–

Yikes. Someone got the talking points. Can you say, “Peer reviewed studies?” Methinks those leaked emails that pretty much show Global Warming is … what’s the best way to put it?… the big fat freakin’ lie we all knew it was, has stirred our friend Ed up some.

You know what he sounds like? Someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old trying to explain away a dinosaur fossil.

Oh, that old time religion…

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

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

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

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

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

During his campaign for the White House President Obama said, “We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there… I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan.”

He promised to send another ten to fifteen thousand troops to help those already there. He also declared that the war in Afghanistan was the proper front in the war against terror. Now that he is Commander-in-Chief, his vision seems to be less clear.

The military commanders gave the President four troop deployment options earlier this week but he refused all four. Not for military reasons but because of some hooey about the corruption of the government in Kabul and their inability to run a fair election. Mr. President, if our support for governments was based on whether they are corrupt or not and could run a fair election, we would have pulled federal funding from Chicago years ago. The problem with pulling out of Afghanistan, or Chicago for that matter, is that they would fall into violent anarchy. We have already seen that happen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Current thinking on what to do in Afghanistan is based on two faulty assumptions:

The first is that wars are clear and concise events with specific outcomes and easy to find exit points. When John McCain told us the truth about how long we might be in Iraq, we didn’t want to hear it. We have been in Japan and Germany for over sixty years and in the Philippines for much longer. I wonder if back during the Spanish- American War leftist were telling the President that the Philippines were tribal islands and would never be able to be organized into a stable democratic government?

The second faulty assumption is that if we walk away from Afghanistan, simply pull all of our troops out, the war it then over. How long would it be before the Taliban was running things again and Al Qaeda was using it as a base of operations?  We will be fighting the same people again in the future, perhaps armed with nuclear weapons from Iran or Pakistan. Our national attention span has shortened to Twitter-like dimensions while our enemies think in terms of centuries.

The real problem for President Obama is that is if he deploys more troops and commits to staying, Afghanistan is no longer Bush’s war but his. Not even a year into his term and he is already worried about his legacy rather than doing what is best for the country. He is worried that his presidency will get bogged down in the battle for liberty instead of being able to focus on strengthening ACORN and the SEIU.

The left doesn’t mind waging long, costly, and non-winnable wars, so long as they are they start them themselves. Look at the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Our cities are littered with the lives ruined by those wars. We have thrown enough money into those two rat holes to finance Iraq and Afghanistan for the next fifty years and toss in twenty years of free government health care to boot. Do we have an exit strategy from the Welfare State, Mr. President?

Paul Bond at the Hollywood Reporter:

“Looks like “Land of the Lost” has earned star Will Ferrell the dubious distinction of being the most overpaid actor in show business, according to the list makers at Forbes magazine.

“Forbes looked at 100 top actors based on their widely released films over the past five years. It factored in the production costs of those movies against how much boxoffice, DVD and other revenue they generated in order to come up with an operating income for each film, which it then compared with the salaries the stars earned.

“In Ferrell’s case, the actor’s films earned just $3.29 for every dollar he was paid. That’s a pretty poor contrast to the $160 that Shia LaBeouf’s movies returned to the studios for every buck he earned.”

More names and the full story here.

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!

– 

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.

INEVITABLY, ANOTHER SOLDIER SNAPS

Distraught pacifist conscientious objector tormented by horrors of war, as far as you know

Newsroom experts: stress, violence, stupidity, tragedy a way of life for GIs

Former M*A*S*H stars say it’s finally time to disarm the military

Hollywood insiders: Sean Penn early favorite for lead in planned Oliver Stone biopic

Nidal Hassan – not a fan of taxes Fort Hood: Another Black Eye For Teabagger Movement Connecting the dots: 2006-8 Tax returns show anti-government extremist carefully itemized deductions Like many Town Hall protesters, Hassan motivated by rage, pattern baldness Phone records: suspect tried to join Hair Club for Men Tearful Pelosi pushes Congress for new Tea Party regulations: “our lives are at stake”

Closet Dittohead? Investigation: Ft. Hood Killer Had Access to Fox, Talk Radio, Right-Wing Blogs Receipts show killer’s apartment had cable ‘03 Nissan registered to Hassan had AM radio Napolitano: “I told you so” Sources: Despite 17 citations as Countdown’s ‘Worst Person In The World,’ FBI failed to detain Limbaugh Defiant Palin rejects calls to apologize

Hassan: NRA poster boy GUN GOES ON RAMPAGE IN TEXAS Experts say shootings could have easily been prevented if guns did not exist; others argue bullets must share blame Gun facts: scary, loud, shoot people

Reverend Nidal Hassan say Gimme that Old Time Religion Fundamentalist Religion Seen As Motive in Ft. Hood Massacre Devout churchgoer evangelized conservative views Shooter’s former Virginia home was mere hours from Jerry Falwell compound What did Tilton, Swaggert, Osteen know?

Billy Ray Hassan – average American Southerner Another Typical Day in Dixieland U.S.A. In the land of cotton, some hear echoes of Civil War in latest violent redneck rampage American-born killer was son of the Jim Crow South NASCAR may have been involved Britons warned: limit U.S. travel to safe areas such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles

Hassan: owned GameStop member card Did Violent Video Games, Rap Lyrics Drive Killing Spree? Video: Grand Theft Auto, Super Mario Cart remain on shelf at Fort Hood PX Lil’ Wayne goes One-on-One with Wolf Blitzer Larry King Live Special tragedy coverage with panelists Nancy Grace, David Hasselhoff, Joan Collins

Tailgater of Terror Caught in the Middle of an NFC East Rivalry Sports psychologists: strain of being a Redskins fan in Cowboy country may have led to breakdown for former DC resident Jurgenson, Staubach team up for NFL sportsmanship pitch Skins fans fear backlash Special “Outside the Lines” interview with NFL Commissioner Goodell: “this is precisely why we banned Limbaugh”

Nidal “Ozriel” Hassan: tormented by popular kids ‘Ozriel’: Portrait of a Bullies’ Target Another Columbine? Sensitive, artistic outsider said ostracized by Army jocks, “in crowd” Found solace in poetry, music, MySpace Weekend “EmoAid” benefit concert to raise awareness about at-risk youth, reunite CSN&Y

Junk food junkie? Twinkies Claim Another 13 Victims Hostess corporate spokesman defends controversial creme-filled sponge cake, but mounting scientific evidence links mass murder to unregulated transfats Witness: Hassan yelled “I want a candy bar” during spree Kraft, Kelloggs, Hersheys bracing for lawsuits Are you raising a potential Cereal Killer? Nutritionists show you how to cut your kids’ sugar intake to prevent another bloodbath

No Country For Old Men From Fort Hood to Waco to Dealey Plaza to Bush Compound, death is a way of life in the Lone Star State Statistic: Texas still lags in access to public broadcasting Download Morning Edition’s exclusive in-depth podcast, complete with mournful banjo dirge interlude

Lessons of Ft. Hood: Military Bases Need More Mental Health Professionals

Disney studio representatives predict that this latest adaptation of the Dickens classic will do well over time, like Zemeckis’s 2004 The Polar Express. My assessment is that the biggest element limiting the film’s appeal in the pre-release period was the annoyingly frenetic and superficial quality suggested by its promotional trailers and commercials.

Jim Carrey’s noisiness appears to be wearing quite thin, and a film that features him as not only the protagonist but also three other characters sounds like far too much of a no longer good thing. Carrey would do well to follow the path of the equally obnoxious Robin Williams and move on to more serious film roles, even if it kills his career. Yes, I’m well aware that Carrey’s occasional serious performances have been pretty awful, but he’s dead either way, and it would be best to die with honor instead of ignominy.

Carrey is following in Williams’s footsteps in one way, however: the making of idiotic political pronouncements. Talking with the Chicago Tribune to promote A Christmas Carol a few days before the film’s release, Carrey released the following burst of political flatulence:

“I was thinking about it this morning, how this story ties into everything we’re going through,” says Carrey, who, thanks to the technology, plays Scrooge as well as the three ghosts haunting him. “Every construct we’ve built in American life is falling apart. Why? Because of personal greed and ambition. Capitalism without regulation can’t protect us against personal greed.. . .

Making certain that many people reading the interview will resolutely avoid seeing the film, Carrey describes the protagonist as follows:

“Scrooge is the ultimate example of self-loathing,” Carrey says, noting that, after playing the title character in Ron Howard’s “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” he was merely “going to the source” in fleshing out Scrooge.
“Beware the unloved, I always say,” Carrey continues. “They’re the ones that end up being the mean guys. It comes from that deep, spiritual acid reflux within them. With Scrooge it infects his whole being.”

Whereas Dickens presented a reasonably nuanced view of the issues the story brings up, and did so with an appropriate narrative tone, Carrey makes the latest film version sound like a ham-fisted socialist diatribe, hardly a strategy for drawing middle American families in great numbers.

Zemeckis, for his part, avoided making any big political claims about the film. That’s the wise course, and given the already annoying qualities suggested by the commercials and trailers for the film, the last thing his version of A Christmas Carol needs is for its star to blunder around the media with claims that this energetic fantasy is any kind of brief for socialism.

“By the People” is a praise initiative that doesn’t offer much beyond what politicos and Obama enthusiasts already know: Obama was a regular Joe who, through a series of (unfortunate for the American people) events, captured the presidency.

While Hollywood’s insane obsession with anything and anyone left of center is never a surprise, one should ardently question why HBO, after purchasing the film for seven figures, has chosen to ignore other intriguing political stories.  Why not balance the film with another special or documentary that explores the McCain-Palin campaign?  One could argue, as I’m sure HBO would, that the focus of the film is on to the winning candidate.  Fine.  Argue away, but anyone with a pulse knows we’d be hard pressed to see a similar accolade to a Republican victor.  Furthermore, Sarah Palin’s initial book sales prove that she’s a brand worth exploring.  So, why not go for it?

And then there’s the timing of the film’s release.  The network chose to air the documentary at a time when majorities oppose various elements of the president’s agenda and smack dab in the middle of some highly-contested state and local races.  Add the film’s timing to some of the more bizarre, behind-the-scenes connections and you can begin to triangulate relationships and allegiances.

First, let’s consider the film’s producer – famed actor Edward Norton.  While one should never be surprised by a Hollywood celebrity’s urge to support leftist inclinations, in this case there’s a twist.  To bring the film to fruition, Norton worked with Ari Emanuel, the brother of Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.  Last November, Gawker reported the following:

“… at one point it looked like some of film’s distribution proceeds might be headed back in the general direction of the Obama camp. As of eight months ago, Endeavor Agency’s Ari Emanuel was the agent for the film. Emanuel, of course, is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, just named Obama’s chief of staff. He was also an Obama fundraiser…”

So, Edward Norton shopped the documentary with Ari Emanuel, a man with a vested interest in Barack Obama’s campaign – and, a guy with key access to top government officials.  Unbelievable.  Perhaps most hilarious is Variety’s coverage from early 2008: “Norton said the motivation behind the film was not to glorify its subject.” Anyone out there actually believe that?  According to Rice, “When we shot the final scenes in the Oval Office, [Obama] he asked us, ‘What do you guys need?’  It was incredibly special. I got choked up.”

Is Rice sense-retardant?  She was creating a documentary that was more than favorable to the Obama camp.  Of course he was more than willing to assist!

As a professor, one of the main listening skills I work to instill in my students is the ability to determine what a speaker isn’t telling an audience.  Often times, some of the most intriguing information is embedded in omitted material.

At the beginning of the film, in footage circa 2006, Barack Obama is asked if he plans to run for the presidency.  In response, Obama says he is unsure and explains that he plans to look into how he would best serve the country.  Considering the foreknowledge that he might run, it was odd that the filmmakers chose to lead with this.  In fact, it was two years earlier, in 2004, when Obama said that he would not run in 2008, citing his inexperience.  Call it poor research on the filmmakers’ part or purposeful exclusion, but the words “Obama” and “American presidency” were uttered well before the 2006 midterm elections.

Here is Obama’s 2004 response to the question, “So, why have you ruled that out – running nationally?”:

“I am a believer in…knowing what you’re doing…when you apply for a job…”

“If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket…I would essentially have to start now…before having served a day in the Senate. Now there might be some people who would have no problem doing that, but ah…I’m not one of them.”

We all know how good Obama is at keeping promises.

Now, let’s talk about the film’s contents.  Of particular interest and concern is the control Obama has over America’s young generation.  In the film, David Axlerod explained that one of Obama’s main motivations for running stemmed from his urge to show children that “anything is possible.”  In political terms that means, “We’ve found our voting bloc!”

When speaking about the Iowa caucus, Axlerod said, “These kids are going to win it for us…they think they’re changing the world…we need more of that.”  Robert Gibbs awkwardly intervened, saying, “The good news is, I think they are.”  The latter statement was an attempt to bridge the divide between Axlerod’s campaign analytics and the need for more audience-friendly interaction.  In the end, it’s evident that Obama and Co. were intent on exploiting young Americans, a tactic that worked wonderfully in their favor.

Race was another theme that appeared periodically throughout the film.  Interviews with citizens positioned Obama as the most unlikely of all candidates to win, with respondents stating that the nation wasn’t ready for an African-American president.  Ironically, liberals are the main culprits who railed on and on about how ill-prepared the nation was for this advancement.  As a conservative, I was more than ready, pending the individual capturing the top spot had the qualifications to perform the job.  Barack Obama did not have those needed elements.  Needless to say, the filmmakers didn’t speak with many people who thought it was, indeed, possible for a black man to win the presidency.

The entire film centered around the “emotional” impact Obama has had on America’s young generation.  As a 26-year-old young guy, I’m not feeling it.  Throughout the film, campaign workers cried fervently, chanted Obama praises and gave their all for “change they could believe in.”  While this is their right, the film itself was less than objective.  And I’m fine with that as well, but it would be an extraordinarily overdue kudos to democracy to see HBO (Honoring Barack Obama) air a similarly fair-minded film that centers on Palin’s historic run or McCain’s heroic life story.

Watching Hollywood and the Democratic elite pat each other on the back is getting old.  HBO and other media companies should consider being more fair minded and delving into the other side on a more frequent basis.  In the case of “By the People,” though, the media and entertainment cronyism will take your breath away.  No wonder Obama picks fights with the media who disagree with him.  He’s become accustomed to lapdog media and liberal Hollywood.  Let’s hope these institutions challenge him a bit more here on in.