# On Matt Damon...by Andrew Klavan...



## billc (Aug 20, 2013)

A look at Matt Damon...

http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2013/08/19/damonic/



> Damon&#8217;s a good movie star. So&#8217;s Clooney. Both are talented, obviously bright guys. Damon, I&#8217;ve heard from people who should know, is an all-around decent bloke. I&#8217;ve never heard anything bad personally about Clooney.
> But the political stuff they do &#8212; it&#8217;s just so ridiculous. Why is that?  How is our culture failing or deceiving its creative class that such gentlemen as these should come to feel there is some virtue in creating art so in conflict with their lives and actions?





> But why should an actor think it&#8217;s right to take a $20-million payday (or whatever) to make a $100-million movie touting socialism in the hopes of turning a profit in the free market? What sense does that make? Why should he try to sell us what he wouldn&#8217;t buy? I have no problem with the guy sending his kids to private schools &#8212; I did too. But then why go around singing the praises of corrupt teachers unions and a failed public system you wouldn&#8217;t use? Absurd. _Good Will Hunting_ touts Howard Zinn&#8217;s dishonest anti-American history book &#8212; while its stars live off the fat of the land. Why does that feel to them like the right thing to do? Or making anti-war propaganda while our troops are actually in the field in harm&#8217;s way? WTF?


----------



## Blindside (Aug 20, 2013)

Matt Damon also starred in the Bourne series, not exactly a liberal thought piece.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 20, 2013)

Blindside said:


> Matt Damon also starred in the Bourne series, not exactly a liberal thought piece.



And what do those movies have in common, besides Matt Damon? _Elysium_ and _Bourne_.....oh, that's right.

Matt Damon *got paid.*

:lfao:

(Of course, Bill will point out that the Bourne movies *are* liberal for their apparent vilification of the CIA, but that's life....)


----------



## billc (Aug 21, 2013)

> Matt Damon also starred in the Bourne series, not exactly a liberal thought piece.



How is that...all three movies show the C.I.A. as the villian...the left hates the C.I.A.  He was also in another movie that showed the C.I.A. as the bad guys, not to mention the Green Zone, another anti-American movie...


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 21, 2013)

Do you ever wonder what the world would be like if you had the power to make all your fantasies about what you hate come true, Bill?

Balance and moderation is always the key to health, whether it be in terms of quality of life or politics and religion.

Without a sense of balance a person is always going to feel unhappy and aggrieved because things aren't as they want them to be and that is not a good way to live your life (which is of uncertain length and could terminate unexpectedly).


----------



## elder999 (Aug 21, 2013)

withyou!pokerwith





billc said:


> How is that...all three movies show the C.I.A. as the villian...the left hates the C.I.A.  He was also in another movie that showed the C.I.A. as the bad guys, not to mention the Green Zone, another anti-American movie...



Man,I'dlove to play poker with you! :lfao:


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 21, 2013)

Moderation is a good thing from my point of view.  But truthfully, I am more conservative than liberal.  That doesn't mean I have no liberal beliefs.

But ultra liberal to ultra conservative are points of perspective.  If we get rid of people like some we have here on MT that are ultra liberal or ultra conservative, we would simply define new limits of ultra conservative or ultra liberal.  

I have no problem reading the beliefs of people who don't agree with me.  If I consider it too much BS, I can react or not.  But I don't want to close my mind for fear of not being in a position for learning something new and maybe even finding agreement with an 'ultra's' proposal.


----------



## billc (Aug 21, 2013)

Why is it you guys always attribute "hate," to things I point out.  I don't hate anyone, really, even dumb hollywood guys like Damon.  I like to point out the hypocrisy of one of the three institutions that drive the political debate on the left side of the issues, hollywood, education and journalism.  Too many people just assume that what they see from these places are just the way things are and don't bother to question what comes out of them.  Hate never plays a part in what I do...just curiosity, and astonishment, sometimes...

That you guys always use the word "hate," reflects on your perspective rather than mine...



> which is of uncertain length and could terminate unexpectedly



Very true, but as a believer in an afterlife I may be surprised at what comes next...or it won't matter anyway..There is always hope when you believe...

Hmmm...you do realize that this is a place to discuss things along a political and cultural level...It doesn't really bear any on my actual hapiness, I just enjoy mixing up viewpoints and bringing enlightenment to those who live in darkness...:angel::angel:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 21, 2013)

billc said:


> A look at Matt Damon...
> 
> But why should an actor think it&#8217;s right to take a $20-million payday (or whatever) to make a $100-million movie touting socialism in the hopes of turning a profit in the free market? What sense does that make? Why should he try to sell us what he wouldn&#8217;t buy? I have no problem with the guy sending his kids to private schools &#8212; I did too. But then why go around singing the praises of corrupt teachers unions and a failed public system you wouldn&#8217;t use? Absurd. _Good Will Hunting_ touts Howard Zinn&#8217;s dishonest anti-American history book &#8212; while its stars live off the fat of the land. Why does that feel to them like the right thing to do? Or making anti-war propaganda while our troops are actually in the field in harm&#8217;s way? WTF?


Sounds like whining to me.

Matt Damon is paid to make movies.  People pay him because they think he's good at it.  Since we have freedom of speech, screenwriters are free to write scripts that may have perspectives that differ from your or which may deviate from popular opinion.  Matt Damon is offered/auditions for films because it is his job.  If he makes movies that I don't care for, I don't watch them.  I watch previews and I have a pretty good sense of what I will and will not like based on them.  Rarely am I wrong.  As of yet, I haven't seen any of Matt's movies.  Not because of any issues with Matt, but because his movies don't appeal to me.  

As for anti war propaganda, it has nothing to do with the sacrifice our troops make.  Our elected officials send them out to fight in wars that many feel are questionable.  One _could_ actually make the case that the anti-war people are actually looking out for our troops.  In any case, there have been plenty of movies made over the years that were out and out pro-war propaganda, which I personally consider a greater problem than anti war propaganda.  In fact, I'm just fine with anti-war sentiments, so long as they aren't vilifying the troops that have been sent off to war.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 21, 2013)

billc said:


> Why is it you guys always attribute "hate," to things I point out.  I don't hate anyone, really, even dumb hollywood guys like Damon.  I like to point out the hypocrisy of one of the three institutions that drive the political debate on the left side of the issues, hollywood, education and journalism.  Too many people just assume that what they see from these places are just the way things are and don't bother to question what comes out of them.  Hate never plays a part in what I do...just curiosity, and astonishment, sometimes...
> 
> That you guys always use the word "hate," reflects on your perspective rather than mine...
> 
> ...



:chuckles at your last there: I still think what I posted about balance applies, Bill.  How many years is it now that almost everyday you've posted up things vilifying a political perspective that you don't agree with, often with the slimmest of justifications?  I'll take your word that that campaign is not driven by hate but it's certainly immoderate .  

I am sure I've said before that it's not (only) that people disagree with what you say that sometimes leads them to be sharp with you, it's the kid-banging-a-biscuit-tin-with-a-spoon-for-three-hours effect :lol:.  Repetition is not always better .

I actually like to *talk* politics sometimes and have done with some very conservative people here at MT.  I used to get quite upset, when I was not so au fait with how blunt and fierce non-face-to-face chat can be, with the, to me, outrageous and unsupportable opinions I was hearing from Don and John (*TF*).  But, over time, I learned to read past the harshness to the matters behind and I (I hope) earned a little bit of respect from them in that I was quite prepared to listen and discuss issues if there was a solid basis for them (rather than simple partisan bias).  

To do that tho' it has to be a two-way street.  It helped that I 'get' Don's sense of humour and admire John's commitment to honesty and along those avenues began to seek out common ground rather than just butt heads on the things we didn't agree on. In the end it can't just be saying one side is wrong all the time, for that's not really debate.

Don't know why I rambled on like that ... my apologies.  I've just been to the dentists so I'll blame that .


----------



## Steve (Aug 21, 2013)

Billc, I try not to use the term "hate" and am not sure whether I've done so in the past or not.  But extremist rhetoric invites the same.  The articles you post, which you freely admit are very one-sided, have created an impression of hate.  The words in the articles range from negative to hateful, depending upon whether you are quoting a breitbart "correspondent" or a hate monger like Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter.  

So, while I agree with you that the term "hate" is a little extreme and may not represent all of your words, I also believe you should accept some measure of responsibility for the reputation you've worked hard to create.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 21, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Don't know why I rambled on like that ... my apologies.  I've just been to the dentists so I'll blame that .



??? When did you move away from England?


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 21, 2013)

:grins:  Just because over here we don't think that Radioactive White glow-in-the-dark teeth are healthy is no reason to get snippy Mr. Murican :lol:.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 21, 2013)

billc said:


> Why is it you guys always attribute "hate," to things I point out. I don't hate anyone, really, even dumb hollywood guys like Damon. I like to point out the hypocrisy of one of the three institutions that drive the political debate on the left side of the issues, hollywood, education and journalism. Too many people just assume that what they see from these places are just the way things are and don't bother to question what comes out of them. Hate never plays a part in what I do...just curiosity, and astonishment, sometimes...
> 
> That you guys always use the word "hate," reflects on your perspective rather than mine...



"You guy always???"


I have never used the word "hate" in any reference to you.


----------



## Blindside (Aug 21, 2013)

billc said:


> How is that...all three movies show the C.I.A. as the villian...the left hates the C.I.A.  He was also in another movie that showed the C.I.A. as the bad guys, not to mention the Green Zone, another anti-American movie...



So if the left "hates" the CIA, the inverse is true that a conservative must like the CIA?


----------



## granfire (Aug 21, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Moderation is a good thing from my point of view.  But truthfully, I am more conservative than liberal.  That doesn't mean I have no liberal beliefs.
> 
> But ultra liberal to ultra conservative are points of perspective.  If we get rid of people like some we have here on MT that are ultra liberal or ultra conservative, we would simply define new limits of ultra conservative or ultra liberal.
> 
> I have no problem reading the beliefs of people who don't agree with me.  If I consider it too much BS, I can react or not.  But I don't want to close my mind for fear of not being in a position for learning something new and maybe even finding agreement with an 'ultra's' proposal.



Ultra liberal on MT? WHERE?!


----------



## Steve (Aug 21, 2013)

Blindside said:


> So if the left "hates" the CIA, the inverse is true that a conservative must like the CIA?



Love.  They love the CIA.  To do less is Unpatriotic and means the terrorists win.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## billc (Aug 21, 2013)

Love...no...respect, yes.  there are men and women working day and night in the CIA trying to keep our people safe.  They are people no different than those who join the police, fire department, or the military and they risk their lives doing their jobs...and many times die and and never receive the acknowledgement of their sacrifice.  Are there bad people in the CIA...of course.  The same with all the other jobs out there.   but Damon has made a career out of smearing all those people...from the luxury of the protection they provide....that's all...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 21, 2013)

So movie producers have no political motivations in the movies they back? None at all?

Actors are not offered films, accept roles for films or try to get a role based on their political views? Never?

The critics are not blind to the politics in this latest film:

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/13/elysiums_politics_dont_add_up_partner/



> But this is a larger failure, the failure of a kind of progressive-leaning bourgeois politics of class sympathy. It&#8217;s a perspective that is very alive to class, but a politics largely deaf to it. Liberal politics tells you we can solve the contradictions of capitalism simply by figuring out a way to include more people in the wealth that&#8217;s been generated. The main problems are moral (greedy mean people!) and distributional (which might explain why Blomkamp smuggles in some Malthusian themes of &#8220;overpopulation&#8221.
> 
> Radicals know it&#8217;s going to take much more fundamental restructuring of society, one which will require prolonged struggle ending with the defeat of the rulers. I welcome a popular culture containing more radical themes, but, in the final account, this is not the class struggle movie we are looking for.


----------



## Steve (Aug 21, 2013)

In a free market, damon is getting paid what he's worth.  The problem seems to be sour grapes.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Aug 21, 2013)

Sour grapes...not really. I never hold people making a living against them...just their stupid political views that they use to affect other people trying to make a living.  I don't even have a problem with that liberal nut Sean Penn.  I think his views are stupid but I like the fact that he makes a good living...I hate seeing people who have to struggle in life and enjoy seeing people prosper and take care of their families.

I am not jealous of rich people, not even liberal ones...that should be apparent by now in my posts.  My problem is when they fight and campaign for higher taxes or more problems for other people trying to make a living...and then dodge the very things they are trying to impose on other people.

Matt Damon promotes public school teacher unions, and the public school system,...and then sends his kids to private school....that is what makes Damon a jerk...


----------



## billc (Aug 21, 2013)

> In a free market, damon is getting paid what he's worth.



I support that whole heartedly...It is up to the company making the movie to figure out if he is worth his salary...considering how many flops he has been in lately, but that is between him and his employer...



> Thus the Noltenator:
> 
> 
> For those wondering how Matt Damon (or anyone) could take away the title of &#8220;King of the Left-wing Flops&#8221; from George Clooney, just look at the numbers below. Matt Damon is 4-for-4 &#8212; four left wing flops in just four years. Not for lack of trying, Clooney has never achieved that. Clooney also mitigates the damage he does with mid-level budget films. Damon, on the other hand, likes his flaming balls of left-wing fail to be as spectacularly expensive as possible:​


----------



## Steve (Aug 21, 2013)

billc said:


> Sour grapes...not really. I never hold people making a living against them...just their stupid political views that they use to affect other people trying to make a living.  I don't even have a problem with that liberal nut Sean Penn.  I think his views are stupid but I like the fact that he makes a good living...I hate seeing people who have to struggle in life and enjoy seeing people prosper and take care of their families.
> 
> I am not jealous of rich people, not even liberal ones...that should be apparent by now in my posts.  My problem is when they fight and campaign for higher taxes or more problems for other people trying to make a living...and then dodge the very things they are trying to impose on other people.
> 
> Matt Damon promotes public school teacher unions, and the public school system,...and then sends his kids to private school....that is what makes Damon a jerk...



Great.  So then, what's the problem?  He is making his living, and surely if his work weren't worth his wage, he would be fired.  Right?  

I don't know where Damon sends his kids to school, but its his money.  Right?  And, it is possible to support services and ideas you don't personally use.  I support clean, safe and affordable abortion clinics, although I have never used one.  I support my local firefighters, but have never once needed to use their services.  I support lots of things I don't personally need.  And whether my kids go to a private school or not, I'll always be an advocate for public education.  I don't see any kind of disconnect there.

Frankly, it still seems like sour grapes.  He's rich, successful and plays for the wrong team.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Aug 21, 2013)

You are not a celebrity spokesperson for a liberal cause de jour though....



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Aug 21, 2013)

Tgace said:


> You are not a celebrity spokesperson for a liberal cause de jour though....
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



The problem isn't cause du jour.  It's the liberal part. People using their money and influence to support causes one agrees with are philanthropists.  If he were a conservative supporting conservative causes, there would be no issue.  Thus, sour grapes.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Aug 21, 2013)

Tgace said:


> You are not a celebrity spokesperson for a liberal cause de jour though....
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Sounds like he's mostly speaking for himself to me.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 21, 2013)

billc said:


> My problem is when they fight and campaign for higher taxes or more problems for other people trying to make a living...and then dodge the very things they are trying to impose on other people.



That's because you don't understand, Bill.



billc said:


> Matt Damon promotes public school teacher unions, and the public school system,...and then sends his kids to private school....that is what makes Damon a jerk...



Lemme break it down for you.

My dad attended Fairfield Prepratory Academy-class of 1945. I attended the Hotchkiss School.

My dad went to private schools, nearly 70 years ago.

I went to private schools.

My kids went to private schools, for a time-Los Alamos schools are as good as some privates, and better than anything else New Mexico had to offer.......

Through it all, my family has supported and promoted the public school system and teachers unions. Why?

Because somebody has to pick up my garbage cans, fix my cars, do repairs on my houses, and, provide other _services_, and it's for *them* that these "public schools" exist. That some manage to rise above that sort of destiny, and make more of themselves in spite of their humble origins is of no import-it's testimony to the libertarian/conservative/republican/nietzschean/Darwinian belief in individual self-determination. 

Public schools=metal shop=labor pool.

Public schools ensure that "Joe the Plumber"'s kids in Chicago, Detroit, Peoria and Canton become, well......._Joe the *Plumber*_, because Matt Damon will be *damned* if his kids are gonna wind up super-sucking somebody's septic tank full of crap, but-dammit!-_somebody's gotta do it!_ :lfao: and public schools make damn certain that *somebody will*,

So, of course the rich (and elites, conservative and liberal) support public schools.

Otherwise, they'd have to groom their horsies and shovel out the manure themselves! :lfao:

You, of course, know _nothing_ of this, because, well, you're _Joe the Plumber_ yourself, aren't you? Or Joe the Electrician, or Joe the whateverwhocares? Fact is, though, that it's likely that you and those like you have swallowed that crap about "work hard and get ahead" when, let's face it, only one side of that "equation" ever really balances, and it's not the "get ahead" part, is it? :lfao: You're doomed to never be Matt Damon-a private school, upper middle class guy who went on to attend Harvard and never graduate, and who wrote an Oscar-winning screenplay-the son of a stockbroker and a college-professor-you know, the kind of guy for whom *private schools were created.*

I mean, which world do you live in? The one where people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or the *real* one? :lfao:


----------

