I just finished listening to an NPR film critic's roundup of all the new movies coming out this Fall...funny, he didn't mention this one.

No more than 3 minutes into the interview, Zucker says "If you move closer to him, then I can look at you and the camera" (paraphrasing from memory).  Free advice from a pro, Noel & Matt :-)  Great interview.

More on a similar subject in an interview that Neil Cavuto did with Jon Voight this afternoon on FNC.  I searched around but couldn't find the video of it.  Cavuto got Voight fired up about describing the process of what is essentially the "long march through the institutions" without actually using that terminology.  He evidently uses that theme fairly frequently, i.e. in this Washington Times op ed, that I found in a blistering attack on Voight's views in Crooks and Liars, while searching for video of the elusive Cavuto/Voight interview.  The "long march" idea, as far as I can tell was first concieved by Antonio Gramsci.  I first ran across it at FrontPageMag in an online book they have up in Adobe Reader format, Radical Road Maps:  Uncovering the Web of Connections Among Far Left Groups in America, by James H. Hansen.  From page 54:

 THE LONG MARCH THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS
This term refers to the long-term plan of Communists, radicals, and their supporters to work their way into vital establishments that shape opinions. Once again we turn to the work of another foreign Communist,
an Italian Marxist named Antonio Gramsci, who was active during the 1930s. He pondered the historic inability of Communist parties to mobilize workers to seize the means of production and overthrow the
capitalist ruling class, which Lenin had envisioned. Gramsci’s new idea was to focus the attention of radicals on the means of intellectual production
as a new lever of social change. He urged radicals to acquire “cultural hegemony,” meaning to capture the institutions that produced society’s governing ideas. This, he believed, would be the key to controlling
and transforming society itself.  In this respect, the radicals have succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest
dreams, for the administrations of American universities have fallen into the hands of individuals who generally profess liberal and radical ideas. Liberals and radicals have captured academia to a far greater extent than any of the other institutions. This control exceeds even that of their influence over the print and broadcast media.
Some former members of the Weather Underground Organization (WUO, or Weathermen) now occupy positions of authority on major campuses. Former domestic terrorists such as Bernardine Dohrn (Northwestern University) or Bill Ayers (University of Illinois at Chicago) come to mind. Besides them, there are thousands of other former activists, radicals,
and far leftists who have risen to prominent positions within academia.  The stakes are higher and the atmosphere is more politicized at the most prestigious universities.

How prescient, considering that Mr. Hansen's book has a copyright date of 2006.  And now the CAC won't let anyone look?  Hmmm. 

An absolutely chilling, yet enlightening article that explains the process of the long march and more, that has been occuring since the 1930's, can be found at American Thinker:  Cultural Marxism.  (note:  emphases mine)

 By the end of WWI, socialists realized that something was amiss, for the world's proletariat had not heeded Marx's call to rise up in opposition to evil capitalism and to embrace communism instead.  They wondered what had gone wrong.
Separately, two Marxist theorists-Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary-concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order.  The West would have to be conquered first.
Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class.  The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a "long march through the culture."  Additionally, a new proletariat must be created.  In his "Prison Notebooks," he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.
The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history.  All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top.
...Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools.  Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority...
...The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. It would provide the ideas on which to base a new political theory of revoltuion based on culture, harnessing new oppressed groups for the faithless proletariat. Smashing religion, morals, It would also build a constituency among academics, who could build careers studying and writing about the new oppression.  Toward this end, Marcuse-who favored polymorphous perversion-expanded the ranks of Gramsci's new proletariat by including homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals.  Into this was spliced Lukacs radical sex education and cultural terrorism tactics.  Gramsci's ‘long march' was added to the mix, and then all of this was wedded to Freudian psychoanalysis and psychological conditioning techniques. The end product was Cultural Marxism, now known in the West as multiculturalism.
...Additional intellectual firepower was required: a theory to pathologize what was to be destroyed. In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno's idea of the ‘authoritarian personality.'  This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism.  Thus, anyone who upholds America's traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist.  Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists.  By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America's traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, or free markets is in need of psychological help.  The pernicious influence of Adorno's ‘authoritarian personality' idea can be clearly seen in some of the research that gets public money.

"In Aug., 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study.  It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed.  Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives... suffer from ‘mental rigidity,' dogmatism,' and ‘uncertainty avoidance,' together with associated indicators for mental illness." http://www.edwatch.org/  ‘Social and Emotional Learning" Jan. 26, 2005)

Our tax dollars at work.  Note the prhase used above: ...Additional intellectual firepower was required: a theory to pathologize what was to be destroyed. Also note the timeing: 1950. I.E. conservatives are Nazis, fascists, racists, homophobes, misogynists; literally everything they are not. This "pathologizing the right" is explained well in Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism". The astute reader will also note that the tactics used so emotionally at Crooks and Liars, appear similar to those oulined in the writings of the anointed described in the Cultural Marxism article.  

Also, remember the plan by the APA to help indoctrinate our children into the church of Anthropogenic Global Warming?  It was covered by Noel here:  Advancing Hysteria by Editing Skeptical Views of Global Warming.  Check out the "Social and Emotional Learning" article linked above.  That bit about social conservatives being crazy is only the tip of the iceberg.  "Social and Emotional Learning" appears to be a whole governmental/psycological association program to get hold of young minds early, as in The Barack of Obama's nursery school program needing gazillions of federal dollars.  More excerpts that preceeded the above description of insane social conservatives (note: the National Association of School Psychologists is heavily involved, surprise!):

The commission advocates examining parents and homes for anything that might point to a “physical or mental condition [with] a high probability of resulting in a [child’s] developmental delay” ­ something way beyond the present capabilities of the mental health profession ­ beginning with a mandatory Nurse-Family Partnership component.

Why the extraordinary emphasis on parents? The Commission and, indeed, most of the mental health community believe that mental “disorders” of parents occurring before children reach the age of six “can interfere with critical emotional, cognitive, and physical development, and portend a lifetime of problems in school, at home, and in the community.” Therefore, “treating the parents’ mental health problems also benefits the child.”

“Treating parents” means psychotherapy and drugs, and the initiative calls for a mandate to provide “social and emotional check-ups” in all primary healthcare facilities. This means parents are supposed to be surreptitiously assessed for mental “illness” every time they walk into their physician’s office...

They are making McLame look better every day.  At least with Sarah on the ticket, we now have something to vote for.

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com