Archive for the ‘opinion/news’ Category

By John Ruberry

For many Netflix subscribers, their focus is on the next week’s release of the second part of the final season of The Crown. While I have enjoyed the series, the first batch of Season Six of The Crown was a huge disappointment for me.

A more enjoyable use of your time–75 minutes to be precise–can be found by watching Radical Wolfe, a documentary about the legendary writer Tom Wolfe, a pioneer of the New Journalism movement of the 1960s who later, and seamlessly, made the transition into fiction, penning one of the greatest novels ever, The Bonfire of the Vanities.

Radical Wolfe, which had a brief theatrical run this autumn, is directed by Richard Dewey. It is filled with interviews of Wolfe; Jon Hamm narrates passages from Wolfe’s work. The documentary is based on an Esquire article by Michael Lewis.

Gay Talese, Tom Junod, Christopher Buckley, and Lewis are among the writers interviewed for Radical Wolfe.

Buckley’s father, conservative firebrand William F. Buckley, says here. “Tom Wolfe is probably the most skillful writer in America. I mean by that is that he can do more things with words than anyone else.”

“If you want to be a writer,” Wolfe, who died in 2018 said of himself, “you’ve got to be standing in the middle of the tracks to see how fast the train goes.”

“Nobody is writing like Tom Wolfe today,” Junod says in Radical Wolfe. “And no one has written like Tom Wolfe.”

Wolfe is someone America needs now. Oh, to have seen him running loose among the hypocrites at COP28.

The title of the film comes from Wolfe’s 1970 essay for New York magazine, Radical Chic: That Party at Lenny’s, when Wolfe, after co-opting an invitation to a fundraiser for bail money for some Black Panthers held at Leonard Bernstein’s Park Avenue home, skewered the liberal virtue signaling culture, even before that term existed.

Oh yeah, phrases. Phrases!!! Besides “radical chic,” Wolfe coined the terms “the right stuff,” the title of his of his rollicking yet informative bestseller about the early days of the space program, and “masters of the universe,” the group that Sherman McCoy, the lead character in The Bonfire of the Vanities, placed himself in. 

Not mentioned in the documentary while Wolfe didn’t create the now-common phrase “pushing the envelope,” which is used repeatedly in The Right Stuff, he popularized it.

Wolfe began his career as a who-what-where when-why–journalist in the northeast. After convincing Esquire in the early 1960s to let him write an article about the California custom car culture, Wolfe suffered writer’s block. Which was the best thing, career-wise, that ever happened to the author. Eventually the floodgates opened, Wolfe brought sound effects to print journalism, shown in the title of that piece, There Goes (Varoom! Varoom!) That Kandy-Kolored (Thphhhhhh!) Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby (Rahghhh!) Around the Bend (Brummmmmmmmmmmmmmm)…

The repeated use of ellipses (…) and multiple exclamation points (!!!) are a trademark of Wolfe’s early work.

As with the fetid film version of The Bonfire of the Vanities, Radical Wolfe tiptoes around race. Wolfe was a master storyteller and, strictly in the storytelling sense, race presents a crucial ingredient for any narrative–conflict. The Reverend Bacon character in Bonfires, an Al Sharpton knockoff, is a comic foil. Fareek “The Cannon” Fanon, an African American college football star in Wolfe’s 1998 novel, A Man in Full, comes across as a boor when he confuses lead character Charlie Coker’s old moniker as a 60-Minute Man, not as a football starter on both defense and offense, but as a man who could, let’s say, “do it” in bed for 60 minutes.

Black people can be boors in Wolfe’s world. As can white people. As can everyone. That’s the way it ought to be. Because that’s the way society is.

In Wolfe’s takedown of ugly glass-box and faceless architecture, From Bauhaus to Our House, he gives a rundown of the horrors of public housing, and joyously recalls the response when tin-eared bureaucrats in St. Louis–after decades of failing the residents of the city’s housing projects–finally did the unthinkable. They asked the tenants of the notorious Pruitt-Igoe homes, most of them Black, what they wanted done to the buildings. Their response? They chanted, “Blow it up.”

And the bureaucrats did just that. Why isn’t this poignant story in Radical Wolfe?

Wolfe was always coy about his political stance. “I belong to the party of the opposition,” he says in the documentary. But I suspect he was a slightly conservative, with a strong libertarian bent.

Despite the quibbles I mentioned, I loved Radical Wolfe. Oh, one more thing. To capture the Varoom!!! Varoom!!! uniqueness of Wolfe’s genius, a surreal mashup, along the lines of the one in The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, would have been a welcome addition.

Last year, Netflix sent a message to its workers that not all of its programming–not these words of course–will kowtow to wokeism. Radical Wolfe is a big step in the right direction for the streaming service. Next year Netflix will stream a six-episode limited series based on Wolfe’s A Man in Full. It will star Jeff Daniels and Diane Lane.

Keep it up, Netflix.

But I have one more quibble. Radical Wolfe is rated TV-MA for–wait for it–language and smoking.

Really? TV-MA?

Yep.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

By John Ruberry

In an op-ed from last month that was credited to the Washington Post editorial board–ominously, it was published to mark Thanksgiving Day–readers are warned about the continuous ideological divide among young people. 

Ideological polarization is now a mainstay of American politics. Millions of young Americans went home this Thanksgiving and potentially found themselves in uncomfortable situations with relatives — especially uncles, apparently — who love former president Donald Trump, hate vaccination or think the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection had very fine people on both sides. 

Of course, the Washington Post doesn’t mention in that op-ed the many failed and unpopular leftist policies of the Joe Biden administration, such as reckless spending and an attack on fossil fuels that have caused the worst inflation rates in decades, open borders that have migrants sleeping in police stations and worse, an American-weakness approach to foreign affairs that has led to wars in Ukraine and Israel, and ramming anti-nature transgenderism down our throats.

Locally, our major cities are becoming unlivable because of rampant lawlessness caused by full-time criminals who are emboldened by catch-and-release Democratic so-called prosecutors. 

When, you are a liberal, you are never wrong. Never. Just ask a liberal about that.

More from that editorial:

The problem with polarization, though, is that it has effects well beyond the political realm, and these can be difficult to anticipate. One example is the collapse of American marriage. A growing number of young women are discovering that they can’t find suitable male partners. As a whole, men are increasingly struggling with, or suffering from, higher unemployment, lower rates of educational attainment, more drug addiction and deaths of despair, and generally less purpose and direction in their lives. But it’s not just that. There’s a growing ideological divide, too. Since Mr. Trump’s election in 2016, the percentage of single women ages 18-30 who identify as liberal has shot up from slightly over 20 percent to 32 percent. Young men have not followed suit. If anything, they have grown more conservative.

 However, that polarization is the fault of libs. Yes, I said it.

Look at what Axios, in a biased piece, said in 2021. The stats come from a Generation Lab/Axios poll:

Between the lines: Democrats argue that modern GOP positions, spearheaded by former President Trump — are far outside of the mainstream and polite conversation [bold print emphasis mine].

  • Some have expressed unyielding [again, my emphasis] positions on matters of identity — including abortion, LGBTQ rights and immigration — where they argue human rights, and not just policy differences, are at stake.

Women are more likely than men to take a strong partisan stance in their personal choices.

  • 41% of women would go on a date with someone who voted for the opposing candidate, compared to 67% of men.

A woman named Lyz, who has a Substack titled Men Yell at Me, doesn’t think the Post op-ed goes far-leftist enough. Her post has the headline “Liberal women should not marry Republican men.” Lyz used to be married to a conservative man. And her idea of “compromise” is that liberals–by now a theme will be apparent here–are always right. 

The use of the word “someone” here is particularly nefarious, because it’s not just “someone” being asked to compromise. It’s women. It’s women being chided for not partnering with men who do not agree that they should have the right to an abortion, equal pay, a living wage, and childcare for those inevitable children they ought to have. (Because, in case you missed it, there is a moral panic about women not having babies as well.) It’s women being asked to martyr themselves on the cross of heterosexual marriage in order to prop up the status quo.

I’m a conservative and many of my friends are. Not one of us doesn’t believe in “equal pay.” Some conservatives are pro-abortion–but almost no liberals are. I could go on, but for the sake of brevity I won’t. 

Returning to marriage: Successful relationships involve compromise. And that does not mean changing your political stances. What happened to, “We agree to disagree?”

Some liberals–maybe most–don’t get it.

“It’s my way or the highway,” leads to traffic jams filled with cars with no passengers.

Dan Bongino often says, “The problem is we as conservatives think liberals are people with bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people with ideas. There’s a big difference there.”

Indeed, there is.

John Ruberry, who has been happily married for nearly three decades, regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

By John Ruberry

In 1904, a Greek American, Ion Hanford Perdicaris, was kidnapped by Ahmed al-Raisuli, a Moroccan tribal leader. Theodore Roosevelt was president. And the official American response to Perdicaris being taken hostage was simple: “We want Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead.” There’s more. Roosevelt sent several companies of Marines and seven warships to Morocco. 

The end result was a compromise. Perdicaris was freed and the sultan of Morocco paid a ransom to Raisuni, but also $4,000 to the United States to cover the expenses of the incident.

Moving to the present, our current president, Joe Biden, hasn’t done much more than beg for the release of ten-or-so Americans held in Gaza by Hamas terrorists. 

Yeah, yeah, I know the rest of that narrative, which roughly is, “We’re working behind the scenes to secure the release of all American hostages,” or something like that. 

Begging is more accurate, I believe.

As of this writing, 58 hostages have been released by Hamas, but only one American, 4-year-old Abigail Mor Edan, whose parents were murdered by the terrorists. She was released this morning, as part of third round of hostage released–a fourth is expected on Monday—which is part of a temporary cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Israel in turn has released at least 100 Palestinian prisoners.

Obviously, most of the released hostages are Israelis, but ten Thai hostages are now free, as well as one Filipino and one Russian.

Thailand clearly gets more respect than America, although none of the hostages should have been taken.

Hostage-taking and purposeful killing of civilians are both war crimes–not that Hamas cares about that. 

Biden, who favors a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians–which would presumably include Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists–came across far less forceful than Teddy Roosevelt, when speaking of Abigail’s release.

“What she endured is unthinkable,” Biden said. “Thank God she’s home. I just can’t imagine the enjoyment. I wish I were there to hold her.” 

Eww.

Instead, Biden should say this: American hostages released or the Hamas leaders dead.

But Biden, even though he is clearly suffering from cognitive decline, apparently still has enough brain cells for now to realize he’s a tool of the growing hate-Israel wing within the Democrat Party.

Election Day in America is less than a year away.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Apparently there was a big fuss about North Andover flying the Palestinian Flag.

When I first heard about it my first thought was “oh brother here is the woke Democrat left in action.”

Then I actually read the story and it changed the picture for me.

Apparently the town (like Fitchburg) allows various flags to be flown if petitioned to do so. Earlier this month the flag of Israel was flown.

A group of Palestinian supporters petitioned to have their flag flown under the same rules. There was a rather contentions meeting over it and a lot of people were angry but in the end the request was lawful and the flag is flying now.

As a very public supporter of Israel actions in Gaza to destroy Hamas let’s cut to the chase.

This was not only the right decision but the smart decision.

It was the right decision because:

  • 1st Amendment rights are supposed to be allowed equally without playing favorites
  • the proper answer to speech someone opposes is more speech
  • the proper procedures and rules were followed
  • It is right because one should always support lawful methods of public expression
  • It is right because it supports the rule of law applied equally
  • The flag in question was not one of a recognized terrorist group.
  • It’s an important lesson in citizenship and civics, particularly for the young and new arrivals
  • It is just

And it is smart because

  • You should always support peaceful forms of expression of ideas
  • You can’t demand enforcement of laws against violent expression when you don’t apply them for peaceful one
  • People who are able to vent peacefully are less likely to cross a line later
  • You can’t expect people to respect your rights if you don’t respect theirs
  • If you don’t defend those rights when in power you won’t have them when you’re not
  • if you’re opinion is worth anything it should be able to stand up to the other guys opinion being expressed
  • the right thing is always the smart thing

I can certainly understand why some would object, frankly my own 1st instinct was against it but either you’re for the rule of law or you are not and this is lawful application of the 1st Amendment.

Now if the city wants to change their rules on flags (consistent with our constitution of course) that’s up to them but the law need to be respected and enforced and the rights of citizens under that law MUST be respected.

Otherwise what’s the point of being American?

Update: A lot of people who generally agree with me disagree on this one but let me make one important point:

The Biden admin and the FBI not withstanding there actually isn’t a “I think those guys are a******s” exception to either the 1st amendment or the principle of equal application of the law.