Women on TV cheat on their husbands because that is the propaganda which is used to destroy strong families. Turn off the propaganda machine TV. Talmudvision has destroyed America.
My sympathies and good wishes to Lisa Jones. As a human being I am not perfect, but looking at your profile pic, I can't help but point out the poisons you conveyed on this blog. Generalizing us Millennials as "squeaky Kim Kardashians", using slander such as "douchebag", etc. As one who has taken Refuge with the Three Gems, I can only share my knowledge of the Dharma with you, and maintain that I, as a human being, remain far from Enlightenment. But don't your words and responses come off as complacent, ignorant, hostile, and shallow? Recall the Three Poisons: ignorance, hostility, and attachment. Through your strong, somewhat acidic comments, I detected ignorance and hostility. Now if the Lotus Master( think that's who it is) profile pic of yours carries any personal meaning for you.......I think I've said what needs to be said. But it would be nice to know exactly what WAS your motive for such a profile pic choice.
Now for the others, I presume, from the Boomer generation on this blog, I have something to add. Assuming Lisa is a Boomer, possibly explains her choice of profile pic, then it would make more logical sense that, that generations economic and political decisions reflect the Counterculture ideologies they were known for. Peace, civil liberty, anti poverty, and human rights were values I took from the history book chapters of the period( not to mention the Aggie bookstore sold those books for rock-bottom clearance prices, pun intended). Why have the generation dominated by Boomers been the decades we saw widening wealth gaps, more profound foreign military operations (aka wars), and a war on the working poor fueled by corporate greed and outsourcing?
Historically speaking, it seems more to me that Boomers utilized the ideologies of the Silent Generation and the oppressed to justify their unwillingness to go to war, or to adhere to the Greatest Generation's values of serving your country and working for it. We know that's what the Counterculture was all about: not wanting to go to war or do what Mom and dad did. The only difference was the Boomers still had a robust, unionized economy to return to once they "got it together". Education was tremendously cheaper. One summer working part time can pay for a year of college. In contrast, I noticed many of my friends who volunteered to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, joined ROTC, and the rest of us who did not engage in sexual debauchery or over experimentation of drugs. Working a year part time on multiple jobs can barely pay for one semester. Veterans get beaten by police for protesting poor civilian job prospects. Whether we find meaningful employment that pays the bills and feeds our bellies remains to be seen. In the end, both of our cohorts seemed raised with values and a sense of duty. The only difference is the former had something to fall back to, but we, the latter don't because it was slowly dismantled by the former over the course of three decades.
So I want to ask Boomers: why did you adopt progressive ideologies and mystic eastern traditions? Was it because you actually believed in those values or life was too good back then to assume any social responsibilities?
Jorge luis borges was an Argentinian,who spoke spanish.I take it you have been embarrased,at many a party.
Did you know that condoms ARE NOT 100% sure? There isn't any protection that is 100% sure. Whenever you have sex, no matter if you use protection, you have a chance to get pregnant. Protection CAN FAIL.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that people are beginning to study the effects of it on our sex lives. which is committed to abstaining from porn and masturbation,has helped researchers open the door to a better understanding of the effects of pornography on our lives.
The film is weighed down by it's own pathos and sense of 'great story telling'. I live in London and have kind of watched Steve Mcqueen's career grow. I thought Hunger was a good film about the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands, but that guy was a terrorist?? Should we therefore have told a story to 'glorify' the London 7/7 bombersif any of those idiots had survived?????
Anyway, I digress from the subject of 12 Year's.....i'm not sure whether I saw such a 'great' movie either. At best, I would say it's a fair enough film, but to give it Oscar category plaudits is surely way off the mark. It reminds me of the hyperbole concerning that other truly awful film made by another extremely average film maker, Danny Boyle,....yes that total load of nonsense Slumdog Millionaire.
It is plainly obvious that there is a pervading agenda which the Hollywood fraternity are trying to follow, by allowing middle of the road directors who choose to make films which have a 'racial' slant which will thus attract sympathetic reviews and garner large audience figures because the story portrayed tugs at our heart strings and emotions. This film was NOT about slavery, but more about a free man being robbed of his freedom. In a sense Northrup's experience is almost 'sanitized' by Mcqueen, because he does NOT deserve to be where he is. What a major flaw that is!!!!!!????? I mean ALL of the people who were enslaved didn't deserve to be there either! That is why this film fails.....it tugs at our heart strings, attempts us to feel guilty, without any real thought going into the whole aspect of what Slavery entailed....so this is an Oscar charade...all smoke and mirrors......As one reviewer correctly asserts, women being torn of their children
A deeply flawed film which almost suggests that Mcqueen tried to make the film before he even read the book.
One to put in the 'not so good..... over hyped film' collection.
I love Woody Allen, and at the same time, I can believe that he is out of his mind, and a perv...the source I base that negative on in the memoir from the '90's by their kids' nanny, called 'Mia and Woody' (sorry, it might be 'Woody and Mia', and I can't recall the author's name, but it was really convincing in terms of reporting the alleged abuse, at close range)...my other source is the photo that is at the top of the article here, and EVERY photo I've ever seen of Woody with baby Dylan, or even "growing-up" Dylan: she is ALWAYS miserable, crying or about to cry, at the very least visibly unhappy. There has to be a reason for that, don't you think?
I've hated this commercial since it first aired. Makes us women seem so childish and trivial.
People are beginning to study the effects of it on our sex lives, which is committed to
abstaining from porn and masturbation,has helped researchers open the door to a better understanding of the effects of pornography on our lives.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Your words saved me this summer!
You're a nut bag
you speak the truth
What's particularly hilarious about this article here in L is that Henry Stewart, who penned this uninformed, cherry-picking tripe, is that he was pre-pubescent when this story first was aired back in the early '90's. And to 20-somethings like Henry, this story is breaking news and is his first introduction to what happened a couple of decades ago between Mia and Woody, when they messily broke up. But, as a journalist, that's why doing research is crucial - or it just becomes lazy and masturbatory and inebriated.
But that may be a fault of this mile-a-minute pace of Internet gossip - people are constantly talking about things they know nothing about.
So many things you said hit home. Hope to see more of your thoughts.
Complicated, isn't it?
Very sad to see my absolute favorite part of The L coming to an end! Your column was consistently a great read, incredibly well-written, and oftentimes a huge turn on!
Nice farewell Lacy! It seems you've grown a lot! I particularly liked the 3rd to last section. :)
great stuff Lacy. can't wait to see what you present to our world next
I've really enjoyed reading your column - it's how I discovered L Magazine in the first place. Thanks for the insight, and I hope to see more of your stuff again soon!
Thanks for this excellent piece, Henry. I think you are exactly right about this. If Dylan endured what she says she did, it was a horrible thing, she deserves all our sympathy, and Allan Stewart Konigsberg should never have gotten away with it. But we don't know for sure what happened. As you point out, there never was a trial (though it sounds like there should have been), so only a handful of people who were intimately involved with the situation know enough about what happened to act as judge and jury.
More to the point: if we made it a policy to look at/read/watch only works created by artists whose lives we deem virtuous, we'd have to ban many of the best works of art ever made, not to mention a whole lot of perfectly good or entertaining stuff. So who would that hurt? Mainly us, the audience deprived of that art.
If we imposed such a ban while the artist was still working, it would also hurt the artist, depriving him or her of an audience and an income. But is that really how we want to punish people who have broken our moral code? Aren't we supposed to be a nation of laws, where people are tried in a court of law and punished with things like fines or jail time or community service or probation? Where is it written that someone who breaks the law should lose the right to pursue his or her career?
Besides, who are we to judge our fellow flawed human beings? Okay, I'm no longer talking about this particular case now, since I think almost everyone would agree that sexual molesting a seven-year-old is heinous. But think about some of the things artists have had to hide about themselves in the past in order to be accepted by the mainstream, like being gay. Who's to say that some of the things we would vilify people for now won't look as arbitrary and unjust in a generation or two?
I think any movie or other work of art has to stand on its own, judged for what it is, not for the private life/lives of the person or people who made it.
I think where it gets more complicated than that is that we tend to think we "know" or "love" the people who make art we respond to. But, as you say, that's an illusion. Woody Allen is no more a real person than the little tramp persona created by Charlie Chaplin -- who, by the way, got Lita Grey pregnant when she was just 15 and married an 18-year-old Oona when he was 54.
© 2014 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation