Charlie Sheen: Hero of the hour?

As you have undoubtedly heard, Charlie Sheen's live shows didn't go over so well over the weekend. Practicing alcoholics are never as funny as they think they are, in the long haul. With editing, yes. For a whole show, no. From ABC:

After all but getting booed off stage at the Detroit, Mich. debut of his live show, "My Violent Torpedo of Truth/Defeat Is Not an Option," it's unclear if or how Sheen's month-long tour will proceed.

Anticipation ran high for the event. Ticket holders milled about the Fox Theater in downtown Detroit before the 8 p.m. start time, sometimes yelling Sheen catchphrases like "tiger blood" and "winning" to rev up fellow attendees. As of Saturday afternoon, all 4,700 seats at the theater had been sold.

...

Sheen managed to up the crowd's enthusiasm for the start of his act. Before his official debut, he played a montage of video clips including scenes from "Apocalypse Now," the film starring Sheen's father that Sheen claims to be obsessed with. He then strutted on stage with his "goddesses," Bree Olsen and Natalie Kenly, who proceeded to engage in a passionate kiss, much to the delight of the crowd.

They then went backstage to burn a bowling shirt similar to the one Sheen wore on "Two and a Half Men." While footage of the shirt on fire in a garbage can played on the big screen behind him, Sheen urged the crowd to hold up their lighters, asking, "Doesn't anyone smoke cigarettes anymore?"

The spectacle mirrored the ranting and raving Sheen's done online and in interviews over the past few weeks. But after that, things took a turn for the weird.

Sheen stood at a podium in front of a pseudo-presidential looking seal saying "Warlock States of Sheen" and launched into a nonsensical speech seemingly directed at his critics.

He started, "Tonight I am delivered by cyber cloud, with the stomp and glisten of heaven's produce section." He then talked about burning something "down from the mount of olive" and "gasoline rainbows." He frequently damned "trolls" -- presumably, "Two and a Half Men" creator Chuck Lorre and his former bosses at CBS and Warner Brothers. He called Sarah Palin a "whore" for no apparent reason.

No apparent reason? Of course there is an apparent reason, that you media-swine refuse to take seriously: He's a misogynist pig.

The fact that so many people find his woman-hating amusing and worth celebrating, lets us know exactly how far we have to go.

Anna Holmes' piece in the New York Times, linked above, details all the woman-pounding Charlie has humorously engaged in over the years. And as a rich, privileged white man, he gets by with all of it (paging Chris Brown! Chris Brown, call your office)... and of course, since so many of the women getting pounded are mere actresses, models and sex workers, they 'deserve' it:

A woman’s active embrace of the fame monster or participation in the sex industry, we seem to say, means that she compromises her right not to be assaulted, let alone humiliated, insulted or degraded; it’s part of the deal. The promise of a modern Cinderella ending — attention, fame, the love and savings account of a rich man — is always the assumed goal.

Objectification and abuse, it follows, is not only an accepted occupational hazard for certain women, but something that men like Mr. Sheen have earned the right to indulge in. (Mr. Sheen reportedly once said that he didn’t pay prostitutes for the sex; he paid them “to leave.”)

Haha, ain't that funny? Is he serious or joking?--go the predictable onlooker-comments... ohhh, he's just being funny. Actually, I think he means everything he says, and he has repeatedly proven that he is willing to back it up with a nice right to the jaw, if any nearby female should argue.

Indeed, it’s difficult for many to discern any difference between Mr. Sheen’s real-life, round-the-clock, recorded outbursts and the sexist narratives devised by reality television producers, in which women are routinely portrayed as backstabbing floozies, and dreadful behavior by males is explained away as a side effect of unbridled passion or too much pilsner.

And so, a pricey live show-tour by a woman-hater, or should I say ANOTHER woman-hater (there are oodles of rock stars and hip-hop stars and country-and-western stars who have gotten plenty rich off of women-hating... paging Eminem! paging Ted Nugent! etc) ... and then I see Phyllis Schlafly (barfs for emphasis) on C-Span over the weekend, telling us that feminism is over with and no longer necessary, and what are these harridans and harpies still so pissed off about?

One wonders if she has flipped her channels lately, over to ABC (live video of Charlie at above link) or to the millions of other outlets that have advertised Charlie's zealously-sexist antics over recent months. Hello? What planet is Schlafly on?

They deserve each other, most assuredly.

Haley Watch 3-31-11

At left: Nikki Haley's recent photo in the New York Times magazine.

~*~

Our governor, GOP rising star, continues to bedazzle the nationwide press. Lots of local jabs about the widely-discussed NYT-magazine story (including several from your humble narrator), asking why she won't talk to South Carolina media, but prefers to go national, where she is gushed-over nonstop.

It's a little hard to take.

On the local front, Haley's interesting former gig at Lexington Medical Hospital inspires some impressive old-style investigative sleuthing by Robert Kittle of WSPA in Spartanburg:

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Gov. Nikki Haley says she was only doing the same thing every other member of the Lexington County legislative delegation was doing in pushing for a heart center at Lexington Medical Center, not doing something special for her employer.

While Haley was a state representative, she was hired as a fundraiser for the Lexington Medical Center Foundation. The hospital was trying to get state approval from the Department of Health and Environmental Control to start a heart center.

Emails between Haley and her boss, Lexington Medical CEO Mike Biediger, raise the question of whether Haley was using her position as a lawmaker to try to influence the DHEC vote.

And specifically, Haley's 2008 online job application has raised all kinds of red flags.

She also addressed questions about her application and pay for that job. Her application lists her salary at her parents' clothing store as $125,000 a year, but her tax return for that year shows she made only $22,000.

She says she never put $125,000 on the application and never told anyone that she made that much. While another part of the application has her signature, the part that has her salary history has only her typed name.

But the hospital says it would be difficult for someone else to have added that because they would have to know her work and salary history, Social Security number and other personal information to be able to access the online application. There would also be a password or security question.

Gov. Haley said Monday, "There was no password. The password was where I graduated from high school."

Lexington Medical Center's heart center was eventually approved in 2010.

Hmmmmmm.

From FitsNews, the conservative blog that still isn't having any:

Haley – or a mysterious job application “phantom” – listed her 2007 income at Exotica International (the clothing store run by her parents) at $125,000 and requested that the hospital pay her this same amount. The only problem with Haley’s alleged income declaration? According to federal tax returns – which the Republican candidate belatedly released during the 2010 gubernatorial race – she only reported earning $22,000 from Exotica in 2007.

Haley has repeatedly denied that she filled out the application or provided the $125,000 figure – which she insists is inaccurate. However, the hospital has said it did not alter the submission. In fact, the online resume service that the hospital uses only permits its staff members to view, print or forward the application information.

A hospital spokesperson also told to The (Columbia, S.C.) State newspaper that anyone fraudulently filling out the application “would have had to know (Haley’s) social security number, address, job history, past supervisors, job duties, education and other details.”

The plot thickens.

Will any of this lying duplicity catch up with our popular Tea Party heroine? Will that fawning national press finally turn on her when it is discovered she has never had a real job? Or will that just make her more incredibly wonderful in their eyes: Wow, she was elected governor without ever having a REAL JOB! Is that awesome or what?

As always, stay tuned, sports fans.

Haley the Comet

Nikki Haley photo is from the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE. (Too bad she won't talk to any press in the state where she is actually the GOVERNOR, huh?)

~*~

The New York Times magazine has just named our governor Nikki Haley, "The Comet"--now is that cute or what?

The State newspaper in Columbia writes:

Haley, South Carolina’s Republican governor of one month and a GOP rising star, is the interview subject in today’s New York Times Magazine. (Last week, ABC’s “This Week.” This week, the NYT. Who knows, maybe after she runs out of national mainstream media, which she loves to rip, the governor might speak to the S.C. press that serves her constituents.)

I guess me and Michael Ulmer aren't the only people who have noticed that.

Since everyone is so bedazzled by her on a national scale, maybe she will do a Palin... serve a scant couple of years and GO AWAY. Certainly, I wouldn't argue.

Here is the NYT-mag softball-interview. My favorite quotes:

NYT: You’re said to be incredibly competitive. Outside politics, how does this manifest itself?

Haley: Ask my kids. When we have basketball tournaments, I am the basketball queen. When we play the Wii, I am the bowling queen. And I will forever say that I am the Putt-Putt queen.

NYT: How do you react when you lose?

Haley: I don’t lose, so I don’t have to worry about that.



Them big-city slickers can hardly contain themselves, people. ((rolls eyes)))

Does Arianna really need the money?

Another great one via Yellowdog Granny!



NPR asks a question I am also asked from time to time: Is Writing Online Without Pay Worth It? I usually answer, well, is listening to music worth it? Is TV worth it? Are movies worth it? Is any form of entertainment "worth it"? Obviously, the intrinsic "worth" of these activities depends on who you are and what you enjoy. And let's face it, if one enjoys writing, we are basically entertaining ourselves by blogging. It's very nice to have readers and to feel appreciated, but many of us would do it even if we didn't have any (and have gone for long periods with negligible numbers of readers/feedback).

My late mother, a singer, used to tell me that the world was filled with good singers and good writers, so get used to it. She was right, and I have.

But the NPR piece pointedly reminds us who benefits from our work, for whatever reasons we decide to do it (hint: not us):

Last week, AOL agreed to buy The Huffington Post for $315 million. The sale will undoubtedly make some people rich.

But David Carr, the media columnist for The New York Times, posed this observation in his column on Monday: "The funny thing about all these frothy millions and billions piling up? Most of the value was created by people working free."

Thousands of unpaid writers' work fills the Internet — on websites and social networking platforms.

"As we all twitter away and type away and update our Facebooks, we're creating the coal that sort of fires this oven," Carr tells NPR host Renee Montagne. "And they continue to own the land."

Aye, that's kinda brutal.

What to do?

Sree Sreenivasan tells Renee Montagne of NPR that the important thing in the ongoing media-upheaval is to "stand out":

In a very crowded Internet space where there's so many voices, I think the voices that have some specific point of view, as well as, you know, a reputation that they've built online or elsewhere are going to stand out. And this is - can be a development seen for better or for worse, but that's the situation. So you're seeing that the importance of being able to standout among many, many voices, commentary is one way to go.

I suppose so, but as many of you already realize (since you are on the net reading blogs, and you are here reading mine)--any fool can "stand out"--and some online folks have sold their souls to "stand out" as surely as any rock star ever did. Bloggers traffic in eyeball-time and numbers of page-views/hits, and if an ugly brawl or something dirty brings the traffic? Well, who cares, it's still traffic and it still translates into popularity.

My question is, who is going to do the "real" journalism? Meaning, who will "pound the pavement" and do all that is necessary (and time-consuming) to bring us FACTS and news stories from "on the scene"? Many bloggers try hard and perform splendidly, but simply don't have the resources and/or connections to follow stories around as a paid journalist can.

And why IS mainstream journalism on the skids? What is it about commentary that is so intoxicating to us, vs those boring old 'facts'? Are 'facts' in jeopardy, as a result?

Is it going to be harder and harder to find out what is REALLY going on? Will there be more and more words (from bloggers and TV-busybodies) spilled over fewer and fewer available facts?

What do you think?