The once dominant television phenomenon “American Idol” has tried almost everything this season. But unfortunately, even an episode that featured trendy dance moves by Psy, soulful renderings by Aretha Franklin, nostalgic falsetto singing by Frankie Valli, and a provocative performance by former judge Jennifer Lopez couldn’t stop the show’s ratings erosion.

Ending a season of dismal numbers, the final installment of Season 12 drew the smallest “Idol” finale audience in the show’s history.

Back in 2006, when the music industry marvel was quickly conquering the small screen, the finale attracted 36 million viewers. Subsequent “Idol” finales would typically tally over 30 million.

No such boasts can be made anymore. According to Nielsen, the show’s numbers were down 33 percent from last year’s finale, as it shed 7.2 million of its viewers and landed with a total viewer count thud of 14.3 million.

It marked the first time in the 13 year-long “Idol” run that one of its finales failed to attract 20 million or more. In 2011 the finale secured an audience of 29 million, which in 2012 dropped to 21.5 million viewers, a record holder up until now for the lowest rated finale. Simply stated, half of the reality show’s total viewership vanished in just two short years.

“Idol” ratings across Season 12 have been consistently below expectations, and what no doubt must be of serious concern is the precipitous decline that has taken place in the coveted 18 to 49-year-old demographic, which fell a massive 44 percent from the previous year and has the potential to be of major consequence to advertising revenues. A reduction of this sort in the young adult demographic is not only troubling for the show’s producers, it tends to set off a virtual panic alarm for network execs as well.

Television experts are somewhat befuddled and are likely scratching their heads and wondering what went wrong with the television juggernaut of bygone days. The show has been on for a dozen years, and it may simply be that its premise has grown stale.

It may also be suffering from some stiff competition a la copycat rivals. Viewers have been able to choose from an array of similar programming, including Simon Cowell’s “The X Factor” and the NBC “Idol” facsimile, “The Voice,” which incidentally has also experienced a ratings decline.

One of the advantages that “Idol” had going for it during its early seasons was its wholesomeness. Millions of families looked with anticipation to one of the few shows that together they could tune into and truly enjoy. It was uplifting and engaging for dream seekers of all ages.

Like so often happens, though, some “edgy” content began to seep into the show via guest artists and a series of subsequent judges, and it worked to actually undermine the ability of parents to feel as comfortable as they once had with “Idol.”

Additionally, competitive reality shows are about both judges and participants, and there has been a great deal of discussion among fans about the chemistry, or lack thereof, as it pertains to the most recent judge panel. On paper, a foursome that included Keith Urban, Nicki Minaj, Mariah Carey, and Randy Jackson may have looked like an outstanding lineup. However, there seemed to be a general shortage of valuable feedback for contestants, and the slate of judges didn’t garner the kind of fan reaction that producers had hoped for.

During the final weeks of “Idol,” the judges, whether inadvertently or not, gave viewers the impression that they were unduly favoring certain contestants over others. At times they even appeared to be subtly prodding viewers to cast votes in a particular direction. The problem is if there is a perception that bias exists among the judges, particularly during the final stages of the contest, it is natural for the credibility of the show to take a hit. Some of the judges’ comments apparently led a number of viewers to believe that this was the case.

The show is reportedly going to be totally revamped, which is supposed to include a fresh installment of superstar judges.

Fox Entertainment President Kevin Reilly, who spoke just prior to the network’s annual “upfront” presentation to advertisers, promised that producers are going to work on ways to reverse the viewer attrition that has occurred. The declining ad revenues would pretty much mandate that they do so.

Reilly indicated that next year the show is “likely” to go back to a three-judge panel format.

“Saturday Night Live” sunk to a to new low in the content of its most recent opening sketch.

The Lorne Michaels-created late-night television show was once recognized for its fresh, brash sketches that combined comedy with commentary.

That was then, this is now. Apparently, SNL producers and writers prefer to be politically correct in their commentary and aggressive in the expression of their liberal biases rather than just plain funny.

With the acquisition of further Benghazi information, which was recently revealed during congressional hearings and involved serious inaction, falsehoods, fabrications, and stonewalling following the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks, SNL could have used its media platform to comically nudge the Obama administration to be more forthcoming.

Instead the opening skit’s primary targets were GOP representatives on the House Oversight Committee, a lazy and possibly complicit demonstration from writers who are employed by a left-of-center network and are part of a largely liberal industry.

The SNL comedy writers took great pains to depict the Republicans as engaging in purely partisan theatrics. The sick sketch had the chairman of the congressional committee calling convicted murderer Jodi Arias to testify. Also waiting in the wings to be sworn under oath as the next witness was suspected Ohio kidnapper and rapist Ariel Castro.

Although the opening of the bit implicitly acknowledged that the media had failed to properly cover the Benghazi hearings, the humor that was incorporated into the piece came in the form of mockery of GOP committee members, with negligible pokes at the media and zero ribbing of the Obama administration.

SNL’s Bill Hader portrayed Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee. Kenan Thompson, who played Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings, telegraphed the SNL writers’ mindset, when in character he declared, “Everyone knows that this [the hearings] is just a partisan witch hunt and a chance to attack the president and Secretary of State Clinton.”

Hader as Issa then set up the parody by saying, “My Democratic colleague is welcome to his opinion, but I’d like to see him and his friends in the media ignore these hearing after they hear from our first witness.”

It was then that the Issa character called Arias (portrayed by Nasim Pedrad) as his first witness. The real-life Arias was convicted of first-degree murder just days before the show aired.

After the Cummings character asked what “possible insights or expertise that she [Arias] could bring to the events in Benghazi,” the Issa character revealed his fictional motive.

“Do you realize how hard it was to book her, especially this week?” Hader as Issa asked.

The Arias character then voiced what seemed to be the central objective of the SNL writers, suggesting that the hearings were unnecessary.

The fictional Issa was asked, “If you know who did it, then why are you holding these hearings?”  The Republicans in the sketch were portrayed as dumbfounded by the query.

SNL’s version of the congressional hearings grew darker still. The show’s twisted opening aired only days after Castro was arrested and accused of unspeakable crimes.

“What about me? When do I get to testify?” SNL’s Bobby Moynihan as Castro asked.

Not content with merely characterizing Republicans as using the deaths in Benghazi for political purposes, the SNL writers added a line designed to make the Issa character look even more foolish. The fake Issa called the kidnapper the wrong name, invoking yet another name in the Castro news story.

“Don’t you worry there, Mr. Ramsey, you’re all next week,” he reassured.

Something intriguing has been happening at the “Tonight Show” with the content of host Jay Leno’s humor. The jokes that are flying are going where no late-night hosts have gone before.

Leno’s late-night TV colleagues, for the most part, have been blatantly partisan, particularly in the manner in which their material has been written. Leno’s peers have made the occasional reference to President Obama within the context of their jokes; however, in a similar vein to the mainstream media, they have been perfunctory at best in their targeting of Obama or his administration, reserving their sharpest comedic barbs for the GOP.

Not that Leno has shied away from making jokes at the expense of Republicans. An October 2012 study released by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) indicated that, much like his competitors, Leno ribbed GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney more than he did Obama.

Still, in an earlier study, the CMPA revealed that Leno had told Obama jokes about twice as many times as his late-night rival David Letterman had.

When it comes to the president and his policies, it is the candid commentary that is imbedded in Leno’s humor that is distinguishing him from his competitors.

Comedic material has the ability to carry out a journalist’s mandate to “speak truth to power” in a way that no other form of communication can match. Lenny Bruce, the famed stand-up comedian who routinely pushed the boundaries of free speech, once described humor as “the only honest art form.”

Bruce also postulated, “Today’s comic is not doing an act. The audience assumes he’s telling the truth.”

Interestingly, Leno’s jokes have been taking aim at President Obama’s policies and the “Tonight Show” host appears to be going after some of the same uncomfortable truths that prior to now only conservative talk show hosts would dare to speak freely about.

Leno quipped about some remarks that the president had made at a recent press conference in which he alluded to his first term promise to close the facility at Guantanamo.

Leno set the joke up by saying, “President Obama held a press conference today. He said he still wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, but he doesn’t know how to do it.”

The late-nite comic then snapped out the following zinger: “He should do what he always does. Declare it a small business and tax it out of existence.”

Before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner took place, Leno told the following joke: “All five living presidents will gather for the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Library. President Obama says he hopes he can pick up some ideas for when he builds his. It’s going to be called the ‘Blame George W. Bush Presidential Library.’”

Somehow the comedic material ended up being woven into Obama’s presentation at the D.C. event.

Some of Leno’s witticism, which was related to immigration reform, contained a subtext that was able to convey more in a few lines than most political pundits are able to say in an entire cable news face-off.

“The Associated Press, the largest newsgathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term ‘illegal immigrant.’ That is out. They will now use the phrase ‘undocumented Democrat,’” Leno quipped.

Last year, following the election, Leno used his monologue to skewer both the president and the condition of the economy. “Good news for the economy,” he chimed. “President Obama is out of town.”

During the same show, he commented on Obama’s penchant for spending as well as the administration’s handling of taxpayer’s money, saying, “Well, the U.S. Postal Service reported that it had an annual loss of almost $16 billion. They’re losing money faster than Obama can spend it.”

Leno even threw out a joke that was at the expense of NBC’s sibling network, MSNBC. After sidekick Rickey Minor asked how bad the economy was, Leno gave a series of comedic answers that began with the phrase “The economy is so bad…”

Two of the answers were editorials that posed as gags. “The economy is so bad MSNBC had to lay off 300 Obama spokesmen. That’s how bad it’s gotten,” Leno said. Another answer lamented that “the economy is so bad President Obama sent Susan Rice out to defend it.”

Speaking of the U.N. ambassador, no other late-night comedian has touched upon the Benghazi scandal as much as Leno has. Back in October 2012, before the presidential election had taken place, Leno said, “More problems for General Petraeus. After searching the home of his mistress Paula Broadwell, the FBI said it found classified material on her personal computer.”

Pausing a moment for effect, Leno then said, “In fact, agents said she had more information about Benghazi than our U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, okay? We should have talked to her.”

The Obama administration’s response to the September 11 attacks on the U.S. consulate also prompted Leno to crack, “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is back. Not for gays in the military. It’s President Obama’s new policy for questions about Libya: don’t ask, don’t tell!”

After the November 2012 election, Leno continued with the Benghazi theme. “And this week, CBS News became the first news organization besides Fox to ask President Obama, ‘Who changed the Benghazi talking points?’” the late-night host said, adding the punch line, “See, this is very dangerous to the White House if journalists should suddenly start asking real questions.”

Leno’s humor contains substantive messages that might pose a danger to someone who lacks the clout to buck the Hollywood infrastructure. It’s no problem for Leno, though. A freedom that oftentimes accompanies success has been won, and Leno now looks as if he has decided to go rogue.

In March 2013, The Hollywood Reporter revealed that NBC was planning an exit strategy for Leno. The stunning news was that despite Leno’s hosting of the most-watched late-night show, he would be handing the keys to the “Tonight Show” studio over to Jimmy Fallon. The transition would occur at the expiration of Leno’s contract in September 2014.

Leno is apparently not the kind of person who is itching to retire. Reports indicate he’s not in it for the money, “it” being his hosting duties on the “Tonight Show.” He does not use the salary he receives to pay for his day-to-day expenses but instead lives on the money he earns from a rigorous schedule of stand-up comedy gigs.

As was widely discussed during the Conan O’Brien fiasco, the most likely place that Leno may ultimately land is at a late-night Fox network show, which would be reliant on a positive reception by the Fox affiliate stations across the country.

In fact, Fox affiliate board chairman Steve Pruett recently told The New York Post that if the network were to present “the right business plan, the affiliate board would be interested.”

The Rupert Murdoch-owned network may be the perfect fit for the bold, honest humor that Leno has been delivering.

Even those few folks who had never heard of the hit reality series “Duck Dynasty” recently saw some of the cast of the reality show in attendance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

A&E’s reality television series follows the lives of the Robertson family, who became wealthy as a result of the success of a family-operated business, Duck Commander, which is headquartered in West Monroe, Louisiana.

The show routinely includes scenes exhibiting time-honored American values, which, incidentally, certain current-minded television executives previously had a difficult time believing were marketable. Some of the values that are seamlessly woven into many of the episodes include fervent faith, family loyalty, dedication to the work ethic, and valuing of our constitutional rights, Second Amendment rights in particular.

To refer to the show as a hit does not really do it justice; more accurately, it is a full-fledged TV phenomenon.

Last week the Season 3 finale drew a massive 9.6 million viewers. “Duck Dynasty” ended up being the most-watched telecast in A&E’s history as well as the evening’s highest rated television show, when both cable and broadcast programs are taken into consideration. The reality series even trounced the small-screen powerhouse “American Idol.”

The males in the Robertson clan sport beards a la ZZ Top, making the Texas band’s tune, “Sharp Dressed Man,” a perfect fit for the show’s theme song.

Patriarch Phil Robertson created the Duck Commander duck call back in 1972 and launched the Duck Commander Company the following year.

Before Phil became a duck hunting legend, he played college football at Louisiana Tech University, starting ahead of famed Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback and current TV analyst Terry Bradshaw. Phil was drafted by the NFL after his junior year, but he turned down an offer from the Washington Redskins, making duck hunting a priority instead.

“Throwing a touchdown pass to a guy running down the sideline, and he runs down with the ball for six, it was fun,” Phil told Sports Illustrated. “However, in my case, it was much more fun to be standing down in some flooded timber with about 35 or 40 mallard ducks comin’ down on top of me in the woods. That did my heart more good than all the football in the world.”

“Duck Dynasty” is unique among reality television in its unabashed depiction of faith. At the end of each show’s episode, the family prays before breaking bread together. Phil is also often shown reading the Bible.

As a matter of fact, Papa Robertson fought against an early attempt by the show’s producers to edit the word “Jesus” out of the family prayers. When the show’s bosses tried to censor certain language in an effort to alter the image of the Robertson clan, he insisted that the editing cease.

Phil has been speaking to groups ever since hunters began clamoring for him to demonstrate his world famous duck call. However, as a result of his personal spiritual growth the content of his presentations went through a significant transformation.

“I’d say, ‘That concludes the duck call demonstration,’” Phil told USA Today. “I’d bring out my Bible and say, ‘While I’m here, based on my observation of the mischief in America, I need to preach the gospel.’ The audiences just keep getting bigger, bigger, bigger. Obviously, the Almighty put the Robertsons on the road, sharing the good news of Jesus, and do people ever need it.”

“Faith is the number one thing in our lives, and so everything revolves around it: our marriages, our families, our business,” Phil’s son Willie told the Blaze.

Willie’s Uncle Si used faith in addressing the gun control issue when he spoke to a crowd at the Texas Crawfish and Music Festival.

“Hey, look here, the president was just on the news about gun control, but hey, luckily our congressmen and senators, they voted it down,” Si said. “But look, America hasn’t got a gun control problem, we have got a sin control problem. Nothing has changed with the human race, OK? We’re a bunch of flawed people, OK? And ‘Duck Dynasty,’ look here, ‘Duck Dynasty’ is full of flawed people that have turned to Jesus, OK? That’s the difference.”

As an example of a left-leaning reaction to the faith and firearms displayed in “Duck Dynasty,” when the Robertsons were set to appear on “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” a scheduled guest, rock singer Morrissey, refused to appear with the reality show cast members, whom he referred to as “animal serial killers.”

The truth is, though, the only thing that “Duck Dynasty” is really guilty of is killing off all of its competition.

Robert Redford has a new agenda driven film out. Unfortunately for him, the timing of his latest release is terrible.

As the nation struggles to recover from the recent tragic events that took place in Boston, moviegoers have little appetite for flicks that are sympathetic to terrorism and its evil machinations.

Redford produced, directed, and stars in “The Company You Keep,” a political action thriller that is derived from a script, which was adapted from Neil Gordon’s revisionist novel of the same name.

In the movie, Redford plays widower and single dad Jim Grant, who is an anti-Vietnam War radical and former member of the Weather Underground. Grant is being sought by law enforcement in relation to a bank robbery and murder.

For three decades Grant has posed as an Albany attorney in order to hide from the FBI. He finds himself in the position of being forced to flee, after an aggressive reporter (played by Shia LaBeouf) exposes his true identity.

Sharon Solarz (played by Susan Sarandon) is another fugitive who readies herself to surrender to the law.

Replete with hippie-era clichés, the dialogue of the film puts a positive spin on sixties’ radicalism.

“We made mistakes, but we were right,” Solarz says at one point.

The line is reminiscent of an interview that Bill Ayers, former real-life radical and associate of President Obama, had given a while back to The New York Times.

“I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. “I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Similar to onscreen characters in Redford’s movie, Ayers and fellow Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn married, and the two became fugitives who had to alter their identities, change jobs, and move from one location to another.

Numerous film critics who apparently share the nostalgic fantasies of the Hollywood left were elated over Redford’s cinematic treatment of some of the more infamous radicals of the sixties’ era.

Redford’s movie “is streaked with melancholy: a disappointment that the second American Revolution never came,” says Time magazine.

Variety calls the film an “unabashedly heartfelt but competent tribute to 1960s idealism …” and muses that “there is something undeniably compelling, perhaps even romantic, about America’s ’60s radicals and the compromises they did or didn’t make.”

In reality, though, the film gives a highly sanitized view of the Weather Underground, ignoring the unquestionable terrorist activity that is the hallmark of the group’s dark legacy.

A radical left organization founded in 1969 on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan, the group ultimately became known as the Weathermen. The following line from a Bob Dylan song, “Subterranean Homesick Blues,” purportedly provided the inspiration for the group’s moniker: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

The organization’s goal was a simple one, to overthrow the U.S. government. According to a position paper distributed in 1969, the group sought to destroy “US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism.”

The real Ayers and Dohrn were an integral part of the five people who initially ran the central committee of the Weathermen. Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant who was with the Weatherman in 1969 and 1970, confirmed that Ayers and Dohrn were the two top leaders of the group.

Between 1970 and 1975, the group carried out a series of bombings of banks and government buildings. Ayers participated in the bombings of the New York City Police Department headquarters, United States Capitol building, and Pentagon.

Members of the organization claim that they had attempted to avoid human injury and had given evacuation warnings prior to the bombings. However, as a nail bomb was being assembled, which was being put together for nefarious use at a Non-Commissioned Officers’ dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base, the device prematurely detonated, taking the lives of three Weathermen members.

An FBI report later stated that the group possessed enough explosive to “level … both sides of the street.”

Emory University professor Harvey Klehr took issue with the claim that the Weatherman group was not trying to take lives with its bombings.

“The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don’t know what sort of defense that is,” Klehr stated.

Just days after the terrorist activities in Boston stunned the nation, “The Company You Keep” was expanded in its release and appeared in theaters in urban locations across the country.

President Obama told reporters at the White House in the aftermath of the Boston attack, “Any time bombs are used to target civilians it is an act of terror.”

According to the president’s definition, Redford, through his release of a film that rationalizes terrorism, has done a disservice to his career, and more importantly, the nation.

As the U.S. Senate voted in favor of initiating debate on the implementation of new restrictions on constitutional rights, the “Saturday Night Live” crew was readying its Obama-supporting comedic arsenal.

SNL writers came up with an opening skit for this past weekend’s show, which essentially chided Congress for failing to sufficiently negate the Second Amendment.

The most recent telecast of the longstanding NBC show began with an Obama impersonator handing over a fictitious presidential press conference to two senator actors.

The senator thespians were fill-ins for a couple of real-life senators who have actually put together a background check proposal, which recently garnered votes from 14 other GOP senators.

In the SNL skit, Bill Hadar is cast as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Jason Sudeikis plays the role of Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA).

In a real world prelude to the TV humor, a filibuster threat was fended off, due to a routine procedural vote that allowed the Senate to begin formal debate on the Toomey-Manchin proposal, as well as other post-Sandy Hook legislative measures.

The mainstream press hailed the event as a breakthrough. The SNL skit, true to its snarky form, referred to the procedural vote as an agreement “to begin thinking about talking about gun control.” The show’s writers and producers additionally belittled the Toomey-Manchin background checks proposal, characterizing it as a meaningless proposition.

President Obama is portrayed in the bit by Jay Pharoah, who throws out the following line: “As you know, over the past few months, I have made gun control legislation a top priority for my administration. Which is why I am so proud to announce that last week, the Senate voted 68 to 31 to begin debating the idea of discussing gun control.”

For partisan emphasis, the faux president paraphrases the same statement, saying, “Let me say that again: They’ve agreed to think about talking about gun control.”

The SNL Obama also informs viewers that the deal is going to end the careers of both senators. Concerning Manchin’s future, the actor notes that since the senator is “from West Virginia and he’s proposing gun reform? He’s going to lose his job.”

Similarly, the Obama stand-in says that Toomey is “a Republican who’s willing to make just the slightest compromise on gun control? He’s going to lose his job, too.”

Predictably, SNL crafts the humor in a way that places blame squarely on the shoulders of Congress for not having done enough to further the president’s gun control agenda.

The sketch wraps up with the Obama actor shrugging his shoulders and saying, “See, this is what I’m up against.”

From a media psychology vantage point, the real Obama is engaged in exploitation of the Sandy Hook tragedy and is using every media apparatus he can get his hands on to sway public opinion. In addition, he has an army of willing allies in the news and entertainment media who are lined up to assist him in massaging the public’s psyche.

In a truly unsettling move, the administration has actually taken some of the parents who lost children in the Newtown tragedy and essentially turned them into lobbyists for its political agenda, even placing the parents in the offices of the U.S. Senate. Reportedly, the presence of the grieving parents was what persuaded several of the senators who were previously reluctant to back away from a filibuster.

“It’s remarkable,” Connecticut Democrat Sen. Christopher S. Murphy told the New York Times. “You can’t turn a corner in the Capitol this week without meeting a family of a gun violence victim. It’s hard to say no to these families.”

While meeting with the parents, Manchin evidently became so emotional that he broke down and cried.

“I’m a parent. … I’m a grandparent,” he told reporters, after being asked what he thought it meant to have them visiting the U.S. Capitol. Attempting to respond, the senator said, “I can’t imagine this … to do something.” He then gave up, succumbing to his emotions.

Emotional lobbying apparently played a role in the current Toomey-Manchin bipartisan matchup. The two were reportedly brought together by the staff of Americans for Responsible Solutions, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ new gun control advocacy group.

Possibly buoyed in his gun control push by the effectiveness of having Newtown parents serve as inadvertent lobbyists, Obama, in a rather startling move, recently had Francine Wheeler in his place to deliver the weekly address. Wheeler had tragically lost her little boy in the Sandy Hook massacre.

Wheeler’s message seemed mostly intended for congressional ears, as she urged lawmakers to move to enact gun control legislation. She implored them to “help this be the moment when real change begins.”

Similar to the message conveyed by Wheeler, the SNL focus seems to have the earmarks of having been orchestrated by media savvy operatives in the Obama administration and who may have, as a further agenda, the goal of reaching beyond the Toomey-Manchin proposal.

Beyoncé and Jay-Z recently picked an odd locale in which to celebrate their fifth wedding anniversary. Having the finances and time to travel anywhere in the world their hearts desired, where did the superstar couple decide to vacation? In of all places, Cuba.

The two declined to answer journalists’ questions about their jaunt to the Communist country. Perhaps they avoided speaking with reporters because, for the last 51 years, it has actually been illegal for U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba as vacationers.

The fact of the matter is if Beyoncé and Jay-Z went to Cuba as tourists, they were in violation of the law, unless they had first obtained a travel license from the U.S. government.

This is where the Obama administration may have played a role in the couple’s excursion. The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is the unit that approves travel to Cuba, would have to have issued a special license for Beyoncé and Jay-Z to be able to stroll the streets of Havana.

As of the time of this article’s writing, the Treasury Department had not yet confirmed that such a license had been issued to the couple, despite having been specifically asked about the matter by the press.

Two members of Congress are also inquiring as to whether the Obama administration granted permission to the celebrity couple to travel to Cuba and why it would have done so.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart have sent a letter to Adam Szubin, director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department. An excerpt, posted on Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s website, reads as follows:  “We write to express concern and to request information regarding the highly publicized trip by U.S. musicians Beyoncé Knowles-Carter (Beyoncé) and Shawn Carter (Jay-Z) to Cuba. We would like to respectfully request, within all applicable rules and guidelines, information regarding the type of license that Beyoncé and Jay-Z received, for what purpose, and who approved such travel.”

“As you know, U.S. law expressly prohibits the licensing of financial transactions for ‘tourist activities’ in Cuba (Section 910(b)(1) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act),” the letter adds.

Frankly, the concern expressed by the legislators displayed restraint, considering that Beyoncé and Jay-Z vacationed in a place where human rights are routinely violated.

After coming to power in 1959, Fidel Castro’s government built a terribly efficient system of repression. Cuban law imposes severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and the press. The government represses religious freedom as well, maintaining tight controls on religious institutions, affiliated groups, and individual adherents.

The government utilizes forced labor camps and has implemented a political form of psychiatry, both of which are used to punish those who disagree with the aims of the Cuban regime.

If Beyoncé and Jay-Z had grown up in Cuba, they would not have been able to freely record and perform the kind of music that brought them such career success, without the risk of censorship. The Cuban constitution allows “free” speech only if it happens to be “in keeping with the objectives of socialist society.” Additionally, artistic creation is permissible for Cuban residents only “as long as its content is not contrary to the Revolution.”

The power couple would also have discovered that their assets were not their own in a country where private property rights are essentially nonexistent.

Cuban fans of musical artists such as Beyoncé and Jay-Z are unable to attend U.S. concerts because almost all travel and emigration is illegal. Cuban citizens are unable to leave or return to Cuba without first obtaining official permission, which is almost never granted. Unauthorized travel may ultimately result in criminal prosecution.

Things have not changed much in Cuba since Fidel handed control over to his brother Raul. Human Rights Watch, an organization dedicated to protecting human rights, reported, “Raúl Castro has kept Cuba’s repressive machinery firmly in place…since being handed power by his brother Fidel Castro.”

Mauricio Claver-Carone, who is the Executive Director of Cuba Democracy Advocates in Washington, D.C., commented on the Beyoncé-Jay-Z trip, telling TMZ, “There are women getting beaten on a daily basis, women who are being jailed for no reason … people are fighting for their freedom.”

Also displaying apparent restraint in his phrasing, Claver-Carone characterized the celebrity couple’s choice of vacation destination as “extremely insensitive.”

Jim Carrey received a great deal of news coverage last week, following a posting of what was supposed to be a comedic video on the Funny or Die website.

The video in which Carrey stars is titled “Cold Dead Hand” and features content that ridicules those who hold the Constitution in the highest regard and is dismissive of the Second Amendment. All of this is conveyed while simultaneously attempting to tarnish the reputation of the late great Hollywood film legend Charlton Heston.

The Funny or Die website’s name reflects a mutual understanding on the part of stand-up comedians, who commonly characterize a performance that fails to elicit laughs from an audience as “dying” on stage.

Interestingly, Carrey’s Funny of Die performance is emblematic of the latter. However, what may be even worse for the actor is what could potentially flow career-wise from the ill-conceived and terribly malicious video.

Carrey unfortunately aimed his bully-comedy sights on a legendary figure, who to this day is respected, admired, and missed by countless numbers of Americans; an individual who, incidentally, just days after the video made its ugly debut, graced TV sets across the nation with his onscreen appearance as Moses in the Easter season film favorite, “The Ten Commandments.”

Carrey made humorless matters even worse when he promoted the Funny or Die piece by characterizing those who happen to differ with the current liberal gun control proposals as “heartless [expletive] unwilling to bend for the safety of our kids.”

This is not the first time that the Hollywood star has put forth his opinions regarding the Second Amendment. Back in February 2013 Carrey provided some gun related commentary via his Twitter account. Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, he opined that the lives of some of those who own firearms weren’t “worth protecting.”

“Any1 who would run out to buy an assault rifle after the Newtown massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth protecting,” Carrey tweeted.

Like many of his far-left associates in Hollywood, Carrey is wildly out of touch with the concerns of the majority of the citizens of this country who do not have afforded to them the luxury of private security protection and must therefore provide such for themselves and their loved ones.

Carrey made another Twitter faux pas, one that revealed that he himself has an armed security guard. On March 13, 2013, less than a day after Carrey released the video mocking Heston, he posted the following: “Listen up! MY BODY GAURD DOESN’T HAVE A GUN THT SHOOTS A HUNDRED ROUNDS because we’re REASONABLE PEOPLE! HATE HEARS WHT IT WANTS 2 HEAR!”

He did not share the “reasonable” number of rounds with which his bodyguard is equipped. Maybe if Carrey had gone to his bodyguard for some elucidation, he may have learned that security professionals routinely carry multiple clips so they can quickly change them out should it become necessary.

It was predictable that Carrey would alienate a segment of his fans, and perhaps he is not all that bothered by the negative fallout. But apparently, he is not yet finished. He has additionally decided to go after the number one cable news network in America, the Fox News Channel.

Evidently displeased with Fox’s coverage of his video, Carrey released a statement claiming that his reputation has been harmed.

“Since I released my Cold Dead Hand video on Funny or Die this week, I have watched Fux News rant, rave, bare its fangs and viciously slander me because of my stand against large magazines and assault rifles. I would take them to task legally if I felt they were worth my time or that anyone with a brain in their head could actually fall for such irresponsible buffoonery,” Carrey’s statement indicated.

Over the decades celebrities have undoubtedly used their fame to, among other things, influence political positions, support electoral candidates, promote public policy, and encourage governmental legislation. No one would argue that Carrey, who was born in Canada, sought to become a U.S. citizen, achieved his goal in 2004, and is now a dual citizen of both countries, has every right to express his views. However, there are plenty of people who will not soon forget Carrey’s latest Internet feature.

The free market has a way of making public sentiment visible. This is especially true when it comes to products of choice. Stars and all of their entertainment related attendant merchandise are, after all, products, and as such are subject to free market principles.

In addition to obtaining some important instruction on the Constitution and the origin of our rights, Carrey may be about to learn a hard lesson on the power of the free market.

The newly released “Olympus Has Fallen” is an action movie, which, like so many others that have come out of Hollywood in the past few years, is a mixed bag artistically.

However, the film seems to have abnormally irritated a number of critics, not so much because of some of its inherent flaws, but rather because it includes a display of patriotism and additionally dares to contain a story line about a Western nation that is dealing with the real world challenges of terrorism.

Metropolitan movie critics have been known to sing the praises of less than stellar film fare and have routinely given a pass to explicitly violent R-rated cinema. Somehow, though, “Olympus Has Fallen” has managed to raise the ire of many of them, and the grousing on the street is about the love of country that is exhibited by several of the onscreen characters and what is frequently characterized as questionable interrogation techniques.

David Edelstein of New York Magazine chose to politicize the content of “Olympus,” calling the movie “straight-ahead red-meat right-wing xenophobic exploitation.”

Sean Means of the Salt Lake Tribune used a famous television and radio personality to underscore his critique of the movie, writing, “If Glenn Beck directed a live-action remake of Team America: World Police, you might approach the level of ridiculous violence and brainless flag-waving in ‘Olympus Has Fallen.’”

Ian Buckwalter of NPR focused on the source material of the film, asking where “the jingoistic fear-mongering, the maudlin nationalistic paeans to God and country” come from. He answered his own question with “straight out of ‘Red Dawn.’”

Buckwalter’s “Red Dawn” mention brings up a commonality that “Olympus” has with the 2012 “Red Dawn” re-make. In both films, the invading bad guys hail from North Korea.

A sizable number of moviegoers have no doubt noticed that recently there has been reluctance on the part of Hollywood to depict terrorists as being of Middle Eastern persuasion, due to a heightened cultural sensitivity that has developed. Communist Chinese villains have likewise gone to the wayside, since the entertainment industry relies heavily on the overseas Chinese market. In fact, in last year’s version of “Red Dawn,” the Red Chinese villains that were originally in the movie were subsequently digitally removed.

Buckwalter was apparently disturbed by what he described as some “unpleasantly uncomfortable moments,” particularly some in which the “torture of captured enemies” was met with moviegoers’ cheering and laughter, adding, “both of which it [the film] rather nauseatingly received from the audience I watched with.”

He expressed concern over “what a movie’s gleeful attitudes toward torture, or its simplification or demonization of our enemies, might say about us.”

The movie’s lead character (played by Gerard Butler) is a Jack Bauer-like hero (“24” television series), who is willing to “enhance” the interrogation of terrorists in order to obtain life-saving information.

Critics Greg Evans and Craig Seligman, co-writing for Bloomberg, sarcastically asked, “Does anything say ‘patriotism’ like a lovely marble bust of Abraham Lincoln, smashed over the head of a wounded terrorist?”

The Bloomberg duo answered their own inquiry in the following manner: “Certainly nothing in ‘Olympus Has Fallen,’” opining that it was “an ugly, bloody rampage of jingoism, carnage and hand-me-down action-movie clichés.”

The plot of “Olympus Has Fallen” is for the most part divulged in the movie’s trailer.

The White House (code name “Olympus”) is captured by a group of terrorists who take the President of the United States (played by Aaron Eckhart) hostage.

A former Secret Service agent who had been part of the president’s detail (Butler’s character) gets a chance to redeem his tarnished reputation as he manages to place himself inside the terrorist-occupied White House. His mission is to thwart the terrorist leader’s heinous plans and ultimately save the nation.

Countless critics have slammed the movie for being too similar to “Die Hard.”

Claudia Puig of USA Today and Scott Foundas of the Village Voice both labeled the movie as “Die Hard’ in the White House.”

A.O. Scott of the New York Times dubbed “Olympus” “the worst ‘Die Hard’ movie this year.”

The aforementioned Buckwalter wrote that “at times the debt the film owes to ‘Die Hard’ is so huge that it goes uncomfortably beyond homage and into wholesale theft.”

In an age of sequels, prequels, and reboots, much of the bellyaching over content similarities seems trivial.

A major buzz has been building in the mainstream and social media over a technological device that is being developed by search giant Google called Google Glass, which is a wearable computer, with a head-mounted display in the form of eyeglasses.

The Google Glass eyeglasses will reportedly display information to a wearer in a smartphone-like format and will allow a user to interact with the Internet via voice commands.

However, as has been seen with other types of data collection, tracking technology, and proposed devices that interface with the human body, the capabilities of such computing instruments raise some serious issues involving personal privacy, Google Glass being no exception.

While various federal agencies, and companies such as Google and Facebook, continue in the pursuit of aggressively mining data using technology and the Internet, digital privacy rights groups are becoming more and more concerned, especially in light of the explosion in smartphone use and social networking on the part of the public.

When collected personal data are funneled through algorithmic software, the end results could so corrode personal privacy that even George Orwell might find the outcome shocking.

Not only can algorithmic calculations by current tracking software be used to indicate the location of individuals, they can also predict future locations with relatively high degrees of accuracy.

Forbes reports that software such as the kind described (developed by Raytheon) is being employed by federal agencies to assist in the targeting of suspected terrorists and the carrying out of drone attacks, the strategy of which is likewise currently mired in controversy.

A site has appeared on the Web called Stop The Cyborgs, which is intended to provide information regarding the growing privacy concerns surrounding Google Glass and additionally engender some resistance against what the site refers to as “the algorithmic future.”

Those behind the Stop the Cyborgs site are not revealing the names of individuals or groups that have contributed to the site’s content. However, the nondisclosure does not detract from the foremost issue that the site is highlighting; that being that Google Glass and similar technologies have the potential to invade people’s privacy, collect data, and act upon the information acquired, all without the individuals ever even knowing.

After referencing the vast reservoir of personal information that is being gathered by smartphones, online tracking, banking transactions, and cable television, the site describes its effort to “save humanity” from what it refers to as “the cyber collective.”

As is explained, Google’s upcoming eyewear is starkly different from the smartphones the public has come to know and love. Someone using a conventional smartphone must visibly hold the camera up to take a picture or to record video. This is not the case with Google Glass. In fact, there is no way of knowing whether you are being photographed or recorded by an individual who is donning the Google eyeglass device.

A person who is wearing the glasses could potentially record another person’s face and voice, employ facial and vocal recognition software, correlate the recordings with personal information, and even process responses through an advanced digital lie detector.

The site warns that these concerns “go beyond privacy.”

“There are serious consequences for human society,” the site states, adding that “there will no longer be any distinction between the ‘digital world’ and the ‘real world.’”