As IF Times

link Violence In Movies — Who Will Stand Behind Harvey Weinstein?.

Often we will hear of an act of violence or crime committed in real life which will then be blamed on inspiration derived from  a movie.  Real life experience tells us that there are weak minds out there that will emulate almost anything that they see on TV or the big screen. The Jackass franchise is exhibit ‘A’. In defense of the ‘art’ however, the creators will claim that the depictions are only reflective of real life scenarios, therefore derivation, not causation.

This great fallacy exists even to this day despite ample evidence to the contrary.  Anybody who still thinks media has no knock-on effect on culture is probably a Japanese soldier resolutely hiding in the Philippine rainforest.

Sharp people in the entertainment business know that catering to the lowest and darkest elements of the human psyche is infinitely more lucrative than uplifting and sunny themed shows.   Literary history is rife with classic stories anchored in gruesome murders, beheadings and dismemberment, from Shakespeare to Beowulf to Poe.

In our time, Harvey Weinstein is one of the sharpest and most successful at catering to that appetite.  Much of his entire legacy and substantial fortune has been made off of such classics as Rambo, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill (vol. 1 and 2) and Reservoir Dogs.  Anyone familiar with such films knows that violence, especially glorified and stylized gun violence are major elements of the plots.  Certainly he’s not alone since for example the exaggerated violence depicted in the whole Zombie franchise and horror film genre also compete successfully for audience money.  But apparently, he’s had an epiphany on violence and guns and now doesn’t think that anyone should have guns.  This is as if Colonel Sanders were to announce that all of his restaurants would now be vegan. It’s as if Russ Meyers came out against breast implants.  It’s the same as Hugh Hefner preaching chastity or Michael Moore speaking out against forks.

Guns have been around a lot longer than Weinstein has  been glorifying their use.  In fact, the ability for citizens in the U.S. to possess firearms has a specific utility which is famously enshrined in their constitution.   His new found opposition to guns after amassing fortune and fame from depictions of their use is perhaps a tad disingenuous.  Many of the Hollywood action star set have made their marks as a result of  portraying  gun toting heroes, including noted peacenik Matt Damon.  In fact any promotional trailer for this season’s TV offerings invariably include someone holding a gun.  Moreover, for Weinstein to impose his views on gun ownership upon the entire nation and to attempt altering a fundamental constitutional mandate is particularly galling since depictions of glorified gun violence has been such a staple of his career.

It’s fine if Weintstein’s new direction in film production moves away from gun violence and towards dramas in which the plots surround people behaving badly and calling each other rude names.  Let’s see how that sells commercially.  Oh wait, we already have that model.  MSNBC.

link Chris Christie Fires Top Aide, Apologizes for Bridge Scandal – ABC News.

To many pundits, Chris Christie was a virtual shoe-in as the GOP presidential contender in 2016.  For some reason, he was seen as possessing the requisite balance of brashness and moderation that would enable the right to capture votes from the left.  The recent events involving the bridge scandal proves otherwise.  He hasn’t really learned how to play the game.

When revelations came out that the cause of a traffic jam on a bridge connecting New Jersey with New York was a direct result of orders originating from his office as some measure of political tit for tat, he was immediately contrite.  He stood before reporters, took responsibility and offered profuse apologies and then dismissed those that were purportedly responsible.  THAT’S NOT HOW IT’S DONE!

The correct way is to deny, stonewall, transfer blame and misdirect.

The first thing that should have happened was to deny that either he, his office, his relatives or close friends had anything to do with the scandal.  In fact, Christie should have denied even knowing about a bridge at all.  “What? A bridge? When did they build that?”

He could have stonewalled by assigning a personally selected investigative team to look into the root causes of the obstruction which would take 6 to 8 months to complete, at which time the comprehensive results would be reported to the public.  “Make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of this.” This report would conclude that statistically, traffic jams happened all the time and that global warming was the root cause of such incidents.  Only by increasing taxes would future obstructions be eliminated.

He should have transferred blame for the traffic jam by noting that the bridge had been built under a previous  administration and that he was only inheriting an existing mess.  Christie could point out that he was adamantly against traffic jams and had always voted against them.  He would of course soothe the concerns of the public by assuring them that despite the bottleneck, “if they like the bridge they can keep it.”  After the passage of a week’s time, if the press kept pushing for answers, he could invoke, “at this point, what difference does it make?”

Finally, he could have employed the classic political technique of deflection.  If the media persisted in questioning his involvement, he could play the fat card.  He could plant the notion that the only reason that he was being hounded on this issue was because of his weight.  This kind of persecution would not have happened if he weighed less than 400 pounds.  What does the press have against fat people? Sympathetic condemnations would come from obesity groups throughout the U.S. denouncing the persecution of the fat guy.  Even Michael Moore would come onside.  This demographic is not to be underestimated.  Forget the prized 18 to 54 age demo, think about the 18 to 54 pounds overweight demo.

If Christie has any presidential aspirations at all, he’d better learn to play the game properly.  Who’d have thought that he’d turn out to be a political lightweight?