–

The ad was selected out of 1,000 entries, as part of Obama’s “Health Care Reform Video Challenge.”  Ironically, instead of showcasing real people who suffer under the current health-care structure, the judges hand picked an ad that is all showbiz and zero substance.  They chose to go with fake health-care horror stories read by adorable but soppy kid actors — pawns in a political high-stakes game of shocksploitation. These kids obviously don’t have dire health care problems;  they just have showbiz parents who hooked them up with a gig.

Don’t be too surprised — Hollywood has lent Obama an ever-willing hand.  The judges were comprised of a celebrity panel that reads like the Hollywood Squares: Rosario Dawson, musician Will.I.Am., Brandon Routh, Kate Walsh and Olivia Wilde, and raunchy “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane. When you think America’s health-care solutions — you want to call in Seth MacFarlane, right?!

In American politics there is a cardinal rule:  if you must use a personal story to advance an ideology or an issue, be sure it is true.  When a President stands before the public and uses names of real people with real problems to advance an agenda, he makes a point through presenting solid evidence — life lessons.  Reagan did it, Clinton did it, George W. Bush did it… and there’s nothing wrong with it if it is true.

Not only did the Obama team ignore the facts, they ignored any input by average Americans.  When you ask a glitzy Hollywood panel to come up with your health-care message, don’t be surprised if they enlist a reality TV has-been director of stoner movies.   What is surprising in all this is that ads that deal with highly sensitive political messages are normally carefully focus-grouped in front of an audience of regular Americans.  This is done so they have the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns about vitally important policy decisions.

Apparently, no one at the White House or the DNC were bothered much with grassroots concerns in this case (after all, DNC Chair Tim Kaine was on the judging panel). If they did, they would hear more about the economy — according to the latest Gallup poll 51% think the economy should be the President’s main focus, only 21% said health care. It all begs the question:  if you have to make it all up with actors, what are you really saying?  Perhaps a better question in this case: what are they smoking?

The actress tells The New York Times that her movie “Jennifer’s Body” tanked because “the movie is about a man-eating, cannibalistic lesbian cheerleader, and that pretty much eliminates middle America.”

Actually, Megan, that pretty much eliminates anyone with an ounce of taste. Here’s more on the movie’s plot via IMDB:

Nerdy, reserved bookworm Needy and arrogant, conceited cheerleader Jennifer are best friends, though they share little in common. They share even less in common when Jennifer mysteriously gains an appetite for human blood after a disastrous fire at a local bar. As Needy’s male classmates are steadily killed off in gruesome attacks, the young girl must uncover the truth behind her friend’s transformation and find a way to stop the bloodthirsty rampage before it reaches her own boyfriend Chip.

Oh my stars! This has Oscar and Golden Globe written all over it, and Middle American schlubs who shop at Walmart and enjoy a night out at Applebee’s couldn’t appreciate the delicate nuances of a man-eating, cannibalistic lesbian cheerleader? Well, that’s the hoi polloi for you.

A decent movie must have meat. Unfortunately in this one, it looks like Megan Fox ate it all.

I guess it didn’t occur to Megan, though, that gratuitously badmouthing many of the people who make your career possible isn’t exactly the best way to win fans apart from hormonally-charged young men. Here’s what she said about those same losers back in June, whilst Americans were breathlessly awaiting the cinematic triumph that rivaled “Gone with the Wind” called “Transformers 2″:

When asked how she would stop the ruthless Megatron from demolishing the world, Fox first said that she would “barter with him.” She then, however, went on to say, “… and instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?”

Yep, there’s nothing like talking smack about a large portion of the movie-going audience, who work hard for the money that goes toward those $10 movie tickets. Remember, “artists” like Megan exist on a much higher plane than you and me, so they don’t have to worry about things like getting “value for your money” and can therefore spend a lot of time belittling the social mores of the very communities from whence most of them came. Burn those bridges, baby!

She must not brag too much about being born and raised in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Sounds a bit too “down home,” if you know what I mean. The poor dear attended a Christian high school and at the ripe old age of 15 was not yet a feminist! Thankfully she escaped that horrible place and went to Hollywood, where being a celebrity means you can do anything you want as long as the words “moral” or “tasteful” aren’t attached to it.

In her rant about “Jennifer’s Body,” Fox also takes a swipe at all the jealous females out there:

And other women hate her because “women tear each other apart. Girls think I’m a slut, and I’ve been in the same relationship since I was 18. The problem is, if they think you’re attractive, you’re either stupid or a whore or a dumb whore. The instinct among girls is to attack the jugular.”

I agree that there is a tendency for women to “attack the jugular,” as Fox puts it, when they are feeling envious or threatened. (Sarah Palin might have a word or two to say about that.) However, an actress of Fox’s caliber can rest assured that most of the criticism leveled at her has less to do with her looks and more to do with her severe limitations as an actress. Meryl Streep she ain’t.

I wonder why she is worried about being labeled a slut, considering her own take on women in Hollywood:

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: You’ve only done a couple of movies, so you’re still mostly known as a sex symbol rather than an actress.

MEGAN FOX: It doesn’t bother me. I don’t know why someone would complain about that. That just means that the bar has been set pretty low. People don’t expect me to do anything that’s worth watching. So I can only be an overachiever. I think all women in Hollywood are known as sex symbols. That’s what our purpose is in this business. You’re merchandised, you’re a product. You’re sold and it’s based on sex. But that’s okay. I think women should be empowered by that, not degraded.

So if other women think you’re a slut, Megan, remember: you should feel empowered, not degraded or insulted, by the label.

Reviews on “Jennifer’s Body” linked over at Rotten Tomatoes were mixed. Here’s part of one that caught my eye:

Jennifer is dead-eyed and impassive, but a good actress might yet have played her in a lively, knowing way. Fox’s dead-eyed impassiveness seems all too much her own.

Sorry, Megan, that wasn’t written by a Middle American or a woman, but a Brit named Edward Porter. Will the inhabitants of the UK be next on your list of people to insult?

But what do I know? As a female who isn’t a particular fan, it’s obviously because I’m jealous of her fabulous body and big-time Hollywood career. I must be one of those know-nothing Middle Americans.

See you at Applebee’s.

Being a celebrity means never having to account for your actions. At least, that’s the impression I get from this story:

Hollywood actress and PETA spokeswoman Dominique Swain has reportedly been caught dumping unvaccinated puppies at an animal shelter.

Swain, 29, arrived at a Malibu refuge with her father and a box of eight-week-old cocker spaniel cross dogs over the weekend, reports claim.

Swain’s claim to fame, for those of you who don’t know (and I didn’t), was her role as Dolores “Lolita” Haze in the 1997 remake of “Lolita,” as well as a bunch of other films I’ve never heard of.  She also bared it all for one of those slutty “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” ads for PETA.

When she dumped the puppies off, she was asked for a donation to cover their vaccinations but she claimed she didn’t have any money, despite the fact that she arrived in a snazzy BMW. 

“She was really rude. Eventually she said she would make a small donation, but just left the pups there and drove off.”

The article doesn’t say where Swain got the puppies; I am going to assume her own dog was the mother. What, she could’t afford to get her dog spayed when she could afford an expensive imported car? She didn’t have any friends or family members who wanted a cute, cuddly puppy?

Now obviously, dumping puppies at a shelter is not the same as wearing a fur coat. I guess we can be thankful she didn’t take the Cruella deVil route. But since Swain seems to worry about needless killing of animals, does she not wonder what will happen to those puppies if no one adopts them? Or is it a matter of the puppies being unable to advance her career the same way posing nude for PETA did?

According to a statement from PETA, Swain has not worked with the group for years. Which is probably why she just dumped them on the shelter, rather than euthanize them and toss them in a dumpster behind a Piggly Wiggly grocery store. She must not be on the internal distribution list.

PETA’s record on placing shelter animals is pretty pathetic: Despite taking in nearly $30 million each year, it put to death 90 percent of the dogs and cats it took in over a five-year period. I guess activists are too busy dressing up like chickens in front of McDonald’s and handing out “unhappy meals” to scare children and comparing eating meat to the Holocaust to try to find homes for these animals.

Swain isn’t the first celebrity airhead to shill for PETA and then do something completely opposite. Shanna Moakler (again, who???) appeared in a video extolling the virtues of vegetarianism, and then was photographed picking out a juicy steak at a swank NYC restaurant. And Polish model Joanna Kruper hates fur but loves leather.

But if PETA recruited brainiacs to represent them, they probably wouldn’t get too many takers.

Hugo Chavez: Toast of the Venice Film Festival

When you and I picture life under Obama’s vision for America, we see a dreary existence spent in breadlines, drab apartments and small jail cells with rat cages strapped to our face conditioning us to say “Herstory” instead of “History.” These Castro-lovers and Polanski-defenders see something completely different.

Watch “The Lives of Others.” Not only is it one of the best films of the decade, it also answers the opening question. You’ll see how life under fascism is the complete fulfillment of every narcissistic desire Susan Sarandon, Barbra Streisand, Oliver Stone, Sean Penn and the rest of their sorry lot has ever had.

Leftist Hollywood is not driven by wealth or artistic freedom, they’re driven by status and the insatiable need to be unconditionally adored. Unfortunately for them, as actors in America, status and adoration is tied to awards and the size of the paycheck – in other words competition and a free market – which they hate. But that’s the least of their worries. All this messy American capitalism forces our favorite artistes into the undignified position of having to beg for money in order to have the millions necessary to watch themselves be all artistic on the big screen, and all this messy American free expression allows people like you and me to criticize and ridicule their hard self-serving work.

Not so under a dictatorship.

The way they see it, with the right dictator, the State would hand them money for film projects and jail anyone who criticized them in print or elsewhere. Hugo Chavez shutting television stations down doesn’t horrify Leftist Hollywood, it makes them giddy.

Certainly the days of the $20 million pay check and multiple homes would be over, but that would come as a relief because status wouldn’t be tied to uncontrollable market forces. There would be no more stressing all weekend hoping those idiot hicks in Middle America make it a box office hit. As long as the State was happy with the product, the State would hand out status like welfare checks in the form of dinner parties, awards, nice apartments and “important” projects.  

But what about artistic freedom, you might ask…

These Leftists enjoy complete artistic freedom now and what do they do with it? They flack for the state, undermine liberty and trash religion. All any fascist dictator would have to say is, “Carry on.”

– 

The AP:

“Edward Woodward, the star of films including “Breaker Morant” and “The Wicker Man,” died Monday. He was 79.

“Woodward, who starred at “The Equalizer” on television, died in a hospital in Cornwall after an illness, said Janet Glass of the Eric Glass Ltd. agency in London.

“He won an Emmy Award in 1990 for “Remembering World War II” and a Golden Globe in 1987 for “The Equalizer,” which ran for 88 episodes from 1985 to 1989 on the U.S. network CBS.

–

“In a career that began in 1946 in a regional production of “A Kiss for Cinderella,” Woodward played roles in productions ranging from the popular British soap opera “Eastenders” to productions of Shakespeare, and at least 40 films for theater or television.

“His last film appearances were in “Hot Fuzz” in 2007 and “Congregation of Ghosts,” now in post-production.

“He also recorded several albums including “Love is the Key” in 1977 and “The Jewel that was Ours” in 1994.”

Read the full article here.

When it comes to celebrating Christmas, actor Jim Carrey says he prefers the “Christian” traditions he and many other people in America grew up on as children.

“I’d hate to miss Christmas,” he added.

Carrey, who gives a remarkable performance in A Christmas Carol, the new brilliant masterpiece of the beloved novel by Charles Dickens from Disney and Writer/Director Bob Zemeckis, spoke about the movie at a recent press conference Movieguide attended in Los Angeles.

At the conference, Carrey also noted that he loves redemptive stories like A Christmas Carol.

“Everyone loves a good transformational story,” Carrey said. “You know, somebody who sees the light, who finally finds out what’s important in life. And, this is one of the greatest ones ever written. It’s just a beautiful story of redemption.”

“It might be the greatest time travel story ever written in the English language,” added Zemeckis, who’s also known for his entertaining time travel stories in the 80s, the Back to the Future trilogy.

“This story definitely influenced my other time travel stories,” he said.

Zemeckis also said he thinks A Christmas Carol is a perfect story for the motion capture process he used to good effect in The Polar Express and lesser effect in Beowulf. This process involves actors performing entire scenes while hooked up to computers that can record their every movement. Once recorded, that’s when the animators, working with computers and other animation technology take over.

Zemeckis noted, “The book hadn’t been realized before in the way that it was actually imagined by Dickens as he wrote it. I said, okay, this could be a perfect way to take a classic story everyone is familiar with and re-envision it in a new and exciting way.”

And indeed, the movie, which should become a Christmas classic, brilliantly takes moviegoers back to a bygone era, Victorian London, with amazingly detailed set designs.

The motion capture technology also allows the filmmakers and actors to interact in new ways with the world envisioned by Zemeckis through Dickens, including the wonderful special effects of ghosts, spirits, and supernatural events that Dickens describes.

In the past, some have complained that the motion capture technology makes human actors too wooden, but, here, Zemeckis, Carrey, Gary Oldman (who plays the crucial roles of Bob Cratchit and Jacob Marley), and the animators do a wonderful job of bringing life and true humanity to their characters.

It also helps that Carrey not only plays Scrooge, the misanthropic protagonist. He also plays the Ghost of Christmas Past and the Ghost of Christmas Present, who teach Scrooge some invaluable lessons.

And, Carrey also plays the silently menacing and terrifying Ghost of Christmas Yet-To-Come, who teaches the miserly, hateful Mr. Scrooge the horrors that await him if he doesn’t change his ways.

The fact that the movie is animated helps Carrey, Zemeckis, and the animators carry off the scenes between Scrooge and the spirits without stretching credulity.

Such a disconnect often happens in live action movies with lots of special effects where, all too often, the actors don’t seem to be in the same room or location as the special effects surrounding them.

“Certain aspects of the technology make things easier,” Carrey noted, “to get a lot of scenes done, to do a lot of material at once. A lot of aspects make it hugely easier to create the world you want.

“For an actor, there are actually challenges. You have to create the ambiance and the belief in your surroundings in your head. But, once you go into it, the process is very comfortable, and Bob [Zemeckis] was great.”

Zemeckis added, “I loved every morning I got to come in and I’d say, ‘Jim, who do you feel like today?’

About playing Scrooge, Carrey said, “I wanted to have that feeling that causes rheumatism, that eventually will eat you alive from inside. I based the character from the get-go on the lies that we believe about ourselves. Obviously, Scrooge felt he was unworthy of love, so why should love exist for anybody?”

Carrey also said that doing all the different roles in the movie, including the younger versions of Scrooge, was “a dream come true” for him, including the physicality required for playing Scrooge and the three spirits.

It is the three spirits who teach Scrooge the real reason for the season, Jesus Christ and his salvation message of love, in this terrific, beautiful, powerful family movie.

A Christmas Carol is one of the few movies that Movieguide considers a “must see,” not only for people who love movies but also for people of faith and values.

The film, set to bow at the Starz Denver Film Festival this weekend and already airing on Showtime, does offer more than just those recycled themes. It’s an occasionally fascinating look into the modern actor’s mindset as well as the anger the general public feels when they hear celebrities pontificating on events of the day.

Director Barry Levinson

We’re also given a peek at the passions driving some celebrities to speak out on the issues. Yet the film is emblematic of Hollywood productions which strain to achieve balance but come up mostly empty.

The bulk of the film features liberal celebrities from the Creative Coalition, a nonpartisan group, maneuvering around last year’s Democratic National Convention in Denver.

The group itself may not choose sides, but we see plenty of footage of its actors beaming as President-elect Barack Obama speaks. And when some of those celebrities pack their bags for the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, they look as if they’re preparing for a funeral.

“She’s All That” actress Rachael Leigh Cook is forlorn when she realizes Republicans will be invading her Minnesota hometown. “But what can you do?” she asks with a shrug.

Maybe, if you’re part of a nonpartisan coalition, you go and learn what people who disagree with you think about politics.

Levinson, who conducts one interview wearing an Obama knit cap, complains about the rise of flash over substance while watching Gov. Sarah Palin’s appearance at the RNC. But he has nothing to say about similar hoopla surrounding Sen. Obama or his throng of admirers.

“Poliwood” takes a half-hearted stab at defending actors for being out of touch elites who don’t understand how reg’lar folks think. Levinson lets actor Matthew Modine shares memories of back breaking work of his youth and the pride he felt in a job well done.

That’s wonderful, and it’s likely many of today’s stars worked just as hard – or harder – before fame and fortune came calling. But living in a cocoon of fame and wealth for an extended period can change a person’s perspective, sometimes radically.

When Jennifer Lopez sang, “I”m still Jenny from the block,” was anyone buying it?

A few celebrities acquit themselves well regarding their right to speak out, including Susan Sarandon, Ellen Burstyn and Modine.

Aging political troubadours David Crosby and Stephen Still ramble on in platitudes that add nothing to the debate and only support those who say celebrities should keep their yaps shut.

“Poliwood’s” focus keeps shifting, robbing whatever potency the film essay might have had otherwise. Levinson detours into a conversation about how the mainstream news is getting too bogged down in tabloid fare and often exploits story lines that tell us little about the way government works.

The film also takes time to savage Joe the Plumber for overstepping his bounds by acting as a war correspondent for PJTV. And yet the entire film is about celebrities who, one could argue, overstep their bounds every day by talking about matters they’re not well versed in.

A few scenes prove pure dynamite, like watching pollster Frank Luntz gently lecture some Coalition members about the harsh words they use in trying to sway the masses. Before Luntz can finish, actors Josh Lucas and Gloria Reuben nearly jump out of their seats, both recoiling at being told their methods might not be effective.

Even better, listen as actress Lynn Whitfield shares why she won’t be joining her Coalition peers at the RNC. “I don’t have the skill to communicate with people who have hurt my feelings so deeply,” she says.

Anne Hathaway makes a valid point that often journalists will ask an actor about a political topic even though the actor had no intention of of discussing the subject.

We almost get a reason to applaud the celebrities and their outspoken ways when director Spike Lee nails New York Governor David Paterson with a tough, but fair, question about city school funding. Paterson can’t come up with an answer, but the liberals in attendance, including Lee, simply laugh at the governor’s awkwardness and the question is dropped.

The Creative Coalition co-produced “Poliwood” but the film does it few favors even if it proves intermittently enlightening.

So when Andrew Breitbart asked me if I’d interview Carrie about her new book, Still Standing, out November 9 from Regnery, I chuckled and thought: The liberal faithful will think this is perfect: One “fanatical homophobe” interviewing another. 

Except that they would be wrong.

In case you’ve been living under a rock this year, Carrie Prejean is the former Miss California who became an accidental lightning rod in the spring. At a glitzy pageant held April 19 at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Carrie appeared poised to be crowned Miss USA. But during the final segment of the contest, a Q&A with pageant judges, Carrie drew as her questioner the gay gossip aficionado, Perez Hilton. 

Ignoring the longstanding pageant tradition of steering clear of politically charged questions, Hilton launched this salvo: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?” 

Keeping her mega-watt smile picture-perfect, Carrie revealed no outward hint of concern. But inside, she writes in Still Standing, “it was as though I could feel time slowing down; as if silence was screaming in my ears…I had to break that silence with my answer – and I had to do it now…” 

“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other…” Carrie answered. “And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman…” 

And with that, a 22-year-old lifelong athlete who works with developmentally disabled children became the global poster-child for virulent “homophobia.” Within 24 hours, a histrionic Hilton had called her a “dumb bitch,” then corrected himself, saying he wished he’d called her a “c**t.” Immediately, pundits and bloggers who use typically their media platforms to decry “hate” napalmed Carrie with every hateful invective from “bigot” to “Nazi.” One British politician even issued a televised death threat. 

I know a little about what that’s like. In late September, HarperCollins announced that it had bumped up the publication date for Sarah Palin’s memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life, to November 17. As Sarah’s collaborative writer, I suddenly became a target (the left having running out of original ways to insult the former Alaska governor herself.) 

Andrew Sullivan, who blogs at The Atlantic’s website, read my arguments in favor of traditional marriage, and summarily crowned me a “fanatical homophobe.” Others, to use Perez Hilton’s term, followed suit. 

Had Sullivan bothered to reach out for a reasoned dialogue, I might’ve shared with him that my sister Lori, an articulate, politically active lesbian on the progressive left, has had with me some pretty productive discussions on gay marriage. That for me, it’s about more than “the Bible tells me so”; it’s about the collision of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 

I might’ve shared with Sullivan that the maid of honor at my wedding was my best friend, CM, and her longtime lesbian partner. Sure CM looked a little athletic schlepping down the aisle in her 1980’s tea-length, peach satin dress with dyed-to-match pumps. But then neither one of us walks like Carrie Prejean. 

…Who, incidentally, learned her sexy pageant walk from a gay man. 

Let’s face it ladies, nobody can work a pair of pumps like the right gay man. And it was an openly gay man named Jim (whom Carrie describes in Stilling Standing as “wonderful”) who transformed her from lanky athlete to slinky siren, and taught her not to lope across the pageant stage like a giraffe. And it was also a gay man, Keith Lewis, who courted Carrie to compete for Miss California, then Miss USA – a man Carrie thought at the time had her best interests at heart. 

See, the irony is that people like Carrie and I can be confidantes and even best friends with the gays and lesbians in our lives. We can be in mentoring relationships, like Carrie and Jim. We can collaborate on ideas, as I did with “Anlir,” a gay commenter whose ideas I often adopted when I managed World Magazine’s evangelical-focused blog. We can even be accepting of our family members’ sexuality. 

But if we dare to differ on the issue of gay marriage, then the truth about our actual relationships with gays and lesbians is ignored, liberals’ clairvoyant “insight” into our hearts and minds is substituted as fact, and our protestations are filed mockingly under the “some of my best friends” defense. 

If, on the institution of marriage, we say publicly that we believe the same thing as voters in 31 states – in every state, in fact, where gay marriage has been put on the ballot – then we become targets who must be defamed and destroyed. 

Sadly, snap judgment and name-calling would once have been uncharacteristic for Andrew Sullivan. My good friend Anita Palmer, former managing editor of Eternity, an evangelical monthly, told me she was a huge fan of Sullivan’s laser-like reasoning back when he wrote for The New Republic. 

“He was acerbic, but brilliantly logical, almost irrefutable in that succinct, British way that was just a joy to read,” Anita told me at Starbucks the other day. Her tone was wistful; she missed that Andrew Sullivan, she said. 

Carrie and I both long for the Sullivan of old – and for more people like my sister Lori – who would be willing to chuck name-calling and personal destruction in favor of reasoned, civil debate. 

*****

Lynn Vincent:  Okay, let’s just get the “sex tape” elephant out of the room. When I read about this I thought, “You know what, this isn’t really a ‘sex tape’ as we’ve come to think of sex tapes when they break in the media.”  What are your thoughts on that? 

Carrie Prejean:  Well, there is a video that is out there, and I’m not proud of it and I was very immature at the time. People can call it whatever they want to call it. But it’s definitely not a sex tape. But it’s still the worst mistake I’ve ever made. 

LV:  So I was thinking about this and I thought, “Okay, she was probably with her boyfriend and they were, you know, together and he was filming her…”

CP:  Well, let’s just get that thing taken care of. There was no one else in the room with me. I was by myself. It was for a boyfriend at the time, who I trusted and we were dating at the time. So, I think that definitely needs to get cleared up. 

LV:  So you made the tape and you shared it with this boyfriend. 

CP:  Well at the time, I guess I thought I was being a good girlfriend. 

LV:  I think in the flap copy of your book and in other places, it talks about you being a role model for young Christian women, so there will be people who say that you’re a hypocrite. What’s your response to that? 

CP:  Well, it’s definitely not something that I’m proud of, like I said. And, you know I still think that I am a role model. I think that we’re all sinners – we all make mistakes. The only perfect person is God, and I know that He forgives me….I’m forgiven for the things that I’ve done and how many of us want to share the most horrible mistake that you’ve ever made with complete strangers? Even talking about this right now with you is extremely uncomfortable. And, you know, we all make mistakes, we all do things we’re not proud of. But what matters most is who we are now and who I am now is someone that is a strong, strong person and I’m still standing. The bottom line is who I am today, and that’s a strong woman who defended traditional marriage, and that’s the only reason why we’re really even discussing this right now. 

LV:  Right. And so, in terms of a role model, I think you could say that some of the lessons we teach as role models arise from mistakes we’ve made. That’s how we get our experience. 

CP:  Right. And I think that now I can definitely teach younger girls, don’t ever do something [sexually inappropriate], even when you’re in love and you think that he’s Mr. Right and you “know” nothing will come out, because everything that you do – all the choices that you make – will affect you in the long run. Did I think when I was seventeen that…when I was twenty-two years old and in the spotlight, that the choices that I made then would come out now? No. But, that’s why young women need to learn from this. They need to really think about what they’re doing and make the right decisions and don’t ever do something that you wouldn’t want your pastor, your mother, your father, or your friends to see. Nothing is private anymore in this world, unfortunately. 

LV:  How did you feel about your opponents in this lawsuit presenting you with material that you recorded when you were a minor, in order to secure a favorable outcome for themselves in this lawsuit? 

CP:  Well, I’m not really going to be discussing anything that happened in mediation because I signed a legal agreement. It seems as if I’m the only one sticking to that agreement, and I will continue to obey that agreement. So anything that was discussed I’m not able to talk about right now. 

LV:  Well, let’s move onto your book. I was sitting in Starbucks in Del Mar enjoying it the other morning and, at the beginning, you take us right into that moment Perez Hilton asked you the question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant in Las Vegas. Take us to that moment. What were you thinking then? What were you feeling? 

CP:  Well, I just remember being so excited, and that I felt so proud and honored to be representing the state of California. I’d worked hard for this job and I was ready to become Miss USA. I was very confident with public speaking and being able to handle questions under pressure, and I just remember after hearing the question that I couldn’t believe that it was even being asked in a pageant. But I knew that I had to deal with it…but when I began to answer the question I felt as though so much of the hard work and dedication…that I had put into this pageant was just – it was gone…There was no way I was going to win Miss USA if I gave the answer that I gave. And it was worth it to me. It was worth it to be honest and tell the truth rather than to back down to just win Miss USA for the year…I think that was a test. It was a test and we’re all tested at some point in our lives and, you know, I think that I did pass the test. 

LV:  And, you know it was interesting last Tuesday the state of Maine became the 31st state to vote “No” on gay marriage. This time the vote was a bit different in that the state actually repealed a law allowing gay marriage. And this was in a state where voters are widely considered to be moderates and independents. So if you support traditional marriage, and people in Maine support traditional marriage, and people in the thirty other states where this issue has been put on the ballot support gay marriage, why do you think you were so viciously attacked? 

CP:  Well, for one, I think it’s because I was in a pageant…the type of setting where there’s media and there’s the entertainment industry. And I’m a pageant girl – I’m not supposed to have an opinion and I’m not supposed to be intelligent and I’m not supposed to stand up for what I believe. I’m supposed to back down to win this tiara. And when I didn’t do that, I think people were shocked. And when I continued to defend the stand I took, people became frustrated. They knew that they were not able to take me down. They knew I was going to stand by what I said and I wasn’t going to take back what I said – that it was just an honest answer. There was nothing controversial about it. And it is mind-boggling to me that we’re still even talking about this seven months later. It’s not even a controversial issue. The President of the United States agrees with me. Sarah Palin agrees with me. The majority of people in the United States and my state agree with me — that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. 

LV:  One of the things that has been personally dismaying to me is that I have had and do have great relationships with gays and lesbians. But instead of being able to sit down and have a civil discussion about the issues, about gay marriage, about domestic partnerships, about civil unions, with people who feel differently than you and I do, that it always goes into attack mode. It always goes into name-calling. So my question is, if you had a chance to sit down to coffee with some of your critics personally and it was you and them at Starbucks just talking about this issue, what would you say? 

CP:  Well, I want everybody to know that this is not a personal attack. It’s not me hating anyone. I don’t hate anyone. It was just that I was asked a question at a pageant and I had to give an honest answer. I had to be true to myself and I had to be true to the way I was raised. So I would just let them know that this is not a hateful thing against anyone. It’s just a personal opinion, and we are all entitled to our personal opinions. And we should have the right to express our personal opinions. Since when are we not able to give our own opinion when we’re asked? 

LV:  So you’re saying, you should be able to give an answer other than “world peace?” 

CP:  Exactly. You should be able to give an honest answer and not be attacked, not be called every name in the book, not be fired, and not have every single one of your boyfriends being called from your past to see if they’ll give up some dirt. 

LV:  Over the past seven months, is there anything that you would do differently if you had a chance to do it again? 

CP:  No, I really don’t have any regrets. I think that I’ve had a great support team. I’ve had people that I’ve surrounded myself with who are positive, people who give me great advice, who stand with me. You know, I’m not alone in this. My detractors would love to hear me say that I feel alone and I feel sad and I feel miserable. But you know what? I don’t. This was such a learning experience for me and I’m glad I learned these lessons at such a young age. But I’m happy now to just move on with my life. I hope that mothers and daughters and conservatives read my book and feel empowered to express their own personal beliefs and opinions… I hope that I was able to be used in a positive way to give other people encouragement. 

LV:  In your book you write about an old sports trick where you – as a basketball player, for example – you visualize sinking the shot. You said that when you were competing in the Miss USA pageant, you visualized the things you would do to win the competition. 

CP:  Yes. 

LV:  What are you visualizing going forward in your life? 

CP: Well, I always have told myself, ‘you draw the line then you live above it.’ Hopefully other young women can learn from [my experience], not only with the stance that I took in standing up for what you believe, but also that if you do have an opinion, don’t be afraid. Don’t be afraid to say it and stand by it. And if people try and attack you, then so be it. Let them, let them attack you. Let them dig up things from your past. And if you’re faced with a controversy like this [tape], then admit to it. The truth will set you free. 

LV:  Now in Stilling Standing, you dish quite a bit on Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler [both of the Miss California organization.]…You’re pretty tough on them. What will be your response to people who say you used your book to settle scores? 

CP:  The purpose of writing my book was for me to tell my side. I think that was really important. I think the media definitely got a twisted version of what really happened. So it was important for me to set the record straight. As far as Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, I wish them well. This was just my chance to tell my side of the story and to clear some things up. 

LV: I want to touch on the issue of your faith since it’s obviously the defining thread that runs through your life. I was interested to read in your book that at the state level, at the Miss California pageant, the judges actually praised you for talking about your faith. And then you move on to Miss USA and you have your handlers, like Moakler, telling you, “Don’t talk about God! Don’t talk about God!” What was that like for you? 

CP:  That was difficult. It was very difficult. I was dealing with people who didn’t think the same way that I did. So from the very beginning it was a challenge, but I learned to deal with it. 

LV:  One of the things that really struck me in your book was when you describe Keith Lewis really putting his hands on you and sort of sizing you up and touching your body all over to see if he thought that you were in good enough visual shape to compete. It sort of reminded me of – I don’t know – someone sizing up livestock that they were going to buy. Was that humiliating for you? 

CP:  Yes. And I think that was when I really realized the business that I was in and the industry that I was in. And it was shocking to me but, you know, I had to deal with it because I had won the [Miss California] pageant and so I just thought, “Okay, this is just what they do.” Looking back, I think this was their way of telling me, “Okay, you’re ours now and we’re going to mold you and shape you to be who we want you to be. And you will listen to us.” 

LV:  I would imagine that it was a moment where you began kind of thinking, “Oh my goodness, what have I gotten myself into?” 

CP:  Right. Exactly. And that’s what I did think. 

LV:  One of the things that I noticed early in the book was where you talked about one of your early mentors counseling you to just be yourself in these pageants, Carrie. Just be yourself. And certainly you did that when Perez Hilton asked you that question. And yet on some other things, earlier in your pageant career, you sort of allowed yourself to be carried away from that early advice. You know, as though the pageant machine was sort of driving you forward. Can you talk a little bit about how you get caught up in that kind of thing and carried along? 

CP:  In my book you’ll see that I was tested twice.  The first time was when they had asked me not to talk about God anymore and [I didn’t]. It made me feel really uncomfortable… I felt this guilt inside of me knowing that I had not stood up when I could have. I could have said, “No, that’s not right,” or “I don’t agree with you.” But instead I just kind of played it off and ignored the situation. So, I definitely learned from that. 

LV:  So in, I think in a very human way, in those particular situations you were…kind of going along to get along. 

CP:  Right. My main focus was winning Miss USA. I mean, that was my main goal. I’ve always been very competitive and I was just kind of going along with this and saying to myself, “I guess this is just what you’re supposed to be doing.” But there comes a point when you have to draw the line and you have to really be who you are and not let anyone else change you. 

LV:  Young girls are going to continue to look up to you as a role model. What’s your best advice for young girls who want to follow in your footsteps and become a strong woman who stands up for what she believes in? 

CP:  That wherever you get your courage from – mine comes from my faith, my family, my supporters – always have the courage not to be intimidated. Don’t ever feel like you have to be silent for standing up for what you believe in. And that’s what’s so great about this book, Still Standing, is that people will see that I am still standing after what anybody can throw at me. They can throw whatever they want at me. They can call up my old boyfriends and ask them if they have dirt on me. They can come up with pictures of me and attack me, attack my family. That’s fine, they can do all of that, but I am still standing. And I think it infuriates some people that I am. But my advice to young women would be to just be you. Just be who you are and stand up for what you believe.

It’s my guess that a majority of those involved with the NEA — even those few who are talented — are always eager to roll over for left-wing politicians.  Partly it’s because they are so hungry for attention and partly because they lack anything resembling a moral compass. 

Allow me to give you a few notable examples of the way that people who earn their living in the areas of art and entertainment can voluntarily blind themselves to those matters that have moral implications.  Just recently, we got to watch a swarm of Hollywood retards climbing all over themselves in a rush to defend Roman Polanski, a piece of Euro-trash who confessed to having sex with a 13-year-old child.  All sorts of big name, small brain, celebrities lined up to sign petitions on his behalf.  By attesting to his character, they merely confirmed that they lacked any themselves. 

Hollywood is the place where the members of the Motion Picture Academy were once so angry at producer Jack Warner for casting Audrey Hepburn, instead of Julie Andrews, in “My Fair Lady,” that they refused to even nominate Ms. Hepburn for her terrific performance as Eliza Doolittle.  However, proving, as usual, that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote even when politics aren’t involved, these lunkheads then gave the 1964 Oscar for Best Picture to “My Fair Lady,” which enabled the very same Jack Warner to stride onstage to thunderous applause. 

Then there was the matter of Cliff Robertson and David Begelman.  When Robertson, an Oscar-winning actor, discovered that Begelman, the head of Columbia Pictures, had forged his signature on a $10,000 check, he blew the whistle.  After a police investigation, it turned out that Begelman had been financing his gambling habit with a lot of other people’s money, including Judy Garland, whom he had blackmailed.  The upshot was that Robertson had his acting career short-circuited, whereas Begelman, who was only sentenced to community service, was then hired to run MGM. 

Shortly after the scandal occurred, I happened to be having lunch with my agent in a restaurant loaded with Hollywood types.  When Begelman entered, there was such a flurry of people competing for his attention, you could have mistaken them for a covey of Cardinals vying to smooch the Pope’s ring. 

It’s not just actors, directors and producers, who act like dopes.  Consider writer Norman Mailer.  Perhaps because he was the fellow who once tried to settle a domestic dispute by stabbing the second of his six wives, Jack Abbott, who was serving time for bank robbery and murder, decided he’d be the ideal pen pal.  Mailer became so enamored of Abbott’s writing, he not only used his considerable influence to get Abbott’s book, “In the Belly of the Beast,” published, but got this career criminal paroled.  In New York, quite naturally, Abbott became the toast of the literati crowd, but only for a little while because six weeks after his release, Abbott stabbed 22-year-old Richard Adan to death. 

Saving the best for last brings us to Leni Riefenstahl.  In Berlin, in the 30s, as in Hollywood at any time, it wasn’t what you knew but who you knew, and Leni was a chum of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda.  Think of him as the head of Germany’s NEA.  It was Herr Goebbels who helped get her the opportunity to make “Triumph of the Will” and “Olympia,” a couple of over-wrought “documentaries” dedicated to hyping the Third Reich. 

After the end of World War II and for the remaining half of her 101 years, American and European cineastes — the same twerps who do cartwheels over Michael Moore’s propaganda flicks — showered her with honors and acclaim.  This in spite of the fact that although she claimed she wasn’t a Nazi and would barely have recognized Hitler if she’d tripped over him, had said, “To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived.  He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength.”  Sort of sounds like Chris Matthews going on about Obama or Oliver Stone mooning over Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro, doesn’t it? 

In 1993, Riefenstahl had the gall to deny that she deliberately attempted to create pro-Nazi propaganda.  For good measure, she claimed she was disgusted that “Triumph of the Will” was used in such a way.  It was reminiscent of Captain Renault’s shock upon discovering that gambling was taking place in the backroom at Rick’s, all the while pocketing his winnings. 

Having seen her most famous films, I can assure you that unless you cut the movies up into a million little slivers of celluloid and used them for toothpicks, there was no other conceivable use for them except as Nazi propaganda. 

Moreover, in 1934, Riefenstahl said that “Mein Kampf” had made a tremendous impression on her. “I became a confirmed National Socialist after reading the very first page.  I felt a man who could write such a book should undoubtedly lead Germany.  I felt very happy that such a man had come.” 

She was so impressed with the book that she wrote the author a fan letter.  The letter led to a meeting.  The meeting led to her directing “Victory of Faith,” a movie about the fifth Nazi Party rally at Nuremberg.  So much for her claim that she really only knew Hitler from his photos. 

In fact, for someone who spent so many years churning out propaganda films, she was rather inept when it came to lying.  For instance, on one occasion she claimed that she was totally unaware that concentration camps even existed, while another time she swore that she only worked for the Nazis because Goebbels had threatened to send her to a concentration camp if she didn’t cooperate. 

Frankly, what confounds me is why she wasted even a single second lying about her past.  I mean, even if she had been good at it, why bother?  After all, sensible and moral people never believed her self-serving malarkey; and, as for the celebrity crowd, they simply didn’t care.  They never do.

Apparently, reading Jonathan Safran Foer’s book Eating Animals transformed her from a vegetarian to being a full-fledged vegan activist:

I’ve always been shy about being critical of others’ choices because I hate when people do that to me. I’m often interrogated about being vegetarian (e.g., “What if you find out that carrots feel pain, too? Then what’ll you eat?”).

I’ve also been afraid to feel as if I know better than someone else — a historically dangerous stance (I’m often reminded that “Hitler was a vegetarian, too, you know”). But this book reminded me that some things are just wrong. Perhaps others disagree with me that animals have personalities, but the highly documented torture of animals is unacceptable, and the human cost Foer describes in his book, of which I was previously unaware, is universally compelling.

But she somehow managed to overcome those fears and tell you exactly why you should think the way she does. Well done, Natalie!

I have not read the book, so I can’t comment on it in full. But when someone tells you that usually she doesn’t like to be “critical of others’ choices” or come across as if she “knows better than someone else,” you pretty much know that she’s about to be critical of your choices because she knows better than you do.

You know, there are plenty of reasons for being a vegetarian, or a vegan, if you so choose. Some, like Natalie, think eating animals is “mean.” Some people are vegetarian for religious reasons. Others do it because they think it’s a healthy choice and still others because they have difficulty in digesting meat and other animal products. That’s all fine and dandy. I have no problem accepting these personal choices because that’s what they are: personal choices.

I do, however, take issue when others feel the need to lecture the rest of us, intoning, as Natalie does, “We are not them. But, [Jonathan Safran Foer] urges, how will we define who we are?”

How does Natalie define herself? Well, she did sign the Free Roman Polanski petition and, in her HuffPo article, described Safran Foer’s philosophy by saying, “He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma,’ which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don’t believe in rape, but if it’s what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).”

Nice moral equivocation: comparing not wanting to offend meat eaters with not wanting to offend rapists. Almost as charming as PETA comparing eating meat to the Holocaust.

But I’m not a Harvard grad, so perhaps I’m not as familiar with nuance as Natalie is.

Last year, in 10 Questions for Natalie Portman from TIME Magazine, she was asked if she thought Michael Vick should be allowed to play again for the NFL. Her answer:

I think mistreatment and cruelty to animals should be treated with the same seriousness as cruelty to people if not more. Animals are clearly never at fault.

I’m sure the family of 19-year-old Taylor Mitchell, an up-and-coming country music star in Canada, would agree. Mitchell was attacked by two coyotes while hiking solo at a national park in Nova Scotia. Sadly, she died from her injuries. Perhaps the coyotes didn’t like the way Mitchell looked at them. Or maybe they didn’t like her music. After all, animals are never at fault. I wonder: had someone else been there, armed with a gun, and shot the coyotes in order to save Mitchell’s life, would Natalie have decried it as barbaric? When animals attack humans, should we just step aside because nature is taking it’s course? “We are not them,” after all.

Here’s a question, Natalie: If a person and a dog were drowning and you could only save one, who would it be?

And one wonders what her stance on animal research is. Does she agree with PETA, a group that would ban not only eating animals and having them as pets, but all animal testing – even though their own vice president benefits from insulin for her diabetes, which was developed via animal research? Just curious.

Don’t misunderstand: I don’t approve of animal cruelty either, and believe that there should be some level of punishment to offenders – especially as cruelty toward animals is a sign that such barbarism and cruelty can escalate to violence toward people. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, started out by killing animals by impaling them on stakes [shudder]. And I also believe that animals raised for food should not suffer needlessly. Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon concurs:

Portman’s galling assumption is that because most of the modern meat industry is notoriously fast, cheap and out of control, there’s no room for cleaner, more ethical practices. That there’s no distinction between the bird that came from a factory and the one that sustains a family farm. It utterly dismisses the efforts of farmers and consumers alike over the last few years to create a healthier, more locally based culture of eating. There’s certainly no mention of any of that in her article.

During my decade or so as a what I call a Star Trek liberal, I was also a vegetarian. I certainly didn’t grow up that way – as a child, I remember enjoying liverwurst sandwiches and steak tartare. It started out as a “health” thing, but eventually became more. I subscribed to a magazine devoted to vegetarianism, dabbled with all sorts of unusual recipes that took forever to cook, and brought my own main dishes to family dinners and veggie dogs and burgers to cookouts. I’m still teased, nearly a decade later, about the lentil loaf I brought to a holiday meal – Thanksgiving or Christmas; I can’t remember which one.

But being a vegetarian, or a vegan, does not necessarily guarantee good health or a great body. Ever look at Moby? Seriously, despite abstaining from meat (but not eggs or dairy), I struggled for years with the weight that I gained during two pregnancies. So much for health.

And it ain’t cheap to be a vegetarian unless all you eat is rice and beans. I understand Natalie is partial to soy cheese.

Also, looking back, I was very priggish about my vegetarianism and tended to lecture others about the perils of eating meat, how it was bad for you and the planet, blah blah. My older sister would call me on it, but I denied being boorish at the time. But now, I admit she was right. And boy, did I miss liverwurst! Slap some on bread with a thick coating of mayo – mmm, hits the spot.

Here’s what it comes down to: “If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.”  Nothing like “defining who we are” by trying to define who everyone else is, too.

Natalie says it’s not only fine for celebrities to try to influence people on issues like elections, but she might run for office herself one day:

“Maybe I can go into politics once I’m too ugly for Hollywood.”

Just what we need: another holier-than-thou lib running for office. Please, Natalie, stick to acting and leave the decision-making to the individual – as it should be. You don’t want to eat meat? Fine. But leave the rest of us alone.

And before you go, please pass the mayo.