It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
The good news for Democrats is that I can’t see any way in hell they will lose in ’08. The Repubs just do not have the candidate choice at this point in time. McCain and Rudy could never win and there really is no one else on the horizon. All that could change of course, but as of now…bleak.
The bad news is, the winner of course will not be Obama. Your next president will be…President Clinton.
I agree with the strategists that what Clinton has to do is take out Obama but make it look like the Reublicans did it for racist reasons. A piece of dirt leaked here, an undisclosed form discovered there…that’s how it will play out. The Clintons have one of the most effective and brutal war machines in American political history and the are not going out without a big stinky dirty fight.
Of course if Al Gore decides to run, the race will get very interesting indeed.
ALthough I disagree with Obama, I do sympathize with him. What he will go through in the primaries will make what the Republicans put the DNC nominee through look like a cake walk.
Hillary has much celebrity and glam quotient at her side and Obama has a lot of good will now because of his iconic stature and because he speaks in very vague feel-good generalities. Once the specifics get heard it will be very different. And he has already put his foot in his mouth earlier about the military.
RIght now Obama is being tightly controlled and handled. Once he’s out on the hustings and he must be more candid…things will change. And Hillary will be there to make sure she takes advantage of it.
As for Hollywood…I do not think they will be a factor this time. The Dems will get it despite Hollywood, not because of it.
I wondered if any of the current Republican candidates did anything for you Nicol. I don’t see how they could. They’re a pretty sorry bunch. McCain is flip-flopping all over the place, while pandering shamelessly to the religious right. Romney isn’t much better and he’s got the Mormon thing working against him. Rudy has too much baggage.
Funny how no one ever mentions the enormous ironic elephant in the room: right-wingers constantly paint “Hollywood” as Ground Zero for all the world’s ills, yet whenever an actor runs for office, it’s invariably as a Republican: Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Bono, Eastwood, Thompson, Grandy, etc.
Actually…no they don’t.
I don’t think any of them are bad guys but you are right in your general assesment.
McCain’s reach out to religious conservatives seems about as genuine as Hillary’s.
Romney will never win because he is a Mormon. End of story. I think many Evangelicals would even have a problem swallowing that let alone centrist Democrats, to be very blunt.
As for Rudy…yes way to much baggage. I also think that even though Rudy could probably give the Dem nominee the biggest challange, he is in many ways an ideological liberal and he will have an uphill battle in the primaries. Hard for the conservatives to get behind.
No, unless something changes and Hillary is found out to be a man a la Crying Game or Obama becomes a flat out pawn of Big tobacco due to his smoking, you guys got ’08 locked up.
…and I say that with no pleasure but I have to be objective.
I also think the Republican’s will have to take their time out in the wilderness to find a genuine candidate that no longer comes from a dynasty. The keep saying they are the party of ‘the average American mid-westerner’…now they should take time out to find a candidate for ’12 to represent that. Someone who is of the Reagan era conservatism and is younger.
If they can do that, ’12 could very well bring them back. But not ’08. I can’t see it.
As a caution though, if Hillary goes to far too fast and starts pushing for things like the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ it will backfire.
It will be interesting times, indeed. And of course Obama is very young and can still come back in ’12 or even later.
My last post was to Stella.
Yeah Nicol I see a lot of division in the Republican party right now. You have the religious right and candidates like Sam Brownback. They are a powerful voting block. Then you have moderates like Rudy, strong on national security issues but also much more centrist on social issues. In the middle are the John McCains, popular with the right when it comes to national security, but also not-so-popular because of his positions on immigration, gay marriage (no federal ban) and campaign finance reform. As a Republican, do you support the one you believe in or the one with the best chance to win? I can’t see the right collectively rallying behind any one of those men. Romney either, for reasons already mentioned. It will be interesting. The Dems, of course, are already bickering and have plenty of problems of their own.
Stella,
Ultimately, I would have to support the one I believe in most and take all issues into consideration. At least then if he/she lost I could sleep well at night. Once people start voting for the candidate that could win the most, that’s when they just become partisan and party shills.
Frankly, all things considered, if I were in a voting booth right now and had to cast a ballot…I would be stumped.
For the record though, I am not a member of the Republican Party and only support them because at this point in history most of the issues I care about are on that side of the aisle.
Another decade or so…that could change as what parties stand for over time also changes.
Both the Republican and Democratic Parties of the modern era are very different than the one’s of our grandparents generation.
It will be an interesting race.
“Once the specifics get heard it will be very different….
Right now Obama is being tightly controlled and handled. Once he’s out on the hustings and he must be more candid…things will change.”
Nicol: Can you provide any justification for these comments or are they just your opinion?
I live in Illinois and have been heavily involved in politics in Cook County. I have been in small and large rooms with Obama. I have heard him talk specifics. I have heard him speak off the cuff. What you say here are just talking points being promoted by anti-Obama forces without basis in fact.
Of course, if you say something enough it sticks. After all, the Republicans managed to turn a war hero into a traitor while making a draft dodger into a war hero.
“What you say here are just talking points being promoted by anti-Obama forces without basis in fact.”
Oh good grief.
EVERY candidate who has a relatively clean record and is running for office is controlled. Whether its Democrat or Republican. That’s how it works, friend. This whole ‘We’re the good guys, they’re the bad guys’ thing is childish.
If I was just offering talking points I’d be saying how the Repubs are the greatest and are going to win 08. I’ve been critical of both sides here.
Goodness me, did you read Maureen Dowd’s article on Obama about a week or so ago where she said how scripted and stressed he seemed. That when he went off book things weren’t as rosy?
I think it is the opposite. The Obama fans are being a little bit too uncritical and are going to slip up.
Remember it’s not the Republicans who you are in battle with now. It is the Clinton war machine.
Forget that and you are dead in the water.
Interesting point, Cad.
Nicol,
Dowd’s column has been deeply discredited by many people based on comments from people who were in attendance at the events that Dowd wrote about. She wasn’t, by the way.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200702200003
Obviously every candidate is controlled. Also as obvious is the fact that political opponents with the help of an often lazy press will attempt to make certain impressions of candidates stick. The current popular thing is too claim that Obama is a lighweight, all style, no substance. You seem to be buying it hook, line, and sinker. I asked if you had any facts or expereinces on which to base your opinion. You failed to respond. I have experience with Obama in person. He is not a lightweight. He has substance.
BTW, I don’t know if I’ll be voting him in the primary. Way too early to tell. But I am tired of lazy people making uninformed opinions about political candidates on my side of the aisle.
“Goodness me, did you read Maureen Dowd’s article on Obama about a week or so ago where she said how scripted and stressed he seemed. That when he went off book things weren’t as rosy?
I think it is the opposite. The Obama fans are being a little bit too uncritical and are going to slip up.
Remember it’s not the Republicans who you are in battle with now. It is the Clinton war machine.
Forget that and you are dead in the water.” Nicol
I am rising from my deathbed to respond (Los Angeles gave me a virus).
No Nicol, you are writing about what you Wish, not what is. Maureen Dowd is a guttersnipe–she is not a proper journalist to who reports facts, but she sure likes her own witty barbs. She’s a commentator, nothing more. Politcal Commentators are as common, and as worthy, as dust.
I have personal experience with Obama as well. I might not agree with him on everything, but he has as much substance as Paul Simon and Mark hatfield, a democrat (IL) and republican(OR), respectively, who both were people of principle and focused on bread and butter issues, not on their pals getting loaded at the expense of the American taxpayers.
I wish Oprah would run. She’s mow down these filthy scumbags milking the treasury in both parties…cuz she don’t need the money and they can’t bribe her.
correction. M. Dowd does not Behave like a proper credential-ed journalist. Her stuff is frighteningly close to Yellow.
Direwolf and Lota,
This is why Obama will lose to Hillary. Maureen Dowd is a hard leftist. If you can’t get her on your side…
Just calling everyone who is critical a Republican shill is why Hillary has your name and will make you toast. Calling loyal Democrats (like Dowd) who are critical of Obama a hack will not get good press.
You ask me to say why I think Obama is not a light weight? It doesn’t work that way. Your candidate wants to be the most powerful man on the planet…if people ask you a question, you bloody well get off your ass and answer.
What are his views on the Middle East conflict between Israel and Palestine? Human Rights in China? Cuba? Old age pensions? Health Care? School vouchers? Terrorism? Freedom of Speech/Fairness Doctrine? Religious Freedoms? Trade? Hezbollah? AIDS in Africa? AIDS in the West? Trade with Canada?
Just saying people who are critical are shills will not win you ’08 or the DNC Primaries.
Remember, I am just a no name on a blog. Hillary and her machine will eat you alive. The fact that you both responded so defensively and offered nothing solid in defense of Obama does not bode well for his candidacy.
If you really like him… and he really means something to you, you will offer more substance to your critics than rote insults.
Dowd isn’t a hard leftist. Shows how much you know Nicol. I know hard leftist journalists, and 99% of them do not live in the USA. The CP in Europe wouldn;t condescend to have her as a member.
The IRA connection in her family has ZERO to do with left. Most RA supporters are pro-life catholics and Not left.
I know all of Barack’s views on those topics. if you bothered to contact one of his aides they will tell you–and his voting record is public dude, look it up. He’s left a long track record of opinion except unimpressive pulitzer prize winning jouros like Dowd and No Names on a blog like you are too lazy to look it up because it means you won;t have time to type your shit.
Nicol,
I’d merely note that you are asking Lota and I to do something that you refuse to do yourself.
The whole point is that Obama does give the answers. You just choose to ignore or not seek them. You would rather take Maureen Dowd’s word for it even if she has not done her homework either.
Here is where Obama stands on some issues you mentioned. I am sure these examples won’t satsify you.
Education:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
Health Care:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Energy:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Personal Responsibility:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/
Terrorism:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/strengtheningamerica/
What a delightfully civil conversation.
The thing about Hillary Clinton is that, even though she has the machine and the name recognition, I don’t know of many Democrats who actually want to see her run/win.
I also don’t see any ‘rote insults’ in either Direwolf’s or Lota’s posts… did I miss them?
Oh, and since when is trade with Canada any kind of issue? Do you have family in Canada, Nicol? Because you seem to have a special interest in that area.
The reason many Dems (including yours truly) hope Hillary doesn’t get the nomination is that it’s going to be nigh near impossible for her to win. Fifteen years of demonization by the wingnuts (you know, the folks who consider college drug dealer/manslaughterer/raiser of twin multiple-arrestees Laura Bush a “national treasure”) send her into any race with disapproval ratings in the 40s. Plus she lacks a penis. Winning the general under those conditions would be tantamount to drawing to an inside straight. Would she make a good president? Yeah, I think she would, but as they say, right now it’s all about electability, and unless the GOP nominates Kevin Federline, she can’t win.
i didn’t call Dowd a hack by the way, so don;t put slurs in my mouth, I can make my own slurs without assistance from a serial misquoter.
her party political affiliation has nothing to do with her inability to correctly report events.
Of course someone is going to ask Obama his position on trade with Canada. A Canadian, probably. If it’s an issue, it’s guaranteed that someone will ask about it at some point.
A wise man once said that elections in this country are about the future, not the past. Another wise man said that the future is always in motion. 4 November 2008 is a long way away. A lot can happen between then and now. A lot will happen. The past tells us one thing: never bet on the future. That’s a fool’s wager.
That said, I think the Republicans should nominate Jeb Bus and the Democrats should nominate Hillary so we can get that Bush vs. Clinton match the whole country wants and be done with it once and for all.
Direwolf,
You gave me his website? Good grief! Do you really not think I have read it? It tells me things he has done, not things he will do. It speaks in the same vagaries and platitudes that many political websites do.
Please, if you cannot articulate his views in your own words…that is not good. I know where Hillary stands on things. I know where Bush stands on things. As a supporter, you need to tell me Obama’s views in your own words.
Where does he see Israel in 10 years? Pension funds?
And anyone who thinks Maureen Dowd is not a hard leftist…that she is pro-life? Do you even read her?
And any candidate who doesn’t follow Canada/America trade relations like Softwood Lumber has serious problems.
Yes, I know Obama’s voting record. He is far to the left of the average American voter. That is why he is being so vague now and Hillary has the edge.
Really, he’s not a bad guy and I have said the Dems have ’08 in the bag. But I do think Obama’s supporters are a little star crossed and naive.
“As a supporter, you need to tell me Obama’s views in your own words.”
What, now this is an essay question?
M Dowd is assumed left simply because of her family’s IRA connection or past sympathies. I didn’t say she was pro-life herself. putting words in mouths again, Nicol.
She is not hard left. Proper Marxists & the midi gauche scorn a gadfly like herself.
Nicol, you have failed to articulate why you object so strongly to Obama. You claim his supporters are naive and you state that his voting record is “far to the left of the average American voter.” And that’s it. Or is that why you object to him? Because in your opinion he is far left of the average American voter?
“M Dowd is assumed left…”
Uhhhh, have you read her column or book? ‘Assumed’ left?
Stella,
I never said I ‘object’ to Obama personally at all. At this point in history I could never vote for any Democratic nominee for ideological reasons.
What I have said in this thread is that he can not and will not beat Hillary.
I call his supporters naive because they fail to grasp that at this point in the game, the Clinton war machine is the opposition, not the Republican Party.
Look at the people now trying to say Dowd, as loyal a Democratic feminist from the 60’s as you will ever find, is now not really left because she criticized him.
I have never said Obama is a bad guy or anything like that. But check up on his voting record. On social issues and national defence and terrorism he is far to the left of the American voter. That is why Hollywood has embraced him.
That is why he is being vague now. And why Hillary will beat him for the DNC nomination.
Jeff,
Yes, I would love for you to write an essay on why you love Obama (if you do). Nothing less than 5000 words or no internet for you after lunch!
“M Dowd is assumed left…”
Uhhhh, have you read her column or book? ‘Assumed’ left?
Stella,
I never said I ‘object’ to Obama personally at all. At this point in history I could never vote for any Democratic nominee for ideological reasons.
What I have said in this thread is that he can not and will not beat Hillary.
I call his supporters naive because they fail to grasp that at this point in the game, the Clinton war machine is the opposition, not the Republican Party.
Look at the people now trying to say Dowd, as loyal a Democratic feminist from the 60’s as you will ever find, is now not really left because she criticized him.
I have never said Obama is a bad guy or anything like that. But check up on his voting record. On social issues and national defence and terrorism he is far to the left of the American voter. That is why Hollywood has embraced him.
That is why he is being vague now. And why Hillary will beat him for the DNC nomination.
Jeff,
Yes, I would love for you to write an essay on why you love Obama (if you do). Nothing less than 5000 words or no internet for you after lunch!
Nicol, I agree with you that Clinton will be a formidable foe for Obama. Wasn’t trying to argue that point.
Is he really that far to the left of the average American on social issues? He does not support gay marriage. He talks much more openly about faith and spirituality than most Dems. I don’t think he is as far left on social issues as you claim.
Barack is liberal but he is not left. You need to travel a little Nicol. There is no left in the US, like less than 1% of elected officials I bet, compared to many countries where there are marxist, socialist, and populist parties which are left. Michael PArenti is the only left writer I can think of who has run for office who has been consistent in his politics and is truly left wing on all issues. He makes Dowd look like Reagan.
Just because M Dowd was a “60s feminist”…you assume she’s “left” now? Nice try labeling, but her politicos doesn’t fit that. She is liberal and annoying, but she isn’t left and is better off writing scandal sheets than any type of real journalism in the last 5 years.
feminism has very little to do with right and left–if anything, the conservative parties in the US and UK have pushed more females forward to key positions than the liberal & dems have for governorships and cabinets posts in the past 5 years.
Liberal is not left. Since I am left, albeit a conservative European labour, I REALLY would object being labeled a liberal, even though I guess I don;t object to my friends being liberal or conservative. Liberal is not “left” in any country so please don;t stick M Dowd in my camp please, I don’t want her. She is a social liberal and has little else as a platform of thought.
Hollywood isn’t left either so don’t start on those diatribes please. If anything it is republican (about money) and social liberal about behavior, and that’s as deep as it goes for most unless they seriously put their time in like Angelina Jolie & Brad Pitt have been doing.
Anyone who disagrees with you seems to be Left or Naive Nicol, grow up. There are many facets of political belief, not just Nicol and anti-Nicol.
Arguing what’s “left” overseas is irrelevant. The last time I checked, this election was for the presidency of the United States, not that of France. Or for the European Parliament, or the Bundestag.
Lota makes a valid point but . . . American election, American standards. Nicol wins this round.
No he doesn;t “win” Blackcloud and you aren’t the Judge, mate.
black is black, white is white, being an American/Canadian doesn;t give me a right to change what it is, and invent delineations. It is all used to often in the USA to sideline anyone who is not buying into the two-party system of thinking.
There are absolutes in everything, Left to right, and the United states is in a very narrow range compared to the rest of the world, from center to far right. It is very easy to destroy discourse by painting anyone who disagrees with average to say “he’s a fascist” or “He’s left”.
There is no left presence in America. McCarthy-ism & aftermath in the 1970s removed what was left of the populist parties.
The furthest left in the USA are people not in positions of power but community politics and in farming (where there has been a big drive for years for community ownership and allowing trade with Cuba–even amongst republican farmers).
I might be speaking to Barack Obama or Al Gore this week directly, I will send my liberal & conservative hugs from y’all. You know you want to.
by the way, American standards will have to change if we are to make any progress in the political morass that we continually end up in with other countries. As soon as we accept that American standards do Not fit the rest of the world’ s range of thought, the sooner we will accept the fact that we have to stop imposing our American election and political standards on other countries.
I have worked and lived in numerous other countries and we DO impose what we think is “left” and morally right on everyone–the only way to see it is to live, work and pay taxes abroad, then you really see how counterproductive our methods are.
we definitely have to get off the single issue politics, mudslinging and all this dumb “left” and “right” name-calling that US politicians love to do.
I think the thing about Obama isn’t that he ‘doesn’t realize that Clinton is the enemy’, which sounds more like a projection than anything else – it’s that he’s trying very hard to not campaign in the same kind of scorched-earth, anything goes manner that the last few elections have seen. Maybe that won’t be aggressive enough for him to win with, but I think it’s a good way for him to set himself apart and above the herd.
Nicol, I have no horse in this race yet. My favorite candidate was Feingold and he’s not running anymore.
it’s all projection Jeffster, that’s why I object to it.
Ian invented or exacerbated Barack vs. CLinton is a WISH by very conservative/conservative religious (of a number religions) that the Dem party implodes so Dems don;t win– judging from their blogs and columnists –looking for a problem for every solution.
at this point a Barack Vs. Hilary catfight is a deliberate invention even though I do not doubt that Hilary’s financial backers are more keen to make sure she can’;t lose.
Jeb Bush could have gone to prison ~17 years ago for medicaid or medicare fraud problems in Florida, I forget which, instead he is in consideration for the white house. Such a lucky family he has. Neil was involved in 2 major bank failures in the billions that bankrupted 100,000s of people. George W. is just a frat boy, so he doesn;t seem so bad unless you are in North Africa or middle east, then he seems pretty ruthless.
so many nice people run in our elections! then the winner gets to boss about the rest of the world.
AN not Ian. Sorry Ian, if there’s one on the board.
Hey Jeff,
I was a Feingold supporter myself. Feingoldfor Illinois.com was my site and up and active for about a year. Took it down when he pulled out.
Lota, of all the points to pick on in this debate, this is just silly. Black is black and white is white, yes, but “left” and “right” are relative terms. We’re talking about the American Presidential election, and what Nicol is saying is that Dowd and Obama have views that tend to be aligned more closely with America’s leftists than its centrists or rightists.
Who gives a flying flip if Europe is more left than either? I mean, it’s legitimate to argue, as I think you are, that this should be something more of us care about in general, but this discussion isn’t about the general. It’s about the American Presidential Election of 2008.
Debates are absolutely useless if everybody is always picking on semantics. Because then everybody’s so hung up on defining terms with each other that they never address the actual point. In my experience, somebody arguing semantics usually does so because they lack the ability to argue the issue. You know what Nicol means. So talk about that, if you can and care to. Bickering about what, exactly, leftwing “should” mean outside the context of the discussion is a waste of time.