FIRM - Discussions - Febuary 24, 2002

FIRM Discussions
February 24, 2002 - April 30, 2002

Does the Hollywood-based Motion Picture Industry Discriminate More Than Other Industries?

Open Letter to Studio Executives
James Jaeger
10:19 am friday february 24, 2002
Re-posted from misc.writing.screenplays NG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07 January 2002
Mr. Studio Executive
MPAA STUDIO/DISTRIBUTOR
Mickey Mouse Way
Hollywood, CA 90211
Dear Mr. Studio Executive:
For several years I have been arguing with a bunch of screenwriters over at misc.writing.screenplays who have way too much time on their hands. If you or your development executives were buying more of their screenplays, they would not be spending so much time posting mindless rants and arguing with all of the information in John Cone's new book, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD!, a free copy available at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm. I know you know all the stuff that's in this book's true, so please don't feel I am insinuating that you are THAT stupid. I'm not. :)
I also know that (unless you are aren't gay), you know that none of these writers are probably related to you, your wife, your mother, father or even your mistress (unless of course she ain't gay either :)) -- the point being -- that surely you could make an exception and give them a few development deals. ALL of what they have written can't be THAT bad. At least no worse than the "commercial" stuff you and your colleagues have been green-lighting over the past 90-some years. No? :)))
Many of these writers are even liberal, not very religious, white, JEWISH males of European heritage -- just like you no doubt. :)))) And no, I'm not anti-Semitic, just endlessly repeating what has been said by Neal Gabler and John Cones (because I don't have much of a mind of my own any more, thanks to all the arguing I'm forced to do with these languishing writers). Hey, I realize that some of the writers at misc.writing.screenplays might be women, African-Americans, Christians, white Southerners from the American South, Arabs, Conservatives, Hispanics and even Nazis, God forbid, but they COULD use a pseudonym and no one would even know that you hired them or optioned their screenplay. No? :))))) At the very LEAST you could give it a try -- maybe you might even find some originality here (in this chaotic bunch of apologists that, BTW, have been kissing your system's ass like there is no tomorrow). And it WOULD be a nice change from all the hackneyed, rotting crap you have been buying and putting out lately. Hey, just trying to be honest. :))))))
So please, if you won't buy any of MY company's screenplays, buy some of this NG's screenplays. These writers need a purpose to their lives, so they have something to do other than calling me names. One of them is so far gone he stated that his purpose was to 'make sure that anything I posted would not go unchallenged.' This is a total waste of human potential . . . but I know if you were to buy his screenplay you could somehow find a way to totally waste his potential many times over. Hey, just kidding. :)))))))
James Jaeger,
Producer/Director

The Problem Accelerated
jj-baker
9:24 am tuesday february 26, 2002
Our society at-large continues to massively move in the opposite direction of the stated democratic interests of FIRM, towards increased concentration of power for those who already hold the media reins. The situation continues to get worse, not better:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35724- 2002Feb19.html
Limited Media Ownership Voided, Washington Post, February 20, 2002
"A federal appeals court yesterday nullified two long-standing government rules limiting the size of the world's largest media companies, opening the door to a new wave of mergers among cable television conglomerates and broadcast companies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia invalidated a Federal Communications Commission regulation that had prevented one company from owning TV stations and cable franchises in the same market. The court also ruled that the FCC had acted arbitrarily in limiting the number of television stations that a single company can own ... Consumer advocates, meanwhile, worried that yesterday's rulings will allow a few huge media companies to tighten their grip on the flow of information on radio, television and the Internet. 'This is earth-shattering,' said Gene Kimmelman, co-director of the Washington office of the Consumers Union. 'The end result could be the most massive consolidation in media this nation has ever seen.'"
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

Breakdown Scam
Jack Rooney
2:56 pm wednesday february 27, 2002
I have always wondered how the breakdown services http://breakdownservices.com circumvents federal equal employment opportunity law. I mean, companies with so many employees and/or large annual sales are required to comply with existing federal labor law and are required by federal law to post all new job openings in the public domain, that is unless they can immediately fill the job with currently employed, in-house workers through promotion or transfer. SAG/AFTRA Union actors do not fall into the category of full-time employed in-house workers because they are temporary, contract labor (union talent).
But even if producers are not big bucks producers, affirmative action law demands equal access to job info by the general workforce:
"Where the user has not maintained data on adverse impact as required by the documentation section of applicable guidelines, the Federal enforcement agencies may draw an inference of adverse impact of the selection process from the failure of the user to maintain such data, if the user has an underutilization of a group in the job category, as compared to the group's representation in the relevant labor market or, in the case of jobs filled from within, the applicable work force." 41 CFR 60-3.4 - Information on impact.
Since the studios do not have a pool of permanent in-house worker talent (illegal under Section 1700.30 of the California Labor Code ) how is it that the breakdown services can restrict and sell casting information about job openings for roles in films and television productions that is by law suppose to be public domain? It smells like a monopoly to me, or an attempt at one, designed to control the talent pool, fix prices for talent, and restrain trade. Since the 750 or so casting agencies who are members of the Breakdown Services are dominantly signatory union agencies, this seems to stack the deck in favor of 100,000 union workers and has an adverse impact on 900,000 or so non-union American talent who also want to compete for those jobs. The system stinks, and I believe it is entirely illegal. That it costs anything to gain access to the casting information for major film and television acting jobs is probably a violation of federal antitrust and federal labor law - a double whammy violation of federal law.
It is also a further violation of the California Code Section 1700.30 and 1700.39 if any of the officers or employees of breakdown services has any equity interest in any of the studios or productions or receives any money from the studios. But look at the people who run breakdown services; it is a service provided to talent representatives in partnership with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences http://breakdownservices.com/us.html. And who is AMPAS? A coalition of major studios http://www.ampas.org. So AMPAS has an equity position in the productions - the money that funds them comes from the studios. Bad, bad, bad violation of Section 1700.30 of the California Labor Code.
I think the authorities need to look into the organizational structure of the breakdown services, who owns it, who controls it, how is it that they have been able to gain exclusive access to the casting information of production corporations and then by what right of law do they presume to restrict it to their paying membership, their union SAG/AFTRA cronies? It appears that the breakdown services is some sort of holdover throwback from the old union closed-shop days, and since the closed-shop principal is no longer valid or enforceable (not legal), the organizations that emerged and grew up around it, like the breakdown system, are probably not legal either.
Independent, non-union workers respectfully request immediate equal access to the casting information about available acting jobs in the entertainment industry in compliance with prevailing federal labor law, please.
Thank you.
Jack Rooney
Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney
The Right To Refrain
National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. §151)
http://pages.prodigy.net/slathrop/NLRA.htm
Employees have the right:
to form, join or assist labor organizations;
to engage in collective bargaining over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment;
to engage in other concerted activity; and
to refrain from any and all such activity.
Employers cannot discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees for exercising any of their rights or to discourage or encourage union membership.
The National Labor Relations Board will investigate any unfair labor practice charges filed with it alleging that an employer or a union interfered with these rights.
The NLRB also supervises elections to determine whether a majority of an employer's employees wish to have a certain labor organization represent them for purposes of collective bargaining.
###
SAG/AFTRA does not represent the 900,000 independent, non-union American actors who want to compete against the 100,000 union SAG American members for the industry acting jobs and SAG/AFTRA therefore does not represent the interest of the majority of American actors.
Bye, bye SAG/AFTRA. Of course, you could embrace the independent, non-union workers and strive to provide equity for ALL actors and maybe survive into the next decade. Or you can oppose them and they will overwhelm you with their sheer numbers in an open, competitive marketplace as more and more non-union talent demand that the laws be enforced.
The choice is yours.
Jack Rooney
Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney
Of course, this also means bye, bye to DGA, WGA, and a host of other aligned talent unions who presently have a stranglehold on the industry and the creative and performing arts - the same legal precedents will hold across the industry fields.
--
Jack Rooney
Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney

Section Number: 60-3.3
Section Name: Discrimination defined: Relationship between use of selection procedures and discrimination.
-----------------------------------------------------
A. Procedure having adverse impact constitutes discrimination unless justified. The use of any selection procedure which has an adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other employment or membership opportunities of members of any race, sex, or ethnic group will be considered to be discriminatory and inconsistent with these guidelines, unless the procedure has been validated in accordance with these guidelines, or the provisions of section 6 of this part are satisfied.
B. Consideration of suitable alternative selection procedures. Where two or more selection procedures are available which serve the user's legitimate interest in efficient and trustworthy workmanship, and which are substantially equally valid for a given purpose, the user should use the procedure which has been demonstrated to have the lesser adverse impact. Accordingly, whenever a validity study is called for by these guidelines, the user should include, as a part of the validity study, an investigation of suitable alternative selection procedures and suitable alternative methods of using the selection procedure which have as little adverse impact as . . .

Media Ownership
James Jaeger
2:59 pm wednesday february 27, 2002
In the past decade ownership of the media has consolidated into the hands of less than 10 transnational corporations. The largest of these do between $8 and $30 billion in revenues a year and are as follows:

DISNEY
AOL-TIME WARNER
NEWS CORP.
VIACOM
SEGRAM/Universal
SONY
LIBERTY (AT&T)
BERTELSMANN
GENERAL ELECTRIC (NBC)
The second tier of less diversified media corporations, doing between $2.5 and $8 billion in annual sales, are as follows:

Comcast
Hearst
New York Times
Washington Post
Cox
Advance
Tribune Co.
Gannett
See http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/stupid.htm for more info.
James Jaeger

My Posts at FIRM
jj-baker
8:26 pm thursday march 07, 2002
You know, James, the situation is completely absurd. It looms of nightmare proportions. Matt Drudge is also Jewish. Seriously. No joke. Do you think he'll support FIRM's goals? Sure.
As I say, I'm not going to be posting anything at FIRM any more. It seems more and more surreal to me. FIRM insists upon a ghost nemesis that can't be honestly named. How can you win a battle if the nemesis is comfortably entrenched as a phantom? And the idea that "movies" exist in a social, cultural, political, and economic vaccuum -- extraneous to all else -- is preposterous.
I doubt if there has been anyone who has wandered in from cyberspace who has contributed more information to that discussion board than me, even specific to Hollywood. But I'm not going to hassle anymore Cones' arbitrary dictates over what is, or is not, kosher to post. It's getting ridiculous. And of course it's censorship, whatever else you or he cares to call it. Where the "Hollywood film world" is exactly distinct from the rest of the universe is a delineation that no human being could rationally arbitrate. Except by arbitrary dictate.

Are Movies "Just" Entertainment?
James Jaeger
8:14 pm sunday march 10, 2002
Movies are "just" entertainment, to paraphrase Jack Valenti on numerous occasions. So if this is so, why is Hollywood, and the Oscar committee, so bent out of shape over A BEAUTIFUL MIND? Read an excerpt (found at http://www.drudgereport.com/mattbm/htm) from one of Matt Drudge's reports.
--------------------
DRUDGE REPORT
TUE MARCH 05, 2002 13:51:09 ET
LOS ANGELES -- Producers of the Oscar nominated film A BEAUTIFUL MIND quietly left out all references to John Nash's anti-Semitic views, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
But in recent days, as final voting for OSCAR approaches, some Academy members are discovering shocking Jew-bashing passages found in the book on which the movie is based!
"Why am I voting for this Jew hater?" a veteran Academy member said earlier this week before voting. "I am a Jew! I feel sick to my stomach."
... Jew Bashing scenes found in the book "A Beautiful Mind: The Life of the Mathematical Genius and Nobel Laureate John Nash" have been completely scrubbed from the film,. . .
"The root of all evil, as far as my personal life is concerned (life history) are Jews," John Nash wrote in a letter in 1967. [Noted on page 326 of BEAUTIFUL MIND.]
Author Sylvia Nasar's repeated references to Nash's feeling towards Jews were deliberately left off the screen. "We didn't want to go there," a production source said. "This is a love story."
OSCAR Ballots must be received by March 19, and the race is on to stop the spread of the damning Nash quotes, which may thwart the film's chances. [MIND received 8 nominations, including Best Picture, Director and Actor.]
Balance of article at http://www.drudgereport.com
--------------------------------
As one moviegoer who loved A BEAUTIFUL MIND observed: "The Oscars should not be judged on whether a character is Jewish or doesn't like Jews etc., but whether the movie was of superior performance. What about Schindlers List -- that seemed to go over well at the Oscars....did they just like the content or was the movie actually that good?"
Seems to me that Hollywood has a difficult time depicting characters in movies that present Jews in anything other than a completely positive light. Seems this is true for A BEAUTIFUL MIND, as how can one have "a beautiful mind" AND still be "anti- Semitic," as apparently John Nash was? Or how can you have a little Jewish boy in a movie AND have him be a foodtaster/personal body guard for Josef Stalin, as in our movie, STALIN'S BACK ROOM, which Hollywood has so far shunned.
James Jaeger

re: Are Movies Just Entertainment?
Bill Van Alen
8:43 pm sunday march 10, 2002
Jim:
I support the Rabbi and he is a brilliant conservative who believes that this country is the best place for jews to practice their religion because of its Christian biblical roots.
Bill
----------------------------------
TOWARD TRADITION DEFENDS REV. BILLY GRAHAM FROM A.D.L. ATTACK
SEATTLE, WA, MARCH 8, 2002 .... Toward Tradition today called on the Anti-Defamation League to stop defaming the Rev. Billy Graham. The ADL's national director, Abraham H. Foxman, assailed Graham as a purveyor of "age-old classical anti-Semitic canards," referring to secretly tape-recorded remarks Rev. Graham made to President Nixon 30 years ago. The "canard" in question is that Jewish people are disproportionately represented among Hollywood and other media powerbrokers. Graham spoke to Nixon of a Jewish "stranglehold" on the American media.
Toward Tradition's president, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, commented: "The unfairness of this ADL attack was highlighted by the week's news that the producers of A Beautiful Mind deliberately left out any references to the genuinely anti-Semitic beliefs and comments of their protagonist, mathematician John Nash, amply documented in Sylvia Nasar's biography on which the film is based. Published reports suggest that director Ron Howard did this at least partly because he hoped to garner Academy Award recognition. Given that the Hollywood Establishment indeed includes a considerably greater proportion of people of Jewish ancestry than does the American populace as a whole, Mr. Howard was concerned that the Academy would justifiably spurn a film that lionized an anti-Semite. To call that a 'stranglehold' may not be polite, but it is no lie, either.
"Toward Tradition cannot understand why it is acceptable for Ron Howard to acknowledge this reality, however implicitly; but when Billy Graham did so, long ago and in private, it was somehow different - 'chilling and frightening,' in Mr. Foxman's words.
"Immediately the ADL's statement forced a heartfelt apology from the frail and elderly Rev. Graham, but Mr. Foxman has refused to accept the apology, which he calls 'mealy-mouthed.' Such insults are truly inappropriate. Could it be that these attacks are directed at Billy Graham because he is a conservative evangelical Christian - whereas Ron Howard gets a pass because he is not a Christian in that mold?"
Toward Tradition is a national coalition of Jews and Christians advocating practical Torah solutions to modern American problems.

-------------------------------------
From WORLDNET DAILY
Rabbi: ADL 'defamed' Billy Graham 'Stranglehold' on Hollywood 'no lie,' says Jewish activist
March 8, 2002
A prominent American rabbi insists the Anti-Defamation League has defamed Rev. Billy Graham in its criticism of remarks the Protestant evangelist made about Jews 30 years ago in the Oval Office.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of the activist group Toward Tradition, maintains ADL director Abraham H. Foxman's characterization of Graham as a purveyor of "age-old classical anti-Semitic canards" is unfair.
The "canard" in question, notes Lapin, is that Jewish people are disproportionately represented among Hollywood and other media powerbrokers. In secretly recorded remarks to President Nixon that recently were released to the press, Graham spoke of a Jewish "stranglehold" on the media.
"The unfairness of this ADL attack was highlighted by the week's news that the producers of 'A Beautiful Mind' deliberately left out any references to the genuinely anti-Semitic beliefs and comments of their protagonist, mathematician John Nash, amply documented in Sylvia Nasar's biography on which the film is based," said Lapin, author of "America's Real War," a book that encourages a return to Judeo-Christian principles.
Lapin pointed out that according to published reports, the film's director, Ron Howard, did this at least partly because he hoped to garner Academy Award recognition.
"Given that the Hollywood establishment indeed includes a considerably greater proportion of people of Jewish ancestry than does the American populace as a whole, Mr. Howard was concerned that the Academy would justifiably spurn a film that lionized an anti-Semite," Lapin explained. "To call that a 'stranglehold' may not be polite, but it is no lie, either."
Lapin says he cannot understand why it is acceptable for Howard to "acknowledge this reality, however implicitly; but when Billy Graham did so, long ago and in private, it was somehow different – 'chilling and frightening,' in Mr. Foxman's words."
The ADL's statement "forced a heartfelt apology from the frail and elderly Rev. Graham," Lapin noted.
In a statement released by his public relations firm March 1, Graham said: "Although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made in an Oval Office conversation with President Nixon ... some 30 years ago. They do not reflect my views and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks."
Foxman has refused to accept Graham's apology, however, which he called "mealy-mouthed."
"Such insults are truly inappropriate," said Lapin. "Could it be that these attacks are directed at Billy Graham because he is a conservative evangelical Christian – whereas Ron Howard gets a pass because he is not a Christian in that mold?"

re: Are Movies Just Entertainment?
James Jaeger
12:09 pm sunday march 11, 2002
I also agree with the Rabbi. Although what Billy Graham said on the Nixon tapes is no less revealing than what many researchers, including Jewish researchers such as Neil Gabler in his book AN EMPIRE OF THEIR OWN, have said about the Hollywood control.

I feel the ADL has gone too far in not "turning the other cheek." Billy Graham has apologized to any one who may have received the truth with difficulty and I don't think he should be further kicked.

Most Jews in America realize that this Christian nation has done more than just about any other nation to welcome Jews and safeguard their civil rights. Those in control of the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry need to remember this as well and read an article at http://www.jpfo.org/alert20010903.htm

James Jaeger

A BEAUTIFUL (anti-Semitic) MIND?!
James Jaeger
10:02 pm sunday march 10, 2002
Seems like Hollywood is up to its old double standard again when Abraham Foxman, director of the ADL, recently attacked Rev. Billy Graham as a purveyor of "age-old classical anti-Semitic canards".

Coming to the Reverend's rescue however was Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of the activist group, "Toward Tradition. The 'canard' in question, notes Lapin, is that Jewish people are disproportionately represented among Hollywood and other media powerbrokers. In secretly recorded remarks to President Nixon that recently were released to the press, Graham spoke of a Jewish 'stranglehold' on the media. Lapin goes on to say "The unfairness of this ADL attack was highlighted by the week's news that the producers of 'A Beautiful Mind' deliberately left out any references to the genuinely anti-Semitic beliefs and comments of their protagonist, mathematician John Nash, amply documented in Sylvia Nasar's biography on which the film is based."

WorldNetDaily goes on to report that "Given that the Hollywood establishment indeed includes a considerably greater proportion of people of Jewish ancestry than does the American populace as a whole, Mr. Howard (the director) was concerned that the Academy would justifiably spurn a film that lionized an anti-Semite," Lapin explained. "To call that a 'stranglehold' may not be polite, but it is no lie, either."

Lapin went on to say that he cannot understand why it is acceptable for Howard to "acknowledge this reality, however implicitly; but when Billy Graham did so, long ago and in private, it was somehow different – 'chilling and frightening,' in Mr. Foxman's words." (Source of all above quotes and balance of article at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26761)

I thought Jack Valenti said that movies were "just entertainment." If so, how come Hollywood, or the Academy, is concerned with whether a character is anti-this or anti-that? I thought we judged a movie's merit on its writing, its directing, its cinematography -- not on whether the beliefs of the main character's, otherwise beautiful, mind are anti-Semitic. Does this mean that if we now acknowledge John Nash was anti-Semitic, he also sucks in math?

James Jaeger

re: A BEAUTIFUL (anti-Semitic) MIND?!
Sal
10:14 pm sunday march 10, 2002
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattbm2.htm
entitled "Universal Rips Drudge After Nash Bash; Academy Voters Question 'Beautiful' Omissions"
Here he identifies the Chairman of Universal Pictures, Stacey Snider, as Jewish.
This Beautiful Mind issue has everything in the world to do with FIRM's issues, but it is BLATANTLY Jewish in nature. In other words, irregardless of whether Beautiful Mind is a great film, the fact that Nash was an "anti-Semite" corrupts the quality of the movie in some Jews' minds. Of course, to the rational mind, whether Nash liked Jews or not has nothing whatsoever to do with the movie as an art work. It is all manifestations of in-house of Jewish POLITICS.
In the Drudge update, we find there's a kind of Jewish war going on about the film. Drudge, who is Jewish, features the story. Universal chairman Stacey Snider, also Jewish, protests (obviously because it threatens the film's Academy Award chances and will cost him potential money) and complains that the info was a plant from a rival studio. The screenwriter for the film is also Jewish, Akiva Goldsman.
Drudge reports that three people have already decided to change their vote for the film.
James, sorry to break this to you, but no matter what absolute masterpiece you create in the film world, you're already painted as "anti-Semitic" and you will never win an Academy Award.

Lie, Steal & Cheat Syndrome
John Cones
7:44 am thursday march 14, 2002
Hollywood's lie, steal and cheat syndrome made another public appearance recently with the theft of elements of one of the lead animated characters for the film "Ice Age". Unfortunately, the lady making the claim is under the impression that she might prevail. What she does not realize is that it will take six years or more to get the studio to trial, and another period of years to collect any judgment, if any. Also, studio executives have been known to get on the stand in such trials and be less than candid about issues of access to such ideas, so it's never easy to get a judgment. Hollywood has known these things for years, thus there is little incentive for them to respect the rights of others. They know they can get away with it in most instances. After all, most people interested in any kind of career in Hollywood will not sue, because once you sue, it is difficult to get work in this town.
John Cones

re: A BEAUTIFUL (anti-Semitic) MIND?!
James Jaeger
7:15 pm saturday march 16, 2002
'A Beautiful Mind' Meets Ugly Oscar Tactics
By RICK LYMAN
"LOS ANGELES, March 15 - John Nash says he is not an anti- Semite. He says he is not a homosexual. Nor, he says, did he try to conceal any of his deficiencies as a father or any humiliating episodes in an attempt to glamorize his life. . . And a letter that a newspaper cited, saying that it revealed him to be a "rabid anti-Semite," was written, she said, after his doctors had diagnosed his condition as paranoid schizophrenia and when he "also believed himself to be Job, a slave in chains, the emperor of Antarctica and a messiah . . ."
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/16/movies/oscars/16MIND.html? todaysheadlines
Gee, the Twinkies defense? So now Nash's defenders are trying to say that Nash was so schizophrenic that if he said anything nasty about Jews in the past . . . well it was because he was out of touch with reality.
Hey, maybe I was clinically nuts too -- out of touch with reality from joining FIRM. Maybe I should go ask Michael Eisner for a job as a repentant "anti-Semite" like John Nash.
Hollywood's bull and spin never ceases to make me puke.
James Jaeger

Billy's Blooper
James Jaeger
0:28 am saturday march 23, 2002
It was funny watching everyone on POLITICALLY INCORRECT tonight (20 March 2002) acting so POLITICALLY CORRECT when Bill Maher brought up Billy Graham's statements on the 1972 Nixon tapes. Here’s a semi-fictional dramatization of the show for you, until the transcript is available at the PI website, if ever.

FADE IN: INT. POLITICALLY INCORRECT SET PI rock music is back at the top of the show. BILLY GRAHAM (VO, like God speaking from above) The Jewish stranglehold of the media Is ruining the country. This stranglehold has got to be broken, or this country's going down the drain. DISSOLVE: INT. POLITICALLY INCORRECT SET – CLOSER UP Everyone is sitting around the set with Bill Maher, freaked. BILL MAHER Did you hear that, or was I just going crazy for a moment like John Nash? DEBBIE No Bill, that was the voice of Billy Graham. He was insane and anti-Semitic back in the Nixon era, but now he has seen the light and apologized for his anti-Semitic ways. So we should turn the other cheek. BILL MAHER I thought you were Jewish, Debbie. DEBBIE I am, but we should still forgive Billy. (looking upwards) Ain’t that right Billy? Billy’s voice booms down on the PI set again: BILLY I cannot imagine what evil-one caused me to make those comments, which I totally puked up and now repudiate. Whatever the reason, I was wrong for not disagreeing and I sincerely apologize to anyone I have offended. Besides how did I know that bastard Nixon was taping me? Then, Debbie, being the spin-master-attorney she is, looks at Bill Maher and quickly deflects the focus: DEBBIE Besides, Bill, Billy must have been referring to those LIBERALS who control the media, and since most Jews are Liberal, he must have been talking about LIBERALS, but accidentally referring to them as *JEWS*. Suddenly Bill O’Reilly pops in from back stage. BILL O’REILLY Was that spin I just heard? BILL MAHER No Bill, I think you’re on the wrong set, you want stage A-3, not stage 3-A. BILL O’REILLY Oh, thanks, Bill. Contact me at oreilly@foxnews.com at any time if if you care to opine. CUT TO: INT. POLITICALLY INCORRECT OUTSIDE STUDIO James Jaeger is standing out side the PI studio as Mr. O’Reilly walks up with his killer-smile. JAMES JAEGER Well I’d like to opine Mr. O. Seems to me that while the first part of Reverend Graham’s statement might be true, the second part is certainly anti-Semitic. No? And I should know, having been called an anti-Semitic Nazi many-a-time by the writers over at misc.writing.screenplays for bringing up the issue of media control. BILL O’REILLY Well, let’s cut the spin, Jim: Had one uttered a similar statement in pre-World War II Germany, ‘that the Nazis’ stranglehold on the media is going to bring down the country,’ you gonna sit there and tell ME that would NOT have been construed as politically incorrect, as anti-Fatherland? You bet it would have. And those Nazis would have been all over your ASS, 1,2,3! GOD (Voice from above) Yes, that would have been “troubling.” But the Nazis certainly didn’t think they were destroying MY world at the time. AN EVIL-ONE (Voice from below) . . . And THAT was delightfully “troubling.” CUT TO: INT. POLITICALLY CORRECT SET As the show continues, the other guests echo Debbie’s sentiments but slosh around, caught for words. Things are heating up. PI GUEST 2 A man of God, like Billy Graham, shouldn't say such things, Goddammit! Not one guest either affirms or denies Billy’s statement about whether Jews control the media. PI GUEST 3 Don’t look at me, I’m not opening THIS any cans of worms. I hate worms! BILL MAHER Me too. I hate worms! Guest 3 thinks to himself “Gee, Billy Graham’s statement is probably true, and everyone knows it; so if I try to deny it, I’ll come off as an IDIOT -- but if I agree with it, I’ll come off as an ANTI-SEMITE.” PI GUEST 3 (bleating out) . . . So I guess I’ll keep my mouth shut like all the rest of you. Oops! BILL MAHER I’m sorry, what did you say? Are You talking to your self again, or do you hate worms THAT much? DISSOLVE TO: INT. POLITICALLY INCORRECT OUTSIDE STUDIO James Jaeger, glad he’s standing out side the PI studio. JAMES JAEGER The subtle irony is that, while Ms. Schlussel acknowledged that Billy was moral enough to apologize, not one guest on Bill’s show, including her, acknowledged that Billy might also be moral enough to tell the truth on the Nixon tapes. I mean, who could bullshit Nixon, the man who signed the Outer Space Treaty to make sure no government on Earth could claim a part of the Moon? Suddenly JOHN CONES, who has just walked out of the PI audience, shows up, fed up. JOHN CONES A little hypocrisy with your tea? Sheesh! What nonsense in there! I’d say we can conclude that, not only is Billy Graham a moral man, but maybe people interested in democracy in America ought to look at the question of media control in a manner similar to the way we have looked at control of the film industry, where we found that the film industry is controlled and/or dominated by a small group of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage (certainly not a group that is representative of Jews generally). Check out my book, WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! for the details, a salient excerpt at . . . Suddenly an AUDIENCE MEMBER, who has also just walked out of the PI show, shows up wearing a baseball cap with the URL to John’s book neatly monogrammed on the front. CAMERA zooms in on http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm. CUT TO: INT. POLITICALLY CORRECT SET Back on the PI set the Jewish girl, fearing some sort of conflagration might be a-brewing throughout America, is quick to say: DEBBIE Well, let's not make this ISSUE an issue . . . after all, Billy DID apologize! But Bill Maher, ever the drill-master, continues to read and re- read Billy Graham-quotes as if he’s not quite sure he’s piled on enough fuel for the ratings. BILL MAHER Even though it WAS 30 years ago; Billy apologized and claims he can’t even remember bad-mouthing Jews -- we KNOW he’s lying: this MUST be the way Billy actually feels, because why would he make up something when he had no idea that he was being taped? And why would Billy even TRY lying to Nixon, the grand master of lies, when he KNEW he would NEVER get away with it? (beat) We’ll be right back after this commercial. DISSOLVE: COMMERCIAL/COMMENTARY: Even though the first part of Billy Graham’s statement is most likely a fact, the second part IS an opinion. (And remember we're owned by Disney here, so we can smell spin just as much as Fox and that damn O'Reilly can.) No one on PI, or any other show on any other network (except FOX, those bastards), is gonna figure it out, or ask the question: Well is it true, DO Jews run the media? -- before us! Dammmit! IS Billy right? What’s the spin? Who knows? Granted, this question might actually require an ANSWER some day, but for now, we continue to ask it -- at least as long as most of the public is asleep on the issue and we can milk the hell outa them. And good thing they're asleep, because there actually CAN be no answer to this question -- except an anti-Semitic answer -- and we don't wanna get into that. So stay tuned, we'll be the longest running show ever, watching “grownups” toss this hot potato of ‘Jews in the Media’ all over the set without addressing even one iota of the issue, or lack of it -- forever. So tune in next week to see a perfect illustration of how the media and most people connected with it, even guests on POLITICALLY INCORRECT, are so terrified of the subject, and terrified of being labeled anti-Semitic, that even O’Reilly can’t possibly figure out which way the spin (or shit's) flying. Tune in for ABC’s premier season of TABOO, an open discussion of America's new taboo, custom-tailored for an audience that’s sick and tired of POLITICALLY INCORRECTNESS. We at Disney realize that American audiences are getting tired of canned horseshit and we plan on changing that. An audience that claims to revere freedom of expression and a media that uses this as its defense of, and justification of, endless violence- oriented programming is going to be addressed on TABOO: it’s all pretty pah-thetic right here on ABC -- but as soon as we get rid of NIGHTLINE, we'll be right back up there with OREILLY. DISSOLVE: INT. POLITICALLY CORRECT SET Back on the PI set, we cut to Bill, who is quick to say: BILL MAHER Okay, that’s the show. Thanks for sticking around to watch that last commercial/commentary. Ha, ha, ha suckers. Bye. CAMERA pulls back from the PI set as TITLES ROLL. FADE OUT:

Oscar of Color
John Cones
7:54 am saturday march 23, 2002
It was really rather hillarious watching the several talented and capable African-American spokespersons appearing on CNN's Talk Back Live Friday (3-22-02) dodge the truth about Hollywood. None of them were willing to come right out and talk about the most obvious aspects of the controversy swirling around "A Beautiful Mind" (i.e., the rumors circulating about the genius John Nash, on whose life the movie was based, that he was anti-semitic, and the additional rumor that one or more studios started the rumors in an effort to smear the film in its Oscar competition, and the likelihood that most Oscar members who vote are Jewish and thus sensitive to such allegations; and that one or more Oscar members had been quoted in the trades saying something to the effect that they would not vote for a movie whose main character was apparently anti-Semitic, etc.)
Those appearing on CNN did a little better in bringing home the point that African-Americans winning Oscars is important, but the real power is behind the scenes and until we have more diversity there (i.e., in the executive suites) we will never see real diversity in our nation's films. They would admit that African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans are not represented in Hollywood's executive suites, but they could not quite bring themselves to admitting the truth, that a majority of the top studio executive positions are actually occupied by politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage. In PC land, it's permissible to identify by race, ethnicity or religion, who is not in power, but for some reason, there is something wrong with specifically identifying who is in power, even though the blatant discrimination that has resulted in this severe lack of diversity at the top in Hollywood has been going on for more than 100 years, and regularly impacts the kinds of movies we see. After all, movies to a great extent, do tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers.
John Cones

re: A BEAUTIFUL (anti-Semitic) MIND?!
James Jaeger
11:32 am sunday march 24, 2002
With all the controversy over John Nash's anti-Semitism, obviously the Academy will have to prove that Hollywood is NOT sensitive to anti-Semitism by making A BEAUTIFUL MIND Best Picture.
James Jaeger

Jewish Media
Strapu
11:42 pm sunday march 24, 2002
It's time to eliminate the aid to Israel completely, and eliminate Jewish domination of American domestic and foreign policy. It's time for tighter control over the Jewish dominated news media, and it is time to examine the red Jew role in undermining our Bill Of Rights. It is time for the American people to demand that their representatives start representing their constituents instead of Jewish interests, whatever they may be. Lastly, but by no means least, it is time to eliminate the cultural war against the white European race who created this Nation.

Oscar Analysis
John Cones
7:43 am monday march 25, 2002
Congratulations to all the Oscar winners! They are all well deserved wins. On the other hand, it would be fair to say that all actors, actresses and films nominated could have reasonably been selected to win the Oscar. There was quality in all the nominated movies and excellence in all the individual performances. In such a situation, it is only natural that other considerations, political, for example, might come to the fore. Considering the additional circumstance that the Academy membership, just like the Hollywood establishment, is dominated by the same Hollywood insider group it is all but certain that political considerations are a major factor in the ultimate choices made. In this case, Hollywood is currently, and will continue to be for many years to come, under great pressure because of its horrible record with regard to diversity at all levels. Because of that pressure, Hollywood reacts at Oscar time as it usually does in a crisis, by creating a “show”, in this case, a show of diversity which tends to present a false picture of where diversity in Hollywood really is. After all, will African-Americans or anyone feel there is any real diversity in Hollywood if it takes another 40 years for an African-American male to be selected as the best actor? Will anyone feel there is any real diversity in Hollywood if it takes another 100 years for an African-American female to win best actress? Even worse, can anyone say there is any real diversity in Hollywood when so few, if any, Latinos, Native-Americans, Asian-Americans and Arab- Americans have won Oscars. And looking beyond the “show”, how can anyone suggest that there is any real diversity in Hollywood when a majority of the top studio executive positions (the positions with the power to determine which movies are going to be produced and released by the major/studio distributors and who will produce, write, direct and act in such movies) have been occupied during Hollywood’s 100 year history by that same small group of Hollywood insiders that has discriminated against all comers for so many years – that same small group of people who gained and have maintained their illegitimate power in Hollywood by engaging in unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti- competitive and predatory business practices (see “How the Movie Wars Were Won”). Congratulations for this year’s current winners! Yes, it’s a small step in the right direction, but after the good feelings are enjoyed, we all must realize how small those steps really are!
John Cones

Good Comments from Jeff Sagansky
James Jaeger
8:28 pm monday march 25, 2002
Hollywood Jews and the FTC Report
Pushing for self-regulation, some in the enterainment industry acknowledge that violent content does have an effect.
By David Evanier, Staff Writer
...Leading Jewish Hollywood executives and directors responded with a sense of shame this week to the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) report criticizing the marketing of media violence to minors. Reached by phone, they spoke with The Jewish Journal about how they struggled to reconcile their sense of social and moral responsibility with the demands of the marketplace. Many felt the challenge of balancing the task of self-regulation from within the industry against the evil of censorship from the outside. Others spoke of a more personal balance, played out against a highly charged political atmosphere: deciding how much of the entertainment industry's product their own children can watch.
Jeff Sagansky, CEO of Paxson Communications and former president of TriStar Pictures and CBS Entertainment, was outspoken in his criticism of the media for injecting children on a daily basis with what he dubbed "a very toxic cocktail of violence and general irresponsibility."
He pointed to a score of studies over the past 20 years that link media violence with violent behavior. "You can quibble with any single study," Sagansky stated, "but the net effect, if you read all these studies, is a direct correlation between violent behavior and the amount of violence the kids consume in the media. For 15 years we've been fighting cigarette advertising to minors. But I think this is just as harmful, maybe more harmful."
Sagansky called for a self-policing policy on media violence. "I don't believe," he said, "that any government board can necessarily sit there and determine things for us. But on the other hand, there have got to be very, very frequent reviews to see how the industry is coming along. Because we've talked about this self-restraint now for seven or eight years. I don't see any change whatsoever in what's coming out; in fact, it seems to be worse."
Even getting executives to speak about the issues as Jews proved difficult, as most of the executives reached preferred not to comment.
Balance of article at http://www.jewishjournal.com/archive/09.22.00/covers tory.09.22.00.html"

H-Antisemitism
John Cones
8:05 am wednesday march 27, 2002
It is embarrassing to see people who claim to be "scholarly" allow their own prejudices to cloud their otherwise capable judgment about issues of concern to them. Several misconceptions about our FIRM site, recently posted at a closed discussion network called "H-Antisemitism" have come to my attention. First, let me say that one or more authors of the postings at the H-Antisemitism discussion group have our individual names confused. My name is John W. Cones. I’’m a securities/entertainment attorney in the sense that for the last 15 years, I have worked with independent producers on investor financing of their entertainment projects, mostly feature film. I have written and/or published several books on the subject of film finance and entertainment contracts, and lecture regularly on related topics. I am based in Los Angeles. James Jaeger (i.e., there is no "John Jaeger" associated with FIRM) is a Philadelphia-based independent producer who has worked in the film industry both on the West Coast and East Coast for many years. He has also authored one or more books relating to his areas of expertise. Together, we are the founders of FIRM (the Film Industry Reform Movement).
Apparently, a lot of the misunderstanding was prompted by a letter James Jaeger wrote to Michael Moore, in which James Jaeger (the individual) expressed his opinions about Michael Moore’’s book and its views with respect to Israel. James Jaeger also made reference to our FIRM web site, which has nothing to do with Israel. The FIRM site is a narrowly focused website concerned with solutions to specific problems in the Hollywood- based U.S. film industry. It is possible that since the letter from the individual James Jaeger, who was not writing to Michael Moore as a spokesperson for FIRM, but did mention the FIRM site, inadvertently helped to create the impression that there is some connection between his personal views with regard to Middle East politics and FIRM. However, there is no such connection. But then for some of the H-Antisemitism members to visit the FIRM site and come away with the impression that FIRM stands for the proposition that "the Jews control Hollywood" is absurd. Scholarly persons should be able to understand the very clear distinction between that overly broad generalization that is not made anywhere at the FIRM site and what is actually said at the FIRM site (i.e., that movies to a large extent tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, and therefore it is relevant to study the backgrounds of the people who have the power to determine which movies are produced and released by the major studio/distributors -- the entities whose movies are viewed by about 96% of U.S. moviegoers. Further, that a study of such backgrounds of the top three studio executives at these major studio/distributors has demonstrated that the backgrounds of a majority of such persons can most accurately be described as politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage. Clearly such a statement is quite different from what is being falsely attributed to FIRM (i.e., "the Jews control Hollywood"). It is different in the important sense that we are not talking about Jews generally. It is further clear (and explicitly stated in the FIRM materials), that we do not believe that the business-related behavior of this small group of individual studio executives (not more than 15 - 20 individuals at any given time) is typical of Jews generally. It is also clear (and explicitly stated), that we do not believe these individuals behave the way they do because they hold themselves out as being Jewish (at least in the cultural sense). Further, what is stated at the FIRM site, is merely criticism of the business-related behavior of a small group of individuals who happen to be Jewish. There is no "hatred" expressed at the site toward any group. Thus, not a single element of any reasonable definition of anti-Semitism is found at the FIRM site. Yet, some supposedly scholarly people are quick to label it so. Maybe the real inquiry ought to be directed at their motives.
In further response to some of the outlandish misrepresentations about FIRM posted at the H-Antisemitism site: no where at FIRM do we say that "the Jews brought corruption and greed and decadence to America". If someone else said something to that effect in one or more of the many books and articles cited at the FIRM site, and we quoted them, it is intellectually dishonest to attribute such a statement to FIRM. In addition, our FIRM site is not "blatantly anti-Jewish". It is blatantly for diversity in Hollywood at all levels. And, we have found that those insecure people who fear diversity in Hollywood at all levels, will stoop at anything to misinform people of our real intent. Furthermore, no where at the FIRM site is it stated that we believe there is any sort of "Jewish conspiracy" regarding anything. In fact, there is an entire chapter in my writings stating that the "conspiracy" issue is irrelevant to me. Also, no where at the FIRM site do we (and by that I mean John Cones and James Jaeger, the only two people who speak for FIRM) "demonize the Jews". Nothing at the FIRM site, aside from an occasional overly-broad reference made by an outside participant in our "open" discussion forum, some of which gets deleted from time to time, to keep the discussion on point, suggests or implies the theory that "the Jews . . . caused the events of 9/11". Finally, there is no connection between FIRM and something referred to as an "on-line UK magazine called ‘Spike’". I’ve never heard of it, and have no idea why someone would make the false assertion in a scholarly discussion that there is a connection between the two when there is none. It seems to me that the people who are sponsoring the H- Antisemitism site should be more careful about their own scholarly standards, and insist that people posting there be more responsible.
If, in the future, anyone interested in these misunderstandings or film industry reform topics (and interested in the truth, as we see it at FIRM), would care to cite specific language at the FIRM site that they have a question about or problem with and will post their question or comment at the FIRM Discussion Forum, http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM, I’d be happy to respond.
John Cones

Reel Bad Arabs
James Jaeger
3:18 pm wednesday march 27, 2002
An occasional contributor to FIRM, Jim Jenks, brought a new book to my attention entitled, REEL BAD ARABS. This book, to a great degree, substantiates the reasearch in John Cones' books, HOW THE MOVIE WARS WERE WON and WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! (the complete text of the later on-line at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm).
Jim Jenks writes:
"Jewish domination of Hollywood is not just injust; it is a scandal. The fact that Jews routinely defame Arabs is profoundly important to the current Middle East/terrorist conflict, future world wars, and this -- Israel included -- has everything to do with FIRM, Hollywood, massive Jewish allegiance to Israel, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Here's another article where the subtext of reference to "Hollywood" is obvious to you and I, but probably to very few in the real world:"
"Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People," is an exhaustive survey of more than 900 movies, most of them American made, that contain portrayals of Arabs, from the briefest cameo appearances to relatively major roles (though you'll have a tough time finding an Arab or Arab-American character as hero or heroine). Of these, Shaheen says only a dozen portray Arabs positively, with about 50 more offering a measure of balance."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/63118_tv21.shtml
Arabs Suffer in the Hands of Hollywood, Seattle P. I., March 21, 2002 "Retired from the classroom and devoting his time now to writing and lecturing, Shaheen was in Seattle last weekend to speak at the fifth Arab Film Festival. It was a timely invitation. Shaheen's new book, 'Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People,' is an exhaustive survey of more than 900 movies, most of them American made, that contain portrayals of Arabs, from the briefest cameo appearances to relatively major roles (though you'll have a tough time finding an Arab or Arab- American character as hero or heroine). Of these, Shaheen says only a dozen portray Arabs positively, with about 50 more offering a measure of balance.
The rise of television in the latter half of the 20th century mirrors the film industry's record, Shaheen says, and though his book 'The TV Arab' is now nearly 20 years old, he sees no reason to celebrate TV as being any more evolved than film. As he says in 'Reel Bad Arabs,' the people who control the entertainment industry are slow to change when they recognize a profitable opportunity.
'Seen through Hollywood's distorted lenses,' Shaheen writes, 'Arabs look different and threatening. Projected along racial and religious lines, the stereotypes are deeply ingrained in American cinema. From 1896 until today, filmmakers have collectively indicted all Arabs as Public Enemy No. 1 -- brutal, heartless, uncivilized religious fanatics and money- mad cultural 'others' bent on terrorizing civilized Westerners, especially Christians and Jews.' Same goes for TV, and these days Shaheen is particularly down on CBS, a network he once served as a consultant. Without much prompting, Shaheen will talk about how 'The Agency,' 'JAG,' 'The District' and 'Family Law' have treated Arabs this season. In a word: badly."

re: H-Antisemitism
jj-baker
0:37 am thursday march 28, 2002
H-ANTISEMITISM COMMENTS(1)
John Cones wrote:
>It is embarrassing to see people who claim to be "scholarly" allow their own prejudices to cloud their otherwise capable judgment about issues of concern to them.
jj-baker wrote:
This "prejudice" is a NORM in a very large portion of the Jewish community, including scholars, as Mr. Cones will probably learn soon enough. It's not just guys at the screenplay forum. This "prejudice" is endemic to American culture, by the way: criticize Jews (however you diplomatically represent them) and you're condemned as a moral criminal. You guys both know that by now.
>Apparently, a lot of the misunderstanding was prompted by a letter James Jaeger wrote to Michael Moore(5), in which James Jaeger (the individual) expressed his opinions about Michael Moore's book, STUPID WHITE MEN, and its views with respect to Israel. James Jaeger also made reference to the FIRM web site, which has nothing to do with Israel.
Jewish influence in the mass media has a lot to do with Israel, and will be increasingly evident if we continue to be dragged into Israel's wars and the if the Jewish-dominated mass media continues to function as a shill for the Jewish state.
>The FIRM site is a narrowly-focused website concerned with solutions to specific problems in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry. It is possible that since the letter from the individual James Jaeger, who was not writing to Michael Moore as a spokesperson for FIRM, but did mention the FIRM site, inadvertently helped to create the impression that there is some connection between his personal views with regard to Middle East politics and FIRM.
Of course your personal views have something to do with FIRM. You and Cones are void of subjective opinion -- robots? Cones' personal views have nothing to do with FIRM? Really? Then, pray tell, how did the damn thing originate --on order from God and you two were just empty vessels?
>However, there is no such connection. But then for some of the H-Antisemitism members to visit the FIRM site and come away with the impression that FIRM stands for the proposition that "the Jews control Hollywood" is absurd.
I think Cones' statement of dissimulation here is "absurd." Cones' own detailed research in verifying who exactly was/is Jewish at the various studios is a no-no for the Jewish Thought Police crowd, and it certainly dovetails into the "canard" that "Jews control Hollywood." It's merely a question of the semantics of the word "control," as Cones knows. What safer verb would he choose? Maybe "influence?"
The Jewish magazine MOMENT had a headline cover a few years ago: "JEWS CONTROL HOLLYWOOD. SO WHAT?"
>Scholarly persons should be able to understand the very clear distinction between that overly-broad generalization that is not made anywhere at the FIRM site and what is actually said at the FIRM site (i.e., that movies to a large extent tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, and therefore it is relevant to study the backgrounds of the people who have the power to determine which movies are produced and released by the major studio/distributors.
Here Cones turns schizophrenic. His phrase "movies to a large extent tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, and therefore it is relevant to study the backgrounds of the people" has always been the foundation of MY (!) argument with him. The ENTIRETY of the Jewish Tribal Review can easily fit -- as Cones now states -- FIRM's formal range of concern. The phrase I quote of his here is a wide OPEN DOOR, James. Think about it. With this, I can start parking my truck in FIRM's lot. And it opens the door to all these Jewish complainers too, of course. Some day Cones better decide what exactly he thinks he's doing. He can't keep hopping back and forth over his arbitrary boundaries that keep shifting. He (and you -- per FIRM) have always argued AGAINST this premise of open CONTEXTUAL examination of "Hollywood" which he here officially endorses.
As I've said to you a million times, FIRM opens a Pandora's Box because the box's lid doesn't stop EXACTLY at Beverly Boulevard, or wherever John Cones would comfortably like.
>-- the entities whose movies are viewed by about 96% of U.S. moviegoers.(6) Further, that a study of such backgrounds of the top three studio executives at these major studio/distributors has demonstrated that the backgrounds of a majority of such persons can most accurately be described as politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage.(7) Clearly such a statement is quite different from what is being falsely attributed to FIRM (i.e., "the Jews control Hollywood").
This is just semantics. It's a lawyer talking. If I tell you a "majority" (and its a LARGE majority, as he himself has proven with his own work) of a town is owned by the Smith family -- say, 7 out of every 10 businesses are owned by Smiths -- the words you diplomatically choose to describe this situation are folly. Everyone knows what these kinds of numbers infer -- especially the Smiths who don't want public discussion about it all.
>(8) It is different in the important sense that we are not talking about Jews generally. It is further clear (and explicitly stated in the FIRM materials), that we do not believe that the business-related behavior of this small group of individual studio executives (not more than 15 - 20 individuals at any given time)
.. (but who have essentiallly been in a kind of rotation system since the early days of Hollywood, in tandem with the agent world, screenwriter world, etc. etc. etc. ...
>is typical of Jews generally. It is also clear (and explicitly stated), that we do not believe these individuals behave the way they do because they hold themselves out as being Jewish (at least in the cultural sense).
What does Cones mean here with the qualifier "at least in the cultural sense." He infers that they DO behave as they do as Jews, but in some other "sense" other than "cultural." What would that be? Cones didn't shut the door; he left it wide open. Jews are Jews in the racial sense? The political sense? The social sense? Can of worms.
>Further, what is stated at the FIRM site, is merely criticism of the business-related behavior of a small group of individuals who happen to be Jewish. There is no "hatred" expressed at the site toward any group.
The Jewish Tribal Review doesn't express "hatred" either, but even Cones smeared it before without even looking at it. Why should he be surprised when he gets the same treatment from others (especially Jews who bathe in the study of "anti- Semitism," a treatment that is so institutionalized that he used it himself against me during my early posts at FIRM?
>Thus, not a single element of any reasonable definition of anti- Semitism is found at the FIRM site.
Cones doesn't get it. The kinds of people who are liable to smear him at h-antisemitism define FIRM's very field of interest (counting Jews in Hollywood) as "anti-Semitism." Period. There is an entire literature field about this kind of thing that these types of people maintain.
>Yet, some supposedly scholarly people are quick to label it so.
It seems to me that the people who are sponsoring the H- Antisemitism site should be more careful about their own scholarly standards, and insist that people posting there be more responsible.
This is also very true. But the kinds of "scholars" who are apt to hassle FIRM are propagandists before they are anything else.
>If, in the future, anyone interested in these misunderstandings or film industry reform topics (and interested in the truth, as we see it at FIRM), would care to cite specific language at the FIRM site that they have a question about or problem with and will post their question or comment at the FIRM Discussion Forum at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/guide.htm, I'd be happy to respond.
It will be interesting to see if anyone starts dropping in for a "discussion." I'd follow it with great interest. And watch how Cones handles it.

Opposing Studies
John Cones
8:07 am thursday march 28, 2002
It is interesting to note that during the entire time of the existence of the FIRM website where we have posted a significant amount of information based our numerous studies relating to what is really going on in Hollywood, the one study that gets the most attention, is the one dealing with the backgrounds of the top three studio executives at the major studio/distributors. And, even more interesting, not a single Hollywood apologist has come forward during that 2 - 3 year period with their own studies showing, for example, that any other group other than the one we described actually occupies, or has occupied a majority of those top executive level positions over the years. Not a single Hollywood apologist has produced a study showing that African-Americans have held the majority of those powerful positions. Not a single Hollywood apologist has produced a study showing that Native Americans, Latinos, Christians, Mormons, Muslims, White males from the American South, or any other group has occupied a majority of those motion picture “greenlight” positions. The reason, of course, is that the results of our study is right on target and the Hollywood apologists know it. So what does someone in their position do? How could they be expected to react when they realize that we are right and that if we are not shut down in some way, that other people may some day realize that we are right; that if we actually are successful in helping to bring about real diversity at all levels in Hollywood, their Hollywood gravy train may come to an end; and that their ability to use this significant medium for the communication of ideas (per the U.S. Supreme Court) as a propaganda vehicle consistently portraying Arabs and Muslims in a negative and stereotypical manner, consistently portraying Christians in a negative and stereotypical manner, consistently portraying White males from the South in a negative and stereotypical manner, generally portraying Latinos in a negative or stereotypical manner and so on? Clearly, what they have tried to do, instead of producing their own opposing and credible studies, is simply to attempt to convince people that we are not credible, to engage in the so- called traditional propagandist technique of the “big lie” (i.e., if you repeat a lie enough many people will believe it). And that is what they’ve tried to do – to repeatedly make the false accusation of anti-Semitism, hoping that most people will avoid paying attention to our work, since as they falsely claim, it is the result of our “prejudice”, when in fact, their attempts to falsely characterize our beliefs is actually result of their prejudice. Our views are the result of actual studies that can be reproduced by others. Our views are in manner of the scientific method “falsifiable”. Others can reproduce the studies and confirm or deny our results. Thus far, the Hollywood apologists have been afraid to be scientific. Instead, they have chosen to use the dishonest tactics of the propagandist.
John Cones

Reasonable Debate
John Cones
12:38 pm friday march 29, 2002
Apparently there are people on both sides of the very broad questions relating to media reform and Middle East politics that just cannot understand that the Film Industry Reform Movement founded by James Jaeger and John Cones has a right to choose its own narrow scope of interest and concern, and that FIRM has no obligation whatsoever to allow itself to be drawn into a broader discussion, that goes beyond reform of the Hollywood based U.S. film industry. So, even though many of the Hollywood apologists have repeatedly tried to falsely characterize our efforts as anti-Semitic, and to misrepresent our factual observations about who really controls Hollywood we simply reject their attempts to draw us into the broader debate they prefer. We have a right to set and/or limit our agenda.
We would point out that the use of the anti-Semitic sword (i.e., the false accusation of anti-Semitism in an affirmative and dishonest attempt to distract attention from the issues of concern to FIRM, for example, diversity in Hollywood) are what Antony Flew refers to in his book How to Think Straight – An Introduction to Critical Reasoning ( a book I recommend for FIRM’s critics) as the subject/motive shift. In other words, people who are unwilling to debate a topic in a straightforward manner, for any reason, simply attack the motives of the proponent of a particular position, so as to shift attention from the actual proposition of concern, recognizing that the motives of the proponents have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the original proposition.
The same is true of the fanatical efforts of the so- called jj-Baker, who has been trying to get us to expand our perspective to include consideration of the issues of media reform and Middle East politics, and continues to fail to see the reasonable distinctions we make between his own false characterization of our position and his views.
I challenge participants in the FIRM discussion forum to stay on point, to debate the subjects of concern to FIRM, to stop engaging in dishonest debate and discussion tactics (e.g., making presumptions and false accusations regarding motives) and stop trying to change the subject by bringing in unrelated and broader topics, that in our view are not related to the interests of FIRM. Further, I challenge the participants in the FIRM discussion forum to stop exaggerating and misstating our positions. If you want to disagree with something just quote us directly, since our writing relating to film industry reform is posted at the FIRM site, and therefore is readily available. Exaggerating or misstating our positions is just another dishonest debate and discussion tactic used by people who really do not have any legitimate response to what we are actually saying. They are, in fact, simply wasting their and our time by trying to avoid the real issues relating to film industry reform.
For these reasons, from time to time, I have chosen to delete some postings to the FIRM discussion forum since they were not related in any meaningful way to the subjects of concern to FIRM. In other instances, some discussion that we find partly objectionable may still be posted at the FIRM site because it appears as part of a broader message including some discussion of FIRM issues. Unfortunately, some visitors to the site sometimes confuse those views with the views of FIRM. Again, since the author of each posting is set forth at the discussion forum, and the only two people representing FIRM are John Cones and James Jaeger, this confusion should not be a problem, but of course, some people simply do not or choose not to recognize such distinctions. Again, we recognize that such persons are not really interested in meaningful debate and discussion, but are simply trying to impose their views on us.
John Cones

re: Reasonable Debate
jj-baker
5:47 pm friday march 29, 2002
jj-baker wrote:
Mr. Cones, you entitled your posting: "Reasonable Debate." And that is very funny.
Your title is hypocritical. You do not invite "reasonable debate" whatsoever. What do you "debate?" You debate no one and nothing. You TELL. You say. You proclaim. You announce. You present your articles. And ward off opposing views. You merely invite surrender to your own self-described "narrow" world view. You declare your self-defined "narrow" range of interest and forbid discussion beyond that realm. That's "debate"? That's "reasonable?"
John Cones wrote:
>Apparently there are people on both sides of the very broad questions relating to media reform and Middle East politics that just cannot understand that the Film Industry Reform Movement founded by James Jaeger and John Cones has a right to choose its own narrow scope of interest and concern,
Of course you have the "right" as to your "narrow scope of interest and concern." This should, in fact, be foregrounded in FIRM's masthead: "FIRM: A Narrow Scope of Interest and Concern." Or "FIRM:Here Is Our Thread of Interest -- Do Not Go Beyond." Be as clear as possible about it. List which studios may be discussed, and which cannot (some may not be literally be in Hollywood). List which Hollywood producers aren't producers anymore, so all may know that they are not part of your discussion any longer. Provide a map of Hollywood's exact boundaries. List topics for discussion that are acceptable, and those that are explicitly forbidden.
>and that FIRM has no obligation whatsoever to allow itself to be drawn into a broader discussion,
The "broader discussion" that you are always being dragged into is that of "anti-Semitism," which some at h-antisemitism apparently have decided to ascribe to you, and this accusation against you has existed long before before I even knew of FIRM's existence. Your "narrow" range of concerns are more than enough to attract those that denounce you, and my contributions are not to be blamed for this. This issue, the charge of "anti-Semitism," is dropped at your door regularly, and it is the inevitable result of the social, cultural, and political milieu (THE CONTEXT!) of the subject of your concern: Who runs Hollywood? You cannot escape the charge, not because it is just, but because that smear comes with the territory for anyone who dares to examine anything that involves Jewish influence in popular culture. "Anti-Semitism," and the swirl of cultural and political baggage that comes with it, is part of FIRM's "interest" whether you like it or not. In other words, part of your interest in FIRM is always going to be "anti-Semitism" (and, hence, very specifically Jewish issues) because this slander will always be thrown at you. You will always have to defend yourself from the charge. To underscore AGAIN for you: there are social and political forces that will always drag your concerns away from the literal limits of a Hollywood movie studio. And, ho!, believe it or not, these extra-territorial Hollywood issues have nothing to do with movies per se, except that the clique that holds such sway in Tinseltown are entwined with them.
>that goes beyond reform of the Hollywood based U.S. film industry. So, even though many of the Hollywood apologists have repeatedly tried to falsely characterize our efforts as anti-Semitic, and to misrepresent our factual observations about who really controls Hollywood we simply reject their attempts to draw us into the broader debate they prefer. We have a right to set and/or limit our agenda.
The social and political worlds are not frozen by firm walls that fit your comfort and liking. You have the right to proclaim whatever you want. And all others have the equal right to challenge your proclamation. That is democracy. That is free speech. That is progress. And in the free exchange of ideas, the truth comes to the fore. That is not your premise at FIRM. Your idea of "narrow" interests are antithetical to the pure quest for truth and knowledge. And even the quest for social change. If you are so cowed that you cannot honestly name what the root issue is: Jewish dominance of the mass media and its implications, how can you hope to ever effect the democratic movement you wish? If the monopolizing force is safely rendered a phantom, how can it ever be confronted?
>We would point out that the use of the anti-Semitic sword (i.e., the false accusation of anti-Semitism in an affirmative and dishonest attempt to distract attention from the issues of concern to FIRM, for example, diversity in Hollywood) are what Antony Flew refers to in his book How to Think Straight – An Introduction to Critical Reasoning ( a book I recommend for FIRM’s critics) as the subject/motive shift. In other words, people who are unwilling to debate a topic in a straightforward manner, for any reason, simply attack the motives of the proponent of a particular position, so as to shift attention from the actual proposition of concern, recognizing that the motives of the proponents have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the original proposition.
This is a fine argument. But I turn it on you. Per your own argument, you are completely unwilling to "debate the topic[s] I bring to you in a straightforward manner." And you "shift attention" etc. etc. always back to your "narrow" focus of interest, never honestly engaging in a discussion about the broader implications of your web site. You continue to defame me ("fanatic"), etc. etc., using my "fanatic" posts to position yourself as some kind of relatively "anti-Semitic" moderate, meanwhile reinforcing yourself as a prime example of the very the injustice that you so much complain about (i.e., unjust defamation as an "anti-Semite"/"fanatic.")
>The same is true of the fanatical efforts of the so- called jj-Baker,
This statement is the reason why I must respond to your last posting. Had this line not existed, I would have let your commentary pass in silence. I hadn't planned on raking further controversy here at FIRM. But when you describe my postings/position as "fanatical," you reveal yourself as a profound hypocrite. If you feel comfortable in slandering me as a "fanatic," then by what right do you take umbrage at anyone who calls you "anti-Semitic?" I use your own line of defense, Mr. Cones. You accuse me as being "fanatical" for posting the truth (yet you've never "debated" anything I've said or refuted anything I've ever posted. To paraphrase your own argument about why you're not an "anti-Semite," Mr. Cones, per my "fanaticism," please show me the studies that refute the facts I bring to you).
It is one thing to disagree with a commentator. It is one thing to underscore that, for practical reasons, you wish to limit the range of discussion. I can respect that. It is quite another to defame someone as "fanatical," and I think your own defense against the charge of "anti-Semitism" loses all credibility here. If you can so easily smear others, why should you be immune to slander by others who express equal injustice and stupidity?
>who has been trying to get us to expand our perspective to include consideration of the issues of media reform and Middle East politics, and continues to fail to see the reasonable distinctions we make between his own false >characterization of our position and his views.
What is the "reasonable distinct. . . (post cut off by BeSeen Board)

re: Reasonable Debate
John Cones
7:57 am saturday march 30, 2002
Your most recent post jj confirms the points I made. Thanks and I rest my case.
John Cones

re: Reasonable Debate
jj-back
3:45 pm saturday march 30, 2002
I repeat the following for clarity. The points I made above that you formally confirm include:
1) You debate no one and nothing.
2) Your "narrow" range of concerns are more than enough to attract those that denounce you as an "anti-Semite," and my contributions to FIRM are not to be blamed for this.
3)You cannot escape the charge of anti-Semitism, not because it is just, but because that smear comes with the territory for anyone who dares to examine anything that involves Jewish influence in popular culture. "Anti-Semitism," and the swirl of cultural and political baggage that comes with it, is part of FIRM's "interest" whether you like it or not.
4) If you are so cowed that you cannot honestly name what the root issue is: Jewish dominance of the mass media and its implications, how can you hope to ever effect the democratic movement you wish? If the monopolizing force is safely rendered a phantom, how can it ever be confronted?
5) Per your own argument, you are completely unwilling to "debate the topic[s] I bring to you in a straightforward manner." And you "shift attention" etc. etc. always back to your "narrow" focus of interest, never honestly engaging in a discussion about the broader implications of your web site.
6) When you describe my postings/position as "fanatical," you reveal yourself as a profound hypocrite. If you feel comfortable in slandering me as a "fanatic," then by what right do you take umbrage at anyone who calls you "anti-Semitic?" I use your own line of defense, Mr. Cones. You accuse me as being "fanatical" for posting the truth (yet you've never "debated" anything I've said or refuted anything I've ever posted. To paraphrase your own argument about why you're not an "anti-Semite," Mr. Cones, per my "fanaticism," please show me the studies that refute the facts I bring to you). If you can so easily smear others, why should you be immune to slander by others who express equal injustice and stupidity?
Thank you for confirmation of these facts, exactly stated in my last post which you have sanctioned as accurate, and I rest my case.

re: Reasonable Debate
John Cones
8:36 pm saturday march 30, 2002
Wrong again jj. You simply do not have the intellectual capacity to understand a very simple proposition. If someone puts up a website to discuss the limited topic of film industry reform, it is not within your power to insist that we broaden our concerns. And, by the way, none of us have suggested that you are in any way responsible for raising the issue of anti-Semitism here. You're allowing your own paranoia to show.
John Cones

re: Reasonable Debate
jj-baker
5:24 am sunday march 31, 2002
As usual, you do not respond to what I have stated. You merely lean on a personal attack (declaring that I have no "intellectual capacity" and I am "paranoic"). You are a lawyer? This is how you win your arguments? God help your clients. And God help the "mission" of FIRM. Mr. Cones, you truly do not understand that reliance upon name-calling ("fanatic," "paranoid," etc.) is not a reflection of "intelligence?"
Yours is not a "debate" (or even a discussion) whatsoever, but your continued delight in smears, which, ironically, is the foundation of your complaint against those who attack you as an "anti-Semite." How do you justify this dual standard?
You have refuted none of the information that I have ever posted at your forum. Our research is at least as sound as yours. Nor have you responded specifically to any of my complaints about your hypocritical treatment of my posts. And you carefully avoid responding to what I present to you from authoritative sources. Your silence on all these points, and your corresponding insistence on last-ditch name-calling, is indicting.
Your insistence upon avoiding the most troubling issues at hand I would let pass. But not your name-calling, especially since you provide so many arguments -- in your own defense -- that name- calling is unjust and ridiculous.
Your entire argument is a declaration that you have the right to stay "narrowly" focused. And then you slander.
I challenge you to declare which of my posts to FIRM were "fanatical." (By the way, by your own logic, the many, many hours you've obviously put in to ward off the charge of "anti- Semitism" also indicts you as paranoid, right?) And I ask you, directly, again, how is this slur any less a defamation than those who call you, in the same manner, an "anti-Semite?"

re: Reasonable Debate
John Cones
8:24 am sunday march 31, 2002
Unfortunately, JJ, you have made it abundantly clear that you are not interested in debating the subjects of concern to FIRM, but only insisting that we are FIRM, at our own website, debate much broader topics of no concern to FIRM. That is the one essential fact that you have chosen to ignore from your very first post at this site. That is unfortunate, because you were certainly capable of making a better and more appropriate choice, and capable of making a valuable contribution to FIRM. But, instead, you have chosen to be argumentative and obstitnate about your supposed right to talk about anything you want to talk about here at our website. You do not have that right, and I really don't have the time to continue to try to make that simple point for you. Thus, I would suggest that unless you can post a message here that is specifically relevant to the question of film industry reform, don't bother, because it will be taken down.
Have a nice day.
John Cones

re: Reasonable Debate
jj-back
11:24 am sunday march 31, 2002
Not true.
I did not plan upon further argument about forbidden "off- subject" issues (I intended to defer in support of your immediate goals), except that, as you know, your co-founder posted here a personal correspondence I had with him that ventured my opinion about your posts here. I then noted to you, in an email, apart from this forum, that if you pulled that commentary (that I didn't post here) I would not object. You, in turn, left it here and replied to that post by calling my world view "fanatical."
The "off-subject" issue of defamation is one that YOU are raising, not I. And, if defamation is not part of your concern at FIRM, fine. But why then did YOU raise the issue of defamation by smearing me? And why do you threaten censorship if I dare to defend against your smear? Is this the way you end all your arguments?
Please also have a nice day.

re: Terrorism Analogy
bruce
3:30 pm sunday march 31, 2002
apparently you don't get it or perhaps you are part of the problem. I had the office where I was doing business directly hit by the jet (morgan stanley). The organized crime groups, government or private have brought this on the world. It does not matter whether you are innocent or guilty, evil does not care who gets hurt as long as evil benefits. If Viet Nam wasn't a good lesson in this then we are not capable of learning. The world trade center was unfortunate: However it was caused by the thieves who control the world, the media, the banks, etc. To blame a Bin Laden or someone like him is like blaming Eisenhower for the death of German citizens during the 2nd world war. The evil in this country and other countrys is causing all this grief. I have seen people in the media put on an entirely new face when a person catches them plagerising and stealing and they are just some of the problem. I would have said you can kiss my big american ass or you can kiss my big new york ass, but instead you can kiss my big irish ass? I guess we know where their loyalties truly lie and it is not here in this country.

re: Reasonable Debate
James Jaeger
11:22 pm monday april 1, 2002
jj-baker wrote:
>I did not plan upon further argument about forbidden "off- subject" issues (I intended to defer in support of your immediate goals),
And jj-baker has been respecting this.
>except that, as you know, your co-founder posted here a personal correspondence I had with him that ventured my opinion about your posts here.
True. I forwarded jj-baker's response to John Cones' post entitled "H-ANTISEMITISM COMMENTS" (which I received as a personal email) to the FIRM Discussion Forum (and I hope that's okay with jj-baker). Again, although JJ-baker did not post this, I believe he DID have a right to, as does anyone who desires to comment upon anything legitimately posted at FIRM, especially something posted by one of the founders.
James Jaeger

Do Movies Reflect Their Makers?

Gun Control
Stan
11:43 am thursday april 4, 2002
James,
Other civilized nations have not experienced any significant deterioration of internal security with stringent gun controls in place; e.g. most of Europe, Japan, etc. Those nations also have dispensed with the death penalty; coincidence?
I have visited several towns out West where everyone carries a weapon. Again, I don't trust anyone to NOT lose their temper and use their weapon for any positive purpose. I think having a nation of gun owners is not, per se a menace, but the thought of citizens carrying a weapon on their person at all times is unacceptable to me. I'm OK with having weapons in the home for protection, but again, most weapons are not kept from children, and there are an awful lot of really stupid parents out there; educating them about home weapon security would take years, and in the interim, tragic accidents occur. The type of parent who doesn't lock a gun to make it inaccessible from a child is probably capable of losing their temper or going off in some way and committing an atrocity. I don't give most people much credit for having the brains, skill, and judgment to use a lethal weapon for any purpose other than a negative one. Sorry, you will not convince me. This is like religion; you believe or you don't. Do I trust government more than individuals? To the extent that we have a representative government and civil liberties with a free press, yes. But to think that our government would be intimidated or compelled to act differently in crafting legislation, knowing that "we" are all armed is Timothy McVeigh-like. I would prefer to know that I can mouth off in public and not have some asshole with a piece not level me because he's irritated.
Stan

Gun Control: Movies Reflect their Makers
James Jaeger
11:57 am thursday april 4, 2002
>James,
>Other civilized nations have not experienced any significant deterioration of internal security with stringent gun controls in place; e.g. most of Europe, Japan, etc.
I am in favor of all appropriate gun control to cut down on accidents and criminal usage so long as such gun control does not abridge Constitutional rights.
>Those nations also have dispensed with the death penalty; coincidence?
Although I am against the death penalty (as it's nothing but Society's admission that it is helpless in the face of extreme crime), I don't see a correlation here.
>I have visited several towns out West where everyone carries a weapon.
Okay.
>Again, I don't trust anyone to NOT lose their temper and use their weapon for any positive purpose.
I tend to agree, that town must have been quite scary, and I don't advocate that sort of thing at all.
>I think having a nation of gun owners is not, per se a menace, but the thought of citizens carrying a weapon on their person at all times is unacceptable to me.
I agree with this. I see no reason why people in general need to carry guns around on their person. That's extremism. But certain people need to carry them because of their profession. For instance, my late grandfather was a physician. Upon two occasions while leaving his office in Philadelphia, he was assaulted for drugs (which his profession demanded he carry in his medical bag). On one of those occasions, his wife was with him. She was in the process of being physically dragged away by the assailant when my Grandfather was luckily able to fight him off. Neither were seriously harmed. Nevertheless, Grand Pa decided to take precautions: He purchased a small handgun and carried it on his person at times he felt he, or his loved-ones, might be at higher risk. Was he wrong? Was his purchase unacceptable to you?
>I'm OK with having weapons in the home for protection, but again, most weapons are not kept from children, and there are an awful lot of really stupid parents out there;
That's correct. True "gun-control" would be teaching people how to "control-access" to their lethal weapons. This kind of gun control I am all in favor of. But just taking all citizens' guns away because less than 1% of the population has problems in connection with them -- not fare. Why should the majority have to be placed at extreme risk (of possible tyranny) because of the ignorance and/or irresponsibility of the a tiny minority? Undemocratic. Not fair. Insane.
>educating them about home weapon security would take years, and in the interim, tragic accidents occur.
So-what if it takes years; we should get on with it. Perhaps connected with the purchase of a handgun, citizens should be required to attend a short seminar on safety and take a test to ensure they understood and can apply what they learned. This would also be acceptable "gun-control." When I was a young boy, my father gave me such a seminar. He taught me the proper handling and respect for a fire arm with all due admonishing about what could, and would, happen should I fail to obey the law. THIS is valid gun-control.
>The type of parent who doesn't lock a gun to make it inaccessible from a child is probably capable of losing their temper or going off in some way and committing an atrocity.
I agree. There are many red-neckish people out there that drink alcohol excessively and have disrespect for law and order and these people CAN be, and sometimes ARE, very dangerous. Having majored in sociology/criminology at Penn, I am familiar with the idea that almost all crime is victim-precipitated, meaning the victim "pulls-in" their assault. Thus a vast majority of people, prone to "losing their temper or going off in some way," can be handled by further educating the public on how to avoid antagonism and instigating conflict. For instance, you never argue with a drunk, nor do you argue with a person within 48 - 72 hours of their usage of alcohol as their brain is still dispersing the poison, thus their IQ and mental clock-speed are temporarily low, creating a highly-volatile temperament. THIS period of time is when cowboys are also likely to pull out guns and blow someone away. Secondly, you not only steer clear of such people, but you steer clear of ALL people who are on pharmaceutical drugs. Pharmaceutical drugs are particularly hazardous, if not deadly. You treat all such people who use pharmaceuticals like the power kegs that they are -- especially if they own or carry a gun. You disallow people who have drunk and disorderly records to own guns. You disallow people who are on pharmaceutical drugs to own guns. The mere fact that they are USING pharmaceutical drugs is proof that there IS something physically WRONG with their brain chemistry thus such people have NO right to own or carry guns and endanger the lives of normal people who have no such physical maladies, and thus such need for pharmaceutical drugs. THIS is valid gun-control, but since the pharmaceutical industry pays so much money to the TV networks and print media, this issue has been suppressed. In other words, it's okay to "MAKE MONEY" selling endless pharmaceutical drugs because you're "helping" all those people "get well" but at the same time you're creating millions of people with further chemical imbalances in their brain chemistry who also demand the right to tote lethal fire arms. The solution to all this is: People need to stop using so many drugs (whether alcohol, pharmaceuticals or cocaine) and start respecting the proper use of guns and why the Founders' wanted the citizenry to have them.
>I don't give most people much credit for having the brains, skill, and judgment to use a lethal weapon for any purpose other than a negative one.
Well other than the above, you should have more faith in your fellow man. You have probably been living in LA too long.
>Sorry, you will not convince me. This is like religion; you believe or you don't.
Well in fact it IS based upon religion. You are Jewish I am Christian. We have differing heritages, nevertheless I see your point of view and the fact that, as an unjustly persecuted minority living in this country (there are about 7 million Jews in the U.S. amongst a population of some 280 million), you and other Jewish people are probably afraid of encountering some anti-Semitic, drunk-nut out there with a gun. I sympathize with your situation and feel it's very unfortunate, however, again, you can't sacrifice Constitutional principals that provide security for the majority, for unconstitutional laws that provide security for a minority. You have to figure out ways to protect BOTH the majority AND the minority at all times. It HAS to be non-zero sum game. You can't take AWAY the security for the majority so that you can give it to the security for the minority. That's a zero-sum game where eventually everyone will lose. And that loss would be the loss of our Constitutional Republic.
>Do I trust government more than individuals? To the extent that we have a representative government and civil liberties with a free press, yes.
Well at this time you may as well trust individuals more because we don't have fully representative government; civil liberties are being eroded wholesale since this tactic of, so- called "terrorism," has been institutionalized into the national psyche; and we certainly don't have a free press, since 9 multi- national conglomerates own and control 90% of the media. (See a book called IT'S THE MEDIA, STUPID). So I think you might be wiser to start worrying a little more about the potential for tyrannical government emerging than about the potential that some gun-toting, anti-Semite is going to take a shot at you in a western bar. Remember, it was the Nazi-government that killed so many of your people, not the beer-drinking German citizens with guns. As I have said a number of times, the Jewish guy at http://www.jpfo.org/alert20010903.htm has it right . . . and all Jews should listen to him and stop buying the media-line perpetrated by Hollywood. Remember, the Hollywood studios are controlled by liberal, not very religious white Jewish males of European heritage (your exact description too, Stan) so I have to conclude that most, if not all, these studio executives have a similar point of view as you have about gun control. And since, as John Cones says in his book, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm -- movies tend to reflect the interests of their makers -- we have a situation whereby a minority's views are being impressed upon the majority. As I said above, you cannot skew the Constitution to serve the minority's views just because they have some heritage that is unique to them. So the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry is operating as a propaganda machine for the anti-gun lobby in America, and a large portion of this constituency is Jewish. Am I wrong on this?
>But to think that our government would be intimidated or compelled to act differently in crafting legislation, knowing that "we" are all armed is Timothy McVeigh-like.
Well the government is NOW being compelled to act differently in crafting legislation because of a minority's view of security. The only difference between this and McVeigh is the numbers involved. The Jewish lobby has perhaps 5 - 7 million supporters and McVeigh had perhaps only several hundred, or several thousand, supporters, I NOT being one of them.
>I would prefer to know that I can mouth off in public and not have some asshole with a piece not level me because he's irritated.
Sure, and I would prefer to also know this. And this is what I am working for. Your right to enjoy civil liberties is based upon your inalienable rights and these rights we share in common, just as we share much of the Bible/Torah in common. I know we can find mutually acceptable ways of arriving at REAL gun-control without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
James Jaeger

Problem Awareness
John Cones
7:33 am friday april 5, 2002
As A.G. Fredrickson stated many years ago “To be aware that a problem exists is the prerequisite for any attempt to solve the problem.” This is part of the mission of FIRM, to help make people all over the world aware that serious problems exist in Hollywood. Some of those problems can be characterized as lack of meaningful access to a somewhat closed system. In other words, for many years, it has been practically impossible for legitimate journalists or academic investigators to inquire of and obtain accurate information about what is really going on in Hollywood. Many are intimidated by the consistent use of and even the threat of the anti-Semitic sword (i.e., the false accusation of anti-Semitism used as a means for diverting attention from the real issues) whenever anyone comes close to raising legitimate questions about lack of diversity in Hollywood. Even though our own federal laws prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, nationality, religion and age, and it is impossible to determine even at a surface level whether some religious or related form of discrimination may be occurring without inquiring into the religious background of the individuals under question, some in Hollywood think that the mere inquiry into the religious backgrounds of top studio executives is off limits. In other words, the law does not apply to them – they are privileged individuals. The unprivileged African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian- Americans, Italian-Americans, women, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Whites from the South and others who have not been represented in the upper ranks of the Hollywood studio executives need to wake up to what is really happening in Hollywood and demand that legitimate inquiry be made into the discriminatory practices of Hollywood so that this important communications medium (the feature film) can be fairly and equally accessed by all segments of our multi-cultural society.
John Cones

Hollywood's Global Pollution
Jim Russell
11:38 am tuesday april 9, 2002
America's primary export is cultural degeneracy.
Despite its Marxist slant, Global Hollywood, by Toby Miller, Nitin Govil, John McMurria and Richard Maxwell (London: British Film Institute, 2001) provides an important appraisal of the ever-expanding international dominance of the Hollywood film industry, and the concomitant decline of European film production. It includes an excellent Bibliography of over fifty pages.
Quotes:
Hollywood's proportion of the world market is double what it was in 1990, and the European film industry is one-ninth of the size it was in 1945. (pp. 4-5.) PWC [Price Waterhouse Coopers] estimates that US companies earn almost US$11 billion by exporting film. . . . Europe is a key site for those earnings. (p. 5.) In 1999, domestic [US] consumers spent US$40.7 billion on filmed entertainment across these sectors [television and video versions of films]. . . . And 70 per cent of films on European television come from the US. Measured in box-office receipts, Europe is Hollywood's most valuable territory. (p. 7, citing .) Samuel Goldwyn complained that "the only villain we dare show today [1936] is a white American." (p. 27.)

Acting Stupid
John Cones
6:52 am thursday april 11, 2002
Many people have never learned to differentiate between "being stupid" and "acting stupid" in some specific instance. If someone calls you "stupid", that means they consider you to be fundamentally and permanently mentally challenged, but if they say you did something stupid, then that means one specific instance of your behavior was not very smart, and since we all do stupid things sometimes, that's clearly not the same as being stupid or being called stupid.
This distinction is similar to the difference between those that falsely claim that we at FIRM mean that Hollywood is dominated and/or controlled (the same thing, by the way) by Jews, as opposed to what we are really saying (i.e., Hollywood is dominated and/or controlled by a small group of politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage). The first, false statement is a broader statement suggesting that all Jews as a group control Hollywood (something we've never said) when what we are really saying is that only a small group of individuals control Hollywood, their behavior is not typical of Jews generally, nor do we believe that they behave the way they do because they are Jews.
Although some have taken the postion that it is simply not appropriate to consider the religious or cultural backgrounds of those who control Hollywood, we point out that the allegation being made here is that those who control Hollywood partly gained that control by discriminating against others. Thus, in order to know who is being victimized by Hollywood's discrimination, and who is doing the discriminating, it is absolutely necessary to inquire into the backgrounds of those on both sides of the discrimination. To merely make the statement that it's "stupid white men" is gross error and offensive to all the white men who have never had a fair shot at gaining power in a Hollywood dominated by a more specific group.
Those that continually use this misrepresentation of our position to distract attention away from our actual position (clearly stated in the writings posted at FIRM) are at minimum acting stupid. Can you see the humor in that?
John Cones

Sociological Questions: Industry Control
James Jaeger
7:25 pm friday april 19, 2002
Saying that "Jews control the Hollywood film industry" is NOT the same thing as saying that "the Hollywood film industry is controlled by Jews." Whereas the first statement is false, the second statement has some truth to it. The more accurate truth might be, "the Hollywood film industry is controlled by liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage." But this brings up a set of questions:

Is the Hollywood film industry controlled mostly by Liberals?
Is the Hollywood film industry controlled mostly by Jews?
Is the Hollywood film industry controlled mostly by Males?
Is the Hollywood film industry controlled mostly by Europeans?

In other words, which factor contributes the most to the cohesion of the control group, or, which factor is dominant? Which is least dominant?
Let's say, for instance, it's found that 90% of the cohesion of the Hollywood film industry's control group is contributed by the factor that it is predominantly liberal. What does this tell us about the above relationship between the statement "the Hollywood film industry is controlled by liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage" and the statements: "the Hollywood film industry is controlled by liberals," "the Hollywood film industry is controlled by Jews," "the Hollywood film industry is controlled by males," and the "the Hollywood film industry is controlled by Europeans"?
And what does this tell us about the connection between the statements: "Jews control the Hollywood film industry" and "the Hollywood film industry is controlled by Jews"?
Lastly, and most importantly, this brings up a new series of questions:

Do Liberals in general CONDONE the Hollywood film industry?
Do Jews in general CONDONE the Hollywood film industry?
Do Males in general CONDONE the Hollywood film industry?
Do Europeans in general CONDONE the Hollywood film industry?

If so, by how much, or how, little does EACH group above CONDONE the Hollywood film industry’s business practices.(1)
If, say, 90% of Jews in general condone the Hollywood film industry’s business practices, but only 25% of Liberals in general condone them, what does this tell us about Liberals and Jews? What does this tell us about the connection between the statements: "Jews control the Hollywood film industry" and "the Hollywood film industry is controlled by Jews"?
James Jaeger
----------------------------------
(1) Business practices of the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry as discussed at the various links c/o http://www.homevi deo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm and the book, WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD? found at http://www.homevid eo.net/FIRM/whats.htm.

Hindrance to Open Discussion
James Jaeger
12:37 pm monday april 22, 2002
As may of you know, who have been following FIRM's progress over the years, even the mention that Jews make up an element of the demographic that controls Hollywood is met with anti-Semitic slurs, an attack John Cones refers to as the "anti-Semitic sword."
People in other industries and government are beginning to realize that this phenomena is real, as witness the recent article at http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/israel_ant isemitism020421.html which goes on to say:
"'The slander of anti-Semitism is something that no critic of Israel has really been spared,' said Christopher Hitchens, a Washington-based British writer known for his support of the Palestinian. . .
"'It's been the experience of a lot of people like myself, . . . that they often feel they have to almost disprove the allegation of anti-Semitism before the argument can begin or before they can be allowed to participate in it,' Hitchens said.
"Hitchens chose his words carefully because talk of a Jewish lobby can be another one of those dangerous topics. It's dangerous for Jews because it feeds the imaginations of real anti-Semites who believe in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. It's dangerous for those who would discuss Jewish political influence, because they risk the charge of anti-Semitism."
To see how this is effecting an open and honest discussion of film reform, see "The anti-Semitic Sword" at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/shields.htm
James Jaeger

Indecent Exposure
James Jaeger
1:29 pm friday april 26, 2002
I'm re-reading INDECENT EXPOSURE, and although I'm only on chapter 9 so far, the book reiterates much of the stuff at FIRM, such as page 71 "... the high society of show-business tycoons, the loose network of several dozen men who run the entertainment industry in America." and page 56 "They understood that power in Hollywood resided where it always had -- in the top echelon of the film studios and networks and their parent corporations; that power rarely was absolute and usually was shared among the two or three or four top people in each company. . ."
It's interesting, although almost every one of the characters in this book is Jewish, the author only hints at it or occasionally says things like 'he was the son of a Russian-Jew'. The author DOES say that they all share similar cultural backgrounds. There doesn't seem to be any problem that everyone is Jewish. Seems that everyone in the know just accepts this and doesn't place much attention on it. When I was working on a picture called LOVELY BUT DEADLY in Hollywood, none of us in the editing room ever had even one conversation about Jews and no one even really thought about it. I certainly didn't. I had heard that there were a lot of Jewish people in the industry, but I didn't put much attention on it as I never figured they would discriminate against me as a person (maybe as a Scientologist, but not as a person). Guess I was pretty wrong -- as they obviously DO discriminate, otherwise EVERYONE wouldn't be Jewish all over the place. It's totally ridiculous, and this book, without rubbing it in the face, really shows the network beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Makes me wonder if when Doris Keating suddenly made 8 copies of CHASING KILROY, the project I took to her and Chan Mahon at Columbia, whether after the execs saw my German last name in there as a producer, whether that nixed any hope for a greenlight. Doris and Chan and I were already partners on this and Doris was certainly well-respected and accepted in the biz and they had greenlit 5 or so of her movies (PASSION FLOWER, TAKING LEAVE, MY WICKED WICKED WAYS, TOUCH OF SCANDAL), one after the other, just before KILROY. Strange and frustrating.
As far as INDECENT EXPOSURE, the author does say that the power still resides with the studios, not the agents. To wit: "Myth: Studio bosses used to have absolute power but are impotent today. Truth: The heads of the film studios have - and always have had - less power to function independently of their corporate parents than has been commonly portrayed.
You know in defense of the studios, since they put up most or all of the money for these pictures, why should ANYONE be allowed to have profit participation on them? Does GE give profit participation when they put out a new line of refrigerators? Maybe the studios should nix the idea of any and all net OR gross profit participation in any and all pictures to any and all talent or producers and then they wouldn't be setting themselves up for such criticism as "creative accounting". The studios could simply give options or warrants to talent, producers and executives (everyone) as other industries do, then all rewards for jobs well-done would eventually have to come through the "front" door of the studio (Wall Street) along with its other public stockholders. Thus this antiquated ad hoc, deal-by-deal mentality in Hollywood would evaporate eventually. Such a new "profit participation system" might also lead away from the practice of individual picture cross-collateralization, as the corporate stock of a company automatically reflects (or should reflect) the overall performance of all its output by its very nature. But it seems to me that this deal-mentality persists because both coasts seem to think the grass is more fun on the other side of the fence. In other words, the financial guys in New York (like Alan Hirschfield) subconsciously want to be involved in the deal-making process (the creative selection of scripts/talent, etc.) and the guys in Hollywood (like David Begelman) subconsciously want to wield New York-type financial power (so they make their little point deals, etc., all over the place). Both coasts ultimately hurt each other in their attempts to commingle posts: the East Coast business-types select or greenlight lousy pictures (because they know little about what's hot and what's not) and the West Coast movie-types create liability for the company by trying to play businessman with even more volatile talent-types (and their insane and greedy managers). If both costs stayed out of each others hair, there would probably be less problems and better movies.
James Jaeger

Was Cliff Robertson Blacklisted?
James Jaeger
3:08 pm friday april 26, 2002
Remember when Cliff Robertson blew the whistle on then President of Columbia Pictures, David Begelman, for forging a $10,000 check and embezzling from the company?
Was Cliff blacklisted by Hollywood for this gallant act? Let's take a look at the data on the Internet Movie Data Base at http://us.imdb.com/Name?Robertson,+Cliff and see.
Here's Cliff Robertson's output (TV and Feature) before and after 1977, the year of the whitleblowing:
1970 - 1
1971 - 0
1972 - 2
1973 - 4
1974 - 2
1975 - 3
1976 - 4
1977 - 2 (year of whistleblowing on Begelman)
1978 - 2
1979 - 1
1980 - 0
1981 - 1
1982 - 1
1983 - 3
1984 - 0
1985 - 2
1986 - 1
In the 5 years BEFORE whistleblowing-1977 he did 15 projects and in the 5 years AFTER 1977 he did 5 projects. So yes, it DOES look like Cliff Robertson was blacklisted by Hollywood's good- old-boy network.
James Jaeger

re: Hindrance to Open Discussion
Frank
2:26 pm monday april 29, 2002
Both links are inactive. What is the discussion you feel is being hindered? Do you object to the disproportionate number of jewish people working in film and TV? I don't get it. I mean even your motivation for the objection: if you *are* objecting, and it isn't antisemitism, what's the motivation? You don't need to prove you're not an antisemite to proceed with the discussion, as one of the quotes you supplied suggests, just start with why you think we need to discuss it at all.
P.S. If this is about some conspiracy to prevent you from pursuing a career in the rewarding fields of film and TV, change your name to Weinsaft as an experiment. Like my agent says: "couldn't hoit".
good luck

re: Hindrance to Open Discussion
James Jaeger
2:31 pm monday april 29, 2002
> Both links are inactive.
Why am I not surprised. Nevertheless, the meat of what was said at the now-inactive link is below.
> What is the discussion you feel is being hindered?
I feel the discussion of who controls the 7 MPAA studio/distributors (i.e., the top 3 or 4 executives, such as the Chairman, CEO and President of Production), is labeled anti- Semitic whenever anyone tries to point out that there is not enough diversity in these levels. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist to see exactly what I mean.
> Do you object to the disproportionate number of jewish people working in film and TV?
Yes, I do.
> I don't get it. I mean even your motivation for the objection: if you *are* objecting, and it isn't antisemitism, what's the motivation?
First of all, it's not that these birds are Jewish. FIRM would have the same objections if they were all Christians, Muslims or Scientologists. If you get this point, we can go on. If not, you will not understand what FIRM's motivations are. But likewise, assuming that you DO get this point -- the point that having ANY narrowly defined group controlling the studios is a lack of diversity -- I will try to answer your question.
The motivation for the objection is basically two fold: a) movies tend to reflect their makers and b) others are kept out of the business through discrimination.
As far as point a) is concerned, if you have a narrowly- defined group controlling the financing of features, these people will tend to greenlight only projects that interest them, or that somehow reflect only THEIR slant on life. In a diverse democratic society, is this acceptable? Read what John Cones specifically says about this at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/crimes.htm and at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/disdain.htm.
As far as point b) is concerned, a review of the last 90 years of the MPAA studio/distributors' record shows that an unrepresentative and unreasonable percentage (70% - 90%) of the people have been employed with at least 6 attributes that are the same or identical (i.e., liberal, not very religious, white, Jewish males, of European heritage). Thus, I allege that this is proof of discrimination at the highest levels of this business because, were such discrimination NOT occurring, there would be a group more reflective of the general population employed after 90 years. You can say that this discrimination goes on in all business, but that does not excuse the EXCESSIVE discrimination that goes on in THIS business, the one FIRM is concerned with. You can also say that these people STARTED the movie business, but that no longer excuses the EXCESSIVE discrimination because the movie business was "started" almost a century ago. Some agency is still promoting the practice today.
> You don't need to prove you're not an antisemite to proceed with the discussion, as one of the quotes you supplied suggests, just start with why you think we need to discuss it at all.
Well, indeed, one would think this would be true -- and in fact it was what I naively thought when John Cones and I first introduced this effort about 4 years ago -- but unfortunately Hollywood has many apologists that don't want the simple truth of what we say at FIRM to get out, or be accepted. And such people, many of them displayed all over misc.writing.screenplays, rec.arts.movies.production and alt.movies.independent, have done their best over these years to invalidate our message by attacking the messengers. I can't tell you how many times John and I have been called anti-Semitic, a Nazis, assholes, ranting jack-boots, idiots, morons, etc., etc., over this past 4 years. To see a VERY tiny part of this abuse, check out http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/dissent.htm and for more information on FIRM, see http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm.
James Jaeger
> P.S. If this is about some conspiracy to prevent you from pursuing a career in the rewarding fields of film and TV, change your name to Weinsaft as an experiment. Like my agent says: "couldn't hoit".
I shouldn't have to do that. Nevertheless, we have at least one report in the FIRM Archive where an individual actually did this and says he got better results. The FIRM Archives are at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/archives.htm
> good luck
Thanks, but what I would rather hear you say is: "Okay, I now see what FIRM is all about and agree with its purpose, as set forth at your Mission Statement," such at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/fmission.htm

A level Playing field, almost
Marvin E. Pedigo
6:33 am tuesday april 30, 2002
About five years ago we were approached to do a motion picture. We had never produced a movie before, but we had never built a high rise apartment complex either. We figured we could do anything if we just studied everything we could get our hands on. That was the beginning of our production company. Up until that time we were in the artistic management business, another business that we just sort of fell into. Joseph Pedigo, one of the owners of Alpha Impressions-2155, was in NYC attending the Flo Greenbergs' "Actors Workshop". This is a school that has been home to Matt LeBlanc, Kelly Rutheford, Kirsten Dunts, Maklcolm Jamahal Warner, and many of todays soap stars. Being a well connected school, the journey to the agencies was automatic. It didn't take Joseph long to find out that the business was a who you know business, and that in their eyes you were valuable real estate. He deceided to quit the business, if that was the way it was. He approached his father, who had come out of the Music Industry, many years before, with his delima. He loved acting and he knew he was gifted to do it, but he could not handle the way the industry treated it's actors. He asked his father if they could start a management company with a new concept. Thus began the journey to the place they are today. They now manage a team of a dozen actors. They also have been involved ion a few productions and they are now just finishing up on pre-production, of the "HappyMart" project. What a journey, they have been on. They started out to revolutionize some things in the industry, and they found out that it has become a fairly level playing field, due to the new technology. As far as production goes, the new cameras and equipment to shoot movies is changing almost daily, thus pulling some of the power away from the big studios. It is now feasible to learn everything you need to know to produce a movie just by studying the internet information sites, and putting the pieces together as we have done.
When we were first asked to be involved in a production, we told them we didn't know a thing about production, and they said that was OK they just wanted us for our energy. I now understand that. We believed it dould be done, and the more we learned the more we relized the vision.
It is our concept that you can treat people as equals and still do a great work, and even better in some ways. Everybody involved is just as important as the next. We have set up web- sites to interact between the actors and the staff. We even have a web-group site that they can communicate with each other. All information on production is openly discussed with everybody. We feel we have created a family atmosphere unlike anything we have seen in this industry before. We are all working together to make the project a success from pre-production through post. The publicity on our project has sent a buzz through the industry, and has some of the big guys wondering how we could generate such exposure, from our little studio in Virginia.
We are completely ignoring the soothsayers, who want you to believe that everything has to be hard for everybody, because it was hard for them. We feel it is all about a state of mind that starts with believing in the project.
We do not care how anything has been before this very day, it can be changed. You just have to have the vision and energy and the willingness to take any setbacks as a lesson. Then, stay focused and move on. We feel that if you have a vision to do something in this World, then that comes from the Creator and cannot be stopped unless you quit. We refuse to quit. The movie industry has been controlled by a handful of people up to now, but if you have ever wanted to get in, now is the time. Many independents will come on the scene over the next few years, but it will eventually all boil down to quality. It is obvious that quality has not been the factor for some time. It is all about money and connections. Some of the stuff that we have been forced to accept as entertainment is an insult. If you truly want quality, then you need deversification and competition. This is what is opening up for all that are willing to focus.
I recently heard of a guy that made an independent movie for around a million bucks. he created a web-marketing plan himself and sold his own movie. He has had a remarkable return. There is really nothing to stop you but your selves. Go for it, we want to see your movie.
Alpha impressions-2155

| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |