The Bourne Stupidity

| December 12, 2012

We hear that this, that, or the other Hollywood actor is supposedly quite intelligent, situationally and socially aware, and we are forced to wonder, based on some of a particular actor’s questionable on and off screen activities and behaviors, if that could possibly be true. Such is the current case of Matt Damon who is purportedly one of the smartest actors in Hollywood. Agreed, the intelligence bar is necessarily low there so expectations cannot be too much; which might explain why the cinematic genius of Good Will Hunting has allowed himself to become a useful idiot for foreign interests.

Matt Damon’s latest film, Promised Land, isn’t just your latest Hollywood flick attempting to demonize American oil companies, but perhaps the first one to do so being financed by foreign oil interests who stand to lose big if the geometric progression of American oil production continues. If Damon’s treacherous, even treasonous, message is rejected in this country, his film’s Persian Gulf money-men stand to lose big. Call it a matter of them putting their money where their trough bleeds. Damon, of course, will have his tremendous payday regardless, at the very real expense of his fellow citizens and all his disappointed Persian Gulf pals .

As the government announced in the past few days, America, for the first time in decades, is looking at being energy independent due to the hugely increased, North American oil and gas production resulting from the technological breakthrough known as fracking. I won’t go into the details here, but fracking involves the forced injection of water and chemicals into deep geological formations that causes those heretofore impenetrable reservoirs of fossil fuels to give up their petrochemical treasures and allow them to be harvested into the fuel tanks of our vehicles and the giant engines of industry which drive the commerce of this nation.

The ill-informed but supposedly brilliant Matt Damon is not able to factor those truths into his Big-Hollywood, liberal mindset. He is apparently incapable of grasping these basic physics of oil and gas production which lead to huge changes in the geo-commercial and thus geo-political realities of this world. At a time when America finds herself engaged in a very real battle for her economic survival, Matt Damon has freely chosen to be the spokesman for her enemies. So be it. I have freely chosen to never again spend a single dime on anything with which this liberal zealot is associated. National charities, keep this in mind as there are millions like me.

Hollywood needs to produce just one more film in the Bourne series, chronicling the inept moves of their misguided, useful idiot of a hero. Call it The Bourne Stupidity.

Now that one I might watch…

Crossposted from American Thinker

Category: Hollywood shitbags

Comments (47)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ninja R says:

    I guess you missed the Noam Chomsky reference in Good Will Hunting.

  2. bcousins says:

    Thanks for the informative post. I was not aware of the funding for the film but wasn’t planning to see it anyway. Though I enjoyed the Bourne flicks, before I knew about his politics, I put Matt Damon on the same shelf with the other Hollywood libs whose movies I refuse to spend my money for. I also have never bought nor listened to a Dixie Chicks song since they bad-mouthed the US in a foreign country and I never will. As my brigade commander once told me when referring to soldiers and re-up rates, “We vote with our feet”. I choose to boycott all of the products of liberals.

  3. NHSparky says:

    Matt Damon!!!

    And I’d love to know how “brilliant” he really is when frankly, had it not been for mommy he’d have never been admitted to Haaaahhhh-vaaaahhhhdddd (and still never graduated, IIRC.)

    Educated doesn’t necessarily mean smart, Matt. Try and remember that.

  4. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    The Global Entrepreneurship Summit opened the other day with a taped message from obama: “Dubai is the city that speaks to what is possible when people of vision and imagination can pursue their dreams.” Too bad he can’t say the same about the USA where he opposes the Keystone pipeline and his EPA is expected to assault fracking, both of which would reduce or dependence on other countries for our energy needs. As for Damon, he’s an actor and, as such, is presumed to be a lefty and a muttonhead. I won’t see the movie, nor the one with that other male moron Hollywood star whatshisname (He was in Rainman and the Color of Money.) I don’t care enough to look him up to learn his name.

  5. NHSparky says:

    “Dubai is the city that speaks to what is possible when people of vision and imagination can pursue their dreams.”

    Yeah, too bad they’re fucking BROKE, Barruh…

  6. pete says:

    i worked on the Eagle Ford project here in S Texas last year and it was insane with all the EPA goons and tree huggers always sabotaging our job sites!

  7. ohio says:

    Many of these celebrities make the mistake for thinking that FAME=GENIUS & Brilliance.
    If they were an ignorant dumbass before their fame then they still are, only with more money.

  8. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    If the EPA had been around in the 1800s, there is no way a transcontinental railway could have been built. None.

  9. Just Plain Jason says:

    Matt Damon’s most intelligent work ever…

  10. © Sponge says:

    This, coming from the man who said basically, “People won’t stop coming to my movies because of my politics. They know what they like and will continue to see my films.”

    What was the last movie that he was in the broke even?

  11. Tman says:

    Matt Damon…

  12. Joe says:

    No one here has had their ground water polluted, their livestock die off, can ignite their tap water, has a family sick with undiagnosable rashes, sores, breathing difficulties and other illness, has suffered frack-induced earthquakes, has had their house explode, or has heavy, dusty, noisy deisel trucks with rude drivers continually trundling down formerly quiet roads I guess.

  13. UpNorth says:

    “As for Damon, he’s an actor and, as such, is presumed to be a lefty and a muttonhead”. What do you have against mutton, AirCav? That’s a horrible comparison.
    As for Damon, is he acting and reading someone else’s lines again, or is his empty brainpan trying and failing to come up with an original thought?

  14. UpNorth says:

    “(H)as heavy, dusty, noisy deisel trucks with rude drivers continually trundling down formerly quiet roads I guess”. Sure they do Joey, it’s called living.
    How does your food get to you? By wagon train? Or, does that arugula grow in your condo?

  15. Ex-PH2 says:

    I just came back from putting gas into my tank. If I drive up to Wisconsin, because the tax structure is different from Illinois’s tax structure, I can get gas at $3.199. The stateline gas station that I went to has it at $3.349 and is closing on 12/22, because the station is losing money, even with the lottery tickets convenience store items they sell. The owner started pumping gas when he was 13 and gas was $.10 per gallon. He said he expects to see the auto industry upping the electric-gas hybrids a lot more in the future.

    Meantime, my question is this, and it’s based on the fact that oil and petroleum resources are finite and nonrenewable: Isn’t it maybe smarter to use up THEIR petroleum first, and hold ours in reserve until THEY run out? And don’t assume that once it runs out in spot #1, it will pop up some place else, like spot #20. At some point, it will completely run out.

    Before you answer that, the comparison is like having a savings account: you don’t use it until you have to. Take all that into consideration, including the real eventuality of dry wells/no more petroleum anywhere. Think about all of that first, and then answer.

    It would really make more sense to me to find another way, but the stubbornness about making a major change is comparable to moving from the horse and buggy to the internal combustion engine. “It’ll never amount to anything. It’s too noisy. It scares the horses, etc., etc.”

    I drive a V-6 Ford Escape, so this isn’t about EPA crap or anything else. Just pointing out the ONE THING that no one ever addresses – some day, petroleum will be completely gone.

  16. UpNorth says:

    “(I)ncluding the real eventuality of dry wells/no more petroleum anywhere”. I’ve got it, we could burn coal to generate electricity? Nah, that’d never work.
    As for using up THEIR petro products first, as long as it doesn’t lead to gas or oil getting costlier than gold, per ounce, I’m all for it.

  17. ejazzyjeff says:

    There is a difference of being intelligent and being smart. IMO Matt has neither.

  18. Joe says:

    Good point PH-22, and if we wait, it will probably be more valuable in the future than it is now. Seems we could extract it more slowly and responsibly and have some left for the future. Right now it’s like the gold rush, with all the environmental calamities that go with that mentality.

  19. NHSparky says:

    Dear Joe–neither have you, and I’ve lived a LOT closer to the oil patch than you ever did, scooter.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Fracking is not a clear win; the technology has inherent problems, and even its proponents admit it’s great in theory, but in practice remains problematic:

    (Note: The professor in that study just resigned, too, because of a conflict of interest where he took $1.5M from a drilling company during the course of the study. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it is an ethical problem.)

    Long story short, both fracking AND ‘clean energy’ alternatives require additional research time and money before they’re viable. For clean energy, it’s a matter of ROI and efficiency, and for fracking it’s a matter of ensuring the safety of the process. Being concerned about fracking simply means one is concerned about health issues, which in itself isn’t a bad thing.

    Energy -and its interplay with health, national security, etc.- is a complicated topic. That doesn’t make someone who sees reasonable problems with one method an idiot.

  21. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    “That doesn’t make someone who sees reasonable problems with one method an idiot.” Does that statement hold when someone has a so-called reasonable problem with all methods except wind and solar?

  22. NHSparky says:

    Oh, they’ll ignore the problems with wind and solar, rest assured Cav. And as of right now and for the foreseeable future, there’s no realistic (i.e., cost-effective) solutions to the problems wind and solar pose.

  23. Poetrooper says:

    Ex-PH2 There is a growing school of thought that the so-called fossil fuels which are supposed to be finite are neither fossil nor finite. Abiotic oil theory contends that crude petroleum is produced by little-understood processes deep within the earth’s mantle and migrates closer to the surface where it is attainable through drilling. The Russians long ago reported multiple instances of previously depleted oil fields being refilled. There are other reported instances of this occurring elsewhere, some in the United States, for instance the Eugene Island field in Louisiana.

    Google Abiotic oil (and disregard the lefty biased Wikipedia entry which claims the theory debunked which it most certainly is not) and do a little reading on the topic.

    All that said, I think your point is a good one. Until such time as we are able to clearly determine that crude petroleum is in fact a renewable resource, it makes good sense to deplete their deposits first. However, having an ongoing, reliable production here in North America prevents OPEC from being able to hold a gun to our heads on oil prices.

    It is with this geopolitical consideration where I have a problem with lefties like Damon who frankly don’t give a damn whether America’s global position is weakened due to foreign dependence on oil and gas. In fact, the leftists, like our own president, see that as a good thing. I don’t and I doubt that most who read and comment here at TAH do either.

    As to the comment about water pollution due to fracking, much of that has been disproved. Petroleum pollution of water supplies has been occurring for decades in those areas where the complaints have been made, long before the advent of fracking. Most of these claims arise from rabid environmental groups who would love to see all drilling operations and oil production brought to a halt and the economy be damned. Unfortunately, our lefty administration supports them and not our own energy industry.

  24. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    “No one here has had their ground water polluted, their livestock die off, can ignite their tap water, has a family sick with undiagnosable rashes, sores, breathing difficulties and other illness, has suffered frack-induced earthquakes, has had their house explode, or has heavy, dusty, noisy deisel trucks with rude drivers continually trundling down formerly quiet roads I guess.”

    Joe, that has got to be your best stuff yet. I especially liked the fracking-induced earthquakes and the rude truck drivers.

  25. NHSparky says:

    Poetrooper–If Matt Damon (duh!) was so concerned about oil consumption, is he going to give up his private jets, etc.?

    Yeah, didn’t think so.

  26. Nik says:

    I look forward to seeing footage of Mr Damon biking to the site of his next movie shoot, then biking back to Hollywood.

  27. Old Tanker says:


    Read up on that Abiotic theory Poetrooper pointed out, it’s fascinating. Another thing to point out…we will never run out of oil, ever! Why can I say that with such certainty? It’s simple economics really. If we assume oil is finite (abiotic theories aren’t proven so we shall disregard them for now) then as oil supplies dwindle, prices will necesarily rise. As they do our behavior will change, it ALWAYS does. The less oil, the higher the price, the higher the price, the less we use. We will begin to use alternatives that are now more expensive than oil but eventually they won’t be and we will use them. At some point oil will be so expensive that it will only be used spareingly and an equilibrium of sorts will exist. At some point what oil exists will just be too expensive to go get and we will quit using it before it is completely gone.

  28. UpNorth says:

    AirCAv, is it inhaling the exhaust that makes drivers rude? Do the “heavy, dusty, noisy” trucks cause the earthquakes? If so, is it the weight, the dust or the noise that causes the earthquakes? Or, possibly, the rudeness?
    I’ve seen a couple of houses explode. One was because the maroon turned off his water heater, and not the gas line. The other was because the furnace malfunctioned, and the basement filled with gas. Oh, got it, if fracking hadn’t taken place 3 states away, neither house would have exploded, right Joey?

  29. Anonymous says:

    @21 (and 22): I certainly wasn’t ignoring the problems with wind and solar there. It seems to me that conservatives want oil and gas, and say ‘screw solar and wind – they’re not viable!’, and liberals want wind and solar and say, ‘screw oil and gas – they’re polluting the environment!’. There needs to be a middle ground where we can balance current needs with future research. So, yes, someone can clearly have reasonable problems with solar and wind. Neither can deliver enough power now, for starters, so that’s a pretty clear issue.

    (And with wind, it’s not only a ‘cost-effective’ issue – there are some concerns that large wind-farms can disrupt local weather patterns and alter nearby rainfall in subtle ways. This isn’t known yet, but it’s an area where some modeling is being done. Solar is ‘easiest’ in this respect, but still needs significant advances in efficiencies and cost before becoming viable.)

    @ 23:
    The problems of pollution with fracking have NOT been disproved, as even pro-fracking reporters like the one I cited above claim there are issues related to it. They simply claim the problems are related to lax standards and procedures, not an intrinsic weakness in the methods. And abiotic oil is not really given much thought as a theory because it holds no predictive power. If it’s able to suggest WHERE oil can be found, and how it is created, then that could be tested and if it works that’d be a great breakthrough. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do that. That doesn’t make it automatically wrong, as the biomass theories on oil are still not conclusively proven, but it makes it useless as a theory. No oil companies that I’m aware of use ‘abiotic oil’ ideas as guidance for their drilling search patterns. Maybe it means oil is renewable, but there needs to be some math and geophysics on production rates, methods, reaction pathways, etc.

    Finally, you also said:
    “It is with this geopolitical consideration where I have a problem with lefties like Damon who frankly don’t give a damn whether America’s global position is weakened due to foreign dependence on oil and gas. In fact, the leftists, like our own president, see that as a good thing. I don’t and I doubt that most who read and comment here at TAH do either.”

    This is simply wrong. Most leftists don’t want America’s position weakened, they aren’t even thinking along these lines. The anti-oil and anti-coal crowd is that way because their only concern seems to be pollution. Some because they’re hippies all on about ‘Mother Earth’, others simply because of global climate change, but it almost never has anything to do with wanting a weakened national defense. In most cases, in fact, they also espouse solar and wind AS a method of getting us off foreign oil, and thus away from giving money to our wonderful allies in the Middle East.

  30. Joe says:

    Had a well-documented case in Colorado where an oil rig worker came into the emergency room injured in an accident. His clothing had become soaked with very aromatic fracking chemicals. The nurse who worked with him came in contact, shortly thereafter became extremely ill, had to be hospitalized with all kinds or weird MS and stroke-like symptoms, the oil company, BP I think, would not reveal the chemicals used, didn’t have to by law (proprietary secret and all that) so they couldn’t adequately treat her. The nurse nearly died, I believe she still has severe, debilitating health problems that originated that day. One cracked well casing or batch of bad cement and people could be drinking that crap. Don’t tell me it’s safe, I’ve seen evidence to the contrary. Ask that nurse how safe it is! That’s just one horror story out of hundreds (? thousands?) that you didn’t read about.

  31. NHSparky says:

    It seems to me that conservatives want oil and gas, and say ‘screw solar and wind – they’re not viable!’

    Even if I was more “politically moderate”, my experience in power generation over the past 25 years in the military and civilian sector has taught me wind and solar, while a nice idea for remote locations or as a “supplemental” source, will never, EVER replace “baseline” generation. They are not what are considered “dense” power sources like coal, oil, gas, and nuclear.

    San Onofre is on the verge of being shut down for good, and if the idiots in CA have their way, Diablo Canyon won’t be far behind. That’s nearly 20 percent of their generation capability just in those two sites. Most of the other sources they get aren’t from within CA–quite the contrary, Palo Verde supplies much of SoCal along with Four Corners (coal) and BC Hydro/BPA Hydro–but even then, the hydro is only viable from about June-October.

    When I lived in CA, I was there for the 2000-01 power crisis. Imagine it worse–a LOT worse, like taking away 10,000 MW worth of generation worse. Solar isn’t going to make that up. Nor will wind, no matter how much of your tax dollars are used to subsidize it.

    Which gets to my final point–the states like CA, IL, MA, and federal government which are pumping TENS OF BILLIONS into “green” sources are only serving to hide the true costs of these sources from the consumers who pay some of the highest rates in the country to begin with.

  32. Joe says:

    And yet NHS, somehow countries like Germany are doing it, and doing it well. I guess they’re just a lot smarter than us.

  33. Common Sense says:

    A few points:

    1) Matt Damon is no longer in the Bourne movies, the last one was Jeremy Renner instead
    2) The Gasland documentary where the guy lit his water on fire was debunked –
    3) Fracking (which is NOT new technology) injects mostly water far deeper than the water table and has been proven to be safe –

    Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of fluid consisting of approximately 99.5% water and sand (the rest consists of common industrial or even household chemicals or materials) through wells constructed with protective casing and cement, into producing shale formations. The formations are thousands of feet below drinking water aquifers, separated by impervious rock. While the technology has evolved and is used more frequently, fracturing is not new, is heavily regulated at the state level, and enjoys no blanket exemption from environmental laws. There is no credible data indicating that fracturing of shale formations has ever contaminated drinking water.

  34. Winter is a time for distilling. Those who make perfume distill a rose or lavender down to a very concentrated essence.
    In the past days I too have distilled 5 religions or philosophies down to a very concentrated essence. I combine the 5 essences to make a perfume, known as a hunting scent in some circles.
    Here is a list of the essences that you to can apply for good hunting.
    1:)Christianity, do on to others as you would have them do on to you.
    2:) Islam:) Improve yourself, improve your community, improve mankind.
    3:) Buddhism, treat thhe causes of problems not just the symptoms
    4:) Secularism, it is much much more important not to be poor than it is to be rich.
    5:) Native American World View. live sustainably, relatioships with people are much more important than a stockpile of objects whether it be gold, weapons, DVDs, or even medicine.

    Does any protestant want to pick a fight with me and say something foolish like the eessence of Christianity is to accept Jesus Christ as your savior?

  35. Living in Israel says:

    Doesn’t Europe use a lot more nuclear power than the US? Is that how they keep their energy clean?

  36. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    No, Joe, it wasn’t BP at all. The 2008 story involved an ER nurse, Cathy Behr, who fully recovered. The gas field worker, Clinton Marshall, was fired, never took ill, and got a new job in New Mexico. So, the guy who was covered in the fracking liquid was fine but someone who smelled the liquid on him got sick. Odd, but evidently that’s what happened.

  37. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Wooop…wooooop….woooooop. Alien alert at 34! This is not a drill. Repeat. This is not a drill.

  38. Ex-PH2 says:

    Regarding abiotic oil renewal, I have read up on that, back in the 1990s when Thomas Gold insisted that there was enough available crude oil to last at least 100 years. He was a geologist whose first job was exploratory work for the oil and gas industry. He found that bacterial metabolic processes could — and did — start the process of creating a base for new crude in old, dry wells, but the length of time it took the “new crude” to get to the surface as real crude was too long for practical well drilling. This was also before China’s government switched to a free-market capitalist profit centered economy, and the Chinese people began demanding things like cars and airplanes.

    Nothing I’ve found so far has said that crude oil is truly a renewable resource. Most of the abiotic end of it is speculation, based on the discovery of that bacterial process. And after all, algae is now being used to produce bio-diesel for commercial use, so it’s entirely possible that this could become a source for more refined fuels for cars.

    The possibility of using wind and solar power on a commercial basis is so badly misunderstood and put together that it’s better left to small unit wind and solar power stations for individual homeowners to use. On a larger scale, it’s either very well done or a complete boondoggle.

    Now, I based my ‘what then’ questions on reactions in the 1970s to the Arab oil embargo, Nixon’s ridiculous and unnecessary rationing of gas, and the exploration of publications like Mother Earth News into alternative fuels like ethanol, which at the time required changes to the carburetor. It was possible at the time to get a license to distill grain like corn into fuel alcohol for personal use. I knew people who were doing exactly that, because we all felt that $.75 per gallon was unreasonable. That was when the Chevy Chevette and other subcompact cars with high mileage (up to 32MPG) were introduced and sold like hotcakes. There was a Swiss dairy farmer who ran his entire operation on the methane he harvested from his dairy cows’ manure.

    If you will recall, when ethanol production was ramped up in order to stretch current gasoline supplies, there was a massive rush to build distillation factories, the price of corn and soybeans jumped, and the price of gas at the pump kept rising. This was not so very long ago – 7 years at the most. Now the mad rush is on to find, drill and extract natural gas everywhere there is even a bubble in a parking lot.

    It’s not that it’s impossible to find and make practical use of alternatives. It’s the stubborn unwillingness to see past the familiar gas pump and internal combustion engine, and when you have a loud-mouthed blowhard like Donald Trump, or an uninformed and over-opinionated celeb like Matt Damon, running their mouths about these things, those are the people who get the microphone, not the more practical-minded. When that is how people think, then no one else gets heard.

  39. PALADIN says:

    What a complete retread, guess he has’nt heard there is enough oil underneath the USA and the Oilsands in Canada to keep us energy independant for 500 years.
    Typical Hollyweird mudflap.
    Smartest guy in Hollweird don’t mean shit to me, i’d like to see how smart the turd is when it comes to surviving.

    Something Liberals…especially the Harvard type have no clue about.

  40. PALADIN says:

    @# 34 , go somewhere where other idiots will buy your “woof tickets” we ain’t interested here……turd.

  41. UpNorth says:

    Joey says, in #30, “Don’t tell me it’s safe, I’ve seen evidence to the contrary”. Do tell, Joey. What have you seen, where did you see it and when did it happen? With links to credible sources.
    Otherwise, you’re just selling Woof tickets, too.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous-it is prudent to avoid absolute statements because they will generally lead to the failure of your argument. I didn’t say that ALL claims about fracking-caused pollution have been disproved. I said that MUCH OF such criticism has, which is verifiably correct. I have no doubt that some pollution has and will continue to occur and that needs to be dealt with more effectively, although complete success is unlikely.

    At least you have the good sense to qualify your claim that oil companies aren’t pursuing abiotic oil sources with the disclaimer, “as far as I know.” I find it highly improbable that some of the largest, best-funded scientific research programs aren’t seeking further information about a possible natural phenomenon that has the potential to make their parent organizations endlessly wealthy.

    Your absolute declaration that I am SIMPLY WRONG about liberals wanting a weakened America indicates to me that you are rather misinformed about some of the basic tenets of world leftism. I can’t speak for the liberals you may be referring to but I can believe my lyin’ eyes and ears. Go to virtually any liberal website and read the endless criticism of this country and its role in the world. A core liberal belief around the world, and voiced by our leftist president, is that the U.S. is too dominant militarily, economically and politically and needs to share its power and resources. Liberals are true believers in leveling the playing field both, domestically and internationally. And while it would be wonderful if we could make all other nations as strong as we are, such leveling is most easily and most realistically achieved by weakening the stronger players while strengthening the weaker.

    With regard to the environmental Chicken-littles that you say don’t want our nation weakened and aren’t even thinking that way, you are right: they aren’t THINKING about the consequences of their actions, an all too frequent liberal failure. What I said was that they don’t give a damn about those consequences weakening our nation and I’ll wager most liberals would admit to that as just being the price to be paid to protect the environment THEIR way, which as liberals usually tend to believe, is the only way.

    Speaking of ways, you and I apparently see liberals in two significantly different ways.

  43. Poetrooper says:

    Comment 43 is mine not Anonymous.

  44. USMCE8Ret says:

    Posting for the sake of the discussion…

  45. NHSparky says:

    @32 Joe–actually, not really. Ever seen the THD of power in Europe? Or taken an O-scope to the power outlet in your wall and home and compared it to, say, an outlet in Europe?

    Oh, and as far as your percentages go, we actually generate more in “green” sources than does Europe, except for nuclear, where they generate about 28 percent to our 18 percent.,_2011_(in_%25).png&filetimestamp=20121128125316

  46. 831243 111339Thank you for sharing with us, I believe this site genuinely stands out : D. 414807