From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:15:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.180416.19665@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.201130.12074@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.154402.5410@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep29.144840.10335@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>What a completely nonsensical view.  Take note:  Arnold was playing a
>>>>_bad guy_.  In the end, he gets killed by the _good guys_.  I know this
>>>>is a hard concept to grasp among those who have a hard time telling the
>>>>difference, but still it's an important one.
>>>
>>>Gee, when Ice-T portrays a character in one of his songs that supports
>>>killing police, the Republicans are up in arms.
>>
>>Dig.  Ice T's work (as well as his public statements) supports killing
>>cops.  Arnold's work does not.  
>
>How so?  One's a fictional movie, the other's a fictional song.  And
>one can certainly find other Arnold movies where he kills people
>gratuitously, even when he's a good guy.  (I recall him putting a bullet
>in Sharon Stone's head when she was playing his wife with the line "Consider
>this a divorce!"  Family values indeed.)
>
>About the only difference I see is that you don't seem to believe that black
>people are capable of the complexities and subtleties of engaging in
>fictional discourse.  
>
>>There are two different messages here.
>>This is a very difficult distinction, I know.  But strive if you can
>>to grasp it.
>
>Do you believe that Dante actually visited Hell, too?
>-- 
>ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
>ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first


The original point was never about "killing" per se, but about  the 
supposed hypocracy of Arnold making violent movies and being a Bush
supporter at the same time.  I maintain that there is no hypocracy at
all.  One can play a role in a movie, shoot any number of people, and
at the same time support Bush and "family values."  This is especially
true when the message of the movie is supportive of "justice" in 
general (as was the case in Term. I, Term. II, and even in the movie
you describe above--recall that his wife was an evil character who 
would have killed Arnold if necessary).  The difference between this
sort of thing and Ice T is that T has made public statements which
indicate some support for civil  violence and the possible killing of
police (see his taped remarks at the outbreak of the L.A. riots).  If
all Ice T does is record a song about the supposed feelings of people
who want to kill cops, I have no problem with this as poetry or art.  
But if I have some evidence that he thinks this is "ok" then I have
to say that there's a big difference between this and what Arnold does
in his movies.

-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc