Oprah’s New Age “Wrinkle”


Hollywood recently managed to take a classic fantasy novel and strip away its soul.

Author Madeleine L’Engle’s “A Wrinkle in Time,” a book published in 1962, is clearly written from a Christian perspective and eloquently communicates the author’s biblical worldview.

Ava DuVernay is the director of a current film adaptation of L’Engle’s work. Unfortunately, it is likely that the author would scarcely recognize her own story as a result of Hollywood’s reverse Midas touch that materializes in the form of New Age mysticism.

The screen version of the literary tale is simply a heavy-handed piece of contemporary cinematic propaganda with an apparent purpose of spreading a superficial New Age theology and one-dimensional feminist ideology.

Winfrey stars as a deity of sorts and appears to use the Disney movie, which is clearly designed to appeal to a younger audience, to preach a form of pagan self-worship.

In an apparent quest for praise from the politically correct crowd in the entertainment industry and film critic community, the big-screen version of “A Wrinkle in Time” places front and center the primary tenet of liberal theology, that being a highly redacted notion of diversity.

Both the original book and the current film adaptation utilize a basic plotline of a teenage girl, Meg, who along with a male friend and Meg’s little brother, embark on an intergalactic multi-dimensional search to find Meg’s longtime missing scientist father.

Mrs. Which (played by Winfrey), Mrs. Whatsit (played by Reese Witherspoon), and Mrs. Who (played by Mindy Kaling) are three mystery women with supernatural powers who magically appear in Meg’s life. The trio facilitates Meg’s access to a space-time transportation medium called a tesser, which allows an Oz-like journey to be set in motion.

In L’Engle’s original work, the three women are described as ancient star-beings, who function as guardian angels. However, in the current film adaptation they are depicted as characters similar to that of Glenda in “The Wizard of Oz,” conveying the concept that the three basically comprise a group of good witches.

As is representative of the modern payback currency of Hollywood’s brand of superficial thought, the male characters in the movie are either evil or inept.

Meg demonstrates that she is much more capable than her male counterparts in the tale. The supernatural character of male gender seems to be included for the sole purpose of bringing the element of humor to the scenes in which he appears. Known as Happy Medium (played by Zach Galifianakis) he is somewhat ambiguous in nature and wholly non-toxic in his masculinity.

At the conclusion of the movie, Meg is able to complete the story arc by securing the attendant treasured liberal value of self-esteem, and she does so by embracing the New Age and feminist ideology of the real-life Winfrey.

What is cinematically and artistically tragic is that L’Engle, much like the style of the beloved Christian literary icon C. S. Lewis, wrote her fantasy work through the lens of an explicit Christian worldview. She was an official writer-in-residence at a cathedral, and she possessed the kind of love and reverence for the Bible that so many in the film-going audience share.

L’Engle even sprinkled across the pages of her fantasy novel numerous scriptural passages from both the Old and New Testaments. But the makers of the movie somehow saw fit to surgically remove L’Engle’s quotations from the Good Book and her mention of the name Jesus, as well as any notion of the Judeo-Christian God contained in her novel.

Instead the film added “the universe” as an object of worship and did so in the prototypical New Age manner that for decades Winfrey has fostered and promulgated.

In the film, Winfrey’s character poses the following question: “What if the universe is all inside each of us?”

In order to move magically throughout time and space to the various exotic destinations embedded in the story’s plotline, one must, according to Winfrey’s character, “…become one with the universe and yourself.”

In an apparent effort to give the impression the film is in touch with current personalities, the movie adds references that are not in the book, including the names of Nelson Mandela, Oskar Schindler, Indira Gandhi, and Maya Angelou, as well as a nod to a hip hop play with the inclusion of a line from the Broadway show “Hamilton.”

With the biblical principles stripped away, “A Wrinkle in Time” is essentially a naked attempt at New Age propaganda. It is a fable cloaked in the moth-eaten fabric of cunning deception and hollow self-worship.


Huckabee Withdraws from the Board after Haters Intimidate the CMA


Left-wing hatred, in of all places Nashville, has just politicized a country music institution.

Rather than learn a lesson from the NFL and Hollywood, a small but highly vocal group of people in Music City has managed to pressure the Country Music Association (CMA) into having former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee withdraw as a board member from the group’s educational arm, the CMA Foundation. Last week the CMA announced two new members of the board of this charitable foundation, Huckabee and singer Chris Young.

Following the announcement, the CMA was the recipient of a hate-filled backlash over its choice of Huckabee because of the former governor’s political and religious views and solid support of President Donald Trump, as well as the fact that he is the proud father of President Trump’s current press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Despite the fact that Huckabee’s appointment to the board was completely separate and apart from his political activity and cultural views, some in the industry for which Nashville is best known targeted their personal animus directly at the former governor.

The most vicious public statement came from country music manager Jason Owen, who happens to own Sandbox, a management company that represents Faith Hill, Little Big Town, and Kacey Musgraves, and co-owns, along with songwriter-producer Shane McAnally, the record label Monument Records. McAnally has written and produced songs for Musgraves, Kelly Clarkson, Kenny Chesney, Luke Bryan, The Band Perry, Lady Antebellum, Keith Urban, Dierks Bentley, and Miranda Lambert.

Owen labeled Huckabee’s appointment “grossly offensive” and “a shameful choice” by the CMA and its leaders. The music industry manager withdrew the support of Sandbox and Monument, declaring that the artists he handles would not work on behalf of the CMA Foundation.

Owen also intimated that he would pull his support and artists away from the entire CMA over Huckabee’s appointment, specifically focusing on the former presidential candidate’s views on marriage and his support of the NRA.

Since Karen Fairchild, who sits on the foundation board, is also one of the group members of Little Big Town, a client of Owen’s, the CMA leadership feared that Fairchild would resign from the board.

Being the consummate professional and gentleman that he is, Huckabee resigned a mere 24 hours after the announcement of his appointment in order to save the organization from having to deal with any potential turmoil.

Huckabee’s departure occurred a few hours after Owen published his screed on an industry website.

Huckabee provided an explanation for why he had decided to resign, and he did it in the form of a posting on his website, which read as follows: “I genuinely regret that some in the industry were so outraged by my appointment that they bullied the CMA and the Foundation with economic threats and vowed to withhold support for the programs for students if I remained.”

Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, has impeccable credentials as a public servant, and his involvement in charitable endeavors is highly commendable. As a former presidential candidate, Huckabee won the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses and finished in delegate count just behind John McCain and Mitt Romney. He additionally has to his credit the accomplishment of having hosted a successful television talk show on the Fox News Channel and currently hosts a television show on TBN.

Huckabee has been an avid musician since he was 11 years old. He is an accomplished bass guitar player and made his playing of the bass guitar a trademark practice on both his Fox News Channel show and on his current TBN show.

When he served as the governor of Arkansas, Huckabee developed a reputation as an effective leader in the area of education policy, and he is recognized as an expert in helping to integrate the arts into the school curriculum.

The small but vociferous group that derailed Huckabee’s appointment to the board of the CMA Foundation has ended up depriving the organization of having a highly qualified member serve with distinction. Since music education is so central to the CMA Foundation mission, losing an individual of Huckabee’s caliber, someone who would have made germane and invaluable contributions to the CMA board’s primary objectives, is an outrage.

Through their actions and rhetoric, certain hate-filled individuals have provided the ugliest of illustrations of exactly what discrimination looks like.

It is difficult to fathom that the country music capital of the world is lacking in individuals who are willing to speak out on behalf of an individual whose faith parallels that of country music legends Johnny Cash, Glen Campbell, Reba McEntire, Randy Travis, Josh Turner, and so many others.

“The message here is ‘Hate Wins,’” Huckabee wrote on his web site. “Bullies succeeded in making it untenable to have ‘someone like me’ involved. I would imagine however that many of the people who buy tickets and music are not that ‘unlike me.’”

The truth of the matter is Huckabee’s religious, political, and cultural views are shared by an enormous segment of the American population, many of whom were, up until now, country music consumers.

When these folks find out about the manner in which Huckabee has been treated, they just might adjust their music playlists as well as their buying habits, which may bode poorly for some contemporary country music artists and products.

How to Get Real News in a World of Fake News


There was a time when three dominant television networks had the power to control the news and information narrative. Societal sources of information, though, have been constantly shifting over the past several decades due in great part to changes in technology.

The widespread reliance on digital information today has allowed ta trio of technology companies to be in a position to increasingly influence cultural and political conversations in a host of ways.

When it comes to establishing the news narrative, the big three consist of Google, Facebook, and Twitter. It is the tech giant Google, however, that has managed to morph into a monolithic kingdom of web search.

Google has become a digital pathway to information for almost the entire world, having secured approximately 70 percent of the global search market share. The usage of the search site for exploring the net is almost double the amount of its nearest competitor, Bing.

Additionally, as the owner of the principal video sharing site YouTube, Google is second only to Facebook as a social media platform.

Using its extraordinary algorithms and artificial intelligence, search giant Google unfortunately displays blatant and explicit biases against conservative viewpoints, all the while favoring left-leaning positions.

This partiality is underscored by discrimination lawsuits filed by former Google employees James Damore and David Gudeman against their prior employer. Damore alleges that he was fired for writing a memo criticizing Google’s diversity policies, while Gudeman claims he was blacklisted and let go for holding conservative beliefs, particularly for his support of now President Donald Trump.

The lawsuits describe a systemic ultra-liberal atmosphere at the tech giant. What is of major concern for the unknowing public is the fact that the radically left-leaning Google culture has manifested itself in distorted and biased search results.

In 2017 researchers from Northeastern University and the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology presented a paper that demonstrated a pervasive bias favoring Hillary Clinton existed in Google search results regarding the 2016 election.

Later in the year a research report written by Leo Goldstein of the group Defeat Climate Alarmism used data from Alexa.com to determine that Google searches were biased in favor of liberal domains and against conservative domains.

Using a current news story that broke over this past weekend concerning the Democratic memo, which was released to counter the Republican FISA abuse memo, a search on Google was conducted by this article’s author using the term “democrat memo.”

The results of the search were as follows: Two articles that appeared on the first line as “Top Stories” were one-sided pro-Democrat pieces from the The New York Times and Vox.

It was not until halfway down the third page of the Google search listings that a single article with a divergent point of view appeared. The article titled “What The Democrats Left Out Of Their Memo” was from the Daily Caller website.

The Google search exhibited the results, despite the fact that a plain reading of the Democratic memo indicated significant facts set forth in the Republican memo were left unanswered.

Particularly disturbing was the lack of any mention in the Democratic memo of the DNC and Clinton campaign funding of the infamous Steele dossier, or any mention or explanation of why that information was not provided to the FISA Court.

Assuming that Google’s bias is extensive and is unlikely to be addressed, conservatives cannot sit idly by and continue to use the search site.

In the business world, there are antitrust laws that exist to protect consumers from monopolies, which artificially raise prices and stifle innovation. Perhaps people who are seeking objectivity should consider using an alternative approach when conducting Internet searches.

Considering the fact that Google and most other search engines track and mine personal information without an individual’s knowledge or consent, it becomes even more important to adopt an alternative approach.

This brings us to some Google alternatives that may surprise the reader. DuckDuckGo.com not only provides unbiased news and information, it also maintains personal privacy by not engaging in tracking, data mining, or retention of search history. It is as comprehensive as Google and allows customization of its interface. It enables searches to be free from adult content via a safe setting similar to Google.

Ixquick’s Start Page claims to be the world’s most private search site. The site does not participate in data mining or tracking and additionally offers users the ability to visit sites via proxy, thus rendering searchers the protection of invisibility to the sites that appear in the search results.

Yippy is a search engine that also protects privacy with the added benefit of delivering child-friendly results. Yippy pulls search results from other search engines and groups topics together, organizing the results in clusters. Although the site filters out topics to which children ought not be exposed, including gambling, pornography, and other inappropriate material, adept teenagers may still find a way to obtain unsuitable results.

Conservatives may enjoy the experience of a search engine that gives results of a right-leaning nature. 4conservatives.com will do just that. The search engine delivers content from a conservative perspective and uses reputable sources.

By using more objective search alternatives, we can move toward a world with less fake news and more real news.

Russian Indictments Could Be a Decoy


The timing of the recent announcement by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein regarding the indictments of thirteen Russians appears to be part of an effort to provide possible cover for the FBI, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and the Democratic Party-aligned mainstream media.

The hasty public release occurred via a press statement by Rosenstein on an unusual choice of days, a Friday afternoon that was a lead-in to a three-day holiday weekend.

It is highly possible that the intention was to have the public focus on the headlines coming out of the press conference rather than zeroing in on the underlying facts of the matters at hand.

In other words, there may have been an attempt to employ a frequently used technique of diversion to direct public attention away from the admitted wrongdoing on the part of government, which was rapidly taking over the social media and conventional headlines.

In this case, it would be the effort to direct attention away from the FBI’s failure to investigate warnings that the man accused of the atrocious killing of 17 high school students had expressed a desire to kill innocent people and was in possession of a weapon to carry out his threat.

The second part of the tactical equation is to divert public attention toward a preferred calculated target that in this instance would be “Russia,” which in a puzzling way for many seemed in the present day world of scandals to arrive with a thud.

All of the above having been stated, there was a very palpable manipulation of public perception that occurred across the cultural, political, and demographic spectrum.

The FBI indicated in a statement that, in January 2018, an individual described as someone close to the accused shooter called an FBI tip line to report concerns about the alleged perpetrator mere weeks before the nightmare carnage took place at the Florida high school.

According to the FBI, the caller provided information about the shooter’s gun ownership, his desire to kill, his erratic behavior, and his peculiar social media posts. The caller also specifically brought up the young man’s potential to engage in a school shooting.

The recorded information should have been promptly given to the FBI’s Miami field office for further actions; however, the FBI admitted that “these protocols were not followed.”

Adding to the FBI’s public relations problems is the fact that, in September 2017, the agency had been notified of a YouTube comment in which an individual under the same name as the accused wrote, “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.”

In an absurd response, the FBI claimed that the agency was unable to trace the origin of the YouTube post and therefore closed the investigation.

The announcement of the indictment of the Russians may have been timed to provide the media with the desired talking points that would lead a susceptible public to conclude that the special counsel’s probe was in no way a hoax, a witch hunt, or any other “unfair” characterization. This would have been another important part of the tactical equation, since many Americans had been increasingly viewing it as if it were less than above board.

Interestingly, this is an indictment of thirteen people who will never see the inside of a U.S. courtroom or ever even contest the charges, be arrested, or be extradited. Additionally, it was made clear by Rosenstein that no allegations in the indictment indicate that the activities by the Russians had “any effect on the outcome of the election.”

What the indictments did do, though, was allow the liberal partisan media to crow about Russian “meddling,” which they predictably and dutifully did.

The Obama State Department allowed some of these very same Russians to come into the country via tourist visas and to ultimately use fake identities to troll the social media. Although the indictments set forth the defendants’ organized activities going back to 2014, former President Barak Obama did not stop them or even address the issue.

The indictments helped to eclipse another inconvenient developing story, which would be a major embarrassment for the special counsel’s probe, and that is, that former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn’s guilty plea is likely to be set aside.

The judge who originally accepted Gen. Flynn’s plea for lying to the FBI has recused himself from the case, since he was also a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the very court that accepted from the Obama Justice Department the Steele dossier as evidence to support the issuance of a FISA warrant to spy on members of the Trump campaign.

The new judge assigned to Gen. Flynn’s case has ordered Mueller to release to Gen. Flynn’s lawyers any exculpatory evidence in Mueller’s possession. The judge has also directed that any information which is favorable to Gen. Flynn be submitted to the court, even if the Mueller team believes that it is not material to the case.

This means that even if Mueller claims that his evidence is classified or not relevant, it still must be provided to the judge so that the judge can decide what can be released. This takes away the ability of the prosecutor to withhold or redact evidence on his own.

Mueller’s indictment of the Russians claims criminality because the defendants, as foreign citizens, attempted to use media to influence voters but failed to report their financing to the Federal Elections Commission or register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Using the template and reasoning of this indictment, others who tried to influence an election could be charged, including Christopher Steel and his accomplices, FusionGPS, the DNC, and the Clinton Campaign, while the Israelis and British could bring criminal prosecutions against former President Obama for meddling in their elections.

During the announcement of the Russian indictments, Rosenstein emphasized that there are no allegations in the indictment of any Americans (including any members of the Trump campaign) having knowledge of the Russian activities.

In an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” enduring talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh warned, “The danger for the president” is that it would be very seductive “to totally embrace” and take at face value the notion that it means he has been “vindicated.”

In Limbaugh’s assessment, the president most certainly needs to continue to “be very careful.”

Uma Thurman Tells Her Quentin Tarantino Story

Film director Quentin Tarantino has come under fire in the wake of Uma Thurman’s recent revelations to the New York Times that she was treated abysmally on the set of her star vehicle, “Kill Bill.”

Ever since the predatory behavior of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein went public, Thurman has been haunted by her own arduous encounters with Weinstein. In the Times article, though, Thurman emotionally recounts the painful injuries she suffered due to an on-set accident that she claims was covered up by Weinstein and others associated with the movie. The actress also reveals that she was spit on and choked by Tarantino during the filming.

According to Thurman, she was “dehumanized to the point of death” during the movie shoot. She now indicates that Tarantino pressured her into doing a car stunt while the final days of filming were in progress.

Thurman claims that she initially objected to participating in the scene after being told that the car, which had been converted from a stick shift to an automatic, might not be safe.

“I was scared,” she said. “The seat wasn’t screwed down properly. It was a sand road and it was not a straight road.”

After the car crash, Thurman came back from a visit to the hospital wearing a neck brace. She had a concussion, a neck injury, and her knees were severely injured. She still deals with physical problems from the accident.

Keith Adams, the stunt coordinator who worked on the “Kill Bill“ films, is now speaking out concerning Uma’s allegations, and it may be causing Tarantino to feel more than a bit uncomfortable with what is being said. In an email sent to The Hollywood Reporter, Adams recalled the day that Thurman suffered the accident and remembered that he and all of his stunt staffers were kept away from the set.

“No stunts of any kind were scheduled for the day of Ms. Thurman’s accident. All of the stunt department was put on hold and no one from the stunt department was called to set,” Adams noted.

“At no point was I notified or consulted about Ms. Thurman driving a car on camera that day,” Adams added. “Had I been involved I would have insisted not only on putting a professional driver behind the wheel but also insuring that the car itself was road worthy and safe.”

Adams remarks have served to bolster Thurman’s allegations. In her Times interview, the actress had described the 1973 Volkswagen Karmann Ghia convertible used in the scene as a “deathbox” and additionally claimed that “the seat wasn’t screwed down properly.”

Tarantino, in an apologetic interview with Deadline, characterized Thurman’s car accident as “one of the biggest regrets” of his life. The director admitted that he had engaged in both the choking and the spitting but claimed that the actress had given her consent. The film director also maintained that no one involved in the production had “ever considered it a stunt” but rather viewed it as “just driving.”

Older vehicles that are used for stunt driving during movie productions are frequently inadequately maintained. In watching the video of the crash, which is posted on Thurman’s Instragram account, it can easily be seen that the vehicle is lacking head restraints, shoulder belts, and roll bars.

The actors and broadcast union, SAG-AFTRA, indicated in a statement that the scene in question “sounds like a stunt and would be a likely safety violation.”

Clearly, the footage one sees in the video, depicting an old convertible traveling down a curved sandy road at 40 mph, is the kind of scene that should have been handled by a professional stunt person under the supervision of a stunt coordinator following proper safety procedures, thereby avoiding the exposure of undue risk to a lead actress.

Tarantino has admitted that the road Thurman drove upon while shooting the scene ended up taking a “little S-curve” for which Thurman had not been prepared.

“The circumstances of this event were negligent to the point of criminality,” Thurman stated on her Instagram account. “I do not believe though with malicious intent.”

However, the actress called the cover-up after the fact “unforgivable.” The spitting and choking episodes add to the cumulative impression that Tarantino took advantage of his leverage as a director.

Unfortunately, the director has partnered with Weinstein throughout his career. It is common knowledge in the entertainment community that anyone who worked closely with Weinstein on multiple projects, as Tarantino did, would have been well aware of Weinstein’s predatory proclivities.

Tarantino acknowledged he feels ashamed that he did not take a stronger stand and cut his ties to Weinstein.

“I knew enough to do more than I did,” the director said.

A Song for Dennis Edwards


It was surreal. Here I was looking over at one of the giants of the music industry, a legendary singer I had admired for years. As he cued me, I took the shortest of moments to catch my breath and then let the music lead the piano man.

Leon Russell’s lyrics flowed from his mouth like champagne from the vine, each audience member launched in to a dream sequence of his or her own, while listening to a melodic narrator extraordinaire.

The heart of a true artist holds within it the capacity to transport a receptive soul. That was Dennis Edwards, my singing influence, my brother in spirit, my friend.

Last week the world quietly lost an icon of the music world. I had the privilege of touring with Dennis in the 1970s, when he sang with the legendary Motown group, the Temptations. I also worked with him in the studio and heard his performances up close and personal, accompanying him as part of the band. He was simply the best singer I have ever heard.

Mega producer-arranger-writer Benjamin Wright brought me on board with the group and put me together with those I aspired to be like. In Russell’s stirring “Song for You,” Dennis would convey the meaning as no one else could.

“And I know your image of me is what I hope to be…” Dennis achieved these words in real life, and I continue to strive to be able to someday say the same.

An unforgettable moment that took place in my hometown of Chicago occurred when at a concert Dennis and his fellow Temptations introduced my parents and asked them to stand. A simple gesture really, but so deeply touching in transmitting how true friends rise to family.

On one occasion, when racial tension reared its ugly head, my Temptations family surrounded me and safeguarded me from harm. No words were needed to solidify a lifelong bond.

Dennis was a lighthearted calming presence, who made the hard work of creating music look so very easy. I remember when he was in the studio, laying down a vocal track on a song of mine that he had graciously agreed to record. In order to put the musicians and engineers at ease, he made up some comedic lyrics as he acquainted himself with the melody. Music and laughter oftentimes have a beautiful common thread of joy, and Dennis knew just how to weave the tapestry.

The circle of soul widened as Dennis’s future wife, Ruth Pointer, showed what light looks like from the inside out. Together they hit all the right notes. Through Dennis’s generous nature, my musical opportunities extended, and I was able to work professionally with the Pointer Sisters and their brilliant young bass player at the time, Jaco Pastorius. One more humbling and unforgettable memory etched in ebony and ivory.

Dennis’s individuality as a singer sprang to a great extent from his Christian background. He sang as a child in his minister father’s Alabama church. After his family moved to Detroit, he became the church’s choir director. Because his parents forbid his participation in secular music, he pursued a religious vocal career path and as a teenager subsequently joined the gospel group, The Mighty Clouds of Joy.

In the late 1960s, around the time when Dennis was headed toward a solo career, the Temptations parted ways with their lead singer, and Motown Records reached out to Dennis to take the spot. Destiny on full display.

Dennis was one of two artists that dramatically altered the style of the Temptations and changed the history of modern popular music in the process. His contribution to the music world coincided with a sea change in the way the Temptations created records.

The metamorphosis of the group during this period was tantamount to when The Beatles recorded “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.” The powerful gritty gospel tones of Dennis had combined with an up and coming producer named Norman Whitfield, resulting in a new eclectic sound.

Dennis’s unmistakable voice was featured in a string of hit records that remain the personal favorites of so many to this day, including “Cloud Nine,” “Psychedelic Shack,” “I Can’t Get Next to You,” “Ball of Confusion,” “Papa Was a Rollin’ Stone,” and “Shakey Ground.” Two of these tunes, “Cloud Nine” and “Papa Was a Rollin’ Stone,” were awarded Grammys. Quite a legacy.

I can see Dennis right now performing on Heaven’s stage with my fellow band members, famed bass player James Jamerson, Jr. and legendary guitarist David Williams, as the words of the song he sang every performance ring on into eternity:

“And when my life is over, remember when we were together, we were alone, and I was singing my song for you…”

Oscars with an Agenda


Over time the entertainment industry and its accompanying award shows seem to have grown ever more political, and the 90th Academy Awards ceremony looks as if it will prove to be consistent with the left-leaning trend.

The Oscars event is ostensibly designed to provide recognition to the highest achievement of motion picture artistry and has conventionally been viewed as the pinnacle of award shows. This year, however, Hollywood has a number of attendant things on its collective mind, including having to atone for a host of industry wide offenses.

Nominations for Best Picture are illustrative of the ideological and cultural issues that are stoking Academy voters’ choices. A few years back the industry was assailed by critics, via a social media hashtag, with an accusation that the Academy lacked diversity in its list of nominees.

This year’s awards season has been under assault by another hashtag, which includes references to the sexual impropriety scandals that have shaken the entertainment capital to its core.

Typically during the awards season, movie studios engage in the equivalent of a political campaign complete with press releases, advertising, and opposition research.

Ironically, Harvey Weinstein, the movie mogul accused of sexual misconduct by scores of women, was consistently a seminal figure of the pre-Oscar season and was frequently able to assist his companies in securing Oscar wins. In the aftermath of the serious charges, though, he was fired from the Weinstein Company, booted out of the Academy, and banished from the film business.

In the past, he was also reportedly alleged to have engaged in opposition research in order to diminish the prospects of the film “A Beautiful Mind,” which was competing at the time with the Miramax movie “In the Bedroom.” He purportedly leaked rumors to the press that central subject of the film John Nash was anti-Semitic.

Movie companies routinely use film advertisements that are tagged with the phrase “for your consideration,” seek press coverage, send voters direct mailers, set up star appearances at key industry events, hold lavish parties, and arrange screenings for voters through use of studio lot theaters, distribution of DVDs and downloads of respective films.

For months the campaigning for the 2018 Academy Awards has been in full motion, but the activity has primarily taken the form of studios and production companies touting the current political and cultural significance of their movies.

Best picture nominee, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” is a case in point. After the film debuted at the Venice International Film Festival and won the top prize at the Toronto International Film Festival, the film critic community anointed the movie as a favorite in the award races.

The plot centers around perceived liberal concerns embodied in the hashtag haze that hangs over Hollywood. It may be that Oscar trophies were on the minds of filmmakers who put together a story of a mother railing against a sexist, racist, and patriarchal police force.

Some critics were less than enthusiastic about the seemingly superficiality of the politically correct plotlines of the movie.

Ira Madison III of The Daily Beast characterized the movie as “tone-deaf,” “manipulative,” and “altogether offensive.”

And Wesley Morris of The New York Times referenced the “Three Billboards” filmmakers’ Oscar pandering in the following manner: “The issues of the day come and go: brutal police, sexual predators, targeted advertising. It’s like a set of postcards from a Martian lured to America by a cable news ticker and by rumors of how easily flattered and provoked we are.”

Meanwhile another Best Picture nominee, “The Shape of Water,” which could also take the award, is a highly original movie concept but its creators apparently could not avoid shoehorning into the plot societal issues that may be on the minds of many Oscar voters. It is no coincidence that the female protagonist, Best Actress nominee Sally Hawkins, who has fallen in love with an underwater being, is provided assistance with her romantic goals by an African-American co-worker and gay neighbor.

Other Best Picture nominees sport themes that seek to attract Oscar voters. “Get Out,” a horror genre film from Jordan Peele, contains subject matter that depicts racism and cultural appropriation, while Steven Spielberg’s Pentagon Papers movie, “The Post,” glorifies the press for standing up to attacks and features a noble and powerful female business head.

The fact that the substance of would-be Oscar winning films is so culturally and politically correct is an indication that the 90th Academy Awards show, which is slated for March 4, will no doubt be saturated with a kind of sermonizing that is likely to have Americans briskly switching channels.