Saturday, November 30, 2013

Like fellow tyrants FDR and Woodrow Wilson, Obama is implementing his vision of the world-David Mamet, Nov. 25, 2013

.
11/28/13, "Famous Hollywood Filmmaker David Mamet Slams Obama: 'He's a Tyrant'," NewsBusters, Scott Whitlock

"Famous Hollywood filmmaker David Mamet on Monday dared to oppose liberal orthodoxy, slamming Barack Obama as a "tyrant." Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt Show, the writer/director (The Untouchables, Wag the Dog, Ronin) decried the President's deal with Iran over nuclear production.

Mamet assailed, "He's a tyrant. And I give him great credit. He's always said that his idea was to reform the United States." [See video below. MP3 audio here.] He added, "And, you know, like many tyrants, like Wilson and like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he believes that his way is the right way and that he's going to implement his vision of the world." (In addition to attacking Obama, you don't see too many directors going after FDR.)"...

[Ed. note: As commenter notes, Obama said he would "transform" the US, not "reform" as Mamet is quoted saying.]

(continuing): "Just to make things totally clear, the Academy Award-nominated screenwriter quipped, "I just disagree with everything [Obama's] done."

Talking to Hewitt, Mamet described his own political views: "I'm a Jew. I'm for the Jewish people and I'm an American and I'm for the west and I'm for our allies. And Israel's been under attack for every day of its existence."

Since Mamet began speaking out with conservative views, he has been labeled "far right" by the New York Times. [Ed. note: The Times has apparently edited the article. The adjective 'far' has been removed].

In March of 2013, the Los Angeles Times theater critic railed:

"Mamet has been using the bully pulpit granted to him as an artist to broadcast the doctrines of loudmouth talk radio, that boisterous realm in which innuendo substitutes for evidence and fear-mongering replaces analysis. That's his prerogative as a citizen. But what a shame for progressives and conservatives alike that such a gifted dramatist has allowed his hotheaded dogmas to ruin his art."

A partial transcript of the November 25 Hugh Hewitt Show interview:

HUGH HEWITT: Iran and the United States entered into a deal. You are a supporter of the state of Israel. You are a new neo-con, a relatively recent vintage as we talked about when your work, The Secret Knowledge, came out. This is a terrible moment. It's actually a terrible moment in world history. What do you think of it?

DAVID MAMET: Well, I was born right after World War II and I'm a Jew. I'm a serious Jew. My grandparents didn't leave Poland. Got killed, half of them got killed by the Nazis. Half of them got killed by Stalin and it's clearly evident to me from the first that the left is going to make Israel do it's dirty work. It's going to turn its back on Israel until to save the west, Israel is going to have to strike at Iran and leave the cat sitting on the fence to say, "See, I told you so. Look at what them yits are up to this week."

HEWITT: And so, do you think that's going to happen now?

MAMET: Yes.

HEWITT: And will you be upset or will you cheer them when they act?

MAMET: Well, I cheer– you know, I'm a Jew. I'm for the Jewish people and I'm an American and I'm for the west and I'm for our allies. And Israel's been under attack for every day of its existence. 

HEWITT: Having said that, you're also a child of Hyde Park. You know these people who are around the President. You probably know the President's mind better than most. What is he doing?

MAMET: He's a tyrant. And I give him great credit. He's always said that his idea was to reform the United States. And, you know, like many tyrants, like Wilson and like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he believes that his way is the right way and that he's going to implement his vision of the world and many agree with him. And he's acting in concert with his conscience. And I applaud him for that. I just disagree with everything he's done."
.
========================
.
Comment: I agree but credit the lack of a Republican Party for most of Obama's actions. He does what any radical leftist would do with no one to stop him. George Bush #1 and #2 deserve most credit for destroying the GOP. Rupert Murdoch is making sure it stays destroyed.
.
=========================
.
Two among comments to above at NewsBusters:
.
========================
.
"2 days ago

"David Mamet has written about his conversion from "brain dead liberal" to conservative brilliantly. His book The Secret Knowledge should be required reading and I highly recommend buying it for all your liberal friends. His arguments are cogent, scholarly, and effective. His take down of modern liberalism is some of the best work out there. The man is a gifted writer and instead of snarking on him because he used to be *gasp* a Hollywood liberal, we should welcome him with open arms, especially if conservatives (i.e. classical liberals) are serious about making our voices heard in film/television/theatre, a medium that is so overwhelmingly progressively liberal that it takes real courage for anyone in that business to speak out against it. And judging by the comments from liberals in his field, his conversion has been a bitter pill for them to swallow."

========================

2 days ago

3/11/2008, "David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'," By David Mamet Tuesday, Mar 11 2008

http://www.villagevoice.com/20... [Excerpt below].

I always thought Mamet's conversion came before November of 2008."...
.
=========================
.
Mamet: "I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind. 
.
As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart. These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life.....The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that
  • the chief executive will work to be king,
  • the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware,
  • and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches.
So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.... 
.
Do I speak as a member of the "privileged class"? If you willbut classes in the United States are mobile, not static, which is the Marxist view....What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow....I recognized that I held those two views of America (politics, government, corporations, the military)....
*One was of a state where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting)."....
============================
.
WSJ follow up on Mamet Village Voice piece:
.
3/20/2008, Excerpt from "David Mamet's Revision," Wall St. Journal column by Daniel Henninger, which is now subscription:
.
"Hollywood does a good job of policing the public political activities and statements of its workforce.
.
Step out of its left line, the man comes and take you away. It helps the policers that 
Playwrights, by contrast, have total control over what their scripts say. 
.
This, one suspects, affects the two trades' habits of thinking."...
 ============================

1/28/2013, "Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm," David Mamet, Daily Beast

"Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death. 

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”...

Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities."...

==========================

5/27/2011, "David Mamet Explains His Shift to the Right," NY Times, Andrew Goldman

 ===========================

3/29/13, "The problem with David Mamet," LA Times, Theater critic Charles McNulty

"Some might argue that Mamet is providing a useful service, challenging articles of liberal faith from inside the elitist stronghold. But his contrarian streak, once the source of his independent vision, has become all too predictable. There's nothing especially radical in siding with power over those seeking restitution for their lack of it....

Writing at the highest level requires an "incandescent" imagination, one unencumbered by too much anger or bitterness, as Virginia Woolf argues in "A Room of One's Own" — a book not likely to be among his dog-eared college favorites.

Mamet has been using the bully pulpit granted to him as an artist to broadcast the doctrines of loudmouth talk radio, that boisterous realm in which innuendo substitutes for evidence and fear-mongering replaces analysis. That's his prerogative as a citizen. But what a shame for progressives and conservatives alike that such a gifted dramatist has allowed his hotheaded dogmas to ruin his art." (end of article)





No comments: