DHP Review: Hancock
Posted by Dirty Harry on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008
Will Smith and the 4th of July go together like apple pie and Chevrolet. A hit with Independence Day a big miss with Wild Wild West (I couldn’t even finish it), and now Hancock, a thoroughly entertaining time killer that leaves you wanting more. In a nutshell: dumb summer fun takes an awkward turn but sticks the landing.
Hancock is an alcoholic, self-loathing superhero who sleeps at bus stops, drinks himself stupid, and hates the people he saves as much as they hate him. His problem is that he’s equal parts careless and reckless when it comes to superpowers which seem limited to invulnerability, flight, and boundless strength. For Hancock, it’s not enough to simply move a car stuck on train tracks. Instead, he tosses it upside down on top of two others and lets the coming freight train crash into him causing a chain reaction of calamity. State Farm’s worst nightmare.
There are a number of arrest warrants out for Hancock, mainly for property damage, but no way to capture or hold him. This forces the city of Los Angeles to form an uneasy truce and hope for the best whenever he swings into action. The public, however, isn’t into a truce. Shamed at every turn, Hancock finally agrees to accept the help of one of the people he saves, Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), a struggling public relations do-gooder.
Embrey takes Hancock home for a spaghetti dinner to meet his wife Mary (Charlize Theron) and young son. As he tries to convince Hancock that it’s in his own best interest to “stop being an a**hole,” there’s a connection between his super-guest and wife that will lead into the most unexpected of places.
The first half is all about Will Smith being Will Smith — all about big action set-pieces and a number of solid one-liners:
“I can smell that liquor on your breath.”
“Because I’ve been drinking, bitch.”
At the halfway point, the story takes a serious, jarring turn, but the eventual explaination makes sense, and is even clever. This turn also makes for a better film. Deeper characterizations emerge, relationships complicate, the stakes rise, and a real connection to the characters develops, especially with Hancock.
Peter Berg’s direction is solid but he brought along the same damn shaky-cam that made The Kingdom nearly unwatchable. It’s not quite as bad here, but some of the action is hard to follow and for shaky close-ups you’re pulled out of the movie to ask, “Why?’ Thankfully, Berg also brought along one positive from The Kingdom: Jason Batemen, who’s carved out a welcome niche as The Character Who Comments On The Irony. He’s very funny here and I have no doubt a pay-per-view contest between Bateman and Robert Downey, Jr. testing their awesome abilities to be self-aware would clean up.
The film works many themes, chief among them, finding one’s place in the world. But there’s a subtle Destroy A Village To Save A Village idea at work, as well. Eventually liberal Los Angeles finds they need a Hancock — they need an a**hole not pinned down by Miranda rights or unafraid to remove someone’s body parts without a warrant if it might save lives. All the “niceties” the left employs to make sure American Exceptionalism isn’t so exceptional are not only ignored by Hancock but eventually found foolish by the film itself. [Kyle Smith deconstructs this in an excellent write-up here.]
Unlike this summer’s Hulk, Hancock does pass the superhero movie test. It does take off in spots that have you file away a need to see it again. It’s no Iron Man, but the entertainment value is unmistakable and at a disciplined 92-minutes you walk out perfectly satisfied and not groaning over the idea of a sequel. But don’t walk out too fast. There are post-credit scenes. Nothing inspired, but still amusing.
Filed in Movie Reviews |
Michaelon 02 Jul 2008 at 2:40 pm 1Sort of interesting you liked the 2nd half plot twist. Most of the critics have been blasting it.
Accept » Blog Archive » DHP Review: Hancockon 02 Jul 2008 at 3:13 pm 2[…] DHP Review: Hancock Shamed at every turn, Hancock finally agrees to accept the help of one of the people he saves, Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), a struggling public… […]
rrpjron 02 Jul 2008 at 3:31 pm 3Only as good as it has to be, and not close to the promise of the trailer (in fact, whoever made that trailer deserves an award). Some amusing politically incorrect flourishes at the top, but quickly settles into routine stuff. Smith’s misunderstood loner never gets more interesting than when he was misunderstood. The key backstory is all dull exposition, the plot twist can be seen a mile away, and the climax in the hospital confusing. Who needs to do what to save who, again? But it’s short. A 92 minute superhero movie is worth some celebration.
monkeyon 02 Jul 2008 at 3:52 pm 4im glad this got a good review, iv heard so many bad things about this film and i tend to like watching will smiths films just for brain fodder and a cheap giggle.
I never really expect anything amazing or deep from the fresh prince just saturday night entertainment.
Lexingtonon 02 Jul 2008 at 4:01 pm 5Aw, this is disappointing - no one seem to think that Hancock lives up to its excellent trailer. Ah well, I’ll probably end up seeing it anyway.
Then there’s this…
But there’s a subtle Destroy A Village To Save A Village idea at work, as well. Eventually liberal Los Angeles finds they need a Hancock — they need an a**hole not pinned down by Miranda rights or unafraid to remove someone’s body parts without a warrant if it might save lives. All the “niceties” the left employs to make sure American Exceptionalism isn’t so exceptional are not only ignored by Hancock but eventually found foolish by the film itself.
Isn’t it weird how, ten years back, conservatives were the guys with rifles and a dingy shack in the woods who were constantly railing about how the government had way too much power, and that jack-booted G-men were going to come and take away everything that was theirs? Odd how such opinions change due to a switch in who’s in charge, eh?
Stephanieon 02 Jul 2008 at 4:14 pm 6Lexington I know I am gonna regret asking this but what the F*ck are you talking about? English please. In English!
Carlitoson 02 Jul 2008 at 4:28 pm 7The Unabomber was a conservative? News to me.
Glad the movie is better than the trailer cause I thought the trailer sucked.
David Marcoeon 02 Jul 2008 at 4:34 pm 8Isn’t it weird how, ten years back, conservatives were the guys with rifles and a dingy shack in the woods who were constantly railing about how the government had way too much power, and that jack-booted G-men were going to come and take away everything that was theirs?
Let’s peel back the layers of stupid in that statement.
1. What event or period could you possibly be referring to? I supposed asking you for specific examples would be too much a stretch.
2. Obviously, conservatives are “guys with rifles and a dingy shack,” because, you know, that’s just how they are. The connection between Ruby Ridge and William F. Buckley is so stupefyingly obvious that only a knuckle-dragging conservative could be blind to it.
3. Obviously, if I carry the moniker conservative, I must believe that the Illuminati rules this country through the Trilateral Commission and that black helicopters are being deployed to search for me because their mind-control satellites can’t penetrate my counter-mind control helmet. And “Loose Change” was just a piece of right-wing propaganda to make reality-based Leftists look stupid.
Odd how such opinions change due to a switch in who’s in charge, eh?
Yeah, it’s not like 9/11 happened, or the bombings in Spain and London. It’s not like we’re in a state of war.
The state is a blunt and coercive instrument. And rightly so, as it purpose is to facilitate justice, in accordance with the law, and institute a lawful order, against enemies that would do the citizenry harm. These are tasks which are defined rather easily and to which I can give it a modicum of trust, particularly to the men who step into the uniforms of law officers and soldiers, as I know their general character.
Where my trust ends is with the politician, who tends to want to expand his powers into wider latitudes of governance, outside of those clearly defined areas. By default, I distrust them, unless, through exceptional character, they give me reason to do otherwise. So, it is a matter of disposition and context, but with a statement like yours, that nuance may be lost on you.
Stephanieon 02 Jul 2008 at 4:41 pm 9I am starting to agree with Outlaw who stated elsewhere that Lexington is starting to chap my butt. Its not taht he disagrees but his statements would be more appropriate for a playground than an adult discussion of culture. Arrogance for someone who has no reason to have any is pretention and pretention is vulgar. Lexington is vulgar. Not in what he says, in his attitude.
Stephanieon 02 Jul 2008 at 4:42 pm 10And by the way Ted K (AKA Unabomber) being a conservative was the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. But since Lexington said it I am not surprised.
Rochelleon 02 Jul 2008 at 5:39 pm 11Psssst…..
Lexington spouts off this crapola to chap peoples hides. That is his/her/its whole reason for being here. Letting him/her/it chap the hides is giving him/her/it the jollies it seeks.
Not even worth replying to, but he/she/it does give me a good chuckle/WTF?/head shake moments I have to say.
Kon 02 Jul 2008 at 6:06 pm 12Good political sites need trolls to keep the posters excited. It’s been proved all that HARUMPing stimulates the endorphins, thereby “hooking” the site customers.
Beside, anything that can get David Marcoe to write some more stuff is a positive as far as I’m concerned.
David Marcoeon 02 Jul 2008 at 6:06 pm 13Lexington hangs around and responds enough (and was here before the change over) to be more than just a dive-bombing troll. He/she fits into the mold of Suburban Refugee, who posts something staggeringly idiotic, goes to absurd lengths to defend it, and then falls silent when they have no more wiggle room. I’ve also found that an exceptionally large cluebat works wonders in cases like those.
David Marcoeon 02 Jul 2008 at 6:07 pm 14Beside, anything that can get David Marcoe to write some more stuff is a positive as far as I’m concerned.
Thank you.
Mike18xxon 02 Jul 2008 at 6:38 pm 15> The state is a blunt and coercive instrument. And
> rightly so, as it purpose is to facilitate justice,
(Let’s peel back the layers of stupid in that statement. As a “small-’l’ libertarian” who’s thoroughly past the stage of ever hoping government will accidentally do anything good in the manner of a broken watch being right twice a day, I believe I qualify to undertake this task.)
The state is indeed blunt and coercive, wrong so, and its purpose is its own. “Justice”? That’s just the propaganda line it sells you after monopolizing the market for it. — It makes no sense for the justice-deprived (who cheer movies about vigilantes) to get all moist for government solutions when government has invariably created the problem requiring the solution.
> in accordance with the law,
I.e., in accordance with the State’s codified will.
> and institute a lawful order,
All hail the power of the State!
> against enemies that would do the citizenry harm.
(This is bad, because dead citizens can’t be squeezed for tax revenue.)
> These are tasks which are defined rather easily
> and to which I can give it a modicum of trust,
> particularly to the men who step into the uniforms
> of law officers and soldiers, as I know their
> general character.
Please don’t insult soldiers by comparing them to police. It’s been fifty years since Mayberry, and they’re now the lying, corrupt, de-facto “standing army”. Running whole towns like a local mafia isn’t just the stuff of 1970’s Burt Reynolds movies anymore.
JohnLockeon 02 Jul 2008 at 6:55 pm 16Alright then, Mike. Assuming the world really works the way your cynical mind seems to think it does, who’s authority and responsibility is it to capture, prosecute, and punish criminals?
monkeyon 02 Jul 2008 at 7:01 pm 17i love the discussions on this site, people like lexington how ever dumb when gets a good ass whoopin is good reading. just wish he would fight back abit more.
Stephanieon 02 Jul 2008 at 7:05 pm 18Well as long as Cornell or Subby doesn’t show up. I get into a bad mood just thinking about those two jerks.
David Marcoeon 02 Jul 2008 at 8:03 pm 19Let’s peel back the layers of stupid in that statement.
Here’s a lesson I learned very painfully… Don’t try and reuse someone’s line as satire unless you’re prepared to make it stick.
As a “small-’l’ libertarian”…
Reading what follows, I question that definition.
…who’s thoroughly past the stage of ever hoping government will accidentally do anything good in the manner of a broken watch being right twice a day, I believe I qualify to undertake this task.
Espousing something doesn’t make you qualified to defend it, so let the strength of your argument speak.
The state is indeed blunt and coercive, wrong so, and its purpose is its own.
Again, if you’re going to try a play on words, it might help to use correct, or at least creative, grammar. “Wrong so” doesn’t fall into either category.
“Justice”? That’s just the propaganda line it sells you after monopolizing the market for it.
The problem with the vigilante is that it is a two-edged sword, where his brand of self-appointed justice becomes the “justice” of the mob. And that “justice” has a way of becoming a bloody storm which chews up the innocent found in its path, whether you;re talking about frontier lynchings or beheadings in the streets of France.
“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”
– Alexander Hamilton
“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”
– James Madison
Nemo debet esse iudex in propria causa; no one should be judge in his own cause, a point echoed by Shakespeare in Measure for Meaure and James Madison in Federalist no. 10. Like it or not, the impersonal bureaucracy and pedantic laws of the establishment of exists to give some calculable measure of justice, divorced from the passions of the mob.
It makes no sense for the justice-deprived (who cheer movies about vigilantes) to get all moist for government solutions when government has invariably created the problem requiring the solution.
Yes, because a lack of law and order invariably leads to criminals hanging up their handguns and gold teeth. I suppose Confucius was blowing it out of his ass when he said that a ruler had the “mandate of heaven” to rule benevolently over his subjects, or that Plato has his thumb up his ass when he wrote Republic. I also guess Jesus was a charlatan when he said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…” or the Apostle Paul was just blowing smoke up poeple’s hindquarters when he said:
Have you ever studied the history of political thought?
The Catholic scholar Manegold of Lautenbach, writing in 1080, declared:
This same doctrine is echoed is later echoed by Thomas Aquinas, Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex (”The Law is King”), Hugo Grotius “Father of the law of nations”), and ever other natural law thinker prior to the enlightenment, later to be carried on by men like John Locke and the Founders themselves, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Please don’t insult soldiers by comparing them to police. It’s been fifty years since Mayberry, and they’re now the lying, corrupt, de-facto “standing army”. Running whole towns like a local mafia isn’t just the stuff of 1970’s Burt Reynolds movies anymore.
You’ve just insulted my cousin, who was in the 82nd Airborne and is now proud to be a police officer, along with numerous other military veterans, who are often recruited and hired by departments. You’ve also insulted my aunt, who was a police officer for nine years while she went to law school (she lost two men under her command in the line of duty). She’s now a family court judge and is a woman who has endured more than her fair share of strive.
David Marcoeon 02 Jul 2008 at 8:11 pm 20To add: Government is not the root cause of crime. Government adds to it through laws which coddle the criminal and regulations which hamstring officers in the course of their work. It exacerbates it through institutional decay and political corruption, but it does not cause. A thug will be a thug, whether or not their is a politician with in a thousand miles of him.
David Marcoeon 02 Jul 2008 at 8:16 pm 21Another one:
“Without justice being freely, fully, and impartially administered, neither our persons, nor our rights, nor our property, can be protected. And if these, or either of them, are regulated by no certain laws, and are subject to no certain principles, and are held by no certain tenure, and are redressed, when violated, by no certain remedies, society fails of all its value; and men may as well return to a state of savage and barbarous independence.”
– Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)
whiskeyon 03 Jul 2008 at 1:13 am 22Mike anyone who’s been in a neighborhood ruled by the Crips, Bloods, EME or other gangs would take the state over the thugs in their neighborhood every day.
This is reality. You have a state, or you have a warlord. Take your pick.
As for HANCOCK, I have read the spoilers for the second half. I have some serious issues with it. Without spoiling the movie (IMHO for those foolish enough to see it) it makes the whole movie …
POINTLESS.
Hancock the character achieves nothing but more destruction. Basically, of the family of the guy who tried to help him in thanks.
whiskeyon 03 Jul 2008 at 1:14 am 23Let me add, it’s also monumentally stupid.
whiskeyon 03 Jul 2008 at 1:15 am 24One more add … I’ve seen LAST ACTION HERO. From all I gather, HANCOCK is no LAST ACTION HERO. It’s far, far worse. I enjoyed LAST ACTION HERO.
You could pay me to see HANCOCK. But it would have to be a LOT.
Vincent Wongon 03 Jul 2008 at 1:59 am 25@ David Marcoe
You kick ass.
That is all.
TROon 03 Jul 2008 at 4:25 am 26It may be a good movie . . . I have my doubts . . . but I see it being more a Wild Wild West than an Independence Day. A not as popular version of Wild Wild West even. My youngest son hasn’t said one word about going and families taking kids make these summer block busters.
Mr Stay Pufton 03 Jul 2008 at 5:44 am 27Agreed TRO. Three kids and not one of them has said they want to see this movie.
pandaxon 03 Jul 2008 at 6:58 am 28Mike18xx
Hate to burst your bubble I’m a Deputy and a Navy veteran. Let me get right to the point your no better then the people who hate our military. Take your rant and replace it with soldiers and it’s pretty much the same thing isn’t it? There is a reason we are called law enforcement. We only enforce the laws passed by lawmakers voted for by the people. It’s funny that people like you moan and complain but when you ask them when was the last time they voted they give you the whole line of it being corrupt or rigged, a nice little excuse to take no responsibility but bitch about it. I see you define yourself as libertarian, from what I seen many of the people who claim this title of late are anti-government types whose view are more anarchist then libertarian and you seem to fit nicely in.
O.K. now that I’ve gotten that off my chest. I plan to go see Hancock tonight.
Mighty Skipon 03 Jul 2008 at 7:39 am 29David Marcoe,
Bravo, Bravo! I am so glad you write here. There are so many I run into who claim to be libertarians who have no idea what that really means. That was all very good stuff.
Lexingtonon 03 Jul 2008 at 8:16 am 30David,
What event or period could you possibly be referring to?
What, you weren’t around for the early 90’s? The “angry white male” era? The militia movement? The rise of Rush Limbaugh? The NRA’s infamous “jack-booted thugs” rhetoric? While it may not speak to your particular views, David, anti-government fuming was most certainly the public face of conservatism at the time.
Nowadays, unsurprisingly, conservatives find themselves far less concerned about the scope and power of the federal government, as they more or less controlled it for six years. Harry’s comfortable with the idea of governmental “good guys” breaking the law because he trusts their intentions, but I doubt he’d be so willing to turn a blind eye to things like this in a Democratic administration.
Not that this is a one-sided thing, mind you - I imagine that, as soon as Obama’s sworn in as President, you’ll not hear much from liberals about things like the recent FISA bill, or any other number of Bush-era government expansions of power, and all of a sudden, conservatives are going to rediscover their deep respect for privacy and small government.
Mike18xxon 03 Jul 2008 at 8:36 am 31JohnLocke> who’s authority and responsibility is it to capture, prosecute, and punish criminals?
Morally? Whomever wants to.
— Now everyone pay attention: The first task any state sets for itself is the *monopolization of justice* (because only by doing so can it become immune to its own crimes).
This is why the prisons are full of “political” prisoners convicted of made-up “crimes” (such as tax-evasion and using banned objects such as guns and certain chemicals) while common thuggery is rampant on the streets.
Pandax: #
pandax:
> Mike18xx: Hate to burst your bubble I’m a Deputy
My father was a deputy.
> and a Navy veteran.
— and a Navy vet.
> Let me get right to the point your no better then
> the people who hate our military.
Bullshit. I rip the Left all the time.
> Take your rant and replace it with soldiers and
> it’s pretty much the same thing isn’t it?
Only if you believe that American citizens are enemy combatants — Is that what you believe?
> There is a reason we are called law enforcement.
> We only enforce the laws passed by lawmakers voted
> for by the people.
Ambiguous-Collective Logical-Fallacy. — This is very important; see the link: http://tinyurl.com/28cbw
The Nazis, the Islamofascist governments of Malaysia and Indonesia, and the Stalinist Allende of Chile were all *voted* in.
As a pure function of time, the odds of a democracy morphing into a tyranny approach 1:1. And, every step of the way, there will a cop writing to a blog justifying it in the name of “the people”.
> It’s funny that people like you moan and complain
> but when you ask them when was the last time they
> voted they give you the whole line of it being
> corrupt or rigged, a nice little excuse to take no
> responsibility but bitch about it.
Who should the Jews have voted for in the 1936 German democratic national elections? Were their rights to life and property really just matter for their drooling neighbors to dispense with as they fit? If Tom, Dick and Harry “vote” to rape Nancy, is she obligated to comply?
– What? You think that’s a disingenuous comparison? Let me ask you how much different it’ll be in “Eurabia” in a couple decades when the new Muslim majority *votes* in Shari’a.
> I see you define yourself as libertarian, from what
> I seen many of the people who claim this title of
> late are anti-government types whose view are more
> anarchist then libertarian and you seem to fit
> nicely in.
When you write the word “seem” like that, what you’re really saying is that you don’t know squat about me, and, rather than simply asking me what I think, will instead just guess.
Cluebat: Opposition to any given viewpoint you may hold is not monolithic.
Mike18xxon 03 Jul 2008 at 9:00 am 32David Marcoe:
> The problem with the vigilante is that it is a
> two-edged sword, where his brand of self-appointed
> justice becomes the “justice” of the mob.
*guffaw*
Whereas when the mob holds the charade of an election, it’s SO much different? (You’d be crying a different tune the precise nanosecond that Marxist shitheel Obama should carry the vote.)
Show me someone complaining about “lone vigilantes” (those two almost always go together), and I’ll show you *precisely* the representative of the mob who bullied his way into power, instituted various manners of corruption, and now has a “lone vigilante” out their stepping on his toes.
E.g., http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/3112670.stm and http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
“Vigilantes” — and bless their brave hearts.
(It’s flabbergasting that so many persons, completely convinced of their own innate intelligence, will utter such complete nonsense. And, per the person I responded to in the post before this one, sign-off to go watch “Hancock”, “Dark Knight” or some other film containing a *vigilante* hero who’s the citizen’s last hope for real justice in a corrupt society.
> You’ve just insulted my cousin, who was in the 82nd
> Airborne and is now proud to be a police officer
You must therefore be equally incensed when, operating in vigilante-mode, “Dirty Harry” Calihan takes it upon himself to blow up his own corrupt police captain and other rogue cops in “Magnum Force”.
I’m sure your cousin as the absolute finest person on the face of the earth. But I assert s/he could be finer still if s/he went out and found honest work that wasn’t funded by compulsory taxation and “asset forfeiture” (among various other new & improved euphemisms for state theft) — the real rot that corrupts the institution.
patrickon 03 Jul 2008 at 11:00 am 33Hancock looks like interesting spin on the latest superhero movie craze… if nothing else at least Will Smith tends to be pretty funny
Carlitoson 03 Jul 2008 at 2:18 pm 34>>>>anti-government fuming was most certainly the public face of conservatism at the time.
Anti-government fuming has been a staple of the Left since the bolsheviks. Here in the U.S., Libs have been threatening “revolution” for decades. But notice how the Liberal Media Establishment only characterizes this “fuming” as “angry” when it comes from the Right. Do you brainwashed morons really expect us to swallow whole the same dog shit you do?
David Marcoeon 03 Jul 2008 at 3:46 pm 35Mike:
Now everyone pay attention: The first task any state sets for itself is the *monopolization of justice*…
Which is why its powers should remain finite and narrowly defined, so as to have no leeway or pretense to expand them. And why we have an armed citizenry, should things need to get to that point.
…(because only by doing so can it become immune to its own crimes).
Because a politician or civil servant has never been suspended, disbarred, impeached, or prosecuted.
The Nazis, the Islamofascist governments of Malaysia and Indonesia, and the Stalinist Allende of Chile were all *voted* in.
The Nazis strong-armed their way into power by using their private paramilitary, which outnumbered the German army, to throw the vote. The Bolsheviks did the same thing in Russia, co-opting the Revolution and then eliminating their rivals. So it is appropriate to use quotes, as they were only pretensions of a vote.
As a pure function of time, the odds of a democracy morphing into a tyranny approach 1:1.
With pure function of time, human beings will f**k up whatever they have, regardless of what it is. That’s human nature. What the question then becomes is if those people are then willing to correct it.
But there is a reason we don’t have pure democracy. To quote good ol’ Hamilton again, “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. … Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly
would still have been a mob.”
Whereas when the mob holds the charade of an election, it’s SO much different? (You’d be crying a different tune the precise nanosecond that Marxist shitheel Obama should carry the vote.)
What of it? It’s a slightly less primitive version of the mob planting someone on a throne. Divorced of a common framework of law and rights, where you can have a true democratic process, the mob hollows out the institutions and uses the remaining shells in a pretense of “democracy.” There are reasons why we have degrees of tranparency, independent observers, anonymity of the vote, and allowances to examine the process at evert stage. It’s interesting how you go to the worst possible example–a degradation–as a counter-argument.
Show me someone complaining about “lone vigilantes” (those two almost always go together)…
I didn’t say “lone vigilante.” I said the vigilante, speaking of it as a category. In the history of vigilantism, it’s most often conducted by groups. The “lone vigilante” is more a product of the popular imagination.
And you want complaints? Lynchings in the South. The AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia; United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia). The Sunni and Shia militias in Iraq. The Bloods (which were formed as an alliance of gangs to protect their neighborhood from the the encroaching activities of the Crips).
…and I’ll show you *precisely* the representative of the mob who bullied his way into power, instituted various manners of corruption, and now has a “lone vigilante” out their stepping on his toes.
Which is all well and good, but I said that it was a “two-edged sword,” meaning that it has pitfalls, not that it is anathema. There are times when the vigilante may be needed.
Lexington:
What, you weren’t around for the early 90’s? The “angry white male” era? The militia movement? The rise of Rush Limbaugh? The NRA’s infamous “jack-booted thugs” rhetoric? While it may not speak to your particular views, David, anti-government fuming was most certainly the public face of conservatism at the time.
As I remember it, that anger was directed at the legislation trying the Clinton administration and Democrats in Congress be passed to extend the scope of government powers, and Janet Reno for some spectacular mismanagement of law enforcement situations, not at the military or every 9-5′fer wearing a badge.
Nowadays, unsurprisingly, conservatives find themselves far less concerned about the scope and power of the federal government, as they more or less controlled it for six years.
The GOP certainly is, but that isn’t the conservative base.
Harry’s comfortable with the idea of governmental “good guys” breaking the law because he trusts their intentions…
It’s a movie and he’s referring to it’s message of how business should be done, in lieu of laws that restrain them from doing their job and doing it correctly. But that isn’t real life.
…but I doubt he’d be so willing to turn a blind eye to things like this in a Democratic administration.
If a Democratic administration was concerned with going after the bad guys, a lot of conservatives would be willing to extend them some good will.
Not that this is a one-sided thing, mind you - I imagine that, as soon as Obama’s sworn in as President, you’ll not hear much from liberals about things like the recent FISA bill, or any other number of Bush-era government expansions of power, and all of a sudden, conservatives are going to rediscover their deep respect for privacy and small government.
Again, there is a difference between expanded war powers, meant to better prosecute a war, and those expansions of government into places where it doesn’t belong at all.
Now, after sorting through Mike’s diatribes and answering the arguments and responding to Lexington (who’s, ironically enough, far more coherent than Mike in his arguments), I’m done with this discussion.
Stephanieon 03 Jul 2008 at 3:49 pm 36I have never found any leftist to be coherant but thats just my opinion…ha ha ha..
Mike18xxon 03 Jul 2008 at 4:42 pm 37David Marcoe:
> Which is why its powers should remain finite and
> narrowly defined, so as to have no leeway or pretense
> to expand them. And why we have an armed citizenry,
> should things need to get to that point.
That’s nice. How do you intend to force Leviathan to stay that way once you’ve bred it in your lab and turned it loose?
But the more important matter is: How do you intend to pay for this thing without stealing from me, and will it be bossing me around and telling me what I can and can’t do with my own stuff? ….or is that what you intend with this “state” of yours?
> Because a politician or civil servant has never
> been suspended, disbarred, impeached, or prosecuted.
Tell we, with a straight face, that these aren’t incredibly rare events compared to the level of prosecution and imprisonment of non-governmental employees. Would you like a big, fat, long list of cops, judges and politicians who slide on all manner of things — from drug use, drug dealing, bribe-taking, even outright murder — despite being blatantly guilty?
> > The Nazis, the Islamofascist governments of
> > Malaysia and Indonesia, and the Stalinist Allende
> > of Chile were all *voted* in.
>
> The Nazis strong-armed their way into power by
> using their private paramilitary, which outnumbered
> the German army, to throw the vote.
IOW, they had the votes to win.
> The Bolsheviks did the same thing in Russia
There were no elections in Russia, so it wasn’t the “same thing” at all.
> So it is appropriate to use quotes, as they were
> only pretensions of a vote.
Nonsense. There were votes, and they were counted.
– Your silence on the matter of Indonesia and Malaysia, and complete stiffing of the Ambiguous-Collective fallacy, are understandable here. They make your position logically untenable.
> But there is a reason we don’t have pure democracy.
(There’s the inevitable “we”, as if *I* were somehow involved. Ambiguous-Collective fallacy again. Link again: http://tinyurl.com/28cbw )
“Pure” democracy is a meaningless distinction once the principles of force have been codified. The lowest-common denominator mob inevitably gets the plunder out of its neighbor’s pockets no matter how convoluted the “checks and balances” built in to the process which *first* supposes that everyone’s rights and property are subject to herd approval and dispensation.
— Do you really think a Congress or a Supreme Court are going to protect you from an over-reaching executive, or vice-versa?
Name a single politician, with a hand anywhere near a pertinent lever of power over the last fifty years, who’s had anything to say about eminent-domain or the income-tax.
> The “lone vigilante” is more a product of the popular imagination.
You mean aside from the two links I provided?
Mobs breaking the law aren’t called “vigilantes”; they’re called gangs (and you went on to describe several examples of gangs).
But here’s the salient point: From whence does a government derive a right to do anything (say, go to war on smaller or larger scale) if it would deny the citizenry it represents the same right? Magic? Obviously if a citizen does not posses a right, he cannot *bestow* it upon government. (This hangs up the gun-control morons all the time: Ask them, “How do you intend to *enforce* gun-control?” With the police, they invariably answer. Then you say, “IOW, cops with guns will enforce gun-control… so where does the government get the right to own guns if it purports to represent citizens who cannot?”. And then you watch them fall complete apart.
> after sorting through Mike’s diatribes and
> answering the arguments and responding to Lexington
> (who’s, ironically enough, far more coherent than
> Mike in his arguments), I’m done with this discussion.
Don’t let the saloon-clappers knock your hat off on the way out, Yosemite.
Mike18xxon 03 Jul 2008 at 4:45 pm 38> I have never found any leftist to be coherant but thats just my opinion…ha ha ha..
Stephanie, if you think I’m a leftist, trundle on off to this thread and read my responses to Pamela: http://dirtyharrysplace.com/?p=2195
Now, who’s a leftist?
Kiton 03 Jul 2008 at 6:46 pm 39In the argument of Mike18xx vs. David Marcoe:
David Marcoe is the victor!
In the argument of Lexington vs. David MArcoe:
David Marcoe is the victor!
David,
Good job on quoting the Founding Fathers.
Mike18xxon 03 Jul 2008 at 7:14 pm 40In the argument of Kit vs. his navel:
The belly-button is the victor!
(And I could quote Thomas Paine all day if you’d like.)
pandaxon 04 Jul 2008 at 5:55 am 41Mike18xx
When you write the word “seem” like that, what you’re really saying is that you don’t know squat about me, and, rather than simply asking me what I think, will instead just guess.
I love guys like you who judge everyone else but then get steamed when someone does the same to them. Seems you don’t anything about me but you already know I don’t do an honest days work because I’m a cop. Talk about faulty logic.
Funny you hate cops but if you follow the logic isn’t the military the ultimate and final tool in the evil government’s seizure of power?
Of course for every cop like me on a blog there is a “libertarian” who claims to hate our current government but when you get right down to it wants no government at all. This is why libertarians are pretty much equal to communists, sure the idea sounds great in theory but when put into practice it’s a complete and total disaster.
Dirty Harry’s Place… » Weekend B.O. — “Hancock” Stalls, “Kittredge” Bombson 04 Jul 2008 at 1:15 pm 42[…] Moguls tracks the day to day and reports that after a robust start Hancock flattened out yesterday. All the talk about a $110 - $120 million weekend has quieted. Kit […]
Mike18xxon 04 Jul 2008 at 5:07 pm 43Pandax> Of course for every cop like me….
I *knew* it.
It’s all there: The rock-headed, reflexive aversion to logic, the blustering swagger borne of the knowledge of being “made” and able to do with relish all those things denied the “little people”, the monumental mind-boggling hypocrisy, the invincible stupidity.
> This is why libertarians are pretty much equal to communists
I rest my case: You’re a complete cretin, Captain Bryant. You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about, but don’t really give much of a damn anyway because that sort of minimal rationality is an acute liability in your profession, circa these days. And, should you be “dirty”, it’d make you the package deal.
==//==
“In history books, he’s the kind of cop that used to call black men ‘niggers’.”
Mike Kriskeyon 05 Jul 2008 at 12:04 am 44That’s just pure hate and ugliness right there.
Jack Marinoon 05 Jul 2008 at 1:51 am 45David I salute your patience. Lexington has been around libertas and now he is here with his wacky liberal views. Lex blogs on here to rile us up, he is like a guy who farts in an empty elevator, gets off, so the next group can smell his global warming as they get on.
The age of Rush Limbaugh?? That is a bad thing? Rush, Ann, Sean, Savage are the product or reaction of 30 years of liberal control of the networks, radio, newspapers and Hollywood. Newton states, ” for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” You leftist created Rush Limbaugh the conservatives didn’t. Rush got on the radio and he just preached to a huge vast choir who was going numb by hearing the madness of Walter Cronkites and the rest of the Kennedy, LBJ liberal anchormen.
This is why Rush is the biggest thing in radio, he didn’t make the audience out there, he just supplied a product and the demand was sitting there will open ears and sent him threw the roof.
Not one liberal radio personality, movie star or TV anchor can get the ratings or popularity that these people have. This little thin blonde Ann Coulter fights as if she is a democrat. She uses the same tactics the Dems have called republicans since the 50s. She is a constitutional attorney and she can write like no one in this country. She has more courage then 90% of the conservatives in this country. She goes after the liberals the way the liberals arrack conservatives for 50 years. You libs created these people because you are deep down wannabe fascist and you want total control of all our lives and you will NEVER do it. Liberals are in the minority now as they were in the 60s. You own and run 80% of the media and you think by now you would have turned every conservative into a liberal. You’ve only help to create more conservatives and your ranks are getting smaller.
Look at your war on poverty since LBJ. You libs have extorted trillions upon trillions from hard working tax paying Americans to fight this war that has only made more poor people of all Americans. I refuse to break us down into nice little leftist categories. We have Americans in this country who bust their asses each and everyday and then we have Americans and now illegals who are slackers and moochers off the rest of us via the extortionist mobsters called the Democratic party. Liberals are losing the cultural war and Obama is their last Hurrah, they lose the White House to McCain and the Republicans regain the Senate. We are what, one vote or two majority?
You libs have screamed and blamed Bush for everything and you have worn it out. Now you are blaming Bush for the gas prices and the DEMS won’t drill, this is all going to backfire.
Mike18xxon 05 Jul 2008 at 2:35 am 46> That’s just pure hate and ugliness right there.
It’s what he rates, Kriskey.
He’s a smirking tax-leech.
USS Benon 05 Jul 2008 at 3:20 am 47Unhinged: see Mike18xx
Dude, you gotta do somethin’ about that paranoia you have.
A bit of paranoia is healthy but over-the-top paranoia like yours indicates major problems that need treatment.
Sorry to burst your bubble but there’s no conspiracy by police officers to create a fascist state, and the United states ain’t nazi Germany.
Sheesh!
David Marcoeon 05 Jul 2008 at 3:23 am 48Mike believes what he believes and that’s his right. His isn’t going to change his mind. Trying to debate it any further doesn’t achieve anything except turning the whole affair into dueling jibes.
pandaxon 05 Jul 2008 at 3:49 am 49David Marcoe, USS Ben, Mike Kriskey, Jack Marino
Thanks guys. It’s nice to know I’ve got people if not agree with me see what a hater Mikey is. No matter how many of him are out there I’ll do my job and be proud of it. Not matter what Mikey “thinks” I ain’t prefect I’m like you guys just trying to my best. It’s tempting to bait Mikey some more but as you said David it’s pretty useless to argue with someone who thinks he knows everything. Actually one of the most dangerous kind of people.
Mike18xxon 05 Jul 2008 at 9:30 am 50USS Ben:
> Sorry to burst your bubble but there’s no conspiracy
> by police officers to create a fascist state, and the
> United states ain’t nazi Germany.
Not yet, but the trend is clear. Go ahead and ask pandax whether he enforces that or not.
BTW, have you got your kids their “Indentured Servent: I owe a quarter-million dollars already!” forehead tattoos yet? You should get right on that.
(Glen Beck is wrong on one aspect, btw; the government needn’t jack taxes out of orbit to pay for all that — it can merely inflate the currency into toilet-paper status. Ask yourself what’s been going on with prices the last couple years, and take a wild guess what’s happening.)
==//==
Anybody who believes that all of this is going to end in any way other than badly…is out of their mind.
Kiton 05 Jul 2008 at 10:26 am 51One Question
How did we go from a discussion about a summer action flick to a debate about the roles of government?
pandaxon 05 Jul 2008 at 6:58 pm 52Here’s one to ask you mikey. You said your father was a deputy so that makes you the son of a tax leech, so you were raised on money your father never honestly earned? Man talk about your double standards.
Jimboon 07 Jul 2008 at 4:51 pm 53You overrate it Harry. The movie I found pretty boring during its second half. You raised my hopes up in thinking the negative reviews were just liberals bashing anything not liberal but that was not the case. Hancock starts off well and I liked the idea of a Superhero who is a total asshole. The action was decent and a few poltically incorrect moments did give me a smile. However I found the story slow and contreived and in the end really without purpose. Hancock wasn’t a terrible movie but giving it the same score as Iron Man and a higher score then the far superior Incredible Hulk was a lack of judgement