Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Don't You Forget About Me: The John Hughes I Knew

By P.J. O'Rourke
March 22, 2015

Judd Nelson, Emilio Estevez, Ally Sheedy, Molly Ringwald, and Anthony Michael Hall

To mark the 30th anniversary of The Breakfast Club, P.J. O’Rourke remembers the wit, wisdom, and politics of his friend John Hughes.
Somehow—while we Senior Teens in our forties, fifties and sixties weren’t paying attention—30 years have elapsed since The Breakfast Club was released. To mark the anniversary, the movie will be screened in 430 U.S. theaters on March 26 and March 31. If you are a Judd Nelson/John Bender type who would rather not be seen crying in public, I suggest you don’t go.
The Breakfast Club is John Hughes’s masterwork. Unless Ferris Bueller’s Day Offis John Hughes’s masterwork. The latter is a shout from the peak of adolescent heights. The former is a call from the pit of adolescent depths. In the sea-level bog of middle age, they’ll both make you weep. I watched The Breakfast Club, as it were, home alone.
And I was missing John, who died of cardiac arrest six years ago at 59. I met him in the mid-1970s when he was the youngest vice president ever at Leo Burnett and—for the Ferris Bueller of it—was writing freelance articles in the National Lampoon. I was an editor there. John wrote so fast and so well that it was hard for a monthly magazine to keep up with him.
I had an idea for a “National Lampoon Sunday Newspaper Parody.” It would be a full replica of a big fat Midwestern local paper of the kind extant back then— The Dacron, Ohio, Sunday Republican-Democrat. Dacron was an imaginary city that Doug Kenny and I had created for the “National Lampoon 1964 High School Yearbook Parody,” published a few years before. John agreed to co-edit the newspaper parody.
A few excepts from John’s voluminous contributions:
Extended Forecast
Cold this winter. Turning warmer in the spring. Then hot and humid all summer. A period of cooling will follow in autumn. Then cold and wintery next winter.
Citizen Foils Telephone Pest
Miss Anna Gribble who called police last week to report continuing threats and abuse from an anonymous phone-caller calling her at 262-6449, has had her phone number removed from listing and changed to 261-6338.
In the “Personals” section of the Classified Ads
Karen. HAPPY VALENTINES DAY even if no boys sent you any cards.—Dad
It would be nice to think that Doug’s and my imaginary Dacron gave John Hughes the inspiration for imaginary Shermer, Illinois, where most of his Bildungsroman movies are set. But John was always making worlds in his head. John had the kind of creativity you don’t see much of outside Genesis chapters 1 and 2.
John told me he knew everyone in Shermer, not just the people in his movies. He knew where they lived and what they did for a living. He could tell you about the amities, enmities, passing acquaintanceships, extramarital relations and distant cousinhoods of assistant principal Vernon, the Benders, the Standishes, the fellow Breakfast Club families of Reynoldses, Clarks and Johnsons plus the ever-vacationing Griswolds, the always-losing-a-kid McCallisters, and Uncle Buck’s bookie.
John was the best, the easiest, the most productive and collaborative person with whom I’ve ever worked. Which sounds like a load of de mortuis nil nisi bonum, except that I, unlike John, don’t have the imagination to make up somebody like John.
When I became editor in chief of the National Lampoon at the end of 1978, the first thing I did was call John at Leo Burnett and say, “I can pay you less.” But I couldn’t get him to move his family from Chicago to New York. “New York City would be okay,” he said, “if they’d clean the place up and move everything back ten feet.”
In the aftermath of National Lampoon’s Animal House success everyone at the magazine had the opportunity to make movies. Only John had movies to make.
John created Shermer, but, per Genesis chapter 3, he gave its residents free will. About Ferris Bueller, John said, “That kid will either become President of the United State or go to prison.” I said they were not mutually exclusive.
Politics being another bond I had with John. I’m not sure he’d be happy with me talking about his politics. He was a private man. But John’s politics have been discussed before. John was identified as a Reaganite in a somewhat inchoate 2006 Slate article by Michael Weiss, the point of which seemed to be that Michael Weiss was still miffed about the Reagan era. And, the same year, in an interview on Showbiz Tonight, Ben Stein (“Economics Teacher” in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off) said, “John Hughes and I are among the only Republicans in the picture business.”
I wouldn’t agree with either Weiss or Stein. I have no idea how, or if, John voted. We never bothered to talk about it. And there’s nothing very JUST SAY NO about all the kids in The Breakfast Club (except the presumably this-is-your-brain-on-drugs Ally Sheedy/Allison Reynolds) getting high as the squirrels on Miss Anna Gribble’s telephone wire.
John and I never bothered to talk much about our politics. What we did talk about was the 20th century’s dominant scrambled egghead bien pensant buttinski parlor pinko righty-tighty lefty-loosey nutfudge notion that middle-class American culture was junk, that middle-class Americans were passive dimbulbs, that America itself was a flop and that America’s suburbs were a living hell almost beyond the power of John Cheever’s words to describe.
John said, “You remember the line in The Graduate where the party guest tells the Dustin Hoffman character, ‘I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Plastics.’ That was 1967. If the Dustin Hoffman character had gotten into plastics he’d be a millionaire by now, instead of riding on a city bus with a crazy girl in a wedding dress.”
We were becoming conservatives—in the most conservational sense. There were things that others before us had achieved and these were worth conserving.
John went first. At 20, he married his high school girl friend Nancy Ludwig and stayed married to her for the rest of his life and set up housekeeping and realized he had to make a living.
“I couldn’t go looking for a job wearing what people were wearing in 1970,” he said. “But I didn’t really know where to buy clothes that people weren’t wearing in 1970. I remembered that before I became hip my mother used to take me to Brooks Brothers in the Loop. So I went there. Behind the shirt counter was the same sales lady who’d been behind the shirt counter when I was a kid. She looked at me for a moment and said, ‘I knew you’d be back.’”
In 1976 John and Nancy had a son, John Hughes III, and in 1979 they’d have another, James. Family was the most conservative thing about John. Walking across the family room in your stocking feet and stepping on a Lego (ouch!) was the fundamental building block of society.
John would do nothing (such as move to New York or, later, stay in Hollywood) to jeopardize his family. But he had a mortgage, a 3-year-old and another child on the way when he left the serious paycheck of Leo Burnett to work at the National Lampoon for birdseed. John must have thought that gambling on humor was a conservative wager.
And humor was another conservative thing about John. We talked a lot about humor. It isn’t—as it’s often assumed to be—shocking, radical, transgressive or just a way to make people laugh. You can do that by farting. The root meaning of humor (Latin humorem, “fluid”) comes from medieval ideas of physiology in which personal traits were determined by the Cardinal Humours, blood, phlegm, choler and melancholy. And if you’ve ever raised that fundamental building block of society, a family, “blood, phlegm, choler and melancholy” pretty much covers it.
Here’s an almost 3,000-year-old Chinese joke about institutional corruption that John and I were fond of:
The Emperor’s cook is slicing meat and hiding half the slices in his apron. “A slice for me. A slice for the Emperor. A slice for me. A slice for the Emperor.” The cook’s wife says, “Stupid, you’re at home.”
You can search the works of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, and Patty Hearst when she was “Tania” in the Symbionese Liberation Army for humor, and in vain.
Like all of John’s movies, The Breakfast Club is conservative. Note that the first thing the disgruntled kids in detention do is not organize a protest, not express “class (of 1985) solidarity,” not chant “Students of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your locker combinations” and not claim it takes a Shermer to raise them.
They present themselves, like good conservatives do, as individuals and place the highest value, like this conservative does, on goofing off. Otherwise known as individual liberty.
Imagine, painfully, a 2015 remake of The Breakfast Club. Latino-American, African-American, Islamic-American, Born-Again Christian, Undocumented Alien, Feminist, Post-Feminist, Occupy Activist, Tea Party Member, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender… To cover all the bases of Identity Politics, Judd Nelson, Molly Ringwald, Ally Sheedy, Emilio Estevez and Anthony Michael Hall would have had to double- and triple-up. And wear some strange cosmetics.
John kept his characters alike as possible, within the spectrum of high school anthropology, in order to make them as different as possible, within the spectrum of individuals. All five members of the Breakfast Club have Anglo-Saxon last names. All are attractive. They could be related (and John would have known) if five bland WASPy sisters had married two brunettes, two blonds and a redhead of varying abilities and intellects.
John worked with types but wouldn’t let them represent kinds. Claire Standish may be elected Prom Queen, but she isn’t the elected representative of the silk stocking district in the Congress of High School Detention. Nor has Shermer been gerrymandered to make sure that John Bender is the official representative of the under-employed labor force facing wage stagnation.
There’s nothing revolutionary about The Breakfast Club. On purpose. The kids don’t try to abolish authority and institutions. They elude and modify them with wit. This is a comedy. The total abolition of authority and institutions would be a tragedy. If you get rid of all authority and institutions, worse authority and institutions arise in their place. Any historical examples to the contrary since 1776 had escaped John’s (and my) notice.
That the kids’ troubles all stem from their families isn’t an accident of lazy writing. John was never lazy about back-story, or anything else. It’s that fundamental building block. The Lego that got stepped on matters more than the ugly Lego structures of authority and institutions.
To make them funny, the Breakfast Club members are subject to the Cardinal Humours—hoodlum Judd Nelson/John Bender’s blood, brianiac Anthony Michael Hall/Brian Ralph Johnson’s phlegm, jock Emilio Estevez/Andy Clark’s choler, basket case Ally Sheedy/Allison Reynolds’s melancholy and popular girl Molly Ringwald/Claire Standish’s (what I think of as the fifth Cardinal Humor) being a popular girl.
To make them conservative, they immediately start operating upon the three basic principles in The Wealth of Nations by that conservative fundamental block builder Adam Smith: Pursuit of self-interest, division of labor and freedom of trade.
No member of the Breakfast Club questions pursuit of self-interest, though it takes the five of them the whole movie to figure out where their self-interests lie. Even apparently self-destructive Allison Reynolds abjures from mind-altering substances, her mind being altered plenty enough already. And manifestly self-destructive John Bender declines to take a fatal punch at assistant principal Vernon, no matter how well-deserved.
Division of labor is the theme of the movie. Each kid discovers what’s valuable in the others. And—cue sentimental conservative favorite “Don’t You (Forget About Me)” by Simple Minds—what’s valuable in him or her self.
Freedom of trade is the message of the movie. Albeit the trade is conducted in the coin of the adolescent realm, love.
But not just the face-suck love of Claire and Bender or Andy and Allison. A good conservative knows his Western Civ. And the only thing that’s made Civ. in the West worthwhile is love. So much so that the ancient Greeks had four names for it.
Storage—acceptance, the first thing the Breakfast Club learns.
Philia—friendship among equals, the best thing the Breakfast Club learns.
Eros—Claire and Bender, Andy and Allison.
Agape—love for the whole world, Shermer, Illinois, included. Brian Ralph Johnson triumphant with his manifesto (signed “The Breakfast Club”) to assistant principal Vernon, who may have been feeling a little agape himself, drinking beer in the school basement with the janitor.
It’s a sentimental movie—influenced more by emotion than reason. John hedges his bets with a speech by Claire about how the members of the Breakfast Club will all go back to ignoring each other at school on Monday. But I doubt John believed that. Plus I am, like many conservatives, a sentimental guy. As Finley Peter Dunne—the best Chicago humorist until John Hughes—had his Irish barkeep Mr. Dooley say, “Damp eye, dry heart.”
I didn’t cry at John’s funeral. His death was too shocking, radical, transgressive. But after his burial, when I drove out the gates of Lake Forest Cemetery, I saw something I hadn’t seen in 45 years. It was a little sign reading “Cemetery Road” above a bar across a sandy track along the cemetery’s wall.
For a couple of years in the 1960s I had, like John, gone to a suburban Chicago high school. On Friday and Saturday nights when the weather was warm kids from suburban Chicago high schools would park on Lake Forest’s residential streets, walk stealthily to Cemetery Road, slip under the bar and sneak down the sandy track to the Lake Michigan beach. It was an inversion of the Shermer High School detention experience with all sorts of assistant principal Vernon-like people such as the Lake Forest police trying to keep us out rather than in. Sometimes we had to hide in the dunes with our Budweiser and beach towels.
Maybe John and I had been there at the same time. We were only three grades apart. Anyway, Cemetery Beach was where the hoods and the jocks and the dweebs and the basket cases and the popular girls worked it out in our day. That’s where we signed our social contract.
When I saw Cemetery Road, then I began to cry.

Ted Cruz, the Antiobama


David Limbaugh | Mar 24, 2015
http://townhall.com/

Ted Cruz, Heidi Cruz, Catherine Cruz, Caroline Cruz
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, his wife Heidi, and their two daughters Catherine, 4, left, and Caroline, 6, right, wave on stage after he announced his campaign for president, Monday, March 23, 2015, at Liberty University, founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, in Lynchburg, Va. Cruz, who announced his candidacy on twitter in the early morning hours, is the first major candidate in the 2016 race for president. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)


Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential announcement was immensely gratifying in numerous ways, including the venue he chose for it.
He made his announcement at Liberty University, which is a conspicuously Christian institution located in Virginia, the veritable birthplace of the United States of America.
In the world of political commentary today, we usually see analysis focusing on whether a politician or candidate hit the right themes and whether those -- and he -- will resonate with the voting public. The emphasis is usually on the game rather than the substance.
Possibly underlying such punditry is the cynical assumption that a political candidate who "hits all the right notes" is himself cynical, demagogic, opportunistic and a populist. There is a rigid reluctance to accept that someone actually believes the things he's saying if they happen to line up with what is thought to work politically.
One of the many things that distinguished Ronald Reagan from so many politicians was his unmistakable sincerity -- the sense that unlike so many politicians, he cared more about the causes he was championing than his own political ambitions.
Cruz is nothing if not Reaganesque in terms of the policies he advocates and his boldness in proclaiming them. But many on the right, mostly the more moderate ones but not only them, have accused Cruz of opportunism, gamesmanship and charlatanism for staging a filibuster in the Senate that had little chance of working.
People will have to make their own assessments of a politician's sincerity and overall character, but I believe that those assessments are often colored by our ideological predispositions. The less conservative will be likelier to conclude that Cruz was insincere, selfish and on some kind of egomaniacal venture with his announcement.
I disagree. I believe that Cruz, like so many of us, has had it up to here with the lawless practices of President Obama and wanted to make a pronounced public statement of dissent and to call out Obama for what he is doing. There has been a noticeable spirit of defeatism that has dominated Washington Republicans for too long -- a spirit that has led them to preannounce, in anticipatory surrender, their inevitable defeat should they tangle with Obama on any budget dispute and to have an almost paranoid fear that Republicans would be punished electorally if they ever called Obama's bluff to the end.
Their unwillingness to do so has demonstrated, I think, a degree of insecurity in conservative ideas and their lack of confidence in their ability to sell those ideas and in the public's willingness to accept them. Cruz, by contrast, believes in these ideas and in their energizing power. He doesn't just talk red meat; he intends to serve it.
We don't see this fecklessness among Beltway Republicans only in budget fights, sadly. We also witness it in such instances as the Republicans' broken promises to fight amnesty and in a number of GOP leaders announcing that we just can't repeal Obamacare wholesale.
Can you imagine where we'd be if our Founding Fathers had been so easily discouraged? If they had been so vulnerable to pushback?
I find it very refreshing that Cruz is willing to call a spade a spade and to stand up and fight for our founding principles and ideals regardless of whether the odds are against his prevailing on this or that filibuster. That doesn't mean he should muzzle himself, and it doesn't mean that by making a voluble public statement against Obama, Cruz is creating any undue political risk for the GOP in the next presidential election. Indeed, the naysayers were proved wrong about that hysterical fear.
Cruz should also get credit for going full force in invoking Jesus Christ in this culture, knowing what the left, the Democratic Party and the media will do to associate him with the usual lies associated with that identification -- racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, superstition, hate, knuckle dragging and the rest. By choosing the venue he did and embracing Christian values, he laid down a marker knowing it would raise obstacles, as well as elicit kudos. His speech was not just heard at Liberty.
Ted Cruz is the Antiobama. He represents those of us who believe that Obama and everything he stands for on domestic issues, foreign policy issues and culturally is wrong for and destructive to America. For my money, Cruz is right on all the major issues, from the Constitution to his emphasis on our liberty, including religious liberty, to life to traditional values to health care to taxes to economic growth to education to Israel to defense and foreign policy.
My purpose here is not to formally endorse Sen. Cruz; it's too early for that. But I will say that we need someone, like Cruz, who, from the bottom of his heart, believes in the ideas that have made this nation the greatest and freest in world history, who is unwilling to give up on America and its ability to rebound from this terrible assault we've been under, and who even believes that its best years could lie ahead.
Obama has gone too far toward destroying this nation for us to think it can be healed with half measures. It's time for the silent majority to recapture its self-image and confidence, to be bold and feisty, and to dare to believe that we can and actually will reclaim this glorious, unique land of liberty that we love.

Today's Tune: Roy Orbison - Ride Away

Monday, March 23, 2015

Britain Surrenders


Posted By Robert Spencer On March 23, 2015 @ 12:50 am In FrontPage | 7 Comments

Seven members of a child sex grooming gang in Oxford who were found guilty in 2013 (clockwise from top left): Assad Hussain, Zeeshan Ahmed, Kamar Jamil, Bassam Karrar, Mohammed Karrar, Akhtar Dogar and Anjum Dogar. They were sentenced in 2013 to a combined 95 years in prison for raping, torturing and trafficking British girls as young as 11.


The phenomenon of Muslim rape gangs in Britain, and the unwillingness of law enforcement officials had of prosecuting them for fear of being tarred with charges of “racism,” is hardly summed up by the word “scandal” anymore. This isn’t just a scandal, it’s a surrender – a cultural and societal collapse unprecedented in human history.

The BBC reported last week that “South Yorkshire Police knew hundreds of young girls were making claims of sexual abuse in Sheffield but did not act, an ex-police officer has alleged.” The tally of these abused girls is beyond belief: last month, the Mirror reported that “there could be up to a million victims of child sexual exploitation in the UK, it is feared.”

What kind of society allows a million – a million! — of its young girls to be pressed into service as sex slaves and prostitutes by predatory gangs? What kind of society declines to hunt down, prosecute, imprison, deport more than a small number of these gang members, because its guardians of law and justice know that the Leftist establishment would accuse them of racism, bigotry and Islamophobia, and bring them to certain professional ruin, if they dared try to bring these men to justice?

What kind of society allows this? A desperately ill society. A dying society.

And there is no doubt that that is what happened. 1,400 British non-Muslim children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims in the British city of Rotherham, in accord with the Qur’anic allowance for the sexual enslavement of infidel women that the Islamic State has pointed to in order to justify its exploitation of captive Yazidi and Christian women. British officials there “described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”

It was the same thing in Sheffield. According to the BBC, more then 200 girls were sexually abused there by over 320 men – subjected to rape, trafficking, beatings, and threats. Some of the girls involved were as young as twelve years old. The BBC, ever careful not to offend Muslims, fastidiously notes that “the nationalities of the alleged abusers include a mixture of Iraqi Kurds, white British, black British, and Pakistani Heritage, among others.”

But these men did not victimize and brutalize these girls because of their nationality. They did so because they believed that their religion justified such behavior. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general, as does this passage. “Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” (Qur’an 23:1-6).

The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Muslim 3371)
Notice that the controversy is not over whether the Muslims can rape the captives but only over coitus interruptus. The rape is taken for granted.

How many more of these Muslim rape gangs have yet to be discovered? How many will it take for shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain to discard its willful ignorance and recognize why this is happening?

The question is rhetorical. A society that would allow one million of its young girls’ lives to be destroyed just so as not to appear racist is already galloping down the road to ruin. Farewell, Perfidious Albion.

No peace in our time


By Charles Krauthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/
March 19, 2015


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacts as he visits, on March 18, 2015, at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem following his party Likud's victory in Israel's general election. (Thomas Coex/AFP/Getty Images)


Of all the idiocies uttered in reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s stunning election victory, none is more ubiquitous than the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister.
I have news for the lowing herds: There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state — with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted — only to be rudely rejected.
This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008 — three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the past 15 years. Every one rejected.
The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership — from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas — has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state.
Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. For half a century, it was run by dictators no one liked but with whom you could do business. For example, the 1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement yielded more than four decades of near-total quiet on the border because the Assad dictatorships so decreed.
That authoritarian order is gone, overthrown by the Arab Spring. Syria is wracked by a multi-sided civil war that has killed 200,000 people and that has al-Qaeda allies, Hezbollah fighters, government troops and even the occasional Iranian general prowling the Israeli border. Who inherits? No one knows.
In the last four years, Egypt has had two revolutions and three radically different regimes. Yemen went from pro-American to Iranian client so quickly the United States had to evacuate its embassy in a panic. Libya has gone from Moammar Gaddafi’s crazy authoritarianism to jihadi-dominated civil war. On Wednesday, Tunisia, the one relative success of the Arab Spring, suffered a major terror attack that the prime minister said “targets the stability of the country.”
From Mali to Iraq, everything is in flux. Amid this mayhem, by what magic would the West Bank, riven by a bitter Fatah-Hamas rivalry, be an island of stability? What would give any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement even a modicum of durability?
There was a time when Arafat commanded the Palestinian movement the way Gaddafi commanded Libya. Abbas commands no one. Why do you think he is in the 11th year of a four-year term, having refused to hold elections for the last five years? Because he’s afraid he would lose to Hamas.
With or without elections, the West Bank could fall to Hamas overnight. At which point fire rains down on Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and the entire Israeli urban heartland — just as it rains down on southern Israel from Gaza when it suits Hamas, which has turned that first Palestinian state into a terrorist fire base.
Any Arab-Israeli peace settlement would require Israel to make dangerous and inherently irreversible territorial concessions on the West Bank in return for promises and guarantees. Under current conditions, these would be written on sand.
Israel is ringed by jihadi terrorists in Sinai, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic State and Iranian proxies in Syria, and a friendly but highly fragile Jordan. Israelis have no idea who ends up running any of these places. Will the Islamic State advance to an Israeli border? Will Iranian Revolutionary Guards appear on the Golan Heights? No one knows.
Well, say the critics. Israel could be given outside guarantees. Guarantees? Like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which the United States, Britain and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s “territorial integrity”? Like the red line in Syria? Like the unanimous U.N. resolutions declaring illegal any Iranian enrichment of uranium — now effectively rendered null?
Peace awaits three things. Eventual Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish state. A Palestinian leader willing to sign a deal based on that premise. A modicum of regional stability that allows Israel to risk the potentially fatal withdrawals such a deal would entail.
I believe such a day will come. But there is zero chance it comes now or even soon. That’s essentially what Netanyahu said Thursday in explaining — and softening — his no-Palestinian-state statement.
In the interim, I understand the crushing disappointment of the Obama administration and its media poodles at the spectacular success of the foreign leader they loathe more than any other on the planet. The consequent seething and sputtering are understandable, if unseemly. Blaming Netanyahu for banishing peace, however, is mindless.

Concrete Charlie Defined the Legend

March 21, 2015

Chuck Bednarik eyes Giants quarterback Charlie Conerly as he awaits the snap (Robert Riger/Getty Images)


His was the best, the absolute most spot-on nickname there has ever been in all of sport:

Concrete Charlie.

That was him. And that was how he played. Hard. Unyielding. Implacable. Undentable
.
Yes sir, that was Chuck Bednarik. Last of the 60-Minute Men. Two-Way Charlie. The Iron Man.

The toughest, meanest, fiercest, most cantankerous old SOB who ever put on pads and a helmet, and if you don't believe it, just ask him.

"I'm up at 5 every morning," he said once. "I can run 10 miles, play 18 holes, and mow 2 acres of yard before noon."

At the time, he was 73 years old . . . and you weren't absolutely-for-sure-certain that he couldn't back that up, even with a plastic knee and two hands so gnarled and so horribly misshapen that they looked like they belonged on somebody else.

Chuck Bednarik was the pure essence of football. He played a violent game with a smoldering and undisguised lust for that very violence. He gloried in the swirling chaos, and even now, all those years later, the most famous picture in the history of professional football remains a grainy, ghostlike black and white photograph taken in Yankee Stadium on Nov. 20, 1960.

It shows Bednarik standing exultantly over the prone, unconscious form of Frank Gifford, the Giants' elegant, pretty-boy receiver who had dared to run a route over the middle, there in those hunting grounds patrolled by the predatorial Concrete Charlie. He used a forearm on Gif, but he might as well have used a baseball bat.

Gifford was de-cleated. Literally. His shoes hung from the tips of his toes. He didn't play the rest of that game or all of the following season. And almost until his death, Chuck Bednarik was signing copies of that photo, sent to him by fathers and grandfathers telling their offspring that, yes, there used to be a man who never came out of the game, really. Invariably, the autograph seekers would ask what he was saying over the prostrate Gifford, and Concrete Charlie would smile and reply:

"This [expletive] game is over!"

Of course, that act of unadulterated savagery endeared him even more to those fans of the Eagles with a carnivorous bent, as did his endgame heroics in the 1960 NFL championship game at Franklin Field, when a game and a title seemed to be slipping away from the Birds as the Green Bay Packers' Jim Taylor was running for the touchdown that would decide it.

But Concrete Charlie intercepted him and wrestled him to the ground and then sat on him, counting off the last seconds while a seething, helpless Taylor squirmed, without success, to get free.

"You can get up now, Jim," Concrete Charlie told his captive. "The game's over."

Maybe it could have been called a penalty, but one never was. Besides, surely the statute of limitations has run out by now, don't you think?

That cemented the legend of Concrete Charlie. And as for that nickname, it sprang from the typewriter of Frank Brown, of The Bulletin, who noted that Bednarik played like that ready-mix concrete he used to sell in the offseason, back in a time long before megamillion-dollar salaries.

Chuck Bednarik had been introduced to life, and death, at the tender age of 18. He was a machine gunner in World War II B-17 bombers. He flew 30 missions - and he saw friends shot down, heard the ping-ping-ping of antiaircraft flak, saw some parachutes open and some that didn't - and he survived all 30. And this is what he took away from it: "I started going to early Mass. Still do, every day. I've had a lot of miracles in my life."

Home from the war, he enrolled at Penn, absolutely dominated everyone, scared the liver out of most overmatched opponents who were cowed by his ferocity, was taken by the Iggles, and proceeded to play every position: center, middle linebacker, punt and kick coverage, and snapper.

"Now you tell me what was left," he demanded.

Concrete Charlie was a prideful man. He loved his nickname and he guarded it zealously. Decades after his playing days, his name was still showing up on assorted lists of the best players ever. On merit. The Maxwell Club identifies the best defensive collegiate player each year with an award in his name.

His post-career relationship with the Iggles was a tempestuous one: Concrete Charlie was bitter at times, outspoken early on, and thunderous where he thought he saw injustice, and never mind what the facts might be.
Eventually, a truce of sorts was reached.

"If you want to know what was on Charlie's mind," his wife, Emma, said, "you never have to ask. Sometimes you don't have to wait even 10 seconds."

Concrete Charlie had little use for the modern player. "Some plays, some of them don't even have contact," he would snort disdainfully, and yes, he resented the money, resented it and openly envied it.

"I'd play now," he said. "Yeah, I would. Make more for one game than a whole lifetime. Yeah, I could go in for one play. I could be on kick coverage. You know, just run down there and then run off and collect a check."

But he couldn't do that, Emma said, fondly. No, her Charlie would give in to temptation and hit somebody. It would be The Last Ride of Concrete Charlie, and it would be grand.

"It wouldn't," he agreed, "be a bad way to go out."


Bill Lyon is a retired Inquirer sports columnist.


Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/Concrete_Charlie_defined_the_legend.html#belPTfw3C5405jve.99