Sleeper Movies

Everyone's got a list of movies that they think are the best movies to watch.  Typically, they include classics like The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane and others. There are many worthy movies that belong on those lists, but they become somewhat impersonal, since everyone and his brother includes them.  I'm not criticizing the movies at all -- although I can't claim to have seen GTWT -- but they make virtually everyone's list.

This isn't a list of the greatest movies every made.  I'm not knowledgeable enough to claim that my list would be superior to anyone else's.  Heck, I haven't even seen ET.  So by no means is this list authoritative on the subject of Best Movies of All Time.

Instead, these are recommendations for movies that are subtle, fun, heartwarming and entertaining. They may have flaws -- all movies do -- but these movies have proven to be very entertaining and meaningful to me in different ways:

Doc Hollywood:  I didn't care for Michael Fox before he developed Parkinson's, and although I feel for him and his family, I'm still not a fan.  But this movie is by far his best effort.  I could watch this movie all day long.  It's sweet, it's quirky and Mr. Fox doesn't ruin it with his retread Alex P. Keaton act.  In fact, due to this movie I've searched for a town similar to Grady -- Miconapy, Florida, if you really are interested -- in which to live, and I can state quite happily that Karen and I know live in a Grady-like town.  This movie is worth checking out even if you don't care for Mr. Fox.

The Guilt Trip:  I loathe Barbra Streisand.  Yes, she can sing beautifully.  But she's about as much of a Leftist as the character she played in The Way We Were, and I just can't stomach her.  That being said, she did a marvelous job in this movie.  This one has her as Seth Rogan's mother on a road trip, and it's hilarious.  It has its poignant moments, but they're not overwhelming or unctuous.  Mr. Rogan, for his part, restrains his goofier tendencies and actually does a great, understated job as the son.  It's a gloriously funny film well worth the time.

She's Out of My League:  The premise is sound, although I'm not sure the outcome is...unless one believes in the Rik Ocasek-Paulina Porizkova happening.  The supporting cast is excellent, the writing top-notch and the story somewhat plausible.  It's an entertaining movie that missed most people simply because the casting made it seem implausible in the extreme.  Again, they must have missed the Ocasek-Porizkova nuptials.

Under the Lighthouse Dancing:  An Aussie movie -- one of the best, in my opinion -- this has an ensemble cast with the notable inclusion of a very young and unknown Naomi Watts.  It's a sad story, but a beautifully woven tale based on a true event.  It's magical, sad, funny and heartwarming. Aussie movies are among my favorite, and this tops the list.  It's well worth seeing.

Volver a empezar:  A Spanish movie that shouldn't be unknown, considering that it won the Best Foreign Oscar for 1982, it tells the story of a Nobel laureate who is going to Oslo from Berkely where he's lived in exile since fleeing Franco's Spain.  He decides to take a detour to see him old stomping grounds in Asturias, specifically Cangas de Onís, which I've visited. There, he runs into his old love, who stayed behind when he fled.  The only annoying part of this movie is the repeated use of Begin the Beguine, which almost becomes an earworm.

Silverado:  One of the modern Westerns that deserves an audience, it's harmless fun.  It has a great cast, doesn't take itself seriously and moves the story along, albeit in predictable fashion.  The director Lawrence Kasdan allegedly did this movie to make up to Kevin Costner for cutting his role in The Big Chill, and although this movie isn't as good as that one, it's still entertaining.

Zulu:  Michael Caine's first movie, this is one of the best war movies of all time.  It depicts the true battle of Roarke's Drift and is just endless action.  There are very few slow moments and the mutual respect between the combatants is moving.  Having Richard Burton narrate doesn't hurt the movie at all.

Rounders:  I can't play poker.  I know the hands but not the ranks.  I don't like to gamble.  I love this movie.  Sure, it's got a heavyweight cast, but it's not about the cast.  The mix of gambling addiction, Russian mobster and law school is an odd one, but it's effective.

Total Recall (the original):  I'm not much into sci-fi movies, but this one was exciting.  Going through the plot was interesting, and the star-studded cast didn't distract.  I haven't seen the remake and won't do it.

True Lies:  It may seem that I like Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, which isn't true, but this one's a hoot.  In fact, the comic relief provided by Tom Arnold is half the reason.  It's a rollercoaster of action scenes, and the plot is pretty thin, but it's just good, unadulterated fun.

Swordfish:  I enjoyed the twists and turns in this.  Another movie that has a ton of celebrities in it, the covert world with its murky allegiances appeals to me.  I'm no fan of Travolta movies generally, although I do like Hugh Jackman.  Even Halle Berry does a good job in this one.  It's worth a watch when nothing else is on.

50/50:  Jason Gordon Levitt is such a fine actor.  Seth Rogen actually contains himself as the utterly believable friend who helps his best friend through cancer surgery.  The movie is subtle, poignant and wonderfully captivating.

Christmas in Connecticut:  Far and away my favorite Christmas movie.  Barbara Stanwyck is wildly alluring, the madcap plot moves along briskly and the setting is absolutely beautiful.  I know they remade this years later but I will never watch it.  There is no improving upon this movie.

Anamorph:  I truly enjoy watching Willem Dafoe.  This is a cop movie about anamorphs.  If those aren't familiar, look 'em up, then try to figure out how they're integrated into a cop movie.  I found this movie fascinating.

There are more out there, but I can't remember them all right now.  I'll add to the list as I come upon new ones.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Lack of Military Intelligence

Let's get this straight right away:  I never served in the military.  I've been on a military base once or twice in my lifetime.  That's it.  What I know about the military I've gleaned from reading and talking with military personnel.

That being said, what this administration does regarding military matters is absolutely ridiculous.  In fact, were it not for the fact that most of the people doing it aren't in the military, there would be courts martial virtually every week.

The administration loves to telegraph its punches.  I can't believe the Joint Chiefs of Staff are signing off on this.  The only reasonable explanation is that the self-proclaimed most-transparent-administration-in-the-history-of-the-nation only feels the need to be transparent when it comes what military actions it's contemplating.  This would otherwise be wonderful in a democratic society but certainly not in an age where information can be transmitted in a nanosecond and the opposition thrills when it cuts off the heads of its opponents.

Back in World War II, the Chicago Tribune, fueled either by journalistic partisan zeal (the Trib was and is a conservative news organ), published a report about how naval codebreakers determined that the Japanese were targeting Midway, thereby allowing Admiral Nimitz and his staff to plan the ambush that led to the turning point in the war in the Pacific.  Thankfully, not too many Japanese wer lurking in the United States that could transmit back to Tokyo what they could read in the Trib, and even more thankfully, PDA's and the internet were still but a gleam in the eyes of Al Gore (surely, I jest...about Gore, that is), but the damage to our war effort, had that revelation made its way back to our opponents, would have been incalculable.  Nowadays, Mr. Obama and his band of merry political partisans thinks first, foremost and only about winning elections and burnishing someone's legacy. By telling our enemies that we're not going to commit ground troops, that drastically alters what responses ISIS must plan.  It also makes our job that much more difficult.

But telegraphing our punches is just one act of lunacy.  This fantasy of not committing ground troops, while expecting other nations to commit theirs, is not only ridiculous, it's immoral.  Our journalists were murdered, not theirs.  Why should the Aussies unhesitatingly agree to send their blood and treasure, while we fly well above the danger, safe in the knowledge that ISIS has no anti-aircraft weaponry that can shoot down our planes?  What's more, once we bomb the snot out of ISIS, how are we to occupy the land that's stained by the blood of those dead terrorists?  Who can make bomb damage assessments accurately from satellite images or planes flying at three or four times the speed of sound from four or five miles above the earth?  Did that work well when our intelligence community determined Iraq had WMD's?

I didn't go to Harvard, but I know a thing or two more about military actions than this President does. Sure, he has access to more militarily intelligent people than I do, but he disregards their advice. Besides showing contempt for the life's work these men and women have put in, it's darned foolish to endanger the men and women on the firing lines by supposing that he knows better than the people who have dedicated their lives to protecting this country.

Occupying ground taken is what the army and to a lesser extent the Marine Corps does.  Bombing ISIS back to the stone age just means that another radical group will fill the vacuum left by their deaths.  When we pulled out of Iraq, that very thing happened.

When will this President learn to put reality over politics?

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Presidential Word Games

I've never seen such parsing of the English language by our government in our lifetime.  It's getting to the point where the definition of cognitive dissonance is going to be accompanied in the dictionary by a picture of the POTUS.  Admittedly, he's not alone in this, since various members of his administration have contributed to this phenomenon, but since they work for him, he should be the face of this collective effort.

When he was president, George W. Bush was roundly criticized for not being the smartest person around.  He would mangle the English language, routinely inventing words and hardly sounding articulate.  He would, however, come off as sincere, irrespective of his syntax.  President Obama, on the other hand, is described often as articulate and thoughtful (no matter how bad his math and knowledge of foreign languages may be), although there are some who view these appraisals as racist.  Although they both have degrees from the Ivy League, it is widely thought that President Obama is the smarter of the two men, and that may well be.  I don't believe, however, that President Obama is viewed as being as sincere as President Bush was.

Part of the reason for that may be how the President and his minions parse the English language to avoid saying things that are readily apparent to the rest of the country.  Take the speech Mr. Obama gave about ISIS this past Tuesday.  First, the President insists on referring to ISIS as ISIL, something that the Brits do, despite the fact that virtually every news organ in this country calls is ISIS.  Some see some malevolent purpose behind the difference, claiming that it's a slight toward Israel.  I don't know yet why he does it; it may or may not be an insult.  But why not use the common acronym that everyone else in the country uses?  Will he be trotting out the redundant U next, referring to flats and lifts and telling us his child is in hospital?

In his speech, the President said that ISIL is not Islamic.  Really?  I read the transcript, and I know what he was trying to do:  Separate the ISIL thugs from moderate Muslims without insulting Islam. But a far wiser alternative would have been to say that ISIL terrorists have corrupted Islam.  Instead, the smartest person in the room basically caused a nationwide case of whiplash by declaring something so absurd -- ISIL or ISIS starts out with Islamic State, for heaven's sake -- that it just sounds stupid.

Then there's the issue of the President and his right hand man, Uncle Joe, not being on the same page. The POTUS said his strategy -- more on that anon -- was to make the problem manageable.  Uncle Joe, on the other hand, famously declared we would chase the terrorists to the gates of hell.  Which is it?  Listening to Josh Earnest try to resolve this conflict was amusing.

Of course, not to be outdone, Secretary of State John Kerry and designated presidential piñata Susan Rice both demurred when asked if we were becoming involved in another war.  Meanwhile, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted we were, unlike Tin Man Kerry, who suggested instead that we were in an ongoing counterterrorism operation.  Piñata Rice moved her lips in agreement as instructed by her Gepetto.

Remember the promises made about health care plans before Obamacare became effective?  Well, that worked well, didn't it?  Even funnier were the explanations after the website malfunctioned and the stories came out that the promises weren't exactly true.

Benghazi?  Doubletalk never had it so good.

The IRS scandal?  Emails that apparently disappeared have suddenly reemerged.  But there wasn't a smidgeon of corruption there.

The murders of fellow servicemen by Major Hassan Nadal at Fort Hood weren't caused in battle or in an act of terrorism, despite the fact that Nadal shouted Allah Akbar before he opened fire.  No, it was workplace violence.

The President can't even admit he called ISIS the JV squad.  Even when shown videotape of his statement, the President equivocates.

His acolytes follow suit.  Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee declared that Democrats never sought to impeach President George W. Bush, but had to backtrack when shown the resolution she cosponsored seeking impeachment of President George W. Bush.  She later claimed she misspoke.  That's usually the dodge of the uneducated by highly visible professional athlete, not a seasoned politician who's spent nearly twenty years in Congress.

If for no other reason than it makes discourse impossible the above is lamentable.  But it's more than that:  When people are willing to say anything without regard for the consequences, where does that leave the electorate?  Whom can it trust?  This administration believes that it can say anything and not be held accountable largely because the MSM has given him a free pass for six years of his presidency.  Others have taken note and imitate his lead.  It puts the country in quite a pickle.

Hope and Change was the campaign slogan the President used during his first presidential campaign. It's come to mean that he and his followers hope that people will believe anything they utter and then change the meaning of what they said after they're challenged.

It's a helluva way to run a country.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Political Ads

Unless one is in the industry, political advertisements are more a nuisance than anything to most of the electorate.  I find it hard to believe that the messaging, no matter how slick, influences anyone to vote in a particular way.  What the politician says, what she does on the campaign trail, typically has more to do with how someone votes than anything.

There are, from what I've seen, some very well-done ads out in the hinterland.  In major metropolitan areas, at least in my experience, the ads are slick but boring.  Rarely is an ad from a major metropolitan area shown across the country for its inventiveness, its uniqueness or its humor.

A new trend, especially in Democratic ads, is to attack not the Republican opponent, but the Republican opponents' financial backers, especially if they're the Koch brothers.  Because the Democrats are hamstrung by their support of President Obama, they need a bogeyman to distract people.  If a Democratic candidate doesn't have a sterling record of her own, if she has supported the President too much, she deflects by attacking not her opponent, but the big money interests behind the candidate.

The trouble with this approach is that, like a tracer round, the Democratic efforts to distract voters is being used against them.  Billionaire Tom Steyer has been bankrolling liberal candidates across the country throughout the last year.  Not nearly as well-known as the Koch brothers -- thanks largely in part to that moron Harry Reid hypocritally labeling the Koch brothers un-American for their very similar actions -- Mr. Steyer has his own agenda.  Reasonable people can differ, but there is no qualitative difference between what Mr. Steyer and the Koch brothers are doing:  They're putting their money where their politics lie and backing candidates that support their policies.

Frankly, I support development of the Keystone pipeline and for that reason oppose Mr. Steyer's views.  It's crazy to me not to want to develop that energy source and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.  But that's not the point.

For Democrats to descry the infusion of money from wealthy supporters while at the same time having the likes of George Soros and Mr. Steyer, not to mention the wealthy elite in Hollywood, give financial backing to their candidates is a joke.  Sure, there may be more money on the Republican side, but at that level, there isn't a great deal of difference between one billionaire and another.

This could smack of desperation.   I haven't followed all the races across the country, but the chatter is that Democratic candidates are in trouble.

                                                --------------------------------------------

I have just a quick comment on the address President Obama made to the country last night.  I didn't see it but heard reports about it.  At a later date I'll comment on the substance of it, but one note in particular caught my ear:

ISIL is not Islamic.

This is not going to go over well in the hinterland.

I've read the portion of the transcript wherein the POTUS made the comment, and I understand what he was trying to do:  He was chiding the terrorists by trying to separate them from moderate Muslims, whose support he apparently covets, claiming that Islam does not allow for the killing of innocents.  He went on to say, correctly, that ISIL is not a state, and in that he's correct.

The problem is this is an era of sound-bytes.  The four words highlighted above are what most people will remember.  And ISIL is invoking Sharia law, thereby cloaking itself in the mantel of Islam.  Just as not all Germans were Nazis and all Japanese were inspired with the spirit of bushido during World War II, the general perception is that ISIL is an Islamic outfit.  With its murders of Shi'ites and westerners, its rape of women and slavery of opponents, ISIL is relying on its interpretation of Islam to carry out its agenda.  It may be a perverted sense of Islam, but it's Islam nevertheless.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Questions About Current Events

I'm naturally curious, so I've been watching events unfold lately with a rather discerning eye.  Some things either don't make any sense to me or raise questions that remain unanswered, so I thought I'd raise them here in search of assistance:

--  With both the Foley and Sotloff murders at the hands of ISIS, what chills me isn't that both men were beheaded -- although that was horrific enough -- but what both men did before they were beheaded.  No one can know for sure, but both made declarations that were probably coerced, whether by force or by intimidation, thinking it would spare them, that denounced the President and our efforts in the area.  Both knelt there quite calmly as if they were resigned to their fates or as if they weren't expecting what ultimately happened to them.  My questions are, which is it?  Were they deceived and taken unaware?  Were they resigned to their fates?  Or was it something else?

--  How can the loyal liberal base be proud of the man they elected into the White House when he makes mistake after mistake such that even the MSM is questioning his competence?

--  Is it just me, or does that guy doing the Lady Jane's radio commercials sound like he could be related to the late actor Andy Devine?

--  Why o' why hasn't the government shored up the defenses along the southern border?

--  Does anyone else wonder how long it would take the US military to destroy the Mexican cartels?

--  With both Robin Williams and Joan Rivers gone now, who is the greatest living American comedian?

--  A choice must be made, and death is not an option:  Who's the worst spokesperson in this administration, Jay Carney or Jenn Psaki?

--  Has there been a worse Secretary of State than John Kerry?

-- Does Debbie Wasserman-Schultz really believe what comes out of her piehole, or does she go home and snicker to her husband about how she riled up the opposition with outlandish statements?

--  Why won't the President refer to ISIS as terrorists but will call them extremists instead?

--  Are the people claiming Megyn Kelly is a racist because she preferred to focus on the beheading of an American citizen by ISIS instead of another night of rioting in Ferguson, Missouri, stupid, drunk or high?

--  Why isn't the MSM pursuing harder the revelations by the DOJ about Lois Lerner's emails still existing?

--  Is the entire country against basic chocolate chip ice cream?

--  Why are critics so quick to call Fox News Faux News and ignore the obvious shortcomings and egregious behavior at MSNBC?

--  Why does Sean Hannity have to speak over guests with whom he disagrees when it's obvious that if he just let them talk, they'd prove his point for them?  Trying to prove he's a badass doesn't win him extra points.

--  Is the NFL in danger of jumping the shark?

--  Is Scarlett Johannson stupid or just rabidly partisan enough to design those t-shirts for Planned Parenthood that totally misconstrue the Hobby Lobby decision?

-- To the woman on Fox who is the biggest attention whore on television:  you're obviously an attractive, intelligent woman; why are you so needy when it comes to being seen?

-- When is Congress going to cut an immunity deal with Lois Lerner?

--  Will the expected result of the midterm elections portend anything for the 2016 presidential elections or will they have no effect?

--  Will Europe find the testicular fortitude to join the US and the UK and defeat ISIS before it's too late?

--  How does Al Sharpton have any credibility anymore?

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

The ISIS Threat

A week ago, ISIS terrorists beheaded the journalist James Foley.  It was savage, it was unsettling and it was unnerving to many to see the decapitated remains of Mr. Foley with the head resting in the back of the shackled body.  Today, another American journalist, Stephen Sotloff, was beheaded, as promised by ISIS once drone and aerial strikes didn't end.  A Brit is the next to be beheaded, according to ISIS.

The country is aghast at this brutality, but it shouldn't be.  The only reason it's enervated is because the terrorists filmed the act and posted it on the internet.  Atrocities like this have taken place in warfare and terrorism for years.  Japanese military men raped and ravaged hundreds of thousand of Chinese in Nanking in 1937.  Japanese officers had a beheading contest to see who could behead the most Chinese with samurai swords.  Live Chinese captives were used for bayonet practice.  At area 731 in Manchuria, the Japanese tested weapons on live Chinese, sprayed biological weapons on unwitting Chinese farmers and conducted live vivisections on downed Allied airmen.

Suffice it to say that that atrocities the Nazis committed are far more well-known.

Vietcong troops used to desecrate the bodies of killed American troops.  Lest anyone think U.S. troops were immune from these depravities, plenty of it went on in reverse, as well.  War is hell, as Sherman said, and that's a good thing, to paraphrase Robert E. Lee, or we would grow too fond of it.

So for all those innocents wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth, I can only say:  George Santayana warned you about this.

Actually, he didn't mention ISIS or wartime atrocities.  But he did say, famously, that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

If you don't believe me, check out these videos:

Nazis killing Jews.

ISIS killing Christians.

There is no qualitative difference between the two videos.

As with the Nazis and the Japanese, there is only one answer:  Total War.  No Geneva Convention treatment (although we abided by the Convention with the Japanese, they did not; the Germans did, by and large).  No mealy-mouthed rules of engagement.  The vast and awesome power of the United States military, assisted by other countries who believe in the rule of law, must be imposed on these murderers.  Their like must be extirpated from the face of the earth.  Unlike the Japanese and the Nazis, there is no state to overtake.

What's particularly chilling is that ISIS may well mimic the actions of The Following, a fictional piece of work where acolytes of a deranged murderer carry out hideous acts of depravity against unwary innocents because they believe it furthers the murderer's grand plan.  Here, with ISIS, there may well be a core of religious zealots, but it is surrounded by castoffs, outcasts and criminals who are given free rein to commit murder on a grand scale.

The truly scary thing is that there are reports of people popping up in places with signs written in Arabic announcing that ISIS is in Chicago, or Washington, D.C., or London, or other Western locations.  These people, like the Japanese before them, consider death an honorable outcome to their actions.

This is hardly the time for a humanitarian approach of engagement.  No hemming and hawing, no indecisiveness.  We need a direct approach that meets force with force.  Our force is superior to theirs.  If it weren't, why are the ISIS people in all the videos largely covering their faces?  They fear our capabilities, as well they should.  The only response people like this understand is overwhelming force, and we should oblige them by giving it to them.

There is a movie about the Korean War, Pork Chop Hill, in which the North Korean negotiators prove to be intransigent beyond stubbornness.  The American negotiators step out of the conference room with the younger negotiator shaking his head.  The wizened older negotiator tells him that it's a matter of the communists wanting to see how much we'll put up with this.  It's a test of wills.

That's what we're facing.  Call it ideology, intransigence or stubbornness, no matter how it manifests itself.

We have to be stronger.  We have to have the testicular fortitude to do what's right, no matter how messy it is.

Our way of life depends on it.

Our lives depend on it.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles