Category Archives: Entertainment Media

Of the more than 300 corporate sponsors who have sponsored Comedy Central in the past, not a single one has indicated their intention to buy advertising time on the planned "JC" program should it ever be set to go to broadcast.

That's the victorious announcement today from Citizens Against Religious Bigotry (CARB), a group co-founded by NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell and a handful of other social conservative activists.

"The sponsors understand what the programming department at Comedy Central does not: Religious bigotry is bad business," Bozell noted in a statement. "With literally zero advertiser support for this program, the only reason Comedy Central would put it on their broadcast schedule is in an effort to offend Christianity and Christians. There is no valid business reason for airing 'JC,'" the Media Research Center founder argued. 

Full the full press release, click here.

For a complete listing of member organizations, and advertisers that were petitioned, visit www.CitizensAgainstReligiousBigotry.org.

Editor's Note: The following originally appeared at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

Appearing on CNN with Anderson Cooper, film director Spike Lee implored President Obama to infuse his handling of the Gulf oil spill with more emotion. Demonstrating the astute analysis we have come to expect from the director, Lee implored Obama to “one time, go off.”

Perhaps he is of the same mind as Bill Maher, that the authentic black man is one who is always armed and resorts to violence and loud-talking when things do not go his way. (Note to self: On the way home from the liquor store, I must pick up my Glock from the gun shop.)

Both Lee and Maher seem to share the opinion of a great many progressives that emotion is the same as leadership and that problems are most easily solved by decree. It is no mistake that following criticism by Lee and others, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was declaring to the media that he had “seen rage from him [President Obama].” Apparently, when Obama gets angry, he clinches his jaw.

Soon after the Gibbs press conference, the President showed up in Louisiana, walked the beach in shirt sleeves and then, with clenched jaw, he spoke of growing up in a culture where the water was sacred. The administration meant this to be a demonstration of leadership. However, in some quarters, this is also known as street theatre.

Still seeking to enhance his “street cred,” the president then appeared on morning television, lowered his pants down below his buttocks, flashed his gold teeth, and announced that he was looking for some tail to kick.

In the meantime, the oil continues to gush from the well and the resulting slick is now the size of a small state.

As it turns out, sending the attorney general to Louisiana and ordering BP to “plug the damn hole” and then “going off” on national television didn’t solve the problem.

If the poll numbers are to be believed, it would also appear that Americans are not impressed with how much booty a president can kick, especially if it is not accompanied by decisive action, which actually addresses the problem. Over the course of the last two months, the president has had several opportunities to take bold and determined action–to be a leader. He has dithered instead.

A few of the missed opportunities:

Fire-booms that were supposed to be a part of any oil-spill response were missing in action. When they were finally located there were too few to do much good.

In the event of a major spill, federal responders had pre-approval to begin burning oil. They waited more than a week before doing a test-burn and then stopped. Experts have suggested that had the burning begun right away, 90% of the oil could have been burned away before it spread.

Thirteen countries have offered the United States the advantage of their technical skills. To date, the Obama administration has declined to take advantage of all of this experience and expertise.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers delayed the building of protective sand-berms until they could study the issue. The administration finally approved six berms, but only agreed to pay for one of them. Government officials say they want to first see if they work. Of course, by that time building more berms won’t do any good.

Two months into the crisis, Admiral Thad Allen, the U.S. official in charge of the Gulf of Mexico crisis, (or is he?), is still talking about asking Congress for a waiver of the Jones Act, which would allow foreign vessels involved in the crisis to operate in American waters. However, that may not do much good. Louisiana boat owners who have volunteered to aid in clean-up efforts are complaining that bureaucratic red-tape is keeping them out of the water.

On a positive note, the president did create another government commission.

Leadership of the statesman variety–as opposed to the shirtsleeves and furrowed-brow-look-of-concern variety–would have the president with a large pair of scissors cutting through the red tape. A leader scours the private sector for the most knowledgeable folks he can find and asks for their help. He gets on the phone with our allies and says, “Yes! Please send me your experts!” He says to the governors of the Gulf States, “Tell me what you need.” Leadership is putting aside political agendas and mobilizing the power of the executive office in order to solve an immediate crisis.

Leadership doesn’t always need big speeches or street corner bravado. Leadership can be quiet; it can be cool and determined. But if it isn’t focused and it isn’t active, it ain’t worth the price of admission to a “Spike Lee Joint.”

Editor's Note: The following was originally posted at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

Seeing that George Soros and Sting are working together to “end the drug war” puts me in mind of a story an Army buddy who works in the DEA told me about busting in the door of a drug house only to find three occupants – the oldest four years old, having been left in charge while his “parents” went out to score meth.  Yeah, drug use is a victimless crime – if you ignore the victims.

Apparently not content to subsidize the whining of the nonentities at Media Matters, Soros is taking a break from his adventures in currency manipulation and general scuzziness to enlist entertainment celebrities like Sting in his newest quest.  The Drug Policy Alliance is the result, a group whose members, as its founder puts it, “come from across the drug use spectrum.”  Yes, the junkies, stoners, hopheads, dope fiends, pill-poppers, and Lindsay Lohan are unanimous:  Drug laws are bad, and it’s probably BusHitler’s fault.

The threshold problem with comments by Sting such as, “The war on drugs represents an extraordinary violation of human rights,” is that Sting presumably not only believes this piffle, but further believes that he can put down his bass and offer meaningful input into the discussion.  This assumption of competence is a common delusion among celebrities, and here it has more potential for damage than most mindless celebribabble.

Now, Sting is not alone – no one in that clip says anything worthwhile.  One woman, who is bald for no apparent reason, states that “The War on Drugs is a war on people of color,” as if Americans decided they would outlaw crack because they fear that black people might enjoy themselves.  Montel Williams shows up to explain that drug laws prevent him from making choices about his own body, but the awful tie and ridiculous earring he chose to wear make a powerful argument against allowing him to make any kind of choices at all.

Tony Papa also appears.  He went to jail for 12 years for being part of a drug deal – oh, I mean committing “a nonviolent drug offense” – and became an artist on the taxpayer’s dime.  While most of us will likely ask “Why only 12?,” naturally Papa is worshipped by trendy leftist celebrities.  Some Hollywood half-wit even scooped up the rights to his inspiring story.  So, to repeat, Tony Papa joined a drug conspiracy, got arrested, went to jail, leveraged that into becoming a hip artist and the subject of a movie, and yet he is somehow the real victim.

Of course, there’s also the perennial “America imprisons more people than anywhere else in the world!” meme.  In fact, the only drug incarceration problem in America is that too few drug dealers are incarcerated.  Sting suffers from the same delusion that afflicts many of his celebrity pals.  He seems to think that if the kind of people who deal drugs didn’t have drugs to deal, they would naturally flock to the world of hard work and responsibility.  Oh, if only drugs weren’t illegal, the drug dealing scumbags who infest our ghettos, barrios and college sociology departments would morph into clean-shaved, untatted workerbees eagerly embracing the world of 9-5 employment.  Yeah, it was outlawing meth and crack that turned the scumbags into scumbags. 

At one point, the clip promises “new solutions” to the drug problem.  Then Sting pops back up, smug and self-satisfied, to announce that drug laws violate his individual sovereignty.  Uh, typically, when you say you are going to provide new solutions you might consider, you know, providing some new solutions instead of some new cliché.

I certainly enjoy Sting and his pals’ new-found appreciation of my personal autonomy and “sovereignty over my body.”  I assume they’ll be standing by me when I reject the government’s interference in my health care decisions.  Unlikely.  If you think consistency is one of their strong points, perhaps you’ve been smoking the same stuff as them.

Now, Sting was always annoying but here he is reaching new heights of crappiness and pomposity in direct proportion to his declining relevance.  It’s always a pleasure to hear some Brit mega-millionaire who glides around his English manor practicing tantric sex sound off on American domestic policy. 

Please Sting, save us!  Unleash the full intellectual firepower you’ve amassed writing forgettable smooth jazz/rock fusion tunes for people who buy their music at Starbucks.  Just because you’ve been waited on hand and foot for three decades by a coterie of professional sycophants telling you you’re wiser than Buddha and smarter than Einstein doesn’t mean it’s true. 

There may be a case for looking at our drug laws, but these nimrods don’t make it.  The most compelling points are made by the conservatives at National Review and the libertarians at Reason.  Sure, pot smokers steal your snacks, listen to Phish and sound-off with long, disjointed monologues about the miracle of hemp, but I have a hard time getting too bent out of shape by them.  Many celebrities are among them, but Sting and Soros aren’t just talking about causal stoners.  They think we ought to go open season on meth, crack and whatever else these degenerate half-wits today are ingesting.  No thanks – I’d prefer not to live with the mess you’re rich enough to ignore.

The fact is that His Stingness knows nothing – or cares nothing – about the unspeakable devastation drugs cause, particularly within the inner cities.  Instead of standing behind the one truly effective response to urban drug terror – throwing the bastards in a cell and dropping the key down the Guatemalan sinkhole – His Majesty Sting decrees that drug dealing scumbags should run free, then retreats back behind his gates and armed guards to further hone his delayed orgasm skills.

Well, Sting, let’s discuss your really keen points about why poison ought to be legal.  But let’s expand the scope of our discussion to include some other celebrities who might be able to provide us with some valuable insights.  Let’s invite Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, Brad Renfro, DJ AM, and Brittany Murphy to weigh in with their points of view.  Oh wait, they’re all dead.  So are just a few others.

Like a Sean Penn who can’t help but fly into some hellhole, figuratively fellate the local anti-American strongman then jet back to Santa Monica in time for dinner at Pizzeria Mozza, Sting wanders out of his fairy-tale life for a few minutes to tell the benighted peons in the real world how they need to live their lives before retiring back inside his palace behind three layers of security.  The violence, the abuse, the wasted potential brought on by drugs mean nothing to him; what is important is his own act of scolding his lessers for failing to conform to his personal vision.

That’s Sting’s high – lording over others as if he was something more than a glorified cruise ship bassist who got lucky and didn’t have to spend his career cranking out covers of Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” for Corona-swilling passengers during runs between San Diego and Puerto Vallarta on the S.S. Living Hell.  And like so many in the entertainment world, he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of stupid ideas – with intent to distribute.

Editor's Note: The following was originally posted at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

Seeing that George Soros and Sting are working together to “end the drug war” puts me in mind of a story an Army buddy who works in the DEA told me about busting in the door of a drug house only to find three occupants – the oldest four years old, having been left in charge while his “parents” went out to score meth.  Yeah, drug use is a victimless crime – if you ignore the victims.

Apparently not content to subsidize the whining of the nonentities at Media Matters, Soros is taking a break from his adventures in currency manipulation and general scuzziness to enlist entertainment celebrities like Sting in his newest quest.  The Drug Policy Alliance is the result, a group whose members, as its founder puts it, “come from across the drug use spectrum.”  Yes, the junkies, stoners, hopheads, dope fiends, pill-poppers, and Lindsay Lohan are unanimous:  Drug laws are bad, and it’s probably BusHitler’s fault.

The threshold problem with comments by Sting such as, “The war on drugs represents an extraordinary violation of human rights,” is that Sting presumably not only believes this piffle, but further believes that he can put down his bass and offer meaningful input into the discussion.  This assumption of competence is a common delusion among celebrities, and here it has more potential for damage than most mindless celebribabble.

Now, Sting is not alone – no one in that clip says anything worthwhile.  One woman, who is bald for no apparent reason, states that “The War on Drugs is a war on people of color,” as if Americans decided they would outlaw crack because they fear that black people might enjoy themselves.  Montel Williams shows up to explain that drug laws prevent him from making choices about his own body, but the awful tie and ridiculous earring he chose to wear make a powerful argument against allowing him to make any kind of choices at all.

Tony Papa also appears.  He went to jail for 12 years for being part of a drug deal – oh, I mean committing “a nonviolent drug offense” – and became an artist on the taxpayer’s dime.  While most of us will likely ask “Why only 12?,” naturally Papa is worshipped by trendy leftist celebrities.  Some Hollywood half-wit even scooped up the rights to his inspiring story.  So, to repeat, Tony Papa joined a drug conspiracy, got arrested, went to jail, leveraged that into becoming a hip artist and the subject of a movie, and yet he is somehow the real victim.

Of course, there’s also the perennial “America imprisons more people than anywhere else in the world!” meme.  In fact, the only drug incarceration problem in America is that too few drug dealers are incarcerated.  Sting suffers from the same delusion that afflicts many of his celebrity pals.  He seems to think that if the kind of people who deal drugs didn’t have drugs to deal, they would naturally flock to the world of hard work and responsibility.  Oh, if only drugs weren’t illegal, the drug dealing scumbags who infest our ghettos, barrios and college sociology departments would morph into clean-shaved, untatted workerbees eagerly embracing the world of 9-5 employment.  Yeah, it was outlawing meth and crack that turned the scumbags into scumbags. 

At one point, the clip promises “new solutions” to the drug problem.  Then Sting pops back up, smug and self-satisfied, to announce that drug laws violate his individual sovereignty.  Uh, typically, when you say you are going to provide new solutions you might consider, you know, providing some new solutions instead of some new cliché.

I certainly enjoy Sting and his pals’ new-found appreciation of my personal autonomy and “sovereignty over my body.”  I assume they’ll be standing by me when I reject the government’s interference in my health care decisions.  Unlikely.  If you think consistency is one of their strong points, perhaps you’ve been smoking the same stuff as them.

Now, Sting was always annoying but here he is reaching new heights of crappiness and pomposity in direct proportion to his declining relevance.  It’s always a pleasure to hear some Brit mega-millionaire who glides around his English manor practicing tantric sex sound off on American domestic policy. 

Please Sting, save us!  Unleash the full intellectual firepower you’ve amassed writing forgettable smooth jazz/rock fusion tunes for people who buy their music at Starbucks.  Just because you’ve been waited on hand and foot for three decades by a coterie of professional sycophants telling you you’re wiser than Buddha and smarter than Einstein doesn’t mean it’s true. 

There may be a case for looking at our drug laws, but these nimrods don’t make it.  The most compelling points are made by the conservatives at National Review and the libertarians at Reason.  Sure, pot smokers steal your snacks, listen to Phish and sound-off with long, disjointed monologues about the miracle of hemp, but I have a hard time getting too bent out of shape by them.  Many celebrities are among them, but Sting and Soros aren’t just talking about causal stoners.  They think we ought to go open season on meth, crack and whatever else these degenerate half-wits today are ingesting.  No thanks – I’d prefer not to live with the mess you’re rich enough to ignore.

The fact is that His Stingness knows nothing – or cares nothing – about the unspeakable devastation drugs cause, particularly within the inner cities.  Instead of standing behind the one truly effective response to urban drug terror – throwing the bastards in a cell and dropping the key down the Guatemalan sinkhole – His Majesty Sting decrees that drug dealing scumbags should run free, then retreats back behind his gates and armed guards to further hone his delayed orgasm skills.

Well, Sting, let’s discuss your really keen points about why poison ought to be legal.  But let’s expand the scope of our discussion to include some other celebrities who might be able to provide us with some valuable insights.  Let’s invite Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, Brad Renfro, DJ AM, and Brittany Murphy to weigh in with their points of view.  Oh wait, they’re all dead.  So are just a few others.

Like a Sean Penn who can’t help but fly into some hellhole, figuratively fellate the local anti-American strongman then jet back to Santa Monica in time for dinner at Pizzeria Mozza, Sting wanders out of his fairy-tale life for a few minutes to tell the benighted peons in the real world how they need to live their lives before retiring back inside his palace behind three layers of security.  The violence, the abuse, the wasted potential brought on by drugs mean nothing to him; what is important is his own act of scolding his lessers for failing to conform to his personal vision.

That’s Sting’s high – lording over others as if he was something more than a glorified cruise ship bassist who got lucky and didn’t have to spend his career cranking out covers of Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” for Corona-swilling passengers during runs between San Diego and Puerto Vallarta on the S.S. Living Hell.  And like so many in the entertainment world, he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of stupid ideas – with intent to distribute.

Editor's Note: The following was originally posted at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

Seeing that George Soros and Sting are working together to “end the drug war” puts me in mind of a story an Army buddy who works in the DEA told me about busting in the door of a drug house only to find three occupants – the oldest four years old, having been left in charge while his “parents” went out to score meth.  Yeah, drug use is a victimless crime – if you ignore the victims.

Apparently not content to subsidize the whining of the nonentities at Media Matters, Soros is taking a break from his adventures in currency manipulation and general scuzziness to enlist entertainment celebrities like Sting in his newest quest.  The Drug Policy Alliance is the result, a group whose members, as its founder puts it, “come from across the drug use spectrum.”  Yes, the junkies, stoners, hopheads, dope fiends, pill-poppers, and Lindsay Lohan are unanimous:  Drug laws are bad, and it’s probably BusHitler’s fault.

The threshold problem with comments by Sting such as, “The war on drugs represents an extraordinary violation of human rights,” is that Sting presumably not only believes this piffle, but further believes that he can put down his bass and offer meaningful input into the discussion.  This assumption of competence is a common delusion among celebrities, and here it has more potential for damage than most mindless celebribabble.

Now, Sting is not alone – no one in that clip says anything worthwhile.  One woman, who is bald for no apparent reason, states that “The War on Drugs is a war on people of color,” as if Americans decided they would outlaw crack because they fear that black people might enjoy themselves.  Montel Williams shows up to explain that drug laws prevent him from making choices about his own body, but the awful tie and ridiculous earring he chose to wear make a powerful argument against allowing him to make any kind of choices at all.

Tony Papa also appears.  He went to jail for 12 years for being part of a drug deal – oh, I mean committing “a nonviolent drug offense” – and became an artist on the taxpayer’s dime.  While most of us will likely ask “Why only 12?,” naturally Papa is worshipped by trendy leftist celebrities.  Some Hollywood half-wit even scooped up the rights to his inspiring story.  So, to repeat, Tony Papa joined a drug conspiracy, got arrested, went to jail, leveraged that into becoming a hip artist and the subject of a movie, and yet he is somehow the real victim.

Of course, there’s also the perennial “America imprisons more people than anywhere else in the world!” meme.  In fact, the only drug incarceration problem in America is that too few drug dealers are incarcerated.  Sting suffers from the same delusion that afflicts many of his celebrity pals.  He seems to think that if the kind of people who deal drugs didn’t have drugs to deal, they would naturally flock to the world of hard work and responsibility.  Oh, if only drugs weren’t illegal, the drug dealing scumbags who infest our ghettos, barrios and college sociology departments would morph into clean-shaved, untatted workerbees eagerly embracing the world of 9-5 employment.  Yeah, it was outlawing meth and crack that turned the scumbags into scumbags. 

At one point, the clip promises “new solutions” to the drug problem.  Then Sting pops back up, smug and self-satisfied, to announce that drug laws violate his individual sovereignty.  Uh, typically, when you say you are going to provide new solutions you might consider, you know, providing some new solutions instead of some new cliché.

I certainly enjoy Sting and his pals’ new-found appreciation of my personal autonomy and “sovereignty over my body.”  I assume they’ll be standing by me when I reject the government’s interference in my health care decisions.  Unlikely.  If you think consistency is one of their strong points, perhaps you’ve been smoking the same stuff as them.

Now, Sting was always annoying but here he is reaching new heights of crappiness and pomposity in direct proportion to his declining relevance.  It’s always a pleasure to hear some Brit mega-millionaire who glides around his English manor practicing tantric sex sound off on American domestic policy. 

Please Sting, save us!  Unleash the full intellectual firepower you’ve amassed writing forgettable smooth jazz/rock fusion tunes for people who buy their music at Starbucks.  Just because you’ve been waited on hand and foot for three decades by a coterie of professional sycophants telling you you’re wiser than Buddha and smarter than Einstein doesn’t mean it’s true. 

There may be a case for looking at our drug laws, but these nimrods don’t make it.  The most compelling points are made by the conservatives at National Review and the libertarians at Reason.  Sure, pot smokers steal your snacks, listen to Phish and sound-off with long, disjointed monologues about the miracle of hemp, but I have a hard time getting too bent out of shape by them.  Many celebrities are among them, but Sting and Soros aren’t just talking about causal stoners.  They think we ought to go open season on meth, crack and whatever else these degenerate half-wits today are ingesting.  No thanks – I’d prefer not to live with the mess you’re rich enough to ignore.

The fact is that His Stingness knows nothing – or cares nothing – about the unspeakable devastation drugs cause, particularly within the inner cities.  Instead of standing behind the one truly effective response to urban drug terror – throwing the bastards in a cell and dropping the key down the Guatemalan sinkhole – His Majesty Sting decrees that drug dealing scumbags should run free, then retreats back behind his gates and armed guards to further hone his delayed orgasm skills.

Well, Sting, let’s discuss your really keen points about why poison ought to be legal.  But let’s expand the scope of our discussion to include some other celebrities who might be able to provide us with some valuable insights.  Let’s invite Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, Brad Renfro, DJ AM, and Brittany Murphy to weigh in with their points of view.  Oh wait, they’re all dead.  So are just a few others.

Like a Sean Penn who can’t help but fly into some hellhole, figuratively fellate the local anti-American strongman then jet back to Santa Monica in time for dinner at Pizzeria Mozza, Sting wanders out of his fairy-tale life for a few minutes to tell the benighted peons in the real world how they need to live their lives before retiring back inside his palace behind three layers of security.  The violence, the abuse, the wasted potential brought on by drugs mean nothing to him; what is important is his own act of scolding his lessers for failing to conform to his personal vision.

That’s Sting’s high – lording over others as if he was something more than a glorified cruise ship bassist who got lucky and didn’t have to spend his career cranking out covers of Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” for Corona-swilling passengers during runs between San Diego and Puerto Vallarta on the S.S. Living Hell.  And like so many in the entertainment world, he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of stupid ideas – with intent to distribute.

Editor's Note: The following was originally posted at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

Seeing that George Soros and Sting are working together to “end the drug war” puts me in mind of a story an Army buddy who works in the DEA told me about busting in the door of a drug house only to find three occupants – the oldest four years old, having been left in charge while his “parents” went out to score meth.  Yeah, drug use is a victimless crime – if you ignore the victims.

Apparently not content to subsidize the whining of the nonentities at Media Matters, Soros is taking a break from his adventures in currency manipulation and general scuzziness to enlist entertainment celebrities like Sting in his newest quest.  The Drug Policy Alliance is the result, a group whose members, as its founder puts it, “come from across the drug use spectrum.”  Yes, the junkies, stoners, hopheads, dope fiends, pill-poppers, and Lindsay Lohan are unanimous:  Drug laws are bad, and it’s probably BusHitler’s fault.

The threshold problem with comments by Sting such as, “The war on drugs represents an extraordinary violation of human rights,” is that Sting presumably not only believes this piffle, but further believes that he can put down his bass and offer meaningful input into the discussion.  This assumption of competence is a common delusion among celebrities, and here it has more potential for damage than most mindless celebribabble.

Now, Sting is not alone – no one in that clip says anything worthwhile.  One woman, who is bald for no apparent reason, states that “The War on Drugs is a war on people of color,” as if Americans decided they would outlaw crack because they fear that black people might enjoy themselves.  Montel Williams shows up to explain that drug laws prevent him from making choices about his own body, but the awful tie and ridiculous earring he chose to wear make a powerful argument against allowing him to make any kind of choices at all.

Tony Papa also appears.  He went to jail for 12 years for being part of a drug deal – oh, I mean committing “a nonviolent drug offense” – and became an artist on the taxpayer’s dime.  While most of us will likely ask “Why only 12?,” naturally Papa is worshipped by trendy leftist celebrities.  Some Hollywood half-wit even scooped up the rights to his inspiring story.  So, to repeat, Tony Papa joined a drug conspiracy, got arrested, went to jail, leveraged that into becoming a hip artist and the subject of a movie, and yet he is somehow the real victim.

Of course, there’s also the perennial “America imprisons more people than anywhere else in the world!” meme.  In fact, the only drug incarceration problem in America is that too few drug dealers are incarcerated.  Sting suffers from the same delusion that afflicts many of his celebrity pals.  He seems to think that if the kind of people who deal drugs didn’t have drugs to deal, they would naturally flock to the world of hard work and responsibility.  Oh, if only drugs weren’t illegal, the drug dealing scumbags who infest our ghettos, barrios and college sociology departments would morph into clean-shaved, untatted workerbees eagerly embracing the world of 9-5 employment.  Yeah, it was outlawing meth and crack that turned the scumbags into scumbags. 

At one point, the clip promises “new solutions” to the drug problem.  Then Sting pops back up, smug and self-satisfied, to announce that drug laws violate his individual sovereignty.  Uh, typically, when you say you are going to provide new solutions you might consider, you know, providing some new solutions instead of some new cliché.

I certainly enjoy Sting and his pals’ new-found appreciation of my personal autonomy and “sovereignty over my body.”  I assume they’ll be standing by me when I reject the government’s interference in my health care decisions.  Unlikely.  If you think consistency is one of their strong points, perhaps you’ve been smoking the same stuff as them.

Now, Sting was always annoying but here he is reaching new heights of crappiness and pomposity in direct proportion to his declining relevance.  It’s always a pleasure to hear some Brit mega-millionaire who glides around his English manor practicing tantric sex sound off on American domestic policy. 

Please Sting, save us!  Unleash the full intellectual firepower you’ve amassed writing forgettable smooth jazz/rock fusion tunes for people who buy their music at Starbucks.  Just because you’ve been waited on hand and foot for three decades by a coterie of professional sycophants telling you you’re wiser than Buddha and smarter than Einstein doesn’t mean it’s true. 

There may be a case for looking at our drug laws, but these nimrods don’t make it.  The most compelling points are made by the conservatives at National Review and the libertarians at Reason.  Sure, pot smokers steal your snacks, listen to Phish and sound-off with long, disjointed monologues about the miracle of hemp, but I have a hard time getting too bent out of shape by them.  Many celebrities are among them, but Sting and Soros aren’t just talking about causal stoners.  They think we ought to go open season on meth, crack and whatever else these degenerate half-wits today are ingesting.  No thanks – I’d prefer not to live with the mess you’re rich enough to ignore.

The fact is that His Stingness knows nothing – or cares nothing – about the unspeakable devastation drugs cause, particularly within the inner cities.  Instead of standing behind the one truly effective response to urban drug terror – throwing the bastards in a cell and dropping the key down the Guatemalan sinkhole – His Majesty Sting decrees that drug dealing scumbags should run free, then retreats back behind his gates and armed guards to further hone his delayed orgasm skills.

Well, Sting, let’s discuss your really keen points about why poison ought to be legal.  But let’s expand the scope of our discussion to include some other celebrities who might be able to provide us with some valuable insights.  Let’s invite Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, Brad Renfro, DJ AM, and Brittany Murphy to weigh in with their points of view.  Oh wait, they’re all dead.  So are just a few others.

Like a Sean Penn who can’t help but fly into some hellhole, figuratively fellate the local anti-American strongman then jet back to Santa Monica in time for dinner at Pizzeria Mozza, Sting wanders out of his fairy-tale life for a few minutes to tell the benighted peons in the real world how they need to live their lives before retiring back inside his palace behind three layers of security.  The violence, the abuse, the wasted potential brought on by drugs mean nothing to him; what is important is his own act of scolding his lessers for failing to conform to his personal vision.

That’s Sting’s high – lording over others as if he was something more than a glorified cruise ship bassist who got lucky and didn’t have to spend his career cranking out covers of Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” for Corona-swilling passengers during runs between San Diego and Puerto Vallarta on the S.S. Living Hell.  And like so many in the entertainment world, he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of stupid ideas – with intent to distribute.

Editor's Note: The following was originally posted at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

Seeing that George Soros and Sting are working together to “end the drug war” puts me in mind of a story an Army buddy who works in the DEA told me about busting in the door of a drug house only to find three occupants – the oldest four years old, having been left in charge while his “parents” went out to score meth.  Yeah, drug use is a victimless crime – if you ignore the victims.

Apparently not content to subsidize the whining of the nonentities at Media Matters, Soros is taking a break from his adventures in currency manipulation and general scuzziness to enlist entertainment celebrities like Sting in his newest quest.  The Drug Policy Alliance is the result, a group whose members, as its founder puts it, “come from across the drug use spectrum.”  Yes, the junkies, stoners, hopheads, dope fiends, pill-poppers, and Lindsay Lohan are unanimous:  Drug laws are bad, and it’s probably BusHitler’s fault.

The threshold problem with comments by Sting such as, “The war on drugs represents an extraordinary violation of human rights,” is that Sting presumably not only believes this piffle, but further believes that he can put down his bass and offer meaningful input into the discussion.  This assumption of competence is a common delusion among celebrities, and here it has more potential for damage than most mindless celebribabble.

Now, Sting is not alone – no one in that clip says anything worthwhile.  One woman, who is bald for no apparent reason, states that “The War on Drugs is a war on people of color,” as if Americans decided they would outlaw crack because they fear that black people might enjoy themselves.  Montel Williams shows up to explain that drug laws prevent him from making choices about his own body, but the awful tie and ridiculous earring he chose to wear make a powerful argument against allowing him to make any kind of choices at all.

Tony Papa also appears.  He went to jail for 12 years for being part of a drug deal – oh, I mean committing “a nonviolent drug offense” – and became an artist on the taxpayer’s dime.  While most of us will likely ask “Why only 12?,” naturally Papa is worshipped by trendy leftist celebrities.  Some Hollywood half-wit even scooped up the rights to his inspiring story.  So, to repeat, Tony Papa joined a drug conspiracy, got arrested, went to jail, leveraged that into becoming a hip artist and the subject of a movie, and yet he is somehow the real victim.

Of course, there’s also the perennial “America imprisons more people than anywhere else in the world!” meme.  In fact, the only drug incarceration problem in America is that too few drug dealers are incarcerated.  Sting suffers from the same delusion that afflicts many of his celebrity pals.  He seems to think that if the kind of people who deal drugs didn’t have drugs to deal, they would naturally flock to the world of hard work and responsibility.  Oh, if only drugs weren’t illegal, the drug dealing scumbags who infest our ghettos, barrios and college sociology departments would morph into clean-shaved, untatted workerbees eagerly embracing the world of 9-5 employment.  Yeah, it was outlawing meth and crack that turned the scumbags into scumbags. 

At one point, the clip promises “new solutions” to the drug problem.  Then Sting pops back up, smug and self-satisfied, to announce that drug laws violate his individual sovereignty.  Uh, typically, when you say you are going to provide new solutions you might consider, you know, providing some new solutions instead of some new cliché.

I certainly enjoy Sting and his pals’ new-found appreciation of my personal autonomy and “sovereignty over my body.”  I assume they’ll be standing by me when I reject the government’s interference in my health care decisions.  Unlikely.  If you think consistency is one of their strong points, perhaps you’ve been smoking the same stuff as them.

Now, Sting was always annoying but here he is reaching new heights of crappiness and pomposity in direct proportion to his declining relevance.  It’s always a pleasure to hear some Brit mega-millionaire who glides around his English manor practicing tantric sex sound off on American domestic policy. 

Please Sting, save us!  Unleash the full intellectual firepower you’ve amassed writing forgettable smooth jazz/rock fusion tunes for people who buy their music at Starbucks.  Just because you’ve been waited on hand and foot for three decades by a coterie of professional sycophants telling you you’re wiser than Buddha and smarter than Einstein doesn’t mean it’s true. 

There may be a case for looking at our drug laws, but these nimrods don’t make it.  The most compelling points are made by the conservatives at National Review and the libertarians at Reason.  Sure, pot smokers steal your snacks, listen to Phish and sound-off with long, disjointed monologues about the miracle of hemp, but I have a hard time getting too bent out of shape by them.  Many celebrities are among them, but Sting and Soros aren’t just talking about causal stoners.  They think we ought to go open season on meth, crack and whatever else these degenerate half-wits today are ingesting.  No thanks – I’d prefer not to live with the mess you’re rich enough to ignore.

The fact is that His Stingness knows nothing – or cares nothing – about the unspeakable devastation drugs cause, particularly within the inner cities.  Instead of standing behind the one truly effective response to urban drug terror – throwing the bastards in a cell and dropping the key down the Guatemalan sinkhole – His Majesty Sting decrees that drug dealing scumbags should run free, then retreats back behind his gates and armed guards to further hone his delayed orgasm skills.

Well, Sting, let’s discuss your really keen points about why poison ought to be legal.  But let’s expand the scope of our discussion to include some other celebrities who might be able to provide us with some valuable insights.  Let’s invite Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, Brad Renfro, DJ AM, and Brittany Murphy to weigh in with their points of view.  Oh wait, they’re all dead.  So are just a few others.

Like a Sean Penn who can’t help but fly into some hellhole, figuratively fellate the local anti-American strongman then jet back to Santa Monica in time for dinner at Pizzeria Mozza, Sting wanders out of his fairy-tale life for a few minutes to tell the benighted peons in the real world how they need to live their lives before retiring back inside his palace behind three layers of security.  The violence, the abuse, the wasted potential brought on by drugs mean nothing to him; what is important is his own act of scolding his lessers for failing to conform to his personal vision.

That’s Sting’s high – lording over others as if he was something more than a glorified cruise ship bassist who got lucky and didn’t have to spend his career cranking out covers of Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” for Corona-swilling passengers during runs between San Diego and Puerto Vallarta on the S.S. Living Hell.  And like so many in the entertainment world, he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of stupid ideas – with intent to distribute.

Editor's Note: The following was originally posted at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

[WARNING: Major series finale spoilers]

Before the series finale of “24” began, Kiefer Sutherland (a.k.a Jack Bauer) appeared on the Fox network and thanked the show’s audience for their support of the long-running program. After eight seasons (eight days in the show’s life), “24” was cancelled earlier this year, although the show will likely be made into a movie. However, after so many great seasons and an emotionally satisfying conclusion, it should be the audience thanking both Kiefer Sutherland and his alter ego.

As the series finale began, the president of the United States, Allison Taylor (Cherry Jones), was preparing to have a historic peace agreement signed. However, the idealistic Taylor had been forced to make numerous ethical compromises in order to get the agreement signed and then discovers that Russia’s leader had planned the assassination of a Middle Eastern leader who was set to sign the agreement. Even knowing that, Taylor continued to obsessively pursue the treaty, which would likely become a major part of her presidential legacy.

Her Shakespearean fall continued throughout and in one unbelievably good finale scene, she even threatened to brutally attack another country if the leader of that nation (the widow of that country’s president, who had been killed only hours before) revealed the truth about Russia’s involvement in the assassination. This was a shocking turn of events as this once hopeful president suddenly made horrific decisions in order to achieve “peace.”

Taylor’s fall from idealism was only one part of the jam-packed finale. As Taylor was fighting for her treaty, Jack Bauer was seeking vengeance against those who had killed Renee Walker (Annie Wersching), a former work associate and love interest of his who was assassinated. In the meantime, disgraced former president Charles Logan (Gregory Itzin) was trying to find redemption in the public eye by helping President Taylor get her important peace treaty signed. Throughout the last few episodes, Logan has been pushing President Taylor to make grievous errors in her pursuit of the agreement.

The finale was full of great twists and turns. From seeing how far President Taylor was willing to go in pursuit of the agreement to seeing how close Bauer came to causing a war because of his need for vengeance, this show continued to excite and surprise the audience even in its closing hours.

Some criticism, including on this blog, has been leveled against the show’s writers for pushing Jack Bauer into extremely dark territory and surprising the audience by Bauer’s lust for vengeance. I can appreciate those criticisms and I can understand that on numerous occasions Bauer has crossed ethical lines. However, Bauer has been an extremely flawed character for a long time and he has been willing to do things that are immoral and wrong. In the end, and as is noted in the finale, he will have to eventually face the consequences of what he has done and even though we, the audience, can support his mission of saving millions of lives, we should also be able to understand that Bauer is not a perfect human being. He is a hero, but he has also done cruel things.     

The first hour-plus of  the finale focused on the action and the excitement that the show did so well.  However, in the end, it was not the action or the excitement that closed things out. Instead the focus was on politics and relationships. President Taylor, who was eventually able to manage the cover-up that she supported, was forced to decide what the “peace” agreement was worth to her. Her choice  may have been presented in a clichéd way, but it was a strong way to end her character’s arc.

Additionally, the best part was in the closing sequence between Jack Bauer and Chloe O’Brian (Mary Lynn  Rajskub), one of Bauer’s former CTU colleagues. Throughout the past few seasons, O’Brian and Bauer have been worthy allies working against terrorist threats and fighting against people who wish to do this country harm. Instead of an action-packed few final moments, the show decided to focus on this strong relationship and show what they meant to each other. The final few lines of dialogue avoided blatant sentimentality to simply show these characters saying goodbye.

As these characters were saying their respective goodbyes and acknowledging their longtime support for one another, the audience was saying goodbye to them and this fantastic show…until it moves to the big screen.

NewsBusters Publisher Brent Bozell appeared on WMAL's "Grandy Group" shortly after 8 a.m. this morning.

The Media Research Center President discussed the media's anti-Israel bias flaring up afresh after the Gaza flotilla incident (click image at right for MP3 audio):

FRED GRANDY, host:  You follow this more closely than do I. Um, over the last three or four days, has al-Jazeera acquired NBC, CBS, ABC, all the major outlets, because it seems there's such a clear media bias against what Israel did that it's hard for the truth to get out. Who ever thought that Benjamin Netanyahu and Joe Biden would be the two guys speaking truth to power on this?!

BRENT BOZELL:  You know, it's very sad but this is a continuation of a narrative we've seen since the late 1980s with the intifadas that Palestine was launching against Israel where Palestine was always the innocent one and Israel was always the aggressor. You've got to put the story into context.

The coverage that is being given is completely against Israel from the standpoint that there's no context.

[...]

Between 2001 and 2009 -- just think about this for a second -- 8,600 rockets have been launched from the Gaza Strip against Israel, over the border of Israel. Israel has every right to do whatever they need to do to defend themselves from these attacks. They instituted a blockade because they knew that these weapons were coming in.

There's a long history of this. Last November, Israeli Navy officials intercepted a fraudulent civilian ship packed with 500 lbs. of weaponry. That was 100 miles off Israel's coast.

[...]

GRANDY: But absent you,  and Joe Biden, to his credit, and of course Prime Minister Netanyahu, this story isn't getting out. Why?

BOZELL: It's not, it's not. Because the decision  [by the media] has been made that Israel is in the wrong and her enemies are in the right, which is why, by the way, they [the radicals on the MV Marmara] did what they did, because they know they can get away with it.

Look at the video, the video that shows these, by the way, let's stop calling them activists, at the very least they're militants or radicals, or something, they're not activists.

After this exchange, co-host Bryan Nehman shifted topics to the Arizona anti-illegal immigration bill, noting that despite the media's constant trashing of the law, polls show a majority of Americans support the bill. "Is the media losing its influence?" the co-host asked Bozell, who replied:

Oh yeah, guys, there's obviously cracks, there are big, big cracks in this monopoly.... What's happening is that there's a new media, there's you guys in talk radio, and there's the Internet, and those, both those forces are growing while the old media are all dying. Now, they're still very powerful, they're more powerful than any other outlet that the new media have, but collectively, the new media are as big as they are, it just takes an awful lot more work to get our story out. But if we work hard at it, if we tell our story, the story will get out.

Towards the end of the segment, Bozell explained his complaint about the "JC" cartoon program planned for Comedy Central:

BOZELL: What cowards they are. They [the executive at Comedy Central] have a policy that they will not do anything that might be offensive to Muslims, and on the other hand they are talking about producing a show designed uniquely, specifically, and formally to do nothing but insult Christianity. 

That's how MSNBC's Contessa Brewer opened her June 3 interview with Rabbi Daniel Lapin, who appeared via satellite to discuss his work with the newly-formed Citizens Against Religious Bigotry (CARB) to get advertisers on Viacom's Comedy Central to publicly pledge to not support or underwrite a show currently in pre-production entitled "JC" for Jesus Christ. For full disclosure, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell is a founding member of CARB.

"Just playing devil's advocate here, because I am the daughter of a Baptist preacher, don't you think Jesus Christ is tough enough to withstand it?" Brewer prodded Lapin. After all, "he's a big guy," Brewer argued. [MP3 audio available for download here; WMV video for download here]

Given the irreverent and downright blasphemous treatment Jesus Christ and God have gotten at the hands of "South Park" and Sarah Silverman, Brewer later asked Lapin, in all seriousness, "What if this turns out to be more like a Sunday School lesson than the worst imaginings of you and Bill Donohue of the Catholic League and on and on?"

Really, Contessa? Here's the reported premise of the show:

The cable network has announced that it's developing a series called "JC" -- a half-hour animated show about a dude named Jesus "JC" Christ who wants to escape his dad's (aka God) considerable shadow to chill in New York as a regular guy.

Things have changed on earth over the last 2,000 years and JC quickly discovers that he's a fish (and possibly a few loaves of bread) out of water. He gets little sympathy from a "powerful but apathetic" God, who prefers playing video games to listening to junior blabbering about life in the city.

That's a far cry from the Jesus of the Bible -- "not my will but yours be done" -- as taught in Sunday School.

A preacher's daughter most certainly should know that much.

NewsBusters Publisher and Media Research Center President Brent Bozell and five other members of the Citizens Against Religious Bigotry (CARB) coalition will hold a tele-news conference tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. EDT to ask advertisers on Viacom's Comedy Central to publicly pledge to not support/underwrite a show currently in pre-production.  The show is entitled "JC" - as in Jesus Christ. 

[More information on how to join the call-in appears below the page break]

Joining Bozell on the call will be Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, syndicated radio host Michael Medved, Catholic League president Bill Donohue, Parents Television Council president Tim Winter, and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the American Alliance of Jews and Christians. 

For the conference call, Bozell will unveil an exclusive, four-minute video mash-up of some of the network's many offensive clips referencing Jesus Christ and God, as evidence of what we can most likely expect from "JC."

The CARB leaders will reconvene for another tele-press conference call on June 17th, to announce the names of the companies that have publicly pledged to not sponsor religious bigotry.  And to discuss further action for those who fail to do so.

Mr. Bozell:

“After we reveal the vile and offensive nature of Comedy Central’s previous characterizations of Jesus Christ and God the Father, we expect these advertisers to agree wholeheartedly to end their advertising on Comedy Central and discontinue their support for unabashed, anti-Christian discrimination.  Why should they be supporting a business that makes a habit of attacking Christianity and yet has a formal policy to censor anything considered offensive to followers of Islam? This double standard is pure bigotry, one from which advertisers should quickly shy away. After all, there are other avenues to redirect their advertising dollars in places that do not offend and alienate viewers. We will reconvene in the coming weeks to share the results of our appeal and the next steps we will take.”

For access to the dial-in for the tele-news conference, please contact Colleen O'Boyle (ext. 122) or Mary Beth Hutchins (ext. 105) at 703-683-5004. For a complete list of of Coalition Against Religious Bigotry members, visit: www.CitizensAgainstReligiousBigotry.org.

Editor's Note: The following originally appeared at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

M. Night Shyamalan’s latest film production, "The Last Airbender," was recently awarded over $35 million in film tax credits from Pennsylvania over two years.  The award is the largest in the history of Pennsylvania’s Film Tax Credit (FTC), breaking the record held by his previous project, "The Happening," which received $12 million in tax credits.  His film "Lady in the Water" also received a film production grant. The only good news is that taxpayers are only forced to subsidize these movies, not to watch them.

Pennsylvania first created a film tax credit in 2004, replaced it with a film grant program in 2006, then enacted its current $75 tax credit program in 2007, in which films can receive up to 25 percent of production costs in the form of tax credit. The state’s FTC was temporarily reduced, as the 2009 state budget agreement reduced all tax credits by 33% for three years.

Forty-four states offer tax incentivizes or grants to filmmakers for in-state production, according to a recent report on film tax credits by the Tax Foundation.  Pennsylvania is among the 26 states that offer transferable (or in some states refundable) tax credits to film producers.  This means that tax credit awarded is more than the actual state taxes the recipient owes, they can sell the remaining credit to another business.

But movie incentives by-and-large have failed as economic policy.  As the Tax Foundation notes:

Movie production incentives are costly and fail to live up to their promises. … Among these failures, the two most important are their failure to encourage economic growth overall and their failure to raise tax revenue. 

A state-commissioned study of Pennsylvania’s film tax credit—conducted by Hollywood consultants—effectively concluded that the tax credit was responsible for every movie filmed in the state.  Yet this ignores evidence that the vast majority of films didn’t even apply for the tax credit or that the film tax credit had not had much of an impact on film production in the state.

James Homan of the Mackinac Center notes that Michigan—which has the largest film tax credit in the nation—has lost film jobs since the creation of the tax credit.  Likewise, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that Pennsylvania employs fewer than 8,000 workers in the category “Motion picture and sound recording industries,” representing about 0.2% of the state workforce, and an increase of 800 employees since 2004.

Why don’t film credits “create jobs”?  In part, they provide incentives for economic activity that would have occurred anyway.  Furthermore, a narrow tax incentive does little to improve the overall economy. Indeed, the tax breaks given to the film industry could instead have been used to lower taxes on all businesses, rewarding entrepreneurship rather than lobbying.

While film production tax credits remain popular, as lawmakers love the chance to have movie stars show up in their districts, many states are reconsidering their benefits.  Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle pushed for elimination of his state’s film tax credit. One employee at the Wisconsin Department of Commerce summarized their film tax program by saying, “We lost a lot of money. We had to get off the crazy train.” Iowa’s film tax credit was recently suspended, and criminal charges were filed for “stealing” tax credits when filmmakers inflated costs and took the tax credit while actually filming and hiring workers in other states.

See also: "Texas Considering Giving State Funding to Anti-Arizona Immigration Film 'Machete'"

Most probably wouldn't think of Rolling Stone magazine as a primary source for information on something like financial regulation reform. However, if you listen to some of the left-wing talking heads like Ezra Klein, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi is in the know on major policy issues.

So how do Taibbi and the other folks at Rolling Stone keep their readers interested in a topic that wouldn't suit their usual demographic? They do so with "insults" according to Taibbi.

In the May 26 issue of Rolling Stone, Taibbi's article, "Wall Street War," lamented the impact lobbyists in Washington, D.C. have had on the legislative process of the financial regulation reform. And in order to keep readers interested, he painted Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., as a villain with a degree of insult:

Dodd worked overtime trying to craft a "bipartisan" bill with the Republican minority - in particular with Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the committee. With his dyed hair, porcine trunk and fleshy, powdery-white face, Shelby recalls an elderly sumo wrestler in drag. I happened to be in the Senate on the day that Shelby proposed a substitute amendment that would have stuffed the CFPB into the FDIC, effectively scaling back its power and independence. Throughout the debate, I was struck by the way that Dodd and his huge black caterpillar eyebrows kept crossing the aisle to whisper in Shelby's ear. During these huddles, Dodd would gently pat Shelby's back or hold his arm; it was like watching a love scene in a Japanese monster movie.

Taibbi appeared on the Fox Business Network's "Imus in the Morning" program, where host Don Imus heaped praise upon him. Imus applauded Taibbi for making the uninteresting, interesting: 

IMUS: Seventeen until the hour, talking with Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone magazine about this financial reform bill which I can barely, barely pay attention to.
TAIBBI: That's one of the problems. I mean, it's that - It's so confusing that nobody is really interested in it except, you know - all the richest people in the world are desperately interested in it.
IMUS:  I can only read your articles because, and it sounds like I'm patronizing you and I'm obviously not, but, only because you're willing to write colorful - in a colorful manner and assign icky names to these various people, including a-holes and so it makes it - I can't wait for your book on this, because it makes it - I mean, the guy who came up with vampire squid, I mean, is worth reading about this financial mess but the problem is, not only does it make my neck and hair hurt, it makes everybody's, as you just said.

But how did Taibbi pull this feat off?  According to Taibbi, with inserting more insults at the behest of his editors:

TAIBBI: I know. We actually had that problem with this article ... My editors actually asked me to insert more insults in there, so I described Richard Shelby as - I said he looked like an elderly sumo wrestler in drag in this, in this one. There's a few of those in there.
IMUS: Name calling - that's our level.
TAIBBI: It's a beautiful thing.
IMUS: It is a beautiful thing.

One has to wonder what's next, cap-and-trade legislation analysis from Taibbi with fart jokes?

The film is set in Roman Egypt during the fourth century and focuses on the life of Hypatia, a female philosopher and scholar. Behar insisted the character must have been a "liberal."

During the exchange, Weisz began discussing her role as Hypatia and how her character, “believed in having the people from different backgrounds with different political views, rather like you ladies sitting here.” Immediately following this assertion, Joy Behar announced, “Oh, so she was liberal” and “bipartisan.”

Since obviously the leap is automatically assumed, co-host Sherri Shepherd jumped in the discussion adding, “She was very inclusive,” followed by Whoopi Goldberg: “That's the word, respectful of other people's thinking.”

The segment concluded shortly after conservative co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck protested that her colleagues would want to make the ancient philosopher out to be "a liberal."

"Law & Order," the popular courtroom drama that concluded its 20^th and final season May 24, is a primetime TV legend. But the show that boasted its stories were "ripped from the headlines" often provided its viewers a distorted reality in which businesspeople were mostly portrayed as villains.

The Business & Media Institute examined "Law & Order," along with other television dramas' treatment of businessmen in 2005. BMI found that you were 21 times more likely to be kidnapped or killed by a businessman that a mobster.

Since 1990, the cop/attorney drama created by liberal Dick Wolf has covered a host of "bad" businesses from the company secretly testing roach poison on children and the greedy pharmaceutical execs selling a bad vaccine to the military to allegedly dirty defense contractors, landlords and medical device manufacturers.

In two out of three of its final episodes, the original "Law & Order" continued to demonize businessmen. One of those anti-business episodes villainized a bio-research firm, HemaLabs, for "stealing" DNA and blood samples from a family to create cancer treatment drugs. The company never compensated the impoverished family.

Executive Assistant District Attorney Michael Cutter told Interim District Attorney Jack McCoy the company was worse than the killer, saying, "Well, the defense has a lot to work with, HemaLabs has been exploiting Jerome Turner's family for 50 years. You should see where Nathan Robinson's relatives live, Jack. In falling down shacks. Company's treatment of this family - it's a disgrace."

HemaLabs hadn't committed the crime in that May 17 episode, it was Turner's cousin who stabbed him to death after Turner willingly provided DNA to HemaLabs. The treatment of the company created sympathy for the actual killer and hostility toward the fictional cancer-drug creators.

It was a double dose of corporate attacks that night, when the episode: "Love Eternal," also aired. In it, three wealthy corporate-types invested their money with each other and committed fraud in order to hide assets from their wives until after divorcing them. But the plan went awry when one of the three decided not to divorce his wife, prompting one of the others to murder him.

The show has a long tradition of attacks on businesses. In one famous 1999 episode, Jack McCoy even prosecuted a gun manufacturer for murder after a rejected med student applicant gunned down a group of medical students. In that episode, the jury found the company guilty (although the judge set the verdict aside).

TV Drama: More Businessmen Killers than Mob Murders

Not every store owner, executive, banker or broker you meet in life is a criminal, yet on "Law & Order," nearly every businessperson introduced is guilty of something unethical, immoral or criminal.

Primetime television has been painting this negative view of corporate employees for years. From white collar crimes to murders, businessmen were often found guilty on TV dramas including NBC's "Law & Order" franchises.

The Business & Media Institute examined the portrayal of businessmen in TV dramas in 2005 and found that a person was 21 times more likely to be kidnapped or murdered at the hands of a businessman than the mob. Businessmen also committed crimes five times more often than terrorists and four times more often than gangs.

That analysis included all three popular "Law & Order" shows (original, "Special Victims Unit" and "Criminal Intent"). On those programs, almost 50 percent of felonies (13 out of 27) - mostly murders - were committed by businessmen.

One of those murders was on the May 4, 2005, "Law & Order" episode "Sport of Kings." That night Detective Joe Fontana and his sidekick Nick Falco investigated the murder of a jockey named Oscar. Their inquiry led them to Edgar, the CEO of a small manufacturing firm and the owner of a horse the jockey rode. Edgar not only bought a $3 million horse from Saudi Arabia with the company pension fund, but he shot Oscar when the jockey discovered what he was riding. The thoroughbred would have made a return on Edgar's "investment," or so the CEO would have had his employees believe.

Anti-business episodes like that weren't only coming from "Law & Order." For that Special Report, BMI also analyzed "CSI: Miami," "Cold Case," "NCIS" and other shows and found that businessmen killed for "a competitive edge" or because their debtors were spending money on "Lamborghinis and sushi."

But it isn't just businessmen and women that were put on trial on "Law & Order," sometimes it was conservative values under attack.

"Law & Order" Goes After Conservative Pundits, Values

From plotlines involving murders of abortion doctors, to little jokes and comments stuffed into the dialogue; "Law & Order" and its franchises "Special Victims Unit" and "Criminal Intent" routinely revealed their liberal agenda. "SVU" was renewed by NBC for the 2010-2011 season, and "CI" will continue to be broadcast by USA Network.

NBC also picked up a new series, "Law & Order: Los Angeles," for the 2010-2011 season. Liberal creator Wolf will serve as executive producer of the new franchise.

Still, it is no wonder the left-wing Huffington Post blog was mourning the loss of the original show, calling it a "National Treasure" on May 18. Lefty film critic Scott Mendelson wrote, "Even at its worst, the show had always been entertaining, thoughtful, and politically and socially nutritious."

Taking a cheap shot at Fred Thompson, a Republican who sought the presidential nomination in 2008, Mendelson called his time on the show the "dark years." At least he admitted that Wolf is a Democrat and "the show has remained relatively liberal."

Relatively liberal? That's an understatement. At least two of the final season "Law & Order" episodes were distinctly pro-gay (one was pro-gay marriage, the other portrayed gay bashing as the only alternative view), one about torture was anti-Bush, while at least four were anti-business. With character Anita Van Buren's struggle with cancer and difficulty paying her medical bills, there was anti-insurer vein to the entire 2009-2010 season.

Throw in the other franchises (SVU and CI) and the attack on conservatives got even worse. Between Feb. 10 and March 10, 2010 "Law & Order: SVU" bashed Christians by portraying them as kinky sex addicts and murderers. Detectives on the show referred to the abortion debate as "pro-choice or no choice," and the program spewed propaganda supporting special punishment for hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

A 2009 episode of "Law & Order: CI" suggested tea party protestors were like terrorists who blow things up when one of the pro-Communist terrorists in the storyline said, "It's not just us. There was another tea party in Boston. Protests in Seattle, one in Houston."

Often the bias is written into a character's dialogue, revealing the driving agenda. That's what happened in late 2009, when one "Law & Order: SVU" character slammed conservative talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

"Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, all of ‘em, they are like a cancer spreading ignorance and hate ... They've convinced folks that immigrants are the problem, not corporations that fail to pay a living wage or a broken health care system ..." the character (played by John Larroquette) said.

This infuriated O'Reilly who condemned "far-left" creator Dick Wolf's TV series saying it was "defamatory and outrageous and Dick Wolf is a coward for putting that out there. He's also a liar. I've consistently defended poor people who want a better life."

Original cast member Michael Moriarty condemned the "unconscionable" liberalism of "Law & Order" in Dec. 2009, saying, "I hardly expected my old television series to be the clown act that leads the American viewing audience into an increasingly predictable pile of hard left propaganda."

Host Meredith Vieira was discussing a Hollywood Reporter review that called the movie “proudly feminist, but blatantly anti-Muslim, when she stated, “In real life, you are engaged to Christine Mariononi.”

Nixon began dating Mariononi after splitting with her husband, Danny Mozes, with whom she has two children. Nixon and Mariononi became engaged last year.

After Nixon confirmed she still was, Vieira said, “Your partner for six years. And you have said if the, the same sex-marriage bill passes in this state, you plan to get married.”

Nixon replied, “Yes. I mean we’re not gonna wait forever for New York. We’re, we’re trying, you know, get New York to get its act together but if, if we have to wait too long we’ll go somewhere else. But we’d ideally really like to do it in our home.”

Vieira then attempted to tie same sex-marriage with the movie and mused, “Yeah I was gonna ask you. What you do think is gonna come first? Same-sex marriage in New YorkNew York.” or ‘Sex and the City Part 3?’” Nixon laughed, “I really hope same sex-marriage in New York."

What same-sex marriage has to do with “Sex and the City 2” was pretty unclear. But Nixon should consider a move to Washington, D.C., where same-sex marriage became legal several months ago, to the unconcealed glee of the Washington Post.

Editor's Note: This post originally appeared at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

The political thriller Fair Game premiered at Cannes today. (Pause for giant, collective yawn from Big Hollywood readers…)

The Sean Penn-Naomi Watts “starrer” (hey, it’s fun using unnecessarily awkward Variety-speak!) revisits the Valerie Plame Wilson scandal, an episode I’m not even going to bother recapping, because to do so would simply be coma-inducing for all of us. Besides, I already summed up the affair and dissected the screenplay’s political slant for Big Hollywood here. Suffice it to say, it’s a tale the Hollywood Left is hell-bent on getting Americans to care about.

As are its water-carriers in the media. In a deceptive puff piece an article last week for the Los Angeles Times, Rachel Abramowitz discusses the film and interviews its director Doug Liman. The first clue that we’re about to be sold a crockpot of hooey comes when she describes Valerie Plame as “the undercover CIA operative whose name was leaked to the media by the Bush White House in an effort to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson.”

Notice how matter-of-factly those lies are delivered. Matter-of-fact because the left-dominated entertainment industry clings to its anti-Bush narrative about the affair as received wisdom: courageous patriot Joe Wilson dared speak truth to power by exposing the lies neocons used to promote a “war of choice,” and then the wicked Bush and his flying monkeys Rove and Cheney plotted vengeance against him from their White House lair.

Once again, people: there is no evidence that the “Bush White House” conspired to leak Plame’s name to the media, or that it was done to discredit her husband or expose her identity. Even the Obama Justice Department dismissed the Wilsons’ attempt to sue Rove, Cheney, and Libby, stating flatly that Joe Wilson had provided no evidence that the three officials had caused him harm.

But back to the media sleight-of-hand. Ms. Abramowitz then refers to “the eventual trial and conviction of ‘Scooter’ Libby, a top aide to then-Vice President Dick Cheney,” without clarifying what he was convicted of. Her phrasing, and the screenplay itself, suggest that Libby was guilty of the leak (and Cheney as well, via guilt-by-association). No, Libby perjured himself to investigators by concealing what he knew and when he knew it; it was State Dept. official Richard Armitage, by his own admission, who leaked Plame’s name. And he did it not in retaliation for her husband’s criticism of the administration, but inadvertently, claiming he didn’t realize she was covert. But as I wrote before at Big Hollywood, his name does not appear in the script. That’s because it would utterly suck the wind out of the movie’s already limp sails to admit that “the Bush White House” did not conspire to punish the Wilsons.

Abramowitz says that, according to Liman, “events in the movie follow the facts.” Yes, if after “the facts” you add “according to the anti-war Left’s willful delusion.” Having thus established for her readers that the film is “true-to-life,” Ms. Abramowitz then gets to the article’s astonishing central claim: that in Fair Game, “ Liman pushed the politics of the events into the background.”

Yes, if by “background” she means “foreground.” The Valerie Plame story is political in its very essence. The whole point of the Wilsons’ story is their claim that they were targeted for retaliation for challenging the administration’s justification for war. Removing that linchpin by “pushing the politics into the background” would simply cause the entire story to vanish.

The filmmakers “leave the political debate largely off screen,” Abramowitz continues, “and much of the activity of the Bush White House officials is presented in news clips.” True, as I noted in my previous piece, top figures like Bush and Cheney are presented in Fair Game only in film footage; but those clips are carefully selected to suggest a White House cover-up, and the script itself hammers that theory home. The scenes that do fictionally depict White House officials show Rove’s and Libby’s characters conspiring to “out” Plame’s CIA identity.

Liman chimes in, describing how producer Janet Zucker “was particularly impassioned about the behavior of the Bush administration… It was actually very helpful to have this incredibly strong-willed, liberal-minded producer in the mix because it put me in a very reactionary mood, which ultimately drove the politics out of the movie.” (A liberal-minded producer in Hollywood? Who knew?!)

Drove the politics out of the movie? Not the movie I read. Liman is claiming that he and Zucker balanced each other out and created a compromise in which politics is merely a walk-on character. I find it impossible to believe that an “incredibly strong-willed, liberal-minded producer,” whose driving motivation for pursuing this story was to expose Bush wrongdoing, would accept such a compromise. I also find it impossible to believe the Wilsons themselves would be happy having the crux of their story redacted from the film (the real Valerie Plame, by the way, went to Cannes to promote it).

And what about the star Sean Penn? Raise your hand if you believe that the openly far-left activist Penn would cheerily go along with a politically neutral take on this affair… Uh huh. As I expected, not a single hand.

In all fairness, I haven’t yet seen the movie, so perhaps it now bears little resemblance to the openly partisan script I previously examined on Big Hollywood. But based on that screenplay, to say that the movie is about the Wilsons’ strained relationship and only marginally about politics is, well, let’s be charitable and call it disingenuous. After all, no sooner does the Times article claim that Fair Game is a politics-free zone, when Liman contradicts himself with a revealing analogy to Spielberg’s Jaws: “The shark is a lot scarier when you see less of it. I decided to apply that approach to the White House.” Sounds like the politics hasn’t so much been driven out of the movie as elevated to a central, ominous presence.

Lest one question why we shouldn’t take Liman at his word, he helpfully points out that “I’m used to manipulating people. That’s one of the main criteria of making it as a director in Hollywood… You have to be a con artist.” With this in mind, one can’t help but wonder if he and L.A. Times enabler Rachel Abramowitz are trying to pull off a con themselves: to reassure readers that Fair Game isn’t just another leftist, politicized attack on the Iraq War – because they know, as I have written before, that that would be met with even greater audience indifference than was Matt Damon’s dud The Green Zone (Abramowitz herself raises the fearsome specter of that movie’s failure.)

Audience indifference except at Cannes, of course, where international cinema sophisticates gather to congratulate themselves on their anti-Americanism, and among the media leftists like reviewer Jeffrey Wells, who giddily predicts Cannes-and-Oscar glory for a ”film which exposes right-wing scumbaggery.” 

They eagerly embrace Fair Game’s political slant – a slant the L.A. Times denies the movie has.

An online trailer for the film "Machete," released on Cinco de Mayo (and embedded below the fold), begins with the title character saying he has a "special message...to Arizona!" That special message, as the New York Post writes, seems to be "They just f---ed with the wrong Mexican."

Some commentators believe that the film could actually provoke violence. But at the very least, "Machete" seems to be making a very strong and provocative political statement about an extremely divisive issue -- while at the same time applying for tax breaks from the Texas state government. So Texans may be forced to help pay for a statment to which -- if national polls are any indicator -- many are opposed.

Big Hollywood's John Nolte, among others, believes that "Machete" could promote a dangerous message in the midst of a heated debate. Nolte accused director Robert Rodriguez of trying to "profit from telling lies about Arizona's immigration law and mak[ing] infamous history by stoking a race war."

Hey, does that make Rodriguez a war-profiteer? Methinks it does.

We all know that if the situation were reversed, if the film's hook was Caucasian Border Minutemen declaring a race war on Mexican Illegals, no one would find that acceptable. Sure, we live in a free country where such a project would be legal, but not acceptable...

It's not Rodriguez's fault that an idea he's had for years is about to be realized in the middle of the Arizona debate. But the multi-millionaire is no innocent victim of bad timing. The overrated filmmaker grabbed the Arizona issue by both lapels and intentionally exploited the situation to gin up attention to his project.

The controversy raised overt political message is only compounded by the possibility that the film could be given preferential tax treatment by the Texas state government.

The Texas Film Commission, which is part of the governor's office, is considering "Machete" for a 5 to 15 percent tax break under the office's Moving Image Industry Incentive Program, which aims to spur economic activity by encoring filmmakers to operate in the state.

I contacted the Director of the Texas Film Commission, Bob Hudgins, who was adamant that "Machete" had not yet been approved for funding. Hudgins would not comment on whether the trailer -- and its strong political message -- rendered the project inappropriate for State tax breaks, insisting that "Machete" would be judged based solely on the finished product (the film is slated to be released in September), rather than on a preliminary script or trailer.

It must fall to the viewer to decide whether "Machete" is or will be "inappropriate" or whether it respects "general standards of decency." But a statement not only extremely dismissive of, but even outright hostile to a position held by a clear majority of the nation (though no internal Texas polls have been taken) cannot reasonably be considered as respecting a diversity of beliefs. It respects one belief -- that the Arizona immigration law is wrong -- while condemning opposing beliefs in as strong terms as a movie trailer possibly could.

Editor's Note: The following was originally published yesterday at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood blog.

After news broke of fugitive child rapist Roman Polanski’s second accuser, the L.A. Times’  Patrick Goldstein wrote the following:

As an admirer of his work, I’ve tried to see things from Polanski’s point of view in the past, but if these charges turn out to be true, it would be harder than ever to defend him. Once burned is twice shy. 

What a relief to know Goldstein draws the line somewhere. But he’s not alone. Here’s Jeff Wells:

Well, I guess things don’t look so hot right now for the “let it go because Roman Polanski is an art god” argument, do they? Yes, I’ll admit it — the indications are damning.

I’m confused. Are you confused?

What about “Rosemary’s Baby?”

Polanski drugs, rapes and sodomizes a thirteen year-old girl and then flees justice. Then these two — and many others like them — give Polanski a pass because he’s such a OhMyGawdHesSoAwesome filmmaker. I assumed this was due to Polanski helming “Chinatown.”

However, both Wells and Goldstein seem to have forgotten ”Rosemary’s Baby,” which is also a classic. Doesn’t that make this second charge okay? It’s certainly no “Chinatown,” but if you throw in “Repulsion” with a side order of ”The Pianist,” I would think you could cobble together a second It’s Okay To Sexually Abuse A Child Card.

Before I hit sarcasm overload, this is yet another revealing and disturbing look at those trusted with covering and reporting on an industry in charge of the most powerful propaganda machine ever devised. Co-opted doesn’t begin to describe it. They are Brothers-In-Arms. Even after Polanski put his defenders in a box with his guilty plea, this didn’t stop them. Obviously no one could say Polanski was innocent. So what’s left? Incredibly…

Goldstein: “As an admirer of his work.”

Wells: “Art god.”

And this really isn’t victim #2, is it?  Two words you’re not hearing in all the new hub-bub are Natassia and Kinski. Polanski’s own words from his memoir:

Nastassia introduced me to her mother, who discussed her career with me [...]. That was when I first learned Nastassia’s age. She was only fifteen.

We made love more than once during my three months in Munich. [...] On the night we met I’d thought her a couple of years older than her friend, who was, in fact, seventeen.

As recently as last month, Polanski has never shown a hint of remorse for what he did to that thirteen year-old girl, or anyone else. For his Hollywoodist apologists to think they can leap over to the correct side of this argument now, it’s a little too late.

If one admitted child rape isn’t enough then nothing is. This so-called moral line in the sand they’re hoping to now draw is a transparent attempt to save face. Because they live in a protective bubble populated only with those who think as they do, what Polanski’s defenders didn’t expect was such a fierce backlash to their strident defense of a child rapist; and if they think for a second that they can exploit this latest accusation as a way out — a kind of absolution — they are sadly mistaken.

On the contrary, they only reveal themselves all the more.

On the May 9 episode of the VH1 "What Chilli Wants," reality show, TLC hip hop girl group member Rozonda "Chilli" Thomas opened up about her abortion.

In the video (below the fold) Chilli described aborting at age 20, about 1991, for sadly common reasons, because she "didn't have the support" and "was so scared."

This was also at the beginning of her musical career, she said, and she didn't know how she could do both it and motherhood.

So Chilli opted to "not have it" (couldn't say "abortion"), which turned out to be "one of the biggest mistakes," because she "didn't want to do that."

Then Chilli began to describe what abortion proponents say doesn't exist, post traumatic stress syndrome as a result of her abortion. "It messed me up," she said, "I don't know, it broke my spirit."

Obviously, she felt pressured to abort. She said she began to break down, to cry "because I wasn't a mommy" - almost every day for almost 9 years.

Chilli decided the only way to "fix it" was to have a baby with the same man, her 1st record producer, Dallas Austin.

Chilli doesn't talk about this in the video, but she indeed had a baby with Austin, son Tron, now ~13 years old, pictured right, with her.

I appreciate Chilli's honesty....

Ironically - or perhaps subsequently - according to zvents.com, TLC's "musical formula was augmented by the girls' brightly-colored videos and curious costuming: each girl wore unwrapped condoms on their clothing (Left-Eye also wore one in a pair of glasses over her left eye), apparently advocating contraception." See top photo for Left Eye's eye condom. (Tragically, Left Eye was killed in a car accident 8 years ago.)

And TLC's best selling single, "Waterfalls," released in 1995, had partially to do with one woe of practicing indiscriminate sex. (Read lyrics here.)

9:38AM

DEAN REYNOLDS: Prepare for Russell Crowe's fight scenes. The new version directed by Ridley Scott is a kind of Robin Hood meets Gladiator meets Saving Private Ryan. And it makes some claim to being, if not historically accurate, at least set in a proper historic context.

RUSSELL CROWE: Robin isn't a super hero. He's not – he doesn't have a cape. And he's – he isn't a cartoon. What we tried to do was find out who the real person was, you know? And sift through history and see which ground was fertile for a rebel leader like Robin Hood.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR [KING JOHN]: Taxation.

REYNOLDS: And so here is an evil King John, squeezing his subjects for more taxes.

ACTOR [AS JOHN]: The crown is owed money at home.

REYNOLDS: And here is Robin.

RUSSELL CROWE [ROBIN HOOD]: We're trying to build for the future.

REYNOLDS: Not as a thief, but as a revolutionary figure trying to limit the King's power. Robin Hood meets Che Guevara.

CROWE [AS HOOD]: Empower every man and you will gain strength.

REYNOLDS: This Robin joins the fight to get the English king to sign the Magna Carta in the year 1215, the document establishing the first rights on which modern democracies are based.

CROWE: And when we spread history in front of us on a table, we found that the very first time the Magna Carta was signed, and the Magna Carta, obviously, is directly related to the Declaration of Independence, and it seeks to redress the balance of rights and privileges. We started thinking, well, you count back from when that was signed and why did this particular monarch – why was he brought to the table? And it may well have been because he had somebody like a Robin Hood breathing down his neck.

REYNOLDS: It's a preposterous idea, of course, but preposterous in a good way, thinks our modern Robin of today's Sherwood Forest, Aide Andrews.

AIDE ANDREWS: And so now in the 21st century, Robin Hood is being reinterpreted. And that's the beauty of folklore, isn't it? That's the magic of folklore, because here's the-

REYNOLDS: It's still alive today, you're saying.

ANDREWS: Very much so. It's living, breathing tradition. And that's where the magic is. That's what's important about Robin Hood.

REYNOLDS: The forest has changed. Notingham has changed, presumably the sheriff now works here. And if Robin Hood is still a living legend here, he's also an industry. Every time a new Robin shows up on the screen, people show up here. And what's wrong with that?

ANDREWS: The legends are all about escape into the wild wood, aren't they? They're all about freedom, you know, away from this modern world as such. So we too can escape through those stories into the ancient wild wood. And that's got to be – that's got to be good. Isn't it?

For many far-left MSNBC fans, one conservative on the cable network is one too many. Combine a tired tirade against Joe Scarborough of "Morning Joe" with the inanity of a Hollywood leftist's lame attempt at media commentary, and you have one entertaining Huffington Post column.

"Are the programmers at MSNBC nuts?" asked legendary actor Donald Sutherland (pictured right) on Sunday. "They give us refreshing afternoons with Chris and Ed, put us to bed with the clarifying sensibilities of Rachel and Keith and then, idiotically, wake us up with Mr. Small Mouth."

Yes, Sutherland did just use the terms "refreshing" and "clarifying sensibilities" in reference to Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann, respectively. And no, apparently he was not being sarcastic. Then comes the Scarborough-bashing:

Who is this idiot? Why is he there? He can't even listen. He doesn't conduct a decent conversation. He runs over everyone else's words with a landslide of diarrhea. I saw him on Friday, stomping around the stage like a posturing rooster, calling Paul Krugman a political hack. Paul Krugman's a political hack? Surely they put make-up on Mr. Small Mouth. Doesn't he look in the mirror? That's where he'd see what a political hack looks like.

Got it, Joe? You're a political hack, unlike the gloriously liberal Paul Krugman. Never mind the fact that Scarborough seems to be getting it from all sides lately (including some flak from fellow NBers) -- not exactly the sign of an opportunist -- while Krugman is willing to disregard and contradict his own economics research to score political points.

Then comes the call for Scarborough to be fired:

For god's sake, MSNBC, get rid of him, he's beneath you. This guy makes Pat Buchanan look embarrassed. Go out and get the television equivalent of David Brooks to chair your program. He'd be worth listening to. He'd give conservative opinion a rational voice. That person would be calmly articulate, and that'd make for worthwhile conversation. Reminiscent of William Safire or, better still, William F. Buckley. That'd be fair and balanced broadcasting!

Ah yes, a man who considers Ed Schultz "refreshing" -- Ed Schultz! -- is now lecturing readers on what would constitute "fair and balanced broadcasting." No person who considers Keith Olbermann's vitriolic rants "clarifying" is in a position to play media critic.

As for Sutherland's longing for a Buckley or a Safire, it is just another example of a false nostalgia. His longing for the "calmly articulate" conservatives of yesteryear will likely be echoed in 40 years by liberals who reminisce of the days of Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin.

Conveniently, there are no living figures (except Tea Party-bashing elitist David Brooks, who makes Scarborough look like Michael Savage) who Sutherland thinks merit the mantle of MSNBC's token conservative.

Actor Alec Baldwin and New York Times assistant managing editor Richard Berke went back and forth mocking Sarah Palin during a discussion at Harvard University on Wednesday.

Baldwin dubbed Palin "caribou barbie," while Berke rehashed the former Alaska Governor's interview with Katie Couric during the 2008 campaign -- perhaps the left's favorite Palin-basing talking point. Baldwin went on to attribute Palin's success to a television news culture that sports women who look like they "just popped off the runway."

These demeaning comments marked the latest in the liberal elite's condescension of Sarah Palin -- condescension that would likely be condemned as outright sexism if directed at another prominent public figure. Videos of the exchange are embedded below the fold.

In fact, Baldwin did not himself devise the "caribou barbie" label. CNN's Jack Cafferty, the New York Times's Maureen Dowd, and ABC's David Wright have all used the term to demean Palin.

The "she's only successful because she's attractive" meme is also common in the legacy media's discussions of the former governor. Fox News contributor Juan Williams, for instance, called Palin a "centerfold" and explicitly said that her looks explain her appeal.

Baldwin appears to share that sentiment.

CNSNews.com recently caught up with actress Janine Turner and asked her what it is like to be a conservative in Hollywood. Her frank response paints a dark picture.

No one has ever accused Alec Baldwin of being a rocket scientist, but apparently the actor fancies himself a nuclear physicist. At least that’s the logical conclusion to draw based on his post over at HuffPo entitled “The Human Cost of Nuclear Power.” The actor assumes his new role with gusto, metaphorically donning a lab coat to explain what he believes are the inherent dangers of nuclear power, but his bizarre conclusions and the outdated, discredited research he cites suggests that a straightjacket would be his better fashion choice. 

Let’s start with a question that illustrates just how far the limb that Baldwin is precariously balancing upon extends: what kind of power plant emits the most radiation? The correct answer isn’t the obvious answer. According to the Department of Energy, coal fired power plants emit about one hundred times more radiation, per unit of energy produced, than nuclear plants, chiefly because coal naturally contains trace amounts of radioactive compounds and, unlike nukes, they’re not designed with radioactive shields. Before anyone living near a coal fired power plant runs screaming for the door, I should hasten to add this is still an incredibly tiny amount of radiation, about 1/10,000th of all the radiation that an average person is exposed to each year. Natural sources, by far, make the biggest radioactive contributions to our lives. Nothing else is even close. 

As the focal point of his argument, the actor cites a study that has been the subject of more criticism than Baldwin’s daughter receives from her dad via voice-mail. The Radiation and Public Health Project’s so-called “tooth fairy” study purported to demonstrate a link between cancer and proximity to nuclear power plants, based on supposedly elevated levels of a radioactive element (strontium 90) found in children’s teeth. Without boring you with the details, the study was so poorly conducted and conclusions drawn so wildly unsupportable that even the New York Times could barely suppress an editorial smirk while covering the story. A host of peer-reviewed studies have thoroughly debunked the supposed link between nuclear power and injurious health effects. Nonetheless, the Radiation and Public Health Project is near and dear to Baldwin’s liberal heart, so the facts be damned. Nuclear power is dangerous! Anyone who has seen the China Syndrome ought to know that. 

Baldwin also says that: “There are no safe levels of exposure to the byproducts created by the generation of reactors currently in use.” If he’s trying to tell readers that it would be unwise to pull a Homer Simpson and bring a spent fuel rod home, it’s hard to disagree. Still, the average parent is probably more worried about the dangers of a child breaking one of those energy-efficient, mercury-laced fluorescent light bulbs than whether Junior is going pick up some waste plutonium on the black market. On the other hand, if Baldwin means “radiation” when he talks about “byproducts,” then not only is he wrong – since we live with far more natural radiation than the man-made variety – he’s quite possibly worse than wrong. There is a strong body of scientific research that not only suggests that low levels of additional radiation don’t threaten human health, it might in fact be beneficial. The effect is called “radiation hormesis” and it’s been the subject of several peer-reviewed scientific studies, published in respected journals like Nature and Human & Experimental Toxicology. Plus, consider this: if radiation is bad for you in any dose, it follows that the higher the dose, the worse the effect, right? So, it follows that there should then be a correlation between cancer rates and background radiation levels (which vary, depending on where you live), right? 

There’s not.                          

Baldwin falls into the inevitable trap of somebody trying to practice science without a license or a clue. He relies upon “experts” who are more than willing to create a story that fits his treasured narrative (particularly when donations are in order) then, when he tries to explain their tale, those of us who have actual degrees in science (like yours truly) can’t help but howl with laughter.  While I’ll confess that I’m not much of a movie-goer myself any longer, I do understand that Baldwin has somewhat redefined himself as a comic actor over the last few years. Perhaps penning articles for HuffPo as a would-be Dr. Science is another step in this conversion process? That’s the only context in which his opinions about nuclear power make any sense at all.

Editor's Note:  Originally posted at Big Hollywood.

On Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez described how comedian Conan O'Brien could attract viewers to his new late night show on the TBS cable channel: "if he can get this young revolution, you know, a la President Obama, to follow him, that could be huge."

Rodriguez made the comment after guest Dalton Ross, the assistant managing editor for Entertainment Weekly, observed that O'Brien was: "now competing with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, he's not expected to have these mass numbers. As long as he brings his younger audience, his albeit smaller, but passionate audience to TBS, it's going to be successful."

Ross thought Rodriguez's comparison of Obama and O'Brien supporters was "exactly right."

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

8:09AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Because there's no question it's a risk.

DALTON ROSS: Well, you know, I think it's a smart move. I think it's a savvy move. A lot of people were caught off guard by it, but look, it's already been established that Conan, in terms of mass numbers, cannot compete with Jay and Dave. That's why we got into this whole predicament. So even if he went to Fox or another network, that really wasn't going to change. By going to cable, he sort of has taken his game to another field. He is now competing with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, he's not expected to have these mass numbers. As long as he brings his younger audience, his albeit smaller, but passionate audience to TBS, it's going to be successful.

RODRIGUEZ: That's right. Because when you consider 2,500 people, young people, went to see that show last night, he's got 30 or more cities to go, if he can get this young revolution, you know, a la President Obama, to follow him, that could be huge.

ROSS: That's exactly right, Maggie. And people are so behind him because of what he's gone through the past few months. You're finding people that maybe weren't even originally Conan fans but seeing the way he's gone through this whole situation and handled himself, now they relate to him.

I must have missed the groundswell of support and the public clamor for the return of Rosie O'Donnell to the daytime airwaves. It seemed that her time in the cultural spotlight had passed following her notorious 2008 variety show failure (It was hailed by one merciful critic as "dead on arrival") and her exile to a daily Sirius XM radio show that caters to creepy shut-ins and those unlucky listeners who can't figure out how to tune-in to Howard Stern. But like some sort of loudmouthed, frumpy, left-wing vampire who just won't stay in the ground, she is threatening to rise again with a terrifying plan to replace Oprah once the Queen of Daytime TV retires in 2011. Someone in Hollywood, please - break out the garlic.

Of course, I'm hardly Rosie's daily television show target demographic. I work for a living instead of sitting at home staring slack-jawed at the succession of Sham-Wow commercials and ads for shyster lawyers promising big payouts for the imaginary injuries of their deadbeat clients that fill the time between inane segments of mindless yak. And while the social parasite demographic seems to grow larger after every freebie, hand-out and pay-off the Administration and its Congressional flunkies issue in favor of their employment-averse constituents, Rosie O'Donnell still seems like a bad economic bet.

This is no longer the same country as it was back in 1999 when Rosie was honchoing her first daytime gabfest and hassling Tom Selleck over his support for the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It's not even the same country as it was in May 2007, when the former "Queen of Nice's" anti-conservative bile culminated in her slandering American fighting men and women as terrorists on The View:

ROSIE O‘DONNELL, HOST, "THE VIEW": 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?

ELISABETH HASSELBECK, "VIEW" CO-HOST: Who are the terrorists?

O‘DONNELL: 655 Iraqis-I‘m saying you have to look-we invaded...

HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists?

O‘DONNELL: I‘m saying that, if you were in Iraq, and another country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?

She also takes particular pleasure in attacking the Catholic Church and seems to consider anyone not buying wholesale into her radical agenda against traditional marriage and adoption as a contemptible bigot. And let's not forget her equally insightful foray into that moronic twilight zone known as 9/11 trutherism; it completes her personal trifecta of idiocy.

Rosie's backers for the new show seem excited at the chance to pick up Oprah's viewers, whose departure will apparently leave them without a reason to live. "Those 4, 5, 6 ratings points have to go somewhere," one told Variety. "Something's going to come in and fill that vacuum."

But with the President's approval ratings in freefall, and with Congress envying the polling numbers achieved by such public favorites as Kim Jong-Il, Vanilla Ice and syphilis, it is a new world. Rosie's kind of aggressive, grating, in-your-face liberal stupidity may well serve to alienate a substantial part of today's potential audience. Her partners seem to know it too, assuring Variety that:

"If Rosie wanted to just have a platform for her causes, she would go get a show on cable news . . . . She's a comedian, not a political pundit."

Except no one is laughing - her Rosie Live! variety show was cancelled the first night after scoring an anemic 5.25 million viewers, though the presence of such hip, relevant and cutting edge guest artists as Alanis Morrissette and someone/something called "Ne-Yo" probably didn't help.

The fact is that Rosie O'Donnell is an unpleasant, smug and actively dumb woman who is unlikely to garner anything like the following she once had before embracing her personal jihad against the most deeply held and sincere beliefs of a significant majority of the country. The stay at-home mommies I know are too busy to sit and watch television without a very good reason, and being bitched at by a sanctimonious harpy isn't one of them. Oprah likes Barack Obama, but (I assume) she doesn't spend an hour a day telling her audience that they are the scum of the Earth for not agreeing with her. Rosie probably couldn't resist - and watching her show would probably make the Bataan Death March look like a week at Club Med.

So, there are two possible reasons behind the resurrection of Rosie as a daytime talk show hostess. The first is that the producers think they can make some money by harnessing what they believe to be her undeniable audience appeal. Perhaps that's true, but that seems like a triumph of hope over recent experience considering the unbroken track record of audience alienation and failure that has haunted her since she left her original talk show back in 2002 as well as the increasing polarization of the American public into liberal and conservative camps. Does it seem smart to invest in a show that at the threshold flips the bird to at least 50% of the people who might be enticed to watch it?

The other possibility is that Rosie's aggressive lefty political stance is a net positive for her backers, and that they believe she would provide a valuable, if only intermittently coherent, liberal voice in the vast wasteland that is daytime television. And they may be willing to suck up the potential losses in order to let that obnoxious voice be heard.

The truth is probably somewhere in between. It's not unknown for Hollywood to try to mix business with leftism (*cough* The Green Zone *cough*). Of course, that doesn't always work real well. (*cough* The Green Zone *cough*).

Will Rosie O'Donnell succeed with her career resurrection? No one can know for sure, but just in case, I'm keeping a crucifix and some garlic handy.

Originally published at Big Hollywood on March 31, 2010.

With the recently announced end of Fox's hit series "24," many liberal pundits are parading the show as a false depiction of the notion that "torture works." Contrary to their accusations, the Jack Bauer interrogation methods bear exactly zero resemblance to any actual interrogation techniques used by American military, law enforcement, or intelligence agents.

"On '24,' torture saves lives," the New York Times's Brian Stelter writes, disapprovingly. James Poniewozik, writing on a Time Magazine blog, attributes the show's supposed approval of harsh interrogations to the "conservative politics of co-creator Joel Surnow."

Any American who has serious doubts that our military and intelligence officials would allow interrogators to, say, directly threaten the lives of a terrorist's family (let alone inflict tremendous physical pain) to elicit information has a better grasp of interrogation techniques -- and the integrity of our men and women in uniform -- than most of the liberal media.

The Times writes,

“On some level ‘24’ is just a big ole’ ad for torture,” David Danzig, a deputy program director of Human Rights First, a nonprofit group, wrote in an e-mail message. “Those of us who watch the show a lot — and there are tens of millions of us who do — know exactly what is going to happen as soon as Bauer starts to beat a suspect up. He is going to talk.”

The torture sequences were misleading, Mr. Danzig said, because they contributed to a “pervasive myth” that torture was effective. He recalled that Gary Solis, the former director of West Point’s law of war program, once called “24” “one of the biggest problems” in his classroom.

In an e-mail message this month, Mr. Solis said that when he would preach battlefield restraint in class, a “not infrequent cadet response” would be something to the effect of “Yeah? Well, did you see Jack Bauer last night? He shot a prisoner right in the knee, and that dude talked.”

The cadets knew right from wrong, and the comments were usually made with a grin, Mr. Solis said. Still, “24” presented a conundrum for the law of war professors, some of whom personally enjoyed the show but wished the torture scenes could be toned down if not eliminated altogether.

The Times's implied comparison of Jack Bauer to American interrogators is incorrect and irresponsible. As has been documented by, among others, former Bush administration official Marc Thiessen, the furious, unrestrained, and condemnable techniques used by Keifer Sutherland's fictional agent of the Counter Terrorism Unit bear absolutely no resemblance to actual enhanced interrogation techniques.

Thiessen noted the disconnect in the January 18 edition of National Review, where he also documented some of the more egregious instances of misinformation parroted by the liberal press:

The public view of interrogations had been shaped by the fictional Bauer, who captures a terrorist and proceeds to torture him — holding down his head in a bathtub full of water, using a Taser to shock him, lopping off his fingers with a cigar cutter — while screaming questions until the terrorist finally breaks and gives up the location of the nuclear bomb that is about to go off.

For some critics of U.S. interrogation policy, this is not fiction, but a depiction of reality. In Newsweek, Dahlia Lithwick has written that “high-ranking lawyers in the Bush administration erected an entire torture policy around the fictional edifice of Jack Bauer.” And Philippe Sands, author of the book Torture Team, has written that the show has been the “midwife” for torture’s “actual use on real, living human beings.” None of this is true.

Unlike these critics, I have had the chance to actually meet the real Jack Bauers — the CIA officials who questioned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other senior terrorist leaders and got them to reveal their plans for new terrorist attacks. They explained to my why their approach has nothing in common with the methods used by Bauer on the fictional 24.

Read the entire piece, or Thiessen's recent book Courting Disaster, for more detailed accounts of the actual interrogation methods used.

Thankfully, most American media outlets stopped short of their British counterparts in proclaiming American intelligence officials a bunch of Jack Bauers. One writer for the British paper the Independent claimed that "the neocons" had "been itching to get their hands on a bucket of water and a fishy-looking foreigner since about 1987. 24 has simply caught up."

Of course any examination of the actual interrogation methods used demonstrates that there is nothing even remotely similar to Jack Bauer-esque techniques used by the CIA or any other American agency.

But the end of "24" has given the Times and other liberals in the media the chance to repeat once again these false charges.

"Avatar" director James Cameron had some nasty words for Glenn Beck and global warming "deniers" yesterday.

Cameron said at a news conference that he would like to shoot "those boneheads," referring to skeptics of anthropogenic global warming. "Anybody that is a global warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their a** I'm not sure they could hear me," Cameron added.

As for Beck, "he's a f****** a**hole," the 2010 Oscar nominee so eloquently put it. He backtracked a bit, but still maintained that the FNC host is "dangerous because his ideas are poisonous," echoing a statement by NPR's Cokie Roberts yesterday. "Of course he wound up on Fox News, which is where he belongs, I guess."

The Hollywood Reporter reported today:

Asked what he thought about Beck during a junket appearance in support of the "Avatar" home video release, Cameron said: "Glenn Beck is a f****** a**hole. I've met him. He called me the anti-Christ, and not about 'Avatar.' He hadn't even seen 'Avatar' yet. I don't know if he has seen it."

Cameron was apparently referring to Beck's reaction to his 2007 documentary, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," which casts doubt on the resurrection of Jesus Christ and makes the case that the ancient "Tomb of the Ten Ossuaries" belonged to Jesus' family.

After blasting Beck, Cameron, surrounded by journalists inside a West Hollywood hillside mansion, seemed to reconsider: "I think, you know what, he may or may not be an a**hole, but he certainly is dangerous, and I'd love to have a dialogue with him."...

"He's dangerous because his ideas are poisonous," Cameron answered. "I couldn't believe when he was on CNN. I thought, what happened to CNN? Who is this guy? Who is this madman? And then of course he wound up on Fox News, which is where he belongs, I guess."...

The "Avatar" director was equally unsparing in his comments about those who don't accept global warming as fact.

"That's right," Cameron said. "I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads."

Turning more serious, he added: "Anybody that is a global warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their a** I'm not sure they could hear me."

Stay classy, Jim. And good job avoiding a "mindless entertainment film."

Perfectly timed for the week President Barack Obama is pushing the House to vote on ObamaCare, on tonight’s (Tuesday) episode of CBS’s The Good Wife, set at a Chicago law firm, the lawyers “battle a health insurance company that refuses to pay for urgent in-utero surgery.” The CBS.com plug for the March 16 episode: “In an emergency courtroom set up in a hospital, Alicia and Will battle Patti Nyholm and an insurance company that refuses to pay for life-saving in-utero surgery.”

The last time I critiqued The Good Wife (“CBS Drama Showcases Blank Book that Mocks Palin as Empty-Headed Dunce”), NewsReal blog’s David Forsmark contended the program “is both politically and (more importantly) dramatically complex” and deserves credit for showcasing liberal hypocrisy.

So, I’ll hold out hope this episode will deliver more than just simplistic vilification of an insurance company and might, given the plot involves “in-utero surgery,” also forward pro-life perspectives. Watch and see.

CBS’s synopsis for the program which airs Tuesday nights at 10 PM EST/PST, 9 PM CST:

THE GOOD WIFE is a drama starring Emmy Award winner Julianna Margulies as a wife and mother who boldly assumes full responsibility for her family and re-enters the workforce after her husband's very public sex and political corruption scandal lands him in jail. Pushing aside the betrayal and public humiliation caused by her husband, Peter, Alicia Florrick starts over by pursuing her original career as a defense attorney.

As a junior associate at a prestigious Chicago law firm, she joins her longtime friend, former law school classmate and firm partner Will Gardner, who is interested to see how Alicia will perform after 13 years out of the courtroom. Alicia is grateful the firm's top litigator, Diane Lockhart, offers to mentor her but discovers the offer has conditions and realizes she's going to need to succeed on her own merit....

Three weeks after the mother on ABC’s Brothers and Sisters (“Nora Walker” played by Sally Field) fretted over the GOP “denying global warming,” the ABC drama on Sunday night featured an episode centered around her daughter, “Kitty Walker-McCallister,” a Republican candidate for Senate in California played by Calista Flockhart, coming under attack from conservative rubes who think she used her influence to get the visa renewed for her older sister’s French boyfriend, “Luc.”

At a campaign event with mini-video camera-toting bloggers visible, protesters boo and repeatedly chant: “America for Americans!” as they hold up signs, such as “FRENCHIE GO HOME!!!” and, with a mustache added to Kitty’s face, “Hi Kitler!” Just like the real media’s slander of Tea Party protesters.

Kitty’s husband whom she is running to succeed, incumbent “Senator Robert McCallister,” played by Rob Lowe, charges: “It’s just the conservative purity police trying to purge the party of lily-livered Republican moderates.” Kitty complains to her sister, “Sarah Walker,” played by Rachel Griffiths: “I am fighting for my political life with a bunch of ultra-conservative yahoos who want my head because you decided to fall in love with a guy who has immigration issues.”

Audio: 90-second MP3 clip that matches the video highlights from the March 14 episode.

As the plot proceeds, Kitty condemns the “character assassination” and “guilt by association” while Sarah yells at a blogger with a video camera: “It's people like you who give this country a bad name!” Kitty also rues: “We can't control this crap that they put on the Internet.”

But it all ends on a happy note with a Bob Schieffer-like fairly tale of bi-partisanship, as Kitty, Sarah and brother “Kevin,” played by Matthew Rhys, go to the airport to stop Luc from returning to France and to confront the irresponsible bloggers. Kitty defends her sister: “She is a professional businesswoman, taxpayer, soccer mom and my sister. And this, this is Luc-- Luc Laurent. And, yes, he is a French citizen and an artist who takes no jobs from Americans. He loves Sarah and Sarah loves him.”

Kevin soon proclaims: “We can despise each other's political opinions, but we don't despise each other.” Kitty agrees:

That's right. And that is the spirit that I want to take to Washington. You see, if I ever get to the point where my ideology is so rigid that I can't see another point of view or if my loyalty lies with my party instead of my country, well, then I want the voters to send me home.

Three weeks after the mother on ABC’s Brothers and Sisters (“Nora Walker” played by Sally Field) fretted over the GOP “denying global warming,” the ABC drama featured an episode centered around her daughter, “Kitty Walker-McCallister,” a Republican candidate for Senate in California played by Calista Flockhart, coming under attack from conservative rubes who think she used her influence to get the visa renewed for her older sister’s French boyfriend, “Luc.”

At a campaign event with mini-video camera-toting bloggers visible, protesters boo and repeatedly chant: “America for Americans!” as they hold up signs, such as “FRENCHIE GO HOME!!!” and, with a mustache added to Kitty’s face, “Hi Kitler!” Just like the real media’s slander of Tea Party protesters.

Kitty’s husband whom she is running to succeed, incumbent “Senator Robert McCallister,” played by Rob Lowe, charges: “It’s just the conservative purity police trying to purge the party of lily-livered Republican moderates.” Kitty complains to her sister, “Sarah Walker,” played by Rachel Griffiths: “I am fighting for my political life with a bunch of ultra-conservative yahoos who want my head because you decided to fall in love with a guy who has immigration issues.”

Audio: 90-second MP3 clip that matches the video highlights.

As the plot proceeds, Kitty condemns the “character assassination” and “guilt by association” while Sarah yells at a blogger with a video camera: “It's people like you who give this country a bad name!” Kitty also rues: “We can't control this crap that they put on the Internet.”

But it all ends on a happy note with a Bob Schieffer-like fairly tale of bi-partisanship, as Kitty, Sarah and brother “Kevin,” played by Matthew Rhys, go to the airport to stop Luc from returning to France and to confront the irresponsible bloggers. Kitty defends her sister: “She is a professional businesswoman, taxpayer, soccer mom and my sister. And this, this is Luc-- Luc Laurent. And, yes, he is a French citizen and an artist who takes no jobs from Americans. He loves Sarah and Sarah loves him.”

Kevin soon proclaims: “We can despise each other's political opinions, but we don't despise each other.” Kitty agrees:

That's right. And that is the spirit that I want to take to Washington. You see, if I ever get to the point where my ideology is so rigid that I can't see another point of view or if my loyalty lies with my party instead of my country, well, then I want the voters to send me home.

In an interview with Matt Damon near the end of Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith helped promote the actor's latest film, 'Green Zone,' which attacks the Bush administration over the Iraq war: "What was it like to make a movie like this? Because it's a little – it's – I'm not sure if this is an apt analogy, but it's a little 'Bourne' meets 'Hurt Locker.'"

Smith alluded to Damon's role as Jason Bourne in the action movie series and the Oscar-winning film 'Hurt Locker,' which chronicles bomb defusing teams in Iraq. Smith introduced the pre-recorded interview by touting Damon's latest film as a "new Iraq war thriller."

Lending credibility to the 'Green Zone' screenplay, Smith noted the movie was: "loosely based on a book that was written by a correspondent for the Washington Post, but the characters in it are fictional." Damon explained the premise of the film: "The guy I play is based on a real guy, he's leading a mobile exploitation team. We had these teams follow the Army....exploiting these sites where we thought the WMD were....they start realizing that there aren't any weapons there." Smith added: "Yeah, and he's a true believer." Damon replied: "Oh, absolutely."

While Smith and Damon worked to promote the "based on a true story" line, a trailer for the film shows Damon's character, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, being targeted for assassination by his U.S. military colleagues and corrupt government officials after not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In the interview, Damon explained: "what we're trying to do is make a big action thriller like the 'Bourne' movies but set it in the real world."

Smith was impressed with Damon being part of a movie with a message: "Some of your last several movies, it seems like the movies have to make a point....are you at a point where 'well, if I'm going to do x or y or z, then a, b and c have got to be movies that make a point? Is there part of that in the decision making process?" The last time Smith talked to Damon was to promote the actor's involvement in a left-wing revisionist documentary on American history based on the late Howard Zinn's liberal tome 'A People's History of the United States.'

Here is a portion of Smith's interview with Damon:

SMITH: Let's talk about 'Green Zone' because it's based – loosely based on a book that was written by a correspondent for the Washington Post, but the characters in it are fictional.

DAMON: Yes. Yeah.

[CLIP FROM 'GREEN ZONE']

DAMON: Jerry, why the f**k do we keep coming up empty on all these sites? There has got to be a reason.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Chief, we're here to do a job and get home safe, that's all. The reasons don't matter.

DAMON: They matter to me.

[END OF CLIP]

DAMON: The guy I play is based on a real guy, he's leading a mobile exploitation team. We had these teams follow the Army and right – you know, right on their heels and – and start exploiting these sites where we thought the WMD were. And so – so I play a guy who, you know, is hitting these sites, you know, as fast as he can and they start realizing that there aren't any weapons there.

SMITH: Yeah, and he's a true believer.

DAMON: Oh, absolutely.

SMITH: What was it like to make a movie like this? Because it's a little – it's – I'm not sure if this is an apt analogy, but it's a little 'Bourne' meets 'Hurt Locker.'

DAMON: Okay. I like those movies.

[LAUGHTER]

SMITH: Okay.

DAMON: Great. Yeah, because what we're trying to do is make a big action thriller like the 'Bourne' movies but set it in the real world.

SMITH: Some of your last several movies, it seems like the movies have to make a point. Is – do you – is there – are you at a point where 'well, if I'm going to do x or y or z, then a, b and c have got to be movies that make a point? Is there part of that in the decision making process?

DAMON: No. I really go kind of movie to movie. There's not a big strategy. I think that's what's helped me the most. I think if I planned it out, it wouldn't work very well.

Over the weekend, Time Magazine published a long, glowing profile of Tom Hanks to help promote his upcoming HBO miniseries “The Pacific.” And as with all things entertainment media, the subject is never challenged or even made to shift uncomfortably in his seat. The push to ascend Hanks to “national treasure” status is clearly on.

Hanks does seem to be a genuinely nice man and the work he’s done to bring American history to life on film is impressive, especially during a time when the singling out of America’s exceptionalism is more and more frowned upon in artistic and academic circles. ”From the Earth to the Moon,” “Band of Brothers,” and “John Adams” are not only artistic achievements, but in this MTV-addled culture, might be the best hope of teaching America’s youth about the unique history and greatness of this nation. And I suspect ”The Pacific,” the 10-part miniseries premiering this Sunday on HBO (which Big Hollywood’s Michael Broderick will cover extensively) will be a worthy addition to what came before.

But when it comes to leftist Hollywood, whenever Tinseltown and America meet, you have to brace yourself for it — and by “it” I mean the leftist sucker punch. Throughout, Hanks sounds perfectly reasonable, intelligent and even patriotic for a couple of thousand words. But of course that’s just the lure to get us on his side before we’re walloped with this left cross: [emphasis mine]

[Hanks] doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. “From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

There’s no such thing as a definitive history. But what was once a passing interest for Hanks has become an obsession. He’s a man on a mission to make our back pages come alive, to keep overhauling the history we know and, in the process, get us to understand not just the past but the choices we make today.

No matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By “different” Hanks is clearly referring to race, culture and religion, not ideology.

Really, we wanted to annihilate the Japanese because they were different, because we saw them as “yellow, slant-eyed dogs that believed in different gods?” I thought it was due to the fact that “we viewed them” as barbaric imperialists who had attacked us first and wanted to enslave the world.

But there’s no reason to speculate about America’s motivations during WWII because history has proven Hanks wrong. We had every opportunity to annihilate these “different” people. Instead we chose, at great expense, to rebuild Japan and return the sovereignty of that nation over to the “yellow, slant-eyed dogs who believed in different gods.” Or, as most people prefer to call them: our newly liberated allies.

And to answer Hanks’s question: No — annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what’s going on today.

This country spends billions and billions of dollars on weapons designed to target the enemy and save the lives of  people who are “different” — those who are not our enemy but still manage to look different, speak languages we don’t and worship in ways unfamiliar to us. The irony is that as Hanks spoke those slanderous words, the American Military remains in the middle of two conflicts that have cost us thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars all towards the noble goal of liberating 50 million “different” people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we all know that had we practiced a more selfish and barbaric form of war the enemy would’ve been destroyed faster, American lives would’ve been saved, and the financial cost would not have been nearly as high. 

But that’s not who we are.

Whether they’re “yellow, slanty-eyed dogs that worship different gods” or the people of the Middle East who share the same language and religion as those pledged to murder us, America selflessly protects the innocent who are “different” and as humanely as possible seeks to “annihilate” only those — even if they’re not “different” (like, say, Germans and Italians) – who practice an ideology that actually does believe in annihilating those who are different.

You almost get the sense that Hanks suddenly felt uncomfortable talking about America so extensively without throwing a bone to his MSNBC fanbase. Or maybe he misspoke, or maybe he really does believe it. Douglas Brinkley, the man who wrote the Time profile, sure found those words important. Important enough that the excerpt above is what closes the piece – the thought Brinkley chose to leave us with.

This piece was originally posted on March 9 at Big Hollywood, where Nolte is Editor in Chief.

This is a novelty book. The reader opens the book to find no text, just blank pages. The book contains no text. The book contains only blank pages. A parody of one of America's best known political figures, demonstrated by symbolic blank sheets, satirically representing the mind and thinking of Sarah Palin. Give this book as a useful gift while making a clever and amusing political statement.

THE GOOD WIFE is a drama starring Emmy Award winner Julianna Margulies as a wife and mother who boldly assumes full responsibility for her family and re-enters the workforce after her husband's very public sex and political corruption scandal lands him in jail. Pushing aside the betrayal and public humiliation caused by her husband, Peter, Alicia Florrick starts over by pursuing her original career as a defense attorney.

As a junior associate at a prestigious Chicago law firm, she joins her longtime friend, former law school classmate and firm partner Will Gardner, who is interested to see how Alicia will perform after 13 years out of the courtroom. Alicia is grateful the firm's top litigator, Diane Lockhart, offers to mentor her but discovers the offer has conditions and realizes she's going to need to succeed on her own merit....

This is a novelty book. The reader opens the book to find no text, just blank pages. The book contains no text. The book contains only blank pages. A parody of one of America's best known political figures, demonstrated by symbolic blank sheets, satirically representing the mind and thinking of Sarah Palin. Give this book as a useful gift while making a clever and amusing political statement.

THE GOOD WIFE is a drama starring Emmy Award winner Julianna Margulies as a wife and mother who boldly assumes full responsibility for her family and re-enters the workforce after her husband's very public sex and political corruption scandal lands him in jail. Pushing aside the betrayal and public humiliation caused by her husband, Peter, Alicia Florrick starts over by pursuing her original career as a defense attorney.

As a junior associate at a prestigious Chicago law firm, she joins her longtime friend, former law school classmate and firm partner Will Gardner, who is interested to see how Alicia will perform after 13 years out of the courtroom. Alicia is grateful the firm's top litigator, Diane Lockhart, offers to mentor her but discovers the offer has conditions and realizes she's going to need to succeed on her own merit....

Perhaps this was a cry out for relevancy - something she hasn't been since the Clinton administration, but comedienne Roseanne Barr is showing her social commentary knows no bounds.

In a March 4 post on her blog, Barr used the suicide of Marie Osmond's son, Michael Blosil, to go on a sick and twisted anti-religion screed. According to the former sitcom star, any underlying issues that led to Blosil taking his own life were a result of "his church and the people in it":

"marie osmonds poor gay son killed himself because he had been told how wrong and how sick he was every day of his life by his church and the people in it. Calling that ‘depression' is a lie!"

Barr, with a total disregard for the rules of grammar, capitalization and punctuation, continued her rant by doling out criticism against the Mormon faith, ironically in the same way she seems to indicate that particular church acts toward homosexuality.

"Yet, even though the people they say they love the most in all of their public displays and speeches (THEIR KIDS AND FAMILY!!) are gay,-- their own children,for crying out loud- these people cannot find the christian decency and compassion within themselves to stop their hypocritical gay bashing!!" Barr wrote. "How sickening. I know so many mormon kids who were gay and committed suicide, and I just cannot and will not stay quiet in order to not offend bigots anymore."

To fix the situation - Barr declared it is time for Marie Osmond to denounce her Mormon faith because in her view it is what God wills.

"Marie please don't talk about how your faith in your church has helped you get through this one!" Barr wrote. "Please get some integrity and tell that church of yours that you will leave it and stop giving it ten percent of your money if they don't stop trying to destroy your kids' and all gay people's civil rights and dreams and hopes!! G-d is trying to use you for something good and this is your opportunity! Your church is wrong and on the wrong wrong wrong side of things!"

Barr has come back and praised Marie Osmond, but has shown no remorse for her previous anti-religion comments in a post dated March 6.

"I have no more tolerance for any religion in any way," Barr wrote. "They are all obsolete and harmful."

Osmond is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

You got to wonder, what is it with this relative congressional backbencher that drives lefties so crazy?  

Throughout Rep. Michele Bachmann's, R-Minn., two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, she has been target of liberal scorn - from the great mind of MSNBC's Ed Schultz to the bomb-throwing commentator parading as a pseudo-investigative journalist known as Matt Taibbi. But this latest round of Michele Bachmann derangement syndrome actually required time and effort - a comic book dedicated to denigrating the representative from Minnesota's 6th Congressional district.

The comic book series is called "False Witness! The Michele Bachmann Story" and is up to its third issue. The first issue laid a foundation for future misogynistic exploits by the creators and the second issue took direct quotes from Bachmann to prove anecdotally she's a "right-wing lunatic." And in the latest installment, the creators wear their feelings on their sleeves about Bachmann's stand for traditional marriage instead of supporting a pro-homosexual agenda.

Eric Kleefeld of the left-wing news site Talking Points Memo reviewed the third issue and concluded this "art" made a "serious point" about Bachmann - not that she actually believes what she says, but instead she is just operating to advance her own political career.

"As for the treatment of the subject matter, the creators set out to make a serious point: That Bachmann has advanced her career on a platform of singling out a group within society for hatred and ostracism, and that this is a highly dangerous thing to do," Kleefeld wrote.

For those that think this type of political art is something that would fit into their collection - a misogynistic angry screed about a relative newcomer to the U.S. House of Representatives, the each of the issues are available for $4.95 through PayPal on the creators' Web site.

Demonstrating how Hollywood writers aren't reticent about inserting gratuitous political points into prime time dramas, on last Sunday night's (February 21) episode of ABC's Brothers and Sisters, “Nora Walker,” played by liberal actress Sally Field, walked into her kitchen during a kick-off party for her daughter's Republican senatorial campaign, and complained to another daughter, a son and his husband:

I can't believe the three of you are in here drinking while the GOP is out there denying global warming.

The far-fetched current storyline has “Kitty Walker,” played by Calista Flockhart, weeks after a battle with cancer and adopting a baby, running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican from California to replace her husband, “Senator Robert McCallister,” played by Rob Lowe, who is stepping down after a heart attack.

Another episode will air tonight on ABC at 10 PM EST/PST, 9 PM CST.

In the early days of the program produced by ABC Studios, “Kitty” was a DC-based conservative host of a TV debate show who was frequently at odds with her liberal and vocally so mother, “Nora.” As recounted in a November of 2006 NB post, “ABC's Conservative Character: 'Acknowledge the War Was a Mistake,'” it “took ABC until just the ninth episode...to have its sole conservative character 'grow' -- as they say of conservatives who move to the left -- from a pro-war right-winger to a critic of the Iraq war who declared it 'a mistake.'” Specifically:

On Sunday's episode [November 19, 2006], Nora was very upset by the Army's decision to recall her son, “Justin,” who had served in Afghanistan, to go to Iraq. Feeling guilty about her pro-war sentiments which may have influenced Justin to enlist in the first place, before an interview with “Senator Robert McCallister,” a California Republican played by Rob Lowe, Kitty plead with him to get the order rescinded. He refused, but she did him the favor during the interview of not asking about his divorce and rumors he had sex his family's nanny. Before the taped interview aired, she introduced it with an apology as she asserted:

I made a mistake in compromising the interview that you're about to see, and I made a mistake in continuing to defend a war that is in a desperate need of re-examination, re-examination which cannot come until we acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake.

Flashback to 2007 Emmy Awards: “Field: 'If Mothers Ruled World, There Would Be No Goddamned Wars.'”

It seems that even the most [what appears to be] level-headed of comics writers these days just can't resist the pressure to delve into the "progressive" political cesspool. This time it's Captain America scribe Ed Brubaker. Hunting Muses lays it out:

Enter Captain America.

You know, the WW2 hero who died recently and just came back to life to fight a 20 ft tall Red Skull in front of the Lincoln memorial. I had heard a lot of good things from Ed Brubaker. I picked up some trades shortly before Cap’s death, read them, and then finished out Bru’s run because they were great. Right up there with Geoff John’s Green Lantern series as what I want from a comic.

Then Brubaker had to go and not only insult me, but violate the core of what Captain America is all about in issue 602 “Two Americas part 1″. Here are 3 consecutive pages from the comic to help you get a full context:

First Page

Second Page

Third Page

Savor the lines a moment:

“A grassroots anti-government army”

“…looks like some kind of anti-tax thing”

“I don’t exactly see a black man from harlem fitting in with a bunch of angry white folks…”

Of course they’re all being led by an insane man according to the comic, and Captain America is there to stop them.

First of all, the very idea that the tea-party movement is “whites only” is not true (but then, how many black people are in Boise Idaho in the first place?). Second of all, let the full idea sink in: Captain America is going to fight an “anti-tax, anti-government” movement.

What’s next? Captain French is going to fight wine makers? Is Captain Britain going to beat up some… British stereotype? Hey, I remember an anti-tax, anti-government from around the late 1700s. They had some real rebels in there with names like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock, etc etc. How about after this Cap beats up on today’s tea-party movement, he go back in time and beat up those protesters?

What’s even worse is seeing the reaction around the internet. Some people are cheering at the thought of Cap beating up “tea-baggers”.

I've written enough about this sort of nonsense over the years; it got to the point (along with the ridiculously pricey issues) where I asked myself "Why do I continue to support these guys?" I don't mind if occasionally a writer goes off on a storyline like this, better still if the writer at least tries to balance out their inherent liberalism put to paper. A lot of comics writers were lefties in the 70s and 80s; however, their biases were not nearly as overt as that of the current crop of authors. Steve Englehart's awesome "Secret Empire" series in Cap in the mid-70s was a not-so subtle analogy of Watergate. Yet even Steve didn't hit us over the head with a brick ... even though he could have (Richard Nixon was pretty much thoroughly disgraced on the left and the right). In the 80s Mark Gruenwald's superb "The Captain" storyline, which had Steve Rogers replaced as Captain America was decidedly leftist, yet again not brick-over-the-head so. John Walker, the new Cap, was a manic reactionary, but he certainly wasn't a racist (his partner, Battlestar, was black), and if anything he had an excuse for his mental state: Gruenwald had a right-wing extremist group murder his parents (ironically, the same one Brubaker is currently using as his "Tea Partiers").

All Brubaker is doing is echoing the same tired, old media elitists that continually denigrate and belittle folks like the tea partiers and those who elected Scott Brown in Massachusetts. "Racists." "Bigots." "Stupid." "Crazy." "Childish." Etc.

And y'know what, Ed? Keep it up and you and your company are gonna go the same route that Air America and MSNBC are following. Straight. Down. The. Toilet. And I'll keep spending my money elsewhere -- outlets that don't insult my intelligence or my beliefs, thank you very much.

UPDATE: Just read more about this "Two Americas" stuff and it's made me even more nauseous:

Where has the Captain America from the '50s been the past few months, and what part of our modern world has welcomed him? And what will Steve and Bucky do when an old enemy tries to become a revolutionary? TWO AMERICAS begins here!

If Brubaker means to have the Tea Partiers "welcome" the Cap of the 1950s, then, frankly, he is even more of a radical "progressive" loon than I had thought. In the 1970s, aforementioned Marvel scribe Steve Englehart decided to "explain" the story behind the Captain America that was seen in the 1950s. (You may be aware that in "standard" Marvel continuity, Cap was thrown into suspended animation at WW II's end and thawed in the mid 1960s.) Essentially, a guy had stumbled upon, while doing research, the formula by which Steve Rogers became Capt. America. He approached some government highers-up and proposed that the "super soldier" program be started anew. However, the formula that had been unearthed isn't the perfected version that was used on Rogers. Tests showed that it caused the subject to slowly go insane. Nevertheless, our researcher befriended a new "Bucky" (the name of Cap's original partner) and both decided to use the [unperfected] formula on themselves. They then briefly go about "resuming" the roles of Capt. America and Bucky for a time. In issues #153-156, we see that the new crime fighters personify anything but America's ideals, not to mention those of the original Cap. They're basically Joe McCarthy on steroids, with a mix of J. Edgar Hoover thrown in for good measure (remember -- they're slowly going "insane"). The real Cap's then-partner, the Falcon (who's black), not to mention the black population in general, are called various racial epithets by the crazed duo, but eventually the real Cap and Falcon defeat the reactionaries. They're put into suspended animation, and eventually [re]surface later -- the fake Cap as the Grand Director, the leader of a Neo-Nazi movement.

Associating a few characters that possess some of the worst attributes imaginable with the contemporary Tea Party movement is just plain disgusting, period. Brubaker isn't even original as he's basically rehashing an old storyline done by former Cap scribe Mark Gruenwald (may he RIP) in the 1980s, even using the name of the group "Watchdogs" to "represent" the Tea Partiers, that "right-wing extremist group" noted previously above.

Gag me with a spatula. I'll just reiterate what I said in my last paragraph before the update.

Two years ago, Time critic Richard Corliss wrote an article that clearly must have resonated at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The Oscar telecast was sinking in the ratings, he wrote, because the nominees were largely unwatched by the masses. It used to be that the Best Picture prize went to mainstream box-office hits. "Now when the nominations come out, people try to catch up with the finalists, but it's almost like homework."

The 2010 Oscar nominations clearly signal that Hollywood is trying to return to a broader vision of the Oscars, as something more than an insular critics’ circle that likes only the self-consciously arty and obscure. That signal came most obviously with the announcement that there would be ten nominees for Best Picture. That list hadn’t seen 10 nominations since 1943, when the winner was "Casablanca."

Arty films that almost nobody has seen are still there – like "An Education." But arty blockbusters are there as well, like "Avatar" – current box office gross: $601 million -- and the animated film "Up," with $293 million. (By contrast, two years ago, the Best Picture box office leader was "Juno" – at $85 million when the nominations came out.)

The biggest surprise for many Oscar watchers this year was "The Blind Side," which has grossed $238 million. When it came out, the snooty critics hated it. It was "utterly conventional," and even worse for critics, it was a "feel-good" movie. When the finalists were announced and "The Blind Side" was on the list, the attacks started all over again.

Hours later, National Public Radio critic Bob Mondello couldn’t resist sneering at Sandra Bullock, who was also nominated for Best Actress for the film. "I would not have guessed that you could get an Oscar nomination for being annoying for two hours."

NPR’s Linda Holmes followed that insult minutes later by relating the outrage of what she called the "defenders of cultural quality.... It takes Best Picture, they worry, from a showcase for serious movies about self-discovery to a swamp of mass-produced, populist dreck." But "The Blind Side" is about self-discovery. It’s about a large black teenager who discovers he can be a football star. What in the world is wrong with that?

It’s because this too-quiet black character was loved and housed by white Christian people – and critics hated that. Take Melissa Anderson of the Village Voice, who scowled that this movie "peddles the most insidious kind of racism, one in which whiteys are virtuous saviors, coming to the rescue of African-Americans who become superfluous in narratives that are supposed to be about them."

On NPR’s talk show "Tell Me More," host Michel Martin suggested "This is yet another black child who needs white people to save him or her." Boston Globe critic Wesley Morris complained, "Yeah, I mean, it's ‘Diff'rent Strokes,’ it's ‘Webster.’" But when Martin noted the racial roles were reversed in the 2008 movie "The Secret Life of Bees" – black beekeeper sisters save an abused white girl – Morris thought that was a work of underappreciated genius.

The elitists never gave "The Blind Side" a break. What fascinates here is that this is not a work of fiction. It’s a true story about Michael Oher, now an offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens. NPR’s Mondello dismissed the film when it came out in November, and his review of this so-called "populist dreck" wasn’t even put on the radio. He called it a "feel-good fantasy for white liberals" that trafficked in racial stereotypes. A "fantasy"? Here’s his spin: its story is "contrived, storybook sweet, credulity-straining and -- um, true."

One reason the elitists are so upset is that they thought the makers of "The Blind Side" were only aiming for a "crowd-pleaser," not an Oscar contender. But obviously, many moviegoers are tired of the overt Oscar-mongering of holiday-season movies, which has become "utterly conventional" as well.

Why would anyone suggest, by default or design, that crowd-pleasing is the opposite of artistic? Why would the critics suggest that a movie that’s inspirational is clearly inferior to a movie that "dares" to be demoralizing and grotesque? Why would Hollywood only want to be known as a nightmare factory?

Those Oscar folks who suggest that the word "Best" should never be associated with a "feel-good" movie -- and that a movie loved by the masses can’t possibly be an artistic triumph as well – need to visit Planet Reality. "The Blind Side’ shows there is some common sense, however. Even if this were simply a ploy for ratings, Hollywood is sending a message that it doesn’t hate and dismiss its audience as the ignorant masses.

Paul Farhi sure didn't when he panned Oscar-nominated movie "The Blind Side" during a special "Hardball on Hollywood" segment with Vanity Fair's Michael Wolff and host Chris Matthews on the February 2 program.

The Washington Post media critic slammed the Best Picture-nominated drama -- based on a true story -- as just another movie in which the white characters' guilt is assauged by helping a black guy (video embedded at right; an MP3 audio clip is available here):

PAUL FARHI, Washington Post: The problem is that the black character is basically a prop to make the white people feel better about themselves, and that's been the major criticism. It's also the "magic negro," in other words, the idea that a black character will emerge to provide wisdom for the white people involved in the movie.

[...]

FARHI: That character goes back a long time in movie history. This is not something new. "The Green Mile" came out ten years ago, it was the same kind of portrayal.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, "Hardball" host: Well, you know what, when you see the movie, you have your own reaction.  I accept all those criticisms, and in fact, sociologically, Paul, I agree with you. But I like the movie a lot.

It didn't occur to Farhi or Matthews, apparently, that the real-life couple portrayed in the movie -- Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy -- are practicing Christians and that their adoption of Michael Oher was motivated, at least in part, by their religious faith.

For his part, Matthews said he agreed with Farhi, but that he enjoyed the movie nonetheless.

Alec Baldwin, award winning actor and wannabe leftist political commentator, called on Congress to sink congressional health care legislation today, saying he would rather the federal government "Put a Major Oil Company Out of Business," according to the headline of his column at the Huffington Post.

Baldwin isn't the only liberal entertainer calling for the death of ObamaCare. Plans to tax so-called "Cadillac" health care plans--or the most expensive insurance plans--have riled up some key Democratic supporters. The Teamsters Union and the AFL-CIO have protested, but now objections are also being raised by Hollywood's biggest unions.

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the "generally cozy relationship between Hollywood's unions and the Obama administration is coming under strain." The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists recently sent a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders pleading with them to drop the Cadillac tax. According to the Times, the Screen Actors Guild, the largest union of actors, is expected to take a similar stance on the legislation.

The AFTRA said the Cadillac tax would "hurt middle-class and low-wage working union members," even though it would only be levied on plans costing more than $8,500 per year. Indeed, the New York Times quoted an anonymous "industry official," who said "we don't have Cadillac plans, we have Bentleys."

The NY Times noted that in private discussions, AFTRA members "expressed sentiments as varied as outrage, bewilderment and resignation at the insistence that health care of the kind they enjoy should be taxed." The kind they enjoy, of course, is the best kind--the plans provide "some of the best health care benefits available to anyone."

It seems that Hollywood is 100 percent behind Obama…until the glitterati find out they are the ones who will have to pay for some of his more grandiose plans. The thought of having to relinquish some of the lavish benefits they enjoy may be enough to sap Hollywood support for ObamaCare. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka warned that union members might boycott the midterm elections if the Cadillac tax is not dropped from the bill. Maybe Hollywood will cease its endless shilling for the nation's most liberal lawmakers if the Hollywood elite are forced to foot the bill.

While speculating that Tonight Show host Conan O’Brien may move to Fox in the wake of NBC shaking up its late night schedule, on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez referred to Sarah Palin becoming a contributor for Fox News: “Sarah Palin his sidekick? Because she’s on Fox now, too.”

Co-host Harry Smith couldn’t resist getting in a shot of his own as he replied that Palin could “lead the band” for O’Brien’s Fox late night show. Of course if O’Brien made the move, he would be on the Fox broadcast channel, not Fox News.

Earlier, co-host Russ Mitchell reported Palin’s Fox News debut on Tuesday’s O’Reilly Factor: “Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made her debut on Fox News last night. She appeared as a news analyst with Bill O’Reilly, who asked her about the controversy she attracts.”

There has been a substantial push lately by some of Hollywood's big names to reeducate Americans on world history. The leftist-dominated television and film industries have taken it upon themselves to promote histories of the United States and its role in the world that portrays it as an evil, occasionally colonial, always destructive force in global relations.

The latest such effort is being undertaken by director Oliver Stone, well known for his loving portrayal of Venezuela's Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez and derisive portrayal of our previous president in "W". Now Stone has set his sights on Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. He plans to "liberalize" America's thinking regarding two of the 20th century's most murderous dictators by putting them "in context", whatever that means (h/t Hot Air headlines).

"We can't judge people as only bad or good," Stone said at the Television Critics Association's press tour, referring to two dictators who--unless this writer's understanding of history is not sufficiently "liberalized"--are responsible, in Hitler's case, for the extermination of 6 million Jews and 3 million others in killing camps during World War II, and in Stalin's, for the murders of 20 million individuals in Russia and Soviet-occupied Europe.
 
It seems, Stone's claims notwithstanding, that one is historically justified in classifying these two particular dictators as "bad".

Stone tried to dismiss what he calls "ignorant attacks" on what is likely to be a revisionist history of WWII and the legacies of Stalin and Hitler, while, ironically given his use of the term ignorant, comparing Preisdent Bush to the two European dictators (not the first time he has done so). THR reports,

"Obviously, Rush Limbaugh is not going to like this history and, as usual, we're going to get those kind of ignorant attacks," said Stone, who also also compared the experience of sympathizing with war criminals to making his "W" movie about George W. Bush. "I'm trying to understand somebody I thoroughly despised."...

The project will also show lesser-known positive aspects of American history and unsung heroes. Stone eventually hopes to send "Secret History" to schools as a teaching curriculum.

Stone is not the only leftist trying to peddle an uber-liberal history--via Hollywood--to our nation's schoolchildren. Marxist academic Howard Zinn recently teamed up with Matt Damon, a host of other A-list personalities, and the History Channel to propagate a socialist take on American history--dubbed "A People's History of the United States"--in American schools and universities.

The "People's History" teaches that America was founded as--and remains--a racist, sexist, xenophobic bastion of white aristocrats, who exploited minorities and immigrants for their own gain--you know, that familiar Hollywood refrain.

The book on which the series is based, which shares the same title, unsurprising ignores the countless successes of American capitalism, touts Maoist China as a shining example of a "people's government," and fails to mention in its recap of American history Washington's Farewell Address, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, or Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate. Nowhere in the book will readers find the names Alexander Graham Bell, Jonas Salk, or he Wright Brothers. The book does include the supposedly important stuff like the My Lai massacre, though it leaves out small details like the Normandy Invasion of June 1944.

Zinn and Stone twist history to fit their own radical political views--the same crime they accuse their opponents of and tout as the reason their works are necessary. Of course Hollywood has been producing this sort of dribble for years. But when such work is considered a history in the, you know, factual sense of the term, and when it is taught to students as such, it must be exposed for the revisionist political nonsense that it is.

There has been a substantial push lately by some of Hollywood's big names to reeducate Americans on world history. The leftist-dominated television and film industries have taken it upon themselves to promote histories of the United States and its role in the world that portrays it as an evil, occasionally colonial, always destructive force in global relations.

The latest such effort is being undertaken by director Oliver Stone, well known for his loving portrayal of Venezuela's Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez and derisive portrayal of our previous president in "W". Now Stone has set his sights on Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. He plans to "liberalize" America's thinking regarding two of the 20th century's most murderous dictators by putting them "in context", whatever that means (h/t Hot Air headlines).

"We can't judge people as only bad or good," Stone said at the Television Critics Association's press tour, referring to two dictators who--unless this writer's understanding of history is not sufficiently "liberalized"--are responsible, in Hitler's case, for the extermination of 6 million Jews and 3 million others in killing camps during World War II, and in Stalin's, for the murders of 20 million individuals in Russia and Soviet-occupied Europe.
 
It seems, Stone's claims notwithstanding, that one is historically justified in classifying these two particular dictators as "bad".

Stone tried to dismiss what he calls "ignorant attacks" on what is likely to be a revisionist history of WWII and the legacies of Stalin and Hitler, while, ironically given his use of the term ignorant, comparing Preisdent Bush to the two European dictators (not the first time he has done so). THR reports,

"Obviously, Rush Limbaugh is not going to like this history and, as usual, we're going to get those kind of ignorant attacks," said Stone, who also also compared the experience of sympathizing with war criminals to making his "W" movie about George W. Bush. "I'm trying to understand somebody I thoroughly despised."...

The project will also show lesser-known positive aspects of American history and unsung heroes. Stone eventually hopes to send "Secret History" to schools as a teaching curriculum.

Stone is not the only leftist trying to peddle an uber-liberal history--via Hollywood--to our nation's schoolchildren. Marxist academic Howard Zinn recently teamed up with Matt Damon, a host of other A-list personalities, and the History Channel to propagate a socialist take on American history--dubbed "A People's History of the United States"--in American schools and universities.

The "People's History" teaches that America was founded as--and remains--a racist, sexist, xenophobic bastion of white aristocrats, who exploited minorities and immigrants for their own gain--you know, that familiar Hollywood refrain.

The book on which the series is based, which shares the same title, unsurprising ignores the countless successes of American capitalism, touts Maoist China as a shining example of a "people's government," and fails to mention in its recap of American history Washington's Farewell Address, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, or Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate. Nowhere in the book will readers find the names Alexander Graham Bell, Jonas Salk, or he Wright Brothers. The book does include the supposedly important stuff like the My Lai massacre, though it leaves out small details like the Normandy Invasion of June 1944.

Zinn and Stone twist history to fit their own radical political views--the same crime they accuse their opponents of and tout as the reason their works are necessary. Of course Hollywood has been producing this sort of dribble for years. But when such work is considered a history in the, you know, factual sense of the term, and when it is taught to students as such, it must be exposed for the revisionist political nonsense that it is.

Finally, a movie where the Americans are the bad guys, and it's making a KILLING at the box office.

Yes, Time columnist Joe Klein is pumped about "Avatar."

It's not because he's a fan of special effects or blockbuster action flicks, but because the "timely" liberal message of the movie could "ripple" through the culture in a manner favorable to, wait for it, "enviro-theism" (emphasis mine):

[The 3-D presentation] wasn't the most amazing thing about the movie: the Americans were the bad guys. They were a mercenary army working for corporate villains who wanted to strip-mine a tribe of alien, cerulean nice-guy, enviro-theists. The dialogue was awful; the characterizations were crude...and I'm sure that conservatives will dismiss this as another excretion of the Hollywood left. But still, it was something for a mainstream--indeed, a blockbuster--motion picture to have you rooting for the blue dudes flying about on birds painted like Chinese fans...and rooting against the humans, none of whom had the requisite Eastern European or Arab villain accents.

The message that big trees are good and bulldozers are evil seems rather timely. The message that God is Green is fascinating stuff to be peddling in the shopping malls of middle America (I particularly liked the moment when the mercenaries chuckled about the fact that the primitives believed in a tree god). Movies are usually overrated as agents of social or political change--I remember when The Right Stuff was going to launch John Glenn into the presidency--but the zeitgeist is a subtle thing and the impact of Avatar is bound to ripple in all sorts of lovely, little enviro-theistic ways.

Note to budding enviro-theists, one green resolution for 2010 might be to cancel your dead-tree edition Time subscription. Sure, it's full of bulls***, but only in the metaphorical sense, and hence it won't serve as a useful organic fertilizer for your backyard garden plot.

MSNBC host David Shuster on Wednesday attacked conservatives who have a problem with the liberal agenda of the film Avatar, dismissing their arguments as "shameless and crazy." Shuster and New Live co-host Tamron Hall seemed bewildered by right-wing complaints about the environmentally-themed movie.

Talking with film critic Mike Taibbi, Shuster derided, "Could this be just about the political strategy of punching up? That the Weekly Standard, or whoever wants to criticize, they can get a little bit of attention for their point of view, as shameless and crazy as it may sound, by attaching themselves to a movie that's doing so well?"

Shuster appeared skeptical that anyone could have a problem with the movie, which features peace-loving blue aliens fighting evil capitalists and their mercenary military force. He dismissed, "You could say it’s like Pocahontas meets Platoon, meets Jurassic Park. I mean, all of them had subtle messages, some of them not so subtle."

However, back on the December 14 Today show, director James Cameron admitted the agenda of the movie. He asserted that the human characters in the movie "are doing the same thing on another pristine planet that we've done on Earth." He also added that greed and imperialism tend to "destroy the environment."

A transcript of the January 6 segment, which aired at 3:37pm EST, follows:

TAMRON HALL: In today's close-up, conservatives are outraged over the hit movie, the blockbuster film avatar.

DAVID SHUSTER: That's right. The blockbuster flick from Titanic director James Cameron is, if you read some of the conservative reviews, over the line. They argue it trashes military contractors promotes the environmental agenda and has a 1960s Kumbaya feeling to it. Confused? NBC’s Mike Taibbi, who has seen the movie, is here to explain. Mike?

MIKE TAIBBI: Well, you know, David, it does all of that but it does so much more. No, I was in London reporting when the movie premiered in London. And some of those earlier reviews were critical about the money. They were talking about spending three to five hundred million to make this. Some people wishing- some reviewers wishing that Cameron would fall off his ego perch at that point, because he spent so much and the movie would bomb. But, then the reviews that you’re talking about started coming up, all political in nature, and none of them have anything to do with the numbers.

HALL: Well, this is incredible, because we did this-

[Cuts to videotape package]

TAIBBI: Just about all the critics agree, Avatar's special effects are beyond dazzling. The conflict between human corporate raiders from Earth-

[clip from movie]

UNIDENTIFIED CHARACTER: You've got to obey the rules.

TAIBBI: -and the strange blue tinted race on the planet Pandora-

UNIDENTIFIED CHARACTER: We have an indigenous population of humanoids called the Na’vi.

TAIBBI: Is all relentlessly breathtaking, especially in 3D. Well, you don't sell a billion tickets this fast unless there's also story, even a story some early, negative reviews called simplistic, heavy-handed and boilerplate and one big cliche. Politically conservative critics have gone further. One reviewer calls the story of a human, undercover spy who sides with his new, blue brethren against the mercenary army that hired him a "big, dull, America-hating PC revenge fantasy. Others say, typical Hollywood.

UNIDENTIFIED CRITIC: Avatar is a movie that’s masquerading as a critique of capitalism. But, it also a movie that could never with have been made without our kind of a competitive capitalistic society.

TAIBBI: Before it’s release, Cameron himself, who as the director of Titanic, knows a bit about blockbusters, seemed unsure of exactly how Avatar would do. He said it did have a legitimate love story at the core and a message right for the times.

JAMES CAMERON: Once people start talking about this emotional reaction they are having to this movie and the word of mouth spreads, I think we won't fall as quickly as most films fall.

TAIBBI: An awful lot of film goers agree.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The message worked as clear as day that- You know, it was amazing.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I thought it was great because it was more, like, environmental. It was kind of like a love story. Also, it was action.

TAIBBI: Veteran film critic Jeffrey Lyons says the filmmaking draws you into an amazing story period, the message just one part.

JEFFREY LYONS: It works on every level. It’s almost a perfect movie.

TAIBBI: Whether it's perfect or not, or whether it’s the message or the movie making, as the saying goes, money talks. Avatar is now the fourth member of the billion dollar movie club, the fastest to get there and still flying high. How is that for a message? [Pre-packaged segment ends.] The fastest to have been-. You know, all movies are about good versus evil. Other movies where the evil is the American military, American police. Think of the Bourne movies. Think of the Die Hard, on and on and on. But this one because it casts the human race as bad guys and American military. Even though it’s not the military- they’re mercenaries in the service of capitalist corporation- has the conservative blogosphere going nuts about this.

HALL: This is the second big blockbuster we've seen. You know, GI JOE, there was conservatives came out and said it was anti-American because the GI Joe heroes weren't wearing the American flag. Their uniforms were black and did it represent America? But, obviously this hasn't hurt the money. And you say that’s what you say it boils down to.

TAIBBI: Not even in the red states, Tamron. In the red states, it’s doing just as well as the blue states. Nobody cares. You don't make a billion dollars if you have a lousy story.

SHUSTER: Could this be just about the political strategy of punching up? That the Weekly Standard, or whoever wants to criticize, they can get a little bit of attention for their point of view, as shameless and crazy as it may sound, by attaching themselves to a movie that’s doing so well?

TAIBBI: Hey, you're part of this whole political thing. So, everybody’s going to shoot that both ways. And, they are They are taking shots even if it's just to get attention, to get us talking about what they are saying.

SHUSTER: Plus, every movie has a message. You could describe this movie as- You could say it’s like Pocahontas meets Platoon, meets Jurassic Park. I mean, all of them had subtle messages, some of them not so subtle.

Update (Ken Shepherd, Managing Editor, 11:30 p.m. EST): A few minutes ago, Ebert tweeted the following apology on his Twitter feed: "I feel bad about my cheap Limbaugh jokes. Sincere apologies to Rush and you folks. He said he was fine but that's no excuse." # # #

In a demonstration of Hollywood's quintessentially intolerant hatred of conservatives, film critic Roger Ebert took to the Twitterverse on Saturday to mock Rush Limbaugh and his sudden trip to a Hawaii hospital (h/t Big Hollywood headlines).

Ebert was hardly alone in rejoicing Limbaugh's hospital visit--and distressed when he was given a clean bill of health. Liberals nationwide let loose the vitriol, some--including members of the hate-stricken mobs at Daily Kos and DU, as reported by P.J. Gladnick--simply wished he would expire.

For his part, Ebert fell short of calling for Limbaugh's death, and offered only lame fat jokes and implications of racism. Some of the juicier tweets:

Rush: Hawaii is the only country where the Hawaiian shirts come in S, M, L, XL, Rush, and Sumo.

Rush: Nurse at snack time: "You have nuts?" "No!" "You have dates?" "Hey, if I had nuts, I'd have dates!" Ah...Har! Har! Har!

Rush: This hospital food is confusing. I thought *I* was the smoothie. Blueberry is best for my heart. With ice cream.

Rush: Stuck in this hospital room watching TV, I really miss Lou Dobbs. All the Oriental nurses are U.S. citizens, though.

Rush: Our US health care system is the best in the world. The nurses here in Hawaii keep offering me lays.

Rush: The Orientals here talk funny. They keep saying "howdy" and it comes out sounding like "howley."

Rush says docs found nothing wrong. They're obviously not listeners.

Now, Ebert thought up all those racist quips, so one has to wonder whether that says more about him than it does about Rush. As for the fat jokes, I'll let readers devise their own Ebert-is-being-a-tad-hypocritical cliches. I suppose we should be thankful that he didn't mention oxycontin.

Rancorous jibes at conservatives are nothing new for Ebert, of course, or for the vast majority of Hollywood liberals. But coming as they did at the expense of a hospitalized man--that is truly detestable.

If you bother to read Joanna Weiss' column in today's Boston Globe, expect to get a sense of déjà . . . lu.  Like untold polemics that have preceded it, "Hollywood’s burden on aging women" stamps its feet over the unequal treatment of aging in men and women.

You know: male stars are allowed to age gracefully, but women must struggle ever-harder to conform to a youthful stereotype of sex-appeal. Unfair!

The feminist response is to blame the culture, in this case embodied by Hollywood, for promoting shallow, sexist values.  But the fault, dear Joanna, is not in our stars but in ourselves, or more precisely, our DNA.

Hollywood—need we point out—is a business.  If saggy female stars put male tushes in theater seats, that's what we'd get. But over the eons, the men who focused their attention on menopausal women didn't get to pass on their genes. And so we are stuck with guys who find fertile women of greater interest.  And smooth skin and curvaceous figures are nature's flashing neon signs of a woman capable of conception. In contrast, nature doesn't drive women to be so age-selective.  An older man can still do his part in conception, and indeed might better able, in a modern world in which success correlates with experience more than with youthful brawn, to provide for children.

Weiss gives away the game herself when she writes: "What smart woman doesn’t prefer the bitter, comic, self-aware Alec Baldwin 2.0 to the callow, skinny 1.0 version?"  But the biological imperative says men would be foolish to be more attracted to version 2.0 of a formerly nubile star. [See, e.g., Versions 1.0 and 2.0 of Brigitte Bardot, above.]

All of which is not to say that some men will not prefer the company of women who, by reason of having lived more years, are wiser, and more interesting and compassionate than their younger, shallower sisters.  But by blaming culture for men's general preference for younger women, feminism attempts to sweep back the tide of DNA with its broom, condemning itself to eternal frustration.

Inside the studios of talk radio and cable news, the hot talk about a "war on Christmas" has cooled somewhat in 2009. But the controversies over Christmas, which seem as eternal as religion itself, continue on a number of different levels.

There’s the schoolhouse war over politeness to religious minorities – and even more unnecessarily, the altogether non-religious. This is the kind where many parents sit through inane "winter" chorus concerts at both public and private schools where there are more songs about sleds and skis than about herald angels and newborn kings. In some cases, students even salute the holidays of religious minorities (including the recently invented Kwanzaa) while excluding any mention of Christmas.

At my son’s "holiday" middle-school party, students performed skits from "Star Wars" and "West Side Story" and there was even a tribute to Michael Jackson. Not one popular Christmas carol was sung all night. (Their version of a "Silent Night," come to think of it.)

Then there’s the shopping-mall war over commercial priorities. There’s the same layer of political correctness as the schools. The best example of business P.C. this year was an ad for The Gap, where a group of fashionably dressed young adults and children danced, and yelled "Go Christmas! Go Hanukkah! Go Kwanzaa! Go Solstice!" They somehow skipped over the five-day December festival of Pancha Ganapati for the Hindus. How insensitive.

Minneapolis-based Best Buy caused a furor with a Black Friday circular that wished Muslims a "Happy Eid Al-Adha," which takes place at the end of November. There is one major market constituency that can now rest easily! Christmas? It wasn’t mentioned in that circular, never mind that Black Friday launches the Chr------ season.

But there’s another layer of Christmas exploitation – tasteless ads mocking the Nativity story (Red Bull ads in 2006) or mocking Santa Claus. Boost Mobile drew brickbats for a bizarre animated ad where Mrs. Claus is in her bed cheating on Santa with Frosty the Snowman. Mrs. Claus says to the camera: "What, you think this is wrong? Santa's busy, and I have needs. I'll tell you what's wrong: cell phone plans with contracts that cost a fortune. That's why I got Boost Mobile. Their monthly unlimited plan has no contracts, and it's only 50 dollars a month." Santa then returns home, and Mrs. Claus starts to melt Frosty with her blow dryer.

The words "war on Christmas" best match when the real Christmas-haters go on television during the Christmas season with the intent to ridicule Christianity to the core. Somehow, Bill O’Reilly can scowl at the ACLU and fuss at Boost Mobile, but Fox News can never say a cross word about Fox Entertainment, even if their Seth MacFarlane Sunday night cartoon bloc is a pagan’s paradise.

On December 13, the third Sunday of Advent, Fox’s "American Dad" mocked the craziness of Christianity through its character named Roger, the gay space alien. (Yes, you read that right.) Stan Smith, ridiculed as the moronic conservative "American dad" of the show, yells at his wife for wearing a dress exposing her calves, which he says makes her look like a prostitute. He then praises Roger the Alien for wearing a "Little House on the Prairie" getup, complete with bonnet.

Roger is clearly speaking for this cartoon’s atheist creator, MacFarlane, as he drips sarcasm: "Oh, I love your religion for the crazy. Virgin birth, water into wine. It’s like Harry Potter -- but it causes genocide and bad folk music." When they arrive at their Episcopalian church, Roger continues the cutting remarks: "I hope I haven’t missed the part where the three Chinese guys give perfume to the star baby. It’s like the diaries of a madman."

But the plot gets weirder. The church is crowded, so....Stan and his wife Francine have sex in a janitor’s closet. When they return, most of the church people are ascending naked to Heaven in a Rapture scene. Stan blames his wife for causing him to miss it, and they split up. The wife then begins dating Jesus, who has returned to Earth and for some bizarre reason needs a girlfriend during the war of Armageddon. The rest of this asinine plot doesn’t matter much, except that Jesus is once again cast on Fox as a very hapless, helpless, hopeless man.

As usual, Seth MacFarlane is writing vulgar, sexual, and violent paint-by-number cartoons aimed squarely at boys aged about 12. This kind of war on Christmas should inspire more outrage and protests than the P.C. police making ads for The Gap.

Managing Editor's Note: The following is a reprint of Michael Moriarty's original December 14 post to Big Hollywood. Moriarty, you may recall, played a prosecutor in the first few seasons of the long-running NBC drama "Law and Order."

Well, I think I’ve been fairly calm and forgiving of "Law and Order" for about fifteen years. Living outside of the U.S. has certainly helped in more ways than one. Out of sight, out of mind. "Law and Order" has, for years, been just a press of the remote away from non-existence.

However, recent events have "Law and Order" just begging for my reassessment. I hardly expected my old television series to be the clown act that leads the American viewing audience into an increasingly predictable pile of hard left propaganda.

Why?

["Law and Order" creator and executive producer] Dick Wolf is basically a follower of usually high-level talents such as Joe Stern, Robert Nathan and Ed Sherin.

Those men, I believe, are no longer regulars on "Law and Order." The guy who apparently wears the pants in that family is now Rene Balcer. That’s clearly the hypnotist in whose deep pink trance Dick Wolf is irretrievably drowning.

Given the number of truly talented people that Wolf Productions has fired – versus the number of mediocre puppets and propagandists he’s hired – it should be no wonder that not just the Left but the French Left of a Rene Balcer should be running things.

However, with Le Balcer (pronounced Ball-Say … Say-Whaa?) now the head Ringmaster … and Dick Wolf in some kind of quasi-retirement … or early senility … the show has gone beyond hell. Such a plight is possible if, in the inferno, you cut a deal with the devil. Balcer, as even his own words might convince you of, has worn the Red credentials … minus the horns, of course … for most of his life. Only Lucifer could give him his opinions on terrorism.

Wolf, on the other hand, has, for his entire life, been merely a careerist, chasing the unsurpassable achievements of his mentor, Steven Bochco, and being obviously surpassed by numerously more brilliant TV producers. Such careerism would infer that even his own mother’s not safe if it means the record-breaking survival of a Dick Wolf production. "Law and Order" will soon outrace Gunsmoke to the category of longest-running television series.

Methuselah was the longest-running star of the Bible … but I hardly think his memory brings either a smile or a tear to anyone’s eye.

Recently Bill O’Reilly took profoundly justifiable umbrage – a good word, Mr. O’Reilly – at Law and Order’s lumping his name in with other talk-show hosts, describing them all as “a cancer spreading ignorance and hate … they have convinced folks that immigrants are the problem, not corporations that fail to pay a living wage or a broken health care system.”

Well!!

O’Reilly called those charges “simply defamatory and outrageous,” and labeled Wolf “a coward” and “a liar.”

As for Wolf’s cowardice, he buckled before the profoundly unconstitutional behavior of Attorney General Janet Reno and he and NBC lied about my having quit "Law and Order."

Wolf and NBC announced that they fired me because of behavior that seems to have resembled Glenn Beck’s.

If only we had all been working for FOX!!

That I was fired is a lie.

I had quit Universal Television and NBC and the "Law and Order" series before they could even come up with an excuse for hiring Sam Waterston.  An advertisement I placed in both Variety and Hollywood Reporter announced my leaving the United States, which I did within a year.

If anyone can find those ads, I submit them as exhibit A in the proof of … how shall I say … Dick Wolf’s and NBC’s lack of, well, a certain talent for the truth.

It is all laid out in my memoir, The Gift of Stern Angels, now unfortunately out of print. No one was interested then.

By the way, The Gift of Stern Angels is quite a hurly-burly ride through the politics of network television, not to mention my own losing battle with alcohol.

Poor "Law and Order" has been drifting and now tumbling downhill into the ever-deepening waters of America-bashing. The blatant disgust for America’s hard-earned and hard-won sovereignty as a nation, credentials that certainly demand strict and unashamedly clear immigration laws … the Red "Law and Order" seems to be spitting on the very nation that defined a decent meaning to the words “law and order”.

As for Dick Wolf’s Empire and its future?

There might very well be numerous episodes on the 9/11 terrorists and their New York Trial.

I can now see the cops, ending the first half of the show, reading the Miranda rights to some grotesquely veiled excuse for Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

When KSM gets to trial?

No doubt, he and his defense lawyers… there’ll be more than one at the defense table … will get their day in court!!!!!

Dick Wolf’s point of view?

He might say, “Our shows on the trial of KSM will make its viewers at least as angry as the pre-trial demonstrations have shown!”

For Dick Wolf, such a stunningly  simplistic achievement is all he’s really been looking for his entire life: upsetting his audience.

He sure as hell upset Bill O’Reilly!

Our very own John Nolte has taken a close look at an L & O episode, Memos from the Darkside.

Please read his frank estimate of the Rene Balcer turn on the infamous Torture Memos. In addition, John’s article contains a long clip of Rene Balcer being interviewed by an Australian journalist [see below].

After describing his job as Executive Producer much like “herding cats … and anxious types”, Mr. Balcer refers to the war on terrorism as “so-called”, and claims that “cultural misunderstandings” lead to labeling innocent people as “terrorists”.

The “fallout of 9/11” is “pretty big business in America”.

It’s obviously earning Rene Balcer a living as terrorism’s apologist.

 “Americans of Middle Eastern descent … being held incommunicado and being abused by prison guards”, this, according to Balcer, was happening, under Bush of course, in Guantanamo, Iraq and Brooklyn!

However, according to Balcer, “you get in trouble (with a lot of people) if you attack President Bush by name …”

Hmmm … apparently talk show hosts like Bill O’Reilly are another matter.

Yet Balcer claims he shies away from “ad hominem” attacks.

Really?!

“Our best shows make the audience question what’s going on” … upstairs, right?

He admits to finding another show about the upstairs in Washington D.C., 24, “offensive”.

“24 supports torture!”

And therefore, Mr. Balcer, must "Law and Order" say that torture doesn’t save any American lives?

However, the most chilling points of view he expresses are his ideas about what makes a terrorist.

“Most people commit crimes … whether it be terrorists … or knocking over the local grocery store … they do it for intensely personal reasons.”

Hmmmm, indeed!!

A mere, ten minute glimpse into CNN’s documentary on the youthful terrorists in Mumbai and their horrifying phone conversations with their “Controllers” … whew … this would reveal no “intensely personal reasons” for mass murder but, indeed, a robotic, brainwashed and monomaniacal mindset instilled by their Jihadist instructors, the same mindset that filled the World War II kamikaze pilots of Japan.

Obviously Mr. Balcer has his own “personal problems” … and he’s “working them out” on "Law and Order."

Finally, the "Law and Order" episode on ACORN?

President Obama’s very own Van Jones and Andy Stern might have written portions of it.

Yet Dick Wolf still wonders why producers like Steven Bochco and Jerry Bruckheimer always received better reviews, bigger ratings and vastly greater respect.

Dick, from the guy you used to describe as “the conscience of the show”, perhaps it’s because Bochco and Bruckheimer have had a conscience in the first place.

Where "Law and Order" has been treading is unconscionable.

It might seem a little strange to see Fox News bashed on its Fox broadcast parent network, but that's what you would have witnessed if you tuned into "The Wanda Sykes Show," Saturday night's late-night alternative to NBC's "Saturday Night Live."

On the Dec. 12 broadcast of "The Wanda Sykes Show," Sykes, made famous for her attacks on conservative talker Rush Limbaugh and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at last May's White House Correspondents Dinner, took a shot at the Fox News Channel for her perception that it lacks black correspondents (emphasis added).

"So I've been digging around here and I found some old footage of black reporters on Fox News - you know, back when they were allowed to be on that network," Sykes said. "Fascinating stuff - take a look at this one."

But if Sykes were a regular viewer of the Fox News Channel, she would have realized there are black personalities featured regularly in the network's news reporting, including White House correspondent Wendell Goler, FoxNews.com "Strategy Room" anchor and Fox News Channel newscaster Harris Faulkner, Fox News religion correspondent Lauren Green and "Special Report" and "Fox News Sunday" regular Juan Williams.

Nonetheless, Sykes' comments were a lead-in for a seemingly sophomoric spoof from black newscaster meant to take place at the Hindenburg crash in 1937, making off-color analogies to provide a "Negro perspective." Transcript as follows:

"I'm Frederick R. Cobbs, educated Negro, coming to you from New Jersey's Lakehurst Air Base as we watch the Hindenburg descend. It appears to be a routine landing. But wait, wait a minute. Oh, my God! Fire has burst out of the side of the Hindenburg! Jesus, those flames are more than 200 feet high. To put that in a Negro perspective, those flames are higher than the bonfires that the Klan lit after the Emancipation Proclamation."
Unbelievable! Flaming wreckage as big as fireballs is falling near yards from me. To put this in Negro perspective, I haven't been this close to death since the age of 8 when I beat a 10-year-old white child in a spelling bee by correctly spelling the word "superiority."
And now I see white folk falling out of the sky at a rate of what appears to be at least 10 miles an hour. To put that in a Negro perspective, they are falling faster than a house Negro running from the big house after discovering that the master's new baby has a tan. Thank god the inhumanity of segregation and Jim Crow means no persons of color were allowed on that ship. For the first time in 1937, it is a good day to be a Negro! This is Frederick R. Cobbs, educated Negro, signing off for Negro Newsreel. Let's go!"

Sometimes libtalkers just make you shake your head in disbelief. Keith Olbermann trumpeted his most recent example of bias-denail on Daily Kos over the weekend, where he insisted that his show does not tout a partisan agenda, and simply serves as a watchdog against others' unchecked opinions (h/t Olbermann Watch's Johnny Dollar).

I'll wait for readers to stop laughing. Done? Okay. It truly is unbelievable that one of the most partisan and divisive commentators on cable television would even suggest that he pays lip service to those who don't share his views. Olbermann has a right to trumpet his liberal vitriol, but he should at least acknowledge it for what it is.

But Olbermann claimed in post on Daily Kos that he simply challenges the unchallenged, leaving some to wonder, to paraphrase Juvenal, who challenges the challengers?

When Olbermann proclaims, for instance, that Dana Perino is the "worst person" for calling the Fort Hood shooting a terrorist attack, or Bill Kristol is spitting on the graves of the victims for saying the same, who is there to challenge these absurd statements? Or when he hosts Arianna Huffinton, who argues there should be a Glenn Beck exception to the First Amendment, who is there to challenge that statement?

I read with astonishment here and elsewhere that I am guilty of never presenting conflicting viewpoints. Do you know what the easiest form of "good tv" is? Put two guys on who disagree with each other and let them yell at each other...

I'd rather devote the time to personally rebutting something else that has been let loose into the ether without rebuttal - to putting in a little thought to the equation - than just have conflict because it's pure entertainment.

Let loose without rebuttal? Why does that sound familiar? It must be that that is exactly what Olbermann does every time he is on the air: let loose wild accusations without rebuttal. As for neutrality, Olbermann is "pleased to be able to say that I've never put something on Countdown to toe a party line."

Yes, political independence is Olbermann's hallmark. Just look at this handy chart from Johnny Dollar:

Sometimes you're left wondering whether Olbermann actually believes the stuff that comes out his mouth. He challenges the unchallenged without challenge, and he avoids partisanship by hosting only liberals and Democrats on his show. For someone who is "not in the entertainment business," Olbermann sure knows how to entertain.

Hollywood liberalism has some strange priorities. During the last couple months, two high-profile criminals have been slated to face justice in American courts. The first drugged and raped a young girl in 1977. The second orchestrated the most deadly attack against American civilians in our nation's history.

Decisions to try them in the United States were controversial, but a petition against the extradition of the former, director Roman Polanski, garnered over 130 signatures. Included on the list were such illustrious film personalities as Woody Allen, Martin Scorcese, David Lynch, and Wess Anderson.

Shortly after, another petition circulated the hills of Los Angeles, this one protesting the Obama administration's decision to try 9/11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City courts. This petition garnered seven names: Robert Duvall, Brian Dennehy, Jon Voight, Danny Aiello, Robert Davi, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and Ben Stein.

It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, a picture of Hollywood politics consists of 137 names. Nothing more is needed to demonstrate the bizarre moral outlook that would condemn the United States so strongly for trying a convicted sex offender and fugitive from justice in our civilian courts, yet show such little interest in trying a man who has admitted to slaughtering 3,000 civilians in an act of war mere blocks from where he wrought his devastation.

The latter petition read,

Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try the 9/11 mastermind and four other terrorists in a civilian court, rather than by the military justice system, should not be allowed to remain without challenge. Not only does it put the national security of the United States of America at risk, but it is a travesty of our justice system. It brings additional heartache to the families and friends of the 9/11 victims, the first responders, and the concerned citizens of New York whose lives were changed forever.

This is not just a New York tragedy, but a terrorist threat to our country and freedom loving people around the world. It provides a platform for these terrorists to spew their propaganda and hatred to the world from a courthouse just blocks from Ground Zero.

We stand with 9/11 families, New York City’s first responders and the U.S. military who will be forced to cope with the consequences of this dangerous decision if it is not reversed.

The seven souls who signed onto this petition express a deep concern for the consequences of the administration's decision, both in terms of national security and the ideological fight against violent extremism. The 'Free Polanski' petition (translated from French), on the other hand, speaks with horror of the notion that international film festivals might not be insulated from the world of, you know, justice.

By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no-one can know the effects.

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians - everyone involved in international filmmaking - want him to know that he has their support and friendship...

If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.

This petition's concern for international security and law extends only to the contention that film festivals are somehow disconnected from reality. The signatories' concern that Polanski's arrest "opens the way for actions of which no-one can no the effects" only begs the question of how many other film-festival attendees need to worry about being arrested and extradited.

The petition's daft lament that Polanski's arrest "will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom" is laughable. That one would need to inform these individuals that drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl and then fleeing the country might have those side-effects demonstrates their total disconnect from reality.

Maybe it is the complete ignorance of justice--not American justice but simply an ignorance of the concept--that left the KSM petition with a tepid seven signatories. After all, if it is so shocking that Polanski might be arrested and returned to the country from which he fled to face the consequences of his unspeakable crime, perhaps it does not seem so outlandish that a man responsible for slaying thousands of Americans--a man who is unrepentant and plans on using the trial as a platform to voice his hateful views--be tried in the same court as shoplifters and speeders.

Americans should applaud Duvall, Dennehy, Voight, Aiello, Davi, Hasselbeck, and Stein, to paraphrase Bill Buckley, for standing athwart Hollywood, yelling 'stop!' Their plea to the administration demonstrates that there is still some political sense left in America's bastion of star-studded ignorance.

The budget for "Brothers," per director Jim Sheridan, is $25 million, which probably doesn’t include marketing for promotion and … well, tell me again how Hollywood is driven by profit and not ideology? We’re a month away from 2010 so it’s hard to argue “Brothers” went into production before everyone was well aware that every single war film flopped miserably.

But who does the snob Sheridan choose to blame in advance should his war-themed film flop? Not his own bonehead decision to jump into a genre with a 100% failure rate, not the investors who dove in with him … no, he blames We The American People: 

Midway through a conversation with director Jim Sheridan about his latest film, “Brothers,” he abruptly asks, “Do you think anybody will go see this movie?”

I say what I think he wants to hear – that a cast led by Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal is sure to draw people. But we both know that movies that so much as touch on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out to be tough sells. …

“I think the American people just don’t think there is a war on, so why should they have to go to a movie about something that doesn’t exist? Their state of denial is hard to overcome,” Sheridan said.

Unbelievable.

The Leftist Hollywood Playbook:

1. Make movie no one wants to see.
2. Insult audience prior to flop.
3. Blame audience after flop.
4. Receive ”brave” tag by fawning entertainment media.
5. Position on Hollywood cocktail party circuit remains firmly in place.

But as is always the case with a Hollywoodist, you can take Sheridan at his word and still come to the same conclusion: If you’re a director who wants to make a profit – a film people will want to see — and you believe Americans are in denial over the war — why spend $25 million on a war-themed film?

Predicting what will hit and miss at the box office is a fool’s game. Maybe “Brothers” will be the genre’s outlier, who knows. But how tired and played does this description from the original Danish version of “Brothers” sound:

Then Michael comes home with a full-blown case of post-traumatic stress disorder…

The trailer tells the rest of the story.

Am I the only one who eagerly awaits the $25 million film — a serious drama like “Brothers” – where the screwed-up brother returns from a tour of duty transformed into a responsible, resourceful and mature man ready to take his place in the world? That would not only be an inspiring and more accurate story worthy of the brave men and women who serve our country … it would finally be a fresh idea from an industry drowning in their own leftist cliches.

Originally published on November 30, 2009, at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood blog, where Nolte serves as editor-in-chief.

Photo above of "Brothers" director Jim Sheridan, taken by Lorey Sebastian for the San Francisco Chronicle. 

The Weekly World News is infamous for alien encounters with U.S. Presidents (“Space Alien Backs Bush for President!” and “Obama Invites Alien Choir to White House”), but one alien admires and wants to meet President Obama. Actress Morena Baccarin, who plays “Anna,” the leader of the malevolent aliens on ABC's sci-fi 'V' series, told USA Today that “I would love to meet Obama” since he's “charming” and a “smart, smart guy,” though, she lamented, “it took us all of 30 seconds to turn against him.”

A Tuesday USA Today “Life” section article provided this quote from the Brazilian-born Baccarin (IMDb page):

I would love to meet (President) Obama. I think he is so charming and smart. It took us no time at all to turn on him. Certainly leading the country is a really tough job.

In a video which accompanies the online posting, Baccarin yearns:

I would love to meet Obama. I mean, he seems like a smart, smart guy and it took us all of 30 seconds to turn against him. But I'm really curious to meet him and know him.

The fourth of a four episode run of V aired Tuesday night. The series will return in March.

Megan Fox has a real distaste for "Middle America". Those darned hillbillies in fly-over country just don't seem to go for blockbuster lesbian slash ‘em up soft-core porn flicks. What gives?

Fox is blaming Middle America for her potentially career-breaking flop of a horror movie "Jennifer's Body." Asked why it was such a pitiful failure, Fox explained, "the movie is about a man-eating, cannibalistic lesbian cheerleader, and that pretty much eliminates middle America."

Oh my, what ignorant and close-minded folks these Middle Americans must be that they wouldn't want to sit through 90 minutes of that. Really, what is the film industry coming to when Americans won't pay ten bucks to see one half-naked pinup model devour another?

The A-list star of the recent Transformers movies presented her enlightening caricature of Middle America when, asked how she would stop Megatron, the evil techno-villain from the Transformers series, from destroying the planet, proposed he "just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America" and leave everyone else alone.

Given Fox's clearly vast intellectual capacity, it may surprise readers that, for many Americans, she is stupid until proven intelligent, so to speak. She complained over the summer, "I don't want to have to go on talk shows and pull out every single S.A.T. word I've ever learned, to prove, like, ‘Take me seriously, I am intelligent, I can speak.' I don't want to have to do that. I resent having to prove that I'm not a retard."

Notice she did not offer any evidence to the contrary. Hmm. As Leigh Scott postulated in reporting this quote for NB, "When you feel compelled to tell the world how smart you are, how intellectual your positions are, how deep your education runs, the sad truth is that you probably aren't that bright."

And as if accusations of stupidity were not enough, some people are now daring to insinuate that Fox is intellectually challenged AND a tramp. "Girls think I'm a slut, and I've been in the same relationship since I was 18," she told the New York Times. "The problem is, if they think you're attractive, you're either stupid or a whore or a dumb whore."

Who knows where people are getting the impression that this woman is some sort of sexual deviant.

 

Oh, right. 

I haven’t seen “The Blind Side” yet, so I won’t say anything about the quality of the film. But based on the trailer and the true story, my wife and I are as excited about this as any film in a long time. It tells the true story of the adoption of Michael Oher by the Tuohy family in Tennessee and how they helped him go from homeless teenager to professional football star. The book was incredible, the story miraculous. We’re especially excited because we’re big adoption advocates, currently in the middle of our first of many planned adoptions. Also, the Tuohys happen to be conservative Christians like we are, and we don’t normally get to see families like that on screen, at least in movies that are watchable.

Apparently, this makes me a racist.

You see, Michael Oher happens to be black, and the Tuohys happen to be white. I actually think that’s pretty cool, especially because they live in Tennessee, and what gets us farther from the evil days of segregation than an increased number of mixed-race families? One would assume that liberals especially would be excited about that, right?

Not so fast.

The other day, after we saw the trailer again (we get choked up every single time), I casually mentioned that it wouldn’t shock me if some critics complained that the movie was a “typical white person saves a black person” story. Call it a hunch. I emailed a smart writer friend and mentioned that I’d like to write an article predicting the coming backlash, and he said I might want to reconsider because I could look “strident” if I was wrong. My immediate reaction was one of indignance as I thought angrily to myself, “What does ’strident’ mean?”

Not wanting to look “harsh, grating, or discordant,” I did some quick research and found that my article could no longer be a prediction, as the backlash has already started. I did a search for The Blind Side, criticism,” and five of the first ten items were blogs or articles about the racist undertones of the TRAILER. I saw the terms “racist” and “paternalistic” in nearly every article. In the Huffington Post, Mark Blankenship (whose bio mentions the NY Times, Variety, and Village Voice as outlets for his writing–shocking) wrote “The song (in the trailer) is called ‘How to Save a Life,’ a title that suggests the trailer’s breathtaking paternalism.”

Here is the definition of paternalistic: A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities. (emphasis added)

Wow.

Seeing as how these critics no doubt would consider health care, food, clothing, and shelter to be RIGHTS, and the trailer shows the Tuohys providing these for Michael, calling it “paternalistic” would seem to be a contradiction, hm? They also provided him with a top-notch private high school education and helped him go from having a GPA under 1.0 to making the dean’s list at a Division I college. He’s now a millionaire because of their efforts. No rights or responsibilities? Really?

Of course, if a movie came out showing white people in the government providing all this for Michael, it’d be a triumph of social justice, but a movie showing rich white people doing it on their own is “paternalistic” or a reinforcement of racist undertones in film. Food stamps? Good. Praying over a massive Thanksgiving meal in a huge dining room? Paternalistic.

The title of Blankenship’s piece is, “Should We Want Movies Like The Blind Side?” Think about that question. My first response would be:

It’s. A. True. Story.

Because art is supposed to reflect life, and life is supposed to be inspired by art, the question is basically, “should we want stories like this?” Do we want to see stories about homeless kids being adopted by strong nuclear families and steered towards success? Gee, I don’t know.

If you want to make the issue about race, let’s consider that a disproportionate number of black children are poor, in foster care, living with neither biological parent; supervised by a child welfare agency; or living with a single parent. Over 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that we would want some of those kids adopted? Who cares what color the adoptive parents are, and if you do care, as critics of the film obviously do, doesn’t that make YOU the racist?

With “The Blind Side,” one cannot separate art from life. It’s a true story. Michael Oher was black, the Tuohys were white. Michael Oher was poor and homeless, the Tuohys were rich and lived in a huge house. Michael Oher repeated 1st and 2nd grade and attended 11 different schools in nine years; the Tuohy kids attended private schools their whole lives. Michael Oher’s mom was a crack addict, his father absentee, ultimately murdered when Michael was a high school senior. Now he has a mother and a father who not only didn’t abandon him, but who cared enough about him to take him into their home and family when he was a 16-year old, 6 ft. 4 in, 300 pound stranger. It’s all true. If the movie is racist or paternalistic or stereotypical or cliched or sappy for depicting it, then so is the story itself.

Would it have been a better, less paternalistic story if a family from his black neighborhood had taken him in? We’ll never know. Would it have been better if Gil Netter and 20th-Century Fox, in an effort to avoid racism or paternalism, resisted making this film because the Tuohys happened to be white, or perhaps changed the story to make it a white kid?

Thankfully, we’ll never know that either.

Originally published at Big Hollywood on November 18.

On Nov. 9, CW's "Gossip Girl" featured a threesome, which included the not-so-Disney-anymore Hilary Duff. The show depicted threesomes as a normal, expected event in a college student's life. But that wasn't crass enough for Entertainment Weekly's Tim Stack, who said that the threesome was too "chaste."

"It was basically no more risqué than a game of spin the bottle," Stack lamented.

After this week's episode, though, which featured graphic flashbacks of the threesome, Stack has declared that "Gossip Girl" is "back up the quality ladder."

"The flashbacks to the threesome were waaaay more hot than anything in last week's much-hyped episode," he said. "I wonder if the Parents Television Council tuned in last night."

Stack went on to say that "Gossip Girl not only entertains, it teaches."

"We also learned a much repeated rule of threesomes," he said. "The third person is always supposed to be a stranger!"

In that same episode, "Gossip Girl" also taught teenagers how to deal drugs and have an affair with a married man.

On Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez previewed an exclusive interview with Levi Johnston on the CBS entertainment show, The Insider: “Levi Johnston says he is winning the war of words between Sarah Palin and him. We’ll hear from him.” Later, correspondent for The Insider, Chris Jacobs, declared: “Sarah Palin lashing out at Levi and now Levi fires back.”

Rodriguez has conducted three exclusive interviews with the estranged father of Palin’s grandson in the last six months, the latest on October 29. In The Insider interview, Johnston is given the opportunity to continue his vicious, personal, and unsubstantiated attacks against the former Alaska governor, claiming: “I think she’s going out and talking and she’s just digging a bigger hole for herself....I just look at her in disgust. It’s almost funny that she’s like 46 years old and she’s battling a 19-year-old and I’m winning and I’m telling the truth. She’s lying and losing.”

The preview segment of the interview, in which Johnston reacts to Palin’s interview with Oprah Winfrey on her new book, goes on to feature an expletive laden rant by the would-be Playgirl model: “She’s really underestimating me right now and that’s not a smart thing to do....You know, she’s basically calling me a liar, which is total [expletive]. I did for, you know, a few, you know – a couple months and then we split up and that was it. You can totally tell, if you pay attention, that she’s the one [expletive].”

Rodriguez concludes the segment by encouraging viewers to watch the rest of the interview on Tuesday’s edition of The Insider: “Alright Chris, we’ll be tuning in. Thank you so much....Tune into The Insider tonight for more on Levi Johnston’s take on Sarah Palin. Be sure to check your local listings.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Sarah Palin hypes her new book on Oprah and slams the McCain campaign.

SARAH PALIN: I did not want that message sent out that we were giddy happen to become grandparents.

RODRIGUEZ: While the father of her grandchild, Levi Johnston, fires back.

LEVI JOHNSTON: I think she’s going out and talking and she’s just digging a bigger hole for herself.

RODRIGUEZ: We’ll have more of his exclusive reaction.

7:12AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Up next, Sarah Palin hypes her book on Oprah while Levi Johnston watches and claims victory. We’ll tell you what both had to say.

7:24AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Still to come, Levi Johnston says he is winning the war of words between Sarah Palin and him. We’ll hear from him when we return.     

7:31AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: But first, Sarah Palin. She didn’t hold back when she talked to Oprah. And Levi Johnston, the father of her grandson, was watching. The Insider’s Chris Jacobs is live in L.A. with Johnston’s exclusive reaction. Hey Chris, good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Levi vs. Sarah; Grandson’s Father Goes Rogue on Palin]

CHRIS JACOBS: Good morning, Maggie. Only The Insider’s cameras were rolling as Levi watched Sarah Palin talk tough about his choices to take their spate public and then pose for Playgirl. Levi shared his thoughts with us.

SARAH PALIN: A bit heartbreaking to see the road that is he on right now.

LEVI JOHNSTON: I think she’s going out and talking and she’s just digging a bigger hole for herself.

PALIN: Kind of this aspiring – aspiring porn, some of the things that he’s doing. It’s kind of heartbreaking.

OPRAH WINFREY: The Playgirl centerfold?

PALIN: Right. It’s – I call that porn, yes.

JOHNSTON: I just look at her in disgust. It’s almost funny that she’s like 46 years old and she’s battling a 19-year-old and I’m winning and I’m telling the truth. She’s lying and losing.

JACOBS: Sarah Palin lashing out at Levi and now Levi fires back.

JOHNSTON: If you look at her face, she’s got – she’s really – you can tell her mind’s going 100 miles an hour when Oprah asked her those Levi questions. I got a lot more knowledge and, you know, credibility than she gives me credit for.

PALIN: And by the way, I don’t know if we call him Levi. I hear he goes by the name ‘Ricky Hollywood’ now. So if he – if that’s the case, we don’t want to mess up this gig he’s got going.

JOHNSTON: She’s really underestimating me right now and that’s not a smart thing to do.

JACOBS: With daughters Willow and Piper in the audience, Sarah implies Levi’s a liar.

PALIN: The whole premise of Levi ever having lived with Bristol is false. And from there, though, I mean, you take that foundational untruth and you can kind of measure all the other things that he’s saying.

JOHNSTON: You know, she’s basically calling me a liar, which is total [expletive]. I did for, you know, a few, you know – a couple months and then we split up and that was it. You can totally tell, if you pay attention, that she’s the one [expletive].

JACOBS: But Levi is especially irritated by this moment.

WINFREY: What happens when he comes to see the baby?

PALIN: He’s quite busy with his media tours and he hasn’t seen the baby for a while.

JOHNSTON: You know, I’ve been gone a lot on the media. That is – yeah, I haven’t seen him a lot, but that’s not always why.

JACOBS: Levi’s long contended that the Palins are keeping him away from his now 10-month-old son, Tripp, and that he’s gearing up for a custody battle.

JOHNSTON: We’re going to court. It’s – all this is going to be over with and I won’t have much else to say about Sarah Palin because I will have my kid.

JACOBS: Palin appears to extend an olive branch to her grandson’s father, but Levi says there’s no truce yet.

PALIN: An open invitation for Levi to come to Aunt Katie’s house for Thanksgiving dinner in Washington, there.       

JOHNSTON: That was a real convincing invite. I think if I go there, I’m going to need – I’m going to need an army because it’s – it’s not going to be good.

JACOBS: And this isn’t the last we’ve seen of Levi Johnston. Tonight we’ve got a whole lot more. The Insider is inside Levi’s Playgirl photo shoot, shirtless and stripped down. Now the answer to the million dollar question is will he take it all off. You’re just going to have to wait and see tonight on The Insider.

RODRIGUEZ: Oh, you’re going to tell us?

JACOBS: Maybe.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright Chris, we’ll be tuning in. Thank you so much.

JACOBS: Thank you very much.

RODRIGUEZ: Tune into The Insider tonight for more on Levi Johnston’s take on Sarah Palin. Be sure to check your local listings.

Capitalism may "offer" freedom, but it doesn't provide it according to British actor and liberal activist Ian McKellen.

McKellen was discussing his latest role as "Number Two," in AMC's reinvention of the Cold War show "The Prisoner." The liberal actor told Associated Press that his character embodies "the drawbacks of capitalism."

"Capitalism offers you freedom, but far from giving people freedom, it enslaves them. That's part of the show's message," McKellen said.

That's a very different message from the 1960s original British television series which pitted individual rights and freedom against collectivism and state control.

Reason magazine explained the libertarian leanings of the show on Jan. 15, 2009. They wrote that Patrick McGoohan, creator and star of the TV series, once told New Video magazine about his alter-ego Number 6: "He shouldn't have to answer to anyone. It's entirely his prerogative, his God-given right as an individual, to proceed in any way he sees fit. That's the whole point of it all."

McKellen has ruffled feathers in the past for remarks made while promoting his films. In 2006, the "Da Vinci Code" star told "Today" that the Bible needed a "disclaimer."

"Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith," McKellen said.

AMC's version of "The Prisoner" is set to air Nov. 15-18 as a six-hour miniseries.

Nearly eight weeks before six medical doctors were arrested for their involvement in the late June terrorist attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow, ABC's Boston Legal drama -- which has its 90-minute season premiere tonight (Tuesday) -- aired an episode which ridiculed the idea a doctor could be a terrorist.

In the May 8 episode, titled "Guantanamo by the Bay," attorney "Alan Shore," played by James Spader, takes up the case of British citizen "Benyam Kallah" suing the government, oddly in state court, over Kallah's torture at the Guantanamo Bay facility after he was picked up in Afghanistan where he claims he was doing "humanitarian" work. On the witness stand, Kallah describes the torture and how a friend detained with him couldn't take the torture any longer and so committed suicide. Concluding the scene meant to show the silliness and incompetence of the military for detaining such obviously innocent men, Shore asked: "Was your friend a terrorist?" Kallah replied: "No, he was a doctor."

Pressed by the Massachusetts state court judge about jurisdictional questions, Shore launched into a political diatribe: "Okay. I realize the jurisdictional barriers are prohibitive but, your honor, we don't let the little things like the law stand in our way in this great country. The law, for example, recognizes the Geneva Convention but we say, 'the Hell with it.' The law has very strict regulations on domestic wiretapping and we say, 'the Hell with it.' The law says if you shoot somebody with a shotgun mistaking him for a quail you really should call the police."

Shore is victorious as the case is heard and the judge rejects the government's motion to dismiss the case.

At the very end of the show, "Denny Crane," a pompous and misinformed lawyer who is Hollywood's idea of a prejudiced and chauvinistic conservative, contends: "We would never be in Guantanamo if it weren't for Hillary Clinton." The reasoning of Crane, played by William Shatner: "Bill Clinton would never have lied in the deposition. He wouldn't have risked impeachment. So what if the sexual indiscretion [indecipherable] the public would have forgiven him. But Hillary! The reason he lied is because he was afraid Hillary would find out. That's why he was impeached. That's why Al Gore didn't win. And after all that impeachment scandal crap, the public would have elected any fool other than a Democrat."

On the attempted terrorist attacks in Britain in late June in which car bombs were discovered in London and a car exploded at the Glasgow airport, the Washington Post reported on July 8: "The eight suspects detained by police are highly educated and have overlapping family, work and school links. Six are foreign doctors or trainee doctors working in British hospitals; two of the doctors inquired about continuing their medical training in the United States."...

# Scene in court room (matches audio/video):

SHORE: Mr. Kallah, you've stated that you were tortured. Can you give us an example?

KALLAH, ON WITNESS STAND: I was beaten; repeatedly deprived of sleep. I was forced to wear a hood over my head, sometimes for days. I was sexually humiliated.

SHORE: How so?

KALLAH: I'd rather not go into it.

SHORE: And what else?

KALLAH: I was forced to lie in a fetal position, my eyes and my mouth duct taped. The worst part is that we felt it was forever. We we're never going to be released, never going to get a trial. One man, Ali, a friend, was arrested with me.

SHORE: What happened to your friend, sir.

KALLAH: Finally he couldn't take it. He hung himself.

SHORE: He committed suicide?

KALLAH: The Pentagon called it "manipulative self-injurious behavior: an act of asymmetric warfare engaged against the United States."

SHORE: Was your friend a terrorist?

KALLAH: No, he was a doctor.

ABC's 'V' mini-series, which will debut tonight (Tuesday) in the first hour of prime time, is “nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity,” but “it's also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the President's supporters and delight his detractors,” Miami Herald TV critic Glenn Garvin asserted in a review distributed by the McClatchy/Tribune news service and run in Tuesday's Chicago Tribune, among other papers. Garvin contended:

From the fawning reaction of the news media...to the recruiting of human supporters into an alien front group that could easily be mistaken for “community organizing,” the parallels to Obama are unmistakable.

Though the leader of the aliens, in Garvin's words, “is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who's come here to eat us,” the plot has a featured character, a TV journalist, aiding the effort. “Some welcome their arrival,” USA Today's Gary Levin recounted, “but the suspicious form a resistance movement, which leads the visitors' charismatic leader, Anna (Morena Baccarin), to enlist an ambitious TV reporter (Scott Wolf) as a propaganda tool.” Garvin, presumably citing the same character: “One simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question.”

A storyline ripped from real-life!

The top producer of the mini-series, set to air over the next four Tuesdays and then return in March, denied to USA Today's Levin's any parallels to Obama:

Others on both sides of the political spectrum may point to the visitors' explicit promises of hope, change and universal health care as a pointed reference to pledges of the Obama administration. But [Executive Producer Scott] Peters says the show has been in the works since 2007. Reality was “never really a factor,” he says. “There's no political message being shoved down anyone's throat.”

An excerpt from Garvin's Sunday, November 1 Miami Herald review (“'V': The saucer-shaped bandwagon”), which the Chicago Tribune headlined “'V' aims at Obamamania.”

Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.

The news media swoons in admiration -- one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: “Why don't you show some respect?!!” The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader's origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: “Embracing change is never easy.”

So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait -- did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who's come here to eat us?

Welcome to ABC's V, the final, the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season. Nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity, it's also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the president's supporters and delight his detractors....

From the fawning reaction of the news media (sample press-conference question to V leader Anna: “Is there such a thing as an ugly visitor?”') to the recruiting of human supporters into an alien front group that could easily be mistaken for “community organizing,” the parallels to Obama are unmistakable.

The anti-V underground, in its frustrated insistence that the aliens have a covert agenda, resemble nothing so much as the anti-Obama teabaggers. And even the president's repeated attempts to suborn Republicans into making his program bipartisan get a scorching reference.

“Compromising one's principles for the greater good is not a shameful act,” a V leader reassures an erstwhile opponent who's just been bought off. “It's a noble one.”

Many Hollywood leftists consider President Obama a figurative godsend. Some, including Sting, think he was literally sent from God. The former Police front-man told the Associated Press that he believes that Obama is a gift from Heaven, delivered to shepherd the befuddled masses to providence (h/t Ace).

"In many ways, he's sent from God," Sting said in an interview with the AP. He heaped praise upon the President for his ability to lead the country though the "mess" in which we find ourselves. He met Obama recently and "found him to be very genuine, very present, clearly super-smart, and exactly what we need in the world."

"I can't think of any be better qualified because of his background, his education, particularly in regard to Islam," he added. Sting then went on to bash the President's critics as deranged, ignorant, and "medieval".

The British singer, who released the seasonal album "On A Winter's Night" this week, said he's fascinated by American politics, Obama, and also by Obama's opponents on the right.

"It's aggressive and violent and full of fear," he said of the backlash against Obama. "They don't want change, they want things to feel the same because they feel safe there."

Sting, 58, said he's hopeful that the world's problems can be dealt with, but is frustrated that "we seem to be living in a currency of medieval ideas."

"My hope is that we can start talking about real issues and not caring about whether God cares about your hemline or your color," he said. "We are here to evolve as one family, and we can't be separate anymore."

So Sting belittled and demonized opponents of the Obama agenda, and then urged us all to come together. Sting's glaring hypocrisy is outdone only by his audacious deification of the President. Hollywood sophistry at its best.

Let's just hope Sting leaves it that, and doesn't call for an inquisition or the burning at the stake of all the president's critics.

The Oct. 15 broadcast of host Joy Behar's show was no different. First it tackled the issues of the day, like Arianna Huffington's take on whether or not Vice President Joe Biden should resign based on what President Barack Obama does in Afghanistan. Then Behar and her two guests, actor and left-wing activist Richard Belzer and New York Daily News Columnist Liz Benjamin discussed Rush Limbaugh's failed effort to buy a stake in the NFL's St. Louis Rams and the feud between Fox News and the White House.

Behar made suggestion Limbaugh represents himself as someone who is not "in the mainstream" because he argued on his Oct. 14 show the backlash was in part generated by liberal activists threatened by the notion Limbaugh could be considered to be in the mainstream. That notion was one which Belzer lashed out at and called Limbaugh and Fox News host Glenn Beck "fascist stooges" (emphasis added):

Behar: Isn't Rush Limbaugh in the mainstream? He acts like he's not.
Belzer: This whole thing of conservatives saying they're not in the mainstream, you know, as we all know, it's the biggest crock. They have the courts, they had the presidency, they had the Congress, they have their own network.
Behar: But he's not a politician. I guess that's what he means - he's just a radio - just like Glenn Beck they're kind of like on the sidelines provoking and provoking.
Belzer: They're fascist stooges who in the true sense of that word, that's not hyperbole...
Benjamin: But why should he not own a team?
Behar: They don't want him.
Belzer: Well, because other businessmen...

Behar steered the discussion back in the direction of Limbaugh and his efforts to buy the Rams. She brought up a quote that had been drummed up by the left-wing noise machine, but was taken completely out of context by that same noise machine, as Limbaugh explained on his Oct. 14 program:

Behar: He said the NFL is like the gangs - the Crips and the Bloods.
Benjamin: He did say that. That's right.
Belzer: That's veiled racism.
Behar: That's very veiled racism.
Belzer: That's unveiled.
Benjamin: That's not veiled. Nevertheless the idea that this has not become -- it has become political. He's not sort of speaking out of turn to say that.

And Behar had credited perennial opportunist race-baiting extraordinaire Rev. Al Sharpton for being the force that ultimately forced Limbaugh out of the running for the Rams, an opinion Belzer disagreed with (emphasis added):

Benjamin: You're talking about Rev. Al Sharpton who was one of the loudest people crying for him not to have...
Belzer: Right.
Behar: I think it's because of Al Sharpton that he lost the bid to tell you the truth.
Belzer: The players were coming out. The [NFL] Players Association -- two of them.
Benjamin: Had a lot to do with it.
Belzer: You don't need Al Sharpton in a case like this. He was just as always showing up at the scene.

Earlier in the show, Behar inquired about Belzer's keen wisdom on the feud going on between the White House and the Fox News Channel that was provoked by comments from White House Director of Communications Anita Dunn, an admitted admirer of Mao Tse Tung.

"That was one example of the right wing taking on the whole left, in this case the NFL," Behar said. "But also Glenn Beck has been making statements that he is also a victim in this. And Fox news is the victim of the White House's attack, it's un-American, it's unpatriotic, et cetera. What do you think of all that?"

Benjamin questioned the attack on Fox News, but Belzer had no kind words for the network, calling it "racist" and "misogynistic" (emphasis added):

Benjamin: Didn't you just get finished saying there should be many parties and many voices, et cetera, but yet Fox is being - is not OK?
Belzer: You don't think that Fox lies continually - there are books written about it, they've made racist, misogynist, pro-war-mongering...
Benjamin: OK, they have, that's true. That's the allegations.
Belzer: They say they're attacking the conservatives. They had the President, the Vice President, the Supreme Court, the Congress and the Senate. And they're not mainstream?
Benjamin: Last time...
Belzer: They've ruined the country now they're complaining.
Benjamin: Last time I checked actually, we have a Constitution that protects - has a 1st Amendment that protects freedom of speech. You can actually say many sorts of misogynist and nasty things.
Belzer: So you're condoning what Fox does?
Benjamin: I'm condoning anything.
Behar: Wait a minute. Richie, she has a point.
Belzer: No, the White House is firing back at this thing that's been going on for years, that constantly lies, has veiled racism, misogyny, the most despicable things are said on that network every day...
Benjamin: Calling them out is fine.
Behar: They should be called out.
Benjamin: Doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
Belzer: The White House isn't saying don't exist.
Benjamin: They're saying that they're a tool of the right. That's what they're saying.
Belzer: They're not? What are they? They're just a tool. They're just a tool.

This is a textbook example of what a recent Media Research Center study has confirmed - there was a concerted effort by the left-wing establishment to disparage the character of Limbaugh with three primary tactics - personal attacks, distortions of his quotes and the use of outright falsehoods and fabrications.