Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 228 Editor's Choice: 9
-
'DialogueProof?'
[Read the article: "Grindhouse"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just saw it.
a) It was the best $ 10.75 I've spent in a long time. Full entertainment value. I loved 'Children of Men', 'A Scanner Darkly', 'Pans Labyrinth', and this flick. The fake trailers in between the movies were themselves worth the price of admission.
b) I wonder if Tarantino made the dialogue with both sets of girls in 'DeathProof' *deliberately* lame. Because lame partly-improvised dialogue was a hallmark of the mid-70's slasher/terror film. An unintentional part, that perhaps in Tarantino's mind became a necessary part of the texture.
It certainly adds to the suspense - the dialogue is so lame in some ways it's boring, and should have been edited, and then- WHAM! Suddenly you're faced with a tight plot and instant action, and it's like a gut punch.
I personally think it would have been more effective with less editing, and if I'm right and that's what Mr. Tarantino was going for, he put in too much of an intentionally mediocre thing.
That said, both flicks were *GREAT*. And I feel like Mr. Rodriguez has fully fulfilled on the promise he showed with his first feature, 'El Mariache'. I now eagerly await a film version of 'They Call Him Machete'. They've already shot the trailer...
-
Typical conservative thinking?
[Read the article: Michelle Malkin plays the victim card]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Michelle Malkin's posted reaction is rather mind-blowing. She spends the bulk of her post expressing less anger at her own abusers, than at the Liberals she's accusing of not helping her.
It seems crystal clear which ideology is less interested in the empowerment and decent treatment of women as a class. Is this Stockholm syndrome at work here? The same sort of identification with the aggressor that seems so prevalent in gay or blacks conservatives, the Log Cabin Republicans or Justice Thomas?
Michelle Malkin could have mustered up enough empathy up to say that it's horrible what Kathy Sierra was subjected to, and left it at that. But standing up for women not being harassed, with no ameliorating attacks on liberals, would be viewed by her audience as being a "PC" sellout. Pardon my cynicism, but I don't think that would have helped her sales.
And this occurs to me as revealing the bottom-line real-world conservative worldview. A worldview that binds many people whose class interests are threatened by the Republican party - and guides them to betray their class for their personal advantage.
The worldview that belongs to not just the Malkins of the world, but the Log Cabin Republicans, the Colin Powells, the Secretary Rices, and far too many others.
The worldview that says: "Screw everyone else; all that really matters is how this affects me."
-
Come on with the unreasoned 'global warming doubtful' nonsense.
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ms. Paglia writes:
"However, I am a skeptic about what is currently called global warming. I have been highly suspicious for years about the political agenda that has slowly accrued around this issue."
Fine - but what about the *scientists* whose research backs the trend of human-caused global warming?
Ms. Paglia doesn't offer any reasons why the research of the vast overwhelming majority of scientists are wrong, why their conclusions are wrong, or what other factors have any real likelihood of causing the same results.
She doesn't even bother to show what the "distortions and manipulations" she accuses Al Gore of, actually are.
All she expresses here is doubt and suspicion without reason - which is obviously as unreliable as faith and credulity without reason.
Ms. Paglia is a lively and skilful writer. I hope to see her correct this lack of application of logic and reason to her arguments.
-
Friend of mine saw Vonnegut speak at Columbia University, NYC
[Read the article: Deadeye Kurt]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This would be around the time of the first Gulf War, in 1991. My friend was an undergrad at the time.
It was a day of protests and demonstrations, and there was the expected group of idealistic young students, carrying signs and making speeches opposing the war, gathered around a podium where speakers would rally the crowd.
Mr. Vonnegut went up the stage and, according to my friend, stated something like:
"This demonstration will have the same effect on this war, as climbing a rickety 3-foot step ladder, and from that height dropping a cream pie."
According to my friend Mr. Vonnegut then left the stage. My friend followed him out, bemused, as he walked to the street and hailed a taxi, to apparently go on about his day.
Fast forward to 2004, when Vonnegut spoke so with such incredible wit and effortless, eloquent power about Bush and the current Gulf War:
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/05/10_vonnegut_cold-turkey.htm
"...We're spreading democracy, are we? Same way European explorers brought Christianity to the Indians, what we now call "Native Americans."
How ungrateful they were! How ungrateful are the people of Baghdad today.
So let's give another big tax cut to the super-rich. That'll teach bin Laden a lesson he won't soon forget....
....Here's what I think the truth is: We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to face cold turkey.
And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we're hooked on."
How to reconcile the two statements, from 1991 and and 2004?
Vonnegut was a smart, smart man whose heart was big enough to hold the truth of the present and never, ever stop fighting for the best humanity can be, to each other. Which is the purest nobility I know.
We are blessed to have had him for as long as we've had. He was and is a national treasure. I hope he and Hunter S. are swapping tales and beers in a higher place - if heaven is good enough for them.