As Sen. Joe "I'm Troubled" Lieberman said, "the show business people have to stop marketing to kids." No marketing to kids? Even for "Bambi Returns From the Forest"? If Bush had made a faux pas like that, you wouldn't have had to wait for my column to read about it. Of course, Lieberman's confusion is understandable: It's easy to forget the details of your moral crusade when it's a lying, hypocritical hoax.
To clarify, the Democrats would sooner investigate what happened at that Buddhist temple than take a tiny peek at Hollywood. Hollywood is the Democratic Party.
Despite all the anachronistic rhetoric about Democrats representing "working families," the Democratic Party now consists primarily of Hollywood celebrities, multimillionaire dot-com weenies, Left-Wing Mumia supporters and other ribbon-wearing liberals. (And the unemployed and unemployable parasites, but their influence within the party is precisely as substantial as their financial contributions.)
According to a New York Times/CBS news poll taken at the beginning of September, families in the $30,000 to $50,000 income bracket have consistently favored George Bush over Al Gore. (For typical Democrat snobs: That's per annum.) Meanwhile, Gore cleans up in polls of those with family incomes above $50,000 per year.
Hollywood elites (a.k.a. "working families") have given millions upon millions of dollars to Al Gore and the Democrats. Democrat-in-Good-Standing and Hollywood luminary Larry Flynt labored shoulder to shoulder with Sen. Joe "Not Quite Troubled Enough" Lieberman to keep Bill Clinton in office.
Consequently, the Democrats are as likely to get tough with Hollywood as Monica was to get tough with Bill Clinton -- and for pretty much the same reason.
Moreover, we can save the taxpayers the cost of this important Gore/Lieberman Hollywood probe. Any examination of the entertainment industry's portrayal of violence would reveal the following: Hollywood is incessantly depicting guns and violence as capable of causing grave injury, sometimes death.
That is neither "false" nor "deceptive."
If anything, Hollywood falsely suggests that weapons, guns especially, are more effective killing machines than they are. That's why people who don't shoot are always shocked, shocked at how many rounds always end up being fired in real-life shoot-outs.
A single shot from 30 yards will not instantly neutralize a man, unless the bullet hits him straight between the eyes. (Or it's a movie.) Even a man who has been shot through the heart -- and only Clint Eastwood can count on getting anywhere near the heart on the first shot -- will live long enough to return fatal fire.
Presumably Gore and Lieberman are not proposing more shooting, more stabbing and lengthier death scenes in order to accurately capture how difficult it is to finish someone off.
Admittedly there is more violence in movies and on television than one tends to encounter in real life. There are more murders in "Columbo" than one tends to encounter in real life, too. Most people will never commit murder, be murdered or solve a murder -- though these are fun to watch on TV -- so it doesn't much matter that Hollywood makes killing a person seem easier than it really is.
Most people will, however, have sex. And it is in Hollywood's portrayal of sex that the "false" and "deceptive" concept really hits pay dirt.
Unlike Hollywood violence, which is made to seem more dangerous than it really is, Hollywood sex is made to seem substantially less dangerous -- certainly less consequential -- than it really is. Though everyone seems to be constantly fornicating on the silver screen, there are very few dramatic renditions of the clap. There aren't too many accidental pregnancies (except to depict the nobility of abortion) and not much depression, cynicism or anger.
Put another way, Hollywood shows the sexual revolution from the perspective of a lot of Bill Clintons but never how it comes to back to roost in the lives of the Chelsea Clintons.
To compare death and destruction per gun shot vs. communicable disease and pregnancy per money shot, Hollywood is practically issuing public service announcements against violence while fraudulently understating the price of sex.
Yet in his Senate testimony last week, Sen. "World of Trouble" Lieberman was on his high horse denouncing only Hollywood portrayals of violence. He even claimed these new-fangled pyrotechnic versions of essentially Punch and Judy puppet shows somehow led to Columbine. If that's true, then what have Hollywood's portrayals of sex bred? Bill Clinton?
Don't expect the Democrats to complain about that.