Thursday, October 19, 2017
2:43 pm
Daniel J. Summers
No, this isn't about Harvey Weinstein per se; he is but the latest in a long string of issues where Hollywood (used here as a proxy for the movie/TV industry as a whole) cannot seem to see its own hypocrisy. People in Hollywood tend to get the large part of their fame from literally pretending to be somebody else. (Yes, I know, it's called "acting.") When Hollywood decides to get political, though, they tend to be virulently against anything representing conservative principles and values. The “why” behind that is multi-faceted: liberalism sounds more compassionate at first blush; those mean, nasty conservatives are the ones against our edgier art; I'm surrounded by these people and I don't want to rock the boat.
Whatever the motivation, though, the Weinstein scandal exposes just another area where Hollywood claims to advocate one thing, but their product and actions contradict themselves.
Guns
On screens large and small, guns are everywhere. The criminals have them, the police have them (though sometimes the police are the criminals), and the really good guys can use them to fight for good (think Jason Bourne, or the Taken franchise). Yet, more than 9 out of 10 denizens of Hollywood are pro gun-control legislation, to the point where blood was still drying on the pavement in Las Vegas when they began beating that drum again. (I don't even have time to get into the entire “silencer” thing; I think that they think those work the way they do in the movies, not the way they actually do.)
Well, Hollywood - you've shown us how things get resolved. Bringing in the firepower is the way you fix situations.
The Environment
Hollywood got on the glow-bull warming train a long, long time ago, and has amplified every doomsday and “man is killing the planet” claim that came along. They are so impassioned about this that they attend global conferences about this pressing issue… in their private jets, the mostly-least-efficient way to get there. Their primary homes are large mansions, and they usually have vacation homes as well. (This isn't simple envy; I'd live in a mansion and get away to my vacation home too - if I could afford it. I just wouldn't claim that I'm saving the planet from a death sentence while doing it.) The logistics required to produce a blockbuster movie are staggering - yet they use them time and again, to line their pockets.
Actions speak louder than words; you say it's a problem, but your behavior tells us otherwise.
Speaking of lining one's pockets…
Income Inequality
Hollywood is greatly concerned with the topic of income inequality. I mean, it's just not right that women earn 77 cents on the dollar as compared with men! (Well, except for the fact that, in reality, that number was poorly calculated when it first came out, and even that same flawed calculation gives a larger number now.) Yet, Hollywood continues to have very few female leads, and even when they do, there are often also male leads, who are earning double or more for the same film. It may be hard for us to think that there's really that much difference between $5 million and $10 million.
It's not just gender issues, either; at every opportunity, they support government programs to give things away, whether it's medical care, food, or tax exemptions. Of course, it's the government giving this things away, not them; compared to more conservative parts of the country, charitable contributions are low. In fact, what often passes for “charity” in Hollywood are dinners where the actual stars simply show up; the thousands-per-plate prices are paid by the well-connected but lesser-known people.
Plus - these folks amass their millions off the backs of the ~$10 ticket prices paid by average people. As a generally free-market guy, I'm not faulting them for extracting the value they believe society places on their craft. It does seem to me, though, they could be a bit more magnanimous instead of deriding the very people whose money has given them such a comfortable and fabulous life.
There is one place where actress salaries outpace actor salaries - the adult film industry. Which leads us to…
Sexual Morality
We'll talk about Weinstein, et. al. - but let's look at some history first. For years, decades, Hollywood has ridiculed those of us who have bemoaned the increasing vulgarity and explicit sexuality, telling us that a) it was artistically necessary to advance their story; b) it's just a fictional story; and c) lighten up, you prudes! Now, I am not unaware of the balancing act between showing enough for people to get the point and not becoming gratuitous (this doesn't apply exclusively to sexual content). If two people are kissing at the end of a date, the screen fades to black, and the next scene are them both in PJs at the breakfast table - does that not advance the story just as much as an extended scene with nudity, thrusting, and noises?
Traditional sexual morality has never been Hollywood's interest. At times, the portrayals are setups to show the negative consequences of those actions; more frequently, they're either just straight titillation, or they're done by characters for whom we're now rooting. Their private lives mirror their art; in fact, the term “Hollywood marriage” describes a union of two beautiful people which will only last until the next opportunity comes along.
The “casting couch” has become legend, and enterprising women decided that they could use their assets to break through that way, literally sleeping their way to the top. It's a terrible thing to spell out that way, but facts are often terrible. Hollywood is not alone in this scenario; business, politics, and sports also have their stories of powerful men who used women for their own pleasure, maybe with the promise of preferential treatment or advancement. I'm glad that they are starting to see that this is a bad deal, but are you the ones telling us conservatives that we have a “War on Women” because we don't want the government to pay for killing a baby in a woman's womb?
Conclusion
I doubt anyone from Hollywood is reading this, and it's already longer than I'd set out to write, so I'll wrap this up here. I'm glad that a lot of people are coming forward to tell their stories and condemn Harvey Weinstein; it would mean a whole lot more if they had done so before it became trendy to do so. In summary, here's how I see the recent action taken by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences:
An organization, whose members still include Roman Polanski and Bill Cosby, decided to expel Harvey Weinstein.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
9:04 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Received via e-mail - this is the generation before mine, but makes an interesting point.
In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized to him and explained, “We didn't have the green thing back in my day.”
The clerk responded, “That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment.”
He was right - our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.
BUT
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.
Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts - wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house - not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.
Isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the “green thing” back then?
Now, you're not going to see me call for fewer outlets in my rooms… But, this is really something to think about. The “green thing” in its current incarnation is simply a political ploy by some who want to feel better about themselves by controlling what others do; the hypocrisy of those “leaders” is well-documented. But, don't let your disdain for those people cause you to miss the point. There is no sense in being wasteful. Turn off the lights when you don't need them, walk more, and before you toss it in the trash, ask yourself “Can I reuse this?”
Are we going to save the planet? Probably not; she's pretty strong, and her demise is already documented. But, we can ensure that we use no more of it than necessary, and leave as much as possible to the generations to follow.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
2:39 am
Daniel J. Summers
Continuing the tradition started last year, I'm writing a three-part series “2007 Year in Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.” And, as I did last year, I'll post them in reverse order so they're in the right order when they're done. Without further ado…
Global Glow-Bull Warming
During 2007, the global warming movement was exposed for the political, not scientific, issue that it is. As with any movement which sees its power diminished, its adherents ramped up their rhetoric; and, in many ways, the movement has become a parody of itself. In April, Sheryl Crow suggested limiting how much toilet paper we use at each sitting, and suggested we wear “dining sleeves” - devices on which we can wipe our mouths, then remove them and replace them with a clean one. (I'm not sure if the extra water for that laundry offsets the lack of a paper napkin - and wouldn't cloth napkins do the same thing?)
Carbon offsets were also shown to be next to useless. Carbon offsets, for the uninitiated, are fees one pays to a company which claims to do something “environmentally friendly” to offset one's carbon emissions. (If that sounds familiar, it should - I believe this technique was pioneered by the Roman Catholic church under the name “indulgences.” Can't stop sinning? Just get forgiveness beforehand!) A group of three environmentally-conscious people (not right-wing fanatics) created a site called CheatNeutral. It aspires to create a network of fidelity to offset those who cheat on their significant others. It illustrates the point beautifully - ten faithful people mean nothing if you're the one being cheated on.
In October, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming, including his film An Inconvenient Truth. Inconveniently, though, many of the claims made in his film have been debunked. Also, a site called Surface Stations shows some of these temperature monitoring stations - these are the stations whose readings have been used to claim that temperatures are increasing. However, many stations are by air conditioning exhausts and other heat-producing structures. Finally, in December, at a UN conference in Bali on global warming, the man leading the negotiations broke down and cried. It must be rough to see all that power slipping away.
Never-Ending Political Cycle
I won't talk much about this, because I'm pretty much tired of it just when it becomes time for it to actually happen. Do we really need a 2-year period of time to pick our next President?
Celebrity Culture
This could probably be a ridiculous item every year, but this year seemed especially ridiculous. Earlier in the year, after Anna Nicole Smith passed away, a circus erupted over the paternity of her young daughter. I don't even know where to start - if every one who claimed that they were the father had a relationship with her that would result in a child in the timeframe where it would be believable… Sheesh.
Train wrecks all over - Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears… Even Britney's sister got into the fray. The biggest problem I have with all this is the amount of press they get, distracting people from other important issues. But, I don't know whether to be more exasperated with the media for putting out the information, or the people who give it such good ratings that they keep pumping it out.
That's enough ridiculousness for one year - up next, the bad…
Friday, December 21, 2007
4:59 pm
Daniel J. Summers
There has been a ton of news and evidence about glow-bull warming that has come out in the last few weeks. But, alas, other pulls on my time are keeping me from chronicling them here. I did want to share this comic, though, that I found today in an e-mail.
The artist is Lisa Benson, whose work can be found on TownHall.com.
This past Wednesday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared that this July 4th will be known as “Energy Independence Day” and focus on global warming issues. This is absolutely ludicrous - can they not let us celebrate the founding of our nation without trying to make us feel guilty over our success? I guess not - they feel that the mandate from their November win entitles them to force their earth-centric religion on us.
I wonder what would happen if a Republican politician stood up on the House floor and declared that July 4th will be known as “Sin Independence Day” to remind us to fear a holy God. How long would it be until every leftist organization in the nation called for his removal? The issue is the same. In fact, I think it takes more faith to believe in global warming than it does to be a Christian.
Global warming is based on flimsy science, a short-sighted view of natural weather cycles, outright fraud, and an arrogance that we, as man, can control the weather. If we're so powerful, why can't we make it rain when areas go through droughts? Why can't we keep hurricanes from going whatever way they want? Why can't we drop the humidity in the Southern states? The global warming crowd has no answers for this. Even if we unplugged everything and lived in tents for the next year, it would have no effect on the weather.
The outright fraud is perhaps the most disturbing of the global warming crowd's claims. For example, I'm sure you have seen the picture of two polar bears floating on a piece of glacier. This picture supposedly shows that these poor bears are floating and are going to drown because of the glacier melting. In fact, this picture was taken of young polar bears playing on the piece of ice. A picture of something beautiful in nature is presented as a problem.
And this claim by the Democrats to want energy independence is pretty rich. Which party has been opposed to drilling in the area of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) that was set aside for that purpose many years ago? Which party vilifies the energy companies for making profits? Without profits to invest in research of alternative sources and uses, how much progress do they expect to be made?
Don't fall for this. July 4th is Independence Day - our nation's birthday, the day we declared independence from Britain, and the day we formally began the most successful experiment in representative republicanism to date.
In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized to him and explained, “We didn't have the green thing back in my day.”