| EdDriscoll.com |
|
Saturday, January 03, 2004
Posted
1/3/2004 08:09:00 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
1/3/2004 05:55:49 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
1/3/2004 05:25:16 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
1/3/2004 05:07:00 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
1/3/2004 03:16:08 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
1/3/2004 02:33:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
1/3/2004 01:43:30 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
1/3/2004 12:50:12 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
1/3/2004 12:32:45 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
1/3/2004 12:29:33 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
Posted
12/31/2003 05:02:25 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/31/2003 04:25:51 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/31/2003 03:52:33 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/31/2003 03:18:50 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/31/2003 03:09:37 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/31/2003 03:05:24 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/31/2003 02:39:44 PM
by Edward Driscoll
The grandson of an Irish immigrant, he often focused on the Irish-American experience--particularly in his million-selling novel "True Confessions." The 1977 breakthrough book involved a Los Angeles murder and its effect on two Irish-Catholic brothers, one a police detective and the other a priest. Robert De Niro and Robert Duvall starred in the movie, which Dunne adapted with Didion. "'True Confessions' was a major novel, one of the best books ever written about politics," said Pulitzer Prize winner David Halberstam, a friend and fellow writer. "He was a very important writer, and a wonderful friend--talented, edgy, combative." Dunne's book "The Studio" provided an unflinching look behind the machinations at Twentieth Century Fox, a major motion picture studio. It was hailed for its insider's take on Hollywood. Dunne eventually became part of the movie industry, working with Didion on several screenplays. Their first, "Panic in Needle Park," starred Al Pacino and captured an award at the 1971 Cannes Film Festival.Dunne and Didion were also championed by Tom Wolfe in his classic New Journalism anthology of the mid-1970s.
Posted
12/31/2003 01:35:52 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/31/2003 12:19:00 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Posted
12/30/2003 10:45:18 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/30/2003 10:40:23 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/30/2003 10:36:43 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/30/2003 03:51:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/30/2003 03:31:11 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/30/2003 03:19:43 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/30/2003 01:02:56 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/30/2003 12:51:30 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/30/2003 11:43:49 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/30/2003 11:21:08 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Monday, December 29, 2003
Posted
12/29/2003 10:46:12 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 10:29:14 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 09:54:48 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Already, ownership of fancy goods is less a mark of social status than it used to be. Huge wide-screen TVs are, in my part of the world at least, associated as much with trailer parks as with wealth. ("You never see a double-wide without at least a 50-inch TV," a salesman told me. A bit of an exaggeration, perhaps, but a common view). Fancy watches, now no more accurate than the cheap ones, are a mark of pretension, not status. And services -- scorned as unproductive in the day of Adam Smith -- are now moving up the ladder. Massage therapy and restaurant meals are comparatively high-margin growth businesses, while television sellers are fighting things out in a market where prices are plummeting. Plumbers and cleaning services, meanwhile, are doing well. A glimpse of the future? I suspect so.Me too. As Tom Wolfe wrote a few years ago, we are "fulfilling Saint-Simon's and the other nineteenth-century utopian socialists' dreams of a day when the ordinary workingman would have the political and personal freedom, the free time and the wherewithal to express himself in any way he saw fit and to unleash his full potential".
Posted
12/29/2003 09:16:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 04:22:09 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 04:15:17 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 04:03:11 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 03:52:51 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 03:32:06 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 03:02:16 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 01:31:40 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 01:18:11 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 01:13:11 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 01:15:56 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 01:11:36 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 01:02:06 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/29/2003 12:01:38 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Sunday, December 28, 2003
Posted
12/28/2003 11:58:26 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/28/2003 10:00:33 PM
by Edward Driscoll
I wonder if this disaster might be the Iranian Chernobyl. (Or the 21st century equivalent of the Lisbon earthquake, if you remember your Voltaire.) Just as that catastrophe laid bare the lies and the failures of the Soviet system, so might a horrible earthquake call into question the Mullahs’ claim to rule at the behest of the Almighty. It’s hard to insist that Allah wants Israel destroyed but never gets around to leveling Tel Aviv with natural disasters. Do I think that all Iranians believes the Mullah’s claims? No. Neither do I think that the contributions of America will change public attitudes - because I don’t think they’ll come as a surprise to most, and certainly not to the classes who can change the nature of the government. But the adminstration's aid effort is a surprise to certain domestic elements. I heard a network news feed on the radio say that the US was sending aid despite having branded Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil. Oy. Did the author of that dispatch believe that the administration regarded the Iranian people as a seething mass indistinguishable from the calculated madness of the ruling clerics? If US aid to Iran comes as a surprise to anyone, then they don’t understand the US.Read the rest.
Posted
12/28/2003 09:47:16 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/28/2003 06:12:52 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/28/2003 01:47:38 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Meaning no disrespect at all to the world's finest fighting force, I have a feeling that the excellence of our men at arms had little to do with this decision. No, it seems pretty evident that the editors of Time were desperate to find someone, anyone, to name instead of George W. Bush. The person of the year is supposedly selected for having had the most influence on events of the past year, for good or ill. But this standard is not always strictly applied. Think back to 2001, for example. It is blindingly obvious that the one person who shaped the world the most that year, very much for ill, was Osama bin Laden. But Time's editors could not bring themselves to name him -- not when they were receiving daily warnings from readers threatening to cancel their subscriptions; not when so many continue to see the person of the year as some sort of honor. So they punted and chose Rudolph Giuliani. But (again let me stress that I bow to no one in my admiration for the U.S. military), the persons of the year Time chose would be sitting in Fort Benning and Camp Pendleton, not in Saddam's palaces today had it not been for George Bush. Not only has Bush shown the courage to take the fight to the terrorists and made this a victory year for American forces and American values, he has begun the process of remaking the Middle East in a more democratic mold, a challenge he created and embraced, and on which he will be judged by history. You may consider it too ambitious, or you may think him a visionary, but either way, it seems to me, George Bush must be acknowledged as a huge actor on the world stage. Time magazine needs to work on its news judgment.Time needs to work on its judgement, period.
Posted
12/28/2003 01:44:44 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/28/2003 01:37:21 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/28/2003 01:31:23 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Home |