Hollywood is Lower Rated Than George W. Bush

Ed Driscoll quoting from Big Hollywood:

...For Hollywood to have an approval rating of 33%, just a touch lower than George W. Bush’s the week before he left office, it should be a splash of cold water to those running the show in Tinseltown.

And Driscoll concludes:

Between Roman Polanski, Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, Spike Lee, and all of the pro-Taliban activists running amok in Tinseltown, Hollywood has pretty much offended everyone. As Mark Steyn wrote in 2004 after a particularly disastrous Hollywood fundraiser for John Kerry, “Having the most popular figures in popular culture on your side can seriously damage your popularity.” On the other hand, much as modern day General Motors is a union healthcare and retirement plan that produces cars as an derivative industry, Hollywood’s chief product these days is political activism. It produces mass-market entertainment as an increasingly vestigial and legacy offshoot of its primary business function.

Who would have thunk it?  Just because Hollywood is populated by under-educated, foul mouthed, drug addled, silicone filled amoral do nothings who think that class is vested upon them by virtue of their ability to fake personhood on cue, there is no reason to think ill of the "beautiful people."  Afterall, were they not highly paid for being marginally talented most of the denizens of Hollywood would probably exist on the taxpayer's dime.  Come to think of it, that may be why most actors and actresses support Democrats.

They're Just Not Like Us

Via Memeorandum:

John Nolte, writing at Big Hollywood makes the point that it has been a rough week for our friends in Hollywood:

Tough times for leftie Hollywood. Nothing’s gone right this week. None of
this is their fault, of course. In order to understand that it might not be
a good idea to rally around a child rapist, bash religion in a religious country or
trash capitalism in a capitalist country you have to live in the real
world.

What is the thing with people in Hollywood that they are so removed from reality? Is it the result of huge sums of money being 'handled' by uneducated and undereducated people? Is there something that leads one to be 'artistic' that also leads one to be easily led? So often, people in Hollywood take positions that not only defy common sense (and common decency) but also seem unhinged. Take Janeane Garofalo's latest rant:

"...It's obvious to anybody who has eyes in this country that tea-baggers,
the 9-12ers, these separatist groups that pretend that it's about policy – they
are clearly white-identity movements. They're clearly white power movements.
What they don't like about the President is that he's black – or half black
(applause) – and they, what also is shocking is that people keep pretending that
that's not really the case with these people.I'm not talking about people that
do have problems with his policies, that's fine. ..."

Tell me that rambling isn't a prime example of NUTS. I cut the blather off at that last sentence because I found that sentence interesting. Ms. Garofalo would have us believe that she is fine with people who disagree with President. So, if ten people are gathered at random in a room who all disagree with the President, how would Janeane determine which are racist and which are not? Answer: If you disagree because you believe that the government has no business being involved in your health care, you are a racist; if you disagree with the President because he isn't pushing hard enough for a single payer system, you are a patriot.

Nolte is writing about a different nut, Michael Moore. Capitalism has been very, very good to Mr. Moore despite the multi-millionaire's claims to the contrary. But, in his defense, he's surrounded by multi-millionaires who hate the very system that brought them their wealth. Ungrateful? Sure, but the inability to be grateful and recognize the blessings in life is, for want of a better word, NUTS. Now that Moore's film, Capitalism: A Love Story has officially bombed, will Moore rethink his position? Fat chance.

The people in Hollywood aren't "just like us." We don't share the same views on politics, religion, morals. They represent a tiny fraction of our population yet they believe we are on the fringe. They are nuts and maybe, if we ignore them they will just go away.

So What is Rape? UPDATED

Via Memeorandum:

So Whoopi doesn't think Polanski's attack on a thirteen year old child rises to the level of rape? Well, that certainly raises some questions, doesn't it?

For argument's sake, take the girl's age and the drugs out of it. We either accept that "no means no" or we don't. According to the testimony, the girl repeatedly told Polanski "no" and begged him to stop. Are Whoopi & Co. now saying that saying "no" is not sufficient? What, according to Hollywood, is the new standard for rape?

"No" and "stop" are not sufficient. Inability to consent, whether by age, because of drugs or one would assume, mental capacity, are not sufficient. Perhaps Hollywood in its desire to be inclusive, has adopted the Muslim standard for rape-it is always the female's fault.

Since even children are now by the Whoopi standard fair game does rape still exist? If so, it would be helpful for the sages in Hollywood to let us all know what the new definition is.

More at:

Fausta's Blog
Patterico's Pontification
Big Hollywood

UPDATE via Memorandum:

Our 'it just keeps getting better' moment is brought to us by The Guardian, writing Release Polanski, demands petition by film industry luminaries. Now, I'm not the least surprised that seventy "film industry luminaries" are fine with child rape but one name does stand out as a perv extrodinaire: Woody Allen. I could say so much about Mr. Allen's lack of morals, but his own son says it all:

Allen and Farrow's only biological son, Ronan Seamus Farrow,
said of Allen: "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son
and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see
him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally
consistent.... I lived with all these adopted children, so they are my
family. To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted
children."

How The Times Have Changed

Via Tim Blair:

A short clip to illustrate how much Hollywood has changed through the years:

Wealthy People Have A bigger Carbon Footprint? Who Knew?

From Reuters

To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Calling Al Gore. Calling Mr. Gore

"As countries develop -- India, China, Brazil and others -- over time, they'll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they'll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future," he said.

These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.

Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich?

But wouldn’t that affect all those socially responsible, environmentally conscientious people in Hollywood?

Well, that just smacks of class warfare. On the other hand, what goes around…

Hiding Versus Standing Up

Via Memeorandum

The last couple of days the blogsphere has been all aflutter about an anonymous blogger being “outed.” Out of nowhere leftist bloggers suddenly developed a conscientious and were shocked, SHOCKED(!) that Publius’ actual name had been put out there, effectively destroying his family and laying his career to waste, except, it turned out to be much ado about nothing. Nobody’s career was jeopardized; the family is just fine. WHEW!

There are people whose careers can be destroyed if they espouse the ‘wrong’ world view-they are called Conservatives. The quickest way to get to Nowhere in Hollywood is to be (outwardly) conservative. The acceptable Hollywood model is personified by skankfest Megan Fox:

The "Transformers" bombshell-cum-uninhibited philosophizer also contemplates — reluctantly -- what she would say to Megatron to keep him from destroying the world. "I'd barter with him," she muses to the July issue Total Film UK, "and say instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?"

Knowing that he would effectively label himself as untouchable, how brave did Jon Voight have to be to speak out at the NRSC-NRCC fund-raiser last night? Judging from the comments at CNN.Com (I intentionally didn’t link), damn brave.



Reaction at Discussion: Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, theblogprof