Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn another. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn another. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Năm, 23 tháng 2, 2012

Could $100 million buy Newt Gingrich another chance?

Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is doubling down on Newt's floundering campaign, and might even pony up $100 million. Is that a losing bet? Though most political observers are counting Newt Gingrich out of the 2012 presidential race, billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is keeping the faith, and then some. Earlier this year, Adelson gave $5 million to a Gingrich-aligned super PAC, then another $5 million, almost single-handedly reviving Gingrich's campaign after back-to-back embarrassments in Iowa and New Hampshire. Now, not only is  Adelson, 78, reportedly pumping another $10 million into Gingrich's camp to get him through March 6's Super Tuesday elections, he tells Forbes that he still "might give... $100 million to Gingrich." While that seems like an awful lot, it's still just a fraction of Adelman's $25 billion fortune, notes Forbes' Steven Bertoni. Would even this unprecedented individual political donation be enough to revive Gingrich's presidential campaign?

This cash could resurrect Newt: Gingrich has already seen "more comebacks this Republican presidential primary season than anyone can remember," says Karyn McDermott at Examiner. And none other than Rush Limbaugh is predicting another rebound for Newt. "Conventional political punditry and wisdom have Newt looking good in the South," and if Adelson keeps writing multi-million-dollar checks, there's no reason Gingrich can't go all the way to the Republican convention.
"Newt: Lazarus with a triple bypass?"

But Adelson's millions come with strings: The $100 million pledge is "an attention-grabbing statement, but a largely meaningless one," at least for Newt, says Marc Tracy at The Tablet. Adelson is "loyal to his friend Gingrich, but is ultimately concerned with unseating the president." It's likely Adelson won't put his donations toward Newt's negative attack ads against fellow Republicans, severely limiting Gingrich's options to get back in the race. The most likely scenario? Adelson reserves his largess for the eventual GOP nominee.
"Adelson may keep giving to Gingrich"

And Newt is still a losing bet: "Gingrich's chances of being anything more than a spoiler are long gone," says Jonathan Bernstein at The Washington Post. But thanks to these new "vanity super PACs," Adelson can keep Newt's "dying campaign afloat just because he wants to." That's dangerous for the GOP. The modern nominating system "depends on losers dropping out fairly early in the process," which happens naturally when donors only give to winning candidates. An Adelson-financed zombie Newt can only eat his own party.
"Are billionaires disrupting the presidential campaign?"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Charlie Sheen vs. Ashton Kutcher: Another 'verbal rampage'

Sheen offers a fresh glimpse of the erratic behavior that got him kicked off Two and a Half Men. Is this a bad sign for his new show, Anger Management? Charlie Sheen has been working hard to repair his image since his epic, tiger-blood-fueled meltdown last year. But now, just as his new sitcom, Anger Management, is going into production for an initial 10-episode run on FX, Sheen is flying off the handle again, lashing out at his old show, Two and a Half Men, and its new star, Ashton Kutcher. Here's what you should know:

What exactly did Sheen say?
"I'm tired of lying," Sheen told TMZ Live last week. "I'm tired of pretending [Men] doesn't suck." Of Kutcher, the actor called in to replace him, Sheen said: "I'm tired of pretending Ashton doesn't suck... It's nothing personal ... I just feel bad for him ... He's saddled with such bad writing." That's the Charlie Sheen we all know and avoid, says Lanford Beard at Entertainment Weekly. "After demonstrating contrition at last September's Emmys and keeping relatively quiet throughout the fall, it appears Sheen couldn't hold his tongue anymore."

SEE MORE: 'I'm not crazy anymore': 4 ways Charlie Sheen says he's changed

Did he apologize to Kutcher?
Sheen has apparently had second thoughts, posting a note on his website, saying: "Dear Ashton — My bad. I was disrespectful to a man doing his best. I got excited and threw you into a crossfire. The rest of my statement I stand behind. You, however, deserve better. Safety in your travels good sir." The letter was signed in the name of Sheen's now-deceased Men character, Charlie Harper.

What triggered the outburst?
Sheen had apparently been using old Two and a Half Men publicity photos to promote his new series, and Warner Bros. sent him a cease and desist letter. Sheen called in to TMZ Live to discuss the matter — reminiscent of his numerous wild calls to radio shows during last year's meltdown. The exchange quickly devolved in a slew of attacks on his old show.

Won't this kind of rant hurt Sheen's new show?
"There is no such thing as bad publicity, they say, and a new show needs all the attention it can get," says Nellie Andreeva at Deadline. Still, this is precisely the kind of "verbal rampage" that made Sheen toxic last year; FX and Anger Management producer Lionsgate TV can't be thrilled. Maybe, but Two and a Half Men might incur more of the damage, says Penn Collins at Screen Junkies. "When Charlie Sheen is calling you 'adrift'... it's probably high time for some serious introspection." Maybe this will blow over, says Kimberley Ripley at Gather. Sheen's apology to Kutcher means that, unlike last year, he's capable of feeling at least a "fleeting moment" of shame. "The old Charlie would have stuck to his guns."

Sources: Deadline, Entertainment Weekly, Gather, Screen Junkies

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 13 tháng 2, 2012

Another Fleeting Failure For NBC

Super Bowl XLVI was a good football game, marred once again by the bohemian elite at NBC. NBC could have prevented, but failed to stop, the broadcast of a female rapper "flipping the bird" at 114 million viewers during Madonna's halftime show. It was another "fleeting expletive" of the hand-gesture variety, and somehow, despite elaborate rehearsals, no one at NBC could seem to stop it.

The same network skillfully edited God out of a clip of children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance during last year's U.S. Open golf tournament.

As usual, and just as CBS did with Janet Jackson, NBC tried to shift the blame in a statement, declaring that "the NFL hired the talent and produced" the show. As usual, the NFL statement stressed a "failure in NBC's delay system" and characterized the gesture as "completely inappropriate" and "very disappointing" and "obscene." (The Hollywood Reporter added the NFL apparently dropped out the "obscene" part under pressure from NBC, which doesn't want FCC attention for this prank witnessed by untold millions of children.)

The offender is a 36-year-old British rap "artist" who calls herself "M.I.A." — which is easier to say than her real Sri Lankan name, Mathangi Arulpragasam. The next morning on NBC, "Today" host Kathie Lee Gifford spoke for most of America: "I'd never heard of her before, but that's not unusual for me."

That's exactly how rebellious rappers make names for themselves. While she was launching the obscene gesture, she was rapping, "I'm-a say this once, yeah I don't give a (S-word)." That's in the newly recorded Madonna song they were performing ("Give Me All Your Luvin'"), and it's also in the video. How does NBC not prepare for a bleep and a camera shift when it knows it's coming?

At 53, Madonna's a little old to pull this stunt herself. She promised the press beforehand there would be no "wardrobe malfunctions" — and we were all relieved. There was an unmistakably musty grandma smell in her aging act, which she tried to overcome by bringing in female rappers M.I.A. and Nicki Minaj. They acted as her hired cheerleaders in her song, chanting "L.U.V. Madonna" in the background.

As usual, and just as Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake declared, M.I.A.'s camp claimed the gesture was "not premeditated" and did not occur in rehearsals. (In the Madonna video, she points her fingers like a gun.) They asserted, "She got caught up in the moment." It absolutely, positively wasn't a publicity stunt to make an obscure backup the biggest name in the headlines during the most watched Super Bowl in history. Sure.

Although the NFL foots the bill to produce the halftime show, the league does not pay performers, since the massive exposure is enough reward. But artists do sign decency clauses, according to an NFL publicist, who added that the league is "exploring all of our options." That's publicist lingo for "hoping it just goes away."

As usual, they had help from the so-what crowd. The media reprised Twitter defenders with messages like "I don't know any intelligent person who actually cares."

But the prize for audacity goes to a goofball named Scott Creney at the appropriately named website Collapse Board: "Well first of all, if America gets to drop (bleep) loads of bombs all over innocent brown-skinned people whenever we feel like it, exploit third-world economies for our own profit and luxury, and inflict the Red Hot Chili Peppers on the world, then I think the U.S. deserves a middle-finger raised in its direction once in a while. And I say this as an American."

He recommended everyone read The New Yorker, which is somehow branded as a class act. Their music critic Sasha Frere-Jones proclaimed that M.I.A. should not have apologized. "The outrage is tiresome and deeply hypocritical...Fine, it may not be legal to flip the bird on television, but that's simply a remnant of the fifties we haven't shaken." He said he raised both his middle fingers instead at the Parents Television Council for being offended. "I say we get out of The Pretending To Be Moral game altogether," he concluded.

He tried to be offended instead that the Super Bowl show featured "ad after ad that likened women — negatively — to sofas, cars and candy." He raised his middle fingers to "anyone who thinks profanity is somehow more harmful to our children than images of violence and misogyny."

As usual, if NBC had made a serious attempt to employ its otherwise meaningless 7-second delay technology, none of this would have happened.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 10 tháng 2, 2012

Another Fleeting Failure For NBC

Super Bowl XLVI was a good football game, marred once again by the bohemian elite at NBC. NBC could have prevented, but failed to stop, the broadcast of a female rapper "flipping the bird" at 114 million viewers during Madonna's halftime show. It was another "fleeting expletive" of the hand-gesture variety, and somehow, despite elaborate rehearsals, no one at NBC could seem to stop it.

The same network skillfully edited God out of a clip of children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance during last year's U.S. Open golf tournament.

As usual, and just as CBS did with Janet Jackson, NBC tried to shift the blame in a statement, declaring that "the NFL hired the talent and produced" the show. As usual, the NFL statement stressed a "failure in NBC's delay system" and characterized the gesture as "completely inappropriate" and "very disappointing" and "obscene." (The Hollywood Reporter added the NFL apparently dropped out the "obscene" part under pressure from NBC, which doesn't want FCC attention for this prank witnessed by untold millions of children.)

The offender is a 36-year-old British rap "artist" who calls herself "M.I.A." — which is easier to say than her real Sri Lankan name, Mathangi Arulpragasam. The next morning on NBC, "Today" host Kathie Lee Gifford spoke for most of America: "I'd never heard of her before, but that's not unusual for me."

That's exactly how rebellious rappers make names for themselves. While she was launching the obscene gesture, she was rapping, "I'm-a say this once, yeah I don't give a (S-word)." That's in the newly recorded Madonna song they were performing ("Give Me All Your Luvin'"), and it's also in the video. How does NBC not prepare for a bleep and a camera shift when it knows it's coming?

At 53, Madonna's a little old to pull this stunt herself. She promised the press beforehand there would be no "wardrobe malfunctions" — and we were all relieved. There was an unmistakably musty grandma smell in her aging act, which she tried to overcome by bringing in female rappers M.I.A. and Nicki Minaj. They acted as her hired cheerleaders in her song, chanting "L.U.V. Madonna" in the background.

As usual, and just as Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake declared, M.I.A.'s camp claimed the gesture was "not premeditated" and did not occur in rehearsals. (In the Madonna video, she points her fingers like a gun.) They asserted, "She got caught up in the moment." It absolutely, positively wasn't a publicity stunt to make an obscure backup the biggest name in the headlines during the most watched Super Bowl in history. Sure.

Although the NFL foots the bill to produce the halftime show, the league does not pay performers, since the massive exposure is enough reward. But artists do sign decency clauses, according to an NFL publicist, who added that the league is "exploring all of our options." That's publicist lingo for "hoping it just goes away."

As usual, they had help from the so-what crowd. The media reprised Twitter defenders with messages like "I don't know any intelligent person who actually cares."

But the prize for audacity goes to a goofball named Scott Creney at the appropriately named website Collapse Board: "Well first of all, if America gets to drop (bleep) loads of bombs all over innocent brown-skinned people whenever we feel like it, exploit third-world economies for our own profit and luxury, and inflict the Red Hot Chili Peppers on the world, then I think the U.S. deserves a middle-finger raised in its direction once in a while. And I say this as an American."

He recommended everyone read The New Yorker, which is somehow branded as a class act. Their music critic Sasha Frere-Jones proclaimed that M.I.A. should not have apologized. "The outrage is tiresome and deeply hypocritical...Fine, it may not be legal to flip the bird on television, but that's simply a remnant of the fifties we haven't shaken." He said he raised both his middle fingers instead at the Parents Television Council for being offended. "I say we get out of The Pretending To Be Moral game altogether," he concluded.

He tried to be offended instead that the Super Bowl show featured "ad after ad that likened women — negatively — to sofas, cars and candy." He raised his middle fingers to "anyone who thinks profanity is somehow more harmful to our children than images of violence and misogyny."

As usual, if NBC had made a serious attempt to employ its otherwise meaningless 7-second delay technology, none of this would have happened.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 2, 2012

Why we'll never find another planet like Earth

It doesn't matter how hard NASA looks, says Mark Fischetti at Scientific American. Until it identifies another planet with plants, Earth remains stubbornly unique

Every few days, it seems, NASA discovers a new exoplanet that could "potentially" be the next Earth. But the truth is, we'll never find another planet quite like ours, argues Mark Fischetti at Scientific American. While experts are hunting for a hospitable Earth 2.0 that boasts liquid water and human-friendly temperatures, they're ignoring one factor that gives our blue planet its inimitable properties: Plants. Far from being a mere byproduct of Earth's water and soil, our trees and flora helped shape the planet's entire surface. Green life "soaked up all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere" over 450 million years ago, lowering temperatures enough to let other organisms thrive. And the roots of forests shaped our planet's riverbeds, allowing vegetation to grow while softening the soil for agriculture. Here, Fischetti explains why Earth is truly one of a kind: 

Before the era of plants, water ran over Earth's landmasses in broad sheets, with no defined courses. Only when enough vegetation grew to break down rock into minerals and mud, and then hold that mud in place, did river banks form and begin to channel the water. The channeling led to periodic flooding that deposited sediment over broad areas, building up rich soil. The soil allowed trees to take root. Their woody debris fell into the rivers, creating logjams that rapidly created new channels and caused even more flooding, setting up a feedback loop that eventually supported forests and fertile plains. ...

Even if plants do sprout [on another planet], they will evolve differently, crafting a different surface on the orb they call home.

Read entire article at Scientific American.

SEE MORE: 2011's top mysteries of space

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here