In 2002 a group of Hollywood stars met to discuss ways to protest the war in Iraq. The meeting took place in a private swanky home, only an hour or so after President Bush took to the airwaves to announce the commencement of the military conflict.

The group — called themselves Artists United to Win Without War — with merry huckster members Susan Sarandon, Ethan Hawke and Jessica Lange speaking out from the east coast. The Grand Poobah of this rank and file of brilliant geopolitical-analysts was none other than Rob Reiner. The rest of the troops were made up by Sally Field, Blythe Danner, Christine Lahti and husband Thomas Schlamme (director of The West Wing), MASH star Mike Farrell, Dharma & Greg’s Mimi Kennedy, Bradley Whitford and then wife Jane Kaczmarek, writer/director Audrey Wells, producer Robert Greenwald, actress Fionnula Flanagan, TV stars Lindsay Wagner, Daniel Benzali, Sharon Lawrence, David Clennon and rising star Troy Garity, the son of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden. (This group has grown to over 140 members.) It was announced at the event that the Barbra Streisand Foundation was donating $5,000 to keep the group going. I assume the donation was for the Russian beluga and Crystal served to these wealthy Democrats by the Venezuelan help on loan from Hugo Chavez.

It is in the very heart of Hollywood, as misguided and self-serving as it is, to march in the streets, to make movies about their positions, and to yell like banshees: “War is not the answer!” The problem with Hollywood celebrities shouting anti-war babble is their inability to ask the question, “Without war, where would Hollywood be?”

Make no mistake, Libya is a war. It is the same war as the one fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. When you break something, bomb something, or kill someone it is war — and you own it. Libya is the next phase of the same war. This triptych wars first brush stroke came in 2002 at the hands of President Bush because he knew something the left could not grasp: people everywhere want to be free of oppression first and foremost.  That spirit of wanting to be free has now spread like a holy fire throughout the Middle East and into the lap of Hollywood liberals who now sit in silence.

Hollywood’s ruling class of totalitarian liberals cannot choose which war they protest simply because the soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations has put their man in office and the world has now placed him behind the gun.  If Hollywood groups like Artists United to Win Without War want to be taken seriously and respected for their anti-war positions they must be consistent. They cannot say this war in Libya is humanitarian. After all, Kurds were being slaughtered in Iraq and women had been treated like animals for hundreds of years in Afghanistan. Hollywood cannot choose what war kills people and what war saves people. Because all war does that, that is its purpose.

Without war Hollywood has no stories to tell, no actors to play pretend hero, and no special effects to blow up balsa-wood worlds. Without war Hollywood liberals have nothing left to fight, and when liberals have nothing left to fight, they have a hard time finding something to live for. Peace is the mirror that walks in front of them that they dread so much. They need war to say, “We are better than that which we do not understand.”

Today, the only group of anti-war Hollywood liberals meeting to discuss the war in Libya are those looking for an angle on how to produce pro-war movies in the name of Commander and Chief Barack Obama. When war breaks out and Democrats are in the White House, Hollywood liberals become warmongers by remaining silent to a cause they acted so passionate about when Bush was in office.

This raises a couple of questions.  The first is, “Who is Mathew Marsden?”  Well, he was an up-and-coming young English singer and actor with athletic roles in Rambo and Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen.  Which leads to the second question – why would writer Jackson Williams be so giddy about the revelation that Marsden apparently does not hew obediently to the Hollywood left’s party line?

Well, it sure isn’t because he’s interested in giving Marsden’s career a boost.  Like the grinning little snot in every elementary school class who gets off on the high of narc-ing out the other kids to the schoolmarm, Jackson’s purpose was to tattle to every producer, agent, actor and other Hollywoodoid that Marsden had been a bad, bad boy.  He exercised his right to think for himself. Maybe Jackson should wear a sash:  “Political Hall Monitor.”  But it’s clear that his article is simply a nomination of Marsden for a spot on the New Hollywood Blacklist.

And what is Marsden’s alleged thoughtcrime?  Well, since Jackson’s “reporting” appears to be based solely on his reading of some newspaper articles, and because Jackson never bothered to ask Marsden anything, it’s difficult to tell.  It appears the actor was a guest of a “sneaky” “conservative” “outfit” called the Council for National Policy that was “smoked out” when it held a “secret, far-right conclave” in an Austin hotel.  We know it’s “sneaky” because its website fails to provide all of the information Jackson thinks it should, though having a public website would seem to be the opposite of “sneaky.”  For that matter, having its event in a public hotel seems to be the opposite of “secret.” 

In any case, you really don’t need to know any more than the fact that it appears that some evangelicals are involved.  Case closed.   To the keepers of the New Blacklist, evangelical Christians are clearly agents of the antichrist, mostly because they believe in Christ.  Or something like that.

Jackson’s particular bugaboo seems to be the kind of “lunatic” who spews “right-wing screeds,” and for this he cites Pat Boone and Chuck Norris.  If you’re wondering what kind of screeds these are, well, some seem to be “anti-gay.”  I guess Jackson is referring to those who support traditional marriage – you know, like the majority of the American people and our President.   Or perhaps he is referring to those with belief in a Creator, a belief he labels “creationism” – you know, like the belief shared by the majority of the American people and our famously Christian President. 

Marsden’s purported embrace of the same values and beliefs of most Americans and our President apparently somehow has the effect of placing him far outside the mainstream.   Of course, to the New Blacklisters, the mainstream consists solely of a few thousand Hollywoodoids dwelling in the 310 area code.  Well, maybe some folks in the 212 qualify too – you know, for diversity.

Nothing in Jackson’s article – which, after all, is just a summary of someone else’s reporting – offers any explanation of why Marsden might be less than thrilled to have his political beliefs publicized.   Maybe he doesn’t feel like he wants to impose his views on his fans.  Maybe he feels he should learn more before speaking out.  Or, I dunno, maybe he doesn’t want a bunch of left-wing bigots indulging their prejudices and blacklisting him from future work because he dares think for himself.

Jackson’s big objection seems to be that Marsden doesn’t make a big public spectacle of his beliefs, which he seems to think makes Marsden liable for lefty animus.  Strangely, Jackson seems to argue that conservative animus toward Hollywoodiods who are not only public about their views but beat paying customers over their heads with them is misplaced.  So, the guy who quietly works for his beliefs – evil.  Loudmouth no-talents who stop their concerts to trash their country to paying customers or who prance about in North Vietnamese AA-gun emplacements –– well, they’re America’s greatest heroes. 

–

In my experience, there are three types of people in Hollywood.  There are a few smart ones.  Most of them had to work for success and have life experience in the real world that gives them a certain level of wisdom.  Then there are the ones who are dumb but think they are smart – mostly because they’ve been told they are awesome by sycophants and suck-ups like Jackson (Ms. Streisand and Ms. Sarandon, you are so “honest” and brave in your liberalism – can I come to the party now?).   And then there are the ones who are dumb and know it but don’t care because they are really good looking and rich to boot.

I can deal with the first and the third kind, and they are also the two types that do not go in for the New Blacklist nonsense.  They couldn’t care less about your political views as long as you do your job. 

It’s the dumb ones who impose lefty political litmus tests.  The dumb ones come in two types – people who just aren’t that bright to begin with and people who went to expensive, prestigious universities and therefore became dumb by buying into commie academic nonsense. 

The first kind tends to end up on camera pledging to be a servant to a politician.  The second tend not to know anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich and therefore buy into every negative stereotype about normal Americans that they come across on the HuffPost.   Alienating huge numbers of potential paying customers by attacking those few in Hollywood who share their beliefs is just bad business.  Jackson sneers at the “Left Behind” books in his article.  Hey, they aren’t my cup of tea either, but if a major studio made a movie out of one it would do Twilight-level box office.  Hollywood, there are a lot more evangelical Christians out there with nothing to spend money on at the multiplex than lonely teenagers pining away for emo bloodsucker sagas.

The New Blacklist barring those with dissenting views is particularly dumb in an age of technology that makes the old Hollywood-centric model of a single, monolithic entertainment complex increasingly untenable.  Pretty soon technology is going to make major motion picture studios obsolete.  Anyone will be able to make a professional movie.  Just look at Panic Attack, a robot invasion short some dude in Paraguay made for about 100 pesos, lira, shiny rocks or whatever they use for currency in Montevideo.   And the distribution system based on film stock will go the way of phrenology, buggy whips and popular faith in global warming as the next generation of movies is transmitted to theaters digitally.  In the past, the Hollywoodoids could maintain a blacklist because only they could make and distribute movies; tomorrow, the blacklisted will just go around them.

Now, not everyone in Hollywood with a political opinion is a fool.  The man who was arguably the greatest American of the last half-century was an actor – an actor who spent years in the political arena, developed and honed his views, and convinced his countrymen to elect him their president.  On the left, actors like Mike Farrell and Martin Sheen expose the silliest leftism, but there can’t be any doubt that they both have learned and developed expertise regarding their issues – they just got the issues completely wrong.  But their usual acting work is generally non-political, making it easy for fans to appreciate their craft while ignoring their views.  Hell, I’m even a huge fanof HuffPost columnist Alec Baldwin’s acting – in fact, he’s one of my top four favorite Baldwin brothers.

Here’s an idea.  It may not be so popular anymore but it seems due for a comeback.  It’s called freedom.  It’s the idea that people are free to say, do and think what they want without petty fascists trying to punish them for presuming to think differently.  Liberals used to believe in that – until they got the power to do the punishing. 

Hopefully, and despite Jackson’s best efforts, the revelation that Marsden dares to have opinions that many in Hollywood do not share will not harm his career.  There’s probably another Transformers movie on the horizon, and while I have no clue as to Michael Bay and his team’s politics, I do know they are HUGE supporters of our troops and therefore deserve the benefit of the doubt. 

By the way, Marsden himself is a big soldier supporter too, and he actually did a parachute jump with the U.S. Army’s Golden Knights (Airborne – all the way, Matt!).  Uh oh, I probably just moved him up the New Blacklist about twenty spots by revealing that he doesn’t hold our fighting men and women in sufficient contempt.  I can see his panicked agent now, nervously tugging on his Armani tie, telling his client, “Hey, Matt, you gotta get in front of this thing!  You gotta turn it around!  You gotta hug a Latin thug, burn a flag or maybe spit on a wounded Marine!   You do that and, well, I think I smell an Oscar!”

It can’t be accidental. Certainly there must be one celebutard who has an opinion on the debate. I long for a wonderful bit of wisdom from Sheryl Crow, perhaps a suggestion to save costs and the environment by washing and re-using band-aids.

Where is Barbra Streisand? Barbra has been noticeably absent from all political debate lately. Probably not coincidentally, she just released a new album. Perhaps her handlers advised Babs to tone it down; that her target audience is  composed primarily of senior sitizens now, a demographic that has a tendency to skew conservative and worry greatly about their health care. (The profit motivation is an  awesome force, strong enough to restrain torrents of wisdom from the Great Barbra Streisand.)

Even Mike Farrell, a frequent advocate of government health care, has been silent lately. Mike is a fortunate celebrity, whose name would be unrecognizable to anybody, if Wayne Rogers hadn’t stormed off the set of M*A*S*H 35 years ago. Farrell is still making an incredible living based on those eight years of work he did more than a quarter century ago; he gets a little bit of change every time you watch a re-run of M*A*S*H.

He is one of those who believes in a “right” to healthcare. The flaw in his thinking is that health care does not exist without the labor of others, and you have no “right” to the labor of others. I wonder if Mike Farrell believes that access to free reruns of M*A*S*H is a basic human right?

For instance, the people who developed the Viagra which helps Mike Farrell enjoy his M*A*S*H residuals, spent many long hours in a laboratory developing that medicine. I would suggest they worked more hours than Mike spent in his location trailer while his show was being filmed. The creators of  medicine are just as entitled to residuals as the creators of television. 

Is it related to need? A critic might suggest that medicine should be free since people need medicine to live, whereas television is only a want. But to me, that is more reason why it should be paid for.  People don’t like to do things for free.

My Grandma used to give me five bucks every time I cut her lawn. I felt guilty, and tried to refuse it because after all she was my Grandma. “You did me a big favor,” she insisted, “At least let me buy you a little beer.” (She had to know I was only sixteen, right?) Eventually I relented.

What my Grandma understood quite well was that a task unpaid for stops getting done. Sure enough, I would be over her house every Saturday, picking up a little beer money by mowing her lawn. I was young and energetic back then, and I probably could have found many different ways to spend those Saturday afternoons. If it was just for the love of Grandma I might have put the mow off for a couple of days. But because I wanted a twelve-pack of Carling Black Label, I was pushing a lawnmower around her yard every single Saturday afternoon in the Summer.

It is the same with medicine. The only reason why we have wonderful things like botox, chemical peels, laparoscopic bariatric surgery, liposuction, collagen injections, implants, steroids, anti-virals, and the vast array of anti-depressants that keep actors young, slim, shiny, and smiling on the red carpet is because people in the medical industry wanted a little extra beer money on Saturday night. Maybe actors have figured this out, and oppose the President on this issue for that very reason.

A comic friend once suggested that the second amendment should be viewed in its historical context, that the right to bear arms should only apply to the right to own the high technology of the 18th Century: flintlocks, muskets and blunderbusses. I suggest that if the Constitution suggests that Americans have a right to health care, that it also be taken in historical context. You have the right to bleedings, leaches and arsenic therapy; and unlimited access to the barber of your choice. Surgery will be paid for, but anesthesia is extra. 

Still interested, Mike?