70436 stories
·
2 followers

Is Kimmel’s Pratt Assault Start of New Late-Night War?

1 Share

Jimmy Kimmel honored longtime friend Adam Carolla this week, telling the world that their political differences mean nothing in the big picture.

That matters. And, sadly, it’s increasingly rare in our culture.

Good on Jimmy! (And, of course, he teared up in the process)

Kimmel then went out and used his broadcast TV pulpit to slam the man trying to bring sanity back to the City of Angels – Spencer Pratt.

“Jimmy Kimmel Live!” became the first late-night show to take on the upstart candidate head on. It’s surprising that Kimmel and co. have mostly held their fire up until this point.

RELATED: THE FREE SPEECH FIGHT KIMMEL IGNORED

Pratt isn’t a traditional Republican. Nor does he mention ideology when promoting his efforts to replace L.A. Mayor Karen Bass. He still seeks to upend California’s Democratic dominance, and that’s a bridge too far for a progressive activist like Kimmel.

“Then you get a guy who is on a reality show, who’s on a lot of reality shows. His profession is to be the screaming jerk on reality shows, and his house burns down, and even though he had no private insurance on his house and doesn’t believe in climate change, he is understandably upset about his house burning down.”

What does his belief, or lack thereof, in climate change have to do with anything? Climate change didn’t start the fire.

This guy allegedly did.

YouTube Video

“And since he’s a moderately famous person, he gets attention. He’s on the news, he’s on social media, and for the first time in his life, people are agreeing with what he has to say. It’s hard not to agree with what he has to say. He’s angry about the same problems a lot of people here are angry about.”

RELATED: JOHNNY CARSON WARNED US ABOUT JIMMY KIMMEL

OK. So did Mr. Truth to Power say anything about why Pratt is angry, or how local politicians let Angelenos down?

The answer would be, “no.”

“Does he have solutions to those problems? No. But at least he’s acknowledging that they are problems. So, then this angry reality show star, who grew up wealthy and popular and is not very wealthy or popular anymore, really starts to enjoy the attention. He starts to think, ‘You know, I should be mayor.’ Which is a statement that should make everyone laugh. But not everyone is laughing.”

It’s all misdirection and personal attacks. 

There’s a simple way to clear things up. Invite Pratt on your program. Except Kimmel would never do that. He doesn’t air opposing views, let alone engage in fair debate.

Why? He’d be creamed if he did. And, mid-creaming, his audience would say, “hey, Kimmel’s guest has a point.” And Kimmel doesn’t play that way.

Will other talk show hosts follow Kimmel’s lead? Likely.

“The Tonight Show” may hold off, for now. Host Jimmy Fallon is the least partisan liberal on late-night TV, and he may not see a benefit to defending an indefensible politician like Bass.

Expect Seth Meyers, John Oliver and “The Daily Show” to attack Pratt sooner rather than later.

Jon Stewart recently mocked Pratt from a stand-up comedy stage, but he did so without his “Daily Show” team. 

“One fire, one mudslide and you’re like, OK, just let the guy from ‘The Hills’ take over.”

Stewart may have given his late-night peers permission with that remark. Kimmel just took the bait.

Meanwhile, the same late-night hosts let Bass and co. off the hook for more than a year. They ignored her staying in Ghana when the California wildfires broke out and looked the other way as she allegedly downplayed a damning post-action report on the deadly blaze.

YouTube Video

Kimmel might even cry, again, should Pratt stun the state and become L.A.’s next mayor. If so, he might want to ask someone, perhaps Carolla himself, why the results surprised him.

He might get closer to the truth than he’s been in some time.

The post Is Kimmel’s Pratt Assault Start of New Late-Night War? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
3 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Is Music Industry’s Blacklist Worse than Hollywood’s Version?

1 Share

Bruce Springsteen has built an entire tour around one topic.

President Donald Trump.

The Boss is traveling the country to lecture fans on his far-left politics. He insists the president is leading America to ruin, and if you buy his “No Kings” merch it could save the country.

Sadly, he sometimes needs a teleprompter to remind him exactly why he’s so angry.

It’s Springsteen’s right, of course. America allows him to say whatever he’d like to share about the current political scene.

What a country!

Except the music industry doesn’t like free speech, assuming it’s speech that doesn’t align with its collective worldview. Neither does the Modern Left. Both will do whatever it takes to make sure the other side of the political argument isn’t heard.

We’re seeing this in real time. And, to no one’s surprise, Springsteen hasn’t spared a syllable about the problem. Nor will he.

The Great American State Fair, slated to run from June 25 to July 10, promised music from Martina McBride, Young MC, C+C Music Factory, Vanilla Ice, Milli Vanilli, The Commodores, Morris Day & The Time, Flo Rida, Bret Michaels.

The gala promised a grand day of music on the National Mall July 4.

Yet some of the artists teased to appear quickly backtracked once the list went public.

Editor’s Note: It’s a brutal time to be an independent journalist, but it’s never been more necessary given the sorry state of the corporate press. If you’re enjoying Hollywood in Toto, I hope you’ll consider leaving a coin (or two) in our Tip Jar.

A few claimed the event was too political and divisive, citing vague statements to allegedly back up the claim. Others, like Bret Michaels, said violent threats made them quit the tour.

“Concerns have also been raised regarding the safety of my fans, band, crew, family and myself, including threats that are completely unfounded and unforgivable.”

Look past the prepared statements.

This is a pro-America tour designed to honor the country’s 250th birthday. The team behind the event insists it has no formal connection to the Trump White House and isn’t political.

Freedom 250, the nonprofit organizing a bevy of nationwide events to commemorate the U.S. semi-quincentennial, has maintained that the state fair is not affiliated with the White House despite the blowback.

“Freedom 250 is focused on our signature celebrations and events that honor our history and engage all Americans — welcoming all who share our goal of commemorating this milestone in a way that uplifts and unites America,” spokesperson Rachel Reisner told The Hill in a statement.

That’s not 100 percent true. President Trump fueled Freedom 250’s creation to honor the nation’s milestone birthday. A quick glimpse at the group’s web site shows uplifting messaging, tributes to the nation’s founding and other pro-America content.

Is that MAGA, or just patriotism 101?

For the Left, patriotism is coded Right. And anything that could be construed as pro Trump, facts be darned, is beyond the pale.

What if the event did tie back to President Trump, even directly? Would it be a problem if President Barack Obama assembled a concert lineup to honor the nation’s birth?

Would a single artist back out, citing its “divisive” nature or possible security threats?

Of course not. It would never be framed as divisive, and the Right doesn’t do violent threats quite like the modern Left.

Why can’t a sitting U.S. president honor the nation’s birthday? He’s the president of all of us, even if many voted for the other party.

The music industry is decidedly Leftist, a groupthink that’s undeniable. Count the number of artists who raged against Israel over the last two-plus years versus those who spoke out about the ghastly Oct. 7 terror attacks against Israel.

It’s not even close.

Or, consider how most Grammy awards ceremonies hawk DNC talking points and rarely, if ever, support right-leaning causes.

YouTube Video

Today, a singer like Springsteen can weaponize his tour to promote Democrats. Yet if M.I.A. shares right-leaning views from a concert stage, she’s sacked in short order.

Hollywood has been discriminating against conservative actors for years. The evidence is everywhere, and no A-list star will dare speak out against it.

It seems that ideological blacklist extends to the music industry. And it’s far, far worse.

UPDATE: Springsteen, Dave Matthew Band, The Foo Fighters and more just announced a new anti-Trump concert timed to the midterm elections.

You won’t see violent threats meant to stop the gala. Nor will the media ask tough but fair questions to the performers about their far-Left views.

The show will go on, as planned, and that’s good. If only it worked in reverse.

READERS: What artists should join the Freedom 250 gala? Which current superstars represent the country, its fighting spirit and sense of independence?

The post Is Music Industry’s Blacklist Worse than Hollywood’s Version? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
3 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

The Apple Car Is Finally Here

1 Share

Sign up for Ordinary Extraordinary, Ian Bogost’s guide to making everyday life vivid again. You’ll receive the first edition of the limited-run newsletter course in early July.

Transportation has never been a Ferrari’s real purpose. Sure, you can drive one—although not literally you, because you probably can’t afford one. For the few who can, it is an automobile to be seen idling at a stoplight before prancing away, or parked at a luxury-hotel valet stand, inspiring desire and jealousy. For normal people, a Ferrari is a symbol: of power, control, precision, and wealth—but also of the longing for those virtues, and of the idea that they are virtues in the first place. The Ferrari is the quintessential bedroom-poster car, captured in a glossy photo pinned on a wall in a teenage boy’s bedroom like a photo of a scantily clad woman: an unachievable object of desire.

If a Ferrari is an object of spectacle, an Apple device is an object of function. The Apple product, whether it’s a laptop, music player, smartphone, tablet, speaker, or watch, is designed to dissolve into its context and melt into ordinary life. Frictionless, intuitive, and transparent—in its ideal form, an Apple product ceases to feel like an object at all, and instead facilitates an activity. An iPhone or MacBook expresses style, but through minimalism, an aesthetic concerned with vanishing into the background and becoming obedient to intended purpose. This approach to design transformed the traditions of industrial modernism that it had inherited—from Dieter Rams, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Walter Gropius, and others—into an ethos that was demure instead of forward. The best technology would become softened, domesticated, and emotionally deodorized.

[Ian Bogost: Apple is boring now]

The old world of automotive desire and the new one of glass rectangles collided this week, when Ferrari unveiled the Luce, its first electric supercar. The vehicle looks like a Ferrari on the inside but an anonymous lozenge on the outside, a design that some Ferrari fans hate. Does it mean the end of the house of the prancing horse? No. Rather, Ferrari’s first EV is a delightful if wistful marriage that nobody could have predicted. Through this pairing, the Ferrari Luce signals the final victory of the smartphone over the automobile. Nothing aspirational remains that isn’t an expression of the Silicon Valley technology industry.

Although cars remain important in America, they have declined as an expression of identity, replaced partly by online life, where self-expression can go global. Young people don’t care about driving, in part because teenagers aren’t allowed to go anywhere, but also because smartphones made doing so less necessary. Silicon Valley had gone into the transportation business, first with ride-sharing and then with autonomous vehicles. It seemed reasonable that tech companies might play a large role in the future of transit.

From 2014 to 2024, Apple tried and failed to make a car. At first, it was meant to be an actual car, with wheels and everything. Details were scant, but Apple hoped the vehicle could do for the automobile what the iPhone had done for phones—reinvent the category, and with it, the way people lived. Apple hired people from traditional car makers, from Tesla, from battery companies, from autonomous-driving start-ups. Thousands of people worked on the project, code-named Titan, at a reported cost of a billion dollars a year or more.

Apple was in over its head. A car, it turned out, is not like a personal electronic device. Apple tried to pivot Titan to a platform for autonomous driving. But in the end, after a decade, the company gave up. It canceled Project Titan. An Apple automotive future would be left to CarPlay, the software platform that can make your iPhone operate your car stereo and, soon, your climate control and speedometer.

Jony Ive spent nearly three decades at Apple, where he served as chief design officer from 2015 to 2019. He had a hand in nearly every major Apple product from Steve Jobs’s return in the late 1990s through the 2010s—the iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air, Apple Watch, and even Apple Park, the company’s headquarters. Ive reportedly became bored at Apple, and he cut ties with the company in 2022. Now he runs LoveFrom, an industrial-design consultancy.

Ive connects Apple’s legacy with Ferrari’s future. The sports-car company hired LoveFrom to design the Luce, inside and out, giving Ive and Marc Newsom, his LoveFrom partner (and fellow Apple alumnus), freedom to design a wholly new automobile. Car and Driver reported that this newness extended to the car’s form factor, electric motors, batteries, steering wheel, physical controls, and digital displays. The car produces more than 1,000 horsepower and costs $640,000.

Due to its price, the Luce operates mostly as a symbol rather than an automobile, as did all Ferraris before it. Yet the car looks nothing like a Ferrari, or at least nothing like the received idea of a Ferrari. It is a four-door hatchback, a configuration that, though not new for the company, is highly unusual for an Italian supercar. It is also the first Ferrari that seats five, betraying the company’s apparent principle of inutility—a Ferrari is supposed to be excessive instead of useful.

But mostly, the Luce is smooth and rounded, resembling an aerodynamic suppository more than a big-haunched cavallino rampante, the rearing horse that serves as Ferrari’s logo. That design produces performance—a “drag coefficient lower than any prior roadgoing Ferrari,” according to Car and Driver—which helps the car accelerate from zero to 60 miles per hour in about two seconds. But lost in the process is the typical Ferrari style: low, taut, and animalistic, like a machine stretched over the musculature of a ferocious creature.

For this reason, the Luce has produced a backlash. Some “Ferraristi,” The New York Times reported, “are finding it difficult to embrace the Luce’s bubblelike exterior.” The former Ferrari chairman Luca di Montezemolo said, according to The Wall Street Journal, “At least, I hope they take the horse off that car.”

One mocking social-media post depicts the car on its back, with a charger inserted into its underside. The joke refers to the Apple Magic Mouse, whose now-infamous design requires plugging it in upside down while it charges, preventing it from being used. The message: A Jony Ive–designed Ferrari brings an unwelcome Apple-design sensibility to an incompatible product and brand. The Ferrari Luce looks like exactly the sort of car that Apple would have made. Now that the smartphone-car is actually here after more than a decade of anticipation, people aren’t sure they actually want it.

In part, that’s because the whole supercar market has been on the wane for at least a decade. In 2015, when Tesla began delivering the Model X, automobiles had already ceased to be an object of desire. A Tesla could keep pace with a Ferrari or Lamborghini back then, but it did so in a humdrum way, stripped of the carnal passion that had imbued its Italian precursors. No teenager would ever hang a picture of a Tesla on their bedroom wall. Nor, for that matter, the Ferrari Luce.

Some critics accuse dinosaur-burning supercar purists of “petro-masculinity,” a misplaced and retrograde attachment to gasoline combustion and climate-damaging excess. Lamborghini dropped plans for its all-electric supercar, the Lanzador, after concluding that demand for it was “close to zero.” Pagani scrapped an electric version of its multimillion-dollar Huayra on the grounds that EVs “lack the emotion” of internal-combustion cars. Gordon Murray Automotive, led by the designer of the McLaren F1, sold its EV division to focus on V12 gasoline automobiles. Aston Martin, Porsche, and Lotus have also scaled back their electric ambitions.

But as Tesla’s and Ferrari’s examples attest, not to mention the Formula E electric-racing circuit, EVs can be just as—or even more—powerful than gas-burning vehicles. The problem with EVs was never their performance on the road.

Ferrari appears to have realized that electric vehicles are the future, and that pursuing that future demands the reinvention of the supercar itself, as well as the supercar company that makes them. Actually taking that risk by designing the Luce as a production model that will be released rather than scrapped or relegated to concept-car purgatory is worthy of praise.

But that kind of risk taking has consequences—Ferrari’s stock was down as much as 8 percent after the Luce reveal. Even so, a Ferrari was always an out-of-reach toy for the ultrawealthy, and owning such a car let the driver forge new and hazardous paths, much like taking risks in business. Seen in this way, the Luce embraces the symbolic spirit of the supercar better than the V12 Pagani or the Gordon Murray T.50.

[Andrew Moseman: A new kind of hybrid car is about to hit America’s streets]

Ferrari may have realized that its old way of chasing wealth and symbolizing power has ended. Apple, Ive, and their kindred beat it years ago. Lamborghini and Aston Martin might see dying on their own terms as more noble than caving to incompatible values. But Ferrari has steered a more sensible course, which also makes its track appear unexciting and even unprincipled. The company has embraced an important virtue, which is that electric vehicles are the future, even for supercars, and embracing that aspiration at the top of the market will help adoption trickle down to the bottom.

Silicon Valley still sees risk in business as a virtue, but its successful industrialists seem to value utility, simplicity, and intelligence over ornament or conspicuous luxury. That ethos is consonant with the design sensibility that pervades the sector. The minimalist principles that Ive brought to Apple became doctrine in the tech industry. Technology was deemed good if it was smooth, quiet, seamless, and emotionally reassuring. Like the Bauhaus and International Style that influenced it, monochromatic, high-tech minimalism is anonymous and somewhat generic, and its capacity to operate anywhere contributes to its ability to scale globally. Ostentation and idiosyncrasy—of the kind that a traditional Ferrari represents—never had much place at Ive’s Apple. Instead, technology was meant to disappear, to conceal complexity, to deliver emotional calm, and above all to present itself as inevitable.

This most famous of Italian-sports-car makers may have realized a more practical truth as well: The tech sector’s ultrawealthy are one of the only markets left for a Ferrari anyway.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
3 minutes ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

‘Daily Show’ Host Justifies Violence Against Trump?

1 Share

Late-night TV has never been this dark or angry.

We saw it with the just-canceled “Late Show,” where host Stephen Colbert raged against President Donald Trump with a mix of Fake News and DNC talking points.

YouTube Video

“Saturday Night Live” peddles assassination gags to its cheering throng.

“Jimmy Kimmel Live!” saw its host holding up a T-shirt that read, “Donald Trump Is Going to Kill You.” That same show yukked it up over violent attacks on Tesla dealerships and staffers crushing on alleged murderers.

Dark. Angry. Ugly.

Irresponsible.

Now, a regular host on “The Daily Show” is joining the melee. 

Host Josh Johnson weighed in on both threats against President Trump and the nation’s healthcare system on the “Talk Easy with Sam Fragoso” podcast.

The two don’t seem to go together, but Johnson forced the issue during the ghoulish chat.

How?

The far-Left comic attempted to rationalize why anyone would pick up arms to eliminate Trump. We’ve already seen three attempts to do just that.

RELATED: LATE NIGHT HACKS ON LA RIOTS: ‘RIOTS? WHAT RIOTS?

Even worse?

The interview debuted after yet another gunman stalked the White House. This time, the man in question sprayed the property with bullets before Secret Service agents took him down.

YouTube Video

For Johnson, the ends may justify the means.

“I think that there has been a co-opting of non-violence to the point of almost being a psyop,” Johnson said. “You can only take away so much from a person before they have no options left, other than to scream in the street — sort of riot or something like that … Or before they pinpoint certain individuals that they see as the perpetrators of all these crimes against making a way of life.”

How else can one read those words than a justification of violence or, at the very least, violent protests?

Johnson wasn’t done.

“You shouldn’t have to earn the right to live … When people, of no fault of their own, get sick and they can’t afford whatever this astronomical bill is, and then they get on the hook for this bill for their care…”

“But then the insurance company is over here side-stepping them left and right, putting them on hold for three days or putting them in a circle of reasoning around paperwork until they die anyway, it’s like, that’s not considered violence by us.”

Those comments ignore a massive elephant in the room. The current health care mess we’re in is based, in large part, on ObamaCare, President Barack Obama’s “signature” achievement.

Prices have soared since the Democrats pushed that legislation over the finish line without a single GOP vote but plenty of gaslighting. Remember, “If you like your health plan, you can keep it?” 

AKA the PolitiFact Lie of the Year.

Now, Johnson didn’t share these views from “The Daily Show” pulpit. It’s still a chilling perspective for any mainstream media comedian to share.

Will he expound upon those views from his Comedy Central perch? Or will the cable channel realize those kinds of comments are deeply irresponsible, at best?

The post ‘Daily Show’ Host Justifies Violence Against Trump? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
2 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Does Demand Create Supply?

1 Share
Mainstream economists believe that if government increases spending and injects new money into the economy, then productive wealth will follow. Austrian economists would like to differ.
Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
4 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Liberal Economists Score an Own Goal Against Bezos

1 Share

Jeff Bezos tweeted:

Yes, the United States has the most progressive tax system in the world. The top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes. We can make it even more progressive by zeroing out taxes on the bottom half. It’s a small amount of the total tax revenue but very meaningful to people in this group.

Strangely, a chorus of liberal economists rushed to attack Bezos. Gabriel Zucman replied:

Contrary to what you claim, working-class people contribute significantly to funding American society today. Payroll taxes and consumption taxes absorb a high fraction of their income.

Justin Wolfers piled on:

If you only count the progressive taxes the U.S. levies, then the U.S. system is quite progressive. But if you also count regressive taxes (payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc), it’s not very progressive.

Bezos called for cutting taxes on the bottom half to make the tax system more progressive and the redistributionists came out swinging–to argue he was wrong about how progressive the current system already is. Own goal. Heretics are worse than unbelievers.

But there’s a second, more interesting thing going on. To make the regressivity case, Zucman and Wolfers have to count payroll payments as taxes. That cuts directly against eighty years of liberal doctrine. Beginning with FDR, the argument on the liberal side has always been that payroll taxes are not taxes but contributions or premiums entitling the payer to benefits as an “earned right.” Here’s FDR to Luther Gulick in 1941:

We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.

That framing isn’t a historical curiosity. It runs straight through liberal social security stalwarts like Arthur Altmeyer, Wilbur Cohen, and Robert Ball, and it’s alive today in Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson’s Social Security Works!, which attacks billionaires and insists Social Security benefits are “earned compensation.” The whole political durability of the program–the third rail–rests on this framing.

So the modern left wants it both ways. When the question is whether to cut Social Security, FICA is a premium and benefits are earned compensation. When the question is whether the tax system is progressive, FICA is suddenly a regressive tax. Pick a lane.

Is there a principled way to resolve this? Yes, and it follows Jim Buchanan (see my earlier post here) and Larry Summers who laid out the economics in his classic paper Some Simple Economics of Mandated Benefits. The principled test is whether a payment reduces labor supply. The wedge between marginal product and the worker’s reservation wage isn’t the statutory rate–it’s the gap between the mandated payment and the worker’s marginal benefit. Sylvain Catherine made exactly this point in reply to Wolfers:

Payroll taxes are not regressive! They are mandatory contributions to a retirement system that offers higher rates of returns at the bottom than at the top.

Consider a forced savings program: everyone must pay 12.4% of income into a 401(k). Is this a tax? For someone who was going to save 15% anyway, not at all. For someone who was going to save 10%, only the extra 2.4% bites. Mandatory does not mean tax. The marginal valuation of the mandated benefit is the key.

Now apply this to the two payroll taxes.

Medicare (HI): Every marginal dollar buys zero marginal benefit. Thus, it’s a tax. Part A eligibility is binary–40 quarters gets you in–and once in, your benefit is whatever Medicare spends on your care. No relationship on the margin. (Moreover, the raw HI schedule is unambiguously progressive: 2.9% flat, rising to 3.8% above $200K/$250K thresholds, plus the NIIT.)

Social Security (OASDI): The 90/32/15 Primary Insurance Amount bend points mean a low earner gets a much better return than a high earner. So the gross statutory rate is flat-then-regressive; but the net rate is progressive. In short, OASDI isn’t a tax for low earners but it is a tax for higher earners, thus the tax is progressive.

So: HI is a progressive tax. OASDI is a contribution at the bottom and a tax at the top. Either way, the Zucman-Wolfers framing—payroll payments as straightforward regressive taxes—is wrong and rhetorically it abandons the framing the left has spent eighty years building to protect these programs.

Personally, I’d prefer a system truer to the old rhetoric–a forced savings program with a closer connection between marginal payments and benefits. But if the left wants to reframe Social Security contributions as taxes, and thus make Social Security all about redistribution to the poor, rather than a wise savings program, roll the dice. Just remember that Altmeyer, Cohen, and Ball spent decades building the “earned right” framing precisely because they understood it was the program’s structural defense against means-testing and privatization. Drop the framing and you drop the defense. I suspect the privatizers at AEI and Cato will happily take that trade but the left may come to regret making it for them.

The post Liberal Economists Score an Own Goal Against Bezos appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
4 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories