Stupid quote of the year

“I’ve always wanted to do position through story on the ridiculousness of having guns and automatic weapons in our society. And it’s been very much obviously in the news, sadly, sadly. But when you’re in a public company and you’re in Washington — I was just saying “Don’t fight the NRA” — or you’re in a big company where your major constituencies are middle Americans, and where you don’t own the company, you’re working for your shareholders, you’ve got to be very careful. And we pushed through same-sex health insurance, some very advanced things… But we never could do the kind of material that I can now do because nobody can tell me I can’t do it. So I think the solution is to get the public, in an emotional, story-driven way, behind the goal of an abolition of handguns and automatic weapons. Because politicians are almost co-conspirators in this bloodshed. They are chickens, I was even a little chicken at Disney. Nobody will take on what I consider the imbecilic arguments of arming America.”

----Michael Eisner, ex-Disney CEO, April 18, 2007, on CNBC's "Power Lunch"

The above quote almost made me lose my lunch when I read it.

I can't believe the unmitigated gall of this priggish loser.

In a funny kind of way, though, he's done all of us a huge favor. In one paragraph, he's summed up the mindset of the average Hollywood liberal in a way that shows exactly how elitist and snobbish they really are. There's volumes of information to digest here. Let's begin, shall we?

First, he comes right out and states that he believes that his bosses at Disney, the shareholders who own stock in the company, are uneducated rubes who need to be led by the hand and gently shown the path of enlightenment that only intellectuals such as himself know how to traverse. When he states that "where you don’t own the company, you’re working for your shareholders, you’ve got to be very careful. And we pushed through...some very advanced things", he's really saying that he views his job not as generating increased profits for his stockholders, but rather socially engineering the poor bastards in "flyover country" into accepting far left viewpoints as mainstream. Notice how proud he is that he "pushed through same-sex health insurance", which of course is a "very advanced thing", which no rational person should ever argue against. (I'm not arguing for or against same-sex insurance here, it's an entirely different issue. I'm merely pointing out how his view on a given subject is always the "right" one, and anyone disagreeing with him simply isn't on the same intellectual plane.) Profits and increased business seem to be almost secondary to his role as arbiter of social mores.

Second, we see how interested Mr. Eisner is in balanced journalism. For him to state that "So I think the solution is to get the public, in an emotional, story-driven way, behind the goal of an abolition of handguns and automatic weapons" is for him to admit that the people in charge of the mainstream media have a burning desire to do advocacy journalism, and that they aren't interested in an objective examination of the issues of a given story. Nope, our position is the right one, and we're going to make sure that it's presented as such. One simply cannot fairly report on an issue that they already believe is "ridiculous" and "imbecilic", and surely would try mightily to quash any attempt to reasonably present any other side of the issue. What he sadly doesn't realize is that when one resorts to using emotion and heart-tugging to argue one's position, one admits that they have no factual or rational arguments to make, and therefore have to resort to using tactics such as hysterical interviews, somber music, flashy graphics and other tricks to make their case.

Third, we also see the reeking hypocrisy of the so-called "limousine liberals" such as Mr. Eisner. Wealthy and powerful individuals don't have to stoop to actually soiling their dainty, manicured hands with a firearm, because they don't have to. They simply pay other people to do their dirty work for them. I wonder how many armed security guards were provided for Mr. Eisner during his tenure at Disney? I'm sure that his office was more secure than many bank vaults. Eisner isn't the only shining example of this kind of hypocrisy, either. Ms. Rosie O'Donnell, another gun-grabber, was exposed as a fraud when her armed bodyguard applied for permission to carry his weapon at her son's school. Filmmaker Michael Moore, whose movie Bowling for Columbine was a thinly disguised call for banning guns in America, employed a bodyguard who was arrested at a New York City airport for carrying an unlicensed weapon. Even the grande dame of gun control herself, Sarah Brady, was accused of a "straw purchase" for buying a rifle for her son while apparently not following the laws of Delaware in making the transaction. All of these people would never think of using a gun themselves, but have no qualms about letting others take a bullet for them. You see, they're more important than you.

In reflection, we all should thank Mr. Eisner for being so stark in his views. It's refreshing for a Hollywood liberal to actually come out and admit to what they stand for, instead of hiding behind their politically correct walls. Hopefully his statement will show many "middle Americans" exactly what he and others of his type really want for the rest of America, but not for themselves.