A Lesson from Lindsay Lohan

Last weekend I remarked that I’ve had several long conversations with Ali Akbar about plans for his Viral Read news site. One of the things I’ve repeatedly stressed is how important it is in the news business to be task-oriented and mission-focused. People must be judged strictly on their ability to get the job done. It doesn’t matter whether you “like” somebody or not. It’s not about friendship or popularity. The key to survival is to focus on the task in front of you — cranking it out day after day on deadline — while ignoring all merely personal considerations.

This is one of those big Life Lessons that young people have to learn the hard way, if they are ever to succeed at the highest levels. The real world isn’t like high school. A childish fascination with “popularity” is counter-productive in most real-world work environments. People who attempt to manipulate their way to undeserved success by playing office-politics games will ultimately produce harmful effects to the organization.

Well, so much for the lecture. What got me thinking about this topic was a long article by Stephen Rodrick in the New York Times about the difficulties of working with Lindsay Lohan. Desperate to rescue her career from her self-inflicted disasters, Lohan agreed to work with Paul Schrader, a 65-year-old director who was himself desperate to maintain his viability in the 21st-century movie market.

The set-up: Schrader is attempting to make a feature film on a shoestring budget of $250,000, and it is a measure of how far Lohan has fallen that she’s willing to participate in this project. What Lohan can’t seem to understand is that show business is a business:

The first child of a drug-abusing, felonious stock trader and a failed dancer, Lohan survived her Long Island childhood, moved to Hollywood and became America’s newest sweetheart with winning turns in “The Parent Trap” and “Mean Girls.” She cut an album that went platinum. In 2006, she was the best thing in Robert Altman’s “Prairie Home Companion.” The future was hers to write.
Then­­ — as the voice-over in an “E! True Hollywood Story” would put it — it all fell apart. Big-budget films need insurance in case an actress dies or becomes incapacitated and can’t go on with a role. Lohan’s misadventures made her uninsurable, her work dried up and she settled in as a generation’s snarky punch line.

This should put Lohan’s tabloid-headline life into proper perspective. Undeniably talented, Lohan can’t find work because her personal problems make her an unpredictable workplace liability. Continue reading A Lesson from Lindsay Lohan →

Leave Brent Musberger Alone!

Katherine Webb: Not bad to look at, despite attending Auburn.

If he needs a Chris Crocker, I’ll step up to defend the ESPN announcer who — while Alabama was dismantling Notre Dame in the BCS game — felt obliged to report the Neutral Objective Facts:

“You see that lovely lady there, she does go to Auburn, but she’s also Miss Alabama and that’s AJ McCarron’s girlfriend. You quarterbacks, you get all the good looking women. What a beautiful woman. Wow.”

Why all the outrage? She is indeed Miss Alabama and, the last time I checked, that was what is known as a “beauty pageant.”

While Musberger’s comments may have been a bit gushy, it wasn’t as if he said anything salacious, rude or inappropriate. This involves something I’ve discussed before: Beauty is an objective fact.

Beauty exists independent of our recognition of it. However, in our sexualized “hook-up” culture, male acknowledgement of beauty is presumed to convey sexual interest, a de facto proposition. So when Brett Musberger says Katherine Webb is a “lovely lady” — which she most certainly is — many people hear that as, “I’d hit it.”

Or, as Darnell Dockett might say: “Wing Stop.” (Dockett says that when he publicly Tweeted his phone number to Webb, he actually meant to send it via DM, the kind of social-media accident Neal Rauhauser and his paranoid crew of “Weiner Truthers” claim can only be explained by a Breitbart-coordinated right-wing conspiracy. But I digress . . .)

Feminism and the concern about workplace discrimination have imposed a new sort of puritanism, a kind of neo-Victorian repression in which even an entirely innocent comment can be portrayed as harassment, as an attempt to “hit on” someone. If all acknowledgements of beauty are viewed as expressions of sexual interest (“drooling,” as some have characterized Musberger’s comments), then a sort of taboo becomes embeded in our customs and habits, and thus has radical feminism triumphed by shaming people into silence. The question is, why?

Rush Limbaugh’s Undeniable Truth #24: “Feminism was established so as to permit unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”

ESPN actually apologized for Brent Musberger’s comments, as if he were the one sending his digits to A.J. McCarron’s girlfriend. We don’t even know if Webb or McCarron were offended.

Rather — and this is what tells you that a powerful taboo is involved — critical thought is immediately suspended and everyone simply reacts according to a culturally normative script, with people saying things they know they’re supposed to say, and everyone is intimidated by fear of being attacked if they ask, “Why all this anger? What exactly did Brent Musberger say that deserves such a firestorm? Why does this ‘controversy’ require an article in the New York Times?”

“It’s extraordinarily inappropriate to focus on an individual’s looks,” said Sue Carter, a professor of journalism at Michigan State. “In this instance, the appearance of the quarterback’s girlfriend had no bearing on the outcome of the game. It’s a major personal violation, and it’s so retrograde that it’s embarrassing. I think there’s a generational issue, but it’s incumbent on people practicing in these eras to keep up and this is not a norm.”

Yeah? Well, it may rather “retrograde,” but let me quote an acknowledged expert on what is “extraordinarily inappropriate” — Ace of Spades:

“I would hit that so hard I’d split atoms in her privates.”

Did Brett Musberger say that about Katherine Webb? No. He just said she was a “lovely lady.” Does anyone deny that she is? No.

But the praise of beauty implies a negative judgment against the less-beautiful, and this is an inequality that feminists regard as intolerable.

UPDATE: House of Eratosthenes:

If I live to be a hundred and fifty, I’ll never figure out why people allow complete strangers like Sue Carter professor of journalism, all this traffic-cop-go-and-stop authority over whether they’re allowed to notice a woman is beautiful. Why would you do that? Why would you surrender that kind of power? It almost suggests a fear of making personal decisions, even for matters of style and taste.

Some people just crave approval so desperately that they are afraid of saying or doing anything that might risk disapproval. The Left is very good at intimidating people like that, and is also good at ginning up the kind of lynch-mob fury needed to “make an example” of anyone who refuses to cooperate with the Left’s agenda.

UPDATE II: You know who’s not offended by Brent Musberger’s remarks? Attractive women, including those on Fox News:

Kirsten Powers: “He called her lovely and beautiful. People act like he was drooling and saying inappropriate things. To me, this is just Feminism gone awry.”
Monica Crowley: “When I’m watching the NFL and Tom Brady comes on screen, I have some choice words about him. He’s such a hunk!”
Megyn Kelly: “It’s crazy to me that ESPN felt that he went too far in doing what all the judges at the [Miss Alabama] competition did and millions of Americans did as well. I don’t know a woman who doesn’t like to be told she’s beautiful.”

ELSEWHERE:

 

 


‘Learning French,’ IYKWIMAITYD

Valérie Allain as Mireille Belleau in French in Action (1987)

“Many have criticized the depiction of Mireille as gratuitously sexist. The camera often lingers on the actress’s chest and bare legs. ‘You’re seeing the videotape through a male gaze,’ said one female teaching assistant who asked not to be identified.”
— New York Times, March 4, 1990

Maybe Ace of Spades should teach a course, “Methods of Humor,” because he absolutely killed me with this casual walk-up to the joke:

Anyone keeping to those New Year’s declarations? I’m continuing trying to learn French . . .

Did my left eyebrow arch suspiciously at that set-up? I can’t say that it did, and I certainly didn’t suspect the punchline to which it was leading:

I’m mostly using “French in Action,” an immersion course from the 80s, which used to run on PBS. Anyone remember it? I actually did remember it — seeing it here and there — and it stuck in my mind chiefly because the main actress is gorgeous and has the highbeams on in 30% of her scenes (here, at about 1:40-2:00). I remember actually watching it just for the highbeams.
When the videos were used at Yale, three female students lodged a protest due to “sexism” — because the girl’s legs get featured a fair amount, and, of course, her highbeams. Which, in fairness, are halogen. Blinding.

It’s funny, but he’s not kidding. This French chick is, comment dites-vous? Oui, très érotique. Her name is Valérie Allain, and she was 21 when the series aired on public television. She’s now a 47-year-old mother of two, but thanks to the miracle of film, she is forever the delightful ingénue for students of French — and students of high-beams.

We’re talking high-beams of such startling intensity that you may never fully recover from the acute retinal trauma, my friends. Continue reading ‘Learning French,’ IYKWIMAITYD →

Tee Hee Hee: Stacy’s Cousin Makes Hawkins’s 20 Most Annoying Libs List

by Smitty

I should like to meet Maggie Moo some day to assure her that, while bearing her no personal animosity, this blog finds her ideas emblematic of how jacked up her generation and this country are:

18) Meghan McCain: The GOP and Meghan McCain have the same sort of great love we’ve seen between Chris Brown and Rihanna. Who’d have ever thought that the Republican Party’s pale imitation of Paris Hilton would still hate us after all this time besides — well, everybody?

Defining Quote: “…I’ve spent most of my adult life fighting for change from inside the Republican Party….If I don’t see some changes in the next four years, I’m going to consider registering as an Independent in 2016.” — Megan McCain

Great post. Thank you, Hawkins!

via Insty

Kathy Griffin, Andrew Sullivan and Other Desperately Unfunny ‘Faggot’ Jokes

When Charlie Sheen recently made headlines by shouting “lying faggot assholes” at the opening of his new bar in Cabo, the joke was that it was “homophobic” nature of his words that constituted something truly scandalous. Charlie’s whore-mongering and cocaine habit are not controversial — “Hey, who are we to judge?” — but it’s an impermissible ThoughtCrime for him to speak the word “faggot.”

This reveals the totalitarian impulse behind identity politics and what is dismissively called “political correctness”: Attempting to control thought by setting boundaries on language, supposedly to protect those who are victimized and oppressed by society. It is not necessary to present evidence that Charlie Sheen has ever harmed homosexuals — or that his words were motivated by hostility to homosexuals — in order for the Thought Police to make a political example of him with the casual accusation of “homophobia.”

The moral of the story is clear: Whore-mongers and drug addicts are OK with the Thought Police, but woe be unto ye homophobes!

Anyway, Kathy Griffin made a spectacle of herself on New Year’s Eve by sexually harassing her CNN co-host Anderson Cooper who — in case you missed the news — is gay.

Griffin is what is known, in gay jargon, as a “fag hag”: A woman who tries to be “one of the boys” by hanging around gay bars.

The psychology of the fag hag is probably worth an essay of several thousand words that I don’t feel an urge to write today, except to say that these are usually rather unattractive women who seem to derive a secondhand frisson from socializing with ostentatiously gorgeous men in a hypersexualized environment. This satisfies an immature impulse — a desire for superficial “popularity” — and provides the fag hag with a low-risk source of male companionship, along with an obvious excuse to protect herself from feelings of sexual rejection.

Which, if you’re Kathy Griffin, you’ve had to deal with a lot.

Griffin has parlayed her fag-hag act into a career, having discovered that gay men will buy tickets to hear ugly women tell raunchy jokes, in much the way that its always the old fat drag queens who serve as wisecracking emcees for transvestite beauty pageants. Ace of Spades remarks on Griffin’s act:

Kathy Griffin, who is to comedy what Cher is to music, that is to say, irrelevant and old and weird-looking from plastic surgery, continues scrabbling at her last possible handhold of cultural relevance. . . .
Almost all of the media continues chasing the same minority cohort — liberal, urban, sexually loose.

Two words, Ace: Disposable income.

Unlike the respectable bourgeois suburban Republicans working to pay their mortgages and send their kids to college, the hip urbanites have money to throw away on name-brand fashion products and other gaudy expensive baubles that the Wal-Mart shoppers don’t buy. Also, the urban market in New York, L.A. and D.C. includes people who are cultural trend-setters in ways that pudgy accountants in New Jersey, Bakersfield and Fauqier County can never hope to be. But I digress . . .

Speaking of people Ace despises, Andrew Sullivan has treated us to a hilariously pompous display of hand-wringing as he announces he will take his “Daily Dish” blog — which in 2011 switched to Tina Brown’s Daily Beast after years under James Fallows’s Atlantic umbrella — back to a stand-alone site with a $19.99 subscription model:

In return for purchasing a subscription, Sullivan promises his readers, “No corporate ownership, no advertising demands, no pressure for pageviews … just a concept designed to make your reading experience as good as possible, and to lead us not into temptation.”
For now, Sullivan is offering readers a chance to sign up for $19.99 a year, which he notes, “translates to $1.67 a month.”

Translation: “I think I can make more money this way, but let me drape this crude financial calculus in a lot of altruistic anti-commercial argle-bargle, just to maintain my credibility as an intellectual idealist — which is, of course, my stock in trade.”

Me? I’m just a Shameless Capitalist Blogger, reminding you once more of The Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

At least I spare you the phony “progressive” idealism, eh?




 

UPDATE: Bill Quick at Daily Pundit:

What all this glosses over, I think, is that The Daily Beast didn’t want to keep Sullivan on.
I wonder why?

That’s an interesting question, isn’t it? I mean, it was regarded as something of a coup for Tina Brown to sign Sullivan in April 2011. Now, barely a year and a half later, she decides he’s not worth the cost of keeping? Hmmmm.

UPDATE II: Christine Haughney of the New York Times:

Mr. Sullivan said in an e-mail message that he could have remained at the Daily Beast under a new contract. But he said that as he and his two partners started negotiating, they “began to see the overpowering logic of real independence.”
He added that the Dish is going to stay in New York City, where he and his two business partners are based, “for the foreseeable future.” He added, “We need to be together as a group.”

It’s important to understand that Sully had “real independence” at his blog for many years, from 2000 until he transferred it under Time magazine’s editorial umbrella. He subsequently switched it from Time to the Atlantic and then to Tina’s Daily Beast, so that he’s been sort of a blogging free agent all along.

So it’s difficult to see why, amid contract negotiations with Tina, “the overpowering logic of real independence” should suddenly occur to Sully and his business partners. Something about this narrative doesn’t exactly add up, does it?

 

Palin: ‘Conservatives Must Stay Engaged’

by Smitty

Best wishes to everyone for a happy New Year! In the coming days there will be a great deal of debate about the goings-on in the political arena and the shenanigans in Washington. Constitutional commonsense conservatives must stay engaged and hold our “leaders” accountable to the voice of average everyday hard working Americans or we will very soon become an enslaved, bankrupt former nation of greatness. So, please keep the faith heading into this new year. And for now, remember to be grateful for the blessings and opportunities God has given us as independent individuals, as caring members of families, as honorable businesses and communities, and as countrymen who understand this most exceptional nation’s foundations of strength. We’ve been given all this for yet another year; let’s not take it for granted. In this new year, as jobs change with doors closing and opening, kids growing, relationships evolving, and life throwing curveballs, may you resolve to stay engaged and optimistic. May you pick your battles wisely. And may you live life vibrantly! God bless you all and God bless our great country as we promise to live out 2 Chronicles 7:14. Here’s to liberty!

– Sarah Palin

It’s easy to succumb to despair and anger, get emotional, throw a fit. Fine get it out. Call them all everything under the sun. Block out a “pouty day”.

Then, if all of your efforts thus far meant anything, get up and get back in the fray. A huge chunk of the battle was showing up. Another chunk is having the stamina to outlast the Godless Commie enemies of liberty. I’m not saying be detached and high minded. You’re not Mitt Romney or George W. Bush, sufficiently insulated from all this that you can buy privacy and gaff off the moocher hordes that rejected limited government.

The bad guys want you to give up. Deny them joy.

Maybe We Should Send Charlie Sheen to the University of Maryland

Charlie Sheen was on stage at the opening of his new bar in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, when he he asked the crowd, “How we doing?”

The crowd gave a small cheer — not good enough for Sheen, who then said, “Lying bunch of faggot assholes! How we doing?”

This made headlines because Sheen had used a “homophobic slur.”

The University of Maryland would be so disappointed:

The University of Maryland (UMD) allocated $15,000 in 2012 to combat the use of language deemed by administrators to be “insensitive.”
The “words have power” campaign’s goal is to deploy posters, buttons and other promotional materials to help foster an environment on campus that is not offensive to illegal aliens, homosexuals, or other minority groups.
“Non-inclusive language can offend or make spaces uncomfortable for people who are excluded by that language,” one of the campaign posters reads.

Probably “lying bunch of faggot assholes” would be considered “non-inclusive.” The State of Maryland had a $1.4 billion deficit in 2012. Maybe you can think of some non-inclusive language for that.

 

NSFW Video Gives It Back To Hollywood For ‘Demand A Plan’ To Grab Guns

by Smitty

Apparently our sanctimonious betters in Hollyweird put out Yet. Another. Hypocritical. Ad. demanding a plan to DO SOMETHING. That something apparently involves stripping Constitutional rights from innocents as a sacrifice to an as-yet-unidentified God Who Prevents Bad Things. I guess.
The video makes the point well, splicing the smarmy, overpaid buffoons with footage of them putting rounds downrange in various ways:

America, 2013 marks 100 years of Progress since Woodrow Wilson’s fell swearing-in. The only good that can come of this climax of idiocy is if the non-koolaid drinkers use this as motivation to vote out the gungrabbers and liberty haters in 2014.

#OccupyResoluteDesk sounds like he is going to make an ‘unexpected’ 180 degree pivot from his stated position pre-election. Obama is indeed conservative about a good crisis. Let this one be a bridge too far for him.

via Drudge