MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Just Wondering…

Am I the last person on earth to know there was what is supposed to be a major global event in 13 days?
One of the creators of Live Earth was at LAFF today with about 50 shorts made about the environment under their auspices and was talking about this being the most watched TV show in history, etc…
And I had not heard a single word. And 7-7-7 doesn’t seem that hard to promote.
Maybe it’s me…

Be Sociable, Share!

77 Responses to “Just Wondering…”

  1. Jerry Colvin says:

    Yes, it’s you.

  2. Joe Leydon says:

    I am trying to give David the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he didn’t mean this as another one of his digs at Al Gore, but…

  3. EDouglas says:

    Yeah, I heard about it, but it’s mainly a music thing

  4. Nicol D says:

    I finally went to that web-site yesterday after reading about how crappy the line-ups were and y’know…they are kinda crappy line-ups.
    Old fogey acts (Madonna, Genesis, The Police, Duran Duran) top-lining with a second tier of hip-hop style acts and then some up n’ comers looking for a break.
    Obviously I am generalizing a bit but I thought there would be more ‘big acts’ like U2, Pearl Jam, Coldplay maybe radiohead, a Pink Floyd reunion, that sort of thing. Although Roger Waters is alone on one bill.
    Of the other sets, no White Stripes, Oasis, NIN, Avril Lavigne or that sort.
    I like these big shows regardless of the political nature of them but I have to admit…the line-ups seemed weak.
    I mean Chris Cornell was headling one show and another one had Bloc Party and another reformed Crowded House with a very long in the tooth Neil Finn. That’s lame.
    I think that this will be a financial disappointment althought it will be spun differently.

  5. jesse says:

    You know, Nicol, I agree. I would be all over this concert if it had a big, cool lineup in the New York area, but it just doesn’t. The British one looks a bit cooler but still nothing as good as, say, Glastonbury.
    I think it’s because of their ambition, to have this huge all-star mass-appeal concert. Most really huge festival lineups are going after a particular audience, and then branch out from there. Here you have a bunch of acts that a lot of hardcore music fans (you know, the people who might actually shell out for a huge festival) probably don’t care about. I’m not even that hardcore but do Kelly Clarkson and the Dave Matthews Band strike anyone else as big favorites with people who own like twelve CDs total?
    There’s an article about the concert in the newest Rolling Stone that acknowledges the lack of “buzz” surrounding the event, and mentions/hints that U2 and/or Radiohead still might sign on.
    Coldplay is boring as hell so that wouldn’t do much for me… and I didn’t much like that last U2 album, either. But yeah, throw in some Radiohead and/or White Stripes and/or even Oasis or Blur, and/or some of the bigger indie acts (Arcade Fire, perhaps?) and you’d have something a lot more attractive.

  6. teambanzai says:

    The only thing I heard about this event was the spinal tap reunion short film that was floating around a couple of months ago. Other than that I have not seen anything else on TV or heard anything on any radio.

  7. Well, they did one of these last year that was massive. I don’t know why they’re doing another so quickly.

  8. a1amoeba says:

    I’m waiting for the Spinal Tap reunion short that will unveil 7/7/7 at LE. But David’s right – with a date like that you have to be a marketing retard to not be able to get the event into the public consciousness….

  9. The Carpetmuncher says:

    God, I saw The Police at Dodger Stadium this weekend and they were awful. Just FYI for anyone thinking of checking them out…do it for nostalgia’s sake, not because they have anything left to offer. Just terrible.
    Yeah, Live Earth should be great, can’t wait! Heard a ton about it, all over Rolling Stone etc.

  10. Nicol D says:

    What didn’t you like about the Police?
    Copeland has criticized some of their performances saying they were out of time and sync; have they not polished up?

  11. Chicago48 says:

    Well, I heard about it but don’t intend to watch or contrib…I’m a little burned out on these “Live Aid” type concerts…and very turned off that the same artists – Madonna, Cindy Lauper, U2, Bono, etc. etc. perform.
    I mean, what is it supposed to accomplish? First off, Gore would make a really bold statement if he drove around in a hybrid car, used alternative fuel for everything, shopped with paper bags…just demonstrate that you’re living by what you preach…but he’s still jetting in big-a** jets and being escorted by the Secret Police in Lincolns…and who knows about Madonna? Sure she’s into charity, but does she live in a “green” house or a big-old energy sucking mansion.
    So first off they need to demo to the rest of us that they’re living by what they preach. Besides, I don’t think it’s going to help anyway…we’re too far gone.

  12. jeffmcm says:

    So by this logic, Al Gore should live in a cave and the rest of us might as well commit suicide?
    I think I’ll recycle some bottles and lobby my member of Congress to support raising the new automotive mileage standards instead, thanks.

  13. hendhogan says:

    seems extreme, jeff. all the man wanted was for gore to practice what he preaches. now, i confess, it’s been awhile since i’ve listened to gore, but i don’t recall him mentioning living in caves and mass suicide.
    i’m also pretty sure he wants more than recyclable bottles and new automative mileage standards.

  14. Nicol D says:

    Interesting opinion of Neil Tennant of The Pet Shop Boys:
    He said: “The Princess Diana concert is fair enough, but I feel more uneasy about the Al Gore thing.
    “I’ve always been against the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don’t – it looks arrogant.
    “It’s not as if they have a private source of information. To state the obvious as if you are the only person that knows it is intellectually weak”
    That quote was from NME.
    Others have criticized this concert such as Bob Geldof and Roger Daltry I believe.
    Regardless of what might think of this cause or others…I do think Tennant is right that people are tired of being condescended to by pop stars and entertainers, the specifics of the cause aside.

  15. jeffmcm says:

    Bitter snark coming:
    Maybe if people didn’t act like total morons they wouldn’t need to be condescended to by pop stars.

  16. Nicol D says:

    So questioning a pop star makes one a total moron?
    Please explain.
    Do you think all pop stars are inherently more intelligent than others?
    How do you think they get this wisdom? Is it the money? The fame? The looks? The coke off the hookers ass by the pool side?
    Just curious.

  17. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol, Nicol…
    Let’s turn this around. Do you think all pop stars are inherently _less_ intelligent than others?
    I think a private citizen who has a platform thanks to being famous not only has the freedom to say what they think, but the responsibility to do so on important matters. I disagree with the notion (borne, I think, out of resentment) that if an entertainer gets political that they are automatically to be discounted.

  18. Nicol D says:

    Jeff, Jeff,
    “Let’s turn this around.”
    Uhhh, no let’s not.
    Could you answer my questions. You are the one who made the broad generalizations that people are morons and need pop stars to set them straight.
    Again, I think one can be intelligent and be a pop star…but being a pop star does not by definition mean one is intelligent. Nor does questioning them mean one is a moron.
    You talk of responsibility to speak out but nowhere do you qualify it as being a responsibility to educate oneself first.
    Why do you think such?
    Do you think they have access to special information? Is it something that makes artists more in tune with human nature?
    Just wondering as you came on real strong real fast.

  19. jeffmcm says:

    Being a successful artist gives one free time; more free time means that people have greater opportunity to educate themselves. If I was in the public eye I’d speak out against global warming too, but I’m not.
    “Is it something that makes artists more in tune with human nature?”
    Isn’t that the definition of an artist? A good one, anyway?

  20. jeffmcm says:

    Let me make this clear: I’m providing a counter-argument against your argument – the subtext of which seemed (correct me if I’m wrong) to be ‘entertainers need to shut up’. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

  21. hendhogan says:

    you live in a great world, jeff. successful artists have more free time, so of course they use it educating themselves!
    so, let’s do your favorite thing. “let’s turn it around”
    wealthy multi-billionaires (or even simple millionaires) have plenty of time on their hands too. presumably educating themselves according to your hypothesis. do we listen to them too? even though they may say opposite things of the artists?

  22. Stella's Boy says:

    What Would Bono Do?

  23. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Live Earth = Overhyped Charity Rock Media Event. The Police are doing it ’cause they need the friggin’ money and Sting had his solo career dry up.
    Don’t get me started on Al Gore. He’s got plenty of skeletons in his own closet.

  24. jeffmcm says:

    Yeah, people do. People spend hundreds, if not thousands, to hear Warren Buffett speak. Ross Perot ran for President even though he had no qualifications beyond the fact that Larry King put him on his show a bunch of times. I don’t know why you would even raise that question.

  25. Nicol D says:

    Jeff,
    “Being a successful artist gives one free time; more free time means that people have greater opportunity to educate themselves.”
    Where do they educate themselves? At the local library? Online? On the fashion catwalks of Milan? At Spago?
    I mean Cameron Diaz is very vocal about her beliefs? Where did she educate herself about Mao and Shining Path? Do you think the Peruvian peasants were wrong to correct her? Are they…morons?
    And you- do – think artists are more in tune with human nature?
    Hmmmmm…how? So Madonna or Green Day or Rosie O’Donnell knows more about political philosophies and systems than the average bloke?
    Where do you think they get this font of understanding from? What books does Billy Joe Armstrong from Green Day read that I do not.
    Just wondering?
    I mean, you have made some pretty broad generalizations and there are some intelligent celebs of both the left and right…but you are kinda saying they – all – are enlightened.
    How?

  26. Nicol D says:

    “The burden of proof is on you, not me. ”
    No, Jeff. You projected onto me. You actually wrote that people were morons and needed educating by artists.
    I am only humbly asking that you back that statement up.
    It was very strong.

  27. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol, I am under no obligation to prove that celebrities are more enlightened than the ordinary people. My position is that even if the average celebrity is exactly as intelligent as the average non-celebrity, then they have every right to speak out on positions they consider important, and I don’t know why anyone would think differently, except (like I said) out of simple resentment. The only circumstance where this would not be true is if one belives that entertainers are _less_ enlightened than the average person…which you have not attempted to try to prove.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    Okay, maybe if 51% of Americans didn’t believe in Creationism, or if 70% didn’t think that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, then I wouldn’t have used the word ‘morons’. Satisfied?

  29. Nicol D says:

    Jeff,
    I only say this. A perfomer – CAN – say anything they want.
    But – WHY – should we listen to them? That is what Neil Tennant is saying.
    You say they have a responsibility? Given them by who?
    Do they not have responsibility to educate themselves.
    Do you believe the life of a Hollywood celeb is comparable to that of the average person in any country?
    How can they be enlightened about something they have not lived?
    Does Miss America – really – have the solution to world peace?
    Where does this font of human understanding come from?

  30. Nicol D says:

    Jeff,
    Ahhhhh, I see.
    Where are your stats from?
    Was Cameron Diaz not a moron in Peru? She knew Sadamm had nothing to do with 9/11.
    Howabout Bill Maher? He is an avowed atheist and belongs to PETA which compared eating hamburgers to the killing of Jews in the Holocaust.
    Are these people in your mind – not – morons?
    Just to give a couple of examples, of course.

  31. hendhogan says:

    actually, jeff brought that point up:
    “Okay, maybe if 51% of Americans didn’t believe in Creationism, or if 70% didn’t think that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, then I wouldn’t have used the word ‘morons’. Satisfied?”

  32. Joe Leydon says:

    But if Cameron Diaz knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, wouldn’t that mean she isn’t a moron? (Granted, she might consider a few fashion tips, but…)

  33. hendhogan says:

    hey, take it up with jeff, man.
    that’s one cauldron of hot water i’m not touching

  34. Noah says:

    The bottom line is this: celebrities do have the ability to speak their mind and have people listen. Sometimes we agree we them and sometimes we don’t. But if you have a problem with listening to celebrities talk about their beliefs, then just don’t listen.

  35. hendhogan says:

    look, no one is arguing with the ability or the right of a celebrity to speak out on anything.
    jeff argues they have a responsibility. niccol disagrees. i do too.
    why the opinions of celebs are more important to people baffles me. in my experience, most are regurgitating something they have heard from someone else (usually forgetting some inbetween points). most of the times, they are promoting simple solutions for really complicated problems, with no regard as to how those complications will play out.
    my question is: why is whatever the problem is not enough in and of itself important that a celeb must involve themselves to garner attention? especially if the solution is so obvious.

  36. The Carpetmuncher says:

    OK, its seems some of us are totally missing the ball on this one.
    These are rock stars raising money for charity by donating their time to play for the masses.
    Whatever they say when they “speak,” take it for what you will. But they are speaking huge by playing for this charity event. How this is “condescending” to people, I can’t imagine.
    Anyway, what’s the difference if someone listens to some “moron” pop star or listens to our moron President. I for one would have Bono trade places with President Bush in a New York minute. At least we’d know the next time the floods came he would actually do something.
    As for The Police – a tragedy. The drummer and guitarist – I shall no longer speak their names – were just awful, as if they hadn’t played in 15 years. Sting has turned the post-punk of the early Police we love into adult contemporary garbage, re-orchestrating their best songs until they suck, and then singing everyone in his pretentious half-falsetto like he thinks we all loved The Soul Cages.
    Did I enjoy myself? Hell yeah. But that band has zero new to say, and in truth is really sullying their legacy by playing such big venues for such big money and doing a half-assed job of it.

  37. jeffmcm says:

    Hendhogan, you are much clearer about all of this in your thinking. Let me be clear again – I’m not saying that the opinion of a celebrity is _more_ important than anyone else’s, merely that it’s not _less_ important, which is my impression of where the anti-celebrities’-opinions-faction seems to be coming from.
    Also, I kind of think that, in a very subtle way, I was myself condescended to by somebody who (a) hates being condescended to, and (b) apparently thinks evolution vs. creationism is a debatable subject.
    Which I find highly ironic. I hope I’m wrong.

  38. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Bono has become one of the rich and powerful just like his friend Tony Blair, the soon-to-be-former Prime Minister. Rock & Rap Confidential has helped expose Bono for the two-faced hypocrite he has become.

  39. hendhogan says:

    i get what you’re saying, jeff.
    but the conversation started with the notion (held by a lot of people) that celebs’ opinions are higher than any other by right of their celebrity. feeling almost entitled to it.
    al gore was brought as an example of someone not practicing what they preach. now, we can debate the whole carbon neutral thing til we’re blue in the face, but the need to actually go to places to make speeches (feeling as he feels) is silly at best.
    the man suggests he is so internet saavy as to be an originator of the internet. viral video is becoming a much better way of communicating info and can be done from the comforts of his home. have online chats. give online speeches. the audience is potentially larger than any single stadium.
    okay, sorry for the rant.

  40. The Carpetmuncher says:

    Celebrities should be able to say what they want, just like anyone else. And people should be able to agree or disagree with them, just like they would with everyone else.
    The problem isn’t celebrities endorsing this cause or that cause. Because they have a right to do as they please, and use their celebrity as they see fit.
    The problem is the hypocrisy on the right that says any actor or celebrity who says anything about a cause or issue is a moron, unless they are Ronald Reagan or Fred Thompson.
    Actors are just easy targets, and allow the right to bitch and moan and complain about the celebrity instead of actually discussing the issue. It’s the old bait and switch.
    So it’s quite typical that the discussion is not about the environment and how to help it, but rather about bashing rock stars for stating their opinion. What a joke.

  41. hendhogan says:

    no, the problem is putting stock into someone’s opinion because they are really good at acting and/or singing.
    and i am certainly not putting politicians as the gold standard. on either side of the aisle. it’s why gore doesn’t get a pass either. he is stuck in the same meme. sees a problem and does what he normally does to fix the problem, even though that too contributes to the problem.
    i think celebs speak out to make themselves feel good. i’m contributing. i’m not just an actor/musician/whatever. if she/he speaks out, then it justifies all the excesses. it’s cosmetic.
    and i’ll discuss the issues, if you want. but i know this, no one at live earth is even remotely thinking about the problem and how to solve it. they are raising money (after the performers get their cut, of course)

  42. jeffmcm says:

    Demanding that Gore stay at home and never get on an airplane for the rest of his life is silly.

  43. hendhogan says:

    i didn’t say that. although, if you browse the environmental websites, you will find that the utopian communities have shared transportation that keeps everyone with a town’s radius. no extraneous travel.
    what i did say, was there are better tools for accomplishing his task than he is using. the film is one of them. the internet could be used far more effectively for the green case. hell, if he stopped using private jets and took public transportation, that would be better environmentally.

  44. The Carpetmuncher says:

    Well, it looks you’re all ready to interview to be Al Gore’s scheduler. Best of luck with that.
    And it sounds like your problem isn’t with celebrities speaking their minds, but with people actually listening to them. Sounds like envy and jealousy to me, or maybe you just are upset because you don’t agree with them.
    Whatever. The great thing about this country is that if you have a voice you can use it to say what you believe without the government making you shut up. It’s what makes us what we are.
    And pretending like nobody at Live Earth cares about the environment is just willfully blind. The environment and global warning is probably the #1 interest of young people everywhere right now, maybe excepting the disaster in Iraq.

  45. hendhogan says:

    carpetmuncher:
    do you actually read the posts before commenting?
    i will try to go slower. caring about something and doing something about what you care about are two different things. going to a concert addresses none of the issues promoted by the concert. it’s a moneymaking event, with a lot of that money going back into the performer’s and promoter’s pockets.
    never once have a suggested the government should be involved in making anyone shut up. as a matter of fact, would like it if government keep itself out of my life as much as possible.
    and finally, i’m not envious or jealous. i’m saying that just because a celeb is good and whatever it is they do, doesn’t necessarily make them good at all things. you wouldn’t ask paris hilton to perform open heart surgery, but people are willing to listen to everything she has to say about anything.
    i think that’s sad. your posts also make it seem that you’re willing to slurp up any pablum that comes out of a celebrity’s mouth. i hope that’s not the case. but that’s how you are sounding

  46. The Carpetmuncher says:

    The point of the concert is to raise money for charity – and paying for a ticket to the concert is the same as donating money. Pretending that the concert is some sort of a scam is disingenuous at best.
    You’ve said yourself that your issue isn’t with celebrities themselves but rather with the public listening to them, so take up your beef with the American public. Which is another way of saying, you are beating a dead horse. You might as well complain about the wind or the rain.
    And do you really think anyone listens to Paris Hilton? Come on, man, you are underestimating the American public’s shit detector to such an extent that it makes you sound like you think everyone is just stupid. Talk about condescending.
    It’s clear from your comments that you’re just a hater. So don’t watch the concert.
    What’s sad is that anyone would hate on an event that is being put on to help everyone. But the concert is going to raise a lot of money for causes that some people care about, whether the haters participate or not.

  47. hendhogan says:

    the concert is not a scam. yes, it raises money, but not as much as you might think. nobody’s donating their services here. people need to be paid.
    not all problems can be solved by throwing money at it. and some can be hurt by it.
    i don’t hate the concert. i think if it was comprised of unknown bagpipers there’d be a lot less interest. i also find it ironic. wondering how many people will be driving to the event or flying in for the event. how much damage is going to be done to the environment in order to save it.
    and yes, some people do listen to paris. you might have noticed a bidding war for her first post jail interview. someone ponied up a million dollars for it.
    out of curiousity, because you draw a line at at least paris hilton. what about the celeb makes them worth listening to and not just another paris hilton (not to unduly slam the woman, i think you’d lump in a lohan or a spears here too)?

  48. jeffmcm says:

    The stagehands and behind-the-scenes people get paid. The musicians do not. That’s why it’s called a charity concert.
    And once more, this thinking is just massively annoying to me: “i also find it ironic. wondering how many people will be driving to the event or flying in for the event. how much damage is going to be done to the environment in order to save it.”
    It shows a petty spitefulness and a real lack of understanding.

  49. hendhogan says:

    no, jeff. the musicians get paid. usually at a reduced fee from what they normally get, but they get paid. the extra is donated to charity, which is why it’s a charity concert.
    i’m not being spiteful. and hell, if i was, it wouldn’t be of the petty variety. but, by all means, jeff, educate me.

  50. hendhogan says:

    also, because that kinda annoyed me. do you know what goes into creating a charity event, jeff? do you know how many people there are that you so off-handedly refer to as “behind-the-scenes people?”
    you do realize that the trend in charity is going the other way. avoiding large events because it is difficult to recoup costs. cause i am involved in local charities for breast cancer and autism. the ways money are being raised are changing

  51. The Carpetmuncher says:

    Pretending like the public wants to hear Paris Hilton talk about global warming seems willfully naive. People want to see her bitch and cry or just suffer. It’s pure entertainment, tabloid style.
    There is a line but it’s for the public to draw themselves. If they want to ignore Paris Hilton, or just take whatever idiocy comes out of her mouth as entertainment like most do, so be it. If they want to listen to the Terminator and elect him governor despite having no experience, so be it. If people want to listen to or ignore George Clooney or David Geffen or Fred Thompson, so be it. But they all have a right to speak, it seems we can all agree on that.
    People will by their nature take the source into consideration when listening to someone. As they should.
    The point is, bashing what a celebrity says just because they are a celebrity is just as bad as listening to them just because they are a celebrity.
    As for the Live Earth concert, are you against the concert, it’s methods, or just against people trying to talk about Global Warming? Because you are being totally petty and spiteful about it, so we can only assume you hate what it stands for, because you hating the way it’s put together is just lame backseat driving, the kind of garbage that typically comes from people who are too lazy to do anything, so they just criticize those that try to do something.
    I imagine you just hate everything Al Gore stands for, which is your right. But hating on a guy who is trying to help the rest of us is what’s really sad.

  52. jeffmcm says:

    Hendhogan, the suggestion that it’s more damaging to the environment to drive to a concert and pay money that then goes towards an environmental charity, than to do none of those things…I don’t know how to explain it to you because it strikes me as blatantly obviously incorrect, and that only someone who is deeply skeptical of the ‘environmental movement’ would raise these objections at all.

  53. hendhogan says:

    carpetmuncher this is what i said:
    i don’t hate the concert. i think if it was comprised of unknown bagpipers there’d be a lot less interest.
    where exactly did i say any of the things you’re accusing me of?
    but, fine, you wanna talk lazy? you believe wholeheartedly in this cause. your solution is to go to a concert. do anything else?
    and i don’t hate everything al gore stands for. hell, i don’t even know everything he stands for. i disagree with him on global warming, but i believe he is passionate about it. what annoys me, is the pretension that everyone should change their ways while he is not changing his. practice what you preach.

  54. hendhogan says:

    jeff, i never said more damaging. i said damaging.
    and, yes, i’m skeptical about the environmental movement. i think it’s become more of a business than a political movement.

  55. jeffmcm says:

    Hendhogan, this is what I said before: you seem to believe that anyone who is serious about the environment must therefore live in a cave and never venture out for fear of causing _any_ environmental damage, and anyone who doesn’t do so is a hypocrite.
    I think this is how you justify and rationalize your opposition to the environmental movement.

  56. hendhogan says:

    i am fascinated by your lack of middle ground. the choices are live however you like or dwell in a cave.
    i confess, i’ve never heard al gore speak, but i’m pretty sure that’s not the message

  57. The Carpetmuncher says:

    You’ve never heard Gore speak and yet somehow you’re familiar with all of his travel plans and carbon offsets?
    Sorry Hendhogan, but you lost me. Being skeptical of the environmental movement is one thing, but doing so while not listening to Gore at all, who is it’s most prominent proponent, makes you look like a fool.
    Read a book, get a clue, stop hating. What a joke.

  58. hendhogan says:

    i said i never heard him speak, as in in person. not that i’m not familiar with what he says.
    more importantly, i’ve read the reports from the actual scientists. have you? i read the actual people doing the work. not the poseur going around the country being the parrot.
    read a book, get a clue, stop hating what you don’t understand.

  59. jeffmcm says:

    I obviously don’t understand your position, Hendhogan. The ‘all or nothing’ is my interpretation of what you’ve been saying today.

  60. hendhogan says:

    clearly, because i’ve been saying practice what you preach all day. i think you can even look up and see it in my previous posts. now, unless it is your contention that al gore is saying “all or nothing” i don’t know how you get there.

  61. jeffmcm says:

    You said, people are doing damage to the environment by travelling to a concert intended to benefit the environment. Therefore, to avoid damage = no travelling whatsoever.
    Also, I don’t think you know what Al Gore does or doesn’t do to ‘practice what he preaches’. As far as I’m concerned, he could live a lifestyle of eating baby seal brains and cooking them over tire fires and his good deeds in being an advocate for the environment would make up for it.

  62. hendhogan says:

    it does do damage. i find it ironic. because between sets the lead singers are gonna spout off on how we’re not doing enough to protect the environment. there will be people there that think themselves superior to the rest of us.
    if you want, you can look up a great article in the minnesota star-tribune, written from a pro-global warming stance, on what future towns must look like to protect the environment. it’s not cave living, but i don’t think you’ll appreciate much either.
    as for the rest, well, PETA wants a word with you, mister!

  63. jeffmcm says:

    Fortunately I’ll be dead when the world of the future comes to pass, because I ate too much delicious red meat.

  64. Nicol D says:

    Hey, I’m back!
    Sorry I was away for two days. I was taking parenting lessons from Rosie O’Donnell. She obviously knows so much more than us well…’cause she’s a celeb, right.
    Joe, Jeff,
    Try not to infer that I have opinions that I never said I had to discredit me.
    Here’s the upshot…
    1) if you take all of the professions on the planet, being a popstar/actor is actually one of the least intellectual. Ironically it’s usually the best and most intelligent actors that will say this (Oldman, Hopkins). The flakes (Sharon Stone, lil’ Leo) insist they are artistes!
    2) Intelligence is – NOT – defined by what opinions you have but by why you have them. Lord Kelvin (a smart physicist) once declared that no more research was required in the field of physics, only better measurements. Half a century later, another smart fella named Einstein proved him wrong. Science is always about debate and rarely ever settled, especially if the issue is this current.
    3) Do you actually think Cameron Diaz could hold a conversation on world politics beyond the ‘all republicans are rapists’ variety?
    People like Diaz, DiCaprio, Green Day, Maines, Penn, Sheryl Crowe, Laurie David are actually quite vapid. Listen to them speak. Listen to the language they use. Yet a liberal like Clooney is intelligent. The position is not what makes you smart. How you arrive at it is.
    You actually think Green Day could take on William F Buckley in a debate? Sheesh.
    Most stars in Hollywood live a sheltered life far away from the real world. To think they spend much of their time researching world issues is sub-moronic. Jeff, I think you fell into the shark tank with that one.
    Yes, I’ll eagerly await Natalie Maines thesis on pre World War II fascism in Italy.
    After that I’ll try to search out Elton John for his dissertation on Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae.
    Next a discussion on the implications of Kierkegaard with Brad Pitt before launching into his views on the fall of the Roman Empire and his interpretations of Aquinas.
    Please.
    Truth is, they go with the flow in a town that has had a heavy Marxist influence for over half a century. Sometimes they’ll be right (even a broken clock is right twice a day) but most often than not they are not just wrong, but childishly so.
    Danny Glover and Tim Robbins crying censorship while ON NATIONAL TELEVISION anyone?
    Rosie O’ Donnell anyone? Do you get flat out stupider than this imbecil of a human being?
    As for Al Gore…of course he is a hypocrite. He is Jimmy Swaggart preaching abstinance while jerk-ing off to two under-age teenagers in a motel room.
    As is most of Hollywood’s hypocrisy.
    As for this concert, spare me the sanctimonious, ‘it’s saving the world horse-shit’. Start in your own house, shut down a mansion , fly coach…then we’ll talk.
    Incidentally, as long as celebs don’t take man-made global warming seriously, why – shouldn’t – we, the plebes and serfs question it. I mean as long as top scientists at NASA and MIT are unconvinced and the founder of Greenpeace too, I’ll stay in the ‘more research and questions’ is always good camp.
    Y’see kids that’s what science is. It’s questions and debate. Anything else is faith and religion; and that’s where the Al Gore movement has gone. Into the realm of hysterical, fearmongering, faith and religion. Shutting down scientific debate is anti-science.
    After all, shutting down scientific debate didn’t help Lord Kelvin, did it?
    Are you going to say Albert Einstein was wrong?

  65. Joe Leydon says:

    But Nicol, once again: You wrote: “Was Cameron Diaz not a moron in Peru? She knew Sadamm had nothing to do with 9/11.”
    And, once again, I ask: Exactly what did Saddam have to do with 9/11?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/5233810/

  66. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol:
    I really don’t think you’d be making the ‘celebrities are idiots’ argument if they were in agreement with you on the issues.
    And you know that Conservatives across Europe and the rest of the world are in agreement on the global warming issue, don’t you?
    I find it endlessly fascinating how people convince themselves of what they want to believe. I don’t exclude myself from that category, but I do try to be aware of it.

  67. Nicol D says:

    Joe,
    What is your point?
    Don’t be faux clever, be specific. What do you think I am trying to say? I think your post is based on a misinterpretation of mine. Be clear.
    Jeff,
    “I find it endlessly fascinating how people convince themselves of what they want to believe. I don’t exclude myself from that category, but I do try to be aware of it.”
    This is an elliptical statement that both tries to exonerate and endorse you at the same time. Pointless. Faux clever.
    Give me some names. Prove yourself. Rhetoric gets you nowhere.
    “I really don’t think you’d be making the ‘celebrities are idiots’ argument if they were in agreement with you on the issues. ”
    I wrote the exact opposite of this. If you want to respond to me, respond to – what I wrote. Not the uber left wing projection of what you need me to believe so you can write something totally off topic.
    This is a recurring problem of yours. You respond to your projection on someone. Not what they actually wrote.
    Makes it hard to have a discussion with you as we have to spend 2 paragraphs clarifying to people the misconceptions/deliberate red- herrings you throw out about people.
    Seriously Jeff, other people have called you on this. Is it intentional as a red herring or do you just project a lot?

  68. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol:
    I don’t know what ‘faux clever’ means. There’s either clever, or there’s dumb, or there’s shades in between.
    You spent many words up above talking about how ignorant celebrities are. I don’t see anyplace where you wrote ‘the exact opposite of this’.
    “You respond to your projection on someone. Not what they actually wrote. ”
    I could say the exact same thing about you.
    Seriously, this is why I think writing long, detailed, complicated posts is ultimately counter-productive. A long post is a speech, speeches back and forth at each other tend to be full of bluster. Short posts make for easier conversation, more careful understanding of tone and intention, and greater chance of understanding.

  69. Nicol D says:

    Jeff,
    “Short posts make for easier conversation, more careful understanding of tone and intention, and greater chance of understanding.”
    No Jeff, the- exact polar – opposite. Short posts are nothing but simplicity and often rhetoric.
    Complex, nuanced positions take a long time to explain. That’s why they are complex and nuanced.
    Short posts are fine if you want to set up a time to see a movie. Discussing politics and social issues…disasterous.
    That’s why so often you are accused of snark.

  70. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol, long posts are good if you are trying to win an argument or present a case in a courtroom. I, and most people here, are trying to have a _conversation_. And you know what? Sometimes in a conversation one speaks sarcastically. This is why in the past I accused you of not talking like a normal human being – because you weren’t. You were trying to win an argument by whatever rhetorical means necessary.
    I think that if you want to convince others of your points and open some minds, explaining complex, nuanced opinions to people as if they are students in a classroom is a waste of time…on the internet.

  71. Joe Leydon says:

    You wrote: “Was Cameron Diaz not a moron in Peru? She knew Sadamm had nothing to do with 9/11.”
    I interpreted your comment about Cameron Diaz to mean you think she is a moron because she thinks Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Is that what you meant? If so, then I ask you for the third time: What exactly did Saddam have to do with 9/11?

  72. Joe Leydon says:

    In a new poll conducted by those flaming Lefties over at Fox News — yes, freakin’ Fox News — people were asked: “If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge

  73. James Leer says:

    I’ve avoided this thread, knowing it would turn into yet another Nicol D/jeffmcm back-and-forth. And I was right!

  74. jeffmcm says:

    I apologize for my part in the predictability.

  75. James Leer says:

    OK, good, because in many threads where Nicol hasn’t yet posted, you openly ask, “I wonder what Nicol D has to say about this.” No, you don’t wonder. You just want to hijack a thread with more of the same “You’re not addressing my points/No, YOU’RE not addressing MY points.” Have you not realized that every blog has a conservative shit-starter who riles people up for e-martyrdom (say, nycbusybody at Wells’ blog)? Or maybe you truly don’t realize that these conversations devolve into pointlessness every single time (since you seem to long for the “debate” when any rational person would avoid it). Either way, please take it to email because the rest of us are tired of it hijacking every thread.

  76. jeffmcm says:

    (A) Excuse the hell out of me;
    (B) “maybe you truly don’t realize that these conversations devolve into pointlessness every single time (since you seem to long for the “debate” when any rational person would avoid it)” is probably correct – call me an optimist.
    (C) I’ve listed my personal email address here many times, but Nicol has never reciprocated, so taking it to email has never been an option.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon