Tag Archives: entertainment media

Burning Styleite Question: ‘Why Isn’t Sarah Palin Selling More Clothes?’

Justin Fenner at Styleite needs to buy a clue or two about how women who like Sarah Palin think and act, and about Palin herself. In a post late Friday afternoon , he asked, “Why Isn’t Sarah Palin Selling More Clothes?” (bolds are mine): read more

More:
Burning Styleite Question: ‘Why Isn’t Sarah Palin Selling More Clothes?’

Hollywood Hates Capitalism – Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps Edition

From our friends at Reason.tv – Hollywood’s obsession over demonizing capitalism. Anyone notice a trend here?

CNN/US President Jon Klein Fired

Jonathan Klein is out as the president of CNN/US. According to TVNewser, Klein is being replaced by HLN chief Ken Jautz. Although it hasn’t been confirmed, the website FTVLive is reporting Klein was fired. Klein, who got the position in 2004, was given a four-year extension in 2007. With CNN’s ratings in the dumps, and decisions like giving disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer a show with Kathleen Parker, one has to wonder why it took so long. Of course, if this news is true, it will be interesting to see whether any of Klein’s recent moves will be reversed. Stay tuned. *****Update: CNN has now confirmed . The Associated Press is reporting he was fired and didn’t come to work today: The timing, however, is odd. Klein just remade CNN’s prime-time lineup with an 8 p.m. show starring former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, which debuts next week, and announced Piers Morgan as the replacement to Larry King.  Maybe it’s not odd at all. Maybe those pathetic decisions are the reason.

Read the rest here:
CNN/US President Jon Klein Fired

Movie Review: ‘Wall Street’ Sequel Attacks Debt, ‘Cancer’ of the Financial System

“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” That was the defining line of Oliver Stone’s 1987 film “Wall Street,” and his attack on the financial system that the news media would use for decades to portray businessmen as villains. The theme Stone wants viewers to take away from his sequel, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” was tucked away in the credits of his film on a greenback. “In Greed We Trust,” the bill proclaimed where the words “In God We Trust” should have been. “Money Never Sleeps,” which opens in theaters Sept. 24, uses the financial crisis of 2008 as a backdrop for the comeback of Gordon Gekko, the iconic villain of the original. This time Gekko reinvents himself as a changed man, coming back bearish on housing and speculation. In a business school lecture Gekko warns, “The mother of all evils is speculation — leveraged debt.” He claims the economy is merely moving money around in circles and the business model itself is like a “cancer.” The 1987 Gekko is a shark, a killer, the viewer senses it from the outset and can anticipate the time when Gekko’s blade will rip into protégée Bud Fox’s back. This Gekko comes across as a different animal entirely, a snake that can charm you into believing he won’t sell you out to make a buck. But in the end Gekko’s still the shark, he’s just gotten better at hiding his sharp teeth. Stone’s movie weakly attempts to convince the audience that everyone is in the “game” now, and that the corruption (caused by greed and envy) has become “systemic.” From people taking out second mortgages to go shopping, to greedy real estate investors; the new evil is leverage itself. As proof it offers many characters including Josh Brolin’s Bretton James. In the film, James secretly creates a panic by spreading rumors about a competitor in order to tank its stock and acquire it. The fictional investment bank that collapses and is acquired is meant to resemble Bear Stearns that had two of its hedge funds collapse in July 2007. Liberal themes such as green energy is good and materialism is bad abound, but the story is less political than one might expect. There were no mentions of political parties or specific administrations (Bush or Obama). Stone’s movie criticizes the types of financial products that were in use and slams toxic subprime debt, but without delving into the government policies that helped create the devastating housing bubble and the financial crisis. It says nothing about the accounting rules that many economists and financial experts say helped cause the liquidity crisis. Economist and Business & Media Institute advisor Dr. Walter E. Williams explained in a Sept. 17, 2008, column that the “credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy.” What “foolhardy government policy” was Williams referring to? The Community Reinvestment Act, which “intimidated lenders” into offering credit to more people and specifically “discourages them from restricting their credit services to low-risk markets, a practice sometimes called redlining.” A couple of scenes show closed door meetings with bankers, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, where bankers were asking for a bailout because they were “too big to fail.” But according to BB&T’s former CEO John Allison, that’s not the whole story. Allison and others have said “most of the banks didn’t need to be saved,” and that his bank (BB&T) and others were strong-armed by the Treasury into taking bailout (TARP) funds. Allison said in a 2009 speech, “I think the news media unfortunately has been quite willing to jump on the criticism of capitalism and not the [government].” Overall, Stone’s latest film does the same thing: attacking the capitalist system and its players, rather than examining the government’s culpability. But at least viewers know his movie is fiction. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

Go here to read the rest:
Movie Review: ‘Wall Street’ Sequel Attacks Debt, ‘Cancer’ of the Financial System

TV We Like: What I Learned From a Show About Nothing

I was flipping through the tube last night, and found myself in an all-too familiar situation: watching reruns of  Seinfeld .  Sure, you could chalk it up to my lack of a basic cable package, or it could be due to the fact that I’m no longer able to stomach Letterman’s increasingly senile, liberal spewage (and Leno is sort of hit-or-miss these days).  I would argue, however, that one reason stands above the rest: Seinfeld  is honest. The truth is that  Seinfeld  reflects the worst among us. It is made up of a memorable cast, all of whom play the most self-serving people you could ever meet. Self-absorbed, vain and often underhanded, the show is a perfect embodiment of many involved with the entertainment industry.  You’ve got to love its transparency. Unlike James Cameron (who is just as materialistic and self-serving as a George Costanza), you never have to worry about the show sermonizing the politically correct cause du jour. Funnily enough, it is  Seinfeld’s  lack of a soapbox that spurs me to take a good hard look at myself more than any other show on television. How often do you find yourself disgusted at the selfishness of George or Jerry, only to realize that you’ve most likely acted similarly (if not identically) at one point or another? Whether it’s as mundane as bragging about a prime parking space or as shameful as breaking up with a dame due to hygienic differences, we’ve all found ourselves in ” Seinfeld  moments” more often than we care to admit.  How often have you watched the show with your friends only to hear echoes of, “Oh, that’s so something  you would do.” Miraculously enough, I’ve probably made more self-corrections from watching  Seinfeld  than I ever would from listening to today’s self-righteous celebrities. Isn’t that the way life goes?  Whether it’s your parents putting a limit on your candy intake as a child or a pompous celebrity demanding that you adopt his opinion as your own, when someone else tries to force you, your natural instinct is to rebel. Action meets reaction. But when someone lays everything out on the table and allows you to make your own decisions, more often than not, you’ll opt for the right one. You find yourself thinking things like, “Hrm, Mom was right.  Eight pounds of Pixie Stix probably isn’t such a great idea.” Or, “I now see why fires should only be lit in a contained area.” In the same way, when watching  Seinfeld,  one often finds themselves with a well-deserved feeling of guilt in their gut, muttering, “Well, I’ll never do that again.”  A mirror’s reflection is the greatest tool one can use toward self improvement, and  Seinfeld  is one hell of a mirror. That’s why I love this show. Plus, Letterman just sucks these days. Crossposted at Big Hollywood  

Here is the original post:
TV We Like: What I Learned From a Show About Nothing

Will Texas Taxpayers Reward Racist, Anti-American ‘Machete’?

Do the math. Instead of someone with the last name Rodriguez telling the tale of noble, sympathetic Hispanics victimized by white American southern rednecks  – all of whom are portrayed as murderous racists, what if we had a white filmmaker telling the tale of noble and sympathetic Texas border ranchers victimized by marauding, racist, gold-toothed unwashed Mexicans out to steal their land? Oh, and we would close our story with a stand-up-and-cheer race war where Texas ranchers unite to violently mow down evil Mexicans. The same Left whose standards are so low that opposition to ObamaCare, same-sex marriage, and the Ground Zero Mosque can only be driven by a “phobia” or “ist” – the same PC Left  that hides  “silly” old Bugs Bunny cartoons and can’t broadcast a season of “24″ without including a patronizing  Don’t Be Racist to Muslims  PSA – sees the vicious portrayal of white Texans in “Machete”  as nothing more than a silly goof . I guess it’s easy to convince yourself of that when your principles are based on an agenda as opposed to any sense of consistency or intellectual honesty. The bottom line, however, is that whether Rodriguez likes it or not, this is still the United States of America, which means he has the right to make whatever film he wants and 20th Century-Fox has the same right to distribute it. But does that mean Texas taxpayers should  foot part of the bill  for a cinematic slandering of both their state and identity? [emphasis mine] A tax incentives bill passed by the Texas Legislature in 2007 and strengthened in 2009 offers grants of five per cent to 17.5 per cent, based on the type of project and the amount of money spent in the state, the Austin Statesman reported. But the law requires that productions meet certain standards.  It also rules out incentives for movies that cast Texas in a negative light . …. The film was released this weekend, meaning Rodriguez now has about two months to submit it to the Texas Film Commission. The Commission’s head Bob Hudgins, has to decide whether to approve funds for the film, which was filmed in and around the Texan city of Austin. He recently told Texan media that he was nervous about turning down the state’s most prolific film director. However, he added:  ‘I have to make my determination on the final version of the film. I have to be Switzerland about it.’ If Commissioner Hudgins is going to be “Switzerland about it”  then Commissioner Hudgins should always be “Switzerland about it.” Meaning, the awarding of “Machete” with taxpayer dollars is also the setting of a precedent that might come back to haunt both him and the state somewhere down the line: Alamo Dawn:   Set in 2030, this affectionate nod to low-budget, paranoid, political actioner-thrillers like  Red  Dawn,  finds Texas overrun and under the thumb of lazy, shiftless Mexicans who may not need no steenkin’ badges but do need their tequila and white women. Tired of being racially oppressed, a group of good ole’ boys militia up to yee-haw and gun down all those who brought the failed and corrupt policies of Mexico to America. “This time they f*cked with the wrong Southerner.” If Commissioner Hudgins is going to force Texas taxpayers to foot the bill for “Machete” he had better ask himself what he would do if a bunch of rich, white “rednecks” got $30 million together to produce, market and self-distribute a ” Bizarro -Machete.” Could happen, right? After all, we are a bunch of racists. Crossposted at Big Hollywood

Go here to read the rest:
Will Texas Taxpayers Reward Racist, Anti-American ‘Machete’?

Bozell Column: See How Low We Must Go

The pop-music world is turning into a caricature of shamelessness, childishness and even spoiled-brattiness. To get attention quickly, some pop stars will try absolutely anything. The soul singer Cee-Lo Green has a new album coming out. How’s this for art: His first desperate single is titled “F—- You.” The shock value is already working. A video was posted Aug. 19, and within four days, it had grabbed 1.4 million views on YouTube — another sign that YouTube is not a safe website for children. On Aug. 23, YouTube began requiring visitors to sign in to view the video, saying it “may contain content that is inappropriate for some users.” That’s quite an understatement. But it’s also meaningless: it’s unrestricted on Cee-Lo’s personal website. Clicking on his MySpace page brings the song up automatically. The entire song is obscene. It’s stuffed with 16 uses of the F-bomb in under four minutes, erupting on average once every 14 seconds. It also has 10 uses of the S-word, and even two uses of “nigga.” (Don’t tell Dr. Laura Schlessinger.) Green’s producer, Bruno Mars, told MTV the whole production was “a dream session come true … Everyone was just putting their minds together and (we came) up with one of our favorite tracks we’ve ever done. Cee-Lo came in and we started singing it for him. And he’s just, ‘I love that, man. That’s beautiful.'” This scenario of allegedly unfolding genius dodges the little reality that the supposed high concept is just a musical middle finger. The singer is cursing out his ex-girlfriend, who apparently left him for a richer man. The fact that the song is catchy and bright only heightens the offense. It’s a Motown melody inserted into a manure pile. But, as usual, the Wanna Be Hip critics love it, even with that manure attached. The Wall Street Journal cooed it “may be the best rock and pop single of the year.” Just a few years ago, we could be certain that a song this stuffed with profanity would never be aired on the radio. In fact, it never would be produced. But the federal judiciary has now made it acceptable to air the worst obscenities at all hours of the day, claiming any attempt to restrict obscene content is a violation of “free speech.” The ban on seven dirty words was shredded and the libertines get where they wanted. What new low will an “artist” stoop to for commercial gain when the ground has suddenly opened, presenting an endless chasm below? Team Cee-Lo claims they’re going to prepare a radio edit called “Forget You” to avoid alienating too many station managers. How thoughtful. But that only raises the obvious question: Why not call it “Forget You” from the very beginning? The answer is the calculation that millions of teenagers will buy the original dirty version as the official version and put it on their iPods. Any radio edit is just a lame Band-Aid for a pus-filled boil. The pressure will only build for more and dirtier musical obscenity, just as almost every aspiring stand-up comedian finds it necessary to pepper his and her act with lots of curse words. Comedians can’t just be funny, as singers can’t just sing. This is not the first time pop stars have played games with the F-bomb. A few years ago, Britney Spears offered a single very thinly disguised as “If U Seek Amy.” Spears boasted, “All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to if you seek Amy,” which only made sense if it was obscene. The British chanteuse Lily Allen offered her own “F—- You” song last year, but it wasn’t a big hit here, with its 25 gratuitous F-bombs. It was only a gold record in France, Australia and Belgium. Right there on YouTube, you can see a video of Allen singing her brightly toned song with its ugly, profane chorus — “F—- you, f—- you very, very much” — live on French television. The audience claps and claps. Once again, the future beams out at us.

See the rest here:
Bozell Column: See How Low We Must Go

E! Writer: ‘True Blood’ Rape and Murder ‘Highly Ironic,’ ‘Great Fun’

E! Online ” The Awful Truth ” columnist Ted Casablanca on Aug. 21 called the graphic depictions of sex and violence on HBO’s vampire drama “True Blood” “highly ironic” and promoted the show as “great fun.” Casablanca defended the show on Fox News Channel’s “Geraldo at Large” in a discussion with host Geraldo Rivera and Culture and Media Institute Assistant Editor Nathan Burchfiel. The debate was sparked by the controversy surrounding a recent Rolling Stone magazine cover that depicted “True Blood” stars naked and covered in (fake) blood. Burchfiel pointed out that while the shows originate on premium cable channels like HBO and Showtime, many “worst-of” clips are available online within hours of broadcast, and many popular shows like “The Sopranos” and “Sex and the City” have found their way onto basic cable via syndication, a likely future for “True Blood.” “It’s highly ironic, Geraldo,” Casablanca said of the show, adding, “It’s a highly intelligent, very clever indictment of the very conversation that we’re having right now and it’s an allegory to our times.” Burchfiel questioned that characterization. “Highly clever and ironic? They’re depicting murder and rape as if it’s something worth being glorified. I mean there was an episode just this season where one of the main characters literally turned a woman’s head around 180 degrees while he’s violently raping her. ‘Oh, it’s ironic. Haha.’ It’s digusting.” “Where do we stop writing things off as simply ironic instead of sewer diving?” Burchfiel later added. Casablanca suggested opposition to the show’s graphic nature was a result of homophobia. “I guarantee you that if none of those vampires were gay vampires, we wouldn’t be having this conversation,” Casablanca said. “What’s upsetting so many people is that a lot of the vampires are gay.” Rivera didn’t buy that argument, and neither did Burchfiel, who asked, “Who was talking about them being gay? It has nothing to do with that.” Casablanca was correct in asserting that many of the show’s vampires are gay. The depiction of gay sexual violence has been similar to the depiction of heterosexual violence. In a recent episode, a main character murdered an enemy during while engaging in gay sex. “Certainly that heterosexual sloppy scene we just saw was not gay,” Rivera said referring to clips shown during the discussion.” At the end of the segment, Casablanca recommended “True Blood” to viewers saying, “It’s great fun.”   

Read more from the original source:
E! Writer: ‘True Blood’ Rape and Murder ‘Highly Ironic,’ ‘Great Fun’

Even the Poor Are Abandoning Obama, According to Gallup Poll Data

In every week of his presidency until now, Barack Obama has enjoyed a majority approval rating in the Gallup Poll from people earning less than $2,000 per month. But that changed in the Gallup survey conducted from Aug. 2-8, when only 49 percent of Americans in that income bracket said they approve of the job Obama is doing. This marks the first time since Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, when Americans in all four of the income brackets reported in Gallup’s weekly survey of presidential approval gave Obama less than 50 percent approval. For the week of Aug. 2-Aug. 8, only 42 percent of Americans earning $7,500 per month or more said they approve of the job Obama is doing. Forty-four percent of those earning between $5,000 and $7,499 said they approve of the job he is doing. And forty-six percent of those earning between $2,000 and $4,999 said they approve of the job he is doing. The higher the income bracket an American occupies, the sooner he or she was likely to stop approving of the job Obama was doing and the more likely he or she was to stop approving of the job Obama was doing. The last time Obama had majority approval from people earning $7,500 or more per month was the week of April 19-25. The last time Obama had majority approval from people earning $5,000 to $7,499 was the week of May 3-9. The last time Obama had majority approval from people earning $2,000 to $4,999 was the week May 10-16. And the last time Obama had majority approval from people earning less than $2,000 was the week of July 26-Aug. 1. Obama’s approval peaked at 76 percent among Americans earning less than $2,000 per month in the weeks of April 20-26, 2009 and May 4-10, 2009. In May 2009, when Obama’s approval rating was at its peak among those earning less than $2,000 per month, the national unemployment rate was at 9.4 percent. It is now at 9.5 percent. In a poll released today, Gallup asked Americans that they thought was the most important problem facing the country. The top two problems cited were the economy in general and unemployment and jobs. Thirty percent said the economy in general was the most important problem, while 28 percent said it was unemployment and jobs. The third ranking problem in the poll was dissatisfaction with government, Congress and politicians, which was rated as the most important problem by 12 percent of respondents. Crossposted at NB sister site CNS News  

Follow this link:
Even the Poor Are Abandoning Obama, According to Gallup Poll Data

Bring On ‘The Expendables’: Violent Cartoons Were Good for America

With the release of The Expendables, it seems that every self-respecting male has caught 80’s fever. As a way to clear the palette from modern metro-sexual romps, my friends have resorted to re-visiting old B-movie beauties such as Cobra, Road House and Tango and Cash. Sure they’re awful, but unlike the Kaiser-helmet wearing hipsters of the lower east side, those movies never tried to be anything that they weren’t. When looking back at the 80s however, the one thing that strikes me the most are the cartoons. I’ll admit it, I’m a cartoon junkie. To this day I can still be found in my pajamas with a bowl of Cap’n Crunch, catching up on animated glory. Back in the 80s though, cartoons were still violent… and I liked it that way. Of course, I’m discussing the cartoons aimed squarely at young boys. You see, back then, before gender roles became considered hateful and being androgynous had been transformed into a virtue, boys actually watched different cartoons from girls, and they were proud of it. One could simply take a gander at the commercials to see 80’s “boyishness” on display for all to see. Accurate-to-scale replica squirt guns, guns that shot disappearing ink and of course Nerf Swords! None of us really needed a “Madball,” but we all wanted one. The important common bond between all of these cartoons, was the clear battle of good vs. evil. Sometimes it was over the top, it might have been a little cheesy and sure the writing wasn’t always quite Emmy-material, but at the end of the day, you knew that you were going to see the good guy win over the bad guy. Decisively. Cartoons were black and white. All of the shades of grey that are supposedly necessary for substantial character development in Hollywood today weren’t needed. All that was needed, was a clear sense of right and wrong with the hero getting the “W.” People would complain that this type of entertainment made little boys violent. Good. Honestly, I would love to see more little boys wanting to commit acts of violence against bad guys. Do you know what happens when you breed the violence out of a young boy along with any sense of moral absolutes? You end up with terrorist sympathizers, Tookie Williams supporters and people who weep at the execution of a convicted serial murderer/rapist. I think this world would be better off if cartoons inspired more good little boys to punch their schoolyard bully square in the mouth. The truth is that sometimes boys need more “Superman” and less “Pokemon.” They need more “Ninja Turtles” and less “Yu-Gi-Oh!” And sometimes grown men need more “Expendables” and less Sean Penn. Crossposted at Big Hollywood

View original post here:
Bring On ‘The Expendables’: Violent Cartoons Were Good for America