James Cameron’s next project may well be a film about Hiroshima.  Sure, after the powerful show of solidarity he gave to our troops in the largely Oscar-free Avatar, you are probably thinking, “Hey, this will be a fair-minded project that shows that dropping the A-Bomb on Japan was a tough but necessary decision which ended up saving hundreds of thousands of American lives – and probably millions of Japanese.”

Pellegrino and Cameron

Surprise!  Instead, it promises to not only be another round of America-bashing but, moreover, one based on the work of a gentleman with a demonstrated track record of fraud and distortion.  Cameron’s long-time pal, Dr. Charles Pellegrino, wrote The Last Train from Hiroshima, the book that Cameron wants to turn into a movie.  It’s a shattering tale of horror told in part from the point of view of an American flyer who deeply regrets his participation.  There’s just one little problem with this important new addition to the historical canon – it seems to have been largely made up by the good doctor.  But, of course, Cameron would not be the King of the World if he let a little thing like rampant fraud get in the way of some gratuitous America-bashing.

So who is Charles Pellegrino - and I use the title “Doctor” here loosely, since this clown’s academic credentials are on par with Dr. Dre’s?   Well, for one thing he does not appear to be a PhD holder from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, as he has claimed.  At least, that was the finding of a reporter from The Telegraph.  Those wacky Brit newspapers and their reporters – going out and actually investigating and reporting instead of acting as unofficial stenographers for their favorite leftist subjects can turn up the darndest things!  

Now, to be fair, The Telegraph reports that he has an explanation.  “Pellegrino countered that his degree was revoked years ago in a dispute over evolutionary theory but later reinstated.”  Sure, as we all know, New Zealand is a hotbed of sheepherding and creationism.  Pellegrino is clearly just another martyr to pure science victimized by the insatiable evangelical frenzy of the anti-evolutionary kiwi mobs rampaging across those idyllic islands. 

Of course, Pellegrino’s reinstatement – in fact, the degree itself – appear to be news to the very institution that supposedly granted the doctorate in the first place.  It seems that the only evolution going on here involves Pellegrino’s ever-morphing excuses.

And Pellegrino has plenty to seek to excuse – as well as a powerful benefactor willing to do so.  Pellegrino and Cameron have been buddies for quite a while, and this is hardly their first controversy.  The award-winning (well, not lately) director even scribed the introduction to Pellegrino’s book Ghosts of the Titanic (2000).  As Michael Parit points out in his devastating New York Times review, it appears that pretty much the only parts of that book not spun from whole cloth are that there was once a ship called the Titanic and there is an ocean called the Atlantic.

Naturally, Cameron worked with Pellegrino again.  He even contributed yet another forward to Pellegrino’s next book, 2007’s The Jesus Family Tomb.  This time, the multi-talented Renaissance man was busy finding the remains of Jesus Christ and his relatives. Cameron then took it a step farther and executive produced a Discovery Channel special based upon Peelgrino’s theories.  Except, as the Israeli Antiquities Authority charitably described it, Pellegrino’s theory and his alleged “evidence” were utter “nonsense.”

Now, as one might expect, the discovery of the mortal remains of Jesus might have just a few minor implications for the world’s billion or so Christians, if you count completely undermining the notion of the Resurrection and therefore entire basis of their faith.  The effect of undeniable proof that Jesus was mortal would be profound – and not just to those ultra-evangelical creationist New Zealanders.

So one might think that Cameron would pause for a moment to ensure, before taking such a leap, that his “expert” was, you know, not a complete fraud.  But sometimes, stories are just too good to check, and given the opportunity to slam Christians, Cameron eagerly allied himself with a guy who shouldn’t be trusted to accurately recap an episode of Gossip Girl.

And now Cameron is doing it again by embracing a demonstrably fraudulent “history” of how America ended the war that Japan began.  The only reasonable explanation is that it is because Pellegrino’s tall tale supports his preferred narrative of America as the villain.

Cameron responded to the AP’s inquiry about Pellegrino’s Hiroshima book by saying, “All I know is that Charlie would not fabricate, so there must be a reason for the misunderstanding.”

That does not fly.  A “misundertanding” involves a good faith but incorrect analysis of the facts and evidence.  Manufacturing those facts and that evidence is something completely different – and much more sinister. 

Cameron has no excuse, and his eagerness to embrace Pellegrino’s fantasies indicates something more than just gross recklesslessness.  The claims of fraud regarding of Pellegrino’s Titanic book were no secret.  The charges that Pellegrino’s Jesus Family Tomb claims were bogus were no secret.  And Pellegrino’s inability to answer specific allegations about The Last Train from Hiroshima – about historical figures no one (especially Pellegrino) has records of, his reliance on imposters and his claims of statements allegedly made by actual participants that contradict every other statement the participants ever made – is damning.

This isn’t a mistake.  This isn’t an alternative point of view.  The only reasonable conclusion is that it represents a conscious decision by Cameron to again embrace falsehood to further his own nihilistic agenda.  And that’s just plain evil.

Cameron doesn’t hide where he stands – except to soft pedal his anti-troop leanings whenever he’s called on it.  He detests the society and culture that made him wealthy and he embraces the most patronizing kind of native fetishism.  He buys into the global warming scam from the comfort of his mansions.  He lends moral support to eco-terrorists from behind his phalanx of security guards. 

In short, he’s nothing unusual in Hollywood.  So one big question remains:  Is Cameron in on it, or is he just a fool?

Now, I don’t mind if Obama wants to go, and it’s probably presumptuous of me to criticize him for what he might say there, since he hasn’t gone yet.

But if I didn’t, then I wouldn’t have a Gregalogue, and that’s not fair to me, or to those delightful unicorn voices in my head.

And besides, I can pretty much go by what I’ve seen of Obama already. Fact is, whenever he’s overseas, he tends to translate American success into past arrogance. Plus, I don’t think he’ll go to Hiroshima and say, “We did it to save lives,” because that undermines his whole point about nuclear weapons being evil.

And look at the fall of the Berlin Wall – the most important positive event in our lifetimes – unleashing a march of countries toward freedom. Obama didn’t even go to that shindig. Instead, he offered a video – the kind of thing Britney Spears does when she can’t accept the trophy for best U.T.I. at the MTV awards.

Still, Obama’s speech wasn’t bad. He championed freedom and stuff.

But then, he couldn’t resist:

“Few would have foreseen … that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.”

So, no mention of Reagan or Thatcher – yet he brings up himself?

Maybe staying home isn’t so bad.

And if you disagree with me, you’re probably a racist!

Tonight, a delightful line-up!

Carrie Prejean!

Allison Brie from Mad Men!

Lance Reddick from Fringe!

Trace Gallagher!

Andrea Tantaros!

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.

Jon Stewart makes Arlen Specter look principled.

Like Pee Wee Herman, Jon Stewart launched his intercontinental ballistic missile, and he could not put the missile back on the launching pad. In his case, the only thing that seeped out was stupidity.

Jon Stewart, for those who are not “trendy,” “hip,” or “cool” (brie-cheese-eating-elitist-snobs according to the Tygrrrr Express dictionary), has a nightly political television show where he presents the news with all the accuracy and fairness of the Jayson Blair Times.

Yet he is slightly different from the JBT. The JBT wants to be taken seriously, despite being leftist, boring, and usually wrong. Jon Stewart wants to be taken seriously when it suits him, and as a comedian when that benefits him. He straddles like Bill Clinton, only with his trousers on. On the one hand, Stewart claims to offer intelligent political insight. Yet when challenged a couple of years ago, Stewart took the defensive posture that his show was followed by “crank calls by puppets.”

This is not about “Crank Yankers.” This is about acting like a cranky wanker.

Jon Stewart had his CW moment when debating the absolutely brilliant Cliff May. I know Cliff personally. He is no partisan hack. He is a serious policy analyst with expertise in matters of national security. People who attend his lectures are better off for it.

Cliff May debated Jon Stewart on torture, and the only thing that was definitely tortured was Stewart trying to keep up. Cliff May did not use coercive interrogation methods on Jon Stewart, but he certainly put him in an uncomfortable stress position. Stewart was twisted into a pretzel by the time the debate was done.

Here is May’s recap of the events.

May asked Stewart if Harry Truman was a war criminal for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Stewart hemmed, hawed, and fumbled his words. For a man who lambasted President George W. Bush for malaprops and syntax fracturing, Stewart sure looked like the pot calling the kettle African-American. In fact, he looked like President Obama without a teleprompter.

He eventually blurted out that, yes, Harry Truman was a war criminal.

Then came the backlash from the millions of people that understand that America is about Jimmy Stewart, not Jon Stewart.

Jon Stewart then apologized on a later show. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to apologize after a backlash occurs. After all, free speech is not free. Just ask Dr. Laura. Jon Stewart may have come to understand that some of his sponsors do business with Middle America.

Yet, this is about something deeper. Why does Jon Stewart give latitude to Harry Truman while skewering George W. Bush?

Because ideological bigotry requires that liberals and Democrats be exalted while Republicans and conservatives are skewered. Actual issues are irrelevant.

(For those that are part of the Jon Stewart love orgy, Ideological Bigotry is my groundbreaking new book that exposes leftist hatred. Middle America gets it. You should as well.)

Jon Stewart realized that he criticized a Democrat. It is better to be a hypocrite and anger people that you already detest than to be consistent and anger people you love. It is not possible to unite everybody on your side, but it is possible to unite people against you.

So let me offer some common sense that will be self-explanatory to Middle America.

Harry Truman did the right thing. He made an impossible choice that none of us will ever have to make. His job was not, as some liberals insist, to save the world. His job was to save America. We were under attack. By killing many innocent Japanese civilians, he prevented millions of Americans from being killed. He did the one thing a president must do. He kept us safe. As an extra benefit, millions of people worldwide were saved.

George W. Bush also did the right thing. He also made the impossible choice. He also responded to an attack on our soil by going everywhere terrorists were harbored and protected.

We were attacked by Japan, but Harry Truman took the fight to Germany. Germany never attacked us. So what? They were part of the problem.

We were attacked by Al Queda, but George W. Bush took the fight to Iraq. Iraq never attacked us. So what? They were part of the problem, as are Iran and Syria.

More people died at the hands of Harry Truman than George W. Bush. The numbers are not even close. Harry Truman took measures more brutal than anything George W. Bush ever did. Harry Truman ordered the most unimaginable response.

So if Harry Truman was right, then George W. Bush cannot be a war criminal.

Jon Stewart knows this. To deny this is to be intellectually dishonest, or as I say in my Tygrrrr Express dictionary, “a liberal.”

Jon Stewart once remarked that when George W. Bush was right about something, “My head may explode.”

Well, feel free to spontaneously combust, Mr. Stewart. George W. Bush got the biggest thing right that he was asked to do.

Jon Stewart has his right to free speech because George W. Bush protected and defended that right.

Yet Jon Stewart allowed fear of being called a hypocrite to overrule common sense.

He then realized that nobody has a right to earn tons of money from “free” speech.

Jon Stewart was not protecting free speech. He was protecting very expensive, highly paid speech.

It is at that moment that he decided to “apologize” and defend his bottom (left) flank.

He had the courage of his “convictions,” which was to defend his rumpus from financial harm.

Real courage would be Jon Stewart offering an apology to George W. Bush while he is still alive to hear it.