Stones Cry Out

I think conservatives tend to get into more practical things than art. Poetry does not feed the poor or bring world peace. Liberals talk, conservatives do. That being said ...

I want a movie and can take my family to (Narnia / End of the Spear). I want a movie I can take my wife to (whatever romantic comedy). Occasionally, I want to see a movie where stuff blows up (Men in Black). I think this makes me ‘mainstream America’ – and yes, the Oscars have nothing for me. However, just because these people think they are important doesn’t mean we have to ‘engage’ them. No one will be watching the Oscar’s because no one watched those movies. They are marginalizing themselves into obscurity, a clone of some of the European film awards.

Brokeback Mountain looks like a crappy movie. I’ve not seen it and don’t believe I will. The scene they always show a a highlight shows two guys by a campfire on a riverbank. The river looks so fake that it is obviously dubbed in from a blue screen. I make more convincing stuff for my Sunday school class. It is getting awards simply because it is PC and over-hyped.

Powerful conservative or Christian art may open doors, but not at the Oscars. ‘The Passion’ was powerful art by any standard. Without it, we may never have got Narnia or End of the Spear. However, Hollywood fought it, the Oscars stiffed it, and mainstream America went in record numbers. I think Hollywood realizes they are out of touch with mainstream, but they don’t care. Powerful art doesn’t matter to them – only PC art.

The last sentence of your post has a certain degree of merit. I can't say that for the rest of your post.

I didn't think Narnia was that mediocre, but I agree that Cinderella Man was a greater movie. What a model of a real man-- passionately in love with his wife and his kids, uncompromisingly honest, and yet in no way was he arrogant, legalistic or holier-than-thou. He was simply REAL.
End of the Spear was another great movie, but it will have to wait until next year to get passed over by the mainstream media's belly-gazers.

I didn't think Narnia was that mediocre, but I agree that Cinderella Man was a greater movie. What a model of a real man-- passionately in love with his wife and his kids, uncompromisingly honest, and yet in no way was he arrogant, legalistic or holier-than-thou. He was simply REAL.
End of the Spear was another great movie, but it will have to wait until next year to get passed over by the mainstream media.

Honestly, I've never known the Oscars to represent mainstream America. I lost all faith in them the year "Babe" got nominated and "Usual Suspects" didn't. When their opinion happens to line up with mine, I consider it a coincidence (or bad judgment on my part ;-)

I just read this from the first comment: "I think conservatives tend to get into more practical things than art. Poetry does not feed the poor or bring world peace. Liberals talk, conservatives do. That being said ..."

That seems a pretty unfair thing to say. Art is empty talk? Liberals don't do anything practical? Conservatives don't do anything artistic, ever? I'd be insulted no matter which side I fell on.

I understand that you probably don't actually believe those generalizations - that when pressed you would qualify your statements more. I would just ask you to qualify them ahead of time before you accidentally start a flame war.

Thank you, Adam, for offering a voice of reason.

But you didn't like Babe?!!

The operative words in the first sentence was 'tend to'. I'm sure there are exceptions.

This is a response to Matt's call for more conservatives to get into art. I support the idea, but I wanted to explain why there is an inbalance. When I was at at university, I was torn between going into theater arts or engineering. The engineering department was full of conservatives. They were there to learn to build stuff and solve problems (what I call 'practical'). The theater arts department was full of liberals. They were there to 'raise awareness' of this or that. Ultimately, I went with engineering becauce I wanted to 'do' things to help the world. I have this need to feel I'm adding value to the macro economy of the world. Theater does not do this. This is when I realized that I was a conservative. My fellow conservatives in theater had a very hard time. They did not feel welcome, and most eventually changed majors. In contrast, the liberal minority in engineering were never chastised by the conservatives.

I keep having to remind myself that I shouldn't be surprised and baffled when Oscar overlooks worthy films like "Cinderella Man." No, I'm not surprised, but I'm ticked off. Whoever blogged that Hollywood is punishing Russell Crowe for throwing a cell phone is right. There is no way Crowe doesn't deserve to be on that list of Best Actor nominations. I will be doing anything but watching the Oscars that night.

Most great films and Oscar winning films have, to one degree or another, universal appeal. Just take a look at the list of winners, but from that list you can also tell that within resent times a film can be distilled down to a single social theme. Million Dollar Baby can be reduced to euthanasia if someone is so inclined. Every once in awhile social agenda films crop up.

The difficulty with this year is Brokeback Mountain seems to have been setup to win, and there are a number of other films which deserve the attention. I’m interested in Capote myself. But it looks as if agenda trumped an interesting story. And speaking of story, I plan on reading the short story Brokeback was based on . . . then I won’t have to see the movie.

Bruce, if you think that something doesn't qualify as art unless it involves an explosion or the brutalization of a religious figure, then you need to get out more. Ditto with regard to your idea that conservatives do more than liberals. My family has never met a conservative in any type of volunteer work we have engaged in. Also, as you may have guessed from our debate about evolution over Christmas, I'm a scientist. And I'd say about 95% of the scientists I've known are liberal, including MDs, who indisputably "do things to help the world". If you felt harassed by liberals in theater, then that is a sign that either you are too sensitive or theater people are too aggressive. Us liberal scientists don't harass our few colleagues who don't share our political beliefs.

I'm curious about one thing though. You seem to think that since the alleviation of war and world hunger have not been achieved by poetry, the arts have somehow failed. Perhaps you could explain how your chosen profession, engineering, has prevailed in that respect where art has not. While you are at it, perhaps you could explain why you dislike Brokeback Mountain even though you haven't seen it.

"My family has never met a conservative in any type of volunteer work we have engaged in"

That is funny since I have met very few liberals in the volunteer work that I have done, most of which involves direct interaction with the poor. Its also funny that all the scientists I know (most of whom are MDs or engineers, although a few are vets, biologists, and chemists as well) are conservative.

But then using personal anecdotes to describe very large groups of people is probably not a very scientific approach.

On the continuing debate about libs/conservatives making a difference: My wife is a social worker (as are a goodly number of my liberal friends - social workers, teachers, therapists, pastors, homeless ministers, bicyclists, environmentalists - hardly a one of them in a purely "for-profit" organization and all of whom are making a difference), and as someone who works with the poor and homeless, often gets volunteers.

In her experience, the volunteers come from a wide range of backgrounds, liberal and conservative and in between. But the conservative ones tend to come from "good" conservative churches, ie, ones that believe Jesus really would have us work with and for the poor.

Another interesting thing found amongst many social workers is the notion that many of these volunteers (I think especially the conservative ones, but that might be unfair) are doing the volunteering as much for themselves as they are for the needy - to get the spiritual high of helping. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, until it conflicts with actually helping. ("But the needy weren't truly thankful! Can't you arrange for me to work with people who are more grateful...")

In social work, this is known as Fair weather volunteerism (come around at Christmas time to "give a poor family some food," and then are gone until next christmas)...

For what it's worth.

Wow! Liberal vs. Conservative – which one volunteers more, and with more altruistic motives? Seems like a stupid argument to me (sincerly). I do know that the organization I volunteer through (Samaritan’s Purse) is mostly conservatives. When we go places to serve, the other groups there are also mostly conservatives. Almost always it is a foreign country, and usually dangerous. Nothing ‘fair weather’ about it for sure. This is how I’ve spent most of my vacation days over the last 5 years. Everyone I’ve helped has been grateful as well. If anyone wants to go with me on my next trip, let me know. When you question the motives of others who do good without knowing them or participating in the experience, you act out of ignorance.

I think it’s funny. Over at the ‘end of the spear’ web site, hateful liberals are demonizing missionaries (who are also often conservative). These missionaries don’t sacrifice just their vacation days, but their entire lives. They are on a different level than the list Dan gives. Most of us aren’t worthy to tie their shoes.

Dem, Engineering certainly helps feed the poor and improve the world in many ways. If you don’t understand that, you can’t be a scientist.

So if it's a stupid argument, then why join us in it? As I stated, my wife sees volunteers from all types.

I think a more salient point might be, as you indicate, Bruce, what are folk doing with their lives? Even moreso than their volunteer time.

You wanna take any guesses as to which philosophy tends to get in helping services as opposed to strictly money-making ventures? There are all sorts of missionaries, Bruce. Some are recognized by the church and others aren't.

I think the only point that Dem and I were making is to chastise your suggestion that liberals were dreamy do-nothings and conservatives were practical helpers. There are all types of people helping to make the world a better place and no philosophy has a lock on doing good.

I agree that arguing about which side is more altruistic is stupid, and I regret participating in that aspect of the debate. But come on Bruce, did you toss your grenade about do-nothing liberals and not expect to get an angry response from the other side? You just felt nasty and decided that attacking liberals without provocation would make you feel better. Now here is my response to most of what you said:

If you only meet conservatives when you volunteer, then it is probably because you are working with your conservative church group. There are LOTS of liberal organizations (including church groups) that help needy people. I suggest that you go to a random soup kitchen or homeless shelter in any city and ask how many people working there are conservative. I don't think you'll find too many.

As to my claim that most scientists lean left, I think my experience, which takes into account 4 academic institutions and one big pharma company, and the experience of my father, who has been a physicist for over 40 years, are very representative of the overall trend. As Pete correctly points out, these experiences are still based on anecdotal evidence. I can't prove my point, but I would argue that I am referring to large numbers of people my father and I have met through work, not through social or religious circles or motivated by our political persuasion. To bolster my case, here are excerpts from an article about the relationship between scientists and the GOP:

"Most scientists today do lean Democratic, just as most of the uniformed military votes Republican" and
"When asked... to define a Democrat, Bush's chief political strategist replied, 'Somebody with a doctorate.' ...Fundamentally, much of today's GOP, like Rove, seems to smirkingly equate academics, including scientists, with liberals."

If you want to read the many reasons why the GOP has alienated scientists you can find the whole article at:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.thompson.html

Also, I didn't "question the motives of others who do good". You on the other hand ignorantly dismissed Dan's list of samaritans without knowing how much they have helped other people.

Lastly, I never claimed that engineering doesn't help the world. Of course it does. All I said was that you were being pompous in asserting that engineering serves a purpose while art doesn't, and that liberals don't do anything worthwhile. So quit the cheap shots about not being a scientist. I didn't call your credentials into question when you couldn't support your aspersions about evolution. For my part I have a PhD from the number one program in the country in my field and I have done quite well for myself. Just as I am sure that you are a very good engineer.

And those with differing political viewpoints must be willing to create vibrant art that challanges that liberal status quo.

Complaining gets you nowhere. Powerful art will open doors that we cannot currently imagine.

That is absolutely right, but the rest of the post is nothing but an extended series of complainy cliches.

My wife is also a social worker, and it can be exhausting - for me! If you ever feel the same way, let me just say: Keep fighting the good fight, Dan.

FWIW, most of the people she works with are pragmatic liberals. The worst, by office-wide consensus, are idealistic liberals straight out of college. Again, FWIW, I work closely with non-profits, and from what I've seen it skews pragmatic liberal. Purely anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth.

Over at the ‘end of the spear’ web site, hateful liberals are demonizing missionaries (who are also often conservative). These missionaries don’t sacrifice just their vacation days, but their entire lives.

One can have good intentions and sacrifice a lot in furtherance of those intentions and still do ill if one is lacking in discernment. Mind you, I'm not at all saying that missionaries do ill (I'm sure they don't) - I'm just pointing out that sacrifice and good intentions are not sufficient for actually doing good.

NO ONE here mentioned Walk the Line? It's about Johnny Cash & June Carter-Cash. In real life those 2 were true soulmates.
Joaquin Phoenix & Rees Witherspoon were fantastic. Both are Oscar Nominated for their performance.