Actually, no.

This is how the world works. Relationships matter and that’s life. I do, however, resent the fact that he’s not up to the job and that every time he’s on MSNBC talking about his Congressional beat I get “Bugsy Malone” flashbacks.

And just to keep the movie metaphors flowing, there’s also that whole “Vertigo” vibe, where Luke is Kim Novak and MSNBC is the sad and twisted Jimmy Stewart trying to creepily recreate someone they lost by dressing some wannabe up to look just like them. Whatever’s going on between MSNBC and Luke Russert. it’s not healthy.

And what better proof of that than this series of sanctimonious tweets from Russert where he laments how “sick” a video game commercial makes him feel because it doesn’t “reflect the costs of war”:

——

—–

Newsflash, Luke: Your dad was a giant and we all still miss him. But maybe it’s time for you to jump off his shoulders in order to spend a little time in the real world where those of  us who have struggled for everything we have don’t need video games to teach us how the world turns and that everything isn’t hunky-dory. And not only do we not need a video game to remind us of the world’s ills, believe it or not, we don’t need you to tell us all about it either.

So if it’s okay with you, we bitter clingers could use a little escape now and again and kinda resent know-betters who actually don’t know anything trying to shove their ignorant political agenda into everything.

On the other hand, I was very moved by Jon Stewart’s monologue and there was no doubt about his pain.

It didn’t take long, however, for the entertainment industry to jump on the Bush derangement syndrome bandwagon and every film, show or play to be tainted with liberal hate.

Jon Stewart should take a look back on his feelings that day and tone down his contempt for all things conservative.

Until then, I don’t watch him or Letterman anymore.

Unfortunately, they chose to fight for the other side.

If our history is written by honest brokers, this generation of Hollywoodists will be remembered as those who openly enabled evil and spent hundreds of millions of dollars making bombs for the enemy — box office bombs. Over a dozen of them, specifically engineered with equal parts lies and hate and propaganda to undermine morale at home and on the battlefield in the hopes that we would lose this war.

Never forget the crime committed in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon on that terrible day.  And never forget  how Hollywood turned on your country.

There were some exceptions, however, and chief among them was Joel Surnow, the co-creator of “24.” Each week, for eight seasons, he gave this country a hero who openly loved America, did what was necessary to protect her, and who was willing to pay a terrible price for it. ”24″ also delivered the goods. Cathartic, exciting and righteous without being self-righteous, the addictive adventures of Jack Bauer became an oasis in a cesspool of Hollywood product delivering the exact opposite message.

As the face of the program, Surnow paid a price for his apostasy and because he’s a smart man who knows how the world works, my guess is that he knew that someday he would. We all watched as some of the biggest forces in the world of entertainment and politics ganged up to exact their revenge with “The Kennedys.” Don’t believe for a second that wasn’t a form of payback.

For whatever it’s worth, we thank you, Joel Surnow.  You can’t imagine what it meant to millions of us  to have something to count on over those weeks and years — something that told us we weren’t crazy and we weren’t alone.

And thank you to the subversives who used their art and magnificent artistry to take our side through thinly veiled allegory. Thank you Frank Miller and Zack Snyder for “300.” Thank you Christopher Nolan for “The Dark Knight.”

There were others. Men like Gary Sinise who tirelessly support the troops and David Zucker who took the fight directly to that anti-American pig Michael Moore. There is also Robert Davi, Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammer, Michael Moriarty and those like them who have bravely and eloquently spoken out against the talking points issued by their Hollywood Overlords.

For fear of missing one, I won’t attempt to name everyone in Hollywood who did the right thing, who openly supported our military and refused to participate in the resume-enhancing undermining of our country. Within the context of the whole of the entertainment business, however, they make up a heartbreakingly short list. But you know who are and we know who you are and we thank you.

The rest of you can burn in Hell.

It’s a long, anguished, intellectually dishonest rationalization from the aging actresses titled: “The Truth About My Trip to Hanoi.” 

Not sure it’s worth a read. Up to you. But the real meat is buried under thousands of words:

That May, I received an invitation from the North Vietnamese in Paris to make the trip to Hanoi. Many had gone before me but perhaps it would take a different sort of celebrity to get people’s attention. Heightened public attention was what was needed to confront the impending crisis with the dikes. I would take a camera and bring back photographic evidence (if such was to be found) of the bomb damage of the dikes we’d been hearing about.

I arranged the trip’s logistics through the Vietnamese delegation at the Paris Peace talks, bought myself a round trip ticket and stopped in New York to pick up letters for the POWs.

Frankly, the trip felt like a call to service. It was a humanitarian mission, not a political trip. My goal was to expose and try to halt the bombing of the dikes. (The bombing of the dikes ended a month after my return from Hanoi)

The only problem was that I went alone. Had I been with a more experienced, clear-headed, traveling companion, I would not have allowed myself to get into a situation where I was photographed on an anti-aircraft gun.

Imagine Jane Fonda’s father Henry Fonda (who, by the way, enlisted to fight in WWII)  saying, “In 1942, the Nazis invited me to Berlin where I was photographed on a Tiger II tank but I also did a bunch of other stuff while I was there, so please judge me by the full context of my trip to Berlin.”

Hilariously, to keep the focus off her fraternizing with an enemy desperate to kill American and allied troops and in the process of  subjugating the sovereign nation of South Vietnam into the slavery of Communism, Fonda crybabies about all the lies told about her trip, especially those told on the Internet. This is a semantic ploy meant to distract from her many serious critics who need not make a single thing up or exaggerated in the least to reveal her actions as despicable and outright traitorous.

It’s funny that in the September of her years, Fonda would all of a sudden be so gung-ho about putting this shame to rest. My guess is that she pictured herself at this age as one of those artists who spends their twilight being toasted and honored throughout the world; their controversies forgotten, forgiven, and overshadowed by legend. Jane Fonda has lived to be old enough to be allowed a sneak peek at her legacy and she apparently doesn’t like what she’s seeing.

Unfortunately for Fonda, when it comes to most things, we Americans really are a forgiving bunch. Especially in the arenas of personal, sexual, and bad boyish behavior. Time and again, when someone reaches a certain stage of their life, we tend to realize how little the mistakes of their past (which are usually more tasteless, stupid, boorish and self-destructive than anything else) matters within the context of someone who will soon leave us forever.

Something we’re not as forgiving about, however, is the betrayal of our country or the appeasing of an enemy. Fair or not, this is something that will forever haunt the legacies of Joe Kennedy Sr. and Charles Lindbergh.

And so it will with Jane Fonda. 

What she did was morally appalling and narcissistic and arrogant and undermining to an entire generation of men who risked their lives for their own country and to keep free another.  

No spin, no thousands of words, no Academy Award, no legacy or legend will ever change that.

Director Jonathan Flora frames the film around Gary Sinise, an actor and director with a long, intimate history with soldiers and veterans, though he himself has never served. From his brother-in-law, who was killed in Vietnam, to current bandmate Kimo Williams,  a ‘Nam veteran who started jamming with Sinise after they met on a production of A Streetcar Named Desire in the mid-90s, his career has always seemed to providentially intertwine with the military. Following the jihadist attacks of 9/11, Sinise felt compelled to help those directly affected by the Twin Towers’ destruction, volunteering in campaigns to benefit the FDNY. This spirit of volunteerism, in concert with his ever more frequent band practices with Williams,  materialized into a USO tour in 2003. Despite his diverse résumé, Sinise was universally associated with his Oscar-nominated performance as “Lieutenant Dan” from Forrest Gump, so as the group expanded, Sinise named it the “Lieutenant Dan Band,” and the rest is history.

It’s tempting to think this is a vanity project for Sinise, now better known for his long-running role on CSI: New York–that like other celebrities, he’s got a pet cause designed to make him look like a good guy. It’s certainly clear the producers ask virtually every interviewee their opinion of the man, but any doubts the viewer entertains about his sincerity quickly evaporate as the film reveals a level of determination and effort that would be noteworthy from anyone, celebrity or no. We see him orchestrate an increasingly elaborate stage show, drawing on his experience running Chicago’s Steppenwolf theatre. We see his family silently bear the burden of his prolonged absences; they miss him but recognize his time away as tours of duty. We realize Sinise and co. aren’t ego strokers reading a PSA script for a check, whipping up crocodile tears over the ozone layer so they can lecture flyover country and feel morally superior. They’re hard-working entertainers willing to put their lives on hold and travel to war zones all to display their gratitude to our servicemen and women.

Aside from the warm fuzzies it’ll put in your heart, For the Common Good is an entertaining and exhaustive documentary. We’re treated to a brief history of the USO, Gary’s young introduction to both music and acting, musical numbers by the Lt. Dan Band switching seamlessly from one concert’s footage to the next, and plenty of interviews with soldiers and veterans. We get to meet members of the band as well, and it becomes rather apparent why Kimo and Gary gravitated toward each other; both are natural storytellers and performers. One of the film’s highlights is Kimo revealing how he almost got shot playing a concert (while still a soldier) at a fire base in Vietnam. Other notable sequences include a view and discussion of the inside of one of Saddam Hussein’s mansions, a “Snowball Express” concert for the children and other family members of deployed soldiers, and a few cameos from other celebrities such as John Ratzenburger, Robert Duvall, Gary Cole, and Jon Voight.

The film’s title comes from an Abraham Lincoln quote that perfectly sums up its themes: “Honor to the Soldier and Sailor everywhere, who bravely bears his country’s cause. Honor also the citizen who cares for his brother in the field, and serves, as best he can, the same cause. Honor to him, who braves for the common good.” In any other context, I know the phrase “for the common good” would cause many here to blow a gasket over its collectivist implications, but in this documentary we see the concept in its noblest form. Our soldiers sacrifice themselves not to prop up dependents but to protect independence, and we see how one man’s thankfulness for that protection plays its own part in carrying our troops forward in their mission.

Lt. Dan Band: For the Common Good is available through On Demand nationwide, or  you can view the film directly through its website.

It is a strange turn in American history. Fueled in part by an administration that has given his supporters little to cheer about since November of 2008, there is suddenly an appreciation of the American Military in Left-wing outposts like Hollywood and Washington DC. It is a moment unparalleled. The news of Usama’s death was greeted by cheering throngs of bureaucrats filling Pennsylvania Avenue, ecstatic that Hope finally got something right. As details about Usama bin Laden’s compound leak out, even the most strident Liberals in Hollywood can get on board, since it has now been revealed that Usama burned his garbage on site, rather than recycling.

Even more peculiar, The Internets are all a twitter about a movie depicting the killing of Usama bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that at least several of these films will be made. In fact, the White House has already scripted the crucial moment, the big scene when His fist comes down on the desk and He demands the mission be launched in the most mannish voice he can muster: “It’s A Go”

Of course, the sixteen hours he took to sleep on it, will probably be deleted by Hollywood. Maybe it might be rewritten to include a scene where he goes off into the White House Garden and prays for guidance, while his advisors did the sleeping.

Since the passing of John Wayne, Hollywood has found it difficult to make any heroic war pictures. Most of the pictures since “The Green Berets” have portrayed the American troops as either the bad guys, mentally ill, or both. Even in the great WWII tributes by Tom Hanks, American soldiers were depicted more as crying boys, than heroic men.

Modern Hollywood prefers anti-heroes. In order for them to depict a real hero, he has to wear a mask, a cape, and his underwear on the outside of his pants. (And most often, have a touch of mental illness.) But I suspect something different will now happen. The men of SEAL Team 6 will be treated as genuine heroes in the mold of John Wayne. (Pardon my sexism, I don’t think there are any women in SEAL Team 6 — although my fondest hope is the last thing Usama saw was an unveiled woman looking down that barrel, a woman with an education and a driver’s license.)

The prime motivator for making these films is just around the corner. There is a need to keep these images fresh in the conscience of America for the remainder of His term, and a sincere hope that “It’s A Go” will become the “Yes We Can” of 2012. Expect most of these films to be released 60 days before November 2012. (And much like the downplayed enhanced interrogations that led to the mission, don’t expect the Left to credit Citizens United v. FEC for that window.)

It is the kind of rescue scene that Hollywood has adored since “Birth of a Nation.” Just as the evil Republicans are about to take over Washington, SEAL Team 6 rides over the horizon in a formation of helicopters to save the Presidency from it’s own incompetence.

Mr. Spielberg, line one…

So many are surprised that President Obama would bomb Libya.

And now, he’s authorized covert operations.

How odd!

How Bush!

Wasn’t O the anti-war, “we’re sorry for everything” President, the man who condemned any kind of American military intervention?

Well, here’s how it all changed.

A couple of years ago Obama said that he believed in American exceptionalism, just as the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism, and the British believe in British exceptionalism.

In other words, he didn’t believe it. That’s when it all fell apart.

Soon, Obama started repeating, “the world is watching,” whenever bad crap started happening. Like in Iran.

He was right. The world watched.

And did nothing.

He then discovered that the world is just like the perverted priest in “Crimes of Passion:” all it does IS watch.

So Obama learned that exceptionalism is real: the world goes limp without America at the lead. To reject this is like being a star player who prefers to ride the bench, texting his bracket picks.

See, “the world is watching,” means nothing if “America ain’t doing.” And “doing” often means “bombing.” The “kinetic action” in Libya reminds the world that Americans can do this stuff. When the world forgets that, bad stuff happens.

Which means, sadly, we are the world’s policeman, because we are exceptional, we are the best.

So why not embrace this notion, instead of fighting it?

The world may hate us, but that’s because, we’re beautiful.

Or at least I am.

And if you disagree with me. you’re a racist homophobe.

Tonight’s guests - another awesome lineup!

Dean Cain! yes!

Patti Anne Browne!

Dana Vachon!

I feel really good about this one.

The takeaway from this interview is that Jon Stewart is really upset that while the administration obviously deliberated at great length behind the scenes, they did not hem and haw over whether or not to go to war with Iraq in public. And at the very end of the interview, “The “Daily Show” host sure doesn’t want to hear or acknowledge how close Saddam was to reconsituting his WMD program — this monster of a man determined to have and willing to use chemical and biological weapons.

Stewart does what he can to press his point of view, but for the most part he’s stuck on stupid and arguing with the facts. To suggest that it would’ve been a good idea for an adminstration to publicly express doubts about the reasons behind a war or over the outcome is beyond absurd, and to paper over the fact, as though it doesn’t matter, that Saddam was never far away from being a chemical or biological menace is equally absurd.

Something Rumsfeld doesn’t touch upon that Stewart would also have a hard time wrist-flicking is that under a very real threat of death, the Iraqi people themselves came out to vote in favor of self-determination and for the war. At that point the Iraq War became their war as much as ours and the United States had a moral obligation to ensure we protected the millions who bravely and publicly sided with us on that day. Unless it’s the number of dead, war critics like Stewart never talk about the will of the Iraqi people to be free or their willingness to fight and die for that freedom. Who is Jon Stewart or anyone to say the war wasn’t worth it or didn’t make the world a better place? 25 million people obviously disagree and their steady travels to the voting booths in the years since prove it.

There’s something a little off about those who only find the Iraqi dead useful to their argument and ignore the living.

Never forget that the Iraqi people chose freedom over opression and had the anti-war monsters had their way, we would’ve abandoned those innocents to the holocaust of a terrorist/death squad meat grinder. Instead we chose, at a terrible cost, to stand and fight. And those who fought were Americans from every walk of life who had volunteered to run towards danger when everyone else ran away and to risk their lives for those they had never met. In the end, as messy and as costly as it was, the liberation of 25 million people was a selfless and noble act.

Stewart does deserve credit for two things. First, he let’s Rumsfeld have his say. Second, while the full interview wasn’t broadcast (which wouldn’t have been practical), he did release the full interiew online.

You  can watch the full interview here.

Zulu was directed by blacklisted American screen-writer Cy Enfield who also co-wrote the script with historical writer John Preeble.  The film was produced by Enfield and lead actor Baker through the latter’s newly-formed production company, Diamond Films.  Zulu was a pet project of Baker’s who worked tirelessly to bring his vision of an article penned by Preeble to the screen. 

The film harkens back to the year 1879 during the opening of the Zulu War where lonely British army outpost called Rorke’s Drift sits nestled in the dry and rugged terrain of Natal, South Africa.  The little company of mostly Welsh soldiers left to guard the way station and hospital thinks they’re on quiet rear echelon duty when news arrives that their entire regiment of 1,200 men has been ambushed and massacred at the Battle of Isandlwana by the army of Zulu king Cetewayo (played in the film by the real Zulu chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi).  To make matters worse, 4,000 of them are now headed their way, hell bent on destroying the tiny garrison of just over 100 men. 

Tension builds within the command structure as the infantry company c.o. Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead (Caine) must relinquish control to the visiting Royal Engineers Lt. John Chard (Baker) who, though it’s not his unit, has seniority nonetheless.   Ordered to hold their ground, Chard applies his engineer’s eye to the problem and orders the garrison to construct a concentric series of defense lines from overturned wagons, crates and mealie bags…with a final redoubt at its core.  While the preparations for the attack are underway, the post is visited by a variety of characters. 

Natal native contingent militiaman Ardendorff (Gert Van den Bergh) has just escaped from Isandlwana.  The Boer—who ironically will soon be waging bitter war against the British himself—agrees to stay and act as military consultant. 

Next is Swedish pastor Otto Witt (Jack Hawkins) and his lovely daughter Margareta (Ulla Jacobsson).  Witt, who has just come from a mass wedding in Cetewayo’s kraal, tries in vain to convince Chard to let him evacuate the sick but Chard needs every rifle.  Despairing over what he sees as an impending massacre, Witt retreats into a drunken stupor while shouting demoralizing prophecies of impending doom at the rank and file.  When he convinces the native levies to abandon their posts and run for their lives, Chard sends him and his daughter away.  The Zulus, to their credit, let them go.

Finally, a troop of Boer cavalrymen pass through but refuse to stay.  Bromhead, still smarting over Chard’s usurpation of his authority, offers no assistance, telling him that  ”when in command, old boy,  you’re own your own.”

When the Zulus do arrive, their display of strength is awesome.  Formed up along the hilltops is an imposing line of battle 4,000 warriors strong.  The little command at Rorke’s Drift seems to have moments to live.  But thanks to Chard’s defense in depth scheme, through some of the coolest combat scenes in film, we watch the well-drilled redcoats beat back wave after wave of attackers from behind their hastily constructed ramparts well into the night and the following morning.  In that time Bromhead comes to appreciate the wisdom of Chard’s plan and goes from being an unwilling subordinate to a reliable second in command. 

The final Zulu assault pushes the company to the very brink, with their backs literally up against the wall of their redoubt.  But volley after volley tears into the condensed native ranks and they eventually break off leaving their dead strewn in a heap literally at the feet of the exhausted Welshmen.  When the Zulus return yet again, they do so only to offer a solemn salute from the hills down to their British “fellow braves” in the smoking valley below and then move on.  The battle is over. 

Besides Barry’s tremendous score.  Beyond the cinematography and brilliantly  choreographed battle scenes.  And  setting aside Richard Burton’s voice-over in the beginning and the end of the film, what makes Zulu so appealing is that it went out of its way to try and show both sides of the story here.  (Even a third side of you consider the Boer viewpoint).  It has been compared to an old fashioned cowboy and Indian western, but in those films the Indians were portrayed as the savage villains and the settlers as the helpless innocents.  Zulu offers no such binary notion. 

On many occasions in fact, the idea of Black inferiority is harshly rebuked whenever prejudice rears its ugly head in the ranks.  When Bromhead wonders how an entire regiment of 800 British regulars could be wiped out by “the fuzzies” as he calls them, Ardenforff reminds him that there were 400 native levies with them.  “Damn the levies man,” spits Bromhead. “More cowardly Blacks!”  Ardendorff can barely restrain himself: “What the devil do you mean ‘cowardly blacks’ they died fighting on your side didn’t they?  And who do you think is coming here to wipe out your little command?  The Grenadier Guards!?”

Even Otto Witt tries to teach his daughter that European ways are not always the correct ways while observing a mass wedding as Cetewayo’s honored guest.  “In Europe, women accept arranged marriages with rich men.  Perhaps the Zulu girls are luckier.  They’re getting a brave man…. They are a great people daughter!”

Other examples of respect for the Zulus abound.  In the opening communiqué about Isandlwana, the Zulu attack is described as “highly disciplined.”  At other times they are shown as exceptionally brave warriors who earn the respect of the Welshmen they’re trying to kill:  “They’ve got more guts ‘an we ‘ave by all!” cries one ranker.  And in the end, we know that they can destroy the depleted and thirsty company with one more attack, but they let them live in a gesture of fellowship among soldiers. 

Considering this film was produced in 1964, just as the Civil Rights movement was gathering steam and at a time when genuine white racism (not the fabricated Al Sharpton variety) was still quite prevalent, the portraying of the Zulus as more or less equals before a Western audience was a refreshing statement.  The film was well-received accordingly. 

Now, I admit that this movie is overflowing with historical inaccuracies to be sure.  Some of them minor (For example, Chard’s command was never a question as he had four years seniority, not four months as depicted in the film.)  Company B of the 2^nd Battalion, 24th Regiment of Foot had many more Englishmen than Welshman at the time.  The real Otto Witt cooperated fully and only left to tend to his family nearby.  Private Henry Hook, who won the Victoria Cross for bravely defending the hospital, was portrayed by James Booth as a drunkard and slacker before rising to the occasion.  In fact, Hook was a teetotaller and a model soldier who’d just received good conduct pay!  Poetic license is one thing.  But Hook’s family was (justifiably) incensed over this insult to their father’s memory and actually walked out of the premier in protest. 

With that said though, if you wish to really enjoy a spellbinding war flick (without the gore of the modern genre) then rent Zulu.  It has such great characters from the indomitable Colour-Sergeant Bourne, portrayed by the hulking Nigel Greene, to the irascible Surgeon Reynolds played by Patrick Magee (“damn ya Chard!  Damn all you butchers!”).  The South African scenery is beautiful.  The pageantry of the early Zulu wedding and then the final dueling war songs – the Zulus chanting while the company sings “Men Of Harlech” – can only be described as magnificent.  And Barry’s score is powerful.  Finally, there is the message itself which, in a harbinger of the anti-war overtones in movies to come, is that there are no winners in war…just the dead, sprawled out on a patch of valueless dirt fought over by kids far from home with no business being there in the first place, but for their orders from on high.  When a young boy with his dying breath asks “Why?” Surgeon Reynolds can only say: “You’ll sleep now boy.  But I’m damned if I can tell you why.”

That, of course, was just their public face; in reality, it soon became clear, they are ugly and reptilian under their human skins and have an agenda to exploit humanity in some way, either as slaves or as food or both, or perhaps some even worse and more horrible fashion. And a small group of people have divined this agenda and set up a small, loose, but dedicated resistance organization.

Central to the narrative is the resistance against an intrusive government that claims to be for nothing but the good of humanity but is in fact pursuing sinister, elitist, and exploitative hidden agendas. As such, the show makes a strong commentary on contemporary political issues and constitutes one of the most frankly libertarian TV series seen in many years. In addition, it suggests strong approval of religion, specifically Christianity, in a way that makes the resistance group a spot-on analogue to the current-day Tea Party movement.

In episode 5, “Welcome to the War,” for example, the “visitors” clearly display the trappings of an oppressive government: claims of exclusively benevolent intentions; a large, complex organization devoted to the will of a single leader and small cadre of elite satraps; exercise of raw power against opposition whenever it can be accomplished in secret; use of sympathetic media mouthpieces and propaganda techniques; highly advanced military power and surveillance capabilities; vastly greater power than the people over whom they want to rule; use of deception and scapegoating  in order to undermine resistance; and the like.

A member of the Christian clergy, Father Jack Landry (characterized excellently by Joel Gretsch), remains central to the resistance effort, along with FBI agent Erica Evans (likewise well played by Elizabeth Mitchell). Both are determined, kindly, and fundamentally decent and unselfish. Father Jack continually wears the traditional turned-around collar identifying him as a clergyman.

Leading the visitors, by contrast, is Anna, an extremely charismatic woman whose appearance includes both Caucasian and African characteristics. Anna claims to be for treating all people as equals and helping those who haven’t been successful in life, stopping just short of directly quoting President Obama and other progressive politicians. As the show progressed through its first season, however, she was increasingly revealed as a cold-hearted monster whose words of benevolence are entirely phony.

In episode 8, “We Can’t Win,”, for example, one of the V leaders describes flooding caused by a monsoon, which has possibly killed thousands of people, as a “tragedy.” “No,” says Anna, smiling triumphantly, “an opportunity,” echoing the words of former Obama aide Rahm Emanuel. Later, Anna tells a sympathetic journalist, “There’s tragedy every day all over your world. So many opportunities to help.”

In that same episode, Anna and the visitors continually refer to their takeover plans as “progress,” an apparent allusion to contemporary statists’ self-description as progressives.

As noted, the religious orientation of the show is strongly Christian. The leaders of the resistance use a church as their base of operations, and the climactic scene of “Welcome to the War” takes place in the church’s sanctuary. The church thus serves as a source of sound, eternal values and gives emotional strength to the resistance. The resistance members are clearly shown to be in the movement to protect their families, faith, freedom, and personal integrity.

In another positive allusion to Christianity, resistance member Georgie sacrifices his life to ensure that he won’t give away the identities of the other resisters, an evident allusion to Christ and to subsequent Christian martyrs. The show doesn’t avoid difficult moral quandaries, either: in “We Can’t Win,” Father Jack shoots a human agent of the Visitors.

The Visitors, too, recognize the power of religion, but they use it to their own ends. Erica’s teenage son, Tyler, becomes interested in “The Church of V” concocted by the Visitors as another means of distracting people from their real intentions.

In addition to the human resistance, among the aliens are some good individuals who sympathize with the humans. In fact, “John May,” the first V to turn against Anna, actually started the resistance. His name is of course reminiscent of John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. Two prominent aliens working against their government are given biblical names, Joshua and Samuel.

Episode 9, “Heretic’s Fork,” includes allusions to Nazi eugenics programs, with V doctors performing experiments on live human subjects. These events also resonate with contemporary issues such as elective abortion and embryonic stem cell research, however, as when Anna refers to an unborn V-human hybrid baby as a “mongrel” and insists it should be put to death in the womb. In “We Can’t Win” she kills an unborn Visitor just to make a point in a personal conversation.

The media’s role in pushing for big government is also prominent in the show. Newsman Chad Decker (Scott Wolf), for example, offers to do a story about the Fifth Column, the small group of humans who distrust the visitors. “Just point me in the right direction,” he tells Anna. Later, he meets Father Jack in the latter’s rectory and asks him for information about the Fifth Column. Jack says he doesn’t know anything, and this and a subsequent scene leave it ambiguous as to whether Chad is really cooperating with the visitors or acting as a double agent.

As the season progresses we find that the resistance, have been falsely branded as terrorists, and FBI agent Erica is assigned to head task force to find fifth columnists, Visitors who oppose their leaders’ plan to exploit humanity.

All of that leads to “Red Sky,” the finale of season one. The Vs are about to attack the earth openly and take over. A fifth columnist willingly gives up his own life to save all of mankind and his fellow Fifth Columnists, in a Christlike sacrifice. Tellingly, the Fifth Columnist is named Joshua, the Old Testament translation of the Jewish name translated as Jesus in the New Testament. Later in the episode, Joshua is resurrected, literally brought back to life.

After Joshua’s killing, Father Jack preaches a sermon in which he tells his congregation, “You are going to have to choose who you’re going to follow: the V’s or God. Because you can’t serve two masters. . . . There is a war upon us: a war for our souls.”

The war resumes tonight.