political views aside, it's still real tasteless to air miniseries of an ill person

[jefhatfield]

let's say instead that ronald reagan was a famous opera singer who was liked and disliked by many

and let's say he was dying of AIDS...would it make sense to air a non flattering mini series?

just put it in the can for now and let the man go quietly...away from the prying eyes of the press and paparazzi

usually mini series' are aired after a famous person dies like the somewhat unflattering mini series broadcasts of liberace, elvis, or sinatra...the mini series on martha stewart was interesting, but done in bad taste since she is alive and in the midst of her legal woes...what jury could they now find that would be impartial?

[Dont Hurt Me]

it really is, just goes to show how much liberals hate conservatives or rather democrats hating republicans. if CBS wants to mix fiction and fact they should have enough decency to wait until this man has passed away. media liberal biased :eek:

[jefhatfield]

i think there should be a law against airing any mini series on a major, much watched network depicting a person in a negative light (with no proof) while that person is still alive

what if a major network made a mini series on kobe bryant right now depicting him as a brutal rapist and thug? the issue is in trial right now and it would be wrong and i think, illegal

or what if they aired a mini series on the man that was originally thought to the be olympic bomber? and then find out all along it was somebody else?

the networks simply need to let the person in question pass away, or at least let the trials be commenced with a final verdict coming down...i believe in freedom of speech, but i also believe in a person's right not to be slandered while they are alive

you can make all the mini series you want on hitler or stalin and how bad the men were, and if the network added some enhanced stories to illustrate a point, i would certainly not lose sleep over the matter


_________________


also a fictionalized, purposely unflattering mini series on someone like yassir arafat could cause more violence in israel and people could end up dying over that one

[Ugg]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i think there should be a law against airing any mini series on a major, much watched network depicting a person in a negative light (with no proof) while that person is still alive

what if a major network made a mini series on kobe bryant right now depicting him as a brutal rapist and thug? the issue is in trial right now and it would be wrong and i think, illegal

History has a way of filtering out the excesses and I think it is way too early to show any kind of historical docu-drama on Reagan and have it carry any real weight. However, the same goes with the gw 9/11 movie and the upcoming Jessica Lynch docu-drama, both of which are supposed to have totally distorted the truth. These two movies will be little more than government propaganda.

Where does censorship end? Does a political party have the right to preview and censor a movie because they don't like the less than positive light thrown on a former president?

Reagan's alzheimer's probably played a role in the last few years of his presidency and should be explored more fully. While his body still functions, it is doubtful at this point whether his brain functions in any way that would define him as a person. So disrespecting him is probably a moot point.

[jefhatfield]

as far as a mini series being too early, one on the grateful dead, or the dead, would be premature

i just found out not too long ago that the remaining members of the dead, minus the deseased jerry garcia, want to do more touring for perhaps years to come

there is still music history in those old bones:p

at the same time, i don't dislike the mini bios on vh1 like the diary of anna nicole smith, britney spears, or christina aguilera...it was thru one of those mini bios that i discovered the real talent and music of christina agualera and before that all i thought of her was that girl who sings "genie in a bottle" and i thought she was a forgotten one hit wonder

i would love to see a full on hollywood big budget film on the life and work of jimi hendrix and at one time i heard there was something that was supposed to happen with lawrence fishburne

i did however like clint eastwood's production of bird, on the life of charlie parker...he did not hide the dirty parts about parker's addiction, but taken as a whole, it was an interesting biography

[tazo]

I have read a few articles about this and if I understood them correctly, a lot of lies and libelious statements will be implemented into the movie, such as Reagan saying that people that have aids "lived in sin and shall die in sin", despite there having been no such record of him ever saying it. I think this is a bunch of bunk propogated by some individuals with a personal agenda to accomplish (Streisand and Brolin anybody?)

Simply put, don't believe everything ya watch, especially when its right out Streisand's mouth ;)

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by tazo
I have read a few articles about this and if I understood them correctly, a lot of lies and libelious statements will be implemented into the movie, such as Reagan saying that people that have aids "lived in sin and shall die in sin", despite there having been no such record of him ever saying it. I think this is a bunch of bunk propogated by some individuals with a personal agenda to accomplish (Streisand and Brolin anybody?)

Simply put, don't believe everything ya watch, especially when its right out Streisand's mouth ;)

I don't know about the quote regarding aids and sin, but I do know Reagan ignored the aids epedemic until Hudson's illness was made public. Of course, I could be repeating things I learned from those subliminal tracks encoded in Streisand's cds. Got to watch out for those divas and their diabolical schemes! ;)

[tazo]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I don't know about the quote regarding aids and sin, but I do know Reagan ignored the aids epedemic until Hudson's illness was made public. Of course, I could be repeating things I learned from those subliminal tracks encoded in Streisand's cds. Got to watch out for those divas and their diabolical schemes! ;)

It has been fairly well-documented that there is no evidence of Reagan ever saying such a horrible phrase like that [aids, sin] and yet the people producing the CBS movie seem to be intent on including it in the movie. Not to mention that the producers of the movie are also trying to make it seem throughout the movie that Reagan is homophobic and anti-gay, which if you read the multitude of articles from various sources, is at this point untrue.

Sayhey,

go to the online newspaper or news source of your choice (I happen to like drudgereport, although the Washington Post is fine too) and read about the horrible light in which Reagan is portrayed.

-tazo

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
it really is, just goes to show how much liberals hate conservatives or rather democrats hating republicans. if CBS wants to mix fiction and fact they should have enough decency to wait until this man has passed away. media liberal biased :eek:


Dude. What gives. The topic clearly said "Political Views Aside". Give the cliche stereotypes a rest.

[Vector]

This film, from what i have read, is completely tasteless and mostly unfounded. It is rediculous that two very liberal actors (Judy Davis and James Brolin) are playing the Reagans, especially since Brolin and his wife streisand have been openly critical of Ronald Reagan.

Most of the lines that have received the most attention are not true, and it is sickening to me that cbs approved the script that for the most part has little to no factual truth either through documentation or corraboration.

For anyone who hasn't, they should read the articles by Matt Drudge: http://www.drudgereport.com/

[wdlove]

I think that it is wrong to do this to a person when they are ill. It would also be wrong to do this is Bill Clinton is he was on his death bead. It would be nice to see a historical film on Reagan. Many have been done on such men as Winston Churchill, FDR, & JFK.

[Vector]

Originally posted by wdlove
I think that it is wrong to do this to a person when they are ill. It would also be wrong to do this is Bill Clinton is he was on his death bead. It would be nice to see a historical film on Reagan. Many have been done on such men as Winston Churchill, FDR, & JFK.

I agree and Matt Drudge said something similar in a recent intervies with Scarborough. With Reagan the point isn't just that he is ill, but that he has a severe case of Alzheimer's and cannot even defend himself against the erronious lines in the film. From what i have read there is very little mention of the good things that Reagan accomplished.

[SPG]

Don't you think we should move this thread over to Politics?

It's funny that everyone is getting all hissy over this. There was a Bush 9/11 movie that could have been made by Leni Riefenstahl herself that drew no ire for being about a current sitting president who is about to face a tough election. Maybe because the misrepresentations in that one made bush look better than the truth?
What about a biography of Carter? Would that upset you jef?
Let people make their miniseries and movies and then after they air feel free to condemn it for misrepresentation or award it for it's unbiased look at the naked truth, whichever is appropriate.
To hide behind "oh poor Reagan's ill, take it easy on him" is a laughable argument. Ronald Reagan was a politician who held the highest office in this country for two terms. Now his presidency is being pushed to create some sort of legacy and mystique, and anyone who dares question the cult of Reagan must be silenced.
We live in a free society that is supposed to welcome the free exchange of ideas and opinions, so let's do that. Has anyone seen this mini series yet? I doubt any of the people calling for it being shelved have.

BTW For the record, Reagan did make remarks about AIDS to that effect:
In "Dutch," Reagan's authorized biography, the author, Edmund Morris, writes that Reagan once said of AIDS, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."

[SPG]

Oh yeah, one more piece on this:

Mr. Leslie Moonves
President and CEO
CBS Television
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019

Dear Mr. Moonves:

I write to you with regard to your upcoming mini-series "The Reagans." I share the concerns expressed by others that it may not present an accurate depiction of the Reagan administration and America during the 1980s. I trust that CBS will not be a party to a distorted presentation of American history, and that the mini-series will present a fair and balanced portrayal of the Reagans, the 1980s and their legacy.

As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy, please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will make it into the final cut of the mini-series: $640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable; union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist nations; trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the savings and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and influence peddling.

I hope you find these facts useful in accurately depicting President Reagan's time in office.

With every good wish,
Sincerely yours,

John D. Dingell
Member of Congress

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its really a matter of CBS who made the thing of using poor judgement,having bad timing and having no class, but i guess that is CBS. I think i may watch CBS when my football team is on but thats it.

[tazo]

That is an extremely persuasive letter, had it not been for star wars I dont think the member of congress could have made his point ;)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield i think there should be a law against airing any mini series on a major...

There is only problem with this idea...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Ah... I love this country.

[Vector]

Originally posted by Frohickey
There is only problem with this idea...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Ah... I love this country.

Thats not a problem. We'll just have to have that part amended. I will call up a few congressmen and senators and see if they can get the ball rolling.:)

[tazo]

lol vector.

And although we still 'have' our first amendment rights, the Patriot Act has legally eradicated many of those rights, not to mention the other constitutional rights the patriot act has eviscerated...

[Vector]

i am sure that if i cannot get a movement started to repeal the 1st amendment the government can find some way around it. i think these miniseries might be a threat to national security.

Actually, on a more serious note, there are already ways around it. If it were proven that this miniseries was filled with erronious information that portrayed reagan or anyone else in a false and malicious manner then it could be considered slander or defamation and would not be protected by the 1st amendment.

[jadariv]

I don't think you can make a blanket statement that you should make a law banning making movies on people who are not dead yet. That sounds an awful lot like censorship. Maybe we can make an amendment to the Patriot Act. ;)

As for the story, does anyone here even know what its about or have you been basing all your opinions by watching Bill O'Reilly or reading the Drudge Report.

This movie is portraying the love story between Ron and Nancy. It's not a documentary or was it supposed to be used to put forth all of his political accomplishments.

Yes, I agree that the "AIDS" comment is harsh and it was probably put in for some dramatic effect. This comment may not have been documented but it has been well documented in countless books and articles that Reagan ignored (for whatever reasons) the AIDS crisis in the early days.

And everything I read or hear about this movie always quotes the 'AIDS' line and then goes on to say 'among other things'. What are the other things? If they are so bad let's see what else there is?

I'm an adult. I've watched many historical dramas over the years. Some were good and some were bad. Some stuck to the facts and some fictionalized too much. But in the end, they all embellished a little bit to keep dialouge and action dramatic for the sake of making it interesting.

I have a feeling (and I wanted not to be political, but...) if Brolin hadn't played the Gipper, I doubt we would have this thread going right now. I could just see the hate lust in O'Reilly's eyes that the husband of Streisand was playing Ronny.

[3rdpath]

anyone expecting to get much worthwhile/historical information from tv is sorely misguided.

kill your tv and read a book.

[Vector]

Originally posted by jadariv

This movie is portraying the love story between Ron and Nancy. It's not a documentary or was it supposed to be used to put forth all of his political accomplishments.


CBS ordered the miniseries as such, but the producers took control and added in their own views on the reagans. Maybe i am blind, but i do not see how lines about aids, the anti-christ, nancy hitting the children and nancy being a pill-popper add to a "love story".

[crookedcharlie]

Originally posted by Vector
CBS ordered the miniseries as such, but the producers took control and added in their own views on the reagans. Maybe i am blind, but i do not see how lines about aids, the anti-christ, nancy hitting the children and nancy being a pill-popper add to a "love story".

Well, thank God you're not a TV producer. Your way sounds boring as hell, nothing but praising a man who spent eight years robbing the poor to give to the rich...

[Vector]

Originally posted by crookedcharlie
Well, thank God you're not a TV producer. Your way sounds boring as hell, nothing but praising a man who spent eight years robbing the poor to give to the rich...

You forgot to mention Star Wars, ilicicit arms deals, financing the overthough of a democratically elected leader, giving weapons to iraq, ...

I said that what CBS ordered was supposed to be a "love story", but the producers interjected their own political views, defaming Reagan on several instances by inserting colorful remarks that lack substantiation. if they had made a movie that portrayed reagan negatively for the iran-contra affair, star wars, the iraq-iran war, trickle-down economics, or another factually based political faux-pas then i wouldn't mind. it is the fallacious way that that the views of the films makers are introduced that bothers me.

[crookedcharlie]

Originally posted by Vector
You forgot to mention Star Wars, ilicicit arms deals, financing the overthough of a democratically elected leader, giving weapons to iraq, ...

I said that what CBS ordered was supposed to be a "love story", but the producers interjected their own political views, defaming Reagan on several instances by inserting colorful remarks that lack substantiation. if they had made a movie that portrayed reagan negatively for the iran-contra affair, star wars, the iraq-iran war, trickle-down economics, or another factually based political faux-pas then i wouldn't mind. it is the fallacious way that that the views of the films makers are introduced that bothers me.

Don't watch. Simple. I don't know why you think your problems with the story means it shouldn't be or that someone is doing something "wrong."

[1macker1]

If the series makes some valid points, and if it has FACTS to back it up. I say air it. BTW..cbs has sold the right to the series to Showtime.

[Vector]

Originally posted by crookedcharlie
Don't watch. Simple. I don't know why you think your problems with the story means it shouldn't be or that someone is doing something "wrong."

I do not plan on watching, but should should read my comments with a bit more attention to detail. I have not said that "it shouldn't be or that someone is doing something 'wrong'". If CBS or any other television network feels that it would be a good business move to air such a movie during sweeps week then it is fine with my. The story is not a balanced portrayal of Reagan or any "love story" about the Reagans. I am not saying that the producers are wrong to make such a film, but it should not pretend to be something that it is not. If they want to make a movie that details the negative attributes of reagan and his presidency and their own views on Reagan, then they should, just do not let CBS make it out to be an inside view of the love that nacy and ronald have for one another.

[Vector]

Originally posted by 1macker1
If the series makes some valid points, and if it has FACTS to back it up. I say air it. BTW..cbs has sold the right to the series to Showtime.

CBS's parent company Viacom decided that due to the negative reaction, and all of the editing that would have to be done to make the film palatable to the average viewer they should air it on Showtime, a subsidiary of Viacom. Showtime will be airing the movie uncut, save the line about AIDS.

CBS will not broadcast THE REAGANS on November 16 and 18. This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script.

Although the mini-series features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address those concerns.

A free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view. We do, however, recognize and respect the filmmakers' right to have their voice heard and their film seen. As such, we have reached an agreement to license the exhibition rights for the film to Showtime, a subscriber-based, pay-cable network. We believe this is a solution that benefits everyone involved.

This was not an easy decision to make. CBS does tackle controversial subjects and provide tough assessments of prominent historical figures and events, as we did with films such as 'Jesus,' '9-11' and 'Hitler.' We will continue to do so in the future."

[jadariv]

I really think I would rather see a dramatic scene between Ron and Nancy talking about the AIDS crises than trickle down economics anyway. Plus, that Dutch quote seems eerily close to the quote in the movie.

Conservatives are inherently evil, greedy people. There's no telling what is the truth and what's not.

But now that the miniseries will be on Showtime, I won't be able to watch it and make up my own mind. Looks like the conservatives are not only stealing elections and taking away our civil liberties and handing over our lives to corporations. Now they are censoring what is on T.V.

Makes me proud to be a Republican.

[pyrotoaster]

Politics is a heated topic to begin with, but Ronald Reagan has a whole other dimension of issues surrounding him. Some people claim he was the greatest president ever, other people (like myself) think, with all due respect, that he was bad president.

The double standard here is that we won't run a miniseries about a sick man, but we'll run one about a dead man (like RFK, for instance). I think that there wouldn't be this debate if Reagan were dead (I don't wish any ill to him, though). CBS should've waited and made this miniseries about a year or so after Reagan's passing (of course, then they'd have to find a different mediocre miniseries to run and that would be just so much work...).

[Vector]

Originally posted by jadariv

Conservatives are inherently evil, greedy people. There's no telling what is the truth and what's not.

But now that the miniseries will be on Showtime, I won't be able to watch it and make up my own mind. Looks like the conservatives are not only stealing elections and taking away our civil liberties and handing over our lives to corporations. Now they are censoring what is on T.V.

Makes me proud to be a Republican.

well if your party can steal elections and prevent free speach then you might as well be proud that they can.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Vector
CBS ordered the miniseries as such, but the producers took control and added in their own views on the reagans. Maybe i am blind, but i do not see how lines about aids, the anti-christ, nancy hitting the children and nancy being a pill-popper add to a "love story".

Zest, pop, intrigue, added dimensions to their characters, etc., etc., etc.

Has anyone here ever heard of historical fiction? Whenever some big news event happens, the major networks start bidding for the rights to the story. Now because the networks weren't present when the actual events happened, they are forced to hire writers to "fill in the blanks."

As an example, if the writers had information that Reagan ignored the AIDS epidemic and made some unseemly comments about those who have AIDS (as has been documented by more than one person), they might "condense" that sentiment into a catchy line in the movie.

Thats what historical fiction is.

Now you might have a problem with the way CBS is portraying the movie, or not like the fact that the movie brought up some areas of Reagan's administration that are contentious in the public eye, but that really doesn't matter, does it?

Where were you conservatives when the Nancy Carrigan/Tonya Harding scandle was the movie of the week? How about the endless other historical happenings that were butchered at the hands of TV execs?

The only reason conservatives are mad about this particular docu-drama is that they are calling into question the legacy of the untouchable conservative icon of the last quarter century. If this series were about Clinton and Lewinski, none of you would have a problem. (BTW, expect that Clinton series eventually...or has it already been aired?? I guess I don't recall seeing one).

Reagan is a dying man who has nothing to lose by this movie being aired. You say he can't defend himself, so wait for his death? How will he defend himself when he's dead? Are all unauthorized biographies off limits? Should all of those books that have been written which question his presidency also be censored? Where does this madness stop?

This movie should have been aired. When the major networks start bowing to GOP pressure, I start picturing a Fox News world. Its not a pretty sight.

Taft

[Vector]

Originally posted by Taft

The only reason conservatives are mad about this particular docu-drama is that they are calling into question the legacy of the untouchable conservative icon of the last quarter century. If this series were about Clinton and Lewinski, none of you would have a problem. (BTW, expect that Clinton series eventually...or has it already been aired?? I guess I don't recall seeing one).

Taft

I am not a conservative. I liked clinton and think that the lewinsky controversy was blown way out of proportion. I voted for clinton to be president not the moral conscience of the united states, so yes i would have a problem with any miniseries that portrayed clinton as a womanizer who did not do anything worthwhile. I would hardly consider Reagan an untouchable conservative icon, although some would surely disagree with me. Reagan had a democratically elected president overthrown, traded weapons with terrorists, and financed terrorists and governments hostile to the U.S. I would not even begin to argue that he was the best president as someone mentioned was the view of some people. I think that no matter who a miniseries or documentary is being made about, it should be a fair and accurate portrayal.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Taft
(BTW, expect that Clinton series eventually...or has it already been aired?? I guess I don't recall seeing one).

Hasn't this been done already? Primary Colors (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0119942/)

[mactastic]

I wish every "historical docudrama" had to pass this kind of muster. Maybe people would have a better idea of history if we did.

[Vector]

Originally posted by mactastic
I wish every "historical docudrama" had to pass this kind of muster. Maybe people would have a better idea of history if we did.

Very true. I wish that the networks didn't feel that it is necessary to make every slightly interesting news story into a miniseries for sweeps week (ie. Jessica Lynch, Tonya Harding). Some of the miniseries have been worth watching though, Nuremburg for instance.

[Desertrat]

Wow! "Conservatives are inherently evil, greedy people. There's no telling what is the truth and what's not."

I learn something new about myself, every day! Who sez I'm too old to learn, though? Heck, I'm only 69 years young!

:D, 'Rat

[mactastic]

How come nobody flew off the handle (well some of us did, but not in such a public forum) over the Pearl Harbor movie? Titanic? Or could it have something to do with who's ox was being gored?

[Frohickey]

Well, you have advertiser-paid television networks which tend to gravitate towards sensationalism to set their ad-rates for the coming year.

Somehow, its profitable to do business this way instead of financing bonafide historically-accurate documentaries like the History Channel and A&E do. This two entities get their funds via subscriber-fees, which puts them into a different category than CBS does. PBS is about the only other network on the air that does documentaries, but their business model is different still.

So, how do you get from here to there? Turn television stations into subscription-fee based, and equip all TVs with encryption boxes? Make everything cable TV, with their encryption settop boxes?

People are still fond of their 'free tv' and its going to be difficult to wean them from that. Sometimes, 'free' means that 'its worth nothing'.

[Desertrat]

"Titanic"? Where it was mostly Republicans who survived? Since they were the only ones who could follow the arrows to the lifeboats?

Sorry 'bout dat.

:D:D:D, 'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i think there should be a law against airing any mini series on a major, much watched network depicting a person in a negative light (with no proof) while that person is still alive

Why? How would such a law be written? Who would decide if it were unflattering?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
"Titanic"? Where it was mostly Republicans who survived? Since they were the only ones who could follow the arrows to the lifeboats?

Sorry 'bout dat.

:D:D:D, 'Rat

Nah, it was mostly Republicans who survived cuz the boat held the upper crust of society.:D

My apologies also.

I wonder how many Republicans will be asking for historical accuracy when the Bush movie about 9/11 comes out soon...

[Sayhey]

As far as I know no one has actually seen the final product other than a few execs at CBS, so what is the big deal other than some conservatives can't stand the possibility that Ronnie won't come out looking good? I know it is not really about the accuracy of the AIDS quote, because no made for TV biopic is held to that high a standard. Besides if the line is not really accurate in that Reagan did not say it, then it at least captures his disdain for those who were dying of AIDS during his administration.

I'm afraid the fact the actor portraying Reagan is married to a favorite target of the right-wing has more to do with the snit Matt Druge and co. are throwing. It is unfortunate that CBS caved, but the silly thing is that more people may tune in to watch it now. I know I will.

[jefhatfield]

hey mods, i tried to make this about making tasteless movies about people while they are sick, or something like that....not if the gipper was a good, bad, or indifferent president

i guess this thread should be moved since it has turned into a "i love reagan vs i hate reagan" thread:p

[Rower_CPU]

It's already been moved, jef'. ;)

[pseudobrit]

I want to see an unflattering miniseries about Rush Limbaugh.

[jadariv]

Originally posted by mactastic
I wonder how many Republicans will be asking for historical accuracy when the Bush movie about 9/11 comes out soon...


Betcha if anyone tries to show how Air Force One flew around running scared and Bush's first speech was less than spectacular, they will be shouted down. I think they should have Sean Penn play Bush.

[mactastic]

Looks like the movie Rob Roy was historically innaccurate too. I ask all those who protested against the Reagan movie to also protest the historical innaccuracy of Rob Roy as well. Of course, he's not here to defend himself so I don't know if it would be allowed....

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/03/nroy03.xml)

Rob Roy, one of Scotland's most celebrated folk heroes, was really a confidence trickster who spied for the English army, according to the first academic investigation into his life.

The extent of Rob Roy MacGregor's villainy has surprised the author of the study which will challenge the belief that Roy was a Robin Hood figure who stole from the rich to give to the poor.

Prof David Stevenson, of St Andrews University, has written a book drawing on years of research including court proceedings and the estate records of the dukes of Montrose and Argyll. His findings, in Rob Roy: The Man and the Myth, have angered the Clan Gregor Society which regards Roy as one of the family's most romantic ancestors.

Perhaps the most controversial claim concerns Roy's behaviour during the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715 when he betrayed his clan by acting as a paid agent to help the English army. Previously, he had been regarded as a staunch supporter of the Jacobite cause and led his clan during the first uprising at the Battle of Killiecrankie. His involvement led to government mercenaries burning down his house.

But according to Prof Stevenson, Roy's close association with the Duke of Argyll, chief of the pro-Hanoverian Campbells, meant that Roy and his men took no part in the battle of Sheriffmuir where the Jacobites were finally defeated. It has been known that Roy had contacts with the Hanoverians, but Prof Stevenson is the first historian to discover that he traded Jacobite secrets for money.

"This is typical of Rob Roy. He sells himself as a Jacobite but at the same time was selling information to the government. He sold intelligence to the chief of the Hanoverian army in Scotland." The popular impression of a heroic rogue, who stole cattle to help his impoverished clansmen, was most notably expressed in Sir Walter Scott's novel Rob Roy published in 1817. Despite a penchant for blackmail and protection rackets, Roy was credited with being loyal to his people.

In contrast to the version of Roy's life that was made into a Hollywood film starring Liam Neeson, Prof Stevenson's book also reveals that Roy was not outlawed after being set up in a plot to steal money from the Duke of Montrose. The received wisdom was that one of Roy's men absconded with the duke's money, leaving Roy being unjustly accused of embezzlement.

But Prof Stevenson said: "He was outlawed as the result of a carefully arranged swindle. Roy deliberately planned to go bankrupt at least six months in advance and hid his assets by passing them on to his family."

He added: "I did not intend to denigrate a national hero. In fact, I was surprised at the extent of his double-dealing and criminality."

A spokesman for the Clan Gregor Society was "totally shocked" by Prof Stevenson's findings. "It is dreadful and completely untrue," she said. "Rob Roy was the Scottish equivalent to Robin Hood, except he was actually real. He was a very good clan leader and did a lot to help the poor. He only swindled those who oppressed the poor. He may have robbed from the rich but he didn't do it in his own interests."

Lady Mary McGrigor of Dalmally, who has just published a book, Rob Roy Country, said: "Sir Walter Scott definitely romanticised him but I think he was really rather a rascal and certainly pinched 2,000 sheep from my ancestors. I don't think he was the hero he was made out to be."

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I want to see an unflattering miniseries about Rush Limbaugh.

again, since he's in rehab, and an admitted addict...it would be tasteless to run a miniseries..i can see it now...a blinding, thinning, shaking rush in front of a hotel scoring pain killers from some shady dealer...that does not represent the rush most of us know as a commentator and entertainer

i am a democrat and i can't stand most of what the man says, but when i found out his addiction may have caused his vision problems and his sudden weight loss (unhealthy weight loss), i felt sorry for the guy

since i am a volunteer for drug addicts, i do not judge these people who are in a world of hurt

[zimv20]

maybe if reagan hadn't cut alzheimer's funding, he'd be well enough for the movie to air.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by zimv20
maybe if reagan hadn't cut alzheimer's funding, he'd be well enough for the movie to air.

it is very ironic, indeed

i still would not wish the disease on anybody

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
I wonder how many Republicans will be asking for historical accuracy when the Bush movie about 9/11 comes out soon...

Wasn't he in front of a classroom reading from a book to schoolkids? Or was he watching a football game, while throwing pretzels into the air and catching it in his mouth? :D

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Wasn't he in front of a classroom reading from a book to schoolkids? Or was he watching a football game, while throwing pretzels into the air and catching it in his mouth? :D

With his luck with pretzels, I'd say if he was eating them when Card told him what happened he have sucked a couple in and we'd have Pres. Cheney now..... ::shiver::

;)

[Taft]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
again, since he's in rehab, and an admitted addict...it would be tasteless to run a miniseries..i can see it now...a blinding, thinning, shaking rush in front of a hotel scoring pain killers from some shady dealer...that does not represent the rush most of us know as a commentator and entertainer

i am a democrat and i can't stand most of what the man says, but when i found out his addiction may have caused his vision problems and his sudden weight loss (unhealthy weight loss), i felt sorry for the guy

since i am a volunteer for drug addicts, i do not judge these people who are in a world of hurt

I, too, have endless symbpathy for drug addicts. It is a disease.

However, I also have endless contempt for hypocrites, and Rush is most definitely a hypocrite. Rush had said that he thinks drug users/abusers should be locked in jail, and that more white people should be locked up for drug use (in response to a study which found that a disproportionate amount of black people were jailed for drug use). Since then, he has not withdrawn the comment, or surrendered himself to police.

He is a hypocrite. He was one of those guys working against drug law reform and helping drug addicts in need and now he has a drug problem himself. If it had been a failing, I'd give him my sympathy. But he villanized the very failing he had in order to appease his audience and make himself money. That is contemptible.

So yes, I think a movie should be made about Rush. He shouldn't get a free pass on this and his hypocracy should be out there for all of America to see. I hope he gets better, but I also hope his credibility is permenantly damaged. A person like Rush doesn't deserve it.

And I'm still waiting for a retraction or for Rush to serve some hard time. One of the two has to give.

Taft

[SPG]

Originally posted by Taft
I, too, have endless symbpathy for drug addicts. It is a disease.

However, I also have endless contempt for hypocrites, and Rush is most definitely a hypocrite. Rush had said that he thinks drug users/abusers should be locked in jail, and that more white people should be locked up for drug use (in response to a study which found that a disproportionate amount of black people were jailed for drug use). Since then, he has not withdrawn the comment, or surrendered himself to police.

He is a hypocrite. He was one of those guys working against drug law reform and helping drug addicts in need and now he has a drug problem himself. If it had been a failing, I'd give him my sympathy. But he villanized the very failing he had in order to appease his audience and make himself money. That is contemptible.

So yes, I think a movie should be made about Rush. He shouldn't get a free pass on this and his hypocracy should be out there for all of America to see. I hope he gets better, but I also hope his credibility is permenantly damaged. A person like Rush doesn't deserve it.

And I'm still waiting for a retraction or for Rush to serve some hard time. One of the two has to give.

Taft

Funny how that works out, ain't it? I for one will not be holding my breath for any retraction or for the day we see Rush working on the side of the road in his prison issued orange jumpsuit (as much as I'd love to see that). What I do expect is another statement that blames his back pain and a misunderstanding of drug law for his addiction as he continues to rail against evil drug addicts.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by SPG
Funny how that works out, ain't it? I for one will not be holding my breath for any retraction or for the day we see Rush working on the side of the road in his prison issued orange jumpsuit (as much as I'd love to see that). What I do expect is another statement that blames his back pain and a misunderstanding of drug law for his addiction as he continues to rail against evil drug addicts.

rush has a disease and it is drug addiction...he needs help, not jail time

rush says a lot of things on his show which contradicts reality...but remember, he is an entertainer as he has mentioned to cnn and he is admittedly not a political analyst...and i will add that he is not an elected or appointed official in the united states or elsewhere

he may have some influence, but mostly on racist, stupid, ignorant, uneducated, uniformed, xenophobic idiots who wouldn't know the difference between the hoover institute, dr condi rice, william f buckley, or george f will

but that being said, he is still suffering and he needs professional medical help

now political hypocrites who have power or influence, like our president...that is a different matter and i do care what he says and does and he has the ability to wield considerable damage on all of us (ps george, bring the troops home already)

[mactastic]

I'm sorry, but bringing the troops home now would be probably the worst thing we could do. Once the decision was made (which I heartily disagree with) the nation is committed. We need to leave Iraq better than we found it. Failing in that will leave Iraq a haven for a new generation of terrorists. Internationalizing the force would be fine with me, but I don't see many nations jumping up to help us, so we need to bite the bullet, and do it ourselves.

Conquering is so much easier than ruling, as the Roman's discovered the hard way...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mactastic
I'm sorry, but bringing the troops home now would be probably the worst thing we could do. Once the decision was made (which I heartily disagree with) the nation is committed. We need to leave Iraq better than we found it. Failing in that will leave Iraq a haven for a new generation of terrorists. Internationalizing the force would be fine with me, but I don't see many nations jumping up to help us, so we need to bite the bullet, and do it ourselves.

Conquering is so much easier than ruling, as the Roman's discovered the hard way...

i definitely have struggled with this one

when the monterey (calif) newspaper ran a story about a star high school student from here who got killed AFTER the war, our entire county was outraged and bush's approval rating went way down where i live

when we fight a war and then occupy and rebuild, i am for it once we are committed...but as of may 1, the war has been deemed over and the dragging on of this war has made donald rumsfeld, secretary of defense, compare this war to vietnam with no clear exit and no clear plan...on average, 26 attacks on us troops happen on a daily basis as thousands of saddam loyalists do not consider this war over

our vice president sits on a board that is one of the major companies that stands to make money in the rebuilding of iraq...it just smacks too much of corruption and the oil for money protesters gain credibility everyday...that and the president's approval rating has dropped an amazing 16 points in just a few months

iraq has become, i hate to say it (borrowing a fitting term from 1968), a quagmire

there are several military bases where i live i won't be surprised if someone i know gets killed over there....i know a captain who is a company commander in the army, an army staff sgt who is a linguist who got called back after being retired, and a lt. colonel in the air force who are over there or will be over there soon and they signed up to defend the us, not be mixed up in some war that bush fabriceated based on weapons of mass destruction...the president erroneously stated that our next attack could come from iraq in the form of a mushroom cloud based on a wmd...iraq does not have nuclear weapons

this thing stinks more and more every day and originally, i was one of the few americans who believed saddam had a direct connection to 9-11...but now i know this war on iraq has no justification

[zimv20]

despite my vehement opposition to the war, i agree that it would be a mistake to just pack up and leave. that doesn't do the iraqis any good.

what i think should happen is a massive diplomatic effort designed to get the UN involved on a grand scale. this would including turning over all operations to the UN, w/ the US presence representing just another member state.

the US would reduce its troop numbers as other UN member countries contributed theirs.

i have to wonder, though, if bush has burned too many bridges to make this possible.

and i'm quite certain that there would be massive private protest, 'cuz all the profiteering would be lost. so it won't happen, even though that's ultimately in the best interest of the iraqis.