Email Signup Just in Case https://www.sustainableseasons.com/ Follow me on Twitter X Just in Case https://twitter.com/PatrickHumphre Breaking news an emergency The White House has issued a communications blackout warning. We could see the supply chain affected if GPS and satellites are taken offline. Rep Mike Turner is warning of a national security threat. The White House Biden and national security council are about an emp attack. Get off grid and get a generator for power outages. Practice preparedness. Get water filtration and stock up on storable long term food. Shtf is here in 2024. Watch Patrick Prepper who brings you breaking news. Buy silver and buy gold so you are prepared for shtf 2024 “Stand firm‚ and you will win life.” Luke 21:19

Survival preparedness refers to the actions taken to ensure that one can survive and cope in the event of a natural disaster‚ pandemic‚ or other emergency situation. It involves assembling a kit of essential supplies‚ learning survival skills‚ and having a plan in place for communication and evacuation. This includes having non-perishable food and water‚ a first aid kit‚ a means of communication such as a radio‚ and tools to start a fire or signal for help. It also involves being informed about potential emergencies in one's area and understanding how to stay safe in various scenarios. The goal of survival preparedness is to increase the chances of survival and reduce the impact of a disaster on oneself and loved ones. "Music by CreatorMix.com" Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMkJzLn2wY9eAatucpQQ8TQ/join Check out my new Amazon Storefront below. https://www.amazon.com/shop/survivalpreparednessforbeginners.?isVisitor=true Merchandise is here!! Follow link below https://survival-preparedness-for-beg.myspreadshop.com/ GET YOUR SEEDS NOW FROM SURVIVAL GARDEN SEEDS. AMERCIAN COMPANY AND GET 10% OFF YOUR ORDER OF ONE OF THERE SURVIVAL SEED VAULTS! FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW. https://survivalgardenseeds.com/discount/SURVIVALPREPAREDNESSFORBEGINNERS My Personal Amazon Storefront. https://amazon.com/shop/survivalpreparednessforbeginners. Website: https://survivalpreparednessforbeginners.com/ Facebook: survival preparedness for beginners. tweeter: survival preparedness for beginners Pinterest: https://pin.it/RctuBvL Email: Survivalpreparedness69@gmail.com To be prepared‚ follow these steps: Identify potential risks and hazards: Consider the specific challenges and dangers that you might face in different scenarios‚ such as natural disasters‚ pandemics‚ or financial emergencies. Develop a plan: Write down a step-by-step plan that outlines what to do in case of an emergency. Make sure everyone in your household knows the plan and understands it. Assemble a emergency kit: Keep a stock of basic supplies such as food‚ water‚ first-aid supplies‚ and a battery-operated radio. Make sure it is easily accessible. Stay informed: Stay up-to-date on current events and weather reports‚ and sign up for emergency alerts in your area. Practice and review: Regularly review your emergency plan and conduct regular drills to make sure everyone knows what to do. Be financially prepared: Make sure you have a savings account for emergencies‚ and consider getting insurance for major assets and liabilities. Know your resources: Familiarize yourself with local resources‚ such as hospitals‚ police stations‚ and emergency shelters. By following these steps‚ you can increase your readiness and reduce the impact of emergencies on you and your loved ones. *** EMERGENCY SUPPLY CHECKLIST*** #1 water 1 gallon per day per person #2 non-perishable food/canned goods #3 manual can opener #4 paper goods and plastic goods #5 Zip lock bags #6 paper towels &; toilet paper &; baby wipes #7 Extra glasses or contacts #8 personal hygiene tooth brush‚ toothpaste‚ soap‚ Deodorant &; baby powder #9 feminine products #10 All baby needs food‚ diapers ext #11 pet supplies #12 propane or gas stove to cook on with extra gas #13 first aid kit a good one #14 prescription drugs or non prescription drugs #15 sunscreen #16 insect repellant #17 change of clothes for everyone and 2 pair of extra socks #18 tarps‚ sleeping bags‚ tent‚ some way to get shelter #19 very important cordage to make shelter #20 good shoes‚ boots waterproof #21 Important documents in waterproof bag #22 battery backup for you cell phone and extra charging cord #23 a good map of your area you live in #24 cash #25 Books &; games &; toys for your kids #26 pen pencil and note pad #27 battery powered radio with extra batteries #28 battery powered lantern‚ headlamp or flashlights #29 candles and matches #30 battery banks and solar chargers #31 whistle #32 light sticks #33 a good pocket knife #34 basic tools #35 Gloves #36 shovel‚ saw‚ ax or anything that will cut up wood #37 mask‚ safty glasses #38 fire extinguisher #39 all kinds of fire starters you name it bring it #40 large trash bags they have many uses #41 duct tape #42 PATIENCE... to get you through the tuff times.... *** DISCLAIMERS*** #1 If you are one of the lucky ones to win on any Giveaway‚ you have 48 hours from the the time the live Aired to claim your Prize! Emailing me at survivalpreparedness69@gmail.com. If I dont hear from you in the time of 48 hours‚ I will draw another name on the next live stream. #2 Some links featured here are affiliate links‚ if you purchase I will make a commission on the product and or service at no additional cost to you.

You could save a life.

President Joe Biden wants to remind you that your Super Bowl party was more expensive than it used to be. The reason‚ he claims‚ is corporate greed and “shrinkflation.” In a social media video before Sunday night’s game‚ he spoke of companies selling “smaller-than-usual products where the price stays the same.” He opposes this behavior and is “calling on the big consumer brands to put a stop to it.” That’s quite an amazing move. There’s a straight line between shrinkflation‚ inflation‚ and the Biden administration’s own fiscal irresponsibility. Shrinkflation is real. It happens when companies reduce the size or quantity of their products while maintaining the same sticker price‚ effectively raising the real price. In this case‚ Biden points the finger at the snack-food and sports-drink industries as two main culprits. Have you noticed that your Gatorade bottle has gotten a little smaller? Does your bag of chips seem to be filled more with air than ever? It’s probably not your imagination. Still‚ Biden’s complaint would be funny if it weren’t so sad. As Dominic Pino over at National Review explains‚ shrinkflation is legal if packaging accurately reflects the product’s content. Also‚ the Food and Drug Administration regulates packaging practices like “slack fill‚” the main purpose of which is food preservation practices‚ not ensuring against smaller portions as Biden seems to claim. And‚ yes‚ it’s true that some sellers have reduced the contents of their packages without changing prices‚ but this adjustment occurred back in 2022. Why 2022? That’s the most important part. The wave of shrinkflation came in response to the rise in inflation the country experienced starting in 2021. I am baffled that the president would make such a big deal out of it now. The administration has been trying to fool voters into conflating the fact that inflation has tempered with the idea that prices are basically back to normal. It’s not the case. While inflation has declined‚ the price of food is up by 20 percent on average since February 2021. Chicken and bread are up 25 percent‚ and rents are still mightily elevated. These higher prices explain why voters continue to express plenty of frustration about the economy despite low unemployment‚ positive economic growth‚ and rising wages. In the end‚ the president’s rant against companies is a weak attempt to distract us from the fact that his (and his predecessor’s) excessive spending policies during the pandemic caused the inflation. My former co-worker William Beach‚ who used to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics‚ looks at the question in detail in a new Economic Policy Innovation Center brief titled “Is Inflation the Result of Excessive Deficit Spending?” As Beach reminds us‚ total federal deficits from 2020 through 2023 amounted to $8.8 trillion. These are the largest peacetime deficits in U.S. history‚ both in nominal terms and as a percentage of GDP‚ and they include a lot of spending passed by Biden after most of the pandemic crisis was averted and the economy recovering. This influx of deficit dollars led to a 25.4 percent increase in Americans’ bank assets between 2020 and 2021‚ translating into a significant rise in lending. Consumer loans increased by 19.2 percent‚ real estate loans by 12.1 percent‚ and total loans by 13.7 percent. This was the most substantial lending jump since the period leading up to the Great Recession. Additionally‚ a broad measure of the money supply grew by $5.4 trillion between March 2020 and April 2022 — about a third of U.S. GDP at that time. Beach rightfully notes that alternative explanations for inflation — such as supply-chain disruptions‚ price gouging‚ and modern monetary theory arguments tied to the wishful idea that government spending shouldn’t concern us — aren’t credible. The same goes for blaming shrinkflation on companies’ greed as opposed to a government that injected the economy with excessive purchasing power and brought about an inflation crisis‚ leaving all of us to find ways to adjust. The best part of Beach’s report comes when he reminds us that while politicians are responsible for initiating the recent inflation‚ they also possess the means to stop it. Although prices might not revert to 2020 levels‚ Congress can enhance economic efficiency and productivity by reforming the tax code‚ rolling back regulations‚ and moving toward freer policies‚ potentially alleviating the family budget squeeze by raising incomes. Congress could also finally get serious about cutting spending. That would do a lot to help the Federal Reserve tame inflation entirely. Blaming companies for inflationary price hikes is both wrong and cowardly. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists‚ visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Biden’s Super Bowl ‘Shrinkflation’ Blame Game appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The recent lamentable travails afflicting American academia — falling public support‚ suppression of free expression‚ declining integrity of research as evidenced by seemingly widespread plagiarism — mask a longer-term but I think serious problem: American colleges and universities are disseminating less knowledge than they did a generation or two ago‚ largely a consequence of falling academic standards. READ MORE: True Theory Can Save Us From the Left’s Pseudo-Theories Most advocates of this viewpoint stress things like the growth of new academic “disciplines” that are distinctly non-disciplined and devoid of serious important context — new ideologically motivated majors like “gender studies” or‚ a generation earlier‚ black studies. Some talk about the decline in enrollments in time-honored explorations in such subjects as English literature‚ philosophy‚ or American history. In this century‚ we have a smaller proportion of students majoring in intellectually demanding fields‚ while enrollments have been robust in majors that seemingly are superficially vocationally relevant but intellectually somewhat vacuous‚ like marketing or communication studies. But I have been concerned about the decline in learning within disciplines‚ partly because we have reduced course requirements in intellectually demanding subjects. At my school‚ for example‚ students in our College of Business used to be required to take courses in intermediate economy theory‚ considered relatively demanding and rigorous material. No longer. But even within courses‚ demands on students have moderated. When I first taught my course in American economic history‚ I required students to read parts or all of six books. When I stopped teaching it recently‚ I required one textbook and a small number of short supplement readings. Fairly typical. But I always thought: “This does not apply in the tougher STEM disciplines. There the standards are as high as ever.” But then a friend of mine‚ a former engineering dean and the current president of the Ohio Society of Professional Engineers‚ Dennis Irwin‚ sent me an article he wrote for the OhioEngineer magazine. He points out that “a 136-140 semester hour electrical engineering degree was common three decades ago. Now that degree is typically 126 hours or so.” Important subject matter is no longer required. Also‚ useful cross disciplinary courses taken by students late in the last century generally are not taken any more: “[F]or example‚ no more do electrical engineers take statics‚ strengths‚ thermodynamics‚ and engineering materials.” Students take more general education courses‚ many of dubious rigor. Irwin attributes the change in large part to financial considerations and decisions by university administrators to try to cut costs by substituting cheaper general education courses for more costly engineering ones. That is no doubt true. The faculty role even on fundamental curricular issues seems to be becoming diluted.  As I see it‚ the college community more generally is not working as hard as it was two generations ago‚ during the Golden Age of Higher Education‚ defined as the 1950s and 1960s (of course‚ when I was in college and started teaching). Empirical evidence backs it up. Some government survey data suggest the average college undergraduate in the middle of the last century spent 40 weeks on academics; more recent 21st-century data suggest the number now is more like 28 hours a week — 30 percent less. But the average undergraduate grade in the mid-1950s was about a C+‚ while today it is around a B or B+‚ and in the Ivy League probably minimally B+ or even A-. Doing less for more (higher grades).  Meanwhile‚ the Chronicle of Higher Education reports that a brouhaha has erupted at James Madison University (JMU) where the new head of the economics department‚ Charlene Kalenkoski‚ gave dramatically lower than normal annual evaluations to a half dozen of her faculty‚ allegedly because the professors gave too many low grades! (Full disclosure: Kalenkoski is a former colleague of mine‚ and we even once coauthored a paper together). We can’t have the lives of students ruined or their self-esteem shattered because they received a “D” grade!  The apparent JMU message: We are going to punish faculty who do not promote the grade inflation that has‚ in my opinion at least‚ contributed to markedly less work — and learning — by contemporary college students. Keep the kids reasonably happy‚ and don’t demand too much of them. All of this is consistent with broader trends in American society. Despite low unemployment‚ the proportion of adult Americans working today is materially lower than it was than when this century began. Arguably‚ some of it reflects a prosperous society with generally rising incomes deciding it wants to take some of the fruits of economic progress in the form of more leisure. But is it wise to let what is supposed to be the best and brightest of the next generation — our future leaders — spend only 28 hours a week for maybe 32 weeks a year (896 hours annually) preparing for their future‚ especially when many have parents working up to twice as much? Richard Vedder is Distinguished Professor of Economics at Ohio University‚ Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute‚ and author of a forthcoming book‚ Let Colleges Fail: Creative Destruction in Higher Education.   The post The Retreat From Academic Excellence: It’s Not Just the Ivy Leagues appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — During an interview with Tucker Carlson‚ Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he has no interest in expanding the war in Ukraine to Poland and Latvia. READ MORE: Putin’s Self-Serving Lies So with former Polish President Lech Walesa speaking at a Friday event put on by the Victims of Communism Museum‚ I had a chance to get the Polish game-changer’s view of Putin’s designs. What did Walesa make of Putin’s remark to Carlson? “But he would like to invade the United States‚” Walesa wryly responded. “That is why I am telling you‚ be careful.” It was a savvy warning for Americans who have felt invulnerable since the Cold War ended and buy into former President Donald Trump’s apparent belief that Putin can invade Eastern European countries without affecting us. The good news: Days after Walesa’s visit to Washington‚ 22 GOP senators joined most Senate Democrats to vote in favor of a $95 billion foreign aid bill that included $60 billion for Ukraine. What is a life-or-death issue for many Eastern Europeans now serves as an opportunity for the former commander-in-chief to win the news cycle. On Tuesday‚ President Joe Biden urged House Republicans to pass the bipartisan measure quickly as he dismissed attempts to block passage as “dumb‚ shameful‚ dangerous” and “un-American.” Biden sounded like Walesa when he argued‚ “If we don’t stop Putin’s appetite for power and control of Ukraine‚ he won’t limit himself just to Ukraine.” For years now‚ Trump has shown himself to be more hostile toward NATO than Putin. In 2017‚ during a dedication ceremony to a 9/11 memorial in Brussels‚ Trump failed to embrace Article 5‚ which represents the alliance’s one-for-all and all-for-one mission. I was there and‚ like most observers‚ taken aback. “For some reason‚ Trump chose to treat NATO like a freeloader‚ even though the alliance is sending NATO troops to Iraq and likely will increase troop levels in Afghanistan‚” I wrote for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. This latest Trump tidbit began during a weekend rally in South Carolina. Trump shared his version of a conversation he held with the unnamed leader of a “big” NATO nation. The leader asked Trump if the U.S. would protect NATO countries that didn’t pay their “bills.” (“Bills” is Trump’s shorthand for NATO members’ pledge to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Most NATO countries have fallen short of that goal.) Trump said that he told the leader: “No‚ I would not protect you. In fact‚ I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.” And here I am writing about it. Sure‚ Trump’s criticism of NATO resonates with voters who are sick of Washington’s big spending‚ lack of accountability‚ and failure to pay for emergency expenditures. But he’s singing Putin’s song. Who does it hurt? NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg responded appropriately: Any attack on NATO will be met with a united and forceful response. Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security‚ including that of the U.S.‚ and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk. And who does it help? The thug who annexed Crimea in 2014 and invaded Ukraine in 2022. This is not a game. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Putin Wants It All. NATO Stands in His Way. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Hollywood and the Movies of the Fifties: The Collapse of the Studio System‚ the Thrill of Cinerama‚ and the Invasion of the Ultimate Body Snatcher—Television By Foster Hirsch (Knopf‚ 672 pages‚ $40) If you listen to the Left‚ the 1950s were a decade of boring conformity (the poet Robert Lowell referred to it as “the tranquilized Fifties”) — and the movies of that era‚ one is told‚ were a reflection thereof. In a smart‚ juicy‚ jam-packed‚ and richly engaging new book‚ Hollywood and the Movies of the Fifties: The Collapse of the Studio System‚ the Thrill of Cinerama‚ and the Invasion of the Ultimate Body Snatcher—Television‚ Foster Hirsch proves otherwise. Now 80 years old‚ Hirsch is a veteran film professor and the author of a dozen earlier volumes on show business — including studies of film noir‚ the Actors Studio‚ Woody Allen‚ Laurence Olivier‚ film director Otto Preminger‚ composer Kurt Weill‚ and stage director Harold Prince. READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: Biting the (Left) Hand That Feeds Him Now‚ in this new work‚ Hirsch challenges the “glib‚ patronizing uninformed stereotyping” of the 1950s‚ arguing that “[b]eneath the supposed dullness‚ insipidity‚ and complacent prosperity of Eisenhower’s America was a country riven by conflict and discontent.” Hence‚ the cinematic record of the 1950s consist largely of “noir thrillers about defeat and mischance; domestic melodramas festering with secrets and sexual repression; apocalyptic science-fiction tales and westerns roiling with paranoid political subtexts.”  And that was just the tip of the iceberg. As Hirsch reminds us‚ the 1950s gave us oodles of low-budget schlock (Plan 9 from Outer Space‚ 1957)‚ highbrow biopics (Lust for Life‚ 1956)‚ TV adaptations (12 Angry Men‚ 1957)‚ stage adaptations (Death of a Salesman‚ 1951)‚ and a surprising number of literary adaptations‚ from Moby Dick (1956) and A Farewell to Arms (1957) to War and Peace (1956) and The Brothers Karamazov (1958). Then there were the genre movies — like the Western High Noon (1952) and the science-fiction noir Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) — that were also political allegories. Hirsch covers it all.  It was also a decade during which‚ in the face of the challenge of TV‚ almost all of the film studios went through major convulsions — and Hirsch devotes a rich‚ informative chapter to each of them. At MGM‚ longtime honcho Louis B. Mayer was replaced in 1951 by Dore Schary‚ who supplemented the usual big‚ splashy Metro spectacles — such as Quo Vadis (1951)‚ An American in Paris (1951)‚ The Prisoner of Zenda (1952)‚ Singin’ in the Rain (1952)‚ and The Band Wagon (1953) — with grittier fare like Blackboard Jungle (1955)‚ about juvenile delinquency‚ and cynical items like The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)‚ about a megalomaniacal movie producer. Schary was fired soon enough‚ however‚ and by decade’s end the once mighty MGM was a quiet shell of its former self.  Meanwhile‚ Howard Hughes’ mismanagement of RKO (which in 1941 had released Citizen Kane‚ no less) ended up with the studio lot being sold in 1957 to Desilu — that is‚ to the newly minted TV superstars Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz‚ both of whom‚ ironically‚ “had been minor contract players at RKO in the late 1930s and early 1940s.” If Paramount stayed in the black throughout the decade‚ it was thanks largely to the lightweight comedies of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. And if Fox survived‚ it was due in no small part to studio boss Darryl Zanuck’s commitment to the new CinemaScope process‚ which resulted in “colossal grosses” for The Robe (1953) and was at its best‚ in Hirsch’s opinion‚ in the widely forgotten and/or derided The Egyptian (1954)‚ a film that’s one of my lifelong faves‚ and that Hirsch gratifyingly eulogizes as “a work of formal as well as thematic beauty” that’s deserving of “pantheon status.”  CinemaScope was only one of several exciting new celluloid processes that Hirsch covers at length and that were developed with an eye to overcoming the TV threat. Some of these processes‚ to be sure‚ were more successful than others. How the West Was Won (1962) was made in Cinerama‚ which divided the screen into three vertical strips‚ the lines between which were always at least faintly visible; Hitchcock made Dial M for Murder (1954) in 3D‚ which required special glasses; Paramount’s in-house process‚ VistaVision‚ was first used in the megahit White Christmas (1954); and Oklahoma! (1955) was shot in the short-lived Todd-AO.  The 1950s saw the waning of many acting careers‚ such as those of Clark Gable‚ Bette Davis‚ Humphrey Bogart‚ and Joan Crawford‚ and Hirsch limns their later years with sympathy and insight. (His enthusiasm for Crawford’s 1952 film Sudden Fear made me seek it out. Not bad.) It also saw the rise of a new generation‚ including Grace Kelly‚ Marilyn Monroe‚ Marlon Brando‚ and James Dean‚ whose careers — and acting styles — Hirsch analyzes perceptively. He also focuses on the rise of films about blacks (The Defiant Ones‚ 1958)‚ Asians (Sayonara‚ 1957)‚ and other minorities. Although he writes (in an apparent reference to the title of my 1993 book A Place at the Table) that “there was no place at the table for gay people in the 1950s‚” he teases out the highly veiled references to the topic in movies like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) and Suddenly‚ Last Summer (1959).  Hirsch devotes his most comprehensive coverage‚ perhaps‚ to the subject of communism‚ and he does a fascinating and highly responsible job of it. Discussing the major showbiz-related political events that shaped the decade — from the 1947 Waldorf Conference‚ at which the studio moguls agreed‚ after some exceedingly intense disagreement‚ to institute a Blacklist‚ to the notorious Hollywood hearings held in that year by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)‚ to the formation of the star-studded Committee for the First Amendment‚ whose members flew‚ also in that year‚ to Washington‚ D.C.‚ to stand up for free-speech rights — Hirsch proves to be a refreshing departure from the armies of film historians who treat Stalinists as heroes.  Among other things‚ Hirsch observes that when screenwriter Philip Dunne‚ whom he describes as “probably the wisest and most prominent liberal anticommunist during the blacklist period‚” tried to prevent the establishment of a Blacklist‚ he was operating from “what would prove to be a fatal misconception: that most of the nineteen who had been accused” of communism by HUAC “were not actually communists.” In fact‚ almost all of them were Reds — as was every single one of the Hollywood Ten‚ a group of industry bigshots who refused to testify before HUAC.  Hirsch’s treatment of screenwriter Budd Schulberg and director Elia Kazan‚ both of whom “named names” to the HUAC and who’ve been demonized by historians ever since‚ is refreshing in its rejection of received left-wing opinion. Among those historians is Victor Navasky‚ whose 1980 book Naming Names Hirsch cannily describes as “itself a kind of blacklist — of informers who‚ having named names‚ ought to be‚ according to the author’s moral calculus‚ branded forever.” Hirsch quotes with admiration the conservative historian Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley‚ who in Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film Industry in the 1930s and 1940s (1998)‚ reports on a 1997 Blacklist commemoration sponsored by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at which actors‚ writers‚ and directors who’d defended Stalin‚ “the worst mass murderer in history[‚] were … virtually deified.”  Indeed‚ some movers and shakers in Hollywood didn’t just defend Stalin but glorified him. During the war‚ at least four films (rightly labeled “notorious” by Hirsch) had shamelessly whitewashed Soviet Communism — Mission to Moscow (1943)‚ Song of Russia (1944)‚ Counter-Attack (1945)‚ and Lillian Hellman’s reprehensible The North Star (1943). After the war‚ the studio chiefs looked back on these propaganda pieces with embarrassment‚ and in the 1950s they reversed course dramatically‚ churning out one anti-communist picture after another. Although they’re all routinely dismissed by progressive critics as hysterical red-baiting‚ Hirsch explores them with critical dispassion and‚ in some cases‚ even ekes out some praise. He calls The Red Menace (1949)‚ for example‚ “an essential film of the early postwar period” and singles out for special attention My Son John (1952)‚ saying that it’s director Leo McCarey’s “most personal film” and “deserves a reappraisal.”  I’d never seen My Son John‚ but I watched it after reading Hirsch’s pages-long account of it. Helen Hayes and Dean Jagger play the Jeffersons‚ a decent‚ pious small-town couple whose son John (Robert Walker)‚ now working in government in Washington‚ D.C.‚ turns out to be a Soviet spy. Hirsch admits that the film (which also features the terrific Van Heflin as an FBI agent) is “an overwrought piece of Christian propaganda infused with über-patriotic paranoia‚” but he adds that it’s “a unique period piece that expresses with deeper conviction than any other anticommunist film of the time the fear and loathing with which communism was widely regarded…. [O]n its own terms [it’s] a disturbing work of art rendered with a conviction so deeply rooted‚ so unmovable‚ that it achieves a kind of transcendence.”  This is admiration‚ if of a curious kind‚ and I share it. So‚ rather unexpectedly‚ it turns out‚ do many of Hirsch’s students‚ who‚ when he screens it for them‚ he says‚ “are almost invariably surprised that they are gripped by a story that takes place in a world and time so far removed from their own‚ and they always ask me about the ‘wonderful’ actress who plays Mrs. Jefferson.” Interesting. (Even more interesting is that the 1950s actor whom Hirsch’s film students overwhelmingly dislike is none other than Katharine Hepburn.)  The most famous member of the Hollywood Ten (and the best-paid screenwriter in Hollywood) was Dalton Trumbo‚ who more than half a century after the Blacklist became the subject of a biopic (Trumbo‚ 2015)‚ which I was glad Hirsch dragged into his discussion of Hollywood communism. I was especially gratified by Hirsch’s brilliant putdown of this despicable picture‚ which‚ as he puts it‚ “enshrine[s]” Trumbo “in political purity” while depicting his opponents as “satanic.” Trumbo‚ Hirsch powerfully asserts: is as extremist‚ as unyielding‚ as lacking in nuance as the fiercest Red-baiting features of the early Cold War period. With knee-jerk liberalism‚ the film regards Trumbo and his political colleagues as victims and martyrs for whom adulation is the only possible response; about their stubborn allegiance to a brutal foreign government: silence…. Trumbo canonizes its protagonist‚ whose beatitude (along with that of his blacklisted brethren) is likely to remain unmodified for generations to come. Alas.  If I haven’t made it clear enough already‚ this is a superb book. Hirsch doesn’t approach films as an art-house snob or with a political agenda; he appreciates genre pictures on their own terms; he’s splendid at describing directing‚ camerawork‚ lighting‚ sets‚ acting styles‚ and much else. Going into it‚ I wondered if he’d mention any of the 1950s movies‚ some of them quite obscure‚ of which I’m particularly fond; he not only mentioned them all but had interesting things to say about each of them. (For instance‚ I was delighted by his absorbing account of The Prince and the Showgirl‚ a 1957 comedy starring Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe‚ which is usually either dismissed or forgotten.)  Also‚ while I don’t share his disdain for the classic tearjerker An Affair to Remember (1957)‚ I was delighted to discover that he shares my eternal puzzlement over the utterly ridiculous casting: “Does [Cary] Grant pass muster as an Italian roué‚ or [Deborah] Kerr as a svelte thrush?” Nope. Why couldn’t Grant’s character have been turned into an English roué? (It would’ve involved nothing more than a name change.) I have additional complaints. The first-act scenes on the transatlantic ocean liner seem never to end. And then there’s the coincidence of the ship docking at the exact port‚ Villefranche-sur-Mer‚ where Grant‚ then all of 57 years old‚ has a grandmother who’s still alive (played by Cathleen Nesbit‚ who in real life was 16 years his elder). Oh‚ well. I love the film anyway. But I can understand Hirsch’s distaste.  I could go on and on about Hollywood and the Movies of the Fifties. It’s equally fun to read Hirsch’s always intelligent takes on films you’ve seen and to be given a vivid introduction to movies you’ve never seen or perhaps never even heard of. And given that (as noted) the American 1950s and its cultural artifacts have long been treated by the establishment Left with scorn‚ it’s sheer pleasure to read a book about the movies of that decade by someone who treats them with respect‚ who’s given them serious thought‚ and who actually regards more than a few of them with something not unlike affection. In his concluding pages‚ Hirsch tells us that he’s working on a companion volume about the films of the 1960s. It’s an understatement to say that I greatly look forward to it.  The post No‚ the 1950s Weren’t ‘Dull’ and ‘Conformist.’ Neither Were the Movies. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.