MILNET Opinion
 Hollywood's Fictional Attack - Caution, Traitors at Work, Updated July 2005

Last year, I stopped watching one of my favorite shows.  I had been watching because I liked the charming Military lawyer and the interaction between him and the very strong Marine officer who also just happened to be a lady officer as well.  Equal in rank, equal in ability, and equal in strength of character.  As one Hollywood film said it, "you had me at hello."

However, I stopped watching JAG because the insight into the military legal strife had taken a slow and steady turn to both anti-war and anti-military plot lines.  I began to wonder if the network was leaning on the writers or if the writers were simply beginning to put their own bias into the show despite its origins as a lawyer show with the military twist. 


Cast of Boston Legal, ABC

I then remembered that Boston Legal began as a hard biting show about a morally corrupt lawyer who had an inkling of good intentions and certainly liked to tweak the nose of the U.S. legal system.  Then quickly that series began to tweak its nose at more than the legal system, it began to spout out fictional attacks on the Bush Administration, Donald Rumsfeld, and of course the military.  Nothing was sacred to those writers, and it occurred to me "These people really don't like America."  Was it simply anti-authoritarianism, or was it a deeper hatred of all things American?

Having written in the conservative vein for decades, I realized what I was seeing was more than a simple sea change in topics on both series.


David James Elliott
and Catherine Bell
CBS's J.A.G.

To further that realization, I have begun watching JAG again as this season began its repeat cycle.  And it has become even more clear.  By attempting to show balance, the producers have "Harm" (the tall charming naval aviator who also happens to be a very good Navy lawyer) usually supporting the serviceman, and the more sensitive and lately a lot more liberal minded "Mac" (the dark haired Marine lady lawyer that is easily his best opponent) advocating "the military is out of control and wrong" attitude. 

In the military there is the notion of silent insubordination.  Senior NCOs tend to get away with it, and yes, even a Lt. Colonel might. But only because they are usually in teaching mode -- even to senior officers.   However, "Mac" has gone past the line so many times, it seems not only unnatural but destructive to her career.  This is fiction remember, so it's okay, right?  Maybe not.

Having established the character assaults veiled in the attitudes of the two characters on JAG, I went back and looked at the topics of the cases.   A few years back, the edgy line in the series was marked by a young medical officer who found herself in dire straits for helping middle eastern people who turned out to be suspects in aiding terrorists or insurgents.  And there was the young soldier, the daughter of a flag rank officer who, after being separated from her unit, became the wife of a middle eastern tribal leader who later turned out to be suspected of helping terrorists.

These plot lines clearly spelled dissension in the ranks and the "from the world headlines" approach to many television series plots might lead one to believe that yes, American soldiers are defecting or being punished for being sensitive to the needs of people who also might be terrorists.

This last two seasons introduced us to even more distasteful "from the headlines" stories.  Unfortunately, the headlines being promulgated never occurred.  For instance, in one episode, three Army guards at Guantanimo are accused of beating nearly to death an Army agent put into GITMO as  a training exercise, because the three thought the fellow was a "high value" prisoner and wanted high value information from him.

Another episode had a young Marine Sergeant taking a U.S. Senator into Sadr City to demonstrate to the "civilian" how tough things really are, including heavy emphasis on low numbers of body armor, inadequate armor for Humvees, and the uncontrolled environment in and around Baghdad.  The civilian, of course, is killed and the Sergeant, in a fit of righteous anger says something to the effect, "Maybe I did want him to see how it REALLY is over here."  As if CBS, that paramour of truth and justice really knows "how it really is" over in Iraq.  If we are going to write fiction, then let's maybe write in Dick Durbin?  Now's there's a plot I can get into to!

The point of this long winded lead-in to this opinion piece is simple.  When the liberal community cannot find what it wants in the real world, they turn to fiction to make their points.  Time and time again.  If they are not making up history and pretending it is real, or conveniently forgetting actual history, then they go all out and use the fictional channel.

The idea is not a new one, and actually is not a bad one.  We want writers to take on the controversial, and we want edgy entertainment.  Issac Asimov and Robert Heinlein, two of the world's most popular science fiction pioneers, rejoiced in making us look at the future with wonder and yes even fear.  As a computer scientist, I told myself "Never lose control of the power plug", all because of Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 and Asimov's I Robot.  Or that not so charming tale called the Forbin Project, where Colossus the computer got together with its Soviet counterpart and took over the world.  "Never lose control of the power plug" is an idea dealing with artificial intelligence -- if you can't turn it off, it is far too independent for human safety. That notion came from Science Fiction, not from any computer science class or commercial training.  Which is unfortunate, every would be computer scientist needs to be taught this axiom -- especially those in artificial intelligence.

So Hollywood, in their angst over "Bush's War", have decided to go "balls out" and lay on the anti-war, anti-military and anti-Bush propaganda.  This war was declared by conservatives like myself when we lambasted Hollywood for their liberal portrayal of just about everything in our world as if they are not only the norm, but SHOULD be the norm.  Sorry, Hollywood, your excesses are not how half the nation wants life to run.

In any case, this latest set of attacks from the left are so close to World War II propaganda, it is breathtaking.  Talk about spin!  And of course, by our calling into question their particular bias, there will be the harsh cry claiming attempts at censorship.  When asked if Star Wars had an anti-war theme, even the guy on the outside, George Lucas pointed out that IF there was a bias in his film making, it came from the times when the original writing took place -- thoughts of the Vietnam War perhaps sneaking into his work. That does not explain much about how a 2004-2005 project like Star Wars would still contain that bias...come on George, admit it, even if you hate much of the Hollywood distribution and studio like mentality, you are still a flaming liberal.

The danger in all this should be obvious.  The news media is certainly liberal biased.  Any conservative balance, no matter how slight will be perceived as "administration bias" or "acting as the propaganda machine for the Administration" just as was proclaimed on the floor of the U.S. Congress.  That is panic my friends.

The problem is journalism itself.  The finer tenets of that profession scream for balance and resisting bias.  However, the facts are that most every college offering journalism courses teaches them in the liberal mode.  Students are taught to tenaciously attack the status quo, ask the questions no one will asks, challenge authority. Find the sensitive side and weep for the downtrodden. The Government lies and the police are always bad.  This comes from the notion that the government needs the journalist profession to keep them on the straight and narrow, as if the Constitution expressly made "the media" part of the nation's checks and balances. 

"Ah Ha!" comes the cry.  There are amendments that speak to that very issue.  Freedom of the press IS a tenant of our constitution.  And so it is.  The press provides a non-governmental balance to the governmental checks and balances.  However, journalism training fails to point out that the First Amendment is for citizens, not the press as if it were an institution recognized by the constitution.  Like those who want to erase religion from our lives, the journalists appear to want to erase duty and responsibility from their profession.

Excuse me, but JAG and Boston Legal are not in any way, shape or form, to be confused with the press.  They are examples of fictional entertainment.  Their crimes are their own.  But it has also become quite clear that the lines between entertainment and the press have gone way past a partial blur, all the way into free exchange of principles.

So what's the gripe, Crawford?  It's fiction.  It's entertainment.  Well excuse me, but these programs have impact.  As propaganda, they are marvelous.  Whether it is JAG or CBS News.  They have impact. They reach into the living rooms of millions of Americans and slowly, somewhat effectively, and over time, are planting the seeds of the liberal perversion. 

I love to watch the crazy man portrayed by William Shatner.   He used a personal weapon to shoot a bad guy for god sakes, how can that character be so awful?  Of course, in comes Women's Rights Advocate extraordinary' as the silent but now active partner in Boston Legal's almost laughable office structure.  Hey, Candice Bergan and what's his name are fine actors.  But if I want to watch Bush bashing, I'll just tune in to the U.S. Senate and watch them chew on Generals, the Secretary of Defense, Condy Rice, or anyone else that happens to believe winning the War on Terrorism means we don't coddle prisoners in GITMO or dare to suggest war is a necessary evil.

So why the fictional attacks when Congress is ready to provide Al Jezzera with all the propaganda it needs? 

Because there is yet another war going on, folks.  It is the war of ideals.  Ted Kennedy wants you to believe that not only is the U.S. in a Vietnam era like quagmire in Iraq, but that we should immediately pull our soldiers out and let Iraq be overrun by Zarqawi and his friends.  Or become the new Lebanon to the East.  Do the American people believe this today?  Of course not.  But Ted is hoping to win a few over to his way of thinking.  He sounds so reasonable sometimes.  Too bad he distorts the truth so badly and ignores history and his own dismal track record.

Nancy Pelosi wants you to believe that social security will be just fine, we have plenty of time to fix it and oh by the way, the liberals are the only ones who know how to fix a broken socialist program.  There could be some truth in that -- the liberals may have an advantage when it comes to social security.  After all they are the best damned socialists in the nation. They have been trying to fix up failed social programs for decades.  Oh, never mind they have yet to succeed.  Whoops, sorry, Franklin didn't think to tell us way back then that the baby boomers were coming even though sociologists predicted that very result after years of war.  By the way, sixty years from now, we will be facing yet another baby boomer generation retiring.  Yes, folks, if we don't fix social security right now, and do it well, we'll be in this same situation in 2069.  Get a clue!

If you don't believe conservatives are at war with the liberals, then turn on the TV. You have the legislative branch stabbing each other in the back on a daily basis, and you have the front-runners for election in 2006 and 2008 already beginning their campaigns (this is 2005 right?).  How about a Congressman verbally stabbing Bill O'Reilly on the floor of that august chamber?  Our old friend Dirkson is rolling in his grave.  Dirkson believed in the fine art of oratory.  He'd stab you in the back and you'd say thank you.  He used intellect and facts.  He used words like sabers when necessary and salve when desirable.  Even LBJ was a careful speaker for the most part.  He was also one of the best in the political business. Durbin is no LBJ,  and certainly no Dirkson.

The war of ideals is about hammering home the liberal ideals from every direction.  Soap operas have been proclaiming all that is ugly about human nature for decades.  Nothing new there.  But when Congress starts acting like Days of Our Lives, and oh my God, the Presidency?  The last decade HAS seen a sea change.  Hollywood can only attempt to match reality in that sense.  But that doesn't stop them from pitching their point of view.  Day in, day out.  No wonder the liberal establishment is so damned angry at Fox News.  As if Murdoch is standing in the control room yelling in O'Reilly's ear!  And Bush is pulling Murdoch's strings.  As if anyone can pull on Murdoch -- give me a break!

The war of ideals is about fear.  The liberals are deathly afraid of Fox News not because of a bias there.  They are afraid of what its popularity really means.  Americans are tired of the liberal propaganda machine in print, and entertainment.  And when that bias spills over from entertainment into news reporting, the public outcry is horrendous.  The list of "oops" in the last year is a litany of bias rejection by the American public.  From the New York Times to Newsweek.  Dan Rather can tell you how quickly your popularity can change in the News business.   When news reporting can be directly linked to deaths, then it becomes time to focus on legislating control of an out of control profession.

Unfortunately, this war at home is having a nasty effect elsewhere.  Durbin's comments were available in the Middle East within minutes. One military visitor to MILNET said to us in email from the Middle East, "What the hell is that all about?  Doesn't he understand how this crap hurts us?  Doesn't that S.O.B. have a clue about Morale?  God, Osama couldn't pay enough to get that kind of free propaganda.  Zarqawi is cackling with glee!  We have to stop this diarrhea of the mouth -- someone is going to get killed!  And it might be me or one of my buddies!"

Debate is useful.  Dissension is important.  But understand this.  Public officials MUST carefully choose their words.  It is a normal political responsibility, and when we have men and women actively and daily engaged in combat, we not only HAVE TO choose our words more carefully, not to do so is TREASON.  We cannot repeat that enough.  Aiding and providing comfort to the enemies facing our soldiers is a crime.  It does not matter if you hold office in the Legislative branch,  or you are reporter in Tracy, California.  It is a civic duty to choose your words carefully. 

That also goes for Hollywood. Do the Hollywood folks forget that many people in this world have trouble distinguishing TV drama from reality?  Don't they understand that many in the middle east look at Hollywood's output and point to it as if it were real?  And do you think it helps the woman's movement to have a lady Marine officer routinely offer silent insolence? 

Newer generations may not have a clue as to what Hollywood is up to. They didn't watch the media and entertainment blitz during the Vietnam War.  This Internal American propaganda really works.  Unfortunately, with today's global media environment, it works all too well overseas too. 

When you abuse your rights, you offer the opportunity for those who already dislike your abuses to find a way to limit those rights further.  Hollywood and certain members of Congress are offering the best examples of why unchecked freedoms will lead to the destruction of our nation.  The "anything goes crowd" have no concept of the consequences of their actions.  They inflate their egos and ignore their partisanship all in the mythical journey to what they believe is the truth. Unfortunately, they can no longer see the truth, can no longer distinguish between willful desire and necessity. Is it necessary for a long time leader in Congress to ask the Secretary of Defense to resign? (Ted Kennedy's words were more to the effect of "Don't you think it is time you resigned?").

Is it necessary for Karl Rove to accuse Liberals of defending the 9/11 terrorists? Look, I can prove a large number of liberal speakers and news outlets began publishing "we must understand why we deserved it" pieces within weeks of 9/11, so I happen to agree with Mr. Rove.  But was it necessary for him to take that over-the-top shot at liberals? No. He is, after all, a public official.

Is any of this bickering necessary?  No, not at all.   In fact, if the last year of squabbling between conservative and liberal government officials never happened, the world would be much better off.  We are not helping ourselves here. We, the American People.  Our leaders are damaging our nation.  They are hurting the morale of our soldiers, and they are screwing up our ability to offer freedom to other nations.   And they are screwing up are ability to overcome international terrorism that threatens to return to our shores as soon as we let our guard down again.  What they are doing is showing the ugly side of Democracy.  The "you are free to make an ass of yourself" part of our freedoms is not a pretty sight.  There are probably some newly freed people in Iraq wondering if maybe these Americans are not a little asinine.

Please worry.  It's coming.  We are helping Al Qaeda build the case for their next attack.  Durbin and Kennedy probably created a thousand new terrorists in just a few days.  The Koran story by Newsweek we know killed people . When will the liberal juggernaut stop feeding the nut cases and return to real politics?  When are we going to hear a real plan from the liberal side for any number of issues.  Where are the intellectual elites in the Democratic Party? Pelosi, Boxer, Reed, Kennedy, and Durbin are certainly not intellectual elites.  Hillary?  Give me a break. 

What we need from the Democratic party is thoughtful, rationale, and effective solutions.  Nothing is better for the American dream than real and effective competition. Conservatives welcome useful and real debate. Let's hear some ideas.  Let's hear some plans that don't take more money out of the American wage earner's pocket.  Until we see those ideas, conservatives will continue to shake their heads. If you cannot solve something without raising taxes, don't bother to come to the fight.

This is a food fight and it is getting us nowhere.  The liberal "speak and sound reasonable" approach to debate is a very effective tool.  However, when the gist of the speaking is trash, it only serves to set democracy back.  When people are starving, only willful spoiled children toss meals around.

You don't like war?  Fine, your privilege.  Point to cases where diplomacy has actually worked with tyrants and murders, and let's discuss them. Unfortunately, the rare successes are far outweighed by the failures.

It would be nice if we didn't have to have our military in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Unfortunately, the naive wishful thinking that our efforts in Iraq are a waste of American lives and money is simply that.  Wishful thinking.  Like a spoiled child, the liberals in the world are whining because the world is not meeting their expectations.  

We played nice and the bully whacked us good in the head.  And the liberal playground monitor is berating us for responding with a whack of our own. In a perfect world, violence is not the answer.  In the real world, we occasionally have to demonstrate our will and backbone by taking on the bully.  And in my book, every voice that whines about that effort not only subverts the will of the American people, it gives our enemies strength.

There will come a time when an American soldier will pay for Durbin's and Kennedy's abuse of their power.  I firmly believe that their insane political agenda has moved them to commit treason.  In my perfect world, they would be impeached and then tried for treason.  It might do the world some good to see a traitorous U.S. Senator hung by his privates for all the world to see.  It would do wonders for my morale.

Next let's see if Hollywood's writers and producer's abuse of their first amendment rights have not also made them accessories to the murder of U.S. soldiers.  It is too bad that the use of disemboweling has fallen to such ill repute.  I think it sent a very clear message to would be abusers.  Oops. There I go -- I didn't choose my words carefully. Do remember, however, that I like the idea of torture warrants.  Hanging by the privates or disemboweling don't seem to bad in that context -- especially with convicted felons where the evidence is anything but circumstantial. Imagine a criminal volunteering to commit his crime with camera's watching from many angles.




© Copyright 2005, Michael Crawford for MILNET