And with respect, I do think that some articles in Chronicles comment rather uncharitably about the "common man." TJF is certainly often prone to be uncharitable in his assessments of modern-day Americans. I don't think lack of charity is neccessarily uncalled for; often it is quite called for. But it is uncharitable (perhaps even somewhat mean) just the same.

And... refined gentlemen can't/don't commit horrific crimes? I'm not sure what world you're living in.

"Dude" in quotes was a tongue-in-cheek mocking of your undiscriminating taste in addressing others....realizing that you are most likely yourself kidding in using it.

It is a bit silly to engage in dissecting the use of a character like Hannibal, but if we must:

He is absolutely a marxist caricature because figures like his simply rarely exist in real life and are designed to make us believe otherwise. I believe a famous writer once wrote, and it is often repeated on this site, that the loss of manners is the first step in a slippery slope towards nihilistic behavior. Think of the reverse. When have real aristocrats (not celebrity imitators, mind you) with good manners and impeccable taste been found to be homicidal, cannibalistic psychopaths? Yes, you occasionally have the Klaus von Bulows of the world that give one pause. But is there some rampant murderous aristocratic secret society that I have been overlooking? And before you cite some modern head of state as a mass murderer, consider that these figures are usually poorly-mannered nouveau-riche imitators of true gentlemen. Hannibal is fiction designed by the likes of Jonathon Demme, the same director whose chief concerns, at least according to the themes of movies like Philadelphia, align with the typical modern liberal-marxist thought process of victimization and victimizer. Clearly, an otherwise well-mannered afficionado of high art with a "fancy" British accent must be the cannibalistic murderer, just like the German and Serbian terrorist that rarely, if ever, existed in real life, must be the "bad guy", and precisely in line with how the unlikely minority is usually used as the nuclear physicist and computer scientist character.

The point most on this site are trying to make is that the films of today are unintelligent, vulgar pieces of propoganda and you are using one of their ugliest characters as a prop to prove a point that has no substance amongst this crowd.

Who here on this thread or on any other thread on the site has been demeaning ordinary people with lesser tastes. To lament the fact that widespread ignorance and poor taste do indeed exist is not the same as treating those people uncharitably, as you suggest. It is in fact an analysis of a very real situation we face today. Unlike the liberal manipulators of our state apparatus, paleocons do not consider the oridnary folks of our nation (whose taste in politics, shopping, art, etc may be questioned) convenient consumers and cannon fodder.

So, sir, as with my previous post, I again end in saying I do not recognize what you are talking about and gently suggest that you may be entirely off base, if you stop and consider.

Hannibal was depraved and evil, but he was intelligent, articulate, and he did have impeccable taste. He didn't mind murdering and eating people who annoyed him, but the people who annoyed him tended to be people who didn't have the same kind of impeccable taste that he had. My point was simply that he was a really wicked man but one who had discriminating taste (I'll bet he never frequented a Walmart or a shopping mall)-- hence, with the example of Hannibal Lecter in mind, having discriminating taste doesn't make someone a good person.

My larger point is while having discriminating taste is a good thing, lacking discriminating taste ought not be seen as a moral deficiency.

Your interpretation of Hannibal Lecter as a Marxist caricature doesn't exactly work, given that he's a sort of anti-hero; audiences end up liking him and finding him charming in spite of themselves. If he were a Marxist caricature of an aristocrat, the audience would be manipulated to despise him, not like him.

"Hannibal the Cannibal" ate people! My, what discriminating taste he demonstrated! His was a marxist / pop-cultural caricature of the evil aristocrat that literally lived off the people. To invoke this image is to further my point. Aristocratic manners and discriminating tastes are to be lauded not demeaned. And the ability to discriminate (in art, food, manners, etc) is indeed a virtue.

Furthermore, I have yet to find a more staunch defense of oridinary people, particularly of those in "fly-over country" where the Rockford Institute is located, than that mustered by the regulars at Chronicles and their palecon friends on this site.

So, please tell me again, "dude", what is your point?

http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/19750892.html

For what it's worth, it's shown me that celebrities are no different than the average man when faced with drug addiction. I too am a recovering addict (Oxycontin, followed by heroin), and seeing this reminds me of the same hopelessness that I felt during those dark and hazy times. The difference is that I found God while Ledger submitted to his despair. I'm not saddened by his death; I never met the man. But in a way I sympathize because I know all too well what he was going through. Every soul is important and I wish the best for all of us. And regardless of his sinful lifestyle, I would have preferred that he found faith and converted rather then turn up dead in a hotel room. This is a pathetic story, indeed.

I believe you are confusing snobbery with discriminating taste. The latter is considered un-PC these days and you very much sound like the PC police in your posts here, despite your professing so much common ground with paleocons.

All this reminds me of a former friend I had that went to work for the "right honorable" Tony Blair as part of his election machine. In order to better get in tune with the common people and better prepare Mr. Blair for governing, my acquaintance spent his days reading tabloids and trash novels and watching soap operas and then somehow synthesizing something from this garbage for the would-be prime minister.

One had hoped that he would simply acknowledge that he was trying to understand the undiscriminating minds of society so as to more easily manipulate them, but he actually went so far as to defend the merits of the trash he was consuming - Britain's "pop culture", if you will. Political Correctness actually had devoured what little the fellow had of a discriminating mind. He too thought it was snobbery to elevate Shakespeare above Coronation Street.

That's what happens when you get educated at Oxford. Trully sad.

Mr. Richert,

I too am a fan of the many varieties of hot dog. One fun show to watch is the Food Network's foray across the nation in search of the best hot dog places. I am not familiar with these deep fried dogs of the south, but look forward to familiarizing myself with them soon. All the best places they feature are indeed mom-and-pops or mom-and-pops that made it big and now feature two or three shops.