» Radical Chic

Ed Driscoll

Radical Chic

What Could Go Wrong?

January 27th, 2014 - 3:09 pm

“Rosie O’Donnell, 9/11 Truther and Hater of ‘Radical Christianity, Returns to ‘The View,’” Scott Whitlock writes at Newsbusters:

Former View co-host Rosie O’Donnell will return to the ABC program she angrily left in 2007. According to Variety, the 9/11 truther and denouncer of “radical Christianity” will appear as a guest on the February 7 program. Apparently, supposedly serious journalist Barbara Walters has no problem welcoming back the woman who in 2007 denounced her own country: “I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?” [See below for some of O'Donnell's worst quotes.]

On September 12, 2006, after token conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck raised the threat of “radical Islam,” O’Donnell spat back: “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state.” On March 29, 2007, the talk show host promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories on the show: “I do believe it is the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower Seven, building seven, which collapsed in on itself.”

In a statement, Walters hyped the return of O’Donnell: “I have great affection for Rosie and we have remained in contact throughout the years. I am happy to welcome her back to the program. She is always a lively and engaging guest and a part of the show’s successful history.”

Walters will receive plenty of hype and accolades when she retires this summer for being a pioneering woman in television journalism. But beyond the goofy “If you were a tree, what kind would you be?” questions and Gilda Radner’s classic impersonation, all those looking back on her career will ultimately remember are two bookends. Enjoying canapes and tea with the Black Panthers in Lenny and Felicia’s Park Avenue duplex during the infamous 1970 night documented in Tom Wolfe’s brilliant “Radical Chic,” and providing a platform for Rosie’s trutherisms and other rantings during the last years of Walter’s career. (Beyond Rosie’s 9/11 trutherisms, Whoopi’s a moon landing truther, and Jenny’s an anti-vaccine truther. Heckofajob, Babs; you too, ABC.)

Presumably, Walters believed the salon she created for such antics would lead to “the next messiah,” as a chastened Walters described her initial impressions of Mr. Obama last month; alas, the eschaton proved rather stillborn. When asked by critic Jay Sherman how he can sleep at night, legendary cartoon action star Rainier Wolfcastle replied, “On top of a pile of money.” I’m sure that will be a sufficient comfort to Walters as well.

In the meantime, here’s a sneak preview of what Rosie might be uttering next month.

John Kerry Flashes His Radical Chic Freak Flag

January 15th, 2014 - 11:04 am

“Kerry’s Moral Inversion on Terrorism” is explored by Tom Wilson of Commentary:

Speaking yesterday at the Vatican, Secretary of State John Kerry let slip a comment so ludicrous that one has to wonder how much wider the gap between reality and Kerry’s worldview can yet grow. Following his meeting with Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, in which the two discussed the violence in Syria and prospects for Middle East peace, Kerry delivered a public statement in which he remarked, “And so we have a huge common interest in dealing with this issue of poverty, which in many cases is the root cause of terrorism or even the root cause of the disenfranchisement of millions of people on this planet.”

In making such a claim, America’s Secretary of State commits a terrible moral inversion, one in which the terrorists are cast as the victims, driven to such desperate acts by poverty, while the people they murder, particularly when Westerners, are really the ones who are guilty–guilty of having allowed the great injustice of poverty in the first place.

Had a comment of similar thoughtlessness come from a Republican politician it would have instantly been set upon as a credibility-terminating gaffe. Yet, in this instance Kerry’s thinking is entirely in step with the line pushed by much of the liberal media. Kerry’s assertion here is, of course, completely untrue. But as Jeryl Bier at the Weekly Standard has already pointed out, this isn’t the first time Kerry has peddled such beliefs. Speaking last October at the Global Counterterrorism Forum the Secretary of State proclaimed, “Getting this right isn’t just about taking terrorists off the street. It’s about providing more economic opportunities for marginalized youth at risk of recruitment.”

Of course, Kerry’s been a proponent of radical chic for virtually his entire adult life, as these photos attest.

America was remarkably lucky in 2004 in defeating Kerry, but only temporarily; the political arc of the Kerry administration would likely have been virtually identical to the Obama administration; certainly the press campaigned for both men in virtually identical fashions in 2004 and 2008.

Quote of the Day

December 26th, 2013 - 4:57 pm

I used to stop by my local fair-trade/GMO-free/vegan/etc. coffee house since it was on the way to work. One day a barista in a Che shirt asked if I also wanted to buy an organic bran muffin or a gluten-free scone.

“You’re wearing a Che shirt and you’re trying to upsell me?” I said with a smile to the budding capitalist. He never noticed the irony.

—Jon Gabriel of Ricochet, in the comment section of a post titled, “Conflict-Free Hummus and the Politicization of Everything.”

TMI, Barbara, TMI; “Barbara Walters Warmly Recalls Holding Fidel Castro’s Gun In Her Lap,” as spotted by Newsbusters:

The December 23 edition of People magazine looks through old pictures with Barbara Walters as she “looks back on her most memorable moments” in five decades of television interviews.

During her 1977 interview with Fidel Castro “I spent 10 days with him, traveled through the mountains and held his gun in my lap,” she said. “People thought we had a romance, but we never did.”

Makes you wonder whether she was there for more than the Roquefort cheese morsels rolled in crushed nuts when she attended Leonard and Felicia Bernstein’s infamous “Radical Chic” party to fund-raise for the equally leftwing Black Panthers back in 1970.

And given that the quote came in People magazine, it’s yet another reminder of just what poseurs Time-Warner-CNN-HBO were back in January of 2011 pretending that any gun-related language gave them the willies.

For a much less romantic view of Castro’s Cuba than Walters’ ABC or Time-Warner-CNN-HBO would dare proffer, check out Michael Totten’s recent two-part dispatches from Cuba at World Affairs Journal.

Ted Cruz’s Castro Contradistinction

December 10th, 2013 - 4:20 pm

“Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, walked out of the memorial service for Nelson Mandela when Cuban ‘President’ Raúl Castro began speaking,” Jim Geraghty writes (and I love the quotation marks around the dictator’s faux-title):

“Senator Cruz very much hopes that Castro learns the lessons of Nelson Mandela,” said Sean Rushton, Cruz’s communications director. “For decades, Castro has wrongly imprisoned and tortured countless innocents. Just as Mandela was released after 27 years in prison, Castro should finally release his political prisoners; he should hold free elections, and once and for all set the Cuban people free.”

Which makes for quite a contrast with the actions of Mr. Obama today:

obama_shakes_raoul_castros_hand_12-10-13-1

 

Say What You Will About the President…

December 10th, 2013 - 2:58 pm

…But when he sees something, or someone he wants, he doesn’t waste time making moving…Forward.

Or perhaps, Pat and Vanna could let Sky News borrow a comma — they sure could use one right now.

Update: From 2010, an earlier Mandela-related argument on the necessity of the Oxford comma.

President Selfie Braces for FLOTUS Death Gaze

December 10th, 2013 - 11:54 am

 

Michelle Obama is not happy. And really, who can blame her; when the president is acting like a teenager at a state event? And the truly depressing thought: John Kerry or Joe Biden would have brought more gravitas to the event, had they gone in his stead.

And then there’s this dreadful moment, complete with quasi-presidential bow:

obama_shakes_raoul_castros_hand_12-10-13-1

As Otto Reich writes at the Corner:

American presidents should avoid shaking the hand of dictators, especially those that have American blood on theirs. One example of many: Raul Castro was Minister of Defense in 1996 when Cuban Air Force Mig’s, cold-bloodedly and over international airspace destroyed two civilian U.S. airplanes with four American rescue workers on board. President Clinton rightly condemned the attack as cowardly, while Raul Castro decorated his pilots for bravery. That incident alone illustrates the difference between the two systems that are embodied in the two leaders. President Obama seems unaware of the importance of his office or of the mantle of honor he wears as the leader of the world’s oldest democracy and the liberator of nations. There is no moral equivalence between the leader of the free world and the leader of a morally bankrupt military dictatorship that holds power only by force.

Reich adds that the Castro brothers have been looking forward to being photographed shaking hands with an American president for 50 years. It just took time for all of the details to sort themselves out. As Allahpundit quips, it’s “kismet at today’s memorial service for Mandela. One’s a communist who’s reduced his country to ruins, the other’s Raul Castro.”

But then, not all of the train wrecks of today’s event are Mr. Obama’s fault: “George W. Bush represents US with class, gets booed at #MandelaMemorial.”

You stay classy, South Africa.

And finally, two Politicos in one!

“Congrats to new media,” [Dylan Byers of the Politico] scolded via Twitter. “You’ve taken Mandela’s funeral and whittled it down to some baseless assumptions about selfies, side-eyes & handshakes.”

Byers immediately followed up that finger-wag with another, “The White House would be laughing, if it gave a rip[.]”

Except it is not just New Media reporting on the fact that Obama took a selfie at Mandela’s memorial service and shook dictator Raul Castro’s hand. Both stories currently enjoy prominent placement at the top of Politico’s own home page.’

To paraphrase the Gipper, sometimes the left hand doesn’t know what the far left hand is doing at the Politico.

Update: The same could very likely be said about the Obama White House. While Mr. Obama shakes hands with Raul Castro, “Alan Gross has been rotting in a Cuban prison for going on five years for the offense of distributing computers and cell phones to Cuba’s tiny Jewish community,” Mona Charen adds. “Not only is Gross an American citizen, he was an employee of the U.S. State Department’s Agency for International Development when he was unlawfully arrested.”

“NY Times ‘Dot Earth’ Blogger Draws Cartoon of Christmas Trees Tying a Man to the Car Top:”

Environmentalists prefer plants and animals to humans. The latest proof? Through a panicky global-warming tweet from Think Progress blaring “Floods and heat cause mass Christmas Tree deaths,” I came across a new cartoon drawn by veteran New York Times environmental reporter-turned-”Dot Earth” blogger Andrew Revkin.

Revkin had several pine trees driving a car with a balding white guy tied to the car top. “What would the next few weeks be like if the trees had a holiday for a change?”

Pretty much like this 1976 Saturday Night Live sketch on “The Killer Trees”, featuring host Candice Bergen, in which a murderous Christmas tree stabs musical guest Frank Zappa with one its branches.

Last month, blogger David Thompson spotted the New York Times rooting for graffiti artists when one of their prized canvases — a Queens warehouse — was stripped and repainted by the owner of the building. (Remember him?) Were there any Romans who rooted for the Vandals when civilization fell?

The Times has followed that story up with a sequel: “As Legal Graffiti Walls Disappear, Street Artists Ponder Future:”

For years they painted murals on the Lower East Side, paying building owners up to $1,000 to paint ads and personal pieces. But over the last 10 years, he said, he has gone from 15 walls to only one, as most were replaced by upscale housing, restaurants or billboards.

“There are hardly any spots left in the city for graffiti writers,” Mr. Feliciano, 47, said. “It’s going to mean that everybody’s going to be fighting for space. And you know what happens if they don’t have space to express themselves.”

Granted, he and his friends have a canvas nearby. Behind their studio is a full-size plywood replica of a 1980s subway car, which they cover regularly with intricate pieces and figures.

“We’ve been reduced to painting at the office,” Mr. Feliciano joked. “We can’t go painting trains at our age. At least this is easier in the backyard. And it has that shape we enjoyed in our youth.”

Don’t worry, I’m sure the Brave New World of the upcoming De Blasio administration will reopen the floodgates to all sorts of exciting opportunities for the destruction of city and private property, which the Times will no doubt praise in Barack to the Future radical chic fashion.

But in the meantime, “Is it too soon to say, ‘I told you so?’“, Ann Coulter recently asked:

A couple of weeks ago, the Times ran another item downplaying the coming crime surge under Mayor de Blasio. Former hedge fund manager Neil Barsky wrote a column mocking his fellow 1-percenters for fretting about the new mayor with this advice: “Calm down.” (I find few balms as soothing as being told to “calm down.”)

Reluctantly, Barsky admitted (17 times) that he is a very rich man. As he explained, he, too, enjoys the city having been turned into a “a millionaires’ playground” and having a mayor who is “one of us.” (Bloomberg’s not one of me, buster.) He sniffed that he found “this affluent angst more than a bit overwrought.”

They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

Liberal zealots view de Blasio as a breath of fresh air because he’s stuck in policies of the 1960s. That’s when Americans were assured by brain-dead liberals that if we could just improve criminals’ self-esteem, crime would disappear. You’ll see!

The result? The violent crime rate quadrupled.

We never got an apology on behalf of the tens of thousands of Americans who were murdered, maimed, raped and robbed as a direct result of liberal law enforcement strategies — much less the show trials these people deserved.

Liberal activists just waited out Giuliani and Bloomberg. Now they’re ready to retry all the old ideas. Mayor-elect de Blasio recently met with convicted criminals to get their views on policing policies. Wow! Look at de Blasio’s new ideas!

The ex-cons actually complained to de Blasio that they don’t like being watched so much.

The left simply refuses to believe that locking up criminals has any effect on crime and insists we just need to explain to them that committing violent felonies is wrong. (headline from Aug. 10, 2000: “Number in Prison Grows Despite Crime Reduction.”) It’s strange because liberals totally understand cause-and-effect when it comes to … well, um, nothing.

Suggesting that the “1 percent” – such as himself — are the most terrified of a de Blasio mayoralty, Barsky claimed that the massively rich have been the primary beneficiaries of record-low crime rates in New York — “those who can actually afford its housing, attend concerts in Lincoln Center, eat in its fancy restaurants and pay for parking to boot.”

Of course, one cost will be lower: no need to hire a sitter to attend a taping of NBC’s Saturday Night Live, or watch the remake of Charles Bronson’s Death Wish when it could be playing itself out nightly right in the streets.

Back in 2011, spotting a Timesman writing about a low-income housing project to be built in Woodstock and concluding — apparently with a straight face — that “the only thing more important than making the world better can be keeping Woodstock the same,” Kathy Shaidle responded,  “NYT accidentally summarizes ‘progressivism’ in half a sentence:”

“Progressives” live in the past — a past that (like the one they so often accuse conservatives of romantically yearning for) didn’t exist:

Rosa Parks wasn’t just “tired” — she was a semi-professional activist, trained at a Communist “school”; Alger Hiss was guilty; so were Sacco and Venzetti; there really were Communist spies in the State Department; FDR prolonged the Depression; “busing” increased racial hatred; Bush’s verbal SATs were higher than Kerry’s…

Once you realize that liberals live in a nostalgic past of their own invention and on-going promotion (like Mrs. Havisham or a tragic Tennessee Williams “heroine”) almost everything “progressives” do then makes “sense.”

Unfortunately, they and the rest of us have to relearn the hard way about the dire consequences of their actions from time to time.

Perestroika on the Potomac

December 2nd, 2013 - 11:35 am
2009_socialist_newsweek_cover_5-5-13-1

Personally, I want to know more about the Blackberry president quitting the thug life.

At the start of 2009, when the World Was Young and Dewey Fresh and Hopenchange was still lingering softly in the air,  “We Are All Socialists Now,” the Washington Post, under the imprimatur of Newsweek, which it then controlled, were eager to exclaim at the beginning of the Obama administration. The newspaper would also add a touch of Soviet-style command-and-control coordination to numerous leftwing writers via its then-new JournoList system of distributed talking points — no mid-century-style pneumatic tubes required!

At almost precisely that same moment, Tavis Smiley, an employee of the government run Public Broadcasting System, appearing on the corporatist MSNBC network would exclaim, “we’re all working for Barack Obama” and that “we have to help make Obama a great president.”

So how’s Moscow on the Potomac working out these days?

“Media attacks Obama’s ‘Soviet-style’ publicity policy,” the London Telegraph reported yesterday. “Major media organisations protest against being shut out of president’s events in favour of official photographer:”

Barack Obama’s White House has been accused of producing Soviet-style propaganda by press photographers who are furious at being denied access to the US president.

Mr Obama’s aides routinely block independent photographers from capturing him at work, before distributing flattering pictures shot by Pete Souza, his official photographer.

During a tense meeting at the White House, the practice was described by Doug Mills, a veteran photographer for The New York Times, as “just like TASS,” the Soviet Union state news agency.

Curiously, given the Times’ long embrace of the former Soviet Union, its current love of Sandinista socialist Bill de Blasio, and in-between, whoever is the designated Pinchurian Candidate du jour, that last sentence quoted above doesn’t appear to be a compliment.

But in the mid-1990s, back when Obama was just hitting the book circuit to promote Dreams from My Father, Al Gore, his transformation into a radical far left environmentalist complete, was taken to saying that “Good Enough for Government Work” — which for over the century, the rest of us used as a kinder and gentler way of saying “doing a half-assed job” meant nothing of the sort:

If you worked in construction back before the turn of the century and someone told you your work was “good enough for government work,” you’d have been pleased as punch. In those days, the government’s construction standards were higher than anyone else’s.

“Good enough for government work” meant the best.

That’s a definition that Barack Obama, who’s feared and loathed the private sector all of his life, would certainly take to heart. But as with many aspects of how the world works, from learning on the job as president that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects,” to just this past month, “also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy,” might be having a twinge of newfound respect for private enterprise. Just a twinge, mind you. It’ll pass, and he’ll go back to loathing anybody who actually works for a living. But not before this classic moment yesterday:

CHUCK TODD: David, the most interesting thing in this report, right, page one– it’s page three of the report, it says here that, “The team is operating with private sector velocity and effectiveness.”

DAVID GREGORY: Yeah.

CHUCK TODD: Okay, that is an acknowledgement that, “You know what? If this was a government operation for a long time and it failed, now we’re bringing in the private sector folks.” I mean, that is an indictment on the whole idea of government as a solution, frankly, when you look at [unintelligible].

The “unintelligible” is in the transcript — but then, lots of things that the left thought for sure they knew before attempting their recent gleichschaltung are proving to be unintelligible these days. Unexpectedly — except perhaps to everyone who didn’t conclude he was a socialist upon waking up on January 20th, 2009.

Update: “Our Dear Leader will be pleased by this latest offering from the Associated Press,” Jim Treacher writes.

Well, so much for AP pushing back against the president whose Justice Department seized their phone records.

Kerry of Arabia

November 29th, 2013 - 5:13 pm

kerry_of_arabia_big_11-20-13-5

Mark Steyn writes in his latest column that “Iran got everything it wanted” as part of America’s “Surrender in Geneva:”

Explaining that their “singular object” was to “ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” John Kerry said that “Foreign Minister Zarif emphasized that they don’t intend to do this, and the Supreme Leader has indicated there is a fatwa which forbids them to do this.” “The Supreme Leader” is not Barack Obama but Ayatollah Khamenei. Why is America’s secretary of state dignifying Khamenei as “the Supreme Leader”? In his own famous remarks upon his return from Munich, Neville Chamberlain referred only to “Herr Hitler.” “Der Führer” means, in effect, “the Supreme Leader,” but, unlike Kerry (and Obama), Chamberlain understood that it would be unseemly for the representative of a free people to confer respectability on such a designation. As for the Führer de nos jours, Ayatollah Khamenei called Israel a “rabid dog” and dismissed “the leaders of the Zionist regime, who look like beasts and cannot be called human.” If “the Supreme Leader”’s words are to be taken at face value when it comes to these supposed constraints preventing Iran from going nuclear, why not also when he calls Jews sub-human?

I am not much interested in whether “the Supreme Leader” can be trusted. Prudent persons already know the answer to that. A more relevant question is whether the U.S. can be trusted. Israel and the Sunni monarchies who comprise America’s least worst friends in the Arab world were kept in the dark about not only the contents of the first direct U.S.–Iranian talks in a third of a century but even an acknowledgment that they were taking place. The only tip-off into the parameters of the emerging deal is said to have come from British briefings to their former Gulf protectorates and the French getting chatty with Israel. A couple of days ago, Nawaf Obaid, an adviser to Prince Mohammed, the Saudi ambassador in London, was unusually candid about the Americans: “We were lied to, things were hidden from us,” he said. “The problem is not with the deal struck in Geneva but how it was done.”

But hey, it took Obamacare off the front page for a few minutes, so from the point of view of the Obama administration, which lives from news cycle to news cycle, it’s got that going for it, at least.

‘When Man-Children Weep’

November 21st, 2013 - 5:10 pm

The New York Times brings you this great moment in responsible journalism. A warehouse owner in Queens repaints his own building to eliminate the layers of graffiti that had accumulated over the years. Naturally, the Times sides with the vandals:

The owner of a building in Queens used a crew of painters to work overnight and paint over graffiti on a warehouse in Long Island City, wiping clean a canvas that was used by thousands of artists over the years to transform an otherwise nondescript, abandoned brick building in a working-class neighbourhood into 5Pointz, a mecca for street artists from around the world. By morning, the work of some 1,500 artists had been wiped clean, the Brobdingnagian bubble letters and the colourful cartoons spray painted on the building’s brick walls all covered in a fresh coat of white paint. “We are supposed to be the vandals, but this is the biggest rag and disrespect in the history of graffiti,” said Marie Cecile Flageul, an unofficial curator for 5Pointz.

It’s not your property, so yes, you are the vandals, and “disrespect” isn’t a verb. And why does the Times tacitly approve of a sexist slur such as “rag?”, by not commenting on it?

Blogger David Thompson, the author of the brilliant headline quoted above and the italicized portion of the Times article in block quote adds, “The moral of the story, gentlemen, is buy your own canvas.” One of his commentators notes another moral aspect to the story:

And it’s worth noting where the New York Times’ sympathy seems to lie. I suspect that anyone who’s had to repair their property after a visit from graffiti “artists” might take a less charitable view. Unless of course we’re supposed to believe that of the 1,500 sprayers and their various sobbing cheerleaders not one has ever sprayed someone else’s property, and that championing graffiti as an edgy art form doesn’t encourage more of it?

At an L.A. museum exhibit promoting the “artistic” “joys” of graffiti in 2011, City Journal’s Heather Mac Donald was ordered not to add a few additions of her own by the museum’s security guards. Similarly, it would be a fascinating thought experiment — and this is NOT an attempt to encourage such an effort — to find out how the Times would respond if someone fired up a can of Krylon on the walls of 620 8th Avenue.

But shed no tears, Gray Lady. With far left incoming mayor Bill de Blasio taking office in January, it’s only a matter of time before downtown Manhattan will once again have more graffiti than it knows what to do with.

(Via SDA.)

Mystery Seventies Theater 3000

October 16th, 2013 - 5:22 pm

connery_quinn_10-16-13-1

In 1970, the movie industry was in big trouble. The moguls who built the industry and guided it through its golden era of the 1930s through the 1950s were dying off; older audiences were feeling alienated by the industry’s current product, and the industry’s fortunes suffered dramatically. There was a group of young Turks who were working their way through the industry, but it would be a few years before they fully established themselves — and their most lasting contribution, via George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, would be to return Hollywood to its tradition of big budget family friendly entertainment, ironically enough.

But in the late ‘60s, outside the walls of the studio, the country was in turmoil. LBJ had declined a second term, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were dead. Vietnam was in the headlines constantly — and frequently being misreported.

Add to it all the industry’s schizophrenia regarding Richard Nixon — the old guard generally liked him; the young Turks hated him with the white hot force of a thousand exploding suns — and you had an industry that was deeply confused.

We remember films from that period such as hippie favorite Easy Rider, and 20th Century Fox’s bipolar trilogy of war films — Patton, Tora, Tora, Tora, and Robert Altman’s countercultural anti-Vietnam parable M*A*S*H – but most of Hollywood’s product from 1970 dated very quickly.

Which is why I felt more than a little like the crew of the “Satellite of Love” on Mystery Science Theater 3000 this past weekend, as I watched a pair of cinematic bombs from 1970 that summed up the year perfectly. These were two films that I had read about years ago in Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide, but never caught on the late show, or purchased on laser disc in the late 1980s, during my obsessive NYU film days, so I felt obligated to see what I had missed. Don’t everyone thank me for taking one — actually two — for the team, all at once.

Workin’ in a Coalmine

My first trip back to 1970 was via the Molly Maguires, which had recently gone up on Netflix and Amazon Prime. Starring Sean Connery and Richard Harris, and directed by Martin Ritt, the film was about the group of Luddite-ish 1870s-era coal miners, who fought back against the poor working conditions and low wages of their employers by sabotaging equipment and blowing up mines and trains.

Paramount sunk ten million dollars into the film — which was a very big budget for the era; about equal to the final bill Stanley Kubrick handed MGM for his epic 2001 two years earlier. Given the production values and stars, Paramount was convinced they were about to mine box office gold. Connery was just coming off his initial retirement from the James Bond series, and Harris from 1967’s smash Camelot. The film’s director, Martin Ritt, had overcome ’50s-era blacklisting to score a big hit in 1965 with another British superstar, Richard Burton, in another morally ambiguous film, The Spy Who Came In From the Cold. 

But the first half of the Molly Maguires is largely set in a coal mine in 1870s Pennsylvania, and the oppressive blackness of the mine creates a remarkably claustrophobic atmosphere. It’s both a testament to the film’s production designer and its cinematographer, the great James Wong Howe, that the filmmakers were able to create such a realistic atmosphere. Particularly given that while the exteriors were filmed in the coal mining town of Eckley, Pennsylvania, the subterranean coal was filmed on a set in Hollywood, both for lighting and particularly for safety reasons. Obviously, “CONNERY DIES IN MINE COLLAPSE WHILE SHOOTING PARAMOUNT PRODUCTION” was not a headline the studio wanted to see on the front page of Daily Variety that year.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 | 26 Comments bullet bullet

Two Redfords in One

October 16th, 2013 - 11:36 am

Past performance is no guarantee of future results:

“I think that no matter what you would propose they would go against it because their determination was to destroy this person,” Redford said of the “minority faction” in Washington versus President Obama.

“Well, I think whatever idea I would have had to make things work just wouldn’t have been accepted by this minority faction,” Redford responded when asked by CNN’s Nischelle Turner for his “advice” for Democrats and Republicans to work together. “They wanted, if it meant destroying the government, anything to keep him [Obama] from succeeding.”

Robert Redford today on CNN.

George Stephanopoulos was so enthusiastic towards Robert Redford and his sympathetic new film about an ex-1960s radical that the actor enthused, “You ought to get on the marketing team!” The aging actor/director appeared on Tuesday’s Good Morning America and endorsed the violent actions of protest groups. Reminiscing on his own past, the liberal Hollywood star recounted, “When I was younger, I was very much aware of the movement. I was more than sympathetic, I was probably empathetic because I believed it was time for a change.”R

After Stephanopoulos wondered, “Even when you read about bombings,” Redford responded, “All of it. I knew that it was extreme and I guess movements have to be extreme to some degree.

Robert Redford in April, promoting his recent pro-terrorism film The Company You Keep, with ex-Bill Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America.

Robert Redford was in Havana last month, not to score cigars but to screen his The Motorcycle Diaries for Cuban President Fidel Castro. The Motorcycle Diaries, which Redford produced, is based on the diaries Guevara wrote on a nine-month motorcycle trip through South America in 1952. Directed by Brazilian Walter Salles, it stars Gael Garcia Bernal (who moviegoers will remember from Y Tu Mama Tambien).

Guevara’s widow, Aleida March, attended the screening along with Guevara’s son and two daughters. The movie had its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in January, where it received a standing ovation.

— The Baltimore Sun, March 7, 2004.

Somebody Set Ayers Up the Bomb

October 14th, 2013 - 7:06 pm

Past performance is no guarantee of future results:

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

”Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,” he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ”Even though I didn’t actually bomb the Pentagon — we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.” He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.

“No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen,” the New York Times, September 11th, 2001.

Speaking from the well-heeled confines of the University of Chicago’s International House on Wednesday, Bill Ayers said he was “amazed” to see himself on TV “cast as some kind of public enemy” with close ties to Barack Obama during one of the 2008 election’s biggest controversies.

At the event meant to promote his new book Public EnemyConfessions of an American Dissident, Ayers slammed the “opportunistic media” and the “eager campaign staffs of the right, the middle, and even the moderate left” for resurrecting the Weather Underground, a radical far-left group Ayers co-founded which bombed government property and banks throughout the 1970s.

“Bernadine and I had hosted the initial fundraiser for Obama and uncharacteristically donated a little money to his campaign,” said Ayers, reading an excerpt. “We lived a few blocks apart and sat on a couple nonprofit boards together. So what? Who could have predicted it would blow up like this?”

“Bill Ayers: Didn’t think Obama connection ‘would blow up like this,’” the College Fix, today.

Weatherman hagiographer Robert Redford could not be reached for comment, but John Nolte of Big Journalism could, after Ayers was invited to appear on NBC today:

Monday, after MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” spent about two hours blasting the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, and Ted Cruz as bubbled, dangerous, and stupid — in other words, a typical Monday on “Morning Joe” — the show hosted Bill Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist. To no one’s surprise, hosts Mika Brzezinski and Time’s Mark Halperin treated the co-founder of the Weather Underground and friend of Barack Obama with extraordinary deference as he hawked a new book.

Pat Dollard is succinct: “After Accusing Tea Party Of Terrorist Bombing, MSNBC Invites Bill Ayers On To Plug His Book.” Or as Iowahawk tweets:

NBC has so many metaphorical bombs of their own these days, they don’t mind tossing a few at the GOP’s direction as well.

Update: Great catch by Ron Radosh in his PJM column, who watched Ayers on MSNBC so that the rest of us didn’t have to:

Joe Scarborough, on set for all the other segments, mysteriously disappeared after the break. Ayers was left to be questioned by the non-threatening (not to say Scarborough would have been hostile to Ayers, but as a self-described conservative, he would by nature have offended Ayers’ sensibilities) Mika Brzezinski, and journalist Mark Halperin.

“The only thing left is for MSNBC to offer Ayers his own program. Don’t think that is impossibility. And once again, why did you leave the set, Joe? Were you told to disappear, or was it a private statement of your disapproval of Ayers appearing on the program that bares your name? Your viewers are owed an explanation,” Ron adds.

Read the whole thing.™

More: Tim Graham of Newsbusters adds, “MSNBC’s Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski has applauded calling Newt Gingrich a “political pyromaniac,” and suggested Sarah Palin was to blame for the Gabby Giffords shooting. So it was a bit shocking to see her fawning over Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers on Monday morning.”

Lenny and Felicia would entirely approve of her polite bourgeois-bohemian good manners when a radical chic guest stops by to chat.

fontova_castro_cuba_longest_romance_cover_10-13-13-3

Considering that Dan Rather’s shameful acts during the 2004 presidential election gave PJ Media its original name, I shouldn’t be astonished, but even at this late date, it’s still pretty amazing to think that a man who once held himself out as a quote-unquote “objective” journalist would say of Fidel Castro that he’s “Cuba’s own Elvis.”

That’s just one of the many radical chic romances the MSM and Hollywood still have for Castro and his socialist prison island, as veteran author, columnist and PJM contributor Humberto Fontova tells me today, quoting from his latest book, The Longest Romance: The Mainstream Media and Fidel Castro. During our interview, Humberto will discuss:

● When Ernest Hemingway viewed Che Guevara’s execution squads personally.

● How did The Godfather Part II become the MSM’s go-to guide for pre-Castro Cuba?

● Which film did Robert Redford present to Fidel Castro and the widow of Che Guevara in a private showing?

● What is Cuba’s  “Military-Tourism Complex”?

● What is Fontova’s take on Diana Nyad, who recently successfully swam from Cuba to Florida?

And much more. Click here to listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(18 minutes long; 16.5 MB file size. Want to download instead of streaming? Right click here to download this interview to your hard drive. Or right click here to download the 3.10 MB lo-fi edition.)

If the above Flash audio player is not be compatible with your browser, click on the video player below, or click here to be taken directly to YouTube, for an audio-only YouTube clip. Between one of those versions, you should find a format that plays on your system.

Transcript of our interview begins on the following page; for our many previous podcasts, start here and keep scrolling.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | 6 Comments bullet bullet

Perhaps I was Wrong About The Atlantic

October 10th, 2013 - 8:09 pm

atlantic_hostage_terrorist_rhetoric_10-8-13-1

Yesterday, when I linked to the Photoshop from the Atlantic of Speaker Boehner being hauled off in handcuffs pictured above, I first tried to Google on the source of the photo. I had assumed it was a Photoshop of the Capitol or DC police, but didn’t have much luck. I also searched on “Checkerboard police caps,” with similarly poor results.

However, Prof. William A. Jacobson of the Legal Insurrection blog has tracked down the original photo:

As startling as the image may seem coming from a mainstream publication, consider that the source of the image was a photo of an Irish Republican Army terrorist, Colin Duffy, who was charged with the killing of British soldiers (he later was acquitted):

Notice the photo of Colin Duffy is the exact same photo The Atlantic used as the source for the photoshop.

I’m sure the author and editors at The Atlantic knew exactly what they were doing, even if most of the readers didn’t pick up on the Boehner being equated to a specific accused murderer.

Click over to see the Atlantic’s source photo.

Perhaps I’ve been judging the Atlantic wrong. While we know what Republican Congressman Peter King is reported to think about the Irish Republican Army, what does the left think about them? Perhaps a bit of context is in order. I know Leonard Bernstein had no problem inviting the Black Panthers over to his Park Ave. duplex for tea, canopies, and a little Spring Fascism Preview, to borrow from a classic early National Lampoon cover. Ted Kennedy was pretty cool with the Soviet Union. In 2002, Sen. Patty Murray said she dug Osama bin Laden for “building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities”. David Bonior and Jim McDermott, were big fans of Saddam Hussein. And Barack Obama certainly has his favorite Weatherman. So if the leftwing consensus on the IRA is along similar lines, and having been chastised by Mr. Obama’s attacks on free speech and journalism, perhaps the Atlantic’s Photoshop is meant to build sympathy for Speaker Boehner in his measured responses to what has been remarkably testy rhetoric from Mr. Obama, not to incite a citizens’ arrest or violence towards him, as the Atlantic previously implied in 2011 with its attacks on Gov. Palin.

Context is everything — and so is subtext. And I’m glad we got to the bottom of this one.

(I keed, I keed. Of course the Atlantic hates Speaker Boehner’s guts. I mean, for one thing, the guy is a Catholic, not a Scientologist, for Xenu’s sake.)

network_poster_8-15-13-1

Network’s theatrical release poster.

 

The recent corporate transfer of Alec Baldwin from permanent NBC Saturday Night Live guest host and star of the recently cancelled low-rated NBC series 30 Rock to his upcoming gig as a raving anchor at MSNBC sounds like something out of Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film Network. Not the least of which because Baldwin’s in-house transfer was preceded by an outrageous homophobic slur, which old media — and not just NBC — worked very hard to bury. But then, there’s very little about television news that Network didn’t anticipate.

Because of the length of time needed for a movie to be both green-lighted, and then produced, few cinematic satires arrive at the apogee of their subject’s power. When Kubrick released Dr. Strangelove in 1964, the Air Force had begun to move away from nuclear-equipped B-52 bombers to a missile-based attack system. By the time Robert Altman had shot M*A*S*H in 1970, President Nixon was beginning to wind down American involvement in the Vietnam War. In the 1980s, films such as Red Dawn and 2010: The Year We Make Contact depicted America involved in future military conflicts with the Soviet Union, even as the latter was imploding. (Thank you, President Reagan.)

But when Network hit movie theaters in 1976, the original big three television networks were at the apex of their uncontested power; newspapers were losing readership, the World Wide Web was nearly 20 years off, and even CNN wouldn’t begin broadcasting until 1980. More importantly, talk radio, Fox News and the Blogosphere wouldn’t come into to play for another 15 to 25 years respectively. There was nothing to stop television’s untrammeled power, and seemingly no way for the individual to fight back.

“It’s Not Satire — It’s Sheer Reportage”

In his 2005 interview with Robert Osborne on Turner Classic Movies, Sidney Lumet, Network’s director, told Osborne that when he and Chayefsky were making their initial rounds on the interview circuit to promote the movie, “Paddy and I, whenever we’d be asked something about ‘this brilliant satire,’ we’d keep saying, ‘It’s not a satire — it’s sheer reportage!’ The only thing that hasn’t happened yet is nobody’s been shot on the air!”

Pages: 1 2 3 4 | 14 Comments bullet bullet

“Col. Bud Day, Vietnam War Hero, Dies at 88,” the New York Times tweets, linking to their obit of Col. Day:

Col. Bud Day, an Air Force fighter pilot who was shot down in the Vietnam War, imprisoned with John McCain in the notorious “Hanoi Hilton” and defiantly endured more than five years of brutality without divulging sensitive information to his captors, earning him the Medal of Honor, died on Saturday in Shalimar, Fla. He was 88.

His death was announced by his wife, Doris.

Colonel Day was among America’s most highly decorated servicemen, having received nearly 70 medals and awards, more than 50 for combat exploits. In addition to the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for valor, he was awarded the Air Force Cross, the highest combat award specifically for airmen.

In a post on Twitter on Sunday, Senator McCain called Colonel Day “my friend, my leader, my inspiration.”

Colonel Day’s life was defined by the defiance he showed in North Vietnamese prison camps, where besides Mr. McCain, the future senator and Republican presidential candidate, whose Navy fighter jet had been downed, his cellmates included James B. Stockdale, also a Navy pilot, who became Ross Perot’s running mate in his 1992 presidential campaign.

It’s a sensitively-worded obit, and at first glance, surprisingly free of leftwing bias. However, I’m not sure if the Times’ publisher, “Pinch” Sulzberger would approve of the wording of the Tweet linking to it, which described Col. Day as a “Vietnam War Hero.” As the Media Research Center noted in July of 1999, quoting from a profile of Suzlberger in the New Yorker

An alert MRC fan tipped us to the profile of New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. in the July 26 issue of The New Yorker magazine by authors Susan Tifft and Alex E. Jones, who are writing a book on the Sulzberger family.

Sulzberger, nicknamed “Pinch” (in comparison to his Times predecessor and father, Arthur “Punch” Sulzberger), traveled a familiar path for the children of the Eastern elite in the 1960s and 1970s:

“He had been something of a political activist in high school — he had been suspended briefly from Browning for trying to organize a shutdown of the school following the National Guard’s shooting of students at Kent State — and at Tufts he eagerly embraced the antiwar movement. His first arrest for civil disobedience took place outside the Raytheon Comapny, a defense and space contractor; there, dressed in an old Marine jacket of Punch’s, he joined other demonstrators who were blocking the entrance to the company’s gates. He was soon arrested again, in an antiwar sit-in at the J.F.K. Federal Building in Boston.

“Punch had shown little reaction after the first arrest, but when he got word of the second one he flew to Boston. Over dinner, he asked his son why he was involved with the protests and what kind of behavior the family might expect of him in the future. Arthur assured his father he was not planning on a career of getting himself arrested. After dinner, as the two men walked in the Boston Common, Punch asked what his son later characterized as ‘the dumbest question I’ve ever heard in my life’: ‘If a young American soldier comes upon a young North Vietnamese soldier, which one do you want to see get shot?’ Arthur answered, ‘I would want to see the American get shot. It’s the other guy’s country; we shouldn’t be there.’ To the elder Sulzberger, this bordered on traitor’s talk. ‘How can you say that?’ he yelled. Years later, Arthur said of the incident, ‘It’s the closest he’s ever come to hitting me.’”

Did Sulzberger ever recant from his youthful radical chic views of the Vietnam War? Judging by his paper’s encomium for former Weatherman turned future Obama crony Bill Ayers, published, in what would later turn out to be a horrific moment of synchronicity, on September 11th, 2001, I would doubt it.

(Via Twitchy.)

rolling_stone_boston_bomber_cover_7-16-13

Oh that Jahar Tsarnaev, isn’t he totally cool and dreamy? Not content with lionizing Robert Redford for his recent cinematic encomium supporting Bill Ayers’ efforts in bombing the Pentagon and other targets, Rolling Stone magazine — whose readership increasingly overlaps with AARP magazine, finally discovers a youthful terrorist with vintage Springsteen-style facial topiary to celebrate.

Greg Gutfeld of Fox’s Red Eye sums up Rolling Stone’s morally repugnant cover “in 50 Seconds:”

So I just read the Rolling Stone piece with the shitbag on the cover. It’s long, but i can summarize it for you:

“Wow, here’s a really good looking cool kid who loves to smoke weed (a lot — isn’t that cool and funny!) and seems super cool and all his friends just think he’s the “bomb.” He has such great hair!!!!

Oh — sorry – and then the cute guy does something really really bad, and it’s like totally weird because he was such a cool dude –and he was smart and stuff, and a great fighter and girls liked him! He seems really cute to me, anyway!!!    :)

and when someone cool does something REALLY BAD WE THINK then we are really sad. :(

Or as Jim Treacher writes, “Apparently you can do whatever you want, kill anybody you want, as long as Jann Wenner thinks you’re cute:”

As per the hottest magazine of 1974:

In the new issue of Rolling Stone, contributing editor Janet Reitman delivers a deeply reported account of the life and times of Boston bomber Jahar Tsarnaev. Reitman spent the last two months interviewing dozens of sources – childhood and high school friends, teachers, neighbors and law enforcement agents, many of whom spoke for the first time about the case – to deliver a riveting and heartbreaking account of how a charming kid with a bright future became a monster.

Islam? Was it Islam? I’m just speculating here.

Incidentally, the liberal mayor of Boston, a city still recovering from the Tsarnaev’s youthful indiscretions, is not amused by Rolling Stone’s cover. Neither is Kmart, Rite-Aid, Walgreens and CVS. (Presumably, most Rolling Stone readers like to pick up a copy of the magazine in the checkout line while buying their weekly bottle of Geritol.)

On the other hand, the Washington Post is pretty cool with the cover. Which isn’t all that surprising; in a 1995 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army credited America’s “liberal” media for helping America lose the war:

What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam’s army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits? A: Keenly. Q: Why? A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

But at least in the late ’60s and early ’70s, there usually wasn’t quite such an obviously direct line between Rolling Stone’s cover stars and terrorism.

Radical Chic: The Geritol Years

May 30th, 2013 - 8:02 pm
new_york_review_molotov_cocktail_1967-5-30-13

Someone set up us the bomb.

For a salon full of self-described “Progressives,” time sure does stand still at the New York Review of Books:

The New York Review never lost its taste for upper-class English dons, but in the mid Sixties the dons were joined by a more demotic element. Suddenly, political firebrands like Jerry Rubin, Stokely Carmichael, Andrew Kopkind, and Tom Hayden began appearing (Rubin, Carmichael, and Hayden once each, Kopkind with ten pieces). The nadir came with the notorious issue of August 24, 1967. Headlined “Violence and the Negro,” the cover announced in outsize type Kopkind’s piece on Martin Luther King and Black Power and Hayden’s report on the riots—what he called “The Occupation”—of Newark. Underneath was a large diagram instructing readers on the exact composition of a Molotov cocktail.

—  “A nostalgia for Molotovs: ‘The New York Review,’” Roger Kimball, the New Criterion, April, 1998.

The latest edition of the New York Review of Books includes a 4,076-word piece sympathetic to the Boston jihadists who built bombs designed to rip through flesh and bone. In “The Bombers’ World,” Christian Caryl sets out to normalize the unthinkable and justify the savagery that claimed three lives and left many with missing limbs.

The article is an example of the pathology of the left’s obsession with justifying violence directed toward America or any other country that shares our values and the lengths to which they will go to exonerate Islam and deflect attention from the real root cause.

— “New York Review of Books Sympathizes with Jihadists,” Pamela Geller, Big Journalism, today.

Bill Ayers swears up and down that his Vietnam War-era terrorism was totally different from Islamic terrorism today — and yet it’s remarkable those who looked the other way (or were actively fundraising) when the Weathermen and Black Panthers were at their peak are more than willing to be sympathetic towards today’s terrorists. It’s almost as if the sclerotic reactionary left isn’t anti-war, just on the other side, to coin a phrase.