Help me out here. What’s crazier – the abysmal failure the stimulus has been in Los Angeles County (like everywhere else) or how outrageously wasteful the plan was to begin with?

Los Angeles County’s take of stimulus funds is by far the largest in California, which has received $18.5 billion in ARRA funds, intended to create 110,219.36 jobs statewide — a pricey rate of $168,264.08 per job.

But Hollywood is a different story entirely. Hollywood — the geographic Hollywood as found on Thomas Guide map page 593 — has received $23,338,327 in grants, loans and contracting. This money has created just 20.57 jobs. That’s $1,134,580.80 per job. And as interviews with recipients reveal, even that tiny jobs claim is clearly false, with many of the claims of newly created positions either impossible to verify or lower than reported.

Not even 20 full-time jobs have been created in Hollywood proper.

So if the stimulus had worked according to the Federal Government’s plan, $168,264.08 would have been spent to create each job. Again, that was the plan … that would’ve been called a success.

Remember this moment, folks.  November 21, 2009 at 11:30pm.  Over one year after Obama’s election and just more than ten months into his administration, “Saturday Night Live” takes its first crack at Obama for something other than not being left enough.  Splash of ice-cold water here:

The sketch really isn’t pro-conservative as much as it’s anti-Obama.  SNL mocks the stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, the debt Obama is increasing exponentially, and Obamacare’s bogus accounting, not to mention the fact that Fred Armisen’s too-cool-for-school Obama took the night off, but the writers are careful not argue for an alternative.  SNL deftly takes a crack at one side without directly supporting the other side, a tactic “South Park” has down to a science.  The sketch isn’t rock-solid from a policy standpoint, so we will post the clip of the CNN fact check once they air it.

SNL’s “Palin 2012” trailer after the jump:

SNL also took a shot at Sarah Palin last night with a satirical trailer riffing off of Roland Emmerich’s “2012” (which opened last week) where Sarah Palin’s 2012 presidential election leads to Armageddon. Yet, SNL flexes its cunning again by noting “Palin 2012″ is brought to you by the DNC and “the mind of Keith Olbermann.” We figure SNL either intended this to be a dig at the left’s obsession and fear of the Going Rogue author or their way of preempting attacks from media outlets, like, say, this one.  Either way, well played.

The concept for the sketch does seem to fall into the “too good to resist” category, since “2012″ is the title of a blockbuster movie and an election year.  It also wouldn’t make sense that an Obama RE-election would lead to calamity since we will have (presumably) survived his first term, so it figures a Republican would be the subject of the sketch. It’s far from a shocker that SNL chose Palin over other possible 2012 candidates like Romney or Huckabee.  Still, SNL certainly has resisted dozens of obvious Obama jokes over the last couple years, so we’re interested to hear if you give them a pass for this one.

–

Out of context, without all the cheap Palin and Palin-family bashing, as Lopez takes his snarky shot at the Governor’s “inexperience,” you’d swear he was talking about Barack Obama.

NewsBusters has more.

–

Christian Toto:

“The new drama “The Blind Side” tells the story of a homeless black teen who is taken in by a Christian family led by Sandra Bullock.

“It’s a heartwarming story based on the life of NFL lineman Michael Oher.

“So why does the film feel the need to awkwardly squeeze in a slam at former president George W. Bush?”

Get the full details here.

–

Kyle Smith:

Bad dialogue, like bad news, doesn’t get better with age. This movie moves like the line at the post office. “Twilight” — that culture phenomenon that resembles “Star Wars” much as the prime minister of Belgium resembles the president of the United States (respective box office ranks of these two films in their respective decades: 71, 1) pushes its leads apart with thin contrivances that set up predictable last-minute rescues.

Also: Christian Toto interviews some of the actors here.

ABC News spends 2050 words explaining how irresponsible movie theater chains give their customers what they want  slowly kill their customers with fatty, sugary high-caloric snacks: 

Everyone expects to splurge a bit at the movies, but while your wallet may be able to handle an $8 tub of popcorn, your waistline may not — at least according to a new report released today by the consumers group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

Even popcorn did not escape the scrutiny of the report, which mentioned that even a small bag of the cinema favorite tips the scales at 700 calories and three days worth of saturated fat.

It’s not the first time that CSPI has given movie popcorn two thumbs down; the new report is actually a sequel to one in 1994 that gave similar negative reviews. And like the first version, the most recent edition of CSPI’s Nutrition Action Health Letter suggests moviegoers forego that trip to the concession stand altogether.

The report looked at the popcorn, soda and candy sold at the country’s top three movie theater chains: Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Theaters, and Cinemark. The researchers tallied the calories, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium in each theater’s various sizes and combos. Based on their findings, the authors warn the public that their movie-time indulgences may be a lot more indulgent than they bargained for. …

Cinemark notes that these are the “snacks [patrons] desire” and is meant to be “an escape from their everyday lives.”

But nutritionists note that this may be a dangerous escape. Keith-Thomas Ayoob, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, noted that chowing down on cinema’s monstrous portion sizes of this greasy treat and washing it down with a sugary drink can turn even an occasional trip to the movies into a “calorie nightmare,” Ayoob said.

Read between the lines: “…may be a lot more indulgent than they bargained for.” Catnip for trial lawyers. 

Phrases you’re unlikely to hear from ABC News:

• Your remorse after having an abortion might be more than you bargained for…
• The expense of ObamaCare might be more than you bargained for…
• Charlie Gibson’s ignorance about the ACORN story might be more than you bargained for…

Any minute now, Harry Reid will add a provision to the health-care bill making movie snacks illegal, add up the cost savings and declare it budget neutral.