Posted on 11/16/2005 4:14:19 PM PST by smoothsailing
HUAC, or THE HOUSE ON UNAMERICAN COMMITTEE went after the "Hollywood Ten".
Hollywood blaming McCarthy for anything, is akin to a child saying my dog ate my homework.
I think that Oliver Stone was also 'outed' by the KBG files... nothing wrong with that.
Stalin was a monster, McCarthy was a drunken opportunist. There, argument's settled.
Anyone else remember the interview where "Red Ed" Asner said that he thought that Stalin was "misunderstood?"
Mark
Not all of them... There are plenty in the republican party as well... In the house and senate.
Mark
I think it was called You are There or something like that. I watched that too. Recall him visiting Conrad Hilton on one show. I think he also interviewed Castro.
Well, I'm neither liberal or a chick, but I think that Ann needs to eat something! I've got a good friend who's naturally VERY skinny. I know for a fact that she doesn't have any sort of an eating disorder. But she rarely broke 98 pounds. Size 0 jeans were sometimes a bit loose on her! She used to claim that she weighed 105#, but I used to tease her that might be when soaking wet, getting out of a shower, holding a bag of flower! She's finally gained a little bit of weight. Now, she does weigh about 110, and she looks SO MUCH BETTER! Ann could use a little bit of weight too. JMHO.
But then I LOVE Ann for her mind too! For some reason, she's never replied to my many marriage proposals. I can't imagine why...
Mark
An interesting aside on this film: Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, was an executive producer. Guess I know what NBA team I'm rooting against this year!
btt
"You are There" was Walter Cronkite with an important event in history. He would interview actors enacting roles at battles, Declaration of Independence, etc.
Too bad we aren't allowed to watch these old programs. Some film deteriorated over time, but it's probably the cost of restoration to profit that's keeping these programs in the can.
I don't think it is in wide relase and probably will not be unless it receives a bunch of award nominations. Given the subject matter that seems like a sure thing.
This is Ann at her best, without some of the less than admirable attitude she displayed during the Miers nomination.
You know, you are absolutely right about that now that you mention it. That was in the 50s so I'm pretty foggy about some of my recollections. Thanks for the correction.
Mostly, Bushbots.
If tommorrow, Bush was to nominate Ted Kennedy for SCOTUS, the Bushbots would support him. They would write supportive posts about how "clever Bush was" and "how complex political factors forced Bush to nominate Teddy - who is really a secret conservative" and "how Bush had nominate Mass Fats because only he knows the whole situation". Blah, Blah, Blah. Hugh Hewitt would lead the charge.
The Bushbots hate AC for opposing Bush, now they more or less like her, but the second she fails to support Bush 100%, they'll be back on the attack. My 3 favorite Babes:
I just got lucky. Sometimes, I have difficulty remembering my own name. My favorite line is "I've slept since then.".
How so?
"Mr. Asner, I do have a question unrelated to the film," I said. "In your long and distinguished acting career, going back to your earliest days in Chicago all the way up to present days working with Will Farrell on 'Elf', you have had the chance to do almost anything you could ever wish to do. But if you had the chance to play the biographical story of a historical figure you respected most over your lifetime, who would it be?"
Remembering the sad story he had told about the poor kids in Chicago, I half expected him to come out with a political name of some sort.
"I think Joe Stalin was a guy that was hugely misunderstood," said Asner. "And to this day, I don't think I have ever seen an adequate job done of telling the story of Joe Stalin, so I guess my answer would have to be Joe Stalin."
OK philosophical question - has their ever been a bad Ann Coulter column - it seems that such a thing would be like going faster than the speed of light or violating the second law of thermodynamics i.e. IMPOSSIBLE.
Speaking only for myself, I found her recent columns on SCOTUS nominees to be a bit tiresome. She was stuck on that for too long,IMHO.Although her arguments were sound, I thought she was not at her best.
I find her to be to my liking when she's exposing the lies and hypocrisy of the Democrats, the media and the left in general.That's when here biting commentary and devilish wit are in full blossom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.