So I headed on down to Shock City Studios in Saint Louis, owned by Chris Loesch, with nothing more than a concept. The idea; what if the founding fathers rose from the dead only to see how badly we’ve screwed things up? What you now see is the fruit of hard working professionals as well as the inability to pay our rap-video sirens in anything more than sandwiches.

Note: No women were actually objectified during the making of this video. Not while they were looking.

—–

Here’s a link to Cherry Tree Media.

Politico:

Sometimes, The Material Girl is the sexually charged songstress posing nude for a coffee table book or dry humping one of her tour dancers. Next, she’s the primly dressed children’s book author trying to be a good role model for her own kids.

This week, the latter piped up to chastise singer M.I.A. for flipping the audience the bird during Madonna’s Super Bowl halftime show.

Madonna has taken to the airwaves to express her disappointment with M.I.A.’s decision to flip the bird at cameras during the halftime show, calling the move a “teenager … irrelevant thing to do.” Madge was chatting with Ryan Seacrest about her performance when he brought up the incident.

To the pop star, the middle finger was simply “out of place” at a show characterized by “such a feeling of love and good energy and positivity.

M.I.A. would have better served the event by making out with another woman, apparently.

One wonders if Madonna has truly learned the error of her shocking ways, or if she’s grumpy people are still talking about M.I.A. and not her.

A brief history of blood libels, courtesy of Wikipedia:

• In England in 1144, the Jews of Norwich were accused of ritual murder after a boy was found dead with stab wounds in the woods. This was followed by similar accusations elsewhere, leading to massacres in London and York. In 1190, “the Norwich Jews were butchered in their homes.”

• In France in 1171, a similar accusation against the Jewish community of Bloise led to the massacre by fire of some 40 Jews.

• In Germany, a boy’s body was found in the Lauter river. Based on “miraculous” evidence that “proved” the Jews had hung the boy by the feet and had opened every artery in his body to obtain the blood, the Jews were executed.

• In Russia in 1820, a Jew in Zverki is accused of kidnapping a six year old boy, draining his blood for nine days and dumping his body. In 1997, “Belorussian state TV showed a film alleging the story is true.”

This is the gist of the blood libel: the belief that Jews kidnap children to drain them of their blood. It didn’t die with the Nazis. It is still in currency today. You have only to turn on Syrian or Egyptian television to see. But American TV? (Spoilers Ahead)

The Feb. 3 episode of “Grimm” began with the body of a teen being found in a river, the corpse drained of three-fourths of its blood. The culprit? A “Geier” named Dr. Levine, who has been kidnapping street kids to kill them for their organs and blood.

Does the name “Geier” sound familiar? Sometime toward the end of the 18th century, Central European governments required Jews to adopt surnames. So at a time when Jews were restricted to marginal occupations, some Jewish money-lenders and merchants were made to take the pejorative name Geier, or vulture: a term used then, as now, to reference avarice or greed.

And what does “Geier” mean in the “Grimm” world?

Here, via Wikipedia’s “Creatures of Grimm”: “Geier are vulture-like creatures. Highly sadistic almost on a satanic level, infamous  for harvesting human organs and blood, [they are] the most vile creatures of all.”

And, in case we don’t get the connection between blood and money, here’s this bit of dialogue from the episode to hammer it home:

Capt. Renard: “Well, whichever way you look at it, it’s cannibalism.”

Sgt. Wu: “Uh, I think it’s pronounced ‘capitalism’.”

Good one, Sgt. Wu. You go get those vulture capitalists. I’m sure you and the National Socialists will be great friends. But why rely on words when pictures will do?

Behold: a screenshot from “Grimm” of a cannibalistic “Geier,” left, beside an anti-Semitic cartoon of a cannibalistic Jew, right:

A “Grimm” drawing of birdlike Geiers tormenting a man, left, next to a detail of birdlike demons tormenting the damned, right. Note the clawed hands and feet in both images, and the claw-like hands in the cartoon above.

Medieval illuminations portraying both Jews and demons as rapacious and bird-like, left. Often Jews were depicted as demons, and demons as Jews, right.

And once again Grimm’s “vulture,” left, beside the Nazi’s Jew, right.

So: am I saying that the “Grimm” writers, rather than coming up with a fresh and unique twist on one of the Grimm Fairy Tales, instead recycled the most vile antisemitic tropes to come out of Europe?

Yes.

1) Based on the choice of the name “Geier,” a pejorative label of a name bestowed upon Jews in Europe, and the pointed reference to vile profit from others’ pain.

2) Based on how closely the appearance of Grimm’s mythical Geier hews to portrayals of demonic Jews in Medieval paintings, as well as to modern anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews.

3) Based on how closely the plot of the story parallels that of the blood libels, including the medieval blood libel of blood-draining, and the modern blood libel of Jewish surgeons as organ thieves (as seen in the anti-Semitic, anti-American Turkish film, “Valley of the Wolves: Iraq”)

4) And based on how, for no other reason, the doctor-who-is-a-Geier still bears the thrice-mentioned, explicitly Jewish name of Levine, in spite of a Latina (Valerie Cruz) being cast in the role.

Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

No matter how the writers will insist — up, down and sideways — that some of their best friends are Jewish. No matter how they or their employers insist that their skin color or heritage or gender or sexual preference or height or weight or allergies makes it impossible for them to have created an anti-Semitic display.

And no matter how they are shocked, shocked to learn that mean racist people, for at least nine hundred years, have used “vulture” as an epithet for “Jew.”

- Anonymous

Instead, the teen heartthrob from the ’80s sitcom “Growing Pains” became a parent, headlined one of the biggest movie sleepers in recent memory (“Fireproof”) and today addressed the conservative conference CPAC about his latest project.

Cameron’s “Monumental,” hitting theaters next month, mourns a nation in decline and looks to the past for a brighter future. The actor turned activist told CPAC attendees why he made the film:

As I look around I get this sinking feeling that we’re off track, that there’s something sick in the soul of our country,” Cameron told those gathered at the conservative conference in Washington on Thursday. “I examine the fruit that’s hanging on the tree of America and I can see that it’s rotting. And that concerns me deeply.”

The actor went on to list what worries him most: the economy, decreased spirituality and what he sees as a nationwide moral decline.

“The family is falling apart. Divorce is at an all-time high,” he said. “Teenage pregnancy, drugs, alcohol – things that used to be shameful 50 years are now normalized in public school and celebrated on television.

From where I sit, this ruling was a travesty, not only because it discarded the wishes of 7 million Californians who voted for it, but because much of the money to overturn it came from Hollywood elites who are completely out of touch with the heart and soul of America.

Honestly, watching the decision come down from the 9th Circuit was like watching Brad Pitt and Elton John stomp all ever everything that flyover country holds near and dear to its heart. I cite Pitt and John because Pitt gave at least $100,000 to “fight the proposition,” and in Jan. 2011, John played a benefit concert in Beverly Hills that raised $3,000,000 for the same cause.

Of course, these two were not alone. Steven Bing, long time Democrat Party donor and Hillary Clinton supporter, donated $500,000 to the cause, and according to Advocate magazine, Mary J. Blige and Melissa Etheridge were right there in the mix as well. Oh, and we can’t overlook old “Meathead,” Rob Reiner, who opposed Prop 8 when it was on the ballot in 2008 and who’s been “one of the biggest fundraisers behind the legal effort” to overturn it since.

Other prominent Hollywood leftists who are against Prop 8 (and who attended Elton John’s concert as well) were David Geffen, who gave at least $200,000 to defeat Prop 8, Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand, Norman Lear, Matthew Morrison, Jane Lynch, Adam Lambert, Marisa Tomei, Jason Mraz, J.J. Abrams, and “Milk” screenwriter Dustin Lance Black.

Moreover, through a website founded by Will Ferrell, another group of Hollywood personalities did their part to oppose Prop 8 via a video mocking Christians, who are staunch defenders of marriage, and Christ Himself. The Hollywood personalities in the video included Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris, John C. Reilly, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph and Margaret Cho.

And of course, what Hollywood v. the Heartland battle would be complete without Keith Olbermann inserting himself into the drama? Back when he still had a job at MSNBC, Olbermann did a PSA to tell everyone in flyover country that gays in California—whom he thoughtfully described as “these people”—just “want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option.”

The bottom line: Hollywood trumped the will of salt-of-the-earth Americans once more, and in so doing, reminded everyone of the great divide that exists between celebrities on the far left coast and those whom they count on to watch their movies, listen to their music, etc. Through their efforts, the will of a clear majority of California voters was overturned and marriage redefined in what, sadly, is not a Hollywood production but real life.

“The decision to end the show now, or ever, is a painful one, as it risks putting asunder hundreds of close friendships that have developed over the last eight years,” said executive producers David Shore, Katie Jacobs and Hugh Laurie, “but also because the show itself has been a source of great pride to everyone involved.

The producers have always imagined House as an enigmatic creature;  he should never be the last one to leave the party.  How much better to disappear before the music stops, while there is still some promise and mystique in the air.”

Now’s as good a time as any for a post-mortem on one of the quirkiest, most interesting character shows of the last decade. “House’s” focus on a thoroughly unlikeable character was risky, and it paid off; the creators’ decision to make him a thoroughgoing atheist constantly at conflict with others subtly made the case for the bankruptcy of his ideology.  Or, at the very least, it offered philosophical contrast.

Most famously, “House” featured a very pro-life episode in 2007, “Fetal Position,” in which an unborn child reached out of the womb and touched House’s hand, mirroring the famous photograph. That was mirrored by a pro-choice episode that same season that made the case for abortion for a religious rape victim. That was House’s style.

When I interviewed Shore for my latest book, Primetime Propaganda, here’s what he told me about the abortion episodes: “As you can imagine, we’re in Hollywood, we’ve got our share of rabid left wing Democrats here. And … our writing staff has the makeup you’d basically expect of a Hollywood writing staff, and I remember when we were doing ‘Fetal Position,’ there is that image of that little finger of the fetus clasping Dr. House’s hand. And it was a powerful image. And we recognized at the time that’s going to go up on billboards and websites for pro-life organizations. But it was true, and it was accurate, and it was real. And the last thing I want to do is, I happen to be pro-choice, but the last thing I want to do is to give false information or convince people of my argument. I think that’s just not the way to approach things. It’s a difficult choice, and it is a difficult issue.  And I think treating it as anything different than that is dishonest and ultimately counterproductive.”

Shore’s honesty on politics meant that he admitted there was bias against conservatives in Hollywood. As he told me, “there is an assumption in this town that everybody is on the left side of the spectrum, and that the few people on the right, I think people look at them somewhat aghast, and I’m sure it doesn’t help them.” Those are the words of a truth teller. And in its own way, when it wasn’t burdened down with the typical hallmarks of leftist Hollywood (hot bisexuals, open marriages, and the like), “House” was a uniquely truth-telling show.

Some think her career is pure marketing and her fans believe she’s a real trend setter. There has always been a wide range of opinions about this woman, an entertainer who has enough monikers to be in the witness protection program. As her personal life has evolved through marriages, children and boyfriends, her songs are what are more familiar to people.

For the first time since she became famous, she got to be the star attraction at the Super Bowl Halftime Show. What aspect of her performance did people focus on? Her voice? Nope. What she wore? Not really. Her new song? Sure, a little. Her age? Bingo, report her to AARP, stat!

How dare she try to pull off that type of show as a woman who has experienced more than three decades on the planet? Perish the thought! She has some nerve being on that stage and lifting her leg up at the age of 53. Where are her Mom jeans with the elastic waist? How could she be in high-heeled, thigh high boots when she knows she should be in Easy Spirits? This is even more of an abomination than her performance in “Swept Away.”

Doesn’t she know that woman over 35, let alone 40 in this country, are considered older than Methuselah? You mean she has no clue that she should be referring to herself as “long in the tooth” “an old bag” and a “has-been.” Doesn’t she realize that she has to grow into her date of birth by talking about things she can’t do anymore? Where is her rheumatoid arthritis? COPD? High cholesterol? She should be punished for doing a jumping jack.

Just check the reaction to her performance on social media outlets if you think I am exaggerating.

It is amazing that in 2012, with the way racism and homophobia have been addressed – and rightfully so – that ageism rage against woman is on perpetual mute. Hello, media, I’m talking to you, too.

Let’s substitute Mick Jagger for Madonna at the same age doing the same moves. There would barely be a mention of his cumulative years. I remember when he was 53 and it was a blip, if that. Jagger is now approaching 70, and when he announces a new music project it’s applauded. Harrison Ford (69), George Clooney (51), Denzel Washington (56), Brad Pitt (48) are revered, immortalized and sought after for tons of opportunities without hesitation as to how their crow’s feet or beer bellies may look on the big screen. Regis Philbin got the “Millionaire” gig at almost 70.

TV executives would run over their Bishons before they would hand a new hosting gig to a talented woman in a similar age bracket. Please spare me that Meryl Streep or Helen Mirren still work. That’s because producers know these ladies can deliver no matter what crappy script they are handed. Betty White is getting a little attention now, and that’s because she is making fun of herself.

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone mentioned how old Jennifer Grey was when she appeared on “Dancing with the Stars.” When Susan Lucci wrote her autobiography last year every interviewer wanted to focus on her age and why she didn’t mention hot flashes in her book.

The realm of politics is no better. Hillary Clinton’s age is highlighted constantly as to how she would be too old if she were to to run for President, yet John McCain was how old and could barely communicate – I rest my case (this has nothing to do with who I would vote for).

This cuts across, race, income bracket and political persuasions. I thought liberal Democrats were suppose to be so open, so unwilling to judge. Ha! I have never seen so much judgment since my last family gathering. As for conservative Republicans, don’t be so full of yourselves. You’re just as bad. This isn’t a bi-partisan problem. This is a life problem.

We need to stop taking someone’s age and putting them in categories based on physical and emotional expectations. Everyone has different experiences, lifestyles, choices and genetics.

These judgments are printed and said out loud, and then they seep into people’s minds and become embedded in society. It halts opportunities and, let’s be realistic, at the rate we’re all going, our work years are increasing and we need to be open to all age brackets of people working and not just the twenty something crowd. There is no true price for good experience, no matter what the profession.

Similar to the opinions of Madonna on a more miniscule level, you will either like or dislike this article depending on what your mindset is. However, if I can get you to take a moment to think about your daughter, niece, mother or grandmother and think about the injustices, then I have communicated effectively. “Like a Prayer,” I hope things at the very least change for our girls who growing up now.

The Hollywood Reporter:

The Movieguide report rates movies using more than two dozen criteria, such as whether a title promotes capitalism or socialism or if it promotes or denigrates biblical principles. Violence, sex, political correctness, revisionist history, environmentalism, feminism, homosexuality and more hot-button political issues all are taken into consideration.

This year’s report concludes that seven of the top 10 films of 2011 scored high on Movieguide’s index and therefore qualify as films with “strong or very strong Christian, biblical, moral and redemptive content.”

Movieguide identified 91 movies in 2011 that scored high in “conservative/moral categories”; these earned an average of $59 million apiece. On the other hand, it identified 105 movies that scored high in “liberal/leftist categories”; each of those titles earned an average of just $11 million.

The average movie scoring four stars from Movieguide earned $53.5 million while the ones that scored just one star earned $10.6 million.

Exceptions abound, of course, notable ones being The Hangover Part II and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1, hit movies that earned $581 million and $702 million worldwide, respectively, but are panned by Movieguide as films that promote “fringe worldviews” and “obscene behavior.”

The conservative talker spent a second straight broadcast mocking Eastwood’s now infamous “Halftime in America” Chrysler ad that aired on Super Bowl Sunday. Today, Limbaugh played a parody on his popular radio show to keep the story alive despite Eastwood’s protest that the commercial wasn’t meant to support President Obama’s auto bailout policies.

When somebody tells me Clint Eastwood did a halftime commercial for Chrysler, I expect it to be something like this,” Limbaugh told his 20 million listeners before audio of an Eastwood impersonator began:

Limbaugh’s is audio only, but video parodies from other sources were created for the Internet, including one from the Second City Network that appears to be a subtle attack on GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.