Whedon: Comic-Con Capitalism & Socialism

[SoCal]

Apparently Joss Whedon is a socialist a--hole. I am no longer a fan.



'Avengers' Director Whedon Goes On Anti-Capitalist Rant
124K 36 8411

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email ArticlePrint Article
Send a Tip by John Nolte 14 Jul 2012 885post a comment

So says the guy probably worth somewhere around a gajillion dollars and who likely made somewhere around a thousand times more money from "Avengers" than anyone on the crew.
But Whedon's obviously talking about socialism for, you know, other people:

“We are watching capitalism destroy itself right now,” [Whedon] told the audience.

He added that America is “turning into Tsarist Russia” and that “we’re creating a country of serfs.”

Whedon was raised on the Upper Westside neighborhood of Manhattan in the 1970s, an area associated with left-leaning intellectuals. He said he was raised by people who thought socialism was a ''beautiful concept."

Socialism remains a taboo word in American politics, as Republicans congressmen raise the specter of the Cold War. They refer to many Obama administration initatives as socialist, and the same goes for most laws that advocate increasing spending on social welfare programs. They also refer to the President as a socialist, though this and many of their other claims misuse the term.

This evidently frustrates Whedon, who traces this development to Ronald Reagan[.]

We have people trying to create structures and preserve the structures that will help the middle and working class, and people calling them socialists,” Whedon said. “It’s not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal […] it’s some people with some sense of dignity and people who have gone off the reservation.”

Great idea. Let's start with Hollywood!

Good heavens, there are probably a hundred thousand people living in poverty around Los Angeles -- living on the streets, waiting tables, parking cars -- waiting and working and hoping for a taste of the success Joss Whedon's enjoyed. You know, the people Whedon is obviously referring to when he speaks of serfs.

I say, tear down those studio walls! Open those studio gates! Enough of Hollywood meritocracy! Spread the wealth!

It's time to produce screenplays written by nobodies and cast actors who aren't very good.

It's time to pay gaffers and production assistants and wardrobe and make-up personnel the same amount of money as, well, Joss Whedon makes!

Lead by example, Joss.

Show us the way.

Show us how it can work.

What an asshole. I was a fan of his until I read this.

[davidhayes1956]

Socialism isn't communism. And capitalism doesn't necessarily mean bleeding anybody else you can dry for the sake of your own wealth. I think that people should be insured at least a minimum standard of living as far as shelter, food and medical care. That doesn't mean that those that don't work should deserve to live the live that someone who made an invaluable contribution to society should live. And it doesn't mean that anyone who has made wealth through their efforts and not through exploitation of others should not be entitled to benefit by their efforts. There has to be something better to aspire to or society stagnates. If there is little or no benefit to working hard or bringing creativity and intelligence to the work place, people will be discouraged from bringing what they've got to the work that they do.

[Mistermoonlight]

Take a look at the entire transcript, not just the bits and pieces that were snipped out to fit that writers indignation at Whedon's jab at conservative fiscal philosophy.

Whedon's remarks come at 54:00 into the video. Joss is one of the good guys, something a lot of us knew all along. Fans will enjoy the rest of the panel, too.



Questioner: “I’m actually a union organizer by trade, and in a lot of your work you’ve portrayed sort of a corporate ‘big bad’ – that’s appeared in Angel, and Dollhouse. So, in 30 seconds or less, can you tell us what is your economic philosophy?”

Joss Whedon: “Um, y’know, I was raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the ’70s, by the people who thought John Reed and the young socialists of the ’20s were some of the most idealistic people, and that socialism as a model was such a beautiful concept. And now of course it’s become a buzzword for horns and a pitchfork.

And we’re watching capitalism destroy itself, right now. And ultimately all of these systems don’t work. I tend to want to champion the working class because they are getting destroyed. I write about helplessness — helplessness in the face of the giant corporations and the enormously rich people who are very often in power giving those people more power to get even more power.

We are turning into Czarist Russia. We are creating a nation of serfs. That leads to — oddly enough — revolution and socialism, which then leads to totalitarianism. Nobody wins.

It’s really really really important that we find a system that honors both our need to achieve, and doesn’t try to take things away from us, but at the same time honors everybody’s need to have a start, to have a goal, to have a life, to have an income, to have a chance.

The fact is, these things have been taken away from us, sometimes very gradually, sometimes not so gradually, since the beginning of the Reagan era, and it’s proved to be catastrophic for so much of America.

During the writers’ strike I was furious; I remain furious. I’m not always sure what to do about it, I don’t think most of us are.

But I do know that what’s happening right now in the political arena is that we have people who are trying to create structures or preserve structures that will help the working class and the middle class, and people who are calling them socialists.

And nobody has the perfect answer. But I honestly think we are now in a political debate that is no longer Republican versus Democrat or even conservative versus liberal. It’s about people who are trying to make it work because they still remember, they still have some connection to the idea of personal dignity — and people who have gone off the reservation and believe Jesus Christ is a true American.”

Audience: [Cheers.]

[AntiArbitrator]

The meaning and rationale for Whedon's remarks sound very different when we hear the conversation rather than quote some remarks out of context.

[davidhayes1956]

It is AMAZING how well he can speak in a question and answer session. It sounds like a pre-written statement. If I had to talk off the top of my head, there would be so many statements that could be misunderstood that I would not be allowed to speak in a public forum again. My thoughts come out in a way that seem random because one idea triggers another and the relationship between is sometimes hard to see. I can't imagine standing up and just talking and having what I said not needing a lot of clarification. I have even more respect for the man having read what he said. I especially like what he said about no system being perfect. We don't have a true capitalistic system or a true democratic system. And people often confuse this statement for something from the Bible: "From each according to his talent. To each according to his need." That is from Marx and it is the basis of communism. What it doesn't address is that people with talent that don't have great needs may not feel the desire to keep producing if not given credit or compensation for what they do. Sometimes for most people, just being blessed with a talent isn't enough reward in itself.

[SoCal]

Jul 17, 2012 8:21:27 GMT -5 Mistermoonlight said:

Take a look at the entire transcript, not just the bits and pieces that were snipped out to fit that writers indignation at Whedon's jab at conservative fiscal philosophy.

Whedon's remarks come at 54:00 into the video. Joss is one of the good guys, something a lot of us knew all along. Fans will enjoy the rest of the panel, too.



Questioner: “I’m actually a union organizer by trade, and in a lot of your work you’ve portrayed sort of a corporate ‘big bad’ – that’s appeared in Angel, and Dollhouse. So, in 30 seconds or less, can you tell us what is your economic philosophy?”

Joss Whedon: “Um, y’know, I was raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the ’70s, by the people who thought John Reed and the young socialists of the ’20s were some of the most idealistic people, and that socialism as a model was such a beautiful concept. And now of course it’s become a buzzword for horns and a pitchfork.

And we’re watching capitalism destroy itself, right now. And ultimately all of these systems don’t work. I tend to want to champion the working class because they are getting destroyed. I write about helplessness — helplessness in the face of the giant corporations and the enormously rich people who are very often in power giving those people more power to get even more power.

We are turning into Czarist Russia. We are creating a nation of serfs. That leads to — oddly enough — revolution and socialism, which then leads to totalitarianism. Nobody wins.

It’s really really really important that we find a system that honors both our need to achieve, and doesn’t try to take things away from us, but at the same time honors everybody’s need to have a start, to have a goal, to have a life, to have an income, to have a chance.

The fact is, these things have been taken away from us, sometimes very gradually, sometimes not so gradually, since the beginning of the Reagan era, and it’s proved to be catastrophic for so much of America.

During the writers’ strike I was furious; I remain furious. I’m not always sure what to do about it, I don’t think most of us are.

But I do know that what’s happening right now in the political arena is that we have people who are trying to create structures or preserve structures that will help the working class and the middle class, and people who are calling them socialists.

And nobody has the perfect answer. But I honestly think we are now in a political debate that is no longer Republican versus Democrat or even conservative versus liberal. It’s about people who are trying to make it work because they still remember, they still have some connection to the idea of personal dignity — and people who have gone off the reservation and believe Jesus Christ is a true American.”

Audience: [Cheers.]


He sounds worse. Admiration for a time when a most disastrous political system was taking over an entire country? Just how many people did Stalin kill? 20 million?

Whedon just sounds like a moron.

[SoCal]

Hey Joss -- remember these?

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

KARL MARX, The Criticism of the Gotha Program

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

KARL MARX, The Communist Manifesto

I do not like money, money is the reason we fight.

KARL MARX

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

KARL MARX, Criticism of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right"

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

KARL MARX, The Communist Manifesto



So Joss, just how much of your freely created wealth are you willing to give up? I would not ask it of you, but a socialist would demand it of you.

[davidhayes1956]

I just talked with a woman today who told me that she had a huge back yard and the city took it to make a park ... then barely did anything but to put up a fence to keep her out. I told her that eminent domain can suck. I asked if she felt she was fairly compensated by what they paid her. She told me that she wasn't paid at all. I wonder how that happened, but I don't doubt that what she told me happened. Having personal property doesn't seem to be a guaranteed thing even in our country today. People have totally trashed my property and I have been told, "We don't try to solve crimes against property -- no resources to do so, but better board it up or we'll fine you ... and remember to pay your property taxes."

Ideas can be beautiful things, but how people put them into practice makes all the difference. Nietzsche inspired Hitler's master race and also inspired two boys in Cleveland to create the character Superman. Helter Skelter was just a song, but look what Charles Manson wanted to do with it.

Right now, in Ohio, a new law bases teacher's pay on the test scores of the students. So, if a student wants to get even with a strict teacher, fail a test. If a teacher has a choice between teaching honor students and helping students with challenges, the teachers that want to get ahead will avoid the harder work and get rewarded for it. It seems like a good idea, but it won't work in practice. Things aren't working now and a lot of the reason is that people don't believe that they can do anything to make the world a better place, so they don't even put an effort into the work that they do. People are waiting to be inspired and we're not.

[Mistermoonlight]

Jul 17, 2012 11:47:55 GMT -5 @davidhayes1956 said:

It is AMAZING how well he can speak in a question and answer session. It sounds like a pre-written statement. If I had to talk off the top of my head, there would be so many statements that could be misunderstood that I would not be allowed to speak in a public forum again. My thoughts come out in a way that seem random because one idea triggers another and the relationship between is sometimes hard to see. I can't imagine standing up and just talking and having what I said not needing a lot of clarification. I have even more respect for the man having read what he said. I especially like what he said about no system being perfect. We don't have a true capitalistic system or a true democratic system. And people often confuse this statement for something from the Bible: "From each according to his talent. To each according to his need." That is from Marx and it is the basis of communism. What it doesn't address is that people with talent that don't have great needs may not feel the desire to keep producing if not given credit or compensation for what they do. Sometimes for most people, just being blessed with a talent isn't enough reward in itself.

I couldn't agree with you more, David. The ability to speak extemporaneously is a rare gift. We shouldn't be surprised, we've seen what he can do in polished work. But still, I'm amazed when I see such inspiring language off the cuff, like this, when everyone around him, and he himself is reduced to tears, in regards to what Firefly meant to him:




I'd also like you to see Joss's answer after the one about his economic philosopy, in which he confesses to being a nerd, just like you and I. And I think this is the reason we love him so much: he's one of us. It occurs at about 1:01 here, and it's beautiful.

[/youtube]

I believe, as Joss says, that communism is indeed a great ideal in theory. It's altruistic, and formed from the notion that everyone is equal, and that together we can create something better than we could as individuals. It's beautiful in its intention. Unfortunately it doesn't work, as we've seen. Even Orwell in Animal Farm pointed out that some end up being 'more equal than others.'

That said, neither does capitalism. Corporations tend to take advantage of the individual, seeking only the bottom line. Those seeking an answer in science would tend towards Darwin's thesis of 'survival of the fittest' as the determining factor. We know that although all of us are created equal in terms of rights, not all of us are created equal in abilities.

Gene Roddenbery, the Great Bird of the Skies, who created Star Trek, imagined an enlightened world in which all of man's basic needs were taken care of: food, shelter, education, and medical assistance. A world in which war had been eliminated, and which allowed each person to concentrate on the gifts they were born with as a manner of contributing to society as a whole. There are certainly socialistic ideas there, and you know what, they aren't bad or scary at all.

In fact, when I think of my cousin who was born with Prader-Willy syndrome and is one of the most loving people I know, I'm glad to be living in a country that provides help for him from government programs.

I think deep down it's a question of do we care for humanity as a total, or do we throw all of the rules out in favor of the individual. And as Joss says, the only rightful system is one that takes care of both.

You're right, we're not a democracy, we're a republic. In a democracy the majority determines all. In a republic the purpose is to control the majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect the individual’s unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of the minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

The definition of a republic is a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Thank goodness our forefathers thought to make this a republic.

When I grew up there were moderates in both parties, as well as conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Ideas were debated for their merit, not idealogue, and the best ideas won. That's how it should be. But when people are too entrenched in their own personal vendettas and name-calling, spurred on by the media, it's hard to have a constructive dialogue about ideas at all.

Now, of course, a thousand people will call me a socialist (that' s the buzzword among conservatives this year) because they either don't understand or choose not to see the nuances of what I'm saying, much as with Joss Whedon's message.

And that's what keeps us from progressing to Rodenberry's ideal. I pray we grow beyond it some day.

[SoCal]

I thank God that John Adams, Sam Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington and the other founders were NOT moderates. Had they been, we might still be an English colony.

And there have ALWAYS been idealogues in BOTH (or more if you count Whigs and Federalists) parties. That's why we got a Bill of Rights after the Constitution was approved. That's why we had to have a Missouri Compromise before we had a civil war.

There has never been a time in this republic when gentlemen politicians sat around and calmly discussed their differences. they argued, they yelled and they sometimes fought.

I would hate to see a day when the political process is dominated by people who have no convictions worth fighting for....who are willing to change their minds with the weather and stand for nothing.

Give me the partisan politics of Adams and Madison

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
John Adams

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
John Adams

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams, Journal, 1772

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams, Letter, April 15, 1814

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
¯ James Madison

“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.”
¯ James Madison

“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective
way to enslave them.”
¯ James Madison

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
¯ James Madison

[Mistermoonlight]

This thread is meant to be about Comic-Con, not politics, so I'm creating a separate thread and moving the political posts there.

Anyone who wishes to may contriibute, but I think I've pretty much said my piece on Joss's coments and will let that lie.

[SoCal]

Looks like it's fixed.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
¯ James Madison

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
― James Madison


“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
― James Madison, The Federalist Papers


“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
― James Madison

[Mistermoonlight]

Yeah, ProBoards didn't seem to like one of the symbols I tried to use to save words in the new thread title. It was either & @ or :re. not sure which, or if it was all of them, but fixed now.

[SoCal]

See what happens when all powerful governing bodies infringe upon the rights of the citizens?

I say we storm ProBoards and stage " a little revolution."


God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson


In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.
T. Jefferson

A little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to James Madison, Jan. 30, 1787

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to W.S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, attributed, Wordsworth Dictionary of Quotations

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to Colonel Smith, Nov. 13, 1787

[Mistermoonlight]

Jul 17, 2012 20:45:01 GMT -5 SoCal said:

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
John Adams

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
¯ James Madison

Those are damned funny, and thank goodness we had some folks with wit (other than Franklin) about for the start of things.

I understand there's a very good book out about Madison. I'll have to put that on my library list.

One of my favorite quotes about our forefathers, made much more real after my visit to his home, Monticello, was this one by President John F. Kennedy:

Remarks at dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners of the Western Hemisphere. 4/29/62

"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

And let's not forget, Thomas Jefferson, much like River Tam on Firefly, made his own version of the Bible.

Ok, ok, Shepard Book is whispering over my shoulder 'You don't fix the Bible, it fixes you.'

Keep on walking, preacher-man.

[KyleEl]

Jul 16, 2012 17:18:44 GMT -5 @davidhayes1956 said:

Socialism isn't communism. And capitalism doesn't necessarily mean bleeding anybody else you can dry for the sake of your own wealth. I think that people should be insured at least a minimum standard of living as far as shelter, food and medical care. That doesn't mean that those that don't work should deserve to live the live that someone who made an invaluable contribution to society should live. And it doesn't mean that anyone who has made wealth through their efforts and not through exploitation of others should not be entitled to benefit by their efforts. There has to be something better to aspire to or society stagnates. If there is little or no benefit to working hard or bringing creativity and intelligence to the work place, people will be discouraged from bringing what they've got to the work that they do.

That's how I feel. And I think Mike Huckabee was quoting Romney in his morning three-minute radio commentary. I don't remember the exact wording. He said the poor can support Republicans because they aren't poor. They just aren't rich yet.

[Mistermoonlight]

That's actually hilarious.

Huckabee really said that?

That's my problem too. I'm just not rich yet. I'm also not a genius yet. Or a world famous author yet. Or much of a dancer yet, although I'd like to be all of those things.

If we just use the word 'yet' that's all we need, right?

What if we screw up and use the word 'yeti' (abominable snow-man) instead?

Is that gonna gum up the whole works?

[SoCal]

I just want to know how much Joss Whedon is worth? Does he OWN property? Or does he just admire socialism for other people?

[davidhayes1956]

I just looked up socialism in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and found:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


I never think of socialism in terms of the first two. I always think of it somewhat as described in 3 but not as part of a transition but as a place it should be. A place where people aren't left to die when they have nothing left to sell and are unable to work like might be true in a purely capitalist system but where the person gets more goods and pay from working for it. I think you would need to know how a person defines socialism before you judge them for believing in some degree of socialism. Surely the popularity of Joss's work and the money it has generated entitle him to an un-equal share of wealth as defined by #3. As to how charitable the man is, I don't have any idea ... and I don't believe that anyone should be expected to share or brag about his good works if he does them. Some people's beliefs dictate that charity given for the sake of bragging rights is less charitable and more buying respect. I know I didn't have to pay a dime to watch the Dr. Horrible web series and that it certainly cost time, effort and some money to create. So it doesn't seem that Joss is entirely money oriented. In his position I would be torn between giving away huge sums of money at this point in his career only to have to turn to investors and convince them to supply the money he needs to create the kinds of work he wants to make (without strings attached) in the future. I'm would guess that, if he was rich enough, he would have continued to produce FireFly on his own dime.

[davidhayes1956]

Now this is what some of Joss's fans did. I don't know how much support they received from him:

www.alterna-tv.com/articles/csts.htm

[davidhayes1956]

As to net worth. This says $45 million. Can't make an Avengers movie for that.

www.alterna-tv.com/articles/csts.htm

[davidhayes1956]

And, finally, an article about Josh and how he downsized from a mansion to a 660 square foot home.

www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/celebrity-homes/joss-whedons-home-moving-3695-million-home-smaller-place-career-grows/

[Mistermoonlight]

Jul 18, 2012 18:09:23 GMT -5 @davidhayes1956 said:

And, finally, an article about Josh and how he downsized from a mansion to a 660 square foot home.

www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/celebrity-homes/joss-whedons-home-moving-3695-million-home-smaller-place-career-grows/

He's living now in a smaller house than the first one I ever bought, which was about 1100 square feet.

[Mistermoonlight]

Jul 18, 2012 18:03:07 GMT -5 @davidhayes1956 said:

I just looked up socialism in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and found:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


I never think of socialism in terms of the first two. I always think of it somewhat as described in 3 but not as part of a transition but as a place it should be. A place where people aren't left to die when they have nothing left to sell and are unable to work like might be true in a purely capitalist system but where the person gets more goods and pay from working for it. I think you would need to know how a person defines socialism before you judge them for believing in some degree of socialism. Surely the popularity of Joss's work and the money it has generated entitle him to an un-equal share of wealth as defined by #3. As to how charitable the man is, I don't have any idea ... and I don't believe that anyone should be expected to share or brag about his good works if he does them. Some people's beliefs dictate that charity given for the sake of bragging rights is less charitable and more buying respect. I know I didn't have to pay a dime to watch the Dr. Horrible web series and that it certainly cost time, effort and some money to create. So it doesn't seem that Joss is entirely money oriented. In his position I would be torn between giving away huge sums of money at this point in his career only to have to turn to investors and convince them to supply the money he needs to create the kinds of work he wants to make (without strings attached) in the future. I'm would guess that, if he was rich enough, he would have continued to produce FireFly on his own dime.

The people who did Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog did it out of love and a desire to be a part of Joss's creative process, and those include Neil Patrick Harris, Nathan Fillion, and Felicia Day.

Nathan Fillion famously said that if he ever won the California lottery, which was up to $300 million at the point, he would buy the rights to Firefly. And, of course, fans started a campaign at that point to help him. They'd gotten up to about $100,000 fairly quickly when he finally asked them to stop.

The beautiful thing about FireFly is that we're all in it together. The cast and crew have spoken numerous times about how it was the best experience of their lives. And we fans feel the same way.

And one day, we know, Browncoats will arise again.



This is a labor of love, not economics, which the short-sighted folks at Fox based the show's cancellation on. But to their dismay, as Joss said at the Firefly panel at Comic-Con, the story is alive. It never died.

Such is the case with creative works. They are stronger than governments and ecomic systems. The ability to inspire through art is perhaps the most powerful message of all.

[SoCal]

The debate/argument is NOT about Joss Whedon's creativity but his admiration for a form of governmental control that is antithetical to a free people.

Anyone espousing admiration for such a suppressive, distructive and evil form of government is appropriately subject to disdain and excoriation.

While I may have enjoyed some of his artistic endeavors, I abhor his apologetics for an evil form of government.

[Mistermoonlight]

Please disdain and excoriate me, then, because I agree with him, and am proud to do so.

I would have done that not even knowing he'd said it, which probably makes me at least as evil as him, if not more, right?

[SoCal]

Consider yourself disdained and excoriated.

Anyone sympathizing with socialism is foolish at best.

[davidhayes1956]

I think a lot of growth comes from recognizing the good and bad aspects of things. There is the old saying of throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is also I believe a saying by Mark Twain to take only from any experience what you can learn from it -- "Be not like the cat that, having sat on a hot stove, will never sit on a hot stove again, but will also never sit on a cold one." We have the freedom to see what works in any philosophy and what doesn't and admire the aspects that work or are worth trying to make work. There was a man so brilliant that he devised a way to get information off of the computers of the crashed shuttle ... it was later discovered that he was a serial killer. We can learn from the best parts of something that is otherwise worthless. The idea of people taking care of others is not an evil idea threatening the collapse of democracy. It is how that idea is put into practice that makes the difference. Any person that thinks for a minute that they are "self-made" is delusional. We are the product of every advance and improvement made before we were conceived. Put the most successful person of our age alone and naked in a jungle with a pile of raw materials and see if he will end his days with a mansion and a sports car. In admitting we have had help would give an ethical person an inclination to give basic help to those that genuinely need it. There are beautiful ideas behind the 3rd definition of socialism, and I don't fault Joss for seeing that. If you had lived through the Crash that caused the first depression and saw the trauma caused by capitalistic greed, the idea of someone feeding you when you were starving and had no work might appeal to you. If this country truly wants to be a purely capitalistic society, then we can at least find a more merciful way for the unemployed to die rather than from starvation -- since I assume that things like Social Security, Unemployment benefits and welfare will be eliminated.

[SoCal]

Charity is at the heart of this country's core. No one digs deeper into their pockets to help others than Americans.

But government seizure of private property/income for re-distribution to otheres is evil. It is theft. And it is unconstitutional. James Madison, the "father of the constitution" wrote that he did not find one sentence in the constitution that allowed the government to TAKE from one individual to benefit another. That seems to have been forgotten by those in power.

My parents lived through the depression. And they did NOT become socialists. They remained capitalists and always gave to charities individually and through their church.

Individual voluntary charity is a wonderful part of the fabric of this country. Governmental theft of assests is evil.

And taxes on private income was unconstitutional until 1913. Amazing how we thrived without it.

[SoCal]

Americans' Ignorance About Socialism Is Unbelievable



While there may be a very slight distinction between the European-style socialism (with its apparent advocacy of social issues) and the totalitarian dictatorships Forman refers to; the ultimate goal of each remains the same - the complete control and subjugation of the populace.

By Alicia Colon
Socialism has never worked but it is easy to sell to those who refuse to study history which is why progressives use academia as their base of operations. I'm willing to bet that "Animal Farm" and "1984" are no longer recommended reading in today's high schools. Big Brother is only a TV reality show to many of the young today who regard socialism and big government as a good thing because that's how the mainstream media presents it. If this country is to survive the disastrous results of socialist experiments in government, we need to educate our citizenry on what socialism actually is which is neither benign nor without hazard.

The Czech director of the film classic, "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest," Milos Forman, recently weighed in on Barack Obama denying that the president is a socialist in a New York Times opinion piece. He wrote:

"Now, years later, I hear the word "socialist" being tossed around by the likes of Rick, Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, "Obamacare is socialism!"

They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism."

Mr. Forman goes on to rage about the historic evils of Marxist/Leninist socialism but the New York Times is a perfect vehicle to disguise President Obama's disastrous socialist realm. This media behemoth has been an uncompromising toady of the president to the point of ignoring journalistic ethics.

While there may be a very slight distinction between the European-style socialism (with its apparent advocacy of social issues) and the totalitarian dictatorships Forman refers to; the ultimate goal of each remains the same - the complete control and subjugation of the populace.

The dictionary definition of this system calls it a theory which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Clever proponents of the takeover and elimination of our capitalist system cloak their intentions by calling themselves progressives only concerned with the basic needs of the community. That's why they push national health care and other issues involving social change like gay marriage. Meanwhile once they come to political power they use public money to fund the takeover of major industries, e.g. the auto industry. Public entitlement programs eventually bankrupt cities and states and leave citizens dependent on a government check.

Rep. Allen West is no fool. He correctly knows that the nuances of modern socialism is merely a cover for communism and at a town hall meeting in April he dared to say "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party," referring to their membership in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. An uproar followed but Rep. West did not back down, claiming that his classification of progressive lawmakers as communists was accurate. Here are some pertinent quotes from Rep. West:

"Conservatives adhere to the ideals of individual responsibility and freedom, limited government, a free market and a strong defense. Those on the liberal left adhere to a collective ideal, directed and controlled by a centralized government to guarantee and enforce social and economic justice." and

"In our lifetime, the unpalatable and pejorative brands 'socialist' and 'communist' have been replaced with the more user-friendly 'progressive' term."

You say potato, I say potahto but Obama is a socialist judging by his policies since coming to the power of the presidency. According to some punditry including by the libertarian Power Line, while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.

What was the New Party? This political entity was formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, and was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. Its aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouses its policies and Barack Obama is listed on a poster as a panelist at one of its events.

In 2006, the Democrat Party became the majority in the House and Senate and promptly ratcheted up spending so that in 2008, the economy tanked, unemployment soared and the country fell for the promises of change. Destitute Americans looked to the government for assistance without recognizing the trap being set for them to become wards of the state.

Formally independent citizens found their road to freedom blocked by seductive offers of food stamps, free healthcare, extended unemployment checks and easier disability applications. Democrat politicians tout their insincere concerns to beleaguered Americans by promoting class envy of the wealthy and attacking the very class of individuals who can provide jobs and economic recovery. They do this because they do not want a recovery. They want power over our lives.

Immigrants who have survived the Marx, Lenin system of communism are flocking to the Conservative Party and the Tea Party because they recognize how socialism works.

Here in Staten Island, we have had a large influx of immigrants from Russia and the Baltic States who say, "that the national Democrats' 'socialistic' policies remind them too much of the top-down oligarchy they fled in their native land."

Local businessman Arkadiy Fridman was interviewed in the Staten Island Advance and said that the Democrats "are going in an absolutely different direction," focusing on "income redistribution" and rich-versus-poor "class war."

Ironically, the Obama Campaign Slogan "Forward" has long ties to communist propaganda but our youth has had no education about communism and its deadly history. More humans have been killed by socialistic governments than under capitalism but that fact will never be brought to light by the current administration.

Europe has been brought to its knees because its disastrous experience with socialism has withered away its resources. While politicians push all their generous welfare programs they fail to acknowledge that it is the taxpaying populace paying for them. Those who have never contributed to the government nevertheless reap its largesse. Why work for a living when one can be supported from cradle to grave by a system that will eventually sap all the dignity of their lives.

It is no wonder that the Obama administration refused to allow Lech Walesa, the Polish freedom fighter to accept a posthumous award for WWII hero, Jan Karski. Walesa, a constant critic of Communism, was considered too political. Yet, another recipient of the award was Dolores Huerta, honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. What could be clearer than that?

Alicia Colon resides in New York City and can be reached at [e-mail] and at www.aliciacolon.com