Neal McDonough is one of those actors you’ve seen in a million and one productions (television shows like Desperate Housewives and Band of Brothers; movies like Minority Report and Flags of our Fathers) but you don’t know his name.

Nonetheless, he’s one of Hollywood’s most unique actors. He sticks to his principles (he has principles).

McDonough was fired from the ABC TV series Scoundrels for refusing to do a sex scene with co-star Virginia Madsen (who can blame him, just writing her name forced Land of Punt to visit the clinic).

Insiders believe the termination, which came just three days into shooting, could cost McDonough as much as $1 million.

This is not the first time the Catholic family man has said no to simulated sex. He refused to get it on during his appearances on ABC’s Desperate Housewives and NBC’s short lived Boomtown.

Obviously, ABC hired McDonough to star in Scoundrels and perform in sex scenes knowing full well he refuses to compromise his beliefs for the camera and perform sex scenes.

And these networks wonder why their ratings are down?

Land of Punt applauds McDonough and stands behind him one hundred percent. While we support and respect his unyielding religious beliefs we also support McDonough for another reason.

Ninety-nine point nine percent of sex scenes in television and movies are completely gratuitous. Hollywood utilizes the sex scene because they are lazy and licentious. They believe a little copulation woos viewers and movie goers.

Sex in a movie or television show never advances the plot, it just makes you feel uncomfortable if your grandmother happens to be watching it with you.

LOP will take it one step further and conclude the sex scene is an insult to our intelligence. We don’t need to see the characters go at it to know they went after it.

Remember television of yesteryear when shows couldn’t do half of what they’re allowed to do today? Back then, in order to convey to the audience that two characters punctured the watermelon, TV shows had to be creative.

There was a Star Trek episode, Elaan of Troyius, where Kirk is sitting on the edge of the bed putting on his boots. That one image said it all. Everyone knew exactly what happened, even Trekkers residing in their parents basement knew Kirk had his warp coil breached.

Land of Punt isn’t against sex on the silver or HD screen per se, but LOP is against it as a plot element.

Of course, Hollywood is far too unimaginative and far too decrepitude to get rid of the sex scene. That’s sad because intimacy between characters is far more entertaining and carries a far greater impact when it’s left up to the viewers’ imagination.

Virginia Madsen

NBC will give $45 million to Conan O’Brien and his “staff” to leave the network so the great Jay Leno can return to his rightful place as host of the Tonight Show.

The Peacock network made the announcement on January 21, 2010.

O’Brien’s final NBC broadcast is Friday. Leno’s second debut as Tonight Show anchor is set for March 1, 2010.

“We’re pleased that Jay is returning to host the franchise that he helmed brilliantly and successfully for many years,” said Jeff Gaspin, chairman of NBC Universal Television Entertainment. “He is an enormous talent, a consummate professional and one of the hardest-working performers on television.”

O’Brien, or “Cuckoo” as his fans call him, can return to television as soon as September but NBC will retain the rights to most of his “comedy bits” (industry term). Why they want to keep them is anyone’s guess.

Many believe O’Brien will land on FOX thus causing a four-way log jam at late night (O’Brien on Fox, Jay Leno on NBC, the disgusting old man David Letterman on CBS, and Jimmy Kimmell on ABC). Land of Punt hopes O’Brien migrates to Murdock’s network because he will flat out falter and watching O’Brien fail will be funnier than Jay-Walking.

While Cuckoo has lots of support on the internet (minus this site), and from teens studying for their GED, no one watches him. He’s not that funny, he’s an elitist Harvard snob, and he’s extremely smarmy. Think Tina Fey only not as masculine.

Leno is a proven ratings winner. He’s funny, affable, and a hard worker. As long as he wants it, Leno should be host of the Tonight Show.

Cuckoo should have returned to the Late Night slot at 12:30am but he apparently didn’t want to usurp current host and fellow SNL alumni Jimmy Fallon.

LOP is flummoxed as why O’Brien displayed such a mind-numbingly, weak-willed, pathetically-puny, overtly-feminine, cowardly show of benevolence (then again, maybe he wanted that $45 million severance package).

O’Brien’s fans will argue that Cuckoo didn’t have the same advantages as Leno, namely a 10pm drama as a lead in. Also, O’Brien hosted the Tonight Show for 7 months while Leno hosted for 17 years.

Finally, O’Brien fans will point out that their guy(?) and Leno have never faced one another head to head. So saying one is a higher ratings-grabber than the other is not fair.

However, those are just excuses because the bottom line is that at 11:35pm more people watched, and want to watch, Leno then O’Brien. Leno is successful. O’Brien is not.

It’s NBC’s network and they can do what they want. Fortunately, they want to return Leno to his rightful place.

Good riddance to Cuckoo.

This entire ordeal is a moot point for Land of Punt. LOP’s late night viewing habits involve Fox News Channel’s Red Eye.

This holiday season Stephen Colbert graced us by releasing “Another Christmas Song.” The ditty is quite catchy and in performing it the Comedy Central host revealed that he has a passable singing voice.

However, his song, while first appearing cute and clever, is actually a well thought out exegesis against Capitalism (and even Christmas).

The song tells the story of Colbert writing a Christmas song in hopes of reaping profits from its sale. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not the best sentiment for the Yule Tide time but whatcha going to do?

When Land of Punt first heard the carol we admit we were concerned by its smarmy view of Christmas but we were so captivated by its indelible melody that we ignored our initial displeasure.

However, when the bridge rolled around our tuned changed.

Young ones starving on a dead-end street
Taped up tabloids on their frost-bit feet
Hear what they carol as they huddle for heat

[All children:]
Please help the “Colbert Children” eat

As soon as LOP heard those children’s pleas we realize this wasn’t just a snarky take on the alleged consumerism of the season but a full-fledged attack on Capitalism.

The lullaby is an attack on Capitalism because it connects the economics of Christmas (both the good and bad) with poverty. It implies that Colbert’s desire to profit from his Christmas chantey causes children to go poor.

That is simply not true.

The generation (or even accumulation) of wealth doesn’t cause anyone to go hungry. The re-distribution of wealth does.

LOP argues that the song is designed to make the listener feel guilty about earning money and using the gains to enjoy the Christmas season. To imply that you should feel guilty for enjoying the holidays is irresponsible, insidious, and immoral.

Guilt implies that you’ve done something wrong. But working hard to earn money for the holidays, or working hard to make money off the holidays, is absolutely, positively, one-hundred percent okay.

Some may view Colbert’s threnody as an attack on greed and a call for compassion. LOP doesn’t see any greed in the song. The singer just wants to make a living.

As for compassion, or lack thereof, the song doesn’t imply a selfish hoarding of wealth. It implies if you make wealth you’re not compassionate. That is wrong.

Besides, how can you be compassionate (with your money, which is what this song is really about) if you don’t have any?

Furthermore, the inclusion of poor and hungry children (apart from our anti-Capitalist angle) ruined the refrain. A whimsical Christmas track is not the best place to remind us of the down trodden. Also the song would have been much funnier had the children reminded Colbert that the true meaning of Christmas isn’t the dollar but Jesus Christ.

Of course, that’s asking for a Christmas miracle: a celebrity to embrace both Capitalism and Christianity. Not even Santa can make that gift happen.

Another Christmas Song Lyrics
Ho! It’s another Christmas song
Whoa! Get ready brother for another Christmas song
They play for a month, Ad infinitum
One day it struck me someone must write ‘em
So! It’s another Christmas song

Santa clause singing on naughty snow
Reindeer ringing in the mistletoe
The manger’s on fire,
The holly’s a-glow
Hear the baby Jesus cryin’ ho ho ho

Hey! It’s another Christmas song
Yay! Another oft’ returning (often returning)
Royalty earning Christmas song
I’ve got plenty more so go buy a modem
Log on to iTunes and pay to download ‘em
Pay! For another Christmas song

Chestnuts glisten on a silent night
Sleigh-bells kissing by candle light
The tree is frozen, the winter’s bright
Who’d have thought the wise men look so white

You! Don’t you wanna sing along?
To! My humble yule tide
Dreamed up pool side
Christmas song
Make it a part of your holiday canon
Make it the heart of my retirement plan and
Do! Sing another Christmas song

BEAT IT INTO ‘EM FELLAS!
WATCH MY FEET FLY!

But wait! Who’s this?

Young ones starving on a dead-end street
Taped up tabloids on their frost-bit feet
Hear what they carol as they huddle for heat

[All children:]
Please help the “Colbert Children” eat

Whoa! Just another Christmas song
No! This is like no other Christmas-mother-lovin’-song
Public to whom I’m so proud to have pandered
Please save my family and make this a standard
Go! Join the ever-growing throng
Who are singing
And swingin’
While my kids are clinging to the hope
My register’s ching-ching chinging from the cash I’m bringing
From another Christmas song

Copyright Stephen Colbert

Its official title is “The New Mel Brooks Musical Young Frankenstein ” or as the kids say, TNMBMYF. The show, which suffered an early death on Broadway, is alive on road via a national touring company.

Currently, Young Frankenstein is selling tickets in Chicago. From there it goes to Washington D.C., then to Baltimore and then Atlanta and then… the musical is scheduled to run deep into 2010.

The traveling show stars Roger Bart. He originated the role of Frederick Frankenstein on Broadway. Also reprising his role of “The Monster” is Shuler Henseley (it was a role he was born to play). Cory English didn’t originate the role of Igor but he did play it on Broadway. He too is part of the traveling ensemble.

Young Frankenstein is the musical theater adaptation of Mel Brooks’ 1974 classic comedy film of the same name. The musical was brought to life by the same team behind the smash hit, and another musical theater adaptation of another Mel Brooks movie, The Producers.

Which movie is next in line for a theatrical adaption, History Of The World Part I or Spaceballs?

The creative team in question consists of Brooks, composer Thomas Meehan and director Susan Stroman.

The Producers (which won 12 Tony Awards) is the worst part about Young Frankenstein, everyone compares the two musicals.

Which is a travesty since Young Frankenstein is not as good as The Producers. That’s not a bad thing it’s the truth.

Then again, Young Frankenstein is a parody of a parody. In being such, it’s never had the opportunity to achieve the same emotional resonance as The Producers. And it was that “emotional resonance” that propelled The Producers into winning a boatload of Tonys.

So “The New Mel Brooks Musical Young Frankenstein” was doomed from the start to be nothing more than a funny, rollicking, good time. And that’s perfectly okay.

Land of Punt feels the need to defend Young Frankenstein because some critics are missing the point of the musical. A point LOP believes is as plain as the bolts of the monster’s neck. That is Young Frankenstein aspires to be nothing more than escapist fun. You want deep intellectual faire, than go see A Steady Rain, Equus, or The Boy From Oz.

The show has gags, bawdy jokes, slapstick, yodeling, kvetching, and borscht-belt humor. Young Frankenstein not only caters to fans of Brooks, and his type of humor, but it’s enough of an entertainingly good time to put smiles on faces of those curmudgeons that normally don’t like musical theatre (although how could anyone not like musicals).

As for the music, LOP actually likes the tunes from Young Frankenstein better than the tunes from The Producers. However, that’s a matter of personal taste.

Nonetheless, we can all agree that the best song from either show, “Puttin On The Ritz” (thanks to being composed by Irving Berlin), is Young Frankenstein’s showstopper. That’s something everyone, including the critics who hate Young Frankenstein, can agree about.

The Berlin classic notwithstanding, it’s interesting that Chicago critics are blasting the show. They seem to be tripping over themselves to demean, degrade, and demoralize the production.

Meanwhile reviewers from other cities, cities that don’t have a chip on their shoulder or their nose in the sky, like Hartford and Providence, interpret Young Frankenstein in the same way as Land of Punt.

Is this phenomenon only applicable to Chi Town? How will other snooty cities react to Brooks’ monster musical?

Will the reviews from East Lansing be the same as the reviews when Young Frankenstein plays Boston?

Will the reviewer in Pittsburgh enjoy the show more than the reviewer who saw Young Frankenstein in Los Angeles?

Regardless of what reviewers have to say, there are only three things you need to know about the musical Young Frankenstein. One, the show is lots of fun. Two, it has a great cast. And three, it’s Fronkensteen!

“The fact that music I helped create was used in crimes against humanity sickens me,” said Morello, former member of Rage Against the Machine. “We need to end torture and close Guantanamo now.”

Rosanne Cash, daughter of country singer Johnny Cash, is also swooning over the allegations. “It seems so obvious,” she said. “Music should never be used as torture.”

Morello, Cash, as well as Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, the members of R.E.M., The Roots, and Pearl Jam (no shocker there) are no demanding everything be made public and for the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

The practice has of course been stopped under the Obama Administration. Now all interrogators can do to coerce information out of terrorists is say “pretty please with sugar on top” and offer them a warm Coke Zero.

A Washington-based independent research institute, the Nation Security Archive, recently filed a Freedom of Information Act request on behalf of the sniveling rocks. They are seeking to “contain explicit references to the following bands or songs” (in order words, these are the bands and songs allegedly used to torture the evil doers):

AC/DC
Aerosmith
Barney theme song (By Bob Singleton)
The Bee Gees
Britney Spears
Bruce Springsteen
Christina Aguilera
David Gray
Deicide
Don McLean
Dope
Dr. Dre
Drowning Pool
Eminem
Hed P.E.
James Taylor
Limp Bizkit
Marilyn Manson
Matchbox Twenty
Meatloaf
Meow mix jingle
Metallica
Neil Diamond
Nine Inch Nails
Pink
Prince
Queen
Rage Against the Machine
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Redman
Saliva
Sesame street theme music (By Christopher Cerf)
Stanley Brothers
“The Star Spangled Banner”
Tupac Shakur

How bad could the torture have been? After all, these people (and we use that term loosely) who have no qualms strapping a bomb to their chest to kill innocent civilians.

It’s always funny when entertainers stick up for terrorists. Because if the terrorists were in charge the entertainers would be the first group of people to have their heads cut off.

Also, don’t these entertainers know that they are the main reason why terrorists hate America and its freedom?

These musicians have made millions of dollars writing and performing music in America. Shouldn’t they show a little more respect to the country that has allowed them the freedom to do what the love. And shouldn’t they show a little more disdain for the people who want to take that freedom away?

Obviously some of songs were chosen because they are tremendously obnoxious and some were chosen because they are patriotic. But why would these musicians automatically jump to the conclusion that listening to their music is tortuous? If they thought highly of themselves wouldn’t their first reaction be “why did you give aid and comfort to the enemy by playing them my tasty tracks?”

Ultimately, the real reason why these musicians object to their music being used at Guantanamo has nothing to do with torture, human rights or how the world views America. In fact, most are probably more upset by the fact they weren’t paid royalties

The musicians on the list were reminded of something they try very hard to keep locked away in the far recesses of their mind—for an overwhelming majority of people on the Earth listening to their music IS torture.

Sure they get a lot of attention from the mainstream media, and from angst addled teens wearing their t-shirts, and from thousands of adoring fans at their concerts, but at the end of the day most people think they sound more like noise pollution than like music.

It is quite curious. Even though the President’s lines are a little vague, it does appear as if he’s actually promoting Lopez’s new late night talk show. If that’s true, it begs the question, is it prudent to have the leader of the free world pimping a cable show?

The video doesn’t appear to be a mash-up (meaning video of the President speaking to someone else was used, with the help of special effects, with video of Lopez). In fact, judging by the above picture, it appears they were in the same room.

Assuming that’s true, that means the President actually took time out of his day to record a promo a for a comedian.

Now, there is a graphic on the video that says “...from the ’08 campaign.” Does that line mean the scene was recorded in ’08 or does it mean that the action taking place in the promo happened in 2008?

Land of Punt thinks if the producers of the promo wanted to convey that the video was shot in ’08 they would have said as clearly as possible.

Now, the earliest mention we can find of Lopez’s late night show is March 24, 2009. The 2008 Presidential election occurred on Nov. 4.

It’s conceivable that Lopez and TBS had plans to launch a late night talk show before Obama was elected President, but it seems rather unlikely. If we are wrong and everything was solidified by Nov. 4, it seems improbable that a promotion video would be recorded nearly a year in advance of the show’s actual debut.

As you can see we are hedging towards a question and that question is when did President Obama record this promo for the George Lopez Show?

If it was before the election, than Lopez and TBS are doing him a disservice by airing it. It belittles the office of the President of the United States and makes him appear foolish. The President appears foolish because he’s standing next to a fool by the name of George Lopez.

If the promo was shot after the election than serious concerns are raised about the decision making process of the President and competency his administration.

Why is the President taking time out of his busy day and putting his reputation on the line for a cable program that won’t last as long as Chicago’s 2016 Olympic bid.

Even for a spotlight craving President, that the website Bombastic Sports calls Celebrity In Chief, this seems gregarious and politically gauche. It just not the presidential thing to do. The office is too important to be used to promote television shows.

Also, can TBS cut back on the Lopez stuff? We get it, he’s going to host a talk show.

GeorgePromo.wmv

When we heard the news we immediately thought someone said “Fallon.” But after further investigation we realized a cast member actually said the mother of all dirty words live from New York.

Brand new cast member Jenny Slate uttered the forbidden expletive during a sketch called “Biker Chick Chat.”

Wow, SNL spoofing a talk-show they almost never do that!

Throughout the sketch Slate frequently uttered the pretend f-words “frickin’ ” and “friggin.’ “As soon as she let the real thing go, she puffed her cheeks as a countenance of career-ending fear washed over her face.

SNL boss Lorne Michaels stood up for both his foul-mouth actress and his wilting show. He said Slate should be spared because she’s a rookie and he doesn’t want the première of the show’s 35th season to be remembered for one word.

Michaels is right, the premiere, which starred Megan Fox and U2, will be remembered for one word—unfunny.

While it’s heartwarming for Michaels to stick up for his actress, he’s probably leaping for joy that his old, bloated, tedious comedy show is actually being talked about.

However, who would have thought that a show with Megan Fox would be known for someone other than her saying something stupid.

The most famous utterance of the F-word occurred in 1981 and came out of the mouth of Charles Rocket.

Because Slate waited until 12:40 a.m. to talk like a sailor, she probably won’t face disciplinary action from the FCC.

While you ruminate on that, allow Land of Punt to recap the lowlight of this year’s MTV Video Music Awards show. During her acceptance speech, teen country sensation Tayor Swift was interrupted by hip hop genius Kanye West.

West “stormed” the stage, “ripped” the microphone from Taylor’s trembling hands and proclaimed that Beyonce should have won the venerated award instead of Swift.

America and the rest of the free world buckled in the sheer terror as they relived West’s thievery of Swift’s moment of glee and celebration.

Did anyone realize the awards show was on MTV?

Did anyone realize the VMA’s is the most artificial of all award shows?

And we’ll ask it again, can any one name a winner of a VMA?

The amount of coverage this incident received was mind boggling. Wasn’t there anything more important to talk about?

At first Land of Punt thought it was staged. After a few days, we realized that assessment wasn’t quite accurate but we still believe it was choreographed in some way.

Every year something happens at the VMA’s that propels it into mainstream headlines. It’s strange how it happens every year.

A few factors kept this story in the news cycle. There was video of the incident. Swift is drop-dead gorgeous. The media, ignoring the ACORN scandal, had nothing else to cover. West appeared on the much publicized debut of The Jay Leno Show the following evening.

West was harangued in the media, berated on the internet and called a “jackass” by the President Of The United States.

Taylor Swift appeared on the View to discuss her painful ordeal.

Never has so many been so upset over an incident so innocuous. Who cares? It’s the MTV Video Music Awards. When it’s all said and done, winning a VMA won’t even make Swift’s resume.

In fact being the “victim” will help Swift sell more albums and more Taylor Swift concert tickets than ever before.

This incident was the last in a trio of high profile public displays of rudeness. The previous Wednesday Joe Wilson called the President a lair in a joint session of Congress.

Saturday night, Serena Williams threatened to shove a tennis ball down a line judge’s throat at the U.S. Open.

It’s interesting that in all three incidents of crassness the perpetrators were one race and the victim was another. Yet, the only incident charged with racism was Wilson yelling “You Lie” at the President. Go figure.

Judging by his comments on the Leno show, it appears that after a few Kanye West concerts the hip hop savant might take some time off for reflection—perhaps a chance for “rehabilitation?” Interestingly enough, this incident gives him political cover.

What West did was wrong. It was rude. But it wasn’t that bad, especially relative to his other discretions. Swift is a victim but only because she’s 19 (she turns 20 in December).

If West had done this to Beyonce, Pink, Mary J. Blige, or Gwen Stefani, he would be sporting a black eye right about now.

10-07-09/21:58 p.m.

Beyonce Knowles told O Magazine that Kanye West was “standing up for art” when he interrupted Taylor Swift at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards.

“Well, I knew his intentions, and I knew he was standing up for art. And he told me before, when they said the nominees, he’s like, ‘You have this award.’ And when they didn’t call my name he was, like, completely shocked. And when he walked on the stage, I was like, ‘No, no, no!’ and then he spoke, and I was like, ‘Oh, no, no, no!’”

Profound.

Lady Gaga, or as we like to call her Laga, said the decision to cancel her tour with Kanye was mutual–sure it was. Fame Kills will launch a week later than planned and all the stuff the two were supposed to do together has been scrapped.

They love to use him as a villain and as well they should. He was an evil man.

Hitler and his Nazi’s are THE perfect plot device. Their evil needs no pesky back story and their defeat invokes zero criticism, at least none from respectable sources.

Brad Pitt stars in Inglorious Basterds.

In 2008. Hollywood gave us the serious Valkyrie. As soon as that somewhat bombastic flick hit theaters, Land of Punt gave it the sardonic tagline, “the movie that dared to call Hitler evil.”

This summer Quentin Tarantino’s new film (live-action cartoon), Inglorious Basterds, chronicles a fictional (of course) platoon of Jewish soldiers bent on killing Nazi’s and eventually Hitler.

In this alternate WWII, the Jewish band of brothers not only kill Nazi’s but scalp them too. This is completely ridiculous as no army in 1944 could effectively deal with the logistics of storing and transporting human body parts. The scalping is probably why one critic called the film “a Jewish male fantasy of killing Nazi’s.”

Some of you are probably wondering why we’re mentioning this. Who cares if Hollywood uses Hitler as a quick and easy way to representative evil… time and time again?

Most everyone will welcome movies that negatively depict Hitler. One might suggest Hollywood can make six million anti-Hitler movies–one for every victim of the Holocaust.

Others, like LOP’s girlfriend, Shangri-La, view Hollywood and its movies as nothing more than a way to kill three hours on a Saturday. Shangri constantly accuses Land of Punt of giving Hollywood way too much influence.

However, Hollywood’s love affair with Hitler isn’t beyond reproach.

The problem is it’s so easy for Hollywood to use Hitler and the Nazis as bad guys that they dehumanize their evil. The convenience Hitler offers Hollywood detracts from the full impact of his evil.

There’s a line from a movie (not about WWII) that sums up Hollywood’s attitude towards Hitler, “kill one to save thousands.”

In Hollywood’s warped morality, it’s Hitler and Hitler alone that terrorized Europe. Yet, the dictator would have never had an opportunity if not for the complicity of the German people and the cowardice of Europe. In other words, he wasn’t alone and killing him may or may not have saved thousands (millions).

While Hitler may have been pure evil from the moment he left the womb, his rise to der Führer was complex. He didn’t just flip a switch and slaughter million of innocence souls. It was far more complex than that. In fact , every segment of German society was involved in the Holocaust.

Meanwhile, the Allies didn’t go to war to stop the Holocaust, they went to war to liberate Europe from German tyranny. Most soldiers and citizens of the world learned of the atrocities perpetrated against Jews only after the war was over.

In 1942, the U.S. Military decided not to release information about concentration camps for fear of making the war about liberating Jews. In 1943, reports about gassing jews were broadcasted to the Netherlands but they were so unfathomable everyone assumed it was propaganda. Furthermore, reports in an illegal Dutch newspaper about the horrors occurring at camps were halted as many believed it hurt the resistance effort.

Then there are thousands of other factors, issues and questions that are way beyond the scope of this article. Sadly, hardly any of these facets are ever tackled by Hollywood. Instead, Hitler and his denizens are presented as one-dimensional evil. Quick and easy bad guys with little to no context and little to no explanation.

This is important because society wants to avoid a repeat of Hitler. Obviously, Hollywood wants a sequel.

Luckily, people aren’t as simple or as ignorant as Hollywood makes them out to be. The wise, the well-read and the educated know the world’s history alluded to in this article and volumes more. Perhaps these voices of reasons are enough to remind us that evil is far more complex than what we see in a movie.

Hollywood, which is practically incapable of complexities, seems resigned to stick with quick and easy evil. The kind that’s safe and cliche. How else do you explain why Hollywood hasn’t made a movie that denounces the evil of socialism, radical environmentalism or radical Islam?