December 5, 2009 - November 28, 2009
Friday, December 04, 2009
Canadian commentator. Commenting. Not as pretty as Brian Williams,
TO THE LOONY BIN
And his colon probably isn't as
telegenically charismatic as Katie Couric. Oh well.
. I've been putting this off because there's a lot
of tedious work
involved in assembling this post, but it's too important to delay any
longer. Regular readers here know that we've been biting the ankles of
the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) set for a long long time. Now it
appears that our suspicions of scientific dishonesty on behalf of a
political and (of course) financial agenda are being confirmed on a
I want to thank our friend and valued commenter "Lake" for firing the
opening shot on ClimateGate at InstaPunk. It's taken me longer than it
should have to convert his post from Word to our format, but it's now
I urge everyone to read it before continuing further with my own post.
He does an excellent job of framing the key issues the MSM have been
endeavouring mightily to ignore, and he's provided links you might not
find anywhere else. His conclusion should inspire all of us to become
students of this mess, even if it takes work to get up to speed.
The dust has far from settled,
especially with Copenhagen coming up later this month, but a few things
have become clear from the emails and documents at the heart of
Climategate / Climaquiddick / the CRUtape Letters (my personal favorite
Anything from CRU has rightly lost its credibility, and so will climate
science in general. New practices will need to be followed, with all
data and number manipulation made available to the public. Science has
been revealed to be just as given to dogma, tribalism, and underhanded
practices as law, government, politics, and religion. This has always
been known, but there is now a very solid, modern, relevant example
that can be referenced.
The Copenhagen conference will be affected, and the public will begin
to look more critically at the IPCC and global warming. Is it too much
to hope that Climategate will be the rope that hangs cap-and-trade? AGW
believers will try to brush it off, but no honestly objective thinker
will be able to buy man-made climate change without reservation.
In the long run, this will be good for science. It’s the perfect
example of how to NOT go about taking and analyzing data, responding to
criticism, and using an unpredictable and chaotic system to ram a
political agenda down the world’s throat. This example bears watching
closely over the next month as it plays out, and it’s worth educating
yourself about it – trillions of dollars and the future of the world’s
economy depends on it.
And, God bless him, he's a teacher, with a mission to enlighten his
students about the lessons of this imbroglio:
Speaking of educating, I’ve got four
science classes to teach tomorrow. I’ll be sure to bring this up before
we start our next lab.
What do I have to add to Lake's excellent digging? A few comments, a
few more pertinent links, and some tips on how to follow the unfolding
controversy. (Plus, some perhaps amusing InstaPunk flashbacks on this
sore toe of a subject.)
First, it cannot be emphasized enough that the mainstream media
don't want to cover this story at all. That should scare us to death.
This is the 'Pentagon Papers' of the climate science field, which is
not to say that it's a lesser story because it originates in academe
rather than the much sexier realm of the military. Ultimately, if world
governments succeed in persuading us that AGW is real and needs to be
addressed, the cost will be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars and
the loss of almost everything we conceive of as liberty -- from control
over our own thermostats to the demolition of advanced industrial
civilization as we know it. All in the name of saving "the planet" from
an invented pollution called carbon that also happens to be the largest
building block of our own human bodies.
This is by no means a coincidence. Make no mistake. The AGW true
believers are in thrall to a post-modern religion masquerading as
science that mimics on an existential scale the post-modern American
liberal's hatred of America. Where ivory-tower types like Noam Chomsky
hate their own country and do everything possible to seek its downfall
in the name of social justice, the AGW devotees hate mankind itself and
dare to conceive of a kind of "planetary justice" whose morality
consists of conspiring in the death of billions of human beings whose
lives are somehow synonymous with the carbon pollution they paradoxically celebrate
when it takes the form of polar bears and other creatures too 'natural'
to be cursed with poisoned self awareness and absurdly arbitrary moral
What the Kyoto-Copenhagen-cap'n'trade-Al Gore-Obama "climate change"
evangelists have always
after is a species-level punishment straight out of the Old Testament.
Only with themselves cast in the role of Yahweh, the angry evicting
landlord of Eden and the merciless bringer of the Flood. What are they
so destructively riled up about? The same thing as the Judeo-Christian
God they despise so much: Original Sin. But the original sin of Mankind
as they define it is, ironically, even more rudimentary than the one
defined by the Creator of Genesis. He sought to punish apostasy and
immorality. They seek to punish existence itself. Why? Having rejected
the concept of divinity and therefore meaning
they hunger for suicide. They don't have the guts to put their own
heads in the oven, though. So they engage in the most absurd
in all human history; we -- our
convenient stand-ins for a purely personal, malignant narcissist's
irredeemable self-hatred. We
by proxy. And so we
deserve to be freed by utter
extinction from a consciousness they
don't have the courage or will to live with.
Sound overstated? It isn't. Why doesn't the MSM with its legions of
highly educated and privileged intellects want to cover a scandal which
intimates that AGW is more than just possibly a hoax? If it is a hoax,
given the monies and governmental control issues involved, it's far
bigger than Watergate. Careers could be made, icons of journalism,
fame, fortune, celebrity, and future book contracts galore. (Look at
the opportunities afforded Woodward and Bernstein over the years...)
More than that, has it occurred to anyone
that if AGW is a hoax, it's actually GOOD NEWS FOR EVERYBODY IN THE
WORLD? New York and Miami won't be submerged, we won't have to repeal
the entire Industrial Revolution, and we won't be confronting the
30-year lifespans of neolithic man that Luddite idiots like Ed Begley,
Jr., want to inflict on our children and grandchildren. Think about it.
A huge news story that isn't
bad news for its potential worldwide audeince of 6 billion souls. Who
could resist that?
The mainstream media can resist it. They are
resisting it. More proof that
we are looking at a faith rather than a fact.
Looking for analogies? Think Galileo. Think Inquisition. Inconvenient
truth, indeed. But what's so inconvenient about it? Irrational,
unexamined beliefs are involved. It turns out that these are far more
important to individual egos than career possibilities and even hope
for all mankind. They'd rather be right in their dumbest long-term
assumptions than actually achieve something worthwhile. They hate
fundamentalists who take the Bible literally? They are the NEW
fundamentalists, the ones who take the corrupt affirmations of science
literally. Because for them the meaning of life is that there is no
meaning, and they'll die to defend that principle against all comers.
(I'm wide open to explanations about why Tiger Woods and a flat-chested
Redskin cheerleader are headlines while improved odds for the
continuation of civilization are not.)
Why I have such utter contempt for sanctimonious atheists.
going to produce a list
of Instapunk posts about AGW. Beginning with the one from 1997
"raw data" from the precursor to this website (eerily prescient of the
current scandal if I do say so myself). Instead, I'm going to put the
ball in your
court: you cite
the posts you like the most, the ones that pertain most closely to the
current controversy (with some juicy quotes included, please), because
it's occurred to me, as it probably has to you, that not all the most
relevant ones even mention climate change. (A gold star to the first
one who finds a working link to The Apunkrypha's Book of Andrew
going to offer a list
of recent news links about how ClimateGate is being handled in the
world press. But beyond noting that it's getting more attention in
Australia, Canada, and the U.K. than it is here, I won't. (Except for
suspect, monumental one
I'm asking you
to hunt down
some links. If you find them, I'll post your comments here on the main
I think I've given you something to think about. I'll conclude with a
link to a site that's a very good way of keeping up with the
ClimateGate News. It's Planet
at the National Review
And just so you know that human beings are funny creatures indeed,
here's the single most significant MSM coverage of ClimateGate.
Make sense? No. But thank God for it. Despite the silence of CBS, NBC,
and ABC news, the libs have
heard of it. I'd feel sorry for them if they weren't actively plotting
my (and your) death in the name of Gaia
Here's Strike One:
Thursday, December 03, 2009
baritone squeak of pain.
WEST POINT SPEECH
. I read a lot of the commentary, some from the
left, a lot from the right, and I confess to being surprised by the
diversity of viewpoints. Libs range from Vietnam paranoia to
disapproval of timelines. Many conservatives are disdainful, but
others, like Rove and Gingrich, are modestly hopeful and even speak of courage
, despite their reservations
about a date
a few months before the 2012 election for beginning the
Frankly, I don't see any courage here. I see a dissembling choice
between polar opposites of fear. Fear that if he alienates the hardcore
America-hating left, they won't work enthusiastically for his
reelection even if they still vote for him. And fear that if he
does what he really wants to do -- abandon Afghanistan just as he has
castrated the War on Terror with a "treat terrorists as U.S. citizens"
law enforcement strategy -- he will fatally expose his blatant campaign
dishonesty to the conservatives, independents, and moderate Democrats
who may have their doubts about the war but won't accept a white flag
as the new standard of American foreign policy.
Despite all the months of delay, this is still
a decision not to decide.
Yes, we're surging, but we're also leaving. The president is occupying
his usual position -- above it all, mistaking detachment for immunity
Cue the Mission Impossible
...hoping against hope that he won't be lowered into the stark dilemma
on the ground -- actually deciding -- that results in real personal
consequences. He still believes he can play it all by ear for the next
eighteen months, waiting to see which hole to dash to for electoral
or fight? If you're a mouse, the consequences are about the same,
But there is
no safe hole.
He's trapped no matter what happens, because he made the trap for
himself a couple years ago. For close to half a century now, ever since
Vietnam, Democrats have been opposed to any exercise of American
military power that isn't un
to American national security. Defending ourselves
is somehow immoral, which
is not any kind of expression of concern for American troops because it
is still okay to send our military into harm's way under U.N. or NATO
control on behalf of quixotic causes that appeal to their sense of
social justice, like Kosovo or Rwanda. Average Americans have,
unfortunately for the Democrats, tumbled to this perverse preference
and don't accept it. That's why Democrats running for national office
have been compelled to lie -- repeatedly, flagrantly, and sometimes
ingeniously -- about their own commitment to national security and the
force of American arms. This is the only relevant fact in terms of
assessing Obama's paradoxical Afghanistan policy and his fears about
the response of his leftist base. Which is why they should and probably
cut him a break.
He opposed the Iraq War from the safe position of not being in Congress
in the aftermath of 9/11. That's what ultimately won him the support of
the true believers on the left. But since he was running for national
office, he couldn't tell the truth -- that of all evils in the world,
he, like his most ardent followers, regarded American military might as
the worst of them, the likely source of all nasty acts in the second
and third worlds. If it weren't for the United States Marines, Navy,
and Army, muslims wouldn't be so pissed off and the tinpot dictators of
Asia, Africa, South America, China, Russia and even Cuba wouldn't be so
cranky and unreasonable and might
even treat their own people more decently. But average Americans are
far too stupid to understand such global insights and so, come election
time, it's necessary to lie to them. You oppose the Iraq War because
America, being America, is actually worse than Saddam, somehow, but you
can't say that. Therefore, you and your followers agree on the lie that
you actually do approve of the Afghanistan War, just so the dopes won't
think you hate your own country as much as you really truly do.
Yeah. I know. Sounds like paranoid conspiracy theory, right? Except
that the current left-right political considerations everyone concedes
Obama is dealing with are the stone cold proof that this is
the truth of the matter. If the
left is mad at Obama for sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, they are
mad at him for NOT lying during his presidential campaign. Everything
he ever said about Afghanistan being the GOOD war, they assumed to be a
lie, accepted as a lie, and fully expected to be proven a lie. In fact,
their support for him was based
on their belief that he was lying to the entire American public.
That would be the first half of the trap Obama is now trying to escape.
The second half of the trap is that all the people Obama was lying to
in the name of social justice, meaning the, uh, majority of American
citizens, don't expect to be lied to the way liberals orgasmically
delight in being lied to, and so he discovered that he was, in some
sense, stuck with his declaration that there was
such a thing as a good war and
Afghanistan was it.
Which is worse? Getting backed into the position of telling the truth
to the 30 percent who demand to be lied to, or being forced to turn
your lies into (some kind of) truth for the 70 percent who actually
believed what you told them in the first place? How do you decide? This
is the politico-philosophical nub, isn't it? For a social justice
obsessive like Obama, the decision turns out to be fairly easy. You
the lies everybody
on all sides wants to hear -- in a pleasing, rational baritone voice.
The way Chavez, Castro, and Mugabe would. You tell conservatives you're
committed to escalating the war without ever mentioning victory. You
tell the left you're committed to winding down the war without ever
mentioning what you mean by "conditions on the ground."
And you're so pleased with your own cagey rhetoric that you forget
you're not a community organizer kibbitzing from the outside but the
undisputed boss of all the proceedings, ineluctably tied to the
specific, real outcomes, whatever they are.
good outcome here
for Obama. He can turn the generals loose, watch casualties increase
dramatically, and still there will be no milestones of victory because
he never defined any. He can exercise his power as Commander-in-Chief
and turn the "surge" into a farce, limiting casualties among all those
troops he has no interest in seeing succeed and then bringing them home
on schedule. But in that case there will also be no milestones of the
surge, and people will remember both that Bush's Iraq surge worked and
that Obama gave his generals less than they asked for.
The loud blowfly in the ointment is that this situation is NOT really
about Obama and his electoral base, his image, his rhetoric, or his
quaint notions of social justice. It's about the fact that there's a
sizeable percentage of muslims who want to do as much harm to the
United States and its citizens as they can. There's absolutely NO sign
that Obamouse understands this elemental fact. Which is why he's set
himself up for the springing of the trap that will finish him off
politically -- a massacre of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a disastrous
coup in Pakistan, another 9/11 in America, or any of a dozen other
proofs positive that compromise and bowing merely embolden enemies
around the world who look at him and laugh. I won't show you this
because Mrs. CP wouldn't like it, but I will remind you of this:
Traps tend to trap their quarry.
The traps are there, and they will be sprung. I feel sorry for everyone
who's trying to see the silver lining of such malevolent clouds.
additional notes. Mice can be a problem. Here are 500,000 of them killed in four nights
during the plague that hit Victoria and South Australia in 1917.
And here's what Robert
had to say about Barack Obama:
To a Mouse
Wee, sleekit, cowran, tim'rous beastie,
O, what panic's in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
Wi' bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee,
Wi' murd'ring pattle!
I'm truly sorry Man's dominion
Has broken Nature's social union,
An' justifies that ill opinion,
Which makes thee startle,
At me, thy poor, earth-born companion,
Thou saw the fields laid bare an' wast,
An' weary Winter comin fast,
An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel [Ann] coulter past
Out thro' thy cell. [not to mention Malkin.]
But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy! [Hail to the Chief!]
Or something like that.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Hollywood as History:
The View from the Left
Mrs. CP and I saw two good movies in the exhausted aftermath
the family Thanksgiving feast, faultlessly cooked and hosted as usual
by the pint-sized Irish dynamo of a wife, mother, and peacock-proud
grandmother of five in this household who is already amped up
(Thanks to all who wished us a Happy Thanksgiving. We had exactly that.
And we hope
all of you did, too.)
Back to the movies, though. This post is in the mode of "we sort of
understand where you're coming from, BUT..." a fine holiday-ish
sentiment toward lefties that still merits some
skepticism on a rainy Monday
after Thanksgiving weekend.
We were absorbed and moved by Matewan
, an account of an early
(c. 1920) milestone in the unionization of coal miners Mrs. CP confided
always wanted to see. I agreed because Chris Cooper is one of my
favorite actors, not a star but absolutely one of the heirs of the
Jimmy Stewart legacy, an actor who never chews scenery but simply lets
you watch him thinking. The entire movie is an exercise in one-sided
manipulation of your emotions, but sometimes your sense of simple
justice enables you to consent in such manipulation. I mean, don't we all
agree that West Virginia coal
miners were abused by the coal companies? Of course we do. So we
tolerate the cartoonish characterizations of good guys and bad guys,
and we -- despite our urban, suburban, or comfortable rural experience
-- are quick to identify with the hard-scrabble deprivations of
Americans today's Democratic oligarchy expresses routine contempt for:
Bible-quoting illiterates who apply the same level of logic to
economics as they do to the Creation.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the movie. Cooper was as subtly magnetic
as he was in Sea Biscuit
raw, unflinching cinematography was worthy of Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller
, and the
cast was not the usual panoply of too-goodlooking actors substituting
for real people that undermines most socially conscious films. We had
the legitimate dramatic suspense of trying to decide which character
would be the obligatory sacrificial Christ figure -- the saintly union
organizer, the wise beyond his years 15-year-old coal miner/preacher,
or his long-suffering (also saintly) mother. The answer was
dramatically inevitable and therefore emotionally satisfying,
especially given that it was portended ahead of time by a dimestore
plot detour that threatened for a precious 25 minutes to reduce the
whole movie to a TV potboiler.
Unless that's all
really, the whole time. Or, more accurately, an anti
-potboiler that sought to prove
its seriousness by evoking without delivering on its references to more
expressly 'Hollywood' movies.
The boy preacher was dangled before us throughout as an obvious
candidate for innocent death who turned out to be the aged,
retroactively wiser narrator -- a la The
The racial subplot starring James Earl Jones offered a tantalizing To Kill
possibility of a black man ensnared by his own
sterling ideals into a lynching situation. But there's no Gregory Peck
here. Only West Virginia hicks. In this case, unemployed union hillbillies who psychically divined the truth and defused the fascist plot in the nick of time. (Which they always do, even now, except when Sarah Palin or the ABCs are involved...)
The climax was the most (anti)Hollywood of all -- a deliberate, visual
allusion to the advancing, murderous deputies of Pale Rider
, only -- shock and
awe of contextual irony -- this isn't
the movies (except that it really is), and Clint Eastwood's 'Preacher'
won't be showing up to save the day. Just as God is rudely shoved to
the side by Preacher Boy in his funeral oration (above) and multiple
other scenes. As with its Hollywood references, this is a movie that
wants to have its cake and eat it too. Christianity is good when it is
an attribute of abused workers versus evil coal company capitalists.
Christianity is ridiculed whenever its mercy and forgiveness are placed
in the context of the short hard lives of miners whose faith
continually sets them up for more exploitation by corporate pharisees.
There's a scene, for example, in which the boy preacher turns a gospel
parable upside down by declaring that Jesus would have changed his tune
if he had only known about labor unions. Israelites under Roman rule
obviously experienced none of the privations of Appalachian coal miners.
And then, with ultimate dramatic hypocrisy, the conclusion of the movie
identifies the dead (fictional) Communist union organizer hero with the
Christian principle of nonviolence, as if, somehow, despite the facts,
the ferociously violent and racist John L. Lewis administration of the
United Mine Workers Union can somehow be associated with the passive
civil disobedience of Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Except that the
actual Christianity part is full of shit because the capitalists will
shoot you dead without a second thought.
At imdb.com, they love this
. Read the user comments
One guy even
claims to use it as a history lesson for his college students:
use it in my US History classes
Author: Gerald O'Connor from
Even with the fictionalized elements, there's not a better film about a
historical event than Matewan. I've read many of the comments here, and
I concur with those who find this a minor masterpiece. Not only does it
tell a fascinating post-WWI story, but my students learn about the
labor movement, the problems confronting immigrants, and race relations
all in one package. I usually set it up with some information about the
time period and location, the unique backstory about the Hatfields and
McCoys, and the music...
Only problem is, the history is incorrect, even according to habitually
left-leaning Wikipedia. The Matewan Massacre
wasn't an assault by a
coal company on coal miners. It was an assault by coal miners on coal
The Battle of Matewan took place on May
19, 1920 in the small coal town of Matewan, West Virginia when a
contingent of the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency arrived on the no. 29
morning train in order to evict families that had been living at the
Stone Mountain Coal Camp just on the outskirts of town. The detectives carried out several
evictions before they ate dinner at the Urias Hotel and, upon
finishing, they walked to the train depot to catch the five o'clock
train back to Bluefield, West Virginia. This is when Matewan
Chief of Police Sid Hatfield decided that enough was enough, and
intervened on behalf of the evicted families. Hatfield, was a native of
the Tug River Valley and was an adamant supporter of the miners' futile
attempts to organize the UMWA in the saturated southern coalfields of
West Virginia. While the detectives made their way to the train depot,
the were intercepted by Hatfield, who claimed to have arrest warrants
from the Mingo County sheriff. Detective Albert Felts then produced his
own warrant for Sid Hatfield's arrest. Upon inspection Matewan mayor
Cabell Testerman claimed it was a fraudulent. Unbeknownst to the detectives, they had
been surrounded by armed miners, who watched intently from the windows,
doorways, and roofs of the businesses that lined Mate Street. Stories
vary as to who actually fired the first shot; only unconfirmed rumors
exist. Thus, on the porch of the Chambers Hardware Store, began clash
that became known as the Matewan Massacre or The Battle of Matewan. The
ensuing gun battle left 7 detectives and 4 townspeople dead,
including Felts and Testerman. [boldface
The dead did not include any union organizers, saintly or otherwise. In
fact, the only organizer on the scene was "Mother Jones
not to have been injured in the event at all and died in her nineties,
with no bullet holes to speak of.
Not saying the miners didn't have their grievances. All I'm saying is
that what happened wasn't
Hollywood pure. It was more like High
than Pale Rider
All I'm saying. What do you tell your history class when you show this
kind of historical fiction? Is it like Rather's Bush memoes -- fake but
accurate? I'd love to know.
Which leads me to my second movie, Cinderella
. The first time I saw it, years ago, I didn't like it.
second, third, and fourth time I liked it more. Initially, I objected
to the dominance of the thematic message, that life in the
Depression was some kind of quantum superposition of proletarian
implicit adoration of FDR's aristocratic stooping to help the common
man. Yeah, I liked it that Braddock was from Jersey and came back
from nowhere to win the heavyweight title, but it rankled that I had
never heard anything much good or bad about Max Baer and suddenly here
he was, the Mike Tyson sadist of the Thirties. Also, it's almost
unheard of that a heavyweight title changes hands without a knockout,
and I was suspicious of Ron Howard's cinematography depicting a brutal
Rocky-esque title fight without even one knockdown. On subsequent
viewings I guess I was charmed by Renee Zellweger. Her performance rang
true to me. I could understand a Jersey girl's love of her husband to
the point that she was willing to give up a big financial payday to
her husband alive. And I DO admire James J. Braddock. But as a man, not
as a champion like Marciano or Ali. Something about the fight scenes
just seems wrong.
Maybe I wouldn't have looked it up without the precedent of Matewan
, but I did look it up. And
what I found is... interesting. Nothing bad about Braddock. But
something good about Max Baer (which kind of rings true to everyone who
found his son, Max Baer, Jr., charming in the Beverly Hillbillies):
In June 1933, Baer fought and defeated
(by a technical knock out) the German heavyweight Max Schmeling at
Yankee Stadium. Baer's trunks displayed an embroidered Star of
David, which Max swore to wear in every bout thereafter. He
dominated the rugged fighter from Germany into the tenth round when the
referee stopped the match. Because Baer defeated Schmeling, German
dictator Adolf Hitler's favorite, and because Baer had a half-Jewish
father, he became popular among Jews, those who identified with Jews,
and those who despised the Nazis.
So now I'm wondering. Really
wondering. About several things. (Including all those scenes in the Catholic church with praying parishioners glued to the radio on Braddock's behalf...) Things that resonate all the way back
even to Matewan
. When the
history is complicated, wouldn't a good
movie encompass the complications as well as the bumper
sticker propaganda that's easiest to convey? And if you're laying a
claim to artistic integrity and moral purity of purpose, wouldn't you
do your best not to tell an actual lie about people who are now dead
and can't defend themselves when you go out of your way to defame their
memory? Unless you're just making a cynical buck?
I'll close with a small quest I pursued. I tried to find YouTube of Ron
Howard's version of the Braddock-Baer fight. I couldn't find much. I
began to suspect he was trying NOT to tell a lie, because the footage I
found and remembered was so artfully angled, partially to conceal that
Russell Cowe is about 5'7" (which is why there are no level shots of
the fight in the movie at all) and partially to conceal the fact that
neither actor was really a prizefighter. But then I found two helpful
sources on YouTube. I found footage of the actual fight, which was far
duller than Ron Howard's cinematic version, verifiication that Baer
spent too much time clowning and not enough time actual fighting --
early Ali? More importantly, the actual footage showed a Star of David
on Baer's trunks.
Then I found, in the Cinderella Man
trailer, a full
body shot of 'Max Baer' advancing from his corner.
No Star of David on his trunks. Fancy that.
I give credit to Ron Howard for depicting the fact that Max Baer
graciously conceded Braddock's victory after their fight. I concede
that Ron Howard didn't identify Max Baer as a Jew or Jewish advocate.
But I can't forgive him for committing an act of libel against someone
who, in some other movie, would be a moral hero. At most, Baer was
one-quarter Jewish. He stood up, long before it was cool, in exactly
the right context, for a group most of the world overlooked. In
he is depicted in a movie meant to celebrate the myth of the New Deal
as exactly the kind of monstrous killer the Nazis (and contemporary Columbia students) have made the Jews out to
I can't wait to hear about the professors who are using Cinderella Man
to teach their marxist students about the Great Depression.
Thing is, Mrs. CP and I both, as I said, enjoyed both these movies.
They bring tears to the eye. But they're not history or anything like
it. They're at best a glimpse of the world the way lefties see the
world. One can sympathize, one can even begin to understand, BUT...
We still need Clint Eastwood more than we need dopey pacifist utopians.
two kinds of people. Those with loaded guns --
and those whose ideals keep digging
the hole deeper.
Just to be clear. I mean, do we have to be nervously anticipating a Ron
Howard baseball movie where Hank Greenberg
is the bestial villain? If so, count me out.
Back to Archive Index