John Oliver ruffles feathers with call to stack the Bird of the Century ballots

“After all, this is what democracy is all about – America interfering in foreign elections.”

4 thoughts on “John Oliver ruffles feathers with call to stack the Bird of the Century ballots

  1. Roger Cornelison said:
    “But aren’t Newman and Ford right? […] As for Craig T Nelson, whoever thought ‘fairness’ was a concept that applies to who does and does not achieve great wealth in America? [ …Did I misunderstand you? ]”

    No, Roger, you understood everything rightly. It’s Yes & Yes on the particulars. But I omitted Nelson in my loathing. The reason he’s exempt is that he’s not *bitter* about his acting career.

    Newman’s bitterness is justified, but so preoccupied by that feeling that he didn’t at the same time express gratitude to the very fame that enabled his business success (thru brand recognition). How he talks about the contrast between his two careers suggests he ought to have skipped the first, & just started with the second. But it doesn’t work that way. He had to be widely loved for his acting. Otherwise, his me-too food products were total non-starters.

    Ford, too, has treated his fans, in the past at least, as pests. As if his ego won’t let him admit that it’s not his acting skills that’ve kept him getting show-biz jobs & rolling in the dough, to boot. All of that success is intimately tied to his fame.

    The reality of being an actor in Hollywood is that there are multitudes of working actors who aren’t the headliners, but whose acting talent & skills are equal to or better than most of the so-called A-list stars.

    1. Clarification: I’m interpreting Nelson’s “Get your own TV show,” generously as an ackowledgement that luck may have been involved. Maybe you wouldn’t be so lucky, but that’s just how it is. If you’d been lucky like me, you’d be doing whatever your dream called for. Unless you’re just maladjusted or a moron.

      OTOH, I could be wrong, & he’d be just a jerk, then. I might suspect that of him, but I’m not accusing him of that, in the absence of more knowledge sufficient to back that up.

  2. Pat443 said:
    “But I’ve never seen so much money lavished on production for such a mediocre collection of songs.”

    UncleScoopy’s reply:
    “Very enlightening analysis. So how do you explain her cult-like following? Pure marketing genius?”

    Eh, maybe just start with taking Pat443 at (his) word, that Taylor’s billionaire status, contra Forbes, cannot be “solely based on her songs.” Pat spends the entire rest of that comment elaborating on the relative inadequacy of her songs alongside the annals of pop music. Like, mightn’t that really be the real point, the nail that needs to be hammered in?

    And then, secondarily, yes. “She’s a genius at marketing and social media fan service,” along with her other positive qualities as an entertainer — singing excellence having been conspicuosly omitted — could then be inferred as explaining her following. But let’s not skip over the fact that Forbes, being a business news purveyor, misses the point when it comes to why she’s *popular* to such a cultish extreme. I’ve come to believe it’s a mental failing of Americans to quantify all things in life in dollar terms. This is one perfect example.

  3. The headline’s “ruffles feathers” is just a misleading jest, a mere play on the words. It’s not at all about any controversy, ie, pushback over his sarcastic line about America’s casually putting a finger on the scales of power overseas.

Comments are closed.