Do you notice how DEFENSIVE some fans of Kubrick get? If a person doesn't assume a John-the-Baptist pose while discussing Kubrick's work, then out come the long knives. (And the condescending posts about how, if they don't REVERE the guy, they're not really lovers of movies, or they haven't read enough, or what have you.)
Get over yourselves. Art's house has many mansions, and a "failure" to love or even appreciate one of them doesn't make people unregenerate Yahoos. It just means that a particular piece of Art DIDN'T WORK FOR THEM.
Idolatry. No wonder Stan retreated to his mansion for the latter part of his life.
CHRIS L: (okay, I lied -- one last comment) -- to make the point more lucidly (because the vegetable remark must've been missed or ignored), films are made for LOTS of various reasons -- to entertain an audience with a terrific story; to dazzle them with visuals; to satiate the ego of the director who fancies him or herself more of an artiste than he or she really is...just because YOU dig one of those types of films, doesn't mean everyone else will -- or should. And, of course (as Cindy pointed out long ago), just because your idea of art is strictly visual doesn't mean I should lower my standards for what I think constitutes a successful film experience.
--DTS
Chris,
" people tend to like plot-heavy stuff because it's "easy" "
I can go with THAT. My point was film is not being taken advantage of as a medium when manipulated in the most rigid terms of character OR plot. Narrative defines the interplay between the two (unlike with a book, which HAS the ability to explore the inner world of one character's mind and nothing else).
EYES WIDE SHUT: Actually, it was an ironical spin on the rituals of Rasputin - the dissolute self-styled monk who enjoyed debauchery, stealing and womanizing. It was while on one of his escapades that he would be impacted by the mystical powers of the Russian Orthodox religion. (Incidentally, in my first viewing I REALLY dug that ritual scene in the mansion).
What I'd like know is where your Steve Martin thing comes from, since Kubrick had been set to make what would become EYES WIDE SHUT (Arthur Schnitzler's novel Traumnovelle) even prior to CLOCKWORK ORANGE. No connection rose between this long obssession of Kubrick's and a Steve Martin farce.
Before anyone wails on me for the typos below, I know about 'em. My only excuse -- I'm in a hurry, got a roast in the oven.
CHRIS L: (For those who are as bored with this silly discourse as I now am, this is my last word on the subject) You're starting to remind me of one of those younger kids who strikes a pose and assumes an affectation simply because he or she believes it make them seem deep or sensitive. You certainly don't strike me as a writer, since you misquoted me (or attributed a quote to me that I never made -- films should be "easy"). There's nothing wrong with a film that makes an audience think. But when the majority of an audience leaves puzzled, the filmmaker (and/or writer, etc.) have failed. Just as when a novelist becomes so obscure no one really knows _what_ he's writing about (even those black-garmented, highly affectatious, artsy fartsy types who believe they know better). It's not only the artist's job to challenge his audience, it's the artist's job to meet them at least half way -- especially if he wants an audience. More astute minds than mine have pointed out that it's easy to be obscure, but difficult to be clear. Too many people have written off folks like Fred Astaire, Ernest Hemingway, etc., for creating art that was clean and precise. But when they tried to imitate the style, they failed, falling flat on their collective faces, as it were. I don't think art has to be easy. I just think it should be entertaining. If it's not, it fails at one of the basic commandments of any artistic endeavor. And I also think that too many self-styled students of film are quick to believe they know better than others.
--DTS
**While I'm with you about the once-existing prospects of NAPOLEAN, AI and WARTIME LIES, I DID find more in EYES WIDE SHUT in my second viewing.**
I was completely baffled by Eyes Wide Shut on my first viewing. Since then, I have grown quite fond of the film. For one thing, it's a lot funnier than I realized the first time. This makes sense since, in its embryonic stage it was a sex farce starring Steve Martin. The film is truly creepy and impeccably designed. It is one of Kubrick's lesser works but still a very good film.
My friend claims it is the most Christian statement about religion ever put on film. Interesting take. It's certainly pro-marriage and anti-"foolin' around." It takes the stance that it is people who are sexy, not body parts and pokes constant fun at these pathetic self-important schmucks and their stupid little sex club.
There is a big difference between story and plot.
I think Rob said it well but sometimes it is easy to get confused by semantics.
The obsession with plot was always a uniquely American feature of films. However, as DTS said, people tend to like plot-heavy stuff because it's "easy" - it's easy to make and it's easy to sit and watch. Here's a guy and here's some stuff that happens to him and here's some obstacles he overcomes and here's the satisfying and plausible conclusion. Nice and easy, almost pre-digested. Thus, like McDonald's and Disney, the obession with plot has spread from America to other cinemas though Europe still has a less literal-minded tradition than we do in the U.S.
What is the difference between plot and story or plot and narrative? It's tough to delineate because the terms are too confusing. Let's look at 2001. The story of 2001 is that the human race reaches dead ends in its evolutionary development and needs the assistance of an alien intelligence before it can hope to advance to the next stage. The plot would be "They discover a strange black object on the phone, it beams a message out in space which they follow. During the journey, HAL goes nuts and tries to kill all the humans but Dave fights back, shuts down HAL and then gets turned into the Starchild."
Is the plot really what's interesting there? It matters, of course. But is that the reason to watch 2001? It's the theme and the way in which it is explored, the use of musical cues to convey ideas, the manipulation of time and space and, yeah, even the cool FX.
Does the PLOT of Taxi Driver matter so much or is it the theme of isolation and the remarkable character of Travis Bickle that really compels the viewer?
In a film like The Usual Suspects, you can certainly argue the plot is the most important element.
But take a look at the work of directors like Godard, Bunuel and Fellini. You're gonna watch those movies for the plot? C'mon, there's a whole lot more to film than that.
I'm bored so I feel like tossing tomatoes at Frank again...
I lost a LOT of respect for you (!!!!) with that MONICA inclusion in your list. I mean it's fraught with dopiness, as SO many presidents (et al) have had mistresses. Clinton tried to protect his staff by keeping it from them, as opposed to a Nixonian way out like bribing or misusing government bureaus to keep things quiet. Yes, he did plenty I disagreed with; a FEW points on your list are justified. But the OBVIOUS things that affect our lives in the MOST direct ways - things I cared about most vitally - he parted in policy WHOLLY from the dork sitting in as commander-in-chief right now (and having worked for a scientific environmental organization I'm in a position to know).
DTS,
2001: It's not a "STORY"; it's a "POEM" rendered in the language of film. FAR more than merely pretty pictures, the "story" itself is transcendent because its lyrical. If you understand that you may appreciate it properly. It's an ASTONISHING work.
John,
While I'm with you about the once-existing prospects of NAPOLEAN, AI and WARTIME LIES, I DID find more in EYES WIDE SHUT in my second viewing. It's a DREAM; the whole movie is a DREAM. Why else would we see New York an empty, barren city late at night? I also thought it was amusing as hell. And interesting that Kubrick himself had shot the whole damn thing. BUT...the "final cut" question is legitimate, particularly given Kubrick's habit of additional work up to the last minute.
Chris,
"plot is for books"
Well, it IS and it ISN'T. Actually, CHARACTER is the essential tool for books far more than 'plot'. But film is not about PLOT; it's about NARRATIVE (regardless of the genre), the orchestration of pov, time and subtext; more often than not I'm turned off by strictly character-driven formats in film because they fail to achieve a subjective connection with the viewer (something a novelist doesn't have to worry about because we "read" the thoughts of a character), thereby failing to take real advantage of the medium.
DTS,
2001: It's not a "STORY"; it's a "POEM" rendered in the language of film. FAR more than merely pretty pictures, the "story" itself is transcendent because its lyrical. If you understand that you may appreciate it properly. It's an ASTONISHING work.
John,
While I'm with you about the once-existing prospects of NAPOLEAN, AI and WARTIME LIES, I DID find more in EYES WIDE SHUT in my second viewing. It's a DREAM; the whole movie is a DREAM. Why else would we see New York an empty, barren city late at night? I also thought it was amusing as hell. And interesting that Kubrick himself had shot the whole damn thing. BUT...the "final cut" question is legitimate, particularly given Kubrick's habit of additional work up to the last minute.
Chris,
"plot is for books"
Well, it IS and it ISN'T. Actually, CHARACTER is the essential tool for books far more than 'plot'. But film is not about PLOT; it's about NARRATIVE (regardless of the genre), the orchestration of pov, time and subtext; more often than not I'm turned off by strictly character-driven formats in film because they fail to achieve a subjective connection with the viewer (something a novelist doesn't have to worry about because we "read" the thoughts of a character), thereby failing to take real advantage of the medium.
CHRIS L: Guess that should have been "its plot..." Typos, the bane of writers everywhere. But you're wrong: that wasn't an obnoxious opening statement on your part. Just dumb. Motherdumb, to borrow a Ellisonism. Saying I don't like films because I prefer plot is like saying I don't like vegetables because I wont eat sweet potatoes (yeeech! by the way). If everyone thought the way you did, then films might've (I say MIGHT have, for those incessant arguers out there) reached their apex back in the time just before silent movies started inserting subtitles. But someone decided to start typing up narratives to go with the moving images, thereby giving the artform much greater mass appeal. Why'd they do that? I'm guessing it was because they wanted to reach a larger audience --like most folks who practice any artform. That seems like a mighty important element; because the reality of the starving artist is much less romantic than the ideal.
--DTS
Welles?
What kind of semi-conscious knuckle-dragger wouldn't like Orson Welles.
Here's what you need to know about Welles. He made a movie called Citizen Kane that many people think is the greatest film ever made.
You could completely ignore Citizen Kane and still rate Welles' body of work as one of the most impressive of all-time.
Touch of Evil is an unquestioned masterpiece. The Trial is the adaptation of a tortured Kafka narrative you could ever ask for. Chimes at Midnight may well be the best Shakespeare adaptation on film. Lady from Shanghai, Magnificent Ambersons --- yeah, Welles was pretty good.
Welles is a fine example of how it ain't braggin' if you can make it up. It's OK to be a self-declared genius if you really are one, don't you think?
Frank, the mind reels at attempting to consider just what kind of President YOU would make. I suggest you would be far less effective than either Clinton or Bush. Please, convince me otherwise, or else admit that you're one of those eternally disgruntled people for whom nobody, or no thing, is ever good enough.
And I love Kubrick, but in all honesty, internet discussions of his stuff are a dime-a-dozen, and a little too rapturous for my tastes. So what does everyone think of Orson Welles? Looking at the disarray of his work--with all the unfinished films, studio-imposed edits, and poor technical work (bad post-synching, etc.)--it's probably HARDER to be a fan of Welles than of any other director of comparable merit. But damned if his stuff doesn't reward the effort, and it's a shame someone like a Spielberg didn't bankroll his final projects.
(You know, while we're on the subject, I think I'll watch THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI tonight. Rita Hayworth, mmmmm...)
**but it's plot keeps me in my seat**
I realize this is an obnoxious statement but, well, I goota eb honest - that just means you probably don't much like movies.
Plot is for books. Plot is one of the less interesting elements of film - with the exception of certain genres such as the thriller or the romantic comedy. Plot is merely a trick to keep people watching much like lyrics are often a trick to keep people listening.
When people start blabbing about how cool such and such a plot twist was and blah blah blah, I realize they probably aren't talking about anything I care about in cinema.
I really don't much care for standard narrative film. Film can do so much better than that, IMHO.
For me, EYES WIDE SHUT was a decidedly subpar Kubrick film, little better than an especially arty episode of "Red Shoe Diaries." Though his estate claims otherwise, I've always believed that Kubrick had nothing to do with the final edit, and would've released a far different version if he'd lived. It's the one film of his that hasn't improved with repeated viewings, and it's a shame that he never got to make NAPOLEON or WARTIME LIES or A.I. instead.
And here's one name you never see when cineastes make lists of the great directors: Howard Hawks. What's that, you say? Am I seriously including Hawks in the pantheon with Welles, Bergman, Hitchcock, et al? As my grandma used to say, "You bet your bippy!" If directing an oeuvre that includes BRINGING UP BABY, HIS GIRL FRIDAY, THE BIG SLEEP, RIO BRAVO, RED RIVER, ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS, and TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT doesn't qualify him for Great status, then I don't wanna know.
(And where's Godard? And Ozu? And...)
CINDY: At the risk of bringing down the wrath of dozens of cinephiles upon my slightly furrowed brow, I should tell you that you are not alone when you say you don't "get" Kubrick. And since you're a smart cookie, I'm assuming that when you say you don't "get" Kubrick, you mean, for the most part, that you don't understand what it is about his films that make people froth at the mouth when rhapsodizing about his work. (Although, clearly, you _were_ saying that you weren't old enough to get the message behind 2001 when you first watched it). Anyway, I don't especially "get" Kubrick either. I haven't seen _all_ his films ("Barry Lyndon" and, perhaps, one other); but of those I've seen, I don't particularly feeled compelled to watch them over and over. Mostly because I judge films the way I judge a good book. It's like this: even if the Kubrick _does_ manage to cook up lots of highly original images and some interesting, underlying themes, the story -- the narrative, the plot -- should still be gripping and coherent enough to sweep the audience along. Now, I'm not saying his films should all work like thrillers ("The English Patient" isn't a thriller, but it's plot keeps me in my seat) -- I just think that some of his films lack a good, solid plot or narrative. So anyone coming to those particular films wanting to be entertained by a straightforward story will often be let down. "2001" is, in my opinion, chief among those films. Beautiful to look at, but the story...eh!
That said, I should mention that I love "Spartacus," "Dr. Strangelove," "A Clockwork Orange" and "Paths of Glory," so you might want to check out those flicks, Cindy ("The Shining," "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes Wide Shut," because of reasons stated above, come in as close seconds).
--DTS
Cindy,
"I was watching a majority of Kubrick's films I was a kid"
I know I shouldn't have to be the one to say this but...CINDY...if you only or MAINLY saw his films when you were a kid of COURSE you're not going to follow or particularly like them (I mean you COULD have mentioned that in the outset; your comment had left me wondering a lot of things about you). They're not STAR WARS...they're PROFOUND. PATHS OF GLORY, THE KILLING (famous for the inverted narrative, to which PULP FICTION owes a bit; and has a unforgettably funny, irritating, ingenious ending), LOLITA, 2001 (which you probably should see several times and perhaps read a bit about), CLOCKWORK ORANGE (vital to understand, the world is shown from the delinquent's pov; from his perception violence is like a ballet and so it is depicted something like one in the movie). I would recommend looking at all these carefully, every one of them a classic.
"Genius" is one of the most overused words in the English language. It can rarely be applied LEGITIMATELY. Kubrick is one of those rare exceptions.
In terms of mixing the tax discussion with the crime one, I say -- legalize pot and watch the money flow in and the jails empty, the latter especially in the U.S. but also in Canada. The spin-off money alone from the formation of anti-pot advocacy groups would probably float the national debt. Along with that you replace parts of the lumber industry with hemp and parts of the oil industry with hemp as well (hey, if hemp oil was good enough for George Sr.'s warplane, I'm sure it's good for something). Economic renewal for areas hit hard by the drop in tobacco growing, lots of tax possibilities and licensing possibilities, rises in pizza sales and sales of Rush and Pink Floyd back catalogues...
It pretty much writes itself. And I don't even like the stuff.
Cheers, Jon
Tony/Cindy,
RE: 3 Strikes.
The problem with the law (here in California) is that any crime can be bumped up to the felony level. Petty theft, shoplifting, etc. are grounds to put recidivists behind bars for an inordinately long time.
I have no problems putting repeat felons away for a mandated period as long as the punishment fits the crime.
-Andrew
Chris wrote:
"It's really not the sort of thing a Republican could understand..."
LOL!!!!!! Good one!
:)
Cindy
Brian,
I haven't seen Dr. Strangelove. This is why I asked for help. I guess I failed to accurately explain that when I was watching a majority of Kubrick's films I was a kid and not grown up enough to understand.
I really would be saddened to lose your respect. I think highly of you ( for a Yankee) and consider you to be not only very intelligent but also quite kind. If you say it's good I will watch it. However, as I stated in my original post Chicken Shit to one Chicken salad to another. I like sour cream-- you might not be able to look at it without being sickened. I don't want to dismiss the entire body of Kubrick's work.. that is why I solicited your input.
:)
Still friends?
Cindy
To Cindy, who says she never "got" Kubrick. I'm not sure what one has to "get" about a particular filmmaker. That's fine: despite recent attempts in _Salon_ and _Vanity Fair_ to characterize Brian De Palma as the most underrated genius of cinema since Ida Lupino, I've never been able to see him as more than a marvelous technician who likes to do Hitchcock-like thrillers.
I can understand if people saw _Barry Lyndon_, _Eyes Wide Shut_, or even _Lolita_ without feeling that they "got" Kubrick. I can even understand those who didn't like _The Shining_ because it wasn't a scare-fest like _Halloween_ or _Carrie_. Those are demanding films that really don't try to be like any other film out there.
But _Paths of Glory_ remains once of the most horrifying depictions of war and cruelty put on film. _Full Metal Jacket_ examines the matter of turning humans into killers. _A Clockwork Orange_ bundles up violence, the management of society, freedom and its limits, and the question of human nature into a single character, probably the best dramatic villain since Richard III. _2001_ takes the Odysseus myth to provide its viewers with not only a sense of awe about the Universe, but questions about humankind's role in it. Okay, maybe none of these are your cup of tea.
But you can't tell me that you couldn't "get" _Dr. Strangelove_, which is one of the greatest movies ever made. A thriller about nuclear war whose most realistic elements turn the whole matter into comedy. Watch it for the laughs first-- and then understand that ever plot twist makes sense, that every safeguard described in the film either really did exist or was implemented in some way, and that even the most grotesque characters had comparable real-life counterparts (read up on Curtis LeMay sometime). In other words, Kubrick tried to make a realistic film about the probable end of civilization-- and the only way to do it, to be true to the facts and to art, was to do it as _comedy_.
Now, if you tell me that you didn't "get" _Dr. Strangelove_, I will never have any respect for you. Sorry, Cindy, but one has to have standards.
Cindy,
Re: 3 strikes. Anybody who can't or won't stop committing felonies really should be put away, if not for life then at least for a good forty years without possibility of parole.
The only problem I can see with a 3 strikes law is this: there will be at least a few repeaters who decide that they can avoid that third conviction if they stop leaving witnesses. While I can't point to specific cases in which this has occurred, common sense tells me that there are such cases.
On balance, though, I think 3 strikes is a good idea; repeaters should be put away.
--tr
Chris,
", unlike other directors who worked quickly and on a regular schedule, Kubrick took his time to choose his projects and complete them at his own pace"
Of course, as I'm sure you know, 2001 was the start of that cycle; the films prior, particularly the ones he did with his partner James Harris, were spun out at a pretty good pace.
My own TOP obssessions tend to be Hitchcock, Kubrick and Bunuel; with Wilder, Lang and Chaplin on the next rung. Renoir, Coppola, Milestone, Mamoullian, Whale, and Welles are all nestled closely as well.
**Peers: KUBRICK, WILDER, AND HITCHCOCK. All three superlative; each subversive in his own way. **
Of course, for me, Kubrick towers above all others. I know that's probably a silly thing to say. There are such great directors so how can you say one stands out clearly from the crowd. I claim nothing more than a personal reaction on the matter - nobody has ever moved me like Kubrick. Nobody has ever inspired me like Kubrick. Kubrick's body of work is as close to perfect as it is possible to get. Granted, unlike other directors who worked quickly and on a regular schedule, Kubrick took his time to choose his projects and complete them at his own pace but, lord, did it pay off. From The Killing through Eyes Wide Shut, EVERY SINGLE FILM the man made is exceptional.
I can't say that about any other director. And Kubrick's best work... is simply the best work ever done in the medium.
For me, the triumvirate is Kubrick, Welles and Lean. And it's damned difficult to exclude Herzog from that list. Murnau too.
Oh, yes-indeedy, Cindy...
Peers: KUBRICK, WILDER, AND HITCHCOCK. All three superlative; each subversive in his own way.
SciFi dot com has a feature called "Sci Fiction", and this week it features a short story by Gerald Kersh titled THE QUEEN OF PIG ISLAND. It's a tasty little gem for those who haven't read it. I know the site name is a vulgarism, but SciFi's fiction section has some good stuff; new fiction and classics.
Chuck
**I'm not in awe of Kubrick and I don't particularly like his work.**
It's really not the sort of thing a Republican could understand...
:)
Hey Frank honey, sweetie, DAAAAAAAAAAAAArlin',
Please tell me what is wrong with the 3 strikes law. It looks to me as if y'all's little 3 strikes rule brought down the national crime rate at least 20 percent.
Not being a smartass here,
Cindy
Chick shit to one... chicken salad to another.
Please don't put Kubrick with Hitchcock and Wilder... please?
It's like ketchup with cottage cheese or eggs. Alone they work but if you put them together it seems perverse. Like something Nixon would eat.
I worship Hitchcock and Wilder is golden... but Kubrick must have hit during a time in my life when I was too immature or out of step to get it.
I'm not in awe of Kubrick and I don't particularly like his work. If y'all could help me please? Tell me what to see and how to understand. I didn't get it then and the experience was such that I am loathe to try them again.
It must have been the timing.
Cindy
Hey Kids! If you are interested in further mind-warping effects like those caused by my book SMOKING MIRROR BLUES (grab it while you can, because you never know . . .) You may want to check out the new anthology from Back Brain Recluse and Wordcraft of Oregon, ANGEL BODY AND OTHER MAGIC FOR THE SOUL (yeah, I know, they didn't ask me when the chose that title) edited by Chris Reed and David Memmott. It features "Burrito Meltdown" my light-hearted romp about Chicano bioterrorism that is sure to have the Department of Homeland Security watching over me -- I hope they are aren't too disturbed. Send me a snailmail address if you want a copy of the spectacular illustrated flyer. Now, excuse me, I have windmills to chase and rainbows to tilt with . . .
Ernestomente,
Ernest Hogan
Frank...
Please...have a sense of proportion: you're concerned about his LYING ABOUT MONICA (as YOU would've done; I would have done; ANYONE would have done, given our drives when hooked up or married to a probable ice berg) over the health care issue, med research, students, taxing the wealthiest, the environment AND the surplus which Bush - proving, in greater part, the two have little in common - has wiped out.
That was the most pathetic argument you handed me since HANNIBAL. My tip: go TAKE a math class and learn linear programming. That would allow you to optimize the factors that count in the end.
Frank, I concur with your entire list except the part about Bill sending his daughter to private school. That one's pretty iffey. She was the daughter of the PRESIDENT. Any idea what kind of crap some punk would fling at you because of something 'your dad did'? Constantly wondering if your A+ was not out of effort or quality, but something else entirely? Not to mention the nasty words 'KIDNAPPING' and 'RANSOM' creeping across your mind every time someone gives you a weird smile? True, these problems would not have gone away in private school, but they might have been considerably lightened.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
I don't understand how an argument over Stanley Kubrick, et al., ends up with someone calling someone else a bitch. Is this necessary?
Chris,
Re: critic as advocate -- yep, you're right. It's something I didn't even consider when posting earlier. Wasn't thinking about that aspect of it.
Re: critic as imparter of information. Yep. But what information? The example you cite is one of the critic clarifying for others how the film went about telling its story. The simple reviewer may touch on this, but he'll probably stick to letting the reader/viewer know whether he thought seeing the movie was worth the price of a ticket. The critic who becomes more useful than the simple reviewer is the one who looks at a movie, and then starts considering the questions of why the filmmakers decided to tell their story the way they did, what aspects of it worked and what aspects got in the way of telling the story, and why he believed they worked or got in the way. A nice example of this is Harlan's commentary on the closing shots of The Conversation. And somebody who can point out things like that has a greater awareness of how the medium works and how stories are told within it; that awareness makes that critic's opinions more worthy of consideration than those of the garden variety reviewer. But in the end --at least for my taste-- it still boils down to story. Which is why I watch for screenwriters rather than directors, cast, or the comments of critics and reviewers. And if there's a reviewer or critic or novelist whose taste in stories seems to run roughly the same as mine, then I'll check out the movies and books they recommend.
There may be something wrong with the way I approach this matter, but this works for me, and if I retired now, I still wouldn't have time to catch up on all the books & movies that sound like they're worth the price of admission.
Rob,
I don't mind if you're still pissed at me for voting Republican, if it's okay for me to be pissed at you for voting Democrat (or Green, or whatever). I don't even mind that you think I'm nuts for preferring The Temple of Gold to Catcher.
Have fun, gang.
---tr
Rob, let's do the math:
Clinton was pro-death penalty.
He was the architect of the horrible crime bill.
Three stikes law.
Religious nut.
Big money donors having coffee in the white house.
Pro-jail.
Pro-NAFTA, WTO, GATT.
Changed his mind on Vietnam.
Against Single Payer.
Music and movie censorship advocate.
Fleetwood Mac and Kenny G. fan.
War monger.
Gutted Clean Water Act.
Didn't do anything about SUV's.
Lied about Monica.
Bombed aspirin factory in Sudan.
Friend of insurance industry.
Pro-drug war.
Against gay marriage.
Offed a retarted man in 1992 to prove he was tough on crime.
Welfare reform.
Didn't push for ERA.
Sent his daughter to private school.
Didn't fund public schools.
Loved by Wall Street and the Journal.
Shall I go on?
Aiiiiiieeee.
Kael's poltergeist...
Nevertheless...your nearsighted comments about Steiner's score, and your shallow disposal of geniuses like Wilder, Hitchcock and Kubrick, I sincerely doubt Harlan shares.
...whatever the case I don't sell out: you shall TASTE my wrath. (And since you decided to pay me a visit...I also recently saw your comments about PAPILLON: those, too, were lame and shallow and absurd. You have no sense of BALANCE, bitch).
Now go spook someone else.
**Trouble with critics/reviewers (and not just critics of movies, but also of books, television, and music as well) is that like us they're human beings with differing tastes. As such they're of limited use. **
I think a critic's primary function is to provide information. For TV critics, the information generally gets used to help decide whether or not they might want to see a movie. This is valid but not, IMHO, the best a critic can do. In print, a critic can provide information which helps a reader understand and appreciate the film. I needed help to understand 2001: A Space odyssey and I remember an author (perhaps it was Pierz Bizony) using an analogy of the canal which must be filled before the ship can move into the next higher lock. This helped me understand the film's depiction of evolution and man's progression to the next stage.
In addition, a critic can perform the role of advocate. Critics can help popularize films that might never get seen. Ebert, for example, has clearly set himself up as an advocate for anime films. Kael was an advocate for Italian neorealism and Brian De Palma.
As to the issue of taste, I have always felt the least interesting aspect of a review is whether or not a critic liked it. Sure, it's interesting but not overly helpeful to me. However, as you get to know critics, you get to know whose taste aligns more with your own and this can also help you make decisions. I trust Ebert more than I trust Owen Glieberman of Entertainment Weekly. If Ebert likes a film and Roeper doesn't, I feel comfortable in knowing I should see it. Essentially, anything Roeper says, I am tempted to take the opposite side of which, I suppose, makes him useful in a way.
Ray,
Well, then you'll enjoy the letter I just sent them after come more thought on the matter:
To: RedEye
Tell your bosses at the Tribune that people don't read the newspaper for retreads of AP & Reuters articles. We read the paper for news written by good reporters Maybe I'll take a second look when you've hired some reporters. Besides that, some more specific criticisms:
1. The layout is blocky as hell and seems like a horrible ripoff of the Free Press.
2. Colors are well done. Good separations.
3. Kudos to whomever lays out the front Sports page. Just don't over-do the "athlete over the text" cliche (fr'instance, Jay Williams on Wednesday).
4. More news, less transparent attempts to try and grab Reader dollars. Considering what's going on right now, we have a weekly for bar & concert info. We need more news about the world.
Regards,
Joseph J. Finn
Chicago, IL
See - I didn't lay into them too bad. My prediction? We won't be talking about them in a year.
Better watch out, Rob--I know for a fact that Harlan admires my criticism.
Oh, and I've been having some wonderful lunches with Kubrick up here. ("Stan," I call him; I'm "Polly" to him.) He wants everyone to know that the idolatry of some of his fans really turns his stomach. "Is that all they learned from me?" he says. "How to be a bunch of craven sycophants? I took a shit like everyone else, you know."
He's more charming than I expected. Of course, some things never change--Aquinas and Augustine are getting a little tired of all the late night phone calls. They know Stan will eventually drop them from his social list, anyway...
Chris,
If you're a man Peter and Rob's advice should be just right... if you are a woman I would add one.
Don't chew gum.
:)
Cindy
Frank,
I can't agree with you fully on that Clinton/Bush comparison. If you consider what Clinton WANTED to do - imagine if he'd had carte blanche, regardless of what would work and what wouldn't (on universal medical coverage, tax breaks to students, financial aid, lifting tax burdens on the lower end while rightfully holding the wealthiest to their responsibilities, environment, medical research, etc.) - his agenda differed by 180%; NOOOO comparison at all, CERTAINLY in THESE areas. Even in in foreign policy; Clinton had no "isolationist" sentiments Bush had before 9/11. I have candidates I'd have preferred to Clinton myself, but you're over-generalizing, ad absurdum.
Tony,
Yes...thank you. I'm still pissed at you for that pro-Republican crap - and when they tank I hope they're out of here for good (a "realistic" hope!) - but, yes, perhaps for the first time I misspelled the harpy's name.
Chris,
I don't know if I'm too late here but this is my two cents of advice about meeting Harlan:
Show the decorum you would use on a new neighbor you want to welcome to the hood. Do not try to KISS him; do not pull things out of your vest pocket to show him, like gifts, manuscripts, art, photos, stuff from the love shop, alien artifacts, etc.
The unique connection Harlan makes with us all always puts him at some risk, given the ratio of rational people to nut cases out there. Not that I'm certain which group I belong in, but I know I want a mutual ease and trust when we talk. My only real obstacle, personally, is that conversation for ME is polite but fun exchange of opinions or experiences (even "tragic"); I'm not so great at small talk. Since Harlan is PAID for his opinions there is probably a limit to which he'll go with each of us. I could be off there, it's a guess. (I mean here he is reading all this, here I am trying to figure him out).
Anyway, his explosive creative energy (which will NOT allow him to stay still unless he's at that Olympia of his; he's almost like a fish out of water when he isn't writing), immediatly detectable, makes him a wee bit unpredictable, and sometimes funny as hell. Just have a great time and be polite.
Darryl, just remember, the far left is better. Lol.
I was the big, brown-haired, blue eyed Irish guy in black cotton slacks and short sleeve white shirt with a London Fog rain coat hanging from my arm.
---Peter
Once again I am in awe of Darryl.
You have the right angle on this mess ( no pun intended).
:)
pieces,
Cindy
Peter:
I was there, but I didn't see you. Of course, I have no idea what you look like!
I have to agree with Peter, the new story is great. A fun time was had by all, or at least, I had a fun time.
I love Booksmith, it's the kind of bookstore we've been discussing on this site. Warm, friendly, intriguing books, staff favorites, animated discussions by bright people, etc.
On politics:
I learned long ago that things aren't as good as they seem, or as bad as people say they are going to be. The political system in this country is like a large boulder rolling down the middle of the street. People are pushing as hard as they can from the left and the right, but they are barely able to budge the stone. I hope the Republicans don't screw things up; I hoped the Democrats (in 1992 when Clinton was elected) wouldn't screw things up. I'll continue to teach my children about justice and fairness, that some people need a helping hand now and again, that there is good and evil in the world and nobody wears a sign, that there are infinite shades of gray between the black and white. Peace (or as my 5 year-old is wont to say, "pieces").
Chris: My best advice is just be yourself and be polite so long as those two aren't mutually exclusive; in that case I suggest politeness as the course of action. The first time I met him I was in a chemically altered state of being (low blood sugar from lack of anything to eat all day) and so barely managed to keep myself from looking like a fool -- in my own eyes, anyway, which is why I don't drink, do drugs, or listen to bubblegum pop.
I'm working on a follow up to my article about first meeting Harlan. I'll post it up somewhere for everyone to read.
---Peter
Chris asked how to behave around somebody famous and admired. . . .
Just behave the same way you would around a friend of a friend you've never met but about whom you've heard good things: polite, interested, respectful, but friendly.
That you happen to be familiar with the person's work does not make you any more familiar with her or him as a person. You can certainly ask about specific things in the work that interested you, or pass along a sincere compliment about something that was meaningful to you, but try not to ask a stupid question.
Awe and worship can get as tiresome as disdain. Be down-to-earth and approachable and most famous folks will respond the same.
Alex -
Wow. That was good. Counters Nimoy's First Strike Capability and creates a media cease fire through fear of mutually assured disgust. :)
...and yeah, Shatner's "Rocket Man" makes "Ballad of Bilbo" look like an episode of Lidsville.
Critic: Someone who considers himself hard to please because nobody tries to please him. --Ambrose Bierce (This is from memory, so the phrasing may be a bit off, but the meat of it is there.)
Rob,
Youre dead on target with your comments re: Pauline Kael (I assume that's who you meant by "Kale") on Treasure of the Sierra Madre. And you too, Frank, on the unnamed Bowling for Columbine reviewer.
Trouble with critics/reviewers (and not just critics of movies, but also of books, television, and music as well) is that like us they're human beings with differing tastes. As such they're of limited use. Even the most noted reviewers sometimes dismiss films that others regard as excellent. If Kael said the Steiner score in Treasure didn't work, then it didn't work. For her. You (and I and a lot of other folks) thought it did. Kael's taste at this point doesn't coincide with ours, so we can either wonder what she sees that we don't (if we trust her taste that much) or we can decide that on this point she's simply flat wrong. If there are enough points on which she's wrong we can stop paying much attention to that reviewer's opinions. If there are enough points where we decide after consideration that she sees the subject more clearly than we do, then we can pay closer attention to her opinions and ignore the occasional lapse.
Unless they're actually making movies, what are the critics but members of the audience who get paid to comment on what they just watched? How many of them really have taste or judgment better than your own? Pay attention to the ones that do and brush off the ones that don't.
I usually watch for screenwriters whose work I like, or for adaptations of novels I enjoyed, rather than watch for favorable reviews. The presence of a good storyteller on the project is a more reliable indicator of a good movie than the comments of any of the critics.
-- TR
I read a review of Bowling For Columbine, where the critic said the one flaw of the film was that MM was "politicing". How else do you do a movie about politics and avoid having politicing?
Todd, for your information Bill Clinton and GWB have almost the exact same policies, so far. You and I know that Clinton was never a liberal, even though he would play the part at black churches. They may have bought it, but not I. And remember that Bush brings with him some of the worst right-wing scum imaginable. Unless Todd you are saying you like Ashcroft?
And Todd, gloating about the undermining of the poor and the ethnic is beneath you. That is what the GOP monster will do.
Pelosi is rich? Why does that surprise you? Both the Dems and GOP are elite parties paid for by big-buisiness. But what do we expect from a dude who refused to read Chomsky.
Love and kisses Todd.
-----------
Here, to get the taste of the Nimoy Hobbit song out of your brains: http://www.whoohoo.net/operababy/operababy.swf
Little Washu: Yeah, but nothing beats Shatner's "Rocket Man" 'video.'
Rob: Comments like that on a Steiner score make me wonder what the critic would consider a good score.
As to flat taxes...anyone remember the Poll Tax riots in Great Britain?
And as to riots...Canadians rioting over the non-appearance of Axl Rose. What is the world coming to.
Cheers, Jon
Peter,
So, any advice from a bumpkin like me who is about to see Harlan in person for the first time ever? Unless plans have changed for the Screenwriter's Expo next, I get to see HE as a Guest of Honor next weekend. Should I avoid direct eye contact? Use extra deodorant? Eat me Lucky Charms?
Hard to believe there was once a time when I thought, "Hey! Wouldn't it be great if a typewriter could store patterns of letters, and retype the same thing over when you needed an extra copy?"
At the time, I thought that it would require some kind of "typewriter-with-some-circuitry-in-it..."
Just got back from Harlan's signing in San Francisco. The new story for the Chabon edited McSweeney's is great. I even managed to keep from passing out this time. Actually, I was smart and had dinner before the reading. Once a philosopher, twice a pervert, and all that.
---Peter
Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Stanley Kubrick Stanley KubrickStanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrickv Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Stanley KubrickStanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley KubrickStanley Kubrick All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley KubrickStanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick
...back to rebuking non-forum-goers at last...
I stumbled upon another KALE KOMMENT that left me all but speechless; it's enough she disposed of three of the greatest directors ever, but she can be just as reckless with great films too. The subject is the superb TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE; the issue is Max Steiner's memorable, evocative score: while noting the film as "one of the strongest of all American movies", she found space to lance what she referred to as its "terrible score".
Jeezus: the score was INCREDIBLE. Most memorably the looped 'prospectors' theme, reaching its high point when Curtin grapples with temptation to leave Dobbs buried in the mine cave-in but overcomes its lure. One of the greatest moments in film ever, depicting the triumph of ones humanity (mind you, he regrets doing it, as his expression informs us after the rescue; yet, he HAD to). Steiner's score was central in the effect of this scene. The whole meaning would have been different without the music or with another score. A reminder of what a remarkable tool a distinct score can be.
I'm tellin' ya: I just can't take critics seriously anymore. Take heed, Chris!
What's this? No one's mentioned my name in the past 24 hours. What's up with that?
I wish I could say last Tuesday's results shocked me. But the truth is, the Democrats have been little more than a whisper of a shade of their old selves for a long time. So what did anyone expect to happen come election day? If you give the electorate a choice between red meat and soy-based beef substitute, will anyone be surprised if they go for the real thing?
Look, I didn't expect my fellow Dems to be so moved by my death that they would bathe themselves in the blood of the Liberal Lamb and become born again Progressives. But the half-hearted way they campaigned in the final week almost broke my heart. Why call yourself a Democrat if you're not even going to give the old ideals a cursory fight? What's the point? Is that all we hope to be--faux-Republicans, who will destroy the environment and gut social services but feel REALLY guilty while doing it? To quote Peggy Lee (who's singing a storm up here, along with Dinah Washington and Billie Holiday and Ella Fitzgerald), "Is that all there is?"
Maybe a few years of being the Court Eunuchs might straighten them out, and remind them of they are.
I hope so.
But I'm not holding my breath. (So to speak, of course...)
Just so's you all know where I stand politically, let me be so immodest as to quote myself once again:
"Well, as a young boy I didn't know a Republican from a Democrat, only in one way; if some man of bunch of men rode up to the ranch to eat or stay all night, and my Father set me to watching 'em all the time they was there -- what they did and what they carried off -- why, I learned in after years that they was Republicans; and the one I didn't spy on -- why, they were Democrats. Democrats were loyal in one way -- they never took from each other. You see, we was on the lower side of the Montgomery Ward line during the Civil War between the Democrats and Republicans."
I told my fellow Democrats back in '24 that they had to decide what they was all about; and then tell the voting public about it. Now they are all in the same fix as they was seventy-eight years ago. What I suggested worked just fine in '32, now didn't it?
By the way, I e-mailed the present tax code and all your proposed fixes to it to a fellow who is pretty good at numbers and finances; Alexander Hamilton. What I got back was kinda garbled, but the words "work of the devil" just jumped right out. You'll have to draw your own conclusions from that.
Uncle Will
Indulge my Ego:
Scrolling down through post after post I thought I was seeing my own "regressive tax" response to Cindy's argument, copy and pasted over and over. People kept repeating what I told her early in the day.
If I leave Frank out of the picture, I was the FIRST to make the argument. The FIRST! Didn't anyone read MY post? Where's the credit due ME? After a long rainy drive breathing in gas fumes from a leak in my fuel line, I want my credit! I DESERVE it, dammit! I am NOT a pariah, I AM...a human being!
(This, by the way, is how I would present myself in a national political debate, up there before the cameras, if I were running for Governor or President).
So, the new head of the Party Of The People is a dame whose worth is over $50 million who promises to bring the party back to its left wing roots.....
Ooooooooh boy, this is going to be fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun!!!!!
Sorry, gang, but you won't be able to even touch a run at the Presidency until Georgy Boy is done in 2008. I suffered for 8 years of Billy, now it's your turn.
Nya ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-TODD
So THAT'S the new music video for the upcoming THE TWO TOWERS release. I thought Enya was hot, but now Leonard is sure to rock the charts! "Bilbo, Bilbo, Bilbo Baggins...." Whoooooo, I'm triiiiiiippiiiiiing...
In terms of a Flat Universal Sales Tax, you would have to amend it for "essentials" which would complicate things. Do you tax Food and Clothing? Rent? That would be essential, though Clothes are exempt from PA sales tax. You can bet that exceptions would be made to try and balance the many inequities already described by many of you.
What deserves to be taxed?
Why am I taxed once for what I own and AGAIN when I try to pass it to my heirs?
Why do I have variable and extremely subjective taxes placed on my home and property? Why do I have to pay it every year I own it or risk having it taken from me?
Why does my insurance company have to pay my hospital $2 for a single 250mg Mortin when drug reps drop off entire boxes of Viagra to hand out free? Is this why I my Health Insurance rates just DOUBLED for 2003?
The establishment of a flat sales tax would become a mess of Congressional legislation within 8 years.
Know what I think?
TAX THE CHURCH. Let them bring their own chips into the big game. Every single dime-pinching parish in the Union, baby. From the Roman Catholics down to Joe's Universal Life Ministry and Hot Dog Stand.
JAY: Oh, you evil bastard. Not only do I now have that damn song running through my head, but I have a terrible need to stab out my own eyes and cut off my ears.
Oh...
To distract you from the current intelligent discussion:
Some books should never be opened. Some sights left unseen by the fragile beings who walk the Earth ignorant of the horrors that lurk just beyond the next doorway...
http://davezilla.com/mp3/bbaggins.mov
I mean, I love Leonard Nimoy. I love dancing girls. I even enjoyed The Hobbit. The three, however, should never be combined.
Okay, okay; we can all stop jumping on Cindy now, please.
There's a reason that ideas such as a flat tax or a national sales tax to replace the income tax have gained such wide currency: Damn if they don't SOUND good.
They have the power of the concept of ditching the average guy's dealings with the IRS, the promise of more money in your pocket, and just enough sense of sacrifice (for the sales tax, paying ten percent over the six percent or less most are used to paying in state sales taxes) that they seem credible.
So they appeal to both people ignorant of the language and process of taxation as well as to smart cookies like our Cindy and Frank who just don't take the time to think through all the repercussions. Tax is a scary and complicated thing, after all; no one likes dealing with it, people do their best to avoid the knowledge of it because they fear the paying and the complications which might result.
Now; off the subject of taxes, to the relief of many, I'd guess.
I've just decided I'll be going to next month's PhilCon: Connie Willis, Nalo Hopkinson, David Gerrold, and Spider and Jeanne Robinson will be there. I'm debating whether or not to get a hotel room in my own city, but when I posed the question to a friend, she said to get it as, "It frees you from the responsibility of actually having to drive home. Plus the
chance at babes."
I have to concede, she makes good points.
Plus, just to show how screwed up my priorities are, I'm also thinking a room will be good because it'll allow me to bring my guitar (started lessons about a month ago) and practice. Not that that will hurt any with my friend's implied babes.
Since almost all of you guys are far more experienced at cons than I, what do you do? How do you decide which panels to attend (and so many of the panels look amazing)? What do you bring? Is it okay to bring books from home to be signed, or should I just buy everything there? How much money shouyld I plan on spending (and do they take credit?)? Should I rent a laptop?
If, as may possibly happen, I get to break bread with Spider and Jeanne, how do I avoid being a grinning, simpering moron?
(From Peter's example, I will at least know not to neglect my food needs.)
Thanks in advance for any help you might give.
Note: I typed this as you all were responding to Cindy - consider it a redundant example with numbers.....
##########
Cindy, Cindy, Cindy....
Where to begin. Well, how 'bout this?
It wouldn't work.
It's a regressive tax, punishing the poor out of proportion – it doesn't account for, nor change basic greed and the desire to cheat – and it doesn't address other inequities in the system.
***
Let's take each in turn: It wouldn't work. That's just it, 10 percent is just not enough – best estimates put it at 20 percent, and realistically, it would be higher. But let's leave it at 10 percent as a hypothetical exercise.
***
It's a regressive tax: Federal minimum wage is $5.35/hour, or $11,400/year. Let's say they are doing a little better and make approximately $15,000 or even $20,000. How much of $20,000 dollars do you think a family would have to spend to get by? My guess is all of it, but let's say we have incredibly thrifty folk, and they manage to save a full $1000. So their "purchase tax" of 10 percent is on the $19,000 they spent, or $1900. This equals a functional 9.5 percent tax rate. Cool.
Now, let go to the other extreme – this family is earning something on the order of a million dollars a year. These guys are not very frugal and the family spends something like $15,000 a week on all kinds of frivolous things, but hey – they make it, so why not. Let's see, fifteen grand times 52 weeks equals about $780,000/per year – let's even bump it up to $780,000, just in case. They get charged $78,000 purchase tax, for a functional tax rate of, uh oh, just 7.8 percent.
Our ultra extreme family makes ten million this year, spends something like $65,000 a week (or over THREE TIMES the yearly wage of our poor example) and they end up with a functional tax rate of... 3.4 percent. Hmm, it doesn't seem like we're hitting someone who can spend 3.4 million a year very hard, are we?
***
It doesn't address cheating, or greed. To avoid the tax on their very expensive luxury car, our ultra extreme family buys the thing at the factory in Europe, and has it shipped home. What's that? We're going to charge them the purchase tax on the value anyway? Good! Ah, but for a paltry grand, they get the guy to create an invoice that states they paid $20,000 less – net result, $1000 extra in their pocket. Wouldn't happen you say? Yeah, right.
Oh, yeah, we don't tax private transactions between two individuals, do we? Can't make grandma collect and pay the purchase tax at her yard sale, now can we? Oops, now the ultra extreme family pays a native to officially "buy" the car and then, in a private transaction, they "buy" the car from the individual citizen. No taxes paid at all.
Moral of the story, never underestimate greed.
***
Lastly, it doesn't address other inequities in the system. Let's go back to the car purchase idea. Both the extreme family and the poor family decide they're each going to buy a new cars. Shockingly, they both settle on the same make and model, the VrrmVrrmGo, by 3 Gerbil Motors, which has a sticker price of $15,000, including title and license – adding the purchase tax of $1500, for a total of $16,500. The extreme family writes the check, picks up the keys and is out the door in under half an hour. The poor family has to finance, but they get a great deal and pay 5 percent for five years. This includes the $1500 "tax" – which, after five years will have cost them $375 extra due to the interest. So the poor family ended up, after 5 years, paying $1875 for the "tax", a functional tax rate of 11.4 percent and the extreme family paid $1500, a functional rate of 10 percent. Who's getting hosed here?
***
So you can see, Cindy – while the "flat tax" seems like a totally equitable idea, in fact, it isn't – the working poor get hosed by it every which way from Friday.
Thus ends the simple primer on the flat tax.
Bern
DAVID:
Subtitling Japanese films is an absolute nightmare, as a literal translation of a sentence might come out as, "To the clouds jump I to heaven so happily". There's lots of filtering going on to make the dialogue comprehensible to gaijin baka like us, and it's fairly common to get two different versions of the same subtitled movie. It throws you for a goddamn spin.
:Rant/Diatribe on:
The payment each Alaskan(including children with SSN) get is called the Permanent Fund Dividend. It was nowhere near $6000 when we were there, it was $1700 for 2000, still nothing at which to sneer. There were some suggestions of a larger 1 time payout but those were defeated, albeit they may have changed since we left. Of course it's great - who wouldn't like a reverse income tax! (There is no income tax, and only a few counties have sales tax).
However, the fund was created with the intention of protecting the economy in the future when oil incomes dropped due to declining production and drops in oil price. The decision to pay out from the interest earned on the fund came later. I'm not aware that it has ever been put to it's intended use.
As to the AK environment - Cindy may be at fault for using a single resident's opinion, but Alex I think you should be more circumspect in questioning her by having a reason to doubt what was said. You are right, just because a place isn't occupied doesn't mean it needs to be a wasteland. I don't think that was the intent of Cindy's comment, though.
As former AK resident and oil industry employee who has some knowledge of environmental restrictions and reporting requirements on those operations, I can say that Alaska's natural environment is one of the cleanest, most pristine, and most regulated not only in the US but in the world. (This is not said to discount the impact of the Exxon Valdez disaster in Prince William sound; a majority of oil operations and pipelines are land based.) Most households could not be held to the same standards as are enacted on the industry there. In fact, a fair number of Alaskans resent the desire other US citizens feel to protect Alaska instead of their own states!
Further, I can attest that compared to other areas where I have lived, a large percentage of AK citizens are well informed as to how the environment is impacted not only by various industries but by mere human presence, and the minor scale of human habitation in the vast area of the state. It does not take a lifetime of residence to come to a basic comprehension of those topics. The area affected by oil production industry is very small, even miniscule, compared with the total acreage of the state.
:Rant/Diatribe off:
> CINDY'S PLAN FOR AMERICA
> A straight purchase tax 10 percent across the board.
> Those who choose to live extravagantly will pay accordingly.
Quite apart from the inequities that Frank mentioned, this plan would be extremely unfair because 10 percent out of low income has a much bigger proportional impact on the person's resources than 10 percent out of millions. Your plan would nicely penalize big spenders on the high end, but it still leaves the poor and the working poor in a tough jam.
Would they be taxed, for example, on day care expenditures? Would the wealthy be taxed on their "purchase" of nanny care and private school tuitions?
> Those who work hard and are thrifty will not be penalized if
> they store up great fortunes.
That's a lovely sentiment. Unfortunately, most great fortunes are not "stored up," no matter how many people want to think so; they tend to be stolen or inherited.
> Those who are over a certain age should not pay-- they have paid
> enough.
If you add that those above a certain age who also generate a certain level of investment income are no longer entitled to Social Security benefits unless and until their income dips below a certain level, then I might go along with this program. Unfortunately, too many people take out more than they ever put in . . . and seem to think they're fully entitled to do so! Thus, elderly retired people are stealing from working people and the young.
> Those who are hungry should be fed and those who are cold should
> have a place that is warm to sleep... but they should be required to
> work in return for the bed. These things we should provide as a nation
> but that is it!
If you don't also provide child care, contraception, and a few other things for the poor whom you're separating from their children to go to work, then you're apt to be contributing to more poverty and crime. (See the sequence in "Bowling for Columbine" concerning welfare-to-work and the 6-year-old who fatally shot his classmate.)
> With 10 percent across the board every drug dealer, pimp and whore
> would have to pay taxes on what they spend.
Not including the illegal drugs, of course.
> Don't you think there would be more money in the government
> coffers after a year of THAT?
There might well be. But whether it would be equitable for the citizens who pay the tax is another matter.
> Death Taxes are taxes which have already been paid once-- that
> ain't right.
"Death Taxes paid twice" is one of the great bogus misnomers of our time. That the rich have managed to foist it successfully off on so many middle class and working-class voters makes it an especially rich scam.
Who's paying "twice"? The person who made the income originally? Of course not: he/she/they is/are dead. What's happening is the person who made the money originally paid taxes on it (if the usual tax loopholes weren't applied and little or no taxes equitably paid after all), then the person who inherits -- that is, receives a gigantic chunk of income -- pays a premium on it.
I see the situation as analogous to any employer-employee tax situation. The employer paid taxes on the company's income to begin with (if he or she is honest and fair); then that money proceeds to be apportioned to the company employees, who pay taxes on their income. The money has been "taxed twice," just as in the infamous "death taxes" scenario, but the PEOPLE have only been taxed once. Which is only fair.
> Okay Alex Jay, mine darlink resident expert-- what do you
> think of my solution?
Yes, I'm looking forward to Alex's reaction to this, too.
Or maybe I'll still try. Skidding tires make travel look less pleasant than it actually is.
---Peter
To anyone going to the Booksmith signing tonight:
Because of the rain it doesn't look like I'll be making it to the signing in San Francisco. Hell, I just had a bad time going to and from Borders this afternoon and that's a mere two miles from my house.
---Peter (who usually loves rain, except when he has to be somewhere)
CINDY: I hate to do this darlin', but your plan would most assuredly be bad.
NOT because it'd penalize the poor.
NOT because it would mean a heavier tax burden on the middle class.
NOT because it would help create an underground economy.
NOT because it would put the entire onus of tax collection on business owners.
NOT because it would give the rich a quantum leap in income, thus enlarging the gap between rich and poor all the more.
NOT because it would mean that businesses would skip out on 90% or more of their current tax bills.
(And it would, it would, it would, it would, it would)
But because the country would go bankrupt; it simply wouldn't bring in enough money. Nowhere NEAR enough. Such a taxation plan would reduce government revenues to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what we currently bring in (Without any stats and relying on gut feeling and my knowledge of who pays what, I'd say it'd probably bring in five to fifteen percent of what the government currently gets.
We'd be a broke and broken nation in the space of a year.
And FRANK: Not taxing those who make under twenty thousand isn't a good idea; it's not progressive, and as I told Rob, it would lessen the wish to start making OVER twenty thousand.
Joseph,
Love your letter to the Tribsters. That RedEye thing is nothin’ but a steaming pile of horse dung and its competitor duh Red Streak ain’t much better. Fortunately, I didn’t spend a nickel on either one of the rags. They had young women on the street corners practically throwing them at passersby. So it goes.
Best,
Ray
Cindy,
I will, of course, hand the responses over to Alex, but....
1)Good as it sounds to you an across-the-board cut would be regressive. Paying 10% is a LOT for people in times of hardship.
2)The top wealthiest - as I argued before - don't NEED tax cuts (they don't even have cause to demand them) because they get them through the loopholes only they are capable of getting. That's why this bullshit with welfare to the wealthy is fucked and lame.
Did you all know that Carnival Cruises pay ZERO federal taxes, ZERO!! Is that fair Cindy?
The best book about taxes in the country is called, America: Who Really Pays The Taxes? Information in that book will blow your mind--even Cindy's mind.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671871579/ref=lib_rd_next_11/104-2899904-2970337?v=oks&vi=reader&img=11#reader-link
And Cindy, your plan would never work and is unfair. The brunt of the taxes would be payed by the working poor and middle class. The rich would easily get off on avoiding their fair share; especially since they benefit the most from society and usually at the expense of the lower classes. And most importantly, the revenue stream would not be high enough to pay the government's bills.
My call is for a progressive income tax that is fair all the way around. And not taxing those who make under twenty thousand a year is a good idea as well.
Europe believes this logic, why not the major super-power?
DTS wrote:
"CINDY: After reading your post I'm reminded why I still love Texas (no matter how many crazy Bush politicos it cranks out): it's the women! You ladies are the finest (and while I'm about it, a tip o' the hat and heart to Stargirl in Dallas).
--DTS "
DTS--
You are a treasure. You're also smooooooth as water.
:)
I remain
charmed,
Cindy
Alex Jay and Rob,
CINDY'S PLAN FOR AMERICA
A straight purchase tax 10 percent across the board. Those who choose to live extravagantly will pay accordingly. Those who work hard and are thrifty will not be penalized if they store up great fortunes. Those who are over a certain age should not pay-- they have paid enough. For those whose circumstances are difficult the government will give them a temporary exemption, in card form similar to that of a driver's license for as long as it takes.
The government should hand out food. Those who are hungry should be fed and those who are cold should have a place that is warm to sleep... but they should be required to work in return for the bed. These things we should provide as a nation but that is it!
With my type of tax system the doctors would be free to treat people on a pro bono basis once more. Hospitals should be run the same way that St. Jude's Children's hospital is run. We ought to be able to figure out how they do it, shouldn't we?.
With 10 percent across the board every drug dealer, pimp and whore would have to pay taxes on what they spend. Buy a Testarosa you pay 10 percent.... buy a mansion in Beverly Hills.. 10 percent buy a six pack of beer or a bottle of mad dog 20 20 and you pay 10 percent. Don't you think there would be more money in the government coffers after a year of THAT? We would pay off the deficit FIRST.
Death Taxes are taxes which have already been paid once-- that ain't right.
This works in Texas where we have no income tax.
This is America, we should reward hard work and thrift. We should allow the people to decide how much tax they want to pay by allowing them the option of living without opulence. Those who choose to live grandly can still do so but they will pay a set amount for that luxury. How many Rockefellers would drive a vw bug? They would pay taxes. Enron execs who want to live in multi million dollar homes would be paying for that privilege
No loopholes no deductions.. you pay as you spend and there are no corporate breaks.
Okay Alex Jay, mine darlink resident expert-- what do you think of my solution? Oh and I would put YOU in charge of implementing all of my excellent ideas-- including deciphering who would qualify for the card denoting tax exemption.
For my fellow Chicagoans, a letter to the Tribune:
M. Woodward
Published November 8, 2002
Chicago -- I bought your first edition of RedEye.
I'd like to know where I can get my quarter back.
It reads like a cross between my grade-school Weekly Reader and USA Today.
How dumbed down can you get?
If this is the paper for 20-somethings, I am truly concerned about our future.
Do you really think that hip young people actually need a map explaining where Las Vegas and Boston are located?
Reading it was a truly depressing experience.
Alex,
Thanks. I jotted down some of your info.
The one year I really had it bad with seizures...and fortunately it's been a long time since...I was out of work for two-thirds of the year, having lost one job after another due to my condition (not just doing spas dances to entertain everyone in the work place but suffering discomfort from the first medication I was put on, Dilantin). The following year I was monetarily wiped out completely. I'd earned roughly $9,000 for the year. Because expenses had become impossible I DID write "exempt" on my W2; I needed EVERYTHING. What they deduct directly from your check is WAY too much for someone in that situation. Since this went on through perhaps the whole year I owed them a sum that at the time I couldn't pay. No provisions could prevent the steady climb in interest. None.
For someone in this position they simply take out too much; and provide too few options. And that's fucked. I can't say I care much about how DAUNTING the task would be for the poor Congressional staff...because the status quo is just as daunting for people who are broke.
Incidentally, I really was pissed back when they wouldn't let Clinton pass the tax credit to students.
Anyway, I don't want to repeat myself TOO much. I'm going to look into a few things you told us. It was a useful discussion.
Gary Wallen:
Thanks for the update on Avenue Victor Hugo. No, I don't know more than you; I'm just going by the news reports and hand-wringing on rec.arts.books, one of my longtime Internet hangouts. Keep us posted, willya?
With all this bitching and moaning about bookstores across the nation, I feel a little guilty about the fact that I live only 10 blocks from Powell's Books and must be one of the few people on the planet who is rather blase about the place. The other day, a friend in town read the essay on my Web site
( http://www.david-loftus.com/Books/codex.html )
about finding difficult-to-locate books and said she intended to go to Powell's and pick up some of the titles I mentioned. You won't, I said. She seemed annoyed that I was so certain. But I was right. All she could find was one of the more recent translations of Bulgakov's _The Master and Margarita_.
I saw "Seven Samurai" again on the big screen Wednesday night. Damn, what an amazing movie! Seems to be a new print in the sense of having new subtitles, at the very least: there were a lot of "fuck"s, "asshole"s, and "jerk"s in the dialogue, which I do not remember. And some of the most memorable lines for me ("You're a farmer's son, aren't you?" and "Again we have survived ... And again we've lost") have been changed, in most cases to something more quotidian as well as different from the citations in my copies of Donald Richie's _The Films of Akira Kurosawa_. What's with that?
Chris - If she's been bringing in absolutely horrible writing all semester long, what makes you think she is capable of doing any better even if she were told - "start over"? Jay said it best with his "why?" suggestion. At best, you can offer her the most general advice - and just let it slide. It's not your job to convince her to leave the field - reality will set in with alacrity once she's trying to market her work.
All - While I'll agree the NJ hunters joke recently crowned "world's funniest" is amusing, I have a suggestion for an alternate: "Broward County, FL just held an election." (If that doesn't already make you drop to the floor convulsing with laughter, maybe this link will help...)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021107/ts_nm/election_florida_dc_11
Good golly, this is sad.
Bern
Alex Jay: Yes, credits are better than non-refundables. Eight months of undergraduate tuition at a university (as opposed to a college or a CEGEP) runs around $4000-$5000 in Canada right now; figures are higher for graduate and professional programs and higher still for deregulated professional programs (mainly MBAs). Other tax breaks include deductions for student loan interest and a set amount one can not pay on for scholarships -- $2000 or $3000 on that last one, I'm not sure which, but up from $500 when I was dealing with scholarships. I'm not sure what the tuition range for U.S. institutions is, but I'd assume it's broader while skewing higher.
Of course, one can always rely on about 1 in 10 graduate students doing something really dumb with scholarship money when it comes to taxes -- I know two people who thought scholarships were completely non-taxable and thus didn't pay anything on them, leading to the heartbreak of having to pay tax on $15,000-$25,000 when they'd already spent the money, and without any of that money having been taxed before it was handed out. That can lead to years of dynamic garnishees and payroll deductions...and me asking them 'um, did you read the little guide that came with your tax forms?' To which the answer is 'no' surprisingly often.
Cheers, Jon
Oh, yeah; the credits I mentioned are, like Canada's, non-refundable.
Also, there's legislation (which I don't think will pass this time, but will gather steam and supporters toward a later bill) in Congress about making income taxes more tuition-payer-friendly.
JOHN P.: There's one Software Hut listed in the phone book, in West Chester.
JON: There are a couple things for higher education, taxwise.
The main one is twofold: The Hope Credit, which can be taken for the first two years of work in any postsecondary institution toward an undergrad degree or other recognized educational credential, allows for you to take a credit for one hundred percent of the first thousand bucks you pay for tuition and half of the next thousand bucks you pay. That's per eligible student, by the by. Also, the student has to be enrolled at least half time in one semester beginning during the tax year. An odd condition of this one is that there can be no felony drug convictions on the student's record.
After those two years, you can take the Lifetime Learning Credit, which isn't limited as to how many years you can take or when. That credit is for 20% of the first $5,000 you spend on tuition. None of the Hope Credit's restrictions apply, but you only get up to that $1,000 per RETURN, not per student.
(For tax year 2003, it'll go up to 20% of the first TEN thou, for a upper limit of $2,000).
So it looks as if Americans can actually get the better deal--remember, a credit is FAR better than a deduction.
(There is of course a credit phaseout, so that people who really don't need the credit can't take it--but that takes into account a scale of phasing it out based on your Modified Adjusted Gross Income, so we're not going to go into that here.)
There are also deductions which can be taken for trainings or classes you have to pay for which you need for your job, but that's on the Employee Business Expenses form.
Certain states (most, I think) also run education tax deductions.
Hi folks
I spoke to a gentleman at the cash register of Avenue Victor Hugo in Boston last night, as I took some Matheson, Wilhelm, & Wyndham off their hands. As I understand it, they must move out of their current location by Dec28, but are seeking new digs. That’s certainly no guarantee of reopening, and I don’t know what their prospects are (David, perhaps you know more than I heard), but let’s send them some good karma, eh?
Corned Beef Hash for my recipe needs:
www.foodtv.com
Rachael Ray is one good cook I'd marry her in a heartbeat!
But if you ask me Fried or grilled Scrapple is better!
Anyone in the Philly area know if "Software Hut" is still open?
Now, Slow Glass Books (named after the wonderful Shaw short story) in Melbourne has closed their physical store and going the way of virtual world. I bought many aussie sf books from them over the years and can continue to do so. But sad knowing the good ones are falling.
Alex Jay: Well, since you're the tax guy...
On _West Wing_, one of the big subplots this year has been Toby and Rob Lowe's character (forget the name) pushing for a tax break for people paying for college tuition. In Canada, one can claim $400/month for every month spent full-time in a college or university ($150 a month for part-time studies) and one's tuition, with the whole shebang then being multiplied by 16% and put into the non-refundable tax credits portion of one's tax form. The province of Ontario now throws in another 6.16% of the tuition and educational costs (the tuition and per month stuff) on the provincial form; I'm not sure what other provinces do with educational amounts.
Anyhoo, given the lengthy discussion of Toby and Rob's plan to help Americans on the show, don't state and federal taxes in the US include some sort of higher educational deduction? _The West Wing_ seems to be treating the idea as tantamount to landing on the moon.
Lynn: You can't get a definitive answer on corned beef hash because I'm not sure there is one. Most recipes call for ground-up corned beef, onions, and potatoes; some add egg or beef broth to the mix; some advocate frying up the potatoes with the beef and onions while others suggest segregation until serving. The L.L. Bean recipe (search under 'corned beef hash l.l. bean) looks pretty nice, though.
Isn't there a Maggie and Jiggs reference in this somewhere?
Cheers, Jon
More tax stuff, people, keep going if you don't want to see it ...
ROB: If someone makes $5000 in a year and he's of legal age, he won't owe the governmenty anything. See, the standard deduction is $4,550.00, and his own exemption would be another $2,900 ($4,7oo and $3,000 for this coming April). Subtract them from his income and you get his taxable income. A negative taxable income means zero, so if he DID pay any federal withholding, he'd get it all back when he files as a refund.
Also, the easiest hardship to get is, as I said, penalty abatement. Other hardships will involve working with the Taxpayer Advocate--there are T.A.O.s at every IRS office, so it might be best for people to go in face-to-face (most of the walk-in offices are open eight to four-thirty; eight to twelve on Saturdays, with extended hours during the tax season).
And I agree with you, as I said in my earlier post: There SHOULD be a better system to promote a truly progressive tax which doesn't unduly penalize anyone. But to do that would not take a revamping of the tax code; it would take its demolishing and replacement with something new. And that isn't going to happen in large part because of the sheer daunting SIZE of such an undertaking. Congress writes the tax code, remember (with addenda thrown in from Tax Court decisions), and even though it's the congressional staff who usually do the writing, a piece of work like that is far too damned big for a public servant to look upon without deep fear and disgust.
Alex,
BTW, it's late...I'm kinda drowsy...
So, I accidentally indicated FICA where I meant Fed Tax.
Alex,
I appreciate the clarifications.
Here are some dilemmas I still face on the issue:
The "reasonable cause" was a subject I discussed once with an IRS rep. The parameters of the definition were SOOOO tight; NO allowance was made for an illness that interfered with job stability, unless it was clearly defined as a "disability. Even if that medical condition did, in fact, lead to many months of unemployment, it might not - and PROBABLY won't - fall under their definition of "disability". Shouldn't HAVE to be a disability; if a medical condition creates a job crisis, that should be sufficient. But, unless it fits that rigid definition of "disability", interest would continue to accrue. That's COMPLETELY unfair. Somewhere between this policy and the hypothetical tax base I spoke of a fairer plan HAS to exist; as it is, the weight falls too much on low income.
You presented in your example an entire annual income. What if someone only made, say, a lousy $5,000 for the whole year? Because he's been out of work he might not be able to accomodate his expenses due to the amount taken out of each paycheck when he IS working; so he asks his employer to leave the FICA EXEMPT...I mean JUST to survive. THEN he winds up owing - what? -some $500 the following April. To him, at this particular time, that's a LOT.
I haven't much facility on the topic of economics, so I won't try to challenge the scenario you drew if we attempted that tax base I suggested. My point, ultimately, is there HAS to be a solution in there...SOMEWHERE that lifts unfair burdens off the poor or the struggling - who, mind you, are NOT stagnating in poverty, as in an abused welfare system - but are simply having serious problems trying to get where they're going. The solution doesn't lie in a $300 check that vaporizes on a week and half's worth of groceries, but a CONSISTENT structure. Taxes are certainly necessary for a civilization: roads, libraries, civic engineering, schools, colleges and universities, financial aid; we're paying for things all of us can use together...certain areas in which the private sector's role wouldn't quite work; you can go too far one way or another: it's an issue of the checks and balances. But to allow the greater proportionate burden to lean on the poor (perhaps I should stress that as the STRUGGLING poor, not "dead beats"), handing the wealthiest more than enough advantages AT OUR EXPENSE...isn't merely absurd...it's fucking INSANE. You sure don't have to remind me about outcries from insular Conservatives; their consistent detachment from this reality, the dispassionate echoes, "it should be ALL mine, you losers don't count", and total disinterest in seeking a fair middle-ground...draws my unbridled contempt. (And, I'll add, this creates a dilemma for me because the logical side of my brain reminds me of the principle and necessity of TOLERANCE; a necessity because we all have to live together. It is possibly the MOST crucial necessity for a civilization. Sometimes it's more difficult than other times; it's when one's emotions must grapple with the rational).
Perhaps my little hypothetical tax base wouldn't work. But a system allowing the rift between rich and poor to widen doesn't work EITHER, in the LONG run. Some solution HAS to be sought. Perhaps we can only find it by hitting ROCK bottom. I hope the Republicans can prove me wrong because I have goals I want to reach; I don't believe they will.
ROB: Yeah, it IS the lawmakers.
But I hate to say this: Your plan would never pass, and if by some miracle it did, it would never work. A good deal of what gets me angry is that the rich consistently weasel out of paying a fair share. Whether the share they're allotted--that is, the present tax rate structure--is itself fair or not is moot. I pay my taxes without complaint, and 15% of $30,000 hurts me a lot more than 33% of thirty MILLION would hurt a Simon or a Rockefeller. But back to your plan.
The conservatives in this country would raise such a stink over that. If you think they bitch about coddling the poor, well, you ain't seen NOTHIN' yet.
And it WOULD be coddling the poor. Not the destitute poor, mind, but the working poor. Assuming your plan drops the standard deduction to the wayside, You would in effect be building the foundation for a culture of poverty; a culture in which it would cost you MORE to make seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one thousand, et cetera, then it wwould to stay comfortably under that sixteen-eight plateau. So much for mobility.
And if you KEEP the standard deductions and exemptions, even with a graduated phase-in to make it seem fair, then you'd end up paying NO tax until you hit over twenty-five thousand--and that's noty even taking into account married couples who'd end up less likely to have to pay.
(Mind, when I say "pay," I don't mean "settle up on April 15th; I mean "have deducted from your paycheck" or "pay in quarterly estimated tax payments"--it IS after all, a pay-as-you-go tax. And you have no idea how good that is. If ever this country went back to lump-sum payments at tax-time, a lot of people would go bankrupt. Literally MILLIONS of businesses would go under. And the economy would crumble like a sorority girl's inhibitions after the big game.)
Now, not that very long ago, that was what I made a year; even less. The income years like this one, when I'm laid off for a quarter of the year, aren't too much above that $25K sum. I STILL put in over three thousand in federal withholding. Think what HUGE percentage of the population makes less than thirty thousand a year, and realize the consequences which would follow.
It would lose us a HELL of a lot of government revenue. You think education and other programs are underfunded NOW?
The major tax burden would stay on the middle class, but it would intensify.
Tax rates would go up. A lot.
Fraud--welfare, tax, Social Security, and other sorts--would skyrocket.
In short, we'd all lose.
Rob, all this posturing and postulating of mine aside, if you or someone you know has had any problems like the ones you mention, that person should call our Customer Service line at 1-800-829-8815. They can tell you what you can do; they can transfer you to the Taxpayer Advocate's Office (which is now a separate entity from the IRS proper, to better get stuff done); they can advise on better payment plans--and one good thing about the economy going into the toilet: Interest rates are the lowest they've EVER been for paying off debts.
If someone TRULY has a hardship, there are MANY things which can be worked out, some of which I'm not even allowed to share outside the IRS environment. But I can tell you that I get a lot of requests for penalty relief, and as long as reasonable cause is given and accepted, we're allowed to lower or abate penalties entirely. (There's a whole definition of "reasonable cause" I won't get into right now, but rest assured, it is reasonable itself; it's not a hugely arduous thing to get.) And don't be afraid to call more than once if necessary; this is, after all, your tax dollars at work.
This goes for everyone here: go to the IRS website at www.irs.gov and see that EVERY tax publication and form open to the public is there. Better yet, when on the site, order the Publication 17, Tax Guide for Individuals. (I see they're calling it "Your Federal Income Tax" now.) So you don't have to root around a site designed to promote the downloading of forms rather than physical mail, the URL is: http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/toprequests.html
Better yet, just order it over the phone at 1-800-TAX-FORM.
This relatively thin document is written, for the most part, in plain english, is comprehensive, is easily searched and well-indexed, and if by some chance it doesn't give you the answer you need, it'll point you to the publication in which you'll find the answer. I can tell you that it's so well-done that every single IRS Customer Service Rep I know uses it while talking to taxpayers.
The 2002 Pub 17 is currently on the website; I'm not sure if they're mailing it out yet.
By the by--as I was thinking about this post, I got out my paystub, and not only did I figure out that I'll be getting a refund next year, but I also came across a piece of mail--a corrected W-2 form for last year. I have to file a 1040X now; it'll get me a nice seventeen-dollar check. Not bad for three minutes' work.
(Oh, another thing: The biggest argument over taxes right now seems to be over inheritance tax. The funniest thing is that people don't even HEAR themselves, when they say things like "I worked and slaved and scraped for my million dollars, and I should be able to give it all to my kids." The implicit addendum being, "Who'll never have to get off their lazy asses like *I* did." Also, the estate tax. That was wiped out [for the most part] by last year's tax cut ... UNTIL December 31st, 2011. I'm predicting a lot of Menendez-ing of older parents right before that date.)
Alex,
"I WORK for the "goddamn IRS"--and I like it a lot"
OK: you freed my argument from its error, giving the debate some refinement.
Your place of employment: I should say more accurately I'm pissed at the lawmakers who decide the codes and policies; those at the office don't dictate the terms. Once or twice I spoke with IRS personnel and they WERE extremely helpful and polite, given the constraints.
Without going into great detail I'll try to summarize my general grievances with IRS policy. We already went into the cost-of-living issue; it's a problem, however you want to define it.
Let's say an individual had a rough employment history in the course of a year or so and goes flat broke; he can't pay what has bloated to OUTRAGEOUS debt for a relative pittance in earnings (far under annual). The offices will make arrangements with that individual...meanwhile, interest accrues till it takes THAT much longer for the poor slob to catch up. To be fair to those at the bottom, the whole scale should start at $16,800/year as taxable income; anything below that...you don't owe shit. That should be the base, which, in turn, needs to keep up with the annual cost of living adjustments (I'm sure lawmakers would think up all kinds of convenient excuses as to what would make this so complicated; but it SHOULD be the objective because it would give those in relative poverty a chance at mobility). The other problem is the very limited deferments available for those who really had legitimate difficulties. You and I, for instance, know something about seizures. They CAN create serious problems in employement AND school. Regardless, interest will accrue...till you're wading in debt to the government. Whether you have medical hassles or if you're a student, they provide no deferments. That isn't being fair at all, given the loopholes available for the wealthiest.
It's not "the goddamn IRS", so much as "the goddamn lawmakers". The right policies and the right checks and balances just aren't being engineered...probably because of indifference and spineless pandering.
That's the core of my grievance. For anything I'm missing by all means fill in the blanks. I'm not trying to be a blind militant.
Alex,
"And by god, I would KILL to have a place like that near me selling new books."
I'd love to have one in my area too. When I lived in Chicago, I worked for 9 years at Kroch's & Brentano's main book store downtown. There wasn't much time for conversation -- the place was too busy; spend too much time in conversation with one customer and three others would walk away without having been served. And there were always a considerable number of customers who just wanted to browse the shelves -- they came in to look over the stock, not to schmooze. So if somebody didn't look like they were having trouble finding what they needed, we'd let them be.
During those years, I spent a lot of off-duty time, and money, and exchange credits, at Hanley's Book Shop in Rogers Park. A small place, specializing in new & used sf, fantasy, and mystery. Terrific little shop, a one-woman operation. Bought a number of British hardcover Gerald Kersh titles there, and a Trident Press edition of Harlan's Love Ain't Nothing etc., all the Gregg Press Leibers and Heinleins. Florence Hanley had time for conversation -- there weren't usually a lot of people in the place; while I don't know this for certain, I suspect the shop was not her only source of income. Hanley's is gone now (though I heard someone else had bought the shop, name included, and opened it in a new location), along with three other shops in that area. Kroch's itself is gone, along with the competitors that had moved into the same street -- 2 Crown Books shops and a B Dalton. The Aspidistra, a nice second hand shop on north Clark, is now a sushi place.
What killed some of them off? Damned if I know. Overhead? Dwindling customer base? I don't know what the markup is on hardware, but I do know that everybody needs toilets and flashlights and ladders and wrenches, and a lot of hardware store items cost considerably more than a paperback. Maybe too many people these days think they don't need books, and so don't make them priority purchases. A few people have tried book shops in this town, but they haven't lasted. Now and then I think about trying it myself, because I always liked that kind of shop. But the proper balance between conversation and purchase time seems to be getting harder to find. I'm not sure there's enough of a margin in books these days to support a shop in which there's more conversation time than purchasing time. Unfortunately.
--TR
One more thing, to show you how owned by certain businesses our government is:
Frank asked if I were smoking banana peels. Well, no; right now I'm smoking Natural American Spirit cigarettes.
(Yes, I unquit some time ago)
It's not my normal brand, but they had a nice deal from an ad they ran: Call their 800 number and they'll send you a form. Send it back with proof of age and $4.20 for shipping, and they'll send you a free carton.
They also sent some info with it (and a survey, which, if you complete and return it, they'll send you a free tin sign, but ...). I, like I suppose most people, had thought the company to be Indian-owned (they prefer to use the term "American Indian," pointing out that "Native American" encompasses Aleuts and Eskimos, who never knew from tobacco). Nope. It's a group of Santa Fe investors.
BUT they're a conscientious company, supporting the Indigenous Language Institute, the Piegan Institute, the Native American Rights Fund, and the American Indian College Fund. They give away a lot of tobacco to Indian organizations for ceremonial use, and the company's even been designated a Founder of the Museum of the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe.
(They also will send a buck to the Rare Species Conservatory Foundation for every household which completes and sends back a little slip included on every one of their packs, and pack in cute little endagered species fact cards on each pack)
For all that, their tobacco is not American Indian-grown.
Why? Well, when they set up a tobacco growing program on several New Mexico pueblos, it was promptly shut down by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Not because of any infraction or low standards, but because There is a government quota system for growing what is called flue-cured Virginia tobacco, and six southeastern states own the exclusive preserve for the cultivation of that tobacco.
The native people who introduced tobacco to the world (yeah; it was another tribe, but still) is not allowed by the government to grow it for consumption.
The ghost of Jesse Helms, you see. The tobacco lobby owns that part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (and, likely, a big part of the ATF as well) lock, stock, and pipe barrel.
LIL' WASHU: I had a friend in high school who learned Japanese for two big reasons: She was an anime fan, and she was a Moorcock completist. Apparently, there were Japanese editions of his work with stuff not available to the English-speaking world,
Hmm. Should have made myself clearer. First off, I'm looking at unemployment in the long-term. Look at the figures from, say, 1990. Now look at today's. It's lower or about the same. What has to be considered there is that in the last, oh, seven years or so, someone realized that unemployment figures weren't matching the actual figures of people who were unemployed, so they shifted it to better reflect who ain't working. Take that into consideration, and it's lower than it was. Granted that UNDERemployment is certainly on the rise ...
Of course, with big companies like Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and others self-destructing, I'm probably proven wrong by the latest figures.
ROB: Actually, cost of living IS factored in, but the existing tax code infrastructure doesn't allow THAT much to be done with it.
But yeah; I look at the tax rates and the new deductions and credits every day, and it is PAINFULLY clear that the cuts were enacted to benefit the uppermost 2% of incomes, not to mention large businesses, with a small (relatively miniscule, really) sop thrown here and there to the larger electorate.
And remember: I WORK for the "goddamn IRS"--and I like it a lot; it's just challenging enough to be interesting, I have the greatest group of coworkers I've EVER had, I get regular raises, I get to respond to my inborn need to fight authority every now and again (and in fact am in TWO union grievances right now), my direct boss is great, HER boss is great, HER boss is crap on a stick, but HER boss is cool. And I get to help people and give away money EVERY NIGHT.
(and mess with the taxpayer's minds--I joke a lot to put them at ease)
Of course, I'm temporarily laid off until the new year (and the way they handled THAT process [gee; guess which boss listed above] is the reason for both grievances), but even so, I'm making more in unemployment then I got paid when I first started there, four years ago.
CINDY: If you ever want some enlightening stuff, try and read the current tax code. No, no; that's too cruel a fate. Just read through the Tax Relief Act of 2001 (the big tax cut enacted in June of that year), and realize how HUGELY skewed it is toward the very rich and people who stand to inherit money from rich daddies.
Harlan in Japanese...there's something I must read before my time on Earth is over.
Boy I botched that one -- make that "canceled" and "regularly scheduled" -- eeeh!
OKAY, I'LL ADMIT IT: I go to a therapy group now. And each week, I stand up and say, "I have testicles, but I loved the now cancled ABC series, 'Once and Again.'" Fortunately, I just learned there is hope for all of us long-suffering addicts, as the first year of the series was just released on DVD. (I now return you to your regularly debate).
--DTS
CINDY: After reading your post I'm reminded why I still love Texas (no matter how many crazy Bush politicos it cranks out): it's the women! You ladies are the finest (and while I'm about it, a tip o' the hat and heart to Stargirl in Dallas).
--DTS
Cindy,
I have to type this incredibly fast because I'm out of here:
The "tax cuts" are aimed at the wealthy. But the wealthy don't NEED tax cuts because they get them ANYWAY: they're called tax loopholes; the ones only THEY are capable of getting (from charities to mock businesses). That's what seems to elude everyone; and it's why I can't sympathize with the wealthy when they whine about taxes. When taxes are cut TOO much, we at the lower end get denied the programs that come from taxes, including financial aid (and my unversity has funds cut by 50%). The way we've done things - whether the Republican way or the Democrat - hasn't been done right at all. We don't need more tax cuts (particularly since it's already been done; and at a cost that will exceed anything we could put away); we need tax REFORM. The goddamn IRS doesn't factor in the cost of living, so it's much tougher on the lower end. And when that "lower end" can't pay, interest accrues on the amount owed. It's the lower end that needs total relief, not the top end. Start the base at about $1400/month and move the scale from there. Students get nailed by taxes badly; Clinton wanted to give them a break on that; the Republicans wouldn't allow it. So, fuck 'em.
It's not about your fantasy world of "leeches", Cindy. It's about incorporating the right balances. The Democrats' policies aren't always on the mark either, no question. But the Republicans are NOT - get that: NOT - about giving breaks to common workers; their purpose is to represent the interests of the wealthy. Anything else they claim is disingenuous (c'mon: you think candidates are going to say "we're for the rich?"; they HAVE to make it sound appealing to everyone. That's called being RHETORICAL. Financial aid and the schools are being cut because of the Republicans; we lost the surplus because of the Republicans; Europe will move ahead in medical research because of the Republicans; deregulation will spiral out of control, allowing the corporations to continue their bullshit because of the Republicans; wealth will get consolidated among the few because of the Republicans. Whatever your philosophical grievances may be, THIS isn't the answer. And many people you know now may not have to worry about any "leeches" because they won't have any jobs (when you're not working you don't pay taxes).
Coos Bay! God, no -- anywhere but there!
Frank.
1) Pretty much all of the mainstream media has properly reported unemployment as being up. As in, NYT, Chicago Tribune, etc.
2) Funny - I though the Democrats were doing fine by being moderate. A slight minority in the US congress is nothing to sneeze at. Hell, we could be the Libertarians, who have never managed to get anyone elected to a major office.
Regards,
Joseph
Somebody is smoking banana peels! Unemployment is not going down, but going up! Read the progressive media and