Skip to main content

Tomorrow is a defining day for Salon

Looks like tomorrow Obama will be increasing troop levels. To a large extent, this will be a deciding day for Salon. Most times when criticism has been made of Obama here, it has been hedged by making him seem the good king surrounded by poison-issuing advisors. So we have often enough heard pleas for him to please not listen to some corrupting so-and-so. But though we have evidence (from Sirota, I believe) that it could just amount once again to an instance of good Obama unnecessarily deferring (to his general, in this case), Joan and a number of others have essentially made clear that if he ups the troops, they will be switching to thinking of it mostly as HIS war--evidence, presumably, of his true moving instinct. After tomorrow, the pressure will be on them to evidence this turn away from "poor adviser" talk, from "the difficult task of turning the Titanic around" talk, which has hereto allowed them to believe the primary villains those--like, presumably, right-wing crazies--who have made him unnecessarily hesitant, reluctant to evidence his good nature, his true interest in the progressive reform he has spoken of so inspiringly.

If it continues to be one crazy after another, we have right to ask just how progressive Salon is; if now that the time has come, what it is that gives "them" cold feet; if they have it in them to take the heat being stridenly anti-Obama will bring upon them, from many of their own liberal friends.

Just a note: I don't believe Obama EVIL. I just think he has not been so rosily raised that he can avoid the disassociative trance many Americans seem increasingly compelled to lose themselves in.

Originally posted as a letter in response to: “Praying for Obama’s death” (Salon)

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…