DISQUS

*the ultimate “we gotta get out of this place if it’s the last thing we ever do” anthem.*

Gee, I always thought that was "we gotta get out of this place if it’s the last thing we ever do". But then, I'm very literal sometimes.

I appreciate your insights . . . had never really thought about it, but you are of course right about the cinematic quality. After 1985, I couldn't say, but up to then.

It's not just about age, but also about what it means to be in one's "prime."

About half of your list was cleary not in the prime of their careers, as anyone asked the day before they died would have judged it. At least, Lennon, Presley, Thunders and Moon have to come off the list, on that basis.

While the Who were floundering (albeit with a minor comeback album) at the time of Moon's death, Zep was rolling on (albeit with a minor setback album) at the time of Bonham's death. If we're really talking prime, and not just preferences, he should be the 70's stadium-rock drummer on the list.

*I heard from my cousin a real FDNY who worked as a firefighter on Rescue Me about him having a reputation as sleeze with women and cheating. Actors lie for a living some don’t seem to know when their off camera.*

Since the comment excerpted above is posted under the same name (Tom K) as my comment that appears as no. 2 above (dated 7/13), I feel I oughta point out that it's by a different person.

I don't have cousin in the FDNY, an opinion about Daniel Sunjata's social life, or an inclination to speculate about such things. He is way too thin to be playing Reggie, though.

*Hitler youth indeed. Cartoons, they are.*

Thanks for the insight, Yoda.

*“Stoned on martinis” doesn’t seem like whitebread 1960 executive dialogue to me, perhaps I’m wrong.*

I believe you are wrong. Anyone out there old enough to know for sure?

* * *

I enjoyed both episodes. Doesn't quite strike me as true-to-life, more as satire disguised as true-to-life. But then, I thought that of the Sopranos, too.

What I like best is: (i) the overdue de-mythologizing of the "Greatest Generation" and (ii) the even more overdue de-mythologizing of US society in the late 50s-early 60s. Conservatives, in particular, are guilty of suggesting people were so much better then. That always struck me as wrong: folks don't change that much, and someone was responsible for raising all those Boomer brats.





BTW, I t

Decisions, outcomes, principles, mistakes, contradictions, flaws; charge it all to his account. He'll run a healthy balance at the end. For a politician, anyway.

Here I am, just to remind y'all that "Peace has come to Zimbabwe."

Guess that's just one more demonstration that even talented artists can be . . . errr . . . can fail to perceive political realities.

*The Central American wars led to much more death and destruction than was seen in the Balkans. Check the body counts sometime if you doubt this. In Nicaragua alone, there was the equivalent of some six Sebrenicias. Add to that some seven Sebrenicias in El Salvador, and some nine-10 Sebrenicias in Guatemala.*

OK, Sebrenica was about 8,000. Taking your numbers, that makes ~50,000 in Nicaragua, 60,000 in El Salvador, and 80,000 in Guatemala.

If you intended this as a counting up, you haven't reached the Balkans level yet. If you didn't intend it as that, I don't know what it's here for.

DP:

I think we can agree on, or at least cannot dispute, the following:

1. Reagan argued for his Central American policy as a defense against Soviet “expansionism" (which I never contested).

2. Reagan *never* said that "his destruction of Nicaragua, and his turning the entire region into a mass grave that made Milosevic look cheap, was part of US 'resistance' to Soviet 'expansionism'"; which stands somewhat in contrast to your claim that: "Reagan said that his destruction of Nicaragua, and his turning the entire region into a mass grave that made Milosevic look cheap, was part of US 'resistance' to Soviet 'expansionism'".

You may call it "some minor point only [I] seem to understand", but I think it is important that you follow the words: "X said . . ." with something that X actually said, and not create quotes that favor your point of view, and attribute them to people who feel or felt differently. But hey, maybe I'm a victim of false consciousness, or middle class morality, or some other oppressive trope that takes reactionary sentiment and dresses it up as basic decency.

"It was hawkish Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski who had the bright idea of funding the Afghan religious fighters to try to bring down the Soviet Union in 1978 by embroiling it in a Vietnam on its own borders."

What a dopey idea. Like that could have ever worked!

Anyway, it has nothing to do with the point at hand.

It seems you claim that, unlike the D establishment, the far left knew that the Soviet Union's demise was imminent.

Well, we know what Reagan said on the subject: what did the people you are talking about say, and when and where did they say it?

DP:

Read your quote that my comment follows.

Oh, wait, you must have read it already: that's why you decided to omit it, since reading it makes clear that Reagan never said it.

You wrote that "Reagan said that his destruction of Nicaragua, and his turning the entire region into a mass grave that made Milosevic look cheap, was part of US 'resistance' to Soviet 'expansionism.'"

Of course, he said no such thing, as you have now been forced to admit. You can make whatever characterizations you like, but hey, have the cojones to "own them", instead of attributing them to your advesaries.

I don't believe there was a terror of mass murder in Central America attributable to the US Govt. in the 1980's that can be fairly compared to the events in the Balkans in the early 90's. I do believe there were various revolutions, civil wars and repressions; that our involvment in them came at a moral price, as any foreign intervention does; and that more than a few of our allies were unsavory, to say the least.

I also think the people of Nicaragua, as well as other states in the region, are better off for being able to vote for their leaders. Yeah, Nicaragua might have the same leader anyway, but he'd be a Castro-style tin-pot "President for Life" instead of someone who has to actually contend for popular support.

*I suppose you’re taking the same tack as Dinesh D’Souza who credits Reagan with some sort of unique prescience that the Soviet Union was failing in one of his books . . .*

Haven't read Dinesh, and I think unique would be a slight overstatement. There were other people saying the SU was failing at the time, but they were not well known and their views were considered bizarre.

I don't need a book to tell me that, because I was alive at the time. Now, I concede that, spending the first Reagan term in a Northeastern college, I may not have gotten opinions representing the national spectrum. But I sure heard the views of the American left, and from some of its more intelligent adocates (students as well as teachers.) I took a course with a major soviet adivsor to D presidents.

Although I heard many arguments against the US military buildup, never did I hear the argument, in person, in writing, on television, or otherwise, that the buildup was unnecessary because the SU was on the verge of collapse.

I had been assured that the SU would collapse, due to ethnic tensions, from a righwing acquaintance. When I heard Reagan's prediction (which was really more economic and spiritual than ethnic, but they all played a role), I thought: "Gee, I hope he's right, but the only person I've ever heard say anything remotely similar is that kinda-out-there rightwing guy, and my really informed Sovietologist professor sure isn't saying that."

My feeling was, if the Soviets were vulnerable, great, but if they weren't, all the more reason to be on guard. I don't claim any particular insight for myself. But I do recognize, from having lived through it, that Reagan called it better than the experts. Those who didn't or don't like that are going to have to cope with it, as surely as isolationsist conservatives have to deal with the fact that FDR was right about Hitler.

*So you supported state terrorism in Central America. That helps to clarify your position. Appreciate your honesty.*

No, check again. I said I thought Reagan was right to oppose the Sandinistas. Since you were reading closely enough to [sic] my spelling, I don't see how you could have missed my meaning so badly.


*recall that Reagan said that his destruction of Nicaragua, and his turning the entire region into a mass grave that made Milosevic look cheap, was part of US “resistance” to Soviet “expansionism.”*

Gee, I don't recall that; it doesn't really sound like something he would say. Maybe you could supply a source for the quote.

But if he said it, that only shows that, in addition to anticipating the fall of the Soviet Union, he also foresaw the break-up of Yugoslavia and the specific crimes of Milosevic. Which would be pretty impressive.

Impressive for most people, that is. I'm pretty sure Darrelplant anticipated those things in about the sixth grade, based on the 1974 revisions to the Yugoslavian Constitution and his observation of increasing foreign debt for Belgrade following the 1970's oil crisis.

Uh, I don't recall writing anything about Central America. That seems to be your area of interest, which is great, but don't attribute statements about it to me, when I haven't made any.

As it happens, I do believe that Reagan's instinctive opposition to the Sandanistas was prudent, and that Nicaragua has benefitted from it. I will refrain from making any further points about US policy in the region, which was certainly subject to criticism, because I don't want to be dragged into a debate on this collateral matter before the anti-Reaganites admit that he was ahead of the curve in his assessment of the SU's prospects.

Darrellplant:

Are you saying that Reagan didn't predict, in this first term, that the Soviet Union was on the brink of demise due to its internal flaws? Are you saying that "intelligent opinion" on the left didn't generally disparage this view?

If so, well, not point arguing with someone who's just gonig to deny reality.

But if you're not saying those things, what are you saying? That we should overlook Reagan's prescience in this regard because he didn't appreciate exactly how quickly the SU might collapse, and wanted to take measures to counter its expansionist ambitions while we awaited its demise? Even assuming the SU would have demised as quickly without the pressure created by Reagan's policies, is that really all you got?

*Certainly the idea that Reagan “freed” anyone from dictatorship can itself be laughed at. Anyone who knew what was going on in the USSR could see that the state was collapsing of its own weight in the early ’80s, but Reagan and his buddies were so blind to that fact that they were completely taken by surprise when it started falling apart."

Thing is, Reagan was virtually the only public figure in the early 80's saying that the Soviet Union was on the brink of demise due to its internal flaws, and the intelligent opinion on the left was that the Soviet economy was on pace to outperform the West, or at the very least to compete with it vigorously.

I believe Moynahan said similar things; one of several reasons he was rejected by many on the left.

I note that you mischaractierize me as saying that Reagan "freed" the people behind the Iron Curtain, when I specifically said they were freed by "by American policy, which Reagan maintained against 'sophisticated' opinion." The word "maintained" was carefully chosen. Like anyone, Reagan had to do some new things to adjust to new times, but his critical decision was to keep doing what Truman had started vis-a-vis the Soviets (and maybe crank it up a little), when the D party and much of the country had decided we should stop.

Reagan is on record with his predictions about Soviet vulnerability. The record also shows that the left was saying quite the opposite. He was criticized for it; in fact, his statements were regarded by many in the mainstream left as irrational.

If you lived through that era (coherently), you know this to be true. If not, "you could look it up", as Casey Stengel would say.

Ok, I watched it.

Kinda interesting how it reflected the assumption that "normal" young people would be liberal and anti-nuke. I wonder how valid that assumption would be now? Was it more valid then? I sense that it was.

Not much in that critique to make me question the Reagan administration retrospectively. Nor, I suspect, would the millions freed from dictatorship by American policy, which Reagan maintained against "sophisticated" opinion, find much to laugh at.

But, there are some chilling prefigurements of the excessive militarism and abandonment of the working class that was to come. (I refer, of course, to the Clinton administration). Viewed historically, the thing critics of Reagan's views should find most frightening is how readily they were adapted by the "progressives".

I read the book last month (before I'd heard about the upcoming mini-series), and I don't see how they can hope to follow its meandering storyline.

Way too much politics in the book, and it never is tied in to the Yankees, or the Son of Sam, or the blackout rioting in Bushwick. All of these are just thrown out there, seemingly at random.

And, from the endnotes, one gets the sense the author was inclined to include whatever someone-who-knew-Reggie happened to tell him, rather than going out and researching things that, organically, made sense to include.

I enjoyed the book moderately, but that's pretty faint praise considering I am a huge Yankee fan, turned 15 that fall and followed that season with extreme interest.

As for the show, I planned to boycott it due to the absurd delay you refer to, but decided to watch when I found the Daily Show in repeats. Turturro is great, indeed, as Martin. Platt is pretty good as Big Stein, I thought. The Reggie is a little bland. The Munson isn't gruff enough, but bears a good resemblence.

Biggest problem: the story won't sustain people's interest over 8 weeks. Eight hours, maybe, if squeezed into 15 days or less. But the way their airing it, it will never have a chance to catch on with more than a smallish base of die-hards, I think.

"And it’s not the Grateful Dead."

Amen.

Thanks for the jolt of energy on a muggy (though now sunny) day.

If they do a Soprano's movie - which I'm utterly indifferent about - they should do it as a prequel (ala portions of GF II). Maybe even go back far enough so they can cast different actors for whatever familiar characters appear.

*Another colleague doubts it was a Mafia hit (besides the fact of who wanted him dead) because a mob hit is from the front, so you see who is killing you.*

I think the point of view when the screen goes dark makes the "hit" scenario unlikely, but I would note that, if I recall the scene correctly, Phil L was taken out from the side, not the front, at roughly the angle the bathroom presented for the final scene.

I know I'm far from the only one to raise the "contempt for the fans" issue, but I would like to clarify what I meant by it.

I didn't mean that there is a subjective contempt, in the sense of "I'm gonna jerk these folks around." Rather, as in the analogy to the rock star, it's more like, "I'm gonna do what I want", with the unstated and perhaps unconscious subtheme being, "without regard to what they want, 'cause I'm not here to entertain *them*".

Maybe he just wanted to pay tribute to the "Godfather" saga by ending with a really lousy product.

But no, I'll stick with my view that the roots of this can be found much earlier, in the "now that I've got your attention, wait around a few years till I feel like giving you a few more episodes" attitude.

For all the "life is like that" justifications for the failure to tie up story lines, I'd note that this most recent season didn't even have many interesting story lines to tie up.

The whole approach to the finale struck me as contemptuous of the audience. I mean that in a very speicific way: for example, like an old rocker playing only his new stuff. You can say he's giving his audience credit for being up to his newer, more complex material, or you can say he's being contemptuous of their desire to hear his hits. More often, I think it's the latter.

Once you've decided to subject your audience to the absurd sort of "extended hiatus followed by directionless return" that the Soporanos has been implementing over the last several years, a conclusion like this is, at least, internally logical.

I'm with you on the "Godfather" reference implicit in the stranger's bathroom trip.

But, if your reading is right, shouldnt' we have had Tony's point of view at the moment the screen went black?

As I recall, the last shot was of his face, which obviously is not his POV. Or am I remembering it wrong?