Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Rapper Jay-Z, who sympathizes with Occupy Wall Street, plans to cash in on OWS movement and keep all the money for himself

Heh.

Right now there is a slightly heated debate going on in the Abrams Media office as we’ve found a story that somehow intersects the purviews of three of our different sites; Jay-Z’s company, Rocawear, is now selling a t-shirt that says “Occupy Wall Street” with graffiti style lettering modifying the message to read “Occupy All Streets.” A mini scandal has brewed over the shirt as it’s become clear that Rocawear, currently, has no plans to give any of the procedes to the occupiers themselves.

Not big on “spreading the wealth around” like their boy Barry is, huh?

So is Mr. Z really sympathetic to the OWS crowd?  I mean, here he is teaching them a lesson in capitalism, and my guess is that the morons will be stupid enough to buy his attire, oblivious to the irony of the situation.  They already are clueless, railing against corporations while buying goods and services from corporations.

Either he really is sympathetic to their cause and is just another clueless celebrity who doesn’t recognize his own hypocrisy, or he isn’t sympathetic to the OWS cretins and is simply being a savvy capitalist.  If it is the latter, then well played, sir!

Advertisements

November 14, 2011 Posted by | capitalism, Hollyweirdos, hypocrisy, irony, Occupy Wall Street | 2 Comments

QVC cancels Hanoi Jane’s book peddling

Seems that Americans don’t like washed up commie hacks crapping on soldiers in any decade.  Funny, that.  Anywho, Fonda dials 9-waaaaah-waaaah and tries to get a waaaah-mbulance dispatched her way:

I was to have been on QVC today to introduce my book, “Prime Time,” about aging and the life cycle. …

The network said they got a lot of calls yesterday criticizing me for my opposition to the Vietnam War and threatening to boycott the show if I was allowed to appear.

Bottom line, this has gone on far too long, this spreading of lies about me! None of it is true. NONE OF IT! I love my country. I have never done anything to hurt my country or the men and women who have fought and continue to fight for us.

Yeah…”lies“.

NONE OF IT” is true.

“Never done anything to hurt my country or the men and women who have fought and continue to fight for us.”

Just a bunch of right-wing propaganda.  Right?

I suppose this was just one big misunderstanding

July 18, 2011 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, shameful | 8 Comments

Quote of the day, “double dose of Polanski” edition

Quote #1 deserves a beverage warning.  Please, put down your drinks before reading this one, lest you fry your monitor.  From the mouth of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, on his good buddy Roman Polanski:

Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He’s not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said.

Oh. My. Word.  I don’t even think I need to touch that one.  It kinda writes its own material, you know?

Anywho, quote #2 from Allahpundit (of Hot Air fame), via his Twitter post:

Word on the street: Polanski’s next film is so good, Europe’s going to let him bang an eight-year-old. It’s THAT GOOD.

Ouch!

October 1, 2009 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, quote of the day, Roman Polanski, shameful | Leave a comment

Hollyweirdos rally around convicted child rapist Polanski

Not just Hollyweirdos, but their allies in the MSM.  LA Times frontpage subtitle of Roman Polanski’s arrest reads thusly: “The filmmaker, accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl in 1977, could be extradited to the U.S.”  Emphasis mine.

I hate to nitpick at semantics here, but the cretin pled guilty to the crime before skipping bail.  When one pleads guilty to a crime and the judge accepts said plea, then one is no longer “accused”, but “convicted”…that’s kinda sorta in a really nuanced way what the “guilty” in “I plead guilty” means!

Also, as Patterico notes, LAT columnist Patrick Goldstein wonders if tax dollars should be wasted “prosecuting” Polanski.  Again, nitpicking on semantics, but no tax dollars will be spend prosecuting Polanski…because he’s already been prosecuted and convicted!  The only taxpayer money that will be spent will be for Polanski’s much deserved (and much delayed) sentencing.

For a really great read…nay, a must read…check out this Salon piece.  The takeaway is simply this: the dude raped a child!  You can polish the turd known as Roman Polanski all you like, but at the end of the day, the S.O.B. raped a 13-year-old child.  The left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) try mightily to ignore that point, but normal people aren’t letting them.

In closing, I need to quote Allahpundit, who as usual nails this one:

Needless to say, this reminds me of the left’s umbrage at conservatives daring to bring up Chappaquiddick after Teddy died. Yeah, he left a woman to drown and then made jokes about it afterwards; he was for universal health care, though, wasn’t he? Same with Polanski: Dare we deny the man who made “Chinatown” an occasional drugging and raping of a child? Sure, a kid gets traumatized for life, but on the other side of the scale: “Rosemary’s Baby.” It’d be sweet if the left could come up with some sort of mathematical formula by which we could tell whether an artist or liberal politician has exceeded his quotient of moral indulgence. I’m assuming “Chinatown” wasn’t so awesome that Polanski would be excused shooting a kid in the head at point-blank range, so evidently it’s “worth” less than that but more than a child-rape. Let’s figure out just how much of a liberal hero you have to be to get away with certain crimes.

These leftists are sick.

September 29, 2009 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, shameful | 8 Comments

Obama’s knee slappers

President Oprompter was schmoozing with his constituents this weekend at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.  How’s about this:

The president acknowledged perceptions that he’s a media darling: “Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me.

A rare nugget of honesty from a demonstrable pathological liar is refreshing to see, no?

Via the Washington comPost, Wanda Sykes indicts the press, albeit unintentionally:

“It’s funny to me that [photographers] have never caught you smoking,” Sykes told the president, “but they always catch you with your shirt off. I know you’re into this transparency thing, but I don’t need to see your nipples.”

Then, via the UK’s Telegraph, she indicts herself as a classless, crass loudmouth:

This is what she said: “Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails, so you’re saying, ‘I hope America fails’, you’re, like, ‘I dont care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq’. He just wants the country to fail. To me, that’s treason.

“He’s not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight.”

She then concluded: “Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good waterboarding, that’s what he needs.” Obama seemed to think this bit was pretty hilarious, grinning and chuckling and turning to share the “joke” with the person sitting on his right.

There’s not much room for differing interpretations of what Sykes said. She called Limbaugh a terrorist and a traitor, suggested that he be tortured and wished him dead.

What was his crime? Hoping that Obama’s policies – which he views as socialist – will fail.

That’s way, way beyond reasoned debate or comedy and Obama’s reaction to it was astonishing. …

And Obama laughing when someone wishes Limbaugh dead? Hard to take from the man who promised a new era of civility and elevated debate in Washington.

Interesting that Sykes’ shameful comment about Rush wasn’t covered by the Washington comPost in that first link.  But no, no liberal media bias!

Compare and contrast, though, jokes about Pelosi dying:

CBS Sports golf analyst David Feherty apologized Sunday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a morbid joke that went bad in a Dallas magazine.

Feherty, one of the most popular golf analysts for his sharp wit and self-deprecating humor, was among five Dallas residents who wrote for “D Magazine” on former President George W. Bush moving to Dallas.

“From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though,” Feherty wrote toward the end of his column. 

“Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death.”

Feherty, a former Ryder Cup player who grew up in Northern Ireland, has gone to Iraq over Thanksgiving the past two years to visit with U.S. troops, and he created a foundation to help wounded soldiers.

“This passage was a metaphor meant to describe how American troops felt about our 43rd president,” Feherty said in a statement. “In retrospect, it was inappropriate and unacceptable, and has clearly insulted Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, and for that, I apologize. As for our troops, they know I will continue to do as much as I can for them both at home and abroad.”

For the record, it’s not funny to wish death on anyone.  It is sad, though, that the MSM gets its dinosaur boxers in a bunch when someone jokes about Pelosi dying, but hoots it up when someone jokes about Rush dying.  But again, nope…no liberal media bias!

May 11, 2009 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, hypocrisy, media bias, Obama, Pelosi, Rush, shameful | 1 Comment

Time, Inc., sold flattering coverage of Pitt-Jolie

I don’t care that a magazine gives glowing coverage of a Hollyweirdo power couple.  But is this yet another blow to the already dying MSM?  Details:

When Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt negotiated with People and other celebrity magazines this summer for photos of their newborn twins and an interview, the stars were seeking more than the estimated $14 million they received from the deal. They also wanted a hefty slice of journalistic input — a promise that the winning magazine’s coverage would be positive, not merely in that instance but into the future.

According to the deal offered by Ms. Jolie, the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family, according to two people with knowledge of the bidding who were granted anonymity because the talks were confidential. The deal also asked for an “editorial plan” providing a road map of the layout, these people say.

The winner was People. The resulting package in its Aug. 18 issue — the magazine’s best-selling in seven years — was a publicity coup for Ms. Jolie, the Oscar winner and former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.

In the People interview, there were questions about her and Mr. Pitt’s charity work and no use of the word “Brangelina,” the tabloid amalgamation of their names, which irks the couple. …

Naturally, Time, Inc. denies the claims.  But I’m not buying their denial at all.  It’s hard to believe that there was once a time that the MSM favored independence and did not allow anyone outside of their own newsrooms to dictate coverage.  That era is all but over.

Exit question:  How do you think Time, Inc., or any other MSM outlet would have responded if, during the campaign, McCain or Palin would have tried to enter into a contract with an “impartial” media outlet for favorable coverage?

November 21, 2008 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, media bias | 1 Comment

Bette Midler prevents global catastrophe

From Sky News:

Singer Bette Midler has told Sky News she is quitting touring – to help save the planet.

That just might do it!  😆

Exit question: Does Pelosi get protective over her own “I’m gonna save the planet” territory?

September 25, 2008 Posted by | global warming, Hollyweirdos | 9 Comments

Analysis: Celebrity lesbians and Palin Derangement Syndrome

Excellent column by Andrew Breitbart!  The setup is a description of Palin Derangement Syndrome:

Palin Derangement Syndrome, a more irrational variant of the Bush contagion, doesn’t require sufferers to know anything about the subject of their hatred. Anonymous, unsourced rumors fuel the fire (book banning, speaking in tongues, creationism, etc.). Lovely family photos hacked from a personal e-mail account displayed on commercial Web sites push more buttons. Asterisks from Mrs. Palin’s biographical sketch – “moose hunter,” “small-town mayor,” “wife of champion snow machine racer” – cause excessive sweating and irregular heartbeats. She even fired a guy who Tased a 10-year-old. (Oh wait, she didn’t.)

What will happen when they find out she shops at Wal-Mart?

And now, mix in some unhinged Hollyweird muffmunchers:

Sandra Bernhard celebrated the 20th anniversary of her career-ending one-woman show, “Without You I’m Nothing,” warning that if Mrs. Palin were to go to Manhattan she’d be “gang-raped by [her] big black brothers.” The lipstick-on-a-pig lesbian also called Mrs. Palin a “bitch” and an “Uncle Woman.”

Joyless niche comedian Margaret Cho blogged, “She is evil,” fantasized about having hateful sex with Mrs. Palin and attacked a multitude of her supporters: “If you were truly Christians, you would let gays get married, and send them #$%ng presents from Bed Bath and Beyond!”

Everything-aholic Lindsay Lohan (“Mean Girls”) joined the Sapphic pile-on by issuing a joint diatribe with her putative partner, disc jockey Samantha Ronson: “Is our country so divided that the Republicans’ best hope is a narrow-minded, media-obsessed homophobe?”

Not since Rosie O’Donnell & Co. manhandled Elizabeth Hasselbeck weekdays on “The View” have liberals been so gleeful to watch a bitter lesbian tear down a confident and beautiful conservative Republican woman. Unresolved high school lust and angst at well-adjusted cheerleaders and popular prom queens should be left for medical professionals, not for midmorning television gabfests.

😆 Heh.  Anywho, the gay marriage thingy:

Yet none of these gilded-ghetto living haters point out that their savior, Mr. Obama, stands against gay marriage, too. Is that change Melissa Etheridge can believe in?

Like President Clinton, who supported regressive anti-gay-rights legislation such as “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, Mr. Obama gets a massive pass from the activist gay left and their stenographers in the mainstream media.

The never-reported political reality is that both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama understand that key components of the Democratic Party – the black and Hispanic blocs – hold views that Brad Pitt would deem “homophobic.”

For these minority groups, and for many other religious Democrats, gay marriage is a nonstarter.

Yet liberal celebrities and activist journalists never hurl epithets at these coddled groups no matter how retrograde their ideas. President Bush correctly pegged this phenomenon as “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.” Political correctness, the rigging of politics using different rules for different groups, and buttressed by the media, ensures that Democrats always have the upper hand.

Hypocrisy?  Get outta here!

Clumsy on her lesbian training wheels (awesome line! 😆 -Ed.), Miss Lohan and Miss Cho, Miss Bernhard and Miss O’Donnell, are granted immunity for their outrageous rhetoric because they are party girls – Democrats through and through – and creatures of the media. And because of this protection racket, none will be forced to attend sensitivity training for crossing the line last week against Mrs. Palin.

It’s also why few will know that the Alaska governor vetoed legislation that would have prevented gays from getting marriagelike benefits. It’s also why the media made Republicans Mark Foley and Larry Craig the butts (no pun intended? – Ed.) of jokes that would be considered homophobic if hurled at liberal Democrats.

If not for double standards, the left would have no standards at all.

September 22, 2008 Posted by | gay, Hollyweirdos, hypocrisy, media bias, Obama, Palin | Leave a comment

Quote of the day, “Hollywood pedophile” edition

From Woody Allen:

US filmmaker Woody Allen, best known for such comedy classics as “Annie Hall,” says it will be no laughing matter if Barack Obama fails to win the race for the White House.

“It would be a disgrace and a humiliation if Barack Obama does not win,” he told Spanish journalists at the ongoing 56th San Sebastian film festival, where his latest film “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” is being screened.

Yeah, because losing an election is much more “disgraceful” and “humiliating” than, say, molesting your seven-year-old adopted daughter and taking naked photos (and then subsequently screwing and marrying) of your wife’s adopted daughter.  Pervert.

September 20, 2008 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, Obama, quote of the day | 2 Comments

Obama a victim of the “gloomy” economy

Heh.

So what does Barack Obama do after a hard day of defending the common man during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression?

Throw a $28,500-a-head fundraising dinner, of course.

Followed by a $2,500-a-head reception featuring Barbra Streisand singing a song or two.

The Democratic presidential candidate spent the day Tuesday campaigning in Colorado, where he talked to supporters about the mortgage crisis that has reshaped Wall Street and caused many people to lose their homes.
 
Speaking a day after the stock market had its worst day since 2001, he assured a rally in the Denver suburb of Golden that he understood the impact the crisis was having from Wall Street to Main Street.
 
“Jobs have disappeared, and peoples’ life savings have been put at risk. Millions of families face foreclosure, and millions more have seen their home values plummet,” he said.
 
“These are the struggles that Americans are facing. This is the pain that has now trickled up.”
 
Then he jetted off to Los Angeles (Beverly Hills, if I’m not mistaken. – Ed.) Tuesday evening for a pair of glitzy fundraisers that could be the biggest for Democrats during this election cycle. 

Because Barry and Hollyweird are just, you know, a bunch of average American Joes and Janes, right?  But hey, don’t you go thinking he’s some kind of elitist or anything, m’kay?  Retorts J-Mac:

“(He) talks about siding with the people, siding with the people — just before he flies off to Hollywood for a fundraiser with Barbra Streisand and his celebrity friends,” McCain told a rally in Vienna, Ohio, a critical battleground state. “Let me tell you my friends, there’s no place I’d rather be than here with the working men and women of Ohio.”

September 17, 2008 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, hypocrisy, McCain, Obama | 8 Comments

Clooney hosts fundraiser for Obama…in Switzerland

But hey, don’t be getting any funny ideas about The One being an elitist “rock star” who caters to Hollyweirdos or Euroweenies, m’kay?

August 6, 2008 Posted by | Euros, Hollyweirdos, moonbats, Obama | 1 Comment

Is Obama Britney, Paris, or Ludacris?

Ace asks, per McCain’s new ad mocking the Obamessiah’s celeb status, if Barry O is “a skanky blonde bimbo”.

Allah wonders, though, how long it will be before the Obamaliar throws Ludacris under the bus for his new pro-Barry hip-hop moonbatty video (referencing a paralyzed McCain and a “female dog” Hildebeast, the latter reference not exactly endearing her jilted supporters to Osamabama’s camp).

July 30, 2008 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, moonbats, Obama | 9 Comments

Elton John hates misogynists…himself excluded, of course

Elton John says if you don’t vote for Hillary, you’re a misogynist.  I wonder if dude realizes the depths of his hypocrisy?  From his cheery Christmas tune “Merry Christmas, Maggie Thatcher“:

So merry Christmas Maggie Thatcher
May God’s love be with you
We all sing together in one breath
Merry Christmas Maggie Thatcher
We all celebrate today
‘Cause it’s one day closer to your death 

We all knew he didn’t dig chicks, but I had no idea he wanted them dead!  More poles to smoke with less competition, I suppose.

Exit question: Since John would rather see the woman win instead of the black guy, does that make that little b#tch (John, not Hilldawg) a racist?

April 11, 2008 Posted by | Hillary, Hollyweirdos, hypocrisy | 8 Comments

Sheryl Crow: My words were Karl Rove’s fault

Recall last year when moonbat entertainer Sheryl Crow proposed that we help preserve Mother Gaia by wiping our tushes with one square of toilet paper?  While it may have taken her nearly a year to float her conspiracy theory, this nugget of comedy gold is truly “better late than never”!  From the Coalition of the Swilling:

The ‘Single Sheet’ Whitehouse Plot

…and it’s straight from the horsey mouth. (Proving, yet again, there is nothing too small for the maestro’s evil Rovian machinations.)

Last spring, you were held up as a parody of environmental correctness when you proposed restricting the use of toilet paper to one square per bathroom visit. What was that about? I think it’s a fantastic and eye-opening example of how the media is operated by political figures, of how Karl Rove was humiliated in the media and how, within 24 hours, he was able to humiliate me and take any sort of credibility away from me.

What are you saying? You think Karl Rove leaked the toilet-paper story to the press after you and Laurie David sparred with him about global warming at the White House correspondents’ dinner? I cannot tie him directly to that leak, but within 24 hours of our exchange, as we were leaving D.C., it was on the CNN ticker tape: “Sheryl Crow has proposed that we legislate toilet paper to one square.”

Did you ever actually suggest that? It was always a joke. It was part of a shtick…” 

Rove, you evil b#stard, you!  Will your malevolence stop at nothing?

January 29, 2008 Posted by | environuts, Hollyweirdos, moonbats | 2 Comments

Ugly Betty says we should vote for Hillary

Why?  Because she lacks a Y chromosome.  Seriously.

I need a drink…and it’s only 10:20 a.m.

January 24, 2008 Posted by | Hillary, Hollyweirdos | 3 Comments

Anti-Iraq films are box office duds

I mean, there are only so many moonbats who are willing to spend their welfare checks on these movies.  Given the choice to spend their welfare checks to watch bad movies or to drink copius amounts of malt liquor, leftist miscreants are apparently choosing the latter.  From the NY Post:

IT’S hard for Hollywood pacifists like Brian De Palma to capture the hearts and minds of America if Americans won’t see their movies.

While the public is staying away in droves from “Rendition,” “Lions for Lambs” and “In the Valley of Elah,” audiences are really avoiding “Redacted,” De Palma’s picture about US soldiers who rape a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, then kill her and her family. The message movie was produced by NBA Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who insisted on deleting grisly images of Iraqi war casualties from the montage at the film’s end. Cuban offered to sell the film back to De Palma at cost, but the director was too smart to go for that deal. “Redacted” – which “could be the worst movie I’ve ever seen,” said critic Michael Medved -took in just $25,628 in its opening weekend in 15 theaters, which means roughly 3,000 people saw it in the entire country. “This, despite an A-list director, a huge wave of publicity, high praise in the Times, The New Yorker, left-leaning sites like Salon, etc. A Joe Strummer documentary [of punk-rock band The Clash] playing in fewer theaters made more in its third week,” e-mailed one cineaste. “Not even people who presumably agree with the movie’s antiwar thesis made the effort to see it.” 

Here’s guessing these Hollyweirdos won’t learn their lesson and will release another anti-war film (within the next 2 – 3 months) that no one will come to see.

November 26, 2007 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, Iraq, moonbats | 1 Comment

Entertainment rag: Writer’s strike is Rush’s fault

Hey, look at it this way: at least they didn’t blame the usual suspects, i.e. Bush or global “warming”.  Baby steps, my friends, baby steps.  From Variety:

Amid the emotions surrounding the writers strike has been vitriol from some scribes toward any news outlet failing to echo their position — a “blame the messenger” attitude vented at coverage by Variety, among others.

Scanning message boards and blogs uncovers all manner of allegations about kowtowing to corporate interests. The assumption is that those not fully following the Writers Guild’s script must be bowing to pressure from their ownership or currying favor among advertisers, with journalists lacking the spine to bite the hands that feed us.

In this way, strike rhetoric is oddly mirroring modern politics, where partisans now filter straight-ahead reporting through an “us vs. them” prism, seeking out accounts that buttress their views while shunning those that might challenge them.

This represents a relatively recent dynamic, fueled by the Rush Limbaugh era of talkradio, cable news and the Internet, which barely existed during the last strike in 1988. It’s an especially poisonous environment when applied to this fracas, since talent and the studios must eventually reunite once the saber-rattling and marching ends, whereas political combatants (or at least their public mouthpieces) are now locked in a state of perpetual warfare, the better to spice up the give and take on “Hannity & Colmes.” 

I may have just heard it all.

November 15, 2007 Posted by | Hollyweirdos | Leave a comment

Silky Pony booed at washed-up singer’s concert

The Breck Girl was apparently not a sight for sore eyes.  Well, except for John Cougar Menstrualcramp’s eyes, I suppose.  Anywho, the story:

The band members left the stage at the conclusion of song number four. Mellencamp grabbed an accoustic guitar and started talking with the crowd. He talked about how “his generation” had failed in doing many of the things they’d set out to do — like legalizing marijuana. Mellencamp then told the crowd the last time he’d smoked was in 1972. Mellencamp next asked the crowd about “The Golden Rule” and after he said, “Do unto others,” the crowd responded with the rest of it. Mellencamp, standing alone on stage with his guitar, then launched into Tough It Out and Be the Best You Can followed by Jesus Can You Give Me a Ride Back Home? and another song about youth and love. The crowd erupted as he started Small Town and sang the lyrics as though Wells Fargo Arena were one of those sing-along piano bars.

It’s at this point Mellencamp gestures and John Edwards walks on stage. After a few cheers boos overtake the hall. “I’ve been in your small towns,” Edwards said as Mellencamp stepped aside to give Edwards a place behind the microphone. “…You didn’t come here to listen to me,” Edwards continues as he winds down with a “thank you,” waves and walks to the darkened edge of the stage.

The crowd is mostly booing at this point. “I came for a concert,” one man behind me yelled. “Refund. Refund,” another chanted a few rows back. One person in the crowd made this observation: “Are they booing Edwards specifically or booing because they don’t like politics?” Mellencamp tells the crowd he’s “had a lot of fun with that guy,” and begins playing his guitar and singing Small Town again. The crowd slowly begins to sing along again. Edwards stood on the darkened edge of the stage until the song was over, then exited. Mellencamp didn’t say anything at the song’s end, and there was a swell of chatter among the audience members. 

As Laura Ingraham would say, “Shut up and sing!”

November 11, 2007 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, John Edwards, moonbats | 8 Comments

Jimmah documentary is box office bomb

The film did about as well as Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter did during his 1980 campaign.  That is to say, it was a thumping of near historic proportions.  From Bryan:

Hollywood director Jonathan Demme seems to have too much money and too little sense. Demme, who directed The Silence of the Lambs and Swimming to Cambodia (no, that second one is not about John Kerry’s Rambo-like exploits and achievements in time travel, fighting under the illegal orders of a president who hadn’t taken office yet) bankrolled Jimmy Carter: The Man from Plains. It’s a documentary that follows the ex-president around as he tours to promote his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

On its first weekend, the film did a whopping 10 grand at the box office in 7 theatres. That works out to about $1500 per theater, not enough to cover a single screening fee.

How surprising. Who wouldn’t want to sit through two hours watching an old man dodge questions about plagiarism, his book’s extreme anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian bisa, his illogical equation of Israel with South African apartheid, and his repeat offenses of snuggling with anti-American tinpots? Who wouldn’t want to see the self-righteous man who helped usher in the Iranian mullahcracy hug his Nobel and chastise the president who is having to clean up the mess that Carter left for all of his successors?

How could Demme have misjudged the movie-going public so badly?

Well, he’ll always have public schools and universities sell The Man From Plains to. It’ll probably end up in double features with An Inconvenient Truth with a year. 

Despite the MSM’s spin to the contrary, the irrefutable fact is that Americans do not hold Carter in the same high regard as the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy).

October 29, 2007 Posted by | Carter, dhimmitude, Hollyweirdos | Leave a comment

The same left who shilled for Mugabe now having “buyer’s remorse”

Better late than never, huh, leftists?  From Protein Wisdom:

There was a good essay about Robert Mugabe in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, pointing out how all the Left-wing journalists, politicians, and academics who were Mugabe cheerleaders from the start are now trying to cover their tracks.

Some samples:

As Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, presides over what might be the most rapid disintegration yet of a modern nation-state, it has become de rigueur for journalists, politicians and academics to offer what has become a near-universal analysis: Mugabe, who has ruled his country uninterrupted for 27 years, was a promising leader who became corrupted over time by power.

This meme was popularized not long after Mugabe began seizing white-owned farms in 2000. Four years ago, in response to these raids, the New York Times editorialized that “in 23 years as president, Mr. Mugabe has gone from independence hero to tyrant.” Earlier this week, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that “I’m just devastated by what I can’t explain, by what seems to be an aberration, this sudden change in character.”

But this popular conception of Mugabe — propagated by the liberals who championed him in the 1970s and 1980s — is absolutely wrong. From the beginning of his political career, Mugabe was not just a Marxist but one who repeatedly made clear his intention to run Zimbabwe as an authoritarian, one-party state.

And over several years in the early 1980s, Mugabe executed what arguably might be the worst of his many atrocities, a campaign of terror against the minority Ndebele tribe in which he unleashed a North Korean-trained army unit that killed between 10,000 and 30,000 people.

Yet, even in the midst of these various crimes, Mugabe never lost his fan base in the West. In 1986, the University of Massachusetts Amherst bestowed on Mugabe an honorary doctorate of laws just as he was completing his genocide against the Ndebele.

In 2000, at the start of Mugabe’s seizures of white land, New York Times columnist (and early Mugabe fan) Anthony Lewis admitted, on behalf of quite a few journalists, diplomats and academics in the West, “how wrong we were” about Mugabe. But he offered the qualification, “at least over time.” Lewis, and everyone else who ever feted Mugabe, was not just proved wrong about the despot “at least over time.” They were wrong the minute they endorsed him.

PW has a commenter who gets this 11,242% (accounting for Zimbabwean inflation) correct: the left has a track record of supporting maniacal genoicidal tyrants who lean to the left (Castro, Che, Mao, Stalin, Mugabe, Chavez, etc.) but getting their San Fransicko leather #ssless chaps in a bunch if George Bush wants to listen to a phone call between terrorists.

Case in point: Sean Penn (whose role as a mentally retarded man in I Am Sam was more insightful into his real-life persona than we ever knew) demonstrates, leftards are more than willing to accept…nay, embrace…totalitarianism, so long as it’s left-wing totalitarianism.

October 3, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, Hollyweirdos, hypocrisy, moonbats, Mugabe, socialism | Leave a comment

Hypocrisy, irony, or both?

You be the judge:

As Madonna bounds on to the huge Wembley stage to save the planet, how the assembled Greenies will cheer.

The superstar is today fronting the massive Live Earth event, with nine concerts played over 24 hours across seven continents before an audience of two billion.

The much-hyped bid to save the world is being masterminded by former U.S. vice president Al Gore – who helped focus attention on the environmental movement with his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth – and features artists including The Police, Red Hot Chili Peppers, UB40 and Metallica.

No doubt to rapturous applause, Madonna will call for mass global change to reduce carbon emissions and to tackle ‘climate crisis’.

Watching the veteran star lap up the adoration, her entourage could, however, be forgiven for exchanging slightly jaded glances – having witnessed her jet in for the concert from New York.

For her 2006 World Tour, she flew by private jet, transporting a team of up to 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. Waiting in the garage at home, she has a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S.

Indeed, Madonna’s carbon footprint is dwarfed only by her ego – she has vowed that she will ‘speak to the planet’ at Wembley. In fact, an apology might be in order – for the superstar’s energy consumption is only the tip of the iceberg in this epic vanity-fest.

The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: “a massive, hypocritical fraud”.

For while the organisers’ commitment to save the planet is genuine, the very process of putting on such a vast event, with more than 150 performers jetting around the world to appear in concerts from Tokyo to Hamburg, is surely an exercise in hypocrisy on a grand scale.

Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it ‘private jets for climate change’.

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts – nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists’ and spectators’ travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums – much of which will go directly into landfill sites.

Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.

A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced – the rest will go into landfill sites.

Travel forms the vast majority of the ‘carbon footprint’ talked of by ecological campaigners – contributing up to 90 per cent of the environmental ‘cost’.

Collins says: “It is patently absurd to claim that travel of this nature doesn’t have an impact. Each person attending the event will have to make a return journey to the venue, be it by air, rail, bus or car. This burns fossil fuel – precisely what we are trying to reduce.

“There is also the environmental cost of these artists flying around the world – that is absolutely huge.” …

Once again, “do as I say, not as I do” and “good enough for me, but not for thee” rule the day for these jerks.

There’s much more in the article, especially the indulgences scheme known as “carbon offsets” (like the ones Gore buys from himself). But I think you get the idea: normal people (i.e. us peons) with Hummers are bad while celebrities with multiple gas guzzler cars and jets are good. Got it?

July 7, 2007 Posted by | global warming, Gore, Hollyweirdos, hypocrisy | Leave a comment

Jolie: Another Hollyweirdo hypocrite

From FNC:

Angelina Jolie’s true colors came out Wednesday as she promoted a film about freedom of the press and then tried to censor all her interviews.

Jolie is touting press freedom these days, playing the widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in a new movie called “A Mighty Heart.”

But Jolie turns out to be a mighty hypocrite when it comes to her own freedom of the press. Her lawyer required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her, and Jolie instructed publicists at first to ban FOX News from the red carpet of her premiere.

Ironically, Wednesday night’s premiere of the excellent Michael Winterbottom-directed film was meant to support an organization called Reporters Without Borders. Jolie, however, did everything she could to clamp down on the press and control it.

Reporters from most major media outlets balked Wednesday when they were presented with an agreement drawn up by Jolie’s Hollywood lawyer Robert Offer. The contract closely dictated the terms of all interviews.

Reporters were asked to agree to “not ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships. In the event Interviewer does ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships, Ms. Jolie will have the right to immediately terminate the interview and leave.”

The agreement also required that “the interview may only be used to promote the Picture. In no event may Interviewer or Media Outlet be entitled to run all or any portion of the interview in connection with any other story. … The interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory to Ms. Jolie.”

If that wasn’t enough, Jolie also requires that if any of these things happen, “the tape of the interview will not be released to Interviewer.” Such a violation, the signatory thus agrees, would “cause Jolie irreparable harm” and make it possible for her to sue the interviewer and seek a restraining order.

I am told that USA Today and the Associated Press were among those that canceled interviews, and eventually Jolie scotched all print interviews when she heard the reaction.

“I wouldn’t sign it,” a reporter for a major outlet said. “Who does she think she is?”

A call to Offer was apparently one that could be refused. He didn’t return calls. An associate, Lindsay Strasberg, said, before hanging up: “You’re a reporter? I can’t talk to reporters. Goodbye.”

So much for reporters without borders.

Yeah, so much. Also, add Brangelina to the already long list of Hollyweirdos who sidle up to dictators:

After Shiloh was born, Jolie and Pitt gave a news conference, but limited it only to Namibian journalists. No reporters from neighboring countries were allowed.

The couple sat on the dais with Sam Nujoma, Namibia’s first president, aka dictator, who ruled for 15 years.

In 2002, Nujoma abruptly appointed himself minister of information and broadcasting. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Nujoma has routinely attacked reporters from his country calling them “unpatriotic” and “the enemy.”

During the time Pitt and Jolie were in the country, a former photographer for the Namibian, the daily newspaper, was arrested twice for trying to get a picture of the couple.

South African John Liebenberg was arrested on municipal property during the Jolie-Pitt stay and pronounced guilty of trespassing. His passport and camera equipment were confiscated as well.

Treatment of the press is so bad in Namibia, in fact, that an organization called the National Society for Human Rights was formed several years ago to protect reporters’ rights.

The NSHR, which is usually busy with more important matters, issued a statement on April 24 strongly condemning the deportation of foreign journalists from Namibia who wanted to cover the Pitt-Jolie visit.

“As the principal human rights monitoring and advocacy organization in this country, we strongly repudiate this unprecedented and blatant violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media,” the statement read.

It’s a little unclear how Mariane Pearl, whom Jolie plays in “A Mighty Heart,” feels about her portrayer’s position on freedom of press for some, but not all. On Wednesday, I spoke to Jeff Julliard, the editorial director of Reporters Without Borders in Paris.

“Paparazzi should be allowed to do their job,” he said, adding that he condemned Jolie’s banning of FOX News and actions taken on her behalf in Namibia.

Does this bimbo NOT see the irony of her actions, or does she simply not care? If the former, that speaks ill of her intelligence. If the latter, she should abandon all pretense that “freedom of the press” is important to her.

June 15, 2007 Posted by | Fox News, Hollyweirdos, hypocrisy | Leave a comment

UPDATED: Sheryl Crow’s answer to global warming: wipe your pooper with one square!

UPDATE BELOW.

Why Hollyweirdos are better seen and not heard. Well, she makes a living singing, so she has to be heard, but you get my drift. Anywho, from Lance Armstrong’s ex, via Hot Air:

Green earth = brown hand!

Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who’s judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, “how bout just washing the one square out.”

Hey, it’s “think globally, act locally,” not “think globally, act locally except for your pooper.”

Exit question one: Just how, um, tidy are Sheryl Crow’s evacuations that one thin square of toilet paper is enough to do the trick? You think the Goracle gets by with one?

Sheryl may trust her brother’s judgment, but I certainly don’t. Not if he’s telling me to wipe with one square and rinse it off afterwards! I’d like to think she’s joking, but with these Hollyweirdo types, you can never be certain.

Come on, people…you just knew I’d be back to my juvenile self in no time.

UPDATE (4/23/2007 – 9:53 A.M. EST): While Crow is imploring us to use one square of TP for our bungholes in order to keep the planet from baking, she has no objections to having four carbon-spewing tour busses, three gas-guzzling tractor-trailers, and six cars for her own personal usage. I tell you, between her and Gore and the Silky Pony living the energy-gorging lifestyles they tell us is killing the planet, they certainly don’t seem too concerned about it…ergo, why should we be?

April 23, 2007 Posted by | global warming, Hollyweirdos, hypocrisy, moonbats | 1 Comment

Whoopi: I don’t think, I "feel"

Thanks to Jenn of the Jungle for alerting me to this. Whoopi Goldberg was on Blowhard Bill O’Reilly’s show, and they were in a spat over whether or not Hollyweirdos are doing themselves a disservice by speaking on policy positions of which they know nothing. Here’s the telling part of the transcript:

O’REILLY: But don’t you feel it’s his responsibility if he or Jane Fonda and the rest and you too are going to take strong policy stands, because people do listen to you…

GOLDBERG: Yes. Yes.

O’REILLY: … that you know what the heck you’re talking about?

GOLDBERG: Well, I think he’s very clear that he is not for the war in Iraq. It’s not a new stance that he’s had. He’s also for years been a peace activist. So this can’t come as a surprise to anybody.

No. 2, when I take a stance on something, all I can talk to you about it how I feel about it and why. And I don’t have to justify it, and you don’t have to listen to it. But it is important for everyone to know that they have an opinion and they have a — have a right to express it.

O’REILLY: But your opinion is a little bit more heard than somebody — than Sally in Charlotte, North Carolina.

GOLDBERG: No different than yours.

O’REILLY: No, but I back mine up all day long with facts and everything else.

GOLDBERG: But you know what? Your opinion is your opinion. And if you want to go…

O’REILLY: Based on facts.

GOLDBERG: And if you want to go and get lots of facts and not go from your heart. I go from my heart.

There you have it, ladies and germs! Do you see the title portion of my blog, under the catchy “Crush Liberalism” part, that describes liberalism as a “feeling, but not thinking” ideology? The Whoopstress has confirmed that without ambiguity. She, a liberal, has just admitted that point unabashedly. She’s saying “I don’t care about facts, because they just get in the way of a good feeling!”

It is nice to have a liberal finally admit to that. One down, a few million to go…

February 2, 2007 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, moonbats | Leave a comment

Quotes of the day, from one of those Baldwin guys

You have been warned: Put down your beverages before reading the following. A couple of bizarro quotes from the formerly svelt chick magnet Alec Baldwin, via Newsbusters:

All around us are signs of global climate change. And this administration’s response is to send in more troops. If you don’t think there is a link between the weather and Iraq, you are wrong.

Well, then, count me as “wrong”, because I am apparently laboring under the misconception that was one whopper of a non sequitir! Got that, folks? The scientific reason behind the record snowfalls in Colorado and last week’s springlike temps in New York is…the Bu$hcheney McHitlerburton war machine in Baghdad. I am happy to provide that clarification for you, courtesy of Willard Scott…er, Alec Baldwin.

Another precious nugget from “Not so smart” Alec:

Kennedy has it all right. Time is up…Thank God for Teddy.

I get this nagging feeling that Mary Jo Kopechne’s family might disagree with that sentiment, but I have no way of knowing for certain…since Mary Jo was unavailable for comment.

Thank goodness for Hollyweirdos that can amuse us in ways they did not even intend.

January 10, 2007 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, moonbats | Leave a comment

Dubya doesn’t consult Hollywood?

According to the once-respected (but since then, deranged barking moonbat) Chris Matthews, it’s an outrage that the president doesn’t consult Hollyweirdos for public policy. From Newsbusters:

It goes without saying that if you’re the Commander-in-Chief, among the first people whose criticism you’d want to take into account would be . . . Hollywood movie stars. At least, that would seem to be Chris Matthews’s opinion.

Have a look at this video clip from this afternoon’s Hardball.

The specific object of Chris’s ire was the president’s suggestion at his press conference today that Americans shop more. Asked Matthews:

“I wonder if he’s in touch with the critics out there, like Matt Damon, the actor, who was on this program Monday?”

Well, naturally, Matt’s views on shopping should be of top concern to any president. Then again, wouldn’t Barbra Streisand have more expertise on the particular subject matter at hand?

“Babs? W here. What’s hot on Rodeo Drive? The American people need to know.”

Or maybe he can call Leonard Nimoy: “Hey, Spock, could you show our troops how to do that Vulcan neck pinch thingy? That’d sure help in hand-to-hand combat. Chuckle-chortle-snort!

December 21, 2006 Posted by | Hollyweirdos | Leave a comment

Hollyweirdos’ "rolling fast"

A hunger strike, or “fast”, is going on by the leftist anti-war agitators to try to bring about the end of the war in Iraq. I’m sure that Bush is losing sleep over Shehag and her ilk dropping a few pounds. From Breitbart:

Other supporters, including Penn, Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor Danny Glover will join a ‘rolling’ fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade.

How does a “rolling fast” work? Well, it’s like this:

Sean Penn et al will start the fast. When these famous moonbats get hungry and it becomes inconvenient (or if 24 hours passes, whichever comes first), they’ll relieve themselves of the burden of fasting to someone else. How’s that for Hollywood’s “sacrifice” for their “convictions”? Do you mean to tell me they care more about the headlines instead of the results? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

Here’s how it likely will go down:

PENN: I’ve been out here for nine hours without food! Do you realize that’s longer than I went between meals on the set of Fast Times at Ridgemont High? I’m getting so delirious, I thought I was still married to Madonna and beating her like a pinata!

GLOVER: I just ate a caviar-and-camembert wrap ten minutes ago. You ready to be relieved?

PENN: Yeah, I think I made my point! (screams in the direction of the White House) Bush, I’m hungry, and it’s all YOUR fault!

July 5, 2006 Posted by | Hollyweirdos, Shehag | Leave a comment