Displaying posts published in

March 2018

Post-Quality Hollywood The movie industry congratulates itself on its bravery—again. Stefan Kanfer

For many years, the Academy Awards has been hosted by post-funny emcees. And why not? Their function is no longer to entertain in the old Bob Hope, Johnny Carson, or even Billy Crystal style; now it’s to mock, grovel, and fawn until the last envelope is opened. Jokes are told to flatter the audience of industry magnates, who somehow convince themselves that they are hipster outsiders, and—most of all—brave. Jimmy Kimmel, once again, proved himself equal to the task of kowtowing to Hollywood’s basest, falsest fantasies about itself.

This year, there were two elephants in the room (the Dolby Theater in Hollywood): the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the #MeToo movement. Kimmel addressed the pachyderms directly. Gesturing to a massive mockup of the award, he noted that Oscar “keeps his hands where you can see them, never says a rude word, and most importantly, has no penis at all.” Staying with the crowd-pleasing political themes, Kimmel pointed out that the Oscar is 90 years old and therefore should be at home watching Fox News, adding that the movie studios don’t make gay-themed pictures like Call Me By Your Name for profit. “We make them to upset Mike Pence.”

Returning to the male/female problem, Kimmel suggested that Best Picture winner The Shape of Water represented “the year men screwed up so baldly women starting dating fish.” It also represented the year that the academy entered its late post-quality period. The Best Picture winner is a witless “lovable monster” movie, with a villain so overdrawn that vaudeville would have given him the hook, a mute heroine out of the grossest Victorian melodrama, and a theme exploited with far greater panache by Beauty and the Beast, Shrek, and at least a dozen other pictures.

Russian Scapegoats at the Ready for 2018 By Julie Kelly

Fearful that the highly touted “blue wave” of Democratic wins in the fall midterm elections won’t be powerful enough to sink Republican control of Congress, anxious anti-Trump pundits are already looking for excuses. And, spoiler alert—it’s the Russians.

In a weekend New York Times column that is a peek into the paranoid mind of a Trump-hater (“many choose to believe he is in the White House because Vladimir Putin tricked the United States into making him its leader,”) Charles Savage agonizes over what will happen if Republicans aren’t vanquished in November. After blaming partisan gerrymandering for a congressional election map where only seven Republican districts are now in serious jeopardy of flipping to the Democrats, Savage pivots to the Russians: “But a significant Democratic wave may not materialize,” he warned. “Inevitably, many eyes would turn to Russia. It appears to still be covertly spreading disinformation and amplifying tensions on American social media. Another poll-defying election night surprise, like 2016’s, would further fuel suspicions of unseen manipulation.”

If the Russians’ crafty mind-control, social-media sorcery prevails again in 2018, Savage predicts disastrous consequences: “Disappointed Trump opponents will be primed to believe the worst: that Russia rigged two elections in a row for Republicans. And if their anticipatory catharsis and faith in the democratic process evaporates, the anger could seek a different outlet—in turn risking a backlash from Trump supporters and a downward spiral.”

Translation: If you think Democrats were mad about not getting their way in 2016, you ain’t seen nothing yet. I shudder to think what the hats will look like.

Premature Scapegoating
Trump is also culpable, according to Savage, for “minimizing [Russian interference] in a way that seems to preclude focusing on protecting the country from future threats.” (Never mind that the timeline of the Russian election-interference indictment announced last month by the Justice department occurred during the Obama administration.)

ELECTIONS ARE COMING:REPUBLICAN RICK SACCONE FOR CONGRESS PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT 18

Elect Rick Saccone in Pennsylvania By Lloyd Marcus

It is a huge mistake to think special elections do not concern you or are unimportant. Every race Republicans lose emboldens leftists obsessed with stopping Trump from making America great again.

Please contact friends and family in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional district and tell them all patriots must get out the vote for Rick Saccone, conservative/Republican on Tuesday, March 13th. This is serious business, folks. If Leftists can flip this seat in Trump country, they will be energized to spread their bogus narrative that Americans regret voting for Trump. This strengthens Democrats’ chances of winning other congressional seats; making evil Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House.

If the Democrats win back the House, the first order of business will be to impeach Trump. Therefore, you see why Saccone winning in Pennsylvania is crucially important; a powerful left hook to the jaw of the Democrats’ treasonous anti-Trump and anti-America movement.

Folks, I don’t know about you, but I am tired of witnessing leftists purposely orchestrating the moral, cultural and economic decline of our once great country. Before Trump, elected officials have been pretty impotent in halting the leftist march to undermine America’s greatness.

In only one year, Trump has given us renewed hope for America by implementing 64% of his campaign promises. Trump has our economy booming. Tyrannical government regulations which strangle businesses and family lives have been slashed by Trump. Illegal immigration has plummeted. ISIS is on the run!

Maxine Waters Talks Reparations in Selma By Tom Knighton

Slavery was the darkest chapter in American history. No reasonable person thinks otherwise. I wish we could undo it so it never existed, but that’s not possible. It happened.

But it’s also been gone for more than 150 years.

So why is Maxine Waters talking about reparations?

“If we want to get to the point where we can get reparations, we’ve got to have the power to do that, number one, by having a supportive president would be wonderful, but taking back the House would be absolutely wonderful,” Waters said at an event in Selma, Alabama, home to one of the most contentious civil rights battles of the 1960s.

No one alive today in the United States has “legally” owned another human being here. Because of that, there’s no one to actually pay reparations. Not a single living person is responsible for the sins of that era. No living person can be forced to pay for the sins of that era without violating his or her rights.

There aren’t any living victims of slavery who are owed reparations. The last living person who lived as a slave in the United States died a long time ago. Sylvester Magee claimed the title of last living former slave, and he died in 1971, though it’s probable that he was lying about his status. CONTINUE AT SITE

Now There’s a Play Called ‘Kill Climate Deniers,’ Because Why Not By Jim Treacher (Video)

Do you know anyone who denies that there’s such a thing as climate? Do you know anybody who hears the word “climate” and says, “Nuh-uh! You can’t fool me, that’s just made up!” I don’t. Yet whenever somebody questions any aspect of the prevailing global warming orthodoxy, he or she is labeled a “climate denier.” It’s a clever little bit of deceptive rhetoric, linking climate change skeptics with deniers of the Holocaust. A Holocaust denier is an awful thing to be, so a “climate denier” must be just as bad.

You don’t want to be one of those deniers, do you? You know how those people are.

That’s why my climatically skeptical ears perked up when I heard that somebody in Australia had written a stage play with the subtlest title ever: Kill Climate Deniers. Here’s a synopsis of the play, courtesy of killclimatedeniers.com:

As a classic rock band take the stage in Parliament House’s main hall, 96 armed eco-terrorists storm the building and take the entire government hostage, threatening to execute everyone unless Australia ends global warming. Tonight.

Now, the embattled Environment Minister has no choice but to pick up a gun and stand up for her ideals, pushing back against the threat which has engulfed her country – one terrorist at a time.

Sounds like a real crowd-pleaser. They even made a trailer of sorts for it:

Oh. Um… Ha ha?

Now, I tend to be a small-l libertarian about these sorts of things. I think you should be able to espouse any ridiculous conspiracy theory you want, even if it involves the belief that people are destroying the planet by leaving their phone chargers plugged in when not in use. That’s fine. You’re entitled to your religious views, no matter how stupid and insane they may be.

And I don’t think anybody will be inspired to actually kill climate skeptics just because they saw a play called Kill Climate Deniers. I don’t believe that movies or video games or novels or comic books or anything else will make anybody do anything. Let alone stage plays.

But just imagine the uproar if somebody produced a play called Kill Tree-Huggers. Or Kill Feminists, or Kill Militant LGBTQ Activists, or Kill [Fill in Some Other Protected Class Here]. Then it would be different. Then it would be time to hit the panic button. The 24/7 news cycle would be filled with solemn warnings about “hate speech” and “toxic rhetoric” and other euphemisms for “We don’t like what you’re saying and we want you to shut up.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Media Fight For Democrats In Washington Leak Wars Reporters are hostile to even the notion of Republican leaks, but remarkably incurious about the actual Democratic deluge of leaks.By Mollie Hemingway

The New York Times published a story on March 1, based on anonymous sources, claiming that Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., had met with House Speaker Paul Ryan to blame Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., for leaking texts between Mark Warner and the attorney for a Russian oligarch connected to the author of the salacious and unverified dossier the FBI used to secure a wiretap against a Trump campaign affiliate.

It was a weird story for many reasons. For one, it was the first time the paper had even mentioned these encrypted texts, despite their newsworthiness and the dramatic twist they gave parts of the Russia investigation.

For another, the story was denied publicly by Burr, who told CNN that the account was simply wrong.

For another, it turned out that no members on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had even seen the texts, according to Nunes and others on the committee.

But the weirdest part about the story is that The New York Times is a frequent recipient of actual leaks from House Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. On Feb. 27, Democrats on the committee leaked Hope Hicks’ testimony directly to The New York Times. In fact, Nicholas Fandos, the very same reporter on the anonymously sourced story about House Republicans supposedly leaking, received a leak from Democrats on the committee, which he immediately published under the headline, “Hope Hicks Acknowledges She Sometimes Tells White Lies for Trump.”

Yale and the Puritanism of ‘Social Justice’ Ditching class to protest won’t count against you—at least if the university approves of the cause. By Walter Olson

Answering a question about which there could hardly have been much doubt, Yale’s admissions blog said last month the university would not penalize prospective students who are suspended for joining antigun protests in the wake of the Parkland shooting. “Yale will NOT be rescinding anyone’s admission decision for participating in peaceful walkouts for this or other causes.”

So far, so routine. A university like Yale would not ordinarily snatch back an admissions offer just because an accepted senior had skipped a day of class, no matter the reason.

But there’s more. The post’s author, senior assistant director of admissions Hannah Mendlowitz, makes clear that Yale considers participation in such a walkout to be a plus, rather than a subject of indifference.

“For those students who come to Yale, we expect them to be versed in issues of social justice,” Ms. Mendlowitz writes. “I have the pleasure of reading applications from San Francisco, where activism is very much a part of the culture. Essays ring of social justice issues.” Even if applicants from less-fortunate areas of the country cannot be expected to meet the Bay Area standard, the message is clear. The post is titled “In Support of Student Protests.”

This endorsement of activism raises a few questions. Would Yale really turn away a brilliant young flutist, chemist or poet who, while solidly educated in history, religion and government, is not specifically “versed in issues of social justice”? What about students who have pursued courses based on great works of the past? Must they be versed in contemporary views of social justice too? Besides, which causes constitute social justice?

North Korea’s Negotiation Play Maybe this means pressure is working, or maybe it’s another con.

South Korean officials disclosed Tuesday that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un says he’s ready to talk with the U.S. about giving up his nuclear weapons. That’s news because Kim has long said he’d never negotiate away his weapons. But the world has seen this diplomatic movie before, only to learn that the North was merely buying more time to build more bombs and ballistic missiles.

“I think that their statement, and the statements coming out of South Korea and North Korea have been very positive,” President Trump said Tuesday. “That would be a great thing for the world. A great thing for the world. So we’ll see how it all comes about.”

Realism is warranted. The hopeful case is that the North’s reversal is a response to the Trump Administration’s policy of pressure through tighter sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Building on United Nations sanctions, the Treasury Department has been blacklisting companies, most of them Chinese, for trading with the North.

As the Journal reported last week, trade across the border with China has declined sharply. Despite its official ideology of self-sufficiency, the North depends on imports of energy, food and raw materials to survive. It also needs luxury goods to reward top officials.

The Trump Administration’s threats of military action if sanctions don’t work may also have secured more Chinese cooperation, even if a military strike carries huge risks. Beijing has been forced to consider the possibility of conflict between nuclear states on its doorstep. It’s also notable that the North told South Korean officials that it agreed to the U.S. demand to halt nuclear and missile tests while talks are underway. Perhaps Mr. Trump’s tough line wasn’t as dangerous and destabilizing as his critics claimed.

Yet the U.S. and the world should still be skeptical that Kim will really put his nukes on the negotiating table. Kim’s father and grandfather used talks to stall for time while they continued the nuclear program in secret. They also extracted concessions in return for talking and broke every promise they made.

The new diplomacy offer also follows a familiar Pyongyang pattern. First make nuclear or missile advances that increase its threat to South Korea and the world. Then make a diplomatic bid once a dovish government takes over in Seoul. This time Kim took advantage of the recent Olympic games and the aching, almost palpable, desire of new South Korean President Moon Jae-in for talks.

The South Koreans said North also demanded “security guarantees,” which it may define as the departure of U.S. forces from Korean peninsula. That would be a security and geopolitical disaster as long as the North retains its military threat.

The Media and Joe McCarthy By David Solway

The mid-20th Century scandal involving Joseph McCarthy’s investigations of communist infiltration into the U.S. government has become an American myth, and “McCarthy” a handy term for a witch-hunter. Like Benedict Arnold,* Joe McCarthy figures, perhaps permanently, in the devil’s hornbook of America’s legendary scoundrels. In the words of the generally staid Encyclopedia Britannica: “The term has since become a byname for defamation of character or reputation by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations, especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges.”

A serious consideration of the evidence, however, strongly suggests that those who use the term may be the ones guilty of “indiscriminate allegations.” It struck me that I had often used the label “McCarthyism” as if it were an eponymous epithet for a despicable historical figure that did not bear examination or defense. It was a simple fact. I was, of course, influenced chiefly by the media. I used to believe when I was younger in the veracity of print, like the character Mopsa in The Winter’s Tale, who crooned: “I love a ballad in print, alife, for then we are sure they are true.” Mopsa today would implicitly trust the big-ticket TV networks. As a former employee of the CBC, I did precisely that.

Contemporary reassessment of McCarthy’s legacy, a much-needed expansion of William Buckley and L. Brent Bozell’s 1954 McCarthy and His Enemies, was launched by M. Stanton Evans, whose 2007 Blacklisted by History is a massively detailed and scrupulously researched attempt to rescue McCarthy’s reputation. Evans writes: “So deeply etched is the malign image of McCarthy that the ‘ism’ linked to his name is now a standard feature of the language.” He concludes, after some 600 meticulous and fact-filled pages: “The real Joe McCarthy has vanished into the mists of fable and recycled error … It’s plain that McCarthy was more sinned against than sinning, and that on the central issues he was chiefly right and his opponents chiefly in error.”**

More recently, Diana West took up the cudgels in American Betrayal, and has reaped the whirlwind for her effort to rehabilitate the senator from Wisconsin. West alleges a cover-up, “perjury and grand-jury rigging by, among others, high-ranking Washington officials … eager to prevent a national security scandal from engulfing the Truman White House.” Like Evans, the evidence she provides — revelations from official archives in Washington and Moscow, FBI memos disclosing active espionage operations, reference to 5000 pages of Senate hearings and 24,000 pages of declassified records, names of agents in possession of secret documents, as well as tracing “gaps in the record” and significantly missing documents attesting to security risks, such as the Samuel Klaus 1946 memorandum — cannot be readily discounted.

Punishing Syrian Chemical Weapons Use Shoshana Bryen

The primary goals of American foreign policy are to make our citizens, friends and allies secure and to make our adversaries think twice. There are moments in history when well-timed, well-placed military action will have the effect of causing fear — and moments that, if allowed to pass by, ensure the opposite. President Barack Obama’s failure to uphold the international conventions against chemical weapons worked against American interests in what is perhaps the ugliest battlefield of the 21st century. President Donald Trump’s decision to attack the Syria’s Al-Shayrat Military Airbase from which the Assad regime launched chemical attacks in 2017 was a welcome reversal, though with limited results.

The illegitimacy of chemical weapons use is one of the few points of international consensus in war fighting. The first treaty against it is more than 115 years old – the Hague Declaration of 1899, which was followed by the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

But the Bashar Assad regime in Syria — with the active support of Russia — has again been using chlorine barrel bombs against the 400,000 hostage civilians of Ghouta. Having failed to pass a Security Council resolution to sanction Syria (Russia and China vetoed), the United Nations Security Council succeeded in passing a unanimous resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. Less than 24 hours later, there were new reports of chemical raids killing hundreds.