The Real Jane Fonda

fonda_vietnam_3171436b

In an apparent attempt to garner some ego-boosting attention and high praise from Hollywood peers, actress Jane Fonda recently headed to Washington, D.C., where she participated in some climate-related protests. In trademark dramatic fashion, she also got herself arrested.

The octogenarian Oscar winner had tipped off the press with an Internet post, which read in part, “Moved to Washington, D.C. to be closer to the epicenter of the fight for our climate.”

In what had the feel of an ace Hollywood PR plan, Fonda let the world know, “Every Friday through January, I will be leading weekly demonstrations on Capitol Hill to demand that action by our political leaders be taken to address the climate emergency we are in. We can’t afford to wait.”

Aligning herself with the lunatic fringe of the Democrat Party, the activist-hero wanna-be warned that the clock was ticking on the current world. Eleven years was supposedly all that the third rock from the sun had left.

Fonda somehow got some co-stars to adopt her radical left-wing ideology as well. One of the things that seemed suspiciously staged were the photo ops in which she wore a vivid red trench coat while gently being detained by the police.

Her first arrest took place alongside actor Sam Waterston, followed by another with actor Ted Danson. She was arrested yet again with fellow actress-activists Rosanna Arquette and Catherine Keener.

Upon her fourth arrest, Fonda struck publicity gold. She spent the night in a D.C. jail.

“In my cell it was just me and the cockroaches,” Fonda said, recounting her “ordeal” to The Hollywood Reporter.

Interestingly, at last Friday’s protest there was no arrest for Fonda, or for anyone else for that matter. The police refused to detain protestors.

One thing’s for certain, the whole Fonda show has ended up taking valuable law enforcement resources away from the actual crimes that are being perpetrated in the nation’s capital.

Typical of Hollywood celebs, Fonda got what she was after – fawning press coverage from the establishment news media, the same media that for decades has ignored and/or whitewashed her own questionable past.

As Fonda panders to the woke generation, many of the younger left-leaners think that she is just another run-of-the-mill hate America socialist. But they really need to get to know the real Jane Fonda better. As painful as it is, those of us who have been around a while can assist the process.

Years ago, in a shameless so-called protest of the Vietnam War, Fonda earned the name “Hanoi Jane.”

It was 1972, a time when America was still very much engaged in battle overseas, with so many of our hero soldiers serving on the front lines. Fonda did an infamous photo-shoot with the enemy. She slid into the seat of a communist North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun vehicle and struck a pose. It was a horrifying sight, hurtful to our fighting men and women, our nation’s morale, and America’s heart.

Astounding that Fonda would be reliving her protest un-glory days this beautiful month of November, the month when the patriotic and grateful among us are pouring our hearts out to our beloved Veterans here and in heaven. We will never forget their love, honor, and sacrifice.

But likewise, we will never forget that 1972 photo. Not that we don’t appreciate the times when Fonda expressed some regret and even apologized for ill-conceived and hurtful actions over the years. But oh how those words ring hollow in light of her recent stagecraft.

Our Vietnam Vets are still waiting for the parade that would have welcomed them sweetly back home. They received nothing of the sort. For those of you who were not yet born or those who were too young to remember, read about it in a history book that pre-dates the liberal revisionism that passes for history today.

Truly tragically, Fonda’s current rhetoric reveals her disdain for a country that provided her with a level of success and abundance that few attain. A recent statement that she made to the New York Times captures the inexplicable sentiment.

“The same toxic ideology that … cut down the forests and exhausted the natural world just as it did the people — this foundational ideology is the same one that has brought us the human-driven climate change that we’re facing today,” Fonda said.

Maybe it’s just a case of misplaced priorities or perhaps she believes it is a way of making amends for past mistakes.

Whatever the case, in this enormously forgiving country of ours, it’s never too late to say “I’m sorry.”

Never too late for that “Welcome Home” parade either.

California’s Electric Power Grab?

US-CALIFORNIA-FIRE

California currently lays claim to a record number of homeless people that are living in urban squalor, a string of diseases from the Dark Ages that have made a 21st century return, and a series of wildfires that are ravaging forests, businesses, and homes alike.

Now comes the news that millions of people are having to live off the grid, after having been involuntarily unplugged, courtesy of the utility company.

Gavin Newsom is the current Democratic governor of the state. He continues to advocate the same kinds of policies that placed California in the disastrous predicament in which it finds itself on so many fronts.

In struggling to address the problematic multi-layered situation, Newsom recently made the decision to appoint an individual to look into the idea of the state actually taking over California’s major energy company, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

One of Newsom’s cabinet secretaries was recently given the title of “energy czar,” ostensibly to try and deal with, as well as find solutions to, the massive utility problems that the state faces.

PG&E is California’s largest privately owned utility. The beleaguered company has had to seek bankruptcy protection, due to the billions of dollars in claims that have been heaped upon it for damages related to wildfires that occurred in two previous fire seasons, which were allegedly sparked by company-owned equipment.

At a recent press conference, Newsom gave a not-so-veiled warning that involved a government takeover of the utility company.

“PG&E may or may not be able to figure this one out,” Newsom said. “If they cannot, we are not going to sit around and be passive. We are gaming out a backup plan. If PG&E is unable to secure its own future… then the state will prepare itself as backup for a scenario where we do that job for them.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), in an appearance on CNBC, provided an even more explicit statement, saying, “It’s time for the state to take ownership of PG&E…”

As the devastating fires rage on and electrical power for the people gets turned off, many of the politicians appear to be practicing the art of distraction, with focus being redirected toward the power company.

PG&E has not helped with its standing in the public eye, though. The company has been trying to sell the idea that, as a supposed safeguard, it has been preempting wildfires and preventing potential tragedies from occurring by cutting electrical power to customers before any flames actually materialize.

The problem is that folks are finding it extremely difficult to endure the power outages because, as everyone knows, our day-to-day survival in the modern world is highly dependent on a consistent flow of electricity to light our homes, run our appliances, charge our phones, digital devices, and electric vehicles, power our home medical equipment, and myriad other essential requirements.

What the mainstream media will not cover is the other side of the utility story; that being, environmentalist groups have caused the heretofore routine maintenance of forests and fire-prone shrubbery to come to a halt.

A portion of the regulatory framework has been compiled by environmental activists and left-leaning politicians, who have implemented policies that prohibit safety buffers around electric power facilities. This has resulted in a significantly heightened fire risk across the state.

The lack of proper forest maintenance has allowed for an overgrowth that literally becomes fuel for wildfires during the recurring dry hot period, which descends upon California each year between the autumn and winter seasons.

PG&E is a utility run, in great part, by the state. It is under the watchful eye of a stringent regulatory agency called the California Public Utilities Commission, a government bureaucracy with a whole lot of power and very few checks and balances.

Because PG&E is a regulated monopoly, the state has significant influence on how the company is managed. As politicians are prone to do, the political leaders in this deepest of blue states appear to have turned a blind eye to the deferred maintenance that the power company has piled up.

PG&E has been further boxed in by a legal edict that exists in only one other state, Montana. The premise is that of inverse condemnation for utility companies. Under the law, liabilities are imposed on utilities whenever their equipment is involved.

And so it is that PG&E is now going into a fire season with tens of billions of dollars in potential liability hanging over its head.

Meanwhile it looks as though California’s political leaders see yet another plum for the picking. Dangling before them is one of modern life’s most basic necessities, electricity. If they seize it, they will have gotten control over people’s lives like never before seen in this nation.

As goes California, so goes the rest of the country?

It’s long past time for folks in my state to wake up; that is, of course, if they still own a battery powered alarm clock.

High Court Lets Anti-Christian Ruling Stand

ap_19236607035722-f8c39ac5d7bc85671f711e6587d7fa86f4e349d5-s800-c85

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on a profoundly significant case involving the religious rights of all Americans, and more specifically, the rights of our nation’s schoolchildren, which are safeguarded and secured by the all-important words contained in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The High Court declined to review an appeal submitted on behalf of a public high school student and a Christian, Caleigh Wood, who refused to compromise her religious beliefs by participating in a class assignment that was overtly anti-Christian in nature.

What conflicted with young Caleigh’s deeply held tenets of faith was a Muslim conversion prayer, which was part and parcel of the curricular assignment of a required course.

“There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” This statement happens to be the Islamic conversion creed, i.e., the declaration that an individual professes when converting to the Islam faith. It is also the prayer that a practicing Muslim recites during the Muslim “call to prayer” practice.

Caleigh had enrolled in the above described course because it was a mandatory requirement that had to be completed before she would be allowed to graduate from high school.

In an attempt to abide by the school’s conditions with regard to the academic coursework and still not violate her own personal religious conscience, Caleigh offered to complete an alternative assignment.

However, the school refused to provide her any options that were non-violative of her Christian beliefs, despite the fact that the educational institution could have easily done so. Instead Caleigh was informed that if she did not participate in the Islamic conversion prayer she would be given a failing grade.

The eleventh-grade student was additionally compelled to view pro-Islamic material in the form of PowerPoint slides. One of the slides contained the following caption: “Most Muslim’s [sic] faith is stronger than the average Christian.” The lesson also included the following description regarding gender roles within the faith context: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and consequently “righteous women are therefore obedient.”

The approach taken within the class to the Christian faith stood in stark contrast with the one taken with regard to the Islamic faith. Islamic principles were presented under the auspices of “fact”; however, Christian principles were not afforded the same designation.

Regarding the comparison statement on strength of faith, Jack Tuttle, content specialist for the public schools in the county, testified that in his assessment the comparison reference was “inappropriate,” adding that he would have advised that it not be used in schools.

After Caleigh filed a lawsuit that pinpointed the violations of her Christian convictions, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals judge in the case proceeded to ignore legal precedent, essentially sanctioning the promotion of the religion of Islam in public schools.

However, requiring a student to say a prayer, whether contrary or not to a student’s personally held beliefs, is a blatant violation of constitutional principles and precedents.

The U.S. Supreme Court should have weighed in on the Fourth Circuit’s decision. In failing to do so, the High Court permitted a lower court to ignore precedent as well as a citizen’s concerns about having to recite a prayer of a different faith, and additionally having to write such, which was a clear violation of religious conscience. The presence of government coercion in this case is patently clear, since the religious activities in question were part of a required course and no alternative accommodations were provided.

The Fourth Circuit’s opinion flies in the face of the legal mandate that public schools must not disparage a student’s faith and/or require students to engage in prayer or religious exercises contrary to personally held religious convictions. Public schools are constitutionally bound to remain neutral in their approach to faith-related subjects.

The Supreme Court has historically provided greater constitutional protection with regard to freedom of conscience as it pertains to the nation’s younger demographic. This is partially due to the fact that public school attendance is statutorily compelled, and the school administration wields considerable power.

To this end, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the opening of legislative sessions with prayer, yet declared unconstitutional the opening of school sessions with prayer. Similarly, the High Court has upheld the legality of creche and menorah displays, while noting that it would be a different result if the displays arose in a school setting.

The High Court precedent requires lower courts to apply a heightened standard for coercion in the public school context. Unfortunately, the Fourth Circuit egregiously cast this heightened standard aside.

The refusal by the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Caleigh’s case not only allows the lower court ruling to stand, but it leaves the existing double standard in place, which is likely to wreak further havoc on our cherished First Amendment.

Quentin Tarantino Pushes Back on China

quentin-tarantino-and-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-cast

Someone in Hollywood is finally standing up to China.

Bucking the trend of the big studios, which have been routinely allowing Chinese censors to dictate movie content, Quentin Tarantino has made it clear that he will not alter his latest film, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” as Chinese officials had demanded.

As a result, China has cancelled the release of Tarantino’s fantasy-dramedy, which stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt. The homage to 1960s Hollywood had originally been scheduled to hit Chinese movie screens on October 25.

Chinese officials have not publicly revealed exactly what they found to be objectionable in the movie. Reportedly, the reason that the demand to modify came about was because of the filmmaker’s depiction of legendary martial arts practitioner and actor Bruce Lee.

Lee’s daughter Shannon had reportedly requested that the National Film Administration of China intervene over the portrayal of her father in the movie as a conceited braggart.

In a recent interview with The Wrap, Shannon inserted a broader controversy into her objections concerning the film.

“I can understand all the reasoning behind what is portrayed in the movie, I understand that the two characters are antiheroes and this is sort of like a rage fantasy of what would happen… and they’re portraying a period of time that clearly had a lot of racism and exclusion. I understand they want to make the Brad Pitt character this super bad-a** who could beat up Bruce Lee,” Shannon stated.

“But they didn’t need to treat him in the way that white Hollywood did when he was alive,” she added.

When the subject came up at a recent press conference in Moscow, Tarantino defended the depiction of Lee in the film, telling reporters the following:

“I heard him say things like that, to that effect. If people are saying, ‘Well he never said he could beat up Muhammad Ali,’ well yeah, he did. Not only did he say that, but his wife, Linda Lee, said that in her first biography I ever read… She absolutely said it. Bruce Lee was kind of an arrogant guy. The way he was talking, I didn’t just make a lot of that up.”

Media content is routinely and strictly controlled by communist bureaucrats in China as has been recently observed with the banning of Winnie the Pooh, the animated series “South Park,” and the NBA pre-season games.

It is yet to be seen whether Tarantino will hold the line and remain solid in his refusal to bend to the Chinese powers that be. In the past, the filmmaker made cuts to scenes in the movie “Django Unchained” after Chinese censors exerted pressure and the film’s release was cancelled.

After “Django Unchained” was re-edited and released in China, it ended up flopping, taking in a meager $2.7 million, despite a global box office of $425 million. However, Tarantino’s current offering, “Once Upon a Time,” features DiCaprio, an actor fave of Chinese audiences. Expectations were that the film was going to do much better than the above described re-edit debacle.

A critics’ favorite, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” has increasingly become a part of the buzz surrounding next year’s Academy Awards. The movie’s performance has been a solid one at the box office, with a $367 million take. Its profit margin has been even more impressive, thanks to a budget of a mere $90 million.

If it were solely up to the studio, which is Sony Pictures, the Chinese censors might have had an easier time getting their way. However, Tarantino was able to obtain the contractual right to the final edited version of the movie, and that puts the filmmaker in the catbird seat in terms of decisions regarding any modifications to the final cut.

China Attempts to Censor the World

south_park_banned_china_-828x435

The People’s Republic of China has been busy stopping its own people from seeing, listening to, and otherwise engaging in informational and entertainment media of all sorts, including movies, television, books, newspapers, magazines, music, video games, and the Internet.

The Communist Party of China, the nation’s single ruling party, heavy-handedly mandates so. Notably, since 2012, when Xi Jinping became the General Secretary of the Communist Party, censorship has increased significantly.

A Hollywood case in point. Richard Gere, by all measures, had in the past been considered to be a bona-fide superstar. But something curious happened after he made a pro-Dalai Lama speech at the 1993 Academy Awards.

In what he likely assumed was a free speech prerogative, the actor went about sharing with others that he was a follower and even a defender of someone the Chinese government abhors. He soon found himself being shunned by the major studios, and he has been noticeably absent from Oscar ceremonies ever since.

“There are definitely movies that I can’t be in because the Chinese will say, ‘Not with him,’” Gere told the Hollywood Reporter.

Apparently, tech giants Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo have been voluntarily self-censoring their content for Chinese markets in order to continue conducting business with the country. Other companies and individuals have not been afforded the same opportunity.

China has banned a host of musical artists over time including Maroon 5, Lady Gaga, Guns N’ Roses, and Kylie Minogue.

Zedd, the international Grammy-winning DJ, found himself permanently banished from China. The mistake he made was that he “liked” a tweet posted on the “South Park” Twitter account. The tweet in question referred to the 300th episode of the successful animated television program. Perhaps surprisingly for Zedd, the government of China had just banned “South Park” over an episode that lampooned China along with the NBA.

The Chinese state broadcaster CCTV made the decision to ban NBA pre-season games after a tweet was posted by Daryl Morey, general manager of the Houston Rockets, which lent support to the anti-government demonstrations in Hong Kong.

Using their show to poke China, “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone aired an episode titled “Band in China,” which sent a delightfully satiric message to tech, entertainment, and sports institutions about some of the current practices of dutifully complying with China’s censors.

In the episode, one of the “South Park” characters is arrested in China and subsequently observes the brutal treatment that some of the Chinese prisoners are forced to endure.

Which prisoners suffer the abuse? Two banned characters from one of the world’s most beloved literary faves – Winnie the Pooh and his best friend Piglet, who were eliminated because Chinese dictator Xi was said to resemble Pooh in online memes.

A cartoon version of an entertainment executive who appears in the episode states that Pooh cannot be the subject of a film because the literary and Disney character is “illegal,” due to the fact that “some Chinese students said he looked like the Chinese president.”

Real life entertainment executives have been bending to China’s will for years. Disney’s movie “Christopher Robin” was not shown in the communist nation because Winnie the Pooh had a starring role in the film.

Brad Pitt’s “World War Z” had to be altered because the plot originally had the zombie outbreak originating in China and subsequently spreading throughout the world.

The remake of “Red Dawn” was re-shot and digitally altered to switch the ancestral heritage of the invaders of the U.S. from Chinese to North Korean. Despite the modifications, it still ended up not being released in China.

The James Bond movie “Skyfall” could only be shown in China after scenes were edited out, ones that depicted the existence of prostitutes in a part of China known as Macau. Additionally, references to torture that was being carried out by Chinese police had to be eliminated.

The film “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” had footage taken out, which featured Hong Kong actor Chow Yun-fat’s character, in order to please the Chinese powers that be.

“Mission Impossible III” edited out a car chase that took place in Shanghai because underwear could be seen hanging on clotheslines.

“The Departed” was banned because of an implication that the Chinese communists planned to use nuclear weapons on Taiwan.

The Bond film “Casino Royale” could only be screened after references to the Cold War were removed.

Parker and Stone issued a biting “official apology” panning China’s ban of “South Park” and jabbing the NBA while they were at it.

“Like the NBA, we welcome the Chinese censors into our homes and into our hearts. We too love money more than freedom and democracy. Xi doesn’t look just like Winnie the Pooh at all. Tune into our 300th episode this Wednesday at 10! Long live the Great Communist Party of China! May this autumn’s sorghum harvest be bountiful! We good now China?”

As slippery slopes would have it, the stifling of free speech is not being confined within China’s borders. Rather, it looks as if the freedom-denying activity has become one of China’s biggest exports.

D-List Celebrities Join So-called Impeachment Task Force

celebs-task-force

Since 2016, a left-wing organization called “The Democratic Coalition” has been working against President Trump’s efforts to put the country back on a prosperous track.

The bitterly partisan group initially had as its primary goal, according to its website, “making sure that Donald Trump never became President.”

After the monumental failure, the group expanded its scope of attack to include “Republican elected officials and candidates who support him [Trump],” and its strategic approach to include the use of “aggressive digital and traditional advertising, grassroots action, in-depth opposition research, and a nationwide rapid-response team.”

It additionally created an app promoting boycotts along with an anti-Trump hashtag and artists’ movement.

The group recently announced the latest way in which it would try to hinder the president’s endeavors for the country.

The Democrat Coalition’s present plan relates to the so-called impeachment inquiry that is being spearheaded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Adam Schiff.

The group has put together a team of spotlight-seeking celebrities with the supposed purpose of educating the public on the necessity for President Trump to be investigated for his suitability to continue serving in office.

In reality, the far-left organization’s current effort may be part of a much broader plan to ultimately undermine the 2020 elections and shift the outcome in the Democratic Party’s favor.

The Democratic Coalition has infused its official-sounding Impeachment Task Force with vociferous leftist activists, including Alyssa Milano, Debra Messing, Tom Arnold, George Takei, Rosie O’Donnell, and Ron Perlman. The Hollywood celebrities plan to team up in order to ostensibly hold President Trump “accountable.”

The Democratic Coalition’s co-founder Scott Dworkin told Newsweek that the celebrity component of the group’s task force will handle rapid responses to the president during the inquiry process.

The task force’s purported action plan is “to spread hashtags to streamline impeachment information, combat disinformation and reach out to Congress through letters and phone calls.”

Celebrities will reportedly engage in video conferences and conference calls with the goal of amplifying the message to a sufficient level to be able to compete with the president on Twitter.

Dworkin shared with Newsweek that, in addition to the celebrity presence, the task force will have “1,000 other members” to fill the social media with responses to the president’s posts.

The Hollywood messaging will be in the form of hashtags, keywords, and what has become the entertainment industry’s trademark style, profanity laced rants.

The celebrities named by Dworkin have all had tweets that are riddled with rage exhibiting an irrational hatred for the president and for the millions of people who support him.

Dworkin and his cohorts have apparently forgotten that a slew of celebrities were unleashed to support the candidacy of 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, including Bruce Springsteen, Robert De Niro, Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi, Meryl Streep, Beyoncé, Jay Z, Katy Perry, Demi Lovato, and Miley Cyrus.

A salient and delightful reminder, Hillary still lost.

Clint Eastwood’s Latest Film Tells Richard Jewell’s Tragic Story

clint-eastwood-directing

Like so many of the characters he portrays on the big screen, the Clint Eastwood of real life is an unapologetic iconoclast who refuses to conform to the politically correct ideology of Hollywood.

In deciding on the location for his latest film, Clint chose the state of Georgia, ignoring the many calls by celebrity peers to boycott the state because of its passage of life affirming “heartbeat” legislation. The legislative measure prohibits abortions after a baby’s heartbeat can be detected.

Alyssa Milano, Milla Jovovich, and Busy Philipps, among others, have spoken out against the bill. Major studios that film in Georgia, including Netflix, Disney, and AMC, have indicated that they may move their productions out of the state.

Clint refused to buy into it. His latest cinematic project, “The Ballad of Richard Jewell,” was filmed in Georgia because that happens to be where the real life events that are portrayed in the movie took place.

Jewell’s story is a case study in ethics from which today’s media could learn a great deal. During the summer Olympics in July of 1996, security guard Jewell was an actual whistleblower who alerted the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that a backpack, which was in the vicinity, contained a pipe bomb.

As a result of Jewell’s warning, numerous attendees were able to escape the impending explosion. Before the blast occurred, Jewell was able to assist law enforcement in getting many folks out of harm’s way. Sadly, the detonation of the bomb did take one person’s life and injure 111 others.

Initially, news reports portrayed Jewell in heroic terms, but the accolades would be short-lived. Three days after the tragic incident, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published a piece titled “FBI Suspects Hero Guard May Have Planted Bomb.”

The article characterized Jewell as an individual who fit “the profile of a lone bomber.”

CNN reported on details from the Journal-Constitution article, and numerous news outlets followed suit. So-called experts described Jewell as someone who possessed the requisite psychological makeup to have perpetrated the heinous act.

The hero became the prime suspect. At a press conference called by her son’s lawyers, his mother, Barbara Jewell, pleaded with then-President Clinton to intervene and exonerate her son.

“My son has no life . . . He is a prisoner in my home,’’ the Journal-Constitution quoted the mother as saying, before she broke down in tears.

The Clinton White House refused to comment, and then-Attorney General Janet Reno refused to exonerate Jewell. He was not charged with a crime, yet his reputation was in tatters. Two victims of the bombing filed civil lawsuits against him. Finally, 90 days after the bombing, authorities cleared him. The actual bomber, Eric Rudolph, later confessed to the crime.

Following his exoneration, Jewell filed several defamation lawsuits against media outlets, which he claimed had reported in a manner that had severely harmed his reputation.

L. Lin Wood, the lead lawyer in all of Jewell’s libel cases, is the same attorney who is now representing Nick Sandmann of the Covington Catholic High School.

Of particular interest to places where journalism is taught is the case against NBC News. The lawsuit centers around the following statement, which was made by then-anchor Tom Brokaw while he was on the air: “The speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case. They probably have enough to arrest him [Jewell] right now, probably enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well. There are still some holes in this case.”

As is common in media lawsuits, NBC stood by its story; however, the network agreed to settle the matter for $500,000.

Additionally, both the New York Post and CNN settled with Jewell for undisclosed amounts.

Up until his death in 2007 (at a mere 44 years of age), Jewell was known to have regularly placed a rose at Centennial Olympic Park. He laid the flower at the site where Alice Hawthorne, the sole fatality, lost her life.

Reportedly, Jewell could never get over what an irresponsible and reckless media did to his personal reputation and his life.

The story line of the film is made to order for Eastwood’s filmmaking style. Paul Walter Hauser portrays Jewell, Sam Rockwell plays Jewell’s lawyer, and actors Kathy Bates, Olivia Wilde, and Jon Hamm are included in the cast.

After seeing an early edit of the movie, Warner Bros. was impressed enough to schedule the release date of “The Ballad of Richard Jewell” for December 13, with optimum timing for potential award nominations for the Oscar-winning director’s latest work.

As the final version of Clint’s film will hopefully underscore, it is the saddest of commentaries that 1996’s wrongheaded and biased media will be said to have had more integrity than today’s media can lay claim to.