Do you ever just stop and think about how basically every superhero's powers are essentially just somebody misremembering a very specific detail out of a high-school science class? Aside from the magic people like Dr. Strange I suppose. That becomes increasingly concerning the more you learn about the actual science, however. Take Wolverine for instance. Somebody remembered "oh, genetic mutation... what if someone had a mutation that let their body regrow cells really really fast? Wouldn't that be cool?" The issue there, of course, is that if someone had that genetic mutation they would constantly dealing with extremely rapid-growth tumorous masses. Wolverine would just be a literal sack of cancer.
---
I'm done engaging with people that support the Republican party. At this point they've pretty much all marked themselves as unrepentant sociopaths anyhow, and I'm over trying to fix their stupid psychological issues. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people having different opinions than me. Even as regards to what I consider moral truths. But you lose me when you start acting like you're going to force me to comply with your opinion, regardless of what I think.
You can take all the time you want to try and convince me that black licorice tastes good. You won't, because I'm not you, but go right ahead and try as hard as you'd like for as long as you'd like. Run ad campaigns. Commission a study. Whatever. But if you try to force-feed me black licorice because you refuse to accept I don't like the stuff, you'll probably wind up with a broken nose.
Yes, this is about Roe v. Wade and that drama. You can come whine at me when Democrats force you to abort a baby. Until then, I'm not interested.
---
"Sack of Cancer" would be a good band name.
It's also a reasonably fair figurative summary of a lot of prominent Republicans.
---
When was the last time you went back and read something by William Shakespeare? Or watched a production of one of his plays? West Side Story cribs a lot of plot points, but I don't think that counts. It was I think just over a year ago for me, I watched a TV production of Macbeth starring Patrick Stewart on PBS's Great Performances. The setting was starkly different than what Shakespeare wrote, but the dialogue and characters were the bard's. They didn't even change references to swords and horses to guns and tanks even if that would have made more sense with the setting alteration. So I feel pretty comfortable saying that was essentially a production of the original Macbeth.
.jpg)
And what strikes me as I've watched over the past few years is just how accurate some of Shakespeare's stuff really was. I've heard it said that the one thing that makes Shakespeare persist, that makes his work continue to be relevant, is that he truly understood human nature and he showed that nature so clearly on the stage. And I've come to agree quite strongly with that assessment. Did Shakespeare know his tragedy about power corrupting the heart of a Scottish lord would someday predict the whims and behavior of a Russian Oligarch? Probably not. But I guess it's an indicator of how little human nature has changed over the past few hundred years that there are, just... so many parallels.
Comments
Post a Comment