We all have filters to block out the huge amounts of irrelevant crap that gets hurled at us each day, in spam (refinance now!!!, hot stock tip!!!, hot teens!!!) or TV (Drive this and be sexy!!!, eat this and be sexy!!!, ask your doctor about this and be sexy!!!). For example, some of us tune out anything starting with the phrase "Bush lied" as 'silly' or 'childish' whining from the nattering nabob set. Others tune out any mention of the president that doesn't include the word "liar" as more nonsense from the right-wing echo chamber.
I don't think adding to this left-right debate (which really predates America itself) is a good use of anyone's time.
I feel that religious humanitarianism is something that the political-left should pay more attention to. Tikkun.org is one (Jewish-flavored) element; there's also FCNL.org (Quaker-flavored) and the Sojourners movement (Evangelical, no less, at www.sojo.net). These are just a few examples of existing organizations with a strong spirit-based positions that don't get bogged down in religion.
That last comment relies on a distinction between "religion" and "spirituality" which is itself a distinction both the fundamentalists and the social progressives often fail to appreciate. I think that may be why the "religious left" has been ignored.
Here's a link to the Friend's Committee on National Legislation, if you'd like to check them out.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Separate Realities
The world series victory puts me in mind of other struggles that are going on...
I've been struck by how often the sudden switchbacks and jaw-dropping falsehoods of some political figures (it doesn't matter which ones) contradict what I think are the facts. The PIPA.org report, "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters" confirms what I long suspected: they and I live in separate worlds.
The problem is that actions that seem reasonable to one group can be disastrous in the world of the other group.
There's a real correspondance here to the religious cult phenomenon of the 70s, and one lesson I learned from that experience is that only the individual caught up in a separate reality can break out of it. Nobody else can do it for them (deprogramming seldom worked).
Seriously looking at opposing views helps: some of them are easily dismissed, but if some are troubling, check them out.
I've been struck by how often the sudden switchbacks and jaw-dropping falsehoods of some political figures (it doesn't matter which ones) contradict what I think are the facts. The PIPA.org report, "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters" confirms what I long suspected: they and I live in separate worlds.
The problem is that actions that seem reasonable to one group can be disastrous in the world of the other group.
There's a real correspondance here to the religious cult phenomenon of the 70s, and one lesson I learned from that experience is that only the individual caught up in a separate reality can break out of it. Nobody else can do it for them (deprogramming seldom worked).
Seriously looking at opposing views helps: some of them are easily dismissed, but if some are troubling, check them out.
Friday, September 10, 2004
The old gray goose
Last year, Linda's birthday presents included a lawn goose. Every few months (or more often sometimes) we change her costume. Linda has made some, her sister Jeannette has given her some, and some we order from LawnGooseDesigns.com.
The link below takes you to my Club Photo album of goose pictures. There are also some new pictures in the Family album.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Manchurian Candidate: Then and Now
Manchurian Candidate: Then and Now
I finally took in the theatrical movie "The Manchurian Candidate" last weekend, then watched a DVD of the original last night. They are both good movies, but the differences are revealing.
For one thing, the power-mad, villainous mother has gone from a manipulating political wife to a manipulative senator. Righties say Meryl Streep's character is obviously based on Hillary Clinton, and lefties assume that the inspiration for the character must be Barbara Bush. The actress admits to using many manipulative characters, mostly Maggie Thatcher (although I thought I saw some of Lady Macbeth in there).
But what really struck me is the replacement of The International Communist Conspiracy with two unrelated villains. First, there's the Terrorist Threat, which dominates all the political speeches and television reports in the new movie, and serves as the fear-generating device used by cynical politicos. Second, we have Manchurian Global, the Halliburton/Carlyle Group style multinational investment company that actually does the brainwashing to cement their place in U.S. government.
Both movies maintain a careful non-partisan stance. Lefties point out how the New York convention makes this clearly the GOP, while righties dwell on the striking resemblance of the candidates to Kerry and Edwards. I felt like the visual similarities to the Democrats let the filmmakers get away with what might come across as an anti-Bush polemic.
I also noted that the original leaves the Frank Sinatra/Major Marcos character in the Army as he goes on to Save the World. The Denzel Washington/Marcos character is discharged from the Army, and then Saves the World on his own, albeit with the help of the FBI.
But, as I said, the movies are both top-notch entertainment. Their differences tell me more about how the moviegoing audiences have changed, and who makes a plausible/acceptable villain or hero these days.
-Scott
[here's a link to the Metacritic page on the new movie]
I finally took in the theatrical movie "The Manchurian Candidate" last weekend, then watched a DVD of the original last night. They are both good movies, but the differences are revealing.
For one thing, the power-mad, villainous mother has gone from a manipulating political wife to a manipulative senator. Righties say Meryl Streep's character is obviously based on Hillary Clinton, and lefties assume that the inspiration for the character must be Barbara Bush. The actress admits to using many manipulative characters, mostly Maggie Thatcher (although I thought I saw some of Lady Macbeth in there).
But what really struck me is the replacement of The International Communist Conspiracy with two unrelated villains. First, there's the Terrorist Threat, which dominates all the political speeches and television reports in the new movie, and serves as the fear-generating device used by cynical politicos. Second, we have Manchurian Global, the Halliburton/Carlyle Group style multinational investment company that actually does the brainwashing to cement their place in U.S. government.
Both movies maintain a careful non-partisan stance. Lefties point out how the New York convention makes this clearly the GOP, while righties dwell on the striking resemblance of the candidates to Kerry and Edwards. I felt like the visual similarities to the Democrats let the filmmakers get away with what might come across as an anti-Bush polemic.
I also noted that the original leaves the Frank Sinatra/Major Marcos character in the Army as he goes on to Save the World. The Denzel Washington/Marcos character is discharged from the Army, and then Saves the World on his own, albeit with the help of the FBI.
But, as I said, the movies are both top-notch entertainment. Their differences tell me more about how the moviegoing audiences have changed, and who makes a plausible/acceptable villain or hero these days.
-Scott
[here's a link to the Metacritic page on the new movie]
Thursday, August 12, 2004
First Ramble
When I reworked my website a few years ago, I reserved a page for "ramblings", thinking that I would use the space to share little essays from folks in my family. I even attached the Internet address of my home page in our annual holiday card. Since then, I never got around to creating little essays, putting them in Internet form, and uploading them to my web page. So nobody came back to the my web page.
Since then, the "blog" movement grew up as people with the same idea started doing what I was only thinking I might do. Now, Yahoo is offering a service to do just that for free, so I'm giving it a spin. Tell me what you'd like to see here.
-Scott
[here's a link to my home page]
Since then, the "blog" movement grew up as people with the same idea started doing what I was only thinking I might do. Now, Yahoo is offering a service to do just that for free, so I'm giving it a spin. Tell me what you'd like to see here.
-Scott
[here's a link to my home page]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
