Skip to main content

sacrifice

Only today, the Associated Press revealed that a Kasich operative advised a state pension fund executive on how to minimize Lehman's role in the fund's losses when talking to reporters. So Kasich was understandably a little sensitive about the issue, accused me of a "smear" and complained that I was "picking on" him. He also advised me to read his book "so you can learn how to control yourself." Yikes! It's called "Hardball," sir.

Also, in the "things I wish I'd said" department: TPM reported in January that Kasich was warning his fellow Republicans that the Tea Party movement was so angry, they would "hang" Republicans "from the nearest tree" if they didn't endorse their far-right agenda. That doesn't make them sound like the reasonable folks Kasich was describing today. (Joan Walsh, “John Kasich, Lehman Brothers populist!,” Salon, 16 June 2010)

sacrifice

Kasich got to speak most of the time, with Chris trying to make him feel respected and at ease, yet despite the pro-offered time and space blew up when Joan poked at him for a brief moment. Once again, mommy issues? Of course. You can't get to the heart of republicanism and patriarchy without understanding that. Something to be explored further -- and not simply derisively -- perhaps?

I also wish Joan had focused mostly on refuting the contention that tea-baggers are reasoning and sane, like she did when Buchanan blew up at her. They are insane, "not well," and we need to spend more time announcing this fact, getting comfortable being derided as liberal elitists when we make our understanding of this clear, so we 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)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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,...
2 comments
Read more