Comedian Laura McDonald parody video of Kristen Stewart explaining her reasons for cheating on Robert Pattinson with Rupert Sanders has become one of YouTube’s most popular videos today. Spoofing Kristen Stewart has become a real career boom for Laura McDonald. The comedian’s impressions of “K-Stew” are not as widely known as the “Twilight” series, but are definitely helping McDonald garner a spot as an A-list comedic entertainer.
The Kristen Stewart parody depicts “K-Stew” on a couch pleading her case with Robert Pattinson as movers take boxes of his belongings out of the room. If you look closely while watching the video, you will get an extra chuckle or two from the labels on the moving boxes.
After explaining why she decided to use YouTube as a vehicle for her apology, she starts to explain the plethora of reasons why she “did it” with the “Snow White and the Thor” director. “K-Stew” insists that she has really good explanations for having sex with Rupert Sanders, the principle being that “doing it” with the director will make her a better actress. The video takes viewers “behind the scenes” on the movie set with “K-Stew.”
Laura McDonald’s Kristen Stewart spoof chaacter is led to believe the director has sex with everyone on his movies to enhance their working relationship and improve performance. Unfortunately for “K-Stew” everyone from the “Thor” actor to the make-up girl inform her that no one else on the Snow White” set has “done it” with the director.
Each item on the list of humorous rationales the mock Kristen Stewart character offers to “Rpattz” for cheating on him with Rupert Sanders is funnier than the last. The four-minute Kristen Stewart parody may not help heal the emotional wounds Robert Pattinson or Liberty Ross endured after their beloveds steps outside the bounds of their relationships, but it will likely ensure more comedy gis for Laura McDonald.
After explaining why she decided to use YouTube as a vehicle for her apology, she starts to explain the plethora of reasons why she “did it” with the “Snow White and the Thor” director. “K-Stew” insists that she has really good explanations for having sex with Rupert Sanders, the principle being that “doing it” with the director will make her a better actress. The video takes viewers “behind the scenes” on the movie set with “K-Stew.”
Laura McDonald’s Kristen Stewart spoof chaacter is led to believe the director has sex with everyone on his movies to enhance their working relationship and improve performance. Unfortunately for “K-Stew” everyone from the “Thor” actor to the make-up girl inform her that no one else on the Snow White” set has “done it” with the director.
Each item on the list of humorous rationales the mock Kristen Stewart character offers to “Rpattz” for cheating on him with Rupert Sanders is funnier than the last. The four-minute Kristen Stewart parody may not help heal the emotional wounds Robert Pattinson or Liberty Ross endured after their beloveds steps outside the bounds of their relationships, but it will likely ensure more comedy gis for Laura McDonald.
___________________________________________________
HBO has released descriptions of the final two episodes of True Blood's fifth (and series creator Alan Ball's final) season.
Wait, how do we tell you about it without reading them ourselves?? Conundrum!
OK, we'll just hum the theme song while you read. OK… go!
Episode 59 “Sunset”: Slipping further into religious fervor, Bill (Stephen Moyer) gives Jessica (Deborah Ann Woll) an order she’s loath to carry out. Armed with a damning video of Russell (Denis O’Hare) and Steve (Michael McMillian), the military delivers an ultimatum to the Authority. Claude (Giles Matthey) and Maurella (Kristina Anapau) take Sookie (Anna Paquin) to meet the faerie elder, who may know something about an ancient family secret. Alcide (Joe Manganiello) reconnects with his father; Sam (Sam Trammell) and Luna (Janina Gavankar) hitch a rideinto the Authority.
Episode 60 “Save Yourself”: Eric (Alexander Skarsgård) embarks on a final, desperate mission to overthrow the Authority – and save Bill from losing his humanity. Andy (Chris Bauer) faces the consequences of a light pact he made; Alcide readies for a second showdown with J.D. (Louis Herthum); Sam and Luna test their limits in trying to escape the Authority.Dum de dum! Oh hey! How was it? Did it sound awesome! No wait, don't tell us!
We'll just catch them on August 19th and 26th!
___________________________________________________
Marvin Hamlisch, Composed 'The Way We Were,' Dies at 68Published: August 07, 2012
Marvin Hamlisch, the composer and conductor best known for the torch song "The Way We Were," died in Los Angeles Monday. He was 68 years old.
Hamlisch collapsed after a brief illness, his family announced.
In a career that spanned over four decades, Hamlisch won virtually every major award: three Oscars, four Grammys, four Emmys, a Tony, and three Golden Globes.
Hamlisch composed music for more than 40 motion picture, including his Oscar-winning score and song for “The Way We Were,” and his adaptation of Scott Joplin’s ragtime music for “The Sting,” for which he received a third Oscar.
His musical scores, though intricately conceived, never drew attention to themselves. They served to complement the on-screen action, not overwhelm it -- enhancing each gesture, each glance, each moment of drama. That subtle approach allowed him to be something of a musical chameleon, easily gliding from searing dramas to off-beat comedies and making him a close collaborator to a diverse group of directors, such as Woody Allen, Steven Soderbergh and Alan J. Pakula.
Perhaps his greatest collaboration was with Barbra Streisand, for whom he penned the signature love anthem "The Way We Were." He wrote the score for her 1996 film, "The Mirror Has Two Faces." He also served as musical director and arranger of Streisand’s 1994 concert tour and the television special, "Barbra Streisand: The Concert," for which he won two Emmys.
In a 2010 interview with Broadway World, Hamlisch said he drew on the lovelorn masterpiece "My Funny Valentine" to write the theme song to "The Way We Were" because he wanted to capture the highs and lows of romance.
"It was all almost like a very yin-yang sort of movie," Hamlisch said. "I wanted to write something that was uplifting and positive. On the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of bitter-sweetness to that film -- and bittersweet romance -- so, it's a real duality. And that's why I think the song -- though it's in the major mode -- is quite sad."
Hamlisch's deft touch can be felt in the scores for such diverse films as “Sophie’s Choice,” “Ordinary People,” “Three Men and a Baby,” “Ice Castles,” “Take the Money and Run,” "Bananas,” “Save the Tiger,” “The Informant!” and his latest effort, “Behind the Candelabra,” an upcoming HBO film about the life of Liberace.
On Broadway, Hamlisch had a smash hit with 1975's long-running “A Chorus Line,” which received the Pulitzer Prize and the Tony Award. Other works such as “The Goodbye Girl” and “Sweet Smell of Success," garnered some critical praise, but were never fully embraced by audiences. But he remained busy in the theater scene, and a statement from his publicist said Hamlisch was supposed to fly to Nashville, Tenn. this week to see a production of his musical, “The Nutty Professor.”
Something of a musical prodigy, Hamlisch was the youngest student to be admitted by the prestigious Julliard School of Music.
He was hired by "Lawrence of Arabia," producer Sam Spiegel to play piano at his parties, which in turn led to his first film job scoring the 1968 film "The Swimmer," an adaptation of John Cheever's short story.
At the time of his death, Hamlisch held the position of Principal Pops Conductor for the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, Dallas Symphony Orchestra, Pasadena Symphony and Pops, Seattle Symphony, and San Diego Symphony.
Next week, he was to be announced as the Principal Pops Conductor of The Philadelphia Orchestra. Hamlisch was also due to conduct the New York Philharmonic in its upcoming New Year’s Eve concert.
He is survived by Terre, his wife of 25 years.
His musical scores, though intricately conceived, never drew attention to themselves. They served to complement the on-screen action, not overwhelm it -- enhancing each gesture, each glance, each moment of drama. That subtle approach allowed him to be something of a musical chameleon, easily gliding from searing dramas to off-beat comedies and making him a close collaborator to a diverse group of directors, such as Woody Allen, Steven Soderbergh and Alan J. Pakula.
Perhaps his greatest collaboration was with Barbra Streisand, for whom he penned the signature love anthem "The Way We Were." He wrote the score for her 1996 film, "The Mirror Has Two Faces." He also served as musical director and arranger of Streisand’s 1994 concert tour and the television special, "Barbra Streisand: The Concert," for which he won two Emmys.
In a 2010 interview with Broadway World, Hamlisch said he drew on the lovelorn masterpiece "My Funny Valentine" to write the theme song to "The Way We Were" because he wanted to capture the highs and lows of romance.
"It was all almost like a very yin-yang sort of movie," Hamlisch said. "I wanted to write something that was uplifting and positive. On the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of bitter-sweetness to that film -- and bittersweet romance -- so, it's a real duality. And that's why I think the song -- though it's in the major mode -- is quite sad."
Hamlisch's deft touch can be felt in the scores for such diverse films as “Sophie’s Choice,” “Ordinary People,” “Three Men and a Baby,” “Ice Castles,” “Take the Money and Run,” "Bananas,” “Save the Tiger,” “The Informant!” and his latest effort, “Behind the Candelabra,” an upcoming HBO film about the life of Liberace.
On Broadway, Hamlisch had a smash hit with 1975's long-running “A Chorus Line,” which received the Pulitzer Prize and the Tony Award. Other works such as “The Goodbye Girl” and “Sweet Smell of Success," garnered some critical praise, but were never fully embraced by audiences. But he remained busy in the theater scene, and a statement from his publicist said Hamlisch was supposed to fly to Nashville, Tenn. this week to see a production of his musical, “The Nutty Professor.”
Something of a musical prodigy, Hamlisch was the youngest student to be admitted by the prestigious Julliard School of Music.
He was hired by "Lawrence of Arabia," producer Sam Spiegel to play piano at his parties, which in turn led to his first film job scoring the 1968 film "The Swimmer," an adaptation of John Cheever's short story.
At the time of his death, Hamlisch held the position of Principal Pops Conductor for the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, Dallas Symphony Orchestra, Pasadena Symphony and Pops, Seattle Symphony, and San Diego Symphony.
Next week, he was to be announced as the Principal Pops Conductor of The Philadelphia Orchestra. Hamlisch was also due to conduct the New York Philharmonic in its upcoming New Year’s Eve concert.
He is survived by Terre, his wife of 25 years.
* My personal favorite is the theme from The Spy Who Loved Me (1977). From the opening jaw-dropping ski-chase to title song.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Get Your Ass (Back) to Mars: A GQ+A with the Original Total Recall Director, Paul Verhoeven
![total-recall-635[2].jpg](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vq8Z9CJvAHzj7tPfCHCv5-l5dJfo83vMcGMe9cBGZsQbF-LifvNiddL0fiA1lCrsKds3l8zm0rx7ASQut6Xiq5K2fHlzYOGNwyop92S6b_icXRHEcEmKPeVqnumNCr9uDc9BacNXC9X-txvFEU0qyXq5g=s0-d)
The new Total Recall reboot is a joyless mess, which will come as no surprise to fans of the original, all of whom surely wondered about the wisdom of trying to top Dutch director Paul Vehoeven's version—the delightfully lurid B-movie that made Arnold Schwarznegger an A-list star. But if nothing else, the new Colin Farrell flick gave us a good excuse to get Verhoeven on the phone and talk about Ahnuld's accent, why three breasts are better than four, and why Sharon Stone still owes him an apology. GQ: Let's start with the three-breasted woman: maybe the most iconic image from Total Recall. Was she your idea?
Paul Verhoeven: Well, yes. I had asked for a woman with four breasts. Anatomically that is possible with additional nipples. I saw photographs of that when I was at university. But from an entertainment point of view, I think three breasts were more interesting than four breasts.
GQ: Were any of those three breasts real?
Paul Verhoeven: No. All three were artificial and, let's say, glued onto the real ones.
GQ: How did the crew react to her?
Paul Verhoeven: People laughed, of course. But it was a film set. Everyone goes on working. There was more a sensation when Arnold was walking around in the yellow robe of the fat woman. They thought that was more funny than the three breasts.
GQ: To this day, your movie holds up. Though I find myself laughing every time Arnold says, "Get your ass to Mars."
Paul Verhoeven: Because of the accent? It was always a bit strange. I thought the accent would be alienating. My editor worked with Arnold before on Conan. He said, "The audience accepts that of Arnold. You shouldn't worry about it." It was funny, of course. Neither me nor Arnold sometimes knew how to pronounce a word. We had to get the script girl to tell us.
GQ: Like what?
Paul Verhoeven: The past tense of dreaming. Is it, "I dreamed" or "I dreamt." I forgot what the right pronunciation is. That happened a lot on set.
GQ: The film is more violent than I'd remembered. Did you run into any problems with the MPAA?
Paul Verhoeven: We had to take out stuff, like in RoboCop and in Basic Instinct. I had to trim it. For example, on the escalator, Arnold uses a man as a shield. That's still in the movie but the scene was much more brutal and went on much longer. It was funnier—like a comic book, really. Taking the blood out and the comic book tone out makes it more realistic—and worse for the younger people.
GQ: I heard the script for Minority Report was originally meant to be the sequel to Total Recall. Is that true?
Paul Verhoeven: Yes, sure. Absolutely.
GQ: How close did you get to making it?
Paul Verhoeven: Not close. We had been working on the script for half a year. I thought, This would be the perfect sequel for Total Recall. The mutants that are in Spielberg's movie—the mutants that foresee the future—would be much more acceptable on Mars. It made so much sense to me. But the production company, Carolco, went into Chapter 11 and ultimately the project disappeared, and came back through others to Spielberg.
GQ: Total Recall is one of the first movies where two women really kick the shit out of each other. Also your idea?
Paul Verhoeven: In the script it described two women more like pulling out the hair and that kind of stuff. I said, I don't want that.
GQ: Why?
Paul Verhoeven: That's boring. Let's make these two women into warriors and make it athletic. The choreographer really understood what I wanted.
GQ: Can Sharon Stone actually throw a punch?
Paul Verhoeven: [Laughs] In the movie it looks like she does.
GQ: After Basic Instinct, Sharon Stone told people you tricked her into doing that infamous crotch scene—which you've denied. Has she ever apologized to you?
Paul Verhoeven: Formally, no. Not on television, say. Not in a public place. But in a private place, at the dinner table, after a glass of wine, we made up. She promised not to say this kind of thing again. And she said it anyhow!
GQ: Are you in touch with Arnold? He's getting back into acting.
Paul Verhoeven: The last couple of years, very rarely. It would be more in passing by and meeting at a restaurant and shaking hands. I called him when this difficulty started with the housekeeper—to support him, clearly. But I haven't seen him. He's certainly not showing his face in very many public places, I don't think. It must be extremely difficult for Arnold, who has been so successful in everything he did, to be involved in this, call it a scandal or whatever. I feel really bad about that.
GQ: Don't feel too bad: He did it to himself. And he's certainly not the first politician who couldn't keep it in his pants.
Paul Verhoeven: Yeah, sure sure. But I'm not the person that looks at these things that way. He took very well care of this woman. The having sex? For me, in the United States, the importance of sex is in general too highly acclaimed as something very sacred. In my opinion, having sex with a woman is not much different than having a coffee with a woman.
GQ: We'd expect that kind of attitude from the man who made Basic Instinct!
Paul Verhoeven: I don't care basically so much. I don't think that having sex with other people—
GQ: You mean outside the marriage?
Paul Verhoeven: Yeah, it's not so terribly important or disgusting or should be condemned in such a unanimous way. It's much more complicated than that. Sex should not be seen as more than a trick of evolution to keep the species going. We should not make it into a sacred thing.
GQ: You're not involved in the reboot of Total Recall. Are you curious to see it?
Paul Verhoeven: Moderately.
GQ: That's it?
Paul Verhoeven: I saw the trailer. It's difficult to judge a movie off of three minutes. But I had the feeling there was an essentially different look—more serious, in fact. I had the feeling there was not much, let's say, funny things happening.
GQ: The director, Len Wiseman, has admitted as much. Was there humor in the original script?
Paul Verhoeven: That had a lot to do with the choice of Arnold. Before we started, Patrick Swayze was involved. Arnold had been pursuing the project for years. In the original script, Quaid was an accountant. He was boring. Arnold is not an accountant. It would not work that way. We felt we should adapt the script. With Arnold, the tone should be a touch lighter. A little bit winking.
GQ: Total Recall, Starship Troopers, and RoboCop are all being remade. Do you feel vindicated?
Paul Verhoeven: I feel completely depressed.
GQ: Really?
Paul Verhoeven: It's depressing in the way that you feel that you're already dead and buried. Basically, you are transported out of the window.
GQ: Will they remake Showgirls?
Paul Verhoeven: I strongly doubt it.
Paul Verhoeven: Well, yes. I had asked for a woman with four breasts. Anatomically that is possible with additional nipples. I saw photographs of that when I was at university. But from an entertainment point of view, I think three breasts were more interesting than four breasts.
GQ: Were any of those three breasts real?
Paul Verhoeven: No. All three were artificial and, let's say, glued onto the real ones.
GQ: How did the crew react to her?
Paul Verhoeven: People laughed, of course. But it was a film set. Everyone goes on working. There was more a sensation when Arnold was walking around in the yellow robe of the fat woman. They thought that was more funny than the three breasts.
GQ: To this day, your movie holds up. Though I find myself laughing every time Arnold says, "Get your ass to Mars."
Paul Verhoeven: Because of the accent? It was always a bit strange. I thought the accent would be alienating. My editor worked with Arnold before on Conan. He said, "The audience accepts that of Arnold. You shouldn't worry about it." It was funny, of course. Neither me nor Arnold sometimes knew how to pronounce a word. We had to get the script girl to tell us.
GQ: Like what?
Paul Verhoeven: The past tense of dreaming. Is it, "I dreamed" or "I dreamt." I forgot what the right pronunciation is. That happened a lot on set.
GQ: The film is more violent than I'd remembered. Did you run into any problems with the MPAA?
Paul Verhoeven: We had to take out stuff, like in RoboCop and in Basic Instinct. I had to trim it. For example, on the escalator, Arnold uses a man as a shield. That's still in the movie but the scene was much more brutal and went on much longer. It was funnier—like a comic book, really. Taking the blood out and the comic book tone out makes it more realistic—and worse for the younger people.
GQ: I heard the script for Minority Report was originally meant to be the sequel to Total Recall. Is that true?
Paul Verhoeven: Yes, sure. Absolutely.
GQ: How close did you get to making it?
Paul Verhoeven: Not close. We had been working on the script for half a year. I thought, This would be the perfect sequel for Total Recall. The mutants that are in Spielberg's movie—the mutants that foresee the future—would be much more acceptable on Mars. It made so much sense to me. But the production company, Carolco, went into Chapter 11 and ultimately the project disappeared, and came back through others to Spielberg.
GQ: Total Recall is one of the first movies where two women really kick the shit out of each other. Also your idea?
Paul Verhoeven: In the script it described two women more like pulling out the hair and that kind of stuff. I said, I don't want that.
GQ: Why?
Paul Verhoeven: That's boring. Let's make these two women into warriors and make it athletic. The choreographer really understood what I wanted.
GQ: Can Sharon Stone actually throw a punch?
Paul Verhoeven: [Laughs] In the movie it looks like she does.
GQ: After Basic Instinct, Sharon Stone told people you tricked her into doing that infamous crotch scene—which you've denied. Has she ever apologized to you?
Paul Verhoeven: Formally, no. Not on television, say. Not in a public place. But in a private place, at the dinner table, after a glass of wine, we made up. She promised not to say this kind of thing again. And she said it anyhow!
GQ: Are you in touch with Arnold? He's getting back into acting.
Paul Verhoeven: The last couple of years, very rarely. It would be more in passing by and meeting at a restaurant and shaking hands. I called him when this difficulty started with the housekeeper—to support him, clearly. But I haven't seen him. He's certainly not showing his face in very many public places, I don't think. It must be extremely difficult for Arnold, who has been so successful in everything he did, to be involved in this, call it a scandal or whatever. I feel really bad about that.
GQ: Don't feel too bad: He did it to himself. And he's certainly not the first politician who couldn't keep it in his pants.
Paul Verhoeven: Yeah, sure sure. But I'm not the person that looks at these things that way. He took very well care of this woman. The having sex? For me, in the United States, the importance of sex is in general too highly acclaimed as something very sacred. In my opinion, having sex with a woman is not much different than having a coffee with a woman.
GQ: We'd expect that kind of attitude from the man who made Basic Instinct!
Paul Verhoeven: I don't care basically so much. I don't think that having sex with other people—
GQ: You mean outside the marriage?
Paul Verhoeven: Yeah, it's not so terribly important or disgusting or should be condemned in such a unanimous way. It's much more complicated than that. Sex should not be seen as more than a trick of evolution to keep the species going. We should not make it into a sacred thing.
GQ: You're not involved in the reboot of Total Recall. Are you curious to see it?
Paul Verhoeven: Moderately.
GQ: That's it?
Paul Verhoeven: I saw the trailer. It's difficult to judge a movie off of three minutes. But I had the feeling there was an essentially different look—more serious, in fact. I had the feeling there was not much, let's say, funny things happening.
GQ: The director, Len Wiseman, has admitted as much. Was there humor in the original script?
Paul Verhoeven: That had a lot to do with the choice of Arnold. Before we started, Patrick Swayze was involved. Arnold had been pursuing the project for years. In the original script, Quaid was an accountant. He was boring. Arnold is not an accountant. It would not work that way. We felt we should adapt the script. With Arnold, the tone should be a touch lighter. A little bit winking.
GQ: Total Recall, Starship Troopers, and RoboCop are all being remade. Do you feel vindicated?
Paul Verhoeven: I feel completely depressed.
GQ: Really?
Paul Verhoeven: It's depressing in the way that you feel that you're already dead and buried. Basically, you are transported out of the window.
GQ: Will they remake Showgirls?
Paul Verhoeven: I strongly doubt it.
* Pity the way Hollywood treated him after Showgirls debacle. The Dutch meister was ahead of his time when it comes to portraying sex and violence on big screen.
___________________________________________________
blast from the past : Yvonne Strahovski in Maxim Australia [March] 2012
___________________________________________________
More here : http://www.youtube.com/user/sumonsaad
Mia Kirshner : The L-Word (2005) [full frontal scene on stage]
More here : http://www.youtube.com/user/sumonsaad
___________________________________________________
Katrina Bowden dons bikini, shows off fit figure poolside
‘30 Rock’ hottie stays cool by pool of midtown Manhattan’s exclusive Gansevoort Park Rooftop.
by Joyce Chen
 |
After her sizzling FHM May cover, Katrina Bowden plays it cool at the Gansevoort Park Rooftop pool in midtown New York City. When the summer heats up, the stars strip down - and Katrina Bowden couldn't resist ditching the office to catch a few rays Tuesday. The "30 Rock" actress, who announced her engagement to boyfriend Ben Jorgensen back in January, slipped on a pink-and-purple striped bikini for some relaxation poolside at the Gansevoort Park Rooftop. Bowden, who showed off her enviable figure on the cover of FHM in May, told the magazine that she stays fit with a regimen that includes pole dancing and kick boxing.  |
"Oh, pole dancing, definitely," the 23-year-old actress said of her favorite workout routines. "It's acrobatic, it's gymnastic, and you're holding yourself in all these crazy Cirque du Soleil positions that feel very unnatural.
"There are definitely sexy, cute moments to it, but all the crazy flipping-yourself-upside-down stuff is really tough. I get really sore after my pole-dancing classes!"
___________________________________________________
Square Enix teams up with YouTube director to create live action Sleeping Dogs film.
Square Enix has teamed up with famed YouTube director Clinton Jones to create a live action film based on Sleeping Dogs.
The brutal 8 minute film stars 'Urban Ninja' Xin Sarith Wuku as Wei, and offers a glimpse at the action and tone found in Square's upcoming open-worlder.
"I've always wanted to do a martial arts piece, and Square Enix made it happen!" said Jones. "HUGE shout to Square for this! And thanks to EVERYONE who made this possible due to their hard work and dedication!"
You can catch the film below but if you've just eaten your breakfast, be warned: the film features some incredibly violent scenes.
Sleeping Dogs launches next Friday, August 17 on Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and PC.
___________________________________________________
Qualley sings 'Falcon Song'
Described as a new wave Western, story follows a rancher's granddaughter who reconnects with her mother's magical past and helps a drifter (Gabriel Sunday) whose arrival forever changes the course of an age-old land war. Ensemble cast also includes Martin Kove, Hart Turner, James Storm and Michael Yebba.
Brown co-wrote the script with Emmy winner Michelle Poteet Lisanti. Pic will be shot entirely on location in Montana.
Qualley, who recently joined Macdowell in the indie feature "Mother's Day," is repped by Innovative Artists and Liebman Entertainment.
* Holy fuck she is gorgeous. Hoping Andie gave her the same advice Susan Sarandon gave to her booblicious daughter : "Get naked sweetheart".
___________________________________________________
Qualley sings 'Falcon Song'
by Jeff Sneider
Rainey Qualley, daughter of Andie Macdowell, has joined the cast of indie "Falcon Song," which Jason Corgan Brown will direct and produce through his Corgan Pictures banner. 
Described as a new wave Western, story follows a rancher's granddaughter who reconnects with her mother's magical past and helps a drifter (Gabriel Sunday) whose arrival forever changes the course of an age-old land war. Ensemble cast also includes Martin Kove, Hart Turner, James Storm and Michael Yebba. Brown co-wrote the script with Emmy winner Michelle Poteet Lisanti. Pic will be shot entirely on location in Montana.
Qualley, who recently joined Macdowell in the indie feature "Mother's Day," is repped by Innovative Artists and Liebman Entertainment.
* Holy fuck she is gorgeous. Hoping Andie gave her the same advice Susan Sarandon gave to her booblicious daughter : "Get naked sweetheart".
___________________________________________________
Celebrate 'Suits' star Meghan Markle's birthday
Meghan Markle, most known for her current role as Rachel Zane on USA Network’s “Suits,” turns 31 years old today (August 4)!
On “Suits,” the actress plays a paralegal that seems to have a lot of chemistry with one of the two lead characters, Patrick J. Adams’ Mike Ross. The two have a will they/won’t they type relationship that’s a lot of fun to watch, though it’s been put on a bit of a backburner lately.
Catch her on “Suits” every Thursday at 10 on USA Network!
* Damn my eyes! Saw "Meghan Markle" "Birthday" "Suit" headline and thought finally..........
___________________________________________________
Jacqueline MacInnes Wood "After Hours"
Brianna Frost Tebows nude
___________________________________________________
Will Ferrell, Zach Galifianakis Audition For Fifty Shades of Grey Roles
Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis, making the media rounds promoting their new political comedy The Campaign, decided to audition for the sought-after lead roles in another upcoming movie generating a great deal of buzz: Fifty Shades of Grey.
Amid all the debate, speculation and argument over who should play Christian and Ana, we may have overlooked these two diamonds in the rough.
It's like the duo truly was born to star in this movie together. Will's right ... Fifty Shades' writing really is exquisite. Watch the funny clip below:
Amid all the debate, speculation and argument over who should play Christian and Ana, we may have overlooked these two diamonds in the rough.
It's like the duo truly was born to star in this movie together. Will's right ... Fifty Shades' writing really is exquisite. Watch the funny clip below:
___________________________________________________
How nude is your house?
 |
| Would you do this? |
Not so. After a nice dinner, a few wines and a thorough deconstruction of each of our relationships, (a given) our hostess with the mostess casually mentioned that her and her partner spend a hefty amount of their time at home together, in the nude.
Even referring to herself as a “NAH”- Nudist At Home. She assured me they weren’t traditional nudists though. For example, apparently they don’t don their birthday suits to do the gardening or wash the car. Just to perform menial tasks including but not limited to cleaning the bathroom and making dinner.
Please excuse my seemingly narrow-minded affinities, but this information didn’t rest too well with me. Not only because I couldn’t help but think about the bare body parts that had previously made contact with the beautiful leather sofa I was perched upon at the time, but I found the whole ideal a little, well, whack. Heck, I’d only ever heard of the concept of nudism on those radical TV documentaries. Never had I have ever considered my friends to be so fervent about being nude.
What surprised me the most was I was the only person in the room who found this concept unusual. Unbeknownst to me, even my partner thought in-home nudity was normal (a comment I would have probably appreciated two years ago at the beginning of our relationship). And in a paradox, I was branded a prude for not choosing to waltz around my house au natural, while these so-called nudists deemed themselves normal for being just that. Nudists!
Am I unknowingly in the midst of a nudist revival? Or am I part of a strange minority of humans who never received the memo outlining our need to embrace nudism within the confines of our home in order to be considered normal? Here I am worrying about being sprung bra-less in my daggy old pyjamas by the postman or kids trying to sell raffle tickets at my front door, when my nearest and dearest are busy tootling around their homes in the nude without a care in the world.
While I may have been the only prude in the room at this particular dinner, it seems I’m not alone in thinking this custom is completely far-fetched. A simple search engine investigation revealed forum after forum of anecdotes about naked related troubles from vexed wives and girlfriends.
I have to say, I don’t believe the high number of women experiencing animosity towards nudity has a great deal to do with sexual desire or lack thereof. Instead, I believe in many cases, women are simply far too self-conscious to nude up in front of their partners. Yes, that old chestnut. I don’t blame them though.
The ability to hide your wobbly bits is increased to the power of ten when nude outside the confines of your bedroom. Especially in direct sunlight. Then for others, like myself, nakedness is simply unnatural. Which is why, one week after the highly mind blowing dinner party revelation, I am still trying to get my head around the entire concept of in home nudity.
I guess what I’m really wanting to understand as a result of this conversation is how nude is not nude enough? Rather, how nude is normal?
___________________________________________________
Wu Xi’er raises eyebrows for her revealing outfit at culture expo
Nasty model Wu Xi’er raised eyebrows again by making sexy apperance at a culture expo recently in Foshan city, Guangdong province.
Dressed in golden outfilt that barely covered her famous breasts, the instant celebrity sticks herself to the always sexy looking she has worked to build for publicity.
Since last June she successfully promoted herself at an auto show in Shenzhen, Wu Xi’er has made big money from attending various activities with more and more of her skin revealed.
As a big rival to infamous Gan Lulu, Wu is proved to be a sccess too. Reportedly Gan has attempted to impersonate American artist Lady Gaga to drum up publicity again for herself, apparently under the influence of the recent challenge from Wu.
Dressed in golden outfilt that barely covered her famous breasts, the instant celebrity sticks herself to the always sexy looking she has worked to build for publicity.
Since last June she successfully promoted herself at an auto show in Shenzhen, Wu Xi’er has made big money from attending various activities with more and more of her skin revealed.
As a big rival to infamous Gan Lulu, Wu is proved to be a sccess too. Reportedly Gan has attempted to impersonate American artist Lady Gaga to drum up publicity again for herself, apparently under the influence of the recent challenge from Wu.
___________________________________________________
So, Now that the Supreme Court Has Ruled: What’s up with Indecency?
by Gregg Skall
Pretty much everyone in broadcasting knows that the Supreme Court has ruled in the Fox/CBS case. The court did not settle the constitutional issue and, while the cases were dismissed on alternative grounds, the indecency issue and its enforcement are now back in the hands of the FCC. Bear in mind that the Second Circuit court of Appeals has twice concluded that the FCC’s standard for indecency and its application was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Fox Case History
For those interested in a brief background, the networks challenged the FCC policy change that now includes spontaneous utterances an indecency violation. The Second Circuit held that the Commission had not adequately justified its policy change but the Supreme Court held that FCC need offer detailed justification for changing policy direction.
Back to the Second Circuit; where the FCC indecency policy was again held to violate the First Amendment; and then, back again to the Supreme Court. In June, the Supremes punted again, avoiding the First Amendment issue, the Court decided instead that the Commission policy change violated the fair notice requirement of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause by not giving ABC and Fox affiliates adequate advance notice that a broadcaster would be held liable for fleeting instances of unscripted cursing or nudity.
Bottom Line
Boiled down, the Fox case stands only for this:
The FCC change to a diametrically different policy approach without the need to demonstrate why the new policy is superior. However, a licensee cannot be sanctioned for its violation without the FCC first providing fair notice of the change. That’s about it!!
In the words of Justice Kennedy, “The commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent.”
What IS an indecency violation?
So, if indecency is still an FCC violation, what how do we define indecency? The million dollar question ($64,000 is so yesterday) remains what constitutes a violation? Answer: because the Supreme Court dodged the First Amendment issue, we still don’t know!
Here’s a short explanation of what we do know. It’s not always an easy test and this is one where a lawyer can be of real help.
The Commission’s indecency test is a “contextual” one. Whether an expression or a word or a picture can be deemed indecent depends on the context in which it occurs. That means that the broadcaster must be a good predictor, probably clairvoyant, of the Commission’s views on context. If not very good at that, it could wind up with a fine, a sanction or a problem at renewal time.
Examples:
Let’s look at an example. While these are television examples, they are also instructive to radio broadcasters.
In 2005, the American Family Association, and others, complained that ABC affiliates broadcast indecent and profane material by broadcasting the film Saving Private Ryan. The Commission dismissed the complaints, stating that the “full context in which material appeared is critically important,” and reviewed the three “principal factors” to be analyzed in making indecency determinations:
[1] the explicitness or graphic nature of the description or depiction of sexual or excretory activities;
[2] whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions of sexual or organs or activities;
[3] whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate, or appears to have been presented for its shock value.
In the FCC’s view, “[e]ach indecency case presents its own particular mix of these, and possibly, other [unknown] factors,” but how they balance out will determine whether the broadcast is deemed patently offensive.
So, when the Commission weighed these factors against a complaint that an episode of the PBS documentary series Martin Scorsese Presents the Blues the filmmaker’s artistic decision that the words objected to were necessary to provide an unedited window into the world of the interviewed jazz greats with their own words as an educational experience for the viewer, it came to a different conclusion. Because the interviews contained repeated utterances of the “F-Word” and “S-Word,” and their variants, the Commission held that broadcasts containing the expletives were patently offensive under contemporary community standards and thus indecent.
A New York Times account of Fox Case oral argument before the Supreme Court reported that even Supreme Court Justices were confused by FCC policy rulings:
“One cannot tell what’s indecent and what isn’t,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said , referring to the agency as “the censor.” . . . The commission has, for instance, said that swearing in “Saving Private Ryan,” the Steven Spielberg war movie, was not indecent, while swearing by blues masters in a music documentary produced by Martin Scorsese was indecent. Nudity in “Schindler’s List,” another Spielberg movie, was allowed, but a few seconds of partial nudity in “NYPD Blue” was not. . . . Justice Elena Kagan offered a summary of the state of federal regulation in this area. “The way that this policy seems to work,” she said, “it’s like nobody can use dirty words or nudity except for Steven Spielberg.”
With such statements from the bench, communications lawyers had some hope that, finally, we would get some Supreme Court guidance that would make sense of the policy or require a more rational and predictable standard, making the six-plus years since the appeal was filed worth the wait. We did not get it.
The question of what is indecent, and even whether any indecency regulation remains constitutional, is left an unfinished work. We still do not know the permissible First Amendment limit of broadcasting under the indecency standard. We have the fair notice that fleeting expletives are now considered actionable indecency, but we still do not have fair notice of what, or under what circumstance, speech will be considered indecent.
So, where are we?
Is there any guidance or are broadcasters just S.O.L. (oops, forgive me)?
Here is what we know.
Relief from Congress is unlikely. Various press reports indicate that Congress has no appetite for tackling this issue and lawmakers are hoping that the FCC will take up the issue again.
There are an estimated 1.5 million indecency complaints pending at the FCC that have been allowed to linger while we waited for a Supreme Court decision. Hundreds of stations now having to file license renewal have never had their last license renewal acted upon.
There is pressure on the FCC to act. With all these actions pending, the eyes of the public, broadcasters and the Congress are on the FCC; they will have to do something. Justice Kennedy stated: “This opinion leaves the Commission free to modify its current indecency policy in light of its determination of the public interest and applicable legal requirements and leaves courts free to review the current, or any modified, policy in light of its content and application.” Broadcasters are speaking out, demanding that the FCC provide more guidance and claiming that affiliates should not be held responsible for what happens on a network.
No question, we need more guidance for rational action. Nevertheless, there is some reasonably reliable guidance that broadcasters can rely upon now that the Court has established that if the FCC were to change its policy, even “without providing a reasoned explanation justifying the about-face,” they could not be held in violation without adequate prior notice of the change and the new policy.
In the next article, we’ll review some of those policies and standards.
This column is provided for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice pertaining to any specific factual situation. Legal decisions should be made only after proper consultation with a legal professional of your choosing
___________________________________________________
Wild Eye Releasing presents “Tight”, a hilarious ‘mockumentary’ about four adult performers who create the all-girl rock band Tight, and hit the road to promote their music, meet new fans and learn about friendship, perseverance and the insanity of the rock-and-roll lifestyle. For the first time ever, the lives of an all female adult star rock band is documented for the world to see.
“Tight”, available on DVD September 25th, follows Aussie Monica Mayhem, Texan Latina Tuesday Cross, Miss Golden Shower Alicia Andrews and gorgeous Canadian hussy and swallows cum for fun Layla Labelle as they temporarily take leave of the adult industry and try to make it as rock musicians, sweating it out in the clubs under the management of one of the biggest names in the adult industry, and former Charlie Sheen Goddess, Bree Olson.
“The biggest challenge a porn star band faces is being taken seriously,” says Bree Olsen. “These are very talented musicians but not everyone is willing to give them a chance.”
Tight (the band) competed and won on Howard Stern’s XXX Factor talent competition back in April, and a new lead singer, Kelley Jean, recently replaced Mayhem, adding a new dynamic to the quartet. Tight is headed on tour soon, just in time for the release of “Tight” (the movie) as well as the band’s new single ‘Down to the Bottom’, which is available HERE:
www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=501393&songID=11538032&showPlayer=true
“Tight” is loaded with extras, including deleted scenes, bonus videos, unseen concert footage, sexy image galleries, trailers and four pages of liner notes, and is already receiving raves: James King of the Phoenix New Times notes that “’Tight’ has all the components of a perfect reality series,” while The New York Post declared it “the best mockumentary since Spinal Tap!” The girls’ raw energy pierces the screen and makes the viewer root for this most unlikely of rock bands, even as they implode.
___________________________________________________
Does President Obama Speak White?
Keli Goff When Logan West, the newly crowned Miss Teen USA, announced that she wanted to use her crown and platform to help end bullying, that wasn't much of a surprise. Some cynics might argue that bullying has replaced environmental activism as the cause du jour among celebrities and politicians alike. What was somewhat surprising was that Logan -- who at 17 is already more beautiful and poised than most professional models -- has admitted to being a victim of bullying herself. Even more surprising, or shocking, than that, is the reason why.
Logan was targeted in part for being biracial, but more specifically for acting and talking white. The reason I found this so shocking is because I didn't realize "white" was an official language, like Spanish or Swahili.
I also found it shocking because I heard the same thing when I was growing up and being more than a decade older than Logan I had assumed that this sort of ignorance on the playground and in hallways had gone the way of VCRs and bulky cell phones. But according to others I've spoken with, the "you talk like a white girl" taunt is still very much alive and well, destroying self-esteem and intellectualism in the black community one taunt at a time. Even more discouraging is the fact that this type of taunting remains alive, well and effective in the age of a black president, whose own critics consider one of the most eloquent men to hold the office.
Recently I met a brilliant and beautiful young student at the phenomenal "Black Girls Rock" camp who shared how this same taunt has been wearing her down. After hearing this student's story, as well as Logan's, I set about asking other black friends how many of them heard it growing up and watched and listened as the stories poured in.
Farai Chideya, the award-winning author, journalist and former host of NPR's "News and Notes," recalled hearing the accusation growing up, as did tennis player MaliVai Washington. Victoria Uwumarogie, an editor at Madame Noire, said she heard it constantly in high school. "When you're older, you just take it as that individual being ignorant, because there's nothing wrong with enunciating and talking proper, or as I like to call it, talking like you have some sense," but she admitted that when you're younger, and trying to fit in, it's not quite so easy to see that the issue is with the other person and not with you. Instead, she said, "you take it as someone questioning your blackness, and trying to make you different during a time when you really want to fit in."
To Uwumarogie's point, Stanford-based anthropologist and linguist H. Samy Alim said, "When somebody says 'you talk white,' it may be far more than a linguistic judgment. It may also be a political one." But he went on to explain that the reasons are as complex as our country's own troubled racial history.
According to Alim, who tackles the racial politics of language in his forthcoming book, Articulate while Black with co-author Dr. Geneva Smitherman, as far back as the 1700's there were documents categorizing American slaves based on their mastery of grammatically correct English.
As our country evolved there became a seemingly never-ending tug of war within the black community between establishing, celebrating and protecting our own cultural identity and willfully assimilating into the dominant culture, established and dictated by white people, specifically educated, upper class white people. "The problem in the U.S. is that powerful language ideologies link 'standard' English with Whiteness," he explains. Since speech tends to be one of the primary indicators of who someone is, where they come from and what they stand for, some black people may be suspicious of someone who seems too eager to embrace the cultural norms of the predominant culture. To his point, Alim notes how black Americans respond positively when President Obama inflects his speeches with a little soul, or other linguistic nods to the community.
In other words, these nods provide a sort of cultural signal that say, "I'm educated. I'm now part of the dominant power structure but you can still trust me." (The book Articulate While Black specifically analyzes the impact of President Obama on language.)
But it's hard to believe that those kids who are tossing the term "you talk white" around like an emotional grenade at schools are doing it for political reasons. More likely they are doing it for the same reason that other kids bully: to hurt someone. What is particularly disturbing about this is that the message is being sent that speaking grammatically correct English, is a teasing offense and that telling someone they sound intelligent should be hurtful.
The domino effect of this thought process is proving disastrous for our community. As speaking well and performing well academically are increasingly denigrated as so-called white behaviors, more black children set themselves up to fail linguistically and academically in an effort to fit in with their black peers who don't "act white." According to Dr. Janet Taylor, an instructor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, who has served as Board Chair of the National Black Women's Health Imperative, "Some black kids who are subject to hearing that they 'talk white' are at risk to stop talking or to pick up slang to fit in."
Is it any wonder then that some states have a less than 50% graduation rate among black males?
I'd love to ask some of the kids who teased Logan West if they think she "talks white" in all of the TB interviews she has participated in since winning her title. I'd also like to ask them if they think she'd be better off talking like them, and therefore getting to sit at home watching the winner on TV, just like they are now. I'd also like to ask them if they think First Lady Michelle Obama talks white. After all, every speech or interview I have ever heard her give has been grammatically flawless.
Then I'd like to ask them if they think President Obama "talks white," and if so, if they'd rather he talk the way they think he should, from his private home, as a private citizen. Because he surely wouldn't have become a United States senator, let alone president, if he talked like them.
Keli Goff is the author of The GQ Candidate. This post originally appeared on Loop21.com
___________________________________________________
Like a fresh-baked loaf of sanity resting on the window of human possibility, atheism is on the rise in the United States. Will this growing constituency become a formidable political force before global warming decimates civilization? I’m skeptical. But according to the Pew Research Center, 1 in 5 of Americans now say they’re either atheist, agnostic, or that they simply don’t believe in anything in particular. That godless number was a scant 6 percent in 1990, and this spring roughly 20,000 atheists showed up—rain and all—at the first ever Reason Rally in DC, so, surely, despite the protestations of Texas Republicans, this newfangled thing called “critical thinking” is poised to better the national discourse, yes? Well…
Five atheists who ruin it for everyone else
Many notable atheists believe in some powerfully stupid stuff, thereby eroding the credibility of all atheists by Ian Murphy, Alternet
 |
| This article originally appeared on AlterNet. |
The thing about the so-called “rationalist” movement in America is that disbelief in gods seems to be the only qualification to join the club. Disbelief in a supernatural creator, especially as the movement becomes more popular or “hep,” as I’m pretending the kids say, in no way guarantees rationality in matters of foreign policy or economics, for example. Many notable atheists believe in some powerfully stupid stuff—likely owing their prominence to these same benighted beliefs, lending an air of scientific credibility to the myths corporate media seeks to highlight, and thereby eroding the credibility of all atheists in the long-term. In other words: The crap always rises to the top.
So while we wait around to fully succumb to drought, crop failure, and famine, here’s a list of the five most awful atheists.
Sam Harris
Dubbed one of the “Four Horsemen” of “new atheism,” along with philosopher Daniel Dennett, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens, Harris’ atheist fame is both wholly undeserved and utterly embarrassing. Harris represents a disturbing anti-Muslim confluence between atheists and neoconservatives in this here post-9/11 ‘Murka. While it’s fine to ridicule Islam, for the oppression of women, or say, the ridiculous story about Muhammad (PB-and-J) flying to Jerusalem on a Buraq (a winged and inexplicably shame-ridden horse with a dude’s face), it’s quite another thing to defend torture and racial profiling.
So while we wait around to fully succumb to drought, crop failure, and famine, here’s a list of the five most awful atheists.
Sam Harris
Dubbed one of the “Four Horsemen” of “new atheism,” along with philosopher Daniel Dennett, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens, Harris’ atheist fame is both wholly undeserved and utterly embarrassing. Harris represents a disturbing anti-Muslim confluence between atheists and neoconservatives in this here post-9/11 ‘Murka. While it’s fine to ridicule Islam, for the oppression of women, or say, the ridiculous story about Muhammad (PB-and-J) flying to Jerusalem on a Buraq (a winged and inexplicably shame-ridden horse with a dude’s face), it’s quite another thing to defend torture and racial profiling.
For a guy who purportedly came to be an atheist through his intellect, Harris routinely fails to demonstrate the faintest capacity to reason. By shamelessly trotting out the same “ticking-nuke” fairy tale as every other Jack and Jill Bauer on Fox News, he failed to notice that torture rarely produces reliable intelligence, and that it’s a wildly counterproductive jihadist recruitment tool. And according to security expert Bruce Schneier, profiling on the basis on ethnicity is useless. But for all Harris’ sometimes lofty rhetoric about science, he’s just not amenable to evidence.
Most grating, for someone who wrote a book titled The Moral Landscape, Harris’ “War on Islam” zealotry is numerically unjustifiable. You’re four times as likely to die of a lightning strike than you are from a terrorist attack, and yet this constitutes the gravest threat to Western civilization, but 100,000 (at least) civilian casualties in Iraq is mere fodder for thought experiment apologia. Harris is basically a low-rent Hitchens, sans wit or the wisdom to waterboard himself.
Bill Maher
The “Real Time” host’s thinly veiled misogyny, obtuse notion that fat, poor people just need to, like, shop at Whole Foods, and self-righteous condescension in all things religious and political might be tolerable were it not for the fact that he’s on comedic par with cervical cancer. The only difference being: cervical cancer doesn’t blame its victims for failing to laugh. Compounding the unpleasant nature of Maher’s wheat-grass pomposity is that, from vaccines to the news items he discusses, he’s just not very well informed.
In ’09, he told America that getting “[a] flu shot is the worst thing you can do.” He then tried to “clarify” his Luddite remark with a piece on the anti-vax Huffington Post that conflated scientific consensus with…(wait for it)…religion!
If one side can say anything and its not challenged, then of course dissent becomes heresy in the minds of many.
No, Bill, that’s not how that works. In the same article, Maher commits a classic bandwagon fallacy by claiming it’s a “conversation worth having” because so many people believe vaccinations are harmful. Color me disappointed for presuming an American atheist couldn’t possibly be so myopic. But, no worries; I have a “New Rule” that should fix everything: Bill Maher has to either stop booking half-bright libertarians who rhetorically roll his uninformed ass, or he needs to start reading books.
Penn Jillette
Like many skeptics, the bloviating, ponytailed half of Penn and Teller arrived at his disbelief via the world of magic. However, like giant mystified toddlers, the smoke and mirrors of economic libertarianism has the two performers completely duped. Unable to call bullshit on Ayn Rand, they used to carry a dogeared copy of Atlas Shrugged around on tour—to give you some idea. For a better glimpse into Jillette’s intellectual compartmentalization, consider this article he wrote for CNN called “I don’t know, so I’m an atheist libertarian.” While vast ignorance is a valid reason to be an economic libertarian, not knowing things is not a good reason to be an atheist. Jillette’s profoundly illogical explanation defies deconstruction:
What makes me libertarian is what makes me an atheist — I don’t know. If I don’t know, I don’t believe…
OK…care to add any Cato Institute canards?
It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
Translation: If the dern gubmint would just stop overtaxing the rich at gunpoint, which is a super-accurate description of reality, then they could have enough money left over for charity, you guys! While private charity is important in America, especially because of our highly regressive gunpoint tax code, it’s demonstrably wrong to suggest that it’s an apt substitute for a just tax structure. Americans would have to give roughly 10 times what they do to cover the cost of social welfare programs. But you know how facts can be. They’re not awesome like Glenn Beck. Facts are all self-righteous and bullying and lazy and objectively accurate and junk. At least Teller has the decency never to speak.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
While she’s to be commended for her staunch defense of women suffering under Sharia law, the Somali-born former Dutch politician’s few good deeds shouldn’t absolve her for being to Islam what Ayn Rand was to Communism. Hirsi Ali notoriously received death threats for writing the screenplay to Submission, the documentary which inspired the assassination of its director Theo van Gogh, and her ridiculous objectivist spin on this tragedy was nothing short of shameful:
“[The killer] was on welfare….he had the time to plot a murder, which in the United States he would not be.”
The consummate over-reactionary, what could have been an inspiring career based on reason and social justice quickly devolved into one of neoconservative lunacy. As a former Muslim and current fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, she lends an illusion of street cred to all manner of egregious “free-market” worship, global warming denial, and Western aggression. From her call to violently “crush” Islam or convert Muslims to Christianity to her desire to deny Muslims their First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, Hirsi Ali consistently demonstrates both galling hypocrisy and a stupefying lack of self-awareness. Like Rand, she’s traded one form of totalitarian dogma for another—openly contending that reason must be shunted when confronting an irrational enemy. Mission accomplished.
S.E. Cupp
Pop quiz: Who wrote the book Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity? Although it’s tempting to presume such dreck must be the work of a religious demagogue like Bryan Fischer or John Hagee, the answer is obviously one Sarah Elizabeth Cupp. As a devout Randroid and atheist outlier, the co-host of MSNBC’s newly minted phony-balance-media-abortion “The Cycle” is more at home bashing atheism than she is defending it—per market demand.
Like Jillette, she’s chummy with Glenn Beck because idiotic atheists and idiotic Mormons have a natural alliance. Cupp’s self-loathing-token-atheist-in-the-conservative-media routine seems so geared toward delegitimizing atheism, and selling books to fundie Fox types, that is strains credulity. She recently said, “I would never vote for an atheist president. Ever,” because she thinks religion serves as a “check” on presidential power.
When not claiming that imaginary things can affect real things, Cupp’s biggest passion—aside from classical dance and NASCAR, of course—is to spout moronic Americans for Prosperity talking points about the evils of “collectivism,” like public roads and bridges and so forth, which are ostensibly destroying the American Dream. In an atheist integrity contest, she loses to Stalin by a mustache. That’s not hyperbole; she doesn’t have a mustache.
___________________________________________________
Most grating, for someone who wrote a book titled The Moral Landscape, Harris’ “War on Islam” zealotry is numerically unjustifiable. You’re four times as likely to die of a lightning strike than you are from a terrorist attack, and yet this constitutes the gravest threat to Western civilization, but 100,000 (at least) civilian casualties in Iraq is mere fodder for thought experiment apologia. Harris is basically a low-rent Hitchens, sans wit or the wisdom to waterboard himself.
Bill Maher
The “Real Time” host’s thinly veiled misogyny, obtuse notion that fat, poor people just need to, like, shop at Whole Foods, and self-righteous condescension in all things religious and political might be tolerable were it not for the fact that he’s on comedic par with cervical cancer. The only difference being: cervical cancer doesn’t blame its victims for failing to laugh. Compounding the unpleasant nature of Maher’s wheat-grass pomposity is that, from vaccines to the news items he discusses, he’s just not very well informed.
In ’09, he told America that getting “[a] flu shot is the worst thing you can do.” He then tried to “clarify” his Luddite remark with a piece on the anti-vax Huffington Post that conflated scientific consensus with…(wait for it)…religion!
If one side can say anything and its not challenged, then of course dissent becomes heresy in the minds of many.
No, Bill, that’s not how that works. In the same article, Maher commits a classic bandwagon fallacy by claiming it’s a “conversation worth having” because so many people believe vaccinations are harmful. Color me disappointed for presuming an American atheist couldn’t possibly be so myopic. But, no worries; I have a “New Rule” that should fix everything: Bill Maher has to either stop booking half-bright libertarians who rhetorically roll his uninformed ass, or he needs to start reading books.
Penn Jillette
Like many skeptics, the bloviating, ponytailed half of Penn and Teller arrived at his disbelief via the world of magic. However, like giant mystified toddlers, the smoke and mirrors of economic libertarianism has the two performers completely duped. Unable to call bullshit on Ayn Rand, they used to carry a dogeared copy of Atlas Shrugged around on tour—to give you some idea. For a better glimpse into Jillette’s intellectual compartmentalization, consider this article he wrote for CNN called “I don’t know, so I’m an atheist libertarian.” While vast ignorance is a valid reason to be an economic libertarian, not knowing things is not a good reason to be an atheist. Jillette’s profoundly illogical explanation defies deconstruction:
What makes me libertarian is what makes me an atheist — I don’t know. If I don’t know, I don’t believe…
OK…care to add any Cato Institute canards?
It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
Translation: If the dern gubmint would just stop overtaxing the rich at gunpoint, which is a super-accurate description of reality, then they could have enough money left over for charity, you guys! While private charity is important in America, especially because of our highly regressive gunpoint tax code, it’s demonstrably wrong to suggest that it’s an apt substitute for a just tax structure. Americans would have to give roughly 10 times what they do to cover the cost of social welfare programs. But you know how facts can be. They’re not awesome like Glenn Beck. Facts are all self-righteous and bullying and lazy and objectively accurate and junk. At least Teller has the decency never to speak.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
While she’s to be commended for her staunch defense of women suffering under Sharia law, the Somali-born former Dutch politician’s few good deeds shouldn’t absolve her for being to Islam what Ayn Rand was to Communism. Hirsi Ali notoriously received death threats for writing the screenplay to Submission, the documentary which inspired the assassination of its director Theo van Gogh, and her ridiculous objectivist spin on this tragedy was nothing short of shameful:
“[The killer] was on welfare….he had the time to plot a murder, which in the United States he would not be.”
The consummate over-reactionary, what could have been an inspiring career based on reason and social justice quickly devolved into one of neoconservative lunacy. As a former Muslim and current fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, she lends an illusion of street cred to all manner of egregious “free-market” worship, global warming denial, and Western aggression. From her call to violently “crush” Islam or convert Muslims to Christianity to her desire to deny Muslims their First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, Hirsi Ali consistently demonstrates both galling hypocrisy and a stupefying lack of self-awareness. Like Rand, she’s traded one form of totalitarian dogma for another—openly contending that reason must be shunted when confronting an irrational enemy. Mission accomplished.
S.E. Cupp
Pop quiz: Who wrote the book Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity? Although it’s tempting to presume such dreck must be the work of a religious demagogue like Bryan Fischer or John Hagee, the answer is obviously one Sarah Elizabeth Cupp. As a devout Randroid and atheist outlier, the co-host of MSNBC’s newly minted phony-balance-media-abortion “The Cycle” is more at home bashing atheism than she is defending it—per market demand.
Like Jillette, she’s chummy with Glenn Beck because idiotic atheists and idiotic Mormons have a natural alliance. Cupp’s self-loathing-token-atheist-in-the-conservative-media routine seems so geared toward delegitimizing atheism, and selling books to fundie Fox types, that is strains credulity. She recently said, “I would never vote for an atheist president. Ever,” because she thinks religion serves as a “check” on presidential power.
When not claiming that imaginary things can affect real things, Cupp’s biggest passion—aside from classical dance and NASCAR, of course—is to spout moronic Americans for Prosperity talking points about the evils of “collectivism,” like public roads and bridges and so forth, which are ostensibly destroying the American Dream. In an atheist integrity contest, she loses to Stalin by a mustache. That’s not hyperbole; she doesn’t have a mustache.
___________________________________________________
