January 13, 2012, - 4:09 pm

Wknd Box Office: Contraband, Joyful Noise, Iron Lady, Carnage

By Debbie Schlussel

I only liked one of the new movies, this weekend.  The rest are annoying, boring, or both.

*  “Contraband“:  Despite the fact that I don’t like Mark Wahlberg–an attempted murderer who took a Vietnamese immigrant’s eye out with a meathook and never apologized to  him–this is actually a good movie, far better than the usual awful January fare.  It’s violent and the language is filthy, so this ain’t for kids.  But for adults who like a good action thriller, it’s not bad.  I liked it.

Wahlberg plays a working-class guy who once lived a life of crime, but is now legit with a business and a wife (Kate Beckinsale) and kids  (sort of like the real life Wahlberg, but not quite).  Sadly, his young brother-in-law is a moron drug smuggler, who threw $700,000 worth of illegal drugs into the ocean, when a Customs boat approached for inspection.  The mobsters for whom  he worked tell Wahlberg that if he doesn’t get the money for him, the lives of his brother-in-law and entire family will be on the line.  Wahlberg finds himself sucked back into the life of crime “just one more time” to get his family out of this horrible situation and plans a trip to Latin America on a cargo ship, while a close friend of his watches over his family.

To tell any more would be to give away too much, but there is a lot of suspense and heart-pounding action.  As I noted, it’s quite violent, but that’s part of the story.  And a lot of the twists and turns of how the bad guys get theirs are cute and satisfying.

It’s not the world’s greatest or deepest movie by any stretch.  But for what it is–suspenseful thriller–it does the job handily and was fun to watch.


Watch the trailer . . .

*   “Joyful Noise“:  Words can’t express how absolutely annoying and saccharine sweet this silver screen odd mix of hayseed “Hee Haw” regurgitation and “Glee”-style singing is.  There’s absolutely nothing joyful about this flick, except that it eventually ends.  But the second word is accurate.  It’s a lotta noise.

The movie stars Queen Latifah and a Dolly Parton blow-up doll named Dolly Parton as rival members of a small town church choir headed to a national singing competition that they lose each year.  Parton’s grandson and Latifah’s daughter fall in love, but Parton and Latifah are enemies, fighting over whether or not the choir should sing new songs to win or stick to old traditional gospel stuff.  The only likeable character in this movie is Kris Kristofferson, who looks like a young 127 years-old.  But he dies before the opening credits roll, happy to have gotten off the set before he got squashed in the catfight.

To say this movie was cheesy, vomit-inducing, slow, long, and boring, would be generous.  The movie is aimed at a Black audience and is filled with dumb jokes and stupid sex humor best suited to Tyler Perry fare.  Unless you think the idea of an oversexed Asian guy with a Southern accent is funny, this ain’t for you.  If you think the idea of an oversexed Asian guy with a Southern accent who dies after sex with a very overweight Black lady is funny, then this is definitely for you . . . especially if you think the racist joke gets better when another Asian guy is attracted to the fat Black chick.  Why on earth do Black people laugh at this crap?  I’ll never know, but they did at the screening I attended.  They are allowed to be racist, but the rest of  us . . . well, no you di’in’t.  And is it really a revelation that some Asian-Americans have Southern accents?

Dolly Parton has had so many plastic surgery procedures and botox injections into her face that she looks like a wax museum lion lady.  Way too many close-ups of her lionesque visage gave me a headache.  It felt like her over-inflated face would be put out of its misery and pop if someone stuck it with a needle.  And watching her incongruous stiletto-thin  body under two oversized balloon implants made her look like a cartoon character popsicle stick with two basketballs stuck on top, with another for the face, on top of those two.  Ick.

If the idea of watching Queen Latifah play the screaming, bitching, yelling, perpetually angry Black woman is appealing to you, then you could just watch the White House and see the same chick for free. Why pay to see a movie of that?

Some of the singing in this was good, but clearly lip-synched.   And none of it was anything worth sitting through even a minute of this horror. Not even close.


Watch the trailer . . .

*  “The Iron Lady“:  Unlike so many ignorant conservatives who can’t be bothered to know better or give a damn, I was never a fan of Lady Margaret Thatcher because of her anti-Israel, pan-Islamist pronouncements and actions done to please her Saudi and other Mid-East  Arab petro-dollar buddies and many Muslim Brits.  But this silly, long, boring attack on Margaret Thatcher isn’t an attack on that.  It’s an attack on a famous conservative who was successful.

And since there isn’t much to attack her with over cutting taxes and busting intractable labor unions, the filmmakers rely on a ridiculous series of fabricated conversations and mindless interactions that an Alzheimer’s-stricken Thatcher has with the ghost of her late husband.  HUH?  Is that the best they can do?  Yup.  That’s it.  That’s the majority of this movie.  Oh, sure, they also portray Thatcher as a cold woman who was mean to allies in cabinet meetings or who sent soldiers–some of whom died–to fight in the Falklands.  But that’s really all they got in this cold, disjointed, waste-of-time diatribe against Thatcher and conservatism.

You can dislike her–as I do–for her apologism to the Muslim world, her constant anti-Israel maneuvers and rhetoric, and the fact that she was bought and paid for by Arabia.  But not for any of the silliness in this crappy excuse for a movie.

Yes, Meryl Streep gets the look and the hairstyle right, but that uncanny visual resemblance is the only thing similar here to the real life Thatcher.


Watch the trailer . . .

*  “Carnage“:  This is directed by Roman “Rape Rape” Polanski and is based on a play of the same name.  Since the rapist can’t film in the U.S. or he’ll be arrested to finally face justice, a Paris apartment and scenery are supposed to be the New York setting.

I struggled to sit through this movie, which was miserable.  If your idea of enjoyment is watching two couples fight among and between themselves for 1.5 hours, I have a solution for you:  go to divorce court and watch the proceedings for free.  I couldn’t stand this and would have walked out, if I wasn’t required to sit through the entire torture in order to review it.

Two couples–one a working-class couple and the other an upscale professional couple–meet up when the working-class couple’s kid was attacked by the upscale couple’s kid and lost a tooth or two and got stitches.  At first, the couples are there to resolve the problem, but it degenerates into fight after fight and hysterics through which it’s hard to sit.  I don’t want to see this in real life.  Why would I pay to see people do this in a movie?  Why would you?  It’s hard to believe they’re attempting to pass this off as a “comedy.”

Jodi Foster and Kate Winslet are especially loathsome as the uber-neurotic wives of these couples. (Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly are slightly more bearable.)

Oy.  I thought I might give this some Bin Ladens, since I’d hate Americans, too, if they were all like this.  But, instead, I give it . . .


Watch the trailer . . .

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

50 Responses

DS, even if I didn’t agree with your opinions or appreciate your investigative reportage I would definitely come here to read your movie reviews. The writing is great and your humour cracks me up! Bravo!

I bet I would even like the “Marky Mark” film (I despise him too). I wonder if it was actually made here in Boston? I heard recently there is quite the tax scam going on here with people actually able to sell their tax breaks (from filming in Boston) to parties not even involved. Have to look into that myself.

Well, at least “Marky Mark” can do his own Boston accent. And what an annoying accent it (Bostonian) is! But when someone can’t do it proper, it is even WORSE (Julianne Moore). When I went to Philly, the Philadelphians picked up on it right away (and I do not have a strong one AT ALL).

Skunky on January 13, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    “Well, at least “Marky Mark” can do his own Boston accent.”

    Well he was born and raised in Boston I should hope so…

    petebone on January 13, 2012 at 8:34 pm

      Why did you think I said it??? DUH!!!!!!

      Skunky on January 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm

        And I’ll be ignoring you here like everyone else does.

        Skunky on December 19, 2011 at 10:18 pm

        Thanks for the relpy.

        Also was there a post removed? I can’t find Milutte or whatever her name’s post is that Sean R and Skunky are so upset by.

        petebone on January 14, 2012 at 9:46 pm


          [“Also was there a post removed? I can’t find Milutte or whatever her name’s post is that Sean R and Skunky are so upset by.”

          petebone on January 14, 2012 at 9:46 pm]

          Yes, petebone. Miluette’s post was removed.

          JeffE on January 14, 2012 at 10:26 pm

Walhberg has repented his sins to God in accordance to his Christian beliefs, meaning he doesn’t have to do anything with the guy he attacked like apologize. Kinda great actually, you can do bad things, repent to Jesus and never have to to anything else. Sort of like all Christian Nazis who would have repented their sins to Jesus before being killed thus earning a place in heaven.

Nakruh on January 13, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    Nakruh, you obviously don’t understand the concept of repentance. I’ll pray for you.

    Mike on January 13, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    You are spot on with the Xtian’s crap!

    Tina on January 14, 2012 at 11:01 am

A while back you had a post asking your readers to guess which movies you liked and hated from a group you had seen. I guessed you hated “Carnage” and I am glad to see your review today (also glad your site is back). I had read about the movie a long time ago on a movie site and I was intrigued, until I saw the premise. I was surprised/baffled that people were acting excited about the movie (how could anyone think this was a good idea for a movie? To me it seemed like around a 105 min film with two couples arguing in a room or confined space). Later the trailer came out and I could see the humor. You, however, hit some of my thoughts exactly in your review. It was nice to see that.

MH on January 13, 2012 at 9:26 pm

I admired Thatcher on the tax cutting, labour union busting and Falklands reconquest – but my admiration for her started & ended there.

She did make the right moves against Libya after a Brit policewoman was shot dead outside the Libyan embassy – something that ended relations w/ Libya. Similarly, she was uncompromisingly anti-PLO – refusing to once meet w/ Arafat. But you’re right about her kowtowing to the various oil sheikhs in the Middle East.

One thing I do wonder – were you opposed to pro-Muslim policies of the West at that time, during the Cold War? I was, but I can see where Reagan & others were coming from, even though I disagreed w/ them. At that time, a number of countries in the region – Iraq, Syria, Libya, South Yemen were pro Soviet regimes, which was why the US supported odious countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

But while I disagree(d) w/ the pro-Muslim policies then, I can at least understand what caused it – the need to have a balance against the Soviets, and Israel wasn’t enough (and until 1956, wasn’t even firmly in the pro-US camp – the Soviets had been neutral until then b/w Israel and the Arabs). What was far more inexplicable after 9/11 was Bush being buddies w/ Musharraf, Abdullahs (both KSA & Jordan), Mubarak & others, when it was the right time to completely review relations w/ the Muslim empire and take action against it.

This is not meant to be a ‘Bush was worse’ attack, but at least recognize some of the factors that made Thatcher supportive of the Saudis & others. During that era, when the Soviets were the enemy, I can understand Western leaders cozying up to some Muslim thugs – even if I don’t approve of it at all. But I wonder how many had this attitude towards Thatcher @ the time for the above reasons Debbie stated?

Infidel on January 14, 2012 at 5:59 am

    She did make the right moves against Libya after a Brit policewoman was shot dead outside the Libyan embassy – something that ended relations w/ Libya. Similarly, she was uncompromisingly anti-PLO – refusing to once meet w/ Arafat. But you’re right about her kowtowing to the various oil sheikhs in the Middle East.

    Dear Infidel: She sent the British army to defend the Falkland Islands-and attacked Israel for going into Lebanon.

    Miranda Rose Smith on January 15, 2012 at 8:16 am

I can’t wait for the Three Stooges movie. Everything else looks like garbage, and I won’t go to a Walberg film, because he is a scumbag. You have to be pretty cold blooded to take someone’s eye out.

Jonathan E. Grant on January 14, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Dear Mr. Grant: Why bother with the Three Stooges movie when you can see the originals?

    Miranda Rose Smith on January 15, 2012 at 8:18 am

“You creeps always are so snide to this site but I NEVER see you go after DS with pure facts and break her argument. It’s all emotion and stupidity on overdrive.”

Got that right Skunky, to that troll Miluette if you think Debbie has bad sources, I would like for you start your own blog or website and TRY to refute what the woman said. And while you’re at it Miluette, if you do indeed start you’re own website I would like for you to debate Debbie Schlussel on any issue! If you and her get into a debate, money will be on Ms. Schlussel, she will eat you’re ass up alive, embarrass you. As the Baylor University mantra says, “Sic Em Bears”, I would counter Baylor’s mantra by saying “Sic Em Debbie Schlussel”!

And at the end of you’re message Skunky, what that troll did was not only used emotions and feelings, he/she/it did all sorts of demagoguery against DS’s personality. And before I finish up Miluette, since you had the nerve and audacity to call DS a racist, I will through that word right back at you, you’re the one who’s the friggin racist Miluette and you’re also a big fat LOSER. Now go back to Mondoweiss, LoonWatch, Daily Kos, Think Progress, Democrat Underground, Little Green Footballs or any pathetic far-left site/blog and ride the short bus with those left wing loons!

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on January 14, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    That’s right Sean. Most peeps on here are not only open to cold, hard facts but they are a different breed and don’t get sore at DS because she has very sober truths to tell. And you have morons like the fool above (who has posted many times under many different names) who do the name-call, shame-dump hit-and-run.

    I’d love them to use facts. Who knows? If they actually did they could make us be interested in their opinion and research as we are with DS’.

    It’s frustrating and I am surprised (although I really shouldn’t be) at how ignorant and DUMB the fools are. You can throw facts at them all day long ’til the cows come home but they are unmoving in their ignorance. You can see that at so-called Conservative cesspools like Hot Air but they are more so like the dopey sites you rightly listed and TDB. That place is even worse though. They banned a handle called “No Islam” because it was “blatantly racist”. We all know here that Islam is NOT a race. But PC is absolutely dangerous and a good way for infiltrators to work and poison minds of the dumb in the free world!

    Skunky on January 14, 2012 at 5:39 pm

Contraband was set in New Orleans, not Boston. Don’t let the one Irish mob guy in the movie throw you off.

B: You’re right. But they sound like they are all from Boston. My mistake. Fixing. DS

Boudreaux on January 14, 2012 at 7:15 pm

I was actually surprised to see you like any of these movies. Contraband looks like it has been a movie that has already been made a dozen times. The last time it was Nick Cage’s Gone on 60 Seconds.
You were dead on with the Joyful Noise comparison to a Tyler Perry movie. I always give my best friend, who is a black female, so much trouble for black people paying money to see Tyler Perry movies. It seems that a man dressed as a fat women is the most hilarious thing ever. Brits like that too.

But I was curious how The Iron Lady was. I didn’t realize it painted her in such a bad light. I know, I shouldn’t be surprised. I will make sure to skip over this one.

Once again, well done Debbie

Forsberg on January 14, 2012 at 7:48 pm

I probably won’t see Contraband, and I definitely won’t be seeing the other three.

Re: “The Iron Lady“:

Before seeing Debbie’s review of the movie, I suspected that I wasn’t going to like the movie. DS has stated here before that Margaret Thatcher was anti-Israel, and I suspected that the movie was going to have an unfavorable portrait of her. The question in my mind was whether or not it was going to include Thatcher being anti-Israel. I suspected that the answer to the question would be no. Now after seeing DS’s review of the movie, my suspicisions has been confirmed. As DS pointed out here, the movie does indeed have an unfavorable portrayal of Thatcher, but all of it BS–and pathetic negative ones at that–but yet nothing about the true and legimiate criticism of her being anti-Israel, probably because Hollywood agrees with her on that.

Thanks again Debbie for enduring the crappy movies so that we don’t have to. That goes double for “Re: “The Iron Lady“.

Also, thank you Skunky and Sean R. for responding to the troll “Miluette”–whose post has since been removed–so that I don’t have to. And for those who didn’t see the post, trust me, you didn’t miss a thing.

JeffE on January 14, 2012 at 10:47 pm

Woody Allen’s on my “ignore completely” list; I would have seen a Meryl Streep movie – except that this seems to have been a negative look at Thatcher (who, by the way, was not anti-Israel:

“Thatcher, by contrast, had no patience for anti-Semitism or for those who countenanced it. “I simply did not understand anti-semitism myself,” Thatcher confessed in her memoirs.”
“When Thatcher became leader of the opposition in 1975, it was suggested that her closeness with British Jews might imperil the country’s foreign policy.”

One I can recommend heartily and unreservedly is “The Artist”. It’s a silent movie about the silent movie days. A director would have to be crazy to release a silent, black & white movie with no recognizable stars in the lead (John Goodman is the studio head, and veteran character actor James Cromwell is the loyal, steadfast chauffer). The two leads are brilliant; Bejo is sparkling as the up-and-coming starlet.

The third actor in this one is billed as “Uggie” – Valentin’s dog.

If you have any interest in film history, or in film at all, this one is a definite must.

ZZMike on January 14, 2012 at 10:51 pm


    Agreed on the Artist. I saw the movie today and it is excellent–just like both you and Debbie said it was.

    JeffE on January 15, 2012 at 11:03 pm

Debbie, I recently saw ‘Downfall’ (2004) which is a good German movie about Shitler (may his memory be erased). Additionally the Broncos got beat tonight like a red headed step-child, B’H. I don’t think Tebow is as good as people think and even The Rebbe himself (z’l?) couldn’t have beat Tom Brady.

A1 on January 14, 2012 at 11:46 pm


I asked that question above (I should have been explicit about asking it to Debbie) – what were the specific anti-Israel statements that Thatcher ever made? IIRC, she refused to ever meet w/ Arafat, except once when the references to PLO were removed and he was just mentioned as the leader of the ‘Palestinians’ – her government was pretty hostile to the PLO. And broke relations w/ Libya over the embassy shooting.

On her kowtowing to the Saudis and other Gulf sheikhs, I asked this question above – is that something that people like us opposed at that time? My age is close to Debbie’s, and like I mentioned above, I disagreed w/ Western pro-Islamic policies, be it friendship w/ the Saudis, Egypt or particularly Pakistan, but it at least had the rationale of trying to have allies in the region where the Soviets already had a handful – Iraq, Syria, Libya, South Yemen, and they had occupied Afghanistan. So Western leaders, like Reagan & Thatcher did what they could to have allies in the region, even though they were pretty repugnant. For instance, Anwar Sadat, who is lionized in the West for his treaty w/ Israel, was a former Nazi supporter, and during his regime, he encouraged Jihadi groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in order to undermine the Nasserite influence in Egypt. (Ultimately, of course, that recoiled on him) I don’t support the West cozying up to him either, but in a region where Saddam, Hafez al Assad & Gadaffi loomed large @ the time, backed by the likes of Brezhnev & Andropov, I can see where they are coming from.

I was anti-Muslim even then, but I recognized that the Soviets were a bigger enemy of the West, and the Muslims at that time just didn’t have either the monetary clout or the numbers to threaten the West the way they do today. It wasn’t until 9/11 that most of the world saw Muslims as important – for better or worse.

But were you, or others here, cognigant of the Muslim threat way back as then? If not, isn’t the criticism of Thatcher a case of ‘being wise after the event’?

Infidel on January 15, 2012 at 2:12 am

Thatcher was a friend of the Jewish people. As a twelve year old she helped to save a Jewish girl from Hitler’s Austria. Later on she was a founding member of the Anglo-Israel Friendship League of Finchley and a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Aghast that a golf club in her district consistently barred Jews from becoming members, she publicly protested against it. She even joined in the singing of the Israeli national anthem in 1975 at Finchley. She eased the restrictions on prosecuting Nazi war criminals living in Britain, plead the cause of the Soviet Union’s refuseniks and worked to end the British government’s support for the Arab boycott of Israel. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Thatcher criticized Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath’s refusal to supply Israel with military parts or even allow American planes to supply Israel from British airfields. In 1986, Thatcher became the first British prime minister to visit Israel, having previously visited twice as a member of parliament. You can read more about this in this article:


Yes she unfortunately opposed the bombing of Osirak. But so did Reagan.

DR: Almost all the things you cite are from the ’70s. When she was Prime Minister in the ’80s, Margaret Thatcher was extremely ANTI-Israel, despite your claims otherwise. What she did as a 12-year-old? Really? That’s what you are citing to make up for the fact that she regularly attacked Israel and pandered to Muslims during her entire reign as Prime Minister? Bill Clinton and Barack Obama visited Israel, too. And, yet, both were anti-Israel. DS

Dutch Renitent on January 15, 2012 at 9:49 am

Thatcher was also the first(and almost only) British conservative to criticize the muslim community after 9/11:


She was condemned bij everyone(including her own party) for that.

Dutch Renitent on January 15, 2012 at 10:07 am

    No duh, Dutch. It wasn’t “the Muslim community” that did 9/11, it was terrorists.

    TheDarkEricDraven on January 15, 2012 at 11:13 am

      Sounds like a distinction without a difference TDED.

      Skunky on January 15, 2012 at 11:32 am

        That’s…pretty horrible, Skunky.

        TheDarkEricDraven on January 15, 2012 at 12:27 pm

          My thoughts will never be and can’t EVER be as evil as what the Muslim world perpetrates. Their stone-age Sharia Law bullsh, how they treat women, how they deny that they are the biggest pervs in the world, the boys and young girls they bugger and how they look for the most foolish of their ilk to suicide bomb in the name of jihad. And their brutality to EACH OTHER is pretty disgusting (let alone to INFIDELS). And ZZMike always wisely posts how the extremist want to get rid of Jews and all non-Moooooooooslims and the “moderate” Mooooooslims will like the extremists to carry out their evil plans. It’s total stealth complicity.

          YOU need to re-educated in what EVIL really is TDED. I am not on your side and am too smart ever to be. Thank the Lord! Go cry fro your Moooooslim Overlords somewhere else.

          Skunky on January 15, 2012 at 1:10 pm

          TDED you should be constantly mocked. You’re an absolute dope.

          You see everyone on the right “deranged” and “paranoid” because you are not only a moron but you are willingly a moron. There are copious amounts of proof to substantiate what the correct RIGHT has to say. I ought to know, that is how I left the dopey LEFT. You just don’t want to see the truth. You need a shrink to help you with that. A good one too, not a quack with cracker jack credentials.

          It’s dummies like you who will ONLY see the light when it is way too late. That means you’re not helpful but a dumb hinderance. Or you can be even worse and be like the 3 anti-American gits who were stuck in Iran. That means that NO TRUTH will EVER rest soundly in your brain.

          Instead of posting wee posts that a 5th grader could better (let’s face it, you lack even enough brain-power to even THINK of debating DS’ thesis’) and pat emotional, handwringing, girly sentiments you SHOULD be spending as much time as possible utilizing DS’ archives to learn a thing or two.

          But that is ONLY if you were smart. You’re not even close.

          Skunky on January 15, 2012 at 6:48 pm

        All Muslims are terrorisr but not terrorist are Muslim. Seems fitting.

        The Bear on January 15, 2012 at 4:12 pm

          Well thar was a mess…. I mean all Musliums are terrorist but not all terrorist are Muslim.

          The Bear on January 15, 2012 at 5:25 pm

          Skunky, there is no reason to be aggressive towards me. None at all.

          That said, Bear, the very thought of that is horrendous. I’ve seen one sane Republican in my life. One. And that was on a gaming forum. Why is absolutely everyone on the right so deranged and paranoid, anyway?

          TheDarkEricDraven on January 15, 2012 at 6:35 pm

Infidel and ZZMike,

On Thatcher being anti-Israel please see this:



You write:

“But were you, or others here, cognigant of the Muslim threat way back as then? If not, isn’t the criticism of Thatcher a case of ‘being wise after the event’?”

Well, speaking for myself, I too am close to you and Debbie’s age. Rather than evaluating myself, I will just state the facts of my record and then you tell me.

I didn’t really start Israel until the 1988 “intifada” (aggression) by the so-called “Palestinians”. In a Jewish gathering that I was in, people were saying that Israel was over-reacting to the “Palestinians” (my quotes) and committing abuses against them. Although I didn’t have the knowledge to rebut it, I instinctively knew that that was BS and knew that Israel was right to do what they did. My later research of course proved me correct. On the Mideast generally, even in 1980 when I didn’t follow Mideast generally because I was a kid, on the Iranian embassy crisis, I at least knew that we were the good guys and Iran the bad guys. I didn’t follow Mideast generally until 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. I knew back then that we had to stop them from doing that and thought that we should have overthrown him back then and throughout the 1991-2003 period, there was never a time when I didn’t think that Saddam Hussein and his Baath party shouldn’t be overthrown. I have also read a lot about Iraq and Saddam Hussein during that time. On the 1993 Oslo “Peace process” between Israel and the “PLO” I knew from the start that it was a mistake.

So back to your question and on the case that you are making that although you disagreed with Thatcher and the West’s pro-Muslim policies, you understand why they did it, and whether or not I would have been any better at the time, I would like to think that at the very least I would have said that (in the cold war context) that any frendship with the Arab states must not be at the expense of Israel and that Israel must be allowed to keep its territories, including Gaza, Judea and Samaria and would have told the latter two territories to them as exactly that and not the Orwellian name “West Bank”.

Is this as good as you and as Debbie? No, but it’s still better than Thatcher.

JeffE on January 15, 2012 at 12:02 pm


I have to make this correction/rewrite. The following should read:

“…thought that we should have overthrown him back then and throughout the 1991-2003 period, there was never a moment when I didn’t think that.”

JeffE on January 15, 2012 at 12:14 pm

One more correction:

“I didn’t really start following Israel…”

And a clarification of that, meaning day-to-day operations, though I did learn about both ancient Israel and was given a summary of modern Israel in Sunday school.

JeffE on January 15, 2012 at 12:28 pm


Thanks for the link. It’s news to me – given the hostility Thatcher had towards both the PLO and Libya. But I disliked her for a mix of reasons – her positions on health care are no different from Canada’s single-payer system, and during the Clinton years, that was one thing she was w/ Clinton on. Also, I didn’t exactly like her personality for the same reasons that those on the Left didn’t, but I supported her on the PLO, Libya, the trade unions and her strong defence policies, which matched Reagan’s.

On your stance, I’d say that it’s a good position to have had then, at least w/ Israel. As a kid (I’m a Hindu), I learned about Muslim atrocities in all the lands they conquered, so I was an anti-Muslim from pretty early on, although I knew that my views would have little resonance w/ Western views as they existed then. So I had a bias against Muslims from pretty early on.

I started following these things in the 80s, and I supported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon after the assassination attempt on Israel’s UK envoy, and supported both Israel and the Lebanese Forces of Bashir Gemayel. I used to support Iraq in the war against Iran, and that was my only disagreement w/ Israel, which chose to support Iran, albeit justifiably, since they viewed Iraq as a threat. I was similarly happy w/ Osirak being blown up, and never supported the idea of Palestinians returning to anywhere in Israel, including Judea & Samaria, and considered it tragic that Israel had to part w/ Sinai.

But yeah, I do consider your position better than not only Thatcher, but Reagan as well.

Infidel on January 15, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Thank you for your response and compliment, Infidel. I’m also glad that we each told a little bit about ourselves here.

    JeffE on January 15, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Dang!! …and I was looking forward to seeing The Iron Lady. Always liked Thatcher for having balls at a time when most male pols were giving theirs up… Gosh – sorta like today!! Where’s there a tough old broad when one’s needed??

GC on January 15, 2012 at 4:07 pm

To TDED not really sure why skunky went ape, she seems to have pretty short, irrational fuse.

My comment is standard boilerplate for any group you don’t like, I think I first heard it about the Jews.

Why is the right crazy? Inbreeding.

The Bear on January 15, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    The Bear, Skunky was telling the WHOLE truth to TDED, she was NOT being irrational or anything like that. This is the problem with you left wingers, whenever any of us on the right gives you freaks the facts and truth about anything, you left wingers go into you’re emotions and feelings and call us “paraniod”, “crazy”, “irrational”, etc. Whereas we are doing this for you’re own good, NOT to upset you or get on you’re nerves.

    You left wingers are like children when it comes to politics, and I think it’s you leftist who are the crazy ones, because you folks continue to live in you’re islolated dream world and NOT live in the real world and see reality for what it really is, and that’s why Skunky was on TDED’s case because of his/her naivette.

    “A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

    Sean R. on January 15, 2012 at 9:43 pm

      Thank you Sean. The Bear and TDED are book ends (or more likely, the same stupid person). “The Bear” thinks he/she is clever with his/her dopey play on words but everyone here ignored them and rightly so.

      So both should stop posting pre-pube emotional crap and start reading DS’ archives so they both get a clue between them.

      Skunky on January 15, 2012 at 11:12 pm

DS: Then I would like to know what specifically you’re referring to that makes Thatcher so “extremely ANTI-Israel” in your eyes. I’m afraid she did not differ from Ronald Reagan regarding Israel. DR

Dutch Renitent on January 15, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Dutch Renitent,

    You wrote to Debbie:

    “DS: Then I would like to know what specifically you’re referring to that makes Thatcher so “extremely ANTI-Israel” in your eyes. I’m afraid she did not differ from Ronald Reagan regarding Israel. DR”

    Did you read my post at 12:02 pm today? Sorry that I didn’t include you along with Infidel and ZZMike, but I wrote my post before I read your 9:49 am post, but you may now be considered addressed. You need only read up to and including the link. After that it was addressed to Infidel alone in my answering his or her question.

    Also, I read your link in your 9:49 am post and made the mistake of reading only up to where it says “Continue reading: Making British politics a meritocracy”, or I would have responded to you sooner. I have now read the rest of that article that you linked to and found evidence that supports Debbie’s and my position on our saying that Thatcher was anti-Israel as PM. It says:

    “Yet despite her support for Israel, and though she rejected the stridently pro-PLO stance of some members of her government, she believed Israel needed to trade land for peace, wishing in her memoirs that the ‘Israeli emphasis on the human rights of the Russian refuseniks was matched by proper appreciation of the plight of the landless and stateless Palestinians.’ She also condemned Israel’s bombing of Osirak, Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor, in 1981. ‘[The Osirak attack] represents a grave breach of international law,’ she said in an interview with London’s Jewish Chronicle in 1981. Israel’s bombing of another country could lead to ‘international anarchy.'”

    You acknowledged Thatcher’s condemning Israel for its attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, but not the parts of her believing that Israel should trade “land for peace” and Thatcher’s support of “‘…the landless and stateless Palestinians.'” at Israel’s expense. I’m presuming that it’s because you didn’t read the second half of the article–the same mistake that I made–which case RIF = Reading is Fundamental to both of us, but to you more so than to me since you are the one who linked the article to support your position.

    Reagan wasn’t perfect on Israel, but he was more pro-Israel than Thatcher.

    JeffE on January 15, 2012 at 10:47 pm

Ref: “Joyful Noise”. My wife & I saw the movie Saturday and we throughly enjoyed the movie. It has a great story line, humor, family and Christain values. Ya, it has some corny scenes and Dolly never takes herself too serious.

Joe on January 16, 2012 at 8:48 am

Mrs. Thatcher an anti-Semite? It’s hard to take that seriously. She was widely regarded even by her enemies as a philo-Semite; indeed, any number of her Cabinet members were Jews, as were the Saatchi brothers, whose clever ad campaign on her behalf helped get elected PM in 1979.

BTW, I’m sure Meryl Streep has done as wonderful job as Thatcher as she was as Julia Child in 2009. That is, I plan to see it. It’s a character sketch, not a policy paper on celluloid.

Seek on January 16, 2012 at 11:35 am


Debbie never said that Thatcher was anti-Semitic. She said that she was anti-Israel while she was prime minister. Although given Thatcher’s opposition to settlements in Judea & Samaria, that may well be a disctinction w/o a difference.

The Bear

The actual statement is ‘All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims’. (And please spare us the Timothy McVeigh exceptions that clueless panderers of Muslims love spouting, w/o doing any analysis of whether it’s even a good analogy)

Infidel on January 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm

Debbie, you hit every film right exactly on the nose.

I expected something awful from Contraband, but it was surprisingly entertaining for the reasons you mentioned. Also, Wahlberg changed his persona in this film from his customary lispy, doe-eyed blood-avenger to a more likable “regular guy.” Good production values, a tight script, and lots of familiar characters in the cast also helped make this film enjoyable.

I disliked the Thatcher movie for the reasons you did–it was a phony attack on what the left didn’t like about her. The film wasn’t really about ideas, though, conservative or other kind; it was a shallow film about Thatcher’s stubbornness, hallucinations, and senility. It would be like making a film about Reagan and giving almost exclusive attention to his late-life Alzheimer’s disability.

Like you, I found Carnage a dismal failure. Originally it was a French play and was intended as a biting black comedy of manners. But the characters are all miscast (except maybe Waltz) and Polanski does a clumsy job of direction so there’s not one subtly sardonic laugh in it, just commonplace bickering punctuated by earnest whining. I’m glad you didn’t fall for the superficial satire of Jodi Foster as an unlikable liberal, because this portrait was crudely done and not intended as a serious jab at the Left’s real hypocrisy.

Burke on January 17, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Worse yet, it arrived right after signing a service contract.

giuseppe zanotti sneakers on September 15, 2013 at 10:31 pm

level of a parent can control his 16yearold son.

sac et porte monnaie on July 7, 2015 at 12:12 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field