Stephen Hunter writes this concerning depression era bandits Bonnie and Clyde; both the historic and film versions.
That point is that the legendary Penn movie that invented the New Bonnie and Clyde was such a ideological crock that it deserves placement in that list of other leftist crocks mistaken by gullible critics and film lovers as somehow great: Beatty’s own Reds, the appalling JFK, and the toxic oeuvre of Michael Moore and his tribe of screwball clones in the documentary field, as well as the recent spate of angry, misguided Iraq war films.
This really is not news; when Bonnie and Clyde was released and soared, following an initial few weeks of failure, the Chicago Daily News columnist Mike Royko launched a mini-crusade to restore Clyde and Bonnie to their actual dimensions, as vicious murderers, no matter that (as the ad copy said) they were young, they were in love, and they robbed banks. The only thing that mattered about them, Royko said, was that they killed, and killed a lot of people. The critic of the New York Times, Bosley Crowther, then the oldest, whitest guy in New York, also dared to denounce the film; he not only felt the lash of social ostracism and contempt, he may have even lost his job as a consequence.
I thought they were both idiots. I know better now.
In regard to the rule of thumb, for example, she asserted that Romulus of Rome, who is credited in my book with being involved with the first antidomestic-violence legislation, could not have done this as he was merely a legendary, fictional character, who along with his brother Remus was suckled by a wolf.
In fact, Plutarch and Livy each state that Romulus was the first king of Rome. He reigned from 753-717 BC, and created both the Roman Legions and the Roman Senate. He is also credited with adding large amounts of territory and people to the dominion of Rome, including the Sabine women. The modern scholar Andrea Carandini has written about the historic reign of Romulus, based in part on the 1988 discovery of the Murus Romuli on the north slope of the Palatine Hill in Rome.
Hoff Sommers:
She (Lemon) confidently informs us that Romulus actually existed and ruled Rome from 753-717 BC. That is preposterous. She cites Livy and Plutarch as sources. These first-century writers did not claim to be offering historically accurate accounts of events that took place some 700 years before their time, but openly professed to be summarizing beliefs, myths, and legends that had come down through the ages. She also cites the contemporary Roman archaeologist Andrea Carandini—a maverick figure who discovered what he claims might have been a wall of a palace that could have belonged to Romulus. As the July/August 2007 issue of Archaeology politely notes, his suggestion “represents a sharp break with two millennia of scholarship.”
At the outpost, named Oz Yehonatan, the settlers built a wooden structure they mockingly called the “Obama Hut,” saying it was a sign of appreciation for the US president for his actions that had led to a dramatic rise in the number of outposts.
This most certainly seems the reasonable thing to do:
Senator Lamar Alexander introduced the “Auto Stock for Every Taxpayer Act” today, which would “require the Treasury to distribute to individual taxpayers all its stock in General Motors (GM) and Chrysler within one year following the emergence of the companies from bankruptcy proceedings.”
But I suspect that the goal of President Obama and the other Neo-Coms in power is to control Chrysler and General Motors. Therefor the above mentioned bill will never see the light of day. Perhaps I’m wrong. I hope so.
“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” This quote, from the Englishman William Blackstone, aptly describes the aims and priorities of our own American system of justice . . . Unless, that is, you are a liberal crusader who is out to get someone because he was accused of a “hate crime.” In that case, Blackstone’s formulation is turned on its head: better to convict ten innocents than to give people a symbolic impression that “hate crimes” aren’t more serious and worse than all other crimes.
To give people special consideration based on gender, sexuality, race ... anything is simply wrong. Think about it; two people are murdered under similar circumstances. The only real difference is that one victim is, say, homosexual, and the other is straight. Why should the severity of the punishment be more with regards to one victim over another?
How many times have you heard that? It’s true, too. Almost always, the film adaptation of a book is a let-down. There are all kinds of reasons.
It turns out that good plots and an epic dimension translate well from page to screen. But the attempt to scale this model by making midsize movies from literary novels has been an ugly disaster. In our post-The Reader world, I can safely say that I’d rather personally digitize back issues of Talk magazine than see another movie based on Harvey Weinstein’s favorite book. Scott Rudin can fuck off, too.
Heh ...
I think that much of the problem lies in the fact that even the most mundane of novels not only requires, but also expects at least a modicum of intellectual effort, whereas the goal of the average Hollywood film is to make it as intellectually vapid as possible in a misguided attempt to appeal to a wider demographic. I’m not saying this is all bad all the time. Often times, some of the best films are the ones requiring little more than simply sitting along for the joyous ride.
All of this being said, I can think of some very good film adaptations of novels, though:
The Godfather, No Country For Old Men, and Lonesome Dove quickly come to mind.
The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century
I just picked up this book, and I can hardly wait to sink my teeth into it.
In The Next 100 Years, Friedman undertakes the impossible (or improbable) challenge of forecasting world events through the 21st century. Starting with the premises that “conventional political analysis suffers from a profound failure of imagination” and “common sense will be wrong,” Friedman maps what he sees as the likeliest developments of the future, some intuitive, some surprising: more (but less catastrophic) wars; Russia’s re-emergence as an aggressive hegemonic power; China’s diminished influence in international affairs due to traditional social and economic imbalances; and the dawn of an American “Golden Age” in the second half of the century. Friedman is well aware that much of what he predicts will be wrong--unforeseeable events are, of course, unforeseen--but through his interpretation of geopolitics, one gets the sense that Friedman’s guess is better than most. --Jon Foro
Part of the reason that I love this stuff is that as time goes on, we’ll know just how right, or wrong, George is. Also, this is prime fertilizer for writers and story tellers.
Ah, well, we did the Turkey thing yesterday which was a good thing. I didn’t eat too much.
I’m going to go through my list O links and purge some of them and add some others. Years ago, in another blog life, I used to pal around with this chick. If she talks like she writes, I have to wonder if she ever comes up for air.
Reading through the news today, I’m glad that I didn’t, nor ever will, participate in the so called Black Friday nonsense. I mean, c’mon, people. People die because there’s a sale at Wal?
A worker died after being trampled by a throng of unruly shoppers when a suburban Wal-Mart opened for the holiday sales rush Friday, authorities said.
Also, there’s this video of people going absolutely bonkers over the last Xbox at Wal. In some of the comments I see people shouting that Wal should be sued. Bullshit, I say. The problem isn’t Wal, it’s the mullet-wearing, tooth-missing, inbred, Natural Light drinking, half-shirt wearing, Trans Am up on the blocks in the back yard waiting for the next welfare check to “git ‘er up and runnin’” dolts that are to blame. My God, people, have some pride, will ya? I appreciate a deal as much as the next person, but ... I know that my above characterization sounds horribly elitist, but really, next time you go to WalMart, take a look around you and tell me what you see. Not all, I know, but just take a look around.
Anyway, on this Black Friday, instead of participating in it, I’m staying at home bitching about it. It’s much more fun.
An interesting article on cliches in film, or more accurately, how they have changed. There are the givens like the fact that no matter where someone on the screen lives in Paris, the Eiffel Tower will always be visible through their window. Really, keep your eyes open and you’ll notice it.
Fans of traditional western movies, for example, know that the gunmen on the American frontier settled their disputes fair and square, meeting in one-on-one main-street pistol duels, ideally at noon. I was shocked when Elmore Leonard said he made it a rule to omit that scene from the western books and movies he wrote. He claims no one would ever be so foolish as to do that.
Good on Elmore Leonard. Thankfully, for the most part, you’ll never see a western movie with two pistol-swinging gunmen facing each other down in the middle of main street. Nowadays, mainstreet is turned into a gritty, gut-shot, messy bloodbath. Think of Open Range or Unforgiven. Watching Open Range, I remember thinking that it felt like watching Vietnam War footage.
One “wisdom” not mentioned in the article is that, as of the past few decades, Republican or Conservative means bad.
When I was very young, I wasn’t subjected to much television or film. It’s not that I’m that old (46), it’s just a result of where I grew up at. The 60’s and 70’s, in the mountains of Idaho didn’t lend itself to much television. Try to see what kind of reception you get with rabbit ears while living in a town of 400 or so people at the bottom of the second deepest canyon in North America. Also, there tends to be very little in the way of local theater going experiences. What people mostly did for entertainment was bitch about the weather and government, and read a lot.
The reason I bring this up is because while growing up, my young eyes and ears caught much of what the old-timers would say and talk about. There was a certain standard of how a “man” was supposed to act. I still have vivid memories of ranch hands standing around the fireplace, holding cups of coffee and talking about one thing or another and through it all, for the most part, there was a certain code of behavior that was pretty cut and dry. That’s not to say that there were not those who did not or would not live up to expected standards. They just weren’t respected. In hindsight, I realize that human behavior is what it is and has not changed much for perhaps thousands of years, but, often times, people like to put on a good and/or righteous face. A few years later, when I became more exposed to film and television, I saw, in westerns, much of the same kind of “code” of behavior that I witnessed as a child when men with names like Jake, Jasper, and Arlin stood around that stove holding their coffee talking in low-toned, rumbling voices.
At the time I wondered if this code of behavior presented in the western films was a reflection of reality, or if the reality was a reflection of the cliché. I still haven’t figured that one out because I’m pretty sure that Jake, Jasper, or Arlin hadn’t had much exposure to films and television as well. Of course, I’m sure that they all had lots of experience reading Louis L Amour and other writers of the Western Mythos. I also must point out that some of the most well-read individuals I’ve every met were simple, rural types that I’ve come across in remote villages and mountain campsites. Show me a real cowboy who spends a good portion of their life in the outdoors away from people, doing the things that cowboys do, living the lonely life that cowboys do, and I would be willing to bet that they are extremely well-read. Think about it, what the hell else is there to do out there in the great wide open? You will rarely see something so incongruous as a bow-legged, filthy cowboy with a wad of tobacco in his mouth, punctuating his dialect with “y,all”, “fixin’”, and displaying the manners of someone ill-equipped to handle social interactions beyond telling his dog to “Git in the back of the truck” while at the same time, in casual conversation, throwing out a quote by Keats or Oscar Wilde or applying a Shakespearean incident to an anecdote. Trust me, this isn’t all that uncommon.
Which brings me back to the whole cliché thing. Sometimes the anti-cliché is the cliché.
This morning I, along with nine other sorry S.O.B.’s, went through the hell that is known as level testing in Krav Maga. This particular bout was for completing level 1 and moving on to level 2 training. It was nearly three hours of abject brutality. This was, without a doubt, the most physically exhausting experience of my life. But it’s all good because I passed. Hell, we all passed which which is cool because it’s not easy, and people do fail these tests. I did catch a knee to the mouth, causing a small split in both upper and lower lips. Had it not been for my mouthpiece, I would’ve lost some teeth and had some stitches instead of licking off the blood and carrying on.
From the moment G.W. Bush became the President Elect, nitwits were calling for his impeachment. Such people were, quite simply, idiots. Now, B.O. is the President Elect and the nitwits are already crawling out of the woodwork.
Barack Obama has not even been sworn in yet as the 44th president of the United States but groups are springing up online calling for his impeachment.
On Facebook, an “Impeach Barack Obama” group has attracted more than 700 members and a lively debate about the Democrat’s election victory on Tuesday over Republican John McCain.
Another Facebook group of the same name has 160 members and urges others to join because “we might as well get a head start on the impeachment of Obama.”
Look, I’ll be the first to tell you that B.O. makes me real nervous. From what he’s said, done, and who he has hung out with for the past 20 years, I don’t feel real good about it. His views on the Constitution and “spreading the wealth around” are downright idiotic, and nitwit like. Yes, he says he will reach out, close divides, and all that feel good shit, and, yes, actions speak louder than words--something the majority of voters seemed to have forgotten,
But.
BUT ...
Unlike the dolts from the left who brayed “Bush lied ...” and who did everything they could to marginalize and tear him down, I will at least give the guy a chance and hope that I’m wrong about him.
If, as I fear, the left begins to threaten freedom of speech or my Second Amendment rights, or go all Woodrow Wilson or FDR, I’ll cry bullshit. But, until that happens, I’m plugging my nose, swallowing the caster oil, and giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. No Daily Kos or Move On bullshit here because the ends does not justify the means. Stupid nonsense from the left--and believe me, there’s plenty of it--does not justify stupid nonsense from the right.
A while ago I posted about my wife’s voter registration adventure. Yesterday she was featured in a news story aired on KUTV, the local CBS affiliate. Basically, what it boils down to is that there is no system to verify a person’s eligibility to vote. Shortly after the story aired, my wife received a phone call from Utah’s Utah’s Lt. Governor, Gary Herbert to discuss her concerns. Granted, you have to give him kudos for wanting to discuss the matter, but Anna quickly grew frustrated at what seemed, to her, not much more than the usual political attempt to smooth-talk her in the hopes that it all goes away. I’m not saying that is the case, but it seemed that way.
Right now, the basic guideline on one’s eligibility to vote as spelled out in the Constitution is that in order to vote, you must be a citizen and 18 years of age. Much of this is explained primarily in the Twenty-Sixth Amendment,
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The problem is with Section 2 of the Twenty Sixth Amendment in that Congress has never established any means to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. Rightfully, Congress has addressed section two in both the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, but, apparently has never addressed section 2 of the Twenty Sixth Amendment. The only thing that seems to have been established is to verify that a certain name on a voter registration roll can be matched with an ID to verify that the person exists and lives at the same address as noted on the voter registration record. What does that mean? It means that the very foundation upon which the whole system rests is a crumbling, weak, unsteady mess. The whole house faces collapse. Showing one’s state ID, employer ID, paycheck, or utility bill says absolutely nothing with regards to one’s right to vote. Because of this, the chance of opportunity for voter fraud or manipulation is extremely high which is unconscionable. Stepping into the voting booth and casting a ballot is one of the few, and most powerful, tools citizens have at their disposal to have an influence on what direction our government--both local and national--heads.
As long as the status quo remains, the very cornerstone of our democracy will always be in doubt.
The only way to reasonably verify one’s eligibility to vote is to require a passport, period. A passport is the simplest, most efficient means to establish both citizenship and age--the two stated Constitutional requirements in the Twenty Sixth Amendment to vote. I don’t believe it would take any tinkering with the Constitution, and would not require government tax dollars to implement. If you want to vote, get a passport. Hell, a passport is not any more difficult to get then a drivers license. I know, I’ve got one.
Some people I’ve brought this up to have complained about how it violates or disenfranchises voters by creating “roadblocks” to their right to vote. Nonsense. Securing the foundation upon which this country operates secures your voting rights by minimizing the chance of your valid vote being undermined or diluted by those who do not have a right to vote, not to mention the underlying lack of confidence in the system.
Today, I actually spoke with someone who was nearly hysterical at the notion of showing a passport to vote. They ranted on about how “they have a damned right” and shouldn’t have to show anyone anything to vote.” My question to them was, “Does that mean our right to free speech comes without some responsibilities? Does the fact that you can’t libel someone or scream ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater where no fire is present, mean that your right to free speech is being violated? Does the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms mean that you have a right to have a fargin’ nuclear warhead in your back yard? If not, does that mean that your Constitutional rights are being violated?”
Of course I was met with stammering silence.
Establishing a simple means of verifying of one’s Constitutional prerequisites to vote is securing your right to vote.
Since the election of G.W. Bush there has been much national hand wringing with regards to our voting system and the potential of voter fraud and disenfranchisement. We’ve got punch ballots, various electronic forms of voting, etc. It doesn’t have to be so damned complicated. In fact I can think of just two steps that would go a long ways to minimizing the chance of voter fraud/manipulation and balloting.
1.Require a passport to both register and vote.
2.Paper ballots.
