Today, October 14, 2010, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly made an appearance on The View to argue against the Muslim community center slated to be built two blocks from the World Trade Center. Viewers were shocked when O'Reilly's comments caused Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg to storm off stage.
O'Reilly said something along the lines of Muslims were the reason for the 9/11 attack and was shocked that the ladies on The View did not believe that Muslims didn't kill Americans on 9/11. O'Reilly insisted that 70 percent of Americans do not want the mosque.
Barbara Walters showed that she was upset that Joy and Whoopi took such drastic actions, and was disappointed that the two were unable to participate in a discussion that may have opposing viewpoints. She believed that the two were very unprofessional.
O'Reilly was speaking to Joy like a child and making such bold statements without even attributing where he was getting this information from, because clearly it is not common knowledge. At one point he even told Joy to listen up so that she could learn some things.
Joy and Whoopi returned back to the set, but Joy no longer sat next to O'Reilly.
Who was more in the wrong? Joy and Whoopi or Bill O'Reilly?
In Academy and Oscar News, Bruce Davis, the Executive Director of The Academy Of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is stepping down from his post July of 2011, Variety reports. Davis has been at AMPAS since 1981, and held that post since 1989, or for 21 years.
Over at Deadline.com, Nikki Finke, long-time observer of the Oscar business, lays out several heavy-duty reasons why Davis is leaving:
..he (Davis) couldn't get an Academy Museum Of Motion Pictures off the ground, with AMPAS spending tens of millions of dollars to buy the property for the proposed 8-acre campus without first raising the necessary funding and now having nothing to show for the money because the project is postponed indefinitely. He also allowed AMPAS to lag behind in technology, which means administrators will have to start from ground zero to ensure Academy voters can receive the films in competition on their computers and vote online if the 2012 Oscars are moved up to January or early February as the Board of Governors is considering. He also presided over a smugly arrogant organization shrouded in secrecy...
There's no report of a person to take his place. But stay close to Zennie62.com for news on who that may be as we approach 2011.
Academy's Documentary Screening Series Presses On
The Academy's Doc Series continues. The Academy reports, the 2009 Academy Awards nominees The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner and The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers will screen as the next installment in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ 29th annual “Contemporary Documentaries” series on Wednesday, October 20, at 7 p.m. at the Linwood Dunn Theater in Hollywood.
AMPAS says that admission to all screenings in the series is free.
Oscar Foreign Language Films - 65 In All
There will be films representing 65 countries and all competing for the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film at the 83rd Academy Awards. Over the next two months, the list will be paired down considerably via screenings by the Oscar Foreign Language Film Committee, until a list of potential nominees is selected. The nominees will be named Tuesday, January 25, 2011, at 5:30 a.m. PT in the Academy’s Samuel Goldwyn Theater. Visit Zennie62.com for more details.
AMPAS, The Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences, reports that the 2010 Foreign Language Film Oscar category has films representing 65 countries. Here's what the Academy says:
Beverly Hills, CA – Sixty-five countries, including first-time entrants Ethiopia and Greenland, have submitted films for consideration in the Foreign Language Film category for the 83rd Academy Awards®.
The 2010 submissions are:
Albania, “East, West, East,” Gjergj Xhuvani, director;
Algeria, “Hors la Loi” (“Outside the Law”), Rachid Bouchareb, director;
Argentina, “Carancho,” Pablo Trapero, director;
Austria, “La Pivellina,” Tizza Covi and Rainer Frimmel, directors;
Azerbaijan, “The Precinct,” Ilgar Safat, director;
Bangladesh, “Third Person Singular Number,” Mostofa Sarwar Farooki, director;
Belgium, “Illegal,” Olivier Masset-Depasse, director;
Bosnia and Herzegovina, “Circus Columbia,” Danis Tanovic, director;
Brazil, “Lula, the Son of Brazil,” Fabio Barreto, director;
Bulgaria, “Eastern Plays,” Kamen Kalev, director;
Canada, “Incendies,” Denis Villeneuve, director;
Chile, “The Life of Fish,” Matias Bize, director;
China, “Aftershock,” Feng Xiaogang, director;
Colombia, “Crab Trap,” Oscar Ruiz Navia, director;
Costa Rica, “Of Love and Other Demons,” Hilda Hidalgo, director;
Croatia, “The Blacks,” Goran Devic and Zvonimir Juric, directors;
Czech Republic, “Kawasaki’s Rose,” Jan Hrebejk, director;
Denmark, “In a Better World,” Susanne Bier, director;
Egypt, “Messages from the Sea,” Daoud Abdel Sayed, director;
Estonia, “The Temptation of St. Tony,” Veiko Ounpuu, director;
Ethiopia, “The Athlete,” Davey Frankel and Rasselas Lakew, directors;
Finland, “Steam of Life,” Joonas Berghall and Mika Hotakainen, directors;
France, “Of Gods and Men,” Xavier Beauvois, director;
Georgia, “Street Days,” Levan Koguashvili, director;
Germany, “When We Leave,” Feo Aladag, director;
Greece, “Dogtooth,” Yorgos Lanthimos, director;
Greenland, “Nuummioq,” Otto Rosing and Torben Bech, directors;
Hong Kong, “Echoes of the Rainbow,” Alex Law, director;
Hungary, “Bibliotheque Pascal,” Szabolcs Hajdu, director;
Iceland, “Mamma Gogo,” Fridrik Thor Fridriksson, director;
India, “Peepli [Live],” Anusha Rizvi, director;
Indonesia, “How Funny (Our Country Is),” Deddy Mizwar, director;
Iran, “Farewell Baghdad,” Mehdi Naderi, director;
Iraq, “Son of Babylon,” Mohamed Al-Daradji, director;
Israel, “The Human Resources Manager,” Eran Riklis, director;
Italy, “La Prima Cosa Bella” (“The First Beautiful Thing”), Paolo Virzi, director;
Japan, “Confessions,” Tetsuya Nakashima, director;
Kazakhstan, “Strayed,” Akan Satayev, director;
Korea, “A Barefoot Dream,” Tae-kyun Kim, director;
Kyrgyzstan, “The Light Thief,” Aktan Arym Kubat, director;
Latvia, “Hong Kong Confidential,” Maris Martinsons, director;
Macedonia, “Mothers,” Milcho Manchevski, director;
Mexico, “Biutiful,” Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, director;
Netherlands, “Tirza,” Rudolf van den Berg, director;
Nicaragua, “La Yuma,” Florence Jaugey, director;
Norway, “The Angel,” Margreth Olin, director;
Peru, “Undertow” (“Contracorriente”), Javier Fuentes-Leon, director;
Philippines, “Noy,” Dondon S. Santos and Rodel Nacianceno, directors;
Poland, “All That I Love,” Jacek Borcuch, director;
Portugal, “To Die Like a Man,” Joao Pedro Rodrigues, director;
Puerto Rico, “Miente” (“Lie”), Rafael Mercado, director;
Romania, “If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle,” Florin Serban, director;
Russia, “The Edge,” Alexey Uchitel, director;
Serbia, “Besa,” Srdjan Karanovic, director;
Slovakia, “Hranica” (“The Border”), Jaroslav Vojtek, director;
Slovenia, “9:06,” Igor Sterk, director;
South Africa, “Life, above All,” Oliver Schmitz, director;
Spain, “Tambien la Lluvia” (“Even the Rain”), Iciar Bollain, director;
Sweden, “Simple Simon,” Andreas Ohman, director;
Switzerland, “La Petite Chambre,” Stephanie Chuat and Veronique Reymond, directors;
Taiwan, “Monga,” Chen-zer Niu, director;
Thailand, “Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives,” Apichatpong Weerasethakul, director;
Turkey, “Bal” (“Honey”), Semih Kaplanoglu, director;
Uruguay, “La Vida Util,” Federico Veiroj, director;
Venezuela, “Hermano,” Marcel Rasquin, director.
The 83rd Academy Awards nominations will be announced live on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, at 5:30 a.m. PT in the Academy’s Samuel Goldwyn Theater.
Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2010 will be presented on Sunday, February 27, 2011, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network. The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 200 countries worldwide.
Stay tuned as this is Oscar and Film Festival buzz season.
Born Sweet, Killing in the Name, and One Thousand Pictures: RFK’s Last Journey, are some of the films on the Oscar 2010 Documentary Shortlist for the 2011 83rd Academy Awards. But the one causing the most buzz is called Living for 32.
Living for 32 is a documentary about Colin Goddard, one of the only survivors of the gun shooting massacre which occurred on the Virginia Tech campus on April 16th, 2007. In the film, Goddard tells the story of how he survived that day, and how he copes with life in the wake of that horrific event.
Here's the full list of entries according to The Academy of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences:
Born Sweet, Cynthia Wade Productions Killing in the Name, Moxie Firecracker Films Living for 32, Cuomo Cole Productions One Thousand Pictures: RFK’s Last Journey, Lichen Films Poster Girl, Portrayal Films Strangers No More, Simon & Goodman Picture Company Sun Come Up, Sun Come Up, LLC The Warriors of Qiugang, Thomas Lennon Films, Inc.
From the Academy:
The 83rd Academy Awards nominations will be announced live on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, at 5:30 a.m. PT in the Academy’s Samuel Goldwyn Theater.
Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2010 will be presented on Sunday, February 27, 2011, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network. The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 200 countries worldwide.
There’s an old saying ‘Don’t get too smug that you wind up being the smartest person in the room-In the end that won’t win you very many friends‘. In other words be wary of trying to make others feel or seem stupid. Be humble. Walk and talk WITH people. Don’t preach or talk AT them.
Thats a word of caution to those of us on the left leaning side of the room. Acting smug leads to us underestimating and alienating folks
It was hard not to think these thoughts when watching the Christine O’Donnell vs Chris Coons US Senate debate in Delaware that aired on CNN last night. Here O’Donnell was asked what recent Supreme Court decision has she disagreed with and she was stumped. O’Donnell couldn’t name one.
Now, a lot of my colleagues who are in the media or part of the pundit’s brigade took glee in her misstep. Many were quick to tweet about ‘how dumb she was’ and compared her to Sarah Palin who was similarly stumped when she was running for Vice President.Many are quick to say since she’s running for office she should know. ideally yes, I agree, but many look to see themselves in the folks they elect.
We saw this with George Bush and his ‘aaaw shucks lets have a beer’ mannerisms. Many accused an un-infiormed public of voting for President Obama without fully knowing what he was about other then skin color and our collective reaction to racial attacks directed at him.
If we believe what has been reported in the past we certainly know that many of the bills passed are not fully read by those in office. I caution folks who took glee in O’Donnell’s flub to slow down and not get too full of themselves. Her not knowing is not to far removed from the reality of the average ordinary person who works 9-5 and likes to think they stay fairly abreast of current events. Many folks look to see themselves in politicians and while O’Donnell is likely to lose in Delaware, what about other places?
Tea Party Candidate Sharon Angle is leading Harry Reid in spite saying a lot of 'dumb' things. Where are all the smart people?
We’re gleefully calling people dumb but may wind up losing all sorts of seats to ‘dumb’ Tea Party types. How is that happening if we’re so damn smart? Why is Harry Reid trailing in polls to one of those ‘dumb’ tea party types-Sharon Angle? Where’s all the smart people in the room ?I’ll await your answer.
To those who wanna sit back and smirk, I caution and challenge you to ask your neighbor or family member the same question. Heck ask yourself. What recent Supreme Court decisions over the past couple of years do you disagree with? Cite 3 without looking them up. I’ll wait.
Most folks are likely to cite the Supreme Court decision that came down earlier this year that allows corporations the right to pump unlimited funds into campaign ads. However, most including myself are likely to have to Google to get the exact name and even then we better have some inkling because simply typing in ‘Supreme Court decisions’ wont get you very far.
Quick, is it People vs Citizens United? or the FEC vs Citizens United? Does anyone know who or what is Citizens United without looking it up?
Thank God for Wikipedia. I’d venture to say that very few of us and that includes many folks in the media knew that Citizens United was a conservative non profit. Even fewer knew who Citizen United intended to attack, but was prohibited, which in turn prompted the lawsuit and the eventual Supreme Court’s landmark decision.
For those who don’t know, it was Hillary Clinton. You can brush up on the case here.. FEC vs Citizens United.
There are many who are in media or political junkies who are up on such things or at the very least have enough info on hand that they can start a reasonable search. A lot of folks simply would not know where to begin, even with the internet at their finger tips. For example, type in the term Supreme Court decision and see what you get.. If it’s on Google you get the following sites:
Christine O'Donnell not knowing the most recent Supreme Court decisions is not too far removed from the reality of most people
Try reading your way through those pages and come up with reasonable conclusions. The average Joe or Jane is probably gonna call it a wrap and move on. Maybe our esteemed media outlets should spend less time telling me about Lindsey Lohan going to jail or Courtney Cox breaking up and more about important decisions made by the nine justices on the Supreme Court.
Again only the smug, smartest kid in the room is gonna clown O’Donnell for not knowing Supreme Court decisions. Everyone else is going to see themselves in her especially after she noted she didn’t know.
In addition I think most folks watching probably appreciated the fact that she noted howRoe vs Wade wouldn’t make abortions illegal, but would leave it up to states to decide. A lot of folks did not know that.
Here’s a brief breakdown
NANCY KARIBJANIAN: What opinions, of late, that have come from our high court, do you most object to?
O’DONNELL: Oh, gosh. Um, give me a specific one. I’m sorry.
KARIBJANIAN: Actually, I can’t, because I need you to tell me which ones you object to.
O’DONNELL: Um, I’m very sorry, right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot, but I’ll put it up on my website, I promise you.
WOLF BLITZER: We know that you disagree with Roe v. Wade.
O’DONNELL: Yeah, but she said a recent one.
BLITZER: That’s relatively recent.
O’DONNELL: She said “of late.” But yeah. Well, Roe v. Wade would not put the power — It’s not recent, it’s 30-something years old –
BLITZER: But since then, have there been any other Supreme Court decisions?
O’DONNELL: Well, let me say about Roe v. Wade — If that were overturned, would not make abortion illegal in the United States, it would put the power back to the states.
BLITZER: But besides that decision, anything else you disagree with?
O’DONNELL: Oh, there are several when it comes to pornography, when it comes to court decisions — not to Supreme Court, but federal court decisions to give terroristsMirandize rights. There are a lot of things I believe — This California decision to overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I believe there are a lot of federal judges legislating from the bench.
BLITZER: That wasn’t the Supreme Court. That was a lower –
You can peep the exchange below
O’DONNELL: That was a federal judge. That’s what I said. In California.
Now will last night’s stumble hurt Christine O’Donnell? Probably not. She was already hurt because of her infamous witchcraft remarks which were made known to us via HBO TV host Bill Maher who pulled out the 10 year old clips.
To the degree that’s made her the butt of jokes and has wiped away her shine and momentum is very different then her not knowing the most recent Supreme Court decisions. Trust me I was one of those folks that had a field day because of her remarks.
But I gotta be honest, I was riding that pony with the hopes it would gain traction and slow her roll. I don’t want Ms O’Donnell in the US senate. I disagree with her political Tea Party inspired views. The witchcraft flub is fair game. She can explain it away as being youthful indiscretion the same way President Barack Obama explained away his use of cocaine or the way former President Bill Clinton explained away his marijuana puff or lack of a puff. (He said he didn’t inhale-yeah right Bill)
We all know Christine O'Donnell, but who is Chris Coons? What do we know about him?
Lastly I cant say what’s what in Delaware but most folks outside its borders know Christine O’Donnell but most would be hard pressed to name her opponent Chris Coons without looking him up. Most of us would do so by googling her name and then reading whatever article popped up in hopes of seeing his name. While I can see folks not wanting O’Donnell in the senate what about her opponent? What’s he about? What’s his stance on issues? Is he progressive or another Ben Nelson/ Joe Liberman type? Has he excited voters so that we wanna vote for him or are folks riled up and wanna vote against O’Donnell? I’ll await your answers…
Oakland Children's Hospital is being plagued by a nurses strike as this is written. As a fan of Children's Hospital and its staff, the current situation does not reflect how hard they've worked to keep the establishment a going concern in a tough economy.
This blogger is not anti-union, but some unions need to be called out when they're not playing to work with administration, but against it. Such is the California Nurses Association.
Someone's paying attention. Namely, Nancy Shibata, RN, MSN, Chief Nursing Officer, Children’s Hospital Oakland, who sent this opinion piece to be ran in this space:
CNA Nurses Union Out of Touch With Current Economic Realities At Children's Hospital Oakland
Ironically, the high cost of health insurance is a difficult problem for hospitals today. Over the past 5 years, health insurance benefit costs have risen for Children's by 80 percent or over $17 million dollars. That's a hefty increase for any institution, especially one that is the primary provider of children's healthcare services for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Children's Hospital Oakland is now facing a three-day strike by members of the California Nurses Association (CNA), the union that represents 700 of our nurses at our 190-bed hospital, over our health insurance benefit and pay proposals for the next three-year contract that we are attempting to negotiate with them.
Despite the fact that we are offering our nurses pay increases during the life of the contract and two healthcare plans that are 100-percent paid for by the hospital (and a third "premium" plan that they can chose with a monthly contribution), they are demanding higher pay and no benefit changes as part of a new three-year contract.
We value our nurses. They are vital and essential to our hospital and every patient. They provide the expertise and care, which combined with their personal skills and nurturing abilities, help make our young patients' experience a better one in every way.
The CNA union, which represents the nurses, unfortunately is out of step with both the economic realities facing Children's Hospital Oakland, but also with the broader economic climate nationally.
The three-day strike, which started today, is reflective of the CNA's inability to acknowledge and accept the changes that are occurring throughout the country related to wages and healthcare. A full-time nurse at Children’s earns, on average, $136,000 per year. A new graduate nurse on the day shift earns $95,000 per year. And this is without including what Children’s pays in addition for benefits.
At this time when our region, our nation and our people are struggling with the economic challenges of this difficult economy, this union is demanding no changes in its benefits (negotiated during a different economic climate) and increases in pay when they are not supported by the market or by Children’s ability to pay for them.
In our negotiations, Children's is proposing a wage freeze in 2010 with modest pay increases in the following years. We are asking the union to accept one health plan where members contribute a small percentage of the premium cost, while still offering two 100 percent employer-paid HMO and PPO health benefit plans for nurses and their families. The third, cost-share option, is a premium PPO that requires a pre-tax employee contribution ranging from $111 - $311 a month, depending on individual or family coverage.
A mix of employer-paid and contributory plans have been rolled out to other Hospital employees already. Currently, more than half of our employees have this type of healthcare benefit program and this bargaining session is our first opportunity to negotiate the change with the CNA.
The last CNA union contract, negotiated in better economic times in 2007, provided raises of 6% in 2007, 5% in 2008, and an additional 5% in 2009. These large increases are the basis for the Hospital's wage freeze proposal for the first year of the contract.
Earlier this year, Children's Hospital announced that it has lost more than $69 million over the past four years, of which $22 million was lost in 2009 alone. Since that time, the hospital has been restructuring its services, developing new business opportunities, and actively renegotiating private insurance and government reimbursements to cover patient care costs. As a not-for-profit regional pediatric medical center, our financial challenges stem from the poor economy, low reimbursement rates, increasing healthcare costs and a lack of public hospitals with pediatric inpatient beds.
Children's Hospital is on the road to financial stability, and we hope to reach it in 2012. We have made many changes to help secure our future and our ability to provide healthcare to the most vulnerable of patients, babies and children. Other industries have been crushed by the burden of labor contracts that were negotiated during prosperous times but could not be sustained during an economic downturn. We cannot let this happen to our vital hospital for children. We need the leadership of the CNA to step up and recognize that their members are highly valued, well-compensated and that 100-percent paid by employer healthcare benefits are a good package for everyone. Our children and our community deserve nothing less.
South Park's episode, It's a Jersey Thing, aired on Wednesday, October 13 at 10 p.m. EST was all about the Jersey trend on television including Jersey Shore and Real Housewives of Jersey. Watching the episode showed how ridiculous the reality tv shows truly are.
Although exaggerated the impersonations of certain stars, such as Snooki and The Situation from Jersey Shore, were realistic to the way they are perceived.
The part of the show that may be offensive is that in the end the hero who saves the day and saves South Park (and the rest of the country) from Jersey domination was Osama Bin Laden.
There is sure to be some interesting reactions from the reality stars depicted - but hopefully they will take it with a grain of salt and feel lucky that they are special enough to appear on the show (like the way the Kardashian's reacted).
