How to break the Screen Actors Guild

The Los Angeles television station KTLA is reporting on its website tonight that the heads of the eight major Hollywood studios have purchased a full-page ad in Monday's Los Angeles Times, in which they slam the contract demands of the Screen Actors Guild.

"SAG is demanding that the entire industry literally throw out all its hard work because it believes it deserves more than the 230,000 other working people in the industry," the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers said, following last week's breakdown of federally-mediated talks with SAG.

It's lucky for the Screen Actors Guild that the AMPTP doesn't know how to break the union.

It's lucky for the Screen Actors Guild that America Wants To Know won't tell them, not for a penny less than a considerable amount more than they'd be likely to pay.

It's lucky for America Wants To Know that Chet Migden, SAG's former executive director, isn't alive to see us offering to sell out the union after he was so generous with his time when we wrote a history of the 1978-79 Screen Actors Guild commercials strike.

Just lucky all around.

.

The glamour doll

You're not going to believe this, but America Wants To Know has just been recruited to audition for a reality show.

Wait, it gets better.

"We are looking for the country’s most desireable women who have yet to meet their equal," the e-mail said, "You are perfect!! We would like to bring you in for an interview audition to our office this week. Are you available anytime between 11am-6pm?"

Why are we telling you?

To quote an old joke, we're telling everybody.

The casting director, if he really is a casting director, informs us that the show, if there really is a show, has been sold to MTV networks and will be produced by "a major A-list actress."

Show business is so hard.

We're probably going to pass up the opportunity to audition for this show, if there is a show, despite (or because of) the casting director's assurance that it includes "no cheesy challenges."

But we're happy to post the picture that caught the eye of the casting director, if he is a casting director, just in case the producers of "The Girls Next Door" want to replace Kendra with someone who wrote a slightly pornographic novel about amending the Constitution, or in case John McCain wants to try the presidential run again with a bimbo running mate who can put her words in the right order.



Send those offers to Susan@ExtremeInk.com!


Copyright 2008

Burying the Clintons, Part II

America Wants to Know is flying to Chicago this week, so go ahead and start those rumors that we're being considered for the post of Secretary of State.

We might be giving President-elect Obama too much credit for Machiavellian genius, but we think we're witnessing the most elegant destruction of an opponent since Errol Flynn gave up fencing.

The Associated Press is reporting today that Senator Hillary Clinton has hired a team of super-lawyers to "help" President-elect Obama vet her for the job of Secretary of State.

"Attorneys Cheryl Mills, David Kendall and Robert Barnett are working with the Obama transition team to review information about the Clintons' background and finances, including Bill Clinton's post-presidential business deals and relationships with foreign governments," AP's Beth Fouhy writes, "All three represented the Clintons on legal matters in the White House, including President Clinton's dalliance with intern Monica Lewinsky that led to his impeachment in 1998."

Now, ask yourself why it takes three attorneys to screw in this light bulb.

Because it's not the light bulb that's getting screwed.

If former President Clinton wanted to turn over the records of his post-presidential financial dealings, he could turn over the records of his post-presidential financial dealings.

As he made very clear during the primaries, he doesn't want to turn over the records of his post-presidential financial dealings.

But President-elect Obama dangled the job of Secretary of State in front of Senator Clinton's blue contact lenses and she got so excited that she gushed about it at the Glamour Women of the Year Awards on Monday, November 10th, three days before Andrea Mitchell of NBC News broke the story that "two sources in the Obama camp say Hillary Clinton is under consideration to become the next Secretary of State."

According to the New York Daily News, Senator Clinton told the audience at the awards, "I was privileged to run for president. Someone asked me the other day, if you knew how it was all going to turn out, would you do it all over again? I said absolutely. Whether it's standing up for women who have been denied their rights or being the Secretary of State and carrying the burden of that office, there are so many ways each of us can make a difference. It may be small but it adds up over time."

If there was a museum for false humility, that priceless masterpiece would have its own gallery.

President Clinton said a few things about Barack Obama during the primary campaign, and again during the general election campaign, that the president-elect may not have appreciated. For instance, just before the election, President Clinton told a crowd in Florida that Senator Obama had called Senator Clinton to ask her to explain the financial crisis to him, because he wanted to understand it.

Senator Obama didn't appear to have any reaction to it at the time.

He was just as cool as cool can be.

But now he has raised the possibility that Senator Clinton could be Secretary Clinton, flying around the world like a queen instead of commuting between New York and Washington, meeting with heads of state at peace conferences instead of posing with dairy cows at state fairs, the CEO of a huge worldwide bureaucracy instead of the forever junior senator from New York.

She really wants it. The Guardian of London reported Monday that she "plans to accept the job."

However, there's a serious risk of conflict of interest because her husband has accepted secret donations to his library and foundation from foreign governments and individuals that might seek to influence U.S. foreign policy and contracting.

So before Hillary Clinton can be nominated as Secretary of State, her husband has to be put through a financial rectal exam.

No doubt the Clinton lawyers are fighting as hard as they can to limit the probe.

That means in addition to enduring the exam, President Clinton is once again paying astronomical legal fees for the privilege.

What else can he do? Tell his wife he's going to stand in the way of her ambitions?

That won't end well.

No, he'll have to allow the Obama team to probe his financial entrails. Then he'll have to seethe in silence as the juicy bits start to leak out and President Clinton's carefully crafted image as a post-presidential statesman is exposed as the same old cash-for-favors racket he ran back in the days of White House coffees.

And that's when President-elect Obama will name somebody else to be Secretary of State.

Elegant, isn't it?

Errol Flynn would be very impressed.


Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the January 2008 post, "Burying the Clintons," in the July 2008 post, "Obama's big move," and in the recent post, "Hillary Clinton considered for post of Tooth Fairy."

.

Nancy Pelosi, car designer

When the World War II generation started buying Japanese and German cars, you knew the U.S. auto industry had officially lost everybody.

How many times did they think they could sell the same customer a car with plastic trim that falls off and paint that peels and a "planned obsolescence" lifespan of three years? How many times did they think their service managers could tell a customer bringing in a car with a problem, "They all do that."

A few more times, apparently.

Thanks to what's left of our federalist system of government, the U.S. auto industry has been able to locate enough jobs in enough key congressional districts to cobble together a coalition of passionate supporters who are backing a plan to manage the auto industry from Nancy Pelosi's office.

No kidding, she wants to manage the U.S. auto industry.

She's perfectly well qualified. Her approval rating is at least as good as theirs.

Today Speaker Pelosi issued a statement saying the House of Representatives is willing to provide taxpayer assistance to the beleaguered U.S. auto industry, as long as the automakers meet new fuel-efficiency standards, build advanced vehicles, pay their executives less, and restructure their companies "to ensure their long-term economic viability."

The long-term viability Speaker Pelosi is most concerned about is her own.

She's in a perilous position. She has to deliver for the die-hard Democratic supporters who work in the auto industry by pressing for a bailout that's ferociously unpopular with everybody who doesn't.

No wonder the Democratic leaders want to push the bill forward in a lame-duck session of Congress. As long as they can count on Republicans to block the bill in the Senate, it's a free vote for Democrats.

It's been fun to posture as the party of the workers, pretending that the first thing necessary to run a company successfully is a willingness to pay too much for labor.

It's been fun to be the party of Santa Claus, campaigning on promises of free health care and free college and free child care.

This Christmas, Santa Claus is bringing the Democrats something else.

Responsibility.

Bummer. Socks and underwear. When they were hoping for a model train set and a new puppy.

Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "The fabulous, fictional Chevrolet Volt."

.

Sheila Bair's calculations

America Wants To Know spent several years working in game show development (you'll like our tidbits® puzzles, in case you haven't tried them yet), and one of the things we learned is that no matter how good something looks on paper, you don't know if it will really work until you stand it up and do a run-through.

A run-through is a kind of rehearsal in which people playing contestants stand at mock podiums and play the game.

When choosing the contestants for the run-through, it's very important to get people you don't know. You need people who don't work for the company, who don't want to work for the company, and who aren't sleeping with the producer.

That's because you want the contestants to focus exclusively on playing the game to win.

Usually you find out right away if the game has a problem.

For instance, you might find out that the exciting finish to the show where the contestant risks it all to win big is instead a numbingly dull ending because the contestant is going to play it safe every time.

People play differently when it's their money.

On Friday, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair unveiled a wildcat proposal to use some of the federal bailout funds to modify mortgages for homeowners who have fallen behind in their payments.

It's a wildcat proposal because Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson says he won't go along with it, but Chairman Bair is putting it out there anyway.

Here's a graphic from the FDIC's web site explaining Chairman Bair's plan:



Don't make a face, it looks every bit as good on paper as "Headline Chasers" did.

If you've been watching the news since the government's $700 billion bailout proposal was first shoved up Capitol Hill, you have been watching a run-through of plans not too different from this one.

What have we learned?

We have learned that everybody will wait to see what the government will do for them before they will buy, sell, borrow, lend, or drop their price.

We have learned that if the government offers to step in and force lenders to forgive the debt of delinquent borrowers, everybody wants to stop making payments so they can get in on the free money.

We have learned that a CEO would have to be barking mad to run the business without first making every possible effort to qualify for some of those federal bailout funds.

We have learned that every city and state government in America has Neel Kashkari on speed-dial.

We have learned that Congress wants to crush the shareholders of any company that benefits in any way from bailout money, whether the company sought the funds or had the money forced on it by the Treasury Department.

These are pictures of hummingbirds drinking from a shot glass at America Wants to Know's Southern California residence.

Would you like to know how the hummingbirds learned to drink from a shot glass?

They had Citigroup at 45.

The unresolvable conflict in all the bailout proposals is the impossibility of distinguishing between people who deserve to be in trouble and people who don't. There's no way the government can avoid using your tax dollars to subsidize people who knowingly bought houses they couldn't afford, or who took all the equity out of their houses and bought time-shares in Florida, cruises to Alaska, new kitchens, new cars, new hardwood floors, and lots of other great game show prizes.

Sheila Bair admitted as much in an interview Friday on NPR's "Morning Edition":

NPR ANCHOR STEVE INSKEEP: I just want to understand something here, though.

BAIR: Sure.

INSKEEP: Because you’re talking about, now, if your proposal were accepted, renegotiating mortgages where somebody’s spending about a third of their income on the mortgage every month. How on Earth are you going to distinguish between the people who got in over their heads, were a little bit deceived by the person who sold them the loan, and those people who just made a conscious choice to buy a big house, and they’re out there paying right now, and suddenly, you’re going to let them off the hook for part of their payment?

BAIR: Right, well, you know, I think -- first of all, we would -- you’d have to below the conforming loan limit, so it wouldn’t -- for the super expensive houses, this program would not be available.

And yes, there may be some who knew that they had an unaffordable mortgage and took it anyway, and got into that house. And you know what? Yes, you’re right, they’re going to be benefiting by this.

But you know what else? Why take a punitive step of forcing them into foreclosure -- you’re going to have another empty house sitting on the neighborhood for over a year. Who does that help? I don’t think that helps anyone.

She doesn't? This is where a game show run-through would be just the thing to help Chairman Bair think.

This is the part where contestant C, the one who hasn't been heard from yet, uses all his cash and some of his parents' cash to make a down payment on a foreclosed property that's selling for a lot less than before and then wins the game in a thrilling come-from-behind finish.

If the government wants to subsidize somebody to prop up home prices and stop the meltdown, the person to subsidize is the next buyer, not the last one.

All those young couples living in their parents' basements to save money would benefit from a federal loan program of low-interest, forty-year amortization mortgages, just like the one that's currently being offered to delinquent borrowers.

If the government announced a program like that and specified that it was for a limited time, all the potential buyers out there in the country would be shaken loose and motivated to make their move into the market.

That's better than what they're doing now, which is sitting still and feeling terrified that it's too soon to buy. They're perfectly rational to believe that interest rates and prices may go lower the longer they wait.

But if a temporary low-cost federal mortgage program suddenly appeared -- for credit-worthy principal-residence buyers with a down payment -- it would be perfectly rational to rush right out and buy before prices start to go up, or before the house you want is sold to somebody else who's tired of living in his parents' basement.

New buyers on firm financial footing are the real solution to the foreclosure crisis.

Don't shed too many tears for the bubble-riders who scoffed at the need to have equity in their homes.

They'll always have Paris.



Text and Photos Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier posts, "A better solution to the foreclosure crisis" and "Hank Paulson's casting call."


.

Hillary Clinton considered for post of Tooth Fairy

Andrea Mitchell of NBC News reported Thursday that two sources in the Obama camp say Hillary Clinton is under consideration to become the next Secretary of State.

Two things jump out at us immediately about this story.

First, Andrea Mitchell complained on her MSNBC show earlier this week that the Obama team doesn't leak, so if they're putting this story out there, they're probably trying to accomplish something totally separate from naming a Secretary of State.

Second, are they kidding? Hillary Clinton? Secretary of State? Seriously?

The woman who couldn't keep wars from breaking out in her own campaign headquarters?

The woman who demonstrated her team-player credentials with an entire week of Lucy-Show scheming behind the scenes at the Democratic convention?

The woman whose foreign policy experience is so thin that she had to make up a story about almost getting shot on an airport runway in Bosnia?

Well, then, if the Obama team is not seriously considering Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, and if they only leak when they have a purpose, what's the purpose and what are they trying to do for Hillary Clinton?

Maybe the answer can be found in Tuesday's U.S. News & World Report item by contributing editor Bonnie Erbe, headlined "Barack Obama's Continued Hillary Clinton Snubs Signal Problems With Women."

Ms. Erbe cites a story on Politico.com about Michelle Obama calling Hillary Clinton for advice on protecting her daughters from the media spotlight. Then she writes this:

"Personally, I believe the Clintons are letting themselves be taken to the cleaners: For them, it's all give and no get. Politico.com goes on to report something I've blogged about several times: President-elect Obama still has not helped Senator Clinton retire any of her campaign debt--something which was widely reported last spring as part of his pledge to her if she would get out of the nomination race."

U.S. News & World Report may have missed it, but Senator Clinton didn't get out of the nomination race.

Details, details.

"Senator Clinton has already written off her taxes the $13 million she loaned her own campaign during the primaries. Ouch!" Ms. Erbe writes sympathetically, failing to mention that this write-off was required by federal election law. Then she takes another shot at the Obama team. "There's still the business of $7.9 million she owes to vendors," Ms. Erbe writes, "Maybe he'll come through and help her pay off that debt."

Maybe Senator Clinton should declare herself a bank holding company and go trick-or-treating at the Treasury Department with the guys from American Express.

America Wants To Know still suspects that Senator Clinton illegally spent the money that was raised for the general election during the primary campaign. We think that's why she stayed in the race for an entire month after she had no mathematical chance of being nominated, and why she was in such a frenzied rush to raise money when it was finally over.

That could be wrong, of course, but the fact remains that Senator Clinton spent herself deep into debt in order to defeat Senator Obama and now she wants him to do something to help her pay those bills.

He has steadfastly refused to e-mail his legions of supporters to ask them to write her a check, but today two Obama team members told NBC News that Senator Clinton is under consideration to become Secretary of State.

That should help her raise some money. There must be thousands of people who want jobs in the State Department, or federal contracts, or high-level meetings. Somewhere on K Street there is probably an entire floor of lobbyists assigned to stay on the good side of anybody who might be tapped to run the State Department.

That'll be $2,300, ladies and gentlemen. Make your check payable to "Hillary Clinton for President."

And hurry up. The real nomination could be announced any day now.


Copyright 2008

.

The education of the president-elect

The great thing about being young and stupid is that you have no idea what can happen.

President-elect Barack Obama is not stupid, but he is young. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are not young, but, well, we'll leave it at that.

It was easy to stand in front of cameras during the Bush administration and complain that the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest" were preventing the rest of us from enjoying free and unlimited access to the world's finest health care, good educations, and high-paying jobs building something to name after Robert Byrd.

It's not so easy now, when the impending reality of tax hikes on dividends, capital gains, inheritances, incomes and business profits, not to mention punitive new regulations, has sent capital fleeing from financial markets, leaving Wall Street with sellers and no buyers.

It was easy to stand in front of cameras during the Bush administration and whine about the president's indifference to global warming. It was easy to preach the gospel of cap-and-trade schemes and higher taxes on fossil fuels, and to speak brainlessly of saving the planet by boosting energy costs high enough to discourage consumption.

It's not so easy now, with the scars from four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline still red and welted over the national carotid artery.

So here's something to cheer you up, when you're feeling suicidal over what the energy spikes and financial collapse have cost you.

Think of how much they may ultimately save you.


Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier posts, "The almost pointless fear of global warming" and "Obama's séance."

.

A better solution to the foreclosure crisis

Treasury Department officials held yet another press conference and announced yet another plan Tuesday to prevent foreclosures and save struggling homeowners.

The idea is to target borrowers who are at least 90 days delinquent and owe too much money in proportion to their income. The number-crunchers think they can stabilize the global financial system by offering these borrowers three-percent interest rates and forty-year terms, and possibly forgiving some of the debt.

As America Wants To Know has written before, this kind of program creates a perverse incentive for people to stop paying their mortgages, and that makes the whole problem worse.

Crunch all the numbers you want, you won't change human nature.

Instead of bailing out current homeowners who have made bad investments, why not look past the foreclosures and help the future homeowners who are ready to buy houses?

Every day the officials at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve stare at their screens and analyze their data, but there are some things that cannot be measured and reported and displayed in nifty bar charts.

One of those things is the number of people who have been waiting to buy a house.

Maybe you know one of them. Maybe you are one of them.

There are people who have saved for a down payment for years and watched in frustration as the rise in real estate prices outpaced their savings and crushed their plans.

Why not help them?

Why not create a federal program of three-percent-interest 40-year loans for credit-worthy buyers who come to the table with a down payment of at least ten percent and occupy the homes they buy?

There's no perverse incentive in that.

It doesn't have to be a permanent program.

Think of it as a program of federal disaster-relief loans.

Maybe it's time we stopped trying to save the people who caused the earthquake.


Copyright 2008

.

Obama's Séance

President-elect Barack Obama called former first lady Nancy Reagan on Friday to apologize for suggesting in his first post-election press conference that she has held séances.

As every major and minor news organization in America pointed out within hours, that was Hillary Clinton, not Nancy Reagan. Mrs. Reagan consulted an astrologer. Mrs. Clinton consulted Eleanor Roosevelt.

By coincidence, America Wants To Know happened to witness one of those conversations last January. We keep an assortment of fortune tellers, psychics and mediums on the payroll, although we did have to fire the astrologer last spring after she beat us for the third straight year in the Academy Awards pool.

In any event, the dust-up over the president-elect's comment about Mrs. Reagan obscured the more interesting story out of the press conference, which is that Senator Obama sounded like he had been visited by the Gipper's ghost.

Did you notice that he referred to his tax plan in the past tense?

"My tax plan represented a net tax cut. It provided for substantial middle-class tax cuts," the president-elect said. "It also provided for cuts in capital gains for small businesses."

Represented. Provided. Not "represents" or "will provide."

Is it out the window, the tax-the-rich, spread-the-wealth plan he's been talking about for two years?

"I think that the plan that we've put forward is the right one, but, obviously, over the next several weeks and months, we're going to be continuing to take a look at the data and see what's taking place in the economy as a whole," he said.

Well, if it's not out the window, it is on the table. Possibly on a carving board.

Here are two statistics from the Friday press conference:

Number of times the president-elect used the word "grow" or "growth" - 6

Number of times the president-elect used the word "fair" or "fairness" - 0

Senator Obama also said he thinks it's going to be "very important" to assist state and local governments, "to make sure that they don't compound some of the problems that are already out there by having to initiate major layoffs or initiate tax increases."

Did the president-elect just say he thinks tax increases compound economic problems?

In all the giggling and gasping over the Nancy Reagan comment, everyone might have missed the real news.

America Wants To Know has been trying to contact the spirit of President Reagan to ask him if he's behind this, but so far our in-house medium has been unsuccessful.

Apparently we'll have to hire one with a higher security clearance, or a drive-on pass at Warner Bros.



Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the January 2008 post, "A message for Hillary Clinton."

.

Sneak peek at election jokes from Argus Hamilton

Shhhhh....

Argus Hamilton's Thursday column can be found here.

Enjoy the jokes every day at www.ArgusHamilton.com/argus.htm.



.

Pennsylvania scramble

Pollsters and pundits keep telling us there is a Democratic wave this year which cannot be resisted by mere mortal Republicans, and yet....

In Pennsylvania, Rep. Jack Murtha is fighting for his political life.

We know this because last night at 7:30 p.m., the Murtha campaign asked us for help publicizing former President Bill Clinton's appearance with Rep. Murtha at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown Sports Center on Monday.

Apparently America Wants To Know was added to a list of Rep. Murtha's supporters in the blogosphere after we gave him credit for having the guts to call to for an end to the U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

Well, we do give him credit for that.

And we're happy to help promote Monday's event at UPJ. To RSVP, call 1-866-831-8264. Doors open at 2:00. Don't bring an umbrella, the Secret Service frowns on phallic symbols at President Clinton's events.

Go Mountain Cats!



.

The simmering question

About a year ago, America Wants To Know wrote a post titled "Barack Obama explains socialism" in reaction to Senator Obama's comments to a little girl about the need to make sure people with more money helped people with less money.

We receive reports from our web hosting company that tell us which pages draw the most traffic, and what phrases people most frequently typed into search engines to find the AmericaWantsToKnow.com site.

In October, the leading phrases were "Obama socialism," "Obama and socialism," "socialism Obama," and "Barack Obama socialism."

Closely following these were "Barack Obama and socialism," "socialism Barack Obama," "socialism and Barack Obama," "Obama on socialism," "Barack Obama on socialism," and "Barack socialism."

A lot of people were interested in "Laura Bush divorce" and "constitutional right to privacy," but then the list was overtaken again by "Barack Obama socialist," "Obama for socialism," "Barack and socialism," "socialism Barack," "Is Obama for socialism," "What is socialism, Obama," "Obama socialism?" and "Obama vs. socialism."

Then there were more people interested in "Laura and George Bush divorce," followed by "Obama's views on socialism," "Barak Obama and socialism," "socialism Barak Obama," "Barrack Obama and socialism," "socialism and Barak Obama," and "Barack Obama explains socialism."

People were also looking for "socialism & Obama," "Barack Obama's views on socialism," "socialism & Barack Obama," "Obama explains socialism," and "Barack Obama for socialism."

Also "Barack Obama's socialism," "Barack's socialism," "Barack Oboma/socialism," "socialism under Obama," "socialism vs. Obama," "Obama socialism," "Obama socialism argument," and "compare Obama and socialism."

There's more of this, but you get the idea.

Over five thousand people came to the America Wants To Know site in October alone to read this year-old post, and a quick Google search informs us that the essay has been widely lifted, copied, pasted, posted, e-mailed and sent around the Internet where it has been read on dozens if not hundreds of other sites.

And this has been going on for months.

It started long before John McCain and Joe the Plumber began using the "S" word.

America Wants To Know writes on a wide variety of subjects, but the level of concern about John McCain's lobbyist connections or Sarah Palin's finances or Joe Biden's odd comments just pales in comparison to the interest in "Barack Obama/Socialism," "Obama=socialism," "Is Obama for socialism?" and "socialism with Obama."

We did have a lot of traffic the week our in-house psychic medium conjured up the spirit of Redd Foxx to explain the Microsoft commercial featuring Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates in a shoe store.

But even that doesn't compare to the level of interest in "Barack Obama explains socialism."

This is not a scientific survey, of course.

Every scientific survey says Barack Obama is going to win the election in a walk.

We'll believe it when we see it.


Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in reading "Defending Capitalism" at www.SusanShelley.com.

.