Do not intervene in the civil war of other countries.
President Obama recently visited Vietnam. In 2016, recollections of the Vietnam war still seem mired in a poor understanding of why the United States involved itself militarily in that country. It cost the lives of nearly 60,000 American soldiers and a million + Vietnamese. I recall some illuminating lessons I learned having studied the Vietnam war at school in a Recent America history course. Vietnam veterans visited our classroom to discuss their experience during the conflict. There are some undisputed facts, which I will now share on this blog. I do so because I still think as a society, we have not learned the lessons of the Vietnam war, and as a result, we find ourselves repeating history, much to our detriment.
The Vietnam conflict was a civil war between North and South Vietnam. Vietnam was under colonial rule; first from the Japanese and then under the French. What started the civil war was Ho Chi Minh’s uprising in 1954 in Dien Bien Phu against the French authorities. Inspired by the Bolshevik revolution, Minh was a communist and founded the Indochinese Communist Party. The French backed Emperor Bao Dai. The 1950’s and 60’s were the height of the “cold war” between then Soviet Russia and the United States. American foreign policy architects, such as George Kennan, advocated the so-called “domino theory.” The idea behind the domino theory was to contain the spread of communism. The fear lay that if one country went communist it would spread the political philosophy to other neighboring countries. Vietnam was still under the yoke of French colonial rule in the early 1950’s until Ho Chi Minh sparked the beginning of revolt. When the French lost the military battle at Dien Bien Phu, they knew it was time to pack it up and leave. President Eisenhower was not going to let Vietnam fall completely into the hands of the Communists. By the mid 1950’s, Eisenhower began sending military assistance to the South Vietnamese and from there, it never stopped. President John F. Kennedy expanded the U.S. role militarily, including supporting the assassination of South Vietnamese president, Ngo Dinh Diem. President Lyndon B. Johnson sent more fighting troops to Vietnam by 1965.
The United States created a false premise for intervening in what was a civil war between North and South Vietnam. Communism never spread like the contagion that American cold war diplomats feared.
Never stop questioning your government’s official position on military foreign intervention. I already mentioned our country’s Cold War containment policy which drove our country to spend millions in propping up the South Vietnamese government. But the worst part came in 1964. Vietnamese PT boats allegedly attacked the American Destroyer, USS Maddox, off the Gulf of Tonkin. Thanks to declassified information back in 2005 and 2006, we now know these attacks were based on faulty evidence. According to these documents, “the evidence suggests a disturbing and deliberate attempt by Secretary of Defense McNamara to distort the evidence and mislead Congress.”
President Johnson used the alleged attacks upon the USS Maddox as a pretext for seeking support from Congress to take unilateral military action against North Vietnam. In August of 1964, at President Johnson’s urging, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Johnson the authorization without a formal declaration of war by Congress, to use conventional military forces in Vietnam. The United States government, as proven by the release of the Pentagon Papers, deliberately misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Up until President George W. Bush’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq, Vietnam represented America’s biggest American foreign policy fiasco. George W. Bush’s administration deliberately misled the American public about the existence of WMDs in Iraq. To date, no WMDS have ever been found.
How much lying does our government get away with today? President Bush and his administration used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq to invade that country. His administration lied about the existence of WMDs and scared the American populace with propaganda about the alleged evidence taking shape in the form of a “mushroom cloud.”
Never confuse a war with those who are fighting the war. Many veterans who saw action in Vietnam came back to a country that was split in half over its support of our government’s military intervention in Vietnam. Many civilians vilified those soldiers who were unlucky enough to fight in it.
American GIs deserve the nation’s respect and deepest gratitude. They are putting their lives on the line. It is not their decision to have to fight. Many Iraqi war veterans returned to the United States with health injuries, such as PTSD and missing limbs.
How does our government treat vets today? Vietnam war veterans still struggle to gain benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. More than one million veterans still do not have any health insurance whatsoever, according to a 2010 report by the Urban Institute.
We must be less arrogant when presuming to know how a foreign culture thinks. Just because the United States was the lone superpower right at the conclusion of World War 2 didn’t mean it should impose its capitalist will upon the rest of the world. The Cold War containment policy assumed that communism was a threat to the entire capitalist world. As a result, beginning with Eisenhower, America began to send military advisors to Vietnam to support Emperor Bao Dai’s rule. America did not make the effort to engage in diplomacy with Ho Chi Minh, who at the start of his political life was an anti-colonialist. Once the Vietnamese defeated the French in 1954, the last thing Ho and his supporters wanted to see was another colonial power trying to impose its will upon their country.
Has this fourth lesson been learned today? How did the architects of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq “sell the war” to then President George W. Bush? According to Kenneth Adelman, a former prominent national-security official in the Reagan Administration who also served on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. According to then-Vice President Dick Cheney, “the war would go “relatively quickly,” and that American troops would be “greeted as liberators.” Of course, this proved to be a sham. Nearly 5,000 American soldiers died in Iraq, thousands maimed or wounded. Iraq today barely holds togetherand experiences crippling sectarianism, the violent spread of terrorism, and an ongoing refugee crisis. Given Iraq’s precarious situation, we know that the consequences of invading it have proven to be utterly devastating to the country and spawned ISIS.
We have not learned several core lessons of Vietnam. Our government still lies. Our government still presumes to know how a foreign culture thinks. Our government still does not come clean with the American people on when there is sufficient justification to intervene in the civil war of another country. What is known is that when there is conflict abroad and the United States participates in any military action or trumps up evidence as a pretext for involving itself militarily, it is the weapons and military contractors who benefit.
While relations with Vietnam have improved since the American military departure from the country back in 1973, the future remains cloudy as it relates to American military foreign policy. If the American people fail to learn the right lessons from Vietnam, it will keep letting our government get away with behavior that is immoral, unjust, and patently illegal.
I was busy perusing answers to Quora’s list of top moviesyou must watch before you die. Instead of providing my response on that platform, I decided to post my own opinions on my blog. You see, when it comes to content marketing, while every marketer agrees on its value, each one of us would kill to help our client get a page 1 Google ranking without the need for paid advertising. It’s awfully hard to do but the more you discover and exploit your niche the better chance you get at achieving higher search results. This topic isn’t niche but it’s one I’ve wanted to blog about for a long time. I’m so cynical about the state of cinema and how few quality movies ever get made.
Now a post about your top ten movies is awfully personal. I’m selecting these films for the following reasons:
I never get tired of watching them
I own them in my DVD collection
These are American films because I grew up in the United States and our country pioneered movie making from its earliest days
My choice covers a few different genres – the more you experience, the more you discover what you like and don’t like. That’s healthy. On the other hand, there are foreign films which I’ve excluded in this post but may address in a future blog post.
A favorite movie is one that begs for repeat watching. The story engrosses you and the writing, directing, and the acting all combine to make it memorable. Sometimes one facet is greater than the other. But in the end all play a pivotal role in making the movie one you could discuss, watch again, and contemplate for the rest of your life. I give you my list in no particular order.
(SPOILER ALERT – if you haven’t seen any of these movies, by all means please see them first if you don’t want any of my reviews to spoil your enjoyment of them).
Network – 1976
This film blew my mind. I was 8 when the movie came out but did not actually watch it until I was a freshman in high school. Even at 14, thoughts about the division between rich and poor, the corruption of our democracy by money, and the powerful influence of television were not foreign ideas to me. Paddy Chayefsky’s exquisite screenplay is unforgettable. The script alone I found to be the equivalent of Shakespeare. Yes, it’s that good. The writing came across as if you were watching a play. The monologues in this movie are so engrossing you could imagine they could only be written for theater.
Network is pure satire but Chayefsky point-blank tells the audience that they are mere puppets of the corporate state. Television became corrupted by corporate influence and brainwashes the masses. If you’re wondering just how compromised our country’s democracy is today because of money, listen to Ned Beatty’s speech. It’s Chayefsky’s reality check to those of us who still dream and yearn for a country ruled by the people, for the people, and of the people.
I’ve seen this movie at least a dozen times from start to finish. It never gets old. The English language has never been more beautifully written for the cinema and for me, it sets the highest bar possible. No other movie screenplay has ever come close to matching Chayefsky’s remarkable work. I can’t recommend this movie enough. I don’t think there has ever been another movie produced by Hollywood that castigates the oligarchy and mocks the general population as a bunch of television addicted sheep. It won’t cheer you up. But you will laugh out loud and come away wishing you had drafted such a sardonic and provocative script.
12 Angry Men – 1957
I remember first seeing this movie back in high school. In my civics class one of the things our teacher made us do was watch this film. The first few things that impressed me were the following: the use of B&W, the soundtrack, and the superb acting by every juror depicted. Reginald Rose’s screenplay powerfully captured just how agonizing it was for these characters to face one another. Lee J. Cobb’s acting blew me away and his comeuppance is handled with such class (thanks to the humility of Henry Fonda’s character).
This movie depicts an ideal for all of humankind to strive for. For if every single person on the planet were to honestly meet themselves and their prejudices and do the “right thing” then maybe we would all treat ourselves with greater respect and dignity. Henry Fonda represents human goodness while Lee. J. Cobb symbolizes our shameful bigotry. It’s to know that when we do confront the worst part of ourselves, we can admit to it and recognize that we can do better. It’s rare to feel so gratified by the ending of a movie. Light and shadow are used to great effect not to mention the soundtrack. When one thinks of soundtracks today, at least by Hollywood standards, this is anything BUT a Hollywood soundtrack. No loud synthesizers or electronics. It is a plaintiff cry of violin and piano. The acting is the best that it ever gets. Not one false note or emotion. Reginald Rose improved upon his script from the very first telecast of this story back in 1954. I can watch this movie any time with anyone. That opening scene right after the judge tells the jury of its solemn duty and the camera pans back to the young teenager is so moving. You know this poor kid did not commit murder. And when Henry Fonda helps put Lee J. Cobb’s jacket back on after he just went through a gut-wrenching admission that the indeed the kid is not guilty, it reminds you that we can forgive and act like gentlemen.
Never Cry Wolf – 1983
Did Walt Disney pictures actually produce this film? It’s unlike any other Disney film ever made. It’s not animated and has political undertones that I don’t think Disney has fully explored in any other movie since. This film is an adaptation of Canadian writer Farley Mowat’s story Never Cry Wolf, which tells the story of his stint as a researcher in the tundra of Canada exploring the claims that the wolf is depleting the wild stocks of Caribou. Ultimately, he shows that the wolves have nothing to do with the declining deer population and more importantly, human development is encroaching upon the wild habitat of the wolves themselves. This film has so many things going for it.
First, the cinematography, especially on a wide-screen, showcases the wondrous wild tundra of Canada. It’s a real treat to the eyes. The casting of Charles Martin Smith was brilliant because he is believable as a government researcher setting out to explore the habitat of the wolves not knowing what exactly he’s getting himself into. I like the sound of Smith’s voice. His heart is in the right place while his mind implements the science to prove the wolves innocence. More importantly, the conclusion of the film that seems to go over the heads of most people who watch it is just how much a juggling act it is to maintain what wild habitat we have left when confronted with human development. Even the Inuit do what they must to survive, which means killing a wolf to improve their quality of life. It’s not just about the “white man” coming in to a wild place and wanting to destroy it by exploiting its natural resources.
Then there is Mark Isham’s soundtrack. The 1980’s saw some of the worst synthesized sounding soundtracks that Hollywood could ever produce. Near all of them are forgettable (IMO) and ones I’d never spend time listening to. But Isham uses that digital sound so sparingly and he matches his simple theme to the visuals on-screen exquisitely as to make you feel not just isolated but also at peace.
Each time I watch Never Cry Wolf I want to experience what Farley Mowat experienced, or at least what Smith’s character realized towards the end of the film. I want to learn more about mother nature and how we can avoid our continued destruction of it. The final segment when Smith meets up with the Inuit and he teaches him how to juggle made me realize that however daunting it is to try to do better in our relationship with nature, it still might be possible to avoid catastrophe if we really take pause and remind ourselves just how connected we all are with life. By purposely destroying any life, we in turn help to destroy ourselves. Living in the wild is about survival of the fittest. But living in society does not have to be that way. Social Darwinism is a human construction that benefits a few at the expense of the many. As an animal species at the top of the food chain, we can do better.
Midnight Express – 1978
I remember watching this film for the first time at home during high school on a rented VHS tape. I had NO IDEA what exactly I was getting myself into after having read the brief description about the story on the tape box. But from the opening scene of Istanbul to the sound of Billy Hayes’s heartbeat in the bathroom after he has taped to his body these blocks of hash, my palms began to sweat for poor Billy because I knew something bad was going to happen. And sure enough, when he does get busted right outside the airplane, you know he’s in for the nightmare of his life and you are along for the ride! I’ve seen this film multiple times and it never gets old for me. There have been many movies exploring the fight for individual human survival against seemingly insurmountable odds. But in this case, a very unjust court ruling that in no way bears resemblance to the crime committed is enough to make you feel so deeply for poor Billy Hayes.
Oliver Stone wrote the screenplay. He’s been criticized for how racist it is. In particular, the courtroom scene where Billy Hayes knows he’s going to be unfairly sentenced and no matter what he says the judges will rule against him because of the decision by the higher court in Ankara. He describes Turks as “pigs.” Well, put yourself in Billy’s shoes. If you were about to be sentenced to more than 30 years in a Turkish prison, I’m not sure you would feel kind and generous towards Turks especially if you felt the punishment did not match the severity of the crime.
I never interpreted what Billy says as being racist. If I’d been in his place, I probably would have uttered those exact words myself! The grave injustice being perpetrated upon him makes it almost impossible to be cool, rational, and understanding of the Turkish court system. The guy is getting screwed over and he’s supposed to take it like a man and not be angry and want to lash out at all of Turkish culture? If you read the book by Billy Hayes, Oliver Stone took Hayes speech in the courtroom verbatim from the novel but added in the “hate speech” towards Turks to spice it up. Was it necessary? No. Oliver did so to further dramatize Hayes situation. The movie’s director obviously felt comfortable in using Stone’s racist dialogue. Regardless of how racist you feel this movie portrays Turks or Turkish culture, I for one did not come away thinking that Turkish society is out to screw over Westerners. I’m actually planning on visiting Istanbul for the first time! Rest assured, I won’t try to duplicate Billy’s stupid idea of taking illegal drugs with me on board an airplane.
It’s unfathomable to me that Brad Davis did not win an Academy award for his superlative acting. You root for Billy Hayes from start to finish wondering how is he going to survive this Turkish prison nightmare? How is he going to escape? The movie differs from the book as Billy Hayes did not escape prison by murdering the main prison warden. It doesn’t matter. I’ll never get tired of watching this film.
The Thing – 1982
I’m only going to feature one horror film in my list of top nine. I was going to select Jaws (1975) because it is a favorite of mine. But when it comes to sheer horror, it came second to The Thing. Horror is a legitimate movie genre. It dates back to the silent movie days with films like Nosferatu and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Back in 1983, I was 14 years old. I remember seeing this film with a few other student friends of mine. How we got into the cinema without our parents I no longer recall because I believe this was an R rated film. Anyway, seeing this movie on the big screen scared the living shit out of me. The special effects floored me. The horror depicted never seemed more real to me.
The simple story line kept getting creepier as you tried to discover who was “The Thing.” Ennio Morricone’s simple “one note” bass line eerily captured the snowy, chilly and barren antarctic landscape melding it perfectly to the tragic fate of all the characters portrayed. I loved the casting. The narrative frightened me. Opening the movie with Norwegians in a helicopter trying to kill a husky was a brilliant move on the part of director John Carpenter. It immediately heightened the drama and you kept wondering what exactly is wrong with this dog? No one back in 1982 could have imagined to what degree Carpenter would have invested in the special effects to pull off such grotesqueness. I sure didn’t. That’s why at every turn Carpenter kept grossing out and freaking you out as the movie kept its course of not knowing exactly what is going to happen next. Could it get any worse for Outpost 31?
Ending the movie on such a hopeless note felt all too visceral to me. This was no traditional “hollywood ending.” I mentioned Jaws at the start of this film, which is another of my favorite horror movies. But that has a “disneyesque” ending. Why? Because Steven Spielberg directed it he nearly always ends his films on a positive note. Blah! The Thing ends with unforgiving reality. Knowing that we all are going to die and we must accept our fate! Except in The Thing, both characters will freeze to death before help arrives. Talk about a dark and depressing conclusion! I loved it!
Catch-22 – 1969
I can’t recall when I first saw this movie but having read the book by Joseph Heller I was definitely expecting a funny satire of war. It delivered. The basic premise is that of a man who is desperately trying to stay alive in the midst of war and how he’s confronted with the military’s ridiculous “Catch-22” way of working.
Nichols shot the movie using real B-25s from WW2, something that could never be done today. The opening scene is unforgettable as you watch these flying behemoths get off the ground to bomb their next target. I love the acting in this movie and felt that the casting was spot on, except for Jon Voight who I think was miscast as Milo Minderbinder. Alan Arkin as Yossarian more than proved his acting chops. I imagined myself as Yossarian stuck in the madness that is not just the military but war itself. A terrific coup was getting Orson Wells to play General Dreedle. He is hilarious. If hell is the impossibility of reason then that is how I would describe what Catch-22 was trying to depict and it does so successfully. There are scenes that are so powerful.
Yossarian discovers Snowden’s insides were completely ripped apart. He wants to barf. And so do you.
Art Garfunkle as Lt. Nately getting his ideals completely obliterated by an old Italian man who opines about why Italy survives so well as a country. He’s the “shameful opportunist” that reinforces a certain cynicism about humanity and how easy it is to shoot down idealism.
Yossarian’s medal ceremony. This scene just cracked me up from start to finish.
The silent scene of Yossarian walking the streets of Rome at night
Many movies have lampooned the military and war in general. Films like Mash, Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, etc… Each of these films tried something a little different in their portrayal of combat and war’s impact on the human psyche. But none of them covered as much psychological ground as Catch-22 did. Catch-22 is not perfect in its execution. And I keep reading negative comments online by readers of the book that the movie gave too short thrift to the character of Hungry Joe. Maybe so. But then this movie was essentially “impossible” to turn into a film to begin with given the multitude of characters being portrayed. I think it is Mike Nichol’s most ambitious, creative cinematic project he ever took on in his lifetime.
The Razor’s Edge – 1946
I read Somerset Maugham’s book while a student at college. At the time, I fell in love with Maugham’s writing. I read many more of his novels but felt the Razor’s Edge did hold a special place because it did two things. It focused on the central meaning of life. Why are we here and what is our purpose? And it spent time (in the penultimate chapter) introducing us to Indian culture, in particular, Brahmanism. That was heady stuff for Western culture back in 1944 when the novel was first published. It became a bestseller and was soon required reading on many college campuses. I did not think it possible to film this story told strictly through conversation. This film does some things very well and others less well. But even though it’s not “perfect,” it’s a beautiful example of where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
I chose this film as a must watch because I don’t think Hollywood has ever come close to producing another film that strictly focused on life’s ultimate purpose. We get to watch a person strive for something greater than himself and see how his journey impacts those around him. The film gives you the passion and the love that Isabel Bradley had for Larry Darrell and Gene Tierney’s acting is superlative for its time. In watching this film, I never questioned Isabel’s obsession for Larry and it came across as genuine as any love/obsession story could be today. She wanted him and was forever destroyed that she could never have him.
I think it was a stroke of genius for screenwriter Lamar Trotti to insert Somerset Maugham (played by actor Herbert Marshall) into the story. Screenwriter Lamar Trotti created the drama helping to move the story along. Keep in mind that Maugham’s story is told principally through discussion and reflection.
However, where the movie did fall short was in explaining or truly showing what Larry’s time in India did for him. We know he has that magical moment on the mountain top as he’s looking at the sun but that doesn’t get specific enough as far as I’m concerned. If Trotti could have somehow borrowed from Maugham’s chapter on Brahmanism and given Larry more intellectual depth so he could have shared it with both Maugham, Isabel and her family, I think it would have made it far more compelling. Otherwise, Larry’s character as played by Tyrone Power is rather dull. Power, though a very good actor, really isn’t the most engaging of characters in this picture. Actor Clifton Webb as Elliott Templeton is superb and very much captures the character as portrayed in the novel.
Just as important is the depiction of the passage of time. We see how hard times subtly affected the wealthy. It’s thanks to Templeton’s generosity or “noblesse oblige” ethic that Isabel and her family have a place to stay in Paris while Gray recovers from his depression. All in all, I never get tired of watching this movie. I want to yearn for something greater than myself and want to believe that there are more people like Larry Darrel who yearn for the same thing.
Planet of the Apes – 1968
Science fiction rarely gets any better than in this phenomenal re-interpretation of French author Pierre Boulle‘s novel. I read Boulle’s novel and while I enjoyed it, found this adaptation far more compelling. In addition, the screenplay kept most of Rod Serling’s (one of television’s greatest writers) best ideas. While he wrote the earliest drafts, screenwriter Michael Wilson revised it, providing more action to the drama. The ending alone is the type of conclusion that a hollywood movie rarely makes today. People loved to be entertained but in general don’t go to see movies that depict the end of human civilization as we know it. It took a tremendous amount of guts and vision for Serling to inject this cynical fate for mankind as the movie’s conclusion and for director Franklin J. Schaffner to keep it.
None of the rest of the Planet of the Apes movie and television franchise comes close to matching the original. It it is so complete on its own. Charlton Heston commands the screen and asks the question that fundamentally should cross the minds of people the world over. Is there something better than humankind out in the universe? A creature that doesn’t make war against his brother? Keep his neighbor’s children starving?
As a species humanity destroys its own habitat for the sake of short-term benefit. Does it make any sense? Rod Serling made sure that nearly all of his Twilight Zone episodes imparted some sort of wisdom about the frailties of human nature. He does the same with Planet of the Apes just on a more grandeur scale.
Midnight Cowboy – 1969
First off, if you’ve never read author James Leo Herlihy eponymous novel, than it is a must read. It’s a story about human loneliness. A con man and a wanna be Texan hustler find an unexpected love for each other on the gritty streets of New York. Their need to connect isn’t given a full chance to flower as the realities of fate robs them both. We are born alone and we die alone. This movie captures the loneliness of Herlihy’s novel.
The opening sequence probably went over the heads of most people watching it back in ’69. You hear the sounds of cowboys shooting and screaming, making you think we’re back in the 1840s. And then a desolate drive-in movie lot materializes and later we see Joe Buck singing an ‘ol cowboy tune in the shower. He’s as naked as the cowboy mythology itself. No one is celebrating this checkered past of American history. It is a myth that lives and ultimately dies in the mind of Joe Buck.
By movie’s end, the achingly sad notes of Jean Toots Thieleman harmonica have seeped deep into your conscience making you feel that you too are not as removed from Buck’s loneliness as you might think. You must cherish those relationships with the people who matter most to you in your life. You must treat all strangers as souls traveling ever onward not knowing where their final resting place might be. You are one of those souls.
Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are perfectly cast. Their portraits of Joe Buck and Ratzo Rizzo are unforgettable. This movie launched Voight’s career while Hoffman was already riding high from his success with The Graduate. I enjoyed the psychedelic “Andy Warhol party” that takes place late in the film. I think the party represents estrangement itself, the interacting with strangers whom you have no connection with, other than the sharing of drugs. Joe is able to connect thanks to the drugs while Ratzo remains stuck in the prison of his reality.
I also enjoyed how the film finally takes us out of the cruelty of New York’s streets and catapults us to sunny Florida, giving what we hope will be a new start for Joe and Ratzo. Alas, it’s not meant to be. There are a number of flashback scenes that screenwriter Waldo Salt inserted into the script to capture Herlihy’s description of Buck’s past. Sometimes they work and sometimes you’re left not sure what they really mean. Is there a subtext of latent homosexuality in Joe Buck? I didn’t think so when I saw this film but some critics, like the late Roger Ebert believe otherwise.
This movie transcends its late 60’s period. And the soundtrack is so original and memorable unlike the dreck of movie scores today. You will be humming to the theme of Toot’s harmonica playing long after you’ve seen this film.
Wall Street – 1987
This film came out when I was a sophomore in college. By 19, my ideas about capitalism, greed, and the selfish pursuit of wealth were on their way to being permanently formed. I read enough preliminary news stories about the rising tide of economic inequality in the United States to know that without government regulations, Wall Street itself was nothing more than a soup made of avarice, gluttony, and rapacity. Oliver Stone came along and writes the best screenplay about the making of money I’d ever seen. The character of Gordon Gekko typified for me all that was wrong about the institution of Wall Street itself. American finance was not driven by the public interest or the public good. It was driven by capitalists set out to make a killing for themselves and their stockholders, nothing more.
Oliver Stone’s screenplay brilliantly depicted just how exciting it could be at the thought of making millions if you worked as a stockbroker. Of course, it helps to have insider information. And watching Charlie Sheen go down the path of breaking the law and pursuing wealth accumulation at all costs grabbed my attention and never let go. To be “liquid” in the words of Gekko made you actually wonder just what it must be like to be obscenely wealthy (Hello Donald Trump.)
I thought the acting by all involved in this production was uniformly superb. More importantly, this film will never age. It’s the story of Icarus, where a son flouts the advice of his father, choosing to aim higher than he’s ever been, willing to break the law for the sake of avarice. Instead, he falls back to the ground having learned a valuable lesson and lucky to still be alive.
American Splendor – 2003
I had never heard of Harvey Pikar when this movie came out. I knew nothing of his comic book or anything having to do with his art. I found the creativity behind the production of this movie astonishing because I’d never seen anything like it before. Comic book movies are a dime a dozen in Hollywood. You’ve got superheroes fighting evil villains and tons of CGI. That’s it. The genius behind Harvey Pikar was his vision of the comic book and expanding what was previously never conceived of before. Harvey believed he could take his ordinary, mundane life as an office file clerk for a VA hospital and turn it into a comic book, filled with his own personal joys and travails. He turned it into American Splendor, which received numerous accolades for Harvey’s insight into the day to day monotonous life most of us live. He was able to shine a spotlight on his observations about human nature and express them graphically, thanks to the support of underground comic book artists, like Robert Crumb.
American Splendor, the movie, is creative in its use of special effects that splices in comic books with that of actors who portray Harvey Pikar, in particular, the main actor, Paul Giamatti. Paul is superb in what I’d call a break-out performance worthy of an Academy award. I can’t recommend this movie enough. Harvey loved jazz and the directors do an excellent job of integrating various jazz music compositions throughout the entire soundtrack. It compliments the drama and humor so well that I’d call it the best example yet of what a soundtrack can and should do to amplify a stellar screenplay. It’s a rare phenomenon. The vast majority of movie soundtracks suck. But study the use of music in American Splendor. You will learn plenty.
I must admit. Quora still baffles me. I’m flabbergasted at the willingness of people to provide such exhaustive answers to questions from posters, many of whom appear anonymous. It baffles me that Quora is also getting closer to a saturation point, meaning why bother answering questions that have already been upvoted a thousand times or more in the first place? Sort of like YouTube. Why make another video about video marketing to add to the already more than 5 million videos on the same subject? Yes, every profession in general grows and develops and there are more tips, tricks, strategies, etc.. to be learned and thus the content does need to be refreshed. But good luck trying to compete for it. It ain’t easy as Tara Huntdiscovered in her quest for more publicity about herself and her new video marketing savvy but now appears to be enjoying some success at it.
Here is my first answer on Quora.
I received only one vote. I posted this answer back in 2012. It was when I first came across Quora. I chose to answer this question because it seemed so stupid of a question to even ask. I actually think it’s a pretty good answer. Did I spend hours on it? No. Did I spend months on it? No. Is it in anyway creative? No. Compare this answer to that of Stan Hayward. His answer was upvoted 11,000 + times. He included pictures of himself and received responses from people who just loved what he shared. Boy, I feel pathetic in my first attempt at answering a question on Q&A website.
What bothers me is just how much Quora is LOVED by those POWER USERS. You know, people like, David S. Rose, Prarthana Bhat, Aman Anand, Yishan Wong, to name but a mere few who’ve each had more than 1 million views and thousands of votes to their collective responses on Quora. They find it to be the greatest platform for providing articulate and authentic content that is evaluated on its own utility. These avid Quora users describe themselves as “Quorans.”
You don’t need images or video to rank high or get voted to the top of Quora answers. Unlike Facebook which actively wants you to promote via imagery or video because you will get a higher view count or number of clicks rather than just posting one long essay. Google seems to enjoy Quora. What sort of deal did Adam D’Angelo strike with Google? Why does Google consider Quora a qualitative and authentic portal of content to feature some of its results at the top of their search algorithm? Answer.
David S. Rose provided a solid answer about why he spends so much time on Quora. I shall repost now without his approval but am linking to it just the same:
I responded to David’s original answer to the Quora thread about how Quora makes money. He gave a concise answer and then I followed-up again asking him if he truly has received investment opportunities by virtue of his presence on Quora. He responded with an emphatic yes. But then, David is a bit of “hotshot,” isn’t he? He runs his own VC firm, is an angel investor, an “Inc. 500 CEO,” etc… I’m not sure he’s the standard by which to compare other Quora profiles. Or is he? Actually, Quora attracts some very serious intellects, exceptionally talented and accomplished individuals. I’d almost call these people “Type A,” or in this case, “Type A+++.” Good luck to you if this somehow inspires you. For some reason, I’m left wondering why bother?
So, it appears Quora has not pulled a “fast one” on those who might still be a touch too cynical about providing something for free because you truly want to help or it’s out of the goodness of your own heart. Sincere respondents fill the answers of Quora by flexing their literary talents, crafting content they’ve spent hours upon, fine tuning for posting to the 100+ million monthly Quora visitors.
Quora is an intellectual exercise that gratifies many of those “nerds” who use it for precisely that reason. In reviewing David’s response, the one item I find a tad disingenuous is that you frankly can waste quite a bit of time on Quora. Yeah, you can review answer after answer after answer and by the end of it, I’m like…so what? Actually, I found myself growing restless with Quora, mainly because I find it to be one big vanity project serving those individuals who like to compete and stand out among their peers and seek gratification for its own ends rather than finding it through serendipitous means. The biggest contributors love to be recognized as “experts” in their field. Just ask Raj Ramanan, who openly admits this in his first response to why people answer questions on Quora.
So much for humility. In addition, Quora purposefully lends itself towards competition as respondents compete for best answers as voted upon by the general public. It’s strokes the ego and promotes one’s brand. Facebook is certainly less an intellectual exercise given its appeal to mass media consumption. You’re less likely to see cute animal videos on Quora, for example, than on Facebook. Oops! Wrong again!
Quora, for the time being, encourages a more thoughtful approach towards answering questions relying upon the written word and less upon image or video content. Not that images are not used in responses. It’s just that Quorans, in general, (or so it seems to me) like to spend more time crafting a measured and comprehensive response. It’s the competition, however, that sets me off. Contributors, if voted by enough fans, can earn the title of “top writer.” I mean, I understand giving credit where credit is due but am I on Quora because I only want to read responses from the “top writers?” Or am I on it because of the wealth of human experience that I can find, even if that answer is not from a “top writer?”
It bills itself as the “the best answer to any question.” Advice is generally free. And it’s worth as much as you value it. The same applies to Quora. There are some spectacular answers to questions and it is a relatively new platform to explore when searching for answers to serious questions that are on your mind.
But even someone like David S. Rose admits he spends an “absurd” amount of time on Quora. He’s sort of become a “partner” similar to YouTube’s partners even though Quora doesn’t currently have a program like that in place for its leading contributors. I think what continues to bug me, like pretty much anything in our social darwinist world is how people compete for best answer. It just annoys me. Even if I were to like a response by someone who obviously spent hours or even months to craft the most superlative answer possible, I still see it as one huge ego-driven project. One example is Physics Professor Richard Muller of UC Berkeley. Muller is on Quora what seems like constantly. It’s like he’s out to corner the market on answers that relate to physics. He provides some excellent answers, of course. Good luck trying to compete with him if you think you have knowledge about physics that surpasses what he’s already contributed.
In the end, maybe it’s all sour grapes. I admire those who have bothered to share their knowledge in crafting a thoroughly engrossing response to a particular question. Though there are some terribly stupid questions that I don’t see why anyone would waste time answering. I also noticed that there seem to be a lot of Indians who love Quora. Quora’s director of engineering is Tanya Shrivastava and she’s completely obsessed with the platform, admitting she looks for “interesting answers and goes on upvoting sprees.” One added note. Just to give you a sense of how Quora speaks to the “inner geek,” take a look at this response by Elizabeth Knopf on the question, “Why is e-commerce such a hot area in venture capital right now?” Do you even dare try to compose an answer that competes with hers?
Quora is a for-profit company and it’s a venture-backed to the tune of 150 + million dollars. What will become of it?
I’ve never been a fan of private health insurance. Why? Oh, a host of reasons. But one in particular is because a private health insurance company can still determine whether or not it wants to pay for a procedure it does not deem “medically necessary.” You see, I suffered from terrible pain to my left heel. Weeks went by until I finally decided to schedule an appointment with a podiatrist. Podiatrists know something about feet and ankles. After all, it’s their specialty. Harley Wishner is a urologist. Or at least if you visit his LinkedIn profile you will find that he consults in the area of Urology for Anthem/Blue Cross, a private health insurance company. Something tells me Dr. Wishner doesn’t know very much about podiatry. Otherwise, he might have arrived at a different conclusion about my particular situation.
Dr. Wishner denied me coverage for an MRI that was deemed “medically necessary” by my podiatrist. You see, my podiatrist wasn’t able to arrive at an accurate diagnosis of what was causing the tremendous pain in my heel making it impossible for me to walk without wearing a boot. X-rays were taken but proved to be inconclusive. It was my understanding that when my podiatrist recommended I get an MRI of my left heel that it was only if Anthem/Blue Cross would approve it. They did. I was not told that my insurance plan would not cover it.
I got my MRI and eventually received the appropriate care that I required. But medical reviewer, Harley Wishner, MD, knows nothing about this. This is because he works for a private health insurance company and it’s his job to review coverage requests and DENY those requests if they are not covered under your specified plan. Harley also doesn’t understand that the pain was in my HEEL and not in my foot.
Let’s review the offending paragraph in the notice I received from Anthem Blue/Cross:
Medical Reviewer, Harley Wishner, MD, has determined: We cannot approve your request for a low field MRI (a type of medical picture). Your request tells us that you have left foot pain. Medical studies we have seen do not show that low field MRI is as good as or better than other types of medical pictures for bone, muscle, or joint problems. For this reason we believe this testing is investigational. We based this decision on the health plan medical policy, Low Field and Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for Screening Diagnosing and Monitoring (RAD.00049H). Anthem Utilization Management Services, Inc. conducted this review.
Reading this paragraph not only angered me but I felt that the description of “left foot pain” did not even come close to accurately describing where the actual pain was and where it was located. Dr. Harley Wishner was not identifying the appropriate part of my body that suffered from pain and writes me a letter describing the body part that is incorrect. It was not my “left foot” and it was not my “left ankle.” It was my left heel.
I’m going to file a grievance against Anthem/Blue Cross and I’m going to get my podiatrist to fill out what is called a “physician certification experimental/investigational denials” form. The fact is, an MRI for my particular situation is not “experimental” and standard therapies were NOT effective in reducing the level of pain in my left heel.
I’ve drafted this blog post to not only shame Dr. Harley Wishner, MD, and his inaccurate diagnosis of my particular health situation but also to shame Anthem Blue Cross for doing what it does best (as do all private health insurance companies). That is to deny benefits and coverage to any person even if their doctor has deemed it medically necessary for a procedure in order to aid in the understanding and treatment of a particular ailment or disease.
And lest you forget. How do private health insurance companies fatten their profit? By denying coverage.
UPDATE: June 5, 2016
I received a letter from Anthem Blue Cross stating that my grievance was accepted and approved! Yeah! Instead of paying more than $3,000, I paid under $300 for my MRI. Thank you, Anthem for your consideration of my grievance and for agreeing with my reasoning.
The first presidential election I voted in was back in 1992. I voted for democratic party candidate, Jesse Jackson. You see, I remember seeing Jesse Jackson back in 1984 at the Democratic National Convention held in San Francisco. His keynote address electrified the convention floor. His impassioned plea for more government expenditures on hospitals, schools, and the nation’s general infrastructure was not lost upon anyone there. Jesse Jackson inspired my generation, or at least those who were willing to listen to him, and from then on, his framing of the issues never left my political blood. Living through the “government is the problem” mantra as championed by then President Ronald Reagan was difficult. I felt that government in a democracy was always beholden to the people it serves and that the solution to any national dilemma was not always less government. I never voted for a republican…ever.
I’m not someone who would naturally gravitate towards Hillary Clinton. Why? Because of her marriage to Bill, I evaluated her performance based on how effective I viewed Bill Clinton as a president when tackling the nation’s problems. When the debate over national health care came to light, Hillary took on the challenge by being put in charge of a task-force that was going to recommend to Bill on how to achieve universal health care. The Republican party vilified the task-force and the one thousand page document garnered little congressional support, even from Democrats. It’s focus was not on creating a single-payer or “Medicare for all” health care system. Instead, enforcing the mandate that all employers are required to offer health insurance coverage to all of their employees became the priority. It was a huge let down to those of us who wanted single-payer.
While husband Bill did his best to sell Hillary’s health care plan, it went nowhere in Congress. And that was the beginning of how Hillary lost me. And along the way, I grew more and more distant from “establishment politics. ” I saw HRC becoming exactly what I loathed most about our nation’s political system. Since 1992, all I’ve ever kept reading about is the nation’s worsening gap between rich and poor. Economic inequality grew and newspapers across the nation posted numerous stories about this ongoing economic development while Congress turned a deaf ear to it. The issue of economic inequality became #1 for me because for my entire adult professional life, I never was in the higher income bracket of the 1%. I did what I could to successfully navigate my professional career and experienced many ups and downs but in the end always found myself firmly established within the working class of this country. So when a presidential candidate comes along and describes how our economy is “rigged,” and that Wall Street has run afoul of the nation’s financial industry, actively violating federal laws, I pay attention. Stagnating wages was no laughing matter to those who were unable to escape this economic enslavement. But where was Hillary on the subject of economic inequality? As far as I could tell, she was nowhere. Being a first lady limited what impact Hillary could do and she decided to take on our health care mess. She failed and promptly seemed to disappear from the national scene until she eventually ran for the Senate. And in that time, I still never heard much from Hillary about our worsening economic disparity. Did she offer or sign on to any new legislation specifically addressing the issue? As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, HRC focused more on international issues. Economic issues like raising the minimum wage she did not promote. And then, what was the coup de grace that made me despise Hillary forever? Her vote in support of invading Iraq. I already detested George W. Bush. But I couldn’t believe how Hillary fell for the lying and manufactured evidence of WMDs in Iraq. In addition, she supported the Patriot Act, which was a major violation of civil liberties. There was no going back. I viewed Hillary as, at best, the moderate Republican that she still is to this day. She was/is establishment politics.
Then along comes Bernie Sanders…seemingly out of nowhere. He spoke in relatively simple language but on target. Taking on the obscene greed of Wall Street, the corruption perpetrated by our nation’s biggest banks, and the oligarchy in general became the defacto issues for me. Oh yeah, and where was Hillary on the matter? Why chasing his coattails. Because Hillary waffles on the most important issues of the day. And when she finds that she can garner more political support by switching positions, she’ll do so. While Bernie has zeroed in on economic inequality for a good deal of his political life. Bernie also came out in the last debate to slam the war criminal, former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. For Hillary, Kissinger was, in her words, a “friend,” and she relied on his counsel. Remember that Kissinger was instrumental in lengthening the Vietnam war, pushing to bomb Cambodia, overthrow the democratically elected Salvadore Allende of Chile, all in the name of U.S. security interests. As far as I’m concerned, any public official who seeks counsel from a criminal like Kissinger doesn’t belong in the White House.
Back to Hillary Clinton. She openly admits she does not want to fight the battles again that took place in passing Obamacare. She says she wants to expand upon Obamacare. What is Obamacare? Nothing but health insurance reform. It expands upon what private health insurance companies must provide. There’s government support to help states institute Obamacare but that’s it. When the seeds of Obamacare were originally being crafted and discussions were being held with democrats and republicans, the idea of a single-payer health care system never came up for public debate. Nor did the idea of Medicare to act as the purchaser for all prescription drugs on behalf of the American people as a way to lower drug prices. And again, where was Hillary? All she could do was support Obama and never did she pursue fighting for a Medicare for all health care system for our nation. For me, to live in country where private insurance companies get to make decisions about your health is anathema to any sense of human decency.
You can read all about Bernie’s plan for achieving Medicare for all. Two central ways that Bernie’s plan to achieve single-payer include a 6.2% percent income-based health care premium paid for by all employers; a 2.2% percent income-based premium paid by households, and instituting a progressive tax rate system, which as it stands now is anything but progressive!
What irritates me most, however, is how people keep saying that even if Bernie became president, he never could pass any of the progressive legislation he touts. He would never get a suitable congress to agree with any of his “socialist” agenda. My response to that is: as president, one of the greatest gifts you are given is that of the Bully Pulpit. As a president, you get to champion the issues and causes that you care most deeply about. And you get a platform to do it. You get to travel around the country and harangue the ears off of your audience. Yes, sometimes it comes across as obnoxious, I suppose. But when it comes to matters of life and death, I see it as your golden opportunity to win support for your favorite causes, especially ones that should matter to the lives of your supporters. Just as important, what those pundits who oppose Bernie Sanders are missing in all of this is that if Bernie were elected POTUS, it would be a shot heard around the world. It would inspire a whole new slate of liberal democrats to congress; it would be the opportunity of a lifetime to rebuild a liberal agenda that crystallized itself when LBJ passed Medicare back in 1965.
When the skeptics talk about how Bernie Sanders could never be elected president, only one person speaks for me: Robert Reich. And he writes:
2. “He couldn’t get any of his ideas implemented because Congress would reject them.”
If both house of Congress remain in Republican hands, no Democrat will be able to get much legislation through Congress, and will have to rely instead on executive orders and regulations. But there’s a higher likelihood of kicking Republicans out if Bernie’s “political revolution” continues to surge around America, bringing with it millions of young people and other voters, and keeping them politically engaged.
3. “America would never elect a socialist.”
P-l-e-a-s-e. America’s most successful and beloved government programs are social insurance – Social Security and Medicare. A highway is a shared social expenditure, as is the military and public parks and schools. The problem is we now have excessive socialism for the rich (bailouts of Wall Street, subsidies for Big Ag and Big Pharma, monopolization by cable companies and giant health insurers, giant tax-deductible CEO pay packages) – all of which Bernie wants to end or prevent.
4. “His single-payer healthcare proposal would cost so much it would require raising taxes on the middle class.”
This is a duplicitous argument. Studies show that a single-payer system would be far cheaper than our current system, which relies on private for-profit health insurers, because a single-payer system wouldn’t spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing. So even if the Sanders single-payer plan did require some higher taxes, Americans would come out way ahead because they’d save far more than that on health insurance.
And of course, the grandest of ironies is that Robert Reich worked for then President Bill Clinton as our nation’s Secretary of Labor. And did Reich come away from that experience loving HRC any more or less? It is very telling that Robert is not supportive of Hillary’s candidacy. Robert views Hillary as another example of “establishment politics.” She is an excellent candidate for the political system we have, but not for the one we need. With grave issues facing the United States, Robert believes major systemic changes are required, and Hillary is not the one who will get it done, or at a minimum, trumpet those causes. There is no doubt in my mind that Bernie can defeat any candidate put up by the current roster of Republican idiots for president. The latest Real Clear political polls confirm it. This election year, I ask anyone who is a Hillary Clinton supporter to remind themselves of Robert Kennedy’s most favorite quote: “You see things; and you say ‘Why?’ But I dream of things that never were; and I say ‘Why not?” (George Bernard Shaw)
That is Bernie Sander’s quest for the presidency. To those who claim a Bernie Sanders presidency will never happen, they don’t dream and dare not to ask: Why not?
Back in April of 2015, I wrote about Facebook not being the world’s biggest waste of time and to this day still feel essentially the same. That doesn’t mean, however, the social media platform falls short on a few specifics as far as functionality is concerned. Today’s post has to do with one of them. Commenting!
One of the smarter moves by Zuckerberg and his pack of engineers was the idea to not only encourage comments by people on various posts to Facebook but also encouraging others to respond to those comments. We all have a love/hate relationship with Facebook’s “like” tool. According to Zuckerberg, Facebook is working on a dislike button. Not sure how I feel about that since it most likely would encourage more conflict between users than anything else. Back to comments. In 2014, a Facebook user by the name of Lisa Moir asked a most relevant, cogent, and dead on question about who controls your likes and comments? See below:
Poor Facebook customer service
A woman by the name of Judie Green (who on her profile page states that she’s “Active in FB HelpCenter, answered over 10,000 questions by other users) responded that feedback should be sent to Facebook about this question and that you can easily do so by clicking on your “settings” function and reporting a “problem.” Judie never adequately responded to the question because she didn’t know how to answer it. The only logical answer, of course, is that when someone posts a comment on a post by a user, it is up to the user’s profile to decide who can read those comments. I’ve emailed Facebook using its general feedback form and I’ve never heard anything back on this nagging problem. I also added my own comments to Moir’s original post critical of Facebook’s own failings.
If I comment on a post but I don’t want my network of FB friends to see my comments there is nothing I can do about that because it is up to the user profile who determines what comments are viewable. So let’s say I comment on a political post but only want those who are following the post to read my comments, it’s not possible. As soon as I respond, my comments can be seen by my entire social network. Do I truly want to mix politics with every person in my social network on Facebook? In turn, I’ve been liking posts less and less because I don’t want more of my social network to see what it is that I’m commenting on. Just because you are participating in a social networking platform doesn’t mean you want everyone to see what it is you are commenting on. Is there an easy way to fix this gross failure by Zuckerberg and his staff?
I always thought Google + was actually the superior platform for social networking. But it came along too late. Facebook had already laid claim to the social network monster that it is, for better and for worse. I merely wish that Zuckerberg and his customer service department spent a bit more time responding to legitimate complaints and make the serious effort at modifying some of the functionality that creates such irritation on the part of its users.