Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (63160)	12/7/1999 12:11:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

If this were true how would you explain the reports of abuse toward alterboys etc. At least some of these must be true.

To: Neocon who wrote (63160)	12/7/1999 1:14:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I do not exactly think Gibson's depiction of war had much to do with any of this, at least not as cognitively expressed as you have put it. I saw no philosophical thought toward the wholeness of the cosmic order with war as a way to right cosmic imbalance. In fact Gibson's depiction showed war as a justifiable means to redress grievances. I suppose one might refer to this as "rebalancing the cosmic order," but of course we lose the dichotomy you have tried to establish. I think not hardly. Gibson merely tapped into a nearly archetypal sense of honour and our need to defend it. Surely he was influenced by his faith (but not enough to proscribe his depiction and even glorification of fornication), but I think non Roman Catholics have identified with this since the beginning, particularly since the Reformation. Indeed Protestant Americans, the children of such non-Roman Catholics as the Founding Fathers, Robert E. Lee and even Abraham Lincoln can identify with it perhaps as much as any other people. The difference between Spielberg's and Gibson's depictions of war perhaps do lie in their willingness to be influenced by faith, but I think there is a fairly simple matter involved here also. It was perhaps in his portrayal of Longshanks that Gibson helped us understand how justifiable war was in the case of his Scots. He put us in Longshank's world, and hated him. With Spielberg, the Germans are hardly shown for what they were (and folk needed to be shown), and so his blood and gore seemed manipulative. Yes. I have read Hopkins, and yet while I agree God's glory fills the world, I think Hopkins merely rejoices in the fact. Unfortunately rejoicing does not necessarily equate to effective support. You know where I stand here (grin). Now on this matter of atheists and poetry. I suppose you are correct, though I would sooner turn to Hopkins than Stevens for joy. I would sooner turn to Bach than Satie, though Satie is quite good. You may have a point on the Zionists, Neo, though it is clear to me that religious Zionists referred expressly to the aforementioned history and culture for imagination and justification. (Gotta run. Getting distracted here. But as always, it has been quite a pleasure.)