Archive for the ‘Entertainment’ Category
Dear Harvey: Please Get Over Yourself
Posted by Pam Meister in Entertainment, Featured Story on October 10th, 2009
Americans are debating whether Roman Polanski should be brought back to America to serve the sentence he skipped out on over 30 years ago for having sex (well, raping her, but he pleaded to the lesser charge of unlawful sex with a minor) with a 13-year-old girl. A large portion of society seems to believe that Polanski should face the music for what is truly a disgusting crime, but as we all know, he has his defenders for several reasons: a) he’s a nice guy, b)he’s a brilliant director, c) the art world is being made to suffer, and d) gosh — it was over 30 years ago. To coin a phrase, let’s just “move on.”
We all know that many Hollywood insiders live inside a magical bubble where there are no consequences for anything. Serial affairs, alcohol, drugs — everything is forgiven as long as you can make money for the machine (but they are against capitalism, natch), except that most heinous of crime of all: being a conservative. And we all know that many of them place themselves on a higher plane than those of us little people down here in the theater and stadium seats and in front of our television sets, without whom, of course, Tinseltown would be nothing but a very large (and broke) collection of overinflated egos.
Proof of this “holier than thou” attitude comes right out of the mouth of one of the biggest bigwigs himself: Harvey Weinstein of Miramax pictures:
In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He’s not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said. “We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”
Let’s repeat that, shall we? “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion. We were the people who did the fundraising for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”
Well, thank goodness for Hollywood. Without them, nothing would get done. Yet, where were we, Harvey? Where exactly were “the little people” during these tragic times?
Let’s see: 403 firefighters, police officers and paramedics died on 9/11 while trying to save the lives of thousands of others, not to mention the respiratory problems of some 300 firefighters afterward and the 422,000 New Yorkers who suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome. An estimated $1.4 billion was donated by regular Americans to 9/11 charities. Let’s not forget those who stepped forward to volunteer to help in whatever capacity they could. (This is not to be confused with the “National Day of Service” that is supposed to take the place of a proper day of remembrance.)
Mentions of 9/11 at the next Academy Awards? 26.
Nearly $4 billion was raised by private, non-profit organizations for relief after Hurricane Katrina. (Sadly, much of it was misspent, but that’s not the fault of those who donated.) More than 1 million volunteers made their way to the storm-ravaged area, giving up weekends and vacation plans to help.
Yes, Hollywood held a telethon — to which average Americans donated money — where Kanye West declared, “George W. Bush doesn’t like black people.” I love those touching Kumbaya, bring-the-nation-together moments. Don’t you?
And who could forget Sean Penn’s valiant effort to save helpless victims as he went down, shotgun in hand, and boarded a boat loaded down by his entourage that included a photographer, and ended up bailing out his sinking boat with a red plastic cup. Mission accomplished!
Last, but certainly not least, when it comes to disasters at home and around the world, we cannot forget our fabulous military. When deployed, they always act efficiently and with compassion. And our government is usually quick to donate millions to disaster-ravaged areas too, like pledging $350 million to help in the aftermath of the tsunami in Indonesia back in 2004.
By the way, when’s that telethon to help the victims of the tsunami in American Samoa scheduled?
Don’t misunderstand: if Hollywood wants to hold telethons and concerts and whatever else to raise funds for a good cause, no one’s going to complain. But let’s keep it in perspective. To quote Eugene Robinson (a Washington Post lib, no less):
The Los Angeles Times quoted Weinstein as saying in an interview that he doesn’t believe public opinion is running against Polanski — or that Hollywood is out of step. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said, according to the newspaper. “We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”
Hollywood was there, all right, whenever the tragedy was distant, the victims were anonymous and the “compassionate” concert or telethon had acceptable production values that made all the stars look their best. How heroically they rearranged their busy schedules!
Indeed. It brings a tear even to my jaundiced eye — the red carpet, the fabulous gowns, fawning celeb mag fotogs, the goodie bags worth thousands of dollars, the after-hours VIP parties in exclusive clubs…
Back in 2007, Americans gave just under $300 billion to charity, with individuals giving a combined 75.6 percent of the total, donating almost twice as much as the next most charitable nation, the UK . And those in the poorest income brackets donate more per capita than their wealthier counterparts. Was there a star-studded telethon that year (aside from the usual Jerry Lewis gig)? I can’t recall. But how strange that many celebs are reluctant to publicly declare how much cold cash they personally donate to a cause.
So, Harvey, please, take your “moral compass” and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. I think Americans are doing just fine without your overrated “guiding light.”
Confessions of a Letterman Intern
Posted by Chris Stigall in Entertainment, News on October 8th, 2009
David Letterman inspired my broadcasting career. Twenty years ago, he was an awkward, self-deprecating guy who wore tennis shoes with his blazer and tie. He was edgy, silly, and unconventional compared to the traditions of variety television at that time. He resonated with an awkward high school kid watching at home in Missouri. Carson was still the king of late night, and some guy named Leno filled in for him a lot. But Dave was cool because he didn’t seem to fit in. Yet, when Carson announced his retirement, Letterman was said to be the heir apparent to the Tonight Show.
As a fan, I didn’t want Letterman to move into Carson’s chair. Not because Letterman couldn’t handle it. It just seemed too refined for someone as eccentric and edgy as Letterman. Turned out NBC saw it that way too when they awarded “Tonight” to Leno. It pained Letterman. But it helped to foster that continued edgy, underdog status that led fans like me to follow him to CBS.
Letterman’s historically large deal with CBS was fascinating. He was granted an enormous contract and complete ownership of his own show. A show that could be built from the ground up with no expectations or standards set by a previous host like Carson at NBC. More importantly, Letterman answered to no one. He became his own boss – a dream scenario for an entertainer who always answered to someone else.
For fans at home it was like watching the underdog finally win one. He won by remaining true to his “Late Night” formula. Silly characters, Stupid Pet and Human Tricks, Top Ten Lists all made the trip to the new show. Though Letterman only enjoyed one year atop the ratings heap versus Leno - it mattered not to me and people my age. Ask a high school or college kid at the time who was the “cool” host, or the “funny” host – Letterman won in a landslide.
As a college student in the rural Midwest, I applied to become an intern with my broadcasting hero. I would later discover hundreds of kids a semester applied for one of fifteen spots as interns on the show. Although I presumed I stood little chance, the internship coordinator informed me that Letterman’s show favored Midwesterners. Letterman was a Midwest kid himself, and the show was of the mindset that Midwest kids were generally polite, conscientious, and hard working. It was the most exciting, promising, thrilling moment a young college kid with a broadcasting dream could have.
It took only a few months of my internship to learn a thing about the business of comedy, at least as it relates to Letterman. It was not an epicenter of fun and creativity. Rather, it was an atmosphere of employees who worked for a man many of them never saw and seldom, if ever talked to. Many of his employees seemed to resent his cold distance. He was most certainly guarded and unapproachable. This was not the irreverent showman I came to adore. The wide-eyed enthusiasm I arrived with in New York was quickly dashed.
To be clear, I never witnessed anything inappropriate as it relates to Mr. Letterman. I was not mistreated nor was there any juicy gossip overheard during my stay. The knowledge I came home with regarding Letterman was purely observational. Honest students of “Late Show” and comedy in general have certainly come to the same conclusion. Letterman, we must sadly confess, is seldom funny anymore.
It’s hard to know just when his entertainment value began to decline. It most likely began the day he became his own boss, ironically. Letterman’s personal work ethic he admired in Midwesterners like me seemed to be wanting. He slowly phased out any sketch comedy that featured him. It was a staple of his old shows. The Alka-Seltzer-covered suit he sported before jumping in a tank of water and the Velcro suit that left him stuck to a wall of fabric were no longer. His roving interviews and interaction on the streets of New York became less and less. It was as though the thing that made Letterman so likable – his ability to be silly and laugh at himself – disappeared. He was too important for that now.
Letterman’s personal politics have become so strident and hostile in just the last two years, any conservative feels unwelcome to watch. He would regularly pontificate about the war in Iraq. “George Bush is a dumb guy” jokes were told with such frequency it became rote. When candidate John McCain had the “audacity” to cancel a scheduled appearance in 2008, Letterman blasted McCain with both barrels until Election Day. A tasteless shot aimed at Sarah Palin’s daughter seemed to be the joke that broke the audiences’ back. Letterman, after much public outrage, eventually apologized for the remark. Then, the recent hour-long sit down with Barack Obama. It seemed to be the host’s final admission. Dave’s a pundit, not a comic. He’s not interested in entertaining the masses any longer. Just the partisans.
Letterman’s admission of sex with members of his staff and stories of sex in the office dominated his show in the last week. News of his personal life, his humiliated and injured wife, his six year old son, and his beleaguered employees made a once entertaining show of comedy and variety nothing more than a television tabloid. Ratings, while high, weren’t due to the quality of show being produced by the legendary host. America is tuning in to see a famous man’s life crash and burn around him.
David Letterman has, in fact taught this intern something. He is a cautionary tale of the ultimate success story. Success can be achieved through hard work, tenacity, and staying true to your style. Success can also breed complacency. Success can breed arrogance and narcissism that places your personal needs, wants, beliefs, and desires ahead of all others. Success can ultimately be your undoing.
I wish I could have interned for that edgy, Midwestern underdog at NBC.
So, Now You Tell Us?!
Posted by John Ziegler in Entertainment, Politics on October 7th, 2009
I have always been fascinated and frustrated by the phenomenon in our public dialogue that when we get new information after a “debate” is deemed to be over, that the original dispute is never “reopened.”
For instance, when Barack Obama threw Rev. Jeremiah Wright “under the bus” a month after he was praised lustily by the media for not having done so in his famous “race” speech, the history of that event was never rewritten. Similarly, the dramatic positive impact of the surge in Iraq never came close to altering the media’s premature conclusion that the war there was a “disaster,” and the most recent data on the global temperature drop has done next to nothing to change the notion that the debate of global warming is “over.”
In the past week we have seen two classic examples of this quirk in the unwritten rules of media history.
The Obama/Oprah led flameout for Chicago’s hopes to host the 2016 Olympics certainly fits in this category. Much has already been said about the disastrous nature of this development from the economic and political perspectives. However, not nearly enough has been stated about how this event seems to prove that one of the basic foundations of the argument for Obama’s election was a complete lie.
It was just over a year ago when Obama choose to go to Europe for his grandiose victory lap for having won the Democratic nomination. Hundreds of thousands (allegedly) of enlightened ones flocked to the streets to see and hear the new Messiah promise to bring the now hated United States of George Bush back into the good graces of the “civilized” world.
The message was clear. We elect Obama and the rest of the world will instantly love us again (as if they ever really loved us to begin with). The media hammered this point until even the people who literally couldn’t find Europe on a map (you know, the ones that actually decide elections in this country) understood how vitally important this was.
Well, based on what happened in Copenhagen, how in the world can anyone conclude anything other than that whole concept was just simply made up?
Never before in modern history had a U.S. President needlessly put so much prestige on the line in front of the world community and been so roundly rejected. The fact that Chicago didn’t even get out of the first round eliminates any real ambiguity about what was really happening here and exposed the theory that Obama’s election did anything to elevate our country in the eyes of the world as being completely bogus (keep in mind that all it took for golf to get in 2016 Olympics after a century long absence was for Tiger Woods to appear in front of the IOC via videotape; once again proving that Obama is no Tiger).
And yet, very little has been said that even questions whether we were lied to about this audacious promise. Instead, some have laughably tried to blame the Bush hangover for the embarrassment even though Chicago somehow made it successfully to the final stage while the evil one was still President.
This episode is reminiscent of the Cambridge police flap where Obama’s words and action totally destroyed the obviously phony narrative that our new President was a different kind of black leader and was going to be “post-racial.” The evidence could not be more overwhelming that we were lied to about this as well, and yet (due mostly to rampant media malpractice and conservative wimpiness) in the consciousness of the average American, that slam dunk case is still largely unproven
The other incident which followed this same pattern involved the revelation that David Letterman has apparently had numerous affairs with members of his staff.
This one is particularly personal for me because I somehow found myself at the forefront of the Fire David Letterman “movement” after his inappropriate “jokes” about Sarah Palin and her daughter. At the time, it seemed pretty clear to me that Letterman had “issues” and that the basis of his obsession with Palin and her family was obviously sexual. After all, Letterman had continuously referenced Palin’s attractiveness in a creepy sort of way and had even invited her on his show while urging her husband Todd to stay home.
But when I went on Fox News Channel to discuss this issue and referenced my theory, I was almost mocked by anchorwoman Megyn Kelly.
Now, based on these most recent disclosures, how can you conclude anything other than I was probably right? Heck, even Letterman himself seemed to back up this conclusion when he seemingly bizarrely (though in the context of my supposition perfectly understandable) “apologized” to Sarah Palin in the middle of begging for understanding from his fans and wife for his indiscretions.
This is on top of the numerous previous statements and “jokes” that Letterman had made about Palin just before and after his original “apology” was so eagerly accepted by the news media which cast great doubt about the sincerity of his efforts to make amends.
But has there ever been any reevaluation of what was really going on in the Letterman/Palin flap which, at the time, actually was outrageously a net gain for Dave? No. Instead much of the media focus has been on how Letterman is a “victim” of an extortion attempt as well as how strongly his fans appear to be backing him on this.
I realize that what is about to happen or what may occur in the future is far more exciting and ratings friendly than what has already occurred in even our very recent past, but are our collective attention spans and memories really all so short that we can’t at least correct the record on these significant incidents?
Our side needs to understand the incredible importance of the narrative and when the facts allow us to win these skirmishes (even after they have seemingly been previously lost), we need to take advantage of that. Fortunately, based on recent history we will get plenty of similar opportunities in the future.
Michael Moore On ‘Hannity’
Posted by Big Hollywood in Entertainment, Politics, Video, michael moore on October 7th, 2009
Parts II , III, and discussion points after the jump:
Sean Hannity and Michael Moore had a discussion of sorts on ‘Hannity’ tonight. It was certainly an event to see Moore on a conservative’s show (much like Al Gore, Moore is notorious for not going toe to toe with prominent conservatives). The conversation itself seemed disjointed and a lot time was spent by both Hannity and Moore jockeying to set the agenda instead of clarifying and challenging differences. Moore came off as plenty appealing, a jovial and confidant representative for his side, but just as with Obama’s speeches, you would get a completely different perception of the man and his ideas if you read what he said instead of watched it. And by different, we mean nauseating.
More analysis from Big Hollywood contributors is likely to follow, but we’re turning you all loose now. Some discussion bullet points:
-“I’m not a multi-multi millionaire.” -Michael Moore
-Apparently our foes in the Middle East are perpetually on monkey bars….?
-Christians are in no position to judge the 9/11 terrorists.
-Is there a conservative on Earth who could get away with invoking God and religion as much as Moore does?
-Hannity was soft on Moore. Good or bad move?
Have at it.
Daily Gut: Wolf’s Confusion, Fred’s Misery
Posted by Greg Gutfeld in Entertainment, Obama on October 6th, 2009
It amounted to breaking news for CNN`s Wolf Blitzer: Saturday Night Live doing a skit, in which they skewer Barack Obama. It was a concept so profoundly distasteful, that it left Wolf incredulous – worse than when he was humiliated on Jeopardy.
At any rate, this first ever comprehensive fact-check of an SNL skit might be the strangest piece of media analysis I’ve ever seen.
Check it out, check-it-outers. (ROLL TAPE)
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
–
Now, wouldn`t you know, according to CNN`s analysis, the skit “missed the mark.” This is a not a fair portrayal, they whine – which is not surprising, coming from a network blinded by the President`s pocket lint. But forgive me for being both flabbered and gasted, but have you ever seen a news network review a comedy sketch for fairness? Did CNN ever do this when SNL went after Bush, Palin, or any other Republican?
But look, I don`t expect that. Reviewing an SNL skit for accuracy is like reviewing McDonalds for their wine list. So what`s the explanation? My guess is this segment was manufactured immediately after being asked for by someone living in a big house with a huge ego and now, bruised feelings.
It reminds me of a pal receiving shabby service at a restaurant, then imploring friends to write withering reviews on the joint`s website (okay, that was me).
But the funniest part in all this? That CNN missed the big story, completely overlooking Fred Armison`s skit sabatoge. In the history of television, I don`t think you could find another actor more offended by his own job, which was playing Obama negatively. You could find more sincerity from a hostage reading a ransom note complimenting his captors. Seriously, I half-expected him to blink in Morse code, pleading for help.
In the end, it makes me wonder if CNN’s analysis of SNL was a skit in itself -a brilliant Onion evisceration designed to poke fun of a network so in the tank for Obama that a skit on the Messiah short circuits their powers of reason. But if CNN has truly decided this is a worthy exercise – why stop with skits? I saw a recent “Animals Gone Wild” video where it was clear a cocky matador was way too harsh on a bull.
And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist.
The War on Propaganda
Posted by Chris Burgard in Entertainment, Obama, Politics on October 5th, 2009
“The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it.” Joseph Goebbels
There is no shame in artists receiving monetary compensation to sell ideas, products or a presidential agenda. When everything is transparent and contracted above board, this is called advertising. When this process is whispered into being, strategized and set into motion from the shadows of government and from behind closed doors, it is propaganda.
From Sun Tzu to Psy Ops, propaganda has won wars, toppled cultures and changed civilizations. As a self-identified enlightened and educated culture, we thought ourselves beyond such base manipulation. We were wrong.
Where were the voices of dissent on the NEA conference call when so called “artists” were asked to further the President’s agenda?
I have danced ballets and I have done commercials; one side art, the other side business. What side were the NEA recipients on?
Art for propaganda was an essential tool of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. What the heck is it doing in the White House? This should outrage freethinkers, citizens and artists from every corner of America.
The National Endowment of the Arts strategy has been traced straight to Valerie Jarrett, President Obama’s policy facilitator and Grande Dame of his inner circle. As disturbing and possibly illegal as this is, it becomes truly frightening when you connect the rest of the dots:
1) The Democrats repeated commitment to implement the Fairness Doctrine and destroy conservative talk radio.
2) S.733: The bill that would give the President control over the internet in the event of an “emergency.”
3) On Sept. 20, 2009, President Obama stated that he would look into bailouts for print newspapers because he is concerned that blogs will take over the world and be a threat to democracy.
Imagine that: the President of the United States is concerned free speech may be a threat to democracy. Is anybody paying attention?
Thomas Jefferson knew that a free press is essential to a free republic. Control the flow of information and you control the people. This hasn’t changed much since 1933.
Perhaps this is not as visually arresting as book burning, but the results are the same. Joseph Goebbels needed to ensure that the views of the Nazis were put forward in the most persuasive manner possible and make certain that no one in Germany could read or see anything that was damaging to the Nazi Party.
Is this that far removed from the news coverage of Honduras or the under-reporting of turnout for the 9/12 DC rally?
But I submit to you that these propaganda assaults will fail because they are lacking the one element critical to mission implementation: fear.
President Obama and his team are convinced that they are smarter than the average American citizen. They don’t just say Middle Americans “cling to their Bibles and guns out of fear,” they truly believe it. This administration has banked on using fear to push stimulus packages, carbon taxes, bailouts and health care reform. That is their Waterloo.
Fear is not at the core of the American psyche; independence and patriotism are. And when enough Americans step back, take a breath and realize the extent of this manipulation, they awaken with a determination and that is truly frightening to those that would attempt to govern from the shadows.
The fear is now on the other foot.
The Muslim Brotherhood has long taught their operatives in the USA to attack their opponents with charges of “hate speech” and “racism” whenever they were called out to defend their positions in public. The Democrats have called out their big guns: congressmen, congresswomen and even an ex-President to do the same. Why would anyone do this if they were not “afraid” of an informed public debate?
It will not work this time. The sleeper has awakened and she sees the man behind the curtain.
Apathy can no longer be counted on as a tool for those who would seek to control the populace and erode the Constitution.
In this “Constitution Revolution,” the American people are not coming after you with guns or explosives; they are armed with truth, a desire for transparency, a desire for enlightened and informed public discourse, a demand for civic responsibility and a call to politicians to honor their oaths to the US Constitution.
Trivia Time: Can You Tell the Difference Between Lennon and McCartney?
Posted by Michael S. Rulle Jr. in Entertainment on October 3rd, 2009
Time out from all things politics. Instead, let’s turn our attention to “all things Beatles trivia” for this short essay/game.
I went on Amazon yesterday to purchase The Beatles Stereo Box Set and was informed it was still on back order. Borders noted that the set will be available on a limited basis in October on a “first-come, first-served” basis. The Mono version, which sells for $30 more than the Stereo version, is also on back order. So the Beatles obviously remain popular.
One topic I have always found interesting is the distinction between Lennon’s songs and McCartney’s songs. Of the 200 plus songs the Beatles wrote, perhaps about 30 had some form of collaboration between the two, with maybe 20 being jointly written completely. Yet, I have always found this distinction very misleading. Their influence on each other was so deep that their individual songs really were effectively collaborations. Besides the obvious difference in sound between, say, Wings and McCartney written Beatles songs, I have constructed a “Beatles” trivia quiz below to demonstrate this point. I assert that we think we can tell the difference because most of us know the songs well. But in reality, they were highly influenced by the other and are more similar than we sometimes realize.
I think the quiz is of high difficulty. Of course, for some it may seem easy. Listed below are 12 YouTube links to well known Beatles’ songs. The object of the game is to guess the song writer. Being statistically oriented, to pass one needs to beat the “coin flip test.” The probability of guessing nine or more correctly by randomness alone is about 7% (I am ignoring some factors–see below). So 75% will be considered passing. My guess is the average score of all participants will be lower than that. You can cheat, of course, and do better.
Some hints.
One of the 12 songs was written jointly by Lennon and McCartney. I doubt anyone will guess this one. One song was written by neither. Guessing “neither” correctly results in a full point. Guessing “who” correctly gets another point; guessing “who” incorrectly subtracts 1/2 point. Three of the songs were written where, for example, one of the two was dominant with an “assist” by the other. These songs are also worth double points. These are usually listed as follows: “Lennon; with McCartney,” or vice versa. This means a total of 16 points can be earned and 9 still be passing. If one guesses “Lennon,” but it was really “Lennon; with McCartney,” one still gets a full point. A guess of an “assist” which is wrong subtracts 1/2 point. I doubt many will get extra credit. Seven of the 12 songs were written by either Lennon or McCartney.
A really good amateur should get 11 points. I assume even a good amateur will not guess the joint song. To achieve 12 or higher means you are either in the business, you cheated, you have a photographic memory, or you are way too into the Beatles. I thought I was a Beatles expert but I would be borderline to pass this. The best I could have possibly done was 11.
Answers to each question can be found at a link provided at the end. Feel free to submit your score. No cheating! I will attempt to list them from most easy to most difficult, but that is subjective of course. I begin with two very simple ones.
Here we go:
12) “I’ll Be Back”
This song is from Hard Day’s Night. If you miss this one, then your odds of passing are pretty slim. Still, the sound of this song is very similar to number 11.
Also from Hard Day’s Night.
10) Do You Want to Know a Secret?
Sung by George Harrison on the their first British hit Album “Please Please Me.” Is this a trick by me or a gift?
9) Day Tripper
This song was recorded during the Rubber Soul sessions, but was only released as a single with “We Can Work it Out” as a “double A sided” single.
I’m Happy Just to Dance with You
Also from the album Hard Day’s Night and sung by George Harrison. Is this a trick by me or a gift?
7) If I Fell
Fourth one from the Hard Day’s Night album. Is this a trick by me or a gift?
6) What Goes On
Sung by Ringo on the Rubber Soul album. Is this a trick by me or a gift?
5) Money
Recorded in 1963 and appeared on “The Beatles Second Album.” Is this a trick by me or a gift?
4) Bad To Me
One of three hits by Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas, who were managed also by Brian Epstein. It was recorded in demo form by the Beatles but never released.
Never recorded by the Beatles but was the single biggest hit by the twosome, Peter and Gordon.
2) Good Night
This is the last song from the “White Album.” Ringo sings and is the only Beatle who appears on the song. Is this a trick by me or a gift?
This song was recorded live in 1967 at the Monterey Pop Festival by the Mamas and the Papas. The Beatles also previously recorded, and wrote, the song.
For answers to the above questions one can go to this Wikipedia Link—List of The Beatles songs
Michael Moore Goes After…Himself?
Posted by Cam Cannon in Entertainment, Politics, michael moore on October 2nd, 2009
Last weekend, Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott reviewed, among other films, Michael Moore’s latest farce, “Capitalism: A Love Story.” I don’t know their track records or political leanings, but Phillips for one noticed that Michael Moore is growing tiresome. He didn’t mention the blatant hypocrisy of a multi-millionaire who has reaped the benefits of capitalism calling for its demise, but still, he’s getting tired of the schtick, which leaves me hopeful.
A.O. Scott raved about the movie, and I agree on one hand that Michael Moore has finally chosen the most logical topic for his kind of film. At least Michael Moore has the nerve to finally say it: he doesn’t like capitalism. It’s absurd, it’s ridiculous, it’s akin to Lieutenant Kaffee rising and sleeping under the very blanket of freedom that Colonel Jessep provides, then questioning the manner in which he, Colonel Jessup, provides it. I’m sure Goldman Sachs would rather Mikey just thank them and go on his way… but I digress…
Scott said something at the end of his review that made me mutter “typical liberal.” To paraphrase, he said that we should all see this movie even if we disagree with Moore. Again, I don’t know if he’s a liberal. He did say he wasn’t sure if he agreed with Moore or not.
My problem with this sentiment, even from someone who’s unsure of whether they agree with Moore or not, is that it fails to acknowledge that Moore’s work is propaganda. Furthermore, why do I need to see it? It’s just a movie. No one ever gets real serious and says to a liberal, “Even if you disagree with Ann Coulter, you should read her latest column.” And that’s what Moore’s movies are, commentary, the cinematic equivalent of a column.
Roger Ebert prefaced his latest Michael Moore interview with a similar disclaimer: “Whether or not you agree with Michael Moore, he has one piece of invaluable advice in his new film…” Moore goes on to explain derivatives and the stock market crash, and included in the interview is this non-sequitur:
One guy comes to the table and takes nine slices of the pie and everybody else at the table has to split the last slice. That’s not democracy; that’s not what Jesus said. All the great religions actually say the same thing, they all have the same basic beliefs about how to treat the poor and how the rich are not to suck everything up and make life miserable for everybody else.
There’s no real preface to this illustration, but a couple of things stand out to me. One, the illustration has nothing to do with Democracy. He’s confusing his targets here, and we’re not a Democracy, anyway. Two, he brings up Jesus. How come he gets away with that, and conservatives don’t?
My real problem with liberal attacks on capitalism, and I don’t need to see Moore’s MOVIE to know this, is that they’re not really attacking capitalism. They’re attacking greed. They say they want to regulate Wall Street, but they really think we can get rid of greed. This is, at best, naïve. Let’s regulate and eliminate lust, sloth, envy, pride, wrath, and gluttony while we’re at it. I know, Mike. That last one hurts, huh?
Daily Gut: Letterman’s Jokebag Has Gotten Smaller
Posted by Greg Gutfeld in Entertainment, News on October 2nd, 2009
So David Letterman just admitted on his Thursday show that someone had been blackmailing him for $2 million. That someone apparently claimed he had information on the comic doing “creepy things.” Instead of paying up, however, Letterman set him up – and the blackmailer, a CBS producer, was promptly arrested.
Now, a lot of people are laughing at the sweet irony of it all: a comedian who makes millions poking fun at the predilections of politicians gets nailed for a few of his own (I`m dying to know why he won`t dismiss the adjective “creepy;” whatever he was doing must make Marv Albert blush).
But I`m not one of those people.
And before I defend him, let me say that I find Letterman especially dour. I worshipped him in the 1980`s – back when he truly was a gifted, experimental talent. But over time, he`s morphed into a grumpy, partisan ogre.
Here`s my defense: he could have afforded to pay the guy off, and no one would have known. Two million is but a small fraction of his wealth – a marginal price for a rich man to pay to protect oneself from humiliation. But despite knowing that that he`d be called a hypocrite for all those jokes about Clinton, Sanford and everyone else he`s mocked – he went public. He did what every person should do: he followed the law.
For all of you taking special glee in this, ask yourself: what would you have wanted him to do? Pay the guy off, and continue life as a veiled hypocrite – screwing around with staffers while insulting politicians for doing the same thing? No – nailing the extortionist immediately and publicly makes Letterman the butt of his own jokes, and makes it especially difficult for him to make jokes about perversion and infidelity in the future.
That`s fine by me.
Especially when those photos from my vacation in Cabo come to light (I believe I was drugged).
dun DUN: Rene Balcer Murdered ‘Law & Order’
Posted by John Nolte in Entertainment, Politics on October 1st, 2009
When “Law & Order” first hit the airwaves in September of 1990, I was an immediate fan. The concept, the ignoring of the personal lives of the lead characters, the wonderful acting and especially the endless plot twists hooked me a few seasons before the public would catch on and make the show a regular ratings hit. The first four seasons are among four of the best ever produced for dramatic television, thanks mainly to Michael Moriarty’s exceptional work as Assistant District Attorney Ben Stone, a resourceful, Robert F. Kennedy-style hard-nosed prosecutor determined to see justice done (though the whole cast was top-notch).
After 88 episodes Moriarty left, Sam Waterston (one of my favorite actors) took his place, and while the show was never quite the same, it remained regular viewing until around 2002.
The program’s eventual deterioration was a case study in the boiling frog theory. The quality of the production and acting remained, but the politics slowly shifted to the far left almost without my noticing. And it wasn’t the actual politics that first became apparent; it was the negative effect of those politics on the quality of the storytelling.
The fun of the show, especially in those early seasons, was that you never knew how the story would end. Certainly, there were political moments, but the overriding theme of every episode was the determination of smart, dedicated people who carried a respect for the law doing their best to bring the guilty to justice. This was what the show was “about,” the agenda was to tell a helluva story, therefore the plot could go anywhere, and did.
But as the year 2000 closed in, this agenda slowly turned more towards the political, making the plot-twists predictable to the point that once the detectives interviewed a white businessman or anyone wearing a crucifix, the game was pretty much over. This all-too common phenomenon in all branches of fictional storytelling today is what I call the “Liberal Tell,” and the “Liberal Tell” sucks the suspense out of everything. Simply put: Once you understand the politics of the entertainment industry, you know the story can only conclude one way.
Living with the “Liberal Tell” is much easier than living with the “Leftist Sucker Punch,” and after September 11th, “Law & Order” went off the rails. Increasingly, and from out of nowhere, one of the show’s characters would invariably launch a jarring partisan shot at President Bush, the Iraq War, or the Patriot Act… and things quickly got to the point where sitting and waiting for the sucker shot made it impossible to relax and get lost in the show.
Last week, and for the first time in 6 or 7 years, I tuned in for a new episode. Someone tipped me that the season premiere revolved around the indictment of the Bush Administration, specifically Dick Cheney, for the so-called “Torture Memos.” The episode was titled “Memos from the Darkside.” Here’s a synopsis:
When young war veteran Greg Tanner is found murdered in a Hudson University parking garage, Detectives Cyrus Lupo (Jeremy Sisto) and Kevin Bernard (Anthony Anderson) connect the murder to law professor Kevin Franklin (Guest Star David Alan Basche), an attorney who formerly worked for the Department of Justice. But when the case is brought to court, it seems Tanner (Guest Star Creighton James) may have been more affected by the war than his discharge stated. Lupo and Bernard find that the pieces start to fit when Franklin’s memos from the Bush Administration are leaked.
Well, that’s only half the story. Jack McCoy (Waterston, who’s been promoted to D.A. since I last watched) loses the murder case against the law professor/former Justice Department lawyer and decides to prosecute him for writing the “Torture Memos,” which outlined the legalities involved in the enhanced interrogation of terrorists. Essentially, McCoy tries to put a lawyer in jail for interpreting the law at the request of his boss.
The episode is worse than partisan, it’s stupid. You don’t have to be Clarence Darrow to understand that interpreting the law isn’t illegal but McCoy’s malicious prosecution probably is.
Worse than that, the show was awful. And this may not be the case every week, but on this particular episode everyone’s acting meter was broke (including the normally reliable Waterston), the score was over-the-top with melodrama and the story was ludicrous to the point of intelligence-insulting.
The show’s theme was also the very worst one any storyteller can choose: Sanctimony. McCoy’s unbearable superiority and smugness penetrates every scene. It was like listening to George Clooney accept an Oscar for an hour.
So what happened to this once must-see show whose ratings last season were less than half of their 2001 peak?
In two words: Rene Balcer.
Balcer not only co-wrote last week’s “Indict Cheney” episode, he’s been the show’s executive producer since 1996, and judging from this 2005 interview, what he calls “the so-called War on Terror” seems to have affected his approach to the show. He has nothing but contempt for the Bush Administration’s efforts to keep us safe and isn’t shy in stating how his show is used to promote his Bush Derangement propaganda:
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
“There’s a balance, but anyone who’s been watching knows our best shows make the public question what’s going on. We don’t necessarily give them the answers, but we do encourage them to question what’s going on.”
Balcer truly does believe television can sway the way people think. Later in the interview he actually claims, quite seriously, that the use of torture as a dramatic device on “24” could influence an Iraqi insurgent to torture an American soldier.
And if you’re wondering if Balcer’s Leftist extremism extends only to national security, here’s another video where he complains about the L.A. Times and New York Times not being liberal enough:
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
–
Using “Law & Order” as his own personal Leftist-Wet-Dream-Machine is not only an abuse of the public airwaves, it tarnishes the legacy of a once great show and insures it will limp off the field remembered as just another “liberal Hollywood” punchline.