Land of the Blind...The story of a revolution

Having watched the movie "Land of the Blind,” I came away with the following:

The year sometime after John Lennon and yet actual time is unknown.  As they mentioned John Lennon, he would have had to be known to be mentioned.  Despite this, time is clearly unknown as there is conflict based on clothes, cars, architecture, and technology.

Location of the palace looks like it is in Russia as the exterior possesses the architecture of onion domes.  However, within the walls, one can clearly see pre-revolutionary France.  The movie reflects France, Russia, China, and Islam in the clothes in and out of time lines and clothes lines.  Also, there are also touches Spain, Cuba, Germany, and Italy, but the actual location could be all or none.

Media under the president is skewed at intertwining of news with commercialism.  An example is a report of prisoner Thorne having written on his prison wall in excrement.  The interjection of  X cleaning product being used to clean such is as much a part of the news as it is a commercial in the news.  After the murder of the president in his pink plastic diaper and his wife in her green latex sex suit, the glam was over and the state became like that of Islam or China under Thorne’s revolution.  Commercialism was no longer interjected in the media nor were there airs of silly mindlessness.  Instead, the media was gravely serious.

Contrast between the president and Thorne is not only evident in their style of dictatorship (glam versus Islam (but not Islam) as one could easily think of Mao’s China or xtian extremism), it is evident in their stature and mind set.  The president was a little man in stature who inherited his power from daddy.  Although a man in power should be taken seriously, the president/actor/film maker made himself larger than life with his clothes and dialogue, i.e., material excess and the use of the “royal we” as if he were Louis XVI and his actress wife were Marie Antoinette.  How could such a man be taken seriously?  He was truly a little man in every sense of the word as he sought thoughts from others and punished them if his action, based on their thought, was negative or if he did not like their answer.  Thorne, on the other hand, was a large man in stature and a well-educated writer.  Having thoughts of his own, he did not ask others to think for him, but he did punish those who did not agree with his doctrine by eliminating or reeducating them in an Orwellian type of system.  Thorne did not take the glam road, but his road was just as ruthless and just as much tyrannical as the president that he killed.

Back to the drawing board...Thorne was killed by his burka clad mistress who, upon killing him, removed the garment and freed herself.  As the president had a nephew living in exile, he returned to his homeland and came to power much like that of a monarch in succession.

Joe, yes I just now mention him, found himself in an awkward position of being imprisoned for not signing the “loyalty oath” with Thorne.  Although Joe helped Thorne by allowing him access to kill the president, that was not good enough and for this he paid with years of his life in prison. After Thorne’s murder and the return to the former government, Joe was still in a predicament as he was the one who allowed for the murder of the president.  Where is Joe?  Did he get out of the camp?  One has to wonder as he appears at a diner.  A waitress, who looks like his daughter, notices that he bears the mark of the “camp” on his wrist.  His dialogue with her was reminiscent of the camp, “Nothing is better than a big juicy steak.”  Either through memory or reality, Joe is seen in the prison yet again.  Despite the dilapidated interior and exterior of the prison, his typing in a stark white cell on a stark white typewriter with stark white accessories leads me to believe that he was a prisoner of his own mind.  There are breaks where he is seen walking through the prison which seems abandoned and falling to pieces.  This brings to mind Thorne's words of Rudolf Hess being the only prisoner at Spandau Prison.  In this starkness, Joe's daughter appears and has a dialogue with him to which he does not respond.  However, at supposed chow time, Joe responds to the guard with the same words that he heard from Thorne when Thorne was a prisoner, “This used to be a hospital you know.  This prison used to be a hospital.”  Is there a CURE for such a loop? ~ Arachne ~ 10/29/12 in the p.m. EST

Argument with an idiot...

HER: I am used to debating, I was on the debate team in my high school. That was not debating. I thought I was going to have an intellectual conversation about something, but all I got was suckered into into a fight. You asked the question, I answered, then it was a feast on me. At first, you both talked about my comment like I wasn't even there.

ME: I knew you were there, but I only posted the following before you and Michael had words. Therefore, I did not talk about your comment like were you weren’t there as I was not there after posting my two initial comments to you which are as follows:

My initial answer to you was “What makes a god or gods come into existence? Our minds? I see no rational thought to there being a god or gods.” I asked two questions and inserted my personal opinion and nothing more. If you will look, I did not call you irrational. The other post I made came immediately after the last and was taken from the very article you liked. This is the post that I made:


Andrew Pinsent is research director at the University of Oxford's Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion. He is also a trained physicist who once worked at Cern.

“We have to educate one another in the terms that we use,” he says.

For example, he explains, “philosophers have been discussing the meaning of [the word] truth for centuries”.

But for many physicists, it is uncomfortable territory to use that word when talking about what we know about the Universe and the Big Bang.

Prof Krauss says that the word is at the heart of “one of the fundamental differences between science and religion”.

“People who are religious believe they know the truth,” he says.

“And they know the answer before even asking the question. Whereas, with scientists, it’s the exact opposite”.

"In science, although we use the word truth, what really matters is if it works”.


HER: You implied that I am irrational. Then your friend went on saying I didn't bring any scientific evidence to the table, when I certainly did. I merely took scientific evidence, and inferred what it's implications may be. Isn't that what every scientist does? Excuse me that my evidence was a video and not a scholarly article.

ME: While you and my friend were arguing, I was not there as I was on the phone with my partner. When I came back, I noticed how things had exploded. Upon my return, I reiterated my first statement and advised you that I was not pagan. After that, you were gone and the friendly argument continued with Michael, Eric, and I.

HER: Had either of you watched it, you would have learned something about how the brain works, and how people tend to hold on to their beliefs, and get defensive as well.. and yes I did. I get defensive when I feel science confirms my beliefs more than it disproves them.

ME: I not only watched the video before you, I initially posted it on my wall and you shared it. The video came to me through a thread I participated in TED: Ideas worth spreading -Unofficial Group as posted in Linkedin. The thread was called “Why is "God"? What purpose would there be for a "God" in what appears to be a functioning natural system?” Apparently, you and I walked away with different views. In order for me to get my degree in psychology, I had to know how the brain works. If you will reference the 3:00 minute mark within the video, you will see how you were reacting on a primitive level to protect your thoughts. When looking at thoughts, one could think up unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, but it does not make them real without empirical evidence. Beliefs are not observable nor can they qualify as truths to anyone other than believer. Therefore, when making a claim such as that “...there must be a god, and probably an infinite number of gods...” evidence is required. Thus far, NO god has been proven to exist save for in the minds of indoctrinated believers.

HER: Had it been a real debate, and you acknowledged my presence instead of just saying "nothing Vickie said was rational" and instead asked me to elaborate more, I could have commented on the actions of cell replication, and evolution, and how I believe the science in these processes confirms my beliefs as well.

ME: Vickie, as I have looked over and saved the entirety of the dialogue, and I do have my remembrance of that day, I did not acknowledge your presence because I was not present to do so. Nowhere in the dialogue did I say: “nothing Vickie said was rational.” Therefore, your quote is libelous in that it is a defamation of my character. Trust me, IF (As “if” is used, it is used strictly in the hypothetical position of introducing a conditional clause.) I WANTED TO BE (As “wanted to be” is past tense, the strictly hypothetical argument is just that: strictly hypothetical in the past tense.) insulting, I COULD (As “could” is used, it is used strictly in the hypothetical as it did not occur. Could is past tense of can.) have said that such a belief is “jackass retarded.” I have often said to my mother and my daughter that their belief system in god is jackass retarded. This proves my point that I can be very rude and insulting. Regardless of what was and what is, science will never confirm your belief in god or other’s beliefs in unicorns.

HER: Had it been a debate, you and your friend would have presented a counter argument instead of just telling me I said nothing rational. I'm no dummy for you and your friends to pick apart, and I was made to feel that way on your wall. I am a very educated individual from population genetics to quantum physics. It was all very rude what happened and my only regret is that I didn't delete and block you on this page also. This way you couldn't have made yourself feel better in your attempt to apologize.

ME: Vickie, your only argument was with Michael. It was he that you were arguing with and not I. However, I see that you do not see yourself in your own actions nor do you take into account what really happened. I see you exhibiting infantile behavior and a lack of self-esteem, but that is strictly MY opinion which does NOT make it a fact.

Please do delete me as I am better suited to those who can debate without crying. As my self-esteem is kick ass, I did not write to you to make myself feel better.

HER: Thanks for your apology.... however apologies don't really mean anything when you try to claim you were justified at the same time.

ME: At this point, I will treat you as I treat my daughter when she pulls such shit: I don’t give a flying fuck nor a rat’s ass. How does that fit? You lost your cool and went ape-shit in a discussion because myself (in my first two comments) and Michael (in all other comments), did not buy into your belief system. Unless you can prove god exists, I suggest you stick with your own god believing people or be prepared to argue your point without popping a nut. You did nothing for your credibility.

HER: You will not see me at Brushwood, as I don't see myself ever going there ever again. I got myself too involved the year before and I finally saw the place for what it really is, and it is no longer for me. I don't subscribe to gossip, but much of that gossip which has been forced upon me has made me feel unsafe there, and unwelcome. Brushwood does not deserve my energy.

ME: Who the fuck should care about gossip and what others think? A strong person can overcome such and will not buckle.

HER: Good luck believing in just yourself, for you are a small and insignificant speck of on a ball of dust hurtling though space in your empty existence. I too, believe in myself, but I believe I am connected to something much, much greater than this planet, or this universe. This gives me strength to withstand people like you, and without it I would have left this plane of existence long ago. So, I apologize for getting so defensive. However, it is an action of the left hemisphere of my brain I cannot control.

ME: I don’t need luck and people like me are fucking awesome! As only the good die young, my attempted suicides just made me stronger to last even longer. By the way, you did not withstand; you buckled.

Adios

Non-voter to Registered Voter...

The following is my debate in a thread about voting.  Although I thought I would never vote, I felt it necessary to get off my duff and register.  Granted, the changes that I demanded were not met, but in good conscious, I could not let go of my vote.  I am now a registered Democrat and I am voting for Obama.  Indeed there are two sides to a coin and they are connected by the middle, therefore, a conscious choice to choose the lesser evil was made.  Perhaps at some point, the system will either get repaired or there will be an evolution revolution.  Time will tell.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The day I cast my first vote, the following changes will be made to the system: I would vote providing the system were changed to eliminate corporate lobbyists, corporate campaign donations, corporate campaign funding, the electoral college, smear campaigns, vague answers to important issues, grand conventions, propaganda techniques, corporations as persons, religious reference from money, law, and schools, et al.

The day I cast my first vote, the following changes will be made to the system: I would vote providing the system included, equal access to promote the candidate's position in a neutral media zone, a clear and concise plan for their time in office, clear answers to public debate questions without going off topic, runs only on merit not money, more than a two party system, public education on how government works and what each party stands for, transparency, local/city/state representatives must have an agreement from all those they represent before making, breaking, or modifying a policy or policies, et al.

I refuse to vote in a broken system. 

NOTE:  Religion should not play a role in politics PERIOD.

Thank you E. Even if I were to push my thoughts forward, how many people would agree with what I propose? How can my vote matter when the electoral college makes concessions for only a certain number of votes? New York, for example, has 29 electoral votes. At present, the state is strongly Obama. Does my vote really count if the actual number of voters are not taken into consideration? I think the system is crooked to the core. If I am waiting on a fairy tale, which I happen to agree with you, then my vote will never be counted. In good conscious, I cannot vote in this system.

I have broken my own rule and will vote for OBAMA! This will be the first time in my life that I have ever voted for a politician. I hope to hell Obama wins!

Edit: I would like to thank all you conservatives, especially Hardick and Burke, for making me see the light. However, I also saw the light in Obama himself as he addressed the nation in his second debate with Romney.

I would like to thank all of you as well as President Obama. It feels odd to be a first time registered voter who registered as a Democrat. However, I cannot, in good conscious, stay silent with Romney running as an opponent. Yes, I would prefer four more years of Obama.

Despite my breaking my own rule about voting, I still would like to see that which I noted earlier in this thread come to be. Change is required. Peace to you all and to all a good night.  ~ Arachne ~ Friday, October 19, 2012 in the p.m. EST