Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brian
Mar 6
suggestions.
Robert, were your comments referring to Teds post
or the link to the cold fusion article that followed? It
is not clear to me how this article connects to our
discussion.
What Ted said about the context of discovery vs.
the context of verification is extremely important
and gets at something that Ken and I have been
talking about quite a bit on this list. I have argued
that theoretical (as opposed to empirical) work has
a legitimate place in psychohistory. It is legitimate
to ask what evidence supports a theory, but the
person who creates the theory should not
necessarily be required to answer this question.
That is the task of empirical researchers.
Sometimes the same person creates a theory and
works to verify it. More commonly, these tasks are
done by different groups of people.
In fact this division of labor is often institutionalized
in different subfields of the same discipline, such
as theoretical and experimental physics or
economic theory (e.g. Keynes) and econometrics.
In psychohistory, DeMause is a theorist and it
remains for others to test his theories. This is
exactly what Ted has done. The data set he has
assembled is a good one for testing the theory. If
917-628-8253
Mar 6
this ... and this ... and this .... and this further
avalanche of facts, because out any old dusty
cellar might have emerged the telling difference!
It's a way of keeping a whole field, better to
oneself, and away from the young.
-- Patrick
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
Mar 6
J. I. (Hans`) Bakker
Mar 6
10
11
J. I. Bakker
Brian
Mar 6
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Mar 7
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mar 7
26
immunizes parents."
But, aren't there plenty of
researchers demonstrating particular mental and
physical consequences of child abuse?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/child_abuse.
htm
If I read Patrick's post correctly:
The hypothesis
(assertion?) proposed is: Advocates for scientific
research on particular psychohistorical hypotheses
(group 1) are substantially populated by
the "emotionally unhealthy."
At the risk of a priori confirming my mother's abuse
of me by even posing the question: I think the
hypothesis needs more scientific study.
B
Ken Fuchsman
Mar 7
27
Mar 7
28
Brian
Mar 7
29
30
Mar 7
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Joel Markowitz
We should again try to clarify the differences
between the
psychodynamics of the INDIVIDUAL -- and the
psychodynamics of
GROUPS-- in history.
No one would dispute the value of maternal love in
the evolution of
individuals. It tends to be a major source of selfacceptance, selfconfidence, courage and of social advantages ...
38
39
40
Feb 17
Hi Joel.
E.g., many individuals in many PRIMITIVE
subgroups have been brought
up with the advantages of significant maternal love
and acceptance.
You bring up how well DeMause documented the
West's brutal childrearing, but you don't reference
at all the work he did to establish the allegedly
miraculous childrearing of tribal cultures as in fact
completely wretched. (For those who want to
explore that, you an go here, and here). What
gives? ... I hope not that the very same people who
enjoy seeing the West's past as barbaric,
profoundly want primitive subgroups to be
idealized?
As you know, in the DeMausian view, other than
what he calls the helping psychoclass -- which has
only very recently come into existence -- every
single other psychoclass has got some major
problems with it. However, each new wretched
class that appeared was superior than the one
before it. E.g. the socializing psychoclass -- which
41
Feb 17
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: maternal love
Patrick,
42
43
Feb 18
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: maternal love
This conversation is beyond my area of my
expertise, but I do have some opinions which Ill
share in the hopes that more informed people will
take the discussion further. Yes, Molly, it seems to
me that parental love for infants will normally be
ambivalent, even if the love they received as
infants was not. Lets take the ideal case of an
infant reared with unambivalent love.
Notwithstanding this ideal environment, the infant
will necessarily experience the mother ambivalently
in the first three months of life during the paranoidschizoid position, as shown by Melanie Klein. In
the ideal case, the child will transcend this position
in the normal course of development and, if they
encounter little or no further trauma in their life, this
paranoid-schizoid complex will have no apparent
effect on their adult personality.
However, the paranoid schizoid experience
remains in the unconscious unless integrated into
the personality through psychoanalysis or some
similar process. As an adult, caring for their own
infant will necessarily evoke this unconscious
44
45
Dcarveth
Feb 18
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: maternal love
Brian,
No one ever receives unambivalent love for such
does not exist. But even if it did the infant would
hate as well as love for even unambivalent love
would not be able to protect the infant from
frustration. Not even unambivalent love, which
doesn't exist, could save the child from the horrible
existential fact that it cannot have its cake and eat
it too--not to mention the fact that no one gets out
of here alive. Given its cognitive limitations, as far
as the infant is concerned all frustration is an
attack. Hence all infants, no matter the quality of
the caretaking will be paranoid. Bad caretaking, of
course, makes it worse, and good caretaking
46
makes it better, but we all enter the paranoidschizoid position, which is not a stage but a
position, a layer of the human psyche that no one
really "transcends"--thank god, for here is where
passion resides, falling in love, the political passion
that forced FDR to implement the New Deal and
that put Hitler down, etc. As Klein explains, splitting
in PS provides the first ordering of experience;
people who can't split live in psychotic chaos;
people who can only split live in borderline
disorder; people who spend more time in D live in
neurotic conflict--but even the healthiest and most
mature revisit PS frequently (bad moods, irritability,
crankiness, but also intense lust, ecstatic love,
deep anger, etc.) but have a capacity to oscillate
back into D. Marriage that exists only in D is mostly
characterized by "dead bed" for a vital sex life
requires a capacity to experience rapid oscillations
between PS (where one's partner is an object to be
used) and D (where one's partner is one's
cherished beloved). I agree with Dinnerstein's
argument for the need for fathers and mothers to
share equally in primary caretaking.
Don
47
Brian
Feb 27
48
Feb 28
49
50
51
52
cared for.
-- Patrick
P.S. His discussion of splitting ends up being
mostly about a child's need to split off all his/her
mother's negative aspects, so s/he can imagine
her as all-loving. He says most men tend to keep
romanticized images of their mothers, period, but
discusses splitting as becoming the norm for a
whole society in his discussion of the warm-up
period for war -- when we're intent to shuck off our
individuated selves, re-bond to a maternal entity,
and war against some other, now chock-full of our
mother's negative aspects.
Alice Maher
Mar 1
Hi all,
I just posted this on my personal Facebook page
and on Twitter, and I thought I'd share it here as
well. I'm curious if you agree, and if you have any
53
54
Mar 1
55
56
57
58
Mar 1
59
60
Trevor Pederson
Mar 2
61
Brian
Mar 2
62
63
64
Mar 2
To Everyone:
"By contrast, people like Newton achieve some
kind of conscious relationship to their complexes
and instead of entirely projecting them, wrestle with
them within themselves. The complexes may still
be partially projected and continue to drive their
behavior, which is why they act neurotically in their
personal and professional lives, but within
themselves they transform their psychic garbage
into novel creative products of great value."
This sounds like locus of control, with Newton's
locus operating internally.
I've observed that those who are religious in a
traditional, abiding
sense of the term seem to operate from an external
locus of control.
And those that have a more spiritual, or even
agnostic, interaction
with faith or g/God seem to operate from an
internal locus of control.
For the most part, anyway.
65
Mar 3
66
67
68
69
-- Patrick
Barney
Mar 3
Images are not displayed
Display images in this post - Always display
images from Barney - Always display images in
Clios Psyche
Dear Patrick McEvoy-Halston,
On my planet, we say, "Don't recall history or you
will be doomed to repeat it, and make it worse."
Works, too, for us. We cannot comprehend the
sex-fiend analogy. History has no memory, no urge
for power, and no intentions. It is simply the trash
of time and like a used Kleenex, it lacks all
passion, which it leaves to historians, who lust for
detritus, for shards, for petrified structures. By that
standard, psychohistory is a study of the shed cells
of minds. There is no energy in history, only in the
historians who reclaim it and hypothesize from its
70
decay-riddled corpses.
On my planet all historians do their rituals in
private, and if they uncover hideousness (as they
do) they are honor-bound to disintegrate and
disperse it as one might a lethal virus and to take
and distribute corrective lessons from it. On my
planet, the Holocaust would be long forgotten, as
would the deaths of Hutus and Tutus and innocents
by the millions, as would be the murderousness of
knights, and kings, and presidents, and emperors
and their weapons makers, and their financiers,
and the soldiers they put in motion. On my planet,
the stupidities and viciousness of yesterday are
methodically examined and corrected with each
new day. One of the foremost proponents of
forgetting history and zeroing in on successful
progress toward brilliant pleasure (he hailed from
my planet) was the late Dr. Roger Olaf Egeberg,
the personal physician and confidant of General
Douglas MacArthur during World War Two. He told
me once about how he and his wife dealt with
history. "Every morning we are together we make
up our bed together. If we are together, we never
fail in this. It is a new day, new changes, new risks,
new possibilities."
History cannot rape, mutilate, libel, or kill you, but
historians can and may. It is often a bit humiliating
71
drwargus
Mar 2
72
Mar 2
73
74
Barney
75
Mar 2
Mar 2
76
77
Mar 2
78
79
Mar 2
80
81
82
Mar 2
Mar 2
Images are not displayed
Display images in this post - Always display
images from Barney - Always display images in
Clios Psyche
83
Mar 2
84
85
Mar 3
86
87
88
89
Mar 3
Sure, Barney!
I mean that it'd be nice to be able to talk about
DeMause's theories in a climate that is warm to it.
If you simply discuss it amongst those who see
them as (maybe) useful but extreme and
unsupported, amongst those who count
themselves amongst those who aren't avant-garde
vulnerable but within the mainstream, are
conservative, humble, modest and throughly
worthy of a pat, it's difficult to argue with the kind of
confidence that allows you to be fair to yourself and
to be inspiring to others. That's what I want for
myself, and others.
90
Mar 3
Images are not displayed
Display images in this post - Always display
images from Barney - Always display images in
Clios Psyche
Dear Patrick,
You are a natural writer and to invent words is what
really interesting and sometimes even touching
writing is all about. Glad to see you are not a slave
to fashion or tradition, but are respectful of both.
However, it is well to remember that Behoof is not
Aloof like most of the Oof family, nor is Poof or
Goof, especially when they are high like Roof and
his trusty chowhound Woof.
91
Barney
Ken Fuchsman
Mar 3
Images are not displayed
Display images in this post - Always display
images from Ken Fuchsman - Always display
images in Clios Psyche
Alice hopes that our grandchildren can forge a new
image of God. I am not sure this is what humanity
needs now or will need in the future. We have
enough ethical dilemmas to keep us occupied.
The notion that we should do unto others what we
want them to do to us is in some form a human
universal. Yet much of humanity's success as a
species is built on killing other animals and those
within our own species. Those cultures which have
been most advanced culturally and intellectually
have also been militarily exploitative. What has
advanced us as a species and what are our
ethics conflict. Our continued history of brutality
and exploitation, and the necessity to kill or destroy
to live creates dilemmas that few if any religions
92
93
Mar 3
Brian ,
You claimed that there are fundamental truths
about objective reality. My point is that there is no
94
Mar 3
Images are not displayed
Display images in this post - Always display
images from Brian - Always display images in
Clios Psyche
Bill, to say that there is no objective reality sounds
solipsistic to me. Please clarify what you mean.
Isnt the physical world an objective reality? If
someone finds herself working in a minimum-wage
job, isnt that an objective reality? If someone is
dying of cancer, isnt that an objective reality?
What are you talking about?
95
96
Mar 3
97
Trevor Pederson
98
Mar 3
Images are not displayed
Display images in this post - Always display
images from Trevor Pederson - Always display
images in Clios Psyche
Bill
The world in many respects very, very regular and
people aren't having disagreements all the time
about whether 2+2=4, whether the stop sign at the
corner of a road means you should stop driving
your car, or about whether a man is a tall man or
not. We play these language games fairly
consistently and regularly with a lot of agreement.
When it comes to whether we should implement
liberal or conservative economic policies, talk
about what someone's motivations for a certain
behavior were, or have opinions about how others
might regard us then there most certainly is a lot of
illusion out there.
I don't think the illusions in the second group mean
we must disregard the facts and laws of the first
group as "subjective".
99
Mar 3
100
101
Mar 3
Images are not displayed
Display images in this post - Always display
images from Brian - Always display images in
Clios Psyche
Bill, Trevor and all,
I agree with Trevor on the objective reality issue,
102
103
104
Mar 3
Images are not displayed
Display images in this post - Always display
images from Ken Fuchsman - Always display
105
106
Mar 4
107
108
drwargus
109
Mar 4
Images are not displayed
Display images in this post - Always display
images from drwargus - Always display images in
Clios Psyche
Trevor,
I think that we agree far more than disagree. My
focus is on the danger of absolute truth. Most great
scientific breakthroughs were initially dismissed.
They were dismissed because the previous truths
were not able to hold the new information and
constructs. I have personally witnessed great new
ideas be suppressed by the scientific
establishment as the new ideas were threatening
to the establishment. Whether the discussion is
about the resistance to Galileo or the infectionous
cause of gastric ulcer disease, the resistance is
caused by a fundamentalist attitude that the current
paradigm CAN'T be wrong. It can't be wrong
because it's true. If we can accept that there never
is absolute truth, only better constructs, we could
avoid some of these problems.
You want me to focus on the agreements that can
be found between different subjectivities. Exactly.
110
Mar 4
111
Mar 4
112
113
114
Mar 4
115
116
117
118
Mar 4
119
120
dr.bobstern
Mar 4
121
Mar 4
122
123
about it more.
Is a "more loving fashion" an objective term
that has some cross-culturally testable
precision?
Children who were talked to, not hit, children who
were respected for their own choices, encouraged
to choose their own fates and to believe in their
ability to reshape the world -- not daunted by being
called "spoiled" -- children who were tended to by
both parents (or the plurality that Molly prefers),
with abundant time put in by both partners.
We don't honestly need to test this to know it's
better, do we? ... Wouldn't you indeed doubt the full
sanity of those who felt the need -- are you alive to
the world, or aren't you???
-- Patrick
Brian
Mar 4
124
125
126
Mar 4
Ken Fuchsman
Mar 5
Brian,
You are correct that there are a variety of methods
of science. What do you think DeMause meant
when he said psychohistory was a science? What
scientific standards did he think applied in history?
In the literature on historical methods, controlled
studies are rarely mentioned, neither is random
sampling, and historians generally do not believe
that the materials of their subject enable them to
127
128
such challenges.
The issues you raise then can help open the
necessary dialogue on what standards of
evaluating claims apply to psychohistory. If
psychohistory is to come out of the wilderness it
currently occupies, it will need to confront the
epistemological challenges inherent in being an
interdiscipline.
J. I. (Hans`) Bakker
129
130
131
dr.bobstern
132
133
Brian
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
writing
about the evolution of childhood during my son's
childhood, the origins of war during my divorce,
and the
fetal origins of history during my new wife's
pregnancy. I could also trace the influence of my
first and
second psychoanalysis on these essays, or the
development of our Institute for Psychohistory, or of
The
Journal of Psychohistory where these essays were
first published. All are relevant to discovery. But
ultimately what counts is how well the theory
explains the evidence. I methodically study my own
dreams
to help me understand both my role in
psychohistorical groups and my historical materialbecause
history, like dreams, makes perfectly good sense
when you know its laws of symbolic transformation.
Yet
my psychohistorical theories do not derive their
truth value from my dreams, but from their power to
143
144
145
146
Patrick,
Any discipline that does not welcome skepticism is,
frankly, not engaged in anything remotely
resembling science. An intellectual climate of
"acceptance" runs the risk of being a wolf in
sheep's clothing -- it appears to value
ingenuousness over rigor. By all means consider
hypotheses, no matter how strange. But, don't just
buy them as presented. Which brings me to this:
"....Lloyd did talk about psychohistory as a science
-- something provable, which I think it is ... or
maybe, rather, self-evident, like the fact that there's
a sun in the sky."
Anything that appears "self-evident" needs to be
examined. "The sun is in the sky" is about as
profound an insight as "the sun moves in the sky."
Of course, the sun isn't "in the sky"any more than it
actually "moves in the sky." The strange idea that
147
Perhaps DeMausse's insights are like Galileo's -but,there are ways to establish that. Ad hominems
and appeals to "the self-evident" aren't winners.
Sure, because those who just go about their testing
and find he is in fact equivalent to Galileo(!), aren't
going to require some cleared ground first. See,
yes sir, it turns out the facts do lend toward
supporting DeMause's supposition that the nature
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
Perpetrator history
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nkp4NPdfRiI/VPcjxOmtuoI/AAAAAAAAAh0/d6QFI_GLhA/s1600/midnight-in-paris-locandina-trailer-716x1024.jpg
165
166
167
168
169
170
we-read-write-watch-make-live-our-fictions
or here: http://thepsycholiteraryreview.blogspot.ca
My current writings, my writings on film, are found
here: http://patricksjustincasesite.blogspot.ca
Thanks for your time. I'll be lurking, respectfully. But
as a finish, a thought: if one is DeMausian
psychohistorian, you really can't in good conscience
advocate the study of history. You go back in time,
you're dealing with people who were raised with less
warmth, and from whom you have little to learn -they're a study of depravity. If it doesn't worsen you,
it's less time spent with those who could have
improved you.
-
drwargus
171
Feb 11
172
Feb 11
173
174
dr.bobstern
Feb 11
175
Alice Maher
176
Feb 4
Feb 11
177
Molly Castelloe
Feb 14
178
Alice Maher
Feb 14
179
Feb 14
180
Brian
Feb 14
181
Feb 14
182
183
Feb 12
184
185
-- Patrick
Brian
Feb 12
186
187
Feb 12
Brian
188
Feb 12
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: Kanye West ... "voices in
my head"
Before we can assess what a group fantasy might be,
we need some minimal grasp of reality in order to be
able to assess what is fantasy and what is reality. If
you are in the middle of a housing bubble and you
think you are in a period of economic growth and
prosperity for ordinary people, you are living in a
fantasy for sure, but not the kind deMause posited.
The bubble will not be able to sustain itself because
asset prices must eventually come into line with the
underlying value of the assets and increasing debt in
unsustainable. Reality exists and exerts its effects
independently of our fantasies.
The physical world is a reality that exists
independently of individual and group fantasies. If
you dont believe me, try jumping from the top of a tall
building with the fantasy that you can fly. Similarly,
real median compensation (wages and benefits
corrected for inflation) have been mostly stagnant in
the United States since around 1974, a departure
from previous decades due to deindustrialization and
capital flight. Rising levels of consumption were
sustained by increasing consumer debt, an inherently
unstable state of affairs that had to come to an end
189
190
Brian
Joel Markowitz
Feb 12
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Kanye West ... "voices in my
head"
To repeat again: I agree with Brian that deMause
excellently documented child-abuse-- but that his
applications of his understanding of child-abuse to
history have been mistaken.
Joel
Brian
Feb 12
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: Kanye West ... "voices in
191
my head"
Joel, just to clarify, I was not critiquing de Mauses
theory about the impact of child-rearing on history but
only his theory that growth panic can explain group
fantasies of the mass public. I should add that when
the rich and political elites impose austerity policies
on the middle class and the poor, growth panic cant
explain that behavior either. If they were imposing the
austerity on themselves, the theory might make
sense, but not as an explanation for imposing
austerity on others. That has a very simple
explanationthe rich feel entitled to appropriate the
wealth that others produce and see progressive
taxation as a kind of theft, so they want to starve the
public sector so they can keep their own taxes to a
minimum. This is just class war, pure and simple.
There are unconscious motivations involved in
austerity policies, to be sure, but I dont see how grow
panic can be one of them.
As for child rearing practices, I would say that
DeMause was mistaken that it provides a sufficient
determinism for explaining all change in history, which
he called his psychogenic theory of history, but I
think there is some truth to this theory and I dont
want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which
you seem prepared to do. It is plausible to me that
much of the decrease in violence over the course of
history, as discussed by Stephen Pinker, John
Mueller, James Payne and others is attributable to
192
Feb 13
193
194
What has not yet been lost about this post-world war
two world is the sense that the purpose of life is still
self-realization -- what Obama did -- not to "selflessly"
sacrifice yourself into some dumb group identity,
some cause, some fight, so perhaps some generation
down the line can enjoy the pleasures you're denying
yourself.
But DeMause argued that Germans eventually turned
against the freedom-enabling Weimar republic, his
focus wasn't on the working class but more the middle
classes -- those of them who for a good while made
something of the freedom ... The growth panic I guess
I'm concerned about most, isn't what those who "are
beholden" to Fox News are favouring, but those who
actually for a good while had good-enough
childrearing to be able to cheer and support Obama. If
they begin to understand that progress isn't being
countered by an increase in misery somewhere -- that
some sacrifices aren't being made to the maternal
maw -- they'll begin to feel that they themselves are
vulnerable to some sort of apocalyptic punishment.
I'm not really looking forward to a day when the
middle class fights back. I do not trust that their "fight
back" won't be something along the lines of 30s
Germany, quite frankly. I want a cosmopolitan society
where progressives ("coastals") keep insisting the rest
of the country adjust ... and since places like San
Francisco, Seattle, New York are now not just
concerning themselves with such things as
195
Feb 13
196
197
Brian
Feb 13
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: Kanye West ... "voices in
198
my head"
Patrick, if labelling me anti-deMausian makes sense
to you, so be it. For what its worth, Lloyd liked the
article of mine referenced in the newsletter and
published it in the Journal of Psychohistory 39, 3
(Winter 2012). To my knowledge he has never
published anything anti-deMausian. I republished it
with his permission as an appendix to my book. In
any case, I am not anxious to pass a litmus test of
any kind; the only standards of quality that I recognize
are those of the scientific method. De Mause has
always claimed that his theories are scientific and as
such they need to pass the test of empirical validation
or they should be discarded. In my article, I cite the
evidence on which my theory of political attitudes is
based and note the need for more empirical work in
this area; I argue that this is consistent with the
essence of Lloyds psychogenic theory of history, but
not necessarily in the form he conceived of it. If you
want to read the article, here is the link:
http://middleclassfightsback.org/resources/Psycholog
y%20of%20the%20Radical%20Right.pdf
I find it interesting that for you the notion of the
American middle class fighting back conjures up
fantasies about Nazi Germany and something angry
and punitive ... something revenge-seeking. Angry,
yes, but why fascist, punitive, and revenge seeking?
As far as I know, the human fight-flight responsethe
basis of both anger and fearis an instinctive
199
200
Feb 14
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Kanye West ... "voices in my
head"
If populism is not so much what it was in the 60s,
which according to the DeMausian take was a period
where the populace felt they were permitted growth, a
period which allowed the most progressive of them to
take the societal lead, but more like it was in the
(1920s-regretting) 30s, then it's worth getting
201
202
203
-- Patrick
Trevor Pederson
Feb 14
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Kanye West ... "voices in my
head"
Hi Patrick
Can you say a little more about what you mean by
"our nation?
Feb 14
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Kanye West ... "voices in my
head"
204
Feb 14
205
Brian
Feb 14
206
Feb 14
Trevor Pederson
Feb 14
207
david
Feb 14
Thank you Trevor for posting this link. Its one episode of a
BBC production in 2002. Its just under an hour, quite well
done and worth watching. It shows how both Brian and
Patrick are correct.
-
Alice Maher
Feb 15
208
Feb 15
209
Alice Maher
Feb 15
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: De Mause summary
article...?
Thanks so much, Patrick! I'm looking forward to
reading it.
Sent from my iPhone
Molly Castelloe
Feb 15
210
Patrick,
In response to your question, I sent the story of the mother
trying to teach the child about steroetypes because I felt we
were discussing the un-nurtured mother and childrearing at
an intellectual distance (maybe a steroetyped way, too?)
and wanted to move toward another (more emotional)
dimension, and get closer to the mother-child dynamic.
Many mothers in my neighborhood are trying to "reeducate" their children in just this way. What I find with
my own kids, 8 and 10, is that it can at times be very hard
to put myself in their world and perspective.
Who remembers it can be hard for a child to sit still at the
dinner table and maybe 5 mins is enough to expect? Or
that if their feet don't touch the floor b/c the chair is too tall,
maybe they need a footstool underneath to help them keep
still or more grounded?
Some of DeMause's theories blame the mother/nanny too
much, it seems to me. The nuclear family and modes of
caretaking have changed radically. There are many more
fathers involved and women working at home, too.
I like Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's idea of "alloparenting" and the
development of children dependent on both mothers and an
array of others: fathers, babysitting coops, tag-teaming that
mothers do, playdates, people in addition to the biological
mother. (Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of
Mutual Understanding, (2011).
211
Feb 15
212
Brian
213
Feb 15
214
drwargus
Feb 15
Re: [cliospsyche] RE: psychoanalysis and social
control
I think the author believes it to be Freudian because
the desires our subconscious. He was appealing to
subconscious desires, not rational or conscious
desires.
Thank you very much for posting this restaurants. Do
you know where we could find the other three
episodes?
Feb 15
215
216
217
Brian
Feb 15
RE: [cliospsyche] RE: psychoanalysis and social
control
I believe the other episodes are available on
YouTube. They are entitled, The Engineering of
Consent, There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads,
and Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering.
Bill, Oedipal theory and all the rest of the Freudian
system address defense mechanisms and other
psychological processes that are unconscious for
most people. But it is common knowledge that sex is
pleasurable and that is all Bernays needed to know in
order to condition behavior on Pavlovian principles.
People may be unconscious that they are being
218
Dcarveth
Feb 15
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and social
control
Patrick, this echoes the difference between Freud's
219
Brian
Feb 15
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and social
control
I want to address three issues that have come up
repeatedly on this list: the problem of what I call
psychohistorical reductionism, the alleged innate
destructiveness of people, and the class and
psychoclass specificity of group fantasies.
First, regarding reductionism, it is common for
theoretical innovators to over-emphasize the
explanatory power of their ideas, and Lloyd deMause
220
221
222
223
224
225
Feb 16
226
through the whole period were they still mostly selflaceratingly blaming themselves for not succeeding,
rather than jumping hole-hog to a better era, like they
insisted for themselves in the 50s? Was anybody
interned?
Your future is entirely dependent on the amount of
love you received as a child. If you have issues
arising out of your childhood, but are in a very
progressive society, you'll try and use the existing
"arms" of the society and twist them towards your own
purposes (Alfie Kohn has just said argued that whatare-in-truth regressives are currently taking over/coopting progressive pedagogy, and making it somehow
pro-testing, pro-homework, for example). If you have
fewer issues than other people, but are living in a
regressive society, you'll become part of the
generation that invents something better to fit the
more benign world you believe humans deserve, or
you'll leave, and set up something better elsewhere
(DeMause believes that places like Japan and U.S.
were examples of places where we saw progressives
-- those of superior child-rearing -- migrate).
This, too me, is bang on ... so it doesn't feel right to
malign it by assessing it as "reductive." Is there
another word available? Distilled ... to its essential
essence? Let's try it. Mainstream academics are
justified in rejecting theories which are distilled .... no,
doesn't work. So let's try, Mainstream academics are
justified in rejecting theories which stick to the point
227
228
229
Feb 16
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and social
control
230
Thanks Don!
Trevor Pederson
Feb 16
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and social
control
Patrick, you write:
Your future is entirely dependent on the amount of
love you received as a child. If you have issues
arising out of your childhood, but are in a very
progressive society, you'll try and use the existing
"arms" of the society and twist them towards your own
purposes (Alfie Kohn has just said argued that whatare-in-truth regressives are currently taking over/coopting progressive pedagogy, and making it somehow
pro-testing, pro-homework, for example). If you have
fewer issues than other people, but are living in a
regressive society, you'll become part of the
generation that invents something better to fit the
more benign world you believe humans deserve, or
you'll leave, and set up something better elsewhere
231
232
233
Brian
Feb 16
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and social
control
Patrick, I have added my comments after yours.
From: clios...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:clios...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 8:49 AM
To: clios...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and social
234
control
HItler ruled through force and intimidation? Everyone
agree with this?
I did not say that Hitler ruled ONLY through force and
intimidation. But if he had the universal support that
you seem to think, why did the Nazis need a secret
police to root out dissenters and need torture to
punish dissidents and why did they ban opposition
parties and democratic elections?
The distinction between FDR and Hitler is absolute?
Everyone agree with this? Hitler provided .... or,
rather, people made use of him to ensure they were
better provisioned as well. If the New Deal period was
so awesome, and showed how admirable everyday
Americans are, why are "progressives" during this
period given so much praise by someone like Chris
Hedges, who hates no one more than spoiled, selfattendant people -- catch his attack on 60s
progressives, the hippies, to get a measure of it. He
only wants to praise those who are self-abnegating,
self-sacrificial, which is a pretty demented state of
mind to me -- sort of anti-human. If it the New Deal
was so admirable, why does Morris Dickstein accuse
the whole period as nationalist, a period where people
admonished themselves by thinking of themselves
more as types, categories of people, rather than as
distinct individuals? If it was so awesome, why
235
through the whole period were they still mostly selflaceratingly blaming themselves for not succeeding,
rather than jumping hole-hog to a better era, like they
insisted for themselves in the 50s? Was anybody
interned?
I have no idea what youre talking about. Are you
attacking the New Deal? Do you think we would have
been better off with four more years of Hoover?
Your future is entirely dependent on the amount of
love you received as a child. If you have issues
arising out of your childhood, but are in a very
progressive society, you'll try and use the existing
"arms" of the society and twist them towards your own
purposes (Alfie Kohn has just said argued that whatare-in-truth regressives are currently taking over/coopting progressive pedagogy, and making it somehow
pro-testing, pro-homework, for example). If you have
fewer issues than other people, but are living in a
regressive society, you'll become part of the
generation that invents something better to fit the
more benign world you believe humans deserve, or
you'll leave, and set up something better elsewhere
(DeMause believes that places like Japan and U.S.
were examples of places where we saw progressives
-- those of superior child-rearing -- migrate).
This, too me, is bang on ... so it doesn't feel right to
malign it by assessing it as "reductive." Is there
another word available? Distilled ... to its essential
236
237
238
their purposes.
To reduce history and politics to psychological factors
is misguided and one of the main reasons that
psychohistory as DeMause defined it is not taken
seriously in academia. I dont want to throw out the
baby with the bathwater (to use a deMausian
metaphor), but if we dont outgrow the reductionism,
psychohistory will remain in an intellectual ghetto. I
cant help but think that many of us like being in this
ghetto, where we can blame the marginalization of
psychohistory on everything but ourselves. I think
psychohistorians, not all of us but many of us, are
marginalizing ourselves and need to take
responsibility for that.
There is a sense that what happens at some times in
society is independent of your individual self -- or at
least part of it yourself. To DeMause, when we war on
other countries, or against women and children in our
own society, it is our right hemispheres which are in
charge -- the internal persecutors he says are
contained there. Our left is actually
ignorant/independent -- it's looking at the work of part
of him/her s/he isn't at the moment familiar with.
More reductionism. The physics and biology analogy
applies. Institutional processes give rise to levels of
complexity that need to be understood on their own
terms.
239
240
241
PETSCH...@appstate.edu
Feb 16
Re: RE: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and
social control
Amen, Brian.
In Berlin exactly a month ago I saw the von
Stauffenberg exhibition in the building in front of which
he was shot. I
was totally astonished at the amount of resistance to
the regime that is shown in this sizable presentation.
Graduate students and professors over the years
have ferreted out large and small groups from all
walks of life
who opposed the regime and who for the most part
were caught and killed. Jews, Poles, communists,
socialists,
242
Ralph Fishkin
Feb 16
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and social
control
I agree with Peters review of the van Stauffenberg
exhibition. I saw it 5 years ago. Very moving.
Ralph
- show quoted text =============================
Ralph E. Fishkin, D.O.
243
J. I. (Hans`) Bakker
Feb 17
Re: RE: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and
social control
I would like to know more about the von
Stauffenberg Exhibition.
Do they have a web page? Is there an exhibit
catalogue.
This goes against some of the popular conceptions of
people being merely compliant.
Catholics, Protestants, Liberals, Conservatives,
military, etc., is a bit different from the usual scenario.
(Jews being strongly opposed at an early stage is
also a bit contrary to some narratives.)
I knew that actual Communists were opposed, of
course, and Poles would often have reasons two be
244
opposed.
At a used book store yesterday here in Albuquerque I
saw more than 100 books on fascism, the Nazi
regime, Hitler, etc.
But when I travel I always tend to buy more books
than I can possibly carry on the plane!
The Society for Cross Cultural Research (SCCR)
starts tomorrow morning, but there are all kinds of
meetings going on here.
The weather was cool, but like Spring in Boston!
Meanwhile the whole East Coast seems to have real
snow.
Cheers,
Hans
J. I. Bakker
Feb 17
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and social
245
control
Hey Trevor, I think somewhere along the line I failed
to answer one of your questions -- sorry about that!
As Fairbairn, Freud, and others point out, it is the
schizoid types who have less of a connection to
others and more of a connection to their intellectual
functions (memory, phantasy, etc.) that become the
great intellectuals, scientists, and artists. Without this
increased libidinal connection to these intellectual
functions one can hardly hold together all the relevant
information of one's field, and take in the new relevant
empirical data to contribute to knowledge. In health
these types have a chance to become important
creators and innovators while in pathology they can
have very severe problems.
Okay, but the DeMausian take is different ... he talks
about being given the liberty to play by parents
(mothers) who were above the norm for the time. For
example,
It was the developmental new strengths of the
intrusive childrearing mode, not changes in culture,
that produced the dramatic historical innovations of
the Reformation, humanism and industrialism. For
instance, what allowed James Watt to invent the
modern steam engine was his parents teaching him
246
247
248
PETSCH...@appstate.edu
Feb 17
Re: RE: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and
249
social control
Hans,
Te following is about as good a description as I found.
Being there was one of
the more meaningful experiences in my long history
with the regime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_to_the_German
_Resistance
By the way, the German/NATO HQ is in the same
complex; that is why the text next
to the photograph of the Museum Exhibits is so
important.
Peter
Trevor Pederson
Feb 17
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and social
control
Hi Patrick
There is a history in psychoanalysis of noting not
enough maternal care and too much are a bad thing
250
251
Feb 17
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and social
control
Nietzsche and others have talked about the
importance of 'reactive affects' in contrast to the 'will
to truth'. Instead of the ideal mother ideally raising the
child and that child going on to have a pure love or
pure interest in science or art, I think many
biographies will show that pride, envy, inferiority,
etc. and other reactive traits will be involved.
Narcissism is often needed to feel entitled to
252
Trevor Pederson
Feb 17
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: psychoanalysis and social
control
253
254
Trevor
255
256
257
258
259
for Islam.
I like this. But what drives them isn't a chance to be
loved by "Islam," but by their mothers. They are
committing themselves to destroying that which are
avenues of progressCharlie Hebdo's sanctioning
the importance of critiquing anything which cows.
What inspires this is a knowledge that when they
inhibited their own self-growth and let themselves be
passive vehicles for their mothers' pleasure, they
received love from their mothers. When they instead
strove and enjoyed Western freedoms, they came to
feel hopelessly abandoned and bad.
Their childrearing was incredibly bad. Their mothers,
abused so badly, re-inflicted the abuses upon their
children, and absolutely required them to serve as
stimulants/anti-depressants. When they instead
focused on themselves, they were rejected ... and the
children knew, then, that there was no greater evil in
the worldone cows completely before "God" and
thereby, maybe, you'll be graced by that gigantic
world of heaven known as your mother's approval.
You resist and enter the world of freedom and balking
your parent's needs for your own, and very soon you
won't be able to take the feeling of absolute rejection
the sense that your mother has absolutely had it
with you!and you'll go Jihad to slay true "bad
260
261
262
263
264
Permalink
265
Permalink
266
267
0
1
268
Permalink
Original Article: Its time to fight religion:
Toxic drivel, useful media idiots, and the real story
about faith and violence
269
Permalink
Original Article: Its time to fight religion:
Toxic drivel, useful media idiots, and the real story
about faith and violence
270
Permalink
Permalink
271
Permalink
Original Article: Its time to fight religion:
Toxic drivel, useful media idiots, and the real story
about faith and violence
How much do you want to bet that the next president wins
because s/he tells Americans that they'd become "too
happy, too fat, too lazy to get off the couch." Then, in
conjunction with austerity and most of them counting
amongst the 99 % struggling to survive, they'll see that yet
more will be offered to show how deprived and repentant
they'd become ... like perhaps in mass submitting
themselves to a traumatic war environment -- PTSD as an
acquisition, to shame those still just shopping and Burger
272
Kinging.
After some grand sacrificial war, it is true that for awhile
people are hard to shove off their good times. But then they
start feeling guilty and abandoned, and start chasing down
people they know will put an end to it ... people who'll
implement Depression-ensuring, growth-killing "hard
money," and policies like that.
Permalink
Original Article: Its time to fight religion:
Toxic drivel, useful media idiots, and the real story
about faith and violence
Permalink
273
Permalink
Original Article: Anti-vaxxers are not the
enemy: Science, politics and the crisis of authority
274
Permalink
Original Article: Its time to fight religion:
Toxic drivel, useful media idiots, and the real story
about faith and violence
275
276
nations/chapter-3-the-childhood-origins-of-terrorism/
http://psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-childabuse/chapter-1-the-killer-motherland/
But, the thing is, there are a whole lot of people who are
being bypassed by the kinds of freedoms society is
increasingly allowing, the kinds of prejudices that are no
longer enfranchised/allowed. Denied society as sort of an
exoskeleton in which to work out inner psychic troubles
and thereby the living of a becalmed everyday life, they're
going to go berserk -- kill-people, berserk. The only thing
that will stop this is if we all commit to a war where a
gigantic number of "bad boys and girls" are slaughtered,
surrendered as sacrifices into the angry maw, which we
don't want.
So, we're going to have to get used to it. As much as
possible, we need to maintain the temperament appropriate
for progress-enjoying people, which is an advancement of
the "polite and commercial" that ruled in the 18th-century,
but along the same lines: it's not excited, heated, but
playful, sifting, and calm. To do this while bombs are going
on all around us is going to be difficult, but I understand
that Jane Austen managed as much, however much some
have disparaged her for it.
Our problem may not just be extremes. We need to
remember that sometimes a whole people can decide
they've had it with their progressing selves and suddenly
turn provincial, crude and extreme: it's the story of what
277
Permalink
278
279
Permalink
280
and enjoyable are being sinful ... i.e. are ignoring "God":
their demanding, needy, love-starved parents -- means to
them that more children need to be punished and hurt.
They displace their own "badness" onto children -- so well
representing their own "guilty" growing, striving selves -and encourage their death through disease, economic
deprivation and war. This way, spurned, angry "parents in
the sky" are felt to be somewhat ameliorated.
Questioning name-brand institutions of the scientific
world, done by those who can be trusted, is of course being
done by progressives who also question the Catholic
Church and the National Football League. The
more hippieish of them realize that institutions, degrees,
professionals admonishing themselves within a "guild," is
still about keeping the phantasm Chaos at bay ... it's better
than magic, alchemy and a projection-full world, but it's not
that evolved/projection-dilluted ... we can let these
"authorities" go too.
Permalink
Original Article: Jupiter Ascending:
Channing Tatum in Spock ears fights lizard men, but
not for laughs
281
Permalink
Original Article: Jupiter Ascending:
Channing Tatum in Spock ears fights lizard men, but
not for laughs
282
283
284
285
286
Permalink
Original Article: White male temper
tantrums: What the political correctness debate
completely misses
287
Permalink
Original Article: White male temper
tantrums: What the political correctness debate
completely misses
Permalink
288
Permalink
Original Article: White male temper
tantrums: What the political correctness debate
completely misses
289
Permalink
Original Article: White male temper
tantrums: What the political correctness debate
completely misses
Permalink
290
first place?
The charge is that they aren't so interested in learning and
growing but in extending their privilege. And you know
this, ostensibly, because the moment you show them how
"white" and self-serving/promoting their version of
liberalism is, they get upset rather than prepare themselves
to learn and grow; they feel inclined to want to "shush"
you. White, heterosexual liberals, the charge goes, so
much don't want to know that they themselves are the
problem -- that they are elitists who count on a horde of
loyal "diverse" followers to ultimately count them lords -that rather than reflect and absorb they angrily reject and
flee.
Personally, I think that some of those charged as being
secretly bigoted are actually genius at getting at the
perspective of others -- the best there is alive. They just
won't let kill-joy conservative swamping derail their
progressivism ... if that makes any sense.
Permalink
291
Permalink
Permalink
292
PM
AtavistEsquire Rashomons Baby That would depend on
how progressive they are. If they're bullies, then yes; if
they're evolved, then no.
Permalink
Original Article: White male temper
tantrums: What the political correctness debate
completely misses
Permalink
Original Article: White male temper
tantrums: What the political correctness debate
completely misses
293
Permalink
Original Article: White male temper
tantrums: What the political correctness debate
completely misses
Permalink
294
PM
della street If anything, the life of the single Black mother,
who manages to raise good kids despite huge challenges,
should be venerated.
And the ones who don't manage this miracle should be ...
disrespected? These millionaire rap performers don't do
this, but they do distribute it with great enthusiasm amongst
the rest of the female populace.
Permalink
Original Article: White male temper
tantrums: What the political correctness debate
completely misses
Permalink
295
Permalink
Original Article: White male temper
tantrums: What the political correctness debate
completely misses
Permalink
296
went out of circulation in the 1930s, but the populace's -the idiot middle -- who willed him out of view. The middle
is lost; to me its obvious the direction they're headed.
Our concern is to embolden progressives that the right
attitude is one which recognizes no authority simply
because they're an "authority"; to deflate any impulse on
their part to base their self-esteem on rectitude by showing
clearly that those who live best and most freely and most
enviably can hardly give a damn if they're ignored for
being trash, or praised for dressing princely. These sites do
this inspiringly. They inspire and embolden me.
Permalink
Original Article: White male temper
tantrums: What the political correctness debate
completely misses
Permalink
297
Permalink
298
prime time
Permalink
Original Article: Rand Paul needs to be
shushed: Why the confrontational brat is not ready for
prime time
Permalink
Original Article: Rand Paul needs to be
shushed: Why the confrontational brat is not ready for
prime time
Permalink
299
prime time
Permalink
Original Article: Rand Paul needs to be
shushed: Why the confrontational brat is not ready for
prime time
Permalink
Permalink
300
Permalink
Original Article: Political and incorrect:
Why Jonathan Chaits attack on p.c. culture is so
flawed
And when they felt the country was being betrayed, their
founding, perhaps they weren't (at the deepest level)
thinking of what happened a hundred years before but more
of early personal experiences akin to what "American
Sniper" showed ... the young learning early how good it
feels to stick up for, to "sheepdog," your family.
Permalink
301
Permalink
Permalink
302
Permalink
Permalink
303
Permalink
Original Article: Political and incorrect:
Why Jonathan Chaits attack on p.c. culture is so
flawed
Permalink
304
Permalink
Original Article: Political and incorrect:
Why Jonathan Chaits attack on p.c. culture is so
flawed
Permalink
305
Hal Ginsberg
From Socrates to Thomas Paine to David Hume to John
Stuart Mill to Jeremy Bentham to FDR to MLK to Bernie
Sanders, liberals are just about always right.
A lot of men on this list. It's what's appealing to Chait ...
this sense of time-travelling back to the 18th-century, when
it wouldn't have occurred to anyone to have listed a woman
-- on anyone feminine -- on a list of who's right.
Permalink
Original Article: Political and incorrect:
Why Jonathan Chaits attack on p.c. culture is so
flawed
Permalink
306
Permalink
Original Article: Political and incorrect:
Why Jonathan Chaits attack on p.c. culture is so
flawed
There are plenty of people who associate with the left but
who are actually quite conservative in values--Brittney
Cooper, I find, is one of them; and it should be interesting
to see what happens when some of her fellow writers at
Salon get plunked into her category of racist villains. I
think that many of these people are aware that sometimes in
stopping people from saying and exploring things, they're
not stopping something absent of sensitivity and that
encourages bigotry, but that encourages growth -something that is actually a good thing.
With these people, we have to be sensitive that what
motivates them is not villainy/evil but a shallower, more
punitive and cowing childhood; we have to delay our
307
Permalink
Original Article: Political and incorrect:
Why Jonathan Chaits attack on p.c. culture is so
flawed
Permalink
Original Article: Political and incorrect:
Why Jonathan Chaits attack on p.c. culture is so
flawed
To the limited degree that the humanity of AfricanAmericans was recognized by U.S. government and society
308
Permalink
Original Article: California takes on the
NFL: New bill would force teams to pay cheerleaders
minimum wage
Permalink
309
pathology.
Brittney herself has argued that who children end up
becoming depends a great deal on how they were raised.
She argues that childhoods where obedience is obtained out
of fear, "curtail creativity ... and breed fear and resentment
between parents and children that far outlasts childhood."
She's not the product simply of pathology; I think she's
right that there was love there, however much I think her
need to keep her mother holy means she overstates it.
I listen to her, catch a tone that suggests to me she'll
actually prove someone who shortchanges progress,
ongoing self-expression, growth, and, I think, I point to her
childhood, to origins, to help clarify what might otherwise
people might be distracted from. "What you sense in her
owes to her as a child being abandoned and punished for
trespasses, and her ongoing need to make her parents right
and avoid punishment by ultimately serving to inhibit
freedoms and demonize those more progressive than she."
Permalink
Original Article: I dont like to fight:
Brittney Cooper on life, God, childhood & mortality
310
_why_white_feminists_need_to_lean_back/
where she backs off feminists claiming that Michelle
Obama had become a "English lady of the manor, Tory
party, circa 1830s," saying that,
"The fact that she is ride-or-die for Barack makes us love
her all the more. And that struggle between supporting your
man and his vision for the nation versus being the full,
forceful expression of your black womanhood is a struggle
that black feminists know all too well, and are uniquely
poised to sit with, not uncritically, but rather in a productive
space of discomfort."
which sounded a little bit to me like the sort of
"contentment" 1950s women of all colours were supposed
to "sit with." And I'm wondering if her perspective,
informed by masochism and, I think, somewhat suspect
respect for victims ... witness her claim that Bill Cosby
should always be a hero to black people, owes to the
particular nature of her childhood.
Permalink
Original Article: I dont like to fight:
Brittney Cooper on life, God, childhood & mortality
311
Permalink
Original Article: I dont like to fight:
Brittney Cooper on life, God, childhood & mortality
Permalink
312
Permalink
Original Article: When political
correctness hurts: Understanding the microaggressions that trigger Jonathan Chait
313
Permalink
Original Article: Hollywoods political
ignorance: What Cosby, Selma & Hebdo reveal
about white liberal consciousness
314
Permalink
Original Article: Why the Charlie Hebdo attack
goes far beyond religion and free speech
MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2015 5:51 PM
J.C. Miller If Jews in France argued that
they were hated by some elements in their country
owing to their success, would this be reality-based?
Would the people who hate them be close to what we
think of as fundamentalist -- i.e. highly conservative?
Or do you think everyone who hates them naturally
has in mind Israel/Palestine?
Permalink
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
Permalink
Original Article: Jian Ghomeshis quiet
accomplice: Why the CBC must be investigated, too
328
Permalink
329
PM
That dynamic wont change until more Americans realize
that the American Dream today is just an empty promise.
At some level they know this, but they are atoning and so
want to be a Depression people who showed nobility and
dignity through suffering. During the Great Depression,
they continued their faith in working hard, at some level
knowing that whatever parental perpetrators in their life
would be pleased in their unwillingness to point fingers at
abusers.
After enough suffering, they collectively felt they were
allowed things again, and so the rich/poor divide collapsed,
plumbers making more than lawyers, the rich taxed at 80
percent.
Permalink
Original Article: Chris Rocks economic
bombshell: What his riots in the streets prediction
says about the American Dream
Permalink
330
Permalink
Original Article: Jian Ghomeshis quiet
accomplice: Why the CBC must be investigated, too
331
Permalink
332
Permalink
Original Article: Jian Ghomeshis quiet
accomplice: Why the CBC must be investigated, too
Permalink
333
Permalink
Original Article: I am utterly undone: My
struggle with black rage and fear after Ferguson
334
You could be being decent and good, and some cop will
project all his personal demons onto you and see someone
that needs twelve bullets to be stopped.
Permalink
Original Article: I am utterly undone: My
struggle with black rage and fear after Ferguson
Permalink
335
Permalink
Original Article: I am utterly undone: My
struggle with black rage and fear after Ferguson
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2014 11:45
336
PM
Xanthro RoloTomassi omglolbbq Force, or calling for
charred White flesh, will never help Black society, because
all it does is drive away potential allies, while reinforcing
negative stereotypes that Black people are inherently
violent and unpersuaded by facts.
Except we see a lot of evidently progressive people
expressing themselves just as forcefully right now, so I
don't find your argument persuasive. What's happening
there is people reacting to being hit by taking an assertive
step forward: it thrills!
Brittney Cooper, though, has talked about a need for young
people to get ready to sacrifice themselves, to actually die
for this cause. She's talked about them forgetting about
living enriching lives, living better, more comfortably than
their parents, and become more like the elders who literally
spilt blood and who realized it wouldn't be for them, their
own benefit, that it was spilt. This is a problem. This is
young soldiers into WW1 talk.
Permalink
Original Article: I am utterly undone: My
struggle with black rage and fear after Ferguson
337
raised with more care and love. So they're not racists -racists being those who were brutalized by their parents
making them project their own "bad" selves onto other
people and take enormous pleasure when they're humiliated
and destroyed.
Evolved people like this need to know that the narrative of
sacrifice is ultimately about purging too. Never, ever,
encourage young people to see virtuous status as accruing
to them if they subject themselves to the battlefield. Never
make love and respect something owing to those who
accumulate scars.
What do we do now? If we have the momentum, we'll
"carpetbag" the more racist parts of the world and stop
they're having any agency: they're after all only to be about
seeking righteous vengeance themselves, possibly forever
-- especially if the overall temper of our society continues
to evolve, leaving them without a societal exostructure to
help them "handle" their madness.
If we don't, we'll probably realize that we've got enough for
a country in all these progressive voices we're hearing, and
double-down on our efforts where we rule.
Ultimately, anything we do that means more love accruing
to the next generation, will be the most powerful thing we
do to work against societal racism.
Racists were brutalized as children; they're the victims of
sexual assault and abandonment. If you have to go
338
Permalink
Original Article: I am utterly undone: My
struggle with black rage and fear after Ferguson
Permalink
339
PM
J. Nathan Patrick McEvoy-Halston You're welcome, J.
Nathan.
Permalink
Original Article: Bill Cosbys media inferno:
On journalists reporting justice and believing
victims
I'm glad they had the self-esteem to speak out, but I'm not
especially happy about calling them courageous. All the
others that historically DID NOT speak out, weren't
(guiltily?) lacking what the others managed -- that is, a
show of courage against bullies. They were just products of
backgrounds that weren't going to fuel them the self-worth
to power on through; the abuse they
suffered, corroborated the sense of their worthlessness that
their parents installed in them.
Speaking out would not just make the abusers but their own
parents wrong, and you've got to have received a
considerable amount of love to readily manage that.
Permalink
340
Permalink
341
right, but let me show you where this evil youve agreed
exists in plenty and must in this moment of clarity be
urgently vanquished, is actually mostconcentrated
And you'll have America involved in righteous bigotry.
You'll have Americans going from feeling compromised to
instantly pure again, forgetting all the self-improvement
they needed as all their issues become transplanted onto
the outside. Chastising progressives will lose their effect,
and blamed, for not thinking their issues through at the
cost of lives. And the women well be standing up for,
those accosted in cultures everywhere that progressives
have ostensibly drawn back from incriminating but to keep
their own cosmopolitan egos intact, will be in their own
minds childhood perpetrators they'll feel enormous joy in
protecting.
They can't be guilted, is what Im getting at. That self
they'd begun to recognize that should feel shame and guilt
in denigrating vulnerable people, that increasingly
uncomfortable, caught-out self that recognized how much it
wanted women to know pain, would be gone as they know
themselves to in fact be willing to sacrifice their very lives
to keep their mothers from being pained at their childrens
ability and presumptuous willingness to see them plain
to destroy them, Meghan Daum, truly
progressive,matricidal-style.
Permalink
342
victims
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2014 3:54 PM
Why did the responsibility change?
343
344
beckoned oblivion.
Andrew O'Hehir just wrote an article where he sees
perpetual stasis in an awful, hellish, late-capitalist society,
as our ongoing reality. Next presidential election, more of
the status quo, whomever gets elected. But we should
understand the downing of Cosby as evidence that people
are changing, not just in attitudes but in their well-being,
their make-up, their constitution. And systems change when
human nature changes, when better-loved people grow
beyond systems that were emotionally satisfying to their
less emotionally evolved, more pointless-punishment
accepting/unconsciously desiring, predecessors. Capitalism
moves from late to socialism when people stop needing for
there to be shelved amongst us losers; when we stop
feeling satisfaction in such numbing, dream-deflating,
tempering categories like products, producers and
consumers. The sign that we may be moving towards
something profoundly good is more to be found in this new
response to abusers than I think in the apocalyptic anger
we'll likely also see a lot of in upcoming years.
This anger, I fear, will be fuelled by revenge against
childhood perpetrators as well its ur-source but its
constituents will not be like those repelled by Cosby ... it
will not be fuelled by those who knew less abuse, who
knew more love, but rather those who received so much
they still will feel the need to protect perpetrators and
destroy victims. Their ur and all-infiltrating source of
perpetrator, their parental terrorizers, will be split into
two, so only part of this parent is actually attacked while
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
villainous mother.
''She'' won't be made to carry a purse, necessarily, but
''shell'' surely be made to lurch over a doomed child
in a way that can't help but remind of a witch adding
salt to the bare delicious exposed flesh of the helpless
child.
Posted by Patrick McEvoy-Halston at 9:20 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Recommend this on Google
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
353
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
Labels: exodus: gods and kings, film, movie, ridley scottShare to Facebook
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
it's just the way the world isand where ready avenue exists to back off female complaint and
indeed shame women back into the role of supplicants. He heads off for war-zone Iraq.
Eastwood doesn't want to seem like outcast-from-Hollywood-society Mel Gibson, which he
would have if he made a film which overtly made it seem as if the war in Iraq was right and that
those who responded by signing up were simply the bravest, most loyal of Americans. So what
he does is appear to be playing to the liberal belief that those who signed up were simply
ignorant, uninformedgood but simple: they were people who knew no other than mainstream
news and who'd been indoctrinated into a belief system that the best way to carry out their
genuine intention to be good was to be support the war effort. Liberals, who usually want to
castigate "rednecks," disarm this way of thinking of them and switch into another when one
provokes the idea of corporate/media control, then suddenly they're not people who deserve to
be shamed and insulted for their regressive mindsets but rather protected ... they're just simple
people being manipulated by powers much greater than they, whom liberals must do their best to
educate. Chris Kyle, who's been raised to be someone who values being a "sheepdog," someone
who protects the weak, who knows he has a god-given talent with a gun, and who understands
participation as only something done in the dust-swirling tempest of immediacy and direct
action, sees on tv the two towers being brought down and knows the right thing to do is to go
where-ever "savage-hiding" desert his nation tells him people responsible for this atrocity can be
found. And in the course of serving, he will incur PTSD, an affliction liberals like to think of as
making these naive, uneducated men damaged, ruined ... as used and cast-aside by a corporate
society that pretends faith with them but really doesn't give one damn.
Eastwood has his way into making a film assuming a reasonably 'cross-Hollywood sympathetic
approach to Kyle, and he uses this proxy to re-experience a good part of what was comfortable
for him about the 1950s. No where in this environment is there any family which isn't clearly
under the dominion of men. A woman and a child come into Kyle's sights as possibly
carrying explosive devices, but we were shown their being sent there first by a man from his
cellphone. A woman presents her wounds to Kyle to show the degree of savagery of "the
butcher," but she was ushered to by her husband, who more or less snapped his fingers to acquire
her summons. Kyle notices that a man they're dining with has bruised elbowsand therefore is
likely not the civilian he claims to be but a soldierbut the fact of his being at the head of the
table, with his son by his side, and with his wife, barely a presence, quietly taking away and
bringing dishes, is meant to be outside our critical appraisal, like it would be if we were of the
1950s and were in the 1950s.
Kyle is very hardworking and genuinely shown to be, if not keeping civilization intact, certainly
doing good workkilling brutal men who'd drill holes in children and the likeand Eastwood
makes PTSD serve merely what hardworking 50s men were ostensibly afflicted with after their
arduous daily grind, battling other men in a competitive society and keeping their families afloat.
1950s men could not help but "bring work home" too ... and that's why social norms had it that
the wives' full-time occupation once their husbands were home was to nurse them: not to
confront them with the problems arising from their own day but bring them drinks, serve them
dinner, soothe them down and spoil themthen, and only then, would the daily toil accrued
from the outside world be met and matched. If a wife instead started screeching, berating her
overworked husband and betraying the role society needed of her, she could expect to be shamed
for it ... just like Kyle's wife would be shamed, if on the phone to Kyle she started harping on
what his being away was doing to her and he responded, "What was that dear? ... I couldn't hear
you for my jeep turning over and my buddy just being shot through the head."
Eastwood embraces the idea of PTSD only because it can suggest stature rather than weakness.
361
If you have a heavier case of it, it's surely because you've been out on the field longer, endured
more of an unsparing environment ... a frail-looking, elder therapist notes that Kyle has had 180
kills, and you wonder if he's thinking more on how to treat him or how to become the faintest
shadow of him. One of Kyle's good friends, the fellow sniper Mark Lee, remarks that war is
something like kids proving themselves by seeing how long they can hold on to an electric wire,
but when he dies shortly afterwards it does seem to be out of Kyle's supposition that he was no
longer ready to meet the daily grind. He's disillusioned, but the film provides no reason for it:
there are plenty of very bad guys out there, and if you're not at your best, good men on your side
will die for it.
In short, Mark Lee makes it seem as if being a soldier is like being a salesman out of "Death of a
Salesman," you just go on to prove you're strong when what you are really are is being depleted,
to no point, while no one else out there cares. Kyle's retort is what a buoyed 1950s salesman
would winningly reply to this 1930s"Death of a Salesman" is about someone working in the
Great Depressionworld view: "What on earth are you talking about? We keep at it because
we're needed and it's our job. It's just that simple."
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/3XJJPyXC3Cc/UzELBA_n7RI/AAAAAAAAAVg/nLzV1PinH4I/s1600/rs_1024x
759-130719130320-1024.divergent2.mh.071913.jpg
Or jump ship as fast as possible ...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rae3rHp30E/UzEFmJCUOOI/AAAAAAAAAVI/ywfrS89SJ90/s1600/Unknown.jpeg
And be this?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/vm3xnq0g_D0/UzEFoP9ybdI/AAAAAAAAAVQ/ql74djoGiBQ/s1600/divergent
-movie-image-high-res-10.jpg
Or this?
Hmmm ...
362
Share to Twitter
Recommend this on Google
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
Labels: lars von trier, nymphomaniac, Richard BrodyShare to Facebook
Impossible to defend
Andrew OHehir wrote:
[]
Instead, Id rather go beneath the surface to look at the
structural function of these stories the role they play in the
cultural economy where I think we can identify even more
363
364
365
366
367
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>1027</o:Words> <o:Characters>5855</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Home</o:Company> <o:Lines>48</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>11</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>7190</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGrid
Every>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery
> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif] [if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions
*/ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstylerowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-styleparent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; msopara-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-marginleft:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times
New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minorfareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style> <![endif] StartFragment EndFragment
368
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Share to Pinterest
RecommendthisonGoogle
Labels: dauntless, divergent, erudite, veronica roth
Iron Man 3
Nebraska
369
The Wolverine
The Counselor
370
The Counselor Blu-Ray Clip - Thats What Greed Is (HD) Penelope Cruz,
Cameron Diaz
Filth
Filth Movie CLIP - Hit Me Bruce (2013) - James McAvoy, Imogen Poots
Movie HD
Pacific Rim
371
12 Years a Slave
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit Movie CLIP - I'm Not Crazy (2014) - Keira
Knightley Movie HD
*****
Draw, or loss to the woman, owing to "the boy" IDing
himself as loyal to mom, or as saving a nation / world, or
some other epic excuse.
The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug
372
373
"Her"
The power of this fusion fantasy can be seen in a
simple experiment that has been repeated over and over
again by Silverman and his group. They showed subliminal
messages to hundreds of people, and found that only one
"MOMMY AND I ARE ONEhad an enormous
emotional effect, reducing their anxieties and pathologies
and their smoking and drinking addictions
measurably. Daddy and I are one had no effect.
374
"Gravity"
Furthermore, the weight of the fetus pressing down into the
pelvis can compress blood vessels supplying the placenta,
producing additional placental failure. Practice contractions
near birth give the fetus periodic "squeezes," decreasing
oxygen level even further, while birth itself is so hypoxic
that "hypoxia of a certain degree and duration is a normal
375
376
377
378
379
"Filth"
The only neurobiological condition inherited by boys that
affects later violence is they have a smaller corpus
callosum, the part of the brain that connects the right and
the left hemisphere. The larger corpus callosum of infant
girls allows them to work through trauma and neglect more
easily than boys. Furthermore, boys who are abused had a
25 percent reduction in sections of the corpus callosum,
while girls did not. This means boys actually need more
love and caretaking than girls as they grow up. If they do
not receive enough interpersonal attention from their
caretakers they suffer from damaged prefrontal cortices
(self control, empathy) and from hyperactive amygdalae
(fear centers), their corpus callosum is reduced further,
380
381
382
383
Labels: 12 Years a Slave, DeMause, filth, gravity, her, inside llewyn davis, iron man 3, lloyd
demause
384
385
386
387
388
Labels: into darkness, jack ryan: shadow recruit, star trek: into darkness, the hobbit
Monday, January 20, 2014
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
them once and for all, but rather than for nothing it left
them with the knowledge they'll never be absent her love.
Like Theodore and Amy do with one another, they'll spend
more of their time with people like themselves, and less
with the ogres out there like the former wives and husbands
who once had your interest but who also aggressively
challenged and openly mocked you (note how similar
Theodore's Catherine and Amy's Charles are in this way:
they both seemed bent on taunting, on openly mocking and
bullying those they've clearly assumed are permanently
stunted--they're show-offs, braggarts). One can imagine a
city shorn of all challenges; a safe house of pre-adolescent
children, still nursing their wounds but with the resolve of
being sure of their mother's love, holding hands in
perpetuity.
Posted by Patrick McEvoy-Halston at 10:35 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
RecommendthisonGoogle
Labels: beowulf, black swan, charlotte's web, her, lloyd demause, Richard Brody, sady doyle,
spike jonze, stephanie zacharek
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
402
<o:Paragraphs>15</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>27014</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridE
very>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif] [if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions
*/ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowbandsize:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-paramargin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New
Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; msofareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <!
[endif] StartFragment
403
404
405
masters sheen wear that readily off?) That is, his making a
hash out of Bilbos initial greeting, his initial efforts to
manage him by way of good mornings, and, as well, his
subsequently besieging him with a sequence of dwarves in
through the door. Confronted with a dragon, hell be
dealing with someone who loves conversation, riddles, and
comfortably lounging amidst clutter for years upon years as
much as he does. But as much as he might find himself
surprised at how this pinnacle heros moment develops in a
surprisingly accustomed setting, its still not going to be
like sitting down Wednesday for tea with the Brandybucks.
Hes going to need to attenuate his talent to the outside
world, and of course gain some experience demonstrating
courage amidst terror and doubt and the unfamiliar, before
he could possibly be ready.
The dwarves will serve as carapace, sufficient armor to get
him through the wild. Itd be pointless to explain to them
how Bilbo is actually a Smaughes actually a what? a
dragon? and that's why he's useful? Smoking a bit too
much Halfling weed there, are thee Gandalf?so Gandalf
explains him in terms theyll get. Thus: I tried to find [a
hero]; but warriors are busy fighting one another in distant
lands, and in this neighbourhood heroes are scarce, or
simply not to be found. Swords in these parts are mostly
blunt, and axes are used for trees, and shields as cradles or
dish-covers; and dragons are comfortably far-off (and
therefore legendary). That is why I settled on burglary
especially when I remembered the existence of a Sidedoor. With that the dwarves would look at small Bilbo, of
a stealthy hobbit race, and it would look to appear good
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
not disclosed.
Gandalf isn't there for Bilbo when he faces Smaug
something he might have known could prove the case,
despite his promise, for it not actually being his adventure
but before he goes off he shows Bilbo a fair simulacrum
of what his encounter with him might involve, as if to say,
this is pretty much what you're going to have to pull off; I
hope you're now finally ready for it. Gandalf enters the
abode of the great, powerful Beorna being with a
dangerous temper but also a healthy respect for good
gamesmanship, as well as a considerable appetite for
skilled storytelling and intrigueand finesses him
perfectly. And Mr Baggins, in a way you never hear him in
regards to the abundance of sword-fighting or arrowlaunching on his journeys, remarks on the skill, as if a
fellow adept admiring another versed in the trade: Mr
Baggins saw how clever Gandalf had been. The
interruptions had really made Beorn more interested in the
story, and the story had kept him from sending the dwarves
off at once like suspicious beggars.
With Gandalf gone, Bilbo emerges as the leader, and when
he takes on Smaug all of Gandalf's hopes for the
unpretentious, likeable little man of study, of conversations
over tea, of easy manners, good humor, and of a surprising
bounty of the unaccounted for, are realized. Smaug, who'd
only been pretend-sleeping, tries to draw him out, but Bilbo
refusesgraciously: with flattery. With this response, with
denial cagily sweetened into a gift, Smaug realizes he's
hardly dealing with some ass with an awaiting battle-axe
413
414
415
416
417
<w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridE
very>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif] [if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions
*/ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowbandsize:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-paramargin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New
Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; msofareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <!
[endif] StartFragment
418
419
Graham Clark
I hate that answer; it's designed to make them seem
remote from us
Or it's just the honest truth.
And they don't need to make themselves seem remote
from you; they are remote from you.
Emporium
@Graham Clark They don't watch their own movies,
but they know that by saying that that they're going to
seem as if they dump everything they've done without a
need to look back ... this draws us to envy and be in awe
of them (they're very psychologically sophisticated
people). I think part of them likes to pretend they've
garnered some kind of enlightenment, but won't from
within their cloaks, show it to us. Someone ought to
chastise them for their limiting tendency to withhold,
420
Graham Clark
but they're not all that remote from me, good sir.
They are indeed all that remote from you, and you know
it. Hence the resentment:
this draws us to envy and awe them (they're very
psychologically sophisticated people). I think part of
them likes to pretend they've garnered paradise (or at
least, enlightenment), but won't from within their cloaks,
show it to us. Someone ought to chastise them for their
limiting tendency to withhold
Emporium
@Graham Clark Graham, do you cling to the
authorized, so to make fun of those below? I'm always
willing to re-fresh my take, but I seem to remember that
was the fit you unfortunately found you belonged to.
421
Graham Clark
Graham, do you cling to the authorized, so to make fun
of those below?
No, but I do have an unfortunate compulsion to make
probably futile attempts at encouraging those below to
do something more productive with their time than nip
at the heels of the angels.
but I seem to remember that was the fit you
unfortunately found you belonged to.
What?
Emporium
@Graham Clark My art is different from theirs, but they
are amazing. Still, they withhold, and it's meant to
draw ... but frustrate. And just as your everyday average
Magna Carta human being with a nifty, remote,
admittedly "you-denying" pseudonym who'd prefer
none of us had too much a taste for heights and angels
(that was the real 60s, after all), I'm for sure going to
point that out.
Andrew's piece had it that if we were left with only the
422
Emporium
@rdnaso @Emporium If that were generally true, by
now it wouldn't be a surprise to learn they don't watch
their own in fact we'd be surprised if they did. I think
many creators know that it sounds sort of masculine to
always be onto the next work, and feminine, to admit
watching the whole film with an audience is a rewarding
good time. They toss things off as soon as possible and
don't look back, while we, their dependents, indulge.
Masculine to our feminine.
Emporium / Patrick McEvoy-Halston
423
EndFragment
Posted by Patrick McEvoy-Halston at 9:31 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
RecommendthisonGoogle
424
SoTheWolfofWallStreetismuchfunnierthanmost
previousScorsesefilms,andalsoawholelotnastier;I
cantimaginewhatthematerialreportedlycuttoachieve
anRratingwaslike,giventhatthereareseveralscenesof
JordanslatenightescapadesthatIhesitatetodescribein
print.(Well,theresoneinwhichDiCaprioappearsto
havealitcandleuphisbutt.)Somecriticshavealready
accusedthemovieofbeingundisciplinedandoverlylong,
andtheresoneentireepisodeinvolvingayachting
disasterthatIdprobablyhaveleftonthecuttingroom
floor.ButIratherthinkScorseseandThelma
Schoonmaker,hislongtimeeditor,havethecredentialsto
doastheyplease,andtheoutrageousexcessofWolfof
WallStreetismorecarefullycalibratedthanitatfirst
appears.WefindJordansragstorichesstoryand
magneticpersonalityirresistible,butwealsoknowwere
notsupposedtolikehim,becausehestolethemoneyfrom
vulnerablepeopleandseemstobeasociopathwithno
ethicalcenter.Howdoweresolvethatcontradiction?We
cant,andthatsthepoint.
TherealJordanBelfortworkedbrieflyasajuniorbroker
onWallStreetbeforelosinghisjobaftertheBlackFriday
crashin1987.HestartedoverinaclassicLongIsland
boilerroom,wherehustlersintracksuitshawkedpenny
stocks,mostofthemworthless,fora50percent
commission.StrattonOakmont,asweseeinScorseses
retelling,tookthisstrategytothenextlevel,targeting
middleincomeinvestorswhohadreadycashbutlacked
thesophisticationtounderstandtheywerebeingscammed.
425
Atonepointinthe90s,Strattonemployedmorethan
1,000brokersandhandlednumerousIPOsriddledwith
insidertrading,includingafamousoneforshoedesigner
SteveMadden.ScorseseandWintermakeabsolutelyclear
thatthisisntastoryaboutoneunprincipledbrokerand
hisrenegadefirm;thelessonsofJordanBelfortscareer
areallspelledoutinDiCapriostremendousearlyscene
withMcConaughey:WedontmakeanythinginAmerica
anymore,anditdoesntmatterwhethertheclientsgetrich
orgobroke.Werecapitalizingonthelazinessandgreed
ofothers;theirdesiretogetrichquickwillmakeusrich
instead.
DiCapriosperformanceisfeverishbutcontrolled,
capturingthemaniaofaguywhoshopelesslyaddictedto
sex,drugsandmoneyandwhobelieves,intrueGatsby
fashion,thathehascrackedthecodeoftheuniverse.This
isanovercrowdedyearformaleactors,butifDiCaprio
doesntwinanOscarforthispart,heprobablyneverwill.
(HistwobestactornominationssofarareforBlood
DiamondandTheAviator,andtobothofthoseIsay:
Whatthelivingheck?)Hesonscreenfornearlytheentire
threehourfilm,sweating,snorting,screwing,stealingand
deliveringshowstoppingsalesfloorspeeches,including
theonewherehetellshistroopsthatitsgoodiftheyre
deeplyindebt,behindontherentandhavetheir
girlfriendsconvincedthattheyrebums:Iwantyoutouse
yourpaintogetrich!
Youcanfeel,inDiCapriosimpassioneddelivery,that
Belfortbelievesheshelpingpeoplebypreachingthis
gospelofshamelessnessanddisillusionment.Itsalmosta
426
capitalistSermonontheMount:Shedyourshameandyour
illusions,andyoutoocanbelikeme,aparasitewhogrows
richfromtheweaknessofothers.Ofcoursehesnotdumb
enoughtobelievethatthislessonisavailabletoall;its
likeJohnCalvinsideaofsalvation,aprivilegebestowed
onachosenelectwhoriseabovetheseaofdamnedsouls.I
guessthisisaspoiler,butJordanBelfortsstorylacksthe
romanticorpoeticconclusionthatbefallsbothAlienin
SpringBreakersandtheoriginalJayGatsby.Hesout
therestill,reinventedasamotivationalspeakerandsales
coach,preachingtheonetrueAmericanreligion,for
whichearlierGatsbymodelslaiddowntheirlives.
Successfulpeopleare100percentconvincedthattheyare
mastersoftheirowndestiny,hetellspeople.Richnessis
withinyourgrasp,hypotheticallyspeaking,andifyoure
pooranyway,itsclearlyyourowndamnfault.(The
WolfofWallStreet:inequalityandtheGatsbymyth,
AndrewOhehir,Salon.com)
susansunflower
TowardstheendofLuhrman'sGatsby,therewasabrief
referencethatmademerealizethatLuhrmansawGatsbyas
theheroofthestory,whichIconfesscameasashock.I
hadalwaysviewedGatsbymuchliketheWizardofOz,a
deeppocketedmagicianwhosefeetofclayandunmagical
realitywouldinevitablybediscovered.
427
Still,asidefromwonderingexactlyWHATtheywere
teaching"youngpeopletoday,"IrealizedthatIhadseena
verydifferentmoviebasedonaverydifferentstoryfrom
theoneLuhrmanhadmade.Iwasn'twillingtorewatchto
reappraise,butIdidwonderiftheratherwidelydivergent
reviewsreflectedacertaingenerationaland/orworldview
gap.
Havingacoupleof12steppersinthefamily12steppers
whotendedtoregailanyfamilygatheringwiththenear
deathexperiencesinthebadolddayswhentheywere
usingIanticipaterathersimilar"gap"inappreciationfor
thisfilm.Thosewholivedthroughtheexcessestheir
ownorothersandcameoutunscathedorhavehealed
mayrevelinseeing"thosedays"(orsomething
approximatingthem)depictedonthebigscreen.I'mless
certainthatthevictimsandcasualities,thecollaterally
damagedwillbesoamusedand/or(onceagain)exactly
howamusedthefemaleaudienceislikelytobe.
Itsoundslikethismoviehasalreadybeenmadeseveral
timesinthelast30yearsEvenfromthisfairly
enthusiasticandpositivereview,itdoesn'tsoundlikethis
incarnationactuallyhasanythingtosay...leavingwhat?
Myownfeelingisthatthe"howthemightyhavefallen"
"closersarealwaysclosing"endingdoesnotactuallymake
thismoviesomehowmorallyneutral.
428
Amity
@susansunflower
"doesnotactuallymakethismoviesomehowmorally
neutral."
Wait,Idon'tunderstand.Youwantmoralneutrality?
susansunflower
@Amity@susansunflower
No,butIthinkScorcesedoes.
Funny how a filmmaker can dodge those issues by claiming
"based on a real story" and/or "based on a classic
novel" ... as in, I didn't create this story
Iwrotemycommentbeforereadingthedaughter'sstory
below.Bottomline,theWolfofWallStreetsurvived.This
seemstobeaboyswillbeboysstoryofwretchedexcess.
HailofBulletsTonyMontanabecameaheroinsome
quarters.Ithought"Blow"packedapunchwithoutbeing
preachy.IfGatsbycanbeconsideredherothesedays....
SeealsoGordonGekko.
429
Emporium
@susansunflowerThetimesyou'relivinginempowers
certainkindsofpeople.Ifthetimesaregenuinely
actuallymorallygood,peopleliketheflappersor
hippiesaretheonestowatch.Ifyou'rehectoringtheir
debauch,you'renotseeingitstraight.Whentimesarebad,
it'sgoingtobethelikeoftheseassholes,whoweregoing
toneedalot,Imeanalot,ofkindnesstobecomepeople
whodon'tneedforyoutolosesotheycanfeelgreat,and
whoweremeanttoexperiencezeroofit(strangely,
MatthewMcConaugheykindofdoesofferabitatthe
beginning,whichmayexplainwhysomecriticswhohated
thefilmlurchbacktothisscene,asiflongadriftinspank
andsewageanddesperateforrecognizedfirmament).
Theproblemaboutacknowledgingthatitisfuntowatch
theseguysnonethelessthetimesareenablingtheir
stories,whilecowinganddeflatingothers,anditshows
isthatyoushouldinmyopinionbeabletorecognizeit
withsadistNazis(ormaybeGermansingeneralinthelate
30s,asweunderstandbetterthattheyreallywereoneand
thesame)andtheirprey.ThatisthetestI'dputtoRichard
Brodyforinstance,averygoodman,whoindiscussionof
thisfilmgenuinelybravelytalksout"monstrous
potentates
whosevastanddarkrangeofexperienceispreciselythe
430
sourceoftheirallure."
susansunflower
@Emporium@susansunflower
ThecontrastbetweenBrodyandDenbycouldnotbe
greater
Brody:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2013/12
/thewildbrilliantwolfofwallstreet.html
Denby:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/12
/wolfofwallstreetreview.html
susansunflower
@Emporium@susansunflower
Actuallyitremindsmeof"ApocalypseNow"whichI
absolutelyloathedonaviscerallevel(whileacknowledging
thecinematicachievement)becauseIfeltitglorifiedwar
(evenasit"pretended"otherwiseorcamouflagedits
enthusiasmindirt,mud,andworldwearycynicism
431
anotherclassicbook).
Mymemoryisthatprerelease,ApocalypseNowwas
"supposed"tobeanantiwarfilmsupposedtoexposethe
"horrororwar"butactuallyit'smostvocalaudience(as
farasIcouldtell,thiswaspreinternet)wereVietnamVets
whoendorsedthatitdepicted"whatitwasreallylike",
strugglingwithPTSD,antiwarbutwatchingitoverand
over.Ithoughtitmakewarlookliketheepitomeofbeing
"reallyalive"....intoxicating,sensual,sexy.I'mdoubtful
thatApocalypseNowwoulddiscourageanyadventure
seeingyoungmanfromenlisting.
(InterestingreviewbyaVietnamesefilmreviewer:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2001/nov/02/artsfeature
s.londonfilmfestival2001)
I'minclinedtothinkthatScorsesemadethismoviebecause
itstopicandextravaganzasuitedhistastesandhis
cinematicstrengthsgangofguysnotbecausehecared
somuchaboutitsragstorichestoragsstoryline.Quite
likelybecausehewantedtorevisitHISOWNpast
revelries,hisown"warstories",hisglorydays.
tasherbean
@susansunflowerexcellentcomment.Idon'tknowifyou
432
sawthemovie"Jarhead"withJakeGyllenhaal,(whichI
thoughtwasactuallyaprettygooddepictionofthehurryup
andwaitaspectoflifeinthemilitary)butthesceneright
beforealltheyoungMarinerecruitsweregettingreadyto
shipouttoIraq,hasthemsittingintheCampPendleton
movietheaterwatchingandcheeringcrazilythefamous
helicopterattacksceneinApocalypseNow.......tomake
yourpoint.
Emporium
@susansunflower
It'stoughnottoglorifypeoplewhenit'stheirtime.I'vehad
managersatjobswhotreattheiremployeesabhorrently,but
afairrecountingofwhowaslivingthemoreinterestinglife
them,ortheirunsettledemployeeswouldmeanfor
surethem.Iliveinaneighborhoodthatisgentrifying
massively,andthoughIavoidtheirhangoutsfortheirscent
ofyou'remeanttofeelitassertion,thebetter,more
confidentartisticexpression,isthere.
Watch"WalterMinty."Hereyougetoneofthoseguys
who'sdevotionhaskeptacompanyrelevantfortwenty
years+,butseemssimplyembarrassingwhenacompany
feelstotallythatitcantransplantatemplatewherenoone
meansmorethantheirrole.Waltergetsthesegreat
433
"prompts"spirited"girlfriend";groundedfamily;rugged
herowhoeventhe"wolves"salivateoverinadmiration
thatendupmeaningthatthoughheloseshisjob,hecan
evolveintoequalinpresencetothe"wolfonwallstreet"
bosswhohaseveryoneelseinhiscompanycowedinfear,
andwhomtheage,eventhemovieagrees,ismostlytheirs
now.
Thisisn'tnecessarilymorefuntowatchthan"Wolf".It
doesn'tadmittothemasochismthatitbaitsmostinthe
audiencewith:feelingsmalllendstoyoursurelybeing
virtuous.Andit'salie:it'sdoubtfulthefewtrueWalter
Mintysouttherearelivingasenjoyably,ascompellingly,
astheseassholesare.Sparksofinspirationmeetjet
engine!
SomeoneattheNewYorkerhasjustsuggestedthese
"wolves"are(theGreatGatsby's)Buchanan'spointof
view,butthisisn'ttrue.Gatsby,wasnewwealth,whenthe
oldwasfeelinglesssureofitselfandthewolvesare
feelingit.
They'rereallyGatsbythosetheagewantstoinflate
strippedofcourseofallthatotherwisecommends,forour
agebeingthepunishmentforapreviousone'segoistic
proclamationthathumanbeingsaregood,anddeserve
allofthem;eventheweakandgullibletoknow
happinessandpleasure.
434
Emporium/PatrickMcEvoyHalston
435
Share to Pinterest
RecommendthisonGoogle
Labels: apocalypse now, david denby, Richard Brody, scorcese, the great gatsby, wolf on wall
street
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Noblesse oblige
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template> <o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>1963</o:Words> <o:Characters>11192</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Home</o:Company> <o:Lines>93</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>22</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>13744</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridE
very>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif] [if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions
*/ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowbandsize:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-paramargin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New
Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-
436
437
438
Andrew O'Hehir
@Douglas Moran All of the above, Doug. I mean, the
ordinary moviegoer wants something different than a critic
wants, and there's kind of no way around that. I'm not going
to pretend to be a populist, Gene Shalit style, if it doesn't
fit. I heard Vincent Canby talk about this years ago: When
you see 200+ movies a year, you become a specialist, and
you're looking for something you've never seen before.
Whereas ordinary moviegoers, by and large, want to see
essentially what they've seen before, done well or with a
new twist, and with a familiar outcome. The audience for
"12 Years a Slave" is inherently much smaller than the
audience for "Gravity" or "The Hobbit," and even the
audience for "Wolf of Wall Street" (with stars and glamour
but a somewhat "unsatisfying" conclusion) is somewhat
smaller.
Douglas Moran
@Andrew O'Hehir @Douglas Moran In all honesty, I
have no idea how you can watch that many movies in a
single year. I have to imagine that it changes your
perception, and have often thought that "uniqueness"
becomes far more of a sought-after quality for a critic than
"entertainment". So something that the great mass of
people will find entertaining, a huge percentage of critics
will either roll their eyes at or actively detest--"Sleepless in
Seattle" or "Love, Actually" being a couple of perfect
439
440
Emporium
@Douglas Moran @Andrew O'Hehir This was like
something out of a Jane Austen novel.
The lord discusses aesthetic preferences with one of the
respected men in his nearby towna pastor, an affluent
farmer, a doctor. The lord will be the master in this
conversation, but he takes care to give room for the town
leader to imagine himself less afflicted than the lord is, that
his comparative ignorance and suspicion of change is a sign
of his being contented in settled, rich, bourgeois propriety.
So the town leader for a moment gets to pretend he's master
in this conversation, by tending to the lord's affliction in a
way that highlights his own contentment. Chest out,
pleased in feeling a proprietor who, being a small master
of the universe, is of course mostly just going to indulge in
daily contentment rather than jostling foreign novelty he
then quickly lends the rest of his thought to acknowledging
the real superiority of the lord and the stultifying aspect of
441
Douglas Moran
442
Emporium
@Douglas Moran @Emporium @Andrew
O'Hehir @Douglas Moran @Emporium @Andrew
O'Hehir In true gentry style, his courteous, good-humored
reply had a lot of teaching in it which some might find
plainly arrogant: critics pursue and are entertained by
novelty, something new and smart; ordinary people, by a
repeat of the same 'ol sack of shit. Under cover of the
ostensible key difference number of movies watched
is being pushed a class difference, a difference in quality of
person.
To which you replied you're still not going to see "12
years," even if God had placed all the wisdom of the
universe in it, if there's any risk of it spoiling your dinner.
But you're obliged to have had him visit, and ensure him
you'll keep reading his reviews to make sure you make an
informed decision as to which film out there won't depress,
anger, outrage, or unsettle your blood pressure in any way.
With such self-mockery here, I gathered you conceded that
443
Douglas Moran
@Emporium @Douglas Moran @Andrew O'Hehir Ah, I
see; thanks for clarifying. I've got it now: You're a
pompous, pretentious bore who believes that, by reading
a couple of posts by people you don't know in any way
whatsoever and of whose past interactions you have zero
knowledge, you nonetheless feel informed and wise enough
to pass judgement thereon. Got it.
That will save me considerable time in the future should I
happen upon another of your comments; I'll simply skip
over it and save myself the trouble of trying to untwist your
tortured syntax. Thanks; appreciate it.
And by the way, Pro Tip: If you're going to use such overboiled phrasing and grammar, you might want to re-read
your comments before pressing the "Post" button. For
example, I "assured" Andrew; I didn't "ensure" him. Also,
a single return after a paragraph suffices. I'm sure on rereading other edits will occur to you, given your vast and
superior knowledge of the written form.
444
Andrew O'Hehir
@Douglas Moran I have to admit, this whole thing was
hugely entertaining. And one of my main reactions (to
myself) was: Dude, no freakin' way is some guy in the
comments going to out-marxist-analysis me!
Douglas Moran
@Andrew O'Hehir @Douglas Moran [laughter]
---------Emporium
@Andrew O'Hehir @Douglas Moran
When you see 200+ movies a year, you become a specialist,
and you're looking for something you've never seen before.
Whereas ordinary moviegoers, by and large, want to see
essentially what they've seen before, done well or with a
new twist, and with a familiar outcome.
This description of ordinary moviegoers would seem to
have nothing to do with how many movies they watch.
Anyone who wants to see what they've seen before with a
familiar outcome, isn't going to seem to naturally evolve
into someone who prefers the new and different if they
upped their viewing habits. Rather than finally yearn to barf
it up, then change it up, they'll eat their predictable bland
445
446
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridE
very>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif] [if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions
*/ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowbandsize:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-paramargin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New
Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; msofareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <!
[endif] StartFragment
447
life would confront him with. The rest of the world does
not realize that this one brain alone negotiated avoiding
oblivion! What of if it if it's ill-purposed to manage
anything else in life, which after all might be about selfdevelopment and adventure, such strange, completely
uncountenanceable things, that are firmly known to be, for
that matter, completely disavowed for him by mother, when
life has clearly showed itself in its definitive first allimportant years of being experienced as only about
avoiding being killed? It was vital but young Ender in an
adult mission against a planet of bugs, and in a fever of
genius, it won! it won! it won! The full compass of the
universe was revealed, and in one hell of a pitched, ongoing
battle, a definitive victory was for all time achieved! What
the brain does, though, isn't quite what is shown in this
film. It doesn't figure out primarily how best to obey her-here by dressing up as a girl and disavowing himself as a
boy so to not remind his mother of her former husband--but
rather to be part of her, to be her. As her, he'd never need
worry about being devoured by her or, just as importantly,
losing her approval and feeling abandoned. In real life, the
young boy would have dressed up as a girl on his own
initiative--a replica, specifically of his mother, that is; not
just any odd female--rather than terrorized into it. And his
later development into a "Psycho" adult who dresses
evidently as his mother would have synced up. In real life,
too, he'd proceed further and be hunting down innocent
people, taking huge delight in sawing them up--what fun!
cackle! cackle! cackle!--because he'd be his mother, whom
his brain would only have let know as fully right to be so
devoted to terrorizing his innocent, vulnerable child-self,
448
449
450
The whipping and lashes too, Fassbender and the rest of his
slaveholder ilk would have suffered? Once again--yup.
Very much--yup. Germans did this to Jews as well, as it had
been done to them by their parents: "It was brutal beating,
beginning in infancy, that visitors to Germany most
commented upon at the beginning of the twentieth century,
with the mother far more often the main beater than the
father. Luthers statement that 'I would rather have a dead
son than a disobedient one' is misleading, since it implies
disobedience only was the occasion for beatings, whereas
mere crying or even just needing something usually
resulted in being punished. ' Dr. Schreber said the earlier
one begins beatings the better One must look at the
moods of the little ones which are announced by screaming
without reason and crying [inflicting] bodily
admonishments consistently repeated until the child calms
down or falls asleep one is master of the child forever.
From now on a glance, a word, a single threatening gesture,
is sufficient to rule the child.' Havernick found 89 percent
of parents admitted beating little children at the beginning
of the twentieth century, over half with canes, whips, or
sticks. The motto of German parents for centuries was
'Children can never get enough beatings.' They were not
just spankings; they were beatings with instruments or
whippings like Hitlers daily whippings with a dog whip,
which often put him into a coma. (As Fuehrer, Hitler used
to carry a dog whip with him as he gave orders to be
carried out.) It is not surprising that German childhood
suicides were three to five times higher than other Western
European nations at the end of the nineteenth century, fears
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
Labels: 12 Years a Slave, james wolcott, lloyd demause, morris dickstein, paul krugman, thor the
dark world
Sunday, November 3, 2013
461
462
463
464
465
who we'll likely see next chasing down with bats any poor
sod who failed to "like" your latest insipid post, a bit more
of our private lives will once again be kept under wraps.
We're seeing great rewards in turning cold--our withholding
will surely set you all deliciously off! and so more of our
unwanted selves can be drooped into you. Thanks in part to
you, dear Dave.
Eggers might be regressing to old form. I first remember
him for his magazine Might. It was a very clever thing, but
nasty as well--Bender from the Breakfast Club taking
people down a notch: if he's not happy, why should you be
allowed to be? It's been called one of the origins of snark
into our contemporary culture, but I remember it most for
its interest in leaving the audience feeling played. Eggers
and the subject he was writing on was in on the trick-someone or another young and famous ostensibly dying,
for instance--but we'd come to realize that our desire to be
in the know was being allowed to come to the forefront of
our consciousness, our desperate need to feel as smart,
knowing, and cool as these whip-smart under-30s, and
about that time forced by the reveal to sit sunk for a
crushing while in the dank regrettable stinking dark pool of
it. Abused and sodden. Exposed as needy as hell. With
Eggers likely snickering ...Why should we be allowed to be
happy?
If we apply a bit of the humanism from another hipsterproduced effort--the Royal Tenenbaums--to our reading of
the book, we'd realize that her being upset at being
reminded that some few refuse her acknowledgment, isn't
466
Ender's Game
Ender's Game
One of things that is supposed to be notable about Ender, is
that he encourages other kids to think for themselves and
chip in. He is even reminded of this just before his biggest
467
468
469
<w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridE
very>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif] [if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions
*/ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowbandsize:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-paramargin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New
Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; msofareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <!
[endif] StartFragment
The Circle
Dave Eggers clearly thinks most of us have become
incredibly needy and paranoidguessing that anyone who
is private, is doing so to deliberately withhold approval
from us, and must be chased down and punished. There is a
scene in this book where the main protagonist is going to
pieces upon learning that 3% of her workplace doesnt like
her. All she can do is imagine who they might be, and
wonder how they might be courted to her. Our collective
regression to the emotional state of an abandoned child, is
according to Eggers what could empower our wanting
some giant companya Google gone total world
470
Gravity
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template> <o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>336</o:Words> <o:Characters>1919</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Home</o:Company> <o:Lines>15</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>3</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>2356</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridE
very>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif] [if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions
*/ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowbandsize:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-
471
Gravity
I almost dont want a movie to provide a simulacrum of
what it might be like to be out in space right now.
Engineers, and other employees whose brains are 90%
scientific data, still after fifty years of space inhabitation,
holding court over who gets to tell us what its like to see
your home planet from the outside--how we might prefer to
be in the situation where only Apollo and his lute was able
to express the same. We think New Mexico, and we dont
only think of cowboy yokels bearing daily witness to desert
beauty, but artists, poets, hippies, doing so. Space, however,
is kept rigidly by those who see nothing amiss in their
space station--the ostensible center for a community in
space--being as cold and human-indifferent as any structure
nearly forgetting it was built not just to withstand, but to
house. When Sandra Bullocks character peeps into her
shuttle, the objects that float out arent items of dcor, of
domicile, but a Space Jam character--the difference in
inner-life between any of them and your typical cubicle
geek, is slight. I could handle it if this was critique--they
made the main protagonist a likely NPR listener, after all-but its apparent the filmmaker kind of liked that the
heritage of space still isnt something we could imagine
anyone knitting an afghan cover for. Throw a nervous Betty
in midst of it, and it'll be a perpetual struggle for her to
472
473
Labels: gravity
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
474
Reuben Thomas:
To me Brody does not get it. "Django unchained" is the
film you want to see after seeing "12 years a slave". The
last one simply came after. And I'm pretty sure of the
historical existence of characters like the one depicted by
Samuel L. Jackson in Tarantino's movie...
But it mystifies me more that Brody does not seem to be
able to infer through his own imagination any of the
realities actually suggested by both films. If we accept that
it's actually impossible for even all of the slavery related
films as a whole to narrate every single moment of real-life
historical abuse, then we should offer our own minds to
fill-in the blanks as homage to the effort and as proof of our
own capacity for compassion. It's like Brody were saying
that the current world is in such a state that without the
explicit nature of these images we can no longer gather
enough empathy against slavery.
I agree that empathy is lacking, but only because both films
fail when they show the horrors of slavery as the result of
the actions of madmen. The horrors of slavery were the
result of the acts of psychologically sound businessmen and
plantation entrepreneurs. People like you and me. People
who truly believed in the inferiority of the black race and
the need for slaves to sustain an economy and a way of life.
Come on, even a war was fought around these "facts". I
475
476
to work out of themselves, through the same means-increased empathy from mother to daughter, gradually over
generations--as well.
Link: Richard Brody's review of 12 Years a Slave (New
Yorker)
EndFragment
Posted by Patrick McEvoy-Halston at 1:28 PM No comments: Links to this post
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
RecommendthisonGoogle
Carrie
Carrie
There's a moment in Carrie when Carrie becomes remote
from us, not owing to the carnage she wrecks, but to her
being possessed of a self-assuredness there's no way we'd
be able to match. Her mother, attempting to prevent her
from seeking a life for herself which might allow some
pleasure, bangs her own head repeatedly against a wall,
with sufficient force it might lead to breaking herself open.
Carrie watches it, but insists on her own life anyway, letting
her mom break herself into brain pulp, if such is her wont.
This was what she was going to need to do to individuate,
477
478
479
480
them, a house and a car, isn't bottom-level middle class-what everyone who doesn't live on the street could
possess--but a sign that you've gotten lucky and hit upon a
career path vixen, unaccountable Future gloriously spared
by shining some favor on. To be called spoiled,
increasingly invites a collective glare back ... a judgment,
against the abominable absurdity of the revealed exploiter
still insisting morality has anything at all to do with them.
Depression Nazi Youth, against their own Weimer-spoiled,
dessert-fattened, bourgeois parents, that is.
If we adopt this strategy in categorizing away our own
parents, it would amount to the same sin the same afflicted
upon this movie. Carrie makes the link between Carrie and
her grandmother in order to isolate her mother, and this
comes at the cost of appreciating that this grandmother-surely having come at her own daughter as menacingly as
Carrie's mother did with Carrie--is equally as dismissalworthy. Further, it comes at the cost of understanding why
exactly her mom was as crazy as she was (do we really buy,
considering what the film shows of maternal power, that it
owed to religion?), why she was confined for life to
appreciate pleasures as the worst possible thing in the
world, the great villain in the world, that everyone
attempting to be selfless and holy will crusade against. Very
likely, it comes at the cost of appreciating that her mother,
in actually desisting against the voice in her telling her to
kill her new-born child, and choosing instead to keep and
hold and temporarily tend to her, may have been doing
something heroic, in relation to her lineage's history. Some
part of her daughter, she was able to believe, deserved to be
481
482
Labels: carrie
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Don Jon
Don Jon
It's a considerable task put to Julianne Moore's Esther for
her to present as the preferable alternative to porn as porn
and our porn-watcher are presented here, and I don't think
she manages it. Jon--the watcher--has his life perfectly
compartmentalized. There's his time at the dinner table, his
time at the gym, his time at church and the confessional, his
time at the bar with his friends, his time in bed with this
week's select girl, and his time afterwards in porn--summed
up nicely each time with a single crumpled up tissue sent
into a black waste bin--and in none of these activities does
he feel a disadvantage. I mean by this that though he's a
millennial and not an owner of a home, nor of a job that
puts him outside of being defined as a loser or as
underclass servile--he's a bartender--he's not mastered in
his family home, his job place, amongst his friends, nor
anywhere else, exempting sex, whose for-him arduous
quality requires a besting amendment. His life seems
perfect, an already commendable, substantial realization for
anyone fraught with being a mastered young man ill-placed
to make any kind of stake against the world, until rather
than settle for his usual 8-or-9-in-hotness babe he goes after
a 10, and he starts loosing leverage over his life. Scarlett
Johansson's Barbara culls Jon to her powerfully, and each
step towards her she uses to adulterate him in a way more
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
The Family
The Family
When the mob family descends on their new locale, a
quaint village in northern France, their identity is of
American. The mobster's wife, Michelle Pfeiffer's character
Maggie, enters into a local grocery and asks for peanut
butter, descending upon her a crowd of locals dismaying
American obesity. Certainly too, when the teen boy and girl
in the family join the local school, they're the improvising,
brass-balled Americans, whomever sets out to take
advantage of them regrets their imposition near
immediately. Later, however, it would seem that what they
are mostly is Italian--Maggie is fierce in pitting her olive
oil diet against the French obsession with cream, as if
bulwarked by centuries of Italian lives and culture. They
churn out burgers and Cokes for the locals, only to satisfy
expectations--Americanism has become a red cape they
float before onrushing french bulls they're cannily flanking
and spotting out. I'm not quite sure how much fun it is to
watch a pleb mob family reduce the French into imbeciles,
but I suppose if you understand that what they're doing is
impressing themselves upon new cushions so they are
succumbed of some of their store presence to take on more
of "you," I suppose you can at least get at the sanity of what
they're wanting to do.
But what becomes interesting is how in their individual
pursuits they find themselves extraneous to one another.
492
493
494
495
The Butler
The Butler
The current generation of liberals have clearly reached
expiry date when they find themselveswithout knowing
it, of courseactually favoring Uncle Toms, thereby
becoming exactly those whom they in their better days
would have been at lead in toppling. The current black
situation is that the huge bulk of them are in the
dispossessed 99%, with the vast majority, in the worst
ghettos of this unlucky group. And liberals look at this
group, and see a hopeless situation. They see people who
have simply transmogrified, who, having their claim on
bourgeois respectability taken from them, have over the
last 30 years of taking sustenance from the sort of foul
stuff you count as familiar when you're trying to
makeshift an accommodating life for yourself in hell
with cock-fight UFC becoming your sport,
sadomasochistic Fifty Shades your fiction, heavy whiskey
drinking your milk, and hard-core porn and onlinebetting not even a poke that something has gone wrong
and now stand before them as a people anthropologically
different, fixed forever in their degraded status, like brief
496
497
498
499
for, is the sole black villain in this film. She is the butler's
eldest son's girlfriend, Carol Hammie, who looks down
on her boyfriend's family, at just that point in the film
when the butler's wife has ceased drinking and cheating
on him for her realizing she just can't any longer do this
to such a good man. The wife, Oprah Winfrey's Gloria
Gaines, identifies Carol as low-life trash; and the
occasion of correct naming, sparks momentum in the
film to show up how foul she really is, demarcating how
even her five-year-long love for her boyfriend was false.
She's model gorgeousthe most beautiful woman in the
film, by farand the Black Panthers are fierce in their
black attire, but they're lost souls tempting blacks to
where chaosno true love; all hatereigns.
So you take a film like this where done by a black person,
the one thing that a liberal crowd allowed itself to
question regarding black empowerment is given huge
leverage. When a dispossessed people begin to dress in
spooky garbin this film, Carol's aggressive afro doesn't
really jive with her boyfriend's black leatherhe still
looks an affable Theo Huxtableand is effectively in
affronting Joker garband beget violence, then,
effectively, the KKK has got company: one ranges more
over Southern rural, and the other NorthEast urban, but
it's all just more goons on the landscape. Once you've
chosen this path, your life circumstances no longer
applies, for no amount of previous suffered hate prevents
you of your God-given ability to choose the path of love.
And so as liberals free their homes of the presence of the
dispossessed, by raising rents, and thereby effectively
shipping them off to the outskirt ghettos; and in a sense
free them from their presence on the way to work, with
500
tax policies that attend to "your" drive but pay less and
less attention to their public transport; and keep them
seeming contained, at least, as they explore their
preferred websites, by construing comment sections so
they seem fetid marshes you screen out as you fix on your
own haute-bourgeois/aristocratic compartments, at first
the dispossessed do nothing as you enjoy how "scum"
miraculously seems less present in your everyday life, but
later manifest, in a terrible waywith a burnt-down
luxury apartment building that had taken the place of
something low-rent, scrawled with anarchist hate; with
minimum-wage food chains looted across the country
after strikes had gone nowherewith stolen burgers from
them shoved up the arses of uptown gourmets; with
private roads laced with fowl killed in oil spills, that leave
morning drivers retchingthese dispossessed are going
to be received with nothing but a merciless hard
crackdownregardless of huge a high percentage of
them are black, mentally-ill, and starving. If they had
waited, their sufferings would eventually have been
noticeddid you not see how the butler eventually had
the support of a president to get his raise-hike?but
impertinently, impatiently, greedily, and
unnecessarily, they chose the path of hate, and have
become vermin.
Crackdown is to be lead by the likes of Daniels as well.
The Butler shows he's got all the right attributes. You
don't want them too smart and sophisticated, and he's
not. You don't want him thinking an aristocrat, an officer,
is anything he can aspire to, but rather contented to
himself as a gruff staff-sergeant, and he is. And you want
him beguiled to "betters," as if they are gods, harsh as
501
502
Kick-Ass 2
Kick-Ass 2
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
it's not, it's not, simply funny. You cant quite comic book
them, which makes the scene feel kind of awesome.
Mother Russia is ostensibly in the film to be an
appropriate foe for Hit Girl, but she's really in it for this.
This said, the fact that Mother Russia dwarfs everyone
else who is also part of the elite club of villains, helps
make another of the film's points. What Kick-Ass
suggested has been already terminated: we're not in
the mood to inflate geeks so they might pass as true
super-heroes, but for splitting them off into the sliver few
the 1%who are undeniably awesome, and the rest,
who even with costumes on and trained, look like they're
just waiting for someone truly skilled to take them down
for their silly pretense, la what you felt was partly at
work when Night Bitch gets paid that grim visit at the
hospital, and what was behind even mafia-trained
Colonel Stars and Stripes surprisingly quick exit from the
film. To me, it's amazing the movie would want to go this
way, but it didand with confidence. It gets right that
what we wanted was for Hit Girl to receive what looked
like her due in the original Kick-Ass, to not properly
belong in any movie too much owned wholly by geeks.
When she rides off alone at the finish, she's the 18-yearold with the physical capacity now, to fit right into the
Avengers without blinking, with a big-league foe played
by a big-league actor, taunting her, rather than
essentially unadulterated nobodies and Hollywood
castaways. And if she surprised us in Avengers 2 by
serving as Black Widow's replacement, we'd calculate the
actresses' already-stardom, as well as what she's surely
due; consider her character's superlative killing out of
Kick-Ass; and actually probably let her do the
517
518
Labels: 42nd st., Dancing in the Dark, Game of Thrones, Gene Wolfe,
Kick-Ass, Kick-Ass 2, Monty Python, morris dickstein, Oblivion,
Prometheus, Richard Brody, roger ebert, Shadow of the Torturer,
Skyfall, the Avengers
Blue Jasmine
Blue Jasmine
One thing I was not really fair to, to my experience of
Elysium, is how impressed I was by how it accurately
conveyed, that if you're not amongst those essentially
expected to live as if there is no constraint upon them
all smiles, celebrations, new restaurants, and "isn't life
the greatest!"are outside the fortuned 1%, if you ever
dared offering up any sass, any reflection about how you
truly feel, you'll follow it with a thousand embarrassing
surrenders to whatever authorities might expect of you,
hoping that way to abet an executioner's suddenly raised
strike from tilting to ultimately fall down on you, and cast
you out from a life that still has the bearing of relevance,
519
520
521
522
523
Elysium
Elysium
When Matt Damon's Max encounters the kids who
surround him hoping for money, there's a tiny bit of
524
525
that he rather enjoys living his life. But the character who
really shows the kind of exhilarating heft that comes from
not passively letting a world turn ill-fortune toward you,
is of course evil-agent Kruger, who takes upon his taking
over the space-station command with the same
persuasive suavity as his swaggering a three-shooting
missile-launcher into launching position, to down three
ships that would have been traumatized a space station
as if befelled by an insect invasion, if he didn't stop them
short before arrival.
It's not really Jodie Foster's Delacourt, that is. There's
something about these overt mother-types in current
movies, that whatever their momentary grandiosity,
makes them feel from the start horribly doomed. Like M
in Skyfall and Crystal in Only God Forgives, who also
looked to possess the acumen to persist and thrive in
their positions, they're hit with some kind of wounding
accusation that's set them up for some kind of justified,
necessary, coup-de-grace by the end of the film. Theyve
leveraged themselves in an un-allowed way so
profoundly, that even if most men still part around them
or out of fear pretend to keep faith with themonly
offering up at-best glancing blows so that only other
empowered women might hit them by mid-point with
something more solidan executioner has been let loose
in the world that's going to get them, even if not
themselves left in the end to be an ongoing hero. They
can dwarf whole male hierarchies for awhile, but
something about their being all alone while a whole
world waits to get behind a single moment of seeming
narrative necessity, makes it feel like they can for sure be
taken out.
526
Once shes out in this film, Kruger soon goes too. And so
we have a bunch of androids bringing medicine down to
huge hoards of dispossessed people, who of course oblige
their weakest to get their remedies first. Somewhere
some village boy shows appreciation, but kind of
preferred when the space ships aired but got blown up in
spacethat was cool, mom! And the other villagers
gather around and stone him, and not a spark of
interesting doubt ever showed itself in this universe for a
millennium of years. The men are dumb while the
women are smart--but since this just means they go
nurse rather than ambition doctor, male anxieties remain
soothed.
Posted by Patrick Hallstein / McEvoy-Halston at 10:26 AM No
comments: Links to this post
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Recommend this on Google
Labels: elysium
527
528
529
530
531
The Conjuring
532
The Conjuring
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it,
but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the
affordments of that time are going to make them have to
work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who
would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that
house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from
2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a
notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian
estate, that a single-income truck driver with some
savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit
that the fatherRoger Perronwould get his family out
of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs,
we'd be more apt to still be wagering our lossesone
dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares
to our kidsagainst what we might yet have full claim to.
The losses will get their nursingeven the heavy
traumas, maybeif out of this we've still got a house
really, a kingdommultimillionaires might blanche at
trying to acquire, while at a time when even those a scale
up from truck-drivers probably can't even afford a runt
house and are surely just renting, like runt peasants of
old.
Normally, I think it's likely that if everyday sort of people
are presented to us in film, we're more likely to identify
with them, and wish ourselves more akin to whatever
more possessedcoolercharacters are also about. Not
so true with this film, though, as Ed and Lorraine Warren
the paranormal expertsare about as chastised and
wary as we tend to be. They are the type who when they
533
534
535
536
The Wolverine
The Wolverine
It may be that what Wolverine would need to recover
from dealing with foes on the scale of a Magneto or a
Dark Phoenix, is find himself amidst an environment
where no one he comes across looks like he or shed
present much of a problem to that great big bear we
encounter at the beginning. Its a pisser that that venom
woman can spit into him a spider that cancels his
healing, because otherwise the movie looked like one for
Wolverine to remind himself he could reasonably just
vacation himself through an onslaught of angry swords,
guns, and knives. Truly, other than this one deadly ability
from the venom woman, mutants here seem so
downscaledany ordinary guy, good with a sword, would
seem just as much a problem. So if all he needed to get
past Jean, was to get some soothing attention from a
humbled, lovely girl, who you know is incapable of even
making a loud gesture let alone bursting into a fiery,
taunting, red-headed demon-woman, then this trip to
Japan was just what he needed. Only, this environment
was one that could infest him with a parasitic tickthe
spiderhe couldnt possibly have worried about
incurring while living cave-man in Alaskan woods (btw,
when he removed it, were you too thinking of the slicing
open of a salmon and the removal of guts? Maybe I did
so out of fidelity to that great bear.). And because of it,
while Japan might requit him back to womennear
literally through baby stepsit still reminds him of how
badly human beings can suck.
537
538
539
Pacific Rim
Pacific Rim
The movie Amadeus argued that when a protective,
tolerant environment is nurtured, genius that otherwise
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
this has nothing really to do with their belief that God can
be trusted, but owing to the intolerable fear of being left
to rot, while so many others are drawn off to God and a
halo of eternal happiness. I know they ostensibly are
those who finally learned to be true friends to one
another, but, really, who they are at the end of the film is
the guy who poked his head into Franco's house earlier,
willing to titty-fuck or be titty-fucked, if only they'd let
him in. If they were self-possessed, they would have
remained in many ways who they were earlier. Both of
them, we note, are at heart natural skeptics, questioners,
doubters, who serve as constant reality-checks for friends
who might be becoming lost to themselves. Even with the
Devil clearly possessing Hill, Rogen is still calling out his
friends on their arrogant presumption of the Trinity; and
his inability not to show when he thinks someone is
sounding crazy even when it compromises a moment
when it would feel good to be completely agreeable to a
bro, comes clearly through when Franco delineates his
absurd plotting for the finish of a proposed Pineapple
Express 2.
Rogen is reluctant to agree with Jay that Franco's party is
full of assholes and that his house "is a bit much," but it
certainly isn't clear that this is just his deluding himself
while the "hipster" outsider Jay has here kept his cool. At
the finish, Jay admits he was afraid to join Rogen in LA,
and it is possible that what this party is is just an LA that
would have brought a wrath upon itself for too closely
arrogating the assurance and confident self-regard that a
jealous Athenian god would have assumed for herself. Or
himself ... one wonders if the reason we are shown so
much of the various demons' gigantic phalluses owes as
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
.
Posted by Patrick Hallstein / McEvoy-Halston at 10:46 AM No
comments: Links to this post
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Recommend this on Google
563
Man of Steel
ManofSteel
Kal-El doesn't have the very best of upbringings -- though
it is still very, very good. His Kansas parents genuinely
wish him the very best, but struggle sometimes -- owing
to their own limitations -- to provide what Kal-El needs,
what any kid would need, to in fact become an adult who
through belief in self might just change the world (not
impossible: in certain favorable times -- times of
permission, not times of crisis or war -- near loneindividuals in fact do). His father is worried that if his
son shows his super abilities too early, he'll be
overwhelmed by how the world would react to him, and
the alarmed world wouldn't have an adult him, to calm
them down some and help them stay sane. And this is
sensible, but clearly installs in Kal-El a sense that any
time he summons his natural instincts, summoned along
with it is a frustrating grapple-hold of restraint that'll
frustrate and infuriate him. His mother will do what she
can to calm her son down, but never quite soothingly
confidently, but rather as if, if she isn't particularly
skillful, a genius at calming down her own aroused fears
and self-doubt, her son will be lost to inner-torments and
feel all alone in the world. The son grows up in a world
where everything is so heightened. Apparently with the
littlest thing, any understandable natural kid instinct
564
565
566
567
568
Mud
Mud
There's a movie that Mud appears to be, but isn't, that
one would probably wish it had in fact been. That is, one
that looks upon the heroes of our youth and sees in them
projections of the strength we at the time needed them to
have, for understanding them as versions of ourselves but
in the adult world. Ellis is a fourteen-year-old boy with
an abnormal amount of bravery, self-control and heart,
but a lot of what is distinctive about him looks like it
might be at risk as the life that nourished it--his life with
his two parents, living up river amongst loner
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
One thing I never confused the movie for the book for,
was its portrayal of Gatsby. In the book I could believe
that the huge estate he had prepared was but to lure him
Daisy, while in the movie it is surely his
aggrandizement--I honestly thought most of the time of
Orson Wells's Kane while watching puffed up Leo. He
strolls his party not so much invisible, as he is in the
book, but hidden master of it all. And he shows off how
that special person and that special person and that
special person are all there, rendered as they are into part
of his ample house collections, with them trapped to not
want to be anything else, owing to his hosting the biggest
draw in town--Beethoven in his second act, and this just
one feature. Every night he houses his parties, and every
night the whole town is corralled into it -- he's master of
the house and master of all. And so at the end of the
evening when he strolls outside and looks across the
water at the beaming green light across the bay, it's
absinthe to well the evening down amidst cool air -- the
logical follow up to the evening's clamor, a cleanse, not
what what has been sitting with him throughout and that
he has longed to return to.
Daisy comes across as someone he has to possess for a
complete validation of himself as great and complete. By
his side, the past when he was just a young officer on the
climb, unsure if he should dare merge with someone of
assured standing, becomes smoothed into him. As much
talk as there is in the film that once again knowing Daisy
means Gatsby's all-important green light's dwindling out,
the only way there's any sense of it the film is that it
might mean Gatsby and Tobey McGuirre's Nick Carraway
being distanced from one another, as it is their
579
580
have been content with his sweet date with Daisy over
tea," he alases. He's like old money prejudices, with a
lighter side, a real fondness for youth and their eager
tries and newish ways, who'd court peers he still belongs
to to try and see them the same way; and his having so
much standing in the film, gives solidity to Buchanan.
When Buchanan reality-tests Gatsby in a way which fully
renders him down--the only real murder in the film--and
gains back his Daisy, Nick had already been rendered to
the point that the best he could do for the person he still
wishes the best of luck to but who realizes he has no hope
of further influencing, is communicate true love and
support for him through his otherwise lying nods to
Gatsby's determination to gain sake himself Daisy--the
only thing he wants at this point from Nick is a show of
deferent affirmation, so it has to be the conduit for
something truer and larger he'd prefer to communicate:
great realization and maturity and love, from Nick. Nick
knows it's likely "the wolves" for Gatsby; Buchanan only
supplies them. Hard judgment to the softer man's
realization--"Amadeus's" Count Orsini-Rosenberg to
Baron Van Swieten, upon Mozart's decline and death.
Nick of course is shown writing a book that we know will
puff up the Gatsby legend that is being debilitated as his
estate is being looted. But I think this is just pause for us
to think on the words that are being literally inscribed for
us on screen. There was a great show of a kind for us in
this film, but it may pass as just a film amongst others -not even possibly being one of our Depression's notable
showy numbers, that we should get to high acclaim if this
one wears like the last one ("Forty Second Street," Busby
Berkeley, all show, no depth, anything to beat back the
pressing accretions of the Depression, and all that), while
581
582
Iron Man 3
Iron Man 3
If you ever give someone a twenty-foot stuffed animal for
a present, you might want to consider that you're doing
so more out of a desire to affront the receiver than please
him/her, and that also possibly you're communicating
that you're the one -- the denied child -- in gigantic need
of love yourself. It could pass as just making up for long
neglect, as it is does in this film, but when you're
following up by fooling your lover (here with Pepper
engaging with simulacrum Tony while the real one pulls
his strings in his den) and then maybe not-so-accidently
fixing it so that your den toys substitute as nightmare
horrors to scare the Dickens out of her, the truth is that
you may be the one who is frustrated and in anger, and
that you are unconsciously being driven to communicate
it as loudly and aggressively as possible. Tony Stark is in
need of attendance -- being ready to lose his life in favor
of saving the world and finding himself in some other
dimension against the onslaught of aliens while with the
Avengers, has him the mercy of reoccuring anxiety
attacks -- he's got PTSD, as bad as any out of
Afghanistan. This might seem difficult to identify with,
but it's not really, as you've got a Depression on your
hands which is making sure you suffer the incredible
aggrievement of actually feeling more and more without
support while our awareness of the particular historical
situation we're in increases. You need a manger to lie in,
not your cold removed den, and this is what Tony gets, as
he finds himself removed from the world in some small
583
584
585
586
587
588
lasts, captures.
We are supposed to believe that when police officer
Avery (Bradley Cooper) shoots and kills Luke, he
ended the life of someone elses father. But this
truth is undermined because we know Luke was
pretty much played out anyhow there was no
future for him; he was someone who lived a lot in
his short time, owing to his balls. So really the
effect of all Averys muddling over the moment
plays out more as him pausing on exactly how selfdetermining he is at this point in his life. He
became a police officer, it is made to seem, owing
in part as a passive-resistant way of telling his
father to fuck the hell off and let him lead his own
life. His assessment of his police work, of his fellow
officers, seems in good part determined by who
they must be to make himself seem part of a
different more pure, simple and less
compromised world than the one his father
belongs to. This illusion cant hold up; and very
soon it becomes apparent that this new world hes
lent himself to is just as ready to make use of him
for its compromised purposes. There is a moment
of self-actualization, of conviction, when he spins
his car around and balks his police officer
buddies to engage with his father once again. In
teeth of others willful expectations, he does what
he wants to do, and the film makes it seem as if
everything else is presumable after that: hell be
589
590
Oblivion (2013)
Oblivion
591
592
593
OriginalArticle:Aplagiarist'slameexcuse:
Addictionmademedoit
THURSDAY,DEC1,201109:32AMPST
Hisproblemisthathewantsyoutobelieveheintentedthe
alphabet;whenitgetstothepointthatotherpeoplesworks
becomelikethealphabetsomethingeveryoneknowswasntour
owncreation;onlysomethingwereusingtohopefullycreate
somethingworthypeopledoingthesamewillbeequallyworthy
assaluteasoriginalauthors.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Aplagiarist'slameexcuse:
Addictionmademedoit
THURSDAY,DEC1,201109:20AMPST
Re:Yettherushtolabelhisselfishbehavioradiseasetendsto
undercutthesincerityoftheatonement.
Anyonewhossettledinwellwithadisease,shouldunderstand
otherseffortstogetinwithoneaswell:therein,liesnotjustsure
excuse,butsureexcusetodelightinanyandeveryselfish
endeavorimaginable.ReallyMary,onedayafterdelineatingforus
howyourenotwaitinguntiltomorrow!andinsteadareenjoying
youreverypleasuretoday!,yourefindingsomepoorsure
damnationattracting/drawingsodwhosputtogetherhisown
pasticheofpleasures,togrindtoground.Ifyourestillfinding
yourselfanxiousaboutlivinglifeuninhibitedbydenial,dont
594
projectanddisownyourownsinfulselfintosomeother
defencelesspatsy,toshowhowmuchyounormallydespise
uninhibitedselfindulgencethatsjustcruel;instead,get
sympathetictreatment,fromsomeonewholovesandadmiresyou
someonewhoknowsinotherthings,s/hehasagreatdealto
learnfromyou.
Whenwerenotallinthemoodtoseekoutanddestroysinful
people,wemightadmitthattherewassomethingcapableand
compellingaboutsomeonesuccessfullymakingapasticheofother
peoplesworks,intoaprovedwinsomewhole.Hemadeother
authorscontributionsinto,lettersofthealphabet,fromwhichhe
assembledalargerparagraph,chapter,andon.Idlovetosee
moviesbemadeavailableforartfulotherstoreassembleinto
uniquecreationsItrulyhopewegothere.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Theargumentagainstthrift
THURSDAY,DEC1,201108:48AMPST
Haventyouknownquiteafewpeoplewhoareevidentlydoing
well,butifyouaskthem,willtellyouhowsomuchofwhatthey
earngoestowardspayingoffafflictions.(Tomindinstantly,ishow
everycollegeprofessorweseemtohearfromatSalon,for
example,isinsomehurrytotellyouabouttheir60hourwork
weeks,andhowtheycouldearndoubleiftheyworkedin
business.)Myguessis,isthatyoupersonallycouldbegiftedinthe
futurewithsomehugelotteryticket,andsoonenoughwedstill
enduphearingfromyouaboutpossiblyevenyourdentalwork,
certainlytheclaimingcharities,relatives,andavastpantryfullof
otherafflictions.Youdneveradmitthatthebulkofyourlifewas
aboutselfadventureandlivingitup.(Inourweirdculture,getting
595
cancerisonlyguiltfreewaytogiftyourselfwithabucketlistof
goodies.)
Growth,untaintedgoodthings,makesomanyofusfeelanxious,
exposed,punishmentworthy.Whenwestartingfeelingespecially
anxious,weactuallywanttobeinvolvedinsomethingofthelike
ofadepression,sotheresnowayanyonecouldpointusoutand
suggestwerenotactuallymostlycruelly,unfairlyburdened.
Ifdentalworkandthelikewasntsoeasilyapprehendedbyyouas
anaffliction,thunderedintoittoinstantlyprovehowdeprivedyou
are,youmighthaveaddedthatwiththesethings,too,thereis
adventurepossibilitiesforselfknowingness,expansion,
consolidation.Whatdentistdowechoosethistimetovisit?What
sortofdentalwork,service,attendance,mightactuallybeoutthere
forus?Therearesomanywaystocareforthebody,somany
interesting,differentpeople,toencounter,sortthrough,and
experienceaswecometothewaythatworksnowbestforus,why
notthesamewithsuchostensiblesimplydreariesascarrepairs?
Maybe,ifwehaveamindtolook,thatworldhasbecome
interestingtoo?
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Theargumentagainstthrift
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201108:46PMPST
Continuingtoupdateourselves,investinproductsthatrepresent
selvesweareevolvinginto,isaveryhealthythingandifmost
peoplereallywantedsuch,ratherthanaseverecoldspellthat
cancelsoutbadconsumeristichabitsweprobablyneed
rescuingfrom,wewouldntelectinpeopleallagreedthatwhat
weneedisausterity.Thereissomesimilaritybetweenwhatthis
596
authorbelievesandwhatPaulKrugmanbelieves;he,Paul
Krugman,remember,wantsthegovernment,atleast,tospend,
spend,spend,andletausterityfullysuckit.Itsprobablyoneofthe
reasonssomepeoplethinkhesababyboomerdouche.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Theargumentagainstthrift
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201106:02PMPST
Alladultsnotjustparentshaveapowerfulpsychological
urgetoputtheirdesiresonhold,andthaturgemakesusreceptive
tothenotionthatwedbetterbesavingmoreandspendingless,
justlikeallthemainstreameconomistsandreputablejournalists
keeptellingusto.Weknowwhatwillhappentoourbank
accounts,ourwaistlinesandourmarriagevowsifwestoplistening
totheirinsistentvoiceofreason.
Evenso,wevereachedthepointwherewehavetoconfrontour
fearsaboutconsumerculture,becausetherenunciationofdesire,
thedeferralofgratification,savingforarainydaycallitwhat
youwanthasbecomedangeroustoourhealth.
Thispowerfulpsychologicalurgewasnotmuchinevidencethese
lastfiftyyears;however,yourerightthatmany,manypeople(but
notall)areruledbyit.Itsoriginslieinourrelationshipwithour
parents,who,owingtothefactthatmuchourpurposewasto
somehowsatisfyandattendtotheirownunmetneeds,feltdrawn
toanddidthreatenuswithabandonmentandthelikewhenwefirst
soughtoutaworldofacquisitions,allourown.Thisscareisfor
thechildsoprofoundthatitaloneisresponsibleforthe
developmentofthesuperego,orifyouwill,theparentalalter,most
everyoneofpossess,andwhichusefullywardsawayfromtoo
597
muchspoilingourselvesinlife,forfearofreexperiencingthat
worstofallpossiblehumanexperiences(tothechild,parental
abandonmentmeansannihilation,oblivion:thatwhichcannot,
aboveallotherthings,bereexperienced).
After(DepressionandWW2sacrificepermitted)30yearsof
unambiguousgrowth(1950stoendof70s),andtwentyyearsof
manicgrowth,theparentalaltersinmostofusarespeakinghugely
loudly,warningusthatOblivioniscomingunlessweterminateall
growth,rightfrigginnow.TheDepression,weguess,oughttodo
it;anditwilldoit,endangeringourhealthofcoursepartof
whatitissupposedtodo,toshowourcommitmentnowto
selflessness,totheverypointofnoendinsightsufferingbut
alleviatingusofthefeltsensethatagreaterOblivionispast
zeroinginonusandbeguntoheadourway.
Yourerightabouteconomics.Enjoyedyourpiece.Hopethereare
plentymorepeoplelikeyououtthere.Ifnot,andifyoullexcuse
me,ratherthanabountyofgifts,IllmakeTHATmyselfish,
selfishChristmaswish!
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Thisisournewnormal
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201103:13PMPST
Alsofun!Thankyou.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Thisisournewnormal
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201103:12PMPST
598
Fun!Thankyou.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WhyisHollywoodstill
terrifiedofabortion?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201103:05PMPST
WhatIappreciatesomuchaboutpostwarfeministsisthatthey
madepersonalrealizationsuchanimportantthing.Thisisntacut
therealized,thehappywoman,islivingthelifeLIFE,inmy
judgment,isaboutbeautifullystretchingoutforothersthe
realmofthepossible;plus,whentheyraiseachild,forhavingnot
deniedthemselves,forclaimingsomeofthelovethathadcruelly
beenabsent,theyllgenuinelydobetterfortheirveryimportant
kidsaswell.
Abortionisatrickything.Rightwingerswhonowaresoagainstit,
foritbespeakingfemalerealizationandtheirlifeoutsidethe
containinghome,couldbeallofasuddenforit,ifitendsup
meaningsavingtheworldfromuselesseaters.Watchforit;they
(rightwingers)areidentifiedmostfortheirhatredoflife;their
particularstance,isadaptable,actuallyentirelyreversible.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Thisisournewnormal
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201102:55PMPST
Thecapitalistsystemfailed,then,andwillgodowntodefeat
amidstgoodstylesocialistreform.Despite30yearsoffailing
schools,parentsmoreandmoreawayfromhome,everypersonal
599
problemtreatedimpersonallywithdrugs,coldconsumerculture,
everywhere,agenerationwasneverthelessformedsofullof
goodnessandenergy,onlytheunattunedwouldmistakethemas,
really,essentiallydenied;zombielike.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WhyisHollywoodstill
terrifiedofabortion?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201101:34PMPST
Itstrue,womenwhokeeptheirbabiesarebeingmadetoseem
pure,THEMSELVESkeepable;thosewhoabortthem,creatures,
harlots,diseasedaliens.Anditsclearlynotjustwinningover
therightwingers.
OriginalArticle:Thisisournewnormal
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201101:18PMPST
Drained.Asifasmuchattheendofalong,wearyjourney,as
beginninganewone.Unlikethe60s,vitalitydidntgivebirthto
them.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Who'smakingakillingoff
studentloans?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201101:15PMPST
Theyvebeenliedtobyeveryonetheytrust,andwhentheyrage
600
anddespair,theyregleefullyhateduponasspoiledandpampered
asONLYNOWabouttoknowwhatrealpainis.
Sometimesawholegenerationissetupforsacrifice,sotoabate
theanxietypreviousoneshadabouttheirownlifegains.Thefirst
worldwar,forinstance,wasoncesuchhorriblemoment.Stickit
out,kids.Youdonthavethatmanyfriends,butifyoufindway
nottoreadilysacrificeyourselvesinordertofeelgoodforfully
submittingtoeldersneedsofyou,werenotasbloodthirstyaswe
werebackthen.Recognizeoursickneeds;onlypretendtogivein
tothem;andknowyouverymuchCANoutlastus.Theyllbefun
toysalongtheway,toothe30shadjazz,swing,andCitizen
(friggin)Kane!
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Thisisournewnormal
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201101:02PMPST
Capitalismhasntlookedgoodfor30years,anditscertainlyno
ideal.Butasasocialist,Illmaintainthatthecommunismthatwe
arelikelytoseeemergingoverthenexttentofifteenyears,will
be,unfortunately,Sovietstyleonceagain.Thatis,fortrueserfs,
thosewithoutdistinctionorpersonality,witnessthekindofdead
populacewellsoonstartapplaudingfortheirnobleselflessness.
Werealreadyseeingit;todaysliberalyouth,enjoyingbecoming
partofthenameless,leaderless,washedoutOWSlot.
Understandable,butsad.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WhyisHollywoodstill
601
terrifiedofabortion?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201112:42PMPST
Gotcha;andIagree.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Thisisournewnormal
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201112:38PMPST
The50sto70sfollowedalongdepressionandaworldwar
peoplefeltpermittedahugeperiodofgrowthafterthatheroic
sacrifice,andthatswhytheygotit.TheONLYreasonwereall
abouttogothroughanotherstupidperiodof,notjustoligarchy,but
ofhatredtowardsanythingthatdoesntsmackofpersonality
abatementandselfsacrifice,isbecausewefeelsuchisnecessary
toforgosomekindofevenworsepunishment,whichwouldsurely
visitusifwekeptonarrogantlygrowing,definingourselves
specialsnowflakestyleandotherwisemisbehaving.
SomyguessisthatitllbelikethelastDepression;wellhaveto
waitoutabout7or8yearsofcompletestiflement,thentherewill
beamomentwherewebegintopullourselvesout,followedby
anotherimmediatesquashing;thenwellprobablycollectively
arrangeanotherworldwartohappeninwhichtosacrificeagood
numberofouryouthrepresentativesofourguiltyambitious,
strivingselfvesin,and,penancefullypaid,wellgetanother
stretchof30yearsofunambiguouslygreatgrowthagain.
Hopefullymostofusprovetohavestayingpower,andwhen
wonderful,presumptuous,youthfulprogressivesareonceagain
permittedtoreign,theyllfindawaytomostlyabatethis
horrifyingcycle.
602
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WhyisHollywoodstill
terrifiedofabortion?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201112:20PMPST
Re:Sheclearlyseemslikeaprettysickpuppy,andhasalways
hadastreakofselfloathingamilewide.Assuchmeansshesnot
likelytoREALLYclaimmuchforherselfinlife,Ithinkmany
youngpeoplewillfindheradmirable,inthissacrificeyourself
andyourethegoodgirltimes.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WhyisHollywoodstill
terrifiedofabortion?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201111:23AMPST
Abortionisassociatedwithindependence,freedomwith
presumptionandsoitisnosurprisethatwearebeinggreeted
withwomenpreparedtousetheirbabiestoshowhowprepared
theyaretosacrificeambitionanddistinction,andbecomethelikes
ofaresponsiblebutblandandthereafterinconsequentbreeder,
duringanerawherethissortofselfsacrificemeansescaping
damnationasgrotesquelyselfish,spoiled,andundefeated.Itsnot
theflapper20s,wonderfullygivingVictorianteatottlersthebird;
itsthedepressed30s,whereMotheronceagainrulesthefamily,
andhasusallunderwraps.
Permalink
603
OriginalArticle:Ischildhoodobesityabusive?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201109:52AMPST
Beans,LaurelWASrighttoencourageyouunderstandthatyour
dietwhichisrathersimilartomyownisaveryblandthing
toinflictoneveryoneelse.Igrewuponsugarlesscerealandskim
milkbeans,wholegrains,andgreensIcouldstillwith
considerableregretdomostlywholesalewhennecessitycalled.
Othersareatsomelevelvery,veryrighttogofortheircheesesand
fatloadedsundaes,secondandthirdhelpings,andtellmommas
boyJamieOlivertobuggeroff.
ItstheproblemwiththenofatpeopleIinmanywaysrespect.
TheyrethetypetolamentthattheDutch,whowhenisolated
duringWW2hadtoforgotheirfattydietofcheesesetc.and
indulgedmoreingreensinstead,mostlylefttheirgreensandbeans
dietbehindthemafterthewar.Thatis,whentheDutchwentback
tobeingopulentandlifeenjoying,ratherthanstarvedandisolated,
theyweresuchthatleadnofatdieters,overall,actuallylamented
theirostensibleregression.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Who'smakingakillingoff
studentloans?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201108:48AMPST
Thequestionisrather,whatchancehavethesekidsgot,whentheir
ownPARENTSmorbidlyactuallywantasystemwhichgivesthem
nochance.Deepinourmostregressedpast,wewereofcultures
thatpracticedinfanticide.Itsnot,unfortunately,fullyyetoutof
oursystems.
Permalink
604
OriginalArticle:Who'smakingakillingoff
studentloans?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201108:31AMPST
Therearetimeswhenpeopleintuittheethosisswitching
fromsortofdemostocompletelypatrician/plebian.Were
enteringintoonesuchtime1%constitutionallydifferent
patricians,99%personalitylessnoblesufferers(thepublic
aggressivelywantsitthiswaynowisthetimeforthemto
showhowvirtuoustheyareforlargelysufferingawaya
decadeortwooftheirlives).Ihopesomeinthisdebate
pointedoutthatprobablythenumberonereasontogetinto
(thelikesof)Brown,owesnowmoretoyourwantingtolook
likeyoucouldscoretheleisurelygentlemansB,thanyour
abilitytomatchtheworkethicandcompetencyofanyasian.
OriginalArticle:Whynoone'stalkingabout
Newt'sweight
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201108:13AMPST
Idontthinkso.Hemanifestlyrepresentstheinstitution;assuch,
assomeonemoreimportantspuppet,itgiveshimlatitude:he
couldbeasbigasatruck,andsomehowtheinstitutionspin
stripeswouldworktothinhim.Christiesonhisown,andso
weremorelikelytotakeintoaccountallthathespresumingto
bringuptothetable.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Whynoone'stalkingabout
Newt'sweight
605
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201107:58AMPST
NewtCOULDbeasfatasChristie,andyoureright,itstill
wouldntbeascommentedon.Newtismorepartofaninstitution,
soitseemsnotsomuchabouthim,butratherthelargeedificehes
foldesthimselfamongst.Christiesonhisown,sowelookonlyat
him,andhisbustingoutgut.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Whoneedsabucketlist?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201107:45AMPST
Youhearthewordpegged,andthinkdildos(wink,wink)and
porncommonusage.Youthinkofthosewithproblemswiththeir
babyboomerparents,andthinktheirresponsibleofyour
generation!Whenyouseepoeticlanguageinuse,youbragabout
yourplainness,andsuggesttheotherislikelyautistic.Whenyou
encountersomeoneevidentlydifferentthanyourself,youthink,
firstoff,andthensupplyhelpfulcorrection.
Howsureareyouthatyouarentageek/pervert,aparentpleasing
goodboy,orabore?
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Whymysmallbookstore
matters
TUESDAY,NOV29,201112:34PMPST
Credibilitydoesntlieindirectingmoreandmorepeopletolittle
bookstores,becauseTHATisthedirectiontheyreactuallyheaded,
andIndybookstoresareasthisastutepostersuggestsnow
606
goingtoenclavesofboutiqueness,tight,smartintelligencesthat
givetheirfrequenterssomesensetheyresurelyempowered
againsttheunscrutable,insane,everywheremasses.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WallStreet,takeourchildren!
TUESDAY,NOV29,201111:39AMPST
WallStreetwouldnthavebeenpermittedtoeatourchildren,
unlessthelargerpublicactuallywanteditto.Childrenaptly
representourownstrivingselves,ourowndesiretolivelivesthat
areuninhibitedinwhatmightbeaccomplished.Unfortunately,few
havebeenraisedtoescapeatsomeverydeep,profoundlevel
thinkingthisdesireultimatelyhorriblyselfish,andsowhenwe
NONETHELESSacquiregoodthingsforourselvesinlife,we
JUSTHAVETOMAKESUREsocietyoffersupaptreplacements
tosufferthefateweourselvesbelieveWEdeserveforourown
guiltarousinglifegains.Ourliterate,liberalculture(even)is
findingeverywaynowto(pleaseGod!)GUILTFREEpublically
visualizethehurting,thehumbling,thehumiliationofchildren.
ITSALLostensiblybeingdonetoshowhowmuchtheyactually
DOcare,toshowevilothersupbutthatsnotreallywhyits
beingdone:notaliberalnowwhotalksofeating,hurting,
maimingchildrenisntpleasedwevegotaculturevery
successfullydoingjustthat,andwill,howsodelightfully!,
continueonandondoingthesame.Afterall,theyretheones
whovebenefitedthemostitjustcantbemadenotobvious,
despitetheevilsofWallStreet,andtheirownsupportforhumane,
green,utopicurbandevelopmentandbornagainlittlecommunity
bookstoresandeverywhereaboutthemtheangryDepression
voiceofdisapprovalsounds.
607
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Whoneedsabucketlist?
TUESDAY,NOV29,201111:02AMPST
Inthisage,ifyougetpegged,youredead.Besttoleavesome
suppleness,formaneuverabilitysakes.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Will2012beareplayof1968?
TUESDAY,NOV29,201110:10AMPST
TheOWSersarenotjusttheyoung,either,butitisimportantto
notethatthatisnowhowthemovementhasbeenessentialized
asaburdenloaded,bitterlyangryanddesperate,youthmovement.
Iarguethatnotonlywillittherebyrightnownotgatherhuge
sympathy,butactuallydrawantipathyforvisuallymanifestingall
thedistress,fear,andaloneness,thatothersfeelinthemselvesbut
needexpressedinotherpeople,soitcanbepunished,butasan
outsider,andtherebyfullydenied.Hurtingyoungpeopleisthebest
waytoshowhowapologeticyouarenowforyourownspoiledlife
acquisitions.Inhurtingthem,yourelettingthepartofyouthat
urgedyouontogrowthknowyoujusthowmuchyoudespiseit,to
thegreatpleasureofouridhatingsuperegos,who,inthis
depression,haveseizedholdofthereignsassurelyasallstick
QuaritchdidattheendofAvatar.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Whoneedsabucketlist?
608
TUESDAY,NOV29,201109:53AMPST
Ifyouwerentonthefiveyearlist,itslikelyyoubedoing
muchofthesame,though.Culturehascrestedthebaby
boomershavewilleditso.Itstimetorevisit,indulgeinknown
pleasures,knowingthattheonlythingnew,butstillcomfortably
awayaway,inthehorizon,isthedoomofdiscord,crazed
agitationsandenthusiasms,andwartrumpets.Itfeelslikeendof
timesthenewonthescenedontseemsomuchofthesortto
wanttocommunicateandthefreedomgrantedinthiswilldraw,
isdrawing,manytoindulgeinfamiliarjoys,andsuppressthe
agitatingarrivalofthealsogenuinelyworthybutUNFAMILIAR,
notyourown,whoddareentertodisquietthislovelycollective
swansongmood.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Will2012beareplayof1968?
TUESDAY,NOV29,201108:52AMPST
ObamasbesthopeisifpeopleseeOccupyWallStreetersasa
bunchofstudentsloadeddownwithstudentloanscausepeople
hatethem.The50s/60s/70sweregoingtobeaboutyouth,about
youthfulness,becausetheDepressionandWW2wereaboutthe
denialandsacrificeofallthat.Nowthatwevehateourlong
periodof,first,unamibuouslygoodgrowth,and,second,equally
longperiodofmanicgrowth,wereintoDepressionmodeonce
again,whichisaboutthehatredofallthingsyoungandpromising.
Itdoestheseveryvulnerableyouthagreatmisservicetohavethem
thinkingitmightbethe60scomeagain;itisntforthemost
part,OWSersarehelpingESSENTIALIZEthemselvesasspoiled
andyetstilldisgruntled,fortherestofthepublictoBEGINtheir
pickingon.Iftheyenduplookingmostlyouted,cold,andwithout
hope,thepublicwillkeepvotinginthoseproperlygivingthem
609
theirdue,graftinguponthemallthemiseriesandinsecuritiesthe
restofthepublicwantsdeniedinthemselves.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Supportyourindiebookstore!
TUESDAY,NOV29,201107:40AMPST
PatrickMacabreHalstonhere,AuntMessy,andImnotwhining,
Imhelping.Independentbookstoresarecomingbackagain,andit
willowetothepurchasingdecisionsoftheliberalelite.Theyll
thinktheirsupportofthemmeanstheyreforthesmallguy,that
they,wierdly,AREthesmallguy,butitreallyowestothem
havinganopportunitytothistimeclaimsmallbookstoresasall
theirown,asakindofboutique,thatactuallymostlydistinguishes
themfromthemongrolizedpluralityofthe99%.Whatbetterway
fortheenfranchisedtosupportthe99%thaninawaywhich
continuestheirloathingandfrettingthem?
OriginalArticle:Supportyourindiebookstore!
MONDAY,NOV28,201108:52AMPST
Independentbookstoresarecomingback,butnotasbeloved
neighborhoodstaples,folkystuff.Theyllbebrutalclass
demarcators,thrivingboutiques,wherethoseofrefined,patrician
tastegotoassurethemselvestheyhavelittletodowiththe
mongrel99%(andtokeeptastealive!),andwhichthealienated
99%wishtokeepalive,too,tokeepsomeremoteglamoramidst
theirwasteddebasedworld.Smallhavensofotherwisedisallowed
personality,justlikethe30s.
Permalink
610
OriginalArticle:Howshouldwedesignthe
citiesofourdreams?
SUNDAY,NOV27,201110:25AMPST
Re:Andtheresreasontobeoptimisticthattheywill,becausethe
generationthatwillretrofitouroldcitieswithnewideasisthe
sameonethatscurrentlydevelopinganinstinctualaversionto
economicunfairness.
Itwontbeagenerationthatsgoingtodoititllbeforemost
fromthechildrenoftheendowedrightnoweachoneofthem
verymuchgreen,poorconcerned,butalsosoverydifferentin
mannersfromthe99%thattheirclassconcernedparentsdontfind
themselvesnotentirelyenthusedaboutthem.Theyareprincesand
princesseswhovebeendeniedthecorestufftobreakthrough
instinctualaversionstobeallforthepeople;whatwecanexpect
fromthemiseverythingsothatthewellentrenchedwillnevernot
reallyknowthemselvesasaristocracylovingaristocrats.Inevery
greenguildedurbanlandscape,theyllseethepatricianeasynessof
theirpower,anditllactuallybemostlythatthatpleasesthanwhat
theytelleverybody,includingthemselves,itcommunicates
theirostensibledemocraticcore.
Thisarticleisabouthowthe1%willneverrecognizethemselves.
Itistime,onceagain,forpatricians.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Howgossiptookoverthenews
SUNDAY,NOV27,201109:56AMPST
611
WhyisitwhenonereadsthisarticlethatonesensesOxfords
wallsfirmingupandgettingstronger?Itfeelsalmostasifwhatwe
needmost,now,isforinstitutionstodotheirduty,thepressto
soberupandleavethemalone,andforthepublictoletthemselves
belead.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:IsDonDeLilloreally
prescient?
SUNDAY,NOV27,201109:45AMPST
IfthisauthorreallymeanttobringupDeLillostrulyprescient
point(aboutthetwotowers),onewonderswhyhedidntinfact
mentionit.Whatthisauthordoesdo,however,isarguethatDelillo
hasamorbidandparanoidpointofview,thatheshouldbeseenas
retrofitinghisvisiontowhatevergrandtragedyormomentof
socialdysfunctioncomesalong,andwhosetendencyistousehis
charactersassimpleconduitsforhisownwrongheaded
mouthings.Itishardtoseehoweventhegreatestgeniuscould
fromthisbleeckmaketheclimbuptodeservingtobeamajor
writer;itcertainlyseemsthestuffforwhatanostensiblymoresane
generationwouldrecognizeasacon,ahack.
Tome,though,ifIwanttofindmyselfmoredispirited,Idturnto
moreofJohnWilliamsworkswaybeforeIdDelillos.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Thedilemmaoftakingcareof
elderlyparents
612
SUNDAY,NOV27,201108:57AMPST
TheauthorhasexplainedhowinAmerica,childrenandparents
loveoneanotherthegenerationofbabyboomerswhogave
theirparentsthebirdwhentheyleftthenest,clearlyneverexisted;
theplentitudeofpopularmoviesandbooksthatshowedussuch,
clearlywereallliessoyouclearlydontexist.ButifyouDID
exist,shehasalsoexplainedhowthesituationwouldbefully
upsidedowny,soguaranteedYOUwouldgettobethepersonwho
beatsthehelloutofyourparent;though,Imustadmit,whatIthink
babyboomersareconcernedaboutisthatthisupsidedowny
situationismoreillusorythanreal,moretheirownparents
temporarilymakingthemselvesseemsoharmlesssothetruer
situationthatalltheoldfeelingsofwhenyouwerefullyunder
theirthumbdontfloodsostronglyintoviewyousomehow
DONTacquieseandfindawaytohomethemwithyou.
Twentyyearsago,thesituationwouldhavebeendifferent,because
itwasstillayouthculture.Now,withcrammedlivingquarters
ratherthannuclearsuburbcastlestheexpectednorm,withself
sacrifice/sublimationratherthanselfsatisfaction/realizationthe
commandingethos,withtheDepressionfeelingaspenancefor
babyboomergreeditsgoingtoputgrandmaandgrandpaback
inthelimelight.Giveupthemasterbedroomnow,folkstheold
kingsandqueenshavereturned.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Thedilemmaoftakingcareof
elderlyparents
SATURDAY,NOV26,201105:35PMPST
Ifextendedfamiliesonceagainprovesthetrick,wellhaveto
comeupwithsomethingelsebeforelong:causeatsomepointthe
613
diaperchangersaregoingtofindsomegiganticwarthattheyjust
HAVETOpartakein,togivethemsomeperiodofguaranteed
relieffromdomesticcrap.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Thedilemmaoftakingcareof
elderlyparents
SATURDAY,NOV26,201101:50PMPST
Howcanyoubesurethatnoonewantstoignoreparentalneeds,
whenyourealsososuretheyreallprecariouslyperchedIlove
myparents,buters?Itjustseemsmorereasonabletometoleave
plentyofroomforseeingsomeofthoseleaningheavilyonthe
but,asactuallyatsomelevelmorehopingtoridthemselvesof
theirparentsthanfurtherattendtothem.Doesmatricideand
patricideexistonlyatthesamelevelaswhiterunicornsand
fairies?Onewouldhavematricidicalfantasies,notsomuch
matricidalones;ormaybebetter,dark,unicornal,magimatridical
fantasies,justsonoonegetsconfused.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:NeilGaiman'saudiobook
recordlabel
WEDNESDAY,NOV23,201103:16PMPST
Gaimanisthemostnonaggrievingguyontheplanet.Atatime
whenwearepreparedtocommunicatehardthatthatistheonly
voicewelltolerate,itsnowonderhesbeenannointed.What
weneedfromtheBritishnowisanotherJohnCleese:thatguy
couldteachAmericanssomeaboutwhatitistobetakeninto
614
account.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Shouldliberalsbemore
thankfulforObama?
WEDNESDAY,NOV23,201112:47PMPST
WhatChrisMatthewsdidntcatch,butJoanseemedtoabit,isa
certainedgeinChaithesnotsomuchmakingapoint,as
beginningapointedindictment.Chrisbearhuggedhimwithlove
andadmiration,andthoughitobscuredmosteverythingelsefrom
view,Istilldidseethecircumspectlittleguy,notquiteplussed,
withhispointyknifestillstickingout.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:ThegeekytriumphofPepper
SprayCop
WEDNESDAY,NOV23,201110:07AMPST
Ithashelpedcementtheideathatovertdisobedienceisayouthful
stance,atatimewhenthenationisinmindtoprojectitsown
selfishness,desireformore,intothismostappropriateof
containers,todenyandpunish,isinmindtoseealineupof
youthbeingvictimizedandfinditaphallanx,animageactually
abitcompellingforitshomoeroticismfrontlinesoldiers,the
youngestandthebravest,givingthemselvesupforexpedient
slaughter,thewhateverwishesoftheirdesirouselders.
615
OriginalArticle:ThegeekytriumphofPepper
SprayCop
WEDNESDAY,NOV23,201108:57AMPST
Thatsfunny.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:ThegeekytriumphofPepper
SprayCop
WEDNESDAY,NOV23,201108:38AMPST
Therewasatimewhennaziconcentrationcampguardswerentso
fugitive.Maybeweremoreenteringtherethanthepartyoure
skippingaheadto?
Thisofficerisgoingtobepubliclycondemned,butmaybebecause
hesacouplestepstoofarfromwherepeoplearepreparedtogo
rightnow.Soinsteadmanywaystokeephiminview,ostensibly
ofcourseforourvillification,butmaybeactuallymorefor
purposesofconsideration.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:ThegeekytriumphofPepper
SprayCop
WEDNESDAY,NOV23,201108:30AMPST
TheSouthhadhillbilliesandredneckswithguns,theNorthhad
shopkeepersandrespectability.Whoultimatelyprovedmalleable
andcarpetedupon?Historically,whatismostnotableabout
warriorculturesisthattheytendtobeofthekindthatprettymuch
616
throwthemselvesupontheiropponentsbayonets.Theyaimso
hardtobesadistic,butsubmitattheendsoenthusiasticallyto
masochisticsubmissiontheirGodlikesnothingbetterthana
largefieldoftheirownboyslyingdead,indutiful,noblesacrifice.
Ourslamentstheinsanity,andmoveson.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:ThegeekytriumphofPepper
SprayCop
WEDNESDAY,NOV23,201107:38AMPST
Hesamemeinpartbecause,Isuspect,manypeopleareimpressed
withhisimperturbality,infaceofstrugglingchildren.Near
everyRepublicanwouldwanttobelikehim,andmany,many
liberalstoolikeagoodportionofthosewhoapplaudedObama
soloudlyforremainingsereneandadultwhileRepublican/Tea
Partierswentaboutlikespoiledchildren,oreventhosewho
applaudedthatGothe@#!#toSleepbook,where,facedwith
screamingchildren,adultsimaginelaughinginresponseatthem,at
givingthemthebird.
Thisisntthe60s,whereyouth,afterawitheringGreat
Depressionandthemasssacrificeofaworldwar,weregoingtobe
allowedtodefineandruletheworldforalongishwhile.Thisis
endofcycle,wheremoreandmorepeoplearegoingtogetakick
outofadultsactinglikestern,disapprovinggrandfathers,who
areunsparinglybrutaltowardactingupchildren.
Permalink
617
OriginalArticle:Thefaceofpolicecruelty
SUNDAY,NOV20,201110:26AMPST
Oritmightnudgethemintocomplicitselfsacrifice.Wehavedone
everythingpossibletomakeyouthfeeltheyarenottobevaluedin
thissociety,andIsuspectmanyhaveinternalizedtheattitude.
PuttingyourselfinthewayofpolicewhoWILLhurtyouwould
surelyprovideevengreatersatisfactionthanselfcuttersgetby
theirmeansofpunishingtheirownwretchedyouthfulness.
Whenawholenationofyouthlaunchesthemselvesintowar,ithas
agreatdealtodowiththejoyfulfeelingtheygetfromknowing
theyrecommitingthesacrificetheirnationeagerlydesiresofthem
finally,now,theyreincontrovertablyvirtuousgoodboysand
girls.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:ThecomingoutstoryInever
thoughtI'dwrite
WEDNESDAY,NOV16,201111:31PMPST
Imdelineatingthewayahead.ThenewleftImdescribing,the
onethatwillincreasinglyidentifywiththeworkingclass,isa
vastlyregressedleft.Itwillturnongroupsthepreviouslothad
spentsomuchtimelovingandsupporting.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:ThecomingoutstoryInever
thoughtI'dwrite
WEDNESDAY,NOV16,201111:43AMPST
618
Iwonderhowmuchtheurgetocomeoutrightnowowestoa
sensethatwereattheclimaxofaculturalage,onethatisinthe
processofchangingwholesale.Thepreviousliberalperiodwas
aboutenfranchisingthekindsofgroupsmiddleAmericatendedto
discriminateagainst;thecurrentoneisonethatwillmostly
identifywiththemiddle,withtheAmericanvolk.Forthe
previouslot(ofliberals),withnogrowthahead,nomoretruthto
bediscovered,itsaboutdailyfindingawaytotriumphyourfully
realizedselfNewt=bad,Salon=good,kindofstuff.Inthe
meantimethenewleftcomposesitself,andtheneventually
launchesawholesaleattackontheboutiqueliberals(Chris
Hedgesterm)who(verymuchostensibly!)representthekindof
mecenteredselfdecadencethatbroughtdowntosuchasadlow,a
oncehardy,oncemanly,robustworkingclassnation.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:ThecomingoutstoryInever
thoughtI'dwrite
WEDNESDAY,NOV16,201111:27AMPST
Well,IdisagreebutIdbewithyouifyouweretoarguethat
fewwhosharemyopinionmeanhomosexualsanygood.They
pretendtohelp,buttheymeantoeviscerate.
IfinditdifficulttobelieveyoureactuallyFOReducated
psychobabble.Andsomesympathy,pleasethesamekindsof
peoplewhohateongaymentendtohateontheJewishscience,
psychoanalysis,aswell.Tothem,itsallsignsofasocietygone
fullydecadentandretrograde.
Permalink
619
OriginalArticle:ThecomingoutstoryInever
thoughtI'dwrite
WEDNESDAY,NOV16,201111:20AMPST
Hewasbuilttopleaseassuchhewastheperfectcandidatefor
homosexuality.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:ThecomingoutstoryInever
thoughtI'dwrite
WEDNESDAY,NOV16,201107:39AMPST
Boysturngaytosafeguardthemfromfeelingfullyabsorbed
withintheirmothersneeds.Becausetheywerecuedearlyonthat
theynearexistedtopleasetheirinsufficientlylovedmothers,
theyrehighlysensitive,anditispartlythiswhichdrawsthemto
Salon.ItisALSOthatpeoplelikeWalshandMEWremindthem
inpartoftheirmothers,andthisisstillnaturalenoughand
drawingcompany.ItisALSOthatSalonregistersasasitethatis
sensitivetonottoomuchoffend,makeanxious,theirreadersif
itstirsthingsup,weallsenseitllhurryalongtofullycalmdown
thestirredwatersandnestlesimplyagreementforagood
subsequentbit:suchanenvironmentiscomfortableforgaymen,
wholearnedfromthestartoftheirlivesthattheonethingaboveall
othersthatyoudonotdo,ismakemominanywayanxious.
OriginalArticle:ThecomingoutstoryInever
thoughtI'dwrite
WEDNESDAY,NOV16,201107:14AMPST
Youreright,theallAmericankidenjoyssportsbutdoesnthavea
620
lesbianforamother.Ifhesimplyhadtoomuchmotheras
youreinsinuatingthenhisconclusiveturningtowardmenis
largelyaturninghisbackonher:itdoesntcementtheirbond,but
theopposite,makingthemsafelyaskew,securelydelineated,from
oneanother.Theoriginal,theprimaryfaghagwillonlygetso
muchoutofhiminthefuture:Iwonderhowmuchitisthis
wonderfulsafetythatiscelebratedwithcomingout?
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Ontheeveofdestruction
MONDAY,NOV14,201103:41PMPST
Theylostpublicsupportowingtoacollectivedesiretoimagethem
spoiledbrats.Youletthemairoutyourowndistress,andthen
disownthem,indulginginanotherlongtermofsufferingbeforea
movementarisesthatisuncomplicatedbytheexpectationswe,
REALLY,deservebetterthanthisoftheverybest(notsaying,
ofcourse,thattheseareitsonlyconstituents,butthattheyare
surelyamongstthemitssorancidnowthatnomatteryour
[commendable]appreciationofongoingdiscourseandsocietys
abilitytorightitselfyoushouldfindyourselfassessingitallasa
choiceawayfrompossiblesalvation).
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Ontheeveofdestruction
MONDAY,NOV14,201103:15PMPST
Alotofliberalshavedonesomeinnercalculationsanddecided
theyrenotgoingtolosemuchiftheystaymostlystatusquoand
letthenexttwentyyearsbeatotalhorrorformostotherpeople
621
theyllfeelguilty;butthisafflictionwillactuallysatisfyin
showingtheyrenotcompletelylivingit.Theyrenotevil,butjust
nothealthyenoughtofindlittlesatisfactionwhenaspectreof
doomhasdecideditllpassthemby.IfJoanmakestherestofher
lifeaboutpreventingthenexttwentyfrombeingabouthuge
widespreadmiseryandeventualgrandsacrificethroughworldwar
(theusualwayitgoeswhenourcollectiveconcernissuddenlyto
purgeoutallbadness),itllowetosupportfromgrandfriendslike
ChrisMatthews.IfpeoplelikeJoanandChrisbalkcompletelyout
oftheirfamiliardiscourse,tome,atleast,imaginingmany
peoplelikethemdoingthesame,imaginingallofthemasakinin
innerresourcesasthey,thefuturewillsuddentlyseemopen.
Note:theylllosealltheirfriends,thoughtheresonlyacouple
peopleIcanthinkofatSalonthatwillstandcompletelywithJoan,
andbelieveitornot,neitherisGlenn.Ifsubliminallysensingall
this,ifyouwereher,wouldntyoufindyourselfdoingrecheck
afterrecheck?
Permalink
OriginalArticle:IfTolkienwereblack
WEDNESDAY,NOV9,201102:35PMPST
Updikehasbeenaccusedofsomethingofthesame(byBloom,for
instance),i.e.,possessedofgreatgifts,butlackingsomethingmost
meaningful.Personally,IthinkitsthatbothheandAnthonyfocus
mostlyonthedomestic,seetheworthyplayandadventurethere,
thatscaresawaypeopletakenabackbytoomuchhearth.Ireally
dofindAnthonyscreativityofanearwhollydifferentkindfrom
somanyfantasyauthors,whosinventionalwaysendsupreeking
tomeofcompensense.Thisislesstrueforalmostallwritersinthe
genreduringthe70s,ofcourse,whenyoudidnthavetohaveall
thatmuchinnerfiretohavetheagepropelyouontoquitenew
622
things(LeGuinsinthere,forsure).Hisstyleispronounced,
mostlywithouthedge.Uncircumcized.Hereallyisthecloses
writerIcanthinktoUpdike,muchmorethantheDelillos,Oates,
andallthem.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:IfTolkienwereblack
WEDNESDAY,NOV9,201101:11PMPST
Itstoughtotellrightnowhowgenuinepeoplearebeingwhen
theyciteUrsulaLeGuinastheirprimaryinfluence.Shesthepre
eminantfantasywritertociteifyoudontwanttocollectaround
youany(oratleast,theleastamountpossible)considerationasa
geek.Noneoftheotherslitpeoplementionquitegiftthesame.
Personally,Iwishmorewouldciteandactuallybeinfluencedby
PiersAnthony.HesfantasysJohnUpdike,itsboldest,least
cowed,ACTUALLYleastgeeky,adventurer.Ifyouseeallthatbut
stillthinkhimadork,somethingaboutthewholegenremustsadly
playtothatpartofusthatactuallyneverreallywantstogooutside
ourdoor.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WasShakespearereally
Shakespeare?
THURSDAY,OCT27,201103:42PMPDT
Rightnow,youreeitherpartofthe99%,orpartoftheruling
class.TheDepressionlostsightofthemiddleclasses(they
certainlyexisted,buttheydidntfitthetimesdynamicsowere
ignoredinpopularimagination),andsotoowe.Thisiswhythe
623
considerationofShakespeareasanaristocratishavingitsday.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Democratscan'toccupyWall
Street
TUESDAY,OCT11,201109:11AMPDT
Oneofthegreatestthingsaboutgrossinequality,isthatyoudont
needtolistentothosewhowellmaybeabletellyouhowtolivea
littlebetter,withtheirmorethanlikelycomingfromaclass
absurdlyelevatedbeyondyourown.Youcanremainstuckina
classthatissuffering,butthathasalsodecided,unlikethe60sand
70s,thatitmightbefemmemannersofthemiftheylearnedto
lovecookingfrench.Manymainstreamdemocratsaregoingtotry
veryhardtobecomepopulists(thenewSalon,anyone?).Ifthey
cantgetin,itscauseofourownwallingthemout.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Democratscan'toccupyWall
Street
TUESDAY,OCT11,201108:29AMPDT
Bythis,bydemonizingtheelementsofmodernAmerican
workingclasslife,fromSUVsandlowpriceexurbanboxstoresto
thekindsofcuisinethatupscalefoodiesfrownupon,areyousure
dontjustmeantalkingaccuratelyaboutthem?SUVsare
deplorable.Theboxstores,justasbad.Whattheyeatastrong
signthathumanscanletthemselveslivewiththeirmoreimportant
partoftheirbrainsinactive.Liberalelitesaregoingtogetit
becausetheyareareminderthatwecanaskformoreoutoflife
624
thanthis;expectit,even.Theyllbereplacedbypopuliststhe
masseswillwanttolistento,wholltellthemJamieOliverstyle
howtheyhavetostopdrivingSUVsandstuffingtheirfaceswith
fattyfoods,butnottogoforsomethingmorerefined,but
somethingmoredeprived.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Unions,Democratsand
OccupyWallStreet
WEDNESDAY,OCT5,201109:13PMPDT
Itwasinevitable,andthustheydidntsomuchmakeitasfailedto
preventit.Everygenerationthatbeginsbyleadingasociety
beyondwhereeverithadpreviouslypermitteditself,thatisallowed
toleadit,becauseasocietyhasdecidedforatimethatinnovation,
overallimprovement,ispermitted,hasbeenearned,endsupat
somepointpullingback:notonlydoestherestofsocietybeginto
feeluntetheredoverallthishubristicinnovation(asocietythat
risesallboatsmyword!),butmanyoftheleftthatleadthegood
thingsbegintoaswell.Thepivotaloverallpsychicchange
occurredattheendofthe1970s,whenthemassesmovedthingsso
thatgrowthwouldlargelybesomethingdeniedthem.Insum,the
spoiledbabyboomersthatcametofocusonconsumerismand
themselves,wereverylikelythebestgenerationhumanityhasever
seen.Wegettobethelotthatseeswhatisintruthfleshedout
personalities,andratherthanaccomplishmentseeselfindulgence,
blameworthyselfattendanceandotherneglect.
Permalink
625
OriginalArticle:Unions,Democratsand
OccupyWallStreet
WEDNESDAY,OCT5,201109:42AMPDT
TheNewDealdidntariseoutofafearofunrest.Social
improvementscameoutofthemassesfeelingtheywereowed
something,forveryclearlyhavingalreadysufferedsomuch.
Socialjusticeisntjusthandedtous,notbecauseitHAStocome
fromafight(withmanysadlossessustained),butbecausewe
dontthinkwedeserveitifitcomestooreadily.(Twiceacentury
itseemspeoplebecomemorecomfortablewithallowanceand
permission;otherwisewereverysuspiciousofthemassofus
livingbeyondwhatwethoughtpossible.)ThatstheONLYreason.
Also,thespoileddangerouskidsofthe60swon.Americalargely
cametounderstandtheAmericanswhosawthemasdeserving
punishment,asolder,regressive,primitiveArchieBunkertypes,
whonotonlyhatedthekids,butblacksandhomosexualsand
immigrantsanduppitywomenaswell,andeffectivelyrepresented
everythingthe60sgenerationhadtoopposetofinallygivesome
sanitytoAmerica.Thehatershadtheirmomenttofreelyexpress
theirabsolutehate,butitmightaswellbeenalure,foritservedto
movetheyouthintopositionsofconsiderableinfluenceandpower,
anddoomedthemintoconstantlybeingonthedefense.
The60syouthwereemblematicofwhatwasrightwiththe
countryitwasgoingtobeatimeforyouth,forromanticism.
Unfortunately,ourcurrentlotisformanyofusasignofwhatis
rightaboutitnowtoo:weveenteredatimewhereyouhavetobe
delusionaltoseetheyoungasatalloverindulgedorspoiled.If
theystartgettingthethingstheyaskfor,itllowetousgauging
theyresosufficientlybrokenwhattheywantwontbesooutof
lineofthereducedwayofexperiencingtheworldweexpectoutof
them.Havingyourdebtspaidoffandhavingsomesortofjob,
626
needntmeanyoureonyourwaytobecomingfullyhuman.You
couldjustbeaNewDeal/Sovietworkingant,nodifferentfromthe
restofthethrivingbutpointlesscollective.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WhyAmericannovelistsdon't
deservetheNobelPrize
TUESDAY,OCT4,201109:03AMPDT
Withhowmuchtheirdamnpresumptionandspoilednessclearly
bothersus,Ithinkitfairforusalltotakeapauseandconsiderthat
eveniftheyreallywere/aregreat,wemightnotbetheonestoever
accordthemthis.
Perhapstobegreat,youhavetofocusoneheckofalotononeself
thatis,perhapsyouhavetobecomeonewhomalater,more
shrunkengeneration,whohasschooledthemselvesintobelieving
theirownegoisticdesiresmakethembad,andisdeterminedtosee
anytheyseerisinginothersgetsretractedandpunishedaswell,
willseeassimplytooselfattendantandspoiled?
Whatwewant,apparently,whatclearlymakesussick,isforartists
topartakeinthecollective,tobesomewhatblandandnon
descript,andtodowithoutblinkingwhatwewouldhavethem.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WhyAmericannovelistsdon't
deservetheNobelPrize
MONDAY,OCT3,201106:53PMPDT
Theymaynotknowasmuchaboutsufferingoritmaybethat
627
theyactuallyknowquiteabitbutarentasDETERMINEDbyit
buttheysurelyknowmoreaboutallowanceandplay,andnot
playingouttheirlivesasotherswouldhaveofthem.Guesswe
differonwherewethinkinventionandcreativitycomefrom,
perhapsowingtoourdifferenttakeonhowmuchfunpeople
shouldallowthemselves.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WhyAmericannovelistsdon't
deservetheNobelPrize
MONDAY,OCT3,201106:24PMPDT
IfIcouldgiveanobeltooneAmericanhorrorwriter,itwouldbe
toStephenKing.Iftoonefantasywriter,toPiersAnthony;and
oneSciFiWolfe.All,Ithink,couldbecalledindulgent,but
theyaretheoneswhollchangemankindforthebetter,while
lettingeveryoneknowitsmorethanokaytocomplementyourfull
bellywithsomeafterdinnericecream,somesherryorrum.Idont
thinkwellseetheirequalsforacouplegenerations,butwellget
lotsofonmessagerevelsingrit,byauthorswhoareteaching
themselvestheyveneverknownanythingother.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WhyAmericannovelistsdon't
deservetheNobelPrize
MONDAY,OCT3,201105:41PMPDT
Rated!
Permalink
628
OriginalArticle:WhyAmericannovelistsdon't
deservetheNobelPrize
MONDAY,OCT3,201105:38PMPDT
The1930sturnedhardagainstselfcenterednessandspoiledness
too.Fortunately,aftertheywereallowedtheirunfortunately
longishturnatharanguingeveryoneintogoodbehaviorand
championingpostofficeart,thenationeventuallyreturnedtogood
sense,andspoiledbratshadtheirindulgentturnagain(Yay
UpdikesCouples!).Imencounteringgoodnumberstryingto
turnusallagainstUpdikethebestofAmericanwriters;most
fun.PleaseallowyourselftocounterWallaceseviscerationof
UpdikesTowardtheEndofTimewithMargaretAtwoodstake
onthebook.Shesthegrownup;Wallacehasprovedjustaself
laceratorwevemadenowmostlyintoawhip.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Thecreativeclassisalie
SATURDAY,OCT1,201112:35PMPDT
Thelastbigdepressionalsosuppressedtheindividualpowerofthe
actorwegotthefactorysystem,andreplacable,nervoustalent.
25yearsafterthisbeganwasaboutthetimethefactorysystemfell
apart,soImguessingyoureprobablyherespeakingaccurately
onlyaboutourimmediatefuture.Inmyjudgment,theproblem
nowwiththedigitalrevolution,whichwasNOTtruewhenit
began,isthatitisnolongersupportedbyacollectivewilltomake
itgenerallyempowering.Ifwereinthemoodtoseethepreviously
spoiledthoroughlydemoralized,leftonlywithflowersand
bonbonswedfindtheiruseasinstrumentsofhumiliation.Suchis
629
ourmoodnow.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:Thecreativeclassisalie
SATURDAY,OCT1,201111:45AMPDT
Thewholepointofadepressionistosuppresscreativityand
individualityadepressionisthepenanceforpreviousgood
times.Pointingoutitseffectivenessindoingsomaynotevenbea
lamentwhatgoodthingsweallowourselvesnowneedtobe
bettercamouflagedascompromisedpleasures/opportunities.The
richgettostruttheirstuff,unblanchedweenjoypointingto
themtoshowhowgoodandsufferingweourselvesnoware.This
goesonforabouttenyears,thenwegetabigwarwhereawhole
bunchofpromisingyouthsacrificetherestoftheirlivestothe
nation,andthenweallslowlybegintofeelthatthatsabout
enoughforcompromisedofferings:bloodpricepaidinfull.
Wethenstartdetachingourselvesfromourextendedfamilies,
claimourownpiecesofearth,andhaveoneofthosetrueyouth
leadperiodsofcreativity,selffulfillmentandfun,thatonlyare
permittedtocomeabouttwiceeachcentury.Hanginthereguys.
Andmaybesomeofyouevenbuckthetrend:itwouldmakeme
nearbelieveinmiracles.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
"Brave" IS brave, but leaves the significant tear unattended
Andrew OHehir at Salon has suggested that Brave, however feminist,
doesnt really undermine patriarchy the daughter weaves a spell of
command and rhetoric to sway them to her side, but ultimately its to
the men to determine when sharp changes to tradition can be
630
undertaken. But the whole (or almost the whole see below) of what
Brave does is show only women as capable of the maturity, the
majesty to see what the realm needs to survive; the men, are twits,
practically always ready to hack at one-another over the smallest
slight. The men, that is, though they can supply buffoonish charms,
are mostly a drink-fest and a random melee waiting to happen: does
the movie really supply any doubt as to who maneuvered these realmsaving patriarchal traditions into place in the first place? Andrews
former peer at Salon, Stephanie Zacharek, has argued that Brave is
closer to Ratatouille and The Incredibles than to Wall-E and Up; and
with its preference to show ordinary folk as afflictions on those
mentally at least one rung up, theres no doubt about it it is.
You could tell by the released preview of the film that it is the
dynamic between mother and daughter which was going to make this
movie good (and maybe great), and this certainly proved true, with
the surprise being that the film actually ends up becoming more the
mothers than the daughters. (Asked now to conjure up an
emblematic image, it wouldnt be the redheads magnificent locks, but
the queens surprise as she tries to cover her bare self from view, or
her eyes as she started turning whole bear.) We remember not the
young lass shooting arrows, but her delight at seeing her mother gain
competency catching fish its not so much the mother
countenancing the changes in her teenage daughter, that is, but the
daughter countenancing her mothers accommodations to new status
and frightening powers. I liked this, but it goes against the natural
order, against plain fairness, frankly. Its nice that the mother knows
new adventures and stretchings out of the possibilities of self, but if
the daughter doesnt have her time now, during her teenage years,
when the whole pull of her lifeforce is directing her that way, her best
bet for it will be after shes married and with kids, when her
adventuring might be mixed with anger at her previous long denial
and not do them any good.
You always hope films directed at young kids will still introduce them
to something adult. What is adult is to appreciate that the reason
631
632
twice in this film, and perhaps you are agreeing thank god for it!
Putting something this true into the film cant quite be called brave,
as its too subliminal, too deniable, to seem more than what a goodintentioned but also very careful place-holder might put forth. Same
thing can be said with the films other brave element its actually
countenancing that what a family needs is a strong wife, able kids,
and a strong father. As mentioned, the real father in this film is an
idiot, and overtly this film belongs with a depressing, long slew of
films were likely to see forthcoming, where its near beyond
countenancing that female members dont just simply take over. All
the men in this film are like cartoon characters put in odd pathetic
abundant company to a sex possessed of something vibrant and real
exempting one notable exception. The adult male monster bear
possessed somewhere inside by the spirit of a ranging, foundingfather clansman has no truck for idiots or fools, either, nor is he
about to be toyed about by wee fey boys who idolize sweets, and he is
a fantastic creature which inspires equally fantastic engagement on
part of mother and daughter to be brought down. His is a powerful
voice the mother bear is something in defense of her cub, but
he never in the battle, owing to someone elses ferocity, loses his own
magnificence and the three of them together undeniably in their
engagement inspire something along the lines of great, create a
landmark encounter from which a worthy mythology might be
constructed (the fathers engagement with the bear, from which he
wrung out a lifetime of tale-telling, was in comparison but Ekler vs.
Sugar Ray). The young girls talk of bravery subsequently, in fact,
only gains some credence owing it.
The most significant rift in this film is between mother-daughter and
an astray father, who has no in to meaningful involvement with his
family, and pretends to have true volition only with the rush that
comes from fleeing his impotence with them and wading into battles
with other intrinsically cowardly men. The great bear shows such a
presence the other two need to be at their best to shape its fate, and as
its not so hard to imagine something understood mostly as majestic
633
634
brave film appear that actually overtly argues that something should
be done about this deplorable true-life actuality (and please not by
Adam Sandler, who I've long appreciated but no longer trust).
---------Thursday, June 21, 2012
"More cuts, please!": Current films and our self-torture
More Cuts, Please: Current Films and Our Self-Torture
Patrick Hallstein / McEvoy-Halston 2012
If youre like me and youre beginning to notice a lot of evil being
passed off as innocuous, just a joke, or even as good, and youre
wondering why this has become so widespread, why people are doing
the opposite of the holy crusader and enterprising ways to target, to
demean the precariously placed, let me tell you what this is all about.
Most people are not comfortable when too much of the good life has
been made available to them. All the great things theyre hugging to
themselves has them feeling theyre worthy of disownment, of
catastrophic punishment, as this was the crippling experience they
were made to feel when they first as children started attending more
to their own needs than the unmet ones of their mothers. The
superego, set up as a child to protect him from reviving this
intolerable experience, by dissuading him from having too much fun
in life, takes over and comes up with a scheme thatll save the self
from oblivion. Individually, we agree to take actually good things as
only of a form we can lament as gross and sinful self-love, gluttony,
and so on and collectively we make sure society is restructured so
that, rather being dominated by an aspiring middle class, it becomes
of the smallish quotient of the protected prospering accompanied by
the spread of losers. The moment when we began to become more
focused on our own individual lives and our mothers turned away
635
636
ensure we all know its being done, transforming all the incoming
variant data of external suffering into quotients of sacrifice we can
please ourselves by counting and stacking up. Fairly assessed to be at
the helm of this madness is what is most commonly assumed to be a
tag-along popular arts, which, rather than offering escapes, keeps
us at some level keen that none of this carnage owes to happenstance
but rather entirely to our dictates. Films, that is, are directed if its
on the screen, its cause somebody wanted it there. And more and
more were assuming theyre done, not by auteurs lead by their own
idiosyncrasies, but by those skilled at taking percipient guesses as to
what were going to want next.
What we wanted not that long ago were still films that told us we
really dont deserve to be kept stunted, and that what we really need
are more sparks of encouragement and love in our lives to start us on
the path to realizing ourselves Wall-E is perhaps the strongest last
evidence of this. The grossly askew in this film are the robots put in
power when society had become all corporate, determined to slacken
human beings into their most passive forms to expedite vulgar profitmaking specifically Auto, who can only recognize real life as
something aberrant and destructive. To the perceptive, the ostensibly
ordinary in this movie, like Wall-E and the corpulent, childish
captain, are more evolved than the superficially superior specimens
to Eve, who is shown as massively repressed, as essentially deprived,
despite her lavished-upon Apple-white gloss, her Maximilian
physique and power. Part of the point of Eve in the movie is in fact to
show up an awesome arsenal as mostly just good protection to absorb
the shocks and blows that might incur should you chance to actually
begin a souled life. The difference between her and the tiny linemaking robot, whom Wall-E drives into fits over the most trivial of
trespasses as fair register of its inanity, is ultimately trivial.
But around the time Wall-E was released came also very popular
Ratatouille and Dark Knight, and subsequently it has become evident
637
that whereas Wall-E was at the crest of something good, these films
were at the core of something foul which has become the bulk of our
view. Ratatouille is the dark to Wall-Es light. Wall-E holds to the
generous view that what is greatest in humans is to be possessed by
each one of them, regardless of cultivation or IQ; Ratatouille to the
opinion that the masses are dispossessed of anything worthy, and
only worth a nod if they at some level recognize their bumpkinness
and put themselves at your disposal. That is, while Wall-E gives you
irrepressible Wall-E, as well as the indefatigable captain, Ratatouille
gives you limp-noodle Linguini as your representative of the average.
While Wall-E portrays manipulation and control of the masses as
evil, Ratatouille shows it as necessary not just to ensure the
cultivated and smart collect within the society they truly belong to,
but because without being ordered and directed about nothing
notable will ever be realized. (Ditto everything said here with Brad
Birds subsequent film, Mission Impossible 3, which conspicuously
delineates regular cops as not rocket scientists, as idiots, that is, and
allows abusive handling of Ethans limp-noodle ally Bogdan for his
being dispossessed of any ability to help himself.)
The issue in Dark Knight is why the exceptional should care about
those so execrable theyd annihilate a true hero who stood amongst
them if it would quit them of a momentary uprise in uncertainty and
fear; and the only reason the Joker doesnt quite entirely win this
debate, isnt really owing to the fact that the business man doesnt
end up turning the key and blowing up the other ship, as he remains
as we assessed him first, not in anyway credible as a man; but because
if Batman stops being interested in the people, Batman in all
likelihood stops being interesting to the Joker, whod already gotten
bored with what the rest of humanity makes available to him. The
lieutenant deserves exemption, and so too Maggie Glynwethall as the
love interest, but for the most part humanity is drab and scurried, and
is actually at its most fetching when harassed into lipstick and white
paint before sacrifice. And when bound into some kind of tight
638
639
leaves the boss terrorist to the fate of the peasants, whom one is
presumed to assume will converge on him and deliver a fate crueler
than anything he could possibly deliver. One is presumed to assume
that theyd immediately mob him and rip him up into a debris cloud
of sinew and viscera before he could even quite squeal out a
NOOOOOOOO!!!, leaving us with a still haughty Tony Stark,
deliverer of clean blows, as well as the apropos, and the ravaged
peasants, dispensers in their revenge of a mess of blood and gore. Its
just a quick scene, and the rest of the movie prattles about as far as I
can remember under the assumption of the dignity of the people, but
what a denigrating truth it drove in: the common people can be
counted upon to degenerate into savages; you might loosen your
tie amongst them, but how much closer would you really want to get
yuck!
This spring, week after week I saw the cuts, gauges, wounds, films are
plainly eager to make to regular people. Friends with Kids has been
praised for its generous treatment of the long considered but
ultimately discarded love interests. But how kind is it to decide
against the gorgeous, talented brunette Megan Foxs character for
showing her possessed of an aversion to kids as if they were spiders,
or dirty rodents, delineating her as someone who, though she has
cleaned herself up nicely, remains solidly fucked-up at the core? And
how nice is it to show the considered love-interest who is comfortable
with kids, and is also nice, sweet and reliable to boot, as possessed of
a shortchanged, mundane appreciation of play? When she squeals in
alarm at the kid in the restaurant, she is the trauma-informed kid,
born of a trailer park, who rose to become what someone born in that
position and is beautiful and determined is plausibly able to do get
to New York and become a star performer. When his dull intellect
blanches at seeing any sense to her morbid games, he is the
unimaginative lower-order intelligence who certainly didnt come
through Berkeley, and who has succeeded, but who may not thrive for
long as society displaces everyone who cannot make instant play with
640
whatever demands are put before them, like her ad-man perfect
partner can. The trauma-infused lower orders, and the stunted
middling ones, are considered for equal status but damningly
rejected. An especially hard hit given that they are ostensibly
represented by their best.
If you can only trudge through life, leaving the dreaming and their
carrying out to the higher orders, you shouldnt and youre not going
to feel safe enough to feel the world has gifted you a safe-zone
wherein to figure out what you want in life, to feel convinced that for
you the world can still about testing, trying, learning, developing,
ably riding and otherwise enjoying. Youll go on like a soldier in the
trenches, knowing at any minute you or your best mate may be shot
down, and youll be upset for a half hour before out of necessity
putting your mind as to how their demise might enfranchise you.
Friends with Kids knows that the friends belong to the protected
circle, that they enjoy knowing that they are the ones who can
frighten the servile with instant doom. Done much like as in Iron
Man, where it looks to be about something else, this film showcases
the vulnerability of the working class, of everyday folk, by making it
seem mostly about a means for Adams Scotts character to show
much he cares about his lifelong best friend. Perhaps the whole life of
an insufficiently fawning servant the nanny is up in the air, to
make one nice milestone moment happen for a privileged couple. Its
Atonement, but without the mother surprising all by appearing out of
nowhere and raging head on at the car, making ample demonstration
at the injustice done to one of the working orders to her dear,
beloved son just to demonstrate the resiliency of an idiotic, rigid
social order.
In What to Expect When Youre Expecting a whole class of people get
it too, and just as sneakily as with Iron Man and Friends with Kids.
While the rich in the film can seem dopey, theyve got heart, and can
indeed learn a new trick or two as well; the poor, or at least the
641
642
643
644
and its about presumptive spawning. You could also have predicted
that the girl would come out okay so long as she was shown
thoroughly decimated beforehand. And especially if it could be made
to seem a choice between wholly-taken-down-a-notch her and some
still proud figure, which is of course what we get, with her being lead
to believe for a moment that her just-deceased husband had managed
to impregnate her, only to find out that this miracle had occurred
owing only to his already being in part a DNA-manipulating beastthing (making her someone who essentially was fucked by a fiend,
and near-forced to give birth to its kid), and with his being of a
species of humanity which has presumed to temper themselves into
gods.
The humiliations were seeing applied in all these movies towards the
kinds of people we know are most precariously placed, isnt about
Hollywood not giving a damn, but about our being able to show well
actually pay for films which show people like us treated abominably.
Were cutting ourselves to pieces, and the abasement happening to us
in society, through loss of jobs, through service in war, through
competition in schools and being owned by student loans, through
pleasure-critical, self-lacerating diet and fitness regimes, takes on the
environment, stances on youth and youth culture, on your sheer right
to have any confidence in your ability to supply yourself just the
basics, is our best hope to show ourselves so afflicted we cant
possibly be taken as greedy types that deserve to be sucked into the
maw. Well feel ourselves drawn into it, but our own sure scarprocuring, fervent self-brutalization will keep us from ultimately
deeming itll much be moved at the finish to actually seek
nourishment from us any pride still there that might yet be sucked
from us, isnt worth anyones trouble, no matter how voracious.
Well come out of this at some point, and itll actually come with our
sense of pride being replenished. But this story, friends also
essentially dark will come at another time. As a preview, it'll be
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
could well mean oblivion for you: they are agents of a ruling
nastiness and keep their weapons of you-destroy ready at their hip.
They have to be people who like that despite whatever ostensible
growth theyre incurring, none of them are especially distinctive. The
point is to cow through betraying the daunting inevitability of the
ruling class. Stick within the medium of expectations something
youre so wonderfully entirely built to do and youll communicate
youre impossible to dislodge, of being principally a member, not an
individual ostensibly to be taken at his/her measure. You take one of
them, study him or her, and you see his or her cohort, even if he or
she distinguishes him/herself for his/her struggling while being
studied in isolation. They have to be people who are comfortable with
the fact that if you do anything truly notable and different, doom
awaits you for going grand when minute variations are whats called
for; for imposing on your own what weve all agreed is to be so
abandoned to the imperatives of the era that it seem beyond the
human and under prerogative of God.
This must seem mad as hell, for the innovation the film explores is of
two friends successfully raising a kid together, not exactly something
not extraneous, right? Well, actually, what they foremost are, are a
variant of the marriage possibilities readily allowed in a movie moved
by the most mundane of Hollywood world-views, namely, alreadydiscussed, What to Expect When Youre Expecting, with this movie,
rather than former party animals who thought it cool to cheese-out
their wedding in Los Vegas, we get the New Yorker preference for the
cosmopolitan kept alive while a couple have their kid. Whats
important is that, like all their other sophisticated friends, theyre
finally down the path of having one.
Couldnt they have just kept single, that is, not have a kid? Not if they
plausibly wanted to seem as if they werent on some other path from
their friends -- a very treacherous one. That is, it was once New York
to be double-income-no kids, til maybe about ten years ago. And
previously all that New York independence and sophistication was
differentiating you from the hordes of common North Americans, but
652
you were all in your own way expanding. But now that easy credit
isnt keeping them feeling of the same status as those post-wars bluecollars whose jobs were garnering more for them than many whitecollar ones, now that the idea of having kids feels wrong to their
financial situations, now that theyre beginning to feel out the
possibility that theyre of the 99 % dispossessed rather than of the
plump middle class, and that their historical role is not to determine
what is essentially great about America but to show in their wreckage
just how bad-behaving America must for a long time have been, the
smart-set having kids has become a very different thing.
A grand culling has clearly been called for, and if youre not feeling
cowed, evolution has clearly distinguished you as its favored, even if
ultimately only for your effectively humiliating its scorned. And
youre expected to literally breed the future, even if your role makes
your prized offspring into sordid dumpings onto the poor. If you
choose instead to not have kids, youre wrong to the times for defying
expectations others are finding themselves ruled by. Everyone, even
the most rich, are best understood for their having surrendered the
prospering to arrogance, though an essentially false facsimile of it.
Everyone is doing their thing, letting themselves be drawn into
prevailing currents, and there you are standing apart, clearly with His
will so manifest, believing yourself more special than God. The price
youll pay is to be judged asocial, out of bounds but in precarious
plain view everywhere you go, even in New York.
---------Review: What to Expect When You're Expecting
Alison Willmore, in her review of What to Expect When Youre
Expecting, aired her humble request to Hollywood that when it
makes a film which features a young, precariously situated couple,
with no obvious love-bond yet who have conceived a child, that it at
least - then -- bring up the possibility of abortion. Certainly seems
653
654
someone who is fecund, as the fat sales assistant is, bearing the worst
of her masters store owner Wendys -- lapses, aping out the worst
of her ridiculousness to pacify her effect, sitting on her hands when
her personal possessions get smashed in error but at least she isnt
abandoned.
But if youre with kid, youre part of the group which seems bent on
mending any difficulties they have, surmounting any limitations that
have been conceived -- the obtuse will become attendant when it
matters. Youll cross paths many times, and though you may never
know one another, the possibility is ever possible and if you do itll
be to fortify one another, attaching into one greater complex
macromolecule, interlocking and expanding, exhilaratingly, by divine
right. This ex potencia, which still exists for the young couple for not
talking abortion, for at least being oriented the same as the other far
better economically situated couples, would have been denied them if
theyd considered abortion. Their (even if playfully) at-war oceanside food carts would never port into the safe and secure denizens of
the affluent, in loyal vassalage, but also recognizably within the same
family, as the full-sized margarita stand by the pool of the super rich
race driver baits their income-makers with. Theyd be the egregious
wedding photo the adopting parents try to hide, but without any
excuse. People can be goofy as they enthusiastically become part of
the married fold its odd commemoration, this Los Vegas-style, but
the attitude is essentially right, and theyre in it all the same. What
they dont do is have an abortion, inflict willingly the worst possible
out-0f-your-hands calamity. Gods ways might be unknowable, but
its easy to spot the mechanisms of the Beast; they tear vicious gaping
cuts through the fabric of reality weve all collaborated to knit, leaving
all of us feeling shaken and sundered. Asocial kid killers, with knives
-- slash, slash. It's obvious what we're at some point going to have to
do with them.
----------
655
656
657
perhaps thought mostly for the adults are actually as much still for
children, isn't to say that if "Up" was entirely about the life story of a
loving married couple, or if "Fellowship of the Ring" somehow mostly
about past-prime Bilbo settling into his own exotic hinterlands, kids
couldn't get enough of it. As alluded to, no doubt not to feel
overwhelmed or wretchedly bored it's got to feel about them, not their
grandparents. But as true as this surely is, I'm tempted to argue the
case anyway, perhaps through reminding people of just how literate
people were a generation or two ago, of how many educators hoped to
stuff as much classical literature into you, hoping you'll even oblige
their skipping ahead past more-relatable "Romeo and Juliet" if
"Hamlet" or "Lear" was judged the master work. And of how this
meant early encounters with works we'd introduce college kids to,
presuming the opposite of child-obtuse pedagogy and rather Mozartin-the-womb zeroing in on what kids actually need for life.
Presuming something more, actually: that what kids actually most
want is not to be catered to but rather to be introduced to humanity's
show, the best that human heritage has begotten -- the good stuff.
And they realize it not necessarily immediately, without, that is, some
pushing, for garnering something from the great requires adjusting,
at least temporary unsettlement and even repelling dis-ease; but
rather sometime afterwards, after life has gone by some and the new
and one-time perturbing has manifested more clearly as a facilitating
component of you.
There, I moved quickly from being tempted to make the case in favor
of the difficult, the non-pleasing, to actually more-or-less making it;
and I realize I did so because, despite believing that what kids can't
help but love about the literature they read is their contact with adult
minds, and that kids are more perspicacious than we often judge,
capable of encounters with the adult before "this is for kids aged --"
categories look to communicate, it's never the less true that if you
take your kids to "Hotel" they may well hate you for it. Unlike how
the critic Stephanie Zacharek assessed another movie sure to be
thought, as she puts it, "just a little nice movie for grannies and no
658
one else" -- "Letters to Juliet" -- I cannot, that is, sincerely argue that
kids will like it foremost for the youth they will find in these aging
people. In "Letters," Zacharek found the 73-year-old Vanessa
Redgrave "living assurance that the young people we once were
can stay alive is us, no matter how much we grow and change,"
proclaiming, when Claire finally meets her long-ago love, that "it
takes zero imagination to see the face of the young Guenevere in this
older one." But though with Tom Wilkinson's plot-line in "Hotel" one
can find the near equivalent of this particular moment, I declare
"Hotel" worth a visit primarily because it makes you realize just how
much better than you there is out there; it's appeal lies in its not
being reassuring. It teaches you that all that youthful energy you
possess is not something you should so much be concerned not to
lose, but be concerned to use, to acquire the depth fully available to
you only in growing older.
To be more fair to Zacharek's review, I'll note that though she singled
out the moment of youthful presence in Claire as what in particular
would reverberate with youth, it's clear she thinks they'll actually take
to all they'll see of her. She actually follows proclaiming the film not
just for grandmas by drawing attention to Redgrave's
adult substance, of how she "puts all she's got into something other
actors might cast off," how "[s]he's present every moment," as much
as her youthful vitality. And she takes care to establish the moment
immediately before Claire meets her long-ago love as a complex one,
as something which to fully understand requires testing your acuity,
some extension of yourself into behavior you may not quite be able to
delineate for it possibly not yet being wholy part of your own
resources. This moment's all about adult considerations, about being
aware that however much the 15 year old he fell in love with is gone (a
cowing realization that has her shelter herself, not so much out of
self-pity but "as if [. . .] trying to hide from herself"), "she's not."
And -- now to be more fair to her as well -- Willmore's assessment of
"Hotel" isn't just that it's pigeoned for old hearts not young ones, that
it's simply "about growing old in a terribly British fashion," but about
659
660
now seem to have it out for them, with some now declaring it none
other than a period of child / youth sacrifice, to beget a Generation
Occupy. They may, that is, simply have known just too much of it to
garner treasures from a film where youth are shown denied yet once
again. They could be at the point of psychic toppling, with the trigger
-- who knows exactly what? And the key youth in the film, the young
owner of the hotel, is here mostly denied. Cover is of course
provided, for no older person wants to think themselves intentionally
presiding forever over the young; but there is a sense that the film is
intentionally pitting aggressive youthfulness against elder
wisdom/knowledge of people/canyness and patience, with the latter
lot clearly triumphant. The young owner ostensibly comes out with
his dreams realized, his hotel afloat, and the resplendent wife he's
fought for at his side; but the feel is mostly that he's gone from sole
owner of a hotel to its bell hop, enthusiastically presenting himself to
the ring of a bell. This is good therapy for Maggie Smith's character,
who's been head servant but never inexctricable to the family she
served, but unfair to him.
Still, the last time a generation turned whole-hog on a preceding
generation it judged self-indulgent, the result was some vitality -they felt they got their own era -- but, in my judgment, also a criminal
curtailing of depth. It was the '30s, with artists who thrived then
sometimes being the ones unable to thrive in '20s Paris, for all the
great but also incredibly daunting personalities they mixed with
there; but were able to once self-sacrifice and common purpose, not
self-indulgence and individual enrichment, became king. Personally,
I'd prefer not to think youth have had it so bad they'll take the barren
ramshackle over the opulent for it at least being theirs, but the film
does argue a case for this as well. So, yes, at the finish, I'll admit there
is still some valid last minute weighing to do ... but please do decide
to take your kids to "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel."
----------
661
662
[. . .]
All of this reflects deeply ingrained social and cultural ideas about
gender, which are present in people of both sexes. Maybe mens
preference for violent action yarns and womens preference for sappy
love stories and our tendency to understand one as more serious
than the other are hard-wired in some biological way, although that
falls a long way short of scientific truth. But despite the torrent of
male-centric franchise flicks well see this summer, and next summer,
and for all the summers into the foreseeable future, the tide in the
Hollywood gender wars has begun to shift, slightly but perceptibly.
I personally wonder if what we will see this year, next year, and
further beyond are periodic interruptions by liberals of their basic
enjoying of life to float out mouthy j'accuses at still-male-centric
society, allowing some smaller bite, to come off themselves. And I
wonder if it was time for one such interruption to come from Andrew,
and this is what actually explains why it is only in the comment
section of this article that we learn why Joss Whedon's
Avengers apparently wasn't permeated by Whedon's ostensibly
natural female orientation, rather than for the film being in the end,
mostly all Marvel.
What I am drawing upon here is not right-wing concerns, but rather
that of some leftish occupiers -- Chris Hedges, specifically, as well as
some of truthdig. In "Death of the Liberal Class," Hedges challenged
readers to imagine liberals as mostly being uninterested in what
happens to most Americans, in actually finding them disgusting, and
as having since the late '70s spent their time essentially walling
themselves from them. He contends they've actually become
courtiers, a class distinct from "fellow Americans," and use
"boutique" issues of race and gender to justify their privileges and
relevancy while keeping the rest of America feeling suspect, probably
owed their inferior place. And so thereby life goes along comfortably,
even if significant changes to American life -- the kind of stuff Hedges
contends liberals once defined themselves by -- are intentionally
forestalled, and democratic America comes to be increasingly
663
664
Stephanie Zacharek's review of the film, we note, was very harsh. It's
always great to have her take, but it'd be nice if she'd accord some of
her assertions, particularly this one -- "But if you're out to change the
face of filmmaking, you have to work much harder at a lot of the thigs
Cameron just shrugs off" -- and perhaps also this one -- "In Avatar,
the technology is everything" -- and also this one -- "'Avatar isn't
about actors or characters or even about story; it's about special
effects, which is fine as far as it goes" -- with what actually ended up
happening. Cameron didn't leapfrog off this project; the world, the
people in it, mattered to him -- and do we doubt that audiences
haven't either? And this, his sticking to the Avatar universe, isn't
because he's old, or because Avatar is ideal ground for his special
effects fetish, or because the aquatic's hold on its lifeforms doubles
nicely its recent long hold on him; but rather because despite his early
errancy -- i.e., Titanic's "Goodbye, mother!" - he means to spend the
rest of his life in the lap of his mother deity, Eywa; it really does come
down to that.
Stephanie was astray from the life in this film as she was from the life
in Avengers. This line from her review of Avatar, "It's a remotecontrol movie experience, a high-tech 'wish you were here' scribbled
on a very expensive postcard," just like this one from her review of the
Avengers, "all a filmmaker really needs to do is put them all into a big
stock pot filled with elaborate set pieces and some knowing dialogue
and he's golden," shows she's been sending up movies that it turned
out audiences have bought into -- and brother, have they!
Or, audiences these days are such that they fall head over heels for
movies that really are all about special effects and already-cultivated
prejudices, with tedious characters, no meaningful story
development, and removed directors (Armond White thinks so). It'd
be nice to see her take a momentary break from movie reviews and
write an account of what it's like to draw back from an appraisal of a
665
666
667
668
669
could go through it all and still come out looking the prince or
princess; where (3) people, where kids, who die often overtly deserve
to, have had it coming for a long time, in fact, or find their status
enhanced owing to it; and (4) that you'll come out of them several
steps further along the way of knowing who you really are and what
you want most in life.
The contest begins with Katniss appraised highest by authorities, and
though this must feel good (the novel never has her admit to being
flattered by it -- but boy do we well how important it's been in the
past to the author, and how many readers, using Katniss of course as
their avatar, rejoiced and savored it), the unforgiving contest
demonstrates how much better it feels to prove you're really worth it.
(It also does zero to suggest we actually want authorities outed -their worth is proved in their rightful assessment of Katniss's, and in
their readiness to oblige their honest assessment, despite it being
culled from affrontery.) The contest could have been efficiently
criticized by showing how it degrades its participants, but Katniss,
though involved in a contest which in order to win must have her
killing kid after kid after kid, isn't involved in even a single one which
sullies her. She kills the brutal boy who dispatched holy Rue; she
with innocence ends the life of the evasive Fox; and with mercy, even,
closes things out on the worst sort of bully in the world. She ends
things for one or two others -- but they're of the favored, mean and
unsparing sort too
... and this is another problem: if you want to criticize a society by
showing it as one which enables contests which kill kids, you don't
depict the contests as producing teams of people so mean they
obviously deserve their deaths, and of others so innocent you just
have to root for them. What is just and unjust looses its fix on the
contest itself and focuses on who, exactly, are the ones to die, and
who, exactly, ends up spared. Further, you don't have the most
innocent -- Rue -- dispatched, but in a way which makes it seem as if
this was the only way for her to become as she was clearly meant to:
that is, of mythic and lasting importance, cemented in the
670
671
672
nothing better than being the star! But though it's what you covet,
you can never admit this to yourself -- to do so would make you
selfish, crass, a for-sure climber, not the superior princess of the ball
who only gets lofted owing to superior qualities one can do nothing to
disown oneself of. The author is experiencing her dream self through
Katniss, which involves being the star at everyone else's expense; but
to eliminate the guilt, her subconscious makes sure to pretend as
primary, as the implied take, that Katniss really isn't into all the
attention and accolades she garners ... and nor should you be.
Katniss is an exercise in developing a false consciousness. You get to
pretend to be the saint while actually nurturing the kind of stuff that
would have you knife in the back anyone who would steal even one
photon of your greedily-clung-to limelight.
Reply to this post from Bread & Circus:
Except that the kids in the districts don't really have a choice in
being a star. Someone is going to be. Also the poorest kids have to
increase their odds of being chosen if they want to feed their
families. Then after it's all over, the tribute who won is in the
control of the president forever because of threats to their families. I
don't know if the movie will focus on this, but all the star treatment
and circus surrouding the tributes is really just to retty up and cover
up the control and force used to maintain the status quo in Panem.
What I like most about the Hunger Games is you can argue and
think about it for ages.
My reply:
If I sensed that the author wanted most for people to simply live
authentically, regardless of whether or not they're appreciated for
what they think, feel or do, I would have praised her for it. What I
sensed, was a novel that registered that its readers want to believe
themselves authentic -- but in truth really most wanted to be attended
to and feel the rush of being superior to every dispossessed one of
miniscule the rest of you. As such my criticism. The author so felt the
guilt of imagining herself annointed and above thee, she gave
everyone aplenty "truths" they as a chorus could unite behind to
673
674
relocations that could let them acceptably fit them in as their own.
This is a bit of a stretch, I know, but it is still the close high school
equivalent.
It's the crowds that stand apart. It may be that in their united fealty
to Katniss, District 12 figures in the imagination as pure, while the
Capital is set as a grotesque -- but I am pausing on this one. If so,
however, the film does enable a certain class of people for ruthless,
empathy-denied elimination -- the Capital's crowds of splendorentranced, disconcerned entitled elitists; and for this then should the
film principally be explored for its say on fascism.
*****
Jake's comment at Movieline.com:
[. . .] Consequently, I found the arrogant "bad boy" teen leading the
group of evil teens to be far more interesting a character with his
simple moment in the finale when he suggested that all the killing he
did was not worth it. That moment of regret showed more depth
than katniss, Peeta, Rue (sp?) and all the other characters combined.
My reply:
Cato's final moment wasn't for me so much the character regretting
as the film archly regrouping to argue the contest as simply an evil
thing, rather than as a glorious opportunity for come-uppance on the
arrogant popular kids (with denouement looking to involve wizened
commentary on the sure fall of the arrogant). I believe, though, that
Cato spent his last moments sniffling something Peetaish -- that
special Miss Katniss was of course the one in the end who was going
to prove victorious. I preferred the book where he was kept such an
arrogant, powerful brute, Katniss wasn't sure he couldn't even have
made his way through all the dogs (which were, by the way, way too
inflated in the film -- Conan, let alone Cato, would find himself evenly
matched if pit against one). I will cooperate and acknowledge there is
a way in which Cato's sniffling seems in character -- or, rather, at least
in archetype: he might be Hubris recognizing that Selflessness is
what in the end is armor-clad by God. Cato's group did seem as if
versions of the fallen out of Paradise Lost or Pilgrim's Progress -- or
675
Almost from the start you feel the director's efforts to please the
audience's key and only regal lady -- the blossoming young woman,
traditionally picked on by patriarchy, and whose current allegiance
guarantees you status as a modern man that gets to lubricate with
subservience but without any contestation, the way ahead -- and so
the Queen's proclamation that it is her story being told is really
understood as falsehood, pretty much moment one. The film pleases
those who are pleased when people fuss effort over them -- and much
effort is fussed here. It is to update Grimm, but with every particular
summoned, dissipated for its patriarchy, chill, bigotry, and antidemocratic sentiment. But with enough kept of at least the protector
man so the tentative, growing girl gets the expected satisfaction of
feeling notably special, as well as the sure companionship of someone
to serve as the adroit male draught horse who's to accompany her
along and familiarize her with, life's unsteadying rush of dramatic
new impulses. And also too, to have us forget about all that servile
mechanism-pulling, curtain-raising / closing, young Queen-pacifying
sweat and stress -- to lose sight of the chamberlain -- and simply
enjoy the movie.
If there is dissent in the movie, some measure of the not fully
accounted for that could maybe one day locate ruin upon all that's
676
been claimed, it's not the late arrival of the ostensible penultimate
grim moment -- the Queen's sly bequeathing of the ruinous poisoned
apple; that thunder had already been claimed by the Queen's surprise
popping up into Dwarvish denizens to introduce the Beast to Snow
White, a silly, appropriately ill-defined entity doomed as much as
everyone else to register the princess's bequest. Rather, it's the
Queen's isolated mirror-retreat, which way trumps the dwarfs' madeto-be-domesticated forest composure to serve as an impenetrable
man-cave in the film, and which at the end no one but the old Queen
is aware of.
To be more clear: This film showed "Brave" in the previews, where
the great opponent to spirited young-intelligent-girl-assent is not
boys, nor Father, but very clearly pissed-off Mother; and it seems
pretty clear to me that if one is to look most clearly for dissent from
men in this era of female appeasement, it's going to be located in the
safer armor of older lady garb. In this film, her remaining retreat is, if
slight, and hardly even still clearly aligned to her, still the only
remaining antidote to the princess's chilling final conquestorial
gesture and proprietary dance and song at her absolutely-everyonenow dominion of the realm.
---------American Reunion -- Review
Perhaps it's the foremost goal now for most people, not to be a
runaway success, but to situate yourself so you get a comfy-enough
seat in which to watch how it all unravels. It's been 13 years, and it
seem the point of the reunion is to strip away whatever attenuations
becoming visibly adult after high school brings upon you -- something
for self-esteem purposes you need to feel you'd donned -- to mostly
lounge back, lifelong, into a niche, a "knit," you've always known as
pleasing and comfortable. Well, for these characters -- good for them.
677
It'd be nice to see people settle into their permanent habitat after
they're fully formed rather than while shadows of greater essences -of true world-exploring adventurers, of truly individuated, mature
couples; but I think even with where they remain they'll have fun,
know some good living.
I think they'd be wise, though, not to be made subjects for any further
films. Stifler, the only one of them who remains an agent of true
living -- that is, not just a joiner in common-place activities like
horking down hotdogs with genial-enough friends, but generating,
initiating upon them new adventures, experiences and landscapes -seems pretty much near used up by film's end, exhausted from having
to play through all the requisite and predictable (note: in a time
where collectively to help bide time we make ourselves feel evolved
and accomplished perhaps primarily by ridiculing white male alphas,
it plays out as requisite, not a surprise, that his high school sportsmates are all gay) humiliations that have to be suffered upon him.
The film seems to realize as much, as an effort -- a sustained one -- is
made to resuscitate him in the last few moments before the finish. All
of a sudden after so much victimizing he's generously funnelled every
plausible available target to feast and food for himself through
thorough banging or deflating -- without of course -- or at least done
in a fashion that gives ready avenue for denial -- chisseling away one
iota at categories of people we are fully vested in remaining
righteously affiliated with -- some renewal and vitality. But it still
plays out with him seeming more like their potentially straying,
thoroughly wrought-over, hyper-respondant traumatized dog than a
co-equal who can confirm with what he generates that yet still with
ample provisions, mapped-out destinations, and of course, preselected accomodations, they'll know in life some subsequent true
adventure.
----------
678
679
680
681
682
683
well. But the truth is that it was because they were so full of
hedonistic impulse, or rather, of genuine, untainted love of
themselves and the possibilities of life, that we know their social
reforms were moved out of goodthe former lead to the firm
expectation of the other. If reform was moved by a more staid, more
degraded impulse it might have lead to the results of reform efforts in
the 30s, which may in fact, if what reformers then mostly worked to
do was confirm a publics substitution of bland, mundane aspirations
for previous exciting Jazz Age ones, have been about cementing the
neutering of dreams than their partial realization, defining them and
shutting them down until new life could begin after the war. It would
have made the 60s liberals their opposites, and only now kin to those
who thrived in the 30s, their ostensible counterparts, when group
phase had regressed gaspingly to Depressed from thrillingly
Innovative.
HEDGES GROWTH PANIC
DeMausians appreciate that if 80s on liberals actually came to
despise ordinary people, this was, though still unfortunate,
understandable, for ordinary people were responsible for the creation
of an environment which would objectively make them seem less and
less appealing. For three decades, they, the ordinary people, those of
lesser psychoclasses, were mostly in-sync with the less ordinary, the
members of higher ones. They permitted and engaged with the
reforms, the expansions of experience, of pleasure, the more loved
and evolved amongst them lead them onto, were allowed to lead them
onto, owing to pretty much everyone feeling that some great
mountain-world of happiness had been earned to partake in by the
giant sacrifices endured through the Second World War and the two
decades of dreariness previous to it. Three decadesuntil the more
regressed psychoclasses experienced in a way that could not
temporarily be abated through war or recession but only through the
more total sort of renouncement involved in what we understand as
historical group phase change, their maternal alters chastising them
684
685
686
bit to close with the suffering and note, it wouldnt have mattered if
you could recall a recent time you had, for he would understand it as
merely show, an anxiety-ward, a boutique gesture hed follow
through with more thunderous humiliation by asking you when the
last time was you risked loss of life or career termination for a cause
you believed in?[8] Then hed quickly slide past you for knowing for
not simply assenting to him, guaranteed, youre part of the amalgam
of outraged left who seek to bring down people like him simply for the
crime of showing up their own emptiness,[9] and are a complete
waste of his further time. Youre one of those hes encountered time
and time again whove left him with remembrances that have piled up
in his mind so readily and appropriately as simply more heaps onto
an already comically massive pile of degrade, it might draw him to
laugh. That is, one who engage[s] in useless moral posturing that
requires no sacrifice or commitment (156), is childish (194), has
been rendered impotent (19), who has nothing to offer but empty
rhetoric (9), possesses an irrational lust for power and money that
is leading to collective suicide (194), is passive and only encourages
rot (200), who wallow[s] in the arcane world of departmental
intrigue and academic gibberish (126), is beholden to those not
endowed with decency or human compassion (204), is seduced by
careerism (142), is damningly complicit in the rise of [. . .]
oligarchy (142), who hide[s] [his] cowardice behind [his] cynicism
(205), who would applaud the aghast act of shoving a health care bill
down our throats (27), who is smarmy, fatuous, oily,
buffoonish, ignorant, a parasite and a courtier (190), and so on.
[10]
WHAT THE TRUTH HAS TO FACE
I realize I could make either Chomsky or Nader (or even maybe my
foremost hero, Paul Krugman) look bad through a selective massing
of their quotes, but with them I would be sure to suggest, probably
through an equally large counter, that they are still warm men who
mean most everyone wellfor they would be delighted if through
687
688
brethren, that surely long ago they engaged with its possibility in full
its simply to be presumed, and its simply on to long overdue
redemption. But with Hedges, at least, the primary explanation
actually lies in his so coming to see suffering people as doing, simply
with their suffering, something noble, as being noble, that their
overall degradation as human beings cant be seen. Hedges and the
multiple of leaders that will emerge during this depression will draw
us so very close to the peoples suffering for the same reason heroes
allowed to emerge in the Great Depression, such as John Steinbeck,
did: to confirm that people are doing as directed and making much of
the rest of their lives about withering for previously having made it
for so long about self-enrichment.[11] Theyll weave romance around
brutal suffering, cast a chilly spell that fully obfuscates but suffices to
calm: All we expect is the absolute basics, and for this we submit
Wont Mother now you just let us be?
THE DEMAUSIAN FIX
I understand that my analysis looks, with its identification of Hedges
as someone who has come to hate anything that smacks of true
growth, to be aggressing to view the group he despises, contemporary
liberals, as golden. I dont think they are, and so my start of the costs
larger acceptance amongst them would currently require for
DeMausians. But I think more than just that their helping bulwark a
society of mak[ing] more money, meet[ing] new quotas,
consum[ing] more products, and advanc[ing] careers (200) is
preferable to the payback and full-stop Hedges wants to get behind
and the cleansed society he wants to help put in place, more than just
that the specialist[]s master[y] [of] narrow, arcane subjects and
disciplines (115) sounds like far better bedding for the next growth
phase to arise in than Hedges righteous thunder and implo[sions]
(140) does, more than just their ostensibly typical belief that if our
repressions can be removed by confessing them to a Freudian
psychologist then we can adjust ourselves to any situation
(Malcolm Crowley, quoted in Hedges, 101) sounds better for the
689
690
691
692
war was/is a war of hubris, that Iraq presented no pressing threat but
an enticing prize, neo-cons and George W. Bush made use of a
nations powerful need to simply trust to empower their intent to go
after. Im sure youve heard this one before, and possibly long, long
ago accepted it in full, thinking what we most needed to know about
the war has been repeatedly revealed; and perhaps for this reason,
principally, we should go into why Records account does us all little
good.
BUSHS LURCH
Record wants to leave no doubt that Bushs decision to go to war with
Iraq after 9/11 had nothing to do with the new realities of the world
revealed by the attack, and as such, left us all of course in a much
worse fix (with such like Irans influence on Iraq now even being
greater). Afghanistan was the more likely suspect, not Iraq; regional
history was ignored rather than carefully studied; old gripes and
plans, not newly awakened sensitivities, the primary movers. It was
an abashingly stupid and ruinous thing to have done, and it depended
entire on the confluence of George W. Bush, neoconservative
influence, and 9/11 (p. 92). The neo-cons had always wanted
Americas foreign policy to be about showing all of Americas scummy
enemies that it meant business, and thought to communicate this
most clearly by every once in a while focusing intently on one of them
and eviscerating them, as an object lesson to the others (pp. 92-5).
They took advantage of a President who had no clear-cut foreign
policy and could be lured by their offering of a plan which would offer
profound personal satisfaction in that it would lay waste to a
personal enemy, Saddam, whod greatly afflicted his father and, with
Americas withdrawal in the previous Iraq War, hadnt quite yet
sufficiently been paid back for all his harm; and in it matching his
preference for Manichaen, simplistic, solutions to pressing problems,
to become a blessed chosen agent of God.
Record argues this war had one very noteworthy success it did
693
694
695
mistake after mistake after mistake [p. 149]) with a rudely ill-served,
staunchly and commendably conservative and fair polis, he might
have done some of the work that would have us psychohistorians
learning from his wisdom rather than maybe actually being tripped
up by his key folly. If he had, for instance, wondered if the fact that
we were all so quick to wake up to this nightmare deception with his
book being maybe the thousandth to have come after Bushs first
term delineating Bushs hubris may suggest that maybe we all-along
kinda knew the President was smacking back at a world in way that
was grossly indifferent to precision and to good form, would be easy
to thereafter spot-out as in fact actually rotten, and therefore why we
all would want something like that.
I wonder it myself, and I think actually that we were at some level
aware that our president was responding to 9/11 by drawing the world
to recoil and maybe awe at our readiness to just whip out our
collective cock and humiliate and fuck, in public, indifferently, before
abashed and stunned you and you and you, whomever stumbled
mostly readily into view in our reptilians minds after being let loose
and agitated to seek out some tit-for-tat revenge. I wonder if we went
after Iraq knowing it drew us back into a time when imperialism
hadnt gotten the cleaner coat we knew it needed, because it would
make the humiliation we would apply less sparing and complicated
more indulgent and satisfying and because it would be so easy to
thereafter pin on the hubristic desires of leaders who made use of our
understandable need to trust to draw us back into neanderthalic
politics unrelated to our current world, to our current selves. I think
we made use, are still making use, of the neo-cons and President
Bush, maybe not so much ultimately even to deposit and disown our
own hubris but to no longer recognize it in future; and so when
authorities like Record sum up Bush and the neo-cons (or, more
precisely, the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine) as evidencing a nostalgic
yearning for the days when wars were wars (and men were men), as
having very little relevance in a world in which instrastate wars and
intranational terrorism replaced interstate warfare as they primary
696
threats to U.S. security (p. 175), we can substitute into this wellpounded imprint of archaic, regressive, boarish manners and
therefore of manners, presentation, in general in the definition of
what all is actually occurring as a consequence of our foreign policies,
a substantially more sober and current style, to help begin our
process of making the sacrifice and humiliation we enjoy so that its
largely invisible to us as anything but appropriate conduct.
Individual Nazis may have needed twin selves, one that humiliates
and destroys, and the other that goes home for dinner and talks
domestic, to execute as much; but maybe we think weve found a way
to (perhaps only temporarily) manage it with but one.
Record is by no means against war. He just wants it kept
competent, realist, clearly defined, evidently last resort, with
public and congressional support but presumably lead by
extraordinary statesmen like Roosevelt (pp. 151-52). One wonders,
though, with his intent to see Americans in his preferred fashion,
probably losing himself to temporary needs of narrative empowered
by the fact that he can rely on it not being anywhere near his alone, if
hed recognize it when he saw it. I kinda doubt that what Obama is
actually doing, what Americans are enabling him to do, abroad, is
competent and adult, but he surely knows hes got to present it that
way.
Psychohistorians know that leaders are ones to be particularly
sensitive to, never criminally obtuse to, our most deeply felt desires.
If Bush wanted war for gross reasons, we wanted it for the same as
well. Bush intuited our desire to indulge one last time in blatant
drunken excess, and delivered; Obama, our desire to continue on with
the same but feel ourselves clean, by delivering ourselves for awhile to
an aesthetics of sensibleness, consideredness, restraint and sanity,
sourced from our leaders. Record sees Bush and the neo-cons as
nostalgic and archaic; I see them as but part of the same gross onetwo punch.
697
[1] To Record, Bush Sr. took a weightier account of the world which
drew him ultimately to respect restraint (pp. 155-56), and he and Jr.
end up seeming as much good path-bad path brothers in the same
fraternal order as father and son.
---------Thursday, August 25, 2011
I'm a vegetarian, but I'm not so foolish to think Michael Pollan
trumps Julia Child
Following my recent column about vegetarianism, I received a
wave of hate mail from meat eaters. This came as no surprise
-- as food has finally become a political issue in America (as it
should), some carnivores have become increasingly aggressive
toward anyone or any fact that even vaguely prompts them to
critically consider their culinary habit. Although the
stereotype imagines vegetarians sententiously screaming at
any meat eater they see at the lunch counter or dinner table,
I've found quite the opposite to be true. In my personal life, I
go out of my way to avoid talking about my vegetarianism
while I'm eating with friends, family or work colleagues, but
nonetheless regularly find myself being interrogated by
carnivores when they happen to notice that I'm not wolfing
down a plate of meat.
Having been a vegetarian for more than a decade now, and
having been raised in a family of proud meat eaters, I'm going
to use this space to publish a brief primer for both vegetarians
and those who are considering vegetarianism -- a primer on
what kind of blowback you should expect to face when you are
forced to publicly explain your personal dietary decision, and
698
699
this generation of highly evolved people weren't yet one that had
abandoned meat. The unfortunate thing about current vegans is that
they came on mostly after the 60s and 70s golden ages had passed,
and so haven't yet had their time when they didn't also communicate
shrewism, scolding, restriction. That'll come, but only after the
current depression fully unfolds, another possible world war, and
then, finally, accompanying the collective agreement that a golden
age is once again fully warranted.)
It's hard for us born loving meat to know for sure, but if true, we
shouldn't be afraid to admit this even as we lessen the pleasure we
take from fat, expand that we take from vegetables and legumes, and
refuse to inconscionably kill what should simply have been respected.
Link: A vegetarians guide to talking to carnivores (Salon)
---------Reading lists, and all they entail
700
[. . .]
701
702
another perspective
703
@mysteryperson
RE: It is the fact, well documented (as is pointed out) that women
writers do face a struggle for recognition beyond that confronted by
all writers.
This privilege is evidence of a culture that has mostly surrendered the
rest of the ground to women, so long as "they" have some elevated
mountain top to swap secrets, share signs, and indulge in all men for
awhile. Some women want even this sundered, but when this is
accomplished -- the termination of such a obviously-needed
masculinist ritual -- the results aren't pretty (see Donald Tuzin's
"Cassowary's Revenge" for an example of what happened after a
millenium-held long masculinist cult dissolved).
Most men are still born to insufficiently-respected, insufficientlyloved mothers. Such mothers don't magically, despite their lack of
sustenance, become enabled providers, but inevitably look to their
boy children as "gay hags" do gay men -- to satisfy, serve, and then
704
dispose them until their next craving. Later in life these unfortunate
men are either going to need an incredible dose of spot-on therapy or
masculinist sexist escapes, or else, and even if very literate, theyll
start doing base things like suiciding themselves or indulging on
impulsions to physically abuse women.
Women, grow up and afford yourselves a more mature understanding
of what lies behind these masculinist escapes. Also, admit you voted
for Obama for what actually leads to him needing these periodic
escapes -- because you sensed in him someone constituted, fully
broken, to respond to your distress and needs.
Really, people?
The vast, vast majority of these comments just go to show
how important it is that SOMEONE make the point(s) Robin
Black made in her piece. Otherwise, the myriad sexists on the
internet and off might never come crawling out of the
woodwork spitting their venom.
I invite you to call me a feminazi for posting this, but the issue
of gender in the arts, and how prominent people consume
them, does deserve to be examined. The sickening antiwoman stench coming off of this comment thread is evidence
enough of that. Once Obama's summer reading list has been
publicized (and it has been!), critics have the right to ask
questions about it. And the lack of women writers on Obama's
summer reading and other reading lists - conscious or not just speaks to a larger, society-wide issue.
The New York Times reviews far more men than women
(http://www.slate.com/id/2265910/pagenum/2) and, (again)
705
seriouslah
Re: I invite you to call me a feminazi for posting this, but the issue of
gender in the arts, and how prominent people consume them, does
deserve to be examined. The sickening anti-woman stench coming
off of this comment thread is evidence enough of that. Once Obama's
summer reading list has been publicized (and it has been!), critics
have the right to ask questions about it. And the lack of women
writers on Obama's summer reading and other reading lists conscious or not - just speaks to a larger, society-wide issue.
I considered it, seriouslah. It's right there, and kinda obvious -- or
were you too much prepared to enjoy your indulgent haughty snark to
internet plebs to consider it? Still, what did you make of my argument
that masculinism owes to a need for compensense, for boys who grew
up with insufficiently loved and respected women who could not then
but help using their dependent boys to feed them some of what they'd
been denied?
How to disagree
It is with some discomfort that I disagree with Robin Blacks
piece. I am a friend of Robins and have been an admirer of
706
her writing since before she was published. The problem with
her premise, I believe, is that she is conflating two things that
on the surface appear to be related but which are not. The
coverage and positioning of female writers (sorry, I just cant
go with the popular usage of women writers) in the media
and what President Obama chooses to read in his free time
are vastly different. One is a business/editorial decision and
the other a matter of personal taste. Could both have
influence? Sure. However I think its reasonable to assume
that someone in the editorial meeting at Time magazine
thought Jonathan Franzen was a pompous gasbag but still
sided with putting him on the cover. Hopefully the President
chooses to read books that he is truly interested in and not
because hes trying to make some sort of impression.
Robin Black does not need anyone to defend her. She is quite
capable of that all on her own. I find it, however, despicable
the language used and way in which some here have disagreed
with her. Many of the cowards who have posted comments
would shirk from the chance to voice their opinions publicly
on matters of art, politics, or society, and yet feel free to do so
in the basest, most vulgar ways on the internet because of its
faceless, impersonal nature. Yes, we live in a country where
freedom of speech is a right; however, shame on us if we dont
use it in a manner that is commensurate with its importance.
(bdudlick)
@dudlick
Re: Robin Black does not need anyone to defend her. She is quite
capable of that all on her own. I find it, however, despicable the
language used and way in which some here have disagreed with
her. Many of the cowards who have posted comments would shirk
707
----------
708
709
Turkey dinners
If you grew up loving your turkey dinners, if some of your favorite
childhood memories are of the times around the succulent-meat-aplenty table or excursions to eat fatty steak, burgers, or prime ribs,
then you remain fidelitous to the good things in your past when you
choose Tofurky and veggie bacon after really connecting with and
deeply caring about the truth that it is a terrible thing to kill animals
for sustenance. For you, it isn't transition but fidelity to the blessed
things of your past that were very much part of the furnishings for the
love that made you care. Though it might be even more mature, to
710
move on entirely might well in fact for you be about birthing a new
kind of inorganic rupture and violence.
---------When progressives fail just to mind their own business
There is a shadowy group of malcontents in America today,
plotting a grand takeover of our political institutions in order
to completely remake the country according to their wishes.
Despite the fact the members of this group are a small
minority of the population, and an unpopular one at that, they
seek to infiltrate the courts and the government at every level,
in order to replace our long-standing system of law with their
own extremist, undemocratic religious code. These true
believers are especially dangerous because they think they're
doing God's work, and you ignore them, or play down the
threat they pose to America, at your own risk. This tiny band
of fanatics is largely distrusted and despised by regular
Americans, but a terrified media coddles them and pretends
they're harmless. I am speaking, of course, of the Tea Parties,
a group now officially less popular among Americans than
Muslims.
Professors David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam have a
column in today's New York Times explaining that the Tea
Party movement is made up largely of ultra-religious ultraconservative Republican partisans (shocker?), and now that
America has caught on to this fact, the Tea Party people are
much less popular than other groups who largely seek to mind
their own business:
Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is
climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News
711
712
713
714
715
[. . .]
716
717
718
another perspective
What is noteworthy about these comments, aside from their
viciousness, is their complete failure to understand the point
of the article they are commenting on. A serious issue is
raised, and it is not what President Obama reads or doesn't
read. It is the fact, well documented (as is pointed out) that
women writers do face a struggle for recognition beyond that
confronted by all writers. Since President Obama's reading
list was made public, it afforded a perfectly reasonable way to
raise the larger issue. It's too bad that commenters have
seized on this harmless illustrative device as if it were the
central point of the article; had they bothered to read in order
to understand, we might have had an interesting discussion
instead of an outpouring of venom. (mysteryperson)
@mysteryperson
RE: It is the fact, well documented (as is pointed out) that women
writers do face a struggle for recognition beyond that confronted by
all writers.
This privilege is evidence of a culture that has mostly surrendered the
719
Really, people?
The vast, vast majority of these comments just go to show
how important it is that SOMEONE make the point(s) Robin
Black made in her piece. Otherwise, the myriad sexists on the
internet and off might never come crawling out of the
woodwork spitting their venom.
720
I invite you to call me a feminazi for posting this, but the issue
of gender in the arts, and how prominent people consume
them, does deserve to be examined. The sickening antiwoman stench coming off of this comment thread is evidence
enough of that. Once Obama's summer reading list has been
publicized (and it has been!), critics have the right to ask
questions about it. And the lack of women writers on Obama's
summer reading and other reading lists - conscious or not just speaks to a larger, society-wide issue.
The New York Times reviews far more men than women
(http://www.slate.com/id/2265910/pagenum/2) and, (again)
whether it's conscious sexism or not, it's reflective of a bias
that (AGAIN) is also reflected in this disgusting comment
thread.
Or it could just be that women write worse than men.
(For the clueless among you, also known as most of you, I was
being sarcastic in that last bit. You're welcome.)
(seriouslah)
seriouslah
Re: I invite you to call me a feminazi for posting this, but the issue of
gender in the arts, and how prominent people consume them, does
deserve to be examined. The sickening anti-woman stench coming
off of this comment thread is evidence enough of that. Once Obama's
summer reading list has been publicized (and it has been!), critics
have the right to ask questions about it. And the lack of women
writers on Obama's summer reading and other reading lists conscious or not - just speaks to a larger, society-wide issue.
I considered it, seriouslah. It's right there, and kinda obvious -- or
721
were you too much prepared to enjoy your indulgent haughty snark to
internet plebs to consider it? Still, what did you make of my argument
that masculinism owes to a need for compensense, for boys who grew
up with insufficiently loved and respected women who could not then
but help using their dependent boys to feed them some of what they'd
been denied?
How to disagree
It is with some discomfort that I disagree with Robin Blacks
piece. I am a friend of Robins and have been an admirer of
her writing since before she was published. The problem with
her premise, I believe, is that she is conflating two things that
on the surface appear to be related but which are not. The
coverage and positioning of female writers (sorry, I just cant
go with the popular usage of women writers) in the media
and what President Obama chooses to read in his free time
are vastly different. One is a business/editorial decision and
the other a matter of personal taste. Could both have
influence? Sure. However I think its reasonable to assume
that someone in the editorial meeting at Time magazine
thought Jonathan Franzen was a pompous gasbag but still
sided with putting him on the cover. Hopefully the President
chooses to read books that he is truly interested in and not
because hes trying to make some sort of impression.
Robin Black does not need anyone to defend her. She is quite
capable of that all on her own. I find it, however, despicable
the language used and way in which some here have disagreed
with her. Many of the cowards who have posted comments
would shirk from the chance to voice their opinions publicly
on matters of art, politics, or society, and yet feel free to do so
in the basest, most vulgar ways on the internet because of its
722
@dudlick
Re: Robin Black does not need anyone to defend her. She is quite
capable of that all on her own. I find it, however, despicable the
language used and way in which some here have disagreed with
her. Many of the cowards who have posted comments would shirk
from the chance to voice their opinions publicly on matters of art,
politics, or society, and yet feel free to do so in the basest, most
vulgar ways on the internet because of its faceless, impersonal
nature. Yes, we live in a country where freedom of speech is a right;
however, shame on us if we dont use it in a manner that is
commensurate with its importance.
Dudlick, I'm not sure if you're a dude, but you sure sound like a
gentleman concerned to defend his lady from unruly ruffians. Just so
you know, feminists have long ago dissected such ostensibly womenserving behavior as vile and inherently patriarchal, because it
reinforces the idea that women, however becoming and noble, are
more delicate than men, which would leave contentious stuff like
politics and business mostly to those better constituted for the fray.
Yes, you begin by saying she surely is capable of defending herself,
but with her absent from the discussion and you immersed within it,
this seems about anxiety-calming, about manners, and being
fundamentally disingenuous, and this too does your case no good.
Also, if you are a guy, a marxist perspective would have your
gentleman's refutations of the boarish to be mostly about aristocratic
privileging at working class expense. To other eyes, that is, it's about
723
selfishly making claim to the chick and dicking her, dudlicks. Thought
you should know.
Link: President Obama: Why dont you read more women?
---------THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 2011
Good times, and turkey dinners
But before any of these inquiries are but a twinkle in Isaac's
eye, I know I'm going to face an interrogation about
vegetarianism. At some point soon, he'll ask why our family
doesn't eat this stuff called "meat" that's everywhere.
I have my substantive answers already lined up, so I'm not
worried about what I'll tell him. (We don't eat meat because
it's unhealthy, environmentally irresponsible, expensive and
inhumane.) With this question, I'm more concerned about the
prompting. Why is he almost certainly going to ask at such an
early age?
I think I know the answer -- and it's not the ad campaigns that
make meat seem like a rational choice ("Beef: It's What's for
Dinner"), a healthy alternative food ("Pork: The Other White
Meat") or a compassionate cuisine decision (Chik-fil-A's
billboards, which show a cow begging you to spare his life by
choosing chicken). No, Isaac's going to have questions
because of the grocery -- more specifically, because of the
vegetarian aisle that subliminally glorifies meat-eating.
I realize that sounds like an oxymoron, but the next time you
go shopping, imagine what a kid gleans from veggie burgers,
veggie bacon, veggie sausage patties, veggie hot dogs, Tofurky
and all the other similar fare that defines a modern plantbased diet. While none of it contains meat, it's all marketed as
emulating meat. In advertising terms, that's the "unique
selling proposition" -- to give you the epicurean benefits of
724
Turkey dinners
If you grew up loving your turkey dinners, if some of your favorite
childhood memories are of the times around the succulent-meat-aplenty table or excursions to eat fatty steak, burgers, or prime ribs,
then you remain fidelitous to the good things in your past when you
choose Tofurky and veggie bacon after really connecting with and
deeply caring about the truth that it is a terrible thing to kill animals
725
for sustenance. For you, it isn't transition, but fidelity to the blessed
things of your past that were very much part of the furnishings for the
love that made you care. Though it might be even more mature, to
move on entirely might well in fact for you be about birthing a new
kind of inorganic rupture and violence.
Link: Why do vegetarians glorify meat? (Salon)
---------
726
much less popular than other groups who largely seek to mind
their own business:
Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is
climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News
survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an
unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable
opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now,
14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to
20 percent, while their opponents have more than
doubled, to 40 percent.
Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well
among the public these days. But in data we have
recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any
of the 23 other groups we asked about lower than
both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less
popular than much maligned groups like atheists
and Muslims. Interestingly, one group that
approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.
So it turns out that going around in funny hats screaming at
people for a few years is not a great way to endear yourself to
the American public, unless you're Joe Pantoliano.
Better luck with next election cycle's rebranding campaign
that fools everyone in the political press for a year or so, ultraconservative Republicans! (Alex Parene, Tea Party
people less popular than many other hated minority
groups, Salon, 17 August 2011)
... until Progressives become the minority group of concern
Yes, and we can expect Salon to gleefully join with Obama in
destroying them. Afterwards, now lost in the feeling of healthy vigor
and purity acquired in disposing of presumptive malcontents, they'll
begin their war on progressives (real ones), who also unfairly would
hoist their minority agenda on the rest of America. Though it was
727
what they did in the '60s and '70s, and, we remind, to everyone's
benefit, time now to see similar efforts/presumptions on their part as
simply "Tea Party" beyond countenancing.
Few of us will escape the drive to make someone else embody our
own -- to us -- increasingly suspect selfishness. Tea Partiers first, and
then in a far more brutal way -- for their representing it vastly more
convincingly -- their inverse: the best, least regressive people alive,
true progressives.
Obama is about so depleting America that most everyone will be
hardened and made spirtually pure from knowing long sustained true
suffering. This is his (albeit, mostly unknowing) agenda, and it is
drawing, and will continue to draw, most of us to it. I expect a second
term, and a president progressives will fear to assail, for fear of what
their liberal friends might say and do in return.
Link: Tea Party people less popular than many other hated minority
groups (Salon)
---------
728
(Link:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100
101050/starkey-racism-row-it-is-the-political-elitesceaseless-denigration-of-white-working-class-culture-thathas-turned-kids-black/)
729
730
@Duchess
The liberalism you despise is about to come to a complete close. The
reform in manners you hope for will come to; it'll keep people feeling
contained and controlled as a snug-fitting Nazi uniform.
Liberalism has been just awful for quite some time, but the truth that
is so important to understand but near impossible to be
countenanced, is that everything since the late '70s was due to
become a frustratingly warped form of its earlier incarnations.
Liberalism will once again unambiguously shine golden, but this will
require the commencement of a new golden age, where regressives
give progressives some stretch and more or less for a time let them
lead the way, and where progressives themselves are free from selfshakles they'll end up applying when they too have decided society
has had it too good. This will come only after what we're about to see
here: the emergence of the everyone-agreed -- noble working
classer, the emergence of the spritual greatness of original stock folk,
and a war against polluted others that everyone will feel good about
but that will obnoxiously, terrifyingly outdo in carnage the
scapegoating and casually applied debasement you goad liberals for.
Link: London police charge 1,000th person in riots probe (Salon)
731
--------
732
733
[. . .]
734
@nortonshitty
A slight mistake Mr Shitty? Read it here:
Dan Savage--Oct. 2002-"Say Yes to War on Iraq"
"No to War! No to Oppression!"
The above anti-war message was delivered to me via a sadlooking pink poster. I pulled the poster off a light pole and
hung it in my office over my desk. I look at the poster every
day when I sit down to work, and every day I wonder how and
735
736
Because claiming this victory means backing this war, and the
American left refuses to back this or any war--which makes
the left completely irrelevant in any conversation about the
advisability or necessity of a particular war. (Pacifism is faith,
not politics.) What's worse, the left argues that our past
support for regimes like Saddam's prevents us from doing
anything about Saddam now. We supported (and in some
cases installed) tyrants, who in turn created despair, which in
turn created terrorists, who came over here and blew shit up...
so now what do we do? According to the left, we do nothing.
It's all our fault, so we're just going to have to sit back and
wait for New York City or D.C. or a big port city (like, say,
Seattle or Portland) to disappear.
737
738
ourselves.
Post-9/11, post-Bali, what other choice do we have?
(Ccommentator)
Ccommentator
I think you'll find a lot of gay men are unconsciously drawn to support
efforts -- like Bush's wars or Obama's collective sacrifice -- that ends
up looking at the finish to have been mostly about purposely
destroying the lives of multiple innocents. Being gay is a defense
mechanism against the overwhelming mother, one of a number
possible. Children of such insufficiently loved mothers understand
that they are bad if they do not devote themselves entirely to them -an "education" that later in life makes them susceptible to "gay hags,"
women who blithely readily presume upon them and dehumanize
them as property. Since life cannot but be about some growth and
"selfish" acquisition, as means to safeguard themselves from
annihilative punishmen, unconscious self-protective alters within
them will drive them to find some guilt-free way to punish other
innocent children for their own neediness. At the finish, after using
mostly-impossible-to-argue-against saints like Dan Savage to destroy
progressives who would kill this advancing child-life
destroying/grossly inhibiting depression if they could, Obama can
probably expect people like Dan to masochistically submit to sacrifice
expectations themselves.
@Patrick McEtc-Etc
"Being gay is a defense mechanism against the overwhelming
mother -- one of a number possible."
And it is a well-established fact of geography that if one sails
too far out in the ocean, one will fall off the edge of the Earth.
It is also a proven medical fact that rhinoceros horns and tiger
penises are wonderful cures for impotence. (robwriter)
739
robwriter
Psychoanalysis pretty much died in the '70s, and it's a wellestablished fact that whatever happened afterwards was so much
better for mankind.
Link: The evolution of Dan Savage (Salon)
--------
740
741
*****
742
743
744
745
@Recovering lawyer
RE: Yes, there were Southerners who were genuinely evil--the
murderers of Emmett Till, Bull Connor, etc. But most people in the
South were simply people who had been raised with racism as part
of the fabric of their everyday existence, and to whom it had never
really occurred--or only fleetingly--to question that racism.
Terrorism of a people isn't seen or felt to be abnormal owing to the
fact that one was raised to see it as a fact of life, but because the
people doing the terrorizing (or who see it as a matter of course) are
perpetrators suffering from mass dissocation. In regards to the
Germans in Nazi Germany and Americans in regards to the Iraq war,
Lloyd DeMause explains this phenomenon this way:
Examples of mass dissociation of perpetrators are legion.
Lifton documents how Nazi doctors "double" themselves and
create an "Auschwitz self" to divest themselves of
responsibility toward those they experimented on. The Nazi
commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hss, when asked if the
Jews he killed had deserved their fate, replied that "there
was something unrealistic about such a question, because
[we] had been living in an entirely different world," that is,
the world of social alters. Jews weren't particularly
personally hated. Their blood just had to flow in order to
purify the blood of Germany. And America, in the 1990s, had
to conduct a genocide of over a million Iraqi children
through our embargo in a trance-in fact, no one noticed we
were killing them! They weren't human because they weren't
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
was packaged as concern for children, like that disgustedlooking pundit who made me sick to my stomach.
Did my parents make me fat? Probably. They fed my
siblings and me meals of bologna on white bread, hot dogs
and potato chips. They let us have four of those Oreo-knockoff cookies-that-don't-quite-taste-right in a sitting, rather
than one or two. They used fast food as a reward and eating
in general as a form of entertainment. If I was upset, I might
be offered a tasty snack as a pick-me-up. Even if nothing got
done all day, not the dishes, not the vacuuming, not mowing
the lawn, by god dinner would get done and there wouldn't
be any leftovers to pack up and put away. I suppose to some
people it is a portrait of failed parenting.
But my parents are also a success story. They were teen
parents. They had me -- the eldest -- at age 16. It was not a
mistake but a planned pregnancy. My mother grew up in a
household where she faced daily abuse at the hands of people
she trusted. There were challenging finances and in a family
with eight children, food could sometimes be scarce. My
father grew up in a slightly more stable financial situation,
but where violence was the primary outlet for anger, or
disappointment, as well as for discipline of children. When
these two wounded, but hopeful souls met they made a
forever pact in heart-shaped doodles on their class
notebooks. They crafted an escape plan: Create their own
family where they would make different rules. That is just
what they did.
And they did it all on their own. My dad worked two jobs
while finishing high school. My mom went back to night
school after I was born. Dad worked double night shifts and
Mom cut coupons and raised the kids while balancing work
at McDonald's. They never got welfare. They never received
754
755
756
their parents, protect them from knowing that much of their future
life was predicated on never feeling they'd done something, acquired
anything, insuffiently adorned or trumped by some sobering
disability/curse/deflation that it made them feel worthy of a revisit of
this super ego-installing punishment.
This writer is fat, and, thanks to a fat-hating society and efforts from
people like her to keep it seeming pretty much inevitably always so -despite every valiant effort! -- she's thereby found way to make
whatever true life gains she acquires something she feels a bit more
okay about savoring. (Even better, it's left her in her preferred
position of stalwartly defending her ostensibly primarily selfsacrificing parents: oh how the pieces delightfully fall into place!) You
may not be, but perhaps you'll be lucky to count yourself amongst the
people truly stricken through this depression, which will glory you
with sure means of demonstrating how incontrovertably
unbegrudable have been your own claims upon, and acquisitions
through, life.
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
So let's tell it straight? But what if this gets the story all
wrong too?
Re: And so, yet again, for what seems like the zillionth time, a hearttugging Hollywood film transforms a harrowing and magnificent
period of African-American life into a story of once-blinkered white
people becoming enlightened.
The period was actually, indisputably, a harrowing and magnificent
(epic?) period of African-American life? Good thing, because if
Hollywood ever takes up your call and gets real, it wouldn't have
presented itself with the dreadful problem of not showing much
anything of interest, let alone of magnificence!, for their (i.e.,
Southern blacks) just being relentlessly unconscionably hated upon
and abused. There's this simple, idiotic myth/assumption that when
whites attack another culture, project their own unwanted demons
onto some Other for purposes of punishing and destroying it, that this
Other was more spiritually pure, psychologically sane, less mad,
hateful, and more community-oriented and naturally benefactory
than their oppressors. The only thing I know for sure when a group is
being oppressed is that it shows the illness of the persecutor and that
it must be stopped; it doesn't tell me damn all about the oppressed.
They could have been better, even vastly so, as was the case with the
Jews in Nazi Germany, who were possessed of genuinely more
affective and tolerant child-rearing inclinations than their punitive,
indulgence and progress-fearing German "brethren," but nothing
discounts that they may have been even worse.
Would this be a subject matter/consideration you'd be okay with
Hollywood tackling in regards to the South, Matt? A film that shows
whites for what they were, and how the blacks may have been also
(that they were all a mess, with it being best to have lived in the North
where you'd find at least some who were civilized)? Or are you at last,
even after all your preference for nuance and distaste for the
impossibilities of the purely good or simply evil, still stuck with a silly
767
768
with assertive, pronounced, striking and nobly defiant souls, but near
bereft of all such entirely.
He certainly wouldn't have you consider that black culture might not
have been so pretty to begin with, even before the in-fact truly
demon-haunted, unloved and unevolved whites set themselves upon
them. If you consider any of this, Matt'll show no nuance in IDing you
as evil, for to him your primary use is to ensure that he himself is
never in the end mistaken for being evil himself. Nothing of the massbucking/disregarding, controversial things he says can suggest a core
lack of empathy or sympathy, because of how clearly he distinguishes
himself from you indisputable monsters. Making clear your
inarguable evilness/villainy keeps him within the pale, bravely
looking like he might even risk being horribly misunderstood to keep
himself -- and hopefully thereby some of us -- at the forefront of
reality exploration/confrontation. That is, Matts own kind of
narrative needs, for their actually also too very much being privileged
over bare truth, however much parading as the very opposite, are to
me what is at risk of keeping us all from stretching out into
unfamiliar, more discomforting territory.
Link: Why Hollywood keeps white-washing the past (Salon)
----------
769
770
771
772
[. . .]
Stockett herself was not born until 1969, and drew on her
own experiences being raised by African-American women
who worked for her parents in the '70s and '80s. Her book is
set in the dramatic context of the early '60s, when the civil
rights movement was just beginning to capture national
attention, but as she has said in interviews, relations
between affluent white Mississippians and their black hired
help really hadn't altered much between that time and her
own childhood. And for all the cultural shifts America has
experienced since then, the fundamental economic disparity
between whites and people of color has hardly improved, if
indeed it hasn't gotten worse. A recent study by the Pew
Research Center suggested that the current recession -- and
can we stop pretending it ever ended? -- has slashed the
median net worth of black households by 53 percent (and
Hispanic households by 66 percent), while white wealth fell
by just 16 percent. The raw numbers are even more
astonishing: The median household net worth for white
Americans is $113,149, and for blacks it's $5,677. That's not a
misprint or a misunderstanding; the median white
household is 20 times richer than the median black
household. (Andrew OHehir, The Help: A tale of not-soancient American history, Salon, 9 August 2011)
Hate the South.
Southern white people suck.
"Maid sues Queens exec over bad pay, abuse"
Link: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2002-0827/news/18210475_1_josephs-court-papers-domesticworker
773
774
Link: http://www.phillyfuture.org/node/5328
Dahhhlings, how are we? I have been silent for too
long...been contemplating new summer fashions (Lily is
definately out, but strappy sandals and espadrilles? Sooo
In!)
So there I am minding my own business running errands
and what comes over the radio? Main Line Social
LIGHTweight, Susan Tabas Tepper, has oops done it again!
"Alleged serial Nanny abuse" - look out our own Naomi is
back in action...
Susan is beating the help...again? In a sick way I can't help
but mention that it was almost a year to the day since the
last incident...then she was wielding carrots (organic,
natch!)...today she might need a mani/pedi as she is accused
of doing it the old fashioned way - hands, fists, nails,
whatever.
---------------------------------"Annette John-Hall | The quiet anger felt by 'the
help'
By Annette John-Hall
Inquirer Columnist"
Link:
http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/1612/nannyga
te-update-nannies-speak-out-tabas-tepper
The news that Main Line socialite Susan Tabas Tepper had
allegedly gone all Naomi Campbell on a nanny again didn't
sit too well with the sisterhood of nannies gathered at
Rittenhouse Square yesterday.
That's where most of Center City's babysitters congregate.
You know, down on 18th and Walnut, by the fountain.
Especially on perfect mornings, nannies on the Square are
as predictable as perennials in the springtime.
Yesterday, they were out in force - black, white, Asian,
Latino, almost all foreigners - a virtual bouquet of
775
776
777
The problem for those who haven't yet put together their troll-kill
program is that time is rapidly running out when it is easy and safe to
target their trolls as TROLLS. For during depressions eventually
EVERYONE, including coastal urban elites, becomes for the
struggling working classes, people of the South, places like
Pittsburgh; the very worst villain becomes the person who'd spit upon
them, something most urbanites ACTUALLY WERE even a couple
years into the depression -- "goober on, Tea Bagger / mad internet
commenter!" -- before instantly transmogrifying themselves; AND
THE WORST VILLAINS become those "leeches" without the moral
fibre still existing in those real Americans bearing through a wasted
republic -- usually the likes of Jews, gays, too-long-tolerated spoiled
public servants, and other vulnerables.
Looking at where Joan W. is heading now (firmly into an Obama
camp that will destroy her as soon as she's no longer useful, for her
in-truth being far too good to be anything at all actually like them), it
is indeed possible that by the time you guys get this thing going, the
trolls you end up dispatching might actually include some of those
calling for this current lot to get the heave-ho. (Soon, for feeling so
impossibly isolated and excluded, no one is going to scream more
lunacy than the few true progressives out there.) Laurel, you'll note, is
beginning to seem comfortably settled -- maybe she senses it's near
her time. Indeed, the difference between her and Ehrenreich,
defender-of-the-noble-but-ever-put-upon working classer, didn't
seem so legion to me.
Link: The Help: A tale of not-so-ancient American history (Salon)
---------THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 2011
Yes, America will once again quietly queue up in bread lines
778
779
michaelira
Re: Think it can't happen here? Think that Americans in the 21st
century will quietly queue up in bread lines as they did in the 1930s?
Yes, this is what some of us think, as:
Economic depressions are motivated internal sacrifices which
often kill more people than wars do. Cartoons prior to and
during depressions often show sinful, greedy people being
sacrificed on altars, and the depressed nation becomes
paralyzed politically, unable to take action to reverse the
economic downturn. Just as depressed individuals experience
little conscious anger--feeling they "deserve to be punished"-so too nations in depressions are characterized by
"introverted" foreign policy moods, start fewer military
expeditions and are less concerned with foreign affairs. The
feeling during depressions is "I should be killed" for my
wishes rather than "I want to kill others." Depressions are
economic anorexias, where people starve themselves to avoid
being eaten up by the Dragon Mother, the maternal vulture of
infancy. The nation begins to look for a Phallic Leader with
whom they can merge and regain their failed potency and who
can protect them against their growing delusional fears of a
persecutory mommy. (Lloyd DeMause, Emotional Life
of Nations)
Why do you think it'll be different this time around? I'm genuinely
curious.
respectfully,
patrick
780
[. . .]
781
[. . .]
782
The most cynical take is that smaller class size also increases
the number of teachers who are hired and strengthens the
union that supports them. Randi Weingarten, head of the
American Federation of Teachers, acknowledges that raising
class size is a branch on a tree of hard decisions that cashstrapped states are facing. But, she says, "if somebody says
they want to raise class size, theyre doing it because they
want to cut the budget, not because its actually going to help
children." Teachers union representatives point out that the
same fiscal conservatives and corporate-type reformers who
encourage high student-to-teacher ratios in classrooms are
often the ones who send their own children to private schools
where -- you guessed it -- the kids receive instruction in
small groups, often twelve to fifteen in a class.
Does class size matter? For some interesting reasons, its
hard for researchers to come up with a definitive answer.
[. . .]
783
So, what happened? No one is sure. But there are two strong
hypotheses: either the Tennessee results were specific to that
state and that experiment, or -- and this is one that most
educational experts favor -- teacher quality matters more
than class size. (Peg Tyre, Does class size really matter,
Salon, 5 August 2011)
784
tea, and play with their kids, and go on nice vacations, while
the imbeciles who PAY THEIR OUTRAGEOUS SALARIES
AND LUX WAGES slog into their regular 8 hour a day jobs,
all bleepin' year long.
@Engineer Bill
Teachers have a right to decent working conditions; I agree.
But they have FAR FAR MORE THAN THAT -- they have
Socialist benefits that would stagger the most affluent
European. Even EUROPE, nobody gets THREE MONTHS
OF PAID VACATION. Nobody works only 4 hours and 45
minutes a day!
Teachers also mostly DO NOT have "advanced degrees".
They have an education degree, which is an ordinary BA,
about what you'd get if you majored in Tibetan Basket
Weaving or English Lit or "Communications".
And they earn far more than "people who have advanced
785
Don't bother, BTW, with the crap about "but they must
grade papers at night!" You don't grade papers in gym class,
in typing class, in health class, in KINDERGARTEN. And I'm
a working professional, and I take work home frequently,
and nobody has a pity party for ME. Every professional I
know has to take work home -- reports, professional
journals, employee evaluations. Nothing unique there. But
teachers are whingers and fakers, goldbrickers and clock
watchers.
The truth is finally OUT and being heard by the public, and
changes are afoot. Thank god for the courage of people like
Gov. Chris Christie in speaking "truth to power' when he lets
the public know about the greed and corruption in the
teacher's union, and how it has dragged our national
educational levels down to that of Latvia (and that's an
insult to Latvia).
***
786
787
788
789
Here is how you solve this problem (Lord Karth is close, but
not quite): fire every single member of the teacher's union.
Then go to the local unemployment office. Ask who has a 4year degree in any subject. Hire those people for $25 a hour
(WORKED HOURS only), and a decent but not lux health
plan.
Watch our kids thrive and succeed. Because ANYONE chosen
at RANDOM would be better than the lazy, useless,
790
791
what went on previously -- the truly beneficent 60s social agenda that
Laurel complains about, or whatnot -- excepting the key fact that
what went on was mostly unambiguously spread-out improvement
and dream realization, and this is only permitted a short while before
we once again collectively decide we are the sort of immature, sinful,
ungrateful cretins to be rightly filled up with a heftier portion of
constriction and misery. Republicans go for this sort of thing whole
hog, of course, but more liberals than we have yet permitted ourselves
to appreciate do also.
Laurel/_bigguns has voted for moderate democrats the whole of the
way, and though currently still here a troll she is for the most part
representative. This will become more evident here. Even with her
talk about gay marriage and teachers, that is, though right now she's
considerably ahead of the curve, you can already feel preparations are
dutifully being made so that much of the rest of Salon at some point
keeps pace with her. It's one big nightmare. I wonder what will
happen to the Krugmans, who seem completely absent the afflictions
of the punitive superego?
Link: Does class size really matter? (Salon)
---------
I don't know about you, but the chirpy tales that dominate
the public discussion about aging -- you know, the ones that
tell us that age is just a state of mind, that "60 is the new 40"
and "80 the new 60" -- irritate me. What's next: 100 as the
new middle age?
792
Yes, I said stigma. A harsh word, I know, but one that speaks
to a truth that's affirmed by social researchers who have
consistently found that racial and ethnic stereotypes are
likely to give way over time and with contact, but not those
about age. And where there are stereotypes, there are
prejudice and discrimination -- feelings and behavior that
are deeply rooted in our social world and, consequently,
make themselves felt in our inner psychological world as
well.
I felt the sting of that discrimination recently when a large
and reputable company offered me an auto insurance policy
that cost significantly less than I'd been paying. After I
signed up, the woman at the other end of the phone
suggested that I consider their umbrella policy as well,
which was not only cheaper than the one I had, but would, in
addition, create what she called "a package" that would
decrease my auto insurance premium by another hundred
dollars. How could I pass up that kind of deal?
Well ... not so fast. After a moment or two on her computer,
she turned her attention back to me with an apology: "I'm
sorry, but I can't offer the umbrella policy because our
records show that you had an accident in the last five years."
Puzzled, I explained that it was just a fender bender in a
793
parking lot and reminded her that she had just sold me an
insurance policy. Why that and not the umbrella policy?
[. . .]
794
2011)
age
Thanks for the truthful article, though I'm glad several have
pointed out that the life-span of U. S. citizens has not
increased significantly in years.
The self-satisfied cretins who have commented, indulging in
the very stereotypes you write about, show just how
dominant age bigotry is. If the old wanted to be mean, they
would point out that all these commentors will die someday.
Of old age, if they're lucky. If they continue to push the
stereotypes, they will know exactly the dismay the aged feel
now, and one hopes they suffer for it. If they really believe
they will be exempt, well . . .
Betty Davis is reputed to have said, "Old age isn't for sissies."
Amen. It takes a strong character to accept and understand
that your body is getting weaker and you will die and
though you might improve your situation with exercise and
diet and activity, as I do, there is absolutely nothing you can
do about the process as a whole.
795
Ahh, but why should the young care? They know they will be
young forever. (hontonoshijin)
796
the ones who do get hired will EVER know. But I can't get
hired
I'm wondering if you can't get hired because you know more than
anyone on the planet, and thus whoever's hiring you is put in the
humiliating position of pretending, however clearly preposterously, to
be your boss. I'm not sure how old you are, but I seem to remember
someone also aged and important and ever-wise arguing that
novelists continue writing great things until they're about 50, and
then slide hard; and I clearly remember Updike later in life saying
that though he hopes accumulated wisdom makes his later books near
equal sources of treasure to his earlier life-filled ones, he admits that
everyone seems to want to default back to "Rabbit Run."
RE: Betty Davis is reputed to have said, "Old age isn't for
sissies." Amen. It takes a strong character to accept and
understand that your body is getting weaker and you will
die and though you might improve your situation with
exercise and diet and activity, as I do, there is absolutely
nothing you can do about the process as a whole.
People who think it shows strong character to do such and such
usually have been showing such character-establishing and otherdeflating tendencies since they first started to define themselves. It
might have been when you first broke your arm but mostly managed
to stifle the cry, but my guess for you it was when you realized, unlike
your enfranchised, dreamy, reality-denying peers, that life wasn't
going to give you nothin' unless you worked your ass off for every
square inch(!); a realization you probably had sometime around the
age of 5 or 6, if it didn't dawn on you while within the womb, with it
prompting your first newspaper route or whatnot.
In truth, to narrate your life so that you count amongst the virtued
and noble for your ostensibly adult ability to reckon with inevitably
flawed existence, is a wicked easy posture to adopt; it's in truth our
near human default, as few people are raised to believe that making
life significantly less flawed and far more, if not "unicorns, raucus fun
and pixie dust," then at least drastically more leisurely, pain-free and
797
fun, doesn't make you but an idle dreamer, a dumb child who won't
grow up. With more and more liberals now actually sounding more
conservative than conservatives from the 60s and 70s, we can expect
the few true progressives that remain to be summed up and dismissed
as children who won't leave behind their foolish ideals and do the
adult business of dealing with the hard truths of reality.
RE: One tries to remain accepting and even-tempered.
Probably the most insulting treatment you receive as you
get old is to be ignored, to be treated as if you no longer
matter.
You're attention is flagging, sir; best not get behind the wheel. Half
the people here are reminding you that baby-boomers have not been
ignored at any point in their life cycle. With them in their 60s, you
can already feel how the only thing anyone is going to know is how
life begins at 60, then 70, then 80, then after awakening from cryo.
Since we're in a Depression, the poor will eventually be rediscovered;
this will be the only way the youth will sneak in.
Re: Ahh, but why should the young care? They know they
will be young forever.
I personally think they far more know the aged will never listen than
that they'll remain forever young, something they haven't even really
known. Most of the young are looking at two or three jobs and 60
hour workweeks, and if you listen to them their recompense for this
true life-denying awfulness is that it has them feeling more adult,
clearly -- and without all the wastings and wiping-aways that later life
"provides" -- buying into the idea that denial and suffering somehow
GIVES you something, when all it truly does, despite the saintliness it
floats you, is deny. When a whole generation believes denial, wounds,
and withering gives you character -- which this lot increasingly does
-- the aged have enacted a sparse, neutered future as a big part of
their legacy. Personally, I'm ignoring the aged who despite every
attention, pretend themselves right to be aggrieved they're being so
ignored and humiliated, and stick to or at least remember the
boomers who showed the noble life is yours when you pheonix-like
798
rise way above where anyone else has gone before, not when you
accept the inevitability of blockages, hinderances, sags, and stopsigns.
PMH
Interesting how much you know about me, Patrick McEvoy
Halston. Why you must be psychic, little boy.
I've read your other letters, and have a pretty good idea both
of the level of your intelligence and empathy, and what to do
with this particular letter. (hontonoshijin)
hontonshijon
If it's to wipe your dripping bottom, wonton, I wouldn't depend on
one measily letter ...
Link: The hard truth about getting old (Salon)
---------
799
800
all this kowtowing to the debt: there is something in her that would
keep us reminded that she could be prompted to REALLY avoid it if
she could, while, as Greenwald reminds and reminds, Obama would
spit venum at any voice that could forestall America becoming
growth-stalled and frozen for at least ten years. He -- Obama -- knows
Hillary is one such voice. But the plan I think was to keep her sort of
relevant, and thereby placated and subdued, until voices like hers
resonate only with an easily demolishable minority, until people like
her and Krugman are but absurd and entitled, fully dismissal-worthy
douches.
Link: Would President Hillary be a stronger leader than President
Obama? (Salon)
--------SATURDAY, AUGUST 6, 2011
Populists and trolls
With the details of the pending debt deal now emerging (and
for a very good explanation of the key terms, see this post by
former Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein), a
consensus is solidifying that (1) this is a virtually full-scale
victory for the GOP and defeat for the President (who all
along insisted on a "balanced" approach that included tax
increases), but (2) the President, as usual, was too weak in
standing up to right-wing intransigence -- or simply had no
options given their willingness to allow default -- and was
thus forced into this deal against his will. This depiction of
Obama as occupying a largely powerless, toothless office
incapable of standing up to Congress -- or, at best, that the
bad outcome happened because he's just a weak negotiator
who "blundered" -- is the one that is invariably trotted out to
explain away most of the bad things he does.
801
802
803
make.
So it turns out to not be that mysterious, does it? Like the
plot of Lost, the most important thing to grasp is that there
is no plan, there is no well-established arc, it's all ad hoc,
based on contingencies, and the belief that "it will all become
clear in the end" is pure wishful thinking on the part of
people who are bound to be disappointed.
This is one of the areas where I disagree somewhat with
Glenn Greenwald I don't think that Obama came into the
White House, or into the 2011 budget negotiations, with the
explicit intent of cutting lots of spending. He came into the
process with the explicit intent of listening to his "experts,"
and listening to the opposition, and coming up with a
compromise.
If his experts had told him that he needed to raise spending
and raise taxes, and it had been the Angry Progressive
Caucus instead of the Tea Party burning down the doors to
Congress, he would be signing spending bills right and left
right now, urging everyone to stay calm and follow his lead.
As the often right, always interesting Cornel West said
recently, Obama's problem is that he sees the highest virtue
as being a thermometer, when what the country needs is a
thermostat.
Anyway the reasons don't really matter in the end. This guy
has made himself into another Hoover. Let's show him the
door. (Amity)
**********
GG
Could you elaborate on this thinking? Once you decide to
consciously refrain from doing things that would help hi get
elected and thus possibly cause him to lose/the GOP to win -"he will not get any of my money or campaign support" -why doesn't that rationale extend to voting?
It's a very good question, Glenn, thanks for asking.
804
805
even know who is running yet -- and the election isn't for
another 16 months, during which much can happen - I think
it's wildly premature to decide.
Really? What makes you think it's "wildly premature"? Tell
us what you think is a real, honest voting strategy for 2012.
(ondelette)
**********
@Jestaplero
Is it? I will not countenance a Republican in the oval office
with my vote. Not until there are prosecutions first.
I watched every day of the Iran-Contra hearings (did the
equivalent of live-blogging on them for my community of
like minded concerned citizens at the time) went through the
Tower Commission report and all the other available data at
the time, and then watched the 2000s unfold with virtually
all of the key players reinstated to power and worse of the
same starting virtually from where they left off. I do believe
in their continuity, and do believe there will be a price for
putting the Republican party back in the Executive Office
that is worse than the price of protesting what's wrong with
the Democrats.
Unless there are choices for alternatives to the Republicans,
that doesn't really leave a choice of votes. Glenn has
criticized people for their "wildly premature" decisions, and
for what he sees as handing over the keys. But he has
articulated nothing that amounts to a viable strategy for
doing otherwise, given the above. Unless he really doesn't
believe the above. I would like to know who killed Amiram
Nir before I trust that it's okay to put any Republican back in
office for a third re-run of the "off the shelf clandestine
organization out of the reach of congressional oversight."
(ondelette)
**********
ondelette on wild prematurity
806
807
808
809
head to head contest with the big two, so this isn't something
that you can shoestring. (Amity)
810
811
812
813
814
815
do with fairness. It's unfair that gay people don't have the
same right to be married just as straight people do. And
WHO CARES that the some laws may need to be changed,
the marriage law has already been changed dozens of times
in the last 100 years. This is just another one of the changes.
Get used to it. Less and less people are having any problem
with gay marriage these days.
But as long as you can keep your fantasy that this has
anything to do with "destroying" something (how very
constructive of you), then you can feel noble and good about
your intentions, as if you're the "protector" of something
sacred, and that "they" are your sworn "enemies" and "they"
need to be "defeated", as if this has anything to do with
triumph and defeat, or winning and losing.
816
817
It's not a matter of what "I agree with". It's a matter of what
Americans want in America, which means "not what lefty
judges and ideologues and bribed corrupt legislatures" want
to do to us and our social customs, without a vote.
818
@Astronomy
What do you exactly suppose that is supposed to be "destroyed"?
You can still get married and remain married, and nothing will be
changed on your part. You will still be married just as you were
before.
Laurel is arguing that they can't get married anymore, because
"marriage," all marriages, has/have been redefined by permitting
gays to marry, as what they do is more along the lines of best friends
with benefits. According to her, one of the points of marrying is to
submit yourself to the power of a longstanding tradition/higher ideal
that will help you remain fidelitous, true to your one partner; this, to
her, no longer exists, and we can expect marriage now to be less
effective in keeping married couples loyal to one another.
It's not an assumption. According to a recent Gallup poll, for the
first time more than 50% of the Americans favor gay marriage. Kids
these days grow up looking up to people like Lady Gaga, who is
bisexual. More and more people are having less problem with
homosexuality ITSELF, much less gay marriage. The times they are
819
820
It's not that I don't enjoy idle time. I love it. But I can't
escape the feeling that I should be improving my life right
now, getting organized, simplifying my routines, creating
platforms for future income, educating myself, getting
smarter, getting better.
[. . .]
821
822
823
[. . .]
824
[. . .]
I don't know that I'll ever stop feeling bad for not being a
Type A personality. Or worrying that I'm not
accomplishing enough. After all, I do want to own a home
some day, and to retire when I'm old, and not to stress
about how I'll afford kids. But maybe for now, I should
enjoy my idle time. Sit around talking to my aunts and
uncles about the absurdity of it all. It may not get me
anywhere. But maybe for right now, at this second -- here
is where I'm meant to be. (Sara Campbell, Tales of a
reluctant loafer, Salon, 30 July 2011)
825
826
I'd almost say "maybe at heart, you are a bum". After all,
some people ARE -- we all know one or two. They just
have zero ambition and don't care if they have to sleep in
their car, because the very idea of "doing thing" is
repellent to them. So long as they don't mooch off relatives
or Uncle Sam, that's their right.
But it does not compute, because you have had serious
jobs in the past, great professional success and your
"loafing" has gone on a few months whereas your hypercareerism seemed to last at least since high school and
into your first several (very high ranking) jobs.
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
-- hers, not your own -- is if critical analysis, somehow for just being
critical analysis, has confidently in the broad context become alien
and unwelcome. We're being floated a lot of the kind of comments of
the sort you're rightly critiquing here, and yet it's like your sharpest
strike mostly works to better show up the kind of environment we
now find ourselves within: these voices proceed, unchanged, and in
greater aggression, as if they hadn't encountered any obstacle at all. I
think we're being made to understand that for some basic but
essential surrender some people are going to be able to say anything
they want, the more absurdly childish and afloat from reality the
better, and more than get away with it: the extent of this prize better
demonstrates the fact that a new kind of judge has arrived on scene,
with considerably different expectations than we've been used to.
I think you're the person I once recommended write some stuff for
Open Salon. I did so because I thought OS was on the ascent (as it has
proved to be), would float more and more of its "finest" to the front
page of Salon, and because you, owing to your interesting, challenging
thoughts and fine writing, would find yourself there, for your and our
benefit. I see now that until you more come to cooperate in seeing the
banal as brave and even miraculous -- which is actually possible for
some critical people: witness some of the teetertottering we
sometimes now see from Matt Seitz -- Salon isn't going to want much
from you. Grounded critique isn't going to elevate you one bit.
I gather you heard from Andrew that Salon is about to go troll
hunting. I'm not sure myself if with this effort it's just going to be the
likes of the Duchess who can expect to have their beastial flanks
spanked.
My mistake
I realize now you were referencing one of the poster's comments, not
the article. Sorry for the sloppyness -- I had read the article earlier, as
well as all the comments, and had readily blended kaonashi into
834
Jowita.
Link: How I stopped numbing out (Salon)
---------
835
over like property to a man who can treat her like garbage if
he wants. Women in "traditional marriages" couldn't work,
vote, inherit property, get divorced or even testify in court
against him.
Look to the Middle East to see what marriage "is". It
involves women being murdered to restore honor to her
husband because she was raped.
If your definition of marriage is a religious one, then blow it
out your ass. Our Founding Fathers probably made church
and state separate at least partially because they knew how
stupid, unsubstantiated and dangerous it was... they came
from a country with an official state religion. Today's Tea
Baggers would happily have an official religion today, as
long as it was theirs, but we liberals have a more
Enlightened view of the matter.
If you really think that the consciousness of the universe is in
any way concerned about whether two people on Earth
declaring their love for one another have different-looking
peepees, then you're an idiot and you shouldn't vote. (Oh,
noes! Gay people getting married! Now Jesus is all weepy!)
You can tell how evil and dishonest anti-gay-marriage
spokespeople are, because they so regularly use dishonest
arguments. They know that they're fighting for the right of
the majority to oppress the minority, so what do they do?
They talk about "activist judges" who want to "redefine
marriage" by "legislating from the bench". Nothing is more
disgusting than listening to right-wing pundit after rightwing pundit spew the EXACT SAME TALKING POINTS -not because they're legitimate or even logical, but because
they were crafted to be rhetorically effective. EVIL!
836
837
838
marriage license.
Surely if genitalia does not matter, then species does not
matter. Kinship does not matter. Age does not matter. The
fact is, Clavis, what you promote is chaos and anarchy.
bigguns (Laurie Laurel)
There were an estimated 500,000 people who marched in or
attended New York's gay pride parade the weekend gay
marriage was passed here, so I don't think anyone is too
concerned about the 10,000 homophobes you managed to
round up.
You're eventually going to need to get your fat head around
the fact that, whatever nonsense you may think about
national polls, you are most definitely a minority view in
New York...and shrinking all the time. Which is what was
properly reflected in ALL of the news coverage I watched on
this. Largely jubilant and celebratory with occasional
mention made of the MINORITY view against gay marriage.
There was plenty of news coverage of the homophobes
BEFORE the vote, by the way, pretty much equal time with
pro-marriage equality protesters (including endless
nonsense from the Catholic Church). And then what
happened?? Oh yeah, you and they LOST, BIGTIME!!! So
now the news coverage has moved on to the celebration, to
the people whose lives have been improved by this. So
moving on might not be a bad idea for you too.
I love the statement in your post that the duty of legislative
leaders is to protect the jobs of their colleagues. That says
volumes about how you think society should be run. He
should have shut down the vote on a technicality, I suppose,
rather than allow his members to vote their conscience as he
did. You've complained about social engineering in prior
839
840
841
842
City 3, with a consensus of critics saying "thanks for the party girls,
but haven't you noticed -- it's going to be a bit harder these days to
imagine ourselves enjoying your fun." Every ebulliant, victory-isnear-in-our-grasp gay pride parade, every voice that is jubilant at the
inevitable country-wide spread of gay marriage, is unaware that right
now it is being essentialized, setup, in a way that will serve it rather
poorly in the future. Once the Tea Partiers go down and the
conservative mindset can be adopted without risk of IDing its adopter
as a neanderthal -- and rather as a sane middle-of-the-roader, as you
present yourself -- all this dancing and jubilance will be reimagined,
transformed by the public near instantly as beyond preposterous and
more a disgrace. You're so affronted by all this, but you're actually
getting the setup you'll need to get the society you want.
Nobody's life is "improved" by gay marriage; the lives of tens of
millions of ordinary straight married people is RUINED when their
marriages are DEVALUED and REDEFINED as "super-duper best
friends with benefits".
Gay marriage is to you not just an affront, another middle finger
raised at the millions of ordinary Americans, but something worse
than cancerous as it instantly transforms, or rather, malforms every
single marriage, which is actually something even worse than it
appears, as:
[biological] marriage is the very basis of human society.
I continue to wonder how anyone who does not believe that
homosexuals are in some way inferior to heterosexuals, could argue
that when what they do in their relationships is surplanted onto what
heterosexuals do the result is the worst possible thing to happen to a
civilization: its dissolution in chaos, for having its bedrock, its
essential structural support, crippled.
I have tried to make the case with you before that the surplanting of
gay relationships onto heterosexuals ones (or at least marriage) is
843
844
845
846
The quote:
*"We all live and die amid confusion and injustice; life seems
too short no matter how long it lasts; and the days we have
are miraculous, and then they are gone." - Andrew O'Hehir
(Clavis)
----Not a good review, by the way
The Salon front-page headline proclaims this "The summer's
lamest hack-job." Then, when you click the story, it says
"Daniel Craig does Eastwood in a steampunk mashup." Why
is the headline different in two places, and why does one
headline proclaim the movie utter garbage while the other is
non-judgmental? That's very odd and hints at editorial
indecision or second-guessing.
The subhead does say the movie is cliche-ridden and
irritating, but the article gives the reader very little work
with in terms of analysis. Instead we get an extended
metaphor about salad. Comparing a movie to food is itself a
cliche, but I haven't seen Caesar salads used before (credit to
O'Hehir for knowing his way around a Caesar salad).
Nonetheless, extended metaphors have to be backed up:
HOW is the movie like a salad done wrong? And WHY did
you miss the opportunity to compare the alien monsters to
giant anchovies? I mean, you had it all lined up and
then....nothing.
Reading this review, dividing it into paragraphs, you get a
really long metaphor, a description of the movie's Western
setting and characters, a 2nd description of the movie's
Science-Fiction hybrid plot, some background information
about the graphic novel (even though the movie is barely like
847
848
849
but a real Caesar salad (if one assumes that Cardini actually
invented it) has no anchovies in it.
romaine lettuce
olive oil
crushed garlic
a good wine vinegar
freshly squeezed tart citrus juice
Worcestershire sauce
coddled egg yolks
freshly ground black pepper
freshly grated Parmesan cheese
freshly prepared croutons
a dash of salt (EdipisReks)
-----
Matt Seitz
re: Blah blah it's only a movie, dude, blah
Relax and lighten up, dude, it's only a movie, dude.
Just thought I'd throw that out there, since it's the standard
response to reviews like this and SOMEBODY HAS TO SAY IT.
It's THE LAW.
Reminds me of David Edelstein's charming post on Stephanie's
850
"Inception" review:
Kill the beast! Spill her blood! Smash her face!
You must be punished for your dumbness and illitarecy. Christopher
Nolan RULEZ you drool! Whoo---ahhhhhhhhhhhh.
All good. Surely takes some balls. Except some of us are wondering if
even a couple years from now, when most of America is pretty well
showing how maybe the last thing they need is to be made more sport
of, if you guys are going to keep this good stuff up. Hope so; but my
bet is you'll actually be TARGETING people still talking like you're
talking now. May this feedback make it less likely you'll end up so.
-----
@Alix Dobkowski
You know, Alix, my complaint about the headlines not
matching is a perfectly valid comment. It's so valid, in fact,
that I notice Salon's editors have now completely excised the
"hackiest, lamest" headline from the article -- both on the
home page and on the article. So what's your problem with
me pointing out that the headline doesn't make sense? When
Salon's writers and editors do work that is not only sloppy,
but completely inaccurate and inconsistent to a fault, are we,
the lowly, pathetic readers of Salon, supposed to just suck it
up and roll over and say, "Yes sir, I'd like some more?" As
far as I am concerned, I pay Salon's fucking bills by reading
their articles every day -- I am regularly exposed to the
advertisements that pay Salon's electric bills, as well as
paying for the postage stamps so Salon's editors can mail
their freelance writers a special certificate that says,
"Congratulation! For your efforts, you have been awarded a
Gold Star (not included, only metaphorical)! Maybe some
851
852
853
RESPONSE BY LK WALKER
I usually don't reply to letters as this is an open forum for
readers where you can vent. But I have to correct one thing.
I never used the word 'loser' in any part of my article, and I
never would use that word to describe anyone. That is a
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
[. . .]
When Tim and I did meet for lunch, at a place I remembered
for its hearty salads, we talked about this for a bit. I was
expressing disappointment that I hadn't seen the guys from
the magazine he runs, the guys I usually catch up with over a
pint or four.
"We could go bowling," Tim says. "Or play kickball."
Ugh: sports. I didn't want to sound too negative. But how do
you explain to someone you only know through bar chatter
that you are embarrassed by the world? That you can't do
anything that involves running, sweating or standing
outside? This is why drinking was so convenient. It was a
smoke screen for the fact that I sucked at everything else.
[. . .]
What I really like to do, though -- what I like more than
anything else, more than anything in the world, whether I'm
at the bar or languishing in my apartment -- is to talk to
people. I like to have honest conversations with other
humans that surprise me, and challenge me, and make me
think about my life in new ways. It's what I always wanted
from the bar in the first place. And it strikes me, driving
home that day, that it's exactly what I just had. (Sarah
Hepola, When I finally stopped going to bars,
Salon, 21 July 2011)
---------fuck that
Thats a lot of nerve about choosing a "healthy
862
863
864
865
You lost your hobby, drinking - you should find another one.
There are in fact people who passionately care about art,
book clubs, dance, music, politics, actually important things
that make your life deeper and richer. Find which one of
these you love and throw yourself into it! (TomRitchford)
----On a side note, I second an earlier poster's suggestion that
you learn to ride a horse. It's a great way to get outside and
play without alcohol, sports talk, or boredom. Admittedly,
though, you'd meet more men (if that's one of your goals)
with contra dancing. (EditGrrl)
----Put away your prejudices and the insecurities that you hid
with drinking and choose exercise. Go bowling! Go to a
softball game. There may be drinking there as well but you
might find it easier to avoid. If you can't, go to a yoga class
or a spin class. No drinking there and no one will judge you
if you aren't great at first. You'll find a social circle among
people whose values are healthy in both senses of the word.
(BuffCrone)
866
let us know that and also of how he has learned to subsist on less than
1200 calories a day, leaving us to think his new reformed self is such
that he needed to learn he still required more than the random
nutrients you inhale as you walk through the streets of New York to
survive; or the new food writer, Felissa, who has left luxuries behind
her and made life "an exercise of reduction" and humility; or the
young un Drew Grant, who newly preaches how "you still owe them
[i.e., your parents] your life and your respect," showing how you're
never too young to scold like an elder and to abort much that could
have interesting in your life for a surer sense of earned protection.
I truly think this is going to get you by. You'll more than survive, and
even thrive, and every day you'll be encouraged to think yourself
elected and deserving. Whatever great adventure you make of your
life now that you've finally begun living, whether it's joining exciting
groups, seeing America's notable sites, or just settling into a less
complicated but more human, satisfying life, it will be this pleasure
that foremost makes you feel you've made a turn for the better.
Link: When I finally stopped going to bars (Salon)
-------MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2011
As gay marriage comes to America
Seven years later, after she'd adopted my biological kids, my
wife and I, along with other Canadian couples, sued
Canada's federal government for same-sex marriage rights.
After a three-year fight, we were victorious and, in 2003,
just after our 10th anniversary, we wed, the coolest group of
daughters and dragmaids at our sides.
In 17-plus years, I had never imagined, not even for a sliver
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
his emphasizing the illness so you don't think momster was due to
make her years-long appearance in any case. "It wasn't YOU, mom; it
was just the illness: I'm still your good, loyal, appreciative boy brave
knight to your cause, tending cleric to your maladies."
The cruelest fate for fabulous endeavors which would make YOU part
of the tale, is that its history is largely about compensating for a
bullysome world, or rendering it more appropriate for traumasatured minds, rather than about boldly encroaching upon an
insufficiently magicked one even when it shines golden, as it did
during the 70s when D & D was born.
Link: My summer of Dungeons and Dragons (Salon)
-------MONDAY, JULY 25, 2011
Young predators, and the greens & beans crowd
It was always something: glossy garnet plums, candy red
romas trucked from Mexico in the dead of winter. I wanted
to eat a local, seasonal diet, I really did. I liked the idea of
buying all my produce at the farmers' market, or joining a
CSA, or growing most of our food. But somehow I never got
around to joining the CSA, and the weekend crowds at our
local farmers' market kept me at bay. We did garden, but
Seattle's seasons were not conducive to a high yield: Some
years our tomatoes never ripened beyond dark green. In the
end, I bought most of our produce at the local grocery store,
where I tried to do my best.
Our local supermarket was an overpriced yuppie mart with
a good selection of local, organic, seasonal produce. I had the
opportunity to use my buying dollars to support small local
farms, but it was rough to shell out $4 for a bunch of kale. I'd
877
[. . .]
[. . .]
878
Overpriced???
In the last couple years I have put a commercial kitchen in a
barn. My business has a 3 acre orgranic farm where the
kitchen get its ingredients to make locally grown, locally
processed products like roasted tomato sauce; marinated
mushrooms; pestos; jams; dehydrated herbs (and kale and
apples); pickles galore... the list could go on an on. It is
delicious and fun -- but as you might also guess, expensive! It
just kills me to read (constantly) that foods priced right
(even underpriced!) are considered "elitist" or whatever.
Does it ever occur to anyone how expensive it is to grow and
process locally? We pay local (fair!) wages. We pay payroll
taxes out the wazoo. Workers Comp. About 4 other kinds of
879
880
881
882
KNOWING that her husband's UI had just been cut off (after
99 weeks, ahem -- 4 times the former average).
What kind of person says they can't afford PEANUT
BUTTER -- a big jar of the generic stuff is $2.50, less on sale
-- but in other articles tells us she buys KEY LIMES
(imported from Key West, no doubt) and COCONUT OIL (at
something like $15 a jar -- and if it's the highest quality
organic, $30 a jar).
Felisa is this kind of scary broke and near hunger NOT
SIMPLY because of the economy but because of HER
CHOICES. She did not have to move to a remote cabin where
THERE ARE NO DECENT JOBS WHATSOEVER (even if
things improved). She did not have to forgo applying for
food stamps. She did not have to spend whatever windfalls
she gets from relatives or the odd Salon gig on key limes and
coconut oil.
And it doesn't have to be like this, but she STILL SAYS she
won't apply for the food stamps SHE IS ENTITLED TO,
because "she just doesn't feel right about doing that" -- she'd
rather be hungry, or forage for food, than have a pantry of
healthy, fresh, natural basic foods that would last her
through a long hard spell.
I've read a LOT about "foraging" but nothing about why she
chooses not to get the food stamps she is entitled to NOR
anything about canning or preserving or "putting food by".
Susan, you stated that this is a political problem and would
never happen in FRANCE, because France has a superior
social safety net. I can't answer for that -- I don't know what
kind of unemployment programs France has -- but I DO
KNOW that we HAVE a safety net, and it's called FOOD
STAMPS and Felisa won't use them. SO I assume even if she
lived in France -- even if we adopt more comprehensive
safety net programs (universal health coverage) SHE
WON'T USE THOSE PROGRAMS.
883
She wants to live like this. That's what I have concluded. She
likes foraging. She likes feeling sorry for herself. She must
get some "mileage" (sympathy? Checks from the 'rents?
stories published on Salon.com?) from making herself
poorerer and more desperate than is remotely necessary.
(_bigguns)
Oh, and this:
I shop at local farmer's markets and await the first really
local produce with great anticipation each year. In
Northeastern Ohio, we have a lot of farms but a very short
growing season (compared to places like California or
Florida). We do get some amazingly great local produce -organic and conventional alike -- from local farms (some
Amish).
I have personally found that GREAT, fabulous "family farm"
produce is CHEAPER than anything they drag up (unripe)
from Chile or elsewhere. I am confused why it would be
different where you guys are; I suspect you are being ripped
off (maybe by "Whole Paycheck").
The only slight exception is our local strawberries -- fabulous
-- but the growing season is a pathetic 3-4 weeks (less if the
weather is bad). A pint of superb local strawberries was
$4.49 this year (up from $3.99 last year) -- the tough mealy
imported ones were $2.99. I gladly pay the extra for this
rare and short-lived treat.
But in general, the local stuff is CHEAP. Not as insanely
cheap as in the past, but affordable EVEN by people on food
stamps, or the working poor.
The local squash, onions, peppers, tomatoes, corn -- it just
goes on and on. The summer is a wonderful time here where
we CAN eat locally, every day, for very little.
So I buy LOCAL KALE grown on local farms and it doesn't
cost anything like nycmom's $4 a bunch (yikes! that is
884
885
886
@nycmom
Rest assured that plenty of people appreciate what you've
written here. Farming is hard work, and your commitment
to organic farming says much good about you. I would buy
887
888
889
too different.
The farmer products I buy are either WAY cheaper than the
standard fare from Chile or Mexico OR they are just slightly
higher for a dramatically better product. NOTHING LIKE
FIVE TIMES AS MUCH. I mean like 50 cents extra for
amazing local strawberries vs. awful mealy unripe ones
from Chile. I happily pay this tiny difference.
But if the good local strawberries were (like your roasted
tomato sauce) FIVE TIMES what the Chilean ones were -like FIFTEEN DOLLARS A PINT -- I couldn't afford to eat
them. (Beanbreath could. But not me. I don't earn $240,000
a year.)
I do not know all the details of how these family farms (some
Amish) grow this amazing, gorgeous produce -- honestly, it's
like something out of Dutch still life masterpiece! -- and sell it
for peanuts, but they do. Every year. Its' one of the great,
incredible blessing of living in an ABUNDANT, foodsufficient culture. The good part, we often do not talk about.
(We'd rather snark on the failures.)
They also are not POOR doing this. Farmers in this area are
pretty affluent. (Time Magazine did a recent piece on "Go
into farming and get rich!") The Amish are very, very selfsufficient. They reside in large numbers just an hour south of
me, and it is a great treat to drive past their beautiful, tidy
farms and acres of corn, wheat and soybeans and other
crops, or the barns of beautiful animals.
So maybe we could take a minute, and stop whinging and
celebrate the great, wonderful abundance of American
farming. It is truly a great thing. (_bigguns)
-----
890
@Beans&Greens
I like you very much, sir. You are indeed an inspiration. But you are
also such a tool for calling _bigguns a troll. She moves quick, has
things to say, and can do magic ... and you make her seem as dullard
as your diet, as unappealing as your hobbitan smugness. To some of
us you're BOTH the best and the worst of the baby-boomers. To be
nice, I'll just say you're both inspiringly full of life (truly, you are), and
soon -- to be not so nice -- hopefully, full of the holes some of us will
put in you, to help finally rid you out of our way.
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston: I can never make much
sense out of your letters
But this one is short and sweet. And thanks for saying that I
am not a troll (which is true).
A troll is something specific, like that loser vasumurti, who
cuts and pasts HUGE LONG multi-part screeds on veganism,
in threads that are totally unrelated.
My posts are always on topic. I also have to deal with a LOT
of Salon anger at anyone who dares to defy the "lefty liberal
politically correct meme".
Also you get huge creds in my book, Patrick, for the term
'hobbitan smugness". Wish I'd thought of it myself! You
NAILED that ridiculous, preening hypocrite!
Unfortunately, you also seem to be suggesting you are going
to shoot both of us. That's troubling. You might wish to ring
the nurse, and ask her to up your meds. (Let her read the last
line of this post, too.) (_bigguns)
----Has anyone else noticed a disturbing trend?
I follow Felisa Rogers' columns. I also follow the comments -all of them.
Has anyone else observed that Patrick McEvoy-Halston
891
@Greeneyedzkin
The essential part of the post you are referring to is not really the part
of wishing them (baby boomers like laurel and G&B) full of holes,
believe it or not, it was actually the part about them being so full of
substance, holes become more notable for their working more as
marked inversion. I'm actually not truthfully interested in even
disposing them -- not even just to let some other generation have
their chance: the idea of making anyone shut up, live life with a
shrunken, diminished status is obsene to me: the idea really is just to
enfranchise everybody, and I'm glad I don't think that this is only
892
893
everything around them, removed from view all true disquiet, all true
agitants, making it seem as if the whole point of the universe was to
float up a gargantuan spread of grazers who have gobbled up every
outside affront and are without any otherwise natural inner spur.
Felissa considers this "claiming" a vulgar affront to generations that
struggled their way through their lives, against worlds quite ready to
claim them without hesitation or grief, and who proved with every
true effort -- even if after successive generations there wasn't sign that
these efforts were all that much building on one another -- that
human beings are about some kind of purpose far grander than that.
Trust me, that salamander that didn't daunt to Felissa, that,
diminutive as it is, still would have disproved its claim to its spot, has
to her more worth than a whole cattle farm of Pollan-worshipping
farm-market shoppers.
Her voice is the conservative one, the one that appears at the end of
all good times that believes that buldging flacid excess is about to get
its comeuppance, that it will be finally be showed that difference does
indeed exist out there, is and was always ultimately stronger, and that
it wants to -- quite rightly -- dine on you. Voices of this kind appear at
the beginning of liberal times, but have little weight because their
carriers are too readily made to seem the ones lacking in invigorating
spirit. When they appear at the end of liberal times their weight is
considerable because the mood shifts so that when people compare
foragers and isolationists to domesticators, exchangers, shoppers,
markets and crowds, "domestication" less seems where civilization
finally got its start than where mankind must have first lost its
fighting spirit and soul.
Though she here and there makes herself seem akin to the Michael
Pollan crowd, I wish it were more obvious that when people tell
Felissa to start greenhouse-farming and going on food stamps that
this is just so laughably something she is building herself to naturally
consider more unwelcome than spotted cougar scat. What she is up to
894
895
896
Success story?
Did the psychological troubles that moved your over-eating disappear
with the weight loss too? Or have they just been differently
channeled, and into a form that very pleasantly draws little attention
to their existing?
@Patrick M-H
What psychological problems? Where is that in the article?
Please point it out for us.
The author moved from an area where not only did he have
to drive everywhere to get around, he was surrounded by
overweight people who consistently made bad food choices.
In New York, you have no choice. You walk. Just about
everywhere. It's like Toronto or Chicago that way. San
Francisco? Same deal. You might as well walk. (Wasn't it
Mark Twain who quipped that the women in San Francisco
have the best legs in the world?) They're set up as pedestrian
cities.
If you're staying in a reasonable (by that I mean a couple of
897
@AuntMessy
The author believes it is all about activity level, and makes it seem as
if this is obviously the case, in his losing pounds so readily when he
actually had to walk, but his primary previous difficulty wasn't the
lack of a firm prompt to exercise but that he gorged himself too much,
that he had, as they say, an "unhealthy relationship to food" -- that it
likely served as compensense for his previous profound lack of
attention during childhood. He went to exercise and good foods -though maybe in body-hating and certainly body-taming portions:
starvation-level -- because he finds opiate nourishment in belonging
to this new of-the-moment elect club of puritans, who have in their
attainment passed beyond the point of having to look back at any
previous inhibiting sin. If this obese-to-thin movement wasn't now
the rage, beckoning through the privilege of full loss of disavowed self
to join its membership, Michael Humphrey no doubt would, even in
walk-to-work New York, be tagging along that extra-package that ice
cream bars and whiskey surely gift one with.
I hope Salon doesn't become wholly constituted by people in a hurry
898
to lose all touch with reality. Michael Humphrey isn't fat, but he likely
remains the same man: and that's surely his still ongoing problem.
Link: I thought Id always be fat (Salon)
--------TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2011
When a new addiction beckons
When I finally stopped going to bars
A year after I quit drinking, I avoid my old haunts. But now
that I'm not a lush anymore -- what, exactly, do I do?
I quit drinking more than a year ago. It was time. None of
my closest friends said, "Wow, I didn't know you had a
problem," because that was untrue. What they mostly said
was, "Good for you." And, "Let me know how I can be
helpful." But what I struggled with -- and still struggle with,
more than 365 days after I drained my last glass of
sauvignon blanc at a friend's wedding reception -- was
telling people who weren't my closest friends. Who might
have been close, but not that close.
[. . .]
But since moving back to Texas from New York last month -and embarking on the string of reunion dinners and meetups this entails -- I feel I owe my former drinking buddies
fair warning. I know what it was like to anticipate a
debauched evening at the bar only to hear, "I'm pregnant!"
Or, "I've decided to cut back." And what was going to be a
last-call rager got tragically downshifted to two guilty
glasses and bed by 11 p.m. Yay, good for you, I'd say, sipping
a glass of wine that suddenly felt like it was the size of a
899
thimble.
[. . .]
When Tim and I did meet for lunch, at a place I remembered
for its hearty salads, we talked about this for a bit. I was
expressing disappointment that I hadn't seen the guys from
the magazine he runs, the guys I usually catch up with over a
pint or four.
"We could go bowling," Tim says. "Or play kickball."
Ugh: sports. I didn't want to sound too negative. But how do
you explain to someone you only know through bar chatter
that you are embarrassed by the world? That you can't do
anything that involves running, sweating or standing
outside? This is why drinking was so convenient. It was a
smoke screen for the fact that I sucked at everything else.
[. . .]
What I really like to do, though -- what I like more than
anything else, more than anything in the world, whether I'm
at the bar or languishing in my apartment -- is to talk to
people. I like to have honest conversations with other
humans that surprise me, and challenge me, and make me
think about my life in new ways. It's what I always wanted
from the bar in the first place. And it strikes me, driving
home that day, that it's exactly what I just had. (Sarah
Hepola, When I finally stopped going to bars,
Salon, 21 July 2011)
---------fuck that
900
901
902
something that works for you. (And have you thought about
corresponding with Roger Ebert?) (amspeck)
----Realize this.
Those old drinking "friends" aren't really friends if they only
like you because you drink with them. I put the cork back in
the bottle twenty-five years ago. There are people I used to
see and drink with weekly who I haven't seen nor spoken
with for twenty-five years. They only wanted to be around a
"Good-time Charlie" and I only wanted my sobriety and life
back. I have new and better friends now, people who enjoy
my company because of who I am, not who I become when
drunk. Good luck. Once you get past the, "nobody loves me"
stage of your new-found life, you'll will get on with the
business of actually living. I wish you peace. (Robert
David Clark)
----The Discoveries Are Inward
It is indeed hard to replace the social aspects of the bars with
the humdrum everyday activities of sobriety. But the sad
truth is that sobriety only got worse until I went inside and
opened up the spiritual longing that I had tried to fill with
alcohol, sex, drugs or a host of other diversions. I am
grateful now that I have been driven from the rather narrow
diversion of the bars and into the broad and exciting scope of
a spiritual reality (I, frankly, once thought of as bullshit).
Anyone can stop drinking. I did it every day. Sobriety is so
much more than the cessation of drinking: it is the opening
up of a new life of adventure I never imagined to exist.
(trungpapa)
-----
903
904
editor who lost 200 pounds and kept it off for a year, who wrote in to
let us know that and also of how he has learned to subsist on less than
1200 calories a day, leaving us to think his new reformed self is such
that he needed to learn he still required more than the random
nutrients you inhale as you walk through the streets of New York to
survive; or the new food writer, Felissa, who has left luxuries behind
her and made life "an exercise of reduction" and humility; or the
young un Drew Grant, who newly preaches how "you still owe them
[i.e., your parents] your life and your respect," showing how you're
never too young to scold like an elder and to abort much that could
have interesting in your life for a surer sense of earned protection.
I truly think this is going to get you by. You'll more than survive, and
even thrive, and every day you'll be encouraged to think yourself
elected and deserving. Whatever great adventure you make of your
life now that you've finally begun living, whether it's joining exciting
groups, seeing America's notable sites, or just settling into a less
complicated but more human, satisfying life, it will be this pleasure
that foremost makes you feel you've made a turn for the better.
Link: When I finally stopped going to bars (Salon)
--------MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2011
As gay marriage comes to America
Seven years later, after she'd adopted my biological kids, my
wife and I, along with other Canadian couples, sued
Canada's federal government for same-sex marriage rights.
After a three-year fight, we were victorious and, in 2003,
just after our 10th anniversary, we wed, the coolest group of
daughters and dragmaids at our sides.
905
906
907
inevitable tribute to start, with you just nearby on a spit. You're her
greatest nemesis, and she'll ultimately dine on you, enjoying every
chew of your multi-morseled torso-kabob, and in full concentration
("Beans&Greens but no beans and greens for mEEs tonight!"), but
room first for a few more satisfactions of repentant Salon staff
shuffling up to thank her for her early and brave more good faith
stances, of the kind they humbly submit you couldn't deny they were
at least attempting, but hadn't anywhere near the earthquake of soul
to show it first so boldly and undisguised as she was able.
I would recommend people begin to more see and consider the
implications of the numerous liberals about who are beginning to
sound more and more conservative -- notably in regards to sex and
relationships, but elsewhere too (note the commenter who explained
how Andrew Leonard's ostensibly liberal stance towards government
debt would have seemed conservative 40 years ago). What is going on
here is not so much a change in heart -- though it is about turning on
their own liberalness, "fretting" it now more and more as suspect
permissiveness, unfettered indulgence, excess -- but a concern for
purity, something which always works against groups like
homosexuals for their readily being made to seem those who prosper
when civilization has lost its way, an embodyment of its decadence.
If this happens, the best out there -- good people like you -- will still
be supporting gay marriage, but I'm wondering if even for you this
voice of love and support comes out strangely and humiliatingly
muted, for your realizing you needed to believe homosexual love was
the same as heterosexual love to provide so much unsecond-guessed
support, to people who deserved your full support regardless. You
might perhaps avoid knowing this, but because the source of this info
will now becoming as much from ostensibly liberal sources as
conservative ones, you'll have a tough time doing so.
-----
908
909
tracks. More than this, I think you think they deserve punishment for
daring to enfranchise themselves in the same way heterosexuals are
enfranchised, for SPOILING, permanently -- simply for trivial, ofthe-moment pleasures they'll quickly come to learn they really have
no use for -- their most treasured institution.
I've heard your call/request, and I'll interpret my post for you: I am
NOT so much someone who suspects that at the end of the day you'll
find yourself helplessly neutered from having any influence here at
Salon letters or "abroad," but rather someone who thinks that even
now you're increasingly "tolerated" here out of felt intuition that
where, that who you are now is kinda where many Salonistas are
going to find themselves in some not-so-long while.
You're registering more and more as simply a voice of punishment;
absolute intolerance for the (ostensibly) idle, spoiled, and delinquent
in whatever guise. Though they're hating it (i.e., your angry wrath)
when you're directing it against gay marriage, I think some sense
yours is the voice of the future, and are more likely to start abiding it
than risk becoming another of its targets. More than this, and because
there are in truth way fewer of these truly ideal Salonistas out there as
you make seem, they're increasingly listening to the part of
themselves that has judged this is a time for curtailment and
responsibility and sacrifice, not yet more stretched-out claims for
indulging yet more me!me! satisfactions -- what surely got us in these
dire straits, in the first place.
Some imagine you howling, echoing, endlessly but alone, as if shut
out for good from the rest of your kind, but I'm beginning to see you
more as one who might well be speaking to the gathered's "hearts,"
drawing them to you. My strong hunch is that it will be good, loving
(if however annoyingly smug) people like Greens&Beans -- the voices
of true encouragement -- who will find themselves not so much
listened to, at some point.
910
911
912
913
914
915
[. . .]
[. . .]
916
Overpriced???
In the last couple years I have put a commercial kitchen in a
barn. My business has a 3 acre orgranic farm where the
kitchen get its ingredients to make locally grown, locally
processed products like roasted tomato sauce; marinated
mushrooms; pestos; jams; dehydrated herbs (and kale and
apples); pickles galore... the list could go on an on. It is
delicious and fun -- but as you might also guess, expensive! It
just kills me to read (constantly) that foods priced right
(even underpriced!) are considered "elitist" or whatever.
Does it ever occur to anyone how expensive it is to grow and
process locally? We pay local (fair!) wages. We pay payroll
taxes out the wazoo. Workers Comp. About 4 other kinds of
917
918
919
920
KNOWING that her husband's UI had just been cut off (after
99 weeks, ahem -- 4 times the former average).
What kind of person says they can't afford PEANUT
BUTTER -- a big jar of the generic stuff is $2.50, less on sale
-- but in other articles tells us she buys KEY LIMES
(imported from Key West, no doubt) and COCONUT OIL (at
something like $15 a jar -- and if it's the highest quality
organic, $30 a jar).
Felisa is this kind of scary broke and near hunger NOT
SIMPLY because of the economy but because of HER
CHOICES. She did not have to move to a remote cabin where
THERE ARE NO DECENT JOBS WHATSOEVER (even if
things improved). She did not have to forgo applying for
food stamps. She did not have to spend whatever windfalls
she gets from relatives or the odd Salon gig on key limes and
coconut oil.
And it doesn't have to be like this, but she STILL SAYS she
won't apply for the food stamps SHE IS ENTITLED TO,
because "she just doesn't feel right about doing that" -- she'd
rather be hungry, or forage for food, than have a pantry of
healthy, fresh, natural basic foods that would last her
through a long hard spell.
I've read a LOT about "foraging" but nothing about why she
chooses not to get the food stamps she is entitled to NOR
anything about canning or preserving or "putting food by".
Susan, you stated that this is a political problem and would
never happen in FRANCE, because France has a superior
social safety net. I can't answer for that -- I don't know what
kind of unemployment programs France has -- but I DO
KNOW that we HAVE a safety net, and it's called FOOD
STAMPS and Felisa won't use them. SO I assume even if she
lived in France -- even if we adopt more comprehensive
safety net programs (universal health coverage) SHE
WON'T USE THOSE PROGRAMS.
921
She wants to live like this. That's what I have concluded. She
likes foraging. She likes feeling sorry for herself. She must
get some "mileage" (sympathy? Checks from the 'rents?
stories published on Salon.com?) from making herself
poorerer and more desperate than is remotely necessary.
(_bigguns)
Oh, and this:
I shop at local farmer's markets and await the first really
local produce with great anticipation each year. In
Northeastern Ohio, we have a lot of farms but a very short
growing season (compared to places like California or
Florida). We do get some amazingly great local produce -organic and conventional alike -- from local farms (some
Amish).
I have personally found that GREAT, fabulous "family farm"
produce is CHEAPER than anything they drag up (unripe)
from Chile or elsewhere. I am confused why it would be
different where you guys are; I suspect you are being ripped
off (maybe by "Whole Paycheck").
The only slight exception is our local strawberries -- fabulous
-- but the growing season is a pathetic 3-4 weeks (less if the
weather is bad). A pint of superb local strawberries was
$4.49 this year (up from $3.99 last year) -- the tough mealy
imported ones were $2.99. I gladly pay the extra for this
rare and short-lived treat.
But in general, the local stuff is CHEAP. Not as insanely
cheap as in the past, but affordable EVEN by people on food
stamps, or the working poor.
The local squash, onions, peppers, tomatoes, corn -- it just
goes on and on. The summer is a wonderful time here where
we CAN eat locally, every day, for very little.
So I buy LOCAL KALE grown on local farms and it doesn't
cost anything like nycmom's $4 a bunch (yikes! that is
922
923
924
@nycmom
Rest assured that plenty of people appreciate what you've
written here. Farming is hard work, and your commitment
to organic farming says much good about you. I would buy
925
926
927
too different.
The farmer products I buy are either WAY cheaper than the
standard fare from Chile or Mexico OR they are just slightly
higher for a dramatically better product. NOTHING LIKE
FIVE TIMES AS MUCH. I mean like 50 cents extra for
amazing local strawberries vs. awful mealy unripe ones
from Chile. I happily pay this tiny difference.
But if the good local strawberries were (like your roasted
tomato sauce) FIVE TIMES what the Chilean ones were -like FIFTEEN DOLLARS A PINT -- I couldn't afford to eat
them. (Beanbreath could. But not me. I don't earn $240,000
a year.)
I do not know all the details of how these family farms (some
Amish) grow this amazing, gorgeous produce -- honestly, it's
like something out of Dutch still life masterpiece! -- and sell it
for peanuts, but they do. Every year. Its' one of the great,
incredible blessing of living in an ABUNDANT, foodsufficient culture. The good part, we often do not talk about.
(We'd rather snark on the failures.)
They also are not POOR doing this. Farmers in this area are
pretty affluent. (Time Magazine did a recent piece on "Go
into farming and get rich!") The Amish are very, very selfsufficient. They reside in large numbers just an hour south of
me, and it is a great treat to drive past their beautiful, tidy
farms and acres of corn, wheat and soybeans and other
crops, or the barns of beautiful animals.
So maybe we could take a minute, and stop whinging and
celebrate the great, wonderful abundance of American
farming. It is truly a great thing. (_bigguns)
-----
928
@Beans&Greens
I like you very much, sir. You are indeed an inspiration. But you are
also such a tool for calling _bigguns a troll. She moves quick, has
things to say, and can do magic ... and you make her seem as dullard
as your diet, as unappealing as your hobbitan smugness. To some of
us you're BOTH the best and the worst of the baby-boomers. To be
nice, I'll just say you're both inspiringly full of life (truly, you are), and
soon -- to be not so nice -- hopefully, full of the holes some of us will
put in you, to help finally rid you out of our way.
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston: I can never make much
sense out of your letters
But this one is short and sweet. And thanks for saying that I
am not a troll (which is true).
A troll is something specific, like that loser vasumurti, who
cuts and pasts HUGE LONG multi-part screeds on veganism,
in threads that are totally unrelated.
My posts are always on topic. I also have to deal with a LOT
of Salon anger at anyone who dares to defy the "lefty liberal
politically correct meme".
Also you get huge creds in my book, Patrick, for the term
'hobbitan smugness". Wish I'd thought of it myself! You
NAILED that ridiculous, preening hypocrite!
Unfortunately, you also seem to be suggesting you are going
to shoot both of us. That's troubling. You might wish to ring
the nurse, and ask her to up your meds. (Let her read the last
line of this post, too.) (_bigguns)
----Has anyone else noticed a disturbing trend?
I follow Felisa Rogers' columns. I also follow the comments -all of them.
Has anyone else observed that Patrick McEvoy-Halston
929
@Greeneyedzkin
The essential part of the post you are referring to is not really the part
of wishing them (baby boomers like laurel and G&B) full of holes,
believe it or not, it was actually the part about them being so full of
substance, holes become more notable for their working more as
marked inversion. I'm actually not truthfully interested in even
disposing them -- not even just to let some other generation have
their chance: the idea of making anyone shut up, live life with a
shrunken, diminished status is obsene to me: the idea really is just to
enfranchise everybody, and I'm glad I don't think that this is only
930
931
everything around them, removed from view all true disquiet, all true
agitants, making it seem as if the whole point of the universe was to
float up a gargantuan spread of grazers who have gobbled up every
outside affront and are without any otherwise natural inner spur.
Felissa considers this "claiming" a vulgar affront to generations that
struggled their way through their lives, against worlds quite ready to
claim them without hesitation or grief, and who proved with every
true effort -- even if after successive generations there wasn't sign that
these efforts were all that much building on one another -- that
human beings are about some kind of purpose far grander than that.
Trust me, that salamander that didn't daunt to Felissa, that,
diminutive as it is, still would have disproved its claim to its spot, has
to her more worth than a whole cattle farm of Pollan-worshipping
farm-market shoppers.
Her voice is the conservative one, the one that appears at the end of
all good times that believes that buldging flacid excess is about to get
its comeuppance, that it will be finally be showed that difference does
indeed exist out there, is and was always ultimately stronger, and that
it wants to -- quite rightly -- dine on you. Voices of this kind appear at
the beginning of liberal times, but have little weight because their
carriers are too readily made to seem the ones lacking in invigorating
spirit. When they appear at the end of liberal times their weight is
considerable because the mood shifts so that when people compare
foragers and isolationists to domesticators, exchangers, shoppers,
markets and crowds, "domestication" less seems where civilization
finally got its start than where mankind must have first lost its
fighting spirit and soul.
Though she here and there makes herself seem akin to the Michael
Pollan crowd, I wish it were more obvious that when people tell
Felissa to start greenhouse-farming and going on food stamps that
this is just so laughably something she is building herself to naturally
consider more unwelcome than spotted cougar scat. What she is up to
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
time.
It may be that it requires "disciplined willpower to divine the
medieval experience of Art," but it surely more requires an evolved
ability to see things straight, and, in my judgment, an ability to access
mental states that are significantly inferior to your own; and I'm not
sure the two can go together. It might well be impossible to be a
Medieval historian (or historian of the Medieval Ages, if you prefer) -what a fascinating, and quite possibly true, thought!
There seems to be an underlying
cynicism in Mr. O'Hehir's review and in the whole genre of
fantasy.
The fact is there has been no serious public scandal
surrounding the cast (Mr. Radcliffe's recent admission about
his issues was not dragged through the public eye), that all
the young actors in the film seem to have matured as a
group as pretty straight forward and regular people with
the potential to become skilled in their craft or move on to
other pursuits.
These films are a progression as the books are.
As for what is more entertaining, a repeated group of adults
getting drunk and losing consciousness in movie after movie
or a group of films that strung together that tell a story...
well, juvenalia has nothing to do with age now does it.
Nothing would have made the reviewer enjoy this movie
except the end credits. (Helpmehannah)
@helpmehannah
Re: The fact is there has been no serious public scandal surrounding
the cast (Mr. Radcliffe's recent admission about his issues was not
dragged through the public eye), that all the young actors in the film
seem to have matured as a group as pretty straight forward and
regular people with the potential to become skilled in their craft or
move on to other pursuits.
942
943
944
shone for me were when the grand old actors roused to the defense
of the castle-- the kid's parts were like Gap ads in comparison.
Link: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2": An
action-packed curtain call (Salon)
--------SATURDAY, JULY 23, 2011
Marriager vows
Presidential candidates are asked to sign pledges all the
time, but the GOP primary has been roiled for the past few
days by an uncommonly influential document -- the
Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence Upon
Marriage and Family -- put out by an Iowa group, the
Family Leader.
[. . .]
After losing in the primary, the fiercely anti-gay Vander
Plaats led the successful campaign to oust three supreme
court justices who had voted for the same-sex marriage
decision. Now at the helm of the Family Leader, he has
brought in presidential hopefuls for a speech series and is
openly cultivating an image as Iowa kingmaker.
I spoke with Vander Plaats by phone Monday night to check
in on the developments surrounding the Marriage Vow and
the presidential contest in Iowa. The following transcript of
our conversation has been edited slightly for length. (Justin
Elliott, The man behind the marriage vow, Salon,
12 July 2011)
---------While our laws and customs are influenced by and based on
Judeo-Christian traditions and culture, that is not the only
influence. I'm not sure what you wish to substitute for
centuries of culture and tradition -- lefty philosophy? that's
945
946
947
Pixie play
Laurel/_bigguns believes that legalizing gay marriage is a VERY BIG
step towards the end of civilization. Fundamentally what it does,
according to Laurel, is weaken the ethical bedrock which not just
strong marriages but civilization are/is build on -- sacrifice,
selflessness/other-concern, duty; promoting instead instant, nixiepixie whimsical gratification, whose aerial insubstantialness is to be
understood as finally reaching the higher plane. You combat it, and
you become rightwing -- even if your entire past has been a voting
record of middle-of-the-way, steady-as-she-goes democrats; but she
takes on the burden -- truly -- mostly out of faith to goodness -- to
you -- anyway.
Others believe Laurel/_bigguns probably isn't aware of how her
defence of marriage is mostly based on a distaste, a repulsion for gays
-- something she reveals, so believeth they, starkly, in near
essentializing gay "relationships" as two people so self-involved that
basically no intertwining, no relationship! ever takes place. They
believe that only at some level does Laurel believe homosexuality is
gene-determined, for everywhere in her portrayal of them does she
show she most deeply believes them spoiled, laggard second sons,
pursuing lifestyles of horse-gambling, drink, and excess, permitted,
enabled only because the responsible first sons committed themselves
to expected duty: she shows them as if irresponsibly choosing a
lifestyle, which if made legit, the norm, means the end of historical
cycle in a wild party of excess. They believe she thinks that promoting
gay marriage is like putting the fool in charge of the rightful king, the
self-involved stewart in place of the rightful king of Gondor: it makes
no longer tolerable our already suspect and stretched tolerance for
the dependent, babyish, hangers-on. They think she is mostly saying
that gays themselves are not okay, have too long been tolerated, that
she inspires real hatred towards them, and therefore loudly let her
know what scum she is.
What this is really about is about how the next twenty years of
depression suffering is going to gets its first five or so years underway,
948
@Jake007
Re: Are child molesters "gene-determined" in your learned opinion?
No. They're sufferers of child-abuse/molestation/incest, just like all
conservative Christians. Children who've been abused end up
possessing voices, parental alters, in their heads, which tell them they
deserved the abuse -- a near life-saving measure, for it allows them to
believe that those they were and still are most dependent on, i.e., their
parents; their mothers especially -- weren't so much intent to hate
and hurt them but to do what needed to be done to help them; that
they've been bad, simply for being weak, needy, and vulnerable, and
seek out throughout their lives weak dependents -- people like
themselves -- to victimize/punish for their own dependency and
innocence. For their being truly innocent, they are sinful, and mostly
deserving of punishment: this is the "logic"/"truth" that drives pretty
949
@jake007
You're welcome, Jake. I hear you, but please note that I however do
not think I'm over-generalizing: I truly believe what I said.
----@Patrick McEvoy-Halston
You know, Patrick, I honestly think you write sincerely, but
you are so obtuse that I often literally can't tell what you
mean or how to respond to you. But I'll try to answer your
allegations.
I do not have any distaste whatsoever for gays or lesbians.
I am not repulsed by them. I am not "squicked out" by gay
sex (or anal sex). I know a fair number of gay people -- at the
risk of sounding trite, it is FACT that some are among my
oldest friends. I also have gay family members. They all
know me to be tolerant and polite.
There is no "one kind" of gay relationship, as human beings
are all different and have different kinds of pair bonds. I
know quiet private gay people and I know colorful
flamboyant gay people, and many degrees in between. I do
not believe in stereotypes.
I certainly believe that gay people have "intertwined"
relationships. I do NOT believe all gay people are spoiled
(any more than I think all straight people are pillars of
moral virtue). The stuff about "horse gambling" (????) and
drink are too ridiculous to even refute.
I have voted (or supported) the candidacies of local gay
950
951
952
innocence), and when you are more so, unless you still remain
insistant on buttressing frankly rightwing conceptions of tradition
and authority, you will know that I am hardly someone you should
disparage, Laurel.
_bigguns/Laurel
Re: In point of fact, the only really hateful, malevolent scum-like gay
people are the ones I have met HERE ON SALON, who insist on
attacking and threatening ANYONE who opposes their views.
You do work to essentialize gay relationships as less serious than
heterosexual ones; you do work to make heterosexual relationships
seem where the important stuff of civilization -- what amounts to the
bedrock: duty, selflessness, commitment -- takes place. I stand by my
assertion that you work to make homosexuals in general -- not just
the (quote-unquote) scum-like ones you are afflicted with here -seem, at best, not serious: as, I've suggested, spoiled second sons, not
especially taken to duty or purposeful labor. Parasites.
Re: The economic recession (or depression) is not related to gay
marriage; however I am increasingly appalled that many of the
brightest and most potentially effective political entities of our
generation are throwing themselves 100% at legalizing gay
marriage, while seemingly not caring that we are actively losing the
right to women's reproductive freedom -- that global warming is
worsening daily -- that the economy IS in the toilet -- that we still
don't have universal health care coverage for all Americans.
Frankly, I believe they have thrown all those PROGRESSIVE (and
liberal) issues under the bus in order to have gay marriage legalized
as many places as they can.
I said something of the same in my post; I am curious to know why
you didn't refer to it. Anyway, the reason is because focusing on gay
marriage for awhile keeps them away from looking at women, at
mothers (when they're thinking gay marriage, they don't so much
have in mind lesbians) -- even many liberals, as evidenced by how
they winced at notable-pelvic Hillary as possible president, have
953
954
Jake007
Okay Jake: yes, if you do not find natural kinship with liberals and
find it instead with conservative Christians, then GUARANTEED you
have suffered from child-abuse, from mother-neglect/misuse -- every
conservative embodies their early trauma, even the inventive,
charming ones (we saw more of them in the '60s and '70s, when
everyone was inflated to be essentially more liberal, more permissive
-- witness the William F. Buckleys); every liberal, more evidently,
their early good treatment and care.
There are no "six exceptions." I was playing to the part of you that is
good, that aspires, not interested in simply sinking you into reject.
Are we really now further along?
Patrick, that is just plain nuts
955
956
957
inflated to be essentially more liberal, more permissive -witness the William F. Buckleys); every liberal, more
evidently, their early good treatment and care.
There are no "six exceptions." I was playing to the part of
you that is good, that aspires, not interested in simply
sinking you into reject. Are we really now further along?
Just moronic. Even from someone who generally despises the
mouthbreathing drooling right this is just idiotic.
May I remind you that in our parents day it was considered
impolite to discuss politics and religion (the longer I live the
more I realize they knew what they were doing). In fact it
wasn't until the 90's where am radio blowhards made it
popular to spout about politics and be proud of being a
misinformed ignoramus.
Thus, throughout history politics was not any sort of litmus
test for friendships and among many people they still aren't.
Imagine that. (atyourthroat)
@atyourthroat
Re: May I remind you that in our parents day it was considered
impolite to discuss politics and religion (the longer I live the more I
realize they knew what they were doing). In fact it wasn't until the
90's where am radio blowhards made it popular to spout about
politics and be proud of being a misinformed ignoramus.
Thus, throughout history politics was not any sort of litmus test for
friendships and among many people they still aren't.
I think there are periods of time throughout history where everyone is
more in mind to count themselves amongst people rather than go at
one-anothers' throats, and I think our parents did know a good
stretch of such times -- as I've said, as many have noted, a few
decades back everyone, even the conservatives, for example, seemed
permissive -- liberal. I think you're right to favor those times, and to
disparage the '90s on (I would go earlier, and disparage the late '70s
on), but still think politics IS a litmus test for friendship -- you can
958
know what KIND of person someone is, if you know the kinds of
voices they find familiarity with.
Pity you didn't bring up the fact that once the all-'round good feeling
for being prosperous and American died down (i.e., our parents'
time), the left left for the coast and the right stayed fly-over: when
actual personality-differences became more inflated, more tabled, the
different-of-opinion no longer much wanted to remain close enough
to one another for there to be any point finding out the politics of
your dinner guests. That is, it wasn't mostly about economic class, but
about how your neighbor "smelled."
@Patrick McAvoy-Halston
"Prediction: 5 years from now you won't suggest any such
thing: for well-raised/loved/praise-worthingly self-satisfied
you will mostly be keeping your head, while the regressionprone, primarily DENIED -- conservatives, rightwingers -will, through their inevitable regressions, show more starkly
the nature of their actual "inspiration."
Well, I remember one insight from Freud: he pointed to "the
narcissism of small differences."You seem to be seeing a Black
and White opposition (scarred conservative Christians vs.
enlightened liberals) that isn't there.
Now, it's true that Michelle Bachmann and I, for instance, see
the world quite differently. But in the big picture, our
ideological difference is a tension *within* modern Western
liberalism (in the broad sense). She's a lawyer; she and her
husband own a private therapy practice; she's a *woman*
holding political office, for goodness sake. She's running for
US president!
In my opinion, Bachmann is who she is because she is modern
*and* reactionary. Her worldview is one kind of adaptation to
the uncertainty of our current modern predicament; my
progressive adaptation (as a middle-aged female professional,
like Bachmann, but one who turns to the left rather than the
959
right) is another.
She's not my opposite. And she hardly offers proof of
childhood abuse just because she takes an extremist reaction
to the contemporary world. (Benthead)
@benthead
Re: Now, it's true that Michelle Bachmann and I, for instance, see
the world quite differently. But in the big picture, our ideological
difference is a tension *within* modern Western liberalism (in the
broad sense). She's a lawyer; she and her husband own a private
therapy practice; she's a *woman* holding political office, for
goodness sake. She's running for US president!
In my opinion, Bachmann is who she is because she is modern *and*
reactionary. Her worldview is one kind of adaptation to the
uncertainty of our current modern predicament; my progressive
adaptation (as a middle-aged female professional, like Bachmann,
but one who turns to the left rather than the right) is another.
She's not my opposite. And she hardly offers proof of childhood
abuse just because she takes an extremist reaction to the
contemporary world.
We see Bachmann differently. For one, I think you flatter her by
saying she, like you, actually SEES things, is responding, however
differently, to still the exact same plate of stimuli. Look at her eyes -do they really seem properly focused, absent of gremlins dancing in
her view, to you? I also don't think she so much has a worldview as an
aggressively felt need to hurt as many innocent people as possible -something that arises, in my judgment, only from having known
ample abuse and being unable to free yourself from feeling it well
deserved. The prevalence of people with similarly insufficient
childhoods is what has ensured that after a long period of prosperity
we find ourselves in a situation worthy of seeming simply a
confounding predicament, apparently worthy of all kinds of, if not
reasonable, certainly still understandable responses, even extreme
ones: if so many of us didn't at our core believe ourselves still very
960
961
want and need -- regardless of whether that's a "Big Love"esque arrangement or strict sexual exclusivity. In that sense,
she falls right in line with Dan Savage who preached about the
same ideal of romantic truthfulness in a much-talked-about
piece in last weekend's New York Times Magazine. (Tracy
Clark-Flory, Scouring the globe for sex advice, Salon, 9 July
2011)
There is no way that Judith Stacey was going to look at other
"cultures" and find anything actually mostly sickly. No matter what
she found there, you know all she would allow herself to see was
variation we can learn from. This is not a person who is going to learn
much from experience because experience is under the control of her
expectations -- or rather more precisely, of her INTENTIONS. She is
not an armchair anthropologist/sociologist, but something worse:
someone whose truths suffer not from not actually being there, but
from mostly being there to entrench her a more comfortable claim to
her armchair.
Other "cultures" essentially are now mostly spiritual places in which
liberal anthropologists draw mana to inflate their own privilege and
deflect the masses. You are there to collect a predictable resource. It's
not about learning, science, but recharging and sacred rite.
I think at this point, most of us actually sense this -- even many
liberals who go along with her. What she offers are "truths" that can
be expected to irritate monogamy-worshipping mundanes -- you can
hear their shreaks while you soberly lay out your arguments;
ostensibly blunt truths that ACTUALLY SEEM, that MOSTLY
SCREAM transcendent ideals rather than fact. Grounded in to-theearth anthropology, but the point is to make one feel afloat and
removed. "Yes, these conclusions are actually completely untethered
to reality; but since they give such ground for authority, we are
nevertheless ably existing amidst them. Alas, not so with you, my
friend. And note, if we catch sight of you, know that we know we
962
possess the art to abstract you out or to obliterate you within a quick
massing of your ignorances and prejudices."
963
964
965
for being a dick? OK, so, many people had already concluded
the latter from his atheistic pomp -- but, being an arrogant
nonbeliever myself, I resisted such a reading of him until now.
He's of course correct that there are much worse things going
on in the world, but that's a crap rhetorical move meant to
belittle and silence. It's an argument that could be easily made
against Dawkins' own work: Why are you arguing over
whether God exists while children are starving in Africa.
[. . .]
He went on to make fun of Watson's defenders who have
pointed out that she was "stuck" in the elevator with the man,
whom she hasn't directly spoken with until then: "No escape?
I am now really puzzled. Here's how you escape from an
elevator. You press any one of the buttons conveniently
provided."
Clearly, Dawkins has never experienced what it's like to carry
around the fear of sexual assault, as most women do on some
level. Myers helpfully explains why fear in this particular
situation would be understandable: "Try googling 'elevator
rape'. [. . .] All that said, though, it actually sounds like
Watson didn't feel threatened by the man, only creeped out.
Remember: All Watson did was briefly call out a behavior that
made her uncomfortable; and later, she criticized the outsized
anger she received in response to that original aside. (Tracy
Clark-Flory, Richard Dawkins: Skeptic of Women,
Salon, 8 July 2011)
Felling good men
His problem is that he is healthy enough to be attracted to literate,
liberal women; ones who, yes, have shown some hurt -- it's not quite
equal terms -- you can imagine yourself soothing, but who certainly
aren't defined by it. If he was retrograde and went for a social class we
are as a whole a bit ambivalent if maybe they don't actually DESERVE
their whatever afflictions -- like waitresses, barmaids, clerks -- he'd of
966
967
968
could have been coffee and conversation; he does have some issues,
but he's mostly actually sensitive to your discomfort, your prefences,
and a gentleman). It is precisely the fact that there was amazingly no
stalkerness about him, even with all the 4 am-alone-in-an-elevatorin-a-strange-country-after-spooky-stories-and-rape-talk stuff, that
bothered, that scared her. (She likely threw in "foreign country" to
provision more armory in her war against her own self-knowledge of
his fundamental innocence and her own inquisition-worthy
skittishness.) He's too much the person she could only dream of
being; she knows at some level she runs away from exactly what she
should be more inclined -- at least -- to close with; and she felt need
to humiliate him for making bare what she does not want to face
about herself.
He lashed out at her because he knows she is one to ENTIRELY
DISPOSE of someone, if need be, just to rid herself of some
discomfort. She's the "Atonement" girl who'll never cue herself to
grow up, because we keep telling her how marvelously brave and
evolved she is, and she feels so shallowly constituted that her only
option is to listen.
----Oops!
Well, I've just learned that Dawkins was not the "accoster." I so
assumed it I blurred my way through the evidence. I took this as a
prompt to actually watch the video as well.
So my guess is now that she was not attracted to this guy; she was
repulsed by him -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out he was
a creepy, because I suspect he is the kind of guy who is perhaps
foremost attracted to victimizable women: people like Rebecca, who
communicates in her every exaggerated kick-ass gesture that the
world foremost is a threat to her.
Seeing the video, is it possible to imagine Dawkins being attracted to
her? I would say actually a bit yes. Even though I stand by my
969
970
971
972
have just cause to round them up and send them off to war or prison
or low-paid assistants-to-aging-boomers life-long servitude, without
much accord for their rights as affirmed human beings.
Some people in this country have experienced the long and slow
growth in empathy that can happen when one generation of mothers
gives to their daughters slightly more empathic treatment than they
themselves received. These type would make teaching the most
respected occupation. Others have grown not at all; are barbarians;
and if left to their own would make education nothing but a lengthy
series of humiliations and hurts, and life would be for their children
mostly about recovering from hurts, not generating anything exciting
and new. "Society" would sit still for milleniums, which was the case
for our earliest ancestors, who had just barely arisen from the muck,
and true kindness had not yet come in the universe.
We do not respect teachers, but we make our ivy-league professors
into old-world gods. We cannot allow teachers full respect because
that would make us truly in spirit democratic, which we aren't
comfortable with because it puts ultimate authority, ultimate
responsibility, too close to home. We sense that our own psychic
makeup is such a disorded mess that we need institutions, distant
bankers, ivory-tower professors, removed presidents, up high enough
to not have their truly mundane status revealed to us on an ongoing
basis, to keep Chaos at bay. Teachers, despite an earnest attempt to
armor them with professional status, we make seem as now but older
examples of the inadequate kids they teach, as a reminder of what
inevitably happens to you when you keep kids so close: you get
leached upon, you get contaminated. They, like the kids they teach,
are inevitably lost, and so schools become garbage bins into which we
can project and contain our own vile hatred and blame-worthy
insufficiency, which serves the purpose of getting rid of it and
pressing in the contaminants that the school as institution may yet
need help in enclosing.
Our society has been bad, and we seek its punishment. The worst part
of our story isn't that Big Business is really just an agent to
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
ever had before! Mak, certainly as he was first presented to us, with
pretty much his food stamp-purchased cases of Perrier, was an
affront to everything decent: in his tough times he found means to go
about life pretty much pheasant hunting-pleasantly along, leaving you
with no one to sympathize with, no one to tend to, no one to remind
that even in depressed America it's still not the Medieval Ages, dear:
don't martyr yourself, Gerry Mak; I can tell you means to make that
foie gras/grass-fed .../blueberry fanna cotta stretch over two meals
rather than the one you had planned, before whistling in tomorrow's
lobster cognac -- why not? -- one day ahead, if you only follow how in
the same straits I cunningly made my batch of eggs-and-leeks
whatever garbage goo last two whole weeks rather than the single one
I had planned! Mak is a genuine foodie (though he looked at last
sight to be repenting his truly-glorious achieved heights) -fundamentally a lover of ease, a specialist in refined taste, a friend of
conversation and (therefore) of the salon, if not quite, maybe in its
present form, as clearly of Salon -- while Felisa is a fraud: not because
she might actually have money behind her she isn't owning up to -there is a sense that, even if the case, this is of no import -- but
because she foremost isn't actually one of the foodie you; closer, is she
at least becoming, to one of McCarthy's "Blood Meridian" true-hunter
types that would make bullet-play of you for your dumb vulnerability,
your ridiculous clinging to sensible civility, if ever casually caught
glance of in a saloon.
While Mak was as effete as the delicacies he prepared, Felisa is
getting as tough as the wild bushes she hacks her way through, and as
alien and mercenary as the sword ferns she hangs from and the firtips and nettles she finds some way to grind down. So someone like
Laurel cautions her away debilitation, and doesn't appreciate that
Felisa is actually becoming so far away from the yuppie-seeming
hipster/yuppie who might experiment frontier after becoming bored
with "cheaper rent and hipper coffee," so much more truly, honestly,
intrinsically someone who'd look through and past all the tourist fair
while on sojourns to South America -- thanks to her entwining her
980
soul to a habitat still ridged and rocky, bristly and fully buckling out
the stupid eons of everywhere-else, soft-civilization silly-puddy
spread -- that each stagger into a precipice she had not anticipated
looks more likely to entrench her further into the bare but vital
survival spirit enlivening every one of the tight and taut entwined
sinews of bone and tested muscle wholy constituting her ancestors, to
the heart of the home she's seeping herself into, than it looks to
weaken or stop her.
Felisa is not a friend of the salon, of, preferrably, civilized
conversation, because she is becoming someone who thrives when
anything conceivably overwrought, precious, and delicate can be so
readily, fist-in-the-face -- or, rather, tomahawk-in-the-soon-to-bespilling-forebrain -- be brought up short. She isn't listening to you
about food stamps, not because she's proud -- that is, aware of your
actual true sensibleness, but staunchly faithful to her independence -but, essentially, because you're weak. Because she knows that every
bite downed by food-stamp purchase softens you into a mingle with a
dainty, disconnected administrate already fretting the pokings-up of
the undeniably real, strong, and brutal, and about to finally know
"their" their-responsible full-on devourment; because she knows
you're farmers' cattle and on and on about the benefits of farm life,
when the care-taker farmers themselves are even now leaving as the
wild spreads and overtakes, with the doom of wolves already even
now more than one step beyond just a loud chorused, chilling howl
and an increasingly-close check-in; because she knows you're not so
much potentially saged kin as you are, if things get really
neanderthal-stark desperate, to be categorized as last-ditch food
supply, Felisa is taking advantage of your self-absorbed, past-relevant
"signaling" to but fix the clarity of her understanding of who she now
is -- thinking of, and further respecting, the old ancestral, pre or
contra-civilization voices she knows she will increasingly be attending
to and be influenced from.
I am principally a Salonista, but I would encourage you again to check
out N + 1's thoughts on this new type. See the clear hunting wolf here
981
The Wait
Bettenoir: "Felissa darling, did you hear: One of your readers is
turning you into a fictional, potentially cannibalistic werewolf."
Salonista-filled room: "Har! har! har!"
Felisa: "Well, if I'm going to likened to a lycanthrope, I guess I'll take
some comfort in being sized up as only potentially cannibalistic:
suggests some inspiriting wherewithal to improve my dire straits,
don't you think?!"
Salonista-filled Room: "Har! Har! Har!"
[Room clears in good chear and friendly goodbyes, leaving Felisa to
herself]
Felisa: "Good ... The cattle embrace an escape of warning as but
good humor to accompany their wine, cheese and base stupidity. Still,
may be best to ease up for awhile my talk of machetes and becoming
one with the unforgiving alien wilderness -- and maybe even my now
being drawn to Vince Lombardi football: a little too much old-world
imposition in that embrace of all-American heroism, and fluff up even
more my talk of intrinsic lazyness, my making best with all the little I
have, my admittedly-youthful and therefore mostly-tolerable
weakness for self-pride and my girlish, hipsterish insistence on
fancies I should be ashamed, given my straits, to be even mentioning:
won't due to have them thinking I'm maybe not so much possibly
982
983
984
985
learn later that bullies pick on people who best represent their -you're right -- victimized selves, but your putting your head down and
scuttling along tells us what we need to know: you're still the bullied
person she keyed in on because she sensed your already-bullied
status would allow her to perfectly engage the rather more pleasing
role of the tormentor rather than the tormented, and are hoping to
work out a pretend victory against tormentors closer to home than
her -- but that you cannot even now manage to face at all -- by
effecting some kind of satisfying turn-about upon her.
You've spun out a drama of defeat-turned-into-self-realization, but
some of us doubt if you've even made step one -- it's all, perhaps, a
distraction. And you post on Open Salon, where everyone plays to
one-another's inclination to avoid, to lie, in an effort to cow truth
away by pretending through thorough mutual engagements with a
wide-spectrum of assholes and angels to have fully engaged every
possible reality. And you have it moved up to Salon -- which you still
all sense at some level as a risk into discomfortable, "not-playingalong" adult-realm, but where increasingly ever more hands bait a
pretend freedom from long-troubling anxieties to sanity-inclined
holdouts, to make indepedent Salonistas effectively and permanently
into "lie to me" fully-dependent, infantile and lost OpenSalonistas.
You've turned into a compassionate adult, who won't tolerate her
children: Yes, from your not receiving the counsel you deserved, this
is to be expected. Pity your children and their likely sufferance to the
ongoing cycle you yourself could not absent yourself from.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
(addressed to Mr M-H, whose comment is above)
you DO recognize that what you are doing (accusing the writer
of this article, whom you have never met, of being weak) ... is
itself a form of bullying?
986
987
988
me?"
Then, if she denied it, you could straighten her out with an
"Oh, I see. you only remember the nice stories. Listen, babe,
you were a real piece of work. But I'm raising my daughters to
never be scared of little dictators of the type you used to be."
You were just too pusillanimous to confront her, even after all
these years. Your 4th grade self is saddened by your adult
betrayal of her. You wouldn't even fight for her! Instead, you
just wanted her to "like" you, to realize that you finally were a
person worth being let into her club.
Don't be too self-congratulatory. (ourwisemodel)
@ourwisemodel
re: You stood there on the sidewalk, charring with er like you "wre
too old friends." So you are still playing along with her fantasy. She
gets to treat you now like *nothing ever happened.*
Why didn't you say "Why were you such a bitch to me in 4th grade?"
Or "What made you decide to turn my life into a living hell?" or "Did
you ever get over the perverse satisfaction you got from torturing
another human being, or are you still doing that in your place of
employment?"
Or even, "I heard that your family life was really unpleasant when
we were in 4th grade. Is that why you were so mean to me?"
So her friend replies to her, "Perverse satisfaction? Still doing that in
my place of employment? My decision, yet family life drove me to it?
-- Look, hun, if you're looking here to show how you're not afraid of
me, how you're way past me, way past being the kind of person I
could bully and manage so efficiently, with your so-many-years-past,
your new directions, baby rotunditry and busy San Francisco' employ,
the only way to have done that would have been to communicate
somehow how, though I of course still affect you, you'd come to know
how it never really was about me at all. I hurt you bad, but only
because I sensed you were someone who was ideal for hurting -- you'd
989
990
If you're going to write about this encounter one day, I hope it's not at
some place where you so expect people have themselves been
sufficiently bullied to need to pretend you as having delightfully
moved on so they can pretend themselves the same, that all you've
ensured yourself are a lineup of 'you go girl!' replies. Peace."
Wow @Patrick
Based on the skimpy set of facts in her article, I'm trying to
figure out how you know so much about the writer that you
can accuse her of lying.
Also, what does "dwelve" mean? I plugged it into the
Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and "drivel" came up in
the list of words I actually might have been searching for.
(SoFla Kate)
Link: What my grade school bully taught me (Salon)
--------THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011
Tyranny of closure
Dear Cary,
I follow your column off and on, and I appreciate the way you
handle questions from all ages and types of people. I am a 56year-old man, married with a teenage son. I live in the town
close to where my parents grew up. I have relatives here that I
mostly avoid, even though I was close to some of them when I
was younger. My father died about 20 years ago from
complications of alcoholism. He was living in another state
(unintentional pun), and his family brought him back here to
die. I am pretty sure that they expected me to take care of
him, but I refused.
He had left us years before, and maintained very little contact.
When I told his family I wasn't going to be around to help, this
991
992
Tyranny of closure
My mother has contrived cunning means by which my duty, after I
insisted on my adulthood, was to never cause her trouble and to try to
appease her -- make her eyes light up! No time that I subsequently
lent myself to her, did I not feel once again taken: er, I don't exist
simply to delight you out of your depression. If your difficulty is
actually more like mine, and it probably is, in your being the child of a
single mom who clearly has steered and intimidated you all into
thinking her always selfless rather than, say, simply masochistic ("Oh
look at me, always thinking of other people and never of myself!") -as forever after, even though she would ostensibly never claim such a
thing, rightfully, at least, in her full always service, though you were
no doubt already all along that -- and have all had difficulty never
allowing yourselves to distance yourselves too far from her, I would
recommend not seeing her. At some level, she might respect that she
raised a son who could resist her and guilt and everyone thinking him
the worst-of-the-worst, to aggressively demarcate at this time when it
993
easiest to disavow his true needs, that it's actually going to be about
him (and please don't lie to yourself: refusing your father was not you
remaining firm to yourself and stalwartly refusing to defer to good
opinion: it was actually easy, and probably actually mostly at your
expense, because it was an ideal way to show yourself loyal to the one
whose opinion of you you mostly need to fear, your [as the story goes]
betrayed mother). Rather than simply feeling guilty, as having missed
something you'll always regret, it must be suggested that just as likely
you might feel proud of yourself for finally this time not giving in -- so
much better than trying to take nourishment from what is actually a
false simulacrum: your giving your dying dad the bird. And
regardless, it's about time he, that you, did.
I'm guessing, though, the tale will end with her owning you the whole
of your life (and, my, doesn't that reflect badly on her!), with you
never escaping her preferred narratization of her and her use of you
("I owe her a lot!": no dear, you were pretty much born to make her
feel good; she pulped you good to nourish herself, whatever you-andyour-sisters' accumulated shiny MA and PhD baubles, that, we won't
fail to also note, no doubt made your mom's eyes light up good!), and
you taking out the lifelong-accumulated frustrations from pains you
cannot acknowledge as such on those actually well-loved enough to
never feel it their appropriate default to give up themselves until the
very end, to their moms.
@ Patrick
I can't even be mean to you, because clearly you are in
tremendous pain and were, at least in your imagination,
horribly hard-done-by.
But please do try to remember that not every mother is
abusive or narcissistic. I'm sorry if yours was. But to project
your inner torment onto a total stranger is just...wrong. It's
not the LW's fault that you are suffering. (Dorothy Parker)
@Dorothy Parker
994
995
996
997
998
but like he likely did with his father, in his in some way taking them
to task for their absence and neglect, he'll just further cast a shadow
on his mother's true legacy.
At the finish, LW, your true feelings showed you were agnostic
towards your mother. Whether you see her or not (though we all
know you will -- this letter served as the only resistance you were
going to permit yourself), time to focus on why all this selflessness on
her part still strangely left you in a state where some of us would
counsel you away from showing how you truly feel.
Link: I cant watch my mother die (Salon)
---------THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011
Go the F**k to Sleep
What's more absurdly hilarious than an ersatz bedtime story
called "Go the F**k to Sleep"? Funnier even than Werner
Herzog or Samuel L. Jackson reading it? Answer: The
uproariously hyperbolic opinion piece that ran Monday on
CNN CNN! -- by author Karen Spears Zacharias, who
claims, "The violent language of 'Go the F*** to Sleep' is not
the least bit funny, when one considers how many neglected
children fall asleep each night praying for a parent who'd care
enough to hold them, nurture them and read to them." Wah
wah waaaaaaah.
Zacharias, whose bio says she has a forthcoming memoir on
the murder of 3-year-old Karly Sheehan, is careful in her piece
to state that "Nobody is suggesting that there's a connection
between Adam Mansbach's book and child abuse or child
neglect" and that "Mansbach is undoubtedly the kind of father
who heaps love, affection and attention upon his daughter."
But, as she explains, "the lines of what's appropriate parenting
have become blurred" and, as a concerned Oregon attorney
999
1000
1001
Perhaps you all disagree, but I sense increasingly we're having various
groups floated for "consideration," mostly for the purposes of making
their victimization something they had coming their way. While we've
all been suffering, forced to make ever more sacrifices, haven't we too
long tolerated the goodie-goodie understanding of adult motivation
that would have us feel guilty if we dare on occasion resent the child's
spoiled demand that we attend to his/her each-and-every moment-tomoment whim?, that would impede some fair and sane turn-around
and make children seem, at least in a fairer world, in need of giving a
little bit more back to us for a change? Childrearing wasn't always
about that, we note -- forever attending to them and giving-in to
them. For quite the while it was mostly about hardening, in fact -restraining, disciplining, shaping them. No one want to go back to
that obvious, cruel overkill of spanking and closet-time banishment,
of course, but surely if they learned something more of that young -that not every one of their endless whims deserves attendence, and
are perhaps in need of restraint and punishment -- they won't grow
up into adults so still insisting of making a tyranny of their incessant
needs they were willing to bloat to the point of immobility both
themselves and their nation in service to them!
When adults start finding ways to legitimate a climate where more
"honest" complaints/assessments of babies can be made -- especially
about their endless needs -- be sure you're at time when adults are
feeling guilty about having in their lifetime actually managed to
satisfy some of their own. They punish themselves for this greed by,
for instance, voting in politicians who would near kill an economy just
so everyone can feel more virtuous, less selfish, more principally selfdenying and less blameless, but mostly "merge with perpetrator" and
go after those who most fundamentally represent neediness and
dependency: welfare types, precariously-living immigrants, and most
especially, children.
This book is not so much much-needed relief, but sign that in this
obviously child-hating America, things are getting in line for
unimpeded persecution. Soon books like this won't have to hide
1002
behind a "harmless" joke. "Our kids are spoiled brats; long past time
we reigned them in."
Further discussion on how we turn principally on needy, defenceless
children at the finish of prosperous times, at psychohistory.com
Link: "Go the F**k to Sleep" and Tracy Morgan's comedy battle
(Salon)
TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2011
Old Youth
You write about how poverty breeds creativity. You think
about how scavenging for wild food gives you the perfect
opportunity to slow down, to really appreciate your
surroundings. You talk about how frugality is more
environmentally sustainable. You pontificate on why creating
meals from scratch is cheaper, healthier and deeply satisfying.
Then you run out of cooking oil.
You love fat. As a child you ate margarine by the spoonful.
You didn't know any better. Now you've moved on to more
delicious pastures. As a cook you can never resist sneaking in
that extra bit of butter, that tablespoonful of olive oil, that dab
of bacon grease. You believe that cake is a vessel for frosting,
that salad dressing should be two parts oil to one part vinegar,
and that packaged low-fat foods are a symptom of the decline
of Western civilization. Fat makes food taste good.
Under the best of circumstances, you have eight or nine
varieties of fat on hand. In ascending order of importance:
chicken drippings, vegetable oil, chili oil, peanut oil, light olive
oil, coconut oil, bacon grease, butter and, of course, extra
virgin olive oil. (You would sell your first-born child to be the
sort of person who could afford to use truffle oil on a regular
basis.)
[. . .]
1003
1004
1005
And no, the fat you saved from that cut of meat is not "dog
food". It's full of those all-important vitamins. And it doesn't
take much to get those nutrients or make a tasty meal.
(anuran)
----Really Enjoyable
Thank you for this piece. I so enjoyed how, all at once, you
employed enough detail to: make us realize what we have and
take for granted (down to the specific detail of city dwellers
like me who currently have both a change jar and corner
store); give a growing sense of horror while keeping a sense of
perspective on how temporary and soon-to-be-fixable it is,
even admitting things you could do but don't; and provide an
excellent recipe that I'm going to prepare for breakfast right
now. I laughed at how much this felt like a funny, scary movie:
I was just so relieved it had a happy ending of found fat and
potatoes. The "happy ending" makes the recipe itself even
better. Well done! (Agniescka)
----Felisa, you just seem hell-bent on making things hard
for yourself
I can't quite tell if it is a stunt -- along the lines of "No-Impact
Man" -- or you really ARE this impractical and naive.
Obviously we've discussed before that you clearly would seem
to qualify for food stamps, even if your husband works
clearing brush and you sell a article every two weeks to Salon.
Clearly that is not enough for you to buy groceries regularly.
There is no reason to run out of cooking oil; it keeps a very
long time in a cool dry cupboard, if tightly sealed. It isn't very
expensive, and you can buy it on sale, or in those giant jugs at
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
phones and the internet, but still) and it's not actually CHEAP
but kinda expensive (you need land and tools and seeds and
labor and fuel and stuff).
It is definitely NOT a solution to "I lost my job and my UI
benefits ran out". That's crazy talk.
That she's not thinking either "country/rural" or
"survivalist/forager" is clear because she is still spending the
pittance of income they DO have on soy sauce, olive oil,
coconut oil, key limes and other items instead of stuff like
dried milk, rice, flour, pasta, plain generic vegetable oil, lard
and other cheap, reliable menu stretchers.
I understand some of this, because frankly, I hope (AS GOD IS
MY WITNESS!) never to have to eat commercial white bread,
cheap hot dogs, margarine or powdered milk if I don't
absolutely have to, to avoid starvation. Been there, done that.
The solution is elegantly simple: APPLY FOR FOOD STAMPS.
Felisa and her husband would likely qualify for $300 in free
food (and the program is quite generous; you can buy
imported olive if you like, even truffle oil).
This is false, hair-shirt poverty -- a bit like whipping one's self
with a cat of nine tails to "beat the sin out". In this case, the
sin appears to be material well-being.
@Beansy
Just because YOU are healthy, Beans, does not translate into
"this is a healthy diet for other people". You may just be an
outlier. Or you may be a poor judge of your own health. We
could easily find a few outliers who are perfectly healthy (BP,
weight, etc.) eating at McDonalds! That doesn't make
McDonalds an ideal diet.
@Alkaline
Don't burst an aneurysm, sweetie. I was making an educated
GUESS, because Felisa states "she dreams about truffle oil".
Those are not the words of a poor rural mountain gal, foraging
off the land, but a urban hipster who has expensive Whole
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
The tirade you went on further down the page, about the
nature of chronic deprivation, describes the lives of many,
many young Americans today. Who don't have the time to
unload on strangers on the net, because they are out there
hustling to live -- as is Ms. Rogers.
Both you and Laure1962 rely on many service providers -- not
personal pool boys, perhaps -- but every clerk at every 7-11
you shop at needs a well-deserved cigarette break after
dealing with you. Because you are pitiful, foul, ugly people.
Garbage beneath the heels of all decent folks, Ms. Rogers
included. You have no defense for your posts. You both have
made assumption about her that are unfounded, and as
negative as possible. Those assumptions mark you as
wretched, honor deficient fucks who have no business
attempting to drag down anyone else -- in any forum, for any
reason. (Holly Mclachlan)
----It's the Green-eyed Monster, Greeneyedkzin
I don't see why people are so political about them.
Greeneyedkzin
The "politics" is in their posts because they find it useful. It
can provide them allies among people who would otherwise
despise them.
Their motivation is more envy than philosophy. The envy
common to people whose best years are behind them, and
who now devote themselves to wrecking the happiness of
others.
There was no hyperbole in what I wrote in my prior post,
however harsh or histrionic you might find it. There are few
things lower than people who live to deprive others of joy.
I expect Salon's editors regularly council their shocked writers
about the letters section here, and that they say something
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
cheap stuff). And then, as other posters have said, feel more
free to borrow from them, but because you'll have bought in
bulk, you'll also have something to give back if they run low.
(Michael Mackinnon)
----@mammalicious
I got that info straight off of Google yellow pages. I don't live
in the area, but I can read a map! Mapleton is right next door
to Deadwood.
Even Felisa admits there are small stores in Mapleton, but
SHE DOESN'T LIKE THEM, so she won't even buy a STICK
OF BUTTER at such stores. I suspect she "has to go into
Eugene" because Eugene has a Whole Foods or other gourmet
emporium she LIKES better.
@Leeandra Nolting
I've chatted with Felisa several times about food stamps or
even food banks (which have no paperwork nor limits of
income, just "need"). She doesn't want to do it; she's either
too stubborn or too proud. (Or has some money she doesn't
want to reveal that disqualify her from the SNAP program.)
It also suggests this is a stunt, based loosely on "No Impact
Man". I don't believe a smart, educated woman would sit
there with NO FOOD IN THE CUPBOARD, and eat nettles,
when she could be eating cheese, meat, fresh veggies, fruit,
milk, bread and other healthy items.
Yes, I also said that "Country Crock is cheap but tastes awful".
Magarine is a chemical "soup" of junk vs. butter. But I know if
you are poor, you can get a big tub instead of one stick of
butter at the same price. I don't look down on anyone trying
to survive poverty. (Greens&Beans)
-----
1029
1030
1031
What is that? I never did such things? Yet you still want to
ban me? Thanks, you have revealed yourself to be a total
asshat and bigot.
Salon has TOTALLY FAILED to ban Zorkna (he's on like 15th
username) or Steel The First (horrible anti-semite who is on
like his 15th username), so why do you feel I will be an
exception?
Do you think literary criticism is JUST AS WRONG as antisemitism? Do you think asking why someone doesn't go down
the road to the country store to buy a stick of margarine is
EXACTLY THE SAME as outing someone's home address on
the internet, and telling other people to "get her!"?
Salon has so little budget for maintaining "standards" (cough,
cough -- such as they are) that they are dependent entirely on
A. unpaid student interns, B. writers off Open Salon who
charge peanuts and C. PAGE CLICKS.
They encourage flame wars to get page clicks, you dolt. Don't
you realize that????
The only person reducing this otherwise placid thread to "a
fever swamp of dysfunction and bile" IS YOU, Holly
McLachlan. (Greens&Beans)
@Miss Buggins: Still not on that 5 month camping
trip?
Guess that was another your fantasies ("lies")!
@Michael MacKinnon
I agree. I have family in the country, and they have many of
the same limitation as Felisa (small expensive country stores,
city hours away, etc.) and they NEVER run out of food -- they
grow crops, they can/preserve food, they have a food
dehydrator, they freeze stuff, they save bacon grease, they
RELY ON THEIR NEIGHBORS if things get tough.
You don't need to go full-tilt into farming to have a small
kitchen garden (which should be producing by now, Felisa --
1032
why don't you have any food from that? I don't grow much -herbs and strawberries, and a few cherry tomatoes -- but I
already have food from my BACK DECK).
A couple of chickens would give Felisa and her husband a
ready source of protein from eggs (even if they never
butchered the chickens for meat).
I'd like to reiterate your excellent words:
"....this reads like someone who had idealized the rural life,
but who now has has gotten into it without having the
instincts.
Stocking up when you have a few bucks is basic common
sense, and you don't have to "live in the country" to realize
that.
(BTW: there are many kinds of coconut oil; the crude stuff can
be as cheap as $12.00 for a 32 ounce jar, but the really good
stuff -- organic, high grade -- is $32.00 for a 32 ounce jar. SO
yes, in most cases, you could get quite a lot of ordinary
vegetable oil for that amount, a good deal of olive oil or a
truckload of cheap margarine.) (Greens&Beans)
-----
1033
1034
Horton Market
21.7 mi
94636 Horton Rd, Blachly, OR 97412 map
LOW Pass Market
22.8 mi
22501 Highway 36, Cheshire, OR 97419 map
ALSO:
Waldport Food Share (a food bank that provides FREE food
supplies for needy families)
28.6 mi
*****
Felisa, my question is this -- is your problem more about a
snobbery for shopping at "down market" chain stores like
Safeway or Fred Meyer or Stop n' Shop -- OR that you are
deeply vested in shopping at the Whole Foods store (or
similar) in Eugene? and you won't "settle" for shopping
elsewhere? (Greens&Beans)
----The last page or so of letters proves
What does it prove?
Laurel1962sockpuppets is butthurt at being caught out. She's
still a cruel, self-righteous, dishonest, narcissistic
advertisement for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
And she's still so wrong she couldn't see "mistaken" without
the Hubble Telescope. (anuran)
----What on earth is the Dunning-Kruger Effect?
The last page or so of letters proves
[] Laurel1962sockpuppets is butthurt at being caught out.
She's still a cruel, self-righteous, dishonest, narcissistic
1035
1036
generation to the next. Getting married by the same old tree whose
branches grandma used to scrape her teeth clean on. Except when it
comes to the self-indulgent boomers, who knew hardship and sparcity
only as a lifestyle choice -- letting it be known that heritage and
environment and grand/parents and the old hanging-on world were
at their service, never themselves to "it." In regards to the boomers,
tradition isn't about continuation, but exclusion. It becomes, not
about fidelity and love, but about crime and retribution -- it becomes
old, in a mean and twisted and unforgiving sort of way, pretending
them (i.e., the boomers) as a bastard aberation that strayed so far
from message -- and so readily! so maddingly flippantly! and so
damned near totally! -- they're to be at first heavily scorned at, and
then simply not to be brought up at all anymore.
Felisa is channelling the spirits of Depression-era grandparents, so to
sublimate herself into/with them. She's all about the icing on the
cake, but in her recipes she almost seems to be laying herself out bare
for their taking. Here are the spare and plain ingredients for my
(however savory) spiced nettle soup. (There's talk and evocation of
truffle oil -- but to show how rarely I'll indulge the real thing again;
how akin I am to you and your periodic Hollywood escapes to
compensation land.) Nothing so complicated to hide variation;
nothing so variant from what constitutes you to suggest my rebellion:
My coffee and sport-loving, my common, simple-loving husband and
I are fully yours, ancestors. In our recipes we fully aim not so much to
advance beyond as to close the distance to you. We will be anonymous
but worthy, in the way you were anonymous but worthy-- knowing
that every one one of our private, particular experiences we covet and
hope to pass on, is replicated by all those inceasingly multitudes now
forced to live just as fidelitous as we, and so are always also common
and unexceptional. Everytime we speak our our savorings, of how we
spiced up our increasingly spare stock, you will hear as much of what
we've been denied, of what we were actually willing -- unlike our
boomer parents -- to deny ourselves, to remain fidelitous to you and
the nearly-lost virtues of your simple treasure pleasures.
1037
Felicity is, I would suggest, very debatably the voice of youth. She
aims to be, and is succeeding in becoming, a wretched, withered
Depression ancestor brought back from the grave. Perhaps because it
is easy to imagine a stern, unforgiving tradition-guarding
grandmother stirred to life with the eager availability of such an apt
and willing vessel, I am prompted to wonder if Laurel et al. are not
truly so much responding bullyingly to youth, but in alarm and out of
fear of slippage to a spectre they long ago -- and never fully -succeeded in beating back: a dreaded voice from the rightfully
discarded past that wouldn't allow anything beyond the most minimal
amount amount of fun to not silmutaneously speak of cold, brutal
withdrawal.
I hope here that Felisa not just appreciates the support, but the
challenge -- I think you are bent on losing yourself, drifting from
reality to some awful disassociated state, speaking always not so
much from first-hand or second-hand but from third-person
perspective -- as if looking down upon yourself at a distance which
balks, chastises your individuality and renders you a somewhat
pathetic plain "type" -- and it is mostly this some of us are concerned
to alert you to and wake you up from. If "Salon" soothes you from
internet bile, "their" blanket will also contribute to further
smothering you.
Link: Can you live without cooking oil? (Salon)
----------
1038
1039
If what we were debating here was if there was some deeply satisfying
pleasure we have been missing out on had society enabled the more
primitive instincts -- not just male -- in us some play, I think we're at
the point where the onus is on the person intent to disagree with this
possibility. Not so much the male self, but the rather traditionally
male-seeming neanderthal, our TRUEST WHOLE selves, everywhere
we're learning/rediscovering, has been suppressed; our everyday
normal life is being revealed not so much as civilized, however
compromised, but as perverted -- in denial of who we really are. The
food we've been eating is too processed and finely prepared; our
delicate take on children (and child-rearing), so distorted to demand
stark reveals; criminals, vandals, too tenderly treated and
optimistically imagined; Pittsburgh steel workers dispossessed and
scrambling while East Coast literatti tea; Others' sensitivities and
rituals, too long in the way of common sense and what is really good
for our country. Distortion after distortion -- it's past time to get back
to bare knuckles, to cease this nonsense of being tolerant and civil.
Both Scott and MEW seem similar in that they've both had it with
patience and are FOR the melee -- neither of them (at heart) would
seem too discomforted if the Gods and Authority in their arguments
made their opponents feel as if pressed to make their riposte while
managing a big foreign dick in their mouths. ("Does this make you
uncomfortable? Good.") They are both FOR the neanderthal, with
Scott showing himself still more essentially the cubicle man, and
MEW, that she's always been king ape, finally demonstrating her
reign. The civilized may not now even just be becoming dilettante:
convincingly, they've been cubicled, and what's up now is the rest of
us sizing up and clubbing to see who'll command the largest slab of
meat.
----And the winner is MEW -- and Scott's overall point
Mary Elizabeth Williams just shot Scott Adams full of holes.
1040
(Amity)
----I don't know what happened to nice, proper, pencilsharpened, assignment-neatly-filed Mary Elizabeth
Williams, Editor I don't know, and I don't care, because I
would much rather read what this Valkyrie, this slayer, this,
okay if not towering giant then at least an upright-standing,
strong-backed, journeywoman of coherence and intensity
has to say. (Amity)
----MEW, well-done, you handed Scott Adams his balls, so to
speak. (mneme48)
MEW is victorious here, but in victory she mostly proves the essence
of poor, marginalized, emasculated Scott's point: that there is
something not just natural but GLORIOUS in our more aggressive,
primal selves, that feminizing civilization / sociability can only
understand as barbaric -- to be kept in check, if complete banishment
isn't possible. Scott is willing to miniature himself -- "I accept Society
is good and that it must come at the cost of my manhood" -- so to
make his castration, his grievances, more deserving of soothing, but
in truth, and especially with MEW, what this debate shows is that the
glorious, angry, uncompromising, brutal and engaged
Valkryie/neanderthal/King Ape suppressed in all of us, is
OBVIOUSLY worth a hell of a lot more than whatever had worked so
long to cage it in -- whose ostensible all-too-obvious virtues are now,
actually rather in need of being unscrolled for us again.
As Amity conveys, what MEW mostly shows here is that what
society ... scratch that ... what WE need most is less of the caging and
compromising and placating, and much more of virulent "piss[ing
off" and "goad[ing]" so our inner, magnificent -- to hell with it -FRANK AND BEASTIAL selves are aroused and finally get more play.
The debate is not so much "MEW 4 and Scott 0," but FOR drive and
1041
----------
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
----@Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Buddy -- I can't make head of tails out of that post. I can't
even tell if you are for or against what I said, or arguing for
tolerance, or what.
The whole bit about the "incestuous mother" though-- that's
crazy talk. I know a lot of gay men (I don't even know HOW it
applies to lesbians!) and they have perfectly nice, decent,
loving moms.
Homosexuality is an inborn trait, like blue eyes or the ability
to wiggle your ears. It is neither good nor bad; just a normal
human form of sexual behavior. In any human sub-group,
there will ALWAYS be 1-2% or so that will be homosexual.
All that stuff about bad mothers and smothering is pretty
much totally debunked, and years ago.
The only remotely understandable thing I got out of your post
is that yes, liberals see this as a HUGE political victory and
that's why they are working so hard for it -- they have utterly
given up on fighting for the wars to end, or for Gitmo to close
or for heath care. This seems like an "easy victory" and yes,
they see marriage as "romantic self-fulfillment" entirely
without real obligation, fidelity, sacrifice or dedication, so is
cheap and easy to extend it to anyone who claims to want it.
(Laurie1962)
@laurel1962
Re: This seems like an "easy victory" and yes, they see marriage as
"romantic self-fulfillment" entirely without real obligation, fidelity,
sacrifice or dedication, so is cheap and easy to extend it to anyone
who claims to want it.
1050
1051
the gray (or black) markets, pay a butt load of money for the
kid OR they go overseas for an expensive foreign adoption.
Foreign kids are pretty much "priced" by skin pigmentation,
with Russian/Ukrainian kids being the most expensive
("white") and the prices goes down to Asian kids, then
hispanic kids, then at the bottom, black kids (African). It's
disgusting and yes, it is racist, but that's what people want and
how their adult needs have distorted the world adoption
market.
Basically the most "desirable" kids go to the wealthiest
couples, but introducing gay couples to the mix has
complicated stuff. Now there is more competition for the most
desirable children, and many gay couples are VERY affluent,
two income partnerships. They are basically EDGING OUT
traditional families to take adoptable infants -- who are in
VERY short supply -- and denying those children a home with
a mother and a father.
The only thing protecting these children or giving them a
chance are laws favoring married straight couples. However,
with legal gay marriage, adoption agencies are FORCED BY
LAW to give babies and toddlers (who have the best shot at
having a mother and father in a traditional marriage parent
them) to gay and lesbian couples.
Naturally gays and lesbians cannot have children by ordinary
means (lesbians always have the turkey baster, but many are
too old even for that) so they by DEFINITION are going to
make up a disproportionate number of potential adoptive
parents.
Look at Doc1976: he had a marriage ceremony with his
boyfriend, now he wants to ADOPT. He is a DOCTOR with
plenty of money to buy any kind of adoptive infant. Would
you want to be an ordinary middle class married straight
couple trying to compete with Doc for ONE OF THE VERY
FEW INFANTS UP FOR ADOPTION? OR compete on the
1052
1053
First off, people who are eager-ready to scold people for their
selfishness are no doubt way worse than couples who'd marry
primarily for their self-pleasure: when they have kids, be sure they'll
communicate to them mostly that what they are is primarily sinful
and selfish, from the start denying their parents the love and
admiration they deserve for commiting themselves so selflessly to
them. Anyone who rants against selfishness is someone who
"learned" early that their own rightful claims were somehow rotten,
suspect, owing to them amounting to love toward something other
than their immature parents. When they rant they imagine their own
parents approving them for defining themselves as willing to give the
whole of themselves up to satisfy other people's (their parents') needs.
They have their own self-soothing in mind; they are being selfish.
Secondly, I agree that children really need both men and women in
their lives, and I really like that the current understanding of
marriage communicates this need. However, as important as this
need is, it is rather more important that they grow up in a loving
family, and it is far more important that marriage communicate
THIS. As is, traditional marriage doesn't: the barbaric couple that'll
spend most of their parenthood either abandoning their children or
using them, looks more worthy, more essential, more right, than the
liberal gay couple, committed to human rights, who'll find ways to be
mostly kind and attendent to their children. Because of this "crime,"
marriage does need a good turn of being imagined as something other
than man / woman inextricably bound: it may be ground for making
the quality of the care the foremost "concern," essential pre-requisite
for subsequent legitimization.
----Patrick
Loud & clear. (g50)
1054
----Apocalypse Cow
It's time for another special edition of cow talk, ladies and
gents and ... er.. Laurie.
Apocalypse Cow. We believe this is an allusion to the Bayeux
Tapestry, a 50 cm by 70 m embroidered cloth which explains
the events leading up to the 1066 Norman invasion of
England.
We would welcome any enlightenment on this subject from
that master of lighten himself...@Patrick McEvoy-Halston!
Bravo, sir. Tis a sore deed that you do so deededly. Also. Well
done.
Other Worthy Moo Outs:
@Doc1976...many sincere moos of happiness and
congratulations to you and your husband. If you ever tire of
saving lives, there may be a big future in flagging waiting for
ya. A worthy aspiration on this thread.
@sienar and @orange swan... valiantly guarding the
Normandy invasion from revision and moo(t) interpretations.
Also, the Constimootion and Canada, too.
@jtanneru... for not invading Normandy, (a trick learned from
cow class) and reminding us that a person's a person no
matter how Ralph.
@Balaamsass... for the cool moo tunes, and @David
Ehrenstein & @G50 for persistence in the face of moo poo.
And, of course, also @bigguns ... our own cow talk sponsor!
And now we return to the regular insanity portion of the
Salonistas. (steppedonapoptop)
Link: Barack Obama should come out for gay marriage already
(Salon)
1055
----------
[. . .]
1056
1057
Really, Andrew?
You live in Brooklyn? That's just astonishing! Imagine a Salon
writer who lives in Brooklyn....oh, wait. ALL Salon writers by
edict must live in either A. Brooklyn (preferably Park Slope)
or B. San Francisco/Berkeley.
It's amazing how you guys manage to bypass every writer in
flyover country, thousands of cities, 48 states (and Guam and
Puerto Rico!) and all types of writers from every religion, race,
culture, ethnic group and economic level.
How many writers here are from (or working IN) the
Midwest? The South? The Southwest? Rural Maine or urban
Des Moines, Iowa? Arizona or Rapid City, South Dakota?
Huh. That would be NONE.
How many writers here are affluent, educated, WHITE, urban
and live on the East or West Coast? Huh, that would be ALL
OF THEM.
No wonder we have no diversity here of opinion or attitude or
lifestyle or awareness of how the other 95% of American lives,
works, thinks, dreams. No wonder you are clueless and wrong
about almost everything.
Also, Andrew: there are no middle-class neighborhoods, nor
middle class people in Brooklyn, or anywhere in New York
City. That ended a long, LONG time ago when prices escalated
past madness.
You may like to think you are middle class, but no middleclass person could afford to live in Brooklyn, where rents top
$2000 a month for a small rental unit, and $500-600K for a
small co-op or condo.
If you can afford these prices, which are standard for the area,
you are not middle-class and you likely have NO IDEA what
middle-class even means. The average household income in
the US is around $45,000 a year, Andrew, which translates to
about $2200 in take-home pay. In other words, it would
1058
1059
1060
1061
what it is to live "at court," which serves as ready counter, both shows
them as not now merely newly arrived and makes them seem, I think,
actually part of the complicated but undeniable nesting of manners
and experience that produces the miracle of community, of civitas,
that rightly draws subsequent others in.
Yet there is a sense that that this is all quickly becoming passe.
Whereas before, to be relevant, to be truly part of "the discussion"
with the distinct, those in focus, those that matter, YOU'D BETTER
call this nexus your home -- or have gone to the right MFA schools, if
not -- I think it's quickly becoming a place that will ID you as actually
irrelevant, the wrong part of a publicly shared joke, really. It may be
that right now if you want to secure a place as a relevant
writer/thinker in the upcoming age -- which is different than just
feeling safely ensconsed as one -- your best bet would be to NOT
make the move to Brooklyn/Berekeley, as it'll make you seem
ungrounded, detached, flighty, vain, thin -- opposite of hearty, and
oblivious to the obvious. Better for you to really demonstrate your
essential groundedness, your true proletariansim, your relevance in
an age where bards must be of the same sinew and blood of the
suffering -- else just be boutique -- to have never left Indiana. I think
writers are cottoning on this. Look for more and more of them to
announce -- in what really amounts to a self-serving, tactical move -to their being possessed of that (now special) something that drew
them, not to seek out New York, but to stay faithful to home. (Perhaps
too, to their never having been part of any signficant MFA program,
mostly out of sensed distaste for the kind of seekers, the enfranchised
mama-boys and princesses, who'd find themselves there.)
The future in writing, I'm sensing, may belong much more to the
Aaron Traisters (Pittsburgh) of the world than to the Rebecca
Traisters (Brooklyn). They'll be the ones society will highlight; they'll
be buoyed and sought out; and it's going to be bloody hard, as they
posit their beer-bellies and craggy appearances smack down,
immodestly, before us, to target them as they now really are -- elite.
Our cultural critics are going to have to get really good, or these
1062
1063
1064
breaches, they are both are serving to successfully nest in the public
that there IS something intrinsically immoral and manipulative about
Jews and Gays. Mel Gibson was not permissible! Tracy Morgan and
Russell Crowe, are coming closer to just right.
Also, I am against circumcision. It's child hate. (Not much one for
God, though, either.) Can't agree with Crowe, because I think there is
intent in him to demonize people. It's not just saying what has too
long been obfuscated, and so must come out of you in a way to blast
through layers of bulk. Could be narrated this way; will be narrated
this way; but it's not mostly true. The soothing here, for some, is not
from seeing a more genteel way to handle differences, but from a
successful breach, without retraction.
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston
But with their breaches, they are both are serving to
successfully nest in the public that there IS something
intrinsically immoral and manipulative about Jews and
Gays.
If you really believe that, then I pity you. (Beans&Greens)
@Beans&Greens
RE: But with their breaches, they are both are serving to
successfully nest in the public that there IS something intrinsically
immoral and manipulative about Jews and Gays.
If you really believe that, then I pity you.
I have no idea how from this you would assume I'm anti-Semetic /
anti-Gay. I am TRYING to help people understand that from how
these two men are being handled, we should see that anti-Semistism
and homophobia is becoming more acceptible, even amongst liberals:
that is, I'm at their (i.e., Jews' / Gays') genuine service.
How are you helping, in your just saying how correct Crowe is? He's
making a dangerous breach, and you assume him as if he's making a
humane point. Anti-circumcision talk gets air in A kind of climate,
1065
and its about progress. If it gets air in the wrong kind -- IT IS antiSemitism: demonization, and regress. We're in the latter kind of
climate. His God part tips us off. As does, somewhat, his never
backing down to a fight -- his disposition. There's some Mel in that -it's not just heroism.
@ Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Being anti-circumcision is not the same as being anti-Semitic.
I personally know (and you can find in this thread) many
proud Jews who don't feel the need to have their sons
mutilated for an imaginary bloodthirsty sky-demon. There are
anti-circumcision groups in Israel. Circumcision among Jews
in western Europe and Latin America has dropped
precipitously - not out of fear, but out of recognition that
hacking off part of a helpless baby for "G_d" is a sick
unnecessary barbaric way of welcoming a child into the world
and into a religion. If anything, Crowe is given a pass here on
the crudity of his statements due to the fact that he has always
been publicly rude, crude, abrasive and insulting. I rather
think he would make similar comments about any group, not
just Jews, with which he disagreed. That said, he is still
insulting and boorish... (eschu21)
@eshu21
re: Being anti-circumcision is not the same as being anti-Semitic.
I know this. That's why I said that in some contexts anti-circumcision
is about progress -- which would never entail hatred toward another
group, because progess is always about increase in empathy and love;
about helping the child, not demonizing then hunting the perpetrator.
However, it CAN mostly be anti-semitism. I've read through your
letters, and you're one of the beautiful reaching out to help stop abuse
of children, without yourself being hateful to those emotionallydisturbed enough (cultural heritage can't move you to long appreciate
what-you-at-some-profound-level know to be abuse) to be driven to
1066
1067
@unmutual
You moron, I'm Jewish. You say I've NEVER SEEN A
CIRCUMCISION? are you bleepin' nuts? I've seen at least 2
dozen in my lifetime, including my own son, my two nephews
and a bunch of cousins, etc. Do you think I'd allow a
procedure on my own flesh and blood if I thought it was crazy,
barbaric or painful? If the FATHERS and GRANDFATHERS
did not all have the SAME EXACT thing (and they were fine,
obviously able to have sex and reproduce)?
If it was painful and awful, the ceremonial bris at 8 days
would be a horrorshow instead of a wonderful loving warm
family get-together. A mohel is extremely well trained to do
this surgery quickly and painlessly; the baby is sedated with a
little bit of wine. I've seen babies who literally slept through
the WHOLE THING, not a whimper. Most of them cry a little
but are quickly soothed. In my EXPERIENCE, which is
considerable, it is similar to the fuss a baby makes when they
get a pin prick or small injury. You must not have kids,
because INFANTS wail over literally everything -- a wet
diaper, a loud noise, milk that isn't warm enough.
Let me emphasize for several woman-hating doofuses here:
this is a MALE ritual performed by a MALE mohel and with a
MALE rabbi attending (in most congregations) and the
FATHER of the baby presents him and stands by. Women are
on the sidelines. If this was a "vagina conspiracy", why are
men at the heart and center of choosing this FOR
THEMSELVES? (Laurie1962)
@DannyOS: you are missing the point here
I don't think even the strongest proponent of circumcision for
disease prevention wants to FORCE anybody to have their
baby circumcised.
We are addressing various levels of posters -- from controlling
left social engineers like GreenBeans to pure Jew haters --
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
gays, I think she would rather us not think her 1/10th lesbian.
----Scriptorum
RE: Liberal Jews and Gays control the media. They run it, they
staff it, they are it. And they will make fun of and trash anyone they
damn well please, but woe to the man or woman who makes fun of
or trashes them. (Scriptorum)
The most emerging liberal voice is Chris Hedges', who maintains that
liberalism has become as exclusive, self-concerned, as unfair and
inert as you believe it to be. When you read his language of justice for
the working man, see how well anyone not typically understood to be
constituted of working stock, of pure blood, common man aspirations
-- of the Appalachians, perhaps -- could find themselves belonging
within it -- however much he may salute the gay community or what
not.
Liberals have been exclusive. The people they so eagerly disparage
have been victimized. But the people they have antagonized are WAY
worse than they. When the tide tends their way, how easy a time they
are going to have in rebuttal when many liberals are themselves
looking to distance themselves from the remnants of hippie liberalism
in favor of something stockier, and when the IMAGE of the
dispossessed minority is allowed to fade at a time when the casual
truth of who "they" everyday are, conveys an instant accusation
against them -- even if it's just simply their urbanity. "You've spent 50
years defending this! -- and against humble, unassuming, TRULY
tolerant, TRULY put-upon us!" Blood on the streets.
----@Scriptorum
Gays are prominent in the entertainment industry because a
1080
1081
that.
It's kind of sad hearing them try to lower their voices, or mute
their facial expressions, or censor themselves in the language
they use, lest someone think they are suspiciously effeminate.
Anyway, back on topic, I hope Tina Fey fires Tracy's ass.
Tina's comments were funny, and appropriate, but Tina and
NBC need to take action, otherwise they're just hypocrites. A
tap on the wrist isn't enough. Sorry. (willie99)
willie99
I don't think effeminacy is an "affliction". However, I DO think that a
lot of homophobic men (both straight and gay) who have ignorantly
equated effeminacy with homosexuality evince an irrational fear of
being perceived as effeminate, and, therefore, they spend a lot of
energy trying to compensate for that.
Clearly YOU don't think effeminacy is an affliction, but I am
suggesting that good a good bulk of the American public
(increasingly) does. What do they think effeminacy is? -- well, of the
likes of being constituted to read and please the endless expectations
of other people, something you say is ACTUALLY sufficiently
characteristic of gays that is mostly responsible for gay success in
show biz.
----@Scriptorum
Re: Jews never assimilate to the societies in which they live,
they always set themselves apart, they always look down on
others. Their own Rabbis preach that non-Jews are less
human. So it is just coming out of the wash now. They can't
hide it, and they don't even try to hide it anymore.
(Scriptorum)
I don't think any community of Rabbis is really going to keep a flock
1082
from affiliating with Others they have a strong affinity for -- people
who, if no one was telling them "otherwise," they'd want to be social
with, out of sensed similar disposition. Like is drawn to like,
regardless. If despite this Jews can still seem bundled, it may have to
do with them actually being very different from the people you would
have them more affiliate with -- that is, the experiment you would
have them undertake, has already at some level been tried, or strongly
felt out, and they're back to what makes sense.
Should they (more affiliate)? Maybe not if they're ACTUALLY better,
and have consistently been, historically. The conservative ones aren't,
but the liberal ones as an aggregate surely are (it's Rabbit from
Updike's "Rabbit" series' overall take, though he wonders why he
always sees them with blondes) -- though they'll be doing better once
they abandon circumsicion, which IS still based on child hate. There
is a sense that what most Americans still most need is to become
more Jewish.
You're (having) at Salon for its ongoing liberalism, but as I am
making apparent, I think you can see signs of a drifting conservatism
even in what looks to be all too evidently liberal responses, and it is
that I think is most significant, am most concerned about.
Appreciate your honest take.
Link: Tracy Morgan goes on an anti-gay rant (Salon)
1083
1084
1085
1086
obvious will sneak in). How do we think change comes about? A new,
more humane perspective -- even if at this point, not SO much more
humane -- when before: nothing to draw upon? It's about growth in
heart, and nothing at all really with money matters. Homo
economicus is more evolved than man as wicked and sinful, but it's
a concept bubbled up from people not yet up to seeing people as they
really are. It is ONLY when empathy is nowhere to be found, that a
quarter of a population could perish in a by-both-sides-wanted war.
Link: Everything you know about the Civil War is wrong (Salon)
---------SUNDAY, JUNE 12, 2011
Bored lords?
This intra-critical dispute has a little to do with a lot of things,
including the symbolic schism over films as different as
Terrence Malick's family history of the universe, "The Tree of
Life," and the Marvel Comics-derived mutant-superhero opus
"X-Men: First Class." It has something to do with the utterly
unsurprising fact that most critics have decanted bucketloads
of scorn all over summer flicks like "The Hangover Part II"
and "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides," and have
seen them go on to become massive worldwide hits,
demonstrating once again that eggheads who watch 350
movies a year have become specialists or experts, of one
variety or another, and don't have much connection to
ordinary moviegoers or the reasons why they buy tickets.
It has a whole lot to do with the ancient 20th-century feud
between advocates of art-house cinema, which is essentially a
remnant of what used to be called "high culture," and fans of
mass-market popcorn entertainment. Which is weird, because
one side won that battle a long time ago but refuses to
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
is Carroll = pedophile
William S. Burroughs = murderer
Gunter Grass = Nazi
Have read books by all of them, enjoyed all of them.
(Krasnaya Zvezda)
@Krasnaya Zvezda
Have you considered that some part of you may be a pedophile, a
murderer, a Nazi? Or is this dark-side-of an-otherwise-brilliant-artist
concept, strong enough to keep you from ever feeling compelled to do
so?
@Patrick
Have you considered that some part of you may be a
pedophile, a murderer, a Nazi?
That is seriously the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
Have YOU considered that grown adults can read things
objectively and enjoy them on their own merits without
turning into monsters?
What are you, 11 years old? (Unsinkable Bastard)
@unsinkable bastard
What we're all concerned to protect is the idea that the vile Other
we're aghast/disheartened to learn about, is not somehow very much
ALSO within the work of art we enjoy. It maybe needed be -- but the
only reason I would allow this possibility is that I know such things
like that the majority of nazis had/have split personalities, where one
part of them detached itself from what the vile other part concerned
itself with and enjoyed: but clearly, even here, even dealing with their
'better' parts of themselves, we're not dealing with especially
wonderful people -- the kind that would never feel the need to split off
and do/experience such things -- and for liking THAT, finding worth
in the artistic production produced by that, something is probably off
with us. I don't think we're grown up if we're not considering this
1092
1093
1094
1095
as well as men do? Lots and lots of female writes out there -- What
accounts for your forced effort, do you think?
Link: When bad people write great books (Salon)
----------
1096
[. . .]
It looks good and has some nice acting moments; as a friend
of mine used to say about poetry readings, it's better than
some TV. If it makes a butt-load of money, all of us parasites
on the sweaty underbelly of the film industry are
hypothetically better off, so we might as well like it.
[. . .]
While the whole film is professionally executed and goes
down smoothly enough, the underlying stupidity of its subject
matter can't help but show through in the end. I was left
wondering why I'd spent more than two hours in the dark
watching a story about how a kid who survived the
concentration camps grew up to be an adult who wears an
embarrassing faux-Spartan helmet and calls himself Magneto
(rhymes with neato). (Andrew Ohehir, "X-Men: First Class":
Slick, dumb big-screen candy, Salon, 1 June 2011)
I suppose a more charitable way of saying what I said about
the collective lowered expectations of summer is that summer
movies are meant as a communal escape that's libidinal and
visceral and not really subject to intellectual analysis. Believe
it or not, I don't want to interfere with anybody's enjoyment
along those lines -- but on the other hand, it isn't my job to
congratulate Hollywood. (Andrew OHehir)
Standing tall
Leave out the part about you not wanting to be the discount store T.S.
Eliot essay contributer. Also the part about your bud nudging you on
how poetry readings are better than some tv. Also the (actually selfeffacing) estimation of yourself as a parasite on the underbelly of the
film industry. Also the part in your reply about you knowing that you
haven't any influence on box-office returns. You've seen crap; know
you can will yourself to speak against a crowd, against true T.S. Eliot
types (Ebert's so casual, so American, but this Pulitzer Prize winner
qualifies a bit, doesn't he?) when it speaks to Truth; and you know
1097
deep-down this all speaks FOR you. Communicate this. "This is crap;
and if you mostly like it, something is quite wrong with you. I
understand this means I think I'm better than you. I do; I am. Now
use what I've given you to start bettering yourself."
Also, in your reply, I don't get how you can argue that you don't want
to interfere with anyone's enjoyment along these lines (i.e., libidinal
and visceral enjoyment of a film, rather than intellectual), when your
whole review suggests that that this is in fact your drive. I think you'd
be better again to not be charitable, and EXCLUDE the film entire
from ones that do SO satisfy libidinal needs -- something not only
more basic or needed/required but more mythic (deeper?) as well -to put those who'd just make wry cuts on the film on absolute
defence: everyone knows they're missing something essential -Laputans.
I think you saw the film and knew that that if it became popular it
would not do to have it excused even by critics as owing to relaxed
summer expectations. I think you knew that this meant that
something very wrong was happening to people that they actually
found satisfaction -- or worse, meaning -- in this kind of shallow
offering, and had in mind to be amongst those who'd try and let them
know they were going wrong. I like that.
Link: X-Men: First class (Salon)
----------
1098
1099
1100
life believing they really deserved the good nurturance, the absolute
attendence they ended up receiving. At some point, they become
convinced they'll be punished for it, and project their bad selves onto
unfortunate others, to be punished. This explains why an emergant
benefactory generation (like the '60s), a ME-ME but also evidently
YOU-YOU generation, can at the end of their term drift really
reactionary, abandon so willing those they used to forthrightly
champion, and is a truth that should be used against those who would
cancel out the possibilities of light and truth from Art simply by
showing us how a lot of formerly progressive art-lovers ultimately
drifted. "Yes, not always anywhere near to bad, mind you, but THIS
IS to be expected. After true Light, inevitably Darkness: it's its bitter
'aftertaste.'" Only the likes of miracle good people like Paul Krugman
escape it entire. (But note: he has.)
We're very comfortable saying (the likes of) we were intially asses but
learned to become better people, more attendent to other people's
needs, through --. (It's the framing for the prototypical Salon
lifestory, is it not?) We are NOT comfortable saying that we love other
people because we ourselves are pretty great and interesting -- and so
too, surely, must you be! The former assessment keeps us seeming
essentially modest and small -- of the sinful; keeps the demons at bay;
but doesn't lead to much presumption or growth. The later surely at
some point invites the demons: but for awhile can lift a generation on
to great things ... before the also-consequence. But next time around,
though the same nasty flip, it's not as devestating.
Link: Does reading great books make you a better person? (Salon)
----------
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
years at least. That is, even if the majority of the dispossesed were
holding the craziest political inclinations, supporting the most ugly of
populist leaders, and if black men were ranting away in the most
outlandish, disrespectful manner, all we'll let ourselves see are noble
people being unfairly picked on by cruel, corporate culture. Like the
last Depression, this won't ultimately do much for them -- it was the
awesome suffering, which empowered the belief that some gain is
now surely deserved, which ended the Depression. And, as I
suggested earlier, what it might actually empower is a spread of antisemitism: in full regret that they for awhile turned against the
common man and the descendents of slaves, that they swayed the
very opposite of Good, liberals will lascerate themselves -- but also
look to punish the sneaks surely responsible for their temporary,
grotesque transmogrification.
I like West, and am inclined to want to defend him, but 5 years on I
think he'll be very empowered again ... and heeded -- about what he
had to say about Jewish influence. What he has to say about Jews is
grotesque, and I am glad Joan was angered by it. It's not carnival; not
now, because it's time for other groups to be picked on, but it can
produce carnage.
Link: Cornel Wests tragic meltown (Salon)
1106
1107
we're living in the period that subsequent generations skip over. Even
if we all get a grip on it, I'm not sure if we can beat it.
There does seem to be a sense that the MFA right now is about
creating a class of innocents sheltered from what everyone else is
experiencing, yet believe that they, especially, can actually get the
core gut of it all. I suspect THEY'LL suspect soon enough that this
isn't quite true, but by that time the Depression will have worsened,
and they'll have left the schools to really get at the grime -- which,
still, they won't really get at all. That is, I think they're being nurtured
as sources of humiliation for the body public. Not as bad as the
military, but not good.
--Guildenstern era?
As Morris Dickstein makes clear in "Dancing in the Dark," a cultural
history of the Depression, there are just some periods where
"personality," exciting individuation, THAT IS RESPONSIBLE for
drawing all to you, not just your literaryness and your obvious
consent to be of a mold, just isn't allowed. He documents how after
Fitgerald/Joyce/Chaplin et al. in the '20s, you get the factory system,
interchangeable parts (at least 'til "Kane"), and a reductive
understanding of human beings (homo economicus) by virtually all
artists: a wiping of MORE than just the smile off people's faces. And I
think that's our problem: it's not schools -- where 30 years ago there
would have been essentially no minuses to being around some of the
most deep, the best writerly minds for a few years in your early '20s
(though I appreciate the hippies who dropped out and managed at
least as well) -- and outsiders aren't the solution -- not those familiar
with all of literary history, as they're the sort to indulge in all sorts of
things that are just not as interesting as what the MFAs have been
reading; and not those who don't suspect they're actually missing out
on something for not being around such truly ripened senior writers,
because the bulk of them have. It's that the age of permission has
ended, something the huge sacrifice of the war granted to the
subsequent generation (the truly great baby-boomers), and not even
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
you fool!
If Luhrmann does make it "a tragic portrait of the thwarted masculine
that it truly is," if he makes it ring as true to Fitzgerald as this week's
Jane Eyre is ostensibly to Bronte, it would have to be, amazingly, for
it showing Gatsby's fatal flaw being his inability to appreciate the
empty life, out of preference for the deep and meaningful. Daisy has
no soul, but is a full of hints, and is a considerable flirt -- which in this
text makes her kind of awesome, actually, though to very few, I think,
even but a year or two outside the heyday of capitalist fun and within
a depression's deflating, cowing check.
1113
know, the nature of desire. You want it until you have it,
then you don't want it anymore. That's the engine of
american culture (or maybe all culture, but ours with extra
horsepower.)
I understand that a thinker trying to reconcile his own
narcissism and celebration of protean, shifting identities has
to try to find the fun in the nihilism-- but this is the very
reason why I say it is unfair to "correct" Fitzgerald in this
way-- his was a moral tale.
Don't make it into po-mo "aesthetic celebratory" non-sense.
To confuse the exhaustive decadence as being ambivalently
approached by the text is only as accurate as saying the
garden of eden story is about how tempting that fruit looks.
Tempting is tempting.
Tom is brutal because he can be. Because he is rich, and he
can retreat into the comfortable emptiness of lavish things
and his detached wealthy "c'est la vie" sigh.
The 20's decadence preceded the Great Depression for a
reason, just as the vast "do as you will" culture of "lifestyle
commodity" preceded our current situation (and we are
indeed still pre-depression: I assure you, you will know
when we're there for the blackouts and the gunshots out in
the hungry night.)
A properly understood Gatsby film translation is highly
necessary art at this time. Nick is saved by what he sees, and
an audience might be similarly affected (inasmuch as a piece
of media can redeem it's own alienating affect.)
"There are no second acts in American lives" is not meant to
be a condoning of how great the first act was. (Jack Knive)
If Gatsby is as you say it is, entirely a moral tale that shows up the
emptiness of 20's youth culture, their lives of glitter, New York!, and
endless flirting, rather than itself a contributor to and an evocation of
it, it's hard to see why the book, which came out smack middle of the
go-go 20s (and was commenced in 1922, I believe), would have been
1114
1115
1116
1117
And yes, you can side with the decadence and see Fitzgerald
as flawed for seeking "more." I think that's perfectly fair. But
then, I side with Francis.
It's called the lost generation for a reason. But clearly, you
are lost, so you interpret the exploration of being lost as an
exhortation and celebration of that meaningless series of
fragmented trajectories.
His construction of the novel was in and of itself an event to
win the poisonous psychotic Zelda. And, as Hemingway
pointed out to him over and over again-- he was a writer
who couldn't let go of the pain of never being able to truly
touch some ineffable, essential perfection.
"We are all bitched from the start and you especially have to
be hurt like hell before you can write seriously. But when you
get the damned hurt use itdon't cheat with it. Be as faithful
to it as a scientist." Ernest Hemingway, 1934 letter to F.
Scott Fitzgerald
Does this seem like something an intimate would write to a
glitz and glamour celebrating dilettante?
I admire your instance on the attempt to find a
phenomenological value system. I admire it the same way I
admire the beating heart behind "Jay Gatsby's" artificiality
and "James Gatz's" attempt to make his narcissistic facade a
reality.
The beauty of failure is exquisite.
The text clearly indicates that this course is tragic. But I see
that frightens you.
Just as I am frightened by the gals from Sex and the City.
This is where I'd put a smiley face emoticon.
To be fair, I need to lighten up. So did Ernest and F. Scott.
But you could get a little heavier, stranger.
Let's hope Baz thinks about it at least this hard.
Truly, this dialogue gives me hope that the struggle to tackle
the dynamic between the glitz and the emptiness could be
1118
1119
1120
and not even a tower of Great Artists is going to be much able to get
through to them: theyre just going to have to more or less sit this one
out, and wait for a better audience.
Link: Coke Adds Life Just Not to Take Me Home Tonight
(Movieline)
Posted by Patrick McEvoy-Halston at 12:47 PM 0 comments Links to
this post
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Google Buzz
0
Labels: art, autism, big brother, stanley greenspan, take me home
tonight
1121
1122
1123
----------
1124
Lloyd. Your current posts would not make it past your own
1999 - 2005 filter for *others'* posts. (Rachel Stoltenberg)
----Rachel: Did you see the ABC News report on Chinese
children now all learning English from the beginning of their
schooling? It was very detailed, had lots of schools
reporting, gave statistical evidence that was convincing.
Your doubt below is unvalidated. Can yougive evidence the
ABC News report was wrong?
Lloyd (Lloyd DeMause)
----Lloyd!
"Rachel: Did you see the ABC News report on Chinese
children now all learning English from the beginning of their
schooling? It was very detailed, had lots of schools
reporting, gave statistical evidence that was convincing.
Your doubt below is unvalidated. Can you give evidence the
ABC News report was wrong?"
Lloyd, for me the concern would be that you tend to make America
seem "bad," fully worthy of the downfall it seems intent on willing on
1125
for itself. The rest of the United Nations Europe, whose social
improvements you frequently delineate for us, mostly, but also now
not-so-long-ago, absolute-progress-stopping, foot-binding China (are
you for memory, or not?; or is it that you would just have us put aside
or showcase as suits the momentum of your current inclinations?)
are by contrast mostly made to seem sane and civil. You kinda get the
sense that you're mostly concerned these days, through the like of
flattery and appropriately directed scorn, to count yourself amongst
the few deserving Americans around still able to appreciate the
maturity of the international community, and who maybe won't be
suffering from what their peers' folly has earned for themselves. The
feeling is that you're shirking most of the rest of us off, to count
yourself amongst the bland but safe. Lloyd the revolutionist is at the
end neutering himself to seem as prosaic as denatured,
internationalist Obama.
Patrick
----Patrick wrote the following: "The > feeling is that you're
shirking
most of the rest of us off..."
1126
to say
to that.
Florian (Florian Galler)
----Patrick: You cannot tell what my views are when you have
never
subscribed to my Journal
and read my articles. You just endlessly attack me on
realpsychohistory for unstated crimes.
Lloyd (Lloyd DeMause)
----Not so, Florian. With posts like this he is showing he is talking
directly to (and counting himself amongst) civilized but a bit dull
people, while bleeding into the background those who've encountered
all he's done before who he knows would instantly recognize / sense
his going simple (we may be sane and unpredictable, but he's quickly
judged, probably not of most consequence). (And there is a sense that
he's not even so much talking to any of us as he is to someone beyond
who would approve of all he is saying, of the clear deference [to Her]
he is with his words communicating.) He is making himself more
boring and certainly more "in-line" than he actually is, as Pauline
Kael used to remark about fellow critics, feeling inclined to turn
traitor, I'm sensing, on people who represent the striving and
accomplishing Lloyd he could never quite convince himself would
ever find safety from retributive attack.
This long story of prosperity is terminating in a colossal way. We
know who's coming, know it's payback time, and his inclination is to
skip as fast as he can to the side to get out of the way. There is always
a ball in play here, and sometimes its still drawing us to stretch out,
participate, and still grow, but you do get a weird sense that the
pleasure derived whenever it is made part of an interesting game, also
1127
derives from it outing into firm remembrance and therefore later sure
punishment, who exactly it tempted to not only take but run with it.
----And just a reminder, guys. When the next purity crusade is on us, an
era in absolute obeisance to the sacrifice / punishment-desiring
maternal alter, it will not come about in any form that would tip its
hat to its true nature it cannot, cannot, cannot make the liberal,
well-behaving, civilized amongst us feel anyway GUILTY. That is, it
will not be (for example) anti-Semitic (the exact last thing it will in
fact be), anti-black, against homosexuals, anti-woman or aggressively
for the alpha male, for banning ALL alcohol, not Green, anything
really Bush / Cheney, previous prohibition-looking in origin. It will
come across as eminently sensible, reasonable, evolved, moderate,
adult. Therefore it will be FOR education reform, digitization and
access, for making America once again ahead of nations (like China,
that now shame us) it was once so far ahead of before (as the story
goes) individualism and greed became the cancer that destroyed its
host, for reform /re-invigoration of industry, manufacturing,
transportation the muscle fiber of the nation for making it clean,
green, ordered, interconnected and finally vigorous again. It will be
done multiculturally, through colors of every hue, operating in a
preferred environment of cooperation, sanity, and mature decorum.
Expect the United Nations to cheer it on. And all of this will be done
to the overall effect of mounting more and more numbers to the
increasingly DESERVING suffering, to the inhibition of freedom, to
strangling what is actually good about America, though all the time its
loudest proponents will actually come from the (regressing members
of) Left.
That is, if you want to make psychohistory another means to serve
Mother, you will be offered many things by the Obama administration
that will look so very supportable but that actually work against what
is real in psychohistory. Obama can be made to seem the only option
1128
against the Tea Party nation, and therefore a bulwark that MUST BE
supported to the psychological health, to the evolutionary progress, of
the nation even if it this means the quieting-down / suppression,
the stigmatizing of other (dissonant) liberal voices, which ostensibly
now serve to weaken what must only now be supported but, thank
god, there are little demons and goblins all the way through (the likes
of) Lloyd's "Emotional Life of Nations" that will be mocking you along
the way for your ultimate capitulation to the voice you've spent a
lifetime trying to steady yourself to no longer heed. I hope that if I
keep pointing these irritants out, we'll at some point have feel the
need to either address what is evidently moving us to cooperate with
the so readily offered "easy outs" in discussion, and not stay true to
what is still everywhere and obvious in "the text," or find some way to
ostensibly guilt-free "burn the book," and in our moment of instant
never-the-less-unavoidable what have I done!, self-recogize and reorient, and thereby finally once again start up our goal to keep some
hope alive through a clear-eyed look at historical motivations.
Link: Learning (Realpsychohistory)
Link: Emotional Life of Nations
1129
1130
1131
in such like even gay men being impulse-drawn to pull back from men
in a kiss, out of fear of the corporate whip and broad mainstream'
disapproval. Overt, blatant disapproval for homosexuality may come
-- though I don't think it will -- but in my judgment we're going to get
a lot more of the likes of the end of "don't tell" before we come to
understand that the significant turn against homosexuals actually
began with those quite willing to end it. Obama represents the
mainstream, not the Tea Partiers: when publically-wished-for
oppression comes, it'll make itself seem holy out of its distinct
difference to what the Tea Party would expect done.
Maybe some help Movieline: instances of man-on-man kissing a few
years ago with what we're seeing (or failing to see) today? Or perhaps,
kinds of kisses -- has it maybe actually through time still increased
but moved from ravenous tongue-on-tongue to more "polite" lip-onlip?
Link: Bruce Cohen is a Liar: Gay Oscar Producers Wiki Bio Attacked
Over Censored Kiss (Movieline)
----------
1132
1133
----------
1134
You'll note a couple of changes in this latest work from what he's
written before. After a quick first read, these two stand out:
Current:
Kennedy soon needed a new war to consolidate his defensive
masculinity pose, increased the U.S. military spending the
largest amount in any peacetime, and then committed
16,300 U.S. soldiers to Vietnam. When he went to Dallas,
where there were many highly publicized death threats to
kill him, he needed still more toughness, and told his wife,
Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with
a rifle, nobody can stop it. His Secret Service aides told him
he better put up the bulletproof plastic top on his limousine,
so he specifically told them not to do so, committing suicide
to demonstrate his hypermasculinity. (Global Wars to
Restore U.S. Masculinity)
Here, Kennedy is hypermasculine, even in suicide demonstrating his
toughness.
Before:
Despite all the warnings, however, Kennedy unconsciously
accepted the martyr's role. He was, after all, used to doing
all his life what others wanted him to do. So although a
Secret Service man told him the city was so dangerous that
he had better put up the bulletproof plastic top on his
limousine, he specifically told him not to do so. In fact,
someone instructed the Secret Service not to be present
ahead of time in Dallas and check out open windows such as
those in the Book Depository, as they normally did whenever
a president traveled in public as Kennedy did. Only then,
with the nation, the assassin, the Secret Service and the
president all in agreement, the assassination could be
1135
1136
foundations while reckless America has so lost all that was once great
about it to be now fairly just identified as a base, resource-depleted
nation. That is, it's easy to not look at America too clearly, if your
efforts are to show how you now too are for the long slog, the less
flashy, but also the less selfish and more community-building: in
sympathy with the kind of mindset that dominated the communal,
purity-concerned, "simple but grounded" 1930s crowd.
My own guess is that the very highest psychoclass are still in the
States, and that Sweden's best to some extent flourish because they
bow, masochistically, before nation-before-self "philosophy," which
earns them tolerance for a more enabling state apparatus.
--------I will add to this a note about "hypermasculine" language, something
Lloyd talks about a lot in this chapter.
I would ask anyone who is on the lookout for tough-talk so as to ID
groups or leaders as regressive to be somewhat careful, because if
you're not empowered, if you're amongst the groups that are being
heavily discriminated against, though possibly your language use
might remain the same, very likely you'll start talking tougher. You're
not actually hypermasculine, driven mostly by your innate rage, but
as you are being pressed upon to the point that you sense that some
people are trying to completely lay waste to you, your language will
start seeming as if composed of an alphabet of missiles while your
confidently empowered opponents -- representatives of the Great
Maternal, who they know has surely got their back -- will have an
easier time seeming moderate, patient, more-than-fair, and perhaps
even laid-back considering, and finally, reasonable, and grossly
affronted by your unruly conduct. This advantage wouldn't make
someone like Johnson become less hyper-masculine in style, but it
will probably assist Obama in remaining so. In sum, be careful: when
regressives are getting their time, and by regressives I'm not thinking
so much tea-partiers as I am the regressing center, the regressing left
-- the Obama-loyal -- part of what'll assure them of their rightness is
how calm and reasoning they remain while their opponents flap about
1137
1138
----------
1139
to-country crowd just plain right, and those who aren't quite prepared
to cowtow to what's ordained -- specifically, King George, in planning
to marry out of love, and in cutting down ancient trees (being old
doesn't make you grand, it just makes you old) just for a better view!,
the worse than Fredos of the family. You wanted "Avatar's" Grace to
do more chain-smoking; I'd have preferred George -- the one, we
remember, who turned down the to-Bertie acceptable idea of having a
kept mistress in preference to being allowed the company of a wife he
actually loves -- be given more a chance to extrapolate on the flaws of
be-be-be-be-Bertie's positively medieval sense of women,
commoners, loyalty, and subjugation. I'm not sure what kind of brows
I've got, but be sure they're both frowning away.
----Re: "In a world more perfect than the one we live in, my favorite
movie of the year, Sofia Coppolas extraordinary, steel-rod-delicate
Somewhere would be on this list. Its not a movie about a rich,
spoiled, Why should we care about him? movie star; its a story
about a human being whos lost his way."
My particular complaint about Social Network isn't that it would have
us care about someone rich and "spoiled" -- I am very interested in
knowing about and caring more for Zuckerberg; he most certainly IS
worthy -- it's what it suggests for those not either just moved along by
genteel lineage or blessed with a genius to seize the zeitgeist of the
time: people like Harvard-insufficient Erica Albright, blessed it would
have appeared with some innate goodness and keen intuition, but
without anything that would surely keep her in the game, whom you
have a sense is given some chance to say something real, wounding,
and sticking because its her last words before he finds himself a
societal fixture and she is dispatched to irrevocable irrelevance.
Seemed appropriate that Sorkin betray even this to a class of people
he would see dispatched entire, as he further stomped her out (at the
Golden Globes, I believe) in establishing Zuckerberg a true
benefactor, not the asshole she had prophesized he was doomed to
1140
become. Way to go, Aaron! For your fealty, let us anoint thee also.
Link: Stephanie Zachareks Oscar Picks: Middlebrow Schmiddlebrow
(Movieline)
1141
1142
being the wild one -- and most of you blessed discerning, haven't -you really only need revisit him now and again out of friendship, to
say thank you. He's set, in a fairly good place, but further progress lies
with you.
...
This film, though, does deserve to be in the "great movies we however
rightly mock" category, however. A service is done, by pointing out
the numerous things in this film that really are problematic, that if
viewers weren't onto, they're not a sufficient number of steps away
from stupid.
Most central for me is that it helps keep the truly ignorant and stalled
feeling smugly enlightened. If YOU know who Freud or Monet is, this
knowledge doesn't mean you're in the same position as Rose
ostensibly is: she is supposed to be an early appreciater of the New,
possess sufficient sense of independent judgment that she is on to
quality from the start, while as someone alive now your knowledge of
these folks only means you're in the same position the Edwardian
mundanes were when they'd long accustomed themselves to once
rabble-rousers, now ho-hums, such as Darwin or Dickens. That is,
your being onto Freud or Monet could easily mean that you're really
just the prosaic Cal, who actually has no appreciation for new genius,
not the avant-garde Rose -- and given how the not-especiallyinspiring mass went for it, probably does. The question you fairly ask
yourself as you remember those who found such meaning in "Titanic"
(including yourself, if you, like me, are one of them) is how many of
them could pass over the film's knuckleheadedness out of fair faith to
its mighty spirit, and remain those of praise-worthy, TRULY
sophisticated taste? It's a question which would have you juggling
around greats like Ebert and Zacharek, ultimately deciding to let one
or the other -- or even both -- "fall."
Knuckle-headedness isn't always damning, though. Sophistication
isn't always a sign of elevation. The '60s generation were not
sophisticated, and its elders constantly hoped to blast them back into
supplicants for their untutoredness, their lack of refinement, their
1143
"stupid" discare for how things had been and "really were," but were
spiritually evolved and Good. Late 20th/early 21st-century products
like Franzen and Martel are hugely sophisticated, smart, aware, but
maybe in the end mostly deferent and perhaps defeated and warped
-- not so good.
Link: Bad Movies We Love, Oscar Week Edition: Titanic (Movieline)
---------SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2011
Knifing the f*cker back in return
Seeing two 3-D movies in a row is pretty much my idea of
torture, and a colleague and I came very close to decamping
to see The Touch (with my beloved Elliot Gould), which is
being shown as part of the festivals Ingmar Bergman
retrospective. In the end, persuaded by a few enthusiastic
colleagues, we with much eye-rolling and many
deprecating remarks opted to check out Wim Wenders
Pina. Im glad we did.
[.]
1144
Your friend Laura Miller (kinda) wrote recently that precise prose and
careful delineations are also tiring to the eyes and mind -- slows down
reading speed, sometimes to a crawl, when you know you've got a
whole book ahead: I'm wondering if some people have to prepare for
your reviews akin to how you did this double-feature: in this case,
with a bit of "Oh God, another load of particulars and careful
delineations about some film I have no sense of!," to gird for
themselves some countering camaraderie within the melee of
stimulation they may soon be treated to? I'll wait 'til I've seen what
you've seen to make reading your review more an immediate
experience of compare and contrast -- "look, sister, I take your point,
but this is what you didn't see --." For now it's the realitypossibilities ... like is it true that what is jarring can also be
compelling? You seem sure of it, for how else last time would "the
land look menacing and alluring at once?" Mind you, "menacing"
already has something of the alluring within it -- you're wantedenough to be wholly devoured; "compelling" here is a smart wink, and
a hinted-at better path ahead, after having had a door slammed in
your face: it's harder to see how you'd ever after let yourself just be
drawn along, when all the time you're surely mostly thinking how you
can knife the f*cker back in return.
Link: Berlinale Dispatch: Wim Wenders Takes His Place in the 3-D
1145
Vanguard (Movieline)
Link: Why We Love Bad Writing (Laura Miller, Salon)
----------
1146
1147
smart stay out of theatres: once we agree to go, we're not really
agreeing to participate, but following into the Depression' factorymode like everybody else. The '60s generation was once told by its
elders that they needed to learn the language to have a real voice; they
responded -- smartly -- instead by attempting to levitate parliament
buildings through love.
I prefer their theatre, but maybe their descendants -- us -- are
showing in our own way that we're onto the same truth: participate as
directed, and they've got you. We'll let some time pass; let the
stupidity follow and take root; and take advantage of stopping
surprise and dumbfounding bafflement to hit them with a Citizen
Kane at some point, and stay more in the game after that.
Link: Only You Can Save Movies, and 7 Other Stories Youll Be
Talking About Today (Movieline)
---------WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011
Grabbing hold
Filmmaker, writer, performance artist, what-have-you
Miranda July ambled onto the scene in 2005 with her
debut film, Me and You and Everyone We Know, which
became a surprise arthouse sort-of smash. Since then,
July has published a book of short stories, created art
projects for the Venice Biennale, and put together a
performance piece. Shes working hard at becoming the
Woody Allen of the Meh Generation, and shes getting
closer, and not for the better, with her new picture The
Future, which premiered at Sundance and is one of the
competition films at the Berlinale.
In The Future, a youngish couple (theyre in their mid-
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
witness the portrayal of King Edward VIII, and his life of you:
indifference, me: self-concern. Or perhaps more accurately, what you
get mostly is, "what would it be like to sit on a solid gold throne for
hours on end?"--"F*cking painful!" "How the hell did you do it?"
The film argues that the reason the good king deserves all this
attention, to have every resource tried to assist him, is because there
is something royal kindling in him that is absent in most of you. God
may or may not see something more valuable in him, but we certainly
do. When we need uplift, some erection of solid nobility nobody else
can put forth -- for spending most of our lives in rendering,
distracting domestic sociability -- he still has the resources to deliver
-- given, perhaps, just the right sort of guidance.
This is still an awful, very undemocratic message. Very disparaging to
the constant, casual sociability ultimately responsible for the king's
sure speech delivery. Very disparaging to the Deweyite message the
therapist for much of the film (but maybe not, ultimately) embodies.
But I don't think it's mostly fought off by responses like this one, that
out of its ravaged spirit, its skittering, wayward progress, conveys
mostly a longing to be saved, as if the complaining masses have
already leveled everything down for so long that the energy that
excites their purpose now is covertly mostly a managed hand out for a
rescue.
This reviewer had better not be an Obama fan. If he is, he is beyond
laughable.
1153
But the film is maybe not so much FOR the average man who has this
problem, concerned as it is for giving "them" the one and only dose of
support, before launching them off to unrelenting even-worse
deprival. Yes, once they're all either half-downed in combat or shellshocked from bombing or winnowed spiritless from endless
endurance, the film would have it that they receive receptive tendingto for their ailments -- if the world were just. Without that, if you
already have the look and carriage of a pathetic Tiny Tim, it's for you
as well, just as automatically as it is for the king. But if you ultimately
romance and legitimate the suffering part, the overcoming should
seem suspect. I know it's not clear-cut with this film, but it's certainly
not uncontestedly against the ridiculous tortures people have endured
for no actual purpose: no film that is actually for war, for
ennoblement through collective, shared sacrifice, is against all that.
Every aesthete in the world should tell this film to go scr*w itself. To
right its wrongs -- for one thing -- for what it did to Edward VIII.
Link: Will This Awesome Kings Speech Takedown Rock Oscar Race?
(Movieline)
----------
1154
1155
1156
can upload and download data --memories -- at sites like the one you
destroyed.
SELFRIDGE: What the hell have you people been smoking out
there? They're just. Goddamn. Trees.
1157
1158
1159
1160
I agree. Hailee should have been nominated for best actress, best
movie, or not at all. The lesson in the film is that a smart, headstrong, civilized girl can make most of the wild have to be at their
best to not already seem akin to a tamed wild-west show. Rooster has
1161
his (touching) wild ride, Laboeuf gets his miraculous shot, but there's
a sense that her only equal was Ned, the compelling leader of the
congress of louts. The gun recoil and the snake terror ease her into an
easing, more capitulated form, and leaves Rooster alone to
demonstrate his experience, endurance, and drivenness, but had she
been a couple years older, we would have been left without all that,
and it would have simply been: "THIS is all you can conjure ..." As is,
the night-conjured wild stars reign supreme, and clear the deck.
I'd like to have seen Damon nominated for best supporting. He's like
Wilbur proving he's really quite the pig after all, and it made me
cheer!
Link: Your Favorite was Robbed: The 6 Biggest Oscar Snubs
(Movieline)
---------Who'd want to be just a horse?
Kutcher and Portman play Adam and Emma, two young
people making their way in Los Angeles with varying
degrees of success: Emma an overachiever who admits
that shes not particularly emotional or affectionate is a
doctor; Adam irrepressibly warm and affable, if a bit
goofy works as an assistant on a weekly teen-musical
show, though he really wants to be a writer. Adam and
Emma met years earlier, as kids at summer camp the
movie opens with that flashback, in which young Adam
(played by Dylan Hayes) fires the first of the movies
sexually explicit salvos when he asks Emma bluntly, Can I
finger you?
[. . .]
Adam agrees, though of course we know that since hes just a
big mushbug, hell be the one to cave in first. And sure
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
It's there at the beginning, Citizen Bitch, but yes, I think "Forrest
Gump" is one of those works of art that if you are too much concerned
to explain why you like it, were/are affected/moved by it, you're
stained for life. Just to mind as another example, is when some Salon
writer a number of years ago "explained" why she had once fallen for
Piers Anthony's Xanth series: you ended up more aware of the series'
"ridiculousness" than its (what remain, thanks to "you")
OSTENSIBLE virtues, and you had the sense the writer had braved as
much as she was able, mostly in admitting to having liked the series
before company she'd normally expect to pull away from her after
that: her chore thereafter was to look to have pulled off the feat, but
also to have made clear that NO ONE would more shun -- or maybe
stomp and kill! -- the fiend who went a smidgen further than she was
1167
1168
----------
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
I hear your point, but to me, people get the economy they actually
want. If they truly feel they deserve (have earned), if they truly want,
happiness, you get the like of the 30 years of on and on growth that
was 1950 to 1980. Nothing could put a stop to it, not corporations,
late capitalism -- run-amock, widespread greed -- terrestrial limits,
Celestial scorn, ancestors-all-in-disapproval -- nothing. However, if
what they want is to be "Americans simply struggling with being
poorer than they'd like to be," to be some (idiotic) generation that
renewed all the "ennobling," "necessary" sacrifices their grandparents
were stupefied (and stupided) by, who could believe themselves truly
desiring of better ONLY given there being little chance any such
would befall them, then nothing could stop it either. If aliens landed
on the earth right now and forced endless bunches of riches into
everyone's pockets, we're very near the point where we spoiled
Americans would monk and monastery ourselves before the
abundance. If they took that refuge away, and forced us forever into
5-star accommodations, then we'd deem virtual reality the "truer"
one, and absolutely refuse to forego the Xbox so we could reify (yes,
maybe even the likes of snobbish "I don't own a TV" critics) the likes
of "Fallout 3" until the even-more-appropriate "Penance 2morrow"
could be made. If they took that away, then we'd slowly go insane,
depriving, UGLIFYING ourselves near to the point of hacking off our
own limbs -- even if that 5 star-occupying, top-of-the-line refrigerator
1175
1176
change. Many times it just cuts off the head of one beast and
replaces it with another more or less terrible entity.
But when things have gone as far as they can go, and things
have gotten as bad as they can get> Is it worth the risk?
Gandhi once said, "10,0000 Englishmen simply cannot
control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to
cooperate."
This has become us and our corporate masters.
Question is> What are you going to do? (Sunnydaze)
I disagree. When people are mad as hell and not going to take it
anymore!, they do the likes of chopping off leaders' heads -- along
with those of anyone even remotely connected to them, until numbers
pile up beyond number, and even your best friend begins to seem
suspicious. Only AFTER bodies of both sides lie everywhere, now so
much seeming more born of the same purpose than foes of opposite
stripe, only AFTER people have begun to forget the point of it all but
still gauge that surely some awful blood price has more than fully
been repaid, does society move ahead -- rock and roll, flower power,
and even soldier mockery. Revolutionaries mostly want to sacrifice
themselves, along with you too, more than probably. Never readily
trust them, or their grievances -- they'd be shortchanged if their foes
ever agreed to an agreeable compromise, and / or offered fair redress:
almost always, that's not what they want. (There are exceptions ... I'd
trust Krugman, for instance.) Society doesn't so much grow when
people are prepared to fight hard for their fair lot; it actually mostly
grows when people feel permitted to partake in and enjoy the rather
ample lot that looks like it might be opening up for them -- even if it
really doesn't end up requiring much of a fight. Their enemies could
in fact step aside; amplitude, really just theirs for the ready-taking;
and yet they'd manage even being somewhat truly pleased it proved
all so all-so-easily-guilt-arousingly easy -- they're in mind to relax,
and enjoy themselves some while, not to fight to salvage what is at
1177
least necessary for human dignity, from bastards who couldn't care
less how much they've suffered, only that they yet try and shave,
shower every now and then, serve, but otherwise be done with.
Link: The Company Men Offers a Rare Portrait of the Working and
the Nonworking World (Movieline)
----------
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
At one point you mentioned that no thing was guaranteed (to last, to
remain), and were okay with that, and Siva responded that he hoped
university could be, that is must be. I sided with Siva here a bit. I
1184
think youve got a high self-esteem, and it is this that makes it so that
for you now the disappearance of ostensible societal necessities
wiki or what-not neednt automatically register as if your safety
blanket was suddenly lost to you. Youre more like, well, okay,
something substantial did just go down -- but is it possible that what
remains and is now better exposed to view, is actually better? And if
it is, youre glad the older, more primitive form is lost, and get to
making the more mature and evolved forms reach their potential
ends. And if it isnt, you point out the current flaws, and get back
what was wrongly disposed of. Youre fair, appropriately excited by
what could and should be, and just as appropriately impatient with
the mediocre and insufficient in its loud fight to on-and-on-and-on
still-prosper. But most people dont strike me as healthy as you are,
as secure as you are, and actually need some secure place that can
withstand their own storms as well as outside ones some
Hogwarts to exist, for them to have some chance of not becoming
mostly survivalist, feral, truly lost incapable of doing much
interesting with sophisticated technology, open acess, not out of
unfamiliarity, or from being priced out, but because they havent at
any time in their lives known the lengthy period of guaranteed
support that enables everything else worthwhile (including openness
to risk, to loss) to develop. Even if they dont make it to university,
have no plans thereof, they intuit and are to some extent buoyed by
the overall nurturing, good character of a society, if it is pronounced
in its fight to erect and support institutions (government,
universities) primarily UNDERSTOOD as for, well, guarantees,
respite, fellowship and support.
For you its something stodgy, elitist, and inhibiting being rightly
challenged by what is vital, most democratic, and promising. But for
most of the public my guess is that this conversation will be about
whether it wants to eliminate the good parent Dumbledore (the
university) for an environment that leaves more and more children
unsheltered, exposed to errant mischance (the free market, as it
understands it now), with less of a chance of any child
1185
1186
Juiced?
1187
I'm quite sure that every nation that went to war has examples of such
men. They were all -- Americans, Germans, Brits, Italians, Egyptians,
Russians, Japanese -- I suppose, members of the greatest generation.
But one has to wonder who it was who brought about this ready
heroism-enabling, life-destroying war about in the first place? Sure,
they fought off some sharks, but for collectively seeing the necessity of
wasting away millions of lives, maybe an asterisk beside their
extraordinary tales of heroic perseverance?
Remember Goldhagen ("Hitlers willing executioners") -- it's not
(just) the leaders: it's (primarily) the people, what they want.
Patrick
You would have preferred the alternative to the fight.
You would have been a Loyalist 235 years ago in the name of
peace. On yur knees MFer. You would have preferred allowing
the South to secede, splitting the Union and continuing their
slave industry in the name of peace. You would have stood
aside 68 years ago railing against the French Resistance as
violent extremists. You're pathetic. (oda7103sf)
oda
The Greatest Generation was a generation that got heroism, but out of
war. That's sick. They were sick. With this tale, near makes me root
for the sharks ... and I hate sharks.
-----
Can the same person "care for the soul," who would hack
their arm off to survive? Or is this just the province of the
beastial?
1188
It is true that what you've given here is what you denied in your antiNational Novel Writing Month post. A whole generation is worthy for
their mostly anonymous replication of the kind of marathon
struggling people like this dude demonstrated. Some of these very
same people who forced their way to 50 000 words in a month, might
just in the future be the ones to marshal their way through a
war/depression-induced hell of obstacles. (I couldn't do 50 000 in a
month, and you're not going to remember me for hacking off my arm
to save my life, either.) Given the power of your previous impress, you
come pretty close to implicitly making war into the missing backdrop.
(i.e. Their mistake is not that they would as a horde show fantastic
perseverance at the cost of discretion and care, of denying themselves
the ripened ability to enjoy other people's artistic talents, but that
they are doing as much outside of a context which would instantly
awe all outsiders to their exhausting performance.)
How about try instead, a whole generation left the experimental,
original (19) 20s for depression and war ravishment. When you take
any two who used to converse profitably but fall into squabble, there
may still be something exciting in their coming to and lasting through
blows, but boy does it pale compared to what they had going before
they broke down into squabbling and self-cover. I don't really want to
hear about those who survived or heroiced their way through bleak
striving: there must be something savage in them for them to
accustom themselves so readily to that much bleakness; and it's an
insult to those who might shrivel up some then, but who naturally
blossom when people SHOULD naturally do so -- when the
atmosphere is allowing, patient, gentle, kind.
Link: Unbroken, Seabiscui authors latest triumph (Salon)
----------
Kindness
1189
1190
fast if not faster than [Olympic sprinter] Usain Bolt. And the
reason why is that they did it from a very early age. The Greek
trireme rowers could do feats that can't be duplicated by
modern rowers. Greece was a very tough country to make a
living in. Everybody walked everywhere. The people lived as
shepherds, it was a very rough existence. Our bones are about
40 percent less mass than the bones of Homo erectus, but
genetically ours are not that different. It's just that we don't
get put under that kind of pressure. Arm bones of tennis
players, for example, are almost as thick as those of Homo
erectus.
There are some interesting statistics there about how hard
people could work during the Industrial Revolution -- these
rather small, malnourished men were able to wield these
incredibly heavy sledgehammers all day, and the same
phenomenon still applies to Nepalese hill porters. These little
guys of about 55 kilos carry 90 kilo weights for about 75 miles
over a period of days. It doesn't seem to have any
degenerative effects on them as well.
[. . .]
There's been this movement all through history. The dandies,
the macaronis and other feminized males were popular
during times of great assurance, when England ruled the
waves. That people want those stronger, more masculine
figures in times of crisis makes sense to me.
[. . .]
It says something about the substitution of pomp and show
for real manliness. There is an inherent male and female
attraction to muscularity -- it's an instinctual thing. Big
muscles are very, very sexually attractive. There's no doubt
1191
about that.
[. . .]
I've cited some studies of children of the Viking Berserkers [a
group of notorious Norse warriors known for their
aggression], and found that these are hyperviolent men and
actually did have more children than comparable warriors in
that society.
[. . .]
Nearly every group I've ever come across does it [i.e., hazing]
in some way, and the fact that the civilized, affluent West still
does it shows that it's, for want of a better word, a very
natural practice. One of the paradoxes is that this very violent,
abusive treatment actually serves to greatly heighten the need
of the initiate to belong to that group. It strips away their own
personal power and individuality, it makes them crave
belonging to the group and it makes them bond more tightly
to it. I'm not arguing, at all, in favor of hazing. I'm just
pointing out that it does seem to have a very strong resonance
within the heart of masculinity.
It seems to be a very deep, masculine thing. I think it relates
to human societies being so patrilineally based. And
incidentally, we could argue that's largely why there's malaise
among men these days, because we're naturally so geared to
being a part of a band of brothers. It seems to be a very deep,
inherent thing. At the moment, I'm in an area of Australia
called the Little Sandy Desert, and I'm dealing with Martu
aboriginal men. In about a month, they're going to round up
all the young men from all the settlements and they're going
to take them out to the bush and circumcise their penises.
Just a little way over they actually subincise them. (Peter
1192
1193
Shakespeare's 2 cents
"Let me have men about me that are fat; Sleek-headed [i.e.,
bald] men, and such as sleep o' nights. Yond Cassius has a
lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are
dangerous."
"Julius Caesar" (Act 1, Scene2) (austinboy, response to post)
*
This article is exhibit one.
What a dumb premise. How do we define fitness? Brawn?
Speed? Virility? Then why aren't the chimps running things?
And which ancestors? Paleolithic, neolithic? The romans?
From this perspective it's been nothing but downhill since the
1194
days that H. erectus was cock of the walk with their weakling
smartypants use of fire and refined toolmaking and cooked
food. (dogu44)
*
"The British archers at Agincourt could draw a longbow at
about 150 lbs with good accuracy. This is more than twice the
draw of modern longbows of about 60 lbs. The archers started
training as young boys."
This is true (though you may have overstated the draw weight
of those bows).
Yet, the English would eventually put aside the longbow in
favor of the musket, even though your average musketeer was
less deadly than your average longbowman (until rifled
cartridges became more available).
So why the change? Because musketeers were a more reliable
option. Lost longbowmen could take upwards of a year to
replace; musketeers a matter of weeks. This made armies that
utilized musketeers more effective, since losses could be
replaced much easier.
My point? Longbowmen may have been physically strong and
effective specialized troops, but technology (in this case,
muskets) made an average man the match of a highly trained
longbowman. Society doesn't need to count on large numbers
of men to be exceptionally strong or athletic, thanks to
technology. (moidalize)
*
Society's Development and Evolution
This article completely ignores the fact, as a society...we have
evolved to the point where intellectually man can develop
since he is no longer tasked with basic needs every day.
This specialization has allowed development since innovation
happens around those circumstances.
1195
Tough times
It could have been that our ancestors were not in fact stronger and
faster than we are, anthropologists could have uncovered that by 20
they were in fact so beat upon they had the constitutions of modernday 90 year olds, bones of brittle not hard metal, so long as we
concerned about perhaps lost virility no one who once ranged about
the plains, prepared to prey on or otherwise be preyed upon by beasts
and other men, can easily be apprehended by the brain as "weak." For
me, it doesn't do to show how those physically-softened but strong-
1196
in-mind are truly more potent, or to show how the flabby are more
predictable and less riseable -- and therefore actually better for the
overall health and maintenance (the sturdy constitution) of the
"commonwealth": our complaint must rest with those concerned to
make the "issue" about strength and weakness in the first place, for
such people are orienting / priming, setting parameters around a
debate which will leave no room for valuing things most valuable
about our finally becoming civilized.
Men don't become "strong" when, rather than abuse their boys
through the kinds of "hardening" rituals they themselves might have
been subject to, they instead seek to free them from all that trauma
and seek another way -- they grow kind, compassionate. When we
start finding extreme physical exertion a bit exhausting to watch /
experience, and hard to imagine anyone want doing / celebrating, we
haven't gone soft, but become a bit more mature in our tastes.
Chimps weren't our ancestors, but I would suggest that when we're in
the right frame of mind there's nothing about virile homo erectuses or
now-"redeemed" bone-hardened 4 ft- tall Victorian factory workers
that should draw us to agree to recognize much of a link with them
either. Our concern is how to make our world more kind and fun -not more virile or more fit. I know that the 18th-century liberal Brits
fended off their conservative "kin" by arguing that you could have as
much, a nation of shopkeepers, of fanciful fops, and still also the
strongest navy and most assured nation ever known, but this still
tipped the hat too much to those primitive-enough to still insist atbottom it has to be about meek and strong, meek and strong: as if to
move too far away from that, is to lose all that is most truly, assuredly,
human. Their fancy is okay, but BECAUSE it's proved itself just
another variant of the strong: the first stretches of a kind, welfare
state -- the 18th-century genteel were for animal rights, child-safety,
against slavery -- may have been defended by such thinking, but it
wasn't born out of it.
If we agree to this, to argue in terms of virility and strength, we are
agreeing to enter into a darker period of human existence: for no age
1197
1198
1199
Tweaking
You give those who complain about having to spend so much time
with unlikeable characters, quite the scolding. You sick an erudite
critic on them, and equate them all to Amazon-commenter slosh. I
admit to appreciating spending time with characters who show what
it is to live better than I currently now do. Some of this same desire is
expressed in the novel, toward the end (please forgive the small
cheat), when certain characters address why they seek Walter out
(though you probably thought these imperfect meanderers, just
adults, the mature turn-away from implausible mary janes). MY
desire for someone better, at least, was motivated FOR a desire for
moral / sympathetic education, something I thought I found less of in
this author's knowing descent than I might of if I spent more time
with someone who found means to be generous-hearted and open in
a world in dispirit / defeat, alongside an author / narrator (or authordirected narrator, if you prefer) who himself knows the innerdialogue of such people best for its matching his own. (Note: I do like
Franzen, though, just not as much as I like, say, Barbara Kingsolver,
who I just sense to be a grander, more beautiful human being.) Maybe
there are others out there amongst the complainers who aren't simply
interested in spending more time before their own mirrors? And let's
be fair: these people ARE (meant to be) us. Be sure, many of those
who think they see inferiors are just being given a taste of how an
intelligent, disinterested other could show them to actually be.
Franzen would meet them, ignore their petty judgments and see their
own Pattyness pretty plainly -- and this no doubt is part of Franzen's
1200
point, and perhaps, stern intent ("You are, you are, you are -- flawed
[with some upside]; you are how others see you, but also how others
made you to be.").
RE: "She's a literary character -- which means it's not
imperative that we take a moral stance on every single thing
she does. Literature is an experiment of the imagination,
and if we don't try to leave behind our contemporary
compulsion to pass judgment on everything and everyone
when we enter into that experiment, then we are the ones
who lose out."
I guess we see here more evidence of why you dumped hate on
"Reality Hunger" -- that is, his "Fiction these days is just clothed
biography; why not just go for the even realer stuff?, attend most
closely to those with enough self-trust to bypass the well-guarded
avenue to mostly hide?" In my judgment, if you experience a
character as not just believable, but real; if you experience reading a
novel as being proxy to, involved with, actual happenings -- i.e., it's
really real while you read it; you follow along because someone's
situation is so convincing it looks to delineate your own fate -- then
when someone thereafter spooks out at you for your
misapprehension, like Laura here does, consider that SHE may be the
one inherently in the wrong. What is happening here is as close to
real as Franzen could make it, arguably so that whatever moral
stances / considerations, disappointments and accomplishments it
encourages / delineates could also be applied to that oh-so-close
simulacrum to the read world we emerge from -- the real world -- so
that modest, deflating Franzen would be in the grand position to say,
"here's about where we are; here's what it is to be one moral point in
our seemingly played-out but actually still possibly -- thank god -- ex
potentia moral universe," and have others skip argument, discussion,
right to feeling their way to solutions / renewal. Some fiction IS really
just reality once more before us, with some tweaking, and with a
1201
1202
1203
Jason C
He knows we're looking for more, to open him up, so he answers
questions in such a way that HE remains tight and WE are likely to
feel as if we were less interested in answers than in satisfaction at his
expense ... even if we weren't (we're all flawed, don't you know -though much more flawed than our superb but self-effacing and
delightfully polished and restrained god, Obama. [Franzen knows
this, and so his flawed self still has one up on all of us.]). It's not an
interview, it's a moral lesson. The best you can get from him is a draw.
He'll offer an answer that can be readily argued as inarguably
complete and honest -- all what we said we were looking for -- but
feels deliberately cut-short and essentially withholding. And you can
drumbeat keep moving on through with your interview. The world is
made a better place.
1204
He doesn't read reviews ... One wonders how much of the current love
for Franzen (including Oprah's), is born out of our seeking abeyance
and approval by the cold and withholding? Even in his icyness, he's
probably just responding to our needs, and resents the hell out of us
for this.
Even in a frozen Franzenage, I'd still "take" Kingsolver. But not
without some power-ups -- his chill is everywhere, man!
Link: Reading Club interview: Jonathan Franzen answers your
questions (Salon)
---------SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2010
Provoking the dread
For me, the end of October is always slightly tinged with
dread -- provoked not by Halloween spooks, not even by
election season, but by the advent of something called
NaNoWriMo. If those syllables are nothing but babble to you,
then I salute you. They stand for National Novel Writing
Month.
[. . .]
The purpose of NaNoWriMo seems laudable enough. Above
all, it fosters the habit of writing every single day, the closest
thing to a universally prescribed strategy for eventually
producing a book. NaNoWriMo spurs aspiring authors to
conquer their inner critics and blow past blocks. Only by
producing really, really bad first drafts can many writers
move on to the practice that results in decent work: revision.
[. . .]
I am not the first person to point out that "writing a lot of
crap" doesn't sound like a particularly fruitful way to spend an
entire month, even if it is November. And from rumblings in
the Twitterverse, it's clear that NaNoWriMo winners
1205
1206
Valid complaint
Re: And from rumblings in the Twitterverse, it's clear that
NaNoWriMo winners frequently ignore official advice about the
importance of revision; editors and agents are already flinching in
anticipation of the slapdash manuscripts they'll shortly receive.
This to me is the problem. Potentially, if every child was born into a
challenging, nurturing, uber-literate environment (and what are we
as a species fighting for, if not that), we could have a whole
population efforting to write their first novel some November-on, and
they'd all smack of unmistakable promise -- and given the evidence of
such good work, we'd force ourselves beyond the appealing
workableness of the idea that there is never more than a near
curriculum-containing number of true artists out there, and get to
work figuring out how the most appropriate readers of a work do end
up finding that particular work from amongst the ridiculous treasurehorde of excess (if you only had twenty readers of your work, if they
were all Shelleys, Coleridges, or Alcotts, would you care?).
But since in actuality few do the editing, the refinement, the beingfair-to-their-own-material, to their own potential ability to articulate
best (or at least better) what they want to say, you do have the sense
that few amongst them actually are literate, really appreciate what
literacy has to offer you OVER dopamine-rush excitements in
whatever form -- whether hurried novel-writing, or losing some two
hundred pounds of fat (and gaining a taut mind that thereafter only
thinks of muscle) to urgent use of the treadmill -- and I think it is fair
game here for Laura to insist on their trying-out a measured bit of
library book light-lifting instead.
Too bad, though, because there is a more interesting conversation to
be had here, one that would challenge literate writers to appreciate
that given all that they now tend to do when they edit, they might be
at the point where their work would benefit more than it loses from
being loosed out of grasp before the second-glance can reconvene and
reconsider.
1207
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston
You work that superior dance, church lady.
How do you survive existing among such lesser beings?
softdog
@softdog
Re: "You work that superior dance, church lady.
How do you survive existing among such lesser beings?"
After our conversation / essential agreement on "Almost Famous,"
my sense was we were more the same than different. Still, I included
way too many "works" in my first post, and am too humble-feeling
now to orient on your most-any-other-time fair question.
This is a harder issue to just agree on than you might think, though.
Unlike Laura, I find what we get most of from our "best" writers is
agreeable, well-written work, that should still ultimately launch us
into tirades out of it being at bottom too nice, too safe, too much in
accord, too much of what literature is not supposed to be about, but
doesn't because we have enough sense of our current fragility, that
there are, unfortunately, possibilities out there whose consideration
we know would rock us silly, to go anywhere near broaching the issue.
So I think it is convenient for these writers, or for literate reviewers
like Laura, that there are maybe no massings out there right now (for
me, Stewart and Colbert included) properly identified as both
populist AND sane, because the truth of this fact is so informed by
generous lending-to and earnest experience of, that almost any
counter is too accurately sized up as ignorant or gross-appetiteinhibition born to do anything but the preferred: abate self-doubts,
and root current preferences more trenchedly in place.
Right now at least, I do not trust earnest, mass efforts. It is the
aristocratic "take," and such can be cruelly intended and completely
misinformed, but right now individualism, a fully-formed personality,
1208
1209
@Xrandadu Hutman
Re: "Serious question: How do you know the ratio of people
who are self-critical and realistic to those who are selfcongratulatory and delusional?"
Okay. Honestly. Laura's comment that few in fact do the editing that
they all ostensibly agree is required, is a big tip-off. Also, I don't
believe we are going through a time when any collective effort that
would principally appeal to the self-critical and realistic, is going to
reach mass form. Franzen frowned on Oprah, for good reason; she is
still too much sensation. As mentioned in my post to softdog, I am
thinking of Stewart and Colbert's massing-for-sanity as well.
Re: "A regimented writing exercise might be many things,
but a generator of dopamine-rush excitement is not one of
them. Writing eight pages of text per day, even lousy text,
still requires a degree of patience, focus and frustration.
The way you describe it, the writer is sitting there merrily
typing away, going "Wooo hooo! I'm making literature
here!" and then collapsing into a misguided heap of
euphoria."
Well, there is some play here. But, yeah, I considered this point before
I wrote, but still wrote what I wrote because it smacked more true
than false. Pretty much the entirety of a year-long war can be (largely,
essentially) irrational, primarily dopamine-fueled and sustained,
despite the pin-point shot amidst the errant-fire, the frequent
intermissions, the thereafter General's talk of strategy and tactics; a
one-month slog at a novel is a stretch beyond the evening blur, but to
me, still readily potentially mostly rush. Barbarians used to raid barechested, mostly drunk, sacrificing themselves to their foes; they were
coordinated enough to master running, charging, and axe-slicing, but
1210
1211
@Spectrum Rider
A whole novel in a single month, is like a plateful of hotdogs stuffed
into your mouth. If you market book writing as if you're appealing to
the carnival-accomplishment taste of the Doritos crowd, then I think
you should expect for the discerning to shy away, and creatures of
appetite to be all over it!
Like I said, massings can afford safety, and be all about wonderful
productivity and shared fun. A multiplication of but not really
different from the group games that lead Mary Shelley to write
"Frankenstein," and inspired her for the first time to actually feel fully
individuated and self-determined. My experience of groups right now
suggests this isn't much the time for this kind of thing, that just
hearing of collective enterprise should spur on individualists to take
on the mass. Laura I think is intent to take them on -- she wants them
to improve. This makes her different from many of the cruelly and
truly snobbish (e.g. most movie critics who went after fan-boys of
"Inception"), who would produce in their own mind a land full of
stupids even if no such constituted the actual lay of the land.
1212
Yes, she's saying it. Based on the NNWM people I've know, I
don't believe it. Why do you?
It seems to be an opinion shared by "real" writers and "real"
editors, but not by the folks on the ground here. I think it's
sheer snobbishness. Those foolish jerks who THINK they can
write a novel - they simply MUST be spoiling it for the rest of
us! (Spectrum Rider)
*
@McEvoy-Halston
"we could have a whole population efforting to write their first
novel"
I'll read your criticism when your literacy and writing skills
improve to the point that it's beyond babbling incoherence.
And "efforting?" SERIOUSLY??? (Discoursarian)
*
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Patrick: "Laura is saying that something about (the coloring
of) this movement attracts people who in the end DON'T do
both, and it may be true that something of the selling of this
movement actually further UPRAISES those intent on
exhaling themselves all over the rest of us, and
DISCOURAGES, Cinderalla-like pushes away, those into selfrecalibration and interested, respectful, other-attendence."
I realize that's what Laura is saying; what I don't see is any
proof of it. Upraises how? Discourages how? The way I see it,
if people are encouraged to write, and to connect with each
other over their writing, then a likely by-product is that they
will also be reading each other's works. I would also think that
the experience of writing a whole novel would bring a fresh
perspective to the act of reading.
I just don't understand the very idea of Laura Miller knocking
what is essentially a program to encourage people's
1213
Xrandadu
Re: "Like I said, imagine a film lover telling people they're
foolish for participating in the 48-Hour Film Project.
Or imagine a music critic scoffing at a program that
encourages bands to write and record songs, because the
critic thinks "The last thing the world needs is another
album" and "A lot of those bands probably won't do the
hard work of remixing their recordings."
I do not believe that Laura is telling people to desist mostly because
she sighs that the last thing the world needs is yet another novelwriter; she does so because she believes / senses / knows that the last
thing these would-be novelists need is another avenue to extend their
indulgent selves. Rather, if they are up to the truly considerable and
self-and-other-benefiting enterprise, she believes they should first
broaden their range through the compare-and-contrast of literature,
become more self-aware, profound, interesting, and then launch at us
-- at whatever speed -- something perhaps unrefined but obviously
1214
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Patrick McEvoy-Halston: "I do not believe that Laura is
telling people to desist mostly because she sighs that the last
thing the world needs is yet another novel-writer..."
That is explicitly what she said. In any case, I'm not sure what
is to be benefited from doing guesswork as to Laura Miller's
motives.
Patrick: "she does so because she believes / senses / knows
that the last thing these would-be novelists need is another
avenue to extend their indulgent selves."
1215
1216
@Lary Crews
I bet you had to walk to school in snow up to your chest,
uphill, both ways, too!
Eh, different people are different. Anyone who doesn't
understand that is not human enough to be the kind of writer
I would want to read. Some people need a push, or a
challenge, or some way to turn off those nagging voices in
their heads.
Whatever works. NaNoWriMo works for some.
To you, and Laura and Patrick - get over yourselves. You're
not that special. (khalleron)
khalleron
You believe it's hard to get writing, and that NaNoWriMo is about
challenging, prompting, cajoling / aggravating people to finally get
doing what they've always wanted to do. It's a much-needed /
appreciated agitant, not some facile enabler: it's actually working to
bring people a bit closer to where Laura would hope they become, and
it could only be out of still-haughty ignorance that some good person
like her could disparage it. Some of us see the situation differently,
sense the movement is somehow mostly about gathering,
aggrandizing, authoratizing mass "preferences" (your brave extension
is for us a sighted effort of significant overlay we are no so stupid as to
dismiss), and hope some people out there in some credible position to
do so will insist on doing the soon truly dangerous but intrinsically
kind / hopeful, and prompt, aggravate, members of the forming
assemble so that it settles less readily / assuredly into something that
would block from consideration what is clear-seeing, en potentia -sane.
When Stephanie Zacharek insisted in her review of "Inception" that
Nolan is no Hitchcock, she wasn't just being smug; she was trying to
be fair to her informed sense of what is truly right, and be helpful. She
sensed the encroachment, the false substitution, and knew it was
1217
@Patrick
Oh, did I hit a nerve?
Good.
I love puncturing pomposity, it's my fourth or fifth favorite
pastime.
1218
Boo! (khalleron)
----Why not...
As a published writer, NaNoWriMo interested me. I have
previously only written poetry, and if there's anything that
sells fewer copies than fiction, it's poetry. In fact, fewer poetry
books are actually read, purchased, or stolen than any other
genre. I applaud anyone who picks up a book of poetry and
actually reads it. (Windebygirl)
*
Everyone's entitled to an opinion
I'm am an independent author who'd never written anything
longer than a short story before learning of NaNoWriMo back
in 2007. (Gldrummond)
*
Respectfully, you missed the point
Laura,
I found your piece and read it thoughtfully. I completely
understand your point of view and agree that you make some
fine points when speaking in generalities.
However, NaNoWriMo's contribution to art and letters is not
about the hundred thousand participants who never finish
their novel. Nor is it about the thousands more who fail to
properly set the first draft aside, move on to another project
to reinforce the habit of writing each day, and later return to
the initial manuscript for an honest and thorough rewrite.
NaNoWriMo, in my opinion, isn't even entirely for the
hundreds of writers who *will* follow the proper steps,
perform the due diligence and just fall short on the talent
curve.
1219
1220
What a cow!
Ms Miller,
You are an arrogant (insert ugly word of your choice).
You don't sell well and perhaps you need to read something
along the type of books you write: Article Writing for
Dummies. (Anya Khan)
You're entitled to your opinion...
But we all know what opinion's and diapers have in
common.... And well here's mine...(rasplundjr)
*
You are missing the point of NaNoWriMo
Laura,
I think you misunderstand both the purpose of NaNoWriMo
and the novel writing process.
NaNoWriMo does not claim that you will have a
*publishable* novel by the end of the month, nor does it claim
that you should send your NaNo novel off to agents. NaNo is
about getting words down on paper. I had to write 3,000
pages of crap to get to my 324-page (published by Simon &
Schuster) novel. (Dorothy hearst)
*
Poor woman wasn't a winner.
I suspect Ms. Miller attempted NaNoWriMo and failed. No
one could possibly be this worked up over something that
others do for fun without having personal experience with it.
Lol (BlueBKLYN)
*
Disappointing
Another published novelist here -- in about 10 countries, with
1221
1222
1223
One final admission. The 1960s was not a time for restrained,
discerning readers (maybe not even for readers, so much more was it
into rock 'n roll, community life, and your own take); it was more
about letting out the previously contained / denied, the irrational, the
not-tried-out, than it was about the 2nd, 3rd, 4th careful re-edit. The
old T. S. Eliotian trinity of irony, ambiguity, paradox was being
challenged by a favoring of spirit and appetite, and the old guard
could only lament how even their best pupils were drifting away from
"profound and carefully organized" writing toward the "hopped-up"
and way-too-insufficiently considered (Dickstein, "Gates of Eden").
And it wasn't as it is now an elite Brooklyn/Berkeley control, but
funneling out of every variant nobody corner of the land. Any piece,
however inarticulate, that spoke your truth, was better than the
mountain-castle of learned but repressed naysayers, hiding. You had
at least begun, whereas their whole effort was about telling people not
to.
And the 60s was the best decade known to wo/man.
So if you think NaMoWrMo is mostly about recognizing, encouraging,
developing the at-least possibly beautiful that is so often contained by
intolerant, self-protecting elites -- your creativity, for instance -- look
back to the 60s: you've got ammo on your side that might balk back
arguments that you're not reading enough, or that you're not reading
the right type, or that you may be reading the right type but not in the
right way, without any recourse to proof of contra; for all the same
was said of even the intellectuals of the 60s, and who now looks to
Trilling as Ginsberg's master/better?
But if we're heading into another 30s / 40s, then understand that you
aren't going to prove true Romantics, together, urging on your own
voice / creativity, but a gobbling, intolerant horde -- the most
profoundly societal-inhibiting / repressive / scolding / alldetermining force; the soon-to-be-in Laura's ostensible place -- and
you'll be making sure that the few people like she who is not
dismayed, find no respected vehicle for their voice to be heard.
1224
Is is possible that Jon Stewart and his gathering crowd are attempting
to serve as "filth men," in the way Lloyd describes? Jon Stewart has
Obama on his show to cement the link, and then gathers his crowd in
Washington to intercept / counter poisonous feelings ("insanity")
directed at him (Obama) during this unnerving midterm election.
Obama, we know, is losing Rahm, and for the most part seems more
"naked" than he does at other times (casual self in "supplicant" /
lower position on "Daily Show"). Tea Partiers will get their place; they
will find office at a time when Obama is less potent than he will likely
at some point once again become; but a considerable body has
1225
1226
Patrick
----Amendment:
Concerning my last thought: It may be that what we need time for
isn't just to slip into a more disassociated state, but to make a
forthcoming long Depression, extensive sacrifice, less guilt-arousing,
something we may in fact be doing by the likes of the apparent
scholarly return to / redemption of "culture of poverty" thinking,
which -- as it suggests government is limited in what it can do to
change people, and has historically been used to effectively stigmatize
the poor as being largely responsible for their own debased condition
-- works against the efforts of near-undeniably, wholly-conscious,
good people like Paul Krugman to make us feel like some foul part of
us must actually want sacrifices to not now allow the spending we
know from history would have prevented the Great Depression from
ever occurring in the first place.
Patrick
----Further thought: If a Depression was ensured during time of a
Democratic president and congress, this might prove far too guiltarousing for actual-sacrifice-wishing liberals to take, even if they had
already begun to make poverty a near-"natural," deply-ingrained
"condition," via the resurrection of culture of poverty theories. A
Republican-lead congress would abate all guilt, entire. "We were just
18-months in, and were prevented from the further progress we
would surely have effected!"
My sense of most liberals now, is that they would feel very
uncomfortable if they actually were able to forestall the depression
and initiate a period of unrepentant, all-benefiting growth. Reason:
Mother looms, and is ready to destroy any show of an unwillingness
to just go along with the curtailment of individuality. What they want
is the guaranteed depression, guaranteed sacrifices, then -- like they
1227
did in the last great depression -- to join the masses, imagining them
not now as "crazies" but as the unjustly suffering -- the folk. I feel the
compulsion toward this narrative is very powerful, and hope that
there are enough of the advanced psychoclass out there to show that
very visibly, some liberals have now almost entirely escaped the need
to shift from being innovative thinkers to being depressed ones. Who
wants to wait for the termination of a ten-year depression, and some
giant war, for liberals to once again show their stuff? Show instead
that instead of being incarcerated, rendered invisible, this generation
of the more evolved can frustrate the grotesque compulsions of the
regressing middle.
Krugman has escaped, and believes Republicans could thwart
Democratic wishes. As I have been suggesting, it is possible that
Krugman is in error about the desires of Democrats, and mistakes for
sure conflict what might end up proving -- complicity. If so, use this
to find your own, Krugman, not abandon all in astonishment and
disgust.
Patrick
Link: "Deflection and / or absorption" (realpsychohistory, 30 October
2010)
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2010
The Stewart and Colbert Purity Crusade
1228
1229
1230
Evidence
The U.K. has cut back expenses hugely and fired millions.
It will certainly go into a major Depression. As Tony Blair
said when asked why he hit his one-year-old baby: "You
have to discipline them!"
Lloyd ("U.K. Cuts Back Gov't Expenses,"
realpsychohistory, 21 Oct. 2010)
----The U.K has unveiled a new National Security Strategy
this week --- mostly about cuts in defense spending, and
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
(they've got their maternal alters to thank for that), only that hippietypes who hope they might be / deserve otherwise, and the poor and
vulnerable who publicly demonstrate their very own shameworthy
neediness and dependency, are so much more rotten than they are.
Once on crusade against them, in service of the Maternal rather than
to themselves ... yeah, they might own up to feeling pretty righteous,
I'll grant you that. But in reality these monsters are FEEDING, not
feeling -- that's what their would-be food, us hippie-type,
emotionally-healthy, advanced-class hipsters do. You know it.
Patrick
----Patrick said, "I'd have been more convinced if you'd
argued that most everyone deep-down thinks they're shit,
that they probably don't deserve to be happy"
Well, yes. But now you seem to be suggesting that low self
regard can't exist with an inflated self image in the same
person, or that this has something to do with being
convinced of a certain worldview - any world view. The
point stands: everybody thinks they're right. The person
with low or no self regard has still convinved themselves.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have the beliefs or think the
thoughts that they do.
This is veering into philosophy 101. Sturges, I think, was
pointing out, not so gently, that you were skipping the
most important steps and assuming too much. That
somehow, a group called They has this problem called not
being self aware enough, but you don't need to be.
Because you're right. No big deal as this is a mistake we
all make, maybe the easiest one to make - and I would
guess, the main reason this particular online group exists.
-----
1238
re: Problem is, every one knows that they're right. Good luck
finding some one who really believes that they are crazy, wrong and
out of touch.
These crazy, chilling, repressed folks you mention know, like you, that
they
are correct. Why, they can just *feel it*.
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
is dancing fool.
Except of course for "grandma" Betty White. She could have humped
a whole kindergarten and some would still kill to keep her cool. ("I
literally screwed them for life -- two dozen of them, dripping in vagina
goo -- and you still want me to repeat on SNL?" "That would be
'Yes.'") What does that say about our era?
.....
If your artist stewed of small children, he never in fact
created Art.
I still think, though, that finding out someone was "likely a killer" or
was for sure a rapist should mean a pretty profound re-examination
of what it is about us that drew us to like "his" films in the first place.
(We condemn loudly, perhaps, so we feel less implicated.) I don't
think we should be much drawn to artistic work done by people who
raped or killed. Knowing that we were, and still perhaps are, amounts
to a wonderful prompt to stop and see what is stalling us -- for
something is indeed, for sure, off with us. The killer, the rapist, is NO
DOUBT in my mind in the work itself (an artist of two temperaments,
two minds -- one that creates, the other that rages -- is even in the
sympathetic, saner part, "incomplete," still crazy). (Artists may be
delegates; do what we wish/prompt but do not dare. But no one sane
responds this way.) If you find out a culture was cannibalistic or
sacrificed legions of virgins to some hairy god, take another look at
the colorful art you used to praise: hopefully it required looking at it a
bit distracted/askew or objective-intent, to deem it Beautiful. But the
problem isn't just in the art or the artist, it is you too. Reassess,
slowly; be kind to your former self; and hopefully grow. That creation
fundamentally comes out of knowing love and tolerance is only made
hard to see for it being historically rare. Amidst cultures that sacrifice
children, substituting an innocent goat that-never-did-no-harm-tonobody is a miraculous, beautiful thing.
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
is clearly so ambivalent.
[. . .]
What did you think of the way Franzen depicts the political
climate of the mid-2000s? Walter's road trip with Lalitha to
promote Free Space is a Magical Hysteria Tour of the
endemic rage of the period, which Walter regards as
"loony," even though it is, in a fashion, a reflection of the
repressed anger he's been nursing since his boyhood in the
motel. There's a strong sense that Americans have been
making their politics carry an emotional load displaced
from their personal lives -- it's a lot less destabilizing to rant
on the Internet about Dick Cheney or Bill Clinton than to get
into it with your spouse and parents, let alone your own
messed-up self -- to the detriment of public life.
[. . .]
In fact, the whole little neighborhood drama about the cats
and the songbirds at the end deftly encapsulates the themes
of the book: Walter is right, but in the wrong way. Linda is a
monster, but taking her cat to the pound only makes him
one, too. But, again, I'm not sure I'm optimistic enough to
believe in Patty's solution -- even if I'd like to. (Laura Miller,
Road trips, political rage and catnapping, Salon, 18 Sept.
2010)
Retreat
Freedom, apparently, is something we pursue until the point where
we can chase down what we really want -- rapprochement -- under
our terms. All this early consideration of the rape, as if it were a
"rosebud" moment, when what it was was a vehicle to leave parents
behind you -- justifiably -- so that you can explore / be carried along
the currents of the times that move / accompany your adulthood, and
rejoin your heritage later as an encounter between one who has
experienced and lived and those who have been kept back. Patty
doesn't only find her way back into old patterns; she pins down as
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
@Xrandadu Hutman
No, not satire. When they (the press) could switch from talking to
Hillary to talking to Obama, they seemed relieved. They did almost
enough (though not enough: note the SNL skits which played on the
press's strange aversion to Hillary) to save face, but it WAS as if they
were risking close contact / involvement with some toxic medusa.
They engaged with her scrunched up in a grimace, bracing themselves
to the first touch of her affect. Obama was cool, smoke in hand. For
all the talk of charisma, it was his sparing absence which drew "us" to
him.
Palin you can bond to, have carry around her like a pistol in her
holster, because you'll be killing baby seals and runt liberals, not
bonding with her in some cuddled global village. The first sense we
have that she's turning to make us into one of her sprats, we'll turn
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
educated, and you find out that this person got that way sans
university but simply Goodwill Hunting-like through a library card,
then youre one to give the library full credence: it doesnt first
acknowledge the university (as) clear master before listing its
strengths, but, through evidence, has proven it can stand fully equal
to all. This isnt whats going on in other peoples minds, and to them
its merely convenient that TEDs lectures are gratefully neardismissably only 18 minutes long. What theyre thinking is that
becoming educated is primarily about being educated, being acted
upon, by someone else being broken in. They dismiss TED for its
apparent lack of interactivity, but what they hate about it is actually
that it seems to privilege the individuals right to be an active,
choosing, fully-enabled consumer of education what they see
probably as its fickleness. In a way, to a certain extent, the webbrowser becomes akin to empowered gentleman-amateur of the past,
who would attend a professionals lectures but never once feel his
inferior: s/he has picked and chosen, sampled and savored, and
became more worldly; the professional wallows in a technicians
expertise. People just now arent any longer allowed / permitted to
think of themselves that way: the web has demonstrated that people
are porn, not participants or prodigies. Itunes U (to them) is better,
because its potentially more arduous its not so much about
entertaining, about lecturers finding ways to please your creditworthy sensibilities, but about you developing the discipline, the
seriousness, to best engage with them: theyre reaching out, but the
signal will not be received unless youre able to listen (a talent best
nurtured, of course, after serious engagement with a physical
university). The they Im talking about are moving away from the
more Romantic estimation of people as flowering best away from
institutions, toward understanding them as requiring the breaking-in
that institutions can still yet enable. Names like Harvard,
Princeton, MIT are summoned not to be matched or breezed-by,
but because the overall cacophony and indulgent behavior is such
that it REQUIRES the attention, the schooling-down, of long-
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
She really liked "Letters to Juliet," and it wasn't so much cool and hip
(in fact it wasn't at all that) as it was bright, warm, relaxed and --conditionally -- AVAILABLE: I think, the opposite of hipster. I think
you can provide a lot of examples of the cool and hip she goes for, but
it would as you know need targeting to convince, because with just
hearing that she goes for the hip and cool it's too easy to think of
movies that are a kind of cool, that are in fact so LAMENTABLY
cooled down that you recall most vividly her attending to the few
instances of vibrant "aliveness" the films did allow, the refreshing bit
of color -- glam? -- in landscapes otherwise so everywhere neutered
and grey. Your claim that she is attracted to glam is interesting,
though. As I've suggested / implied, it could be made to be about her
preference for color over drabness, part of her war against freezing
mannerisms -- which would be a sign of her own aliveness, her
expectancy for soulfulness, much more than it would her girlish
adolescence -- but you mostly want to make it equivalent to the
stunted guy's going for glum and grime it would seem.
You made the point earlier that the legacy of Pauline Kael (I
remember now I actually did try to get into her work -- a couple of
times in fact -- but so wasn't drawn in that I could barely recall having
tried her on: I was always way, way more for Nathaniel Branden than
I was the kinda alien creature-seeming Ayn Rand as well) has been
the omnipresence of critics who cannot allow that their ostensibly
more evolved, more involved engagement with films has mostly been
a kind of cunning skating on the surface, an ongoing disinclination to
throughly analyze, deeply involve oneself with film, in preference to
sporting with them. You focus on Stephanie because you think she's
so beholden to her, because she represents THE PROBLEM -- the log
jam -- it would mostly seem, and not because you're a masochist
(though you say this, and I accept it, and hope you know it's worth
your exploring too). And it seems -- from one of the things you said
on the "Inception" thread -- also because you have seen what she can
do, and sense her potential. If I were you, I would continue to finesse
out where she goes wrong, and -- very much please -- at some point
1278
also where she goes so wonderfully right, for all our sakes. Maybe you
could best do so by responding after you've just seen a film she's
"taken on."
You know the challenge involved in showing the kind of reviewer who
seems attendant and responsive to every film molecule to be actually
mostly closed off / shut down, so I wish you a universe of good luck,
as well as an unbeknownst deity or two to have your back. But my
rooting for your cause is genuine: Wouldn't it be wonderful if one day
Stephanie looked back and recalled "Avatar" in such a way that you
wouldn't be drawn, as one commenter on the Salon thread did, to ask
if she in fact had a limbic system? As I thought the alien flower she so
appreciated and attended to in the film notable but still so easily and
immediately trumped preamble, I had to wonder too, and would
certainly cheer at this!
Link: Angelina Jolie Deliver the Action-Packed Summer Blockbuster
Good (Movieline)
SUNDAY, JUNE 27, 2010
Ammoing up
The Killer Inside Me isnt a misogynist picture.
Winterbottom takes great care to show his own attitude
toward the brutal suffering of both of these characters. And
its easy to accept that hes made the violence graphic so well
grasp the full moral weight of it this isnt jazzily cut
cartoon brutality presented for kicks.
But that doesnt mean that in addressing that violence,
Winterbottom has made the right choices, artistically or
emotionally. (Those who are extremely sensitive to spoilers
and who havent already read Thompsons book might want
to stop reading here.)In an online interview with The Wall
Street Journal this past April, around the time his film was
presented at the Tribeca Film Festival, Winterbottom
expressed dismay when the interviewer mentioned that the
1279
1280
saying that "anyone who might find the violence in this movie
gratifying or arousing is already virtually beyond the bounds of
professional help" (Andrew O'Hehir), but if as I suspect we see more
Watchmen/ Girl with the Dragon Tattoo/ Killer Inside of Me followup, at some point we've got to suspect that high-concept / purpose
has become the last hold-out for expressing deeply felt gripes against
terribly wounding female treatment. One suspects it already in their
ammoing up.
Link: Characters deserve better in violent Killer Inside Me
(Movieline)
FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 2010
Toy Story 3
Toy Story 3 takes a rather dark turn near the end (be
prepared for this if you plan on taking really little kids), but
the resolution is so funny and so joyous truly a
Sometimes theres God so quickly moment that I dont
think it will cause any nightmares. (Stephanie Zacharek,
Toy Story 3 brings series to brilliant, bittersweet close,
Movieline, 17 June 2010)
It should give you nightmares. Two futures are presented in this film,
one that will soon be familiar to the cast-aside -- a nightmare of being
used, tortured and ruled over, without respite, until you're broken
and finally gone -- and the other for those who have found some way
to sculpt themselves to be relevant -- another couple decades of
feeling vital to the future of the American dream. I think most liberals
feel that if they continue to fight for the impoverished, to fully side
with them, they risk joining the nightmare of junk, and sense that if
they only persuade themselves Brad Bird-like that there is simply no
hope for the damaged-to-the-point-of-grotesque, that they can
continue to accumulate and thrive, enjoying even a sense of now rare
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
the uncomfortable
What happens once the self-publishing revolution really gets
going, when all of those previously rejected manuscripts hit
the marketplace, en masse, in print and e-book form,
swelling the ranks of 99-cent Kindle and iBook offerings by
the millions? Is the public prepared to meet the slush pile?
You've either experienced slush or you haven't, and the
difference is not trivial. People who have never had the job
of reading through the heaps of unsolicited manuscripts sent
to anyone even remotely connected with publishing typically
have no inkling of two awful facts: 1) just how much slush is
out there, and 2) how really, really, really, really terrible the
vast majority of it is. Civilians who kvetch about the bad
writing of Dan Brown, Stephenie Meyer or any other hugely
popular but critically disdained novelist can talk as much
trash as they want about the supposedly low standards of
traditional publishing. They haven't seen the vast majority
of what didn't get published -- and believe me, if you have,
it's enough to make your blood run cold, thinking about that
stuff being introduced into the general population.
Everybody acknowledges that there have to be a few gems
out in the slush pile -- one manuscript in 10,000, say -buried under all the dreck. The problem lies in finding it. A
diamond encased in a mountain of solid granite may be
truly valuable, but at a certain point the cost of extracting it
exceeds the value of the jewel. With slush, the cost is not only
financial (many publishers can no longer afford to assign
junior editors to read unsolicited manuscripts) but also -- as
is less often admitted -- emotional and even moral.
It seriously messes with your head to read slush. Being
bombarded with inept prose, shoddy ideas, incoherent
grammar, boring plots and insubstantial characters -- not
to mention ton after metric ton of clichs -- for hours on end
1286
1287
Probably would have been better to have written, "Though they ARE
clubby and likely to plug or promote their friends' works, the agents
and editors I've met are also committed to ..." As you wrote it, the
bloggers or self-appointed experts take the big hit you ostensibly
meant to be spread all around. Also, I gather you didn't mean to have
us thinking of the ghastly accumulation of oil spillage when you
referred us to this horrific massing of slush, but given all the inertia
and choking and pure ugliness we've endured of the former "spread,"
we may be a bit more primed to agree with your argument that we
might otherwise be -- for what American is going to readily assent to
the aristocrat's / gentleman's point-of-view: "Friend of democracy,
are you? .... let me show you some of the nincompoops of this navelgazing mob you so want to champion but completely misunderstand,
and we'll see if you'll still desire they be given the vote any time this
millenium!"
Sometimes the fall of a system represents evolution of HUMANITY,
of spirit, not just technology. There are huge hordes of bloggers /
writers out there that will create something WAY WORSE, more
punitive and self-serving, than what's currently in place, as they strive
to find their way to become what they've always loathed and
misapprehended (the gatekeepers). But there are good bunches of
people out there who sense that the current conception of, the
realities of, the publishing industry, though better than other
possibilities, is still insufficient to, unreflective of, their own
conception of democracy and brotherly / sisterly love. They want the
idea of the author, the publishing house, to go bye-bye, as it currently
works against the realization of what they sense could be our
democratic world. I'm with them.
----I have a friend who is a wannabe writer- and one of the things she has mentioned is that sheer
hostility to writers from the publishing industry. Especially
beginner writers, who make up the vast bulk of the slush
pile.
1288
1289
To Patrick:
Im going to have to disagree with your disagreement of my
original observation re: hatred of novices. I think that Laura
Miller champions a few select novice writers who are
already published or well on their way.
To use a borderline racist term that my friend assures me is
all the rage in the publishing world, Laura Miller seems to
champion the special snowflakes who have managed to
rise to prominence.
Further, although Ms. Miller may be sympathetic to novices,
you yourself do not seem to be: ghastly multitudes of
damaged people who believe they've got what it takes, but
who really are in truth sadly undeveloped, deformed people
with worse than nothing good to say -- to the point that
"you're" left stunned that they aren't on, even in the smallest
degree, to the gaping extent of their own awfulness.
Honestly, how can you know this about these people?
Beginner yoga students are probably undeveloped
(flexibility-wise) with worse than no skills in regards to
knowledge of poses, and may even be unaware of their
shortcomings, but is it standard practice in yoga studios to
dump so savagely on those beginners?
Again I have to askwhy the hate? Why the language that
seems to thrive on denigrating the writers?
As to your last comment about editors lack-of ability to risk
reading outside of what they know, or maybe even what
they already like, I cant really speak to that, but you bring
up a good point. What is that old saying, the surest way to
lose the present war is to re-fight the last one? (Tobbar,
response to post)
Being real
Re: "Honestly, how can you know this about these people? Beginner
yoga students are probably undeveloped (flexibility-wise) with
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
needs for plotting, climax, sacrifice; and is not in the least bit related
to people like Hillary Clinton, who you sense could never be
sufficiently "tarred" by whatever corporate influence to not seem a
60's hippie who could come close herself to truly do without the
cheeseburger, the bathroom smoke, the suspect bit of extrasomething on the side.
I'm sure Obama will one day seem very uncompromised -- and we
will be shown -- but right now we enjoy how his delays, his wateringdowns, his indirectness, is working to make squack those we will soon
have not the least bit of tolerance for.
Link: Protecting the Obama brand (Salon)
1302
1303
1304
Be careful!
Undoubtedly, had this been the behavior of a Republican
administration, "the left's" big environmental organizations
1305
1306
1307
The film would have us believe that the greatest unearthed treasure
here is the revelation that way back in the 12th-century, a man
produced a document with implications so revolutionary they might
stop us in our tracks, even today, if we allowed ourselves to think on
them a bit. But for me it was the young to-be-kings continuing to sex
his french vixen, while his wizened, wrinkled, grandmother,
impotently beamed all her supply of wrathful looks upon him. What a
treasure! He understood his grandmother as just another of
Englands stony looming gargoyles, who scare away with show of
eternal judgment but who are born out of fear of life, of stupid
ignorance and misunderstanding of anything beyond familiar reach,
not lifetimes of accrued wisdom; and showed himself in tune with the
slow breaking of routine and duty in favor of mischief, mirth and
experimentation that marked the beginning of the English learning
from the French and the Italians, which marked the beginning of the
roots for the English renaissance!
Intriguingly, Scott doesnt actually have it in for the French. They are
it seems by nature driven to be smartly and ruthlessly conquistatorial
and scheming -- its just who they are -- and they arent so
individually self-inflating they cant readily accept that they might
function better as each one of them part of a larger state, and so at
worst always have a comprehensive functioning state while England
could at any turn disintegrate into a swath of broken, squabbling
chiefdoms, and are possessed of an arrogant -- and actually in a way,
self-diminishing -- and ultimately limited, but still formidable
understanding of human tendencies. They are a formidable
opponent; are right to doubt that there is anything actually really
existing and worthy when the English are in mood to bash their
shields and herald their virtue before them; and they serve as a test as
to how well the English are embodying their in-truth potentially
superior selves -- as truly uncompromised, noble individuals, obliged
to a King but whose castles are their own homes, who when united
1308
can repel huge armadas and armies as can any vibrant young body,
multitudes of weakness-drawn contagens. Who he has it in for are the
English who dont understand that their way to best form, is not to be
seduced by French novelties, things suited really only to those of
apparently unadulterated French constitution, but to uncover basic
truths concerning their nobility they seem everywhere either prone to
forget or cover over, or to twist into worst possible deviant forms.
This means remembering / learning to be honest, forthright, brave,
unrelenting, and so forth. It means boasting the soul of a stonemason -- bearing-out truths youd inscribe on an otherwise
unadorned sword: It means life becoming about not an increasing
awareness of, and adding of and an appreciation for complexities, but
about refusing to add layers, life, story, to sully perfect and simple
beginnings.
To say that Scott would have the English, would have us, work against
life amounting to a story, to make maturity delightful because it
means a constant conversation of previous experience, perspective,
with the newly encountered and just understood, is, for the most part,
actually fair. His heroes are too often attractive men and woman who
ultimately disappoint because they not just accord themselves with
but seem trapped in code: they are trapped to be noble because they
exist to show up other peoples deficiencies or fallenness, and take
vengeance on them for it. But there is enough of another possibility at
work in his work that Ill certainly mention it: and that is, an
argument not against change, but in favor of cultivating a state of
being that makes you able to enjoy a life of mature enjoyment and
development, without diverting oneself onto wayward paths opened
up by the pettiest of motivations. You sense amongst his main
principles, that is, self-esteem. You do. Robin Longstride is the better
man for returning the sword to the family of a deceased good-hearted
man, and acting without pretense while returning it. His stay in
Nottingham, with Marion and father Loxley, offers what you never
believed would have opened up in Gladiator had the turn in that
1309
1310
least -- just his bringing up of soup, for a brief time-out for harried,
exhausted soldiers, at top of the castles turret. For Scott, battles are
where we get what we would have hoped to receive in conversations
between characters -- where unexpected turns are met with
improvisations that show our heroes as heroic for inspired reactions
to developments before them, for being able to see the battle as a
story they can yet sway into some variant form rather than another.
Yes, Robins ask me nicely, the whole bedchamber sequence with
Marion, is an example of wonderful improvisation and discovery
through conversation, but it is not Scotts main fortay or inclination.
Instead, heroes are mostly plain and stalwart in conversation -- this
shows their minds already know everything they need to know, so
every conversation away from the everyday is just a potential lean on
them toward the bad -- and villains, those most prone to complicate
what we might expect with turns toward some possibility we might
not have accounted for. Villains will show that they shouldnt be
killed, because their best-loved cousin is french -- a farceful play, that
seems to have swayed his french foe -- or that they shouldnt accord
their self-righteous mothers wishes, because though confronted with
those wearing-thick plain virtue, they can easily, correctly, but still
remarkably show how even while themselves undressed and in
seemingly the baldest of compromised positions, theyre actually
evidently right in insisting theyre not the ones foremost in bed with
those shorn all decency and allegiance to duty.
1311
how the 60s social battles were moved by sufficient expectation for
change, that every twist and turn in any particular engagement might
just determine exactly how the future would take shape. You could be
great and fearless, and yet find yourself suddenly surprised by
beginning a battle with two arrows in you that have already doomed
you -- as happened to the german warrior in Kingdom of Heaven -that ensures well mostly just see in your perseverance just how good
you must have been in the battles that built your reputation. Or in a
moment of slight over-extension, be ended after a lifetime of killerblows to everyone else -- as happened to the muslim knight, again in
Kingdom of Heaven. You could deliver what we have been given
every bit of evidence -- in battles that rain arrows just about
everywhere -- to suspect as just as likely as any other possibility, a
purely random shot that ends the life of a king. Your efforts may
amount to cruel nothing, or make the greatest of differences. And so
while I feel I havent much more interest in Scott, for I loathe his
foreclosing of character development, his making of potentially
interesting people into dull chess pieces, his most boring, dumb, and
unmoving solutes to democratic principles, I still see in his work
some evidence for understanding living best as being open to
unexpected nuances that could lead to grandscale changes, of being
open and desiring of life amounting to the surefooted engaging
willingly in forays that could have them slip, for the unexpected -- and
maybe even -- the better.
It is unbecoming of a lady to marry her steward, and so the pseudoItalian fiancee, who is expert and fussy-obsessed with all the variant
particulars concerning his estate -- his newly opened restaurant -- is
1312
1313
It isnt a good thing when being as alive as a sunflower but not a wit
more interesting, cant make you -- an ostensibly ambitious human
being -- the subject of some ridicule. And yet this might now just be
where we are -- in that too many who can at some level see that these
leisured, liberal humanists / gentry, who ostensibly have the time,
quietness, and tutored capacity to range greatly and uninterruptedly
while in this world, are just beautiful script, lines curling up, down,
and on through a plot already known and before them, content to
take pleasure in the variances of sensation they can see ahead and
know are coming, but still very much to be taken pleasure in, because
vividness exists primarily in the rush of what is before you not in the
nagging memory of what you once knew, because they are in-mind to
give up the reigns to someone else themselves, and want no evidence
anywhere extant that makes them feel small, feel guilty, for doing so.
Claire --the grandmother -- could be a problem. Which is why all her
genuine gravitas is summoned but drawn to essential vacancy -- her
love of her life, who she once loved and never --ostensibly rightly -learned to lose interest in, is SO MUCH perfect acquisition, perfect
object, well-groomed and already, beautifully-told story, that she
serves as unmistakable proof in the pudding, as General Colin Powell
to George Bush, that what is not actually here in the film, IS actually
there, if only you had the capacity to find it.
Photo still: "Letters to Juliet." www.celebritywonder.com
I want one!
The picture never looks fussed-over or flattened it
breathes, as opposed to just looking merely pretty.
Pontecorvo approaches the actresses with the same
uncalculated respect.
The actors here offer plenty sturdy support for their female
counterparts: Bernals character is scattered but
sympathetic; Egan, deeply unlikable at first, by the end
1314
1315
1316
themselves open for laughter from their peers? None at all -- and so a
culture freezes in its preferred prose, state of mind, and current
grammatical correctness. Some time later, after they've crumbled
away, a new generation emerges that laughs "their" way on toward
unusual things. Or not -- and we're left with successive generations of
elites against the mob, complaining of plagiarism, not knowing that
IN ESSENCE, that is all they are.
Link: Bad writing: What is it good for?
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010
Divides
In fact, while it's possible that before Hunter started
speaking on her own behalf, I might have entertained the
notion that she was a slightly dopey lady who fell hard for a
bad man who was running for president and got caught in a
very unfortunate saga, I now feel quite confident that in fact
she is a borderline simpleton, fame-seeking narcissist whose
self-interested grab for attention is likely doing further
permanent damage to the Edwards family, including her
daughter and her siblings. If her appearance on the Oprah
show seemed like an unjust setup, then Hunter proved that,
every once in a while, someone so amply meets all
expectations for awfulness that it's impossible to muster
anything other than loathing for them. (Rebecca Traister,
Rielle Hunter's undeniable awfulness, Salon, 29 April 2010)
Good girls get their consolation prize
RE: "I now feel quite confident that in fact she is a borderline
simpleton, fame-seeking narcissist whose self-interested grab for
attention [. . .]"
Is this the consolation prize -- ripping her, ripping people like her,
apart -- for your being a "classic good girl," for there not being any
1317
Oysters
1318
The fact is, we tell women that being good people involves
agreeability, cooperation and a little bit of self-sacrifice. In
addition to telling them to be polite and deferential, we teach
little girls from the beginning that life is going to be hard
and involve compromise. This dose of realism is not terrible;
it girds us for some hardship along the way. But it also
lowers expectations for remuneration and recognition.
Despite those who say that women have lately been told that
they could "have it all," that promise has, in my experience,
always been accompanied by caveats that a) we probably
can't, b) if we do, it's going to be incredibly difficult, and c)
that if we somehow do manage to achieve any kind of
satisfaction or balance, we should be damn grateful.
Gratitude, I've found, is not an attitude that results in
promotions and raises. (Rebecca Traister, A nice girls
guide to getting ahead, Salon, 26 April 2010)
Oysters
I think we all need to remember that during the medieval ages, men
did their best to become like women, so they might imagine
themselves more worthy of claiming love from their mothers -- as
Lloyd deMause explains:
Since Christians were bipolar, they were either manic
(violent warriors) or depressive (masochistic clerics,
martyrs), but in either case they risked dying for God their
whole lives: For Your sake we have been killed all of the
day. Martyrs would sometimes castrate themselves to
demonstrate their potency and devotion to God. In fact,
clerics were said to have become female when they gave up
fighting, because the male must become female in order to
escape the moral dangers of his masculine state. In fact,
Christianity can be seen as a way for males to become more
like femalesthus priests didnt get married and wore
female dressesbecause young boys experienced their
1319
1320
The hoarder is Robin Williams from the Fisher King: a humble lifepoet who sees the magic in the (quote unquote) junk. Or a young Luke
Skywalker, in touch with the energy field created by all things.
Future prospects: A future magician who will show us the magic in
everyday life, help us move away from a consumption-oriented
society. Must learn to control his power, so it doesn't control him.
2) If you spend one weekend with someone with a camera
crew, a cleaning crew and no therapy, youre making some
educational contribution by showing people what hoarding
is -- and that its really an illness [. . .]. (Randy O. Frost)
The hoarder is mentally ill. Tread with care.
Future prospects: One house-cleaning away from the crazy-house.
Patrick Mcevoy-Halston is mentally ill
Tread with care.
Dude, I'm all for esoteric, but WTF are you talking about?
(untimelydemise, response to post)
Response
We are offered two different accounts of hoarding here. One (the first
quote) makes it primarily a gift, possessed by someone who feels the
beauty in things in a culture that can no longer do the same. The
other (the second quote) makes it primarily an illness, to the extent
that a cruel show that effectively traumatizes those it pretends to help
still deserves kudos for it at least making this point clear.
If they're wizards, then not just house cleaners but therapists too need
to tread carefully, for they are dealing with those well beyond their
capacity to understand, and whom they must primarily not so much
try and help but begin to try and learn from.
If they are sick, then all this appreciation for shapes, textures, colors
of objects the rest of us understand less meaningfully, has to be
contextualized so we understand that the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer
appreciated certain objects this same way too.
1321
1322
something new she wouldn't have said to herself, "this is selfish -- I'm
selfish," and more or less learned to just sit on her fortune, still
reusing the same container, over and over again? Possible, but many
people in the '20s thought they were going to be punished for all their
fun -- thought they DESERVED to be punished for all their fun: the
30's ruination actually "fit" their sense of justice.
Some people actually take pleasure when the drift in society is toward
war or depression, because it makes their own (truly) pathological
tendencies (sadism, anal-retention) seem too widely shared and too
appropriate to be anything other than rational. For a taste of this,
witness how delighted some now seem that the apparently nearcertain upcoming ruination of the Earth means that we all need to live
as invisibly, as minimalistically, as possible. Should have us begin to
suspect that things like wars and depressions, are actually things us
still sin-focused people will into existence to make sure we stick to
living in ways that make us feel guiltless or properly repentant.
Link: "Stuff": The psychology of hoarding (Salon)
1323
1324
1325
1326
They fey-fearful
I have a great deal of love and respect for my grandfather.
He was a B-29 pilot in the Pacific during WWII; he became a
potato farmer when he returned home from the war. He
always took care of his family and his responsibilities, but he
was not an easy man for his family to be around. For all his
amazing qualities, he was as deeply conflicted about his life
and what he had done with it as many of my male friends
are today. For all his "manliness" he was not a particularly
happy or fulfilled guy.
Sometimes it can feel like my generation of men was raised
by wolves, and that we are trying to cobble some
approximation of what it means to be a man through vague
and intentionally incomplete recollections of an increasingly
distant generation -- or, worse, from media's portrayal of
the men who came before us. We want to remember them as
giants of masculinity completely unconflicted about who
they were.
[. . .]
It is also important to remember that as brave as these men
were, as many sacrifices as they made, as many challenges
as they faced, many of them were unable to rise to the
challenge of even a modest leveling of the playing field
between them and their wives and sisters and eventually
daughters. The confusion of my generation and my father's
generation regarding their role and what is expected of them
is a testament to that fact. (Aaron Traister, Retrosexuals:
The latest lame macho catchphrase, Salon, 7 April 2010)
The conflicted warrior-chief: they fey-fearful, seek
elsewhere?
Re: "I have a great deal of love and respect for my
1327
1328
1329
1330
puppet of other people's desires, the whole of his life. I also believe he
was "guaranteed," someone whose rise to the presidency was for him,
someone who is so acutely sensitive to others' needs, as as predictable
as (and not much more exciting than) next day's morning routine -baby boomers can use him to finish life feeling that their accrued
societal accomplishments have them moving toward some
unexpected, increasingly pure terminus: accomplishing the longsought but clearly impossible, these aging darwinians-all will feel
increasingly sure that proof is at hand that mundane, self-obliterating
history was true for everyone before them, but that they are surely
ones foretold in some originating prophecy. Their young will try and
match their claims, but they know Obama to be THEIR
accomplishment, and will expect all fuss and bother to be focused on
them, earning and needing final shaping and polishing before
becoming like clear constellations above, but in a new land of
rediscovered love and total meaning.
----@PATRICK MCEVOY-HALSTON
What the hell are you talking about? Is there any one in your
world (other then your own very "central" self) whom you
couldn't analyze to death? (response to post, Lucy with
Diamonds)
the space odyssey, Lucy With Diamonds
I'm thinking, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds. You don't feel that
Obama is a glassy, opaque monolith, signing that unremarkable
history is finally trespassing into the mythic? Maybe it's 'cause we've
just "discovered" it, and have been busying ourselves first in fitting it
in for usage in long-known squabbles, within long-familiar
paradigms, as it patiently awaits our steadying ourselves for its
actually rather profound implications. He stands as evidence the
impossible to hope for, has been achieved. We may play at imagining
him mostly the career politician, someone well compromised and all
too familiar, but we have to accept that something remarkable,
1331
1332
on -- all the amazing old and new things, from news reports
to scientific studies, Web comics to video mash-ups, that
proliferate online. It's so undemocratic, so anti-DIY. So old
paradigm.
[. . .]
The iPad may not be ideal for what the tech industry calls
"productivity," but it's well-suited for the purpose I had in
mind: absorption. [. . .] When people complain nowadays
about not being able to think or read as deeply as they used
to, they're not just acting like a bunch of old fuddy-duddies:
They're noticing a genuine lack of substance, the threadbare
sensation of living in a culture where everyone's talking and
nobody's listening.
But speaking of fuddy-duddies, should any of them still be
with us, they're probably asking why, if I don't like reading
on my computer, I can't just stick with paper. (Laura Miller,
The ipad is for readers, Salon, 5 April 2010)
License to leave-behind our trying interconnection?
In a different age, I'd believe it was all about absorption -- being true
to the level of interest and involvement someone interesting
instinctively draws from you. Today, you wonder if part of the delight
in this new device is that it makes the sexiest new thing about
IGNORING the irrelevant, as you focus on the preferable, a wondrous
movement away from computing devices which told you that
whatever you were up to IT SHOULD be about giving every blasted
dullard of the posturing electronic diversity an ear -- even if only for
moment, before you've twitched on to some other "light" you assess
instantly as better-if-snuffed-out.
---------For more rarefied airs
The articles over this long-weekend have characterized, what an
appreciating social anthropologist 5 years ago would have assessed as
"multivocalities" -- a world of enabled individual voices that cannot
1333
1334
the old web a once highly-touted domain, now home to but raging
cranks and abandoned hopes.
It HAS been a long, long mess; but I don't like using what should be
beautiful -- peace, order, simplicity, calmness and fairness -- to take
us some place likely even worse.
Link: The ipad is for readers (Salon)
1335
[. . .]
On our next weekend off, I sat down and banged out a blog
entry called: "Information Democracy: or How I Learned to
Stop Worrying and Love YouTube."
[. . .]
The response was instantaneous. I usually averaged
anywhere from three to eight comments per post. The next
day -- even before the next day -- there were 20 comments
posted.
[. . .]
The company who'd objected to the clips now admitted that
perhaps they'd been a little -- sudden in their opinion.
Perhaps they'd simply been surprised at what they'd seen
and unprepared for such a bold experiment. I could put the
clips back, they said. But no edited scenes (which was fine by
me -- I hadn't been posting assembled footage anyway). And
keep the clips short, under 30 seconds. (No problem, said I.
The Internet attention span doesn't really go beyond 30
seconds anyway). And no production stills -- they need to be
approved by actors. (Yes, yes, of course.) And, by the way,
Raymond ...
Yes?
How many hits are you getting on that blog of yours?
Close to a thousand a day.
Good. Keep it up. (Raymond de Felitta, Blogging "City
Island": Why I did it, Salon, 5 April 2010)
The new "James Bonds"
This account brings to mind any number of Shakespearean comedies,
with adolescent presumption at the last making peace with elders'
scorn. I think many might be inclined to take a piece like this as
evidence that there still are avenues for discussion and mutual
discovery between the brazen and the disapproving, still "allowances"
in these corporation-everywhere times for lone intent to breach
1336
boardroom impress, and not to ask if peace was made here because,
from the beginning, the venturesome "fool" was prepared to desist
should the "court" not found peace with his "coming not to offend."
I suspect this, because I think most of us are quite ready to buckle
before authority right now -- keep our hide, let someone else be the
somebody who FINALLY said it!!! -- but don't want to know this
about ourselves. What we want to know is that that bit of trouble we
caused at our workplace, that surely-not-just-token act of our true
independence, that we tell ourselves we charmed away into actually
becoming an account of inspired employee contribution, is proof that
the real Jerry Maguires work with finesse within, that only slow and
clumsy independents -- would-be rebels -- lose their jobs in their
efforts to keep some dignity.
Link: Blogging "City Island": Why I did it (Salon)
1337
April 2010)
I promise you, boredom, demi-gods!
Minor spoilers (leakages):
Kalibos bleeds scorpions that are 500 times more powerful than he is
(and Kalibos rips people apart, making him 500 times more powerful
than regular-strength Perseus is). Medusa is 500 times more
powerful than heroes are. Kraken is about same as original, but here
you're left feeling he should have been the size of Jupiter -- the planet,
that is -- for right-balance sake.
Good movie to go to credit that your absolute unexceptional
normality keeps you well within demi-god range. Have to be able to
imagine yourself standing up to parents who promise a lifetime of
standing-around and being bored, though.
---------You were right, Zeus! Spare us!
As a further note, I have heard that what in particular marks Art in
depression eras is showmanship and spectacle. As someone who was
into the 1920s but skipped the rest bit until "It's a Wonderful Life" or
so, I'm actually wondering if what Art most tries to prove during these
times is that man is about as ordinary, as humble-worthy, as
disapproving fore-fathers decreed. If depressions are Adam after
Eden, willed proof of our own sinful nature, that is -- which is what I
think they are -- then maybe what people most want now are a steady
flow of films like this that have you thinking that maybe the last 5 000
years of artistic accomplishment were just a fluke after all -- that this
steady flow of junk is true proof of all we're made of and all we should
subsequently expect. It's our way, perhaps, of suffering the
depression, without incurring the release of the Kraken.
Link: Clash of the Titans could make the gods weep (Salon)
1338
1339
Deducting penises
Here is a list of ways being battered by a partner could
make you feel: Betrayed, unsafe, compromised, unable to
trust your partner or yourself. And here, according to one
U.K. ad, is how it could make you feel if you are a man: As if
you don't have a penis.
[. . .]
Of course, intimate violence affects both genders. And it's
true that ideas about masculinity -- that men have to be
strong, in control, unafraid, invulnerable -- can keep men
from acknowledging the seriousness of their situation, or
from reporting it. However, it's unlikely that a man who
1340
1341
Terminology
Patriarchy = invention by men and women to imagine society as
father-warded against maternal claims (i.e., collapse of self through
identity-dissolution). Improvement from matriarchy; enabled
civilizations; but is out-dated, and rightly IDed as cruel and way
insufficient.
Men, according to (the worst of) academic feminists:
Determined by societal factors they themselves are oblivious to.
Through study and strict discipline -- a process of enlightenment
which has marked them unable wholly to return back, leaving them
still inclined to emote as sparsely / foreignly and speak as removedly
as do the cautious-learned logician-angels they've come to know -and natural genetic superiority, academics/feminists see what you are
not able. Truthfully, they know -- unless you're a promising graduate
student -- you will never be capable of what they themselves were,
and so don't really work by changing YOU but by changing the
environment you are "subject" to -- that is, they work at changing
structures that will end up changing you (or, really, the next gen. of
"yous"), for the better but without your likely ever being aware. Even
1342
1343
1344
Man of Action!
Watching Rachel Maddow recite the many good things the
healthcare bill does on her show Monday night, I was elated.
Hearing that Republicans have vowed to repeal the bill, I
was insulted. My insurance pays for lifesaving care. My
1345
1346
No better, no worse
West understood that mass culture had spawned a scary
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
Mordred
Frankly, as a YouPorn masturbator, I was pretty offended
by this. (By the way, you can also hit me up on
Chatroulette.) What's more, the last part kind of makes him
sound like serial killer: "My local life is clean. I am more
focused than they are. Stronger and better suited to what is
near me -- my family, my wife, my job." It almost feels like
his next sentence could easily be, "No one would ever dream
of looking in my shed."
But the other weird part about this is that he says, "you
don't fight men over stuff like this" -- yet he goes and does
just that. He fights with men (with me) about it, he just does
so in flaccid anonymity.
[. . .]
First of all, I would never, never describe making love to my
wife as "sweet." There is actually a lot of grunting, if you
must know.
[. . .]
This is not a cheating piece, this is a revenge piece; society
isn't nice with all its fancy expectations for little Prince
Anonymous, so I will treat my wife passive aggressively -no, make that cruelly -- and I'll do so in complete anonymity
(just like this article). I will use my wife and these women to
get back at the big bad modern world that doesn't
appreciate me. Performance reviews, training, 401K, too
much work, deadening career, flawed and antiquated
apparatus of marriage.
This is not a cheating piece. It's more of this Nouvelle
American Man Poor Me bullshit. This is just a retread article
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
Full Disclosure
I have reported all of my income. I receive no significant
help from my parents (they paid for college, so I wouldn't
expect any more from them even if they had the means). The
Department of Human Resources in Baltimore has my social
security number, and they know my employment history.
As for food, I generally don't even buy organic or local. I try
when I can, and usually that's with my own cash. Mostly
though, I eat sardines out of a can, which are sustainable
and high in omega-3s. I eat sweet potatoes, which are cheap
and nutritious. I sometimes eat chicken that I buy at the
halal market for about $2.99/lb. I eat a lot of vegetables,
mostly not organic, but I try to get stuff that looks good and
fresh.
I am only a hipster in that I make art in my spare time. I am
not good enough to have sold anything yet. For most of my
professional career, I have been paid to write and edit.
Unfortunately, the publishing industry is in dire straits,
which is why I find myself barely employed. (Gerry Mak,
response to post)
This is how you portray yourself here:
My interest in food stems from my having to care for a
diabetic father, and good food is the only form of health
care I have access to.
Further, you now make clear that you eat food that is "cheap and
nutritious"-- rather than cheap, nutritious, and DELICIOUS.
This is how you are portrayed in the article:
"I'm sort of a foodie, and I'm not going to do the 'living off
ramen' thing," he said, fondly remembering a recent meal
he'd prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and
sweet potatoes. I used to think that you could only get
processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but
1360
1361
1362
post)
Sex, drugs, and rock and roll!: where art thy former (dropout) defenders now?
And I saw in my path a many-mouthed beast, which went by the
name of GLUTTONY; and another draped-over in silk, pearls, and
toy-poodle encumbrances, which went by the name of
EXTRAVAGANCE; and another adrift in endless hours of artful
posings, set for endless hours more, that went by the name of
IDLENESS -- and I knew God would be displeased if I failed to
ground to the dirt, every last spoiled-rotten one of them.
The American left? Who knew?
Links: Hipsters on food stamps (Salon)
A hipster on food stamps responds (Salon)
1363
1364
1365
1366
LOTR. People thank you for allowing space to argue it one of the
2000's best when all you were doing was cruelly making use of
people's dismay to draw together a good lot of the sad hangers-on for
you to sigh at, disingenuously speak up for (highlighting ostensibly
imaginative responses by clear geeks, in an effort to essentialize
EVERYONE the films still speak to as being for the most part
unimaginative and uninspired, of non-professional calibre, of needing
over-enthused responses to their work to shore up their surely
flagging self-esteem -- as if being exulted might for a moment take
them away from their everyday experience of losing traction with a
world with no use for them), while twice or maybe three times making
sure EVERYONE knew the films no longer spoke to you or any other
professional film-critic you were in acquaintance with.
I would like to associate home-schooling with those who are getting
their children to know play. But I sense very little play in what you
write. "It" seems mostly about making clear that you are amongst the
elite, that an elite exits -- and owing somehow to its cleanliness, its infact MODERATION in tone and ambition, in an age where many are
disassembling and rambling on on over to enthused, over-inflated,
left-or-right-variety crazyland, DESERVES to exist -- and that you are
buoyed by having the good fortune of just having the right "look" to
allow you to innocently prosper while the rest of us get our messy,
panicky mental-states well away from your calmly-controlled,
securely-denatured presence. You well hide it from yourself, but you
are using our Salon, our meeting-place, to build for yourself, a small
fortress.
Link: Why our kids wont go to kindergarten (Salon)
1367
1368
1369
1370
assume the effort's likely mostly all about, as they say, "selffashioning": an effort (in this case) primarily intended to establish the
author as sufficiently clownish enough, unpresuming enough, not to
be harassed if in his own life he continues to proper, or aims to
prosper, while so many now are being downed for their immodest
assumptions, their selfishness, their hubris. If this is the case, we
shouldn't participate in hiding away this self-lie by making its cover
seem so true, brave, and emboldened.
You scold and hope to cower, by bringing up a Lear-terary giant and
his (eternal) truths-in-aging, when surely you know what giant-killing
New Historicism -- what Stephen Greenblat -- must have made of this
"ploy," this particular Renaissance self-fashioner.
----A pack of hounds...
...is what the "letters" bunch remind me of. I actually feel
that Ms. Miller's reviews were spot on, and showed a great
deal of insight. (yekdeli, response to post)
@yekdeli
We're not hounds, we're Post-Whips. We're not here to rip apart the
posts; we're here to offer helpful correction -- to challenge the writers.
And we don't bite the hand that feeds us -- just little nips, and that's
it.
Link: In the Company of Angels (Salon)
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
on the left -- as Joan Walsh has assessed them -- will be proven selfcentered, impolitic, essentially enemies of the people, and will be
ignored. Expect Koppelman to chime in on this, more than once.
What will make this possible? When it becomes clear that Obama and
the democrats who back him, despite all their multi-colors and their
refreshingly engendered, are truly no longer liberal, no longer even
feel the need to appear liberal -- and thereby validate its vision -- that
their efforts are in fact as much about intending to HURT people as
they are about helping, about identifying and making punishmentworthy the lazy and spoiled as it is about enabling them, when it
becomes clear that healthcare reform has morphed into a rightest
populist measure to promote the well-being of hard-working
Americans -- that is, when it IS ALSO an implicit attack on the legions
of ostensible vermin of the kind democrats have for long been known
to protect, who, it will be agreed upon, bleed the body-politic dry and
keep it feeling sickly -- then healthcare will suit the public mood, just
fine. The center now is where people who are regressing, people who
want a world of truly good and absolutely punishment-worthy bad,
go: the corporate-controlled understanding of it (the center) will get
us nowhere: people, corporate heads, want sadistic relish much more
than they want money -- they'll in fact lose plenty of the green, to see
more of the red (the largest story of what wars are about).
This won't be obvious for some time, however. And in the meantime,
those who sense the misdirection early -- people like Krugman -- will
very readily find themselves rendered Nader-Kucinich impotent and
ridiculous. "In the face of every possible bit of counter-evidence, he
yet still complains," will be the damning claim made upon him (and
so goodbye!). Eventually, with most Americans enjoying being part of
the movement, with them enjoined to the promise of the large-scale
persecution it will deliver on, people like Joan Walsh will loudly balk.
At that point, many Saloners will see her too in the way of tens of
thousands of lives being saved (or some such), with much blood on
her hands, and all sense that this expression is partly rhetoric will
have gone as many contemplate a more appropriate fate for those
1376
1377
1378
adult; but to me you sound about as smug and silly as David Denby
did when he said he couldn't imagine having much fun living in
Avatar-land (never played sports, David? Never?), with nary a New
Yorker or coffee shop in sight.
Link: RIP: The novel (Salon)
Cameron is to Bigelow, as Hillary is to Obama
Cameron is to Bigelow, as Hillary is to Obama
As a hunch, "Avatar" lost because it felt too cheery (or cheer-worthy),
was too exuberant, when Hollywood was in the mood to salute those
who kept things delimited, neutered (more broken, less affect), and
controlled. We voted in Obama, not Hillary (though we found a way
to give her kudos), and he's going to be around for more than a short
while. (Does Bigelow smoke? Did Cameron quit a long time ago? I
wonder.)
I would hope with these Oscars that many of us are realizing how
predictable we want things to be right now. For awhile yet, we can
still pretend we're really into change/progress by handing out crowns
to yet another who's never known election, or maybe switch to
handing out buckets of them at a time, rather just to one pathbreaking singular, but at some point it will become obvious to us that
we're for some reason terrified of moving on. I guess we figure we'll
"deal" with this moment when we get to it, but for now and the shortterm: what would it be like if all in one year the best picture, best
director, best actor/actress were all female/black? What kind of a
charge of affirmation would be get from THAT? -- enough to carry us
on? How about along with HALF indie-selections? -- or would that
leave us too little room for next time?
At the end of the day, the movie that has stayed with me, is Star Trek.
True for anyone else?
Patrick
1379
1380
probably environment as well. I'm fairly certain parents can put 2 and
2 together, and figure out some means to put an end to this wellcredentialed, careful "nutjob."
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston
I don't understand your argument. Why would medical
disorders prove to be environmental if talent and ability
prove to be? (Christopher1988, response to post)
@Christopher1988
The argument here makes genius the responsibility of good
childrearing, not (so much) good genes. If parents embrace this new
way of accounting for mental ability, they've positioned themselves so
they're going to have a tough time not feeling obliged to attend to
emerging arguments that make environment mostly responsibility for
mental DISABILITY as well. This doesn't seem obvious to you?
Maybe it's not; but it seems to me that it is. In any case, autism as
mostly childrearing, not genes, is essentially implicit in everything
Stanley Greenspan has written. And I really hope we haven't forgotten
about dear R.D. Laing -- the guy who helped stop Britains from
electrocuting their schizos, by getting people to understand that
schizophrenia IS crazy (I know, I know -- he came to conclude it was
actually a state of enlightenment), but still often the only available -the sanest -- mental "response" to insane parental demands on the
child.
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Sorry, just not seeing it. Deciding on the basis of this article's
argument that autism and bipolar issues are a result of
child-rearing is like saying being born without an arm or
being born color-blind is a result of parental upbringing.
There is a very huge difference between falling in the normal
range of human intelligence and how the way we are raised
leads this natural ability to flourish and being born with a
geniune medical condition that prevents one's brain from
1381
1382
felt counter evidence to everything they argue, that have left them
remaining feeling vulnerable to consciousness disassembling -overwhelming panic-attack -- should being member of the DNA club
stop supplying them the elative uppers being part of the hip and
perennially societally relevant provides you with.
"If parents can encourage their kids into genius, surely they can drive
them into psychosis": we'll see if this prevails over your "very huge
difference."
----@DMSWhat
Re: That's different from telling everyone, "You, yes YOU,
can be a genius! You already ARE a genius!" This is just
pandering to the narcissism that's been running through
our culture for decades.
Yeah, and you had add that to the "it just takes lots of hard work" idea
-- a way of estimating your own life efforts that pretty much everyone
subscribes to (i.e., we're all suffering and working non-stop doggedly)
-- and you have an even easier time imagining this a message
Charlotte would spin to keep the rather ordinary feeling
extraordinary.
Re: The truth is that the vast majority of people do not
have it in their range to be a genius at anything, no matter
how enriched their environment or how superhuman their
perseverance.
If you convince with this argument, I can't but help that it's because
it's aided along by our tendency to associate creativity with IQ and
our preference/need to believe that out there are but a few greats
--who are so much greater for there being few of them -- we can
attach to to breast such things as our own personal depression and
1383
1384
Doubt it? Stand your average parents with an ADHDafflicted child along a long wall of current books which
establish beyond doubt how ADHD is all genes, along a long
wall of full-agreement, confirmation and those-who-thinkyour-affliction-means-there's-something-wrong-with-you,personally- are-just-scientifically-ignorant assurance, and
just start talking sceptic
Your argument might hold water a little better if there really
was some kind of evidence and there were any books written
about a proven genetic link for ADHD. There is not. You're
just talking out of your ass, just as you want to believe that
discovering the factors that result in talent and high
achievement should somehow change conditions that
children are born with into something you can blame on
what the parents did after the child was born. (Angela
Quattrano, response to post)
continuing
@Angela Quattrano
Re: Your argument might hold water a little better if there
really was some kind of evidence and there were any books
written about a proven genetic link for ADHD (Angela
Quattrano, response to post)
Would it hold water better if not a one of the long line of books on
ADHD on the shelf suggested that "your" mind went hither-tither
owing to your parents never letting it know safe-harbor? I've seen and
pa-roused the long line, and yet still wrote "genes": it may well have
been just nerves? bio-acids? chemical? but I went with genes cause
it's the "most usual" when we're retreating from mommy-didn't-loveme assessments of our mental problems.
@Christopher1988
I think what I'm saying is that right now NOT EVEN doctors can get
1385
1386
but also because it's a significant deviance from the Alice I very much
liked in the book. Alice was notable as much (if not in fact, more) for
her default inclination TO PRESUME on the tilted creatures that keep
frothing up to spook at her with unsteadying strangeness, as it was to
accommodate and defer to them, and as a result she is often shown to
sort of spark the creatures she meets into a state that comes a bit
closer to recognizable sanity -- she gets real and recognizable, not just
crazed and abstract, conversations and reactions from them, and by
so doing SHE brings THEM into unfamiliar territory. You can read
Alice as an initially quiet and unsettled stranger who quickly becomes
someone who could see through the lies and breast the cowering and
possibly idiosyncrasy-inspiring intimidation, to near take down the
queer king (queen)dom. It's the Caucus Race where I first felt her
influencing Wonderland -- making "it" experience the uncertain step
toward a larger field of consciousness --not just reacting to it, but all
these instances are significant as setting her up as at least a potential
agent of unsettling change:
`Did you say pig, or fig?' said the Cat.
`I said pig,' replied Alice; `and I wish you wouldn't keep
appearing and vanishing so suddenly: you make one quite
giddy.'
`All right,' said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite
slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with
the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had
gone.
and this bit:
`Have some wine,' the March Hare said in an encouraging
tone.
Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it
but tea. `I don't see any wine,' she remarked.
`There isn't any,' said the March Hare.
`Then it wasn't very civil of you to offer it,' said Alice
1387
angrily.
and this bit:
"OFF WITH HER HEAD!"
`Nonsense!' said Alice, very loudly and decidedly, and the
Queen was silent.
The King laid his hand upon her arm, and timidly said
`Consider, my dear: she is only a child!'
and this bit:
`You promised to tell me your history, you know,' said
Alice, `and why it is you hate--C and D,' she added in a
whisper, half afraid that it would be offended again.
`Mine is a long and a sad tale!' said the Mouse, turning to
Alice, and sighing.
`It is a long tail, certainly,' said Alice, looking down with
wonder at the Mouse's tail; `but why do you call it sad?' And
she kept on puzzling about it while the Mouse was speaking,
and of course, of course, the final bit:
`Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. `The idea of having
the sentence first!'
`Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.
`I won't!' said Alice.
`Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her
voice. Nobody moved.
`Who cares for you?' said Alice, (she had grown to her full
size by this time.) `You're nothing but a pack of cards!'
@ Patrick M-H
Excellent comment.
1388
I too read that bit of SZ's review and thought "... wait a
minute". What are either of the two Alice stories BUT "girls
can do things too" empowerment? In the first story, a girl
essentially stands up to tyranny. In the second, she become
QUEEN.
(Perhaps SZ's objection is to this movie's way of depicting
the empowerment; I haven't seen it yet, so I can't say. But
the theme alone is extremely "Alice".)
I'd like to see the film, even if I suspect it won't be very good.
I'm interested in the visuals, and I care enough about "Alice"
that I'd like to see even a bad version in order to be able to
talk about why I thought it failed. (If I end up thinking that.)
I'll say at the outset that unless SZ and other reviewers are
leaving out plot points, what has irritated me since the
beginning of the advertising blitz is this:
Carter is playing THE QUEEN OF HEARTS. Not the Red
Queen. Playing cards = "Wonderland". Chess Set = "Through
the Looking Glass".
I would find it interesting if this movie suggested that the
Queen of Hearts had assassinated and usurped the role of
the Red Queen, as a bid to take over all of Wonderland. That
would make her opposition to the White Queen make sense.
But she isn't the Red Queen in and of herself -- that's a
separate and actually *helpful* character, not at all like the
tyrant Queen of Hearts.
If the movie loses that distinction entirely, that's more than
disappointing. (sgaana, response to post, Tim Burtons
Alice in Underland)
@sgaana
Re: "I'd like to see the film, even if I suspect it won't be very
good. I'm interested in the visuals, and I care enough about
"Alice" that I'd like to see even a bad version in order to be
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
six-day work-week ("But I hope that near the end she found a kind of
peace, the peace you feel when you stop struggling against the tide
and just let it carry you out"), means of imagining yourself bidden
toward a likely afterlife of lyrical ease and loving recompense ("They
didn't take their lives because they were selfish. They did it because
they succumbed to a selfish disease one that wanted them all to
itself.")
Still, if turning away from disease-theory means a movement toward
blaming others -- which is what most people will think of when we
associate suicide with choice -- it'll be regression, not progress. In
truth, I don't believe depression is a disease, but I do think it is an
affliction WHICH CAN determine a person's behavior and "choices."
Early childhood, if you did not know sufficient love, if you came to
understand your own needs as selfish and your role as someone who
pleases others (your parents), your adult, independent life will be
largely under the rule of an angry, watchful superego, which will
ensure that you are much more prone to make some choices than you
are others.
Link: Depression's latest victim: Marie Osmond's son
She was often a bitch, but at the end I swear I saw her Athena-helmed
and golden
The experience of having my mother take her life was
enormously difficult and raised a lot of questions about
what it meant to be a good daughter; I wasnt sure if that
meant trying to talk my mother out of killing herself, or
helping her do it. I wrote the book in part to better
understand that dilemma. [. . .] I was fortunate that in the
last year of her life my mother talked about nothing else!
Planning her death was her last great project. [. . .] I also
1399
wasnt sure how seriously to take her. More than once, she
changed her "death date," which made me think talking
about suicide was a ploy for attention. [. . .] And so, after
months of trying to talk her out of it, I accepted her decision
and even admired her for being so strong and unblinking in
the face of death. [. . .] One thing about my family, were all
incredibly blunt and outspoken, but there is humor mixed in.
So I could say to my mother, "Stop worrying about pruning
the trees in your backyard. Youre going to be dead soon.
Relax." And far from offending her, she delighted in that.
[. . .]
I think the time you spend with someone who is dying is
extraordinary. I was with both my parents when they died
and witnessing that profound event in their lives was
incredibly moving. There is a way that you love someone
when they are dying that is very pure, very uncomplicated
and incredibly healing. All the old resentments and
difficulties disappear. (Nelle Engoron, Imperfect Ending:
When mom wants to die, 28 Feb. 2010)
She was often a bitch, but in the end I swear I saw her
Athena-helmed and golden
We've long been pilling our kids, and now we're overdosing our
parents: seems linked; sorta easy, actually -- in a the-road's-alreadybeen-paved kinda way. We did it to our kids -- if we can be honest
with ourselves for a moment -- just so that it makes "[a]ll the old
resentments and difficulties disappear," as we focus our purely loving
eyes upon the poor afflicted child whose difficulties AREN'T now
about parental abandonment, or any such messiness, but about
neurological something-or-another, and now we're doing it to our
parents so we can think of them as brave and blunt (as they would
have it) in an immature world, rather than those whose abuse
inspired a lifetime of nowhere-near-addressed "resentments and
difficulties."
1400
1401
That is, there is a sense that Norah Ephron's latest is actually kinda
like "Hurt Locker." A whole book of recipes, that drives her (the
blogger) away from being a nothing. At the end, with whatever
numerous potential recipe-bombs defused, with her now set to
master whatever daily recipe before her, one suspects she'll be apt to
go at it again, after her brief pause of no clear mission. No?
----I'd like to once again chime in to make clear that it is unlikely to me
that Bigelow is masquerading as a hyper-macho bad boy to gain
someone else's approval, but that she is instead attracted to
characters who can "keep their head" in stressful situations because
she knows and is inspired by this character trait. And though I have
voiced some criticism here of the teflon-soldier, you do see someone
worth trying to emulate -- whatever your sex -- when Will throws off
the headset, focuses on his task, and manages a successful defusing of
the car-bomb. He keeps calm and inquisitive, in stressful situations,
and will balk authority in order to do so -- and that's a trait the Clint
Eastwoods AND the Norah Ephron's surely possess. His comrades are
made to seem hyper hyper-alert, not just less narrowly-focused. And
his patience is perhaps more calming than it is upsetting. He needs to
be a better listener? Probably. But I think the movie suggests his
ability to do what he has to to feel calm and in control, to be true to
his own needs, actually is what affords him the ability to be
generously receptive to the world around him -- he doesn't look at the
porn-selling kid as just another potential hazard, something his
companions would have a tougher time managing. He is more playful
and human -- on the battlefield. Again, maybe a lot of directors are
the same way, away from home (life).
Nochimson's point that Hollywood -- in motioning Bigelow to be the
director of the year -- is up to something ultimately womendisparaging, requires a better engagement than we have thus far
offered, because we all know, for instance, that something quite not
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
The president gives (another) great speech. But it will take more than
words to get his agenda back on track
and particularly this one:
3) Thank you, Sen. Franken
Senate Dems are saying he stifled Joe Lieberman to keep debate on
track. Liberals are happy, whatever the reason
Link: Why so little attention to Vernon Hunter (Salon)
Why copy someone else, when you can copy yourself, risk-free?
To this conundrum, Hegemann has added a heaping dollop
of generational special pleading, and the story has prompted
teachers to offer multiple examples of students who don't
seem to understand what plagiarism is or that it's wrong.
Kids these days, this Cassandra-ish line of reasoning goes,
have unfathomably different values, and their elders had
better come to terms with this because children are, after all,
the future. You can't tell them anything! It's as if people
under 25 have become the equivalent of an isolated
Amazonian tribe who can't justly be expected to grasp our
first-world prohibitions against polygamy or cannibalism -despite the fact that they've grown up in our very midst.
(Laura Miller, Plagiarism: The next generation, Salon, 16
Feb. 2010)
The equally bad variant
You need all As to get a good grad school. Experimentation might at
some point lead to something great AND polished, but at first it'll be
but an inkling, look awkward, feel raw, and draw the occasional "10"
but also more than a few "5s" from the Korean-Swiss-American-
1407
whatever judge. Who can risk Bs while you get the hang of it, when it
may just be enough to count you out for good, and embarrass you
while your more professional-minded friends stick with the familiar
and certain and collect their ready baskets of achievement accolades?
Almost no one. If you abandon the effort, and repeat the already
known, even you're hippie parents will secretly be relieved to have an
easier time now bragging about your brilliance.
So the cynical smart student -- the one we apparently want -- learns
not to plagiarize, which is risky, but to put forth the solid but familiarboring, over and over again -- that is, not to grow. The grad school
gets the writing sample beginning with, "This essay will
problematize . . . " know they've got a savy careerer, and invite
her/him on in.
Plagiarism is an interesting topic. But let's not let those who get As
but who aren't fundamentally interested in self-growth, know their
doing anything but a (socially approved/desired) variant.
Link: Plagiarism: The next generation (Salon)
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010
Boring, as a virtue?
"Can I ask you a question about Canada?" he asked.
Sure, I replied, expecting something about healthcare or
Anne Murray. Nope.
"Why are all you Canadians so terribly boring?"
Canadian national identity has always been a curious
mixture of American populism and British propriety, a fact
that, along with our climate, geographical size and
complicated relationship with our neighbor to the south, has
led us to be suspicious of acting too impulsively or
dramatically. Some people might call that boring; we call
that prudent. Were the only country in the Americas to have
gained our independence from Europe without violence --
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
same time.
my experience is that Canadians are far more likely to
keep-in any novel thought of their own that in the same
instance an American would take wonderful opportunity to
express
My experience is that Canadians are better listeners than
they are talkers and that Americans are often expressing
their "novel thoughts" loudly and to the chagrin of anyone in
immediate earshot (American or otherwise). The rest of the
world has a word for this: tacky. The American who truly
has something original and intelligent to say is an
increasingly rare phenomenon. (mhatkinson, response to
post)
Link: Olympics Opening Ceremony: Canada will rock you (politely)
(Salon)
1415
1416
JackSparx
Nice one, Jack : )
Vulcan is kinda the new black. Uhura is just one of Starfleet -- what
distinguishes her is not her color but her strident smartness and
sexiness. Kirk wasn't her man, 'cause he is just too pliable, to
ultimately step-onable, to be taken seriously. But they do kinda make
Spock now a last representative of a blasted Vulcan-kind, and not just
the mostly singularly distinguished member of the crew. I'm not
suggesting that Uhura's love for him is a sign of liberal guilt -- an "I'm
in touch with those who've suffered most." It's not that, but it's a fun
enough suggestion for me to have played it out a bit in my mind.
Wait, Spock was half-human half-Vulcan, right?
Half WHITE human?
Wasn't Jane Wyatt (original) Spock's Mom?
So, she was two-timing with Robert Young and a Vulcan?
So, there is a "one-drop" rule for whites too? If they mate
with space aliens, we consider their offspring "white"?
It gets so complicated in outer space.
Interracial dating on earth is so much simpler than
interspecies dating. We should all just mind meld together
and get along. (Jack Sparx, response to post)
1417
1418
1419
too, amongst many, as you well evidence, is the need to feel selfrighteous and the desire to distance yourself (with you, your larger
awareness and more considered empathy) from a much-worse-than
lot. What not being properly validated offers, is righteous alarm,
flight from self-conscious inquiry, and loyalty to -- connection with -one's "heritage." None of this may be in play here. It may just be a
whole lot of white men who find black women physically repellant. If
that's the all of it, that would just be awful to experience, and she's
just got to find herself amongst a more sane lot. But if you're most
interested in our being honest with ourselves, keep the search for
what is honest seeming an open, unpredictable, inquiry. You seem
yourself so ready to buy in to the most convenient (for you)
possibility.
Link: John Mayer: A black woman responds (Salon)
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2010
Bag-lady fears
To me it was always about my bag lady fears. It's a fear that
men don't have, by the way. It comes from distant parenting
or childhood abandonment. I had that. It's what happens if
you dont have a nurturing environment as a child, and you
think this could happen, that you're going to end up on the
street. (The Bag Lady Papers: How to lose money and
alienate people, Alexandra Penny in discussion with
Thomas Rogers, Salon, 10 Feb. 2010)
Re: It's what happens if you dont have a nurturing environment as a
child, and you think this could happen, that you're going to end up on
the street.
She's offering us a ton here. She's says guys don't know this fear, but
it certainly is something I'm familiar with. I doubt, though, that it's
1420
just the distance that does it. The connection between finding yourself
alone, on your own, and very vulnerable to absolute dissolution,
requires something more than just having well known indifference
and huge-gapped distance. More likely, it is that as a teen on -- that
is, when you've moved beyond the stage of childhood, where you are
naturally drawn to your parents and the familial surround, to wanting
to explore a world all your own -- your poorly nurtured parents reject
you for the sin of moving beyond them (the same fate they suffered
from their own parents, when they stopped be so interested in feeding
their parents' own attendance needs). (So it's not the distance, but
rather the DISTANCING -- the INTENTIONAL abandonment.) So
even if you understand all your gains as well-earned, as the product of
hard-work -- that is, even while you try and tame down your joys by
associating them with long-suffering -- you always feel that at some
point being eaten away on the streets, will be in it, for you.
A big bag of warmth and love for you, Bag Lady. I'm sorry the therapy
didn't quite do it for you. That must have been very discouraging.
Link: The Bag Lady Papers: How to lose money and alienate people
(Salon)
1421
1422
well aware that the real Mandela is likely well different, that prison
(for instance) may have served him as it likely did John McCain (as
the SNL skit portrayed this) -- that we're just using the film version of
him to project for our consideration and good company, the ideal
leader. But this isn't what we're up to. Instead, this is the Mandela
who MUST be, regardless: we need him to be the unassailable
mountain of purity that can be counted on to keep straight and true,
even while the whole universe sags around him. With him, you dig
about a bit, and you just must find something even better.
I went after the person who went after Salinger because she wasn't
largely opening us up to a larger discussion, opening us to be more
aware, but dumping him into the pit of deposed men. If her purposes
were different, I would have just agreed with her: it's just sickening
when we see evidence of people being estimated largely out of our
own needs of the time; as liberals, of the more conscious, we've got
the make-up to demand more of ourselves. Good things happened
with Mandela, and I wish the best for him, but is he really more than
what our projections have set in place -- once past what we want of
him, will we truly discover something better? I'm not sure, myself. By
which I mean, I doubt it. But it would be still good for all of us to see
him the more plainly.
Link: Morgan Freeman: Making Mandela sexy (Salon)
Tossing Salinger into the pit of deposed men
Both Joyce Maynard and Salinger's daughter Margaret
were vilified for violating the great man's privacy when they
wrote about their own experiences with him and exposed his
predatory, controlling relationships with women. Instead of
exploring the insights these revelations might bring to
readings of Salinger's work (not to mention the women's
right to tell their own stories), critics dismissed their books
as exploitative, attention-seeking stunts. When Maynard
1423
decided to sell some of the letters Salinger had written her -letters that confirmed her story of their affair -- the response
was even more bitter. A typical reaction was that of author
Cynthia Ozick, who wrotethat Maynard "has never been a
real artist and has no real substance and has attached
herself to the real artists in order to suck out his celebrity."
This sort of backlash is not exclusive to Salinger -- when
Pablo Picasso's former wives and lovers began to expose him
as a physically and emotionally abusive man, they were
subject to similar criticisms.
As feminists have long known, the personal is political, and
women who tell unpleasant truths rarely find a receptive
audience. (Mikki Halpin, Salinger: Recluse with an ugly
history of women, 8 Feb. 2010)
Please wake up. Any time a famous man dies now, and we don't
thereafter learn what a junk of a human being he was to women, we
breathe a sigh of relief: My God! It is possible to die and not as a
retreating spirit have to watch a gaggle of awfuls piss on you in hopes
their evidenced disgust at you shores up their own immunity to the
same fate.
Yes, we should be alert to how our own needs shape our
perception/taking of the real. Given the now, bringing up the women
made your important point inaudible amongst the shame-shameshames.
Thanks Mikki
He was a woman-hating male writer, like so many others.
Men don't want to hear about that. But women do. And we
also want to hear the truth and not a made-up version of
somebody's nobility.
Thanks Mikki for taking the time to write about that. (Deb
McEachern, response to post, Salinger)
1424
I'd like to hear the truth, too, Deb. But there is NO SUCH THING as a
"woman-hating male writer," that is, some worst slum of demons
who's somehow prowled out of the dankest part of the inferno to
squeeze love, hope, and joy out of womankind.
Screw you for wanting to keep this pit of mad-mean myth alive and
open for more deposits. No one hates someone else, unless they've
been thoroughly beat upon. Unloved, unrespected mothers, use their
boys to satisfy their own needs. They end up hating them, when they
(the boys) focus on their own lives. This is where the woman-hate
comes from. No one is to blame. Our earliest ancestors knew little
more than the reptilian, and love has just taken a gargantuan ton of
time to start trumping that huge, long impress of savage. That is all.
Start dealing with THAT truth, and I'm with you. Then when we hear
of woman-hate, we're also hearing something else: reason, fairness -love, maybe even -- no revenge.
Gag order from beyond the grave
enforced by a self-appointed army of thought police aka
fans.
The outrage is totally out of proportion to any accusation,
which is why it is clearly not rational in nature.
This only happens to women who attempt to tell their side of
the story in a relationship with a powerful man. (Angela
Quattrano, response to post, Salinger)
@Angela Quattrano
The outrage is totally out of proportion to any accusation, which is
why it is clearly not rational in nature.
In may be no exaggeration to say that the entirety of pop-culture
analysis these days revolves around the periodic full reveal of great
men to puerile exposure, and a collective subsequent watching to see
all the blood rivulets and crass contours that develop in the desperate
attempt at some recomposition of the flagging victim / splayed
corpse. We get the day-to-day -- and then the lottery! Yay! Another
1425
1426
"In every movie, including this one, he's happy to stand by and let his
co-stars do their stuff, without feeling the need to step in and grab our
attention with clownish facial expressions or torrents of jibber-jabber
la Jim Carrey or Robin Williams. Ferrell is content to be low-key
and goofy" (Zacharek, "Land of the Lost")
Versus:
'''Avatar' would be great fun, if only Cameron -- the picture's writer,
director, producer and editor -- had a sense of humor about himself,
which he clearly doesn't. Instead Cameron -- who is no longer just
King of the World but Emperor of the Universe -- has to make it clear
he's addressing grand themes." "'Avatar' is Cameron's 'Let's be fair to
the Indians' movie." "Cameron is less a sage than a canny bonehead.
Characters signal their motives and intentions with thundering
dialogue, mouthed by the actors in ways that suggest the guy at the
top has a tin ear, or at least some pretty strange ideas about
punctuation." "Cameron takes all this 'We must be one with nature'
business very seriously." (Zacharek, "Avatar")
Generosity should be lauded, and bullying self-assertiveness, taken
down. But I for one sense in Stephanie an intention to make the side
effects of being bullied -- most notably, the thereafter carefulness to
please and charm but never offend -- praiseworthy, desirable; and the
side effects of understanding the world as a place for wondrous,
expansive self-assertion, as vain, intrinsically ungenerous, and wholly
punishment-worthy.
Why, after knowing that "we're not supposed to call Johnson "The
Rock" anymore -- [as] he has politely stated, in interview after
interview, that that's his preference" -- did you title your article
"Dwayne Johnson: He still rocks my world"? HE would never ask you
anything of the sort, of course. Too blunt; too much risk of unsettling.
But since one wonders if somewhere between all his amenableness he
just must find some dispensable amongst his fandom to suffer for all
his forever-pleasing and never really being listened to, one also
suspects that he -- like Cera -- really now most needs to become more
1427
1428
1429
Hemingway had the same complaint: that is, You may need more
than this to convince, here -- this sounds too much like an airing of a
school of thought (on how to properly tell a story), to simply
convince.
Link: Screenwriting, the most meaningless Oscar (Salon)
1430
1431
1432
Dilly-dallyingly presumptive
First and foremost, this is a referendum on Coakley's
campaign, not on President Obama (thought I'll get to him
later.) She blew it, taking a Caribbean vacation after the
primary, assuming she'd merely coast into the Senate. She
didn't see the Brown surge, didn't use any of the questions
about his record against him, didn't try to define him until it
was too late. Proof that the vote wasn't about Obama: She
lost many voters who said they still support Obama. (Joan
Walsh, Learning the wrong lessons from Massachussetts,
Salon, 19 January 2010)
I don't buy that it was the campaign. I think when Obama got in, and
both houses were democrat-controlled, many Americans felt
strangely hemmed-in by net. The tea-baggers were taken as feisty
fish, battering, this way and that (and thus were attended to way
beyond what support for their political stance, would by itself
allowed) -- and Brown's victory, the glorious emergence. Knowing
that escape is possible, it is actually possible that Obama's policies
won't be opposed with quite the same vigor. Maybe they (Scott Brown
cheerers) just needed to feel they'd demonstrated why they need to be
attended to --their own self-importance, capacity for empowered selfmovement -- before they nestled in more comfortably with Obama's
plans.
No better campaign would have helped her, because the electorate -and the press-- was in the mood to imagine her as dilly-dallyingly
presumptive, and her opponent as all vigor. If she hadn't gone on
vacation, something -- anything -- else would have been used to
maintain this fantasy. The fact of the matter, would, in my judgment,
hardly have mattered: it was going to be Rocky 2, regardless.
Link: Leaning the wrong lessons from Massachussetts (Salon)
1433
1434
My book
My book "Draining the Amazon's Swamp: All that we do when we
read, write, watch, make -- live -- our fictions" is now available for
(free) viewing/download. Essays I wrote, 2002 - 2006. Books and
movies become part of our lived life, worlds we experience -- for real.
Much here, especially, about how we use books/movies to satisfy
needs/urges we would rather remain unconscious of. Also, some
feelings-out of how we experience things like movement, shapes,
spaces, in these environments. How these things make us feel. Typical
plot assessments become artifice, obstructive-cover for the more vital
stuff we're up to.
Cheers
1435
1436
Try watching WWE for a week, and turn back to your crush
No one can be part of the WWE environment for all that time, and be
all that sane. He'll blush, and play the puppet for you, but that's just
sad. On SNL, I root for him to be able to be TRULY in on the joke. He
manages it, but just barely. He's known what it is to be long alone and
unsure of his worth, and he's not wholly downed, which is why I cheer
for him; but he's not much more than an amphibian to Pamela
Anderson's fishy-fish -- but a couple (well, maybe a few more than a
couple) steps up in the "fully there" department, that is.
He managed to do WWE and be hugely popular, all the while still
communicating that this was but a stage he'd be abandoning for the
more respectable -- which does say something for him. If you prefer
him to a Tom Cruise, it must have something to do with liking guys
who are more attendant to not be offensive, to soothe down the
nerved, than is healthy for them. I think that's it.
Link: Dwayne Johnson: He still rocks my world (Salon)
1437
1438
for the different kind of green? There are good ways to move away
from Shakespeare, but for me -- an urbane --pastoral romance is the
worst of ways. There is no wisdom in dirt, just random happenstance.
If we turn to it so we better understand "Shakespeare," okay, but if we
do so in an effort to make HIM the one who is optional, then the
ONLY reason this is still a plus is because progressives tend to be the
ones so turned on to garden-learning. Personally, I way prefer the
glass and concrete; I just want interactive, democratic, child-focused
learning, to be the norm.
Re: I was so angry after reading "Cultivating Failure," that
I assigned my 11th grade students a writing exercise on this
question: "Is interactive learning important? Why or why
not?" After 10 minutes of frantic scribbling, I heard about
the necessity of things like our school garden in my
students' own voices.
So something was bothering you, and you made your students sort it
out for you. Maybe next time ask what was really bothering THEM,
before assigning them to match your irritated state with their frantic
scribbling. You make it seem as if they eased your tension, with their
experiencing your pain. They're not extensions of you to use to stamp
out internal fires. I hope one of them told you to piss off. And you
proved okay with that. That's the kind of fire I MOST want to see: I
could give a fig about the worms (mostly).
Link: The school gardener strikes back (Salon)
1439
[. . .]
But does Wilty Jack find Dead Inside appealing? Because,
let's face it, Wilty Jack is more like a Sexy Lady Victim Du
Jour this season, and Dead Inside is more like Classic,
Casually Murderous Jack, which means that Dead Inside is
likely to ignore Wilty Jack's pleading for sanity and mercy,
sallying forth heedlessly kicking ass and taking names as
necessary to round up plenty of wayward executail.
But we don't want someone with carefully applied mascara
on to save the world! We want Jack Bauer to do it, damn it!
(24: Jack Bauer goes soft, Heather Havrilesky, 16
January 2010)
Re: But we don't want someone with carefully applied
mascara on to save the world! We want Jack Bauer to do it,
damn it!
Who's "we"? I'm thinking it probably at least ought to be you guys,
but I'm doing my damndest to find the old Jack Bauer amongst your
2009 most desired, and not coming up with much.
I'm not sure if James Franco wears mascara, but he probably pees
pink. Neil Patrick Harris. Raphael Nadel is to you, all ass, not squarejaw, and delights by dousing fires with a "charming response to a
jarring moment." Joseph Gordon-Levitt went all "dolled up as an
eyeliner-smeared Nancy Spungen for a fun stab at gender bending,"
to your approval. Neil Patrick Harris. You "finished" Zach in a way
you'd think would have finished him off, making him both a bear and
one who wants to cuddle-wuddle with the kids. You really turned on
to Lenny Kravitz, only when he tried on Nurse John. Clooney got
koodos for being "delighted to enjoy a snuggle with a nerdy goof like
Kristof." Levi got it for "going camp." Ted, for being "vulnerable and
disarming." Jamie Oliver, for getting kids to eat their broccoli, while
being so thoughfully "accessib[ly] charm[ing]."
Neil Patrick Harris.
That pretty much left Rahm as the only candidate for a Jack Bauer,
1440
before he got soft. If you're true to your heart, you probably ought
now to spend more of your time watching your Rahm: think of him as
your agent, balled-up, and even closer to the heat of things.
*****
Jack Bauer doesn't give a shit
Jack Bauer doesn't just piss excellence, he also shits gold.
Bauer is so viral his simple gaze is substitute Viagra.
Jack Bauer is responsible for the birth of 4,440,000,
including his own grandchild.
Jack Bauer will have his cake AND eat it too.
There has not been a terrorist attack in the United States
since Jack Bauer first appeared on television.
Jack Bauer is the only reason why Waldo is hiding.
Jack Bauer doesn't give a shit and he knows you know he
knows that. (yojimbo_7, response to post, 24: Jack Bauer
goes soft)
But Jack Bauer NOW shits gold, and makes of it, a tiara.
But Jack Bauer is NOW fit for graze, beyond even the hope of Viagra.
But Jack Bauer NOW sighs his responsible, hoping for forgiveness
from his over-burdened grandchildren.
But Jack Bauer NOW will have his cake, but well mourn it too.
But Jack Bauer will NOW prove responsible for 4, 440, 000 deaths,
since he went all soft on tele.
But to court Jack Bauer is NOW the reason Waldo will finally come
out of the closet.
But Jack Bauer NOW gives a shit, and frets you may feel a bit
decomposed, should you 'come in the know of it.
Link: 24: Jack Bauer goes soft (Salon)
1441
1442
1443
playing the eternally sweet, baffled kid goes. His future may
lie in his ability to channel his inner shit. (Stephanie
Zacharek, Youth in Revolt: Michael Cera, sex god?,
Salon, 6 January, 2010)
All might be good on that score. Just saw Michael Cera in the park
with Signourney, chain-smoking and talking smack to some old bird
who just ain't down with all the what-all, of all that the kids have it in
them to say, these days. Later I hear they're going to set some dumb
old tree on fire, watch squirrel-monkeys scramble about, on fire,
snark, "look!, see -- they moved," as a trial balloon for channelling
some inner-shit Giovanni Ribisiesque career-action. As I understand
it, they're kinda hoping you might join up, and rather than shed "this
embryonic reviewer's youthful genderic biases and extremely
parochial appreciation of the film experience itself" (Msakel), make it
your calling card, and go over-the-top bad-ass.
Link: "Avatar": Dances with aliens (Salon)
Link: " Youth in Revolt": Michael Cera, sex god?
1444
for it, and in recovery, in pay back -- subsequent years of the kind of
removed consideration, in film, in art, in mind, of the like we know or
at least suspect would balk Jackson back into a kind of "you're just
snobs who hate fantasy!" retreat. You can feel the steady layering of
book scholarship discussion sealing down all memory of joyous
hobbits, bouncing delight, and singing glee, in hopes to entertain all
company.
It did streamline; and despite its length, went down as without
contradiction as a smooth shot of whiskey. But I shake that dumbness
off, and remember people acting inspiringly beautiful towards one
another. Learn and be inspired, by that.
Link: The case against LOTR: Scrubbing bubbles! (Salon)
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2010
Exeunt Peter Jackson, chased by our inner Anthony Lane
1445
never had it in them to last even a week in the big city, it is now time
to draw back, become more nuanced, and engage with an
unaccountably intertwined and complex world. This will require the
help of a different sort of film.
Of course it will prove a classic. Too much love and innovation in it
for it not to. But let's never allow its beautiful fellowship to seem all
that irrelevant to our current needs. Boy I liked Viggo's smile -- it can
carry you on through as assuredly well as can the latest "New Yorker."
We know this; let's not forget it.
Link: Dude, wheres my LOTR? (Andrew OHehir, Salon)
1446
1447
defenders seem near as much to have escaped the shire for the civitas
as any urbane who complains of their smelly feet and rank stupidity?
Closer to Jackson's LOTR is David Eddings and Piers Anthony. It is
the friendliness, the family, in LOTR, that matters, not its passedover erudition, its overlooked sophistication.
(Care to say anything nice about these two authors, about those who
like these authors, Eric? You won't look as cool to film "snobs" who
can appreciate a return to the warmth of the ring, with their cool
Blade Runner guard well up, or with some reference to the likes of
Fredric Jameson and commercial culture -- as Matt Zoller Seitz made
sure to do, to adjudicate / circumscribe his applause of Michael Bay.
You'd very quickly find yourself outside the "fantasist" section, the
imaginative and cerebral -- and near Marquez, and well redeemable -and back munching bags of chippies with all the dorks in fantasy / sci
fi. How prepared are you to jump up and down on couches, and
scream out the love of your life?)
Link: Fantasy still cant get no respect (Salon)
1448
1449
Awakening-mother Ewya
@geometeer
Geometeer: "Perhaps the most wonderful thing in Avatar is
that the hero when human has a hand-rolled wheelchair -two-century-old tech at the story's date, in a techworshipping culture! -- just to have him seem more sad and
pitiful."
The movie explained this with the reverence to how cheap
the government was when it came to veterans' benefits.
(Xrandadu Hutman, response to post, What the news big
can learn from Avatar, Salon, 4 Jan. 2010)
Xrandadu:
It did that. But it also worked to set him up as sad and pitiful -- to the
rest of the "core." The point is also made, in the way the other (let's
call them) marines reacted to his disability, that they're now much
more paid grunts (the fallen) than they are military men: military
men may have teased him, but would have more readily appreciated
1450
1451
feminism.
[. . .]
She seems to believe that men, be they real or fictional, are
supposed to emerge cocksure on the other side of young
adulthood -- or at least convincingly appear to. Even the
hot pink graphics accompanying the article practically
scream: C'mon you sissies -- grab your balls, be a man!
But I dare say the real issue here -- for men and women,
too, clearly -- is growing up, not manning up. (Tracy
Clark-Flory, Male writers go limp, Salon, 4 Jan. 2010)
feminism isn't it; it's that allowance, in general, largely
ended, late 70's
80s on, we all became more aware of how best to please, how to
convince yourself "this is living," while really doing what you can not
to seriously piss anyone off. And it has come at the cost of selfdefinition, true enablement -- personhood. So it is possible that a
whole generation could amount to something of an interlude, with
their predecessors having the great fortune of living at a time where
there was more allowance, less in your way (despite all they'll say) to
drive you to school down all your desires, growth, so self-consciously.
It's the true rule from "Almost Famous": something really awful
happened at the end of the 70s that has made even rock-and-rollers
seem like just couldn't break past the (w)all of mother's disapproval.
If we want people to seem less like they're all too well broken in, we
need boomers now to appreciate that good growth from their youth
means, not just well-behaved leftists, with their all As, pleasing
world-concerns, their striving for Princeton, but people whose
thoughts and behavior will likely make them angry (a point Barbara
Ehrenreich has made recently -- "hey professors, do you want freethinkers, or don't you?"). Real change -- for the good -- is going to
piss you off: because it will mean surrection of a belief system, an
ethos, you cannot make claim to -- it will be all about them, not you -will mean they are prepared to pass you by.
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
can also feel how dealing with huge unfortunates like this can really
lure "you" to do such things as make the war, once again, in essence,
Bush's mess, and so far away from considering that it might just be
the way the Obama administration wants things too. The concern for
those of us who believe Obama is not just a good man who's doing his
damndest in hugely trying situations, but someone who will be
abandoning -- who would abandon, even without opposition from a
largely insane right --many of the people the left has for so long been
trying to empower and protect, is that the need to put these guys in
their place is so alluring, so, alright, this has gone on long enough!,
that we're kinda going to lose you for awhile. I mean both you and
Chris. If you have to deal with them, deal with them. Please consider,
though, that it is possible to see people like this, and actually think
mental illness, and therefore not be so much drawn to want to crush
them. It is true that Obama has been under attack from day one, and
the unreasonableness of this, the unAmericanness of this sort of
behavior, toward the people's choice -- their hope, their extension
into the future --makes fully emotioned attacks against them a sign of
one's clear headedness, because its degree of unreasonableness is
such that it should not be bearable to any at all the least bit sane, but I
suspect that also true is that they may agitate some significant
putuponness that you've known a long, long while, that still draws
your return fire -- your, no, I will not let you do that to me! -- and can
carry you away.
Obama is the perfect aesthetic to make continued war sacrifice,
possible. The relief at his measuredness can so readily allow corporate
appeasement, to become the only thing to be done. This kind of thing
can just go on and on and on. Some of us can see 8 years on, a largely
expanded war (with, quite possibly, some talk of the draft), students,
young people, largely ignored -- if not now the newly suspicious -and an increasingly expanding lower class (with many now being
shaped to seem responsible for their fate, if not actually in truth most
responsible for the ills of all Americans) -- and also a left
exasperatingly still so readily drawn to talk of Cheney et al.'s latest
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
Beowulf
Rachel Getting Married
Wendy and Lucy
Step Brothers
Lord of the Rings
Nick and Norah's
Beautiful Mind
Observe and Report
Transformers
There Will Be Blood
Incredibles and Ratatouille struck me as films for editors, for they
make those who shape and control the rangey (i.e., Buddy), the
heroes. Wall-E was the film for artists, those who know its about
aggressing and going outside the lines, even if it makes you a fool /
child / Tom Cruise. (I saw the rat in Auto, and was glad to seem him
get his comeuppance.) Personally, I think it's hard not to be super
self-conscious/aware right now. I think this is just deadly for art, but
great for self-management.
Lord of the Rings. I am simply astonished at how
infrequently these magnificent films are mentioned.
Honestly, I can't figure it out. Were they too popular? Too
epic? Too faithful to the source material? Not faithful
enough? Too lucrative? I simply don't understand it. A list of
25 films, and they're not there. I mean, c'mon now. (Douglas
Moran, response to post, Stephanie Zacherak on the best
movies of the decade, Salon, 29 Dec. 2009)
Excellent point, Douglas -- particularly apt in consideration of
Stephanie's regret at movie makers / viewers without memory. My
guess is that LOTR draws you out -- emotions on your sleeves, as it
were. You retract afterwards, 'cause it's just no time to feel like you're
a dodo, but also because Jackson IS intent on playing upon you -- he
is manipulative, a bit sinister. Big fan, but I would be wary about
1463
1464
they?)?
Going zero, in 3D
On the subject of Star Trek and new decades, perhaps we'll allow
ourselves a parallel universe this time around. The idea of going 2011,
just defeats. Not even Rocky got past 8 or 9. So we'll go zero once
again. The past will still be around, but he'll be like old Spock -- nice
guy, still there, but not hanging around to be obtrusive. When we get
to one, we'll decide if we'll let it roll on like we did last time, or if we'll
figure out some other way to imagine life. Might it be zero all the
time? Like some accumulating palimpsest? Or some ziggurat (but not
the kind legions of virgins were sacrificed to)?
We could still see movies. But maybe this time they wouldn't be like
the latest meal, or as near read and toss-away as a postcard (3 reviews
a week, as if, in greatest truth, they really did nothing to you
compared to the workaday), but experiences we live -- Avatars, even if
the prose is sharp, and the acceleration muted. They already are that,
but it would be exhilarating and genuinely universe-opening, if we
could acknowledge it, and consider the implications.
Link: Stephanie Zacheraks best movies of 2009
1465
Red Wigglers
The occasional article by people like Nan Mooney ('Not keeping up
with our parents") would be nice. I do think there is a chance that
some of the huge distress students are experiencing, might be missed
amidst all the better comics format, new and/or expanded Food, Film
and Books sections, and more Conason. Thirty percent student
tuition increases. Take yourself back to the 60s and imagine what you
would have done with that, amidst an aging left, still capable of
marked innovation but seeming susceptible to becoming more and
more adrift in once sages and Great Books. (Feel your pain!?: I can't
even see you, dear . . .) To be clear, the new sections/expansions
COULD prove great. I just hope it's easy to imagine liberal 20-yearolds finding home in them, not just out of shelter from the storm.
Fewer articles written by people making sell-outs seem practical,
grounded, fit. Fewer articles making truly sane progressive thought
seem as "unbalanced" and unreasonable (i.e., crazy) as its
"equivalent" on the right. (Really, just count how many articles seem
mostly about helping their writers massage out muscle-tightening
feelings of compromise. I'm not broken; I'm a realist, patient, an
adult -- "you're" the one who's crazy!)
Why no surprises in the letter sections (other than smaller print)?
Has this been well discussed? Hope so. First thing I noticed about
Salon was that it had a very empowering, front-in-face, letter section.
More dynamism there would thrill.
Become a website Coca Cola would hesitate to associate with, even
with it changing with the world, as we all try and live positively, help
one another through the Tides, and learn more. (Oh how we admired
the 'KRP for wriggling itself free from cadillacs of worms!)
Great lineup for SALON's readers on film/books!
But please don't let Film Reviewers hang on an
imbalanced wire...of gender or ageist bias...
Great news and I look forward to Joe's column and the new
Film/Books Reviewers. Although, admittedly, one tends to be
1466
1467
1468
on and brilliant. The only draw back is that I was hoping to avoid the
film, but your words served to show me the world I hoped to miss.
Mystifying.
Link: Its Complicated: Another missive from romantic-comedy
hell Stephanie Zacherak (Salon)
Leaving wrinkles to the scaly
Leaving wrinkles to the scaly
Speaking as someone who is looking forward to the day when we have
chips in our head that will allow us to see people as they would prefer
to be seen (or not -- we could dialog it), I am not anti-botox. This said,
I am someone who strongly suspects that a good portion of people
over 50 are going to be spending the next twenty years of their lives
doing things like this, writing humorous, what-they-prefer-to-deemself-effacing-but-will-prove-to-be-largely-self-elevating articles, on
their struggles to deal with anti-agism in the work-force -- their
struggles with aging -- their kids' neglect, wine and au provence, and
of how wonderful it is to finally have a prince back in the white house
(did you hear what that nasty person at Salon had to say about
Obama?! They've had their fun but isn't it about time they put an end
to it -- he's such a nice person, who is really, really, trying, and . . .).
We're afraid as a mass you'll not just be freezing your faces but all
cultural growth, lest it have the least potential to cause you any
anxiety, as you FINALLY come to focus on your own needs after a
lifetime of selfless giving and neglect. Some of us are thinking Brazil,
that is. And a bit, White Noise.
Open Saloners might hope they'll breach a Salon echelon trespass, but
when Salon itself is leaving some of the pointed and wirey behind
(think a Mary Elizabeth Williams over a Stephanie Z.) for the slow but
fiery, it may feel scary and alone when you get here, but you'll be
welcomed, made to feel as if you've become part of a club, as you
would upon leaving any salon.
1469
Wit, brutal honesty, no longer ruled, once 20's style seemed but viper
threat in an upcoming age of mules.
(Originally posted as response to My visit to the skin-torture doctor
Mary Kelly, Salon, 18 Dec. 2009)
1470
1471
1472
1473
bang with one another, affords some insight, options, as to how you
actually do or could experience your world, that you are currently
blind to? His films can have me think through why it is objects that go
through walls feel different in his films than they do in J. Cameron's,
about the emotional signficance of experiences of puncture, fracture,
combination -- phenomenological basics. Don't just take me on a ride,
but consider what exactly this experience involves, how it differs from
others I've been on. Convince me that this is a very appropriate thing
for me to be doing. Not just that the films make you hyper-alert, not
just all the set/reset, I don't think.
Also, I hear loud and dumb a lot. Way too precise for that (at times,
it's even elegant -- think/recall Starscream's launching of missiles at
the dam). In Transformers, the military proves useful, but there's a
sense it's a bit preposterous it managed anything at all against the
Decepticons. It looks to be awesome, but "we will use deadly force"
doesn't quite hold up. There's a lot to stage regular grunts as real
men, but they seem sort of absent compared to those Mann obviously
has an affinity for: the nerdy, more human, more complex and
particular -- less uniformed. The whole be-a-soldier bit at the end felt
like it risked sinking the hero into blandness -- which it did a bit. I
know the intentions, but I really don't think it added to his prowess.
We allow it as we might any experiment, then agree that Sam worked
best when he spun away from the grunts, when his engagement with
the villain was less at their bequest. Soldiers are for Afghanies -dumb and loud. Sam's is with the Devil -- intertwined, faceted, smart.
Not so coarse, but like you've got a million variant options.
Nimbleness, particularness, may explain why Transformers can feel
so libertous, so freeing, so exhilarating.
Also, not just a tomboy: she was more alive than that. Sam's got heart,
and they made a good pair. There was some charm in their pairing,
and she didn't seem a natural grunt's girl that he somehow got lucky
with. Again, objects interacting, in ways that work, with enough
distinction to afford charm.
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
awesome.
Link: Your daily Tiger Woods (Salon)
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
whole, he captures what it's like to be a kid living in his skin. The
soundtrack ain't bad, either.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey
Well said, sawmonkey.
Link: Films of the decade: Almost Famous (Salon)
1486
day after day, why stir the pot? That's like landing in
paradise, then taking God to task for the inadequate flavor
profile of the pineapples there.
And let's remember, these players are weak. They're hungry.
They're not sleeping well. Is this really the time to take a
stand? Once it comes time to fight, will any of us recognize
that the hour of destiny is upon us? Most of us, when pressed
to face up to a big challenge, tend to order a pizza and cue
up "South Park" instead.
[. . .]
Will Russell prevail? Personally, I'd love to see him emerge
victorious. (Heather Havrilesky, Will Survivor
mastermind Russell reign supreme?, Salon, 12 Dec. 2009)
The kids were spoiled, rootless, and pathetic--they were
asking to be fucked over!
I've noticed for a bit that Salon's solution to "too much garbage in our
face" is veering toward becoming, becoming the Axiom. This, "those
left behind got what they deserved, anyhow," will help quieten any
guilt, if they still have the capacity to emphathize.
If we find ourselves in the position where we're cheering on, not only
abusive people, but justifications for abuse, let's hope somebody let's
us on to this fact, in a way we are likely to be able to hear. I don't
know if Heather is in full possession of herself right now, but what we
heard just here sounds like it was voiced from the persecutory alter in
her head, the "place" we switch to when reminding ourselves what it
is to be weak and vulnerable, is all too much to handle.
When nazis put jews in filth, feces, and torment, some would openly
masturbate in excitement. If this sadist here wins, and we exult, are
we participating in this sort of glee? Given this article, it sounds like
it.
Godwin
sure shows up in the strangest places. (sansh01, response to
1487
1488
Read more
Obama, the new Israel
I still don't understand why the right is giving O any public
praise for this. I would've expected the right to quietly toast
and gloat, but continue its public criticism of of O and the
Oslo speech on whatever trivial or manufactured grounds it
could come up with.
I don't see what the right gains tactically from publicly
praising a Dem prez for a war speech, when the Repubs
have gotten so much mileage for decades on asserting
ownership of national security.
Someone 'splain, please? (ironwood, response to post, The
strange consensus on Obamas Nobel address, Glenn
Greenwald, 11 Dec. 2009)
Left vs. right is in a process of re-sorting into war-craving, sacrifice
desiring, and the genuinely peaceful. The war-craving understand
that Obama is the right cover to legitimize sadism on a scale that
Bush could never accomplish, owing to his whole aesthetic seeming
about 20 years out of date. For many Republicans, Obama is the new
Israel, in a way; and the left that just cannot believe that the greatest
threat, the most insidious traitors, in this America with a black
democratic president, will increasingly turn out to the THEM, will be
the Palestinians, routed from their homes for suspicious conduct.
Cheney et al. love for people to think of them as conniving, of motive
-- they need to think they're Cartesian, mind in charge. But in reality
they're the most prone to lose themselves to the sacrifice dance.
1489
1490
1491
feeling you never get elsewhere in Cameron: being buoyed by a largerthan-you spirit of righteous, benevolent goodness, that will address
all concerns, make you feel undefeatable, will make you whole.
(Actually, I suppose there was some of this at the end of Titanic, but
it's in full rush here.) The action could end up seeming less distinct,
moment-to-moment possible and crucial, and it would thereby PLAY
to the sense of enrapture, the mystical and pre-ordained. If I go,
there's another right behind me to take my place: you feel this dumb
awe which numbs / kows individual pretensions, at the end of film.
And this is philistinism. I feared it was our future, just as soon as
democrats chose dream-addresser Obama, over conference-maker
Hillary.
Someone said Gaia. This is my concern. Gaia was a concept by hippies
who, though they talked collectivism, were just as much about
nurturing individual difference -- your own special genius. Their
personalities unfolded, and they became particulars, names,
individual stand-outs. But this is Gaia as lapse into group belonging.
If the youth go for it, cosmopolitans will become alien to them,
become enemies to them, and we'll be surrounded on all sides.
----Dear Pat
What I do when I find I am so late reading the thread that
it's already closed is post a link to the article and then say
whatever the hell I want on my own blog
( inkpaperwords.blogspot.com ). You might consider that
rather than interrupt a thread that has nothing whatsoever
to do with your comments. (Thesaurus Rex, response to post,
Long live The Young Victoria, Salon, 18 Dec. 2009)
@Thesaurus Rex
What I did was wait until I actually could see the film, before
commenting. This way I could say something about the film itself,
rather than just about Cameron or Stephanie -- You can't have a (or at
least much of a) conversation about a book before reading it, wouldn't
1492
you agree? The thread's been up a few days, but that's only reviewer's
privilege -- opened here Friday, couldn't see the film until Saturday
morning, started writing about half hour after the film finished, and
the thread clunked out, ten minutes into the writing. So I posted here,
and wrote a letter to Salon encouraging them to do what's necessary
to make Salon conversations about movies as interesting as they are
elsewhere. Until they do the sensible and keep the thread up until
Sunday evening, I'll do everything I can to see the movie Friday
evening. I'm intending to keep this a one only.
My name is Patrick.
Link: Long Live "The Young Victoria" (Salon)
1493
1494
Wilbur-bourbon
1495
1496
1497
agenda.
----@boots
I talked about it! Itunes U -- it's free! I already have 11 degrees, from
all the best profs from around the world! May never really get
credited, unless they figure out some way to scan my head and say,
yep, he's real smart!, but real university attendance is so stressful it
drops you down the evolutionary ladder, even if still helps you along
the corporate one.
That's too cute. It gives you PTSD. You go lupine, even if you don't
grow fur. Canines chunking down the curriculum, but just as ready to
dig into your own skin, so you're always on the ready. Humanities -fuck. The best capture of this is a 30 second bit in "Accepted" when
Bartleby visits the real university to see his girl, and the essay by
Deresiewich.
----The good news is that the best education, i.e. the most
valuable education this guy is getting is how to survive on
less. When the lights start to go out; all over the world, those
skills will come in very handy.
Who knows how to cook a meal on a gas stove anymore let
alone trap a rabbit, skin it, cook it and eat it?
The oil is half gone, and in the future we are all going to
have to learn how to live using just a fraction of the energy
that we use now. Ken is leading the way.
The average single family home was 2,349 square feet in
2004, that takes a lot of energy. That energy has to come
from somewhere, and right now that's the middle east.
America's thirst for energy from oil, is one of the root causes
of war. (Bill Owen, response to post, Ken Ilgunas, I live in a
van down by Duke University)
Cormac Macarthy U
Yeah, let's train our kids so they're ready for fracturing of America,
1498
1499
something on their own. For the longest time, regardless of the state
of the universities, the best still went there (though I agree with those
who argue that their journey-of-the-soul approach, ensured they
never made it to the ivy-leagues). I think we're at the point, though, of
"what the hell else is there?" After all, if you go to university and
everyone there is thinking career while you're still hoping soul, the
company you keep might just deflate and estrange more than it
invigorates and "accompanies." Could be like Goethe and court.
Make itunes U your friend. Leave grades behind; leave large lecture
rooms behind. Adults ARE closing in on you -- sadists strangling the
struggling child -- but please find your own way through without
becoming bullets and armor.
----Dukes
The Duke part of the story is crucial. It's about aura, the woodsman
that becomes Abe Lincoln, the rapiersman who becomes a royal
Muskateer, and thus participates in further disenfranchising the
anonymous good person from the mid-level university that bookgrrrl
speaks of, who puts his/her skills to best use, at genuine risk of never
receiving real credit/attention for doing so.
Can you go about your life with NO means of demonstrating you're
relevant rather than wastage? When people get scared, I think they
de-evolve into preferring kings, queens, princes and magic solutions,
over the beautiful in the everyday. Becomes harder to ignore the
crowd, living without aiming to please, and be a true hero.
Link: I lived in a van down by Duke University (Salon)
Neat freaks
Salt and pepper sets are arguably among the most mundane
and ubiquitous of gifts. But this particular set, the Taste of
Talking, sums up a lot of what can be wonderful about
1500
1501
If they were used stock but were really well cleaned, would it still be
possible to get AIDS from them? Is that the problem? 'Cause I think
you'd probably be okay.
I think the problem is that unlike most recycled goods, where the
story behind the materials gets sort of scrubbed away in the process,
this doesn't really work with spit. You'd be using your shaker, and
lifetimes of human interaction / distress / would assault your food,
with the dash of salt. Interesting that. Same thing would probably
happen if we knew car parts were owned by dead-enders -- the sort
that all too visibly are drifting into insanity right now; or bike parts,
from the kinds of kids we progressives are probably going to *sigh*
off to war. This could be compensated if we knew who designed them,
maybe -- clean, neat, super smart but never exposed, is what we want
to welcome into our souls.
Link: Taste of talking (Salon)
1502
1503
We're hearing now of how some of the rich are beginning to spend
again -- Hermes, Jaguars. Maybe they (rightly) sense that America
actually gets kind of a weird kick of knowing some people are still
enjoying wall-street heaven, while everything else crumbles. But this
group of fortunates actually serve as cover for a more evolved sort -those who not only know the right strategy to best enjoy the next
twenty, but how to properly exult in it, revel in their own
superiority/fitness, without anyone being on to them -- without
themselves really being on to what they're doing. They're THIS crowd
-- the ones who are full of "excuse me this," "mightn't you allow me
that": those who, if you let them, will try and convince you they are
nearly ridiculous, completely compromised, left out. But don't be
fooled -- somewhere inside of them they know that all those divorced
couples, all those bachelors with time for Roth, are strangely coming
to seem genetically / culturally unfit in the new America -- 20s
flappers/swingers, that had come to seem just WRONG when
America had returned back to the conservative hearth. Aaron will
forever persuade himself that the world believes YOU are the ones
who have it made, and will use this belief to enable his "but I get to
have my little bit, and it's actually kinda fun too!," but if you look up
close at him and his ilk, you'll know what I say is true.
Don't be fooled into letting him have his "one conversation," without
a strong measure of (inevitably unreasonable) complaint: he makes it
seem so innocent and small-scale, but it's really about the new
revival, set to leave your flapper ass out in the cold.
Link: Is my kids making me not smart (Salon)
Salon store
Welcome to the Salon Store -- a new Salon feature that we
hope you will find engaging, entertaining and a useful
extension of what Salon is all about.
1504
1505
1506
people's lives, both those who produce them and those who
consume them.
A product may distill the conviction of a young designer,
studying art, wanting to make a difference. Or it may
represent the deeply held beliefs of an engineer who has
spent a lifetime studying a need and developing a theory. Or
it may embody the witty, fun imaginings of an inventor who
just wants to make people smile. Or it may hold the hopes of
a 14-year-old kid who can make something of chrome that
embodies his loves and passions, that gives him a reason to
work toward his future.
[. . .]
The mission of the Salon Store is to find and showcase
products that fit with Salon -- because they embody ideas.
As a starting point, we embraced three key words: smart,
funny and progressive. (John Pound, Products that mean
something, Salon, 1 December 2009)
Clean slate
Is the hippie that sold out, now a redeemable aesthetic? Top-teer art
school, clean, modern aesthetic -- this DNA injection is carrying Salon
further into the celestial, away from all the accumulating rust, rage,
breakenings.
And bike-builder -- American poor aren't yet Guatemala rural (and
true!). You won't be fashionable for some time, and, as I've argued,
you don't quite match the current aesthetic anyway: one brief tour to
the discrepid, and now no more to the commons, and the disquiet.
Link: Products that mean something (Salon)
If we learn to talk to ghosts, maybe Jim Henson can
summon us an army of muppets
He'll get health care, many of the (not in truth, all so) left
"abandoning" him this instant will be back with him, and then as a
very monstrous beast, they'll turn their many heads on the
progressives who've outed themselves, loudly, out in the open, as
1507
1508
1509
1510
needed by their parents than they are loved by them. They function to
give their parents the love they themselves missed out on. When kids
start reaching out on their own, to explore who they might be, not
only do parents start to lose interest, they also lash out at their kids,
for abandoning them just like their parents once did to them. As a
result, many kids develop "alters" inside their heads, which tell them
they are bad when they reach out for what they themselves want.
These alters are a crazy-awful affliction, but they serve the child
because they ward him/her away from a superego crackdown. Bullies
no doubt function as external alters. In any case, they're not
unfamiliar to you, when you first encounter them in school.
Take on your mom. Establish for us what it felt like to be abandoned,
bullied by her -- what it still might feel like to be afraid of her. Do it in
an environment when showing how you were once a geek doesn't
evidence your likely current withitness, but rather that something
horrible was lacking in you, may still be lacking you -- that not
treated, will deny you so much of what you deserve through life. Even
if you become a senator, who no longer responds to out-of-town
requests.
Link: Facebook, the mean girls and me (Salon)
American gothic
I have a lot to give thanks for this Thanksgiving, but I find
myself particularly grateful for one thing: I'm not President
Obama. From Arianna Huffington on his left, warning that
rising unemployment could be "Obama's Katrina," to the
ever-crazier Glenn Beck on his right, threatening to
desecrate the memory of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. with
an anti-Obama March on Washington 47 years to the day
after King's triumphant convening: His critics are sparing
no rhetorical excess in their rush to denounce the president.
1511
[. . .]
But using Katrina as a point of comparison is excessive.
Katrina was an example of government incompetence and
indifference, all at once. Obama is neither incompetent nor
indifferent. He is a centrist Democrat, one who brought in a
record amount of Wall Street money during the campaign
and, not surprisingly, a whole lot of Wall Street veterans
with him into the White House. I find that many
progressives who jumped on the Obama bandwagon early,
selling him as the progressive candidate in the race
contrasted with corporate sellout Hillary Clinton, are, like
Huffington, among the most disappointed by the president. I
was an Obama admirer but a skeptic, and I find I'm less
chagrined about the ways he falls short of my ideals than the
folks who swooned for him early.
[. . .]
In his New Yorker blog, George Packer examined Obama's
declining popularity and rising troubles at home and
abroad, and, like me, argues that part of Obama's problem
is the unrealistic expectations of many enthusiasts. Packer
adds this troubling observation:
[. . .]
I'm a little more patient with Obama because I never saw
him as the great left hope, but I agree with liberal critics
who want the president to deliver on Democratic ideals and
focus on the many casualties of the economy. It's funny but
with a Democrat in the White House, Matt Drudge is
trumpeting what liberals have always talked about as the
"real" unemployment rate -- the unemployed plus the
underemployed and those who've given up finding work -and it's over 17 percent. A third of all African-American men
are jobless. Let's welcome the right's sudden focus on the
casualties of the economy, and challenge them to come up
with solutions. They won't, but Obama can and should.
1512
[. . .]
On this Thanksgiving, I remain grateful Obama is in the
White House. I'm thankful Dick Cheney is flapping his gums
as a private citizen, not the most powerful man in the world.
I believe in Obama's intelligence and decency. Like a lot of
liberals, I believe he shares "our" values; I've just never been
entirely sure he has either the political courage or savvy it
takes to act on them, quite yet.
[. . .]
The real challenge is to show Obama and other shaky
Democrats that there are political rewards for representing
the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Too many
politically conflicting interests got to say they elected
Obama, and too many progressives jumped too soon to
claim him as our own, without asking him to prove it. (Joan
Walsh, Im thankful Im not President Obama, Salon, 24
2009)
American gothic
Strange how this article has a way of making IDing someone as the
centrist democrat with wall-street backing, a way of re-establishing
him as still, potentially, our great hope. Who is he? He's not the
crazies on his right, he's not the swooners on his left. In a world of
crazies, his prosaic origins beacon reason.
But these ARE portent times. Crazed goblins bounce about the bodypolitic, away from office but everywhere still in our face; the blind
gain sight; hope has become an affliction. And it is appropriate, then,
that Obama actually be made to seem most like an idol -- something
near frighteningly unknowable. Someone/thing with great potential,
but yet remains inert and removed. Someone/thing we would draw
out -- to should and could!, but remain inclined to serve, to show
before we would dare have him prove.
Link: Im thankful Im not President Obama (Salon)
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
Literary awards are more than just ego boosts these days.
As the critic James Wood observed a few years back, "prizes
are the new reviews," the means by which many people now
decide which books to buy, when they bother to buy books at
1521
all. There are some 400,000 titles published per year in the
U.S. alone -- one new book every minute and a half -according to Bowker, a company providing information
services to the industry, and there are fewer people with the
time and inclination to read them. If you only read, for
example, about five novels per year (a near-heroic feat of
literacy for the average American), you could limit yourself
to just the winners of the NBA, the Pulitzer, the National
Book Critics Circle, the Booker Prize and then, oh, a Hugo or
Edgar winner -- or even a backlist title by that year's Nobel
Prize winner. You'd never have to lower your sights to
anything unlaureled by a major award.
On the other hand, if you've just self-published a book on
parrot keeping or your theories on how the world could be
better run (a favorite topic of retired gentlemen), what can
you do? If you weren't able to find a publisher who wanted
it, you can also expect to be routinely disqualified for review
in the general media and, above all, for prizes. Yet have no
fear, you Cinderellas of the publishing game, because (to nab
a line from someone else's promotional campaign) there's an
app for that. (Laura Miller, Vanity Book Awards, Salon, 17
November 2009)
---------I'm a novelist
A book is published every ninety seconds?
Memoir is the most popular form with readers?
I think I'll just go and kill myself now. (LauraBB, Response
to post, Vanity Book Awards)
@laurabb
It gets worse: around the globe, there's probably a thousand people
born EVERY SECOND! Could you imagine if we had a world/society
nurturing enough, that each and everyone of them could write
something particular to themselves, and great to read?! Could you
1522
imagine a hundred million writers out there -- all good to great --and
what that would do to an author's self-esteem, place in the world, the
contortions it would inspire to his/her ostensibly progressive
sensibilities?! There's genius and beauty in every one of you -- what a
nightmare if that were in fact true!
Patrick
Whatever your problem is - I sense a case of toxic
resentment - it isn't with me. (LauraBB, Vanity Book
Awards)
@laurabb
What is your problem with a book being published every ninety
seconds?
---------Being an author still carries status, and there are a lot of
unhappy people who want that. But they do not realize how
much work goes into being excellent, no matter what the
field. This is not necessarily their fault. Popular media loves
the Cinderella story in its many permutations, and
downplays the time and work that precede discovery.
In open-to-anyone writers' groups, there are people who
seem to learn the mechanics of writing even though they do
not possess the ear for it. It is akin to someone who is tone
deaf learning to go up a note and down two and sometimes
being on key, but invariably ruining a song by at least one
off-key assault.
They cannot help it. (trace element, Response to post,
Vanity Book Awards)
Re: Being an author still carries status, and there are a lot
of unhappy people who want that. But they do not realize
how much work goes into being excellent, no matter what
the field. This is not necessarily their fault. Popular media
loves the Cinderella story in its many permutations, and
downplays the time and work that precede discovery.
1523
Books felt like this about thirty years ago--now in so much that is
lauded, I smell deference, not discovery. Rather, you get a sense that
if someone actually came up with something new, s/he'd have slipped
off the only track those regularly published are capable of seeing
before them. It's why some literate people write books titled, "Is it
just me, or is everything shit?"; it's why some of the literate go
through blogs and letters more keenly -- where exactly are the
interesting to be found, if not in books?--than you might know.
re: In open-to-anyone writers' groups, there are people who
seem to learn the mechanics of writing even though they do
not possess the ear for it. It is akin to someone who is tone
deaf learning to go up a note and down two and sometimes
being on key, but invariably ruining a song by at least one
off-key assault.
They cannot help it.
But I thought you were arguing that the danger in too many books is
that it becomes more difficult for the truly literate to be spotted. This
portrayal of non-writers vs. real writers makes it seem as if those who
actually are "NBA" quality will always spotted, regardless of how
many towers surround them. Speaking of the NBA--one senses that if
"they" learned they were missing the real talent, they'd adjust. They
care more to find talent, perhaps.
re: The profusion of books, including the self-published
ones, means the real jewels are often hidden beneath a pile
of mediocrity, and this reduces their chances of being
found, let alone read and lauded, as they should be.
I keep company with a lot of imaginative people. I don't see a world of
greats vs. non-greats. Rather, there are many greats out there: the
question is which ones are best suited for you. People need to be
sufficiently nurtured so they develop that sense you rightly laud, so
they really do become particular, large, interesting, but they also need
to know their voice counts--to get it out there!--so those who would
have a nose for their voice, for what they have to say, can find them.
Your vision of the few amongst the mediocre many smells of a need
1524
1525
Jonze has no patience for this either, which is why I left the
movie theatre surprised, but satisfied. The film reminded me
that loneliness is too easily made into monster, that
loneliness also has the power to conjure magic for a child
who lives inside excellent forts, and who possesses a
storybook that makes her the King of the Wild Things. (Mine
Salkin, Where the Wild Things Were, Tyee, 17 November
2009)
Down with Freud: give me a razor, and /or some pills, please!
re: "The film reminded me that loneliness is too easily made
into monster, that loneliness also has the power to conjure
magic for a child who lives inside excellent forts, and who
possesses a storybook that makes her the King of the Wild
Things."
Loneliness / abandonment does other things, like make you create
imaginary friends that talk to you when you're a child, then turn on
you to harrague you ever-after about how bad you are, how selfish
you are, adolescence on (oh those wonderful persecutory alters, split
personalities -- sorry, I meant wonderful spiritual animal friends!).
Other things too: like make you adopt a posture of acquiescence,
defeat, self-minimization ("a little in a bit of solitude"), in hopes that
this will make you finally well suited to obtain the attention and love
you missed out on. Psychoanalysis --or just intuitive, loving therapy -can help out with this. But if you're down with Freud and up on
romancing deprivation and cruelty ("I was abandoned; but this
turned out to be a good thing!--thanks, mom!"), I hope at least you
accomplish little when people like you turn on progressives who
aren't so keen on making isolation and deprivation seem grounds for
the imaginative life: who see it instead as the source of becoming
demon-haunted, schizoid, self-lacerating -- fucked-up.
----Attendance
Appears as if I was quoting you, Dorothy, but for some reason I
1526
actually thought I was quoting the article: I read the article and the
responses, and my guess is that your "a little in a bit of solitude" well
enough captured the feel of, the circumlocation one feels/experiences
within, the piece, that I inadvertently quoted you.
In any event, I hear you, and like having you call me friend.
There is a myth out there we are all too ready to cooperate with, even
though it helps facilitate a great evil--a block to social improvement,
to living standards--and that is that creativity is born out of "seeing
both the good and the bad in life," in knowing bare cupboards, the
uncertain meal-ticket--real want. I hold this as entirely false, and that
imagination is in fact kindled by being well attended to by supportive
people who make you feel secure enough to venture out, who are
there for you when you want to return, and delight in the back-andforth you see when loving people share adventures with one another,
when they spur each other one. Every sad artist had more self-esteem
than his/her brethren--and in that s/he was sort of lonely, but
comparatively, very well fueled.
We tend to focus on the cruelty, on the isolation, but the story is in
the attendance, in the love. Always.
Link: Where the Wild Things Were (Tyee)
Things are not as they seem: thoughts on Obama / Palin
Now that her Oprah appearance is over and boy, did
Oprah let the liberals in her audience down; what a waste!
let me confess to my own Palin fatigue. I just can't take
seriously the idea that she'll ever be president, even after her
moderately successful softball game with Oprah. Palin
sealed that fate when she quit being governor (although
maybe she can run with Lou Dobbs on the All Quitters ticket
in 2012). She'll never obtain the record or the reliability she
needs to run credibly for president now that she gave up the
modestly challenging job of running Alaska. I don't see her
1527
@Saintzak
1528
Those bigots you grew up with, wouldn't be ones who loved WWE's
the Rock -- the black guy who played Obama-Hulk last year on SNL -would they? Maybe what is most key about bigots is that they possess
an intense need to project their own unwanted character traits,
feelings, onto others, and not their hatred of a certain, particular
group of people? That is, maybe they could all get behind Obama /
Palin, so long as they provide them with groups to hate, efforts in
which to sacrifice themselves for the glory of the mother-nation?
What is coming to mind here is how the Nazis turned to hating Jews a
bit late in the game--after all their anger and hatred was targeted at
the needy and poor, who were keeping Germany weak. Anti-semitism
was supposed to be a French thing (Dreyfus affair) but materialized
everywhere in German when "they" now seemed the most appropriate
group. The hatred was key; targets-flexible. Maybe true here too.
Something we will know for sure if these tea-bagger-folk end up
supporting Obama, as he sends off more young men and women to
kill muslims, sacrifices more of our "selfish," "greedy," "needy," youth
(representatives of our striving, ambitious selves) so we can all feel
pure and good again.
Link: I have Palin fatigue already (Salon)
1529
When it turned out the curse had been lifted -- or, more
precisely, that it never existed -- I admit: I crowed.
After that opening salvo of macho banter, I began to wonder
if we speak about the sex of our impending children in vastly
different ways and if the reservations about baby girls were
not just limited to juvenile 20-something dudes. But it wasn't
until we were expecting our second child, two years later,
that the question transitioned from a passing curiosity to a
legitimate concern. (Aaron Traister, And may your first
child be a feminine child, Salon, 15 November 2009)
Guys, he's not lying about the incidents -- Aaron WANTS / NEEDS to
think of himself as being wholy contrite, soul-bearing, here, so there's
no way he would make an error in any of this. If you focus on them, it
will in fact help enable what he is really up to: using Salon as a ritual
site, confessional, in which to establish himself as a sinner who aims,
at least, to be the good boy who'll attend to the neglect women have
suffered. He is returning to mother's lap; admitting how wrong he's
been; and how, now, he'll try to do good. It's more than about a
release from anxieties, from feeling punishment-worthy -- though it is
that: it's about priming himself to war against all those truly bad boys
out there who cannot be deterred from understanding their own
needs as as important as their mothers', as their wives'. War against
the ostensibly selfish.
The falseness we're sensing here comes from this being part of a ritual
-- he wants it to appear soul-searching, about self-discovery,
realization -- but his course is predetermined, and those not similarly
on course sense the something strange that is up, here.
He's not the only in all this. Check out "Hi, I'm Marty, and I'm a
recovering Republican," to get a sense of what, I think, we can expect
an awful lot of here at Joan Walsh's (maternal), at Broadsheet's
(furies), Salon.
Hope you snap out of it, Aaron. Become even more truly self-aware
than your sister is.
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
seeking efforts, his attendance to his own needs, was wrong, was bad,
because his role was to attend to his mother and all her concerns. As
an adult, he will feel compelled to punish self-substitutes for his own
(always suspect) life accomplishments. They are punished, while he
stands up for moms everwhere -- and thereby feels exempt from
angry punishment.
As to Immigrant's other comments, try reading my columns
and blog - I've stood up for people with disabilites,
vulnerable children and others in need for years and will
continue to do so.
And I've written about them before and after the Olympic
protestors showed up - but I haven't seen most of those folks
at other events to support those facing cuts. (Bill Tieleman,
Response to post, Dissent and BCs Media)
The Bill of the people. Whither immigrants?
Immigrant, please do check out his blogs.
Like this one, where he "is honoured to share the stage with" rightwing Bill Vander Zalm
(http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/09/15/ZalmHatesHST/), whatever
his past and over-all intentions, and this one, where he blasts
Margaret Atwood for supporting the BQ's "social democratic
tendencies," in ignorance of its past, its primary purpose
(http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/12/02/NoCoalition/).
In the latter article you'll find him declaring how he's no friend of
Stephen Harper but has firm respect for his having "just won the
most number of seats in Parliament in a free and fair democratic
vote." The people want the Olympics -- he clearly wants to believe -and deserve respect. The people want Harper, and their wishes need
to be respected. Those who get in the way are wrong and worthy of
(and receive) his ridicule. Since the opposition he now loathes seems
more and more to be, if not of the weak and fragile, then of the
sensitive (don't miss his revolting dismissal of Suzuki for his unmanly
hypersensitivity), and his friends seem to be of the marching militant,
1535
1536
1537
of the more appropriate Obama, for his part of the story to resume. So
if war now seems less indulgent, more focussed/ calculated /
intelligent / dexterous and reluctant, and also somehow less
emotional and distanced (less grandiose), it's not evil, it's its opposite:
sanity. Simply by a wholesale change in style, the actual number of
people killed here could be way worse than what we've already seen,
and seem mature necessity not abhorrent slaughter. It's the way it is
and must be, until that day arrives when we finally have done enough
reparative work to undertake something more pure. The cruelty could
be way worse than what we've seen, and it will become near
impossible to point out to those who unconsciously want warsacrifice, because they know what bad war "smells" like -- they know
what even the left has helped make bad war smell like -- and this isn't
it. Obama provides the perfect cover for us to actually indulge in our
sadistic desires, and believe we're actually demonstrating mature
restraint.
The left has got a huge problem on its hands. Once they turn off their
support of Obama and their lambasting of Limbaugh, and start really
critiquing Obama and his ongoing, cruel war, they can be very easily
now made to seem tamtruming, unreasoning children who fail to
understand that nobody wants war, but sometimes it has to be
engaged lest society disintegrate altogether. It's lesser of greater evils:
if you can't appreciate that, you're not good, but immature -- not
worth listening to. Obama knows as much, as so should they. The
right and war-favoring -- less evolved -- left are cottoning on to just
how empowered their position is about to be.
Joan is saying some very right things about Afghanistan here; let's
help her make the truth of it overwhelm people's preferred way of
imagining it. Let's be the resistance that scared the Olympics away
from Chicago to the near third-world, where things, where people,
prove more readily manageable.
Link: Real men dont need D.C. pundits (Joan Walsh, Salon)
1538
1539
1540
Those who will do well as we go on are those who appreciate AND are
well able to mimic Obama's composure, his controlled, near
dispassionate manner, all the while hordes (40, 60, 80 thousand!) of
young men and women are sent into the maw of Afghanistan. That is,
zombies -- or better, nazi-types: that is, people who are in some ways
dead to themselves, who can spend their days humiliating / torturing
people, disown what they do, and return home for staid dinner with
the wife and kids.
Link: First they came for Rush Limbaugh (Salon)
Yukon U: 'Cause antlers give you reach, too
1541
1542
lectures available out there for free. Inertia can keep things going for
awhile, but soon enough we'll get some big names endorsing just
downloading Princeton, Oxford, MIT lectures, and completing their
coursework (MIT has made their coursework available, I believe),
rather than taking undergrad at any old. Smarter universities are
going hybrid, loadly proclaiming how their students can attend
classes physically, or just use their ipods and download. Helps them
seem with it. But in sum, itunes U is gradually making most mid-level
universities seem rather PC redundant. Old style university
attendance could end up seeming fit for fobs, slow-moving sloths.
Mightn't you already see the (devestating) commercial?
Steward Brand did Whole Earth Review as an alternative to
university. He, Rheingold, Jobs, all very non-placative attitudes
towards university, but were huge on learning. Itunes U fits with that
attitude, at a time when the talk at universities is all about raising
tuition fees and closing doors. University's public image is not that
much better than wall-street right now, really. All parents want their
kids to do "Harvard," though, and in face of being told that while they
can't do/afford UBC, hey, there's always Yukon U, they'll want,
THEY'LL PUSH someone like Steve Jobs to make Itunes Princeton a
legitimate way for their kid to participate in the ivy-league and seem
of the now. As more savy, in fact, than the next door who thinks it's all
"so" that their kids attending UBC.
The very best, wherever they're to be found, and all for free -- that's
itunes U.
Link: Want Cheap Tuition? Try Yukon College (The Tyee)
Obama towel-smothering tantruming child. Tucker complains.
The number one rule of American politics: the greatest, most
insatiable need of the standard conservative is to turn
themselves into oppressed little victims. In The Daily Beast
today, Tucker Carlson devotes his entire column to
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
one day, and nowhere the next), and sober respectables (read:
Ignatieffs) carry the day. Respectables, that is, who are no nonsense,
into self-sacrifice, environmentalism, localism, and who will claim the
support of at least half the current left AND the right. If
environmentalism goes hand-in-hand with militarism, youth blood
sacrifice (oh, the spoiled youth of today!), punishment, and loses all
connection with peace, love, ease and happiness, the right will
embrace it in a way which will astonish. Watch for it. Here and in the
States.
They (i.e., the right) primarily are interested in seeing people suffer.
They'll use whatever at hand for righteous cover -- God or Nature, will
do equally well. Jesus and flower-power, not so well.
Link: "Why are the oddballs winning?"
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
Everything is DNA related these days. There was a huge turn away
from childhood/psychoanalytic explanations for behavior, at the end
of 70s/early 80s. Some of us think this is not owing to greater
accuracy, but to collective aversion/cowardliness--distancing, if you
will. Few anxieties are raised, reprisals invited, if one speaks of
genes--doesn't say much for science as objective, but in my judgment,
that is the why of it. If it was/is early incestual use by mothers, the
slur (of women) as "fish" seems about what you'd expect.
Saying it's all about incestual handling--something most of us, to a
less or greater extent, have experienced--puts me in denial, makes me
gay--how's that again?
---Re: Patrick McEvoy-Halston and Faxmebeer
Patrick McEvoy-Halston: Spare us your bullshit pseudopsychological theories about the origins of homoosexuality.
Let me break it down simply for you - homosexuality is an
inborn genetic trait. Period. It has nothing to do with "overmothering" or "feminizing" of male children by mothers and
female siblings. Study after study has proven this.
Faxmebeer: It's hilarious to me how every time Salon posts
an article dealing with gays or lesbians, there is some
insecure ignoramus who posts something that reads like it
just came out of seventh grade gym class. Every time!
Seriously! It's like clockwork. Now, hurry along Faxmebeer,
or you might be late for your Birther meeting, or how UFO's
are secretly controlling the stock market. (DQuintanaNY,
Response to post, Ladies: Im not your gay boyfriend)
Re: @ Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Is gayness innate or a reaction to deprivation/abuse? Has
anyone studied the commonalities of gay backgrounds?
1553
1554
@digitbit:
I'm glad you're aware of the effect your mother's "relentless
neediness" had on you. Being geered to respond to everyone else's
needs, means not sufficiently attending to your own.
@MerelyMortalMale:
Is gayness innate or a reaction to deprivation/abuse? Has anyone
studied the commonalities of gay backgrounds?
There surely must be studies, but this is one of those areas where
certain results would be preferred; others, rather not so much. I don't
think gayness is innate.
Is male fondness for lavender and snap-snark more innate than
NASCAR mania?
I'm with those who say NASCAR prowess is born out of early-on
feeling all too vulnerable and weak. There's a lot to be said for guys
who like lavender. Many of whom get to like and know snap-snark, to
fend off those who see in you the friendly lather.
Is Oscar Wild more healthy a paradigm than John Wayne?
As popularly understood/processed, neither is particularly good. Both
are strong; both tend--however differently. But they're also both the
lone man (note: escape from female/motherly enmeshment through
loner status) with the capacity to take on and out a culture of
"heathens"--which is great for revenge fantasies, but not so much for
healing the world.
Are not macho and fey locked in a mutual un-admiration society
hug?
All macho were once fey (machos primarily understand the fey as
vulnerable, open to attack: weak, dressed-up dolls--girlie toys).
Machos aim to annihilate feys in hopes that by doing so their own
weakness, vulnerableness, is now more than denyed: it is destroyed.
For all the talk these days of straights and gays going camping
together, I think we're beginning to head that way now.
Alice Miller, writing about child abuse, mentions that Freud
originally believed his patients WERE sexually abused. When
Viennese society turned on him (due to guilt?), he recanted, saying
1555
parents didn't screw children, evil kids wanted to screw Mom and
Dad.
Freud's original understanding was correct. Viennese society turned
on him because most of us understood early-on, that blaming mom
and dad means forever being absent their support and love--we
ourselves put the superego in place, to school us away from ever going
"there."
So might gays deny parental abuse be fudging (!) things for the
same reason?
Yep.
Are 1 in 10 of us really gay...or is that a faux-fact used to make
homosexuals feel "normal"?
If gayness is better/more accurately understood as wariness to
female/maternal enmeshment, manipulation, then the majority is
gay. Patriarchy means neglected mothers. Neglected mothers cannot
help but squeeze the love out of their kids, in an attempt to satisfy
their own unmet needs. This has consequences--like future aversion
to too present/ pressing women. This last election, how many
reporters seemed comfortable interviewing, being in near proximity
to, Hillary Clinton? How comfortable did Obama seem?
Link: Ladies: Im not your gay boyfriend (Salon)
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
The geek in Breakfast Club writes the essay, but what he manages
there is a one-on-one fuck-you to the principal, something he
wouldn't have dared do before the BC experience. Since it is what he
wrote and his voice which "plays" as we see the various pairings go
their way, there is a sense he stands a bit above and beyond at the
end. He is removed; but more self-determined (more broadlyaware?), more author than geek. And he gets more than an indulgent
glance at the end from Bender, who for the most part had previously
just managed him about. When the conversation turned to
trigonometry, the geek's knowledge base/abilities is made to seem
somewhat akin in "potency" to Claire's social status and the jock's
athleticism, and crowds out (the formidable, savy) Bender some.
More than some.
About Sixteen Candles--it doesn't finish with the geek more enabling
himself amongst his dweeb friends: it ends with him having a fairly
mature conversation with the girl/woman he (very likely) slept with.
Again and again through the film, the geek puts himself in potentially
dangerous situations, and is shown with capacity for empathy and
(even) bearing (his encounter with Samantha in the shop car is not
played as a joke [on him], but with respect [for both of them]).
Arguably, what develops with him seems more open that what lands
with Samantha. Who knows where he'll be the following year? Not so
much the geek, the film suggests.
Ferris Bueller: You're absolutely right.
---re: Patrick
I stand by my prior assertation. JH was all about the elite.
Striving, laughing at and ultimately becoming part and
parcel of the same. Maybe he had the finest joke in the end,
after all, he who laughs last, laughs best. Did you go to one
of those hilarious "state" schools or does your sense of
humour only include the jokes of the Ivy variety...
1564
1565
all the rest and in fact I liked her better before the makeover.
Life goes by pretty fast, If you're not an overprivileged white
kid from the North Shore who wears the right clothes, you
might miss it! (dust1969, response to post, Champion of
mere mortals)
@1969
Ally Sheedy's character is testing, knowing, but hidden and
inaccessible/unknowable (full of lies). For her, the change in dress is
about moving out of comfort zones, allowing herself to be vulnerable,
to show/reveal herself as undeniably interested in others' assessment
of her. Claire does the same, and pairs up with the "stoner" Bender-note: without him donning a suit. The movement may be more about
reciprocity, finding a middle ground, than it is about a move to
normal. No?
Link: Champion of mere mortals (Salon)
AP photo (from Salon.com)
FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2009
Salon discussion on "Sixteen Candles" date rape scene (14 August
2009)
It wasn't long after John Hughes died that online
commenters began to poke holes in his legacy: There was, of
course, the unforgivable issue of Long Duk Dong, but even
on Broadsheet, letter writers brought up a different dark
moment from "Sixteen Candles." As commenter Nona put it:
"Let's not forget the barely conscious drunk girlfriend the
Jake Ryan character sends off to be raped by the Geek in
Sixteen Candles. I believe he says 'be my guest.'
[. . .]
Were the John Hughes movies progressive? In terms of their
sexual politics, they were often not. They merely reflected
1566
1567
1568
maybe not ever getting TO him: this is not Bender and "I've got you
for the rest of your natural born life" empowered principal). At the
end of the day, my thoughts stay with Rooney: at the end of the
movie, he seems not to far from being worn-down enough he could
have joined the "Breakfast Club" circle and chatted it up--Ferris
Bueller is always to advantage, ever aloof, and never so recognizably
sapien.
Enjoyed your post.
----re: Claire runs that school, and she's not a complete bitch not like the girls in Heathers, who were mean just for the
sake of it. In 16 Candles, Molly Ringwald makes a deal with
the nerd - it's a give and take situation - he just gets her
panties. In Ferris Bueller, Sloane is the loved, respected,
even-keeled character who tempers Ferris' boistrousness
and Cameron's neurosis. (suzeqzee, response to post, Amy
Benfer, The Sixteen Candles date rape scene)
re: "Claire runs that school, and she's not a complete bitch not like the girls in Heathers, who were mean just for the
sake of it."
In my judgment, the film makes it seem more like school is composed
of various fiefdoms, with no Ferris in view, with no one person able to
rise too far beyond group norms. She is near the top of the richies, but
it is not clear this makes her amount to evidently more than any
particular top Varsity jock, for instance. The potential status
equivalence of these two groups is registered in the film by Andrew
Clark asking Claire if she's going to such-and-such a party, and in the
nature of her reply--i.e., she reacts as if it a matter-of-course the two
groups would mingle.
re: "In 16 Candles, Molly Ringwald makes a deal with the
nerd - it's a give and take situation - he just gets her
panties."
Yeah, I like that. It is to a certain extent played to show-"up" her
status, too: she's no popular, but a trophy way beyond the reach of
1569
geeks (it's not JUST because she's a girl that she's a draw). There is
play in this. Play with humiliation--yes. Play with playing along with
the weird, advancing King of the Geeks, adventuring along with him.
There is experimentation, gamesmanship, adventure, friendship.
She's of a world/class where varied, unusual, dizzying, humiliating,
remarkable, catastrophic, experiences can occur. She can be the Alice
in Wonderland. More popular than she, and none of this is
possible/available. It's too much for all of life, but for awhile, it's
varied mix--nutrient soil.
----re: I was a teenager in the 1980s...
...and I was not a fan of John Hughes films. It always
seemed to me he was superimposing his experience as a
teenager in the 1960s onto the 1980s. There's a kind of
inherent nostalgia in his films for the innocence of his own
youth; I can't think of a single Hughes movie that dealt with
teen pregnancy, or the actual drug trends of the 1980s,
which in my white, suburban high school included MDMA,
methamphetamine and the beginnings of the neo-hippie
thing (the Dead's "Touch of Grey" was being circulated in
bootleg form my senior year). Now I can appreciate his
work, though I would argue that Risky Business - Tom
Cruise and all - is singularly better than any John Hughes
movie. (JaceFreely, response to post, Amy Benfer, The
Sixteen Candles date rape scene)
JaceFreely: If it was all Hughes lost in his own past, why would it
have connected with so many 80's teens? Mustn't it have played to
something WE ourselves had experienced too?
This said/asked, I think I connected to his films because there was
some carry-over in his films of the 70's joie-de-vivre, sense of
possibility--yummy-candy. (I probably like Forrest Gump and the rest
of Zemenkis's films for the same reason.) There is a chill,
mercilessness, possibility of devastating abandonment, evoked in
Risky Business, that was also true to 80's (and on and on) life, but
1570
1571
was that it was in the 80s where the smile was wiped off everybody's
face, replaced by the blank (emotionless) stare, the "i can't hear you"/
you can't get to me ipod/walkman in the ear. Hughes tried to break
this down--the journey was from cast/group identity to individual
expression/empowerment/realization. The journey right now seems
to be the other way. Test the limits, but in the end you can be sure it's
off to Yale/Princeton belonging/protection (so long, sucker!).
Regarding the article: There is in it some sense of how we are more
comfortable with the barren, skeletal, cruel, than we are with fleshy
warmth, true radiance. Every film now is much more closed to,
armored against, possible attack--of the kind offered here. "Nick and
Nora's Endless Playlist" tries for the expressive/ebullient, but is
aware all the way of being caught off guard. Claire, before her Bender.
I'm thinking about your baby-boomer claim. In mind is that the huge
Forrest Gump/Pulp Fiction divide, was not principally one of
generations. I'll think about it.
----re: RE: the Forrest Gump/Pulp Fiction Divide...
...referred to earlier: I grew up around and play music with
a lot of self-described Punks who view the world very much
in terms of this divide, according to which baby boomers
kept the alternative rock and punk movements
underground through the 80s by using their power to
endlessly stroke the Springsteens and Stones of the world,
even as they (the latter, at least) descended into creative
malaise while the Meat Puppets and REMs were quietly
making great music - a phenomenon that began in the early
70s with the rejection of bands like Black Sabbath and Alice
Cooper by Rolling Stone magazine and the culture it
represented. John Hughes could be said to be the film
equivalent of this boomer mainstream-dominance, while
more anarchistic film-makers like David Lynch were
relegated to art houses. The 90s, in this view, represented
the leveling of this field a bit, as the post-punk sensibility
1572
1573
1574
To see how you too can do fantasy analysis, and see the troll maybe
now "stepping" out of Salon-writer/reader' clothing, check out
www.psychohistory.com. Get with it before we get you!
It's not going to matter. This is period where the press assist Obama
in demonstrating just what will happen to you if you raise a stir,
where we get a sense of the kind of muscle that backs Obama, and I
think Americans will get an erotic thrill from the devastating
ruthlessness. It may in fact be what they "were looking for." The
birthers, the doubters, the annoying pests will be eviscerated, and
Obama's agenda will get back on track. And then when some
complainers start taking on this agenda in the "wrong" way, they too
can be shown refusing rides, talking to the wrong people, as having
read the wrong books, said the wrong things: they too can be derided
all Geraldine Ferraro out of the way. The truth of this is not going to
matter. The land-of-birth thing strikes me as immensely silly. But it
won't matter. Even if in our face, we won't see it--if it comes close to
1575
that, we'll just start taking a closer look at all that "youve" been up to.
Link: Salon's handy-dandy guide to refuting the birthers (Salon)
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
Well Sandra, I understand that you enjoyed yourself, but I for one
truly wish that you could have lived it up even more. It's a meeting of
what is apparent to all of us, a very lively, interesting, pronounced
and fun group of people. For the joy you treasure, any place might
well have served, but since it was las vegas I had hoped you guys had
the means to put to play every bit of excess Vegas' gorge and glitter,
into a "thousand-miles of (summer) fun."
There may be good point to setting things straight. I think I trust your
account, but I do sense in that sacrificed cup of coffee maybe also a
quarter or two displaced into the cup of well-regard. There may have
been no flaunting; but flaunting can be a form of play--not something
to be excused or denied, but appreciated: there very much can be a
spirit in the flaunt, in the flash, that I can very much like. It can
bespeak not primarily meanness or sinful selfishness, but a kind of
therapeutic, rightful insistence on self. Step toward being generous to
yourself, to being truly motivated to give aid/love to others. The
power of GUSH as an accusation, condemnation, needs some working
against. Something I have hoped to offer here.
May you find yourself better situated, sooner rather than later. It's
tough to hear of your living in conditions so evidently so very unequal
to you.
Link: Hurt and sickened by cliquish Vegas posts (emma peel)
I assure you this is the ONLY time in my life I have ever been accused
of being a Heather of the in crowd. It feels weird.
Promise in high school which you are referring to here I was the geek
who went to all school assemblies and not the keg parties in the
woods, was always pictured either typing or in the corner reading a
book in the yearbook, and was upset by others' stories of the prom I
1581
did not attend. I think I fulfill that role as well in Oceans 13 ;0) So I
get why people might have been upset but . . .
2010 will be my 30th high school reunion. I left that behind a long
time ago. I don't understand why others have not done the same. It
was not the happiest time of my life so I choose to no longer live
there.
Dorinda Fox
JULY 30, 2009 01:35 PM
Dorinda, If you can go to a 30th and have it all feel all so left behind,
that's quite an amazing accomplishment. I think, though, that we all
know that is how people are supposed to feel, supposed to be able to
effect, and if they don't there's something shameful about this. I think
whereever you are, is where you are. Accept, explore.
First time a Heather? How wonderful for you--Welcome to the club!
Remember: Others will hate you, but they'd kill to be you.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 01:48 PM
Patrick, the indulgence on OS, compared to the melodrama and
personal tragedy is miniscule by comparison. Take a random day and
compare the melodrama to indulgence ratio. You will see who the
winner is.
Stellaa
JULY 30, 2009 01:55 PM
Well, I'm all for more indulgence, then. How can we be proper
Heathers if we don't well understand the whole point is to enjoy the
fun our spinning ride of color affords?
1582
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 02:06 PM
Patrick, you see, this is my issue, in the search for Western people to
cover up their guilt for excess, they have created a circle of misery
that is completely artificial. In that vain, they have managed to
portray their lives as filled with misery and suffering, yet, they have
more resources and take more of the "benefits" of this planet. In that
vain, they have managed to never appreciate any of the joys in life,
instead, the cover their lives in a mythology of faux western suffering.
So, for all those who suffered because some other people of western
developed world are prettier, thinner, have more fun, are clever, I say
get over it and figure out what you have of joy. I have lived in third
world countries where the poorest of the poor find how to express joy,
yet in America and the Western world, there is a self imposed misery
that is bathed in envy of the "other". The more people envy, the more
suffering they invent.
I don't know if my comment makes sense, but I appreciate that you
started the discussion.
Stellaa
JULY 30, 2009 02:09 PM
You know, I have some lovely pics from Vegas. I will not be posting
them. Heaven forfend they cause somebody pain and suffering.
Likewise, I came up with the most AMAZING molten chocolate cake
recipe the other night. But I know some people are allergic to
chocolate, so I won't be posting that either. And while the funniest
thing just happened to me the other day, I know there are one-legged
Little People out there who don't have the best relationship with
alpacas, so I won't be writing about that either...
1583
1584
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 02:28 PM
Patrick if you had read any of my previous posts my life has not been
improving in many ways and I will not feel guilt over having some
fun. You deserve to know that I have a 33% chance of being on earth
in four years so leave me alone about enjoying my trip.
I am so tired of people being petty.
Dorinda Fox
JULY 30, 2009 02:32 PM
Verbal,
Heathers rule the school, but yet aloof Veronica still keeps her cool.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 02:38 PM
Dorinda, No I oughtn't. It's way out of place. Hope your ride takes you
way beyond, though. And best to you, lovely Dorinda.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 02:41 PM
Patrick, let me get personal here. Since you colored a large swath of
people with the "mean girl", "Heather" cultural narrative, let me
challenge you.
You are a therapist, I don't know what kind of therapy you do. Your
job, your well being depends on people constantly being in a state of
misery and suffering. Forgive me if I think that you have a
1585
1586
in OS fun, people felt the need to deny it, to not be accepting of it. I'm
not for temperance, modesty, or for prudence--or any other soberminded Christian sounding self-deniance. (I'm not for constant
elation either, mind you.) I think there was some therapeutic
insistence on self, on self-display, in the Vegas posts--in the Vegas
fun. I'm not sure Cartouche needs much of that, but her posts were
especially radiant, much more than just small-smiled, small-scale,
friend-fun. It feels good to let yourself be the show--Saturday Night
Live, unapologetic-style. We shouldn't all be in a position where such
is simply--lamentable. Something to deny, minimize, feel guilty about
(I'm thinking about Joan Walsh right now, concerning her own recent
reactions to ostensible or real excess display, right now).
Quite frankly, though, when I sense too much trepidation, shadowy
retreat, amongst a crowd, when they see others all in too much pink
and glow, my inner Heather Chandler speaks, and I kind of do want
to make fun of them. Offers appropriate and much needed feedback
to them, and good sport for me. We all come out of it, on top-Heather Chandler style!
The point of bringing this up again, is that it was settled rather
insufficiently, as is. It was emma bringing up concerns and asking for
honest feedback--which was cool enough, followed by the only thing
that was happening here was simple good times, and anyone who has
a problem with such is an envious 'tard/turd. I thought a whole bunch
of discussable truth was forcefully pushed off the chatting-room table,
and found that a bit less than we might be up to managing.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 03:19 PM
Patrick, that is where you are wrong, prudence, temperance and other
virtues are not the property of Christian tradition. The virtues have
always been a human pursuit.
1587
I see another layer in your pursuit of this issue, they will not say it,
but I will. The women, of course they were mostly women, were
attractive. Attractive women are typically demonized and trivialized
into indulgent beings to be scorned. So, maybe a bit of self reflections
is in order. Would you have seen this as being self indulgent and
mean, if the women were not as a group rather attractive based on
social and cultural standards?
As a group, attractive women can be objects of scorn and bitterness
and called Heathers, mean girls , dumb blondes, etc. Practically all
religions seek to hide pretty women. Is it the pretty woman we are
afraid of, or the envy and desire that they bring in other women's
hearts and in men?
Just some thoughts to ponder.
Stellaa
JULY 30, 2009 03:34 PM
Dorinda: You make professionals sound of insufficient ambition and
presumption--limited. Aristocrats imagined them thus, which is why
they were at first useful technocrats, and the more imaginative, bold
leadership was up to others.
I use language which is natural to me. This is the way I speak and
write, always. Coming to OS was natural to me; I have not felt out-ofplace; I presume my language is sufficient/appropriate here. Some
have said, though, that OS really ought to be thought of more as
Yahoo.chat. That would be your verdict, I guess. Not mine as of yet.
You don't use showy language, but you advertise this fact so very
showily. As you do with your use of "Dr." here. Fits in with this
particular discussion, but it is unnecessary and the opposite of
1588
1589
Dr. Fox
STFU
Dorinda Fox
JULY 30, 2009 03:46 PM
Patrick, you couldn't be more wrong about Dorinda. I loathe most
academics even though my husband is one, one of the good ones I
might add, and so is Dorinda. She is as humble as the day is long. I
spent probably more time with her than almost anyone in Vegas and
if there was a whole lot of artifice and posturing going on, she hid it
very well.
I don't what "truth" it is that you are after, but to pursue this as you
have done indicates that you have some kind of issue with a group of
people meeting up to get to know one another better. You are free to
read anything into the meet-up that you please, but I was there, my
bullshit detector was still working, and it mostly came up empty. And
no, I'm not gonna tell.
emma peel
JULY 30, 2009 03:52 PM
Stellaa: Fair correction, but I don't like the "virtues." All I can say is
that when you speak of them, I don't dislike them as much. That's a
compliment, but not a backdown. This said, sometimes when people
speak of modesty, or moderation, or some such, they're not in their
minds thinking of the circumscribed; they might be thinking just
being at ease, or being fair to "your" current situation, pleasure,
whatever: that is, I've heard these terms used where to me they speak
of virtue, but the terms, the generally history of their use, do not go
the way I would want them to. There's something wrong if we need to
1590
1591
spotted_mind
JULY 30, 2009 04:04 PM
I am utterly confused as well. I am even a socialist, and I am still
confused.
emma peel
JULY 30, 2009 04:08 PM
Ok, I join the confused. Because I do not understand the criticism and
the need to evoke the negative imagery from Hollywood etc, to actual
people and put them into that light. Particularly, since the people
involved, we all know many things about their lives, their ideas and
feelings.
So, I will go to my garden and fight the grape vines.
Stellaa
JULY 30, 2009 04:28 PM
Hi emma.
Re: "with a group of people meeting up to get to know one another
better." You believe this pleasant honest, but it sounds peasant
modest (which yes, is a bad thing). My main interest in this is in how
the "feast" (I know, it wasn't a feast--it was a friendly plate of humblepeasant pie) has been digested. It has to do with the fact that you
colour/color (I think this is what you're doing--it's not just aptly
describing) the trip this way, rather than in a more appropriate, a
rather more true way. The Vegas stuff was fun for me, fun for many of
us, because it was a get-together of some of our favourite color/colour
here at OS. You guys have shined brightest here. You're the life. Huge
part of the draw. Look at what Cartouche did in her report back--that
was more fun to witness than anything going on elsewhere in the
1592
1593
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 04:40 PM
spotted_mind:
I like the folks/stars who went to las vegas, a lot. Dorinda reminds me
of all the girls in highschool who used to make fun of me, so I'm not
so inclined to think much of her, though.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 04:57 PM
Better to be characterized as a star than a sucking black hole, I
suppose, but I'd ask you, dear sir, to search your own analysis for
hyperbole.
Signed,
Got my ass kicked a-plenty by the pretty, popular mean girls and
mean boys in high school too--are we now comparing credentials?
Verbal Remedy
JULY 30, 2009 05:15 PM
Fair request, Verbal Remedy. But OS is hot--so stars for now,
however much the current retreat. If the Colorado thing pales: stars
hereafter, as well.
I was kidding about the least popular in high school, btw. (Just
playing off the "just said" with Dorinda's further efforts to level.) I
didn't like my home life, so I got my revenge, some feeling of turnabout, by making people at school feel as inadequate as possible. I
probably ruined a few lives, actually. Not especially proud of that, but
1594
at the time the demonstration of prowess was, admittedly, at-somemuch-needed-level, quite satisfying.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 05:33 PM
Here's the thing, Patrick. I have never thought of myself as a "star"
here. I don't get EPs, I don't even write that often and I take a lot of
heat from various people. This isn't false modesty, or offensive
"peasant" modesty as you assume. It just is.
I wasn't close "friends" with all the people who went, and I'm still not
close to some of them. I think you are reading far more into this than
it merits. Perhaps there are some who feel that they are stars and
going to Vegas was a "star turn" but I don't know who they are.
emma peel
JULY 30, 2009 05:44 PM
Oh, and I've had plenty of "rampant fun" in my life. I spent most of
my 30s and 40s in pursuit of it. It was interesting that some in Vegas
noted that I was one of the "quieter" ones. I attribute it to the heat,
fatigue and having had so much fun in the past that I don't see it as a
competitive sport any more.
emma peel
JULY 30, 2009 05:46 PM
"I have never thought of myself as a "star" here. I don't get EPs, I
don't even write that often and I take a lot of heat from various
people. This isn't false modesty, or offensive "peasant" modesty as
you assume."
emma: I believe you. But with the 170 comments, I presume you have
1595
full proof that you count amongst the OS renown (or is just further
proof that you're not best understood as popular, but as someone
whose controversial presence draws the attention and ire of countless
lots of people?), even without EPs, even if this is not at all what you
want, is of no particular interest to you. That is, when you next take
account of who you amount to here, you won't now just be drawing
attention to your lack of EPs to suggest your presence is a modest
one, or simply just a controversial one. That you have had more posts
written about/concerning you than anyone else here, didn't tip you
off, surprises me, though. (Popular people are often the most hated-thus my Heather reference.) Maybe your view count is low, or
something. Maybe your posts gather few comments, and even fewer
rates. But evidence that you weren't simply one of the crowd, based
on evidence, not to be evident to you? Surprising.
Still, I hear you that you count yourself one amongst many. No
interest in being a star. There is a lot to be said for that, truly--it can
be said from someone who knows the way to ease, right comfort,
peace, but not much for a reluctance to faithfully be true to your
understanding of how others see you.
A fair post from you, perhaps, would be about why surprised by
170+comments. Why was that the news of the OS region week? How
could I not know? Maybe this will look less necessary, if this OC
rivelet streams into an ocean. But if not, I'd like to hear something
about it, maybe with pictures.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 06:08 PM
emma: So long as you're aware you're telling a most attractive
narrative. It's out of your system, so it's not that you at all freeze or
retreat when things are going on!, when all parts of you are emergent,
growing, getting experienced--it's just that it's all been done to death.
1596
Good, wouldn't want the truth of the matter to be that all this crazyparty earlier action was done in part because it seemed to address
(but didn't quite really--because that would be too big a risk) a fear
you couldn't quite get on out, owing to a too well/long known comfort
in shadows that offered safe but terrible treat from all the vissitudes
of life, the unwanted/discomforting attention/notice of others'.
You were born into a country that deems the well-lived life, very
suspect--very American. If you really lived it, you accomplished
something the protagonist of Bell Jar essentially died for fear of.
emma peel is smart as a whip, and kick's ass. but she is unknowable.
you know this, right?
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 06:30 PM
I'm with the confused pack. I'm an OS Star. I'm the Star-iest. I didn't
get to go to Vegas. I couldn't afford to, and there were some other dire
circumstances that wouldn't have allowed me to go even if I had the
means.
It didn't even occur to me to be upset by any of the Vegas posts. I was
baffled that this even evolved into a discussion. Doesn't having envy
to the point of pain over this whole thing sort of screwed up to the
major? It's one thing to have a feeling of wishing you were there, and
a whole 'nother thing to harbor bad feelings toward those that went
and dare to speak glowingly, or even (prepare yourself) GUSH of their
time there. If you can't separate from your ego enough to realize that
people exist and have nice experiences apart from you for their own
sakes and not to somehow punish you, or promote themselves beyond
you, then hon' you got more problems than can be hashed out in the
comments section of a blog.
1597
FreakyTroll
JULY 30, 2009 09:19 PM
Freaky Troll Supermodel: When you don't speak purple, we're too
caught by surprise to understand.
re: "If you can't separate from your ego enough to realize that people
exist and have nice experiences apart from you for their own sakes
and not to somehow punish you, or promote themselves beyond you,
then hon' you got more problems than can be hashed out in the
comments section of a blog."
Are you speaking to me?, someone else?, or is this a monologue to
and about yourself? Oh, that's right--the whole purple superstar-thing
that pops up everywhere and claims all to herself, is just an alternate
self--just a joke, no semblence to the originator, the real thing. You've
convinced all of us that. No doubt. For sure. No need to see what
happens to you when someone else in this developing scene comes up
with some rather more current trick, when the new know nothing of
you and when "we" have had enough of seeing a flippin' freaky troll
supermodel on our plate, 'gardless of what were talking about, what
we were dining on.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 10:40 PM
ah... huh?
And no, I'm wasn't speaking about *you*. You stated both in your
post and in your comments that you wrote about this to promote
discussion of the topic. I discussed.
I'm guessing that last bit was you trying to tell me that I would get all
bitter if I become not the flavor of the week. Eh, if you check my
1598
ratings and comments and EPs, it's not like I'm slaying them in the
aisles. I do my own little thing in my own little corner of this place.
But you know, I do find interesting that you assume that I would
come all pouty about things... hmmmmm.... 'cause really that's not
the case.
And gee, if people don't agree with your "Mean Girl" premise, you get
kind of personally aggressive.
FreakyTroll
JULY 30, 2009 11:19 PM
So Freaky Troll Superstar is, with her "little place" and "little things,"
near bachelor-place invisible on OS. Yes, this speaks to a noticeable
characteristic, a notable problem here, and is an apt and worthy
addition to this post. Success encourages so much anxiety it makes us
just have to imagine ourselves the smallest of selves, our conscious
mind can give credence to. If you ever become more popular, I expect
we'll hear you speak of yourself in third person--it's some other you
people are referring to, not really you. They may do book things here
at OS. I expect it. You really think you haven't a chance (along with
others, of course) at the cover?
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 11:43 PM
Being in the place of commenting, as it were, in the fact of the
hyperbole directed at the tree next door, I too wonder about the
cultural relevance of snakes on a plane to Las Vegas. I use certain
comparisons to illuminate my words but avoid pararghraphical
inferences towards anything I might say. To put it simply: I really like
butter.
My understanding of your implication that my inference was in
response to your statement brings me back to my main point. The
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
hobbits that makes them for the most part ridiculous but also
strangely empowered: making them akin to faeries or sprites, or some
other odd and unaccountable thing. How can we not think this is the
case with Bilbo, for instance. And likely, too, with Gollum. They're
both quizzical, unpredictable, slyto be fair to Gollum, he manifests
himself later in the series as actually a bit demonically smart, patient,
wry, with some notable self-impetuswillbut partake too much of
the "drunk, fat, and stupid is no way to go through life" school of
social conduct to see them as having something truly noteworthy
over, say, whatever elvin'/human' notable. Fellowship shows Frodo as
being someone Sauron ought rightly to have had his eye on way
before the possession of the ring made this a no-brainer. Though
Gandalf nixes himself as ring-bearer in a way which makes his
problem seem he's just got too much on/over everybody else, Frodo
has the potential for the kind of stuffspecifically, self-possession
that looks to excel what either Gandalf or Elrond can summon
up/make claim to. When the various Middle Earthens gather to
determine what to do with the ring, all are shown finding themselves
lost in quarrels, caught up in mad angerexcept for Frodo, who
stands apart from all, considers, and understands, rightly, given the
evidence at hand, that he is the only one well-suited to take on the
task of destroying the ring. This could have been played as him just
feeling the urgent need to terminate all the noise, all the upsetting
"parental" squabbling, but it wasn't. It showed notable composure,
greatness in him, for him to have faith in the seemingly unlikely (i.e.,
that amongst such great titles and personages, he could well most
ideally serve as the ring-bearer), to remain true to himself when all
others had lost their minds, had lapsed away from conscious
awareness into unconscious madness.
The Fellowship does right with Frodo throughout, in fact. His
ability to have confidence in his own judgment/assessment, even
when in very unfamiliar surroundings, in situations of high/regal
important, or in the presence of very unfamiliar high magic, is
evidenced later when he understands/intuits the true nature of the
1604
1605
is not the case with Merry and Pippen, however. And it is with them,
with how they are "treated" in Two Towers and Return of the King,
that I will largely focus my concerns as to the series'
manipulativeness, its great act of bad faith to the ostensible principle
argument moving the film.
At the finish, Merry and Pippen are given huge due, but with
them, unlike as was the case with Frodo, this may well seem both
surprising andespecially with so many other great personages about
over-done, inappropriate. It was their right due, too, however; it's
just that this fact was made clear but then subsequently and very
determinedly obfuscated so as to make the moment of high acclaim
even more a surprise, something even more worthy of being held dear
to those viewers who could/would readily imagine themselves akin to
the uncertain of place. For there were two towers of pressing threat,
one was taken out in dogged toward fashion by Frodo and Sam, but
the other too was taken out by hobbits, only in a more sly, subtle
fashion: the Two Towers may start off with Merry and Pippen in dire
need of rescue, but it develops to show how it is to Merry's inspired
management/trickery of Treebeard that Saruman's tower (and in
truth, the bulk of Saruman's army) owes its fall. The film makes this
clear, but then does what it can to encourage us to understand Merry
and Pippin as in need of considerable redemption before they can
seem fit for high-estimation. The hobbits who literally drew
Treebeard down the path that guaranteed his involvement in the war,
a huge tipping of scales, as it turns outwhatever Treebeard's
previous indulgent talk of likely doomare introduced to us in The
Return of the King as silly and indulgent hobbits, with breaths of lazy
smoke, with bellies full of pork, who by all rights seem full worthy of a
hearty laugh, a knowing smirk, a kept-in, quiet, exclamation of
"hobbits!" Oh indeed those wacky hobbits! To share in our friends'
good cheer, we accede to imagining the hobbits good for a laugh, a
lurch that sets us adequately enough up to soon think of them as they
first seemed when they pushed their way on through, willy, nilly,
impetuously, on the more likely, the more Fellowship-worthy, Sam's
1606
1607
1608
1609
making a fool out of the likes of Aragorn, Gandalf, and so too you, for
holding it so long near as your dear precious.
But do be concerned. For being lured into forgetfulness
should seem unacceptable in a film whose great lesson is the great sin
involved in forgetting. And I would encourage you to actually bewell
angry: the film would have you capable of disregarding generous acts
of others', whatever the immensity of their scale, the colossal
goodness in their widely felt impact. For are you truly sure that if you
could do as much with Merry and Pippen, that if you cooperate "here"
you aren't capable of as much with other once-greats"real" ones,
perhaps like Ralph Nader, for instanceout of behoovance to the
enticing lure of someone else's promised charms?
It may partake of the ring. Youve been warned. Do not forget.
Works Cited
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Dir. Peter Jackson.
Perf. Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen. 2001. DVD.
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Dir. Peter Jackson. Perf.
Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen. 2002. DVD.
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Dir. Peter Jackson. Perf. Elijah
Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen. 2003. DVD.
1610
Is he that? Well, in a way, he sort of is. But I mean this in that, at least
as he is currently figured in the public' imagination--or, rather, as he
had been before he moved from Pitchfork 'to Uncle--and, thinking
now of Milton and of the Romantics, also a good time before, he has
a/the devil's propriety, his stature, style, mean. That is, he stands
alone, speaks as a powerful orator whose voice enchants, charms,
twirls about, but also blusters and bombs, and has the devil's
cunning, sly awareness (he knows, don't you know, that Rachel
Maddow isn't actually all that impressed with Sotomayor; he knows,
don't you know, that Obama has the words but not the heart; he
knows, don't you know, America's most (il)licit desires . . .). That is, if
you'll temporarily forget the first image of him I conjured and focus
on the second, the way he carries/conducts himself is such that if you
suspected that a lot of people who would have you believe they bring
up his name in hatred, actually possess a deep affinity for, a profound
attraction to, him, you'd be surely right in your suspicion.
Specifically, who might these people be? Won't be naming names, but
if you sense in someone who rails against Buchanan, someone who
knows well what it is to be bullied, managed, shut-down and shut-up,
made to feel just a lowly nothing, well hidden, smothered; someone
who may well normally associate him/herself with/within groups, but
every now and then belligerantly announces just how God-damned
independent s/he really is, in a way which leaves you immediately
and readily attendant, placative, and what's-gotten-into-"him"
startled/surprised; someone who would have you believe s/he is selfeffacing, modest, just your ordinary joe, but announces this in a way
which makes self-effacement seem a way to clear and open up space
rather than close it down; this person might actually find the man
very appealing, and so now struggles so very hard to establish the
opposite, in hopes this might break his appeal.
Doesn't work, though. Because though in part they bring up to smash
and break, they also evoke to sympathize--not, that is, to accede to his
points, but to borrow, link to, partake of him in an effort to possess
some of his power: "Sympathize," that is, as in the anthropological
1611
1612
may be that I'll just leave him now be and focus more on those I find
even more beautiful--some, admittedly, like Chris Matthews, who
take hits along the same lines Pat does. But for now let me end by
saying that if Pat Buchanan ever merges beyond just being "Uncle
Pat," a fair possibility given that (deep breath now, one and all!) it is
clear to me that though some people address him so because they
really do believe his time is done, that he is lost forever-more to
history, some do so because though they may well want him to come
out again in his former Pitchfork guise at some point, still want to
keep him close at hand, they can only justify (to themselves, to
others) associating themselves with him, keeping him so manifestly
present and resonating in their lives and readied for easy emergence
into a crash/bang eventful future, by making him seem forever
denatured and tamed (read: non-politician political), the problem
won't be Pat Buchanan's dangerously powerful oratory skills, his
other-even-if-netherwordly wrath and prowess: the problem, instead,
will rest in those needing someone well suited to be set-up as an allpowerful Patriarch, someone appropriate to spearhead righteous
vengeance upon those who've brought people so lowly down (to the)
ground. So-to-speak, the power will be in the problem with the
people, not in any such prowess some think incubates away in Pat.
In any case, even though his name is coming up quite a bit lately, no
ones going to put a pitchfork in Pats hands for a good while. May it
be possible for people in the nation to evolve so, that few ever find
themselves in mood to cue Pat to pick any such up again. Be unfair to
us; be hugely unfair to Pat--someone who has clearly grown to like
resting more idly as our somewhat odd uncle, someone who is in fact
best served if he deigns himself just one more welcome dinner guest,
as he dines querously but happily away amongst a numbered many at
our generously sized, dining room table of a nation.
1613
1614
inherent genius. Holy shit! . . . We did that. Wow.To not deal with
this, come on . . .
Doesn't mean I'm for it. But I respect the effect it had on people, a
ton. I am not sure it's glamor we need ("glamor," we note, though, is
again one of these suspect feminine terms we're hearing a lot of these
days, here at the Tyee. To have glamor means to be seductive; to
resist its allure, means to possess manly self-possession, restraint--to
be able to see steadily on through to the "truth" [which inevitably has
one saying things like, "[t]he political return on investment, however,
wasn't even that good," or some such, that actually could be accused
of "charming" through an appeal of sobriety]). But we do need fun; do
need adventure; do need to know that life should not easily be set up
as something best taken in with due modesty, restraint, sobriety,
work-day seriousness--i.e., the same old preferred Canadian way to
neuter anything that seems exciting, into forms more comfortably
dealt with. We're a nation of grandpas.
.....
wanderings/trips
First thought that comes to mind:
Just pushing further away from "home" just doesn't seem all that
adventurous. If the trip to Mars ends up feeling the same as trip to
moon, then so what? Progress? Really? It is perhaps just the
experience of what we're doing when we travel, traveling anywhere-corner store, gas station, Pluto--whatever--what travel amounts to,
means to, us, that needs adventurous change. Explorations of,
developments in, how we experience our external world.
Second thought that comes to mind (involving some
reconsideration--i.e., forward progress [?])
If we travelled to the moon again, but did so not in an effort to show
up another nation, not to accomplish something grandiose,
spectacular, phallic, but out of recognition that a planet will always
mean something to us, and stepping beyond, reaching beyond,
something too, that might well be something of real value to us. We
could do so not to plant a flag on it, simply tag it, but to encounter it--
1615
1616
1617
Rape in Berlin)
Two bits from Lloyd deMause's Emotional Life of Nations (link at
sig.)
War, then, is the act of restaging early traumas for the purpose of
maternal revenge and self purification. Wars are clinical emotional
disorders, periodic shared psychotic episodes of delusional organized
butchery intended--like homicide--to turn a severe "collapse of self
esteem" into "a rage to achieve justice." Wars are both homicidal and
suicidal--every German in 1939 who cheered Hitler on as he promised
to start an unwinnable world war against overwhelming opposing
nations knew deep down they were committing suicide. Like all
homicides and suicides, wars are reactions to our failed search for
love, magical gestures designed to ensure love through projection into
enemies, by "knocking the Terrifying Mommy off her pedestal" and
by "killing the Bad Boy self." As Kernberg puts its, violence occurs
only when "the world seems to be split between those who side with
the traumatizing object and those who support the patient's wishes
for a revengeful campaign against the traumatizing object." Thus the
early crisis in maternal love, which had been internalized during
childhood in Terrifying Mommy and Bad Boy alters, is resolved by
acting out on the historical stage the revenge against the Terrifying
Mommy and by the wiping out of the Bad Boy self.
[. . .]
RIGHTEOUS RAPE OF MOTHER SUBSTITUTES Even though wars
are supposed to be fought between men, they have equally affected
women and children. In most wars, more civilians are killed than
soldiers, and, according to UNICEF, "in the wars fought since World
War II 90 percent of all victims are found in the civilian population, a
large share of them women and children." In our imaginations,
however, wars are mainly about women and children. Divine wars
were always fought for a goddess of war, from Ishtar to Teshub,
almost always mothers of the war heroes,"crying to be fed...human
blood." Even the Hebrew Lord counsels Moses to "kill every male
1618
among the little ones and kill every woman that hath known man by
lying with him. But all the virgin girls keep alive for yourselves [to
rape]." Yanomamo war raids might kill a few men in raids, but would
abduct all enemy women and rape them. Child murder and rape were
the center of ancient war. The Greeks often used to rape all virgin
girls and boys in wars and often trod all children of a city to death
under the feet of oxen or covered them with pitch and burned them
alive. As van Creveld puts it, "During most of history, the opportunity
to engage in wholesale rape was not just among the rewards of
successful war but, from the soldier's point of view, one of the
cardinal objectives for which he fought.
---I believe that's the first time I quoted someone at length, during my
time here. And if I do it again, not more than once every blue moon
(and I'll try for never). Sometimes there's occasion, but most times it's
rude, unequal to the poster and to those who read/chance upon the
post.
Why the innocent?--which felt like a plaintive plea--drew it out.
---re: "Why women and children"
Wow. Thanks, Patrick McEvoy-Halston.
Your quotes make sense - but they're probably not what most men
would believe about themselves or their motives. (Zandru, Response
to post, Rape in Berlin)
---I find it funny just how morally superior everyone here is. My God,
if only YOU people had been there to fight the war it would all have
been different..
I especially love the women here who will never ever have to be
drafted, shoved into the front lines, watch comrades die by the
thousands, fight through every possible fear and degradation while
hoping, praying that you not only survive but that the fate of your
mother, your father, your sisters back home all rely on you sit in
judgement of these men.
1619
1620
effects of constant war. I love it when people attend, with respect and
love, to those we are directed to simply hate and quickly
discard/disregard. But, to me, that wasn't what you were JUST up to.
I admit that what I mostly felt from your piece, is the WHY we get so
many Hollywood films which feature battered, stressed, drawn-out,
scar-bearing warriors: it's an empowered "position." Brought to
"your" knees, humiliated, stressed and tested to the extent of human
forbearance, you NOW can go all righteous against the "clean" and
judgmental, with the expectation that they ought to, that they can
bloody well be made to!, back down. All that wearing down seems to
me to lend considerable over-all swagger, which enables all kinds of
things "you" might actually really want, but in normal circumstances
are too readily shut down, through judgment.
I never feel when I read pieces like the like of what you wrote (not
that I just blended in your response with a whole pile of others), that
"you" REALLY believe that war is something we ought to avoid--I
always smell opportunity, reason for its continuance. I'm not sure if
that's a kind thing to say, but it's how I feel.
----@ Patrick
I'm glad thats how you "feel". After all how you "feel" about what I
wrote, and how you get to interpret whatever you want onto what I
write says more about you, than it does about me. Doesn't it?
As well as your need to see this theory of yours in everything you
read. Its easy to feel right, and self righteous when you get to just go
by what you "feel" people mean, than by what they are actually
saying.
Or is that unkind to write?
Or maybe, its your, as well as others, need to feel superior that lends
you to think you would have behaved any differently, or that you
would have been any better had you lived the same circumstances as
these people did. And maybe that need to feel superior to others
comes more from your fears? Of what you WOULD do under that
kind of duress, of what you ARE capable of.
1621
1622
Michael Lerner
Photo by sduffy
If progressives, whether in unions, activist groups or political
parties, don't soon begin doing politics differently -- radically
differently -- they will fail to show that "a better world is possible."
And the price of failure will be catastrophic.
We have known for years that our consumer culture is out of control
and our obsession with having more and more stuff has reached the
status of a virus. Our consumer-driven global economy is a lethal
threat to the planet and every one of its eco-systems.
The lock that consumerism has on Western so-called civilization is
1623
1624
1625
hell they were talking about, with Britain fairing not so bad, overall,
in subsequent centuries--even without them giving up their taste for
domestic, pretty, niceties.
Of course, as mentioned, my taste for shopping excess would never,
ever involve West Edmonton Mall--that elephantine pleasure-house
for taste-crippled proles.
Nighty, night.
Link: Left Needs Soul Searching (Murray Dobbin, Tyee)
1626
Salon)
photo by Zach_ManchesterUK
Fighting has broken out in Siena's Piazza del Campo. Girly fighting
too, by the look of it. From across the piazza all you can see are
flailing arms at the point where two crowds of young people have
met, a wild flurry of slapping and punching. I can't see the colour of
the scarves each group is wearing, but someone says it looks like
Tartuca versus Chiocciola, or possibly Aquila against their old
enemies Pantera. The enmity is long-standing although actual fights
in the public square are not generally done. The kids can't help it
though -- it is Palio time again. (Steve Burgess, At the Worlds
Wildest Horse Race, 10 July 2009)
re: "Girly fighting too, by the look of it. From across the piazza all you
can see are flailing arms at the point where two crowds of young
people have met, a wild flurry of slapping and punching."
Steve, fighting that amounts to a wild flurry of slapping might well
seem most aptly summed-up as girly fighting to you, but, please note,
such a summation can actually contribute to a mounting societal
assessment of WOMEN, of females, as all so in truth, in essence,
rather ridiculous, so rather-not-to-taken-seriously, so put-them-backin-their-proper-place, girlies. Please note, woman have been spending
the last two centuries and a half, trying to escavate themselves from a
Hunt, from a God-damned, you barely deserve to live let alone be
expected to be respected, hunt, and it would be a pity if, hoping, after
all their efforts, after all this time, they've made some forward
progess, they made the mistake of looking to your assessment of
horsies and crowdie' antics, they felt that, no, it's all the same, that
things won't change, no how, no time, nowhere--no way.
1627
1628
1629
disregard for what others might say--how else to integrity? how else
to productivity?, how else to, even, sunshine!, pirates!, sundae
sweetness!, and a better world? And it is true that people are very
quick to shut people down when they say anything un-pc, as many
who contribute to discussions here, have learned from past
experience.
Perhaps almost as quick as they are to jump on those who can be set
up to seem implusive, flippant, indulgent--"girlie": i.e., those whose
obsession over the trivial, makes them sadly inferior to those able to
hold to proper account.
----Since people seem to feel strongly about this, I'll respond.
"Girly fighting"--It's a joke. Pick your battles, folks. Save the outrage
for the real issues. Or can one of you explain to me the underlying
lack of respect, the clear disdain for gender equality, represented by
an old-fashioned term for slap fighting? Am I failing to acknowledge
the very real hopes and aspirations of 21st century women to haul
off and break noses with solid pile-driving punches?
SicPreFix wrote: "... the whole story reeks of outmoded, sexist, proviolence, tribal warfare...."
So you don't object only to my perceived attitude, but to the reported
facts as well? Perhaps I should rewrite the story so that an eightcentury-old Italian tradition no longer offends your sensibilities?
And why is it that so many Tyee posters take umbrage at any
attempt to broaden the scope of this magazine beyond their pet
subjects? Down with tyranny, I say. (Steve Burgess, response to
post, At the Worlds Wildest Horse Race)
Maybe stop with the broadening of scope,
and entertain some appreciation, some respect, for this wild ride?
Guess we didn't realize you weren't saying they slapped away at one
another like girls, that what you were saying is that they fought in the
manner people used to without compunction reference as girly
fighting, before feminists, concerned leftists, showed how using these
1630
Bruno amounts to a rather large penis in the face (13 July 2009)
everyman pictures
"Brno" is not good for gays, but not for the reason you may suspect.
Brno is, ostensibly--is seemingly incontrovertibly--Sasha Baron
Cohen as a ber-feminine, frilly, flashy, fashion-obsessed, "girly-man"
homosexual. But he is in fact more accurately understood as a hypermasculine, phallic aggressor, phallic male, whose aim is to not so
much to show up others prejudices, cruelty, ridiculousness, but
rather to ridicule people in a way he can readily get away with, tear
away at any self-dignity they claim for themselves, to, in effect, come
as close to making him his "bitches," as he can.
Brno may look to be someone a mans man would abhor, would
react to, just as the wrestling mob reacted upon finding themselves
being duped into having cheered on a homosexual coupling. But
1631
natural queer aversion, isn't how best to account for the mob's
reaction. The wrestling crowd was stunned and, in greater truth,
traumatized by the reveal, because Cohen had set them up to
look/feel like fools--colossal ones. He had unmanned them, made
themhis "bitches"--a very cruel act, one no different in true intent
than manipulating the high school' least popular into
approaching/flirting with the good looking quarterback, to drive her
to near suicide-level self-estimation--but one that operates under way
better cover.
This bad for gay men? You betcha. Because while to the American
public, gay men can be understood as the aggressors--"vampires,"
whose approach, whose near touch and breath, can leave you forever
after affected/infected, what comes most readily to mind when they
think of homosexuals is of themselves being made to seem
ridiculously "girly"--"bottom-bitches," as they say. That is,
humiliated, powerless, disarmed and in full surrender. And what
Brno most effectively communicates, in my judgment, is that there is
no better remedy for feeling at risk of being made to feel akin to
Brnos "bottom-bitch" (in the hotel scene, be sure that Cohen made
sure he was the one caught with his penis up someone elses rear end,
not the reverse), note--not to Brno, than to strut about swishing
your dick in everyone else's face.
Not a satire. Not social commentary. Brno is a paean to the hypermasculine--to the penis-empowered, in full (and brutal) disregard of
the lay "pussy" victim. If America turns on to this film, it will be
because Cohen has convinced them there is in fact something to be
said for finding your dick halfway up someone elses anus, a disaster
for the truly "girly"-seeming, wherever they're to be found.
1632
Patrick,
We can't gamble the Tyee's existence on creating a forum for 'near
libelous' statements. Nor do we wish to create a forum for racist and
sexist comments, or personal insults directed at our writers or other
commenters. We wish to create a forum where many feel
comfortable and welcome to comment. And we acknowledge that
personal vitriole, and racist and sexist comments do cause harm.
(David Beers, On Monday, a New Tyee, July 8 2009)
Of course get rid of the libelous, rascist, sexist. Let's pretend that's not
so much what constitutes the Wild West (which I know is what it is, of
course), and say that's Cess Pool stuff, that no one ought to redeem (I
won't). (By libelous, I really didn't mean libelous--I was thinking
lurid, but "libelous" now embodies more the sense/feel of the lurid, of
the sinful, than even "lurid" now does, so I went with libelous.)
And, yeah, I didn't make any effort to redeem good reasons for your
(i.e., the editorial staff at the Tyee's) care and scrutiny. It is indeed a
very good thing to play a part in making sure people don't walk away
from their encounter with the Tyee, feeling like they don't matter,
feeling like a victim, feelin' like they've just eaten shit.
Still, overall I do think that despite some talk now of redeeming freerange play, that the overall societal trend (I know that sounds very
ranging and grand, but still) is toward keeping things in control-something that ensures we get far fewer ranging, all-over-the-place,
risk-taking Christopher Laschs, or William Irwin Thompsons (a leftie
who would, for example, call the theory of evolution into question-something you'd never see someone on the left--even if they shared
his concerns--dare give voice to right now). Makes things more
boring, if more tanquil, settled, and predictable, than I'd like it to be.
I haven't experienced a Salon discussion with anonymous comments,
that's before my turn there, but I was told that once you could post
anonymously (that is, under the actual name "anonymous," which
means no one can readily differentiate you from all the others who
post under the "anonymous" moniker, which means you really could
1633
just yell stuff anonymously from 'mongst the crowd), and so I checked
way earlier Stephanie Z. stuff, and saw them there. About a month
and a half ago, Joan wrote about the changes--You could now flag
comments; the best comment featured was being discontinued;
couple other things. In that post's comment section is where I found
some of the talk redeeming (let's call it) fully anonymous posting,
along with warnings about the climate created where every post very
visibly is at risk of being flagged by others on the site.
It's a worthy discussion, you know. I think we're used now to thinking
of editors too much as superego, when they might now prove most
useful as id enablers. Editors could weigh in, maybe, and address
posters who are playing it too safe. I've seen John McLaughlin do
this; same too, Chris Matthews. That is, really hammer away at those
who won't say what's really on their mind, for fear it'll offend
someone, for fear it would get them in hot water, operating under the
assumption that the whole point of living in a free society is that
people should much more feel the impetus to let it out, than to keep it
all so very guardedly, hemmed in. Feisty fish.
Link: On Monday, a New Tyee (Tyee)
FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2009
You kept your couch--for how long (12 July 2009)
1634
though some are trying to defend IDEA goods by pointing out that
they can last the long while, I believe more effort ought to be put in
defending the idea that the nature of their composition and their cost,
make them easier to imagine as only temporary goods. Goods well
suited for who you are NOW, that is, constituted so you don't feel you
have to keep them around forever, or pass them on to other people
they no longer well suit, either. You can get rid of them, as you should
anything that remains static, while you go about life's primary
business--growing into something richer and more wonderful-different.
What we need to do is really get good at re-using the materials. You
buy knowing you'll be breaking in on down soon enough, to be put
back into something relevant and new. Planned obsolescence is
moved by the wrong energy, but can be "re-made" into a philosophy
which redeems change and growth, that is, into something rather well
usefully suited to work against an age increasingly driven to redeem
stuff that should be well out of our face by now, but was,
unfortunately, well built to last. More talk about the good old days
and the crappy youth of today, grandpa? Lovely, can't get enough, as
they say. . . Say, How're your bones doin', gramps?
Link: "IKEA is as bad as Wal-Mart" (Stephanie Zacharek)
1635
photo by arimoore
On today's Hardball, Joan Walsh scorned Palin for acting like a
Starbuck's barrista, saying, specifically, "to up and quit with 2 weeks'
notice like you're a barrista at Starbucks . . .?!"
Joan, I wish you'd said "like a McDonald's employee," for it would
have made it beyond clear that your comparison may not just have
worked to lessen Palin, but also to make barristas seem even more
than they now do like low-life transients, without any commitment to
their job, without any real warrant for any solid societal' respect.
There might just be some people who enjoy working at Starbucks,
who believe they provide an essential service, one worthy of respect,
who would credit that there's a lot of turnover, but would prefer not
to made the perfect "example" to set-up Sarah Palin as a wanton,
flouncing, tramp.
Do we really want to create a cultural climate where a lot of those who
work at minimum wage jobs end up considering switching to military
service, just so that they can be seen, beyond doubt, as employed in
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
Hi Joan. Good people here like emma peel and umbrellakinesis are
pointing that out, are coming to your defence. And that's great. It
would certainly be nice if the reputation of those working at service
jobs which involve a lot of human contact, were all very well regarded.
Seems like they ought to be. Their jobs are near moment-to-moment
human touch--which is just amazing! If they got their appropriate
right regard, then there would be nothing more to say about your
reference than that is was wonderfully apropos: people at Starbucks
are probably, for the most part, transitionary, which is NOT what we
expect from elected officials. It just so happens right now, that a lot of
people in work like that are held in pretty low regard--and this really
pisses me off.
You didn't liken them to whores, but Palin plus low wage service
sector jobs, brings certain connotations to mind. I may have
encouraged some to think you suggested as much. I'll think about
that. Feedback affects.
Best to you.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 09, 2009 12:17 AM
Actually I don't think a lot of the people who work at McDonalds or
Starbucks just up and quit frivolously (as Palin looks to have done),
cuz THEY need the $, such as it is. (Don't have a suggestion for what
Joan 'should' have said, tho.)
Myriad
JULY 09, 2009 12:21 AM
Let's not forget that Starbucks does offer health insurance to their
employees, something I am fairly certain McDonalds does not.
Personally I have a lot of respect for Baristas. I wouldn't last one day
trying to keep all the various beverages straight. I would be the Lucille
Ball of baristas!
1642
Ablonde
JULY 09, 2009 12:36 AM
emma peel: It may not be worth a gigantic protest, but, you know, it's
just the kind of thing that too many have passed over, for it now never
to seem, simply just an incident. If you've got a job with a uniform,
and you're not with the government, with the military, you're suited
up for service to the genteel, and all that that entails--that's what
came in with Reagan, and has been accumulating ever since. Joan
regreted her reference, immediately afterward, you note. The last
time society divided so markedly into the haves-and-have-nots, being
a clerk meant being a likely prostitute--or at least a "would-be" one. I
wonder if in that moment afterward, some sense of this other
association, slipped into mind.
All this said, i'm not interested in creating an environment where
people are afraid to give voice to what strikes them in the instant as
being most apt/true. Still, discussions like this--if not too accusatory,
if the protest doesn't prove TOO much--might shift associations
around in people's minds so that the next time they heep praise on a
well delivered Obama "note," for instance, it's in reference to the great
"vibe" procured by that terrific americano barrista, two weeks' last.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 09, 2009 12:45 AM
wow patrick, i'm wondering, reading your comments, if this post
doesn't say more about you. starbucks + palin = implied whore?
people say enough weird shit without adding invisible inferences to
these equations.
bstrangely
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
My reply:
On Second Thought, Ill Stick with my Diet Coke: an ode to
the travails of not eating chick food
I no longer want things chalky, static
I will not be eating carrots when what I want is some rabbit!
Lifes about expanding your brains, your mind
And me thinks as with the "library," to food, in kind
What I crave is taste, the munch--the gorge
So I'm havin' good pizza, I'm havin' some sushi
I'm eating cheeseburger and growing like John Belushi
I'm now no stick--there's no resolvin' it
So gimme your Cake--no fork, I'll shovel it!
(Patrick McEvoy-Halston, July 7 2009)
photo by BrownHead
RE: Whenever a society finds itself in the midst of great change, as
we do now, it is important to take stock of the institutions that form
its bedrock, giving it the solid foundation that has allowed it to build
itself to great heights.
I would like to draw attention to a certain tradition that is at risk of
being lost in today's dynamic environment since it is one of those
customs that belongs only to men, and thus, its value has diminished
over recent decades.
This practice has allowed men to realize their place within the larger
society, to preserve the stories of the tribe and to achieve a level of
consciousness not able to be attained during their hectic day-to-day
1648
lives.
What I am referring to here has gone by many names over the
years, including boys' weekend, hunting trip and lately, "The
Mancation." But I prefer the simpler and more inclusive moniker
"the guys trip."
This institution was borne of the need that men have to recharge
their masculinity by getting away from the lady folk for a few days.
I am not talking any Robert Bly stuff that involves reciting epic
poetry to the thump of frame drums, but an experience more primal
that chimes with a louder ring of truth -- namely quaffing copious
quantities of beer while chucking wood on the fire and insulting one
another. (Nick Smith, In Praise of Mancation, The Tyee, July 7
2009)
Re: "This practice has allowed men to realize their place within the
larger society, to preserve the stories of the tribe and to achieve a level
of consciousness not able to be attained during their hectic day-to-day
lives."
Reach a level of consciousness? Ambitious and, if achievable, surely
commendable, but how does this claim "chime" with your
finish--"Yes, we have come here to laugh at each other, and in doing
so, put each man in his place"? Honestly, you make it sound as if a
crouched crap was more the summit of your cranial climb.
I'm also not sure how the practice helps you "realize [your] [. . .] place
within the larger society." If it amounts to an acknowledgment that
you can't feel masculine while amidst "lady folk," and this means
spending the bulk of one's life withdrawn/kept away from something
primal, something hearteningly satisfying--and thus surely essential,
doesn't it reveal that there's something fundamentally lacking in dayto-day feminized reality?, that it requires fightback, not redemption?
If this was a feminist's lament, about how her personhood, her
essential womanhood had been denied rightful expression in
everyday life, would there not be a larger note of societal "j'accuse" in
the penned essay? Wouldn't there be less of a note of, "I was and
1649
1650
Mancations. By Moat.
Moat: My point is that if what they're saying is that Mancations give
back lost masculine manna, then Mancations DO amount to IDing
culture as feminizing, even if the rest of society is not primarily being
focussed on. And if that is what the rest of society amounts to to those
who go on Mancations, then you'd think--quite rightly--they ought to
man-up and wage holy war on those who've dared drain away their
precious masculine' primal goodness, to those who've drained away
their very f*cking souls!
Look, if women went off into the wilderness to replenish themselves,
to shake loose and disgard broader influences that had withered away
at their attempts to understand themselves as fully enfranchised, fully
worthy, fully women, and then on the way back home slunk back into
being largely uninterested in holding the rest of society to account,
wouldn't they amount to a movement somewhat unworthy of
respectful attendance by others'? Even if you did so in a less selfcongradulatory way than G West and I tend to evidence when we
heep scorn, wouldn't you be tempted to ridicule them, at least a little
bit?
Men, when you write up your "odes" to masculinity, please try, try,
try, to write more ballsy stuff! Channel Margaret Atwood; get inside
what she would do if she were a man and in your soul-drained
situation. Do you really think she would ever finish her ostensible
man/manna restoring expedition, by CONCLUDING--as this fellow
did--how wonderful it is to find yourself properly LOWERED back
into place? Egads!--If that's what you discover when you've
uncovered Real Masculinity, then maybe it ought to be asked if men
are all that necessary, anyway?
---re: In my circle it's called a Road Trip.
I enjoyed the article until I came to the comments. Boy, SOME of you
folks sure can read a lot into nothing. Ball polishing? Real
1651
Masculinity?
I think you faux psychologists SHOULD get out in the woods a little
bit and "get your minds right" as my buds and I call it. No drama.
No navel gazing. Just the lads kicking back and yes, playing hard.
We pay for it the next morning but thats our choice. No harm done.
I'll have a beer with you anytime Nick! (I know we'd get along as
you don't make a point of being called "Nicholas")
Ever done the south end of Birkenhead Lake.....? (happy, Response
to post, In Praise of Mancation)
So happy, we're supposed to be like Nick and not make too much of it.
That is, we're supposed to be like the good sporting mate who offered
us this:
"Whenever a society finds itself in the midst of great change, as we do
now, it is important to take stock of the institutions that form its
bedrock, giving it the solid foundation that has allowed it to build
itself to great heights.
I would like to draw attention to a certain tradition that is at risk of
being lost in today's dynamic environment since it is one of those
customs that belongs only to men, and thus, its value has diminished
over recent decades.
This practice has allowed men to realize their place within the larger
society, to preserve the stories of the tribe and to achieve a level of
consciousness not able to be attained during their hectic day-to-day
lives."
No thunder, no manic portent, in this "brew"? Really? I suppose it
could have all been a joke, like some beer commercial that starts off
all mock-epic, before slipping more assurely into domestic--small
scale--comedy, but it seemed genuine to me.
---And a very well written one. I had a smile on my face through the
whole article, when I wasn't laughing outright.
1652
Why? Because its true! Every word. I've even done the "supply boat"
thing. Note to Author: Don't ever tow an aluminum cartopper
behind a power boat at speed. If they get outside the wake they can
roll - real fast. That sucks. Beer doesn't float.
Boys will be boys, and so will a lot of (ahem) older men.
Or so I've beem told... (happy, Response to post)
It's hard to read how one is supposed to take it, 'cause, yeah, it looks
to be mock-epic switching to domestic-comedy--a la a, don't take this
seriously, beer commercial. But it can't resist closing on a pretty
angry note ("And that is a place from which no one can chuck us
out"), making the whole piece feel like it was almost purposely
moving from broad expanse to tiny, closed space, as means to show
up what society has made of men--but without wanting to be exposed
as having any such "high ambition," such serious social critique, in
mind, without being in a position where it isn't well defended against
those fools who would read into the piece. This is why, I think, it felt
cowardly to me; why it felt sad, not funny. Why it made me implore
that either those who think this way find way to be more forthright
and ballsy in their complaint, or allow someone to test to see if they
might just all be made to fit into even tighter confines, just so we
could be as much rid of such depressing silliness, as possible.
I wonder, How many ridiculous, near worthless Mancationers could
you fit in a coffin, if you took out some of that draft beer . . . If amidst
campfire tale-telling, I said I packed in twenty, I think my friends
would look to me with considerable horror and awe. This is no doubt
sick, but mightn't it be in some way preferable, to pathetic, mutual,
low self-regard?
----re: Ok Patrick, I know that we are probably not going to reach a
consensus here, but my point is that you, G West, and Vivian Lea are
reading far too much into this article and getting hung up on the
1653
word mancation.
I do agree with you that women went women went off into the
wilderness to replenish themselves, to shake loose and dis[re]gard
broader influences that had withered away at their attempts to
understand themselves as fully enfranchised, fully worthy, fully
women that I would ridicule them a little bit. In fact, I would
ridicule men if they did this I-am-animal-hear-me-roar thing! But
I dont think the author is even remotely suggesting that the
mancation is a result of frustration or disenfranchisement. I dont
think you are being mean spirited, but I think you are being unfair
to the author and addressing themes out of the scope of the article.
It is also perplexing as to why you and VivianLea and you also get
so stuck on the line Without the trip, I am afraid that,
individually, we would become more serious, that much more
grown up and sure of ourselves. VivianLea, are you saying that
being grown up and sure of ourselves is a good quality that we
cannot examine or question? Maybe I am reading too much into
your statements. like I think you are with this author.
Real life activities such mowing the backyard or washing the car
on the weekend are far more ridiculous (and robotic) than the
mancation. I dont think there is a sense of resignation here at all,
just connecting with long term friends.
Moat: Good to hear from you. (But the correction I needed was
"shake loose and disCARD," not "shake loose and disREGARD.") To
me it felt like the author was well aware that if he wasn't careful about
how he wrote the piece, he would very quickly be accused of Robert
Bly ridiculousness (something we are all so sensitive to, that he was
anyway), of being so unmanly, uncomposed, immoderate enough, to
"take the whole thing way too seriously." But it's cover. You could feel
real lament, pain, even--or at least I could. But he's hemmed in; can't
say what he seems like he wants to say, without feeling even smaller
than he now (admittedly) does. That's the situation guys are in, these
days, I guess. And it's pretty sad. Genuinely. I feel for these guys.
1654
1655
1656
1657
knowing these guys, from knowing what it is that makes them seek
homosocial isolation, what it is that makes them feel driven to tear
each other down to size. Guys like these grew up in the kinds of
families where the father wasn't so involved in the rearing, the
mother was way more present, immediate than the father ever proved
to be, and where the mother was sort of left alone, depressed,
genuinely needy, and couldn't but use her boys as stimulants, as
playthings--maybe even as sexual partners, as implossible and gross
at this may well sound (ever read Ginsberg's The Howl?). These are
mother-used boys. They are the victims of maternal use/abuse. The
last thing they can tolerate is being made to feel as if they are
feminine; and gay men always represent to them who they were, what
they felt like, when they were boys--unmanned, "girly"-boys--the last
"place" they ever want to revisit, the part of themselves they most
want to deny, to eradicate.
There are societal "situations" where it becomes mandatory, and
legitimate, to go after, to discriminate against, those who represent
that part of yourself you most want to reject/deny. In these situations,
gays are preyed upon, like no other. By guys like these; by these guys.
Before then, they'll all profess AND BELIEVE they're not ones to
discriminate based on gender. They all know a friend who's gay, who
is just one of the guys. They well may have a gay bud who joins them.
But eventually, though they know it not, they will experience an
irresistable drive to help "nurture" a social climate, where it suddenly
seems allowable to start preying upon the urban(e), "femmy" guys,
the feminine-seeming, gays. Early warning signal: watch for articles
that start talking about how our current problems arose from things
like, too much shopping. Excessive neediness. Luxury. Inconstancy.
Flirtiveness (i think that's a word, if not, well, now is).
Selfishness/self-centredness.
Haven't gotten at why they tear each other down, but it a lot to do
with the fact that guys who grow up with mothers like these, whose
existence seemed all about pleasing mother, and whose greatest fear
was displeasing her, always feel their OWN NEEDS, their own
1658
1659
1660
kind of thing which ought to, as you put it, give (liberals or anyone
who advances that thesis) half a chance...of going completely mad'
(G West, Response to post, Christine McLaren, This is how they
tortured me, The Tyee, July 6 2009)
The right can make the left seem primarily interested in using native
indians to make Christian conservatives look bad. They can show the
left as actually being rather uncomfortable with native american way
of life, when it isn't "massaged," domesticated, into a preferred
"storyline." And the left can/will be left thinking that it defended
native indians assuming them constitutionally/communally in tune
with harmonious rhythms (or some such) -- the antithesis of
everything right-wing, closed-minded, oppressive/overbearing, foul;
when they cannot but sense they've glossed over so much (what they
truly will assess/react to as) "stink," they'll grimace, if not turn away,
and they'll (i.e., they and their steadfast concern to/interest in
defend[ing] native indians against further oppression) be done for.
The left is not beyond blaming the victim, unfortunately. One should
sense this in its over inflation/estimation of native indian history, way
of life. The left is healthy, way healthier than the right, but it is not
THAT healthy. I'm doing what I can to get it there.
I am curious, though, if there is any dynamic in a culture
oppressed/traumatized/bullied by Europeans that would get you to
turn away from them. I hope there isn't any. I can't imagine you
turning away, but I could imagine a moment of recoil, self-doubt--and
the gasp of horror! this would produce amongst those depending on
YOU to be the one who never fails in the defense. For their sake, make
sure you can read accounts of native indian life that don't make them
seem Earth's noble warriors; pretend for a moment that all such is
true; and not experience a moment of doubt as to their worthiness of
ongoing, expanding societal support, respect, and love.
----
1661
1662
1663
1664
the sense provided was that ultimately, Kerry couldn't care less about
the sort of community dynamics that were developing, because he too
is Salon independent, not OS bowed ("this is a business, after all" -something he would never dare say about Salon [hey guys, we're not
ultimately in this to fashion a better country, to beat back rightwing
advance -- it's about the sweet green . . .])
----Sandra, I said that it would be assessed as maternal, even though,
after considering for a bit, I knew that it might well even be 50/50
here. It's domestic here. People will show one another their cat/dog
pictures, sometimes their boobs -- or some semblance of them -quite readily. I like that. But, in an old-fashioned sense, that makes
OS not serious. It makes it gossipy -- for the "women." Personally,
none of my friends who publish only with the "well regarded," who
would feel cheapened, dirty, if they associated with OS, strike me as
all that mature -- they're reporters, writers, in part, for defensive
purposes. (Even wonderful people like Joe Conason, who would
never, ever consider posting on a social site like this, regardless of
how reputable - -are a bit immature, me thinks.) I maintain that the
best writers, best people -- friends -- could well emerge out of OS, if
the friendlier, better adjusted, continue to find their way here. I think
we should, for the post part, forget about what WIRED knows, what
the NYT thinks. Let's go for it -- have fun, take chances, be a bit
clueless: be the "free range" kind of community that everyone's now
looking to cultivate but fear have lost all sense as to how one goes
about creating it.
----Hey Liz, lets hope that those "notable" writers, the ones who "at best
[see] OS [as] [. . .] an outlet or an incubator or an experiment," aren't
paraded too often on the cover. For how can you take a "magazine"
seriously that would praise most those "sober enough to not take it
too seriously"? Visit OS! -- here you'll find a bunch of scrambling
would-be EPers, and a few who can write, who stop by for a piss and a
drink, and to try out a few one-liners before heading back to the
1665
show.
Personally, I'm with all the "kids" up for some Looney Tune, Alice in
Wonderland, kid's table redemption, here at OS. Should draw in a
few, thanks maybe in small part to the "sanguine," "mature,"
"monetizing," "marketeering," "adult" space you've helped summonup as counterpoint.
----Kerry's comment on gender is disappointing. Yeah, you made use of a
situation here to demonstrate your PC nature, and to denigrate those
of us (i.e., me -- Patrick McEvoy-Halston -- RonP01, and
mishimma666) who were trying to provide an honest assessment of
our feel of OS at this point (perhaps we weren't, as you insultingly and
too hurriedly/eagerly assessed it, so much "immediately trying to
denigrate it, " as we were -- from our experience posting here -- fairly
trying to assess it), and help stifle a worthwhile discussion through
invocations of the PC police. (A person apparently denigrates Oprah,
if, after watching many episodes, decides that it has the feel of a show
that would appeal largely to women: THIS, is Reason?) For the
record, again, I like this site -- a lot -- and feel very comfortable here.
Link: Wherefore Open Salon (Sandra Stephens)
* Marvelous line said by Dr. Spudman 44.
1666
Did you know that you can get flavoured rouge specifically for that
purpose?
Natalie Not Pedantic
Awesome. I'll get you to try it on for me, sometime.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
I have no nipples. Its a common trait among Australian women and
the reason why Australian men seem to always look so grumpy.
Natalie Not Pedantic
Yeah, I wondered as much. But answer me this, without primed
perks, without sweet succulants, what's to suck on? Don't tell me all
the men down there go at it gaping mouthed -- trying, stupidly, to
take in the whole damn thing? Such, surely, would be beastial -beyond poetic redemption, even by any so skilled in lending favor
they could tease romance out of a pound of crap, out of a grandiose
dollop of virulent piss.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Holy Crap[-stick.......
Gary Justis
Earlobes, tips of tongues and bottom lips. They don't do too badly at
it either, from what I've heard.
Natalie Not Pedantic
1667
1668
five minutes long!) I now realize they probably don't like the
music any better than I do. They just want to say what all
the grey-haired Baby Boom is thinking: He was just X years
younger/older than ME. (Shannon Rupp, Science Discovers
Celebrities are Useful for Something, The Tyee, July 3 2009)
Note to Shannon: Writing a piece to demonstrate how elevated you
are, could be read by some to be rather self-indulgent stuff. Also,
identifying yourself so loudly with British wit and substance, and
against crass works of popular culture (oh, the writing of the sports
journalists!; oh, how I looked askance at all the wretched selfindulgence that permeated my glance!), identifies you as the country
bumpkin with pretensions, able to believe herself refined only
because she has no idea as to how a lady really thinks and feels. It all
has to be done much, much, more softly, discreetly, casually. You
thunder about too much: the words you use you think show your
class, really mostly blast out at us. Right now, Armageddon struck me
as an apt pseudonym. Right now, when you said you "bumped into [. .
.] the assemblage," it was too easy to imagine said assemblage
crumbling. Right now, when you said you "chortled," it was too easy
to imagine you . . . chortling.
Also, word to the wise, if I were you, I wouldn't too loudly complain
about the quality work doesn't guarantee recognition bit.
Link: Science Discovers Celebrities are Useful for Something
(Shannon Rupp)
1669
1670
ready gophers who spend so much time chasing down stories, they
cannot be expected to do -- or offer -- much else, and us citizens,
freed up all the bothersome, menial stuff, akin to repose-minded,
analytically-grounded, discerning gentlemen, who process all the prooffered information for higher order purposes.
Link: Tyee Wins Edward R. Murrow Award (The Tyee)
1671
1672
1673
most progressive ticket that I hope can win putting aside differences
until after an election when a consensus might be achieved.
Yes the Liberal party in Canada has a horrible track record but that
is mostly because progressives tended to bow out of political life. It
was easier and we couldn't stand the stink I suppose.
But the ball is in our court. We can rise up and overpower the weak
ineffective neocon infiltrators, then seize and hold power. We know
all about backroom boys and how to send them packin' off to a
revitalized BC Con party.
Its the only chance we have. (Seth, Reply to post, Good luck BC)
I very much doubt you're right about the move away from Nader
being the principle reason Obama got in, Seth. But if that is what they
did, perhaps seduced by their own projections, perhaps by his fine
manners, perhaps by the prospect of finally having a person of color
in office, they would NOW then be responsible for electing someone
in who is continuing the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, who can spin it so
that it seems less about oil, so that it might, with apparent legitimacy,
be expanded, and certainly prove harder to stop; is causing the
gay/lesbian community to suspect he might at heart actually be
homophobic; and is keeping the have/have not world afloat. They are
beginning to look like easy dupes, who have turned away those like
Nader who well understood the true nature of someone like Obama.
They will probably continue to feel dirty, foolish, girlishly infatuated
(sorry girls), and this self-doubt might cause them to believe they now
DESERVE what's coming to them (you're hearing some of this selfloathing from some members of the gay/lesbian community that
voted for him, right now--a trend that will surely increase), making
them seem like they might end up seeming more a France to a WW2
Germany, than I'd like.
The Progressive Conservative party was taken over by regressives
because their primitive mental states were a match for a populace
increasingly inclined to scapegoat, to prefer thinking in polarized
terms. Maybe it is Seth's own tendency to do the same, to identify
1674
1675
1676
1677
their anger but their love, for everyone involved -- including the
unbirthed child.
----Re: PatrickMcEvoyHalston,
You misrepresent the premises in my argument and draw a false
conclusion.
A 2-yr-old child, a disabled person requiring assistance are all
distinct entities from a fetus or unborn potential human, which is
necessarily connected to its mother for feeding, breathing, indeed
life. Under my definition, this potentiality does not equal the
actuality of a 2-yr-old or any other being that has been given the
privilege by its mother to enjoy an independent, autonomous life.
The general debate over this right is over, except for a minority of
religious zealots who draw their moral outlook and conclusions
from mysticism and religious texts.
It's not even worth my time to debate this fundamental right of all
women, except that I have a few minutes to kill and it's never a bad
idea to review one's philosophical positions on rights and freedoms.
I don't want Sandborn's point in the above article to be lost in a
futile series of red herrings initiated Fraser Valley Bible-belt
dogmatists and engaged in by the rest of us rational folk.
The real issue here is around public safety for those who choose to
exercise their rights, and for doctors and health care providers who
heroically put their own lives on the line helping women exercise
those rights. That's my main concern, and it should be yours.
The related issue is whether authorities are doing enough to enforce
the law in preventing anti-choice lunatics from harassing or killing
people who are doing little more than exercising their fundamental
human rights.
Debating a women's right to choice is like debating your right to
speak freely in a democratic society. It's been settled and therefore
moot. The job now is to ensure those rights are not eroded or
infringed upon. (wayfarer, reply to post)
1678
wayfarer: You're right that the debate has been settled. In a way.
Certainly the left seems to operate now with enough confidenceevidence routine, that it is genuinely startled when old arguments are
presented as if they actually should be addressed, and not just quickly
picked up and put back in the junk bin (how did you get loose?). This
has made the left a bit vulnerable -- lacking of vigilance (as the LOTR
narrator would say), off-guard. The argument you present is not that
good -- it won the day because the other side is represented by the
scowling, patriarchal Right, by a generation the baby-boomers
delighted in and quite rightly needed to individuate themselves from.
Being pro-life means being unclean, to a lot of people -- it means
being counted amongst "one of them." That's the very enabled stage
the left has won for itself in respectable quarters.But my sense is that
there are a lot of people out there who are looking for a politician, for
means, to make pro-life/anti-choice clean again. It could come from
someone like (old school feminist defeating -- i.e., Hillary and
Ferraro) Obama; it could come from someone like Ignatifieff: both
politicians whose leanness and greenness, whose claim to a clean,
virtuous, (traditionally masculine) higher-purpose could, and in my
judgment will, offer/extend respect/validation for their homophobic
and anti-choice leanings. My sense, again, is the left needs to prepare
itself: look to Salon.com, perhaps, and its accounting of Obama's
early betrayal of the gay community, to the gay community's
surfacing concern (and even panic) over who the hell they've just help
elect in.
I completely agree with you in arguing that abortion clinics need and
deserve full respect and protection. Women who have abortions
cannot be allowed to exist in an environment where they are
stigmatized, deemed unclean, unworthy. But again, a 2-year-old is
not meaningfully less dependent/vulnerable than an unborn. The
only difference is that someone else can take care of the 2-year-old.
(This may well prove possible for the unborn as well, though.)
P.S. Please don't announce that you're advancing an argument simply
1679
1680
men.
Personally, I'm prepared to turn the matter over to women for their
sole adjudication.
Whatever the majority (of adult females) decides is fine with me
(GWest, reply to post).
G West: Women have just emerged from tribal council and decided
that children are adjuncts, until they are able to feed and cloth
themselves. They appreciate your respect for and defense of their sole
adjudication, but would appreciate if you'd now just hold the door,
while they indulge in some late afternoon poppy-seed and baby cake.
----Re: My coven paused in the midst of thealogical
debate and mooncakes, and G West kindly, without condescension,
held open the door, as I was requested to convey our sincere offer of
an honourary membership. (VivianLea, reply to post)
I gather that now that you're done with your bequeathing, you'll be
gettingthat coven started up again. But G West, word to the wise--you
might might to pause to reconsider, before partaking in their prooffered, quote unquote, mooncakes.
(My apologies, VivianLea, but I just had to.)
Link: Tension High at Abortion Clinics (The Tyee)
1681
type), the Cdns in it come out seeming worse (or at least more
pathetic) than the boarish Americans do. And I remember in her
earlier work, at least, rural-types seemed oppressive morons. And if
you don't like primitive rural-types, shaped by whatever river or
mountain or prairie that happens to be nearby, I didn't think you
were allowed to be Cdn. (Emma Peel hardly seems blue-grass. You
sure you weren't shaped more by British wit than by prairie gophers?)
Also, all you people readily favoring literate Cdns, check out bookwriting Rick Mercer's show-biz history: had a show where all he was
concerned to do was show stupid you all are. We're assassins, you
Yankies (I'm dual -- favoring my American side). Be careful when you
open your arms to us (as you fools are want to do) -- we'll be tempted
by your exposed vitals. Falling at our feet with praise on your lips,
might placate us for awhile, though.
Link: Oh Canada, my Canada (Emma Peel)
Expedia left me for a latin lover, and then dry humped my (27 June
2009)
carpet dog.
She did, the bitch!
"This sticker is dangerous and inconvenient, but . . ." (25 June 2009)
If OS ended up having 300 000 members, revenues that were off the
charts, but had come to seem loud and obnoxious, even if still liberal,
would the editors at OS care? My guess is they'd be toasting the times,
congradulating one another on their entrepreneurial acumen and
1682
1683
1684
mimic them yourself, as I did all that shotgun cocking and curling in
Terminator 2, for instance.
Also, Someone please draw attention to all the quick verbal and visual
humour in these films. And with respect: the humping bot and
destruction balls were true enough to the occasion, clever, and funny,
to be worth noting and discussing.
Link: Transformers (Salon)
----We'll see
No, but I'd prefer if you'd do more with the summer's major movie
release than just quickly pee on it. If the first Transformers had
uninspired action sequences, people would not have liked the film.
(One thing the bulk of X-box humanity has got down, is when there is
and when there isn't LIFE, in action sequences.) I liked that the
action felt sort of unstaged, adhoc, unpredictable. I felt there was was
both aggression and genius in it, and preferred it to the pin-point,
neat dancing you get in X-Men, or the right angles and geometry, you
get in Dark Knight. That you get "pussy" and "bitch," seems only
appropriate for a movie uninterested in being quite so noble.
----Mikaela
Also, I didn't experience Mikaela as "prancing"; nor when drawn to
attend to her butt did I think of its "pertness." This woman isn't a
perky elf--she's got too much flesh, weight, sway--sensuality, to be
fairly summized this way. The outfits are all form-fitting, as they are
in Incredibles, Star Trek, and everywhere else, out and about, in this
tight and controlled age.
Walsh/O'Reilly debate (18 June 2009)
1685
fox news
Moderator: "Before we begin the debate, do we agree that you both
believe the other to have blood on their hands, that is, to be
responsible for murder, and so rightly should be jailed if not recipient
of more just deserts, kept away from humanity, forcibly and forever,
and most certainly not debated with?"
And the debate wasn't civil. Must have been all O'Reilly's fault.
----Further:
Dr. Paul McHugh very much sounds like a dangerous human being
devoted to defending perpetrators and causing further pain to
victims, but the Sotomayor debate primed many of us to once again
see credentials as everything. Sotomayor was first in her class at
Princeton, so, Right, shut the hell up. Dr. Paul McHugh was some bigwig at John Hopkins University, so Left, shut the hell up. Paul
McHugh could have been first in his class at Princeton and be
otherwise massively credentialed, and we still need to be amidst an
environment where the very fact that he works to advance the idea of
false memory syndrome and thereby disenfranchise the abused, can
work to shut him down. The way it is, if the Right is smart, they'll
work with universities supported by corporate interests (that is, every
university) to ensure "their own" are the ones who tend to get tenure.
Turn all the lefties into indepedent scholars or travelling TAs, and you
won't have to listen to them.
1686
20th-century fox
1687
paramount pictures
Come into My Space Dungeon and Let Me Poke You with a
Pogo-Stick
Review of J.J. Abrams Star Trek, Part One
By Patrick McEvoy-Halston
May 2009
Its not exactly what Star Trek offers, but the film is perhaps most
easilyif not most fairlyassessed as belonging to the bread and
circuses school of societal extension. It offers a plot, a delineation
of the way ahead, people can readily imagine themselves participating
1688
1689
1690
thank you sir, may I have another? eager ready to obey/satisfy the
sadistic needs of terrorists (Come into my dungeon; stand still before
me; and give me satisfaction by letting me stab my handy-dandy,
ready-side, space-spear into you); for the crew of the enterprise to
seem Luke Skywalker-able, and the ship itself, oh so fleet-of-feet, they
have to survive when a whole slew of other ships are scattered about,
a calamity and a pity, but also their just deserts, for so easily being
drawn into the enemys trap.
So if this is the sort of narrative that grabs the publics imagination,
that suggests some sense of how the future could afford all a life that
feels purposeful and well laid-out, surely would-be totalitarians out
there will soon realize the public will be soon be in the mood to
respond ever more enthusiastically to their call. Totalitarians would
deliver: they would suit-up and militarize the nation; offer everyone
some role to play against whatever pressing villain; organize them
into community groups, where every resident best Americano,
pizza, sushi, whatever maker in town, could imagine themselves as
being part ofreallythe most distinctive, able group of freedomfighters around; ensure they get a lot of praise, and, lest they forget!,
give them room to every now and then voice some kind of rebel yell
after all, people whose self-esteem is so dependent on external
sources likely sense the extent of their dependence, and need to act
out some loud demonstration of their not in fact existing
independence every once in awhile so that the charge they get from
the resulting muscular arousal/engagement makes them feel like they
could scatter all away as so much space debris, go their own way, and
be so much the happier.
1691
insecurities and damned for doing nothing other than help playing a
part, however small, toward a societal shift toward militarism, would
ever risk showing an audience up, draw attention to their own
inauthenticity, by showing them what a human being with real
substance is like, draw attention to their brave-seeming evasiveness
by showing what real engagement with something difficult is like, but
Star Trek in fact does, and in a way where a comparison between the
twopretense and real substancecan hardly escape notice.
When Kirk is expelled from the Enterprise, sent to the ice planet as
punishment, we might wonder for a moment if Kirk might be made to
experienceif even only for a short whilewhat being alone,
abandoned, can really be like. That is, not so much about an
opportunity to showcase your badness, your ingenuity, your
uniqueness, or to bond with an ally and conspire something
enterprising "between you two," but about being left alone and left
behind, unequipped to deal with whatever variant thought, feeling
you experience, outside of the context of experiencing it amidst a
cocoon-offering group. Though we might even have laughedout of
shock, possiblywhen along with Kirk we discovered that Starfleet
could intentionally dispatch an unruly crew member to his own
private ice Guitanimo, we may also of had a moment of disquiet as
well, resulting from encountering somethingnamely, isolation
until then the movie had set up as pretext for more action. Action
follows, and were back to genius vs. ordinary, giant-devours-thesuddenly-pathetically-small, sadistic-relish normalism, but when it
leads to him encountering (Leonard Nimoy's Spock [hereafter "old
Spock"]) Spock, someone who's known this ice isolation, apparently,
for 25 years, rather than 2-and-a-half minutes, the earlier hint of the
kind of brutal test abandonment can present to the origins and
solidity of your fair self-assessment, self-esteem, becomes trenchant.
Spock has known what it is to be isolated for decades, away from all
his friends, all space adventures, and, owing to Leonard Nimoy's
actingowing to Leonard Nimoywe feel all this when we "meet"
him. He has been forced to witness the destruction of his home planet
1692
and all his kin, and we sense his distress. All this would be only
logical, as it were, but how differently we are encouraged to
understand isolation here from how it was presented when Scotty, for
example, spoke of his own isolation, where it wasn't allowed to
amount to a wound that would play against the crew's ascendance to
form, and in fact largely served to establish Scotty as quirky,
estranged, somewhat removedappropriate to someone whose
natural abode will soon be the Enterprise's underbellyand how
different is the feel of old Spock's experience of his kins
extermination from how we are encouraged to imagine it as playing in
the life of new Spock, where it seems energy that can be directed to
showcase how this Spock handles his "predecessor's" logic vs.
emotion conflict, and, worse, to assess and enjoy the frisson in the
naughty fracture that is his relationship with Uhura. The pain has
beaten old Spock down, but all is far from lost: he is persuasively
made to seem someone who though he had come to prefer being
amongst friends, could weather long stretches of being alone, titanic
experiences of loss and pain, if he must, primarily because of the love
and friendship he gained from so many years of knowing and loving
good friends like Kirkhis gimmicky, immature-seeming vulcan vs.
human nature-thing, seemingly long left behind him as so much an
easy identify and comfort-zone providing childish prop. In a film
which had hereto suggested the ultimate prize to be being part of an
elite crew, and the sheen you get from being part of something so
relevant and fashionable, the greatest thrill, it's very beautiful if a
little bit overwhelming to witness the satisfaction and soul-food a
lifetime spent being amongst supporting friends can offer one, and
wholly out of place: here in our encounter with what should amount
to the most familiar (i.e., Leonard's Nimoy's Spock), is our one and
only taste in the film of something rare enough in its frantic, frenetic
universe, to seem truly alien.
This is not to say that the new Kirk would ever want the sort of
layered, deep relationship old Spock created with old Kirk: he might
indeed feel it amounts to too much "weight" inside the heart and
1693
1694
1695
bridge, when he functions as first officer, but how markedly blunt and
even brutal he is to Uhura's replacement and to Kirk, when he
functions as captain), facilitate the kind of slow growth, soul growth
requires, develop into the kind of leader we will eventually turn to,
and that this will be how it could go for us as well. That is, maybe our
need to play it rigid, safe but violent, routine, and brutally sacrificial,
is such that it's going to take awhile for the well-rounded, wellattended, easeful Spocks of the world to introduce us to something
more satisfying, variant and human, and we should be well enough
pleased to learn that people are attracted to films like Star Trek (and
Wall-E, which communicates the same message), which suggest, at
least, we seek a more desirable future than rigid mobility and ray
guns, but need plenty of time to ready and steady ourselves, to once
again venture about so bravely.
Work Cited
Star Trek. Dir. J.J. Abrams. Perf. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto.
Paramount. 2009. Film.
1696
Once you've read this informed review, you will remain crazy (20 May
2009)
RE: The claim that Japanese-Canadian fishermen posed a security
threat provided a perfect cover for their elimination from the
fishery, a long-time objective of their enemies in the industry and
elected office. Yet as early as 1944, Canadian authorities
acknowledged there had never been a single instance or even
allegation of treachery by Japanese Canadians before or after Pearl
Harbour (Geoff Meggs, The Resilient Japanese Canadian, The
Tyee, May 20, 2009)
The assumption in this article is that revealing that the Japanese in
1697
Canada posed no threat does some kind of good. It may not, you
know. For when people in psychological panic are in the mood to set
some poor lot of people up for mistreatment, sacrifice, these people
are probably doomed. Why? Because the discriminators are going
crazy, experiencing an overwhelming need to project all their
unwanted characteristics onto someone else, so that they themselves
can feel absent of internal conflict, all nice and pure (think how useful
"bad" countries are in making many Americans [not me] feel like they
live in the land of the free and the brave). It might do something to
push reality in front of their face as often as can be managed, but their
ability to push away any inconvenient fact, twist it into some other
form, make it nevertheless serve their interest, cannot be
underestimated. Stop setting them up as selfish, or obstinate, or some
such -- which is an awful lot about making the informed feel good
about themselves. What they are, is damaged -- the driven
unfortunate who will see evil in others, because they must, lest they
themselves go even crazier.
(Often, in fact, as was the case with Jews in Germany, the picked on
group is actually overall psychologically more advanced, more truly
virtuous, than the psychologically regressing mass.)
But no Tyee reader is going to count amongst those who think the
Japanese in Canada were up to something sneaky in WW2. I don't
mean to disparage your article, but if you want to challenge the Tyee
reader in what I believe to be a way more useful way, why not tackle
the implications of the tendency amongst many Tyee contributers to
set up the Greens this election period, as the nefarious, sneaky group
(ring any WW2 bells?), that need to be kept under watch, for the good
of one and all?
Make Tyee readers see, what is hard for them to see.
Link: The Resilient Japanese Canadian
----Interesting challenge, G West. What happened was that the middle
class started experiencing huge anxieties, terrors, *owing to* their
1698
sudden prosperity, their real growth, "advancement," as you say -they started feeling like they would be punished for all the good
things they were coming to enjoy. So they set up the Jews as the
*really* greedy, sneaky, folk; and in playing a large part in wiping
them out, they got to feel all pure again.
No one from a warm family would participate in anything this awful,
though. No one -- doesn't matter what books/pamphlets people pass
on to you, others' aims, schemes, to manipulate: you're way beyond
their reach -- can't be anyone else's tool (Manipulators don't use the
"susceptible," though--what actually happens is that those we prefer
to imagine as susceptible make aggressive use of manipulators'
"deceptions" to legitimize, engage, and exercise their own need to
hurt those they've projected their own "badness" onto--that's what
actually happens in Milgram's study, btw). Germans historically have
had amongst the worst childhoods in all Europe, though. You might
be sick of the deMause stuff, but his exploration of German
authoritarian childrearing and the beginning of WW2, agrees with
how you present German preWW2, and is one to read. (If you take a
look, scroll down about half way to you reach "Causes of WW2 and
the Holocaust.")
Link: http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln06_war.html
Also, I agree that kids, women, the unemployed, the poor, the
"foreign," will be set up as "the problem." But for most Tyee readers,
this will not be something to be pointed out -- most of us will
recognize and abhore when this is done. In the Tyee' forums -- that is,
amongst those in B.C. who most readily can "be reached" -- during
the election, the Greens were the ones most vilified. I just moved
here, and I need to get a better sense of who the Greens are in this
province, but it is possible to me right now that the Greens could be
set up -- by some middle class NDPers, even--akin to the way the
educated German middle class set up literate, artistic, Jews for target,
before and during WW2.
----Forgot to mention, G West, that the part that's hard to shake off about
1699
1700
Help Wanted
Wendy and Lucy (Kelly Reichardt)
By Patrick McEvoy-Halston
May 2009
With Wendy and Lucy involving one proud woman traveling
through rugged or decrepit surroundings, hoping to work her way to
the one place available which might just hold promise of a secure life,
and perhaps fulfillment (i.e., Alaska), the film could be deemed postapocalyptic. But in films of this genre, where civilization wears and
wolves encroach, setting serves to highlight and facilitate/necessitate
heroic action from the main protagonist, and overall register a strong
sense that this is the only appropriate backdrop for manly,
independent livingthe one gigantic thing civilization cannot offer
because it ostensibly comes at the expense of. The film works the
other way around, where adults born when American society felt
assured, prove still worth seeking out, for they may be, if not the only
certainly the best source available to help orient you to take on a
1701
1702
1703
offer the samebut because they sense the child's need for a secure
foundation to ground their efforts to reach out and explore their
world.
Another way of saying all this is that Wendy has grown up without a
nest. Its evident in her impulse to cling and in her impulse to register
the least amount of responsiveness possiblethe default response of
the abandoned chick, lest an inopportune squack strike the interest of
a nearby hawkand we particularly feel it when, at a moment when
she is evidently in need of reassurance / orientation, she calls her
brother and his girlfriend, and they respond so defensively she ends
up having to reassure them. It is possible, however, that when Wendy
made this call, she was enjoying the comfort-food available in just
participating in the shared social convention/expectation of turning
to immediate family when occasion dictates, and also, perhaps, to
confirm what she was already coming to know: namely, that the kind
of support she is in need of is to be found in her contacts with
strangers, not family, in her developing friendship with the aged
parking-lot security-guard, in particular.
(A few more paragraphs. The end.)
Work Cited
Wendy and Lucy. Dir. Kelly Reichardt. Perf. Michelle Williams. Field
Guide. 2008. Film.
1704
was horrible..."
"Now that the movie's out and I don't have to promote it anymore, I
can say that I hate children. It's out; it's made $60 million. I can say
it: I hate kids. If no kid ever came up to me, I would be more than
happy." (World Entertainment News Network)
Re: What were discussing here, however, is a lot of men on cusp of
middle age who, at some sub-rational and visceral level, see their
masculine identity threatened by the act of fathering a child. They
understand babies to be enemies of what makes it great to be a
straight man. Thus, having one is gay. (Vanessa Richmond,
Having Kids is so gay, The Tyee, April 26, 2009)
Quite the disparaging piece. And quite cruel to set up a class of people
as ridiculous, whose concerns are so obviously born of irrationality,
emotion -- silliness and sheer bigotedness -- that the research of one
noted baby-boomer sociologist, Kimmel, would really have been
enough to show them up as self-centered slackers who need to shut
up, step up, and grow up.
Quick reminder that women's concerns were often muted by
identifying them as irrational. Reasoned researchers stepped in and
showed women to be hysteric(al), completely unaware of what really
ailed them, invalidated their concerns, complaints, made them
(women) worthy of treatment, and to the public at large, appropriate
subjects for "drawing room" derision and laughter. To use your
words, the joke was on them, sadly enough.
You do describe becoming a parent as becoming part of the Borg:
"Don't worry, you'll come to like it. Come join us," is what I hear from
the men whose stories of becoming a parent you relate. This should
scare more men off, but strangely, my own sense is that a lot of men
will be drawn to this, like soldiers are to their demise on the
battlefield -- just get it over and done with.
I would like to see most people (or at least warm, empathic people)
marry and have kids. For sure. I think, potentially, being a parent can
offer rewards I would never want to deny myself. This said, there
1705
actually may be a best time for this, there may be something about the
time we're living in which should lend respect for those concerned
about leaving familiar comfort zones, for waiting just a few more
years. People had a lot of babies AFTER the war, after all. This wasn't
just about money -- it had something to do, MORE to do, I think, with
society finally relaxing -- with a large-scale expansion of collective
comfort zones, of societal permissiveness, which made a family just
naturally seem to mostly be about enrichment, life-enhancement,
rather than restriction --regardless of bachelor-party pretense at the
time.
Times have changed, evidently, and I look forward to more insightful
explorations of why men are freezing in place, than ones done by
researchers who to me are not so much moved by reason but by an
unconscious desire to show men up as sexist assholes at every
bleeping turn (oh, and bleep you, Kimmel, for your smug hate
propagation, your misandry), and who seem lacking in the sort of
attuned sensitivity and self-awareness to be trusted to offer a spot-on
sense of "what's up," in an individual's, or a culture's, psychic core.
Link: Having Kids is So Gay (The Tyee)
---------Update #1:
VivianLea: What sociologists get right is that there is something really
off about certain men's need to feel like real men. This phenomena
shouldn't be naturalized, or just readily accepted -- ideally, and very
possibly, no human being will feel the need to buttress their selfassessment in this fashion, or at all, period. What they get wrong is
their unwillingness to credit that men's fears of women, of being
entrapped and rendered pussies, are born out of actual experiences of
feeling dehumanized in their interactions with women. More
pointedly, they would never credit what I believe to be the case:
namely, that men who were used as boy-toys for the entertainment of
their lonely mothers, who were traumatized/abused by their mothers,
1706
1707
1708
1709
respect, that would have been something. And we hear here too of
men becoming less ashamed of life preferences than they used to be:
What is it about Vanessa's article that made this feel something
different than an admirable coming out?
Btw: Perhaps more important than having a male "lifestyle" reporter,
would be to have journalists who do not at some level loathe
themselves, and hate men. Nothing worse than a "good boy" male
reporters, after all, for they denounce other men more loudly than
anyone else is wont to. Still, I'm pleased to hear you've been
encouraging The Tyee to broaden it's point-of-view, its perspective,
through the hire of a male voice. Why don't you take it on?
FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2009
Carnivores--what's up with that? (22 April 2009)
Lion, your lion days are numbered!
Did someone here suggest we get lions to go tofu? I'm all for that. A
touch of coaxing, and a taste of DNA alteration, and I figure it's
doable, maybe not now, but maybe in twenty, maybe. So don't fret
you bloodied-up herbivores, and your bazzillion years of being
someone else's food without no one giving a shit, sayin' it's all
evolutionary goodness and shit: cavalry's comin.' And what we did to
the abominable snowman in Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer and
shit, makin' him go veg. and shit, we'll be invitin' pon all dem African
pussies. No doubt. Word to your mother. No doubt. Word to your
mother. Word.
Link: "Earth" (Salon)
Interacting with your mother, once outside the nest (21 April 2009)
@imnobody:
Good on you for having the strength to move 9000 kms away. Says
that you got enough nurturance from her to surrect sufficient self-
1710
1711
spawn more than hope, but, regardless, I'm onto my own life.
----@weirdo:
re: When I see her by Skype, I feel like crying when I see how
physically deteriorated she is.
Deadly. Can totally relate.
One thing about going back home for awhile is that it can at least
confirm that the "problem" lies there. Remember reading stories
about soldiers turning home from war, and thinking of how, when
they were described as being so unable to get the war out of them and
fit back in, that there was far more wish in this than there was a hint
of reality: sorry, no soldier's experience can displace the power in the
nursery. Maybe it is possible to go back home and remain
empowered, but this may take more than a ready willingness/ability
to offend (I'm thinking Rachel Getting Married right now), distance
oneself from others' sensitivities: it may require seeing yourself as
advance guard of some much larger, up-and-coming social
movement: You're the Michael Stivik to the rest of the family's, Archie
Bunker.
Thanks for the well wishing : )
Link: Hot Cougar Sex (Salon)
Compromise, and being compromised (16 April 2009)
re: "If you can't compromise your lofty ideals every so often, you
will most likely end up living in a cave or a bachelor apartment,
lecturing the silent walls about the coming environmental collapse."
(Dorothy Woodend, "Recipes for Disaster," The Tyee, April 10,
2009)
But this isn't true to your experience. You describe your isolation as
that of empowered bike-ride -- a life with no regrets (and the social
bus-ride as all powerlessness and compromise).
You fluctuate, but over-all you seem to WANT to believe that life must
inevitably contain portions of deceit and compromise (by which I
1712
think you really mean, submission). I suspect that that much of what
you say here is born from the fact that you have not yet learned that
the UNCOMPROMISED, UNCOWED pleasure you now take from
bike-riding, can be ably applied to other parts of your life as well -yes, even to your dealings with other people. How did you once
narrate your bus-riding experience? Was it always all venom? Or was
it about a time to journal, watch people, reflect on life experience, all
while avoiding the affront to public civicness that is the single-driver
cocooned within her own private space? I bet that once you start
extending your ambition and reach, we'll start seeing articles from
you arguing that you can't expect to milk life-wisdom from those
dumbly cowed.
patrick mcevoy-halston
P.S. I'm in mind to read Barbara Kingsolver's _Animal, Vegetable,
Miracle: A Year of Food Life_, and see if it too amounts to a recipe for
disaster. My guess is that good-natured, smiling, forever-growing
Barbara, shares with us a differently fated family story.
Link: Recipes for Disaster (The Tyee)
----If I can expand on what I said, I would like to argue that we should
not be too ready to normalize the feeling of loss, of -- as seemingly
insensible as this sounds -- BEING compromised, when we think of
what it feels like to participate in fair compromise. If compromise is
about a reaching out to and valuing of the particular needs of all those
involved, and not about self-surrender, though you may not "get all
that you want," the actual end experience of this sort of mutual
respect/attendance and purposeful cooperative action, will be of net
gain. If it isnt, if it feels like surrender, thwarted ambitions, if it has
you considering the possibilities of the single-life -- even encouraging
you to ultimately denounce it so that it doesn't function in your own
mind to remind you of your own inhibitions in insisting on something
better, then you are involved in something unhealthy. That a lot of
1713
How much do you value your penis, young man? (11 April 2009)
re: EDITED FOR CRUDE LANGUAGE. KEEP IT CIVIL, OR PLEASE
COMMENT ON A DIFFERENT SITE WHERE EXPLETIVES ARE
WELCOMED. HERE THEY AREN'T. -- TYEE MODERATOR
(moderator, NDP Would add 3 Billion to B.C. Deficit, Andrew
MacLeod, The Tyee, April 10, 2009)
Moderator:
I don't know how many sites there are that actually, as you say,
WELCOME expletives--which makes it sound as if their arrival is
greeted with warm cheers and eager hopes for more! I know that, for
instance, Salon.com (a fairly sophisticated, literate news site) doesn't
censor (or too much censor) expletives, and they certainly are used,
1714
sometimes in abundance, and the reason may be that they are seen or
can be imagined by the eds. as a valid way of most
accurately/truthfully expressing oneself. What is civil, respectful,
becomes at times at Salon that which is most HONESTLY expressed.
Expletives don't necessarily debilitate, and can actually serve to
ENCOURAGE good, lively, debate. Their "permission" also suggest a
respect for EMOTION as rightful enabler of good thinking -- they can
add some of the life that constitutes a lively debate, an idea many
traditional, regressive sources would deem worse than a colossal joke.
Now I've seen expletives from posters to Tyee, so I'm guessing that's
essentially the case here as well. And despite the requests for cookie
recipes, or was it favorite holiday films?, this obviously doesn't seem a
Good Housekeeping sort of site. But if what you're saying really is
please don't go OVERBOARD, because this well can lead to cruel
treatment/abuse as well as a marked diminishment in good debate,
then I wish you'd said as much. For the way you say it looks to be a
practice OF incivility, rudeness -- dehumanization, even, for you seem
to be eager-ready, capital letter emblazoned, to banish those who
swear to porn sites or equally base/barren but appropriate "homes"
for the wicked. But just in case you really mean it when you say you
tolerate NO expletives, you must know that this speaks of a near
Victorian assessment of what is civil. You may feel strict propriety
serves the times and the Tyee well. But you must espy that since the
up-and-coming always seems to articulate themselves with unnerving
trespass, it's really hard to imagine swimming well upstream amidst
all this.
Please take care in how you yourself express yourself. Sometimes
when you announce yourself on the site, you are as severe as God, or a
thundering, castrating parent (How is what you said not some 50s
patriarchal, "SO LONG AS YOU LIVE IN MY HOUSE, YOU'LL LIVE
UNDER MY RULES!," kind of talk?). And we don't want readers
either padding themselves on the back for being good boys and girls
who practice "right speech," nor tredding with trepidation if they
suspect they too might stray off the righteous path. All such lessons
1715
Giving "Observe and Report" its fair due (10 April 2009)
De Line Pictures
The movie largely presents drunk women as grotesque and offensive,
and pedestals ideal sex as that between couples who give a damn
about one another (and where everything is comparatively low-key
and tame). The sex with Brandi is presented as him still living the
schmoe's life - -a life without any dignity: it is no score, but a
collective embarrassment. All this said, the movie is to some extent
moved out of a hatred of the rejecting woman. But the revenge is
nowhere in the sex, but rather in how the film terminates -- with her
being targeted for special attention by the mall flasher. This is
displaced, angry rape, and our sense of her at the end of the film is
indeed of her having been despoiled (Talladega Nights was actually
born out of a kinder impulse to women).
Film tells a familiar message as far as understanding men's needs:
they need to be listened to and loved. It's what they deserve, and, as a
plus, it's also the way to tame the "beast."
----Rogen's character is not meant to be seen primarily as an asshole. He
is meant to showcase more quintessentially American qualities, of
resilience and spirit, which can carry the day, and of over-all good
heartedness. This said, though it's all about date-rape and gross
exploitation HERE (i.e., the discussion this excerpt was taken from),
more notable in the movie is perhaps his propriety -- witness his
1716
reluctance to follow his security cop partner "all the way," and
perhaps, even, delicateness -- witness his tending to of his mother.
For anyone who wonders why Rogen appeals, it is because he seems
someone who can play along, be a good sport, but who has a
conscience -- he always seems to be drawn to tend to those who
really, really are fucked up, to prevent them from going completely
overboard and really hurting someone.
----Whoever is starring comments is not doing Stephanie a favor here:
they kind of cooperate with her piece to make her seem extrashorthanded when confronted by displays of male anger.
I remember Stephanie looking somewhat incredulously at Andrew
O'Hehir when he had good things to say about Watchmen (Salon
posted a video of them discussing the movie) and it's brutal rape
scene. She clearly wanted to respect O'Hehir, but you could tell she
was actually verging on asking herself, "who the hell are you that you
could like that?, that you are not repelled by that?," but couldn't and
didn't owing to the chaos that question would bring to surface. Too
bad -- you could tell there was something suspect in his tolerance of
the scene, and his preference not to explore it too inquisitively. But it
was graphic literature, and Andrew O'Hehir, so it was an easy one for
the psychic pass.
----Re: He is not a hero but rather an ANTI-HERO. You would not
want to be like him or do what he is doing. (Josef Gancz, Response
to post, "Observe and Report," Stephanie Zachareck, Salon, April 10,
2009)
***Spoiler Warning***
Appreciated your response to the movie, but personally I think this is
a mis-read. Hard to not think that quite possibly ANYONE who
currently feels somewhat circumscribed, bullied, a victim of
circumstances (recession related?), wont at some level be cheering
him along as in face of brazen intimidation and potential brutal
defeat, he single-handedly takes on a gang of street thugs and (at
1717
another time) a gang of police offers, and handles himself more ably
than the barbarian chief managed in similarly unfair circumstances at
the beginning of Gladiator. The movie just doesnt make him
someone with DELUSIONS of grandeur: it gives him juice to display a
considerable amount of it, and not too far into the film.
And we must be fair to the movie and not suggest that what he is
doing amounts to non-stop thuggery or fratboy boarishness.
Stephanie notes his gentleness, which is on display when he tends to
his mother. But also of note is his receptivity: he listens with
consideration to what his mother says, and hopes the best for her.
Stephanie Z. suggests that his relationship with Nell, the young lady
he visits every morning for coffee, is one-sided, with her offering
much and him, little. But personally, even if perhaps its only because
Rogen is playing the part, I sensed receptivity, reciprocity, fair
consideration (though yes, he could also be ignorant of how she was
responding to what he had to say, which did lead to hurt feelings) in
how he interacted with her. Unconscious of it, for sure, but his
manner of attending to her overall communicated that he thought her
someone of value -- she was PRIMARILY a person to him, not a
coffee-girl. This might be made to seem of little consequence, but
perhaps especially in a movie set in a shopping mall, we should be
alert to consider this as something of real value -- something perhaps
too rarely encountered (if at all) by those society tends to think of as
somewhat disposable.
In fact, while we all wonder whether this will lead to more date-rapes,
I think that if we are to be fair to the proportions of what this movie
communicates, we should spend more time wondering if this movie
might help validate men enough to move them to treat women with
some of the respect and fair consideration, they themselves have been
lacking.
----@Josef
but Seth Rogen's character is not a frat type of man
Well, the frat boy may sense the BMW and the career job on the road
1718
ahead, but hes known a life of indefinite masculinity and Ritalinshame, requiring something more than Xbox compensation.
She is far more of a woman than Ronnie can handle and she is
totally in control of the relationship.
I agree with you that she is presented as being in charge. Of note,
though, that this changes in the end, where he puts her in her place
(as Rogens character finally managed to the empowered female
Other, in Knocked Up).
Thus, the comedy here is that Seth Rogen takes the obligatory
Hollywood conventions and twists them in a weird way. That is
what makes it funny.
I don't think I principally found it funny. I experienced it to some
extent akin to how that closet-hiding police officer, anticipating
culmination and hilarity, actually experienced overhearing Ronnie
being told he didnt make the force: that is, as a bit sad. Ronnie was
not a character, some vehicle for social commentary: I experienced
him as a real person involved in something just so unequal to his
lengthy and deep anticipation/trepidation. The touching but also
ridiculous scene where he gets clothing advice from his mother,
makes sure that there is pathos as well as the laugh, in our reaction to
the sex-scene.
Older but nicer--Having babies when you've sorted things out (8 April
2009)
A lot of people I know become not just mellower but nicer as they age.
(I sense this, perhaps, most especially in novelists -- where main
protagonists are obviously more patient, sweeter, to other characters
in later books than they were in the novelists' very vibrant but more
charged and angry earliest works.) I have some suspicion that what
happens with those who have self-esteem-enriching experiences of
validation and attendance when they were young, but also hampering
experiences of abandonment and sadistic treatment, is that they still
1719
have it in them to acquire more of what they were lacking and deal
with some of what has tended to haunt and stop them, while they go
through life. This may in fact be -- without them being consciously
aware of it -- what a great deal of their life endeavors are mostly
about. And if they end up getting some of the attention they were
needing, learn not to denigrate but work to satisfy their own needs,
they no doubt end up being better able to attend to their children
when they have them than they would have been if they had had them
when they were younger. That is, even if the seed is worse, the DNA
somewhat hampered, the story of the unfolding and development into
its final psychogenetic form may be a better one with older parents.
My mom is a nicer, more giving person than she was when I was a
teen: she listens better, more generously, than she once did, and
conversations with her leave me feeling warmer and more optimistic.
She has largely satisfied her need to be the career woman, a pursuit
which left us feeling like our own ambitions were of secondary import
when we were teens. I wonder, given how important the quality and
quantity of attendance is to the emotional/intellectual development
of children of our species, if we should be looking more to the best
PSYCHOLOGICAL age and less to the best biological age, for having
children?
In any case, this is vein to be mined. Not just because real rightness
will be discovered there, but much needed fairness too: as Vanessa
argues, if you're in your 30s, without kids, and not obviously on a
professional path, you will be looked at as if you are the runt of the
pack. Conversely, if you are professional, late 20s, and have a child or
two, you are being everywhere "told" you shine golden -- whatever the
actual degree of dullness of your story.
Link: No Baby For Old Men (The Tyee)
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
There is room here for admiration, but also the therapist's query. You
should have allowed us that.
Link: Vancouver Ski Legend Dies (The Tyee)
1726
leads to awakening.
Certainly, at the very least, the rage should be validated. I actually like
that article writer was impressed by the thoroughness of her son's
destruction of his room. Though she likely in part told us this to draw
us to validate her instinct toward further self-absorption, THAT sort
of destruction suggests to me that she has a son who hasn't been
completely cowed -- many have thought of doing something similar,
but were afraid of the consequences of such an impressive and
thorough expression of their disquiet. I wanted to put a gardening
pick-axe through our family portrait when I was the mother-bullied
teen, but didn't because this would have felt too EXISTENTIAL -- too
deliciously of me at the fore-front, which was the position my mother
had claimed for herself -- through intimidation, of course. Evolution
for me came with not denying myself the pleasure. Not with pickaxes. But just not denying myself the pleasure.
I expect a good number of us have mothers who've let us know they've
considered suicide, and that if they ever do so, we're the cause. It is
good to remind yourself that after death there may not be a place you
go to savor all the "I was such a bad person for not properly attending
to her needs/pains," you're hoping to get. Why not instead much
more extensively attend to how your own mother bullied/neglected
you, and how this has affected, determined, your instinctual way of
relating to your son? Validate your pain: you did not deserve it. And
work with those who'll both listen to you and help you undo the
damage you did to your son, in your effort to squeeze from him the
love and attention you did not sufficiently get from your own mother.
Link: Monster Inside My Son (Salon)
1727
1728
1729
This isn't sad, and you (should) know it -- what you're doing here is
identifying yourself as fully in fashion: Every green heroine these days
lives the green life, admires its rightness but complains of its expense,
and experiences the oh so very fashionable green guilt (which isn't so
severe as to be crippling -- in fact it kind of pleases, in that its light
continual press always reminds of your over-all ethical rightness).
The "I just pasted on a smile and nodded along" should be pathetic -I mean, what would you do if you were living in a rascist small town
(sorry small towns) and your thoughts were out of line? But of course,
if this was the case you never would have admitted to just walking by
without at least some reply of brash resistance you'd either have
expressed at the time, or, if not, most certainly later -- for if you had
you wouldn't have gotten the pass/approval from your readers you
seem to depend upon and so most assuredly will get here. You'll get a
pass for your pasty cat-walk pass, because it's imitable, for four
reasons: 1) deference here signals over-all approval of the Green
Agenda; 2) to be the good, CBC-listening, Globe-reading, "uppercrust," "Upper-Cdn," Cdn, you have to appear constitutionaly
DISINCLINED to engage in overly-emotive, loud public squabbles,
and INCLINED toward (gentle and genteel) restraint, repression, and
shy aversion; 3) it makes you sound like all the heroines we encounter
in British/Cdn lit. who move into small towns and have to deal with
their always disapproving and moralizing "Cranford" matriarchy; 4) it
pretends to (being about) compromise, but cat-walking past
disturbance on way to the neat and green is the sexiest walk to walk
these days, baby! Morally in-step, failing but trying, and maybe you'll
be allowed to stay on your present course: it's worked to keep many
successfully ever upward and aloof for the last twenty-plus years -why not try and stretch it for another comfortable twenty?
Link: Unplugged and Unglued (The Tyee)
1730
1731
1732
But mightn't my Harvard crimson trump your Yale blue (12 March
2009)
1733
Why, I've always preferred plain rocks to jewels--and you? (12 March
2009)
@ Michael Fellman and Tyee readers (and you guys too, at Open
Salon!):
Anybody else beginning to worry that if you spoil yourself and buy
something real nice to wear, you risk it being "lost" in a tarred and
feathered ruin of an evening? (In this climate, God help you if you
have a taste for anything fine in anything other than organic
coffee/food.) And is anybody else wondering how right this writer is
in thinking that the wealthy are safe from pitchfork prodding? But
what if someone offers to serve them up to satisfy (if only
temporarily) the bottomless hunger of those who hate, hate, hate the
greedy rich -- how long do you think they'll last, then? And when
they're gone, who might we turn to next? -- Why how 'bout the
Americans, even if Obama's still at the helm, who have surely made
greedy, presumptive use of our generous, neighborly will for far too
long! Mightnt indeed the short term bathos be such that it'll become
1734
If you be gentle, fret, fret, the coming of the might (11 March 2009)
Dowd writes, "Let's face it: The only bracing symbol of
American strength right now is the image of Michelle
Obama's sculpted biceps. Her husband urges bold action, but
it is Michelle who looks as though she could easily wind up
1735
and punch out Rush Limbaugh, Bernie Madoff and all the
corporate creeps who ripped off America." The subtext?
Some people are intimidated by a first lady who symbolizes
strength, instead of support.In a taxi, Brooks argued to
Dowd that "Washington is a place where people have always
been suspect of style and overt sexuality. Too much preening
signals that you're not up late studying cap-and-trade
agreements Washington is sensually avoidant. The wonks
here like brains. She should not be known for her physical
presence, for one body part." [. . .] Bonnie Fuller, an exfashion magazine editor, thinks that Brooks and many of his
muscle-a-feared Republican cohorts are resorting to verbal
bicep jabs because they have nothing else to say as a party
right now, are afraid of the strength of the Obama era, and
unable to make actual bicep jabs ("I bet he's got jiggly girlyman arms," she jokes). [. . .] Michelle Obama is not typecast:
she's playing a new role for her. She's also reinventing the
role itself. Not just because of her achievements, nor her
color, nor her wardrobe, but because of a combination of all
three, and because of what she's communicating with that
wardrobe. [. . .] With her bare biceps, Michelle Obama is
carving out a new style and role for first ladies and for
women generally. It's making some people, possibly those
wearing tight fitting suits, very uncomfortable. But it suits
her, and many other women, very well." (Vanessa
Richmond, "The Right to Bare Arms." _The Tyee_. March 11,
2009)
We have here what happens when Vanessa writes about a woman
whose self-assertiveness, whose refusal to kowtow to others'
expectations, she respects, and NOT what happens when she writes
about someone whose similar efforts to do the same, she evidently
doesn't. Michelle has well-toned muscles and her own style-sense,
and "your" problem with it, "your" hate-on for her, shows only "your"
insecurities, lack of style, and obvious need to keep women and black
1736
people in check. Gwyneth has writing-gumption and her own quirkystyle, and "your" problem with it, shows "you've" got taste (are not
tone-deaf) and that "you" can see the signs that meme the end of all
good things. (Vanessa's last article, on Gwyneth's "Goop":
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2009/03/04/Goop/)
David Brooks is the one who is really taking the heat on this one. Do
you know who he is, Tyee readers? Yes, he is a Republican. But don't
you be thinking Rush Limbaugh or the like. In fact, it'd be better if
you searched across the aisle, for in demeanor, mannerisms, he's
much closer to your average genteel-democrat than he is to any
Republican I can think of -- he's unusually sensitive, effete, for even a
Washington (brain-oriented, style-oriented) Republican. To get a
good sense of him, it might in fact be best if you imagined him the
sensitive English lit/composition professor, who when he listens to
you, reads your work, does so with tender respect, a willingness to
learn (from you), with an inkling to gently show yourself to yourself
and suggest a better way you might consider taking.
Yes, he showed no such with Michelle, but because she affectively
overwhelmed him. But we might find that the Obamas come to
encourage this reaction not just from Republicans (who, I actually
think, will not so long from now stop fretting over being courted,
acknowledge their true desires, and join the Obamas in their steel and
track, tanking of America) but from sensitives, the genteel, who are
mostly to be found amongst the left. (I am thinking now of the elegant
[but not captured] progressive, Geraldine Ferrara, and her horror at
the flaggrantness of Obama operatives as they tried to destroy her
reputation in a single minded effort to 'surrect their King.)
If you have a hankering for the gym/an athletic nation, populist popculture, seeing preppy better-than-thous wallow (and maybe worse
than wallow: _Salon's_ article on this topic was, "Put away the guns,
Michelle [you're scaring David Brooks!]"), you'll never tire of what
Obamanation offers. But if like David you prefer quiet talks, an
easeful atmosphere, letting your "opponent" have her/his say, and
aren't averse to reading some Mrs. Dalloway, don't let populist elation
1737
quiet your disquiet. Like Brooks, at the very least, say something -- if
not revered, you might at least be remembered for having done so
before the advance of "Thunder" and "Lightning" pounded you 'to
pulp.
Link: The Right to Bare Arms (The Tyee)
FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2009
Soldier and the preppie: Overheard in the Salon (10 March 2009)
1738
1739
@Patrick
Okay, I'm going to zero in on one of my favorites here:
My guess is that most in the army/navy/marines
vote Republican, or at the very least, have
conservative tendencies. So too most everyone in
professional sports.
I can't speak for the pro jocks, although I'll note that
endowing them with some kind of warrior mystique is a
mistake common to those who don't have any idea what real
violence looks like. As for the service ...
I am a liberal. I am a veteran. Most of my family and friends
are also liberals, and many of them are also veterans. Those
of us who are veterans are proud of our service, and those
who aren't are proud of us for having served.
I am a Democrat, and among my fellow Democrats what I
encounter is respect for my service and -- frequently -- the
bond of meeting a fellow vet, who is also proud of having
served, as well as a committment to cleaning up the mess
that conservative chickenhawks have made of the country
over the last eight years. You know, the people who "support
the troops," but God forbid they or their kids should ever
actually serve a day in uniform or hear a shot fired in anger.
See, one of the great things about the military is that it's
pretty much a cross-section of the country. Liberal and
conservative and libertarian, black and white and Asian and
Hispanic, Christian and Jew and Muslim and atheist and
Hindu and every other religion you can think of -- you will
find all of these, in every possible combination, serving
America. Which is, when you come right down to it, a pretty
liberal phenomenon in itself.
You, I expect, have lived your entire life surrounded by
people pretty much just like you, and you're perfectly happy
in your little comfort bubble where "the troops" are heroic
abstractions doing heroic things far, far away. I.e., a
1740
@Patrick
Not an even cross-section: few progressives will
sign up for something which strips you of your
individuality and personality, out of a desire to lose
yourself amidst something "greater."
Except that many do, whether you want to admit it or not.
Joining up automatically makes you "one who
1741
1742
1743
Because, in part, it lets you know that all interactions between family
members are well worth noting and thinking about. Because it shows
the types of reactions that can cause you to doubt yourself. Because it
shows people fighting back, standing up for themselves, and the kinds
of reactions you get for doing this. Because it shows people trying to
break-through, and showing that this is actually possible, but that it
can happen without you even knowing at the moment that that was
what just happened, but still at some level knowing: Kym didn't just
not vear left or right, she headed through the bush, just as she went
right at her mother -- repeat, emphasis, exclamation point,
imprinting -- fuck you bitch, I AM! I AM! I AM!
1744
1745
With knights like this, maybe you could get used to trolls (5 March
2009)
Paltrow writes a blog and the corporate and financial elites
go nuts. Ms. Redmond writes favorably about Ms. Paltrow's
blog, and certain Tyee readers go nuts.
Hmmm, what does this tell us? Actually, quite a lot. The
phenomenon of both events is well studied in the field known
as sociology, which remains the cutting edge of intellectual
analysis and thought. And for good reason. It's scholars seek
to critique what ACTUALLY influences societal trends to
happen.
Authors such as Naomi Klein, Edward Herman, Noam
Chomosky, Ben Bagdikian, Marc Edge and others have
significantly educated millions of us about how societal
elements operate. And once we understand how the
'template' works, each of us can in turn apply this analysis to
almost any event involving powerful entities for better
understanding.
Speaking of which, Paltrow and/or ANY celebrity are NOT
permitted to enter the realm of written discourse.
Particularly female celebrties. It is overstepping their
bounds and they will face significant 'flak'. It they persist,
they will incur even more wrath and ultimately be black
listed. It's how things work. I salute Ms. Paltrow's courage in
taking this step, and only time will tell whether she can resist
her critics.
As for Ms. Redmond, one sees a similar reaction to her work
on the Tyee. Flamers and trolls who normally stick to
undermining independent political critiques, lash out at her
columns. Why? Likely the combination of being female
1746
Fab over flab: The Limbaugh romance may not last the night (4
1747
March 2009)
And what about poor Michael Steele? He told Politico's Mike
Allen that he'd been "inarticulate" and that he hadn't said
what he really thought about Limbaugh. Do you need help
remembering what Limbaugh said that was "ugly,"
Michael? How about the Chelsea Clinton "jokes," back when
she was 13? What about visibly mocking Michael J. Fox for
his Parkinson's tremors and insisting Fox was exaggerating
his disease for political gain? Remember when Limbaugh
complained, "We are being told that we have to hope
[Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the
ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because
his father was black, because this is the first black
president." Is that "ugly" enough for you, Michael? Maybe
you want to rethink your apology? Sadly, I doubt it. (Joan
Walsh, March 4, 2009)
Joan, My own thoughts are that people always squirm before they
finally capitulate and become part of a movement. Troopers
beginning basic training not really wanting to be "[but-]bent[t] over
forward, backward, whichever," to suit someone else's whims, either,
but soon enough are eager-enough front-liners, pleased to have
direction and target for their need to rape and kill.
I've thought Limbaugh would storehouse the Republican future, only
to direct it onto Obama once Obama has lead the nation more fully
into Afghan war and aggressive assault. But, you know, Limbaugh has
a sensitive side -- your characterization of him as a bully is fair, but it
is also true that he picks up on people's sensitivities, and you can even
sense in him a need to suppress an instinct to reach out and care.
Sounds crazy -- but I've seen it, I've felt it, and I wasn't surprised to
hear he was a long-time Mac user: it tells you something, it really
does. My guess is most Republicans have felt it too, and since they are
intrinsically PC--i.e., those who fear warmth, affect, too much
personality and friendliness, and who associate sensitivity too readily
1748
1749
1750
1751
already at hand. The tropes in pastoral poetry are familiar to all who
use them, for example: the fun is in seeing how they tease and twist
their shepherds, lovers, flowers, and nymphs, in novel ways that
delight, surprise, and convince.
For me, turning kids on to the possibilities of itunesU isn't about
instant gratification. It's about getting kids to know that THEY can be
the ones in charge of their own education, about not being so ready to
bow their heads to the powers that be. It's about empowerment, the
nurturance of self-belief and self-esteem: for me, the kinds of things
that engender creative exploration. I think that if they nurture this
attitude toward their world, their development will become worth our
demarcation and study -- that is, I think my cotton-candy talk can
lead to the enterprises you would like to see more of in society, and
when table-talk turns to the post-secondary.
Link: After the Meltdown, Back to Post-Secondary?
1752
inspiration! (Are you sure you're not like Milton, and in the 'devil's'
camp, not knowing?)
What else might we gleam in glowing phosphor' light?"- - Only cooperate as long as you have to. Right now, ItunesU modestly
sustains. But it'll soon give flight to those with wings.
Link: After Meltdown, Back to Post-Secondary?
1753
1754
1755
poor, might bring with it an end to mass striving and the reemergence of the aristocratic ideal. Imagine some Republic, where
the elites are few and apparent; trusted to roam where they will;
spared the indignity of sharing space with noisome lessers; and you
will share in every conservative scholar's non-egalitarian dream.
How about let's stick to the progressive plan, people. That is, one
which values life enough to not ever give up on the idea of bringing to
the fore, EVERY human being's beauty and genius -- not just the few
stellar Obamas needed to delight, comfort, and lead the support of an
aging, sagging, populace.
(About institutional leadership and spirited teachers "surprising" and
"shocking" their hard working, appreciate students: Five words:
"Don't taze me, bro!" And maybe seven others: "Thank you, sir!--May
I have another!?")
The sixties generation was a great generation because they learned to
look to themselves rather than to the establishment -- true Romantics
unshackle themselves, in part, by shackling their teachers. Whatever
the post-secondary rucus, really explore what you can do with your
own journals, discussion groups, and ready access to itunes U. Let's
make it so that if there must be a really best, they're the ones freely
sharing, loving, and living, outside the scholar's tower.
Link: After Meltdown, Back to School?
Turn away from the professorial (28 February 2009)
Thank god for professors -- experts in the such-and-such. If the world
about us starts crumbling noticeably, we can just turn to them and
listen to them say something, anything, moderate and reasonable,
and we'll continue on until societal fractures inspire enough doubt to
demand another calm-down (visit).
We are a nation that is beginning to "switch" and find people and
behavior everywhere that can no longer be tolerated. If you're young,
believe in peace, pot, and living your dreams, push ahead, but fear
your "neighbor" -- they're beginning to wish they could send you to
1756
Afghanistan to war and die, and to realize that it's well within their
power to do so.
Link: Fear and Murder in Vancouver (the Tyee)
1757
1758
1759
1760
Been all around, but still the Truman Show (22 February 2009)
Yeah, if there was a nation out there where parents and kids had it
figured out, or which showed how differently parents and kids can
relate to one another, it'd make it more difficult for us just to throw
up our hands and accept, that that's just the way it is.
When you say, "But who among us has not wanted to tell our mothers
to 'f*** off' occasionally?," I'm guessing it means you haven't yet. Hey,
even if none of us have felt that urge, if you've felt it, if you feel it, still
validate it, and maybe also give it an airing here and there. That is,
Let it out. Your mother might appreciate the honest feedback, your
not holding back. Or maybe she'll emotionally abandon you for
1761
awhile, and give you good reason not to do the same again. But with
this misery would come the helpful clue as to how we could endure
endless hours in perplexing, confounding, less than ideal
relationships, and yet still be so ready to find reasons to settle.
There is better out there. There really is. But the way there involves
considering that what these disparate films might all have in
common, is the shared need to romance the mistruth that all families
are, and MUST BE, psychotic.
Link: Take the Kids to Reel2Real (Tyee)
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
quarry bay:
If Harper destroys everything of value, then he is doing exactly what
the populace who voted for him, wants. Accumulated wealth makes
people who received insufficient love from, who were treated
sadistically by, their parents (with the nature of their relationship to
the mother being of primary importance), feel extremely anxious: the
reason for this is that unloved parents (mothers) need their children
to give them the love they themselves did not receive from their own
parents (mothers), and communicate in unforgettable ways to their
children (through threats of violence, abandonment) that they are
being very very bad children when they turn from their parents and
start focusing on their own particular needs and wants (which begins
to happen in a big way with adolescence, which is why there is often
so much strain in child/parent relationships during this period).
Accumulated societal wealth, for a society with a large number of
insufficiently unloved constituents, makes people fear the visitation of
some kind of horrific, catastrophic visitation, and this fear is in part
abated when a leader arrives who helps find ways to get rid of all that
anxiety-producing wealth. Spending on the military is usually the way
immature societies do this; other ways include piling up bunches of
blankets, and burning them (though this isn't done as much, these
days).
Other ways of dealing with growth panic is to cling to a strong,
patriarchal leader (it is the arousal of maternal anger, we fear, since
differentiation is always from the mother, not the father) and support
him as he sacrifices representatives of our growing, needing, "bad"
selves, through wars -- economic or military.
If the coalition wins the day; if it proves relatively popular; it
Canadians decide they really would prefer to not have an autocratic
government and can handle a more anonymous and complex one;
then what we know is that childhoods have been improving, and we
have really been maturing, emotionally, as a nation.
But in my judgment, such a nation would never have voted in Harper
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
maccultenthusiastsincebirth,psycholiteraturely,patrickmh
Link: RealPsychohistory
1773
1774
1775
When Britain began their great economic expansion in the seventeenhundreds (the time when they became a nation of "shopkeepers"), the
conservatives at the time said that the emergence and social
predominance of a middle class (the emerging new psychoclass, as
delineated by Lloyd and Stone) who believed life should be about
commercial pleasures, would ensure that britian would become easy
prey
for more martial nations (Athens/Sparta references were everywhere
in
the conservative press). I believe it was Burke who pointed out that
the emergence of a nation of shopkeepers had gone hand-in-hand
with
(and was largely responsible for) the emergence of Britian's great
naval fleet, which was scoring victory-after-victory, as Britian's
commercial empire grew and grew and grew.
Link: RealPsychohistory
1776
1777
economic and social growth, and are willing to vote for those who
would destroy such, because as children they also understood that
when they attended to their own needs rather than those of their
parents, they were acting up as selfish, spoiled, egocentric--bad: and
they are forever hoping to demonstrate themselves good boys and
girls by voting for those who see life as about hardships, and by hating
those they can construe as believing otherwise (i.e. democrats).
Other point: Pelosi suggests that the democrats are honeymooning
right now. Their euphoria seems a bit forced, to me. And they seem
more angry than island-sunners should be. How sure are we that the
pains the Right is experiencing right now, aren't fundamentally
related to those that are causing democrats to be somewhat less than
ebulliently happy? I'm not suggesting that it's 'cause we're all
suffering from the economy. Instead, I'm wondering if BOTH
repubicans and democrats feel abandoned right now -- that they're
both waiting for Obama to emerge as an empowered, assertive daddy.
Perhaps Pelusi is happy because Obama right now still is somewhat
like her mother to her, like her and her friends, in that he is the elite,
polished/mannered, person-in-power, who is not yet charged-up with
a nation's passion. He is the salmon-eating, ivy-leaguer, who looks
trepedatiously at a coarse nation, that Hillary Clinton believed
America would never be able to relate to. This won't last for long. And
I suspect when things settle in, when he becomes more Andrew
Jackson and less John Quincy Adams, the mannered left will feel less
easy with him. Whether the Right will declare him their Omighty, I
can't yet tell. But to me it is more than a possibility: I actually expect
it.
Link: Salon
1778
you'll be able to well attend to them. They become lonely, lost -- they
become what we're trying to get the hell away from: neurotic,
unconscious -- animals.
You're always stepping away. We notice. Please stop; find out what
watches overhead and beat it into mulch; and become the more
interesting person we all sense you to be.
Link: The Tyee
1779
1780
1781
Bena Bena 'it was not at all unusual to see even very small toddlers
playing with sharp bush knives with no intervention on the part of
caretakers.' But this is good, say the anthropologists, since when
'children as young as two or three are permitted to play with objects
that Westerners consider dangerous, such as sharp knives or burning
brands from the fire, [it] tends to produce assertive, confident, and
competent children.' Children, they explain, are allowed to 'learn by
observations...e.g., the pain of cutting oneself when playing carelessly
with a knife.' As Whiting says, when he once saw a Kwoma baby 'with
the blade of a twelve-inch bush knife in his mouth and the adults
present paid no attention to him,' this was good for the infant, since
in this way 'the child learns to discriminate between the edible and
inedible.' Margaret Mead is particularly ecstatic about the wisdom of
mothers making infants learn to swim early by allowing them to fall
into the water under the hut when crawling and slipping through gaps
in the floor or falling overboard into the sea because they were 'set in
the bow of the canoe while the mother punts in the stern some ten
feet away.'
(Lloyd DeMause, "Childhood and Cultural Evolution," Emotional Life
of Nations
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln07_evolution.html)
Link: The Tyee
Obama cartoons (10 February 2009)
You're on the mark, ballspot. Pretty much every cartoon I've seen of
Obama right now has him matched against something hideously large
and bloated, and -- owing to how Rebublican's have greeted his
"birth" -- it's as often a obscurantist, confident elephant as it is a giant
"economy" pig, or "multiple hotspot/demand" octopus, or big pile of
wobbling, tobbling, "everything's about to crash!" pile of dishes. It's
knight against beast, and the elephantine will soon be tamed, just as
you predict. (Again, for what it's worth, I believe the bulk of Obama's
reign will involve a surprising number of republicans as his chief and
1782
most loyal servants. Obama will only for a short time be all linear,
lithe, and/but alone: the future is in Obamanation.)
Link: Salon
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
and their boys grow up fearing women, less and less. And so we get
some of the healthier couplings we see today.
Link: The Tyee
Generation-will-never-own-a-home (30 January 2009)
Better not wait for your next life, Jeffrey J., for the time to participate
in the dopamine rush of equal rep. while all else rots (in anguish) or
wilts (in boredom?), is now. The generation Vanessa talked about
earlier Generationwillneverownahome -- would have known
instantly, if Hillary had won the presidency, that she'd have continued
sending young people to their deaths in Afghanistan, and talked a lot
more about how young people need "to work harder" (read: suffer
more). And some of them will soon get over their Obama worship -which promised the near irresistible vision of pacified parents (end of
discord), generations uniting -- and understand too that he'll
primarily be about making sure baby-boomers are taken care of while
they spend out their remaining years thinking themselves all Green,
tolerant (did you know there were no black people in the major
leagues in 1940?, and now we have [voted in] a black president!),
relevant, and wonderful -- on their way to heaven (while tended to by
admiring youngins), surely!
There is nothing bold these days about advancing women's rights.
(Unless you long for hell, when the subject of women or race comes
up in any conversation, you'd better find means to broadcast your
wished identification and thorough support and sympathy!) And
don't you see that we've set things up so that people like Harper are
going to have such an easy time of it, 'cause all they'll need to do is
hire more non-white females to advance destructive policies than the
opposition does to hopefully advance nurturing ones -- and the
opposition can readily be blocked or broken with charges of
racism/sexism? For a taste of what this is like, check out how FOX
News tried to identify Ralph Nader as racist (and itself as pure)
1790
here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IshiClQqCM
Link: The Tyee
Watch over the next several months (26 January 2009)
Watch over the next several months just how readily the Right
(including, soon enough, Rush Limbaugh [but perhaps not Ann
Coulter]) identifies themselves Obamanites/Obamaknights. Within a
year, watch FOX News declare itself in full support of Obama. (More
than this, watch FOX declare itself the Obama station -- though this
might take a couple.) And watch progressives, anyone on the left, who
finds problems with his militant approach and policies, increasingly
declared racist and threatened with the worst. Obama is the right face
to make the intolerable more than tolerable, and impossible to
protest, and the time to stop romancing the new messiah, is now.
Incidently, I've been called a few names above, myself -- two of them,
harmless, but one of them, in this climate, especially dangerous. I
look forward to seeing a protective, EDITED FOR PERSONAL
INSULT.
Link: The Tyee
1791
1792
x-box! stop listening to your ipod [. . . and listen to me]! what kind of
comics are you reading?! -- how disgusting!, let's introduce you to
more wholesome fair, like the great outdoors! (but I liked reading
them, mommy.).
When she comes at you, so righteously affirmed, please feel free, in
whichever way you wish, to sc&* the bi*&%h, royally. She can't help
herself, it's true, but she aims to do nothing less, to you.
Link: The Tyee
-----
1793
1794
1795
relatively young guy--the normal way (the way that most readily
comes to mind) to typify it is as arising out of a generational divide.
Age-wise, it might well be wrong, but sense-wise, it strikes me as
possibly right. (So I went with it.)
(You wonder what his uncle thinks of his behavior?)
As for the whole Beers thing [editors note: for explanation of
what this thing is, please see below]. I see Shannon Rupp as a
righteous predator. I suspect she and those who support her efforts
are going to encourage, not deflate, suffering in children. I think she'll
find some way of characterizing a lot of things that kids these days go
for in terms of sexual practice and general activities, as perverse.
She'll go after the suppliers, justify her efforts in terms of "not
abandoning the young," but she'll make anyone who does anything
she doesn't like feel like cowering -- most especially the kids. I hope
the Tyee understands the dangers this kind of predator presents. And
appreciates when people speak up loudly -- against them.
---Denouement (aka: the David Beers thing)
---------------------------------------------When she comes at you, so righteously affirmed, EDITED
FOR SEXIST COMMENT. She can't help herself, it's true,
but she aims to do nothing less, to you. (editors change to
my original post. Note: bold not in original)
----Moderator
EDITED FOR SEXIST COMMENT ?????? I can't believe I
just read that!! NO EFFING WAY, MR BEERS- - - I will not
contribute to any GD PC outfit.
Censoring in an attempt to maintain decorum - perhaps. But
you can put censoring to prevent hurt feelings where the sun
don't shine. (ME2, Response to post, Porn Glut)
1796
1797
SPOILER ALERT!
Saw it this afternoon. Here's what I think:
First off, the climax is just as I expected -- Eastwood's character does
finish things off with a macho display of violence. Yes, he pulls out a
lighter rather than a gun, but the delivery is violent, and essentially
1798
1799
his relationship with the neighborhood girl (though she did overact at
times, and I didn't like how her overt, urgent, hurried sassiness at a
certain part of the film really seemed primarily about getting us to
like her all so much that we'd want to hate those who attacked her as
much as Walt does). And I liked Walt.
Finally, Dorothy, please consider getting into the fray like Steve is
wont to do with his reviews. Don't just post and vanish. Stay awhile.
Link: Gran Torino: Is this Eastwood's Self-Pitying Swan Song?
1800
o'clock every morning inorder help her son become the person he
wants to be, but how many mothersdevote themselves to their kids
primarily out of their own self-assessmentneeds, out of a desire to
fashion for themselves their preferred son? Everyhockey mom in
Canada wakes up at 4 in the morning ostensibly for theirchildren, and
how many of these kids end up living out their mother'sdreams -- of
course, not all, but many, many, many. You write of her
"abandonment by her spouse and [of how she] had to work." Come
on, Lloyd,you're the one who always talks about how put-upon
mothers are hardly theones to look to for great nurturance. And why
narrate it as of her being"abandoned." You know this type of narrative
plays to our desire to protectthe mother and demonize the father, the
nasty patriarchal ass, who isunwilling to show any gratitude for all his
wife's love, any sympathy at all forall her considerable hardships.
Further it works against looking at othermotives behind spousal
break-ups. Many mothers are primarily interested inhoarding their
children all to themselves, and DIRECT the fathers elsewhere.Many
mothers are masochists who direct their spouses to abandon them.
Andwhat healthy, happy mother ends up marrying someone who
"abandons" her,anyway? If he was that awful, she couldn't have all
that great, either(Seriously, don't like end up marrying like?).I don't
think he had terrible mothering. But I actually don't think eitherhe or
his wife rise even to the level of the Clintons -- and I don't think
they'reall that great, either. Right now there's a lot of people who are
just so quick to identify Obama asa good guy. I think this in done in
part to demonstrate our owngoodness for we are
progressive/advanced/good enough to cheer the arrivalof the first
black president, and recognize both he and his mothers benevolence.
Even Joan Walsh, the editor of Salon, after being an earlyholdout, has
succumbed to this desire. But watch out!, for Joan was rightto think
something terribly amiss about Obama's willingness to allow his
operatives to shut down progressive critiques of his policy goals
throughcharges of racism. In fact, my guess is that it will be through
Obamathat progressive thought -- which won the 60s cultural war --
1801
1802
1803
concluding that resistance is futile. Are you helping set the scene so
that when a true hero arrives, we'll cheer especially loudly?)
Link: The Tyee
In response to attacking Margaret Atwood (25 Dec. 2008)
It's too bad that growth now seems to have become a neo-con term.
(One would hope progressives would see something in it they might
like. Stasis -- homeo or otherwise -- just sounds so conservative.) So
the story of evolutionary biology is that we start off with lots and lots
of stuff, and end up with the same amount of lots and lots of stuff?
We never did just have a couple fish, and end up with a bounty of
them?
Atwood -- being somewhat typically Canadian -- finds growth,
anxious (so do I, some), and so all this activity has her thinking of
resting and quiet talks. Periods of manic economic growth (what
we've been living through) make most people anxious. Industrial
England made the Cranford ladies extremely uncomfortable -- to the
delight of Elizabeth Gaskell! The 1920s were another such period, and
its termination was ultimately greeted with a sense of relief (in the
Great Depression, there were FEWER suicides -- no joke!). And so
ended economic growth. And so ended artistic growth. And so ended
societal growth.
I bought a lot. I also experienced a lot. It was what I had to do during
this period to live. Now that the societal climate has changed, I won't
buy as much, but I'll still find ways to grow.
Link: The Tyee
In response to "New Depression Chic" (25 Dec. 2008)
I said this:
Shannon,
Things are changing. People are declining paper bags, asking about
1804
where this or that particular item was made, and other such, much
more than they used to. Part of this is owing to them being better
informed; part of this is owing to their desire to help out; and part of
this is owing to their desire to "shape" themselves so they seem less
worthy of punishment from a culture that seems extremely impatient
for the "privileged," "sexist," consumerist," "glutonous" (etc.), clearly
bad lot to get familiar with the real Hurt.
I also said this:
I very much do agree that if Canadians don't want there to be a
depression, there won't be one (wonderful insight, by the way).
Accepting this thesis as true of course demands assessing human
beings in a different way than as simply homo economicus, that is, as
beings who are ruled primarily by a desire to make a buck. It would
demand accepting that human beings can actually desire the world to
turn bad, for people to lose their jobs and most of their money, for
people to be hurt, in mass -- even if means that they themselves will
suffer. It is theory that would be laughed at by many, but I think,
though, that the alert Tyee reader -- perhaps even by looking at how
many Tyee contributers tend to assess our contemporary civilization
and unfold their visions of the future -- already intuits the truth in all
this.
I would also like to add that, for fear of the efficacy of others' efforts
to make their depression fantasies come true, I really do fear that the
next number of years could quite possibly be quite terrifying for a lot
of us. My sense is that I am not alone in suspecting this; that this
suspicion might be widely held; and that consumers (hate that word,
by the way, but that's a conversation for another day) are quite right
to sort of continue-on with their old ways (if that really is what they
are doing) until they are provided a more surer sense that we will get
through all this. (I would hardly be pleased if people started holingup in preparation of a Cormac McCarthy-like vision of the future--I
survived Great Depression 2 'cause I knew how to organic farm and
you didn't, friend.)
1805
1806
1807
shells and gaped vacuity. That is, as someone "greater than," herself.
Link: The Tyee
1808
not much used to such a response; they'll likely think they probably
don't deserve it; but they'll love us for it. And, eventually, as we listen
to them with more true respect than we hereto have managed, they'll
better listen and attend to our stories, too.
That, in my judgment, is the way to get to them, SharingIsGood. But
the truth is, if your childhood was garbage, there's only so much
growth possible. Tactically, as always, you've got to get to the
children. May every well tempered, progressive person, go into
education.
And have kids (though not too many, lest they experience
abandonment issues -- one or two will do, nicely).
Link: The Tyee
Reponse to post, "Panic press sweepts the nation" (25 Dec. 2008)
Articles like this one do continue to prop-up the idea that if only the
centre-left would get a fair hearing, the Canadian populace would
receive them well. Most of the left, it seems, still believe that the only
way you could have an economic/political system exist which
produces a country of haves-and-have-nots, which wastes enormous
resources and destroys the lives of countless in wars -- and which
does much the same with the environment -- which works against the
best interest of those who vote for those who continue the system's
existence, is because people have been misinformed or left
uninformed, by the evil powers of the misanthropic status-quo.
I don't believe this is the case, and instead think that the reason
progressives are only so well received in this country is not because
the wrong books/papers/arguments have been put before the
populace, not because other viewpoints have been stigmatized or
hidden, but because too many Cdns are not raised with sufficient
nurturance for them to sort of naturally believe -- at a gut level -- that
life should be good, that they ought to, deserve to, live in a warm,
welcoming, world. Instead, they see in Harper and Ignatieff -- their
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
Sounds excellent, but can I bring my Xbox? I don't want to spend ALL
my time knitting.
Link: The Tyee
1814
admit that I always thought the fact that mothers tend to see the son
as an Other, as someone who is not herself, while looking at
daughters as parts of herself, was a huge boon for boys. I thought,
with mothers looking at their sons as entities that were different from
themselves, that it kind of meant that boys, regardless of all other
shit, had a greater chance of experiencing themselves as individuated
persons. I wonder if it is true that what really tends to happen to boys
is that the manner in which their mothers tend to interact with them
tend to make them not so much feel individuated from their mothers
but make them feel possessions of their mothers (as Lloyd argues).
Girls are parts of their mothers; boys are their mothers' possessions.
Maybe this summarizes the situation for children of unhealthy
mothers. In regards to girls, though: It really does seem true that the
reason they take their husband's name is so that they can belong to,
be part of, that something else -- a sly way of participating in the boys'
experience of difference. That would make marriage and taking the
husband's last name not so much about losing one's identity, but a
ritual that enables girls to become a greater part of that something -a man -- which knows what it is to feel separate from a mother. Once
they divorce the man and take back their own maiden name -- I think
they are then experiencing something of the reapproachment Mahler
is talking about.
My mom did that. Taking my dad's name was part of her
understandable plot to distance herself from her own mother. Later
in life when her own mother moved in with her, I think my mom did
react to her as if she was different from her. I think she became her
own person. Despite what my mom says and needs to believe, my dad
got used in the process, though. No villainy -- just somewhat
unhealthy peoplepossessing that wonderful drive to move beyond
insufficient initial surroundings.
I explore the idea of men as a tool toward individuation in a paper of
mine: (http://www.scribd.com/doc/3737684/Useful-Object-A-Manas-the- Means-Toward-Salvation-in-The-Beauty-Queen-of-Leenane-
1815
1816
cup of tea, and goes with him to his apartment. Shes Joe
(Charlotte Gainsbourg); hes Seligman (Stellan Skarsgrd).
After getting cleaned up, she rests in his bed and tells him the
story of her life, which is mainly the story of her sex life.
Throughout the telling, the quietly fanciful Joe, a sort of erotic
Scheherazade, intently affirms a vague and unnamed guilt that
the polymathic scholar Seligman tries to reason her out of.
Joes precocious genital consciousness led her to follow the
lead of a high-school friend, called B (Sophie Kennedy Clark),
in a game of sexual conquests aboard a train. (Young-adult Joe
is played by Stacy Martin.) In her independent life, Joe often
took as many as ten lovers in a single night. Some of them are
young, some old; some handsome, some plain; some fit, some
flabby; some stylish, some lumpish. And if theres any doubt of
their variety, a montage of lovers genitals, seen in close-up,
makes the point: Joe doesnt pursue a parade of groomed
beauties or well-endowed studs, she has sex with a seemingly
representative slice of the male demographic. And Joe,
apparently, is not aloneshes only one member of a group
that formed in school, a secret sect of young women, or, as B
called it, a little flock, that chants mea vulva, mea maxima
vulva, and repudiates love in the sole pursuit of sex.
This indiscriminacythe choice of partners not by beauty,
charm, or charisma but on the basis of what Joe calls
morphological studiesis the key to the movies pitch. Von
Trier is the best advertising person in the movie business, and
he has come up with a movie that is an ingenious commercial
for itself. The average male art-house viewer emerges from the
first part of Volume I filled with the pleasant idea that there are
young women out thereyoung, pretty, sleek, and determined
who will suck him off in a random train compartment even
though hes forty, married, and faithful, or sleep with him on a
regular basis despite his bald pate, bad clothing, bland affect,
1817
1818
1819
1820
Patrick McEvoy-Halston@specialtramp
I'm glad he did so, though. A mother's willingly torturing her
child -- the big reveal in Antichrist -- is pretty much beyond
what any of us can tackle right now. The limits of therapy were
helpfully revealed, when her husband realizes why he was
having so much trouble dissuading her she was evil -- "You did
... what?!"
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template> <o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>1354</o:Words> <o:Characters>7722</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Home</o:Company> <o:Lines>64</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>15</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>9483</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridE
very>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif] [if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions
*/ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowbandsize:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-paramargin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New
Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-
1821
1822
[]
For some people, the possibility that the laws of physics might
illuminate even the creation of our own universe, without the
need for supernatural intervention or any demonstration of
purpose, is truly terrifying. But Mondays announcement
heralds the possible beginning of a new era, where even such
cosmic existential questions are becoming accessible to
experiment. (A scientific breakthrough lets us see to the very
beginning of time,Newyorker.com)
----PatrickMcEvoyHalston
For some people, the possibility that the laws of physics might
illuminate even the creation of our own universe, without the
need for supernatural intervention or any demonstration of
purpose, is truly terrifying.
I doubt it. It'll just be interpreted as further hemming God in,
which doesn't get rid of Him but inflates the needs of acolytes
to clear Him some room.
God suits an emotional need, born out of the kind of care we
received as children. He likes you so long as you
masochistically subject yourself to Him. If you had more
loving parents, the sky is cleared of gods; and while you'll
thrill at further learning how the universe was born, the truth is
it could accidentally be revealed to have at its core some awful
Demon, or bizarro God, and, as long as now tamed, might not
instruct how we go about our life all that much.
1823
1824