nancynall.com » The theoretical lionheart.

The theoretical lionheart.

While we’re on the bum­mer theme, let’s get this out of the way: Saw United 93 the other night, and watched the cred­its roll with mixed feel­ings. The sim­ple truth is: This is a beau­ti­fully writ­ten and shot movie about an almost unbear­ably painful event absolutely no one wants to see. I was enor­mously impressed, and I never want to see it again.

But I’m glad this movie is out there, and that it sets a few bars, includ­ing the most impor­tant one: We really don’t know what hap­pened up there. We know some things, but they’re just flash frames; the whole movie went down with the plane, along with any­one who saw it. It was easy to fear, in the anguished, crazy time after 9/11, that the first films made about the tragedy would have highly par­ti­san nar­ra­tives that would push one ver­sion of events over another. “United 93″ doesn’t do that. No one stands up and says, “Let’s roll!” and leads the group to a gal­lant death. It looks, in its no-recognizable-actors way, very much like news footage.

And, if you’ve ever been through a remark­able event, it has the feel of truth. The pas­sen­gers never act like Bruce Willis in the “Die Hard” movies; they look about to piss them­selves from fright, even when they’re being as brave as peo­ple can be. And in the last min­utes, when the cock­pit door has been bat­tered down and the final strug­gle is tak­ing place, no one man or woman steps for­ward to be the hero — all we see are a dozen dif­fer­ent hands, all strain­ing to get to the con­trols, before the cam­era turns to see the view from the wind­shield. The world turns upside down, and the ground rushes up to meet every­one. The end.

“I bet you’d have been one of those guys,” I told Alan afterward.

“One never knows,” he said.

No, one doesn’t. Really, one doesn’t. We all like to think we’d be brave, but we don’t know until we know, and by then it’s a lit­tle late to argue. Of course, it’s never too late for right-wing morons to star in their own lit­tle imag­i­nary movie:

Set­ting aside the ludi­crous cam­pus ban on licensed con­ceals, why didn’t any­one rush the guy? It’s not like this was Rambo, hos­ing the place down with auto­matic weapons. He had two hand­guns for good­ness’ sake — one of them report­edly a .22.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reload­ing or chang­ing hands. Bet­ter yet, just jump him. Hand­guns aren’t very accu­rate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can’t hit squat. I doubt this guy was any bet­ter than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find some­thing impor­tant to do real dam­age — your chances aren’t bad.

Yes, at the very least, “count the shots,” such a nat­ural response when the door to your class­room swings open and a mad­man walks in, guns blaz­ing. And check out the bal­lis­tics report from a guy who hasn’t been any closer to a real fire­fight than a TV screen. I know I said I wasn’t going to read any of this stuff, but some­times it just jumps in front of you.

So, to the bloggage:

Jack Shafer’s defense of pushy reporters is good enough, but he had me at this passage:

The gold stan­dard for jour­nal­is­tic insen­si­tiv­ity was estab­lished in the 1960s by an unnamed British TV reporter who was trawl­ing for news at a Congo air­port. Accord­ing to for­eign cor­re­spon­dent Edward Behr’s 1978 mem­oir, the Brit walked through the crowd of ter­ri­fied Bel­gian colo­nials who were evac­u­at­ing, and shouted, “Any­one here been raped and speaks English?”

I doubt I’ll ever cover break­ing news again, but if I do, I’m going to use that line. You know, just for laughs.

Yours truly had another radio essay on the air yes­ter­day, on “Detroit Today,” on WDET, our (what else?) pub­lic sta­tion. Find it here. Requires Quick­Time, etc. The edit isn’t pre­cise, so when it goes to music at about two-thirds through, it’s over. The pro­ducer didn’t trim the music; prob­a­bly too busy. One of these days I’ll get out QT Pro and do a nice fade-out, but for now, band­width hog it shall remain.

We had a fam­ily discussion/argument about split peas the other day, over, what else, a din­ner of split-pea soup — I made the last pot of the sea­son, using up the rem­nants of the Easter ham and ban­ish­ing these mad­den­ingly slow-to-exit chilly days. Never mind the specifics of the argu­ment; I will end up look­ing par­tic­u­larly stu­pid, and besides, I con­tend that I never sug­gested split peas were sep­a­rated by hard-working immi­grants using tiny vises, chis­els and ham­mers, only that the so-called split pea is not a sep­a­rate species from the green pea found in Green Giant cans and pods in the gro­cery store.

News flash: It is indeed a dif­fer­ent ani­mal. Ahem:

field pea
A vari­ety of yel­low or green pea grown specif­i­cally for dry­ing. These peas are dried and usu­ally split along a nat­ural seam, in which case they’re called split peas.
Source: epi­cu­ri­ous

But as fre­quently hap­pens to the curi­ous, epi– and oth­er­wise, the research led me down half a dozen paths of delight, includ­ing that of Pea Soup Andersen’s, a leg­endary bit of Cal­i­for­nia kitsch that appears to be the Franken­muth of the west coast. Any­way, one of these days I’m going to make it out there for a visit, as I love pea soup in all its incar­na­tions. I’m sure LA Mary knows the owner, and can arrange a kitchen tour.

And now, I remind you that split peas are a high-fiber food, and com­bined with two cups of cof­fee — whoa, gotta go. Later!

23 responses to
“The theoretical lionheart.”

  1. alex said on April 18th, 2007 at 9:55 am

    Pea Soup Andersen’s — I never thought I’d hear of it again. In the sum­mer of ’76 my fam­ily took a long vaca­tion in north­ern Cal­i­for­nia and we kept going back to that place because the food was superb. Who would have thought any­one could get excited about pea soup, espe­cially a fam­ily with lit­tle kids?

  2. Peter said on April 18th, 2007 at 10:07 am

    Oh my god, I don’t believe it — we just came back yes­ter­day from a run down Cal­fior­nia 1/US 101 and we passed by the place! All three of us saw the sign about the Birth­place of Split Pea Soup and we were totally unim­pressed — had we known!

  3. John said on April 18th, 2007 at 10:12 am

    My wife spoils me with win­ter­time treats of split pea and lentil soups. Yum Yum! That’s the kind of meal that warms you up and sticks to your ribs.

  4. John said on April 18th, 2007 at 10:17 am

    Just saw this:
    “I think that peo­ple who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it their polit­i­cal hobby horse to ride … I’ve got noth­ing but loathing for them,” Vir­ginia Gov. Tim Kaine said. “To those who want to try to make this into some lit­tle cru­sade, I say take that elsewhere.”

    JHC! Could we get pols and pun­dits to agree to do this for­ever about everything?

  5. nancy said on April 18th, 2007 at 10:22 am

    A very, very wise, learned woman who still looks incred­i­bly young for her age — yes [blushes mod­estly], I believe it was moi — once wrote:

    I was a colum­nist and I remem­ber 9/11, and I’m will­ing to for­give an awful lot of the crap that was said and writ­ten in the after­math. We all went a lit­tle crazy. But I thought then, and I think now, that if you’re will­ing to climb to the top of a pile of 3,000 of your countrymen’s corpses to advance your stu­pid social agenda, you are beneath contempt.

    Do I get a prize?

  6. brian stouder said on April 18th, 2007 at 10:36 am

    Do I get a prize?

    If I’m ever the judge, yes!

  7. ashley said on April 18th, 2007 at 11:19 am

    By the way, they sell Anderson’s in cans, in case you can’t make it out there.

    Der­byshire is a putz. Too bad Bruce Lee isn’t around to kick his ass. Again.

    “Count the shots.” Yep, Tex, all we got ’round these parts are six-shooters. Or maybe he can tell the dif­fer­ence by sound between a Glock 19 and a Glock 21.

    “A very, very wise, learned woman who still looks incred­i­bly young for her age”. Busty. You for­got “Busty”.

    I know I didn’t. ;^)

  8. brian stouder said on April 18th, 2007 at 11:40 am

    never over­look the bust

  9. nancy said on April 18th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    I like the line, “Hand­guns aren’t very accu­rate, even at close range.” Huh? What the hell does that mean? Oh, wait, he explains: “I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can’t hit squat.” Behold the rea­son­ing: You should rush a guy fir­ing two hand­guns, because they aren’t very accu­rate. I know this because I’m a bad marks­man. Monday-morning quar­ter­backs are one thing, but this is in a whole dif­fer­ent league.

  10. 4dbirds said on April 18th, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    Your typ­i­cal Amer­i­can teen who plays video games has hun­dreds to thou­sands of hours of marks­man­ship train­ing under his belt whether he knows it or not. That, a very trou­bled per­son and the fact that mod­ern hand­guns ARE accu­rate can make for the tragedy at VT. Being a good shot isn’t hard. I scored expert each and every time I had to qual­ify on my weapon (first a Colt 45 then a Baretta 9mm) when I served in the mil­i­tary. That isn’t brag­ging, it’s just an acknowl­ege­ment to good train­ing and good sidearms. Some of that train­ing was video simulation.

  11. brian stouder said on April 18th, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    Hey — ring the bell for Fort Wayne native intel­li­gence and wisdom.

    At lunch today I changed the chan­nel from Pammy’s movie on Life­time (she had fallen asleep) to MSNBC, and there was a lunatic woman argu­ing that uni­ver­sity stu­dents should be allowed to pack heat at school!! I was quite lit­er­ally groan­ing as I fum­bled for the remote — at that point the Life­time movie was look­ing like a bet­ter choice — and then I heard a famil­iar, reas­sur­ing voice of reason.

    Look­ing up, who do I see on a nation­wide satel­lite tv pun­ditry yell-fest? None other than good ol’ Mayor Helmke, there in his capac­ity as a gun con­trol advo­cate from the Brady group. And the mayor main­tained an even tone, and ignored the loud inter­rup­tions and inces­sant yam­mer­ing of the boor­ish lunatic; basi­cally flat­ten­ing her with suc­cinct, on-point com­mon sense (one great bit was when he said some­thing like ‘here’s three rea­sons not to arm college-age stu­dents: hor­mones, alco­hol, and stress)

    maybe the whole world isn’t com­pletely insane, afterall

  12. Marcia said on April 18th, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    Yes, you get a prize. I didn’t know about the busty thing, though, since we didn’t get to meet. : (

    I felt exactly the same about United 93. I picked it up at Block­buster when they were hav­ing one of those used DVD sales, and after I watched it I gave it away, because I knew I’d never watch it again. No need.

  13. joodyb said on April 18th, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    i came here specif­i­cally to see if i any­one had heard Helmke today, won­der­ing what the deal was on him, won­der­ing what the response in the com­ments would be. my ears went up at the men­tion of Ft. Wayne, of course.

    the pro­gram­ming chil­dren of depres­sion babies endure! i’ve been eying the easter ham­bone and thus dragged out the bag of lentils this ayem. i have enough in my larder for quite the pot de feu: 10 pearl onions, 8 left­over baby red pota­toes (tho at this point they are more like teens, i spose) half a pound of fresh green beans and brown rice. oh, and some fresh thyme and chives and pars­ley. any other suggestions?

  14. michaelj said on April 18th, 2007 at 8:54 pm

    That well-regulated mili­tia the NRA thinks jus­ti­fies some New Wild West, let the aholes takes their asses to Bagh­dad and put down ter­rism before it fol­lows us home.

    Peo­ple don’t think this self-grandioose bull­shit con­nects with putting a sock in it and land­ing on an air­craft car­rier, well, the Scot­tie dog might have pissed in their ear when the pret­zel knocked their ass out. And we need to mon­i­tor library bor­row­ing but the Tejas leg­is­la­ture thinks the iden­tity of secret pack­ers should be sacrosanct.

    I’ve got an idea that it’s eas­ier to ascribe evil to a venal inva­sion for profit than to some clearly nutso guy in Blacks­burg. And to the wack­job lob­by­ists that didn’t just arm him, they gave him a 31-shot clip. The 31-shot clip was a bou­quet from the admin­is­tra­tion to the NRA, and a repu­di­a­tion of the Brady Act. For what rea­son? Can some gun nut explain this? I sup­pose, if his fel­low stu­dents had also had the banana clips…And if it takes 31 shots to bring down Bambi, should you be trusted with a gun? So we actu­ally want you in our militia?

    But I sup­pose some­body pretty clearly nuts still has his Sec­ond Amend­ment Rights, even though they’re about as real as the voices telling him to pull the trigger.

  15. brian stouder said on April 18th, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    regard­ing United 93, or that Nicholas Cage movie — or pretty much any of the oth­ers — I don’t plan on ever watch­ing them.

    I remem­ber when I was maybe 15 years old, yap­ping with our neigh­bor across the street about some Sec­ond World War movie I had seen, and she matter-of-factly told me she never watches any of those movies; she lived through those days, read the news­pa­pers, lost friends and loved ones — and didn’t need to see it.

    I “get” that now; it is how I feel about 9/11 movies. I’ll read non-fiction books on the sub­ject, but pass on some Hol­ly­wood star-turn treat­ment (think­ing of the Cage movie here.…although Pammy and our 11 year old son watched that movie, and were impressed by it)

  16. John said on April 19th, 2007 at 7:45 am

    For those still pon­der­ing the bust thing.

  17. nancy said on April 19th, 2007 at 7:56 am

    You bad boy. Inter­est­ing trivia: The per­son sit­ting next to me in that photo is the rich­est per­son I’ve ever known per­son­ally. Heiress to two vast Mid­west­ern for­tunes. Had one of those upper east side apart­ments where the ele­va­tor opened onto her front door, and no other. (The front door was left open all the time. She never car­ried keys. Her neigh­bors were other peo­ple like her, and secu­rity was the doorman’s job.) A fun girl, but had a bit of a drink­ing problem.

  18. John said on April 19th, 2007 at 8:06 am

    I am a bad boy and enjoy sopho­moric humor, so sue me! Hey, I can’t help it if you are good look­ing and very funny (but not so much mod­est, you know?). By the way, I am older than you (who will hit the big one later this year) and clearly have entered into my DOM stage of life.

  19. LA mary said on April 19th, 2007 at 11:03 am

    Unfor­tu­nately, I don’t know any of the pea soup Ander­sens. I’ve eaten in the Buell­ton and San Diego branches, and my kids loved the soup there even as tod­dlers.
    United 93 was a great movie, and the lack of action stars and cow­boys had a lot to do with that. Why do peo­ple have to cow­boy it up? That woman who copy­righted the phrase, “let’s roll,” aaargh. My kids were com­pletely silent dur­ing the whole movie, which is rare. Usu­ally Pete will decide to report skate­board­ing adven­tures in real time when I’m watch­ing some­thing intently.

  20. Bill B. said on April 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    From Pea Soup’s web­site “We spe­cial­ize in freshly baked pas­tries that will please your pallet.”.….……Back up the fork lift, I’m get­tin’ some.…..

  21. Ricardo said on April 19th, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    LA Mary, Ander­sens is Buell­ton, north of Santa Bar­bara. I’ve been to Buell­ton and Franken­muth, one is Dan­ish, one Ger­man. Buell­ton also has Dan­ish bak­eries other than Ander­sens. There used to be a Franken­muth Beer. I won­der if they still make it or revived the name now that micro-breweries are back in style.

  22. LA mary said on April 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am

    I meant I didn’t know any mem­bers of the Ander­sen fam­ily. I know the restaurants.

  23. MaryC said on April 20th, 2007 at 11:30 am

    These blowhards who fan­ta­size about tak­ing the gun­man down make me think of an exchange I had in a Law & Order Usenet group. The episode we were dis­cussing had a sim­i­lar sce­nario – stu­dents gunned down by a sin­gle gun­man – based, I think, on Marc Lepine’s ram­page at the Ecole Poly­tech­nic in Montreal.

    One of the posters made the usual claim that if the stu­dents and bystanders had been armed, they could have taken out the gun­man and saved lives. Here’s the thing – as we dis­cussed the episode, this guy had all of the details wrong. Whether or not the cops were already on the scene when the shoot­ing started, how many vic­tims there were – all that. Here’s a guy who’s sit­ting com­fort­ably in front of the TV watch­ing a cop show and expect­ing to see may­hem. And he still doesn’t know what it was that he saw.

    I asked him what if, assum­ing that he was there and that he and every­one else were armed, he saw some­one run­ning past him with a gun. And then he saw some­one else run­ning past him with a gun, chas­ing the first per­son. Which one is the killer and which one is the stu­dent? Which one does he shoot? And how does he han­dle the manslaugh­ter charge and the family’s law­suit when he shoots the wrong guy? And while he’s shoot­ing, which other pan­icky bystander will be aim­ing at him? I never did get an answer as I recall