The Great Swift & Trump Dustup: The Impact of Celebrity Endorsements

Celebrates have long sought to use their fame (or at least perceived fame) to push every type of product there is, from video games and deodorant to restaurants to clothes. Back in the days of radio and early television, it wasn't uncommon to see some of your favorite movies stars hawking "Chesterfield" cigarettes, Colgate toothpaste, or some perfume. It seems like everything and everyone had a sponsor.

It's not much difference when it comes to politics which is, after all, nothing more than a popularity contest that much different from the ones you had in Junior high school when running for school council or class president, talent contests, or the glitzy high budgeted "Miss America". pageant. Always with the contestants trying to be everything to everyone while promising the moon. The only real difference is that with political races the outcomes are actually matter.

These celebrities (which includes athletes, television and radio "personalities" and entertainers)  are often treated as a sort of royalty, as if their opinions were somehow gospel. They get asked  by the media about world affairs, the economy, national policy, and so forth as if they're are experts. Now, why everyone is entitled to an opinion, the majority of these folks known little and the topics they're speaking. They tend to exist in a make believe world, which may be why they also tend to be highly liberal. It's only in a highly liberal world that they are allowed to fully express themselves.

When it comes to performers and politics, endorsing candidates is nothing new. The famous Al Jolson endorsed  the Republican Warren G. Harding for President in 1927 (including writing and performing a song for the campaign at campaign stops). The "Chairman of the Board", Frank Sentara, joined with Humphrey Bogart, Rita Hayworth, Orson Wells, and other notables endorsed Franklin D. Roosevelt of President, including holding several fundraisers.

Meanwhile, Bob Hope and Bing Crosby backed Thomas E. Dewey. Sammy Davis Jr and football legend, Jim Brown, Ronald Reagan,  John Wayne, and "The King", Elvis Presley, were Nixon supporters while "Babs" (aka Barbara Streisand) openly helped both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Fast forward to 2024, and we find former President Trump with the likes of Rosanna Barr, Kid Rock, Hulk Hogan, 50 Cents, Ted Nugent, Elon Musk, and Mike Tyson are among a great number of other popular individuals in his corner. On the other hand, Vice President Kamala Harris has the majority of the wealthy "Limousine Liberals" working it for her, with names such as  Spike Lee, Oprah Winfrey, Mark Hamill, Beyonce',  Mark Cuban,  Jane Fonda, and George Clooney (historically, they've always supported liberal Democrats). However, the biggest name to come out of in support of Harris was that of billionaire pop performer Taylor Swift.

Following the recent debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on September 11th, Swift issued a statement (signed "Childless Cat Lady") via the social media platform, Instagram, to her approximately 283 million Instagram followers announcing her support for Harris. Nevertheless, following Swift's Instagram post, musical legend Stevie Nicks, Aubrey Plaza, Dan Levy, and "Lil Nas X" (aka Montero Lamar Hill) all followed suit.

This apparently resulted  in some 406,000 individuals visiting the Votegov.com site to register to vote (presumably Democrat and again, presumably for Harris).  Many of these are part of the new wave voters comprised of Millennials, Gen Y, which will eventually replace  Gen X and Babyboomers.

Somewhat amusingly, the former president responded that he hated Taylor Swift  (presumably referring to Swift's music) and add that he liked "Mrs. (Brittney) Mahomes better" Mahomes is a former professional soccer player and co-owner the Kansas City Current soccer team. As a side note, I have to admit that I'm not a fan of Swift or Pop music in general). Brittney is also married to Kansas City Chiefs quarterback, Patrick Mahomes.  Ironically, Mahomes came out in support of Taylor Swift shortly after his comment.

Taylor Swift is the first ever musical performer to occupy the Hot 100's top ten records and end up as Billboard's year-end number one performing artist (male or female) in three decades---2009, 2015, and 2023. At 34 years old and with an estimated net worth of $1.3 billion dollars, Taylor Swift has sold an estimated 114 million albums (11 albums certified platinum) and has received more awards than any other artist. 

What kind of impact could Taylor Swift potentially have in the election? A recent survey by Statista indicated that 22.56% of adults identified themselves as fans of the performer (they self-identify as "Swifties"). Digging further into the demographics of her fanbase, we find that 41% of her fans are between ages 18 and 24, making them members of Gen Z.  If that age bracket is expanded to age 34, then we find that the personage of fans jumps to 78% (the difference is comprised mostly of males). 

Looking at gender, 61.5% of "Swifties" are female. As an aside, the data shows that the older the age bracket (up to age 44), the more likely the fanbase will be comprised of males. Over the last 12 months, Swift has seen a growth in her overall fanbase of 25% on Instagram and 75% on TikTok. Swift is seen as the quintessential social media super star.

On YouTube, she as 50.3 million followers. On Facebook and Twitter (aka "X") it's 76.9 and 92 million respectively. Instagram shows 232.9 million fans. TikTok show her having 92 million followers while Soundcloud has 428,500.  There are 62.5 million followers on Spotify. Deezer has 9.4 million "Swifties".

 By comparison, former Beatle and musical legend, Paul McCarthy, has "just" 4.5 million on Instagram. Black Sabbath front man and bat connoisseur, Ozzy Osborne has 75.8 million follower on TikTok. Rock masters, Queen has only 3.3 million on TikTok.  On Twitter/X, Led Zeppelin reaches 721.2,000.  Lastly, the greatest band of all time, The Beatles, have 8.5 million fans on YouTube.

Given the ages, gender, and active  engagement of her  fanbase, there's little question that her support of Kamala Harris can have a substantial impact. None of Trump's celebrity backers can come close to matching Taylor Swift and her "Swifties". Should Harris win her race for president, she'll owe a huge debt to "The Childless Cat Lady".

So, if we go by the what we see here, Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris could have a serious impact on the outcome of the race. Celebrity endorsement can give a candidate access to an entire base of potential voters they may otherwise not have access to. They also raise the prospects of more financial donations coming into the coffers.

However, celebrity endorsements are a double edge sword. Not everyone likes a given celebrity or their opinion for whatever reason. As such, their endorsement may bring out that "anti-celebrity" crowd, and with it, their vote and possible donations. Secondly, many voters see celebrity endorsements as nothing more than an attempt to bring attention to themselves, especially if their career is sagging or passé (such as can be said of Roseanne Barr or Kathy Griffin). Media endorsements can be seen as just as useless since they tend to promote their own agendas, which rarely benefits the people.

Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris, the Vice President with the longest and worst approval rating in U.S. history, has breathed new life in her campaign. It has also diverted attention from the particulars of the race to the sideshow. Untimely, how much will it impact the race? I guess we'll know in just two months. Hopefully, however, the American People will stay focused on the issues and not on the circus performers.

 

 If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

From Sinatra to Streisand: 100 Years of Celebrity PoliticalEndorsements

Trump Celebrity Endorsements: A Full List of Celebrities  Supporting the Ex-POTUS

Celebrates who Support Trump

These celebrates have endorsed either Harris or Trump forpresident

All the Musicians Supporting Kamala Harris  in the 2024  Presidential Election

Lists of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift

How to Build a Fanbase That Can Break Ticketmaster

 

The Delegitimizing of President Donald Trump

There is something very wrong in America right now. You can almost see it, just under the surface. You can feel it in the air, like a kind of static electricity or the smell of rain, except this isn't refreshing. In fact, it's a sour like smell. The peaceful transition of power from one Presidential Administration to another is the hallmark of American government dating back to the Presidency of George Washington. It represents the essence of a Constitutional or democratic republic. Of course, that is mostly a facade these days; we are a defacto Oligarchy as most everyone knows, but nevertheless, this is still an important part of the illusion. But that's not what we're seeing or hearing.

There is no question that the political Left truly believed that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. In fact, I think the political Right and the Establishment Republicans had consigned themselves to four years of the "Hillary and Bubba Show", especially after their handpicked cardboard candidates were taken out one by one by "the clown and his circus" as the poster child for the Establishment, Ted Cruz often said. Yet, "the clown" did indeed win. The corporate media and its scripted talking heads were gobsmacked; they were stunned and almost lost for words. The "limo liberals" of Hollywood were knocked sideways. Many had made the usual empty promises of "leaving America" if Trump won, fully expecting of course that they would never have to honor their promises and would use a Clinton victory as proof of America's affection and awe of them.

Ever since then, we have been witnessing the overt and covert sabotaging the Donald Trump and his incoming Administration; a de facto attempt by the Left, with the blessing and support of the Oligarchy, to delegitimize Trump as America's new President along with his administration; a "soft coup" as some as put it. We've witnessed demands for recounts via third parties (to avoid the taint of sour grapes), which failed. We've seen attempts to blame Hillary's failure on the Electoral College; then on supposed "Russian Hacking", complete with Congressional hearings and testimonies from the same intelligence agencies which claimed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; and on Russian Times (RT), a global alternative media site, for hosting a debate between third party candidates Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party (the US corporate media wouldn't give them any serious coverage. The Democrat/Republican controlled Commission on Presidential Debates doesn't let any third party or independent candidate participate in the debates, as designed since Ross Perot's performance in 1992 and 1996). So, who does that leave to blame I wonder?

We have had virtually nonstop media coverage badmouthing of Trump, his family, his nominees, and an all out effort to dig up something---anything---on any of them! We've seen Left leaning organizations publicly planning to do everything in their power to disrupt, delay, or stop the inauguration at every step; to overwhelm security, not to mention national and local protests amid slogans of "Not My President" and promises to ignore or challenge the Trump Administration at every turn. We have some 50 members of Congress throwing a hissy fit and boycotting the ceremony. Meanwhile, we have members from the corporate media basically giving advice about disrupting the proceedings, plus none too subtle discussions about what an assassination attempt on Trump would do and how it could delay Obama's departure.

While watching and reading all this, I had to reflect back on all the protests and riots by conservatives when Obama was sworn in the first time, and then, despite being nearly hated, all the hubbub the second time he took the oath of office. Oh, what a minute---there wasn't none! That's right. Despite being viewed by the Right (and many others) as a unknown, unqualified political upstart with no voting record; whose background was murky at best and teeming with possible communist fellow travelers; a possible birth in Nigeria or wherever plus being a closet Muslim who attended a racist church (and later claimed he wasn't aware of any racist sermons by the minister), there was no attempts to disrupt either of Obama's inaugurations. It seems that even conservatives, Republicans, and the political extreme Right, was willing to swallow their collective pride, rub their sore butts, and respect the rule of law as laid out by the Founder's and accept the outcome. They were also willing to respect the transition of power peacefully despite their personal opinions of the incoming President, if for no other reason, than out of respect for the Constitution.

Of course, this isn't the first time in recent years where there has been controversy regarding an election. Everyone remembers George W. Bush and Al Gore's election outcome (Florida's "dangling chads"), which was resolved (albeit illegally) by the Supreme Court which decided for Bush (the decision should have been made by the House of Representatives according to the Constitution, but with a GOP controlled House, the outcome would have likely been the same). Nevertheless, while there were was a "hue and cry" from the Left, there was no planned demonstrations or attempts to disrupt Bush's inauguration. Going back a couple of generations, we had the 1960 election between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, which was the closest presidential race to date at the point. There was little question of voter fraud, especially in West Virginia, as a result of Kennedy money and mob influence or in Chicago thanks to the "machine" of Mayor Richard Daley. But, rather than challenge the results, Nixon accepted the results and encouraged Americans to do so as well (of course if we're going to talk about corrupt elections, we could be at this for awhile).

Regardless though, this election and the subsequent fallout has been unprecedented in its virile hatred of in the incoming President. I guess one could expect this from the extremist, but this isn't coming just from them (I would include Hollywood here since they live in their own little insulated world). It's coming from what is supposed to the more rational Left, including Establishment Democrats, the corporate media, college campuses and academia, and it extends all the way down to state and local levels. It's "as if" the Left felt "entitled" somehow to the Office of the President and that entitlement has been unfairly denied them. So, like spoiled children, they're determined to throw a temper tantrum and try to make everyone's lives as miserable as possible until they get their way. Well, four years is going to be a long wait. I don't know if they can stay in their "safe spaces" that long. Sooner or later, reality will sit in, at least I hope. If they're smart (I said "if"), they will use the next four years to see where they went wrong (such as promoting someone who was more corrupt than Al Capone, not to mention arrogant to point of ignoring security protocols, repeatedly lying to Congress, leaking secure information and committing numerous possible acts of treason; and then there was Benghazi). Her promises of following in the footsteps of Obama, especially in areas of foreign policy didn't help---just ask Israel and our allies in Europe. How did we go from a President telling the American People he wasn't a crook to a candidate for President who made no qualms about it in under 50 years? At the risk of sounding callous, what difference does it make? I'm not saying Trump is any better, not by a long shot. We, as Americans, have found ourselves going from scrapping the bottom of barrel in trying to find competent political representation to scrapping under the bottom of the barrel.

Perhaps this is by intent. The Oligarchy which now controls this country needs chaos. It needs apathy as much as it needs for us to feel insecure and unease. Why? Simple. As history has repeatedly shown, a people, when faced with insecurity and fear will always---always---surrender its freedom for a sense of peace, safety, and stability. Business, especially big business, the kind the Oligarchs run, needs this too. They can't make long term plans and financial projections without it. Besides, with the kind of stability they need and want, comes control, and control is the name of them game for them. So, regardless of what you think of Trump, let's give him a fair chance to prove himself one way or another. If he does good, yeah us. If not, we'll know better the next time. Of course, despite all their rhetoric, both parties are bought and paid with the same coin. It's their game and their rules. We're just the "marks" to use an old con game term. I think we know that by now. If Trump doesn't work out, then perhaps it's time to change coins and change the rules.

Hillary's Presidential Campaign Failure: The Russians Did It!

This is getting beyond amusing and into the realm of the absurd. Hillary Clinton, in one of her first talks since losing the 2016 Presidential Election, is now claiming that the reason for her loss was that Russia's Vladimir Putin had a "personal beef" with her. Seriously? Her loss had nothing to do with Benghazi and the deaths of an ambassador or three former Navy SEALs and CIA operatives? It had nothing to do with her repeated lying to Congress, or the Senate or the American People? It had nothing to do with arrogant disregard for security procedures regarding classified emails and other communications: her attempts to withhold or destroy evidence? Her defeat had zero to do with using the office of Secretary of State as a gatekeeper in a multimillion dollar "pay to play" scheme involving countries and corporations and their bribes....err..."donations" to her Clinton Foundation, not to mention attempts to avoid taxes by making substantial donations to her own fun. How about doing illegal arms smuggling deals to groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda (you know---9/11 and the butchering of thousands of Kurds, Christians, and Yazidi or the selling of hundreds of young women into sex slavery). What about the selling of uranium to Russia? Do you think that miffed Putin?

Let's not forget that all of this started off with allegations by the CIA and others in the intelligence community that Russia somehow manipulated our federal election system against Hillary. They also allege that the thousands of WikiLeaks originated from the Russians and more recently, since Putin was a former KGB station chief, that he had both the time and expertise to be directly involved in helping to the "throw" the election to Donald Trump. And if that wasn't enough, we've had to endure efforts to "recount" votes in key states and cities, which was initiated by Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein, who almost magically was able to raise some five million dollars in a week whereas she could only come up with three millions for her campaign during the entire course of the election! What's more, it appears that much of the money raised for the recount came from the Hillary supporters. When it turned out that the recount wasn't going to work (and was resulting in the loss of votes mistakenly counted for both Stein and Hillary), it was quietly dropped. Of course, Stein got to keep the money left over. I wonder what you would call that anyway---a payoff? Whatever it's called, it destroys the credibility of not just Jill Stein, but the Green Party too, not to mention the integrity of the third parties who may now be viewed as pawns of the two corporate parties, the Democrats and Republicans (I guess if Trump had lost, it would have been Libertarian Party Candidate Gary Johnson who would have demanded a recount on behalf of the Establish Republicans, though I would hope he has more character than that).

Now if that wasn't a big enough farce, the corporate media has been nonstop in their attempts to delegitimize Trump's victory and criticizing every move Trump or someone in his camp makes, from who he interviews for various Cabinet posts to opting to conduct the interviews in the privacy of his own residence (Trump maintains a luxury apartment in Trump Towers, which he owns). Naturally, they'll do the same to anyone he chooses. Finally, with their failure to generate any interests in the recounts, Hillary supporters and members of the DNC, as wells as members of other groups, are trying to intimidate the members of the Electoral College into not doing their sworn duty and casting their votes for the winner of the election, Donald Trump. Some, if not all by this point, have received thousands of death threats, harassing phone calls, letters, and emails. They are demanding that they vote for Hillary Clinton instead.

As if this isn't insane enough, Hollywood's Leftwing; these so-called "celebrities" are also lending their voices to this hue and cry. Some, are even doing short commercials insisting that the Electoral College both be done away with (which would throw all future presidential elections to those states with the largest populations) and to ignore their state's election outcome and vote for Hillary. By law, the candidate who wins the most states receive that state's allotted Electoral votes. Approximately a month after the election, those members of the Electoral College gather to cast their votes for the winner in their state. In theory, they are under no specific obligation to vote the way their state intended, but traditionally they've always done so. Lastly, there has been threats by buttercups and snowflakes...I mean...Left leaning Millennial college students...to boycott classes, disrupt public activity (such as transportation) and hold protests. Some have promised to cause problems at the inauguration (wow, I hope it's not as bad as it was the last two times. Oh yeah, that's right. Conservatives and the GOP didn't riot, stage protests, disrupt public activity or makes jackasses of themselves at Obama's inaugurations). I swear, the Left is teetering on having a collective epileptic fit. So, let's get down to the point of all this.

First off, these are ALLEGED cyber attacks, and secondly, what a crock of BS. Now "St. Hillary" is claiming there was an international plot---lead by Putin--to deprive her of the coronation, to which she believes she was entitled. Wasn't it Hillary who said there was not rigging of elections? Yet, she and Debbie Wassermann-Schultz were found to be rigging the Primary and DNC Convention against Bernie Sanders (and for which Debbie was fired and then hired the next day by her ole pal Hillary)? And wasn't it Hillary who said "in our system of democracy, some win and some lose"? And wasn't it also Hillary who said that Trump had to accept the "Will of People" and results of the election? It's time for Mrs. Clinton to shuffle off to the "dustbin of History" where she belongs and let this nation try and repair the damage of the last eight years.

Secondly, it's time for Obama to acknowledge that Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton loss. He needs to start acting like a President and stop with his efforts to stir up hated and discontent, which seems to be about the only things he's actually accomplished in his eight years. Enough with the implied threats and innuendos; of warning Trump to keep his hands off of certain policies and so on. Obama has been acting like a spoiled little brat who didn't get his way, and so now he's acting like a little snot. Obama is acting as if Trump's election was a personal affront; a reflection of his regime and is policies (well, actually it was, especially since Hillary said that she intended to carry on some of Obama's objectives). Well, like Hillary, it's time for Obama to put on his big boy underwear and act like an President (or at least an adult). Obama had his time. Now, like Hillary, it's time to go. "The Donald" may fall flat...or he might be one of America's greatest Presidents ever. Only time will tell, but we, as a nation, owe that to Trump for no other reason than the fact that he is the incoming President. Let "The Donald" prove himself one way or the other without trying to sabotage him before he even gets started.

Lastly, if any of what Hillary, Obama, the corporate media, the CIA says is true, then we have much more serious problems than worrying about the Electoral College. If...and that's a really big "If"...Russia did manipulate the election of an American President, then we have a complete and catastrophic failure of our entire intelligence infrastructure from the NSA, CIA, DIA to Homeland Security and the FBI. We also have an utter failure of the internal electoral safeguards from the manufacturers of the voting machines to the County Clerks who count the ballots all the way up to the offices of every single Secretary of State responsible for tabulating and verifying the votes casts in this country. I'm not saying that it is entirely impossible. There are numerous instances of paper ballots and sometimes machine ballots being miscounted, of the unregistered and occasionally illegal individuals voting, people selling their votes, and of course, the dead voting. Don't forget that the DNC worked to rig results in certain specific locations against Sanders, but still, there was no nationwide voter fraud as now being alleged by Hillary supporters.

Meanwhile, as some sort of punitive backlash, the corporate media is going after alternative news and radio media sites, including Conservative and Right leaning bloggers and YouTube Channel hosts. These are some of the same corporate media outlets which almost openly campaigned for Hillary and was often the source of actual "fake news". They are claiming that alternative "fake news" sites led to Hillary's defeat and Obama's dismissal approval ratings (and, I suspect, the pathetic approval ratings of Congress and Supreme Court which have been in the dumpster for decades). Therefore, in an effort to control public information content, corporate and some social media outlets like Facebook are joining forces. I know that somewhere both Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin have found something to smile about together.

So, let's face facts. The Russians aren't responsible for Hillary Clinton's loss. Hillary was. It was her arrogance and her actions that caused her to lose the election. I think one could successfully argument that it was also Obama and his policies which contributed to her loss as well. Julian Assuage, founder of WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have both said that their information did not come from the Russians, or any other government for that matter. It came from with the DNC and the political system that was fed up with the corrupt status quo. In 1980, Ronald Reagan asked Americans in his campaign for President if, after four years of Carter's Presidency, they were better now than four years go. The answer was no, and Reagan became our 40th President. A similar, but unspoken question was put to Americans again in this election, and once more, the answer was a collective "no". Yes, it's true that Putin doesn't like Hillary Clinton. He also doesn't like Obama, Joe Biden, or John Kerry but so what? It's time Hillary, the DNC, and yes, the Obama Regime, take ownership of their loss. They repeatedly ignored the American People, as has the Establishment Republicans.

Trump's victory wasn't your victory. You worked just as hard against Trump as did the Left. Both corporate parties assumed we were asleep. We weren't. We were vitally awake and we were tired of seeing our nation destroyed bit by bit. Trump might not do any better, which is ok. We'll vote him out too. We are tired of the Oligarchy ruling our nation. We're fed up with their corporate owned media which spins, misdirects and misleads us at every opportunity. We're tired of the "unsweetened blue Kool-Aid" Republicans and the "sweetened red Kool-Aid" Democrats; both bought and paid for by the neo-fascist Oligarchs who do everything in their power to divide us. Regardless of our political leanings or race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any other factors, we must come together and focus our energy on rebuilding this country in our image; to serve our needs; to represent us, not the uber-rich or the political class, and most certainly, not the Oligarchy.



Hillary Clinton talks election loss, Vladimir Putin's "personal beef" with her
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-talks-election-loss-vladimir-putin-personal-beef/


Obama says Russian 2016 election tampering ended after warning to Putin
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/16/obama-says-russian-2016-election-tampering-ended-after-warning-t/21629714/


Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/13/putin-trump-election-hillary-clinton


FBI back CIA assessment of Russian's 2016 election hack
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/16/fbi-backs-cia-assessment-of-russia-2016-election-hack/21629706/

Bureau 121: The Sony Hack Fallout

This really wasn't the article I was planning on writing. Actually, I thinking about a summary of the year's major events---more than ample material there! As some of you may know, I'm a big movie buff, especially when it comes to Mel Brooks or those great movies from the 30's and 40's. In fact, Americans in general love their movies. We've had a love affair with Hollywood since the days of Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish, and Tom Mix, which brings me to the subject of this article. Last year, in 2013, some 1.34 billion movie tickets were sold, generating just under $11 billion dollars in revenue.

Movies have always allowed us the opportunity for escape. It magically allows us enter another time and place; to voyeuristically participate in the lives of characters we long to be or of those we love to hate. Movies have helped us transport ourselves from the everyday drudgery of our ordinary lives into a realms of enchantment, if only for a few hours. Movies have also brought us together, be it a couple on their first date or a nation during a time of war, a national tragedy or economic depression. A key part of this, perhaps an essential part, has been the leeway we've given moviemakers to tell their stories. It is imperative that the actors, as well as the writers and directors be allowed to explore their creativity; to push the boundaries as far they can go.

Naturally, they sometimes go too far; beyond the bounds of good taste or credibility. But we've never tried to restrict their creative licenses. Sure, we've censored them. We've rated them. We've edited them, We've toned them down, but all for content based on the audiences or perceived morals of the time but rarely have we prohibited them solely because of the subject matter (though some were not made due to the political or alleged political leanings of a writer, director, or producer during the mid 1950's during the "Red Scare"). I would say that's because we place such a high value on our freedom of speech as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers, but that would only be half true since the same sense of artistic freedom of expression can be found in Europe and in most other countries throughout the world; perhaps even to a far greater extent than our own, though they too have faced their own censorship due to political or religious intolerance.

But, now we have a new wrinkle we must consider. In today's interconnected world, amid all the tension, are there some topics that are simply out of bounds? We all remember what happened when author Salman Rushie wrote his 1988 book "The Satanic Verses", which enflamed some in the Moslem community and resulted in a price being placed on his head. Or when a few newspapers published cartoons which some Moslems felt were insulting to their Prophet Mohammed, resulting again in threats of violence against the various cartoonists as well as any newspaper which dared to run these allegedly "anti-Mohammed" cartoons (yet cartoons, TV shows, movies insulting Israel, Jews, America, or even Hindus and Buddhist were deemed perfectly acceptable to the same Moslem community).

Recently, Sony Pictures Entertainment produced a movie---a supposed comedy---about a bumbling talk show host and his producer who are hired by the CIA to killed the leader of North Korea entitled "The Interview". I guess someone at Sony thought this would be a hoot. Apparently, North Korea wasn't amused. Using a covert military cyber-hacking unit called "Bureau 121", operating under the euphemistic name of "Guardians of Peace", launched a hack attack on Sony, first hacking the movie studio's emails and releasing some embarrassing emails written some of the studio's senior executives about a few popular actors, producers, directors, and others. The emails rattled some cages; doubtlessly upset a few very powerful people in Tinseltown. Aside from some red faces and several groveling apologies, no serious or lasting damage was done. However, that was just beginning. The Guardians of Peace demanded that "The Interview" not be released. Any theater that did so would apparently be targeted for some sort of attack. The warning extended to anyone living near the offending theater, so one would naturally assume a bomb of some sort was implied.

As a result, five of the major film distribution outlets and at least three theaters chains announced they would not show the movie, scheduled for release this Christmas. Sony followed by stating that the movie would be withdrawn and not shown in any format at any time. Game over. Sony took quite a financial hit in the process. But the impact is really more than just about money. For the first time a foreign government has, through a military operation, attacked a US corporation; in this case to prevent release of a movie which its find objectionable. Now, I'm no fan of big corporations in general, and I certainly would not go see this movie for several (and hopefully obvious) reasons. But should a foreign government have the ability to dictate the release of a film, or a song, or a book, outside of its own domestic market?

During WWII, there were numerous propaganda films produced worldwide, although the US produced the lion's share by far, followed by the British while 90% of the films produced by Nazi Germany for instance contained no political content. Russia produced a few while the Italians and Japanese produced little of any consequence. During the Vietnam War, Hollywood released several anti-war films (including several about the Korea War, and by extension, Vietnam) while only one movie presented the war in a positive light (John Wayne's "The Green Beret" which was a box office dud). Still, there was no attempt by any side to prevent to production, release, or distribution of a film such as threatening to blow up studios or theaters. China is believed to have a similar military cyber-hacking unit as well and is thought to have been responsible for several attacks on US government agencies as well as financial institutions, yet not a peep out of them about any anti-Communist Chinese movie ("The Manchurian Candidate" comes to mind), book, or script.

I do have to sympathize with the North Koreans though on one point. This movie, even though it's billed as comedy (questionably given the previews I've seen), was about the assassination of their current head of state, their "Beloved Leader" Kim Jong-un. I wonder how Americans would feel about a North Korean or Chinese movie or book portraying the assassination of the President (ok, feel free to substitute Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton for Obama to put it in the proper context)? How would the Russians feel about a movie, even a knee slapping comedy, about bumping off Vladimir Putin? Somehow, I don't they'd care too much for it. See my point?

The question remains, as much as we in the US and in the West value our freedom of expression; as much artistic license as we believe we should allow, is there now a line that shouldn't be crossed given the connectedness of the world today? Where once a country could have poked fun at a culture, or a race, or even a religion, now to find that same content dangerously unacceptable? We have become far more sensitive for instance in how we portray Native Americans. Should this be extended to other nations and cultures as well? If so, shouldn't that be reciprocated? No more anti-Israel or anti-Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist movies by the Islamic countries for instance? No more negative portrayals of Hispanics, blacks, Asians or whites? No more Irish or German or French or Italian jokes or caricatures? How would this be enforced? Would it include songs? What about books or standup comedy routines? What about previously issued material? We can certainly buy most of the Nazi propaganda films, such as "Jud Suss" or "The Eternal Jew "online.

Or alternatively, was this attack by the North Koreans simply a new weapon in their arsenal? They have made it abundantly clear they would attack us, South Korea, the Japanese, or anyone else they pleased anytime they wanted too with full impunity. Is pulling this movie merely giving in---surrendering---to their demands, and if so, what do we do the next time (and there will be a next time) they demand something else? Many in Moslem community have been offended---perhaps rightly so---by what some in West and in Asia have said, written or drawn, but have made it clear that they are well within their bounds to portray Jews, Hindus, Buddhist, Christians, or any non-Moslem as they please. Should we or Israel or India then follow North Korea's lead? That just doesn't seem quite equitable to me.

We also need to consider whether pulling this movie is a surrender our freedom, in this case our freedom of speech. If so, what's the difference between this and bowing to terrorism in any of its other forms? What freedom will they, or someone else like them, demand next? At what point does freedom of expression give way to respect and tolerance or face down threats to those same freedoms? It is a brave new world indeed, but are we brave enough?

Sony cancels December 25th premiere of 'The Interview' after terror threat



Sony email hack: what we learned about greed, racism and sexism



The Sony hack: how it happened, who is responsible and what we've learned