?  Just a few films not aimed squarely at creepy man-children dwelling in their moms’ Kleenex-strewn basements wishing they too could winch their bloated tushes into tights and fight crime just like their cinematic heroes.

How about more than just a handful of movies for men and women who need more than five hands to count out their age, who breathe through their noses, who have lives?  I have some dough – well, at least until the President and his fellow travelers declare me rich too – and I’d like to take my hot wife out once in a while to see a movie.  I used to go a lot, a few times a month.  But it seemed that five years ago there were always at least a few movies that piqued my interest.  Perhaps it’s me – perhaps I’m too demanding, what with my stubborn insistence on interesting stories told in a coherent manner by competent actors.  Or perhaps it’s just that the recent crop of movies is exceptionally crappy.

Let’s address the curmudgeon question here and now – yes, I have occasionally turned my hose on those damn kids when they messed up my lawn, but hobbies aside, the fact is that Hollywood is both leaving money on the table and sacrificing what little artistic credibility it has left by ignoring the normal adult demographic.  It appears that Hollywood has simply thrown in the towel and decided to focus on feeding formulaic moron fodder to a waiting cohort of slack-jawed ninnies eager for the next story about a magical robot or a superhero with issues.

Let’s take a look at what’s in the theaters this Christmas to test this theory.  How about How Do You Know, with Reese Witherspoon.  It’s supposed to be a smart, mature romantic comedy.  Now take a look at the trailer:

—–

Oh my – yet another romantic comedy that appears to be neither romantic nor a comedy.  Tired, telegraphed jokes and Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd playing the same guys they play in every movie.  Plus Jack Nicholson in the same growly old guy mode he’s been in (except for the otherwise annoying The Departed) for the last couple decades.  Look, unless Jack is ripping the cover off a water department/incest conspiracy, I’m not interested.

The latest Harry Potter movie is still out.  But I’m a bit old for movies about teenage wizards, and I suspect a substantial number of the adult males watching it are going less to experience story than to see the now adult Emma Watson play with her wand.

The latest Narnia movie is out too, and I understand it’s C.S. Lewis and it has an important message and so on, but there’s a problem:  I’m not 12.  My kids will probably love it – when it comes out on DVD.

The Tourist with Johnny Depp and Angela Jolie is out.  But it’s rated PG-13, which kind of eliminates the whole point of having Angela Jolie in it.

There’s a sequel to 1982’s Tron coming out as well.  Finally.  I guess the 28 years of non-stop clamoring for more adventures of some guys who go into an Atari game and do stuff have finally paid off.  I suppose I’d be more interested in Tron: Legacy if I hadn’t discovered girls in the meantime.

Soul-crushingly, we have De Niro cashing yet another paycheck in Little Fockers, the third or fourth sequel to a mildly amusing movie I’ve pretty much forgotten by now.  Watch the trailer and die a little inside:

—–

It’s like they invented a whole series of new clichés just for this movie.  And Ben Stiller’s recycled antics are annoying enough, but Barbra Streisand too?  I wouldn’t force Julian Assange to watch this nightmare…okay, maybe I would.  As for De Niro, just keep saying to yourself, “He’ll always be Neal, he’ll always be Neal.”

Jack Black will be waddling back on screen too as America’s favorite funny fattie.  This time, he’s in a wacky new version of Gulliver’s Travels.

—–

Can you spot the fresh, original joke?  Trick question – there isn’t one!  It’s just more Jack Black yelling, mugging, and running about, which might be hilarious to Miley Cyrus and her pals after a couple rippers off her achy-breaky bong, but for the rest of us, this thing looks like a celluloid kidney stone that you have to pay eleven bucks to pass.

But there is hope.  The Coen Brothers have a remake of True Grit coming soon.  Let’s leave aside the sacrilege of trying to compete with the Duke – it looks badass:

—-

A movie about adults, doing adult things, speaking in phrases that aren’t designed so that even the average public school drop-out can understand them – who would have thought it possible?  I’m getting disoriented – how can this be?

So, maybe I will visit the multiplex this Christmas season after all.  Right after I finish running off those damn kids.

As you already know, Islamophobia is defined as a fear of Muslims. So Islamophobia-phobia is a real fear of a perceived fear.

So, who are the culprits behind the disease?

Jackasses in the media.

To quote a perceptive tweet by a dude whose handle is “politics of fear:”

“How can the media say were Islamophobic, when we all died from avian/swine flu?”

That’s it, nutshell-wise.

The fact is, there is no group more quick to judge, more prone to exaggeration or sensationalism than the media. They are the haymakers of hysteria. The litany of scares propagated by the media is so long, that if I were to list them, you would fall asleep, dropping your bong shaped like the head of Robert Bork.

And, as always: anything the press says will decimate us, won’t. Ever.

So screw them when they accuse us of hysteria. They’ve done this before with McCarthyism, jingoism, and tomboyism (a totally legitimate fear of tomboys).

Here’s why they do it: when hacks realize that a story has sped right past them – they must cover their asses. So rather than play catch up, they turn on you. Hence, by missing the mosque story, they make the story about opponents of the mosque.

And so, like ABC, you go undercover to a mosque protest – maybe to scrounge up evidence that Islamofear is sweeping the nation.

When, really, the only thing sweeping the nation these days are sweepers. Without them, our floors would be covered with dust, crumbs, chunky pieces of fractured bone and clumps of scalp.

But maybe that’s just my house.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist islamophobic homophobe.

–NSFW Video– 

Roseanne’s blog:

Israel: What a vile and hideous country:http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1280589635  I have reached the point, after reading today’s news where I can really no longer support in any way anything having to do with Israel or its apologists.  I know that this means I will most likely never work in US media again.  I have tried to navigate my way through attempting to be a person of moral courage and a performer in the US.  I have come to the realization that there is just no way to  remain mute on the subject of the horrid oppression by Israel of its neighbors and workers and have any conscience at all.

Everyone in Hollywood must remain mute on this subject if they want to have their work seen by the public.  You will never hear even one other so called “outspoken celebrity” say one word about fascist Israel, nor its genocidal gluttony.  I can’t blame american jews for fearing the backlash of the most powerful elements of the Jewish community.  It’s a true devil’s bargain.  Israel is not good for the Jews, or any other group of humanity.  

NewsBusters found an even more bizarre rant and thinks the former television superstar might need psychiatric help.

NewsBusters:

Stone said that his upcoming Showtime documentary series for “Secret History of America,” seeks to put Hitler and Communist dictator Joseph Stalin “in context.”

“Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support,” Stone told Sunday Times’ reporter Camilla Long.

Stone said that, “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed].”

The Sunday Times interviewer then asked why there was such a focus on the Holocaust.

“The Jewish domination of the media,” responded Stone. “”There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years.”

The director, who recently met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, also slammed the U.S. policy toward Iran as “horrible.”

Full article is here.

—–

The tsunami hit in the wake of my recent column on Sting, Soros and their pro-drug partnership, which both cast doubt on the sacred truths of the very vocal drug legalization fans and defied George Soros.  Accordingly, I had to be stopped.  What happened next tells us much about the tactics, techniques and procedures we will come up against fighting for our culture – and how we can fight back.

The counter-attack came first came in the form of over 400 angry comments from drug legalizers (oh, sorry – “decrimminalizers”) and bong-fueled Twitter tweets from hemp-focused lay-abouts.  Next came columns by Huffington Post nonentities and other dope-o-centric fellow travelers.  Topping it off came at least one semi-veiled threat. 

The main effort, and a clever one – is part of a continuing efforst to use the drug issue as a wedge within the conservative movement.  You can see that in the comments, many of the commenters excoriating me describe themselves as “true conservatives” or “libertarians.”  Far from being the kind of mellow, Lebowski-like stoners one might expect, most of them were quite angrily convinced that my skepticism about Sting’s support for turning our society into a cornucopia of pharmaceuticals was simply proof positive of my dedication to tyranny, fascism and general meanness. 

As the creepy Soros/Sting video implies, apparently the only possible reason anyone could ever think that selling angel dust over the counter at every corner liquor store is a bad idea is some sort of amorphous delight in human misery.

The Left sees that there is a serious debate within the Right on the best way to address the drug question.  It is the conservatives and libertarians in publications like National Review and Reason (as I mentioned in the article but the commenters overlooked) who make the most interesting and trenchant critiques of current drug policy – most liberal drug policy critiques just whine about racism or go on and on about how groovy hemp is because Patrick Henry grew it in his back yard. 

For that reason, fomenting discord within the Right about drug policy is a profitable enterprise to people who would much rather see us beating ourselves up over whether government has a right to keep smack addicts from shooting up on the subways instead of uniting on real issues like stopping the Administration from nationalizing pretty much everything while spending every dime we don’t have.

Tony Papa

Actually, I sympathize to some extent with the conservative critiques of drug policy but, because I dared to point out the dubious assumptions often underlying those arguments – like that criminals will just stop being criminals if drugs are legalized – I became the enemy.  Since it really wasn’t a piece on how I felt about drug legalization but about how celebrities lecture us peasants then retreat back into their castles while we deal with the consequences, I broke my standard rule of letting my columns speak for themselves and added a long multi-part, comment of my own.  Pointing out the legalizers’ total failure to address legitimate concerns about drugs’ effects on society only got them madder.

Their second axis of attack was through critiques on other web sites – most of them focusing on how horribly out-of-step with progressive social values people like us are.  Many of these come from such junkie-friendly precincts of the internet as “drugwarrant.com” and “stopthedrugwar.org.”  However, one came from a blogger I have a great deal of respect for, libertarian Radley Balko, who does great work exposing government abuses.  Unfortunately, his reference to the column falls in the legalization echo chamber trap:

Yes, there are still people who think like this though their ranks are dwindling, even in conservative circles. 

I should point out that if anti-legalization is the hip new position among the cool kids, none of the politicians seem to think so since no major candidate will run on the syringes-in-every-supermarket agenda of the most ardent legalizers.

Naturally, the Huffington Post, as part of its we-know-where-our-bread-is-buttered program, weighed in with a piece blasting my critique of the Drug Policy Alliance written by – surprise – some guy from the Drug Policy Alliance.  I guess Sting’s daily tantric hoe-down was too important to interrupt for him to have one of his minions write a column for him.  In any case, the thrust of it seemed to be that I didn’t criticize Rush Limbaugh, which I guess is supposed to be is significant . . . somehow. 

And since none of that worked – I was unrepentantly responding both in the comments and on Twitter - then why not try some intimidation, since that seems to be the hot new tactic for frustrated leftists?

It came in the form of comments by Tony Papa, the ex-jailbird and designated drug war victim idolized by – and apparently employed by – the Drug Policy Alliance.  He is unhappy with me, possibly because I expressed little sympathy for the fact that he went to jail because he, well, committed a crime.  Writing as “tonypapa123,” he commented:

Kurt Schlichter you are a two bit shister (sic) laywer (sic) wannabe writer who confuses your mouth for your A-hole – attacking myself and others with rude remarks that have no substance other than making you look like the f—— A-hole that you are. I would like to meet you one day so I can really tell you how I feel about the piece you wrote in person scumbag – put that in ur (sic) comedy routine

Putting aside the creative spelling and disturbing anal fixation (he also called me an “asshole” twice in a two-line comment he added to the HuffPo piece), this seemed to me pretty clearly to be a veiled threat (You can make up your own mind).  Unable to let what I saw as a clumsy attempt at intimidation stand, I again broke my “no comment” rule to reply:

I may be a “two bit shyster lawyer wannabe writer” but I’m not a convicted felon.  So, convict, save your threats – you don’t wanna get in trouble with your parole officer.

At that point, it probably occurred to Mr. Papa that perhaps being a convicted felon transmitting via interstate electronic means what could be perceived as a threat in writing and in public was the same kind of criminal mastermind move that got him locked up for a dozen years over a $500 blow deal.  So the tap-dancing began:

shyster – its (sic) not a threat – I am just pointing out your good qualities as a human being – Read my book – “15 to Life” which is becoming a feature film – maybe I will give you the part as the shyster piece of crap lawyer that defended me and sold me out

His editor must have had his work cut out for him.  In any case, I enjoyed the segue from how he wanted to tell me “how I feel about the piece you wrote in person scumbag” to whining that his stint in stir for the crime he committed was all his lawyer’s fault.  I replied:

I’m glad you clarified it wasn’t a threat.  The Feds don’t like threats made across state lines.  I think you ought to read my 4-part comments and thoughts on the issue of legalization in the comments – my column focused on something else.   And I don’t do criminal law – I don’t like criminals.  But if I did, and if I defended you, and you did nothing wrong, I bet I would have won.  But if you participated in a conspiracy to distribute narcotics, well, you knew the price of admission to that show going in.  And if you did what the jury (or judge) thought you did, or what you pleaded guilty to, no one was going to be able to help you.

So, what does this episode teach us about our struggle?  The first thing is that the other side is clever enough to use wedge issues to try and divide natural allies.  Sure, it might seem like traditional conservatives have little in common with bong-hitting hemp fanciers and hardcore libertarians who think that coke ought to be on the Safeway shelf next to Coke because Ayn Rand would have thought so.  While we may have some dramatic disagreements on this point – though, if they would be a little less dogmatic and more rational in their approach to dealing with the very real costs of drug abuse they might get a more favorable hearing – they still have much more in common with us than with the nanny-state neo-socialists of the authoritarian Left. 

If the legalizers think the people trying to tell us how much salt and trans-fat we can scarf up will just sit back and let them Cheech and Chong themselves in peace, they are already high.

The second point is that there is a media network on the Left that attempts to leverage a sense of inevitability about their agenda into momentum for it. They do it about everything – here, it’s about legalizing drugs.  That false sense of inevitability about irresponsible mutations to our society needs to be punctured at every turn – a specialty of Big Hollywood and its brethren Big Journalism and Big Government.

The lesson:  Never – ever – allow them to seize the initiative.  Never – ever – allow yourself to believe you are beaten, no matter how uncool, unhip and unfashionable they try to make your traditional beliefs appear.  Finally, when they get desperate and make threats – and they will – you call them on it.  You can comment.  You can Twitter.  You can blog.  Regardless, engage in the battle, because, in the end, we only lose when we give up the fight.