Archive for 2015

MARK STEYN REVIEWS DEATH WISH, a 1974 period piece that Bill de Blasio is doing his best to make timely once again:

The Police Commissioner in the movie and the critics who reviewed it both called Bronson a “vigilante”. But, in fact, Winner is scrupulous about showing Bronson only shooting those who first threaten him. To be sure, he sort of goes looking for trouble. But in 1970s New York you didn’t have to look far: just go to the park, ride the subway, take an evening stroll. If some punk tried to do in my corner of New Hampshire what was done to Bronson’s family in Manhattan, they’d risk getting blown away. Because that risk is widely known, few such home invasions occur in his state. But what the NYPD calls vigilante justice in Death Wish most guys up here and in many other parts of the country would call self-defense. That’s why audiences cheered when the film was shown around America. The other iconic shooter of the era, Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry, was the proverbial maverick cop, but Bronson’s Paul Kersey is a much more resonant American archetype – the private citizen who acts in his own defense.

Would the film have been as effective with someone else as Kersey? Burt Reynolds? Ryan O’Neal? No. That’s where Bronson’s leathery weathered visage and those squinting eyes came into their own. You didn’t need to know the specifics – World War Two tailgunner, one of 15 kids of a Lithuanian coal-miner. You could see it in the crevices and grooves: Bronson was one of the last movie stars to project a sense of experience beyond cinema. Who does so now? Pretty boys like Tom Cruise? Strictly celluloid bad guys like Christopher Walken? Yet it’s Bronson who makes you see the whole point of movies: it’s a face made for close up. I don’t know what he was like as a fledgling stage actor in Philadelphia in 1947, but I can’t believe it had the power of the big screen. He’s a classic movie tough guy – an economic actor, taciturn and stoic; he exudes male strength rather than displays it.

Actually, Brian Garfield, who wrote the novel that inspired Bronson’s film once said on its Amazon page (this was in the late 1990s, if I’m remembering correctly) that he wanted Jack Lemmon to play the pious liberal architect turned urban “vigilante,” which would have been quite a shocking turn indeed. (On the Death Wish Amazon page, Garfield wrote something along the lines of “Would you want to mess with Charles Bronson??”) But then, in Bronson’s case, this wouldn’t the first time that a somewhat miscast actor became a superstar via the right role at the right time, as I noted in my own lengthy review of Death Wish from July of 2013, shortly before de Blasio became a household name. Here’s how my article concluded:

As Kyle Smith wrote this month, today he and fellow New Yorkers “grouse about soda bans and Citi Bikes. Twenty years ago, we worried about being mugged or murdered. Electing a Democrat who demonizes the police would ignore the luxury provided by two decades of safety.”

Who knows — the residents of Manhattan in the post-Bloomberg-era might well be saying to themselves, “Mister, we could use a man like Paul Kersey again.”

But then, the handwriting had long been sprayed upon the wall that many of Paul Kersey’s fellow New York liberal intellectuals harbored a death wish of their own.

WHEN CANDICE BERGEN ADMITTED DAN QUAYLE WAS RIGHT:

The takeaway here is that there is simply no substitute for the intact traditional family. Meaning, when children are removed from the protection of an intact traditional family, the chances of bad things happening to them, of being mistreated and abused in whatever situation they find themselves placed in, go way, way up.

I remember back in the day when then-VP Dan Quayle was pilloried by the liberal intelligentsia for daring to suggest that single motherhood was a bad idea ought not to be encouraged. I remember how they all screamed and jabbered like howler monkeys in their hatred and ridicule of him.

But then the liberal Atlantic magazine acknowledged that no, actually, Quayle was right.

The Washington Post agreed.

The TV actress Candice “Murphy Brown” Bergen stood aside and watched her liberal friends punch and kick Quayle around, but then 10 years later, after all the hubbub was safely in the past, admitted he was right.

At least she will never be accused of being courageous.

Rebelling against her conservative parents (radio legend Edgar Bergen his successful actress wife Frances), Bergen’s career versus her personal life was a classic case of “Talk Sixties, Act Fifties,” as Kathy Shaidle described the characters in Ang Lee’s film The Ice Storm. Her reluctance to publicly agree that Quayle was right was similarly a textbook example of the phrase that Charles Murray coined for his 2012 book Coming Apart: wealthy bourgeois leftists such as Bergen (who conceived her only child after marrying French film director Louis Malle and a few years before shooting Murphy Brown) cannot preach what they practice.

GOODBYE, TWISTED PAIR: FCC Sets Rules for Copper Phase Out. “Critics have charged that phone companies are allowing their old copper networks to decay to force customers to shift to fiber service. But some 37 million households—many of them headed by elderly people—remain on legacy copper, commissioner Mignon Clyburn noted at the hearing. Other holdouts live in rural areas that lack cellular and broadband service. Some prefer copper connections because they are independent of local power lines, and offer better 911 emergency service.”

Yes.

DONALD TRUMP: The New Ron Paul?

Donald Trump’s appeal seems to be largely that he will say any old thing that pops into his head. And for a sizable segment of the population, which is sick of being shushed by their self-appointed betters in the coastal corridors, that’s refreshing. Every time the chattering classes go into paroxysms about Trump’s latest outburst, that merely heightens his appeal, in the same way the chattering classes sometimes enjoy not-so-appealing foodstuffs precisely because the folks back in Peoria would hate it. Ultimately, however, this is a bad reason to elect someone president — sort of like marrying a deadbeat alcoholic with commitment issues because your ex-wife hates her.

And when we move beyond two people making a disastrous mistake, and try to get 100 million or so other people to jump on board, it’s not merely unwise, but impossible. As Joe Scarborough remarked during the last round of oversubscribed GOP primaries, “The Republican Party does not nominate crazy.” They may flirt with crazy. But when it’s time to settle down, they pick the boring, middle-of-the-road candidate that they can bring home to the folks in Peoria … and Atlanta … and Cleveland … and Portsmouth. So do the Democrats. Because ultimately, they want their guy in the Oval Office more than they want an authentic, election-losing alternative to the status quo.

I’m not sure this analogy quite works.

HIGHER EDUCATION HAS BEEN — QUITE DELIBERATELY — TURNED INTO A HOSTILE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT FOR MEN: Judge upholds accused student’s gender-bias claim.

A Virginia judge will allow a formerly accused Washington and Lee University student to continue with his lawsuit alleging gender bias against the university.

Judge Norman K. Moon denied W&L’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing John Doe — as he is referred to in the claim — to continue to seek damages resulting from his expulsion from the university. John believes he was wrongly accused of sexual misconduct, and Moon appears to agree.

On Feb. 8, 2014, John and his eventual accuser, Jane Doe, met at an off-campus party. The two danced, talked and kissed.

The two eventually went back to John’s residence and talked for awhile. Jane then walked over to John and allegedly told him, “I usually don’t have sex with someone I meet on the first night, but you are a really interesting guy.” Jane then began kissing John and the two had sex.

The next morning, John drove Jane home and the two exchanged cellphone numbers. Shortly after the encounter, the two became friends on Facebook. The two exchanged friendly messages.

During the summer of 2014, Jane worked at a women’s clinic that handled sexual assault issues. After speaking to people there about her encounter with John, she began reclassifying the encounter as sexual assault.

Uh huh.

CHRISTOPHER NUTTALL, whom you may remember as the author of the Ark Royal books, etc., also has a blog. Here are some thoughts on David Cameron and Islamic Extremism:

Like so many other politicians, Cameron is infected with the virus of political correctness, a virus that weakens the host to the point where resistance against dangerous threats becomes impossible. This may seem absurd, but consider; if the mere act of identifying a threat is considered evil, how then is resistance to be organised? This is, of course, the precise reason why 1984 was (and remains) such an important novel. The newspeak of political correctness is just as dangerous as the cruder form practiced by Big Brother.

Cameron is correct, to be fair, that Islamic extremism is a deadly threat. It is a ruthless force that is just as dangerous to Muslims as it is to everyone else. Nor is there any denying the strange appeal of extremism to young men and women, even though the men will be used as cannon fodder and the women forced to breed the next generation of extremists. Nor, finally, is there any denying the spread of conspiracy theories through the Middle East and the Muslim Diaspora, an inevitable result of governments that – whatever veneer they wear – are blatantly hypocritical. Many of Cameron’s observations on why this extremism spreads are quite accurate. Far too many young Muslims in Britain – and non-Muslims too – simply feel no attachment to British society.

But this is caused by a simple failure to defend British society.

When you have a ruling class that doesn’t much like the country it rules, this is what happens.

JOEL KOTKIN: More Local Decisions Usurped by Ideological Regulators. “Nothing is more basic to the American identity than leaving basic control of daily life to local communities and, as much as is practical, to individuals. The rising new regulatory regime seeks decisively to change that equation. To be sure, there is a need for some degree of regulation, notably for basic health and public safety, as well as maintaining and expanding s