Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Genocide Girl’s Chutzpah

Posted by Robert Spencer on May 26th, 2010
http://www.frontpagemag.com/


Questioned by David Horowitz, Jumanah Albahri, a Muslim student (and Muslim Student Association member) at the University of California at San Diego, recently endorsed a new genocide of Jews – thereby giving voice to the real agenda behind the land-for-peace rhetoric that Palestinian spokesmen generally retail in America. Aware of the enormity of what she had admitted, Albahri tried to quell the controversy by issuing a statement full of evasions, half-truths, and claims that she was the true victim. Now she has compounded that with a letter to the UCSD student newspaper, the Guardian, complaining about biased press coverage!

Whatever else you can say about Jumanah Albahri, you’ve got to admit she’s got chutzpah.

The new letter is a tour de force of self-righteous victimhood, demonstrating that Albahri has been a dutiful and attentive student of her Islamic supremacist and Leftist mentors, since both camps make such liberal use of this tactic. She begins with a double ad hominem, as the girl who endorsed genocide of the Jews complained that the Guardian’s “abysmal coverage of Justice in Palestine Week and the Horowitz fiasco reeks of Hearstian and Horowitzian journalism.”

Hearstian, i.e., yellow journalism a la William Randolph Hearst. Horowitzian, as in David Horowitz, the man who exposed her as a proponent of organized mass murder. Jumanah would have us believe that the real villain is Horowitz, whom we are to see as an irresponsible yellow journalist, not the girl who endorsed genocide. For Jumanah herself is a poor victim of biased reporting: she complains that the Guardian didn’t quote her statement that purports to clarify her pro-genocide remarks: “My opinion of Hamas is not as simple as condemn or condone, for it or against it. I firmly believe that the killing of civilians, even as collateral damage regardless of creed, politics, sexuality, nationality or ethnicity is one of the highest crimes in the eyes of God and is morally reprehensible and abhorrent.”

High-sounding words, but empty ones without an explicit avowal that Jumanah Albahri includes Israeli civilians in her definition of civilian. For many jihadists have declared that there are no civilians in Israel, and that consequently every Israeli citizen was a military target. Jumanah Albahri is probably aware of this, since it is not a fringe view among supporters of the Palestinian cause, and so she could have done her own cause a favor by spelling this out – unless, of course, she preferred to leave it ambiguous.

Albahri then goes on to make a claim about Hamas that is flatly false: “Hamas,” she says, “(regardless of its designation as a terrorist organization by Israel and the U.S.) is neither genocidal nor Holocaust-denying.” Yet Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV in 2008 featured a Muslim cleric, Sa‘d Abu Jleidan, saying that the jihad against the Jews would continue “until their annihilation.” She claims that Hamas “calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state where people of all religions can coexist in peace” – yet the Hamas Charter contains an epigraph from the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Albahri doesn’t mention that the Jews that would remain in the Palestinian state that Hamas envisions would not be equal citizens, but subjugated dhimmis, in accord with classic strictures of Islamic law that Hamas spokesmen have spoken about wanting to revive.

The Jumanah turns on David Horowitz with more empty ad hominens, claiming that he was “not invited to present any argument or engage in constructive dialogue — rather, he was brought because of his reputation for racism and hatemongering against Arabs and Muslims.” And the primary victim of this racism and hatemongering? Why, Jumanah Imad Albahri herself, of course: “If anyone can claim alienation or marginalization, it’s me. For the university to allow him to set foot on my campus using my student fees is a slap in my face and a slap in the face of all other non-Jewish minorities on this campus. Need more proof? Google this article: ‘Guns Don’t Kill Black People, Other Blacks Do.’ Tell me: Who needs to apologize now?”

Uh, that would still be the girl who endorsed genocide, Jumanah.

But no, for her it is all the fault of the Jewish-controlled media, that ever-present invention of Nazi and Palestinian paranoia: “The voices of the Palestinian people have been silenced by the mainstream media for too long,” Jumanah asserts, “and I refuse to silence my own voice to appease the twisted politics of the pro-Israel communities on and off campus.”

Clearly Jumanah Albahri’s voice is not silenced. The more she talks, however, the more her allies and supporters may wish it were.

Film Review: 'Solomon Kane' - Classic Pulp!

REVIEW: ‘Solomon Kane’ – Classic Pulp!
by James Hudnall
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/

When I heard they were making a film of Robert E. Howard’s Solomon Kane, I wasn’t sure I’d be happy about it. Howard was the creator of Conan the Barbarian; he is one of the handful of writers like JRR Tolkien and Edgar Rice Burroughs who helped make fantasy fiction popular and defined it for generations. As a teenager, Howard was one of my favorite writers. His stories had a dark, powerful energy that’s largely unmatched. Solomon Kane was my favorite of his characters, a puritan avenger in early America fighting all kinds of supernatural monsters and demons with a vengeance. He’s a very original character and a serious bad ass. Howard’s heroes are hardcore, macho to the Nth degree. They are the alpha male incarnate. No one has handled Robert E Howard well, in my opinion. Most comics failed to do him justice (except maybe some artists). I hated the Conan and Red Sonia movies. So I was wary of any new film effort.

But then I saw the trailer and my mood changed. (See the trailor at the official movie link below).

This is not the lame rip off that Van Helsing was, this is a faithful adaption of Howard with no tongue-in-cheek, campy scenes. Here’s a hero who’s fighting evil in the name of God, something you don’t see much anymore. And he’s not afraid of taking on whatever comes his way, no matter how terrifying it may be. He’s fierce and unwavering and even demons from hell better think twice about pissing him off. My kind of character.

I saw the film and I can tell you that it’s way better than you’d expect. Excellent music, effects, acting. A top notch supporting cast which includes Max Von Sydow and Pete Postlethwaite, but even better, a great leading man in the title role, James Purefoy. Purefoy rocked Rome as Marc Antony and is perfect here. Purefoy does Howard’s character right.

Yes, it’s got demons, witches, and warlocks in it. It’s full on, unapologetic pulp fantasy and it’s definitely on point. Most fantasy films fail to pull it off because they don’t understand the rules. They either let some actors chew scenery or they throw in attempts at humor that undermine the suspense of disbelief needed to keep you with the story. Writer/director Michael J. Bassett knows how to do fantasy. The film is solidly entertaining from start to finish.

In what the creators hope to be part one of a trilogy, this film tells Kane’s origin. He starts off as a ferocious mercenary, leading his men to storm a castle in the middle east. Inside the castle hell seems to have been unleashed on those within. Kane’s men die one by one and when he meets the demonic creature at its summit, it tells him the devil owns his soul, that he is damned. Kane escapes, haunted by the experience and goes to live in a monastery. He renounces all violence and vows to devote himself to prayer. But the head monk makes Solomon leave, telling him that God spoke to him in a dream and said Solomon has more important tasks out there in the world.

On the way across England, in the dead of winter, he comes upon a family of pilgrims who take him in. They’re heading for the coast where they plan to catch a ship for America. He joins them for a time, but they don’t make it too far. Evil crosses their path and Kane is forced to break his vows. Like the man says: “If I kill you, I am bound for hell. It is a price I will gladly pay.”

And then he starts dealing out the pain in a way that would make Robert E. Howard proud.

Solomon Kane will be released by Rogue Pictures later this year.

Link:
http://solomonkanethemovie.com/

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Homeland Security Alert: Somali Terrorist on the Loose in Texas?

The al-Shabaab operative, who may be part of a group of 270 Somalis who entered the country illegally via Mexico, should become part of the discussion over immigration enforcement.

by Ryan Mauro
http://pajamasmedia.com/
May 24, 2010

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security warned Houston law enforcement that a Somali terrorist named Mohamed Ali could be in their area. Ali is a member of al-Shabaab, the terrorist group currently fighting for control of Somalia. Al-Shabaab has proven to be frighteningly effective at recruiting Westerners, including Americans.


Islamist fighter from Al-Shabaab Mujaahidin

Al-Shabaab has pledged its allegiance to al-Qaeda and should be seen as branch of the organization. It is reinforced with arms and recruits from Yemen and is al-Qaeda’s best hope to score a battlefield victory and resurrect the safe haven it treasured prior to October 2001. If al-Shabaab succeeds in taking Somalia, it will be the first time that al-Qaeda controlled its own country. This affiliate’s networks in the U.S., Canada, and Europe provide the group with the capacity to launch attacks on our soil. It likely only chooses not to do so because of the fear that it would compromise the organization’s presence.

The alert says that Ali is thought to have arrived via Mexico. He is likely part of a group of hundreds of Somalis that have snuck in through the open borders. This information needs to be inserted into the debate over border security that is now raging because of Arizona’s bill to combat illegal immigration.

In February, the authorities arrested a man in Virginia named Anthony Joseph Tracy, who has admitted to having contact with al-Shabaab. Tracy is believed to have smuggled 270 Somalis into the U.S. through Mexico. Let me say it again: An associate of al-Shabaab has snuck in nearly 300 Somalis from where they operate into the country. They remain here and we don’t know what they are up to.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeanine Linehan admitted, “We have not identified anyone. We believe all the individuals are present in the United States. But by the virtue of [the] successful smuggling scheme, we are having difficulty finding them.”

Two weeks ago, a Somali in San Antonio named Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane was indicted for leading a “large-scale smuggling enterprise” that brought in hundreds of people from Brazil, including “several AIAI-affiliated Somalis,” in reference to al-Ittihad al-Islami, a radical Islamic group that is tied to al-Qaeda. The government has not stated if Dhakane is connected to Tracy.

Tracy and/or Dhakane are likely connected to another batch of Somalis that were arrested in Mexico in January on their way to the United States. The Mexican authorities arrested them for illegally being in the country, but released them on January 21 after only 16 were identified. One of those was Mohamed Osman Noor, who is believed to be an al-Shabaab operative.

Al-Shabaab’s networks in the U.S. first came to light when over 20 young Somali-Americans in the Minneapolis area suddenly disappeared. Some were later found to have gone back to their homeland to fight alongside the terrorist group. Six of them have since died in Somalia. Among those killed is Shirwa Ahmed, who became the first American suicide bomber in 2008.
At least 14 Americans have been indicted for their role in the group’s infrastructure in the United States, although recruiting has also gone on in Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and elsewhere.

In November 2007, terrorism expert Patrick Poole warned here at Pajamas Media of the sophistication of al-Shabaab’s American network: “[T]here exists an active recruiting and transportation network in the U.S. … In many instances, these same Somali leaders purporting ignorance and innocence for the local media are not only aware of these recruiting operations, but have actively participated in them,” he wrote.

The deputy chairman of the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia, a group aligned with al-Qaeda, even attended a fundraiser in Minneapolis on November 24, 2007. The group that hosted him held a second fundraiser the next week near Falls Church, Virginia. Remarkably, the first fundraiser was attended by Mahmud Nuur Wadheere, then-Senator Norm Coleman’s constituent policy liaison.

Al-Shabaab’s reluctance to launch attacks on the United States shouldn’t be seen as an indication that the al-Qaeda affiliate is only concerned with Somalia. Al-Shabaab operatives have been involved in a terrorist plot in Australia and one tried to kill the Danish author of the infamous Mohammed cartoons. It has the West in its sights, and it must be seen as being no different than al-Qaeda.

The terrorist group is waiting to strike because it is using its network in the United States to recruit and fundraise for its overseas fight. Its activity in the U.S is seen as an investment that will pay higher returns if cashed out later. As al-Shabaab’s network in America grows, it will become more and more tempting to use its resources here to carry out a major attack. Remember, it only took 19 terrorists to execute the 9/11 (terror attacks).

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.

U2 Postpones Tour as Bono Recovers From Surgery

By DAVE ITZKOFF
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/
May 25, 2010, 8:51 am

An injury sustained by the U2 frontman Bono has forced the group to postpone its American tour and cancel its appearance at a major British rock festival while he recovers from emergency surgery on his back, Reuters reported.

On Friday the band announced that it would reschedule the North American opening date of its “360°’’ tour in Salt Lake City on June 3 after Bono was injured during a rehearsal and underwent surgery on his back in Munich. The tour has already grossed $109 million since it started last year and has been predicted to bring in the largest gate ever.

On Tuesday U2 said that it would have to reschedule dates through July 19, when the band was to perform at Meadowlands Stadium in New Jersey. In a statement on the band’s Web site, the group’s manager Paul McGuinness, said:

Our biggest and I believe best tour has been interrupted and we’re all devastated. For a performer who lives to be on stage, this is more than a blow. He feels robbed of the chance to do what he does best and feels like he has badly let down the band and their audience. Which is of course nonsense. His concerns about more than a million ticket buyers whose plans have been turned upside down, we all share, but the most important thing right now is that Bono make a full recovery. We’re working as fast as we can with Live Nation to reschedule these dates.

U2 also said it would cancel its performance at the Glastonbury Festival in Britain at the end of June. On the U2 Web site, Bono said: “I’m heartbroken. We really wanted to be there to do something really special – we even wrote a song especially for the Festival.”

How Islamists Came to Dominate European Islam

Western governments have a history of ignoring the Islamists’ repulsive ideology and working with them; the results have never been good.

By Daniel Pipes
http://www.nationalreview.com
May 25, 2010 12:00 A.M.

The 7/7 bombings in London, in which Islamists killed 52 and injured 700, prompted British authorities to work with Muslims to avoid future violence.

However, rather than turn to anti-Islamist Muslims who reject the triumphalist goal of applying Islamic law in Europe, they promoted non-violent Islamists, hoping these would persuade coreligionists to express their hatred of the West in lawful ways. This effort featured Tariq Ramadan (b. 1962), a prominent Islamist intellectual. For example, London’s Metropolitan Police partially funded a conference that Ramadan addressed, and Prime Minister Tony Blair appointed him to an official “working group on tackling extremism.”

Deploying an Islamist may have seemed like an original and clever idea, but it was neither. Western governments have been allying without success with Islamists for decades. Indeed, they have been allying with Ramadan’s own family.

In 1953, Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower hosted a group of foreign Muslims that included Said Ramadan (1926–95), a leader of arguably the most influential Islamist organization of the twentieth century, the rabidly anti-West Muslim Brotherhood — and also Tariq’s father. The Eisenhower-Ramadan meeting took place in the context of sustained U.S. government efforts to rally Muslims against Soviet Communism, in part by putting Said Ramadan on the CIA payroll. Talcott Seelye, an American diplomat who met with him about that time, explains: “We thought of Islam as a counterweight to communism.”

Then there was Hasan al-Banna (1906–49), Tariq’s grandfather, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and recipient of Nazi funding. American diplomats in Cairo in the late 1940s had “regular meetings” with al-Banna, found him “perfectly empathetic,” and perceived his organization to be a “moderate” and even a “positive” force. The British apparently offered al-Banna money.

In other words, Western governments have a history of ignoring the Islamists’ repulsive ideology and working with them, even strengthening them.

In a stunning piece of investigative historical research, Ian Johnson, a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist formerly with the Wall Street Journal, reveals new twists and turns of this drama in his just-released book, A Mosque in Munich: Nazis, the CIA, and the Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West.

Johnson opens with a review of the systematic Nazi efforts to recruit Soviet Muslims from among their prisoners of war. Many Muslims loathed Stalin, and between 150,000 and 300,000 of them fought for the Axis in World War II. In other words, over and above their unfulfilled propaganda effort directed at Arabs, the Nazis actually fielded a substantial force of mainly Turkic Muslims under the leadership of a scholarly Nazi enthusiast named Gerhard von Mende.

After the German defeat in 1945, Johnson follows von Mende as he continued his anti-Communist work with ex-Soviet Muslims, now in a Cold War context. But his network of former soldiers proved not very competent at the task of arousing Muslim hostility against the Soviet Union. Their leading intellectual, for example, had served as the imam of an SS division that helped suppress the Warsaw uprising of 1944. Islamists quickly proved themselves far more competent at this political and religious challenge. Johnson explains that they “wear suits, have university degrees, and can formulate their demands in ways that a politician can understand.”

The heart of his fascinating study lies in tracing the evolution, much of it in Munich, from old soldiers to new Islamists. It’s a classic tale of 1950s intrigue, complete with rehabilitated Nazis, CIA front organizations, and dueling Soviet and American ambitions.

Johnson shows how, without anyone quite planning it, the Americans usurped von Mende’s network and handed it over to Said Ramadan. This early U.S. boost to the Muslim Brotherhood, Johnson argues, gave it the means to establish an Islamist framework just in time to welcome the surge of Muslim immigration to Europe in the 1970s.

Thus did the Islamist domination of European Muslims have two hidden facilitators, Nazi and American. Its origins in Operation Barbarossa reveal the ugly pedigree of today’s Islamist strength. Hitler and his thugs could not have foreseen it, but they helped set the stage for Eurabia.

American backing for Islamists prompts Johnson to warn against the futility of allying with the Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk — as Tony Blair once again recently attempted. However tempting, it invariably harms the West. The lesson is simple: Be cognizant of history and do not assist the Islamists.

— Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Television review: Another winning season shapes up for NBC's 'Friday Night Lights'

By TOM MAURSTAD Media Critic
Dallas Morning News
tmaurstad@dallasnews.com
02:45 PM CDT on Thursday, May 6, 2010

Friday Night Lights is the football show that isn't about football; it's the broadcast network show that isn't really like a broadcast network show.
But there's one thing that Friday Night Lights absolutely is: great television.

The NBC drama set in small-town Texas where life revolves around high-school football started out good. Going into its fourth season, which starts Friday at 7 p.m., it's just gotten better – richer, deeper and more confident. That's an unusual trajectory for TV shows, broadcast or cable.

The show stands out because it deals with its challenges head-on. High school is an assembly line, with new students coming in, old students going out. Rather than cling to the compelling cast of characters FNL developed in its first seasons – the hotshot-hothead running back "Smash" Williams, the paraplegic quarterback Jason Street, the smart party girl Tyra Collette – the writers and producers just blew up the show.

Characters grow up and out of the show. Season 4 even divides its central couple, Coach Eric Taylor (Kyle Chandler) and his wife, Tami (Connie Britton). Coach Taylor has been dismissed from his beloved Dillon Panthers team and banished to East Dillon High School, a wrong-side-of-the-tracks school languishing from years of civic neglect. Tami remains principal at West Dillon, where she's caught between the clash of cultures.

The result is a reinvented show, applying its rock-solid foundation to a new set of challenges. The fourth season introduces a new set of student, faculty, parent characters – a troubled but promising young player, Vince (Michael B. Jordan ); the beautiful but conflicted Jess (Jurnee Smollett); her dad, Vernon, the former football star who's turned his back on the game (the welcome return of Steve Harris from The Practice).

It also opens up a new social dimension. Where the previous seasons of Dillon presented a tableau of white small-town life, this season takes viewers into minority (mostly black) small-town life. Don't expect The Wire, but this shift opens an incredibly rich reserve of storytelling drama.
There's Coach Taylor trying to rebuild a football program all but obliterated by years of neglect, leading him to take on the community's own devastation due to crime, drugs and, of course, racism.

Then there are the problems and challenges of being a teenager (or the parent of one) that FNL has always dealt with.

A few familiar faces return for Season 4 – Tim Riggins (Taylor Kitsch), Matt Saracen (Zach Gilford), Landry Clarke (Jesse Plemons) and Julie Taylor (Aimee Teegarden). But in another reflection of this show's willingness to embrace change, all of them are either out of school or on their way to somewhere else.

That's just one of the many differences making Friday Night Lights so extraordinary. For a show so superficially traditional, even conservative, at its core, it's downright radical.

One way it expresses that radical spirit is in the use of quiet, just when things are blowing up or spiraling out of control.

In one scene this season, a pregnant 16-year-old goes to Tami looking for adult guidance. The two of them talk about one of the most hotly divisive issues in America. As their talk gets deeper and deeper, their voices get softer and softer.

Then there's a scene between Coach Taylor and Matt, his former quarterback and his daughter's true love. Matt is in crisis. He's just suffered a devastating loss; he doesn't have words to express what he's feeling, and even if he did, he couldn't. He runs out of the house and into the street. Coach follows him, catches up, and simply says, "I'll walk you home." Off they slowly shuffle into the night, neither saying a word.

All you can manage as you watch is to shake your head in wonder and silently mouth, "Wow."

Friday Night Lights

7 p.m. Friday, NBC (Channel 5). 1 hr. (8 p.m. Eastern)

Obama’s Model ‘Green’ Country? Denmark Evicts Citizens, Clear-Cuts Forests for Windmill Space

Following the embarrassment of having recommended Spain's failed "green" programs, Obama switched to using Denmark as a model. Best out of five?

by Christopher Horner
http://pajamasmedia.com/
May 24, 2010

President Obama was caught flatfooted by the embarrassing truth about Spain’s “green economy” after he instructed us — on eight separate occasions — to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain” as a model for a U.S. future. Spain, of course, is suffering an economic meltdown from enormous public debt incurred through programs like a mandated “green economy.”

But Obama also just implored Spain to drastically scale back or risk becoming Greece. A flip he immediately flopped, by pushing hard to enact the Kerry-Lieberman “path to insolvency” bill based on … Spain. (Cue Benny Hill theme.)

So, embarrassed — or perhaps shameless — Obama changed his pitch:
“Think about what’s happening in countries like Denmark.”

Of course, the experience of Denmark — a country with a population half that of Manhattan’s, not exactly a useful energy model for our rather different economy and society — is no great shakes, either.

But it gets better.

In my new book — Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America — I describe the absurdity of the “free ice cream” theories of the “green economy” our statist friends now embrace as their latest raison d’etre for a controlled society. My mother-in-law — visiting from Denmark — is reading my book with a particular interest in its exposé of what her heavily taxed labor pays for in that country.

The book also prompted her to relay an amazing new anecdote to the case study referred to by the Danes as “the fairy tale of the windmills.”

In the northern region of Jutland called Thy, Denmark is forcing people off of their land (“Kelo” is apparently Danish for “Kelo”) and — wait for it — preparing to clear-cut fifteen square kilometers of forest, and eventually thirty, in order to put up more of the bird- and job-killing monstrosities.

These giant windmills are not even intended to fill an energy gap for the Danish economy. No, they are to be onshore experimental versions of massive new off-shore turbines — with the facility to be rented out to wind mavens like Siemens.

The argument they are forwarding for doing this is not just the typically risible claim that this is necessary for the environment. After all, “[the] deforestation will create an increase of 400,000 tons of CO2 emissions, the equivalent of the CO2 emissions of 100,000 people per year.”

They are also forwarding the argument that this must occur in order to create Danish jobs.

Of course, “creating jobs,” to the extent such mandates can do this (as they are typically net job killers), appears much more necessary after the state first made it difficult for the private sector to do such things. Denmark enforced what methods, and what quantity of those methods, are acceptable for producing electricity. It always turns out that the acceptable ways are inefficient, intermittent, and expensive. Which sort of explains the need for mandates.

Employers, who pass taxes and other costs along until they can’t, leave for less inane political and economic environments. Like Kentucky, for example, as I detail in Power Grab.

So, yes, President Obama, let’s think of what’s happening in these European countries.

For the moment, put aside the spectacular irony of what the “green” agenda necessitates well before reaching its logical conclusion. There is a more important lesson here, as our policy sages in Washington seek to cram through a replica of Europe’s social democracy here before November, when voters get to weigh in on this form of “change.”

The key lesson to be learned from Spain: these glorified make-work schemes, which saddle the economy with boondoggles of massive physical redundancies, inherently create “bubbles.” The bubbles exist solely because of wealth transfers from taxpayers — meaning from productive uses to intrinsically uneconomic ones (again, they have to be mandated and subsidized to exist).

The bubbles only avoid bursting with constant infusions of redistributed taxpayer wealth. But simply existing is not politically tolerable to the constituencies that politicians create with the subsidy and mandate schemes. There is a reason that GE’s Washington lobbying budget tops that of all of Big Oil … combined. Once a “market” is created by government fiat, recipients of the largess pour tremendous resources into keeping the gravy train rolling, and gaining steam.

This is just what happened in Spain, where the public deficit threatened an economic default.

And in Denmark, where the politicians look to clear every inch of land they can find — even if it happens to be occupied or forested — to put up more windmills in the name of “creating jobs.”

We have learned from Obama’s models in Spain and Denmark (and also Germany) that no net jobs are — or can be — created by these financial rat holes. Opportunity costs and direct jobs lost due to the economic pain caused by higher energy prices and other restrictions on individual liberty harm the economy as a whole. And what the economy gets in return are temporary jobs requiring more debt — which means taxes.

The schemes drain the public treasury, passing off your hard-earned money to entrenched interests. And, now, they lead to clear-cutting forests and “takings.”

In a way — a particular way known mostly to Washington, but apparently also everywhere else the “market socialists” rule — it just makes sense.

- Christopher Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and author of the recently-published Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America.

Textbook Texas

The Nation's Pulse

By on 5.24.10 @ 6:08AM
The American Spectator
http://spectator.org/

If we Texans don't know by know what a lot of louts and clods we are, we'll surely know it once the national intelligentsia get through raking us over the coals for our state education board's vote last week to primitivize our schools and debase young minds. That's assuming our leaders of thought ever do get through with that holy mission.

They may not. The State Board of Education's offense is great -- namely, restoring to notice in Texas textbooks, to a certain eminence even, quaint ideas about federalism and the religious viewpoint of the American founders.

A liberal Democratic board member who voted against the standard is "ashamed of what we have done to the students and teachers of this state." That should give you some idea of the infamy we have incurred.

It wouldn't, in my lowbrow estimation, be reasonable to say everything the board did in framing the way Texas wants social studies textbooks written was beyond admonition or finger-waggling. Yet the board -- whose decisions will influence for 10 years the way textbooks are written for other states as well as Texas -- expertly demonstrated a well-known scientific principle: For every action, there is an opposite or equal reaction.

If the education board's high-hatted critics deplore, say, sandwiching into the curriculum the topic of how conservatives surged to power in the '80s, they might have had a care in earlier years not to present the Roosevelt-Truman years as Nirvana.

Religion, as many will sense, is at the heart of the dispute over what America means. What did the Founders intend with the postulation of the First Amendment -- a secular state or one consecrated to God and the Bible? The U.S. Supreme Court threw out of kilter, beginning in the 1960s, our more-or-less common understanding that Religion was a Good Thing, and worthy, in some murky sense, of advancement and promotion on government's part.

Post '60s liberal ideology, by contrast, holds that state and church were marked at the start for apartness. The Texas board of education, so far from accepting the postmodern view of things, has ordered a quest for balance. Members want it noted that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution. As indeed they don't: deriving instead from a Jeffersonian metaphor. The need to make plain the difference between what Jefferson wrote in a private letter to the Danbury, Conn., Baptists and the actual language of the First Amendment aches for exposition. (Whether Texans, or anyone else, should look to the public schools for intelligent exposition of that sophisticated point is a different proposition.)

The education board, dominated at present by conservatives, made no bones of its belief that conservative ideas logically belong in educational discourse: particularly discourse financed by the taxpayers.

The Austin ruckus over textbooks has its national model in the Tea Party insurgencies, the anti-incumbent fever at the polls, the swelling anger at dictation and intimidation by the "pros," the "experts," who'll happily tell us all what to think we'll just shut up and listen.

The repudiation of the Republican Party, in two consecutive national elections, 2006 and 2008, didn't signal, it seems, ordinary Americans' desire for the drawing of all power into one national location, Washington, D.C. Ordinary Americans pay taxes without crying out, gee, tax us some more, won'tcha? Ordinary Americans embrace the impressive achievements of the civil rights revolution without submitting to dictation from the civil rights establishment over who's "racist" and who isn't. (Another thing ordinary Americans have taken up, with pardonable pride, is the pastime of giving political incumbents a raspberry and the toe of their boot.)

What the left affirms, by contrast, is nothing less than its entitlement to tell the American story as an inspirational tale of liberation from ancient suppositions of Western (read: "white male") superiority reflected in such movements and institutions as Christianity, capitalism, slavery, aristocracy, and imperialism, all of which (so the usual narrative goes) we applied ourselves to putting in their rightful place, starting the in the 1960s.

What else did the Texas yahoos do to offend liberal sensibilities besides try to balance treatment of relationships between government and religion? Well, they provided for more objective treatment of the national "witch hunt" for communists in the 1950s, with a view to showing, apropos documents disclosed after the Soviet Union's fall, that, yes, there were communists embedded in our government. A myth more tenacious even than "separation" of church and state is the quest of villainous, self-seeking folk like Joe McCarthy and Dick Nixon to find reds under every bed. That a lot of beds concealed a lot of reds is a point worth making before young minds conclude the kind of people who would go after poor Alger Hiss deserve no one's sympathy.

The board even decided to give Jefferson Davis his day in court by offering his inaugural address as Confederate president alongside Abraham Lincoln's arguments for maintenance of the union. What's that? -- show the existence of arguments that contrast and conflict with the received gospel of Lincoln? I think I can predict the board's action here will produce pronounced reaction from an intelligentsia committed to the proposition -- absent from discourse before the civil rights revolution -- that the Confederacy was the embodiment of mass moral degeneracy.

The fate of the nation hardly rides on the resolution of essentially non-resolvable questions, such as did the South fight for slavery or local rights? Nearer to the heart of the matter is how much free speech and intellectual inquiry may the intelligentsia suppress without undermining the integrity of that same First Amendment for which they profess such large regard. The Texas education board's opinion: Liberal orthodoxy ain't orthodoxy; ain't deserving either of the free pass for which liberals clamor.

So large (4.8 million students) is the Texas textbook market that publishers tend to sell Texas-approved texts in other states. This elevates the matter of our state education board, and its choices, to a prominence it would otherwise lack. What we decide down here might -- gasp! -- end up corrupting minds and hearts in Nebraska. And not just in the short term. Texas' newly adopted textbooks standards are meant to last, and likely will, for 10 whole years.

One doesn't look to see, really, the schoolmasters and 'marms of Massachusetts passing on without demurral the views of Texas yahoos concerning the high points of the Reagan presidency. It suits Texans enough for now that their board never flinched in the face of yowls and screeches from whatever quarter, including home. No doubt it's another legacy from our cowboy culture: you hear the thunder of oncoming hooves; you load, you squint, you call for a vote.

- William Murchison is a columnist for Creators Syndicate and author of Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity, to be published by Encounter Books on March 1.

Multiculturalism Trumps Feminism

[Mark Steyn]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
May 23, 2010

I wrote last week about the American Academy of Pediatrics' support for Female Genital Mutilation-lite - a "ritual nick." In return, I received a remarkable number of letters asserting I'd invented the whole thing. Not so. You can find chapter and verse and here.

One reason why readers think we right-wing madmen are just making this stuff up is because of the shameful silence (and worse) of western feminists, who implicitly accept a two-tier sisterhood, in which some women get to lead the lives they choose while others, in the interests of "cultural sensitivity," get a literally rawer deal that begins with FGM and, if they're really unlucky, ends with "honor killing."

So I'm happy to salute the great Tina Brown, a fully paid-up Clinto-Blairite but not one prepared to descend into barbarism. Over at her Daily Beast, Ms. Brown has published a tough and unsparing column by Ayaan Hirsi Ali on what the AAP's "nick" really means — and where it leads. I have one tiny quibble with the e-mail alert Tina sent out:

Do read the extraordinary piece by Ayaan Hirsi Ali this morning on The Daily Beast on the outrageous proposal from the American Academy of Pediatrics to "nick" little girls, a slippery slope to tolerating genital cutting in the U.S. — Tina Brown

"Genital cutting" is itself a euphemism. In its 1998 policy position, the AAP used the phrase "female genital mutilation." A decade on, they prefer to call it "female genital cutting" — "mutilation" being regarded by cultural accommodationists as too judgmental. At the rate this slippery slope is greased, you can guess where we'll be in another decade.

05/23 09:23 AM

Plump can be pleasing

By Craig Lindsey
The News & Observer
http://www.newsobserver.com/
May 23, 2010

Not too long ago, a friend named Kayla Williams - a 33-year-old who's "5-foot-3, with big boobs and a big butt" (her words!) - wanted my opinion on a Lane Bryant commercial that got some attention in the news recently.

It seems that a couple of broadcast networks were refusing to air this ad, which featured a curvy, shapely lady (model Ashley Graham), wearing various lingerie and undergarments from the clothing-store chain. The ad was supposed to debut during an episode of "Dancing With the Stars," but ABC reportedly pulled it for being too racy. (Keep in mind it would've aired during a show where C-list celebs dance in close to nothing.) Fox wasn't going to air the ad as well during an "American Idol" episode. But because a Victoria's Secret commercial was also going to be shown, Fox decided to give the ad equal time.

The whole thing left my friend rather miffed. "Why is this video any raunchier than a Victoria's Secret commercial?" asks Williams, a community college instructor in Ohio. "I would say it was more tasteful than a Victoria's Secret commercial, you know what I mean? So, the only thing that I could come up with, why they wouldn't air it on TV, is because she's too big or, you know, she actually has boobs and a butt.

"It's so shocking!" she said, sarcastically.

Neither the commercial nor the treatment it got from the networks was shocking to me. News outlets can also get downright mean when it comes to female personalities looking the slightest bit plump. The New York Times got some heat in January when writer Cathy Horyn wrote a blog post dishing on "Mad Men" star Christina Hendricks' appearance at this year's Golden Globes (pictured at right).

The post included a distorted photo that made Hendricks look more chunky than curvy. "As one stylist said, 'You don't put a big girl in a big dress. That's rule number one,'" Horyn wrote. (The blog post was later updated with the photo untouched.)

While many people (including Hendricks' own husband) called the Times out for both the disparaging comments and the unflattering photo, Hendricks seems to have gotten the last laugh by becoming an in-demand sex symbol anyway, recently landing on the covers of New York and Esquire, where she was voted the sexiest woman in America.

I've always found it absurd what some in our culture perceive to be a plus-size woman. Professional plus-size models like Crystal Renn (who appears on the cover of this month's Glamour in a bikini) look more normal than zaftig.

Or how about when Whitney Thompson won "America's Next Top Model" a couple of years ago? She was constantly referred to as the first plus-size model to win on the show.

Actually, she was the first realistic-looking model to win on the show, because this full-bodied blonde looked more like the average woman you see in everyday life.

Tracing the attitude

There's, of course, some history behind this misperception. Dian Hanson, book editor for publishing company Taschen and author of the upcoming coffee-table book "The Big Butt Book," says it all started after World War II, when sales of pinup magazines that were all the rage during wartime began going down once the boys came back home and got married.

It wasn't until Hugh Hefner entered the picture with Playboy, publishing photos of topless, trim, well-endowed gals (and hiring guys like future big-bosom movie auteur Russ Meyer to take them), that a new ideal woman began to take form and dominate the culture. "Before that time," says Hanson, "the female body type that was preferred was more of balanced body type: medium-sized breasts, medium-sized buttocks, reasonably slender. But we came out of the war with this very exaggerated interest."

Garner resident Barbara Yonkin Bozon, 55, thinks women who don't fit that exaggerated, perfect body type spend most of their lives paying for it.

"I have found that, being a woman, you're not good enough unless you look a certain way," says Bozon, who works at Briarcliff Elementary School in Cary. "It's not just from experience myself, but it's just what we all hear. We hear it a lot. ... You gotta fit a certain mold. And if you don't, you're no good. And then, it's worse when you get older - I have found."

Buxom and gorgeous

Thanks to this accepted yet unattainable standard of female beauty that has been considered the norm for most of the last century, many women have become self-conscious - self-loathing, even - about their bodies.

Thankfully, curvaceous ladies such as Graham, Hendricks or even Queen Latifah (who is the romantic lead in the movie "Just Wright") are doing their best to show that you can be, in fact, buxom and gorgeous.

Just because you're more fleshed out in some areas doesn't mean you're a disgusting excuse for a human being. To quote a De La Soul song, there ain't nothing wrong with big drawers!

Even Williams has learned not to be so self-conscious when it comes to body image. This is mostly because she knows there are many men (like the guy who's writing this) whose views on beauty do not match the mainstream.

"I think once you start dating and have relationships, you realize that most guys don't want a stick figure, you know," says Williams. "And that's because what's in the media doesn't mean that's reality."

craig.lindsey@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4760

Sunday, May 23, 2010

No one can stack up to Hack

Wilson's record 191 RBIs has stood for 80 years

Sunday, May 23, 2010
By Gene Collier, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/?m=1

No one was ever certain why they called him "Hack."

No one called him that in Ellwood City, where he was born Lewis Robert Wilson in 1900. No one called him that in Martinsburg, W.Va., where he took a sixth-grade education and a laborer's resume and began turning a tragedy into a baseball career.

That was before anyone suspected Hack Wilson was holding a round-trip ticket on that whiskey river shuttle.

Some said when he got to the big leagues, he reminded teammates of a wrestler named Hack, and others said he reminded them of a former player named Hack, but when he mangled two easy fly balls to help the Chicago Cubs lose the 1929 World Series, Hack seemed to fit perfectly.

The idea that a squat, rambunctious, legendary thirst-quencher from the Pennsylvania steel yards could erect a baseball record that, this summer, will be standing for 80 years isn't the extreme definition of fantasy. But that he managed it with physical attributes later thought by some students to have been caused by fetal alcohol syndrome (he had a huge head, tiny feet, short arms and legs) rivals the endurance of his record in straining credulity.

Eighty years ago this season, Hack Wilson drove in 191 runs for the Chicago Cubs. Only Lou Gehrig (184 in 1931) and Hank Greenberg (183 in 1937) have even approached it in all these years.

As the baseball summer of 2010 prepares to get its legs, there is a feel in the game's ever-fluid atmosphere that points at something momentous, and it is because of the early season's intimate relationship with the bizarre. We've already seen a perfect game, a 20-0 game, a seven-run game-winning rally in the bottom of the ninth that ended with a grand slam, a club owner getting hit on the nose with a batted ball during batting practice, and Jody Gerut hitting for the cycle.

At the weekend, Andre Eithier of the Dodgers and Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers were leading their leagues in runs batted in with 38 each. That projects to 150, which would be the highest RBI total by a non-steroid suspect since Tommy Davis drove in 153 for the Dodgers in 1962.

At the same time, Colorado's Ubaldo Jiminez was working on a 0.99 earned run average through nine starts, which, somehow sustained, would be the best since Bob Gibson's 1.12 in 1968.

But even more untouchable, apparently, is Hack's summer of 1930, when he hit .356 with 56 homers and the big 191.

Hung over.

"I never played drunk," Hack used to boast. "Hung over yes, but never drunk."

Wilson is the protagonist in that part of baseball folklore that insists Cubs manager Joe McCarthy once told him, "Hack, if you put a worm in water, it swims; if you put a worm in whiskey, it dies. What does that tell you?"

"Simple," was Wilson's line, "if you drink whiskey, you won't get worms."

But Hack could only joke about it for so long. The very next year, he dropped off to .261 with 13 homers and 61 runs batted in, and he was out of baseball four years later.

He was dead at 48, likely of alcohol-related causes, and it's bitterly ironic that the RBI record will probably have a life at least twice as long as the man who established it.

Some presumably impenetrable offensive records have fallen to the forces of the steroid era. Barry Bonds slugging percentage of .863 toppled Babe Ruth's .847 set in 1920. Bonds' 177 walks erased Ruth's record of 170 set in 1923. Bonds' on-base percentage of .582 in 2002 wiped out Ted Williams' .553 from 1941.

Or didn't; that's up to you.

But Hack Wilson's 191 runs batted in stayed beyond the reach of Sammy Sosa at the height of performance-enhanced baseball. Sosa drove in 158 in 1998, 160 in 2001. Alex Rodriguez plated 156 as recently as 2007, Miguel Tejada 150 in 2004, and Manny Ramirez 165 in 1999.

None got close to the guy on the performance-reducing drugs.

The story goes that former Cubs and Mets slugger Dave Kingman once asked Bob Kennedy, the Cubs general manager, if he could get a bonus written into his contract for breaking the club record for RBIs.

"Absolutely," Kennedy said.

That clause could have been included in every baseball contract ever signed for the last 80 years without costing any club one cent.


Gene Collier: gcollier@post-gazette.com. More articles by this author

Gene Collier's "Two-Minute Warning" videos are featured exclusively on PG+, a members-only web site from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.

It’s About Time: Pioneering Film Blog Libertas Returns

Though presently a bit too obscure with its coverage, Libertas is a great idea, a promising blog, and something we need more of.

by John Boot
http://pajamasmedia.com
May 23, 2010

The relaunch of Libertas is like a reversal of the old joke about lawyers: What do you call a thousand lawyers trapped at the bottom of a well? A good start. We don’t need one more conservative blog about movies and culture, we need hundreds more. But Libertas and its few competitors are a promising start.

Libertas, which was originally launched in 2005, went dark in 2008 while promising a rethink and a reboot. In the meantime, it lost its most resonant voice — that of writer John Nolte when Big Hollywood launched and tapped him as its editor. Libertas’s founders and editors, Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo, are still running it, but when it relaunched May 19 they promised “a different emphasis from” the original Libertas. They say the former site “spent most of its time critiquing the ideological content of Hollywood entertainment — much of which is still inimical to freedom.”

The new site promises to:

“[Promote] films that celebrate freedom, democracy, and the dignity of the individual [by featuring] short films, webisodes, movie clips and trailers, podcasts, as well as news and reviews of pro-freedom films that are currently in theaters or are available on DVD. … Libertas’ goal is to show our readers movies they can enjoy — not just to warn them about movies to avoid.

This last sentence seems to imply that competitor sites are joyless and negative — but if the web has proved one thing in the last ten years, it’s that loathing can be entertainment. How many sites — cultural, political, economic, whatever — are devoted partly or mainly to appalling the reader? High dudgeon is a valuable commodity. I enjoy a little outrage with my morning coffee. If you’re on this site, maybe you do too.

So I’m glad to report that Libertas does not, in fact, shy away from a little vigorous acid-spewing — labeling Avatar “asinine” in one post, and “anti-American propaganda on a staggering scale” in another. (Okay, these are a bit late, but I think it’s fair to say that had Libertas existed when Avatar came out it would not have been slow to formulate some opinions about it).

You expect to come across such opinions on Big Hollywood, too, but Libertas goes on to this fumdoozler of a conclusion:

Films like Victor Erice’s Spirit of the Beehive (1973), Tarkovsky’s Stalker (1979), and Koreeda’s Maborosi (1995) demonstrate James Cameron’s vast and pathetic misunderstanding of his own art form. Sinking into almost complete stillness, they begin to speak the half-veiled symbol language of the world, and, as Yeats says, “call down among us certain disembodied powers, whose footsteps over our hearts we call emotions.”

Whoa. That’s a lotta syllables and suspiciously foreign-sounding words, there, pardner. And Yeats!

It may be that Libertas Film Magazine, or LFM, sees itself (at least for the moment) as a broadsheet, in-depth, brainier alternative to Big Hollywood’s tabloid-style layout. I’m all in favor of the idea that conservative taste need not necessarily be associated with the quick draw and the carpet bomb instead of reasoned, on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand discussion.

But Big Hollywood, like other Andrew Breitbart-produced sites, does what it does insanely well. Who wouldn’t want to read stories with headlines like: “Network That Cowers Before Muhammad: ‘You Lied to Me, Jew Producer’” or “Poll: Did ‘Office’ Star Nunez Try to Sink Miss Oklahoma w/ Divisive Immigration Question?” Logging on to Big Hollywood, you are instantly confronted with a mock movie marquee containing ten or more grabby blurbs. You don’t even need to hit the scroll button to find yourself deep in the middle of several simultaneous heated arguments about the most talked-about films and celebrities.

Contrast that with “Pro-Freedom Themes in Bosnian-Herzegovinian Film Festival,” which was one of the inaugural posts on Libertas. I resolved to read it at some undefined later date, and of course on the Web “later” means “never.” If Libertas resembles a tabloid, so far that tabloid appears to be The New York Review of Books. My prediction: Soon it will be featuring relatively few updates from Bosnian film festivals and wading right into the roiling surf of Hollywood controversies. There’s an ocean of disputation out there, and I’m not talking about arguing the relative merits of Tarkovsky’s Stalker and Koreeda’s Maborosi.

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

Swimming with great white sharks in South Africa

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Sunday, May 23, 2010

If you want to see a big, scary great white shark -- the kind that reached global iconic status with the 1975 movie "Jaws" -- head to Gansbaai, South Africa. Depending on the time of year, the place is lousy with them. In a good way.


Keep your toes inside the cage: A great white shark swims up for a closer look in Gansbaai. (Fotograferen.net/Alamy)

Gansbaai, a 2 1/2 -hour drive from Cape Town, isn't a place you visit for its restaurants, its shopping or its scenery. (For that. you can visit Hermanus, an idyllic town half an hour away where you can see right whales migrating offshore as you browse a local crafts market.) It is the launching pad for several shark-diving operations that bring you closer to one of the planet's top predators than you can get almost anywhere else on Earth.

Since great whites have been demonized for decades, you have two choices: You can go with a tour operator who exploits the animals for their sensationalistic reputation, or with one that makes an effort to promote shark conservation. I opted for the latter, signing up for Shark Lady Adventures. (Its slogan: "We care, protect and educate.") Kim Maclean, who has run Shark Lady Adventures since 1992, says that people get an alternative view of sharks when they go on her tour. "This time," she says, "you're in the zoo."

Maclean does her best to put her clients at ease. She arranges for shuttle transportation from guests' accommodations to Gansbaai, and they are taken to a building she has dubbed the "White Shark Embassy," a bright white structure decorated in a nautical theme just steps from the dock the boats depart from. Her staff serves tour participants a hot breakfast upon arrival; that's followed by a short lecture in which the dive master combines safety tips with a detailed description of the sharks' migrating patterns in the area.

When I arrived for my dive in early August (South Africa's winter, which coincides with summer in the United States, is the best time to view great whites there), nearly everyone who had gathered at the White Shark Embassy was visibly nervous. We were an international crew, a collection of tourists that included a Scottish businessman and his daughter; a South African cricket star and his girlfriend; a Brazilian salesman and his wife and 9-year-old daughter; and a Malaysian-British couple with two teenage sons.

Our dive master, Lance Coetzee, acknowledged that coming face to face with a shark might seem scary. But it's worth keeping in mind that sharks generally thrive by relying on an element of surprise when they target their victims, he said. "It's the shark that you don't see that is the one you should worry about," he explained. "To be bitten by a white shark, you must be exceptionally unlucky."

The statistics bear that out: Conservation groups such as Save Our Seas note that typically somewhere between four and seven people die annually due to shark strikes, a tiny figure compared with the number of lethal household accidents that claim people's lives each year. Just in case, Maclean has trained medics on her staff.

Comforted by these statistics, we set off on a 30-foot catamaran for an area known as "Shark Alley," where great whites congregate during the winter. The reason they flock to this area is straightforward: Seals are pupping on Dyer Island, just a few miles offshore from Gansbaai, providing the sharks with ample prey.

Although baby seals should be sufficient lure for white sharks, Coetzee and his colleagues don't take any chances. They pour chum, a mixture of chopped-up fish, off the side of the boat to attract any nearby predators. It's clear that there are sharks around -- a few other ships are nearby, and we can hear people hooting and hollering -- but as Coetzee's shipmates cast hooks baited with fish heads into the water, I wonder what it will take to bring the great whites over to our vessel.

Until I started pondering the chances of the sharks' arrival, I had been focused on the large diving cage, which is made of steel but sports a rubberized coat, as it was being lowered into the water. I had envisioned shark-diving as an activity where you bob around in a free-floating cage that could ricochet in any direction with a simple nudge from a shark. But the cage Shark Lady Adventures uses is more like a small underwater horse stable, with a stall for each diver to drop into.

I'm using the word "diver" generously. There's no actual diving involved in cage tours, unless you specially request it. It's snorkeling, without much movement. Each participant dons a mask and a snorkel along with a wet suit and lowers him- or herself into a slot within the cage. You hold on to a metal bar extended toward you, so that none of your fingers or toes peek out through the cage into the open water, where a shark might be tempted to snack on them. You can even keep your head above water while in the cage, until the dive master yells out that a shark is approaching and it's time to duck underwater.

Coetzee provided straightforward instructions: When he yelled, "Divers, look left!" we quickly submerged our heads and looked to the left to catch a glimpse of the creature as it approached the cage. The moment it happened, I was reminded of everything I love about lamnidae sharks, as the great white's family is called. Their torpedo-shaped bodies glide gracefully, and the water is so clear that you can watch their every move.

While white sharks do socialize and compete with each other for food occasionally (they slap tails as a form of communication when vying for prey), they usually hunt separately, which makes for a less frenzied viewing experience. I gazed as a couple of sharks took turns passing in front of the cage, tempted by both the chum and the fish head dangling in the water.

But the most exciting moment was when one Carcharodon carcharias went for the kill, so to speak, opening its jaws to chomp down on the bait a few feet to the right of the cage. As it flashed its ragged-looking teeth, it demonstrated exactly why its kind has survived for tens of millions of years. Great whites remain paramount in this underwater world, while we humans are just fortunate enough to visit from time to time.

Eilperin is writing a book about sharks, to be published by Knopf-Pantheon in 2011.


This Story
Swimming with great white sharks in South Africa
Details: Diving with great white sharks in South Africa

A Second Look: John Ford's 'Stagecoach'

The director's iconic western, now on a restored Criterion DVD, made John Wayne a star.

By Sam Adams, Special to the Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/
May 23, 2010

At a Directors Guild meeting in 1950, a tense session on the subject of anti-Communist loyalty oaths, John Ford began his dissenting statement thus: "My name's John Ford. I make westerns."

Typically for Ford, the assertion was both unassuming and calculated, grounding his patriotic bona fides in the quintessence of American myth, a myth that Ford both shaped and struggled with throughout his career.


"Stagecoach" is agnostic on the matter of social progress, which brings with it a wealth of hypocrisy and corruption.

"Stagecoach," reissued this week on Criterion's beautifully restored Blu-ray and two-disc DVD, was not Ford's first Western, although it did follow a 13-year hiatus from the genre. But it is a film of firsts, including the director's introduction to the iconic landscape of Monument Valley and the establishment of John Wayne as his favored leading man. On his commentary track, western scholar Jim Kitses argues against ex post facto analyses that place Wayne at the center of what is clearly structured as an ensemble piece. Only recently bumped up from B movies, and still saddled with the flop "The Big Trail," Wayne languished near the bottom of the payroll, banking barely a third of top-billed Claire Trevor's salary. But Ford gives Wayne a star's introductory flourish, a dramatic dolly-in whose focus blurs before resolving itself on Wayne's relatively unlined features. Framed against the soft-focus backdrop of Utah's buttes, he looks less like a rugged son of the frontier than a vision born of heat haze.

Although Wayne's Ringo Kid, jailed at 16 and bent on avenging the murder of his father and brother, is hardly an innocent, there's a stubborn, powerful naivete at his core that protects him from what Thomas Mitchell's disgraced doctor sardonically calls "the blessings of civilization." In classical terms, the western is the story of order imposed on a lawless land, the cavalry dictating by force of numbers what cannot be won by peaceful means. But "Stagecoach" is agnostic on the matter of social progress, which brings with it a wealth of hypocrisy and corruption. If foundational myths are a necessity, as Ford argued in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence," it is because the truth is too ugly to face.

Establishing the template for, among other things, the modern disaster movie, "Stagecoach" crams a motley crew into a rickety stage bound to make its journey despite the threat of attack from "that old Apache butcher Geronimo." Every string in Ford's ensemble vibrates in perfect unison, from John Carradine's gaunt Southern gambler, whose gallant gestures clash with his ignoble profession, to Trevor's pride-stung whore, whose expulsion from polite society takes the form of a joyless parade, a sanctimonious procession of black-clad matrons whose drawn faces suggest a world no living soul would care to inhabit.

Visually, "Stagecoach" is a film of fences and hallways, borders and passageways. As the stage sets out on its journey, the camera lingers just beyond the split-rail edge of town, surveying the magnificent vastness stretched out below. Ceilings hang low, inspiring the muslin-topped mise-en-scène of "Citizen Kane," whose novice director watched Ford's film dozens of times to learn his craft. At a pivotal moment, just before Wayne's outlaw professes his love for Trevor's tarnished angel, Wayne stands framed in a glowing corridor, needing to pass outside before he can unburden himself.

The stage's thrilling escape from a thundering horde of Apache warriors is a logistical marvel, and was doubtless pivotal in "Stagecoach's" box-office success. (Criterion's disc justly celebrates legendary stuntman Yakima Canutt, whose leap onto the stage's galloping horses was paid homage in "Raiders of the Lost Ark.") But it is not, surprisingly, the film's climax. Merely escaping the Indians' savage threat — a one-note portrayal slightly mitigated by a close-up of a pensive Geronimo — does not end the travelers' problems. The danger, the rough living conditions, may intensify their conflicts, but their roots lie elsewhere. They have brought their petty quarrels and vicious prejudices west with them, sullying the hope of a fresh start and undermining the dogma of an America of self-invention. The world where a person is defined only by what he or she does still exists, but only for a little while longer.

calendar@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010,
The Los Angeles Times

Revisiting ‘Main St.,’ Rethinking the Myth

By BEN RATLIFF
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
May 18, 2010

A LESSER-KNOWN version of the Rolling Stones’ “Loving Cup,” found on the bonus disc of the new reissue of the band’s 1972 album, “Exile on Main St.,” seems to me the best thing the Stones ever did.

It’s country gospel gone lurid, and it seems to rise up out of a nap. Nicky Hopkins’s piano chords circle around a G at slow tempo in an echoey room. Charlie Watts starts pumping a bass drum at the third beat of the second bar; he’s either late or early, but finding his way. Piano and drums roll up to the D chord at the beginning of the first verse, and Mick Taylor bends two guitar strings under Mick Jagger’s opening line: “I’m the man on the mountain — yes, come on up.” Onward, Mr. Watts weaves around the beat, smashing down on his high-hat, forming weird and clattering snare-drum fills. He both shapes and follows the group’s euphoria and the music’s subtle acceleration. The Stones gather around the song like pickpockets, jostling and interfering with it. Keith Richards, playing rhythm guitar and singing backup, quits harmonizing and starts to shout.

This performance represents to me the sound of “Exile” in idealized form: a dark, dense, loosely played, semiconscious tour through American blues, gospel and country music, recorded in a basement in France. “Exile” was made around the Stones’ creative peak and in unusual circumstances: they were tax exiles, forced to live away from home.


Credit: Dominique Tarle

Keith Richards catching rays at Villa Nellcôte in 1971.


It is often called one of the best rock records ever made, and framed as an after-the-fact concept album: a wise horror show, an audio diary of rock stars finally facing the rigors of marriage, children and addiction. (“ ‘Exile’ is about casualties, and partying in the face of them,” the critic Lester Bangs wrote in 1972. “The party is obvious. The casualties are inevitable.”) The notion of the record as story also comes from the strong documentary images around its creation— Dominique Tarlé’s black-and-white pictures of the Stones at Villa Nellcôte, shirtless and dazed in the stifling air of a basement in the South of France. These images dot the 64-page booklet and the DVD film included in the reissue’s deluxe edition and have been part of the avalanche of press around the reissue, released by Universal on Tuesday.

Recently, thinking about this alternate “Loving Cup” and why it’s not on the original album made me wonder what the ideal of “Exile” really is. I find most of “Exile” good, but not great. (That era of Stones music, fantastic. The album, not so much.) I can’t see it as a masterpiece, not only because I distrust the idea of masterpieces, but because I especially don’t want one from the Stones, who make songs and albums like birds’ nests — collaborative tangles with delicate internal balances — and have a history of great triage work, assembling bits and pieces recorded over a long period. But “Exile” remains the preference of the most judicious Stones fans. Why? What is its essence?

It’s a tricky question. “Exile” can seem like a unity of sound, place and time; much has been made of the fact that one of its greatest songs, “Ventilator Blues,” was inspired by the discomfort of the basement studio at Nellcôte, Mr. Richards’s rented mansion on the French Riviera, with its one small air vent. You can make yourself hear that heat, if you want.

But the recordings for “Exile” didn’t all happen in that basement. They stretched from 1969 to 1972, across the making of two other excellent and, to me, superior records — “Let It Bleed” and “Sticky Fingers.” It’s not always the band you know and, perhaps, love: there are a number of “Exile” tracks whose parts are not played by the usual suspects. (That’s Jimmy Miller, the producer, playing drums on “Happy” and “Shine a Light,” not Mr. Watts. That’s Mr. Taylor, or Mr. Richards, or Bill Plummer playing bass on about half the record, not Bill Wyman.)

As it happens, the “Loving Cup” described above was not recorded in Nellcôte’s basement but at Olympic Studios in London in the spring of 1969. (The album version — more laid back, not as good — comes from Los Angeles, after the French sojourn.) The Nellcôte experience was important to “Exile,” there’s no question. But the work of several Stones researchers indicates that more than half the album was recorded at other places, under more normal working conditions.

The new reissue both enshrines “Exile” and questions it. The first disc — a sharper version of the album itself, sounding far better than its last remastering in 1994, with deeper bass and greater detail — strengthens the idea of “Exile” as an inviolable document, dense and atmospheric and brilliantly post-produced, a thing unto itself. But the second bonus disc blows that idea apart, with new vocal tracks by Mr. Jagger over old instrumental tracks of “Exile”-related provenance, and other material that seems to come from the general era. So now you’re getting “Exile” from two perspectives: first as a finished 18-track entity, a masterpiece, if you want; then as something broader and more amorphous. If I’m reading the signs correctly, these two perspectives have some relation to how Mr. Richards and Mr. Jagger think about the album.

Mr. Jagger, who has criticized the album’s production over the years and wondered aloud about the strength of its songs, is more willing to dispense with Nellcôte as the album’s central force.

“You mean what is the album’s esprit?” he asked, rephrasing a question in a recent telephone conversation. The idea of Nellcôte as the album’s unifier is “three-quarters true,” he explained.

“It wouldn’t be the same record without Nellcôte,” he added. “But then it wouldn’t be the same record without what we did in London. Nellcôte was more hothouse, it was more living-in-the-studio. But what would the difference have been if we recorded ‘Ventilator Blues’ at Olympic or at Nellcôte? Who knows, and who cares?”

Miller, the album’s producer, died in 1994. So Mr. Jagger commissioned the producer Don Was to investigate extra studio material from the period. (“When Mick first called me about it,” Mr. Was said, “it was like he was asking me, ‘Can you do me a favor, man? Can you take the garbage out?’ ”) But then Mr. Jagger got caught up in the search himself, trying to determine what other tracks might qualify as extra matter for “Exile.” Mr. Jagger said he thought only in terms of time period, not by style, sound, location, or any other criterion. For him, “Exile” is less a specific sequence of tracks than an era of recording, starting with that “Loving Cup” at Olympic Studios.

“It’s a good story to say that what was created at Nellcôte was a result of the incredibly decadent atmosphere,” Mr. Jagger said. “Well, yeah: it’s probably true that the atmosphere affected the feeling of the music, and the sound of the studio. But you’ve no idea how much or how little. And in the end, it’s just a sort of myth, really.”

Can he hear the sound of the Nellcôte studios when he listens to the album?

“I’ve no idea which is the Nellcôte stuff and which isn’t, to be honest.”

Ah.

Mr. Richards feels differently. “All of the bone and the muscle of the record was done down in that basement,” he said when asked the same question. The rest of the work he considers “fairy dust.”

It’s the opposite interpretation, but if you read the literature — particularly Robert Greenfield’s book “Exile on Main St.: A Season in Hell With the Rolling Stones” (Da Capo Press) — it makes sense. Nellcôte was Mr. Richards’s house, and he was one of its mainstays that summer, with his girlfriend Anita Pallenberg and their son Marlon. The other band members came and went; Inasmuch as “Exile” has an esprit of place, Mr. Richards lived in it, and Mr. Jagger visited.

“I don’t think we were conscious of making a record that was gonna be about that place and the way we felt at the time,” Mr. Richards said in a phone interview. “But the word ‘exile’ does describe pretty much the atmosphere and the conditions that we were recording in. I mean, we’d all had to leave our places in England. Not that the Stones were particularly patriotic — I know better than that — but it was really a jerk, when you’re working with a team of guys and you all have to uproot at once.”

Mr. Richards contributed little to the extra tracks on the bonus disc and distrusted altering even the outtakes and unused tracks; as he said to another reporter earlier this year, “I didn’t want to interfere with the Bible.”

“My job was to enforce the no-fiddling rule,” he told me. “I didn’t want to play around with it at all. It’s all analog, and of course the remixing involved a change to digital, but otherwise, if anybody came up with a bright idea, I said no.”

It’s not clear that Mr. Jagger heard him. He put new vocals on four of the bonus tracks: “Plundered My Soul,” “Following the River,” “Dancing in the Light” and “Pass the Wine.” In “Plundered” — after some newly tracked guitar in the opening by Mr. Taylor — you hear a 66-year-old voice singing recent lyrics: an aging aristocrat describing a younger man’s appetites, over what appears to be the Stones sounding worn and wracked in their 20s.

Mr. Was believes that nobody, not even the Stones themselves, can remember when the backing tracks for “Plundered My Soul” were recorded.

The strange thing is that “Plundered My Soul” is very good: the most soulful and energetic Stones track I can think of in almost 30 years. Until recently, the Stones have been reluctant to release their unheard archives. Perhaps that’s because they’re so good at putting old scraps into new patchworks — the then-three-year-old songs retooled in 1972 for “Exile,” the then-nine-year-old songs ( “Tops” and “Waiting on a Friend”) given new vocals and new life in 1981 on “Tattoo You.”

The rest of the bonus disc is very good, too, patchwork, mysteries and all. According to Mr. Was, two tracks come from Nellcôte — a petulant shuffle called “I’m Not Signifying” and an alternate version of “Soul Survivor,” sung by Mr. Richards. One other, a nasty R&B instrumental called “Title 5,” came from a tape box marked “1969,” though Mr. Was suspects it was made earlier. So do I.

I don’t know if a great album must serve as an accounting of where the band members’ heads were at, or where they were geographically, or when they made it. But in the Stones’ case, I do want to hear the group sound, as much as possible. I want a minimum of detours, absences and static longeurs, with introductions and bridges and codas. The Stones wrote and arranged carefully, but this is a record that favors jamming over composing; though only one track is longer than five minutes, many quickly drag from indirection: “Happy,” “Casino Boogie,” “Stop Breaking Down,” “Shine a Light” — half the record, really.

Still, because of its rolling eccentricity, “Exile” always wants to be heard in full, or at least in small groupings, including the two great segues: the hard “Rocks Off” into the harder “Rip This Joint”; the angry gnarl of “Ventilator Blues” into the menthol drift of “I Just Want to See His Face.” Throughout, I love Mr. Jagger’s yapping voice, determined to be heard, feeling its way through cultural appropriation. I think Mr. Richards’s limping rhythm in “Tumbling Dice” is one of the great energies in popular music, even if I’ve never worked up much love for the song.

But back to the alternate take of “Loving Cup,” which still seems like the star of the whole enterprise.

I asked Don Was what he thought. “There’s a sound that’s identified with ‘Exile’ that’s become part of the vocabulary for every rock ‘n’ roll musician subsequently,” he said. “And this is the ultimate track of the style that characterizes ‘Exile.’ It’s not sloppiness; it’s width, in terms of where everyone feels the beat. You’ve got five individuals feeling the beat in a different place. At some point, the centrifugal force of the rhythm no longer holds the band together. That ‘Loving Cup’ is about the widest area you can have without the song falling apart.”

What leapt out was the phrase “the style that characterizes ‘Exile,’ ” especially in connection with a track that’s not actually on the record. For me, “Exile” works best as a suggestion, not a fact.



Multimedia
Slide Show
‘Main Street’ Revisited and Rethought

Related
Mick and Keith Soften the Stones (June 4, 1972)

Times Topic: The Rolling Stones