Tag: Hollywood

West Hollywood City Council Removes Trump’s Star From Walk of Fame

 

By Evan Pereira | Republic of Ireland

By Evan Pereira | United States

Monday night at West Hollywood City Councils’ regular meeting, the City’s ‘Consent Calendar’ was passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. In this Consent Calendar, Agenda Item 2.Z. was seen as the most controversial. Entitled the ‘RESOLUTION URGING THE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL AND HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO REMOVE PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP’S STAR FROM THE HOLLYWOOD WALK OF FAME’, it was initiated by Councilmember Lindsay  Horvath and Mayor Pro Tempore John D’Amico.

What Was In The Document?

Inside Agenda Item 2.Z., prepared by Community And Legislative Affairs Division Manager John Leonard, was the background of the resolution, their statement on the subject and the resolution itself. Below is the ‘Statement On The Subject’ along with the paraphrased reasoning behind the resolution.

Statement On The Subject:

The City Council will consider adopting a resolution urging the Los Angeles City Council and Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to remove President Donald J. Trump’s star from the Hollywood Walk of Fame, due to his disturbing treatment of women and other actions that do not meet the shared values of the City of West Hollywood, the region, state, and country.

Reasoning:

  • President Trump and Attorney General Sessions ‘zero-tolerance’ policy on illegal immigration
  • President Trumps refusal to hold Russia accountable for interference in elections, this being a dangerous statement as Robert Meullers Special Counsel has not presented their final findings regarding the investigation thus West Hollywood City Council has disregarded due process
  • The fact that taxpayer money has been diverted to fix the twice destroyed Walk of Fame Star (this being ironic as Democrats are normally never concerned about wasting taxpayer money)
  • The views of President Trump don’t fit inline with those of the region, state and country

Link to Agenda Item 2.Z. of West Hollywood City Councils Consent Calendar (6th of August 2018): http://weho.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=3274&meta_id=153942

Some Background

13 days prior to the 2016 Presidential Election, James Otis, dressed as a construction worker, destroyed then-candidate Trump’s Walk of Fame Star with a pickaxe and sledgehammer, all while recording the offense. Later turning himself into Beverly Hills Police, he was charged with one count of felony vandalism by Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey, an offense that if found guilty, holds a maximum sentencing of three years in jail and/or a $10,000 fine. Otis pleaded to no contest and was found guilty of felony vandalism. He was ordered to serve 20 days of community labor and to pay a $4,400 fine along with three years of probation.

You would think that this wouldn’t happen again, but you’re wrong. On Wednesday morning, the 25th of July 2018, the LAPD responded to a call from the perpetrator himself, Austin Clay. District Attorney Jackie Lacey charged him with felony vandalism and on the same day, James Otis announced that he would pay Clay’s $20,000 bail.

An argument some have made is that because of the continuous attacks on President Trumps Walk of Fame Star and the costly fee it takes to repair the star, that he should have his star revoked. This argument is flawed to an almost comical extreme. By revoking the star, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and with that, the people of Los Angeles are bowing down the whims of left-wing criminals.

Is There Bias? (+ Endless Virtue Signalling)

Anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock for the past few years would know that in Hollywood, there is an extreme Democrat bias. In a statement, West Hollywood Mayor John Duran ‘clarified’ that there was no bias in the decision:

“The West Hollywood City Council did not pass the resolution because Donald Trump is a conservative or a Republican.  Earning a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is an honor.   When one belittles and attacks minorities, immigrants, Muslims,  people with disabilities or women – the honor no longer exists.

– Mayor John Duran (D)

Let us look back on the past year. The #MeToo and #TimesUp movement began as a serious and honest movement that looked to expose the awful and immoral sex crimes committed by Hollywood elites such as the producer Harvey Weinstein and  actor Kevin Spacey. A growing consensus, this being non-partisan but with large amount of proponents of this view being right-leaning, is that the movement has strayed away from it’s original goal. This argument has been supported by the fact that the movements philosophy rejects the idea of due process, that those accused are guilty before substantial evidence is proven as fact. Simply accusing someone on Twitter these days can result in them having their lives ruined and their careers destroyed. Even the most absurd cases are taken as if they are full scale sexual harassment, one example being the case of Justin Trudeau, the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada, being accused of ‘groping’ a female news reporter 18 years ago at a music festival. The alleged groping was simply Mr. Trudeau placing his hand on the reporters shoulder while talking to her, a common action while engaged in conversation. Now, where does this play in? Well, this plays into the bias of Hollywood politicians.

Since the movement began, Hollywood has begun an endless campaign of virtue signaling and hypocritical bullsh*t, simply carrying it out to an even more obnoxious level. Before, it was people such as Leonardo ‘Only Just Got An Oscar’ DiCaprio preaching against climate change while traveling by private jet. Now, it’s the era of the ‘Red Carpet’ and ‘#AskHerMore’ at the Golden Globes and colored ribbons at the Oscars. This circle jerk of Hollywood elites needs to stop and to do that, it requires them to take responsibility for being hypocritical monsters. Hollywood dares lecture the common man on his morals while the elites, from their ivory towers, act in disgusting ways that if a normal person were to act in such a manner, they would be locked up.

If the Democrat-controlled West Hollywood City Council want to prove that they act in a neutral manner, they would either not call for President Trumps Walk of Fame Star to be revoked or they would call for the Stars of people such as Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Kevin Spacey to be revoked. You have to realize, they would never dream of carrying out the second option. What do all three of those men have in common? They’re Democrats. Spacey is a registered Democrat and a personal friend of former President Bill Clinton (who isn’t exactly innocent in regard to his sexual activities). Cosby is a registered Democrat and has donated approximately $20,000 to Democratic campaigns and along with that, he was an outspoken supporter of Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Weinstein is a registered Democrat and has donated hundreds of thousands to Democratic candidates and to the Democratic National Committee, an institution so morally bankrupt, it’s giving Hollywood a run for its money in regard to corruption.

What You Need To Know Behind The Star

The Walk of Fame, one of the United States’ main tourist attractions began in 1958 to honor those who have made significant contributions to the entertainment industry. It spans 15 blocks in Los Angeles, going from Gower Street to Vine Street. To be awarded a Star, you must tick off at least one of these categories; motion pictures, broadcast television, audio recording (music), broadcast media and theater/live performance.

Donald Trump was awarded his Walk of Fame Star in 2007 for his role as both the creator and host of NBC’s ‘The Apprentice’, a series that has lead to spin off’s in 27 countries worldwide. To be awarded a Star, you must go through his process:

  • Those who wish to receive a Star must apply to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
  • In their application, they must include their reasoning for why they think they should be awarded a Star + a $30,000 fee to the Hollywood Historic Trust
  • Roughly 200-240 applications are made per year, with 20-24 (10%) being approved

What Happens Now?

Since the resolution was passed, it will be passed onto both Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. Oddly, the Los Angeles City Council have no jurisdiction over the Walk of Fame, meaning it’s up to the discretion of Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. In November 2017, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce released a statement regarding the issue of whether or not Weinstein’s star should be revoked:

“The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce has received enquiries asking whether we are planning to remove the stars of Walk of Famers because of alleged misconduct. The answer is no,”

“The Hollywood Walk of Fame is a registered historic landmark. Once a star has been added to the Walk, it is considered a part of the historic fabric of the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Because of this, we have never removed a star from the Walk.”

If the Chambers’ statement still holds and standing to this day, only 10 months on from the original statement, President Trump’s star will remain, definitely to the obvious disappointment of Hollywood elites and the West Hollywood City Council.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

Advertisements

#NotMe: The Curious Case of Woody Allen

As we poured through another week of even more allegations of sexual harassment, Dylan Farrow reignited the alleged abuse case against her adoptive father, famed director Woody Allen. In an Op-Ed for the Los Angeles Times, Farrow wanted to know why her father is getting a free pass while other predators are finally being exposed for their crimes. While the #MeToo movement has opened up avenues for women and men to come forward and tell their stories of abuse at the hands of those with power in the entertainment, political and social arenas of life, the media and Hollywood have been eerily absent regarding Woody Allen’s haunting accusations of child molestation. Lost in the fray are the continued allegations of abuse by acclaimed film director Woody Allen towards his then 7-year-old adopted daughter Dylan Farrow. Though sex abuse experts at the New Haven Hospital found no evidence of abuse, Allen refused to take a polygraph at the time and although charges were never filed, a lead prosecutor suggested in 1993 that he had ‘probable cause’ to bring Allen to court.

What truly happened to Dylan Farrow in an attic away from the watchful eyes of other adults remains a mystery, but Allen’s former wife, Mia Farrow, has been relentless in her accusations against Allen. Dylan Farrow claims she was sexually assaulted and she has maintained that allegation for the better part of 20 years. In 2014 she detailed the abuse in a searing open letter for the world to read, and in 2016, Allen’s son, Ronan Farrow, drafted his own attack against his father on behalf of his sister. While Bill Cosby, Al Franken, Louis CK and a list of other celebrities and politicians have been ousted as predators in the past year, Woody Allen continues to be furnished with grand budgets from such mainstream corporations such as Amazon, which recently sunk millions into a new Allen project. This summer, again, we all looked on as the newest multi-million dollar Allen film received funding from corporate studios and rave reviews from a tacit entertainment industry that counts on his biannual summer flick to bring critical and commercial success. Where are the difficult questions for Allen? Why has he eluded the hawking eyes of TMZ, CNN and other media outlets determined to bring abuse into the spotlight? While a multitude of men are losing their careers due to harassment claims, Allen grabs project after project as his alleged victims are attacked for being liars.

Of all the people to receive the benefit of the doubt, Allen seems to be a dubious choice. His marriage to his adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, has only illustrated concerns over Allen’s proclivity for young submissive women. While throngs of industry starlets and power brokers have taken a definitive stand against the monstrosities of Harvey Weinstein and countless others, Allen has continued his work in relative peace and away from the watchful eyes of the media. If it weren’t for the alleged victim voicing her displeasure with Allen’s success and escape from media scorn, we might all forget about the wayward comedian whose quirky sensibilities landed him Oscar nominations and a lifetime of movie contracts. Farrow has called out some of Allen’s most recent leading ladies, including Kate Winslet, who stars in Allen’s newest film, “Wonder Wheel”. Given Allen’s postmodern comedy and high brow intellectualism, it is a wonder who his current audience even is. From a distance, it would seem that the very people voicing the loudest concerns about the abuse and harassment from men seem to be determinedly quiet on the subject of their favorite upper east side comedian. Republicans and rednecks don’t like Woody Allen – rich cultural elites that fund the Democratic National Crime Committee do. Asked for comment, Winslet played dumb and responded that she “didn’t know Allen and I don’t know anything about that family”. It’s 2017 and Kate Winslet apparently doesn’t have access to Google! For a movement so apt to empower the voices of the voiceless and keenly ready to judge anyone they wish as guilty before given a fair trial, why are actors and actresses in Allen’s films given the benefit of the doubt in relation to these stunning allegations?

In the year of “The Silence Breakers,” things have been relatively quiet for Allen. While it is difficult to play judge, I would argue that the allegations that have sunk the careers of Louis CK, Kevin Spacey, and Charlie Rose all represent a less intrusive and despicable evil. While these men appear guilty of using their power to prey on women throughout their career, the alleged accusations against Allen are of a child’s privacy and virginity. Furthermore, much of his career has been one long psychological spin on the bizarre and idiosyncratic relationships between older men (often played by Allen) and their 18 year old summer flings. If we can parallel the significance of Louis CK’s stand up masturbation material as a pathological release for his internal issues, why then should we not infer from films like Manhattan (where Allen runs dizzy in circles over a youthful blonde) that Allen has some serious psychosexual demons? Looking back at his film catalog, it reads now like a diary of the diseased. Film after film explores the pangs of guilt, desperation and loneliness as he chases young woman after young woman across cities and countries the world over.

Why do we not give the allegations of Dylan Farrow more gravity? How has his name not marched into the headlines and a slew of studios and actors stood up against this accusation of vile indecency? Oddly, given the recent climate of search and destroy, the backlash against Allen has been met with absolute indifference by most of his stars. While Ellen Page has stated she regrets working with Allen, many others seem totally unaware of the problem. Recently, Selena Gomez, another performer in Allen’s work, was asked how she dealt with the accusations against Allen she had this wonderfully thought-out response. She simply “stepped back and thought, ‘Wow, the universe works in interesting ways’.” It sure does, Selena. It sure does.

As a former film professor, I stopped showing Allen’s work altogether when I read about the claims in 2014. Unlike Winslet and other recent Allen starlets, I like to do my homework on a person before I go about screening their work and defending their honor in public. Allen’s unconventional films only grew stranger and more bizarre in my eyes after reading the harrowing account from Farrow who seems to have been quieted and shooed by a complicit entertainment complex. In the year of career ending allegations, Allen has somehow slipped through the hands of the press and Hollywood alike. Why? While the aging and reclusive Allen continues to land deal after deal and work with some of the top actors in the industry, his financiers appear happy to play coy about the allegations surrounding their beloved director. In the year of #MeToo, Allen has yet to see his date in the court of public opinion.

An Anarchist Society is a Better Society

Austin Anderholt | USA

Whenever I try to convince someone that taxation (and therefore government) is theft, I find the process is quite easy: I explain to them how a group of people with bigger guns than everyone else call themselves “The Government” demand that you pay them a certain amount of money that you never agreed upon, or else they will threaten to lock you in a cage. The debate may last a few minutes or even hours, but I eventually can convince most people that government is bad and that taxation is theft. At this point, almost every single person says the same exact thing: “But without government, who would build the roads?” Sometimes they ask how other government projects would be handled, but for some reason, most people seem to inquire about roads first. Nonetheless, people are amazed that one could hold the opinion that people shouldn’t be allowed to lock you in a cage if you don’t pay them the money that they demand. They treat anarchism like a bad word. They assume that a stateless society would be like some sort of Hollywood movie they’ve seen, and this view is completely false.
To the masses that have spent their lives on the highly addictive sedative that we call “The Government”, it may seem crazy that people could build roads and complete other tasks without someone pointing a gun at them and stealing from them. There’s a great political comic here, that shows people standing in a breadline in the Soviet Union, starving away. One of them says, “In Capitalist countries, the government doesn’t hand them any bread!” The people in that comic couldn’t possibly imagine a successful world where bread is distributed through capitalism and a voluntary society. This is very similar to the blindness that the current public has about things that the government does. For example, on the issue of Net Neutrality: Net Neutrality didn’t even exist until 2015. Do you remember a time where you had to pay money to big scary corporations to access all websites on the internet before 2015? Me neither, but the drug of government is so powerful that it’s victims start to assume that “If we don’t have someone controlling how we live, the greedy corporations will make it too expensive to pay for anything!” This is entirely false. Companies have to cater to the individual, or else they will fail. If I owned McDonalds, and I started charging a million dollars per hamburger, everyone would stop buying from me, and my company would fail. This is common sense; if companies want to be on top, they have to compete with each other for the lowest prices and best goods/services, in order to ensure that they’ll get repeat customers. No company would ever charge a huge toll for roads or internet or any other good or service you can think of, or else another company could just sell it for a cheaper price, and therefore get more business. Companies must cater to the customer to survive, and the idea of these “greedy corporations” is just plain false.
That being said, have you ever driven on a private road before? I’m sure you have. Did you have to pay a greedy corporation a huge toll to drive on it? Probably not. In fact, many toll roads are government roads. So, how would roads work? In one scenario, you have businesses competing for the cheapest road prices. Many of them might implement different policies, such as, “Our roads are safer because we don’t allow drunk driving” or, “Our roads are cheaper because we only make you pay one small price forever!” This would make roads extremely efficient, and it has worked in the past: The first American railroad was privately owned and built. Let’s say you were really afraid of these non-existent greedy corporations, and you didn’t want them owning your roads. You could crowdfund for monetary donations to build a road that you let everyone go on for free. It would be like taxation, but completely voluntary and with a significant lack of cages.
With that in mind, privatization would help everyone a great deal. Prices would shoot down for things like healthcare, education, and whatnot. Currently, we live in a system where the government has a forced monopolies on those items, and they can demand any amount of money they want for it. Due to this, they can be wasteful and inefficient, but private companies wouldn’t have that option. However, let’s say there’s a family that’s struggling to get by in a stateless economy, and they can’t afford these items. There are tons of huge private charities that are fighting to end things such as hunger and to give free checkups, showers, meals, etc. to people who are in need. Once taxation stops existing, and people’s paychecks aren’t being slashed in half, can you imagine how increasingly generous people would be in donating to these huge causes? Private charity for people in need would skyrocket!
In conclusion, a stateless society would thrive. As we’ve seen through times like the prohibition, public school, and the Middle East, government intervention almost indefinitely makes things worse. Private companies and charities will do much more good than anything currently being accomplished. A voluntary society is a better society!