Young Voices
Exchanging ideas from the show and blogging about topics in the news from a range of perspectives.
December 13, 2007
Will Smith is the Last Man on Earth
by Jeremy Freed
“Personally, if I was asked to nominate someone to save the world, it would almost definitely be Will Smith. ”
While the last-person-on-earth scenario in film is hardly a new thing, it is always popular. The idea of being alone in a post-apocalyptic abandoned city, and what one would do in that sort of situation, has been irresistible to filmmakers and audiences for years. Apart from the vicarious thrill of wearing fur coats and driving a different Ferrari every day (maybe that's just what I'd do), such explorations bring up all kinds of important questions about human nature. Mostly, though, they're just immensely entertaining.
In the tradition of such films comes I Am Legend, Will Smith's apocalypse-themed blockbuster, which he will discuss on tonight's program. A remake of Charlton Heston's 1971 The Omega Man, which itself was a remake of Vincent Price's 1964 The Last Man on Earth, I Am Legend stars Smith as the lone survivor of a deadly plague. Along with his sole companion, his family dog, he searches for a cure to the virus that wiped out humanity, all the while dodging roving bands of zombie vampires. He cruises around in a souped-up Mustang, hits golf balls from an aircraft carrier, and lives in a fortified bunker with a hi-tech basement laboratory. What's not to like?
Personally, if I was asked to nominate someone to save the world, it would almost definitely be Will Smith. He has proven time and again that no matter the foe, be it angry aliens, evil scientists, crazy criminals, or more angry aliens, they are no match for the Fresh Prince, with his arsenal of wisecracks and whupass.
I Am Legend, like The Last Man on Earth and The Omega Man, is unlikely to win Smith his Oscar, or anyone for that matter. It will be a summer blockbuster for the holidays, featuring a lovable hero, a solid, simple story, and lots of action. The film is predicted to dominate box offices around the world in the coming weeks, proof of both the appeal of the last-man-on-earth movie, and Smith's status as the most bankable leading man in Hollywood.
December 4, 2007
Gains & Tactics
by Sean Nixon
Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton is using new tactics against rival candidate Barack Obama.
Originally I had not intended to speak out on this particular topic, but I wanted to bring a bit of information to everyone's collective attention. We hear a lot of numbers, in terms of debt our economy is suffering from, the number of troops that have sacrificed their lives in the war, and a number of other social ills affecting our country.
At the moment, there are over a dozen men and a woman, I might add, running to effect change on those issues through leadership as the next president of the United States. Politics has always been viewed by many as a dirty business, but what if it were possible to stoop to a new low?
How would you feel if you heard that one of the candidates running for office was charging one of their opponents as "calculating" in their attempts for the presidency by citing their kindergarten and grade school papers they wrote on wanting to be president? What would you think of that?
Well it appears that's just what Sen. Hillary Clinton has done. She's out on the attack, arguably due to the fact that Obama appears to be ahead at the moment in Iowa where he is arguably taking away the black female voters who would otherwise vote for Clinton. I stopped by another blog just to see what other people thought about this, and I was shocked to see the amount of responses people have left.
I don't presume to know, or be familiar with the level of work, detail, sacrifice, and commitment it takes to run for president, but I would definitely advise Sen. Clinton not to go back to someone's childhood years to drudge up the fact that they wrote a paper called “I Want To Be President” in making the argument that they've been “calculating" this move their whole lives.
I think there's a phrase for something like this; it's called grasping for straws. Sen. Clinton unfortunately seems to be well versed in that arena and speaks to what she's willing to do in order to win. There's also a word for her attempt: desperate. Perhaps Sen. Clinton should embrace the so-called politics of hope. That way she still might be optimistic about her chances of winning and not stoop to such a shameful level of party politics.
December 3, 2007
Imus Returns
by Sean Nixon
Today marks the return of radio veteran Don Imus to the airwaves.
Monday, December 3 marks the return of controversial radio host Don Imus. Imus was removed from the airwaves after making racially insensitive remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team earlier this year.
One of the first groups calling for his resignation was the National Association of Black Journalists. During that time other organizations were pointing out that this was not the first time that Imus' comments left people hot under the collar and understandably incensed.
After an eight month departure, Imus is back in the proverbial saddle, promising a more diverse, higher standard of programming in his new show. Many are wasting no time in speaking out about his return, both for and against Imus.
The question today is whether or not this is just another example of the good old boys allowing one of their own back into the fold, or a true story of forgiveness and redemption.
Another question that also rises from this case concerns the hundreds of people that still may be hurt by Imus' remarks. What recourse do they have in protesting their outrage?
The fact that it hasn't been much time since Mr. Imus' departure and return makes one question what message this sends to future generations, and as a result I do not believe that Mr. Imus should return to radio so quickly.
To you, the sophisticated blogger, I ask: Are there certain mistakes in broadcasting in which you should receive a second chance? To that point, are there certain instances in which you should not be allowed a second chance, no matter how remorseful you are?
Only time will truly tell whether or not Mr. Imus' show will have the same type of impact it once had when it was simulcast on MSNBC and CBS. There's no doubt many will be tuning in to find.
I'm interested in what everyone else thinks about Mr. Imus' return. Is it only right to have someone who made a mistake get a second chance?
December 17, 2007
I'd (Heart) Huckabee a Lot More if He Wasn't Running for President
by Jeremy Freed
What do we know about Mike Huckabee? The answer to that, recently, is more than we ever thought we would. And that's worrisome in itself.
A few months ago, it seemed we were as likely to see Huckabee's name in the headlines as we were, say, Mike Gravel's. They occupied the same fringe of their parties, raving zealots with unique agendas, and almost no chance of being elected. As the caucuses near, however, the Arkansas evangelist has surprised pretty much everyone by making huge gains in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. With the help of a bizarrely potent celebrity endorsement by Chuck Norris, he leads the polls in South Carolina, has tied Giuliani in Illinois, and is rising fast in Iowa. This is distressing not only for the fact that Walker, Texas Ranger could potentially sway an election, but also because it reveals without a doubt the electoral might of the home-schooling-Darwin-doubting-gay-marriage-hating-arms-bearing fundamentalists he and Huckabee represent.
A recent Washington Post profile delved in the former Arkansas governor's past, portraying Huckabee as a formidable and ambitious politician who rose from humble working class beginnings, through sheer passion, talent, and determination, to become a Republican frontrunner. It is an inspiring, truly American story. Incidentally, Huckabee shares his hometown of Hope, Arkansas, with Bill Clinton, but unlike the former president, his strongest calling, rather than politics, was the pulpit. The Post's profile traces Huckabee's religious fervor back to Explo '72, a seminal gathering of evangelicals in Dallas, where he “spent six days learning from the Rev. Billy Graham and Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, how to lead others to the Lord.” Faith, Huckabee says on his Web site, “doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them.”
Is a politician whose greatest passion in life is bringing nonbelievers to Christ, whose decisions are driven by a literal interpretation of the Bible, really the best choice to lead the free world into the 21st century? To put it another way, says Huckabee in The Washington Post, "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."
Well that's a relief. Because here we all were thinking the answers were in universal health care, better schools, and fewer wars. How embarrassing! If only we'd known sooner that theocracy was the way to go, we could have avoided wasting so many years attempting to keep the government out of places of worship.
At this point it's hard to say what's scarier, a presidential candidate with more faith in Jesus than in his own government, or the possibility of Chuck Norris becoming Secretary of Homeland Security.
December 14, 2007
. . . And the O's Have It.
by Rose Capozzi
Politicians, their wives and their hangers-on are not the only ones hot on the campaign trail during this election. Oprah Winfrey, the richest celebrity and one of the world's most influential trendsetters, has decided to tag along. She has joined the Barack Obama campaign, and plans to influence something more important than the New York Times Bestseller's list: the White House. While Oprah has made it her business to endorse products, causes, and movies, this is the first time she has thrown her clout behind a political candidate.
It first began in May, during an interview with CNN's Larry King. Oprah proclaimed her support for Obama on national television, stating, "I think that what he stands for, what he has proven that he can stand for, what he has shown was worth me going out on a limb for - and I haven't done it in the past because I haven't felt that anybody - I didn't know anybody well enough to be able to say, I believe in this person.”
After her formal endorsement, many speculated about the role Oprah intended to play in the Obama campaign. In September, things became a little more obvious when Oprah hosted one of the most lavish celebrity fund-raisers ever, collecting an estimated $3 million in one evening for her top-pick presidential hopeful.
The real question that remains is whether Oprah's involvement in the campaign will make a difference on the ultimate outcome: the election of the Democratic front runner, and the final election of the next President of the United States. Will Oprah's fans follow her lead and become Obama fans? Will women and the elderly, two demographics Obama is struggling to garner support with, fall in line under the influence of their favorite daytime talk show host?
Do you think a celebrity can change the outcome of a presidential race, or will it really come down to the best qualified candidate?
December 19, 2007
Huckabee Without the Spin
by Rose Capozzi
“As for Mike Huckabee, he may come across as the religious zealot this campaign season. But, he is more than just a Baptist preacher...”
As much as Democrats claim to be the tolerant party for everyone, they sure do seem to stereotype. It's true that this election's Republican primary candidates almost seem like caricatures of GOP archetypes. To name a few:
Ron Paul is the crazy libertarian. He is the only legitimate candidate (maybe from both parties) who would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and stop forfeiting American sovereignty to global organizations, such as the United Nations.
Mitt Romney is an old money elitist Republican. If explaining that he is from Massachusetts is not enough, reading his bibliography tells us that his father was the governor of Michigan in the 60s. Mitt made a fortune as a CEO of a management consulting firm, and later as a co-founder of a private equity investment firm. As of today, he has contributed more than $17 million to his own campaign.
John McCain is the ex-military war monger who might not have come back from Vietnam with his head screwed on tight.
And let's not forget Mr. Giuliani, the city slicker "Mayor of America" who seems to have one thing to legitimize his candidacy, 9/11 and ending terrorism.
For the sake of comparison, let's go through some stereotypes of the Democratic front runners. Barack Obama is the fresh new face in Washington, determined to change politics with his idealism, and nothing else (since he has no real experience). Then there's John Edwards, the well-groomed trial lawyer with a Southern drawl, who keeps on popping up in national elections; he has no real chance of winning. Behind door number three is Dennis Kucinich, the elf-like man in the Democratic primary debates who blurts out Marxist propaganda, fit only for the bumper of a 1962 Volkswagen hippie van. And finally, we have my least favorite, Hilary Clinton, a feminazi, who may or may not have been the one running the free world while her husband was fooling around in the Oval Office.
All of these stereotypes, whether used to describe Republicans or Democrats, are somewhat unfair. The media grabs our attention by pointing out the most marketable part of a candidate's personality, and then blowing it out of proportion. If we look a little closer, many of the candidates offer real solutions for policy problems, like Ron Paul's solution for giving the educational system back to parents and the community, Mitt Romney's plan for securing the border and using an employee verification system, John McCain's tax cuts for innovation, and Rudy Giuliani's approach to keeping American streets safe.
As for Mike Huckabee, he may come across as the religious zealot this campaign season. But, he is more than just a Baptist preacher. Huckabee actually has one of the most solid approaches for fixing our health care system. And personally, I'd much rather have a president whose faith drives his decisions than one who promotes universal health care while stuffing her campaign coffers with health care industry contributions. Maybe it's time to give honest faith a chance.
December 27, 2007
When 'Made in China' is a Good Thing
by Jeremy Freed
“Cheap Chinese goods mean an immediate increase in quality of life, the difference, in some cases, between life and death.”
This time of year it's especially easy to forget the value that material things can have. While a Christmas Wii or Hanukkah iPod may make us happy for a day or two, it will quickly lose its sheen, and by the time next December rolls around it will likely be replaced by something newer, shinier, and even more desirable. Most of the gifts exchanged in the First World this year, an enormous part of which were made in China, will have little effect on our lives one way or the other. They won't make us much happier, or allow us to do things that were impossible before. For some people elsewhere in the world, however, this is not the case.
In today's New York Times is a story about Chinese motorcycles, and the way they are transforming life in rural Laos. Far less expensive than their Japanese counterparts, the bikes allow villagers to transport produce to local markets, and carry sick people to hospital, both of which were previously practically impossible. Chinese televisions and satellite dishes, too, are making an impact by bringing news and information to previously isolated regions.
In the developed world, we fret over the lead paint in Chinese toys, and feel guilty about shopping at Wal Mart. We can buy better, safer toys made closer to home. We can afford to pay more for our clothes and groceries without sacrificing much. In Southeast Asia, however, the reality is different. Cheap Chinese goods mean an immediate increase in quality of life, the difference, in some cases, between life and death.
Whether or not this will be good in the long term is yet to be discovered. As with everything made cheaply in China, the motorcycles and televisions don't last nearly as long as their more expensive counterparts, and the pollution from their production is creating huge environmental problems. For now, however, this seems less important than the prosperity they bring. As we continue to fill our homes with inexpensive Chinese-made products, from food, to electronics, to baby furniture, we hardly have cause to argue.
December 18, 2007
Bad News for America
by Sean Nixon
President George W. Bush remarks on the strength of the U.S. economy during a speech in Virginia.
America is in for some serious turmoil. That's not said to induce fear or make people panic. I'm simply making some observations and beginning to see the ugly head of something that may make us all tighten our belts for a while.
With the credit crisis that hit recently, coupled with what people hear about declining labor forces in America, downsizing and layoffs we've seen, major companies citing losses, Wall Street suffering, and the billion dollar a day war we're facing, I don't think we can honestly say we're heading for a recession. I honestly believe we're heading towards a depression.
President Bush acknowledges America's stormy financial crises, but doesn't want Americans to worry about it.
Former Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan didn't cut any corners when he spoke about the American economy for 2008.
The Congressional Budget Office stated in their report that consumer spending was greater than their actual income due to the boost consumers saw in their home equity. Most interestingly, the report went on to state that the future path of spending would be dependent upon the future path of housing prices and how consumers react to them.
Hello
Consumers seem to be slowing down in their spending this holiday season, which could really spell trouble for the economy. People have been trying to warn us for years now, but unfortunately not many were paying attention. One example can be found in Bill Ridley's Online Invester News. No matter how you look at it, money is tight in America and things don't look as thought they're about to get any better.
For young people living in America the question will be: How do you graduate from school, pay down your student debt, and help your aging parents, all while keeping yourself financially stable and preparing for your own retirement?
Within the boomer generation many are gearing up for retirement. For everyone else, the issue of American purchasing power, healthcare costs, mortgage payments, and retirement planning will still be areas of great concern. The real question for families already struggling will be how to tighten, even more, an already bogged-down belt.
December 27, 2007
Person/Dictator of the Year
by Rose Capozzi
“...TIME did not want to spotlight a political reformer, a cultural icon-creator, or a true American success story. Instead, they chose to honor a dictator...”
The results are in. TIME Magazine has announced the Person of the Year...and the winner is...Vladimir Putin?
If you are feeling confused at the odd choice for 2007, you are not alone. The article announcing Putin, the president of Russia, as the man on top is anything but reassuring. There are a few "good" reasons for nominating Putin, such as the "...stability and a sense of pride among citizens..." that he cultivated during his administration, or his role in the dramatic turnaround of the the Russian economy, where the rich have become richer and the poor have become at least a little better off, on average. However, these accomplishments certainly haven't come without a price. Under Putin's leadership, TV stations and other public media outlets have been shut down; businessmen who have challenged his power have been jailed; and opposition political parties have been dismantled. Such has been the fate of all who oppose the man TIME Magazine picked for 2007.
While Vladimir Putin has certainly been influential, does he really deserve such significant recognition? What about Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan, who before her untimely death yesterday was her country's best hope for becoming a stable democracy? Or J.K. Rowling, the creator of Harry Potter, who this year has completed her seventh and final book in the best-selling series, and has redefined the market for fantasy children's literature, and, arguably, the market for literature itself.
An even more deserving candidate would have been General David Patraeus, the man who managed to turn around the dire military and political situation in Iraq. As Michael Barone put it in a U.S. News and World Report article, "What seemed to be an imminent American defeat has been transformed into an imminent American success. And Petraeus has done more than any other person to turn that around."
This year, however, TIME did not want to spotlight a political reformer, a cultural icon-creator, or a true American success story. Instead, they chose to honor a dictator for turning around the economic condition of his nation by stripping away many of the freedoms that his citizens once enjoyed. Congratulations, TIME Magazine, for proving that last year's "You: the Internet User" was not the worst choice for Person of the Year.
December 31, 2007
What a Year
by Sean Nixon
“There'll be more good news to come in 2008.”
Well it's the end of 2007.
This has by far been one of the most eventful years in history that I can remember. There have been so many different things that have occurred. Baseball suffered at the hands of supposed steroid use; wildfires blazed across the West Coast; presidential politics ruled the media; Pakistan saw crisis after crisis; and Russia regained its stance as a world power.
With all of the things that kept hearts heavy and heads low, I wondered if there was anything good that actually happened this year. Well, I managed to find a few things that I hope you'll agree were positive.
Scorsese Wins!! Veteran filmmaker and director Martin Scorsese won his first Academy Award for best picture this year. The film, The Departed, was hailed as one of the best movies of 2006, and Scorsese was finally rewarded in 2007 for his efforts with this much deserved award.
Less fighting on The View. Lots of folk witnessed the day in day out debacle between guest hosts, loud lambasting and the occasional Trump vs. Rosie argument, throughout the past season. From Star Jones to Rosie O'Donnell, there never seemed to be a dull moment for the show, whether on or off the air. Peace, however, presided once again when new hosts, Sherri Shepherd and Whoopi Goldberg took to the set. Less fighting on daytime TV has got to be good for America.
Drew Carey takes the reigns and leads the way on The Price is Right. After 3 decades of new cars, wheel spinning and everyone's favorite Plinko game, Bob Barker finally said goodbye. After months of searching for a new host, comedian Drew Carey took the helm as the next host of America's favorite pricing game. So far so good for the funny man and the plea for spade and neutered pets is still alive.
Letterman's coming back! As writers continue to strike against studios, Dave Letterman is taking the lead in reaching one of the first agreements of the year. Letterman's studio, Worldwide Pants, has agreed to pay its writing staff for both The Late Show and The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. Fans of the show are excited to see Letterman and Ferguson back on the screen and just in time for the New Year.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of all the positive stories out there in the realm of news, but they certainly caught my eye. Hopefully there'll be more good news to come in the New Year.
December 31, 2007
Caucus Fever: Democrats Edition
by Jeremy Freed
Pick a candidate, any candidate. As the clock ticks down to the telltale caucuses in Iowa and New Hampshire, people in those states are being pushed to make their choice for the nomination. In the frenzy of campaigning that the last few weeks have seen, Iowans and those from New Hampshire (New Hampshirites? New Hampshirians?) haven't been able to turn on a TV or drop by the local fire hall without being pelted by stump speech promises and affronted by crowds of placard-waving, pin-bearing loyalists from one camp or another. Those of us who don't live in a state with an impending caucus are fortunate to have some perspective on the whole thing, being so far removed from the hullabaloo. Like tourists on an African safari, observing a stampede of wildebeests from afar, we can look through our binoculars at the dust and debris stirred up by the mayhem, and wonder what on earth is going on down there. As we see the raging herd moving towards us, however, it becomes clear that we can either deal with this, or get in our Land Cruisers and head back to camp for sundowners.
The only problem is, at the risk of spreading a metaphor too thin, with all the dust and debris and pounding of hoofs on the veldt, it's become nearly impossible for all except those Jack Hannah-types, to tell one charging quadruped from another.
Now, at the close of many months of campaigning, the candidates are looking more than ever like the first impressions we had of them. Hillary is the cunning Beltway veteran, somewhat lacking in charisma. Obama is young and energetic, but inexperienced. Edwards is both charismatic and experienced, but falls short by being neither Clinton nor Obama, and maybe a little too good-looking. Their TV ads and speeches do little to change this, each of them calling out the others on the same old things. Clinton says Obama isn't ready to be president, while she has already lived in the White House. Edwards says Clinton will be too soft on special interests, especially where health care is concerned. At this point it seems like choosing a candidate is a matter of gut feelings more than anything.
The good news is that no matter who receives the nomination, any one of the Democratic frontrunners would make a good president. Obama's supposed unfamiliarity with the workings of Washington make him just the man to bring change without being corrupted; Clinton's stern ambitiousness would get things done; and Edwards' fiery advocacy could create the strongest America in generations. Any one of these presidencies would be historic, and a major shift in the American political landscape. When the dust settles, any candidate you pick has the potential to do great things for our country.
December 28, 2007
A Sad Day for Democracy
by Jeremy Freed
It's hard to say what kind of a Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto would have made. To her followers, she was a popular and charismatic leader who represented a new hope for Pakistan. To her detractors she was a dangerous and corrupt descendant of an ousted leader, bent on bringing foreign politics and values to a deeply conservative and religious society. Whether she would haven proven herself an apt leader, or just another in a long line of corrupt despots, will never be known. Bhutto was felled by an assassin's bullet this week, and with her died a great hope for the future of Pakistan.
After years of military rule, Bhutto was expected to lead the troubled region into a new age of stability and prosperity. Despite the charges of corruption that led to eight years of self-imposed exile, she represented the one thing that is needed most in Pakistan, and indeed, the entire Middle East: Change. The courage with which she sought this goal is underscored by the way in which she died, killed by a suicide attack amid a throng of devoted followers, many of whom died alongside her. Bhutto's fearlessness, the one characteristic she exhibited more than any other, only serves to make her attackers look all the more cowardly, and the future of her country all the more bleak.
It is comforting, however, to know that while Bhutto may be gone, her ideas, and her legacy remain. In her country, besieged by radical Islamists and theocrats, there are many who seek the kinds of changes she promised to bring. They braved threats of suicide attacks to parade in support of her, and their hunger for change will not be so easily extinguished. Who will take Bhutto's place in leading Pakistan towards a democratic future is not known, but the seeds of democracy have been sown, and it is only a matter of time before a new leader emerges.
December 20, 2007
Romance & Cigarettes
by Jeremy Freed
As Barton Fink discovered, getting a movie made in Hollywood can be a surreal experience. John Turturro, who played Fink in the delightfully strange Coen brothers film, can now attest to this from personal experience. On last night's program, Turturro discussed his latest directorial project, Romance & Cigarettes, which opens in Los Angeles this week. Turturro's third turn behind the camera, the film is a wacky, colorful musical about an unfaithful steelworker named Nick Murder. With its ensemble cast of veteran players like Susan Sarandon, James Gandolfini, Kate Winslet, Christopher Walken, and Steve Buscemi, and with the Coens' blessing as executive producers, the film has obvious appeal. Despite the strength of its actors, however, and despite Turturro's reputation as a noteworthy actor and director, the finished film took two years to reach theaters, and then only with Turturro himself acting as distributor.
The film's reviews offer some clue as to why. “A karaoke nightmare” offers one; “watching this movie is like having your senses beaten with a rake,” says another; two good examples of the response this film received from about half the critics who watched it. Clearly, Romance & Cigarettes is no Moulin Rouge. It abandons mass appeal and spectacle for spectacle's sake in its attempt to take the musical somewhere it has never been before. It tells a gritty story of love and sex, with rock ballads in place of the jazz standards of classic musicals, and aspires to give the genre new life. For Turturro it was a bold experiment in the limits of what audiences, and studios, could handle.
As it turns out, while the studios were afraid of Turturro's film, audiences responded better. According to the LA Times, the film has grossed almost half a million dollars, a hefty accomplishment considering the handful of screens to have shown it so far. "We've beaten out movies with $20-million advertising budgets," said Turturro. "It's been a nice vindication—in a small, modest way."
Turturro's commitment to Romance & Cigarettes is exemplary of the all-out approach he takes to acting and directing, something that has long distinguished him as an actor. The studios seem to recognize this, too, as he is currently scheduled to direct three more films in the coming years. Whether these movies are commercial successes or critical ones, or neither, they will always be worth watching for the promise of seeing something created by someone so fearlessly innovative.
December 18, 2007
Hollywood Writers
by Sean Nixon
Writers continue their protest after talks broke down earlier this month.
The Hollywood writers are back! Well, not exactly.
However, Conan O'Brien, David Letterman and Jay Leno have decided to begin new episodes of Late Night with Conan O'Brien, the Late Show with David Letterman, and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno respectively beginning January 2nd of 2008. Jimmy Kimmel of ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live is slated to return as well.
The move comes roughly a month and two weeks after the Writers Guild of America walked out on strike from studio executives due to lack of compensation in the realm of new media outlets like DVDs, the Internet and portable digital players.
The guys are taking their lead from Carson Daly who on December 3 decided to cross picket lines to keep his non-union writing staffers (i.e. make-up artists, lighting technicians, etc.) employed. Daly was criticized by the Writers Guild, stating that they were “appalled at Mr. Daly's call for non-Guild writers to provide him with jokes.”
During the strike, many talk show hosts have taken it upon themselves to pay their non-writing staff out of pocket while the strike continues.
Letterman's deal with CBS studio is kind of interesting. Since his production company, Worldwide Pants, produces the Late Show, he's free to have his own negotiations with writers to resume production.
Daytime show host Ellen DeGeneres came back to production, and has been for a while, doing a lot more dancing and making jokes just about everyday things and not the events in news that most writers get their material from for late night comedians.
Daly's return to TV was received with mixed reviews. Some argue that the show's mediocre performance since the strike could serve as a serious plea from viewers to get studio execs to cut a deal so America can get back to good old fashioned late night TV.
The Writers Guild has not waived writers from striking to write for the upcoming Golden Globe and Academy Awards ceremonies January 13 and February 24 respectively, which could make for some pretty awkward moments on camera. We'll have to wait and see what happens next.
All in all, I'm sure America would love to hear another “Top Ten” list from Letterman and a hilarious set of “Headlines” with Leno.
December 5, 2007
Poor Mr. Chavez!
by Rose Capozzi
It appears that the current president of Venezuela may not have enough support from citizens to advance his socialist agenda. The referendum Hugo Chavez attempted to pass last week included 69 changes to the constitution, all intended to make it easier for Venezuela to be molded into Chavez's socialist utopia. Among the changes were the abolishment of presidential term limits, the ability for the state to seize private property carte blanche, and the further centralization of political power by reducing the number of votes counted in local elections for governors and mayors to one—Chavez's.
By appointing local politicians, controlling private ownership, and making himself a permanent incumbent, Chavez intended to use the presidency to make Venezuela a better place. In fact, before the election, Chavez and his loyalists went as far as to say that opponents of the proposed constitutional changes were committing treason. However, university students, who were quiet during most other political events under this administration, took to the streets in protest. Even former Chavez loyalists, like Raul Baduel, former defense minister and ally of the president, called for people to vote “no” on the referendum, along with the rest of the pro-Chavez political party, the Podemos.
President Hugo Chavez has a vision for Venezuela. He took his rise to power as a message from the people that his version of Venezuela was the one the majority of citizens desired. Hopefully Chavez got the new message, and will restrain himself from overstepping his constitutional powers until the end of his term in 2013.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
E-mail a friend
