skippy the bush kangaroo

for the gop, it's dead man talking points

speed dating with willard

six-legged giant insect hides for 80 years

extraterrestrials, 1975

executive pay helped cause the financial crisis

here's your one-stop shop to get rush limbaugh off armed forces radio

abbey road outtakes

and rip toola the otter

WASHINGTON — Taking sharply different stands, President Barack Obama on Monday urged pressure and diplomacy to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized his nation's right to a pre-emptive attack. Even in proclaiming unity, neither leader gave ground on how to resolve the crisis.

Seated together in the Oval Office, Obama and Netanyahu at times tried to speak for each other, and other times spoke past one another. The president and prime minister are linked by the history and necessity of their nations' deep alliance, if not much personal warmth, and both sought to steer the Iran agenda on their terms.

"I know that both the prime minister and I prefer to resolve this diplomatically," Obama said. "We understand the costs of any military action."

If he agreed, Netanyahu said nothing about sanctions or talks with Iran, or Obama's position that there still is time to try to deter Iran peacefully. Instead, Netanyahu drew attention back to Obama's acknowledgement that Israel is a sovereign land that can protect itself how it sees fit.

"I believe that's why you appreciate, Mr. President, that Israel must reserve the right to defend itself," Netanyahu said.

Israel, he added, must remain "the master of its fate."

Israel has not yet decided whether to launch a unilateral strike on Iran, a point underscored in the White House meetings...

Labels: Iran, israel, obama, politics

executive pay helped cause the financial crisis

the limbaugh effect: obama approval up 7% with women

one in seven americans pursued by debt collectors

sluts for obama

Peter was appalled to learn that his music was linked to Rush Limbaugh's extraordinary attack on Sandra Flute (sic). It is obvious from anyone that knows Peter's work that he would never approve such a use. He has asked his representatives to make sure his music is withdrawn and especially from these unfair aggressive and ignorant comments.

Labels: idiocy, limbaugh, music, snark

the gop's radioactive anti-obama rhetoric

scientist who discovered hepatitus c says he now discovered the vaccine

miss manners for republicans

sci-fi titles as they should be (more and yet more)

and rest in peace gw bush impersonator (you saw him on the tonite show) steve bridges

medical marijuana: the best and safest pain killer compared to oxy

10 reasons the gop wants to ditch the constitution

join occupy college teach ins

u.s. chamber of commerce wants to buy a senate seat

to demeur

to the mergers daily and to tina-desiree berg, who is also a sag member and blogger, and is also voting no on the sag-aftra merger.

mr. santorum, we do not think that word means whatbyou think it means

baby dingoes open their eyes

'the dirty 30" are the top u.s. companies that paid no taxes

remember that experiment that disproved einstein's theory of relativity? turns out it was just a loose wire

study finds marijuana smoke not so harmful to lungs

kellogg's creates totes amazeballs cereal in response to a single tweet

man's childhood comic collection fetches $3.5 mill at auction

the chattanooga vibrator - 1904

it's full steam ahead as the last hurdle to sue the officers of the screen actors guild in an effort to stop the balloting has been jumped. variety:

no word on how that will effect the voting on the ballots that were mailed out the beginning of this week.

[ed. note: third in a series by actor/blogger Gil Christner]

There is yet another very big problem I have with the current proposal to merge SAG and AFTRA, the two national performers unions. Mainly, the actual, finalize merger proposal does absolutely nothing to address, let alone resolve, any of the problems the merger itself was touted as the only solution for.

The grand idea of all actors working under the same contract is, at this point in time (ie, while voting to merge) nothing more than that: a grand idea. NO outline, plan or study to address what that contract could be, or when it will take effect or how we will achieve it, is in existence. “One Contract” doesn’t even exist on paper. The Pro-Merger contingent seems to advise “Let’s merge into a brand new union, then we’ll figure out how to merge into a brand new union!”

In my opinion, there’s a more than excellent chance that Management would use the opportunity of a brand new union to insist on negotiating from scratch, and we would be in very real danger of facing rollbacks, if not outright loss of benefits and achievements.

One reason I think this? It’s known far and wide throughout television acting communities that today, for the lower tiered actor, (ie not top of show stars), an AFTRA contract, while paying a higher session fee (pay for the actual workdays of filming), nonetheless much fewer and smaller residuals than under a SAG contract.

I can foresee management insisting they pay the new “all inclusive union” not much more than they used to pay under AFTRA old contracts. I can foresee SAG residuals being the first Union Achievement to be on the chopping block.

Trust me, as someone who has made a very nice career out of residuals paid for repeat showings of my unique, hard work, I fear for the future generation of actors who will not be able to make a living at this.

And, going back to the Health and Pension Plans, there is NOTHING in the current proposal to address merging of the actual contributions.

One of the biggest talking points of the Pro-Merger contingent is that all too often an actor doesn’t make enough to qualify for insurance. Under both contracts, an actor must make a certain threshold of money in union-sanctioned employment to qualify for insurance converage. I have to make at least $10,000 in a year under AFTRA contracts to gain minimum coverage (for myself alone; dependents can be paid for in higher premiums).

Theoretically, said the Pro-Merger Union Officers, One Union would mean all paychecks go towards insurance qualification! Certainly, in theory; in theory, all men are brothers and peace shall rule the world.

However in reality, actors will still be working under separate SAG and AFTRA contracts after the merger. There is no apparatus even proposed to deal with the problem the merger is supposed to alleviate.

In my opinion, another actuarial report like the 2003 Mercer Report will be needed. Who knows how long that would take? Not that I am terribly concerned about how long an actuarial report would take; I welcome the idea of slowing down, studying and analyzing the merger. But it makes no sense to hurry up and merge because we want to make insurance easier for the members, then having to wait for months (if not years) while it’s being studied and discussed. In other words, this Merger proposal doesn’t do anything to resolve the problem of Health Insurance for its members.

Here’s one other complaint I have about the merger: Going back to Broadcasters in AFTRA who can work non-union with impunity, I am quite upset with the dues apparatus installed in the merger proposal. In it, Broadcasters who make above $100,000 annually will be charged at a rate of 0.274% of their earnings (capped at $250,000) for their yearly dues. Actors, however, will pay $1.575% on all their earnings (capped at $500,000). Smelly, to say the least, to this character actor.

[Part 1 here. Part 2 here. More later]

the return of occupy wall street

whoever the gop nominee is, hard-core conservatives have already won

veteran not allowed to use vet id card as id for voting

canadians agree: it's time to legalize marijuana

and rest in peace (this is not a joke) andrew breitbart

addendum: if you can't say anything nice about breitbart, don't say anything. instead, read balloon juice

a big part of our early adolescence has passed, or, at least one fourth of it. monkee davy jones is dead at age 66. usatoady:
rest in peace, davy. here's our fav of yours:


the monkees - daydream believer

There were two real musicians and two others: the kid who kept beating out Paul Williams (the short Canadian whose Phantom of the Paradise is a true classic) for roles such as Circus Boy (and who sang lead on most of the hits), and the English kid with the longish, straight hair.

Don Kirshner wanted a photogenic—telegenic—group he could control and sell. The songwriting would be taken care of by The Professionals: Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart, Neil Diamond, John Stewart (who wrote the song shown below), Jerry Goffin and his wife "Oh" Carol King, and the other residents of 1619 Broadway.

But something happened on the way to that place. It turned out that the musicians were real musicians, and the two actors—who later toured with Boyce and Hart—understood that the musicians wanted to do more—like write and make music—and supported those efforts.

The musicians had friend (such as Frank Zappa) who added absurdity to shows that otherwise were comedic. The Texan began to write and produce country-rock songs, in the days before Sweetheart of the Rodeo. The four became a group, and began to do interesting things—even (Heaven forfend) publicly credit the studio musicians who worked on their albums, not to mention those who toured with them.

It lead to fights that did no one any good in the short term: Kirshner decided that if they weren't going to be The Prefab Four (as wags later referred to them), he didn't need to keep them around. The country-rock album was delayed until after The Byrds disc proved that the kid Had the Right Idea After All.

After three short seasons, it fell apart. The television series ended, and almost no one missed it. The group made a few albums and a movie over the next few years, but first the bassist and then the lead guitarist left.

The more you look at it, the more you think the bright-eyed English kid kept them all together Just Long Enough. And when they re-formed, nearly twenty years later, recording some new material and even being a tour (apparently, until Don Henley gave them a negative review, at which point the lead guitarist quit the tour and returned to his successful production company). And they tried some more, but the thrill was gone.

And now the English kid has taken that Last Train to Clarksville, being "done too soon" of a heart attack.

RIP, David Thomas "Davey" Jones.

Labels: music, pop culture

[second in a series by actor/blogger Gil Christner]

There are other reasons that I am hesitant to vote yes on this current merger proposal. To be honest, the biggest of these other reasons is purely selfish: I want my pension! (and I’d like to keep the Screen Actors Guild-Producers Health Plan, one of the premiere health insurance plans in the country!)

There is no literal way to know one way or the other how the merging of the two separate health and pension plans of the two unions would play out (unless you know Dr. Who or Bill & Ted). However, one can make educated guesses, based on current and past realities. The Pro-Merger contingent argues that a combined merger, and by implication, a combined health and pension plan, would be obviously stronger. But there many many experts that would take exception to that vague idea, or at least raise some alarm bells about taking it as fact.

Variety reports on the lawsuit filed by the Minority Opposition view to stop (or at least, disregard) this week’s ballot until a comprehensive actuarial report can be made on the pros and cons of merging the two health and pension plans:

In fact, in the official “Feasibility Report,” the only evidence put forth by the two unions are 7 letters from various lawyers around the country (including one co-counsel to the AFTRA plan; more on that below), which state that (a) merger of the two plans is legal, (b) mergers of plans of other unions have happened in the past and (c) many times those plans prosper after merger.

Nobody I know has even questioned the truth of a, b or c. However what is missing is a specific estimation of what might happen (the positives and the negatives) if these two specific plans were to merge.

In fact, the trustees of the AFTRA plan themselves doubt that it would be easy or simple or perhaps even advisable, denying the above-mentioned Plan co-counsel’s involvement:

But the icing on the cake of my “No” vote in regards to the health and pension comes in the form of the last, most recent feasibility study of possible plan merger. This is the infamous Mercer Report, done in 2003 when the unions were again considering joining together as one.

This report raised several questions in 2003 about the supposed benefits of merging the two plans. It raised enough questions that the trustees of the SAG pension plan to deem merger “unacceptable.”

Though I have no specific knowledge of the two plans’ viability together or separate, I can’t honest believe that economic conditions have improved so much since then that what was deemed economically unviable in 2003 would now be considered smooth sailing to easy street in 2012.

[More Later. Part 1 can be read here]

romney recalls vivid memory of an event that happened before he was born

10 big questions for conservative politicians

russian scientists revive frozen ice age flower back to life

occupy andrew breitbart

[ed. note: this post is by Gil Christner, one of the founding editors of Skippy International. He is a working member of both performers unions and active in SAG Union politics.]

I did my first Screen Actors Guild job in 1979 when I had one line in “More American Graffiti.” I played a hippie in a commune who refused Candy Clark’s plea for money to bail her boyfriend out of jail. I remember the line well: “He still owes me 50 for that key I fronted him.” What Acting! Bravo!

I joined AFTRA a couple of years later when I did a commercial under that contract. So I have been a proud dues-paying member of both performers’ unions for over 30 years. And I must say that both Unions have done well by me; I have made a living under SAG contracts for nearly 20 years (not to mention the great health benefits I got and the Pension I am getting), and AFTRA was instrumental in recovering money from a producer who used tape of me in a TV show without my knowledge or permission. I am glad to be a member of both esteemed organizations.

Yet I am voting “No” (two times…one ballot per union) on the current SAG-AFTRA merger proposal. Now, make no mistake, I am definitely NOT against the merger of the two unions in theory. But there are many many reasons why I think this specific proposal is not only bad for the Screen Actors Guild members, but bad for Middle Class Actors all across the country as well.

On the surface, merger of the two actors unions sounds like a great idea. In fact, the surface idea of it is one of the main talking points that the pro-merger side is touting. What could be better than all actors in one Grand Union, working together, battling Management for the betterment of its members? Solidarity forever, Together United, We’ll Never Be Divided, The People Yes!

Unfortunately, there is one large detriment to the specifics of SAG merging with AFTRA in my view, and it flies directly in the face of Union Solidarity.

For those unaware of the specifics of the two actors unions, AFTRA not only represents actors in television and radio, it also represents Broadcasters: On Camera News people, Sports and Weather Casters, Announcers, etc. And putting aside the question of whether Broadcasters’ work and contract problems are the same as Actors, putting aside the question of whether Broadcasters would have voting rights on Actors contracts, or whether they would even honor an Actor picket line, I have a huge HUGE problem with the current paradigm of Broadcasters and Union work.

Simply put, Broadcasters work off the card (non-union) with impunity. AFTRA never punishes union Broadcasters for working non-union shops (and there are plenty of non-union shops: CNN, Fox Sports, etc). I am unwilling to consider merging the Screen Actors Guild, whose Global Rule One is Don’t Work Non-Union, with a union that refuses to enforce a similar, fundamental definition of what it is to be in a Union. I forsee a weakening of union standards, and probably union effectiveness, if it’s accepted behavior to work non-union.

[we will provide Gil with space to air more reasons later - ed.]