Saturday, October 10, 2009


CONGRATULATIONS TO THE PRESIDENT! The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner. Obviously the committee did not see SNL last week.
(I think someone read my blog last week. I attacked SNL for being too soft on Obama. Whether you agree with them or not, they finally get their hands dirty with awesome political satire. Does this mean we all can finally have some fun?)

Not to take anything away from Barack Obama, and I honestly do offer congrats there, but lets take a look at the distiguished company Obama now sits. Now, who can argue with Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Of course the Dalai Lama (Well #14 is cool, the rest can go suck it)is there with numerous Red Cross and Amnesty international types. And of course all the terrorist and war mongers turn peacemakers from the middle east (Not just talking Arafat here) MORE AT

And all those other US Presidents. Wait just JIMMY CARTER since 1920. So I take from this, The rest of the world sees us as war mongers and the only Presidents representing peace are the ones that loose wars. ALmost a sacastic awarding to the biggest foreign policy boobs in American history since the 1920s. If only he had not bombed an aspirin factory, Clinton would have been there too. At least Teddy and Woodrow were recognized for strong leadership with successful ends. BArack is choosen for some good speeches. HEY GUYS LETS GRAB A BEER AND TALK!

But what all of the greats that have been looked over. FROM
Another criticism of the peace-prize are the notable omissions, namely the failure to award individuals with widely recognized contributions to peace. Foreign Policy magazine lists Mahatma Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Vaclav Havel, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Sari Nusseibeh, Corazon Aquino and Liu Xiaobo as people who never won the prize, "but should have".[18] Other notable omissions that have drawn criticism include Abdul Sattar Edhi,[19] Irena Sendler,[20] Pope John Paul II[21] and Dorothy Day.[22] The omission of the Gandhi has been particularly widely discussed, including in public statements by various members of the Nobel Committee.[23][24] The Committee has confirmed that Gandhi was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, a few days before he was murdered in January 1948.[25] The omission has been publicly regretted by later members of the Nobel Committee.[23] In 1948, the year of Gandhi's death, the Nobel Committee declined to award a prize on the ground that "there was no suitable living candidate" that year. Later, when the Dalai Lama was awarded the Peace Prize in 1989, the chairman of the committee said that this was "in part a tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi".[26]

But as I write this, MSNBC runs a segment and interview asking "What is the long term significance of this?" and "How will the Nobel Prize effect discission making?" SERIOUSLY. I hope to THE MAN IN THE SKY (Invention of Lying - Brilliant) that no one in Washington is saying to themselves, we need to rethink our policy to match this award. I am sure this is a sign of HOW DO WE FILL 24 hours of NEWS overload. But with all the wars and health care issues, are we making way to much of a deal about this, the olympic failure etc.

THANK GOD FOR COMEDIANS and shows like SNL, Colbert, Daily Show, Letterman, Leno, Conan, Bill Mahar.... Because main stream media is just not doing the job. They bore anyone under 60 and fail to really attack dog the issues.

PS It is about time Fred Armistan gets the leading role. He has been stealing the show from the side for years.(PS Check out my blog on the subject Watch this hilarious opening as Gaddafi.

SNL is finally growing back the comedy balls it lost for about 10 years. Now if they can just create some better original characters they will have the glory of the old days.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Roman Polanski: Should he stay or should he go

I ask that you check out the poll to the left before reading below. If you are reading this on FaCeBOOK or other RSS feed, check out full blog at for full video and link usage.

On watching the media , coverage for Roman Polanski I wonder where I stand on the subject. I really do not know all that much about the real facts. I wonder how many of those that are out there demonizing OR celebrating and begging for release really know the FACTS. A large part of the artist community, of which I live somewhere on the fringe but still a part, seems to overwhelmingly be calling for his release. He's an artist. It's been 30 years. Cut him a break he's won Oscars. He is brilliant. He suffered so much at the loss of Sharon Tate (His wife when Manson family went nuts).

The first time I remember really thinking about this subject was back in 2002. Watching the Oscars with some acting friends, a big deal was made about Roman not being able to be there in Hollywood to pick up his award. He would have been arrested. There was a lot of chat. Well that's BS. He should be allowed to pick up the award. It was 25 years ago. Who cares about all that.

I have until now kept my mouth shut on the subject. I felt unable to argue what my gut was stating as I did just not have all the facts. Listening to some CNN coverage this morning. (Tuesday 10/6/09) I decided to look into this more to educate myself and know the facts. FROM HBO.COM - Synopsis of Documentary "On March 11, 1977, Roman Polanski was arrested in Los Angeles and charged with the following counts: furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child, unlawful sexual intercourse, rape by use of drugs, perversion and sodomy. Less than a year later, on February 1, 1978, Polanski drove to LAX, bought a one-way ticket to Europe, and never came back." READ ON AT

Polanski has been bouncing around countries, mostly France and his native Poland, avoiding extradition. The only reason he was going to Switzerland was to pick up a lifetime achievement award. I wonder now did US officials put up the Zurich Film Festival to lure Roman out of hiding.

HIDING? He has been making films and winning awards all this time. But why is he hiding? Did he think that eventually, US / LA officials would forget about him? Did he think he would someday march into Hollywood triumphant?

OK. I think I might be tipping the hat a little as to where I stand. OK here we go. I think he is a coward. I think, way beyond breaking the law, Roman Polanski violated the innocence of a child, used his place of power and took advantage of a situation. But I suppose his ego must have been devastated when his power was not enough to lure a minor, wannabe actress/model, into his bed. He required drugs to loosen her up. I feel for his tragedy but he was a sexual predator. This was not an act of passion, some freak in the moment oops, got carried away.... After a photo shoot, Polanski invited this girl back for a second. This time giving her champagne and sedatives.

Samantha Geimer, who was the teenager in question and who has called for the case against Polanski to be dropped after she reached a settlement with the director, recalled in 2003 that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed. “I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No’, and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she said in an interview. "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this.”

FROM Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes,[36] a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her",[37][38][39] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.

ALSO FROM TIME Frédéric Mitterrand, the French Culture Minister, said that he was “stupefied” and added, in reference to the tragedies that have marked Polanski’s life: “I strongly regret that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them.” ... In much of Europe Polanski is portrayed as a wayward genius who has fallen victim to American bigotry; in the US he is seen as a pervert who forced a teenager to drink, strip and have oral sex during a modelling session at the home of Jack Nicholson, the actor.

OK, I think this basically sums up the argument made by many. But what about the girl that was raped. Did she suffer? Do TWO WRONGS make a right? Is that the French legal stance? I strongly regret that a criminal is finally paying for his crime - that a criminal was hailed by colleagues knowing full well his deviant act is finally answering to his acts. His career has definitely been helped by his tragedies. Making a good movie every 10 years amidst indy and foreign films that I personally could give a crap about. If I want art I go to the theater. I go to films for escapism, unless sleep is needed. But his infamous status gave his lesser films far more notice than the average director. FREE PR!!! I can appreciate that as an artist myself but disgusted as a citizen. If this 13 year old girl was raped by her father, uncle, teacher, or priest, would we be so forgiving? This guy has been given more passes by Hollywood than Clinton.

FROM - Polanski was initially charged[44] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[45]

At this point, I think Polanski should sit in Swiss Jail for about 6 months to a year and than go free. This is most likely what he would have had to suffer back in the day anyway. Perhaps less. Instead by fleeing prosecution, Roman has already avoided being raped himself. I have to assume Swiss prison is less dangerous than US. Of course, here he would have most like been in one of the white collar golf course prisons. Perhaps a few days at Rikers Island would be more than enough of a punishment. Basically give him 1 year or first anal rape, what every happens first. Instead he is only one to appear at the Oscars less than Woody Allen.


OK enough retoric. Now for a laugh!!!