(Editor’s note: CTN has received several notes–we share them with readers.)
BAY THEATER HOSTS BAXTER
Your one reader is right that a big part of the theater’s value to Netflix is promotional. They qualify their films for awards, and they arrange screenings for potential voters and influencers. They also use it for their west coast premiers. That said, it is still a nice place to see a movie. The food is pretty good and is cheaper than the rest of the Caruso options. Netflix also recently upgraded the old Cinepolis projectors to new 4K laser light projectors.
Speaking of premiers, I know you are a dog person, as am I. Last night the Bay hosted the premiere for Dog Gone, the true story of a father and son who kike the Appalachian trail to find their lost dog. The movie stars Rob Lowe and Kimberly Williams-Paisley.
Kim is a former Palisadian who is married to country music superstar Brad Paisley. For years they lived on Friends Street on the Via Bluff while she was filming the TV series According to Jim. Brad used to frequent Mort’s Deli and Taj Palace in town. In fact, he featured Bobbie Farberow holding a picture of Mort in his music video for When I Get Where I’m Going. (https://youtu.be/yYHT-TF4KO4?t=134).
Also in attendance was the real star, Baxter the Dog, who wore his doggy tux. I’ve attached a picture of him doing photos on the green carpet. Unfortunately, Dog Gone will not be showing at the Bay. It is going straight to streaming on Netflix starting tomorrow, Friday the 13.
BONIN LIKE LICE – HARD TO RID:
“I’m reaching out with a complaint (January 14). Mike Bonin got my email as our councilman. Now that he is a private citizen, it appears that he has retained possession of all his constituents’ emails and now emails me with various things. I find this inappropriate. It seems we can’t shake this guy.”
(Editor’s note: CTN sent a note to L.A. City Ethics while Bonin was a Councilmember, because he was using his email list to support his choice of candidates for the November election, which seems unethical. No one from the City responded. Let this editor reach out again.)
REGARDING “WORKING IN THE FIELD” RACIST
Circling the News wrote: USC School of Social Work is prohibiting the use of the word “field” because the school says it has racist connotations. The word, according to USC, may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers.
To my relatives, who are farmers and working in the fields – just feel sorry for these overeducated people who have no idea where food comes from. Just know – that paying $85,648 to go to school for a year – doesn’t make you smarter.
Readers were quick to respond:
Excellent comment on “field” work. Political correctness is out of control.
Excellent as usual. As a USC alum (yeah, last century) – I am astounded by the BS that is coming out of the School of Social Work. I am a middle of the roader, neither far right or left, but this degrading of “field work” is not right. As an Architect, we often use the word “working in the field” when folks are out on a jobsite. I’m from Illinois originally, so there were a lot of farmers and nothing is wrong with field work. Geesh.
Will Kevin Costner’s ‘Field of Dreams’ be on the do not watch list now?
Amen to the Field workers! Who are these educated people?!
The USC commentary is great! (And I’m an alum!)
Come the revolution, the first fools annihilated will be those not allowing us to use the word \”field.\” Lord help this country!!
Fields???? Thanks for responding to that hideous thinking of the word being racist. What will people think of next!
In reference to a story that doctors were now prescribing drugs to children to help control obesity one reader wrote:
I am glad that you are placing the emphasis on more food intake than is metabolized as the principal cause of the obesity.
I’d like to point out a couple of not well-known factors that are part of this problem. First, because most people are not that familiar with the metric system, they do not appreciate that one gram is the same as 1000 milligrams. And perhaps they do not know that when their child eats a cone equivalent of “rich, luxurious” ice cream such as McConnells they are ingesting 35,000 milligrams of fat!
Based on my rough calculations, this means that a seven-year-old child of and average weight receives a load that is about ten times the entire amount of lipids (cholesterol & triglycerides) in the child’s blood stream normally.
So, after the evening ice cream cone, the body will try to get back to normal levels by morning. To accomplish this the lipids are captured by the liver, the fat and the muscle cells and even by the brain cells and the walls of the blood vessels.
The next day the child is imperceptibly a little heavier and a little bit less healthy. I invite any qualified person to review my calculations