On Charlton Heston.

You never saw Planet of the Apes?

Or True Lies?

Time to sit your fanny down on the couch. At least do True Lies and Planet of the Apes. Planet of the Apes is a bit cliche and silly now, but still enjoyable, and True Lies is fantastic.

Or Bowling for Columbine?

The only one of these I’ve seen is Touch of Evil, which I always think of as an Orson Welles movie rather than a Heston one.

Keith,

I’m roughly the same age as you, but I grew up in a house that was filled with movies, music, sports and politics (and good Italian food), so I got a lot of Heston in my nonage that you seemed to miss. That you didn’t miss how he was such a presence in a bit part should at least make you curious. Most of your readers have recommended “Planet of the Apes,” which is great fun, esp considering when it was made – 1968 – when the US was torn between the Cold War, Vietnam and tremendous internal strife. If you like Heston’s cynical everyman turn in that, you may like “Soylent Green.” Next best overall may be “Ben Hur” which Heston gives an impressively nuanced performance. Also the Civil War epic “Major Dundee” (which presages Platoon in some of its editorial content on war, if not its harsh realism). The acting is so-so in “The 10 Commandments” which suffers from an almost over-awed woodenness after Heston makes the transition from likable, very commanding Prince of Egypt to the Moses, the Prince of Stolid Scenery Chomping. After he’s touched by God, Yule Brenner acts circles around Heston. But it’s worth a watch just to see Edward G. Robinson’s performance as an Egyptian Noble. Classic, especially given his performance as an ex-pat mafioso just a few years earlier in “Key Largo” (Robinson returns for a great role in “Soylent Green,” btw). Heston WAS a presence. And in his prime he was also something we seem to have lost in this day and age of constant media exposure: A Movie Star.

Despite the fact that it’s one of the most poorly cast films of all time Touch of Evils is worth a look.

I would skip the Ten Commandments and start with Soylent Green, Planet of the Apes, and Ben-Hur, in that order.

I believe there’s a moment in the Blackadder time travel special wherein Blackadder knees Shakespeare in the groin, saying “And that’s for Ken Branagh’s interminable four hour Hamlet.”

For my part, I enjoyed it, though some of the stunt casting (Jack Lemmon…not so much) was wonky and the greenscreen at the end of the first reel was very BBC.

Keith, I just finished reading your chat and I am begining to wonder about your foodiness credentials.

Hamburgers are chop steak. The idea being you use cheap cuts of meat to create something easy and delicious to eat. So as fashionable as Kobe burgers are, they make no sense. Kobe tastes great due to the fat content, you don’t need an expensive cut of meat to get that if you are chopping it up!

This implies something greater about your experiences with steak, in all likelyhood you have never had a good one. If one enjoys the flavor of a fatty cuts of meat chopped up then it stands to reason that one would enjoy a perfectly marbled properly dry aged steak even more.

Yes burgers are good. Go try a Peter Lugar’s porterhouse. Dry aging and the right cow make all the difference. Also try their burger.

Regarding crepes, even distribution of heat is the key more then anything. Hence the use of cast iron for crepe pans, they hold the heat better making it easy to keep even. The lipless sides are nice but not required.

Finally on the subject of pancakes, I think you might be showing your Communist leanings. Only a Marxist-Leninist could deride proper pancakes in favor of Crepes. Your predilections for the Laffer Curve was likely just a front to distract us from your Pinko core.

Go have pancakes at the “Chef Owned Diner” in Montpelier VT. They are hands down the greatest breakfast cake ever.

I stand corrected. Although I notice you don’t deny being a communist.

I can’t understand why people act like Heston was a bad guy for supporting constitutional rights. They act like Heston was a criminal, racist or general scoundrel. These people selectively pick rights to enforce. Every right is important; that includes the 2nd amendment. Hopefully when the Supreme Court decides DC v. Heller later this term, Heston will smile from above knowing that he did so much to protect our constitutional freedoms.

Nothing good to say about Heston? What about the fact that he stood up for civil rights at a time it wasn’t popular to do so?

Heston had more class in his fingernail than pieces of shit like Michael Moore have in their entire body.

kobe beef burger? whats the point? those are for rubes!

Chuck Norris versus Charleton Heston, who wins? I mean we have all those Chuck Norris rules versus Charleton Heston and the 7 plagues. I’m going with Moses on this one. Heston can do one thing that Norris can’t – act.

Malcolm, I appreciate the thoughtful response. I understand that smart people can disagree as to the meaning of the second amendment. What I do not understand is why Heston’s interpretation makes him evil according to many? SCOTUS will decide the issue by June and hopefully the opinion will not be narrow. As to the states rights issue, rights guaranteed by the constitution cannot be infringed upon by the states, hence the opposition to the DC ban. On one level it is no different than a local law that seeks to outlaw a form of speech. The states rights comes in on issues that are not preempted by federal law. Conservatives don’t want the federal government to legislate in certain areas excessively such as education so those areas will not be subject to preemption. Justice Scalia this week said, “You want the right to abortion? Create it the way most rights are created in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea — and pass a law, You don’t like the death penalty? Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a bad idea and repeal it.” He was commenting on his philosophy as an originalist. Fortunately, the right to bear arms was set out in the bill of rights so no one needs to persuade their fellow citizen to pass one. We just need to make sure they don’t pass one infringing this right.

Keith, sorry for polluting your message board.

“I’m about as pro-capitalist, anti-socialist as anyone on the planet.”

McCain voter, are we?

*Note: It’s understandable if you don’t want to touch that one with a yardstick.

JK — I appreciate your thoughtful response, as well. I actually think Keith’s site is one of the few places where the message boards don’t get personal, and I’ve had some pretty interesting and thought-provoking discussions here. Last week the board on race was very interesting and respectful.

I don’t think Heston is evil for his beliefs, much as I disagree with them. I see your point on people passing laws instead of using the courts, but sometimes democracy is imperfect. We needed the court to give equal protection to African Americans, among other things. I think that is what makes SCOTUS so important in this democracy. The framers were smart enough to safeguard this country from tyranny of the majority.

As far as the DC gun law is concerned, I don’t personally know why someone who doesn’t live there cares how they police themselves re: guns, but I am all ears.

Dre, I had something like 1500 questions. There’s no secret to get through; I just don’t get to 80% of what’s asked.

Malcolm, as it happens I actually live in DC (for now). Keith, Malcolm is right that the civility is high on this site. You must have a very intelligent readership. Be proud of that fact.

I just wanted to make one little correction to an otherwise well informed and thought out discussion of the Constitutional aspects of gun control:
JK wrote:
“As to the states rights issue, rights guaranteed by the constitution cannot be infringed upon by the states.”

In fact, those Articles that do not specifically state in them that they are applicable to the States are NOT transferred to them, EXCEPT where the Supreme Court has made decisions regarding them through the use of the 14th Amendment’s equal rights clause, a process known as incorporation. The 2nd Amendment has not been subject to this process, despite repeated attempts by organizations such as the NRA.

I should say that I am opposed to unlimited gun ownership; as a member of the law enforcement community, I would prefer that only a very select few people have access to firearms that are not hunting specific. I also do not believe that this violates the 2nd Amendment, which states, very clearly, that “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Personally, I believe this means that members of the state militias–today, the National Guard being the sole representation of this–are protected by this Amendment. Obviously, there are compelling arguments for both sides, and I don’t particularly expect to convince anyone who disagrees with me. Like Malcolm, though, I think it is fantastic that we have a forum such as Keith’s blog to discuss these issues in a calm manner, with people who are quite well informed on the issues.

No one ever challenges that there are limits on free speech. In cases of libel, slander, national security, public safety (FIRE!!!!) etc. These limits are accepted.

When you compare the 1st amendment as it regards speech:

“Congress shall make no law … or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”

It is pretty much a carte blanch prohibition on ALL laws regarding speech. Where as the 4th amendment:

“well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

CLEARLY contextualized the right to bear arms within the context of a regulated militia. So what is the big deal with regulating gun ownership? IANAL or a constitutional scholar but if regulation of speech is acceptable given how much more protected it is in the text, then regulation of gun ownership should be no issue at all.

One thing that bugs me a lot about Heston was his repeated argument that the 4th Amendment is the most important as its necessary to prevent the emergence of tyranny; that ultimatly the 4th guarantees the 1st.

I’m sorry but no collection of agitated citizens armed with rifles, assault or otherwise, are going to be able to do a damn thing to stop the U.S. Government from trampling the peoples rights if it has the backing of the U.S. Armed Forces. This isn’t the 1700s where the major advantages an established force had on the battle field were cannon and calvary. Unless joe schmoe southerner has a division of bradley fighting vehichles in his barn he isn’t going to be shedding the blood of many tyrants.

Look at Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of AKs laying around hasn’t done a whole lot for the insurgency. The only thing that works are IEDs and suicide bombs and I don’t think the NRA advocates the legalization of those.

The 1st Amendment was never intended to protect “harmful” speech, such as libel or assault (please, please, PLEASE, can people learn what the difference between the crimes of “assault” and “assault and battery.” Sorry, pet peeve), it was designed to keep the government from punishing people for speech that was anti-governmental, such as protesting the war in Iraq. Also, it should be noted, Phil, that numerous times in the last hundred years fighting forces without a numerical or technological advantage has won wars–Cuba, anyone? And the 2nd Amendment was about protecting against tyranny than to protect against foreign invasion or rebellion from within–Shay’s Rebellion, in my own neck of the woods being a major cause, many constitutional scholars believe

Jeremy- I have a hard time trying to go by founders intent as opposed to what the document actually says when it comes to deciding what is right and wrong. As a tie break or bring clarity on a muddy issue, sure.

However your contention would have us actively ignore what the text of both amendments say in favor of what some people say they were intended to do. I think its pretty clear that this opens the door to way to many problems. Why have a bill of rights at all, why not just have SCOTUS say “hey, this is what I think the founders would have wanted.”.

As for asynchronous warfare, I am hard pressed to think of when vastly technologically weaker forces triumph of a force that was NOT foreign in nature. Furthermore I think its safe to say that the U.S. would be a fairly unique battlefield in which the most powerful weapon of all would be the the media (ie speech).

I just don’t understand why people think that banning handguns will do anything? Aren’t they already banned in DC? They still have a super high crime rate. Why punish rural american’s if it does no good?

Actually, TJ, in countries which have extremely strict gun control laws regarding handguns (i.e. Japan, Canada) the violent crime rates are dramatically lower than in the U.S. Now, that may be a cultural thing–many people believe so; just ask Michael Moore–but the fact remains that if guns are harder to get, fewer people will have them, and then fewer people will get shot. Last year, of the 187 police officers who were killed (a record, if you discount the number killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks from the 2001 total), 65 were killed by guns. The year before that, 51 or 152. Now that may not matter to everyone on this forum, but it is indicative of the issues we have in a country where there is easy access to Tek-9s, Micro-Uzis, and other small weapons that are useless except for killing people. I believe firmly in the Constitution–it’s a big part of why I am in law enforcement–but, as I said before, I do not believe that the Constitution guarantees anyone the right to own a gun. Therefore, for my safety, the safety of those in my law enforcement “family,” and for your own safety, I believe that ownership of handguns should be incredibly limited, and that assault weapons should be limited to police officers and active duty military personnel. Obviously, this will not solve the entire crime problem in America, and it will take a while to have any effect at all, but I’d be willing to bet a great deal on the fact that it would decrease the number of violent crimes within two decades.

I’ve never seen the gun-control issue as a constitutional one. IMO, it’s clear that a member of the public should not have the right to posess an ICBM, nor should access to all weapons be prohibited. A line needs to be drawn in the middle somewhere that balances personal liberty with public safety. Reasonable people can differ about where that line should be.