The O-Scars

18

February 25, 2013 by esarsea

I read online that the goodie-bags given to Academy Award nominees who didn’t win this year included condoms and $5000 plastic surgery vouchers.

Here’s 75 year old Hanoi Jane at last night’s Oscars. Makes one wonder how many times she’s been, ‘nominated.’

Jane Fonda

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “The O-Scars

  1. Bill says:

    Hanoi Jane? That’s funny. She’s said for years now that she was young and naive and shouldn’t have visited North Vietnam during the war. Of course, she probably shouldn’t have married Tom Hayden or even Roger Vadim for that matter and her mother committed suicide in a mental health facility when she was young and her father was a distant and cold. . .Henry Fonda.

    You know, you got me thinking about celebrities and politics, though.

    Charles Lindburg was an American aviation hero and his politics and views on race and the relationship he had with Nazi German air power and leaders before WWII make anything Jane the anti-war actress did look quite pathetic and harmless. Lindburg moved to Europe for 3 years after his kid was kidnapped and killed and the Nazi’s gave him a big achievement award, as they had Henry Ford earlier, and let Lindburg test fly Messerschmeit 109 fighters and Junkers 88 bombers. And he dined with Messerschmeit and Junkers, themselves, as an equal. He would report back to our military, but it was glowingly positive reviews of their technology more like “we should do this!”

    So, no, he never posed with an anti-aircraft gun like Jane did
    ; he was a hapless celebrity endorser of the Third Reich’s air power going into WWII. As war broke in Europe, he moved back, unmolested, to New Jersey with his family. Jane’s 75 and still being ragged on.

    • esarsea says:

      I can’t speak to the Charles Lindburg thing, as I’m not familiar with it. This was more about having a little fun with the plastic surgery vouchers and Jane Fonda not looking 75 years old.

      As far as me slipping in the, ‘Hanoi Jane’ reference though, you know the old saying: “A man can build a thousand bridges, but if he sucks one xxxx he’ll be remembered as a xxxx-sucker and not a bridge builder.”

      If her wiki page is accurate, I think it covers both sides of the issue fairly well…

    • torqdog says:

      Interesting stuff about Lindbergh……. I did not know. One interesting point involving timelines is that Lindbergh was hangin in Germany BEFORE the war. He left the U.S. in December, 1935 and returned to the U.S. in April, 1939. Seems his time spent in Germany occurred BEFORE the Nazis started gettin all belligerent so I’m not sure the comparison fits Bill.

      Hanoi Jane did her little stunt right at the height of the Vietnam war which of course helped feed the Commie’s propaganda machine.

      Getting back to the O’Scars, I don’t watch ’em, Viv does. Haven’t watched ’em in many many years. I’m not into worshipping Idols and the whole party just seems like one big old self aggrandizing lovefest. The $5,000 dollar plastic surgery coupons sum it up perfectomundo. Plastic people living in a world of make believe.

      • Bill says:

        Go back and read my second paragraph if you missed it the first time.

        And they were getting plenty belligerent, and murderous, during the three years Linburg was associating with them. Nazis backed Franco in Spain’s Civil War from. . .1936-1939, including Stuka dive bomber raids on civilians. Stukas were the JU-87, or Junkers 87, Junkers being one of Lindburg’s dinner pals.

        But more to my point, if a Hollywood actress does it and poses for a stupid picture, watch out! And let’s tattoo her for infinity for it.

        But every day, people like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh get out their microphone and world wide internet connection and give aid and comfort to our enemies in wartime all over the world, exactly what Jane is saddled with forever. Only they’ve been doing it for 5 years now, not a single day-event.

        Hardly seems right, does it?

        • torqdog says:

          More like 20 plus years Bill. The only thing that has changed is the nameplate on the front door of the WH.

          It was more than “posing for a stupid picture”. It gave aid and comfort to the enemy at a time of war. Kinda in the same vein as Tokyo Rose.

          Funny thing is back in the day when she “posed for the stupid photo”, I actually kind of supported the act as I was at the time, a total peacenik, anti war kinda guy. I even cut school to attend anti-war rallies in the Bay Area.

          Thems was the good old days. Anti war rallies were a great place to meet women, all passionate and stuff. ;-)

  2. esarsea says:

    In my opinion it wasn’t just a temporary lapse in judgement, unwittingly allowing that photo to be taken. For me, the photo was less problematic than her related actions and statements. This from Wiki:

    “During her trip, Fonda made ten radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as “war criminals”. Fonda has defended her decision to travel to North Vietnam and her radio broadcasts.

    Also during the course of her visit, Fonda visited American prisoners of war (POWs), and brought back messages from them to their families. When cases of torture began to emerge among POWs returning to the United States, Fonda called the returning POWs “hypocrites and liars”. She added, “These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed.”

    Later, on the subject of torture used during the Vietnam War, Fonda told The New York Times in 1973, “I’m quite sure that there were incidents of torture … but the pilots who were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic, I believe that’s a lie.”

    Fonda said the POWs were “military careerists and professional killers” who are “trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to the law”.

    In a 60 Minutes interview on March 31, 2005, Fonda reiterated that she had no regrets about her trip to North Vietnam in 1972, with the exception of the anti-aircraft gun photo.”

    • torqdog says:

      Hmmmmm, I had forgotten all that stuff. I wonder, if someone had pulled that same bullshit back during WWII whether they would have been tried, convicted and executed for treason?

      • esarsea says:

        That’s hard to say.

        It’s very clear that what we did to our guys in Nam was wrong, placing them in that meat grinder with their hands tied so to speak, and the brass and politicians lying to us about it.

        All I know is it wasn’t our troop’s fault, it wasn’t their war. Yet (in this instance) Jane was berating our troops, and even worse, our POWs, instead of the political leaders who sent them there.

    • Bill says:

      I don’t see any difference between what she did then and what Limbaugh or Hannity or Levin or Savage or Beck or Varney or Fox & Friends does now, attacks a sitting, war time president, every day, by openly and stubbornly questioning his birthright, his citizenship, his values, his religious beliefs, his patriotism, his faux-‘socialism,’ his school records, his diet as a child, his father’s Muslim beliefs, etc.

      And that gives comfort to our enemies and demoralizes our military.

      • esarsea says:

        If Limbaugh or Hannity et al had traveled to Iraq and met with Iraqi soldiers during Desert Shield or Desert Storm and made radio broadcasts back to the US denouncing American political and military leaders as war criminals, I might agree with you.

        • Bill says:

          Limbaugh was being piped into our troops in those theaters 3 to hours a day through Armed Forces Radio, a practice that continues to this day, but now he’s joined by Hannity for some reason, and two liberals in the day schedule.

          He is a Tokyo Rose.

          • torqdog says:

            If a poll was conducted asking servicemen and women who they agree with, Limbaugh or Obama, I bet Limbaugh would win by a 75 to 80 percent margin.

            He’s no Tokyo Rose…….. just a commentator with a different opinion and a microphone. Sounds like the AFR is promoting parity of sorts……. two libs vs. two conservatives.

      • torqdog says:

        “I don’t see any difference between what she did then and what” folks on the left did for seven years during Bush IIs run. A “wartime president” that was constantly chided as being “stupid” with a book AND movie fantasizing his assasination as well as the leader of the Senate coming out publicly stating “this war is lost” as the surge was being mobilized.

        And THAT gave comfort to our enemies and demoralized our military.

        Excuse me while I step outside and bang my head against the wall to make the pain go away.

        • Bill says:

          People like Keith Olbermann and scads of people on the far left got totally crazy with Bush. I couldn’t listen to him any more than I can listen to FOX, for anything, for the same reason. Just 24/7 blah-blah-Obama-blah-blah-Obama-blah-blah-blah. The raging hate-fever has destroyed their brains, just like it did with radical critics of Bush, but much worse now. After all, he’s a nig-nig-nig-nig-nig-nig. . .half-white ‘outsider’ who doesn’t really understand how America works. Phew! I almost made a Santorum!

          • esarsea says:

            Do you really think that criticisms of Obama and/or his policies are mostly rooted in prejiduce vs. just having opposing views? I don’t buy it. Maybe I’m just naive. I think party politics are party politics – and I’m of the opinion that if Obama was a ‘white man’ the dialogue wouldn’t be noticably different.

            I’m not living in complete denial however. I know racism exists, and I know that latent and/or passive-agressive racism exists. I’m sure SOME of the opposition to Obama has it’s origins there, but I think Obama’s supporters tend to see it where it doesn’t always exist. In fact, I’d go so far as to say some Obama supporters not only see it where it may not exist, but actively look for it and/or cling to it as a way to explain away why more Americans don’t agree with Obama’s programs.

            I’m being somewhat rhetorical here. I’m not making any assumptions or accusations that you beat that drum (or if so, that you beat it without merit). We’re all exposed to different events and types of people that help form our perspectives. You’ve seen and heard things that I have not…but I think that generally speaking, the majority of the population who may disagree with the President on an issue simply disagree on the issue…

            What say you?

  3. Bill says:

    It’s much more complicated than simple racist or bigoted behavior, Stu, in my own opinion. I think that after 5 years of opposition, but not having viable replacement policy ready to plug in would indicate a brazen attempt to simply obstruct in a avery partisan manner.

    The president and this admninistration aren’t infallible; and there’s so much misinformation out there that gets ridden into the dirt. I’ll bet half the complaints about Obama I read online in the SL Tribune are just total nonsense, like people who think the president controls gasoline prices or that he actually makes and passes law, besides signing or vetoing final versions after they’ve gone through both houses.

    Then the gun thing, again. Now, he’s taking away Constitutional rights and coming for everyone’s AR-15 and extended clips in Utah and he was instrumental in creating the entire Sandy Hook massacre because it never happened, it was all a put-on orchestrated to just take away guns because the Anti-Christ is willing to slaughter 20 kids and 6 adults, hire actors to pretend to be grieving parents, etc., just so he can knock on your door and ‘grab’ your semi-auto rifle.

    Yeah, that’s how viciously evil this guy is!

    Here’s the really weird thing, Stu. The Obama that is caricatured by the Right doesn’t exist. He never did. What he became was the target-land fill for every rotten thing spewed by the imaginations of very troubled people. While the Right accuses him of being everything under the sun than what he is, he’s been busy accomplishing the very things that Republicans claim to hold dear but have done ZIP about. Lots of talk, talk, talk and no results.

    Meanwhile, Obama’s Admin killed bin Laden-shot him in the face and dumped him in the ocean. Killed most of Al Qeada’s top leadership, including a traitorous US citizen who was plotting to kill more of us. He’s deported more illegal aliens in 5 years than all the US presidents before him, combined. The DOW is at 14,000, it was at 7,000 when he was sworn in and my 401k has doubled since 2009.

    So, pick at him, pick at him and pick at him. He’s here until 2016. The Right needs to decide if obstructing his every attempt to be a president elected by a majority of American citizens, not appointed by the Supreme Court, is worth sticking the final spear in their party’s lifeless body.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

February 2013
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 23 other followers

Blog Stats

  • 148,040 BS BLOG visits to date
%d bloggers like this: