Sullivan’s Travels and Reds…

I haven’t seen Beatty’s Reds and am only 1/3rd into the 1941 comedy Sullivan’s Travels…

…but I wonder if the Sullivan character in it ever directed Reds…???…

Tell that to Stalin’s Tens of Millions Dead…

In technique, Reds is the least radical, the least innovative epic you can imagine. Its saving grace is the beauty (and surprise) of Warren Beatty’s solemn high intentions. In an almost childlike way, he vindicates the old Communist Left: the picture says that promises that couldn’t be kept are not the same as promises broken.”

As Beatty would later go on to rap in another of Hollywood’s greatest moments…”Socialism…”

As if he was ever going to give up his millions to live on government welfare and donate all the proceeds of all of his previous and future work to the government to distribute to his fellow man…

The repeated line in Bulworth about how you can’t expect a real man to live on a job at McDonalds is one of the classic Hollywood, pop-culture liberal BS moments:  It exposes the real utter contempt they have for the common man…

I worked in Wendy’s in high school, and I sometimes worked the day shift, where — in point of clear fact — adults did work – did make a living – and did not feel their lives were worthless —- you arrogant ass…

…they didn’t need to sell crack to people in their neighborhoods – or have the government give them better paying jobs — to be real men…

I didn’t realize it well until watching the movie recently, but the same type of contempt can be found in real classic movies like The Grapes of Wrath…

It has an unspoken foundation that says the lives of the sharecroppers was better before the Dust Bowl and the changes in the agricultural economy that came in that time period as machinery and industry grew…… and also on the foundation that the plight of farmers didn’t get better after the agriculture industry evolved…

Basically, it is a movie about the Hollywood-idealization of – serfdom…

Finally – At Least Newsweek Makes It Official

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, if the NY Times and the likes of CBS would just stop telling the audience that they are neutral and non-bias and not pulling for one political party and political/social ideology over its competitor in American society…

There is no Far Left…

Google News Searches:

Far Right = 4,937

Far Left = 1,994

The Wire and Free Drugs II

CNN Praises UK Government for Giving Drugs to Junkies

By Carolyn Plocher | October 14, 2009 – 17:03

A

England can’t afford to help Alzheimer’s patients pay for their medicine, but it can offer free shooting galleries to heroin addicts.On Oct. 14 CNN’s “American Morning” aired a segment about the controversial program that “gives heroin to heroin addicts at the taxpayers’ expense.” Correspondent Paula Newton declared, “A safe, steady supply of heroin is apparently just what the doctor ordered … As radical as it is, for some it is really working.” She also said that the British government’s decision to dole out 97 percent pure heroin – “better than anything sold on the street” – “takes heroin off the streets.”

I wrote in a post that gained a lot of comments about how I liked the HBO series The Wire, but I got annoyed the season they slightly advocated the legalization of drugs and trusting the same government who can’t win the war on drugs against cartels to win the battle of cleaning up the drug business by legalizing it.

In that long post, I said I didn’t see how legalization of such highly addictive drugs could not lead to exactly what we see above in the UK.

– The easier the drugs are to get, and the more people willing to try them once they are legitimized.  And the more people who try it means the more people who end up using it habitually and then addictively.

And then what?  You either make the drugs free to them or you watch them rob the world blind — just as they do now…but worse….

Handing in my keyboard…

I’m going to give up blogging here (my primary internet effort) for a long while…

…Since things calmed down in South Korea on the anti-US front several  years ago – quiet as far as you could see from afar — the blog has been focused more and more on the American news media and bias, and I can’t find the value any more in keeping up with something so — obvious — and so ignored by the court jesters of American society…

The last presidential election pushed the envelop so far — or pulled the rubberband so taunt – it snapped…..

And now, Pres. Obama, 8 months on the job and with no global background  or major human rights accomplishments before getting the White House, gets the Nobel Peace Prize…

….That’ s enough….

I could live with the biblical demonization of Pres. Bush by the world community and the US media (who always feels inferior to the Euro-world…), but this?  This glorification of a man with such a sparse background as Obama?  and with such items like Rev. Wright and Saul Alinsky as key cornerstone’s of his past?

—  And these people are plainly too ignorant to even realize how blind and ridiculous they are — no matter how many polls they witness where the bulk of the American population can see it in them…

….And I’m out….

It just isn’t worth watching or pointing out any more.

………The idiot court jesters are in charge of “the world community nations”….

Jackasses

Obama a ‘Figure of Hope’ to World in Winning ‘One of the Last Towering Honors on Earth’ By Brent Baker

ABC, CBS and NBC all led Friday night with the “surprise” pick of President Barack Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize after less than a year in office and acknowledged the choice was meant as a slap at former President George W. Bush, but that didn’t prevent the network journalists from touting the honor of the selection and, in one case, worrying about how critics will use the award against him. “He has been in office nine months,” ABC anchor Charles Gibson observed as ABC plastered glowing praise on screen: “The Nobel committee citation seemed to take note of that, saying, ‘only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope.’” Katie Couric exclaimed: “Talk about an October surprise!” Despite the obvious politicization of the award, NBC’s Brian Williams championed how it’s “one of the last remaining towering honors on Earth.” Williams also fretted over how Obama’s advisers will deal with “knowing that critics of the White House will use this, oddly, as a tool against him.” On CBS, Jeff Greenfield saw vindication for Obama after losing the Olympic bid

And..

MSNBC’s Shuster Slams: Obama Nobel Speech Makes Limbaugh Look ‘Un-American’
By Scott Whitlock | October 9, 2009 – 16:44

MSNBC’s David Shuster on Friday slammed conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and RNC Chairman Michael Steele as “un-American” and “extreme” for criticizing Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize win. The liberal co-host of News Live applauded the President’s speech on the award and asserted, “…It makes the harsh comments from Michael Steele, from Rush Limbaugh, the rest, seem even more extreme and, as some would argue, un-American.” (Audio available here.)

Arguing that Obama came across as humble for stating that he’s not worthy to be in the same category as some of the other nominees, Shuster told co-anchor Tamron Hall that the remarks “made some of the conservatives look silly.”

These are the people who are the face of America to the world – our media —- the court jesters — convincing Europe especially that they really understand what is American society…

Dear David,

Pres. Obama saying he isn’t worthy of the award — echoes the critics of the choice…

The World Has Lost Its Noodle…

Facts and Numbers of the Nobel Peace Prize

As described in Nobel’s will, one part was dedicated to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

That’s it.  I’ve had enough.  The world has truly become an utter joke of itself.  I have 2/3rds a mind to stop paying attention altogether.  This is beyond ridiculous….

…and it has nothing to do with partisan politics – from my end:

What has this man done in the 8 months since he took office to advance world peace?  What peace has he created?  This is ridiculous.  They are awarding the man the Nobel Peace Prize for simply being elected President of the United States —- the world community has officially become a court jester’s domain – it has finally proven beyond doubt to me it isn’t worth taking seriously at all…

What did Kim Dae-Jung do to win the Nobel Peace Prize?    Well, he did give the world’s worst dictatorship, that had just starved 3,000,000 of its people to death, a ton of money it badly needed — to buy the historic NK-SK Summit – which did help then Pres. Kim get the NPP ——- But I never thought the Nobel cmte should revoke it.  Why?  Because Kim Dae-Jung did much in his lifetime to forward the cause of democracy and human rights in South Korean society…

Yasser Arafat?  That was one where I noticed a good bit that the Nobel cmte was full of poo…  It should have at least waited a few years before giving Arafat the award given HIS past history.  At least the deal with Sadat held up in general.  Arafat??? — Then, the seriously considered giving both Pres. Kim Dae-Jung the award along with Kim Jong-Il – like the did with Arafat and the Israeli leader at the time —- and I realized the Nobel cmte was still much full of poo…

Now, after giving this award to Pres. Obama before he has done a thing to advance peace in the world —- makes me loose respect for the Nobel people altogether.  They will have to earn it in the future, and just one or two correct awards won’t do it.    This awarding to Pres. Obama is so over the top — so obviously nothing but petty pseudo-politics on the part of the cmte – so focused on this moment in time – with no merits worth mentioning of itself – and so utterly bereft of any prior work toward world peace and freedom on the part of the young, Democrat politican — the Nobel people have made themselves a laughing stock — if the world around it were not so willing to make themselves fools as well…

This is unbelievable for anybody with a brain not crammed up his posterior…

What has Pres. Obama done in 8 months to deserve such a “prestigious” award?  What did he do in his career before that?  — Nothing.  He is a liberal Democrat American politician who has had a short term in his state legislature and a short term as Senator and a very, very short time in office as president…

Did he close Gitmo?  Did he pull out of Iraq?  Did he pull out of Afghanistan?  — Things the world demonized Pres. Bush for getting into.    And only the willfully blind can hide from this fact:

More people have been freed from tyranny in Afghanistan and Iraq thanks to Pres. Bush’s actions than anything Pres. Obama has yet to do…

If the Nobel cmte believes that US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are a form of tyranny – and Gitmo too —- then — what?  Those troops are still there and are not boarding ships home anytime soon.  Gitmo is supposed to be closed, but they don’t have tickets in hand….So why give Pres. Obama the Nobel Prize before he has actually accomplished a dang thing in office — because his past is just one of another typical American politician….

The committee “attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” But it also mentioned the UN, climate change and the “strengthening” of democracy and human rights.

Horseshit…

If the Nobel guy who started all this had an integrity at all, he is spinning in his grave so fast, we should attach some mechanics to him and generate power off it, because this one has ruined this world for years and years to come…..The Nobel Peace Price for being a young liberal Democrat who won the White House……..A joke…

 

Thank You NY Times – Sincerely – Really – I Mean It – Honest

I do give the NY Times Editors a very big kudo for speaking some sense out of the big named liberal assness maddness:

Shocking Editorial: New York Times Supports Polanski’s Arrest

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 30, 2009 – 10:09 ET

Hollywoodans might be coming out in support of film director and child molester Roman Polanski, but he shouldn’t expect to get any from the New York Times.

In what many will likely view as a surprising position by one of the nation’s most liberal newspapers, the Times editorial board Tuesday asked some seemingly obvious questions that are eluding those that think the passage of time along with Polanski’s great filmography mitigate his transgressions:

After being indicted in 1977, didn’t Mr. Polanski, now 76, confess to having sex with a 13-year-old girl after plying her with Quaaludes and Champagne? Didn’t he flee the United States when the plea bargaining seemed to fall apart, raising the prospect of prison time? Isn’t there a warrant for his arrest?

Freedome of the Press – to distort…

American society is split on national health care – with more against it.  The Senate, where the Dems are in power, just like the White House and House of Reps, just voted down a key provision of it….

…and it is the job of our open, balanced, and fair media —– to slant the table to convince us all those people are wrong:

No Conservatives in Campbell Brown’s Health Care Discussion

By Matthew Balan | September 30, 2009 – 16:46

 

Hours after the Senate Finance Committee rejected the public option as part of the proposed health care “reform” plan, CNN’s Campbell Brown couldn’t seem to find any conservatives to discuss the vote on her program on Tuesday. Her discussion segment brought three liberals to the table- former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich, Roland Martin, and senior political analyst Gloria Borger.

The US media sucks…