---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:
Ann, I agree that there's an instinct to survive. But I don't think there's an
instinct "to survive in style," as you say. I think anything beyond basic
survival needs is conditioned into us by the people and circumstances of our
childhood. Remember the significance of "Rosebud" in Citizen Kane? Of course
we're also hugely conditioned by our culture and this conditioning, from what
I've read, spreads to the remotest corners of the earth via TV, etc. Supposedly
Dallas was one of the most popular shows in Saudia Arabia!
I am not sure about the "conditioning" aspect with regard to wanting that
little bit of "style". I have lived in converted (barely) garages, I have lived
in basement suites with no natural light, I have lived in mouse-infested and
rat-infested temporary hovels and virtual shacks for one reason or another at
various times (one of those times was when we were building our current house
and we lived in the small 1935 hut/house for 16 months). Believe me, I have
experienced some pretty basic living conditions in the US and in Canada
(including the most cockroach-infested apartment on the second floor of the one
of the buildings around the square in FF during the late 70's.) And while I
don't require solid gold doors, hardwood instead of old lino floors is nice,
glass instead of plastic cups is preferable and a toilet that is not stained
brown and flushes properly is my choice, in a pinch. We are talking about
relative degrees here, not so much absurd levels where someone feels anything
less than four houses and three yachts is unthinkable. "Style" can simply mean
aesthetic over bare minimum.
I think it's a matter of degree. I would wish for everyone on earth to have
their basic needs met and even be comfortable. But I've seen pictures of solid
gold doors in Dubai. Does someone really need a solid gold door to their house
in order to be comfortable?!
You are actually reinforcing my point with your examples: people tend to
spiral toward absurdity, toward more and toward "better" and a level of
consumption that can begin to border on obscene. And we are not simply talking
about "the rich", we are talking about the guy in Dubai (your example) or the
kid on the streets of some tough city whose idea of heaven is owning a big car
and wearing lots of gold jewelry and might do just about anything to obtain
those things.
I admit I don't understand how such an imbalance continues decade after decade.
There are people who collect very expensive cars for a hobby. And there are
babies starving to death every day. I don't understand how this continues.
Because it appears to be human nature, or at least the nature of a fairly
large percentage of humans. MMY talked about this, we tend to move in the
direction of greater and greater happiness and bliss, like little monkeys. It's
just that for many, this idea of "bliss" is in the form of collecting and
surrounding themselves with more and more stuff. And we haven't even touched on
the subject of the power hungry.
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:22 AM, "awoelflebater@..." <awoelflebater@...>
wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
>
> I'd ride with 'em, I ain't prejudiced agin rich folk.
Personally, I suspect that the planet would be better off if we managed to get
all 85 of these people on one bus, and then threatened them with driving the
bus off a cliff with them on it unless they signed over all of their money to
the poor people they fucked over to get it. After they signed, then we'd take
the signed papers, get off the bus and push it over the edge anyway, and then
redistribute the funds.
I love the "we" part. As if the average human being wouldn't pocket the
ransacked money and make off with it themselves. Rich or poor, the basic
instinct is to survive and to survive in style. Those who claim they wouldn't
love an extra $1,000,000 in the bank are fooling themselves. Granted, many are
loathe to cheat and steal their way to accessing this and many would consider a
billion dollars a little unnecessary but greed, avarice and the love of the
good life is, to some extent, in all of us. Take a guy like Leonardo in his
role as the Wolf, take away his gazillions and he'd still be the loan shark,
the pimp or the drug dealer clawing his way toward his idea of fame and
fortune. You don't have to be rich to embody all sorts of loathsome traits.
But that may just be how I feel today, after having been forced to sit through
"The Wolf Of Wall Street." I now completely agree with everything said in the
open letter
http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2013/12/26/an-open-letter-to-the-makers-of-the-wolf-of-wall-street-and-the-wolf-himself
written by Christina McDowell, daughter of one of the real-life scumbags who
worked with the real-life Jordan Belfort. I think that Martin Scorcese,
Leonardo DiCaprio, and all of the other producers who glorified greed and
immorality in this film should be sentenced to spend the rest of their lives
doing "community service" by making movies about the "little people" these
real-life scumbags ripped off, and whose lives they ruined.
Those of you who mouth off about misogyny, you really haven't even *seen*
misogyny until you've seen this movie. There is not a woman in the film who
isn't portrayed as a bimbo, a hooker, and just one more rube to be fucked and
fucked over. I literally had to take a shower after watching it.
The experience made me rethink Martin Scorcese's work as a whole. Yes, he has
made the occasional film that *doesn't* celebrate greed, corruption, and
misogyny (although the only ones I can think of right now are "Hugo," "The Last
Temptation of Christ," and "Kundun"), but those subjects have been the focus of
and the preoccupation of almost *all* of his other films. Only 3 films as a
director out of 55 *not* about slimeballs. And his next film is going to be
about Frank Sinatra. What a fuckin' waste of creative talents.
I could tell this film was worth a big miss by watching 2 minutes of the
trailer. It looked like an indulgent mess on everyone's part.
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 1/21/14, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote:
>
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] New meaning for Kesey's "Are you on the bus or off
> the bus?"
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2014, 8:19 AM
>
> According to a recent
> OXFAM report the 85 people who own *half of the planet's
> wealth* could all fit onto this bus:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/17/oxfam-bus-wealth_n_4616103.html
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/17/oxfam-bus-wealth_n_4616103.html
>
