He is right, men have had their chance and failed. My country, you're country, doesn't matter which country, men blew it. We need more Hillarys, Maggie Thatchers, Indira Ghandhis, Benazir Bhuttos (who was both smart and gorgeous, is that sexist?). And we need more Harvey Milks, that guy was a smart, decent man who could have solved problems. I hope we don't flinch when a Harvey Milk type runs for higher office.
I guess the polls suggest the election might be close but I'm guessing it's going to be like Billie Jean King hammering Bobby Riggs at the Astrodome, with Bobby accepting defeat by jumping the net and ripping his pants as his toupee flies off.
Like those bratty millennials, I go to comedians Colbert and Maher for my political info. The network and cable news readers make me lunge for the remote. "Some say..."
Interesting new book called "How Women Decide" which I only know through its reviews, but the author reportedly cites research that suggests that when men are under stress they go into "fight or flight" mode but women become calmer and more rational. The underlying hypothesis is that evolutionary successful females are those who work to maximize survival for their children. Food for thought.
Last spring, while the primaries were going on, Louis CK wrote in a tweet: "Conservatives, Trump is not one of you. He's one of him." I guess they didn't read it.
I was watching Conan when that exchange took place. i was sure it would go viral and help Hillary more than any ad she has placed since the campaign began. Thank goodness, because I think there are far more shadow voters (for Trump) than the news analysts realize. I'm still worried that Trump will win because of it. I think those who compare it to the shock of Brexit are spot on. I sure hope I'm wrong!
Seems like someone is working hard to alienate any blog fans who may lean to the right. What is the point? I come here for intelligent commentary on the entertainment industry and writing. Hollywood is a leftist cesspool, I get that but why the need to constantly be making snide political asides when it does little but irritate a decent percentage of your readers!?!?
Donald Trump wants to be buddies with Putin, he can go golfing with him at Mar A Lago. Hillary is going to kick Putin out of Syria, and he's better hope she's not on her period when she does.
Dhruv I doubt very much that Mr. Levine purposely didn't publish your comment. I have been reading this blog a long time and he just doesn't do that. He does that only for trolls and commenters who really attack other commenters. i have observed that he generally does not let a thread steer too far away from the blog's intended purpose for very long, but he will usually ask politely for it to end.
It is very easy to lose a comment if you aren't careful when you click on "publish". You should try again.
Speaking from a non-american perspective, two things that really bother me about this video, and other american talkshows in general (aside from being bombarded 24 hours a day with this trainwreck of an election, god can't this be ovvuurrrr already...):
-This incessant need for the audience to interrupt everything and everyone by going over-the-top "whooo! whooohooo!" whenever someone says something remotely agreeable. That has got to be the most idiotic non-verbal human utterance in existence. Someone says "Hello Cleveland!" and at least ten people from in or around Cleveland in the audience go apeshit crazy dragging a hundred each with them. Ridiculous. Why do adults do this?
-This catering to the lowest common offense denominator by bleeping out swear words (except for "asshole" for some reason). By trying to not offending people who can't take it they're offending people who feel their intelligence gets insulted. A very American thing, it seems.
Thanks for the reply Ms. Diane D. I thought so too. Because I have been commenting for a few months now. Sorry Mr. Levine for doubting you.
Anyway the comment was like this.
Every 4 years USA presents this sort of entertainment for the rest of the world. Now I call this entertainment because observing from the largest democracy; the oldest modern democracy should be like a beacon, the process of election should have been refined to empower individuals.
1. But, what I see is a lot of celebrities, especially Hollywood holy cows lecturing the citizens on who they should vote for, to the point of abuse and harangue.
Now, isn't democracy about individual citizens being empowered to decide on their own who they want? Then why this circus every 4 years of celebrities hosting dinners and shoving down their opinion down everybody's throat.
If everyone needs to heed to their opinion and get swayed, then why have elections at all? Have all the celebrities and media folks and all these so called "intellectuals" vote instead of enfranchising common man.
I base the above argument based on what I read - that millions voted for Mr.Obama in 2008 because Oprah told them to. What !!?? These millions didn't find him good enough till Oprah told them to. Don't they have any sense of their own?
In India: Though people are celebrity worshipping idiots, never allow such spectacle. One -celebrities know better than to tell us whom to vote for. Two - even if a pompous lout tells us, the public tells them to shut up thru various means.
2. Here the media is highly infatuated with USA and duly report the millions collected and spent on ads.
Again USA being a developed country with 99% penetration of TV and media, uses ads. But the amount makes you wonder about the democracy there. It makes you wonder - So that means all citizens are swayed by ads especially last minute ads, celebrity endorsement ? Why didn't the people decide thru the last 4 years whether to vote for the incumbent party or the opposition. So if a honest good person with administrative experience were to contest but he or his party had no big bucks, he will never win in this sort of democracy, isn't it?
In India, though huge, we are highly individualistic when it comes to voting. - My parents try to tell me whom to vote for. But I politely listen to them and cast my choice. - Election Commission of India, strictly restricts ads in any media and also posters and buntings. - The candidates, if they want to win so badly, have to go door to door to all of the houses in their constituency and ask for votes. They also hold meetings in each area, where we listen to their tall promises and decide. Again this is vidoegraphed by ECI.
3. But still your elections are good in the fact that on the day of voting no one is bribed. Here corrupt citizens take money and free liquor and vote for the corrupt candidate.
Anyway.... these are just my individual comparisons and observations. Your society seems to work just fine.
I am not a supporter of anyone. Whoever wins doesn't affect me thousands of miles away.
P.S. to Stephen Marks,
More Indira Gandhis? Millions dead, let the survivors live man....
Dhruv Now that I read your comment, I actually wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Levine did delete the first copy because it is a very, very long political statement and, forgive me, it isn't well thought out at all. I'm not going to get into it, because this really isn't a political blog, but I will just say there are very few Americans who are not extremely critical of our election process, but your analysis of its problems couldn't be more off base. And if you think Barack Obama was elected because of Oprah Winfrey, I just wouldn't know where to start. How old are you?
Dhruv, try not to make such outlandish claims about your country's great democratic spirit. Movie stars run for office and get elected all the time in India. The major political party is just a dynasty, now 4th generation.
We have Ronald Reagan and Arnold, Al Franken became Senator, with Clint Eastwood getting a small mayorship. That's about it. George Clooney's dad and Stephen Colbert's sister were even denied seats in Congress.
You at least mentioned the bribery, though even that understates it. People who want to run for office have to pay their party for the privilege of doing so, because there are so many opportunities to make the money back after election.
Dangerous Donald arriving at work early in the morning, he'll just be thinking of new ways to insult people. He says he'll get along with everybody, but we've seen what he does.
Dhruv I'm very sorry I offended you so badly. If you re-read my comment, I think you will find it is pretty mild. And I was genuinely curious about your age, but I can see how that could have been easily misinterpreted. You really shouldn't be so thin-skinned, however. You're not going to comment anymore just because one or two people were mildly critical of your quite insulting and pretty inaccurate comments about the American election process? How can you carry on a dialog if you are going to be so overly sensitive? Still, I do apologize.
20 comments :
He is right, men have had their chance and failed. My country, you're country, doesn't matter which country, men blew it. We need more Hillarys, Maggie Thatchers, Indira Ghandhis, Benazir Bhuttos (who was both smart and gorgeous, is that sexist?). And we need more Harvey Milks, that guy was a smart, decent man who could have solved problems. I hope we don't flinch when a Harvey Milk type runs for higher office.
I guess the polls suggest the election might be close but I'm guessing it's going to be like Billie Jean King hammering Bobby Riggs at the Astrodome, with Bobby accepting defeat by jumping the net and ripping his pants as his toupee flies off.
Like those bratty millennials, I go to comedians Colbert and Maher for my political info. The network and cable news readers make me lunge for the remote. "Some say..."
Re: Stephen Marks
Interesting new book called "How Women Decide" which I only know through its reviews, but the author reportedly cites research that suggests that when men are under stress they go into "fight or flight" mode but women become calmer and more rational. The underlying hypothesis is that evolutionary successful females are those who work to maximize survival for their children. Food for thought.
FWIW, YMMV and all that.
Excellent. I love it.
Last spring, while the primaries were going on, Louis CK wrote in a tweet: "Conservatives, Trump is not one of you. He's one of him." I guess they didn't read it.
I was watching Conan when that exchange took place. i was sure it would go viral and help Hillary more than any ad she has placed since the campaign began. Thank goodness, because I think there are far more shadow voters (for Trump) than the news analysts realize. I'm still worried that Trump will win because of it. I think those who compare it to the shock of Brexit are spot on. I sure hope I'm wrong!
I am #nevertrump, but watching Democrats clutching their pearls because Hilary might lose to Trump is high comedy.
Who cares what he thinks?
Seems like someone is working hard to alienate any blog fans who may lean to the right. What is the point? I come here for intelligent commentary on the entertainment industry and writing. Hollywood is a leftist cesspool, I get that but why the need to constantly be making snide political asides when it does little but irritate a decent percentage of your readers!?!?
Hi Mr. Levine,
I did post a comment last night, but it doesn't seems to have been published. It would have been the 7th comment if it had been published.
It was just an observation from an outsider like me from India.
Disappointed.
Donald Trump wants to be buddies with Putin, he can go golfing with him at Mar A Lago.
Hillary is going to kick Putin out of Syria, and he's better hope she's not on her period when she does.
Dhruv
I doubt very much that Mr. Levine purposely didn't publish your comment. I have been reading this blog a long time and he just doesn't do that. He does that only for trolls and commenters who really attack other commenters. i have observed that he generally does not let a thread steer too far away from the blog's intended purpose for very long, but he will usually ask politely for it to end.
It is very easy to lose a comment if you aren't careful when you click on "publish". You should try again.
Speaking from a non-american perspective, two things that really bother me about this video, and other american talkshows in general (aside from being bombarded 24 hours a day with this trainwreck of an election, god can't this be ovvuurrrr already...):
-This incessant need for the audience to interrupt everything and everyone by going over-the-top "whooo! whooohooo!" whenever someone says something remotely agreeable. That has got to be the most idiotic non-verbal human utterance in existence. Someone says "Hello Cleveland!" and at least ten people from in or around Cleveland in the audience go apeshit crazy dragging a hundred each with them. Ridiculous. Why do adults do this?
-This catering to the lowest common offense denominator by bleeping out swear words (except for "asshole" for some reason). By trying to not offending people who can't take it they're offending people who feel their intelligence gets insulted. A very American thing, it seems.
Thanks for the reply Ms. Diane D. I thought so too. Because I have been commenting for a few months now. Sorry Mr. Levine for doubting you.
Anyway the comment was like this.
Every 4 years USA presents this sort of entertainment for the rest of the world. Now I call this entertainment because observing from the largest democracy; the oldest modern democracy should be like a beacon, the process of election should have been refined to empower individuals.
1. But, what I see is a lot of celebrities, especially Hollywood holy cows lecturing the citizens on who they should vote for, to the point of abuse and harangue.
Now, isn't democracy about individual citizens being empowered to decide on their own who they want? Then why this circus every 4 years of celebrities hosting dinners and shoving down their opinion down everybody's throat.
If everyone needs to heed to their opinion and get swayed, then why have elections at all? Have all the celebrities and media folks and all these so called "intellectuals" vote instead of enfranchising common man.
I base the above argument based on what I read - that millions voted for Mr.Obama in 2008 because Oprah told them to. What !!?? These millions didn't find him good enough till Oprah told them to. Don't they have any sense of their own?
In India: Though people are celebrity worshipping idiots, never allow such spectacle. One -celebrities know better than to tell us whom to vote for. Two - even if a pompous lout tells us, the public tells them to shut up thru various means.
2. Here the media is highly infatuated with USA and duly report the millions collected and spent on ads.
Again USA being a developed country with 99% penetration of TV and media, uses ads. But the amount makes you wonder about the democracy there. It makes you wonder - So that means all citizens are swayed by ads especially last minute ads, celebrity endorsement ? Why didn't the people decide thru the last 4 years whether to vote for the incumbent party or the opposition. So if a honest good person with administrative experience were to contest but he or his party had no big bucks, he will never win in this sort of democracy, isn't it?
In India, though huge, we are highly individualistic when it comes to voting.
- My parents try to tell me whom to vote for. But I politely listen to them and cast my choice.
- Election Commission of India, strictly restricts ads in any media and also posters and buntings.
- The candidates, if they want to win so badly, have to go door to door to all of the houses in their
constituency and ask for votes. They also hold meetings in each area, where we listen to their tall
promises and decide.
Again this is vidoegraphed by ECI.
3. But still your elections are good in the fact that on the day of voting no one is bribed. Here corrupt citizens take money and free liquor and vote for the corrupt candidate.
Anyway.... these are just my individual comparisons and observations. Your society seems to work just fine.
I am not a supporter of anyone. Whoever wins doesn't affect me thousands of miles away.
P.S. to Stephen Marks,
More Indira Gandhis? Millions dead, let the survivors live man....
Dhruv
Now that I read your comment, I actually wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Levine did delete the first copy because it is a very, very long political statement and, forgive me, it isn't well thought out at all. I'm not going to get into it, because this really isn't a political blog, but I will just say there are very few Americans who are not extremely critical of our election process, but your analysis of its problems couldn't be more off base. And if you think Barack Obama was elected because of Oprah Winfrey, I just wouldn't know where to start. How old are you?
Stephen Marks,
Maggie Thatcher? Really?
She was so unreasonable, she even alienated her own side, who ushered her out the door.
Solarity, the last time I checked it was a free country. Ken's free to post what he wants on his own site (the nerve!) and you're free not to read it.
See how that works?
Great, go ahead please do ask Mr. Levine to delete the comment.
I said - I read, that it was because of Oprah that many had said they had voted for Mr. Obama. Not solely because of her. (This I read in newspapers)
I have no inclination to explain to you each and everything, as this is not your blog.
My caveat at the end made it clear, this was my observation. I really don't care who you people elect or who you are batting for.
We live in times when our opinions are not left alone as observations and as freedom of expression.
Whosoever has a different opinion or take are either abused downright or pompously put down by so called "intellectuals".
Great ending:
Trying to put down someone by asking condescendingly what their age is.
--------------------------------
Thank god this blog belongs to a great man who believes opinion of all from around the world are welcome.
A little corner in today's abusive world where Mr. Levine provides us freedom.
Been enjoying his writing for last few years, will do so. But am pretty sure wont comment here-on, thanks to you....
Dhruv, try not to make such outlandish claims about your country's great democratic spirit.
Movie stars run for office and get elected all the time in India. The major political party is just a dynasty, now 4th generation.
We have Ronald Reagan and Arnold, Al Franken became Senator, with Clint Eastwood getting a small mayorship. That's about it. George Clooney's dad and Stephen Colbert's sister were even denied seats in Congress.
You at least mentioned the bribery, though even that understates it. People who want to run for office have to pay their party for the privilege of doing so, because there are so many opportunities to make the money back after election.
Dangerous Donald arriving at work early in the morning, he'll just be thinking of new ways to insult people. He says he'll get along with everybody, but we've seen what he does.
Dhruv
I'm very sorry I offended you so badly. If you re-read my comment, I think you will find it is pretty mild. And I was genuinely curious about your age, but I can see how that could have been easily misinterpreted. You really shouldn't be so thin-skinned, however. You're not going to comment anymore just because one or two people were mildly critical of your quite insulting and pretty inaccurate comments about the American election process? How can you carry on a dialog if you are going to be so overly sensitive? Still, I do apologize.
Post a Comment