Tag Archives: culture/society

NY Times Frank Rich: Fox News Trying to Portray Obama as a ‘Closet Terrorist’

Posted on August 26, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Never mind the personal feelings of people, which they’re entitled to have, over the notion of a mosque being built in close proximity to Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan. Those sensitivities have nothing to do with what’s really going on. It’s really all about President Barack Obama and his political opponents according to New York Times columnist Frank Rich.  On MSNBC’s Aug. 26 broadcast of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” host Rachel Maddow admitted she was befuddle that anti-Islam sentiment has seemingly peaked in the past few weeks and wondered why it has suddenly been brought to boil, with the mosque in question at the forefront. “For all the bad decisions made post-9/11, we really didn’t see a national, like, open partisan two-minutes hate toward Muslims the way we are seeing now about this mosque debate,” Maddow said. “Why is it happening now?” This could be one of the rare moments Rich actually had something positive to say about former President George W. Bush. According to Rich, you didn’t see a hostile response toward Islam in America because Bush managed to tread lightly around the issue. “I think it’s happening now because of Obama,” Rich said. “I mean, go back to right after 9/11. Bush for whatever reason did the right thing. Very quickly he went to an Islamic center in Washington. He said Islam is a religion of peace, we’re not out to get Islam.” So if this is an occasion where the American left isn’t pointing fingers at Bush – where should they be pointed? Another go-to target loathed by liberals – the Fox News Channel. According to Rich, this was a conspiracy which FNC was in cahoots with the “right-wing” to make Obama out not only to be a Muslim, but also a “closet terrorist.” “Why is it starting up now?” Rich continued. “Well, I think it fits into, if I may say so, the Fox/right-wing strategy of trying to portray Obama as a closest terrorist basically, and a practitioner of Islam . So it has a synergy in a campaign year and this whole thing has been ginned up and it’s depressing. It’s undermining the war. It’s – it’s doing nothing but spreading bad feeling.” The debate over Obama’s religion and what certain segments of society think about the President’s faith has been a fascination of the mainstream media in recent weeks. Several polls have cast a large amount of attention to the subject, which has begged the question – if it’s silly to debate Obama’s faith, why have the media dedicated so much attention to the topic ?

View original post here:
NY Times Frank Rich: Fox News Trying to Portray Obama as a ‘Closet Terrorist’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wisconsin Newspaper Does Puff Piece on Ayers-Like Domestic Terrorist

Posted on August 23, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

How does the Wisconsin State Journal remember the 40 year anniversary of a radical Ayers-like bombing on the UW-Madison campus?  By posting a little puff piece on one of the killers, of course. On August 24, 1970, Karleton Armstrong and three other men perpetrated the worst act of domestic terrorism prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, detonating a bomb-laden vehicle outside of Sterling Hall , causing extensive damage to 26 buildings, costing $2.1 million in property damage, injuring three, and killing graduate student Robert Fassnacht, a 33-year-old husband and father of three children. The contrast between an editorial published in the Journal 40 years ago, and the profile of the bombers published this past week, may serve as a case study in how the liberal media has transformed their coverage of domestic terrorists. Shortly after the attack, a Journal editorial ran hammering down their take on the matter.  According to the book, 50 Wisconsin Crimes of the Century , the Wisconsin State Journal called for officials to stop taking a neutral stance on student unrest: “They’ve been playing with murder for years.  Now they’ve achieved it…  The blood is on the hands of anyone who has encouraged them, anyone who has talked recklessly of ‘revolution’, anyone who has chided with mild disparagement the violence of extremists while hinting that the cause is right all the same.” Last week however, that same Wisconsin State Journal did a retrospective piece ( h/t Michelle Malkin ), profiling each of the bombers and how they were linked to such a tragic moment in history.  The profile on Karleton Armstrong strikes a surprisingly pacifist tone: “From his juice stand on Library Mall, Karleton Armstrong will hand you a strawberry smoothie and you might never know he was responsible for bombing Sterling Hall 40 years ago.  For the past 30 years, he has lived in Madison as a respectable businessman, the proprietor of Loose Juice, and before that, the popular sandwich shop Radical Rye.” The piece also includes a glowing statement from a friend of Armstrong: “Think of someone coming out of Waupun (prison) for such a major crime and deciding to live right in the cauldron where his family is, and remaking his life in such an admirable way.” If you can, please withhold your admiration for a man who also tried to detonate explosives by dropping them from a plane over an Army ammunition plant in 1969, a man who tried to plant explosives at an electric substation at that same plant, and a man who committed acts of arson on an ROTC facility and a Secret Service facility, and save it for the family man who did nothing more than go to work that fateful night in 1970, when others made a decision that took his life. Forgive and forget though, right Wisconsin State Journal?  The problem is that Armstrong hasn’t exactly expressed remorse for his actions.  Despite the new article claiming that he refuses interviews out of respect for the wife of the man that was murdered, this AP video shows that Armstrong is indeed talking, and that he still considers the bombing to have been ‘the right thing to do.’  In fact, he proudly declares how people come up to him at his juice stand saying, ‘Karl, so glad to meet you, and you really did the right thing.’ The editorial that ran four decades ago warns the University that, “If a great University is to redeem itself – if it is to survive as a proud and free institution – It no longer can take refuge in detached neutrality.” The Wisconsin State Journal would be wise to heed their own advice. Cross-posted at The Mental Recession .

Read the rest here:
Wisconsin Newspaper Does Puff Piece on Ayers-Like Domestic Terrorist

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

‘So-called Gay Mafia’ Adding Bias to the New York Times

Posted on August 21, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The Times Business section Wednesday carried a press release of a story headlined “A Resort for Gays Rises in Manhattan: Similar Nightlife Complexes Are Springing Up in Several Cities.” Reporter Beth Greenfield talked to no one in this story except the gay entrepreneurs behind the forthcoming “Out NYC Urban Resort.” The text box was “Looking for ‘a concentrated feeling of community.'” There’s nothing in the story, for example, about the developers’ active support for Washington-based gay-left advocacy groups , as well as donations to liberal city pols and congressmen and the William J. Clinton Foundation.  Sympathy for the gay “community” is apparently growing by leaps and bounds, according to Reacttoyournews.org , the official blog of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. Michael Triplett wrote: We’ve talked about changes at the NYT before on this blog , but it’s important to remember that the last 20 years have seen a pretty amazing change at how the paper covers LGBT issues and treats its LGBT journalists.  There is still room for growth, especially in regards to promotion of lesbians and its treatment of transgender employees and issues, but the paper has come a remarkable distance in the time that NLGJA has been advocating for LGBT journalists and fair and accurate coverage of LGBT issues. After revisiting history, including some questionable comparisons of the AIDS epidemic with the Holocaust, Triplett concluded: Because of the work of NLGJA and pioneering LGBT journalists, things have changed dramatically at the paper. We are indebted to the journalists and activists who pushed for change at the paper. In a piece for Mediaite , Triplett was more explicit: Twenty years after [reporter Jeffrey] Schmalz feared telling anyone he was gay because it would harm his career, a gay man– Richard Berke –is now the national editor and a so-called gay mafia – which includes Ben Brantley, Frank Bruni, Stuart Elliot, Adam Nagourney, and Eric Wilson – hold key positions at the paper. Alas, the paper has no openly gay or lesbian voices on it editorial pages. Now, of course, gays are everywhere in the paper’s coverage and in the newsroom. Triplett also mentioned the top Times officials attending an event sympathizing with overturning the California Prop 8 vote to defend traditional marriage, which caused former Timesman Charles Kaiser to gush that the Times was now “one of the most gay-friendly institutions in the world.” Mysteriously, after all this touting of the staunchly pro-gay sympathies, Triplett thinks the question of liberal bias remains a puzzle that conservatives can’t seriously expose: Concluding “[w]hat a difference a new generation can make,” [former Timesman Charles] Kaiser said “Andy Rosenthal’s editorial page has published more brilliant editorials in defense of equal rights for gay people than any other editorial page in the world.” So does the NYT have a bias now in how it covers same-sex marriage and gays generally?  That’s probably something for the next public editor to explore. There’s no doubt that few papers cover the LGBT community  as extensively as the New York Times , but it is far from perfect. Some critics argue that gay people are much more likely to show up on the culture and arts pages than the news pages, and locals complain that the paper does a poor job of handling news that involves the local LGBT community. In addition,  lesbians still remain largely invisible in coverage (and in the newsroom). And, of course, conservative critics of the paper will always contend there is a strong pro-gay bias, not [sic] matter the facts on the ground.

See the article here:
‘So-called Gay Mafia’ Adding Bias to the New York Times

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bozell Column: Sleazy Songs of Summer

Posted on August 21, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Ever wonder what those teenagers are listening to while wearing those iPod earphones? Maybe you’d rather not know. You will be horrified. The Culture and Media Institute recently reviewed the top pop songs from May through July. To say that hedonism is in the air is an understatement. Of the 22 songs on the charts, a whopping 64 percent made at least one reference to sex, drugs or alcohol, or contained profanity. All 22 songs had music videos, and 68 percent of them featured sexualized dancing, alcohol, violence, or partying scenes. The “anthem” of the summer seems to be the song “California Gurls” by Katy Perry, the ex-Christian singer who kick-started her career with the hit “I Kissed a Girl (And I Liked It)” in 2008. She’s so “mainstream” this year that she hosted the Teen Choice Awards on Fox. Her “Gurls” song is catchy and raunchy, starting with the boast that she and her girlfriends are so hot “we’ll melt your Popsicle.” That phrase is hot slang. Please imagine 7-year-old girls learning and reciting the lyrics to these songs — because they do. Perry sings about “Sex on the beach / We don’t mind sand in our stilettos / We freak in my Jeep” to Snoop Dogg, who also raps on the song. Snoop calls out the men to “kiss her, touch her, squeeze her buns.” The boys hang out to “all that ass hangin’ out,” watching the girls in “bikinis, tankinis, martinis, no weenies.” Shakespeare he is not. Romantic sonnets are not in season. Getting sex quickly seems to be the only aim. The hottest new star is named Ke$ha, and her song with pop band 3OH!3 (No, I don’t understand it either) is called “My First Kiss.” It sounds innocent, but innocence isn’t allowed. The lyrics include a request for sex: “Lips like licorice, tongue like candy / Excuse me, Miss, but can I get you out of your panties?” Another song, “In My Head,” is sung by Jason Derulo and features the lyrics “Instead of talking, let me demonstrate / Yeah / Get down to business, let’s skip foreplay.” Would you like more song sheets for the kiddies? Rihanna is another princess of pop. Her song challenges a boy to make a move: “Come here, rude boy, boy / Can you get it up? / Come here, rude boy, boy / Is you big enough?” She also promises to “give it to you harder” and “turn your body out.” The video matches the theme, with Rihanna holding one breast, putting her finger in her mouth and constantly rotating her hips as she asks her beau to “take it, take it, take it.” Is this woman a singer or a stripper? Just one version of this song’s video has 90 million plays on YouTube — just in case you’d think no one really pays attention to these things. Rihanna also sings in “Rude Boy” that she likes the way “you pull my hair.” The most controversial song of the summer is her duet with the rapper Eminem called “Love the Way You Lie.” In between Eminem’s rapping, Rihanna repeatedly sings, “Just gonna stand there and watch me burn / But that’s all right because I like the way it hurts / Just gonna stand there and hear me cry / But that’s all right because I love the way you lie.” There is no shame in this industry. Consider that Rihanna was physically abused by fellow pop star Chris Brown. So she milked the attack to pump up her star power. But what message do young people take from this? The Chicago Sun-Times reported the video (starring actors Dominic Monaghan and Megan Fox) shows “an ugly cycle of domestic abuse — graphically loving, fighting, drinking, shoplifting and ultimately burning down the house.” Burning down the house? That’s because Eminem raps, “I just want her back / I know I’m a liar / If she ever tries to f—ing leave again / I’ma tie her to the bed and set the house on fire.” Like most rappers making no attempt at anger management, Eminem loads his songs with profanity and dares the radio programmers to try and bleep them all out. On his first new single “Not Afraid,” Eminem used six F-bombs and three S-words in four minutes. That includes an “F-you for Christmas,” an “F the world” and an “F the universe.” That doesn’t include the bonus usages of countless other vulgarities. It’s clear that the major “music” companies, desperate to ring up sales as their market collapses due to technological change, are refusing to exercise any restraint of any kind on these “artists” they sell. It travels way beyond hipster rebellion into a dark, loveless, violent underworld.

Read more:
Bozell Column: Sleazy Songs of Summer

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Muslim Scholar on MSNBC: ‘Vocal Minority’ Spreading Fear, ‘Demonize’ Islam

Posted on August 20, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

During the 10 a.m. ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Chris Jansing spoke with Islamic scholar Hamza Yusuf Hanson about the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, who proclaimed: “I think there’s a lot of fear….there has been a concerted effort by a certain segment. It’s a very small minority, but their powerful and vocal, to demonize the Muslim community.”              Yusuf was on to discuss his founding of Zaytuna College in California, the nation’s first Islamic higher education school. However, Jansing introduced the segment by placing the college in this context: “…the [mosque] controversy prompted Time magazine to ask, Is America – if America is Islamophobic. A Time poll found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers. And a small college in Berkeley, California, may become the new battleground in America’s uneasy relationship with Islam.” After briefly discussing the college, Jansing turned to the mosque: “Do you understand the unease among many Americans, and we are seeing a lot of it come out with this mosque controversy?” After denouncing opponents of the project, Hanson defended the imam involved: “Feisal Abdul Rauf, who’s the imam there, is an extremely gentle person and to frame him as an extremist means that the whole community is mad…these are people that have spent their life in interfaith dialogue…” Rauf claimed the United States was an “accessory” to the September 11th attacks during a September 2001 60 Minutes interview on CBS. Jansing again cited the Time magazine poll and asked: “I wonder what your reaction is to that poll and what can be done to turn it around?” Hanson argued Islam was one the world’s most peaceful religions: “I would look at, there’s a paper on Google called ‘Body Count,’ which shows that Islam, actually, out of the seven major religions, the only religion less violent, historically, is Hinduism. And I think people tend to forget Muslims historically have lived very well with people.” The study Hanson cited, put out by the Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, claimed that only 5.52% of war deaths in the past 2,000 years were caused by Islamic belligerents. In conflicts such as the current war in Iraq, the United States was described as the “Christian Belligerent Civilization” and the death toll listed was between 614,000 and 1,100,100, as if American forces were solely responsible for the casualties. The report concluded that Christians were the cause of 30.73% of war deaths in the past two millennia, the single largest percentage out of the seven faiths included.   Later in the 10AM ET hour, Jansing discussed the mosque controversy with construction worker Andy Sullivan, who was organizing a boycott of aiding in the construction of the proposed building. Jansing made sure to bring up the Time magazine argument: “And to people who say that we’re sort of playing into the hands of these folks because we’re displaying religious intolerance. What do you say to them?” Sullivan replied: “If it was a religious matter, September 12th, we would have went in there and stormed the place, okay? Did we? No. We didn’t….We do not want this gigantic mega victory mosque – because that’s what it’s going to be looked at from around the world, especially our enemies – built right in that location, especially when we haven’t even built the Trade Center yet.” Here is a full transcript of Jansing’s August 20 interview with Hanson: 10:13 a.m. ET CHRIS JANSING: Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean is against the plan to build an Islamic Center and mosque near Ground Zero. Dr. Dean laid out his case last night with Keith Olbermann. HOWARD DEAN: This is a very polarized topic and I think the right place for this is to really listen to what people are saying. If people have strong feelings about this – I’m not talking about bigoted, prejudice feelings – I’m talking about strong emotional objections to this, then I think we ought to hear what they are and we ought to listen to them carefully. JANSING: Meanwhile, the controversy prompted Time magazine to ask, Is America – if America is Islamophobic. A time poll found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers. And a small college in Berkeley, California, may become the new battleground in America’s uneasy relationship with Islam. Zaytuna College in Berkeley is the first accredited Muslim college in the U.S.. The first classes were held this summer. I’m joined by Zatuna College founder Hamza Yusuf Hanson. Thanks very much for joining us, good morning. HAMZA YUSUF HANSON [FOUNDER, ZAYTUNA COLLEGE]: Thank you, good morning. JANSING: Yeah, classes began this summer, I think people are just starting to hear about this. Tell us a little bit about the mission of the college, why did you find it – found it? HANSON: Well, first of all, just to clarify, it’s not actually accredited. It’s – we’re in the process of accreditation and that takes a considerable amount of time. But, I mean, basically the idea behind it is the Muslim religious community is quite extensive now in the United States and every religious community in America eventually develops institutions in order to train people and teach people and colleges, Harvard began as a seminary, Yale began as a seminary, so we tend to forget that actually many of our greatest colleges began as religious institutions. JANSING: So, let me ask you why you think that there was a need for a Muslim university. As I understand it now, if you want to be an imam and you want to have a mosque in the United States, you have to leave the country to study, right? HANSON: Well, that’s the problem. I mean, we have foreign imams that often come to the country and many of then are very fine, decent people but they don’t understand the nuances of the American society. They haven’t studied the traditions of our own country. And it’s important, I think, to have those two elements. You have to have people that are Muslim, but – here teaching. But also people that understand the culture that they’re living in, understand the community itself, the young people, the immigrant children that are born here, they’re Americans, they’re not from Cairo, they’re not from Rawal Pindi in Pakistan, so, it’s really important. JANSING: And in fact, you, yourself, grew up Christian, as I understand it. Both in Walla Walla, Washington and Northern California. Do you understand the unease among many Americans, and we are seeing a lot of it come out with this mosque controversy? HANSON: I – know you, I think there’s a lot of fear and some of it’s justifiable in that over the last ten years there has been a concerted effort by a certain segment. It’s a very small minority, but their powerful and vocal, to demonize the Muslim community. Abdul Rauf, who – Feisal Abdul Rauf, who’s the imam there, is an extremely gentle person and to frame him as an extremist means that the whole community is mad because, you know, if you take somebody like that or Daisy Kahn, I mean these are people that have spent their life in interfaith dialogue and really trying to attack the very ideology that I think people are afraid of. JANSING: You know, you heard that poll, 46% Of Americans see Muslims as more likely than other religions to be violent against nonbelievers. I wonder what your reaction is to that poll and what can be done to turn it around? HANSON: Right. I would look at, there’s a paper on Google called ‘Body Count,’ which shows that Islam, actually, out of the seven major religions, the only religion less violent, historically, is Hinduism. And I think people tend to forget Muslims historically have lived very well with people. You know, I think Muslims are not redefining America here. And there’s a lot of fear that they are. I think that we’re reasserting the original definition of this country, which is about religious freedom. So it’s really important. My own great, great-grandfather, Michael O’Hanson, his greeting to America coming from Ireland was the nativist, anti-Irish, Catholic, anti-Catholic Irish riots in 1844 in Philadelphia. But those riots actually led to the consolidation of the city of Philadelphia and the Irish Catholics now are fully enfranchised. One out of every four Americans has Catholic roots in this country now, even though they were 1% of the population at the founding of the country. So, I think Muslims now are new kids on the block and every community that comes to this country, you know, they have to really find their place at the table and I think that’s what Muslims are negotiating now. America is a process of negotiations. And I think- JANSING: And you, as you say, are part of that renegotiation process with this new university. We have to leave it at that. But Hamza Usef Hanson, thank you so much for being with us today. HANSON: Okay, well, thank you very much.

More:
Muslim Scholar on MSNBC: ‘Vocal Minority’ Spreading Fear, ‘Demonize’ Islam

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Roland Martin to Dems: ‘Protect the Constitution’ By Supporting Mosque

Posted on August 18, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Tuesday’s Anderson Cooper 360, CNN contributor Roland Martin strongly pushed for the Democrats to ” stand up and protect the Constitution ” by defending the planned New York City mosque near Ground Zero: ” Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution .’… Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution .” Substitute anchor John Roberts brought on Martin, along with Republican strategist Ed Rollins and CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, to discuss the continuing controversy surrounding the mosque project. The anchor first turned to the black talk radio host and asked, “Roland, is this the sort of thing that Democrats want to be talking about right now, at a point where many people form their opinions of who they’re going to vote for in November?” Martin didn’t begin with his “constitutional” argument, but instead emphasized that Democratic candidates needed to focus on local issues: “Frankly, if I’m a Democrat and somebody comes to me with that question…I say, ‘Hey, go talk to…the folks representing New York. I’m here talking about my district.'” Both Gergen and Rollins disagreed with their fellow guest. When the strategist stated that “there’s going to be some seats lost over this issue,” Martin doubled down on his initial point: “You’ve got school districts laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. And you’re actually going to say, ‘I’m going to vote for somebody based upon this issue’- to me, that’s nuts. You vote on what’s happening where you are.” The CNN contributor then went right in his proposed strategy about making it a constitutional issue and echoed the argument of The Washington Post’s David Ignatius : that the President shouldn’t have backed away a bit from his initial statement on the issue on Friday: “Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.’ The President was strong on that on Friday. I think he blew it on Saturday by walking it back. Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution, because every member of Congress, they are supposed to stand up and protect the Constitution.” Martin continued on this point throughout the remainder of the segment. Refreshingly, Gergen pushed back and disagreed: ” I increasingly believe it may come back to haunt him [President Obama] over time….there was a sense that this is another example of people thinking, ‘He doesn’t understand me. He’s not like me. He sees the world through different glasses than I do.'” Later, after Martin rephrased his point and stated that “it is amazing how he’s criticized for saying it is a constitutional right- to freedom of religion,” the senior political analyst retorted by basically endorsing the main argument of the mosque opponents: ” It is not simply a constitutional issue. It has to do with the sensitivities and sensibilities of a lot of families who lost loved ones there for whom this is hallowed ground . And a lot of Americans are saying, basically- look, if they’ve got real problems with it, I would rather they’d move it somewhere else.” Earlier in the segment, as he introduced the controversy, Roberts didn’t use the word “mosque” to describe it, labeling it instead as a ” planned Islamic community center and prayer space down on Park Place in lower Manhattan , two blocks northeast of the Ground Zero site, another two blocks south of a mosque that’s been in that area since 1970, before there even was a Twin Towers.” The full transcript of the panel discussion, which began 37 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s Anderson Cooper 360: ROBERTS: We’re talking tonight about the planned Islamic community center and prayer space down on Park Place in lower Manhattan, two blocks northeast of the Ground Zero site, another two blocks south of a mosque that’s been in that area since 1970, before there even was a Twin Towers. Sixty-eight percent of Americans surveyed by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation oppose it. In other polling, so does a smaller majority of New Yorkers. A narrow majority of Manhattanites say they support it. Believe it or not, when the local community board voted on it, the result was 29-1 in favor, with 10 people abstaining. It seems the farther you get from the location, the closer you get to election day, the hotter the opposition becomes. Well, that’s ‘Raw Politics’ for you, and here to talk about all of that: political analyst Roland Martin, political contributor/GOP strategist Ed Rollins, and our senior political analyst David Gergen. Good evening to you all, gentlemen. Roland, is this the sort of thing that Democrats want to be talking about right now, at a point where many people form their opinions of who they’re going to vote for in November? ROLAND MARTIN: Of course not, and you’re running for office- you don’t want to be talking about what’s happening in New York City in lower Manhattan. You want to talk about what’s happening on the ground, economic-wise, in Indiana, in Georgia, in Mississippi, Alabama, Idaho, California, or wherever you are. And so, frankly, if I’m a Democrat and somebody comes to me with that question, and I’m running for the U.S. Senate, I say, ‘Hey, go talk to Chuck Schumer, or go talk to- you know, the folks representing New York. I’m here talking about my district.’ ROBERTS: Well, if only Harry Reid had said that, instead of what he said. So Harry Reid is another Democrat, David Gergen, who’s distancing himself from the President. Do you believe, as time goes on, now that the White House has weighed in on what was a local issue, you’ll see more Democrats looking to put some space between them and the President? DAVID GERGEN: I think so, yes. There are a lot of Democrats that, of course, would like not to talk about this. Roland is right about that. But when it becomes a big national controversy, and you’re running for a Washington office- you know, it seems to me it’s totally legitimate for the press or their opponents to ask them, what do you think about this issue? I think that- you know, it’s like one of the issues you’re going to have to deal with when you’re in national life. ROBERTS [to Ed Rollins]: And you were one of the notable quotables from the Sunday shows when you said, ‘This is the dumbest thing that any president has said or candidate has said since Michael Dukakis said it was okay to burn the flag.’ ED ROLLINS: It’s a similar issue. It’s an emotional issue. You can give an intellectual answer- ROBERTS: Is it a defining moment for this president? ROLLINS: It may be. It may very well be. There’s going to be some seats lost over this issue, I think. It’s going to energize our base- ROBERTS: Really? ROLLINS: Yeah, I think there will. I think there’s- I think you’re down to where these seats are a couple hundred votes. I think people are distracted by they can’t talk about the things they want to be talking about, as Roland said, and I think this is an issue that’s not going to go away. It’s going to get bigger as time goes on, and- you know, it shouldn’t be, but I think it will. ROBERTS: Do you agree, Roland? It’s going to cost the Democrats some seats? MARTIN: No. No. I think if you’re sitting here voting- if you were in any other place in America and your district is broke, you’ve got people who are- increasing number of Food Stamps. You’ve got school districts laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. And you’re actually going to say, ‘I’m going to vote for somebody based upon this issue’- to me, that’s nuts. You vote on what’s happening where you are. And I will also say this here. Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.’ The President was strong on that on Friday. I think he blew it on Saturday by walking it back. Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution, because every member of Congress, they are supposed to stand up and protect the Constitution. ROBERTS: David, you’ve been here- I’m not sure if you’re nodding your head or shaking your head or a little bit of both. GERGEN: Listen, I’ve been talking to people about- is this a one-week story or is this going to be a lingering story, especially for President Obama, and I increasingly believe it may come back to haunt him over time. I thought at first it would be short. But there was a quality about this that I think a lot of people concluded- wasn’t just about the merits of the issue, but there was a sense that this is another example of people thinking, ‘He doesn’t understand me. He’s not like me. He sees the world through different glasses than I do.’ ROBERTS: Communication problem? GERGEN: Well, it’s- I thought in Philadelphia. during the campaign, that was a masterful speech because he gave voice to alternative perspectives and was respectful of them. And in this situation, he stated one point of view, but for lots and lots of other people who oppose this, he showed no sympathy for what they’re going through and why the public is- MARTIN: David! David, the one point of view is the Constitution! ROBERTS: Yeah, well- GERGEN: That is not the only issue, Roland. I’m sorry MARTIN: Wow! That’s not the one point of view! GERGEN: That’s not the only issue. ROLLINS: I don’t think anybody is basically arguing about repealing the First Amendment. I think the critical thing here is, it’s a judgment call. It was a bad judgment in the heart of the politics, and where this president carries this party or sinks this party is on his approval ratings. You go back to 1947- ROBERTS: Which are not looking good. ROLLINS: And they’re 52 percent- 42 percent today in the Gallup, back to the Nixon and the Reagan levels now. If he drops another two or three points, which he clearly could- and this is a defining- could be a defining moment- he’s going to hurt his party. And I say people are going to lose seats. The whole thing is about 3 percent or 4 percent out there. And our base is energized already, and this is going to energize some conservatives, some Tea Party people. ROBERTS: But the point has been made, though- but the point has been made, Roland- let’s get you to speak to this- that the GOP could also lose something over this, because they’re trying, obviously, to get as many votes as they can. There’s a large section of the Muslim population that presidential candidates and, obviously, local candidates court in Dearborn, Michigan. How are Muslims in this country going to feel about what the GOP are saying these days? MARTIN: Well, obviously, frankly, people really haven’t cared what they thought since 9/11, whether you’re a moderate Muslim- and folks have just blown them away and dismissed them and said they’re absolutely irrelevant. And so, sure- bottom line is if you’re Republicans, you’re trying to lock up those freshman Democrats who won in conservative districts, and that’s really who you’re really targeting. But it is amazing to me, though, when you have folks on the right who have attacked this president by saying, he’s not one of us and doesn’t understand our values, and when he does actually reinforce the Constitution, then it’s a bad thing. I get the whole political thing, but maybe- but it is amazing how he’s criticized for saying it is a constitutional right- to freedom of religion. That’s pretty interesting. GERGEN: It is not only- it is not simply a constitutional issue. It has to do with the sensitivities and sensibilities of a lot of families who lost loved ones there for whom this is hallowed ground. And a lot of Americans are saying, basically- look, if they’ve got real problems with it, I would rather they’d move it somewhere else. ROBERTS: We’re not going to solve this tonight. It’s going to continue- MARTIN: Right. It’s hallowed ground? There’s a mosque four blocks away. This is two blocks away. Wow! (laughs) ROBERTS: Roland Martin, David Gergen, Ed Rollins, thanks for coming up- appreciate it.

More:
Roland Martin to Dems: ‘Protect the Constitution’ By Supporting Mosque

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

CNN Lets Pro-Abortion PAC Spout Its Anti-Palin Talking Points

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

CNN’s Jessica Yellin, a one-time ” prominent feminist activist ,” helped forward the talking points of the pro-abortion lobby by devoting part of a segment on Tuesday’s Rick’s List to EMILY List’s new anti-Sarah Palin ad. Yellin aired their left-wing accusations against the Republican and her endorsed candidates without providing the other side and/or fact-checking them . Anchor Rick Sanchez introduced the issue by bringing up the Republican’s recent “mamma grizzly” ad: “It seemed like a very effective ad that Sarah Palin had put out . I mean, professionally speaking, it was very clean, very well put together – the whole ‘grizzly mom’ ad that everyone was talking about- and, apparently, there’s some blowback on this now. What is that?” Before playing the PAC’s video, which featured women dressed and made-up to look like bears, in mockery of Palin’s “mama grizzly” term, the CNN correspondent noted that EMILY’s List is a ” political action group that raises money for Democratic women pro-choice candidates , and they are now unveiling a new get-out-the-vote effort that’s hitting back on this idea that Sarah Palin speaks for women voters…EMILY’s List’s campaign is called ‘Sarah Doesn’t Speak For Me,’ and they’re taking the whole idea of ‘momma grizzly’ quite literally.” She then played a clip from the ad. During the clip, the unnamed women launched standard attacks from the left against the former Alaska governor and her endorsed candidates: ” Want to know what threatens me? My daughter not having the right to choose. The fact that if you were in charge of this country, my little cubs wouldn’t have health care….Unemployment benefits…something that you and your gang of candidates want to do away with .” Sanchez and Yellin shared a laugh over the ad, and the correspondent continued that EMILY’s List is “trying to drum up interest among Democratic voters who aren’t that energized right now, compared to Republicans, by taking on this whole idea, and with a little bit of humor.” Neither CNN personality provided any response from a pro-life organization or individual, something that CBSNews.com brought up in their Tuesday article about EMILY List’s campaign: Anti-abortion rights group the Susan B. Anthony List , which recently concluded a 23-city bus tour designed to spotlight its support for candidates who oppose abortion rights, quickly hit back with a statement suggesting “EMILY’s List is running scared.” “EMILY’s List is busy perpetuating what it purports to abhor: using women candidates with whom they disagree as punching bags,” said Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser. “On the eve of the 90th anniversary of women’s suffrage, the SBA List calls upon EMILY’s List to come to grips with reality.” Yellin also said nothing of whether Palin and her endorsed candidates actually are against health care for children and seek to “do away with unemployment benefits.” Obviously, the former governor and most, if not all, of her picked candidates are pro-life. It’s not surprising that Yellin would omit doing this, given her past as a leader of Harvard-Radcliffe Students For Choice , and, as The Harvard Crimson described her , a “prominent feminist activist in her own right .” During an April 10, 1992 interview with The Crimson , she actually lamented the apparent opposition to women’s studies at Harvard when she was an undergraduate there (Yellin was a political science and women’s studies double major): “For people interested in women’s issues or gender studies, this is an overtly hostile environment .” The transcript of the relevant portion of Jessica Yellin’s segment on Tuesday’s Rick’s List, beginning at the 19 minutes into the 3 pm Eastern hour mark: SANCHEZ: Let me ask you about the Sarah Palin situation going on, because- you know, we saw the ad, and I thought- and I had said on television- in fact, you and I were watching this- that it seemed like a very effective ad that Sarah Palin had put out. I mean, professionally speaking, it was very clean, very well put together- the whole ‘grizzly mom’ ad that everyone was talking about, and, apparently, there’s some blowback on this now. What is that? YELLIN: That’s right. Well, that Sarah Palin ‘momma grizzly’ ad has caught a lot of attention, and driven a lot of media interest, at least in Palin and this movement of women candidates she’s endorsing. But EMILY’s List is a political action group that raises money for Democratic women pro-choice candidates, and they are now unveiling a new get-out-the-vote effort that’s hitting back on this idea that Sarah Palin speaks for women voters who are- quote, ‘conservative momma grizzlies.’  EMILY’s List’s campaign is called ‘Sarah Doesn’t Speak For Me,’ and they’re taking the whole idea of ‘momma grizzly’ quite literally. Watch this. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 1 (from EMILY’s List ad): When my cubs are threatened- (unidentified woman roars like an animal) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 2: But want to know what threatens me? My daughter not having the right to choose. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 3: The fact that if you were in charge of this country, my little cubs wouldn’t have health care. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 4: When the salmon stopped coming down the stream and I didn’t work for three months, guess how we survived? Unemployment benefits, which is something that you and your gang of candidates want to do away with. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 5: You know, Ms. Palin, that really gets under my skin and my-   SANCHEZ (live): (Yellin laughs) Oh, my God. Did we have to stop it there because the bear was going to really get mad? (Sanchez laughs) YELLIN: It was going to climb out of the TV screen and get you. (Sanchez laughs) So, you see what they’re doing. It’s a get-out-the-vote campaign. That’s on their website. They also ask people to go in and sign a pledge that they’ll turn out to vote. Obviously, they’re trying to drum up interest among Democratic voters who aren’t that energized right now, compared to Republicans, by taking on this whole idea, and with a little bit of humor- SANCHEZ: Yeah. YELLIN: I think that’s humorous. SANCHEZ: Humor both ways- we will let the viewers decide. My thanks to you, Jessica.

Go here to read the rest:
CNN Lets Pro-Abortion PAC Spout Its Anti-Palin Talking Points

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Joe Scarborough Bashes Newt Gingrich’s Position on Ground Zero Mosque

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Joe Scarborough on Monday bashed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for saying the building of the Ground Zero mosque would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum. Scarborough was responding to the following from Sunday’s New York Times: Mr. Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” The next day on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Scarborough let Gingrich have it: JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: When I was in Congress in 1994, when I got elected in ’94, I was considered to be one of the more conservative guys up there. I was a right-wing nut job and crazy this and crazy that. So far right and yet despite the fact 14 years later, 16 years later, I still have the same views on taxes. I still have the same views on small government. I still have the same views on military. I still have the same views everywhere. I am feeling further and further distant from the people who are running my party and never more distant than this morning when I wake up to read what Newt Gingrich, a guy who’s leading in a lot of presidential preference polls across the country said this to say, had this to say about the First Amendment. “There’s nothing surprising in the President’s continued pandering to radical Islam. What he said last night is untrue and accurate.” And then he went on to say “this would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” Mark, I don’t know where to begin. To suggest that someone trying to build a, a tolerance center for moderate Muslims in New York is the equivalent of killing six million Jews is stunning to me. To begin with, where does Scarborough get off claiming this is a “tolerance center for moderate Muslims?” The Imam behind the mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is anything but moderate .   Beyond this, the Times piece included edited snippets from remarks made by Gingrich without letting readers know where and when the comments were made. What came before and after this excerpted sentence that Scarborough found so offensive? In a post-Shirley Sherrod world, shouldn’t commentators be careful about expressing an opinion about excerpted comments? Isn’t this especially true for a so-called conservative reading excerpts printed in the New York Times? For instance, Gingrich said the following on “Fox & Friends” this Monday morning providing a little more context to these twelve words: GINGRICH: This happens all the time in America. Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.  Much less offensive in that context, correct? After all, Gingrich’s point Monday – and what the majority of Americans are expressing in polls about this subject – is that Ground Zero represents hallowed ground where thousands of our citizens were killed by radical Islamists. As such, allowing a radical Islamic Imam to build a mosque near Ground Zero in Gingrich’s view would be akin to us allowing the Japanese to put up a site near Pearl Harbor or Nazis putting up a sign near the Holocaust Museum. In that context, what Gingrich said is by no means as offensive as what Scarborough claimed, and he should know better than to assume the twelve words cited by the Times stood by themselves without anything before or after that could result in them being far less caustic.  When so-called conservatives begin bashing members of their own Party because of something written in the New York Times, their judgment is going to be questioned – and with good reason.  

Follow this link:
Joe Scarborough Bashes Newt Gingrich’s Position on Ground Zero Mosque

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

CBS’s Schieffer: Obama Right ‘Intellectually’ on Mosque, Just Bad Politics

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Appearing on Monday’s CBS Early Show to discuss President Obama showing support for a controversial mosque being built near Ground Zero, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer agreed with the President’s sentiment but lamented the political fallout: “The President said and made the right intellectual argument, but I’m not sure that it was great politics for him to say it at this particular time.”   Schieffer began by outlining White House talking points on the issue to substitute co-host Erica Hill: “The story they tell is the President thought this Ramadan dinner – these were dinners that were started after 9/11 by President Bush as an outreach to demonstrate that our problems are with terrorists, not with people who are Muslims – he thought this was an appropriate place to say what all Americans believe, in that everyone has a right to practice their religion in this country.” Schieffer later added: “I would agree with the White House.” At the same time, both Hill and Schieffer fretted over the political fallout, particularly Republican criticism. Hill teased the segment at the top of show by declaring that Obama’s “apparent defense of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has Republicans howling.” Schieffer remarked: “Republicans are trying to take every advantage of this they can.” Continuing to worry about the political impact of the President’s comments, Hill asked: “And this could feed into the criticism of this current administration, that this is an administration that is out of touch, that is, in many ways, seen by folks across the country as being elitist. Is that what you’re hearing?” Schieffer replied: “Yes. Well, that’s exactly the spin that Republicans are trying to put on it, is that – you know, that the President’s not paying attention.”    Earlier, Schieffer described the anxiety of Democratic candidates: “But the response to this has, even from some Democrats, has been, ‘why did he have to say it at this particular time and about this particular site?’ ‘Yes, intellectually that is the correct argument,’ they say, ‘but is it entirely appropriate at this very special place, to try to link a Muslim worship center with this 9/11 ground?'” He later added: “…a lot of candidates around the country are saying, ‘look, with the economy in the shape it’s in, we need all the help we can get. And we really wish the President had not said this.'” Here is a full transcript of the August 16 segment: 7:00AM ET TEASE ERICA HILL: Political firestorm. President Obama launches a five-state political blitz today but his apparent defense of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has Republicans howling. ED ROLLINS: First, Bob, it was probably the dumbest thing that any president has said or candidate has said since Michael Dukakis said it was okay to burn the flag. 7:01AM ET SEGMENT ERICA HILL: First, though, we do want to get you to this. President Obama heading to Wisconsin this morning. The purpose of his trip, though, could end up taking a backseat to the controversy over the building of a mosque in New York City. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid has the details. CHIP REID: The President heads out this morning on a three-day cross-country trip. He’ll be talking about the economy and raising money for fellow Democrats. The White House hopes this trip will help change the topic after a weekend of controversy over the President’s comments about building a mosque near Ground Zero. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama & The Mosque; President’s Comments Could Derail Economic Message] The First Family spent a quick weekend on the Gulf coast of Florida, swimming, mini-golfing and boating. The visit was intended to highlight the fact that on most of the Gulf Coast, the water is clean and the beaches are open. But the President’s own comments over the weekend overshadowed the trip. Speaking at a White House dinner Friday celebrating Ramadan, the President waded into the already deepening political controversy over whether to build a mosque two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York City. BARACK OBAMA: Let me be clear, as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. REID: Saturday, the President seemed to back off from his initial comments, saying that while Muslims have the right to build the mosque, that doesn’t mean they should. OBAMA: I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. REID: White House officials insist the President is not backing down from his original statement, but some Republicans say the White House is trying to have it both ways. PETER KING [REP. R-NY]: The inference or the clear impression everyone came away with is that he was saying he was supporting the mosque at Ground Zero. And he can parse it later on, and sort of back away, but the fact is, that is clearly the impression, I believe, he wanted to leave. REID: The White House says the President has no regrets about his comments even though they turned a local issue into a national debate. Traveling with the President, Chip Reid, CBS News, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.          HILL: And joining us from Washington now is CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, always good to have you with us. BOB SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Erica. HILL: We know and you know, of course, from talking about this on your show yesterday morning, the firestorm that these comments have ignited, and really, shots coming from both sides. So, why would the President, especially in this time when Democrats are really fighting to hold control of Congress in November, why make these comments at this point? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama & The Mosque; Will Comments Impact Midterm Elections?] SCHIEFFER: Well, that’s just the question I asked White House officials and some people in the administration last night. The story they tell is the President thought this Ramadan dinner – these were dinners that were started after 9/11 by President Bush as an outreach to demonstrate that our problems are with terrorists, not with people who are Muslims – he thought this was an appropriate place to say what all Americans believe, in that everyone has a right to practice their religion in this country. But the response to this has, even from some Democrats, has been, ‘why did he have to say it at this particular time and about this particular site?’ ‘Yes, intellectually that is the correct argument,’ they say, ‘but is it entirely appropriate at this very special place, to try to link a Muslim worship center with this 9/11 ground?’ And clearly, Republicans are trying to take every advantage of this they can. Now, what White House officials say is, ‘look, this next election is going to be about the economy. It’s not going to be about whether they should build a mosque at Ground Zero.’ But a lot of – a lot of candidates around the country are saying, ‘look, with the economy in the shape it’s in, we need all the help we can get. And we really wish the President had not said this.’ The White House will say, ‘if you do the right thing, the politics will take care of itself.’ Clearly, there are some Democrats who are worried about that, though. HILL: They are a little worried. And this could feed into the criticism of this current administration, that this is an administration that is out of touch, that is, in many ways, seen by folks across the country as being elitist. Is that what you’re hearing? SCHIEFFER: Yes. Well, that’s exactly the spin that Republicans are trying to put on it, is that – you know, that the President’s not paying attention. What really bothers some Democrats, though, is that when the President gets into something like this, when he makes a statement like this, it elevates it to a national issue and every single Democratic candidate running for office is now going to be asked about it and will now have to take a position on something that they were hoping they would be able to say, ‘this is just a local issue. It’s up to the folks in New York to decide what to do about this.’ Yes, I would agree with the White House. The President said and made the right intellectual argument, but I’m not sure that it was great politics for him to say it at this particular time. HILL: Bob Schieffer, always good to have you here. Thanks. SCHIEFFER: Thanks, Erica.

Read more:
CBS’s Schieffer: Obama Right ‘Intellectually’ on Mosque, Just Bad Politics

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bozell Column: Hugh Hefner’s Deep Self-Love

Posted on August 14, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Hugh Hefner, America’s most celebrated and legendary pornographer, has less and less reason to celebrate. His Playboy magazine empire is crumbling — he may even be bought out by competitors — and his prototypical leering pose with girls young enough to be his great-granddaughters is now just plain creepy. His 2009 Christmas card featured 83-year-old Hefner standing between two 20-year-old twins who are his newest live-in girlfriends. Each was wearing a pink tank top with “Hef” painted on it in white. Hefner’s women are forever the plastic toys under his tree. Into this sad picture comes documentary filmmaker Brigitte Berman with a gushy new two-hour infomercial titled “Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist and Rebel.” How gushy is it? Washington Post critic Michael O’Sullivan found “the Hugh Hefner in this movie is Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi and William Kunstler all rolled into one.” In fact, Berman is so in love with her subject’s cultural and political influence, she told one interviewer that when the news came out that Martin Luther King Jr. had cheated on his wife, Coretta, “that never affected ‘I have a dream,’ so I found it really curious” that Hefner couldn’t be seen more as a civil rights hero and less as a seedy porn king. In the film, Hefner is obsequiously compared to King. Newsman Mike Wallace suggests he paved the way for President Obama, and all that hope and change. Bill Maher even compares him with Jackie Robinson, as the pioneer who took all the arrows. Trying to compare breaking the color line in baseball with being the first to publish the comic strip “Little Annie Fanny” is a bit of a historical stretch. Hefner is so full of himself that he’s made piles and piles of now-yellowed scrapbooks of his career. Most of the film is Hefner paging through his scrapbooks, dictating to his smitten documentarian how he wants his legacy defined. This film really looks like Hefner puffing up his own reputation before he loses his power to define it — a last shill and testament. There is, in its long, fawning two-hour parade, some tiny breaks for conservatives Dennis Prager and Pat Boone to get a few words in edgewise, but that’s wiped out by the sugar high Hefner’s giving himself in this film. This man even wants to deny that he fits the term “pornographer.” The dictionary defines pornography as “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.” Boone declares of Hefner that “of course, he’s been a pornographer from the beginning.” That is true, and commonsensical — but in this film, also somehow a controversial assertion, an assertion set up for a rebuttal, of sorts. Actor James Caan rebuts — the way a Playboy defender knows best — by saying there were always a lot of beautiful girls at the Playboy mansion. Debating really isn’t their strong suit. Just pushing the sex is. Hefner wants to be known not simply as the nation’s Sherpa to Shangri-La, but as the intellectual exponent of “The Playboy Philosophy,” which one of his toadies insists was an incredibly popular part of the magazine. Tony Bennett also lunges to the laughable conclusion that men read the deep and literary articles after achieving sexual satisfaction. In other words, that the centerfolds were the foreplay to an evening of higher education. This notion of Hefner as self-delusional sage is exposed in a brief clip from a 1966 interview with William F. Buckley on “Firing Line.” While Buckley calmly declares Hefner’s out to “annul” the moral code, Hefner attempts to claim he was not rejecting or attacking monogamy, which is quite simply lying. In his own life, Hefner quickly set aside his wife and daughter so he could begin his career in corrupting the souls of America. He has been an enormously influential man. As Boone says in the film, he did the most to entrench the maxim “If it feels good, do it” — no matter what the wreckage. The filmmaker loses her spell of adoration only once, where a 1979 centerfold siren, Vicki Iovine, discusses how Hefner was “cute” in love, but it was always an “adolescent” love that didn’t last. Love has eluded him, except as this film repeatedly reminds us, his own deep self-love. Hefner no doubt ends where the film begins, with the tribute of Gene Simmons, leader of the silly ’70s rock band KISS, who insists any man would give his left testicle to live the life of Hugh Hefner, at age 20, age 50 or age 80. But Hefner at 84 is just a dirty old man living out a threadbare satin cliche. The Washington Post critic granted him his liberal bona fides, but also found the sadness in “this Peter Pan with Viagra who never grew up.”

Read more from the original source:
Bozell Column: Hugh Hefner’s Deep Self-Love

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,