Sure, the NEA gives money to major established arts organizations – symphonies, ballet companies, repertory theater groups, and the like — but that is how they maintain their veneer of staid respectability, all the while promulgating their Leftist, nihilistic agenda through their smaller grants.  For example, I know a truly great American artist, Harry Carmean, who, among his other credits, was the Chairman of the Fine Arts Department at the Art Center College of Design  in Pasadena, California and taught there for 43 years.  He applied for NEA grants repeatedly to help fund his work but was rejected each time because his paintings were deemed “not edgy enough.”   Translation: he actually possesses artistic talent, skill, and discipline, which he uses to create beauty instead of pseudo-artistic, politicized claptrap.  We all know he would have had a far better chance of getting a grant out of the subjective and ideologically driven apparatchiks at the NEA had he used dog feces to paint images of female genitalia.

Like President Obama and his advisors who live within an Alinskyite bubble of Leftist Chicago politics, the NEA also maintains a closed, incestuous relationship between it’s administrators and the “artists” it funds.  To them, art, by definition, is inherently political in nature.  To produce “real” art today, artists must embody narcissistic self-indulgence and infuse their work with identity politics or otherwise “challenge” their audience. To be “meaningful” art must shine a spotlight on the dark underbelly of society or explore the twisted depths of human iniquity.  By contrast, art that celebrates the higher aspirations of humanity or embraces beauty as a mere end in itself is thought to be frivolous and, therefore, unworthy of financial support.

So, it came as no surprise to me that the White House and the NEA teamed up to conscript the arts community into helping promulgate their agenda.  I’m sure that over at the NEA they are totally perplexed by any outcry against their call to enlist the aid of “socially conscious” artists to help push the self-evidently wonderful Obama Administration plans for radically altering the American landscape.   The fact that their radical agenda is unacceptable to so many Americans has never even appeared on their radar.

The conference call initiated by the NEA brings up larger issues about what happens when the Government attempts to engineer society via its largesse.  All along, the NEA has been doling out money to its group of anointed artists and now the Government is simply calling for payback.  While all Government handouts come with inevitable strings attached, in this case, since the vast majority of artists on the receiving end of NEA munificence are on the Left, they see nothing wrong with overtly working to further the Obama Administration goals.  This toxic symbiosis comes as a result of turning the arts community into yet another “entitlement” group.  There are innumerable examples of artists complaining bitterly that their “freedom of expression” has been abridged when federal grant money is denied them.  In other words, government handouts (of other people’s money) have so weakened them that they actually imagine it is a “right” to have their self-indulgent art paid for by the taxpayers.

It has long gone out of fashion for artists to simply want to create things of beauty and to derive satisfaction from bringing joy to the lives of those whose lives are touched by their art.  Instead, for so many, artistic significance is now only measured by how politically or societally influential a work of “art” is.  The White House and the NEA know well the psychology of their hand-picked group of leftist artistes.  That is why they could be so confident that the “arts community” would jump onboard with both feet and embrace the opportunity to “serve” the President.  The fact that grants might be coming down the pike for those who “serve” particularly well is, in the end, of only secondary importance to massaging their narcissistic feelings of self-importance.

Creating political propaganda is not the province of real artists, though.   While it is obvious that throughout history great art has been created when artists have been commissioned to do so, all real artists recoil at the idea of making propaganda art to support the State.  That these NEA grantees seem so willing to “make a stink” (as Yosi Sergant so colorfully put it in the NEA call) to benefit the Obama Administration says volumes about their lack of artistic integrity.

Of course, we only got to see the culmination of what must have been a much longer lesson plan extolling the myriad shining virtues of Barack Hussein Obama.  What happened just before the video starts?

**************************************

Teacher: Good morning, boys, girls, and those of you who haven’t decided yet.  Today, I want to talk to you about the United States and what a great country we live in.  Raise your hands and tell me why you think we live in a great country.  Yes, Tyler?

Tyler: Because we have freedom?

Teacher: No, that’s not why.  Brianna? 

Brianna: Because we have justice for all?

Teacher: No.  That’s not right, either.  There isn’t justice for a lot of poor people and undocumented immigrants.  Anyone else have an idea?  Ryan?

Ryan: Because we are “One Nation Under God”?

Teacher: Oh, no, no, no!  Don’t mention God in this classroom again or I’ll have to send you to the Principle’s office!  Anyone else?  Fatima?

Fatima: Because we have a new President?

Teacher: Yes, that’s right, Fatima!  We are a great country now because we have a new President.  His name is Barack Hussein Obama and he is our first African-American President.  Can you all say Barack Hussein Obama?

Class: Baarrrak Hussayynn Obaaaama!!

Teacher: Yes!  Barack Hussein Obama is our new President and the good people in this country elected him to bring us all change and hope.   You have a question, Sydney?

Sydney: Yes teacher.  Are there bad people in this country?  People who didn’t vote for our new President?  People who don’t like hope?

Teacher: Oh, yes, Sydney!  There are lots of very bad people!  They are called Republicans.  Can you all say Republicans?

Class: Ree-pubbi-cunnns!

Heather: Teacher?  Why would Republicans not want to vote for Barack Hussein Obama?

Teacher: Very good question, Heather.  That’s something good people – Democrats – have a hard time with, but the real answer isn’t too difficult to understand.   First, can you all say Democrats?

Class: Demo-cats!

Teacher: Yes, Barack Hussein Obama is a Democrat and that makes him good.  Republicans are people who want the Earth to overheat so that poor people all over the world will be flooded out of their homes when the ice caps melt.  Worse yet, they want all the polar bears to die.  They don’t like trees, so they cut them down and put up cement parking garages.  They like the air to be dirty so that people get lung diseases but when those people get sick, Republicans don’t want them to be able to go to the hospital.  Instead, Republicans just want them to die.  Republicans want children like you to go to bed hungry at night. They are racists and don’t like African-American children.  In fact, Republicans really like war and so they think up all sorts of silly reasons to start wars so that lots and lots of innocent children all over the world can get killed.

(All the children start to cry.)

Addison: Why are Rebubicuns so mean?

Teacher: That’s a very good question, Addison.  Does anyone know the answer?

Brandon: Maybe because their Mommies and Daddies were mean to them when they were little?

Teacher: That’s a good guess, Brandon.  But, there is a better reason.  Someone else?  Kahlid?

Kahlid: I think Republians are mean because they want a lot of money.

Teacher: That’s right, Kahlid.  You got it!  Republicans are just downright greedy.  They start wars so they can steal other people’s stuff and make a lot of money.  They want the Earth to warm up because it will cost them too much money to get rid of all the carbon dioxide.  They don’t like trees and flowers because they don’t bring in as much money as parking garages.  And do you know who is the worst of all the Republicans?  The greediest?  Who knows?  Hands??  Kayla?

Kayla: Adof Hitler?

Teacher: No, but you’re close.  Hitler was pretty bad but this person was even worse.  Abdul?

Abdul: Was it…ummm…George Bush?

Teacher: You’re right, Abdul!  George W. Bush was the greediest Republican.  He was the President before Barack Hussein Obama.  He cheated in the election so he could get to be President.  Then he lied to all the American people so he could start a war and steal all the oil from the people in Iraq.   He killed millions of children so he and his Republican friends could get lots more money.  He tried to poison the air and the water and wrecked our economy, all so he and his Republican friends could make still more money.  He even…

(All the children start to cry much louder.)

Teacher: Oh, no!  Children!  Don’t cry!  Everything is going to be fine now that we have our new President!   The United States is a great country now because all the good Democrats were able to vote for Barack Hussein Obama and there were so many of them that the mean Republicans weren’t able to stop all of them from voting.  So, Barack Hussein Obama is now the new President and he will fix all the bad things George W. Bush and the bad Republicans did.

Taylor: But how is he going to do that, Teacher?

Teacher: Well, Taylor, all the Democrats wanted hope and change, so the first thing Barack Hussein Obama did was make a law that gave a lot of money to all the good people.   It was called a Stimulus Bill.  Can you all say Stimulus Bill?

Children: Stimmuous Pill!

Teacher: Then, since George W. Bush ruined the economy, Barack Hussein Obama had to take over a big car company, which was good because now the car company will have to make cars that run on solar power so they won’t pollute any more.  Barack Hussein Obama had to go to all the countries that George W. Bush hurt and apologize for stealing their stuff, so now all those countries like America again.  Countries like Cuba and North Korea are our friends, now.   He stopped the big war in Iraq and gave them back the oil that George W. Bush stole.   Now, Barack Hussein Obama is trying to make sure that anyone who gets sick can go to a hospital and get well, and it won’t cost them anything.  He’s going to make sure you all have food to eat, too, and I’ll bet he even wants to buy each one of you children an ice cream cone!

Jayden: Does Barack Hussein Obama have lots of money?

Teacher: No, Jayden, he is just a regular working person who spent his young life organizing poor people, but he wants to take away all the money from the bad and greedy Republicans so that he can give it to the people who really need it.  He’s just like Robin Hood!

Children: Yaaaayy!  Hooray for Barack Hussein Obama!

Aquanetta: I have an idea, Teacher!  Why don’t we make up a song to sing about our President, Barack Hussein Obama, to tell him how much we love him and thank him for all the good he is doing for everyone?

Teacher: That’s excellent!  How should it start?  Does anyone have any ideas?

Jason: How about this?  Mm, mm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama…

The rest you saw on the YouTube video.

If any of this has a ring of truth to it – like it might have really happened this way, (and probably has in countless schools across the country) then you might seriously consider homeschooling your children.

A young mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics knows that what he is saying is patently false.  The moment the government nationalizes medical insurance, it will undercut all other insurers since the Government doesn’t need to make a profit, whereas insurers do.  Employers, always mindful of their bottom line, will immediately transfer over to the Government plan and all ability of the insured to choose their provider will be lost.  The resultant overload of the government system will force the rationing of health care services.  Soon, the other insurers will be forced out of business and Voilà!, we will have arrived at the goal, previously stated by the President and others like Barney Frank, of a single-payer, Government-run system–just like the failing, overburdened socialized medicine systems of Canada and England.

Now, since facts are stubborn things, the only way the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats can contend with facts that contradict their unfounded assertions is to demonize their opponents.  Nancy Pelosi makes bizarre and fantastic claims that opponents of the Health Care Industry takeover arrive at Town hall meetings displaying Swastikas!  Barbara Boxer makes up wondrous tales of “well-dressed” yet angry “mobs” who must (obviously) be paid by nefarious rabble-rousers to undermine the saintly agenda of the President.  Instead of their concerns being addressed, these eloquent common folk, fired by the passion of their convictions and legitimately dismayed by the direction our country is going in, are dismissed across the board by Democrat legislators as mere rabble.  Is this what our Founders envisioned as a representative form of government?

Still, one can easily write off the flailing response of legislators who see their unbridled quest for power being undermined by a populace informed of the stubborn facts.  Much more frightening, is what is written next on that White House blog:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

So, let me get this straight: the same people who went ballistic over a supposed “invasion of privacy” because the Bush Administration dared to use computerized (read, mechanical) monitoring of phone lines to ferret out domestic terrorists, are now asking that personal e-mails and “casual conversation(s)” that disagree with the Party Line be reported to the Feds?  If I dare to send my friends an e-mail that contains some stubborn facts – leave aside this highly public article – will I be visited by the “men in black”?  Maybe I should get my tax records in order for the coming IRS audit.

Anyone who has read Jonah Goldberg’s seminal history book Liberal Fascism will immediately recognize what is going on here.  Leftist ideology, to the large extent that it is indistinguishable today from Fascist ideals, depends largely upon shutting down the free flow of information.  Furthermore, as the supposed “Health Care Crisis” and the “Climate Change Crisis” so aptly illustrate, the modern Left (a far cry from classic Liberalism) needs to manufacture crises to get it’s agenda passed before anyone can understand or object.   After all, it’s all those stubborn facts that keep getting in the way of “transformation,” and one way to insure that a crisis remains a crisis is to limit public access to those doggone stubborn facts.

There was a huge “crisis” that needed Congress to immediately pass the “Stimulus” bill.  Over a thousand pages long, it couldn’t wait long enough for the members of Congress to read it.  Forget the Obama campaign promise to have a five-day period for public comment before any bill is passed.  No, the “crisis” was too great to spare even a moment’s delay.  Of course, once it was passed, the Obama Administration took several days to arrange a wastefully expensive photo-op bill-signing in Denver.  So much for urgency.

As it is, we as a people, are already deep into uncharted territory when it comes to the effects of an unprecedented expansion of Government spending and control of our personal lives.  Everyone–Left, Right, or Center–should be very alarmed by the kind of rhetoric coming from the White House that I quoted above.  The White House is now explicitly asking us to snitch on our neighbors.  In this great country, the foundation of our freedom depends upon our ability to know and disseminate the stubborn facts and then debate their consequences.  Let’s all make sure that those pesky, stubborn facts can continue to be freely spoken.

At the same time, dictator Kim Jong-Il rattles his puny saber and threatens that if any of his ships carrying nuclear materials to other rogue nations are stopped on the high seas, he will consider it an “act of war.”  Well, gee… There was a time not too long ago when the kidnapping of American nationals would have, in itself, been considered an “act of war.”  I imagine that had Teddy Roosevelt or even Ronald Reagan been at the helm when Kim Jong-Il took two American nationals hostage, the response would be quite different.   More likely it would have gone along the lines of: “You have 24 hours to return our citizens before we start obliterating your military bases – one every hour until the hostages are set free.  If we run out of military bases and you still continue to hold them then, unfortunately, we’ll have to start on your cities.  Have a nice day.”  Then, like any good parent, we would follow through with our pledge.

The United Nations, that feckless and ineffectual cesspool of corruption would, of course, raise a momentary wail of crocodile outrage which would die down in a week or two as the world breathed a collective sigh of relief in the knowledge that the North Korean regime had finally been put in its place.

“Oh, but they now have nuclear weapons and will start a nuclear war,” you say.  I doubt it and here’s why:  Nuclear bombs are very difficult and expensive to make.  North Korea has tested two of them.  Those tests were separated by several months, which indicates that they are still very much in the development stage.  The first one was very low yield and may not have even been a nuclear detonation at all.  By way of historical comparison, when we were at war with Japan, after an unprecedented amount of expense and effort we had amassed an arsenal of exactly three nuclear bombs.  The first one we tested in the Nevada desert and the next two were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  At that point we had shot our entire nuclear wad.  It was only because the Japanese believed we had more bombs that they decided it was better to surrender. This points to the likelihood that North Korea, at present at least, doesn’t have a big stockpile of nuclear weapons.  Nor do they have any sort of reliable missile delivery system in place that could be geared up in time to give them much clout.  Finally, our military technology is so vastly superior that, at present, they pose little substantive threat to our allies or us.  The important words to remember are “at present.”  The more time we give them, the more likely they are to make themselves into a far more significant menace.

But, so much for fantasies. We now live in kinder, gentler times. Pipsqueak lunatics with over-inflated egos like Kim Jong-Il are permitted to boss the U.S. around with their grandiose threats.  So, thanks to our President and State Department dithering around trying to find just the right words to cajole Kim Jong-Il into giving back our journalists, their plight has petty much dropped off the radar.  It has been replaced by our Fearless Leader’s desire to immediately socialize health care before any debate can be mustered and his highly principled stand on making sure the FDA regulates the evils of tobacco.

In keeping with our new, more soothing approach to tough foreign policy decisions, I would like to suggest an alternative tactic for getting our two young journalists back.  Al Gore, who employs them at Current TV, has indicated he is willing to personally plead for their release.  If he does go to North Korea, I propose a swap.  Let’s trade Al Gore for Euna Lee and Laura Ling.  Just think of all the wonderful results that could come of it!  We wouldn’t have Uncle Al jetting around promulgating his crackpot Global Warming hysteria in public any longer.  On his days off from rock breaking he could even try convincing the North Korean establishment to go green and sink money into the alternative energy companies he stands to make millions from.  Kim Jong-Il would be far happier having a real celebrity in captivity and even our own broadcast media could make it into an entertaining spectacle.  I can see it now: “Nightline – Day 4,327 – Al Gore Held Hostage!”  Maybe some good can come of this situation after all.

Anyone who has read Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Cucullu’s fascinating and meticulously documented book “Inside Gitmo: The True Story Behind The Myths Of Guantanamo Bay” easily understands the merits of keeping Gitmo open.   In fact, Lieutenant Colonel Cucullu makes a compelling case for expanding Gitmo so as to house convicted terrorists like Jose Padilla and Zacharias Moussaoui, (currently in maximum security prisons here in the US) since they are privy to a vast trove of vital intelligence information, presently unavailable because convicts in American prisons cannot be interrogated.

Be that as it may, the lopsided Senate vote against President Obama’s request for $80 million to fund his wish-upon-a-star fantasy that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay simply vanish, gives me hope that in the end cooler heads than those at MoveOn.org will prevail in this debate. 

Of course, the problem now arises of where future funding will come from to keep Gitmo in operation while Democrats spin their wheels debating what to do with it.  If they refuse to allocate the necessary funds to keep it up and running, it seems they will have painted themselves into a rather embarrassing corner: no money to fund its operation, no money to close it down, and no place to put the terrorists. 

Certainly, in these troubled economic times, intelligent people should all agree that fiscal responsibility mandates some sort of well-thought-out financial husbandry.  In light of that, there seems to be only one alternative left to the Democrats hell-bent on closing Gitmo.  Once all the money runs out, the obvious thing will be to simply shut it down.  Lock all the gates, turn out the lights, pack up, and leave.  No muss.  No fuss.  Let the terrorists fend for themselves and in a few days or weeks, nature will take its course and solve the problem of what to do with them.  Awhile later, Nancy Pelosi can declare Gitmo a National Treasure (like Alcatraz) and, now that travel restrictions to Cuba are being relaxed, MoveOn.org can begin organizing “Bash Bush” tourist excursions.  In the end, it will result in millions of dollars saved and possibly even a net financial gain. 

I think this approach to Gitmo is what Vice President Biden must have been referring to in his commencement address at Wake Forest last week when he so astutely stated, “There’s not a single issue on this President’s plate that will not yield a change.  Just merely by ignoring it, it will change.”   Ignoring the detention center at Guantanamo Bay may be the only option left.  It is heartening that a coherent policy is finally beginning to emerge from this Administration

Ah yes… I can see it now… bedtime at Buckingham Palace…  The Queen emerges from her powder room after her nightly ablutions and gently pads across the oriental carpet in her pink, fuzzy slippers to the edge of her royal bed.  She calls to her maidservant, “Fatima, my dear, before I retire would you fetch me my video iPod?  Not the old one, but the new one I just got from Barry and Michelle.”  “Of course, your Highness,” she replies, quickly exiting the Royal Suite.  Moments later Fatima returns, reverently cradling the radiant object in her hands.  Tenderly taking it from her, the Queen puts in the royal iPod ear buds.  Then, Fatima helps her out of her slippers and into the massive bed, making sure that the goose-down pillows are properly fluffed.  Finally, Fatima places the Royal night-cap on the Queen’s head, and, as the Queen snuggles further into her down comforter, Fatima bids her a pleasant “Good night.”  

Alone now, and with the lights dimmed, the Queen – trembling with anticipation – switches on the iPod and begins to watch the previously loaded photos of the magnificent spectacle of President Obama’s Inauguration. Her eyes wide with delight, she gasps in wonder as Senator Obama places his hand on the Bible and is transformed into President Obama.  Then, warm and cozy in her palace bed, a smile of enchantment on her royal face, the magnificent words of President Obama’s Inauguration speech lull the Queen into a blissful and untroubled sleep. “Change… Hope… Change… Change…change….”

If you haven’t seen it, “Man On Wire” is an engrossing documentary about the French wirewalker, Philippe Petit who, on August 7, 1974, spent about forty-five minutes balancing on a wire illegally stretched between the two World Trade Center towers. Much of the film is put together out of home movies that Petit, his girlfriend Annie Allix, and a variety of cohorts made of themselves during the six years they plotted and trained for their crime. That’s the first indication that something is very much morally awry with Petit and his pals. Talented circus performer that he may be, Petit fancies himself to be such a “great artiste” that his narcissistic desire to defy death while demonstrating his skill trumps all protestations. He merits his obsession to be so important, that it all had to be documented for posterity. There are numerous episodes showing his friends, desperately trying to talk him out of his insane scheme, and even some thirty years later one of his co-conspirators breaks down in tears recalling the stress from the possibility that he might have been complicit in his friend’s death. Nevertheless, Petit’s insufferable self-importance sweeps away all their objections.
 
The movie is made to look like a caper film, inter-cutting reenactments of particularly funny or harrowing moments with footage of some of Petit’s other stunts, the most notable being his 1973 tightrope walk across the span of Sydney Harbor Bridge. That event snarled rush-hour traffic for miles and then, after being arrested, Petit proudly admitted to having picked the arresting officer’s pockets.
 
Once he stepped out onto that wire in 1972, Petit instantly achieved the international celebrity status that he so desperately craved. It never once occurred to him, as he literally danced on that wire almost 1500 feet above the ground, that his actions might have an adverse impact on others. In his words, all he thought about was, “What a beautiful death it would be to die in the exercise of my passion!” Yet, what about the people below? Had he fallen or dropped his 55 pound pole he likely would have killed an innocent gawker. And even if he didn’t injure anyone, what about the psychological trauma his being squashed on impact might have inflicted on all those onlookers? The movie asks no such morally difficult questions. Instead, we listen to Petit’s long-suffering girlfriend, Annie, gush wistfully, “Oh, eet was zo beauteefool to zee heem high above us,” just before telling us that the very first thing Petit did upon his release from custody, even before celebrating with his pals, was to jump into bed with a pretty girl groupie who offered herself to him. Ahhh … such a Frenchman!
 
But, then, narcissists are never particularly troubled by what impacts other people. I think it is this portrayal of unabashed narcissism that helped make the film so popular – especially among those who choose and vote for the Academy Awards. In a previous article for “Big Hollywood,” I wrote about the intimate connection of Hollywood elites to narcissistic self-importance. In “Man On Wire” we see narcissism writ large, and Hollywood lapped it up.
 
Beyond that, though, I was struck by the much larger metaphor between Phillipe Petit and our new President. Our country has elected a man who is preternaturally overconfident and totally self-absorbed. Recall the interview before the election in which CBS correspondent Lara Logan asked candidate Obama if he ever had any doubt about his readiness to lead? His grinning answer, given without a moment’s hesitation was, “Never!” So, it is with utter self-righteousness, that President Obama casually rescinds whatever campaign rhetoric has proven to be inconvenient to his Socialist agenda. Remember how all proposed legislation was going to be transparent to the public and posted on the Internet for all to see? (Except for the pork-laden, so-called “Stimulus Bill” which was pushed into law before even the members of Congress had a chance to read it.) Remember how all earmarks were going be stricken line by line from any bills? (Excluding, of course, those earmarks that go to the Democrat special interests.) Remember how special interests were no longer going to hold sway over government decision-making? (Unless those special interests are the  teacher’s union, trial lawyer’s, or teamsters.) Certainly, we all know how his well-publicized promises of “bringing government together in bipartisan support” evaporated as soon as he took the oath of office.
 
Of course, none of this comes as a shock to anyone who spends a couple of minutes thinking through any of what President Obama says in his lofty-sounding but utterly empty speeches. In that sense, Petit and President Obama are very similar. While Petit fancies himself to be a great artist, he really is nothing more than a glorified circus performer. And while President Obama imagines himself to be the new savior of the modern world, in reality he is turning out to be exactly the same kind of political hack that his shallow rhetoric and shady Illinois background would lead us to expect.
 
Where he differs from Petit is that Petit was unquestionably the best at what he did – whose skill on a tightrope was unparalleled and even justified a certain level of hubris. President Obama, on the other hand, is already demonstrating that on top of being a Socialist ideologue he is an incompetent decision-maker. In some cases it results from his inability to say “no” to the special interests that control him. Witness his staggering decision to start a trade war with Mexico (a country already teetering on the brink of chaos) that will cost the United States billions of dollars in tariffs simply to please the Teamsters demand that we deny access to ninety-seven Mexican trucks. In other cases, his bad decisions seem to stem from naivety and arrogant self-delusion. Example: his warm and fuzzy “Happy New Year” video asking the Mullahs of Iran to make nice so we can all hold hands and sing “Kumbayah” together. I’ll bet that had them chortling all the way to their nuclear bomb facilities.
 
Unfortunately, Barack Obama seems to be the first ever “New Age” President. Entirely self-invented, he has, through sheer strength of will and astonishing chutzpah, “manifested” himself into the Presidency. Like the wirewalker, Petit, he is charming and glib (so long as the teleprompters are working) and sweeps aside any ideas that don’t comport with his agenda. Also like Petit, he is not a serious man but rather is a man besotted by his own celebrity status. Why else spend an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars to fly himself and his entourage out to Hollywood, just so he could claim to be the first President ever to appear on the “Tonight Show?”
 
All this would be somewhat entertaining if it didn’t have gravely serious worldwide implications. Petit and his cohorts could jauntily afford to pick the pockets of the police and it would all be seen as an amusing prank. When President Obama and cohorts like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed pick all our pockets to fund their Socialist expansion of Big Government, it is far more serious. There was a lot less likelihood that Petit would fall off his wire than there is that our President and his radically misguided policies will drive our country into an economic ditch from which we may never fully recover.
 
The ironic metaphor I took away from watching “Man On Wire” came from seeing Petit blithely traversing his wire between the now evaporated World Trade Center towers. Those towers were destroyed a mere 27 years later by the greatest concentrated evil that has yet faced mankind. Sadly, President Obama seems to be dancing on a wire of his own narcissistic construction, oblivious to the maw that gapes below him. I pray that he doesn’t fall off.

My parents were both born in Hungary but immigrated to the States in the early 1950’s. Although I was born and raised in Los Angeles, I speak fluent Hungarian and grew up playing the violin at various Hungarian events commemorating the 1956 Hungarian Revolution or fundraising for Hungarian Freedom Fighters. The photos I saw as a child of heroic Hungarians struggling against their vicious Soviet oppressors burned themselves into my consciousness and I attribute much of my visceral hatred for Communism and its related political doctrines to those searing images. Many of my friends and their families were drawn from among the 100,000 Hungarians who fled their beloved homeland once all hope for lasting freedom was crushed. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was even interviewed a number of times by Radio Free Europe, so I proudly claim a nearly infinitesimal grain of credit for helping to hasten the collapse of the “Evil Empire.”
 
Obviously, it was with particular interest, then, that I read Christian Toto’s interview with filmmaker Klaudia Kovács a few days ago, which alerted me to the only local showing of her 2007 documentary, “Torn From The Flag.” I suppose there are those who might accuse me of not being impartial to the subject matter – a charge to which I plead guilty – nevertheless, I have to say that in all respects I found the documentary to be brilliant and riveting. It tells the story of the brutal Soviet tyranny over Hungary from the end of World War II through the Revolution and its subsequent profound worldwide ramifications with straightforward clarity, pathos, and cinematic sweep.

Much of this is due to the amazing cinematography, which is understandable when one learns that the footage of the Revolution itself was shot by the eminent, Academy Award winning Cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond (Executive Producer) who, as a young filmmaker, documented the Revolution along with his film partner, the late László Kovács (also an Executive Producer). They both subsequently escaped to the West with thirty thousand feet of historic footage. Beyond that, Klaudia Kovács, who spent nine years making this superb documentary along with director Endre Hules, interview scores of spellbinding eye witnesses from both sides of the conflict and as the interviewees weave their tale we come to understand the fascinating and complicated milieu out of which the Revolution emerged.
 
The reason this film is so important is that it provides a much-needed dose of context, sorely missing in our modern world. Ronald Reagan was roundly mocked when he called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire” yet no one seeing the sadistic Soviet cruelty, as related in this film, could ever honestly argue otherwise. We are also reminded, yet again, of the fecklessness of the United Nations, which was as much a moral and political cesspool in 1956 as it is today.
 
Everything, about this inspiring film is first-rate and I hope that since “Torn From The Flag” hasn’t received theatrical release in Los Angeles yet, perhaps when if finally finds wide distribution it will be considered for the Academy’s “Best Documentary” award. It has already deservedly won a whole slew of other major film prizes. Unfortunately, the Academy lately has seemed far too interested in honoring propaganda films like Al Gore’s self-aggrandizing Global Warming screed to help foster wide awareness of such a powerfully anti-Communist documentary. After all, it flies in the face of the moral relativism the Left has so assiduously promoted for decades. Still, the extraordinary production values and gripping nature of the story are so compelling that eventually it must find the wide audience it richly deserves.

If you love freedom and heroism, make it a point to see “Torn From the Flag” if you have the chance!

If you’re interested in the DVD or receiving more information about the film, please email: TornFromTheFlag@hotmail.com

 Marx wasn’t stupid, though, and surely recognized that in order to get his magical notions widely embraced, people would have to give up their traditional ideas of religiosity, since it is difficult if not impossible to maintain a belief in two, utterly conflicting religious faiths at the same time. Tragically, the true believers who swallowed the toxic claptrap Marx advanced have brought far more misery and brutality into the world than all the fundamentalist religious faiths of history combined. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (to name a few of the most egregious examples), all held at their sociopolitical core the same pseudo-religious tenets that Marx proposed, and the staggering amount of death and torture those monsters precipitate dwarf, by several orders of magnitude, the suffering resultant from any religious beliefs. ( I know, some who are ignorant of history will object and say that Nazism and Fascism were Right-Wing movements. To them, I suggest they read Jonah Goldberg’s seminal book “Liberal Fascism” to learn the truth. The word Nazi was an acronym stemming from the German name for the National Socialist Party!)
 
Most people (with the exception of many Political Science professors that still inhabit our Universities) have finally come to regard Nazism, Fascism, and Communism as the evils they inherently are, but Socialism is still widely viewed by vast numbers of otherwise intelligent people as a societal good. “Just think,” they say, “how nice life could be if only more people would recognize that individuality and private property are contrary to the greater Socialist good? Let’s just spread the wealth around.” Indeed, throughout 20th Century history, one of the principal distinctions between Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Socialism has been how thuggishly the fanatical believers in a utopian vision of radical egalitarianism have tried to impose it.
 
Though implementing Socialism is a lot less vicious, its adherents are equally devoted to totalitarianism – witness just one of myriad examples: the recent rumblings about imposing the Fairness Doctrine on Talk Radio. Consequently, it may actually be more insidious, since over a long period of time people gradually get used to its spirit-crushing effects until, like the proverbial frog in the pot of gradually boiling water, all their freedoms are lost.
 
Recently, I found a marvelous quote from Margaret Thatcher who wryly observed, “The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” When I read that, it suddenly hit me that the pseudo-religion of Socialism is fast becoming the very real opiate of the masses. Big Government radicals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are obsessed with redistributing “other people’s money” and are among the principal “pushers”, addicting enormous swaths of American society to the public dole. The very phrase, “other people’s money,” when made into the acronym OPM and said fast becomes “opium.” In modern Socialist societies it isn’t religion that narcotizes people, but rather OPM that renders people weak, helpless, and dependent on the State for their every need.
 
Now, our duly elected President Obama, whose ideological roots are deeply watered by Socialist faith, is working to transform American society into one closely resembling the failed Socialist societies of Western Europe. Taking on a new role as Used Car Salesman-In-Chief, he has seized upon our financial mess (largely caused by disastrous Leftist policies – thank you Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al.) to ram through the costliest Big-Government giveaway/restructuring bill in human history, without anyone in Congress even having had time to read it. In his few short weeks in office, President Obama has injected far more OPM into the lifeblood of America than did Roosevelt’s awful, Depression-prolonging “New Deal” policies. Just to give it a little context, until just a few weeks ago, former President Bush was roundly excoriated for having raised the deficit under his watch. Now, less than a month into his term, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have quadrupled the deficit in one fell swoop – all with OPM.
 
The fact that the Socialist Western European countries are in moral and economic ruin makes no difference to the fanatics who concoct our policies. Sadly, thanks to them, the long era of American exceptionalism and personal freedom will come to an abrupt end unless large segments of the populace awaken to the danger posed by the Socialist OPM. Lest anyone doubt that we are headed that way, need I point out that when the McCain campaign had the temerity to gently suggest that perhaps Mr. Obama’s proposed policies might be vaguely Socialist, he was universally castigated for unethical mudslinging. Yet now, only a few weeks later, the cover story in Newsweek proudly proclaims “We Are All Socialists Now!”

A case in point is the ongoing budget crisis in California. Here we have the richest State in the Union, with an economy that ranks among the largest in the world. Yet, thanks to decades of Leftist mismanagement and redistribution of OPM into failing, Big Government / Socialist programs, it sports the worst credit rating of any state. Loopy from their OPM fix, the Leftist lawmakers who have a stranglehold on California politics have spent the past several decades running California into the ground. Are they held accountable for their fiscal irresponsibility? Of course not! They just demand more OPM. What is the solution proposed by the largely Leftist lawmakers to the budget shortfall? Burden the already crushed taxpayers with an unprecedented tax hike – a twelve cent per gallon gasoline tax (on top of an existing forty cent per gallon tax), a doubling of the car registration fee (already one of the highest in the nation), a one percent increase in sales tax (on top of one of the highest sales taxes in the country) and a huge surcharge on State Income Tax. The Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman demonstrated conclusively that beyond a certain point tax increases result in a decrease in revenue. So why does the Left continue to demand a tax increase? For two reasons: 1.) because they are not truly interested in the revenue but rather in the ideology of redistributing wealth and 2.) because they are addicted to OPM. As I write, a tiny handful of courageous Republican lawmakers are standing between these onerous tax increases and the utter destruction of what
is left of the California economy.

This final quote from the late Dr. Adrian Rogers sums up the problem of OPM best:

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

OPM is the real narcotic of those who fall for the ideas of Marx. If it becomes the drug of choice for the majority of Americans, we are all in big trouble.

I soon decided that some of it could be explained by the pervasive insularity that characterizes the creative community. Musicians hang out with other musicians, actors, with actors, etc. And it quickly became apparent that despite the grandiose pretensions that entertainers maintain about being free thinkers, the incestuous idea-swapping of Liberal slogans was the easiest way to stay in the “club” and not have to waste too much creative juice on real societal problem solving.

But there had to be more to it than that. What makes so many creative people cling so tenaciously to their “brain-dead liberal” ideas?

I got an insight into the answer from a chance encounter with a neighbor of mine who happens to be a writer and movie director. He has made a couple commercially distributed movies, both of which were somber, internal dramas, the scripts for which emanated from his dysfunctional upbringing and reflected his dark and somewhat twisted view of the human condition. Both films opened with great fanfare and garnered tremendous critical praise and, predictably, both films were miserable box office flops. The first, a grim drama about adolescent sexuality coupled with inappropriate adult prurient interest made about $1.2 million while the second, sporting a cast of some very well known actors, involved murder and dystopic familial angst. It brought in a worldwide take of just over $900,000; barely enough to cover the cost of the lunch wagon. Remarkably, he’s found backing for yet another film. (Please forgive me for being deliberately vague about the details of these movies. After all, I am writing about someone I interact with frequently.)

I ran into him, walking his dog just after his second movie opened and casually asked how it was doing. “Alright.” he answered somewhat dejectedly. “Well,“ I said, “it really doesn’t look like the kind of movie I would want to see.” “Yeah. It’s not for everyone,” he replied and then added, “You’re an artist. You can really understand how important it is to be true to your art and you can never compromise when it comes to your artistic vision.” “That may be,” I responded, “but first and foremost, I think of myself as an entertainer.” There was a long pause as he digested that. Finally he retorted, “Well… uh…There are some people who find this kind of film entertaining.”

That brief interchange highlighted for me a big divide between how Liberals and Conservatives see themselves and their role in the entertainment industry, and is another way of looking at the classic divide between Liberals who esteem “rights” over all else, versus Conservatives who view “responsibilities” as their most important value. If I see my work as a classical violinist as primarily “entertainment,” then it’s my duty to make sure that any performance I give provides my audience with a respite from the cares and stresses of life. If someone plunks down thirty or forty dollars to hear me perform, then I feel an obligation to bring them as much joy and inspiration as possible. My friend, on the other hand (a dyed-in-the wool Liberal) views himself as an “artist” and as such, his self-absorbed worldview says to him, “My feelings trump all. My inner world is so important and meaningful that it needs to be placed on worldwide display regardless of whether or not anyone else enjoys it.”

Don’t get me wrong. When I write the word “entertainment” I don’t mean frivolity. A Beethoven Sonata or a movie like “Sophie’s Choice” are works of depth yet at the same time they are entertaining. The debate about what is “art” or “not art” is better left to another article but I believe one of the biggest factors in determining what is “not art” is how narcissistic the work in question is.

I certainly can’t deny that a healthy amount of narcissism is useful, even vital, to the creative process. Without a strong belief in the value of one’s individual vision, no one would do anything creative. (If I didn’t think I had something of value to say, I wouldn’t be writing this.) But, until relatively recently, society and the system of patronage (whether via the local King or the Studio boss) that existed in the arts, served to constrain unbridled narcissism. Even an artistic giant like Beethoven, although fiercely independent and neurotically narcissistic, had to answer to a whole host of societal and creative limitations if he expected to make any money from his art.

As many have observed, modern Liberalism is largely feelings-based. The self-absorbed slogan, “If it feels good, do it!” was a rallying cry of the 60’s and many would argue that now, several decades later, society is reeling from the negative consequences that resulted from the breakdown of societal constraints that sort of thinking helped bring about.

Starting in the 60’s, the media became actively complicit in elevating entertainers to the exalted status of “artist” and that appellation was bestowed upon almost anyone who could more or less hold a tune or say a few lines on camera. By now, the whole concept of “artist” has become stretched so thin as to be meaningless. Obviously, if everyone is an “artist” then no one really is. Here, for example, is this quote from 17 year old Miley Cyrus’ web page: “She may be young, but Miley Cyrus loves what she does, fearlessly embracing new creative directions every chance she gets. That’s the meta-message in “Breakout,” her brilliant new Hollywood Records album. “Breakout” is nothing less than Miley’s declaration of artistic independence.”

Eventually, singers, actors, musicians, and writers, all started believing their own hype — imagining that they were not simply entertainers but were in reality, “great artists” whose every fleeting thought and whim was of monumental social importance. “Great artists” don’t like being constrained by the same moral values or issues of financial pragmatism that constrict the common folk. “Artists”, being anointed by God for greater things should, after all, be above such plebeian concerns. So this newly swelled class of “artist” took upon itself the right, nay, the duty to lead the unwashed masses into compassionate and politically correct thinking. In his day, no one would have given any more credence to Clark Gable’s ideas on politics than they might their plumber, yet today the likes of Sean Penn or Barbara Streisand pontificate on topics well beyond their ken and many listen in slack-jawed reverence.

As more and more entertainers became “artists,” the enticement to join the club became too great. For instance, it’s no longer cool to simply be a news reporter, relegated to objectively conveying the facts of an event. Reporting on “who, what, when, where, and why” is too mundane and not societally transformative, and besides, it takes great “artistry” to be a skilled creative writer. So, reporters have transformed themselves into “artists” and as a result, their ideological opinions have replaced simple truth telling. No wonder newspapers are failing.

The moment an entertainer imbibes this elitist outlook, a conflict with “ordinary” people arises. Lawyers, postal workers, mechanics and the like are viewed as just consumers of all this “art”. Worst of all, in the view of these “artists”, is the military. What could be more antithetical to “art” than the high-tech destructiveness our military must engage in to keep us all safe? As a result, they look down upon the mere mortals who aren’t gifted with the holy vision that enables them to perceive “truths” reserved only for anointed “artists”. How else to explain the staggering hubris that entertainers so often demonstrate in preaching about subjects like same-sex marriage and global warming?

Finally, what often seems to happen is that entertainers (particularly very successful ones) who buy into this “artist” mindset will become wracked by an existential guilt. Deep down, a part of them knows that what they do, while a valuable service, is vastly over inflated in its significance. Believing the hype about their “artistry” can drive them mad, as it did Britney Spears, or they just go off the deep end in their support for Leftist causes in an effort to assuage the guilt that comes from taking so much money from “the common people.”

It’s easy to understand how creative people fall into this pit. By definition, entertainers have to be in far closer touch with their feelings than most people or they couldn’t dip so easily into the pool of emotion that informs their work. Leftist positions appeal to the emotions because they are easy to understand and seem compassionate, even if they lead to larger problems in the long run. And, since they don’t necessitate a lot of facts to clutter the mind, they are easy to embrace and promulgate. I know from my own past that I accepted a lot of Leftist rhetoric simply because it was easier to allow myself to be swept along in the feel-good tide it engendered without being forced to think my positions through with any depth.

Big problems arise, though, when the media gives unfettered permission to entertainers to express their feelings in all areas of life. The Left has been very careful to nurture its relationship to celebrity “artists” and since so many are high profile entertainers, they are constantly giving what amount to Leftist product endorsements via the roles they portray or the interviews they give. Then, sadly, when their pronouncements are taken too seriously, society gets led into a ditch. As a result, even those of us who feel that being an entertainer is a dignified calling are forced (like myself) to opine in areas that we wouldn’t otherwise, simply to counteract the pernicious effect of “artists” spouting their feelings-based claptrap.

When all is said and done, none of this would be that important were it not for the staggeringly negative impact this all has on our society. The countless films, television shows, and interviews that Left-wing entertainers have produced since the 60’s have done a horrific disservice to the cultural and moral foundation of not only our own country but to the public perception of America abroad. When American military, business, and religious interests are all routinely portrayed as rapacious, evil, and corrupt, an entrenched mindset develops against which real events are judged. Is it any wonder, then, that many Europeans think the United States represents the single greatest threat to world peace, or that a significant number of Americans believe that the Bush administration was somehow complicit in the 9 /11 attacks? Back in the 60’s there was a huge outcry when Jane Fonda consorted with the vicious North Vietnamese regime but decades of similar celebrity endorsement has blunted that sense of outrage, to the point that it seemed commonplace for Robert Redford and Sean Penn to consort with a murderous thug like Fidel Castro. Ultimately, it is this cultural brainwash from the Left that explains why it is so difficult to sway a Liberal with facts. If one has spent the last several decades marinating in a sauce of conspiracy theories and images of American greed and brutality, then it’s easy to imagine that President Bush “stole” his election or that Vice President Cheney is beholden to Halliburton.

All is not lost. There are signs that some knees are not jerking quite so frequently to the Liberal side and the “brain-dead” are beginning to awaken from their long coma. The monolithic far-Left dominance of the entertainment industry is beginning to show some cracks. Openly Conservative entertainers are banding together. The very existence of “Big Hollywood” is a tremendously hopeful sign, as it is a vehicle for entertainment professionals to be exposed to Conservative ideas and reasoned debate emanating from within the profession. As a result, the fear Conservative entertainers feel about “coming out of the closet” regarding their views may slowly begin to dissipate.

For creative people, the best thing will be to reclaim the noble calling of being an “entertainer” and with it the healthy sense of responsibility to the audience. After all, it is our work that makes it possible for some people to endure their otherwise mundane lives. If we focus on bringing as much light into the lives of others, “artistry” will take care of itself and we also won’t need to be concerned with seeking narcissistic gratification in ways that are peripheral to what we do best. By doing that, a critical mass of clear thinkers in the entertainment industry may eventually develop and it will again become “cool” to support American values.