Happy Father's Day!

I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy Father's Day today and check out this cool story from Huffpost Celebrity: Famous Fathers And Sons: Then And Now (PHOTOS) Father's Day is here, and while dad might feel like the celebrity of the family, there are actually some dads who are just that -- famous for everything from their comedic or vocal work to their producing and acting abilities. But it's not just the patriarchs who are well-known throughout Hollywood and beyond when it comes to these guys. For the stars included in this roundup, talent just runs in their blood. Check out 14 famous father-and-son duos, and happy Father's Day to all dads (on and off the silver screen): Link

Pamela Anderson - Dreamscape Networks Banned Advertisment

Is Pamela Anderson too hot for Britain? The 45-year-old former Baywatch star's sexy new TV commercial for Dreamscape Networks' Crazy Domains has been banned.

Great Britain's Advertising Standards Authority ruled that the ad could no longer be broadcast in its recent form after receiving four complaints that it was "sexist and degrading to women."

Read more: http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/pamela-anderson-ad-banned-in-britain-for-being-sexist-and-degrading-to-women-201356#ixzz2VS0rEgQ1


What do you think? Is this too sexy for TV?

Kids Need the Arts, too!

When I think back to my youth, I can't help but think of the vast opportunities for greater knowledge and the enjoyment of the arts, music, shop classes, sports programs, and field trips that most schools used to provide. Although I didn't fully appreciate them at the time, these were very beneficial programs. Sadly, these seem to be almost non-existent nowadays. I've felt for a long time a great disappointment in how we, as a country, spend so much money on seemingly frivolous activities, yet fail to adequately finance education for those we claim to love: Our Children. While "The Three Rs" are tremendously important, most of us would probably agree there are benefits of not focusing only on this narrow subject matter. The enormous benefits of helping to develop a well-rounded child through a variety of classes in non-core subjects should not be underestimated.

Obviously, in an ideal world, school districts wouldn't need to obsess about maintaining high test scores for the sake of maintaining funding levels. We could offer much more of a vast array of educational opportunities to help our children achieve their dreams. And, in fact, this is what we should be doing!

On a personal level, I’ve witnessed children facing the prospect of not being able to continue in their Drama or other arts classes due to scheduling conflicts presumably arising from a focus on core classes and limited budgets for anything else. Some of these children may be excelling in all of their other classes and may even be honor students. But, they may be forced into Engineering classes (and other currently popular STEM-related classes) simply because their preferred Drama or arts classes conflict with “core” classes.

 

Now, I'm sure some of their peers would prefer Engineering and Math over Drama or other arts classes. But, I can't help but feel it would be a terrible shame if they were not permitted to continue in the classes they love. Obviously, private after-school and/or weekend classes may appear to be a viable option. But, we can't expect every family to be in a position to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year in order to provide their children opportunities beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Would any adult be expected to fully enjoy work in which they had little interest and without being able to enjoy their true passions? Why do we offer our children any less than what we expect for ourselves? Not every child wants to grow up to be a scientist or a mathematician! During early childhood education, we often encourage our children to explore a wide variety of things so they may discover their passions in life. How ironic it is that we now underfund programs which may help our children follow their passions and become more inspired. Offering our children some control over their own destinies will likely serve them well into the future. In addition, electives may offer a break in the school day, offer moments of relaxation, and less stress than some core classes. Maybe this would help our children appreciate and thrive in those classes which they find less enjoyable (algebra anyone?). As they say, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

It's contradictory to claim we want our children to seek out their passions and then, when they are aware of what they want to achieve, to place roadblocks to their dreams. However unintentional these roadblocks may be, they remain roadblocks. I can't help but wonder how many children are out there having their passions stifled and their progress impeded by well-meaning adults. What a shame! In the case of some children, potentially being "re-routed" into classes we adults deem best for them simply because these classes relate to currently in-demand jobs would prove to be the antithesis of the life goals of some children and would provide zero opportunity for their creative expression. To have students who are clear on their career plans in more creative fields be forced to take only "STEM" classes would be highly counterproductive. If our children are not offered classes related to what they're interested in or what they love, how can we expect them to thrive as they progress towards high school and college? If not now, when?

Many attribute the reduction of elective classes to the "No Child Left Behind" act which focuses solely on core subjects. However, we cannot continue to offer children little more than core academic classes, send them off to do their homework for these same core classes, and continue to cut back on programs which may help them grow and develop interests in more artistic or creative endeavors.

Must children now wait until college to take classes they enjoy? Must elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools become 'barren wastelands' offering only years and years of analytical thought and taking test after test after test (punctuated with daily homework assignments?)? If so, we shouldn't be surprised when more and more students fail and become high school dropouts. Even worse, it may be too late for them to develop any sense of purpose after thirteen years of punishing coursework. If we can't offer interesting and engaging subject matter and electives which tap into our children's passions and which capture our children's imaginations, we shouldn't be surprised if we turn out a generation of the highly uninspired.

 The benefits of elective courses are not only in the academic arena, but have been proven to help students socially and behaviorally as well. Case-in-point: according to World Music Central and the Texas Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse “Secondary students who participated in band or orchestra reported the lowest lifetime and current use of all substances (alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs).”

I would urge all parents to become more involved with teachers, school administrators, and their legislators to help advocate on behalf of their children. We must respect our children and provide them no fewer opportunities to thrive than we had and enjoyed when we were their age. By providing them greater access to programs which will help broaden their horizons, we give them the best chance for happiness and success in life.

At NBC, the Thrill Is Gone Along With the Audience

By BILL CARTER

NBC got its first taste of the difference between the Olympics and anything else it can offer in prime time: its audience Monday night dropped about 25 million from the network’s Olympic highs.
And if anyone deserved a ratings gold medal on the night, it was the chef Gordon Ramsay on Fox. With none of the Olympic hype, Mr. Ramsay’s two reality shows beat NBC from 8 to 10 p.m., with his returning series, “Hell’s Kitchen,” the dominant show of the night.

In isolation, without any expected halo from the Olympics, NBC’s performance would have been considered respectable, especially for its 10 p.m. drama “Grimm.” That drama returned for its second season — riding a crest of promotions in the Olympics — with its second-highest rating ever in the audience category NBC sells to most of its advertisers, viewers between the ages of 18 and 49.
That was hardly a huge number, a 2.0 rating, but it would generally rank as a solid performance for a drama at 10 p.m. on an August night. “Grimm” averaged about 5.7 million viewers, which was the second-best total for the night.

Less impressive was the showing of a new reality series heavily pumped during the Olympic coverage: “Stars Earn Stripes.” The show managed to beat the weak “Bachelor Pad” on ABC and repeats on CBS, but Mr. Ramsay’s new series, “Hotel Hell” — which didn’t benefit from 17 days of exposure to 30 million viewers a night — decisively topped NBC’s military-inspired  competition series.

“Hotel Hell” scored a 1.9 in the 18-49 ratings to a 1.7 in that hour for “Stars Earn Stripes.”
Mr. Ramsay kicked into high gear against the second hour of the NBC bombs and guns show. His “Hell’s Kitchen” scored the night’s best 2.7 from 9 to 10, far above the 1.7 NBC scored in that hour.
Over all, the non-Olympics programming on NBC was beaten by Fox by 28 percent.

NBC Censorship

Apparently NBC doesn't even have the edited portions available to watch now on it's website. As Americans, we pride ourselves as having boundless freedom of speech and communications and we also probably feel we are at the top of the list o f all countries in freedom of expression. But, if we tolerate this censorship of a worldwide event and are unable to view it in its entirety, aren't we victims of censorship? How is NBC's editing and unwillingness to offer (even to download, after the fact) any different than repressive regimes? It seems to me that not only are our politics being twisted and force fed and now sports and entertainment are also censored. Am I wrong here? I think it's pathetic that in a country such as ours (in which we pride ourselves on freedom of speech and communication) that we need to search the internet for clips of performances censored by NBC. How is this any different than those repressed by the government of North Korea? Granted, we're not in any physical jeopardy. But, to think an event of such worldwide significance is truncated to make room for a sitcom should enrage many more than it seems to be. We've gotten way too passive regarding our rights to not be force-fed censored information whether it be politics, sports, or entertainment. I don't like the feeling of being at the mercy of NBC.

London Olympics 2012

After NBC's overly-edited and shameful coverage of the Olympic Closing Ceremony, I have no desire to see anything on NBC. I don't have a problem with the time-shifting to maximize their audience. And Saturday night's kick-off with the interesting, but inappropriately scheduled one-hour "history channel-style" documentary on Winston Churchill was bad enough (and I admire Churchill). But, the final blow was not only delaying The Who until after the sitcom sneak peek, but to find out they deleted entire performances should get people really upset. Overall, I think NBC did a very good job, with what they actually decided to share with the audience. But, with all the hours there are to broadcast, to use much of this time as NBC's personal showcase for their programming is a disservice to the IOC, the Brits, the American audience, and to the spirit of the Olympics. The audience expects to see the ceremony in its entirety and for NBC to offer what amounts to a highlight reel is nothing short of offensive, disrespectful, and, well, disgusting. I'm sure NBC will issue another of their infamous apologies over the next day or two. But, the real losers in all of this are the British people who deserve to have their farewell "love letter" to the world be viewed by all Americans who wish to view it. The IOC should demand more from those they award the broadcasting rights.

Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats

Excellent analysis of one of the mysteries of life...

Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Column - America in Decline

Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Column - America in Decline

I Support Film Works L.A.

Many people seem to believe these efforts are merely de facto "bailouts" for mega-corporations and billionaire studio owners. I think more needs to be done to remind people that a lot of "regular people" benefit from these tax breaks. Your efforts to keep production in the L.A. area are much appreciated.

http://www.facebook.com/filmworksla

The Race Card

I never said that liberals don't know they're playing the race card or that all liberals even do that. My contention is that many may be too caught up in their "own dysfunctional thought" and that they may not even realize it. Of course, not all liberals! But, if some do knowingly play the race card, does it make it any better? I don't feel it helps bring civil conversation to the table or helps increase esteem for anyone. Obviously, we're never going to agree that some people live a life of "victimhood" and some people do not. Some have mentioned "loopholes to reduce their taxes" and big banks getting bailed out. But, the loopholes and bailouts are actions of the government and the campaigns receive large contributions from the very same corporations. I think it would make more sense if more protesting was being done in DC. The fact that this seems not to be the case appears to be either misguided or a concerted effort to protect the image for the president in order to assist with his reelection (sorry, I'm a bit cynical). If the companies are opposing regulation, than, again, people should protest for more regulation in Washington. If there have been crimes committed, than charges should be brought against those criminals. But, mobs shouldn't be creating a scene on the private property of anyone (even those perceived to be "fat cats." Why should the families of big corporations be entitled to any less privacy than the rest of us just because certain people decide to act like vigilantes (albeit relatively non-violent, thus far).

I don't think we're going to settle the question of more government vs less government. So, we'll have to agree to disagree. But, to wrap things up with what appears to be the case of the protesters at OWS...being upset solely with the financial industry for what's happening with the economy is like a toddler being upset with Mattel when another toddler takes their toy away. I believe that people should be aiming their disappointment at those who have dug a hole for our country and those who have really let us down: the government. And, yes, there have been mistakes made by Obama and by Bush and by every president before them.

The Party of "Caring"

Some people seem to suggest that the Republican Party is uncaring and that the Democrats are the party of caring. If I may be so bold to suggest there are examples of a selfish and extreme lack of caring from both sides of the aisle. However, from what I see, many in the Democratic Party appear to be proponents of cradle-to-grave entitlements, encouraging a psychologically debilitating philosophy of victimization and neediness, playing a self-righteous and arrogant blame game, a disturbing tendency to invoke the race card to quash legitimate debate, and inciting of class warfare to encourage higher levels of voter turnout next year. I don't find any of this to be good for our children and grandchildren and I certainly don't find it positive or inspiring for our fellow citizens and our country's future.

I'm all for a safety net for those who are truly in need. But, what I mean by "cradle-to-grave" is a popular mindset amongst a seemingly growing portion of the population which implies that a person cannot survive or thrive without taking advantage of freebies being offered by the government. Ultimately, it's a dis-empowering mindset which condemns those who buy into it to a life of strife and angst. Case-in-point: some of those at OWS. I'm not for protecting a certain group of people. I'm all for fairness for everyone, not just the "flavor of the week." As for invoking the race card, of course you don't hear that from (many) liberals because they may not even realize they're doing it. They're simply too caught up in their own dysfunctional thought processes. More cases-in-point: Morgan Freeman, Bryant Gumbel, et al. Surely, you can't feel that making people feel they are victims is empowering. However, if we toss aside those at the fringe extremes on the right or left, I still believe there is hope to make this country work fairly for all. Maybe I'm just being naive and an idealist.

Obama's bus tour costing taxpayers thousands - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Obama's bus tour costing taxpayers thousands - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Pelosi's disclosure belated in husband's land deal

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s husband, a real estate developer and investment banker, stands to make millions of dollars in a previously undisclosed residential real estate project in California as a partner with the father of a woman Mrs. Pelosi helped become ambassador to Hungary, records show.

Paul F. Pelosi’s investment in Russell Ranch is worth at least $5 million and possibly as much as $25 million in a deal put together by his friend and longtime business associate, Angelo Tsakopoulos, patriarch of a multimillion-dollar real estate development firm, according to Mrs. Pelosi’s latest personal-disclosure statement.

>> More:Pelosi's disclosure belated in husband's land deal - Washington Times

Wait. I thought she was part of the 99%! Shhh! Don't tell anyone occupying Wall Street! It'll be our little secret.