Paracelsus's forum posts

#1 Posted by Paracelsus (1902 posts) - - Show Bio

Iti is possible that Sweeten's suicide had NOTHING to do with his role as a child star on "Everybody Loves Raymond" but given the incidence of depression, suicide/attempted suicide and substance abuse/self harming amongst former child stars( pace Christina Ricci, Macaulay Culkin and Drew Barrymore, to name but a few) I would by no means think that the two facts have no correlation!

Patricia Heaton who played Sweeten's screen mother in "Everybody Loves Raymond" says that she and her other castmates are totally shocked and horrified by the news. Could posters( esp Twitter users) tweet Ms Heaton messages of support and commiseration please?

Terry

PS If I have children and they turn out to have an acting bent I will INSIST that they wait until they turn adults before embarking upon their careers- let them be kids whilst they still can be kids!

#2 Posted by Paracelsus (1902 posts) - - Show Bio

To conclude and to return to the points raised in my OP. The ostensible reason for the ban on "Child 44" by the Russian authorities is nonsensical. Claims of "distortions"( which are NEVER expressly pointed to) amount to an implication that any depiction of Soviet society esp during the Stalinist/Cold War era other thant he most uncritically flattering are de facto unjust. We have been here before- remember the protests over the publciation and production of "anti-Soviet" films or novels (mainly defector's memoirs or autbiographies) such as Viktor Kravchenko's "I Chose Freedom" in 1946. If the Russian authorities wish to ban "Child 44" then so be it, but I think the reason for said ban is nonsencial!

Terry

#3 Posted by Paracelsus (1902 posts) - - Show Bio

Apropos from Gregory(Grigoryi?)'s regurgitation of Soviet era Stalinist propaganda, it is worth pointing out that Stalin entered into his pact with Hitler with considerably MORE enthusiasm than he did with the UK and US- as his daughter Svetlana recalled in her memoirs after she fled to the West in 1967, he would frequently say during and after the war in her presence- "echt- together with the Germans we would have been invincible!" Strange how appeasement in Munich by my late countryman Neville Chamberlain is more reprehensible than appeasement in Moscow! I feel that the West has nothing to be ashamed of in its aid to the USSR( as I noted before even Khrushchev in his memoirs admitted that it was quite helpful and that the English lost many sailors on the Murmansk run). It is quite true , that to quote Winston Churchill(hardly a dewy eyed fellow traveller) that "the Red Army tore the guts out of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front" but without Lend Lease it would have been at a prohibitively higher cost to the USSR> And anyway, the USSR got its "Second Front" on June 6, 1944- D-Day! Just how long will the Kremlin engage in the fatuous fantasy that it single handedly won World War II???

#4 Posted by Paracelsus (1902 posts) - - Show Bio

Whilst we're on the general subject of Russian history( and WWII in particular-or "The Great Patriotic War" as I do believe they call it), it is worth observing that just as in Soviet times, the role played by Lend Lease(supplied by the "decadent capitalist West") in the Red Army's defeat of the Wehrmacht goes unmentioned( as does the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact and Stalin's slaughter of the Red Army 's leadership in the great purges and show trials of the 1930s, fortunatley Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovski survived). Is it asking too much of Putin to at least say "Thank you"? (Even Khrushchev admitted that without Lend Lease victory over the Reich would have cost even more than the estimated 20 million lives-albeit in his memoirs after his ousting from power)

Terry

#5 Posted by Paracelsus (1902 posts) - - Show Bio

Whilst I agree that politics is a rough and tumble business- as Harry S.Truman(along with Franklin D.Roosevelt, both of whom endured more than their fair share of cruel press attacks- FDR once quipped in 1936 about his enemies-"they hate me and I relish their hatred!"), pithily put it "If you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen!", there have been attacks that "really go below the belt" such as Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton(who was then 13 and played no role in dad Bill's Administration)- "the White House dog"( "dog" being an American slang word for an unattractive girl or woman). Is it not the crassest sexism to criticize Mrs Clinton for things that attract little or no comment on the part of her male counterparts such as her allegedly unfeminine laugh- the so-called "Clinton cackle", her shoes and dress sense, even her being a grandmother- "President Grandma" to say nothing of her looks( as I noted in my OP several of her putative predecessors such as Harry Truman, LBJ and Richard Nixon were hardly Adonises themselves!)?

Terry

#6 Posted by Paracelsus (1902 posts) - - Show Bio

Irrespective of whether or not he was a terrorist or a member of a legally constituted army, once that man became a prisoner he was entitled to the protections of th Geneva Convention. Given that Britain and America tried and executed Germans and Japanese for murdering or ill treating("Bridge On The River Kwai") Allied POWs after WWII, Blackman's eight year sentence( coupled with dishonorable discharge from the Royal Marines with implicit forfeiture of pension and benefits) does NOT seem unjust or harsh to me Forstyhe may regard Blackman as a"British hero" but I for one regard him as a war criminal!( as did a jury of his fellow peers).

Terry

#7 Posted by Paracelsus (1902 posts) - - Show Bio

Comment may be free to quote C.P.Scott of the Manchester Guardian, but facts are ultimately sacred! Forsythe's defence of Blackman fails on both counts!

Terry

#8 Posted by Paracelsus (1902 posts) - - Show Bio

Apropos of NATO's allegedly "broken promise not to expand", given that the whole purpose of the Cold War was to make certain that the states of the former USSR/Warsaw Pact were entitled to determine their own future( as was humanity at large) free of the Kremlin diktat, are those making this argument seriously suggesting that if and when say Poland or the Baltic States applied to join NATO, we should have said "sorry old bean, no can do- it might piss off the Russians!"? It NEVER ceases to astonish me that the very type of liberal/leftist who would correctly bristle at the suggestion that the US is entitled to treat say Cuba or Venezuela any old way because "it is within the US sphere of influence" seems willing to consign the former WP members and Soviet Republics to Putin's not so tender mercies(Granted he is NOT Stalin but such as I have seen of his regime is sufficiently illiberal that I would not lightly do so) it was "within the Russian sphere of influence".

As George Orwell would put it " two legs bad , four legs good!" in his classic "Animal Farm" ( meaning Anglo-American imperialism bad, Russian imperialism good)! As for the complaint about "encirclement"- SO (Insert expletive here) WHAT? During the Cold War we all slept peacefully in our beds knowing that we could be vapourized by an ICBM fired from deep within US/Soviet territory or from a submarine deep beneath the Atlantic. Back to the point of my OP- the wilful killing of POWs is considered a war crime( see Wikipedia entries for "Le Paradis massacre" "Stalag Luft III murders" "Malmedy massacre").

Terry

#9 Posted by Paracelsus (1902 posts) - - Show Bio

Apropos of the ICC and Israel- it is worth noting that all that has happened is that the PA has formally joined the Court and Hamas has been accused by Amnesty International of engaging in war crimes during Operation Cast Lead. As for the argument that no supranational body has the right to indict or impose terms on a sovereign nation, what do you think the Nuremburg and IMTFE(International Military Tribunal For The Far East) did to Germany and Japan?!

Terry

#10 Posted by Paracelsus (1902 posts) - - Show Bio

My reply is that IS may not care if indicted by the ICC(an unlikely possiblility admittedly) but if and when they are sitting in the dock at The Hague, then they start to care very much even if unlike Nuremburg and the IMTFE, they are not facing the prospect of execution for their crimes unlike the Germans and Japanese!(remember there are NO statute of limitations for war crimes or crimes against humanity, you have to be either dead or demonstratably senile before the hunt is over).

Terry