Search Box

Monday, November 16, 2009

Good witches, bad witches



























(Above left, Sharon Stone; right, Megan Fox; below, Bette Davis)














I watched The Wizard of Oz (I must be part gay) for a few minutes last night, and happened to catch the scene where Dorothy first arrives in Oz. When she says she thought all witches were old and ugly, Glinda (the Good Witch of the North) informs her, "Only bad witches are ugly."

That got me to thinking, is there any correlation between looks and character? Most of the beautiful women I've known have been nice, if a tad spoiled.

Then I thought, how could the arrangement of features on a face have anything to do with the psychology on the inside of the skull? But then I thought, good-looking people are generally treated better, even in childhood, so maybe this somehow allows them to develop into more gracious, kindly personalities. And ugly people, who are more likely to be ignored, do have more reason to be bitter.

Then I thought of the one place where the most beautiful women congregate: Hollywood.

I thought of Angelina Jolie, Sharon Stone, Megan Fox, Anne Heche, Margot Kidder, Sean Young, Lindsay Lohan, Halle Berry, Farrah Fawcett, and Mischa Barton. Then I thought back a bit further, to Joan Crawford, Frances Farmer, and Bette Davis.

If you read the gossip pages, as I do -- as I said, I'm part gay -- you realize part of the job requirement for being an actress is, you have to be sorta insane. (Okay, scratch the sorta.) It's as basic a requirement for the job as having a narcissistic personality is for being President (unless you're an accidental President like George Bush Sr. or Gerald Ford.)

Conclusion: You can't believe everything you hear in The Wizard of Oz after all.

If you're thinking that I'm just using this ridiculously trite piece as an excuse to put up pictures of beautiful women (with reputations as bad witches), you're right. I've come to the conclusion that in order to hold peoples' interest, I can't just keep putting up dry political pieces (see "I'd vote for this guy" or "Blood" for examples of extreme aridity).

I have to make this blog more like a tabloid and tart it up a bit.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

This sexing up the blog must be working John, you now have 3 followers! Perhaps now is the time to cash in on success and place some ads for how to get a flatter belly and the secret of white teeth?

On a more serious note, I reread your dec 08 post on Afghanistan. The key issue facing Obama has been pretty clear for quite a while!
G

John Craig said...

Guy --
I am hoping fervently that Obama either withdraws from or at least scales down the war in Afghanistan, but it doesn't sound as if either of those are options he's considering. I'm afraid the issues he feels he's facing are (a) that he doesn't want to be responsible for Viet Nam II, and (b) he doesn't want to be responsible for us losing the war on terror. So he's probably going to take a middle course, letting this useless war dither on until at least 2012.

John Craig said...

(PS -- I'll ignore the mockery in your first paragraph.)

Anonymous said...

Please "friendly joshing". "Mockery" sounds a little harsh. Besides given the nature of your blog, a little "sauce for the goose..." etc.

I think that you may have put your finger on Obama's key problem - he's not capable of brave decisions - it can now be seen in every arena - foreign policy, health care reform, financial sector reform, lobbying culture of DC etc. Depressing!

G

Anonymous said...

John,

If you really want to make it like a tabloid, I challenge you to start writing pieces on people at the "Y". Within a small circle that could be very humorous. Of course you could use false names to protect the innocent/guilty. Only kidding. Still enjoying your blogs.

Stu

John Craig said...

Stu --
Thanks for reading, and thanks for your comment.

People at the Y, eh? Hmm. Since you suggested it, I should probably make you my first target.

Anonymous said...

Re: Obama, Afghanistan and 'the war on terror'.

Yesterday I listened to a conservative talk radio host hammer away on the theme that the Ft. Hood massacre was an act of terror. The unstated key word is Islamic - i.e. 'War on Islamic Terror' or an act of Islamic Terrorism. Nobody means to wage war on Timothy McVeigh style terror, or the Hillside Strangler style of terror, or Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech) style, etc.

What direct impact has Islamic Terror had on the United States? We took a major hit on 9/11. There is the USS Cole, and the bombing of Marine barracks in Lebanon - what am I missing?

I fully understand the outrage and desire to take action after 9/11 - I felt it.

But where are we today? Why is it SO important to label the Ft. Hood massacre as an act of Islamic Terror, and as such, something that we are actively fighting against with our war on terror?

How does the total cost in lives and treasure of Islamic Terror against the US compare with other sources of loss in the US? How about cancer (550,000 deaths per year) or cardiovascular disease (450,000). Or for something that hits people of all ages - auto deaths per year (~36,000)? How about a war on murder (~16,000 per year)? And we'd be about as likely to eliminate murder as we are to eliminate all acts of terrorism, or even the subset of Islamic Terrorism.

- Ed

John Craig said...

Ed --
My initial reaction was the same as yours -- who cares whether the tragedy at Ft. Hood is labeled an Islamic act of terror or not? Then I realized why all the politicos are arguing about it so vociferously. First, if it is labeled as such, it is the first act of terror committed on US soil since Obama assumed office, and it means that since it happened on his watch, and his administration failed to stop it, it represents a failure of sorts for him. Secondly, and more importantly, if it is viewed as the aberrant crime of one lone crazy psycho, it can be dismissed as such without any regard for its larger implications. But if you see it as part of a larger pattern (and there have been two other instances of American Muslims killing soldiers, one recent one in Arkansas and another one where a Muslim-American soldier threw a hand grenade into a tent where his fellow soldiers were in Iraq), then there are far wider implications. It means that you have to reconsider having Muslims in the Armed Forces at a time w hen we are essentially waging war on the Islamic world. And it means that we have to take a hard look at the ethnicity of those serving in the Armed Forces at this time (Hasan was a Palestinian). In the past, Japanese-Americans were not allowed to fight the Japanese on the Pacific front in WWII, and members of the German American Bund were not allowed to fight the Nazis. This is not an unreasonable decision, people do feel kinship. Also, if you look closely at Hasan's history, it brings up all sorts of uncomfortable questions about affirmative action (Hasan was evidently promoted beyond his capacities, and would never have been given his position if he hadn't been Muslim). And it really puts the lie to "our diversity is our strength." So the Obama administration, for those reasons, would prefer to sweep this under the rug as an aberration since the crime -- or act of terror -- calls into question the entire multiculti philosophy that they espouse.