RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media Why Does Will Ferrell Hoard His Money While Children Suffer?

Will Ferrell and the fine folks over at “Funny or Die” are picking the low hanging fruit once again. [1] This time they’re going after nameless, faceless “Insurance Executives” in a “satirical” PSA about government-run insurance. But the real comedy is watching a bunch of multimillionaires who do make-believe for a living opine about other people making too much money.

I’m a big fan of comedy. I’m a stand-up junkie, growing up on late-night HBO comedy specials (I’d seen everything Carlin had done by age 11). I got into film making because Kevin Smith made it accessible through foul, filthy and hilarious dialogue that has always hit me where I live. And I don’t believe anything is off limits. It just strikes me as strange that people with extraordinary talent like Ferrell and company would be so off-the-mark with a piece that dives into the political world so deeply.

The irony of the piece is so clear to EVERYONE who sees it. Aside from the unsupported and false claim that 80% of Americans support government-run health care, Ferrell and company decide to pick on the rich executives who clearly make their money preying on innocent victims and drinking the blood of babies without offering the world anything in return… except, of course, for a service that, when paid for (as all services should be) saves lives and keeps you from losing everything you own when you get sick. The irony here is that Will Ferrell earns $20 million a picture (yup, even for “Land of the Lost”). Donald Faison (”Scrubs”), Jon Hamm (”Mad Men”) and others join in the fun as well.

We’re talking about net earnings in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The actors and comedians in the PSA could literally buy health insurance for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of uninsured Americans. And they don’t even have to wait for the government to take their money at gunpoint. They can just do it. And they should. It’s clearly being positioned as a moral issue, so is it immoral for these folks to hoard money while children are suffering?

Well, the answer is “no.” It’s their money. And I think Will Ferrell should be able to keep as much of his dough as possible, even if he uses it to buy a mini-zoo in his back yard for exotic animals like a white tiger or Pygmy horses. If he chooses to buy me and a hundred thousand or so of my fellow uninsured Americans some insurance, it would go a long way toward establishing credibility. It would also prove that we don’t need government to force Americans to help each other.

Which, putting the bullshit statistics, hypocrisy, and not-so-funny execution of the piece aside, is what bothers me the most.

The President keeps talking about “service” when he really means “government forcing you to do things.” I have debated health care with every one of my liberal friends who is willing to engage. And I always ask them the same question when they support the government-run plan. It goes like this: “I don’t have health insurance. Will you buy it for me for just one year?” I ask the question seriously. I mean it. I’d happily accept the gift from someone who wants to help. But they always backpedal. They always refuse.

Why? Because they have mistaken compassion for force. They believe that government will force someone else to pay, that they will not be affected, and that it’s okay because “they” or “the rich” have more than “they” need. But “they” have earned what “they” have, and so have Ferrell and his FOD pals.

The question is whether the folks who preach the message of forcing you to “give” to others are actually willing to do it on their own. Do they really care about those with less or only about appearing to care? I’ll wait with baited breath for the Will Ferrell Insurance Foundation to send a check. But I’ll probably be waiting a while.

I read a funny thing on Twitter about whoopi.....they said whoopi only thinks it's rape when she has to pull the trigger on the gun she is holding against the man's head.

From Michael Moore's politics to on-screen sex and violence, the movie business is constantly being assailed for not sharing the country's values. Rarely has the morality argument been as rancorous as with the Roman Polanski case.

Hollywood is rallying behind the fugitive filmmaker. Top filmmakers are signing a pro-Polanski petition, Whoopi Goldberg says the director didn't really commit rape, and Debra Winger complains "the whole art world suffers" in such arrests.

The rest of the nation seems to hold a dramatically different perspective on Polanski's weekend capture. Even if decades have passed since he fled Los Angeles before his 1978 sentencing, Polanski must be extradited and serve his time, the thinking goes. There's no excuse for forcing sex on a 13-year-old girl. People who defend him have no principles.

In letters to the editor, comments on Internet blogs and remarks on talk radio and cable news channels, the national sentiment is running overwhelmingly against Polanski -- and the industry's support of the 76-year-old "Pianist" Oscar winner.

How can Hollywood (where it's almost impossible to find anyone publicly condemning Polanski) and almost everyone else see the same story in an opposite light? Is it proof that the movie business is amoral, or just that it believes that Polanski has suffered in his personal and professional life and paid his debt to society? Is Hollywood's position that we're-better-than-you elitist while the rest of the country's is everybody-obeys-the-law populist?

"The split between what the rest of the world thinks about Polanski and what Hollywood thinks about Polanski is quite remarkable," said film historian David Thomson. "It proves what an old-fashioned and provincial club Hollywood is. People look after their own."

When Mel Gibson launched into an anti-Semitic screed following his 2006 arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence, hardly any Hollywood leaders -- agent Ari Emanuel and Sony studio chief Amy Pascal among the few exceptions -- publicly rebuked the actor. The criticism of Hollywood at the time was that in a business contingent on relationships and currying favor with the powerful, no one was willing to denounce such a prominent artist.

Melissa Silverstein, who runs the feminist movie blog Women & Hollywood and does online marketing for films aimed at women, was angered by the industry's reaction to Polanski's arrest and found the silence of disapproval "deafening."

"I think people are afraid to talk in Hollywood. They are afraid about their next job," she said. "I don't know where the women of Hollywood are. This is an opportunity for them to stand up for their daughters."

Jonathan Kuntz, a visiting professor in UCLA's Cinema and Media Studies school, said the local reaction may be a version of the "there, but for the grace of God, go I." "I think that there are a lot of folks in Hollywood in the late '60s and '70s who may have done a lot of things they weren't really proud of, and may have been participating in very similar things," Kuntz said. "And it touches on a question that's been around for a long time: whether the celebrity is above the law."

Some of the industry's most prominent women said they believe Polanski, who faces a sentence as low as probation and as high as 16 months in prison for pleading guilty to having sex with a minor, should be freed. "My personal thoughts are let the guy go," said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things."

The victim, Samantha Geimer, who reached a private settlement with Polanski, has said the charges against the director should be dismissed.

Film executives and artists who support Polanski say the director of "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown" was unfairly targeted twice: first by the since-deceased Superior Court judge who reneged on a sentencing deal, and second by the Los Angeles district attorney's office for arranging his arrest when he arrived for the Zurich Film Festival, where Polanski was to receive a lifetime achievement award.

More than 100 industry leaders and prominent authors -- including directors Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Mike Nichols, Woody Allen and Neil Jordan -- have signed a petition asking that Polanski be released from Swiss custody. "Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision," the petition says.

On the television show "The View," Goldberg said, "I think he's sorry. I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society."

In an opinion piece in London's the Independent, Weinstein Co. co-founder Harvey Weinstein, who is circulating the pro-Polanski petition, wrote: "Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time. A deal was made with the judge, and the deal is not being honored. . . . This is the government of the United States not giving its word and recanting on a deal, and it is the government acting irresponsibly and criminally."

In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He's not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," Weinstein said. "We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe."

Producer Bo Zenga ("Scary Movie," "Soul Plane"), is one of the few executives taking a different view. "I don't actually believe that people in Hollywood would put protecting their own above a 13-year-old girl who was raped," he said.

"I think these people have honestly forgotten what this is really about. Everyone needs to go back and read the grand jury testimony to remember how vicious this rape was because right now everyone thinks we're debating whether or not Polanski got a raw deal. It irritates me that people around the world think that all of Hollywood is saying that the rapist is the victim. Because I don't feel that way, and neither do most of the people I talk with."

Jonathan Kuntz

It's cuz it's

The actress Whoopi Goldberg has coined the stupidest term in the whole furore over Roman Polanski’s arrest in Zurich for having sexual intercourse with a minor.

Speaking on television show The View, Goldberg said “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”

“Rape-rape?” As opposed to just ‘rape’? Goldberg was trying to pin down the exact crime Polanski was charged with but she still seems to be suggesting that there are different levels of forcing someone to have sexual intercourse without their consent, that some rapes are better than others. What a dangerous and foolish thing to say.

Goldberg also said: “We’re a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds in the rest of Europe… not everybody agrees with the way we see things…”

Polanski’s 13-year-old victim was intoxicated by champagne and a Quaalude before he took pictures of her naked. Then, despite her alleged resistance, the 44-year-old had sexual intercourse with her. Despite Polanski’s mastery at film making, let’s not pretend that we see this as anything but despicable and utterly wrong. Even in Europe.

We live in a country where 85% of serious sexual offences against people 16 and over are not reported to police. In the US, that figure is 60%. Whoopi Goldberg’s attempt to play down this infamous case is shockingly unhelpful. Women or girls who are forced to have sex against their will should not need to categorise the assault or rate it in terms of seriousness. There must be no such thing as a rape-rape, a rape-rape-rape or a proper rape. It would absolutely deter victims from reporting their crime.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 in this country is simple. A person is guilty of rape if i) he acts intentionally, ii) if the victim does not consent to the act and iii) if the person does not reasonably believe that the victim consents. If the victim is under 16 and the perpetrator does not reasonably believe she is over 16, it is always rape. Polanski’s victim told a jury she said “no” and “stop” repeatedly and told him she wanted to go home.

There are no exceptions in the law for being drunk, wearing makeup, a short skirt or being assaulted by a talented artist. Rape is rape is rape. Whoopi Goldberg should think before she speaks.

In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He's not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," Weinstein said. "We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe."

Whoopi Goldberg was rape-raped by the ugly tree!

A slew of celebs who will never be impacted by health care reform one way or another have signed on to do a 30-sec national commercial to encourage Congress to pass reform this year.

Will.I.Am, Rosario Dawson, Dule Hill, Kate Walsh and actress Olivia Wilde are just a few of the stars who could purchase their own hospitals yet are still slated to help President Obama tell America how health care should be run.