The government of China routinely stifles dissent, imposes censorship and engages in human rights violations.

But despite the oppressive environment and hardship that the Chinese government has created, the Chinese people have somehow managed to develop a healthy appetite for Western cinema, and the Chinese market is a huge one.

Hollywood, being the big biz that it is, must always be concerned with the bottom line, and that means getting the most profits it can for its products.

Consequently, one Hollywood studio has seen fit to significantly alter its remake of the 1984 Cold War cult classic, “Red Dawn.” Changes were made out of concern for the sensibilities of the Chinese government, which ultimately decides whether or not a movie makes it in onto the Chinese screen.

In the “Red Dawn” original, the villains of the flick happened to be Russian. In the remake, though, the script had the villains undergoing an ethnic transformation, one in which they eventually emerged as Chinese.

That’s not good for the Chinese market.

After the film had already been shot, MGM, mindful that the distribution of the movie in China could be detrimentally impacted, went about making a change to the ethnicity of the villains once again. The dastardly ones were converted into North Koreans.

Through the magic of digital technology, the studio was able to tweak the footage during post-production at a reported cost of less than $1 million.

It wasn’t really a difficult decision for the Hollywood executives since North Korea doesn’t provide Hollywood with significant economic opportunity.

The original movie starred the late Patrick Swayze, his iconic movie dance partner Jennifer Grey and, believe it or not, Charlie Sheen. All played U.S. teens fighting invading Soviets.

It’s staggering how in such a short time the international film market has changed so dramatically. Back in 2009 the decision came down to make the new “Red Dawn” bad guys Chinese. However, the Chinese market has grown to approximately $1.5 billion a year since then, and it’s one of the fastest growing movie markets in the world.

The Chinese government already sent a message when it disallowed the distribution of “The Dark Knight” because a villain in the flick was Chinese.

Pursuant to a recent World Trade Organization ruling, the Chi-coms are initiating a policy of allowing more foreign films into the country, and in the future, MGM would no doubt be pleased as punch to distribute franchise films such as the “James Bond” series.

Interestingly, writers are concerned that their choices of villainous characters are being whittled away at by autocratic world leaders and PC police alike.

Guess soon they’ll only be picking villains from countries that have bad box-office numbers.

Donald Trump has been showing some serious interest in running for president.

In a rather unorthodox move for a presidential contender, though, Trump recently agreed to be roasted by some Comedy Central comedic pros and celebrity guests.

The “roast-master of ceremonies” for the event was “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane. Roast regulars on the network included comics Jeffrey Ross and Lisa Lampanelli. Celebrities Larry King, Snoop Dogg, Marlee Matlin and Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino were also on hand to ding The Donald.

MacFarlane dubbed Trump “the second worst tragedy ever to hit New York City.”

Lampanelli wisecracked, “You’ve put up more worthless hotels than an autistic kid playing Monopoly.”

King decided to add a controversial zinger aimed at his former CNN colleague. “That’s all the time we have,” King announced. “Let’s go to Anderson Cooper and see what she’s got coming.”

“The Situation,” who recently announced that he was leaving MTV’s reality smash “Jersey Shore,” was booed by the audience as he attempted to wax comedic.

Snoop gave Trump a thump with a hard-hitting punch line. “Donald says he wants to run for president and move on to the White House,” Snoop said. “Why not? It wouldn’t be the first time he pushed a black family out of their home.”

The timing of the Trump roast provides fuel for those who speculate that he’s going through the motions of a run for prez just to get some publicity for his TV show.

Trump may deny the publicity rumor, but he always seems to find a way to work into the conversation that his show, “Celebrity Apprentice,” airs Sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on NBC.

Maybe someday, if Trump does follow through with his run for prez, we‘ll get to hear him deliver his trademark line to Obama: “You’re fired!”

With the parade of awards shows marching across our home theater screens, the question is often raised as to whether the self-congratulatory rituals matter to folks outside the entertainment industry.

Well, in addition to the celebrity gazing, fashion ogling and winner prognosticating, the Oscars actually have a fairly strong impact on various aspects of our pop culture.

There are, of course, the usual trend effects on hairstyles, fashion, music, jewelry, sunglasses, etc., but there is also trendsetting within the film art world, art imitating art, if you will. Movies resembling Oscar winners tend to follow. Style, tone and themes repeat. Subject matter, too, can be found popping up again in a future film.

That’s because in Hollywood the award is of prime importance to film artists and studios alike. For the individual, though, there is a deeper significance, a psychological-social one

The truth is financial success does not necessarily mean artistic success for entertainment artists. However, an award from one’s own peers translates into “they like me, they really like me,” and even more importantly, “they respect me, they really respect me.” It is therefore as sought after as fame and fortune.

No other Hollywood award brings as much glitz, glam and gravitas to the recipient as an Oscar does.

The studio chase for an Academy Award, on the other hand, is for business reasons. And studios have been known to go after the awards hard. They have waged campaigns as strategic and hard fought as major political campaigns. They do so for their balance sheets, knowing that Oscar noms and wins mean bigger bucks rolling in.

During the pre-awards season, publicists for nominees actually perform opposition research and sometimes leak negative stories to the press about competing pictures.

Perhaps the most well known example of this was the aggressive campaign of the Weinstein brothers for Miramax’s “Shakespeare in Love.” In 1998, Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” was nominated for 11 Academy Awards. Reports surfaced in the press, claiming that as a result of bad research the movie had departed from historical fact. Entertainment writers admitted that they had been asked by Miramax publicists to slam the flick.

After “A Beautiful Mind” received eight 2002 Academy Award noms, a piece appeared on the Drudge Report, alleging that the filmmakers had suppressed the anti-Semitic views of the movie’s subject, John Nash.

“Slumdog Millionaire” was nominated in 2009 for ten Academy Awards. Stories surfaced in the media, claiming that director Danny Boyle had taken advantage of the impoverished child stars in the film by paying them below market wages. The studio, Fox Searchlight, countered with press releases that pointed out Boyle had set up trust funds for the young actors.

The way in which industry insiders view the Oscars is a big deal for the culture as well. Insiders have a major influence on the kinds of scripts that will be optioned and developed, which movies will be financed and ultimately what will or will not be coming soon to a theater near you.

With the “The King’s Speech” having won the major categories of actor, director, screenplay and picture in this year’s Academy Awards, there just may be some good things coming our culture’s way.

Justin Bieber has infuriated the Left.

The young pop star, who has had numerous hit songs and whose movie had a $30 million debut weekend, recently spoke out on a taboo subject.

Bieber, who happens to be a Christian, was asked in a Rolling Stone interview to express his views on abortion. Not only did he equate abortion with murder, he suggested that it is wrong even in cases of rape and incest.

“I really don’t believe in abortion … It’s like killing a baby,” the teen icon told the Rolling Stone.

The interviewer followed up with a question about cases in which pregnancy was the result of rape. Bieber replied that it was his belief that “everything happens for a reason.” He then added, “I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”

Some in the media flipped out and immediately became diss-Beliebers. The liberal panelists on ABC’s “The View” provide a prime example.

Guest co-host KaDee Strickland said, “He [Bieber] won’t be in that position because he cannot give birth.” She added that “he doesn’t have a choice like that.”

Joy Behar fumed over Bieber’s “everything happens for a reason” comment regarding a rape induced pregnancy, saying that it was “really insulting to people who have been raped or victims of incest. There is no ‘reason’ for that.”

Both co-hosts had trepidation about whether Bieber’s views might influence his fans.

Beleaguered “View” host Elisabeth Hasselbeck was left to defend the pop star on her own, saying, “I don’t think we can discount somebody’s opinion because they happen to be sixteen.”

Barbara Walters fretted that the reporter had been “asking questions that may or may not be appropriate. You think they are; I think it may be a bit of a stretch.”

Curiously, the Rolling Stone took the unprecedented step of amending Bieber’s comments on abortion, claiming that the magazine had made an editing error that included an incomplete quote from the teen star.

On its website, the magazine republished the revised quote as follows: “Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”

The New York Times responded with a navel gazing critique titled “Twilight of the Teen Idol.” The Times suggested Bieber had overstepped his bounds, stating, “By taking a stand against abortion, Mr. Bieber risks finding out how frail and tenuous that bond might be.”

The CNN Web site touted an article with the headline: “Backlash over Bieber’s view on abortion.”

A Boston Herald blog titled its analysis of the singer’s position as “Justin Bieber Sounds Like an Idiot.”

On her Twitter account, Rolling Stone reporter Vanessa Grigoriadis defended herself on the issue of whether the subject matter was appropriate.

“A 16 year old kid, to be 17 in a couple weeks, who has control over a large population should be asked all questions,” Grigoriadis wrote.

The reporter also explained Bieber’s remark that “everything happens for a reason.”

“I think he meant that God has a plan,” Grigoriadis told PopEater. “Even for the most die-hard Christian, it’s hard to justify rape as part of God’s plan, and harder to justify rape that leads to pregnancy and abortion. I think he [Bieber] was wrestling with that in his answer, which I found to be solid and logical.”

She added, “I think it is being widely misunderstood. He did not say that rape was part of God’s plan.”

“You’re going to Hollywood!”

These are the words that liberal Democrat Chris Dodd may soon be hearing.

A longtime Washington fixture, the U.S. senator recently retired from Congress.

And wouldn’t you know it, he’s now at the top of the list to get the coveted $1.2 million per year gig as head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

If the top spot happens for him, not only would Dodd have his own private 70-seat theater in the nation’s capital from which he would get to host sneak previews for congressional members, he’d also be able to hobnob with Hollywood glitterati as one of their own.

Folks may be wondering how a guy, who allowed the insurance colossus AIG to pay out bonuses of $165 mill around the same time the company was being funded with taxpayer bailout money, would be up for such a plum position. Or how one, who was investigated by a Senate ethics panel for allegedly taking below market discounts (a.k.a. bribes) for mortgages given to him by Countrywide Financial, would ever be considered for the job.

Well, it is, after all, a Hollywood position, and Hollywood hearts liberal Dems. Dodd most certainly returns the love.

The former senator has experience on a movie set, having portrayed himself in the Kevin Kline comedic White House film, “Dave.”

Believe it or not, Dodd once dated Carrie Fisher of “Princess Leia” fame. He also courted Mick Jagger’s ex, Bianca Jagger.

The cagey politician has maintained good relations with powerful Dem supporters in the entertainment business including DreamWorks’ Steven Spielberg and David Geffen and the former heads of Miramax, the Weinstein brothers.

In the final campaign prior to his retirement, entertainment industry figures gave Dodd and his PAC almost $200,000. Hollywood donors included Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin, Universal Studios head Ronald Meyer and Time Warner President Jeffrey Bewkes. Paul Simon hosted a fundraiser for then-candidate Dodd.

If Dodd does land the job, he will replace former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, who recently left the post.

Dodd has a little legal impediment, however. Under the law, the former senator cannot register as a lobbyist for two years. And the primary business of the MPAA happens to be lobbying.

The group spent $1.66 million in 2009, lobbying Congress and the White House. During each and every election cycle, the MPAA PAC stuffs big bucks into campaign coffers of congressional candidates. As a result, previous head of the MPAA Glickman did register as a lobbyist.

If Dodd takes the MPAA reins, he will likely claim that he is engaged in consulting rather than lobbying, or that his lobbying activities do not rise to the 20% level that would mandate registration.

Such semantic gymnastics would allow Dodd to claim that at least he’s consistent.

It all began when a Venice, California jewelry store reported a missing necklace.

It was not your run-of-the-mill jewelry item but reportedly a one of a kind piece of bling, made with gold and semi-precious stones and valued at $2,500. 

According to police, Lindsay Lohan was seen in a store video, wearing the necklace prior to it having been reported missing. Photos of the actress taken a week later showed her wearing a very similar looking necklace.

After police detectives obtained a warrant to search the troubled actress's Venice home, the necklace was turned in to a police station by a Lohan associate.

Excerpt: CLICK HERE FOR MORE

President Obama has demonstrated a lack of restraint, and it’s not just in his tendency to splurge on the taxpayer’s dime.

In the history of our country, no other sitting president has traded away a portion of his stature and appeared on a late-night comedy show.

Obama’s late-night guest spots have included ones on the shows of David Letterman, Jay Leno and Jon Stewart. The appearances were orchestrated by a White House that was seeking to tap into the youth vote.

On the “Late Show with David Letterman,” the president delivered a prepared one-liner. It was in response to the negative reaction the public had to Obamacare and the claim from former President Jimmy Carter that the dislike of the health care takeover was rooted in racism.

“It’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election,” Obama quipped.

While appearing on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” Obama compared life in Washington to “American Idol,” where “everybody’s got an opinion.”

“Everybody is Simon Cowell,” the president cracked.

The most troubling moment for the presidential image occurred on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” In one exchange, Stewart actually referred to the president as “dude.”

After the president said that “Larry Summers did a heck of a job…,” Stewart advised the commander in chief, “You don’t want to use that phrase, dude.”

Stewart was referring to the same phrase that was used by President Bush when he praised FEMA head Michael Brown during the post-Hurricane Katrina situation.

Obama had added other TV venues to his ever-expanding media line-up, including ABC’s daytime talk show, “The View,” and even Discovery Channel’s “MythBusters.”

These days, however, the president seems to want to convey a move to the center, and it now appears as though the White House may be altering its media strategy accordingly.

David Axelrod, the outgoing senior adviser, used an NFL analogy to describe Obama’s over the top media involvement, when he told New York Magazine, “There was a period of time in the eighties when the Bears weren’t very good, and they would hand Walter Payton the ball on every play: It was Payton left and Payton right and Payton up the middle. He was the greatest running back of all time, arguably, but still it became kind of a dreary game plan. And, you know, we have one of the great political performers of our time. But I think we degraded that to some degree by using him as much as we did in the ways we did.”

Astute followers of politics know that Obama’s reelection campaign is already underway, and as we watch closely we can see that he’s hard at it each day.

Axelrod is one of the key strategic planners, so his words matter a great deal.

Late-night production staffers may be disenchanted over the news that Obama won’t be on the couch as often as in the past. But his political scorekeepers won’t be.

Keith Olbermann recently gave his audience a shock by announcing that his show was over.

After eight years, MSNBC’s top-rated anchor was suddenly done.

The network issued a brief statement during the host’s sign-off saying that MSNBC and Olbermann had “ended their contract” and the cable network wished him “well in his future endeavors.”

Olbermann had two years left on his four-year $30 million contract.

Even staffers at the network were apparently caught off guard as promos for Olbermann’s show continued to air after his departure announcement.

On HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” another MSNBC uber-liberal, Rachel Maddow, was asked about Olbermann’s sudden exit. Maddow said all she knew was that “he and the company made a mutual decision that ‘Countdown’ is done.”

Maher’s reply was “that’s always bull—t.”

So why did Olbermann’s tenure with MSNBC end at this particular point in time?

Olbermann and his reps have no doubt been aware of the tensions that have been present among certain NBC personalities over Olbermann’s on-air style. Longtime NBC news anchors, including Tom Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell, have made grumblings about the MSNBC host.

According to the New York Times, executives at NBC were even thinking about changing the name of the news Web site, MSNBC.com, to distance it from the Peacock.

The darling-of-the-left host has quite a reputation for giving his employers a hard time. His career is actually riddled with sudden departures.

Olbermann was suspended by ESPN when he made an unauthorized appearance on then-host Craig Kilborn’s “Daily Show” to promote a book. It didn’t help his relationship with the network when while on the show Olbermann referred to the ESPN set as a “godforsaken place.”

A former ESPN colleague told the New Yorker that when Olbermann left “he didn’t burn bridges here—he napalmed them.”

Olbermann quit MSNBC once before in the 1990s over the coverage of the Monica Lewinsky affair, claiming the coverage gave him the “dry heaves.”

He even worked for two years at Fox Sports. Rupert Murdoch said Olbermann was fired because he was “crazy.”

In November 2010, Olbermann was given an indefinite suspension for donating money to the campaigns of two Democratic candidates.

The timing of Olbermann’s farewell and its coinciding with the government approval of the NBC Universal-Comcast merger is raising a lot of eyebrows.

Thanks to the merger, Olbermann lost his strongest executive ally, NBC head Jeff Zucker.

Sources told the New York Times that for the last several weeks Olbermann has been negotiating a buyout of his contract.

It’s possible that he may have sensed that his position was in jeopardy and tried to test the management via a renegotiation.

According to TMZ, talks started out with Olbermann’s agent telling NBC that the MSNBC host should be paid more than his current $7 million-plus per year contract. NBC turned that request down.

His buyout agreement was completed on the same day Olbermann made the announcement.

The deal contains time limitations on when Olbermann can anchor another show or give interviews. However, he can return to sports broadcasting.

So where will Olbermann ultimately end up?

He will be all over the left-of-center Internet for sure.

But I can see him hopping on over to a network that has reportedly expressed interest in him before, CNN. Taking over the ratings-challenged primetime show, “Parker Spitzer,” might be just the Olbermann ticket.

With a petition signed by 10,000 people, a group launched an attack on Fox News host Glenn Beck, demanding that Beck be fired.

The Fox host featured nine people of the last century who had been contributors to what Beck characterized as the “era of the big lie.”

The group, Jewish Funds for Justice (JFJ), claims that Beck’s show was anti-Semitic.

One of the people Beck focused on was George Soros, a billionaire currency trader. Beck referred to him as the “puppet master.”

The other eight figures were of Jewish heritage, including Sigmund Freud and Walter Lippman.

A look at the funding for JFJ helps to provide insight into the possible motivation for the attack on Beck.

The group gets its money from Soros’ Open Society Institute, which gave the group $150,000 in 2009 and $200,000 in 2010.

Its Web site is filled with the language of the left, including phrases such as “economic justice” and “social change.”

Soros is increasingly becoming a player in the media, particularly within the film industry.

He entered the world of documentary production in the mid-1990s with his Soros Documentary Fund, which was dedicated to creating films that dealt with “social justice and human rights.”

In 2002 Soros moved the personnel and mission of his documentary fund to the Sundance Institute and Robert Redford, and granted a start-up fund of $4.6 million to the endeavor.

The institute doles out millions each year for propaganda-style films designed to massage minds.

In 2006 Soros shelled out $900 million for 59 films that constitute the DreamWorks SKG library, and in the process obtained a valuable set of film rights while gaining a power position as an entertainment media mogul.

With all that in place, he can pull a lot of strings.

As some on the Left try to politicize the tragedy in Tucson, it would be wise for them to go back and examine some of the toxic words that have emanated from their own side of the political aisle.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Madonna, while on her Sticky & Sweet Tour, decided to add a few political rants to her musical mix. Sarah Palin, the then-GOP nominee for vice president, was the object of Madonna’s disaffection.

The singer banned Alaska’s former governor from the tour, saying, “Sarah Palin can’t come to my party! Sarah Palin can’t come to my show!” She then threatened to “kick her a**.”

When confronted with her contentious statements at a red carpet premiere, Madonna dismissed the language. “It’s a metaphor,” she said. “She’s in the Republican Party, I’m in the Democratic Party.”

In October of 2009, MSNBC host Chris Matthews shared a malicious fantasy involving radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

“You guys see ‘Live and Let Die,’ the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big?” Mathews asked. “In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head… .”

In October of 2009, MSNBC cable host Keith Olbermann went on the attack against best-selling author and commentator Michelle Malkin. He pinned her with the “total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred” label and said that without such attributes she “would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

In February of 2010, MSNBC cable host Ed Schultz concocted some sick imagery involving Dick Cheney. Schultz was engaged in a discussion about the former vice president’s health and its political implications.

Schultz referred to Cheney’s heart as a “political football.” He then said, “We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him.”

In November of 2010, Bristol Palin, a mere contestant on ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars” show, was the recipient of death threats, which necessitated heightened security measures and even evacuation of the premises. Powder resembling anthrax had been mailed to the show’s studio.

In December of 2010, Salon, a left-leaning online magazine, published a letter to the editor, which called for the murder of Sarah Palin.

Sadly, the Left, opportunistic partisans and the mainstream media are making subtle references, laying guilt on shoulders and sullying reputations in the worst possible way.

From the earliest moments of the shooting’s aftermath, some have pushed a narrative. Certain charges that were made were implicit, others explicit. The narrative was meant to convey that in one fashion or another the Right was to blame for the murderous rampage.

This is not only untrue, it is unethical and unconscionable, as would be the case if the Right were trying to pin such a tragedy on the Left.

As human beings, we strive to keep our emotions in check and weigh our words carefully, especially at times like these. These are noble goals but also constant struggles.

The Golden Rule remains our best private, public, political, civic and societal measure.