–

UPDATE: My friend the Anchoress tweets on Ted Danson: “ …and he’s wearing his “smart” glasses, so we’d better listen.”

With his tired “wonderful entertainer” swipe, Ted Danson tries mightily to laugh off all-things Rush Limbaugh, but the bitterness is just too deep to keep the charade going for long; and let’s face it, Danson’s just not that good of an actor.

Longtime Limbaugh listeners know where Danson’s anger comes from. Who could ever forget this:

RUSH:  That’s how the media reacts to me, “You can’t say that, prove it!”  Ted Danson makes these claims, “Oh, oh, he cares so much.”  Well, last Friday on CNBC’s High Net Worth, the reporterette Jane Wells interviewed Ted Danson, and she said, “There was a time when you said the oceans are going to be dead in ten years.  They’re not dead?”

DANSON:  No.  They’re not.  But, I’m sure there was some hyperbole in what I said to draw attention to the issue, but you go to science journals now, 70% of the world’s fisheries are at a point of collapse.

RUSH:  Really?  Oh, you lied, it was just hyperbole.  So now after being proven to have lied, but, but, but 70% of the ocean’s fisheries or the world’s fisheries or whatever are at a point of collapse, 70%.  So he’s been proven wrong, throws another figure out there, wow, we’re in trouble, oh, no, 70% of the world’s fisheries are closed.  So Jane Wells then said — well, the answer she reported after — “Danson says some people have wondered, why listen to an actor? They make fun of celebrities taking up causes. He gets that.”

Rush made high-sport of Danson’s absurd claim for years, even before the ten-year deadline was up, and then in 2007 the “hyperbole” finally caught up to the “Cheers” star. What could be more humiliating for a lefty celeb than having to admit on national television that Rush Limbaugh was right and you were full of it.

Blessed with an epic lack of self awareness, Danson obviously hasn’t changed a bit. Here  he is, the guy who screamed from the rooftops that the oceans had ten-years to live accusing others of exploiting peoples’ fears.

Adam has an amazing vocal range and a falsetto so rich in quality that it is imperceptibly different from his chest voice.  His incredible ability to control his vocals enables him to hold his high notes seemingly forever.  His versatility is unmatched in “Idol” history.  With the arguable exception of country music (his rendition of “Ring of Fire” received strong emotional reactions both pro and con, as it was more like Johnny Cash doing Goth music with Middle Eastern undertones), Adam excels in every genre of music.  He sings soulful ballads to pop to heavy metal and glam rock, all with ease, style, and pitch-perfect tone.

Week in and week out, other “Idol” contestants appeared on stage in sneakers and T-shirts without sets or lighting design, all of which are in the contestants’ control.  But enter Adam, and the show began!  One could criticize his attire (and did!) but every week Adam came with an outfit, sets, lighting, and moves that fit his song choice and made his performances both unpredictable and more entertaining.  He’s not just a singer; he’s the whole performance package.

Unfortunately, talent has not always been the focus of commentary on Adam.  Rumor has it that some on the Christian-right refused to vote for Adam because of his ambiguous sexual orientation.  Explicit photos of him making out with other men, attending the Burning Man (an annual event in Nevada which constitutes an experiment in community, radical self-expression, and radical self-reliance), and occasionally dressing in drag, detracted from his deserved praise.  Supposedly, Kris Allen’s church pastor urged “all believers” to vote for Kris (though Kris emphatically objected to votes based on religion).  Additionally, “Idol” contestant Danny Gokey, who touted his Christianity, had a similar performance style to Kris’.  His devout following likely swung in favor of Kris once Danny was booted off the show.

Many deemed it unpalatable if not morally wrong to deny Adam his hard earned votes based on sexual orientation.  This should have no place in the “Idol” competition.  As Kris explained, this was supposed to be a competition about singing, not a vote for the presidency.

Yet, as soon as the winner was announced and the finale was over, the left-wing media started bashing Adam for not being gay enough.  Adam has admitted that the explicit photos were of him, and he has not been at all shy about anything including his sexuality. (To date, interviewers have beaten around the bush and have not put the “gay question” to him directly.)  But neither has Adam made his sexuality a political issue…at least thus far.  Still, the photos and Adam’s behavior, which are about as “out” as can be, still leave some dissatisfied.  As is often the case with leftists, words are more important than actions, and one isn’t truly “out” until he mouths the words “I’m gay.”  Adam hasn’t done this and thus will suffer the wrath of leftist activists.

No sooner had he walked off the stage than criticism has befallen him — not for his performances, which were controversial but fair game, but for his alleged “silence” on his sexuality.  Indeed, Entertainment Weekly Online dedicated four whole pages to chastising him for failing to announce his orientation.  But, making one’s private life fodder for public consumption seems to be something the gay community does often.  In the recently released film “Outrage,” the filmmaker assumed that if he outed gay Republicans, they would change their votes on gay marriage.  The presumption seems to be that gay marriage is the world’s most pressing issue, and everyone who is gay should prioritize this about all else.  To hell with national security, the arts, or whatever else one might be interested in.

Adam has acknowledged feeling pressure from some quarters to use his sexuality and “alternativeness” to influence how America views related social issues.  Contrary to helping those in the gay community, they are doing Adam and the gay community a disservice.  By pressuring Adam to act differently than his straight counterparts, they separate him out rather than allow him to integrate and be accepted as equal.  They are also denying him the right to define himself as he wants to be defined and decide for himself how his talents will be used.

It is unlikely that at age three when Adam starting singing around the house, or at age ten when he first began musical theater, that his goal was to achieve success as a vehicle for gay rights activism.  Why does everyone who is gay have to represent a political cause?  Why can’t Adam just be a singer and an entertainer like other artists?  Both those who withheld votes because Adam’s gay and those who are bashing him for not being gay enough, insist on defining Adam by his sexual orientation.  But Adam clearly defines himself by his music.

Politics aside, it is apparent that Adam is not going to be a flash-in-the-pan like previous “Idol” contenders.  Adam was the only reason to watch the cheesy show this season.  My prediction is that he is destined to be a national star, if not international.  Offers are already pouring in, and there’s talk of him touring with Queen, being courted for Broadway leads, and making his own CD’s.  Refusing to be boxed into a specific genre as most record labels demand, his first album promises to range from pop to rock to funk with innovative electronics.  Additionally, he hopes to do corollary theatrical performances.  His goal is to fill an artistic niche of theatrical pop music which is currently female-dominated on the scene, and largely devoid of male artists.  It is Adam’s artistic expression and personal style that make him notable, not his sexual orientation.  If he does have a political message, it’s one of personal empowerment for anyone who might not fit the mold…sexuality aside.

Those making social criticism of Adam based on his sexuality — one way or the other — should apologize.  I myself owe him an apology for using his orientation in the title of this article.  However, I doubt if he cares much about any of this.  Adam is all about the music, and I’m sure he’s too busy singing to pay this any mind.

Such is the power of a single word.

That power has not diminished but only increased with an ADD, multi-channel, hyperactive media-centric world. The silver screen has long given us immortal dialogue which now blends so deeply into the culture that people may not know their origin, but we know the meaning.  A wise man I know said, “Image creates perception, perception creates reality.”  It couldn’t be more true in the film business.

–

In a media-centric world, from motion pictures to internet to phones, we are pounded with images, forming our perceptions and then creating our reality. How fast did the Internet meme “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys” become a daily reference at the coffee klatch, in your email, or on phone calls?  Not long.  We forget how powerful words can be when written in a clever and pithy way.  The masters of dialogue like Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond, and the Epstein brothers, knew irreverent and immortal lines.  And as producers, writers or just Americans who appreciate a good, nimble turn of a phrase, we should excel at creating phrases that demonstrate the values we hold dear.  Don’t understand?  “What we have here is a failure to communicate!”

Why bother?  Movies (and other media) create the Culture.  Culture creates America.  America creates the world.  When we talk media and politics, this nimble phrase can radiate far and wide.  Great dialogue resonates in our brains for weeks, months, even years.  Our own snappy comebacks to important values issues can demonstrate a better point of view, an attitude and an insight.  Of course, you could use radical phrases like, “I love America” and “I’m against terrorism,” but write up your own snappy comebacks on issues and policy to share with friends.  As human beings, we remember great Moments.  Movies create moments.  Great dialogue reminds of those moments and their images.  And great lines can change minds.

We cannot forget the line, used by recent Tea Party groups, “I’m as mad as hell, I’m not going to take it anymore.” And in political theater, who uttered the line, “There you go again”?  Ronald Reagan in the debate with Jimmy Carter.  It pounded Carter on national TV.  Reagan was the President who best understood the nexus of the Power of Media and the Power of Strength when confronting enemies like Soviet International Socialism.  Reagan knew from his long career in radio, films, television, and public speaking that people longed for memorable phrases by which to guide their lives.  The simpler, the better – easier to remember, easier to repeat, easier to live by.  Why else are words of wisdom from great books and the Ten Commandments short and to the point?

So what does this have to do with any of us?  The genius of the American people is self-evident.  No society on earth has created such a robust population, teeming with energy and creating a vast marketplace of ideas.  When talking with friends, family or working in the media world, each of us can create dialogue that spreads our values and our message about the troops, our country, and more.  I saw a TV show one day where some actress proclaimed that a man who tried to sexually assault her was either a “pervert or Clarence Thomas.”  A few words and this image becomes a perception that morphs into a reality for millions (or in the case of this show), thousands of viewers about this noble Justice.  When Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano reframes terrorism into “Man Caused Disaster,” she’s putting auto exhaust sparks that accidentally caused a thousand acre fire on the same level as planes slamming into buildings of innocent Americans.  “The greatest trick the devil every played was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”

Words everywhere matter. “You want answers?  I want the truth!  You can’t handle the truth!” Words are weapons.  When you refer to China, use the term, “Socialist Left-wing dictatorship.”  The prisoners in Chinese gulags, persecuted Christians and political dissidents will attest to that.  If somebody mentions “Religious Right,” then counter with “Atheist Left.”  It’s never “Gun Control” but “Second Amendment Civil Rights.” Newspapers are infected with political correctness.  “Islamic rioters in France” are “disaffected youth,” according to some reporters.  Does “cheese eating surrender monkeys” come to mind?

Whenever I’m given an application or form with boxes for “Race,” I  check “Other:________” and write one word.

“Human.”

“Human,” Hollywood…single words can be powerful.  Revolutionary.  Watch the words you use in your everyday life and in your work to reflect the values we hold dear about Freedom and America.  There’s great tradition in snappy comebacks and immortal phrases to change the culture, America, and the world.  Words are our First Freedom, but everyday we have to ask ourselves…

“Is it safe?”