Buckley on “The Lives of Others”

Please re-read this William F. Buckley review of The Lives of Others, posted on the National Review site on 5.23.07. I’ve never felt so close to Buckley over my entire life as I did reading this just now. I need to face the fact that on levels I chose not to consider before, Buckley was a kind of beautiful man in addition to being a beautiful writer.

141 thoughts on “Buckley on “The Lives of Others”

  1. Oh good, someone made sure the punchbowl started off with a turd.
    I loved that review when I read it, and I especially liked the idea of studio execs scanning it for a pull-quote– “A Holy Vessel of Expiation!”– William F. Buckley, National Review

  2. Jeff, take down DZ’s comment.
    DZ, you are not clever in the least. You are a jackass.
    There are a handful of idiot posters on this site, DZ chief among them, who do not deserve the soapbox to spread their hate.

  3. Jeff, we are all human beings, even the folks who share politics you personally disagree with.
    Buckley spent a lifetime talking about politics one moment, and then turning around and emphasizing just how irrelevant politics is, or at least, should be, to a well-lived life. It is but one sphere of life, not all that is worthy living for.
    Anyway, congratulations for finding something in common with someone you might otherwise not consider. That doesn’t make his other positions in life correct, nor does it mean you must share them.
    We all can enjoy and appreciate art, Jeff. It’s why you’re one of my favorite bloggers– you *get* art.

  4. Wow. Jeff censored DZ.
    Here’s Buckley in 1957. Draw your own conclusions:
    “The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes √¢‚Ǩ‚Äù the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.”

  5. Don’t know if I brought it to attention, but I’m glad people are able to read this.
    I can’t imagine how retarded DZ’s comment had to be, but he remains now and forever a sad bastard.

  6. Christian:
    Senator Robert Byrd (who as I write this is in a hospital bed) was in the KKK as a young man. He evolved. Will you be posting that on blogs on the day of his death?
    So what is your point posting a 51 year old commentary? Buckley evolved.
    Why don’t you try evolving? I know, it is hard to evolve with your head up your ass, but pull it out and give it a shot…

  7. Burma: “I can’t imagine how retarded DZ’s comment had to be, but he remains now and forever a sad bastard.”
    My comment just emphasized a fact regarding christian’s quote. The negative reaction is not dissimilar to the one NYC guy used to exhibit when I pointed out Reagan’s support of apartheid. For some reason, though, it’s wrong to point out Buckley’s views, but it’s acceptable to say Bob Clark deserved to be hit by a drunk driver, because of Porky’s.
    Anyway, the only reason Buckley likely endorsed “The Lives of Others” was because the regime engaging in those practices was communist. But he didn’t seem to have a problem with it when it was Joe McCarthy who was doing it.

  8. Gee, it’s funny to hear a rightie lecture me on evolution. Your party doesn’t even believe in it.
    Byrd proved his about-face through action. Buckley remained a Republican who championed a long line of proto-bigots and fighters against social change. Like Reagan.
    And I don’t get why Jeff is so sentimental about Buckley, but posts any number of unkind things on the day of people’s death. See Clark, Bob.
    I posted my Buckley RIP here before any of you righties, so I’m not dancing on his grave. But I’m going to revise history. That’s your job.

  9. Anyway, the only reason Buckley likely endorsed “The Lives of Others” was because the regime engaging in those practices was communist. But he didn’t seem to have a problem with it when it was Joe McCarthy who was doing it.
    I’ll never forget when Joe McCarthy built that wall around Wisconsin. Sheesh, even by DZ standards, that’s… what am I saying.
    Did you know that McCarthy started as a Democrat, and only switched because that was how to get elected in Wisconsin? And that HUAC was started by Democrats?
    And that Alger Hiss really was a Communist?

  10. Look back far enough and look closely enough and you’ll find that everyone’s hands are dirty. It’s funny that all this dirt-digging is happening in a thread that is ostensibly about The Lives of Others, a movie about the dangers of digging up dirt.

  11. “having just finished smearing someone as a bigot.”
    I just quoted what Buckley wrote. His thought process through the 60′s didn’t much “evolve.”
    I give him credit for recognizing Iraq was a disaster (but not before we went in) but his legacy of support for unwise unkind men remains.
    And Reagan made sure to curry the favor of bigots in the south when he started his campaign. That’s a fact, Jack. But smears? Please. Talk to Rove.

  12. Mgmax: “I’ll never forget when Joe McCarthy built that wall around Wisconsin.”
    He managed to build a wall of lies, anyway.
    “And that HUAC was started by Democrats?”
    At least those Dems followed proper procedure.
    “And that Alger Hiss really was a Communist?”
    From wikipedia: In 2003, General Julius Kobyakov, a retired Russian intelligence official, revealed…that there was no indication that Alger Hiss had been either a paid or unpaid agent of the Soviet Union only “after careful study of KGB-NKVD archives and querying sister services” (military intelligence).
    Dave: That doesn’t change his support for South Africa during apartheid…

  13. I just want to say something that I’ve been thinking for a while and I have to vent. Christian, I think you’re a remarkably intelligent person and we agree on most issues because like you, I am a liberal. However, reading your posts has made me realize something about most people who have views that are similar to mine: they are usually obnoxiously smug. Of course there are conservatives that are smug and some that are unbelievably annoying in their ignorance, but for the majority I simply just disagree with their points of view.
    Perhaps this is sacrilege for me to say, but I find the overwhelming majority of informed conservatives to be a lot easier to tolerate that similarly well-informed liberals. Maybe it’s because I have higher expectations for my liberal brethren, but on this board I find it easier to read someone like Mgmax, whose views I almost always disagree with than Christian whose views I’m usually supportive of. I’ve had polite arguments with both of you, but it’s not really about my experiences with you. It’s about my experiences in general and I’m worried that this is something symptomatic of liberals in general and I can’t tell you how much that scares me.
    I want a Democrat in the White House, but I’m concerned that my fellow liberals will kill all hope with their interminable smugness.

  14. Studies have shown that conservatives are generally happier people than liberals. I believe it. And I’m not saying this as an us vs. them thing, either. Let’s say for the sake of argument that liberals are always totally right and conservatives are always totally wrong. That wouldn’t change the fact that liberals tend to be more depressed, angry, strident and unhappy.
    This is part of the reason, I think, that Air America failed. Even if you agreed with everything put across by the hosts of that network it still was always a tough listen due to the constant negativity surrounding it.
    A large part of Obama’s success has, I believe, come from his optimism. He seems to be, (at least for me), the first Democrat in ages that doesn’t spend the majority of his time telling us that the end is near and that we’re all doomed and that there’s a crisis around every corner.
    Just look at the responses on here to Jeffrey’s initial post. “I don’t care if he wrote a good review for ‘Lives of Others’, Jeffrey. He’s one of THEM!”

  15. Walter: “Studies have shown that conservatives are generally happier people than liberals. I believe it.”
    If you define happiness as depriving people of rights and vital services like police and fire departments, then sure.
    “This is part of the reason, I think, that Air America failed. Even if you agreed with everything put across by the hosts of that network it still was always a tough listen due to the constant negativity surrounding it.”
    Air America failed, because it didn’t have corporate owners worth billions of dollars backing it.
    “Just look at the responses on here to Jeffrey’s initial post. “I don’t care if he wrote a good review for ‘Lives of Others’, Jeffrey. He’s one of THEM!”‘
    Yeah, it’s dumb of me to point out a guy who praised one type of freedom, but who helped to delay another type of freedom.

  16. speaking as someone who has been in radio for a couple of decades, ‘air america’ failed because it was bad…..endless attempts at humor were not funny and attempts at conversation came off as sermons….
    here’s my theory: right-wing radio works because libs are willing to tune in to be amused or pissed off and conservatives tune in for validation……left-wing radio hasn’t worked because libs expect better content than what’s been offered and conservatives wouldn’t even consider tuning in…….
    just a thought……

  17. (why am I wasting my breath?)
    “Wealthy corporate owners” aren’t (generally) worth billions of dollars because they’re stupid. Therefore, why would they back something that wasn’t enormously profitable?
    It doesn’t matter if you love him or hate him, Rush Limbaugh’s radio show has a very large audience. Advertisers therefore want to spend large sums of money to reach his audience. The show makes oodles of money and everybody is happy. See how it works. (I realize it’s evil capitalism but believe it or not that’s still legal in this country)
    And so far as Air America not having these corporate owners backing it…. I may be wrong about this but I was pretty sure George Soros WAS worth billions of dollars.

  18. scooter: “endless attempts at humor were not funny and attempts at conversation came off as sermons…. ”
    So how does that differ from reich-wing radio again?
    “right-wing radio works because libs are willing to tune in to be amused or pissed off and conservatives tune in for validation……”
    I think right-wing radio works, because people like Limbaugh can trash black people, and still not be fired, because his employers own most of the stations across the country; but that’s just me.
    Anyway, from http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080227/ts_nm/buckley_dc
    :
    …Allan Lichtman, who reviewed Buckley’s papers at Yale University, said Buckley defended apartheid in South Africa and that National Review editorials referred to white superiority.
    “I pray every Negro will not be given the vote in South Carolina tomorrow,” Buckley wrote in a private letter to Douglas Stewart dated October 10, 1961, according to Lichtman….

  19. Walter: “”Wealthy corporate owners” aren’t (generally) worth billions of dollars because they’re stupid. Therefore, why would they back something that wasn’t enormously profitable? ”
    So how do you explain GM or MS?
    “It doesn’t matter if you love him or hate him, Rush Limbaugh’s radio show has a very large audience. Advertisers therefore want to spend large sums of money to reach his audience. The show makes oodles of money and everybody is happy.”
    His audience is shrinking, while advertisers have moved on to the Internets.
    “And so far as Air America not having these corporate owners backing it…. I may be wrong about this but I was pretty sure George Soros WAS worth billions of dollars.”
    Soros didn’t own the show.

  20. Noah: I’ll take being smug over being an apologist any day.
    I see no evidence you’ve ever had to choose, D.Z. For instance: “At least those Dems followed proper procedure.”
    “on this board I find it easier to read someone like Mgmax”
    At the risk of being self-congratulatory, maybe it’s because I’m NOT utterly predictable or a strict partisan for one side but in fact think through what I’m saying each time, rather than simply shooting off line-by-line non-sequiturs in response to others’ posts?
    “If you define happiness as depriving people of rights and vital services like police and fire departments, then sure.”
    Every once in a while he comes up with one that’s almost zen-like in its degree of insane caricature. No, I define happiness as condom education classes so 12-year-olds can have third trimester abortions and live out of wedlock with illegal aliens, like all Democrats do!

  21. Mgmax: ‘I see no evidence you’ve ever had to choose, D.Z. For instance: “At least those Dems followed proper procedure.”‘
    Oh, I don’t deny what they did was wrong. I just find Republicans to be more irresponsible about mistakes and failures than Dems.
    “No, I define happiness as condom education classes so 12-year-olds can have third trimester abortions”
    Yeah, only well-connected people like Bush and Reagan should be allowed to have abortions. Oh, and kids should be allowed to add to public health costs by having as much unprotected sex as they want.
    “and live out of wedlock”
    As opposed to hitting on people of your gender in bathrooms?
    “with illegal aliens,”
    Not hired by Bush, you mean.

  22. I just find Republicans to be more irresponsible about mistakes and failures than Dems.
    At least they’re not incinerating the people of Hiroshima alive, like Harry Truman.
    Yeah, only well-connected people like Bush and Reagan should be allowed to have abortions. Oh, and kids should be allowed to add to public health costs by having as much unprotected sex as they want.
    At least they’re not slaughtering Indians, like Andrew Jackson.
    As opposed to hitting on people of your gender in bathrooms?
    At least they’re not torpedoing the Lusitania, like the Kaiser.

  23. (P.S. I knew DZ wouldn’t get it, but I trust everyone else gets that the line about third-trimester illegal aliens was parodying DZ’s partisanship by inventing the most ludicrous possible caricature of a Democrat, not in any way intended to be an actual view of mine. I point this out so I won’t be greeted by 15 foaming rebuttals of that point when I get up in eight hours…)

  24. Mgmax: “At least they’re not incinerating the people of Hiroshima alive, like Harry Truman.”
    At least Truman killed people of a country which actually attacked us.
    “At least they’re not slaughtering Indians, like Andrew Jackson.”
    At least they’re not in denial about it like Bush is about the Armenian Genocide.
    “At least they’re not torpedoing the Lusitania, like the Kaiser.”
    I didn’t know the Kaiser was a Democrat.

  25. Wow, you guys are supposed to be MOVIE geeks, not ACTUAL geeks. You’re getting worked up over the most trivial nonsense. Who really gives a shit? Don’t you know politics are for imbeciles? What’s the point of wasting your time with all this back and forth bullshit when you could be watching all those movies you missed last year? Seriously, take a good look at your lives. You’re arguing like children over stuff that’s way out of your hands. It’s beyond my comprehension. I thought this was going to be a Lives of Others discussion when I posted the link to my review. You all make me laugh.

  26. MiraJeff is upset that we’re not talking about the movie.
    And in case you forgot, there’s a link to his review up there that apparently hasn’t received enough hits in the last few hours.

  27. Oh good, someone made sure the punchbowl started off with a turd.

    I loved that review when I read it, and I especially liked the idea of studio execs scanning it for a pull-quote– “A Holy Vessel of Expiation!”– William F. Buckley, National Review

  28. Thanks for posting the Buckley review, Wells. Great film, great writing.
    Speaking of Buckley and film, has anyone ever optioned any of Buckley’s Blackford Oakes spy novels? Their quality varies, but I remember thinking “Stained Glass” was very, very good.

  29. MiraJeff, last time I checked even the most awesome movie in the world can’t take us to war or give us health care. In the words of Ricky Roma, you fucking child.

  30. I didn’t know the Kaiser was a Democrat.
    Holy Shit! He really didn’t get it. This is hysterical. For somebody to not even have a small bit of self-awareness is just incredible.

  31. Anyway, the only reason Buckley likely endorsed “The Lives of Others” was because the regime engaging in those practices was communist. But he didn’t seem to have a problem with it when it was Joe McCarthy who was doing it.

    I’ll never forget when Joe McCarthy built that wall around Wisconsin. Sheesh, even by DZ standards, that’s… what am I saying.

    Did you know that McCarthy started as a Democrat, and only switched because that was how to get elected in Wisconsin? And that HUAC was started by Democrats?

    And that Alger Hiss really was a Communist?

  32. Given the fact that D.Z. makes the most outlandish, inaccurate, living in his mother’s basement comments on this site… it boggles my mind to think of what he could’ve said to set Wells off enough to delete the post. I’m very curious as to what it said.
    Also– Mirajeff, I’ve said it before and said I’ll say it again: Paragraphs. Just try it.
    It’s fun!

  33. Given the fact that D.Z. makes the most outlandish, inaccurate, living in his mother’s basement comments on this site… it boggles my mind to think of what he could’ve said to set Wells off enough to delete the post. I’m very curious as to what it said.
    Also– Mirajeff, I’ve said it before and said I’ll say it again: Paragraphs.
    Just try it. It’s fun!

  34. mira, i don’t like your phrasing and use of commas in the first two paragraphs and there’s one big typo, but a year later with your diving bell review, you nailed it to the cross.
    i totally relate to lasalle and i like him in MCN’s nasty link with the nasty comment about a critic on book leave: “When I lived in DC I would spend every Friday morning fuming over Pulitzer Prize winner Stephen Hunter’s reviews in the Post. Any insight about movies was usually swallowed up by his right-wing politics and gun fetishism.”
    is it true?too tired for rottentomatoes and sarah larsen videos
    http://alsolikelife.com/shooting/?p=264

  35. “That wouldn’t change the fact that liberals tend to be more depressed, angry, strident and unhappy.”
    So what is Rush Limbaugh whining about every day? Or you Walter? As if folk like O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage or Coulter are paragons of joy. Yes, when I think of bliss, I think “Glenn Beck.”
    Noah, sorry you find me smug. I’m just passionate about my world. And I’m just tired of right-wing lies and power-trips. I too listen to conservatives but don’t find them anymore palatable like you do. I also rail against the left when need be. That puts me between both sides. But I don’t accuse people like Mgmax of being anti-American traitors. Why do you ignore that? Don’t you find that problematic?
    The reason the right-wing has such a foothold is they play on all the easy emotions that Walter tries to do. “Gosh, libs are so unhappy. Conservatives are fun.” As if. Tell me Walter, who you gonna have hot sex with? That lady in bible study? Or the clerk at Victoria’s Secret?
    But this is how the modern neo-cons work. They start a war based on lies, drop bombs on people, ignore poverty, induce recession, etc. all while smiling and telling folk that Islamo-fascists are going to destroy the world and that nobody can hurt the environment. But don’t worry, be happy. Me no understand.
    And Noah, was it not you who smugly wrote off Ridley Scott’s entire career? Just to bring this back to film…

  36. I emailed the editor today to make those corrections. She’s new so she doesn’t really know me. Plus that photo caption makes me cringe. Scooterzz, this is actually the only site I pimp my links to and I don’t do it every day, but in this instance, since Wells was linking to an old review, I thought I’d post mine since it was printed weeks after anybody gave a shit because that’s when arthouse films get to Colorado Springs. But thanks for the encouragement. Craptastic, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Paragraphs are overrated. Can you not read the English language when text isn’t paragraph form? Does it hurt your eyes? Sorry, don’t read it then. I wasn’t thinking of you when I banged it out in a few minutes. Sorry I’m not more conscientious with my postings. And T. Holly, thanks for the compliment on the Diving Bell review. I told Julian I was going to send it to him but I chickened out. I felt like, he’s Julian Schnabel, he knows he made a great film, he doesn’t need me to tell him that. But more than that, I was intimidated to write a personal note when I send him the link. What do you say to the guy who made the best fucking movie of the year other than Bra fucking Vo. It’s a god damn shame the film didn’t win any Oscars on Sunday, not that it needs statues for validation. The Boston Phoenix Alumni Critics poll summed things up best. And Burma, I’m not a fucking child, I’m Andrew fucking Garfield in Lions for Lambs. I’m apathetic. Washington is dirtier than Hollywood. We’re all sheep. It doesn’t matter if its Hillary or Obama or even McCain (I’m from Boston so if I did vote, I’m sure you could guess where my political allegiance would lie), my vote doesn’t matter and if you really think it does you’re kidding yourself. Sure a handful of people in Florida decided the last election. But a handful of people won the Mass Millions last week too. The day an election comes down to me, or even the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people I’ve known over my 24 years, will be the day my luck runs out. I wouldn’t wanna be in that position. The guy casting the last vote to decide everything. So if I don’t think I could handle that, why would I cast a vote in any case, regardless of when. One less vote doesn’t matter, and it’s naive to think otherwise, and I’m sure you’ll think I’m ignorant and say that voting is the most important responsibility we have as upstanding members of society but I call bullshit. It works in theory but I’d rather not invest myself only to see my guy lose and then care so much that I’d be disappointed with or possibly hate our new president. Like, don’t you guys realize this? All this hate being spewed by both sides, it’s like, we’re gonna have to live with one of them, whoever it is, so what is the point? Even when a guy wins the popular vote he can’t get into the White House because of electoral votes which is part of the process we’re forced to respect and never question. I dunno, call me crazy but I could give a shit about politics. They’re all looking out for themselves anyways. That’s why I say, Dennis Haysbert for President! I’d feel completely comfortable with President Palmer watching my back. Ain’t no one fucking with that guy. Just make 24 (season 1)’s writing staff the cabinet and it’ll be a peaceful four years.

  37. Actually… it wasn’t season 1 because Palmer hadn’t been elected yet. But season 1 was still the best, and that’s gotta count for something.

  38. Christian, I may have written off much of Ridley Scott’s work but I didn’t write off the people who do enjoy those films. There is a world of difference between having a strong opinion and believing that your opinion is the only one that matters.
    Look, I agree with you and your thoughts on conservativism, but I disagree with some of your tactics. I think we as liberals should be better than the other side, but I also think we should try to understand where they are coming from and not think that we have all the answers. I think it’s the height of hubris to believe that your opinion is the only right opinion. And I happen to find that a lot more on the liberal side of things, at least in my travels. And it saddens me.
    But again, perhaps it’s just because I expect more out of my liberal brethren, but maybe it’s because I find the extremist views of the far left to be exclusive to those who are true liberals like myself. Hell, on this board I was told that I’m not a real Democrat because I don’t believe in mandatory universal health care despite the fact that I believe in every single other Democratic cause. That kind of fanaticism is not what I want to see in my fellow liberals.

  39. And spare me the ‘if everyone young thought like this the country would be down the tubes’ argument. Fortunately, or not, the rest of the country’s youth is watching The Hills and MTV’s relentless voting ads so we don’t have to worry about that. Now we just have a generation of youth who, for the most part, vote but have no idea what they’re voting for. Most people my age get their news from Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. Funny guys, both, but not exactly Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings. Voting just doesn’t mean what it used to, I think, not that I’ve been eligible to vote for too long. And when people yell at me for not participating in the democratic process of political election, I argue that I AM participating, I’m electing to not vote, because I realize that a vote actually means something which means you shouldn’t have to cast it every four years like a ‘good’ American, you should vote when you’re inspired to and so far, what I saw last election and what I’m seeing now, does not inspire me to take the 10 minutes out of my busy day to vote for some schmuck to make decisions for me for the next four years. I’d rather let the schmucks of America decide. Let’s hope you give-a-shitters choose wisely.

  40. also, i feel like a lot of people out there, and please tell me if i’m wrong, don’t vote for candidates, they vote against candidates. face it, there are some unenlightened Americans out there who vote for Hillary because they’re racist, and others who vote for Obama because they’re sexist. And that’s just as indefensible I suppose as not voting. Not that I personally think not voting is indefensible, but because I know the majority of you do. I would love to hear from other people on this thread who don’t give a shit, like me, but then they’d have to give a shit enough to wanna tell me that, and frankly I think that’s too much shit giving for some people. p.s. i promise this will be the only thread I ever discuss politics on, much to most of your delights. i was just pissed because this was a chance to restart the conversation about Lives of Others more than a year later and you political shit-givers came in and hijacked it and now it’s gone to shit. the motherfucking end.

  41. “Let’s hope you give-a-shitters choose wisely.”
    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.

  42. I know that poem. Great fucking choice, my friend. But was that really the best you could do? Have an original thought, please. And I would’ve spoken out cuz I’m a proud Jew, baby! If I’ve got an opinion, you’ll hear about it. That’s what I do. I have opinions. And with politics my opinion is to have no opinion. Respect!

  43. Touche, dear Christian. Touche. Seriously though, great poem. Haven’t read that in years. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

  44. It’s a shame half the country isn’t reading this blog though, because then half the country would know how fucking brilliant The Lives of Others is, which was my original point in this whole fiasco.

  45. MiraJeff: I don’t think you get the irony of praising a film which is about people having to live through a dictatorship while simultaneously arguing that voting “doesn’t matter”.

  46. And Noah, please tell me this is not the height of smuggery:
    Obama is technically a baby boomer but like a lot of us born at the tail end, we’re too young to have actually enjoyed that whole 60s youth-rules-the-world-bullshit, we grew up in the pinched and screwed up 70s, not the narcissistic 60s, and the humorless counterculture know it alls were the grownups hectoring us, who we made fun of.
    - Mgmax

  47. Oh I get it. Not really the same thing though. Of course I don’t want to live in a dictatorship. I’m sorry if you felt like I was saying I need someone to tell me what to do. But you realize you vote to put the right person in office, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll do whatever you want to be done. If it serves their personal interests, or the country’s collective interests, then that’s what they’ll do, but the whole country doesn’t have the same needs. Of course voting matters. It just doesn’t matter to me. Agree to disagree. I’d rather be one of the guys saying shut up, don’t tell me about either of your candidates cuz it doesn’t matter and I don’t care, than the guy who goes to incredible lengths to shove his candidate down your fucking throat until you either agree with me or we’re mortal enemies, which is how republicans and democrats treat each other and all these news shows that I don’t watch but know enough about to know they’re all just screaming matches and no one fucking listens. So I just stop watching, and listening, and shut off, and live in the world you guys create for me by voting. Thank you. I owe you a vote on something. Feel free to ask my opinion when you and your significant other and debating between which movie to see on a Friday night. That’s what I know. Not politics. And we fear what we don’t know, right? Well I’m afraid of becoming one of these assholes who devotes their year and a half to spreading the good word of one of two senators who aren’t affected by my decision to vote or not vote, and even if they were, don’t appreciate my vote. You think Clinton and Obama really give a shit if I vote. If I asked Clinton, should I vote for Obama or not vote at all, she’d say don’t vote at all. They could care less about the process and how it affects me, so long as the end result makes them the most powerful person in the world. And the primaries and that shit have become the March Madness of politics. Television coverage has completely fucked up the election process. It’s all about who can look good while reading a speech prepared by some other guy behind the scenes. They’re all puppets more or less and we can’t vote for whoever is really pulling the strings because the President appoints his/her own cabinet, etc. Whatever, no point in me getting worked up any further, I’m going to go watch the last episode of The Wire. If you ask nicely maybe I’ll come back in two hours with a one word review, since my lips are sealed per HBO. I’m kinda sad, this will be my last When You Walk Through the Garden…later friendos.

  48. Noah: I’ll take being smug over being an apologist any day.

    I see no evidence you’ve ever had to choose, D.Z. For instance: “At least those Dems followed proper procedure.”

    “on this board I find it easier to read someone like Mgmax”

    At the risk of being self-congratulatory, maybe it’s because I’m NOT utterly predictable or a strict partisan for one side but in fact think through what I’m saying each time, rather than simply shooting off line-by-line non-sequiturs in response to others’ posts?

    “If you define happiness as depriving people of rights and vital services like police and fire departments, then sure.”

    Every once in a while he comes up with one that’s almost zen-like in its degree of insane caricature. No, I define happiness as condom education classes so 12-year-olds can have third trimester abortions and live out of wedlock with illegal aliens, like all Democrats do!

  49. Holy crap MiraJeff!!!! Use a paragraph or two. I won’t even try to navigate your posts at this hour (or any other for that matter). It’s ridiculous.

  50. I just find Republicans to be more irresponsible about mistakes and failures than Dems.

    At least they’re not incinerating the people of Hiroshima alive, like Harry Truman.

    Yeah, only well-connected people like Bush and Reagan should be allowed to have abortions. Oh, and kids should be allowed to add to public health costs by having as much unprotected sex as they want.

    At least they’re not slaughtering Indians, like Andrew Jackson.

    As opposed to hitting on people of your gender in bathrooms?

    At least they’re not torpedoing the Lusitania, like the Kaiser.

  51. (P.S. I knew DZ wouldn’t get it, but I trust everyone else gets that the line about third-trimester illegal aliens was parodying DZ’s partisanship by inventing the most ludicrous possible caricature of a Democrat, not in any way intended to be an actual view of mine. I point this out so I won’t be greeted by 15 foaming rebuttals of that point when I get up in eight hours…)

  52. Burma, I admit I have a lot of learning to do, but I know enough to recognize a bunch of empty promises when I hear them. Anyways, the one-word review of The Wire finale, for those who care: ‘Wow!’ Like you thought I was really gonna say anything… ha! You’ll just have to wait until it airs or the suspense gives you a heart attack.

  53. And thanks High Chaparral. You’re a shithead too. And I didn’t even have to watch the YouTube clip to know that one, prick.

  54. Holy crap MiraJeff!!!! Use a paragraph or two. I won’t even try to navigate your posts at this hour (or any other for that matter). It’s ridiculous.

  55. Jebus, guys. Chill out.
    To the point…
    I actually don’t see a lot to admire in Buckley’s “review,” except maybe for his exuberance about it. Yes, he’s got some good lines in there, but he essentially just lays out the plot and spoils the ending.

  56. FDJ, you’re missing the point. What’s nice about it is that it’s a human reaction, not a movie review. It’s a nice little vignette about how the movies can enthrall someone who, probably, didn’t think much of them most of the time.

  57. MJ, if apolitical means you don’t take interest, your life as a critic will be over, however, you can be dumbed down for Bill Higgins job.
    Well written subtitles make a foreign film and Buckley and Wells seem like a natural fit — at least Buckley didn’t do a Steve Hunter, if the this is true…
    about book-leave Pulitzer Prize winner Stephen Hunter’s reviews in the WaPost: “Any insight about movies was usually swallowed up by his right-wing politics and gun fetishism.”

  58. “Any insight about movies was usually swallowed up by his right-wing politics and gun fetishism.”
    Was this really such a vital insight we needed it twice in the last 24 hours? In any case, it seems to me it demonstrates that Hunter and modern action movies were well suited to one another…

  59. Point taken, Mgmax, but I’d be pissed off if the column excited me about the film enough to see it, only to find that the perfect note of its ending had been muted.

  60. Wait a sec….. In “The Lives of Others” the bad guys are the members of the East German government?
    But East Germany was a hardline communist Soviet puppet-state. I thought that was a good thing. You know, worker’s paradise, Marx, anti-capitalism, Che t-shirts, that sort of thing.
    Help me out here.

  61. Getting back to the actual review, I loved Buckley’s review, because his unfettered enthusiam for the movie is real and he seems to have been so moved by it that he had to write about it immediately. I loved the movie in a similar way, as did Wells, so I understand why he’s posting it.
    As to the greater question of Buckley as a man, you can’t just some it up with one quote from 50 years ago, or that he once called Gore Vidal a queer after vidal called him a crypto-Nazi. I’ve read a lot of Buckely’s stuff, and he was a pretty good novelist and anti-Communist not just because of the econmoic system but for the way it stifled freedom of expression, which, if you look at Buckley’s life, he was always a champion of. So while I didn’t agree with everything he ever said or did, he was that rare man who influenced even those who disagreed with him and who was always willing to engage in a polite debate. His debates with Chomsky are particularly interesting. He should be missed because in losing him America has lost a Conservative who embraced intellectualism and there are very few of those left.

  62. “He should be missed because in losing him America has lost a Conservative who embraced intellectualism and there are very few of those left.”
    No, I won’t mourn him for his awful bigoted policies that he kept in check primarily because he had to, but it’s true he was one of the last intellectuals in a conservative age where intellect is despised and emotion rules all. Look how the right threw him under a bus after he came against the war. Both sides always eat their own.
    I do wish there was a modern equivalent to Firing LIne tho.

  63. Don’t be such a baby FunkDaddy with a J, that’s not how the movie ends.
    Thanks Maxie G for the clue, “modern action movies were well suited to one another…”
    Later divine.

  64. Walter: “But East Germany was a hardline communist Soviet puppet-state. I thought that was a good thing. You know, worker’s paradise, Marx, anti-capitalism, Che t-shirts, that sort of thing.”
    It’s good enough for Republicans to imitate for their cronies, anyway.

  65. Thank you, Christian, I think we got that from you already.
    Here’s John O’Sullivan on Buckley’s importance, in a context that will make it clearer why he loved The Lives of Others so:
    “When news of Bill’s death reached me, I was in Prague. It was suitable and perhaps comforting place to hear such sad news since Prague is one of the great European cities Bill helped to liberate from communism. Eighteen years ago he and I were here on a National Review Institute political tour of Eastern Europe. This was only a year after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the “velvet revolutions.” Because of Bill’s leadership in the anti-Communist and conservative movements, everyone wanted to meet him. New ministers, heads of new political parties, and editors of old national newspapers (with new editorial lines) told him of how they had read smuggled copies of NR during the years that the Communist regime condemned them to work as stokers and quarry-men.
    “He took it all very humbly and even a little quizzically. It was as if he didn’t quite believe that he had blown a trumpet and, lo, the walls of Communism had tumbled down √¢‚Ǩ‚Äù “literally,” to use a word whose misuse he occasionally denounced. He was a great man and a figure of great historical significance. He founded the American conservative movement that, among many other achievements, won the Cold War. But he wanted to slip quietly away to avoid the presidents and prime ministers rushing up to ask for his autograph.”
    There’s also a great example of Buckley’s mischievous wit quoted at NRO right now; he was talking to some TV talking head about a sailing trip in the Atlantic:
    Interviewer: Did your wife come along?
    Buckley: No, I’m afraid my wife prefers more pacific vacations.
    Interviewer: I thought you sailed across the Atlantic?
    Buckley: I meant in the sense of irenic.

  66. The thing about WFB was that indeed, he did seem to be an actual intellectual, unlike, say, George Will, who merely comes off like someone who knows how to use a thesaurus.

  67. On the NY Times website, Sam Tanenhaus, the Book Review editor who is writing a biography of Buckley does a Q & A about him. Here are 2 echanges regarding race.
    Q: Did he ever recant his opposition to the civil rights movement?
    A: Yes, he did. He said it was a mistake for National Review not to have supported the civil rights legislation of 1964-65, and later supported a national holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whom he grew to admire a good deal, above all for combining spiritual and political values.
    Q: Did Buckley ever change his 1950’s pro-Segregation stance?
    A: He did, strenuously. He debated George Wallace quite strenuously in the late 1960s. It may seem odd, but Buckley, whose parents were both Southerners, actually inherited views on race that were fairly progressive for his time and place.

  68. Oh my god, this thread is making my eyes bleed. Thank you, Jeffrey, for giving us this mini-epitaph shining a light on Buckley’s humanity and the beauty of the feelings and transformations we can all share… even if we’re pretty stubbornly set against it today :)

  69. The Lives of Others is a dishonest, crap-sentimental film — the German “Mississippi Burning” — and Buckley is roasting in hell if there is one.

  70. Ignoring the punchbowl-turd aspect of that post, I want to comment on the criticism which was made of it– and of Schindler’s List– that they soften their horrors by telling a story about a hero in the midst of them.
    Even though the good Stasi man is a fictitious invention, unlike Schindler, I think it’s important to tell the story that way. If everyone is seen to be acting in accord with the system, then dramatically you’ve said that it was impossible to resist it– that no one is really to blame, because no one could have done otherwise. Only by dramatizing resistance, conscience, disobedience– even if it never happened in real life– can you fairly accuse all of those who went along with the system, by showing that they did have a choice.
    It’s historically inaccurate, in that sense, but The Lives of Others is very far from being dishonest.

  71. Mirajeff:
    You are a writer. This is your profession, no? To then show such little respect for the form, even in message board posts, illustrates a fundamental dishonesty. You are clearly trying to form some sort of persona, and just as clearly you are failing.
    When begining a new thought, insert a paragraph break. Not just because it’s easier on the eyes (though it is), but because it demonstrates some small amount of consideration went into organizing your thoughts. Your words spew forth, points are repeated, or even contradicted, sometimes in the same sentence. I realize your editorial influences over at AICN may in some ways encourage this haphazard style, but it does not suit you.
    I do, however, admire your steadfastness in posting where your opinions and lack of netiquette (ah, the days of yor) are roundly criticized daily, and are clearly unappreciated. You’ve got fortitude, my friend, now just drop the condescension (no need to call 2001 overrated and boring, then refer to its auteur as “Stan”, which is super-smarmy and presumptive)and take a few years to live some real-world experiences.
    And, for fuck’s sake, watch Bridge Over The River Kwai!

  72. Matty C, you sure are a stickler for rules, aren’t you? You want a paragraph? Here’s two:
    Fuck.
    Off.
    Who the hell are you people? Seriously? I would love to know some of your real identities. I feel like there’s a fundamental dishonesty in hiding behind a quasi-anonymous screenname, Matty C. I don’t need you, expert in all things writing, to tell me how to write. I’ve got a degree in it from the best school you can have such a degree from.
    P.S. Stan’s 2001 still sucks, regardless of how groundbreaking it was at the time and how influential it has become. The Dawn of Man sequence puts me to sleep every time.

  73. MiraJeff, I like you and I think you’re a good guy, but you gotta ease up dude.
    I’d be glad to debate you about the merits of 2001, though. The Dawn of Man sequence puts you to sleep? That’s a shame because it’s only about fifteen minutes long. Besides, if you can appreciate the meditative films of auteurs like Malick, Antonioni, etc. then it shouldn’t be that trying to sit through a film like 2001 which has mind-blowing visuals, unbelievably complicated ideas about man’s place in the universe and some of the best damn music ever recorded. Perhaps it’s not a film for people who enjoy their messages to be spoon-fed to them; instead, it’s a film where you have to use your brain and bring a little something of yourself to the picture.
    If you don’t want to do a little bit of work when you go to the movies, then God bless and godspeed but don’t cast aspersions on folks that do. And when you make a blanket statement like “2001 still sucks” that’s exactly what you’re doing. That’s not an invitation for a discussion, it’s a dismissal of any discussion that might follow.
    Anyway, like I said earlier, you know I like you; we’ve shared a few e-mails and I think you’re a good dude, but you gotta chill brother.

  74. “I would love to know some of your real identities. I feel like there’s a fundamental dishonesty in hiding behind a quasi-anonymous screenname, Matty C.”
    I use my real name. It keeps me from telling people to fuck off and die douchebag assclown or whatever insult one needs a nom de plume to hide behind. Some here really need it.
    But MiraJ, maybe you could think of your onLine writing as an accessory to your offline writing. Breaking your thoughts up with wit and structure gives your odd ideas a lot more credence. I mean, if you don’t care about style or grammar, just txt your posts LOL.

  75. Noah, I heart you too big guy, but just cuz I was bored to tears by 2001 doesn’t mean I don’t like to ‘do a little bit of work’ when I go to the movies. That’s just an unfair blanket statement. When I say 2001 sucks, that’s my opinion, not a fact. So maybe you and others of your ilk need to relax. It’s not like I’m denying the theory of evolution here. I know, it’s blasphemy to consider any Kubrick film less than genius, but for me, 2001 was fucking snoozeriffic. Maybe I watched it at the wrong age (19) or the wrong time (late at night, alone unsurprisingly), and maybe I need to watch it again to appreciate how masterful its craft is, but first impressions are a bitch to shrug off and my first impression was that 2001 was straight-up, flat-out boring and not what I expected from the dude who made The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. It’s not a classic, in my book, and in the end, my book is the only one I give a shit about. Perhaps I’ll revisit it when I’m more mature but for now I’m content to write it off as a bunch of philosophic meta-garbage with a great score and some trippy visuals.

  76. “not what I expected from the dude who made The Shining and Full Metal Jacket”
    Then you don’t understand “Stan”‘s work very well, because they’re all practically the same movie.
    In an empty universe without God, the apes tend to kill each other for reasons that seem extremely important to them, but make no sense whatsoever viewed from outside. That pretty much covers most of them, right there.
    “Stanley, I don’t want to read a 1000-page book called The War Against the Jews.”
    “No, what you don’t want to read is a 1000-page book called The War Against the Jews, Part II.” –Kubrick to Frederic Raphael

  77. Fair enough, but I would urge you to give it another try now that you’re older. I think you might be surprised by how much a movie can change with time. Sometimes it doesn’t even take that much time. For example, when I saw the Fountain in theaters I didn’t know whether to make heads or tails of it. When it came out on DVD and I watched it again, I cried my fucking eyes out. So, sometimes giving a film another try isn’t such a bad idea.
    After all, in the past four or five years since you first saw the film, your tastes in films must have changed a bit. You have matured I’m sure and you’ve also seen a lot more movies, which would have invariably opened up your tastes a bit wider. I happen to be a Stanley Kubrick fanatic (he was the man who made me interested in film in the first place after I watched Clockwork Orange when I was 11), but I think 2001 is a film that requires more than a single viewing at a tender age. Just a thought, my friend.

  78. “I don’t need you, expert in all things writing, to tell me how to write. _I’ve got a degree in it from the best school you can have such a degree from_.”
    -MiraJeff
    Is it just me, or is this awesome?
    Seriously, Jeff, I’m just trying to be helpful, and these are some thoughts I’ve had for a while now, but then your multiple headache-inducing posts in this thread prompted me to tell you. Don’t take it personally, I didn’t call you an asshat, or tell you to suck a bag of dicks. I just told you some ways I think you could do yourself a favor or two.
    BTW, MattyC isn’t really an anonymous screenname, as anyone who knows me could tell you. My name is Matt Coleman, and I live in Portland, OR. Shall I provide you with a myspace link, so we can be better acquainted? Perhaps my home address, or cell phone number? I mean, really, I don’t know what any amount of non-anonymity adds to the proceedings when all we are doing is chatting on a movie message board.
    I’m just saying that for someone who claims writing is his profession, you sure don’t act like you give a shit about how you come off.

  79. MiraJeff, you just have to consider what it’s like for an intelligent person to watch 2001, which you aren’t. I mean no offense, you have other things to offer, like enthusiasm. I just get the feeling when he gets to the white room at the end you’re always upset that David Morse isn’t there to explain things to him.

  80. FDJ, you’re missing the point. What’s nice about it is that it’s a human reaction, not a movie review. It’s a nice little vignette about how the movies can enthrall someone who, probably, didn’t think much of them most of the time.

  81. “Any insight about movies was usually swallowed up by his right-wing politics and gun fetishism.”

    Was this really such a vital insight we needed it twice in the last 24 hours? In any case, it seems to me it demonstrates that Hunter and modern action movies were well suited to one another…

  82. “Maybe I watched it at the wrong age (19) or the wrong time (late at night, alone unsurprisingly), and maybe I need to watch it again to appreciate how masterful its craft is”
    Now you’re getting somewhere.

  83. Forget the Kubrick bashing, what I want is to read more justifications from mirajeff for not understanding how to write in spite of his degree.
    Not to be snarky, but as a writer I spend a great deal of time in trying to do it good. (That’s a joke, BTW)

  84. Thank you, Christian, I think we got that from you already.

    Here’s John O’Sullivan on Buckley’s importance, in a context that will make it clearer why he loved The Lives of Others so:

    “When news of Bill’s death reached me, I was in Prague. It was suitable and perhaps comforting place to hear such sad news since Prague is one of the great European cities Bill helped to liberate from communism. Eighteen years ago he and I were here on a National Review Institute political tour of Eastern Europe. This was only a year after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the “velvet revolutions.” Because of Bill’s leadership in the anti-Communist and conservative movements, everyone wanted to meet him. New ministers, heads of new political parties, and editors of old national newspapers (with new editorial lines) told him of how they had read smuggled copies of NR during the years that the Communist regime condemned them to work as stokers and quarry-men.

    “He took it all very humbly and even a little quizzically. It was as if he didn’t quite believe that he had blown a trumpet and, lo, the walls of Communism had tumbled down — “literally,” to use a word whose misuse he occasionally denounced. He was a great man and a figure of great historical significance. He founded the American conservative movement that, among many other achievements, won the Cold War. But he wanted to slip quietly away to avoid the presidents and prime ministers rushing up to ask for his autograph.”

    There’s also a great example of Buckley’s mischievous wit quoted at NRO right now; he was talking to some TV talking head about a sailing trip in the Atlantic:

    Interviewer: Did your wife come along?

    Buckley: No, I’m afraid my wife prefers more pacific vacations.

    Interviewer: I thought you sailed across the Atlantic?

    Buckley: I meant in the sense of irenic.

  85. This thread has gone off the rails…Anyway, 2001 is NOT an easy movie to watch the first time. I don’t believe anyone who says they “got it” on first viewing.
    Calling it boring is a bit easy but there are some sequences (Dawn of Man, Stargate, some of the spacewalking) which would probably work perfectly fine at half their length. That said, the film IS about something, it DOES make sense when you watch it all and though I find some segements a bit long, am willing to defer to Mr. Kubrick’s superior knowledge of the medium.
    I don’t expect everyone to love the movie (I appreciate more than LOVE it) but if you like movies you should certainly give it a shot, start-to-finish and then make a call.

  86. “It was suitable and perhaps comforting place to hear such sad news since Prague is one of the great European cities Bill helped to liberate from communism.”
    Was it because the people there were white?
    “This was only a year after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the “velvet revolutions.”
    Is that what they’re white-washing the subsequent ethnic genocide in Yugoslavia as nowadays?
    “It was as if he didn’t quite believe that he had blown a trumpet and, lo, the walls of Communism had tumbled down √¢‚Ǩ‚Äù “literally,” to use a word whose misuse he occasionally denounced.”
    Except for in Russia, where a former KGB thug can
    be forgiven as long as he controls the media…
    “He founded the American conservative movement that, among many other achievements, won the Cold War.”
    You sure about that? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/30/wmissile130.xml
    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0bT75tv_-eRiKTlYMWarpVtFJIAD8V2D5IO0
    joe: For a guy who was against segregation, he seemed to have no problems embracing a pro-apartheid President.

  87. It’s hard to believe I read this entire thread. (O.k., I did skip a few posts.) The good news is that I learned a new word.

  88. Ignoring the punchbowl-turd aspect of that post, I want to comment on the criticism which was made of it– and of Schindler’s List– that they soften their horrors by telling a story about a hero in the midst of them.

    Even though the good Stasi man is a fictitious invention, unlike Schindler, I think it’s important to tell the story that way. If everyone is seen to be acting in accord with the system, then dramatically you’ve said that it was impossible to resist it– that no one is really to blame, because no one could have done otherwise. Only by dramatizing resistance, conscience, disobedience– even if it never happened in real life– can you fairly accuse all of those who went along with the system, by showing that they did have a choice.

    It’s historically inaccurate, in that sense, but The Lives of Others is very far from being dishonest.

  89. “not what I expected from the dude who made The Shining and Full Metal Jacket”

    Then you don’t understand “Stan”‘s work very well, because they’re all practically the same movie.

    In an empty universe without God, the apes tend to kill each other for reasons that seem extremely important to them, but make no sense whatsoever viewed from outside. That pretty much covers most of them, right there.

    “Stanley, I don’t want to read a 1000-page book called The War Against the Jews.”

    “No, what you don’t want to read is a 1000-page book called The War Against the Jews, Part II.” –Kubrick to Frederic Raphael

  90. DZ, you’re not going to win this argument. Most of us in here are liberals who are still expressing respect for him. Does that tell you anything?
    “Well Hitler was charming too.” -D.Z.

  91. Burma: “Most of us in here are liberals who are still expressing respect for him. Does that tell you anything?”
    It tells me you respect him for his image, while ignoring his reality, which makes sense on a movie-themed site.
    “Well Hitler was charming too.”
    Hitler was more honest than Buckley.

  92. “Most of us in here are liberals who are still expressing respect for him. Does that tell you anything?”
    [i]WFB was a reactionary that elite liberals loved. The New York Times’ multimedia tribute to him is not surprising, glossing over Buckley’s less attractive stances in his long public career. But that was Buckley’s true talent: making reprehensible opinions palatable to liberal tastes. He was much smoother than Ann Coulter, but not that different in ideological outlook. Coulter crashes into rooms, yelling, spitting bile in all directions. WFB slid in almost silently, his bouncing eyebrows the sole evidence of his presence — until he spoke, that is — and even then, bullshit oozed from his mouth in polysyllabic strips, with liberals like John Kenneth Galbraith and Murray Kempton eagerly lapping up his crap.[/i]
    http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/02/socked-in-god-damned-face.html

  93. I would suggest that anyone who frames the discussion of the last 50 years of American conservatism in terms of one sensationalistic TV talking head has already lost the discussion on grounds of superficiality and general illiteracy.

  94. Mgmax: “At least Attila the Hun didn’t belong to a restricted country club.”
    Most European leaders were like Attila The Hun back then, except that they had propaganda to make them look more regal when they were wiping out the enemy.
    “I would suggest that anyone who frames the discussion of the last 50 years of American conservatism in terms of one sensationalistic TV talking head has already lost the discussion on grounds of superficiality and general illiteracy.”
    No, she’s just a symptom of the problem.

  95. TV talking head? He also started the National Review, and wrote best-selling books. Considering that WFB was seen as the godfather of modern conservatism, not so true, Mgmax.
    But the Dennis Perrin quote is so true it’s scary. I would regularly read Buckley’s editorials and while you could marvel at the syntax, it was often just a college-boy way of saying the same BS as a Limbaugh or Bircher.

  96. I would suggest that anyone who frames the discussion of the last 50 years of American conservatism in terms of one sensationalistic TV talking head has already lost the discussion on grounds of superficiality and general illiteracy.

  97. Dear Mirajeff
    Not takin’ part at all at your country’s decision making process, even just by voting, even just by elliminating the worst (in your opinion) by voting for the less bad, is not a way of life, its a way of reducing yourself to a mere spectator of your own life’s evolution.
    Decisions / legislations and what not being made by our governments for us ALWAYS affect us in the long run. We should at least excersize our, not right but OBLIGATION to vote , thus at least trying to “take the ship” that is our place to a destination more of our choosing.
    Being that I come from AND live at the country where democracy started, I think you should hear me out.
    Off course, great literature has a lot to owe to Greece too, so please, USE SOME PARAGRAPHS and “mold” your thoughts a bit more. It’s better, it’s classy, and as all your elders in this site suggest, ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Thats what Homer, Aristotelis and the whole ancient gang would do too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>