home

Sunday Night TV and Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 08:00:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Who's watching the premiere of HBO's new miniseries, "The Pacific?" President Obama held a screening of it at the White House last week. I'm going to give it a shot, but war movies aren't really my thing.

Also beginning tonight is the new season of Celebrity Apprentice, with Rod Blagojevich as one of the contestants. The reviews haven't been too kind.

There's also a new Desperate Housewives and Brothers and Sisters. And "On Demand" has Precious, the Hurt Locker and The Informant.

What are you watching or listening to tonight? Or, if neither, what's on your mind. This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sunday Accomplishments and Open Thread | Rielle Hunter Talks, >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | 170 comments (170 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Goldfinger is on TV (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 08:10:05 PM EST
    I can't resist watching--even with the commercials.  I must have seen it 100 times by now.

    Listening to Christopher O'Riley host (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 08:57:01 PM EST
    "From the Top," which features young musicians who apply via recording to appear on this program. I am listening via KUSC FM but many NPR stations carry this program although times vary.

    Nice (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 10:12:31 PM EST
    He is an inspiration to kids all over america who play classical music and are often estranged because they are in orchestra or practicing while their friends are playing sports. He lets them know that they are not alone.

    Last fall he did an interview at my place with a friend who has a classical recording label. I really enjoyed talking with him afterwards, he is a real mensch, imo.

    Interview here.  

    Parent

    Is that the pianist? (none / 0) (#12)
    by observed on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 10:13:55 PM EST
    Seems like there was an award winning pianist of that name 15-20 years ago. I went to a recital where the guy played the Shostakovich preludes.
    Ahh.. i'm forgetting the name of that Russian woman they were written for.
    Oh well.

    Parent
    He is a wonderful pianist. Recently (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 10:28:07 PM EST
    transcribed and arranged and recorded some Radiohead for piano.  

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 10:17:11 PM EST
    Same guy.

    Parent
    I liked his playing, but boy did (none / 0) (#14)
    by observed on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 10:21:15 PM EST
    he have tension problems. He was rolling his neck to loosen up every chance he could while he was playing.
    That was unappealing.


    Parent
    Pretty heavy smoker. Maybe he was (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 11:03:21 PM EST
    trying to kick the habit.  I have seen/heard him play many times and never noticed much movedment while he was playing.  

    Parent
    I think that's who I saw. I know it was (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 11:06:38 PM EST
    a then young pianist. He had been a friend of Tatiana Nikolaeva, who only recently had died (while performing).
    Have you ever heard Nikolaeva's Bach, btw?
    There's plenty of it on youtube.
    Not to my taste, but deeply felt and expressive.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:49:34 AM EST
    Seems pretty fine to me.  Not sure what his neck has to do with it.

    Parent
    Must admit there are a number of (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:54:07 AM EST
    very fine pianists whom I cannot bear to watch play.  So I listen--and look elsewhere.

    Parent
    Perhaps That is So (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:13:43 AM EST
    Personally I never had a problem with anything about the performer if the playing was great. I usually close my eyes anyway so I don't have distractions.

    And I'm not sure what that has to do with O'Riley's playing anyway, he seems quite natural playing the piano, to me.

    Parent

    I am agreeing with you re O'Riley. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:28:47 AM EST


    Parent
    I like his playing, as I said. (none / 0) (#29)
    by observed on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 07:03:52 AM EST
    I wouldn't agree he looks natural.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#28)
    by observed on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 07:01:21 AM EST
    Bach is not physically taxing---of course he wouldn't have tension problems there.
    I went to a Pogorellich recital and he had a bizarre mannerism which only manifested itself when he was playing Islamey as an encore.
    He was loudly doing what? Find a video and get back to me.
    The recital was in 93 or 94, based on when Nikolaeva died.

    Parent
    Not Surprised (1.00 / 1) (#133)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:07:47 PM EST
    That you missed the point. I purposely linked to a sound recording with no visuals of the bach gavotte.

    But as many in the art world discern paintings with their ears and noses, I am sure many judge musicians by using their eyes.

    And as far as Bach not being physically taxing, that is absurd.

    Parent

    Why are you arguing about what (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by observed on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:22:46 PM EST
    happened at a recital you did not attend?
    I know you like to make arguments just for the hell of it, but this is a new absurdity.
    And your last sentence----were you intentionally ambiguous? I said that Bach is not AS physically taxing  as other composers. There's just no question about that. The sheer athletic demands of playing through some chopin etudes without tensing up are far beyond anything in Bach.
    Lots of amateurs can play Bach and Mozart quite well. It's very rare to find an amateur who have enough chops to play Chopin etudes or Liszt at a professional level.

    So, let's review. I made an offhand comment about a mannerisms of a pianist whose playing I said I like.
    You argue, based on nothing at all.
    You post a recording, to show what? I already said I like his playing. In fact, his sound is beautiful.
    You lose.
    There you go again.
    What a fracking waste of time.

    Parent

    Playing J.S. Bach and or W.A. Mozart (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:47:37 PM EST
    musically and in the proper style on the piano is one of life's hardest endeavours.  Totally exposed.  Not many accomplish this.

    Parent
    Some of those pieces (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:18:06 PM EST
     are so beautiful, that a good musician can play them wrong and still not ever play them completely wrongly.

    Some musicians are so brutally exacting with themselves that I think they sometimes lose sight of the fact that some of these pieces are the closest thing we have to transmissions from a (for lack of a better term) spiritual realm..or maybe it's just the real world -- and even a slightly garbled translation is much better than none at all.

    Some of this seeming obsessive Olympian quest for technical perfection sometimes runs the risk of losing site of the point of the music, imo.

    Parent

    Must admit I am a hyper-critical (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    listener.  Would rather not hear a person play these composers if they can't do it well.  

    Parent
    There Is SOme Truth To That, IMO (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:25:20 PM EST
    Although, many players and listeners, who focus on the athletic aspect of music, do it because that is all they have have in the bank.

    Parent
    I had this classical guitarist (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:42:18 PM EST
    friend whose only two responses to anything he heard were "thats easy" or a run down of the technical mistakes. Talk about needing to get laid..metaphorically speaking, of course.

    Parent
    Bean Counters (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:47:40 PM EST
    Know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Getting laid, metaphorically speaking, may have no effect. Smoking weed, on the other hand... lol

    Parent
    Side effect of the zero sum game (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 06:07:07 PM EST
    only-so-many-places-at-the-table crapola that trickles down from the boardrooms to the media stooges to the people in this "merit

    Parent
    Meritocracy (none / 0) (#151)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 06:08:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Ah Were It True (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 06:13:00 PM EST
    We would have more pleasure... but alas the "talents" weighed in todaty meritocracy are not usually musical ones, even though they are talents nonetheless.

    Ruthlessness is usually the most coveted talent.


    Parent

    Agreed, but (none / 0) (#155)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:52:15 PM EST
    difficult is not identical to "physically taxing," which was the point at issue.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#157)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:09:13 PM EST
    Well you try playing the goldberg variations through, with all the repeats. Not physically taxing? BS

    Parent
    Not as physically demanding as (none / 0) (#163)
    by observed on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 04:38:49 AM EST
    playing Chopin op 25 no. 10, for example, and that piece is only 3 minutes or so.
    The Goldberg variations are long, but the virtuoso moments are fairly brief.

    Your whole commentary on the subject is just ignorant.
    Of course, you purposefully elide the comparative, because you know you're wrong.


    Parent

    Ooops, I see my original (none / 0) (#165)
    by observed on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 05:41:17 AM EST
    comment didn't say "as" physically taxing. My bad.
    For someone like O'Riley, Bach is not physically taxing though---no question.
    For most people it's another story.

    Parent
    Chopin Etudes? (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 02:58:27 PM EST
    So easy an eight year old can play them. And I assume you are basing your assessment of the relative difficulty of piano rep on your own limited skills.

    That becomes a problem when generalizing levels of physical taxation, to those who have no problem playing all the chopin etudes without breaking a sweat.

    BTW- how many times have you played the goldberg varations in performance?

    Parent

    Totally different from what I'm saying. (none / 0) (#162)
    by observed on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 04:30:38 AM EST
    On a purely physical level, they are MUCH easier than later piano works, which any pianist will tell you; hence, the likelihood that a pianist will exhibit tension problems playing Mozart or Bach is low.
    The difference between playing Bach and playing Chopin or Liszt is somewhat analogous to the difference between playing piano and violin (or cello). There are millions of people who play piano  on an amateur level well enough so that one can enjoy listening. Violin?  Heck, it's hard to find a professional who plays in tune.
    There really are lots of amateurs who play Bach beautifully. There aren't many at all who can play Chopin Etudes, both in terms of getting the notes and  some amount of musicality. Why anyone would argue about this, I don't know. It's just a simple statement of fact.
    Really, this discussion was a complete waste of time, which is what you expect when squeaky decides to argue out of a vacuum of ignorance.


    Parent
    There's no question Bach is difficult. (none / 0) (#164)
    by observed on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 05:26:57 AM EST
    That ought to be clear from what I'm saying.
    I've been working on Die Kunst Der Fuge IV, which has takes some really awkward fingering ---and needless to say, making the piece work is another question entirely. But that's what I like to do with my spare time: mostly I play Bach and work on various Chopin etudes. I performed two Chopin etudes in a student recital a year ago.
    In terms of difficulty, I think some Bach is very had to balance on a modern piano. Some fugues just sound very noisy  if you're not careful, for example WTC I 20: there's a recording of Richter playing it which I think is just awful---clangy and unpleasant.

    My last teacher said the same thing about Bach being physically easier. She said playing Chopin etudes is like running a 100 yd dash.
    It takes a lot of preparation and training just to get through it.  And if you don't warm up enough, she said, you'll break your  neck!

    I have to say I think Mozart is relatively easy. It's  one of the glories of his music that the content is so sublime, yet the music is accessible to so many.
    Sure, if you're picky, few performances will satisfy, but if you like to play, then Mozart is a friendly composer!

    Parent

    I Lose? (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:39:16 PM EST
    Really now, how is that?

    Parent
    The O'Riley recital was in 93 or 94, (none / 0) (#30)
    by observed on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 07:05:52 AM EST
    I mean. Pogorellich? Not sure, but probably early 90's.

    Parent
    Is this the pianist to whom you (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    are referring?  christopheroriley.com

    Parent
    right. Once I read about his fondess for the (none / 0) (#97)
    by observed on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:08:17 PM EST
    Shostakovich preludes, I knew it was the same guy.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    Good video interview of him here. At my piano, on my friend's relatively new classical music blog.

    Parent
    From the Are you effin kidding me file (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:40:19 AM EST
    Justice Thomas's wife is starting a tea party lobbying group. Lucky for her that her husband ruled that they can donate as much money as they want to their 'cause'.

    I saw that (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    yeah
    they need to stay home from that awful politicized state of union thing.

    cant have them being tainted

    Parent

    Either Scalia or Thomas (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:54:00 PM EST
    had a son at the firm that argued Bush in Bush v. Gore- but having a President publicly call out one of the most destructive decisions since Plessy v. Ferguson, that's politicizing the court.

    Parent
    rain rain, and more rain (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CST on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:32:09 AM EST
    after a week of nice weather, the lion of March finally came roaring this past week.  With no imminent signs of letting up.  Right now we are at a 25-yr storm level, could be 50 by the time it stops.

    Basement flooded again, this time due to mother nature.  At least we live on the first floor of a 3 story so we didn't get the leaky roof.  Mom and dad a few blocks away, not so lucky, bedroom in puddle.

    It's the type of weather where you find out what needs replacing.  With all the old houses around, it seems like everyone's got something.

    Heavy rains can take a pretty big environmental toll: "With the area's water-management systems overwhelmed, the MWRA warned that it may have to send raw sewage into Quincy Bay for the first time since 2005."

    supposedly (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:49:05 AM EST
    we get 5 straight days of sun and temps in the high 50s and low 60s

    Parent
    I hear you! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    We spent most of Saturday and Saturday night pumping out our basement.  It wasn't just the rain, though- we still had a considerable amount of unmelted snow left over from Snowmaggedon, and the rain melted it.  So between the rain, the snow-melt, and the already saturated ground, a lot of water wound up in our basement (which is more of a cellar than a basement).  Fortunately, we never lost electricity so were able to use the pump, plus our freezer is on a tallish concrete pad, so the water never got anywhere near it.  Roof didn't leak, though.  It will need to be replaced in the next couple of years, but it's still holding.

    Parent
    Sympathies! Yech. (none / 0) (#159)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:17:21 PM EST
    I live on the side of a ridge, so no worries about major flooding, thank God.  But the house is old (1860-ish), and when I had the home inspector come prior to closing the deal, it had been a record-breaking month for rain in the area and everything was flooded.  The inspector (the top local contractor) was bound and determined he was going to find water in the cellar.  Nope.  He went over this ancient thing with a fine-toothed comb and couldn't find the slightest evidence there had ever been water in the cellar and had to admit defeat.

    That verdict was the tipping point in my decision to buy the place.

    Parent

    I have 2 rooms with lot's o'leaking. (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:15:54 PM EST
    We've had over 4.5" so far, just ask my kitchen floor and all those carefully packed boxes in the other room {sigh} It's a mess out there.

    Parent
    Hanks + Bugliosi -- a big mistake on the way (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by good grief on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:36:35 PM EST
    Mention of director James Cameron above deciding not to pursue movie of a book about Hiroshima due to problems with factual errors and "author tricked by phony source" etc reminds me Tom Hanks is planning to make a movie of Vincent Bugliosi's 1600-page travesty defending the long-discredited Warren Report. Talk about being "tricked by phony source" (CIA among others). Those who are avid for Hanks to proceed with Bugliosi project should read "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James W. Douglass, which I just finished. Not a conspiracy theory but a masterful work of history, less a whodunit than a whydunit. Hope Hanks, recently dubbed "America's Historian" by Time Magazine, has the gumption to read the Douglass book, sit down with him and base his film on the truth instead of an elaborate system of lies in the Warren Report.

    America's Historian? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    Good grief, "good grief".  

    I don't know which is more ridiculous -- Time magazine for that howler or Tom Hanks pretending he's read and analyzed for accuracy all 2,000+ pgs of the Bugliosi doorstop.

    At what point did Hanks' ego get a little too large for his brainpan?  Was it that 2d (or was it a 3d) Oscar®?  Or was it inevitable once he began to do all that moviemaking with top-of-the-foodchain director Spielberg?

    And the James Douglass book rec -- excellent.  

    Parent

    is it my imagination (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:39:29 PM EST
    or has there been a distinct effort to push the "Warren version" in the last few months.


    Parent
    It's not much (none / 0) (#153)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    of stretch to think that the Joint Chiefs, who thought it was perfectly ok to discuss staging terrorist attacks in the U.S to stimulate support for an invasion of Cuba, might try to use a known Castro-symp to get rid of a President they saw as an impediment to their jihad.

    Parent
    Oh, yes it is (none / 0) (#160)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:19:31 PM EST
    It's a heeeuuuuge stretch and utter nonsense.


    Parent
    A heeeuuuge stretch (none / 0) (#167)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:18:30 PM EST
    I have no doubt those that prefer a semi-somnambulistic state (present company excepted),  would've said the exact same thing about
    Operation Northwoods, if the document hadnt surfaced for all to read and understand the sort of unhinged, cold war jihadist mindset that existed in certain high places in that era.

    As if staging terrorist attacks in your own country were somehow understandable, rational and less treasonous than enabling an assassination.

    Parent

    William Gaudet (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:22:10 PM EST
    just happened to plan a trip to Mexico on the same day Oswald applied for a visa in order to visit the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City (where CIA surveillance equipment malfunctioned on the day of Oswald's visit)

    Just a weird coincidence: When the Warren Commission investigators checked the registry of the names of all the people who applied for a Mexican visa on the same day and at the same office as Oswald, the only name missing from the list that they presented to the public was the one immediately after the "lone nut" -- that is, until 1975 when the name of the person that the Warren Commission couldnt track down surfaced and turned out to be a CIA employee named William Gaudet.

    Helluva coincidence. But of course, just a coincidence.

    Parent

    Does Tom Hanks (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 06:33:51 PM EST
    ever drive around in an open convertible?

    With Dan Brown, preferably?

    Parent

    Hanks... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:52:24 PM EST
    was dubbed "America's Historian?" Really? I don't even like the overrated bore as "America's Actor" and this is really a bridge too far.

    What will Tom Brokaw say? (none / 0) (#125)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:18:48 PM EST


    Parent
    "A bridge too far" (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:32:56 PM EST
    An apt simile--doesn't that go back to Operation Market Garden and the failed attempt to take a bridge over the Rhine that was too far away?

    Parent
    Whew!` (none / 0) (#161)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:20:51 PM EST
    Thank you for saying that.  I thought I was the only one.  (Not to mention the strong undercurrent of rage and hostility in pretty much everything he does.  Guy badly needs a shrink, IMHO.)

    Parent
    Watched 'The Pacific' (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 09:13:09 PM EST
    Well done, but confusing, Hard to keep the characters straight once they get into uniform. I'm sure that will get better with more episodes. Finally toward the end the guy write a letter and I confirmed he was who I thought he was. Knowing it is based on letters and real accounts adds a lot to it to me. The situations and conversations ring true.

    I DVR'd it because we watched (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 07:00:13 AM EST
    "Precious".  What a film.  It surprises me that something like "The Hurt Locker" would beat out a movie like "Precious" at awards time.  I was listening to Bill Maher talk about the smear campaign that started about "The Hurt Locker", but there was no created smear campaign that I know of.  He complained that soldiers suddenly came forward saying the movie wasn't accurate but that isn't exactly true either in my book because most of the people who would know how accurate the portrayal is aren't quite what you could say immediately available to watch it and immediately let you know.  Few of the people who know whether or not "The Hurt Locker" is accurate are sitting around stateside in movie theaters.  Soldiers in Afghanistan saw it because it was eventually bootlegged this year and the kids were selling it on the streets.  A movie like Precious though, we all see people going through life experiences like that all day everyday but we are too afraid and too vain about our own selves to take a look at what is right in front of us that isn't pretty.  As for "The Hurt Locker", my spouse has said that no soldier dealing with IEDs would be allowed to act crazy about it and put other soldiers lives in danger the way the movie depicted.  Facing down an IED is a much more serious and somber and slower task.  But art imitates life, it doesn't need to be life accurate so I can't say "The Hurt Locker" shouldn't have won.  I would have liked what it said about us if "Precious" had won though.

    Parent
    I thought it was very slow moving (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 09:56:08 PM EST
    I also had a hard time getting into the characters.

    Parent
    It was hard to follow (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    and keep the characters straight.....but it is hard to follow Saving Private Ryan and the Band of Brothers....

    And it does show that WWII stories focus much more on Europe....

    The main character so far is Sgt. John Basilone.   Medal of Honor winner at Guadalcanal--held off 3,000 Japanese with few left in his unit....His was the big family dinner at the beginning of the show.  He dies at Iwo Jima.  A local stretch of freeway is named after him.

    The other two main characters appear to be the contemplative one who chatted up the pretty girl at the church, and the guy who failed his physical--from previews he gets in the Marines....    

    Parent

    By "hard to follow" (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    I mean it is hard to follow such good pieces of work, not hard to follow the plot.

    Parent
    Pfc Leckie... (none / 0) (#9)
    by NealB on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 10:02:18 PM EST
    ..., Catholic of PA, was born in 1920. About the same age as my father who was a navy pilot in the pacific part of WWII. So, that kind of hooked me.

    Not sure what the opening credits with the crumbling charcoal drawings mean, but they're beautiful.

    Pfc Phillips of Mobile is cute and according to Wikipedia was alive as recently as 2001, so it's nice to know he's not going to get killed.

    I worry that the flag they found in someone's pack near the end of this first episode is going to end up being the one they raise on Iwo Jima nearer the end of the series.

    The StarWars effects during the battle sequence seemed like a gratuitous choice. Bullets don't glow like that. They didn't then. They don't now. I don't think it's effective.

    I also wondered about the five-minute Tom Hanks voiceover documentary introduction tacked on at the beginning. When they did Band Of Brothers ten years ago, the documentary background was provided by the real-life people portrayed in the movie. Ten years is a long time. None of the characters presented in The Pacific would be less than 85 years old today; almost all of them, like my father, are dead.

    Anyway, after one episode, it's hard to tell where they're going with the series. The HBO web site doesn't give any further clues. I guess I'll just have to watch it and see. (Thanks to my partner for paying the HBO bill for the next few months so I can find out.)

    Parent

    Tracer Rounds (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by coast on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:11:53 PM EST
    The "glowing" bullets are tracer rounds which have been used since WW I.  Used to give the shooter an indication of where he is shooting.  Usually every fifth bullet in a magazine is a tracer round.  Its not some Star Wars effect, its real, and they kill just like a normal bullet.

    Parent
    Dale Dye is the military consultant (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:42:29 PM EST
    for Pacific--and for Ryan too.

    He had a bit role in Platoon as the captain at the fire base that was nearly overrun at the end--as did Oliver Stone.  Also played Col. Sink in Band of Brothers and a cameo in the scene with George Marshall in Ryan....also in Blue Sky with Jessica Lange

    Dye was a Marine--so he should get the technical part of the film right.  

    Parent

    Now Platoon -- (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:13:17 PM EST
    there's your first and probably best and most realistic depiction of the horrors of war.  Took some courage for Stone to lay it all out that way so brutally.  Prior to that, Hollywood sanitized the heck out of war and over-glorified with some 2-dimensional John Wayne hero types.

    Of course 20 yrs later, after Spielberg's Ryan and Band and similar, Hollywood has almost gone the other direction in doing the grisly nitty-gritty reality almost too well and too often.  Depicting the ugly horrors seems to be the main point of these pictures, rather than compelling drama involving well-drawn characters.

    Parent

    I agree about the realism (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:10:52 PM EST
    with the Band of Brothers type films, and now The Pacific. When they commit to using real life people as the characters, they lose a lot of liberty with how they can develop the characters. I kind of prefer the Platoon model, for that reason of telling a compelling story as opposed to an absolutely realistic one. I think they make up for it with the true grit.

    Parent
    By 'make up for it' (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    I mean in the sense of attempting to replace character development. I don't think it really does make up for it, really.

    Parent
    There's going to be less of (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    a coherent narrative than in "Band of Brothers" both for historical reasons (its much harder to narrativize island hopping- especially since it wasn't a straight shot by any means) and for organizational ones (Ambrose's book was easier to mold into a continuous arc).

    Parent
    And Ambrose (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:50:11 PM EST
    had Private David Webster's writings.  A Harvard literature major, his journal helped Ambrose write his book....along with Dick Winters.

    Parent
    The Pacific (none / 0) (#138)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:16:30 PM EST
    Based on memoirs.

    From Wiki

    The Pacific is based primarily on two memoirs of U.S. Marines: With the Old Breed by Eugene Sledge and Helmet for My Pillow by Robert Leckie.[3]  The series will tell the stories of the two authors and Marine John Basilone, as the war against the Empire of Japan rages. It also draws on Sledge's China Marine[28]  and Red Blood, Black Sand,[29]  the memoir of Chuck Tatum, a Marine who fought alongside Basilone at Iwo Jima and witnessed his death.


    Parent
    With The Old Breed is an amazing book. (none / 0) (#145)
    by snstara on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:18:16 PM EST
    I can't speak for the series - I don't get HBO - but Sledge's story is well worth reading. It's one book that would have translated well into film, and I am considering buying the DVD just to see how Spielberg/Hanks & co. have used his incredible memoir.

    Whatever the outcome, I am glad that Eugene Sledge's story is finally seeing a wider audience.

    Parent

    Maybe the better tack (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:51:59 PM EST
    for the Pacific would be more the impressionistic--like Thin Red Line--rather than a linear story telling of events....

    Parent
    That's how I'm looking at it (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 08:47:01 AM EST
    Anyway, after one episode, it's hard to tell where they're going with the series.

    I look at it like I just read the first chapter of a book and am still getting into it. Seems worth it to keep watching to me. OTOH I have friends who quit books if they don't get hooked fast. I can see that viewpoint too. Life is short.

    Parent

    There's really only (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:56:06 AM EST
    3 main characters - and they are all dead, so I guess that's why they couldn't do talk overs.

    Parent
    I found the same (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:54:33 AM EST
    Watching "Band of Brothers"  - had to watch those episodes a couple of times to get the characters.

    I liked the Pacific - reading the back story of main characters was very interesting.

    Parent

    Missed the opening (none / 0) (#63)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:39:28 AM EST
    ep of Pacific, but according to a fairly negative review in Salon by Heather Havrilevsky, this Hanks-Spielberg production sounds like it's just Band of Brothers:  The Pacific Theater Edition.

    I might check in for a look-see, but I suspect this really is well-trod ground that I've already spent hours watching some years ago with Band and Saving Pvt Ryan.

    There's still probably an angle or two w/r/t WWII, getting into off the beaten path areas, that could be made into an interesting docudrama type film and serve an important and instructive public interest.  Perhaps James Cameron will achieve this if he goes through with the planned film dealing with Hiroshima.  Though if he does, he'll really need to have his history well-documented from several sources, else the Pentagon establishment using their vast MSM resources will come down on him big time for straying off the reservation of acceptable Hiroshima story lines.

    Parent

    The book that he was going to base (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    the movie on has been dropped by the publisher..

    Too many "errors" were found pre publication.

    Parent

    Looks like the author (none / 0) (#68)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:03:12 AM EST
    was tricked by a phony source, as opposed to his making stuff up to spice up his book.  And it appears he recognizes the problem and will re-issue a corrected edition of the book.  Stuff like this happens now and then, even to the best.

    But it's not been decided whether Cameron will definitely go forward.  If he does, I'd recommend he get a few historical consultants on board who are sympatico with what looks to be his skeptical take on Hiroshima -- he'll need it since the backlash from the Pentagon will be fierce for anything but a glowing movie tribute to the men involved in dropping the bomb.

    Parent

    You'd have a much (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    easier time making a moral argument and media presentation critical of the bombing of Nagasaki, the bombing of Hiroshima is hard to view as a massive moral ill considering both the alternatives and the widespread practive of aerial bombardment (what makes Hiroshima worse, than Berlin, Dresden or Tokyo on the allied side, or England, Pearl, Nanking and the Soviet Union on the axis side?)

    Parent
    Tricked by a phony source? (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    How do we know he won't be "tricked" again?

    And before we get all misty eyed over nuking H and N, what do you think of the fire bombing of Tokyo?

    War is war is war and we had every right to drop the bombs.

    Parent

    The case (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:16:49 PM EST
    could be made that Nagasaki was morally questionable act- Hiroshima on the other hand seems to have a very strong utilitarian case in its favor- virtually any other option would have killed more people (both Allied and Japanese) and as you noted its not as if the bombing of Hiroshima was this massive departure from the norms at the time (if anything the massive leafleting and pre-warning made it more humane than other bombings in the War).

    Parent
    Both H and N (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    had and do have arguments against them, though I understand your point about N.

    Not all of Truman's advisers agreed we should go ahead and use the bomb, including his top personal military aide (a Navy admiral) and (allegedly) Ike (or so he stated later), plus a few others in the nat'l security chain.  But Truman seems not to have given much consideration at all to not using it as soon as it became available.

    Other issues re H related to the nature of our "unconditional surrender" terms to Japan, where we seemed to know that they were willing to surrender if only we would allow them to keep their Emperor, but our leaders wanted to maintain their tough no-conditions posture for domestic political reasons.   In the end of course, we allowed Japan to keep their Emperor.  Stupid and needless killing it would appear.  

    But apparently there were other factors, among which was to send a message to the Russkies, about to mount a major offensive in the East, as to how awesome was America's military might.

    Parent

    I would argue that (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:37:59 PM EST
    unconditional surrender is an acceptable line to draw, especially in the case of Imperial Japan- when a nation engages in aggressive pre-emptive war, it cannot suddenly decide to sue for peace when its fortunes change.  The terms the Japanese would have accepted prior to Hiroshima weren't in any way acceptable- they wouldn't have disarmed entirely, which frankly even if one ignores the obvious American arguments for total disarmament would have been unacceptable to the Asian nations which suffered under Japanese oppression- China and Korea particularly would have viewed Japanese surrender w/o disarmament with well-earned suspicion.

    Parent
    Never a fan of "bombs away (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:10:48 PM EST
    Curtis LeMay"--would have blown up the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis....

    Parent
    JFK on LeMay (none / 0) (#128)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:49:35 PM EST
    (paraphr):  When it comes to war, you want LeMay leading your bomber squadron.  But you don't want LeMay deciding whether to go to war.

    McNamara:  If the other side had won WWII, LeMay and I would have been brought up for war crimes.

    Parent

    I think this ground is less trodden (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:56:29 AM EST
    than the European aspect of WWII. You didn't see any of this in Band of Brothers or Private Ryan. I don't think most people are as familiar with what actually happened, and why, on Guadalcanal, Midway, etc. as they are with D-day, the London air raids, etc. The war in europe was about liberating occupied territory more than it was about strategic capture of islands for purposes that in many cases were hard to understand by even the men doing the fighting.

    It's up to HBO-Spielberg, etc. to decide if it was worth spending their money on, and up to each of us to decide whether it is worth the time to watch. Just making the point that I don't think this material has been covered.

    Parent

    I am interested in the series (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    mostly I think because my grandfather was a medic in the Pacific.  He was quiet by the time I came into his life if he had ever been outspoken.  My grandmother's family loved playing baseball.  He had been the team coach that most of them played on so he must have been outspoken at some time. He never spoke about it or much of anything else though by the time I was born.  My grandparents were engaged before he left for the war.  My grandmother waited for him and collected things in her hope chest.  Whatever had happened to him in those earlier years, he had pulled a curtain closed.  I always knew that he cared for me, sometimes I even felt like he loved me, but he only spoke maybe a handfull of direct words to me in my whole life.  I was his first grandchild.  My Uncle told me that the primary reason he joined the Marines and went to Vietnam was that he hoped to understand his father, and it didn't really help except maybe to know how he became broken....but never exactly why or where or the details of how.

    Parent
    My father (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:48:44 PM EST
    was in the Navy (submarines) in the Pacific during WW II.  We grew up listening to a lot of his stories.  Fascinating stuff, and it very obviously affected him greatly.  I'm sorry that your grandfather did not share some of his experiences with you, MT, but I know that a lot of vets (and not just of WW II) were/are unable to speak about their experiences, and I respect that.  We don't get HBO, but I will be renting the DVD when it comes out.

    Parent
    So true (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:19:51 PM EST
    The Pacific has not gotten as much attention as the European Theater....as strange as that might sound.

    How many people know about Patton and about the 101st Airborne and Bastogne and Normandy--and the strategic meaning of each?

    The Pacific just seems like a jumbled jungle in the American consciousness.  Just harder to protray....no villages to liberate, no famous cities like Paris.  The Pacific Ocean all looks the same.... and one itsy bitsy, uninhabited jungle island is the same as another.

    Parent

    Perhaps so, but (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    it's not like the Pacific theater has been neglected by movie makers.  Recall all those war-contemporary Hollywood flicks like Guadalcanal Diary and Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, etc, then the later ones including epics like Bridge on the River Kwai, MacArthur (Greg Peck version), Tora! Tora! Tora!, and the most recent big-budget retelling of Pearl Harbor.

    The Pacific hasn't been overlooked.  But it might be true that Pearl Harbor has garnered most of Hollywood's attention over the years at the expense of other battles.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:56:35 PM EST
    Midway and In Harm's Way (with everyone starring in it)

    ....The Navy did get a lot of attention....

    Recently Thin Red Line and Clint Eastwood's movies...But somehow it just is harder to get a grip on what was going on....  

    Parent

    Perhaps the strangest thing about it (none / 0) (#95)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:04:49 PM EST
    is that the Pacific represents a far, far more American victory than the European theatre- while Europe was liberated by Allies, the Pacific was almost wholly liberated by the United States (depending on the importance one places on Vietnam, China and Korea- though it could quite easily be argued that home-grown resistance in those nations would have been immaterial but for US success).

    Parent
    Question: (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:32:10 PM EST
    Did FDR at one point promise to the Vietnamese that he'd do everything in his power to guarantee them their independence after Southeast Asia had been liberated?

    I remember Barbara Tuchman discussing this scenario in her book The March of Folly, but it seems to be glossed over - if true - in most of the other accounts of the history of U.S involvement in Vietnam.

    Parent

    Its a point (none / 0) (#114)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    of debate- I mean on the one hand the US almost certainly promised liberty, but on the other hand the attempt to transition from French colony to independence would likely have been a relatively slow and arduous process even without Franco-Vietnamese hostilities (see the Indian Independence, and the partition of India-Pakistan, now imagine India had voted to re-unify Pakistan, or that instead of the largest mass migration in human history Pakistan holds a vote about staying a part of India and the Hindu bloc- votes for "one India." ) Vietnam becomes even more confusing in the wake of Korea- as it obviously colored American perceptions of Ho Chi Minhs and the Communists legitimacy to govern the whole of Vietnam).

    Parent
    And absolutely diddly (none / 0) (#156)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:59:41 PM EST
    on Africa.  Far as I know, that British Richard Burton flick about Rommel is pretty much it.

    Parent
    There's my favorite... (none / 0) (#166)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 08:24:55 AM EST
    ...TV show when I was a kid--Rat Patrol.  Good stuff--I love the way the had the tires squealing on sand and you knew no matter how tough a situation, they would always find a way to out-smart the Germans.

    Parent
    I enjoyed it (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:59:20 AM EST
    And it certainly is more thought provoking and entertaining (IMO) than so called "reality" TV.  For example - I knew this, but I'm a history geek, but the first episode covers the first part of the Battle of Guadalcanal, when the Navy left the Marines on the island (and a transport ship carrying supplies was sunk) to fend for themselves for a month or so - they had no backup, no escape, and still they trudged on.

    And like BoB, I think it does a good job showing the grittiness and cost of war.

    Parent

    Wait (none / 0) (#93)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:58:24 PM EST
    even if it is "Band of Brothers: Pacific Edition" how would that be a bad thing- the original is basically considered the best media depiction of American Troops on the European Front.

    Parent
    Short attention spans. Who cares how (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    many people perished in the Pacific theater and how or why they perished?

    Parent
    The same could be said (none / 0) (#104)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:13:50 PM EST
    about virtually any depiction of war- if you're going to argue that war is verbotten and should never be the subject of media, then I get your point otherwise I'm not sure what you're arguing.

    Parent
    Snark. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:14:46 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd like to see someone (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    do a historical rendering that covered a little more of material Howard Zinn that dealt with in A Peoples History.. or some of the "underground history" writer Micky Z deals with in his essay Saving Private Power..

    God bless our WWII veterans, but after a while all  this cinematic wringing-every-blessed-drop-of-pathos out of "the last good war" almost smacks of one long recruitment commercial.

    Parent

    Um, FYI (none / 0) (#158)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:11:19 PM EST
    verboten, not "verbotten."  :-)

    Parent
    Peter Graves has died (none / 0) (#4)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 09:28:11 PM EST
    The original Jim Phelps, from the IMF!

    I loved that show. Incidentally, it was broadcast on Sunday nights at 10:00 p.m. on CBS. So... 40 years ago tonight, that's what I would have been watching, in secret, in my sister's room, so my parents wouldn't know I was up that late on a "school night."

    RIP Mr. Phelps. This tape will immediatelely self-destruct, but your wonderful deadpan delivery will not be forgotten.

    He was wonderful in the Airplane movies, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 09:37:58 PM EST
    too.

    He had a very commanding presence in every role I saw him in.

    RIP

    Parent

    Fond memories (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:12:28 AM EST
    Scary, I even remember him in the western series "Fury"! I used to watch it Saturday mornings on WGN here.

    I think that's why I enjoyed him  so much in the Airplane movies. It's great to see an actor step out of character and have fun with his or her self.

    Parent

    I always confused (none / 0) (#61)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:30:26 AM EST
    him with his bro James Arness -- both sounded very much alike.  But it was Arness who was in those two classic Sci-Fi films from the 50s -- Them! and The Thing -- while the other starred in what was probably the most successful of the many teevee spy shows that were the rage back in the 60s.

    Fury was before my time.  But in a weird footnote, it was one of the two favorite American tv series of a very infamous criminal as he was growing up a half a world away ...

    Parent

    he was in plenty of 50s (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:36:33 AM EST
    scifi himself.  It Conquered the World, The Eye Creatures and on and on.


    Parent
    Ah, well they (none / 0) (#65)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:51:57 AM EST
    cranked out a ton of sci-fi monster films back then, didn't they?  But I think bro Arness has the advantage here in terms of quality with his two classics, though I haven't seen the movies you mention.  

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:57:07 AM EST
    Arness has the Thing.  so that beats anything else.
    thats the best movie ever.
    but Graves definitely had his share.


    Parent
    Them! is right (none / 0) (#70)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:20:37 AM EST
    up there, too.

    But now I'm reminded where I saw Peter Graves in an old movie:  Billy Wilder's Stalag 17 where he played a key supporting role.

    Parent

    The rat (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:45:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Looks (none / 0) (#74)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    Arness may have gotten the better movie, but Peter Graves got the better looks!

    Parent
    Arness got (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:41:24 PM EST
    the looks?

    ;-)

    Parent

    I always love the silver fox look (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    Peter Graves, Johnny Carson, Steve Martin...

    Parent
    Yes, that beings back memories here too (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 09:40:09 PM EST
    Had such a crush on him!  RIP Mr. Phelps.

    Loved that show,. My sister and my dad and I used to watch it together. We were the "big kids" and got to stay up a little later. My dad made popcorn, and we would get to drink a glass of Pepsi!!  It was a big event.  Used to love it at the end when they all got done with the mission and took off the make-up, etc., theme song playing. Good memories.

    Parent

    Why do you call it "IMF"? Assuming (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 10:29:29 PM EST
    your are referring to Mission Impossible.

    Parent
    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#25)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:21:34 AM EST
    The Impossible Missions Force

    Parent
    back before Tommy (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:52:36 AM EST
    when it was good.

    Parent
    Absolutely! (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:55:38 AM EST


    Parent
    of course (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:04:04 AM EST
    I am old to remember him from "Fury" on saturday mornings.

    Parent
    Before Tom Cruised looked like (none / 0) (#50)
    by observed on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:58:33 AM EST
    the inner Thetan had escaped.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 10:55:49 PM EST
    Herr Security in Stalag 17.

    Parent
    I picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue :) (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 07:15:34 AM EST


    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:01:06 AM EST
    that should be on his tombstone

    "You ever seen a grown man naked?"

    Parent

    Your mission should you decide (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:46:38 PM EST
    to accept it...

    Parent
    More (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:14:04 PM EST
    "Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? "

    "Joey, have you ever been in a... in a Turkish prison? "

    Parent

    I'm watching a recent movie with (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 09:57:26 PM EST
    Daryl Hannah and I was thinking she looks like she's had plastic surgery. I'm not the only person who thinks that---the first google auto-complete for Darryl Hannah is "plastic surgery".
    btw, some plastic surgeons opine (none / 0) (#10)
    by observed on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 10:03:16 PM EST
    that Tom Cruise has not had anything done.
    His trick, they say, is to always smile, to hide the sagging in his face.
    He does seem to always smile, no matter what the mood.

    Parent
    Missed (none / 0) (#18)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 10:59:15 PM EST
    the first installment of Pacific.  Busy on a tight deadline project.

    If it's the same quality as Band of Brothers it'll be worth making time to watch and listen.

    A census question, if I may (none / 0) (#33)
    by itscookin on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 08:50:14 AM EST
    We were at  friend's house for a dinner party last night and everyone was shaking their heads over how much money the government had spent sending us all a letter telling us they were sending us a letter. Which brought up the question of which questions on the census are we legally obligated to answer. The government already knows who we are, where we live, how many dependents we have, what we do for a living, and how much money we earn via the IRS. Why not add the racial questions and the age of our dependents to our tax form and save the government the cost of the census?

    Not everyone files a tax return (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:23:43 AM EST
    is the short answer. Also I'm sure there are budgetary issues with intermingling the two functions and agencies.

    That said, yeah, the letter notifying me of the form to come was overkill!

    Parent

    Also, someone living in your house (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:24:25 AM EST
    is not necessarily a dependent for tax purposes.

    Parent
    Wouldn't it still be easier (none / 0) (#43)
    by itscookin on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:49:03 AM EST
    to just ask the question "How many people are living in your home?" on a tax form? It just seems that we mobilize a huge force to collect information that for the most part the government is already collecting. People without mailing addresses don't get the census form, either. When we talk about government waste, it would seem that this might be a good place to start. Before this kind of information could be computerized, there might have been a reason for duplication of effort, but why now?

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    I think you should read up on just what a massive undertaking the census is, and why we need it.

    Your comments on this are quite myopic.

    Parent

    Besides all the other reasons (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:25:38 AM EST
    People get bent out of shape about tax forms already. The last thing they want is the IRS knowing  even more about them.

    I am all for separation of function. Use computers where possible not to duplicate effort - maybe the census bureau got their initial address info from the IRS - but keep the functions separate.

    My current beef is with drivers licenses being used as the de facto national ID card. Now in FL to get your drivers license renewed you have to show 2 forms of ID, plus SS card, and proof of residence.  Drivers license should show you are fit to drive a car, and that is it. If we need a national ID card, let's get one. I'm not one who has a problem with that.

    Parent

    That early letter demonstrably improves (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:06:04 AM EST
    the response rate, requiring many fewer follow up visits. So it actually saves money.

    As for your IRS question, simple: not everyone who needs to be counted in the census files tax returns.

    Parent

    I remember reading/hearing census and IRS (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    are forbidden by law from sharing info.

    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:19:53 AM EST
    there will probably be a follow-up letter or two as well. All better than sending someone to the house in person.

    Parent
    trouble in paradise (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:01:36 AM EST
    The Beck Factor at Fox: Staffers say comments taint their work

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:32:58 AM EST
    I love that the journalists, such as they are (Jon Stewart did a great job debunking the myth that the news arm is separate from the editorial arm) are worried about being tainted. Hello, you are on Fox News. What the hell did you expect?

    Parent
    of course the other way to look at it (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    is that it took Beck to make them worry about being "tainted"

    none of the crap that went before bothered them.

    Parent

    Yup. (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    He does out-crazy Hannity and O'reilly, I'll give him that.

    Parent
    I'd agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    I've always basically regarded Hannity in the same way I do Bush or Palin- someone whose intellectually incurious and accepts talking points. O'Reily is different to me, I have a very, very hard time believing he's sincere in his beliefs rather than mouthing them for money.  Beck, honestly sometimes you question the man's sanity.

    Parent
    I've heard O'Reilly (none / 0) (#132)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    say a couple of times, seemingly apropos of nothing, "Ya gotta pick your battles in this life", which I take to mean something like, "I may not really believe all this sh*t..but I need this job".

    Hannity, on the other hand, is robotic in his consistency..I've heard him tell the story about having a (borderline homoerotic imo) epiphany while watching Ollie North "stand up for America" during the Iran Contra hearings. He's beyond hope.

    Parent

    Beck's the perfect storm (none / 0) (#136)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:13:19 PM EST
    of pentecostal demagoguery, libertarian militancy and almost-McVeigh-level paranoia..

    It's almost as if some wingnut focus group determined that this was the kind of rhetorician they'd need to sway the could-go-right-or-could-go-left disgruntled masses.

    Parent

    trouble in paradise 2 (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:02:49 AM EST
    Vatican officials defend pope on abuse

    Sounds like conspiracy to (none / 0) (#41)
    by observed on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    obstruct justice on the pope's part.


    Parent
    a reminder for locals (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:30:20 AM EST
    of my friends show.


    Dear friends and colleagues,

    I wanted to let you know of upcoming events regarding my exhibit, The Art of the Movie Theater, at the National Heritage Museum in Lexington, MA. This Sunday, March 7th, I'll be presenting a gallery talk to the Massachusetts State Committee of the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Complete information can be found on their website:
     

    link

    link

    Rielle Hunter poses in underwear... (none / 0) (#55)
    by magster on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:15:34 AM EST
    ... with daughter and stuffed animals to call Elizabeth a power hungry liar.  

    Imagine if this stuff was going on in Pres. Edwards' administration...

    The photos are not at all flattering (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:06:01 AM EST
    and the intent of the interview is even less so.

    What possesses anyone to want to go national with her story of an affair with a married man, with children, in pursuit of the top job in gov't? There's not a word she can say to make Johnny look like a good person. She's doing herself no favor.


    Parent

    I didn't get the impression that she (none / 0) (#96)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    was looking to do herself any favors, based on what I heard this morning from the author of the GQ article; it came across more as she's the only one of the participants in this drama who has not been heard from, and she wanted to be heard, and I really can't say as I blame her for that, at least.

    One can make the argument that Hunter should have had respect for the Edwards marriage and not placed herself in a position where she would be seen as a homewrecker, but John was the one who took a vow of fidelity, so it seems like he should have had more respect for his own marriage, if not his children.

    As for Hunter making Elizabeth out to be a power-hungry liar, well...if Eliz. knew as much as Hunter says she did, and if John had been unfaithful in the past, it's hard not to wonder what - or who - was the real motivation behind continuing on with a presidential campaign in spite of that knowledge.  Maybe it was as simple as her believing that John would be unable to continue to cheat on her if she could just get him elected to the WH - who knows?

    Whatever else she is or may have been, I know that Elizabeth Edwards is no saint - because no one is; we are all human and all have our not-so-pretty side.  Rielle Hunter is not just a stereotypical, one-dimensional, evil other woman - whatever her flaws and failings are, she also has to have some good qualities.  And even though none of us has been privy to the details of the Edwards marriage, one doesn't need to be to know what a mess all of this is, or that the children - including Frances Quinn - will be saddled with the stigma for years.

    No shining moments for anyone involved, that's for sure.

    Parent

    Another great column.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by desertswine on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    by Frank Rich on Sunday. "The New Rove-Cheney Assualt on Reality."

    Maybe so (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    If he ever writes one about the various Clinton-Gore-era Frank Rich assaults on reality, maybe I'll start reading his column.

    Parent
    AMEN!!! (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:56:09 AM EST


    Parent
    I haven't (none / 0) (#72)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:39:34 AM EST
    seen "The Pacific" - but the thought of Obama watching a private screening of a war movie is not an event I enjoy visualizing.

    Somehow I don't (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:52:11 PM EST
    think Obama will be so inspired after watching it as to want to go invade a country.

    As Nixon did with Cambodia after screening Patton at the WH.

    Parent

    But... (none / 0) (#142)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:03:46 PM EST
    it might further encourage him in his choices to escalate a war here, and think about another war there... Iran, for example.

    When pols talk about "sacrifice", I want to scream.

    Parent

    Why's That? (1.00 / 2) (#143)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:12:53 PM EST
    Are you more a JFK or IKE, glory of war type? Or Clinton?

    From your comments here, I imagine the only thing you would enjoy regarding Obama, is seeing him publicly humiliated or finishing his term as POTUS.

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#170)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:15:24 PM EST
    I would enjoy from Obama is a progressive agenda.

    Parent
    Not Likely (none / 0) (#171)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:38:41 AM EST
    But someday the US may swing towards the progressive agenda. Most americans are center right as far as I am concerned, ergo, the president is center right.

    Parent
    Its not like Pacific (none / 0) (#101)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:11:55 PM EST
    glorifies War- it makes pretty clear the sacrifices War entails.

    Parent
    Im very mistrustful (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:46:23 PM EST
    the mythic ambience that almost always seems accrue when the Spielbergs and Hanks' of the world deal with this kind of material.

    Sacrifice it may be, but it's more often than not one that the Stevens and Toms of the world are exempted from. Meanwhile, it's another Twilight of the Idols and Golgotha time for many young men and women who've been prepped to be ready to "make the ultimate sacrifice" their whole lives.

    Parent

    Millionaire (none / 0) (#127)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:45:20 PM EST
    I just read where at least 40% of our members of Congress are millionaires. No wonder they think life is such a slice and that eveything is fine. Health care, college tuitions, and unemployment are no problem for them and their's.

    If I got paid $174,000 (none / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:54:30 PM EST
    a year, maybe I'd be a millionaire by now too if I managed to stay in office a few years.

    We are the ones making them millionaires. I doubt 40% of them were such before they were elected. Makes you feel even batter, doesn't it?

    Parent

    Not quite! (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:51:50 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:10:32 PM EST
    $174,000 isn't a ton if you have to maintain 2 residences (especially one at DC prices).  I think most of these folks were rich before they got here - that's HOW they got here.  They had the connections and the ability to run (probably not too many had to decide between working OT to feed their families or attend fundraising events)

    Parent
    44% (none / 0) (#134)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:08:29 PM EST
    As of last November

    U.S. senators currently serving have a median reportable worth of $1.79 million for 2008, down from $2.27 million in 2007, CRP's analysis indicates. Meanwhile, currently serving House members' median income was $645,503 in 2008, down from $724,258 in 2007.

    SNIP

    But because members of Congress are only required to report their wealth and liabilities in broad ranges, it's impossible to precisely determine how much value their assets are worth, or have gained or lost. CRP determines the minimum and maximum possible asset values for each member of Congress to calculate a member's average estimated wealth.

    Based on this criteria, Democrats occupy the top five spots in terms of average wealth among senators: Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Warner, Kerry, Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). Kohl, in placing first, boasts an average wealth figure of more than $214.5 million. In contrast, Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) recorded average wealth below $0.

    In the House, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) placed first, with an average wealth of $251 million - top among all members of Congress. Following Issa are Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.). Twenty-three House members recorded average wealth in negative territory, with Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) and Harry Teague (D-N.M.) scraping the bottom.

    Richest Members of Congress / Executive Branch (oddly enough, mostly Democrats)

    Poorest Members of Congress

    Parent

    Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | 170 comments (170 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment