February 15, 2009
Mark's Review of "W"
I watched "W" this morning, and really enjoyed it. Stone is kind to George H. W. Bush, even to the point of sympathy. He also is nice to Barbara, Laura, and Jeb. Stone goes out of his way to portray Colin Powell as the lone "dove" in the bunch, perhaps even going overboard in trying to prove the point. I always thought Powell was tricked like the rest of us. But Stone portrays Powell as a man who fought tooth and nail against the Iraq invasion, only to cave in. Which left me asking myself, "why did he not simply resign, instead of going before the U.N. and giving that presentation full of lies?". The rest of the bunch gets appropriately raked over the coals. Rove looks like a dweeb. Rumsfeld is a cocky bastard. Condoleezza Rice sounds like a Chatty Cathy doll. And George W is nothing more than an arrogant moron. But the prize goes to Richard Dreyfuss, who is simply uncanny as Dick Cheney. Mark gives "W" 2 thumbs up, and recommends you spend the 3 bucks to rent it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I was eager to read your "e-book" regarding the Fox. I also served over in the gulf in the late 80s.
I understand that blogs are nothing more than garbage heaps for people to dump their thought onto. In your case, your credibility takes a serious hit when you espouse your blind-hatred masked by political opposition.
I am going to pass on your book, with no regard to your commentary on the Persian Gulf subject matter.
I am certain that there are plenty of lemmings who will flock to your story and I realize that you probably won't waste your breathe with a comment such as mine.
I have no patience for authors or entertainers who make their political hatred/love for politicians a matter of public record rather than focus on the subject they suppose to be an expert on.
Have a great navy day.
If you will re-read the movie review, you'll see that it's just that - a movie review, not political commentary. As for authors or entertainers who make their political views public, so what? Are they not allowed to voice their opinions, while other members of the general public are? Are politicians the only ones allowed to have political opinions? A blog is public discourse. Read it or not. Agree with it or not. But I have a right to say what I want to say. Want to say something different? Then either post comments such as this, or better yet, start your own blog. It's easy and free, and links to do so are available right from this page. Odd how you decided to post anonymously, rather than stand behind your comments with your name.
Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I don't care if you make your opinions known...that was not the issue. Credibility becomes suspect regarding a specific subject when one makes their opinions public (unless that subject concerns politics).
Let me help you understand this. If an entertainer doesn't want to alienate large segments of their audience, they keep their political opinions to themselves. If they don't open their mouths, I'll never know. If they are foolish enough to feel that they have a platform to speak about such matters and they tie their work to their views, then their credibility takes hits.
This is the case with you. Had you kept your blog separate from your work, you wouldn't have this challenge. I am the only one who has taken the time to explain this to you. Most just move on, dismissing everything you said or did.
Anonymity is the beauty of the web. Love it or leave it.
Well, I'm not sure how to answer you. You seem upset by my movie review to the point of dismissing me altogether. Apparently, people who voice their views (which differ from your own) offend you in some way, and you write them off as "incredible". I don't see how voicing one's opinion impacts their credibility. Of course, you are free to have a differing opinion from my own, but that does not make me "incredible".
If you want to punish me by not reading my book, well, what can I say? But it is not a political book. It's just an account of one sailor's experiences overseas.
As for your previous comment about authors and entertainers sticking to their subject of expertise, well, I don't have one. I'm just a regular guy with mostly regular experiences and opinions. I am an expert at nothing. But I do have opinions, and I do voice them.
If the fact that I liked Oliver Stone's movie about George W. Bush, because it portrayed him as the dismal failure that he is, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I wish you fair winds and following seas, and God's blessings. Thank you for your comments. You are welcome to post anytime. But let's try to keep it civil, and leave out the personal insults and demeaning attitude. Okay?
So you want to keep it civil. Let me see...you tossed personal insults without reservation at people of who you have no insight or personal experience.
I am no Bush apologist, nor supporter. I just enjoy the irony when people toss out jabs and personal attacks with reckless abandon then feign civility when slight inferences are pointed into their direction. Let's take a look at what you typed:
"Rove looks like a dweeb."
"Rumsfeld is a cocky bastard."
"Condoleezza Rice sounds like a Chatty Cathy doll."
"George W is nothing more than an arrogant moron."
I do realize that you were speaking about the portrayals within the film, but had you not already felt that way, you wouldn't have lauded the film. It was after all, a portrayal that aligns with your politics.
Spare me the blessings and fair winds pleasantries. This door was opened by you. That you take offense is very telling about your personality.
I don't begrudge you the right to express your opinion or beliefs (you served your country, you've more than earned it). I am merely stating that there are consequences to expressing them so cavalier-like. Should you have the opportunity to publish your work in a tangible form (other than the web), you might want to consider disconnecting your personal beliefs from your work as to not alienate yourself from your prospective customers.
No insight? No personal experience? I have always stayed up to date with current events and politics. I started voting at age 18, and until my late 40's, I voted a straight Republican ticket. In fact, the vote I cast for George W. Bush in 2000 was the last Republican vote I cast. The following 8 years taught me all I needed to know about him and his staff. And I'm glad that part of America's history is behind us.
But, that's beside the point.
Have you seen the movie, "W"? All I did was point out how the characters were portrayed. You seem to want to pick a fight with me for no apparent reason.
It's a MOVIE REVIEW. Get over it.
I have not seen the movie and I never voted for the guy. I see the merits of his administration along with the detractors. I'm not blinded by party politics or the lemming mantras of those groups.
In looking at the past administration, the contrasts are quite apparent from the current vantage point. The current administration has outspent the last administration by more than 100-fold in just 8 weeks. As he spends and creates his synthetic stimulus, our economy spirals with greater speed. Like you, I am glad to have placed prosperity firmly in the past.
Picking a fight? really? Is that how you see this? You might want to perform a self-administered epidermal-density analysis.
I haven't voted for a Republican ticket yet. Reagan proved to me the two-sided nature of his politics as did his successor. Clinton took that policy and ran with it with such great expediency that the American public hailed him, no, lauded him as a "uniter."
As long as people like you continue to play party politics, we'll continue to reap the just rewards as a nation.
As far as insight into the goings on within the White House walls, you have zero insight. Casting a misguided vote is hardly qualified as possessing insight. I drive a car, but I don't profess to have the skills to build one.
Now, back to my reading comprehension remark...you sir, are greatly lacking in that particular skill. Let me try one last time to spell this out for you.
Your public commentary (actions) is part of your character and tells a lot about you. It provides your prospective clients (in your case, readers) with the tools to read into your motives. In your case, it shows that you are highly opinionated (without possessing the supportive education) and it will, more than likely spill forth in your work. This is called discrediting.
Had you separated your opinions from your work, you wouldn't be affording me the opportunity to expose you for whom you really are. Your Gulf experiences, while they are certainly worthy of praise and gratitude, are not worthy of reading as you have more than likely poured your objectionable biases and snarky commentary into your work.
That you continue to react defensively, attempting to turn the tables on me with comments such as "It's a MOVIE REVIEW. Get over it" as if to say that I am making a big deal of such a little thing. Instead of actually understanding what I have communicated since my first post.
I don't care if you opine about films. Likewise, I don't care if you have an opinion about politics. These are rights guaranteed to you by those wonderful documents, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But this was not my point; hence my reading comprehension commentary.
I hope that makes my point clear. If not, then you have proved yet another of my observances about you.
I asked you to be polite, but you still throw personal insults at me; and yes, that is picking a fight. Whatever. You've had your say. I hope you feel better.
"you still throw personal insults at me"
Thank you for proving all of my points. Rather than address any of them, you changed the subject and made your posts about me.
Typical. I can only imagine how baseless and factless your "book" is.
Post a Comment
You are welcome to leave comments. But please be polite. All comments are immediately published, but I do review them, and reserve the right to remove rude or vulgar comments.