“The Hunger Games” trilogy is based in a country named Panem, which is located on the ruins of North America. Within the country of Panem there are two types of societies, the tyrannical Capitol and the twelve districts.

The Capitol of Panem is the perfect exhibition of power and sheltered opulence. The citizens are rich, well fed, and stocked with everything nice. But while the Capitol is throwing their big parties and buying expensive goods, the districts surrounding them are working hard to fulfill the Capitol’s every need, leaving them with next to nothing.

The twelve districts of Panem are full of misery, poverty, and food shortages. Each of the districts has an assigned duty by the Capitol, from agriculture to coal mining; they work hard and suffer to provide their designated good. The citizens of the districts live within the tyrannical laws of the Capitol, and if they ever decide to break the law, they are sure to pay. The Capitol strives every day to remind the people of the districts that their reign is supreme, and one of their favorite torture devices is the annual Hunger Games.

Every year the Capitol goes around to each of the districts to select two teenagers to fight ’til the death. With 24 in the beginning, only one will win–well, usually, that is.

This story’s Hunger Games had a few twists and turns in it, and they were not set up by the Capitol. Katniss and Peeta, district twelve residents, decide to give the Capitol a run for their money in this year’s Hunger Games. They are tired of the constant oppression and refuse to be pieces in the Capitol’s game. When the Capitol gets a hint of Katniss and Peeta’s plan, they react and turn their lives into a living hell, triggering a complete rebellion in the process.

Many people disregard the fact of how political the “Hunger Games” series is. But when you look at the full picture Collins displays, it is impossible not to see the political trend. Throughout all three books there is a constant battle of tyranny verses freedom.

There is no word on Collins’ political views, but it is obvious she has distaste for government control. She makes it clear that the only way the characters can have freedom is to overthrow their big government machine. I find it hard to believe the books are only coincidentally based in the ruins of America. Could Suzanne Collins be hinting she believes the country’s current trends will lead to an economic collapse?

America’s current situation is one that is leading towards government domination, and though we are not even close to the extremities of “Panem,” it is hard not to imagine what lies ahead. It is gloomy to think of the possibilities of the future, yet refreshing to know that one of the world’s most popular books (and soon to be movies) are ones that actually go against the liberal agenda of larger government influence.

I urge everyone to read this book and to dig deeper. Whether you’re looking to just escape for a while or are in need of some political motivation, “The Hunger Games” is sure to please.

“Kate, California is going down! Pack up the kids now!

It’s not just California. It’s the whole goddamned world that gone to shit.” (John Cusack, 2012)

It’s surprising to me how often it seems like Sacramento wrote the plot of its own disaster movie and is now acting the part it has written for itself of panicking, incompetent government.

John Nolte, editor of Big Hollywood, has joined that great mass of reverse Joads (of Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath), in search of a better life anywhere but California. I imagine him, with his affects, trucking across the Mojave Desert in search of the better life that eluded him in California.

“The Mojave is a big desert and a frightening one. It’s as though nature tested a man for endurance and constancy to prove whether he was good enough to get to California,” Steinbeck wrote in Travels with Charley in Search of America. Now the desert, notwithstanding the government-induced drought in the Central Valley, is more metaphorical and all around us. There are no jobs but government jobs or the jobs the government has yet to destroy.

“You know what’s remarkable? Is how much England looks in no way like Southern California,” Austin Powers once said. But he was wrong. We are England, circa 1970. We’re still looking for our Thatcher. We hope if New Jersey can get Christie, maybe this state can come back, even if our last Republican governor merely played the part of a conservative. Indeed, the fattest governor in America could have taught the body builder a thing or two about trimming the fat.

Call me silly or foolhardy, but I’m not yet ready to leave the party. To be sure, the state’s fiscal matters are a mess and now it’s at war with Amazon.com in its vain hope to tax the Internet, its political class wants to kill off both its tax base and the middle class. If they could figure out a way to tax the weather, they would. (Oh wait, that’s what the global warming law – AB 32 – is all about!)

You see, I’m a refugee from Massachusetts, so I’m used to getting taxed and taxed hard. In California, at least I have the weather, the beaches, and the babes. The Beach Boys¸ let me tell you, really were right.

So about four years ago I showed up with no job, $40 dollars in debt, without having ever visited L.A., let alone my college (which I picked after spending the afternoon trying to find the college the furthest away from the Ivy League cliques). In Southern California, all you need is money, good looks, or grit. People spend less time asking you where you went to school and more time asking you where you want to go and how they can help. With its shallowness, it’s oddly more meritocratic than the supposedly deep political class that runs the country. With its love of beauty and the good life, it is fairer than the petty, soulless liberal prep school I went to.

Though I had no way to pay my bills, I was determined to make a go of it. Besides, I figured that if things didn’t work out, there were worse places to be homeless. Despite scholarships I still was so broke that I did odd jobs on Craigslist – the least pleasant of which was pulling a dad cat from underneath a house – and worked three different jobs, sometimes competing with illegal immigrants for the cash jobs I wanted. I still couldn’t afford the plane ticket back to Boston and saw my parents only a handful of times.  Times, as they say, were hard.

But in the evenings, I saved up enough money to take myself and my then-girlfriend, now-fiancée (remember what I said about California girls – she’s a sensible Berkeley grad) to the movies. And there we escaped together.

I had always thought she and I would leave the state altogether, but a recent movie finally convinced me to stay, Battle: Los Angeles.  Its critics to the contrary, the film delivered exactly what it promised: a battle in Los Angeles. Having spent way too many misspent hours on the freeways, the prospect that those freeways were to be destroyed was reason enough to make the trek to the theatre.

The plot was simple enough: genocidal aliens roamed about murdering people indiscriminately and then the Marines showed up to fight them off. In a situation room, the Sgt. Major put the situation darkly and grimly: “This is a textbook military invasion. We are the last offensive force on the west coast. We cannot lose Los Angeles.”

Something stirred in me hearing those words. Yes, we cannot lose Los Angeles. We cannot lose California.  We’ve got to get back to the fight.

No matter where we run, the Left will eventually come for us. Even liberals flee failure, though of course, they import it with them. Just ask Republicans in Colorado or New Hampshire, which are now swing states. Though many of us might move to the Texas – the land of the Alamo – California must be our battleground. It must be our Alamo.  After a brief stint in New York City at the Wall Street Journal editorial page, I’m going to come back to fight.

And yes, it’s true that California, once among the world’s greatest economies, would be under I.M.F. receivership were it independent, its worth it to get its financial house in order.

We need not be fatalistic about it, for as Shakespeare once said, the entire world’s a stage, we are merely actors, waiting for our entrances and exits.

Well, now is our cue.

—–

CNS News:

“Well, I mean, I think so because I think that when you come into office and you want to put your mark on things — this is just my opinion, when you want to put your mark on things, you want to be able to spend. And what’s crippled Obama’s administration, as far as I’m concerned, is the financial crisis and it’s prevented him from doing any new spending,” said Baldwin, who publicly supported Obama in the 2008 Presidential election.

More here.

My husband owns a recording studio, declared as one of the top 16 in the world by Mix Magazine so it wasn’t unusual when an artist named Becky Kelly called them to present a track, titled “Where’s the Line to See Jesus,” that she wanted to turn into a professional recording. What was unusual was the message: simplistic, heartfelt; one distinct melody with a lesson that extends beyond the boundaries of the holiday season. Along with the song Becky and Chris created the accompanying video below.

I’m proud of all the hard work everyone put into this and especially proud of the song’s biggest benefactor – it’s not Becky, it’s not the studio, but a charity called CFS that has long helped families in need and children who need temporary or forever homes. The charity operates solely on private donations but due to tumultuous economic times, those funds are shrinking. We can’t cede the privilege and responsibility of helping our fellow man to the government; that’s not who we are or what we believe and using the arts is a fantastic way to raise funds and awareness.

Becky writes how the song and video came to fruition:

While at the mall a couple of years ago, my then four year old nephew, Spencer, saw kids lined up to see Santa Claus. Having been taught as a toddler that Christmas is the holiday that Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, he asked his mom, “where’s the line to see Jesus”?

My sister mentioned this to my dad, who immediately became inspired and jotted words down to a song in just a few minutes. After putting music to the words, and doing a quick recording at home, he received a great response from friends. He sent the song off to Nashville without much response, except for a Christian song writer who suggested adding a bridge at the end of the first chorus. My dad then asked if I wanted to record the song to see what we could do with it. I listened to the song, made a few changes to the words to make it flow better, and we headed to Shock City Studios. It was at the studio where Chris, owner and producer, rewrote the 2nd verse and part of the chorus… with goosebumps and emotions high, we were all hopeful and felt like we had something special.

The demo was recorded in just under 2 hours and sent off again to Nashville… still no response. Then 2 weeks before Christmas last year, my cousins decided to do a video to see what we could accomplish on YouTube. The first day we had 3000 hits and it soared from there. We received e-mails, phone calls, Facebook messages from people all over asking for the music, CD’s, iTunes, anything… we had nothin’.

After a couple of meetings with Chris following the amazing response, we got serious and recorded a studio-quality version of song and accompanying professional video. We headed back into the studio this past spring… this time with guitars, drums, bass, pianos, choirs… the real deal…. and here we are today. Getting iTunes set up, a website put together, and loving that thousands upon thousands of Christians have come together… remembering the true meaning of Christmas. Out of the mouths of babes come profound truths that many adults can not understand.

Hopefully Spencer’s observation will cause people all over to reflect on the love of Jesus, and that one day we will all stand in line to see Him. We are giving part of the proceeds to this amazing organization that helps families and children in need.  They offer counseling, foster care and adoption placement as well as other resources and rely on donations to operate.

We are most thankful to our Heavenly Father to have this chance to share our music with you. Merry Christmas everyone.

- Becky

—–

To buy the song via iTunes and Amazon and learn more visit http://wheresthelinetoseejesus.com/

A finger stabs overhead as the conservative online publisher declares Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a racist. An arm lances outward as he decries Republican leaders as apologists. Voice rising, Breitbart pledges $10,000, then $20,000, then $100,000 for the United Negro College Fund if proof is found to corroborate claims of racial name-calling during tea party protests on Capitol Hill.

“They decided to play lowball, hardball tactics,” Breitbart seethes. “Well, we’re going to have to play it right back at them.”

You could argue he has done just that.

Two weeks ago, Breitbart posted an edited video that left the impression that Shirley Sherrod, then a little-known black federal employee, was racist. Within days she was out of a job, the doctored tape (whose source Breitbart will not name) proved wildly misleading, and President Barack Obama was on the phone with her trying to make things right.

Sherrod says she plans to file a lawsuit against Breitbart, and he’s being blamed for committing the same online sins that he says are endemic in the U.S. media: political bias and lack of fairness. But despite calls, even from some conservatives, for Breitbart to apologize to Sherrod, he has done nothing of the sort.

“What would warrant an apology?” he told CNN. “I’m not the one that threw her under the bus.”

Love or hate him, you can’t avoid Breitbart on cable TV these days. But who is this 41-year-old father of four from Los Angeles, who has emerged as one of the most incendiary figures from the Beltway to Hollywood, a minor-league Limbaugh who mixes shock-jock calculation, conservative credo and answer-to-no-one swagger? Who is this icon of the smash-mouth politics that divide America?

___

Breitbart vaguely resembles a younger version of the actor Carroll O’Connor, with gray hair and pale blue eyes. He has the kind of build that suggests he’s not averse to polishing off his kids’ leftovers.

In the quiet of his Los Angeles living room, where the California sunshine floods through skylights and toys occupy corners, Breitbart is practiced and polite. Dressed in a blue blazer, jeans and button-down shirt, he’s nothing like the combative partisan seen hissy-fitting on YouTube clips.

Kids’ artwork is taped to the walls, and he chats amiably with his wife about dinner and a visit from his in-laws. There’s a large-screen TV and pool table, and a book on see-through houses rests nearby.

Breitbart talks about his views with the zeal of the convert that he is. A personality ago, he was a cookie-cutter Hollywood liberal. But his passion for his brand of conservative politics is shot through with the keen business sense of an up-and-coming media mogul: He knows that what he says sells.

As with the Sherrod video, he is skilled at finding issues that push conservative buttons while at the same time pulling Internet traffic to his websites, driving up advertising rates. He’s a man with an agenda, and it’s as much business as politics.

“I’m committed to the destruction of the old media guard,” Breitbart has said. “And it’s a very good business model.”

He did not speak with Sherrod before the clipped video went up, and he says he was unaware of the complete speech at the time. By his account, he posted the clip to expose racism within the NAACP, which last month passed a resolution condemning what it said were racist elements within the tea party. He wrote that the 1986 video shows “nodding approval” in the crowd to Sherrod’s remarks, which he sees as evidence of bigotry.

It’s not the first time he’s been involved in a controversy over edited tapes. Last year, one of Breitbart’s websites debuted the hidden-camera sting videos made by James O’Keefe III and Hannah Giles that brought down the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. Giles posed as a prostitute, and the videos show ACORN staffers offering advice on taxes and other issues. Critics said the heavily edited tapes shaped a deceptive narrative, a charge Breitbart denies.

He relishes his public role as provocateur. He told reporters from the stage of a tea party convention in February, “It’s not your business model that sucks, it’s you that sucks.” And this on Sen. Edward Kennedy’s death: “If you can’t say something nice about a person, then say mean things about them instead,” Breitbart wrote. “Especially if they are unapologetic manslaughterers.”

Breitbart’s home turf is a colony of conservative websites anchored to news aggregator Breitbart.com, which gets more than 2 million visitors each month. He’s a regular on Fox News, and has a book on the way.

News cycle by news cycle, fact by fact, Breitbart uses his websites and public appearances to challenge what he perceives as liberal bias in the media, academia and Hollywood, the broad forces that shape American lives. His loudmouthed style is a radical departure from conservative voices of the past, like William F. Buckley Jr.

“I do what I do because the mainstream media chooses not to do it,” he says. “The game of the left controlling the narrative … is ending.”

And yet a centerpiece of the Breitbart operation is, in effect, a handshake with the devil, as he sees it: the mainstream media. His most popular site, Breitbart.com, showcases content he buys from The Associated Press and other mainstream news organizations. It was launched under the motto: “Just the news.”

Breitbart TV, another grab-bag, rounds up video clips.

From there it’s a hard right turn, and it’s clear after a few clicks Breitbart isn’t promoting an impartial media. A quartet of sister sites offer conservative analysis, commentary and blog posts that pass judgment on news stories or delve into other topics of the day—a sort of online bulletin board for conservatives. There’s Big Journalism, Big Hollywood, Big Peace and Big Government. (He uses the modifier “Big” to mock the media slang Big Tobacco and Big Oil).

Some past headlines, “NY Times admires Taliban,” “Who really needs a journalism degree?” and “Left Admits Racism Charges Against Tea Parties a Tactic, Not a Truth.”

Not surprisingly, the left sees Breitbart as another entertainer-pundit on the fringes of journalism, where facts are disposable and attitude trumps intellect.

“I call it thuggery in the national discourse,” says Democratic strategist Karen Finney, a Clinton White House veteran “It’s damaging to our country.”

But his take-no-prisoners approach goes down well with conservatives who feel their political leaders have been too hesitant, too timid. Breitbart “intends to offend the other side,” says Republican strategist Jonathan Wilcox, who teaches a course on politics and celebrity at the University of Southern California. He’s “an oppositional figure at an oppositional time.”

___

Breitbart’s personality is reminiscent of the manic, stop-and-go driving in his hometown of Los Angeles, and right now we’re at stop.

When asked what he does other than pounding a laptop or hanging out with tea partiers, he has to pause. He’s a devoted Los Angeles Dodgers fan, and has traveled the country to cheer on his favorite team. He spends a lot of time with his in-laws at their home in Venice, near the beach, and a getaway usually means a meal with the kids at California Pizza Kitchen.

“When you have four kids … unless you have the television on it’s pure mayhem,” he says. “It’s just pure chaos.”

Larry Solov, his business partner and lifelong friend, says the blogger has two speeds: lighthearted jokester and fiery culture warrior.

“They flip back and forth,” Solov quips. “And there is not that much in between.”

Breitbart is part of a small cluster of Hollywood conservatives that includes comedian Dennis Miller and Joel Surnow. While he told tea partiers in Nevada that he’s not rich, he doesn’t live like Joe the Plumber either—a Range Rover is parked in his driveway, and the neatly-tended homes in his hillside neighborhood go for more than $1 million.

When Breitbart tells his story, it can feel rehearsed, a tale told many times. He’s quick to needle the teenager and young man he once was, talking about his journey from college party boy and lapsed music critic to 21st century Internet mogul, as he’s been called by talk-radio host Laura Ingraham.

He grew up in an affluent bubble in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles (home to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Harrison Ford), not far from where he lives today with his children and wife Susie, the daughter of actor Orson Bean.

The son of a restaurateur, he attended private school and emerged liberal. Politics was just a word.

That began to change at Tulane University in New Orleans, where Breitbart partied and mustered average grades but was exposed to a grittier version of America. In a city long troubled by crime and poverty, he started thinking about social problems and “the Great Society trash can,” a reference to welfare programs in the 1960s.

A defining moment came as he watched the 1991 Senate hearings on Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court. Breitbart grew indignant as Democratic senators grilled the nominee, in his view unfairly; he believed the allegations of inappropriate behavior leveled at Thomas paled in comparison to Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick scandal. Breitbart considered the media, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Organization for Women complicit in what he saw.

“I went in expecting to root against Clarence Thomas and I came out doubting the Democratic Party and liberalism,” he says.

He eventually changed his party registration to Republican and never looked back. He wrote recently on an Atlantic magazine website that there was a time when he read the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, British music magazines and what he called his Bible, satirical Spy magazine, but those habits died with the Internet. Now, his reading tastes lean right.

All that would be just personal footnote if he hadn’t met Web pioneer Matt Drudge of Drudge Report repute in the mid-1990s. Breitbart became his long-serving underling. He was also there during the formative days of the Huffington Post.

In interviews, Breitbart usually refuses to talk about Drudge, who is known for fiercely guarding his privacy (and didn’t respond to AP requests for an interview), but he does say this: “I owe him everything.”

“If he had been left of center, he would have been on the cover of Rolling Stone and Wired and Vanity Fair a million times,” Breitbart says. “My greatest takeaway from Matt Drudge … was his sense of individualism, to follow your path. And so, Drudge is Drudge and I’m me.”

___

Breitbart’s talk of new media revolution is as much throwback as innovation. The confrontational right-left voices in today’s national dialogue recall newspapers of the 18th and 19th centuries, which had little use for milquetoast neutrality.

“When you have a more open, competitive landscape, you need to do something to differentiate yourself. One way is to have a point of view,” says Rich Gordon, director of digital innovation at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.

Is it journalism?

“It’s a different brand of journalism than I grew up with in the 20th century,” Gordon says. “We seem to be going back to the future.”

Breitbart rattles off ideas for more than a dozen interlinked sites and blogs, some of which he says could launch later this year: Big Education would take on teacher unions and political correctness in schools; Big Tolerance, to “show that blacks, gays, Hispanics, Jews, are not all of one progressive mindset.”

Solov, his business partner and friend, considers the company’s finances private and wouldn’t say if it turned a profit last year. Breitbart says advertising pays for a small staff—Internet traffic to his site gets a big boost from his old friend Drudge, whose site links stories to Breitbart’s online turf.

There are those who think Breitbart’s future is in the Beltway culture he despises. One reader posted this, “Andrew for president 2012.”

Breitbart looks momentarily bemused when asked if he harbors political ambition.

“I’m less of a senator than I am a pied piper or Johnny Appleseed,” Breitbart says. “Being a senator would diminish my power.”

For which group is there more evidence of members assenting to racist comments:  the Tea Party or the NAACP?  

While the national leftist media outlets continue to fall over themselves trying to figure out a spin on the story that sticks, we at Big Hollywood thought we’d double down with some analysis of the NAACP’s treatment of racism in the entertainment industry.

For 41 years, the NAACP has awarded “Image” awards to black entertainers who achieve excellence in the arts.  Despite its rightful role in celebrating the accomplishments of people of color in the arts, the awards show has also been beset by controversy.  Several nominees and winners of awards have engaged in openly racist behavior.  For example, Jamie Foxx, a winner of multiple NAACP Image awards, called Miley Cyrus a “little white bitch” who should “catch chlamydia on a bicycle seat.”  The NAACP has yet to comment on Foxx’s remarks.  Going beyond hatred for one white person, rapper Ice Cube released a song in 1993 titled “Enemy,” with lyrics that state:

[Referring to Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech]

You gonna grow old holdin’ crackers’ hands
Before you hold each others’ hands?
You gonna walk with your enemy
Before you learn to walk with one another?
How sick can you be? …
Please don’t [shoot] til you see the whites of his eyes,
The whites of his skin, the whites of his lies.

Two years later, Ice Cube was nominated for an Image award for his role in the film Higher Learning.

His other songs are reprehensible as well. “No Vaseline” makes derogatory statements about Jews, but the actual focus of the song revolves around anally raping and shooting/lynching his former N.W.A. colleagues.  “Black Korea” is unabashedly racist against Asian-Americans.  After peppering the song with slurs (“Oriential one-penny counting motherfuckers,” “little Chinese motherfucker,” “your chop suey ass”), Mr. Cube says, “So pay respect to the black fist/ Or we’ll burn your store right down to a crisp.”  Sounds a little too close for comfort to the racially incendiary art of another Image award winner. No NAACP statement has ever been made condemning his endorsement of racially motivated violence.

As is commonly criticized in rap lyrics, the “N” word is all too often used and abused.  Jay-Z and Whoopi Goldberg have each stated that they use the term to delineate brotherhood and try to co-opt its original hateful meaning, which I understand completely.  I can’t count the number of times I’ve called myself an evil neocon in jest, attempting to turn a stupid pejorative into a word with no power to intimidate or silence any person by grouping him or her with a label that immediately assigns hate and ostracism.  But in rap music, the use of “n*gger” is often derogatory, not uplifting.  Consider lyrics from Image award winners R. Kelly, Tupac Shakur, and—oh yes, nominee Jay-Z.  Perpetuating the “N” word’s use as a hateful and demeaning slur against African Americans is exactly what the NAACP should be denouncing, not rewarding.

And for these artists, the racially insensitive expressions are not limited to lyrics themselves.  In the music video for “Run This Town,” a collaboration between Jay-Z, Kanye West, and Rihanna (all three are Image winners & nominees), the artists lead a flame-engulfed riot, dressed in outfits similar to groups that promote racially motivated violence:  the PLO (keffiyehs), the KKK (pointed hoods—but they’re black!), and the Black Panthers (plain, all-black shirt & pants with black beret—but, of course, this could just be a reference to beatniks, right?).

And, to top it all off, this past year the NAACP gave an Image award to Van Jones, the former Green Jobs Czar who casually singled out “white polluters,” stereotyped that “only white suburban kids shoot up schools,” and decried Israel’s “occupation” of Israel.  Benjamin Jealous gave Jones the NAACP President’s Award at the 41st annual Image Awards.  “Van Jones is an American treasure,” he reasoned. 

—–

Now, the temptation here is to use the tactics of the left, to declare these men and women wholly bad and to disregard any artistry, charity, or basic humanity for which they should be shown respect.  To do that, or to label the NAACP as an organization that tolerates and welcomes racism as the Left has labeled the Tea Party movement, would be disingenuous and irresponsible.  One person making racist statements or statements construed as racism indicates nothing about the people who constitute the majority of and define the values of a group.  But let’s look at how said majority has reacted to racism in both the Tea Party and the NAACP.

This last April 15th, a small movement of agent provocateurs mobilized to try and embarrass Tea Partiers at nationwide protests.  In several locations, individuals espousing white supremacy or other hateful sentiments were booed and forced away from the crowd.  Whether these people were leftists trying to forge some evidence for the “Tea Partiers are Racist” meme or genuine racists trying to piggyback off the Tea Party’s popularity, the overwhelming majority of Tea Party members showed that racism has no place in their movement. 

Compare this with the NAACP’s reaction to clear racism in both the political and entertainment world.  Ms. Sherrod’s remarks, before revealing her change of heart, were greeted by her audience with murmurs of approval, chuckles, and absolutely no objections.  Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s audience has been a tad more enthusiastic in response to his hateful comments, with no rebuke from Mr. Jealous’ organization.  The NAACP has nominated the aforementioned artists for Image awards, given them the prizes—sometimes more than once—and never once condemned their openly hateful speech.  At the very least, even if the opportunity to deny an artist a nomination has passed, the organization could issue a statement saying that such behavior is not appropriate for those who have been honored with Image awards. 

The NAACP ought to hold those it designates as role models for the black community to higher standards than this.  If it continues to ignore the propagation of racially incendiary and violent expression, the group has no leg to stand on when condemning the Tea Party.

“Well, you can see the enthusiasm out there. And people are here to really tell big government that we want big government to make big decisions about the most important problems we face. And also to pressure our corporations to behave properly, as consumers, but we’re here to — we’re asking for big government, basically.”

First of all, who is this “we?” Don’t include me in that statement, bucko - or the readers of Big Hollywood, for that matter. And don’t include the millions of Tea Party attendees all across this still great nation of ours. Obviously someone’s too busy polishing the Grammys on his mantel to pay much attention to the news – except to watch videos of his own CNN appearances, natch.

And I have to ask the obvious question – is Mr. Sumner even an American citizen, or is he just here because the US (for now) taxes him at a lower rate than the UK? Either way, he’s a blowhard who doesn’t speak for me.

Musicians/actors/entertainers/celebrities like Gordy live in a privileged bubble surrounded by brown-nosed yes men, with the funds available to hire accountants to help them find every single little tax loophole so that less money leaves their bank accounts to fill government coffers as possible. How else could he afford five lavish homes in glamorous locales all over the world? How else could his wife afford private charter flights to the White House Correspondents’ dinner?

I find it ironic that the rock and roll culture has morphed from the “don’t trust anyone over 30″ mantra of the 1960s to the “we’re not gonna take it anymore” Twisted Sister motto of the 1980s to the “smells like teen spirit” posturing of the 1990s to the  slavering “we’re asking for big government” kowtowing of today.

But then, I suppose an independent streak doesn’t get one invited to visit the Community Organizer in Chief so that later, one can gush about The One’s being “very genuine, very present, clearly super-smart, and exactly what we need in the world.”

The whole thing puts me in mind of an old  Calvin and Hobbes strip, where Calvin says:

“The problem with rock ‘n’ roll is that the generation that created it is now the establishment. Rock pretends it’s still rebellious with its video posturing, but who believes it? The stars are 45-year-old zillionaires or they endorse soft drinks! The ‘revolution’ is a capitalist industry! Give me a break!”

I’d add that they’re not just a part of the capitalist industry they profess to despise, but they’re also now supporters of an overly-intrusive government they once wanted to overthrow, or at least gave that impression in order to sell records to become part of the capitalist industry…

Oy, the boomerang effect is giving me a headache.

Now, if Gordy really is a fan of big government, then I’d like to pass on a suggestion made by Hugh Hewitt, which was passed on to me by John Nolte: let the government run the music business. Can you imagine? Caps on prices for CDs and music downloads, because inexpensive entertainment is a right. No more expensive concert tickets either. It’s outrageous that people should have to pay so much for a couple of hours of warbling! In fact, government should regulate where these concerts are held because because it’s not fair for some patrons to get up close and personal in the front row while others are relegated to the nosebleed section.

It’s also not fair that Gordy and his band get to luxuriate before a show while enjoying chilled Evian water, full-bodied French wines, good quality vodka, champagne, fresh fruit and fruit juices, French cheeses and  six – not five or seven – but six yogurt drinks. What does all of that imported food do for our carbon footprint? Much better to have that regulated as well so that while on tour, Gordy can enjoy cheese curds in Wisconsin, ham hocks in Alabama and coffee milk in Rhode Island. You know, eat locally and all that. And NO plastic bags or containers. I’ve heard plastic is bad. They should eat off of “sustainably harvested” bark plates and drink out of their cupped hands.

Heck, while we’re at it, why not let the government force musicians and other entertainers to perform free of charge for the masses? Shouldn’t they be obligated to share their talent, rather than profit from it? Isn’t that the “big government” way? “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.” I needs me some free music, because heaven knows I’m not as talented as Gordon Sumner. And a free iPod. Someone get Apple on the horn.

I’d say that’s a really big problem we’re facing, to quote Gordy. Forget illegal aliens, forget Iran getting ready to blow us up as soon as possible, forget the economic collapse in Europe that’s on its way over here as we speak. Nope, free music for all is a winning campaign slogan for some enterprising politician out there.

Believe me, they need all the help they can get these days.

Seriously: I’m all for making money any  way you can (legally, of course), and I don’t begrudge Gordy his multimillion dollar bank account. He earned it. However, in exchange, I’d appreciate him keeping his big nose out of my business. If he wants to admit to being for “big government,” fine and dandy. But please, don’t presume to speak for the rest of us.

And don’t be surprised when we’re not to keen to jump on your poseur bandwagon.

And this reminds me of something very important: people are bad.

Seriously: people are bad. To the bone, to quote Mr. Thorogood. I mean, when two sisters who’ve known each other for nearly a century are rejecting their own blood over bucks – you’re seeing humanity. Or more specifically: what happens to humanity when you think you have something – and then it’s taken away.

I want you to think about that when you consider the health care reform bill, which will create new agencies, new bureaucracies, new taxes, new costs. Meaning new opportunities for entitlement desire, and entitlement rage. The thing that grows cannot ungrow. It’s here to stay, and it will only get bigger. And our government wouldn’t have it any other way.

I also want to remind you of medicare and Medicaid fraud, charity and nonprofit schemes, and the countless other tax, home and small business loan scams all able to operate, simply because the government assumes people are good. That’s right – no one would ever create a fake charity for Katrina, or pocket cash meant for orphans – because we aren’t like that.

Ha Ha.

We, the people, are.

Worse, when you give people something for nothing, replacing self-reliance with “where’s my free cheese?”, they’ll want more, and nothing less. And just like water, human graft will find a way into every crevice and corner of your life, until you realize the only person you won’t be paying for is you.

Because you’ll be broke.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobe who hasn’t bought Andrew WK’s new CD.

Tonight:

the awesome Andrea Tantaros!

the awesome Andrew WK

the awesome Tara Palmeri!

and other awesome stuff!

I’ll be getting into that in detail in another series of articles, but we’re here to talk about Hollywood. Hollywood was once a conservative town run by immigrants who believed in the American way. Many of the stars fought in WWII and acted in patriotic movies. But there was a labor struggle in Hollywood starting with the unions, which began to get infiltrated by communists and socialists in the 1930s. They made more and more demands of the studios that they didn’t like. In 1947, the studio bosses decided to take advantage of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), with which Senator Joseph McCarthy had no direct involvement despite misinformation to the contrary. The Hollywood studio bosses wanted to bust up the unions and the method they used was the HUAC investigations and the blacklist.

Instead of solving their problem, it created a backlash which fills many members of Hollywood with bitterness to this day. It created a whole mythology and a flawed rationale for some to reject all things conservative, even though conservative politics was not really the issue at all. A sort of ideological purge began to take hold in Hollywood. Those with conservative leanings were made to feel so unwelcome that to this day many of them keep their politics to themselves. As Charlton Heston often said, “There are more conservatives in the closet in Hollywood than gays.”

Former MCA/Universal chief Lew Wasserman was famous for his politics. Like many in Hollywood, he picked the Democrats as the party to favor in the hopes that they would favor his company. Like lemmings, the industry followed his example.

Small wonder Wasserman felt a natural affinity for Lyndon Johnson. Facing a relentless Justice Department investigation in the early 1960s, Wasserman discovered the river of power that flowed from channeling Hollywood money to Democratic candidates. LBJ’s 1964 campaign marked his elevation into the top ranks of Democratic fund-raisers. In The Power and the Glitter, his 1990 book on Hollywood and politics, Ronald Brownstein writes, “Wasserman, Hollywood’s toughest operator, eased into this rugged environment as if he were born to it.”

But Wasserman, unlike the left-wing Malibu Democrats, was never an ideologue, as evidenced by his 1968 support for Hubert Humphrey. From Johnson to Clinton, his cause was making sure that the film industry had a pipeline to a Democratic White House. In his equation of politics with business, in his understanding that money buys access, Wasserman was no different than the conservative Texas oilmen who bankrolled the rise of LBJ.

Wasserman was known for punishing those in town didn’t support the Democrats. When studio heads set such examples, the minions often follow suit. So many Hollywood people started supporting Democrats, not just in Washington but the state of California. They funneled millions into the campaigns of people like Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, etc. The state became bluer over time. When Hollywood darling President Bill Clinton closed a lot of military bases in California, it helped to push the state more into the Democrat column. And lax immigration policies favored by Democrats, who see illegal aliens as their future voters, hurt Republicans in the state even more. Especially when the Republicans tried to fight back against the huge costs illegal aliens placed on the state budget.

Progressives believe in the nanny state. They’ve ushered in a quasi-Victorian age where more and more things become banned. Where your every action is dictated to by the state. California keeps creating laws to micro-manage its citizens’ every move. And all of that bureaucracy costs money. As a result, the government has become increasingly voracious when it comes to taxes and fines. They fine people for anything they can think of and tax them when they’re not fining them.

This makes the cost of living in California too much for the working class and the poor, not to mention the rich who are tired of being soaked. Business and talent are flocking away from the state. Hollywood productions are forced to relocate to more affordable climes. Which means the city of Los Angeles, which has largely depended on the Hollywood cash cow for most of the last 80 years, is starting to feel the pain. Hollywood is a vast industry that employs thousands of people. It helps fund many more ancillary businesses from the restaurants to the gardeners to the baristas at the coffee shops. When the money in Hollywood dries up so do a lot of the businesses that employ people, like out of work actors and writers. And when that happens, things gets ugly.

The end result is the state of California is on a collision course with bankruptcy. Hollywood helped bring about the end of its own glory. America was once looked on by the world as a savior. It rescued millions from the oppression of the Nazis and Communism. But Hollywood started cranking out movies starting in the late 60s that “deconstructed” the American myths. More and more films portrayed the government as evil, the military as butchers, America as oppressors. Not surprisingly, anti-Americanism started to spread around the world.

The irony of progressives is they attack the very government they created. The oppressive government which spies on our every movie in Hollywood films is less the product of the cold war conservatives and more the product of big government-loving statists. And that’s a progressive ideology. Not a conservative one.

The cost of running a government the progressive way is too expensive to take care of anyone well. It only exploits and robs revenues the citizens as much as inhumanly possible. The people are given inferior benefits as a bribe for their acceptance. They’re bribed with their own money or the money of those who could have given them a good job, if the state wasn’t bilking them first.

If Hollywood wants to return to its former success, it needs to stop deluding itself and start supporting those who would make the business climate good for them again.The leaders in California that the progressives support are not helping little guy. They are making them destitute. And if Hollywood doesn’t get smarter fast, they will meet them on the way down.