Where Is the Anti-War Movement?

One of the themes in my classes is how young people today are at a deep, relative disadvantage in terms of political power, especially compared to the elderly. It's a really complicated topic, actually, worth some serious scholarly introspection. For example, to what extent has technology-increased prosperity, especially for young people, who are so connected to mobile technology, in fact demobilized the youth demographic from consequential political action? Further, Barack Obama's presidency may have in fact set back the prospects for the improvement of life chances for young Americans, because they were used as cogs in the Democrat Party electoral machine. In fact, once the maw of the Obama-Democrats' electoral machine achieved critical mass, it spit out young people as so much spent fuel, as nothing more than human refuse. Look at the student loan debt crisis and you get an idea of how totally screwed are today's youth by Democrat Party indifference to generations of indebted student lumpen-proletarians.

But then again, leftist propaganda of race, gender and social welfare entitlement is a powerful narcotic for young people, who've been made so stupid by their gadgets that they simple don't realize when the leftist powers-that-be are f-king them up the ass.

In any case, that's why I'm fascinated with '60s-era folk and antiwar music, which I love to listen to. I love the idealism, for example, of Peter, Paul and Mary, "'Yes, how many times must the cannon balls fly ... Before they're forever banned?'" But where is the comparable social protest movement today? If you look at that playlist the Sound L.A. had going this morning, much of that music is iconic and representative of the revolutionary social change of the times. Peter, Paul and Mary sang at the March on Washington in 1963, but oddly it was their music that activists played in 2003 at the Iraq war protests. I'm not as plugged into pop musical trends nowadays to know --- and sure, folks like Rage Against the Machine, for example, certainly capture the angst of contemporary generations --- but it seems to me that political change is not in fact a driving factor in today's youth culture. At least with punk rock in the '70s and '80s you had intense, even anarchic, anti-government tendencies geared toward mobilization, even if that was basically anti-statism. Today purportedly revolutionary folk rock bands are simply shills for Democrat Party power and corruption. The '60s aren't calling, brother.

In any case, this paradox of increasing youth evisceration and impoverization (amid what's often flippantly referred to as a new age of Democrat progressivism) vis-à-vis the dire absence of a genuine revolutionary, anti-establishment movement will continue to bedevil American politics in the years ahead. Who will once again lead the next generation, screaming "Fight the system. Fight back!"???

And with that, for your reading enjoyment, check out Richard Seymour, at the Guardian UK, "The anti-war movement's dilemma – and how to resolve it," and his really excellent and complicated interview at the New Left Review, "Where Is The Anti-War Movement?"

This desire results from people's anger
Towards the system
Fight the system fight back
Fight the system fight back
People die in police custody
Why dont you go see if God can see them
Fight the system fight back
Fight the system fight back
We been shit on far too long
London wants is no freedom
Fight the system fight back
Fight the system fight back
Stand up fight for freedom
Stand up fight for your rights
Fight the system fight back
Fight the system fight back
Fight the system fight back

'Imagine There's No Global Warming'

Heh, this is good, via iOWNTHEWORD, "John Lennon Re-Imagine-d."

Imagine there's no warming
It's all just been a lie
CO2 is not a pollutant
The Polar Bears aren’t gonna die
Imagine if all the people
Livin' another day

Imagine there's no Kyoto
It isn't hard to do
Gas at 99 cents a gallon
And no carbon taxes too
Imagine all the people
Driving SUVs

You may say I'm a denier
But I'm not the only one
31,000 scientists
Say the world’s climate follows the sun

Imagine no politicians
I wonder if you can
No one to fear monger
No need to eliminate man
Imagine all the people
Drilling all over the world

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be more fun

'Yes, how many times must the cannon balls fly ... Before they're forever banned?'

So, I go over to get a cup of coffee this morning, and the Sound L.A. has some folksy antiwar music playing on the radio, Peter, Paul and Mary, "Blowin' in the Wind." (The band released its version, a cover song, just three weeks after Bob Dylan, who wrote it, released his cut on The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan in 1963).

All Along the Watchtower
Bob Dylan
10:09 AM

If You Really Love Me
Stevie Wonder
10:06 AM

Good Lovin'
Grateful Dead
10:01 AM

Wooly Bully
Sam the Sham & The Pharaohs
9:59 AM

Going Up the Country
Canned Heat
9:56 AM

Hoedown
Emerson, Lake & Palmer
9:51 AM

Gemini Dream
The Moody Blues
9:47 AM

Baby Blue
Badfinger
9:44 AM

Nobody
The Doobie Brothers
9:40 AM

Ring of Fire [Live]
Johnny Cash
9:37 AM

White Bird
It's a Beautiful Day
9:31 AM

Vehicle
The Ides of March
9:28 AM

Heart of Gold [Live]
Neil Young
9:25 AM

Blowin' In the Wind
Peter, Paul & Mary
9:22 AM

Bridge Over Troubled Water
Simon & Garfunkel
9:17 AM

San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Flowers In Your Hair)
Scott McKenzie

Bwahaha! Black Americans Are Last Political Lifeline for Desperate Democrats!!

This is so pathetic. Really, it's come to this?

And yes, remember how Obama was supposed to be a president for all Americans, about how there's no black and white America, blah blah? That was all electoral hope-and-change bullshit. When the chips are down you just call in the race-baiting shock troops of the bereft, desperate Democrat (rat) Party.

At the New York Times, "Black Vote Seen as Last Hope for Democrats to Hold Senate":

WASHINGTON — The confidential memo from a former pollster for President Obama contained a blunt warning for Democrats. Written this month with an eye toward Election Day, it predicted “crushing Democratic losses across the country” if the party did not do more to get black voters to the polls.

“African-American surge voters came out in force in 2008 and 2012, but they are not well positioned to do so again in 2014,” Cornell Belcher, the pollster, wrote in the memo, dated Oct. 1. “In fact, over half aren’t even sure when the midterm elections are taking place.”

Mr. Belcher’s assessment points to an urgent imperative for Democrats: To keep Republicans from taking control of the Senate, as many are predicting, they need black voters in at least four key states. Yet the one politician guaranteed to generate enthusiasm among African Americans is the same man many Democratic candidates want to avoid: Mr. Obama.

Now, Democrats are deploying other prominent black elected officials and other surrogates, buttressed by sophisticated voter targeting efforts, to stoke black turnout. At the White House, the president is waging an under-the-radar campaign, recording video advertisements, radio interviews and telephone calls specifically targeting his loyal African-American base.

“Anybody who looks at the data realizes that if the black vote, and the brown vote, doesn’t turn out, we can’t win. It’s just that simple,” said Representative Marcia L. Fudge of Ohio, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, referring to African-American and Latino voters. “If we don’t turn out, we cannot hold the Senate.”

African-Americans could help swing elections in Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and possibly Arkansas, a New York Times analysis of voter data shows, but only if they turn out at higher-than-forecast rates. They will also be important in Kentucky, where Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic Senate candidate, refuses to say if she voted for President Obama — a stance that black leaders including Ms. Fudge fear will depress turnout.

Republicans, who are expanding outreach to African-Americans in states like North Carolina and Georgia, have their own aggressive get-out-the-vote effort, mindful of the success of the Obama campaign, which turned out voters in record numbers.

Black voters made history in 2012, exit polling and census data show, when they turned out at a rate higher than whites to help re-elect Mr. Obama. But fewer voters go to polls in midterm elections. In 2010, a disastrous year for Democrats, blacks voted at a rate lower than whites, creating a “turnout gap.”

The numbers are significant. Although more than 1.1 million black Georgians went to the polls in 2012, only about 741,000 voted in 2010. In North Carolina, Democrats say there are nearly one million black registered voters who did not vote in 2010.

Mr. Belcher declined to discuss for whom he had written the memo, saying it was private, but the document was circulated by the Democratic National Committee. In the memo, he also argued that the turnout gap, more than any Republican Tea Party wave, was responsible for Democrats’ 2010 defeats. So the challenge for Democrats is to get midterm voters to the polls at presidential election-year rates.

“If you tell me in Georgia that, on the closing of the polls, the electorate is 32 percent African-American, I’m going to tell you we have probably elected a Democratic senator,” he said. “That’s not theory. It’s basic math.”

More.

Well, "big name surrogates" are supposed to be stepping up to the plate for the Dems. Maybe Al Sharpton can give it the old Crown Heights college try. That oughat mobilize the Wall Street-hating Democrat hordes.

Freakin' dirtbag losers. Crush the bastards.

Sylvie Meis

A lovely lady, at Egotastic!, "Sylvie Meis Lingerie Shoot for Hunkemoller Dessous in London."

Late Shifts in the Polls Probably Won't Help Desperate Democrats

Following up on my previous entry, "Democrats Now in Retreat as GOP on Verge of Historic Gains in House of Representatives."

Crush these mofos. Flatten them until they're bleeding out of the eye sockets.

At the Monkey Cage, "Why late shifts in the polls probably won’t help Democrats in Senate races":

All of the major Senate forecasting models, including ours at Election Lab, now rely heavily on averages of public polls.  This raises the question of whether those averages will be correct on Election Day, and whether any misses could affect which party manages to retain control of the Senate.  In particular, there is the question of whether polling misses might mean that the Democrats end up with a slim Senate majority after all.

There are reasons to be skeptical that this will happen.  It’s not just that we can’t easily predict whether the polls will over- or underestimate one party’s vote share, as discussed by Nate Silver and by Mark Blumenthal & Co.  And it’s not just, as Josh Katz and Sean Trende have found, that Senate polls already tend to be pretty accurate at this point in time — especially when candidates have a 3- to 4-point lead, as do Republican candidates in Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky and Louisiana.

The other key point is this: Late movement in Senate polls tends to be in the direction of the underlying fundamentals.  I discussed this movement in the polls in an earlier post, and it’s worth revisiting it now.

The analysis is pretty straightforward.  Estimate a simple model of Senate elections from 1980 to 2012 that relies on only a few factors: economic growth, presidential approval, whether it’s a midterm or presidential year, and how the state voted in the most recent presidential election. Then estimate an out-of-sample forecast for every Senate election between 1992 and 2012. Then compare the polls to that forecast.

Here is the gap between the polls and the forecast for the last 60 days of the campaign...

Continue reading.

Basically, public opinion polls should settle closer and closer to the prediction of the electoral model, hence early predictions of GOP gains are increasingly likely to hold true.

So crush their souls, the Democrat-progressive vermin. Flatten them like corpses in the mud.

Democrats Now in Retreat as GOP on Verge of Historic Gains in House of Representatives

As Markos used to always say, crush them. Crush their spirits and consign them to the margins of American politics for decades. The obscenely grotesque Democrat-progressive ghouls deserve nothing less.

At Politico, "House Democrats in retreat":

Three weeks out from an election that could give Republicans a historic majority, House Democrats are resorting to the painful strategy of retreat.

Faced with a perilous midterm environment and a sudden gush of Republican money, Democrats are shifting cash from blue-chip recruits to prop up teetering incumbents. The goal is to minimize losses and keep Republicans from their most dominant hold on the House since Harry Truman’s presidency — potentially expelling Democrats from the speaker’s chair for years to come.

In recent days, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has scrapped spending on behalf of two prominent candidates in districts the party had high hopes of snatching from the GOP: Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, a former state House speaker once seen as the party’s best 2014 prospect; and Virginia Democrat John Foust, who is trying to defeat Republican Barbara Comstock, a hard-nosed former operative who played a key role in the investigations of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

The money that had been planned in those districts, where airing TV ads is costly, is being shifted to shore up incumbents and keep once-safe seats in the party’s column. Conservative outside groups in recent days have invested millions of dollars in races, erasing what had been a sizable Democratic financial advantage.

Democratic strategists say they’re trying to determine how much damage they might incur on election night. On Monday, the DCCC announced a $600,000 investment to save a suddenly endangered northeastern Iowa district that President Barack Obama won by 14 percentage points. It was an unmistakable sign of how much the political terrain has shifted against Democrats since the 2012 election.

Other similar moves could be on the way.

“Making these decisions is the hardest part of this job, but the amount of outside Republican money raining down on our incumbents means that we need to fine-tune our reservations,” New York Rep. Steve Israel, the DCCC chairman, wrote in an email. “It hurts to scale back any ad buy, but especially when you have strong candidates like Foust and Romanoff who are polling well, have momentum and could win their races.”

Democrats are now almost exclusively playing defense. Of the 28 districts seen as most seriously in contention, all but seven are held by Democrats. Republicans are virtually assured to expand their current 17-seat majority; strategists have pegged GOP gains at six to eight seats. But if Republicans can reach their goal of netting 11 seats, they will have their largest majority since 1949.

The good news for Democrats is that, at least for now, there’s no indication that Republicans are poised for a double-digit gain. Of the 18 Democratic incumbents in the most challenging races, pollsters from both parties say, there isn’t one who appears certain to lose. While 2014 is shaping up to be a good year for Republicans, they add, it does not yet resemble the wave-like environment of 1994 and 2010 for Republicans, or 2006 and 2008 for Democrats.

Republicans are hopeful that a late push from deep-pocketed conservative groups could yield bigger gains. Over the final three weeks of the campaign, GOP-aligned outside organizations have reserved more than $22 million worth of commercial airtime in competitive districts across the county, nearly double the investment from third-party Democratic groups.

During the final stretch of the election, few Democrats will be targeted with more cash from GOP-friendly outfits than California Rep. Ami Bera, who was first elected two years ago. Conservative groups will spend nearly $3 million against Bera, far outpacing their liberal counterparts.

In that race and others, conservative groups are coordinating their efforts to avoid overlap. On Tuesday, American Action Network began airing a TV commercial attacking Bera for his support of Obamacare. That ad will run through Oct. 20, and the next day, Congressional Leadership Fund, a group with close ties to Speaker John Boehner, will begin a commercial buy in the district that will go on for a week. Finally, the baton will be passed to the Karl Rove-founded American Crossroads, which will air ads for the final week leading up to Election Day...

 Crush them just like any threat to American prosperity needs to be crushed and violently destroyed.

The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority

Via Truth Revolt:

Here's Some Kelly Brook to Hold You Over ...

... While I head back out to see "Fury" for a second time.

See the Daily Garlic, "Kelly Brook."

@AmPowerBlog ~> https://t.co/Z9NFdscir8

— Inherent Craigé (@CraigR3521) October 18, 2014

@CraigR3521 indeed. can't get enough of her.

— David Partridge (@beegdave) October 18, 2014

Also at Egotastic!, "Kelly Brook Bouncy Flouncy Fun Time Cleavage Is In the House."

Critics Weigh In on Brad Pitt's 'Fury': A Violent, Visceral Update to the World War II Genre

At the Los Angeles Times, "'Fury': Brad Pitt tank drama carries out its mission, reviews say":

Writer-director David Ayer takes his gritty explorations of masculinity and violence to the battlefields of World War II in "Fury," starring Brad Pitt as the hardened leader of an American tank crew behind German lines.

Movie critics largely agree that "Fury," like the crew it depicts, accomplishes what it set out to do with unflinching violence and skilled execution — though not without its share of casualties.

More.

"Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?'"

"And I said, 'Here am I. Send me!'"

From the movie "Fury":



PREVIOUSLY: "World War II Veteran Says 'Fury' Is 'Accurate Portrayal' of Hellish Brutality of the War," and "Fury."

Community Organizer, Barack Obama, Crashed Country After Democrats Gave Him Keys to the Presidency

Heh, this story at the Smoking Gun reminds us of the dangers of giving responsibility to those who are too inexperienced to handle it.

See "Boy, 8, Crashed SUV After Drunk Dad Let Him Drive."

Boy, 8, crashed SUV into tree after drunk dad let him drive... http://t.co/sWZuuZMrTx

— The Smoking Gun (@tsgnews) October 17, 2014

Our community organizer president, after crashing everything, has put off attempting to pass any further priorities until after the elections, according to the Los Angeles Times, "Obama putting key priorities on hold until after midterm election."

Maybe the Democrats will finally sober up after the shellacking they're going to be handed on November 4th.

World War II Veteran Says 'Fury' Is 'Accurate Portrayal' of Hellish Brutality of the War

I can't get this movie off my mind.

And I can't give this movie a greater recommendation. So, don't take it from me. Listen to one of the men who actually fought tank battles against the Nazis in World War II.

Here's Brad Pitt and the crew of "Fury," interviewed by David Muir on World News Tonight:



More at the U.S. Army, "Soldiers, WWII vets honored at 'Fury' movie premiere":

Among those veterans was Ray Stewart, who recalled his days as a tank gunner.

"I served with 2nd Armor, F Company, 66th Armor Regiment. I loved to drive a tank. I drove a tank from Germany down to the Bulge, which is over 100 miles, and I drove it in the rain, and the cold," he said, in reference to the Battle of the Bulge, which began in December 1944.

"By the time we got down to the Bulge, it was 11 degrees below zero," he said....

Stewart attended the premiere with his family, including his wife of 63 years, Dottie.

"She has been a good wife to me, a beautiful wife," he said.

PREVIOUSLY: "Fury."

This Far-Left Whackjob Has a Pet Chicken --- So I Guess You Aren't Allowed to Eat Chicken Anymore, Or Something

A little late in getting to this, but then again, it's hard to keep up with the endless radioactive meltdown of everything the left gets its hands on.

Via Pat Dollard, "WATCH, MUST-SEE, HILARIOUS: Mentally Ill Woman Storms Restaurant, Claims a Chicken Is Her Daughter."

Children May Get Marijuana-Laced Candy on Halloween

Police warning, via the U.K. Independent.

And remember to thank a prog for making your Halloween a real-life nightmare:

US police warn marijuana sweets may end up in children's Halloween trick-or-treat bags http://t.co/fOHFs74v8h pic.twitter.com/NnyxkyOfbv

— The Independent (@Independent) October 18, 2014

'I’ll check my white male privilege right after you check your arrogant liberal [leftist] assumptions...'

From Frau Katze, at Blazing Cat Fur:

This is what I hate about progressivism. It’s such a dry, gray, joyless thing. It leaves no room for anyone to have an actual identity of their own. It doesn’t illuminate. It doesn’t enlighten. It doesn’t encourage open expression. It simply turns the lights off and tells everyone to shut up and play along.

Indeed, it's a sickness. If Ebola doesn't kill us, the left's secular collectivist totalitarianism most surely will.

Obama Freaks Out as His Administration Proves Its Woeful Unreadiness to Combat Ebola

It's all coming off the rails.

A devastating report, at the New York Times, via Ron Fournier:

Finger-pointing, blame-shifting, under-cutting, spinning: #Obama White House, you should be ashamed of this: http://t.co/BCqzkIgoeA #Ebola

— Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) October 18, 2014

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and its arrival in the United States, is the latest in a cascade of crises that have stretched Mr. Obama’s national security staff thin. As the White House scrambled to stop the spread of Ebola beyond a handful of cases, officials were also grappling with an escalating military campaign against the Islamic State, the specter of a new Cold War with Russia over Ukraine, and the virtual disintegration of Yemen, which has been a seedbed for Al Qaeda.

Senior officials said they pushed Mr. Obama to name an Ebola coordinator as a way of easing pressure on the staff at the National Security Council.

At the meeting on Wednesday, officials said, Mr. Obama placed much of the blame on the C.D.C., which provided shifting information about which threat category patients were in, and did not adequately train doctors and nurses at hospitals with Ebola cases on the proper protective procedures.

On Thursday night, in televised remarks, Mr. Obama sought to reassure the public about the dangers from Ebola. But the sense of crisis that emanated from the White House was in sharp contrast to Sept. 30, when Thomas Eric Duncan, a Liberian who had traveled to Dallas, tested positive for Ebola. Mr. Obama received a telephone briefing from Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the director of the C.D.C., after which the White House issued a sanguine statement that concluded: “We have the infrastructure in place to respond safely and effectively.”

In the days that followed, Mr. Obama carried on as usual while his aides gamely added Ebola to their bulging portfolios. On Oct. 1, Mr. Obama met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, and later had dinner with friends at the RPM Steakhouse in Chicago, where he had traveled for fund-raisers and to deliver an economic speech.

By early October, as questions about the Dallas hospital’s treatment of Mr. Duncan mounted, federal officials began reassessing their response, even as they continued to express confidence.

C.D.C. officials publicly dismissed the effectiveness of screening for Ebola at airports in the United States. But Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, found a way to make it work over the weekend of Oct. 4. Mr. Obama announced the screening protocol the following Monday.

Even after Mr. Duncan’s death on Oct. 8, officials betrayed little sense of a change in approach. Mr. Obama traveled to California for campaign fund-raising and on his return to Washington, received a briefing from his secretary of health and human services about the announcement that a nurse who treated Mr. Duncan had contracted Ebola.

The business-as-usual sentiment at the White House changed abruptly, officials said, when it got word early Wednesday that a second nurse in Dallas contracted the disease. The fact that she had traveled on a Frontier Airlines flight despite having a fever added to the concern, officials said.

“This Frontier thing took it out of the abstract thing and to this level where people could identify with and made them scared,” a senior official said. Within hours, White House aides canceled a planned trip by Mr. Obama to Connecticut and New Jersey. Hours later, Thursday’s trip to Rhode Island and New York City was also scrubbed...

What a nightmare.

More at that top link.

Obama-Democrats' Ebola Evasions Reveal Disdain for the American People

From Peggy Noonan, at WSJ, "Who Do They Think We Are?":

The administration’s handling of the Ebola crisis continues to be marked by double talk, runaround and gobbledygook. And its logic is worse than its language. In many of its actions, especially its public pronouncements, the government is functioning not as a soother of public anxiety but the cause of it.

An example this week came in the dialogue between Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Thomas Frieden , director of the Centers for Disease Control.

Their conversation focused largely on the government’s refusal to stop travel into the United States by citizens of plague nations. “Why not put a travel ban in place,” Ms. Kelly asked, while we shore up the U.S. public-health system?

Dr. Frieden replied that we now have screening at airports, and “we’ve already recommended that all nonessential travel to these countries be stopped for Americans.” He added: “We’re always looking at ways that we can better protect Americans.”

“But this is one,” Ms. Kelly responded.

Dr. Frieden implied a travel ban would be harmful: “If we do things that are going to make it harder to stop the epidemic there, it’s going to spread to other parts of—”

Ms. Kelly interjected, asking how keeping citizens from the affected regions out of America would make it harder to stop Ebola in Africa.

“Because you can’t get people in and out.”

“Why can’t we have charter flights?”

“You know, charter flights don’t do the same thing commercial airliners do.”

“What do you mean? They fly in and fly out.”

Dr. Frieden replied that limiting travel between African nations would slow relief efforts. “If we isolate these countries, what’s not going to happen is disease staying there. It’s going to spread more all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.”

Later in the interview, Ms. Kelly noted that we still have airplanes coming into the U.S. from Liberia, with passengers expected to self-report Ebola exposure.

Dr. Frieden responded: “Ultimately the only way—and you may not like this—but the only way we will get our risk to zero here is to stop the outbreak in Africa.”

Ms. Kelly said yes, that’s why we’re sending troops. But why can’t we do that and have a travel ban?

“If it spreads more in Africa, it’s going to be more of a risk to us here. Our only goal is protecting Americans—that’s our mission. We do that by protecting people here and by stopping threats abroad. That protects Americans.”

Dr. Frieden’s logic was a bit of a heart-stopper. In fact his responses were more non sequiturs than answers. We cannot ban people at high risk of Ebola from entering the U.S. because people in West Africa have Ebola, and we don’t want it to spread. Huh?

In testimony before Congress Thursday, Dr. Frieden was not much more straightforward. His answers often sound like filibusters: long, rolling paragraphs of benign assertion, advertising slogans—“We know how to stop Ebola,” “Our focus is protecting people”—occasionally extraneous data, and testimony to the excellence of our health-care professionals.

It is my impression that everyone who speaks for the government on this issue has been instructed to imagine his audience as anxious children. It feels like how the pediatrician talks to the child, not the parents. It’s as if they’ve been told: “Talk, talk, talk, but don’t say anything. Clarity is the enemy.”

The language of government now is word-spew...

More.

Elizabeth Marxs

Cybergirl of the Year 2014, at Playboy:



PREVIOUSLY: "Elizabeth Marxs on Twitter!"

'Fury'

I couldn't wait to see this movie. In fact, I thought it was in theaters on October 10th and ended up waiting another week to see it. It was definitely worth it.

Easily the best World War II movie since "Saving Private Ryan." And Brad Pitt delivers a scorching performance, shorn of leftist political correctness. Indeed, totalitarian progs will hate this film's realpolitik version of morality.

Kenneth Turan has a review, at the Los Angeles Times, "'Fury' treads on war movie expectations as Brad Pitt & Co. kill Nazis."