DISQUS

Don't feel too bad Viscount. After all, as time goes by, we get a little bit older and a little bit slower.

Yea, Viscount, click on that Apples In Stereo link to their MySpace page.

Well, I realized that I liked the way Schneider's lyrics SOUND, as opposed to what they're trying to say. My mistake was to hold all songwriters to my rigid standards. I was holding Schneider's lyrical style against him, and that's not really fair.

....He stays in Oran when he could have fled and risks his life to help others because it's the right thing to do. That may sound simplistic, but Camus is, in a subtle way, showing you that mankind is basically good, as opposed to the Judeo-Christian concept of original sin.

The Plague is Camus at his best. I don't find him a 'blank-slate' at all. Dr Rieux does not need to have any divine rationale for all the innocent deaths, he does not need the shoulder of a priest to cry on because he cares about humanity at the deepest level, with no conditions and no strings attached. He stays in Oran when he could have fled and risks his life to help others because it's the right thing to do. That may sound simplistic, but Camus is, in a subtle way, showing you that mankind is basically good, as opposed to the Judeo-Christian concept of original sin.

Greg, you are under the false impression that Captialism is not supposed to have rules. EVERY economic system has rules
and Capitalism's no exception. The rules exist on paper, and are constantly changed. The banking system, the Federal Reserve, the very laws that created the artificial entity called a corporation, were created by men -- not by some fundamental law of nature.

The idea that workers have no rights is the extreme ideology. Capitalims, as it was set-up, was grossly unfair to the workers. You say that perhaps regulation of Capitalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries may not have been the right thing to do, but it helped create a middle class. It raised living standards, which is one of the ways we evaluate the health of economies.

You speak of "enduring facts of human nature" and that "when dealing with fundamental ideas, one must be inflexible, precisely because reality isn’t flexible." But your supposed "facts" are just speculative philosophical ideas.

A philosophical idea which claims that any striving for a collective good through involuntary taxation is evil, is extreme. And yes, reality is flexible because we make the rules. We don't live our lives as characters in The Fountainhead, or Atlas Shrugged we live in the real world.

When societies and governments want to find solutions to poverty, education, health care, etc, they will not be inviting people from the Rand institute. Why should they pay someone who will not be able to offer pragmatic solutions, only philosophical sound bites that make interesting conversation and comment threads on blogs.

Greg. First of all, I am talking about philosophical ideas, not the concept of extremism you apply to other subjects. But you are right that I didn't fully explain what I mean. What I mean is, the truth is always somewhere in the middle. Marx developed his ideas about capitalism because capitalism in the late 1800s extreme, ie; there were no labor rights, child labor laws, health laws, anti-trust laws...etc. These abuses of labor for the sake of profit was the reason why Marx's critiques of capitalism struck such a strong nerve. And, of course, capitalism adjusted itself. An example of extremist ideology would also be Fascism -- a term coined by Mussolino to mean, essentially, the corporate state. IT was, really, a spoils system were the average person was worse off, but the rich got richer. That ideology failed. As will every other extreme ideology. You cannot fit human nature into a pre-designed template and expect good results. You have to be flexible - that's all I meant.

Yes, it is true that civilization could never have formed without group cooperation - it's the essence of the modern state (we the people, the general welfare). The problem with Ayn Rand is that she was a reactionary. Because she grew up in a totalitarian society, she saw all collectivism as evil, the same way that Communists saw private property and wealth as evil. Her philosophy is extreme, and so her ideas are not grounded in reality. Extremist ideology is fun to debate, but has no practical application, and is doomed to become irrelevant -- which is why Objectivism is not taken seriously by academics.

I have not read Ran's fiction (I plan to soon) but the one philosophical writer I admire is John Gardner. He incorporated philosophical ideas into his novels without taking away from his well-crafted fiction. His characters are real - not puppets to simply play out some philosophical point of view. Though I disagree with some of Gardner's On Moral Fiction ideas, he's grounded in reality, not reactionary idealism.

If my memories serves me, the two Bond films staring Timothy Dalton were the first post-Aids 007 films and it shows. While Connery and Moore slept around with Russian spies like so many salted peanuts -- Dalton only sleeps with one woman in 'Living Daylights' who I think was also his love interst. That shocked me when it came out.

Never saw even one of the Brosnan films, but the new one has Bond, again, only sleeping with one woman - the love interest.

I don't agree that Casino Royale was a very poor film. I enjoyed it. It was entertaining. It's James Bond. What do you expect, Oscar worthy material? Sheesh!

I think there should be rules like nobody should be allowed to comment on a film they have not seen. With that being said, I will only comment of the films Ive seen.

I thought the Departed was a very good film - not great. Much better than any film he's done since Good Fellas. I was on the edge of my seat for the second half of the film, and that doesn't happen very often. Not a true mob movie though, since it's really about cops. A-

Little Miss Sunshine has no business being on the Best Picture Oscar list. The little girl is right out of central casting - the misfit ugly kid who is just too adorable! It's a fun little farce with good comic acting but that's it! It's sure aint no Sideways or Annie Hall. B

The Illusionist. I am amazed that anyone can call that film a masterpiece. Sure, it looks beautiful, the costumes are nice...most of the acting is OK, but Norton is too stiff. His illusions are way too CGI to be believable in the 19th century. The best part of the film is saved for the last few minutes which leaves you scratching your head. Not very satisfying. C+

Forget the Illusionist, Pan's Labyrinth the masterpiece. It's a touching, dark, violent, and depressing film - and also brilliant. The same film under an American director would probably have a happy ending. Thank goodness Tim Burton had nothing to do with it. Should win Best Foreign Language film. A

The Last King of Scotland. Forest Whitaker deserves an oscar for his complex performance. B

Stranger Than Fiction was fun, but not nearly as smart as Eternal Sunshine or Science of Sleep. It's sort of Charlie Kaufman light. B-

Apocalypto was, of course, a very violent and brutal film. Many people have panned it simply because Mel Gibson directed it. But it was also very thrilling and entertaining. B

The Black Dahlia must be one of the worst films to come out all year, and, even for DePalma, a major embarassment. Convoluted, unconvincing, overwrought, terrible casting... Hard to believe this is the same director who made The Untouchables and Carlito's Way. The only major film I can think of that's worse than Black Dahlia? Pearl Harbor. Oh, Josh Harnett's in that one too. Bad sign. D