So I am not sure I support people calling for him to be removed from the
superman project however I do wonder if Mr bennett understands the difference
between private citizens deciding to not support and express their opposition to
(also free speech) to another private citizens views and McCarthyism which was
the government taking steps to silence those they disagreed with through the
force of law. There really is a vast difference on the first hand he may be
removed from this private funded project but continues to retain his right to
free speech and in the later people where forced into silence by the government.
It seems like the exteme left always has an excuse for their intolerance and
hypocritical behavior, and how they treat others.I wich the qwriter
had bothered to give a correct history of the the commitee that was
investigating unamerican activities,and how unfairly mcarthy was
treated, hollywood had very loud voice and essentially rewrote history.The real truth is the committee was started by a democrats, and McCarthy
later took lead when the republicans took control of congress.And
history has vindicated McCarthy, it was NOT about attacking and silencing
opposing voices as hollywood left would like you to believe,but
about communist infiltration which history has proven to be true.But
I guess we should not care about preserving the constitution, our
constitutional government and the amercan way, or even true history.
Mr. Bennett makes the following claim:“Hollywood features a
wide spectrum of ideological diversity, from ultra-left-wing to
ultra-ultra-ultra left-wing,...”He obviously is in error and
just being perhaps a little facetious. One “ultra” is probably a
valid observation, but a triple “ultra” is shall we say, “out
of sight”.I would offer one observation of
“Hollywood”. They have made dozens of movies rightfully vilifying
Nazism and their crimes. However “Hollywood” has been close to zero
when it comes to movies that should rightfully vilifying Communism and their
crimes. The body count for both totalitarian movements runs into the tens of
@truth"Communist infiltration which turned out to be true? "
really? Based on what?
@GeorgeBased on the declassified information from the Venona project
which broke the code on some Soviet communications.The decrypts show
the U.S. and other nations were targeted in major espionage campaigns by the
Soviet Union as early as 1942. Among those identified are Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg; Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White, the second-highest official in
the Treasury Department; Lauchlin Currie, a personal aide to Franklin
Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin, a section head in the Office of Strategic
@tolstoy: The Hollywood "blacklists" were private individuals refusing
to hire communist sympathizing actors and writers. It was not government
suppressing speech. Thus, Bennett's comparison is spot on.
I think Mr. Bennett just realized what the Left is about. They are about free
speech, as long as you agree with theirs.Just look at all of the
people that the liberals have tried to destroy because they simply disagreed
with liberal policies.Unfortunately, we have elected those same
liberals to run this country.
This isn't a blacklist by any means. It is negative press and grassroots
activism. This is very well publicized. The Hollywood blacklist was an unspoken
agreement and was maintain by the Hollywood Oligarchy.Above all
else, it was the artist who stepped away, not the company.A weak and
ignorant comparison by any means.
Bennett, please… And the emasculation of conservatives
continues as they keep skipping down the road of victimization – which is
all the more ironic given their long history as the victimizers. Cue the
violins… And Tolstoy and Mukkake are correct – citizens
openly and publicly voicing opposition (the polar opposite of the McCarthyism)
is what a free society is all about. All this caterwauling sounds like little
more than sour grapes for being on the wrong side of a national conversation.C’mon conservatives… man up!
I am very concerned about young families...
Bennett: "...forcibly expelled from the public arena ...demand that he be
silenced, banished and utterly destroyed..."I sense a bit of
hyperbole here. I doubt that any of Card's critics are really going this
far. However, the death threats to the Dixie Chicks after a single mild
political statement were real, as were the canceled concerts, loss of CD sales,
and lost livelihood. They, too, were expelled from the public arena and
silenced in the name of political correctness gone amok. I hope that Mr.
Bennett will be equally impassioned in castigating their critics.Nice that Mr. Bennett calls Pogo to his defense, but Walt Kelly was quite
liberal and despised McCarthyism. He satirized McCarthy with his appropriately
named character Simple J. Malarkey-- and received threats to his own livelihood
as a result.Dunk us all in bowls of barley! Friday the 13th falls
on a Wednesday this month.
Well written Mr Bennett.
Jim Bennett. That was a slam dunk. Amen.
"Card’s critics call him hateful and intolerant, and then they
hatefully and intolerantly demand that he be silenced, banished and utterly
destroyed."No, actually, we don't demand anything of the
sort. We simply feel it's grossly inappropriate for someone who lies with
such vitriol about people doing no demonstrable harm and serves on the board of
an organization attempting to deny such people equal treatment under US law, to
be chosen to write a story about the iconic character Superman who represents
'truth, justice and the American way.' And many of us won't make
purchases that will contribute to his efforts in this regard, which is well
within our rights to do, and to suggest others do. This entire article is highly
disingenuous; Card and his ilk aren't the persecuted here -- they're
It bears repeating -- McCarthy was a **Senator** and his hearings had the force
of the government behind them. In stark contrast, the outcry against OSC is from
private citizens. BIG difference there.Also, OSC has done much more
than simply speak out against homosexuality. Card has actually **advocated the
overthrow of the federal government** over the issue of gay marriage. He said -- and I'm quoting here -- that "marriage has only one
definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I
will act to destroy that government and bring it down", and he means to do
that "by whatever means is made possible or necessary. . . .".Notice he doesn't say "vote the bums out" or "impeach the
crooks" -- this man is explicitly advocating insurrection against the duly
elected federal government. I think that's worth a little bit
of outcry, don't you?
McCarthy was, indeed, a senator. But the blacklist came from private employers.
Hollywood executives, like Card's critics, want to deny their opponents the
right to make a living. The analogy fits.As for the "violent
overthrow" of the government, that's precisely what the Communists of
the 1950s advocated, and in terms and practice far broader than Card's
overheated rhetoric on one occasion.Bennett nails it.
@Jerseygirl --"But the blacklist came from private
employers."That's not quite true. The blacklist originated
with the "Hollywood Ten", who were blacklisted because they refused to
testify before HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee). It was *enforced*
by private enterprise -- but it originated from the hysteria fostered by
McCarthy and his cronies, including HUAC and the California Senate's Tenney
Committee. Additionally, the list was fuelled as much by innuendo, rumor, and
hysteria as it was by statements or activities of those blacklisted. In fact,
the "Hollywood Ten" were on the list because they REFUSED to make
statements.In contrast, Card's detractors have nothing to do
with government -- and their attacks on Card are based on his very public
statements and activities, not on his silence. There is no rumor or innuendo
about them. His words and actions are available for everyone to see, and there
are NO government forces telling anyone to ban Card from anything.Further, Card's statements and activities are aimed at attempts to DENY
civil rights to an entire class of citizens -- while those on the blacklist were
usually only guilty of invoking their own rights to "take the Fifth".Very different situations!
If people think the far right is intolerant just wait and see how bad it gets
once the far left gets more power. Progressives, not true liberals, hate those
who are different than they are. Study the movement and you will see it. A lot
of liberals have been duped by the progressives, but really they don't have
much in common other than the enemy of my enemy is my friend. My liberal friends
are very good people but some how have been fooled into believing many of the
progressive ideals that they once despised in the right. Real liberals are kind
and open minded people. If you are open minded you will try to see
another's point of view and if you want to shut up anyone who thinks
differently than you, well you are not open minded. These groups may fool
themselves and others but a reasonable person will see right through it. The bad
thing is it seems with have less and less reasonable people these days.
The "left" is very quick to label anyone who disagrees with them
"haters." By the same token, the far right uses the same tactic. It is
discouraging that there cannot be serious discussions in the public square
(define that as you will) without one side or the other jumping up with an
ever-present verbal label maker.
Try being a non-right wing Bensonite Mormon or heaven help you, a Mormon
Democrat, and you will know what blackballing truly is. Good for Brother Card
for doing what he believes is right, and being willing to take the consequences
of that (I assume), for good and bad. We should all have that much integrity
and willingness in our convictions--and be willing to listen to all sides with
kindness. I wouldn't have joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints if I hadn't been "open minded," which is part of my
political moderate-ism; in other words having varying opinions on issues not in
line with any (idiotic & mostly unfit to govern) party on everything. I do
what I think is right and if I lose my job or the admiration of others, so be
it. Oh and let's talk about the extreme harassment by the right of
politicians willing to explore background checks & other measures to keep
them from crazy people!
To make this a legitimately apples-to-apples comparison, I, a liberal, would
stand up and call out their abuse of power if Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein
were to attempt to legislate away Mr. Card's ability to accept such
employment. But, as a consumer within a free market, I also think it
valuable for me to stand up and say to my local comic book store that I will not
purchase such work and they should stock it accordingly and to also point out to
DC Comics that employing an individual who is so intolerant of gay marriage that
he encourages revolution if it should become the law of the land undermines the
tolerance and acceptance they've fostered in their recent Green Lantern
The freedom for gay couples to live together and share their material existence
through contracts, powers of attorney, wills, trusts and deeds is already there.
The domestic partner laws in many states have made that even easier. The
difference between domestic partnerships and "marriage" for homosexual
couples is that marriage is formal government blessing stating that their
relationships are fully as deserving of government intervention as that of a
typical marriage between male and female, and the primary consequence is to
empower government to punish anyone who does not that declared equivalence.
Same sex marriage is not about the freedom of gay couples to live as they wish,
but about their ability to punish people who do not agree with their viewpoint.
It is inherently a project of intolerance against people who believe in
traditional marriage as being the core of human society, usually on the basis of
I knew Scott back in the early 90s and spent a few days with him and his family
as a guest at his home and I could easily see that he came to his views with
passion, intelligence and faith. I first heard of him not through
his writing but through an early 1980s tape recording of a college lecture he
gave where he played the role of a Secular Humanist Minister. He blasted the
religious rights assault on evolution. He was funny and brutally cutting on the
rights views on anti-intellectualism. The first law of secular humanism was;
"Thou Shalt Think" he preached. For the record, I do not
remotely agree with his political or religious beliefs (I'm an atheist and
very liberal in my politics). Because he works to promote those beliefs in his
circles - he is no different than anyone else doing the same in their circles.
Just because we have divergent views does not make him (Or anyone else for that
matter) a bad person or his fiction any less entertaining. His views were not
frivolously formulated but came about with years of introspection. Which is how
it should be for anyone.