The American Spectator has always been both a political and cultural magazine. Throughout its nearly 60-year history, the publication has provided extensive coverage of the film industry, both from a pop culture perspective and from a purely entertainment lens. If one peruses the archival issues of The American Spectator, there is a treasure trove of initial film reviews along with editorial celebrations of film anniversaries. These reviews run the gamut from satire to social commentary to broader explorations of the Seventh Art. The American Spectator’s examination of film as both a fine art and a societal mirror continues to the present day, most notably via contributing writers such as Lou Aguilar, who frequently muses about the disappearance of the Hollywood glamour of yesteryear, or Bruce Bawer, who writes broad sweeping reflections about the evolution of film and television as a storytelling vehicle.  Yes, The American Spectator has had a long, complicated relationship with Hollywood, making it a natural topic for my third interview with Robert Orlando, the director of the upcoming documentary, Surviving the Kultursmog: R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and the Rise of The American Spectator. Cravotta: The American Spectator has never been solely a political publication. The coverage of Hollywood from both a cultural and social commentary perspective has been intrinsic to the history of the publication. How does Surviving the Kultursmog convey the interdependent relationship between The American Spectator and Hollywood? Orlando: I show that The American Spectator always treats Hollywood as both an amplifier of culture and a mirror of politics. Tyrrell and his writers recognized early on that the battle of ideas often plays out on a soundstage as much as in the halls of Congress. In the film, I highlight the magazine’s witty coverage of Hollywood — sometimes critical, sometimes celebratory — as a way of showing readers that politics alone never defines the magazine. The cultural fight is just as central, and Hollywood is ground zero for that fight. Cravotta: The economist Ben Stein, who has been a contributing writer for The American Spectator for decades, became a household name after he played a small but extremely memorable part in the 1986 coming-of-age comedy Ferris Bueller’s Day Off starring Matthew Broderick. Ben is in many ways emblematic of how The American Spectator intersects politics and entertainment. How does the film showcase Ben in this context? Orlando: Ben embodies The American Spectator spirit. He is a sharp, ironic voice in economics and politics, and at the same time, he becomes a pop culture figure through Ferris Bueller. That duality — serious thinker and cultural icon — is exactly what The American Spectator cultivates. In the film, I play with that contrast. I let Ben be reflective and serious about his long career as an American Spectator writer, while also inviting the audience to enjoy the fun of revisiting his Hollywood moment. That blend captures the magazine’s ethos: smart ideas carried with wit and style. Cravotta: How would you characterize Ben Stein’s relationship with The American Spectator’s founder, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. (Bob), Executive Editor Wlady Pleszczynski, and other prominent people associated with The American Spectator across its 60-year history? Orlando: It is collegial but also deeply personal. Bob and Wlady aren’t just editors; they are part of a creative community where politics, journalism, and humor overlap. Ben fits right into that circle. He can spar intellectually, but he can also trade satire and anecdotes with the best of them. Over 60 years, those friendships have given The American Spectator a kind of cultural capital that extends beyond politics. Ben’s presence at the magazine makes it clear that this isn’t just a policy journal — it is a salon for some of the most interesting minds of the era. Cravotta: You made a creative choice to interview Ben Stein in Beverly Hills. What role does Los Angeles’s glamorous neighbor have in the history of a publication which began in Bloomington, Indiana, but operated and thrived in the Washington D.C. area for the lion’s share of its history? How does the Beverly Hills location enhance the telling of  Bob Tyrrell and The American Spectator’s story? Orlando: Choosing Beverly Hills is partly logistical, but also symbolic. Here’s a magazine born in Bloomington, raised in D.C., but whose influence stretches into the cultural capital of Los Angeles. To shoot Ben Stein in Beverly Hills underscores that reach. The backdrop reminds viewers that The American Spectator isn’t provincial; it has the cultural confidence to engage with Hollywood, even when Hollywood moves in the opposite ideological direction. The location expands the geography of the story, showing that Bob Tyrrell’s magazine is never bound by place — it is part of a national conversation. Cravotta: Your interview with Ben Stein pays homage to his famous Ferris Bueller role. And that was obviously chosen because the film Ferris Bueller struck a chord with a segment of The American Spectator’s audience, namely the younger Babyboomers and Gen X. Just as many young Boomers and Gen Xers associate Ferris Bueller with their college or high school careers during the 1980s, they also have memories from that time of going to their mailbox to read their copy (or their parents’ copy) of The American Spectator. How is this nostalgia for the 1980s portrayed in Kultursmog? Orlando: I lean into it. For many readers, the ’80s are the golden years of The American Spectator — its circulation launching, its satire biting, and its writers shaping the conservative movement. At the same time, Ferris Bueller and films like it define an era of youthful rebellion. By paying homage to Ben Stein’s famous scene, I tap into that collective memory. The nostalgia isn’t just about movies or magazines — it’s about remembering a cultural moment when conservatism and pop culture collided in surprising ways. Cravotta: Hollywood, which used to be the bastion of conservatism many decades ago, is now synonymous with liberalism to the point where conservatives have to hide or downplay their political beliefs to stay employed in the industry. How is this situation reflected in the interviews you conducted with Ben Stein? Orlando: Ben is candid about the climate in Hollywood. He remembers when conservatives could speak more freely, and he laments how ideological conformity hardened over time. His reflections bring authenticity to the film because he lives it. Hollywood isn’t just a setting for him — it is his career home. Through his testimony, I capture the sense of loss, but also the resilience of those who refuse to compromise their beliefs just to “fit in.” That is very much in line with The American Spectator’s contrarian tradition. Cravotta: Some conservatives are starting to make inroads in Hollywood in terms of finding financing to bring to the screen stories that reinforce traditional values and disparage woke-ism. How is this slow but continuing journey conveyed in Surviving the Kultursmog? Orlando: The film doesn’t suggest a revolution, but it does point to the beginnings of a counternarrative. Independent financing, niche streaming, and grassroots networks are giving conservatives ways to bypass traditional Hollywood gatekeepers. By framing Ben Stein’s career against this backdrop, I show that the long game is about building parallel platforms — something The American Spectator models in print journalism decades earlier. Cravotta: Bob Tyrrell and The American Spectator have connected with prominent people in entertainment either directly through a personal contact or indirectly via the pages of The American Spectator. How does Surviving the Kultursmog bring these experiences to life? Orlando: I bring it to life through story and character. Whether it’s Ben Stein’s Hollywood crossover, or Bob Tyrrell’s friendships or contact with the likes of Madonna, that link politics to culture, I try to make those intersections feel alive on screen. The American Spectator isn’t an ivory tower publication; it is a cultural player. The film uses archival clips, personal anecdotes, and satirical flourishes to let viewers feel that interplay. In the end, I am not just telling the history of a magazine — I am showing how it touches and is also touched by the world of entertainment. Cravotta:  Thank you, Rob, for sharing your reflections about The American Spectator’s relationship with Hollywood and your approach toward showcasing it in Surviving the Kultursmog: R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and the Rise of The American Spectator. I look forward to our next conversation. Watch the Kultursmog trailer! For more information about Kultursmog, visit https://www.kultursmogfilm.com/.

Political headwinds both in the U.S. and Israel are giving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu a significant opportunity to continue building in, and to apply Israeli sovereignty in, Judea and Samaria.  The Trump administration has given additional signals that it would approve of such behavior. Responding to Israel’s plans to build in the E-1 Corridor of Judea, a State Department spokesman said that “A stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with this administration’s goal to achieve peace in the region.” (RELATED: Israel Should Annex Land in Gaza, Judea and Samaria) U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee remarked that recent invigorated European support of Palestinian statehood has “essentially [given] a green light or encourage[d] the Israelis to go ahead and take more pieces of Judea and Samaria, either by declaring sovereignty or annexation.” House Speaker Mike Johnson also recently stated that “Scripture teaches us that the mountains of Judea and Samaria were promised to the Jewish people, and they belong to them by right.”  Ambassador Huckabee’s sentiments are in line with statements by several members of Bibi’s government that European moves towards a Palestinian state could trigger Israel’s annexation of parts of Area C of Judea and Samaria. To that end, Bibi’s government has recently recognized the legality of 17 towns in Judea and Samaria, and the leadership of the major Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria called on Bibi to apply Israeli sovereignty to the entire region. According to a recent poll, around 70 percent of Israelis both oppose any Palestinian state and want Israel to extend full sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. Construction there would nearly break the Palestinian settlement in Judea and Samaria into two portions, making it easier for Israel to defend itself against any future terrorism. Approving construction plans for 3,400 homes in the E-1 Corridor, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich stated that E-1 construction “buries the idea of a Palestinian state.” Given the toxic nature of Palestinian statehood and all things Hamas and Palestinian Authority, why not? Indeed, the E-1 Corridor is a highly strategic piece of land that, if developed, would link Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem as part of a greater “metropolitan Jerusalem.” Called a “doomsday settlement” by several Democrats, construction there would nearly break the Palestinian settlement in Judea and Samaria into two portions, making it easier for Israel to defend itself against any future terrorism and conventional attacks from the East. Construction in E-1 has been supported by every Israeli government since Yitzhak Rabin’s government in the 1990s. In addition to building in E-1, Israel should build in the following: Ma’ale Adumim Located in Judea and a suburb of Jerusalem within “metropolitan Jerusalem,” it has a population of approximately 38,000. It is mentioned in the Book of Joshua (15:7) as part of the borderlands between the ancient Israeli tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Israel has recently approved construction of almost 7,000 new housing units, which in turn is expected to attract 35,000 more people, which would nearly double the city’s population in a few years. The Gush Etzion Bloc The bloc includes several towns in Judea between Jerusalem and Hebron, and is also part of “metropolitan Jerusalem.” It is the first Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria after the 1967 Six-Day War. In fact, the bloc is rebuilt in the location of four kibbutzim (Kfar Etzion, Ein Tzurim, Massu’ot Yitzhak, and Revadim) that were destroyed by the Arabs in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence. The most populous towns in the contemporary Gush Etzion Bloc are Beitar Illit (with a population over 70,000) and Efrat, with a population of over 12,000. (RELATED: American Spectator: President Trump’s Mideast Peace Plan: Judean Mayor Weighs In) Israel plans to increase Beitar Illit by 222 acres and 5,000 housing units. Beitar Illit was named after the Beitar fortress, the last stronghold to fall to the Romans in the Bar Kokhba Revolt of the Roman–Jewish Wars in 135 CE. Beitar Illit is located one kilometer from the ruins of the Beitar fortress.  Modi’in Ilit This town, with a population of over 87,000, is located in Samaria and strategically situated approximately halfway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and a 20-minute drive away from Modi’in-Maccabim-Re’ut, a town of over 97,000 people located within the pre-1967 armistice lines of Israel. Both Modi’in Illit and Modi’in-Maccabim-Re’ut are close to the ancient town of Modi’in, mentioned in the Book of Maccabees as the home of the Maccabee family/Hasmonean dynasty, and the location of the now-lost Tomb of the Maccabees. The ruins of Khirbet Badd ‘Isa, a Jewish settlement dating back to the third century BCE, are within the modern Modi’in Ilit.  The Ariel Bloc This bloc is a collection of towns in Samaria and has a population of over 61,000. The most populous towns in the bloc are Ariel, which has a population of over 20,000 residents and 15,000 students, Oranit (over 10,000 people), and Alfei Menashe (over 8,000 people). Speaker Johnson and Ambassador Huckabee visited Ariel earlier this month. With Johnson’s attendance, Ariel hosted the most senior U.S. official ever to visit an Israeli town in Judea and Samaria. (RELATED: Trump’s Mideast Peace Plan: Samarian Mayor Weighs In) The Jewish population of Judea and Samaria, currently estimated at nearly 530,000, is projected to grow to over 600,000 by 2030, almost 700,000 by 2040, and over 1,000,000 by 2050. Bibi needs to leverage these trends, plus growing headwinds in the United States and Israel, to build in and apply Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.  READ MORE from Steve Postal: DOJ Targets GWU, UCLA, Settles With Columbia and Brown for Antisemitism Claims Trump Brokers 11th Peace Deal. More to Come? Israel Should Annex Land in Gaza, Judea and Samaria

Wednesday I was up almost all night with a cruel stomach and intestinal ailment. Your humble servant has been tormented almost all of my life by Irritable Bowel Syndrome. I come by it honestly. My father, Herbert Stein, suffered from it for most of his life. He was saved by a fine medicine called Lomotil. I inherited the sickness and was saved by a super drug called Paregoric. It’s a mixture of kaopectate and a tiny amount of morphine sulfate. It was prescribed by a doctor, Moskovitz. I was living in D.C. and in more or less endless pain until Dr. Moskovitz called in a prescription to an all-night People’s Drugs at about midnight. I took a hearty swig and immediately felt like a new man. I was in heaven. I have been taking it consistently since that night. The medicine got me through Yale Law School, the practice of law at the Federal Trade Commission, a wildly successful three semesters of teaching about the political content of Hollywood movies at American University at Ward Circle in D.C., a year of teaching about film at UC Santa Cruz, and then two years or so of working at the Nixon and Ford White Houses in 1973 and 1974. Then about 50 years of work in Hollywood as a screenwriter, novelist, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, actor, expert witness in incredibly complex securities litigation cases, real estate litigation, and on and on. It also got me through marriage to the world’s finest woman, fatherhood to the best boy on earth, and being sued by some of the craziest people on earth. And coming out smiling. But now I am suffering. “The war on drugs” keeps me in pain constantly. I am miserable. The federal government will not allow me to have the pain meds I desperately need. I am so exhausted thinking about it that I have to sign off for a day. In Red America. I will write more about it tomorrow. Thursday But bear in mind this message: If the “war on drugs” is helping anyone, I see no evidence of it. The sidewalks are still littered with men and women smacked so hard by meth or heroin or some other hellish cocktail. I, a very old man not doing anyone any harm, just writing and reading about the Civil War endlessly, wake up in cruel digestive pain, and have to suffer through my days grimacing and groaning. Unable to focus or do anything productive for hours. Just in endless pain. Why, Mr. and Ms. government? Why make me suffer as you have done? Yes, I am old. But I still have a few thoughts to share. I made a bit of a difference in unraveling some major financial cruelties. Maybe I could do it again. My wonderful father, Herbert Stein, was in the coronary ICU for weeks in 1999. Yet when I brought him news about government plans to buy up long-term bonds and exchange them for short-term debt and asked him how this made any sense at all, since the markets would apply the appropriate discounts to long-term and short-term debt and the whole exercise would be a wash, he wrote down on a lined tablet, “Maybe the Treasury has a different estimate of the likely death terms for long and short term debt than the bond market does.” My father died the next day, after a rookie cardiac man read his chart incorrectly and took him off the potent “bug juice” as they called the super-strong antibiotics he was taking for his heart and lung tragedies. His lungs filled up immediately with crud. He coughed terribly. I still have his lined tablet with his opinion about Treasury estimates. It is heavily stained with the remnants of his bloody coughs from 26 years ago. Maybe someday I could contribute something similar, even in old age. Please, bureaucrats, let me live. READ MORE from Ben Stein’s Diary: Sons and Fathers It’s Hot Outside Inflation: Meet Stein’s Law

Summer makes people drink more than usual. And some folks aren’t used to it, which leads to all sorts of tedious situations. Young people these days only get sociable once their blood alcohol level is about three times higher than their water content. The rest of the time, they just stare at their phones in total silence. But when they finally do get sociable, they go way overboard. If they’ve spiked their drinks with cocaine or some other garbage, they’ll start talking at 300 words per second. Your brain overheats trying to follow the thread, catches fire, and you die of spontaneous cerebral combustion. (RELATED: The Stare That Broke America) There are polite ways to shake off a pest in the middle of a sociability attack at a bar, but they don’t work. That’s why I’ve put together this field guide of liberating techniques that have saved me more than once. The Dropped Drink Drunk twenty-somethings love talking close. Like, inside-your-ear close. If they could, they’d crawl right into your head like a New York Times op-ed columnist. So on top of listening to them, you have to juggle your glass just to keep it from spilling. A good trick to end a suffocating conversation? “Accidentally” dump your drink on the guy. Just splashing a little won’t work — they do that to themselves all the time. You need something epic. Something for the history books. Summon your courage and let it all go. If you manage to pour the whole thing straight down his collar, even better. Nothing chills a brain like cold gin down the neck. Ask About Mom For some mysterious reason, drunk kids can’t handle talking about their moms. Maybe it’s guilt. Maybe trauma. Either way, it works. Introduce Him to a Blonde If you’ve got a blonde friend nearby, hand her off like a human decoy and make your escape. Any drunk who’s been lecturing you about Marx’s Capital will immediately abandon his soapbox when the call of the wild blonde kicks in. Pro tip: after four drinks, they can’t tell age from beauty. After six, you can even send over your long-haired blond male friend. At that stage, they don’t mind either — unless things end up in bed, which is your friend’s problem. Out-Annoy Him I’ve tried this, and it’s hilarious. The other night, I got cornered by one of those over-intoxicated buddies who’d latched onto me like a virus. He would not shut up, not even underwater. Finally, I decided to go louder and more annoying. I launched into a monologue about the Spanish Golden Age of theater, then broke down the translation problems in The Iliad, and wrapped it all up with a crash course in advanced social research methods. He left. Victory. The Finger Poke Slap a drunk and you start a fight. But poke him in the eye? He freezes instantly, like a deer caught in headlights. The Switcheroo I’ve got a friend who used to love swapping out his drunk friends’ beers with non-alcoholic ones. He had real sleight-of-hand skills, could do it mid-conversation without anyone noticing. I’ve never seen a drunk figure it out. It won’t end the conversation, but it waters down the bloodstream and cuts their words-per-second ratio in half. The Neck Turn Sure, this isn’t very polite. But you know what’s less polite? Standing half an inch from your face for hours without letting you get a word in. The trick is to slowly rotate while they talk, like the earth and the moon, so they end up addressing the back of your neck. Drunks wobble so badly that it takes them forever to follow the turn. They’ll spend a solid 15 minutes lecturing your hairline before realizing they’ve been ditched. Unless they’re not just drunk but also stupid. Match Their Drunk Level The ultimate move, my personal favorite: match their level of intoxication. Drunks come equipped with a built-in radar that detects the sobriety of their victims. They always hunt for someone sober — those are the only people who can endure them. But if they sense you’re just as wasted, they back off muttering, “Ugh, that guy’s drunk.” It’s basically like when politicians rage about the disasters caused by their own policies — only this time it’s 2 a.m., there’s whiskey everywhere, and you’re the unlucky voter stuck at the bar. READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: ‘Permanent Things’ Must Remain Permanent A Case of Happy Inefficiency: Accidental 911 Calls Professional Protesters Don’t Even Know What They’re Protesting

WASHINGTON — In the wake of the public shootings of strangers, especially when innocent children are the victims, there are lies that we tell ourselves and true things some dare not say. Two children were killed, and 18 other people were injured in the Wednesday mass shooting at the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis. A Minnesota Star Tribune headline got it right: “This is evil.” (RELATED: Transgender Mass Murderers: The Drugs and Demons That Drive Them) I’ll tell you the phrase that no longer works: “We have to do something so that this never happens again.” It is the chant most often heard after these senseless slaughters. It does not and cannot ward off the evil in this world. It only serves to showcase how helpless adults feel in the aftermath. We have to do something — the phrase often used as a prelude to calls for tougher gun laws. Minnesota ranks 14th in the country for the state’s strict gun laws, which include background check requirements for all gun sales, an extreme risk law, and laws blocking access for domestic abusers under restraining orders, according to Everytown for Gun Safety. The state has relatively low firearm violence, according to Everytown, with a gun death rate below the national average. But laws can only do so much against evil. The church reportedly had locked its front doors, and that might well have helped to protect some of the children. When police and TV talking heads say that they, we, do not understand the motive, I want to scream. I know the answer. The shooter was evil. Robin Westman, 23, nee Robert Westman, was a pusbag of hate. At age 17, Robert changed his name to Robin. Because he was transgender, and so politics intrude. CNN did repeated segments about what police knew about the shooter, while tiptoeing around his gender identity. Or should I say her gender identity? I am sticking with “him” because becoming Robin didn’t do much for Robert or the children of Minnesota. (RELATED: Acknowledging the Relationship Between Transgender Identity and Violence_ Westman’s identity practically paralyzed CNN. Among Thursday night segments looking at “What we know about the shooter,” anchors and reporters repeatedly left out the fact that Westman was transgender — though the New York Post and Fox News had reported that news. It was a sorry spectacle, watching veteran journalists speak as though it was their job to not inform the public about a child killer. Eventually CNN talent and experts started calling Westman “he.” Good call, except calling Westman “he” goes against The Associated Press Stylebook. Westman changed his name to Robin, so in big media world, Westman has to be a “she.” In almost any other circumstance, that could be the pronoun of choice with big media. Or, CNN could follow The Associated Press Stylebook, which advises, “As much as possible, AP uses they/them/their as a way of accurately describing and representing a person who uses those pronouns for themself.” (Themself is not a typo.) To use the term “they” for a single person is inaccurate. It’s the pretzel logic that transgender politics and good intentions concocted at times to help people fool themselves as to who they really are. And it has consequences. READ MORE from Debra J. Saunders: What Did President Biden Know, and How Long Did He Remember It? How Did a Migrant Who Can’t Speak English Get a License to Drive a Big Rig? Leaking From Anti-Trumpers, It’s as Shocking as Gambling in Casablanca Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM

from Russell Brand: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Mish Shedlock, Mish Talk: The most arrogant administration in history accuses India of arrogance over Russian oil imports. “Modi’s War” The BBC reports Trump adviser calls Ukraine conflict ‘Modi’s war’ as US tariffs on India rise A White House official has described Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine as Indian Prime Minister Narendra “Modi’s war”, stepping […]

Dems cry after 'stoking fear and rage into the mentally ill': Rob Schmitt

'Those days are over'