
Month: May 2020
With Friends Like These
How do you know when your side is winning the public opinion battle? Based on the last fifty years of American politics I’d say it’s when all of a sudden you find that you have a whole bunch of new friends who want to straighten you out on who the real conservatives are and straighten you out on what you should believe.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s we had the Buckleyites running that scam and then in the 2000s the Neo-Cons got their turn. Each time we go around in this circle they play the same game. We hear about the conservative majority that will be unleashed if only we embrace x, y and z. During our latest intervention our new friends want us to know that good old conservative institutions like gay marriage, open borders and offshoring American jobs to China will win us a coalition of newly minted conservatives if only we’re willing to denounce all those deplorables in the Rust Belt for the racists, xenophobes and homophobes they are. Boy, it’s good to have friends willing to straighten you out.
These political sages are all twenty somethings, newly minted from Ivy League schools with the wisdom they’ve accumulated in their post-modern literature and intersectional philosophy seminars fairly sparkling off their faces. I can just see the rainbow coalition of the LGBTQ and illegal aliens locking arms with libertarians, vegans, greens and other newly minted republicans as they stride shoulder to shoulder into a glorious new future of unrecognizable conservatism. Ever was it so.
But, as stated, when your “friends” want to save you from your agenda then you know that you’re winning. If you were losing, then these people wouldn’t be calling themselves conservatives and they wouldn’t be interested in talking to you. There wouldn’t be any money in it for them.
I was reminded of this by a spate of recent articles discussing esoteric writers and schools of thought that would set us straight and allow us to give up our needless crusade to confirm constitutional originalists to the bench and abandon our hopelessly old-fashioned obsession with the first and second amendments. When I read these articles, I get the same feeling that came over me when one of the neo-cons like Jonah Goldberg would explain why objecting to full acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate alternative to normal sexuality was hopelessly outdated and a fool’s errand. The angle he provided was that of an older and wiser head giving good advice to a country cousin who wasn’t smart enough to see that times had changed and all the smart people knew better and had moved on.
Back then it confused and depressed me to think that the conservative leaders had allowed themselves to be convinced by the arguments of the moral relativists. But of course, there hadn’t been any arguments. It was just a matter of the pundits going to some dinner parties where their liberal friends told them that only mouth breathers refused to acknowledge the highly conservative nature of buggery.
So here we go again. Against all odds Donald Trump unites social conservatives, patriots and everyone who despises the hypocrisy and stupidity of the social justice warriors. And because he is seeing success and his enemies are afraid that their policies are in danger, those on the Left immediately look to co-opt the movement. Their first targets are always the young elite intellectuals. They will dangle the prospect of an alliance of the moderates. The libertarians can be fooled into thinking that the “less crazy” progressives will band together with them to oppose the enemies of free speech and truth. All these libertarians have to do to seal the deal is purge the social conservatives who can’t be reconciled with their new pals. And to justify these delusions the young intellectuals spin a fantasy about the solidarity of the Classic Liberal coalition. Never mind that the Left has replaced principle with identity power politics for more than a century. Never mind that even while the “moderate” crazies are being harassed by their even crazier lunatic fringe no one on the Left ever misses a chance to kick someone on the Right if the opportunity presents itself.
Knowing all this I can only laugh at the pretensions of these brilliant moderates and their castles in the clouds. But more important than derision is pointing out to the young and impressionable that an alliance with the “saner” elements of the Left is a pipe dream that only leads to compromise and splintering of the factions on the Right. The Left is your mortal foe. They want to destroy all the things in life that make it worth living. They’ve already destroyed the majority of the institutions that made this country great. Compromising with them is just cooperating with them while they push you off the cliff. Moral relativism always leads to accepting things that are wrong. Instead, push in the direction of what is inherently good and you’ll make progress and you’ll attract like-minded people. Those are the friends you want, not the ones who look exactly like enemies.
24MAY2020 – Quote of the Day
You cannot subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become more responsible.
Thomas Sowell
24MAY2020 – Photo of the Day

Ransom – A Movie Review and Comparison – Part 2
Ransom – A Movie Review and Comparison – Part 1
In 1996 Ron Howard directed a remake of Ransom. He cast Mel Gibson and Rene Russo in the leads as Tom and Kate Mullen the parents of a young son Sean. Tom is the owner of his own airline and a leading member of New York high society. During an educational event in Central Park at which Kate is a judge Sean is kidnapped while Tom was distracted.
Now we meet the kidnappers. Maris is a caterer who works for the Mullens. Brothers Clark and Cubby Barnes and Miles Roberts are small time criminals. But the mastermind of the gang is Police Detective Jimmy Shaker, played by the great Gary Sinise, who set up the whole crime and uses his knowledge of police procedures to engineer a convoluted ransom transfer. He has Tom carry the two million dollars to a civic center and jump in a swimming pool to destroy any electronic devices. Then Tom switches cars and drives to New Jersey while Shaker gives Tom directions over a mobile phone. During this phone call Shaker answers Tom’s question of why Tom’s family was picked. Shaker tells him that Tom is a man who buys his way out of trouble. Tom paid off men to frame a labor leader that was making trouble for Tom’s airline. From Shaker’s point of view, he sees Tom as a sure thing to pay his son’s ransom. Then Shaker tells Tom the story of the Eloi and the Morlocks from H. G. Wells’ story “The Time Machine.” To Shaker the Mullens and the other elites are the Eloi living in the daylight world of wealth and privilege while Shaker and the rest of the Morlocks slave away in the underworld of the poor. He states that it’s just the nature of things that the cannibalistic Morlocks have to surface from time to time to eat an Eloi.
Tom demands to know how the exchange will lead him to his son to which Shaker replies that when Tom hands the money over to the courier, he’ll be given the address where his son can be found. But when he arrives at a quarry where the courier takes the money, he is given no address and Tom notices the look of confusion on the courier’s face when the question is asked. The courier is Cubby Barnes played by Donnie Wahlberg who was the only one of the kidnappers who treated Sean Mullen decently during his captivity. FBI helicopters chase after Cubby on his ATV and when the agents start rappelling to the ground Cubby fires at them with an automatic weapon. In answer he is killed by gunfire from the law enforcement agents.
The kidnappers are in disarray after this because Cubby’s identity will make his brother’s identity easy to figure out. But undaunted, Shaker immediately contacts Tom and begins a second transfer operation. But Tom has figured out that the kidnappers have no intention of releasing his son. So instead of proceeding to the drop he tells Shaker to watch Channel 5 on the television for further information. Tom calls his corporate friends and arranges to be put on the air. He lays the two million dollars on a table and into the camera he tells the kidnappers and the world that he has no intention of paying the ransom and instead want the two million to be a reward for capturing his son’s abductors. He gives the kidnappers a way out saying if Sean is returned unharmed, he will withdraw the reward.
Everyone turns against Tom, the FBI agents who have been advising him, his wife Kate and every man on the street who is questioned by the media. Now Shaker calls him up and threatens to kill Sean if Tom doesn’t pay the ransom. Tom says he doesn’t believe he’ll return Sean at all. Now the kidnappers send a note through the housekeeper to Kate to show up late at night in a deserted church to arrange for an exchange. Kate is attacked by Shaker in disguise who punches her and chokes her before leaving her with Sean’s shirt soaked in blood.
Kate begs Tom to relent but instead Tom goes down to the street and tells the reporters that he is doubling the reward to four million dollars. Shaker calls up enraged and shouts at Tom that he will kill Sean if Tom doesn’t agree to the ransom immediately. Tom shouts abuse at Shaker and then he hears a gunshot ring out over the phone. Kate attacks Tom and slaps him repeatedly and collapses to the floor. Tom stumbles out onto the penthouse roof and at first seems to be planning to jump but then collapses onto the roof sobbing. Kate finds her way to the roof and consoles him.
But Shaker fired into the wall. Sean is alive. Now Clark Barnes and Miles Roberts are packing their van to leave the scene and Maris is panicked and doesn’t know whether to run or kill herself with a gun she has. She is romantically involved with Shaker but their bond has been broken by the sordid nature of the crime they are committing. The only one who isn’t panicking is Shaker. He’s come up with Plan B. He calls up the precinct on his radio and tells them that there is a kidnapping at the address they are holding Sean at. He shoots Clark and Miles as they try to drive off but Maris shoots him in the shoulder. Shaker returns fire and kills her. Now Shaker pretends that he discovered the kidnapping and puts himself in line for the four-million-dollar reward.
Sean is returned to his parents traumatized but only slightly injured and the Mullens begin to bring their lives back to normal. One day Shaker shows up at the Mullens’ home to collect his reward but as Tom is writing out the check, he sees Sean quaking with fear at Shaker’s voice. Tom realizes what it means but almost immediately afterward Shaker knows that Tom knows. At this point Shaker’s anger leads him to say he will execute Tom. But Tom convinces him that they can go to Tom’s bank and have the reward transferred to Shaker’s offshore bank. Then Tom agrees to fly Shaker to Mexico in his private jet. While driving to the bank Tom ostensibly calls the airport to set up his flight but actually calls the FBI and tips them off to where he is headed.
Tom and Shaker make the wire transfer at the bank but as they’re leaving some NYPD who have been alerted by the FBI attempt to arrest Shaker. He shoots two of them and takes off running. Tom catches him and beats him brutally but Shaker manages to push Tom into traffic where he is shaken up by a passing car. Now there is a foot race and finally Tom grabs Shaker and throws him through a plate glass window. Tom retrieves Shaker’s gun and covers him with it. The NYPD and FBI show up and tell Tom to drop the gun and Shaker to lay on the ground. Shaker is bleeding profusely from a neck wound from the broken window but he secretly reaches for an ankle holster. When Tom drops his gun arm to his side Shaker pulls his gun to shoot Tom but is beaten to the draw by Tom and several law-enforcement officers. Shaker is shot dead and Kate shows up to hug Tom and signal the end of the nightmare.
Wow, that’s a lot of stuff, to stuff into one movie. And I’ve left out a lot of details. The FBI Special Agent Lonnie Hawkins played by Delroy Lindo has a role in convincing Kate to stop Tom from offering the reward. He also is privy to Tom’s perjury in the conviction of the labor leader. The relationships between the various kidnappers is complicated and volatile. There are a lot of moving pieces.
It’s a well-crafted movie. At certain points the various characters border on hysterics but considering the roles and stakes involved the action is reasonable. None of the characters is blameless but even some of the criminals may make some claims to the viewers sympathy. I think it’s a good crime drama with a lot of human interest. I can recommend it as worth seeing.
In the last part of this review I’ll look at the 1956 and the 1996 versions of Ransom to see how they compare and what that comparison might say about the years in which they were made.
23MAY2020 – Quote of the Day
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.
Thomas Sowell
23MAY2020 – Photo of the Day

Judge Emmet Sullivan Just Got Busted by the Court of Appeals
The Clown Prince of Injustice Judge Emmet Sullivan just got served with an order from the DC Court of Appeals to show why he hasn’t honored the Federal Government’s petition to vacate the prosecution of General Flynn.
DC Circuit Panel Orders Judge Sullivan To Respond Within 10 Days…
By some wonderful miracle two of the three judges on the panel are Republican appointees and it looks like old Emmet is headed for a spanking. The order says he has to explain himself by June 1st. Well ten days is a long time but I guess the General has been waiting three years already so it won’t be much of a stretch.
Ransom – A Movie Review and Comparison – Part 1
I am as old as hell itself so I remember seeing Ransom in the theater in 1996. It was a very popular movie and Mel Gibson was a big star back then. I was dimly aware that the movie was a remake of a film of the same name. Actually, the original was Ransom! That exclamation point must have been big news back in 1956. I’ve since had a chance to see the 1956 version and I intend to review it and then review the 1996 remake and compare them.
Glenn Ford and Donna Reed star as David and Edith Stannard a married couple with a young son named Andy. They are very wealthy because David and his brother Al own a very successful company. We see the child and parents in a comical argument caused by Andy “stealing” the boards from under his parents’ bed to build his backyard fort. We witness the way David dotes on the boy and promises to break away from his busy work to join the boy in his construction project. The mother and father send the boy off to his school bus and then David heads off to work. We also meet the major domo of the household servants Jesse Chapman. He is a Southern Black Christian man, much given to reciting scripture who very seriously attends to the welfare of his employer’s family.
At work we find David contending with his brother Al over whether the company should continue to advance into new product models or wait until more return is collected on the earlier models. Although the brothers quarrel, they show affection for each other. Later we see David return home having “stolen” some lumber from a willing construction site foreman and asks his wife where their son is. She says he is still at school but David informs her that it is past his time. Immediately the phone rings and Edith hear from a school administrator that a “nurse” from Dr. Gorman’s office took Andy from school to be seen by the doctor. Now, both frightened by this news, David calls Dr. Gorman and hears his worst fears, that the doctor did not send for the boy. David calls the police and Chief Backett arrives and sets in motion the police actions. An electrician sets up a separate phone line and a tape recorder. And the police set up a trace on the line waiting for a ransom demand over the phone. At this point a newspaper reporter named Charlie Telfer (played by a very young Leslie Nielsen) enters the house uninvited. The Chief counsels the Stannards to allow Telfer to stay during the investigation and so keep him from printing wild speculations by the promise of an exclusive story. Charlie proves himself to be a cynical young man who attempts to bribe Chapman to get some photos of Andy’s room. Chapman spurns the offer as an insult.
The parents become rattled from the waiting and now the school administrator shows up and complains that she is the wronged party by the kidnapping. Edith grabs for the fireplace poker and is only stopped by the police chief from braining her. After she is escorted out the phone rings and the kidnapper tells David what he wants, $500,000 in small bills and to show that the money is ready the television show which David’s company sponsors will be the signal. The host will wear a white suit jacket.
Now Al arranges for the money. It is being counted and serial numbers recorded. Now David talks to the Chief and Charlie about the exchange. But when David expresses the hope that Andy will be home by end of day the men crush his hopes by telling him that regardless of whether he pays the ransom or not the chance of return is the same, two out of three. And hearing this, David’s logical mind jumps to a conclusion. Now he goes to the television station and tells the host that the plan has changed and he, David will speak to the audience. He spreads the ransom money on a table and then tells the camera that he will not ransom his son. Instead he will use the $500,000 as a reward to anyone who will turn in the kidnappers. And to the kidnapper he adds that if Andy is returned unharmed then the reward will be rescinded and if the kidnapper happens to be captured David will act as a character witness on the kidnapper’s behalf because of the mercy shown his son. And then he finishes by swearing on a Bible that all he said would be observed.
But when David returns home, he is told by all, by the chief, by Al, by Charlie and most of all by Edith that he has done a terrible thing. She begs him to undo it and go back to the kidnappers and reverse himself. David tells them it is too late. For good or ill the die is cast. Edith breaks down and is taken to Al’s house down the street to mourn. A crowd that has assembled outside the home reacts to the news with rage and stones are thrown through the windows. Charlie goes outside and tells the reporters to go home and leave the family to its agony. Then the police disperse the angry crowd. Finally, Andy’s shirt is found in an abandoned car and delivered to his father. But there is a quantity of blood on the shirt. Now David despairs and breaks down in tears. The only one who has not deserted him in his lowest hour is Chapman who tries to comfort him and reminds him of King David’s grief at the death of his son Absalom. After he calms himself David goes into the yard and looks at the fort that Andy was building the other day. And as he stands there, he thinks he hears Andy calling him. And looking up he sees his son. Unable to believe his eyes he clasps Andy in his arms in joy but notices that Andy’s wearing a strange shirt. Andy explains that they gave it to him after he bit the nurse and her blood got on his shirt. Now the house is alerted. Chapman calls Al’s house to let Edith know the good news and the movie ends in front of the house with Edith running up and being embraced by her son and her husband embracing them both.
This is some serious melodrama. Every heartstring there is gets tugged. But the story works and the acting is good. Any parent watching this will feel every fear and experience the anxiety of such a daring plan by David to save his son. This is a good movie of its kind, a personal drama. I can recommend it. In the next part of this review, we’ll look at what forty years changes in the story as we look at the remake.
22MAY2020 – Photo of the Day
