Friday, April 01, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
One might consider Elizabeth Taylor’s body of work in the 1950s and 1960s as a single, long-running melodrama about American life (of which her own participation in “real life” in various romantic scandals formed a subplot). No single work stands out as brilliantly insightful or entirely successful, but watching the various movies gives one a picture—granted, a one-sided and distorted, overly “psychological,” picture (i.e., it is missing the real driving forces in economic and social life)—of a society.
The inhabitants of this social universe are lively and not afraid to express themselves, or reticent to complain, but they are beset by corruption, greed, anxiety, conformism, racism, phony piety, status seeking, unsatisfying and corrosive personal relations. And they respond, in the only fashion apparently open to—or permitted—them, with extravagant and disordered personal behavior for the most part: alcoholism, various addictions, sexual promiscuity, escape into fantasy, violence, even madness. If the portrait is not a happy or entirely coherent one, the fault doesn’t lie with the films or filmmakers, or leading performers such as Elizabeth Taylor, but with the social order itself.
That's from David Walsh's "Elizabeth Taylor and the melodrama of American life in the 1950s and 1960s" (WSWS). I found it to be an interesting overview of Taylor's career and agreed with much of it.
However, -- Yes, I have a however.
I find it real hard to believe that if WSWS had been around (maybe it was) in the 1970s. It was. It's been around since 1938. Sadly the online archives only go back to 1998.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
President Barack Obama has secretly authorized U.S. officials to advise Libyan rebels, and some CIA agents may have already been deployed to assist the anti-Qadhafi opposition, according to published reports.
The moves, while representing a significant shift from supporting the U.N. no-fly zone to backing a side in Libya's civil war, come as Obama's aides debate whether or not to provide military assistance to the insurgents – a group that includes both secular and militant Islamic fighters.
That's from Glenn Thrush (POLITICO) and how does that make you feel?
I am really shocked at the number of people who are speaking up in favor of the Libyan War. I'm not talking about the ridiculous Juan Cole. But there are a number of women online who are going ga-ga over it.
They're Hillary supporters. I supported Hillary in 2008. I'm not supporting the Libyan War. I'll give her credit for explaining to the American people what Barack was too chicken s**t to, but that's it.
The war is wrong.
I can't believe that for some people they just have to cheerlead everything Hillary does.
Fortunately the Cult of Hillary is smaller than the Cult of St. Barack. Most Hillary supporters in 2008 knew that they might disagree with her on any number of things. It was an adult relationship. But some people aren't able to have maturity and they didn't all back Barack.
And then there's the website (pro Hillary) where women are going on trashing people who spoke out against the illegal Iraq War. I mean they really have no clue. They need to get their house in order PDQ.
They make themselves look ridiculous. As ridiculous as Barack's groupies.
If Hillary stands for anything it's standing by your convictions. I'm not going to trash her because I disagree with her. I don't see her as craven (Barack is). She believes in this. I don't. She needs to make the best case she can and I need to do the same and we're both adults and the world will keep turning.
Certain blogs in the PUMA sphere need to grasp that we betray the maturity we showed in 2008 when we sell out our own beliefs.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"