Little things matter to me quite a lot. I notice everything and of my many careers over a lifetime, one of them will be a cultural expert where psychology, art, religion, economics and all other forms of unnamed human ambition find their way into every created thing on earth. I grew up for as long as I can remember wanting to be a film director—but not being a very collaborative person—relegated that desire for more inward pursuits. Because of all that I can say with great provocation that the world is in a severe cultural decline. America obviously leads the world in culture—even though many academics might dispute it. The evidence is in our movie houses and our music with great audacious display. So rather than slide my predilections into the direction of the current pendulum swinging culture of global unification I am focusing much more these days on American westerns as a foundation philosophy that stands in contrast to the world currently presented to us.
I was born in 1968 and a few months after my birth one of the greatest films ever made was released—it was a Sergio Leone western called Once Upon a Time in the West. Leone was an Italian director interpreting American westerns for a country trying to fight its way back from cultural decay after World War II. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. Leone at the time was best known for his “Dollars” trilogy which made Clint Eastwood into a star. Those films are and have always been fantastic. But for the director Leone they gained him the opportunity to make the western of his dreams off the success of the previous Eastwood films. Paramount Pictures tossed the world to him along with a host of first class stars and Sergio Leone along with his musical collaborator Ennio Morricone spun a masterpiece called Once Upon a Time in the West.
Some of my very first television memories were these spaghetti westerns by Sergio Leone replaying on Channel 19 in Cincinnati. My grandfather loved westerns and whenever I was at his farm-house he had them on, so my mother also watched them all the time as well because it reminded her of her dad. Of them the Sergio Leone westerns reflected my own observations about people even when I was very young—and I soaked them up. Before I was ever in the kindergarten I was a fan of Once Upon a Time in the West. I often confused all Leone’s westerns together until I was just shy of ten and it was then when I began to appreciate Once Upon a Time in the West as something of its own. The Leone films had hard-wired themselves into my consciousness. My very first time in front of a television camera was when I was sixteen during “tough guy” week on Channel 19. “Tough guy week” was a ratings grab at Channel 19 so they ran Steve McQueen movies along with a lot of Clint Eastwood to bump up their winter numbers. At a young age I had evolved into having a “reputation” and I was sitting at the dinner table of a prominent Sharonville judge, his wife and the biggest criminal of Northern Cincinnati at the time. The event was a Chinese New Year advertisement for a restaurant that I worked at. One of the owner’s sons was a guy who liked to dip his feet into that type of world where justice sits at dinner tables with known criminals and he used me even at that young age as one of his “heavies.” I enjoyed the experience because I was essentially living the life of the protagonists in Sergio Leone’s westerns and I discovered by living those characters in real life that one of my favorite film directors was in fact a genius. As I sat at that table during that day long commercial recording talking to the judge and the crime lord obviously working together with me in the middle and being told by that same judge that when I got into trouble—he’d take care of it–I knew for me there was no going back. At too young of an age I knew way too much about the way the world worked. I was then and still am about 60 years ahead of myself and it does really go back to Leone’s westerns and my young introduction to them. When the commercial aired on television my family was one of the first people back then to have a VCR so I was able to tape it. My television appearance aired with the judge and the criminal seated on either side of me during a showing of For a Few Dollars More. During that same Channel 19 “tough guy” week Once Upon a Time in the West was shown again and I was able to see it as a 16-year-old actually doing in real life much of what the Charles Bronson character was doing in that film and I watched it with new understanding for the first time. It was as real and honest of any motion picture I had ever seen—it was to my eyes much better than The Godfather which was still making cultural waves in that year of 1985. A month later I was involved in a fight with a bunch of people which led to a tragic situation and if I had not been sitting at that table with that judge on that particular day for that commercial, I’d probably have a much different life than I do now and my freedoms would likely be greatly restricted.
I felt it was important for my wife to be to watch Once Upon a Time in the West to understand more about me, so I tried to show it to her early in our relationship. At the time she was a country club girl so she wasn’t ready for movies like that—where the opening was so strange and dramatic. She made fun of it heavily after the first seven minutes and I never tried again to show it to her until January of 2016. I had meant to show the movie to my children at some point so given all my history with it I felt that they should see the movie. I bought the cut of the film that had been restored to 165 minutes as opposed to the version I had seen as a kid, the 145 minute version which was a bit more confusing, and relished being able to finally show it to my wife and at least some of my kids. It was a great experience. The music from Ennio Morricone was so good in that movie that I have used it often to raise my mind above times of incredible stress. Even though my wife didn’t like Once Upon a Time in the West at first I still loved it and thought of it often to carry me through tough times. I was 25-years old and in deep trouble. I had more legal problems and had law suits directed at me from several directions and I had to tap into that raw, primal civility that I had refined when I was 16, where I could walk into any situation and just take care of things no matter how bad the guys on the other side of the table were—or who hid in the shadows where you parked your car. I had for the first time a CD collection of Ennio Morricone’s music which featured a scene on the front from Once Upon a Time in the West. By the 1990s the film was considered an obscure classic and nobody remembered it much except for filmmakers and people who were particularly fascinated with cultural phenomenon. In the hardest days of my life I listened to the music from Once Upon a Time in the West to serve as my moral compass—and it has always worked for me. I sat in my office back then with the world coming down around me and would listen to those Morricone soundtracks and think of “The Man with the Harmonica”—that haunting melody which spoke of revenge, perseverance, and the growth of a human into an Übermensch (German for “Overman, Overhuman, Above-Human, Superman, Superhuman, Ultraman, Ultrahuman, Beyond-Man”; German pronunciation: [ˈˀyːbɐmɛnʃ]) As readers here know I think a lot of the concept which is from the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. In his 1883 book Thus Spoke Zarathustra (German: Also Sprach Zarathustra), Nietzsche has his character Zarathustra posit the Übermensch as a goal for humanity to set for itself. It is a work of philosophical allegory, with a structural similarity to the Gathas of Zoroaster/Zarathustra. I learned later that my love of Sergio Leone had more to do with the concept of the Übermensch than of the westerns themselves—but I can say that there is an honesty in Once Upon a Time in the West that is not present in any other form of art and it should be experienced—especially these days.
After directing The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Leone decided to retire from Westerns and desired to produce his film based on The Hoods, which eventually becameOnce Upon a Time in America. However, Leone accepted an offer from Paramount Pictures to provide access to Henry Fonda and to use a budget to produce another Western film. He recruited Bertolucci and Argento to devise the plot of the film in 1966, researching other Western films in the process. After Clint Eastwood turned down an offer to play the movie’s protagonist, Bronson was offered the role. During production, Leone recruited Donati to rewrite the script due to concerns over time limitations.
The original version by the director was 166 minutes (2 hours and 46 minutes) when it was first released on December 21, 1968. This was the version that was to be shown in European cinemas and was a box office success. For the US release on May 28, 1969, Once Upon a Time in the West was edited down to 145 minutes (2 hours and 25 minutes) by Paramount and was a financial flop. The film is considered by some to be the first installment in Leone’s Once Upon a Time Trilogy, followed by Duck, You Sucker!, called Once Upon a Time… the Revolution in parts of Europe, and Once Upon a Time in America, though the films do not share any characters in common.
The film portrays two conflicts that take place around Flagstone, a fictional town in the American Old West: a land battle related to construction of a railroad, and a mission of vengeance against a cold-blooded killer. A struggle exists for Sweetwater, a piece of land near Flagstone containing the region’s only water source. The land was bought by Brett McBain (Frank Wolff), who foresaw that the railroad would have to pass through that area to provide water for the steam locomotives. When crippled railroad tycoon Morton (Gabriele Ferzetti) learns of this, he sends his hired gun Frank (Henry Fonda) to intimidate McBain to move off the land, but Frank instead kills McBain and his three children, planting evidence to frame the bandit Cheyenne (Jason Robards). It appears the land has no owner; however, a former prostitute (Claudia Cardinale) arrives from New Orleans, revealing she is Jill McBain, Brett’s new wife and the owner of the land.
Meanwhile, a mysterious harmonica-playing gunman (Charles Bronson), whom Cheyenne later dubs “Harmonica”, pursues Frank. In the film’s opening scene, Harmonica kills three men sent by Frank to kill him. In a roadhouse on the way to Sweetwater, he informs Cheyenne that the three gunfighters appeared to be posing as Cheyenne’s men.
Back at Sweetwater, construction materials are delivered to build a railroad station and a small town. Harmonica explains that Jill will lose Sweetwater unless the station is built by the time the track’s construction crews reach that point, so Cheyenne puts his men to work building it.
Frank turns against Morton, who wanted to make a deal with Jill; Morton’s disability makes him unable to fight back. After having sex with Jill, Frank forces her to sell the property in an auction. He tries to buy the farm cheaply by intimidating the other bidders, but Harmonica arrives, holding Cheyenne at gunpoint, and makes a much higher bid based on his reward money for delivering Cheyenne to the authorities. Harmonica rebuffs an offer by Frank to buy the farm from him for one dollar more than he paid at the auction. As Cheyenne is placed on a train bound for the Yuma prison, two members of his gang purchase one-way tickets for the train, intending to help him escape.
Frank’s men betray and ambush him, having been paid by Morton to turn against him, but—much to Jill’s outrage—Harmonica helps Frank kill them, intending to kill Frank himself. Frank returns to Morton, only to find that he and the rest of Frank’s men have been killed in a battle with Cheyenne’s gang. Frank then goes to Sweetwater to confront Harmonica. On two occasions, Frank has asked Harmonica who he is, but both times Harmonica refused to answer him. Instead, he mysteriously quoted names of men Frank has murdered. This time, Harmonica says he will reveal who he is “only at the point of dying”. The two men position themselves for a duel, at which point Harmonica’s motive for revenge is revealed in a flashback:
A younger Frank, already a cruel bandit, is forcing a boy to support on his shoulders his older brother, whose neck is in a noose strung from an arch. As the boy struggles to hold his brother’s weight, Frank stuffs a harmonica into the boy’s mouth and tells him to play. The brother curses Frank and kicks his brother away, and dies.
Harmonica draws first and shoots Frank. As he lies dying, Frank again asks who he is, whereupon the harmonica is placed in Frank’s mouth. Frank nods weakly in recognition and dies. Harmonica and Cheyenne say goodbye to Jill, who is supervising construction of the railway station as the track-laying crews reach Sweetwater. Cheyenne collapses, revealing that he had been fatally shot by Morton during the fight with Frank’s gang. The work train arrives, Jill carrying water to the rail workers, while Harmonica rides away with Cheyenne’s body.
Leone’s intent was to take the stock conventions of the American Westerns of John Ford, Howard Hawks and others, and rework them in an ironic fashion, essentially reversing their intended meaning in their original sources to create a darker connotation.[22] The most obvious example of this is the casting of veteran film good guy Henry Fonda as the villainous Frank, but there are also many other, more subtle reversals throughout the film. According to film critic and historian Christopher Frayling, the film quotes from as many as 30 classic American Westerns.
The major films referenced include:
High Noon(1952): The opening sequence is similar to the opening of High Noon, in which three bad guys (Lee Van Cleef, Sheb Wooley and Robert J. Wilke) are shown waiting for the arrival of their leader (named Frank, played by Ian MacDonald) on the noon train. In the opening of Once Upon a Time in the West, three bad guys (Jack Elam, who appeared in a small part in High Noon, Woody Strode, and Al Mulock) take over and wait at a train station. However, the period of waiting is depicted in a lengthy ten-minute sequence, the train arrives several hours after noon, and its passenger is one of the film’s heroes (Charles Bronson) rather than its villain. The scene is famous for its use of natural sounds: a squeaky windmill, knuckles cracking, and Jack Elam’s character trying to shoo off a fly. According to rumor, Leone offered the parts of the three gunmen to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly stars Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and Eli Wallach.[23]
3:10 to Yuma(1957): This cult Western by Delmer Daves may have had considerable influence on the film. The most obvious reference is a brief exchange between Keenan Wynn‘s Sheriff and Cheyenne, in which they discuss sending the latter to Yuma In addition, as in West the main villain is played by an actor (Glenn Ford) who normally played good guys. The film also features diegetic music (Ford at one point whistles the film’s theme song just as Harmonica provides music in West). And the scene in which Van Heflin‘s character escorts Ford to the railroad station while avoiding an ambush by his gang may have inspired the ambush of Frank by his own men in Leone’s film.
The Comancheros(1961): The names “McBain” and “Sweetwater” may come from this film. (Contrary to popular belief, the name of the town “Sweetwater” was not taken from Victor Sjöström‘s silent epic dramaThe Wind. Bernardo Bertolucci has stated that he looked at a map of the southwestern United States, found the name of the town in Arizona, and decided to incorporate it into the film. However, both “Sweetwater” and a character named “McBain” appeared in The Comancheros, which Leone admired.[24])
Johnny Guitar(1954): Jill and Vienna have similar backstories (both are former prostitutes who become saloonkeepers), and Harmonica, like Sterling Hayden‘s title character, is a mysterious, gunslinging outsider known by his musical nickname. Some of West’s central plot (Western settlers vs. the railroad company) may be recycled from Nicholas Ray’s film.[24]
The Iron Horse(1924): West may contain several subtle references to this film, including a low angle shot of a shrieking train rushing towards the screen in the opening scene, and the shot of the train pulling into the Sweetwater station at the end.[24]
Shane(1953): The massacre scene in West features young Timmy McBain out hunting with his father, just as Joey does in this movie. The funeral of the McBains is borrowed almost shot-for-shot from Shane.[24]
Vera Cruz(1954): In both films, Charles Bronson’s character plays a harmonica and is known only by a nickname.
The Searchers(1956): Leone admitted that the rustling bushes, the silencing of cicada chirps, and the fluttering pheasants that suggest a menace approaching the farmhouse when the McBain family is massacred were all taken from The Searchers. The ending of the film—where Western nomads Harmonica and Cheyenne move on rather than join modern society—also echoes the famous ending of Ford’s film.[24]
Warlock(1959): At the end of this film, Henry Fonda’s character wears clothing very similar to his costume throughout West. In addition, Warlock features a discussion about mothers between Fonda and Dorothy Malone that is similar to those between Cheyenne and Jill in West. Finally, Warlock contains a sequence in which Fonda’s character kicks a crippled man off his crutches, as he does to Mr. Morton in West.
The Magnificent Seven(1960): In this film, Charles Bronson’s character whittles a piece of wood. In West, he does the same, although in a different context. The Magnificent Seven was based on Seven Samuraiby Akira Kurosawa, whose film Yojimbo (“The Bodyguard”) was the inspiration (and later, litigation) behind Leone’s A Fistful of Dollars.
Winchester ’73(1950): It has been claimed that the scenes in West at the trading post are based on those in Winchester ’73, but the resemblance is slight.[24]
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance(1962): The dusters (long coats) worn by Cheyenne and his gang (and by Frank and his men while impersonating them) resemble those worn by Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin) and his henchmen when they are introduced in this film. In addition, the auction scene in West was intended to recall the election scene in Liberty Valance.[24]
Duel in the Sun(1946): The character of Morton, the crippled railroad baron in West, was based on the character played by Lionel Barrymore in this film.[24]
Sergeant Rutledge(1960): This John Ford Western, featuring Woody Strode as the title character, has a scene in which Constance Towers falls asleep in a chair with a rifle in her lap, just as Jill McBain does in Leone’s film.
My Darling Clementine(1946): In the trading post scene, Cheyenne slides Harmonica’s gun down the bar to him, challenging him to shoot – much like Morgan Earp (Ward Bond) sliding his weapon to brother Wyatt (Henry Fonda) in the Ford film when the Earps meet Doc Holliday (Victor Mature) for the first time. Also, a deleted scene in West featured Frank getting a shave with perfume in a barber’s shop, much like Fonda’s Wyatt.
Once Upon a Time in the West was itself explicitly referenced in The Quick and the Dead, when John Herod (Gene Hackman), faces Ellen (Sharon Stone), better known as “The Lady,” in a climactic gunfight. Ellen’s identity is a mystery until the end, when the audience sees Ellen’s flashback to Herod lynching her father, a sheriff. The sadistic Herod gives Ellen (then only a little girl) a chance to save her father by shooting through and breaking the rope wrapped around his neck, but Ellen accidentally kills her father by shooting him in the forehead. As with Frank, Herod yells “Who are you?”, and the only response he receives is an artifact from the earlier lynching—in this case, the sheriff’s badge that Ellen has kept all these years. The Quick and the Dead has another connection to Once Upon a Time in the West: It was the final film for Woody Strode, who died before it could be released.
Many other films have paid tribute to Once Upon a Time in the West over the years: Quentin Tarantino‘s Inglourious Basterds opens with a lengthy sequence entitled Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied France (a phrase also used as a tagline for the 2009 film) which introduces the film’s primary villain and features the mass shooting of a family at a farmhouse; Tarantino’s Kill Bill films utilize snatches of Morricone’s harmonica and guitar soundtrack; Back to the Future Part III recreates the station rooftop scene from Once Upon a Time in the West; Baz Luhrmann‘s Australia features several nods to Leone’s film, including a homestead with a squeaky windmill, an almost-identical funeral scene, and an antagonistic relationship between the film’s villains; and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End features a parody of the “Man With a Harmonica” theme on the soundtrack, as the film’s protagonists parley on a sandbar before the final battle.
A lot of people I think have the same reaction my wife had to Once Upon a Time in the West the first time they see it. Let me tell you that 25 years after she laughed at it the first time, she wasn’t laughing any more. Nobody is laughing any more, I can say that. She had grown to appreciate what the film had been saying for decades. She had learned by middle life what I had known as a 16-year-old, and once you know those types of things there is only one place for your mind to go. You either become an Übermensch of some kind or you go insane. There are a lot of characters in the world like Henry Fonda’s “Frank.” And there is only one way to deal with them and Sergio Leone knew how to capture that conflict on-screen like no other person I’ve ever seen in film. A lot of film makers have tried to capture the magic of Once Upon a Time in the West, but they never get it all. Now, nearly five decades later the extremely bright international culture that produced that great film is nearly vanished. It’s not a great film just because it’s a western—but because of the metaphors presented in the seemingly simplistic tapestry of the western—as it was invented in America.
It doesn’t matter that Sergio Leone took an American hero like Henry Fonda and made him into the villain—it’s that Leone knew how to take the strength of his characters whether it be Charles Bronson or Clint Eastwood and turn them into Übermenschs to deal with overwhelming evil captured quite accurately. I always think of that dinner table during that filming of the Chinese New Year commercial and how it reminded me so much of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. But even more than that it reminded me of Frank from Once Upon a Time in the West. When Jill gets mad at Harmonica for helping keep Frank alive—it is for the reasons provided that many of the mysteries of our lives go unfulfilled. And yes I’m talking in a bit of a riddle here, but to get the answer watch the movie and remember the line, “time flies.” Knowing what to do with an enemy after you’ve identified them as such is what I have always found valuable about westerns. To understand that you have an enemy is to have a set of values that an enemy fights against and in Once Upon a Time in the West that conflict is poetically displayed in ways that no film has ever mastered as well. Many have tried but nobody has been able to hit it as well as Sergio Leone. Time does fly, whether it’s a 16 year old discovering the truth of how a childhood movie favorite applies to the real world of politics and intrigue and how rivers are often polluted with the remains of politics washed off the parking lot after a strong rain—with the personal stamp of approval from a kindly old judge—or a wife who had grown over the years to see something totally different from her young 20-year-old eyes were ready to appreciate. Some movies reflect culture—others like Sergio Leone’s films make it. And that is why I think so much of him and his films—particularly, Once Upon a Time in the West. If you haven’t seen it, you should. Because “time flies” and so do good ideas—you have to hit them when you get the chance for the motivations only you know about—even if the morality for it only exists outside of time and space in a mythical realm where justice truly does rule—not with blinders—but a six-gun and a lot of tenacity.
I really want to like Quentin Tarantino. I am actually thankful that he has resurrected some fresh music out of the great Italian musical genius of Ennio Morricone in his films Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight. I really enjoyed Django Unchained, parts of it, but found the politics distracting. His obvious hatred of the South was too much to fully enjoy his attempt at a western—and I have skipped The Hateful Eight at the box office because I know that Tarantino and his producers at the Weinstein Company are hopeless leftists. Obviously, there are a lot of people who feel the same way as I do. While watching The O’Reilly Factor recently I noticed that The Hateful Eight was under performing at the box office which surprised me. I have been tempted to see it basically to witness that magnificent 70 mm lens Tarantino shot the film with along with an original score by Ennio Morricone. But the politics of Tarantino is just too much to really enjoy his movies completely. With everything that’s good, there are equally bad points politically motivated. But, one thing I do have in common with him is a love of Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns. I don’t take pleasure in watching The Hateful Eight fail at the box office. I’d like to see it do well because Hollywood producers will blame the loses on the western genre and not on Tarantino himself, but it is clear that one of the most studied film directors in the world presently is just a second-hander from Knoxville, Tennessee named after the Burt Reynolds character in Gunsmoke. He is not capable of creating from scratch the wildly imaginative stories that Ennio Morricone produced music for as seen below by the Spaghetti Western Orchestra. I must warn you dear reader that some of this is very strange, but as a human achievement applied to the western genre, it was wildly innovative and distinct—and is the reason that a video store clerk like Tarantino wanted to get into film to begin with. Unfortunately the young man missed most of the message and lost sight of the Cowboy Way as a key element to the story. If The Good the Bad and the Ugly is Tarantino’s favorite film, he has grown as a filmmaker into making movies like it, but he obviously forgot to include the good in this plots. And that is ultimately why The Hateful Eight is failing.
I have offered to help modern Hollywood with their problems several times. But I have not been willing to compromise my essential conservatism to do so. To me the Cowboy Way is a very real thing and I live it not just in writing and being in front of the camera—but off-camera as well. I am quite certain that John Wayne would not be able to make films in modern Hollywood—and because of that—I stopped worrying about contributing to the industry to make it better. Many fans of westerns think the many hundreds of Italian westerns called the “spaghetti western” were not a proper reflection of the American western because they often featured “anti-heroes.” It is that aspect that Quentin Tarantino seems particularly obsessed with. Spaghetti westerns often featured complex characters that didn’t always seem so bad or so good, but were sometimes blended together as a kind of gritty combo that made the viewer question the nature of morality. However, I disagree. I think Sergio Leone and his musical collaborator Ennio Morricone were reflections of Nietzsche’s “Übermensch” and that is the key to understanding the morality of the best spaghetti westerns. They aren’t just revenge pictures, they are about the characters overcoming their human limitations to rise above their competition—such as Clint Eastwood surviving gun shots to the heart to beat his rival in the climax of A Fistful of Dollars, or Charles Bronson facing down death and all its possibilities to kill the man who tortured and hung his brother in Once Upon a Time in the West—a wonderful movie. Tarantino understood the revenge, but he missed the “Übermensch” aspect of the characters.
At least at the end of Django Unchained the hero rode off into the sunset with his girl—and I thought that was good. Unfortunately the character succeeded not because he was an Übermensch” but because his rivals were stupid Southern slave holders which of course cheapened the essence of the story. That made Django Unchained a lot of fun and it was truly enjoyable to hear Ennio Morricone again in a western (or what looked like a western) but it lacked the punch of the classic Sergio Leone westerns which is sadly unfortunate, because obviously Tarantino was shooting for that. If I thought he had made an inspired picture uniquely produced by Quentin Tarantino motivated by Sergio Leone I’d go see The Hateful Eight in a second.
I love the spaghetti westerns because of what they represented as an export of American value. Italy was suffering a huge cultural emptiness after the failures of World War II, just as the Japanese had, and they turned to American cinema as a way to lift themselves out of the dust. The Japanese made samurai films based on American westerns and the Italians made westerns for the same reason—so it makes me feel good that America was able to help those two fascist cultures re-invent themselves after their failed insurrections during a colossal world war. Their interpretation of the American western involved a little bit of Nietzsche along with some very innovative music and to me that’s inspiring. America and its values were able to help the world heal after a terrible tragedy and allow them to contribute aspects of their society applied to an American invention and I think that was a very healthy thing for their nations. I love “spaghetti westerns” for that reason. That is my idea of culture—where America exports an idea based on freedom and other societies use that art to lift themselves up to a higher level of thought. The Good the Bad and the Ugly is one of those types of films, it yearns to define a confusing world where good guys and bad guys weren’t so obvious but in the end there was no question. Clint Eastwood could have taken all the gold at the end, but he didn’t. He left his partner with a fair share even though that partner had tried to betray him many times throughout the movie. The “ugly” represented in that classic film could have easily been Italy itself after the war with the old guard of fascism being the “bad.” The “good” was obviously the United States who won World War II and could have taken all the gold, but they didn’t. They took their share of the spoils, but left plenty for everyone else, which is the metaphorical reason that the Sergio Leone movies have so much meaning even now. The Ennio Morricone music simply captured that ambition with extremely creative endeavor that was very unique at the time induced from risk.
Quentin Tarantino missed a lot of these points and all the filmmakers studying him are also going to make the same failure. Tarantino would argue against it, but a movie audience requires a moral tapestry to hang their belief system against—and if that audience has lost that system, they require the filmmaker to give it to them. If neither the audience nor the filmmaker is offering that tapestry, then the project will fail. American westerns helped pull Italy out of the fascism of Mussolini—which was wonderful for their culture. The cinematic western was big enough to even allow other cultures to add their imprint, which Ennio Morricone and Sergio Leone was able to apply through art. Tarantino as a filmmaker is missing the essence of his favorite films. He makes movies that look and sound like his favorites, but they lack the punch of those classics because Quentin himself is still trying to figure out what they meant to him. His foundation philosophy is in conflict. He was raised by a guy who loved Burt Reynolds so much that the film director was named after the Gunsmoke character. Now, as a big time Hollywood director surrounded by leftist filmmakers and knuckle dragging slobs— Quentin thinks he’s the standard of filmmaking regarding modern art. Unfortunately, he’s not acquired the mentality of Sergio Leone or Akira Kurasawa yet—and based on his present trajectory, he won’t get there by age 60—and likely never will. So I’ll wait for The Hateful Eight to come out on video and I’ll watch it on my nice television. I may even buy it if Wal-Mart offers it in their $5 bargain bin. But that’s all it means to me, and that fault is Tarantino’s. I get the feeling it wouldn’t take much for Quentin Tarantino and I to be good friends—there is a lot that we both like in common. But he is stuck creatively by the Hollywood priority to have him remain a second-hander to the past instead of doing as a human being what Ennio Morricone did so many years ago—and that’s take a wild chance on a uniquely individual artistic endeavor built by a lifetime of experience.
I heard you! You do not support Governor Kasich for President – even if the Ohio GOP State Central Committee does.
You reenergized my faith in the Constitutional people of Ohio! Yesterday I sent out an email about the Ohio Republican State Central Committee’s endorsement of Governor Kasich. An endorsement by a party means the members of that party are expected to support the candidate.
I received over 200 emails in two hours yesterday telling me ‘Hell No.’ The stories about Governor Kasich and the disdain for the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee’s endorsement of Kasich was incredible. I could feel the anger coming out of my computer.
Governor Kasich says he balanced Ohio’s budget – all Governors have to balance Ohio’s budget, it’s in the Ohio Constitution. He says he created jobs in Ohio – his term started after the crash in 2008. Yes, there were more jobs created in Ohio after 2008 but was it Kasich that created the jobs or the free market starting to improve? He takes credit for the jobs that our small business owners work hard and create – you didn’t build that Governor Kasich.
Governor Kasich’s support of Common Core, his expanding Medicaid using Obamacare, his increase of spending in Ohio by 30%, his standing in the way of Right to Work, his raising taxes – all of these things and more are reasons that he is not the best choice for President.
I think we all agree that we want a President that will stand by the Constitution and give America a plan to move this country forward, not backward, toward freedom. Whoever that candidate is for you, vote for him or her. No one has the right to expect you to vote a certain way, party or not.
We want political parties that stand on principle, not on who they can get elected. Shame on the State Central Committee. They are up for reelection this March; we must watch those races.
Your mission over the next eight weeks is to make sure everyone you know is ready to vote on March 15, or early vote at your county Board of Elections, starting February 17th. This is the most important primary in the history of the United States of America. Everyone who cares about the future of this country needs to get out and vote!
One of the biggest issues I heard about regarding Governor Kasich was his support of Common Core. I really thought he would flip-flop on this by now, but he is standing strong with Common Core.
A horrible choice for our kids and Ohio Governor Kasich!
I had the privilege of hearing Heidi Huber give an update on Common Core last night. The video is below. We must stand together to make the change we want to see.
Kantian ethics refers to a deontologicalethical theory ascribed to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The theory, developed as a result of Enlightenment rationalism, is based on the view that the only intrinsically good thing is a good will; an action can only be good if its maxim – the principle behind it – is duty to the moral law. Central to Kant’s construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, which acts on all people, regardless of their interests or desires. Kant formulated the categorical imperative in various ways. His principle of universalisability requires that, for an action to be permissible, it must be possible to apply it to all people without a contradiction occurring. His formulation of humanity as an end in itself requires that humans are never treated merely as a means to an end, but always also as ends in themselves. The formulation of autonomy concludes that rational agents are bound to the moral law by their own will, while Kant’s concept of the Kingdom of Ends requires that people act as if the principles of their actions establish a law for a hypothetical kingdom. Kant also distinguished between perfect and imperfect duties. A perfect duty, such as the duty not to lie, always holds true; an imperfect duty, such as the duty to give to charity, can be made flexible and applied in particular time and place. (Sound like Kasich?)
In political philosophy, Kant has had wide and increasing influence with the major political philosopher of the late twentieth century, John Rawls, drawing heavily on his inspiration in setting out the basis for a liberal view of political institutions. The nature of Rawls’ use of Kant has engendered serious controversy but has demonstrated the vitality of Kantian considerations across a wider range of questions than was once thought plausible.
The poet Heine, who was a friend of Marx and upon whom the latter at one time had a great influence, depicted very vividly Kant’s motives for treading the two paths. Kant had an old and faithful servant, Lampe, who had lived with, and attended to, his master for forty years. For Kant this Lampe was the personification of the average man who could not live without religion. After a brilliant exposition of the revolutionary import of the Critique of Pure Reason in the struggle with theology and with the belief in a Divine Principle, Heine explained why Kant found it necessary to write the Critique of Practical Reason in which the philosopher re-established everything he had torn down before. Here is what Heine wrote:
“After the tragedy comes the farce. Immanuel Kant has hitherto appeared as the grim, inexorable philosopher; he has stormed heaven, put all the garrison to the sword; the ruler of the world swims senseless in his blood; there is no more any mercy, or fatherly goodness, or future reward for present privations; the immortality of the soul is in its last agonies — death rattles and groans. And old Lampe stands by with his umbrella under his arm as a sorrowing spectator, and the sweat of anguish and tears run down his cheeks. Then Immanuel Kant is moved to pity, and shows himself not only a great philosopher, but a good man. He reconsiders, and half good-naturedly and half ironically says, ‘Old Lampe must have a God, or else the poor man cannot be happy, and people really ought to be happy in this world. Practical common sense declares that. Well, meinet wegen, for all I care, let practical reason guarantee the existence of a God.'” [Heinrich Heine, Collected Works. W. Heineman, London, 1906. Vol. 5, pp. 150-151.]
That’s how the political left has been able to implement and enact a communist strategy while at the same time convincing people who think they are hard-core conservative Central Committee members that they are doing the work established by Immanuel Kant. What they don’t know is that Kant put down the foundations of Marxism which would evolve into open communism to essentially destroy the economy of Russia allowing Europe to rise to power after World War I. It’s all German philosophy people. But eventually Kant would influence John Rawls who nearly singlehandedly brought detrimental liberalism to most political institutions academic and social. His magnum opus, A Theory of Justice (1971), was said at the time of its publication to be “the most important work in moral philosophy since the end of World War II“[4]and is now regarded as “one of the primary texts in political philosophy”.[5] His work in political philosophy, dubbed Rawlsianism,[6] takes as its starting point the argument that “the most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position”.[5] Rawls attempts to determine the principles of social justice by employing a number of thought experiments such as the famous original position in which everyone is impartially situated as equals behind a veil of ignorance.[5] He is one of the major thinkers in the tradition of liberal political philosophy. According to English philosopher Jonathan Wolff, while there could be a “dispute about the second most important political philosopher of the 20th century, there could be no dispute about the most important: John Rawls”.[4]
Apparently the GOP doesn’t get it. Why in the world they put Nikki Haley on as the response to Idiot Obama’s State of the Union speech from the standpoint of the Republicans is a mystery greater than the Bermuda Triangle. As I watched her I couldn’t help but think that it was Haley who had caved into progressives regarding the Confederate Flag issue at the South Carolina State House. Progressives applied pressure and she yielded giving them the victory. Listen Republicans—compromise is a dirty word–when something is wrong and something is right. The world is full of black and white—metaphorically—not literally, and compromising with wrong does not make it partially right. You’d think that the GOP would have looked at the current presidential frontrunners, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and they’d put up someone to respond to the president that more accurately reflected the values of current GOP voters. Instead they put forward a RINO at best who said this:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans should resist “the siren call of the angriest voices” in how the nation treats immigrants, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Tuesday as the GOP used its response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address to try softening the tough stance embraced by some of its leading presidential candidates.
The U.S.-born daughter of Indian immigrants, Haley said the country is facing its most dangerous security threat since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That was a reference to the Islamic State group, which has taken credit for attacks in Paris and elsewhere and may have inspired last month’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, California.
“During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices,” Haley, mentioned by some as a potential vice presidential candidate this year, said in her party’s formal response to Obama. “We must resist that temptation.”
No, the temptation against judgment where smart behavior must prevail over stupid behavior must not be compromised. Having an open border in the United States is a foreign desire to destroy American capitalism with social diffusion, and anybody intelligent would understand that. Instead, the GOP thought it was more important, and stylish to put a woman RINO who failed a contentious issue in South Carolina up as an answer to the GOP party platform going into the 2016 election season. We are well beyond this kind of nonsense and trickery folks.
I’m sure Nikki Haley is a nice woman. She’s somebody’s daughter, wife and mother. She has a little bit of history with sleeping around with political bloggers and lobbyists which she denies, but I’m sure there’s some truth to it. Funny things happen when people are in powerful positions and they share common values after hard-fought battles. When you mix males and females together they tend to want to stick things into one another for pleasurable outcomes unless they can control their emotions—and politics is an emotional endeavor—extreme emotional highs and lows. I actually knew a very driven political woman like Nikki Haley once and from 35 to 40 years of age, she was a bit of a sex addict—it went right along with the politics she was addicted to. Her husband wasn’t a part of that world, so he didn’t understand why she was always so charged up all the time. So there is likely some truth to the allegations against her—she fits the profile. I personally don’t care. She can do what she wants but with all things considered—she is what the Republican Party thought most represented their party? Seriously? Couldn’t they find anybody better—less controversial with a track record of success? Is she the best that they have?
Apparently so, which says a lot. I don’t think she’s done a bad job in South Carolina but I wouldn’t call her an example of excellence either. I think with Republicans they picked her because she’s young, not horrible to look at, and she is “inclusive” to the open border policies foreign insurgents like George Soros are conducting against American sovereignty—which keeps campaign donations flowing into their political machine. Maintaining borders in America is important to sustaining the value of American citizenship. There is a reason that some of the highest per capita incomes in the world are within the United States. It’s part of our “brand.” If you let anybody into a movie how can its worth be measured but in ticket prices? If everyone were just allowed to watch a movie how would anybody know if that movie is any good? The price of a ticket and how many people buy one determine a movie’s value. Even communist leaning liberals should be able to understand that. The public has limited access to the celebrities in movies which drives up the desire for the market brand of those actors. All that restriction causes increased value. Limited access causes a desire to pay for a ticket price to see a movie with a particular actor involved so the viewer can at least be close to that person.
When a woman like Nikki Haley has rumors of one night stands with political lobbyists it lowers her brand. The better thing to do is to be highly desired as a sex object without providing the sex—that way many people might yearn to be with her, they may even do what she wants them to do hoping to get access—but if people think she’s easy—sexually, her brand goes down because other people have already had her. Whether or not it’s fair, it’s the rules of the game. If a woman gives up sex too easily she is viewed as a slut. If she is faithful to a husband or her family in general her brand goes up enormously because that person is inaccessible. But if anybody can have sex with her any time they want, the value of sex with her is reduced to something much less spectacular. The same holds true with an entire country, the more restrictive the access; the more people value it when they get access. The less, the more they will want to abuse the situation to satisfy their personal whims.
Because of the rumors and the evidence by text messages and other aspects I have witnessed in real life, I think Nikki Haley probably has some trouble with maintaining her sexual poise in politically active climates. That might impress members of the GOP who want to sleep with her sometime knowing that she’s easy game to tag, but it doesn’t do much to deliver the confidence that the GOP knows what they are doing. Then to compound the problem it was only this previous summer where progressives had beat her to a pulp over the Confederate Flag leaving her to compromise under the pressure. The racist insurgents didn’t give anything up to have the flag removed, it simply forced Nikki Haley to come off her position more to the center strategically—which was a loss for her. Granted, it was a tough position for her to be in, and the GOP probably should have let a few years pass before they used her as the Republican answer to the President’s State of the Union address. But they used her anyway because they thought it was a good idea.
But knowing politics the way I do I’d say somebody had other ideas given Haley’s reputation. And that is just sad. The GOP should be able to put up better, more reliable people other than Nikki Haley. They didn’t—because they were unable to think of anybody—which shows why they are so far out of touch. Some of those same idiots were seeking Obama’s autograph after the State of the Union speech even though it was a terrible speech speaking about a terrible presidency leaving the nation horribly in debt and a laughing-stock across the world. It’s no wonder the GOP is failing just slightly less than the Democrats—they just don’t understand. But in 2016, they’re going to learn just how much they don’t know and why they are going extinct. And their extinction will make me very happy. Right now, I’m just embarrassed for them. They are so unimaginative and driven by primal urges—it’s just pathetic.
Development of the film began in August 2001 when Akiva Goldsman purchased Punke’s manuscript with the intent to produce the film. The film was originally set to be directed by Park Chan-wook with Samuel L. Jackson in mind to star, and later by John Hillcoat with Christian Bale in negotiations to star. Both directors left the project, and Iñárritu signed on to direct in August 2011. In April 2014, after several delays in production due to other projects, Iñárritu confirmed that he was beginning work onThe Revenant and that DiCaprio would play the lead role. It is the second on-screen collaboration of Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy (the first being Inception). Principal photography began in October 2014; delays associated with location and crew challenges resulted in its end date moving from May to August 2015.
The Revenant premiered at the TCL Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles on December 16, 2015 and had a limited release on December 25, 2015, followed by a wide release on January 8, 2016. The film received highly positive reviews from critics, who praised DiCaprio’s acting and Lubezki’s cinematography.
Joaquín Guzmán Loera, the Mexican drug lord known as El Chapo, started out in business not long after turning 6, selling oranges and soft drinks. By 15, he said in an interview conducted in a jungle clearing by the actor and director Sean Penn for Rolling Stone magazine, he had begun to grow marijuana and poppies because there was no other way for his impoverished family to survive.
Now, unapologetically, he said: “I supply more heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana than anybody else in the world. I have a fleet of submarines, airplanes, trucks and boats.”
Though his fortune, estimated at $1 billion, has come with a trail of blood, he does not consider himself a violent man. “Look, all I do is defend myself, nothing more,” he told Mr. Penn. “But do I start trouble? Never.”
The seven hours Mr. Guzmán spent with Mr. Penn, and the follow-up interviews by phone and video, which began in October while he was on the run from the Mexican and American authorities, marked another surreal turn in his long-running battle to evade Mexican and American authorities. Mr. Guzmán, one of the world’s most wanted fugitives, who had twice escaped jail, was captured in his home state of Sinaloa in northwest Mexico on Friday after a gun battle with the authorities.
The interview with Rolling Stone, believed to be the first Mr. Guzmán has given in decades, was conducted over several sessions. It was scheduled to be published online Saturday night.
The interviews were held in a jungle clearing atop a mountain at an undisclosed location in Mexico. Surrounded by more than 100 cartel troops, and wearing a silk shirt and pressed black jeans, Mr. Guzmán sat down to dinner with Mr. Penn and Kate del Castillo, an actress who once played a drug kingpin in a soap opera.
Even though Mexican troops attacked his hide-out in the days after the meeting, necessitating a narrow escape, Mr. Guzmán continued the interview by BlackBerry Messenger and in a video delivered by courier to the pair later.
Mr. Penn’s account is likely to deepen the concern among the Mexican authorities already embarrassed by Mr. Guzmán’s multiple escapes, the months required to find him again and his status for some as something of a folk hero. Mr. Penn describes being waved through a military road checkpoint on his way to meet Mr. Guzmán, which Mr. Penn suggested was because the soldiers recognized Mr. Guzmán’s son. Mr. Penn said he was also told, during a leg of the journey taken in a small plane equipped with a scrambling device for ground radar only, that the cartel was informed by an insider when the military deployed a high-altitude surveillance plane that might have spotted their movements.
Mr. Penn and Mr. Guzmán spoke for seven hours, the story reports, at a compound amid dense jungle. The topics of conversation turned in unexpected directions. At one stage, Mr. Penn brought up Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential candidate; there were some reports that Mr. Guzmán had put a $100 million bounty on Mr. Trump after he made comments offensive to Mexicans. “Ah! Mi amigo!” Mr. Guzmán responded.
He asked Mr. Penn whether people in America were interested in him and laughed when Mr. Penn told him that the Fusion channel was repeating a documentary on him, “Chasing El Chapo.”
It is widely considered to be against the basic principles of journalism to grant a subject such authority over a piece.
Rolling Stone’s journalistic practices have been criticized since its publication of a now discredited gang-rape story at the University of Virginia.
A representative for Rolling Stone did not immediately reply to The Blaze’s request for comment Saturday night.
Guzman was captured by Mexican marines early Friday in a coastal city, and the attorney general says the drug boss was tracked down partly because he was making a biographical movie.
I don’t know who the hell Kate Del Castillos is, nor do I care. I want to see Mexico get Sean Penn and throw him in one of those crappy Mexican prisons. Give him a taste of what Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, Sean Penn is scum, and is the face of the progressive liberal Democrat party. Throw the book at him Mexico! Force the US to extradite him. Use the Affluenza kid as bait.
Conchita Alonso — known for her role in “The Running Man” and “Predator 2,” and who once acted in a 1988 film with Penn — had previously written an open letter criticizing him for his support for the Venezuelan dictator. Spotting the actor, who was also waiting for lost luggage, she approached him. When the “Milk” star recognized her, his smile disappeared: He told her he didn’t want to talk to her and accused her brother of trying to assassinate Chavez.
In an interview with WMAL, the actress said she told Penn, “You are in favor of Hugo Chavez and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad.”
When Penn denied he supports Ahmadinejad and called Conchita Alonso “a pig,” she replied, “And you are a communist, Sean Penn! … You’re a communist asshole!”
I’ve been saying it for a long time; socialism is the basic philosophy of the Democratic Party. People used to think I was being an extremist when I stated that teacher unions expected socialism from voters and school boards essentially teaching it to students in public education. Most labor unions are functioning socialist enterprises which of course leads directly to small “c” communism. Worse than socialists are “progressives” who have a strong belief in communism as a foundation principle to their style of governing. Most progressives will deny it, but if you placed their belief system on a social scale next to the Bolsheviks of 1919 they would be indistinguishable from each other. There is a reason that progressives and other liberals don’t want people to read Ayn Rand, who as an American novelist wrote quite passionately about communism in her very good book, We the Living. I have known this for a very long time because I am an avid reader, and I understand history so I have been able to function from a position of knowledge and not just the marketing of ideas proposed in what people think is modern times. That’s why it was so ridiculously stupid of Hillary Clinton when pressed by Chris Mathews—who is a fan of the Democratic candidate for president, to declare that she was a progressive Democrat. That is equivalent to saying about herself under a proper definition that she’s a communist socialist.
I don’t have much patience for stupid people—I’ll have to be honest. When I had this education debate years ago within the media, at school boards, in education reform groups—and with other politicians I thought people close to the situation already knew what I was saying, that the essential product of public schools was socialism. I had known it for years, so I assumed that we could have a conversation from a reasonable vantage point. But the mad mothers and fathers angry at me for proposing to take away their tax money for essentially a day time socialist training center—which is what every public school is—provoked a lot of anger which I had no tolerance for. Those idiots thought they would harass me online, come to my house, and attack me through social networks with all the socialist flair utilized in that novel, We the Living and that for some reason I’d just take it. No, that’s not how things work.
This charade has went on for a long time largely because members of the media, like Chris Mathews accepted the revisionist definitions of a party he obviously supports—the Democrats whom he probably believes is still the party of JFK or LBJ. The truth however is that Republicans like Jeb Bush and John Kasich are the new Democrats by proper definitions because the political lens of perception has been moved so far to the political left. So it appears that Chris Mathews and others like him are having a real debate within themselves about the differences between socialists and Democrats or even communists and progressives. The answer has always been there no matter how painful it might have been, or inconvenient.
I said it during many public education debates that if people wanted socialism and voted for it, then so be it—but they better know what it was they were voting for. It’s really not a firm indication of public sentiment if Democrats avoid the proper definition for what they are doing just to win support of the public hoping slowly to cook the American public from capitalism to communism with changed terminology. Democrats and progressives have arrived at this political climate by deceit, not by actually selling who and what they are. What provokes the debate even now is that Bernie Sanders as a president is openly calling himself a socialist which then forces Hillary Clinton to name the difference. Which of course she can, so she did the worst thing she could have done—she called herself worse—essentially a communist. But she hoped that nobody understood the definitions and would bother to look. Of course that doesn’t fly with me.
Hundreds of thousands of people read this blog site every year from countries all over the globe. Most of those people disagree with me about one thing or another. Sometimes they get so angry they call me names which always starts a small war of words. Over the course of the last six years that I have been writing at this site—every single day in voluminous amounts—nobody has been able to dispute my claims factually. Even the worst of the teacher’s union radicals within the state of Ohio could dispute it when I called them all socialists—sometimes quite publicly. I have talked about it on the radio and written about socialism in public schools and most government offices extensively, and nobody at any academic level has been able to dispute it under any circumstance. And believe me, the radical loser professors who call me an anti-education radical gun-nut would love to beat me intellectually if they could—but they can’t. The reason they can’t is for the same reason that Hillary Clinton couldn’t provide a different definition of socialism in comparison to a typical member of the Democratic Party. When the Party’s top voices cannot give a single instance of how Democrats are different from socialists, the truth is staring you right in the face dear reader. And I have been telling you that for a very long time. Once again, people should have listened.
Sharia law is the main source of Qatari legislation according to Qatar’s Constitution.[2][3] Sharia law is applied to laws pertaining to family law, inheritance, and several criminal acts (including adultery, robbery and murder). In some cases in Sharia-based family courts, a female’s testimony is worth half a man’s and in some cases a female witness is not accepted at all.[4] Codified family law was introduced in 2006. In practice, Qatar’s legal system is a mixture of civil law and Islamic law.[5][6]
Flogging is used in Qatar as a punishment for alcohol consumption or illicit sexual relations.[7] Article 88 of Qatar’s criminal code declares the punishment for adultery is 100 lashes.[8] Adultery is punishable by death when a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man are involved.[8] In 2006, a Filipino woman was sentenced to 100 lashes for adultery.[8] In 2010, at least 18 people (mostly foreign nationals) were sentenced to flogging of between 40 and 100 lashes for offences related to “illicit sexual relations” or alcohol consumption.[9] In 2011, at least 21 people (mostly foreign nationals) were sentenced to floggings of between 30 and 100 lashes for offences related to “illicit sexual relations” or alcohol consumption.[10] In 2012, six expatriates were sentenced to floggings of either 40 or 100 lashes.[7] Only Muslims considered medically fit were liable to have such sentences carried out. It is unknown if the sentences were implemented.[11] More recently in April 2013, a Muslim expatriate was sentenced to 40 lashes for alcohol consumption.[12][13][14] In June 2014, a Muslim expatriate was sentenced to 40 lashes for consuming alcohol and driving under the influence.[15]Judicial corporal punishment is common in Qatar due to the Hanbali interpretation of Sharia Law.
Alcohol consumption is partially legal in Qatar, some five-star luxury hotels are allowed to sell alcohol to their non-Muslim customers.[19][20] Muslims are not allowed to consume alcohol in Qatar and Muslims caught consuming alcohol are liable to flogging or deportation. Non-Muslim expatriates can obtain a permit to purchase alcohol for personal consumption. The Qatar Distribution Company (a subsidiary of Qatar Airways) is permitted to import alcohol and pork; it operates the one and only liquor store in the country, which also sells pork to holders of liquor licences.[21] Qatari officials have also indicated a willingness to allow alcohol in “fan zones” at the 2022 FIFA World Cup.[22]
Until recently, restaurants on the Pearl-Qatar (a man-made island near Doha) were allowed to serve alcoholic drinks.[19][20] In December 2011, however, restaurants on the Pearl were told to stop selling alcohol.[19][23] No explanation was given for the ban.[19][20] Speculation about the reason includes the government’s desire to project a more pious image in advance of the country’s first election of a royal advisory body and rumours of a financial dispute between the government and the resort’s developers.[23]
In 2014, Qatar launched a modesty campaign to remind tourists of the modest dress code.[24] Female tourists are advised not to wear leggings, miniskirts, sleeveless dresses and short or tight clothing in public. Men are advised against wearing only shorts and singlets.[25]
As of 2014, certain provisions of the Qatari Criminal Code allows punishments such as flogging and stoning to be imposed as criminal sanctions. The UN Committee Against Torture found that these practices constituted a breach of the obligations imposed by the UN Convention Against Torture.[26][27] Qatar retains the death penalty, mainly for threats against national security.
Under the provisions of Qatar’s sponsorship law, sponsors have the unilateral power to cancel workers’ residency permits, deny workers’ ability to change employers, report a worker as “absconded” to police authorities, and deny permission to leave the country.[28] As a result, sponsors may restrict workers’ movements and workers may be afraid to report abuses or claim their rights.[28] According to the ITUC, the visa sponsorship system allows the exaction of forced labour by making it difficult for a migrant worker to leave an abusive employer or travel overseas without permission.[29] Qatar also does not maintain wage standards for its immigrant labour. Qatar commissioned international law firm DLA Piper to produce a report investigating the immigrant labour system. In May 2014 DLA Piper released over 60 recommendations for reforming the kafala system including the abolition of exit visas and the introduction of a minimum wage which Qatar has pledged to implement.[30]
Cases of ill-treatment of immigrant labour have been observed. The Nepalese ambassador to Qatar, Maya Kumari Sharma, described the emirate as an “open jail”.[31] Qatar does not have national occupational health standards or guidelines, and workplace injuries are the third highest cause of accidental deaths.[32] In May 2012, Qatari officials declared their intention to allow the establishment of an independent trade union.[33] Qatar also announced it will scrap its sponsor system for foreign labour, which requires that all foreign workers be sponsored by local employers, who in some cases hold workers’ passports and can deny them permission to change jobs.[33]
On October 10, 2005, for the first time, Qatar was elected to a two-year term on the UN Security Council for 2006–2007.
According to BBC, in April 2006 Qatar announced that it will give US$50 million (£28 million) to the new Hamas-led Palestinian government. Hamas, an ally of Iran and Hezbollah, is considered by the US and the EU to be a terrorist organization.
In May 2006, Qatar pledged more than $100 million to Hurricane Katrina relief to colleges and universities in Louisiana affected by the hurricane. Some of this money was also distributed to families looking to repair damaged homes by Neighborhood Housing Services of New Orleans, Inc.
With the advent of the Arab Spring in 2011, Qatar has been seen as meddling in the affairs of other Arab countries, supporting insurgents, generally and increasingly radical Islamists and Salafists.[45] This policy has led to rebukes by neighboring Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates.[45] Qatar joined NATO operations in Libya and reportedly armed Libyan opposition groups.[46] It is also became a major provider of money and support for rebel groups in the Syrian civil war.[47] With close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood the emirate’s funding for rebels strongly favored Islamic and Salafist forces in both Libya and Syria.[45]
The government of Qatar owns the Al Jazeera television network. The network has been accused of being biased and taking an active role in the affairs of other countries specifically during the Arab Spring in 2011.[48] Numerous countries have complained about biased reporting in support of Qatar policy.
Most of the developed countries (plus Brunei and Indonesia) are exempt from visa requirements. Citizens of exempted countries can also request a joint visa that allows them to travel to Oman as well.[49]
The House of Thani (Arabic: آل ثاني Al Thani) is the ruling family of Qatar, whose origins can be traced back to the Ma’adid clan of the Banu Tamim tribal confederation.[1]
When Trump said in his speech that the Iran deal was so bad that it was suspicious he’s talking about this history with Qatar and Hezbollah. The plan from Democrats like Obama and the Clintons have been to deplete American resources so that the Middle East can rise up and strengthen as an independent region with Palestinian leanings working closely with Iran. To show the extent of Qatar’s activism into American politics consider the effort expensed by Al Jazeer America to expand its operations within the United States even with a zero share in the ratings. The system is completely rigged against us and Trump is exposing it.
Al Jazeera America had been a disaster from the start. Its $500 million buy of Al Gore’s Current TV had been expensive but considered worth the price to get access to a huge number of cable households through Gore’s sweetheart deals with big cable companies. But the cable companies knew the difference between Al Gore and Al Jazeera and they wanted that oil money Qatar was throwing around.
So did Al Gore.
Gore had initially protected Al Jazeera by accusing cable companies who wanted to drop it of Islamophobia, but then turned around and sued Al Jazeera when it backstabbed him by using millions of dollars of his money in a slush fund to pay cable channels for airing its propaganda.
The House of Thani was forced to dig deeper to get Al Jazeera America into as many homes as possible, but it still wasn’t getting any actual viewers. Its average daily ratings of 13,000 viewers were less than half the already miniscule 31,000 viewers of Gore’s failed Current TV project.
Qatar had paid $25,000 per viewer and with some nights registering a zero in the demo, recouping that money through advertising was not a realistic business plan.
And then things got even worse.
Al Jazeera America’s biggest hit was “Real Money with Ali Velshi” with 54,000 viewers. Those were the kinds of ratings usually associated with cable hits like the deceased FOX Soccer Channel, but that was as good as it got for Qatar’s $500 million investment. And like all good things at Al Jazeera, it wouldn’t last.
That is just the tip of the iceberg but it gives a good idea of why Hillary Clinton has been promoting Al Jazeera over domestic news organizations. These are crooked people up to no good and the best weapon we have against them is Trump. For all the reasons articulated in his Biloxi, MS speech, Hillary deserves everything she’s getting. Clinton and her conspirators have been working with foreign governments against American interests and that idiot wants to be President. The bottom line is that we can’t trust anybody else to do the job because they have allowed the Clintons to do everything they have up to this point. And it’s time to end that—and only Trump is willing at that level to do the job. And it’s about time. The establishment is corrupt beyond belief and short of an armed revolution, Trump is the best answer in 2016.
