| |
 | Saturday, November 08, 2003 |
|
ABC has signed a deal with professional dimwit Jessica Simpson to have her star in a sitcom. [snip] ABC Entertainment President Susan Lyne said that Simpson, who once thought a plastic bag on a beach was a jellyfish, "has infectious energy and unmistakable star quality," not to mention that "built-in fan base in both music and television, which is a great jumping-off point for us." Lyne went on to note, "We're looking forward to developing the ideal showcase for her considerable talents," referring to the gal who refused to sample a buffalo wing, because, Simpson said, "I don't eat buffalo," and who finds garage-door openers mentally challenging. Simpson is one of those giddy, blond, tightly toned pop singers who first made it big a million years ago, in the late '90s. She's like Britney, only without Britney's intellectual depth or self-reflectiveness. Ted Harbert, who was once the president of ABC Entertainment and is now a producer at the Fox production studio, will executive-produce the Simpson project. He said in the statement that she had "clearly become the new 'America's sweetheart.' " Harbert apparently didn't get the memo on Jessica Lynch.
[Note: and apparently the author of this article didn't get the memo from Free Republic/Lucianne readers about Jessica Lynch being an "ungrateful guttersnipe" because she denounced the military for using her.]
Joe Simpson is the other executive producer. He is Jessica Simpson's dad. He's also her manager. He's also her executive producer on "Newlyweds." Professional conservative Tucker Carlson, who said recently that the ideal president would be someone who felt that "in Washington we know what's best for you and we are going to do it regardless of what you think," has been signed
I think Tucker will probably play Jessica's husband, and this will be a "I Love Lucy" or "Dharma and Greg" for today's generation. Imagine all the wacky adventures that Jessica and Tucker can have, especially when Tucker brings Howard Dean home for dinner and Jessica confuses him with James Dean; hilarity ensues when Dean tries to explain that he's just as cool as he used to be, didn't die in a car accident, and is actually rebelling against the taxpayer-funded presidential campaign system.
Or how about an ep where Tucker schemes to get Mr. Mooney elected to the co-op board, and then continues to back him even when Jessica finds a dozen bodies in Mooney's storeage unit; Tucker laughs indulgently at his scatterbrained wife when she says that this is, like, WRONG, and goodnaturedly explains that of COURSE Mooney isn't really killing people because he's too busy ruling the building for anything like that, and even if he were a serial killer, he's doing it's for the greater good. Oh, wait. It seems that I didn't read far enough, as the article continues: by PBS to host a half-hour weekly prime-time public affairs program. The as-yet-unnamed series will be produced by Washington public TV station WETA and is set to launch in June. It will feature both regular and guest commentators and, PBS promises, will "offer a lively discussion of the weekly news stories from a wide range of perspectives."
Anyway, it still sounds wacky to me.
11:41:42 PM  | |
The President's Speech: Bad News for Farm Implementations
As George Bush continues his fundraising across the South, he continues to read the same basic speech ("I want to thank my supporters; sorry Laura couldn't be here but she hates your state; the economy is good; Iraq is going well; I fixed everything Clinton screwed up; we're all nice in America now; give me money"). However, in the version he delivered Friday in Winston-Salem, he made a significant change. Instead of the usual bit about "Go to your coffee shops, and your houses of worship, and your farm implementation dealership, and tell them the President is not as stupid as he looks on TV," he said the following: We've got a lot on the agenda, and so when you go to your coffee shops, your houses of worship, or your community centers, please tell them -- Republican, Democrat, or independent alike -- that the President is focused on the people's business and he will keep this nation secure and strong and prosperous and free.
What caused this violent shift away from farm implementation dealerships as hot spots for Bush boosting? I think THIS is the question that the press corps should be asking McClellan instead of "Does anybody ever tell the President that U.S. soldiers are dying in Iraq?" (Because the answer to that one is always, "The President cares about every life that is lost, but is also very aware of the fact that you must sacrifice many of your men if you are ever going to win a game of Space Invaders.") But in reading over this latest iteration of the speech, I noticed a couple of other noteworthy changes. When talking about "NoChild Left Behind" (the latest in the popular book series about post-Rapture life) on Monday, the President said: We insist upon high standards and accountability in every public school in America because we believe every child can learn.
But Friday he added We believe every child can learn to read and write and add and subtract. We expect every child to learn to read and write and add and subtract.
So, does he have higher expectations for North Carolina children than he did for the Alabama kiddies? Of did he just try to jazz up the product the speech writers had given him with some examples of stuff HE had learned?
Lending weight to the second theory is that when he was discussing the "frivoulous lawsuit" issue yesterday (no, Don Luskin's name didn't come up), Bush added this new line: It is time for some of the senators to understand that no one has every been healed by a frivolous lawsuit.
This was reportedly followed by {applause). While it didn't get the (laughter) that followed the remark about "Mother" not agreeing that Cheney was our best VP (everyone laughed because they know how much Barbara hates Cheney), it was still probably meant to be funny -- but it wasn't, so I think George wrote it himself. It's nice that he wants to help.
And reading over the speech this time, I noticed a few points which, while unchanged, are still interesting, Like: Two-and-a-half years ago, our military was not receiving the resources it needed and morale was beginning to suffer. So we increased the defense budgets to prepare for the threats of a new era. And today, no one in the world can doubt or question the skill or the strength or the spirit of the United States military.
Okay, so now the world doesn't doubt our military's skill and stuff, but has the bigger budget made morale gone up? And does Iraq make morale better or worse? And then there's this: And in the new responsibility society, each of us are responsible for loving our neighbor just like we would like to be loved ourself.
Which makes me think of this scenario: "Mrs. Johnson, I usually love myself hard, hard, softer, faster, HARD--and now I am responsible for loving you that same way." But then, I'm probably part of the old, irresponsible society, and not fit to live in the same country as the fine people who are part of the "social entrepreneurship" fabric.
Anyway, this has been the World O'Crap update on "The Bush Canned Speech." We'll continue to bring you all the latest developments as they occur.
1:12:53 AM | |
Nobody Here But Us Folks
It is simply astounding that some people are spinning this Reagan movie controversy as a censorship issue. The usual left-wing suspects are screaming the "conservatives" forced CBS to abandon the project. The New York Times editorialized, "It should have come as no surprise that conservatives, protective of Mr. Reagan's image at all times, would launch on the fierce assaults that have become so familiar whenever the right wants to scare the media ... " And Barbra Streisand, an increasingly amusing presence, says "this is censorship pure and simple." One wonders if The Times and La Streisand would react the same way if Bill Clinton, on his deathbed, was mocked in a network docu-drama starring Pamela Anderson as Monica Lewinsky.
I think the NYT and Babs would agree that Pamela would make a good Monica, but only if Bill gets on his deathbed soon, since Pamela is already at least a decade too old to play an intern. But here's Bill's take on the CBS decision not to air the minseries: CBS, wisely, does not want to be in the "cruelty business," as they say in the bistros of Beverly Hills. But there are two questions in play here. First, how could a hokey, over-the-top film like this get greenlighted in the first place, and second, what about Dr. Laura?
Yes, why DOES Dr. Laura want to be in the cruelty business? Good question, Bill.
But as to your first query, "The Reagans" got greenlighted for the same reasons that every hokey, over-the-top film gets greenlighted. It's the same reason that a hokey, over-the-top book like Those Who Trespassgot published: because everyone believes the old P.T. Barnum dictum, "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people."
But actually Bill had a different point to make about Dr. Laura: Let's take Laura Schlessinger first. You'll remember the radio advice-giver tried to launch a syndicated TV program but was picketed by gay rights activists. They objected to her biblical take on the morality of homosexuality. They threatened to boycott sponsors and implored Paramount to cancel Laura. Her show went down in flames. Maybe I missed the New York Times editorial deploring "politically correct" censorship in this case. As for Babs, well, the silence was deafening. So could this be a case of selective outrage over perceived right-wing "censorship?" Or are we dealing with outright hypocrisy here? You make the call.
Or (c) could Bill have missed the point again? You make the call.
Sure, the gay rights activists picketed Laura's show, but the network continued to air it, and even retooled it twice, hoping to attract more viewers. The network continued to air it for six months, despite ever-diminishing ratings. When it was finally cancelled, it was after having given "the folks" every chance to watch it. They just didn't want to. (Maybe having seen Dr. Laura's nude photos on the internet put them off her for some reason.)
But in the case of "The Reagans," the network folded to special-interest group pressure before the program had ever aired. So, they didn't trust "the folks" to either watch or not watch the program, and make up their own minds about it. I have often stated that the media is not looking out for you, because it doesn't understand you, nor does it care about you. The "folks" are seen as ratings points--dollar signs.
And we never would have figured this out without you, Bill. Thanks.
But what would you say about a media source which sued to block distrubution of a book because it claimed that the "folks" were so stupid they would think that the book was a product of their Fair and Balanced news channel, even though the book was titled Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them? Does this media source REALLY understand us or care about us little people? But there's something else. Do you think CBS would have financed a movie about the Gores written by Rush Limbaugh? Of course not. Anyone pitching that would have been mocked and scorned.
Well, of COURSE they would have been mocked -- because everyone knows that Rush can't write without his blue babies. In the end, this is another victory for the folks, not for the political ideologues. CBS could not care less if a few million conservative zealots object to a program. But when the wind shifts and the fire of indignation starts taking hold in the minds of everyday Americans who value fairness, then CBS and every other media outfit must care. For if they ignore those alarms, they will surely go down in flames.
A. How many conservative zealots actually expressed objections to the program? Boycott Guy said he got about 100,000 names for his internet petition. We'll generously assume that there were twice that many more who also expressed objections, either independently or in connection with other boycotts. That falls WAY short of "a few million."
B. What about the "everyday Americans" who like hokey, over-the-top programs about the rich and famous, and who can't afford Showtime? What about THEIR rights? For surely this WAS a victory for the political ideologues over the tastes of the "folks" who enjoy trashy TV.
C. Shouldn't "everyday Americans who value fairness" actually WATCH a movie before denouncing it? D. When those fires of indignation about TV unfairness really take hold in the hearts of everyday Americans, then news program hosts who bully and shout down their guests when they don't like the guests' opinions will surely go down in flames. And then we folks will all roast marshmallows. At least, that's how it looks to some of us "folks" who aren't actually part of a media outfit.
12:04:01 AM |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment