Skip to main content

Generation-will-never-own-a-home (30 January 2009)

Better not wait for your next life, Jeffrey J., for the time to participate in the dopamine rush of equal rep. while all else rots (in anguish) or wilts (in boredom?), is now. The generation Vanessa talked about earlier – Generationwillneverownahome -- would have known instantly, if Hillary had won the presidency, that she'd have continued sending young people to their deaths in Afghanistan, and talked a lot more about how young people need "to work harder" (read: suffer more). And some of them will soon get over their Obama worship -- which promised the near irresistible vision of pacified parents (end of discord), generations uniting -- and understand too that he'll primarily be about making sure baby-boomers are taken care of while they spend out their remaining years thinking themselves all Green, tolerant (did you know there were no black people in the major leagues in 1940?, and now we have [voted in] a black president!), relevant, and wonderful -- on their way to heaven (while tended to by admiring youngins), surely!

There is nothing bold these days about advancing women's rights. (Unless you long for hell, when the subject of women or race comes up in any conversation, you'd better find means to broadcast your wished identification and thorough support and sympathy!) And don't you see that we've set things up so that people like Harper are going to have such an easy time of it, 'cause all they'll need to do is hire more non-white females to advance destructive policies than the opposition does to hopefully advance nurturing ones -- and the opposition can readily be blocked or broken with charges of racism/sexism? For a taste of what this is like, check out how FOX News tried to identify Ralph Nader as racist (and itself as pure) here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IshiClQqCM

Link: The Tyee

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

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 estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...