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
Heat; you are missing the REALLY FUCKING FUNNY part of this story. It’s the whole “SOCIALISM IS THE DEVIL” angle. The Repubs are convinced that people in this day and age are SCARED of SOCIALISM.
I am sure it works with some people. Hell. I talked to someone the other day who responded to socialism as if it were a pure evil. It’s the funniest and saddest thing ever: people who are broke but fear a redistribution of wealth. Apparently they missed the whole “RICHEST PEOPLE IN AMERICA COMBINED WORTH MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA” headline.
What’s the worst that Obama could do, drastically expand the size and scope of government to the point of bankruptcy, develop intrusive new powers to spy on people and imprison them arbitrarily? He got beaten to the punch, my friends.
Very good, Jeff. Very good.
I do love that Drudge is still running a lie as a headline. I hope someone calls him on it by lunch :D!
In other news, Dennis Prager is still an idiot. I defy any of you to spin the AM talk radio dial today and you will that clip on every show, presented as some “smoking gun.” The GOP still thinks it’s 1955. Hilarious.
The Warren Court was only mentioned in the context of successes and failures in the pursuit of civil rights. Why doesn’t Obama consider that court radical? Because it did not pursue the matter of redistibution of wealth (i.e. “economic justice”). He cites this as a failure.
He later states that while it would be easy (in theory) to make case for redistributive change through the courts, it would be better to pursue reparative economics legislatively.
This discussion is about reparations.
Wow, that’s out of nowhere. So Mystery, let me get this straight: your belief is that, even though he has never brought it up, indeed, even though it would be almost directly in contradiction to much of what he has based his campaign on, come January 20 and it’s reparations checks all around?
This is one of the more intellectually phony things you’ve said here, and it’s very unfortunate.
What won’t you give him a pass on? He’s a socialist. He believes in redistribution of wealth. Take from rich and give to poor. He believes in a far left Marxian philosophy. And you blame a blogger like Drudge for reporting it? You support the guy. You can’t sugar coat his beliefs.
Two words: Rufus Masters.
One more: Marxian?
The joke of this is that mystery is going even further that whack job who cut and pasted this together and wants, like the right wing radio heads, to decide what Obama is discussing and what it means he wants.
And Richard Nash… you too… you claim you know what the man believes, but you have no proof but out of context quotes.
That is all that McCain has had for months now… out of context quotes. Woo hoo! Great reporting!
David, don’t get angry. Seriously. It’s not worth it. The dogs bark, but the Obama caravan moves on. And one week from tomorrow, the majority of American voters will rise up and bitch-slap the whack jobs into the depths of inconsequence, where they belong.
Gotta love that right-wing snitch. Every time he barks he gives his cronies in the Liberal Media another bone to pick on.
You have to go across the pond to find a campaign story that’s more honest than anything from a U.S. newspaper.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it would be a bad thing to redistribute some of the wealth from the wealthy to the middle and lower classes. Don’t the middle and lower classes drive the engine of Western economy? Wasn’t it their inability to keep up with mortgage and credit card payments that tipped this crisis into action? When we talk about ‘consumer confidence’, aren’t we really talking about the middle and lower classes? But it makes more sense to subsidize Wall Street’s mistakes and greed than to give John Q. Citizen a helping hand?
Obama can keep saying redistribution of wealth because that’s what the middle and lower classes want to hear. As it turns out, the vast majority of voters happen to not be rich, and it makes them giddy that Obama might actually nail those bastards with a tax hike. Sure, it’s poor people’s fault that they bought houses they couldn’t afford, and LCD TVs they couldn’t afford, and SUVs they couldn’t afford, but the funny thing is that the rich people set up this pyramid scheme in the first place, and it needs poor people to keep doing these things. The problem for conservatives is that more and more poor people are realizing they’re getting hosed, and the Republican Party has always been identified as being the party for Big Business.
See, you should try our system up here in Canada – the socialist safety net makes it a lot easier for the rich to keep their shenanigans off the front page.
The feds unmask a conspiracy to assassinate Obama …
Sen. Stevens from Alaska is convicted on all counts …
Wonder what the right-wing snitch has on his homepage?
It wasn’t really a consipiracy to go after Obama as much as it was a conspiracy to kill other people, with ‘wouldn’t it be nice if we could get Obama too’ as the punchline.
“Wow, that’s out of nowhere.”
How? Its almost verbatim from the YouTube video. He mentions the successes and failures of the Warren Court as it pertains to civil rights. Obama details the successes, and then he says, “But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” He cites this as a failure of the court.
Am I totally out of left field to infer that he’s talking about redistibution of wealth as a means to rectify economic injustice (in the context of civil rights for African-Americans)? Obama has already advocated for “spreading the wealth around”; what better reason to do so?
Later in the clip, listener “Karen” called in to comment about the Warren Court’s inaction on economic changes and asks, “Is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is [the court] the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place… or would it be legislation at this point?” Obama explains that using the judicial system for such work is problematic, for a myriad of reasons, and sides with legislation as the most viable option.
“Reparative economic work.” ‘Reparative’ is defined as, “pertaining to or involving reparation.” SOOOO, the discussion is addressing, quite literally, economic reparations for African Americans.
NOW, neither I (or Obama, for that matter) are talking about reparations as a “sorry for slavery” check from the treasury. But in the context of ‘redistribution of wealth’ and rectifying America’s indisputable past of economic injustice?
There’s my logic, jeff. Perhaps the interpretation would benefit from the context of the full interview, but would you characterize this interpretation as DP did, as an absurd, nutty, not-even-close interpretation of the clip? Cheers.
No, mystery.
You are misleading anyone who might pay attention to you with more spin.
You’re still pretending that he didn’t mention “redistribution of wealth”, under the umbrella of the “more basic” issues of “political and economic justice”.
Do you know what “redistributive” means? Its definition is: favoring, supporting, or practicing income redistribution”. What would this be, in the context of “economic justice” and civil rights?
You are correct in that Obama placed the failure at the feet of the “movement”, whiched focused primarily on the court to further its cause, because the court was woe to interpret the Constitution in such a way that would be beneficial to them. He seems to lament that interpretation (as he later states, a case can easily be made for it, if one so bothered) so he certainly sees the court’s position as a philosophical failing.
The caller quite literally and clearly asked about economic repartions, and rather than correct her, he promptly answered her question.
Finally, I cannot listen to the full hour. I tried. My computer refuses to play Realplayer files. And let me remind you that you balked at the interpretation before you had the benefit of the full interview.
“It cannot be reduced to,
Okay, I was sitting this one out because I don’t feel like listening to an hour-long, 7-year-old radio show, but Mystery, are you now saying that you are _not_ in favor of taxation for the purposes of funding community infrastructure and schools?
If that’s economic reparation, then I’m 100% in favor of it.
Hey, if we’re going to discuss constitutional issues and legal definitions: How soon after Election Day will George W. Bush start issuing pardons for his cronies?
Now that we know that “redistributive” change IS, by definition, redistribution of wealth, let’s see if DP’s interpretation makes sense:
“If you listen to this hour, which is about the courts and civil rights, Obama’s comments are not focused on promoting redistribution of wealth, but rather, is speaking to the limits of the Warren Court and how the movement, not the government, relied too much on the courts, as opposed to community based efforts and, indeed, pursuing legislation to achieve any goals it had, including [redistribution of wealth.]”
Sounds like a contradiction.
Jeff-
“Okay, I was sitting this one out because I don’t feel like listening to an hour-long, 7-year-old radio show, but Mystery, are you now saying that you are _not_ in favor of taxation for the purposes of funding community infrastructure and schools?”
The government’s main function involves the funding for infrastructure and education. I’m for equitable funding, regardless of the racial/ethnic make-up of the community. I’m all for the eradication of institutional racism. But if we’re talking about the existance of a racial component/motivation, then we are unmistakingly talking about reparations of a sort. DP cannot admit that.
I draw a distinction between “making equal” (in terms of govt. functions, not income) and “making amends”. In this context, I am against the most popular notion of reparations, i.e. a check (as are most Americans). I’m also against “affirmative action”, which I consider to be an attempt at making a right out of two wrongs. And I will continue to be suspicious of any other “special treatment” in regards to race that is proposed.
I understand the argument that black Americans are born at a disadvantage in certain respects, due in large part to America’s past, but that argument is becoming dodgier by the year. From my vantage, institutional racism has been all-but eliminated (personal prejudices remain, obviously). Most all Americans are saddled with a disadvantage in some respect. Even me. As Ben Folds related, “Y’all don’t know what its like, bein’ male, middle-class and white.”
I just wanted to address one additional point:
DP wrote: “the context that comes up in detail is all about increased funding for the black communities in America, bringing them up to an equal standard to white communities.”
This is a dicey area. As I said, I’m for equitable funding, but I would be against giving twice as much money to a “black community” to bring it up to the standard of a comparable “white community”, under the auspices of “righting past wrongs”. Reason being, I think many of the impediments that currently burden these communities are cultural and self-imposed. Obama has acknowledged these failings (teen pregnancy, dead-beat dads, among others), and I respect him for it. Its not a popular position to take among black leadership.
Well, I have no problem with affirmative action, which seems to be the dividing line here, so there you go.
Does McCain/Palin not want Americans to pay any taxes?
So who pays for their war and our debt?
I have never seen such rampant political stupidity in my lifetime. I hope to not see it again next week.
“How soon after Election Day will George W. Bush start issuing pardons for his cronies?”
As soon as the Supreme Court names McCain President.
Boy, Drudge is turning out to be one of the biggest helpers Obama ever had…He pulled his BIG STORY on Obama speaking at Khalidi’s event when it turned out that GUESS WHO was already a supporter?
During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, “West Bank: CPRS” on page 14 of this PDF.)
The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi’s group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of “sociopolitical attitudes.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html
All the McCain camp wanted was an image of Obama hanging out with a Middle Eastern type.
Khalidi is another f-ing college prof… more b.s. smear techniques
on a lighter note, you guys might appreciate this:
the boy’s class has been learning about the US presidential election, and we were talking about what he’d learned and i asked him (knowing full well what his reply would be) who he wants to be the next president, and he looked at me, aghast, and said, ‘barako! duh’. i nearly bust a gut laughing, never having realised he thought the man’s name is ‘barako bama’. i guess obama’s name slides off the tongue almost too easily. (i wonder how many other kids dig ‘barako’)
Sarah Palin is a Socialist.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg
From the story:
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama
baraCko! sorry, i’m thick as a post when i’m tired, i know it’s barack with a ‘ck’