Other weird and random thoughts:
Saw the latest version of "Jane Eyre" with Mrs. Bulba last weekend. Probably the most faithful to the Bronte story and certainly the most realistic in terms of light and setting but it's still Jane Eyre and was overwrought when it was written and simply turgid by today's standards. Also, English chicks need a lot of makeup and the stuff is wholly missing in this film, with the obvious horrific results. Lots of cruelty aimed toward young Jane and I've figured out that women like seeing that mean stuff--it bothers me to see it depicted but I've observed that it really doesn't bother females--they sort of like it. Mars and Venus.
There are a pair of screech owls nesting in the owl box we put up in an oak tree in our backyard, with its opening facing our kitchen's bay window. The female stares at me a lot when I'm sitting at the table, with that owl look of examination and focus, no doubt settling on the exact spot to pierce the soft underbelly once I keel over while moving some pot or other large object that Mrs Bulba thinks should be somewhere else. Like Jane Eyre, nature is also very cruel.
While Betty is fine, I still think that Veronica is really hot. Also, I've noticed that Wendy has been tarted up in the Wendy's commercials I've seen over the past few years. She definitely has that knowing look that just wasn't there when the old man was still alive. I predict cleavage for her in the next series of commercials and maybe a tie in with Sketchers.
2 comments:
Andrew Roberts, of the Wall Street Journal, gives us the "National Enquirer" version of Ghandi's idiosyncracies, as Roberts supposedly found them in Joseph Lelyveld's book about Ghandi.
There is no indication that Roberts even read the book, yet his review treats as gospel all of the salacious innuendo Roberts supposedly found there.
Once Rupert Murdoch gets control of a news outlet, one must expect news from the gutter.
"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft' interred with their bones." JULIUS CAESAR, ACT II. So let it be with Ghandi.
But, no amount of retrospective character assassination, apparently in vogue for some time now, and certainly in vogue with Murdoch's rags, will detract from the good which Ghandi was able to accomplish in one short lifetime.
[The Brittish Raj lasted over 250 years].
Never mind that it took him 30 years to achieve Indian independence. Never mind that he called a kaffir a kaffir. Never mind that he liked to 'hootchie coo' with young girls, even those distantly related to him. Never mind that he was a tyrant in his own household. Never mind that he had to make bargains with 'the devil' [Muslims] in order to get the big task accomplished. Never mind that Ghandi was able to express 'love' for another man; Christ did this to, with no whispers or murmurs of homosexuality. In our age, love can only be accessed via sex, I suppose.
None of these shortcomings, even if they are true, will so much as tarnish the left big toe of Ghandi, as far as posterity is concerned. Just ask any of the 2.5 billion people in India.
Our job is to read Lelyveld's book, and arrive at our own conclusions.
You lose credibility when you toss in the "National Enquirer" and "Murdoch's rags" mentions. I think you've succeeded at making Roberts' argument for him.
Post a Comment