COULTER SUMMARIZES LIEBERMAN'S LOSS

Has America gone soft? Much of the population has never known anything but good times. The day will come, and soon, when our resolve as a nation will be tested. O that some good old American resolve will be leading this country when that day arrives. And I don't hear many (D)'s saying anything beyond "make love, not war." Michael Moore's boastful open letter yesterday promised the Lieberman treatment to any (D) who supported the war. When enemies shoot at you, what is the alternative to shooting back? What??

The security line at PHL this morning was a hundred yards long. That's inconvenient but not life-threatening. What horrible headlines would we be reading these days with Gore or Kerry at the helm?

As some of us have been trying to tell you, Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a "D" after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism. In the past three decades, there have been more legitimate sightings of Big Foot than of "Scoop Jackson Democrats."

In Tuesday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats' own vice presidential candidate six years ago.

The free world, which is rapidly boiling down to us and Israel, is under savage attack. Treason is rampant in the country. True, Democrats hate Bush, but they would hate anybody who fights the war on terrorism. It is a hostile world, and there is now a real question about the will of the American people to survive.

BUCHANAN REMAINS ON MESSAGE

After two days of listening to R's and D's in the House on the symbolic resolutions in support of Israel, I am no more clear what our nation's official strategic policy is in the Middle East. I do not dispute that we have a strategic interest in supporting Israel, and I am okay with establishing our own military might in the region, but for me there has always been a major disconnect between what our objectives and reasons probably are, and what our leaders say they are. I think our enemies understand our motives better than our citizens do. I think an argument can be made that this is "our war," but I don't hear that argument being articulated in the political rhetoric.

In a signed editorial, "It's Our War," William Kristol calls for America to play her rightful role in this war by "countering this act of aggression by Iran with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?"

"Why wait?" Well, one reason is that the United States has not been attacked. A second is a small thing called the Constitution. Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?

TARANTO ON THE STEM CELL LEGISLATION

On balance, we suppose we're inclined to support the legislation. But the tone of the debate gives us second thoughts--in particular, this October 2004 quote from John Edwards:

"We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. . . . People like Chris Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem cell research."

When people who claim to be speaking out for science talk like faith healers, they risk discrediting the entire enterprise. By contrast, President Bush's approach to the question, as we noted five years ago, is nuanced and thoughtful.

Further, Bush's foes and the press frequently misstate his position, referring to a "ban on stem-cell research." In fact, the Bush policy places no restrictions on any kind of stem-cell research that does not receive federal money, or on federal funding of adult stem-cell research. It does limit federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research to those cell lines that were in existence at the time the policy was initiated, in August 2001, but prior to then there was no federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, so that the policy actually liberalized the conditions for federal research grants. Supporters of research subsidies are asking for a further liberalization, not a reversal of a "ban."

Why do people think that the government will somehow do the research better than private industry? If stem cells have promise then a risk-taker stands to be a billionaire.

Let's remember that government gains its power and influence from problems while individuals gain their power and influence from solutions. That's why schools struggle to educate kids and grocery stores have 30 varities of mustard.

HOW SANCTIONS ARE AS USELESS AS THE NEW YORK TIMES

After two weeks of testimony, a jury took only a few hours to convict a South Korean national, Tongsun Park, of acting as an unregistered agent of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The conspiracy of which he was a part ran for 10 years, ending in late 2002, and helped one of the world’s worst regimes maintain its grip on power.

But The New York Times did not assign a reporter to his trial, its total coverage amounting to a brief wire report on the day following Mr. Park’s conviction. Of the other major national dailies, The Washington Post ran a single news-brief item, the Los Angeles Times not a word.

Given the stakes—and what the Park trial clearly demonstrated about the seamier side of the U.N.—it hardly made sense.

The most innocent explanation is that the major newspapers had simply moved on to other things, frustrated by the apparent complexity and opacity of the oil-for-food scandal, of which the Korean fixer is only one colorful part.

But some critics contend there may have been another factor: a combination of sullenness and embarrassment on the part of what bloggers gleefully disdain as “the mainstream media.”

“The oil-for-food story began on the Op-Ed page of The Wall Street Journal. The U.N. denied it had done anything wrong for the longest time, and most of the press followed its lead,” said James Bone, New York correspondent of The Times of London. “Many of the major newspapers came to the story late and are embarrassed by it.”

The media spent the time leading up to the war saying it would be a bloodbath with thousands of Americans dying and months of fighting. When the Iraqi Army laid down like lambs, the media said that everyone knew the fighting would be easy, but re-building would be impossible because you cannot force democracy.

Since the Iraqis voted in greater numbers than Americans do the frame became Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam would have eventually fallen through the sanctions. This story shows that the sanctions only made Saddam stronger, not too unlike the way prohibition made Al Capone stronger.

Many in the media were quick to judge Bush's failure to see 9-11 coming, but they were in no way critical of Clinton's nonaction in the 1990s. It's easy to be a critic of a proactive plan, because any pencil pusher would do it differently. It's a simple economic question. You get more of the behavior you reward and less of the behavior you punish. While Bush fights terrorism I will do my part and not pay for the New York Times.

BLAIR AND BUSH at G8

A live microphone catches them unawares. . .

Bush: Yo Blair How are you doing?
Blair: I'm just...
Bush: You're leaving?
Blair: No, no, no not yet. On this trade thingy...[inaudible]
Bush: yeah I told that to the man
Blair: Are you planning to say that here or not?
Bush: If you want me to
Blair: Well, it's just that if the discussion arises...
Bush: I just want some movement.
Blair: Yeah
Bush: Yesterday we didn't see much movement
Blair: No, no, it may be that it's not, it maybe that it's impossible
Bush: I am prepared to say it
Blair: But it's just I think what we need to be an opposition
Bush: Who is introducing the trade
Blair: Angela
Bush: Tell her to call 'em
Blair: Yes
Bush: Tell her to put him on them on the spot.Thanks for [inaudbible] it's awfully thoughtful of you
Blair: It's a pleasure
Bush: I know you picked it out yourself
Blair: Oh, absoultely, in fact [inaudble]
Bush: What about Kofi [inaudible] his attitude to ceasefire and everything else ... happens
Blair: Yeah, no I think the [inaudible] is really difficult. We can't stop this unless you get this international business agreed.
Bush: Yeah
Blair: I don't know what you guys have talked about but as I say I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral
Bush: I think Condi is going to go pretty soon
Blair: But that's that's that's all that matters. But if you, you see it will take some time to get that together
Bush: Yeah, yeah
Blair: But at least it gives people...
Bush: It's a process, I agree. I told her your offer to...
Blair: Well...it's only if I mean... you know. If she's got a..., or if she needs the ground prepared as it were... Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk
Bush: You see, the ... thing is what they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over
Blair: [inaudible]
Bush: [inadubile]
Blair: Syria
Bush: Why?
Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing
Bush: Yeah.
Blair: What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way...
Bush: Yeah, yeah, he is sweet
Blair: He is honey. And that's what the whole thing is about. It's the same with Iraq
Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Bashad [Bashir Assad](9a and make something happen
Blair: Yeah
Bush: [inaudible]
Blair:
Bush: We are not blaming the Lebanese government
Blair: Is this...? (at this point Blair taps the microphone in front of him and the sound is cut.)

The close relationship hasn't been harmed by the media's negativity toward Iraq.

A History of Violence (A Movie Review)

Viggo Mortensen has an impressive range. Having recently seen him as the no-good brother in Sean Penn’s INDIAN RUNNER, you would think he would be forever typecast as the loser. Here he plays the mild-mannered husband, father and small businessman and he plays it note perfect. When his restaurant is invaded by gunmen, his defeat of those thugs is a great heroic movie moment. As the rest of the movie unfolds, Viggo’s range is tested as he reveals more of his true self. He should have been nominated.

Unlike other movies based on graphic novels such as Sin City, and The Road to Perdition, a History of Violence doesn’t have that overly stylized art direction that takes you out of the realness of the story. Cronenberg makes up for this by inventing his own things to take you out of the story. For instance, Maria Bello and Viggo Mortensen by their actions do not seem to have been together long enough to have produced a high school aged son. There is some sort of excitement between them that exists in the world of newness. It seems like he is just recently in her life or he just returned from war.

When the violence heats up, we expect as an audience to see some gore, but sometimes the gore we see is stylized in the slasher movie mode instead of the cops and robbers mode. It draws too much attention to that style and leads you away from the act.

But the only truly groaning preposterous part of the film is the affectedness of William Hurt’s performance. Of course, Hurt made his career playing the driest of leading men and his attempt to give a character some spice is so offbeat and comic it just doesn’t match the action happening simultaneously.

The last thing, though minor, is that the son overcomes a bully we're to believe because he is the son of Viggo and inherited the same prowess. The only problem is that the actor that plays the son isn't quite right for the kind of transformation and it seems forced rather than natural.

For all I know maybe these are elements of graphic novels that fans have long ago forgiven or even expected, but this was actually a good idea and a more decent story than the average movie and I think that those certain elements detract from the overall result.

It’s a bubble film for me. Sometimes I watch these movies again and they grow on me enough that I forgive the imperfections. Other times, the imperfections scream louder subsequent times and I write them off. I’m wondering where this one will take me.

I've seen FORREST GUMP on TV a few times in the last couple of years, and though it was a movie that I critical of the time, especially Hanks voice choice for the character, I have since come to admire and enjoy it. Go figure.

WEEKEND SPORTS

I watched or listened to most of the ladies Wimbledon matches yesterday as we were working on the rental house. Most interesting was the match between the diminutive (by Tennis standards) Justine Henin-Hardene and the 26th year old French player Severine Bremond. Bremond had to play three qualifying matches just to get into the tourney and then beat three higher ranked opponents to get to the Belgian born Hardene. The tenacious Hardene recently won the French Open and had won every major except for Wimbledon and this looks like her year and yet this unknown gave her the toughest match yet, 6-4,6-4. We also learn in the match that Severine didn’t take up tennis seriously until she was 18 (Tracy Austin won the U.S. Open at 16). If she were 19 or 20, they’d be talking her up as a rising star. Since she is already 26, was this her only chance?

On the men’s side it was tough seeing Andre Agassi losing in his last appearance. He’s become such a gracious player and good all around guy in ways the brash Connors and McEnroe never quite could, though I always liked both of those guys with the edge to Connors and his sweaty bangs. In that era, I use to bang a tennis ball against the garage door for hours letting my bangs hang over my eyes pretending to be Jimmy. American Tennis domination is over with Sampras and Agassi gone and Roddick not quite good enough to beat Nadal and Federer. Those two in the final as a rematch of the French Open would make great sport.

I haven’t played the game in a few years, because it sometimes inflames my back injury. Watching these past few weeks has made me begin to miss it again.

After Tennis I turned it over to the World Cup where Germany and Italy were trying to break the scoreless tie in their first overtime period. Though I immediately began rooting for Germany and their superior beer, Italy made things happen and scored two quick goals in the second overtime. I’m at least grateful that it didn’t end with an anti-climactic penalty kick.

American football doesn’t break a tie very well either, I think. I don’t like the NFL’s Sudden Death, because it comes down to a coin flip. College Football’s recent tie-breaker is even worse, because it can cause so much scoring that the final score doesn’t even reflect the overall experience of the game. Why not just play an entire quarter to decide the outcome? If that doesn’t work let it end in a tie.

OH SAY CAN YOU SING

Two thirds of Americans do not know the words of The Star Spangled Banner. And we care nothing about futbol. But we will whup anyone in a fair fight, until proven otherwise.

FLAG BURNING

This is just the kind of election year emotional issue that is supposed to distract us from issues like the Social Security insolvency and a war the press doesn’t support. It’s such a non-issue that I wonder how many people have actually even seen a person burn a flag in protest.

On the other hand, those against the amendment seem very worried that it’s a ban on speech. What bothers me is the same critics are usually quiet as mice when actual verbal speech is restricted. If we decide to stretch speech to mean any overt act of expression, then it seems that actual verbal speech (covered specifically in the constitution) has to be protected at the very least at equal levels. The campaign finance reform laws are a much more serious breach of the constitution than the protection of a few marginal characters that want to do something rebellious.

Those who love campaign finance reform because they think their side is under funded in the realm of campaign speech may also protect flag burners simple because they make up a part of their constituency. Instead of an amendment, maybe the Supreme Court needs to address the flag burning issue again and explain why flag burning is a more important political tool than the ability to promote the positives or negatives of a candidate for public office.

THE RULE OF FOUR (A Book Review)

I used to dream of a life of scholarship, sipping tea and reading the classics in my mountain cabin. My senior year of college, I signed up for Beginning Greek with that in mind. When I traveled across Europe during 1987-88, I'd spend hours in and around the large, ornate libraries and museums, just soaking in the majesty of old books, art, and architecture.

THE RULE OF FOUR, written by two best friends who at the time were recent Ivy League graduates, presents another view of that life, one marked by fanaticism, frustration, social isolation, and the single-minded pursuit of the accolades of a very small group of fellow academics whose interest in your work is motivated mostly by jealousy. The protagonist also finds that he can love his work or his lady with all his heart, but not both. Maybe the contemplative life is not so attractive after all.

The authors convey their love for, and application of, scholarship, but unfortunately I was looking for a good story, not a textbook, and I never found myself caring very much about the plot. Perhaps the youth of the authors limited the richness of the story. They captured quite well, for example, the rush a young man feels when a certain girl casts a certain glance wearing a certain sweater, but not the more mature emotions that sustain an enduring love.

2 stars (of 4)

3 NIGHTS IN AUGUST (A Book Review)

I usually try to read a baseball book every summer, and this year's WILD AND OUTSIDE left me wanting, so I picked up 3 NIGHTS IN AUGUST at O'Hare yesterday and finished it today, thanks to lengthy delays in Chicago caused by Cheney's visit.

About 70 pages in, I was thinking this book was displaying the intricacies and skill of writing about baseball more than it was actually writing about baseball -- that is, that the author was showing off his own abilities rather than showcasing the game or the manager on the cover. But by page 105, heading into Game 2 of the 3-game Cubs-Cardinals series, I was enjoying a very good baseball book in the tradition of Daniel Okrent's terrific NINE INNINGS. Author Buzz Bissinger (FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS) takes the same approach and pulls off the same result, albeit with a less colorful cast of characters.

3 NIGHTS is what every good baseball book is -- part history, part play-by-play, part personalities, part psychology, part humorous anecdote, part hero against the odds, and a big part pure old-fashioned love of the game.

Highlight Reel:

- Baseball is a game of such complexity, such unpredictability, such cruel surprises. The unlikeliness of a pitcher on a bad ankle, barely able to run, coming to bat three times and putting the ball in play three times with the game's outcome potentially on the line three times. The allure of the game is how, when you soak in it, you begin to appreciate how every little 3-game weekend series contains, and makes, so much history. Every game is a million storylines and every at-bat a strategic case study.

- At the time of this series, the Cards were in a virtual dead heat with the Cubs and the Astros in the NL Central. I so enjoyed the Cubs' bullpen blowing the second game of this series, the outcome of the third game hinging on a Cubs-lose collision at home plate, and knowing how the Cubs ultimately gave away the division and the wild card by tanking in late September, culminating in Sammy's infamous no-show at the season finale. Whenever I watch the Cubs, I always root for them to lose in some uniquely humiliating fashion. I don't know why. I don't root for any other team to lose like I root for the Cubs to lose. I guess I just think it's a more compelling story when a Curse remains intact. I would like it better if the Red Sox were still trying to beat the curse, year after heartbreaking year. Beating the curse is great for a day and then a great story is gone forever, and I mourn the loss.

- The depiction of Darryl Kile's death brought tears to my eyes, and the skewering of Jose Canseco as a self-serving slug made me laugh aloud. Awash in cash and far removed from the love of the game that still brings La Russa to the ballpark, Canseco wondered aloud in October 1990, "Why is it always us that has to go to the playoffs?" Managing today is not what it used to be: managers can preach there's no "I" in team, but players know there's an "m" and an "e" and that's how they get paid.

- Bissinger's scathing denunciation of MONEYBALL is worth a trip to Borders to read the Afterword.

Bloopers:

- The book is set in the 2003 season and was published after the 2004 season, so it lacks the historical perspective that makes ballplayer portraits so engaging in other books like this.

- The 2003 Cardinals were a talented but bland team. La Russa, Pujols, Rolen and company may have a lot to say but you'll never find out.

- The author at times gets a little too impressed with himself. This is good: "Morris steps off the mound and walks a few feet as Sosa rounds the bases, not dawdling, but not setting any speed records, adding his own tenderizer to the slab of beef that Morris just served up." This is not: "In his multiple roles of Doctor Phil, Doctor Ruth, and Doctor Seuss, La Russa wondered whether what Morris felt was pretty simple." What the hell does that mean? Mark Prior's sideburns are "so long and straight you could land an airplane on them"? That's just stupid.

All in all, a good solid read. Not a must read and not a waste of time.

3 stars (of 4).

HOMOPHOBIC? REALLY?

Lots of chat yesterday on the sport talk channels about Ozzie Guillen's "homophobic" epithet directed at a sportswriter he doesn't like. I haven't heard anyone contest that the remark was made, or that the target is indeed gay, so apparently the fact pattern is clear.

What I don't get is why the comment is necessarily "homophobic"? Derogatory, yes. In poor judgment, sure. In poor taste, okay. But why has every commentator made the leap from derogatory to homophobic? Are we really to believe that Ozzie is *afraid* of the fellow's sexual orientation? I rather doubt it. It's PC gone mad when jocks can't rip homos-- I mean, those who are born that way and did not choose alternate lifestyles, not that there's anything wrong with that-- in the locker room without taking an all-day beating in the press. Not that he should have, only that it's not that big a deal.

WHY LIBERALS FEAR GLOBAL WARMING MORE THAN CONSERVATIVES DO

A winning piece by Dennis Prager.

Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?

Here are six more likely explanations [than the "anti-big business, compassion for human life" reasons liberals typically give]:

-- The Left is prone to hysteria. The belief that global warming will destroy the world is but one of many hysterical notions held on the Left. As noted in a previous column devoted to the Left and hysteria, many on the Left have been hysterical about the dangers of the PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance of phone numbers (incipient fascism); secondhand smoke (killing vast numbers of people); drilling in the remotest area of Alaska (major environmental despoliation); and opposition to same-sex marriage (imminent Christian theocracy).

-- The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news sources report something, it is true. It is noteworthy that liberals, one of whose mottos is "question authority," so rarely question the authority of the mainstream media. Now, of course, conservatives, too, often believe mainstream media. But conservatives have other sources of news that enable them to achieve the liberal ideal of questioning authority. Whereas few liberals ever read non-liberal sources of information or listen to conservative talk radio, the great majority of conservatives are regularly exposed to liberal news, liberal editorials and liberal films, and they have also received many years of liberal education.

-- The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person, liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts -- such as when experts in biology explain the workings of mitochondria, or when experts in astronomy describe the moons of Jupiter. But for liberals, "expert" has come to mean far more than greater knowledge in a given area. It now means two additional things: One is that non-experts should defer to experts not only on matters of knowledge, but on matters of policy, as well. The second is that experts possess greater wisdom about life, not merely greater knowledge in their area of expertise.

-- People who don't confront the greatest evils will confront far lesser ones. Most humans know the world is morally disordered -- and socially conscious humans therefore try to fight what they deem to be most responsible for that disorder. The Right tends to fight human evil such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism. The Left avoids confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism. Global warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled and big business increases its profits.

-- The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature. A threat to the environment is regarded by many on the Left as a threat to what is most sacred to them, and therefore deemed to be the greatest threat humanity faces. The cover of Vanity Fair's recent "Special Green Issue" declared: "A Graver Threat Than Terrorism: Global Warming." Conservatives, more concerned with human evil, hold the very opposite view: Islamic terror is a far graver threat than global warming.

-- Leftists tend to fear dying more. That is one reason they are more exercised about our waging war against evil than about the evils committed by those we fight. The number of Iraqis and others Saddam Hussein murdered troubles the Left considerably less than even the remote possibility than they may one day die of global warming (or secondhand smoke).

One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.

ROBERTS ADVOCATES NARROW RULINGS AND CONSENSUS -- EGAD!!

E.J. Dionne speculates that Chief Justice John Roberts is going to be a big disappointment to conservatives.

I am repeatedly reminded of Plato's Republic when I read political commentary. Socrates argued that the philosophers should govern because, well, they're the smartest. Most pundits, both (D) and (R) still believe this. They fear the will of the people; they just want their own ideology to prevail. The people, after all, are too stupid to know what is good for them.

President Bush said he would appoint justices who would uphold the rule of law and not try to legislate (their own social agenda) from the bench. He must have said that a hundred times. Roberts takes the bench and says he will do that. What is the big surprise? And what is the threat? The primary task of the Supreme Court is to determine Constitutionality, not to comment on, and certainly not to redirect, legislative intent. These comments by Roberts are not inflammatory or disappointing -- they are exactly what any justice should say, and they are a profoundly positive step in the right direction for the Supreme Court.

Roberts' speech [last month at Georgetown] defended the virtues of judicial humility: Justices should try to make the narrowest possible rulings and strive for unanimity, or something close to it.

"If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more,'' Roberts said. Thus the Roberts Rule of Orderly Judging: The less the court decides the better.

And there was this corollary: "The broader the agreement among the justices, the more likely it is that the decision is on the narrowest possible ground.''

"The rule of law is strengthened,'' Roberts insisted, "when there is greater coherence and agreement about what the law is.''

AVERAGE AMERICAN MORE POWERFUL THAN SELF-ACTUALIZED FRENCHMAN

I suscribe to the wonderful travel magazine, "Budget Travel". Recently a reader sent in an incredible story. The reader stated that she and her husband were visiting France recently. They were leaving a restaurant after dinner when a fire broke out at nearby apartment complex. To their horror, a woman was hanging out over her balcony screaming for help. The heat became unbearable and she jumped only to have her leg caught in between the railing on the balcony below. She was hanging upside down screaming. The American woman/reader stated that she screamed, "Somebody do something!" To her surprise, her middle-age overweight husband, leapt into action. He scaled the two stories of the building on a fire escape, pulled the woman up and put her on his back. Then proceeded to scale back down when the upstairs windows exploded showering him with glass. Cut and bleeding, he did not drop the woman but successfully brought her down to the ground when (about 20 minutes later) fire rescue finally arrived.

As he was being treated for his cuts a French woman came over, "I knew you must be American by your white socks and courage. All the French men were standing around doing nothing while you risked your life for a women you didn't even know in a country that is not yours."

This letter really made me smile. Here is an average guy showing the great American spirit that is still alive and well....even in an overweight, middle-aged dude.

BRITISH ATTACKING BELIEFS OF HONEST AMERICAN

Recently I got this email from a crazy Brit:

Hi, just read an Amazon review of yours in which you use the phrase 'muddled left-wing environmentalism'. What's the connection? Why is environmentalism 'left wing' ? Why is a left-wing position muddled? And what's wrong with 'left-wing' per se anyhow? You associate with a Christian position, the message of Jesus is about compassion; you popagate the Divine, but the Divine is most immediately known in the (God created) environment around us. To oppose compassion is anti-Christian;to harm our environment is blasphemy. The real muddle seems to me to claim to be a Christian while dismissing political compassion (the 'left' in politics) & environmentalism (which works toward greater respect for God's creation. Wishing you light. J

What the????? Here is my reply:

My dear June:
Oh I completely agree! It is not wrong to love and care for the environment in any way. I am very much a conservationist in the Teddy Roosevelt mold. What I do not like about the left-wing environmentalist movement in this country is that it is mostly run by a bunch of city dwellers who have no respect for individual property rights (one of the many things we fought the British for back in the day). Further, current left-wing policy would place all property not now developed (including private land) into a kind of museum free from Human influence of any kind, which is utterly ridiculous. I do believe that humans are as much a part of this world as any animal and plant. We certainly have a duty not to destroy the world or vital habitat, but not at the expense of Jobs and Freedom! Finally, I have in no way connected my Christian beliefs to these political views. That is your projection. I'm a bit more complex than that. I recommend you read http://www.heritage.org/Press/Environmental-Policy.cfm for a more informed understanding of what is going on in this area. Further, are you writing me from England? If so, we kicked King George's butt one time on these issues, I guess we're going to have to do it again.
Sincerely yours,
W. Steven Saunders

'nuff said!

HANSON NAILS IT AGAIN

How could the war not be the defining issue in the next 2 elections? And how could the party that wants to lose the war possibly gain the support of a majority of Americans? I just don't see it happening.

The costs in Iraq have been high and the losses tragic. But nothing in the past three years has convinced me otherwise than that in a post-September 11 world Saddam had to be removed on ethical and strategic grounds;

or that the insurgency, though unexpected in its intensity, could be put down by a U.S. military that would react and evolve more quickly than the terrorists to changing conditions on the ground;

or that our mistakes, though several and undeniable, are tragically the stuff of war, and so far have not proved to be irreversible or beyond what we experienced in any of our past efforts;

or that the maligned secretary of Defense was right about troop levels and the plan for Iraqization — although demonized for trying to transform the very nature of the American military in the midst of a war;

or that we are engaged in the great humanitarian effort of the age, as “one person, one vote” has brought to the perennially downtrodden Arab Shiites a real chance at equality;

or that the best method of winning this global struggle against fascistic Islamic terrorism remains fostering in the Middle East a third democratic alternative between autocracy and theocracy that alone can deal with the modern world.

Once a democratically elected Iraqi government emerged, and a national army was trained, the only way we could lose this war was to forfeit it at home, through the influence of an adroit, loud minority of critics that for either base or misguided reasons really does wish us to lose. They really do.

BONDS GOES AIRBORNE

Bonds robbed a home run last night with a 6 inch vertical leap. Video at mlb.com.

CARS - A Movie Review

An exciting race scene at the beginning and another at the end. In between, more than an hour of tedious moralizing that kept stretching on and on, like the old lady doing 45 on the interstate that you're stuck behind and can't get around. It had one kid yawning and the other begging to go home. That the Pixar bar has been set so very high does not make this film any better.

CLEARING THE BASES by Mike Schmidt – (A book Review)

Bob Costas had a great HBO special in May about Steroid use. While his panel of Tim McCarver, Joe Margan and Bob Gibson each had varying sympathies for the players, they all admitted that steroids were bad for the game. Costas thinks that steroids are the second biggest blight on the history of the game following the pre-1947 segregation, because both factors resulted in baseball not having the equal and honest competition that it deserved.

Schmidt’s book is here to take advantage of the controversy by allowing a clean player to weigh in on the happenings. Like most jock books we get a synopsis of his career as a platform to lay his inside opinion on. I remember the 1980s Schmidt from the Pete Rose and Tug McGraw era. I knew little about his beginnings and I was glad he caught me up.

As well as giving a career capsule, Schmidt also explains early free agency starting with Curt Flood on into Catfish Hunter and Dave McNally. On the one hand, Schmidt says the players deserved their freedom of movement and the ability to earn as much as the market would bear. But he also thinks the frequent player movement has been a negative for baseball. This duality of thought is a common thread through the book. Now a lot of people have ambiguous emotions about the way baseball has changed over the years and you can’t fault Schmidt the person for not being sure which is the greater good, but the point of writing a book is to make a stand on the issues not just say that you’re torn between them. Which is better Mike, free movement or guys staying put?

He was on record as saying in the past that if steroids were available in his day he would have used them. He now says that the comment was off the cuff and he wouldn’t have. Steroids are ruinous to the game, he says. But then he explains that the increase in home run production is just as much a result of a tighter wound and fresher balls, and smaller ballparks. So the real culprit can be whatever we want it to be.

The most interesting story is Schmidt’s relationship with Pete Rose. Schmidt started intervening with Bud Selig a few years back and even brought Rose to Selig so that Rose could admit he bet on baseball. Schmidt says that Selig was happy for the admission, but less than impressed with Rose’s lack of emotion over the confession. Selig wanted Rose to feel badly, I guess. Though Rose still had a shot with Selig, his chances were ruined around the time Pete’s book was due to come out. The early leak of the book coincided with the HOF announcements where the Rose news overshadowed Selig’s buddy Paul Molitor being enshrined. DOOM!

I suppose the title is Schmidt's play on clearing the air with his thoughts, but I think Schmidt shouldn't have written the book until he could make some more definitive value judgements.

These are the kinds of books I grew up on, and the ones that taught me a love of reading, although they were mostly written by the likes of Sparky Lyle and Graig Nettles. They usually leave me less than excited these days. The only one from the last few years that stands out is the one written by Jim Kaat.

PCU - Politically Correct University (1994) - A movie review

Puritanism has never been dead in America. It just takes different forms at different times. It’s an attitude more so than a belief system. It lives in people that insist the world be fashioned to their own pure standard. In Salem, women were burned as witches for not adhering. In New York City men cannot smoke a cigar in a tavern without the threat of arrest. In college campuses, students are expelled for holding affirmative action bake sales. Larger forms are the drug war and the Kyoto Treaty.

Those on the left that abhor Salem and even liken it to McCarthyism have no insight into their own Puritanism. Because what is Political Correctness other than an insistence of a pure adherence to today’s version of enlightenment? The reason you cannot smoke in a New York City bar comes from the same thinking that made the colonials dress modestly, both were designed to protect the body, although from different things. The students expelled for holding an affirmative action bake sale were performing a sacrilege against the latest tenant of secular divinity. So brings us to the slight and mostly forgotten movie, PCU.

Trish remembered this movie fondly from college and although I never had any interest in it, I was busy cooking and didn’t squawk when she put it on. I tried to simply ignore it, but I found myself laughing more than once. It was in some ways typical, but in other ways it showed a boldness.

It’s the only movie I have ever seen that treats the self-important PC groups as the intolerant and self-righteous creeps that they are. All the usual complaint groups are marching around campus as you’d expect they would be while a group of good-time Charlies led by Jeremy Piven do everything they can to disrupt these pretentious bastards. Piven and Co. are the heroes we already know from Animal House. They care little about school, but they like a good time and these PCers are ruining the fun around campus. The first act of rebelliousness is early on when the vegetarians are marching against the evils of meat and Piven’s gang lies waiting at the top of a building and then flings raw hamburger meat upon them, gross and yet not unappreciated by the audience.

Another explanation for the rebelliousness is that Piven’s one-time girlfriend is a member of the marching anti-men feminists. She’s lambasted early by another fem for having a relationship with that pig, but you can tell that she still likes him and is only going through the motions of sanctimonious. We know that Piven will win her back amidst the other chaos that is soon to follow.

Jessica Walter (Play Misty for Me) is the Dean of students that is trying to kick Piven’s crew out of school ala Animal House. And this is where the movie takes a Hollywood turn. David Spade leads the group of prep school types. He’s singled out as a “Republican” and he plans to help Walter get the Pivens kicked off campus. Not once in the film do Spade and his Republicans ever comment on the PC nature of the campus, instead they are solely designed to be the arch enemy of “libertarian” Piven and Co. I suppose this was the trade-off for getting the movie made. You can make fun of all the excessive PC groups as long as the real villain is still a Republican. That the Republicans and Piven would rather fight among themselves than find alliance against the totalitarians of correct thought is funnier than flinging the meat, because it's such a twister stretch for a writer.

Peter Biskind wrote a book about the politics of 1950s cinema that is quite fascinating. He looks at classic films, but also at popular films and cult films. He analyzes the different kinds of approaches taken by authority figures and places those attitudes into groups. If I were to write a movie about cinema in the 1990s, I would certainly include this movie because it gets to the heart of the era. Not only does it capture the shrillness of PC groups in a way that will probably never be tackled again, but it exposes the knee-jerk anti-conservative response of Hollywood on any subject.

PCU ends with the PC groups coming to their senses as Piven and Co. share in a George Clinton concert. The PC groups just needed to find their fun inner child, while the conservatives will never be fun. It’s significant because it shows that modern Hollywood values are less based on beliefs than attitudes. Anything conservative must be suspect, even their own conservative inclinations. Reaching out to the most anti-social liberals is more favorable than making common cause with those that they actually agree with.

The late Dick Schaap was on Crossfire in the early 1990s. The topic may have been what to do with Tonya Harding following the Kerrigan incident. Schaap and Buchanan agreed that Harding should be kicked off the team, but Schaap was so upset that he agreed with Pat, he kept insulting Pat by the way he kept saying he can’t believe he’s agreeing with him on anything and implying that Pat was a fool. I remember more about Schaap’s embarrassment than I do anything else. The same emotion was present here and therefore resolved in a most unrealistic way.

MURTHA

I recently spent an afternoon in Murtha's district with a couple we know who live there. They told us that Murtha's political success in that district, a rural, decaying area east of Pittsburgh, has been based on his ability to secure defense contracts for local companies. So Mr. Anti-War makes his living off military spending. Zell Miller was right -- our political system is totally corrupt.

UPDATE:

I missed this in Friday's news.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rep. John Murtha, an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, unexpectedly announced on Friday he will run for the No. 2 leadership post in the U.S. House of Representatives if Democrats regain control of that chamber in elections this fall.

"If we prevail as I hope and know we will and return to the majority this next Congress, I have decided to run for the open seat of the majority leader," Murtha, a Pennsylvanian, said in a letter sent to House Democrats.

HGH

Roger Cossack provides a tidy summary of what's going on with the feds searching Jason Grimsley's house.

I am on record, though perhaps not on this blog, as saying that Bonds would pass Ruth but would be indicted on perjury or tax evasion charges, effectively ending his career long before challenging Aaron. I stand by that prediction.

MUSLIMS FALSELY ACCUSED

It's not like it's terrorism, it's just some fake documents and a few thousand pounds of explosives. What's a little criminal activity among adherents of the religion of peace?

I don't know why it keeps surprising me how deeply you have to go into these AP stories to find out all 17 suspects are Muslims.

The suspects lived in either Toronto, Canada's financial capital and largest city, or the nearby cities of Mississauga or Kingston.

Also at the court hearing was Aly Hindy, an imam of an Islamic center that houses a school and a mosque and has been monitored by security agencies for years. He said he knows nine of the suspects and that Muslims once again were being falsely accused.

"It's not terrorism. It could be some criminal activity with a few guys, that's all," said Hindy. "We are the ones always accused. Somebody fakes a document and they are an international terrorist forging documents for al-Qaida."

MUNICH (2005) – A Movie Review

Steven Spielberg’s great downfall is that he has sold his own talents too short and has spent too much of the latter part of his career trying to make “important” message pictures. Thank God Alfred Hitchcock never fell for such trappings. Spielberg doesn’t seem to understand that yes message pictures win Oscars, but that hacks can make message pictures. What other director could have made JAWS or RAIDERS as well as Spielberg? And when he makes these pictures he never seems to want to let them stand on their own. Even his better “important” pictures are ruined by Spielberg’s comments. The schmaltz that works for ET or Close Encounters is just a part of Spielberg and it winds up in everything. For instance, the real life ending of Schindler’s was a kick in the suit pants to say look this is important just in case you didn’t figure it out already. The opening of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN begins in modern-day Normandy so that we can later reflect on the importance of the saving. Give us some credit. Both were needless and became a substitute for the viewer’s ability to add his/her own importance to the events. In Munich the DVD allows you to watch a special introduction by Steven Spielberg. I could not even stomach the idea. If he made the movie correctly then it wouldn’t need a special introduction.

The two main drawbacks for me going in were the slow pace I read about and the source material “Vengeance” that’s factual content is widely disputed. It didn’t help either that Spielberg gave the impression in a number of interviews that the Palestinians haven’t been heard enough, followed later contradictory comments that he himself would die for Israel. The good news is that it’s a very human story and the pace is somewhat slow but not terrible. And although the Israeli hit squad members come away shaken by the act of vengeance, I didn’t stop rooting for them. Yeah some members may question their own actions and that is supposed to make us think about “what hast vengeance wrought,” but you are still allowed to make up your own mind. The Israeli government official played by the great Geoffrey Rush is sort of a heavy in his bureaucratic way, but I didn’t hate him either. I enjoyed the planning and execution of the retribution and the way the human elements were sprinkled within. Spielberg waits the whole movie to finally show us how the Israeli Olympic Team is murdered and he does it inter cut with our hero Eric Bana is flagrante delicto. Some may see that as artsy, but I found it disturbing when you think about how the victims were real people with living relatives. There were more subtle ways I think to show Bana breaking down. Do you think the parallel action is described that way in the book?

So, in short, I liked Munich more than I thought, but Spielberg’s pretentious phase still irks me.

GRIZZLY MAN (2005) – A Movie Review

One of the recurrent themes in Werner Herzog’s work is extreme obsession. The Klaus Kinski characters in AGUIRRE and FITZCARRALDO are good examples. Herzog’s own documentary MY BEST FIEND about his troubled relationship with Kinski the actor demonstrates some sort of an obsession of Herzog’s to risk the dangerous fire of Kinski to produce a greater work of art. That said, I don’t know how the 100 hours of videotape shot by grizzlyman Timothy Treawell wound up in the hands of Herzog, but there is hardly another filmmaker could have gotten more out of it.

A lot of documentaries try to refrain from editorializing the lives of their main characters with their own voice. They usually do so through their use of footage. Herzog is different. He develops strong opinions of what he’s seen and he delivers those thoughts at the end as if he were just another audience member watching these things unfold with us.

I think the typical and weaker choice with this material would have been to paint Treadwell as a misunderstood, ahead-of-his-time outsider. If portrait documentaries fall into any particular cliché then this is it. The filmmakers are so many times dying to tell you why their subject is enlightened and unusual in the ways of the world as we know it. Even if we don’t like their subject, we’re made to admit that he is a mad genius at the least. Herzog makes the stronger choice here of plainly saying that Treadwell read benevolence and reciprocal caring into an indifferent animal that only saw him as food. He does so over a close-up shot of a bear giving us a blank stare. Treadwell loved the Bears and the bears merely tolerated him until the fish ran out.

I also like that Herzog traces Treadwell back to his acting ambitions and failures that seem to leave the man as a wannabee Marlin Perkins soap boxing to save animals that aren’t really in the kind of danger he suggests. It removes any myth that the guy was any kind of singular phenomenon, but a regular guy driven by an obsession that costs him the ultimate price.

Herzog has in his possession a video tape of Treadwell and his girlfriend being mauled and eaten by the bear. He tells us that the attack happened so quickly that Treadwell gets the camera turned on, but he doesn’t remove the dust cap in time so that all you can hear is the yelling and the girlfriend pounding the bear with a frying pan before she too succumbs to his appetite. Instead of playing the audio, Herzog plays this tape wearing headphones in front of Treadwell’s friend and heir. He gives her play by play of what he hears and then gives her the tape and suggests that she never listen to it and that she should destroy it. Even if the tape was hard to understand, hardly a filmmaker would have missed the exploitive choice to play it for us. Herzog instead inserts himself into the drama and puts the moral question to Treadwell’s friend. It’s troublesome because it seems a bit staged, but what he tries to do dramatically by passing the dilemma to her is an interesting idea.

One running theme from Treadwell’s discussion with the camera is that he loves the bears to the point that he would never hurt them and he’s prepared to die for them. He’s obsessed with anyone else who comes within his sphere and when some men do, he convinces himself that he is all that stands between the man and the animal. And as Treadwell fails to become the martyr from hunters after years in the attempt, he begins to suggest that he’ll be just as much a martyr if he dies at the hand of the animals themselves. It’s just the kind of illogical and obsessive idea that must have drawn Herzog to the project. Treadwell’s obsession with martyrdom means he will get there anyway he can. So Herzog uses interviews and the footage to show how Treadwell changed his mind and returned to the wilderness in 2003 past his usual time into the fall where the bears that knew him were in hibernation and strange bears fighting for a short food supply would be even more dangerous. He then gives us Treadwell’s last standup hours before his death in which he alludes to his possible death and kind if lingers on camera past his purpose like a man might stare one last time at his wife before going to war.

Instead of falling into the dramatic trap that it all has to have some meaning, Herzog goes to lengths to show us that his death was probably purposeful and entirely meaningless or just the opposite of the obsessive plan. Herzog does not let stand any pretense that the mauling had meaning outside of his friends that are sad that he is gone. His choice as a filmmaker made me re-evaluate how other people’s stories are fed through the documentary machine to create heroes and strange charming characters. GRIZZLY MAN, if nothing else, will change the way I examine other nonfiction films.

MAKING THEM LEGALS

Bob Novak exposes a couple of things in the Senate Bill that sound ill-advised.

*It extends the Davis-Bacon Act's requirement for the payment of ''prevailing wage'' to all temporary guest workers. That puts them ahead of Americans, who have this protection only on federal job sites.

*Foreign guest farm workers, admitted under the bill, cannot be ''terminated from employment by any employer ... except for just cause.'' In contrast, American ag workers can be fired for any reason.

The best thing about the illegals is their ability to work cheaply and off the books. Law enforcement and the media have been quiet about this undercurrent up until now. Once they are legitimized they no longer will be performing cheap services, but they will be paraded and victims of oppression. Who do you think foots the bill for their social services then?

THE SQUANDERER

For the last few years and more times recently I've been hearing, "Bush squandered the goodwill of the world post 9-11 by invading Iraq." Now what exactly were we going to do with that goodwill? They contend that those countries would have helped us with intelligence had we been meek. To which I ask, which countries have been holding back? The goodwill of the world counts for very little if they won't stand side by side with you in the field of battle.

The statement is really about a personality type that in some ways enjoys pain, suffering and empathy from others. Some people need the goodwill of the world to feel good about themselves. Some citizens of the world are uncomfortable with America's rube patriot element. A war doesn't need a popularity contest to proceed but a united country no longer willing to be victim.

Those Americans uncomfortable with American power and assertiveness have used the setbacks in the war to yell louder for our withdrawal. But where would we be in this war without the battlefield of Iraq? How could we have brought so many al Qaeda to one single place to fight? How do we know the absence of Iraq wouldn't have given them more time to plan another attack here? Would anyone have predicted that we could have gone this long without another attack on American soil?

The only ones that want us out of Iraq more than the Democrats are the terrorists. Some would rather be battered and have the goodwill of the world than the appearance of American superiority. It's under this very psychology of offering a capitulation that made Neville Chamberlain a hero shortly before proven a goat.

ILLEGALS

I missed Bush's speech last night, but the talk that I've heard about it made me realize that everyone is looking for the perfect middle ground. Bush's talk about guest worker programs and paths to citizenship I think mistakes two separate issues.

Here's the solution I thought of this morning. Two tracks. You have a guest worker track. People can stay in this country as long as they have an employer that wants to hire them if they fill out the resident alien paperwork. They will pay taxes and receive absolutely no government services. If they want to educate their kids, their employers use it as a work incentive with the money they are saving by hiring cheap labor.

If Resident Aliens want to become citizens they have to leave the United States and get into line. No preferences to who their employer was and they have to wait a minimum of three years before returning. A sacrifice yes, but no more than the sacrifice that college students go through when they wait four additional years to enter the job market for better prospects.

Anyone caught working in the United States without their resident alien card will be fingerprinted, deported and tracked by the by the FBI and NEVER be allowed citizenship. The company that employs such a worker will be fined.

That way aliens get to choose whether they want a job now or to be an American later. Successful people we know have the ability to delay gratification because they can see the big picture. The result is that the added workers will help our tax base without straining government resources while the individuals that will make the best citizens have the best opportunity to become citizens. The decision and responsibility will lie squarely on the individual and not some arbitrary government rule.

CAPOTE (2005) (A Movie Review)

The trick in bringing a biography to the screen is getting the human being right and using the real details to interpret motivation and events. I lately criticized TUCKER because the over-the-top style served as a mask for the real man, a charlatan. Coppola decided to remove any complexity or ambiguity from the character so that Tucker is idealistic and harmless and the real villains could be the powerbrokers. In lesser hands, CAPOTE could have centered on the wit and charm and New York nightlife and Truman could have been simply a cartoon like Tucker with ability for prose. Writing IN COLD BLOOD could have simply been Capote finding his soul, a dual struggle of the homosexual and the criminal trying to find a place in backwards America. Those were the easy and usual choices and about what we could expect from a typical Hollywood film.

Luckily, these filmmakers find a much better central conflict in the story. Is Capote and artist or a humanitarian? George Clooney’s famous Oscar speech in March addressed this issue and told us of all the great humanitarian things Hollywood is responsible for. Clooney didn’t say that Hollywood chose humanitarianism over artistry. He doesn’t think the two are exclusive. But Hollywood is more comfortable being humanitarian, because you get quick credit for that while being a real artist mostly goes unnoticed.

Truman Capote's first struggle in CAPOTE is simply writing the story. The locals are less than helpful and the murderers won’t talk with anyone. He has no qualms about keeping the murderers alive long enough to get their story on paper. He has no qualms about wanting them to die once he does. The climax is the realization that his lack of effort contributes to kiler's ultimate execution. How much this bothered the real Capote, I don’t know. But the filmmakers do a great job of making this the doing of Capote’s fame as an artist and the undoing of Capote as a human being. It’s a much bolder choice than we expect from the average Hollywood film that often times create super villains that our heroes either defeat (ala James Bond) or succumb to (ala CONSTANT GARDENR).

It don’t mean to say that they nailed the real Truman Capote. I think don’t think any movie every fully nails a real person, even documentaries only show you the impressions that the filmmakers want to display. For instance unlike Normal Mailer who has spent most of his life trying to outdo his most important work, Capote didn’t try. Capote instead settled into celebrity and socialite. He spent his last years on the talk show circuit drinking himself to death. The written epilogue at the end of the movie suggests that this experience is what “ruined” the artist. That’s an interpretation and wholly valid within the known facts. It fits the theme rather than a party-line.

In contrast, George Clooney brings Edward R. Murrow to life in an amusing and interesting way, but he’s not really interested in honestly exploring Murrow’s motivations behind his exposure of McCarthy. He just uses McCarthy to make his point that the red scare of the 1950s was bogus and people were terribly ruined for nothing. In fact, the real Murrow’s exposure of McCarthy wasn’t about the validity of the communist threat, but about demagoguery alone. Whatever his politics, Murrow was an anti-communist himself to the point that he later regretted making a documentary about the plight of rural America that the Soviets would later use as their own anti-American propaganda. Only a few years after Clooney’s events, the real Murrow went to work for the U.S. government and helped craft pro-American messages. Instead of choosing an interesting man bites dog angle, Clooney stops at the point his intended message is disseminated. The Clooney movie turns with the subplot of the colleague who is beleaguered by the Times Columnist and eventually commits suicide. I don’t know the real history here, but I know by the way it’s presented that something is being left out. Whether the character is fiction, a composite or whether the co-worker had other mitigating issues, no healthy and innocent person commits suicide because of unfair press. This is the only hinted at motivation for Murrow and it's weak pillar once you examine it.

In contrast, whether true or not CAPOTE's conclusion that suggests that the harrowing experience of writing IN COLD BLOOD ruined Capote is consistent with his self-destruction, even if Capote’s demise can be read by others as a result of ego, hubris, and alcoholism. Here’s a guy who alienated many of the people he once included as friends after he published some magazine excerpts from a book he was writing society-life. In contrast, it’s very hard to think that the Murrow at the end of Clooney’s movie could become a spokesman for anti-communism or regret what the Soviets would do with his work. Therefore, the movie rests simply as a message vehicle that arrives at its intended destination but can nary drive 2 feet forward from there.

One of the illusions that Hollywood falls for is that comedy is entertainment and drama is art. Many would say that OCEANS 11 is entertainment and GOOD NIGHT is art, but in actuality both films are aimed at entertainment, the difference is that OCEAN'S is designed for box office and GOOD NIGHT for recognition. Both are directed squarely at a specific audience and they both hit their target. The popcorn movie fan responded exactly the same with his dollars like the leftward leaning Academy member did with his vote. If you don't enter GOOD MIGHT with the idea that the red scare was bad, you are given two reasons to start thinking so, Murrow's co-worker was driven to suicide and McCarthy was overbearing. So you are either already converted to that thought or you're supposed to use your emotions to climb aboard. I don't know how that's any different than responding to OCEAN'S with the emotion of momentary happiness that laughter brings.

Maybe it’s possible to begin as an artist and by accident unleash a trendy message along the way, but for the true artist it should be akin to digging rocks out of a yard and happening upon a $10 bill. I cannot say that CAPOTE is art itself, but it’s certainly on a path to art if nothing else, and the lesson it teaches about art is a minority voice in the community from which it comes. Although my viewed list from 2005 is hardly exhausted, I think it’s the best film of the year.

HUMMER BUMMER

I have to laugh (in here) every time I see a Hummer on the road these days. Of course no one needs a Hummer - that's not the point. People who drive Hummers drive Hummers because they want people to see them driving their Hummers. Now with gas so expensive, Hummer drivers have become the laughingstocks of the road with their 6 miles per gallon and their giant monstrosities that they can't resell. So instead of me looking at them and thinking, whoa, cool Hummer, I think, you dope!

PHOENIX

I was there once as a kid. Trish has two college friends that live there now. One is married. The other was married this past weekend. We went. She left early in the week and I went late Thursday on Southwest with a stop in St. Louis. We were supposed to stay on the plane and pick up more passengers. They made us exit our week-old plane for a non-specific reason and another plane flying in from Omaha took us to Phoenix. The first plane smelled a lot newer.

Although we were sent to another plane, we kept the stewardesses. They were funny. When we landed near 11pm, the PA stewardess said that if we were connecting to another flight that we should fire our travel agent. The pilot kept giving us updates from game 6 between the Lakers and Suns. During the flight I read this book about a guy who runs super marathons. He once ran a relay race where he was all ten teams. It was 150 miles long. He consumed 27,000 calories during the run. His wife puts up with it.

Phoenix has grown since I was a kid. They have things like Borders bookstores these days. After I won some money playing poker at the Indian Casino in Scottsdale (see The Nuts), I almost bought Barry Greenstein’s book, but then I remembered that it was nearly $10 cheaper online. Waste not, want not. I read a little about Barry while Trish bought a new dress for the wedding. The one she brought was too light for a windy day on top of a mountain. Barry said some things I have never heard a poker player talk about, good common sense things. The one that sticks out most is that poor poker players aren’t necessarily stupid, the ones playing the bigger stakes were smart enough to make their money some other way but they just aren’t poker savvy. I don’t know how that is supposed to help me win, but it made me want to buy the book anyway.

The rehearsal dinner was at a local Italian pizza joint and the food was very authentic. We sat next to a groomsman from Milwaukee. We had the same question for the waitress, what is Italian Beef? She didn’t know either. It was put on the menu especially for the rehearsal dinner. She left for the kitchen and returned to tell us that it was beef with Italian seasoning. I still wasn’t sure what that meant, but ordered it anyway. Turns out that Italian beef on this particular night was filet Mignon with squash and asparagus. Those who ordered the spaghetti marinara missed out. The groomsman from Milwaukee said he had to give the best man speech or that all the groomsmen were teaming up to do so. He didn’t know what to say and asked advice. I told him to start off with a funny story about his friendship with Bill and then end with something more heartwarming. We joked about it for a while although he took the advice the next night. I wish I remembered what he said.

After dinner we went to this old restaurant for martinis. It reminded me of Chasen’s of Hollywood that I saw in the documentary THE LAST DAYS OF CHASENS. You entered from the back through the kitchen like in Goodfellas or Swingers. The kitchen staff was welcoming albeit busy. Empty tables everywhere but we couldn’t sit. In fact, they were a little peeved that we just came to drink. They made us give up our barstools to dinner guests.

I woke up at 6am the day of the wedding. My body clock screamed 9am. I got a paper and checked out the American League East Standings and Real Estate. Homes are priced at about the same rate as Orlando. Trish and I drove to Taliesin West, the winter home of Frank Lloyd Wright during his last 20 years. The property began as a camp and his apprentices built the entire compound from Wright’s plans. Apprentices still today live on the property and graduate with an accredited degree in architecture. They live in tents their first year as they construct their own dorm rooms. We could have toured their houses, but instead chose to see the Wright private quarters.

After our 90 minutes of Wright, we met Tricia’s cousin Amy, her husband and two boys for lunch. The 4-year old Caden had already been to tee-ball and swim lessons that morning. The year old Jase had already thrown up all over the kitchen. They were good people and the boys were spirited and sweet. Caden did not want any part of chips and salsa and he didn’t like the menu choices. The kid needed a hot dog. I was a hero for pointing out the grilled cheese on another part of the menu remembering that I lived off of them as a kid. The light-eating Caden ate half of it. His mother told us he weighs 27 pounds. Brother Jase, a week from his first birthday weighs 17 pounds and all 17 of those pounds were pounding the rice they ordered for him. He would ball it up in his hands and put one in his mouth and the other on the floor. What our dog would have given to spend one supper at their house. After lunch and that aforementioned shopping trip, I needed a nap before the ceremony.

The wedding was at the Hilton on a Hilltop. The chosen spot looked straight through the valley and onto Downtown with the mountains sitting gladly behind like they were built by a Hollywood set director to finish the picture. It was windy. It was hot. The ceremony was short and very American. The Anglo groom marrying the Asian bride with a black minister, a mariachi band playing background and Navaho poem read for good measure. E Pluribus Unum. I should say that Trish was also a reader on this day and although she hates speaking in public, she gave it real heart.

A great many of the guests were lawyers and one guy told me flat out that Bush should be impeached for the wiretapping business.

What about Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus or FDR interning the Japanese? Our lawyer said that history has concluded that they were both wrong. Ah, but wouldn’t Congress have been equally wrong to impeach either of them considering their importance to history? But Bush isn’t important to history says my lawyer. Iraq was a mistake and Clinton or Gore would have invaded Afghanistan after 9-11.

How can you be so sure, I say? We were attacked 4 times during Clinton’s presidency and he did little in the way of response. Even so, Bush lied about why we were going into Iraq, said my lawyer. I remember he said that Saddam was a bad man and was terrible to his people. That’s not enough of a reason to invade a country he replied. Then why did we send troops to Haiti and Bosnia?

Bush lied about the weapons of Mass Destruction, the lawyer tells me. Do you mean the sarin gas they found that would kill 500,000 people or the British intelligence report that they were trying to buy Yellow Cake in Africa? Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 says the lawyer. Like Hilter had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor says me.

Bush should have gotten permission from a judge to tap people’s phones, he continues. I ask what makes an unelected judge so special. It’s the checks and balances system in the constitution, he says. But I ask why a judge is the last word. Why not the equally un-elected CIA official?

He says that judges stand up for the constitution. Like they stood up for the first amendment when the Campaign Finance Laws were passed, I enquire. Ruling on constitutional points is their job according to the constitution, he tells me. According to the constitution or according to John Marshall, I ask. Well thank god for Marshall, he says. Or otherwise we’d need fewer lawyers, I quip.

Take this gay marriage proposal, he continues. It’s unconstitutional to not allow gay marriage.

What about polygamy then? Is that unconstitutional?

Well that’s a different case, he says. You can’t have guys marrying their sisters. Or is that something else?

It’s when you have more than one wife, I say.

Well, I’m not sure about that, but I’m sure gay marriage is constitutional because you can’t legislate morality, he concludes.

Whose morality? The war on poverty or giving free prescription drugs to old people and ultimately universal health care is a morality question that doesn’t bother the Left. And both sides of the capital punishment debate cite morality as well. Without morality, which laws would be left standing?

It went on like this for a while as a mental exercise simply to see how well I could debate a member of the bar. It was good fun and he seemed like a decent guy, although I think it took enough out of the both of us.

Trish and I made our way outside after sunset and the cool breeze and night sky were glorious. The mountains beyond downtown had mostly disappeared but the lights gave the valley a whole new look. I noticed that mountain to our East had a few houses lit up. A local told us that you weren’t really allowed to build on those mountains anymore, but a few people were grandfathered in. It looked like a nice view and a pain-in-the-ass commute. Oh, don’t worry she said. I don’t think anyone that lives up there has to work.

A bridesmaid’s husband said that he interned for Senator Kyl years back though he didn’t share his politics. He did admire Kyl for being an honest and direct man. The guy was worth a good deal of money and still drove a 1989 Chevy suburban that must have been leaking gas. He hated riding with Kyl because the gas smell bothered him. He would complain to John about buying a new car, but Kyl said he liked the way the Suburban rode.

I asked if he had ever met Barry Goldwater and he said that Goldwater spoke to his 6th grade class. He personally asked Goldwater if he would ever run for President again and Goldwater said no. He said that Goldwater lived along Camelback road and pointed in the general direction. He said McCain’s house was in the dark patch between us and downtown. He was invited there once for some event maybe it related to his work for Senator Kyl. Kyl, everyone thought, lived in or near Tucson.

Why did a city such a Phoenix grow up in the middle of the desert, I asked someone that night. I was the told the Salt River was probably the reason. I never got to see the river. It’s thought that Phoenix is now the 5th largest city in America having surpassed Philadelphia since the last census, though the metropolitan area alone is outside the top ten. This is especially interesting since Phoenix is a post Civil War phenomenon, the city is not even 150 years old.

I could have sat out on that balcony in the cool breeze and looked at the Phoenix valley all night long, alone or in conversation. The desert sometimes seems desolate and lonely, but I know what Glenn Fry meant by the Peaceful Easy Feeling. At night and with the lights down below it isn’t so bad.

A cheer to Patty and Bill and the memory of a short jaunt to Phoenix.

SOUND BYTE CITY

I was tuning around last night and caught O'Reilly debating what language the Star Spangled banner should be sung in. Senator Lamarr Alexander and someone from the Cato Institute squared off. Last week when I first heard the media making a big deal out of the fact that someone has sung it in Spanish, I figured that it had already been done two dozen times before. Then the media started asking politicians about it and watch out.

I realized the media had finally given the politicians a superficial way to debate the illegal alien issue. Instead of enforcing the borders they can simply stand up for an English language version of the National Anthem. It's easier than having to do any work. I'll admit that I have never like Alexander all the way back to his days with the phony plaid shirt, I'm one of the people, nonsense. He so reminds me of that guy who use to host a show on the Gulf Breeze cable station. But hearing him talk last night made me realize what an opportunistic punk he is. Use that hot air to enforce the law and let people sing what they may.

SWEET LOU

Louis Rukeyser, a best-selling author, columnist, lecturer and television host who delivered pun-filled, commonsense commentary on complicated business and economic news, died Tuesday. He was 73.

As host of "Wall $treet Week With Louis Rukeyser" on public TV from 1970 until 2002, Rukeyser took a wry approach to the ups and downs in the marketplace and urged guests to avoid jargon. He brought finance and economics to ordinary viewers and investors, and was rewarded with the largest audience in the history of financial journalism.

Back in the old days before we had cable, Dad would watch Wall Street Week on PBS every Friday night. He would get irked waiting for Washington Week in Review to be done with. Dad said that the real action happened on Wall Street and that they should end the Washington show and give Lou a whole hour. Dad would get excited on the nights that Marty Zweig or Stand Weinstein were guests.

Lou would start off with a witty recap of the week that Dad loved and Mom hated. Much of it was over my head, as were the topics and opinions of the guests, but these were the days before CNBC and CNNfn. You could read Barrons and the Journal, but the only TV venue was Wall Street Week. How times change.

SHELBY STEELE

Via the Corner.

Anti-Americanism, whether in Europe or on the American left, works by the mechanism of white guilt. It stigmatizes America with all the imperialistic and racist ugliness of the white Western past so that America becomes a kind of straw man, a construct of Western sin. (The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons were the focus of such stigmatization campaigns.) Once the stigma is in place, one need only be anti-American in order to be "good," in order to have an automatic moral legitimacy and power in relation to America. (People as seemingly desperate as President Jacques Chirac and the Rev. Al Sharpton are devoted pursuers of the moral high ground to be had in anti-Americanism.) This formula is the most dependable source of power for today's international left. Virtue and power by mere anti-Americanism. And it is all the more appealing since, unlike real virtues, it requires no sacrifice or effort--only outrage at every slight echo of the imperialist past.

Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so.

He nailed it. But he's not done.

Europeans are utterly confounded by the swelling Muslim populations in their midst. America has run from its own mounting immigration problem for decades, and even today, after finally taking up the issue, our government seems entirely flummoxed. White guilt is a vacuum of moral authority visited on the present by the shames of the past. In the abstract it seems a slight thing, almost irrelevant, an unconvincing proposition. Yet a society as enormously powerful as America lacks the authority to ask its most brilliant, wealthy and superbly educated minority students to compete freely for college admission with poor whites who lack all these things. Just can't do it.

Whether the problem is race relations, education, immigration or war, white guilt imposes so much minimalism and restraint that our worst problems tend to linger and deepen. Our leaders work within a double bind. If they do what is truly necessary to solve a problem--win a war, fix immigration--they lose legitimacy.

Wow.

MARCH/APRIL MOVIES

I don't hand out the coveted Stamper (+) this month. I think my expectations were too high.

THE LONGEST YARD (1974) – I saw this as a kid, but after Smokey and the Bandit and Hooper and the other good ole boy films. It’s a comedy early on with some of the same kinds of scenes, but Eddie Albert’s warden character is a lot more serious than the way they try these things today. It sets up the movie as the smart-ass versus the bad-ass as Burt Reynolds glib manner puts him deeper and deeper into trouble. The basic plot is Reynolds was once a pro-bowl quarterback who punches a few cops and winds up in the pokey. He plans on doing his short stretch with minimal effort. Eddie Albert wants Reynolds to help him coach his football team of prison guards. After one thing and another Reynolds puts together a team of inmates to give the guards a warm-up game and that game becomes the resolution to the film. Seeing it today, I realize that it’s not as realistic as I once remembered, but it’s certainly one of Reynolds better roles and films.

EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU (1996) – Only Woody Allen could make a 30s musical with modern day actors and locales. He puts together a great cast with Goldie Hawn, Drew Barrymore and Edward Norton joining himself and frequent player Alan Alda. You even get young Natalie Portman and Julia Roberts for good measure. The movie centers around the conventional romance between Barrymore and Norton and how bleeding heart Goldie Hawn helps get hoodlum Tim Roth released from jail. Of course, Roth proceeds to woo Barrymore away from Norton, much to even the bleeding hearts dismay. Lucas Haas plays the son of Alda and Hawn who is a staunch conservative to the surprise of both parents, luckily it turns out that he has a brain tumor that is causing this. Roberts is Allen’s love interest. Though he has a few sparks with ex-wife Hawn too. The plot is silly, but the song selection is great. The title comes from a tune the Marx Brothers used as a running gag in MONKEY BUSINESS (1932). We even get a scene of guys dressed as Groucho doing a number on New Year’s Eve.

THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD (1965) – John Le Carre as an author is a great representation of a liberal democracy so assured of itself that it allows contrarians to question the legitimacy of the cold war and western intelligence gathering techniques. I wonder if it ever bothered Le Carre that Soviet Writers attempting to make the same moral equivalence would have wound up in the Gulag? Here Richard Burton plays a British spy that pretends to go off the reservation in order to be recruited as a double agent. He winds up in the East Germany where an ex-Nazi and a Jew have their own inner-communist political battle that Burton becomes a part of. Le Carre’s point seems to be that we’re no better than them because we’ll use ex-Nazi’s as our agents inside East Germany even if those Nazis are trying to kill Jewish commies. I appreciate the efforts that a Le Carre must labor in order to make the Soviets our moral equals, but it’s mischievous to convolute such a plot while ignoring what a Soviet writer like Solzhenitsyn went through for expressing the reality of the USSR. I can imagine the fun that Le Carre had preaching the people’s paradise as he sat in his quiet English garden.

CONSTANT GARDNER (2005) Hey, look. Old Le Carre is back post cold war with a story about “evil” corporations. Now let’s remember that Le Carre spent a career equating us with the Soviets, a regime that killed people wholesale at a much greater number than the Nazis. But at least they weren’t making a profit. Now, I think I read the book was actually about the tobacco industry or some other liberal hobby horse, but since pharmaceutical companies have really yet to take their knock in Hollywood, this story was re-made so that their good acts wouldn’t go unpunished. Despite the politics, I was ready to give the movie a chance because Ralph Fiennes is always good and Rachel Weiss won the Oscar and I would have enjoyed a suspense film if at least the action was pulled off properly. But this movie was as thin as the soup that Stalin served the prisoners. Fiennes who can play alpha male or doddering fool gets to be the fool here and we get to think his hippy wife (Rachel Weiss) married him just to further the “cause.” It’s told in flashback, despite Syd Field’s warning, with Fiennes using the past to try and figure out if Weiss’ death was foul play. I suppose the conclusion of the film is just another chapter in how the little guy is punished severely and the big boys are given just a mild scolding. But the biggest mystery is not what happened to Weiss on screen, but off. I can’t figure out why she was even nominated, let alone won an Oscar for this routine performance. Can anyone name even an eye twitch or chin shift that Weiss hasn’t already shown us in ABOUT A BOY, THE MUMMY or ENEMY AT THE GATES? They show her naked pregnant, but it had to be makeup because she’s currently pregnant. Was that so daring that it was worth an Oscar or did they just love it that Merck was taking it on the chin? Now you’d think that a group such as Hollywood that probably uses VIAGRA like Pez might find some sympathy with Pfesier or maybe they blame such companies for their own addiction. Poor oh Amy Adams that gave a really plucky performance in JUNEBUG, one that should be longer remembered. Anyway, I’m 0-4 with Le Carre. I first saw the RUSSIA HOUSE with Connery and Pfeffier and it was a yawn. I rented the BBC mini-series “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” and there wasn’t much entertainment value there either. Maybe Le Carre is just a rightwing hoax masquerading as a progressive in order to see if liberals will applaud even the thinnest attempts at entertainment if they’re in the name of “the cause.”

WALK THE LINE (2005) –I haven’t been out to a movie since last June and the movies like this I would have normally seen at release are starting to trickle into NetFlix. Of all the things I read about this movie, the most obvious point I never heard. This is simply a movie about Johnny chasing June all over creation until she consents to marry him. Even the obligatory childhood scene has J.R. (Johnny) listening to ten year old June on the radio singing with her family. The music is there, of course, and we even get an Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Waylon Jennings, Roy Orbison, and I think a Carl Perkins along for the ride. I can’t fault the Academy for giving an Oscar to Witherspoon, she plays it with an array of emotions, distractions and conflicts while being strong and feminine. It’s the exact opposite of Rachel Weiss’ one-note effort in GARDNER. Jaquin Pheonix doesn’t look like Johnny Cash, but he is such a likable actor and so committed to any role that you certainly forgive this pretty early on. Trish noted how mean Cash’s father (Terminator II ala Robert Patrick) is portrayed and I told her that Johnny is really nice about his father in the auto-bio saying they were tough times and he had the strain of trying to feed his family during the depression. Patrick gives a really strong performance as the old man, especially if you saw his turn a couple of years ago on the Sopranos as an everyman who gets into gambling debts with the mob. The movie was about what I thought it would be, a standard enough biopic that rises above the genre with good music and strong performances.

SQUID AND THE WHALE (2005) – The Squid and Whale is a horrible title and heavy handed symbolism, but the film plays much more nuanced. I’m a big fan of Noah Baumbach’s debut effort the 1995 comedy, KICKING AND SCREAMING. While that was his part autobiographical look at college life, this movie goes further back into childhood and explores the breakup of the marriage and the effect on the kids who witness it. Laura Linney was a great choice for the mother, because she has that pretty and yet plain quality simultaneously. She becomes whatever her facial expression is. Jeff Daniels is one of those overlooked second-tier actors that can usually find an interesting thing about any character with nonverbal reactions. I always think back to his portrayal as Joshua Chamberlain in GETTYSBURG. Chamberlain was the least interesting character in the book and yet Daniels makes him the equal of Longstreet and Lee. In this film, Daniels is the professor once up and coming that drifted into has been or never was. Laura Linney is the wife that becomes a writer under the shadow of Daniels and a more successful one. If the competition between writers wasn’t enough, Linney’s constant cheating makes him even more bitter and vindictive. The opening scene has the couple playing doubles tennis with their two kids. Daniels tells his oldest son to take advantage of his mother’s weak backhand and the match is won with three straight points hit to her weak side, one of which hits her person. You begin thinking Daniels is a creep, but when you learn that he has been living with her cheating you are more sympathetic. But then Daniels behaves terribly toward the kids and you don’t know who to root for. The point, I guess, is that it’s hard to know whose fault these things are, which lets everyone off the hook in the end.

GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK (2005) – Making my way through the list of 2005 award winners brought the acclaimed George Clooney offering. Clooney decided to shoot the film in that period black and white to resemble the way we may have seen clips of Edward R. Murrow on TV. The point of the movie is to drive home for the umpteenth time that Joe McCarthy was a louse and he nearly ruined America. Thankfully, Clooney assumes we already know this about McCarthy so here we simply see Murrow take issue with wild and unsubstantiated statements made by McCarthy. It was a hell of an idea that Murrow had, really. I suppose Clooney was dismayed that John Kerry’s many misstatements about his war record weren’t fully covered during the 2004 campaign and he wanted to remind the press that they have duty to uncover the real record. When McCarthy claimed that 200 people in the state department were agents of the Soviet Union, I kept thinking about John Kerry claim that he was on an illegal mission to Cambodia sanctioned by the Nixon Administration during the Christmas of 1968. It was seered in his memory, was it not? Where was Murrow to ask Kerry why President-elect Nixon wielded such power? Good job, Clooney, you made your point well. My favorite part of the film were the nuances that captured the flavor of 1950s culture and corporate life. That Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey Jr. must pretend not to be married in order to retain their CBS jobs provides a few laughs. The smoking commercials add nice flavor as well. The shame of Joe McCarthy is that he has become the goat that the Left uses to stain the entire anti-communist era in America. It’s the equivalent of summing up the whole Civil Rights struggle based on Jesse Jackson’s race-pimping and corporate shakedowns. Every big cause has its opportunists and that the Left continues to return to McCarthy would suggest that he was the last powerful man to try those tactics when they themselves have learned to use them oh so sweetly. If Clooney must make a point about the red scare, I’d like to see him tackle the Chambers/Hiss case which was actually a much bigger deal back when the intelligencia pegged Hiss as an innocent man. That outrage has quietly faded since the release of the Venona Papers. Coincidently, the release of the Venona Papers showed that McCarthy's claim of numerous communists in the state Department was just about right although he never knew it. It's to Clooney's credit that he'd let the real McCarthy speak. Clooney's issues with that aspect of the cold war are honest enough that he doesn't need the Randy Quaid to play up all the caricatured aspects that the Left would have loved. The result was that we were able to decide how much of a menace he really was and the real McCarthy hardly seemed dangerous compared to the monster we always hear about. He seems about as opportunistic as any current guy on Capitol Hill. It's a shame that Clooney is mired in bugaboos when he is such a talented and engaging screen personality with a great eye for directing. Movies last forever while fashionable causes gently fade away. I, for one, am glad that Cary Grant didn't spend his time making a film about FDR's court packing scheme or his supposed foreknowledge of Pear Harbor.

UP AT THE VILLA (2000) – What’s Sean Penn doing with all of these ex-pat Brits living in Tuscany? They needed a tough rouge that’s what. Kristen Scott Thomas spends the movie with other men to simply keep herself from Penn. Therefore we have to wait the whole movie to feel like Penn “earned” her when we really know he had her at “ciao.” Early on we get to see some Florentine exteriors, and all through we see some countryside shots, but you get the feeling that a London soundstage hosts the most. Derek Jacobi turns up as the flaming Brit all bitchy like heroine’s generally flock to. Edward Fox plays the too old suitor that Thomas should and won’t marry. Anne Bancroft plays a princess of some sort all full of eccentricities and gossip. Without giving away the plot, Thomas denying the rogue Penn sets her on a course that only Penn can rescue her from. There’s a nice shot early on from a church across the Arno River that Trish and I found last year. That probably had more to do with us finishing the film than anything else. It was all based on a novella by M. Somerset Maugham of Razor’s Edge fame.

TUCKER (1988) – I was suckered into Tucker when I saw it in the theatre. It has a funhouse style and some winning performances from the likes of Jeff Bridges and Martin Landau. But looking back, the style is really a subtraction to a bio piece, but I suppose it was necessary when the bio part if so removed from reality that reviewers might point it out. History sees Tucker as more con man than visionary, while Coppola portrays him as a victim of corporations and crooked politicians. You’re allowed to, I think, when anyone is the “little guy.” Now I’m not trying to be too harsh on what is a fun movie, but I’m just mad at myself for falling for the mythology the first time around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I had to name the top 3 of the month they would be:

SQUID AND THE WHALE
WALK THE LINE
EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU