" eternally perfect body, with a snort. "
Kate Moss reference?!
[ sarcasm ]
Posted on 02/04/2006 9:10:35 AM PST by pickrell
"- this latest victim of violence in America was a beautiful 18 year old girl, who should have had a bright future..."
"...it's such a shame because it was such a beautiful baby..."
"- such an unlikely crimal; he was good looking, -"
"- had everything going for her; she was pretty and sexy-"
Think back- how many times have you heard it? The beautiful baby, the beautiful girl- the litany of those persons who deserve to inherit the best the country has to offer. Not because of integrity, honesty, talent or other qualities that could have been cited... but invariably because the only quality that increasingly holds the monopoly on the highest esteem in elitest America is; "...is she or he pretty?".
Being a young man myself, once, back in the triassic period, I must confess that attractive attracts. It is part of our genetics. Conversly, only a fool survives his dating years failing to notice that the girls are drawn to the cutest boys like that proverbial candle flame, leaving us...ahem... normal (but imaginatively more heroism-destined) guys to grumble.
What seems to be happening recently, however, is that the normal process of maturation which enables boys and girls to develop into men and women seems to be getting slowly subverted. Since the invention of the concession stand, a group of narcissistic dandies of like political persuasion have assumed a new mantle of cultural persuasion as Hollywood rapidly displaced the classic novels of times past; novels which explored and glorified the best and worst qualities of mice and men.
The staple food of the world's youth now is what the movies present as the new reality. The movie ends well if the hero, and the girl, survive the earthquake/conspiracy/attack of the giant inchworm, etc. ... while the hundreds of "extras" annihiliated by reel one alone, simply didn't rate much notice since, well, they weren't that easy on the eyes to begin with. They were the average, and weren't even listed in the credits at the end.
This is no great revelation, of course, but it's apparent cumulative effect upon human culture is becoming alarming to many. It's perhaps best illustrated by the movies such as "The Postman", wherein Kevin Costner finally confronts the villain- the protagonist army "general" who has slashed, shot and generally extinguished more innocent life than polyunsaturated fats have. Like nearly all such films, the past crimes of the chief baddie are, by suspended sentence to community service apparently, suddenly dismissed without prejudice as the hero decides in his closing monologue that no, it would be wrong for the head of Team White to kill the head of Team Red. They are, after all, like brothers, in this journey towards destiny, or words similar. [Sun sets on beautiful vista in conveniently clearing skies...music swells...]
A certain number of the audience scratch their heads, figuratively, and wonder in what way exactly they are identical, or equivalent. The Postman assumed a position, based upon his charisma, to head an organization which attempts to alleviate some of the damage that previous militaristic pure evil has done, while the barbarian horde satisfies the need for the R rating of gratuitous violence and shredded arteries. Is the lesson to be learned that it doesn't matter what evil a person performs to get to the head of the political power block, as long as they work well on camera?
Should a guy who, say, has a problem with articulation, has a goofy Texas grin, and such a deep reverence for duty that fear of misspeaking in public to the detriment of the awesome responsibility he holds, sometimes makes the audience pull their hair wishing for him to have an easier time saying it, be disqualified by those failings?
Does it matter any more that he is the least likely to further dishonor an office that has been lately slimed and demeaned by a departing narcissistic pretty boy, and his yet to be re-cast first lady of retaliatory prosecution? Does it matter that he is most likely to surround himself with those gifted individuals most qualified to guide the nation through dark and dangerous times, rather than ones of trendy sexual orientation, or unofficial enforcement reliability, most in keeping with the demands of his wife?
Have appearance and ease of breezy fabrication now trumped the actual actions of the executive? Are the ones who dishonor and trash the office and institutions entrusted to them, protected now, not only by the shield of glamour... but also by some weird comradeship of office, that has the family of Team White extending a protective embrace to the prodigal, unrepentant "misstepson"? Those of us so sickened in years past by the wholesale damage to our country wrought by the vandals, watch in mute astonishment, now, at the "embracing" of the vandal as "the prodigal son", fellow veteran of wielding power, no matter the recklessness and damage of that wielding? Reconciliation doesn't extend so far as to slap ol' Pol Pot on the back and tell rice jokes, and no harm done, mind ya.
The conclusion as usual, of those producers aligned politically against the death sentence, family, and faith, is that important people, the ones listed first in the credits, don't get killed in the end, at least for past transgressions. There is no purgatory, and certainly not for enlightened power wielders, anyway. The dispatch of the one painted throughout the film as pure evil, is normally left in those last moments to a reluctant bystander, as the evil one makes a fresh, feeble, last-ditch attempt to earn best supporting actor. Whereupon the pretty hero and the pretty girl, after that unpleasant killing business, assume their rightful place.. in front of.. the rabble, the normal people.
Is there any harm in this? Are folks just looking for more things to disapprove of? Could be we are. We have to be careful to keep things in perspective.
But I don't think so. I think that hammering home to a generation of young teens that the pre-eminent, if not exclusive, attribute that matters in your life is your appearance... and that those who strive to suffer the hard work of forging themselves into good, respectful, reverent and decent men and women... must naturally be satisfied by third pickings, after the pretty ones have first gorged themselves, is corrosive and cumulative.
The ones who control the new direction of our culture are uniformly opposed to the values and culture that the majority of average America embraces. They can't prevent the values instilled by those fathers and mothers at home, who insist that what makes them proud of Lisa is not her shapely and comely appearance, but that she, while no one noticed, stopped on the way home from school repeatedly to visit with and talk to the old lady down the block who seemed so desparate to remain connected to the world. And their trust in her covers all of those things they didn't find out about, in which their daughter would have produced almost unbearable pride in them, had she been self-promoting enough to diminish those acts by insuring her credit for them.
When she finally marries, and her husband, crushed under by the worry of protecting his family and providing for them in their beginning years, finds a strength and respect he needed so critically in her then, he will dismiss his earlier childish notions of being married to the eternally perfect body, with a snort. To top it off, she seems to be conveniently myopic enough to consider his developing love handles perfectly attractive to her, and reassures him so. He's married a prize, gotten lucky beyond his wildest hopes. He needs to prove worthy of such good fortune. And especially, he needs to adjust his son's minds about value, also. For what Dad values, the son usually learns to value.
There was a time, before the invention of political handlers, when a candidate for power had only his speeches to convince a sceptical public that he, too, "got it". Certainly a large number, then as now, also learned to lie convincingly, and so became the scoundrels of record.
Therein, however, lay the paradox. In many times past, once the depredations and abuses of the politico were publicly exposed, he was removed from power, and the extent of his abuses became good material to educate a slate of aspiring new students as to the shame of dishonor and unfaithfulness. He was only glorified by his remaining incurably-duped diehard followers as misunderstood and undeserving of ignominy.
There was never before an entire industry, so dominant in the leisure hours of the public, and so dominated by the self-obsessed and self-indulgent, (the evil twins of the adulation-obsessed politician), that it was able to establish such recurrent themes of big-people...and little-people, the glamourous... and the floor sweepers, and the unanswerability of creeps who carefully remain in the good graces of those who hang fiercely onto monopolistic control the media. Only by such continuous, subtle pressure could tolerance for the intolerable, and acceptance of the unacceptable, be normed.
There may be faults we all find in the various policies of those we elect, and we protect the Republic by respectfully expressing those grievances firmly; aloud, in concert, and in public. But surely we value the character of our children enough for the disapproval to be expressed for destructive policies... rather than unsuitability to star in "West Wing".
As the sterotyped Mexican bandit leader immortalized, "Pretty boys? We don't need no stinking pretty boys..."
No, but he ought to be shot if he's responsible for that paragraph.
bump for a later read
I like, I like alot. Very "attractive" article pickerell.
" eternally perfect body, with a snort. "
Kate Moss reference?!
[ sarcasm ]
The whole premise here is flawed. Don't look for values in Hollywood which does not really reflect society, at all.
later read.
LOL This sentence was my favorite (yes it's one sentence)
When she finally marries, and her husband, crushed under by the worry of protecting his family and providing for them in their beginning years, finds a strength and respect he needed so critically in her then, he will dismiss his earlier childish notions of being married to the eternally perfect body, with a snort.
"When she finally marries, and her husband, crushed under by the worry of protecting his family and providing for them in their beginning years, finds a strength and respect he needed so critically in her then, he will dismiss his earlier childish notions of being married to the eternally perfect body, with a snort."
So true.
Or:
Some astute observations on the superficiality of today's packaged solutions. Good writing.
I can't argue with your statement. The problem is that Hollywood is assuming an ever-increasing influence with our children, and I see no upper limit. Subtle influences affect perceptions, and perceptions affect decisions.
Some Middle East experts have remarked that the war against Islamo-fascism cannot be finally won militarily, but only through shutting down the Madrassas, the point source of anti-American hatred. By showing the middle eastern citizen that the terrorists target the freedom and the lives of brother Arabs in Iraq, the Americans strike at the lies, the propaganda, which incubates such finaticism. We are doing so in Iraq, and changing a dynamic which has sustained poverty, despair and hopelessness for decades. It is surely important that we smash the present terrorists, but to simultaneously leave in place the mechanisms which produce them in the first place would seem self-defeating.
By that same token, we may have our own problem, back here at home. Our madrassas seem to consist of an increasingly political entertainment industry which elevates appearance over substance, and denigrates any hint of personal responsibility, other than the smooth slick line of the celebrity. Make no mistake, these folks have clout with the less informed voter. And they have their own agenda having little to do with the American value system still hanging on, on life-support.
The integrity of George Bush is unassailable at this point and that enrages the left. His decisions on some issues, such as illegal immigration and other "problem areas", have generated some controversy among some conservatives, but the competence that his chosen military advisors have shown thus far, putting aside the ankle biting of the media, is truly heartening. The method the detractors use to undermine him, a sitting President in a time of war, hinges around sowing doubts about his competence. The fact that he holds a MBA gets conveniently lost in the translation. In the media world- it's all about style.
And yet when my mother and the other 7 self-described "old ladies" get together for bingo, they remain committed Clinton devotees.
When my jaw drops in quest of any possible explanation, I am assured that he was "cute", and that our present President is "dumb".
These aren't sophomores... these are 8 veterans of the depression, world war two, and such other molding experiences. Failing a catastrophic coincidence of mass mercury poisoning, what possible kind of mental trama/thought process can evaluate the inescapable demonstrated consequences of 8 years of Clintonian policy and distill that down to... "he is cute"?
My premise is not to hope that Hollywood will ever re-evaluate the relative merits of glamour and glib gift-of-gab, versus the acceptance of personal responsibility.
As long as we have powerful elements within our society that make a Bill Cinton possible, we run a risk.
As long as we have powerful elements within our society which can elect such person, we step on the edge of disaster.
And as long as we could conceivably re-elect such a person, given the subversion of our Justice Department, the assault on our national military secrets, ad infinitum... then we are surely stepping back to get a good running jump into the volcano.
The forces of the Left, in their unassailable control of the combination of: Schoolroom indoctrination, Newsroom bias, and the Entertainment Industry imperatives, seem to me to be a reasonable lineup of suspects.
The psychological pressure, for lack of a better word, that this triumvirate brings to bear on a substantial portion of the electorate seems worrysome to me, and perhaps to others.
Am I imagining this? I value your opinion in reply.
Granted that I stand convicted of run-on sentences; can we stipulate that, and skip to the point where the substance of my little essay is explored? I realize that grammar is pre-eminent, but, as the President might say, "Should we teach our kids to value the Brie and Cheese crowd, over those men who clear brush from their ranch with the effort of their own hands, despite the disdain of the elite?"
Perhaps not eloquent, but the point remains.
The real strength of America is pluralism. By that I mean that there are many, powerful centers of influence. The presidency is just one of them, and that is why we survive people like Clinton. by putting their effort into church or chamber of commerce people create counterweight to Hollywood and Washington.
While the sentiment is good, it's excessively wordy. The message is lost in the verbage.
Basically, Hollyweird, TV and radio have put so much value on appearance and "face" that genuine altruism and competance are overshadowed by derision of the president's inability to articulate exceptionally.
Of course, someone needs to tell W that it's NEW-CLE-ER, not Nuke-U-Ler.
.
Basically, Hollyweird, TV and radio have put so much value on appearance and "face" that genuine altruism and competance are overshadowed by derision of the president's inability to articulate exceptionally.
Of course, someone needs to tell W that it's NEW-CLE-ER, not Nuke-U-Ler..."
Now THAT is a criticism I can live with! :-)
I don't want to give the impression that I think it's a bad article, it's not. What I was trying to impress is that the mechanics of how it was said make it difficult for the reader to interpret. I'm very well read, having read at least 7500 books in the past 30 years on all sort of topics, even though my interest is primarily Science fiction. When I have some difficulty interpreting something, it's usually not me although I'm willing to entertain that. There were a number of sections that I had to stop and re-read to get the meaning.
Again, good article, my suggestion would be to simplify your structure some. Shrug. Take it for what it's worth(free) :)
I agree with you. The article was written in a free flow style where the words fall out of my head onto a keyboard. Some days I can establish coherency- others I need to back up, and, as you say, have a little mercy on the reader who is merely trying to extract the idea.
I wasn't giving you a hard time with your last reply, or at least I didn't intend to... I was acknowledging your very succinct observation that I have a tendency to let a thought get past the 800 word limit, and unfortunately spend more time manually checking spelling than I do re-reading for flow.
The problem, when I reread for flow is, I tend to expand a thought to better convey it, and thus I get [even more] terribly wordy! But when I don't expand the thought I get the kind of verbal Chernobyl that I often produce...
Thanks, (sincerely), for the criticism. It's the only way I get better.
Other than taking my medicine... :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.