‘Party of the Rich’ Dems and Hollywood

According to a recent study, there’s a new “party of the rich.” It includes a whole lot of Dems, which means it includes a whole lot of Tinseltowners, too.

“The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new ‘party of the rich,’” Michael Franc recently noted in the Financial Times of London.

Franc, an officer at the Heritage Foundation, conducted a study, which helps explain why wealthy Hollywood is chock-full of die-hard Dems.

Examining the net worth of folks in states and congressional districts, Franc determined that the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional districts were represented by Democrats and more than half of the richest households are in the 18 states in which Dems control both Senate seats.

Franc’s study also showed that, contrary to Democrat characterizations, “the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts.”

While Dem candidates’ eyes must remain firmly fixed on the wealthy, they’re all simultaneously pandering to the working class.

Apparently, the Dem presidential candidates don’t want the same thing to happen to them that happened to Ellen Degeneres

The comedic talk show host recently found herself in the doghouse with striking writers.

The mistake Degeneres made was crossing the picket lines and doing her talk show despite the writers’ strike.

Because of a looming second strike by CBS’s newswriters, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson have all said they will pull out of a scheduled CBS News presidential debate if CBS’s newswriters join the screen and TV writers in a strike.

The CBS-sponsored debate is supposed to take place in Los Angeles on Dec. 10.

Edwards already posed with picketers in L.A., and his campaign also indicated that he and wife Elizabeth will pass on an upcoming scheduled appearance on ABC’s “The View” because of the writers’ guild strike.

In a released statement, Edwards called on “all of my fellow candidates and their campaigns to do the same.”

The Obama campaign said that if news workers were striking “Barack Obama will not cross the picket line to attend the debate.” Obama’s wife Michelle also cancelled a co-hosting appearance on “The View” because of striking writers.

The Clinton campaign followed suit, noting that “America’s unions are the backbone of America’s middle class, and I [Hillary] will always stand with America’s working men and women in the fight to ensure that they are able to earn a fair wage.”

Richardson jumped on the debate-skipping bandwagon, too. “His actions when it comes to the strike are more important than what he says at the debate,” his spokesperson said.

L.A. Mayor Turns to Hillary for Extra-Marital Advice

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s trysts with a local reporter have caused him a world of trouble.

The once skyrocketing star of the Democrat Party recently admitted to having an extra-marital affair with Telemundo anchor Mirthala Salinas, who had been assigned to cover his mayoral-related activities.

Interestingly, Villaraigosa is seeking the sage advice of another Dem who presumably has some familiarity in how to deal with the infidelity issue.

During a recent episode of Michael Eisner’s CNBC talk show, the former Disney exec referred to the mayor as the “Hispanic Clinton.” Villaraigosa disclosed that he and Hillary Clinton had had the opportunity to discuss the affair that brought an end to the mayor’s marriage.

Eisner asked, “She’s [Hillary] never — because you were very close to her before it came out that you were having martial problems, let’s say. She’s not annoyed at you like she was annoyed at her husband?”

Villaraigosa replied, “We actually had a very good conversation about that…I’ll just say this. In life we sometimes make mistakes. There’s no question that we have to accept responsibility for those mistakes. I have.”

Ironically, Eisner also interviewed the blood spitting KISS rocker Gene Simmons.

And it was Simmons who praised the sanctity of marriage.

‘Invasion’ Déjà vu

It all started in 1955.

Author Jack Finney penned a sci-fi novel called “The Body Snatchers,” in which seeds from outer space invade the planet, take folks over while they’re asleep and grow evil body doubles in creepy plantlike pods.

The tale so captured the public’s imagination it’s been made into a movie four different times.

First it was “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Then it was “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” for a second time. Third time it was simply “Body Snatchers.”

Now another cinematic installment is about to hit the theaters. For a change of pace, it’s called “The Invasion.”

It stars Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig and once again hits on some timeless social and political themes—individualism vs. conformity, personal freedom vs. social control, human compassion vs. callousness.

Guess every couple of decades we need a movie reminder to keep us from becoming dreaded “pod people.”

Papa Gorbachev’s Got a Brand New Bag

Hollywood is not the only place former communists are drawn to.

Louis Vuitton, the French manufacturer of chichi leather goods and other high-end paraphernalia, has chosen its new celebrity rep.

If you’re thinking Jessica Biel, Scarlett Johansson or Reese Witherspoon, you’re off the mark. The latest face of Louis Vuitton is actually Mikhail Gorbachev.

Not just a former Soviet leader and environmental activist anymore, Gorbachev will be featured in a Louis Vuitton ad campaign for the designer brand.

The commie chic celeb will have some big-name co-stars in the advertisements, like legendary French actress Catherine Deneuve and supermodel Steffi Graf and her tennis champ spouse Andre Agassi.

Gorbachev will be seen riding in a car with a Louis Vuitton bag at his side, and in the background will be the oh-so-untrendy Berlin Wall.

Let Murdock Buy the WSJ

Has Rupert Murdock been so completely demonized over his ownership of the Fox News Channel so that a perfectly reasonble media deal?l

Hollywood’s Hidden Villains

Check out this brilliant piece by Nick Cohen in The Observer:

Screens that flicker and fail to challenge

In Die Hard 4.0, a cyber-terrorist paralyses the eastern seaboard of the United States. The lights go out all over New York, roads are gridlocked and airports closed, and a panicking citizenry hears rumours of anthrax attacks.

If this sounds a touch familiar, the writers and director are careful to emphasise that resemblances to 9/11 only go so far. The criminal mastermind isn’t an Islamist, but Thomas Gabriel, a deranged computer genius. When the US government refuses to fund his research, he cries ‘one day you will be sorry you spurned me’, or words to that effect. Gabriel doesn’t have a political motive for throwing the nation into chaos. He wants to steal billions of dollars to satisfy his wounded pride, not destroy the Great Satan. Indeed, Gabriel insists to Bruce Willis that he’s a patriot of sorts who has ‘done America a favour’. If he hadn’t revealed the weaknesses in the computer defences to the authorities, ‘some religious nut job’ trying to bring an apocalypse might have found them instead.

What specific types of ‘religious nut jobs’ want to bring apocalypse to the United States, the Die Hard team don’t say, and their silence is everywhere in Hollywood, and at first glance baffling.

The global mayhem since 9/11 has not affected film in America, nor television in Britain, to anything like the degree a reasonably well-informed media buff would have predicted on the day. Hollywood has produced documentaries, from Paul Greengrass’s poignant United 93, which recaptures the uprising by passengers against their hijackers, to Michael Moore’s seedy Fahrenheit 9/11, which portrays Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a happy land of playful children and blushing lovers. But when we turn to Hollywood fiction we find that the ‘war on terror’, or whatever it is we’re meant to call it these days, has barely shown its face.

The absence is all the more perplexing because before 9/11, when there had been no serious Islamist assault on America, Middle Eastern villains were so common in films Hollywood faced plausible charges of anti-Arab racism. In Back to the Future, Executive Decision, True Lies and dozens of others, Arabs were off-the-peg bad guys. Yet after 9/11, the stereotypes weren’t fleshed out with an all-too-real psychopathic ideology, but abandoned.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times Andrew Klavan, a Hollywood screenwriter of a conservative bent, blamed liberal nervousness. ‘In order to honestly dramatise the simple truth about this existential struggle, you have to depict right-minded Americans – some of whom may be white and male and Christian – hunting down and killing dark-skinned villains of a false and wicked creed. That’s what’s happening, on a good day anyway, so that’s what you’d have to show. Movie-makers are reluctant to do that because, even though it’s the truth, on screen it might appear bigoted and jingoistic.’

Maybe, but Hollywood’s alleged political correctness was not in evidence before 9/11 and, in any case, Bruce Willis is a gung-ho American conservative, not a comrade of George Clooney. A hard-headed liberal might say that the real reason for the down-playing of the conflict is that Hollywood is a global business. American television can show Islamists in 24 and other thrillers because it sells primarily to the domestic market. Movies must sell everywhere and a world which is appalled by the second Iraq war and will not pay to see America venerated – and nor will many Americans for that matter.

I’m sure there’s truth in that argument too, but it misses how dislocating the war on terror seems when viewed from the comfort of the rich world’s democracies. From the 9/11 atrocities on, the dimmest citizens could be in no doubt that forces were swirling around the globe that would murder them without restraint. Yet after 9/11, they haven’t been murdered in significant numbers. I don’t mean any offence to the bereaved of the attacks on London and Madrid, but when set against the astonishing scale of the Iraqi massacres the casualties have been tiny. The rich world is coping with a relatively low level of violence, while all the time knowing that fantastic violence remains possible.

This leads to a frantic desire to appease and deny. To pretend we’re the ‘root cause’ of the threat or say that the it has been manipulated by cynical politicians would be natural responses in normal circumstances. After America and Britain launched the second Iraq war on the worst intelligence since the US military dismissed the possibility of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, a global outbreak of wishful thinking and conspiracy theory was inevitable.

You can see this better in BBC dramas than in Hollywood films. The 2006 series of Spooks, for example, showed Islamist suicide bombers taking over the Saudi Arabian embassy. Nothing too far-fetched in that; real MI5 agents are running themselves ragged as they try to close down terror cells. The BBC’s novel twist was that its fictional MI5 agents discovered that the Islamists weren’t Islamists at all, just Mossad agents in disguise engaged in the perennial Jewish conspiracy.

Meanwhile, the actor playing Guy of Gisborne in the BBC’s reworking of Robin Hood for the 21st century explained that the old story was now about ‘the perpetuation of terror’ by the powerful. ‘It’s almost in the bad guys’ interests to keep Robin alive – like the modern situation with terrorists. Guy and the Sheriff need him as a scapegoat, to keep fear in the hearts of the people’.

I’m not sure if he meant that Robin and his Merry Men were Osama and his Merry Islamists, but the BBC certainly wanted viewers to believe that the government was the real villain, hyping up the threat to justify placing the British under the iron heel of the national security state. See through that lie, and we could relax.

The BBC’s logic is absurd when I write it out on paper but it makes psychological sense on the screen. Given the state of unrealised fear we live in, it feels reasonable in London and Hollywood to avoid provoking enemies we rarely see. Better to ignore them instead or blame them on the government or Jewish conspiracies and then, with luck, they will leave us alone, and confine their bombs to the poor world.

It would be nice if that were true.

Greenpeace Slams Live Earth

Al Gore’s enviro-gelical concert campaign has received the usual criticism from Right-of-center sources, but disapproval is also coming from some unexpected places.

Matt Bellamy of the band Muse described the concert as “private jets for climate change.”

John Buckley of Carbon Footprint, an organization that helps companies reduce their carbon dioxide emissions estimated that Live Earth would produce about 74,500 tons of carbon emissions.

Greenpeace, perhaps the best known environmental activist group in the world has slammed Live Earth because automobile manufacturer DaimlerChrysler was a sponsor of the Hamburg portion of the event.

The name of the maker of one of Hollywood’s favorite rides, the Mercedes, brought Shakira, Snoop Dogg and Enrique Iglesias to the Gore-fest.

“We think the concert is good, but it’s absurd to have a company like that [DaimlerChrysler] as a sponsor,” a spokeswoman for Greenpeace Germany, Sonja Koch, told Reuters.

Greenpeace has yet to object to a sponsor of the Live Earth Web site, Chevrolet.

Will Al Gore’s Kid Use the Prius Defense?

So what if Al Gore’s son was arrested on suspicion of possessing marijuana and prescription drugs after being pulled him over for speeding.

Al Gore III, 24, had his mind on the future of the earth. He was driving a Toyota PRIUS. He was doing about 100 miles per hour on the San Diego Freeway, apparently testing the hybrid car’s gas mileage.

The police found some marijuana, Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall. Gore Jr. was probably depressed over climate change.

Steven Spielberg Crumbles under Heavy Hillary Lobbying

Hillary Clinton’s people have been going after Hollywood director Steven Spielberg in a big way.

Ever since the Left Coast showed the love for Barack Obama, the Clinton camp has been in lobbying overdrive.

Last February, Spielberg, David Geffen and their partner Jeffrey Katzenberg co-sponsored an Obama fundraiser that roped in a whopping $1.3 million.

For weeks Clinton staffers have had their sights set on Spielberg, partially because of the director’s fondness for Hillary’s hubby. They were resolute. They had to get an early endorsement to avoid the impression that the entertainment industry had gone gaga for Obama.

They basically nagged the director, repeatedly pleading for him to declare his support for the New York Senator. He may even have received a call from his old bud Bill Clinton.

If Spielberg had endorsed Obama, it would have been viewed as a rejection of Hillary, much like Spielberg’s partner Geffen has publicly affirmed.

In a statement released through Hillary’s campaign, Spielberg said that he had become familiar with the Democratic candidates and that he was convinced “Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House.”

The grab for Hollywood cash is of great interest to Democrats who in the 2006 election cycle received 63% of the $23 million donated, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The media are filled with stories about how Hillary has now won the Tinseltown money battle.

But with Obama backers like George Clooney, Lawrence Bender, Geffen, Katzenberg and Oprah Winfrey, it’s way too early to say where the most Hollywood dough will eventually go.

Michael Moore’s ‘Sicko’ Stunts

In a transparent move to promote his “Sicko” film, Michael Moore showed up in Sacramento, California, and testified at a briefing hosted by former actress of “The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis” and current state senator Sheila Kuehl to advocate a so-called universal health care system. The event was followed by a rally and screening of Moore’s film.

“I’d like to see executives of these companies in a perp walk in handcuffs,” Moore muttered.

Then the frustrated filmmaker granted the town of Bellaire in his home county the privilege of paying $40 per ticket for a sneak peek at his movie and, for an additional sixty bucks, the chance to attend a party where he autographed film posters, surgical gloves and bandages. The money went to the Democratic Party.

“I am anticipating the onslaught of attack,” Moore told reporters at the event.

In a kind of comical karma, Moore’s “Sicko” film has been pirated. The public can now view the thing for free thanks to its wide availability for downloading on the Web at no cost.

Ironically, in 2004 Moore told a Scottish paper, the Sunday Herald, he was happy that people engaged in copyright violations.

“I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labor. I would oppose that,” Moore said.

“I do well enough already and I made this film [“Fahrenheit 9/11”] because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I’m happy this is happening.”

More words for Moore to eat on the eve of his “Sicko” release.

On another Moore hypocritical note, I reported a while back on how filmmakers Debbie Melnyck and Rick Caine had set out to film a biography of someone they truly admired. However, while producing “Manufacturing Dissent,” the two made a discovery that their hero, Michael Moore, was far from the person, or for that matter the professional that they had imagined.

During their movie making experience, Melnyck and Caine learned about Moore’s fabricated persona; in particular that he did not grow up in working class Flint, Michigan, but in Davison, a wealthy nearby suburb.

They discovered that Moore was not removed as editor of Mother Jones for political reasons as he has claimed, but was fired for bad editing. They learned that Moore shot footage of himself and interspersed it with other events to imply things that never actually happened (such as Moore asking Roger Smith, former CEO of General Motors, a question at a shareholders’ meeting).

The most devastating information unearthed, though, is that Moore actually did speak with then-GM chairman Roger Smith, whose supposed evasion is the central premise of “Roger & Me,” but withheld the footage from the film. (Premiere previously reported this but “Manufacturing Dissent” actually displays footage of Moore interviewing Smith.)

“Anybody who says that is a (expletive) liar,” Moore told the Associated Press when confronted with the charge at his Michigan “Sicko” sneak preview.

Moore also admitted that he had “a good five minutes of back and forth” with Smith at a 1987 shareholders’ meeting, as reported by Premiere magazine in 1990. But Moore claims that was before he began working on “Roger & Me” and had nothing to do with the film.

By evading interviews with Melnyck and Caine, Moore and his staff behaved like the corporate targets that Moore despises. At one event, the filmmakers’ soundboard was unplugged while other reporters were allowed to tape. At another event, a staffer kicked the filmmakers out of an arena and threw their camera to the ground.

An indication that the makers of “Manufacturing Dissent” had a serious change of heart about Moore was revealed in the tagline used to market the film. It read: “Michael Moore doesn’t like documentaries. That’s why he doesn’t make them.” A slogan that appeared on movie posters also conveyed their dampened sentiments: “It’s Never Been so Hard to Get Michael Moore in Front of the Camera.”

Because the criticism of Moore came from self-described “progressive liberals,” who were originally motivated by their admiration for Moore before they reluctantly concluded that he was not what he appeared to be, the mainstream press actually treated the film more favorably than similar polemic material from the Right.

Moore’s talent has been to bring humor, a brisk pace and controversy to the documentary genre. “Manufacturing Dissent” demonstrated that Moore also brings fabrication.

Can we expect Moore of the same from “Sicko?”