What blazing rhetoric. This is not about blowing up buildings, finding execs and their families and executing them slowly, or occupying a land mass. This isn't

What blazing rhetoric. This is not about blowing up buildings, finding execs and their families and executing them slowly, or occupying a land mass. This isn't a war against Hollywood, so using typical anti-war talking points like "war isn't the answer" and "just find a compromise regardless of who is right!" and "don't give in to eye-for-eye revenge!" (I'm surprised the author didn't use a Gandhi quote or two) don't fly as counter-arguments. It's also not a simple eye-for-eye retaliation, for one reason because this isn't war, but another reason because the eye-for-eye retaliation would be for the government to nationalize Hollywood and subject them to the same crap NASA has had to go through since the last moon mission or so. This posting is a great example of why using a shaky metaphor is a bad idea, because that metaphor quickly turns into an equals sign as far as arguments go when it shouldn't. When PG says "Kill Hollywood", it's meant in the exact same sense as "Kill Microsoft". That's the only "uh oh" in his whole posting, it doesn't say "declare war on Hollywood". Neither Hollywood nor Microsoft comprise the entirety of the entertainment industry and the tech industry no matter how much they want to and no matter how much the average ignorant random-person-on-the-street might believe they already do, so clearly it's not even a desire to kill off an industry, just to remove a particular member's influences from it and from everything else.