Skip to main content

Academy Awards

Watched the academy awards last night. The show was one of the worst I can remember. It began with the usual pre-ceremony red carpet celebrity walk, and the interviewers from Channel 5 were excellent - but what is that entire two hour part of the program all about? The known and unknown are captured as they supposedly arrive and walk the torturous five hundred foot red carpet path headed to their pre-assigned seats in the theatre. This display on the entry path consumes more time than a Republican political debate - and is twice as meaningless. Year after year the pampered celebrities wander aimlessly towards the theater, bumping shoulders with their fellow pretty people and stopping at each microphone held by a Hollywood Press person. The press people are strategically standing in the middle of the surging crowd. They stop as if they have no choice, and proceed to prattle about the beautiful multi-thousand dollar dresses and tuxedos that almost defy describing. 

There are some who simply don't want to be noticed. They arrive, at a press microphone, usually alone but not always, invariably dressed like a designers nightmare. Black dark glasses, overlong green hair, sky blue pants or skirts worn with chartreuse underwear on the outside of the garment. This confection is often topped off with a bright red hat bearing a slogan like "save the whales" embroidered in sparkling silver. These shy and bashful people almost always have to be pried away by two big bouncers so the next guest can get in the spotlight. 


The next guest, and his or her partner for the night, is invariably blond and dressed in red, white or blue. If a male star, he will have forgotten to comb his unruly hair and will twist and turn  his neck as he is interviewed to wave at his fellow artists. It a female she will have a garment on that carefully uncovers as much skin as possible. Up top the girls have two ribbons of fabric descending from their shoulders to their waists and each fastened modestly with Gorilla adhesive tape to their breasts. More specifically to their nipples. Presumably the politically correct rule has been changed. Breast exposure is acceptable provided the nipple is thoroughly covered with some kind of pastie. This, of course, is designed to attract the opposite sex - in Hollywood, this seems to include any other sex whatever.  


Two or more hours later the guests enter the theatre itself and find their assigned seats. The more rich and powerful are in the front rows and the lesser folk are up there high in the back near the ceiling.


And the show begins with the black host with the big smile tells everyone that the show is biased against black people. There are no black artists as candidates. Regardless, he will press on because he needs a job. Meanwhile, outside the theatre, a black crowd salted with a white face here and there, has formed a large and vocal mob of "rap artist speaking" morons. They are led by the Reverend (of what) Al Sharpton and his minions.They lead the amplified (spontaneous)rabble with their pre-printed signs, posters and hand-out folders.


They, the protesters, do have a justified grevance. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has, for years, avoided mention of talented and deserving minority people in the film community. The Academy deserves condemnation big time. The President, acknowledging the wrong, has promised to correct the situation. She has done so on television, radio, magazines, and newspapers.She did so on the auditorium stage during the show tonight.


What more can she do? The black and latino community knew of the problem 50 years ago. Why didn't they do something about it? The whiners and criers come out of the woodworks for causes like equal opportunity, and they have thousands of film industry agreeing with them. The dummies have much more effective support than the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson/Malcolm X types. Come on people, hitch your wagon to the right horses.













Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gloves Off

. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS BETRAYED OUR TRUST AGAIN. Whether we are Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, makes no difference at all. Our legislators voted according to "what's best for them". It was clear that the people want to reduce the costs and improve access to our overall health care system. It was also VERY CLEAR that they did not want the 2000 page legislative monstrosity that was produced by a small number of far left liberal Democrats, who worked behind closed doors to fashion a pork filled blunderbuss that virtually no one has been able to read, or discuss, or debate, or offer alternatives to specific unreasoned clauses. It is (now) a BAD BILL , passed by BAD POLITICIANS, that compose a BAD MINORITY segment of America's out-of-control government. AND WE HAVE NO LOGICAL WAY TO PAY FOR IT EITHER. The far left liberals like to point at  SOCIAL SECURITY   as a text book success. They are wrong and will not admit it despite the concrete evide

Why Blackwater Mercenaries

Over some years the name Blackwater shows  up in the news. It is, by their own estimation, the largest mercenary group in the world. I think I first noticed it when reports from Iraq mentioned they were employed (by whom?) to escort and protect members of the Iraqi government from place to place. Then I became aware that they had joined several of the firefights between our marines and Iraqi enemies. I wondered just how these mercenaries (that supposedly came from the United States) were  hired by someone (who?) to fight? That led to the question of just who would be responsible if a situation involved the accidental killing of an innocent bystander? It  might be a little sticky for an unauthorised mercenary contracted by the United States but not a member of our military forces.  Or suppose a Blackwater type killed a military Iraqi combatant and was then captured by the enemy. Would he be treated as a spy, or as a American combatant, or whatelse?  And would the Geneva Convention

Sarah-palin-itus

. Am I the only one that watches the liberal roar caused by the soccer mom . . . and laughs?   I suspect Sarah is a nice and decent person who will eventually prove to be a better political critic than elected official. But who knows. She projects an effervescent personality, a better than average intelligence, and solid conservative values. Still,  as a political leader of consequence I suspect she is a female Peter. You do remember THE PETER PRINCIPLE don't you. Dixon