Today’s New York Post:

Adam Lambert shocked and surprised the American Music Awards Sunday night with what some viewers deemed a “lewd” performance of the title track of his newly-released debut album, “For Your Entertainment.”

The “American Idol” runner-up pelvic-thrusted his way through the four-minute, S&M-themed routine, taking time out from singing to grope a female dancer, kiss a male musician and, most shockingly, shove a male dancer’s face into his crotch, in an act that simulated fellatio.

The raunchy stuff was apparently added to the live broadcast, and the routine, at the last minute, and the network said yesterday it was caught by surprise. The simulated sex act was edited out of the videotaped version of the awards show that was transmitted three hours later to the West Coast — but the rest of Lambert’s performance remained intact.

The edit wasn’t enough to hold back a tidal wave of upset viewers who’ve complained to ABC about the sexually charged stage show. More than 1,500 complaints were logged by the network on the day following the broadcast, reports the AP.

Read the full article here.

Still, every now and then some elitist hack with a degree from the right college and the proper connections gets a job at a failing weekly magazine and decides to take a shot at you and your profession, feeling they are qualified to judge this art form because they know how to laugh and talk. This is rarely if ever done with other art forms. Seriously folks, when is the last time you saw an article about actors who can’t act, dancers who can’t dance, painters who can’t paint or pointless “performance artists.” Yet, about every six months some “critic” declares a number of famous comics “not funny.”   

Ms. Sarah Ball of the soon defunct Newsweek is the latest to declare some great comics “not funny.” In her article she lists 12 acts and gives snarky put downs of their talents. I found it interesting that Ms. Ball’s list is mostly west coast, politically conservative/moderate comics. Apparently if you are from New York and ultra-liberal Ms. Ball finds you hilarious!

Topping her list is every elitist favorite comedy punching bag Larry the Cable Guy. Larry’s sin seems to be he is a little too lowbrow for Ms. Ball, whom I am sure worships at the altar of urinator Larry David, and christophobe Sarah Silverman. There are a couple of folks working at the top of the intellectual chart. When talking about Dane Cook (I admit, not my favorite) she heaps praise on Louis C.K. (a guy I happen to also enjoy) who also tends towards the scatological for his humor.

Here is another thing that annoys me worst than Barney Frank, several times Ms. Ball demeans comics for being less than original and yet in her writing she uses a number of “stock” lines, clichés and banal comments. She also works for a magazine which recently selected a cover picture of Sarah Palin that was borrowed from a shoot for another magazine and used without contextual reference.

Ms. Ball also apparently hasn’t seen some of the comics she lists in some time. For Emo Phillips she uses an outdated photo, (again Newsweek using a photo out of context!) and critiques the vocal and delivery style he was using in the 90’s. Artists grow and change Ms. Ball; you might want to catch Bob Goldthwaite sometime this century too!  Her total critique of Jeff Dunham is that he is a ventriloquist, a comedy form she declared “went out of vogue in the Eisenhower era.” So did unbiased journalism and accurate reporting, Ms. Ball, but I’ll save that for another blog. Ventriloquism is experiencing a great revival outside elitist circles with Ronn Lucas and Terry Fator being two of the top draws in Las Vegas. While Jay Johnson, Jeff Dunham and Dan Horn wow audiences across the country. It might do Ms. Ball good to get out of Manhattan once in awhile and see what us rubes are doing out here in Flyoverland.

There are a lot of comics who I don’t find funny but I realize that my taste in comedy is skewered by my values, faith, politics and a number of other factors. I would never declare Bill Maher “not funny.” Though I find his drug addled ramblings repulsive at times, I realize that a number of equally intelligent folks find him hysterical. I might say I find his humor “baffling” or call him an “alleged” comedian but to declare him “not funny” isn’t fair to Bill or his fans.

People like different things, that’s why they put numbers on horses at the track. I would expect an open and fair minded progressive person like Ms. Ball to be a little more…what’s that word? Tolerant!

–

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.

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.

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.

It all seemed to start so simply, as I watched this week’s “SNL” and saw an NBC in-house commercial bragging about how all this week’s Thursday night comedies will be packed with environmental propaganda, including an appearance from Al Gore on “30 Rock.” So I hopped on my Facebook account and wrote the following response before heading out for the next 10 hours:

“So NBC’s bragging that all their Thursday comedies will be pro-green propaganda this Thursday, so much that Al Gore’s gonna guest on ‘30 Rock”?! Ugh. OK I’ll do my part – by throwing out my television. (Not a fan of Al, in case you can’t tell. Find the story of why i hate him buried amid my blog topics at americasfunniestreporter.com.)”

Three friends commented quickly afterwards in support of me. But then, two others – a former boss from a Chicago magazine named Jane, and an acquaintance who’s a public school teacher living in Whittier – chimed in to express their disagreement. Caught in the middle was one of my best friends and co-host of my weekly Internet talk show “Grand Theft Audio,” Jake Belcher.

The roundelay that developed over the rest of the day seemed worthy of pointing out to a broader audience, for to me it shows just how ingrained the PC, ‘love the left no matter what’ mindset can be in some people, who will even assume that there’s just no way to make a living while being outspoken about having a conservative, or “right-wing,” viewpoint in today’s Hollywood. It also shows just how scary it is that a schoolteacher in our publicly funded classrooms is so hidebound to a leftist ideology and is likely teaching them that mindset each and every day.

Forthwith, some highlights (or lowlights) from the exchange, coupled with my final response in defense of speaking up for a conservative mindset…

***

MONICA: Just Curious, how does a right-wing comic survive in Los Angeles? Do you use some of your political views in your stand up? Truly, I am baffled by your views. I know your from Arkansas, and these views are probably more widely accepted there, but I just can’t see it going over so well in Los Angeles.

JANE: Carl I adore you. But…. actual hate and anger doesn’t get laughs. It’s uncomfortable and scary, not really entertaining. So I’m guessing that your conservative comedy pokes fun at right wingers as well Is that how you do ok for yourself in LA?

JAKE: Jane, what did Carl write above that could possibly scare you? And Monica, Carl does very well with his views, not everyone blindly follows the same Ideology. Nice assumption on the fine citizens of Arkansas, no hate coming from you on that. To everyone. I think people need to get a fucking grip on reality. People are still allowed to have … different views from each other, free speech fear mongers. Fear of expression is one of the ways Hitler gained and kept his power. Every time you see or hear a viewpoint that is different than yours you should thank God that you live in a land that has such freedom.

MONICA: Your projection tactics do not work here!

JAKE: Oh well, yours seem to be working just fine. Wonder why that is? Oh yeah, avoidance of the point. That helps ALOT.

MONICA: I might not agree with Carl on some issues, but it does not mean I do not think he is funny. Personally, I do not find the word hate funny, that’s just me. No comic is funny 100% of the time! See the late shows, some stuff doesn’t work. Watching a bad joke is like watching a plane plummet to its impending doom! Still curious if this talk works. Obama being compared to Hitler, Now that’s funny!

JAKE: Sorry, no, I compared your line of thinking with Hitlers.

MONICA: When a person has uncomfortable thoughts or feelings, they may project these onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they need to repress to a convenient alternative target. Goodnight, Belcher.

JAKE: You are trying to shut down and belittle others thoughts.

CARL: Wow, i can’t believe I missed all this excitement! First off, thank you jake for having my back.

Now, Jane, as someone who’s the mother of two boys, you ought to know that “hate” is a euphemism for “can’t stand”. To scold me for saying i hate Al Gore, or spinach, is ridiculous. What are we living in, “Little House on the Prairie”? And yes, i make fun of both sides, though I’m happy and proud to dish it out to the left more, when there’s 6 million other comics all saying the same thing on the other side of the fence. Oh really – comics hate Bush? I still hear that shit a full year AFTER Obama got elected! (not that i was a big Bush fan, either.) I have had more breaks happen in the past year since coming out of the coservative closet than ever before (actually libertarian – im’ for drug legalization and gay marriage, and have opposed our involvement in the Middle East since the FIRST Gulf War – an antiwar position shared by Pat Buchanan,its’ not just a hippie thing to oppose war, there are different philosophical reasons for it).

Monica, grow up. It’s sad to think that you’re part of the problem in our schools, where only one side is taught anymore , the left. To both you and Jane, I would gladly make less money and know that I spoke my conscience in this lifetime, even if there were consequences, than to shut up or tell lies as i see it. Besides, Monica, you’ve never come and seen me perform anyway, so what am i missing by your being baffled? i don’t get very political onstage, but i don’t deny or hide my views either, there or anywhere else.

Are you both seriously going to tell me you, as committed liberals, never felt or expressed “hate” for Bush or Republicans? Monica, are you seriously expecting those with different views to just sit down and shut up? Maybe that works in your classroom,but as the son of a man who fled Communist Poland and the grandson of a man who died fighting the Nazis at Normandy, I’ll be damned if I ever keep quiet about any injustice I see, especially in the form of propaganda for Al Gore,a man who whored his dead sister’s memory for votes and made millions off tobacco, the product that killed her, for a decade after her death – only selling his interest in the family crop when he ran for VP and it got too politically “messy” to keep it. Now he wants to reinvent the American economy with “green” schemes that he personally makes billions off of, while spending 20x more energy in his home than the average American. By the way, his college grades were worse than W’s .

And before you knock Arkansas, take a look at Whittier…. Read More

Pot. Kettle. Black.

***

Sure, it was but one argument thrust back in the face of the tide of liberalism. But it felt good to dish it back. And it feels even better to share it with others who might just be seeking a little encouragement to do the same.

Go boldly.

If you’re thinking, “Threesome?! That’s news to me,” be sure to read John P. Hanlon’s article.” Hanlon explains the whole debacle in detail.  However, I’m here to delve further into the insanity surrounding CW’s latest scheme to nab viewer appreciation.

The only thing more grotesque than CW’s exploitation of a threesome for ratings is the media’s coverage of the menage a trois.  In a recent article, Michael Ausiello (Entertainment Weekly) was ecstatic over the impending sex scene – so excited that he taunted readers with his foreknowledge telling them, “Though my Gossip mole has asked that I not ID the threesome (on the grounds that it would ruin a major upcoming storyline, or some such nonsense), I can confirm that the kinky tryst will involve one of the following combos…”  Ausiello then proceeds to list possible character combos. 

Then – no joke – readers (many of whom were not at all phased by the show’s indecency) began commenting about who they thought would be involved!  Insanity.  Are these really the values our society has adopted as “the norm”?  In 2006, alone, teen pregnancy increased significantly in 26 states.  Liberals would blame this on “abstinence-only education,” while I’d blame a sizable portion of it on a society that continues to exploit sex for financial gain.  Can we really expect people, young and old alike, to respect or even understand sex when threesomes and other unrealistic sexual messaging invade our lives at every corner?  Let’s get real. 

In the GG case, some media have chosen to downplay the threesome. E! Online’s Joal Ryan had this to say:

“So, was that threesome good for GG? It wasn’t bad, especially considering the event was nothing more explicit than three people (Penn Badgley, Jessica Szhor and Disney grad Hilary Duff) not kissing at the same time.”

Not bad?  This dismissal is disturbing.  The intensity of the footage shouldn’t be the only issue of concern.  CW used a sexually-explicit concept to flavor advertising leading up to the Nov. 9 episode.  Plus, the menage a trois isn’t out of GG’s storyline.  If people were outraged by the Nov. 9 episode, E! Online reports even more nasty content is coming:

“The dirty deed goes down on this Monday’s episode, but will be recounted with flashbacks the following week, Nov. 16, where we will learn–and see–even more about it.”

So, the debauchery hasn’t ended and will continue on a subsequent episode.  Parent’s Television Council president Tim Winter had this to say in response to the Nov. 9 episode:

“Though there was no explicit sex scene on last night’s episode, the CW Network’s behavior was grossly irresponsible by adding a story line where a sexual threesome was to be celebrated as some sort of ‘rite of passage’ for teenagers.  The network inserted this story line into a program that they themselves deem to be appropriate for 14-year-old children based on its content rating,”

Many GG enthusiasts have cited the show’s older target demographic (18 to 34) to stake the claim that viewers are old enough to handle the subject matter.  Let’s be realistic.  Even if women comprise the core viewership, young girls are surely watching the show.  Back in September, a CW press release touted GG’s win in the 9 p.m. timeslot among women 12 to 34.  Yes, 9 p.m. – a time when one would assume that a sizable proportion of teenagers are channel surfing.

Furthermore, the median age of CW’s viewers is 33; GG’s average viewer age is 27.  While the mean age is relatively high, it still points to the fact that young people are tuning in.  Plus, this doesn’t take into consideration online viewership, which would likely skew younger.

Let’s remember, too, that this tactic was used for the sake of a potential ratings hike.  Last week, Brent Bozell wrote, “There is absolutely no barrier of sexual behavior that TV network executives aren’t willing to cross in a desperate gambit for ratings” and he couldn’t be more on target.  He’s right.  The entire premise of using a threesome to drive ratings came full circle when E! Online reported CW’s reward for exploiting sexual incongruence for the sake of the almighty dollar:

“The series was up 20 percent from last week: 2.4 million viewers versus 1.95 million, per Nielsen stats. The math worked out even better for the CW: It enjoyed its most-watched Monday of the season.”

So, in this case the ratings battle was somewhat won, but at what cost?  This stretches beyond the search for mere ratings hikes.  Bozell points to another factor driving CW’s insatiable lust for GG-centered controversy:

“But the “Gossip Girl” scandal isn’t just about winning the ratings battle. It’s about corporate executives who will try anything to get a rinky-dink network out of the basement, with absolutely no concern for the damage its tawdry story lines will do to the viewer who is 12. The show is rated TV-14, suggesting threesome plots are acceptable for high-schoolers, and that’s an insult by itself.”

And what a disappointment Hilary Duff is.  Joining the cast of one of television’s most trash-ridden shows appears to be a half-witted attempt to shed the “good girl” image she’s yielded over the years.  Unfortunately, as many – like Bozell – have highlighted, Duff is still a role-model to many young people.  It’s an unfortunate effect of Hollywood’s liberal lunacy that even the good girls turn bad – eventually.

The mainstream media did cover the controversy, with CNN holding a discussion of sorts.  However, the overall chatter has been confined mostly to sleazy entertainment blogs and outlets.  This issue should extend far beyond the vapid toilet reads.  Teen sex is a major problem that touches the lives of millions of Americans.  At what point to we stop and say, “Enough is enough?” CW, thanks for your classless moral “racketeering.”  Keep up the good work!

Jim Henson, Jon Stone, Frank Oz and others set a witty and silly tone for Sesame Street that our current writers work to maintain despite the demands of political correctness. 

What then, specifically, are the demands of political correctness that Ms. Barry’s taxpayer-funded organization operates under? 

What is Political Correctness? 

For an exacting scholarly analyses of Political Correctness we can turn to Free Congress Foundation & William Lind’s The History of Political Correctness. 

As Mr. Lind distills:

If we look at [Political Correctness] analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. 

Frank Ellis’ Political Correctness and the Theoretical Struggle: 

…exposes the ideology behind political correctness and the role it plays in modern western society. Frank Ellis traces PC’s dark history from its invention by the Russian Soviets to its migration to the western world. Ellis also demonstrates how political correctness is being used to shut down debate and marginalise opponents of any social reform by branding them with unpopular labels. PC is destroying language and culture and making it impossible to critique what is happening in society. 

With this history and scholarly definitions — and in the interest of convivial debate (and of course inevitable disagreement) — the following questions are posed in good faith and with the hope that Sesame Workshop might provide American taxpayers clarification and contextualization for the benefit of all concerned, especially for the children: 

• What is Sesame Workshop’s definition of Political Correctness?
• When did Political Correctness enter Sesame Workshop’s criteria for its federal taxpayer-funded educational programs?
• Who does Sesame Workshop believe is responsible for instituting the demands of political correctness upon its administrators, Sesame Street writers, producers, cast, and ultimately its target audience of pre-school and elementary school children?
• Where can the public find Sesame Workshop’s instructional policies and guidelines regulating its practices regarding Political Correctness?
• How does Sesame Workshop believe its Political Correctness programming complies with widely accepted academic freedom ethics and standards that require varying scholarly viewpoints be given equal time?
• Why does Sesame Workshop currently feel constrained by the demands of Political Correctness?
• What are Sesame Workshop’s plans for future governance of Political Correctness?

Other recent examples and outcomes of the demands of Political Correctness upon the Arts, public education and American society illustrate the need to more closely scrutinize and explain this highly controversial (even deadly) political and cultural issue:

• The NEA’s coordinated falsehood with the White House that the organization’s infamous conference call “was not a means to promote any legislative agenda.
• ACORN’s tax and voter fraud activities and its CEO Bertha Lewis’ coordination with her “sister from another mister,” AFT’s Randi Weingarten.
• White House Communications Director Anita Dunn’s claim that Mao Tse Tung is one her ‘favorite political philosophers.’
• The Ft. Hood terrorist attack.

Political Correctness is a menacing form of viewpoint discrimination, an intolerant “heckler’s veto” deployed to stifle reasonable debate of controversial issues.

A varying viewpoint contributed by one commenter on my last post asserts:

“The ‘political correctness’ she [Ms. Barry] refers to is right wing political correctness. IE wingers who are hypersensitive and read marxist messages into everything.”

Fair enough?

Exit compound question: What is your definition of Political Correctness, and what demands do you think it places upon the Arts, public education, American institutions and American society?

For months now, the major studios have been waging all-out war against technology companies that are developing devices that offer consumers the ability to watch their DVDs on their own computers and televisions under circumstances that give them maximum flexibility.  Heaven only knows how much the studios have paid in fees in order to have their legal surrogates wage a war of words and briefs against relatively small companies like RealNetworks and Kaleidescape that are trying to fill this market niche.  RealNetworks has been hit particularly hard by the aggressive court action lodged against it by the studios. 

Why is Hollywood beating up so badly on RealNetworks?  What sin did this company commit that has caused such legal violence to be visited on it?  Was it pirating Hollywood movies?  Was it committing a fraud on consumers by advertising something it did not deliver?  Was it perhaps handmaiden to a Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme?  To the Hollywood studios, it was something much scarier – allowing consumers to exercise their “Fair Use” rights.  

What RealNetworks did that landed it on Hollywood’s Black List, was to have the audacity to listen to the market and give consumers something they wanted at a time when Hollywood was not growing to meet the needs of these same consumers. RealNetworks had figured out that consumers wanted the capability to store their own DVDs on their own laptops and home computers, so they could then watch them at their leisure and without having to load each one into the computer every time they wanted to play it.  Based on its market research, RealNetworks then developed a product that would do just what the consumer desired, while also protecting the studios’ rights – the RealDVD system.  Unlike the ubiquitous assortment of illegal DVD rippers than can be located with a simple Google search on the Internet, RealDVD is the only product that allows consumers to save copies of their own, legally-purchased DVDs to their computers while also preventing people from burning copies.  While this would seem to be the likely start of a beautiful friendship between RealNetworks and the movie moguls, it unfortunately was just the beginning of Real’s troubles with the Hollywood studios.  

For more than a year now, RealNetworks has been fighting an expensive and difficult defensive action in federal court in San Francisco, as the major studios seek to permanently stop it from marketing its RealDVD product.  In fact, last August, the judge presiding over the case temporarily enjoined the company from selling its product. 

Rather than licking its wounds and moving to other products, RealNetworks is determined to fight this assault on competition and free enterprise.  Just this week, for example, it formally appealed the August 11, 2009 order issued against it by U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Patel.  Ayn Rand would be pleased with RealNetworks’ attitude. 

What neither Ayn Rand nor any free market advocate would understand, is the manner in which the studios are proceeding against RealNetworks.  It makes no sense from a business standpoint, and if anything shows that the movie industry is destined to make many of the same mistakes that the music industry made.  Consider that DVD sales are down significantly in the current slow economic climate.  Would it not make sense for Hollywood studios to take steps to encourage consumers to buy DVDS?  And, insofar as offering a product that makes it easier for consumers to record, store and view their DVDs would cause them to purchase more DVDs, why would the studios fight tooth-and-nail against a company whose goals are essentially the same as Hollywood’s? 

Perhaps because at least one of those major studios – Disney – is developing its own technology to make it easier for consumers to digitally store and view movies?  In a recent interview, for example, Disney chief exec Bob Iger indicated his company would shortly begin marketing its “Keychest” system that would do just those things. 

Even the DVD rental industry, which is fighting its own battles with the Hollywood studios, understands that DVD sales generate significantly more income for the studios than do rentals. Yet those very same studios that are taking steps to increase sales of their movies and limit rentals, are tone deaf to the work of companies like RealNetworks, whose product also would encourage sales of these silver discs.  

Hollywood, which continues to toy with the idea of bringing Ayn Rand’s free market opus, Atlas Shrugged, to the silver screen, would be well-served to actually read and digest the novel’s admonition to use if not embrace the forces of the market place, rather than oppose the very forces that could help it.  Such a tactic would be in the industry’s “enlightened self interest,” and it would benefit all concerned.  Unfortunately, the moguls who head the studios apparently don’t have time for such lessons

I opened TimeOut NY magazine this morning and saw that I was featured in their “Essential New York” issue. Excellent. I’m overjoyed, as most performers are when they get some press. Now among the other nice things in their profile, they said this:

“He’s the only conservative Republican comedian who’s actually funny.”

Now, what do you think was the first thing I did when I saw that in print? Defend the honor of Evan Sayet and Steven Crowder? No.

My act is personal, not political, and those are two different things, unless you believe what it says in that dog-eared copy of “Our Bodies, Ourselves” on your ex-girlfriend’s bookshelf. But since Andrew invited me to “come out” on this site last year and air my (comparatively moderate) center-right views, the word has gotten around to some of my fans and associates that I might be playing for the other team. I’ll be at a showbiz cocktail party and someone will playfully say, “I heard a rumor about you…” They’re not trying to be mean or McCarthyite-they genuinely like the idea that they may have a right-wing acquaintance. It’s fun for them! But then they want to pick my brain. “How did it happen? Was your dad a minister?” They begin to introduce me to their friends as “their favorite Republican.”

I usually respond the same way I did yesterday when the TimeOut NY profile came out–I immediately Twittered, blogged and Facebooked, “For the record, I am a registered independent.”

Why this reflex? Why do I rush to portray myself as an “independent?”

Two reasons:

1. It is true. I identify with no political party. I have a clear set of views about the way the world works best, and at this moment the people with an R next to their name do less damage to the things I hold dear than the ones with a D. I didn’t say “no damage,” just less. (Even though I am one, the politicians with an I next to their name often tend to be a little flaky. Sorry, guys.)

2. Most of my fans and colleagues identify themselves with the Left, and people in show business personalize their political affiliation to the point that anyone who believes differently is seen as lacking common decency and compassion. You’ve got to get past that somehow, and it’s hard to do that in a few short sentences. Which is probably why so many conservative entertainers just keep their mouth shut.

In most cases politics and art together do not interest me. I didn’t go to see Benicio del Toro in “Che,” and I wouldn’t go to see Kelsey Grammer in “Goldwater!” So I don’t do politics in my act. I’m in the business of communication. I want to play to everyone, not just people who are like me. It’s easy to find your audience niche and play to it (”Get ‘R Done!”), but where’s the challenge in that? It’s not gutsy, edgy, or artistic. But political comics on the left rarely admit the same about their own habit of preaching to the choir. I remember doing a show at a hip Avenue A club in NYC shortly after 9/11 and the guy on before me said “I know I’m not supposed to say this right now, but I think our President is an asshole.” Applause.

What? You mean you’re willing to go after George W. Bush in the East Village? Why, you’re another Lenny Bruce! Way to speak truth to power!

When I rush to portray myself as independent, I’m not backing away from anything, or trying to hide my beliefs. I’ve chosen to put myself in the public eye, and I’m trying to communicate with them, which is nearly impossible to do when people’s reaction to certain buzzwords is to shut down, tune you out, and change the channel to someone who is more like them.