Charlton Heston

[Guest alex]

However much of a tit he might've been, it's a bit harsh of the independednt to use this pic in his obituary...

 

It is pretty funny how his other very "liberal" political stuff (and indeed support for early gun control) doesn't get mentioned much if at all now.

 

He rather doomed himself in his media portrayal though by moving against Politically Correct dogma in the 80's.

 

 

 

 

I think there's more than a bit of truth in his "Political correctness is tyranny with manners", something that earnt him the undying hatred of the PCer than thou crowd - nothing provokes hatred more than the truth, no matter the source. (as can probably be seen in this very thread in fact )

 

His support of Ragan and Bush (both) and his opposition to abortion are what I don't like about him. I've no qualms with anyones political incorrectness if they aren't talking shite.

 

Quoted for truth.

 

Or in fact just shows how effective and easy such propaganda is I'm afraid.

Given his position as a celebrity and within the NRA it would have been fairly easy for him to have gotten his point across had he been misrepresented but in recent times he seemed very happy to go along with the public perception as far as I could tell.

[Fop 1]

It doesn't matter how liberal he was or was not. If he's saying "I want guns for everyone, black or white" he's a dick. If he's opposed to rape victims having a legal abortion he's a dick. Just because he took his time to face up to being a dick, and he might be liberal on one or 2 issues, it doesn't mean he's been demonised.

 

So it doesn't matter what someone has done or believes, only what is presented now?

 

Well maybe, and that's certainly the way of the modern media, but it's a tad harsh for me.

 

 

As for demonising, it is pretty amusing that someone that might well have been called "commy" for his political leanings for half his life would be deem "fascist" for the other half.

 

 

Aye, Michael Moore is a twat too. I'm not aware of any media war on Heston, but he certainly got hammered in that round.

Which means they were doing it well more than anything (well except Moore, how anyone swallows his drivel I dunno).

 

 

Given his position as a celebrity and within the NRA it would have been fairly easy for him to have gotten his point across had he been misrepresented but in recent times he seemed very happy to go along with the public perception as far as I could tell.

 

Yeah I think by the end he'd almost become a caricature of himself.

 

Although it's not exactly "easy"; try to have a reasoned "debate" on say stopping "positive" discrimination (the BBC for example "shouldn't" recruit any non-white person for the next 5+ year if they were following proportional staffing to the overall UK population) and see what I mean.

[Guest alex]

Given his position as a celebrity and within the NRA it would have been fairly easy for him to have gotten his point across had he been misrepresented but in recent times he seemed very happy to go along with the public perception as far as I could tell.

 

Yeah I think by the end he'd almost become a caricature of himself.

 

Although it's not exactly "easy"; try to have a reasoned "debate" on say stopping "positive" discrimination (the BBC for example "shouldn't" recruit any non-white person for the next 5+ year if they were following proportional staffing to the overall UK population) and see what I mean.

It's not as though the Christian Right has a problem getting its views across in America though, is it? Are you saying he was being misrepresented or not?

[Happy Face 29]

It doesn't matter how liberal he was or was not. If he's saying "I want guns for everyone, black or white" he's a dick. If he's opposed to rape victims having a legal abortion he's a dick. Just because he took his time to face up to being a dick, and he might be liberal on one or 2 issues, it doesn't mean he's been demonised.

 

So it doesn't matter what someone has done or believes, only what is presented now?

 

Well maybe, and that's certainly the way of the modern media, but it's a tad harsh for me.

 

 

As for demonising, it is pretty amusing that someone that might well have been called "commy" for his political leanings for half his life would be deem "fascist" for the other half.

 

 

Aye, Michael Moore is a twat too. I'm not aware of any media war on Heston, but he certainly got hammered in that round.

Which means they were doing it well more than anything (well except Moore, how anyone swallows his drivel I dunno).

 

Moore went after Heston as he was then president of the NRA, that's not presentation, that's fact. In a film on gun control, he was a legitimate target and had the NRA's president at the time been someone else I'm sure Heston wouldn't have been featured. I don't see how you can say it's a witch hunt when he's put himself up there as a target given his principles and his activities. Just because he was an alzheimer ridden dithering old fool you felt sorry for in that film, doesn't make the stupidity of his stance any less heinous.

 

I'm struggling to see why you think someone shouldn't be judged on all of their beliefs and actions. Just do one or two canny things and then you can be a tit?

 

He served in WW2, marched for civil rights and opposed Vietnam so he was due respect. But he went Republican in the 80's and had an appaling political viewpoint for the rest of his days.

 

It was the worst political U-turn since Ben Elton said "Nice to meet you Mr Lloyd Weber".

Edited April 7, 2008 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

Given his position as a celebrity and within the NRA it would have been fairly easy for him to have gotten his point across had he been misrepresented but in recent times he seemed very happy to go along with the public perception as far as I could tell.

 

Yeah I think by the end he'd almost become a caricature of himself.

 

Although it's not exactly "easy"; try to have a reasoned "debate" on say stopping "positive" discrimination (the BBC for example "shouldn't" recruit any non-white person for the next 5+ year if they were following proportional staffing to the overall UK population) and see what I mean.

It's not as though the Christian Right has a problem getting its views across in America though, is it? Are you saying he was being misrepresented or not?

 

Actually I'd say it does, due to the two party partisan nature of US politics a lot of things tend to get polarised to the extremes, even when they may not start out or be intended that way (and the media certainly helps).

 

Worse the US population seems to be so trained to this system that it's usually only those extreme positions tend to play well (whether conservative or liberal).

[Guest alex]

Given his position as a celebrity and within the NRA it would have been fairly easy for him to have gotten his point across had he been misrepresented but in recent times he seemed very happy to go along with the public perception as far as I could tell.

 

Yeah I think by the end he'd almost become a caricature of himself.

 

Although it's not exactly "easy"; try to have a reasoned "debate" on say stopping "positive" discrimination (the BBC for example "shouldn't" recruit any non-white person for the next 5+ year if they were following proportional staffing to the overall UK population) and see what I mean.

It's not as though the Christian Right has a problem getting its views across in America though, is it? Are you saying he was being misrepresented or not?

 

Actually I'd say it does, due to the two party partisan nature of US politics a lot of things tend to get polarised to the extremes, even when they may not start out or be intended that way (and the media certainly helps).

 

Worse the US population seems to be so trained to this system that it's usually only those extreme positions tend to play well (whether conservative or liberal).

I don't accept that at all like, they seem to have the media in their back pocket over there. Certainly in terms of having a pretty significant voice in the mainstream. Any reason why you dodged the second question too? I'm not being funny, I'm unaware of Heston's repugnant recent views being spun. It was pretty much impossible to take what he said in anything other than the manner in which they were intended. If you weren't saying he was being misrepresented then what are you saying? If you think he was, can you give some examples?

Edited April 7, 2008 by alex

[Fop 1]

I'm struggling to see why you think someone shouldn't be judged on all of their beliefs and actions. Just do one or two canny things and then you can be a tit?

 

Winston Churchill was a tit for most of his life, he just got the order right for posterity.

 

He served in WW2, marched for civil rights and opposed Vietnam so he was due respect. But he went Republican in the 80's and had an appaling political viewpoint for the rest of his days.

 

Again I'd wouldn't say he so much did a u-turn on his beliefs (although again the media certainly would) so much as tried to keep to his beliefs as the world moved on.

 

He campaigned for freedom and rights (helping presidential candidates, fairly early and active involvement in the civil rights movement, anti-Vietnam and pro-gun control) in a world (US anyway) still largely controlled by right wing authoritarianism, out and out racism, and the fear of the "commy" and fear of being called a communist.

 

And later as the world moved on he (in his own mind and way) continued to campaign for freedom and rights in world now increasingly controlled by politically correct dogma.

 

 

Now I'm not saying I agreed with everything he said, or even most of it (not that I'd really describe that much of it as "appalling" if though I don't agree with it), but certainly that he was in later days portrayed in a very biased way, although by the end I suspect illness and that portrayal might well have made him live the caricature.

[Fop 1]

Given his position as a celebrity and within the NRA it would have been fairly easy for him to have gotten his point across had he been misrepresented but in recent times he seemed very happy to go along with the public perception as far as I could tell.

 

Yeah I think by the end he'd almost become a caricature of himself.

 

Although it's not exactly "easy"; try to have a reasoned "debate" on say stopping "positive" discrimination (the BBC for example "shouldn't" recruit any non-white person for the next 5+ year if they were following proportional staffing to the overall UK population) and see what I mean.

It's not as though the Christian Right has a problem getting its views across in America though, is it? Are you saying he was being misrepresented or not?

 

Actually I'd say it does, due to the two party partisan nature of US politics a lot of things tend to get polarised to the extremes, even when they may not start out or be intended that way (and the media certainly helps).

 

Worse the US population seems to be so trained to this system that it's usually only those extreme positions tend to play well (whether conservative or liberal).

I don't accept that at all like, they seem to have the media in their back pocket over there.

 

They all have sections, but as I said they play to their populations and again as I said it tends to be to the extremes.

 

Or are you saying US politics DOESN'T play to poltical extremes?

 

Certainly in terms of having a pretty significant voice in the mainstream. Any reason why you dodged the second question too? I'm not being funny, I'm unaware of Heston's repugnant recent views being spun. It was pretty much impossible to take what he said in anything other than the manner in which they were intended. If you weren't saying he was being misrepresented then what are you saying? If you think he was, can you give some examples?

 

As I said I think by the end he was almost the caricature, but there's lots of reasons for that most of it being already mentioned above.

[Happy Face 29]

I'm struggling to see why you think someone shouldn't be judged on all of their beliefs and actions. Just do one or two canny things and then you can be a tit?

 

Winston Churchill was a tit for most of his life, he just got the order right for posterity.

 

 

Winston Churchill was instrumental in defeating the Nazi's, Heston was on the radios for a bit and marched so that black people could see his film. They hardly compare.

 

He served in WW2, marched for civil rights and opposed Vietnam so he was due respect. But he went Republican in the 80's and had an appaling political viewpoint for the rest of his days.

 

Again I'd wouldn't say he so much did a u-turn on his beliefs (although again the media certainly would) so much as tried to keep to his beliefs as the world moved on.

 

He campaigned for freedom and rights (helping presidential candidates, fairly early and active involvement in the civil rights movement, anti-Vietnam and pro-gun control) in a world (US anyway) still largely controlled by right wing authoritarianism, out and out racism, and the fear of the "commy" and fear of being called a communist.

 

So going from pro-gun control to president of the NRA was a media invented U-turn?

 

 

And later as the world moved on he (in his own mind and way) continued to campaign for freedom and rights in world now increasingly controlled by politically correct dogma.

 

Now I'm not saying I agreed with everything he said, or even most of it (not that I'd really describe that much of it as "appalling" if though I don't agree with it), but certainly that he was in later days portrayed in a very biased way, although by the end I suspect illness and that portrayal might well have made him live the caricature.

 

I think you're blinded by the affirmative action thing. How could someone who isn't even pro-choice be said to be fighting for frredom and rights?

[Fop 1]

I'm struggling to see why you think someone

 

shouldn't be judged on all of their beliefs and actions. Just do one or two canny things

 

and then you can be a tit?

 

Winston Churchill was a tit for most of his life, he just got the order right for posterity.

 

 

 

Winston Churchill was instrumental in defeating the Nazi's, Heston was on the radios for a bit and marched so that black people could see his film. They hardly compare.

 

He was also directly responsible for a couple of disasters (and in fact to a degree a significant number of cold war issues), as I said it was mostly the order that sorted it for him.

 

 

Although by your logic Churchill's "naughty document" and behind the scenes agreements with Stalin alone should have him castigated to this day.

 

 

So going from pro-gun control to president of the NRA was a media invented U-turn?

 

I think the portrayal that he did that was yes (what actually he did do was a bit different to that, although it is almost always portrayed in that very simple way).

 

 

And later as the world moved on he (in his own mind and way) continued to campaign for freedom and rights in world now increasingly controlled by politically correct dogma.

 

Now I'm not saying I agreed with everything he said, or even most of it (not that I'd really describe that much of it as "appalling" if though I don't agree with it), but certainly that he was in later days portrayed in a very biased way, although by the end I suspect illness and that portrayal might well have made him live the caricature.

 

I think you're blinded by the affirmative action thing. How could someone who isn't even pro-choice be said to be fighting for frredom and rights?

 

The abortion issue is again a bit of much used canard, it's an issue of black and white and especially in the USA of extremes and nutters.

 

But because you believe (or don't) in it that doesn't necessarily make you the Lucifer born unto flesh.

 

There's drawbacks and decisions of moral convenience on BOTH sides of that issue, neither side can be called clean, just a least worst way.

[Happy Face 29]

So going from pro-gun control to president of the NRA was a media invented U-turn?

 

I think the portrayal that he did that was yes (what actually he did do was a bit different to that, although it is almost always portrayed in that very simple way).

 

I'd agree the media portrayal of his U-turn was a media portrayal . The question was, are you saying the act itself was a media invention?

 

Because it clearly wasn't.

[Park Life 70]

I don't think he needs to be ostracised for being pro-gun.

[The Fish 8980]

It must seem an incredibly daunting task to the gun-control activists; how do you get the legitimately held weapons from the sane people? Never mind the illegal guns from the criminals. I can understand why some American Politicians would stay with the Pro-Gun lobby. It's Political safe ground to be honest.

 

I think Americans should have to go through incredible tests and screening processes to get a hand gun, and yet some are waltzing about with some pretty heavy ordinance, without going through a more stringent mechanism for weeding out the whack-jobs...

[Park Life 70]

It must seem an incredibly daunting task to the gun-control activists; how do you get the legitimately held weapons from the sane people? Never mind the illegal guns from the criminals. I can understand why some American Politicians would stay with the Pro-Gun lobby. It's Political safe ground to be honest.

 

I think Americans should have to go through incredible tests and screening processes to get a hand gun, and yet some are waltzing about with some pretty heavy ordinance, without going through a more stringent mechanism for weeding out the whack-jobs...

 

 

They buy guns to protect themselves from each other.

[Happy Face 29]

Simple solution, bullet registration.

[Fop 1]

So going from pro-gun control to president of the NRA was a media invented U-turn?

 

I think the portrayal that he did that was yes (what actually he did do was a bit different to that, although it is almost always portrayed in that very simple way).

 

I'd agree the media portrayal of his U-turn was a media portrayal . The question was, are you saying the act itself was a media invention?

 

Because it clearly wasn't.

 

As I said it wasn't really a "u-turn" though (although it is clearly portrayed and swallowed as such) it was more a long curving arch driven from the same direction as earlier things.

[Park Life 70]

Simple solution, bullet registration.

 

 

Or as Chris Rock says "Make bullets expensive...Damn!!"

[Fop 1]

It must seem an incredibly daunting task to the gun-control activists; how do you get the legitimately held weapons from the sane people? Never mind the illegal guns from the criminals. I can understand why some American Politicians would stay with the Pro-Gun lobby. It's Political safe ground to be honest.

 

I think Americans should have to go through incredible tests and screening processes to get a hand gun, and yet some are waltzing about with some pretty heavy ordinance, without going through a more stringent mechanism for weeding out the whack-jobs...

 

 

The whole gun control argument in the USA is fucked up and as politicised as hell (and people have all sorts of reasons for tagging along with both sides of it).

 

 

Clearly the easiest and as such most effective (in terms of long term guns deaths there) solution is to completely ban them, but as the UK shows if that isn't backed up with cultural and social change and other laws it can be fair ineffective (as our own rampant gun crime shows - and don't forget we had a fair small pool of legally held arms to begin with).

 

 

In the USA it's not quite so simple, personally I still think the "best" thing they could do would be to have sweeping bans like in the UK, but politically and culturally it's much more difficult to do that there, not to mention that there are simply that many guns in circulation in the USA it'd take forever to reduce the number readily available.

 

I must admit, as much as I don't like the idea, that it maybe nearly is the case in the USA that having your own gun for "protection" is the most sensible thing. It could well be heading that way in the UK, only in the UK there's rarely such a thing as acceptable self defence.

[Park Life 70]

It must seem an incredibly daunting task to the gun-control activists; how do you get the legitimately held weapons from the sane people? Never mind the illegal guns from the criminals. I can understand why some American Politicians would stay with the Pro-Gun lobby. It's Political safe ground to be honest.

 

I think Americans should have to go through incredible tests and screening processes to get a hand gun, and yet some are waltzing about with some pretty heavy ordinance, without going through a more stringent mechanism for weeding out the whack-jobs...

 

 

The whole gun control argument in the USA is fucked up and as politicised as hell (and people have all sorts of reasons for tagging along with both sides of it).

 

 

Clearly the easiest and as such most effective (in terms of long term guns deaths there) solution is to completely ban them, but as the UK shows if that isn't backed up with cultural and social change and other laws it can be fair ineffective (as our own rampant gun crime shows - and don't forget we had a fair small pool of legally held arms to begin with).

 

 

In the USA it's not quite so simple, personally I still think the "best" thing they could do would be to have sweeping bans like in the UK, but politically and culturally it's much more difficult to do that there, not to mention that there are simply that many guns in circulation in the USA it'd take forever to reduce the number readily available.

 

I must admit, as much as I don't like the idea, that it maybe nearly is the case in the USA that having your own gun for "protection" is the most sensible thing. It could well be heading that way in the UK, only in the UK there's rarely such a thing as acceptable self defence.

 

 

But..But...But...It's in the constitution.

[Happy Face 29]

So going from pro-gun control to president of the NRA was a media invented U-turn?

 

I think the portrayal that he did that was yes (what actually he did do was a bit different to that, although it is almost always portrayed in that very simple way).

 

I'd agree the media portrayal of his U-turn was a media portrayal . The question was, are you saying the act itself was a media invention?

 

Because it clearly wasn't.

 

As I said it wasn't really a "u-turn" though (although it is clearly portrayed and swallowed as such) it was more a long curving arch driven from the same direction as earlier things.

 

 

Who'd have thought a man taking the opposing view to the one he previously held would have to put up with such devious portrayals of his viewpoint. The media are scum.

[Fop 1]

So going from pro-gun control to president of the NRA was a media invented U-turn?

 

I think the portrayal that he did that was yes (what actually he did do was a bit different to that, although it is almost always portrayed in that very simple way).

 

I'd agree the media portrayal of his U-turn was a media portrayal . The question was, are you saying the act itself was a media invention?

 

Because it clearly wasn't.

 

As I said it wasn't really a "u-turn" though (although it is clearly portrayed and swallowed as such) it was more a long curving arch driven from the same direction as earlier things.

 

 

Who'd have thought a man taking the opposing view to the one he previously held would have to put up with such devious portrayals of his viewpoint. The media are scum.

 

Yup, who'd ever have thought that the world and situations can slowly change with time. Clearly only snap "u-turns" exist and are "rightfully" portrayed as such.

 

 

You'd almost think that Stalin could have been a deadly enemy and then a bosom ally, before being a deadly yet enemy again - absolutely ludicrous of course, clearly anyone involved in something like that would be castigated for their monstrous "u-turns" for all time.

[Fop 1]

Who'd have thought a man taking the opposing view to the one he previously held would have to put up with such devious portrayals of his viewpoint. The media are scum.

 

Although again I think if you actually look at it he probably didn't take the opposing view to what he'd previously held (he never wanted guns outright banned or anything like that).

 

He more moved along a track that curved with time and the situation, than returned along the same track he'd once travelled (the other way).

 

Although again this is trying to understand the man and his beliefs (which is nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with them), rather than simply swallowing what you are fed.

[The Fish 8980]

It must seem an incredibly daunting task to the gun-control activists; how do you get the legitimately held weapons from the sane people? Never mind the illegal guns from the criminals. I can understand why some American Politicians would stay with the Pro-Gun lobby. It's Political safe ground to be honest.

 

I think Americans should have to go through incredible tests and screening processes to get a hand gun, and yet some are waltzing about with some pretty heavy ordinance, without going through a more stringent mechanism for weeding out the whack-jobs...

 

 

The whole gun control argument in the USA is fucked up and as politicised as hell (and people have all sorts of reasons for tagging along with both sides of it).

 

 

Clearly the easiest and as such most effective (in terms of long term guns deaths there) solution is to completely ban them, but as the UK shows if that isn't backed up with cultural and social change and other laws it can be fair ineffective (as our own rampant gun crime shows - and don't forget we had a fair small pool of legally held arms to begin with).

 

 

In the USA it's not quite so simple, personally I still think the "best" thing they could do would be to have sweeping bans like in the UK, but politically and culturally it's much more difficult to do that there, not to mention that there are simply that many guns in circulation in the USA it'd take forever to reduce the number readily available.

 

I must admit, as much as I don't like the idea, that it maybe nearly is the case in the USA that having your own gun for "protection" is the most sensible thing. It could well be heading that way in the UK, only in the UK there's rarely such a thing as acceptable self defence.

 

 

But..But...But...It's in the constitution.

 

The beauty of it, is that it's not in the constitution. "... have the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia"

[NJS 3974]

The beauty of it, is that it's not in the constitution. "... have the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia"

 

Classic West Wing.

 

Ironically (I think) meant as a safeguard against an overbearing government to encourage the citizens to rebel if needed.

[Happy Face 29]

So going from pro-gun control to president of the NRA was a media invented U-turn?

 

I think the portrayal that he did that was yes (what actually he did do was a bit different to that, although it is almost always portrayed in that very simple way).

 

I'd agree the media portrayal of his U-turn was a media portrayal . The question was, are you saying the act itself was a media invention?

 

Because it clearly wasn't.

 

As I said it wasn't really a "u-turn" though (although it is clearly portrayed and swallowed as such) it was more a long curving arch driven from the same direction as earlier things.

 

 

Who'd have thought a man taking the opposing view to the one he previously held would have to put up with such devious portrayals of his viewpoint. The media are scum.

 

Yup, who'd ever have thought that the world and situations can slowly change with time. Clearly only snap "u-turns" exist and are "rightfully" portrayed as such.

 

 

You'd almost think that Stalin could have been a deadly enemy and then a bosom ally, before being a deadly yet enemy again - absolutely ludicrous of course, clearly anyone involved in something like that would be castigated for their monstrous "u-turns" for all time.

 

I've never had a qualm with his "U-turn" whatever it's pace. Nor do I think, have the media.