Monday, January 31, 2011

The Real Reason Why Obama Doesn’t Care about Egypt

“Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as ‘the president who lost Iran,’ which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America’s alliances in the Middle East crumbled.”

So begins an article published just yesterday in And if author Aluf Benn’s analysis turns out to be spot on – an increasingly likely possibility – the United State’s sitting President can add those countries to the list of others he lost, including his own.

(I mean America, of course. Kenya and Indonesia would probably still welcome him back.)

The truth is that Obama deserves to “lose” any alliance with Egypt. Because just as he did during the 2009 Iranian protests, the PotUS is demonstrating clearly that he doesn’t care about human life. Or at the very least, he cares much more about his own agenda.

His own subjects, as he sees us, are becoming all too familiar with his cold-hearted drive to get his own way.

Peace in the Middle East at All Costs… Iran and Egypt Be Damned

During the early days of his administration, Obama was far too focused on an ever-elusive peace in the Middle East. It was a pipe dream, and probably one far more motivated by the desire for self-glorification than anything else. And like most other grandiose efforts at such, he failed miserably.

Any rational human being with any real understanding of the historical, religious and geopolitical factors that play into Middle Eastern relationships should know that the chance of ever achieving a lasting truce between Muslim nations and Israel is about as good as the probability of turning Rush Limbaugh into a raving liberal.

It could happen. Also, the sky could fall, our lungs might someday depend on arsenic instead of oxygen, and Joe Biden could possibly grow a fully functioning brain.

But the chances of any of the above happening are so slim that nobody with an IQ higher than the aforementioned Vice President would waste time considering them.

Clearly then, President Obama shares his running mate’s sheer stupidity (though he does manage to cover it up much better as a general rule), since he was so obsessed with establishing peace – between the human equivalents of mongooses and king cobras – that he was more than willing to ignore the disgusting footage of Iranian citizens being gunned down or run over by cars… with full government consent.

Real great leadership there Mr. President. Way to step up to the plate.

Sorry Egypt, You’re Flat outta Luck

Sadly, even faced with repeated failure on everything from establishing a pleasant chit-chat with Iran to halting Israel’s settlement plans, Obama is still foolishly confident in his ability to bring about world peace.

That’s why he won’t support Egyptian citizen’s cries for decent treatment. And that’s why Vice President Joe Biden recently took to PBS to declare Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel… I would not refer to him as a dictator.”

Now, admittedly, nobody actually pays attention to PBS these days. The only reason it continues to function is because the government wants it to. Kinda like the New York Times. So how many people actually heard the Vice President’s ridiculous words is debatable.

But that doesn’t change that he still said them.

Sure, by this point, everybody knows that Biden is a loose cannon who frequently says absolutely ridiculous things.

But don’t ever forget that he’s a president-sanctioned loose cannon. And anybody who really believes Obama lets him out of his cage in front of the press without first giving it a lot of thought is quite possibly as much a fool as he.

So, sad as it is to say, it makes sense this president doesn’t see Mubarak as a dictator.

If Obama’s past and present examples of putting himself before the people, blatantly lying to ensure he gets his way, and attacking the opposition using childish tactics instead of the truth are any indication, that seems to be the style of governance our president most prefers.

Friday, January 28, 2011

My Muscles Are Aching and it’s all Al Gore’s Fault

Yesterday, as I shoveled my car out of the 8 inches or so that Baltimore got, I couldn’t help but think about Al Gore.

The same goes for this morning, as I woke up with seriously sore shoulders and back… enough to keep my morning routine of getting up at 5:30 to exercise and such.

Needless to say, my thoughts on the Global Warming/Climate Change/Seasonal Variations-monger were less than friendly. In fact, I really think he should have been at my side helping to dig my Subaru out of the piles of fluffy white stuff imprisoning it.

Or better yet, he should have done all of the work for me while I lounged inside with a mug of hot chocolate. After all, I certainly am not the one running around yapping about how the earth is going to burn up.

Unlike Mr. Gore, I try to do some research and actually use my brain before I sign on board to ridiculous conspiracy theories.

My research tells me that the world naturally goes through cycles of varying temperatures. Even the left-leaning Wikipedia admits that during the 1970s, scientists were warning against the ravages of Global Cooling. And if you just do a bit of digging into news clippings throughout the last century or so, you’ll find that every few decades, scientific opinion changed on that topic.

It’s almost like it’s a pattern!

Meanwhile, my brain – with the help of my eyes – tells me that it’s snowing outside even as I write this… yet again… after it’s already snowed several times this winter and even late last fall.

Please Al Gore, “Cry Uncle” Already!

Back around this time in 2010, just after “Smowmageddon,” Senator Jim DeMint twittered: “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’”

And I think he’s probably right, in which case we’re in really big trouble for the next few decades until the ego-tripping buffoon goes the way of all ego-tripping buffoons and dies.

(Disclaimer for silly liberals: That was not a vitriolic death threat, hence the reason why I said “decades.” Everybody dies eventually; Al Gore is not immune just because he considers himself some sort of messianic prophet of doom and gloom.)

You see, God doesn’t like when people are hell-bent on self-glorification.

How many times in the book of Psalms or in the Gospels does it say something about how the proud will be brought low? I don’t have an exact figure but since I have been reading through both of those sections of the Bible, I can attest that they cover such retribution a decent amount.

And Al Gore is most certainly a very proud man in need of some humbling.

If you don’t want to attribute it to God, then call it karma or logic or the law of averages. Or, as Rachel Weisz’s character, Evelyn, says to the self-focused, fiend-serving Beni in the Mummy, “Nasty little fellows such as yourself always get their comeuppance.”

It's simply inevitable that if you fool around too much with a vice, it's going to come back to bite you eventually.

Now in the Mummy, that meant Beni got himself shut up in a dark tomb surrounded by ravenous flesh eating beetles. Hardly a nice way to go.

And of course, I wouldn’t wish that on anybody, not even somebody like Al Gore.

But it would be really, really nice all the same if he would just go ahead and cry “Uncle” up so that it stops snowing.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

President Obama’s Very Predictable State of the Union Address

My plan was to summarize Obama’s State of the Union address for today’s blog, but somebody already did it quite nicely for me. And in just two words!

“You lie.”

Clearly, Joe Wilson is psychic that he could predict the entire point of a presidential speech a year in advance.

If you don’t believe in psychics and hocus pocus, however, here’s another explanation: Obama is extremely predictable.

I can prove that he’s predictable because, yesterday, without watching the speech or reading any commentary about it after the fact, I summarized his message as this:

“My subservient Americans, look at me and bask in my amazingness. And make sure to vote for me in 2012. Because otherwise, you might get some uncivil rhetoric. Plus, this year, I’m going to really focus on jobs. Really. So let’s all just get along and ignore my continuing push to enact policies that will destroy the nation. Now please stop whining already and go back to worshipping me.”

And now that I have had a chance to go over his entire speech – as well as Paul Ryan’s official Republican response and Michelle Bachman’s Tea Party response – it appears that I didn’t do too bad a job.

Not that I take credit for it, considering how transparent his agenda and tactics have been for quite some time now.

The State of the Union: Blow by Blow

Let’s start out with my first prediction that Obama would tout his “amazingness.”

Well, there were lines like: Thanks to the tax cuts we [Read: “I”] passed, Americans’ paychecks are a little bigger today. Every business can write off the full cost of the new investments they make this year. These steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans [Read: “My administration”], will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs created last year.”

Or how he mentioned: “Two years ago, I [Read: “I, as the amazing person that I am”] said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal.”

And then there’s his exaltation of his supposed infrastructure push: Over the last two years, we [Read: “Me! Me! Me!”] have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry.”

Even without taking into account his tone of voice, which is always tinged with some smug arrogance at his admittedly exceptional ability to read off of a teleprompter, his words clearly convey a sort of self-gratification.

That focus on himself continued as he made a bid for his 2012 campaign, which I honestly expected to be more subtle. Instead, he flat-out brought it up in an I’m-saying-this-to-prove-that-I-care-about-the-country-and-not-getting-re-elected kind-of way:

“At stake right now is not who wins the next election – after all, we just had an election. At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It’s whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It’s whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but a light to the world.”

In other words, “Pick me! Pick me! Because I have the perfect roadmap for this country.” Otherwise, why even mention it?

An Inspiring Use of Dirty Politics

Moving on to the “uncivil rhetoric” portion of my summary, the President did a phenomenal job with that one. He started out by expressing his sadness that Gabrielle Giffords couldn’t be there – an appropriate commentary, I’ll admit – than masterfully segued into the vitriolic rhetoric that the media has been obsessed with ever since Jared Lee Loughner expressed his left-wing-laden insanity by firing into a Tucson, Arizona crowd.

But whoever his speech writer was didn’t condemn the disagreements between the two parties, or even the “contentious” battles they fought in the last two years. Instead, he or she praised such debates as exactly “what a robust democracy demands. That’s what helps set us apart as a nation.”

There was a quick touch on “the tragedy in Tucson,” a mention of us all being “a part of something greater” and then a call to patriotism and cooperation since “we are part of the American family.”

The inspiring words continued: What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.

“I believe we can. I believe we must. That’s what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they’ve determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all – for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.”

I’m surprised there was a dry eye in the audience at that point. And yet, from what I heard, there really wasn’t that much applause during the speech.

Maybe it’s because, as even one AP article admitted, “The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.”

It's the Economy Stupid!

I won’t insult your intelligence by quoting any of his comments about jobs. But he did mention the word 25 times, not including when he used “career” or the singular “job.”

And he tackled the issue of everybody getting along during his opening statements, as I already quoted. You know… All of that blather about how we won’t be able to pass new laws if we don’t work together… because that’s what the American people want?

Yeah, that part. *Yawn*

It was pointed out to me – rightly so – that I didn’t mention spending at all in yesterday’s blog. Though I intended the “policies that will destroy the nation” line to include the unprecedented financial waste Obama has legislated, it should have deserved its own specific mention since it is one of his favorite tactics.

And as for the “please stop whining already and go back to worshipping me,” well that was cleverly laced throughout the entire speech, as Politico noted:

“It sounded conciliatory, even friendly, brimming with the outward trappings of a shift to the center, but President Barack Obama’s 2011 State of the Union speech was, at its core, an unmistakably partisan challenge to congressional Republicans.”

In other words, Tuesday night wasn’t anything groundbreaking. It wasn’t anything empowering. And it certainly wasn’t anything that America needs.

Here’s looking forward to 2012.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

My Summary of President Barack Hussein Obama’s (Mmm… Hmm… Hmm) State of the Union Address

Without even listening to our fearless leader’s lengthy speech last night or even reading any commentary on it, I can accurately sum it up in a single albeit stilted paragraph:

“My subservient Americans, look at me and bask in my amazingness. And make sure to vote for me in 2012. Because otherwise, you might get some uncivil rhetoric. Plus, this year, I’m going to really focus on jobs. Really. So let’s all just get along and ignore my continuing push to enact policies that will destroy the nation. Now please stop whining already and go back to worshipping me.”

How’d I do?

I’ll have more commentary on the subject tomorrow after I get the chance to prove myself right.

Shocking Revelation: Actions Have Consequences!

As my distant mafia relations (Being Italian American with close relatives in New Jersey, I have to be related to them somehow.) found out last week, there are consequences to actions.

Liberal voters, please make note of that. Because that means that if you have your way, your country will be destroyed and then you’ll really have something to complain about.

And liberal politicians, keep in mind that in your cases, that could mean humiliating public censure down the road. Kinda like Charlie Rangel.

I’d love to say jail time too, but let’s face it, that only happens to Republicans.

Regardless, when you act foolishly or corruptly, chances are you’re not going to lead a fulfilling life.

That much is obvious in the case of the Philadelphia “doctor,” who made millions performing illegal late-term abortions on immigrant women. This practice somehow went unnoticed for years until, in 2009, a mother of three died on his operating table.

Now the public is finding all about the butcher shop of an operating room that the murderer worked out of. We’re all supposed to be outraged and horrified at the body parts stuffed into garbage bags scattered around the room.

To be sure, it is horrifying. But should we really be all that shocked when we allow other forms of abortion every day? When we teach an egocentric, carpe diem, buy now and pay later mentality to our children? When we value life – even our own, to some extent – so little?

We can’t honestly be that self-deceived, can we?

China Slaps U.S. in the Face during Obama’s State Dinner

In the case of our President, Barack Obama, I don’t think he is that clueless.

If I had to take a stab at it – figuratively, of course. Even though I’m clearly referring to the analysis and not Obama, better safe than risk a troubled liberal getting it into his or her head to act on any perceived anger – I’d bet he knows very well what he’s doing.

So that means he either doesn’t care at all or he’s willing to sacrifice our safety and image for some larger plot of his, as he presses forward with his agenda in the face of obvious and widespread opposition.

I could be referring to any number of issues with the above, of course, but specifically, I’m talking about the state dinner the U.S. just hosted for Chinese President Hu Jintao.

As if we needed any more proof that, as Donald Trump recently put it, the Chinese “are not our friends,” we’re just now learning that the Chinese-born pianist who performed at the dinner played a piece of anti-American music for the evening.

Lang Lang, the pianist, had this to say for his boorish behavior:

“I think playing the tune at the White House banquet can help us, as Chinese people, feel extremely proud of ourselves and express our feelings through the song.”

Oh Say Can You See… China Destroying Jackals?

So what is the context and the message of the song?

As the New York Post relays:

“The 1956 film ‘Battle on Shangangling Mountain” depicts Chinese troops pinned down under enemy fire on the mountain. Then reinforcements arrive and the troops attack the US soldiers, whom the Chinese refer to as ‘jackals.’

“The song Lang played in front of Hu and President Obama includes the verse: ‘When friends are here, there is fine wine/But if the jackal comes/What greets it is the hunting rifle.’”

So according to Lang then, the Chinese think we’re jackals who need to get shot. That’s quite the tacky political statement to make when getting paid – I’m sure quite handsomely – to perform at a supposedly friendly and definitely lavish dinner hosted by the “jackal” leader himself.

Yet it’s no wonder the musician felt emboldened to act the way he did. President Obama literally welcomes such behavior in the way he behaves on the national and international scenes.

The United Nations Hardly Deserves Sympathy

While we’d be monumentally obtuse not to realize that China has absolutely no love for us, we’d be similarly stupid to think that the money we send to the bloated, egotistical and largely pointless United Nations actually gets spent on helping the helpless.

According to Representative Cliff Stearns (FL-R), “During the Bush administration, it was learned from internal U.N. auditors that 43 percent of $1.4 billion in procurement contracts investigated involved fraud.”

And I’m sure that figure doesn’t cover the salaries of those well-paid demagogues, whom there happen to be a lot of.

Fortunately, on this measure at least, the United States has a reason to cheer. Because the Republican-controlled House and its Republican chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, are pushing back against the idea that we need to contribute to the U.N.’s self-serving mission.

As she straightforwardly said, throwing money at them is “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Want to know what the consequences to cutting that funding would do?

Well, I can tell you this: It isn’t going to raise our debt or deficit levels at all. In fact, it just might bring them down a notch or two.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Keith Olbermann and President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union Address: Both Pointless

Liberal commentator Keith Olbermann has left the MSNBC building, not that it really matters.

There are plenty of other people more than willing to pick up where he left off, spewing misinformation, speaking down to Americans and generally being a raging nuisance.

In other words, he’s a dime a dozen, and I’m quite sure other fringe lunatics such as Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow will take over quite nicely. Regardless, Olbermann could still find a home at CNN or some other tasteless organization.

Besides, even if all of those obviously unreasonable, horribly biased voices all-too ready to resort to verbal vitriol suddenly turned to ash from all of their heated rhetoric… even then, that wouldn’t make the liberals go away with their sham attempts at projecting a bipartisan spirit.

They care as much about reaching across the aisle as they do about women’s rights, minority’s rights or human rights in general. So basically, they don’t care at all.

You can’t blame them too much for that though. I mean, how can we expect them to be concerned about the little people when they’re so intent on pushing their agenda? And it must take an enormous amount of energy to come up with the silly schemes they do for every event and non-event that comes their way.

Working a Little Bit too Hard

Really, we should cut them a bit of slack. After all, they’ve been working very, very hard at signing everybody on board to hold hands and sing kum-bay-yah on Tuesday during Obama’s State of the Union address.

Sure, the only people that little farce will convince will be those who are dead-set on being manipulated and lied to (i.e. liberal voters). But that doesn’t diminish the amount of work Democrat congressmen and women had to put into the effort all the same.

And let’s face it, amongst the Republican establishment, their ploy worked well enough, at least on the usual silly suspects. Senator John McCain certainly stepped forward to do his part in displaying the party he claims to support as being completely toothless. And the media pundits – except for Olbermann – can also flip the coin and mull over Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “partisan” decision to remain seated at the Republican leadership table.

Let’s be honest here, that’s what this whole sitting together shtick is all about. It has nothing to do with getting along and everything to do with playing further into the idea that somehow, conservative talking points were responsible for a now confirmed left-wing nutcase’s shooting of a self-proclaimed conservative Democrat.

Fortunately, McConnell had the guts to point out that: “More important than the appearances of sitting together is what we do together. And the American people are more interested in actual accomplishments on a bipartisan basis here in the next six to nine months than they are with the seating arrangement at the State of the Union.”

Well said Mr. Senator! Well said!

More Double Speak

We need more unabashed behavior and straightforward speech going forward, as President Obama once again displays that he could care less what the American people want or need.

From one side of his mouth, he speaks out about how “government should not intrude on private family matters.” That was part of the speech he gave for the commemoration of perhaps the most disgusting Supreme Court decision ever: Roe v. Wade, which legalized the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of human lives.

Yet Obama certainly doesn’t care about such citizen rights when it comes to the much simpler matter of how those families spend their money…

If he really cares so much about family choice, shouldn’t it be up to each household how much they give to charity… whether they want to use their income to save for some big life event or on studying the drinking habits of Chinese prostitutes… or if they’d prefer to take a relaxing day at a spa or use that money to uphold a business that made repeated poor decisions?

In fact, the Wall Street Journal reports that, if anything, Obama would like to take even more of that money away from us, along with our nation’s fiscal health and security.

During his State of the Union address, he apparently plans to “argue that the U.S., even while trying to reduce its budget deficit, must make targeted investments to foster job growth and boost U.S. competitiveness in the world economy."

Talk about tone deaf. Or perhaps he just genuinely doesn’t care.

Either way, this man clearly doesn’t deserve the office he swore to uphold.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Symbolic Never Tasted So Sweet

Ever since Republicans made huge gains in the mid-term elections, Democrats have been searching desperately for some way to destroy them, or at the very least, make their triumph as miserable as possible.

I can’t speak for House Majority Leader John Boehner and his fellow congressional Republicans, but liberal’s immature tactics haven’t wiped the victory grin off of my face yet. How could they when, yesterday:

  • At least three Democratic Senators are jittery enough about Obamacare that they’re trying to barter with Republicans on editing it.

It’s rather difficult not to smile with all of that going on.

Not that those resounding repudiations have dampened Democrat’s desire to drive the nation off a cliff. I fully expect them to continue doing their very best to reshape the U.S. until it’s ultimately destroyed.

But, as evidenced by the 112th Congresses’ actions this week, they just might find their self-appointed task a little bit more difficult than before.

So yes, Harry Reid’s Senate may very well not pass the repeal, and Obama certainly won’t sign it regardless. But the American people are still cheering loud and strong right now as their representatives finally do their job… and listen.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

What Our Children Are Really Learning in School

Not that long ago – Friday, January 7, to be precise – I wrote about pop culture’s portrayal of women, specifically through music.

In “Parental Advisory: This Blog Quotes Offensive and Blatantly Misogynistic Material,” I argued that lyrical “art” these days is extremely oppressive to the female gender.

When women are only ever presented as sexual objects in word, why are we surprised when some people begin adopting that stereotype as the truth, especially when it’s reinforced in advertisements, movies and everyday life? Try going to a dance club or even just the mall and you’ll see the openly advertised “meat market” that allows men to ogle – if not more – at their leisure.

Even songs marketed as female friendly usually have some kick to them. For instance, singer/songwriter Pink put out a catchy ditty called “Stupid Girl,” which bemoans how women act in order to gain male attention. Yet she then proceeds to act exactly like those girls in her music video.

Yes, I understand that she’s mocking them, but what do you think men watching the music video are going to focus on: her words or the provocative images she openly displays?

I bring all of this up again so shortly after already addressing it because of a recent headline that caught my attention:

“Oak Park Student Suspended Over List of Girls”

OK, so that headline isn’t exactly earth shattering in and of itself. But it did pique my curiosity enough to click on it and read the rest.

Some little brat at some Illinois high school apparently thought it’d be a great idea to create a list of his female fellow classmates and rank them for looks and levels of promiscuity. Attentive to detail, the boy included what one student on the list termed as “racial slurs [and] hateful comments.”

Reading the story, I wasn’t all that shocked by the details. I don’t know about you, but after listening to the radio and watching movies and just going through life, I’m rather used to that kind of behavior. Though usually it’s on a smaller scale, it’s still the same attitude conveyed and accepted by many – both men and women – that women should be valued for their looks alone.

Now, let me be very clear: I am not in any way, shape or form condoning or excusing the list’s creator. He’s responsible for his own actions and deserves to feel thoroughly humiliated at his childish, self-centered and uncivilized behavior. And like any other such brat, he also deserves a thoroughly good spanking and a follow-up punishment of writing “I will not behave like a boorish prick” several thousand times on the blackboard in front of all the students he demeaned and humiliated.

If Boorishness Is the Lesson, Most of Us Are Getting As.

Then again, there are hundreds of thousands of other people out there who should suffer the same punishment: media moguls, show writers, actors, singers, models, song writers, choreographers, etc. who make their living by teaching that this way of thinking and behaving is not only acceptable, but enviable and appreciated.

It’s pathetic.

And it goes a long way to explain the recent survey that showed a mere 55% of college students showed “significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years.”

Maybe that’s because supposedly “higher” education – much like the lower versions – flirts way too heavily with uninspiring indoctrination or maybe that’s because they’re much more focused on getting drunk and hooking up than on actually learning anything.

Or maybe it’s a mixture of the two. But can we really blame students for misbehaving when, as a culture, we promote that very conduct?

The answer, of course, is a resounding “Yes.”

And after we’re done putting them in their place – a place that is equal to their fellow human beings instead of elevated on high as being all-important – than maybe we should consider our own place as well.

It’s high time we start behaving as if there are consequences to our actions. Don’t you think?

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globe Criticism Could Easily Be Directed Elsewhere as Well

I never watch celebrity award shows. Ever.

I consider them wastes of time, but that isn’t the main reason why I ignore them. After all, I waste my time in plenty of other ways every day.

The thing is though, if I want to waste my time, I’d much rather do it in an enjoyable way. And to me, sitting in front of my TV watching fake – in so many ways – celebrities act as if the whole world is supposed to be awed at their so-called accomplishments simply is not enjoyable.

Honestly, I’d rather listen to Obama speak for two hours straight.


With that said, it should come as no surprise that I had no idea the Golden Globe awards were recently on. And I would have continued on in that blissful state of ignorance if it hadn’t been for all of the subsequent media coverage everywhere I turned.

When I finally got to browsing the Drudge Report yesterday morning, there it was again… more headlines about what exactly had taken place at this supposedly must-see event. And I’ll admit that I finally broke down and clicked on it.

(OK, maybe I clicked on one other “article” before that. So I occasionally indulge in checking out the gorgeous – or not so gorgeous – gowns celebrities don. So sue me.)

Like many of the other pieces devoted to the Golden Globes, the UK’s Mail Online focused heavily on the evening’s host, British actor Ricky Gervais. If we’re to take writer Quentin Letts’ opinion as representative of most Brits, then it seems our friends over there were quite pleased to see Hollywood get a drubbing.

So too, I’m sure, did many Americans, although you wouldn’t realize that by reading most of the headlines and accompanying introductory snippets about the event. Perhaps frightened that they’re Gervais’ next targets, the U.S. media seems up in arms over their comrade-in-arms’ treatment.

Sometimes the Truth Hurts

But regardless of whether you think Ricky was out of line or not – and my guess is that there’s some truth to both perspectives – Mr. Lett brought up some valuable points concerning Hollywood:

“One of the paradoxes of the American film world is that it purports to celebrate individuality – and indeed rewards certain individuals amazingly well for their work – but it has a terror of independence of mind.

“Few Hollywood celebs got where they are today by being the sort of brave, gung-ho, stand-out-from-the-crowd heroes they frequently depict on the big screen. Hollywood and its power brokers hate a rebel. It is a place of groupthink and almost terminal political correctness.”

Of course, Hollywood is hardly the only group to cling to the childlike need of being liked at all costs. Politicians – especially, too often, those with an “R” after their name – seem to have that same problem after they’re elected to office.

Grow a spine. Or a Brain. Or - Preferably - Both, Please

Take Scott Brown, who jumped on the let’s-all-get-along train – again – on Monday, this time concerning the bi-partisan seating opportunistic Senator Mark Udall (D – CO) suggested for President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union address.

Far from the peace-loving, pipe-smoking, non-threatening portrait it’s meant to portray, this is just one more chance to blame Republicans for the all-too-recent Arizona shooting. If Republicans agree, it will look as if they agree that their rhetoric has gotten out of hand. And if they don’t, then it will look like they don’t care that their violent words resulted in people getting shot.

Or, at least, that’s what Democrats hope to get out of the seating arrangements.

And going over board to prove that he isn’t one of the bad guys, along comes Scott Brown with this Hollywood-style bit of blathering bravery:

“I’ll sit where ever they put me. I don’t care. That’s the type of attitude we need to have not only in Washington but here in our local political system where people need to forget about the little itty-bitty letter behind my name and other people’s names and just kind of get going and get our jobs going and do what’s best for this state and this country.”

Bravo Scotty! You’re totally right: Because life is best lived when we avoid all controversy.

Or was that how slaves are made? Ask Hollywood; they should know.