Director Jonathan Glazer was warmly received when he delivered a repulsive and ignorant acceptance speech at the Oscars on March 10 after his Holocaust film “The Zone of Interest” won the best international film award. With producer James Wilson and financier Len Blavatnik standing with him, Glazer said: “All our choices were made to reflect and confront us in the present, not to say look what they did then, but rather look what we do now. Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst. It’s shaped all of our past and present. Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October — whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza, all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?”

Despite the positive reaction this fatuous virtue-signaling outburst attracted from the Hollywood glitterati, more than 450 Jewish artists and executives signed an open letter denouncing the speech. The group’s statement says: “We refute our Jewishness being hijacked for the purpose of drawing a moral equivalence between a Nazi regime that sought to exterminate a race of people, and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own extermination.”

Continue reading →

Guess which one. Three tries, and the first two don’t count.

Yes, it’s journalism of course. I hate to keep harping on this, but until I stop seeing, reading and hearing corrupted individuals who were once fair and honest insisting that there is no mainstream media bias (or telling me that they get their news from MSNBC), attention must be paid. This year is already an orgy of disgraceful, slanted reporting employing flaming double standards, and it is sure to get much, much worse.

Here is a column in the Columbia Journalism Review, a publication of perhaps our most respected journalism school (though not by me). The author is Jon Alsop, who writes for the New York Review of Books, Foreign Policy, and The Nation (a red flag there, and by “red” I mean “Marxist”) , among other outlets, and he authors CJR’s newsletter “The Media Today.” It is an unapologetic argument for reporters to deliberately report on Donald Trump negatively and with the explicit purpose of undermining his image and support.

The pretense for this smoking gun is the latest example of intentional Trump-smearing, the Big Lie that Trump called for a literal “bloodbath” if he loses the election.

Some, Alsop writes, “claimed that the media was taking the ‘bloodbath’ comment out of context: it came during a section of Trump’s speech about the state of the US auto industry, and was clearly meant, these people said, in an economic sense.” “Claimed”? It was taken out of context and deliberately distorted. Later in the piece, Alsop even concedes “on balance, that he was using the word in an economic sense.” So why does Alsop excuse and offer support those who “countered that it was fair to highlight the remark, arguing, variously, that Trump doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt given his long history of violent rhetoric, that it’s not at all clear that he was only referring to the auto industry, and that even if he was, his use of the word ‘bloodbath’ was still hyperbolic to the point of demagoguery”? Alsop thinks this is a dilemma, you see: it’s ” the latest installment in the debate (which we’ve covered often here at CJR) as to how the media ought to handle [Trump’s] rhetoric, given its frequent violence and dishonesty.”

Continue reading →

I read  “How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation/Their claims of censorship have successfully stymied the effort to filter election lies online” in the New York Times this morning and was properly disgusted with the Times’ lockstep endorsement of Big Tech (and thus federal government) censorship of “disinformation and “misinformation,” cover words progressives use to describe opinions and framing of facts that undermine the Axis’s official narratives or that threaten their policy agendas. I was not, however, surprised. How could anyone be surprised? The Times censored the Hunter Biden laptop story. The Times embargoed the rape accusation against Joe Biden. The Times hyped the Wuhan virus threat with extraordinary misrepresentations and fearmongering while applauding social media efforts to suppress dissenting views that turned out to be correct. The Times took down an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton because its woke staff found his position offensive There are so many more examples that it would be pointless (and boring) to list them.

Continue reading →

Yes, it’s come to this. Spending almost all of my time with my very confused dog when I’m not sifting through records, emails and bills, fielding kind calls from old friends, worrying myself sick and feeling guilty and lost, I’ve been looking for sources of hope and inspiration in history, culture and entertainment. (Teddy Roosevelt’s wife and mother died on the same night, in the same house.) When one gets down all the way to “Annie,” things are clearly getting desperate.

That clip above of Andrea McArdle at the Tonys is the start of a playlist that shows the actress singing her signature song 34 times from 1977 to 2022. If you skip to the last one, you’ll discover that she sounds remarkably the same. I once staged that song in a revue: on opening night, the dog playing Sandy, a Malamute- Airedale cross named “String,” barked twice at the end of the song, exactly on cue. She had never done it before, and never did it again, but boy, the audience went nuts.

1. Here’s something positive, sort of: The Great Stupid is clearly worse in great Britain than here so far. The Fitzwilliam Museum, owned by the University of Cambridge, decided that as part of its overhaul of its exhibitions to make them more “inclusive,” it needed to slap a sign by a classic British countryside painting noting that such artwork can stir feelings of “pride towards a homeland” but that “landscape paintings were also always entangled with national identity…The countryside was seen as a direct link to the past, and therefore a true reflection of the essence of a nation.” This, however, makes such art problematical: “The darker side of evoking this nationalist feeling is the implication that only those with a historical tie to the land have a right to belong.” In another part of the collection, visitors were told that portraits of wealthy and uniformed personages “became vital tools in reinforcing the social order of a white ruling class, leaving very little room for representations of people of color, the working classes or other marginalized people.” Such portraits, the museum insists, “were often entangled, in complex ways, with British imperialism and the institution of transatlantic slavery.”

Continue reading →

Eventually I’ll have to stop paying attention to these, I suppose. There are so many of them, they are intensifying and getting worse, and they represent such insulting gaslighting, dishonesty and “it isn’t what it is” propaganda that these does of brain poison wouldn’t be worth condemning if there weren’t so many gullible, easily manipulated citizens lacking critical thinking skills, adequate civic education, and yes, ethics alarms.

Last week I have sensed an uptick in the desperation from the Axis of Unethical Conduct (you know: “the resistance,” Democrats and the mainstream media) as its dream of using the politicized legal system to defeat Donald Trump seems to be fading on all fronts. I found Michael Tomasky’s typical screed in the New Republic refreshingly transparent on that score:
We Have to Beat Donald Trump. Clearly, the Broken Legal System Won’t. To people like Tomasky, the legal system is broken because the Left can’t just declare Trump an enemy of the state, lock him up or at least ban him from running without bothering with little details like evidence, non-partisan, independent prosecutors, and due process.

Continue reading →