Skip to main content

Response to blogger, Sharing is Good (25 Dec. 2008)

Hi SharingIsGood,

The way to communicate with those who vote conservative, who believe the whole environment-thing is overdone, who think those who would oppose the war in Afghanistan are essentially traitors, etc., is to find a way to like them, to respect them.

How is this possible? The old way of thinking of them as primarily in need of our cavalier attacks on the media that manipulates, uses them, allowed us to mostly focus our attention of their/our collective enemies -- we didn't really have to face up to the fact that we likely thought their tastes, their company-- *them* -- kind of disgusting, we really didn't have to look at them. And so now as some on the left begin to acknowledge that the problem is somehow in the "sheeple" as much as in the "shephards," the left is left with only the knee-jerk response -- "What the fuck is wrong with you people!" --and so we think of national collapse, and hope that the beasts who voted in Harper "enjoy" the hell on earth he will surely provide them with.

If we take a longer, less self-deceptive look at the broad populace, if we allow ourselves to understand ourselves as democratic, with democratic sympathies, while still overtly assessing them in what might easily be made to seem an aristocratic way (i.e., that they are by constituion not as healthy as we are), we can move toward loving and respecting those who would still support Harper, regardless of how often the "Tyee" found its way onto their porches. You'll see in their eyes and their demeanor--they have not known the love we have known. They are the results of childhoods involving a considerable amount of fear and sadism. AND, almost no matter how damaged, how limited their ability to love is, we'll see that they likely still possess the ability to read in other peoples' eyes, true respect. They're not much used to such a response; they'll likely think they probably don't deserve it; but they'll love us for it. And, eventually, as we listen to them with more true respect than we hereto have managed, they'll better listen and attend to our stories, too.

That, in my judgment, is the way to get to them, SharingIsGood. But the truth is, if your childhood was garbage, there's only so much growth possible. Tactically, as always, you've got to get to the children. May every well tempered, progressive person, go into education.

And have kids (though not too many, lest they experience abandonment issues -- one or two will do, nicely).

Link: The Tyee

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"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 …

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…