I cannot find any merit in your argument -- frankly, it smacks of the "pixel stained techno peasant" rhetoric that has been directed at those who choose to employ business models that give the actual content away for free and bring in money through advertising and merchandise. I also concur with the general sentiment that all recordings of classical music are not created equal. There already exist many recordings of classical pieces in the public domain, but that does not somehow put classical musicians out of work, because it's not a volume business. A classical musician does not become successful because people just have to buy Beethoven from -somewhere-.

Further, the cost for licensing a musical piece is exorbitant unless you have access to a Hollywood budget -- it's not a matter of "sharing a little" of what you make a on film with a musician, it's a matter of not having $10,000 extra dollars in your budget up front to license "Ride of the Valkyries" before your film is even released. (I may be undershooting the mark by quite a bit on that figure, since as a commercial producer/director as I am more familiar with licensing for advertising.)

Hollywood's core problems would be just as bad without CG, 3D, and all those other things that make creative Luddites apoplectic. Even where they're used in lieu of good storytelling, it's not because the tools themselves are bad -- if they were telling poorly conceived stories without them, the results would be worse, not better! It's not the medium or the tools, it's the content itself that's the problem.

Regarding 3D -- I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. Now that we have 3D with both a forgiving viewing angle (as opposed to the linear-polarized glasses of the 50s) and little or no color distortion (as opposed to the red-blue anaglyph movies of the early 2000s), I think it has a lot of potential as a real artistic tool, especially since shot composition is heavily concerned with trying to create an -illusion- of depth, which somewhat limits how you can shoot a scene. Yes, current implementations can be kind of gimmicky, but I think you can say the same of early color films, which were also dismissed as fads and gimmicks by some in their day.

Why bother getting a physical copy of something I'm just going to put on my media player, phone, or computer anyway? To me, it makes more sense to buy the album from iTunes or Amazon, and save myself the trouble of ripping it. The quality issues are really negligible, and as for the trendy resurgence of vinyl (I'll bet you anything that half the people who buy it don't even HAVE turntables to play it on) I'd say THAT's the real doomed-to-failure fad here, not digital music.

As conservatives, I think we really need to be careful about playing into the Democrat Media Complex's image of us as backwards, hidebound relics who are "threatened by change". In fact, we're presented with a real opportunity to turn the tables, here, because the creatives on the left (bereft of MEANINGFUL traditions and values) have backlashed against new technologies and media in recent years. (Hence the aforementioned trendiness of vinyl, the griping from critics about 3D movies, etc). You can even see it when they bemoan the latest popular music as being too "corporate", which is really nothing more than their version of the "devil's music" diatribe that was used on their own music idols, with their devil now being American capitalism instead of Satan.

I say that we need to stop doing a woefully accurate impersonation of Grandpa Simpson, and start embracing and utilizing new technologies instead of grumbling that they aren't the same as what you grew up with.

I don't know that you can say Atheists are individualists by nature, not uniformly, anyway -- what do you make of the phenomenon of Atheists starting "freethinking" summer camps for children and social groups with structures closely resembling those of modern Christian churches?

To the contrary, I think your average "new atheist" is perfectly cognizant that it's a lot easier to get a movement going if you create a social structure and immerse the next generation in your beliefs while deconstructing opposing beliefs before they encounter them for themselves. Else why make the summer camps, why send your children to classes deconstructing other peoples beliefs, why put up the signs on buses?

For that matter, what do you make of the rigid socialist structures that were started in Russia and China of which Atheism was a mandatory part? The idol of the state, of the collective, is jealous and capricious. The statist, whether religious or atheist, ultimately wants and needs to place this idol on the highest throne in the heart of the masses. For the religious socialist, this means attempting to ignore how the state replaces God as a source of strength while cherry picking the parts of genuine religious teaching that SEEM to support his agenda. For the atheist socialist this means simply denying God exists and that humanity requires a REAL savior, in the form of the state.

I submit that, all things being equal, the atheist socialist will come by his socialism more naturally and easily (and more honestly) than his religious counterpart -- the religious socialist must strain to harmonize his political idol with his god, while the atheist is under no such burden.

Like my favorite Christians, my favorite Jews don't tend to be found in and around Hollywood. (Unfortunately, my "local Rabbi" is from there!) Though while we're on the subject, let's hear it for Jackie Mason.

Here's the disconnect between genuine faith and the kind of socialism-hybrid religion that's at work here -- my faith informs my politics. I believe in liberty in no small part because it's consistent with my faith in God. I believe that all men are created equal, that our rights are bestowed by God, and therefore must not be intruded upon by human government. On the other hand, what I see most often with liberals is that their politics informs their faith.

President Obama said something that I thought was very telling, that he converted to Christianity from being a non-believer in large part because he saw how useful the organization of the -- in my view, heretical -- church he went to was, in terms of motivating and driving social change. Which, if you think about it, means he converted because he saw how useful Rev. Wright's brand of victim theology was politically, especially in Chicago politics. I believe that's the same thing that we're seeing here with Russell Simmons.

You may not believe in God, but since you recognize that most people seem to need something to believe in, which would you rather -- that they believe that they are helped and rewarded by a loving God (and therefore work hard to please Him) or that they believe they are helped and rewarded by a loving government (and therefore work hard to take your money)? I think you'll find that if people don't believe in the former, then for many, the latter will rush in to fill the vacuum. And that, I think, is anathema to both of us.

Your points about hate against gays are correct, but you're preaching to the choir -- as it's been said, Fred Phelp's crazy "church" is mostly his own family, and you can't confuse him and his wackos with the vast majority of Christians who have a principled, not hateful, objection to homosexuality.

As for your second point, if someone is unabashedly doing something you consider very distasteful, it's not entirely unreasonable to decline to support their creative output, irrespective of its quality. I think there are plenty of people around here who eschew the works of, say, Janean Garofalo or Sarah Silverman for this very reason. I disagree - I quite enjoyed a couple of Garofalo's performances, and I am not hypocritical enough to say that I find them poor now simply because I am aware of her politics.

If you want to be really constructive, then don't berate people for what they believe -- instead, point out the simple truth that approving of someone's creative work and approving of EVERYTHING they do are not the same thing. How many of our favorite performers have had brushes with DUIs and rehab? I submit that enjoying Robert Downey Jr's performance Iron Man does not mean I have to approve of his alcoholism, too. (I know he's recovered now, it's just an example.)