Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
household.
Hermione Granger is a teenager. She's the sort older men who've
suffered abuse from their mothers turn to when they're fleeing the
power of the dominating mother. I'm not sure we should hold her
out as bait.
"We are all aware, on some level, that it's anonymous but hardworking women that make the world run, who do all the thankless
and unglamorous organizing, cleaning, planning and detailsweating..."
Camille Paglia gave us this speech too, but credited those "Gloria
Steinem" feminists disparage -- men... the ones who built bridges,
civilization... all that. My point is that it's more Bernie rhetoric, not
Hillary, who's been accused of being oriented almost entirely to
members of the professional class; those who leave the housecleaning to others.
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
10
Permalink
11
sick. Isn't what is blessed about the world today that we are
increasingly likely to meet people across the world and
discover something shared... that in fact if they had been
your next-door neighbour you might actually have had a
more fruitful relationship with them than you did with those of
similar tribal heritage? Suddenly so many things about
you've been told you are seem to slack off, and you can
reformulate your self-understanding in a way that feels
intrinsically more appropriate. The wonder of
cosmopolitanism, I guess.
Thanks for your post. I enjoyed reading it.
Permalink
12
Permalink
Permalink
13
Permalink
Permalink
14
Permalink
15
16
17
Permalink
18
Permalink
Permalink
19
Permalink
Permalink
20
Permalink
21
This is true... but it's also true that if I was a white working class
male who succeeded, I wouldn't feel so comfortable that the
professional class whose arena I breached, didn't think me an
imposter barbarian. Someone whom in terms of actual virtue, was
probably no better than your average internet troll, and should go
back where he came from.
I wish the left -- the professional class -- didn't encourage its own
imposter syndrome upon others; wasn't insouciant concerning how
they might be cruelly withering the self-worth and self-esteem of
others. But it has not evolved beyond the psychic need for outgroups.
Permalink
22
like Obama's race was: keep the country from falling apart;
incremental change that symbolically is very telling and wonderful
but sort of as part of the ongoing roll of our evolving, increasingly
global, post-industrial society (without knowing it and just living,
the world becomes better, and better yet).
In this instance, it isn't a strike against "me," my sex, something to
be overcome, but the next extension upon which the animus
moving the world for the last several decades, implements itself -that is, a help ... we didn't have to configure something. There is a
feel-goodism about it; how wonderful we are to be part of this
special moment where another of the disadvantaged makes the
incredible breach! It satisfies the ego and makes us exult.
But the push against the collective regression we might all at some
level be experiencing, was going to require finding some kind of
refuge in unimpregnable virtue to keep going. And we need things
to keep going. It's a dark precipice, the other way.
Permalink
Permalink
23
24
Permalink
25
She may not be the best progressive out there, but she IS
progressive. Her intention to be president is very worthy. Her
example will encourage other intelligent people to do the
same.
By the way, borderlines love an Orwellian, 1984 society. It is
something they'd wish upon themselves. For it means their
"parents," however loathsome and distrusting, have not
abandoned them.
We need to explore just how much people ACTUALLY hate a
surveillance state, or are somehow eased by it. I don't think
you can tell simply by the fact that someone is criticizing...
sometimes in the criticism one feels that the world would be
psychically molded to be this prison, this panopticon, even if
the outside world didn't much substantiate. At some level,
they actually feel more at ease than they do ill-at-ease, in
this ostensibly existing surveillance world prison.
Permalink
26
Permalink
Permalink
27
Permalink
28
Permalink
29
30
two natural soulmates? And the same for literature, so you couldn't
possibly devote yourself to all things English and be as equally
emotionally evolved as the student who naturally wants to dabble
everywhere. Why weren't YOU like that as well? Why if you love
this interconnected, global world, didn't you find yourself with a
rather mixed reading list... and a bunch of traditionally oddly
grouped texts, to want to arrange for a class?
Why find yourself in this unfortunate fix where all the books
you're going to be redoubling your efforts to comb through, are
pretty much exactly the same ones Nationalists are going to be
parading as recommended or mandatory reading lists? How much
are you going to regret that during this next historical period,
you're not so much going to stand out but rather, sufficiently
"pass."
Permalink
31
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
32
33
that the fact that they didn't have much say in this last whole period
was probably to our collective good fortune -- good thing, as
arrogant as this sounds, many of them wanted to go through a
period where they could demonstrate their being absolved of all
previous sins by overtly collecting upon themselves so many scars,
pains and humiliations. Free trade -- they knew unconsciously this
would deliver on that.
This new England will use them just as much. But no grievance:
they'll be happy to be its patsies. Because it'll be all done for their
great, beautiful Fatherland/Motherland, and their being absolutely
loyal will make them its purest, cleanest subjects.
...
It is true that I'm not dealing so much with Bernie here. I hope this
proves a time of exciting opportunities for the left. It is nice to be
provoked to think of it.
Permalink
Permalink
34
where they come from in the world, are sons and daughters of
professionals. They're psychologically similar, and that's key,
because for this they're better able to relate to one another than
people who speak the same language but are psychologically
vastly disparate.
These are their natural kin; they want to know one another; so if
there is a language barrier the desire will be there to deal with it.
What cosmopolitan Londoner suddenly wants to count himself part
of ostensibly shared ancestral heritage that the provincials are
suddenly yammering about?
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
35
Permalink
36
37
Permalink
Permalink
38
Permalink
39
Permalink
40
41
Permalink
42
43
Permalink
44
45
46
Permalink
47
Permalink
48
and branching off into cosmopolitanism/globalism -something actually enlightened. The rightwing talk about
them as liberals' "pets." That is, as much as the Right is
identifying them as medieval cultures, they're hated
perhaps principally because of their associations with the
most progressive of our own times.
As such, there is no victory based on facts for the left
here. All mainstream Americans need to know is that a
muslim was involved (one of the outsiders, brought in by
Kennedy and the left) in creating an apocalyptic event in
their country. Yes, many mainstream Americans are still
homophobic, and certainly are developing a lot of hatred
for their millennial young, but they don't feel selfimplicated in this attack -- see their own wishes horribly
expressed -- because they feel too strong a need to
categorize the dead just as carnage... as further evidence
that the outer-world is full of attackers who are
succeeding in busting giant bomb holes within America's
vulnerable, corporeal body.
Permalink
49
Permalink
50
Permalink
Permalink
51
Permalink
52
and destruction.
So the human beings that are going around all
abstracted... may be just the best kind of human heroes
we've got this time around. The ideal... the left that
doesn't romanticize or themselves require some group
they can be enfranchised to hate (the best of the left will
eventually not hate the right, even as much they'll totally
regret them, because they'll never not see in them the
kind of neglect required to make them so much hate
themselves when they and the nation progress), doesn't
quite exist yet. But they'll come. The superego's gone in
most of them, and the need to project, soon also.
Permalink
Permalink
53
Permalink
54
Permalink
Permalink
55
Permalink
56
Permalink
Permalink
57
Permalink
Permalink
58
Permalink
59
Permalink
60
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
61
Permalink
62
ample cues, this could go bad for us. Not Trump bad, but
along the same lines.
Emporium
11 days ago
Christopher1988
63
11 days ago
Randy Stone
64
11 days ago
@Emporium
Hillary is already turning to the right...I guess that's
what you might mean by "...less sane."
I agree.
Flag
2UnlikeReply
65
66
Permalink
67
68
Permalink
69
this, but this sort of thing was not only something you
could get away with but actually were encouraged to do,
for it being preferred in our era that you treat
conservatives wantonly... with casual disregard). This isn't
progress but rather people we might have hoped would
remain saneish in our era starting to feel more pure in
rejecting their previous identity as being individually
distinguished from the dissolving American mob.
Permalink
70
Permalink
71
Permalink
72
Permalink
Permalink
73
Permalink
74
Permalink
Permalink
75
Permalink
Permalink
76
everyone
Permalink
Permalink
77
Permalink
78
79
Saturday, May 14, 2016
80
Ihavearguedonmultipleoccasionsthatwhite
Americans,consideredintheaggregate,exhibit
signsofanunconsciousorsemiconsciousdeath
wish.ImeanthatbothintheFreudiansenseofa
longingforreleasethatisbotheroticandself
destructivetheinterminglingofErosand
Thanatosandinamorestraightforwardsense.
ConsidertheprevalenceofgunsinAmerican
society,theepidemicratesofsuicideandobesity
(whichmightbecalledslowmotionsuicide)
amonglowincomewhites,thewidespread
willingnesstoignoreordenyclimatescienceand
thedeeplyrootedtendencyofthewhiteworking
classtovoteagainstitsowninterestsandempower
thosewhohaveimpoverishedit.Whatotherterm
canencompassallthat?
Trumpisthelivingembodimentofthat
contradictorydesireforredemptionand
destruction.Hisincoherentspeecheswanderback
andforthbetweenthosetwopoles,frominfantile
fantasiesaboutforcingMexicotobuildan$8
billionwallandrampantantiMuslimparanoiato
unfocusedpanegyricsabouthowgreatwewill
81
beonedayandhowmuchwewillwin.Inhis
abundantvigorandebullienceandcloddish,mean
spiritedgoodhumor,Trumpmayseemlikethe
oppositeofthedeathwish.(Hewouldcertainlybe
insultedbyanysuchsuggestion.Wrong!Bad!)But
everythinghepromisesisimpossible,andhis
supportersarenotquitedumbenoughnottosee
that.Hesadeathsheadjestercacklingonthe
edgeofthevoid,theclownishhostofonelast
celebrationofAmericasbombast,bigotryand
spectacularignorance.Nowonderhisvotersare
reluctanttofessup.
Normalpublicopinionpollsconductedby
telephone,Edsallwrites,haveconsistentlyshown
HillaryClintonwellaheadofTrumpinheadto
headtrialruns,byarecentaverageofaboutnine
percentagepoints.Butonlinesurveyscompiledby
YouGovandMorningConsulttelladifferent
story,showingClintonaheadbymuchsmaller
margins.ThemostrecentYouGov/Economistpoll
ofregisteredvoters,forexample,showsClinton
leadingTrumpbyjustthreepoints(43percentto
40percent),wellwithinthemarginoferror.Edsall
quotesKyleA.Dropp,whorunspollinganddata
82
forMorningConsult,estimatingthatthroughout
theprimaryseasonTrumphasgainedaconsistent
advantageofeightorninepointsinonlinepolls
versusoldfashionedtelephonesurveys.
Infairness,wedontknowwhichnumberscome
closertothetruth.Therearevalidreasonswhy
manypoliticalscientistsandstatisticswonks
believetelephonepollingismoreaccuratein
predictingactualvoting,andEdsalldoesntdiscuss
those.Butasheputsit,anonlinesurvey,
whateverotherflawsitmighthave,resemblesan
anonymousvotingboothfarmorethanwhatyou
tellapollsterdoes.Yourcomputerwontraiseits
eyebrowsinmicroscopicdisdainwhenyouclick
theboxforTrump;itwonttellitsfriendsafter
workaboutthispersonitmettodaywhoseemed
normalbutturnedouttobearagingbigot.Andthe
ideathatsocialdesirabilitybiasinEnglish,
thedesirenottoseemintolerantorunenlightened
insomeoneelseseyescandistortpollresults
hasalonghistorythatmaygivetheClinton
campaignsomesleeplessnights.
Socialdesirabilitybias,initsTrumpiancontext,is
83
closelyrelatedtotheBradleyeffect,apolling
problemfrequentlyobservedinelectionswhere
onecandidateiswhiteandtheotherisnt.That
namegoesbacktomyyouthandtheCalifornia
gubernatorialelectionof1982,whenTomBradley,
theAfricanAmericanmayorofLosAngeles,led
inthepollsthroughoutthecampaignbutwoundup
losingtoRepublicanGeorgeDeukmejian.A
significantsubsetofwhitevoters(sothetheory
holds)toldpollsterstheywereplanningtovotefor
Bradley,butdidnt.Eithertheyliedabouttheir
trueintentionsbecausetheydidntwanttosound
likeracistsinthesupposedlyliberalcontextof
80sCaliforniaortheydiscovered,intheprivacy
ofthevotingbooth,thattheycouldntpullthe
leverforablackman.
Wedonthavethatscenariotocontendwiththis
year,obviously,andmanysocialscientistsbelieve
theBradleyeffecthasfaded:BarackObamas
actualsupportamongwhitevoters,duringhistwo
electioncampaigns,wasprettyclosetohispoll
numbers.HillaryClintonslikelystatusasthefirst
femalemajorpartynomineewillclearlybeanX
factorinthisyearsfallcampaign,apositivefor
84
somevotersandanegativeforothers.Butthe
Trumpspecificversionofsocialdesirabilitybiasis
differentfromthosethingsinasubtlebutpowerful
way:VotingforTrumpcanbeunderstoodas
embracingsomethingratherthanrejectingit,even
ifthatsomethingisviewedasinsaneorrepulsive
bypolitesociety.Turningyourbackona
candidatebecausehesblackisanegative,private
actthatslikelytomakeyoufeelbadabout
yourself;embracingthejingoismandmisogyny
andsmallmindednessoftheTrumpcampaignis
joiningamovement.
ItstransparentlyunfairtocompareTrumpto
AdolfHitler(eventhoughIvealreadydoneit),
anditisntlikely,inthecontextofthe21st
century,thataTrumpadministrationwould
actuallyresembletheThirdReichorprovoke
WorldWarIII.Buthereshowtheyresimilar:
Hitlercloakedthedeathwishinpositivetermstoo.
Nazismrolledthemostnoxiouselementsof
GermannationalismandEuropeanantiSemitism
intoapackagethatseemedaffirmativeand
optimistic,toanationstrugglingwitheconomic
difficultyandaninternalidentitycrisis.Trumphas
85
triedtodothesamewithhistoxicpackageof
racism,sexismandxenophobia,histhoroughly
imaginaryversionofAmericabuiltfromwhite
peoplesdespairandparanoiaandselfloathing.
Wehaveunderestimateditsallureallalong,and
westilldontknowhowdeepitgoes.Mainstream
punditsandpoliticiansin1930sGermanymadea
similarmistake.
Emporium
2daysago
Isayitgoesdeep.AmandaMarcottewrote
somewherehowsurprisedshewasathowmany
maleliberalswereexpressingsurprisingamounts
ofhatredtowardswomen,viaattacksonHillary,
nowthattheyhadBernieascover.Angertowards
women,isangertowardsone'smotherand
Hillary,asGloriaSteinemhasargued,bringsher
tomindandnecessarilyalsoatoneself:theself
centred,spoiled,neglectfulbratonefeelswas
responsibleforherneglect.Loveisalways
potentiallyavailable,onefeels,ifattheendthe
86
personyoufeelmostdeservestodie,isthechild,
whobyselfactualizinginlife,surelypurposely
abandonedthemother.Bychasingdowndeath
yourself,youmightyetacquireherlove.
AmericansknowthatTrumpwillquail
independentwomen,andthiswillbefeltas
hemmingintheoverpoweringmotherofour
childhoodsourrighteousrevenge.Hewill
intimidateprogressivismeverywhere,andthiswill
relaxoursensethatweareenrichingourselves
withtoomuchopportunity.He'llbondustoour
MotherCountry,showusthewaytobepatriotic
tobe"goodboysandgirls"andtargetothers
whomwe'veprojectedourown"badboy"
impuritiesinto.IfliketheNaziswebuildroads
andenableourselveswithVolkswagens,it'lljust
furtherensureweengageinanimpossiblesuicidal
waragainsttheworldthatcanonlyleadto
thoroughruin.
Iagreethough,itwon'tgetthisbad.Andthestory
ismorecomplicated,becausehowevermuchwe
mayunderestimatethenumberofpeople
unconsciouslydesiringtostopprogress,restage
87
ourearlychildhoodhumiliations,andenact
revenge,wealsohavealargebaseofpeoplewho'll
bemostlyimmune.Thisarticlewillhelpthemself
prepareforthefuture.
FreeQuark
2daysago
.......thedeeplyrootedtendencyofthewhite
workingclasstovoteagainstitsowninterestsand
empowerthosewhohaveimpoverishedit.
WhatmajorpoliticalpartyintheU.S.currently
representstheinterestsofthewhiteworkingclass?
TheDemocraticPartyhasbeenrunbyglobalist
technocratssincethelate80satleast,andtheGOP
hasbeenthepartyofthe1%sinceTeddy
RooseveltlefttheWhiteHouse.It'sridiculousto
criticizethewhiteworkingclassforvotingagainst
itsowninterestswhenithasnootherviable
option.
88
Ihavearguedonmultipleoccasionsthatwhite
Americans,consideredintheaggregate,exhibit
signsofanunconsciousorsemiconscious
Oneindicationofthisisthealmosttotalpassivity
ofwhiteAmericansinthefaceoftradeand
immigrationpoliciesdesignedtoundercutwhite
Americanseconomically.
StvInIL
2daysago
@FreeQuark"Oneindicationofthisisthealmost
totalpassivityofwhiteAmericansinthefaceof
tradeandimmigrationpoliciesdesignedto
undercutwhiteAmericanseconomically.
Ithinktheysprinkleinalittleracismagainst
blacksanditmakesEVERYTHINGbetter.Many
ofthesepoliciestheysupportcanbeexplainby
oneoftheirexperts,LeeAtwater.
"Youstartoutin1954bysaying,Ni**er,ni**er,
89
ni**er.By1968youcantsayni**erthat
hurtsyou,backfires.Soyousaystufflike,uh,
forcedbusing,statesrights,andallthatstuff,and
youregettingsoabstract.Now,youretalking
aboutcuttingtaxes,andallthesethingsyoure
talkingaboutaretotallyeconomicthingsanda
byproductofthemis,blacksgethurtworsethan
whites.Wewanttocutthis,ismuchmore
abstractthaneventhebusingthing,uh,andahell
ofalotmoreabstractthanNi**er,ni**er.
Andforoverthreedecadesnowtheyhave
beendestabilizingourcountryfromwithin.Andso
itcontinues.
Emporium
2daysago
@FreeQuarkIthinkyoucanarguethatwhat
wasn'tpassive,is/arewhiteAmericansvotingin
politicianstheyunconsciouslyknewweregoingto
wagewaragainstthem.Theprofessionalclass
psychologicallyrequiredsomegrouptosuffer
90
whilethey"indulged,"buteveniftheywerethe
mostkindheartedfolktheyweregoingtobe
forcedtobeexploiters/abandoners.Allto
empowertoday'srighteousrevenge,enactednot
justbythosewholostmanufacturingjobsbutbya
lotofprogressives...whoreallycanseemlike
they'dwanttokilloneofofeverythreepeopleon
WallStreet.
Beerbob77
2daysago
@FreeQuarkYou'reagreeing,then,right?But
complainingatthesametime.
JackBurroughs
2daysago
"ConsidertheprevalenceofgunsinAmerican
society,theepidemicratesofsuicideandobesity
(whichmightbecalledslowmotionsuicide)
91
amonglowincomewhites,thewidespread
willingnesstoignoreordenyclimatescienceand
thedeeplyrootedtendencyofthewhiteworking
classtovoteagainstitsowninterestsandempower
thosewhohaveimpoverishedit.Whatotherterm
canencompassallthat?
Thethesisthatwhites'supportforTrumpis
somehowadeathwishissocrazilybackwards
thatImtemptedtocallitinsane.
ButthenIrememberthatImreadingAndrew
OHehir,andAndrewobviouslyisntinsane.Its
justthathehasnointuitionatallforhowworking
classpeopleactuallyfeelandthinkandyethe
lovestoberecklesslypresumptuousaboutthe
true,secretmotivationsofpeoplewithwhomhe
hasnothingincommon,andwhomhedoesnot
understand.
Worse,hispresumptuousspeculationisan
egregiousviolationofOccamsRazor:if
hypothesesshouldnotbemultipliedwithout
necessity,ifthesimplestexplanationisthelikeliest
explanation,thenthemotivationsofTrumps
92
supportersarenotmysteriousatall.Trumpspoll
numbersexploded,andtheystayedhigh,whenhe
spokeaggressivelyaboutillegalimmigration.His
numberswentevenhigher,andtheystayedhigh,
whenhecalledforatemporarybanonMuslims
enteringtheUS.
FollowingOccamsRazor,shouldntwetherefore
concludethatwhitesaresupportingTrump
becausetheyactuallylikehisstanceon
immigration?Dowereallyneedtoconcoctaweird
theorytoexplainbehaviorthatisstraightforwardly
explicable?
Ofcourseitstruethatmanywhiteshavelong
beeninastateofdespair.Whyso?Well,sure,
partlyforeconomicreasons.Butalsoemphatically
fordemographicreasons.Andthatiswhat
Andrewdoesnotunderstandaboutworkingclass
people:theyhatebeingforcedtobecomearacial
minorityinanhistoricallywhitemajoritycountry.
Workingclasspeoplenotonlythem,but
especiallythemareraciallyverytribalistic.That
ishowtheyvealwaysbeen,itshowtheyarenow,
andit'showtheywillbeahundredyearsfrom
93
now.
Thereasonwhiteshavebeeninsuchastateof
despairisbecausein1965,theywereabout90%of
thepopulationoftheUS.Today,whitesareafast
shrinking60somethingpercent.Theimmigration
actof1965wasopposedbyamajorityoftheUS
populationwhenitwaspassed,andthepublicwas
basicallyliedtoaboutitslikelydemographic
implications.MostTrumpsupportersarevery
angryaboutthat.
Moreover,whitesarebombardedbyincessantanti
whitepropagandafromthemainstreammedia,the
educationalestablishment,andofcoursefromweb
siteslikeSalon.AndwhetherAndrewknowsitor
not,whenheaccuseswhiteTrumpsupportersof
harboringanunconsciousdeathwish,heis
wagingasubtlyevilformofpsychologicalwarfare
againstthem.Hissubtextis,Hey,stupidworking
classwhites.Iknowyou*think*youknowwhy
youresupportingTrump.ButI,AndrewOHeir,
knowyoubetterthanyouknowyourselves.You
aresufferingfromfalseconsciousness;andIsee
thehiddentruthaboutyou.Youaresufferingfrom
94
anunconsciousdeathwish.Yoursupportfor
Trumpisclearlypathological!
Thestraightforwardtruthisthatwhitesupportfor
Trumpistheoppositeofadeathwish:itisa
desperatelifewish.Thatis,manywhitesareina
stateofdespairbecausetheyfeelnoorganic
connectiontoanincreasinglymulticulturalsociety
thatwasforcedonthemagainsttheirwill.White
despairisaboveallan*ethnocultural*despair;
theyfeeltheyarelosingtheirhomeland.
Trumpseemstothemtobetheironlyhopeof
arresting,andpossiblyreversing,thecurrent
demographictrendofwhiteminoritization.Yes,
it'sadangerousvote.Butwhatalternativedothey
have?
Asimilardespairwouldafflict*any*historical
majoritypopulationanywhereintheworld,wereit
confrontedwithbecomingaminorityagainstits
will.And,giventheopportunity,asimilar
desperateconvulsion,andfinalattempttodo
something,wouldlikelyhappeninothercountries,
too.
95
DoyouthinktheJapanesewouldhandleitwell,
weretheysettobecomeaminorityinJapan?How
abouttheMexicansinMexico?Howaboutthe
SomalisinSomalia?OrtheChineseinChina?
Asitwouldbewithanyotherhistoricalmajority
populationanywhereintheworld,soitiswith
whites.
It'sreallythatsimple.Noextratheorizingrequired.
Emporium
2daysago
@JackBurroughsThetruthisthatwhitesupport
forTrumpistheoppositeofadeathwish:itisa
desperatelifewish.Thatis,manywhitesareina
stateofdespairbecausetheyfeelnoorganic
connectiontoanincreasinglymulticulturalsociety
thatwasforcedonthemagainsttheirwill.White
despairisaboveallan*ethnocultural*despair;
theyfeeltheyarelosingtheirhomeland.Asimilar
despairwouldafflict*any*historicalmajority
96
populationanywhereintheworld,wereit
confrontedwithbecomingaminorityagainstits
will.
Iseethemasreexperiencingearlychildhood
traumas,wheretheyknewtoomuchofpowerless
andfear(Germans,whowereswaddledasinfants
andstarvedbytheircaregivers,wereobsessedwith
aneedforanexpandedmotherlandtheworld
hadbecomepopulatedwiththeirownprojections).
So,Iagree,thereisasortof"lifewish"tothis.
Wellraisedpeople,peoplemostlyabsentthese
sortofterrifyingchildhoodtraumas,won'treact
thiswaytoexternalrealities.Justbecomingpartof
aglobalcommunityistomicroscopeoneown's
previousnationalistic/tribalidentities,andmost
progressiveshavefoundthisabreeze(Isuppose
youcouldargueitwasbecausetheywilledit;but
asI'vearguedelsewhereonthisthread,ostensible
imminentselfdestructioncanbeselfwilledas
well,andbetheoppositeofthreateningifit
welcomesyoubacktotraumasyoufeeltheneedto
restageandrevengeagainst).Becauseforthemit
doesn'trecallanysenseofoncebeingengulfedor
extinguished.
97
So,yes,inasense"lifewish";butultimately
sincetheseendorphinfilled,revengedriven
"savedlives"willoperatemoreaspawnsand
targetourmostprogressive,ourmostactualized,
ourmosttrulylivingmembers,it'llbeaboutsaving
thelivesofdestroyers.
LynnRobb
2daysago
UndoubtedlyO'HehirisdescribingafewTrump
supporters.However,consideringSanders'big
wininWestVirginia,hemightalsobedescribing
Sanders'supporters.Youtakegoodjobsaway
frompeopleandtheninsultthembysayingthey
areprivileged,bigotedthugswhoclingtotheir
Godandguns.And,oh,bytheway,theyare
demographicallygoingthewayofthedodowhich
isaverygoodthing.
Thenyouexpectthosevoterstosmile,bow
towardsWashingtonfivetimesadayandsend
98
theirchildrenouttomarrysomeonewhohates
theircultureanddenigratestheirreligiontohasten
theliberallydesiredCaucasiandemographic
collapse?(Whichisthewaythosehicksinflyover
countryseeit.)Idon'tthinkso.
Inonecalendaryearwehaveseentheneworderof
theliberalworld:merchantsandcountyofficials
forcedtoparticipateingayweddingceremonies,
nunsforcedtoprovidetheiremployeeswith
contraceptionandwomenforcedtoallowmenin
theirpublicbathrooms.Itiseasytounderstand
howthosewithatraditionalbentthinkWashington
hasgonestark,ravingmadeveniftheystillhave
goodjobs.
Workingclasswhitevotersdon'thaveadeath
wish;theyhavealifewish.Theywanttheirsback.
Whatyouareseeingtodayismassivebacklashin
theformofaDonaldTrump.Ifithadn'tbeenhim,
itwouldhavebeensomeonejustlikehim.Any
amateurhistoriancouldhaveseenthiscoming.I
justexpectedittotakealittlelonger.
RobertSF
99
2daysago
@LynnRobbThankyou!Isaidprettymuchthe
samething.IusuallylikeO'Hehir'sarticles,buthe
missedthemarkhere,takingthesideofthe
plutocracythathascreatedthecurrentsituation
overthepast40years.
Emporium
2daysago
@LynnRobbOnetheoryastowhyitdidn'toccur
earlierisbecausethepopulacehasbeengoing
throughaprocessofrestagingahumiliating
existencethattheyonceknewintheirchildhoods.
Bowingtoarrogantoverlords;forcedtodothings
theythemselvesfoundunpleasant;yetalso
humiliatinglydisregarded:thesearethecomplaints
ofstillmanyAmericansoutoftheirunpleasant
childhoods.Insocietythey'veseenitonceagain,
writlarge.
Itcouldhavebeentheirintentiontoseeitthisway
becauseifthe"neworderoftheliberalworld"had
100
simplyempoweredthem,broughtthemintoglobal
glorylikeithastheprofessionalclass,intheir
mindstheywouldhaveexperiencedtheirimmature
caregiverstheirparentsrejectingthemagain
andagainforabandoningthem(theoldfaith)for
frivolousfrolicking.Onefiguresthiswouldhave
leadtopsychicdiscombobulation:shunting
themselvesbackintotheroleofvictimizedchild
lookma!there'sclearlynospoilinggoingonhere!
probablyallowedsomesanity.
Thisisn'ttosaytheprofessionalclasshasn't
requiredsomeothertobearpunishmentarising
fromtheirownguilt,whiletheythemselvesknew
truepersonalgrowth.AsThomasFrankhas
argued,theygotakickoutofaworldthat
informedthemthattheythemselvesweretheonly
oneswhoreallymattered,andtherestweresome
kindofpueriledisregard.Butiftheyweren'tthis
way...iftheyinsistedonsuchthingsasaliving
wage,guaranteedannualincome,andpaid
healthcareforall...iftheyresistedpokingfunat
thoseinflyovercountryandinsteadsawthemas
worthypeople,howevermuchstuntedbycoarser,
cruellerchildhoods,thiswouldn'tmeanajoltasto
101
ourcurrentsituation.
Toservefantasypurposes,eveniftheprofessional
classwereinfactasbenevolentastheycould
possiblybe,givenhowreallyfewofusare
comfortablenotfindingsomeoneouttherewhois
really,trulythebadone,ostensiblyworthyof
beingneglected,whenweourselvesareknowing
unprecedentedongoingprofessionalandpersonal
growthknowingongoinghappinessthey
wouldhaveretrofittedintheimaginationas
gloatinghumiliators,attemptingquiteliterallyto
starvethebreathoutofthem.
Allthehumiliationsthenazishandedouttothe
JewsthosewhothrivedinWeimar'sageof
change,owingtobeingmorewarmlyraisedby
moreemotionallyevolvedparentswerereplays
ofhumiliationstheirownparentsinflictedupon
them.Besuspiciousofanyone,includingFrank,
andincludingAndrewSullivan,andincluding
Brooks,andHedges,whoissuddenlyfocusingso
muchonhowhumiliatedthewhiteworkingclass
hasbeen,presentingtheprofessionalclassas
composedofthosewhosportmostjoyouslywhen
102
theysportaroundotherpeople'spain.
Theextenttowhichtheyactuallyarelikethis
mightjustbehelpful,butnotatallnecessary,for
theanticipatedrevengeuponthem,alreadybaked
intopeople'spsyches.Thesepeopleindulged,and
wishedforaworldthatwouldlimitthepermissible
discriminationupongroupssocietyhaspreviously
seenasguiltysimplyforbeingvulnerable
women,children,minoritiesaninstinctfor
uncowedaccusationagainstthebullyingparent:
forthistheymustbepunished.
jprfrog
2daysago
Underneathallthechestthumping,flagwaving,
andboosterismthatisTrump'sprotofascismlies
nihilism.Atthedeepestlevel,desperatewhite
workingmenvotingagainstthemselveshasno
littleincommonwithWotan'surgeto"enditall"
(Wagner,TheRingoftheNibelungs")which
103
ultimatelydoeshappen:attheclimaxof"The
TwilightoftheGods"Valhallacomescrashing
downcarryingthegodstodestructionasthe
floodingRhinecleansestheearthfor,presumably,
cleanrestart.Thevisionwasrealizedattheendof
1945whenthelastremnantsoftheThirdReich
wentupinsmokeandflamewiththeSoviets
overrunningBerlin.
Isthisasstretchtoofar?Icertainlyhopeso,but
thereisenoughexpresseddesireto"shakethings
up"nomatterwhatshakesouttomakemefear
otherwise.Amajorcomponentofthatfearisthe
obviousimperviousnesstologicorfactsbythe
Trumpacolytesdemonstratedeverydayin
commentcolumnsatplaceslikeWaPoor
AOLnews.(Thelatterisreallyashocker,
resemblingStormfrontattimes.)Evenfromthe
Left,thereisoftenadesiretoseeTrumpwin
(ratherthanHillary)justforthepleasureofmaking
the"establishment"orthe"elites"miserable.That
everyonewillbemademiserableshouldthat
happendoesnotseemtomatterormaybea
secretdesire.Thereseemstobesomefantasy
abroadaboutwhathappenswhenanoldersocial
104
orderbreaksdown,thatsomehowvirtueandhonor
anddecency(even"justice",whateverthatmight
meanatagiventime)arisefromthechaosthat
ensueswhenmeansofcommerce,income,even
thedistributionoffoodbecomeuncertain.
Allthismightjustbemerecoveringfromanasty
boutofflu(unabletoeat,lost10poundsin6days,
stillveryweak).ButIhavemoretimethanusual
forsamplingtheintertubes,andtheresultsarenot
uplifting.
Posted by Patrick McEvoy-Halston at 4:28 AM No comments: Links to this
post https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?
blogID=8501313560459278629&postID=515972185863687173
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Recommend this on Google
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
105
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
106
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
Recommend this on Google
Recommend this on Google
Labels: captain america, captain america: civil war, civil war, film,
movieShare to Facebook
Sunday, May 1, 2016
107
insistingHarrygobackto.
Read more
Posted by Patrick McEvoy-Halston at 9:01 AM No comments: Links to this
post https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?
blogID=8501313560459278629&postID=2239590298538892528
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Share to Pinterest
Recommend this on Google
Recommend this on Google
Labels: andrew o'hehir, salon.com
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Recent posts on Facebook
May 2
We're going to see a lot of this sort of critique in the near future.
One thing I would like to point out is that there is a great deal of energy put into attacking those
who sneer at the working class -- every progressive you know, is suddenly set up as the most
callous person ever. Another thing is that Plato's sense of late-stage democracy is not really
established as an illusion here. He -- Andrew Sullivan, that is -- basically agrees that something
awful is necessarily unleashed as freedoms suddenly abound. For Plato it is societal inversion, as
everyone forgets their "proper" role, deference is lost, and everybody does what they want; for
Andrew it is more than people lose roles that actually matter, that aren't intrinsically humiliating,
as well as that narcissism and emotion gets unleashed -- the passions -- and order and good
reason is lost.
Just for reference. I have no sense of our times as late-stage anything. Basically what we have
are increasing numbers of people who see society as going amok because it reflects their own
inner mental state, rather than what is actually going on around them (well, they are losing
external "pillars" that kept their immature psyches in check). That world out there that is
becoming more egalitarian and less bigoted, and that is now shorning itself of a need for
somebody to suffer while they prosper, and so even America is now talking about a national
108
health care system, including dental, (for real, it's on the ballot in Colorado) as well as living
wages, is doing just fine, thank you, and is not in any state of necessary absolute complete
collapse because, ostensibly, unprecedented narcissism has gone along with it. The unleashed
emotion Andrew frets about, is kinda awesome on many of the sites I visit -- it's people actually
usefully testing one another, rather than being boringly restrained to show how blue-blood
superior they are. Emotion can be a big part of what is plus about our world, as we see in the
passionate student movements at places like Columbia, that have retrograde professors quaking
like they did in the 60s, even as it is sadly true that increasing numbers of the elite are training
their children to be dispassionate, as a further marker that they're a class apart from the Troll
mob. It can be one of the things we flag as sign of society being reborn and renewed, not gone
late-term and out of control.
And it must be said, the bad part, the huge bad part (read: populism that is about borders and
eviscerating foreigners, or about executing one out of three on Wall Street, not sane loud
objections to how we've structured society), is not the outcome of people being humiliated and
discarded in the now, nor because of the internet and the ability of a mass rage to form instantly
and hugely sized, but more, actually, owing to humiliations they suffered in their childhood -the very stuff, that is, that made it so that this political world that Andrew rightly argues the mass
has ALWAYS had a hold of, was driven to become one where the mass could pay penance for
past indulgences by enduring endless pains and grotesque humiliations, so that at some point
they could insist without guilt for financial stability again -- even excess -- as well as the
opportunity to enjoy the sport of eviscerating the better-than-thou, elite, professional-class,
coastal progressives, that were if anything lured into not sparing their admittedly infuriating (and
self-shortchanging) sense of superiority. The rage has increased, people are going mental,
because these were people (again, not the like of students protesting against increasing student
loans) who as kids were abandoned and terrorized by their parents when they tried to selfactualize, and they to some extent have been forced to participate in a world that will not stop its
efforts to end prejudice and entitle its populace -- you get an A just for participating! Look at all
these spoiled shits!
Progressives, watch your backs -- the less emotionally evolved of your own are craving the
dispatch of you as much as said working class, ostensibly being humiliated by not working
craftsman jobs but rather effeminate retail.
America Has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny
Thats whats scariest about Donald Trump.
NYMAG.COM|BY ANDREW SULLIVAN
May 5
Jesus. I hope I don't have do a walk of shame on way to regular:
Captain America: Civil War
IN 3D:
Today (May 5) 7:50, 8:20, night: 11:20, night: 11:45
Fri (May 6) 11:20am, 1:05, 2:40, 4:35, 6:10, 8:10, 9:45,
109
Sat (May 7) 11:20am, 11:50am, 2:45, 3:15, 6:30, 7:00, 10:00,
Sun (May 8) 1:10, 2:40, 4:35, 6:10, 8:10, 9:40
Mon (May 9) 1:10, 2:40, 4:40, 6:10, 8:10, 9:45
Tue (May 10) 1:10, 2:40, 4:35, 6:10, 8:05, 9:45
also in IMAX 3D:
Today (May 5) 7:00, 10:30
Fri (May 6) 12:10, 3:30, 6:50, 10:10
Sat (May 7) 1:10, 4:30, 7:50, night: 11:10
Sun (May 8) 12:10, 3:30, 6:50, 10:10
Mon (May 9) 12:10, 3:30, 6:50, 10:10
Tue (May 10) 12:10, 3:30, 6:50, 10:10
also in UltraAVX & in 3D (with optional CC + DVS):
Today (May 5) 7:30, night: 11:00
Fri (May 6) 12:40, 4:00, 7:20, 10:40
Sat (May 7) 10:20am, 1:40, 5:00, 8:20, night: 11:40
Sun (May 8) 12:40, 4:00, 7:20, 10:40
Mon (May 9) 12:40, 4:00, 7:20, 10:40
Tue (May 10) 12:40, 4:00, 7:20, 10:40
also in UltraAVX & in 3D with optional D-Box (with optional CC + DVS):
Today (May 5) 7:30, night: 11:00
Fri (May 6) 12:40, 4:00, 7:20, 10:40
Sat (May 7) 10:20am, 1:40, 5:00, 8:20, night: 11:40
Sun (May 8) 12:40, 4:00, 7:20, 10:40
Mon (May 9) 12:40, 4:00, 7:20, 10:40
Tue (May 10) 12:40, 4:00, 7:20, 10:40
also in regular format (regular cost, but walk of shame required):
Today (May 5) not playing
Fri (May 6): 1:35, 2:05, 5:05, 5:40, 8:45, 9:15
Sat (May 7) 10:50am, 12:40, 2:10, 5:00, 6:00, 8:50, 9:30
Sun (May 8) 1:40, 2:10, 5:05, 5:45, 8:45, 9:15
Mon (May 9) 1:40, 2:10, 5:10, 5:45, 8:45, 9:15
Tue (May 10) 1:40, 2:10, 5:10, 5:45, 8:45, 9:15
Posted by Patrick McEvoy-Halston at 4:22 AM No comments: Links to this post
https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?
blogID=8501313560459278629&postID=5056057982826741523
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/3XJJPyXC3Cc/UzELBA_n7RI/AAAAAAAAAVg/nLzV1PinH4I/s1600/rs_1024x
110
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 ...
Share to Twitter
Recommend this on Google
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
RecommendthisonGoogle
111
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
intriguing similarities. Both Divergent and The Hunger
Games are fundamentally works of propaganda disguised as
fantasy or science fiction. Theyre not propaganda on behalf
of the left or the right, exactly, or at least not the way we
generally use those words in America. They are propaganda
for the ethos of individualism, the central ideology of
consumer capitalism, which also undergirds both major
political parties and almost all American public discourse. Its
an ideology that transcends notions of left and right and
permeates the entire atmosphere with the seeming naturalness
of oxygen in the air. But at least if we acknowledge that it is
an ideology, we can begin to understand that it limits political
action and political debate, and restricts the heated warfare
between Democrats and Republicans to a narrow stretch of
policy terrain.
To begin with, if we accept the maxim that all fictional works
about the imagined future are really about the present, what do
these works have to say? They contain no intelligible level of
social critique or social satire, as 1984 or The Matrix do,
112
113
114
115
116
*/ 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
Iron Man 3
117
Nebraska
The Wolverine
118
The Counselor
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
119
Pacific Rim
12 Years a Slave
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit Movie CLIP - I'm Not Crazy (2014) - Keira
Knightley Movie HD
120
*****
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
121
"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.
122
123
"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
phenomenon in every delivery," not just in more severe
cases. The effects on the fetus of this extreme hypoxia are
dramatic: normal fetal breathing stops, fetal heart
rate accelerates, then decelerates, and the fetus thrashes
about frantically in a life-and death struggle to liberate
itself from its terrifying asphyxiation.
It is one of the most basic principles of psychoanalysis that
massive quantities of stimulation, particularly intensely
painful experiences, result in a severe "trauma" for the
individual, particularly when the ego is too immature to
prevent itself from being overwhelmed by the affects. That
fetal distress is traumatic can hardly be doubted, as the
fetus has as yet none of the psychological defense
mechanisms to handle massive anxiety and rage. Therefore,
as psychoanalysts long ago found true of all
traumatizations-from early enema-giving to war-time
shocks or concentration camp experiences-the psyche then
124
125
126
127
128
"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,
and they have reduced serotonin levels (calming ability)
and increased corticosterone production (stress hormone).
All these factors make them have weak selves,
reduced empathy, less control over impulsive violence and
far more fears than girls.
The central psychobiological question, then, is this: Are
boys given more love and attention than girls by their
caretakers in order to help them offset their greater needs?
The answer, of course, is just the opposite: boys are given
less care and support, from everyone in the family and in
society, and they are abused far more than girls, so by the
time they are three years of age they become twice as
violent as girls. Boys greater violence by this time,
including their propensity to form dominance gangs and to
endlessly play war, are the results of their greater
abuse and distancing by adults and being subject to
129
130
131
132
Texts
"Foundations of Psychohistory"
"Emotional Life of Nations"
"The Origins of War in Child Abuse"
Posted by Patrick McEvoy-Halston at 9:18 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
RecommendthisonGoogle
Labels: 12 Years a Slave, DeMause, filth, gravity, her, inside llewyn davis, iron man 3, lloyd
demause
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
133
134
135
136
137
Share to Pinterest
RecommendthisonGoogle
Labels: into darkness, jack ryan: shadow recruit, star trek: into darkness, the hobbit
Monday, January 20, 2014
138
139
140
with the nation, the assassin, the Secret Service and the
president all in agreement, the assassination could be
successfully carried out.
vs.
Lloyd DeMause on Kennedy assassination, 2011
Eventually Nikita Khrushchev wanted the Soviet Union to
be admired rather than feared and hoped for a thaw in the
Cold War, removing Soviet troops from
Austria.94 Nevertheless, despite the ability of the U.S. to
destroy all human life on earth with its nuclear missiles,
John F. Kennedy got elected to the Presidency on a
mythical missile gap claim, and then gave the go-ahead
to the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba over the objections of
his military.95 Then, saying he had to make us appear
tough,96 he began what was termed Operation Mongoose
that included inciting insurrection and sabotage in
Cuba.97 One of the first plans the military suggested to him
was Operation Northwoods, calling for innocent people to
be shot on American streets and people framed for the
bombings, all blamed on Castro.98 The CIA warned
Kennedy that attempts to remove Castro might cause the
Soviets to establish a medium-range missile base in
Cuba.99 Krushchev responded by putting Soviet missiles
into Cuba.100
The origin of Kennedys need to prove his masculinity was
his early child abuse. His mother had battered him as a
141
child with coat hangers and belts, his father smashed his
childrens heads against walls, so that his resulting fears of
impotence made him fill the White House during evenings
with sexual partners to demonstrate how hyper-masculine
he was.101 After the U.S. discovered that Soviet missiles had
been placed in Cuba, Kennedy deemed this a threat to his
hyper-masculine hawkish pose, despite the opinion of his
Secretary of Defense, who saw no major threat to U.S.
security from the missiles102 since Soviet missiles were
already in the area on their submarines. The Cuban missiles
were just the excuse for Kennedy to demonstrate his
manhood. As Wofford puts it: The real stake was
prestigeIn the Kennedy lexicon of manliness, not being
chicken was a primary value.103 Kennedy admitted there
may be 200 million Americans dead if he precipitated a
nuclear war,104 but nevertheless when it looked like the
Soviets might not agree to keep secret his promise to
remove the U.S. Turkish missiles which might make him
lose face,105 Kennedy sent American planes carrying
1,300 nuclear bombs into the air on Sunday with orders to
begin bombing Russia the next day if Khrushchev didnt
immediately say he would keep the secret.106 Few
Americans opposed Kennedys actions, even though they
said they would likely lead to a nuclear war.107 Only
Khrushchevs agreeing to remove his missiles without
making Kennedy seem chicken avoided a nuclear
WWIII.
[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>1125</o:Words> <o:Characters>6416</o:Characters>
142
<o:Company>Home</o:Company> <o:Lines>53</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>12</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>7879</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 EndFragment
143
144
145
146
147
Theodore's sexual fantasy is of pregnant women--sex as reunion with the mother--and why the company Amy works
at has designed a game where you get to be the self-focused
mother rather than hapless kids, and why Theodore blurts
out "why do you hate me?" while voicing a letter to a
grandmother, and why Amy is making a film where she just
watches and watches and watches her sleeping mother,
who's immobilized from overwhelming or leaving her. But
because they're relenting, being the children moms had full
ownership over, they know at least they're worthy--if their
moms were ever to come back to them they'd come back to
them as they are now; if they were ever to fully dote on
them, they'd only want to dote on them as they are now.
Wholly owned pets brilliantly self-prepared to be cooed
over.
Mom's back to being their best friend, and this means
difficulties for anyone out there who's feedback might spur
their children onto independence. A number of feminists
are having difficulties with how women are portrayed in
this film, arguing that they reinforce negative stereotypes.
How they are portrayed is as the scary outside world
children need to retreat back to their mothers after
encountering. They're overwhelmingly aggressive and
needy, ready to take advantage of your innocent interest in
them to unduly gorge themselves--your participating in a
mutual late-night conversation transformed by her into a
traumatizing situation where you're being pushed into
choking her with a dead cat; your innocently bringing up
how you're dating someone transformed by her into a
scolding lecture of how pathetic you are that you're afraid
148
149
150
Labels: beowulf, black swan, charlotte's web, her, lloyd demause, Richard Brody, sady doyle,
spike jonze, stephanie zacharek
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
Graham Clark
I hate that answer; it's designed to make them seem
remote from us
Or it's just the honest truth.
168
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,
and me, Emporium, just did my limited bit.
Also, I enjoy their movies. They're different from me,
can show me things about people that'd learn and excite
me a lot; but they're not all that remote from me, good
sir.
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:
169
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.
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.
170
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
younger, we'd be warranted to mob at and burn them
did you catch that?
***
rdnaso
@Emporium Nothing ruins the fun of watching a
movie more than working on it. At the end, just like they
say, everyone's just trying to get it out the door on time
and all too aware of everything that could have been
done differently and better. I doubt that novelists spend
much time reading their own novels either: too busy
working on the next one. Mailer claimed to not read at
171
all: "I'm more a writer than a reader." Poets though they read their own stuff compulsively...
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
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
172
Jordanandhisfriendsgrewuplowermiddleclass,atbest,
intheinnersuburbsofQueensandLongIsland.Theyhad
beentostatecollege,communitycollegeornocollegeat
all;inclassterms,theyrepresentedaninsurrectionagainst
theIvyeducated,thirdandfourthgenerationwealththat
dominatedthefinancialindustries.Itsnotterribly
surprising,then,thattheywerereactionaryinotherways,
strivingtooutdotheestablishedWallStreetfirmsin
institutionalsexismandfratboystylebadbehavior,
whetherthatmeantspendinghundredsofthousandsevery
monthonprostitutesandstrippers,holdingdwarftossing
tournamentsorconsumingbothprescriptiondrugsand
illegalstreetdrugsbythetruckload.(Jordanandhispal
DonnieAzoff,Hillscharacter,engageinanextended
searchfortrovesofgenuineQuaaludesthatyieldsa
numberofhilariousand/orhorrifyingdevelopments.)
SoTheWolfofWallStreetismuchfunnierthanmost
previousScorsesefilms,andalsoawholelotnastier;I
cantimaginewhatthematerialreportedlycuttoachieve
anRratingwaslike,giventhatthereareseveralscenesof
JordanslatenightescapadesthatIhesitatetodescribein
print.(Well,theresoneinwhichDiCaprioappearsto
havealitcandleuphisbutt.)Somecriticshavealready
accusedthemovieofbeingundisciplinedandoverlylong,
andtheresoneentireepisodeinvolvingayachting
disasterthatIdprobablyhaveleftonthecuttingroom
floor.ButIratherthinkScorseseandThelma
Schoonmaker,hislongtimeeditor,havethecredentialsto
doastheyplease,andtheoutrageousexcessofWolfof
WallStreetismorecarefullycalibratedthanitatfirst
173
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.
Atonepointinthe90s,Strattonemployedmorethan
1,000brokersandhandlednumerousIPOsriddledwith
insidertrading,includingafamousoneforshoedesigner
SteveMadden.ScorseseandWintermakeabsolutelyclear
thatthisisntastoryaboutoneunprincipledbrokerand
hisrenegadefirm;thelessonsofJordanBelfortscareer
areallspelledoutinDiCapriostremendousearlyscene
withMcConaughey:WedontmakeanythinginAmerica
anymore,anditdoesntmatterwhethertheclientsgetrich
orgobroke.Werecapitalizingonthelazinessandgreed
ofothers;theirdesiretogetrichquickwillmakeusrich
instead.
DiCapriosperformanceisfeverishbutcontrolled,
capturingthemaniaofaguywhoshopelesslyaddictedto
174
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
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
175
withinyourgrasp,hypotheticallyspeaking,andifyoure
pooranyway,itsclearlyyourowndamnfault.(The
WolfofWallStreet:inequalityandtheGatsbymyth,
AndrewOhehir,Salon.com)
susansunflower
TowardstheendofLuhrman'sGatsby,therewasabrief
referencethatmademerealizethatLuhrmansawGatsbyas
theheroofthestory,whichIconfesscameasashock.I
hadalwaysviewedGatsbymuchliketheWizardofOz,a
deeppocketedmagicianwhosefeetofclayandunmagical
realitywouldinevitablybediscovered.
Still,asidefromwonderingexactlyWHATtheywere
teaching"youngpeopletoday,"IrealizedthatIhadseena
verydifferentmoviebasedonaverydifferentstoryfrom
theoneLuhrmanhadmade.Iwasn'twillingtorewatchto
reappraise,butIdidwonderiftheratherwidelydivergent
reviewsreflectedacertaingenerationaland/orworldview
gap.
Havingacoupleof12steppersinthefamily12steppers
whotendedtoregailanyfamilygatheringwiththenear
deathexperiencesinthebadolddayswhentheywere
usingIanticipaterathersimilar"gap"inappreciationfor
thisfilm.Thosewholivedthroughtheexcessestheir
176
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.
Amity
@susansunflower
"doesnotactuallymakethismoviesomehowmorally
neutral."
Wait,Idon'tunderstand.Youwantmoralneutrality?
susansunflower
177
@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.
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,
178
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
sourceoftheirallure."
susansunflower
@Emporium@susansunflower
ThecontrastbetweenBrodyandDenbycouldnotbe
greater
Brody:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2013/12
/thewildbrilliantwolfofwallstreet.html
179
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
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:
180
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
sawthemovie"Jarhead"withJakeGyllenhaal,(whichI
thoughtwasactuallyaprettygooddepictionofthehurryup
andwaitaspectoflifeinthemilitary)butthesceneright
beforealltheyoungMarinerecruitsweregettingreadyto
shipouttoIraq,hasthemsittingintheCampPendleton
movietheaterwatchingandcheeringcrazilythefamous
helicopterattacksceneinApocalypseNow.......tomake
yourpoint.
Emporium
@susansunflower
181
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
"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
182
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.
[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>2022</o:Words> <o:Characters>11527</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Home</o:Company> <o:Lines>96</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>23</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>14155</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>
183
<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 EndFragment
Emporium/PatrickMcEvoyHalston
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>
184
<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
185
186
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
187
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
examples of that. Isn't there some quote about the familiar
becoming detestable, or something like that? When you
see 40 romantic comedies in one year (most bad), you've
got to get burned out on them. Or so I've thought.
Of course, when one goes to so few films in a particular
year, one is pre-disposed to want to like them. And then if
you don't, it's even more disappointing. Such was my
reaction to "Elysium", which was one of the few films I
made an effort to see this year, and which was basically,
"Meh". Which pissed me off mightily; "I spend all this
time, effort, and money, and all I get is 'Meh'? I'm going to
blog about this until my fingers fall off!" Etc.
188
Emporium
@Douglas Moran @Andrew O'Hehir This was like
something out of a Jane Austen novel.
189
190
Bull-type the royalty can rely on, means he ranges his own
grounds with that much more righteous pomposity.
Here it means being an agent in the comment sections, who
may not be an O'hehir or a Taylor, but owing to their
concern to single him out in a friendly, acknowledging
fashion, he's a warden to everyone else.
For this empowerment, this flattering divine touch, of
course he's still reading his reviews, however much he's
thereafter openly begrudged. Mr Collins to Lady Catherine
de Bourgh, nothing ever will sink the truth benighted in this
grand moment of grace!
Douglas Moran
@Emporium @Douglas Moran @Andrew O'Hehir So if
I parse this correctly (which is hard, honestly, given the
length of your analogy), I only read O'Hehir's reviews
because he occasionally answers me with courtesy and
good humor in the comments section? Not because, as I
said, I find them informative enough to help me decide
which movies to see, but because he has shown me
Noblesse Oblige? Is that what you're saying?
Emporium
@Douglas Moran @Emporium @Andrew
O'Hehir @Douglas Moran @Emporium @Andrew
191
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
192
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]
193
---------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
plate of steak and potatoes with the same insistent pleasure
Homer Simpson would his one-billionth donut.
That is, it's more honest to say that even if the critic can
only for some reason make it to ten rather than the two
hundred films they prefer or at least usually have to watch,
they just naturally are people who take most pleasure, not
in the repetition of thrills, but in the piquant, the fresh, the
new. They're beyond repetition-compulsion; are more
evolved than middlebrow and it's not owing to practice.
There certainly are critics that are that. True leaders; better
than the average dope, I mean. Still, there's a good number
194
195
196
197
he'd be more fully fused into his mother, and the vulnerable
child self that is intolerable to be reminded of, that much
more outside. Constant fusion into a sadistic alter, constant
victimizing of people representing his "guilty" child-self,
would be his life ... just as it is for the perenially sadistic
Fassbender.
Fassbender's slaveowner had a mother who did to him what
he does to his slaves? Yes, this is absolutely right. Every
slaveholder had one such mother, which is why, exactly,
slavery became institutionalized. The slaver shown in the
film who makes the slave stand for hours in a painful
position while he laxy-dazies ... yep, this is something that
slaveholder was afflicted with in his own childhood (I
knew something of this myself, with my mom lying on her
bed, reading fantasy books, eating cookies into a belly
contented that it could hold down four or five bagfuls, and
luxuriating, while I stood uncomfortably attending to her
like a eunech at attention before a Sultan queen).
Fassbender making even his prize slave, the one
unbelievably gifted at speed-gathering cotton, exist in so
much filth she wretches at her own smell ... yep, this is
what Fassbender himself endured by his mother during his
own childhood. Collectively, all the slaveholders making
their slaves into stinking, shit-stained, confined wretches,
recalls for me what the Germans did to Jews, Gypsies, and
"unsocials," when they re-inflicted their own horrible
childhood experiences onto them in the 30s and 40s. To
wit: upon a German's "birth, 'the wretched new-born little
thing was wound up in ells of bandages, from the feet right,
and tight, up to the neck; as if it were intended to be
198
199
200
201
"Childhood Origins").
12 Years a Slave does worse than Carrie did to nudge us
closer to understanding how someone could become a
thorough sadist, but, like that film, it does at least show
some truth: here, that slavers are less respectful and loving
people--not, that is, just people under some spell of a
collusion of adult preaching inflicted on them when they
were young; victims of ideology, that is. Fassbender and his
wife are colossal assholes, full of hate, full of desiring other
people--their slaves--to be subjugated for the wretched
crimes they committed. Benedict Cumberland, the nicest of
all possible slavers, knows at very near, at very, very, very
near a conscious level, that the clearly educated slave he's
purchased had to have once been free, to be someone he
himself would recognize as free if he met him while
touring the north, but won't let him go. The capacity of this
man to love, which is some, pales in comparison to the
attorney who arrives to free Northup, or more notably, Brad
Pitt, who movingly risks his own life to do so. But still, the
link to parenting isn't there, and we might just as well
assume that the institution itself poisoned them, stunted
them, than ever consider that each one of them might have
had a mother as terrifying as Fassbender's wife. If the film
had done that, shown that mother force her children to
know filth and whippings and abandonment for being
deemed willfully disobedient brats that needed to be
broken--even if as expected they were still groomed into
betters--what a wonderful and useful connection would
have been made: that is how a child could grow into an
adult who would find such righteousness in getting
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
Labels: 12 Years a Slave, james wolcott, lloyd demause, morris dickstein, paul krugman, thor the
dark world
Sunday, November 3, 2013
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
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
battle against the bug aliens. So what does he in fact do?
He leaves all his other commanders' forces to be sacrificed,
and therefore left with nothing to individually command.
How nice it would have been to see the focus pulled off
him, as he ostensibly wishes, and actually witness some of
the other commanders make decisions. But we don't get
that, and instead the sense that all we need is one great
leader, and everyone else might as well being prompt,
order-applying drones. A good pilot or good gunner might
get some special accolades--nice flying/gunning, ace!
especially you, cutie!--but not for any property of
leadership. Maybe one of the reasons he has so many
sympathy for the Queen alien, is that he's effectively
216
217
Posted by Patrick McEvoy-Halston at 9:15 PM No comments: Links to this post
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
RecommendthisonGoogle
218
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
domination, for instanceto have everyone in some way
under wraps. Little lollypop Google icameras everywhere,
ensuring no one does anything that might be felt by our
Earth hoard as a snubbing. Terrorism isnt the issue. Nor
really crime or racist behavior. Its that someone if they
could would unfriend you, if only if it could be done
anonymously.
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>
219
<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-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
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
220
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
keep herself together--one doohickey into a slot, is about
what she could manage--and that with relief. Which would
contain her.
Part of me followed, immersed myself in Bullocks
character, with gratitude all the way appreciating her being
at the forefront of heart-palpitating situations we can relate
to. Part of me just balked at the whole thing, fixed on some
corner of the screen, and kept my own composure whatever
was happening. It's an hour and a half of struggle-something perhaps only soldiers and Formula One drivers
and James Cameron, never cease to want to re-experience.
The rest of us remain wary that if we too often brace
221
Labels: gravity
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
222
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
223
224
225
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,
push on despite being guaranteed that if her mom could no
longer physically desist her by scaring her to holy hell with
knives or carting her off into isolation closets, she'd
probably slit her own wrists before her, to show her the
wreckage her "selfish" pursuits were inflicting physically,
emotionally, psychically on her. She's basically Rose in
Titanic, who ultimately told her own mother to shove the
hell off, even though this was going to bottom her mother-high in lineage, but nada in riches--out, but somehow with
a much, much, much more daunting mother, and without
someone--apologies to the good gym teacher--near Angelsent to temper her the strength to do it. Intent on going to
the prom, she telekinesises her mother into a closet, fuses
226
227
228
229
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
loved--something she herself may have had even less
experience of.
I'll end this review by mentioning how much I appreciated
the popular high school couple in this movie. It was
moving for me to see the girl, especially, trying to figure
out how to make amends to Carrie, not just to expunge
guilt, but because she wanted her mended and happy. It was
a miracle to see her boyfriend manage his prom date with
Carrie, without either making her feel she was being set-up
or not truly of interest to him. He wanted to convey how he
felt, that she was interesting, and that he was pleased to be
her date, could very readily have a good time with her, and
230
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
231
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
amenable to her. Julianne Moore is too old to be within the
echelon of women Jon and his friends would even rate, and
is more like someone sage--an Obi Wan ... or a croon,
even--needling him insights to loosen and unroot him from
an allegiance to a sun-radiant sashaying shrine of a woman
he can do little but obey and forbear. She also gets him to
rethink his attachment to porn, by showing him that a great,
nurturant, reciprocal relationship with a woman--with her,
in this case--can give him the high he thought only
obtainable through it.
In effect, what she's doing is akin to unrooting someone to
their obsession with, say, texting, to spend more time
232
233
If this film was true life, Jon would forgo her the first
moment possible--making his switching off at some
moment where she had curled into herself once again in
pain. He'd bookend her experience with her with it lending
him the authority to talk back to Barbara and acknowledge
the rightness of his feeling neglected by her (guys are going
to like this moment in the film), and perhaps with his
gaming how he schedules and goes about his life a bit--a bit
of social mixing it up with basketball might be better than
just the familiar routine of weights--but otherwise return to
what he had, with maybe also a bit more sass at the church,
and so not just with his dad. He'd forgo the commanding
10s this time, spot out the less-fielty-owed 8s and 9s, and
every week, catch one. He'd take them to bed, which
though it punished him with missionary sex which hardly
flatters the form of his mate, reducing them to compressed,
blockened slabs of somnambulist flesh, though it means
felatio which terminates just when its getting good, or
which from the start--when he's eating her out--is pretty
rank and foul, is still something which might lend life into
his follow-up routine of amended sex through porn. He's a
hunter who can claim more from his follow-up routine of
administrating, handling, and plying apart his prize stalked
prey, than can the big game hunter readying things with a
blooded carcase for a later feast.
In short, a device clearly used to make guys who watch
porn not feel like they're losers--he's a guy who's got an
active sex life, and with total scores--probably has most of
them thinking that though they like the involvement of the
Obi Wan Kenobi female friend, they'd just-fine take what
234
Jon has from the start. And you can understand why
apparently some porn companies cooperated with the film.
Here presented is a fully honest account of why guys go to
porn, and apparently it's as innocent-dewed as Playboy
magazine in the 1950s. Guys go to it for better tits, better
ass, and a feeling of empowerment and satisfaction they
don't always so much feel in sex, which can turn servile.
Not ideal, maybe, but understandable, and hardly character
defining--a bit hen-afflicted man still turning his head at the
gorgeous young blonde strayed into his path ...
quintessential manhood. But go to a porn site, and see if
this is what you see. Do you perhaps instead see something
a little bit more disturbing than just chasing down the
perfect ass? Or even, something more salutary than just
cold sex, stripped of any genuine sensuality that might have
been more evident in porn during the free-love 1970s?
Maybe what you get is a lot that is damning men, making
them beyond recoverable--a heightened longing for
revenge, not compensation. Rape fantasies. And maybe also
a bit that is genuinely buttressing them, giving them some
company that is actually teaching them a thing or two about
mutuality, but delimited by being entirely under their
control.
Prisoners
The movie begins with Hugh Jackman's character, Keller
Dover, attending his son's successful kill of a deer. Just into
the film, we're not quite sure what to prioritize, how much
yet to ascribe any particular that strays into our sight, so we
give the fact that the movie shows hunting to be about
235
236
237
238
239
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
240
241
242
243
The Butler
The Butler
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
Kick-Ass 2
Kick-Ass 2
When Roger Ebert reviewed the original Kick-Ass, he
wasn't primarily taken aback by any one single incident
Hit Girl's being shot, with the audience having to take a
moment to remind themselves about her bullet-proof
vest, for instancebut by the fact that people behind the
movie were so comfortable exploring a whole terrain of
something which had pretty much taken him off stride
upon first occurrence. He couldn't believe that a movie
primarily involving kids could be so comfortable with
people dying, being butchered, all over the place, coldly,
bloodily, humiliatingly, with this not counting it as
beyond fun and games. "This isn't comic violence," he
writes, "These men, and many others in the film, really
252
253
254
255
refuge, and you can kind of factor them out and see the
worldhowever Depression grey and stilledas your
own grounds now to range over.
Also bad, is the fact that I like the fact that films which I
know to be, maybe not precisely misanthropic, but
endorsing orientations towards the world which are
reroutes away from approaches which'd have one face
one's personal scourges and actually, like, grow, appeal to
me for the fact that they favor reroutes I know I also need
to have championed to appear ideal. They convince me
that I don't stand out too much as a self-realized, selfsatisfied douche, a bitchy demon presiding over our age
would feel the need to sweep down upon and teach a
swift scolding lesson to. She could read deep into my
thoughts, recognize that I know everything that is going
on in an age which inverts what is goodself-realization
for the badself-sacrifice/diminutionknow that I
ultimately want Her gone for inhibiting something as
precious as a human life, and at such an awesome scale,
but still pat me on the head as no threateven give me a
lift, if I needed one, and smile genuinely to mebecause
She knows I'm still broken sufficiently that I'll need her
"fix" like all the rest of them. This means that when
someone like Brody chastises a film like Skyfall for
something that may well be regrettable, and that I should
want to be the kind person who like him had instantly
noticed, I'm actually glad that at the moment it hadn't
occurred to me.
Specifically, when he writes,
ThecolossalchasescenethroughIstanbulatthebeginningof
256
SkyfallrecallstheescapethroughShanghai,earlyinIndiana
JonesandtheTempleofDoom,withpushcartsoverturned,
merchandisescattered,terrifiedbystandersdivingforsafety.
Spielbergoffensivelyturnedordinarypeoplegoingabouttheir
businessintojustsomuchconfettiforhisspectacleexactly
thesortofcavaliercolonialerabravadothatmighthave
repelledafilmmakerwhostartedhiscareerinthelatesixties.
Plusachange:Skyfall,too,scattersIstanbulsresidentsand
theirgoodslikebowlingpins.Fromthestart,SamMendes,the
directorofthelatestinstallmentof007,provesfaithfulto
tradition,yetnotalwaysthebestofthattradition.
I realized him to be like the sober peasants in Monty
Python's Holy Grail, who made clear King Arthur's
requisiting them not just for directions but for
confirmation of his own grandiose status, or like the
whole feel of the Lancelot bit in the film, where Lancelot's
a crazed loon with a sword, hacking away at an innocent
assembly of peacefully gathered people, for a point he'd
actually end up staunching himself in retreat from. But
the point is that I evidently enough relate to the fantasy
of being someone inflated that when you see the like in a
film, you're too much enjoying and partaking in his
paving through swaths of less-mattering people to be
instantly critical or self-reflective of what he'd just done
to the actually probably quite fulsome people around
him.
Same thing applies, especially, with Brody's superb
criticism of Drive, where he argued that "Refn doesnt
seem interested in pain but in its inflictionspecifically,
how blank-faced, soft-spoken people manage to commit
mayhem and, at the moment of violent outburst, stay
257
258
259
260
261
seek them out and torture them out of their eyes and ears
to demonstrate our point that clearly for them, their
owning them no longer much matters.
I don't remember a single particular moment of Kick-Ass
I especially enjoyed; it was more how surprised I was,
how excited I was, to see a film-maker just truck on
through a landscape of horror like it was all just so what?
Yeah, a pre-teen is carving up bodies and having a heap
of funif this sounds like something you've got to work
yourself up for an entire movie to be ready for, you're
dark ages, because this director instructed us to the fact
that a whole bunch of talent is about to take it as nothing
really special. So, if in good times, when artists do this,
make inroads into taboo turf, this means they're
exploring hush-hush topics like racism or adult sexual
relations, then in the badtimes of purgatoryit's going
to mean going the distance with things likely to wound
more evolved predecessors. So if you're looking for
people making inroads, then these days when artists put
butterfly-knives into the hands of children and explore
what they do with them, or not pull away when the
barbarian horde does its pillaging and raping, but instead
lets the cameras role on and even go for grim close-ups,
here perhaps most especially is where you're going to find
it. The reasons they're being explored are surely sordid,
but you couldn't work with this material beforefor
reasons that were never truly convincingso you should
be able to find some way, through watching their
explorations of it, how it might someday be made to work
in a humanist sense.
Kick-Ass 2 doesn't provide that same sense of a taboo
262
263
264
dare.
The key scene in the film, the only one maybe worth rewatching on Youtube, is when the gang of villain elites
marches into the suburbs, each one an arrogant sure
shell of ego for essentially standing behind the power of
their way highest paid, Mother Russia. She's going to get
to do anything she wants, is what you feel, and it may be
the movie's encouraging you to feel this way, to be
reminded that moods can take over people where
trespasses can be effected, and the world thereafter just
can't placidly reset, is what it deserves credit for, and not
really with what it shows done within this protective
cloud of latitude. She launches a lawn-mower into the
face of a police-officer, and gives you the same sense that
the first Kick-Ass at times did with Hit Girl and Big
Daddy, that this just happened: in real life, someone like
her, a real human being, could have come out of the blue,
and done this. They're ridiculously costumed, and theyre
striding into the suburbs as if conquerors of Rome, but
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
265
266
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,
267
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,
however spit upon and dim a one. There's a worse fate
than being a factory worker at a job-place that truly
believes not a one of them is particularly valuable in what
he does, each one to be replaced by another, if need be, as
can any newly purchased tool be schlepped in to replace a
lost one. If you somehow still seem part of a story, can
count yourself part of something, inclusion and purpose
can keep you sane. If you're outside of one, with the
world around you moving with purpose, there's no
socially acceptable narrative for you to count as your own
in which to unconsciously share and funnel your
perplexing life afflictions into, and they just keep popping
up, your insufficiently addressed life afflictions, all the
268
269
She has terrible luck. The one thing that could still get
her once she has recuperated sufficiently from her pasts
great heave of traumas and developed the ability to work
as a receptionist--and so survive regardless if her sister
stopped hosting her--was if something arrived that
looked to instantly take her away from this lifemake it
all seem like some extra-long but still now forever gone
nightmare, into which she was insanely transported but
now from which she has neatly danced her way out. And
with her meeting Peter Saarsgard's Dwight, she goes allin with this perfect way out. When she accidently meets
her sister's former husband on the street, we see what
this way out would have cost her. Caught out, she can in
instant defense show how alive she can be to other
people's motivations, and seem instantly adult. But since
this means having to reckon with things she did
horrible things, like losing a deserving hard-working
mans very realistic opportunity for a more enfranchised
life; like in a moment of venom alerting authorities about
something she was always at some level aware of but
hadnt blown the whistle on until it seemed perfect spite,
which killed her husband, spiraled her son into thinking
a forgotten cave is better than spending one moment
further outside, and undid her whole lifeshe can't help
but take the bait to be as if still ordained by a rigid law of
the universe to recover to be the Blue-Jasmine, perfectprincess again.
At the end she's on the street, dead eyes, and babbling.
Somewhere on the horizon a crew will soon appear to
diagnose her as needing to have her head shocked from
one planet to the next, leaving her in a permanent daze,
270
271
272
Elysium
Elysium
When Matt Damon's Max encounters the kids who
surround him hoping for money, there's a tiny bit of
tension in the moment, like what we've got is a wildlife
encounter between a mature bear and a curious pack of
wolves, which should end with maybe one nip or a loud
roar, or maybe some mutual entertainment, but could
potentially go horribly wrong. But as soon as Max drops
them a bit of money, we understand that in this movie, if
you're of the dispossessed kids, are elderly, or a woman,
you'll understandably do what you can for a bit to eat, but
you're all earnest and good, even if choked down some
for being so always scared. Guys can get rangier, but are
not more interesting for it: unless of course that they'd
get a kick out of an exoskeleton being drilled and bolted
into you is going to make you look even uglier and cause
273
274
275
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
276
277
278
279
280
The Conjuring
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
281
282
283
284
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
285
286
287
Japan to achieve some self-esteem-salvaging, fuck-youfor-that push-backbut now without this being at all an
easy thing to achieve ... Fuck! how did we get ourselves in
this situation? It must have been stupid, stupid, stupid
me! (fists slammed repeatedly against our heads.)
The revenge motive does work in this film, and we cheer
his getting his healing powers back like we would a
recovery of our own after a masterful, humiliating play
on our own openness and gullibility. And were angry
that the film connives yet some other thing that can best
his healing powerthe poison-cauldroned arrows.
Really, we just wanted him to flip all those arrowed to
him, to him, so he could mince them like fan blades; and
for the rest in the film, melt through any foe presented to
him as quickly and easily as through butter.
Those who made the film seem stunningly unaware of it,
but the idea that anyone should buy into pressing
arguments that it is time for them to die, is given pretty
powerful refutation by the setting of the film. In a
flashback, we saw a good part of a Japanese city
destroyed at a time when aggressive nations were taking
their defeat as a sign that their cultural history was over
that it was time for them to die (indeed, during WW2
Germany's last days tens of thousands committed suicide
the largest mass suicide in history). Yet the movie is
mostly set at a time when the city has long past taking
even this in stride. Sometimes the harridon that is
preying on you finally desists, not for your finally
confronting it, ripping its influence away from your
heart, but for its having finally had its fill, and falling off,
satiated. If this is what happened with him and Jean,
288
Pacific Rim
Pacific Rim
The movie Amadeus argued that when a protective,
tolerant environment is nurtured, genius that otherwise
might have been cowed from developing, can gain the
confidence it needs to come to life. Pacific Rim argues the
same. If Earth is up against an alien force that'll crush it
unless it reaches the pinnacle of the one thing that has
been instrumental in blocking itthe drift between two
well-matched individualsthen relationships, deep
bonds, are going to need to be given the allowance
needed to develop and ripen.
If it wants to die, that is, it would replace the one
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
they didn't make it in. The hells are about the same,
actually. Owen Wilson's life as a mattress salesman,
where if he isn't perennially sharp and obedient he'll be
outside in a clown suit in forty degree weather, would
have drawn him for sure into alcoholism and very likely
at some point, suicide. He for sure, never, would go out
on a date, as befouled for being a loser as the plagueridden were in hence-times. But I think you can pretty
much transplant my thoughts on This is the End onto this
film. For my purposes what it still serves is to show how
humiliating it is that the god in This is the End is never
really questioned, for just like the Google one all he really
does to convince others' eager acquiescence and
surrender of self-pride, is show himself the only safehouse available while the world underneath pretty much
everyone, crumbles away. Then he counts on you
dressing him so He's The Great Human Benefactor; and
you do.
It's certainly a trend this summer to have Utopia offered
to people, but it isn't always allowed to stay in a light
favorable to its own preferred self-regard. Oblivion, for
example, ends up showing its own up. Yet even though it
surely wasn't its purpose, Oblivion still suggested how
much we'll hide in the safe abode, regardless of how
much integrity we'd assume for ourselves if we braved
living on the more tenuous outside. I know, for example,
that Tom Cruise's initial digs were certainly something I
am longing for. So too his sense the perimeters of what
each day might expect, and the portioned human
bounty--his adult friendship and love affair with his
wife--that awaited him at the end of each day. How sure
am I that I would be able to addle on over to the outside,
301
302
303
304
305
306
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Recommend this on Google
307
308
feeling sorry for her four years in prison. And indeed her
four-year term might not be enough: we may need eight
to fortify ourselves to her next invasion.
It can indeed be difficult to reveal who she is in this film
to show she does deserve to be taken in almost near
opposite. I am drawn to think of her as a conquistador
who's come upon the Aztecs, or any European who found
themselves on an island of dodo birds, in the way she
shows this whole rich land of Hollywood homes is ripe
for the taking. Like only one hundred conquistadors were
required to claim a whole civilization, like dodos were
almost like walking already-cooked turkeys to their
European discoverers, Rebecca shows that five kids are
sufficient to make it seem as if all Hollywood has been
used as somebody else's boarding house. But the fact that
Hollywood has become a place where cars and homes are
so unprotected that their plundering comes across as
innocence for the first time plucked, should ground the
more mature amongst us to realize Rebecca in a more fair
light. The sense you have is that somehow all of
American's sense of vulnerability and fear and violence
that we know is everywhere has been quarantined away
from these affluent quarters into the world of Middle
America. Mid-America has been left a stronghold
suffering from torments from within and from without,
which explains why when at the finish we see signs of
people who actually populate it (in the courthouse
guards, mostly), there's not an ounce of rosy life in any
grim one of them. (And pity Marc, who when he is shown
in the bus with fellow prisoners, comes across as a last
sad twilight of still-cheery ros before a remorseless term
of sole stone-grey.) Its been going on for enough time,
309
310
311
.
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
Man of Steel
ManofSteel
312
313
314
315
316
317
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Recommend this on Google
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
individualists--is collapsing, and he'll be absconded by
his mother into a townie life. The townie kids hang out in
packs, are ruled by peer expectations, and don't seem
worth a whole bunch. They make great components of
your own feats, if all you do is periodically range amongst
them and thwart or humiliate them, but if they were your
everyday milieu your automatic need for company and
experimentation amongst people your own age, might
mean your own inviting upon yourself a poison which
would cripple what was notable about you. If you sensed
318
that something of the kind was due to hit you, you might
in Ellis's position start imagining suddenly being visited
upon by mythic characters of great strength, that seemed
to have bridged the divide between childhood and
adulthood but wholly retained their fierce nature, heart
and will. And when they talk about life, as Mud does, as if
it is fundamentally ruled by mythos, you'd have the
reassuring sense that your own appreciation of the world
is brewed from the same mix the whole universe is
universally of. You might lose confidence during the day,
and feel powerless and without sympatico friends, but in
the evening glancing at the constellations of the Archer or
the Centaur, you'll feel that wink of appreciation that will
gather some of your strength back to you.
Arguably, the mythic characters I'm referring to in this
film--Mud himself, his "dad"--the retired military sniper,
and Juniper--are shown to in fact be, if not nothing,
certainly lesser of the sort. But not too much, in my
judgment, for they still seem of greater motivation and
purpose than anyone in the film--exempting Ellis's
mother, whose drive to finally live her own life, and even
her wishing for her family to gather for dinner, chimes in
the movie as sort of a death-knell an incantation of
powerful eternal adolescent spirit has to be very quickly
created against. And the danger in their being
represented this way is that it conveys that what you need
to do in life is set your sense of yourself early, abscond
from the social world your peers will get into during
adolescence and early-adulthood, and arc back into some
kind of interaction with the world in adulthood--as if you
alone had diverted from "the college" path in the game
"Life," to rejoin them later in contest of family and other
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
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
encounters that are a bit of magic. Magic, as in first-date,
guard's up but set for maybe great change, is not Gatsby
courting Daisy with tea, but Nick for the first time
refusing his own otherwise agreeable and placating
stance and leaderly simply refusing to let Gatsby leave his
home and thereby lose his great chance with her he's put
so much effort into procuring, while also humiliating and
really hurting Daisy. Nick here instinctively puts aside his
friendly bemusement at Gatsby's unpredictable
328
329
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
we know Fitzgerald's words are lasting three-gens plus,
and are looking immortal. The book is our true green
light, something truer to be engaged in, whatever our
current society's overall bent and mood, if that's actually
territory we're fond to explore just now, however much it
might not be, with all the bon-bons in this film looking
like they might just have been offered a little early, when
we still haven't fixed ourselves to believing you can be
like Gatsby and have fun and possibly be successfully
330
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
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
Oblivion (2013)
Oblivion
How many films exist where there are two worlds a
protagonist will exist inthe first, ostensibly
superior, almost always cleaner, but really corrupt,
and the second, more raw if not also dingier
but really the last remaining refuge of humane
community? Lots and lots, of course, and Oblivion
is another, and belongs with probably the whole
host of those which dont really convince that the
340
341
OriginalArticle:Aplagiarist'slameexcuse:
Addictionmademedoit
THURSDAY,DEC1,201109:32AMPST
Hisproblemisthathewantsyoutobelieveheintentedthe
342
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
projectanddisownyourownsinfulselfintosomeother
defencelesspatsy,toshowhowmuchyounormallydespise
uninhibitedselfindulgencethatsjustcruel;instead,get
sympathetictreatment,fromsomeonewholovesandadmiresyou
someonewhoknowsinotherthings,s/hehasagreatdealto
learnfromyou.
Whenwerenotallinthemoodtoseekoutanddestroysinful
people,wemightadmitthattherewassomethingcapableand
343
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
cancerisonlyguiltfreewaytogiftyourselfwithabucketlistof
goodies.)
Growth,untaintedgoodthings,makesomanyofusfeelanxious,
exposed,punishmentworthy.Whenwestartingfeelingespecially
anxious,weactuallywanttobeinvolvedinsomethingofthelike
ofadepression,sotheresnowayanyonecouldpointusoutand
suggestwerenotactuallymostlycruelly,unfairlyburdened.
344
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
authorbelievesandwhatPaulKrugmanbelieves;he,Paul
Krugman,remember,wantsthegovernment,atleast,tospend,
spend,spend,andletausterityfullysuckit.Itsprobablyoneofthe
reasonssomepeoplethinkhesababyboomerdouche.
Permalink
345
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
muchspoilingourselvesinlife,forfearofreexperiencingthat
worstofallpossiblehumanexperiences(tothechild,parental
abandonmentmeansannihilation,oblivion:thatwhichcannot,
aboveallotherthings,bereexperienced).
After(DepressionandWW2sacrificepermitted)30yearsof
unambiguousgrowth(1950stoendof70s),andtwentyyearsof
manicgrowth,theparentalaltersinmostofusarespeakinghugely
346
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
Fun!Thankyou.
Permalink
OriginalArticle:WhyisHollywoodstill
347
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
problemtreatedimpersonallywithdrugs,coldconsumerculture,
everywhere,agenerationwasneverthelessformedsofullof
goodnessandenergy,onlytheunattunedwouldmistakethemas,
really,essentiallydenied;zombielike.
Permalink
348
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
anddespair,theyregleefullyhateduponasspoiledandpampered
asONLYNOWabouttoknowwhatrealpainis.
Sometimesawholegenerationissetupforsacrifice,sotoabate
theanxietypreviousoneshadabouttheirownlifegains.Thefirst
349
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
terrifiedofabortion?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201112:42PMPST
Gotcha;andIagree.
350
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.
Permalink
351
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
OriginalArticle:Ischildhoodobesityabusive?
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201109:52AMPST
352
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
353
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
WEDNESDAY,NOV30,201107:58AMPST
354
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
goingtoenclavesofboutiqueness,tight,smartintelligencesthat
355
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.
Permalink
356
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?
357
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
358
hope,thepublicwillkeepvotinginthoseproperlygivingthem
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.
359
Permalink
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
360
SUNDAY,NOV27,201109:56AMPST
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
361
elderlyparents
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
362
Ifextendedfamiliesonceagainprovesthetrick,wellhaveto
comeupwithsomethingelsebeforelong:causeatsomepointthe
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
363
voicewelltolerate,itsnowonderhesbeenannointed.What
weneedfromtheBritishnowisanotherJohnCleese:thatguy
couldteachAmericanssomeaboutwhatitistobetakeninto
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
364
slaughter,thewhateverwishesoftheirdesirouselders.
OriginalArticle:ThegeekytriumphofPepper
SprayCop
Thatsfunny.
WEDNESDAY,NOV23,201108:57AMPST
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
365
TheSouthhadhillbilliesandredneckswithguns,theNorthhad
shopkeepersandrespectability.Whoultimatelyprovedmalleable
andcarpetedupon?Historically,whatismostnotableabout
warriorculturesisthattheytendtobeofthekindthatprettymuch
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.
366
Permalink
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
367
OriginalArticle:ThecomingoutstoryInever
thoughtI'dwrite
WEDNESDAY,NOV16,201111:43AMPST
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
368
fullydecadentandretrograde.
Permalink
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.
369
OriginalArticle:ThecomingoutstoryInever
thoughtI'dwrite
WEDNESDAY,NOV16,201107:14AMPST
Youreright,theallAmericankidenjoyssportsbutdoesnthavea
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
370
OriginalArticle:Ontheeveofdestruction
MONDAY,NOV14,201103:15PMPST
Alotofliberalshavedonesomeinnercalculationsanddecided
theyrenotgoingtolosemuchiftheystaymostlystatusquoand
letthenexttwentyyearsbeatotalhorrorformostotherpeople
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,
371
thatscaresawaypeopletakenabackbytoomuchhearth.Ireally
dofindAnthonyscreativityofanearwhollydifferentkindfrom
somanyfantasyauthors,whosinventionalwaysendsupreeking
tomeofcompensense.Thisislesstrueforalmostallwritersinthe
genreduringthe70s,ofcourse,whenyoudidnthavetohaveall
thatmuchinnerfiretohavetheagepropelyouontoquitenew
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
372
Shakespeare?
THURSDAY,OCT27,201103:42PMPDT
Rightnow,youreeitherpartofthe99%,orpartoftheruling
class.TheDepressionlostsightofthemiddleclasses(they
certainlyexisted,buttheydidntfitthetimesdynamicsowere
ignoredinpopularimagination),andsotoowe.Thisiswhythe
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
373
workingclasslife,fromSUVsandlowpriceexurbanboxstoresto
thekindsofcuisinethatupscalefoodiesfrownupon,areyousure
dontjustmeantalkingaccuratelyaboutthem?SUVsare
deplorable.Theboxstores,justasbad.Whattheyeatastrong
signthathumanscanletthemselveslivewiththeirmoreimportant
partoftheirbrainsinactive.Liberalelitesaregoingtogetit
becausetheyareareminderthatwecanaskformoreoutoflife
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
374
seen.Wegettobethelotthatseeswhatisintruthfleshedout
personalities,andratherthanaccomplishmentseeselfindulgence,
blameworthyselfattendanceandotherneglect.
Permalink
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.
375
Unfortunately,ourcurrentlotisformanyofusasignofwhatis
rightaboutitnowtoo:weveenteredatimewhereyouhavetobe
delusionaltoseetheyoungasatalloverindulgedorspoiled.If
theystartgettingthethingstheyaskfor,itllowetousgauging
theyresosufficientlybrokenwhattheywantwontbesooutof
lineofthereducedwayofexperiencingtheworldweexpectoutof
them.Havingyourdebtspaidoffandhavingsomesortofjob,
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
376
OriginalArticle:WhyAmericannovelistsdon't
deservetheNobelPrize
MONDAY,OCT3,201106:53PMPDT
Theymaynotknowasmuchaboutsufferingoritmaybethat
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
377
OriginalArticle:WhyAmericannovelistsdon't
deservetheNobelPrize
Rated!
MONDAY,OCT3,201105:41PMPDT
Permalink
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
378
apart,soImguessingyoureprobablyherespeakingaccurately
onlyaboutourimmediatefuture.Inmyjudgment,theproblem
nowwiththedigitalrevolution,whichwasNOTtruewhenit
began,isthatitisnolongersupportedbyacollectivewilltomake
itgenerallyempowering.Ifwereinthemoodtoseethepreviously
spoiledthoroughlydemoralized,leftonlywithflowersand
bonbonswedfindtheiruseasinstrumentsofhumiliation.Suchis
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.
379
380
381
382
383
384
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
from us, abandoned us intentionally for our unconsciously
presumed to be deliberate abandonment of them, is replicated and
stretched out for a tedious sum of years. And this time the child
does not find way to inevitably grow anyway, but simply to suffer
wounds, sores degradations it intuited it deserved for this most
quintessential and worst of crimes, while the mother is put in plain
view in her absolute worst light, self-absorbed, disconnected, cruel,
thereby allowing the child to demonstrate absolute obeisance to her
will by seeing all but allowing himself to register nothing. Woe to all
those, that is, whod call Her a tyrant! Thereby believe it or not a
worse fate is felt to have been averted.
Most people alive unconsciously want our society to be for awhile of
disconnected winners and afflicted losers. This sounds ridiculous to
you, I know, but how do you account for the fact that Romney has
been mostly identified at this point as an elite, lifelong ensconced in
pampered surrounds, as an uncaring asshole who bullied other kids
and is thoughtless to those our pets defined by their being under
our care, as someone who unabashedly is a friend to corporations and
who is very, very awkwardly trying to fit what is evidently wholesale
their agenda into packaging that sounds at least a bit bottom-up, and
yet very plausibly has a legitimate shot at the presidency? And how do
you account for the fact that since dealing with the cleanup of 9-11
the very last thing weve had to worry about is mass public denial of
the afflictions to public service men and women, debilitated through
their experience in whatever service theyve undertaken the
385
386
387
388
business wholesale after he really gets what his weapons are all about,
how much damage they do to regular people, how much they inflate
petty tyrants. He removes his tie, and sits amongst the people eating
a cheeseburger and corporate-heads panic! But man-of-the-people
Tony Stark prompts the civilians he now champions to in fact behave
in a manner which historically has served as pretext to launch armies
to wipe them out. When he as Iron Man arrives to save the men from
being shot before their distraught sons, daughters and wives, he
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
389
390
391
before as a source of humor specifically, his penis gets shot off, and
we see him fumbling about on the ground trying to find it. Teachers,
we are told, are, like the nurses of What to Expect, part of a now
suspect occupation. They are like lower class occupations of old
where people involved in them were presumed to be always just this
close to going illicit. It is true that the high school teacher involved is
a boorish male, and it is worth considering that he is subject of
remorseless abuse mostly because of his belonging to this category of
disrepute, but another contemporary film, Me and My Boy, does have
you wondering if, no, while not apt to be portrayed as drug dealers,
weve still presumed female teachers might have been forced to go so
off-kilter that boys dreams of teacher sex is something some of them
might be voraciously making happen.
One might assume those of one working class occupation the police
come out of 21 Jump Street okay but this actually needs to be
considered. The one character with smarts is shown to be someone
who, if hed actually been treated with some respect in high school,
would have been off to Berkeley rather than exploring the trades.
This would have meant, like Tony Stark in Iron Man, not just being in
possession of a posh pad, but never needing to dirty himself, not ever
needing to find some kind of compensation within the realm of the
macho which seals the deal as to what kind of social rung he belongs
to. He humiliates his opponent, but as the film shows, his world is
easily one where he and his partner could end up being, and
essentially at random, shot to pieces. Just after their preparing
themselves for just such a fate, the original (that is, the TV show) 21
Jump Street cops surprise us with their appearance and prevent this
from happening; but any pleasure incurring from their visit is quickly
replaced by shock at how quickly they become dispatched by a hail of
bullets star status, we are conclusively being told, is eclipsed by
their being in the role of discardable cops. No magic exists now to
keep members of the working class safe.
392
393
would have a scene where the expectant queen would have before her
a multiple of strewn-about youths, drained into carcasses for her
replenishment. So, too, that the experience of watching Prometheus
could fairly be described as one commenter at the movie-review site
Movieline did as being riddled with a million wounds; and that the
pursuit of origins, rewarding, renewing discovery enlightenment
would be easily outmatched by some wretched-awful beasts insistent
demand that its going to be about biology, about your body as host
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 scar-
394
395
396
397
men at will, so that while one insecure youth is redeemed in this film,
another is sacrificed? did the 80-year-olds sexual advance, ostensbily
about some other thing redeemed, not still remind you of the shower
scene of the Shining? But if Sandler endorses what are in fact true
offenses, unable to recognize them simply as bad because they
happened to also be discredited at a time when society was cruelly
concerned to make young men feel suspect about themselves, their
inherent inclinations, what they did to shore up some sense of
themselves as strong, as in charge, rather than perennially preyed
upon, Im sorry, but Im turning on him hard. It wont be about
abandonment, but about communicating to him that he is now just as
much picking on people himself.
One last thing, did Sandler know by choosing to make his character
the one who drove the 5.0, leaving ostensibly redeemed Vanilla Ice to
the passenger seat, in the context of macho he thereby shamed him.
One wonders if part of his purpose in redeeming people everyone else
seems bent on denying, is that thereby they become his doll
collection, all his own to play with.
---------Thoughts on "Prometheus"
1) "Prometheus" succeeds in showing us that whatever the ultimate
secrets of the universe might be, they're going to have to be really
something to not instinctively seem less rousing than when a spirited
human being is roused into action out of fidelity to a felt truth that
she is part of something worthwhile and good in this world. The
android draws wonder from two things in the movie -- the aliens'
cosmological map, evidence of their distilled, focused interest in us;
and the anthropologist's surprising resiliance. I did find the light
show appealing, but when we realize the star men are considerably
less possessed of life than the android is -- that they're really just
battle robots, further evolution of the android looks to involve his
398
399
Maria Aspan has written an article praising Friends with Kids, and I
would feel inclined to do the same if I felt the film began to open up
for new explorations what had felt foreclosed in pattern. But I tend to
find that in many films that tip the hat to your preferences, youll
relax enough in them to want to praise them for the new theyve
shown you, the possibilities, considerations, theyve lived out for you.
What to Expect When Youre Expecting, if, like the central
characters, youre comfortably mainstream, uninterested in having
the intellectual edge on anyone and more just participating in the -to you -- exciting trends/new truths manifesting now, does have the
material to have you thanking it for what it did right too, for it
fleshing out in a compelling fashion a whole variety of ways expecting
a child affects you and your partner. But if the mainstream is
loathsome to you, the film becomes simply garbage; no true
explorations, just extensions into drudgery. Myself, I can certainly
put myself in the frame of mind to consider New York smart-set
elitism garbage, and dismiss the film as readily as most critics did
What to Expect.
Ill do so now. Noam Chomsky has argued that most of what should
be discussed regarding politics and the economy, isnt actually
engaged by the media. He would have us see them, the members of
the media, as obsessing over a permitted sliver as if it were all the
world. I felt a bit like Chomsky regarding the media while thinking
upon Aspans review. She found the film refreshing, as opening up
new ground. I agreed that, sure, it might do that, but limited to the
latitude permissible to a class that is otherwise comfortable when
most of the innovative is off the table. I find this an era of foreclosed
opportunities, an era so staving off it drives people into thoughts of
ongoing demonstrations in hopes it might initiate a grand happening
that would pull us into a grand narrative that would stop us from
feeling immobilized. The only people I can imagine as finding this
era, on the contrary, flourishing, as provisioning, as perfect avenue to
explore terra incognita or at least the previously criminally
400
401
402
403
with the times has saved you the stress of having to keep your
musculature proving it might never lapse to the point of
acknowledging defeat which, even if somehow successful, is
counter-intuitive enough to draw our consideration, but never having
us thinking that something central had now just been disproved:
eternity is across generations, not in the distinction arisen in one: it's
better to be average, but with a kid.
And this is probably best case. The next is that youre in service to
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
404
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.
---------Take the kids to "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"
405
they are besot with already established life courses, by ruts of routine
responses and resurfacing old tricks, worsening in their ability to
catch some good game? It sure doesn't look much like a ride to entice
fresh crowds into Disneyland. Yet in this age where we've gotten used
to books and films being targeted to the emotional and intellectual
capabilities of differing children's age groups, to their set-determined
particular interests, there's still the reminder of lasting books written
just a generation or two ago by the likes of Roald Dahl, Richard
Adams, Ursula LeGuin, Madeleine l'Engle, E.B. White, and Salinger,
that don't sit so well with the idea that there isn't somehow something
adult, already fathomed in the childish mind. Personally, I've never
thought enough thought has gone into how it is an older writer is able
to write for children at all; instead thinking the proofs on how anyone
cannot but offer, regardless of whom they're intending to write for,
mostly unabashed contact with their 30 -, 40-, 50, 60-ish or on writer
selves. And if children go for it, it has to be that they're very fond
of the adult in these writers, even as they still very much do
appreciate the various considerations allotted them, the faeries, farm
animals, and guardian wizards that assure them this is a world they
can handle.
Even with "Harry Potter" we're already a bit keen to this possibility.
As the series progressed there are encounters simply between adults
that could challenge you to wonder, if all collected and left by
themselves, how bogus it'd be to label them anything short of
literature. I'm thinking in particular of Snape and Dumbledore, of
Snape and Voldemort; with the challenge, subsequent Snape's reveal,
being to determine if the Snape we've long known without fully
knowing his past is fair measure of the key early experiences we are
told have determined him. Yes -- we have to conclude to be satisfied
with the reveal, in a blink sifting through forty or so years of another's
developing -- this product, out of an already complex early
person, could be begot from this; it plausibly fits. And if we're not
similarly now boomer-aged, knowing ourselves how great spans of
time's drift accord with great early pushes in a set direction, how on
406
earth might we determine this? And yet I think it's possible that we
may. Or if not, at least that we might sense that we've already
experienced enough of life, of how things go, to make us one day feel
capable of doing so. "I don't quite just now understand you -- but I
did catch sight of you; you're not alien, and feel I'll one day see you
straight," we, the 7 t0 12-year-old kid, even, might well feel the urge
to communicate.
Of course, to say that small parts in children's books and films
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;
407
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
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
408
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
not-to-be-missed moments as well, presumably, with her herself
being delighted by them, available to both young and old. She
highlights some of the ones I'd be inclined to; but rather than list
them in the exact fashion she does -- "Billy Nighy joking with Judi
Dench about his inability to fix a telephone, Maggie Smith forcing
down local food in order to be polite, Tom Wilkinson joining in a
game of pickup cricket and Penelope Wilton looking terrified during a
tuk-tuk ride" -- I'd have been tempted to italicize the great actors'
names as well: for what we agree is so special is getting to see great
living people interact smartly with one another, not our chance to see
characters from a book so capably enfleshed. Or do what Stephanie
did with Vanessa Redgrave in "Letters," and involve myself more fully
with why Penelope Wilton making clear with Nighy that it's over
between them, or her thanking Wilkinson for sparing her further
humiliation -- both moments of self-account that reminded you how
much one must have to be able to convey so much self-possession
after catastrophic revelations have deflated you to wondering if you're
a fraud -- is so special.
You get enough of great people here I'd be tempted to compare it to
the Louvre, a storehouse one's never to early to start familiarizing
oneself with; but to flatter it now surely a bit too unjustly, here you
get the artist him/herself, as well as his/her oeuvre: a doubling down
of greatness. "Midnight in Paris" reminded Armond White of how far
these actors were from the greats they portrayed; please don't
underestimate who I wouldn't put these actors toe-to-toe with.
So I think the kids should go to this "Hotel" for the elderly. Don't be
409
spooked by the specter of death; we're told it's of course going to lurk
everywhere but it proves delineated and contained within a single
source: Tom, the only one not to be sparked to new purpose for his
chasing down of an old one. If kids never-the-less resist, I'll accord
one legitimate reason why it might still be possible that if they flee
your grasp and escape for, say, one more viewing of The Avengers,
they might be wise to. For this is a time when youth may be less
about vitality than about constantly taking it -- the world does right
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,
410
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."
---------Making "The Avengers" -- Men Only
411
412
413
films, you could always convince yourself it was the other things that
tintilated, or that the manner of the portrayal conveyed unmistakable
criticism, or some such.
----------
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
414
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
film to situate oneself amongst what-turn-out-to-be zombies, who
clearly accepted as hearty feasts what you had established as cold film
corpses.
---------Iron Man vs. Captain America
415
416
417
more satisfying than when an F-18 or a nuke are used to do the same.
It was a terrific surprise; Loki blanched and guffawed, as we did.
And we were pleased that Whedon didn't let a talent she'd after all
shown she had simply surrender itself because before someone
ostensibly way out of her countenancing; and I thought good for you
Whedon for giving something pronounced to the more simply human
characters -- with Captain America of course getting undaunted
leadership, as well as emblemmanship of the times -- to help settle
them in experientially amongst their powerhouse teammates as
legitimate peers. Hawkeye didn't get a standout trait; but they did
make his arrows something sorta akin to Iron Man's arsenal. And
with him more or less the one exception, and with him being played
by a movie star actor, and with us wanting one or two of the Avengers
to be allowed to sulk a bit in the shadows -- good enough.
---------Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Hunger Games (novel) -- Review
418
419
420
the people who say that it isn't a good deal for the country's citizens.
Meanwhile, the company is able to keep cots low becuase it isn't
asked to conform to the environmental or labour standards.
Nigerians get paid crap for working for the company, have to deal
with oil spills and government repression, and we (citizens in
developed countries) get cheaper oil. [. . .] The unequal and violent
relationshi between Panem's capital and districts helps us reflect on
how violence and repression can create unequal relationships in our
"free" market global economy.
My reply to Bread & Circus:
You can and should find major critiques of capitalism and
totalitarianism in these novels -- just not any a leading capitalist or
tyrant totalitarian would be spooked by. If having dignity is
unambiguously associated with being dispossessed, and at major risk
of being lost if one starts to middle or better, totalitarians will know
you have a comfort level with being amongst counted losers you'll
never find courage to really shake off: denied everything, you can't be
shuck of being noble; start accruing, with dreams and hoped-for
aspirations suddenly quite realizable, and you're no longer spared
being assessed a self-focussed, spiteful aspirer.
*****
Jen Yamato:
It can certainly be argued that Collins' book series and the Gary
Ross-directed feature adaptation has the potential to influence a
generation of youngsters who'll come for the sci-fi escapism and
leave the theater appreciating its personal messages of personal
accountability and standing up for what's right in the face of
impossible odds. More subtle are the franchise's critiques of
capitalism, celebrity, and media exploitation; if The Hunger Games
succeeds in teaching kids to think critically about reality television
alone that will be some sort of cultural coup.
My response to Jen Yamato:
Re: More subtle are the franchise's critiques of capitalism, celebrity,
and media exploitation.
421
422
423
play.
The favored district is composed of non-blanched meanies; but upon
watching the film I realized the experience of their involvement with
Rue, Thresh, Peeta and Katniss is kinda like the popular high school
set figuring out exactly how best to deal with spark-possessing new
varietals that one day might compose a competing rival one: even
while conniving how to dispose of them, pick them off, one by one,
they're experimenting with and enabling the mental/physical/spatial
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
424
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
425
426
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.
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
427
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.
---------Dark Shadows -- Review
428
429
point must stop you into bluntly asking yourself why you were so
eager to climb down in the first place? It would mean betraying our
awareness that our families didnt just give us the support we needed
but likely determined exactly what were up to in this reified realm of
scholarship, and that the measured, neutral, reason-clearly-incharge-here voice usually shows signs of its being an older
psychoclass innovation. It would mean betraying what I ought to
love, degrading myself, ostensibly too, from heights to lows, knight to
accomplice, elf to forlorn orc. Nevertheless, if I am true to what Ive
either learned or confirmed from exploring DeMausian
psychohistory, Im not about to judge Hedges my peer; and am in fact
trying to use the book to help keep faith in the same liberal
establishment which treats the sort of psychological ideas so precious
to us so very warily.
THE LIBERALS STORY: HEDGESS TAKE
Hedges holds that those who believe in human perfectibility are
ruinous to the maintenance of the best that human beings can
actually hope to achieve. His sort of liberals the classic ones born
in the 17th century and who experienced their heyday in the late 19th
and early 20th, were perfectly clear-headed, however, in that they had
a skeptical attitude towards human beings, believed that though
conditions on earth could be improved its never going to be made a
utopiafor people are constituted so that they cannot be made all
good. They guarded against parts running rampant over wholes, in
particular, private interests and self-serving passions over
respectively the structuring of society and overall bent of mind. The
mind was best constituted with reason checking passions; and
society, with multifarious interests and independent viewpoints
having to contend, indeed, often highly combatively, with one
another. The high-times of American society still mostly
decentralized, with regions and interests fruitfully engaged yet still
clearly separate had this, but was sundered of it rapidly once
independence of mind, independence in general, was made to seem
430
431
look good to youbut only until you become familiar with what all
succeeded it. The changed liberals Hedges deplores were no-doubt
members of a superior psychoclass, who stopped seeing strife and
division as necessarily a good thing[1] for having experienced the
truly better things issuing from out of their less divided, less
intrapsychically stricken minds (DeMause, Foundations of
Psychohistory, Creative Roots, 1982, 238).[2] That they saw within
human grasp, utopia, speaks strongly to their credit: because it was
only with this psychogenic advance in ambition that the inequalities
and cruelties the classic liberals understood as not just ineradicable
but, in full honesty, as actually desirable for it well communicating
the fact of human imperfectability and the limit of their potentially
hubristic highest accomplishments could in fact begin to be
eradicated. It would mean the reduction in size of a handy class of
people to project all ones anxiety-arousing desires into; but they were
better prepared to handle this great but daunting leap forward as
well.
WHO REALLY BETRAYED WHOM?
The growth Hedges believes liberals sadly ended up leading the
public into, and that he deems as only wholly regrettable mass lapsing
to base drives, wasnt on the contrary simply a beautiful thing. The
socializing-psychoclass dominated 20th century, with its erotic
materialism, its my soul would be quiet if only everyone could buy
endless material goods (DeMause, 237), certainly didnt have it all
figured out. But still what they sought out in life was far from vile,
and overall represented true growth in human ambition. Indeed, it
could at times simply be about joy in living, playful experimentation
and expansion of self, not simply the quieting of the disquieted soul,
one of the two periods Hedges applauds liberal participants within
partook of in a variety of ways. In fact, it was really generous true
display of fidelity to the larger publics best interests displayed by
postwar liberals during the 60s and 70s that lead the public to, in
effect, shortchange, to betray, its further fruition in the 80s. Hedges
432
433
434
were a friend, and pay for my dinners and give me their press releases
and have me describe them in glowing terms (134). But he, Hedges,
found way to stick to his principles, something that ultimately lead to
his being loudly booed at universities and coldly dismissed from the
Timesbadges he wears and prouds around in his book that serve,
like warriors wounds, to announce his commitment away from
himself, apart from his previous life which he had come to
essentialize as soul-claiming and self-indulgent for so baldly
proclaiming that it might be okay to claim something all for yourself,
without even any tinge of morality to buttress or qualify it. Given that
all such are described as having to go through the same humiliations
and be clear, the humiliation rites he describes are not really to be
understood as descriptions of what happens to those who balk
establishment expectations but as markers required to delineate one
as martyr-hero[5] it leads to him being counted in his own mind
within the same class of those, the real greats, who, for speaking
inconvenient truths, incur sharp miniaturization in status and
subsequent near-empty-cupboard levels of financial compensations.
It could us draw us to think of him along the lines of Chomsky, who
comes up frequently in the text to serve as the lone hero who braved
balking establishment consent we should all try to emulate, or of
Michael Moore, who got booed and jeered at the Oscars for speaking
off message, or of Ralph Nader, who drew upon himself a whole
chatter-classes animosity for presuming the same could be
institutionalized and perhaps one day even the norm; but perhaps
because it is difficult to talk of these renowned figures and simply
conjure up feelings of disavowal, to delineate the fate of those who
speak truth to power he temporarily delimits our attention to the sad
fate of mostly-unknown-to-us Finkelstein, who for refus[ing] to back
down and demolishing myths surrounding Israel (151) incurred a
life sentence of marginalization and a frozen income level of $15, 000
to $18, 000 a year.[6]
Whatever actually develops with him, the-now-ever-increasinglyrenown Hedges, he made his choices assuming they meant his
435
following the martyrs path: this is the truth he will cling to, and you
are not to question it! If you indeed questioned how much his
principled stand was mostly egoism, hoping to prompt him to
question if his description of martyrs, with it involving defiance and
execution [that] condemns [the] [. . .] executioners (206), likely had
an aspect of relish to it that told the truer tale,[7] hed probably ask
you when the last time was youd volunteered in a soup kitchen? And
after debasing you by suggesting how reluctant you are to do the least
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.
436
[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
their efforts more people became happier; I feel it in them, these
hubristic leaders permitted to rise and draw us closer to the ideal
during our last growth phase, through all the disgust and otherevisceration, however aplenty. But though theyre his heroes, I judge
this simply not so with depression-hefted Hedges, wholl Ill let be
understood by these actually-not-so-selective quotations without
attenuation for being someone who to me will only be satisfied when
most people count amongst the humbled, not the happy. I feel I
might possibly get through to Chomsky or Nader in a way I never
could with him; for with these two counter-evidence, proof of errors
of observation or presumption, that could lead to more selfawareness, wouldnt be abused into mere opportunity to cement a
rigid coursesomething they were evidently primed to cripple and
then assimilate within a pre-existing schema. If Hedges, clearly
under the rule of his maternal alter, obsessed as he is in seeing the
neglectful and self-centered punished, let in information that
unmistakably communicated to his subconscious fidelity to truth, at
all times, truly above anything else, his alter would immediately
understand the implications of it and remind him why he installed it
in as his protector, his super-ego, in the first place.
Even if his disposition, his emotional well being, his psychoclass, was
equivalent to Chomskys and Naders, youd still have to be really
skilled to draw him to doubt, for each of these men believe theyve
already fully delineated what is unreal in this world and possess as
heightened a sense of raw pure truth as is possible to achieve. To us
psychohistorians it may seem ritualistic, a bit too apropos, pre-
437
438
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
future of psychohistory than Hedges disdain for self-esteem
movements, for psychoanalysis proper, and the preoccupation with
the self (111) does. I think that as many of the highest psychoclass
liberals watch their peers rapidly start sounding like Hedges (the
online liberal magazine Salon, frequently accused of being too
lifestyle focused and pointless, has, for example, recently relaunched
itself as aggressively populist, encouraging readers to support its
abandonment of fluff for the righteous fight by becoming core
members), regressing into conflict-obsessed warriors akin to him,
they will from being disturbed, rattled and alienated by their alien
thunder become more cognizant of who truly are their natural peers,
and psychohistorians will find themselves gifted through the
mechanism of psychoclass migration and realignment with some very
talented people to further their own studiesright now. Liberals
havent exactly been golden, but fidelity to them may help gift us with
another golden age of psychohistorical studies, way before it was in
fact due.
439
[2] This is not to say that unification during the period Hedges speaks
of it largely arising the First World War wasnt actually mostly for
a short time simply a truly regrettable regression into growth panicspurred group think, but that its ongoing continuation should be seen
as owing to psychoclass innovation.
[3] For the degree to which death is infused with feelings of
annihilation incurred from maternal rejection, see of course Joseph
Rheingolds The Mother, Anxiety, and Death (Little Brown, 1967).
[4] The 80s-on mass concentration of liberals to the coastal cities
should be understood as a wisely informed psychoclass migration;
unfortunately one that didnt let itself be quite segregated enough.
[5] Or rather, hard-to-acquire prizes, that sparkle forth as if giant
gushing gem-stones, which could draw upon him a charge of vanity
that might stick if he doesnt stop showing them to people, and put
them down for awhile.
[6] As opposed to those professors we remember Hedges delineating
for us at the beginning of the text, the ones apt to earn $180, 000, not
$18 000, so long as they refrain[ed] from overt political critiques
(10).
[7] Specifically, that executioners should properly be understood here
really as patsies upon which ones own martyrdom is exultantly
executed.
[8] For, yes, to Hedges, what happened when he spoke unpopular
truths on campuses make him, in essence, the soldier who took
bullets for the crowd (he refers to himself as someone inflicted [with]
career wounds [127])showing each other their wounds, neither in
his mind would trump the other: I dare you to read this book and
440
441
442
443
him but, ultimately, the choice is yours as to whether you take the
easy or the hard way. Its Kings Speech, stripped of its
Freudianism. And recognizable as such, I think that the primary
concern we would finish the book with is how we might work against
this wall which can freely permit talk of delusion and unreality and
binary thinking (though of course this actual term is never used), but
staunchly still keep psychology (and empathy) out while leaving
moralizing and righteous anger clearly in.
THE LURCH RECORD MAY WELL LEAVE US IN
But if were left stumbling over this problem, and wishing if only
people could read it and see it as but a facilitator to the gates of
something about Bush weve written, weve let ourselves be more
worsened than marginally informed by the book; for wed at the end
be thinking mostly leaders, when psychohistorians should never find
themselves thinking mostly of them. Psychohistorians should be
wary when anyone puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of our
leaders, who we know are but people we study to aptly guess at the
psychic needs of those who wished them in, and this indeed is the
only place Record puts it Americans-at-large are to him, sensible, if
not pronouncedly disgusted by excess and lack of good sense (other
nations [or at least the ones America has tended to have wary
relations with] come across as level-headed as well, with them being
not-at-all sacrificial and in fact realistic and savy in matters of war
[pp. 174-75]: Bush and his neo-cons are in this account, astoundingly
alone.). To Record, Most Americans do not believe that it is their
countrys mission to convert the rest of the world into like
democracies, and they have limited tolerance for costly crusades
overseas that have little or no foundation in promoting concrete
security interests (p. 149). But arent we also the lot thats spent the
last thirty years or so participating in manic consumerism, losing
ourselves into an excess of work and after-work purchase in an
economy that may not at all have meaningfully improved despite the
444
445
446
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.
[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
447
448
449
than his.
[. . .]
450
451
452
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
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
453
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 anti-
454
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
455
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
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.
456
(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
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
selfishly making claim to the chick and dicking her, dudlicks. Thought
you should know.
457
----------
458
Turkey dinners
459
460
461
462
463
464
[. . .]
465
crisis facing the arts, much less the nation -- but it's upsetting
nevertheless. As I suspect Obama would agree, matters of
prejudice are never entirely minor, even when their
manifestations may seem relatively benign.
466
467
Because
Women aren't good writers. Hey, write a stupid article, get a
stupid response. (g50)
----This is a ridiculous article
I'm sorry. This just sounds like one more dumb reason to
bash Barack Obama. I think the President should be able to
read anything he damned well pleases on vacation. This is a
waste of brain cells and energy. (gaylefleming)
----A Reason NOT to Be President
At least if you're NOT president, you don't have people
complaining that your reading list doesn't have gender
balance among the authors.
Geeeeeez! (cross1242)
----[50 more consecutive responses of essentially the
same]
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
468
@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, insufficiently loved
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
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.
469
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)
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
470
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
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
471
@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
472
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
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
473
474
2011)
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
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)
---------
475
476
477
(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/)
478
479
@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 self-
480
shakles 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)
--------
481
482
--------
[. . .]
483
484
@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
when the American left lost its moral compass.
You see, lefties, there are times when saying "no" to war
means saying "yes" to oppression. Don't believe me? Go ask a
Czech or a European Jew about the British and French saying
"no" to war with Germany in 1938. War may be bad for
children and other living things, but there are times when
peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is
one of those times. Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes
to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. It amazes me
when I hear lefties argue that we should assassinate Saddam
in order to avoid war. If Saddam is assassinated, he will be
replaced by another Baathist dictator--and what then for the
people of Iraq? More "peace"--i.e., more oppression, more
executions, more gassings, more terror, more fear.
While the American left is content to see an Iraqi dictator
terrorizing the Iraqi people, the Bushies in D.C. are not. "We
do not intend to put American lives at risk to replace one
dictator with another," Dick Cheney recently told reporters.
For those of you who were too busy making papier-mch
puppets of George W. Bush last week to read the papers, you
may have missed this page-one statement in last Friday's New
York Times: "The White House is developing a detailed plan,
485
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.
486
487
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
488
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)
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)
--------
489
490
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.
*****
491
492
493
494
@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
495
496
497
498
not hers.
[. . .]
Submission theology is built around the notion that God has
a "design" for men and for women; that they are unique
from each other and have their designated, God-given roles.
The husband is the spiritual head of the household, the wife
his obedient "helpmeet," the vessel for their children, devoted
mother, and warrior for the faith. By committing themselves
to those gender roles, evangelicals believe they are obeying
God's commands. They see the wife's obligation to obey her
husband's authority as actually owed to God, not her
husband.
But the obligation falls on the woman to be obedient, even
when the husband doesn't love her as evangelicals believe
God commands.
[. . .]
Regardless of the Bachmanns' relationship, candidate
Bachmann's policy initiatives, as they relate to issues like
gay marriage, abortion and funding for Planned
Parenthood, stem directly from her "biblical" view of gender
roles. "God's design" for gender roles is not limited to the
issue Bachmann usually applies it to (opposition to gay
marriage). Gods design, in her view, is for (Christian) men
and women to get married to serve God, and for the woman
to be a mother and a fierce defender of the "biblical
worldview." Bachmann's worldview, which she sees as
under siege by secularists, feminists, imaginary socialists
and other boogeymen, must be defended for future
generations. "An arrogant corrupt Washington elite,"
499
500
some as well.
Link: What Michelle Bachmanns submission theology really means
(Salon)
--------SUNDAY, AUGUST 21, 2011
Why losing fat is ACTUALLY so hard to do
501
502
it personally.
But even at my most open-minded, I could not bear the
debate that erupted in response to the JAMA article (and the
derisive online comments). While the study, by Dr. David
Ludwig and Lindsey Murtagh, did suggest that obese
children -- in some extreme circumstances -- should be taken
away from their parents, coverage of the article focused on
the most sensational elements of the argument. It resulted in
a cascade of hate on cable news and morning shows that
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
503
504
505
506
507
508
kcal meals pretty much every single time they sit down to dine? If this
isn't simply a rumor, how would narrowing your diet to a third of its
current, and largely denied everything you look for to achieve hungerriddance and temporary satisfaction, be so obviously easy to achieve?
I think perhaps if you replaced all these Americans and put in their
place, Europeans, it might be accomplished. But otherwise it would
seem almost impossible, and what you'd be left with is a nation of fat
people immodestly spreading the word of experts who insist it has
nothing to do with diet and exercise -- so stop the abuse! -- as they sit
more comfortably fully sedentary, imagining a walk around the block
a bit much, let alone an hour of purposeful striding, indulging
themselves the extra helping they crave with a bit more, at ease, "ca
ne fait rien."
509
us how complicated her love for them actually is, in that it may in fact
mostly be at the service of intimidation-born requirement.
Gary Taubes tells people to pretty much consume no sugar. The
biggest meat pattie in the world, if you like, but absolutely for sure no
bun to bed it in, fries to accompany it along, or sugary drink to wash it
all smoothly on down. My guess is that if you turned on every obese
person onto this diet the only weight they'd lose is in strangling
people like you for blanching them temporarily of their king-feastly,
abundant starchy fun.
510
511
I'm not sure about physical abuse, but be sure some of us suspect that
a nation of fat people will intellectually harm us, in aggressively
inhibiting/squashing debate when it doesn't tell things as they would
have it.
For weight loss, forget "eat less, move more"
Just stop consuming easily consumable, easily digestible
carbohydrates. It shouldn't be difficult, decades ago most
people managed to do it without having to think about it.
The problem is fighting the efforts of all the industries whose
very existence is dependent on such consumption. It wasn't
always this way. Junk food is heavily laden with the worse
kinds of carbohydrates. When did obesity become a major
health issue? There are physical mechanisms in the body
that go haywire when carbohydrates are processed. No
amount of exercise can stop those processes. Exercise
promotes the consumption of still more carbohydrates. The
body has no off switch for consumption of food while
carbohydrates are being consumed. These ideas seem wrong
or counter-intuitive because of the misinformation spread in
recent decades. (Charley Horse)
@Charley Horse
RE: Just stop consuming easily consumable, easily digestible
carbohydrates. It shouldn't be difficult, decades ago most people
managed to do it without having to think about it.
Just like decades ago (lets say the 60s and 70s) pretty much every
Republican was more liberally in support of social programs than
most democrats are now. That is, "decades ago" is sadly a realm no
one living now is easily going to be able to resurrect or revisit; no
matter how hard think someone thinks about it, "they're" not likely to
come to know it.
If we as a people collectively "Jamie Oliver" lose weight now, it'll be
for terrible, non-praiseworthy reasons: namely, to essentialize
512
ourselves as pure and fit and isolate poisons neatly in some other
culture/group; and two, to emphasize the difference between
ourselves and the readily indulgent elite, something that serves our
masochistic need to feel noble, selfless, and less inviting of the harsh
judgment sweeping over a land that clearly previously had suffered
way too much scarcely limited and unquestionably unearned gaudy
spoils and unrepetant fun.
Link: Should I blame my parents because Im fat (Salon)
---------FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 2011
Parading as the very opposite
American historical films are forever refighting old wars,
congratulating themselves for being on the right side, and
encouraging viewers to pat themselves on the back for being
on the right side, too. They view the war from the general's
tent up on a distant hill and imagine that they're right in the
thick of it. That's how Paul Haggis' "Crash" swept the Oscars
in 2006 -- by serving up a contemporary story of Los
Angelenos who said and did brazenly racist things in public
constantly, as if it were 1967 and everyone was wearing love
beads, Afros and hard hats. The characters seemed crude
and primitive, lacking in self-awareness, unenlightened; this
made them easy to label, judge and dismiss. A variation on
this strategy has enabled another race drama, "The Help," to
become an instant hit, a likely Oscar contender, and yet
another reminder that when mainstream cinema depicts
discrimination, it tends to ask the same two questions: "How
did this affect white people?" and "Aren't you glad you're not
bigoted like the creeps in this movie?"
[. . .]
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
widespread muck they mostly actually want, or at least get some kind
of weird kick from.
Look at how Laurel here debases herself to you: she's pretty much do
as much to none other -- even her expecting God might be in for
worse than just a few minor correctives. You're none other than one
of our collectively-agreed-upon few gods, you fool. Average Middle
American, indeed!
Re: A Florida woman wrote to tell me that, before reading
it, she'd always been annoyed at the poor for what she saw
as their self-inflicted obesity. Now she understood that a
healthy diet wasn't always an option. And if I had a
quarter for every person who's told me he or she now
tipped more generously, I would be able to start my own
foundation.
Too bad Laurel didn't chime in on this one, for she'd have said the
perfectly fair and in fact just plain necessary in reminding you and
this earnestly self-deluding fool that the poor don't eat healthy owing
to lack of options, but because they like fatty foods to the point that in
some moods they'd choose a follow-up burger over peaceneverending, but with only an apple as chaser.
Re: Even more gratifying to me, the book has been widely
read among low-wage workers. In the last few years,
hundreds of people have written to tell me their stories:
the mother of a newborn infant whose electricity had just
been turned off, the woman who had just been given a
diagnosis of cancer and has no health insurance, the
newly homeless man who writes from a library computer.
At what point did you pass up concluding that this aggressive flow
suggested people kind of enjoyed this opportunity to showcase their
suffering, and wonder if your efforts for a better America for the
working class would be shortchanged owing to most of them being
broadly aware that a better America would make it incrementally
harder to show how nobly unspoiled and self-denying they'd become?
Their wounds are real and ruinous; how every accuser's accusation is
520
521
522
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
An immigrant domestic worker charges she was "treated
like a slave" by a Merrill Lynch executive, who kept her
prisoner in his Queens home where she suffered constant
verbal abuse and was fed table scraps.
Filipino-born Elma Manliguez says she was paid the
equivalent of 6 cents an hour over the two years she worked
for Martin Joseph and his wife, Somanti.
In a lawsuit filed against the couple, Manliguez also
complained she was forced to take meals on the kitchen
floor, was often told she was "stupid" and was denied basic
necessities like sanitary napkins.
"I can't forget how I suffered," Manliguez, 41, told the Daily
News yesterday.
---------------------------------"[Walnut Creek] Woman indicted for allegedly
exploiting nanny]"
Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
f=/c/a/2008/11/19/BAIV147LUS.DTL&feed=rss.news
A Walnut Creek real-estate agent will appear in federal
court today on charges that she lured a Peruvian nanny to
the East Bay with promises of a better life but instead kept
her as an indentured servant for nearly two years.
Mabelle de la Rosa Dann, 45, also known as Mabelle Crabbe,
was indicted by a federal grand jury in June. She has
523
524
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
caregivers, their caravan of strollers parked, their eagle eyes
focused on their preschool charges, almost all of them white.
You better believe they had an opinion about Tepper, the 44year-old Villanova villainess who stands accused of
assaulting her most recent nanny, Urszula Kordzior, only
months after landing in community service for smacking
down another valued employee. The nanny's 9-year-old
daughter allegedly got pushed when she tried to help her
mom.
It appears the hits just keep on coming.
The Rittenhouse nannies agreed to talk only if I didn't use
their names. After all, they like the families they work for.
Oh, and they want to keep their jobs.
"If she did that to me? I would fight back, yes I would," says
a Jamaican nanny....The problem with privileged folk, she
continued as the children clung closely to her, is that they
often view "the help" as nothing more than another child, to
be seen and not heard.
Course, while they're at the wine sip, "the help" has the allconsuming responsibility of raising their kids.
It seems that Tepper, the daughter of the late Main Line
financier Daniel Tabas, treats animals with more dignity
than her employees. She's been known to tame a tiger, but
can turn on humans - especially those she considers beneath
525
526
OHehir)
Trolls for the working man
Laurel defends put-upon Southerners, those in regions which didn't
thrive when domestic manufacturing lost its impetus, but hates gay
marriage and spoiled teachers for, according to her, ruining the
foundations of society and making it near impossible to build a better
one. Duchess entrenchedly defends put-upon working classers, but
hates most Jews for, according to him, enslaving and depriving
everyone else into a society with no further forward momentum.
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
527
528
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
529
[. . .]
530
[. . .]
531
[. . .]
532
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)
533
@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
534
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.
535
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).
***
BTW: I went to school in the sixties -- height of the baby
boom. My classes had 40-44 kids in each -- I have the class
pictures to PROVE THIS. And we had ONE teacher per class
-- no aides, no assistants, nothing -- and we got a good,
decent education. A far better education than 7/8ths of kids
today get! We didn't have inflated grades, we did not have
social promotion.
What is missing in education today is NOT "small classes"
which is just teacher union code for "hire more union
teachers at high salaries and bankrupt cities and suburbs".
536
537
538
I've met kids from your precious schools, and they are all
spoiled, entitled brats.
Do us a BIG FAVOR and tell us what ONE YEAR'S TUITION
is at your "Whitey Rich-Kid's Academy".
Then we will know why you can have classes with 15 or 18
kids.
The rest of us live in reality, and we can't afford any more
taxes to give teachers summer vacations, or 15 more years in
retirement luxury on our dime.
Teachers have failed us again and again and again. They
said our kids would thrive is we had "open classrooms" -- we
did, and it was a failure. They said "whole language" and
"new math" and we did those things (expensively) and our
kids were worse off than ever.
They said "raise our salaries! double them! and your kids
will learn!" so we raised their salaries to double and more,
and our kids failed worse than ever.
They said smaller classes, they said teacher's aides, they said
more computers -- we tried everything.
Today, adjusted for inflation, we pay TWICE what we did in
1970 per child, and teachers make more than double in
adjusted dollars (and far more benefits) but our kids are
worse off than ever.
539
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,
goldbricking members of the nation's most corrupt union.
Remember these words: CLAW IT BACK.
That is our only choice -- that or continued failure, because
anything the teacher's union proposes is guaranteed failure
for our kids. (_bigguns/laurel1962)
Misery
Most liberal Americans are regressing; it's why they're mostly still for
Obama (the key lie is not the one Greenwald, with his insistance that
Obama actually got the deal he himself wanted, exposes, but the one
he ignores: that MOST LIBERALS THEMSELVES at some level
MOSTLY KNEW this about him, and mostly explains why they chose
him over the "less cooperating" Hillary) and why someone like
Laurel/_bigguns talk of "lazy, spoiled" whatevers now appeals to their
sensibilities, when before, when they Gollum-in-his-better-mood had
kowed back the demons threatening to overwhelm their minds, they
would have associated such talk with the Archie Bunkers they were
hurriedly leaving behind in the dust.
The talk now is of how the Tea Partiers are responsible for bringing
down the whole nation. In my judgment, they're something of a
convenience for many liberals who have become more and more
comfortable with crackdowns, and are at some level pleased to have
540
them to help hide from themselves for awhile the real fact of who
they've become. Without the Tea Partiers, they themselves would
have had to figure out a way to argue for the sort of cuts we've just
seen, and though they would have found a way it never would have
gone down easy with them: guilt over doing the unconscionable
would have chomped good portions of them up.
BTW, EVERYTHING worked better in the '60s and '70s; the reason
for this owes to the fact that after periods of war and mass sacrifice,
people feel entitled, permitted to make life once again about growth.
EVERYTHING went downhill in the 80s, and this owes NOTHING to
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)
---------
541
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?
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,
542
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
parking lot and reminded her that she had just sold me an
insurance policy. Why that and not the umbrella policy?
[. . .]
543
544
calculus for fun. I know more about my art than the ones
who do get hired will EVER know. But I can't get hired.
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.
Ahh, but why should the young care? They know they will be
545
546
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
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,
547
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
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)
---------
548
549
chosen over Hillary: they -- the people -- too had become unnerved by
what might be drawn if things shine too spritely sweet and gay, and
fled Hillary's buoyancy and often-cheerful resonance for more spent
"country."
Both WOULD have followed pretty much the same course. But that
wouldn't be the thing. Everything about Hillary would sit uneasily
with, would be gainly testing, mocking, its spirit, while Obama is in
entirety all smooth cooperation. (Remember Hillary's -- referring to
whole body airport scanners -- "I'd avoid them if I could," which read
as "don't go quietly into this good night!," and her meaning it.) About
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
550
551
552
553
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.
The truth is, I'm speaking rather emotionally this morning.
I'm thinking about all the hard-earned money I sent him last
time (that I can afford even less this time around, thanks in
no small part to his leadership) and the campaign work I
did, and I just don't feel like I can raise the spirit to go out
and affirmatively, actively support him in 2012 after all this.
But I know I will vote for him. All my Naderite/third-partier
friends assured me in 2000 that there was no difference
between Gore and Bush, and withholding support from
Gore, even if it resulted in his defeat, would "teach the Dems
a lesson" and force them to re-affirm their core principles.
How did that turn out? They were wrong on both counts.
The DNC went further right and nobody will ever convince
me Gore would have been the same or worse than Bush,
that's just ludicrous.
There it is, Glenn. I'm sorry it is not more logically satisfying
than that. I may very well end up holding my nose and
giving him support once I see the nightmare alternative. I
just never imagined Obama could possibly be this horrible.
The Right was right, he DID turn out to be a Manchurian
Candidate, just the other way around.
What choice do we have? What can I do? I ask sincerely, not
rhetorically. (Jestaplero)
**********
554
Jestaplero
What choice do we have? What can I do? I ask sincerely, not
rhetorically.
Don't have an answer yet, except to say that since we don't
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. (GlennGreenwald)
**********
@GlennGreenwald
Don't have an answer yet, except to say that since we don't
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
555
556
557
(be ready to fire if they won't stick to it), and the blogging
community, and the Digital Cinema community, and NAB.
Craft the new media necessary to force the broadcasters or
go around them and go get the funding that those crafting
the plan says it needs. In other words, don't assume you will
get coverage, create the coverage.
If all that can happen, then there can probably be a viable
third party candidate. What's holding it back will be that
last: the media. They are the gatekeepers, and the PTB, those
who benefit by the corruption, are going to try to keep them
in charge of the gates.
I will gladly switch votes to a third party candidate if one
can win. If no one challenges the seat of power over
elections, which aside from Diebold is the press, not the
parties, then there won't be one.
And no, I'm not volunteering.
**********
ondelette on options
So if the third party route is taken, you need to do a two part
assault. You need the party machine and candidate. I
suggest Elizabeth Warren...
Okay so we have Elizabeth Warren.
Pros: articulate, photogenic, principled, has a message
Cons: dry, wonky, not a bimbo, works for Obama
Not a bad start so, one nomination.
Yes, she would need a first-rate message machine. Also she
would need a first-rate fundraiser I assume she's not
herself a billionaire.
As a press strategy, one that has worked in the past for 3rd
party candidacies is to aggressively publish concrete
platform positions on "hot button" issues that are current in
"the conversation."
That requires being able to produce position memos quickly,
558
559
560
----------
561
562
563
564
@Laurel...
Well, it's this, Vicar. Salon (and other lefty publications) are
on a major, BIG push to destroy traditional marriage. Gay
marriage is the biggest, but not the only, weapon in their
arsenal.
565
566
567
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.
@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
568
569
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.
[. . .]
570
571
572
[. . .]
573
[. . .]
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)
574
575
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.
576
577
578
enjoying; and would find some excuse to explain why everyone still
needs to delimit themselves, their day, and most of their lives with
driven effort, duty, purpose, and labor. Without such, and against all
evidence, people like her will insist the world will fall apart, and in
this context mostly show the real concern all along was that without it
they themselves would.
Mothers have kids because kids focus themselves entirely upon them
-- they make the MOTHER feel loved and central, something
someone who has nine children clearly hadn't known enough of
elsewhere previously. This is primary; the rest, all their mountains of
efforts selflessly, witheringly taking care of children without break for
spans of years and years make them feel as if they've made life
sufficiently about suffering that they shouldn't be punished for the
indulgences they've permitted themselves before they've parked
themselves in the feedlot that disposes one out of the world. This
backbreaking work is PRIMARILY selfish too, that is. Please don't
nobody back down too readily to the ever-looming, chastising,
overworked Mother.
That we haven't been loved enough to believe that life SHOULD be
about ease and comfort and creativity, continues to be our key
problem as a species. Maybe evolution's too hard at work to notice its
essential stalling.
Link: Tales of a reluctant loafer (Salon)
----------
579
580
581
582
583
---------
584
@_bigguns
There are no good arguments against gay marriage. They
are all bullshit.
You can't argue that you're right because "marriage is
between a man and a woman". There is no "marriage".
There's no Magic Space Library on Jupiter where a Super
Dictionary is kept in which words are universally defined
throughout space and time. "Marriage" used to involve (and
still does, in some parts of the world) a woman being handed
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!)
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
I agree, it is significant.
Where you are naive is in not realizing that the media is
MANIPULATING (or trying to manipulate) public opinion by
focusing on gay marriage in New York, making it look glamorous,
making the celebrations look fun or important and IGNORING THE
OPPOSITION.
Making gay marriage seem glamorous and fun is hardly
unambiguously doing it a favor: witness the reception of Sex and the
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:
592
593
594
----------
595
my Facebook profile, I thought it was so beautiful and true -but in this review, you spent so much time making with the
ha-ha that you didn't spend nearly enough time detailing
what you thought was wrong with the film -- why it didn't
work; why it was "mediocre"; etc. Just sayin', I wanted to
know what you didn't like about the film, and after reading
what you wrote, I still do.
.
.
.
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:
596
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
it), and an off-the-cuff concluding paragraph that mentions
Somalia, John Boehner and how it's okay for summer
moviegoing fare to lack social/political relevance.
What I am saying is: There's no REVIEW in this REVIEW!
Why did the movie bother you? What about the alien twists
was lame? Which parts were hackneyed? The headline says
it's a lame hackjob, but the article says Jon Favreau's
directing is "reasonably accomplished," or something.
Andrew, how about getting it together and reviewing more
of the content of the films your write about? Try reading 10
old reviews by Roger Ebert and another 10 reviews by
Pauline Kael before you start writing your next review.
Those two writers actually write about life, and the reasons
people care about going to the movies, and investing
themselves in the stories and characters, or escaping, or
reflecting, or whatever reason people go to movies. They're
into moviegoing, and it shows. They don't reduce movies to a
laundry list of elements to be summarized, and they usually
don't compare movies to Waldorf salads or whatever.
(rattigan glumphobo)
-----
597
Heh
While I have no intention of seeing this film, I found your
review to be cliche piled upon cliche of hackish, uppity movie
criticism, which--as you might guess where I'm heading-just ends up being irritating. Very irritating, before the end
of the first paragraph even. You might want to rethink your
approach. (ban-ghaidheal)
-----
598
599
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
"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,
600
601
602
603
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
word chosen by the editors to incite readership. And look! It
worked.
As my ex-fiance's grandpa used to say: There's a lid for
every pot!
Thanks for reading... (LKWalker, comment in
discussion thread of LK Walkers How I learned I
dont have to settle, Salon, 26 July 2011)
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
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
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
611
612
613
Identity
You probably know this but I'm going to say it out loud. It's
not that there isn't anything fun to do outside of going to
bars -- it's that the people you want to spend time with only
know how to have fun at bars. It's a quandary. There are
tons of interesting people doing interesting things at all
times of the day and night without alcohol -- but you have to
shift your sense of your self to find them.
Good luck. I enjoy your writing and I hope that you find
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
614
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)
----You shouldn't make fun of these "hobbies"
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)
615
616
617
618
will so show laurel how out of touch and impotent she is -- "rage
away, lunatic; you're still fated to be just washed away in the torrent!"
-- what we're actually seeing is a setup that will empower, justify a
later heavy and nasty turnabout. The narrative setup may be here to
make it look like the "fallen," homosexuals, almost took control of the
very reigns (!) -- i.e., marriage -- that sourced the most profound
virtues of the country!!! It may be something which will at the end not
so much leave her soaked and humiliated, barely able to stand let
alone shriek, but comfortably throned, expecting the cascade of
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
619
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.
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
[. . .]
627
[. . .]
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
628
629
630
631
with-our-country's-food-system (nycmom)
----@Susan Wood: Felisa is making CHOICES and some
of them are impractical
Or even self-destructive.
She and her husband lost their jobs in late 2008; they had
two YEARS to reduce their yuppie standard of living and put
something away for the "hard times" in case they didn't find
new jobs (which they did not). They choose to move to a
VERY remote rural area (her parent's vacation cabin)
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
632
633
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
seriously a lot for kale). It used to be around 79 cents; now
it's running $1.19. Again, this is family farm stuff, sometimes
Amish grown -- within 50 miles of my home.
In addition, we have several superb local farmer's markets;
two are within 3 miles of my house. The other is a giant
ethnic food market (delightfully free of yuppie pretensions
and high priced stuff) downtown. There are also a few
"farmer stalls" here and there, like at the local garden center
-- some sell "backyard" produce that is the rival of any
boutique farmers (its where I first got to taste locally grown
"San Marzano"-type tomatoes FRESH, not canned).
And on top of THAT, the local SNAP (food stamp) program
HANDS OUT gift certificates of $5 to $15 of FREE PRODUCE
for anyone with SNAP card (or on SSDI). At one stand, they
have reclaimed several old empty lots around the market
and turned them into "urban farms" growing raspberries,
blueberries, tomatoes, peppers and corn.
The rain made our corn crop late, but we are currently
enjoying awfully good California corn instead. (We'll get our
local corn, just late. When it comes in, it is 10-20 CENTS an
ear. Lordy, people, how much cheaper than THAT could it
get????)
I admire people who farm and produce stuff, but frankly
some of them (loony, self-important, entitled lefty organic
634
635
important.
I NEVER said anyone is "bad" for not buying $4 kale. I never
said we sell it for that price. What I said is that I understand
the actual costs involved in growing, and getting
produce/products to market. Retailers take their own cut,
remember. We operate a low-income CSA. We take food
stamps. We have a farm store. We sell to restaurants. We do
farmers markets. We know a lot about growing
(organically) at as low a cost as possible. It's still not that
low to hire local labor, and pay them fairly and legally, no
matter what you all prefer to think.
So you can make all the assumptions you like about
something you know nothing about. I would love to hear
from other growers and producers, but hey, I don't think
there are too many of them on Salon. I am not angry, I love
my work. I am often frustrated at the expense and red tape
involved. Don't call me entitled. I work around the clock and
invest money in the food system when I could be vacationing
and wearing Prada.
I am not the one being judgmental. I am offering a
perspective that is not offered often. I can promise you your
local (fruit and vegetable) farmers in every state agree with
me. It is unfortunate that food, and especially processed
products are so expensive. God knows, I wish they weren't.
But the reality is that they are. Should I offer a product
below the cost of production? There are not many other
businesses doing what we are doing, and those that are feel
the same way: that consumers must learn to pay more for
local, sustainably-produced food. That's all.
The fact that the economy is in shambles is not our fault. The
unemployment rate and income disparity is not our fault.
That fact alone ought to convince someone like me not to do
what I'm doing, but I do it anyway because it makes me
happy to offer a product that doesn't exist elsewhere. So
636
@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
your stuff in a heartbeat.
One more thing, since you seem to be new here. There are
two Salon letter writers with similar names. The first is
Bigguns, a longtime Salonista who I and others like and
respect, and then there is _Bigguns (note the dash before the
B), a troll. For the sake of the former, whom you might meet
if you stick around here long enough, please don't confuse
her with the latter. (Beans&Greens)
----Thank You!
Thank you Beans&Greens and XyzzyAvatar. Thank you so
much. And many many apologies to the real Bigguns.
Yes, I am new to commenting and do not know the rules. I
read Salon occasionally but it takes something really big or
something about local food to really feeling active.
I am doing the best I can, as I'm sure we all are with what
we're given. I do not intend to seem angry, but I feel
attacked. And I feel attacked not for what work I am doing,
but because a few people have made some very large
assumptions. I suppose that impulse is the same one that has
caused me to jump into the issue with full abandon.
I appreciate those of you who've expressed understanding. It
means a lot. I was briefly tempted to give my company's
637
website so everyone can see the good things we are doing -not for more sales because we do not ship -- but I have too
many people who are invested in the work (employees) to
invite hatefulness on my account.
And I just have say. If there is one issue that liberals and
conservatives ought to agree on, it's local food. It's good for
economies, the environment, public health, employment. It
preserves land, prevents sprawl, gives families good clean
fun in the spring and fall (berry picking, pumpkins).
One person's "grocery prices" are another person's
"revenue". It is not so simple and not so small a thing. Low
price is not the only important thing in the world. I think we
all know we vote most strongly with our dollars, no matter
how many we have.
Again, I am passionate not angry (although my husband
might say zealot). Whatever. I still feel pretty good about it
all. (nycmom)
----@nycmom: I'm not the "enemy"
Oh - -and there is no "real bigguns". It's just a username.
Anyone can use it (or a variation on it). Even you.
The big mouth "beanbreath" (Beans&Greens) used to be
Durian Joe, but he doesn't acknowledge that. He gets to
change his username, but in every thread, he has to be SURE
to let people know "I am not the real bigguns" (though there
is no real bigguns...never was, never will be).
I can prove that. HELLO??? hello? bigguns? BIGGUNNNNS?
(See? she isn't here.)
******
I was commenting that you are angry about customers (or
potential customers) who criticize your high prices. (I am
sure your roasted tomato sauce is delicious, but that is FIVE
TIMES the cost of an ordinary jar of bottled tomato sauce;
638
639
@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!
640
641
@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
accomplished violently, by finding some way to disenfranchise,
discredit or monument and/or "etherealize" (as by, for instance,
making them Elders, Emeretuses -- people already half-way shuffled
off to a higher plane and half-way otherwise sedimentation) the
already strongest voices on the scene. I think baby boomers have yet
more to say, and I would have them say it: but only if it means
fighting through an enfranchised, accustomed way of looking at the
world that actually mostly does them credit -- you are mostly great,
world builders! of the great-Eden-within-a-rock-from-Wrath-of-Khan
type -- but that still prevents them from doing the good they could to
generations after them that are suffering and are determined to suffer
far more yet.
People like Felissa are my more natural true opponents. What she is
up to is I think predatorial -- she is making the worldview of baby
boomers, she is making baby boomers, seem discard-worthy, right
even before them, knowing that because of how she presents herself,
because of their own desire to fit her within their preferences, and
because of their flacid ability to recognize alien viewpoints for so ably
and for such a long time dominating the world scene that
epistemological alienness, true difference, can hardly now even be
seen, her efforts aren't likely to be spotted. Felissa isn't though just a
younger version of most of you -- dashed with the slight, not-muchaggrieving difference that informs you you made sure her generation
642
developed their own voice. Her small asides aren't so much potential
draw-aways from the main point as they are actually distinctive tells.
She isn't quite so much taken to Pollan, the whole farmer's-market
scene, vegetarians because they're, though her "friends," and however
much truly admirable, just for one reason or another beyond her
lesser or restricted capacities, but because "they're" all part of a
stupid, indulgent, actually counter-human scene, of the dumb
touristy kind she rejects while out of country. Baby boomers, she
believes, created a world that is removed from struggle and which has
come at the cost of making them ridiculous. They have domesticated
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
643
644
645
fat anymore.
[. . .]
Back in the Midwest, where I lived my entire adult life, the
most common question was, "How did you do it?" Some
people asked with a wink and nod -- you know those vain
coastal people and their shortcuts. No, I didn't have surgery,
didn't take supplements, didn't hire a trainer or even buy a
miracle-cure book.
I walked more, and I ate less.
Part of my diet plan was simple necessity. Back home, I
drove a car everywhere I went. I cherry-picked parking
spots to get as close to the door as possible, shaving my walk
to the minimum. But my normal daily walk in New York City
was about three miles, just getting to school, walking to
work either in Greenwich Village or Midtown and meeting
my friends and wife for dinner.
At the same time, I cut back my eating. (I always thought Id
be fat, Michael Humphrey, Salon, 27 June 2011)
----------
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.
646
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
miles) distance from home to get things done, you have no
choice but to walk. If you are dumb enough to drive, and IF
you're lucky enough to get a parking spot, you're going to
end up walking about the same distance anyway. There's no
point.
When we moved to Texas from Toronto, I gained 20 pounds.
I never changed my eating habits, I just couldn't walk
everywhere like I used to. There were no sidewalks, ground
level ozone levels were downright dangerous because of all
the trucks and even if I ignored all that, we lived at LEAST a
30 minute drive to go to the grocery store.
When we left that suburbopurgatory and moved to Chicago,
that weight was gone in about 6 months. It was all about
activity level. (Aunt Messy)
@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 --
647
648
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
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
649
650
651
----Identity
You probably know this but I'm going to say it out loud. It's
not that there isn't anything fun to do outside of going to
bars -- it's that the people you want to spend time with only
know how to have fun at bars. It's a quandary. There are
tons of interesting people doing interesting things at all
times of the day and night without alcohol -- but you have to
shift your sense of your self to find them.
Good luck. I enjoy your writing and I hope that you find
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
652
653
654
655
important
When it comes to matters of the heart, homosexuals are no
different from heterosexuals. This is why it is a crime that
homosexuals are not allowed to marry, and thankfully, that
situation is changing. In my own state of Maryland, where
legalizing same sex marriage narrowly failed this year, our
Governor has just announced that he is making passage a
personal legislative priority (unlike the previous attempt). I
have no doubt we'll win this time. New York was a game
changer.
Best of luck to you. (Beans&Greens)
@Beans&Greens, and world-at-large
Re: When it comes to matters of the heart, homosexuals are no
different from heterosexuals.
I'm beginning to suspect that there are liberals out there who support
such things as gay marriage now on the condition that it, one, keeps
them feeling liberal, enlightened -- costumed in just the right way to
keep them feeling "of the moment," enabled by momentum,
protected; and two, because at some point they're betting
"indisputable" evidence will come to light -- of the kind
laurel/_bigguns keeps pointing out that suggests homosexuals ARE
rather different in affairs of the heart: more promiscious; involved in
relationships so distinctly different in kind that they are not
transferable from homo to hetero, or hetero to homo -- that will
permit them a full retraction. "You're actually like that!!! ... Well now,
I was your friend, taking on every bloody elephant in the room in your
support, on the condition you were as you presented yourself to me. I
took you at faith, and you've been lying to me all the time!" With (the
eventual coming of) tea partiers effectively neutered, with most
everyone beginning to sound puritan and rigid, many democrats, in
my judgment, are no longer going to be so much friends of
homosexuals.
656
It may be even here, with the inevitable spread of gay marriage that
will so show laurel how out of touch and impotent she is -- "rage
away, lunatic; you're still fated to be just washed away in the torrent!"
-- what we're actually seeing is a setup that will empower, justify a
later heavy and nasty turnabout. The narrative setup may be here to
make it look like the "fallen," homosexuals, almost took control of the
very reigns (!) -- i.e., marriage -- that sourced the most profound
virtues of the country!!! It may be something which will at the end not
so much leave her soaked and humiliated, barely able to stand let
alone shriek, but comfortably throned, expecting the cascade of
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
657
658
write -- not one -- and I can't even figure out what side you
are on. (_bigguns)
659
660
"Ethan!" she'd yell from her lair. "Help me get up!" She
might be half-dressed in her bed, or on the toilet, or on the
floor, or in the bathtub.
Years before my mother's "accident," as we called it, my dad
had moved several hours away. We saw him regularly, but
he and my stepmom were largely out of the picture. A family
friend had moved in to help take care of my Mom, my
siblings and me. The theory was, Sara Gilsdorf might make a
miraculous recovery, and the friend would move out. We
eventually discovered this would never come to pass.
It didn't take long to figure out I couldn't tame my mother,
not this beast. I knew I couldn't save her, either. I fought
with her for a while, usually battling over her inability -what I mistakenly read as her refusal -- to regain her old life,
be it making a cup of coffee or making a family decision.
After a while, I gave up. And kept my distance. I was stuck
with a mother I was afraid to love.
We began calling her the Momster.
------[. . .]
Then, later that same summer of 1979 when my mom came
home from the hospital, a stranger came to town -- a new
kid moved into the neighborhood. And a new path appeared
to me.
[. . .]
I hung out a lot at JP's house that summer. After a few weeks
of watching "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century," listening to
Electric Light Orchestra's "Discovery," and programming
primitive video games in BASIC on his TRS-80 Radio Shack
computer, JP told me about Dungeons & Dragons.
------[. . .]
That summer, I kept making Super 8 movies, but D&D soon
took over. It quickly became more than a game: It became a
661
662
663
664
[. . .]
665
[. . .]
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
666
667
668
669
with-our-country's-food-system (nycmom)
----@Susan Wood: Felisa is making CHOICES and some
of them are impractical
Or even self-destructive.
She and her husband lost their jobs in late 2008; they had
two YEARS to reduce their yuppie standard of living and put
something away for the "hard times" in case they didn't find
new jobs (which they did not). They choose to move to a
VERY remote rural area (her parent's vacation cabin)
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
670
671
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
seriously a lot for kale). It used to be around 79 cents; now
it's running $1.19. Again, this is family farm stuff, sometimes
Amish grown -- within 50 miles of my home.
In addition, we have several superb local farmer's markets;
two are within 3 miles of my house. The other is a giant
ethnic food market (delightfully free of yuppie pretensions
and high priced stuff) downtown. There are also a few
"farmer stalls" here and there, like at the local garden center
-- some sell "backyard" produce that is the rival of any
boutique farmers (its where I first got to taste locally grown
"San Marzano"-type tomatoes FRESH, not canned).
And on top of THAT, the local SNAP (food stamp) program
HANDS OUT gift certificates of $5 to $15 of FREE PRODUCE
for anyone with SNAP card (or on SSDI). At one stand, they
have reclaimed several old empty lots around the market
and turned them into "urban farms" growing raspberries,
blueberries, tomatoes, peppers and corn.
The rain made our corn crop late, but we are currently
enjoying awfully good California corn instead. (We'll get our
local corn, just late. When it comes in, it is 10-20 CENTS an
ear. Lordy, people, how much cheaper than THAT could it
get????)
I admire people who farm and produce stuff, but frankly
some of them (loony, self-important, entitled lefty organic
672
673
important.
I NEVER said anyone is "bad" for not buying $4 kale. I never
said we sell it for that price. What I said is that I understand
the actual costs involved in growing, and getting
produce/products to market. Retailers take their own cut,
remember. We operate a low-income CSA. We take food
stamps. We have a farm store. We sell to restaurants. We do
farmers markets. We know a lot about growing
(organically) at as low a cost as possible. It's still not that
low to hire local labor, and pay them fairly and legally, no
matter what you all prefer to think.
So you can make all the assumptions you like about
something you know nothing about. I would love to hear
from other growers and producers, but hey, I don't think
there are too many of them on Salon. I am not angry, I love
my work. I am often frustrated at the expense and red tape
involved. Don't call me entitled. I work around the clock and
invest money in the food system when I could be vacationing
and wearing Prada.
I am not the one being judgmental. I am offering a
perspective that is not offered often. I can promise you your
local (fruit and vegetable) farmers in every state agree with
me. It is unfortunate that food, and especially processed
products are so expensive. God knows, I wish they weren't.
But the reality is that they are. Should I offer a product
below the cost of production? There are not many other
businesses doing what we are doing, and those that are feel
the same way: that consumers must learn to pay more for
local, sustainably-produced food. That's all.
The fact that the economy is in shambles is not our fault. The
unemployment rate and income disparity is not our fault.
That fact alone ought to convince someone like me not to do
what I'm doing, but I do it anyway because it makes me
happy to offer a product that doesn't exist elsewhere. So
674
@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
your stuff in a heartbeat.
One more thing, since you seem to be new here. There are
two Salon letter writers with similar names. The first is
Bigguns, a longtime Salonista who I and others like and
respect, and then there is _Bigguns (note the dash before the
B), a troll. For the sake of the former, whom you might meet
if you stick around here long enough, please don't confuse
her with the latter. (Beans&Greens)
----Thank You!
Thank you Beans&Greens and XyzzyAvatar. Thank you so
much. And many many apologies to the real Bigguns.
Yes, I am new to commenting and do not know the rules. I
read Salon occasionally but it takes something really big or
something about local food to really feeling active.
I am doing the best I can, as I'm sure we all are with what
we're given. I do not intend to seem angry, but I feel
attacked. And I feel attacked not for what work I am doing,
but because a few people have made some very large
assumptions. I suppose that impulse is the same one that has
caused me to jump into the issue with full abandon.
I appreciate those of you who've expressed understanding. It
means a lot. I was briefly tempted to give my company's
675
website so everyone can see the good things we are doing -not for more sales because we do not ship -- but I have too
many people who are invested in the work (employees) to
invite hatefulness on my account.
And I just have say. If there is one issue that liberals and
conservatives ought to agree on, it's local food. It's good for
economies, the environment, public health, employment. It
preserves land, prevents sprawl, gives families good clean
fun in the spring and fall (berry picking, pumpkins).
One person's "grocery prices" are another person's
"revenue". It is not so simple and not so small a thing. Low
price is not the only important thing in the world. I think we
all know we vote most strongly with our dollars, no matter
how many we have.
Again, I am passionate not angry (although my husband
might say zealot). Whatever. I still feel pretty good about it
all. (nycmom)
----@nycmom: I'm not the "enemy"
Oh - -and there is no "real bigguns". It's just a username.
Anyone can use it (or a variation on it). Even you.
The big mouth "beanbreath" (Beans&Greens) used to be
Durian Joe, but he doesn't acknowledge that. He gets to
change his username, but in every thread, he has to be SURE
to let people know "I am not the real bigguns" (though there
is no real bigguns...never was, never will be).
I can prove that. HELLO??? hello? bigguns? BIGGUNNNNS?
(See? she isn't here.)
******
I was commenting that you are angry about customers (or
potential customers) who criticize your high prices. (I am
sure your roasted tomato sauce is delicious, but that is FIVE
TIMES the cost of an ordinary jar of bottled tomato sauce;
676
677
@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!
678
679
@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
accomplished violently, by finding some way to disenfranchise,
discredit or monument and/or "etherealize" (as by, for instance,
making them Elders, Emeretuses -- people already half-way shuffled
off to a higher plane and half-way otherwise sedimentation) the
already strongest voices on the scene. I think baby boomers have yet
more to say, and I would have them say it: but only if it means
fighting through an enfranchised, accustomed way of looking at the
world that actually mostly does them credit -- you are mostly great,
world builders! of the great-Eden-within-a-rock-from-Wrath-of-Khan
type -- but that still prevents them from doing the good they could to
generations after them that are suffering and are determined to suffer
far more yet.
People like Felissa are my more natural true opponents. What she is
up to is I think predatorial -- she is making the worldview of baby
boomers, she is making baby boomers, seem discard-worthy, right
even before them, knowing that because of how she presents herself,
because of their own desire to fit her within their preferences, and
because of their flacid ability to recognize alien viewpoints for so ably
and for such a long time dominating the world scene that
epistemological alienness, true difference, can hardly now even be
seen, her efforts aren't likely to be spotted. Felissa isn't though just a
younger version of most of you -- dashed with the slight, not-muchaggrieving difference that informs you you made sure her generation
680
developed their own voice. Her small asides aren't so much potential
draw-aways from the main point as they are actually distinctive tells.
She isn't quite so much taken to Pollan, the whole farmer's-market
scene, vegetarians because they're, though her "friends," and however
much truly admirable, just for one reason or another beyond her
lesser or restricted capacities, but because "they're" all part of a
stupid, indulgent, actually counter-human scene, of the dumb
touristy kind she rejects while out of country. Baby boomers, she
believes, created a world that is removed from struggle and which has
come at the cost of making them ridiculous. They have domesticated
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
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
@Shepa Dorje
This doesn't help: "pretty brainy responses for a kids movie!
I love to see folks exercising their grad school muscles."
This does: "HPATDH2 displays the book's major plot weaknesses-so much depends on random chance, like it happening to be Draco's
mom who examines Harry, or Harry stumbling on Shape in time to
get his all-important memories.
I'm not impressed with Daniel Radcliffe-- he just doesn't seem to
have much character. Sorry, I said it. The parts of the movie that
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
694
695
696
kids, so you don't care about the future. For you, it's all
about YOU, and your lefty creds. If you have to sell out the
rest of humanity for that, it's A-OK with you.) (_bigguns)
----I continually post the anti-religion screeds here back to
places like the Jewish ADL and NOM and other faith-based
organizations that wish to protect ACTUAL religious
freedom -- not just demean any people who believe, in favor
of lefty social policy. (_bigguns)
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
697
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,
without liberals feeling compelled to do much to get in its way. If
you're still pushing for such things as gay marriage, you're fighting for
good, for progress, even though the country has most truly slipped
while under your sway. Once the depression is all there is, sane
"voices" like Paul Krugman's made into absurd douches, then many of
the liberals who used gay marriage to disassociate themselves from
the cementation of more important, larger "struggles," will show how
they've really come to think of gays, and there will be rather fewer
people disagreeing with Laurel than there currently now are. The
problem for Laurel will be holding back the inclination to imagine
Jews in the same fashion she imagines gays: there is a sense that in
her lambasting of gay marriage, of suspect, civilization-weakening
inclinations -- self-involvement, parasitism -- she should be reporting
herself to Jewish authorities.
----Patrick McEvoy-Halston:
Are child molesters "gene-determined" in your learned
opinion? (Jake007)
@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
698
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
much the whole lives of conservative Christians and child-molesters.
That seems like an over-generalization
Not every child molester (or conservative Christian) was
molested as a child.
Thanks for your answer though : ) (Jake007)
@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
699
700
701
702
703
Re: Whether you want to believe it or not, you are overgeneralizing, in at least one regard. My wife and I are conservative
Christians -- and so are our four children -- and none of us were
molested as a child. Maybe we are the only six in the world, but
that's still six more than zero : )
Well, you're a "conservative" Christian who is at ease discussing
civilly, familiarly, at a largely liberal website. Further, you seem goodhumored and loving: since you're surely a fount of inspiration and
growth, I am hardly mostly interested in showing how ill a person
you've become owing to your background, and more in mind to clarify
what I mean by "conservative." Very best to you.
re: Imagine the uproar here if I stated that all homosexuals were
molested as children?
A conservative Christian can expect to get in real trouble over this;
the liberal but psychoanalyticaly-inclined can most likely expect to
simply be ignored -- 40 years out of date, and all: they REALLY ARE
beyond the pale. : )
I'll wait for your definition of "conservative" then.
In the meantime, let's review:
I asked "Are child molesters 'gene-determined' in your
learned opinion?"
You answered "No. They're sufferers of childabuse/molestation/incest, just like all conservative
Christians."
Unless "conservative" is now being (re-)defined by you as
anyone who sufferered child-abuse/molestation/incest, I
would submit that you are proveably wrong. (Jake007)
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
704
705
706
707
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
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
708
709
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
bad children that deserve punishment, be sure the good American,
more or less uncomplicated groove would simply have continued on.
We all -- but mostly people like Bachmann -- ENSURED this
predicament came to be.
Still the good, the sane, remain: You're likely not an adaption but a
REMINDER of where we once were before we DECIDED it time to go
off track. This, I judge, will become more apparent to you, miss
professional bent-in-the-head.
Link: The man behind the marriage vow (Salon)
---------
710
711
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
possess the art to abstract you out or to obliterate you within a quick
massing of your ignorances and prejudices."
712
713
encounter:
Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that.
You know, I don't really know how else to explain how
this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just
sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know,
in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator,
with you, just you, and -- don't invite me back to your
hotel room right after I finish talking about how it
creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when
men sexualize me in that manner.
That's all. It took up just over a minute of an 8-minute-long
video. She didn't call for the man to be castrated or claim to be
a victim of great injustice; all she expressed was that his
overture made her feel "incredibly uncomfortable," and that
guys should generally avoid doing that. "That" being 1) hitting
on a woman after she has gone to great lengths to explain why
she doesn't want to be sexualized within the atheist
community, and 2) ignoring her remark that she is tired and
just wants to go to bed. PZ Myers, a biologist who pens the
bookmark-worthy skeptics blog Pharyngula, wrote a post
about it and then Dawkins himself -- the rock star of atheism
-- waded into the comments thread with a satirical letter
addressed to a Muslim woman:
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your
genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and ... yawn ...
don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to
drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a
male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat
you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit
adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the
suffering your poor American sisters have to put up
714
with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself
Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her?
A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room
for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He
invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she
said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but
even so...
Who knew Dawkins had such flair for creative writing -- and
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
715
716
It was probably to the writer's discredit that she DIDN'T take him up
on his offer. Someone should write an article about that.
----DAWKINS MUST GET REJECTED A LOT
Looking fromn the photo at how geeky Dawkins is I'm certain
he's had to deal with a lifetime of rejections by women. Guys
like him who gain a position where they can lash back often
times take the opportunity to do so with gusto.
Dawkins obviously harbors many years of resentment towards
women and his angry over-reaction against this woman
reflects all of that pent up hurt. It explains his juvenile
behavior, but it does NOT excuse it.
Time for Dawkins to grow up & man up! (Ramparts)
@ramparts
re: Looking fromn the photo at how geeky Dawkins is I'm certain
he's had to deal with a lifetime of rejections by women. Guys like
him who gain a position where they can lash back often times take
the opportunity to do so with gusto.
Dawkins obviously harbors many years of resentment towards
women and his angry over-reaction against this woman reflects all
of that pent up hurt. It explains his juvenile behavior, but it does
NOT excuse it.
Salon picked an unflattering photo -- it wanted to make sport of this
good man. At some point, be assured, it will do the same to other
good men -- or as it'll make them seem, "douches" -- like Krugman
and Ebert. Any ebullient, more-or-less happy baby-boomer who
stands as an irritant to this age which wants fundamentally bullied
people -- like smoker, lack-of-affect Obama -- to serve as its lords, its
"allowance" of how jolly and self-satisfied you're allowed to be, can
expect to be disposed for some kind of inexcusable behavior. I've said
before that eventually it's going to happen here to former Salon editor
717
Joan Walsh, and that friends of hers, people like TCF, are going to
find themselves torn between the good part of themselves that wants
to support her and the bad part of them that is telling them she
deserves her fall for pretending to so damned much! (TCF, though
less enthusiastically than MEW, will of course ultimately lapse to the
dark side.)
My guess is that Dawkins scared this woman because she's not used
to close encounters with mostly EMOTIONALLY MATURE men; not
so much geeks, but their opposite. His goodness and openess and
genuine interest in her company made him an alien species (it really
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
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
price since just a few years ago) and yes, you can make may
delicious, cheap meals from them -- omelets and stratas,
frittatta's and quiche. Deviled eggs (yum!) and egg salad
sandwiches. But again, what is absolutely delicious if you have
it once in a while, is sickening if you must face it down at
every single meal.
Your husband is also incorrect that eggs are an insufficient
protein for a working man doing hard physical labor. They are
every bit the perfect protein package, as good or better than
any meat. BUT I am also sure he was sick of eating hard
boiled eggs (and probably constipated).
Living so meagerly that you must wait for a check from Salon
to go grocery shopping -- Felisa, that is madness. And I JUST
DO NOT get this. Seriously, I do not. You are smart, you are
educated, you are literate. YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THIS.
Is this a stunt? or a way to create material for a book, a sort of
survivalist-forager-in-the-mountains variation on "No Impact
Man"? Frankly, I am sick of these "I did _____ for one year!"
books. They are contrived and after you read a couple, you've
read them all.
I ask you again, in the name of reason and sanity and common
sense: go on your county food stamp website (you don't even
have to DRIVE anywhere, you can apply online in Oregon -- I
checked it out for you!) and start your food stamp application.
If you can't even keep very basic foods stocked in your
cupboard -- simple things like rice and beans and pasta and
flour and canned or frozen veggies -- and you literally don't
have food to eat at times, then you CLEARLY qualify for and
deserve food stamps.
It would give you and your husband a "baseline"; enough
money to buy healthy basics like meat, milk, cheese, fresh
vegetables, bread, cereal -- and then if you WANT to
experiment foraging or creating low-cost budget meals: more
power to you! Many people are struggling today, and would
726
727
clearly, would so scare you -- might just even better suit her mood.
She is making posts on a smug, beans-and-greens, baby-boomerpleasing/placating kind of site, and, admittedly, looks to be all about
youthful experimentation and foodie play -- of the kind that might
invite the understanding and appreciative baby-boomer elder to still
want to wizen by cluing or even startling her (as needs be) to her true
straits, and thereby better the resources very much available to her -but what she is, I think, is getting closer to this type: someone who
can't but forage out for sup because her primal instincts are finally
being unloosed, and, with the overall environment increasingly
responding to /echoing them than to the admittedly still-in-place,
effeminate "food stamp" safety nets, this time -- given the leverage -there's no tightening back in the beast:
http://nplusonemag.com/mother-nature-s-sons
I'll try and respond later this weekend on this subject. It's an
important one, that delineates how the baby boomers are without
their knowledge, with them actually sort of dumbly playing into it,
being zooed while the rest of us are getting busy engaging the wild -such a neat but true "turn" from trite simplicities like gentrification
and liberal class retreat.
----Bread, water -- and sickly Salonistas, if need be
Felisa has made it seem as if what she most is, is very much like most
of you, Salonistas. She moved to depressed, backwoods Oregon -- but
for reasons anyone at all human can understand: to re-engage with
home, after knowing so much constant moving about. She shirks food
stamps, but out of pride and independence -- something anyone at all
American can understand. She is younger than most of you, but in
spirit much the same as you; and so you mostly delight in her
adventures, with only a cautionary word to ensure she doesn't, owing
to inexperience, make that one youthful, arrogant misstep that you
know would stop her adventures cold. And so you viraciously defend
728
her, while gently cautioning her (here, even Laurel has stepped back
her attack a considerable some -- gauging Felisa mostly now a martyr
["I respect your staunchness, but you hurt yourself more than you
have to"] rather than a fraud), and she modestly but appreciately
thanks you for your support.
I would suggest, however, that you all consider seeing her as -- and
I'm sorry for this, Felisa -- a worse sort than the actual foodie you
once had in mind to destroy: Gerry Mak, the struggling, unemployed
20-something who actually went on food stamps, but to buy pretty
much anything! he wanted so to find himself eating better than he
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.
729
730
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
731
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
spoiled and youthfully rash as I am ... actually rather a little bit
weirdly drawn to what is genuinely unsettling in raw folklore.
It is not yet time. The ancient and pure, the composed for eternity
and most truly great, must still for a time play to the spoiled and silly,
who, though fundamentally but a longish moment, remain hoisted
for it nevertheless being their time. But God the ample fat on their
bones attracts near as much as the spread of their imbecility draws!
Still, let me see ... next time, perhaps: "Salonistas, thank you for your
patience with me; I have been a bit silly, and am thinking over your
encouragements to lay aside some of the pride and perhaps sign up
for the food stamps and visit those actually not-quite-so-far-away-asI've-made-seem stores that I ..."
Link: Eggs, two meals a day (Salon)
--------Felisas articles (Salon):
How my hippie parents turned me into a consumer
How I learned to stop worrying and love football
How the recession turned me into a scavenger
Scraping by on stinging nettles
Scavenger: How my grandmother taught me to eat weeds
How I became a hillbilly
Hunting the fickle fiddlehead
732
733
734
735
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?
You have wrapped your point up in an enormous number of
words, but the bottom line is that you are simply attacking
her, and you do so under the guise of educating her, which is a
particularly revolting way of trying to tell someone that you
think they are weak.
Wisely, I think, Ms Kho will likely not give you the rise you are
seeking to provoke from her. But I'm quite happy to call bulls
%$t when I see it.
Re: the misuse of the forum to project and work out one's own
personal issues - have you looked in the mirror lately?
(mateomateo)
----ignore Paddy McHalston-Klein
He's a good example of a rare breed - a well-spoken moron.
He has a certain way with words, but when you look at the
actual content of what he's saying you discover it's pure drivel.
(Sour Scribe)
@mateomateo
This isn't simply somoeone telling us how she set herself free; it's
someone who's taking advantage of a spreading environment which
buttresses and praises those who'll lose themselves to lies, while
pretending absolutely different, and which will come, which IS
736
COMING, at the expense of any irritating counter who smells the rat
and is keen to point it out too. The mob is trying to blob out sane
response -- it aggresses; and the only sane response response is
letting it know you're cany to it and won't be backing down. It's about
self-defence, your survival, too.
People who are bullied at school inevitably have been bullied FIRST
at home. Bullies pick on them, sensing their already-victimhood: in
picking on them, they become that much less the kind of person who
is foremost a victim themselves. This author is quite willing to dwelve
on the family abuse inevitably to found driving bullies, but not at all
interested in exploring if something of the same is at work in
producing those who'll prove their victims. In a sane world, we would
all notice that, and direct her attention to it. In a different
environment, one in which sanity is secure or on the ascent, I would
reply with much less fight. Believe it or not, I mostly do wish her well,
but not at my expense.
@Patrick M-H
You're kind of a prat, aren't you? In your world, everyone is
"mentally ill" except for yourself, is that it? What a sad little
life that must be for you, being the only healthy person on the
planet.
I have to say that the last time I saw my Grade 1-12 nemesis,
she had gotten so obese that I had to look twice to see if it was
really her. She was always heavy, but she used to have a neck.
I think she recognized me, but thought twice about talking to
me because I was laughing so hard at her that I had to sit
down.
Karma's a bitch. (Aunt Messy)
----Sorry - she still won
You stood there on the sidewalk, charring with er like you
737
"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?"
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?"
738
739
740
741
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
742
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
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.
743
@ 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
Alchoholic father. Abandoning, betraying father. Alchoholic,
betraying, abandoning -- self-serving -- father who at the end of his
life, would deny even more of you.
Selfless angelic mother, who is to be summed up by all she has given
her kids and all they rightfully -- though she of course would make no
claim to it -- owe her.
Son who wants to delineate for himself his ability to remain true to
himself in face of cowing further expectations and guilt, but has only
worked himself up to doing so in his safe trial run: when spurning
someone he's taken care to describe as obviously having more than
earned his spurning -- his father, an act he still takes care to also
communicate his loyalty to his spurned mother, as being perhaps
principally in service to her rather to himself. "You abandoned her
when she needed you most, so I'm ignoring you now -- fair turnaround, asshole": and so our writer surely plays the puppet for his
mother's revenge fantasy.
I recognize this guy, and see what he's working himself up to but fears
there's no way he'll manage. How about from the very available clues
he has fortunately been able to give us, we try giving him the
encouragement he really wants and needs? Wakey-wakey, people.
@Dorothy Parker
Further, if there is something Freudian going on here -- and I'm with
you in thinking there is -- it is in how the writer portrays his father.
744
745
It's true that we don't KNOW that this is happening with the
LW, but it might be. It's like all that unfinished business roars
up to the surface for that last chance of resolution.
So LW if any of that really is happening for you, please
thinking about getting into therapy for the duration. Might be
a good idea anyway to give you extra support as you see your
mother through to the end. Please don't let the judgers and
the haters bring you down. I still stand by what I posted
earlier - honor all your feelings, the need for relief and the
desire to do the right thing. (Aquatic)
----On Sentiment and Duty
Many in this thread have given sentimental reasons why LW
should continue to visit his mother every day: he should
"cherish" the time he spends with her; he should have
"reverence" for the death process; he should think of it as
"sacred" work. These are fine sentiments--if you have them.
But if LW were capable of sentiments like those, he would not
have needed to write for advice. It is clear that he has a strong
aversion to visiting his mother. Sometimes we can induce
feelings in others by getting them to think of things in a
certain way, but as a general rule, you cannot argue someone
into having a feeling.
In my original post, I simply advised LW to do his filial duty,
and several others on this thread have emphasized duty as
well. Admittedly, there is something impersonal about duty.
In fact, were LW to tell his mother he was visiting her because
it was his duty to do so, that would be cold. He'd be better off
not visiting her at all than to tell her that. In fact, it is part of
LW's filial duty not to let his mother think that duty is his
motive for being there, but rather that he is there because he
wants to be with her at the end. In other words, he has duty lie
746
747
and the fact that she is explains why none of you really left so far from
her that you're not all at least potentially available for a "late-night
snack" -- even with you being the meal of choice, your siblings live but
a day's drive off -- then the reason you don't want to be with her now
is because of the carnage to self composition that might follow when
duty demands than you lay down every self (defence, interest) in
deference to her, not duty. If LW listens to you, disinterested
spectator, he'll come in a knight to Duty, but Mother will make short
work of that ignoble spurning and leave him feeling royally screwed.
His only real compensense will be that he did what his siblings didn't;
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
748
749
750
751
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
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,
752
753
754
755
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
the big box stores like Costco.
There are also "alternatives" like bacon drippings, any fat
trimmed off meat (as you actually did have in the freezer),
lard, Crisco and so on.
Apparently you have some false pride about asking neighbors
FOR A STICK OF BUTTER (or even margarine, which costs
about 30 cents a stick), and that's ridiculous. I am sure you
would gladly give a neighbor a stick of butter or margarine, a
cup of vegetable oil, and not even want to be repaid. In the
deep country, people depend on each other and THAT IS A
GOOD THING.
As I have said before, I have family in the country and yes,
they have close neighborly relationships, because so far from
things like repair guys you can call on the phone 24 hours a
day, YOU NEED a neighbor to help you with that bad tire on
your car, or the sump pump that won't work. Trying to do it
alone is almost suicidal.
They also have learned you CANNOT COUNT on short trips to
the supermarket or Kwik-E mart, so you BETTER DARNED
WELL have a plan for storing groceries, and a back up plan,
and somewhere to store staples and stuff, because if nothing
else, in the winter you might be stuck in the house for weeks
at a time.
It doesn't take much brilliance or cash to put aside a sack of
756
757
758
759
2) Please. You had coconut oil and plan to replenish your olive
oil stash? That ain't poverty.You were giving fat and bones to
a dog and hadn't made stock from it already? That ain't
poverty.Soy sauce? You can afford soy sauce? Damn, must be
nice. NINALOCA
Yeah, she tries to give something back to the neighbors who
helped her this past winter. It's called pride. As I mentioned
above, her jar of coconut oil cost about the same as 1/3rd a
carton of cigs -- at the reservation smoke shop.
3) I live on a fairly decent income in these times and certainly
can't afford things like bacon, wine and coconut oil.
I would think that things for you would be less stressful if you
lived in your car and begged on a street corner nearer to a
mini-mart than relying on your community to take care of
you. Or better yet- even 2 minimum wage jobs can pay for a
small apartment and basic needs. -- Liar
You can afford the time to post from home on your own
computer & maintain an internet connection, (midday
Saturday the libraries are verrryyy busy) but are too poor to
buy coconut oil or wine? Right. You win the trifecta of
horseshitting!
You vile, aging twits reveal your ignorance of contemporary,
rural western poverty with every filthy word you write. It's
willful ignorance, judging from what you've indicated about
yourselves. You all have hired hands & other service providers
who desperately need a smoke or three after they deal with
you.
You hate her wholly because she is young, hopeful, welleducated and damned resourceful. The comparison between
her and you is endlessly humiliating to you -- as it should be.
(Holly McLachlan)
-----
760
Adapting
Wow. Lots of haters out there! For those who say "oh, none of
us have ever done that, or know anyone who has ever used
truffle oil," I think a lot of us lived differently before 2008. I
would spend $5.00/day on a mocha coffee because I thought I
deserved it working at my crazy job in the big city. And then I
was unemployed and my high-minded ideals of never
stepping into a WalMart ended because they did have the
cheapest cereal in our rural town we had to move to for my
husband's job. So, enjoy the article for what it is--a story of
changes of life, adapting, cooking. Each of us experiences life
differently and through our passions; our kids, cooking,
Bunco, whatever. Oh, and if the author's articles drive you so
crazy, STOP READING THEM! (Caseystay)
----Loved this article.
I can sort of relate, because I've been in the running-out-ofthings situation myself, things that will just have to wait
another three days until payday. (I liked the suggestion about
making butter from whole milk, that was very clever.) My
suggestion: if you think hamburger grease is OK as a cooking
fat, always keep a pound of hamburger in the freezer. Switch it
out with another pound every so often. And always keep an
emergency stick of butter in the freezer, too. When you buy a
new carton, switch the frozen stick with a new one. That
butter will always be in there, for when you run out. (marco
polo)
----@NINALOCA
Nina, Felisa is a very nice young lady, with a lot of very
761
762
763
764
there are also people who simply have bad luck or hard times.
That you can't understand that undermines any of your
points.
I don't own a business or employ anyone, and I doubt Felisa
does, and neither do NinaLoca nor others here. To jump on us
as some kind of "capitalist slime" holding down the
"proletariat" is nonsense. Go back to to your lefty Political Sci
class and on the double!
No, there is nothing wrong in giving back to your neighbors -scraps for the dog or whatever -- but Felisa is so
uncomfortable with those same neighbors she feels she cannot
go over and BORROW ONE STICK OF MARGARINE or a cup
of corn oil, suggesting they are not as tight as you imagine.
Again, comparing coconut oil to cigarettes is unfair unless you
have reason to believe she is wasting her dollars on smoking.
75% of the US public DOES NOT SMOKE. And plenty of the
ones that do, are middle or upper class. (I see plenty of high
paid Hollywood "talent" smoking!)
I don't know AnnNonomouse's backstory, but I can tell you
that I have a USED several years old computer that I bought
second hand, and my internet costs $9.95 (dial up). It's also a
bit of an indulgence, but my husband needs to be able to pick
up work emails on the weekend.
I agree that the library, which used to be a good source of free
internet for the poor, is so terribly swamped now with victims
of the economic downturn, that its next to useless.
HOWEVER, Holly, there are plenty of people who simply
can't afford internet so THEY DO WITHOUT IT. Certainly it
does not come before FOOD.
You are insane if you think I have "servants" or am a
millionaire business owner cheating their employees. (And
Ms. Alkaline says that I make things up? HELLO! are you
reading this????) (Greens&Beans)
765
----@Leeandra Nolting
I agree. I think most country folks would be very OK with a
neighbor borrowing a stick of butter or cup of oil, and
probably say "honey, don't even bother to repay me!" I think
even SUBURBAN folks would do this. It's simple
neighborliness. I pity anyone with neighbors so mean or
parsimonious they won't loan you an egg or a cup of milk in a
pinch.
Now, doing it constantly: not good. I am not endorsing
mooching, just honest borrowing once in a while. And it goes
both ways, naturally.
As you say -- and good point -- mayo can be used for an oil in
some things. I have used it in cakes to substitute or oil or
butter and it works well; mayo is made out of OIL, EGGS and
seasoning.
I've also sauteed in Italian dressing when I had nothing else
on hand; it's mostly canola oil and vinegar. It won't work for
everything, but is fine to saute some strips of chicken for a stir
fry (it won't take much heat).
Country Crock is pretty gross IMHO, but yes, it's very cheap. I
wouldn't want to sentence anyone to eating margarine -- I
believe it is very unhealthy -- unless they are dirt poor and
nothing else is possible. Corn and canola oils (generic brands)
are not expensive and some house brands of olive oil on sale
are just as cheap. Lard is even cheaper than that. I'd only eat
margarine if there was ABSOLUTELY nothing else
whatsoever. (Greens&Beans)
----@Holly McLachlan: well, YOU are here
I don't know about the others, but I got up early -- took my
766
dog for a long walk in the park -- did a couple loads of laundry
-- paid the bills -- ran them out to the post office -- went to an
neighborhood yard sale -- drove to the local park for the
annual "Green Festival" -- had a picnic lunch -- came home
about an hour ago and logged on to pick my email. Read some
other stuff, then Salon and posted a few letters. Not exactly
MY WHOLE FRIGGIN' LIFE, lady.
While you have nothing of value to comment on this article
about, just to tell us all how much you despise us, while
engaging in the IDENTICAL BEHAVIORS we do.
Pot, meet kettle. (Greens&Beans)
----GreensMy story- I have a small farm in rural Eastern WA. No "hired
hands" no employees. What comes in goes back out. Its a
heart felt commitment to no savings and no health insurance.
But we do well enough to take care of our needs and help out
in the community. Kids in school + homework= INTERNET
PRIORITY. Whereas gas is a priority over wine, canning
supplies over specialty oils and vacuum cleaner bags over key
limes.
I don't know Ms. Rogers or what parts of her storys are real
life. I loved the foraging articles and am a sucker for
sourdough. Very humorous and insightful, but would have
been just as enjoyable without the "feel sorry for me" pitch.
True hunger is something I don't wish on anyone, but to play
up (should I say play down) your life just to get the emotions
of the readers is fiction. These articles lead us to believe they
are honest and true experiences of the writer. Maybe they
should be categorized differently under "entertainment".
(AnnNonomouse)
767
768
769
770
771
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
along these lines when they do. (Holly McLachlan)
----@holly
You have absolutely no idea who you are hectoring and you
are so completely offbase in your assessment of me that the
urge to laugh and tell you to STFUB passed immediately and
all I could do was feel sad. It sucks to be poor and its easy to
feel as if your dignity is constantly under assault so Im going
to just assume you're not an asshole but someone whose been
fucked over and feels shitty.
BUT
If I take the time to say,'You can get 5 lbs of cheap chicken,5
lbs of rice and 5 lbs of beans for the cost of your expensive
oils" and you choose to see that as proof of hatred, contempt
and disdain for the poor thats on you.
Your concerns are at about Level 4 on Maslows Heirarchy of
Needs. Laurel and I are focusing on #1- physical survival.
When someone tells me they are hungry but then complains
that they need chocolate and EVOO and coconut oil because
fuckdammitlifeishardandicantbedeniedmhumanity it feels to
me as if I were a surgeon tring to perform an emergency csection but the patient starts bitching that the incision would
772
773
774
----@beshok semaj
Of course if one eats a diet of raw foods one doesn't have to
worry about cooking at all (except for the use of a dehydrator).
Then one is being stupidly wasteful. It's been so well
established that it doesn't even need to be demonstrated
again. Raw food is much less nutritious than cooked food.
Meat. Eggs. Fruits. Vegetables. Flowers. Roots. All of it.
Cooking makes proteins much more readily available. It
gelatinizes starches. It breaks cell walls. You get significantly
more minerals, calories, protein and so on from cooked food.
In controlled experiments with the highest quality raw food
people on three to four thousand calorie a day diets could not
maintain body weight. In the studies of women of childbearing age even highly prepared uncooked foods in gorgeyourself quantities were insufficient to maintain menstruation
in over half of participants. That's with modern varieties of
fruit which have undergone thousands of years of selective
breeding to be more nutritious.
There is no human society in recorded history or the
archeological record which subsisted mostly on raw foods.
Not one. Our near cousins the chimps and bonobos do. But
they have jaw muscles which go all the way to the sagittal crest
(which we no longer have), pouchy, muscular lips,
enormously stronger teeth (ours are like an ape's baby teeth),
and a significantly longer digestive tract. And at that they
spend 6-8 hours a day just chewing and digesting.
We are the ape which cooks its food. That is one of the few
universal defining characteristics of all human cultures.
(anuran)
-----
775
Well... I enjoyed it
Flame wars aside, I thought that was an excellently-written
article. It reminded me of my "getting started" time years ago,
when I used to comb through the couch trying to find enough
change to go buy Ramen.
I don't miss those days at all. (Dancing_Angel)
----Wish I had found this before the trolls did
Your writing is, as always, refreshingly good. It's unfortunate
that so many people are only able to find joy in the putdown
of others. That one particular poster has time to write
numerous comments under a name that was slightly altered
from a more sensible poster tells me that she has no respect
for her own opinions and must therefore hide behind another.
She also has way to much time on her hands. Unfortunately,
she is only one of several people who take offense that you are
not living as they would have you live - though we cannot
assume that they would ever truly practice what they preach.
Your words will always be wasted on them.
Such are the problems of the Walking Wounded. These are
people who have become so broken, for whatever reason, that
they cannot see the wholeness and goodness in others. They
are incapable of understanding that another person's
experiences and goals are different from what they might have
experienced or wished for themselves. Pity them and move
on. In the meantime, I look forward to another brilliant essay.
Thank you,
Rachel (RenaissanceLady)
----A publication-wide eidtorial decision
776
777
own wine from those kit things. He filled about half of their
basement with the results.
I can't imagine them ever running out of cooking oil, even
back when they were living on the farm (not sure, though, that
they would ever have had coconut oil on hand).
So, to me this reads like someone who had idealized the rural
life, but who now has has gotten into it without having the
instincts.
Learn from this, do what the neighbours do and stock up in
quantity (on the cheap stuff -- and really, bulk canola is the
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
778
779
780
you for a gay man!"), to "out" people you disagree with, to call
names and make ad hominem attacks -- oh, and did I forget
"rampant anti-semitism?"
Will you speak out as eloquently about THOSE ISSUES as you
do about "one poster who thinks Felisa Rogers should get food
stamps so she and her husband don't go hungry"?
Can you point out -- and please do! -- where I have used curse
words, vulgarity, allegations about people's sexual orientation
(negatively), "the C word", or OUTTED ANYONE for
expressing an opinion?
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?
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
----------
788
would let Salon run the interview as well, I was all for it. On
Wednesday, he replied, asking me to "BRIEFLY describe your
main objection to my blog post, Pegs and Holes," and we have
both agreed to run our responses unedited. This is what
transpired, on Adams's blog. (Mary Elizabeth Williams, Scott
Adams takes on Salon, Salon, 23 June 2011)
LINK TO DEBATE
---------King Ape
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
789
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.
(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
790
----------
791
792
793
marriage.
We can't stop people from committing incest either, or living
in polyamorous groups, or having sex with animals. But we
don't have to label those things "marriage" and we don't.
3.) YES. Having gay marriage totally changes my marriage
from a REAL MARRIAGE to a "gay partnership with Partner
A and Partner B". I don't want that, and I will fight to keep it
from happening.
If gay marriage passes in your state, then THERE ARE NO
MORE WIVES OR HUSBANDS, just Partners A, B (and likely
C, D, E and F, etc.). They have already changed all kinds of
documents at the Federal level to include this, using Partner A
and B. Marriage licenses in some states already have gotten
rid of Wife and Husband. Judge Vaughn Walker stated in his
opinion that "men and women are entirely interchangeable,
and have no unique differences", hence marriage can be
between ANY two people.
I do not consider this a "trivial discomfort" but a huge
intrusion into my marriage, which ultimately will debase and
devalue marriage for my children and grandchildren.
4.) No, marriage is a relationship between a man and a
woman, and should not be changed to accommodate other
people on lefty political agendas. If we "celebrate" enough, we
will soon have incest marriages and polygamy; good reason
enough NOT to change the definition of marriage.
Divorce has it's own problems, but banning divorce isn't even
on the table (if anything, divorce laws are becoming more
LIBERAL), and anyhow, most societies have legal divorce.
Only Catholics don't accept modern divorce law (in theory).
That's a dumb point.
5.) A Salonista is NOT merely one who posts here. It is
someone who is hogtied by lefty ideology and can't think for
themselves -- someone who hates America, hates families,
hates heterosexuality and generally signs on for a very
794
795
I like and even love many gay and lesbian people. My kids are
not gay, but if they were I would love them! (My grandkids are
too young to know either way.)
I've seen all kinds of crazy stuff on Salon, so I see it as a forum
for ANYTHING -- they publish stuff by anti-semites and NeoNazis! anything I would write is tame, tame, tame by
comparison.
Also I think it is public service to tell blinder-wearing clueless
lefties the TRUTH about what MOST AMERICANS think,
because they are truly in the dark.
I resent your saying that I EVER said I hated ANYONE
because that is NOT TRUE.
I am sure you are a nice person, and so is your boyfriend.
However, you can't be married, not in the eyes of most people.
Not while DOMA stands.
You might adopt, but you will NEVER EVER have children,
because men cannot get pregnant and give birth. You need a
woman for that, my friend, and you don't have a woman in
that so-called "marriage".
Would having a child, knowing that child would NEVER
HAVE A REAL MOTHER, be the right thing to do? Or just a
selfish act by two men who care more about political
correctness than a child's wellbeing?
I never said "you were dogs" and I would fight for your right
to live freely and openly with your boyfriend, however you see
fit.
What I said was that legalizing gay marriage is just like
legalizing polygamy and incest, and that it is a path to
destroying marriage, and EVENTUALLY even things like
bestiality.
You can live anyway you choose, but you can't ever be
married, because you are two men -- and you can't ever have
children, because men are NOT CROSS FERTILE WITH
EACH OTHER.
796
You are probably nice guys, but honestly: time to come down
to earth.
----Still havent answered the question, Laurie...
Do you tell your gay friends and family members that they are
among the same variants as incest and polygamy? No, really I want to know....do you? And if the answer is no, why not?
My marriage to my husband is recognized in my state - it is a
state's issue, right? You do know that we live in a
Constitutional Republic, don't you? Constitutional republics
attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect
dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny
of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the
majority of the population.
No matter what you say, please go to bed tonight knowing we
have a marriage license. And that we are going to have
children. We are right here on earth living a life that you
abhor - and there is nothing you can do about it. And if one of
your grandchildren turn out to be gay, I really hope you keep
your online identity anonymous - you have no idea the
damage you would cause them. (Doc1976)
@laurel1962
Personally, I am for gay marriage / polygamy / incest MOSTLY ONLY
because of the bedrock who's for it -- the Salonistas, that you mock.
THERE IS a huge ridiculousness about them, in that they ecstatically,
enthusedly triumph things they would actuallly prefer ... that they
cannot ALLOW themselves to know too much about, because their
gleeful, righteous triumphing depends on a certain image they have of
ALL groups / ideas the rightwing, conservatives have traditionally
disparaged. For them, the disparaged must not only be discrimated
upon but in actuality be very good and worthy, so to make
rightwingers that much more awful in their perpetrations. But these
same ridiculous Salonistas ARE NOT FOR making use of these
797
798
799
@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.
800
801
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
foreign market with him, when he has a huge income to travel
or hire legal assistance?
If you mean "older hard to place children", I know a few older
gay couples who are indeed raising such children. But YOUNG
gay couples refuse to consider this -- they want WHAT
STRAIGHT PEOPLE HAVE, which is a perfect tiny adorable
infant. And they often have the means to edge out ordinary
middle class straight couples in the competitive adoption
market.
If we want to talk about assisted fertility -- donor eggs, donor
sperm, surrogates -- that is a problem too. There are countless
celebrities who are at this moment openly abusing fertility
technologies designed for infertile STRAIGHT couples so they
can have a "gayby".
Most of these gay and lesbian celebs are not remotely infertile;
they are young and healthy. They just can't come to terms
with being in a non-procreative partnership and want "what
straight people have", which is an infant.
Most are so cruel and selfish that they do not consider the
needs of the child FIRST: that a child above ALL OTHER
THINGS needs a mother AND a father, if not his biological
parents, then a substitute set of male and female. Anything
else is not going to be the same, and the child will have a
serious deficit in his/her life. (Laurel1962)
802
----@Laurel1962
Re: Most are so cruel and selfish that they do not consider the needs
of the child FIRST: that a child above ALL OTHER THINGS needs a
mother AND a father, if not his biological parents, then a substitute
set of male and female. Anything else is not going to be the same,
and the child will have a serious deficit in his/her life.
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,"
803
804
Link: Barack Obama should come out for gay marriage already
(Salon)
----------
[. . .]
805
806
807
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
require almost 90% of average American take-home pay for a
family to live in just a 1 bedroom Brooklyn apartment
(probably having to stuff the kids in a closet or large bureau
drawer).
Either you are vastly above the mean (or median, or average,
or all three) OR you are on the parental dole somehow to be
able to afford to live there, OR (my own personal theory) you
are not middle-class but well into the affluent class. Are you
Bill and Melissa Gates? Of course not. But please don't insult
real, struggling middle class families in American by claiming
to be one.
Also: I don't know anything about Atlantic Yards, but I
wonder why you think you have achieved "victory" in creating
a wasteland of parking lots instead of AFFORDABLE homes
for people who are not as wealthy and privileged as YOU ARE.
Is this a kind of closet racisim? Isn't it true that no matter the
corruption of the stadium deal (which I believe is likely true),
what you really wanted to do is block low-income housing,
and keep poor and working class people (ESPECIALLY those
with black skins) out of your white, affluent, yuppie enclave?
To protect your housing values, by keeping the area "upscale"
and exclusive?
Interestingly, your colleague Mary Elizabeth Williams, wrote
about this in great detail in her book "Gimme Shelter"; it was
808
809
afford to.) And how much do you think a movie critic for an
Internet publication gets paid, exactly? Trust me, my
household income would not define me as "rich" in
Oklahoma, let alone New York City.
As I think I made clear in the piece, African-American
community leaders like Councilwoman Tish James, state Sen.
Velmanette Montgomery and the more progressive preachers
were among the leaders of the campaign against Atlantic
Yards. The collapse of Ratner's huge dream for the Yards only
had a little bit to do with the activists, though, in the end. It
was mostly a result of his grandiose overreach, since he didn't
stick to undeveloped land and sought to condemn and drive
out numerous residents and business owners, and even more
than that a result of the financial collapse.
No one thinks those acres of empty land and parking lots are a
victory. They are a monument to greed, pride and stupidity.
And it wasn't people like Tish James or Dan Goldstein who
were the proud and stupid ones. (Andrew OHehir)
Never having abandoned the heartland
The cultured go to Brooklyn/Berkeley, not really ESSENTIALLY
because that is just where the jobs happen to be, but because it's
prequisite to establishing them as natural aristocrats -- the best of the
best, who not only know what real culture is and where it is most
undistilled to be found, but have it them to insist on manifesting
themselves there. What is important in their letting you know how
they origined from Indiana et al. is not so much their having been
born but their having LEFT there. They can pretend otherwise, and
seem inclined to want to -- you turn instantly European and notAmerican if you just loathe on the stupidly unpretentious, Nabokov
style -- but what they mostly want you to know is not that, at base,
they're still of the working class, but rather that they're so much not
that that even being born a world apart couldn't prevent them from
junking it behind them, once independent and adult. They're showing
810
811
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
bullies are going to ride rickshaw ...
Link: Battle for Brooklyn: and in breaking news, Goliath beats
David (Salon)
----------
812
love my Jewish friends, I love the apples and the honey and
the funny little hats but stop cutting yr babies @eliroth" -- a
comment that prompted actor/director Eli Roth to jokingly
reply, "You didn't seem to be complaining when I was
recutting you this afternoon."
[. . .]
Yet in the harsh light of hindsight, a whole heap of backlash,
and who knows, maybe a little more clarity of thought than
when he'd originally been posting, Crowe deleted the
offending tweets and issued an apologetic message. "I have a
deep and abiding love for all people of all nationalities," he
wrote Friday. " I'm very sorry that I have said things on here
that have caused distress. My personal beliefs aside I realize
that some will interpret this debate as me mocking the rituals
and traditions of others. I am very sorry."
[. . .]
"This is a great forum for communication," he graciously
wrote this weekend. "I, like any human have my opinions and
you all have yours, thank you for trusting me with them."
Whether you agree with his views or not, you've got to give the
guy credit for being able to know when to apologize, and how
to listen. In the morass of Twitter wars and flames that can
make the Net feel like a cesspool, Crowe, it turns out, is
anything but barbaric. (Mary Elizabeth Williams, Russell
Crowes anti-circumcision rant blows up, Salon, 13 June
2011)
Breach
Does anyone else get a sense that with Tracy Morgan and Russell
Crowe, some shells have hit the sides of a vast and thoughtimpenetrable battleship, and for the first time made some significant
dent? Yes! This here ... this is the way!
The story ostensibly here is that if you attack Hollywood, no matter
your inner bulldog, you'll find yourself backing down and apologizing
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
I would say it's barely still good to be gay now, Scriptorum. I think in
an age swinging strongly Depression, no one really wants to be
associated with anything he or she still thinks of as 'weak,' as in need
of spirited defenders. The impulse amongst liberals will be to at some
level communicate a hesitancy to associate yourself too strongly with
them. Something of this is involved in the hipsters' movement to the
neanderthal/paleo/industrial/ grandfather 'worship.' And in the
blossoming in the acceptability of anti-boutique-liberalism-sort-ofliberalism of back-to-fundamentals Chris Hedges. Maybe too with
Tina, where though everywhere around her are her elf-workshop
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
829
830
831
@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
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)
832
833
834
rejected parts onto "you," it has nothing to do with who you really are
or what you've done, but you could just happen to be a nutcase.
----Slavery: not even homo economicus is up to something as
inhuman as that
The point of slavery wasn't to make money -- it was to inflict upon a
class of people a worse facimile of the kind of torment you got in your
childhood -- so no doubt all along there was some better way to
riches. They hung on to it longer than the Europeans did, because
Europeans on average were evolving better (slightly bettering
childhoods) than American Southerners were, resulting in their
moving up a bit to still abased but slightly better ways of abusing a
whole collection of people (wage slavery et al.). So even though
Southerners were retarded on this score, Northerners, if they were
healthier, if they themselves didn't crave war and sacrifice, could have
waited out their brethrens' mass regression and made abolition
happen afterwards -- and before Southerners naturally evolved to it
(Screw you, preacher: You can't do THAT to another human being!) -amounting to hugely less carnage. Didn't you all learn that in school?
----two points to Patrick McEvoy-Halston
were the south of the Mason-Dixoners the only ones to import
captured Africans?
if no was the northerners trying to make money?
@benvorhauer
They evolved out of it. Money gets made, but I like when people point
out that things like slavery and wars are so not at the root about
money that they are effected in instances when about no-one -- no
even, hardly, historians so running away from themselves they can
only understand human beings as homo economicus -- can argue it's
about the green anymore. I've seen from a few books coming out that
the idea (truth) that what is often called evil is actually lack of
empathy and an accompanying full-rim of sadism, is making way
835
back into discussion. Thank God. With that we'll be drawn to asking
ourselves what kinds of childhoods lead to empathy, and what kinds
not. And eventually to understanding that any period of history where
slavery can be rationalized, MUST have as its primary constituents
extremely poorly-loved people. For, if you've known love -- not an
entire cultural apparatus is at a deep level going to convince you that
something screamingly wrong is being done to people with the likes
of slavery (you will KNOW them to be human, even if you've only
been told their not, 'cause you will have less of a need to see them just
as an embodiment of your own personal demons and some of the
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
836
837
838
written by David Brooks, which argue that what we need most now is
a return of a leisured, governing class -- people who are still
constituted to appreciate the slow, to deliberate, patiently, and do
what is necessary for the long-term. People like Obama, who can
remain mostly serene, cerebral and assured, governing over a nation
turning itself fully over to the lords, as far away as it can from the
plebs, while making this seem somehow a return to architectural
sanity. It needed, that is, be about reclaiming the '70s, but its
opposite.
Link: In praise of boredom, at the movies and in life (Salon)
----------
839
840
considering that the sudden realization you had was just as much
about your own being attracted to what is perhaps ultimately suspect,
as it was the author's.
Also, really be brave: if you learn things about the author you do not
like, but still very, very much like what they wrote: don't dismiss, but
EXPLORE what they were doing in their lapses and villainy. It might
not just be shadow, but, strangely, the light extended, from page to
life. Let's not all be hobbits afraid to venture out our door.
----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
841
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
possibility. "Alas, we're all imperfect" is obviously mostly escape, not
engagement. Look for immaturity there.
Of course, we're living at a time when the good person increasingly
seems suspect of being just the NEUTERED person, determined at
the cost of any self-elaboration to show how willing they are to sit in
place for life; and at times like these, you must look for life, goodness,
in strange places. In case this isn't clear -- never, however, in Nazism.
Just use your imagination.
----The unspoken contract is that art, once produced,
exists in its own rarefied realm...
Though reputations and human foibles do shape which
stories are told and lost.
Speaking of bastards... Caravaggio, perhaps the greatest
artist of his or any age, was generally considered a fiend.
He accidentally murdered a rival when attempting to
castrate him.When Vasari wrote his profoundly influential
work, The Lives of the Artists he deliberately made no
mention of Caravaggio, because he personally knew and
loathed him. As a result, for centuries Caravaggio had a
diminished reputation in the art world.
Paul Gauguin abandoned his wife and children to frolic in
842
843
844
845
846
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
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)
847
----------
848
849
show you how bad they are, and so too you. And then agreed, all on a
hunt for those who might think of themselves, something different.
----Empathy, but also demons
People who do not at the start of their lives obtain for themselves
sufficient love/empathy to lead to them being well-souled enough to
drift so often to how they might learn more about and help out others,
but receive it later -- through whatever means -- have a tough time in
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,
850
851
852
make the angry black man once again acceptably "the angry black
man." This way, rational, fair, mature, concerned Obama can ensure
the Depression -- his ultimate role in history, I think -- and those
most likely to be hurt, become primarily fair creatures of sport. (For
me, with the examples that foremost come to my mind -- with West,
with Armond White, with the brother in "he's climbing in your
window," emotional,"irrational" black men are being set up as
deserving whatever might happen to them: instantly dehumanized.)
I think this is only temporary, however. Once the Depression is really
rooted in, I think that like the last big one, everyone who had for a
short while snickered at the habits and inclinations, the evidence of
upset, of the poor and disenfranchised, will suddenly see the suffering
masses as noble. No more talk of birther-politics. And, I think, no
more illustrations of the angry black man. Instead, I think antisemitism rises, becomes legitimate amongst the literate classes, even.
America, everyone once again agrees, demonstrates its purity, its
intention to be true to its heritage, its brothers, its folk, by reparing
the damage done by slavery and keeping faith with black people -- by
NEVER allowing blacks to be fair subjects of sport: and who must it
have been to have done the considerable evil in temporarily swaying
them away from their faith?
Plausible?
----The core of the matter
Black men's "theatrics," style, heritage, voice is now being readily
deconstructed, brushed aside by liberals as really just plain
inexcusable disrespect. This is amazing. It's the opposite direction
from the '60s, which was about empowering the carnival of the
disempowered -- whatever its true virtues -- not using it as evidence
that they need not be listened to. Obama empowered this? That
because you remain in support of him the very last thing you can be is
racist, so enough of what-is-in-truth-your-inexcusable clownishness
that we've long grown tired of pretending as otherwise? It empowers
it, I think, but what motivates it is, one, that what-is-in-greatest-truth
853
854
allow ourselves to quite THINK this, but we feel it automatically -and it'll doom them of empowered friends. But I think it likely that we
at some level know that we've not commited ourselves to being
opposite to two groups we're supposed to want to enfranchise and
represent: that we've untethered ourselves from exactly what made us
liberals in the first place. Once the Depression has irrecovably set in -and so long as Krugman still insists that government spending can
still sway us away, it probably hasn't -- like the last Depression,
liberals stop mocking the habits of the poor and become one hundred
percent behind them. In fact, it'll be all we'll do, non-stop, for ten
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)
855
856
857
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
generous great writers of current MFA programs are now sufficient to
buoy you on to be greater than they were -- whatever their concern,
also, that you showcase through your causes their own purity, that
you be pure and golden, and reflect back love onto them, and that you
not write much that truly agitates them.
The worst part is that the current generation increasingly senses all
this, and understand the deprival as making them "adult": we're in a
sad and grotesque period where once again, being truly withered, not
ripened, evidences your prime.
--@Benno
Youre welcome, Benno. Hope you enjoy the work as much as I did.
There's also a bit from one of Jacques Barzun's books that comes to
mind: perhaps in "Classic, Romantic, Modern," he gets at why all of a
sudden the New -- in this case, Romanticism -- suddenly became, in
his words, "easy" to produce. The reason he offers -- that the previous
mold had exhausted itself to the point that everyone suddenly could
not but be aware the current course had exhuasted itself, and so
finally onto gleeful, productive experimentation -- is probably very
misleading, however. My guess is that all along the late classicists
were very aware they weren't really innovating -- and so felt
protected, some, when their era had suddenly made the switch to
believing people don't deserve to stand out. It took a generation
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
in mind to partake of another big bite of life of the Big Apple myself.
(I was evicted, but was never persuasively made to see the rightness
behind the eviction: am I safely away from the tempting sin-laden
tree, or just behind "Soviet" walls, bidden to the very worst of masters
-- tired, I suppose, somewhat pleasingly familiar but awfully well-tred
moral truths, and dumb sobriety?) I suspect the 20s generation that
loved the book and weren't anywhere near-ready to shift into, geez,
"mommy and daddy did know best" old-timer think, sure, took the
ending as a possible anticipation of what might follow -- we're
ultimately damned for our fun; it's all an (albeit impressive and
powerful) staving off, and we know it -- but recognized the book
overall as one OF its era, an authority and a catalyst for further
MORE of just their kind of fun, where if this here is proving a
disappointment, another surely awaits in the 'morrow, and you know
with the added focus it's sure to be more even more splendid than
ever! And this is in fact the true glory evil, degrading, past-dismissing
Capitalism befell upon them, for another four to five more years.
Lucky buggers!
I'm hoping Luhrmann helps remind us all that this great era actually
happened, and was worthy, even if this means being blasted by
incredulous critics as an attempt at a Sex and the City 3, after number
2 was just loudly everywhere damned as a must-never-be-seen-again,
worst kind of inexcusable out-of-stepness and excess. If it's just loud
and sure morality tale and damnation, then it's just Dick Diver, and
what ten years of the Depression did to Fitzgerald, as he lived out his
second act.
You're point about desire, to the hopeless task of catching and
keeping what will only surely slip out of your hands the very moment
you grasp it: Nick says something along these lines in the text, but
Fitzgerald writes him as someone who delights in his smart and
capable grasping of phenomenological experience -- in his
remarkable capturing of all that he sets out to capture. He makes the
effort constantly -- it's pretty much, for me, what the book is mostly
about; what he mostly does. And he succeeds, and he knows he
865
succeeds -- and in a way that would draw admiration from others and
that he himself will relish -- every time. What HE desires doesn't so
much slip away from him as he does from experiences he has already
succeeded in catching, "nailing," and savoring. And rightly so. He has
his breakfast, enjoys it, and when ready, begins his looking-forward to
lunch. This isn't so much Capitalism as it is someone who is not of the
depressed. Take Nick (from the first part of Gatsby, before he
converts over to Gatsby) and place him away from New York and out
for a long spell without possessions in the wilderness, and you've got
yourself Annie Dillard from Tinker Creek, in this case, enjoying the
daily rush of experience Nature provides. She, we remember, doesn't
retreat sadly back away from the thrilling onrush of the Now and into
retrospect and past-obsession, until she has the willies startled out of
her: until something "massive" and awful stops her forward progress.
The rest wasn't her getting wise, just her recovering. I think he puts
the stop in to some extent just to steady himself -- he is not
ultimately, her equal. But put a true Westerner into the spoils of New
York, and you'd never get from him a Great Gatsby: Nick, whatever
your reticence and discomfort and breaks-on, New York was already
well within you, my friend.
Fitzgerald self-destructed because of his discomfort with the
empty artifice you describe. And his inability to ultimately
find that life palatable.
Literary works don't become popular simply because they
celebrate the culture they describe. Quite the opposite.
Usually they articulate an unspoken longing in the culture at
large for something beyond the anodyne offered as a salve to
the wound of the human existential burden of the era.
We readers have always found hope to live in the bridge
across alienation offered by evidence of another troubled
soul out there engaged in the same struggle.
Water water everywhere and none to drink. And you're
admiring the fountain.
866
867
868
will be able to perpetuate his silly lie and, with luck, win the
girl.
[. . .]
I get that Dowse (Fubar, Its All Gone Pete Tong) isnt just
mimicking 80s comedies; hes actually trying to make one,
trusting, I suppose, that the audience is in on his ultra-ironic
joke. The movie is badly lit and cheap-looking, presumably
intentionally. But if modern audiences are really looking for
sub-John Hughes, Adventures in Babysitting-caliber
filmmaking, theres nothing to stop them from going straight
to the source: You can pick up a treasure trove of this stuff
for a few bucks from the revolving rack at your local
convenience store. (Stephanie Zacharek, Coke Adds Life
Just Not to Take Me Home Tonight, Movieline, 3 March
2011)
Re: But if modern audiences are really looking for sub-John Hughes,
Adventures in Babysitting-caliber filmmaking, theres nothing to stop
them from going straight to the source "
That's it, that's what they're looking for: an ecosystem of worn and
repeatedly-done-before you can safely imagine participating in
without a whiff of maybe-anxiety/uncertainty-causing counter or
contention (genius or original voice, mostly certainly counting here),
to get some kind of "I exist!" thrill to take home and cuddle. The
concerned move reviewer who cares enough about what we've all got
to deal with now, might soon realize "their" task is perhaps mostly to
take whatever moment of demure stir to be found issuing from
current movies, and while praising it -- genuinely (imagine you're
dealing with terrorized, hide-prone children, and so thereby find the
way) -- still relate it carefully to something a tiny bit more daring
done before or elsewhere. It's how the good genius Stanley Greenspan
got former autists, completely set to turtle before, to never really see,
everything but a very narrow spectrum of stimuli -- a narrow
spectrum, mind you, that could be expanded to eventually make at
869
0
Labels: art, autism, big brother, stanley greenspan, take me home
tonight
870
871
Franzen tried, for years locking himself away from feedback while he
tried to write true -- but despite all his isolation he never convinced
with his finished products that he'd ever let himself out of the
zeitgeist: a hutzpah that cows him and lowers him before his TRUE
master and fellow isolationist, DeLillo. Gandalf's back again in a
couple years -- maybe he'll do it. If not, perhaps just recall of the
Shire, and therefore some also of the Inklings and their lifetime
works.
Doesn't surprise me that Franco is not about to lose his charm
amongst youth: THEY NEED to believe he can automatically reset
after anything -- daring everyone reflecting on and obsessing over
what he had already finished to risk in quick retrospect seeming
laggard, strangely over-eager, and exposed -- so to believe their own
resets are just as complete, provisioning, and other-balking. They
identify with him too much to allow that he may have may have been
substantively affected by this, which he likely was, and hence the
prompt show of today's sufficient Starbucks study to ensure timely
completion of tomorrow's ivy-league goals.
Link: Report From Yale: James Franco Still Likes Doing Things
(Movieline)
872
----------
873
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?"
874
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
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..."
875
876
877
----------
878
879
880
the constant precarious balance of our lives. We could see two men
kissing, and even celebrate it: how more evolved could we possibly
become? -- Continue on!
Gay men are going to be allowed, even motioned, aggressively
prompted, to kiss, even at the Oscars: so long as "we" know it'll
mostly communicate a kind of propriety, circumspection, not
lavishness and joining in the fun. If we're looking for homophobia in
the next while -- and I think we should be looking for it -- we'll find it
in an intolerance for promiscuity and just-plain-indulgent-fun, which
for many people is the near natural way of essentializing gayness, not
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)
----------
881
The contest:
The King's Speech:
Bertie: Cant you just give her a nice
house and a title?
David: I wont have her as my mistress.
Bertie: David, the Church does not
Recognize divorce and you are the
head of the Church.
David: Havent I any rights?
Bertie: Many privileges
David: Not the same thing. Your beloved
Common Man may marry for love, why
not me?
Bertie: If you were the Common Man, on what
basis could you possibly claim to be King?!
David: Sounds like youve studied our wretched
Constitution.
Bertie: Sounds like you havent.
VS.
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Cameron: [Ferris slowly pulls the Ferrari out of the garage] No,
Ferris. I'm putting my foot down. You're just gonna have to think of
something else.
[Ferris keeps driving]
Cameron: Ferris! We could call a limo! One of those stretch jobs
with the TV and the bar. How about that?
Ferris: [Ferris pulls the car back slightly] Come on. Live a little!
[Cameron crosses himself, walks to the car]
Once, being anal and clingy only meant your likely to poop diamonds,
now it means youre apparently just the stuff to balk back Hitlers and
882
883
----------
884
885
exception of Crosby, the next three are Swedes -- the Sedin twins, and
Lindstrom. People are noticing that the Swedes are less flashy but
ultimately more effective and far, far more lasting (they're playing
strong at 40, whereas everyone else is depleted by 30 or so years of
age); maybe true genius can't be seen when what we're looking for is
truly as much hightened sensation?
Or is lack of attention to America's highest psychoclass in Lloyd's
current writings owing to something else? Sweden is clearly doing
great things, but it's easy to take non-individualistic Sweden as mostly
an example of a nation that quietly has all along been laying solid
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
886
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
like nut-cases. Remember, the likes of conservative-and-ultimatelydeficit-focussed-and-therefore-massive-sacrifice-enabling David
Brooks, who recently wrote an article titled Make everyone hurt
and wasnt so much not kidding as licking his lips who laughs at the
more moronic of Republicans but points out more vividly the Hitler
talk used by Democratic public unions as well as their Orwellianism,
who is looking for founding fathers of austerity who will show the
public, [b]y their example, [how to] [. . .] to create habits that diverse
majorities can respect and embrace, when, as Krugman points out, it
was largely through oligarchs that the deficit-bloom was created in
the first place, which should, you would think, lead everyone to focus
a bit more on what the mass of public benefactors have to say about
all this rather than to a rarified elite, is probably playing out as the
voice of reason here.
Watch all this Wisconsin business, how it plays out. Pay attention to
who is using hypermasculine terminology. My guess is that the people
under normal circumstances are least likely to use it -- the real
progressive left, those of the more advanced psychoclass - are
actuallly going to be the ones caught out for their threatening,
disturbing aggressiveness, their unbalanced mental state. The
California students who rebelled against criminal, jolting,
astonishingly cruel sudden drastic tuition increases, became very
aggressive. Be assured, these weren't regressives but progressives
once again caught out by a state that is beginning to seem Nazi-
887
----------
888
889
890
891
892
(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
"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.
[.]
893
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 reality-
894
895
896
wasn't bigger than the game, when, apparent to all, he couldn't more
have been at the time -- which has become truth for him, is true now
for movie stars as well. It seems to me that what this means is that
there isn't going to be anything going on within a film, that out of its
uniqueness and budding power, will extend out and set a new
standard. The shell, the encasing armor, won't permit it, and the only
people who'd step inside it are the ones who wouldn't really think to
try it -- whatever their ability to contort themselves, fundamentally
they just want their place (I'm more than kinda even looking at you,
James Franco and Anne Hathaway). Perhaps that's mostly why the
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
897
898
899
900
901
902
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?
903
(Movieline)
----------
904
aim might be with this to make the '60s seem more like Mad Menlight, as if everything was the same but got muted after the '50s,
rather than intensified, wholly changed -- finally awakened. For those
of us who sense none of the charisma about Obama that others seem
to, we're wondering if this is all a plot to keep him and the rest of the
talented but still shortchanged (even lovely Anne Hathaway?) the
absolute perfection of human kind, rather than themselves,
significant slippage.
I know this is supposed to be a Republican take. I don't think that's
quite right: it's just the anti-hippie take.
Link: Katie Holmes Performance Is the Biggest National Tragedy In
This Kennedys Trailer (Movieline)
---------Worrisome flips more than flops for scripts
In the interest of scientific exploration, I offer a few random
dialogue samples from the 3-D cavediveapalooza survival
adventure Sanctum: Lifes not a dress rehearsal you
gotta seize the day! The exit! Shit! Wheres my mask?
Goddammit! I am not wearing the wetsuit of a dead
person! You spend your lives wrapped in cotton wool! You
want to play at being adventurous? Yeah, this is it! And last
but not least, the ever-popular Weve got to get out of here
now!
Sanctum wasnt directed by James Cameron hes merely
an executive producer but the script is pure Cameron
gibberooni, the kind of language that would embarrass a
40s comic-strip character if he found it penciled into one of
his voice balloons. (Stephanie Zacharek, Sanctum Wasnt
Directed by James Cameron, But Its Dumb Enough to Seem
So, Movieline, 3 Feb. 2011)
905
For what it's worth, I really like this bit of dialogue from "Avatar":
GRACE: Alright, look -- I don't have the answers yet, I'm just now
starting to even frame the questions. What we think we know -- is
that there's some kind of electrochemical communication between the
roots of the trees. Like the synapses between neurons. Each tree has
ten-to-the-fourth connections to the trees around it, and there are
ten-to-the-twelfth trees on Pandora -SELFRIDGE: That's a lot I'm guessing.
GRACE: That's more connections than the human brain. You get it?
It's a network -- a global network. And the Na'vi can accessit -- they
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.
906
907
908
909
Lets just get this out of the way up front: Great job,
Academy! That the AMPAS found room for everything from
Winters Bone to Toy Story 3 to the ferocious performance
given by Movieline favorite Jacki Weaver means they
deserve a bit of kudos. (If youre one of those, Yawn, Im too
cool for the Oscars! people, just go back to bed today.) Of
course that doesnt mean many, many deserving nominees
were left out in the cold this morning. Ahead, the six biggest
from the major categories. (Christopher Rosen, Your
Favorite was Robbed: The 6 Biggest Oscar Snubs,
Movieline, 21 January 2011)
---------I disagree. I thought the noms were fair and on the mark. I
predicted that True Grit (this year's Blind Side) would be the
sleeper movie and the Coens would get best director. There's
an upset coming. I also predict that Colin and Jeff will split
the best acting....or Jeff walks away with the best acting
award. (response to post, Chicago48)
----I agree. Comparing True Grit to Lifetime movie of the week
The Blind Side is ridiculous. There is so much nuance and
meaning in True Grit. Can you really say the same thing
about The Blind Side? That movie was only Oscar nominated
because it was a crappy year with very few stand out films.
If it had come out in 2010, it wouldn't even have made a blip
on the awards radar.
I think the biggest snub this year is nominating Hailee
Steinfeld for a "Supporting" role. Did the Academy not
realize that True Grit is Mattie's story? Mattie is in every
910
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
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
911
912
I wonder where Ashton gets his instinct to please from? Maybe there's
something in the roles he takes, or the kinds of women he tends to
date, that could give a hint? Anyway, it's surely wholly commendable
-- who'd want to just a horse when you can be the prancing pony the
whole of your life? Unless of course you could be the embarrassing
jackass, Gervais: you'd think seeming like you'd never crawled out of
the crib would count against you, but I swear he tore down the world
sensing that life-long babies are morphing into scarily-bequeathed
enfants terribles, who won't much longer have to know what it is to
have to back down to adults.
Speaking of adults: Stephanie, you're always commendably calling for
more films for them; let's keep up some voice for more adults in film,
too: I know this one's about childish adults, but I don't want to wait
for Ashton to be in some cancer role for someone to tell him it's NOT
this time his part to play the fool.
Link: Actions speak louder than dirty words in No Strings Attached
(Movieline)
----------
913
914
his nimble little gams. The crowd cheers, cries, and holds up
signs telling him to stop running once he hits the end zone.
This condescending malarkey precedes Susan Boyle by 15
years, so I cant discredit Forrest Gumps soothsaying
powers. Its like the new Network that way. Except Faye
Dunaway is too subtle for this movie. For real.
He saves his lieutenants life in Vietnam. But war-proud Lt.
Dan (Gary Sinise) didnt want to be saved, and he resents
Forrest afterward until they start up a shrimping
company together and fulfill the dream of their fallen
comrade Bubba. Lieutenant Dan pulls off the Helter Skelter
zeal well. Which makes sense because this is ThE SeVeNtIeS!!
1!
He gets real good at ping pong and it heals international
disputes with China? I dont even know what Rob Zemeckis
was going for here. Whatever happened, it allowed Forrest
to meet the president an occurrence he enjoys a million
times this movie.
Holler, LBJ! Bad news: Forrest Gump isnt a real person, so
to make his interactions with super-for-real presidents forreal, the movie uses special effects to manipulate stock
footage of our great leaders and make their mouths look like
theyre saying droll things to Forrest. It looks freaky. LBJs
twitchy CGI mouth looks like lost footage from the
Sledgehammer video. At this point, its clear Forrest can
zap himself to any notable moment in history whenever he
wants. You might know this movie by its original working
title, Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego?. (Or Zelig Gump.)
Forrest gets on The Dick Cavett Show, mumbles something
about religion and heaven, and fellow guest John Lennon is
Jesus, this movie inspired to write a jingle called
Imagine. John Lennon would love Forrests absently cutesy
shtick. He so would. John Lennon was annoying sometimes,
and at least this movie understands that.
915
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
916
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
willing, in testifying to its qualities: "you" end up okay, because "you"
didn't so much break the dam but remade it anew, in territory too
riskily befouling for concerned others to consider undertaking the
nagging job (and here, discussing "Forrest Gump" was a problem that
was nagging -- IT was the one that won the oscar, as well has having
as much broad-effect as the ongoing hero, "Back to the Future"),
AND all the while making the snidish feel themselves open and fair.
You may never be a great writer/reviewer, but we remember your
sacrifice of yourself into besmirching territory.
If you mean to do the in-your-world brave and stand up for the likes
of Xanth, "Titanic," "Forrest Gump," "Dangerous Mind," it requires
an awesome feat of steadily-maintained, artful, protective
dweamorcraft to get the job done -- and I don't think I've ever seen it
managed, not even by A. O. Scott, who, for example, will often defend
Tom Cruise, but NEVER without letting you know the actor doesn't
have extensive range (very brave, A.O, very brave: how about just a
compliment, and leaving it at? Such things are possible.); if that's too
daunting, you just make the praise (as with here) amount to worse
than some (in this case, most) critiques -- that's safe enough. The
whole point is not to really get at why?, be fair to the film and its
lasting influence on you, and air it out, but to see if you can manage
something akin BUT WITHOUT being caught out by misstep -- we're
all watching -- and it makes for something of an abominably unfair
effort, and usually just a resort to curses.
917
Personally, I liked the brazenness of Forrest's life being tested but not
really affected by "major events" that ARE SUPPOSED to stop you
cold, if you care or are human at all: he was allowed to breathe,
following his own rhythm. Gene Siskel WAS stopped cold by these
events -- Vietnam, JFK'S death, etc -- but loved the movie for feeling
it had helped quit shocks he personally had still been suffering from.
There must be something considerable in a film to accomplish
something as wonderful as that. (According to Movieline's twitter'
feed, Gene Siskel's birthday is today. I think the episode is on
YouTube.)
Link: Bad movies we loveForrest Gump (Movieline)
Link: Siskel and Ebert review Forrest Gump (YouTube)
----------
918
919
making smart decisions about certain gratis duties and jobs and
employers (especially employers) can entitle rookies to a little more
experiential leverage than a paycheck gets them. And whats worth
more?"
This Horatio Algeresque response -- make most of your
opportunities, be smart with your resources, and you'll succeed where
others failed -- has me thinking of this bit, from Morris Dickstein's
book about the Depression, "Dancing in the Dark," about why powerdifferentials stood unchanged throughout the period:
As one psychiatrist who had trained with Freud later told Studs
Terkel, "Everybody, more or less, blamed himself for his delinquency
or lack of talent or bad luck. There was an acceptance that it was your
own fault, your own indolence, your lack of ability. You took it and
kept quiet." Thanks to this "kind of shame about your own personal
failure . . . there were very few disturbances." (220)
920
921
sufficient skills and "get up and go" to succeed, but because they don't
so much draw out the more sadistic impulses of those over them.
Their societal role now is to just succeed, to live life near as if nothing
truly averse is happening -- everybody is beginning to now really feel
it -- and so make clearer that a class of human beings is supposed to
exist that is simply to be served, and so thereby everyone else of a
class that is just supposed to suffer, that we are determined to make
suffer, waste away, and yet still blame themselves for all of it. Stand in
the way of this "due course," at your considerable peril.
That was the situation during the Depression, where the full
consequences of the running-down of a whole generation that
Greengrass fears (the next flappers weren't seen until the '60s, with
the hippies) is on its way was actually effected, and which I do think
we're right now once again stepping into.
Link: VIDEO: Low-Wage Hollywood Has a Champion in Paul
Greengrass (Movieline)
Appendum: Sunnnydazes response:
The problem isn't just with young people. The attitude in this biz is
that you are so lucky, so blessed to be involved why on earth would
you expect to get paid? This for any age of individual. Makes some
sense when a person is new to the industry but when you are 35 and
have been in your craft for 20 years being asked to "volunteer" is an
insult. It also creates an environment where the "rich kids" have all
the fun and success while people who actually need to work for a
living fall away and into other fields to survive.
---------MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2010
"Being resilient in crappy times"
Before Hollywood discovered it could reap huge profits by
922
923
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
924
925
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:
926
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
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)
----------
927
928
929
930
931
----Regret
You do need to be able to con. You do need to be able, if there is just
cause, to be able -- in an instant -- do otherwise than what you've
always been told you're supposed to do. If society is turning puritan,
for example, you do need to be able to protect, hide, those that are
being assigned the role of the rats. If society is corporate, against
cooperative efforts, you need to be able to find some way to help
communicate that its control is not total. A first step toward this, may
just come from the likes of returning books you never purchased: you
may actually thereby be safely convincing yourself you can thwart
authority, and survive: foundation for scarier, more relevant, efforts.
If you sense that this is part of what your own cons were about, to do
most good, you don't repudiate all you once did -- just work on why
your efforts became to seem near mostly about repetition compulsion,
about always proving you can avoid the scrutiny of the angry eye,
from your own projected parental-figure, about why you keep keeping
it within a context whereby not corporations but vulnerable,
perennially-trapped people kinda like yourself, are actually the ones
you imagine most at risk of being taken in your scams. There is
psychological work you could make of this, and it could make it so
that rather than a repentant, you become more truly what you once
(however still faintly) set out to be: a truly moral person, who respects
"the human" enough to be a potentially change-prompting, certainly
anger-arousing, irritant, when appropriate.
I remember reading "Why They Kill," of how rapists and killers get
"there" by first partaking of smaller thrills they believe others would
fear to similarly manage, so I'm not ignorant: the truest villains can
be made to seem heroes, if what you're mostly doing is championing
deviance, deviation, defiance. Still, though there is a world of
difference, heroes ARE those who can brave anxiety-provoking
experiences, for some better purpose, and I do sense a little bit of the
hero in this person. I just wish that there was an environment around
to encourage it. As is, he's just doing what Tiger Woods is about to do,
932
933
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
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
934
935
936
Juiced?
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
937
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?
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
938
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
939
940
941
942
bush (take a break to sneak-peak on the boys just a little way over
"actually being subincised"!?). Remember, though, if ever back in the
city you see a lot of men rounding up street kids for maybe something
similarly penile-related, you probably ought to switch modes and
report it rather than report ON it. I'm sure they're actually just being
made manly men, but displaced into the less virile, less vigorappreciating city, it'll be deemed wrong.
-----
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
943
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
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
944
945
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 strongin-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
946
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
built on commerce, entertainment, experimentation and self-growth,
is not ever surely insusceptible to being charged luxurious and fallen
-- better to go back into base mode, less ample mode, more
restricting, more striving mode, where just being part meant
demonstrating you had it in you to live in tough times. But later, a
more mature generation will emerge, that will shirk you off like the
Tudor courtiers did their numbskull, French (effeminacy)-fearing,
dark age ancestors. They might relapse too into numbskullery, but at
some point humanity will streamline, and then just grow, peacefully
on.
Link: The dramatic decline of modern man (Salon)
947
948
into that experiment, then we are the ones who lose out.
Speaking of "beyond our daily experience," I for one found
Richard's views on "female bullshit" fascinating and
astringently delightful. Few women ever get a glimpse of the
inside of a consummate womanizer's mind, and I, like
axelrod, underlined the passage where a client's flirtatious
wife makes what she thinks are challenging remarks about
Richard's music and then "waited, with parted lips and a
saucy challenge in her eyes, to see how her presence -- the
drama of being her -- was registering." How I love that
miniature, well-barbed character sketch!
So, fellow Salon Reading Club members, what do you think?
Do you find the characters in "Freedom" likable or not -- and
does it matter? (Laura Miller, Why must a novels characters
be likeable?, Salon, 11 Sept. 2010)
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 inner-
949
dialogue 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
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
950
951
youngest of them.
The characters in "Freedom" appear to make
decisions, but they're all rooted in their experience
and biology. It's striking, for example, how much like
Patty's father Walter turns out to be, and her
relationships with both Walter and Richard make all
sorts of sense on the basis of her upbringing. Where
do you come down, ultimately, on the question of
free will?
This is exactly the kind of question I want to leave to the
reader. The novelist is responsible for creating an experience,
not for interpreting it.
The book has received a tremendous amount of
publicity. Is there another book that you really liked
that has recently come out, that you think might have
been overshadowed by your own?
I've been so busy with publicity that I haven't been able to
read any recent releases, but reliable friends have told me that
Jennifer Egan's and Gary Shteyngart's new books are very
good.
Of the criticisms you've read of the book, which hits
home the hardest?
Well, I don't read reviews, so I'm not familiar with the
criticisms. But I'm sad when I do a public event and
somebody tells me -- as if an author would want to hear this!
-- that my characters are unlikable. I feel like I'm being told
that I myself am unlikable.
[. . .]
952
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
953
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.
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
954
955
This is not to say that I don't hope that more novels will be
written, particularly by the two dozen-odd authors whose new
books I invariably snatch up with a suppressed squeal of
excitement. [. . .] But I'm confident those novels would still
get written even if NaNoWriMo should vanish from the earth.
Yet while there's no shortage of good novels out there, there is
a shortage of readers for these books. (Laura Miller, Better
yet, DONT write that novel, Salon, 2 Nov. 2010)
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
956
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.
@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
957
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,
is in the path of aggressive, swarming, insistent group-think /
impulse, and I despise when those who ought to know better praise
the inclinations of those who would eat them up. Other times, it could
well be democratic, generous, and open: ranging, wild, Louisianan
sniper-fire that makes mincemeat of ordered British regimentation.
But not now.
958
@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."
959
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
they went about their albeit-somewhat-coordinated business in poor
fashion for victory. I know I'm not convincing you with this, but it's
what comes to mind.
Re: "Again with the Fallacy of Mutual Exclusivity. There is
no reason why a person could not both participate in
NNWM and also devote time and effort to reading more.
(Obviously that person would be strapped for time if he
tried to do both in November, but you get my drift.)"
But 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, wicked step sister-like pushes away,
those into self-recalibration and interested, respectful, otherattendance.
960
@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.
961
962
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."
963
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Patrick McEvoy-Halston: "I do not believe that Laura is
telling people to desist mostly because she sighs that the last
964
965
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
966
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
ultimately instigated out of a need to do the required to block from
view authorities that still "stand" that complicate efforts towards
uncontested group-think, that could disturb one or another from
trance, and played to whatever part exists in those who are
succumbing that has been drawn previously to what she has to say, in
hopes of keeping that much more sanity "in play."
Laura is doing the same thing here. If you like what Laura has to say
before this, please know for sure that if she met more of you, caught
better sight of how much you actually do read, actually participated in
the event, and read more of your produced work, she wouldn't think
any different. You honestly think you want to "acquaint" her, but
don't realize just how much you would rather more have her
succumb. (The instant Laura stood amongst you, you'd know the
issue is how to break her -- she will not cooperate, "friend.") We know
you're about the modest, the smallest pretense, claiming only the
tiniest of space and most modest portion of our time, but we sense
something in the nature of the time we live in that tells us you're
actually already probably at some level aware you're going to be
carried along to trample all over us. You think elites like Laura are the
ones with power -- and right now you'd prefer to never think different
-- but power now really belongs in those who would abstain from
being interesting and would orient the elite to be less true counter
and more an assumed part of the story. The most sane and good
"about town," won't go down without a fight, for both your and our
967
@Patrick
Oh, did I hit a nerve?
Good.
I love puncturing pomposity, it's my fourth or fifth favorite
pastime.
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.
968
969
970
971
she's maybe having a bit of an off-day with this one. David does all his
modesty and fairness in a way which probably makes more than just
me feel as if he's being wide-stanced into a corner while listening to
this most 'greeable of personages, but, overall, we're still though,
comfortably all-agreed: Laura is so beyond-all-evidence off on this
thing it may not even be unfair to start considering if she IS actually
lessening into a witch, an isolated cretin whose crime though is not
just ignorance but greedy jealousy, who figures some score that no
other than she is aware of will be settled if she collects together some
large share of clicks from out of other people's misery.
But is it possible for representatives of every position to "convene,"
representing the entirety of everything at-all possible to be
considered, and yet for it still to amount to a collective assembled to
keep out anything dissonant that does exist and that would provoke it
out of a drama it's drifting into and that JUST MUST be lived out?
Well, yes, it is. During the Great Depression, for instance. For a few
years at the commencement there were pot-shots taken at the
struggling / trying, but very soon everyone was agreed -- the
astonishingly literate and completely illiterate, the earnest and wisecracking: all -- that the people are as they are being presented here,
decent "folk" with no pretensions, giving it their best shot, doing the
intrinsically American and just trying to make something more of
themselves and of their lives, and only the hugest ass would know
them different. The few people who "objected," who argued, no, these
people are shrunk, lacking in sustenance, personality -- requiring not
a voice at the table but some beginning of a differentiated voice at-all
worth hearing -- hardly existed, and when present, hardly known,
gaining larger recognition only 30-years on, after the war, with the
beginning of a new era-long period where everything that was known
for sure could finally be seen in a different light, and be reevaluated.
As Morris Dickstein recently said of Nathaniel West, who saw in the
folk simply still the "drained-out" mass, he "would paint their fury
with respect, appreciating its awful, anarchic power and aware that
they had it in them to destroy civilization." Laura IS civitas. If people
972
like her succumb, soften their stance, see your point-of-view and try
in the future to be fairer to you, it's going to naught but prescribed
agreement the rest of the way on. If this isn't your thing, you're going
to have to learn to take solace with that maybe subsequent generation
who might better recall you, while you're removed from today's hotseat back to the corner playing solitaire.
973
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.
Link: Better yet, DONT read that novel (Salon)
----------
974
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
manifested itself near the same time in Washington that shows it
exists to absorb / counter some / much of the hatred that Obama
might for the moment be imagined as not quite being able to handle
without "collapsing."
Different thought: We know that after long periods of growth, when
we're about to enter that horrifying stretch of time that follows manic
growth, the termination of the historical cycle, we're all inclined to
merge back with the engulfing mother and sacrifice substitutes of
ourselves to Her.
Is this move into government, in near proximity to socialist /
engulfing Obama, means for the Tea Party movement to in fact
become part of Her (Obama as agent of Mother) (something Jon
Stewart is also doing, and perhaps ultimately for the same reason, in
his own massing on Washington)? Should we expect them to function
as Gingrich et al. once did and continuously oppose the president? Or
will they at some point -- after he has suffered and endured their
anger, accepted their presence within government -- essentially serve
as extensions of him, and cripple -- believe it or not -- other righteous
"crazies"? Should we expect Tea Partiers to in fact quickly become
denatured -- offering up their own potency to Obama, perhaps -- a
non-story, and begin its own Obama-lead crackdown on people who
behave pretty much exactly like they did (excited, angry, claiming)
before their ascension to Washington?
Last thought: If Obama is Hoover -- someone elected principally to
975
ensure the Depression, and not "lead" our way through it -- he will
never become more present, less distant, in our lives. This will fall on
our subsequent delegate. From the beginning I remember Pat
Buchanan saying that Obama doesn't speak with heart; maybe rather
than a messiah, we rejoiced in the erection of a thoroughly / already
known, pretty place-holder, which would content / assure us as we
isolate ourselves and slowly succumb to the psychological
modifications that would drift us towards a simpler, more emotive,
less complicated leader. As is obvious, I'm not sure of what exactly we
truly wish of him, just yet.
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
976
977
978
979
Evidence
980
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
making sure that future efforts are tied to specific
national interests and defense goals. It seems hard to
argue with this. The U.S. needs to do the same thing.
-------Jim (response to post)
----You may all have read it already, but here's Paul Krugman on the
cutbacks:
Both the new British budget announced on Wednesday
and the rhetoric that accompanied the announcement
might have come straight from the desk of Andrew
Mellon, the Treasury secretary who told President
Herbert Hoover to fight the Depression by liquidating the
farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down
wages. Or if you prefer more British precedents, it echoes
the Snowden budget of 1931, which tried to restore
confidence but ended up deepening the economic crisis.
The British governments plan is bold, say the pundits
and so it is. But it boldly goes in exactly the wrong
direction. It would cut government employment by
490,000 workers the equivalent of almost three million
layoffs in the United States at a time when the private
981
982
Keynesian argument.
That point is that the reason the U.S. can get away with
heavy deficits, and heavier trade deficits, is because of our
military control of MidEast oil. As long as this remains in
effect, the excess dollars can be exported overseas and
other countries, particularly China and Japan, are
obliged to accept them -- as OPEC oil is sold for dollars.
Thus those excess dollars can be buried in the desert sand,
i.e., recycled by Arab elites into Dubai skyscrapers or
Saudi Rolls Royces, or sent more directly back to the U.S.
in purchase of low interest Government notes and bonds,
and high priced U.S. stocks.
The U.S. military control of the oceans is a key part of
this. If China were to get too horsey about accepting the
diminishing-value US dollars, the U.S. Navy could shut off
China's oil supply at will. This may sound drastic, but the
step was actually carried out, very successfully against
Japan (before Pearl Harbor!), and has been hinted at as
recently as this year in the currency disputes between the
countries.
There are a couple of problems with continuation of this
neocon wet dream, of course. One is the possibility that
U.S. deficits and debt hit a tipping point, where the dollar
actually collapses. contemporary Kondratiev wave theory
would suggest (according to some professional
interpreters) that the hyperinflation danger is still at least
a couple of decades away. The other challenge is the
mysterious potential that MidEast Oil depletion takes
effect sooner rather than later. When/if this occurs, the
grand strategy of the U.S. will have the rug pulled out
from under it.
Oh yes ... I do recall that this discussion is about the U.K.
But the U.K. banking system is joined at the hip with the
U.S., as are its petrol industry and military affairs. Thus,
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
works are better warded against attack, but perhaps -- despite even
the massive brilliance of Emotional Life of nations -- not to the better
legacy of psychohistory.
Patrick
----OK, Patrick. If you intended to disarm me with this, you
have succeeded. Anyone that would actually say they are
waiting for a revival of the 60's-early 70's hippierevolution movement is worthy in my book of a second, a
third, a fourth etc. look. I am truly impressed by this
thought. It is so off-the-wall ... and yet deep down I admit
that I wish for it myself.
Just in case Santa Claus is reading this ... if a new hippierevolution movement is too much to ask for, then how
about a redo of the 90's? I'm sure I could time the bubble
right this time.
---------Jim
Link: U.K. Cuts Back Govt Expenses (realpsychohistory)
992
993
994
995
same reason Hippie-man Nader gets it: It's not about having once
raped/viscously hated somebody, but about having spent enough
time in your past being loyal to yourself. We point to all they've
accomplished, and try to make the presumed verdict the crime, when
all we're really doing is laying out the proof that justice has here
clearly been served.
Link: Hangover 2s Mel Gibson controversy (Salon)
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
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
much as possible both parents on points that have always concerned
her. With neither of them is there much potential for an enlarged
conversation -- which is just fine if the point is to momentarily enjoy
your ability to stand before them undaunted, witness their fainting
back and retreating, and thereafter without complication just savor
their ties to old assured ways and old strengths before admitting
you're -- alas -- confined to always be one of them, intent as you are
now to merge back into them.
To this particular contemporary reader, the book feels like (I
experienced it as) an accurate account of the last 20 years of
liberaldom. A good stretch at first of other-daunting, hells-bells,
frontier-like freedom -- ethical households multiplying out of
nowhere in run-down neighborhoods -- experienced as without
doubt, as pushed forward, as is any first opening of a frontier ("Good
neighbors"). Then, Iraq, and terrible self-damning experiences of
guilt for voting in a near unified swath of Democratic politicians who
supported the war, of seeming as oil-stained as any ol' coarse
Republican ("Mountaintop," "Bad News"). Rescue, with Obama -dramatic re-imagination of image -- ("Fiend of Washington") but
troubles still with the economy, with the first couple years, especially,
where no one was really confident that the sorts of people who were
most going to go under had crystallized (first struggles between
Walter, alone, and Linda). And then at the end some sights of a
gradual awakening to a realization that a certain class of liberals were
1004
1005
1006
1007
@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
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
the minds of adults that ensured that they (note: not greedy elites)
created a world that would leave their children scrambling to
convince themselves theyll ever be as adult as mature as their
own parents were/are. If your own parents kind of like the idea of
their kids being unlikely to ever effectively warrant their holding
presumptive moral authority over them, kind of like the idea of a
world that ensures that their kids will never quite feel secure and safe
enough to roam too far from their own expectations / wishes of them,
then youre fighting against a lot that might keep you from feeling
trenchantly independent, even if you were to score a franchise of
husband-wife, career, house, children by the age of 25
(accoutrements, of course, that demonstrate you are living the life
others expect of you that you are playing along: there is no escape).
There are people hovering over you, of the type that (increasingly
maybe not even) covertly partake in the seemingly now guilt-free
opportunity to peer down your shirt that your blameworthy /
childish / bad-lingering has somehow freely opened up for them,
while overtly sighing and wishing you would finally grow up: theyre
clearly ones to enjoy the fruits of a situation they are pretending only
to decry. If youve spent your youth amongst parents/elders like that,
long experiencing unresolvable, contradictory expectations from
you in what R.D. Laing once determined as a schizophreniainducing kind of environment you havent the sanity or the stuff to
create your own 60s to clear your way free of your parents intention
to always be your overlords. Rather, there will be something in you
working away until you yourself are convinced you are as lazy and
indulgent as your parents perceive you as whatever the state of
economy, how impossible an environment youve been given to prove
youre up to snuff. Repeatedly through history, but a good while back,
this kind of horrific, impossible environment drew many to eagerly
sign up for war. Instantly, they were war heroes, ready to
demonstrate their in fact existing virtue in their willingness to play to
the sacrificial wishes of their mother-country. A shorter while back,
we remember Faramir sacrificing himself so his disapproving steward
1013
father would finally for once think better of him, and how an
audience engaged with what was on screen, with what they felt inside
themselves.
The 60s generation made their way free because after the mass
sacrifice of WW2, allowance / permission (even if at first, cautious)
had power over restriction / punishment hemming parents were
pit not so much against their children as against historical law, and
surely felt and maybe knew their fate was to be neutralized until their
own children had franchised themselves to the point that they were
now ready to statue their slowly-crumbling parents as the Greatest
Generation. There is no such great wind behind the backs of todays
millenials; their best bet is if some of them despite Reagan, 80s on
actually have the self-assurance / self-esteem they keep being
credited for possessing: with that they might smartly placate but
never dumbly play into the desires of an older populace, increasingly
intent on ensuring that the one thing kids do not do is lead / possess
their own independent lives.
Note: If charged, emotive talk of mass child-sacrifice seems out of
place in an economic discussion, please skip Paul Krugmans most
recent NYT article. Mind you, since hes moved from repeatedly
calling current economic policies cruel to thinking of them as willed
blood-lettings of the-mad-but-in-charge, Im not quite sure how long
Krugman will keep his hold as a man to be reckoned with. What do
you do with a man who once routinely offered sober reasonings but
now finds explanations in strange analogies, runes and animal guts?
Krugman link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20krugman.html?hp
1014
1015
jacketed. Even if it comes to the art film, this may not be progress.
How might we redeem the turn from watching a film to actively living
/ experiencing / determining a new reality -- making it reality -- so
that it doesn't seem a freedom craved only by the finger-twitching
XBOX sort?
Link: 3-D filmmaking's radical, revolutionary potential
1016
1017
1018
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 longexperienced 'wakening Kings.
Interactivity is being mentioned a lot. Im with Stanley Greenspan
(note: hes as good as Kohn) in thinking that back-and-forth
conversation is so all. But as the psychiatrist R.D. Laing made clear
when he established how the wrong sorts of conversations can lead to
the like of schizophrenia, further involvement isnt always to be
preferred to standing back, aloof, and in charge. Personally, I dont
much trust that interactivity in universities isnt now more about a
way to feel more securely enmeshed behind walls that are keeping the
rabble at bay. Not about responsiveness for growth, but about further
relinquishing for security and safety.
Link: Is TED the New Harvard? Reactions from around the web
How eager should we expect the civilized to be?
The essence of learning is found neither inside nor outside
the classroom, neither online nor offline. Its in the flow from
lived experience and practice, to listening, researching, and
sharing the fruits of your work with a community and back
out to the world again. Now that so much high-quality
information is available for freelike the 1,900 courses on
MIT Open Coursewareand platforms to allow people to
exchange words, images and sound online are exploding in
use, many of us are excited about the possibilities of self-
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
not only feel the need to urgently rescue Lotso but to trust him to
rescue them rather than once again deceive and abandon them, was
established in the first film, with his long exasperation at everyone
elses' idiotic simple trust and naivety (their pre-schoolness), their
dumb eager willingness to fall for what should be the most obvious of
scams. In TS 3, his instant naivety was meant to make him seem too
innocent to thrive, and make their rescue and new home more
salvation-like and cling-worthy -- you weren't thinking of the games
they were going to enjoy, but simply that they'll have the mercy of a
few more years away from the curb.
----"because we all know it's a result of Woody's naive sudden
trust of the bear-thing (what happened to the Woody who
took like forever to accept the spaceman?), which seems
strangely out of character..."
Nope, not out of character...he saved Lotso because he was
going to die. It would have been out of Woody's character to
watch a helpless toy die. (LEM, response to post)
It was meant to play out as Woody being (apparently) doomed for
being in the moment immediately receptive and trusting (and
therefore the considered play of the bear being wide-eyed frightened,
pinned, weak, and vulnerable). He wasn't principled though
begrudging, but naive and trusting: simple. From my remembered
sense of him, this isn't the Woody from the first two films, who could
get wickedly upset when his friends fall for simple charms. Not meant
for the real world is this Woody, whose innocent gallantry could make
him fall for the first deception a slickster puts in his way.
Relevant, recalled Lloyd DeMause quote: "Of course, in true
borderline style, the price of some closeness with God is total
devotion, the medieval Christian saying: 'To my beloved, I will forever
be His servant, His slave, All for God, and nothing for me.' As
contemporary borderlines say: 'I know you will love and take care of
1034
1035
1036
Watch when they get the vote, and then you'll see!
Re: "Contrary to the way they're often depicted by frustrated
authors, the agents and editors I've met are in fact committed to
finding and nurturing books and authors they believe in as well as
books that will sell. Also, bloggers or self-appointed experts on
particular genres and types of writing are, in my experience, just as
clubby and as likely to plug or promote their friends and associates
as anybody else. Above all, this possible future doesn't eliminate
gatekeepers: It just sets up new ones, equally human and no doubt
equally flawed."
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
1037
1038
But I don't trust that publishers, editors, have the stuff to recognize
and praise work that makes them uncomfortable. I think they would
begin to become uncomfortable, be less genial, with a competent but
novice writer if s/he ventured into areas, ways of writing, they find
inexplicable, beyond disproved and everyone-knows asinine -- there
are so many things you're simply not allowed to say these days: what
have the last twenty years been about, if not that? If they had their
say, s/he would be disowned, removed from the conversation and
forgotten about. And that's not good enough.
----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?
1039
1040
1041
1042
begin to want leaders in who will set the scene for prolonged sacrifice
and (guiltless) other-demonization, through depressions, huge wars
-- whatever. It will always seem to be about helping out the
distraught, but the reason everyone -- including corporations -- will
ultimately prove surprisingly ready to bow to him, is that they sense
he is the primary incarnation of a spirit of brutal punishment these
"bad boys" are terrified of, and that will -- and they want to -- rule this
age.
Edit:
Amendment: He is the primary ARM of a spirit of punishment. He is
not the incarnation itself. That seems more accurate.
----2) The media may conclude that the people have once again proved
themselves impatient and impulsively needy, ultimately unequal to
the poised, patient, thoughtful and resourceful man they've elected
president -- as it did after Obama got healthcare. Obama is not Carter,
mostly because people want now more to turn on themselves than
they do this emotionally distant, possibly judgmental, president, who
hovers over an age of unbelievable excess, lack of restraint. "Reagan"
won't follow him because "Reagan" would do what we want of him -which would drive us to a state of sinfulness that would be paralyzing.
Obama acts under his own terms, at his own pace, seeing the filth at
the heart of the ordinary man that would drive any sane man away -why else do so want him to show some responsiveness than to
confirm he knows the degree of our own fallenness? Don't
underestimate our desire to turn on ourselves and ultimately
INCREASE our loyalty to Obama. That's my sense. (Note: THIS post
-- #2 -- originally posted at realpsychohistory, 16 June 2010)
Link: Barack Obamas very good week (Salon)
1043
is full of misogynistic violence is a little like reading "MobyDick" and objecting to all the stuff about whaling. Violence
against women is Thompson's text and theme and central
metaphor -- and in case I haven't made this clear, anyone
who might find the violence in this movie gratifying or
arousing is already virtually beyond the bounds of
professional help.
[. . .]
Within the first few minutes of the film, Lou is sent to run
Joyce out of town and she responds by slapping and
slugging him. She's bored and lonely and sick of sleeping
with ugly guys for money; she's looking for a reaction, and
she gets one: On the verge of walking out, Lou comes back
and tackles her, pulling down her panties and whipping her
bare ass with his belt. The sequence is both erotic and
violent, profoundly troubling and potentially arousing,
designed to provoke a whiplash of emotional, psychological
and libidinal responses. It sets the table for what follows: an
exploration of the dividing line between sex and death that's
at least as morbid and philosophical as anything in
modernist European literature. (Andrew Ohehir, The
Killer Inside Me: Much ado about misogyny, Salon, 17 June
2010)
Arousal
Re: On the verge of walking out, Lou comes back and tackles her,
pulling down her panties and whipping her bare ass with his belt. The
sequence is both erotic and violent, profoundly troubling and
potentially arousing, designed to provoke a whiplash of emotional,
psychological and libidinal responses.
Are you saying here that YOU found this panties-being-pulled-down,
this bare-ass whipping erotic, that you are to be counted amongst the
"potentials" who were aroused while watching it? Or that it JUST IS
erotic and violent, smartly rigged to potentially or even likely trigger
libidinal responses, ostensibly possessed by all of us?
1044
If YOU found the scene erotic, I wish you had just said as much, and
made clear whether or not you were also aroused by it -- and if not,
how you were able to sense that others would find it so -- and either
defended the remarkable possibility that you can be fundamentally
woman-loving and experience eroticism and arousal in a scene of this
nature, or brought forward the possibility that the fact that you did
enjoy a scene you suspect you shouldn't have enjoyed, means you're
not quite in fact so distinguished from the clearly mongrel, beyondthe-pale male who relishes this kind of violence.
----Killer inside of you
Personally, I think it unlikely that many men don't get a hard-on
while watching explicit scenes of female victimization, not because
they all regrettably still are in the possession of reptilian brian-stems
that make they forever capable of lapsing brute animalistic, but
because most were raised by mothers who were severely
emotionally / intellectually deprived in the patriarchal societies /
families they grew up in, and therefore spent their earliest part of
their lives foremost serving their mothers' unmet needs rather than
their own. Deprived mothers aren't magically capable of producing
nurturance; nurturance only comes from the well-cared-for, the
respected, the loved. So most men find ways -- are driven to find ways
-- to enact revenge for their being used, but also to pretend that this
isn't what they are up to, as they also learned early on that the one
thing you don't do -- at the threat of abandonment, of experiencing
catastrophic aloneness, destitution -- is to convey that you are on to
the fact that mothers weren't entirely self-sacrificial and marvelous in
their motives (their version, the only version), that they wanted to
squeeze every bit of attendance out of you before they abandoned you
once aging, teenagerdom, turned you on to other things. Patriarchy
hurts mothers; hurt mothers hurt their kids: any other version is a lie
"good boys and girls" have learned to, have been scared into, tell
(ing).
1045
1046
can move beyond to exploring exactly what this means. Kasich feels it
means they'll (tea-baggers) respond to a world-view that entrenches
an elite, and resonates everywhere of "sacrifice" and children being
served. I think he's right about that.
Link: John Kasich, Lehman Brothers populist! (Salon)
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
closet, and we know we'd collectively pluck our eyes out before having
to attend to any of them.
A few further lords out of the way so Obama can be King.
Link: The sadness of the Gore split (Salon)
1054
Be careful!
Undoubtedly, had this been the behavior of a Republican
administration, "the left's" big environmental organizations
would be scheduling D.C. protests and calling for firings, if
not criminal charges. Yet, somehow, there are no protests.
Somehow, there have been almost no calls for the
resignation of Salazar, who oversaw this disaster and who,
before that, took $323,000 in campaign contributions from
energy interests and backed more offshore drilling as a U.S.
senator. Somehow, facing environmental apocalypse, there
has been mostly silence from "the left." (David Sirota,
Laying bare the myth of the left, Salon, 21 May 2010)
Be careful
When primitive civilizations used to feel guilty for excess and too
good living, they devised sacrificial wars where all their best and
brightest -- representatives of happiness, ambition -- could be offered
up to placate the anger of their abandonment-suspecting gods.
What we're doing now is trying to entice our best and brightest -those who cannot be stopped for fighting for a progressive, nurturing,
fair society -- to clearly ID themselves by marching on to Washington.
The rest of us liberals will wildly cheer them on, which they'll
misinterpret as larger support -- "maybe we'll get some senators out
of this!" But once they're pot-banging and out in the open, we'll
withdraw and actually join the chorus in understanding now that
what is actually substantially worse than a tea bagger who wants to
limit support, is the ridiculous hippie who in an age of withdrawal
and the circumscibed, just can't stop from demanding more and
1055
more.
Progressives, understand that Obama supporters are those who are
looking for ways to show they're not in fact one of you -- that they'd
spit on you, if they had the chance. Don't play into the public desire
for the crazies on the LEFT, now, to come out and ID themselves.
Thanks for being you, David.
Link: Laying bare the myth of the left (Salon)
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010
Review of "Robin Hood"
1056
1057
1058
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
movie had been to allow Maximus to return to his family -- namely, a
fairly convincing show of amiability, friendship, comfort and good
living, you would be hard-pressed not to kill and kill again, if such
was necessary, to have some chance of reclaiming or returning to it.
But since his characters for the most part seem to stop developing at
some point, at exactly the same point, it seems, that they finally learn
how to properly comport themselves and become wholly principled,
Scott ultimately does not make self-esteem the beginnings of onward
journeys, but its termination -- the beginning of character stasis. To
be noble is to lose self-confliction, but to become a bore -- and just
look what that did to the English kings foxy vixen French wife:
Plunge the dagger into yourself, my dear, youve surrendered your
sizzle and mischief in your giving in to grandma -- dont allow
yourself to live long enough to prove an example of how others
similarly vitally sexed can sabotage everything great in them to show
off the knowingness and majesty in vastly too long-lived, aged owls.
What Scott does, though, is make character cementation the
beginning of their involvement in his movies greatest battles -- and as
such there is a sense that theyve been molded into familiar pieces
that will be involved in none the less surprising, you-never-know -even when at some level, you do know -- military engagements. Chess
pieces -- rooks, bishops, knights, pawns, kings -- that can each be
downed by strategy or errant happenstance, at any instance. Where
1059
bravery and skill we find really does count, but in execution seems so
much more subtle, invisible, amongst the multitudes of intentions,
one-on-ones, variant goings-on, that even a charging, competent king
at the front of the battle seems in need of having his bravery being
recounted afterwards -- so that it can be poetically foregrounded -- to
seem as glorious as we might have wanted him to be in the instant,
and who could be quitted -- and not just killed -- by attendance to
something else unusual or at least unexpected but not in fact out of
ordinary for the occasion, like a cook experimenting away from his
post to crossbow (what turns out to be) a king, or even -- for me at
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.
1060
1061
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
to be discarded for a gentleman whos only obligation is to show
himself good-looking, vital, and inherently decent and well-mannered
-- a proper lord. This is one of the things you understand while
watching Letters to Juliet, yet another film which must be objected
to lest we become unable to see reality.
Our lady, Sophie, has gone to Brown, what has apparently become
THE finishing school for ladies in our times, being not so ardentseeming that it might coarsen you with too professional a sense of
purpose, yet still as established and esteemed as any of the more
prominent ivyies. If youve gone to Brown, you may be the sort who is
just not pushy enough to have already scored a career as a major
writer at the New Yorker by the time shes twenty-two, not brutally
driven enough to have portfolioed herself into the most obvious
upmost echelons, like Harvard or Princeton, but whos relaxed
possession of larger qualities, whose preference for discreteness,
anonymity, quiet grace, makes you EXACTLY what lords of
commercial society need as near to them as possible to suggest their
own timelessness and quality -- certain by divine right, to survive and
continue to prosper, if the time's primary henceforth call is for people
to define themselves as either sacrifice or to-be-satisfied.
Shes gone where Lady Di might have gone to if she was an American,
and her future husband has gone to Oxford -- where all boyish princes
who would be Kings must go. If hed gone to Cambridge, it would
have again made him REALLY seem invested in doing something for
1062
1063
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
opens himself to the camera in a way youd never see
coming. But the picture really belongs to its two leads.
Seyfried gives a wonderfully loose, unstudied performance
nothing she does is forced. And it doesnt hurt that she has
the most gorgeous, enormous eyes in movies today: Not even
Disneys Nine Old Men could have dreamed them up.
[. . .]
Nero makes his entrance here, Lancelot-style, on a white
horse. Its a touch so perfect, so silly-wonderful, that its
something of a salve after the almost-too-painful moment
that comes immediately before. Redgrave is now 73, but it
takes zero imagination to see the face of the young
Guenevere in this older one. She isnt merely beautiful; shes
a living assurance that the young people we once were can
stay alive inside us, no matter how much we grow and
change. (Stephanie Zacharek, Leading ladies lift lovely
Letters to Juliet, Movieline, 13 May 2010)
From a guy's perspective, it's not so much the eyes as it is the breasts
-- of course the film didn't feel flat: not even Disney's Nine Old Men
could have dreamed them up! Egan was too nice: caught in a film
where the guy's dragging his gal all about the place is cause for
divorce, but where "his" driving Daisy everywhere she needs is
gentlemanly and appropriate, if he didn't evidence some
1064
1065
Correct thought
I think if you laugh at prose so that it strips it of authority (what the
Moderns did with their Victorian predecessors), so that your own
artistic ventures feel more legitimate, it is a sound thing to do. More
than this, it is a GOOD thing to do -- as laughter, mockery, is at the
service of growth.
If you're laughing at prose without any real authority, then you're not
servicing your own growth, rather, you're foreclosing it: as who
amongst the legitimate would risk writing anything that would leave
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
1066
1067
Oysters
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,
1068
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
mothers as preferring her more passive daughters to her
rough, impudent sons.
I chased down this quote because I think this is about where we are
today: men who do the the things that are supposedly lauded -- show
initiative, refuse to kow-tow -- in truth go the Jerry Maguire route,
ending up rejected and cloaked in failure, whereas men who try and
make themselves women by showing in some fashion that they can be
broken by whatever authority-figure they happen to be working for -are allowed to pass on and on and on, on our current, good girl, A+
route of societal approval.
Male or female, if you grow up these days with truly healthy selfesteem, you'll be too busy dealing with the unleashed sharks to find
any of those damned world-oysters you were expecting. Be glad
you're still inclined to self-lacerate, Rebecca. Cover's better.
Link: A nice girl's guide to getting ahead
1069
Psychology of hoarding--explained?
1) When most of us look at an object like a bottle cap, we
think, "This is useless," but a hoarder sees the shape and the
color and the texture and the form. All these details give it
value. Hoarding may not be a deficiency at all -- it may be a
special gift or a special ability. The problem is being able to
control it. (Randy O. Frost, interview with Thomas Rogers,
Stuff: the psychology of hoarding, Salon, 25 April 2010)
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
1070
1071
1072
1073
(much) better way to be than that, but until you managed the
considerable self-change required so you have no further need of
them, their service deserves some respect from you -- they weren't the
friends you deserve, but they were your friends.
Link: A reader's advice to writers: Beware of Mary Sue (Salon)
1074
1075
1076
1077
"How to train a dragon," for instance, who needed to learn some, but
whom you had some considerable respect for even before he became
more appreciative of his son's concerns. Feminism is tolerated most
by mother-bullied men when it makes men formidable, well capable
of backing people away, if still tyrannical. Feminist men who feel
cowardice to some extent moves their crusade, emphasize the
bullying in patriarchy -- it's a way to hit back hard at those they
champion, without themselves being aware. Women who do the same
-- emphasize the power of the bully patriarch -- need him too to
create distance from their controlling mothers.
Ann Douglas' "Terrible Honesty," an account of the '20s, gives good
insight as to how a different generation made use of angry, lonely,
cold male "gods," to make them feel their Victorian Matriarch-ridden
predecessors (even though now dead) weren't them, and wouldn't
dare make claim to them.
Link: Retrosexuals: The latest lame macho catchphrase (Salon)
TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2010
It suddenly became clear
One thing is clear: It's no accident that Obama beguiled the
electorate (and maybe himself) by over-promising his ability
to change Washington, end partisan gridlock and "part the
waters," so to speak. He'd been practicing similar social
jujitsu most of his life.
[. . .]
In "The Bridge," Obama's mother comes alive as a smart,
stubborn idealist, a devoted but also practical globalist, a
lifelong anthropology student who also held jobs at New
York foundations and women's banking groups and did
pioneering work in the now-mainstream field of
microlending (as well as policy prep work for the United
Nations' 1995 World Women's Conference in Beijing; in a
time-travel cameo, Dunham had high hopes, Remnick tells
1078
1079
1080
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,
something transcendent in us has resulted in the election of someone
so fine that only shock over our being a large part of the realization of
something so truly perfect and great, has delayed his bridging of the
parties, his uniting the country, his showing that within the America
we've known to the point of blandness, lies something unaccounted
for, very great, and ready to rise at our call.
Link: Barack Obama: the opacity of hope (Salon)
ipad is for readers, and you, sir, are no reader!
Once I clicked on that e-mail attachment, though, and Joan's
review filled the tablet screen in my hands, I knew this
would be different. I nestled into the sofa, propped the iPad
against my knees and blissfully read the whole 3,000 words
from start to finish without once experiencing that nagging
urge to check e-mail or Twitter or Facebook. OK, so maybe
some of that is a testament to the piece itself, but I assure
you that in light of my recent track record with on-screen
reading, it was extraordinary.
Reading a document on the iPad feels ... serene. There's no
dock filled with application icons lurking at the edge of the
screen to suggest that I log onto iChat to see who else is
online (maybe it's Joan, and she can explain this one
1081
1082
1083
that the clamps are already being put on. There is the business,
though, of making what had been estimated by so many of the still so
highly esteemed -- the whole "Wired"'/"Boing-Boing" gang, and all -as sign of our age's great realized promise, not seem a grand retreat
into "fuddy-duddyism" out of fear of the brilliant but frustratingly
uncontrollable world. What we've seen this weekend, the kind of
thing Laura recently evidenced in assessing "the [kinds of] people
who post [web] comments [as those who don't] even bother to read
the article in question," will need to be repeated yet quite a bit, but
still it is possible that elites will find a way through repetition to make
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)
1084
1085
1086
1087
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)
1088
would think they would need to explain themselves some if what they
point to is too much allowance for the amateur and an abominable
widespread inclination to thumb noses to betters. Whatever the wellwrought philosophical poeticism of the founding documents, it seems
to me that it's the equivalent of a rude and impromptu finger to the
king, which marked the spirit of its founding.
Many have hoped to costume themselves "betters" by mimicking
gentry bemusement / irritation at the mob. I don't at all recall any
great writer having much good to say about them, though. "Amateur"
can be redeemed; "pretender," "hangers-on": not so much.
----------Why evil may be good for the humanities
For some time now, those in English departments who sought to
teach what made Great Works great, were on the defense.
Departments were essentially "owned" by those who "problematized"
the works, making them seem more historical documents, full of
misogynistic, homophobic, racist stuff, than works of eternal genius
to be studied and worshipped.
I wonder if our instinct to use the past to show how depraved our
contemporaries are is now once again so strong that the tendency will
once again be to make great men Gods. Gods we can enjoin, that will
buoy our laughing at former neighbors and friends, whose
unfamiliarity with Beckett, discomfort with Austin, means they have
earned their torture, before the cracks open up, they fall away, and
die.
Link: Amazon reviewers think this masterpiece sucks (Salon)
Deducting penises
Here is a list of ways being battered by a partner could
1089
1090
going to be persuaded [ . . .]
Man: "I feel my masculinity might be compromised if I report my
abuse."
Other man [to himself]: "If King Kong should fall . . ."
----[1] That having a penis is a sign of power, [2] that not having one is a
sign of powerlessness, [3] that penises are nature's way of signifying a
totally-not-abused person
[1] Penis = possession of power
[2] No penis = possession of lack of power
[3] Possession of penis = Other's (i.e., nature's) demonstration
through you that you are entirely without abuse.
----Re: Being a man without a penis is terrible, largely because
it makes you like all those other natural-born victims out
there with a reputation for dicklessness. You know:
Women.
"Women" possess vagina-dentes, that chew up men altogether. Being
without a dick means that you've lost yours to one of them. It can end
up being empowering, though, as you join the Women-directed
dickless horde that gangs up on those so proud to keep their dicks all
to themselves.
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
1091
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
while talking to you, that is -- something they are occasionally drawn
to do because, though their lives are mostly elsewhere, your fate is
their foremost concern -- their mission is with greater things. Their
looking away while talking to you, to the societal conditions that are
making you talk / think the way the predictable way you do, is
aggravating to someone involved in a conversation with them -- who
always hopes for one's full intention, respect for their own ability to
possibly influence / change "you" as well -- and this will of course
compound the aggravation you necessarily know and daily feel in
your being almost entirely the hapless subject of societal forces you
know not of. They know this, but it cannot be helped -- though "you"
are everything they fight for, you are also -- *sigh* -- the foul crop
that has already come in: all blithe; little to no promise.
In truth, their kind of looking away, to their own affairs, while
ostensibly looking at you -- their neglect -- is the kind of thing that
INSPIRES people to create less than humane societies. In-link to the
core of it, actually. I think at heart that we're at the point that many
academics sense this, and somewhere inside exult in their ability to
exult in their sadism, which creates frustrations which fuels their
right to continue-on laughingly at your expense.
Link: Domestic abuse ad for men misfires (Salon)
1092
1093
1094
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
insurance has saved my life. It is easy and natural to shield
oneself from the bloody, painful, grievous facts behind the
numbers when one is not, oneself, one of the numbers.
Having cruised along healthy for so long, I was able to put
out of mind the gruesome, deathly consequences of a broken
healthcare system.
I can no longer treat it as an abstraction. I take it
personally. So I am happy when progress is made and
angry when such progress is threatened.
Do Republicans know how murderous they sound? When
your life depends on decisions made by people whose faces
you will never see, based on rules you had no part in
making, in a language so technical you cannot parse it, you
finally, truly encounter your own vulnerability to the actions
of states and institutions.
[. . .]
I now want to work more openly for political change. I have
stayed out of the political fray for many years, finding it
more skillfully and brilliantly played by our political team
led so admirably by Joan Walsh.
But if you find my approach to ethical, moral and spiritual
problems of some relevance to your life, if you have come to
know me as a decent, thoughtful person, certainly imperfect,
given to excess, occasionally verbose and self-absorbed but
1095
1096
with this current purity crusade (in truth, it won't be a "choice" -they'll be drawn to lose themselves so). Do any of us doubt that Tiger
Woods will soon follow?
Link: It took cancer for me to care about health care (Salon)
No better, no worse
West understood that mass culture had spawned a scary
hunger for borrowed and processed "authenticity," and this
makes his novels appear, in the words of the novelist
Jonathan Lethem, "permanently oracular," anticipating
such piranhaesque spectacles as reality TV and Gawker.
Against the urge to idealize writers of the past,
"Lonelyhearts" presents a portrait of a literary milieu as
double-dealing, bitchy, hypocritical and self-deluding as
pretty much every conglomeration of ambitious artists since
the dawn of time. It certainly was no better than our own.
The switcheroo?: Ours is no worse. (Laura Miller, Lonely
Hearts: The Screwball World of Nathanael West and Eileen
McKenney, Salon, 21 March 2010)
As soon as s/he was born, I was aware s/he would die
This week we learn that literary milieus with people being people
and all -- were, are, and always will be ambitious but also doubledealing, bitchy, hypocritical and self-deluding. Last week we learned
that being adult means knowing enough of life to be respectful of its
wounds, and enough of history to be leery of all ostensibly new, outof-the-blue, grand and sweeping claims. The week previous, that
genius may be more available than we thought, but only after a
lifetime of hard, persistent and focused work (Einstein being the
genius, not because he dreamed big, but because he persisted in his
efforts longer than anyone else). Like the 30s AND 40s over the
1097
1098
fall flat. Mostly I'll never forget how degraded those words
made me feel, nor how I stood there just praying that Julia
wasn't old enough to understand them.
[. . .]
In a sense, I have always lived life as if I were a character in
a movie perhaps every woman does. One of the strongest
memories I have of being pregnant is not how it felt to be
poked from the inside by my little girls, but of walking down
the street, large and slow, and feeling an overwhelming
sense of pride in the satisfied and sentimental looks of
strangers as I passed by them. It's the feeling of someone
else's approval, and it's probably one of the most powerful
things in the world.
My daughter knows that look; I know she does. She has a
pair of fairy wings that she loves to wear about town. She
almost always flutters in front of me when she does, and I
do love the look of joy and abandon on her face as she jumps
about, arms spread wide. I want to say there is a sort of
freedom there nestled in her curly blond hair, bouncing off
her round baby cheeks, and perhaps there is the freedom
you find in fantasy and imagination. I only wish that
sometimes she could stay in that little world, eliminate, that
is, the bystanders who walk by and smile, innocently
enough, at her in such a way that she beams and winks her
irresistible wink.
[. . .]
She knows her mother's been going through a hard time.
Sometimes, without warning, I cry in supermarkets and on
sidewalks, uncharacteristically unconcerned if others see me
without makeup on, or with it somewhere down around my
chin. I always mutter "Sorry, sweetie, sorry" to Julia
whenever I do this, though I'm beginning to realize it may
not be the worst thing for a daughter to see her mother
being human, having an interiority, struggling to regain a
1099
1100
that that look of joy and abandon and freedom would likely only
thereafter be occasional and unsure, never fully unprotected yet
always mother-breachable, OF COURSE you reached out to her:
What a good girl!!! Her buckling proved your "wearerings" could own
her, and that she may never really stray -- that you'll have her maybe
forever in your mother-pleasing paddock, staying in line with
whatever your current mood holds is all she need know of the right
lessons of daughterhood.
Damn being beholden to what other people expect from you! Damn
the patriarchy!(?)
Link: Help! My daughers a girly girl (Salon)
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
1101
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
by a guy with no sense of humor about himself, who is too
soft to take any real responsibility in his life. Don't like your
boring job? Quit, and learn how to live with less, or find
something that interests you more. Living too long? Get a
heroin problem. Don't like being married? Don't get
married. Or man up and get a divorce. Fix just one aspect of
your miserable life and stop giving me shit about
masturbating to YouPorn. Don't act like some jaded
character resigned to his fate, don't be an anonymous guru
who purports to have some deep insight into what men
really think, because ultimately, while there are a bunch of
guys over the age of 30 who think and act like this, most of
us got over this angsty stuff a long time ago. The only thing
this particular anonymous has any insight into is the way
spoiled little boys think. (Aaron Traister, Explaining Tiger
Woods and Jesse James, badly, Salon, 19 March 2010)
Mordreds
When we sense that Morgana, not Arthur, rules the realm, the most
obnoxious -- for sensing themselves so obnoxiouslybacked/empowered -- are the Mordreds of the world, those who have
offered up their scrotums and their souls to their mother-wives.
Why does Aaron so often repeat that he's a YouPorn watcher -- put
this fact before us, not so much as if he was owning-up to his
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
else more spoiled than you to single out and bully, and so America
becomes one more person toward the barren, mean, and grasping.
----The Entitlement Generation
Food stamps and other forms of public assistance are
intended to be a last-ditch safety net for people truly in need.
California's food stamp statute, for example (Welf. & Inst.
Code 18900) states in the first line that its purpose is to
combat "hunger, undernutrition, and malnutrition" among
low-income people. In other words, food stamps (and
welfare) are supposed to provide truly needy people with a
last line of defense. College-educated 20- and 30-somethings
hardly fit into that scheme.
I'm guessing that most of the "hipsters" who are using food
stamps have a lot more options in life than the average food
stamp applicant. They have parents they can move back in
with. They are mobile enough that if they can't find work as
a light technician in a Manhattan art house, they can move
to Jersey and sling coffee or tend bar. They could even
(gasp!) get one of those jobs that we're always told
Americans won't take, like janitor, hotel maid, etc.
It's the idea that our tax dollars are being used to subsidize a
lifestyle that bothers people, not the use of food stamps for
healthy food. The idea that some people feel that they're
entitled to live in the hip enclaves of their chosing, work in
their ideal field, and live their lifestyle no matter what the
cost, even if it means suckling off the public teat to do it.
That's not how the real world works. You lose a job,
sometimes you gotta move, change fields, downgrade,
scrimp, and yes, eat ramen for a few months.
It's deeply troubling that we have raised a generation that
views it as their right to burden already overstressed
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
are using our Salon, our meeting-place, to build for yourself, a small
fortress.
Link: Why our kids wont go to kindergarten (Salon)
1117
1118
lifer struggling with his own limitations in the harsh face of changing
times.' She'll wet herself."
Fascinating litmus test
I must say that I'm finding the comments to this column
revealing. The novel I wound up recommending is about a
refugee who was imprisoned and tortured for over a year by
the Pinochet regime, and the people in his life who are
participating in his recovery. I find it hard to see how this
material constitutes "boomer navel-gazing" or "whining" or
what Elizabeth Gilbert's memoirs have to do with it. (And
confidential to ropty: none of the novels I mention are about
people who teach at universities.)
I confess that I've sometimes wondered whether the people
who post comments even bother to read the article in
question; some seem to be responding to the headlines alone.
I think I've got my answer. (Laura Miller, response to post)
Whining
John, I can't tell you why the crop of novels I looked at this
month were mostly about middle-aged men, just coincidence
I suspect. But I guess I disagree with many of the
commenters here because I do think that it's a worthwhile
subject if the writer handles it well. I didn't like the Lipsyte
novel that much, but the Hynes book is great and obviously
I'm a big fan of the Kennedy novel.
Why not the Shapiro or the dominatrix memoirs? Because
this week I was looking at fiction, not memoirs.
Bebe, perhaps I'm naive in hoping that comments added to a
story are about the contents of the story. I like to think that
this column demonstrates that not all novels about middleaged men are "whiny" and that the story of someone
surviving trauma and violence has significance even to those
of us who have never had to suffer such ordeals. Most people
1119
1120
it.
Link: In the Company of Angels (Salon)
1121
1122
1123
1124
unexpected visage.
----Remember, some see TWO ways to a healthier body-politic
History will prove Kucinich wrong that substantial health care reform
won't soon enough lie in the wake of the passing of this bill. We'll see
it, soon enough after its passing -- gradually clearer signs that
politicians on both sides want to see it EXPANDED, not backstabbed, afterwards. Kucinish, Nader, the impatient and unreasoning
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
1125
1126
1127
1128
"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
Yes, Star Trek is sticking with me. As a Trekkie, I was
worried it would suck big time, but it won me over with its
humor and its affection for the characters.
I haven't seen Avatar, but it looks like the usual bloated
overkill to me. I am afraid it will strain my nerves to watch
it. (Presumptuous Insect, response to post)
Link: Oscars: Hollywoods war against itself (Andrew OHehir, Salon)
1129
1130
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
working normally. (Christopher1988, response to post)
@christopher1988
Re: 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 working normally.
I hear you. And thanks for the feedback. But a good portion of what
we now delineate as "genuine medical conditions that prevent one's
brain from working normally," were once not so neatly tucked away
into the nurture camp. Even if "it" showed up at birth, people had in
mind to more investigate the nature of the womb environment than
speculate about one's DNA. Regarding things like ADHD, Autism,
Schiziphrenia/multiple personalities -- that is, mental afflictions a
good number now are estimating all about your genes -- not just some
worthy neglected psychologists/psychiatrists but a huge number of
the fretful parents who've helped ensure the current predominance of
(neither you or your parent's fault) nature theory at heart believe that
the whole current mental-disease medical edifice is just emergent
froth from our own brew of homemade deceptions and self-deceits.
Not a learned outsider telling us how it is, but a (soberly-dressed)
phantom of our own imagination/preference telling us what we
1131
1132
1133
1134
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
away with explaining to patients/parents that an "affliction" is a
"nature" problem/benefit, because we've so long disengaged from
believing we've got to engage with our past to understand/move
beyond our present -- and at some level know how disengaged, how
vulnerable, this has made us at a time when we suspect whole
bunches of us may not (be allowed to) make it -- that you can't
suggest nature/environment in even the whitest of coats, the most
affectless (blameless?) of terms but soothing of tones, without people
thinking you're in mind to remind them of what it once felt like as a
child to know hate and fear in the guise of love, in those you HAD to
have love and want you. These same people can't handle, not just the
fact of what they may have done to their own kids to create such
chaotic minds, but a closer look at what-responsible? for the
anxieties/fears/"visitations" that drew them to have such ambiguous
relationships with their children.
Link: The Genius in All of Us (Salon)
1135
This would have been a fun one to have seen and then commented on,
but regarding this bit
"Alice in Wonderland" does offer its share of slender pleasures:
Wasikowska plays Alice as bright and unassuming, and watching her
is never a chore, even when the story devolves into a "Girls can do
cool stuff, too!" empowerment tale. (Stephanie Zacharek, Tim
Burtons Alice in Underland, Salon, 4 March 2010)
-- I'm sorry to hear she plays it unassuming, mostly because I'm tired
of unassuming people being praised -- SPEAK UP, DAMN "YOU"!
DON'T SQUEAK ABOUT LIKE A MOUSE: PRESUME! PRESUME! -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
1136
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
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
1137
1138
1139
-- her own predilections (let's say) -- and I can't but think Stephanie
would like it if contributers here helped her see what, for some
investigation-worthy reason, she was prevented from seeing in the
first place.
Appreciate you chiming-in. If not with "Alice," hopefully with other
films and books, we'll get to talkin'.
Link: Tim Burtons Alice in Underland (Salon)
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
Like David Denby, he saw and experienced but really couldn't get
inside this new world of snark and sneer, so he seemed simply
confused and aghast. I'll admit that it was actually pleasing to this
probably better man serve as further confirmation for the possible
mistruth that the aged at some point lose traction and relevance: no
generation should feel that their best efforts will seem but a slip away
from what their predecessors managed.
Link: Roger Ebert on "Oprah": The critic's voice
Being Geraldine-Ferraroed: I can't forget it
They actually show Breitbart's ultimate breakdown:
When Madden asks, reasonably, whether James O'Keefe
and Breitbart ever exposed ACORN abetting actual
prostitution (rather than the prank prostitution O'Keefe
and Hannah Giles tried to represent), Breitbart, by
anyone's measure, kind of goes off the deep end, shaking
and shuddering and flapping his hands as he yells at
Madden [.]
[. . .]
The crux of Marcus's argument is that Breitbart's hysteria
is justified, because in Breitbart's words, "The worst thing
you can do ...in politically correct Americais accuse
somebody of being a (sic) racism." [. . .] But even more to
the point, it's ludicrous to say the worst thing you can
accuse anyone of today is "being a racism," or even a
racist, as Breitbart argues. It's clearly worse to be accused
of supporting death panels for elderly people, of usurping
the presidency you're not eligible for, of being the
murderous "Joker" from the Batman series, of being a
totalitarian Marxist when you're a mainstream corporate
Democrat all the charges the increasingly unhinged
right routinely toss at Barack Obama. (Joan Walsh,
1145
1146
1147
She was often a bitch, but at the end I swear I saw her Athena-helmed
1148
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
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-already-
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
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
1156
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-Americanwhatever 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
1157
1158
truth, their greatest defining asset (read: character flaw). From what
he offers, we can compare Thomas, who takes care to not to step on
anyone's toes -- unless they be nonPC, in which case, he'll stomp the
that much harder than anyone else, driven to take full advantage of
the opportunity to righteously make someone else experience what it
is to just have to take it and take it and take it, without any effective
means to make them please just stop! -- then compare him to the
likes of others at Salon, who are not just literate but have it in them to
INSIST on using their literacy to actually, like, SAY SOMETHING,
personal -- and not just programmed code -- to challenge and grow,
and know what a bland white-washing wasteland the Great White
North truly is. You've got great healthcare, but who should care if
automatons have the chance to walk a few more miles in the snow, on
route to their nowhere of any interest in particular?
@champers
Re: Canada has achieved what the architects of the
Enlightenment dreamed of.
They dreamed of a people that hides in shacks until unrulies have
found their distraction, elsewhere?
Re: We have a big space to play in, most of it beautiful and
full of food and water.
Great -- if you're otters; but what if you're urbanes like David Denby
and guess that you'd find all the Avatar-play a bit dull after awhile?
Re: We have a killer arts culture and all-round high
respect for creativity in all forms.
Otters ARE tool-using, and I'm sure take great delight in their stonepolishing play, but why don't we let, say, New Yorkers assess Cdns'
openness to cultural creativity. I know that if I was doing my best to
slam shut the door to any notable (read: unnerving, unpredictable)
creativity, I'd probably school everyone to think I was instead up to
something like "forwarding cultural appreciation and learned
advancement in a way that does all Cdns proud!"
Re: The weather is truly what makes life limp and bleak
1159
1160
1161
responsible for things like healthcare not yet being a given. But
America also got Europe's most evolved -- the lefties of their time -while Canada got the duty-to-crown loyalists -- THOSE, that is, who
not so much by belief but through constitutional/mental
AFFLICTION had been thoroughly scared/bullied away from
speaking for themselves, supporting those who (though admittedly
still hugely imperfect) sought out independence and freedom, if still
also revenge and war. The result is that unless you prefer the
company of court sneers, those smart but primarily expert at taking
down the novel, or those who don't frighten you with things you
haven't yet prepared yourself for, if you're an unbroken literate
dreamer, you'll find more to praise in the U.S. than you will in
Canada.
re: The Whole Picture
"how 'bout being known for saying/thinking things that are,
like, 'out there'"
Well, because while simply saying things that are, like, "out
there" may make a people more exciting and less bland they
don't necessarily have a real purpose.
I mean, I find fundamental right wing Christianity, prison
gang violence and dramatic cosmetic surgery exciting to
watch and hear about but I'm glad that kind of excitement
isn't something my fellow Canadians aren't attached to.
Patrick, despite my snarky comments in my last post (and
any in this one), I don't think Americans and Canadians are
so terribly different.
Montreal and Quebec city are far from bland and they have
an air of excitement only found in a few US locations. The
regions of Manitoba and Saskatchewan aren't a lot
different, geographically and culturally, from the states to
their immediate south. And if Vancouver and Victoria go to
bed at 10pm every night, it's so they can go mountain biking
and surfing early the next morning in some of the most
1162
1163
1164
1165
you've got to be able to find a different crowd. The new Star Trek had
Spock and Uhura pair up: AND it was about the two TRULY most
sexy pairing up, not the black chick and the whitey -- a step way
beyond (and more evolved) than "look who's coming to dinner."
That's where most (especially younger) liberals are at, me thinks.
Uhuru was sex
But Patrick--Vulcans? Ewwww. (Jack Sparx, response to
post, John Mayer)
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)
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
shames.
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)
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)
1174
@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
man down -- THIS time, WITH LETTERS!
Link: Salinger: Recluse with an ugly history of women (Salon)
If only (James) Cameron wore a tutu
"[T]he lumbering, gentle Oher", "in a cautious and economical
performance", "is the only one who automatically sits down at the
table to eat, presumably out of simple good manners, but also out of
some idea of what Thanksgiving should be, drawn less from his own
experience than from Norman Rockwell's 'Freedom From Want.'"
(Zacharek, "Oscars 2010: In defense of Sandra Bullock")
+
"'Crazy Heart' is exceptionally modest in both its ambitions and its
scope." "[P]laying their characters' cautious affection [. . .]"
"Gyllenhaal is an understated, guileless actress -- she always lets the
role come to her instead of going after it with gusto. Her speaking
manner is casual, and as an actress she's often soft-spoken in a way
that hints at deep personal shyness." "a strange and slightly awkward
sentence that doesn't even have the shelter and the protection of a
song around it." (Zacharek, "Crazy Heart")
+
"The expressiveness of those unnaturally mobile eyebrows or the way,
either in character or during the course of an on-camera interview, he
1175
1176
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
obtuse and bad-ass, if not Cameron-level oblivious and indifferent.
For many of us he may thereby prove less likeable, but I suspect it'll
help him come to like himself more -- which should be the point.
Let's not romance masochism, and vilify signs of (what is actually in
greatest truth) healthy self-esteem.
Link: Oscars 2010: In defense of Sandra Bullock (Salon)
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2010
How to tell a story
What passes for screenwriting these days is worrisome by
any measure. "Avatar," the most successful film of all time
(and a glorious spectacle), has some of the worst dialogue in
recent memory. Now more than ever it's critical to recognize
those that are striving to keep the art of the screenplay alive.
The best-picture Oscar can and will remain a populist
award. That shouldn't be the case for recognition of genuine
craft. (Andrew Grant, Screenwriting, the most
meaningless Oscar, 2 February 2010)
--Extending on the comments above about what it takes to plot
a movie, let's say that AVATAR *had* been nominated. Why
might that have happened?
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
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
1182
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)
1183
peace, love, and happiness -- and we all feel it. But a lot of democrats
are actually ready to let that all go, and find wretched empoweredness
in the hot glow in coal. Healthcare, I still believe, will come readily
when it is linked to a more rightest movement for a fit nation, to
empower the "American-seeming," "hard-working," middleAmerican, not when the tendency is still to take it as about tender
respect and care for those who instinctively feel bullied/marginalized
by "American as apple-pie." 60s on, liberalism won the cultural
sphere, put rightest, neanderthal thought, fully on the defensive -- as
someone like Pat Buchanan will tell you -- and "its" people was hardly
the mainstream. This is what this is all about.
Link: David Axelrod and the zeitgeist (Joan Walsh, Salon, 21
January 2010)
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
1184
1185
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
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
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)
1191
sure all your wit and charm delights incur cow-dung implantation. I
suppose in the daytime you might remedy this by recalling your
favorites and forcing into your memory of them a long line-up of
shovels, to be handed out to the main principals for use at night to
scoop away the slimers. I suspect this would work . . . but at the cost
of never knowing your sense and sensibilities again, without knowing
them, with shovels -- a high price to pay, in poetry/farm exchange.
I think you should hire someone who likes this film to screen future
romances for you. If s/he likes them, have her/him give a detailed
plot summary, and then fake it for us. We're all eating a la "Francis
Lam" and keeping company no more, with Hobbitan swine, so we'll
understand.
Link: Leap Year: One giant leap backward for romantic comedy
(Salon)
1192
[. . .]
But "Youth in Revolt" suggests, at least, the possibility of
something more for Cera. He won't be able to do much about
that baby face. But when he's wearing Francois'
Eurowardrobe, his gait and his carriage are different. He
has more swagger, more attitude -- in fact, he's more
successful at getting at theidea of sexiness than even some
so-called sexy actors are. (The handsome but chilly Jude
Law, as good an actor as he may sometimes be, comes to
mind.) Cera may be reaching the end of road as far as
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?
1193
about the emotion in it, and what is foul about it. These were fleshedout, passionate, brave, good people -- delightful to know, and worth
our caring about. Out there, in a way we all need to come -- to allow
ourselves -- to be. It's just a pity that Jackson seemed to use this
beautiful miracle as a kind of bait to move us this way and that, which
can make us feel a bit dependent and used -- in retrospect, fools, for
having allowed ourselves to be drawn in -- which, in the end, has
served to draw some of those reluctant to allow emotion into the
circuitry of their reason, ready reason to retreat back to intelligent but
affectless cognizizing. They took him in, are now feeling a bit taken
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
1194
speaks well of our humanity for doing so -- but, alas, they are very
clearly a breed apart: fiddling with their forever toys, are these lot of
unredeemable, squalor boys.
One wonders if in fact this article wasn't bait to coat the film-memory
well enough in sludge, so that it could be left behind for good, so
much more the cleanly. When you want to dump someone, you are
inclined to focus on the bad, and conclude that's more of what it was
really about than we -- in the moment -- could realize. So it was a
kind of joyous, silly play we allowed ourselves, but since it is now
obvious that those who stick with it amount to the small-towners who
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)
1195
1196
1197
1198
on Her behalf. It's the way it's going to go -- can't you just feel it?
I find the conservative backlash simply hilarious
considering their main information source - Fox News called the film "pro-military." (Smart Moose, response to
post, Conservative backlash against Avatar, Salon, 5 Jan.
2010)
@SmartMoose
It is certainly pro-warrior, and could easily be deemed pro-military.
The problem in the film is not military, but a CORRUPTED military.
It is military distorted, disfigured, through lack of righteous purpose.
It is near evident in their physiogamy -- certainly in their unwashed,
uncombed, snide-ful countenances. They're elves turned orcs.
Afghanistan is already something different than Iraq. It's not yet
Green and save-the-earth -- it's not "blue-men," serving Eywa -- but
it's not so much Blackwater either. Let's just say it's already better
shaved, if not yet at the point where it's spun around to fire back at
the grunts with the gun.
Link: Conservative backlash against Avatar (Andrew
Leonard, Salon)
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
1199
1200
1201
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.
It is nearly impossible to mature when the culture -- note: even the
indie escapes -- around you wants to keep you pliable, deferent, afraid
of looking ridiculous, of being caught out --Tom Cruise-like -- on your
own. We may have to wait for a new era, and be kind to those who
would have been pilloried if they persisted in any effort to be more
ballsy.
Feminism has become something which keeps pretty much everyone
at bay. But it's not feminism but rather the era that has temporarily
shaped the nature of its mission. This has not been a good era for any
ism; however much its fight to provide and empower, it will have
been bent to kow and control. People say we've been through a period
of ridiculous excess, but it strikes me most, as one of atonement.
Link: Male writers go limp (Salon)
What critics will come to acknowledge
What critics will come to acknowledge, about their draw to
the simple
Sitting in a theater being dazzled by James Cameron, I
found myself suddenly feeling pretty good about the future.
The technology behind "Avatar" is amazing -- but even more
incredible is the artistic creativity inherent in the good old
human mind. (Andrew Leonard, What the news biz can
1202
1203
1204
intelligence can have zero grasp of who she and her fellow
liberals truly are. Here's the deal: When you feel
passionately about my side of the argument, people like you
and your ilk (i.e. - Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow,
Grayson, etc.)are complete trash. The same is true for your
side. That's just the way it is. I agree with you about one
thing: I have no wish to see any harm come to you or the
others I mention above. I have a karma issue with that type
of wish. However, it is beyond insulting that you write about
your fellow liberals as if you all are the peaceful ones, and
conservatives are evil and hateful - as a whole. Come on,
Joan. Get a grip why don't you. In just a minute, one of your
liberal readers will see my letter and write something to the
effect of: "RE: Junebug4 - Fuck You!" Guess what? That
letter will get a gold star. Trust me, Joan - you are every bit
as evil and foul as you think Rush Limbaugh is. You simply
have to be on my side of the fence to see it. (junebug4,
response to post, Get well, Rush Limbaugh, Salon, 1 Jan.
2010)
@junebug4
Despite all you see, you are missing the crucial. Despite liberals
talking about pissing on Limbaugh's grave, most of them, in the
company of those who have done them the most harm, can still quite
possibly see/feel the humanity in their opponent. They would never
have them lined up and shot -- and not owing to some self-serving
concern to estimate themselves more civilized.
Some on the right, when they've begun to feel particularly untethered,
would save their opponents, only so they can be sure to torture them
endlessly first. Once dead, they'll attend to their victims, only to shout
at them and beat them over the head a few more times. Remorse is for
the emotionally more evolved -- those who tend to find themselves on
the left, or in some way well within their company (Tucker, Brooks -even a little bit -- though you're not going to believe it -- Coulter), if
1205
on the right.
Whatever depraved are on the left, they are just nowhere as "gone" as
those on the right. Salon was right to focus on the crazies on the right
over those on the left -- one is beginning to slur his/her words, the
other is away gone in slobbering gibberish. The sane know this; and
they're only to be found on one side of the fence.
Link: Get well, Rush Limbaugh (Salon)
Warriors! Come out and play-e-yaay!: Say no, to Cheney' taunt
The former vice president is just taking a cheap shot here
that aids his overall goal: Delegitimizing this president, and
he's been doing it from day one. Cheney has emerged as the
leader of the Republican Party, and some of his recent
obnoxiousness seems at least partly directed at his old boss,
President Bush, who by contrast has acted the way former
U.S. chief executives traditionally do: Keeping quiet and
respectful. Cheney's still angry that Bush wouldn't pardon
his buddy Scooter Libby and that he began to put some
limits on torture and interrogation. So he's aiming at two
presidents with his belligerence.
But I wonder where it stops. Clearly Cheney's aiming to take
over the Republican party and bring about a neocon
restoration. I'm blown away by the immediate disrespect
and political posturing by people like Cheney, Sen. Jim
DeMint and Rep. Pete Hoekstra have shown the president at
a time of real threat. (Oh, and Pete Hoekstra: I think raising
money to fight the "Obama/Pelosi" approach to national
security by running for Michigan governor is a little
backwards; you have a tiny bit more influence on such
issues on the House Intelligence Committee.) Way to aid the
terrorists, guys: Undermine the president as a nave
weakling unready to fight. I think the kneejerk partisan
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
knows this. If you want now to deliver the hammer, you have to do it
only after much patience and apparent consideration. Then you can
do what you had the urge to do originally -- squash -- but can
convince yourself that it really was only after "exploring every other
option." (It's a way, too, of making the violent climax that much more
triumphant and exultant.) To me, the appeal, necessity of this new
style / aesthetic these days is so obvious, that those who would
convince us Obama really is just by nature temperate, patient,
measured, would need to show how these lifetime, expert, crowd
pleasers -- crowd READERS -- are just being true to themselves, and
not just faithful to our gargantuan need for a becalming papa.
But about the measured approach . . . Aren't those who end up
mowing down crowds described later by friends and kin, as polite,
shy, well-mannered -- saintly?
Dick Cheney versus Mohammed Ali
America has just deflected a hit. It wasn't pretty, but the hit
was deflected.
Dick Cheney's strategy: No is madder than me! I'm the mad
dog! Let's start flailing madly, maybe knock out the guys in
our own corner, hell, let's maybe jump out of the ring and
knock out some guys in the audience. Let's beat our chest
and roar! Smackdown!
Muhammed Ali's fight strategy: Let's calmly assess the
situation even as it unfolds. Let's plot a reasonable strategy.
Let's focus on footwork. Let's wait for the right moment.
And then: strike.
I'm glad that Obama has a poster of Muhammed Ali in the
ring, and not Cheney. (Jack Sparx, response to post, A big
double standard for Obama)
Jack Sparx
You're great, Jack, but maybe consider my last comment. If you're not
careful, you may come to like / appreciate Obama, and we need you to
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
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.
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)
1219
1220
1221
WwwwwsshhhhhhhhSSHSHSHSHSH---KER-BLOOOOOM!
"Lock and load!" 'Get some!" BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA
BUDDA! Bleee-OWWW! BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA!
"Aim for the gas tank!" BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA!
Ker-BLANG! Splut! Gooooooshhh -- KER-BLOOOOOOM!
"Yeahhhh!" "Woooo-hoooo!"
What Michael Bay movie is that from?
In spirit, all of them. But to truly experience the above you'd
need to read it while riding a roller coaster. The car would
have to be equipped with strobe lights, sparklers, a halfdozen monkeys battering you about the head and shoulders
with ping-pong paddles and a boombox blasting the "Here
comes the cavalry!" orchestral stylings of Bay's court
composer, Hans Zimmer. The director of "Pearl Harbor"
(2001), "Bad Boys II"(2003), "The Island" (2005),
"Transformers" (2007) and"Transformers: Revenge of the
Fallen" (2009) doesn't make movies, he makes rides. He's
the filmmaker every studio boss dreams of -- the director as
adrenaline pusher. He has a facile eye, staging terrific oneoff sight gags (transfusion blood stored in Coke bottles in
"Pearl Harbor"; the mini-droids morphing from kitchen
appliances and Sam's brief trip to robot heaven in
"Transformers 2") and tossing off dozens, even hundreds of
gorgeous widescreen tableaux that most filmmakers would
be lucky to compose once in a career. (Matt Zoller Seitz,
Directors of the decade: No. 10 Michael Bay, Salon, 15
Dec. 2009)
thinking this through
"Bay is a juggernaut clomping through our imaginations, his iron
boots leaving footprints emblazoned with his initials. You cannot
escape his awesome destructive power. Surrender or die."
You referred to Sam's verbal nimbleness; I am tempted to think
through Transformers to see/feel it is really more nimbleness than
1222
1223
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.
@ various almost astonishingly stupid commenters
If you actually, I dunno, read and think about what he's
saying, you'll find "you can't escape it" doesn't mean that
you can't avoid Michael Bay's movies, which of course you
can and probably should, but that you can't avoid his
influence over the way movies are being made in Hollywood
today, be they dumb summer blockbusters or Oscar bait.
Which is very true, and this is a funny and insightful
exploration of that. (jfurg, response to post, Directors of the
decade: No. 10 Michael Bay, Salon)
Thanks, jfurg. . .
For first reading the article! (Kerry Lauerman, response to
post, Directors of the decade: No. 10 Michael Bay)
@jfurg
jfurg wrote:
If you actually, I dunno, read and think about what he's saying, you'll
find "you can't escape it" doesn't mean that you can't avoid Michael
Bay's movies, which of course you can and probably should, but that
you can't avoid his influence over the way movies are being made in
Hollywood today.
The review certainly does emphasize Bay's influence, and thus his
1224
1225
right before battle. There was considerable cunning in it, but if the
transformations weren't made to seem integral to particular battle
situations, there IS Village People effect in it also, some dumbness. I
can understand your being disappointed.
And Bay's hard-on for the military is the equivalent of
George Bush emerging from the jet plane with the "Mission
Accomplished" banner behind him. Bay doesn't respect the
everday soldier, the real one who is putting his or her life on
the line, but the ideal image of a soldier -- G.I. Joe come to
life as a living, breathing person making sure anyone who is
not like him no longer lives or breathes by dispatching them
with the latest hi-tech weaponry. Bay's romaticization of
this kind of soldier is fascistic; the only difference between
the way Hitler glorified the soldier and the way Bay does it
is that at least Hitler saw real warfare. Bay is one of those
assholes from affluent backgrounds who feels that someone
else can do the dirty work of fighting a real war while he
feels entitled to stay at home and just play war with a movie
camera. (Chad Mulligan, response to post, Directors of the
decade: No. 10 Michael Bay)
@Chad Mulligan
About Armageddon: maybe check out Siskel's "weird thumb's up"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6WjXAZJ9P0). It's funny.
Your claim that Bay doesn't respect the average soldier is interesting
as -- especially in Transformers 2 -- there is a clear effort to seem in
sync, primarily sympathetic to, their point of view. How he glories the
soldier evidences his fakeness, makes him, in a way, less true than
Hitler -- astonishes. If true, and if the war march here proceeds, Bay
should come to see more alien, removed, pretentious -- as we get
directors who go more Hitler-in-sync with those who know the real
smell of war. But between directors who really could, like, kill people,
and those like Bay, who really just go for the tableaux, I'll take Bay
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further
presumption and disregard on part of the girls, the movie decides to
play it off mostly as some great score for the kid. My guess is that
Crowe is conflicted about the incident. Packs of girls / women as
friends but also vipers, is certainly something you notice in his films.
The male protagonist who associates with them, who ardently
defends / serves them, forcefully represents their interests to his male
peers ("Joe. Joe. She's written 65 songs . . . 65. They're all about you";
"You guys, you're always talking about the fans, the fans, the fans; she
was your biggest fan, and you threw her away!"), is made to seem
possibly more evolved (the women certainly are in a hurry to deem
him such) but also possibly someone who will never garner full
respect from women -- someone, who in the end, is actually the one
who making the mistake in not hanging out at the "Gas 'n' Sip on a
Saturday night completely alone drinking beers with no women
anywhere." Crowe seems someone who could well ask,"One question.
Are you here because you need someone or because you need me?,"
but also someone who'd immediately retract, capitulate, owing to still
being a bit afraid to stand up for himself and put his foot down.
Brian D: Wow
I believe some people need to re-read the premise for these "reviews."
I think it had something to do with which movies were the most
personally influential films, not perhaps the critical best.
The film had a similar affect on me personally, but I wouldn't say it
was the best film of the past decade. And yes, there are some issues of
gender politics in the movie, but name a film where there isn't. (Brian
D. response to post, Films of the decade: Almost Famous)
Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @Brian D.
The premise behind this new Salon feature is to launch "salvos" and
otherwise get a spirited conversation going. How does, "And yes,
there are some issues of gender politics in the movie, but name a film
where there isn't" draw us further into the film rather than school us
1234
1235
1236
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
post, Will Survivor mastermind Russell reign supreme)
BTW, sansho1 is absolutely correct; Godwin's Law is
inarguable. I hardly consider voluntary participation in a
competitition to win $1 million comparable to the suffering
of victims of the Holocaust. (Guy Caballero, response to
post)
A story that exults of a sadistic leader and his
broken, pathetic, subjects, is no place for a nazi
reference
"It's time for a sure-handed, charismatic commander to lull
us into sheeplike complacency once again. Fascism,
communism, whatever flavor suits his or her mood is fine
with us, as long as we don't have to make bad decisions all
by ourselves anymore. Just make sure the little cameras in
our bedrooms broadcast to the Web, so we can watch along
with our fearless leaders, thereby helping to snuff out
insubordination, laziness and chronic masturbation.
We'll be just like the Red Guards in China, only less fit and
much more perverted."
So THIS is a "strange" place for a nazi reference? Really, sansh01?
1237
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
1238
1239
1240
she's the emotionally primitive date you lapse to when you've actually
now begun to tire of the Sigmourny Weavers of the world, whose level
of interestingness unceasingly demand you stay conscious and awake.
Stephanie's right about the guy. There is nothing particular about
him. He is just a wash, making him so different from what we usually
get with Cameron. And the villains: the corporate hack goes
Sigmourny's way in this film: he is nowhere as present and relevant as
he is in Aliens and (if you allow a bit of latitude) in T2 (I'm thinking
the psychologist). We get a truck, instead. And it, he, fights the tree -the group spirit in this film, which arises in the end, to give you that
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
1241
1242
1243
Wilbur-bourbon
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
Lucy. See that film for a strong sense of this truly being exactly what
we should want to avoid. It'll have us either joining the packs, or
clinging to moribund Great Books for some sense of the lasting, at the
cost of self-development and a worthy future.
What I would like to see here at Salon in the future are stories from
people who go OFF university altogether. I think the time is near
ready for it, because I think that some of the most sensitive, most
genuinely curious, just won't be able to take much of the university
atmosphere as it is right now. If they have the strength to find one
another -- and this is key -- it is probably in their best interest to form
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
1249
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
products that are idea-driven -- inspired by thought and
creativity.
The part with the holes? Those parts are mouthpieces and
earpieces from old telephones. They are NOS (new old
stock), not used. There are stockpiles of such product left
from the days when we all used such phones. They're
repurposed here to pour seasonings at the table.
[. . .]
There are a series of progressive values reflected in the Taste
of Talking. It's green: It uses recycled (and nonbiodegradable) parts that might well otherwise truly end up
in a landfill. And in using these mundane, disused materials,
a wholly unexpected result is achieved, which, I think,
changes your perspective on the materials themselves,
causing you to look differently at some of the castoffs of our
industrial culture. Beauty in a telephone mouthpiece, or an
auto sidelight lens? Yet, viewed through this lens, these
things are indeed beautiful.
And, these shakers are -- in a word that a lot of my design
community colleagues use -- democratic. They marry
thoughtful and even groundbreaking design with simplicity
and affordability. My favorite corner of the design world is
democratic modern design: great and elegant principles
applied to create affordable objects. My family and I live in
1250
1251
1252
re: "We know it's sort of sad, but it's all we have until the kids become
a little older. Allow me and my kin to engage in our one conversation,
even if it's just to stay in practice for when we emerge from the
bunker. Maybe you can even find it in yourselves to muster a little
understanding for us next time you're out past 10 p.m. at one of your
fancy childless keg parties where you discuss the new Philip Roth and
the Phillies' amazing World Series defense. Because, who knows? You
may find yourself dumb like me someday."
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
1253
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.
The Store's mission: to offer a collection of products that
reflect what always interests us at Salon -- startling
creativity, soul-pleasing utility, interesting ideas, unique
perspectives and sometimes just the profound wackiness of
our culture.
Why do we think the interests of Salon and its audience
translate into products? Because, in various ways, things
matter to all of us. They make statements, they offer
solutions, they express or create emotion. I think of Salon as
a place -- a destination, a community -- that is defined
chiefly by an evolving set of shared interests. So we think it
will be fun, interesting and appropriate to identify products
that reflect those interests and showcase them on Salon. And
we are particularly interested in your feedback about the
products we offer as well as others you think we should be
offering. We'd like your participation not merely as
purchasers but as curators along with us. (Richard Gingras,
Welcome to the Salon store, Salon, 29 November 2009)
small question
if we buy small things from the salon store, and sip and chat drinking
some starbucks' love brew, does this mean we get to have nothing to
do with those kids being shot and killed in afghanistan, having their
tuitions upped 30 percent, those poor suckers losing their houses,
considering military employment, and bound to have their kids turn
1254
increasingly feral?
the goods look pretty good, actually, but it kinda feels like you're
opening the door to further wall-street bonuses, evidence that despite
it all, you really don't have to give a fuck this christmasy time of year.
Salon can feel rangey, but still be colorful and fun. You've put a neat
bow on the site, which makes us all feel a little less like them, which
isn't quite what our souls need.
Link: Welcome to the Salon store (Salon)
Amid the $1,000 (and $10,000) titanium-framed, fully
suspended, on- and off-road competition bikes for sale
around bike-obsessed San Francisco, I stumbled onto this. A
custom Sting Ray chopper re-creation. All chrome. With
spiral/twisted fork ... and high-density spoke wheel ... and a
steering wheel ... and mufflers ... and a spare tire, to top it
off, carried in the back, like my granddad's '35 Ford.
I called the phone number the next day. I found myself
talking to a young guy -- a kid, the owner/builder. He lived
in Richmond, an economically challenged city in the East
Bay. At the end of my day at Salon, I drove across the Bay
Bridge to have a look.
I drove up a street with no occupied houses, save for the one
that was my destination. It was encircled by a high fence.
There was a large dog in the yard. I honked the horn,
walked up and met a Hispanic family. There were three kids
playing in the yard and driveway, a well-kept house, and a
garage full of projects with wheels. No English spoken here,
save for the owner of the bike. Mom sat on the front stairs
watching over everyone, friendly but guarded.
[. . .]
Two-hundred fifty dollars was a lot of money for a bike that
had seen a pretty hard and well-used life, no matter how
deeply it had been loved. The fork was loose; the wheel
spokes had a patina of rust. But for a signpost, a memory of
a hardworking family, doing their best against really bad
1255
odds? I paid him, and hoisted the bike into the back seat of
my car. I asked if I could take their picture, and received an
emphatic "no" from his protective mom. (Of course not -what was I thinking?) The bike now sits in the courtyard of
our little house in Marin.
[. . .]
But on the other hand: Products -- the right products,
designed with passion, for the right reasons, made
responsibly -- can be inspiring. They can be the embodiment
of values and, indeed, of dreams. They can literally change
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
1256
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
anti-Obama, and strike.
They'll have Obama, FOX news, liberals, Palin, conservatives, CNN -maybe NPR, and Salon store. Like Viggo, we progressives are in need
of some more men.
Link: Yes, its Obamas war now (Salon)
1257
1258
@smontgomery
re: "Most likely, if they have any decency, then they'll
apologize up and down, you can accept it--and then you can
have an *honest* friendship. And if they don't... you know
they aren't worth it."
I like the idea of bringing it up. But I think what one would hope for is
an honest response from them, more than you would an apology. It is
possible that they tormented her because she seemed almost to want
to be tormented--which is what masochism is all about. The sense
that her neediness made her bad, which still haunts her now, very
likely afflicted her then.
----@kisilano:
We weren't all extremely needy. Only those who were poorly attended
to were. These are the ones whose neediness was so profound, they
either tormented similarly needy kids, in an effort to DENY their own
neediness, or put themselves in a position to be bullied, to confirm
the rightness of parents who had assessed them as not worth the
time.
In any case, I'm all for going back. But the main problem isn't there:
it's earlier, and elsewhere.
----Writing under Ross cover
I don't think this article is particularly brave. For some time now
we've not lived in a society where all boats have risen, and we've all
come to understand geeks as those who later on in life are near
expected to become Ross-types from friends: their geeky traits
actually evidenced their appropriateness for our sophisticated
information age. Under this protection, we're seeing a lot of people
own up to being geeks. Intellectual, cautious, and accomodating, they
even now have their own president. So if you're a successful writer
writing now of your previous torments, there is a sense that you're not
just uncovering old wounds, but cementing a sense of yourself as
constitutionally fit, in a way. To many of your current peers (and us)
1259
you may not even be tipping your hat to them (i.e., your early
tormentors), to their lasting influence on you, because many of us are
barely off talking to one another about how wonderful it is to be
carried afloat with Obama, after so many foul years of being pressed
down by Bush.
Again, I think the journey back is extremely important. But there are
so many temptations to do so so "armored" that we discover nothing,
really, but in a way that allows us to pretend that we've uncovered
everything. Also, that tightness in your stomach: It's primarily from
your experiences inside your home. Most kids even now are more
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
1260
1261
1262
politic, 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)
1263
empathic, emotive, poets, too--who don't just study the world about
us, but transform it into something as personable, as truly relatable,
as we instinctively are prone to engage with it as?
Just to be clear: yes, creationists are demon-haunted, not to be
listened to. Yes, corporations who bio-engineer are currently hardly
poets at work creating loving things. Yes, Dawkins can be very
inventive and exciting in his explorations, but is not fully worthy of
us, either.
@ Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Your unfortunate relativistic gobbledygook is as exhausting
as it is meaningless.
"The universe, according to Dawkins, was put together
randomly--not out of love, or hate, or volition, or disinterest.
We find this disconcerting, because we are meaning-craving
human beings"
The knowledge we have about how randomly the universe
was put together has absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins'
(or anybody else's) assertions or beliefs and everything to do
with scientific facts.
Speak for yourself if you find it disconcerting. I am
positively nowhere near the "meaning-craving" anything
you choose to be.
"Shouldn't we become less interested in the fact of what is
out there, now that we know it better, and more interested
in how we--as meaning-making, as makers with the
potential to create out of empathy, true love--are prone to
see/perceive this world we have been born into?"
So now that we as a species are getting so good at really
understanding the world we live in, in the most wonderful
and USEFUL ways (basically, acquiring more knowledge the stuff that rapidly evaporates our incapacitating
mysticism) - now we should "become less interested" in that
and more interested in... realizing our potential as meaning-
1264
1265
1266
you can answer those questions, if you can at least spot the
difference, you are obliged to do one of two things. In
Doyle's words: "Be less weirded out by the fact that ladies
are getting all freaky about Robert Pattinson. Or be MORE
weirded out by the dudes getting all het up about various
lady movie stars." (Kate Harding, Another feminist defence
of Twilight, Salon, 23 November 2009)
Broadsheet sees no dawn for men: learn to love the leash
Guys, you're shit out of luck. You think you've earned a right to a
hearing, but you've only really just begun to understand the suffering.
Women have been boy-toys since cave-men invented patriarchy.
Milleniums of objectification, with no remedy, no notice, no justice;
and now with the leash barely on, you think we'll respect your
wimper? Maybe sometime year 3000, but since you started it all,
maybe never.
Also, hope for a better future and all that.
Signed,
Broadsheet
P.S. In truth, we think Megan Fox is a bimbo slut. She proved
momentarily useful, is all--have at her.
Link: Another feminist defence of Twilight (Salon)
1267
1268
1269
the last thing you should be told is of your need to serve yet some
more. Rather, you need to know that this too shall pass--wait it out-and in the meantime, time to offer moms some honest feedback, so
they perhaps can snap out of it.
@Gigi_Knows!
Re: "I knew someone would come up with some Social Darwinian
jeering. It never, ever fails."
Just so we're on the same page, my first comment was intended to
help point out how social darwinist our era feels--how the childless
have been made to feel, how awful it is. (Maybe my previous
comment to you pointed that out.)
I saw the error just as soon as I posted. These things happen, not just
out of ignorance or sloppiness. You know this--this is a conversation,
not a publication: it's about being as literate as possible, while you
partake in the energy and the flow. Not so much spellcheck; and it
may be the way the literate not just make unnecessary errors, but
possibly allow room for their language, grammar, to evolve, grow. Not
this time--sure: But free-range, not contrivance.
Patrick, dear
I'm sorry. I didn't know. I thought you meant it. (That even
happened to Glenn Greenwald recently, if you can believe
it.)
I don't have kids. I don't think it's awful.
There was a time when people who tried to make me feel
awful could. That was a long time ago, so long it's hard to
remember.
(My recommendation: Watch some foreign films. In fact, try
nothing but, at least for a while. Seriously.) (Gigi_Knows!,
Response to post, "Everybody")
Link: "Everybody Hates Mommy" (Salon)
1270
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
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
1271
1272
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.
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
1273
1274
1275
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
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
1276
1277
@Saintzak
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)
1278
1279
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.
Link: May your first child be a feminine child (Salon)
1280
1281
1282
[. . .]
Predictably, the media focused not on why 200 protesters
occupied an intersection to voice their opposition but on
thetorchbearers who were unfairly deprived of their
opportunity to run the flame.
More predictably, media featured a young man with
cerebral palsy who could not take his turn. Fortunately he
later got his chance in Nanaimo.
[. . .]
Last Wednesday a group called Moms on the Move held
protests in 20 communities to protest B.C. Liberal cuts to
funding for special needs kids, including to autism, fetal
alcohol syndrome and mental illness treatment programs.
Despite the obvious importance of their plight, the protests
received next to no media coverage, with less than a dozen
news stories online and none in major media.
But disrupt the Olympic torch run and watch the media fly -there were hundreds of stories about the protesters'
disruption and it dominated television coverage. (Bill
Tieleman, Dissent and BCs Media, the Tyee, 3 Nov. 2009)
Don't you just hate it when someone crashes the corporate
party?
Whenever people are being set up as fundamentally hatred-worthy,
protections by civil liberties are soon to go. Civil liberty talk becomes
all about setting the speakers up as, in essence, restrained and
principled, so at that point when they decide protestors simply have
gone "too far," and civil liberties are dispensed with in favor of beat
first, piss on later, they have demonstrated to themselves that what in
truth is their sadistic indulgence, is really, is incontrovertibly,
absolute last measure necessity to keep anarchy at bay. It's all about
setting things up so that when they later turn all militant brutal, they
feel no guilt. With the way Bill sets this up, with self-involved
protestors taking away chance of a lifetime thrills, you know what
path he's on. Count him amongst those who will effort to crush those
1283
1284
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,
he is clearly much more drawn to muscle and inclined to disparage
the vulnerable, than otherwise.
----If anti-olympicers have to
If anti-olympicers have to demonstrate there's not a marble-thrower
amongst them, the public clearly WANTS to see them as urban
delinquents, and their efforts will count against them. How can there
not be marble throwers, how can there not be some, or even many,
involved, that are drawn to mayhem and humiliation, when they've all
suffered through 30 years of corporate rule, public disintegration,
family discord? Corporations can't lose: they've helped create society
so ruthless and unnuturing, that those who protest against them can
be shown up as "unbalanced" cause they've ensured that at least some
involved surely are that, and thus set-up for further discrimination /
abuse, if the public is in the mood to cooperate.
Save the Rivers has managed to avoid being set up as lumber-jack
injuring anarchists, owing its success to being understood as backed
by concerned, good-hearted wilderness appreciaters. Why the
difference? My guess it has something to do with how the public
PREFERS to imagine the two. The public wants them to seem pure -and therefore skims over the anarchists amongst them, and estimates
them mostly composed of small town, clean-air breathing and
humble, middle-aged lovers of God's green earth -- and wants the
anti-olympicers to seem viral --and thus focuses on "irresponsible,"
1285
1286
1287
1288
attention, action, you make them seem needy and silly, and yourself
patient and serious. This is sadistic, even if it is just playing to others'
masochistic impulses. I believe his handlers are the American people.
Most of them are turning very sadistic, very sacrificial right now.
Support our troops: Dexterous may indeed be the word. I prefer
not to spell-check, though. Allows me to go with what feels most
right. Couldn't live with myself if I didn't ensure I played a part in the
process which allows language to change and evolve. Spell check
freezes everything in place, never forced to address this crime against
the beauty of change through time, against the living. Got my training
in English; now I let it stay or evolve, without censure. Thanks,
though.
1289
1290
1291
1292
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
complaining that Obama is "bullying" Fox News, absurdly
claiming that the White House and liberals are trying "to use
government power to muzzle opinions they don't agree
with." Needless to say, Carlson doesn't say a word about the
endless -- and far worse -- attacks by the Bush White House
on a whole array of media outlets, ones that went far beyond
mere criticisms. (Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson and the
rights perpetual self-victimhood, Salon, October 23 2009)
Towel smothering, to the delight of the perpetrating left.
What I hear mostly is talk of the far worse efforts by Bush et al.
Obama is the entranced parent calmly smothering a towel over the
tantruming child. Salon helps serve particulars on the right up as crybabbies, and Obama silences them. It's a very brutal tag team, which
will eventually turn on the very best, the most out-spoken, on the left.
Greenwald seems to especially dislike Tucker and Brooks -- two of the
most free-thinking, most resistant to "party" cues, on the right. I hope
you don't end up -- in effect -- becoming an Obama agent, who vents
loudest against those who actually managed to remain independent.
This is brilliant parody, Patrick McEvoy-Halston. Thanks
for the laugh!Comedy gold here:
Greenwald seems to especially dislike Tucker and Brooks -two of the most free-thinking, most resistant to "party" cues,
on the right. I hope you don't end up --in effect -- becoming
an Obama agent, who vents loudest against those who
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
Re: PMH
Sexual attraction for either gender, by either gender is not
the result of dysfunctional parenting nor childhood trauma.
It's hard wired into your system the way Apple or IBM
compatible is hard-wired into the systemboard of a PC.
The need to distance yourself from it by explaining it away
with theories that have, long since, been discounted and/or
disproven likely is, however. As the old saying goes...
"denial" is not just a river in Egypt. (gkrevvv, response to
post, Ladies: Im not your gay boyfriend)
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
1302
1303
1304
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
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)
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
he DID it! OOH I hate her!" They also had no idea why she'd
want Jake in 16Can, who left his drunk girlfriend(Kate
Vernon, I think, who also did another memorable drunk
recently on some little sci-fi show...) to whatever fate with
Anthony Michael-Hall, whose character spells drunken daterape "This...is gonna be good." (dust1969, response to post,
Champion of mere mortals)
@dust1969
I wonder if your girl friends at the time were approached by (the
equivalent of a) Jake, if they'd have dropped their duckies for the
buck, in an instant. Duckie only shows self-respect at the very end--a
bit when he dresses so towardly, magnificently, for the prom, but
mostly when he encourages Andie to go for Blane. This--what?-grace?, true goodwill?, makes it seem appropriate and even believable
that some lovely (other) self-possessed Pinkie suddenly appears to
take special note of him. Even with more of that from him, I still say
Andie and Blane work best. Ringwald was right to push.
The sneering, the leveling, succeed in "Heathers." The world is so full
of shit, so truly indecent, it makes looking to the nature of your own
behavior seem a bit optional. You "see," and that kinda makes you
way beyond good enough. Hughes--perhaps most evidently
with/through Duckie, but also with Bender and others--saw this
means, a strategy, to keep yourself from taking risks and growing, and
asked for more out of people than just that.
---re: As an aside
John Hughes has been portrayed as a champion of the
down-trodden but in most of his teen flicks the dorks, dweebs
and losers get to do nothing but gaze fondly upon their
betters, hoping for the odd pat on the head or an indulgent
glance. Whilst everyone else is hooking up (and moving up a
1312
1313
---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...
(sawmonkey, response to post, Champion of mere mortals)
sawmonkey
For me what stands out is his recognition of and tribute to, people
with personality, with some considerable capacity for self-realization
and the give-and-take. Blane/Jake see something in Samatha/Andie,
and, in my judgment, it is to their considerable credit that they do.
The pairing of Samantha and Blane works at the end because they've
both got class--real class, of a type not exclusive to any one particular
social class. The WASP/Ivy-Leagues, for me, amount in his films to
the "catcher in the rye": "it" cushions people from the potentially
crushing vissitudes of life--it's a giant pillow for those not entirely
sure where they'll be sleeping the night after next. But there is no real
action, no true life, to be found there--it's perimeter, not ground;
weekend escape, not day-to-day dalliance, fight, and play.
@Patrick
Fair enough. You got yer druthers and I have mine. Cheers
to you, Sir! (sawmonkey, response to post, Champion of
mere mortals)
Ps.
Ferris really needed a beating! That is all... (sawmonkey,
response to post, Champion of mere mortals)
1314
---re: Also
I can't believe that everyone has forgotten the real message
in BREAKFAST CLUB. As long as you conform you're OK.
What. you say? Well, I give you the Ally Sheedy psycho-girl
character. Who later would have been a Goth. Once she gets
a Molly makeover, all is fine, right?
Tell me you didn't find that disgusting. I liked her better than
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
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
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
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
life and had some big boom times. I had fun then, but not
because of money. I knew that then, and I know it now,
having very little but experiencing the happiest time in my
life. That's due in large part to the 3 years of therapy I chose
to invest in - I was harboring some unpleasant habits of
feeling and decided it was high time to get rid of them. It was
hard, but possible. An interesting side effect - it greatly
enabled my writing. (Sandra, response to post, Hurt and
sickened . . .)
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.
1330
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
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
1331
1332
1333
1334
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
professional interest in taking joy and converting it into some kind of
social pathology. A social pathology that has the intent of hurting
others.
I do not frankly understand your point and your pursuing this
argument. You have taken a meeting of people, a group of people
sharing their holiday, vacation, fun, joy whatever, and perverted it
into some kind of It can bespeak not primarily meanness or sinful
selfishness, but a kind of therapeutic, rightful insistence on self.
What lesson are you trying to teach? Are you trying to teach people to
be temperate and prudent, or modest? Or telling people that just the
expression of having a good time is a pathology.
Well, I don't buy your take on humanity.
Stellaa
JULY 30, 2009 02:46 PM
You are out of place professionally as a therapist if you try to perform
analysis on people you have never met and who you know very little
about. When given more information you spit it back using threesyllable words. I also have a Ph.D. and don't feel the need to use
academic terms in and non-academic environment to impress people.
1335
I am a nice person. You should not delude yourself into thinking that
you are.
It is Dr. Fox to you.l
Dorinda Fox
JULY 30, 2009 03:15 PM
The pathology would be in, if there was some better-than-thou strut
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
1336
1337
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
impressive: it doesn't make you seem so much someone to be heard,
as someone who wants to quit/intimidate someone else by letting
them know just who backs them--makes you seem someone who got a
PhD, in part, so that you could trump all arguments at some point,
with this sort of (what-ought-to-be-deemed) rather pathetic little
inclusion/surprise/well-as-it-turns-out.
I'm a socialist. People without too much need for titles, perhaps
without any, are the ones who impress me: they are the only who
truly see something beautiful and wonderful in everyone. They are the
only ones who can imagine equivalence meaning, everyone as
resplendent. They are the only ones who would have you know that if
you think/say/feel something brilliant, THAT is all that's important:
doesn't matter at all how here-to-fore, others have "placed" you.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 30, 2009 03:39 PM
You have no clue why I pursued a Ph.D. and are a lousy therapist if
you think you know.
You are "mean boy" using big words to intimidate the girls who
shunned you in school as is obvious by your obsession with high
school imagery.
1338
1339
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
school at Dopamine High, show a huge need of other's desire (I know
there is that in a Heather; but in Heather Chandler, specifically, there
is considerable Reese Witherspoon-inner sunshine, too!), but our love
of ourselves, our self-radiance, should be such that's it is obvious to
one and all, even if that's not the point.
Pretty woman--pretty, joyful women, especially--draw our
aspiration/appreciation, and thereby for many also draw out our
discomfort/disease with self-pleasuring. Just to be clear, I wasn't
disparaging them by calling them Heathers, myself. I really do like
Heather Chandler! (Also Veronica, though.) Legally Blonde captures
what the beautiful (in the myriad of ways) and happy "face," so very,
very well.
Huge issue right now, you know. What happened to Tom Cruise,
even. The guy was just happy about his marriage! Goes off to Paris,
gets married--wonderful show! It's not everyone's fun, but it's great
Las Vegas fun--playful fun!, and so we go at him the best we can.
Apparently, he needed to do his best to minimize the show, minimize
the Tom Cruise in the Tom Cruise, for heaven's-sakes!, to have had
any chance of a pass-over.
If you got it, flaunt it! If you flaunt it over me, I'll see in this a way to
doing it so that it's really not the least bit at my expense--it can be a
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
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
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
1345
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.
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
1346
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.
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
1347
1348
1349
White-wingers distract the left for wall-street Obama (30 July 2009)
So if the battle is long and intense, but Obama ultimately takes these
unfortunate white-wingers out, and the left cheers!, and the left
cheers!, and the left cheers! Then when this Wall-Street approved
proceeds along his Wall-Street approved way, will the left need to find
some other foul variant of the right to focus on, so they aren't left
thinking, wait a sec, did we just help entrench this guy?
Link: Is GOP using race to block Obama? (Joan Walsh)
1350
1351
1352
1353
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
magic sealing off the mountain pass, and presses Gandalf to
understand the charm as riddle. And again, and perhaps most
especially, when he leaves the rest of the Fellowship behind,
understanding from evidence that even the greatest of friends will
have trouble remaining true to himthat even Aragorn will have
trouble remaining true, as the journey closes in on Mordor.
Frodo's excellence largely, it seems, redeems that ostensibly
possessed by the Shire. It seemsif only barelypossible to credit
that Frodo's sense-of-self arose from growing up in an environment
with enough casual, mildly begrudging but essential tolerance of the
laissez-faire, that it empowered curious, open, inquisitiveness,
confidence-providing experimentation, true geniuseven if well
hidden under the guise of the peculiarnot available to those always
so ready-prepared for the vissitudes of war. And it is important that
the Shire seem something more than a wished-for ideal of easy
"maternal" provisions/comforts, of ongoing comfort and essential
sameness, an abode of those appreciative of the good life but unaware
of the higherthat it seem not just ideal for vacation but for
foundation: for Gandalf's pronounced interest in it as something
beyond a well-holed Traveller's Inn, would otherwise seem
unaccountable, inexcusable.
Frodo doesn't do all that much that strikes us as so leaderly,
independent, notable through the rest of the series. Yes, he gets to
Mordor, but along with perseverance he demonstrates that wear-and-
1354
1355
1356
1357
once again be combat virgins, for the film to encourage us to try and
convince ourselves we didn't see what we in fact saw way down deep
in the mines of Moriacome now! Come, come, COME ON NOW!!!
What happens, it seems, is that what was put down earlier to
heighten a moment, so very often works, so to speak, to "step on the
heels" of future desired character/plot developments. The film cannot
resist the urge to encourage us to indulge, to draw us to accede, to
forget/look past the inconvenient truth and previously put-down,
with the "argument" that righful reckoning of past experience will
intrude on the ability to well savor the awesomely satisfying
significance/experience of the soon-to-be-offered. You know you
want the Witch King of Agmar to be mighty great, to seem right-fit to
rightly draw the dismay of (note: Balrog-defeating) Gandalf, so that
his distraction by the arrival of Rohan's army seems to accord this
accomplishment even greater noteworthiness, so that his defeat by
Eowyn can be made to seem even more a matter of legend and
miracle; and so you will now forget that he was once easily-enough
one-handedly waved away, with (but) a torch. You know you want the
upcoming battle to be of heightened significance, to be even better
yet! so you know you'll forget all the "this is the battle that will forever
seal the fate of Middle Earth" stuff you were treated to not just the
last battle but seemingly every other battle of significance
encountered along the way. You know you want members of the
Fellowship to be superlative warriors, so you know you'll delight in
their downing of about a hundred Uruk-hai to show off their good
stuff and heighten the tragedy when one of them is finally at last
downed by them, and agree to largely pass over this meaning largely
forgetting all the previous setup of such hugely muscled warriors as
being of such notable formidableness. And you'll agree that there isn't
something a bit askew in how it is that nearly every battle features a
member of the Fellowship just a whisker away from being dispatched
but saved at the last moment for another dollop of nick-of-time
satisfaction and friendship cementation. Time and time and time
again. As if there was no memory of it happening before.
1358
There is so much such. It's everywhere, and all the way through. To
mind, also, is how the reunited sword is shown to command the
power of/over an army so powerful it would over-run Mordor, if given
full reign, making it, if not the most powerful artifact, certainly the
artifact that evidences the most power throughout the film. And use
of this is okay, and not the ring, because? And a follow-up: Why
exactly was Boromir made to seem so unsound of mind when he
suggested the ring could be used to save Gondor, when later another
artifact of power is shown responsible for exactly that? Don't ask, the
film encourages, for the ripple effects of this question could end up
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.
1359
1360
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
term "sympathetic magic." In a nutshell, they thunder at him so that
Pat Buchanan! can thunder on through them. This single man,
talked about as if he could bring down a nation through oration,
evoke and direct its colossal wrath through his beration, is talked "up"
by those to be counted amongst those who profit by being his
prophets.
For to those who have not been so bullied/neglected, so unfairly
aggressed upon, Pat can end up seeming not so much the devil, but
rather, the beloved, the often wily but just as equally often clueless,
flawed uncle. The emotionally settled, those more at peace, can see
much to admire in Pat, they can even admire and speak of his
personal charm, but though they will find him someone well worth
listening/attending to, they will not find him dangerously seductive-they can readily shut him up, without feeling they've thereby startled
themselves out of a pleasing, out of a necessary-feeling/seeming,
trance. Of his manner of speaking, his oratory, they would see/sense
weakness as much as they would strength. For he does speak as one
who not just aims but needs to capture your attention, as one who is
loathe to let you slip away, not just because he has something to say,
but because he needs your company to fill a void. (They sense that,
though people talk of his belligerence, focus on how he exhales, as it
were, it is at least as appropriate to talk of hiswithdrawing into
oratory ecstasy, of how he inhales and thereby moves away from
those he is talking to.) This sense of him, too, of course, works to
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
---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.
These men were destroyed in that war, and much as I hope
humanity never, ever goes through that again, I will not, now from
the comfort of my home, sit here and pretend I am superior because
I find what they did repulsive to me.
Go fight a grueling war as all these MEN did, and lets see how much
of your ethics and mental stability you have left by the end of it.
(6stringer, response to post, Rape in Berlin)
6stringer:
So if the depressions worsens, worsens, and we all go through a lot.
Not what soldiers go through, mind you, but a lot--a hell of a lot. Then
if we rape: screw all who "sit at home," who judge but cannot
understand?
You romance the warrior's lot, rather have us understand it. All men
are drawn to bear warriors' scars.
---@Patrick McEvoy-Halston
In which way did I ever say rape was justified or something we
should aspire to?
You want to argue a point, then pick one I actually made, not one
you feel like fabricating.
My point was clear... Men, reduced to animal natures by war are
not going to act like normal, healthy people.. Women are also
mentally wounded and do things they otherwise would not do under
1369
duress in times of war. Its only the smug, morally superior here who
like to think they somehow would have been different.
And if I am in love with some romantic warrior image, you then are
in love with your Enlightened GodLike superiority. Fact is, in the
same position, in the same time, in the same era, you would have
been no better, no different..and I suspect much worse than most.
(6stringer, response to post, Rape in Berlin)
@6stringer
I like empathy for, real reach to, understand/assess psychological
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
1370
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.
Or maybe we should just throw out every verbose theory we can,
just as long as we continue to reduce people to abstractions, and not
actual real, living, human beings put in a situation that drove many
people mad, insane, and crazy.
Let me make my point easy for you.
These men and boys, conscripted to fight, weren't playing war
games to be heros. They were FORCED into it, as most men are. And
that draft is just as much, if not more, of a rape of a mans mind,
body and soul as the actual rapes of these women were.
That is what you, and many of the posters here cannot begin to
understand, so busy are you all standing on your pedestals. Just as
every man in America today is RAPED at the age of 18 when he
signs a draft- or better said, he is informed of the intent to rape if
ever society deems it is time to use his body as a gear for the war
machine. And he has about as much choice in the matter as the
women who are raped.
There is no big mystery of the Terrible Mother here. There is no deep
psychology of Purity cleansing. Or even romancing the Warrior.. It
is simple, men are violently conscripted by society (men and
women) to fight. Where their bodies and existence are used up. So
when they get to the people who they feel caused their trauma, they
inflict the same anger onto them.. rape, murder, degradation.
But to see this, you must see men as human beings, capable of being
traumatized, raped, used... and who wants to do that when we can
1371
Michael Lerner
1372
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
formidable -- a virtual death-grip on our culture and our future as a
species. It is a kind of madness but one which we can apparently
adapt to. This manufactured addiction to more and more stuff
undermines community, threatens the planet and doesn't even make
us happy. Consumerism, driven by the most sophisticated and
manipulative psychology the advertising industry can buy, has had
the effect of atomizing us. We are defined more and more by what
we have, less and less by our relationships to family, friends,
colleagues and community. (Murray Dobbin, Left Needs Soul
Searching, The Tyee, 9 July 2009)
1373
1374
1375
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
1376
1377
1378
1379
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"
1380
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
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.
1381
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.
1382
1383
1384
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
1385
1386
1387
I know what she was up to, but kind-hearted Joan kinda meant to
disparage Starbucks' employees there. I felt it. That's what bothered
me. She's most certainly a very good, warm person--but she needs
this kind of feedback. Many good people in "Washington" need it-Coming to mind also is Hillary Clinton--who I like--arguing that
today's youth need to start working harder, to stop being slackers,
which had me thinking, hey, the youth of today grew up in an age of
diminishing expectations, of accumulating societal cruelty--they were
fucking abandoned: ease off!
Thanks for the comment, emma peel.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 08, 2009 09:40 PM
patrick - you raise a wonderful point. except, i dont think mcdonalds
is a good analogy, either. people work to have food, and it should not
be criticized. i am sure joan didnt plan to say it, or she would have
made her point differently. i personally think that the lack of respect
that accompanies minimum wage jobs is half the reason for the drug
sellers. i mean, why work for minimum wage and no respect? i
wouldnt, if i had an alternative.
jane smithie
JULY 08, 2009 11:18 PM
I've always thought that jobs like barista and fast food employee were,
for the most part, transitional - something we do while we're
attending college, or waiting to be hired into something we'd rather
do. Thanks for the reminder that for some people, it's a career and/or
longtime position, a way to earn money to support themselves.
I suspect that Joan was just thinking on her feet - those interviews
provide little opportunity for word-searching and that was probably
1388
the first thing that popped into her mind. She's not a mean person I'm sure she didn't mean it in a derogatory way.
Umbrellakinesis
JULY 08, 2009 11:26 PM
Hi jane smithie.
If she referred to a mcdonald's employee--synonymous with "as low
as you can go"--it would have called attention to the fact that her
reference was, to a certain degree, participating in/exacerbating a
cultural trend to set-up the minimum waged as near-untouchables.
She didn't because she doesn't go to mcdonalds--she goes to
starbucks, and, you know, probably hasn't the highest of regard for
the people who work there. I most certainly am not saying Joan isn't
mostly warm and kind, though. She is that.
Thanks for the challenge.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 08, 2009 11:29 PM
Thanks, Patrick, I wasn't happy when it came out of my mouth, but
McDonald's wouldn't have been good either. I was looking for a job
where people are reasonably easily replaced (although my favorite
baristas are not, and our local Starbucks lets us take in Puppy Sadie)
so...I just apologize all around. But: I didn't refer to Starbucks
whores!
Joan Walsh
JULY 08, 2009 11:32 PM
I think that was what emma peel was getting at, umbrellakinesis. And
I think what you both say is mostly true. But she belongs
amongst/associates with those who would be very uncomfortable if
their children ended up at Starbucks, unless "it" was clearly
1389
1390
1391
1392
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
JULY 09, 2009 11:13 PM
Playboy knows better: girls of starbucks/mcdonalds/walmart: They're
there to please; they don't have much future, so they're probably
desperate; and they're always in-and-out, so treat them as you will.
Palin's "no commitment/no obligation"+ Starbucks + Joan's
scorn=tramp/whore.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
JULY 09, 2009 11:25 PM
1393
1394
1395
1396
photo by BrownHead
RE: Whenever a society finds itself in the midst of great change, as
1397
1398
1399
in the article.
There are lots of men who secretly want to out and build a treehouse
or fort somewhere... if they want to get together and talk about it, let
them have their fun. I think that author recognizes and celebrates
the absurdity of it.
It not like they were getting together and watching that boxing or
UFC together this weekend. ;) (Moat, Response to post, In Praise of
Mancation )
A plea to those who would disparage those who would defend
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
1400
1401
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.
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
1402
1403
1404
2) and you'd never feel like you'd established at least some place
where people couldn't feel so free to toss you about so readily/facily,
so disregardedly about the place (terminus: "And that is a place from
which no one can chuck us out"). So while it doesn't itself argue that a
Mancation is a substitute, a possible replacement, it certainly lends
one to conclude that, you know, maybe it really ought to be.
There is my mind a sense that it is styled so that the writer can point
to the piece to defend himself against those (including, even himself)
who would accuse him of taking the whole thing too seriously, which
would of course make him seem ridiculously unmanly, in some
circles. But to me at least, this is a piece written from someone who
finds everyday life quite belittling. We have managed in society to
make the man who suffers through job and wife, but gets together
with his mates for some well earned respite, every once in a while, a
way of showing that you are amongst the true blue, true-grit, regular
joe, real men. So I think the article itself, not just the Mancations, is
part of reassuring yourself you're a man. But shit, guys who feel this
way, deserve better than to occupy their time compensating for an
everyday life which doesn't satisfy in not-so-modest way.
Leisure: He's got leisure, but does that really say much. Some might
call it an outlet, or liken it to bread-and-circuses, that is, to the kind of
things a particularly nasty, denying society offers those it treats with
insufficient well attendance and respect, just to make sure they aren't
reduced to the point that they'd risk cat-calling about, for More.
I'm a bit tired right now. But right now this is my best response to
you, Moat. Thanks for the encouragement to really think it through,
and for your own intelligent, sensitive reaction to the piece.
Also, I think it would serve us well to talk/think about the Mancation
article, in reference to all the campfire stuff in Bruno. (A thought
provoked by having just seen the film, and by fred-gherkin's
comment.) Might also want to see how this article shapes up with
other Mancation-equivalent stuff, here at the Tyee. A Tyee' tribute to
the famous snow boarder who recently died, comes to mind.)
1405
----re: And thank you too for the thoughtful responses, Patrick After
rereading your posts, I definitely see a change in tone, but not in
opinion from your first post. I now believe that you are questioning
the motivation for the mancation, and that you are not necessarily
opposed to the activity of a mancation. You are right in saying that
the mancation should not be a substitute for something lacking
from day to day living. Now pinning down what day to day
experiences may be deficient is a more difficult task. So this article is
not a question of authenticity as, but maybe a question of the
feelings of a quality of life experience.
The themes I think that we sort of danced around a bit here is the
ritualized connection through the use of substances. These guys here
first connected in a smoke pit, and much of the article is a discussion
of beer. We should not judge these fellows for their love of beer, but
there is a question to be asked here. Would these guys participate in
this trip if it were an alcohol free event? Why or why not?
The second issue here is the need to laugh at each other, and in
doing so, put each man in his place. The whole cross-cultural
tendency of men find pleasure in making other men insecure has
been discussed at length other forums, but the pleasure derived from
the giving and receiving of the abuse appears to be an integral part
of the mancation, or whenever large groups of males are together.
In a related line of thought, however, I do think fred-gherkins
comment is unfair at best and makes too big of an assumption.
Where does the author even imply someone would be excluded from
the mancation based on sexual orientation?
From reading the Globe and Mail this morning, it is obvious that
many males are going to gather together tonight and watch an
MMA fight over a couple of beers. A few mini-mancations tonight?
Should we label this activity as barbaric and lacking authenticity?
Or can we look further into the function of such activities without
being judgmentally dismissive. Future discussion will indeed be
1406
1407
1408
1409
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
1410
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.
---Re: Child rearing in pre-contact North America is worth looking
into. I'm sure it wasn't a Disneyland cartoon. I'm with G West
though in missing the point of comparing that to the residential
school regime. "It was for their own good" makes me gag actually.
Alongside ME2's "Cultural genocide? Hogwash.", I'm very
disheartened to find these attitudes even here. I'm optimistic that
these viewpoints are a dying breed. We've got some atonement to
do, and that starts with admitting mistakes - not excusing them.
(mikev, Response to post, This is how they tortured me)
mikev: I'm most certainly not saying residential schools were "for
their own good." No abuse is ever to be redeemed (and hell, I'm a
free-schooler--a true hippie). I'm saying that those interested in
redeeming, maybe not residential schools, but western heritage, could
begin to point out how the left has (rather sillily) tended to establish a
rather romantic estimation of native indian "traditions," seeming to
make a NECESSARY link between the desecration of a NOBLE past
with need for our collective atonement. No link was necessary--abuse
is wrong, in any circumstance. But it's been forged--primarily to set
up the right wing, to set up Christians, so they seem especially
cruel/evil, and to make it so that it seems we inhabit a world with
beings so fantastical and perfect, they make the world seem one
especially ready to loose oneself in--a wonderful counter to
depression. Destroying the life of another person is never to be
1411
redeemed. But this isn't quite the argument they've set up: as I'm
trying to explain, it seems to me the argument that's gone around, the
particular need for atonement, does not just concern, is not just in,
the ill intentions of Christian settlers, but in how they destroyed a
simple, noble, essentially perfect people that had found a harmonious
way of living with the Earth, we of the West have barely learned to
approach. In my mind, if this truth is exposed as myth, as in error, as
a near total falsehood, we will not be left with a left that thinks like
you and G West do, where they can still very readily say, okay, but
that's doesn't excuse you, us, from a collective need for atonement,
from expanding societal services to reduce current
suffering/exploitation. We will be left with a left that begins to doubt
just how much effort they want to spend defending a culture they
actually find a bit repugnant.
Think about how many of the left view the GG eating seal' meat
"occasion." Do you not sense some of them saying to themselves, I
don't know how long this practice has gone on--it could even have
been for a millennium, this could never, ever have been how it's been
sold to us--a demonstration of culture's harmonious relationship with
nature. Some, in my judgment, are coming close to saying to
themselves that, no, that's just deer hunting pathos, unredeemable
cruelty--savagery, even. They'll never fully admit this, let it percolate
too long in conscious thought--because few have the resources for this
not to lead to considerable self-laceration, a quick turn against a right
that unfortunately no longer is quite so easy to estimate as being quite
so very wrong. But deep down they'll be suspecting Blood Meridianall-is-savagery-Cormac McCarthy got it down right, and abandon the
field of fight to those like Ignatieff, so moved to make Canada seem
clean, united, uncomplicated, again.
Link: This is how they tortured me Christine McLaren
1412
2009)
I'm wondering if he understands that if you post on OS, you're
insufficiently independent--perhaps by definition, not so worthy, or
at least not a real writer. I know writers who'll do blogger but would
never consider OS -- it would make you too much one of a bunch,
never sole proprietor. Old-fashioned understanding of what a real
writer's identity is all about. I have a strong hunch that that's it. My
sense of Kerry Lauerman right now is that he still likes to flag posts
which seem like they could fit in with Salon's front stories, rather than
recognize posts which carry more of the indigenous OS flavor/genius.
It's more, "look, we have some people here near as good as you guys;
and not, look, here at OS is emerging THIS sort of communallyinspired charisma." (I'm posting this for my own consideration, too.)
Scott's a good guy, but even from someone who helped start up OS,
this could be it. Other things that come to mind: It is possible that he
thinks OS a bit maternal -- not something someone at WIRED wants
to be linked to, not something that comes to mind midst a WIRED
interview.
---Julie Tarp: RonP01 IS very much getting at how OS is appraised by
many. The old identity of a reporter is sort of masculine -independent, not communal. OS does not fit that old model at all. It
will come across as gossipy -- not a knitting-group, but something
akin. What it is is casual, supportive, friendly -- an environment
which could prove inducive to innovative, playful stuff, but also to the
development of good friends, good living. Scott should have had
confidence in it. And we should not look at it as Salon's lesser site, but
as Salon opening up to something more. Lead the way, OS.
----About the ad stuff: What some of us didn't like was how it was
presented. You don't see ads on the page one day, and then turn to
Kerry's post about how we can make money here too!, and not think
he suspects we lack a wee bit of integrity. If he was talking to Salon
1413
1414
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
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.
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
should report, share our stories with others, and reward our efforts
with their visits. Without the Tyee community, there's no Tyee."
A fair response could be this, for instance:
"And we in return would genuinely like to thank the reporters of the
Tyee for time-and-time-again bringing back such interesting stories
for us to sort through, analyze, and interpret. Without all their
exhaustive, persistent, intrepid work and focused pursuit, our legs
would surely be getting most of the workout, not our minds."
See, "it sounds like a compliment, but really it's (something of) an
insult" (Harry Met Sally). Would make reporters akin to responseready 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)
1420
Harper and Stockwell Day and the religious right were able to
hijack the ReformaTories. Look at how the Gordo and his media
wing was able to wipe out Gordon Wilson who was leader of an
actual Liberal party until Neocon mass membership buys defeated
him. We can do unto Gordo as Gordo did to Gordon Wilson and do it
within the year.
If progressives start buying party memberships in large quantities
we can easily within the year take back all Liberal party
constituency associations and their executive, make massive
changes at party policy conventions, force a leadership review
convention, change the party name back to Liberal and elect a
progressive MLA as party leader.
You need to talk every progressive/green person you know into
joining the BCLiberal party.
http://www.bcliberals.com/make_a_difference/bc_liberal
_party_membership_information
Then having infiltrated coordinate a surprise attack leveled at every
constituency.
I know it sounds horrible and the stench of rotting meat will be
almost unbearable, but we can do it if we hold our noses and smile
through gritted teeth. There are already lots of real Liberals in the
BCLiberal party Christy Clark, Ken Jones, Carole Taylor, just
booted Gordon Hogg and myriads more still hanging on hoping a
messiah will come along and save them from the suffering neocon
yoke. Some like Carole Taylor tried but the odor eventually
overwhelmed them and without support they were had to quit.
This is Lotus Land where all is possible. (Seth, Reply to post,
Crawford Kilian, Good luck BC: Mortons Cry of Despair, The
Tyee, June 30 2009)
Seth: There aren't a whole lot of Greenies to be found about right
now. You see, we took your lead and hacked the heads off many of the
traitorous vermin, a short while ago. I could go see if they'll go for
your join the liberal party suggestion myself, but since Ralph
1421
Nader's still kicking about, even after killing 3 million people!, I'm
glad you've got someone else in mind for the sell.
Re: Kindly put your comment in some form of understandable
language.In fact you might find there are some "greenies" around:
My self for instance. I would "very much" like to understand what is
going on.I do not find your contribution helpful at all.Seth had a
damn good idea! (doggone, Reply to post, Good luck BC)
I can give you context, doggone. Seth's not exactly been a trustworthy
friend of Greenies (his word, not mine) as of late. He set them up as
RESPONSIBLE for fascist success, in grim terms -- Ralph Nader, he
says, has the blood of millions of dead iraqis on his hands, for
instance, and he said something similar in regards to the effect of
Greens voting Green, here in B.C. Now he's their "best friend,"
encouraging them to cozy-up with corpses, sell their souls, and
perhaps other fates you wouldn't wish upon your worst enemy.
Reason for caution, me thinks.
The liberal party will be revitalized, but not by progressives. It's going
fascist too, and in my judgment will well succeed with head ghoul
Ignatieff at the helm. Progressive Greens were not co-opted by the
NDP. Right now they seem to have integrity, which draws some of us
to want to know more. Switching to Liberal would amount to
lounging about with even darker hellions, would amount to
dissipating strength rather than accruing it, might amount to falling
for quite the con.
Re: I don't think the Greens who are committed to running
candidates in elections would be of much help. They are an
extremely tiny proportion of green folk bestowed with the power of
that "Green" label that they routinely invoke to destroy rather than
heal. Their performance in the 2000 election with Ralph Nader in
the US so horrified Americans that the Green's moved en mass to the
Democrats. Without them Obama would have lost. Certainly Harpo
1422
and the Gordo depend on the Green party for significant help in
winning elections for their Neocon hordes.
The Greens we are looking for here make up the vast majority of the
movement - the ones like Alexandra here who believe in protecting
the environment sometimes at the cost of compromising some of
their ideals in an effort to try to form a power base with other
progressives.
I for example, am a pronuke greenie which puts me beside James
Lovelock and Steward Brand but at odds with most other Greens. Be
happy to debate the issue at any time. I vote strategically for the
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
1423
(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
Progressives he doesn't agree with as blood-on-their-hands
murderers, that has him now sensing out a way someone who had
preferred to identify as Green could join up with a "strong" war party
like the Liberals, helmed by its own sexy, upright "Obama," without
this move inducing too much guilt.
Link:
Abortion talk (1 July 2009)
re: "The more mainstream anti-choice groups provide
encouragement for the extreme right wing, then they
absolve themselves when something like this happens"
(Tom Sandborn, "Tension high at Abortion Clinics," The
Tyee, June 20 2009)
Comments like this do little to calm the waters. The more mainstream
anti-abortion groups would probably prefer not to be summized as
essentially concerned with constraining female choice. The real truth
may be otherwise, but let's not do what we can to push the moderates
into extremists, thank you. This kind of "cuteness," rhetorical play,
can wait 'til less heightened times.
----To be fair, lines like this -- "We treasure all life, even the abortionists"
-- are scary as shit. Someone might also want to let the moderates
1424
1425
vote for parties which actually take pride and pleasure in creating a
world that is viscously mean and abusive. As pro-choicers have long
and rightly noted, pro-lifers don't actually evidence much interest in
human life -- their anger is loud, but its source isn't from where they
believe it is. In my judgment, they're not actually thinking of the child
but are using the situation to recall early abuse they themselves
suffered and want revenge for. It's an unwilling act of projection, that
can't be helped, but still ultimately amounts to a lack of interest in,
sympathy with, the unbirthed child.
A fair retort to your account must be in documenting the cruelty,
human suffering, conservative governance brings with it. Blow by
blow.
----Re:"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants
it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State."
~Edward Abbey
Otherwise, as the Planned Parenthood ad reads, 77% percent of
anti-abortion leaders are men. 100% of them will never be
pregnant.
My personal view is a bit more radical. The essence of 'human being'
is not defined on the basis of potentiality, but on actuality - that
is, its independence from the womb; its structure and function in
that independent world of fellow humans. An unborn (potential)
human has no ability to function independently in the world. As
such, an independent woman's rights to control her body
unequivocally take precedence over any potential human growing
inside of her.
quod erat demonstrandum (wayfarer, reply to post)
wayfarer: That argument doesn't strike all of us as all that strong. A
two-year-old is very unlikely to be able to support herself for long,
either. Her protection is the parents'/mothers' home (surround),
desire in others to take care of her. To me, it's just too easy and
appropriate to extend the logic of your argument so that you could
argue that a mother's home is her own, and only until a child is able
1426
1427
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)
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
1428
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
because you've got time to kill. It's disrespectful to your reading
audience, to who youre talking to (in this case, to me). Next time it's
not worth your effort, find something else to do, please. Remember,
the Right argues that woman have abortions primarily because
they're an inconvenience.
----Fair request, VivianLea. I am hoping someone else might do it. What
I'll offer now amounts in my judgment to "one word says it all," so if
offers some of the extension I know is needed: Pro-choicers are right
to argue that THEY are actually the ones who are most pro-life: they
ARE the ones who support societal programs which enable, empower,
a more nurturing, caring world; they are the ones who sniff out the
sadism and despair in pro-lifers'/conservatives' advancement of
ostensible free-market bounties.
----jwstewart: They tend to vote for governments which would weaken
healthcare, childcare, and welfare systems as they exist now. They
would pay way less taxes, disempower government's ability to reduce
misery and enable citizens, if they could. They are, unfortunately,
much more comfortable with suffering (suffering and sin is man's
lot), than they are with happiness. Personally, I admit to being sorry
they can vote at all.
-----
1429
1430
Expedia left me for a latin lover, and then dry humped my (27 June
2009)
carpet dog.
She did, the bitch!
1431
"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
evidenced democratic sentiment, excusing/assessing all the noise as
democracy in action. EPs would bring in some bucks, feel more like
published authors, and show how all -- if you look at it the right way
-- has actually matured and progressed over time ("Sure, we'd all like
to live in Utopia, but it's really about time you came to appreciate that
with adulthood comes compromise, kids"). You'll lose a lot of the
truly decent, the inspiringly hopeful and ethical; hopefully they'll be
off to start up a non-profit, and keep us in the know about it.
Ads in the middle of the page -- how obnoxious. "This sticker is
dangerous and inconvenient, but I do love Fig Newtons" (Talladega
Nights"). "This ad is counter to the content and feel of my post, to
why I associated myself with my favorite site in the first place, but
hints that I might just go big-time . . ." (OS).
1432
1433
1434
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)
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
1435
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.
1436
20th-century fox
We seem to be living at a time where the compromising male gets in a
way, to play it alpha -- to be society's most fit. Marley and Me
featured this new man, someone who relucantly agrees to focus on
the family, domestic issues, rather than pursue the traditional male
reporter's pursuits, but who -- seemingly as a result of his masochistic
surrender -- finds all further life's riches readily come his way. His
buddy -- the traditional man's man -- is made to seem almost out of
step with the times -- the loser, in a way.
My guess is we're going to see an awful lot more of this new man
around -- more praise for him than criticism. Lots of talk about men
needing to accept the new times, their changing roles. And it will
eventually be followed by a period where these very same men start
seeing something they like in battle-ready patriarchs.
Link: Dude, man up and start acting like a mom (Aaron Traister,
Salon)
paramount pictures
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
way which could lead to genius, then s/he would likely have to do
what Abrams does in this film, even if its appeal is such that it means
we're no doubt heading toward a totalitarian future. "Kids" want their
preferred way of living, existing, validated (and you know, they
deserve to have their timewhatever they enjoy should be validated,
made to seem right ground for "extrapolation" which can lead to selfgrowth, life adventure, societal betterment)Star Trek tells them
that there are no traits more apt and fit right now than always being
in a state of hyper-arousal, hyper-alertness, to be perennially set to
encounter/interact the world implacably, as a hard, unbreakable
shell, and violently, with every word a sword-stab, a puncture. "Kids"
want to be in charge, not intimidated away from expressing
themselves by a previous generations' accomplishments and
authority, but also (unlike the original Star Trek, we note) to have
adults somewhere not too far off in the background, like so much a
corporate head office keeping an eye out onand thereby in a way
offering the sense of security which enablesthe playful goings-on in
the office, and so it is captained by a new, less intimidating and more
awkward Kirk, who seems as manageable and non-constraining as he
does commanding (yes, his famous cheat dramatizes his selfcommand, but how many times in the film is he shown following,
sometimes rather dumbly, the lead of others?), is overseen by elders
like Pike with little depth, with no capacity to well read your soul,
with ready complicity to make what is truly juvenile seem wise, and
with the rest of the Federation never too far distant in the mind's eye.
But as long as he is not presented in a way where it intimidates or too
readily brings to the fore their awareness of their own vulnerability,
once introduced to someone someone who fears s/he is not worthy of
love, who suspects s/he is, perhaps, in truth, totally inadequate, could
imagine actually enjoy getting to know them, they would want this
person kept around; and Star Trek, while making him seem a bit
slow-paced to well function on what the Enterprise has become
primarily, that is, a response-ready battleship (i.e., he's not a
"wartime consigliere")allows old Spock a distant but still accessible
1444
place in the new universe. Perhaps, just as the film makes it seem
right that new "latch-key" Kirk, sparked on by the nature of his
abandonment, who seems fated to become akin to trigger happy,
action-figure, Captain Pike, and more naturally suited to eventually
deem McCoy, not Spock, his best "fratboy" bud, captains the ship over
a Spock fueled on by well-attendance, by maternal love, who can
second guess himself, disengage from friends, step back, alone, in
contemplation, reflection, consideration, but at the same time suggest
that his being in the "shadows" will help him be more nurturing and
less brutal (notice how careful he is to not humiliate Sulu, to ease the
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.
1445
Once you've read this informed review, you will remain crazy (20 May
2009)
1446
1447
1448
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
deMause's articulation of the causes of the Holocaust, is where he
points out how all the various things that were said to and acted upon
by the Nazis upon the Jews (and homeless, weak, etc.), were things
the Nazis and their supporters had to endure when they were
children. DeMause goes into the details, about what exactly German
children had to endure, and how they exactly replicated what they
experienced in their abuse of the Jews (but this time with them as
perpetrators rather than victims). It's really powerful, and I wish
you'd take a look at it.
Regarding your complaint against the use of the term "concentration
camp," in regards to what happened to the Japanese in Canada
during WW2: if the motives were the same--that is to stigmatize,
humiliate, punish--and I think they were, then even if the sadism was
less, if the abuse, less harsh--which it evidently was--than what
happened to the Jews, I don't think I'm too off-put by the use of the
term. Born of the same source, it's hyperbole, but not misdirection.
Using the term is a tactic used to make it more difficult for those who
really would want to "manage" that part of our history, so that our
own arising desire to prejudice others feels more buttressed,
substantiated -- less guilt arousing. Of course, there's another reason
-- a really regrettable one, and I'll get to it.
I don't think it's just that "they weren't treated fairly," which, you'll
admit, sounds sort of near inconsequent. My sense is that it was
about setting up a group of people as proper subjects of suspicion,
1449
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,
1450
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
more substantive, human, way of relating with the world.
It certainly isnt fair to say that Wendy simply reacts to the world. She
is shown throughout the film making something of the environment
she finds herself in. She steals; parks her car where-ever-where;
transforms a gas station bathroom into her own personal safehouse;
and, when she is more comfortable therein, less braced against all its
first-encounter newness, ranges wide across (her) town, bulletining
images of her dog everywhere appropriate, in an act which reads as
much of personal territorial possession/demarcation as it does of
fervent canine rescue. She is in fact quite aggressivewith even her
relative or absolute stillness in certain situations, reading not so much
of forced paralysis but as a wily-enough-a-way to ride things through.
But though her aggressiveness may in fact be born out of a fear of
paralysis, of being or feeling susceptible to being used, its not as
much a triumph to witness as one might expect: one can imagine a
whole life of such willful demonstrations ahead; and though its better
than just giving up, you wonder how far a life of sharp survival
instinct is from one infused with soulful intenthow distanced all
such is from the animalistic? Again, to be fair to the film, the loners
libertarianism is not exactly disparaged here, but there is a sense that
while it argues that it is much, much better to be the lone wolf than
the pack animal, that the loner who survives through canniness, a
willingness to act, alone, for better or worse, is vastly more dignified
than those who mongrelize away into groups, its stillso very sadly
1451
so many worlds away from where humans need to, and should, be.
This, then, is not your 70s post-apocalyptic, where being alone but
with your dog was essentially shorthand for experiencing the height
of human freedom and existential grandeur. With apologies to the
Cold War, oil shortages, and Americans all-drunk-on-narcissismfunk, this is a film made 30 years past the 70s hysteria30 years past
the period where even Republicans voted for increases in social
welfare spendingand those 30 years of brutal withdrawal of social
concern and common purpose has made a future of large-scale
dissolution seem possible enough for us now to believe, believe,
believe in Obama because he just has to be the answer. So in an era
where the decomposition 70s style anti-heroes loved because it drew
all to their own certain will, feels like it is really could be just ahead,
the big draw is not so much libertarian range but securityAlaska
draws Wendy because it may offer a job, in a cannery, which should
sound horrible, last resort, but may in fact appeal because it suggests
a life without too much adjusting to experience amidst the uncertain,
insecure now.
When an aging, middle class manthe one who ends up taking care
of Lucywho in more sure times would have laughed at by anyone on
the outside for his inane, life-abnegating, bourgeois staidness, is set
up in the end primarily to represent stability, predictability, good care
and kindnessthe good homeyou know a society has weathered to
the point where simple security can seem golden. Wendy knows its
lure, and is reminded of it the very moment she loses Lucy. Before the
loss, while Wendy was with Lucy, Wendy had some composure: she
could listen to a group of train riders respectfully if inertlybut
dust them off as so much wtf and head on along on her way. Set,
content, with a dog of considerable well-being and joyfulness, it is
even fair to say of her that she seemed someone with the capacity, at
least, to make Alaska more than just a place to get a jobto make it a
place where a better life might just be realized if not found. But when
she looses Lucy, the search for her has some of the urgent feel of the
loss of a security blanket to an easily panicked child. Her self-
1452
1453
1454
1455
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,
will always by hyper-ready to expect entrapment and shameful
surrender of self, in their relations with women. They can't go there,
because this would involve exploring their own past with an intimacy,
with a degree of self-introspection, their very training has worked to
establish as wholy suspect, as in the path of scientific neutrality -objective truth. Plus, it would mean inviting abuse from the parental
alters (super-ego) they've established in their heads, to stop them
from asking, "why did you do that to me, mommy?" Some poets go
there --there's that famous line from Philip Larkin ("they fuck you up,
mom and dad"), for instance, but about zero, give or take zero,
sociologists. Kimmel would blame culture, but never seriously
consider DeMause's contention that "culture is explanandum, not
explanans," that is, that saying that "'culture determines social
behavior' is simply a tautology."
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln05_psychogenic.ht
ml
---------Nightbloom: I think your suggestion that young men are sort of
forced into become family refugees is interesting, and has me perhaps
reconsidering my decision not to allow my sisters as facebook friends.
But I believe it starts way earlier than in adolescence. Again from
1456
1457
blasted) up so that they seem worthy of derision. It's crappy when this
happens to anyone in the gay and lesbian community, and it's crappy
here.
I don't want to see people projecting forward and imagining no
dramatic change in who they are. I hear a lot of people doing that in
my own social circle (I'll never get married; I'll never have children),
and it frightens and saddens me. You do hear people saying they are
proud of what they've accomplished, and no doubt they have
managed to effect a life well worthy of their and our respectful
consideration/appreciation. But if we're going to probe at some
aspects which could well reflect an unhealthy rigidity, which prevents
them from FURTHER elaborating, nurturing, their sense of
themselves and what they might offer to the community at large, we
need to begin by respecting the pleasure they take in their lives and
the legitimacy of their fears in broaching anything substantially new.
Vanessa goes after the easiest of targets with real meanness and lack
of respect. At some level she must know that what and how she writes
ensures she does not get criticized by those she can't easily blow off
and handle, that she gets (or that she can imagine herself getting)
praise from the empowered, who help legitimize their
enfranchisement by thinking correct thought, by hating incorrect
people. This is not life, forward progress --it's appeasement, that itself
speaks of a termination in self-growth that may never be coaxed into
evolving into something more beautiful.
--------Yeah, I read it as a really disrespectful piece, primarily moved to show
these man-boys up. I know she's effecting to summarize Kimmel's
take here, but when she says that bailers are "guys try[ing] to prolong
their post-adolescent male bonding pleasures and their kind of
fantasy locker room world though activities like video games and
online porn," this to me reads as HER identifying them as, in essence,
irresponsible social parasites who fart about with their time and take
1458
1459
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 selfrespect, self-will, to do what you had to do to become independent.
My mom had/has all kinds of psychosomatic stuff she tries to use as a
tool to manage the rest of us, extend her control OVER us -- a change
in tactics, now that adulthood has brought with it a change in terms.
It means she feels empowered and in control, but also kind of lonely:
it gives birth to passive-aggressive but very real anger, in those that
end up tending to her. I saw what was happening, and have none of it.
I let her know that, one, I won't be bullied, and two, that the kind of
relationship she most wants -- one of real respect, substantial love, is
available to her, but only if we interact on wholly different terms than
we did during my teen years. It kind of works. This said, I'm moving
across the country, possibly in part, because I sense that, like you, I
will feel more independent, empowered, to pursue my own interests
(I got my first girlfriend, after-all, only when I first moved cities,
when I went to college) when a continent divides us. Saw her last
week. It was a good meet-up, a lot of mutual tending to and respect.
But she still ended by directing me as to how I could attend to her
better. I told her I would listen to her requests, but also that the bulk
of my adolescence seemed all about attending to and appeasing her
moods, adjusting to her career needs, so I wouldn't be right-ready to
do so. There is still in me some fear that if I make ANY adjustments, I
might just give-up the ship. Wish this wasn't the case, but it is.
Obviously I hope you see yourself as valuable enough that you can
end up managing your guilt. My mom left her parents behind when
1460
she moved from Australia to Canada, and I don't think she ever
stopped feeling guilty for doing this, of feeling the need to convince
herself it was a move born of necessity, rather than of dreams. But
with this move came her enfranchisement, and good on her for
refusing to allow the chance of a lifetime to slip away.
Finally, don't under-estimate the changes that can accrue when
someone finally realizes there is NO chance you'll capitulate. When I
found the strength to live my own life, my mom became more willing
to venture outside her comfort zones. And with this came some sense
that the best in our relationship is yet to come. Be better than nice,
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)
1461
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
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
1462
How much do you value your penis, young man? (11 April 2009)
re: EDITED FOR CRUDE LANGUAGE. KEEP IT CIVIL, OR PLEASE
1463
1464
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).
1465
1466
1467
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
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
1468
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
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
1469
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)
1470
things, but which can readily accomplish the horrifying but also
audacious and imposing, when it fully takes over in pursuit of
righteous punishment of "guilty" others.
Link: What you never knew about Columbine (Salon)
1471
great things in your day, but have NOT allowed your children to have
their own era. Instead of rebellion, you guided them to "Harvard,"
and while they did all their progressive causes which allowed you to
believe you'd encouraged them to speak and live freely, you coached
them away from ever doing ANYTHING which risked really
irritating/angering the older generation professors/liberal
establishment, which risked a tarnish in the straight-A resume, and
the only real ticket to relevance. Leftist thought culminated with you
guys -- everything else is praiseworthy but, really, just fleshing out.
That's what you really think. Any really divergent strand of thought is
either ignored, or identified as "Rightest," politically incorrect, and
dismissed. The really awful truth is that you created a generation of
progressives so shaped and guided they may not be able to surpass
your brilliance, even if they come to see their low-key approach as not
just bespeaking their more even and gentle temperament, their
greater satisfaction with the simpler things. But acknowledging that
truth might at least give them a chance, give US avenue, now, for
more open and solid rebellion, and perhaps ensure that we don't end
up looking at our own kids and think, "we didn't get to -- why should
you?": perhaps ensure that we don't see a marked de-evolution in the
greatness of leftist genius and spirit, which, I think, is actually a real
risk.
Link: Too Much Eco-Elder Worship (The Tyee)
More discussion on an extreme-skier's death (2 April 2009)
re: It frustrates me that so many are quick to judge those who are
killed doing dangerous outdoor sports. I sometimes wonder if they
would be happier if the youth only got their inspiration from massmurder video games, ultimate fighting, and crystal meth. (Armor
de Cosmos, response to post, Vancouver Ski Legend Dead at 39,
The Tyee, April 2, 2009)
Hey Armor. Some of us aren't quite sure if there's a whole heap of
difference in the phenomenological experience of extreme skiing and
1472
1473
most accurate take might actually come from those who see things
from a distance (like, on T.V.), rather than from within?
An extreme-skier advocate isn't one to "shy away" from anything. I
get it, and perhaps regret my use of the term. Still, I think to present a
more plausible case you should explained exactly why the sport got to
be called "extreme" in the first place? Isn't the extreme label used
'cause the sport wants to see itself as well-beyond ordinary limits,
beyond what the rest of sport offers and the rest of us can handle?
And isn't this charged, aggressive -- macho -- stuff? And isn't this
what the military advertises itself as offering?
Link: Vancouver Ski Legend Dead at 39 (The Tyee)
Link: Who don't do the dew (Open Salon)
Extreme sports, and pussies who don't do the dew (30 March 2009)
It's too easy see his death and to moralize. For those of us
outside his tribe, it's easy to call him crazy and dismiss him
because, in some way, it affirms our safe choices. (If letting
your body whither behind a desk, eating fast-food, driving in
rush-hour, road-rage traffic every day a safe choice... or
even living). And, yes, for those inside his tribe or on the
fringe of it, it's probably too easy to put him on a pedestal.
But the fact is Shane McConkey was one crazy motherfucker
who reminded us all that if we have the audacity follow our
dreams, well, we just might be able to fly. (Geoff DAuria,
Vancouver Ski Legend Dies, _The Tyee, March 30, 2009)
Why write a piece where anyone who questions whether it is maybe a
little romantic and inaccurate to identify Shane as someone who
"befriends rather than fights his demons and then rides them to
worlds beyond ours," becomes some chicken-shit who is afraid to
live? I hope that's not part of the culture Shane partook in, doing
something, in part, not just because it pushed limits but because it
gave him status above the rest of us mundanes. If it was, then though
1474
1475
1476
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)
1477
happy": that is, even if you don't complain, learn to live a life worthy
of complaint: be self-denying, self-abnegating, self-sacrificing -entirely and cruelly selfless, and you won't arouse suspicion. (And
word-to-the-wise, if you're a writer, don't use successive triple colons:
it's probably ungrammatical, and certainly over-bold.)
Appreciate the feedback.
Link: How an Alberta Economist Counsels Victims of Bernie Madoff
(The Tyee)
1478
1479
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)
1480
@ G West:
G West, I said he's Republican, but also that if you haven't seen him,
you'll imagine him best if you picture him as a genteel, soft-mannered
democrat. I think this is right. Mark Shields (a democrat--and one of
the greatest!) at the Newshour, has said much the same.
God speed to Michelle. I like her, and am rooting for her and her
husband. But THERE IS RIGHTNESS in David's wariness of her
"guns," and WRONGNESS in many people's praise/defense of them.
Some sense of why the latter might be the case is in how it (i.e.,
people's praise/defense of them) moved nightbloom to mock and set
up for vitriole, "hissy" and "tizzy," North East pussies. A nation in
step will march right over their tender little feelings, and perhaps of
others similarly in possession of a more -- to use nightbloom's terms
-- "feminine persuasion." I'll leave it to your imagination to picture
who they might possibly be. But if you hear of anyone described so
they seem anything other than manly and spartan, know that they too
might be being shaped so they seem unworthy of sympathy, and hope
that they deserve no more than that.
@nightbloom:
The history of such goes a long way back (my first sense of it in
American history is when the men-of-letters first greeted the ascent of
the first non-gentry President, General Andrew Jackson), and there is
an awful lot that isn't good about it. There is a lot there that is just
about class, and I understand when people then go out of their way to
defend the up-and-comer from snide, belittling comments, as you
have done. Still, sometimes, and maybe all the time, the resistance
isn't fairly dismissed as just about keeping "proper" heirarchies in
place: newcomers often get in when the country is more in the mood
for a no-nonsense, general's leadership. It happened with Jackson, it
happened with Reagan. Important to note, too: it can also happen
when the country is finally on to something truly good: witness
Jimmy Carter.
Like you, I find Michelle radiant and beautiful. She has her own style,
1481
and isn't being asked to "adjust" it, as Hillary Clinton regrettably had
to do to settle down public anxieties, and likely wouldn't do so,
anyway. But my sense of pretty much all who are spending lots of
time toning their muscles these days, is that their ultimate fitness is
not co-sympathetic to those whose leisured take on life has earned
them muscles somewhat less taut. Michelle is ready for a fight, and
like Batman, she will be stunningly smart in motion. But I want to
hear from the David Brooks of the world too, but since they do kind of
suffer from anasthenia, they can be shut-down if conversations come
with too much thunder and lightning.
I am sorry if I misrepresented/misunderstood you, nightbloom. I
certainly suggested you were worry-worthy, which wasn't all that nice,
and given your respectful response, more than likely, unfair. I aim to
slow down and attend to you with consideration and imagination, in
future. This may be obvious, but I do have sympathies for the gentry
crowd that -- Edith Wharton-like -- is so often the subject both of our
scorn and admiration. In some, I have found their soft manners
TRULY all about well-attendence, mutual respect. And I speak now
on their behalf because they're worthy, and sure to be in need it.
Link: The Right to Bare Arms (The Tyee)
But mightn't my Harvard crimson trump your Yale blue (12 March
2009)
1482
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
1483
1484
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
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
1485
1486
1487
1488
1) No, I haven't. Looks, with it's peaks and valleys, kind of like a
mountain range, though. Looking at it again, maybe more a rollercoaster.
2) Not a right-winger. Mark Shields likes David for the same reasons I
do -- he can listen well, with full respect. 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'm not interested in warriors in the White House -- I want
nurturers. As much love and as little blood as possible, thank you.
@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
1489
1490
@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
serves"--a hero. I really regret that. Maybe you do
too.
No, I don't. I'm very glad of my service, and again, whether
you're willing to believe it or not, what it did for me was to
make me more fully who I am, not strip away my identity.
Many other people have had the same experience.
Also? Be very careful with the h-word. "Hero" has a very
specific definition in the miltary, and it's wildly overused
outside it. During my two years as an infantryman and
eight years as a medic, I knew many brave soldiers and
airmen who served with courage and distinction, but I knew
all of two who could genuinely be described as heroes. The
idea that anyone who puts on a uniform automatically
qualifies for that status is an insidious kind of
dehumanization, and as such is a favorite of the 101st
Fighting Keyboarders crowd.
Surely you would agree that those who would "keep
on defending your right to be a self-righteous
asshole, however little you deserve it," could readily
be imagined as turning on said righteous assholes,
as soon as they've had it "up to here" with them.
Can it be imagined? Sure. Is it going to happen? Probably
not, at least not the way you're thinking. Because, you see,
we aren't mindless drones. We know when we're being used,
1491
and we damn sure know it's not the "peaceniks," as you put
it, who are doing the using. (Dvorkin, Daniel, Reply to post,
"Put away the guns, Michelle!," 9 March 2009, 9:07 PM
PDT)
@Daniel Dvorkin
Okay, so soldiers understand that there are only so many heroes, but
signing up still has about it some some sense that, apparently
instantly, you've shown you are no longer selfish and suspect but
rather someone who has chosen to undertake the noble cause of
serving others -- if not a hero, certainly a worthy citizen, someone to
be proud of. Since some of us see the military as still largely about
self-righteous bullying of people, many of us regret this, and wish
more was done to redeem the "panty waist" jobs recruiters must so
easily pluck young men and women from, with but a pluck of their
poorly strung self-esteem.
Everyone who signs up must want to come to talk like you do. Earned
the right to sneer so readily at self-righteous "pretty people" like me,
and scaredy cats too afraid to join up. To be able to say though all
their years of service, they've known many, many who were brave and
courageous, but only a few who would leap on a grenade, or what-not.
Maybe you're right and it's not so much about heroes, as about
becoming a true "Man." And since this evolution at the very least
seems to involve a ready and cruel dismissiveness to those deemed
"feminine," toward a selfish elevation of oneself above the less-thandeserving crowd, I hope more challenge the worthiness of the endproduct of "being all you can be." The learned demeanor smacks me
of that of a righteous rapist, actually. Akin to the tone/stance of the
article's title: "Put away the guns, Michelle! You're scaring David
Brooks." (Oh David, you little hus, stop fretting and open yourself up
to Thunder and Lightning . . .)
Link: "Put away the guns, Michelle!" (Salon)
1492
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
1493
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!
1494
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.
1495
1496
besides, if you change your mind, try clicking your heels three times
while chanting "Great article, Tyee" (the chanting's probably the
important part), and no doubt you'll find him once again by your side,
devotedly your one, one hundred thousand percent of the time.
Link: Is the Future of Journalism Goop (The Tyee)
Fab over flab: The Limbaugh romance may not last the night (4
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
1497
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
with feminine surrender and infantilization -- they will soon enough
cast off their hold on Limbaugh's massive "girdle" and BY
THEMSELVES invest/manifest in Obama's more evidently "gird[ed]
[. . .] loins" (Joe Biden).
Link: Delay: Limbaugh's a GOP "role model" (Salon)
1498
1499
experience.
More and more we seem to believe in notions of instant
gratification. Knowledge and skill is just a download
away...not. Sorry to break it to ya kids, but for the
foreseeable future there are certain things that our meatrix
can and can't do.
And no it's not just hard work. Everyone works hard (except
for maybe the richest, as there's no way they could ever
work hard enough to justify their wealth).
Patty you go on to prove my point. To take your
example:Tired: Mac vs. PC commercials and lacking the
creativity to communicate in your own tropes.Wired: You
figure it out. Oh, and realizing that just bitching is part of
the problem. Bitching is easy. Bitching is simple. Bitching is
not excellence.Cotton candy spinnery is all fluffy sweet, but
it's a nutritional desert. It's all just clever trash. What a life
waste that is." (James Burns)
James, Your way of narrating the development of excellence is one
many readers may be familiar with, but they ought to know that many
people believe genius, great creativity, emerges only when people look
at life with an attitude of spirited play. Progressive educators like
Alfie Kohn and Stanley Greenspan have the same end as you do -they want kids to grow up truly creative, but they see this end as
coming through getting kids to relax, take chances, being more than
willing to look stupid, take delight in what they do: the care-free
approach. They avoid the kind of talk you're offering -- that is, of
taking care, being deliberate, of comprehensive study -- because it
makes learning seem "tight" and arduous, with pleasure not as
something that arises naturally enough from -- because it is
inherently part of -- the doing, but as something you get after many
years, and only after much pain and frustration. Personally, I find
your attitude toward rewards a bit calvinist: where creativity MUST
be seen as emerging from toil because any other kind of life MUST be
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
available.
better things for you,patrick
Link: After Meltodown, Back to Post-Secondary?
1505
1506
1507
have parental alters in our heads -- that is, voices of our parents
which take over at times when we're buying and growing too much -you'll certainly wonder if many of those who think we have earned for
ourselves a depression are being possessed by their Cotton Mathertype parents.
Buying things can be all about self-growth. That's what it's been for
me these last number of years. About coming to know what I like,
who I am, and who I want and can be. I've heard some people talk
about how they're going to be okay in these sparser times, 'cause
they're not those fickle to fashion. And when I think of them in their
unchanging ways, I really wonder if they're living at all. Get rid of
your ten-year-old sweaters, books, cars, sofas, et al., pause, and go out
and see what sorts of things are out there that will better match who
you are now, rather than the way you were yesterday. And if it
proves the same sort: know that very likely, some whole part of you is
locked away in a vault.
Sorry you were concerned to save at all, Judith. I wish that rather
than saving money, the concern would be to make sure we give
money in support, not just of all the wonderful designers/engineers
out there who make all the things we so rightly enjoy, but charities as
well. People who feel well-pleased, who feel "saved," when they save,
and even more pleased when big spenders get their lot, are sick.
Perhaps in this great time of need, if we're going to hold back on
buying things, we could focus our income on supporting those who
can reach those who believe life should be something other than
about the better and better.
Link to DeMause's website, for those interested:
http://www.psychohistory.com/
Link: The Against Thrift (Salon)
1508
There's something about Dark Knight which leaves one thinking it's
about getting the best from every particular scene rather than from
the whole plot, which would seem to give real credence to your
argument that there is little or no character development in the film.
But there are many developments within conversations WITHIN
these scenes, notably between Batman and the Joker, but with other
characters as well, which has me thinking that the film, rather, is
actually ALL ABOUT psychological movement and development. You
experienced the movie as primarily about chasing, but the Joker isn't
so much a dog chasing cars as he is the
rhetoritician/politician/therapist set to make artful use of language
and his subject's sensibilities, to draw them to see "just how pathetic
they really are." He seeks to change people, and how, by appearances,
such an outlandish, merciless, crazy, clown, set against the
impossible, will actually manage (or come surprisingly close to
managing) to win people (and you) over, is the question you get to ask
in every scene he's in as you move along. And you watch, in
fascination, as the Joker persuasively moves people who have set
their will against him, through interesting back-and-forths, to ask
questions of themselves, to doubt, to consider his point of view, to
begin to think that maybe he isn't so crazy, after all.
Your characterization of the "love affair" between Wall-E and Eve as
really that of a crush between 8 year olds, is bang-on enough to have
me asking myself if it's the all of it. I would say no, because right now
I find most relationships I see on T.V. and film rather guarded, and I
would love it they could display the sort of vulnerable, enthusiastic,
full commitment that Wall-E displays -- it would amount to a
considerable evolution. This said, Wall-E immediately falls for
someone who is all guarded up, who is ready to destroy anything
which comes close to touching her. It's not necessarily typical of an 8
year old's crush, but there is some sickness, something wrong,
something greatly undeveloped there, too. In sum: It's better than
what many adults have, but it's not mature love, as you rightly argue.
1509
Been all around, but still the Truman Show (22 February 2009)
1510
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
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)
1511
warmer world.
So the Joan Walshs, Robert Reichs, Paul Krugmans, Alexandra
Pelosis, et al. -- those whose first instinct is not to war, but to warm -will hopefully soon realize that what they need to be doing is finding a
way out -- create their own Israel, or better, their own Green World,
and away from court as fast as possible!
Link: Bagram Prisoners Have No Rights
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
I still know some people who read almost a book a day! In addition to
getting them to think more about why they over-consume, I'm also
trying to get them to be more environmentally-friendly and go Kindle.
(Actually, over-consumption is for me all about trying to make up for
lack of love and attendance, and it is incredibly cruel to go after
ANYONE who over-consumes in the spirit of an avenging angel.
Times when they tend to do this usually get summed-up as times of
"purity crusades," that is, times where people are on the lookout,
where-ever-where, for the unfit, for "witches" to burn.)
Link: The Tyee
Four Christmases (18 February 2009)
It's interesting to hear about this phenomena. Thanks for directing
our attention to it. Certainly does bring to mind that the biggest film
(Four Christmases) so far this season is about a couple who do
everything possible to avoid Christmas gatherings.
I wonder if avoiding the Big Wedding means we are becoming social
anorexics. Anorexics, some say, loose the weight, lose the fat, in order
to imagine themselves less desirable prey for social predators: Could
people be moving toward small, bare-boned weddings, out of a felt
sense that all those people that otherwise would be there, are out to
eat them? (Fear of crowds, is the fear of being smothered and eaten.)
Maybe to most fairly access the truth in this proposition, we should
imagine what it'll feel like this Christmas if we happen to be amongst
those heading home to a mob of relatives and friends.
patrickmh
Link: The Tyee
Sucking on Lloyd's titties, for nurturance sake (18 February 2009)
1520
James, While it is true that I do one day hope to find myself sucking
on Lloyd's titties in an effort to secure for myself some delicious
DeMausian milk, I know for certain that I cannot have, as you
suggest, a cult-like interest in DeMause and his work. It's impossible.
Iknow because I've been a life-long user of apple products, and no one
who uses macs regularly can be anything but a buoyantly happy and
healthy human being.Let me relate a story. A couple months ago I
had a party where a whole bunch of us were sitting in a circle talking
this and that. Someone asked me about my interest in psychohistory,
and, afterexplaining why I don't actually like the term, and after
emphatically DIScouraging them from studying history and
emphatically ENcouraging them to read books by people who are
alive now, I explained the idea of psychoclasses and suggested that
one would probably find that those people who are of the helping
(advanced) psychoclass used macintosh computers, while those who
were of the socializing class (or worse) used windows machines. My
friendsuddenly grabbed everyone's attention, and asked everyone to
indicate the kind of computer they used -- Mac or PC. Turned out that
all the people who used Mac were seated on one side, and all the
others, on the other. What had happened, of course, is that without
knowing it, members of the same psychoclass had sought each other
out. It was like Loyalist vs. Patriot, all over again (Mac users being the
Patriots, and PC users being the dumpy Loyalists,of course.)But while
I don't want to dump on my PC using friends, it is true that most of
them wear more drab clothing, are more inclined to smoke, and are
more likely to be personality-challenged than my mac using friends. If
you go into an Apple store, you'll get a good sense of what we're like.
We tend to wear bright, extravagant, "fun," clothing. We tend to smile
a lot, and hang out with other people who wear bright clothing and
smile a lot. We're always the life of the party -- even when we're trying
not to be. We like taking pictures of one another smiling, and delight
in sending these pictures of our smiling selves to one other. One
might make the mistake of thinking we're narcissistic -- like the
barbaric greeks were, according to our darling DeMause -- but really
1521
we just like being in one another's sunshine -- it's such a great way to
live!You know if I was to have a party where I invited only my mac
using friends, I'd might think to invite over that James Dale Davidson
of yours. You know, he's no Paul Krugman, and he does seem to enjoy
theidea of being a survivor amidst financial societal ruin -- which isn't
the best of fantasies -- a little too much, but he is fun and
adventurous, and I bet some more time amongst those healthier than
himself might bring him a little further toward the sunnier side.Oh! -that's another thing we mac people like to do!!!: We mac people enjoy
helping others!!!Makes us smile : ) in fact.
maccultenthusiastsincebirth,psycholiteraturely,patrickmh
Link: RealPsychohistory
1522
1523
I've read a lot (well, quite a bit) of the neuroscience (though it isthe
work of Stanley Greenspan which ripples through my thoughts/
feelings right now), and, I feel sure, so have you. But it isn't allthis
which convinces me: instead, it is my experience of people: Ihave
encountered those it cannot but seem misleading to attend to how
parts of them still draw them to be aggressive and such. I'm sureyour
experience of people has lead you to different conclusions.
You know, what works on the battlefield is really something I'd have
to hear more about. I've heard various different generals arguevarious
different things. Moreover, I think a heck of a lot ofmilitary officers
like to imagine their troups as needing bravery morethan they do
minds/self determination, to satisfy their own self-assessment needs.
Typical managerial (classist) think. Knowing/suspecting this doesn't
mean you're wrong, though. Also, not making aconnection between
the field of sports and the battlefield might bethe right thing to do,
but it certainly would go against the(historical) grain.
Intellectualization as a defensive tack to ward of feelings of
abandonment, sounds interesting to me. I'm thinking that I associate
it mostly with early experiences of maternal emotional excess. Whatis
coming to mind is all the literature I've read where complaintsagainst
unreason and for good reasoning (and the spartan life), gohand-inhand with tirades against (feminine--read: maternal) luxuryand
indulgence.
Link: RealPsychohistory
Nymphs and pixies fight good too (17 February 2009)
No, not a fantasy, James. The most advanced psychoclass would be all
about peace, of course. However, they would have within their ranks
the most creative (least stultified, least rigid--most free) thinkers
on earth, who could ably attend to such necessities as insuring they
are not vulnerable to their "barbarian" brethren's perpetual need to
war and sacrifice (their own). (They' be like Apple -- fun, happy,
1524
1525
1526
Link: Salon
Honeymoon for salmon-eaters (16 February 2009)
There are theories which argue that people who come out of more
controlling and less loving families, tend to vote Republican. They
fear Socialism, are repulsed by the idea of hippie-togetherness, and
like to grand-stand Independence, because as children, being part of a
family meant experiencing life as if they were mere extensions of their
parents' (not just wishes and needs but) BODIES. They fear real
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
1527
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
1528
still make clear that they are going to or could go to the ivy-leagues -then I think they'll go for shared living environments as a way to
spend the whole of their lives.
Right now, they have to endure, I think, some sense that no one is
there for good. It's not even a sexy possibility -- instead, the cool kids
do the bait-and-switch. Vanish, immediately, if offered the right ticket
to somewhere special . . .
Link: The Tyee
1529
1530
1531
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
most loyal servants. Obama will only for a short time be all linear,
lithe, and/but alone: the future is in Obamanation.)
Link: Salon
1532
uppers, or those who look like they lack the stuff to ever find a way
"back," the voting public might be more than okay with it: they might
already be prone to see these people as irresponsible and dispensible:
people we should be happy to be rid of, for their loss makes the nation
feel pure, virus-free.
Note: If the Tyee would like me to write a fictional piece on the
midnight adventures of a mob of MacChine-Gunning McJobbers, lead
by a baby-boom house burning, Vanessa Richmond, styled a la
Thomas Pynchon, I might be up for it. Could do the pubic good to see
in clerks the potential to be a bit more than prickly.
Link: The Tyee
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
otherwise--with one another. Relaxed and fun, not tight and dutiful.
We've got to stop teaching boys a history where their origins are in
the management and abuse of women. It's sin-focused and abusive.
Something drove men to feel the need to want to control women. The
current answer seems to amount to suggestions of some inherent
badness, but I think fear of female sexuality arises out of boys being
used sexually by their mothers -- out of real felt personal experience
of fearful female sexuality, out of incest. Women are always suspect in
the male imagination after that. As women get more respect and love,
they feel less of a need to use their boys to ward off their depression,
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.
1539
(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)
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
1540
1541
cancer-sticks and booze, why not limit ads for sex-andhorror thrill-kill films?" (Shannon Rupp, "The Porn Glut,"
The Tyee, Jan. 21 2009)
Did you know, kids, that the Depression-era also marked the return to
ascendence of the disapproving Maternal scold (banished for awhile,
as women repeatedly did one horrible un-Victorian thing or another),
who saw little but scandal and perversity in the seditious, go-go 20s.
Today's version will further circumspect your freedom (and it's felt
pretty friggin' tight for some time now too, hasn't it? -- turn off your
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
-----
1542
1543
1544
effort to deal with their fears. At this point, if you simply take away
that "art," you may have taken something away that actually
empowers them. You risk becoming [once again] the predator. [And
by "you," I'm not really thinking of you, G West.])
I don't think that Charney is best understood as an exploiter (the
article says the reporter in question kind of enjoyed it when Charney
did his masturbation bit. You find this difficult to believe. I don't.)
You do. Maybe we're the same age, but when you sense such a gap
between how the same thing is apprehended -- especially in regards
to a sexual theme, especially in regards to the sexual activities of a
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)
1545
----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)
----ME2 and Patrick McEvoy
McEvoy's words encouraged this course of action for a
person subjected to a "maternal scold": "F**K the *B*TCH"
any way you choose"... or words virtually the same, with
clearly the same meaning (I didn't keep them).
That's playing very loosely with encouraging rape. I
censored the prescription for that action. Not the swear
words. And if you say it was a joke, that will not change my
decision in the least. It was a terribly sexist joke.
Our commenter guidelines say sexist remarks are not
allowed on our threads. If you choose not to abide by the
rules, please feel free to comment on other sites that consider
exhortations to rape, and other sexist comments, perfectly
fine. We don't. (David Beers, Response to post, Porn Glut)
*Patrick McEvoy-Halston's* words, that is, David Beers. And if you
truly would encourage others to comment freely on other sites that
consider exhortations to rape perfectly fine, then you, indeed, by your
own standards, should censor yourself. For encouraging rape is never
okay, on your own site or anyone else's. Mr. Beers.
Or were you being sarcastic? Using language-play? Surely the matter
at hand is too serious for any such, Mr. Beers. You might, after all, be
misconstrued, and end up surrecting what you claim to want to
suppress.
1546
1547
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
alone, he meats out his (evidently evil) opponents' destruction. (What
would have been unexpected is if Walt listened to his priest's advice,
contacted the police, and *they* figured out a way to inhibit the
gangs' predations; instead, we get a priest who comes to learn that
Walt was right all along).
Also, I wish the film was more aware of an interesting equivalence it
sets up: namely, that Walt and the evil gang-bangers share violent
reactions to trespasses into their territory. But as Dorothy notes, the
film is not interested in drawing connections between Walt and gangbangers. They are set up so we have no empathy for them, so that we
can hate them. (Those who want to war against druggies, will shape
their fantasies in the same way.)
Also, Thau is not set up to take things over. He ends the good boy that
really, at heart, nobody takes too seriously -- the fate Michael avoided
in the Godfather by taking violence into his hands. Walt is to be taken
seriously. And so too -- to some extent --the priest, who confronts
things head-on himself.
Also, this is a grandparent's film. Right now I live in Toronto's annex
-- a place populated by liberal 60-year-olds who are forever hoping
they might take in as renters those who are quiet, deferent,
respecters-of-elders types, and who are forever complaining about
their insufficiently attendant children. In short, they seek out
"orientals" for the same reason some older men seek out young
women. Wish the film had the sass to point this out.
1548
Also, didn't like how the movie portrayed Walt's kids. If in confession
he admits to being haunted all his life for not attending to his kids,
the film should have showed the kids being the way they were owing
to a lack of something (i.e. attendance), rather than owing to them
being "spoiled" (god I hate that word) by too much of something.
In sum, not a film that will encourage older people to come to respect
the youngins these days. More a film for the Don Cherrys of the world
(wear a shirt and tie, young man! sacrifice yourself for noble causes!).
All this said, I enjoyed the film. I cared for the people in the film. I
liked seeing Clint interact with his neighbors -- a lot. I liked a lot of
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?
1549
he'll do as told by anyone who clearly owns the throne. Once the
cultural sphere shifts more obviously to the right, he'll be Harper's
dog, before you know it.)
1550
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 -is effectively puton the defensive, as progressives are effectively
characterized as whiteelitists, as those fundamentally insensitive to
the real needs/desires ofthose they aim to serve. I will be watching for
this to see if I'veguessed right -- hopefully to those willing to believe I
might just be right.
patrickmh
Link: RealPsychohistory
1551
1552
1553
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
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
1554
1555
please spend more time thinking about the pathology in the people,
about what happens to a populace who for the most part received
insufficient love for them to believe they deserve to be happy, to
believe that progressive societal gains need not be followed by some
kind of punishment/sacrifice, to believe and so readily accept that
they don't deserve the hard-lot in life.
Realisticman: Hello. Glad you like my sic mammilian (poetic license)
hamsters and poetic manners. I like them too!
Link: The Tyee
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
Such an article would have set you up for ridicule? Left you
uncomfortably exposed? Probably; but the article as written has
something of the smug, superior tone that Victorian gentleman
brought to their articles, when they reported back to their London
readers on the latest crazy goings-on in the colonies -- the kind of
tone postcolonial critics now rant against as the voice of the
empowered and unempathic.
Link: The Tyee
Dorothy wrote (25 Dec. 2008)
Dorothy wrote (in reference to something I wrote):
"..the eat or be eaten "ethos" that was the only story the universe had
to tell 'til that point."
- What point was that? This has changed?
Madoff/Enron/bcrail/Eron/etc.,etc.,etc.
Is there in fact more than one used planet in our cosmos already? I
am sure we don't live on the same one.. Do enlighten me, someone..
And in response, I wrote:
Hi Dorothy. Happy holidays!
If you are human and are treated kindly / lovingly in your childhood
-- the reptilian part of your brain not withstanding--you will be a
wholly (possibly sic) loving "entity." Most progressives have received
a fair bit of love in their childhood -- the "universe" they came to
know at birth (and even before, in the womb) was often a very loving,
fun place. They can be counted on to want others to experience the
same, and to do enormous good. And, ultimately, as they are the most
creative/playful and least demon-haunted/fearful people about, the
future is with them (thank God).
So to your list, I counter: Jim Henson/the
Tyee/Greenpeace/Obamanation/the low-key, peaceful, recycling
generation/etc. etc. etc. And also centuries of gradually improving
standards for the treatment of all living things, despite periods of
terrible regress.
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
sucked off?
Richard Brody wrote:
What the four-hour run of the two volumes of Lars von
Triers Nymphomaniac shows and says about its protagonist
is trivial, but what it reveals about von Trier and his method is
worth considering.
A man returning from a small convenience store finds a
woman lyingtorpid and bleedingin a sepulchral courtyard.
She refuses medical care, refuses the police, but will accept a
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.
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
<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 EndFragment
1571
1572
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.
[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>352</o:Words> <o:Characters>2009</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Home</o:Company> <o:Lines>16</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>4</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>2467</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-rowband-
1573