The muscle-bound comic, podcast host and UFC commentator returns to his television franchise “Fear Factor” at 8 p.m. EST tonight on NBC. That means he’s doing the publicity rounds to drum interest in the rebooted show, and it’s pretty clear Rogan isn’t concerned about insulting his fellow celebrities.

Consider how he takes down singer Miley Cyrus, and today’s celebrity mindset, in one glorious rant.

I watch Miley Cyrus talk in interviews — I really study her, from a psychological standpoint. This poor f–king kid! What kind of a life is that? Sure, she’s got a ton of money. Yes, she’s not going to have to deal with the financial problems that a lot of people have. But my god, her character! Her mind! She’s delusional. Her perception of reality must be so twisted. They really do think that what they have to say is more important than what a “regular” person has to say. The reason you hear a lot of famous people say a lot of really egotistical things or do really stupid sh-t … your whole life is series of actions and reactions. “I show up at work everyday, and everyone kisses my ass.” They develop thinking that is a normal part of life.

“Fear Factor” viewers will care more about watching pretty people risking life and limb than anything Rogan has to say. But his willingness to deconstruct the famous personality mindset makes him far more than a reality show host.

Between the sexualized lyrics and anti-capitalist choruses, today’s music often clashes with the messages parents are trying to teach their children.

That’s not the case with country crooner Taylor Swift, according to Bloomberg.com’s Amity Shlaes. The columnist argues that Swift is the anti-Miley Cyrus, an uber-popular entertainer whose songs should be listened to by young and old alike.

Swift, who happens to be named after James Taylor, isn’t occasionally pro-parent, like Kanye West (See his 2005 “Hey Mama”), with whom she tangled at the MTV Video Music Awards ceremony in 2009.

Swift is, in fact, systematically pro-parent and pro- family. She sings about men, yes, but she also sings about mom, dad, being nice, putting bullies in their place and backing up friends, all in a perfectly irony-free tone. She even publicly thanks father chaperones accompanying their daughters to her concerts.

And here’s the interesting part: Swift is wildly popular with people older than 9. Her album, “Speak Now,” has set a Guinness World Record as the fastest-selling digital recording of 2011. Her tours gross $100 million.

The entertainment industry might want to think long and hard about those numbers. If being pro-family and pro-parent sells, why not convince a few more young singers to give it a whirl?

Note: No Miley Cyrus songs were actually listened to during the making of this video. Earmuffs!

And it isn’t pretty.

Malkin says Cyrus’ attempt to co-opt one of her songs for the OWS crowd “smells like opportunistic teen queen spirit.” It’s also a perfect fit for the movement itself.

In so many ways, Miley and the Occu-mob are a match made in heaven. Vacuous. Hypocritical. Entitled. Vain. Nihilist. Exhibitionist. Coddled. Forever adolescent, treating life like an endless “Party in the U.S.A.,” and demanding that everyone else pay for it.

Cyrus has struggled over the last few years to transition from bubble-gum songstress to Serious Artist. Along the way she made some of the same mistakes committed by her predecessors, like baring her skin and doing drugs to show she’s an adult at long last.

She’d be far better off flaunting her maturity with more powerful songs and richer lyrics.

That’s right, former Disney pop sensation Miley Cyrus (performing under the moniker “Miley Cyrus Rock Mafia”) has done what Grammy nominee Joseph Arthur and the stars of Rage Against the Machine couldn’t do–voice the passion of the 99% with such perfect glitzy angst, the rest of the world will have no choice but to finally pay attention. Here it is, the inevitable protest song classic “Liberty Walk”:

“This is dedicated to the thousands of people who are standing up for what they believe in,” the solemn opening title proclaims. Then, as Miley belts out inspirational revolutionary lyrics such as “Here’s to all the boys tryin’ to hold you back / Tryin’ to make you feel like you’re less than that” or “Don’t listen to all the people who hate,” we’re treated to a stirring montage of Occupy protests from around the world, including clashes with police and footage of a thrown explosive device or two. Despite the inescapable visceral joy of the music, it’s almost depressing how effective a rallying cry this 176-second epic will be for the enemies of capitalism and liberty.

And would you believe the timing of this? “Liberty Walk” was originally released on June 21st in Miley’s latest album, “Can’t Be Tamed,” yet the U.S. Day of Rage didn’t occur til September 5th. Given the time it took to write, record, then design the album, this could mean that Miley predicted the Occupy movement up to a year before its inception! For those of us on the right, this raises an obvious question: what’s the connection between Hollywood Records and George Soros?

It’s all too clear that the deep pockets of the left are behind this; it doesn’t make any sense that Miley would take a generic empowerment song and just pair it with controversial footage of a headline-grabbing cause célèbre, right? She wouldn’t dare lower herself to the level of opportunists like Michael Moore or Jay-Z and grasp for Importance isn’t of mere artistic excellence–no, never!

Why, Miley? You used to be such a good Christian girl. Why didn’t you use your powers for good; where was the “Liberty Walk” for the Tea Party? That grassroots movement, assailed by critics left and right, could have used an endorsement from a celebrity with your level of class and grace. I guess we’ll just have to accept your commitment to Occupy Wall Street; I hope you two make each other very happy. Just don’t go into any of the coed tents.

—–

The documentary fittingly begins by focusing on YouTube.com, the popular video site that has introduced millions of Americans to “the sneezing panda” and “the dramatic chipmunk.”  That site also serves as a launching pad for talented artists and it’s where Bieber was discovered by his manager. Before then, Bieber was just another youngster with a good singing voice who was making videos with his family.

Soon enough, the manager and others in the music industry show interest in Bieber but even with their support, his fame is never guaranteed. To become a megastar, Bieber travels  across the United States visiting local radio stations and performing on air. His popularity is never handed to him; he has to fight for it, one song after another. It’s difficult to imagine Bieber having to fight for attention but the documentary shows how driven he was even at a young age. While other young people may have given up, Bieber never stops working towards his goals.

Along with showing his rise to fame, the documentary also focuses on the days leading up to Bieber’s big show at Madison Square Garden. The days are full of anxiety as Bieber’s voice begins to falter on his concert tour. His doctors tell him that he needs rest but Bieber, ever the energetic teenager, wants to keep his concert schedule intact. He’s frustrated by the situation and hopes to recover before the big performance.

The story doesn’t always focus on the serious aspects of Bieber’s life, though. In one scene, the documentary pokes fun at Bieber’s famous haircut. In a self-deprecating way, the classic song “At Last” plays while Bieber’s hair is shown swaying in slow motion from side to side. Girls may swoon at the site but the filmmakers show that they have a sense of humor.

From the adolescent girls who adore the teenager (one even says that she thinks about him ninety-nine percent of the time) to Bieber’s road crew, it’s difficult not to enjoy meeting the people who look up to Bieber and the ones who support him during his exhausting tours. These people seem to enjoy the ride as Bieber grows up and improves as a performer. Bieber, himself, is grateful for them and for his own success and it shows when he is  seen praying several times during the film, both before eating and before some of his concerts.

What surprised me the most about this documentary is how much I enjoyed it. I didn’t walk into the theater as a Bieber fan and I didn’t walk out as one. However, I did walk out with respect for a young performer who worked tirelessly to market himself and establish his credibility. As compared to Miley Cyrus, who enjoys a brief cameo in the film, I think Bieber has stayed more grounded to his roots and I hope he stays that way. For Bieber fans and for those who don’t like his music, “Never Say Never” is an enjoyable documentary about a young man who worked really hard for his success and who, as the title suggests, learned to never say never.

Throw us a bone – how about more than just one or two flicks a year not targeted to the demographic that thinks Lady Gaga is a boundary-pushing icon of limitless creative vision?  Maybe a couple that are not focused on shiny supernatural creatures who chat about their feelings and stare longingly into the eyes of dead-eyed starlets acting as the surrogate for the millions of lonely shut-ins who adore them?  Just a few films not aimed squarely at creepy man-children dwelling in their moms’ Kleenex-strewn basements wishing they too could winch their bloated tushes into tights and fight crime just like their cinematic heroes.

How about more than just a handful of movies for men and women who need more than five hands to count out their age, who breathe through their noses, who have lives?  I have some dough – well, at least until the President and his fellow travelers declare me rich too – and I’d like to take my hot wife out once in a while to see a movie.  I used to go a lot, a few times a month.  But it seemed that five years ago there were always at least a few movies that piqued my interest.  Perhaps it’s me – perhaps I’m too demanding, what with my stubborn insistence on interesting stories told in a coherent manner by competent actors.  Or perhaps it’s just that the recent crop of movies is exceptionally crappy.

Let’s address the curmudgeon question here and now – yes, I have occasionally turned my hose on those damn kids when they messed up my lawn, but hobbies aside, the fact is that Hollywood is both leaving money on the table and sacrificing what little artistic credibility it has left by ignoring the normal adult demographic.  It appears that Hollywood has simply thrown in the towel and decided to focus on feeding formulaic moron fodder to a waiting cohort of slack-jawed ninnies eager for the next story about a magical robot or a superhero with issues.

Let’s take a look at what’s in the theaters this Christmas to test this theory.  How about How Do You Know, with Reese Witherspoon.  It’s supposed to be a smart, mature romantic comedy.  Now take a look at the trailer:

—–

Oh my – yet another romantic comedy that appears to be neither romantic nor a comedy.  Tired, telegraphed jokes and Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd playing the same guys they play in every movie.  Plus Jack Nicholson in the same growly old guy mode he’s been in (except for the otherwise annoying The Departed) for the last couple decades.  Look, unless Jack is ripping the cover off a water department/incest conspiracy, I’m not interested.

The latest Harry Potter movie is still out.  But I’m a bit old for movies about teenage wizards, and I suspect a substantial number of the adult males watching it are going less to experience story than to see the now adult Emma Watson play with her wand.

The latest Narnia movie is out too, and I understand it’s C.S. Lewis and it has an important message and so on, but there’s a problem:  I’m not 12.  My kids will probably love it – when it comes out on DVD.

The Tourist with Johnny Depp and Angela Jolie is out.  But it’s rated PG-13, which kind of eliminates the whole point of having Angela Jolie in it.

There’s a sequel to 1982’s Tron coming out as well.  Finally.  I guess the 28 years of non-stop clamoring for more adventures of some guys who go into an Atari game and do stuff have finally paid off.  I suppose I’d be more interested in Tron: Legacy if I hadn’t discovered girls in the meantime.

Soul-crushingly, we have De Niro cashing yet another paycheck in Little Fockers, the third or fourth sequel to a mildly amusing movie I’ve pretty much forgotten by now.  Watch the trailer and die a little inside:

—–

It’s like they invented a whole series of new clichés just for this movie.  And Ben Stiller’s recycled antics are annoying enough, but Barbra Streisand too?  I wouldn’t force Julian Assange to watch this nightmare…okay, maybe I would.  As for De Niro, just keep saying to yourself, “He’ll always be Neal, he’ll always be Neal.”

Jack Black will be waddling back on screen too as America’s favorite funny fattie.  This time, he’s in a wacky new version of Gulliver’s Travels.

—–

Can you spot the fresh, original joke?  Trick question – there isn’t one!  It’s just more Jack Black yelling, mugging, and running about, which might be hilarious to Miley Cyrus and her pals after a couple rippers off her achy-breaky bong, but for the rest of us, this thing looks like a celluloid kidney stone that you have to pay eleven bucks to pass.

But there is hope.  The Coen Brothers have a remake of True Grit coming soon.  Let’s leave aside the sacrilege of trying to compete with the Duke – it looks badass:

—-

A movie about adults, doing adult things, speaking in phrases that aren’t designed so that even the average public school drop-out can understand them – who would have thought it possible?  I’m getting disoriented – how can this be?

So, maybe I will visit the multiplex this Christmas season after all.  Right after I finish running off those damn kids.

Early feminists fought against the centuries-old image of a “woman on a pedestal.” Gloria Steinem (she of the “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle” who in later years ended up getting married anyway) once said, “A pedestal is as much a prison as any small, confined space.” I suppose a bra is also a small, confined space, which might explain the bra burnings of the 1960s. But the early feminists had a point – to a point. If a woman wants to be put on a pedestal and admired and adored, fine. But if she doesn’t, she should have the right to do with her life as she chooses. She should be free to pursue any vocation for which she is qualified, either as a single or married woman, children or no children.

But one of the problems with the new feminism was the annoying little fact that children could get in the way of this brave new world. Having to either stay at home with the little tykes or find daycare for them – not to mention all of the discomfort and disfiguration that comes with pregnancy itself – sure put a damper on Gloria Steinem’s idea of a “liberated woman” being “one who has sex before marriage and a job after.” Unbridled sex does, after all, have consequences. And so, according to historian Elaine Tyler May, birth control was “an important tool to gain control over their lives.”

May touts the contributions of Margaret Sanger, whose group eventually became known as Planned Parenthood, conveniently ignoring – as many do – Sanger’s devotion to eugenics. Sanger spoke of sterilizing those “unfit” to contribute to the gene pool, a group which included not only blacks and other ethnic minorities but, according to  Sanger associate Dr. Harry Laughlin, the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.” What a classy group of people.

Margaret Sanger: eugenicist and racist.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against safe, legitimate birth control methods. But when tooting the horn of the likes of Margaret Sanger, we need to be honest about what really drove her pursuit of birth control for women, just as we should be honest about what drives the abortion mills of Planned Parenthood – profit. And quelle surprise – Planned Parenthood as we know it really came into its own in the 1960s.

In a nutshell: True feminists of the time felt that you could only be a feminist if you rebelled against the natural workings of your body and eschewed marriage and motherhood  for a “higher cause.” There are still many of the old guard around today. But the times, they are a changin’.

Fast forward to 2010. Many would say the fight for equal rights has pretty much been won. Girls can dream of going to college and becoming airline pilots, electrical and biological engineers, teachers, doctors – the list is almost endless. In fact, more women graduate with college degrees than men – perhaps due in part to more focus being put on girls than boys in school to “make up for” previous inequality and also what is being called the feminization of society (what Rush Limbaugh calls “chickification”).

And for years, the entertainment industry has done its part for the last 20 or 30 years by portraying men as bumbling but lovable fools who wouldn’t be where they are if it weren’t for the very attractive, smart-as-a-whip women they somehow managed to marry. Television’s Home Improvement and King of Queens are two of the more recent examples. And, of course, commercials like this one. So even if the woman did commit the sin of marrying, she always had the redeeming quality of having the upper hand in just about any situation.

Dopey husband, brilliant wife.

Earlier, I said that unbridled sex without birth control or easy access to abortion has the consequence of pregnancy and childbirth. Today, unbridled sex with birth control and easy access to abortion combined with an increasingly “anything goes” attitude in society and pop culture gets girls who have as their role models the like of Paris Hilton, the Kardashian sisters, Snooki from MTV’s Jersey Shore and various other “celebrities.” Their claim to fame is not similar to being the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean or receiving the Nobel Prize for pioneering work in radiation, but for on-camera antics like tanning, catfights, and puking after binge drinking, and having their “sex tapes” released to the press for quick and easy profit. Too many are the next target of the creator of the Girls Gone Wild video series, which shows images of drunken girls taking off their tops and making out with one another.

We also have the likes of Lady Gaga, who makes Madonna look like a choir girl – almost. And those who begin their careers as wholesome young things (Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears, Christina Aguilera, Lindsey Lohan, Miley Cyrus) often decide that “growing up” must mean “giving out” – figuratively speaking in some cases, not so figuratively in others.

As the mother of two girls, one just starting college this year and the other starting high school, I find these so-called role models severely lacking.

Writing for Macleans, Anne Kingston also notes this disturbing trend. As those she interviews see it, the fight for women’s equality is not over but has taken a giant step backward because of something called “enlightened sexism”: where women are not only “empowered” by overtly flaunting their sexuality, but are also obsessed with getting married.

Certainly this new trend in the entertainment media, which exploits this so-called sexual empowerment for fun and profit, is partially to blame. But what about the parents? Where are they?

Sure there are the mothers quoted in Anne Kingston’s article who are upset about this trashy turn of events. Unfortunately, there are plenty of others who are pushing the trend. I was in TJ Maxx some time ago and heard two women talking, excited because the store was finally carrying the tacky Juicy Couture clothing line. Yet I had to wonder – were they excited because they could buy it for their children or were they excited for themselves? Just a couple of weeks ago, I saw an older, heavyset woman at the mall who was with a boy who looked like he might be her grandson. She was wearing a tight t-shirt with the word Juicy across the front and it was painfully obvious that she wasn’t wearing a bra. Nothing like mutton dressed like lamb a la Absolutely Fabulous.

Blech.

What’s funny on TV is scary in real life.

Then there’s the recent story about skinny jeans for toddlers. Why anyone would put their two- or three-year-old in an item of clothing usually connected with sexuality is beyond me. But then we have shows like TLC’s Toddlers & Tiaras, where some think “beauty pageant stage parents make Jon and Kate Gosselin look like Ward and June Cleaver.” There are notorious stage parents like Dina Lohan, who has done her best to launch her own career on the back of her daughter, nearly sucking her dry.

Double blech.

My take? The left tried its hand at social engineering in the name of equality – but rather than focusing on equal rights in education and the workplace,  ended up giving women the same “rights” as men in the arena of sex with no consequences. Religion and morality were for squares, no matter what Huey Lewis might have said. Yet it has backfired. Girls still like to look pretty and still like to attract boys. However, now they don’t have to worry about public stigma for public misbehavior. A girl who would once be labeled a skank for certain behavior is now celebrated. Be famous for being a no-talent party girl with an expanding rap sheet! No need to “settle with a man just to have that child.” Go back to the creep who used your face for a punching bag. Turn yourself into a literal caricature through plastic surgery. You deserve it.

You’ve come a long way, baby. Here’s hoping you can find your way home again.

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.

***UPDATE: Perez Hilton disputes the photo was of a nude Miley Cyrus. To reflect the dispute, this post’s headline has been edited. 

International Business Times:

Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton could possibly be investigated under child pornography laws after he posted a semi-naked photo of Miley Cyrus on his Twitter page.