DHD:

Economist and writer and humorist and actor Ben Stein has filed suit against Kyoscera Corp and advertising agency Seiter & Miller alleging that an agreement for him to appear in TV commercials was illegally breached because of his personal and political beliefs about global warming. Stein’s memorable jacket-and-tie deadpan persona has figured in numerous TV commercials and appearances. Not to mention his iconic turn in the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. According to Stein’s suit, Grace Jao of Seiter & Miller in December 2010 contacted his agent Marcia Hurwitz of Innovative Artists about appearing in commercials for Kyocera printer products and about speaking at a company function. Over the course of about five weeks, the suit claims, the parties reached an agreement on all significant deal points including payment of Stein’s fee of $300,000 for shooting the commercials and for the speaking engagement. The circumstances led Hurwitz to believe the deal was done, the suit says, and Stein planned accordingly.

Early in February 2011 Jao contacted Hurwitz, the suit says, to inform the agent that questions had been raised over Stein’s beliefs about global warming and the environment and whether they were “sufficiently conventional and politically correct for Kyocera,” according to language in the suit. Hurwitz told Jao that as far as she was concerned the deal was done, the suit said, and Stein’s political and scientific views were not part of his contract for extolling the company’s printers.

Full piece here.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the informal have you been ostracized? poll. The results were interesting. More “in the closets” than I expected, and as I read the words, “just keep my mouth shut,” I became rather angry that my fellow Big Hollywood readers feel bullied in the workplace. Because that is what it is: bullying. When a human being fears that he may lose his job if he has the wrong thoughts, he is being bullied. Period. It doesn’t matter if the taunts are in your face or hovering unannounced in the air, only a bully uses his size and power to intimidate others into toeing the line.

Several of you indicated that you have lost your job, left your career or been blacklisted, which is even more disheartening.

Graphic designers and people in advertising, according to the comments, feel compelled to keep a very low profile. It makes sense, because this is an industry where the work must be commissioned. In order to stay employed, the artist needs to stay in the good graces of the powers that be.

The film industry, as we all might have predicted, is one of the meanest, according to those who participated in the poll. The hatred is vehement, and many conservatives feel thoroughly gagged for fear of being ostracized. The bully factor, at times, feels amplified tenfold compared to other industries. Nevertheless, as the individual gains some seniority in the business and experiences success, he or she is far less likely to just sit back and listen. This is comforting news, and as I sorted through the results, I found another inspirational trend.

The more opportunity for independence – self publishing and indie films, for example – the more likely the artist feels free to express himself openly. In fact, self-published authors seem to sing with a sense of unadulterated freedom, knowing that they will never have to bite their tongues again.

THAT is the freedom we need to seek. The more conservative voices that spring up in the entertainment industry, the more ground we will reclaim from those who push a socialist, anti-American, class war agenda. We may yet win this battle for hearts and minds in favor of free markets and individualism. So let’s support one another in a mission to let our voices be heard!

As bass player Nathan Ballein wrote in the comments, “I’ve been outspoken ever since I realized that while getting fired for my political beliefs is a drag, the peace of mind is way worth it.”

I thought that perhaps it would be an interesting project to take an informal poll of Big Hollywood readers – conservatives, libertarians, and individuals who subscribe to other improper schools of thought – who work in the entertainment industry and feel out of sorts. We should keep it simple, so let’s start with something like this:

——

Industry: Publishing

Position: Author

Status: Just keep my mouth shut

——

Industry: Music

Position: Mixer

Status: Out of the closet and out of work

——

Industry: Art

Position: Sculptor

Status: Lost some friends, but feeling empowered

——

Please post in the comments section. I am especially curious about the percentage of people who feel they have no choice but to hide their political beliefs for professional reasons. If you want to email me a brief explanation, please put “Big Hollywood Poll” in the subject line and keep it as short and simple as possible. I have no idea what’s behind the floodgates that I’m prying open, so be patient with me.

Let the confessions begin!

There’s a familiar adage that recognizing you have a problem is the first step toward recovery. And Hollywood certainly has a problem with discrimination against conservatives. 

As I detailed in my new book, “Primetime Propaganda,” Hollywood insiders routinely discriminate against conservatives, believing them to be untalented hacks and political barbarians undeserving of a paycheck. 

I spoke with top executives, writers, and producers in the industry who agreed that discrimination is common – and some even celebrated it.

But many in Hollywood continued to deny this truth. Marta Kauffman of “Friends” fame – whom I interviewed, and who told me that her writers room was made up of liberals – dismissed such criticisms were “silly.” 

Patrick Goldstein of The Los Angeles Times said that such accusations were largely unsubstantiated, despite the tape I released.

Now, however, the worm is turning. Last week, for the first time, Hollywood openly acknowledged that it has a discrimination problem against conservatives. 

Read the full piece here.

—–

Will this be the beginning of the end of Hollywood’s openly discriminatory hiring practices?

A casting manager working on The Hobbit has been sacked over allegations a British actress was turned down for a role in the film because of her skin colour. …

A crew member also reportedly published a newspaper advert calling for extras with “light skin tones”.

A spokesperson for Peter Jackson insisted no such instructions had come from the director’s Wingnut production company, and a representative has now confirmed a casting agent has been fired over the scandal.

The rep says, “No such instructions were given, the crew member in question took it upon themselves to do that and it’s not something we instructed or condoned… The crew member in question has been dismissed… It’s something we take very seriously.”

There is no more of an openly discriminatory industry than show business. Casting offices and agents look for particular “types” every day. This is what they’re hired to do. Discriminatory hiring practices based on looks, age, gender, and race are the norm in Hollywood, not the exception. You can be too fat, too old, too blond, too dark, not pretty enough, not buff enough, or just plain “wrong” for reasons that have nothing to do with talent and that no one can or will explain. This town is buried in stories of people who knocked the audition out of the park but were told they weren’t the right “type.” Which means they were qualified for the job, they just didn’t physically appeal to the boss or bosses; director, producers or a combination of both.

This is the only industry in America that constantly gets away with not giving the most qualified person the job — that openly hires bad actors and actresses based on their physical attributes and/or nationality as opposed to their talent. For purely money-making purposes, movies and television constantly target particular demographics. Frequently a role will be written in order to specifically appeal to a particular race or country in the hopes it will drive more box office or higher ratings.

There’s also a helluva lot of nepotism in show business. Drew Barrymore, Colin Hanks, Sofia Coppola, Nic Cage… And that’s just the beginning. It’s amazing how many people currently working at every level of the industry got their start thanks only to an established relative.

Obviously, if any other industry employed the same hiring practices as Hollywood they would be shut down by the Justice Department for discrimination. Imagine Wal-Mart trying to make a case that in one particular store they discovered that only hiring young, pretty, Caucasian blonds increased profits by 5% and at another store, hiring young, buff, Latino men resulted in the same. Think they would be allowed to stay in business long.

The best rule of thumb when it comes to understanding Hollywood’s behavior is to watch what they accuse others of doing — especially Big Business — and you can bet that’s exactly what they themselves are doing.

Nepotism, sexism, ageism, racism, lookism… You got an ism, Hollywood’s practicing it. And getting away with it.

It was also a picture we ran on Monday. It’s of her playing softball. The beef? That the shot is meant to provoke questions about her sexuality.

Gay and lesbian advocates, like Cathy Renna, believe it “clearly is an allusion to her being gay,” even though the paper never mentioned her orientation.

And that’s my point: The only time Kagan gets outed, is by gays. The bottom line: most of America doesn’t care who Kagan likes to cuddle with. In fact, most of America doesn’t even care about the Supreme Court period. The fact is, this so-called “whispering campaign” over Kagan’s sexuality wasn’t started by an average Joe or even an angry right wing preacher. It was launched by busy-body bloggers, mostly on the left, who have too much time on their hands and too much identity politics in their heads. My favorite line, for example, comes from a major liberal blog. In it, the writer says that Kagan’s friends say she is not gay. But adds: “And yet, the rumor persists.”

Yeah – the rumor persists, because you keep writing “the rumor persists,” you stupid jackass.

Worse, when gay advocate Renna claims that the softball shot is innuendo-driven, she simply reinforces the stereotype that all lesbians are all softball players. In Politico, she questions the use of the photo by asking: “Have you ever seen a picture of Clarence Thomas bowling?”

No, but Thomas was brutally vilified for not fulfilling a stereotype – that of the liberal black ideologue.

Something tells me he would have been happy with the bowling photo. Or being called a lesbian.

And if you disagree with me, you’re probably a racist homophobe who despises the collected works of Ani DiFranco.

Tonight:

Patti Ann Browne!

comedian Joe DeRosa!

demented author Dana Vachon!

and other stuff!

The United States Supreme Court tackled the issue in the seminal case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978).  In that case, the Court found that race could only be one of numerous factors in determining admission to a university.  It stated that the University of California policy was unconstitutional, but that the policy used by Harvard was a valid type of affirmative action.  The result was that Mr. Bakke was admitted to medical school and became a respected physician.

Since that time, there have been many more challenges to the doctrine, some of which were successful and some of which failed. This week, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court, basically eliminated affirmative action or reverse discrimination or whatever you want to call it.

In the case of Ricci v. Destefano, the Supreme Court held that an affirmative action policy by the City of New Haven, Connecticut was invalid.  The litigation began when the City tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minority members passed.  Accordingly, the white firemen who did pass the test were not promoted.

The Court ruled that the white firemen who did pass the test should have been promoted.  Four justices in dissent felt otherwise.  The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who stated that although the court felt sorry for the passing firemen, it wasn’t enough.

Hopefully, this decision puts the final nail in the coffin of reverse discrimination, which is anything but fair to either side.  By definition, it is discrimination.  Anything that puts one group above another is discrimination whether it is to make up for past wrongs or not.  What has happened in the past is the past.  What matters now is the future.  And, in the future of the United States, there should not be discrimination of any kind, reverse or otherwise.  These policies have lived past their time, if, in fact, they ever had one.

But, this case is interesting on other grounds besides what it may mean to affirmative action. The Supreme Court, by deciding as it did, was overruling a decision in which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotamayor took part.  Does this mean her nomination is in jeopardy?  I think not, but it does mean that she should be more carefully examined by the Senate.  Remember, this is the woman who stated that her rich cultural background as a Puerto Rican woman would qualify her more to decide certain types of cases than a white man.

Maybe, she is the one who is guilty of discrimination and being racially biased.  I do not believe that the Senate should give her a free ride.  She should be examined very carefully before being put on the bench.