Oliver Stone

Paul Mackin mackin.paul at verizon.net
Wed Jan 16 11:18:53 CST 2013


On 1/16/2013 8:34 AM, Henry M wrote:
> Paul, family is just the most extreme example.  If I esteem my country 
> over a country that appears to be threatening it, perhaps one that is 
> ruled by a dictator that tortures large numbers of people, what would 
> the appropriate be then?

I understand what you are saying.
> And why hesistantly, all of a sudden, now?

My new year's resolution.

P


> Yours truly,
> ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
> Henry Musikar, CISSP
> http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net 
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 1/16/2013 6:49 AM, Henry M wrote:
>>     I'm just being honest and forthright.  Let's throw innocence to
>>     the side for the moment, as it is a practically meaningless, and
>>     ask if you would be willing to ensure the death of two people
>>     holding your child hostage in order to ensure the safety of your
>>     child?  Where is your moral compass now?
>
>     Yeah, I suppose Henry is right enough on his own terms, but the
>     example is quite hypothetical and unrealistic.  It'd be a colossal
>     conflict of interest to have the person whose loved ones are
>     directly in the line of fire
>     making the necessary geopolitical decision as to who's going to
>     get killed.
>
>     In response to Rich, I'd agree that yes once Slothrop got more or
>     less written out of the script things went down hill.  (there were
>     still a few great moments) Unfortunately-- or more likely
>     fortunately-- neither the p-list nor P himself is going to be
>     consulted on wartime decisions.
>
>     Hesitantly,
>
>     P
>
>
>>
>>
>>     Yours truly,
>>     ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
>>     Henry Musikar, CISSP
>>     http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:31 PM, <malignd at aol.com
>>     <mailto:malignd at aol.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         "Some number"?  What might that "some" be?  Tens of thousands
>>         in order to save your nephew?  Do you have a moral compass?
>>
>>
>>         -----Original Message-----
>>         From: Henry M <scuffling at gmail.com <mailto:scuffling at gmail.com>>
>>         To: Pynchon Liste <pynchon-l at waste.org
>>         <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>>
>>         Sent: Tue, Jan 15, 2013 1:09 pm
>>         Subject: Re: Oliver Stone (was:Pauper and Sweatshop Fallacies)
>>
>>         In an us vs. them world, x should not be the number of lives
>>         saved or lost by an act, but how many more of their lives are
>>         "we" ready to terminate in order lower, or end, "our"
>>         losses.  It may sound harsh, but I'm comfortable with some
>>         number of innocent people dying (as long as I don't know them
>>         or see them die) in order to save the life of someone in my
>>         family; fewer people to save a bff; still fewer people to
>>         save someone I grew up with; even fewer to save someone I
>>         don't know at all but with whom I share something more than
>>         being human.
>>
>>         Yours truly,
>>         ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
>>         Henry Musikar, CISSP
>>         http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
>>
>>
>>         On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com
>>         <mailto:kelber at mindspring.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             Alice said:
>>
>>             [insert your choice here, but please no Howard Zinn or Oliver
>>             Stone ;-)]?
>>
>>
>>             Oh, Alice, Alice, you brought it upon yourself!  I was
>>             looking for some gratuitous opening to bring up Oliver
>>             Stone's new series:The Untold History of the United
>>             States, and you supplied it.  Now before you start
>>             beating on me, I'll say that it's a pretty flawed
>>             documentary.  One device he uses that's both dishonest
>>             and annoying is to have actors recite quotes from various
>>             personages, making it seem as if we're listening to a
>>             historic oration, rather than a reenacted reading of
>>             someone else's written or spoken words.  He's weak on
>>             attributing sources, uses way too much Hollywood footage
>>             to make rhetorical points (as opposed to using it to show
>>             the mentality of the particular time), and gets
>>             over-zealous in praising various personages (as various
>>             as Henry Wallace and Stalin), to the point where the
>>             so-called documentary devolves to overt propaganda of
>>             Fox-level intensity.  The worst part of this is that, in
>>             doing so, he drives away mainstream viewers who could
>>             actually be enlightened by some of the things he has to say.
>>
>>             But he still makes some good points, and asks questions
>>             that are rarely if ever asked on such a mainstream venue
>>             as Showtime.  In last week's episode, by way of
>>             discussing Bushes senior and junior, he brought up the
>>             shameful history of Prescott Bush and other American
>>             industrialists who supported the Nazi regime (something
>>             that we discuss all the time here, by way of GR).
>>
>>             I particularly liked the episode that covered Hiroshima
>>             and Nagasaki, wherein he tackled the standard orthodoxy:
>>              By dropping the bomb, we saved x number of lives.  This
>>             passionately defended point has been the endless fodder
>>             for Thanksgiving dinner fights with in-laws, etc., with
>>             countless (always male)defenders shrieking variations of
>>             (naively confident that no one will make the obvious,
>>             hostile rejoinder): "Hey my [father, grandfather] was
>>             stationed in the Pacific.  If we hadn't dropped the bomb
>>             [incinerated small children], he would have had to invade
>>             Japan, and I would never have been born!"
>>
>>             The Stone episode brings up some convincing evidence that
>>             Japan, afraid of an impending invasion by the Soviet
>>             army, was ready to capitulate, but Truman stalled any
>>             negotiations, and convinced the Soviets not to invade, so
>>             the "tests" could be run.  Stone also provides a nice
>>             montage showing how the variable x in "we saved x number
>>             of lives" increased steadily over time.  I suspect there
>>             are plenty on this list who are devoted to the
>>             bomb-saved-lives orthodoxy.  I'm glad Stone questions it,
>>             if only on subscriber cable TV.
>>
>>             Laura
>>
>>
>>             -----Original Message-----
>>             >From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com
>>             <mailto:alicewellintown at gmail.com>>
>>             >Sent: Jan 14, 2013 5:49 AM
>>             >To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org
>>             <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>>
>>             >Subject: Re: Pauper and Sweatshop Fallacies
>>             >
>>             >Why would I deny it? Why would anyone who knows a bit of
>>             history, who
>>             >reads the newspapers, who has read One Hundred Years of
>>             Solitude,
>>             >M&D...any decent narrative about colonialism,
>>             orientalism, a but of
>>             >Said or [insert your choice here, but please no Howard
>>             Zinn or Oliver
>>             >Stone ;-)]?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130116/3cf82baa/attachment.html>


More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list