Red is Red and Blue is Blue, and Never the Twain Shall Meet

News of the day-or-so is the Malaysian Airlines plane being shot down over Ukraine, but I'll wait for that to settle out a bit before I comment on it. For now, something completely different, certainly off my beaten path here.

The general scenario is Sarah Palin getting a job on "The View" television show. I despise The View as a coven (no offence to actual witches) of shrieking harpies; although that is a personal opinion, it is relevant to the situation.

To say that Sarah would be a minority viewpoint on that program is to understate things significantly, but the "minority report" is important to the credibility of any undertaking. The writer for The Daily Beast to whose article I have linked doesn't see it that way however.

1. Co-hosts Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg would crush her.

The View isn’t Fox News, where hosts fawn over Palin like she is dropping pearls of wisdom instead of inane comments.

It’s not going to work out that way on The View, because in past years, Rosie and Whoopi would frequently slam the conservative co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck’s right-wing politics. For example, there was the time Whoopi schooled Hasselbeck on the reason why women need to be the ultimate decision makers when it comes to their reproductive rights. The audience clearly sided with Whoopi, breaking out into thunderous applause as she finished her comment. Expect more of the same with Palin on the panel.

2. Palin’s daily dose of idiotic comments. Currently, we are stuck waiting for periodic appearances by Palin to make unintentionally hilarious remarks, like when she said Paul Revere “warned the British,” not the colonists. Or when she insisted that “We’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies.”

Listening to Sarah Palin talk about history is like watching an episode of the new Comedy Central show Drunk History. That show, based on a hit web series, features horribly inebriated people telling their versions of history. With Palin on The View, it will be like Drunk Historyfive days a week.

3. Sarah Palin’s views will be tempered or she’ll be fired. Here’s the most serious issue for Palin: She can’t play to both mainstream and probably not very political American housewives (The View audience) and the Tea Party wingnuts.

ABC’s parent company, Disney, is not going to let Palin be the Palin that most of us hate (or love.) Sure, Disney wants ratings because they equal profits. But I very much doubt that Disney will allow Palin—or any one person—to cause damage to its corporate image.

If her views are to be "tempered" (read: supressed, mocked, censored) why the hell would they bring her on? The answer is of course to use her as a punching bag for cheap points and laughs with the show's base just like Liz Hasselbeck before her, the token Christian conservative. The real mystery is why would Palin want to put herself in that position? Sarah is, bless her, not the sharpest knife in the block, but should have drawn to her some smart people as advisors by now. Her coming out with this idea calls that assumption into question, but whatever.

My point here is more on the ideological divide in public discourse shown very starkly by choice of language and personal vilification/mockery of those who don't conform. The linked article is relatively mild as these things go, but is still about as clever and subtle as a sledge hammer, 'though I'm certain the author would differ. Most likely he'd call me a bunch of names and tell me how ignorant I am while feeling smugly superior. I don't know this for a fact, but past experience with the broad "type" (determined by his treatment of his subject here) places a high level of confidence on that prediction.

Too much exposure to this sort of zealotry has soured me on online discussions, as it is impossible to keep things to the facts of a situation. Recently I called someone on a flippant remark completely at odds with reality, and the response was a constant barrage of assumptions about where I get my info from, words put in my mouth and complete dismissal of the possibility that I had any idea whatsoever what I was talking about. I consider myself sharper than Mrs. Palin. (she does have other redeeming qualities however) and the way I really displayed it there was that I walked away from a fight I could never win.

Here in my obscure corner of the internet I can say what I want, and I like it that way. I am happy to debate things with people who see things differently than I do, but the old concept of "agree to disagree" seems to be lost, so it's not worth it.  I know that I don’t know everything; it’d be nice for a whole lot of other people to realize the same thing but I’m not holding my breath.  Or ever watching “The View”, Sarah Palin or no Sarah Palin.

Non quia aliquid consequendum

The link is to another of the inevitable elitist out-of-touch Hollywood liberals who need a bandwagon to jump on:

"I want to add my body and my voice to the thousands of others who are laying themselves on the line and saying,'No, we do not want to be party to this incredibly destructive path. We're becoming more dependent on fossil fuels and now we're becoming dependent on the most dirty of the fossil fuels, which is the tarsands fuel'," Hannah said.

TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline would run from Alberta through Nebraska to refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. It would double the capacity of the existing Keystone pipeline.

Proponents say the expansion would create thousands of jobs in both Canada and the U.S. and would help reduce U.S. reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Environmental activists say the pipeline is too risky and that extracting oil from the oilsands creates far too much greenhouse gas emissions.

Last week, the U.S. State Department released a report that said the proposed pipeline would pose no major risks to the environment and would not necessarily spur further oilsands production in Alberta.

There is nothing in life without some risk (title, in classy and hopefully correct Latin thanks to Google Translate), and no, I'm not talking about getting arrested for a sit-in against something you don't like. We are indeed "dependant on fossil fuels", but this will not change by hamstringing our productivity and prosperity. I have gone over the "alternative" energy problem before, but in short Ms Hanna has no idea what is involved in keeping the modern world's lights on if she thinks that all of our energy can be produced by "solar, wind, geothermal, microhydro" and any other pie-in-the-sky "green" options.

Those listed are only good in specific locations and/or on small scale. Solar and wind farms are as much, I'd even say more, of a blight on the landscape as any (decent) pipeline and are not reliable sources of power. Geothermal only works very locally, and you can bet that any large-scale geothermal project (in, say, Yellowstone Park) would have the Green movement's useful idiots chaining themselves to drill rigs. As for microhydro, great if you have your own river, but how many people does that apply to?

Rich people can afford whatever low-efficiency power scheme tickles their fancy; the rest of us need what works, is proven to work, will continue to work or (the future) will work better than what we already have. That last one includes "scary" things like Liquid Fluoride Reactors which will do everything we need it to do, and do it more safely than existing nuclear plants or even hydrocarbon refineries. I would have one in my backyard, or at least where I could see it from there (it's still a powerplant after all) but the Greens would shit themselves at the name of it alone.

In the meantime, the USA needs to get back on its' feet economically and politically, and affordable secure energy is one brick on that path. Celebrities making responsible, informed announcements/actions would help in a small way too but fat chance of that; the sensible ones seem to just keep their opinions to themselves. Cutting the size of their government by about 50% would help that immensely, but that is another post.

Dead Celebrities and Sentiment

I have no unusual compunctions about speaking ill of the dead, but it is generally considered rude. At the very least, if you have unpleasant things to say they should at least be unimpeachably accurate, since the dead guy is in no position to defend himself.

I do however object to the mawkish outpouring of sentiment which is de rigeur for so many people today. Even more than that, I object to being told that I'm out of line by not caring too much about the death of people I don't know.

With that up front, I will come out and back up Christie Blatchford (link) for saying what a lot of us are thinking. Not all of us, maybe not even most of us any more, but still a lot. Jonathan Kay, one of her co-workers at the NPost says it as well as I could hope to:

Eleven years later [after Trudeau's death], it is Jack Layton who has died. And the same climate of enforced sentimentality is in effect: The entire Canadian media has given a free pass to Jack Layton’s widely published deathbed political manifesto, which promiscuously mingled laudable paeans to love and optimism with not so laudable snipes at the Harper government (such as Layton’s encouragement to NDP followers to “restore [Canada's] good name in the world,” as if Canada had somehow become a rogue state under the Conservatives).

There is more, but the freedom of speech here, imperfect as it is, does cover not being sucked in by posthumous propaganda, so those who dare to rail against it should do so and know that they are not alone. As for the late Jack Layton, I never agreed with much he had to say, and I shudder at the thought of his party running Canada, but I wished no ill on the man. The good side? The odds are that the socialist tide is going out with Jack, so I'll wait for the afterglow to fade and hope that we continue to have a solid economy and good governance.

Good on yer, Kate.

This is definitely NOT a celeb-blog, but I must extend some kudos to Kate Winslet for being a fine actress, a babe, and a real person (as I suspected) after all.

The Associated Press

Date: Tuesday Aug. 23, 2011 9:46 AM ET

LONDON — Academy Award-winning actress Kate Winslet helped rescue Richard Branson's elderly mother from a fire that destroyed his Caribbean home.

The Virgin Group boss said in his blog that he wanted to offer "many thanks to Kate Winslet for helping to carry my 90 year (old) mum out of the main house to safety." He joked that Winslet "was wondering when a director was going to shout 'CUT!'

In a separate statement Tuesday, Branson praised Winslet's two children, 10-year-old Mia and 7-year-old Joe, who were also staying in the house when it caught fire. He called them "two of the bravest kids I've ever come across."

Good children are most often the result of good parents, so more evidence (if it were needed) that she's no vacuous starlet. As for Sir Richard's house, he can afford to build another one, and I'm certain Ms Winslet and her family will have a standing invitation to stay over.

Charlie Sheen as mental health spokesman

While civil war continues to unfold in Libya, I'll spend a little time talking about the only thing that's getting more coverage than the various Arab revolts; Charlie Sheen.

Not a whole lot to say, but I couldn't let the recent madness pass without comment. Short version: Charlie's loopy. More specifically, if he's not manic-depressive (most recently REALLY manic) I'll eat my hat. Well-balanced people don't say things like this:

"I am on a drug. It’s called Charlie Sheen. It’s not available. If you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body."

I suffer from a milder version of it myself and I've known people with more extreme cases, so it's easy to spot even without psychological training. I enjoy my "up" periods because I have energy and want to do things, and don't care too much about the consequences. That said, on my zaniest days I've never even been close to where he's at right now.

The problem here of course is that he will come crashing down at some point, as has probably happened repeatedly in the past. If his manic phase is worse than it was earlier there is a good chance that his depressive phase will be too. As I'm learning the hard way, as you get older this condition doesn't go away, it gets worse.

If you were to parse my blog posts you could probably tell how I felt when I wrote them. The sample would be skewed however; when I'm really depressed I don't tend to write much, which is a pattern in itself. This is the way it is for a lot of people, but sometimes hard to notice unless you're actively looking. I go contrary to the conventional wisdom on these things, but I'll take the opening that Charlie has made to say this about periodically depressed people: if you know they'll bounce back, don't try too hard to cheer them up when they're down. Some alone time to wallow in the Slough of Despond is occasionally necessary, just don't let them drown in it. Vague I know, but people are highly variable so you should try to understand your friends and family and not worry about generalities.

The brain is very complex, and a bit too much or too little of something can have all sorts of repercussions on one's behaviour. Pharmaceuticals are getting more specific and therefore more helpful, but people still need to reach that point when they realize that they're not handling it well on their own before things will change. Pretty similar to a substance abuse problem, except that you'll need substances (hopefully not self-prescribed) to deal with it.

This is my gut reaction, but to me the difference between crazy and insane is whether or not you realize that you're behaving oddly, or at least that people will perceive your actions that way. If Charlie is just venting all the noise in his head because he needs to get it out but knows that he's not being entirely reasonable (to be charitable) then he's crazy for a while. If he believes it, he's insane, temporarily or otherwise.

To conclude my opportunistic quasi public service spot, you need to be aware (as much as possible, anyway) when people you know are having problems, and if they're saying stupid shit (see above) you need to call them on it. If they acknowledge the ridiculousness of what they're doing or not doing (even if they can't stop it for the time being), they'll probably be OK sooner or later. In Charlie's case, he needs to be confronted in plain language and give his head a shake. I don't care what he says now, I'll be very surprised if he isn't at least privately embarrassed in the future by some of the stuff he's saying today.

Ricky Gervais and making omlettes

Way off my usual beat, but I thought I'd weigh in in defence of a beleaguered comic. I'm sure he doesn't need my help, but who in the entertainment business does? The subject is of course his hosting of the Gloden Globes last night, his second and assuredly last time doing it. I saw very little of it, but I think I know his general intention: don't be boring.

Comedian Ricky Gervais promised this year he would push the boundaries as he hosted the Golden Globes for a second time. "I think I'll go just close enough to the edge but not go over it," he said on the red carpet before the ceremony.

But by the end of the star-studded bash, many were left debating whether he had gone too far in his jibes at the gathered celebrities and even organisers the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA).

Of all of the nasty jokes he made the only one I that really think went over the (my) line was his crack at Robert Downey Jr.: "Many of you in this room probably know him best from such facilities as the Betty Ford Clinic and Los Angeles County Jail." Downey has fucked up a lot, but has managed to clean himself up and do really good work for years now. This sort of thing suggests some tone-deafness on Ricky's part, but you can't push the boundaries without going over from time to time.

Oh well. No-one seems to be making much of a deal about the death and blacklisting threats made after the show so hopefully he remains employable and breathing. In any event last night's performance won't be forgotten soon, and if he goes out at least he doesn't go like Billy Chrystal, the "safe" host of multiple years of award shows.