Cultural pulse check

Via Nerdrotic, a reasonable, well-thought out and entertaining assessment of Hollywood and the mainstream media:

Biting Back II

The Critical Drinker sets Hollywood celebrities straight; nobody cares anymore. Don't tell us how to vote. This is a brilliant take:

Woke Hollywood is dying

Nerdrotic nails this analysis, although I would add one additional point: inflation is killing consumers across the board and that hurts all industries, including Hollywood.

Kudos to Jerry Seinfeld for being one of those calling it out. I just watched his Netflix movie Unfrosted. It was not a must see movie, but it was entertaining and fun; exactly the sort of of thing Hollywood should be aiming to do.

Cultural rot courtesy of Star Wars' latest example

Star Wars is exemplary of what has happened to Hollywood - cultural rot, devoid of anything worthwhile.

Hollywood self-cancelling has begun.

Speaking of wokeness, Hollywood has started to cancel itself.  No really.  And maybe that's where they should have started.

Hollywood zealots walk back their full-tilt crazy

Debra Messing wants to out Trump supporters. Pure McCarthyism.

It's so ridiculous, so evil, that even dependable liberal Whoopi Goldberg had to call out the Will and Grace stars.

Erik McCormack the other Will and Grace star, did do some backtracking:

Kudos to Whoopi Goldberg and John O'Hurley for standing up for what is right.

Hollywood vs The Old West

Via Ammo, a site I am hoping to delve into a little more in the future, comes a critical essay on how Hollywood has portrayed the Old West to aid in their gun control agenda:

Hollywood has a clever way of distorting our perspective on history, and a great example of this is Western film – a movie genre we've all come to love. Cattle rustlers, guns blazing, outlaws running loose, and vigilantes dishing out vengeance indiscriminately. These scenes have become more synonymous with the American Frontier than Winchester and their "Cartridge That Won the West." But these fictional tales have produced more than entertainment for over a century; they've also contributed to an ongoing, subtle push for gun control, all while making Hollywood millions.

Revisionist history books tell us that the “Wild West” was an anarchic period of time that was not conducive to human prosperity. Images of a Hobbesian nightmare – a life that is brutish and short – are ingrained in our consciousness thanks to decades of public schooling and violent images on the silver screen which are light on actual history and heavy on creative license.

It's a terrific read, follow the link above to read the whole piece. It's information worth knowing and understanding.

Saturday Learning Series - a take down of Bird Box

Netflix recent hit Bird Box is apparently a woke movie about, among other things, race.  Youtuber Black Pilled takes it apart.

I already watched this movie and despite definitely noticing most of what Black Pilled mentions, I managed to set it aside and focus on the story, and for the most enjoy it.  But it is getting increasingly harder to do so with movies of late.  Honestly I don't want watching a movie to be a chore but it is approaching that point.  At some point I expect to retreat into computer gaming until they come for that full force as well.

Top 5 problems with "Oprah Winfrey for president"

Oprah Winfrey is no Hillary Clinton - she's personable (at least she seems to be), her personal favorability ratings would be much higher than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Like president Trump she's run a business successfully. She's got Trump-level name recognition which is a huge political asset. Unlike Hillary Clinton she connects with women. Unlike Hillary Clinton she connects with African Americans (at least females), and unlike Hillary Clinton she's relatively wholesome and unsullied by years of scandal. Unlike Hillary Clinton she'd have the full force backing of former president Obama.   She's liberal, having refused to allow equal access to Sarah Palin to her audience after having allowed Obama unfettered access.  Now, Hollywood and others seems to have anointed her as the one to unseat president Trump in 2020.

Seriously:

Nothing but respect for OUR future president. #GoldenGlobes pic.twitter.com/h4hkjewu0K

— NBC (@nbc) January 8, 2018

[UPDATE: NBC has since removed the tweet, blaming it on a 3rd party. Right. Here's the tweet captured below by The Daily Caller]

Are we doomed to a return to socialist policies because a one term president Trump will be unceremoniously and soundly defeated by Oprah Winfrey?  Not so fast. There are a lot of problems with Oprah Winfrey as a presidential candidate.  Here are the Top 5.

5 She's just a happy version of president Trump.

The Democrats have hammered the voters with the message that president Trump was an unqualified candidate and is an unfit president.  The unfitness included the fact that he was an outsider who had no government experience.  While voters on the right saw that fact as a positive because they recognize that government is if not broken, functioning poorly.  Many liberal voters have been pre-conditioned for the past two plus years to expect failure from outsiders.  Oprah Winfrey is as much an outsider as president Trump was.  So are Democrat voters now expected to pivot hard to the idea that outsiders are no longer ineffectual idiots but visionary masterminds ready to solve all of our problems?  That's not just a simple pivot and it will take a lot of work that may, as a side effect let president Trump off the hook to some degree. The outcome for Oprah even if successful, would be that she's a happy, smart version of president Trump. I'm not sure that plays well with the base left.

4. She is actually part of the establishment.

The establishment is not just Washington D.C. and party insiders - it includes the media and most certainly Hollywood. Oprah Winfrey is well connected politically, and clearly politically she has an established set of ideas that well, align with former president Obama's ideas.   That's establishment. Ringing Hollywood endorsements after the Golden Globe Awards speech she made, further indicates she's an insider.  I doubt anyone seriously thinks she couldn't get Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Hillary or Bill Clinton on the phone as easily as if she were ordering Domino's pizza. The same is true for Meryl Streep or Wolf Blitzer.

Being part of the establishment is in many eyes considered being part of the problem not part of the solution.  Painting Oprah as an insider would not be a hard job for team Trump. That will rev up the base on the right and also annoy a significant portion of voters on the left, namely...

3. Bernie Sanders voters won't just warm up to her

The left split among progressives and establishment liberals wasn't entirely exploited by president Trump's election team, perhaps deliberately. Bernie Sanders was clearly cheated during the Democratic primaries and his followers have probably not forgotten that.  Proclamations that the process and Super Delegate issue have all been fixed (so far they haven't) alongside an anointing of Oprah as the savior of the party and of America at large isn't going to be uncontested. Furthering the split, millennials are not as up to speed on who Oprah is as are their Gen X and older counterparts.

The split of the base into camps on the left is as real as it is on the right. Except the left has a more problematic situation because of Hillary's cheating.  The establishment has been tarnished and is viewed suspiciously.  Millennials are already less inclined to vote and the coronation of another candidate might not just turn them off in 2020, it could have the potential to be a generational shift.

2. Does Oprah really need the hassle?

Oprah Winfrey is almost 64 years old.  On election day she would be 66.  That's younger than president Trump. But Oprah Winfrey is worth nearly $3 billion. Her image is pretty good.  What benefit does it do her to slog through a brutal campaign season - primary plus general election, getting muck thrown at her, and possibly financing her campaign with her own money, but having to schmooze for more, and do appearances all over the country at a hectic pace?  It takes a particular constitution to be able to do that and a particular drive to want to do that.  It's not clear (yet) that she has either of those qualities, and if she doesn't have the desire in particular, she won't run.

And

1.  The Trump record versus the Obama record.

If the economy performs in president Trump's first term as expected, the contrast with the Obama record will be truly stark. Who will march to the polls determined to re-institute policies that clearly hobbled the prosperity and well-being of Americans? 

Of course that last item has yet to be proven (consistently, despite the strong start).  And  Oprah Winfrey would be a formidable candidate.  She has the basic appeal necessary from a Democratic optics perspective - gender, heritage, photogenic, etc. But she is every bit as beatable as was Hillary Clinton and arguably also former president Obama.

Hollywood continues to eat itself

Hollywood? Kevin Spacey? Progressivism? Take your pick.

Via (eye roll please...) CNN:

Actor Anthony Rapp has accused Kevin Spacey of making a sexual advance at him when Rapp was 14, Buzzfeed reported Sunday.

In an interview with Buzzfeed, Rapp said Spacey picked him up, put him on his bed and "was trying to get with me sexually" in 1986. Spacey was 26 at the time.

In response to the allegations, Spacey tweeted that he was "beyond horrified to hear [Rapp's] story."

Spacey tweeted: "I honestly do not remember the encounter, it would have been over 30 years ago.

"But if I did behave then as he describes, I owe him the sincerest apology for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior, and I am sorry for the feelings he describes having carried with him all these years."

There's so much to discuss here. In no particular order: 

(1) Why did CNN say sexual assault WITH a minor instead of 'on' or 'of' a minor? The terminology is different than it had been say a Republican Senator. 

(2) Why is Rapp coming forward now?

Rapp, who is now 46, released this statement through his publicist.

"I came forward with my story, standing on the shoulders of the many courageous women and men who have been speaking out, to shine a light and hopefully make a difference, as they have done for me. Everything I wanted to say about my experience is in that article, and I have no further comment about it at this time."

Hollywood is currently rife with new sexual assault stories seemingly coming out every day now. That no doubt is the reason. But it seems like a sudden, rapid implosion of Hollywood.

(3) Those who would have normally came out praising Kevin Spacey for revealing that he is gay, are quite angry. Why? Because it paints being gay in a bad light. Suddenly they are not interested in his revealed sexuality.

I'm not interested in Kevin Spacey being gay. I'm curious as to why we're conflating sexuality w/ the molestation of a minor. Stay on topic

— Ashlee Marie Preston (@AshleeMPreston) October 30, 2017

Okay, so there's that. I'm not sure Kevin Spacey was using it as a defense, it seems like he had no choice but to reveal the fact of his homosexuality as a result of the accusation against him.  Maybe it was a bad decision if it is coming off as a defense.  But it seems the anger is directed at the fact that he has mixed it up with the assault of a minor and that is making homosexuality look bad. That's how the anger at Kevin Spacey seems to be directed. Just my observation.  If so, those erstwhile defenders of homosexuality as it relates to Kevin Spacey are themselves conflating an admission of a fact with an excuse.  They're handling it as badly as Kevin Spacey himself appears to have done.

Knee jerk liberals versus Harvey Weinstein.

Whenever somebody asks me to describe modern liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism, which is entirely different) in one word, I always ask if I can use a hyphen.  That's because my word is knee-jerk.  Or knee jerk in two words if you prefer.  Liberals constantly react with their feelings and do not stop to think about the logic of a situation, the totality of the facts, or the consequences of their immediate reaction.  Knee jerk.

At least they are consistent and do not disappoint.  With Harvey Weinstein accused of multiple instances of sexual harassment and possibly even rape.  Liberals were quick (though not quite as quick as if he had been a Republican)  to jump on him as a misogynist, sexist jerk.  There's a lot of evidence that they are right.  But just like the case with Bill Cosby, he deserves his inevitable day in court, doesn't he?  I mean innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is kind of a founding principle isn't it?  Isn't it an American ideal?  They certainly apply that standard to illegal immigrants.

And Harvey was a proud Hillary donor and supporter.  But now, he's liberal poison;

Embattled film mogul Harvey Weinstein — a once-dominant force in the Academy Awards who rewrote the rules of Oscar campaigning — has been expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in response to mounting allegations of sexual harassment and assault against him.

The film academy’s 54-member board of governors, which includes such industry luminaries as Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Kathleen Kennedy and Whoopi Goldberg, voted in an emergency meeting on Saturday morning to remove Weinstein from the organization’s ranks in an unprecedented public rebuke of a prominent industry figure. The move marked the latest blow in Weinstein’s stunning downfall and, in symbolic terms, amounts to a virtual expulsion from Hollywood itself.

So much for the idea of innocent until proven guilty. It's hard to feel sympathy for liberals eating their own, especially when the likes of Harvey Weinstein were instrumental in foisting modern liberalism on America - he's reaping what he sewed. And while he will probably turn out to be guilty of all manner of Hollywood debauchery and unwarranted sexual advances, he does, like any other American, deserve hisa day in court.

Thursday Hillary Bash - The film must go on!

It looks like all of those cancelled Hillary Clinton biopics scheduled for 2015/2016 releases that got cancelled were too much for liberal Hollywood to bear and a biopic is back on.  Oh, Hurrah.

NBC and CNN had both cancelled their biopics in September due to public pressure.  That didn't stand for long with progressive Hollywood.

Lionsgate is in early talks to make Rodham, Temple Hill's and The Arlook Group’s biopic of the former first lady, New York senator, secretary of state and possible presidential candidate, The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed.

James Ponsoldt, who last directed the acclaimed indie flick The Spectacular Now, is on board to direct the drama, which was written by Young-Il Kim.

The script, which was on the 2012 Black List, portrays Rodham as a young lawyer on the committee involved in President Richard Nixon's impeachment, as well as shows her juggling a diverging career path with her unresolved feelings for future president Bill Clinton.

That's right, Hollywood wants another liberal presidency.  Hillary Clinton fits the bill (pardon the pun).  Putting some flattering biopic out there showing how Hillary can juggle a bunch of difficult things at once, and having some young actress portray her is Hollywood's attempt to Whitewater whitewash her image and put voters into a positive frame of mind about her, right in time for election season.

That's their right, but it's undue influence among low information voters and is a distasteful effort to sway the election with their bias.

The lesson from this that conservatives keep forgetting to mind, is not that politics is unfair, but rather that politics is dirty and often takes distasteful decisions to win. Sad but true.

Quick Hits inspired by Jim Carrey

Jim Carrey has opted out of promoting his new movie because of the gun violence involved. He is being consistent in his principles - having been an avid anti-gun advocate since Sandy Hook.  But the same consistency cannot be seen in his career. His star has dwindled and he is sabotaging his own career by refusing to promote the film. But that aside, he has been paid a salary - would that not including efforts at promotion for the film, as a contractual obligation?  I disagree with his stance on the second amendment, but I am not questioning his commitment to his cause.  I am questioning his commitment to his obligations.

************************************************

In the same story I was reminded about something that has bothered me for some time.  There was a quote from the Executive Producer, about films not being responsible for changing behavior in those who view it;

"Ultimately, this is his decision, but I've never quite bought the notion that violence in fiction leads to violence in real-life any more than Harry Potter casting a spell creates more Boy Wizards in real-life."

That's a common cry from Hollywood - don't blame us for the violence or moral decay in society.  We are a mirror of society not an inspiration for it.

Okay, then explain to me why there are so many activist actors trying to influence the public with their politics.  And why is that reflected in movies and music and television show advocacy?  It's not hypocrisy, it's duplicity.

************************************************

Jim Carrey's post Sandy Hook twitter tweet was also mentioned in the article:

"20 mass shootings a yr in America. Are you ok with that? I'm not. ;^\"

Great Jim. But aren't you still a Canadian citizen as well as an American citizen? Yeah, then you might want to commit to a country before you commit to a political stance anathema to the Constitution of one of those two countries. Just saying.

************************************************

People from other countries unwilling to commit to the new nation ultimately end up being a burden and disruptive to their host nation. Carrey's a burden because he's trying to change the culture to suit his own views.  He's okay with making money from a violent movie but he doesn't want people to watch it. WTF?

Given that dichotomy what are we to make of illegal immigrants from Mexico who clearly do not identify as American, aren't willing to conform to its rules (in fact their very presence is a violation of those laws)?  What is their motivation?  Where is their national allegiance?  The answer it seems, is to naturalize these millions of people. Right now.  And what will they bring to the nation should they be legalized? With those questions still unanswered or the answers dubious at best, there should be ZERO rush to pass immigration reform that offers amnesty.

Oscar-Nobel-(Pulitzer-Cannes) same old same old

Stop me before I host again.

It's Oscar night.  How do I know that besides the Oscar pool at work that I assiduously avoided? It's all over the television. Other than the fact that the Oscars have turned from a celebration of excellence in film into a gaggle of Hollywood liberals congratulating themselves for finding new and inventive ways of trashing the United States I think the Oscars are great.  No.  That's not true.  The Oscars are the same as many other major award ceremonies. They are a platform for progressivists to propagandize their beliefs as if they were the norms of society yet bask in their own greatness and making touching films about these matters. In other words, they are self-important, self-indulgent, delusional pieces of fluff that liberals want to take oh-so-seriously. Kinda like the movies they trumpet.

A lecture from Pravda on corruption

What do so many of the Hollywood elite think about us?



Celebrities are Serious Business
by remixamerica


They don't seem to like America much. I guess they'd rather live in a Soviet style system. But the love of Russia for Americans apparently wouldn't be returned. From Pravda in an article entitled "Sanctimonious hypocritical preaching by the imperials", the segment is so laughable I had to embed a large chunk of it.

It has become a rather common yearly and some times even monthly occurrence that the imperial elites of America gallop up on their white horses to read the riot act to the rest of the world, some times even to the EU, on how to be a republic.

This is of course rather humerus [sic] for as far as republics go, the US is definitely a failed one. Disregarding the fact that the US constitution is routinely ignored, the power politics of the past 130 years have done everything in their power to make sure there are enough stumbling blocks and hurdles that only their chosen candidates can muster the needed support to run for any high office.

Between extremely complicated election laws, requiring armies of lawyers, double standards for the major parties to the exclusion of third parties, dirty tricks, intimidation , and a media hell bent on serving the power politic and not the people, the system makes sure that reelection rates to the US Congress stay at or above a 95% rate. Most senators die or retire, the only way to clear them from their seats. But what a job, 4 months of actual work, high perks, the ability to be bribed at will (both branches of the One Party system feed from the hands of pretty much the same special interests), tax payer paid retirement and pensions after one stint, and many many other benefits. This on top of the right to vote in your own 10% yearly raise, while most of their constituents have not seen a raise above 3% in 20 years.

This only gets ever more accentuated in presidential races, where almost always its two versions of the same Marxist theme running. Ronald Reagan was the only exception since Nixon and that was 19 years ago.

But does this corruption stop the hypocrites from lecturing the world? Of course not. It is a pity for them that, at least in Europe and East Asia, the level of literacy is much higher than the US' 65% and the people there see that the Imperial preaching is nothing but hypocritical nonsense. However, at home, this plays into the self righteous ignorance of the masses.

The real irony here is that Pravda is saying American elections suffer from a Marxist theme. But in defence of the article it does make two good points about faults in the legislative process in Congress. While the anti-Americanism is over-the-top, driven by superpower envy and not backed up by facts, there are some facts about the Russia parliament - the Duma, that bear pointing out for consideration.

1. In the Duma in Russia, entire bills must be read aloud twice to a quorum of the Duma, from first word to last word. Consequently bills are short and to the point. Yes it probably slows down the number of bills that get debated on. As a conservative I applaud that as a solution to over regulation.

2. The system of attaching riders to bills to get unpopular, or even worse, stupid legislation passed on the back of a more sensible or popular piece of legislation in not allowed in the Duma.

It seems the formerly communist and now undefinable nation, has learned a thing or two that Congress is not eager to accept or admit is an option that is long overdue in the United States. Is the system corrupt? It's corruptible. Al Franken comes to mind. Is it bad? No, in fact it is a great system but it has been perverted for the purposes of partisanship or incumbency or personal gain. Overall the system needs a bit of a "reset" but it works. What doesn't work and needs to be fixed are those who would abuse it and put their own interests ahead of those of the nation. Unfortunately, given the smattering of scandals since November (Richardson, Blagojevich, Burris, Panetta, Franken), America has clearly elected the wrong cast to fix that problem.

Note to RNC and GOP candidates - the Fix Washington meme that didn't work so well for McCain may develop some pretty sturdy legs as a campaign platform item. Surely if the unbiased folks over at Pravda can see the faults in the American governmental system, some of the uninformed masses here should be alerted to the problem rather urgently.