Skip to main content

Response to alda and realisticman (25 Dec. 2008)

alda: I believe you when you say you believe the power hungry are not monsters but rather the sick who deserve our sympathy (which is how I believe you characterized them). But, from reading above, you tend to characterize them, government leaders, and the sheeple, in ways that make them primarily seem blameworthy. People who "abuse their power," who "buy this pablum, of course, hook, line, and sinker," don't seem so much those who deserve sympathy and therapy but rather those who deserve what's coming to them.

I would never have anyone stand straight in line for Christian, masochistic sacrifice. I'm all for the fight. But we'll win sooner, I think, if we find a way to like those we're fighting. Some of them will come onto our side.

And btw: My focus is primarily on those who vote in the politicians who essentially work to abuse them. The reason I attend to them more than I do power-brokers or members of parliament, is because I think they are the ones in charge, and right now they're getting what they want -- namely, abuse. I believe that if you really want to know the true answer behind why the people "are so gullible?," not find yourself so exasperated and angered when you listen to tales told by grieving parents, wives and husbands of dead soldiers, you should 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


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …