%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
| Political Essay |
Here is the main reason I decided to write “Six Degrees of Film”. Too many times I’ve heard of young adults who know nothing about the history of film.(They don’t know who Paul NEWMAN was!) And that’s really too bad, because film classics are like “required readings of classical literature” in the sense that you can’t truly appreciate modern film without some working knowledge of film classics. You may understand modern film. You may “get it” in a way that’s meaningful but still, you won’t truly appreciate the artistry of ‘Pulp Fiction” without the knowledge of a single classic gangster film or the work of Steve McQueen, Paul Newman or Humphrey Bogart. For example, Russell Crowe is the epitome of quiet cool and tightly contained violence in so many of his performances. But without ever seeing Brando in “On the Waterfront” or “A Streetcar named Desire” it’s harder to appreciate the full body of his work. Daniel Day Lewis in “There will be Blood” is less than six degrees from Bogart in “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” or Steve McQueen in “Papillon”. The killer, Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men” is less than six degrees from Tony Perkins in “Psycho” or Hannibel Lector in “The Silence of the Lambs”. Martin Scorcese is less than six degrees removed in his directing style from the genius of Stanley Kubrick in so many of his classic films. Leonardo di Caprio is six degrees from Robert De Niro and both are protégés of Scorsese. What is the process of six degrees of separation? It’s the idea that the world can be reduced to less than six degrees of separation for any given idea or connection. And in film, the factors are often less than six degrees because often the same types of movies or movie genres will cyclically fall into favor with the movie-going public. For instance, westerns have been out of fashion with audiences for some years. They are considered old-fashioned, and yet every now and then a film will come along that becomes a major hit. And audiences invariably love a good “horse opera” where the forces of good and evil are pitted against one another. In fact it can be argued that every Star Wars movie has elements of the Western set against the backdrop of space. With Harry Potter there are elements of the eternal fight against good and evil that can also be found in every Star Wars film. The same is true of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. In fact, the one movie that kept coming to my mind in watching the fourth installment of Harry Potter was “The Wizard of Oz”. The Wizard of Oz, in the opinion of many, including myself, was one of the greatest movies ever made. It was pure fantasy with a cast of talented veteran Hollywood performers and some of the most imaginative elements ever committed to celluloid. The colors and the vibrant sets could segue-way into a thousand different plot points. But the action was always held together by one vulnerable child with her innocent little dog. The possibilities of six degrees in film genres are endless. There are some more examples found in my book and on the website for Six Degrees. But the ones that are listed here are compiled from some recent movies shown on television. Blazing Saddles is the break-though comic film for Mel Brooks. His comic genius in directing led to such classics as, “Young Frankenstein” and “High Anxiety. But Blazing Saddles led to another pivotal moment in film history with the “outing” of years of racial discrimination. Brooks used the character of the black sheriff to openly criticize the stereotyping and repression of African American characters in film and in society. Just as “Birth of a Nation” was a landmark film that was a huge hit about-believe it or not-a group of Klansmen depicted as heroes, “Blazing Saddles” also was a way of turning around the typical stereotypes that had appeared throughout the history of Hollywood film production. From Russia with Love was one of the land-mark spy vs. spy films of the decade. Sean Connery’s portrayal of James Bond is the prototype for all future film spies. The Bourne character, whose superior intelligence and craftiness outwits entire government agencies, could never exist without James Bond or Philip Marlowe. In Born Yesterday Judy Holliday was the textbook definition of “Dumb Blonde”. She and Marilyn Monroe paved the way for a long line of starlets that became known for their comic and vapid portrayal of stupid women who survive through a combination of beauty without a brain. Field of Dreams-the phrase has landed in our vocabulary as a place where people can go to make their dreams come true. The phrase, “If you build it, they will come” is part of the American mantra where hard work and determination are sometimes the ingredients you need to make your dreams come true. Without the films of Frank Capra, we would never have a “Field of Dreams”. The Sound of Music-it is said that there was a woman who saw the film every day while it played, entering the Guinness Book of Records. The end of an era of musicals produced one of the greatest movie musicals of all time. There have not been many musicals made since the sixties, but any and all can trace their roots to this classic film. Curly Top-every child actor since has been eclipsed by the penultimate child star, Shirley Temple. No one under the age of 50 can remember the appeal of this child and the box office business that was generated by her movies. Shirley Temple remains the shining example of a successful child star. Many have followed, but very few can rival her success. The Big Sleep-Think of Bogart and Bacall and Film Noir. The age of the private eye culminated with the Film Noir films of the thirties, forties & fifties. No one watching the popular pairings of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt or some of the movies of Clive Owen can appreciate their work without watching “The Big Sleep” with Bogart & Bacall. The clever dialogue and the screen chemistry between the two make this film entirely watchable even sixty years after it was released. Pillow Talk to Working Girl. It all started with Doris Day comedies. The queen of light comic romances was Doris Day. All modern day romance film and twentieth into 21st century romances can give a nod to Doris. Any light comic film can be paired to a degree first with the screwball comedies of the thirties and subsequently the light comic films of Cary Grant or Doris Day. The Awful Truth: Screwball comedies are arguably the baseline for all film comedy. To go farther back in time, Mack Sennett and the shorts of Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and Laurel and Hardy are “required viewing” for anyone that purports to love comedy. Of course, with the many thousands of films out there it’s impossible to touch upon even a small number of them that can trace their origins to other film classics of the past. But this is just a sample of where the process of connecting present film genres with past ones can lead. The end result is a richer understanding of film and a deeper appreciation for films that we see today. |
| Bush as an afterthought. It’s amazing how little the Republican party wants to talk about George W Bush. They mention Reagan, they talk about the old man, Bush Sr, but very little is said about the current occupant. It’s funny, that kind of uncomfortable and unmentioned silence with Bush and the Republicans. It’s as if he’s a mentally challenged family member of a bygone era or the black sheep he had once been purported to be in the Bush clan. No one really wants to talk about him. It makes you begin to feel almost sorry for him. It didn’t have to be like this. I find myself searching for his accomplishments. If you are wealthy, he has been cutting your taxes for years. In Africa, he has acknowledged the crisis over AIDS. He has used the faith-based initiatives to some extent to help alleviate chronic homelessness. He has been good-intentioned at times. Laura Bush seems like a very nice person. But it is all out there. You can’t run away from his legacy. He is the one-the “decider in chief”. He’s the one who put us on the path of war that has led to massive debts. It is his fiscal policies-or lack thereof-that have led to fiscal crises. He had curiously distanced himself from his own Treasury pick, Paul O’Neill, who wrote a scathing book about his mismanagement. He condemned Scott McClellan for writing a scathing book about his lies and detached style of governing. He condemned Richard Clark for writing a scathing book about his incompetence and mismanagement of 9/11. The 9/11 commission and the Iraq Study Group, two bi-partisan efforts, were dismissed and their recommendations trashed. He has made a mockery of science and the long-term implications of 9/11. He has reduced our standing in the world among other nations. Our word is no longer to be trusted and we are seen as war-mongering bullies. He promised to work across the aisle and change the tone in Washington. He not only did not do that, it has become an even more hostile environment of partisan bickering. Katrina was the crowning blow, exposing cronyism and widespread incompetence. He will probably go down as one of the worst Presidents in American history. During the debates in 2000, he said America should be humble. Finally, one can believe he is humbled by the spectacular nature of his failure. It is truly failure on a grand scale. Currently, I am researching a book about Grand Failures. There have been many failures in the history of our nation and throughout history that are necessary and eventually lead to great discoveries and accomplishments. In this case, Bush didn’t need to fail on such a grand scale. The most curious part I find at the end of the Bush era is the deafening sound of silence. Martin Luther King speaks of the “appalling silence of good people” in the wake of social injustice. King also said, “We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Bush doesn’t seem to have any friends left willing to defend his failed policies. That silence, in the end, may be most damning of all. |
| Does anyone remember the old Danny Kaye/Bing Crosby movie, “White Christmas”?. There was a device in it involving Danny Kaye after he saved Bing Crosby’s life in World War II. So anytime he wanted something from Bing Crosby, he’d hold his arm and hang his head, with the disappointment and sense of entitlement left unspoken. Finally, Bing has this look of exasperation with hands on his hips, “Oh, you’re not going to drag up that tired old bit with your arm, are you?” Well, John McCain is not only holding his arm, he’s got a girl with glasses he’s put in front of him to say, “Look, you’re not going to beat up on a war hero with a GIRL on the ticket, are you?!!!” This is getting a little bit scary. Because Barack Obama and John McCain both had to endure a trial by fire during the campaign season to reach the end game. And John McCain has pulled a Palin from his hat and is holding her before the electorate like a shiny new bauble is held before a baby. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I am the Great and Powerful Oz!” Are we going to let this election become about, as John McCain’s campaign STRATEGIST has suggested, “Personalities rather than issues”? Because if we allow this, then the Democrats are going to lose more than just an election over the next eight weeks. We are going to pound one more nail into the coffin that is our standing in the world by allowing ourselves to be distracted by smoke and mirrors in these last remaining weeks. We are going to diminish our capacity to govern because our free press is not doing the job they are set up to do which is to ask hard questions of our nation’s highest leaders. We are again going to allow ourselves to be misled and the uninformed electorate will again prevail. Now is not the time to be distracted by shiny new baubles like Sarah Palin. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. |
| Burying the Lead Sometimes I wonder about the type of news stories that get the most coverage. And the real reasons that some news story which could be of monumental importance to the human race are relegated to a small blurb in the back pages of the paper. The “buried lead” seems to be the mind-set of most news organizations. They don’t appear to have a “Big Picture” philosophy when framing the news. I wonder what the discussions are like around the table when they’re trying to decide to “break” a story? Do they not trust the public to be able to, as Jack Nicholson famously said, “to ‘handle’ the truth?! Are the American People “dumbing down” to the point where we are basically a low-information electorate? And is this a polite euphemism for a lazy and uninformed electorate? Whose fault is it that we are “uninformed”? The circulation of most major newspapers has been on the decline for many years. And the major news programs have also seen a similar fall-off in viewership. Many people “catch as catch can” and use various sources of information to snatch news snippets and sound bites as they go about their busy daily routine. So it is that we have delegated the task of judging what news has the most relevance to news agencies run by corporate entities. These are the same type of corporate big-wigs that the average American purports to despise and mistrust. So it’s no wonder that Americans mistrust the news. We hear a lot of talk about the “liberal media”. Another familiar phrase is “media bias”. But in the long run, the news is about as fair and accurate as we want it to be. We, the American people, the electorate, must be able to distinguish and make informed decisions based on the best possible information we can discern. That means looking at a variety of media sources found in print and television. And if possible, we also have the internet as a new source of information. It is up to the American public to change the flow of information from sound-bites and tag lines and to seek out the underlying importance of news stories and their sources. For instance, if we see a story recently about the rise of the Mafia in Italy as they take over the control of garbage collection on the streets of Naples, the American public should be able to sit up and take notice. How does this affect our society as a whole? Or does it? When we see that human rights abuse is still taking place in Myanmar, or Burma, and Darfur, the Sudan, is still in need of aid, we need to take note. How does the Chinese economic stranglehold on our weak American dollar affect our way of life in the long term? What are the implications of long-term global warming and what are some of the most effective solutions? Why did we become embroiled in the Middle East in the first place? If we know the history of our long-term problems and dependency on foreign oil, might that help us find a way out? Who is best suited to understand our national problems and the “mission statement” of the U.S. as a beacon of freedom and a leader of the free world? Are we still a major super-power and if not, what happened? The American electorate is basically uninformed and by tacit consent, the media has been “burying the lead” for many years. It is still up to the people to demand change. If we are able to make informed decisions, we will begin to understand where we are as a nation, and where we are going in the future. |
| Upon reflection, I keep thinking of the Auden Poem, Funeral Blues – “Stop all the clocks!” To paraphrase, He was my north, my south, my east, my west of news. Tim Russert died of a heart attack. And the image of a man whose heart was so big it could not be contained in one human body keeps coming to mind. A wise man once said that the definition of a heart is found, “Not in how much you love, but how much you are loved by others.” In that respect, Tim Russert’s heart knew no bounds. He was a giant among journalists. My first thoughts are still reverberating, “He is irreplaceable”. He was simply the consummate journalist that all professionals must strive to emulate. His craft was the gold standard to reach in journalistic achievements. From now on, the bar is set. “To be like Tim Russert” is a worthy goal for any professional. His show increased the credibility of a candidate, and his personality and warmth will be sorely missed in the universe of television. He lived the American dream, he was the role model we look for in all fathers and sons, in our bosses and our friends. He lived his faith, and was also a man of his time. He was a modern American. We can cite Tim Russert when others belittle the greatness of America at home and abroad. His idealism and innate optimism are traits we love in our great Americans. We will survive, but we’ve suffered a great loss. “Timmy, we hardly knew ye”, but thank God we were able to know you. “What a country”, as Mr. Russert would say. What a country to produce such a man as you. |
| The phrase "speaking truth to power" goes back to 1955, when the American Friends Service Committee published Speak Truth to Power, a pamphlet ii at proposed a new approach to the Cold War. Its title, which came to Friend Milton Mayer toward the end of the week in summer 1954 when the composing committee finished work on the document, has become almost a cliche; it has become common far beyond Quaker circles, often used by people who have no idea of its origins. (One current example: Anita Hill entitled her memoir of her sensational charges of sexual harassment against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, Speaking Truth to Power.) To speak truth to power sounds so much like an integral part of Quakerism that some modem Friends have simply assumed the phrase goes back to the seventeenth century rather than arriving late in the middle of ours. It reflects what many contemporary Friends would like to believe is the characteristic Quaker stance toward political authority, hallowed in practice if not the exact words. Yet in its origins it was a political statement, entitling an explicitly political document. The origin of the phrase “speaking truth to power” was a 1955 Quaker pamphlet written about the Cold War. In more recent times, Anita Hill used the phrase as a title for her book. To speak truth to power is a phrase associated with the independent spirit of the American political process. We have a tradition of speaking truth to power associated with such diverse figures from Theodore Roosevelt to Harry Truman, Bobby Kennedy to Martin Luther King, and Huey Long or John McCain. These individuals have spoken truth to power in the context of war and peace, or from civil rights to environmental issues. In this context, we are now approaching a contest where the two candidates have an opportunity to speak truth to power. Because the projected winners of both contests were not the traditional party machine candidates but instead two unique individuals who at times have broken from the traditional mold and taken positions that were not in “lockstep” with the accepted party line. John McCain has often portrayed himself as a “maverick” who rides on the “straight-talk” express. Yet during this primary season, and through the past eight years, he had slowly backed down and shied away from most of the formerly espoused ideals he held that made him a maverick whose idol was Teddy Roosevelt. In the same vein, a major reason many people, myself included, could not support the Clinton candidacy was the belief that the entrenched power of traditional party machine politics would drown any message of change that was espoused by the candidate. The “baggage” connected with the Clintons could not be overlooked. And most recently, we had a good example of these two promoting a “gas tax holiday” that was by all accounts seen as a campaign gimmick by most of the economists and even the voters. How extraordinary to see two individuals from the entrenched interests of both parties “tag-teaming” to promote a policy that not only encourages and feeds the dependency on oil to the American public but also glosses over the hard choices and sacrifice involved in speaking out on our need to wean ourselves from dependency on oil. |
| The phrase "speaking truth to power" goes back to 1955, when the American Friends Service Committee published Speak Truth to Power, a pamphlet ii at proposed a new approach to the Cold War. Its title, which came to Friend Milton Mayer toward the end of the week in summer 1954 when the composing committee finished work on the document, has become almost a cliche; it has become common far beyond Quaker circles, often used by people who have no idea of its origins. (One current example: Anita Hill entitled her memoir of her sensational charges of sexual harassment against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, Speaking Truth to Power.) To speak truth to power sounds so much like an integral part of Quakerism that some modem Friends have simply assumed the phrase goes back to the seventeenth century rather than arriving late in the middle of ours. It reflects what many contemporary Friends would like to believe is the characteristic Quaker stance toward political authority, hallowed in practice if not the exact words. Yet in its origins it was a political statement, entitling an explicitly political document. The origin of the phrase “speaking truth to power” was a 1955 Quaker pamphlet written about the Cold War. In more recent times, Anita Hill used the phrase as a title for her book. To speak truth to power is a phrase associated with the independent spirit of the American political process. We have a tradition of speaking truth to power associated with such diverse figures from Theodore Roosevelt to Harry Truman, Bobby Kennedy to Martin Luther King, and Huey Long or John McCain. These individuals have spoken truth to power in the context of war and peace, or from civil rights to environmental issues. In this context, we are now approaching a contest where the two candidates have an opportunity to speak truth to power. Because the projected winners of both contests were not the traditional party machine candidates but instead two unique individuals who at times have broken from the traditional mold and taken positions that were not in “lockstep” with the accepted party line. John McCain has often portrayed himself as a “maverick” who rides on the “straight-talk” express. Yet during this primary season, and through the past eight years, he had slowly backed down and shied away from most of the formerly espoused ideals he held that made him a maverick whose idol was Teddy Roosevelt. In the same vein, a major reason many people, myself included, could not support the Clinton candidacy was the belief that the entrenched power of traditional party machine politics would drown any message of change that was espoused by the candidate. The “baggage” connected with the Clintons could not be overlooked. And most recently, we had a good example of these two promoting a “gas tax holiday” that was by all accounts seen as a campaign gimmick by most of the economists and even the voters. How extraordinary to see two individuals from the entrenched interests of both parties “tag-teaming” to promote a policy that not only encourages and feeds the dependency on oil to the American public but also glosses over the hard choices and sacrifice involved in speaking out on our need to wean ourselves from dependency on oil. |
| Mcluhan Revisited When Marshall Mcluhan wrote his famous treatise on media, there was a mistake in the title. That is the origin of the "Medium is the massage" phrase. Fifty years later, these words still ring true. We are massaged into a state of passive complacency in the same way that a lobster is lulled to sleep while being boiled alive in hot water. The medium is surrounding us with a state of bombarding messages that massage us into believing we are actually disseminating information. But we are living in this false bubble of information and if Mcluhan were alive today he would be fascinated and repelled with the internet and you-tube and streaming videos that bombard the viewer. Witness the recent disclosure that many of our top retired generals were "spinning" the administration and Pentagon versions of events because if they spoke the truth, they were threatened with the loss of access to their sources. And thus, would lose their lucrative deals as network "talking heads" on air. And remember the excitement of all the network news shows, the supposedly "left leaning" CNN and others as they prepared to "embed" with the troops when they invaded Iraq? There were no hard questions asked in the lead-up to the Iraq war. And not too many of the top journalists turned down the chance to ride along with the troops as they spun and fabricated their way into the heart of Baghdad. In today's terms, some of Mcluhan's most prescient and insightful comments had to do with the public's perception of change. The internet and the "blog-osphere" are hard to grasp for some people. The reality of an ever-changing perception in a 24-hour news cycle is out of the realm of understanding for some people. According to Mcluhan, "We're going into the future while looking backwards in the rear view mirror. We're marching backwards into the future." It's easier to understand what he means by this when we look at our solutions to the problems associated with international terrorism. It's like Mark Twain said, "To a man with a hammer, all problems look like nails." What does it all mean? Well, Mcluhan himself explained it best. Here are some "Applied Mcluhanism's"for the 21st century: 1.When you are on the phone or on the air, you have no body, according to Mcluhan. He somehow knew there would be a cyberspace 10 or 20 years before its invention! 2. All advertising advertises advertising. The fact that most of the time we mute our televisions doesn't stop the people on Madison Avenue. They simply print the words now, and often include music to "lure" us into the commercial! 3. In Understanding Media he put the matter this way: " Since the inception of the telegraph and radio, the globe has contracted, spatially, into a single large village. Tribalism is our only resource since the electro-magnetic discovery. Moving from print to electronic media we have given up an eye for an ear." . He also said that "People don't actually read the newspapers every morning. They step into them like a hot bath! In other words, they "immerse" themselves in the news of the day. And with the advent of multimedia, we've moved again from ear to eye! 4.Mcluhan: "The railway did not introduce movement or transportation or wheel or road into human society, but it accelerated and enlarged the scale of previous human functions, creating totally new kinds of cities and new kinds of work and leisure". And the same holds true for the world wide web. It is the newest railway of information to navigate or "surf". A recent study shows that Television is predicted to be the future of media information with large growth expected in developing countries like China. The future media may contain a sophisticated mix of computer tech combined with the entertainment of television and the instantaneous appeal of "texting"! We can only guess how far the global village will take us in the next 50 years. The question is how humans will respond to the idea of "instantaneous connections" and the overflow of information sources we can "google"? At this stage, young people (under 30) don't look at digital clock faces to read the time. They carry their phones and see it displayed. They also have a hard time making change in today's currency. Certain functions of 20th century life will be obsolete in twenty years. The big question is what will they be? Newspapers and how people will comprehend news is another unknown. If advertising and "product placement" continues on its inevitable path, we will have embedded advertisement in most TV shows and movies. They will continue to "pop-up" to be drilled into our psyche. Madison Avenue is in a way, much more insidious and harmful to our well-being than the oil companies. That's because the oil big-wigs want only money in their determination to continue the path of promoting our dependence on fossil fuels. But the Madison Avenue executives are much more harmful to our psyches. How we perceive the flow of information and our perceptions of reality can become intertwined with the way information is mapped out and sold to the viewer/citizen. For instance, we have found that the government laid out their plans to sell wars and market invasions based on the marketing dictates and stratagems employed by Madison Avenue. 5 Here's another Mcluhanism: "Politics offers yesterday's answers to today's questions" - This is tied in the "solutions" that candidates routinely trot out to the public every 4 years in the midst of a Presidential election. All candidates feverishly scramble to offer the public another brand and market themselves to voters as "new and improved". One only has to watch the great film about the manifest destiny of the American war machine, "The Fog of War" to realize that the American public has long been cannon-fodder for corporations and the military-industrial complex as it's explained by Robert McNamara in the film. The casualty rates have been statistically broken down and analyzed from World War II through the present day and this includes automobile deaths, health care and war. We are truly marching into the future wearing blinkers from the last 100 years of enterprise. We need look no further than our recent past to realize the genius of Marshall Mcluhan as he tried to enlighten us about the impending problems associated with mass media and the mass marketing of civilization within the global village. |
| 1. The Obama monologue-This is the constant drain of watching Jeremiah Wright's image being looped continually through our TV monitors. And the constant drone of the news minions wondering aloud about the steady decline of Obama's poll numbers. 2. The delight of Obama bashing: There's pleasure to be had in observing the sheer delight of the conservative pundits as they reflect upon the rise and inevitable fall of Barack Obama. Oh, the joy of watching Pat Buchanan's eyes twinkle, and William Krystol , Newt Gingrich and Bill O'Reilly as they gleefully reflect on the virtues of Hillary Clinton and the sad "testicular state" of Barack Obama! 3. Entering the wonderful world of swift-boating: You are now entering a 24 hour no-shame zone where the aforementioned pundits pick up where the Clintons leave off. In Pundit-Land, it's "Jabberwocky with the Clintons" all the time as they spin every twist and turn into a huge gain for Hillary and a loud "Shame on You!" to Barack. 4. Life inside the hamster wheel: Why is the 24 hour news cycle shaping our news and our mind-sets to a frenetic pace where ideas are reduced to soundbites? Even shameless Chris Matthews pointed out that the White House "spin room" had been able to-thru Orwellian wordplay-change the message from "We are escalating violence in Iraq" to:"We are ‘surging' the troops". This is the hypnotic power of group-think that has controlled our nation for so many years. I don't want to be told what to think about Jeremiah Wright and his relationship to Barack Obama. I don't want the analysis of an already over-analyzed incident to be spun so out of control that we're having this creature-preacher massaged into our brain! One creepy pastor doth not an election make..... I don't hear any evangelical Christians speaking out about this guy. Why? Perhaps because they have their own creepy pastors to deal with. If someone may be criticized because they opened their heart to Jesus, we would never have had the "born-again" President we are still ignoring as he winds down the clock on the "Bush Presidency". Isn't it easier to talk about Barack Obama's crazy pastor guy then to focus on what has been done to the American people for the last eight years? Sure thing. |
| Clinton Jabberwocky "Twas brillig and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!..." Jabberwocky is the poem by Lewis Carroll, that is defined as meaningless speech or writing. Jabberwocky, as defined by the Clinton's, means that left is right and up is down. High means low, but only if it doesn't suit. Mr. Obama must feel at times that he has stumbled upon a world of Lewis Carroll, where everything that is said is both meaningless and at times, perilous as words are twisted to suit and nothing is set in stone. No agreements reached by the Democratic party, nothing that is said or written cannot be twisted to suit the meaning of the Clinton political machine. These people are the same ones who maintained the "war room" and the slogan, "It's the economy, stupid". Now, it seems the phrase has been adjusted to read, "It's whatever sticks, stupid!" The spin-meisters have spun out of control in that everything that was agreed upon as the "metric" if you will, to define a winner of the Democratic nomination is constantly shifting shapes to define the winner as Hillary Clinton. And nothing else seems to be the correct answer to the equation. Lewis Carroll could have used Mrs. Clinton as a perfect model for the Queen of Hearts in "Alice in Wonderland". Here's a short sample of Alice playing croquet with the Queen: "The players all played at once, without waiting for turns, quarrelling all the while, and fighting for the hedgehogs; and in a very short time the Queen was in a furious passion, and went stamping about and shouting, "Off with his head!" or "Off with her head!" about once in a minute. Alice began to feel very uneasy: to be sure she had not as yet had any dispute with the Queen, but she knew that it might happen any minute, "and then," thought she, "what would become of me? They're dreadfully fond of beheading people here: the great wonder is that there's any one left alive!" That is the great fear in the Democratic party. "Will there be anyone left alive at the end of this process?" If the main passion is simply to yell, "Off with his head!" before the good of the party or anything else other than a desire for power, then the process becomes an absurd race to the finish where there is no logic or reason other than to win at all costs. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
