Friday Night at the Movies: "Oh, stewardess, I speak jive"

In light of discussions surrounding who and who can't use "the N-word", I'm reminded of this:

A Troublesome Word

The only episode of Boston Public I ever saw, was Chapter 37, which dealt with the "N"-word. Couldn't find a single clip on YouTube, but that episode should have made me a regular watcher (it didn't, although Jeri Ryan is certainly eye-catching). It really was a good episode.

I'd offer my thoughts, but right now I'm just too exhausted; still wanted to blog the following segments from The View, though:



Hat tip/also blogging: Freedom Eden

By the way, this isn't the first time The View covered the topic of the N-word.

Against the Surge, before it became cool to be for the Surge...while staying hip to the demands of the moveon.orgers

It's tough to be a politician (when you don't stick to core beliefs):



Hat tip to Leah




Hat tip: Scott

Trading Future Killers for the Bodies of Dead Patriots

"Ehud Barak [Israel's defence minister] made a big promise that Israel would do anything to get any of their soldiers back again,"
-David Chater, reporting for Al Jazeera

Samir Kuntar, one of five Lebanese prisoners released by Israel as part of an exchange deal with Hezbollah, has said he had no regrets over his imprisonment in 1979 for the murder of three Israelis.

~~~

As Kuntar received a hero's welcome in Lebanon on Thursday, Israel buried the remains of two soldiers returned as part of the deal with Hezbollah.

Thousands of people attended the funerals for Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, who were captured during a cross-border raid which sparked a 34-day conflict between the Israel and the Lebanese movenment.

~~~

Kuntar was convicted and sentenced to five life terms for killing a police officer, a civilian and a four-year-old child in a raid in the northern Israeli town of Nahariya.

But on Thursday he told the crowds that came out to welcome to his home town: "I haven't for even one day regretted what I did.

"On the contrary I remain committed to my political convictions," Kuntar said.

~~~

Chater also said that Israel had acknowledged that Hezbollah had got the best of the latest deal.

"There is a lot of thought going on. A committee is being prepared by the Israeli government so that some kind of rule can be set for prisoner exchanges," he said.

Hezbollah also received the bodies of almost 200 Lebanese and Palestinian fighters from Israel.

Exchanging live prisoners for a couple of dead bodies.....?.....?......?! And that's going to accomplish what exactly?


A lot of activity going on in the Middle East.

I sense war is brewing.

Control of Diwaniyah Province in Iraqi Hands

Perhaps more important than the news coverage over the New Yorker poor-taste satirical cover art and Obama's Iraq speech (also, Curt's post here), is this news of more progress in Iraq:

...another province, Diwaniyah, was handed over to Iraqi government control.

This means that for the first time, a democratically-elected Iraqi government is in charge of a majority of the country (10 of 18 provinces). The largest province and former home of the Sunni insurgency, al Anbar, is on the cusp of being handed over as well.

Is Senator Obama paying any attention? Amy Proctor pointed out that Anbar Province was to be handed over to Provincial Iraqi control back in June:

The predominantly Sunni province of Anbar to the west of Baghdad, once almost a synonym for the insurgency but recently much more peaceful, was to have been handed over last month.

There is reported to be a dispute over to whom exactly the US military would hand over control.

But overall, the violence countrywide is now at its lowest level since 2003.

That, our correspondent says, is in large measure attributed to the US troop "surge", which began last year and is now coming to an end.

It's only a matter of time.

How many more "man-on-the-street" interviews do I have to endure, hearing someone, who bases his opinion on 2005-6 hammered-home negativity, "We need to end the war now and bring all our troops home."

I wonder how many of them still are stuck on the belief that Iraq is in a civil war?

Here's Michael Totten on Michael Yon optimism, and why it deserves credible weight:

Michael Yon infuriated a whole swath of his audience some years ago when he said Iraq was in a state of civil war. Only the most committed anti-war leftists wanted to hear it. Vice President Dick Cheney famously and foolishly said the U.S. was “turning the corner” around the same time. Cheney is a politican. Yon is a straight-shooter. So it means something when Yon writes the following:

The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over.

The way I see it, the Iraq War ended when President Bush declared major combat operations had ended. What we became engaged in next was a different phase. Another chapter. What appears to be the case, is that the insurgency has lost its momentum. It may take years yet, for it to completely dematerialize. But I think our role there is coming to a close. Afghanistan is resurfacing as a problem. Who knows what is in store for Iraq's future? The future is ultimately unknowable, and anything can change on a dinar.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are battles in the long war, just as Vietnam and Korea were battles in a larger war.

Why is Congress' Approval Rating So Low? It's Bush's Fault!

"Any time, I repeat, any time you have a president that is down so, so far in poll numbers, it drags down a city council member," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It drags down any elected official, including us, and we recognize that." -Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Hat tip: The New Editor

With Endorsements Like These.....

Who endorses/supports Senator Barack Obama's race for the White House?

Louis Farrakhan: The endorsement that's not an endorsement:

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion's founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father. "A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

Damage control:

“I have been very clear in my denunciation” of Farrakhan’s history of anti-Semitic remarks, Obama said at the Democratic debate in Cleveland, “I did not solicit his support.” Obama said he “can not censor” individual endorsements but said there is no affiliation with his campaign and Farrakhan. “I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy,” Obama said, citing his support among Jewish Americans and stating that he would make it a priority to soothe historically tense ties between the African-American and Jewish communities in the nation. “I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this campaign,” he said, describing himself as a “stalwart” on supporting Israel.

Hamas: (by way of Powerline):

On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."

Of course, Hamas's taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President."

Yousef was asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's visit with Hamas, but didn't seem troubled by it. Hamas, he says, understands American politics; this is the election season, and everyone wants to sound like a friend of Israel. Nevertheless, he hopes that the Democrats will change American policies when they take office.

In other words, "just another politician":

"politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability."- Reverend Wright interviewed by Bill Moyers

Well, after doing a Jeremiah Wright turn on Hamas, the Islamic Terrorist Movement did their own "Wright turn" and unendorsed the

“Obama’s comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the U.S. administration’s foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters in Gaza.

“The Democratic and Republican parties support totally the Israeli occupation at the expense of the interests and rights of Arabs and Palestinians,” he said.

“Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win,” Zuhri said.

ABC's Political Punch says Hamas never actually endorsed Senator Obama:

Hamas had never actually endorsed Obama. In April, Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef told WABC radio that "we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance."

What a great non-endorsement, huh?

Hugo Chavez?

“We’re going to need to see who is going to be the strongest candidate against Senator McCain. And I believe that is Senator Obama with his emphasis on change and bringing people together, a fresh voice internationally, somebody that is able, in my judgment..to bring…. at least I just got back from Latin America, from Venezuela, where he has enormous support, where people really want to see a change in American foreign policy and they see Obama as that agent of change.“-Bill Richardson on CNN

As Hot Air says,

When Richardson speaks about Venezuelans who want to see a change in American foreign policy, one has to remember that the only Venezuelans Richardson meets are Chavez and his regime’s diplomats. Richardson certainly isn’t meeting with Venezuelan dissidents while trying to wheedle Chavez into getting his terrorist supporters to release the three Americans.

Fidel Castro: While offering "harsh words" for Senator McCain, Castro called Obama "the most advanced candidate" in the race. But Castro, being the savvy leader he is, cautioned himself,

"I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity," Castro wrote. "Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor."

Too late, buddy. You already have.

Muammar Gaddafi:

“Africa and the Arab world are ready to back and finance Barack Obama as long as he helps the oppressed populations”, said the Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi, calling however on the US democratic presidential candidate to not always defend Israel at all costs, as all American presidents have done so far.

This comes, in spite of his criticism of "our Kenyan brother":While the rest of Africa is going gaga at the thought that an African-American might live in the White House, Gadhafi said that a black president will have an inferiority complex. "This will make him behave worse than the whites," he said. Case in point? Obama's alleged proposal to give $300 billion in aid to Israel in hopes that the Jewish state doesn't assassinate him like it killed Kennedy. According to Gaddafi, Israeli agents murdered JFK because he tried to investigate their secret nuclear weapons program.

Kim Jong-Il:

We will see a better relationship between the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula with Obama, who sternly criticizes Bush and who would meet the leader of Chosun without pre-conditions, than with the “Bush clone” and scarecrow of the neocons McCain.

More recently.


If any of these "supporters/endorsers" were really clever, they'd publically endorse Senator McCain to help Senator Obama's campaign. After all, we all know that he truly is their preferred candidate.

Anyone care to add to the list? I know I left some out.

Hat tip: This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

More Smoke and Mirrors

This time involving Senator Obama and the Colorado Veterans. CJ exposes the illusion. Curt reveals the dishonesty in his NYTimes op-ed.

AP Stringer: detached obeserver or complicit to murder?

My Pet Jawa asks the question of AP photographer Rahmatullah Naikzad.

STORYLINE:

Taliban militants said they executed two women in central Afghanistan after accusing them of working as prostitutes on a US base.

A spokesman for Ghazni's governor, said the women, dressed in blue burqas, were shot and killed late Saturday just outside Ghazni city in central Afghanistan.

He called the two "innocent local people."

Taliban fighters told Associated Press Television News the two were executed for allegedly running a prostitution ring catering to US soldiers and other foreign contractors at a US base in Ghazni city.

1st Lt. Nathan Perry, a US military spokesman, says he has never heard of allegations "anything close to that nature."

An Associated Press Television News crew was in the vicinity when the women were killed.

The crew heard gunshots and filmed from some distance in the dark.

The following day Associated Press Television filmed the bodies of the two women.

"Uh, oh...."

The over-the-top cover is actually a "distraction" from the substance of the must-read article itself. I'm sure the Obama campaign would love supporters to have a Danish cartoon moment, and focus upon the art cover to divert attention away from the piece by Ryan Lizza.

Hat tip: The Strata-Sphere and The New Editor

Also blogging:
American Power
Freedom Eden

Breaking News

Hat tip: The Generator Blog

Mixed Nuts

Conan O'Brien:


Hat tip: Freedom Eden

SNL:

And speaking of cutting off nuts....read about ACORN

The AP Adds Color Commentary to Their Straight News

Douglas K. Daniel writing for the AP:

With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses.

~~~

As press secretary, Snow brought partisan zeal and the skills of a seasoned performer to the task of explaining and defending the president's policies. During daily briefings, he challenged reporters, scolded them and questioned their motives as if he were starring in a TV show broadcast live from the West Wing.

Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation. He was the first press secretary, by his own accounting, to travel the country raising money for Republican candidates.

Yes, because we know that Helen Thomas and company were long on facts and short on confrontation [/sarcasm]

Hat tip: Matt Lewis

53

Hollywood at War

In 2007 through to present, we've seen about 8 anti-war movies:
The Jacket (2006)
Home of the Brave (2006)
In the Valley of Elah
Redacted
Rendition
Grace is Gone
Lions for Lambs
Stop-Loss

What did I miss....? Hard to keep tabs on all the rubbish I help to torpedo at the box office by staying home with my hard-earned dollars. Other examples of recent years (anti-war, anti-military, anti-corporation, anti-Republican/conservative, anti-religious) that demonstrates a love of leaning leftward: Three Kings, Courage Under Fire, The Manchurian Candidate, and Jarhead. Stephanie Zacharek, writing for Salon, says of Jarhead's director, Sam Mendes:

And with "Jarhead" he pulls off, effortlessly, what so many pro- and antiwar individuals since Vietnam have tried so conscientiously to avoid: His movie is antiwar and anti-soldier.

Then we have other lefty fantasies, like, September Dawn, Death of a President (ok, not Hollywood, nevertheless....)and HBO's Recount, masquerading as historical dramatized reality.

How did these pictures do? They literally BOMBED at the box office. All of them. Why? Because, as Kevin of Pundit Review put it a year ago,

People don’t want to see this crap. Who are they kidding. It used to be that people like Jason Dunham and Paul Ray Smith would be the subjects of Hollywood movies. You know, actual war heroes.

Instead, Hollywood keeps churning out movies that celebrate Che Guevara, (and lefties always like to point out how big business companies and Hollywood is motivated solely by profit- B***sh***!!!),while condemning Joseph McCarthy, hostility toward religion (or more specifically, to Christianity, such as Jesus Camp and The Golden Compass), and quite simply polluting our culture with shameless liberal beliefs and activism.

Can anyone name a single movie post-9/11 that's come out where Islamic terror is named as the enemy? 24 doesn't count. For one, it's a TV series, and hamstrung by the political correctness police.

I didn't see The Kingdom, but I'm not entirely sure this one counts as a pro-American, pro-war on Islamic terror movie, as I've heard there is a scene toward the end that suggests moral equivalence. Compound it by this NYTimes review:

In some ways it’s an anti-Iraq movie, not because it expresses opposition to the war there but rather because it makes no mention of it. Instead, the film spins a cathartic counternarrative. After a murderous terrorist attack a few of our best people — four, rather than a few hundred thousand — go over to the country that spawned the terrorists, kill the bad guys and come home.

Sounds like a return back to dealing with terrorism as solely a law enforcement issue (given the movie's background, based upon Louis Frei's My FBI, it's probably the case).

LIBERTAS Review:

If you’re looking for a pro-American film this isn’t it. If you’re looking for an anti-American film this isn’t it (sorry, libs, but not to worry, many more coming). But if you’re looking for a film where a bunch of can-do American FBI agents ignore the State Department and unilaterally enter a sovereign nation without so much as a U.N. resolution to kick the unholy ass of a bunch of Islamofascist terrorists, this might be the one.

LIBERTAS does consider it a pro-killing Islamofascists movie; but I'm not entirely convinced (admitting, once again, that I am commenting from a position of ignorance, since I haven't seen the movie). Medved mentions about what he perceived as a moral equivalence copout when toward the end of the movie, Jamie Foxx's character and Abu Hamza are juxtaposed to say "We're going to kill them all".

Peter Berg himself says, "At its core, this film is about FBI agents trying to investigate a series of homicides in a complicated environment. That’s it."

Later in the interview,

Paul: Can you talk about the film’s delay in release?

Berg: I feel really good about that. You know, what happened was we had a series of test screenings a while ago . . . Sacramento . . . and we all went up there and watched the film and it was a pretty bizarre experience. The audience started clapping very intensely and they started responding very aggressively, and I sat there thinking I really f***ed up and had made something that appealed to the most bloodthirsty, violent, militaristic component of our culture, and that was never the intention. And afterwards we had this focus group of 30 people and everyone sort of talking about the film in very emotional terms, and they were responding to Ashraf’s death and to the message at the end, and they said, yeah, there was great action, but that they were finding the film provocative, at which point we were like — maybe we should think a bit more about how we release this film and put a little more thought into it. And the studio was extremely supportive, and said, we want to take more time, figure out exactly what we have, figure out how we want to sell it, and that was followed up by a very intense screening process, which included a European screening with a pretty heavy Muslim population, where we experienced the same reaction. So the bottom line is I’m glad we took the time, I feel great about coming out when we are, and very appreciative of the studio for taking the extra time, and spending the extra money to give it a more thorough release.

So, no: Not a pro-war on Islamic terror movie. Just a straight-up action film. 2006's The Pacifier, like many politically-correct-saddled movies, can't "name the enemy"; in that movie we get "Serbian" terrorists.

Ironman came close also, but not quite there (for reasons explained below, in the Medved review excerpt). Medved, in reviewing September Dawn, points out the confused, liberal mind:

The film's deliberately drawn analogy between Mountain Meadows and 9/11 raises the most puzzling question about this peculiar project: Why frame an indictment of violent religiosity by focusing on long-ago Mormon leaders rather than contemporary Muslims who perpetrate unspeakable brutalities every day?

In fact, Hollywood's reluctance to portray Islamo-Nazi killers remains difficult, if not impossible, to explain. Since 2001's devastating attacks, big studios have released numerous movies with terrorists as part of the plot, including Sum of All Fears, Red Eye, Live Free or Die Hard, The Bourne Ultimatum and many more, but virtually all of them show terrorists as Europeans or Americans with no Islamic connections. Even historically based thrillers downplay Muslim terrorism: Steven Spielberg's Munich spends more than 80% of its running time showing Israelis as killers and Palestinians as victims, while Oliver Stone's World Trade Center highlights the aftermath of the attacks with no depiction of those who perpetrated them. United 93 stands out among recent releases in showing Islamic killers in acts of terror — and it would be hard to tell that story without portraying the suicidal hijackers.

Beyond topicality, Tinseltown's respect for Muslim sensibilities has proved so pervasive that there has been little or no reference to bloody episodes of the Islamic past. In Kingdom of Heaven, Muslim followers of Saladdin appear far more sympathetic than the thuggish, devious Christian Crusaders. Despite the fact that founders of Islam built their religion through centuries of conquest vastly more bloody than incidents at the beginnings of Mormonism, it's unthinkable that filmmakers would ever depict Mohammed and his followers as viciously as they handle Brigham Young in September Dawn.

(In contrast to Medved's movie reviews, especially as it relates to the slate of anti-(Iraq) war films, check out this piece for an example of a liberal reviewer's intellectual sophistry).

Whatever happened to rumors of Bruce Willis' interest in a film project covering the exploits of the Deuce Four? Instead, just around the bend we have Green Zone (Imperial Life in the Emerald City); Sony Pictures bought the rights to Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies. Oliver Stone is making a movie on George W. Bush. Isn't that special? The latest I've heard on the Deuce Four film:

Just heard from Michael Yon on Ed Morrissey’s show, that film about Deuce Four that was rumored in 2005 is still in the works. Yon said he had just sent another “treatment” back to his agent. Three years later it’s still far from being made, but it’s still floating around out there.

If Hollywood wanted to turn a profit, if they wanted to help the world fight Islamic terrorism, maybe they should go back to making pro-American, pro-military films? Michael Medved (Yes, I'm citing him a lot...he is a movie reviewer, after all, as well as a favorite conservative talk show host):

During WWII, there were tons of movies dealing with that war -- and no, the German Nazis were not portrayed as Uruguayans or Fiji Islanders. The truth of the matter is that war movies have changed in a fundamental way, and, I would submit to you, a dangerous way for the health of our culture and for the strength of our republic.

Subversion of the Classic War Film

Three elements were always present in classic war movies -- films like the John Wayne version of The Alamo, or The Longest Day, or A Bridge Too Far or Sergeant York. First, there was great affection for, and indeed glorification of, the American fighting man, who was portrayed as one of us; as representative of the best of what this country is. Second, there was obvious sympathy for the American cause. And third, the wars being dramatized were portrayed as meaning something.

Where's the Hollywood script for this? Do I have to do it myself? Think of the anti-al Qaeda propaganda value of making a movie about Sheik Sattar. His brother, Sheik Ahmad, even suggested as much:

Sheik Ahmad said he wanted Hollywood to make a movie about the life story of his brother, who was so revered after his murder that Iraq’s interior minister dedicated a statue to him on the road from Baghdad to Anbar

Amy Proctor echoes the desire for such a film:

Interestingly, my husband the COIN expert has been saying for some time he’d love to see a Hollywood movie about the Anbar Awakening and how the sheik and his brother helped win it back from al-Qaeda. It is heroic stuff.

I wholeheartedly agree, just on the strength of propaganda purposes, alone. Hollywood, giving Iraqis a hero with an Iraqi face they can be proud of and rally behind. Draw inspiration from. Mythify him; make him larger-than-life! Movements need heroes. America needs to know its war heroes.

Once upon a time, Tinseltown was pro-American, anti-communist, and active in the fight against America's enemies. Today, Hollywood views George W. Bush as the enemy, rather than Islamic terrorists. Hollywood could easily join the fight and exercise their influence for purposes of winning (and shortening) the Long War, rather than in demoralizing the American public and portraying American soldiers as victims and/or murderous monsters. Yes, Hollywood could easily make films that give us something to cheer about, and they could turn a profit while they're at it....

...If only they weren't so far to the left as to be useless idiots.

Reposted from Flopping Aces