At an insurance industry conference in D.C. last Friday, a group of pranksters interrupted the sleaze-fest with a new healthcare reform-inspired rendition of "Tommorow" from the musical Annie.
The singers, from "Billionaires for Wealthcare" and "Agit-Pop", infiltrated the meeting for members of the lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans wearing suits and sitting in the back of the room. The groups' video of the guerilla musical has been shown on CNN's The Situation Room, The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, and, of course, The Daily Show with John Stewart. Apparently, singing can be just as effective as screaming (remember those scary gun-toting tea baggers at the town hall meetings?) when it comes to being heard in the healthcare debate.
The sometimes shaky video shows keynote speaker, republican pollster Bill McInturff, driveling on about how awesome health insurance companies are, when one of the pranksters yells out to him: "Thank you for all the good work you do!" He responds, somewhat confused, with thanks to his cheering section. Another prankster chimes in with, "No, thank you!" and then with perfect operatic pitch, (think "The sun will come out!"), "For killing the public option!"
The whole room errupts in laughter as the pranksters sing their opposing parts, some for the public option, some against. They are eventually escorted out of the room, but not before finishing their song.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The fate of Roman Polanski has been a heated topic among my friends and I for the past several weeks. They are equally divided, it seems, for and against Polanski, on the issue of whether he should be sentenced to jail time for the decades-old sex case he was arrested for last month. He has yet to be released from prison.
The debate hinges on the fact that some of the details of the case are not clear and there is some debate as to whether he forced himself on her or not. There are a few facts that are clear, though:
1. The girl involved has dropped the case, publicly forgave Polanski over 10 years ago, and appeared in the documentary, "Roman Polanksi: Wanted and Desired" in his defense.
2. Polanski was released from his 90-day prison stint for psychiatric evaluation early, after an evaluator deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again.
3. The judge involved in the case was a notorious attention-hound, asked a reporter's opinion on what sentence he should give Polanski (?!) and was overheard bragging to his country club buddies that he would put away Polanski for life. The prosecuting attorney admitted, "I'm not surprised he left under those circumstances."
While there has been an uproar in the mainstream media over Hollywood's defence of the famed director, many of my friends have remained vocally supportive of him, despite the possible backlash from being seen as "pro-rape" or something equally stupid.
What surprises me is not that many of them are on his side (I do have mostly liberal friends, after all, who don't have the same twisted morals as the right-wingers would like to claim are divinely instilled in Americans, like dragging a case out for "ethical" reasons when it only hurts the "victim", the defendant, and their families.) What surprises me is that, love him or hate him, his films are considered masterpieces across the board.
This observation seems to negate what some argue is the reason why Hollywood is defending Polanski: solely on the merits of his creative genius. While some French officials have (sort of) used this point in arguing for his release, his talent has in no way shaped mine or many others' opinion. As for the others, before going on to say how he deserves to be in jail for life or even castrated, the first sentence to come out of their mouths is, "He's an amazing director, but..."
Artists and celebrities should absolutely not be exempt from the law, just as policemen, politicians, and clergymen should not be exempt, but why waste money, manpower, and valuable media coverage in chasing after a married, 76 year old man, when the woman has tried on several occasions to drop the whole thing? If it's justice the American authorities are after, I have to wonder, justice for whom? The bigger question remains: is he that much of a threat to American society (artistically, not criminally) that we must lock him up to quiet him?
The debate hinges on the fact that some of the details of the case are not clear and there is some debate as to whether he forced himself on her or not. There are a few facts that are clear, though:
1. The girl involved has dropped the case, publicly forgave Polanski over 10 years ago, and appeared in the documentary, "Roman Polanksi: Wanted and Desired" in his defense.
2. Polanski was released from his 90-day prison stint for psychiatric evaluation early, after an evaluator deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again.
3. The judge involved in the case was a notorious attention-hound, asked a reporter's opinion on what sentence he should give Polanski (?!) and was overheard bragging to his country club buddies that he would put away Polanski for life. The prosecuting attorney admitted, "I'm not surprised he left under those circumstances."
While there has been an uproar in the mainstream media over Hollywood's defence of the famed director, many of my friends have remained vocally supportive of him, despite the possible backlash from being seen as "pro-rape" or something equally stupid.
What surprises me is not that many of them are on his side (I do have mostly liberal friends, after all, who don't have the same twisted morals as the right-wingers would like to claim are divinely instilled in Americans, like dragging a case out for "ethical" reasons when it only hurts the "victim", the defendant, and their families.) What surprises me is that, love him or hate him, his films are considered masterpieces across the board.
This observation seems to negate what some argue is the reason why Hollywood is defending Polanski: solely on the merits of his creative genius. While some French officials have (sort of) used this point in arguing for his release, his talent has in no way shaped mine or many others' opinion. As for the others, before going on to say how he deserves to be in jail for life or even castrated, the first sentence to come out of their mouths is, "He's an amazing director, but..."
Artists and celebrities should absolutely not be exempt from the law, just as policemen, politicians, and clergymen should not be exempt, but why waste money, manpower, and valuable media coverage in chasing after a married, 76 year old man, when the woman has tried on several occasions to drop the whole thing? If it's justice the American authorities are after, I have to wonder, justice for whom? The bigger question remains: is he that much of a threat to American society (artistically, not criminally) that we must lock him up to quiet him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
