Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Why the Great and Growing Backlash?

What Scott Brown’s election portends for the Obama agenda.

By Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.nationalreview.com/
January 20, 2010, 4:00 a.m.

Dream up a gargantuan backlash against Barack Obama’s left-wing gospel, and you still could not invent the notion of a relatively unknown, conservative Scott Brown knocking off an Obama-endorsed, liberal, female attorney in liberal Massachusetts — in a race to fill the seat once held by Ted Kennedy.

Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown holds up a copy of the Boston Herald announcing his victory as he celebrates with his wife Gail Huff after defeating Democrat Martha Coakley to replace the the late Ted Kennedy at Brown's victory rally in Boston, January 19, 2010.
REUTERS/Brian Snyder


If a liberal senatorial candidate can be defeated in Massachusetts, eleven months after the Obama hope-and-change blitzkrieg, it is hard to believe that any liberal seat is necessarily safe anywhere.

So the real story is not a populist backlash, but a growing populist backlash, whose ultimate nature and magnitude are as yet unknown. What’s going on?

BUYING JOBS?

Voters are sick and tired of a terrible year of big spending and big deficits — especially the sight of Obama and his congressional allies almost daily talking breezily about spending what we do not have.

Voters went for the hope-and-change Obama in part because he promised fiscal sobriety after the Bush $500 billion deficit. Instead, in utterly cynical fashion, Obama trumped that red ink four times over. In the process, he developed a terrible habit of promising favored constituencies a hundred billion here, a hundred billion there as if it were all paper money — rather than real borrowed currency that will have to be confiscated in the future from the beleaguered taxpayer. It only makes it worse than the more the administration borrowed, printed, and spent, the higher unemployment rose and the lower economic activity plummeted.

Most have had enough of pie-in-the-sky talk of massive new health-care entitlements, cap-and-trade taxes and regulation, more stimulus, and more takeovers of private enterprise. The country is broke and the people want to pay off, not incur more, crushing debt. What got us into the mess was too much borrowing, skyrocketing debt, and reckless spending — not too many balanced budgets and too much lean government.

PROPHETS CAN’T MISLEAD?

No politician quite gets a pass for deception and prevarication. Obama in his narcissism thought his sonorous rhetoric made him exempt from a “read my lips” or “I didn’t have sex with that woman” moment. It didn’t.

People heard his serial promises about airing the health-care debate on C-SPAN, his new-transparency/no-lobbyist vows, and his monotonous boasts to close down Guantanamo within a year. All that is now “inoperative.” The problem was not just that Obama made promises that he broke, but that he made them so frequently and so vehemently — and so cavalierly broke them. That brazen campaign deception is problematic for a politician, but proves fatal for a self-appointed messiah.

A CESSATION OF CORRUPTION

We went from a Republican “culture of corruption” to a liberal cesspool of corruption. Sen. Chris Dodd lectures Wall Street while he gets sweetheart loans and vacation-home deals. Few could make up a story that the nation’s top tax lawmaker, House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, is a tax dodger, and the nation’s top tax enforcer, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, is an even more egregious tax dodger. When the Democratic Senate leadership started buying health-care votes at $300 million a clip, our Congress became little more than the praetorian guard, auctioning off its support to any wannabe late Roman emperor. The idea of a muckraking Obama nominating Tom Daschle as his Health Secretary — the liberal populist who skips out of thousands of dollars in taxes on his free corporate limousine service — was the stuff of satire.

BUSH REALLY, REALLY, REALLY DID DO IT

No one likes a serial whiner. It has been a year now — and Obama still blames George W. Bush ad nauseam. He did it in Massachusetts again — and on the eve of the election, no less. Blaming the past for the mistakes of the present gets old quickly. And when one adds in the constant What’s the Matter With Kansas? brand of condescension about naïve yokels not knowing what’s good for them, it gets even worse.

Yet Obama still pontificates that angry deluded voters will “suddenly” come to appreciate how he rammed health care down their otherwise ignorant throats: “The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like and doesn’t do things that people have been trying to say it does. . . . The worst fears will prove groundless. And the American people’s hope for a fair shake from their insurance companies — for quality, affordable health care they need — will finally be realized.”

Good luck with that, O philosopher king!


WALL STREET POPULISTS

Elite liberals are not good class warriors. Factor in multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi’s government mega-jet or Barack Obama’s various overseas junkets or the big Wall Street money that went into Obama’s near billion-dollar campaign coffers, and it is hard to take seriously Obama’s constant war against “them.” The voters have figured out that their president likes the elite plutocracy and the lower middle classes, but not so much the wannabe rich who aspire to cross his hated $250,000 income threshold — at which point suddenly they become unpatriotic, unwilling to pay their fair shares, and reluctant to spread the wealth around.

It is not particularly smart to constantly demonize the entrepreneurial classes, promise to raise income, payroll, health-care, and inheritance taxes on them, and expand government regulations — and then wonder why they are not creating more jobs.

ELMER GANTRY

Devotees turn on false prophets with a special vengeance. Obama is beginning to grate. His flip-the-switch-on, evangelical cadences at rallies sound more like a Harvard nerd doing blues imitations than Martin Luther King Jr. Purple-state presidents don’t appoint Van Joneses and Anita Dunns, or turn the NEA into a quid pro quo Ministry of Approved Culture. A healer doesn’t start in on the “rich,” “Wall Street,” the “big” oil companies, drug companies, insurance companies, or “fat-cat bankers” — especially when he has done his best to shake them all down for campaign money, hire as many of them as he can in his own administration, and arrange cut-rate loans, insider deals, bailouts, and guarantees for all of them.

Obama’s populism is beginning to sound more like a bought boxer who belatedly has second thoughts about throwing the fight he previously contracted. In short, Obama’s ideological presidency hinged on his post-racial, post-national mesmerizing presence that reassured reluctant Democrats to vote against their local constituencies.

If cap-and-trade or health care reform polled below 50 percent, a worried congressional supporter could always call in Him to charm bolting voters. But now? We have in a blink gone from Obama as the bankable 10 percent edge, to Obama as a non-factor, to Obama as a real liability. In short, why vote for an agenda as unpopular as its albatross author?

LIKED BY ALL, RESPECTED BY NONE

Obama thought the antidote to “smoke ’em out,” “dead or alive,” and “bring ’em on” braggadocio was bowing to the Saudis, promulgating new and undiscovered great moments in Islamic history, and reaching out to Ahmadinejad as he rounded up and beat down reformers in the streets of Tehran.

It’s one thing to accuse Bush of shredding the Constitution, quite another to adopt his anti-terrorism protocols like tribunals, renditions, Predators, intercepts, and wiretaps. Somehow Obama offended his base by such duplicity, and then his opposition by his tokenism of trashing Bush, promising the architect of 9/11 a show trial a few blocks from the former World Trade Center, and using touchy-feely euphemisms to suggest we are not in a war against terrorism emanating from the radical Islamic world.

Ahmadinejad, Assad, Chávez, the Castro Brothers, Putin, and others for the first six months liked us as much as they had little respect for our sycophancy; now they openly show contempt. We accept that obsequiousness cannot earn respect, but it apparently cannot earn affection either.

The best thing that could happen to Barack Obama is more Democratic losses in hodgepodge elections that might yank away our young transfixed Narcissus from his mesmerizing reflecting pool.

Almost immediately after Obama showed his ideological cards last spring, I suggested in the first weeks of his presidency that the bait-and-switch president would soon face a Carter/Clinton moment in which he could either press on with his polarizing ideology, damage his party for a generation, and eventually end up churlish and sneering at the electorate, who did not appreciate his exalted morality and genius — or triangulate and follow the Dick Morris/Bill Clinton model of talking and acting sort of centrist.

Who knows after Obama’s Scott Brown moment? We now may hear once again the old “no more Red State/Blue State” tropes, the stale campaign promises of presidential vetoes, claims of financial sobriety, the return of a “war on terror,” and smaller government

We’re either down to all that — or Obama’s more principled road to perdition.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, the editor of Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome, and the author of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern.

His Spenser Novels Saved Detective Fiction

REMEMBRANCES

By TOM NOLAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
http://online.wsj.com/home-page
JANUARY 20, 2010

In American popular culture, the private detective is a unique heroic figure: champion of last resort for the vulnerable client, a knight-errant for hire, bringing rough or poetic justice to cases unserved by more official powers that be.


Associated Press/G.P. Putnam's Sons, John Earle

In the past quarter century, it could be said, no writer of private-eye fiction was more popular or prolific than Robert B. Parker, who died Monday at the age of 77. His nearly 40 books involving the no-first-name Boston P.I. Spenser—starting in 1973 with "The Godwulf Manuscript" and ending, it would seem, with "The Professional," published three months ago—made the Massachusetts-born Mr. Parker a best-selling author and a household-name in all homes where mystery fiction was consumed.

Building on aspects developed by illustrious predecessors (aspects he studied as the author of a doctoral dissertation on the private eye in American fiction)—the bantering dialogue of Raymond Chandler, the concern for young people expressed by Ross Macdonald, the swift action of Dashiell Hammett, even the violence of Mickey Spillane—Mr. Parker created a hero and a series of books that revivified the P.I. genre, making it fresh and viable through the end of the 20th century and into the next.

Spenser brought his own quirks and special experience to the traditional private-detective role: He was a good cook and, for the most part, a one-woman man. His closest associate was an African-American "enforcer" with whom he felt much in common. And the self-educated Spenser, like his well-educated creator, was surprisingly well-read—often quoting from the likes of Frost, Auden, Shelley, Shakespeare, and such popular songwriters as Kris Kristofferson and Matt Dennis.

But Spenser's more fundamental nature was informed by that classic mixture of confidence, ability and courage—grace under pressure—that has characterized all American adventurer-investigators from James Fenimore Cooper's day through our own.

The Boston detective also had a rueful, self-deprecating streak to balance his brash self-confidence. Of his presence at a cocktail party of smartly dressed and glamorous young types, the ex-amateur boxer and ex-football player said of his sport-coated self: "I felt like a rhinoceros at a petting-zoo."

Spenser's equally athletic creator sometimes also expressed a similarly endearing side, once telling a roomful of librarians, booksellers and readers: "Please buy my book. I'm too old to get a real job."

But Mr. Parker—whose oeuvre also included series with a small-town sheriff, Jesse Stone, and a woman P.I. named Sunny Randall, as well as a handful of westerns and other novels—of course had a very real job, working five days a week turning out five pages a day. "It's like running a small business," he told fellow writer Stuart Kaminsky, adding: "'Writer's block? That's just another word for 'lazy.'"

"I like to make things," the fictional Spenser told a fictional interviewer in 2007. "I know how to do it." He had good carpentry skills, he said, and could build a house—as could (and had) Mr. Parker. No surprise then that the Spenser books were well-constructed, functional, and comfortable to spend time in.


Robert Urich as Spenser and Avery Brooks as Hawk

Spenser himself seemed comfortable in his own skin, and in his own life. Asked "Is there anything you wanted to accomplish that you haven't?" by a Harvard professor in that fictional interview written by Mr. Parker, the private eye answered: "No. I am everything I wanted to be. I've done everything I ever wanted to do. . . . I would be pleased to live this life and do what I do . . . forever. But I have no need to improve on it."

Mr. Parker gave a reader all that was needed. He could set a scene in a few spare sentences and make you see it, as in these lines—from a piece in the recently published anthology, "The Lineup"—that describe a Boston afternoon: "It was one of those days in late June. The temperature was about 78. There were maybe three white clouds in the sky. The quiet breeze that drifted in from the river smelled fresher than I knew it to be." Sense of place, overtones, undertones—the bare essentials, and just a bit more.

He wrote dialogue that at once informed, amused and gave a sense of character; and he conjured characters a reader wanted to spend more time with—especially Spenser, a fixed point in a footloose world, take him or leave him. A pragmatist whose ethics were situational. A tough and decent type who did what needed to be done in the service of a moral cause, affirming the worth of the individual regardless of race, sexual orientation, social status, age or occupation. He made timeless points that need to be remade every generation, in a society ever able to find ways to betray the public and private trust.

The books were addictive, entertaining, amusing—and, in their low-key way, moving. Critics prefer the earliest ones as being more substantive. Readers gobbled up the later ones for their sensibility, tone of voice, and point of view: that wised-up, can-do attitude, with no phonies allowed.

"I'd been in the infantry in Korea and met some pretty bad people," Mr. Parker told Mr. Kaminsky, "but many, maybe most of the people I met in university life were the worst people I'd ever met."

The Spenser chronicles were created to be read in the moment. Time alone knows whether they'll survive their creator. But one sign of how important a writer was to us is how death, in an instant, can turn a name-brand author from taken for granted to one of a kind. Right away, we miss Robert B. Parker.

Mr. Nolan is the editor of Ross Macdonald's "The Archer Files: The Complete Short Stories of Lew Archer, Private Investigator."


‘Spenser’ novelist Parker dead at 77

Prolific, funny, he reinvented genre


By Bryan Marquard, Boston Globe Staff January 20, 2010
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/

Robert B. Parker, whose spare, eloquent sentences turned the tough private investigator Spenser into one of Boston’s most recognizable fictional characters, suffered a heart attack at his desk in his Cambridge home Monday and died. He was 77.

Muscular and gruff like his creator, Spenser shared other traits with Mr. Parker. Behind the pugnacious exterior, both men liked to chase fine food with a cold beer. Both had a sharp wit and lived by a code of honor.

Over the course of three dozen Spenser novels, Mr. Parker introduced millions of readers to Boston, which was as much a character as his burly protagonist. To a predictable genre, he added a complex detective with a sensitive side. The wry dialogue between Spenser and longtime girlfriend Susan Silverman, who was schooled in the art of psychology, gave a modern twist to the repartee between the Nick and Nora characters created generations earlier by noted crime novelist Dashiell Hammett.

“He was responsible for a seismic shift,’’ said best-selling writer Dennis Lehane, whose crime novels “Mystic River’’ and “Gone, Baby, Gone’’ were adapted into movies. “He suddenly made the private-eye novel sexy, in the coolest sense of that word. There’s private-eye fiction before Bob, and there’s private-eye fiction after him.’’

Joseph Finder, a Boston-based author of best-selling spy thrillers, said Mr. Parker “took the American hard-boiled private-eye novel that had been languishing for years, since James M. Cain and Raymond Chandler, and revitalized it. He took a lot of the standard tropes - the tough guy, the lone wolf, the man of honor on the mean streets - and updated them so that his Spenser character became sort of an avatar of himself. He was actually a guy who cooked, who was incredibly devoted to one woman, the way Bob Parker was to Joan, his wife.’’

Publishing 65 books in 37 years, Mr. Parker was as prolific as he was well-read. He featured Spenser - “spelled with an ‘s,’ just like the English poet,’’ he said - in 37 novels. He also wrote 28 other books, including a series each for Jesse Stone, the police chief of fictional Paradise, Mass., and Sunny Randall, a female private investigator in Boston.

His latest book, “Split Image,’’ extending the Jesse Stone series, is due out next month, said his agent, Helen Brann of New York City.

Mr. Parker’s marquee character was turned into the TV series “Spenser for Hire,’’ starring Robert Urich. “Jesse Stone’’ became a TV movie vehicle for Tom Selleck, and “Appaloosa,’’ his 2005 Western, was made into a 2008 film directed by and starring Ed Harris, who filled a shelf with Mr. Parker’s books.

“Robert wrote about this friendship between these two guys that tickled me,’’ Harris said of “Appaloosa.’’ “It just felt right. It felt good.’’

Mr. Parker, he added, “was a national treasure. I loved him and I’ll miss him.’’

Brann, who represented Mr. Parker for 42 years, said he had a heart attack while his wife was away from the house. “She saw him early in the morning, went out for her exercise, came back an hour later, and he was gone,’’ Brann said. “He was at his desk, as he so often was.’’

Pounding out up to five pages a day, Mr. Parker kept a pace few could match. Pressed for his secret, he made it sound simple.

“The art of writing a mystery is just the art of writing fiction,’’ he told the Globe in 2007. “You create interesting characters and put them into interesting circumstances and figure out how to get them out of them. No one is usually surprised at the outcome of my books.’’

Perhaps, but readers around the world raced to devour novel after novel. Brann estimated that Mr. Parker sold more than 6 million volumes worldwide. His work was translated into 24 languages.

He was teaching English at Northeastern University when he began writing the novels featuring Spenser, whose first name is never revealed. Mr. Parker didn’t care for academia and made no secret of his animosity in his first book’s first sentence: “The office of the university president looked like the front parlor of a successful Victorian whorehouse.’’


Ed Harris as Virgil Cole and Viggo Mortenson as Everett Hitch

In 1975, Globe reviewer Walter V. Robinson welcomed “God Save the Child,’’ Mr. Parker’s second effort: “Spenser is back, and none too soon to give the connoisseur of that rare combination of good detective fiction and good literature a chance to indulge himself.’’

Mr. Parker grew up in Springfield, where he and Joan Hall first met at a birthday party when they were 3. They met again years later at Colby College in Maine. He pursued her. She resisted, then relented. They married in 1956.

“He was very smart and he knew it, and I reveled in that,’’ she told the Globe in 1981. “He was the only man who didn’t bore me.’’

After serving in the Army, Mr. Parker worked in a variety of jobs before going to graduate school at Boston University, where he received a doctorate in English literature.

In the early 1980s, the couple separated, then got back together in an arrangement they publicly acknowledged was unusual, but worked for them. They bought a sprawling house in Cambridge and each lived in a private area.

Mr. Parker dedicated his books to his wife, and told the Globe in 1992 that “she has been the central factor in my life since I was a child. You wouldn’t understand me unless you understand me and her.’’

In addition to his wife, Mr. Parker leaves two sons, David of New York City and Daniel of Santa Monica, Calif. The family is planning a memorial service.

Despite the wealth and fame that came with TV, movies, and worldwide sales, Mr. Parker “was so dependable, such a regular guy,’’ said Kate Mattes, who ran Kate’s Mystery Books in Cambridge for 26 years. “He never put on airs or anything, and he certainly had the right to.’’

Mr. Parker, who sometimes likened himself to a carpenter who built books, helped others learn his trade.

“The debt’s huge and I was always upfront about that,’’ Lehane said. “My first book is so much Robert Parker in the first chapter that I’m surprised he didn’t sue me.’’


In Memoriam

Lively Literary Light Goes Out

By Larry Thornberry on 1.22.10 @ 6:07AM
The American Spectator
http://spectator.org/

There was some very good news for conservatives out of Massachusetts this week. And some very bad news for fans of crime fiction of all philosophies out of the same state.

When my New England sources told me of a formation of pigs spotted over Ipswich Monday, I knew Scott Brown's chances were good. I greatly enjoyed the Pigs Fly party Tuesday night at a local watering hole put on by the Tampa Downtown Republican Club, a group of hearty patriots whose joy knew no bounds election night, though I fear several of them had trouble making a fist Wednesday morning. (There were so many things to toast that night that many of the members were themselves nearly toast before it was all put through.)

My own powers were somewhat under a cloud Wednesday a.m. when I read the sad news of the death in Cambridge of Robert B. Parker, author of the Spenser series of P.I. novels as well as the Jesse Stone novels (yes, the ones from which some pretty good movies starring Tom Selleck as Stone were made). Parker was 77 and died suddenly of a heart attack while writing at his desk. His many fans, which include me, can take some solace in that there's hardly a better way for a writer to go out. He died with his boots on. (OK, Parker's taste probably ran to loafers, but you know what I mean.)

Parker resurrected and modernized the literary private-eye tradition made popular in the years just before and just after World War II by such as Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, and Ross MacDonald when he muscled his way onto the stage with The Godwulf Manuscript in 1973. Readers – there've been plenty over the years as Parker's books have sold tens of millions of copies – quickly learned that the tough but literate and funny Spenser (no first name is ever given) was a private-eye with a difference.

Hammett's Sam Spade, Chandler's Philip Marlowe, and MacDonald's Lew Archer were said to be of the "hard-boiled" tradition, cynical and damaged loners who worked the mean streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Spenser is more over-easy.

Parker's Boston detective is a worthy successor. He's as complex and as tough as those earlier guys. In fact he's an ex-boxer who once fought Jersey Joe Walcott. He's street smart and has no illusions about the world he lives and works in. But unlike with Spade et al., there's no world-weariness with Spenser, no angst. While Spenser's work carries us into the world's darkness, the darkness never overpowers us. The Spenser stories are not noir.

Spenser can beat up bad guys or even engage in gunplay when needed, though he leaves most of the shooting to his dodgy but lethal sidekick Hawk, one of the most charming thugs in all of literature. And he can wisecrack with the best of them (with Spenser, unlike with many other fictional private-eyes, the wisecracks are actually funny). But he also knows how to have a good time.

Spenser knows food and music and reads. He has a regular sweetie-pie (named Susan, who, it must be said in all fairness, can be irritating and way too precious sometimes) to whom he is faithful, and lots of friends. You could have a beer or watch a Red Sox game with Spenser (both Spenser and his creator are baseball savvy) without becoming depressed, as you almost certainly would if you tried the same thing with Philip Marlowe.

Parker's work is genre fare. But crime fiction, usually the biggest section in your local bookstore, is today's novel of manners. At its best it shows us how we live, and can even hint at how we should live. In crisp, lean, insistent, first-person prose that never lets a story lag, Parker deals intelligently with such matters as integrity, personal responsibility, courage, autonomy, fidelity, friendship, the place and meaning of work in our lives, and what it means to be a man or a woman in our post-everything world. There's a good deal more in Spenser than just the plot.

Mostly apolitical, Spenser takes women, even aggressive feminists, seriously, but has contempt for excesses of any movement and for bad behavior. In a description of the toney restaurant where he meets his client in Looking for Rachel Wallace (1980), Spenser says, "Downstairs is a room which used to be the Men's Bar until it was liberated one lunchtime by a group of humorless women who got into a shouting match with a priest."

In a line from Promised Land Spenser shows his conservative bona fides, though he may not have fancied the label. He says, "I'm sick of movements. I'm sick of people who think a new movement will take care of everything. I'm sick of people who put the cause ahead of the person."

In Promised Land (1976) Spenser nails people who've been consumed with ideology or with a cause. "Zealots were always hard. Zeal distorts them. Makes the normal impulses convolute. Makes people fearless and greedless and loveless and finally monstrous."

Just so. Spenser gets it. He's neither right-wing nor left-wing; he's the entire bird.


Tom Selleck as Jesse Stone

Some of the funniest scenes of any Spenser novel are where Spenser first interviews his potential clients. In Rachel Wallace Spenser is hired by a publisher to protect a radical feminist writer who's receiving death threats. In the interview the publisher says that while the writer wants protection she's against muscle and machismo and any form of thuggish behavior. It draws this from Spenser: "What you want, Mr. Ticknor, is someone feisty enough to get in the line of someone else's fire, and tough enough to get away with it. And you want him to look like Winnie the Pooh and act like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. I'm not sure Rebecca's even got a gun permit."

Parker was an academic, sort of. At least he finished a Ph.D. in literature when he was almost 40 for the express purpose of getting a job as a college professor and therefore having plenty of time to write. Parker is scathing in his treatment of academe in his novels, several of which have university connections. His professors are conspicuous in their pomposity, shallowness, and affectation, curiously unhappy in their soft touch of a job.

Parker commented in the nineties that while carrying a "full load" of nine class hours plus preparation time, his academic job at Northeastern University in Boston had only kept him busy for nine and a half hours a week. For the rest, he locked himself in his faculty office where he worked on the early Spenser novels. After five novels were published he said goodbye to academe and never looked back.

Parker's success gave birth to many imitators but no equals. Spenser-esque lines can be encountered in the work of many contemporary crime writers. Dennis LeHane, author of Mystic River and other Boston-based novels, gives Parker credit for teaching him to be concise and funny on the page. Uber-successful crime writer Harlan Coben said that 90 percent of current writers of detective novels admit Parker has had an influence on their work while "the rest of us lie about it." (Full disclosure: after re-reading several chapters I'd put together in one of my unsuccessful attempts to write fiction, I discarded them on discovering they were just Spenser with palm trees.)

There are a few things in Parker's work that red-meat conservatives will likely find uncongenial. He thinks rather more highly of psychotherapy and psychotherapists than is called for. His wife, Joan, has a doctorate in some branch of the head trade, probably accounting for the excess talkiness in this area in Parker's work. Many readers of the Jesse Stone series wish Stone would just make up his damn mind whether he wants to be with his ex-wife or not. And the scenes where Stone himself talks with a psychologist about all of this can be skipped over.

But these misdemeanors are more than made up for by Parker's vigorous and witty defense of the manly virtues, basic decency, and the honorable life. So, should TAS readers spice up an evening or weekend day by reading a Spenser novel? In a frequently recurring line from Parker's novels that his regular readers will recognize as almost an inside joke, "We'd be fools not to."

RIP Bob Parker.

Larry Thornberry is a writer in Tampa.

Scott Brown's Road to Victory

By Stephen F. Hayes
The Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
January 20, 2010 1:15 AM

Massachusetts State Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, celebrates in Boston, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010, with wife Gail, center, and daughter Ayla, right, after winning a special election held to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy. Brown defeated Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Democrat, and Joseph L. Kennedy, a Libertarian running as an independent and not related to the late Sen. Kennedy.
(AP Photo/Charles Krupa)



Of all of the memorable moments from the Massachusetts special election, the one that stands out most--and the one with real implications for 2010--did not directly involve either of the two candidates in the race.It came Sunday, during Barack Obama's speech.As anyone who paid even casual attention to the Massachusetts race knows, Scott Brown campaigned across Massachusetts in a 2005 GMC Canyon. The pick-up truck appeared in a TV ad Brown ran shortly after the New Year. "I love this old truck and it's brought me closer to the people of this state," Brown said over footage him shaking hands with voters standing next to his truck.
Obama addressed the spot in his speech. He was cynical. "Forget the ads," he said as the audience sat quietly. "Everybody can run slick ads."

Obama paused briefly before offering the punchline. "Forget the truck," he said derisively, as if sharing an inside joke. The audience roared with laughter. "Everybody can buy a truck."

It was a revealing moment. Everybody can buy a truck. Obama seemed to assume that Brown had purchased his pickup truck for the purpose of using it in a political ad, as if that were the only reason that someone might own a pick-up truck--as a prop. In his world, everything is political and everything is about appearances. Beer summit anyone?

The rest of the world doesn't think that way. Scott Brown's truck is five years old. And when polls closed yesterday, it had 201,178 miles on it--most of them miles that Scott Brown had put on it himself. Brown and his advisers used the truck because they believed that it told voters something about the candidate, not because they wanted to fool voters or make Brown something he was not. The truck ad worked because it was as real as it was corny.

Obama's joke--one of several scornful references to the truck--reflected not just his detachment but his arrogance. Obama not only misunderstood the political dynamics of Brown's truck, he assumed that everyone else would see it the same way he did.

So what does all of this mean? Barack Obama is going to have a difficult 2010.He was set to "pivot"--in the overused word of the year--to an agenda that was to have focused on jobs and the economy. White House advisers planned to kick off that effort in the State of the Union--an address that would be given after health care reform could be counted as an accomplishment. It was to have been a big speech by a president who specializes in big speeches and it was to have started Obama's transition from visionary leader to born-again populist.That'll be a tough sell. A real populist would be far more likely to drive a pick-up truck than make fun of one.

Copyright 2010 Weekly Standard LLC.

Blessing in disguise

THE PEOPLE’S SEAT - JEFF JACOBY

By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist January 20, 2010
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/

IT REALLY is the people’s seat, and yesterday the people took it back.

But in electing Scott Brown instead of Martha Coakley to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the US Senate, Massachusetts voters did more than hand the GOP its most improbable and thrilling come-from-behind victory in a generation. They did more than embrace a charismatic, upbeat Republican and reject a dour, gaffe-prone Democrat. And they did more than prove that no political party has a permanent lock on any state’s electoral loyalties.

They also gave President Obama and the Democratic left a blessing in disguise - if only they are wise enough to recognize it.

Brown ran explicitly against Obama’s domestic agenda, above all the radical healthcare overhaul that the president has made his priority. Not long ago, such a strategy would have been dismissed as suicidal. But the harder the administration and congressional Democrats have pushed their health legislation, the more unpopular it, and they, have grown. In Boston on Sunday, it spoke volumes that Obama made not a single direct reference to the healthcare bill he champions - and that Brown promises to oppose.

Politically, ObamaCare has backfired. Much of the goodwill with which the president entered the White House has been squandered, and any effort to try to force a health bill through Congress now will drive what’s left of that goodwill over a cliff.

But Brown and the voters of Massachusetts have killed ObamaCare. In so doing they have provided the president a priceless second chance to adjust his political course, move toward the center, and deliver at least some of the bipartisan cooperation that was at the heart of his once-enormous appeal. If Obama seizes the opportunity that Massachusetts and its senator-elect have given him, the brightest days of his presidency may be still to come.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Facebook Fatwa on Rifqa

by Jamie Glazov on Jan 19th, 2010
http://www.frontpagemag.com/

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog AtlasShrugs.com. She has won acclaim for her interviews with internationally renowned figures, including John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Natan Sharansky, and many others, and has broken numerous important stories — notably the questionable sources of some of the financing of the Obama campaign.

Her op-eds have been published in The Washington Times, The American Thinker, Israel National News, Frontpage Magazine, World Net Daily, and New Media Journal, among other publications. She is the co-author (with Robert Spencer) of the soon to be released, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (forward by Ambassador John Bolton).

FP: Pamela Geller, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about Facebook’s Fatwa’s on Rifqa.

What exactly is going on?

Geller: Thank you Jamie.

Facebook is full of death threats and other vicious material about Rifqa Bary, the teenage convert from Islam to Christianity who is in a fight for her life in juvenile court on Franklin County, Ohio. She left Islam and converted to Christianity, and she has been persecuted for it ever since.


Rifqa Bary

Rifqa’s life is now on the line. Back in September I reported at my website AtlasShrugs.com on the first Rifqa Bary Facebook Fatwa: a Facebook group that said openly, “we need to kill her,” and was full of Muslim members. Now add this to the list of fatwas and death threats against Rifqa Bary: a Facebook group, again with numerous Muslim members, proclaiming, “Don’t save Rifqa Bary, let them kill her.” Although I have called attention to that group, it is still on Facebook. It has 64 members, all of them apparently Muslims. Not a Moishe in the mix.

Imagine, these are just the ones we catch. Only G-d knows how many hit squads are out for this young woman.

Another Facebook group screams, “F*** RIFQA BARY !!! SHAME FOR ISLAM !!!!” It has 57 members – once again, all Muslims. This one openly admits what CAIR and other front groups in America lie about: “In Islam, yes, apostasy is the death penalty.”

And yet another Rifqa-hating Facebook group asks if she is the Dajjal, an evil figure from Islamic eschatology. Robert Spencer says: “The Dajjal will at the end of days lead people astray. Muhammad said: ‘The Dajjal is one-eyed and will bring with him what will resemble Hell and Paradise, and what he will call Paradise will be actually Hell; so I warn you (against him) as Noah warned his nation against him.’” The Facebook group says: “Scriptures reveal Dajjal will have one eye. Rifqa Bary has one eye. You be the judge.” It also quotes a dhimmi Christian, Rev. Tim Ahrens, praising the extremist Noor mosque that Rifqa’s parents attend and saying, “I have only ever found graciousness and kindness in my dealings with Muslims.”

They are screaming it on social networks, but in the case of Rifqa Bary, justice is not blind, it is deaf and dumb. Is Judge Elizabeth Gill and Rifqa’s crack legal defense team going to continue to ignore the death penalty for apostasy under Sharia law for those who leave Islam? Are the CAIR militants going to act like thugs, and intimidate and pervert the American justice system to enforce Islamic law?

FP: What are other developments since the Rifqa Bary case returned to Ohio?

Geller: There have been many, especially in recent weeks. Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas front CAIR has found out where Rifqa is living. Omar Tarazi knows the address of Rifqa Bary’s foster home. How? What Islamist enemy leaked her location to CAIR? She must be moved at once. Who put Rifqa’s life at risk? I would demand a change of venue. The courtroom has been infiltrated, her best interests subverted.

Rifqa’s foster parents have her on lockdown. Rifqa’s limited phone and computer were completely cut off after the hearing of the 22nd. Complete crackdown. All communication to Rifqa was cut off. It was decided that a counselor would determine if she could have contact with friends. The counselor said she could, but nothing has happened. She is literally being treated like a prisoner.

FP: Sounds like Sharia Law on America soil.

Geller: That is what is happening Jamie. This is the punishment for female apostasy. House arrest until the apostate recants. This isolation is a form of psychological torture. I thought Obama said no torture for jihadists. So why is a girl in America, guilty only of freedom of religion, allowed to be psychologically tortured? This is mental abuse, and the fact that the parents are behind it with a terror organization as their hatchet man speaks volumes as to what would happen to Rifqa if they ever dared to send her home.

Apparently Rifqa met with and was begging the counselor assigned to her for some contact, any contact, with the people she loves. She told the counselor she was completely isolated. Alone and sad. The counselor agreed and said OK. But nothing has been done. Rifqa’s John Stemberger-appointed lawyers have agreed to this house arrest. She is surrounded on all sides.

Her legal team, still led by her former Florida attorney John Stemberger, is fiercely raising money — for what? I thought his work was pro bono. And he bungled the case so badly in Florida that I cannot imagine why he is still driving the “strategy”.


Pamela Geller (L) with Ann Coulter

FP: Why has Rifqa’s legal team agreed to or imposed this crackdown in concert with the foster family?

Geller: I don’t know. Perhaps because those who loved Rifqa would advise her to get new legal help that specialized in apostasy cases. But no one can get to her. A new lawyer could ask for a continuance to prepare for the brutal trial against the Islamic machine. She needs a continuance.

She has no one now. No one. It has never been this bad for her. And her legal team has not been preparing for trial. They seem to think they can still make a deal with CAIR (Muslim Brotherhood). The Barys will never make a deal. This is jihad. A deal is never going to happen. Rifqa’s lawyers have barely begun taking depositions for Rifqa. They haven’t interviewed any of Rifqa’s witnesses in the trial to prove dependency. And Rifqa’s parents are fighting dependency with every dishonest crooked tool in the Islamist toolbox (taqiya, lies, deception). But the Stemberger-led legal team is still in the earliest stages of preparations.

FP: What is it exactly that Rifqa’s parents are up to?

Geller: Rifqa’s parents are fighting dependency by saying there was no conflict in the home. They are saying there is no conflict for apostasy in Islam. Every teaching from the Quran (Allah’s word) says it is the most egregious crime, punishable by death. The devout Barys said “she could practice her Christianity in the home”. Nothing could be farther removed from objective reality. She lived in fear and in secret for years. The beatings, the death threats can all be substantiated by her friends. The nature of the conflict is Islam, yet Rifqa’s lawyers will not present any religious evidence. Ex-Muslims such as Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, and the world’s leading scholar on Islam, Ibn Warraq, would testify. None are being called.

The parents and their CAIR-appointed attorney Omar Tarazi are determining who can speak to Rifqa. They are the only ones who can determine who is on the non-existent visitors list. And now, still, there is no visitors list. The two closest friends of Rifqa are no longer able to contact her.

In the courtroom on December 22nd, the magistrate told the attorneys she doesn’t want any surprises before they go into any of the hearings, so they meet in chambers first. She wants to know everything that is going to be filed. Every motion, any move…and no Islam. You can not introduce Islam.
And yet Islam has been introduced already. Just look at the Facebook threats.

I have said from the very first that Rifqa Bary is the highest value target in America. Apostasy is the most egregious crime against Islam. Her crime is not just against the family. It is against Islam.

I know Ohio law enforcement and Florida law enforcement found no threat to Rifqa, but perhaps they can put down the kool aid for five minutes and do their jobs.

With sites on Facebook threatening Rifqa with death, everyone should stop the PC Religion-Of-Peace nonsense and get serious. Is law enforcement going to stop playing games and protect this young girl or what? Salman Rushdie did far less.

FP: What can the average citizen do to help Rifqa? And who can we contact on Facebook to ask why it allows jihad and death threats on its site?

Geller: Jamie, the average citizen can write to Ohio authorities, including the governor, to protest how they are allowing Rifqa to be railroaded.
Franklin County children services can be reached here.

Eric Fenner’s fax number is 614-275-2755 and his e-mail address is edfenner@fccs.co.franklin.oh.us

The Ohio governor’s office can be reached here.

Also, Governor Strickland is up for re-election. Here is John Kasich’s contact information.

Be vigilant. And pray for her.

As for Facebook, they seem deliberately to make it difficult to contact them. There are contact forms within Facebook itself for members, but it is not easy to know which is the right one that will get to the right person.
Readers can and should try abuse@facebook.com, but there is no assurance that anyone with any authority in Facebook will see the message.

FP: Pamela Geller, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

- Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.

Why I Stand with Geert Wilders

He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization.

By Daniel Pipes
http://www.nationalreview.com/
January 19, 2010, 0:00 a.m.

Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure.


Geert Wilders

That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population’s withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: Will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari’a)?

Wilders, 46, founder and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), is the unrivaled leader of those Europeans who wish to retain their historic identity. That’s because he and the PVV differ from most of Europe’s other nationalist, anti-immigrant parties.

The PVV is libertarian and mainstream conservative, without roots in neo-Fascism, nativism, conspiricism, antisemitism, or other forms of extremism. (Wilders publicly emulates Ronald Reagan.) Indicative of this moderation is Wilders’s long-standing affection for Israel that includes two years’ residence in the Jewish state, dozens of visits, and his advocating the transfer of the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem.

In addition, Wilders is a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands. While he opines on the full range of topics, Islam and Muslims constitute his signature issue. Overcoming the tendency of Dutch politicians to play it safe, he calls Muhammad a devil and demands that Muslims “tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands.” More broadly, he sees Islam itself as the problem, not just a virulent version of it called Islamism.

Finally, the PVV benefits from the fact that, uniquely in Europe, the Dutch are receptive to a non-nativist rejection of Shari’a. This first became apparent a decade ago, when Pim Fortuyn, a left-leaning former-Communist homosexual professor began arguing that his values and lifestyle were irrevocably threatened by the Shari’a. Fortuyn anticipated Wilders in founding his own political party and calling for a halt to Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. Following Fortuyn’s 2002 assassination by a leftist, Wilders effectively inherited his mantle and his constituency.

The PVV has done well electorally, winning 6 percent of the seats in the November 2006 national parliamentary elections and 16 percent of Dutch seats in the June 2009 European Union elections. Polls now generally show the PVV winning a plurality of votes and becoming the country’s largest party. Were Wilders to become prime minister, he could take on a leadership role for all Europe.But he faces daunting challenges.

The Netherlands’ fractured political scene means the PVV must either find willing partners to form a governing coalition (a difficult task, given how leftists and Muslims have demonized Wilders as a “right-wing extremist”) or win a majority of the seats in parliament (a distant prospect).

Wilders must also overcome his opponents’ dirty tactics. Most notably, they have finally, after two and a half years of preliminary skirmishes, succeeded in dragging him to court on charges of hate speech and incitement to hatred. The public prosecutor’s case against Wilders opens in Amsterdam on January 20; if convicted, Wilders faces a fine of up to $14,000 or as many as 16 months in jail.

Remember, he is his country’s leading politician. Plus, due to threats against his life, he always travels with bodyguards and incessantly changes safe houses. Who exactly, one wonders, is the victim of incitement?

Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences, particularly attempts to thwart a grassroots political movement via the courts.
Accordingly, the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project has worked on Wilders’s behalf, raising substantial funds for his defense and helping in other ways. We do so convinced of the paramount importance of talking freely in public during time of war about the nature of the enemy.

Ironically, were Wilders fined or jailed, it would probably improve his chances to become prime minister. But principle outweighs political tactics here. He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak have implications for us all.

— Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

© 2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Democrats and Double Standards

If Martha Coakley were a Republican, she would have been Quayled.

By Mona Charen
http://www.nationalreview.com/
January 19, 2010 12:00 AM

Oh, how different the world would look if Martha Coakley were a Republican! As it is, she gets the sort of gentle rebukes the press reserves for Democrats. Her campaign was too “lackadaisical,” we are told. She was “overconfident,” and too “buttoned down.”


Candidates for Massachusetts US Senate seat: Scott Brown, Martha Coakley and Joseph L. Kennedy

Reading and watching the MSM, you wouldn’t know that Coakley is a walking minefield. There is now, and there has always been, a completely different set of rules for Republicans.

If a Republican candidate in such a high-profile contest put out campaign literature that misspelled the name of her state, it would be worth, let’s see, mentions on every Sunday gabfest and two, maybe three, jokes on the late-night shows. Dan Quayle’s misspelling is the stuff of legend. Coakley’s? Not so much.

When Coakley was challenged in an October debate about her lack of foreign-policy credentials, she parried: “I have a sister who lives overseas, and she’s been in England and now lives in the Middle East.” Hmm. Just a few months ago, Sarah Palin said something similar, and the smart set has not yet finished laughing. Palin didn’t say, “I can see Russia from my house!” But the Tina Fey parody has replaced the less amusing truth. Saturday Night Live can be brilliant. But if Palin’s comment was worthy of such mockery, wasn’t Coakley’s equally so? Just asking.

The woman who would like to sit in the U.S. Senate announced last week that there are no longer any terrorists in Afghanistan. Not since Joe Biden boasted (during the VP debate) that he had chased Hezbollah from Lebanon have we heard such a loony claim. Where are the titters?

The Democrats style themselves the party of the little guy. They’re for the people rather than the “special interests.” Just ask them. Yet Martha Coakley sneered at the idea of shaking voters’ hands “in the cold,” and chose to spend a critical night just seven days before the election in Washington, D.C., at a high-roller fundraiser sponsored by drug and insurance companies. The host committee included Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and others. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health were all sipping white wine with Coakley.

When the president stumped for Coakley in Massachusetts on Sunday, he praised her humble ambitions: “She became a lawyer not to cash in but to give working people a fair shake. She became a lawyer to fight for working families like the one she grew up in.” Oh yes, and “she went after big insurance companies that misled people.”

Members of the Fourth Estate always claim that hypocrisy is what they cannot stand. They are, they say, utterly nonpartisan scourges of that least forgivable political sin. Accordingly, they explain, if a Republican “family values” candidate is caught in a sexual indiscretion, he’s fair game (even if he never mentioned family values). But when Obama broke his solemn promise to abide by campaign-finance limits, and Coakley passed the hat for insurance-company cash, well, how about those Yankees?

Speaking of sports teams, Coakley is fortunate to be a Democrat, and therefore ipso facto a woman of the people, because she’s a little rusty on her Massachusetts sports knowledge. Asked on a radio program about Curt Schilling’s support for her opponent, Coakley said, “And another Yankee fan!” The incredulous interviewer could only stammer, “Curt Schilling? The Red Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?” Now it was Coakley’s turn to stammer, “Oh, am I wrong about that?”

She won’t get hammered for it. She’s a Democrat.

But in the final hours of the campaign, Coakley is an increasingly desperate Democrat who has stooped to slander. A lurid flier aimed at women voters claims that “1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away.” Brown is, as it happens, pro-choice (though in favor of more abortion restrictions than Ms. Coakley). This vile lie was based on Brown’s support for a conscience exemption (which was also supported by Ted Kennedy) for emergency-room personnel who do not wish to prescribe the abortifacient “morning after” pill. That’s a world away from closing hospital doors on rape victims.

Coakley will get a pass on all this from the press. It’s good to be a Democrat. Except, perhaps, on Wednesday morning.

— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Blame Obama

By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist
http://www.boston.com/
January 17, 2010

Edward M. Kennedy has been gone less than five months, but in political terms he is already ancient history. For 47 years he represented Massachusetts in the US Senate; in his home state, no one wielded greater influence or cast a longer shadow. As recently as a few weeks ago, it was taken for granted that the race for the seat he occupied for so long would be shaped unmistakably by his legacy.

But that’s not at all the way this campaign has worked out. As Tuesday’s special election approaches, Massachusetts voters are not being driven by their esteem for Kennedy’s memory or by affection for his family. Indeed, far from advancing what Kennedy called the cause of his life - universal health care - hundreds of thousands of Bay State voters are fired up in supporting a candidate who promises to derail it.

For the first time in two generations, the outcome of a US Senate campaign in Massachusetts is not a foregone conclusion. Whatever happens on Tuesday, this much is clear: Democrat Martha Coakley will not win in a cakewalk, and Republican Scott Brown will not be a sacrificial lamb.
Heading into the final weekend, two of the country’s most respected political handicappers - Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook - pronounced the Bay State Senate contest a “toss-up.’’ A new Suffolk University poll showed Brown surging into the lead, with 50 percent of likely voters supporting him vs. 46 percent for Coakley.

How can this be happening? This is the bluest state of them all - a state without a single Republican in Congress or in statewide office, a state Barack Obama won in a landslide. How can the Senate race be too close to call?

Part of the answer, of course, is that Brown has proved an engaging and indefatigable candidate, while Coakley’s campaign has been plagued with gaffes and missteps. Her claim in last week’s televised debate that the terrorists in Afghanistan are “not there anymore’’ suggested a dangerous naiveté on national security, while her huffy response when asked why she has been such a passive campaigner - “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ - came across as sneering and elitist.

But ultimately the Massachusetts Senate campaign is not about Brown’s personal appeal or Coakley’s shortcomings on the stump. It is about something bigger. This race is a referendum on Barack Obama and the Democratic ascendancy in Washington.

When Obama was inaugurated a year ago this week, he was hailed by his supporters as a political messiah who would transform American politics, ushering in a new era of hope and goodwill. Never had a new administration been greeted with such rapturous enthusiasm. “Obama’s standing above the country, above the world,’’ Newsweek editor Evan Thomas exulted. “He’s sort of God.’’

What Obama and his party delivered, however, was not uplifting and transparent bipartisanship.

It was trillion-dollar increases in government spending. It was party-line votes on 2,000-page bills. It was “cash-for-cloture’’ backroom deals. It was tone-deaf boasts about millions of jobs “created or saved,’’ even as unemployment soared into double digits and millions of American jobs disappeared.

Above all, it was the attempt to force through a radical health-care overhaul that would drive up the cost of medical insurance, slash Medicare by half a trillion dollars, and subject one-seventh of the US economy to government micromanagement.

The more insistently Democrats in Washington have pushed ObamaCare, the more unpopular it has become - and the more the president’s approval ratings have sunk. In a CNN poll released last week, 48 percent of respondents say Obama’s presidency has so far been a failure, while just 47 percent call it a success. The latest CBS News survey measures only 46 percent approval for Obama - his lowest rating to date and a drop of 22 points since April. On his signature issue - health care - Obama has the support of only 36 percent of the public. Massachusetts residents are no exception: According to the new Suffolk poll, they oppose the health-care legislation by a ratio of 51 to 36.

A year ago, Americans were enchanted with their new president. Today they are suffering from severe buyer’s remorse. Massachusetts may be the bluest state, but voters here are fed up too.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

An entitlement commission means even bigger government

By George F. Will
The Washington Post
Sunday, January 17, 2010; A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

You know the foreboding you feel while watching the steamier Greek tragedies, when dynasties are falling and sons are marrying their mothers and everyone is behaving badly and you are thinking: Really, things cannot continue like this.

Washington feels that way on the rare and fleeting occasions when it really thinks about the nation's looming crisis of public finance. The crisis, which is obvious and inevitable, combines unfulfillable entitlement promises and unsustainable budget deficits. So Washington is succumbing, yet again, to an idee fixe, which is usually, and in this case, scary.

The awful idea is for Congress to divest itself of the core competence that the Constitution vests in it -- the power to make the taxing and spending choices that shape the nation. This power would be given to an 18-member panel assigned to solve the budgetary crisis.

Under legislation drafted by Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), and endorsed by 33 other senators, the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action would be composed of 16 members of Congress (four each selected by the House speaker and minority leader, and the Senate majority and minority leaders) plus the Treasury secretary and someone the president selects. The panel would propose spending cuts and tax increases to put the government on a glide path to solvency. The menu of proposals would be guaranteed an up-or-down vote -- no amendments permitted -- in both houses of Congress.

This is patterned on the commissions that were charged with deciding which military bases -- more than 300 of them, it turned out -- would be closed after the Cold War, a problem deemed too threatening to local sensibilities for Congress to cope with it. The Conrad-Gregg task force is the latest iteration of the "let's all hold hands and jump off the cliff together" school of government, with this difference: Closing bases is small beer compared to the task force's far-reaching mandate.

There are two objections -- each is sufficient -- to the task force. One is procedural, the other is substantive.

Regarding procedure, consider a sentence in a Fiscal Times story in The Post on the task force idea, a sentence that seems bland only because of this city's advanced state of constitutional decadence: "The White House has been talking to Congress to try to craft a proposal that would not wholly relinquish congressional control over major decisions on taxes and spending."

Wholly? The oath of office for representatives and senators does not commit them to partially or occasionally or when convenient "support and defend," and bear " true faith and allegiance" to, the Constitution and "faithfully discharge the duties" of their offices.

Substantively, the task force would be a means of conscripting Republican participation in huge tax increases. There are precedents. The 1983 Greenspan Commission that "fixed" Social Security permanently (permanence is not what it used to be) involved large and immediate tax increases and small and delayed trims to benefits. The year after the 1990 budget summit, which resulted in President George H.W. Bush's renunciation of his "no new taxes" pledge, the budget deficit almost doubled.

Were the Conrad-Gregg task force to come to a consensus, it almost certainly would be that Congress must make the supposedly "difficult choice" of spending more of other people's money. Fortunately, the task force probably would be paralyzed by the requirement that its proposals must be endorsed by at least 14 -- 78 percent -- of its members. Given the difficulty of getting 60 percent of the Senate to agree on anything important, a 78 percent consensus on raising taxes and cutting entitlements will be extremely elusive.

Year one of the Obama administration was devoted to deliberately exacerbating the fiscal crisis. The gusher of spending, combined with the new multitrillion-dollar health-care entitlement, is half of liberalism's plan to radically and permanently increase government's grasp on the nation's wealth. As a response to the crisis, the task force would produce the other half.

Armies on the march are supposedly no match for an idea, especially a bad one, whose time has come. But what armies cannot defeat, monetary incentives might. So, the Gregg-Conrad legislation should be amended to include this language:

"During the life of this task force, which will perform Congress's fundamental duties, all senators and representatives will be considered on vacation and will not be paid. If the task force's recommendations are accepted by Congress, there will be no congressional pay until 2050."

This would be a Madisonian measure, altering incentives in order to encourage responsibility. Let's vote.

georgewill@washpost.com

Alone (or Almost) With Michelangelo in Vatican City

Cultured Traveler

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
January 17, 2010


Chris Warde-Jones for The New York Times

A view of St. Peter’s Basilica from the Vatican Museums



IT was just after 8 p.m., by now dark outside the walls of Vatican City, and a small group of us were following a guide through the maze that is the Vatican Museums. We had wandered for 40 minutes through galleries crammed with 15th- and 16th-century Italian paintings, courtyards displaying Greek and Roman sculpture, and seemingly endless hallways lined with ancient maps and musty tapestries, before passing through a small doorway I had not noticed on my previous visits here. I glanced up and realized we had arrived in the Sistine Chapel.

And just us: the nine members of a tour group, one guide and a Vatican guard. Our guide, who had hustled us along with a chattering narrative through the rest of the museums, went theatrically silent as our group stopped, startled by the slow recognition of where we were. We walked the length and breadth of the chapel, heads tilted back and mouths open, enjoying each discovery of a new perspective from which to appreciate the frescoes that arched above us and covered the walls. Only our footsteps broke the silence. We had the place to ourselves.

As anyone knows who has endured a visit to the Sistine Chapel during the day — the shoulder-to-shoulder scrum of tour groups, the guards barking “no pictures, no pictures,” the fight for seats, the pressure to move on to make way for the crush behind you — this was an indulgence of the highest order. With little fanfare, a few tour operators have in recent years arranged for after-hours group tours of the Vatican Museums, culminating with the Sistine Chapel.

Not surprisingly, the private tour we took comes at a heart-stopping cost: 275 euros (about $388 at $1.40 to the euro) per person in a group limited to 15 people, though it may be possible to negotiate a lower per-person rate if there are several people in your own group. (Regular admission to the museums starts at about 15 euros.)

Is it worth it?

I had toured the chapel twice before on trips to Rome, and my lasting memory of those visits was less the “Creation of Adam” and more the clatter of tourists — and this was before the restoration of Michelangelo’s ceiling drew more people through its doors.


Chris Warde-Jones for The New York Times
Visiting the Gallery of Maps, where 40 maps are frescoed on the walls, on a night tour of the Vatican Museums.


This place where popes are elected had all the intimacy and spirituality of Grand Central Terminal at rush hour. In my mind, at least, it made the Sistine Chapel a check-the-box, been-there, done-that tourist stop; impressive, yes, but impossible to absorb or really appreciate, with little reason to return.
But my friend and colleague at The Times Ian Fisher, who had done a tour as the paper’s Rome bureau chief, informed me that there was really only one way to see the Sistine Chapel, and put us in touch with Helen Donegan, an Irish expatriate and the charming entrepreneurial force who arranges one of the smaller (and thus pricier) tours that are floating around the Internet.

From the moment I made contact with Ms. Donegan, the whole experience had a kind of vaguely illicit aura to it; reminiscent less of visiting one of the great museums of the world and more of gaining admittance to an after-hours club in New York.

Ms. Donegan told us — my partner, Ben, and me — to show up at 6:30 p.m. at the offices of her tour agency on Via Vespasiano, a short walk from the entrance to the Vatican Museums. We arrived to find the front door locked, seeming to confirm my fear that this was not for real. But suddenly, Ms. Donegan burst from a storefront next door, offering a platter of bruschetta and glasses of wine as we joined the rest of our gathering group. The tour would begin at 7.

It was short walk from Via Vespasiano to the Vatican. The sky was purple, the street in front of the museum was deserted, and the soaring doors that lead inside were sealed. It was most assuredly closed. But at precisely 7 p.m., as promised, we heard the jangle of keys from inside and one of the doors swung open slowly, spilling light onto the empty street. Without saying a word, a guard whisked us in — we passed an exiting stream of museum staff members heading home for the night — and swiftly the door shut behind us, lest a less-entitled passer-by inquire just what was going on here.

The quiet was almost spooky. Like most major European cities these days, Rome has become overrun with tourists. Passing through the doors of the Pantheon at dusk a few evenings later was like trying to navigate Seventh Avenue outside Madison Square Garden a half-hour before a Springsteen concert. Inside the museum, there were only us and a skeletal night staff.

First things first: this is not a tour for those who crave predictability or order. As our guide, Jay Good, made clear from the outset, we were at the mercy of the Vatican guards and whatever personal relationship they have with the guides. The guard can decide — in advance or just on a moment’s whim — which rooms to open, where we can stand and for how long. Keys in hand, they walked ahead to open galleries, and we could hear them lock the doors behind us as we left. “It’s an absolute monarchy,” Mr. Good, an expatriate from the United States, said. “We have certain guards who are better than others. It depends on what they feel like doing.” The one promise, Mr. Good said, is that visitors will see the Sistine Chapel and the Raphael rooms.

The Sistine Chapel

The tour lasts precisely two hours, and it was obvious from the guard who kept an eye on his watch — and flashed an impatient look at Mr. Good as the half-hour mark arrived in the Sistine Chapel, which is a long walk from the entryway — that this is one firm deadline. That had logistical implications as well; at various points, the tour felt something like a sprint. (It is simply impossible to see the museums in two hours.)

Mr. Good said that, depending on the desires of the guards and his own interests (he often leads three Vatican tours in a day), he chooses different rooms and galleries along the way to the Sistine Chapel. Like the Gallery of Tapestries. “This doesn’t look anything like it looks during the day,” Mr. Good said. “There are normally 150 people here.”

This gave us not only the space and silence to view the artwork, but also to smell it: musty, pungent and aromatic, a sensory experience that I suspect would have been difficult to appreciate in a room packed with tourists. In the octagonal courtyard in the Pius-Clementine museum, we stopped to inspect the striking white marble sculpture of Laocoön and his sons struggling with sea serpents, attributed to three Rhodian sculptors working in the first or second century B.C.

If I had had any complaint, I wish there had been more time for our guide to discuss the work of Michelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli that surrounded us during our half-hour in the chapel. As it was, the return walk felt like a footrace, Mr. Good gently pulling us along as he walked briskly backward.

Yet that is a quibble. Our group of nine could sit anywhere, walk anywhere and even (shhhh) take photographs (no flashes. please). This is the kind of privilege that previously had been afforded mainly to prominent political leaders and celebrities. “I don’t know how celebrities get in there, but I know it sure seems to be easy for them,” said Ms. Donegan, who said she spent years negotiating with Vatican officials to arrange these tours. (Until recently, the tours took place about once a week; now they are more episodic.)

Our tour ended just as furtively as it began. The guards opened the door, ushered us quickly out, and closed it just as quickly. Ms. Donegan was waiting outside to take us back to her office and send us off for a late supper.

IF YOU GO

We used the tour company Italy With Us, which provides a variety of tours of Italy, including private after-hours tours of the Vatican Museums.

Tours average about one a week, though the schedule varies depending on demand and availability. Reservations should be made at least a month ahead; they are now being accepted for dates in April, May and June, as well as later in the year.

Cost: 275 euros per person (about $388) for a two-hour tour, though group rates are negotiable. Groups average 20 people, with a guide for each 10.
Italy With Us, Via Vespasiano 16-18, Rome; (39-06) 3972-3051; www.italywithus.com/vatican-after-hours.php.)

A recent Web search turned up other tour options. They, too, provide evening tours of about two hours.

Viator Tours (www.viator.com/Rome/d511/vatican-tours), starting about $460 per person, for groups of up to 20 people.

Context Travel (http://www.contexttravel.com/), 280 euros per person. Each group of about six people has its own guide.

Interest Guide
Art

Related
Times Topics: Vatican City

A Walking Tour of Rome at Night
An interactive tour of the city’s sites, including the Vatican.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

The suborning of American intelligence

By Melanie Phillips
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/
http://www.melaniephillips.com/
Thursday, 14th January 2010

People in America are often shocked to discover the extent to which the authorities in Britain have been taken in by the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, to such an extent the UK government and police use them as advisers on combating Islamic extremism. Americans would be even more shocked to discover that exactly the same thing is going on in their own backyard.

Pajamas TV features two interviews with former US security people, one described merely as having been given some kind of intel-gathering assignment by the ‘joint chiefs’ and the other described as a ‘former FBI special agent’. The first describes how, when he discovered to his alarm that there was not only no evidence that Islamic radicals were wrong in Islamic law but that there were no counter-arguments to them in that law, the US intel/law enforcement community that had instructed him just didn’t want to know.

The second, the ex-FBI man, is even more alarming. He states that the American counter-terrorist establishment has allowed itself to be infiltrated by radical Islamists -- to whom counter-terrorism officials are going for advice and training in countering Islamic radicalism. Every major Muslim representative organisation in the US, he says, is a Muslim Brotherhood front. Hamas fronts such as CAIR are used by the US authorities for outreach to the Muslim community in America. They are invited to sit in on brainstorming sessions about investigative techniques, and are actually training the FBI. ‘The Muslim Brotherhood are telling us how to fight them’, he says.

The PJTV interviewer seemed stunned by this unbelievable situation. But it’s exactly what’s happening in the UK, too, where the Brotherhood are used – incredible as this sounds – as an antidote to radicalisation and as interlocutors in good faith with the Muslim community. In the US, this profound and wilful institutionalised ignorance of the religious war being waged against the free world revealed itself most catastrophically recently when seven CIA officers, amongst them some of the most experienced and valuable, were blown up by a Jordanian triple agent. Not only were they duped, but it seems their professional training went by the board in inviting such a man onto their base and with so many of them clustering around him. As the Washington Post reported:

‘The tradecraft that was developed over many years is passé,’ complained a recently retired senior intelligence official, also with decades of experience. ‘Now it’s a military tempo where you don't have time for validating and vetting sources. . . . All that seems to have gone by the board. It shows there are not a lot of people with a great deal of experience in this field. The agency people are supporting the war-fighter and providing information for targeting, but the espionage part has become almost quaint.’

Endemic ignorance, sloppiness, incompetence -- even now, even after 9/11, even after the restructuring which was supposed to remedy the dysfunctionality and turf wars between intelligence agencies but which – as was predicted at the time – has merely stuck another layer of bureaucracy on top. And if one thinks back to the systematic failure over decades to identify and analyse correctly the rise of Islamism and before that, the imminent collapse of Soviet communism, one has to ask oneself the terrifying question whether US intelligence really is fit for purpose at all.

Film Reviews: 'The Book of Eli'

REVIEW: ‘Book of Eli’ Delivers God, Guns, and Guts
by John Nolte
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/

“One day I heard this voice, like it was coming from inside me. It led me to a place… I found this book, buried deep in the rubble… And the voice told me to carry it west…”

Credit where credit is due… Hollywood is trying. Granted, six years have passed since “The Passion” proved we Christians can be convinced to return to a medium that has spent decades taking great pleasure in insulting who we are and what we believe; and with that clinical Christmas card of a follow up called “The Nativity” it seemed as though they would never figure it out. But between the unapologetic Christian “Blind Side” and now the down and dirty “Book of Eli,” there’s reason to hope the Pagans of the Pacific might have just moved a little closer to cracking our code.

“The Book of Eli” isn’t just Christian, it’s off-the-rails Christian … literally. Heathens might as well hit the lobby at the end of the second act because the final act is all about the faith. You’re more than welcome to stick around, but I have a feeling those of you with red strings tied ‘round your wrist will be checking your watch for the last twenty-minutes. Not we Bible-thumpers, though. That’s when it all comes together; and it’s moving and smart and best of all, not some hyper-reverent snoozer.

So, thanks Hollywood. Oh, I’ll be kicking your ass again in a sec, but for now… really, thanks.

The book is the King James Bible, it’s the last one, and its protector is Denzel Washington’s Eli, a man old enough to remember life during The Before, before the last war some thirty years ago. Ever since, through a post-apocalyptic America, he has made his way west, walking alone and honing his survival skills. Gangs of marauders with robbery on their mind are no safer than the few stray animals unfortunate enough to cross Eli when he needs a meal.

Eli doesn’t understand the how or why of his mission. He just knows what God has called him to do, and in a touching act of faith has spent three decades of suffering and sacrifice to fulfill and complete something he instinctively understands is more important than himself — three decades of trudging through a desolate, colorless desert landscape where water is more precious than gold and cannibals are a constant threat. Like the book he carries, Eli is part Old Testament and New: Part Job, part St. Paul.
Carnegie (Gary Oldman) is a character right out of those great Westerns where one ruthlessly ambitious man runs a dusty old town and orders about a gang of gunslingers who cater to his every whim. Carnegie’s primary whim, however, is something he has in common with Eli: an instinct. Only the voice he hears comes from a darker place and tells him that he can fulfill a mission to widen the hold on what’s left of the world by using the Word of God as a weapon to “run the hearts and minds of the weak and desperate.” Think of him as a community organizer – the Jeremiah Wright of The After.

Carnegie runs a blown-out saloon complete with prostitutes and a bar. But his real hold on power is due to a secret water supply. Paying off his henchmen with H2O and girls, he sends them out to murder and rob innocents in the hope of finding the Good Book.

Carnegie also runs Claudia (the ageless Jennifer Beal) and her daughter Solara (the absurdly fetching Milas Kunis). As is expected, the dynamics Carnegie has become accustomed to, relationship and otherwise, will be turned on their head when Eli strolls into town. Oh, Eli’s not looking for trouble…

Like most of you, many years ago I decided that after the apocalypse it will be The Mighty Gary Oldman I’ll choose as arch-nemesis to my Road Warrior (or Tina Turner). Oldman has a high-old time here, and what a credit to this great actor that he can perfectly inhabit the buttoned-down Commissioner Gordon one day and leave no scenery left un-chewed as Carnegie the next. Every line of dialogue, facial expression and movement is delivered for maximum impact. Oldman understands this genre, what it takes to be its villain, and succeeds in finding a place of his own.
And oh how I loves me some Denzel.

After exploding on the scene with their still-just-as-powerful 1993 directorial debut “Menace II Society,” the Hughes Brothers (Albert and Allen, who have yet to make a bad film — this is their 5th) understand the iconic power of their star; the way he walks, talks, laughs, stands, and holds a weapon. In lesser hands the stoic Eli would barely register as a character. The power of an actor like Washington is in his unique and near-extinct movie star ability to fill the void of a character’s silence with an emotional inner-life without saying a word – with pure presence.

The directorial touches are everywhere. Listen for a fitting nod to “Once Upon a Time in America” and check out the posters on walls. The directors get the big things right, as well. Thank the Good Lord, no shaky-cam. The actions set-pieces are extremely satisfying, especially an early one we see only in silhouette.

But make no mistake, this is a genre film. A B-film (with kind of a silly final twist). No molds are broken. You’ve seen it all a hundred times before. But this is a Christian genre film … a very Christian genre film with a fabulous cast and stylish direction. And I’m still thinking about it, still debating which choice of the Brothers Hughes I liked most…

….the all-kinds-of-awesome casting decision to put Tom Waits in a post-apocalyptic Western, or the film’s most Christian moment – most generous moment – when a nod of respect is granted to our friends who have found God through other faiths.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted Jan 15th 2010 at 9:42 am in Film, Reviews


The Book of Eli: A Proudly Christian Movie

God, guns, and Johnny Cash? Blessed be this movie.

January 15, 2010 - by John Boot
http://pajamasmedia.com/

Cross I Am Legend with The Ten Commandments and you’ve got The Book of Eli, a genuinely religious parable that inherently rebukes pointless end-of-the-world movies like The Road. This time there’s a purpose to the post-apocalypse: Eli (Denzel Washington), one of humanity’s survivors, is heeding the word of the Lord to protect the world’s only remaining Bible and bring its teachings to the West.

The Book of Eli works just fine as an action blockbuster, but it’s much more than that. Eli, who can smell lurking “highjackers” determined to rob and kill him long before they get close, is fierce with a machete — the movie is as bloody as any other contemporary R-rated kill-or-be-killed flick — and his fearless strides across the wasted scapes of a broken and infected world are reminiscent of great cowboy movies. He even walks into a small town that looks like the set of one of those backlot Westerns like High Noon.

The chief of this evil place is Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who is seen reading a book on Mussolini, and not because he’s bored. He already wields absolute authority over his little village, but using Il Duce as a model he hopes to become ruler of what remains of the planet. He has sent his illiterate henchmen out into the world with orders to bring back every book they can find. But there’s only one book (besides the Mussolin biography) that matters to Carnegie: The Book. Eli’s Book. Carnegie has heard that this volume can change the world because of its persuasive effects on people, which Carnegie hopes to harness to his own ends. But Eli isn’t giving it up.
Here the movie springs a major plot leak — Carnegie captures Eli, who surrenders to gunmen and spends a night in Carnegie’s jail cell. Carnegie sends first his girlfriend (Jennifer Beals), who is blind, and then the girlfriend’s sexy daughter (Mila Kunis of Forgetting Sarah Marshall) to Eli’s cell to find out who he is. But wouldn’t Carnegie have ordered his men to search Eli’s belongings? The wanderer carries a single backpack. It wouldn’t be hard to discover that he has the world’s only known copy of the Bible.

Yet Eli escapes and in a searing shootout scene proves to be a better shot than Carnegie’s henchmen. A much better shot: there is something about Eli that makes bullets miss.

This plot — The Good, the Bad, and the Holy? — harks back to many a classic actioner, and the third-act revelations are particularly satisfying. But what’s most effective about the movie is its sincerity. Washington, the son of a Pentecostal minister who in a Beliefnet ranking system comes in second only to Mel Gibson among Hollywood’s most powerful Christian celebrities, doesn’t play Eli with a wisp of irony or jokiness. Eli lays out the case plainly: He heard a voice inside his head that gave him his mission. He says he knows who he heard, he knows what he heard, he knows he’s not crazy, and he knows he never would have made it without divine help. He reads the Bible every day and can quote scripture by heart. “That’s beautiful,” exclaims Kunis, whose character is illiterate, when she hears a sample passage. He also quotes a passage about having the strength to carry on. The Kunis character asks if that is from The Book. “No,” says Eli. “It’s Johnny Cash. ‘Live at Folsom Prison.’” God, guns, and Johnny Cash? Blessed be this movie.

Recall The Road, in which a man and his son move ever southward across a destroyed planet for no apparent reason, and The Book of Eli seems like — well, a revelation. Reintroducing God into the equation makes the scorched earth scenario much more interesting because it promises a rebirth, gives a meaning to the destruction of civilization as the crisis that, however painful, must happen to bring about salvation. Secular viewers may cringe — can’t we have more wisecracks and nihilism, please? — but The Book of Eli is going to strike at the very center of the hearts of viewers who have faith in the God of the Bible.

For audiences who wish there were more movies that were inspired by the Bible, movies like Ben-Hur or The Greatest Story Ever Told, but have come to doubt Hollywood could ever make a big-time movie (sorry, Kirk Cameron, but you’re not the star Denzel Washington is) about it, The Book of Eli is a godsend.

John Boot is the pen name of a conservative writer operating under deep cover in the liberal media.


In This World, It Pays to Be a Loner

By MANOHLA DARGIS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
Published: January 15, 2010


Denzel Washington stars in “Book of Eli.”

A road warrior of a different sort, the title character played by Denzel Washington in “The Book of Eli” spends much of the story traveling by foot across an eerie landscape, a long and quick knife at the ready. The brown, dusty environs look familiar and not, dotted with abandoned cars and the occasional corpse. When Eli pauses, the camera settles near his feet, and the sky opens above him like a sheltering hand. With his green jacket and unsmiling mouth, he looks like a veteran of an unknown war, a soldier of misfortune — though, given the fog of religiosity that hangs over the movie, he might be an avenging angel.

This is the first movie directed by the talented twins Allen and Albert Hughes since “From Hell,” their torpid, predictably hyperviolent 2001 take on Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell’s graphic novel about Jack the Ripper. Although this new one has its comic-book qualities, good and bad, the Hugheses have stanched the blood in “The Book of Eli,” making it easier to pay attention to what else is happening on screen. They stage an early fight, for instance, entirely in silhouette, so that the arcs of spurting gore appear black, not red. Like all the fight sequences, this one is highly stylized: set inside a tunnel with the camera low and the sky serving as an illuminated backdrop, it looks like a page out of a comic come to animated life.

The graphic simplicity of this scene works not only because it’s visually striking, but also because it’s a part of a meaningful piece in a story in which everything, nature and civilization included, has been stripped away. Much like the land and narrative he travels through, Eli has been similarly reduced. A loner, he doesn’t speak much, even to himself. During the first few minutes of the movie, which opens in some barren woods with either falling snow or ash, he remains silently fixed on his task: bagging a pitifully thin cat. His first companion is a mouse (he offers it some roast cat), a creature that proves friendlier company than most of the isolated people he encounters, the majority of whom, as in “The Road,” would like to cook him over a fire.

Shooting in high-definition digital (with the Red camera) and working with the cinematographer Don Burgess (a frequent shooter for Robert Zemeckis), with New Mexico standing in for America, the Hugheses have created a plausible post-apocalyptic world, one that draws from the western (Hollywood, Sergio Leone) and the tradition of science-fiction dystopia. As George Miller proved in his brilliant “Mad Max” cycle — one of the Hughes brothers’ more overt cinematic touchstones here — and as Quentin Tarantino reaffirmed with his two “Kill Bill” films, the western can be reconfigured to suit any number of contexts, themes and warriors. (In one scene, when Eli settles into a room, a poster for the 1975 cult film “A Boy and His Dog,” another post-apocalyptic fairy tale, hangs on the wall behind him.)

After hunting the cat, a little human mayhem and a lot of atmospheric preambles, Eli wanders into a deadwood town and the story kicks into gear, for better if sometimes for disappointing worse. The happiest development is the introduction of Gary Oldman as Carnegie, the leader of the outpost. Fortified by his thugs, including some bulging muscle called Redridge (Ray Stevenson, from the HBO show “Rome”), Carnegie keeps the peace, doling out the scarce supplies to the ragtag inhabitants. Among the few faces that stand out from the squinting, scurrying horde are a Mr. Fixit (an amusing Tom Waits); Carnegie’s lover, Claudia (a sympathetic Jennifer Beals); and her daughter, Solara (the miscast Mila Kunis), who despite the deprivations, appears to have swung by a Beverly Hills salon for an eyebrow wax.

Mr. Oldman gives the movie, which at its most serious veers into lugubriousness, a nice jolt and a flinty presence that Mr. Washington can spark against. But the story that the two play out, beat by beat, cliché by cliché, rarely rises to their talents. Written by Gary Whitta, with some rewriting by Anthony Peckham, the story takes a wrong turn once Solara enters the picture, first as bait for Eli (he doesn’t bite) and then as his unwanted traveling companion. Ms. Kunis can work on the big screen, as she proved in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” But, dressed up in clothes that look as if they had been distressed for sale in a TriBeCa boutique, her white, white teeth shining and glossy hair swinging, she is flatly absurd.
Ms. Kunis isn’t to blame. As Jessica Rabbit says, with knowing wit, in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”: “I’m not bad. I’m just drawn that way.” Even so, despite Solara and her manicured brows, and the increasingly pro forma action — Eli has what Carnegie wants, and so the bad man gives rabid chase — the movie keeps you watching and generally engaged. There’s a ticklish interlude at a house where Eli and Solara encounter a fine pair named Martha and George, played with energy and inviting humor by Frances de la Tour and the invaluable Michael Gambon. Despite the air of unease and wary glances, when George cranks up a phonograph, and the disco song “Ring My Bell” pours out, you’re happily, goofily hooked.


“The Book of Eli” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). The usual dystopian violence.

The Book of Eli

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Allen Hughes and Albert Hughes; written by Gary Whitta; director of photography, Don Burgess; edited by Cindy Mollo; music by Atticus Ross; production designer, Gae Buckley; produced by Joel Silver, Denzel Washington, Broderick Johnson, Andrew A. Kosove and David Valdes; released by Warner Brothers Pictures. Running time: 1 hour 58 minutes.

WITH: Denzel Washington (Eli), Gary Oldman (Carnegie), Mila Kunis (Solara), Ray Stevenson (Redridge), Jennifer Beals (Claudia), Tom Waits (Engineer), Frances de la Tour (Martha) and Michael Gambon (George).


Book of Eli

BY ROGER EBERT
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
January 13, 2010

I'm at a loss for words, so let me say these right away: "The Book of Eli" is very watchable. You won't be sorry you went. It grips your attention, and then at the end throws in several WTF! Moments, which are a bonus. They make everything in the entire movie impossible and incomprehensible -- but, hey, WTF.

Now to the words I am at a loss for. The story involves a lone wanderer (Denzel Washington) who wears a name tag saying "Hi! My name is Eli." It may not actually be his name tag, but let's call him Eli, anyway. Eli has been walking west across the devastated landscape of America for 30 years, on his way to the sea. I haven't walked it myself, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't take that long.

On the other hand, maybe Eli only thought he was walking west. On his final trek, he walks from right to left across the screen, which in movie shorthand is walking east. "How do you know you're walking the right way?" he's asked. "Faith," he says, a reply that takes on added resonance later in the film. Eli is a quick hand with knives, pistols, rifles, shotguns and karate. He needs to be. After a catastrophe has wiped out most of the Earth's population and left ruin and desolation behind, the remaining humans are victimized by roaming motorcycle gangs of hijackers and thieves. Each of these gangs is issued a requisite tall bald man, a short hairy scruffy one and their go-fers.

The Hughes brothers, Albert and Allen, film this story in sunburned browns and pale blues, creating a dry and dusty world under a merciless sky. Water is treasure. This wasteland Eli treks at an implacable pace. Set upon in an ambush, he kills all his attackers. He's got one of those knives that makes a snicker-snack noise all by itself, and is a one-man army. Why don't the bad guys just shoot at him? Later in the film, they try that.

Washington and the Hughes brothers do a good job of establishing this man and his world, and at first, "The Book of Eli" seems destined to be solemn. But then Eli arrives at a Western town ruled by Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who, like all the local overloads in Westerns and gangster movies, sits behind a big desk flanked by a tall bald guy and, of course, a short scruffy one. How are these guys recruited? Wanted: Tall bald guy to stand behind town boss and be willing to sacrifice life. All the water you can drink.

In this town, desperate and starving people live in rusty cars and in the streets. We meet Carnegie's abused wife Claudia (Jennifer Beals) and her daughter Solara (Mila Kunis), named, for some reason, after the cause of all the destruction. She's a prostitute in Carnegie's bar, having made the mistake of coming in on Take Your Child to Work Day. Carnegie hurts Claudia to control Solara. How he controls the fearsome bald guy is hard to say.

The third act is recycled, but done well, out of many Westerns in which the hero and the girl hole up and are surrounded. So many other movies are referenced that we almost miss it when their hideout house is perforated by bullets in "L.A. Confidential" style. That allows countless beams of sunlight to shine in and function as a metaphor.

Carnegie needs Eli because Eli has maybe the last remaining copy of a book that Eli believes will allow him to expand and rule many more towns. I am forbidden by the Critic's Little Rule Book from naming the volume, but if you've made a guess after seeing numerous billboards stating RELIGION IS POWER, you may have guessed right.

The Hughes brothers have a vivid way with imagery here, as in their earlier films such as "Menace II Society" and the underrated "From Hell." The film looks and feels good, and Washington's performance is the more uncanny the more we think back over it. The ending is "flawed," as we critics like to say, but it's so magnificently, shamelessly, implausibly flawed that (a) it breaks apart from the movie and has a life of its own, or (b) at least it avoids being predictable.

Now do yourself a favor and don't talk to anybody about the film if you plan to see