Just the other day, I was reading an article on LA Times about a book recently published on the "superhero" philosophy and in particular, Green Lantern. Coincidentally, Green Lantern is opening next week as a highly anticipated summer film, and should, in true Variety fashion, do boffo business. http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/06/08/green-lantern-and-philosophy-heroic-talk-with-the-ring-of-truth/
I wrote a reply to that article, but got frustrated by the site's rejection of my post because it was too long--I figured out a long time ago that the Twitter mentality of using only a limited posting length was going to be the death of me, so I finally gave up on my attempt.
So here it is--my post to the above given LA Times link on heroism, comic books and all that stuff.
As Green Lantern was my favorite character growing up, I was always more drawn to his alter-ego than to what he (Hal Jordan) could do as a superhero. Between GL and Flash (my second favorite), their respective human identities were brilliantly flawed and yet filled with heroism even of the ordinary kind. Both gained their powers in the course of their civilian work identities, so they were both already working in some work which tested them, but were both deeply grounded in their beliefs. Becoming heroes was therefore not unknown to them, but finding out they could do a lot more with their powers was a bonus to them.
Heroism, in real life, is never so black and white. As the authors remind us, action will often compel the "good" man to do nothing if he/she sees it strictly in an either/or frame--moral ambiguity can force all of us to back down if we are put into such a position. Hal Jordan was chosen as a ring-bearer not because he was considered "a good man" but because he was "fearless." Goodness can really be a time waster--a person who is "good" might waver back and forth over options, while a person who knows any action is better than no action at all, is apt to get more things done.
In the early 70s, when GL teamed up with Green Arrow, it was then that there were more than black and white issues began to show up in the DC comic universe, unless the superhero had already crossed that road a lot earlier. Green Lantern hadn't been out in the "real" world much--he had never examined that life, busy with his career and superhero work.
I grew up with the 60s and 70s comics world, mainly that of DC. I always thought the morals of the characters as pretty much the ethics I followed. (I was a kid when I read them) I now feel, in today's world where I am now an atheist, that I didn't have the need for a "something in the sky" to make mostly correct choices and be an ethical person. Comics were always a good way to spell things out in a non-preaching manner, allowing us to be moral, but still allowing us to make our own choices.A
Friday, June 10, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Violence needs to be curbed, not sex!
For fuck's sake, this is absolutely ridiculous. The US is more concerned about some Rep's sexual behavior than it is on the amount of violence in TV, movies and games.
They care more about a presidential candidate's mistress than they do about whether that man had any good ideas for government.
The idea of someone getting a blow job in the Oval Office is far, far more important than a president and his VP starting a war in another country by lying about how many weapons there were in that country.
This country is so fucking screwed up, I'm getting embarassed to live here.
Violence doesn't seem to matter to these fools. Only anything related to sex, which is supposed to be a natural thing, and is legal in all states.
I have always pondered this--why does the simple act of sex make all these fucking right-wingers so jumpy?
As far as Weiner and his weiner, his wife is the only one--repeat, ONLY ONE-- who should be included in any kind of discussion on this issue. Anyone who goes on and on about it, or any other person's ability and right to have sex, I call you out as far more conservative than you would like to admit.
Sex is not a crime. The only way it becomes an issue is if a minor is involved. Or if it's outside marriage and one of the parties opposes it. Beyond that, it aint' a crime.
Violence is far worst than sex. When we harm others, we are exerting our will over them, making them appear weaker than ourselves. Men like to beat women and children, especially when they drink or do drugs. They come from a long line of other offenders, other abusers. When children engage in a violent manner, they are simply continuing a long cycle of such actions. Children who have been beaten in turn beat animals, kill them and harm those who are smaller than they are. Children who have been abused will not fail to utilize fear and violence in their own world, and as they grow older, their techniques will get even better. Violence is, by far, far worse than any consensual sex of any kind.
People who have any kind of life--obviously leaving out the religious right--know this, even if they won't admit it. We, homo sapiens, came up from that kind of rabble--the strongest genes survived for thousands of years before we advanced another milestone in our development--but it doesn't mean we need to stop here. It seems to me that looking at the whole world, the mutant genes of compassion, appreciation of beauty and youth, the chromosomes of understanding higher science, mathematics and wisdom have managed to gain a foothold, but those who don't have an iota of them keep trying to destroy them, knowing that once those people who represent all of these great things have a greater presence than themselves, they will be lost to history.
They tend to beat up in numbers, just like regular bullies. Not one of them is strong enough to upset the cart individually, but in numbers they attack. They prey on the sensibilities of many--the fear of what might--or might not--come. They are evil, greedy, power-humgry and they want to keep the people enthralled, preferably as pliant as possible. And they make the people hate sex, love violence--the natural opposite of the way life should be lived.
Anthony Weiner is fighting for his political life right now, based on a sex related topic. There should have been no need for him to do so--in the correct version of the world, he should have been able to talk to his wife about the incident, then they should have been able to laugh it away, in the privacy of their homes. There should never have been an outcry about it, and there is no way in fucking hell it should have been smeared all around the world, making a moral judgement on him and his family.
Just as there shouldn't have been a moral outcry about Bill Clinton. Just as there shouldn't have been ono about Gary Hart. Just as there shouldn't have been about any other person.
And so why, some might ask, do we make such a big deal when Republicans do it? Because Republicans are hypocrites. We don't make a big deal about what sex games they choose to engage in--we only care when they tell the rest of us how to live, and can't live up to those goals themselves.
I say let's shut the hell up and not act like Republicans. We are supposed to be understanding, so let's act like we are. Sex is part of every single person's world, in one way or another, and it can't be wrong if people don't get harmed from it. If people get harmed, then it's wrong--like rape, pedophilia, or child porn. And among consensual adults, it's fun, healthy and filled with lots of good things.
Noone should try to dictate to any other adult what they should or shouldn't be able to do. And if someone does try to legislate sexual laws beyond those that hurt people, they should be taken out of the places of laws and put into the stocks where people can throw rotten vegetables at them and call them the fools that they really are.
They care more about a presidential candidate's mistress than they do about whether that man had any good ideas for government.
The idea of someone getting a blow job in the Oval Office is far, far more important than a president and his VP starting a war in another country by lying about how many weapons there were in that country.
This country is so fucking screwed up, I'm getting embarassed to live here.
Violence doesn't seem to matter to these fools. Only anything related to sex, which is supposed to be a natural thing, and is legal in all states.
I have always pondered this--why does the simple act of sex make all these fucking right-wingers so jumpy?
As far as Weiner and his weiner, his wife is the only one--repeat, ONLY ONE-- who should be included in any kind of discussion on this issue. Anyone who goes on and on about it, or any other person's ability and right to have sex, I call you out as far more conservative than you would like to admit.
Sex is not a crime. The only way it becomes an issue is if a minor is involved. Or if it's outside marriage and one of the parties opposes it. Beyond that, it aint' a crime.
Violence is far worst than sex. When we harm others, we are exerting our will over them, making them appear weaker than ourselves. Men like to beat women and children, especially when they drink or do drugs. They come from a long line of other offenders, other abusers. When children engage in a violent manner, they are simply continuing a long cycle of such actions. Children who have been beaten in turn beat animals, kill them and harm those who are smaller than they are. Children who have been abused will not fail to utilize fear and violence in their own world, and as they grow older, their techniques will get even better. Violence is, by far, far worse than any consensual sex of any kind.
People who have any kind of life--obviously leaving out the religious right--know this, even if they won't admit it. We, homo sapiens, came up from that kind of rabble--the strongest genes survived for thousands of years before we advanced another milestone in our development--but it doesn't mean we need to stop here. It seems to me that looking at the whole world, the mutant genes of compassion, appreciation of beauty and youth, the chromosomes of understanding higher science, mathematics and wisdom have managed to gain a foothold, but those who don't have an iota of them keep trying to destroy them, knowing that once those people who represent all of these great things have a greater presence than themselves, they will be lost to history.
They tend to beat up in numbers, just like regular bullies. Not one of them is strong enough to upset the cart individually, but in numbers they attack. They prey on the sensibilities of many--the fear of what might--or might not--come. They are evil, greedy, power-humgry and they want to keep the people enthralled, preferably as pliant as possible. And they make the people hate sex, love violence--the natural opposite of the way life should be lived.
Anthony Weiner is fighting for his political life right now, based on a sex related topic. There should have been no need for him to do so--in the correct version of the world, he should have been able to talk to his wife about the incident, then they should have been able to laugh it away, in the privacy of their homes. There should never have been an outcry about it, and there is no way in fucking hell it should have been smeared all around the world, making a moral judgement on him and his family.
Just as there shouldn't have been a moral outcry about Bill Clinton. Just as there shouldn't have been ono about Gary Hart. Just as there shouldn't have been about any other person.
And so why, some might ask, do we make such a big deal when Republicans do it? Because Republicans are hypocrites. We don't make a big deal about what sex games they choose to engage in--we only care when they tell the rest of us how to live, and can't live up to those goals themselves.
I say let's shut the hell up and not act like Republicans. We are supposed to be understanding, so let's act like we are. Sex is part of every single person's world, in one way or another, and it can't be wrong if people don't get harmed from it. If people get harmed, then it's wrong--like rape, pedophilia, or child porn. And among consensual adults, it's fun, healthy and filled with lots of good things.
Noone should try to dictate to any other adult what they should or shouldn't be able to do. And if someone does try to legislate sexual laws beyond those that hurt people, they should be taken out of the places of laws and put into the stocks where people can throw rotten vegetables at them and call them the fools that they really are.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Philosophy
Philosophy: We are all human, no one was created any better than any other. We all have a given amount of time here, and if you were born, you're going to eventually die. So whether you believe in a god or not, you get the same breaks, the same world as everyone else. Why sacrifice your one life on something as assinine as worship, when it's logical that you shouldn't be shooting for the hereafter, but for the here and now. Thousands of years now have seen the peasants still trying to get to heaven, while their masters and academics are finding pleasure in other....pursuits. Why waste time "believing," when there is no time to waste?
Saturday, February 5, 2011
100 years ago, a petty man was born.
He had an enormous ego, though, and he had some general good looks, but there really wasn't a terribly large muscle in his head, so he learned to use his voice, a smattering of rhetorical skills, and some charisma to move himself up in the political branch of the world of entertainment, since he knew instinctively that he was not really good at acting, other than reading lines, sometimes so obviously that his producer bosses cringed.
Because his inherent skills taught him that looking someone in the eyes, pretending to give a shit, and honing dramatic cues for more than just reading those stupid lines made him a lot more powerful in the long run, he had no problem in learning to be a grifter--all politicians are grifters, some worse than others.
He found being a politician was actually something he felt good at. He had all the fame and adulation he wanted, so now he started to bank on his power, and see how far to the top he could go. And go to the top he did. And millions of Americans were brainwashed into believing that this actor, this travesty of a human being, this truly apathetic asshole had changed the landscape of the USA, and brought people like James Dobson, Karl Rove, and their ilk out of the woodwork, raping the country, and selling us all down the river for a long time to come.
Hoping you're not resting in peace, mofo.
(And this is the fucker they want to put on a dime?)
And this post follows the first, after someone said Reagan wasn't ALL bad:
People are always prone to take the easiest way out of any situation. They fail the test of humility, and become drawn to things which distance themselves from the general populace. They become greedy, apathetic, hard, cold. They no longer have the ability to empathize or care. They justify their new nature as a "sacrifice" of a sort. Money means more to them than people. They can't fail, because failure means going all the way back to the beginning, and the struggle and pain in their lives. They no longer have the choice to change their ways, because the person they are in the end is all that they know anymore. In faith-based vernacular, they have sold their soul to the devil. In reality, they have had the taste of power, and it is a heady feeling. They will do anything which keeps that sense of exhilaration, of commanding the actions of life or death.
In life, they have chosen the oldest path--that which requires the least amount of actual work. They are not unique at all--this path is one which most people do, but some are just able to grasp the brass rings they find along the way. Extraordinary people always follow the more difficult path, the road less traveled, as Robert Frost said. Most of us have found that path, tried it for a short while and diverted back to the path of least resistance. It's okay--we're not all capable of the hardness, the racing in the wind or swimming against the tide. Humans rarely are able to finish that path because it's more difficult to find all the conditions which favor it. It's against human nature in general to accept the inevitable losses which come with heroism and complete self-sacrifice. But in life, we can recognize some of those people as true leaders--Gandhi, Mandela, Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin, Jimmy Carter.
Human beings are not wired all the way to exercise the best of intentions all the time. Very few have the ability to ignore their own needs and put the needs of others ahead of them.
But Reagan was not a hero and never a man of the people. His own selfishness and desire for power were fueled by his ego and his overwhelming desire for power. The more power he had, the less of a human being he became.
Anyone who eulogizes Reagan needs to step back and look at the whole picture, of the horrible things he did while he was in office--things he did to satisfy his own ego, and for essentially "photo ops" for the history books.
Because his inherent skills taught him that looking someone in the eyes, pretending to give a shit, and honing dramatic cues for more than just reading those stupid lines made him a lot more powerful in the long run, he had no problem in learning to be a grifter--all politicians are grifters, some worse than others.
He found being a politician was actually something he felt good at. He had all the fame and adulation he wanted, so now he started to bank on his power, and see how far to the top he could go. And go to the top he did. And millions of Americans were brainwashed into believing that this actor, this travesty of a human being, this truly apathetic asshole had changed the landscape of the USA, and brought people like James Dobson, Karl Rove, and their ilk out of the woodwork, raping the country, and selling us all down the river for a long time to come.
Hoping you're not resting in peace, mofo.
(And this is the fucker they want to put on a dime?)
And this post follows the first, after someone said Reagan wasn't ALL bad:
People are always prone to take the easiest way out of any situation. They fail the test of humility, and become drawn to things which distance themselves from the general populace. They become greedy, apathetic, hard, cold. They no longer have the ability to empathize or care. They justify their new nature as a "sacrifice" of a sort. Money means more to them than people. They can't fail, because failure means going all the way back to the beginning, and the struggle and pain in their lives. They no longer have the choice to change their ways, because the person they are in the end is all that they know anymore. In faith-based vernacular, they have sold their soul to the devil. In reality, they have had the taste of power, and it is a heady feeling. They will do anything which keeps that sense of exhilaration, of commanding the actions of life or death.
In life, they have chosen the oldest path--that which requires the least amount of actual work. They are not unique at all--this path is one which most people do, but some are just able to grasp the brass rings they find along the way. Extraordinary people always follow the more difficult path, the road less traveled, as Robert Frost said. Most of us have found that path, tried it for a short while and diverted back to the path of least resistance. It's okay--we're not all capable of the hardness, the racing in the wind or swimming against the tide. Humans rarely are able to finish that path because it's more difficult to find all the conditions which favor it. It's against human nature in general to accept the inevitable losses which come with heroism and complete self-sacrifice. But in life, we can recognize some of those people as true leaders--Gandhi, Mandela, Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin, Jimmy Carter.
Human beings are not wired all the way to exercise the best of intentions all the time. Very few have the ability to ignore their own needs and put the needs of others ahead of them.
But Reagan was not a hero and never a man of the people. His own selfishness and desire for power were fueled by his ego and his overwhelming desire for power. The more power he had, the less of a human being he became.
Anyone who eulogizes Reagan needs to step back and look at the whole picture, of the horrible things he did while he was in office--things he did to satisfy his own ego, and for essentially "photo ops" for the history books.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Cold and miserable
If anyone is looking for me, I'm still here. Between last week and this week, though, I caught a real-life cold, with sore throat and everything, and so I've slept a lot since I got this "wonderful" gift, and I been been on my fat ass since I took Delenn to the vets last week. Steve has been kind enough to get me cat food and milk, the only two things I've needed. I can live out of boxes (macaroni and cheese, anyone?) until I'm feeling better, which should be as soon the Invisible Purple Unicorn gets back to our neck of the woods--er, space. Or at least until the spring, which ever comes first. I'm betting neither makes it here, and that the average cold runs from 5 days to 10 days, so talk to me after this weekend.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
My Holiday Greeting for Everyone
Listen up, peeps!
I got extra lazy this past year in not getting some of my holiday stuff taken care of, so I thought it might be a good idea to be even more lazy and send out a general holiday greeting to everyone. This means that no matter what branch of the tree of life that you want to be on, I wish you a happy, healthy, safe, and memorable holiday, with good food, good friends and good conversations!
I hope that the coming year will be an excellent one, but one easily forgotten--the sad thing is, the less we remember a year, the chances are it was one in which disasters never happened! Let's achieve our overall goals, and hope that the vicious and wicked sleep on beds of thorns and needles, and the impoverished sleep on beds of flowers.
Let us look with kindness to those worse off than ourselves, and do one good thing every day, just to keep in practice! If we can't say something nice about someone, we should either keep silent, or make sure we have proof before we say anything! (heh, heh)
Treat animals and children with care and love, never forget that we aren't alone in the multi-verse, and that home cooked food is better than TV dinners!
That's my speech for the holidays, and now I shall simply go and be on my merry way until....whatever time comes that I have something further to say.
May all your dreams come true.
Mary
I got extra lazy this past year in not getting some of my holiday stuff taken care of, so I thought it might be a good idea to be even more lazy and send out a general holiday greeting to everyone. This means that no matter what branch of the tree of life that you want to be on, I wish you a happy, healthy, safe, and memorable holiday, with good food, good friends and good conversations!
I hope that the coming year will be an excellent one, but one easily forgotten--the sad thing is, the less we remember a year, the chances are it was one in which disasters never happened! Let's achieve our overall goals, and hope that the vicious and wicked sleep on beds of thorns and needles, and the impoverished sleep on beds of flowers.
Let us look with kindness to those worse off than ourselves, and do one good thing every day, just to keep in practice! If we can't say something nice about someone, we should either keep silent, or make sure we have proof before we say anything! (heh, heh)
Treat animals and children with care and love, never forget that we aren't alone in the multi-verse, and that home cooked food is better than TV dinners!
That's my speech for the holidays, and now I shall simply go and be on my merry way until....whatever time comes that I have something further to say.
May all your dreams come true.
Mary
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
My mom
is 82, and counting now, and something slightly disturbing happened last night.
Mom is nearly blind, is unable to care for herself, doesn't watch TV. Essentially, she is isolated in a small, growing smaller, world.
She used to be on top of debates and news, and used to read newspapers and was well aware of the world at large, at once capable of arguing local news stories and larger stories with most anyone. She has always been a bit of a woman's libber, and an inspiration to me as I was growing up. It's always been a part of me to be a strong Boston liberal because of her.
Last night, I found out that she didn't know who the president was.
How do you explain to someone all the events of the last 2+ years in a few minutes over the phone? You can't.
I told her about Obama as much as I could. I mentioned Joe Biden as VP, and I tried to explain about John McCain, and him she knew about. I mentioned Sarah Palin in as brief a fashion as I could. But two, three years? I will just have to wing it.
Does anyone else have to deal with someone so isolated? It's a difficult world out there, and we need to find ways to cope with the daily dealings, trying to keep from falling into the abyss. And knowing that some people are ignorant, not because they want to be, but because that's just how it is for them, is just a fact that we can't change.
It doesn't mean a whole lot in the real world. These people are not among the likely population that vote, debate or participate in the democratic sphere. They have limitations that makes life in general more difficult. They are among the voters who are often touted as the "non-voters" on election day--the ones who are assumed to not give a crap and just won't "show up" for voting. No one takes into account that they can't show up--they aren't capable of showing up.
We would all like to see everyone vote and take part in the process. But if we realize that some people just can't, we won't rely on their vote--if they do, it's a bonus.
Just think of all the people who are in situations where they can no longer perform their civic duty. We can't force them to vote. And even if we "help" them vote, what good is a vote when there is no thinking involved in it? We've seen people vote for something on a strictly visceral level--we are reminded of all the voters who went for Bush in 2000 because he was "just like" them--the one that they felt they could "share a drink" with them and be a "regular" guy. Telling people how they should vote is not a good way to earn a democratic win--it's a cheat. And yeah, it happens. And we've seen how it works in action, and it's unfair--completely unfair. But I'd rather see a loss honestly than a win undeserved.
My mom should now know who Barack Obama is. While she forgets things easily, I mentioned his name often enough to perhaps stick with her. When I vote, I keep her in mind when I decide who I want to represent the both of us. Even if she isn't voting, I am, and while my vote isn't two votes, I do try to make it count for more than myself.
Mom is nearly blind, is unable to care for herself, doesn't watch TV. Essentially, she is isolated in a small, growing smaller, world.
She used to be on top of debates and news, and used to read newspapers and was well aware of the world at large, at once capable of arguing local news stories and larger stories with most anyone. She has always been a bit of a woman's libber, and an inspiration to me as I was growing up. It's always been a part of me to be a strong Boston liberal because of her.
Last night, I found out that she didn't know who the president was.
How do you explain to someone all the events of the last 2+ years in a few minutes over the phone? You can't.
I told her about Obama as much as I could. I mentioned Joe Biden as VP, and I tried to explain about John McCain, and him she knew about. I mentioned Sarah Palin in as brief a fashion as I could. But two, three years? I will just have to wing it.
Does anyone else have to deal with someone so isolated? It's a difficult world out there, and we need to find ways to cope with the daily dealings, trying to keep from falling into the abyss. And knowing that some people are ignorant, not because they want to be, but because that's just how it is for them, is just a fact that we can't change.
It doesn't mean a whole lot in the real world. These people are not among the likely population that vote, debate or participate in the democratic sphere. They have limitations that makes life in general more difficult. They are among the voters who are often touted as the "non-voters" on election day--the ones who are assumed to not give a crap and just won't "show up" for voting. No one takes into account that they can't show up--they aren't capable of showing up.
We would all like to see everyone vote and take part in the process. But if we realize that some people just can't, we won't rely on their vote--if they do, it's a bonus.
Just think of all the people who are in situations where they can no longer perform their civic duty. We can't force them to vote. And even if we "help" them vote, what good is a vote when there is no thinking involved in it? We've seen people vote for something on a strictly visceral level--we are reminded of all the voters who went for Bush in 2000 because he was "just like" them--the one that they felt they could "share a drink" with them and be a "regular" guy. Telling people how they should vote is not a good way to earn a democratic win--it's a cheat. And yeah, it happens. And we've seen how it works in action, and it's unfair--completely unfair. But I'd rather see a loss honestly than a win undeserved.
My mom should now know who Barack Obama is. While she forgets things easily, I mentioned his name often enough to perhaps stick with her. When I vote, I keep her in mind when I decide who I want to represent the both of us. Even if she isn't voting, I am, and while my vote isn't two votes, I do try to make it count for more than myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)