The only thing I liked about the film The Godfather was the theme music. Although I read the book and have seen a very few other gangster movies, I have never understood my fellow Americans fascination - nor the British, for that matter [I was a Canadian for the first 25 years of my life] with violence for the sake of violence or "admiration" for gangsters in general. I suppose among the few things I admire about Canada - other than her scenic beauty - was the lack of a gun culture growing up. Wars are bad enough, but the shooting people for fun or profit, is beyond my ability to admire.
That neatly answers pretty much all the questions, then. You liked the music but none of the deaths. I think somewhere I wrote "so why did you bother?" and I guess the music would be the answer to that.
Let me pose you a more pointed question, then, since you're clearly not one to immerse yourself into a story and allow it to dictate your feelings. And to this question, no answer is needed, because it's not a test, it's simply a question: how would you feel if Donald Trump were to be assassinated tomorrow? Reagrdless of what your answer would be, I don't believe I'm being cynical to say that many of his opponents would be over the moon.
Or why does Mr Biden think it's okay to supply Israel with weapons that he knows will be used to kill civilians in Gaza, and yet still want to air-drop relief supplies to them? Why do some people feel bad about Gazans being killed, but others feel good that the perpetrators of October 7th are being attacked?
Whether each of these cases is "different" is irrelevant. The feel-good or feel-bad of any informational input depends on a simple release of hormones at hearing or seeing the news. And we allow that release of hormones to constitute our judgment of whether or not what caused the release is good, or bad.
The article has nothing to do with the film The Godfather.
Fair enough. Why do I bother - I assume you mean watching any shoot 'em ups. I watched the Godfather, because I was curious how the book would be handled on the screen and I admired Marlon Brando as an actor, but not as a person, How would I feel if Trump was shot tomorrow? Amazed, Americans don't shoot bad Presidents, only good ones and I'd feel relieved, the shooter probably saved our freedom.
Joe Biden is in a difficult position with Israel. We have treaty upon treaty with them. we have long been allies. On the other hand he (Biden) despises Netanyahu as much as I do. The man is trump in Jewish clothing. And Joe is a people lover (which I am not) it pains him to see the cruelty heaped upon the Palestinians in Gaza. These are a poor, down trodden, semi literate, deeply religious people. They voted for Hamas because their religious leaders told them to (Similar to trumps magats) Hamas promptly herded a lot of them into what they called "refugee" camps but in reality are concentration camps. I don't know if you heard Biden's State of the Union Address in Belgium, but we (Americans) are building a temporary pier on the Gaza coast to unload medical, food, clothing, and energy supplies for the Gazan citizens, Biden warned both Hamas and Israel NOT to interfere or steal these supplies on threat of immediate retaliation.
Iran has no more concern for the well being of Palestinians than Netanyahu does. And Iran owns Hamas. For myself, my sympathies lie with the citizens on both sides. Netanyahu will continue to kill innocent Gaza Palestinians and drag this war out as long as possible, because this is his stay out of jail free card. Hamas will continue using these poor souls as shields, and killing both Israelis and Palestinians because? that's what they were trained to do.
If I ruled the world, I would capture every Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi, tie them up in a big bow and send them to the Ayatollah in Iran with the threat to bomb Iran into oblivion if they didn't keep them there. Then I would isolate Iran, China, Hungary, Turkey, North Korea, and Russia with NO communication of any kind - diplomatic, trade, tourism, internet, radio, television . Oh, and I'd send them Netanyahu and Trump too as special presents.
It sounds as if all the world's problems could be resolved at a stroke if you were in charge, Fay.
My purpose here is not to offer a solution to the world's problems, much as you offer one. My purpose is not to question the acts or moralities of any of the people you name. If you saw my recent article on the Turkish DC-10 disaster (https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/ermenonville-4-march-1974), you'll have read that, when the aircraft decompressed, six passengers were sucked out into the void at 12,000 feet. In short, wherever a vacuum is created, someone will fill it.
Maybe I can drive my point home in the following manner, by drawing the contrast between being a passive observer of death and destruction, and being its instigator. This is taken from "A Short Book for Troubled Times" by the playwright and activist Edward Bond, whom I cite in the article https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/a-courageous-trooper-soldiering-for:
“I wonder whose feelings people are expressing when they say they wish to retain nuclear weapons. Would they go to the victims of these weapons – the innocent children and their families, all of whom would be burned – and with their own hands burn them to death with a blow torch? Would you? – all of them? If you would not yet still say you wish to retain nuclear weapons, then you are not expressing your own feelings when you say it, even though you think you are, and call your decision democratic ...
"In war, we praise an airman for burning children to death. When he comes home and kisses his own children he is praised for being a good father. But how can he then live with his own thoughts and feelings – he must deny them. But if he does that, how could he know himself? Surely his life cannot make any sense? He has lost his humanity.”
Thank you, Fay, for your thought-provoking comments.
I get your point Graham. There is no such thing as evil in the name of good. During the 'cold war' Nations around the world built up enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on this planet for the next 5 billion years. At the same time they built up such fear that young people today, even younger than you, have mental health injury because no Homo sapiens is capable of living in constant fear without damage to their psyche.
We don't need the nuclear weapons - they offer NOTHING of value. We could deconstruct them and use the radio-active elements to build modern safe nuclear fueled, but safe, energy producing power plants. We have the technology today to accomplish this. We wouldn't even need new mines, the elements are already in storage.. Tanks, planes, and battleships may be the toys the military likes to play with, nuclear armed weapon do not fit in that class.
Sorry to be back at you, Fay. Again, these are simple illustrations. Bond's examples are that nuclear weapons and carpet bombing are bad things. Bond's point is that destroying another person becomes easy if you don't actually have to face them in the eye.
In The Godfather, there is a point when Michael volunteers to settle the scores with McCluskey and Sollozzo (in the restaurant). Sonny initially dismisses the idea, even though, as a marine in the war, Michael has probably killed more men than Sonny ever did. "This ain't like in the war, soldier-boy, when you shoot them from a mile away. You have to put the muzzle right up to his head and blow his brains all over your nice silk suit."
The reason there's so much destruction in the world is because nobody needs to do it themselves.
- Take Carcassonne in France: it was besieged and attacked for 1300 years from the time of the Visigoths in 500 AD, but its city wall still stands (restored, but original enough to be a UNESCO heritage site). (In fact, Carcassonne is an ancient Gaza - its population were evicted from their enclosure wearing nothing but the shirts on their backs in the 1200s.) The ability to destroy Carcassonne just wasn't present in the weaponry they had - it would have needed fervent manual destruction (like at the mosque of Ayodyha, in India, in 1992). But, unlike in Ayodyha and Gaza, there was no "democratic" government to claim the authority of the people to destroy things on their behalf.
Or to "authorise" an invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. To channel endless arms to fight governments we don't like in Grenada, Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ukraine, the Chagos Islands. We vote for representatives, who deploy political means to achieve national interest, and then lie to us when they say the use of tax revenue to wage war is a valid use of our contribution to our own commonality. A commonality from which they cream off a large amount as their reward for serving our interests.
If people had to actually burn other people instead of being able to push a nuclear button, the only people doing any killing at all would be governments killing governments, just like gangsters mostly kill gangsters. Because you can't struggle for power with people who don't have any power, the ordinary folk. All you can do is use them as hostages, because they can vote. (Vote = legitimacy = mandate = war = attack voters to destroy legitimacy.)
And peoples take up arms to protect their governments because, well, without their governments, where would they be? Even when Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were supposed to be having some kind of cage fight to see who's top dog, Musk eventually chickened out. That fight would at least have been some kind of corporate hostile take-over worth watching. Seven rounds between Mr Putin and Mr Zelenskiy? Bring it on. In the end, it doesn't matter who rules Ukraine. And, if the many thousands who are dead there had a choice right now, this second, I think they'd go for living under Russia rather than being dead under the ground. Because the medals posthumously awarded to them impute to them the reason they died: for Ukraine's freedom. And that is not why they died, it's why they took the risk of dying.
Why they died is because someone else put them in the path of the bullet that got them.
I agree, Graham. Ever since Homo sapiens founded the first "civilization", certain "strong" men have greedily coveted what other strong men controlled. By force or con they got 'other less strong men' to kill each other until one side or the other gave in and gave up. I am using 'men' because at the time 10,000 give or take, years ago women were considered subservient chattel. I'm not suggesting that women per se are less greedy, just that we have had hisorically less opportunity. So, maybe we should just round up all strong men and kill them?
The only thing I liked about the film The Godfather was the theme music. Although I read the book and have seen a very few other gangster movies, I have never understood my fellow Americans fascination - nor the British, for that matter [I was a Canadian for the first 25 years of my life] with violence for the sake of violence or "admiration" for gangsters in general. I suppose among the few things I admire about Canada - other than her scenic beauty - was the lack of a gun culture growing up. Wars are bad enough, but the shooting people for fun or profit, is beyond my ability to admire.
That neatly answers pretty much all the questions, then. You liked the music but none of the deaths. I think somewhere I wrote "so why did you bother?" and I guess the music would be the answer to that.
Let me pose you a more pointed question, then, since you're clearly not one to immerse yourself into a story and allow it to dictate your feelings. And to this question, no answer is needed, because it's not a test, it's simply a question: how would you feel if Donald Trump were to be assassinated tomorrow? Reagrdless of what your answer would be, I don't believe I'm being cynical to say that many of his opponents would be over the moon.
Or why does Mr Biden think it's okay to supply Israel with weapons that he knows will be used to kill civilians in Gaza, and yet still want to air-drop relief supplies to them? Why do some people feel bad about Gazans being killed, but others feel good that the perpetrators of October 7th are being attacked?
Whether each of these cases is "different" is irrelevant. The feel-good or feel-bad of any informational input depends on a simple release of hormones at hearing or seeing the news. And we allow that release of hormones to constitute our judgment of whether or not what caused the release is good, or bad.
The article has nothing to do with the film The Godfather.
Fair enough. Why do I bother - I assume you mean watching any shoot 'em ups. I watched the Godfather, because I was curious how the book would be handled on the screen and I admired Marlon Brando as an actor, but not as a person, How would I feel if Trump was shot tomorrow? Amazed, Americans don't shoot bad Presidents, only good ones and I'd feel relieved, the shooter probably saved our freedom.
Joe Biden is in a difficult position with Israel. We have treaty upon treaty with them. we have long been allies. On the other hand he (Biden) despises Netanyahu as much as I do. The man is trump in Jewish clothing. And Joe is a people lover (which I am not) it pains him to see the cruelty heaped upon the Palestinians in Gaza. These are a poor, down trodden, semi literate, deeply religious people. They voted for Hamas because their religious leaders told them to (Similar to trumps magats) Hamas promptly herded a lot of them into what they called "refugee" camps but in reality are concentration camps. I don't know if you heard Biden's State of the Union Address in Belgium, but we (Americans) are building a temporary pier on the Gaza coast to unload medical, food, clothing, and energy supplies for the Gazan citizens, Biden warned both Hamas and Israel NOT to interfere or steal these supplies on threat of immediate retaliation.
Iran has no more concern for the well being of Palestinians than Netanyahu does. And Iran owns Hamas. For myself, my sympathies lie with the citizens on both sides. Netanyahu will continue to kill innocent Gaza Palestinians and drag this war out as long as possible, because this is his stay out of jail free card. Hamas will continue using these poor souls as shields, and killing both Israelis and Palestinians because? that's what they were trained to do.
If I ruled the world, I would capture every Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi, tie them up in a big bow and send them to the Ayatollah in Iran with the threat to bomb Iran into oblivion if they didn't keep them there. Then I would isolate Iran, China, Hungary, Turkey, North Korea, and Russia with NO communication of any kind - diplomatic, trade, tourism, internet, radio, television . Oh, and I'd send them Netanyahu and Trump too as special presents.
Cheers, Fay
It sounds as if all the world's problems could be resolved at a stroke if you were in charge, Fay.
My purpose here is not to offer a solution to the world's problems, much as you offer one. My purpose is not to question the acts or moralities of any of the people you name. If you saw my recent article on the Turkish DC-10 disaster (https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/ermenonville-4-march-1974), you'll have read that, when the aircraft decompressed, six passengers were sucked out into the void at 12,000 feet. In short, wherever a vacuum is created, someone will fill it.
Maybe I can drive my point home in the following manner, by drawing the contrast between being a passive observer of death and destruction, and being its instigator. This is taken from "A Short Book for Troubled Times" by the playwright and activist Edward Bond, whom I cite in the article https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/a-courageous-trooper-soldiering-for:
“I wonder whose feelings people are expressing when they say they wish to retain nuclear weapons. Would they go to the victims of these weapons – the innocent children and their families, all of whom would be burned – and with their own hands burn them to death with a blow torch? Would you? – all of them? If you would not yet still say you wish to retain nuclear weapons, then you are not expressing your own feelings when you say it, even though you think you are, and call your decision democratic ...
"In war, we praise an airman for burning children to death. When he comes home and kisses his own children he is praised for being a good father. But how can he then live with his own thoughts and feelings – he must deny them. But if he does that, how could he know himself? Surely his life cannot make any sense? He has lost his humanity.”
Thank you, Fay, for your thought-provoking comments.
I get your point Graham. There is no such thing as evil in the name of good. During the 'cold war' Nations around the world built up enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on this planet for the next 5 billion years. At the same time they built up such fear that young people today, even younger than you, have mental health injury because no Homo sapiens is capable of living in constant fear without damage to their psyche.
We don't need the nuclear weapons - they offer NOTHING of value. We could deconstruct them and use the radio-active elements to build modern safe nuclear fueled, but safe, energy producing power plants. We have the technology today to accomplish this. We wouldn't even need new mines, the elements are already in storage.. Tanks, planes, and battleships may be the toys the military likes to play with, nuclear armed weapon do not fit in that class.
Sorry to be back at you, Fay. Again, these are simple illustrations. Bond's examples are that nuclear weapons and carpet bombing are bad things. Bond's point is that destroying another person becomes easy if you don't actually have to face them in the eye.
In The Godfather, there is a point when Michael volunteers to settle the scores with McCluskey and Sollozzo (in the restaurant). Sonny initially dismisses the idea, even though, as a marine in the war, Michael has probably killed more men than Sonny ever did. "This ain't like in the war, soldier-boy, when you shoot them from a mile away. You have to put the muzzle right up to his head and blow his brains all over your nice silk suit."
The reason there's so much destruction in the world is because nobody needs to do it themselves.
- Take Carcassonne in France: it was besieged and attacked for 1300 years from the time of the Visigoths in 500 AD, but its city wall still stands (restored, but original enough to be a UNESCO heritage site). (In fact, Carcassonne is an ancient Gaza - its population were evicted from their enclosure wearing nothing but the shirts on their backs in the 1200s.) The ability to destroy Carcassonne just wasn't present in the weaponry they had - it would have needed fervent manual destruction (like at the mosque of Ayodyha, in India, in 1992). But, unlike in Ayodyha and Gaza, there was no "democratic" government to claim the authority of the people to destroy things on their behalf.
Or to "authorise" an invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. To channel endless arms to fight governments we don't like in Grenada, Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ukraine, the Chagos Islands. We vote for representatives, who deploy political means to achieve national interest, and then lie to us when they say the use of tax revenue to wage war is a valid use of our contribution to our own commonality. A commonality from which they cream off a large amount as their reward for serving our interests.
If people had to actually burn other people instead of being able to push a nuclear button, the only people doing any killing at all would be governments killing governments, just like gangsters mostly kill gangsters. Because you can't struggle for power with people who don't have any power, the ordinary folk. All you can do is use them as hostages, because they can vote. (Vote = legitimacy = mandate = war = attack voters to destroy legitimacy.)
And peoples take up arms to protect their governments because, well, without their governments, where would they be? Even when Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were supposed to be having some kind of cage fight to see who's top dog, Musk eventually chickened out. That fight would at least have been some kind of corporate hostile take-over worth watching. Seven rounds between Mr Putin and Mr Zelenskiy? Bring it on. In the end, it doesn't matter who rules Ukraine. And, if the many thousands who are dead there had a choice right now, this second, I think they'd go for living under Russia rather than being dead under the ground. Because the medals posthumously awarded to them impute to them the reason they died: for Ukraine's freedom. And that is not why they died, it's why they took the risk of dying.
Why they died is because someone else put them in the path of the bullet that got them.
I agree, Graham. Ever since Homo sapiens founded the first "civilization", certain "strong" men have greedily coveted what other strong men controlled. By force or con they got 'other less strong men' to kill each other until one side or the other gave in and gave up. I am using 'men' because at the time 10,000 give or take, years ago women were considered subservient chattel. I'm not suggesting that women per se are less greedy, just that we have had hisorically less opportunity. So, maybe we should just round up all strong men and kill them?