After 25-plus years in journalism, I can pretty easily write 700-1,000 words in one sitting -- sometimes, depending on the topic and how much reporting and research have been done ahead of time, I can hit 1,000 words in about an hour. And they're usually coherent! It's one skill I know I have.
The last few years, though, I've done a few more reported magazine-style pieces. Not terribly lengthy -- usually in the 2,500-word range -- and, hoo boy. It's a whole different process. It's not just longer. I have to think my way through the structure of a piece more. And I have to be willing not to do it in one setting -- the attempt can nearly destroy me.
Instead, I have to break the work up -- writing for an hour here, an hour there, until I get my draft. I'm accustomed to a "see the assignment, write the assignment" kind of process, so slowing down and taking chunks is unfamiliar to me. It requires me to stretch my skills and even learn new ones. It is not in my comfort zone. But it seems worth doing. Not just because I get paid for it (though that's important) but because it helps me stay fresh. This is hard stuff. Which, in this case, means it's worth doing.
I am sorry that the death of John Kelly's son has become a political issue, but I am not sympathetic to this:
But Mr. Kelly, who served for more than 40 years in the Marines, has told associates that a retired four-star general should not come out against a sitting president in the heat of a political campaign, even though former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, another retired four-star Marine general, publicly criticized Mr. Trump in June for lacking “mature leadership” and trying to divide rather than unite the country.
“He wants to avoid taking a position that might be perceived as political,” said Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired four-star Marine Corps general and a close friend of Mr. Kelly, who had not spoken to him since the publication of the Atlantic article. “I also think he takes to heart the commitment to confidentiality in matters related to their interaction with the president.”
I don't buy it.
If Kelly wanted to preserve his neutrality as a former four-star general he shouldn't have taken on the political roles of Secretary of Homeland Security and chief of staff to this president. He chose to enter the realm of politics. His asserting of military neutrality is a bit late, then, and only works to obscure the deficiencies of the president. It's an excuse -- one that serves Trump, not the American people.
A follow-up thought on the controversy over whether Donald Trump disrespected troops: It is clear that some people genuinely love their country and admire military service as a result. But it is also obvious that a lot of people are more interested in using patriotism (and a related respect for the military) as a means to their own empowerment.
Trump's also likes feeling like a tough guy: That's why he loves military parades and pardoning war criminals. But the key thing to note about him is that he is almost entirely transactional. From that Atlantic piece:
“He can’t fathom the idea of doing something for someone other than himself,” one of Kelly’s friends, a retired four-star general, told me. “He just thinks that anyone who does anything when there’s no direct personal gain to be had is a sucker. There’s no money in serving the nation.”
We should view Trump's displays of militiaphilia in the same terms we do his relationship with evangelicals: He'd probably toss them under the bus in a second if doing so were to his advantage. Patriotism isn't always the refugee of the scoundrel -- sometimes it's the cudgel used by power-hungry grifters.
This is very simple. Somebody needs to ask John Kelly, on the record, if it happened or not. Or Kelly can step forward to deny it of his own volition. If he does so, we move on and The Atlantic loses its credibility. But I feel confident the reporting will hold up -- it's certainly in keeping with what Trump has said and done publicly and on the record.
That said, I can't help but feel somebody like Tucker Carlson is watching and taking notes for 2024. You can get away with mishandling the pandemic, racist policies, undermining America's democratic norms and generally being unpleasant and bad for the country -- and that might be Carlson's agenda, too. But he'll be too smart to ever badmouth the military. Trumpism with a little bit of self-restraint and self-discipline will be a terrible and terrifying thing for the country. The original is bad enough.
Vulture says G3 is getting a rerelease in theaters: " In honor of the film’s 30th anniversary, this edit of The Godfather Part III will feature some exciting new punctuation and will be called Mario Puzo’s THE GODFATHER, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone, according to a press release from Paramount Pictures."
I love the Godfather pictures -- I'm a middle-aged white guy, and I've only recently come to realize how much that makes me a cliche -- and my dirty secret is I don't think Part III is actually that bad.
Don't get me wrong: Pacino is way over the top in this movie. I would love to know how the silent Michael Corleone of the 1950s became the shouty guy of the late 1970s, but I suspect that's more a Pacino thing than a story thing.
That said, it has all the elements of a potentially great Part III:
* A young up-and-comer who wants to carry on the family legacy, even though...
* The king, who turned to a life of crime to protect his family, wants to get out of crime...
* ...and ends up sacrificing his family, the people he loves, because of the choices he made throughout his life.
It's a tragedy, man. And the end -- Corleone's death, set to Cavlleria Rusticana -- is wonderful. No assassination. Just death, coming for the king as it comes for us all:
It's beautiful. And imperfect. The new edit probably can't salvage Pacino's performance -- but maybe it can find the better movie I know is lurking within.