And when I say “this guy,” — for the jokers amongst our commenters — I don’t mean the actor.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
YOU KNOW, that is really a sublime counterfactual question. I think I know about 2-3 things about Lincoln. Who knows if he is a man of this age? Just too easy to assume he is a man of all ages?
I just heard recently Lincoln described as “the best writer” ever to occupy the Whitehouse. How relevant is that? Do I want any President that would get assassinated in office a few weeks in? I don’t think so.
Do I want someone that would compromise basic values in favor of pragmatic realities on the ground? Ha, ha. Too easy to go with the gut.
None of us know who Lincoln was–in his own time, much less our own.
YOU KNOW, a good speech or a bad debate don’t tell us much about how EFFECTIVE a man will be president. Does a man shape history, or does history shape the man?
But in a Vacuum, who wouldn’t vote for anyone thats on Mnt Rushmore? Silly not to.
<<>>
Very Good Question!
Voice not quite what I wanted, but this movie looks good. Putting up nonviolent resisters in a trailer for a movie about a guy who exemplified violence is confusing.
You know those shows or movies about actors who immerse themselves in the role, Stanley Tucci on Monk, or a sober guy who gets a DUI just by portraying an alcoholic? This actor is that guy.
You mean the guy who started an unnecessary war that killed half a million of his own people and the after that wanted to send all the blacks back to africa or panamanian swamps?
Makes Bashar al-Assad look all the more like a teddy bear.
id rather have the vampire hunter version
Ever notice how Spielberg likes to make movie about three things? Racial inequality, wars, or friendly alien lifeforms. And in some cases, he mixes them up a bit. So “Schindler’s List” was about both of the first two. “A.I.” was about the first and the third. And I’m still waiting for him to figure out how to do the second and third combo, as a movie. Maybe he already did it for Tv. But if Lincoln gets a visitation from space aliens, in this picture. We’ll know he finally exceeded in flipping out.
Well, he did War of the Worlds. Granted they weren’t “friendly” alien life forms, but it’s pretty close to the formula.
In War of the Worlds, wasn’t the friendly alien life form the bacteria that killed the space invaders?
Lincoln the man, or Lincoln the sainted myth.
One is complicated and seemingly contradictory while the other has been established as a parable for future generations to venerate.
Just for grins:
Derek says:
10/4/2012 at 8:30 pm
Ummmm… The Civil War was about the states separating over unjust representation. /// The secession declaration of South Carolina said it was about their freedom to own slaves.
The Civil War was already underway before slavery was even a part of it. /// I can’t stretch any words or ideas to cover this whack a doo idea. Must be a mistype? Can you provide the context/facts that makes this notion relevant?
What did the civil war do for black people? /// Freed them from slavery allowing them to fight for a living like the white trash around them.
It lowered them from a working class /// working class? Ha, ha. No–it was slavery.
to a sub-class with no money or rights. /// More exactly backward analysis. Did I miss something, or did you leave something out?
Lincoln killed Americans to regain power and used slavery to justify it. /// Factually incorrect. After kindergarden, all students of history know Lincoln fought to PRESERVE THE UNION and as he stated, he would have kept slavery to do it.
I don’t sense any humor or irony in your post here. Can you be so misinformed? And if so, to what purpose I wonder? Please tell us…. which third party candidate do you support and why?
Failure of grammar school edumacation. Silly Hooman.
Give this man a cigar! They teach a simplified dumbed down version of history in the schools today. Like the Kansas-Nebraska act never existed. I guess it became politically correct to say that it was about slavery instead of the truth: that it was about the rights of the states vs the rights of the federal government. And in the end, the states ( and the people) lost.
I report with a deep sadness that I can no-longer see the art in movies such as this, only propaganda.
Well, he’d be pretty quiet, and won’t cause too much trouble since he’s been dead for 140 years.
Another Lincoln might be a good choice since he was elecected and then we went right into a civil war. A division of the states. And at the end, the tyranny of King George in the previous war was replaced with the tyranny of the Federal Government.
Might be another civil war coming. I always said that Obammy was likely the last president of a United States.
George Clooney would be the best. If not him, either Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton because you get both of them.
Willard and Eddie Munster rank low on my list. Mostly because Willard is a fucking chameleon-snake.
Aren’t we “due” for another?
The only thing the chair in the Oval Office needs in it is a sack of horseshit and an autographed picture of the Wizard of Oz.
Big Biz runs the country, has for a long time, and will keep doing so until their greed and corruption finally crashes it for good. (Which shouldn’t be long now.)
If the Civil War was about slavery then the people that seceded made the dumbest decision ever. 15 slave states is enough to block a Constitutional Amendment today.
Only a small percentage of people owned slaves in the South, and they were usually far away from the center of government, though they did manage to maintain rules to keep slavery in place, such as illegal to teach a slave, punishment for assisting escaped slaves, etc.
More likely secession was based on business interests as Lincoln was in favor of high tariffs on manufacturing, which would bring high tariffs on Southern farm exports. Paul Johnson wrote how only a very small number of people ever voted for secession among the Confederate states.
It is well known that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued to keep the British and French from intervening on behalf of the South.
Read the Secession Declaration of South Carolina.
“These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated,…..”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Think Lincoln was a good guy do ya? Give “The Real Lincoln” by Thomas DiLorenzo a read, before you spend any more time with hero worship.
What were 2-3 key Lincoln defects?
Book review at Amazon is an interesting read. I don’t see reading fantasies with an agenda like this.
“To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states’ rights, and launched a devastating Civil War,…” /// Yeah, except it was South Carolina that seceded and fired on Fort Sumter. When you get such a basic fact wrong, why read the rest when there are soooooo many good books I’ll never get to?
Nice bit of counterfactual history: what would have happened if the South had not started the Civil War… just waited Lincoln out? Keeping the Union together was hard enough…
The movie is bullshit propaganda, nothing more.
I see Gary Johnson got left out, again.
Go ahead, throoow your vote away.