Lieslmcq - All Comments

Re: Wrong, just wrong

Liesl — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:03:07 GMT

No! It doesn't!

Re: So long

Vicki — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:03:03 GMT

This is so sad. I read this when you first posted it, but I could not bring myself to write about it. The Galveston you remember was rebuilt from a previous hurricane that devastated the city and killed 8000 -- yes, 8000 -- people. They rebuilt once and did a magnificent job! I don't know how long it took, but you know New Orleans still has far to go. November might be a bit soon, but maybe you will see a city at work rebuilding. I hope so.

Re: Wrong, just wrong

Vicki — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:32:51 GMT

It doesn't even sound tasty.

Re: Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to die on it

bonniethesurvivor — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:42:28 GMT

Sorry again, but to try to be more clear, that example was not very good. Forget the disability. If all PEOPLE became worms, worms would be the metaphor, and we would then associate the people with worms. This is a negtive image, which carries connotations. By using blindness, the movie further advances society's view that blindness is a problem. The metaphor becomes more than a metaphor, it becomes an image. I am not sure that I HAVE made my POV more clear here, it being late at night, but I feel strongly about this, much as I respect Leisl's well stated presmise. bonnie

Re: Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to die on it

bonniethesurvivor — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 02:03:47 GMT

First, I apologize for my comment appearing three times. Sometimes the finger just slips . . . Second, it should read, "thanks for the read THOUGH, as always. Third, the metaphor is blindness. It is as if all disabled people became worms for a week; we would see the metaphor as worms, I believe. And we would associate worms with disability. bonnie

Re: Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to die on it

Liesl — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:10:40 GMT

Thanks, Lily. :-> Bonnie: But it isn't metaphorical for anything relating to blindness or disability. It is metaphorical of the bad nature of humans. I could agree if it was a movie about people who are blind and because of that become horrible people. But it is, instead, a movie about a society that becomes blind overnight (almost) and ceases to function. That WOULD happen if there were a sudden epidemic of blindness. While I agree that blind people are discriminated against a great deal more than others, I just can't see how a movie that is not about blind people is doing them more harm. *shrug*

Re: Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to die on it

bonniethesurvivor — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:11:40 GMT

I think you would feel differently if you were blind. The analysis is very clear, and concise, and cogent. But the fact remains that blind people ARE discriminated against to an amazing degree, and ANYTHING that contributes to that, metaphorical or not, is a problem for me. I have seen too many blind friends fight needless battles to settle for this stupid movie. I don't care that these people are "temporarily" blind; they are blind. The American public is not too bright when it comes to cultural fare, and I don't want any stereotypes that can contribute to the problems blind people already face. Thanks for the read thought, as always. bonnie

Re: Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to die on it

bonniethesurvivor — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:11:38 GMT

Re: Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to die on it

bonniethesurvivor — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:11:33 GMT

Re: Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to die on it

Lily -- Disaboom Customer Service — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:34:20 GMT

Fantastic article! Your interpretation of how to advocate for our rights is spot on! Note: I rarely read long articles but I was captivated by every word in this one! You certainly have knack for storytelling and reporting. Thx!

aaaproxy » Blog Archive » legislative branch

aaaproxy » Blog Archive » legislative branch — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 06:24:22 GMT

Pingback from aaaproxy » Blog Archive » legislative branch

we-1.info » legislative branch

we-1.info » legislative branch — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:30:30 GMT

Pingback from we-1.info » legislative branch

aaaproxy » Blog Archive » legislative branch

aaaproxy » Blog Archive » legislative branch — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 01:44:11 GMT

Pingback from aaaproxy » Blog Archive » legislative branch

Re: Whatever the obscurity of our condition

Liesl — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:55:28 GMT

I totally agree with you, Tony. I consider myself a liberal but I do have some decidedly conservative opinions. None of us are simple and none of us are normal; so why would we expect our ideologies to be perfectly in harmony? The goal shouldn't be an exact match but a decided mesh.

Re: Whatever our obscurity of our condition

clark1 — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:55:29 GMT

Well said Lies. I am an independent and always have been. Not because I am afraid of taking a stance, just the opposite. I think for myself and believe the divisiveness of party politics at best will keep this country from reaching its full potential and at worst will literally destroy it. I cringe when people define and dismiss someone based on one opinion. That makes no sense to me. I hold political views of both parties and then some. Are we not a little more complicated and intelligent than two parties? I am a Genealogist that has traced my lineage back over a thousand years. What does this have to do with all this? We must look at the past learned lessons in order to go forward. Another Civil War? The center of which may be different but it is very possible. We as a collective whole seem to have forgotten our hard learned lessons of the past. It is not as complicated as many politicians have made it appear just so they can hold power. To the shame of all those who came before us we have allowed it to happen.