Monday, July 21, 2014
If you're in the L.A. area this Tuesday night, I'll be introducing Daniel Hannan, the author of Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World. Check out the event details here...
at 12:18 PM
I’m not a hunter, but I’m tempted to become one just to stand in solidarity with people – young women especially – who have recently become the targets themselves of vile anti-hunting hysteria.
First, a 19-year-old Texas Tech cheerleader named Kendall Jones roused a firestorm of social media anger after posting on Facebook pics of her posed with her legally acquired big game trophies. After taking heat from accusations of animal cruelty, Jones replied, “The rhino was a green hunt, meaning it was darted and immobilized in order to draw blood for testing, DNA profiling, microchipping the horn and treating a massive leg injury most likely caused by lions.” A lion she brought down with a bow (!) was within a game reserve: “Controlling the male lion population is important within large fenced areas like these in order to make sure the cubs have a high survival rate.”
As for the leopard pic, “this was a free ranging leopard in Zimbabwe on communal land,” Jones wrote. “The money for the permit goes to the communal council and to their village people... Leopard populations have to be controlled in certain areas. So yes, my efforts do go to conservation efforts and are all fair chase, not canned hunts.”
She also explained that meat from some hunts feeds local villagers:
And for all that want to say stuff about hunting is for food all the other animals go to the local villagers that are just trying to get meat! These people only get meat when an animal is shot, they aren’t privileged enough to go to the local grocery store and pay $20 for some steaks! And another thing is that this elephant’s trunk had been caught in a snare put out by poachers!
Nevertheless, predictable internet outrage continued. Facebook removed the pics after tens of thousands of complaints. She was verbally assaulted on social media. One lunatic who fancies himself a future Congressman (I won’t mention his name because he’s a pathetic attention hound) even claimed that “she deserves to be a target” and offered $100,000 for nude photos of Jones or other salacious information. “Does #KendallJones use vegetables as sex toys?” he tweeted. “Does she enjoy being spanked? We want to know.”
Next, a 17-year-old Belgian soccer fan named Axelle Despiegelaere, who actually scored a modeling gig with L’Oreal after becoming the focus of World Cup attention, immediately lost that gig when her hunting photos showed up on Facebook. Again the social media hatred flew, and she was labeled “evil” and a “serial killer.” After the teen appeared in a promo video which has since been removed from the company’s website, L’Oreal claimed that her “contract has now been completed” and she will no longer be representing the company. Then it felt compelled to pacify animal activists further by reminding them that L’Oreal “no longer tests on animals, anywhere in the world.”
I hope Despiegelaere gets picked up for another contract elsewhere. If a modeling company and its customers are so concerned about politically correct objections to the disgusting habits of their representatives, perhaps they should demand that their models stop smoking (insert record scratch). Watch how fast that shuts down the entire fashion industry.
The hysteria reached, well, hysterical proportions when an old photo surfaced on Facebook of a grinning Steven Spielberg posed in front of an apparently freshly killed triceratops – from the set of Jurassic Park. That attracted anti-hunting ire as well. One Facebooker ranted (language warning):
He’s a disgusting inhumane prick Id love to see these hunters be stopped…I think zoos are the best way to keep these innocent animals safe…assholes like this piece of s**t are going into these beautiful animals HOME and killing them…its no different than someone coming into your home and murdering you … . Steven Spielberg I’m disappointed in you…I’m not watching any of your movies again ANIMAL KILLER
Recently I took my young daughter to Los Angeles’ Natural History Museum, which has an extensive and dramatic collection of dinosaur relics. She isn’t familiar with Spielberg, but she loves triceratops, and even at four years old she knows that they’re long extinct.
(This article originally appeared here on Acculturated, 7/14/14)
at 1:33 AM
Monday, July 14, 2014
When Gwyneth Paltrow, the celebrity-everyone-loves-to-hate, announced in March that she and Coldplay front man Chris Martin were making a “conscious uncoupling” – that’s “divorce” to us mere mortals – it seemed to take celebrity pretention to a whole new level. Now singer Jewel has coined another unique euphemism as she and longtime partner Ty Murray announced their own “tender undoing.”
Acculturated’s Ryan Duffy initially applauded Paltrow and Martin for doing “the mature thing,” “recognizing the limitations to lifelong coupling,” and getting out before the “misery kicked in.” Acculturated’s Ashley E. McGuire rebutted with a fierce denunciation of the couple’s “new age ridiculousness,” asserting that “’lifelong coupling’ is not antiquated” and divorce is nothing to take lightly.
It certainly isn’t. It’s tempting to guffaw at the pomposity of celebs who use phrases like “tender undoing,” but divorce by any other name is still emotionally brutal – not to mention financially, physically, and every other way – and it’s sad when it happens to anyone, celebrities or otherwise. Even when you know that it is necessary and the right choice to make, divorce is wrenching and wounding, and can feel like an epic personal failure. If children are involved, that makes it exponentially more damaging and painful, particularly for the kids.
In all fairness, at least Jewel, unlike Paltrow, didn’t shy away from using the “d” word in her statement, correctly describing divorce as an “enormous and heartbreaking step.” She and her professional rodeo star husband had been together sixteen years, almost six of them married. That’s a lot of history together to tenderly undo. And they have a three-year-old son, Kase (Paltrow and Martin have two daughters). Yes, Jewel promised that “our dedication to our son is unwavering and we are both committed to being the best partners in raising our son,” but that simply won’t be the same parenting experience for Kase as having a mommy and daddy together at home in the security of a committed relationship.
The reason for the divorce? As Jewel explains it,
The very thing that Ty and I sought in coming together is the very thing we seek in separating. We both value growth. And growth became tragically and undeniably stifled as a couple, and we believe we can find it again in setting each other free. We truly believe we can find greater happiness apart than together, and this is why we are taking the enormous and heartbreaking step of divorce.
Now, I don’t want to judge her unfairly. We don’t know what may be going on behind the scenes of Jewel’s breakup. We have to take at face value her statement, which may not be entirely truthful (I don’t mean that as a criticism; she can and should be only as open about her marriage difficulties as she chooses; unlike what the paparazzi may argue, the public doesn’t have any right to know those private details).
With the caveat then that I may be misreading Jewel, I must say I have trouble with her explanation. Divorce is an enormous step but so is marriage, so if your number one priority in life is personal “growth,” depending on how you define that, you may need an adjustment of values in order for your marriage to work.
Everyone goes into a marriage expecting it to last forever, even in the entertainment biz, which is notoriously ruthless on relationships. And yet too many people today seem to consider marriage just another phase in their personal evolution, just another life lesson, and if and when they feel their “growth” is being stifled or isn’t sufficiently self-centered, they reach too quickly for the divorce option and move on.
I’m not talking about couples struggling with serious issues like infidelity or domestic violence, which can be insuperable, or situations in which miserable partners can find no way forward; I’m referring to people whose rather New Age-y expectations of self-fulfillment don’t align with the synergistic orientation of marriage.
Marriage is personal growth, but it must occur within the sphere of that union. You have mystically become one, and though you may have different careers, the two of you now must grow together, not as the separate individuals you were before. And once your union produces children, they come first. Don’t worry, though: parenting will provide you with a freakin’ metric ton of personal growth – perhaps not the kind you had planned, but it will surpass anything you ever expected.
(This article originally appeared here on Acculturated, 7/11/14)
Last March, Mark Wahlberg was voted the first recipient of Acculturated’s “,” stemming from my earlier article about his decision, at the age of 41, to return to school for his high school diploma. I’ve written also praising Wahlberg for his very vocal appreciation for our military. Now, at the risk of becoming Acculturated’s resident Mark Wahlberg fanboy, here I am again, praising the very busy actor/producer for steering himself out of juvenile delinquency to become one of Hollywood’s most upstanding, prominent role models.
In his working-class youth in Boston, Wahlberg was essentially a petty thug: on drugs at thirteen, constantly in trouble with the law, a high-school dropout, convicted of assault. He makes no excuses for that troubled start: “I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life and I’ve done bad things,” he once said. “But I never blamed my upbringing for that. I never behaved like a victim so that I would have a convenient reason for victimizing others. Everything I did wrong was my own fault. I was taught the difference between right and wrong at an early age. I take full responsibility.”
His short jail time for assault (45 days of a two-year sentence) was enough to scare him straight: “I said to myself, no matter what I was going to do, I was gonna make an honest living. I was gonna do something that I could be proud of and I could make my parents proud.”
In a recent CBS News interview to promote Wahlberg’s new Transformers flick, the interviewer points out that Esquire described him as having the driven work ethic of “a man with a dark past who was granted a second chance.” Wahlberg responded simply, “This is America”:
Once I got a second chance, I was never gonna do anything to mess it up. And I feel so fortunate to do what I do. It’s only right that I give it my all and I respect what I do and the people that I work with. I’m gonna deliver for them. People are taking chances on me. I make sure that I deliver.
The Esquire profile to which the interviewer referred is “Mark Wahlberg: The Modern Fatherhood of a Street Kid” in the June/July 2014 issue, which highlights the married, 43-year-old actor’s work ethic and his very hands-on relationship with his two boys and two girls, aged four to ten. Of fatherhood, he says:
I think the most important thing is to always be involved in every aspect of their life. To give them enough trust that they can share things with you. I don’t want them to be terrified of me, you know? But I don’t want them to think they can do whatever they want and get away with it, either, because they can’t.
As a father of daughters, I appreciate his honesty and sense of humor about raising girls. In the CBS interview, the interviewer noted that in Transformers: Age of Extinction, Wahlberg plays a dad trying to save his daughter: “You’re a pretty protective dad in real life –”
“Worse. Far worse. I don’t plan on ever letting my daughters date,” Wahlberg half-joked. “I’m going to try to do everything I can to prevent it. You know, it just terrifies me. It just terrifies me. I know what guys are like – what I was like until I became the father of a daughter.”
Considering his rough beginnings, Wahlberg, who attends Catholic mass every morning and takes the family on Sundays, is now concerned about the impact his massive success will have on his own kids:
The biggest thing for me is, you know, as quickly as I was able to turn it around, to get from there to here, from me having nothing as a kid to me here now, providing everything for my kids, it’s like, I worry that maybe they won’t appreciate things. I worry that maybe they’ll have a sense of entitlement. You don’t wanna give your kids everything without giving them the tools to be great people.
(This article originally appeared here on Acculturated, 7/10/14)
Sunday, July 6, 2014
James Franco can’t catch a break. Despite his acting accolades, the would-be Renaissance man is often dismissed as more of a hipster dilettante, stumbling at everything he attempts outside of acting. The New York Times excoriated him for his “excruciatingly sophomoric poems,” “entitled narcissism,” and “confused desperation” in pursuit of the visual arts. Acculturated’s own RJ Moeller skewered him as a morally suspect pseudo-intellectual. But I’m going to stick up for him for another reason.
Franco left college at 18 and launched a successful acting career. But eight years later in 2006, weary of that narrow (for him) focus, he enrolled in the English department at UCLA. “When I went back,” Franco explained in a recent interview with Forbes about the role of education in his life, “I was there strictly to learn, and not just to get skills to find employment. Being there to learn what I wanted to learn made all the difference. I focused solely on classes that interested me.” And he was interested in a great deal; he piled on 62 units of classes (most students take a maximum of 24).
An advisor recalls that Franco’s “was truly just a thirst for knowledge, a sense that ‘I've waited this long, I'm going to take advantage of everything, I don't want to miss anything.’” He studied the philosophy of science, American literature, American Holocaust literature, French and more. “I love school, Franco has said. “I go to school because I love being around people who are interested in what I’m interested in and I’m having a great experience… I’m studying things that I love so it’s not like it’s a chore.”
As reported in The Guardian, Franco continued acting while studying, reading Shakespeare, Milton and Chaucer on the set of Spider-Man 3, 16th-century Jacobean drama during the filming of Pineapple Express, and the novels of Thomas Pynchon while filming Milk. Franco points out that there is a lot of down-time on-set, and he prefers to fill that time reading. “He’s a very education-minded person,” says director Judd Apatow, who has worked with him on numerous projects. “We used to laugh because in between takes he'd be reading The Iliad on set... With him, it was always James Joyce or something.”
He received his undergraduate degree in 2008 with a GPA above 3.5. “After that,” Franco told Forbes, “I went on to graduate school in writing, art, filmmaking, and English lit. I’ve had tons of incredible professors along the way. I want to now give some of that knowledge back to others.”
I get this. I understand that thirst for knowledge and the compulsion to share it. I too dove into college late; when I was 18 I wasn’t ready or especially interested, but by the time I did go back to school years later, I was chafing at the bit. It unleashed in me an obsession with a wide range of interests like Franco’s in culture and the arts. I double-majored in English and the Humanities, absorbing as much as I could as fast as I could. And from my very first semester back, I knew I wanted to teach.
Considering the false notes he seems to be hitting while dabbling in the visual arts, maybe Franco should consider being a teacher himself, in between acting gigs. He actually already is one, to some extent: he teaches university screenwriting courses at UCLA, USC and Cal Arts, and acting classes at Studio 4. Perhaps he should focus on that. I suspect he will be more successful at it, and it will be more meaningful to him, than indulging in failed artsy projects.
Whatever complaints his critics may have, and whatever his personal faults may be (like his habit of posting semi-nude Instagram selfies), I admire James Franco’s wide-ranging curiosity, his passion for learning, and his urge to share that intellectual excitement. They’re the qualities of a born teacher. And as a celebrity, he is in an influential position to inspire young fans and steer them toward an appreciation of literature and the arts. Franco said he’d had many “incredible professors” along the way; if he got serious about sharing his love of learning, perhaps one day students could say the same of him.
(This article originally appeared here on Acculturated, 7/3/14)
The Hubble Space Telescope captured an incredible image recently, “the most comprehensive picture ever assembled of the evolving Universe — and one of the most colorful,” as the Hubble website puts it. Curiously, the clearer a view science gives us of the night sky, the clearer it seems that our universe resembles a vision in Vincent Van Gogh’s disturbed but visionary head; the Hubble photo is startlingly similar to the painter’s famed “Starry Night,” in which the moon and stars blaze and swirl in colorful energy above a sleepy town. It’s a case of reality imitating art.
The Wide Field Camera of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field project, as it is called, employing a range of colors stretching all the way from ultraviolet to near-infrared light, enabled astronomers to observe and photograph which galaxies are forming stars and where those stars are. “The resulting image, made from 841 orbits of telescope viewing time, contains approximately 10,000 galaxies, extending back to within a few hundred million years of the Big Bang.” This is a photo that takes us out of our microcosm of obsessive selfies and toward infinity. If that doesn’t give one some humble perspective, I’m not sure what will.
I personally find it impossible to look at the photo and not be overwhelmed with awe by this vision of unfathomable beauty and mystery. Some commenters at the Huffington Post article about the photo, however, were disappointingly unappreciative; they simply could see no further than their own negative biases. “Wow, 10,000 galaxies and not one sign of a god anywhere,” wrote one. Seriously? I think it takes a sad and narrow mind to look at this photo of 10,000 galaxies, “apparelled in celestial light,” as Wordsworth put it, and not see God everywhere in it.
Other commenters sneered that the photo only proves that the universe is so vast that no god could possibly manage it all: “He can't micromanage and macromanage the vastness,” said one. This attitude is echoed in pop science icon Carl Sagan’s view that the God of Western theology is “too small,” “a god of a tiny world and not a god of a galaxy, much less of a universe.” With all due respect to Sagan’s infectious, passionate curiosity, I think that such an attitude says much more about our finite human perspective than about any limitations of divinity.
“Starry, starry night/Flaming flowers that brightly blaze/Swirling clouds in violet haze,” sang Don McLean in “Vincent,” his melancholy 1976 ode to Van Gogh and his most famous work. The painting always reminds me of a mescaline-induced insight recorded in Brave New World writer Aldous Huxley’s book The Doors of Perception, the title taken from “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell” by William Blake, another visionary: “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.”
Believing that the drug might expand that narrow chink, Huxley undertook an eight-hour, carefully monitored experiment in which he witnessed “the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence.” Among his other observations, it occurred to Huxley that “precious stones are precious because they bear a faint resemblance to the glowing marvels seen with the inner eye of the visionary.”
Glowing marvels seen with the inner eye of the visionary – what a perfect description of “Starry Night.” Now, those same glowing marvels are seen through the far-reaching eye of the scientist. Two doors of perception, one glimpse of the infinite.
(This article originally appeared here on Acculturated, 7/1/14)
The representatives of famed playwright David Mamet moved swiftly to shut down a production of his drama Oleanna recently after only one performance. Why? Because the company kept secret, until the curtain rose, its decision to cast a male actor in the lead female role.
The 1992 play Oleanna centers on the violent tension between a professor and a female student who accuses him of sexual harassment, echoing the controversy a year earlier in which Anita Hill charged Supreme Court then-nominee Clarence Thomas with the same. The Alchemist Theatre in Milwaukee acquired the right to produce the play and proceeded to cast actor Ben Parman in the role of Carol, the student. They changed none of Mamet’s words; Parmen played the role as a male but was still referred to as “Carol.”
Mamet’s reps also nixed this, sending a cease-and-desist letter the day reviews of the show appeared. Blogger Ann Althouse points out that the play “is about the relationship between a male and a female. It’s specifically all about the male teacher/female student relationship. If it’s about 2 men, it’s a different story.” Not only that, but Alchemist must have known that the playwright wouldn’t approve – hence its secretiveness. Pundit from Another Planet blogged that concealing the casting choice also hinted at “an attention-seeking stunt,” which is very likely.
The theatre responded with a statement that read, in part, “We auditioned for this show looking for the best talent, not looking for a gender.” That’s disingenuous; the very fact that they auditioned Parman (and probably other males) for the role of Carol demonstrates that their gender experimentation was intentional. The statement continued:
When Ben Parman auditioned we saw the reality that this relationship, which is more about power, is not gender-specific but gender-neutral.
We stayed true to each of David Mamet’s powerful words and did not change the character of Carol but allowed the reality of gender and relationship fluidity to add to the impact of the story.
“Gender elasticity is the preoccupation of our time,” wrote Pundit from Another Planet. This is a sad commentary on a culture gone astray, because gender is “elastic” or “fluid” only in those with a narcissistic obsession with sexual identity.
Mamet is notoriously protective of his work and has dealt with similar casting attempts in his plays before. In 1999, his people shut down an all-female production in New York of his Goldberg Street, explaining that “David Mamet does not permit any gender changes.” In response, Thomas J. Brady objected in the Philadelphia Inquirer that “Gender-bending is nothing new in drama. Plays in ancient Greece were usually staged with men playing female roles. Shakespearean characters of both sexes were traditionally played by men or young boys.”
That’s different from the Alchemist situation. In those eras men were playing female roles costumed as women, and the audiences understood and accepted that those characters were to be viewed as female.
The difference in the Alchemist production is that Ben Parman was a male costumed as a male in a female role, playing either transgendered or no-gendered or any-and-all-gendered, it’s unclear which. The production’s director wrote that “On any given day, in any given act, Carol might identify as female or male or both or neither.” In any given act? So throughout the course of the play “Carol” is exhibiting multiple personalities?
Once a director makes that choice, the audience’s entire focus of the play, act by act, even moment by moment, shifts from the dramatic relationship of the two characters onstage and becomes instead: “Who or what is Carol, and why?” That element doesn’t “add to the impact of the story,” as the Alchemist owners put it; it dominates the story. This confusion may suit the misguided gender-erasing agenda of the production company, but anything that jars the audience out of their suspended disbelief, out of the tale itself, is detrimental to the story, and audiences deserve better than that.
(This article originally appeared here on Acculturated, 6/30/14)
at 7:47 PM
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Sandwiched last week between another of Justin Beiber’s car accidents and another of Shia LaBoeuf’s public meltdowns, it’s a pleasure to find a celebrity behaving with class and kindness, serving as a positive role model instead of a cautionary example.
Boarding a flight Friday from Detroit to Los Angeles where she is shooting a new movie, actress Amy Adams noticed an American soldier being seated in coach, and decided to do something that she later told someone she’d always wanted to do.
Jemele Hill, a fellow first class passenger, witnessed Adams quietly requesting of the airline crew to switch seats with the soldier, whom she didn’t know. She moved back to coach, and the pleasantly surprised soldier, who didn’t know who his benefactor was, moved up to first class.
Hill immediately got the word out on Twitter, and upon arrival at the airport Adams was beset by entertainment reporters pressing her about it. “I didn’t do it for attention for myself,” the actress said as she tried to duck away from microphones. “I did it for attention for the troops.”
It’s possible that Adams developed a sensitivity to and respect for military service members as an Army brat herself, born in Italy and then moved from base to base until she was eight or nine years old. The daughter of Mormons, she says of her religious upbringing, “I can’t speak for everybody, but I know it instilled in me a value system I still hold true. The basic ‘Do unto others…’ – that was what was hammered into me. And love.”
It isn’t that Adams’ surrender of her first class seat was an enormous sacrifice, just a simple, thoughtful, respectful gesture that celebrities, accustomed to luxury comforts and special treatment, don’t usually make. “The flight attendant even remarked to me,” said Jemele Hill, “that in all her years of service she has never seen a celebrity do something like that. Regular people, yes. But not a celeb.”
Comedian Louis CK has a routine in which he jokes about having the impulse to do something nice for someone, an impulse he never acts on but nevertheless feels proud of himself simply for having considered it. As an example, he mentions military service members on planes:
They always fly coach. I’ve never seen a soldier in first class in my life… And every time that I see a soldier on a plane I always think, “You know what? I should give him my seat. It would be the right thing to do, it would be easy to do, and it would mean a lot to him… I never have, let me make that clear. I’ve never done it once… And here’s the worst part: I was actually proud of myself for having thought of this. ‘I am such a sweet man. That is so nice of me, to think of doing that and then totally never do it.’
Amy Adams not only thought about it, but acted on it. Especially in comparison to egomaniac rapper Kanye West, who had the nerve to compare his stage performances to the risks of military service, or tone-deaf Gwyneth Paltrow, who called internet attacks on her the “bloody, dehumanizing” equivalent of war, Adams’ actions revealed humility and gratitude toward our military who sometimes sacrifice life and limb in service to their fellow Americans.
Her gesture was a small one, but hopefully the attention it’s getting will spark greater awareness of our debt to military service members and inspire all of us, celebrities and otherwise, to find ways we can express a similar humility and gratitude.
at 10:04 PM
Monday, June 30, 2014
In a recent interview, rock icon Sting announced that his six children shouldn’t expect to inherit his fortune, which is estimated to be worth more than $300 million. On the face of it, that makes Sting seem rather, well, stingy – and for all I know, he may be. But his reasoning – that he didn’t want to leave his three sons and three daughters “trust funds that are albatrosses round their necks” – raises the question: should parents deny their offspring an inheritance for their own good?
Sting grew up as Gordon Sumner in a working class family in a seaside shipping town, and vowed early on in life that he would rise above his circumstances and become rich and successful. He obviously achieved that in spades, and doesn’t apologize for it: “I am grateful I have made money. I appreciate it because I spent much time without it... I am very well off and I am certainly not complaining. I was not given it. I earned it through hard work and it was hard work.” But “if it had all been handed to me on a plate, I’m not sure I would appreciate it or have survived.”
That’s the lesson he seems to want to pass on to the younger Sumners. “People make assumptions that [his kids] were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, but they have not been given a lot.” Instead, Sting continues, “they have to work. All my kids know that and they rarely ask me for anything, which I really respect and appreciate. Obviously, if they were in trouble I would help them, but I’ve never really had to do that. They have this work ethic that makes them want to succeed on their own merit.”
This seems valid and reasonable to me. However, when I raised this topic among a few friends, the majority felt that family is everything and Sting is a jerk for stiffing his kids (but then, they also felt that Sting was a jerk to begin with). One even argued that this showed bad parenting on Sting’s part.
I must disagree. I strongly suspect that the 62-year-old musician’s children, now all adults ranging in age from 18 t0 37, have never exactly wanted for anything, and I doubt seriously that he will leave them absolutely nothing in his will. I believe he simply expects them, for their sake, to make their own way in the world – and in the process, to discover who they are, where their talents and passion lie, and how hard they’re willing to work for that success. In other words, he expects them to grow up. I think that’s pretty good parenting.
Bill Gates, another man who has built up a pretty sizeable bank account, similarly said of his children that “they need to have a sense that their own work is meaningful and important. You’ve got to make sure they have a sense of their own ability and what they’re going to go and do.”
I respect Sting’s concern that guaranteeing his kids a cushy life of trust fund luxury would likely warp them irrevocably. As examples, one could point to any number of arrogant, entitled rich kids, often the children of wealthy celebs like Sting; kids who never really had to work, who never faced the financial consequences of failure or the rewards of their own success, and who thus remain locked in immaturity; children of whom it could be said, as Leonardo DiCaprio’s character Howard Hughes does in this entertaining scene from The Aviator, “You don’t care about money because you’ve always had it.”
“My generation all assumed we would have a better standard of living,” Sting mused in the interview. “The one that we spawned cannot assume that.” He points to the fact that his rough road to world-beating success had developed in him “a resilience and a toughness,” valuable qualities to hand down to one’s kids in a world that is less economically stable than before.
For those of us who tragically don’t stand to inherit wealth like Sting’s, the choice between riches and self-reliance isn’t really an issue. But as a general theory, the lesson still stands: it’s better to teach your children to walk on their own two feet than to carry them the rest of their lives.
(This article originally appeared here on Acculturated, 6/27/14)
From a pop culture point of view, our perspective on heroes and bravery tends to be skewed toward the superficial. The news media fall all over themselves to celebrate the “heroism” of, for example, a superstar athlete who overcomes adversity or a Hollywood actress who comes out as gay; those names and faces are splashed across the news and they are lauded even by the President. Meanwhile, those in our own military whom we honor for sacrificing life and limb in service to others – the truest definition of heroism – remain largely unrecognized by the public. Since FrontPage is an outlet of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and our soldiers are in no small measure responsible for that freedom, it seems appropriate to bring some attention here to a few real heroes who recently made the news.
It was announced Monday that the Medal of Honor will be bestowed upon former Staff Sergeant Ryan Pitts, 28, for his actions July 13, 2008 in the fierce battle of Wanat in Afghanistan. As the Army Times reports, just before sunrise, a volley of rocket-propelled grenades pounded his Observation Post [OP]. For 90 minutes, Pitts and his fellow paratroopers fought off more than 200 enemy fighters. His actions were described as “decisive” by the battalion commander at the time: “He prevented the enemy from overrunning the OP and thus saved lives and prevented the loss or capture of fallen and wounded paratroopers.”
“Even though he damn near got himself killed, he managed to keep his composure and keep fighting and do what he was supposed to do,” the commander said. “His weapon would go down and he’d get another one and continue to fight. He was throwing grenades at [the enemy] and throwing rocks at them to get them to jump out from behind cover.”
With a proper hero’s humility, Pitts takes no credit himself but honored his brothers-in-arms: “Valor was everywhere,” he said. “Everybody just did what they needed to do, and a lot of it was because of the relationships we had. We were very close.” He views the medal as a memorial to the nine soldiers who gave their lives at Wanat that day: “I try to think about the guys we lost and try to do my best to honor them and the gift they gave me. I hate the word ‘hero.’ But I feel very fortunate when I look at the guys I served with. They’re my heroes. It was the honor of my lifetime to serve with them.”
From that same battalion, former Sgt. Kyle White received the Medal of Honor last month for his bravery in November, 2007. Caught in an ambush in Afghanistan, says the Army Times, White repeatedly ran a “gauntlet of enemy fire to get to the wounded and fallen.” When the shooting stopped and night fell, White, only 20 at the time, tended to a wounded comrade, called in radio reports, directed security and guided in air support until the wounded and dead were evacuated. “I do not consider myself a hero,” he said prior to his White House ceremony, echoing the words of Sgt. Pitts. “To me, the real heroes are the ones I fought with that day.”
The late Sgt. Alwyn Cashe was awarded the Silver Star, the third-highest award for valor, in recognition for his heroic actions in Samarra, Iraq on Oct. 17, 2005, when his vehicle hit an IED. The wounded Cashe, his uniform burned away except for boots, body armor and helmet, crawled back into the wreckage again and again, pulling out all six of his comrades. All were evacuated back to the U.S. alive, although three later succumbed to their wounds – as did Cashe, from 2nd- and 3rd-degree burns over more than 70 percent of his body. He didn’t receive the Medal of Honor because the full details of his actions were unclear at the time, but there is a movement underway to upgrade him to that award. “I know not a lot of us survived,” said one survivor, “but maybe none of us would have survived if not for him.”
Countless other American warriors may be less decorated but nonetheless continue to give above and beyond the call of duty. Some don’t come home alive, like Staff Sgt. David Stewart, 34, Lance Cpl. Brandon Garabrandt, 19, and Lance Cpl. Adam Wolff, 25, three Marines who died last Friday in combat operations in Afghanistan. The ones who come home wounded tend to soldier on, if you’ll pardon the pun, without complaint, which makes the recent revelations of Veterans Administration neglect of wounded vets that much more shameful and unconscionable.
Occasionally our entertainment media throw a deserved spotlight on our military, such as with the outstanding movie Lone Survivor, based on Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell’s harrowing book of the same name, or the Super Bowl commercial from Budweiser this year which celebrated a soldier’s return home.
But more often than not we’re treated to displays in the culture like these: egomaniac rapper Kanye West has the nerve to compare his stage performances to the risks of military service; tone-deaf celebrity Gwyneth Paltrow calls internet attacks on her the “bloody, dehumanizing” equivalent of war; and earlier this year in a segment called “Heroes and Zeroes” on his titular show, MSNBC lightweight Ronan Farrow praised Lena Dunham, creator of HBO’s disgusting Girls, for her heroic nudity. You can’t degrade the meaning and significance of heroism much further than that.
In a perfect world, men like the ones I noted above would be household names like – or better yet, instead of – Kanye West or Gwyneth Paltrow. Not that our heroes would ever be comfortable with such recognition, because selfless service is part and parcel of a hero’s character. The least we can do is stop applying the word “hero” casually and reserve it for those who have earned it, sometimes with their lives.
(This article originally appeared here on FrontPage Mag, 6/27/14)
Friday, June 27, 2014
Outrage is the lifeblood of the internet, and nothing fuels online outrage quite like a celebrity going off-script and passionately challenging the socially approved pieties of political correctness.
Actor Gary Oldman is not a movie star who keeps playing himself over and over again. He’s an actual actor with a perfectionist’s work ethic and incredible range, having played everyone from Beethoven, Sid Vicious, and Lee Harvey Oswald to Dracula, George Smiley, and Sirius Black. Oldman is the kind of professional who gets the work done rather than whip up tabloid-worthy, offstage scandal.
Until last weekend, that is. He caused a perfect storm of internet indignation when he held nothing back in a fiery, wide-ranging interview with Playboy. In it Oldman verbally savaged everyone from Nancy Pelosi (a “f***ing useless c**t”) to the Golden Globes’ Hollywood Foreign Press Association (“90 nobodies having a wank”). He dismissed everything from his own movies (“Most of my work I would just stomp into the ground and start over again”) to reality TV (“the museum of social decay”).
But the primary target of his ire was the hypocrisy of political correctness, the kneejerk condemnation of others for social transgressions of which we’ve all been guilty. “I just think political correctness is crap,” Oldman began when asked about Mel Gibson’s infamous, career-wounding meltdown. “I don’t know about Mel. He got drunk and said a few things, but we’ve all said those things. We’re all f***ing hypocrites. That’s what I think about it. The policeman who arrested him has never used the word ni**er or that f***ing Jew? I’m being brutally honest here. It’s the hypocrisy of it that drives me crazy.”
He went on to sympathize with Alec Baldwin for hurling an anti-gay slur at an annoying paparazzo: “I don’t blame him… We all hide and try to be so politically correct. That’s what gets me. It’s just the sheer hypocrisy of everyone, that we all stand on this thing going, ‘Isn’t that shocking?’”
Ironically, that’s just the response his comments engendered. As The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway put it, “People lost their everliving minds.” Virtually every entertainment and pop culture website covered the interview, or at least highlighted selected portions of it that were guaranteed to evoke the most outrage. Out-of-context quotes and headlines like “Gary Oldman Sides with Homophobic Alec Baldwin and Anti-Semitic Mel Gibson!” spread like hot Nutella.
It didn’t help that Oldman let slip hints of his political conservatism, “views and opinions that most of [Hollywood] doesn’t share.” Recently I wrote an article for Acculturated in which I cautioned actors and actresses against allowing their political activism to overshadow their art, lest they alienate viewers who no longer might be able to separate the activists from their acting roles. Oldman has expressed some conservative/libertarian leanings in the past but he certainly never pushed them as far or as openly as, say, Matt Damon pushes his progressive politics. As a Hollywood conservative, Oldman noted, “you don’t come out and talk about these things, for obvious reasons.”
Sure enough, when he did, the internet lit up. Conservative websites embraced Oldman’s progressive-bashing. Progressive websites bashed Oldman’s anti-PC bashing. Jewish websites bashed Oldman’s apparent Gibson-defending. Jezebel irrelevantly bashed his age (56) and his foul language, which is rather hypocritical considering their own unabashed swearing.
Regrettably, all this internet noise overshadowed some more interesting and insightful bits from Oldman’s interview, such as his pessimist view that culturally, politically, and every other way, “we’re up sh*t creek without a paddle or a compass.” He is skeptical that we can rise above a culture ruled by narcissism, artistic mediocrity, and political correctness.
But it was his assault on the latter that struck a nerve, and regardless of how one may interpret some of Gary Oldman’s freewheeling comments or his politics, his passionate honesty may have sparked a necessary conversation. In crucial ways we are up sh*t creek without a compass – a moral compass. And perhaps throwing off the chains of political correctness is the first step toward a more honest cultural self-examination.
(This article originally appeared here on Acculturated, 6/26/14)
Last week the controversy over the NFL Washington Redskins’ name, deemed offensive by the professionally aggrieved, reached a new peak when the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board canceled six federal trademark registrations owned by the team.
Nevada Senator Harry Reid, who had previously blustered impotently that he wouldn’t accept an invitation to attend a Redskins home game until the team changed its name (a threat which no doubt sent waves of panic through the Redskins organization), gloated that the ruling proved “the handwriting is on the wall.” “It’s only a matter of time,” he tweeted, “until [Redskins owner] Daniel Snyder is forced to do the right thing and change the name.”
Forced to do the right thing. And there you have the totalitarian pr0gressive mindset in a nutshell: if people don’t do the “right thing” – by which the left means, of course, conform to their social justice agenda – then they must be coerced by any means necessary.
The 2-1 decision by the Board does not mean that the team must stop using the name, but Robert Tracinski at The Federalist notes that the cancellation sets a “terrifying” precedent: “This ruling happened precisely because the campaign against the Redskins has failed in the court of public opinion... So the left resorted to one of its favorite fallbacks. If the people can’t be persuaded, use the bureaucracy”:
In this case, executive officials declared that a private company doesn’t deserve the protection of the law: if the ruling survives an appeal in the courts, the federal government will stop prosecuting violations of the team’s intellectual property rights, potentially costing it millions of dollars…
[B]ureaucrats in Washington are now empowered to make subjective decrees about what is offensive and what will be tolerated, based on pressure from a small clique of Washington insiders. Anyone who runs afoul of these decrees, anyone branded as regressive and politically incorrect, is declared outside the protection of the federal government.
Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter and National Congress of American Indians executive director Jackie Pata, who call the Redskins name a “hateful slur,” hope that the patent ruling will “imperil the ability of the team’s billionaire owner to keep profiting off the denigration and dehumanization of Native Americans.”
This is a ridiculous claim, since Snyder is profiting not from dehumanizing Native Americans but from the American love of football. But what Halbritter and Pata are trying to do in their statement is smear Snyder as a “billionaire” which, in these times of anti-wealth bigotry, is as despised a label as “racist.” Among the Occupy movement left, it is code for “rapacious one-percenter who didn’t build that,” as multi-millionaire Elizabeth Warren might put it.
Barack Obama, who has a habit of injecting his personal opinion on topics that should be far beneath presidential concern, naturally spoke out in favor of jettisoning the team’s name, which offends “a sizable group of people,” he said, who have “real legitimate concerns.”
Not that sizeable. Ten years ago a poll of American Indians found that 90% of Indians polled in 48 states found the name inoffensive. In a January 2014 poll, a broad majority of adults (83%) responded that the Washington Redskins should not change their nickname. Among football fans, that majority was even higher: 87%.
The Redskins have been in existence since 1933 (although not always in Washington, D.C.). Ever since then probably no one has used the word “redskins” to refer to anything other than that team. Indeed, David Plotz at the radical Slate admitted that the word has a “relatively innocent” history, that Native Americans themselves used the word as a descriptor and not an insult. He also conceded that the team name was chosen to honor Native American bravery. Another writer at Slate traced the word’s history and found it largely benign.
“But time passes,” Plotz wrote. “Americans think differently about race and the language of race than we did 80 years ago.” And so Slate proudly announced that they simply would not use the word anymore (Mother Jones and The New Republic followed suit). “Changing the way we talk is not political correctness run amok,” wrote Plotz. True, changing the way we talk is not PC “run amok.” It is the very intent of political correctness to manipulate language and thought to conform to the progressive agenda.
Let’s be real. The rancorous debate over the Redskins name has nothing to do with assuaging the hurt feelings of Obama’s “sizeable group of people.” It is about the expansion of government control. Progressives like Harry Reid don’t truly care about Native American sensibilities any more than they care about health care for the uninsured. Both issues - all issues for progressives – are about acquiring and expanding power.
In short, the contemporary obsession with “being offended” is never truly about “being offended.” Claiming offense is a strategy of identity politics whereby a minority faction plays the victim card to further a broader agenda. “The issue is never the issue,” as Saul Alinsky used to state. “The issue is always the revolution.”
The Daily Caller, for example, listed twelve trademarks that the United States Patent and Trademark Office apparently finds less worthy of addressing than “Redskins.” Those trademarks include, among others, such brands as Uppity Negro, Dago Swag, Kraut Krap, and Figgas Over Niggas. The hypocrisy is blatant and almost hilarious. But the Washington Redskins make a more useful and visible political target.
If President Obama and his cohorts are eagerly searching to punish organizations with offensive names, perhaps they could turn their selective attention to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
(This article originally appeared here on FrontPage Mag, 6/23/14)
This Tuesday evening in Los Angeles, Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors is hosting Cornell law professor William A. Jacobson as he presents “The Case for Israel and Academic Freedom.” At the forefront of the fight against the American Studies Association (ASA) academic boycott of Israel, Jacobson will argue that the boycott is anti-educational, anti-peace, and based on misconceptions and omissions about the history and legality of the conflict.
Prof. Jacobson is the founder and publisher of two popular websites, Legal Insurrection and College Insurrection, which have covered the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement for years. He has been cited in major publications such as The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, Forbes, National Review, Commentary, and elsewhere. Through Legal Insurrection, Jacobson was instrumental in obtaining rejections of the academic boycott by over 250 University Presidents, and has filed a challenge to the ASA’s tax exempt status.
I asked him a few questions in advance of Tuesday’s event.
Mark Tapson: First, tell us briefly about Legal Insurrection and College Insurrection, and their purpose.
William Jacobson: Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, less than a month before the presidential election. There was no long-term plan to start it. Rather, it reflected my growing frustration with what I saw as blatant media bias in favor of Obama, and a general mania surrounding the Obama campaign. Since then, we have covered a wide range of political and legal issues, concentrating on those areas in which the two overlap. We have earned a name for ourselves by grabbing onto issues and candidates and doing the type of in-depth research and exhaustive follow-up that are hard to find these days.
As an example, our coverage of Elizabeth Warren drove many of the issues with which she struggled in her 2012 Senate campaign and was so extensive that we preserved the research in a separate website, ElizabethWarrenWiki.org.
College Insurrection was started in August 2012, as we found ourselves focusing more and more on the problems non-liberal students faced on campuses. Unlike Legal Insurrection, which focuses on creating original content, College Insurrection is more of an aggregator, pulling stories from college newspapers and other media.
MT: What is your objection to the American Studies Association boycott and to academic boycotts in general?
WJ: Systematic academic boycotts are anti-educational and destructive far beyond the individuals or entities boycotted. The ASA boycott, if it were to be adopted universally as its backers propose, would affect not just the academic freedom of Israelis, but also of all those who want to engage in the free exchange of ideas. Joint research would be cut off, as would student and faculty research exchanges. That takes the choice away from individuals, including students. By what right to faculty have the right to take educational opportunities away from students? It's the height of faculty arrogance.
Moreover, where does it stop? The purported justifications for the academic boycott apply to dozens of countries, including the United States. Our universities are built on what once were Native American lands, we had slavery and segregation, "institutional racism" allegedly still exists at our universities, and our universities widely participate in Department of Defense related research. So why aren't these American academic boycotters of Israel also boycotting their own universities? It's beyond hypocrisy, it's a singling out of the only Jewish nation in the world for treatment based on standards applied to no one else. Substitute "black" for "Jewish" and you'd call it racism; so it is, as former Harvard President Lawrence Sommers said, anti-Semitic in fact, if not in intent.
MT: The Cornell Daily Sun mentioned recently that you compared the boycott to your “personal experiences studying abroad in Moscow under Soviet rule and said the lack of an academic boycott against the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin could have contributed to its eventual downfall.” Can you elaborate on that?
WJ: The Daily Sun did not accurately paraphrase that part of my lecture. I discussed my experiences as an exchange student in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and how despite the horrors of the Soviet system under Stalin and others, we still wanted academic interaction. My point was that we felt, in the early 1980s, that our presence in Moscow and interaction with Soviets was important regardless of what the Soviet system represented, and no one was suggesting an academic boycott. These academic interactions in the 1980s may have contributed to the eventual downfall of the Soviet system as the more free flow of information enlightened Soviet citizens to ideas of liberty.
MT: What do you say to the ASA and to BDS activists who insist that Israel is an apartheid state?
WJ: They are either ignorant, or deliberate propagandists. Apartheid was a unique system of racial domination by a minority over a majority based on racial classification, above and beyond the types of discrimination that exist in every country. Much as the Holocaust was unique in that it systematized and industrialized genocide, so too Apartheid was unique which is why it is considered under international law to be a Crime Against Humanity.
The Rome Convention on the Crime of Apartheid is very specific that it requires systematized domination through acts which themselves are crimes, of one "racial group" over another. That is not what is happening in Israel. Israel is a majority ruled nation, not minority ruled. Israeli Jews are themselves mutli-racial, with approximately half being refugees from or the descendants of refugees from Arab lands. Israel also has gone to great effort to rescue non-white Jewish populations.
The divisions in Israel are religious or ethnic, not racial, which is common throughout the world. No one claims that majority Islamic domination in the Middle East and elsewhere is "Apartheid," so why is that label applied to the only Jewish state? If religious domination constituted Apartheid, then every country which has adopted in whole or in part Islamic law would be an Apartheid state. But that's not the way anyone uses the term, except as to Israel.
I could go on and on, but the short answer is that the term "Apartheid" has been so broadened by enemies of Israel that the terminology as applied to Israel has become a weapon divorced from legal and historical reality. That even John Kerry and some Israeli politicians use the term inaccurately is a testament to the success of the decades-long propaganda campaign against Israel.
MT: The New York Times seemed to suggest months ago that the ASA is a rather insignificant organization and that the backlash against its boycott has been almost overkill. Do you think the Times was underestimating the boycott? Do you think the BDS movement in general is faltering or gaining ground?
WJ: We should take BDS seriously because it is a malignant ideology which seeks to dehumanize Israeli Jews. The best evidence of where BDS leads was the publication on multiple social media platforms of a Nazi-era anti-Semitic cartoon by Vassar Students for Justice in Palestine. It didn't start at Vassar with Nazi-inspired demonization of Jews, but that's where it inevitably led. So we should fight the BDS movement early, before it spreads like it has in Europe, where anti-Zionism and anti-Semitic violence go hand in hand.
That said, we don't need to panic. In the United States support for Israel is at historic highs, and there is no meaningful political movement espousing anti-Israeli platforms. Let's keep it that way.
(This article originally appeared here on FrontPage Mag, 6/17/14)