Tag Archives: Golden Globes

Should awards shows become political events?

Variety magazine poses a question that is giving me fits, but I have reached a conclusion.

It asks whether televised awards shows that honor entertainers should become a forum for honorees to spout their political views.

I think not.

The Emmys, Screen Actors Guild and Golden Globes ceremonies have been most memorable for the political speeches that actors and others in the entertainment industry deliver while accepting their trophies.

Are their opinions of some value? Sure they are. Are these ceremonies the place for them to make those views known to the entire world? I don’t believe so.

I have long believed in the “There’s a time and place for everything” theory. I have this admittedly old-fashioned view that awards ceremonies are intended solely to honor those who get paid lots of money to, um, entertain us. That is why I watch them — on the rare occasion that I do.

Free speech is great, however . . .

You may spare me the rebuttal about “freedom of speech,” and “First Amendment guarantees” and this being a “free country.” Believe me, I get all of that. I understand the argument in favor of those who want entertainers to deliver us their political views on the issues of the day.

I also am acutely aware of the entertainment industry’s left-leaning bias. These folks, to be candid, are preaching to the choir if they are talking to me. I share their bias. Thus, I don’t need to hear points of view that merely affirm what I already believe.

All I want from entertainers is for them to perform up to the standards we all expect of them. Whether they think badly of the president of the United States or of certain members of Congress or of governors of certain states is irrelevant.

Good grief! We’re inundated with opinion 24/7 on cable TV shows, in various publications, and in blogs — such as this one.

Entertainment awards ceremonies need not be a forum to feed me more of the same.

This just in: Oprah won’t run in 2020

This “scoop” comes from a member of my family: “You don’t need to worry about Oprah running for president; she isn’t going to do it.”

There you have it. Why? Because Oprah Winfrey isn’t going to give up being the world’s most powerful and revered woman. She isn’t going to expose herself to the denigration that would await her if she were to run against Donald John “Stable Genius” Trump Sr.

She won’t “lower herself” to Trump’s level, my family member said.

So, is that what will happen? I’m inclined to believe the assessment I have received.

I am no expert. I am no soothsayer. I cannot predict what celebrities will do. I once said publicly that former first lady Hillary Clinton wouldn’t run for the U.S. Senate in 2000. Wrong!

Winfrey brought ’em to their feet at the Golden Globes show this past weekend. She roared that “a new day is on the horizon!” Women no longer will be intimidated, shamed, abused, assaulted by men, she said. Hmm. Did she have anyone in mind? Oh, wait! Maybe it’s the president of the United States!

But … my family member believes Oprah won’t enter the 2020 presidential contest.

“She’ll go to her grave with her incredible wealth and reputation intact,” she said.

I’m good with that.

Get a clue, Ivanka

First, I will stipulate that I do not subscribe to the statement attributed to former White House strategist Stephen Bannon in the “Fire and Fury” book that Ivanka Trump is “dumb as a brick.”

The first daughter, though, seems to be tone deaf. Politically, that is.

Oprah Winfrey got the Golden Globes crowd all worked up Sunday night with that speech in which she declared to women around the nation that a “new day is on the horizon!”

Ivanka then weighed in with a tweet that endorsed Winfrey’s “empowering and inspiring” speech.

Uhh, oops!

The speech was seen by many as a first shot in the 2020 presidential campaign. Oprah might be considering a run for president against, um, Ivanka’s father, Donald Trump Sr., the president of the United States.

Here is where I’ll note that Ivanka stood by Dad when those women came forward to accuse him of sexual abuse, assault, harassment. She has said in public that the president is women’s most powerful ally; Ivanka has drawn scorn for saying that, too.

Now she endorses Oprah’s speech and the “Me Too” movement, while standing by her father?

Ivanka isn’t “dumb as a brick.” She does need re-calibrate her political antennae.

Oprah in 2020? Umm, no thank you

Oprah Winfrey has just elevated herself into the discussion of possible presidential candidates for 2020.

I want to douse this notion with a tanker full of cold water.

Do not do this, Oprah!

The talk-show queen/billionaire businesswoman/partisan activist brought the house down Sunday night at the Golden Globe award ceremony. No more “me too!” she bellowed. Men who abuse women no longer will be tolerated, she exclaimed. Their time is up, she said.

Some pundits suggest that was the start of her campaign for president. I am presuming she would run as a Democrat.

Pleeeaase! No!

The United States of America already has elected someone with zero political experience. Donald Trump parlayed a successful real estate career into a successful reality TV show, when then led to his successful presidential campaign in 2016. He has spent his entire professional life for one purpose only: personal enrichment. He has succeeded. Trump then managed to persuade enough voters in battleground states that he was the man for the job.

Trump has demonstrated what we’ve all thought, which is that “anyone can be elected president.” I do not want just anyone to hold the nation’s highest, most exalted public office.

I am kind of old-fashioned in this regard. I want my president to take office with at least some semblance of government/public service experience. Trump had none of it. His lack of government experience — let alone knowledge of government– has been shown repeatedly during his first year in office.

What in the world does Oprah Winfrey bring to this discussion? Nothing of substance. Not a single thing.

She is an iconic figure to millions of Americans. Winfrey didn’t inherit any of her parents’ money to get started. She worked her way to uber-wealthy status on her own. She was abused as a girl. She came from poverty. Winfrey is a commendable celebrity.

However, she is a celebrity. Winfrey stands on a platform from which she can bring change. She is no more qualified than Donald J. Trump to become commander in chief, the head of state, head of government and leader of the Free World.

One more time: Don’t run for president, Oprah.

Yes, Donald, you ‘mocked’ the NY Times reporter

I awoke this morning to news that the great actor Meryl Streep tore Donald J. Trump a new one at the Golden Globes awards ceremony.

She called him a bully and some other fitting epithets. I don’t want to comment specifically on the totality of her comments, but I do want to offer a brief critique of part of the president-elect’s tweet-storm response.

He said “for the 100th time” he didn’t mock a New York Times reporter’s physical disability while delivering a campaign-rally speech en route to his election as president.

Actually, Mr. President-elect, you did mock Serge Kovaleski, who suffers from a debilitating muscular disease that inhibits his arm movements. It was a disgusting and disgraceful exhibition of childish petulance the likes of which many of us never have seen coming from a major-party presidential nominee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/movies/trump-meryl-streep-golden-globes-speech.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

For Trump to suggest — as if we’re all a bunch of rubes — that he merely was showing how the reporter was ” … ‘groveling’ when he totally changed a 16 year old story that he had written in order to make me look bad. Just more very dishonest media!”

Trump said he “would never do that,” meaning mock someone in such a hideous manner.

Actually, I believe he would. And I also believe he did!