Public Resources Stolen
Thursday, August 16, 2012
24 comments:
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.
We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.
IN ADDITION
Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This has been obvious to anyone paying attention for some time.
ReplyDeleteYup. The looting of America is a bipartisan sport.
ReplyDelete"The MEDIUM is the MASSAGE!"
ReplyDeleteIt's the enemedia, Stupid.
THEY are in charge.
THAT'S the message.
~ FT
Consider the film A Face in the Crowd.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be using that film in the course I'm developing: Western Civilization through Filmography.
Enrollment in the class consists of lower numbers than I usually consider. But I want to develop a unique course for homeschoolers.
First up: Patton. I've been up since 3:30 A.M. today using online sources to develop the first month of lesson plans.
Whoever owns the images owns the culture.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWestern Civilization through American film. Gonna be biased, AOW.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete...Biased in a "good" way, I'm sure. Were I the teacher of such a course, I would certainly glean the ouevre of Slavoj Zizek for both material and perspective, even if a Marxist one. No one, IMO, "explains" modern film, "better". His "Pervert's Guide to the Cinema" is unequaled.
ReplyDeleteIt may not be "appropriate" for the high school level student. But it would certainly prove invaluable to their teacher.
For too long, film study has been almost the exclusive province of the Left. Welcome to the battle, AoW. ;)
ReplyDeleteThe authority of the "author" of genius inherent in the canon of Western Civilization isno longer present. We must no longerr absent "genius" from the construction of a corresponding canon of great films.
ReplyDeleteCanardo, mon cher, could you possibly find and share any source for any kind of information not purely arithmetical that is not biased?
ReplyDeleteSurely you don't believe the things you favor are not biased, do you?
The average European, the average Russian, and the average citizen of the United Kingdom is just as shallow, empty-headed, bigoted, dull and fatuous as the average American.
I happen to be an Anglophile and Eurocentric as well, but only in an historic sense. The architecture over there is superior and certainly more interesting than ours, but that stopped being true as soon as the working class began its ascent into the driver's seat.
The so-called "Council-Houses" in England have been an abomination since their inception, and the public buildings since the end of WWII everywhere are generally execrable.
But then I admit to having an anti-Modernist bias.
Pop culture started to become loathsome in the 1950's and has been on a downward plunge ever since.
~ FT
As a student of classical music and jazz during my early years on this planet (I played 1'st chair trumpet in orchestra, band, and a youth jazz orchestra)I have developed an appreciation for all musical art forms. The only criteria I have is that they are 1) indeed artistic, and 2) that they are good.
ReplyDeleteAs to architecture I appreciate renaissance architecture and particularly enjoy baroque. However there is something that stirs the individual in me when I see modern architecture the likes of Frank Loyd Weight.
As for the cartoon, well, beware the banksters, oligarchs, and the pull peddlers and bureaucrats they own.
Have a nice day all.
Well, Freethinker you have a couple questions here.
ReplyDelete1. Is there an overarching theme in world films about WW II.
2. Is the American experience of the war indicative?
Now number two is a definite, NO.
a. We did not suffer extensive civilian casualties.
b. Our casualties were the lowest per capita of any major participant.
c. Our economy and infrastructure were not destroyed.
As to the first question, it depends on the region.
Eastern Europe
France
Britain
... and I'll include Japan here.
All had a different emphasis.
A film like Patton which is largely about his self promotion and less concerned with the war.
Now where all these sources may be biased a synthesis might bring us closer to an objective, less nationalistic view.
If we were still a Christian nation more of us would know that the REASON America's resources are being plundered is that we are under God's judgment for the sins hinted at in the group with the signs. As long as the nation supports the "liberal" view of those sins the more we're going down under God's hand of judgment.
ReplyDeleteLove,
The still hopeful though maligned and persecuted Spirit of the Protestant Reformation
Virtue provides its own reward.
ReplyDeleteSin brings about its own punishment.
It's very simple, but human beings love to see life as fraught with complications, because that gives them a reason to avoid constructive endeavor in favor of endless, fruitless, wearisome, self-defeating argumentation.
~ FT
Focusing on cheap sensationalism and thinking of it as worthwhile is the oldest way of dodging responsibility imaginable.
ReplyDeleteOur media engages in an endless series of conjuring tricks by emphasizes the tawdry and trivial while ignoring the substantive and uplifting. People avidly follow their lead, and PRESTO! CHANGE-O! The bad guys make off with the goods.
When a nation is filled with fools, it will commit folly. Grief and loss are bound to ensue -- and rightly so.
We could thump our Bibles till our fingers turn black and blue and eventually drop off, and it AIN'T gonna dig any wells, build any roads, construct any houses, grow any crops, transport any goods, cook any meals, diaper any babies, perform any useful services whatsoever.
The quality of our ACTIONS determine the value of our lives. However, I hasten to add that since "The thought is father to the deed" it well behooves us to study material that refines and enhances the quality of our thinking. The Bible certainly may play a useful -- probably a crucial -- role in that.
The bloodthirsty, coldly punitive, pointedly ethnocentric parts of the Bible justifying plunder, victimization and annihilation of "others" is OBVIOUSLY evil, and must be eschewed and disregarded, if we are ever to achieve an enlightened, beneficent society.
The Jews were NOT "chosen" to be our Masters.
The evil that has ensued for thousands of years from this absurd notion gives ample evidence of its innate viciousness and complete fallability.
~ FT
Duck,
ReplyDeleteI'm late getting back to this thread. Obviously.
There are restrictions as to the movies -- natural constraints in the homeschool group.
And, frankly, students will not watch movies with subtitles.
So, I'm pretty much going to have to stick to American and British films.
I'm trying to pick movies that I know the students and the parents haven't previously seen.
In any case, it's my course and, yes, my "bias."
If you have suggestions, though, I'll entertain them.
My email address is in my sidebar. I will not turn a blog thread into such a discussion.
FT,
ReplyDeleteYes, the Bible certainly contains pointedly ethnocentric parts, particularly in the Old Testament, a portion of which is devoted to Jehovah's instructions to the line that would bring the Messiah.
The Jews were NOT "chosen" to be our Masters.
The Jews were chosen to be the lineage of Jesus, Who died for the sins of all who "believe on Him."
Paul did say "neither Jew nor Greek" [Gentile].
A couple of references:
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; - Colossians 3:10-12
and
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. - Galatians 3:27-29
BTW, there is another way to look at the Old Testament: the Israelites were a stiffnecked people. Yet, Jehovah still loved them and never gave up on them.
I think that we also need to remember the times of the events in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. The savages in the land of Canaan -- I'm sure that you're familiar with some of the practices. You might find THIS worth the read.
"The Canaanites, by contrast, were destroyed at the direction of God and primarily because of their sin."
ReplyDeleteSorry, AOW, I cannot, do not and will not buy that. I see it as a rationalization.
In many ways I have to say I agree with Dawkins' assessment -- not of GOD -- but of the ancient Jewish tribal CONCEPT of God, which I understand as hideously flawed -- even wicked. It's funny without having consulted Dawkins, whom I do not like, as I do not like any "agenda-driven individual, I have used virtually the same words Dawkins did, myself, to characterize the evil concept of God conjured up in the Old Testament.
truly believe that Jesus Christ is an ANTIDOTE to -- not the FULFILLMENT of -- the Old Testament.
As for the business of being a "stiff-necked" people, I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, two-thousand years of history indicative of how wrong these people were in their conceited, virulently ethnocentric, legendarily high estimation of themselves has done nothing to improve their situation vis a vis the rest of the world.
They rejected Jesus as their Messiah, and they -- and the entire world -- has suffered endless agony because of it.
Sorry. The Truth is often unflattering, unpalatable and cruelly indifferent to personal feelings.
God does not actively punish sin. Sin is self-inflicted punishment.
~ FreeThinke
FT,
ReplyDeleteThe question of the Old Testament commands and the New Testament teachings has plagued theologians for centuries upon centuries.
"The Canaanites, by contrast, were destroyed at the direction of God and primarily because of their sin."
Sorry, AOW, I cannot, do not and will not buy that. I see it as a rationalization.
I don't see it as a rationalization -- ALTHOUGH it is used for political and other purposes as a rationalization all these centuries later. I'll try to explain a little more before heading to the kitchen to eat dinner.
First of all, the Canaanites were no exterminated. For example, Rahab in Jericho joined the Israelites; I liken that to conversion in today's language.
Not to be flip, but it is possible that Mohammed recruited from some of those tribes. I read that somewhere, but do not recall where.
If we accept God as Creator and Sovereign, I will liken Him to the writer (creator) of a poem (the creation). The poem may not like being thrown in the round file, but the writer has the right to do so. Anyway, I myself don't worry all that much about what God does or decides to do. I trust Him to know best.
Furthermore, what happened thousands of years ago isn't something that I spend a lot of time thinking about. Again, I'm not being flip. I'm just saying that I don't try to fathom the complete mind of God because doing so is like an ant trying to understand Einstein.
I do see Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy. However, it may not be a human definition of fulfillment. God -- the Sovereign and the Creator -- has a much more complex mind than we can even fathom.
Moreover, what is a paradox is no longer a paradox once it's understood. I think that God is a paradox that will not be explained in this life.
[The Jews] rejected Jesus as their Messiah, and they -- and the entire world -- has suffered endless agony because of it.
Ah, the question of the Jews! What a thorny issue!
I see the Jews as the chosen lineage to bring God incarnate into the world. When they rejected the Messiah, did they lose their chosen-ness? Some Christians believe so (The chosen are Believers in that terminology), others do not.
As for the agony, well, I must say the following:
Christians would not handle filthy lucre. It fell to the despised Jews to do so. Is that the whole ball of wax? I think not, but I do think that it's a factor.
Finally, I've met Jews that I like and Jews that I don't like, Jews that are wonderful friends and Jews that I stay away from. I will admit that Jews who believe that they are the chosen ones are often arrogant and overbearing.
Three Jews in particular -- Beakerkin and my mother-in-law's long time boyfriend (Those two are secular Jews, the latter a militant atheist AND a vociferous liberal) and my friend "C" (a convert to Christianity) -- are among the kindest and most generous people I've ever known. They have helped Mr. AOW and me over some very rough patches since 2009.
I don't know if I've explained very well, but there you have it!
I appreciate your input, AOW. I'm not here either to convert anyone to my point of view or condemn them for not accepting it.
ReplyDeleteNot long ago I spent several months reading every word in the Bible aloud with a friend from beginning to end. I had never done that before.
I'm sorry, but the Old testament reads like a horror story. I believe God exists, and I believe Jesus Christ is His Son, but I could see -- with astonishing clarity during this intense perusal that the bulk of the Old Testament could not possibly have anything to do with the God, Jesus revealed Himself to be.
I see Jesus as the Divine Reformer who came to demonstrate how hopelessly wrongheaded, cruel and self-defeating the mentality propounded in the ancient Scriptures really was. He offered Himself as the alternative.
Those who accept Him, as he really is, will find inner peace and an ability to cope with the dreadful injustices of his world. Those who reject Him or merely serve a counterfeit version of Him, tend to live in bitterness, anger, resentment and outrage all their lives.
The Love of Christ was always meat to be an inner thing.
Real Christians (and there are so very few!) do not live to change the world, but to change themselves in ways that bring them continually closer to God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
~ FreeThinke
FT,
ReplyDeleteWe will not agree on all aspects of this matter. But, hey, that's no big deal -- to me, at least.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though.
Thank you, AOW.
ReplyDeleteIf people had to agree all the time in order to be friends, there wouldn't be much friendship on this old earth, would there? ;-)
I might change my mind sime day, but I doubt it.
I don't see how anyone could legitimately tell someone else what must believe.
We can force people to mouth words dictated to them at the point of a gun, but that's no way to reach their hearts. Conversions to any religion on pain of death, could never be legitimate.
That's why institutional Christianity has pretty much failed. And that's why I reject most of the Old testament, because its main thrust was to try to frighten the hell out of people in order to get them to obey their leaders, who always purported themselves to be God's Specially Chosen Surrogates on Earth.
It's too big a subject, and I am pooped, but we shall talk more about it in the near futire, I'm sure.
~ FT