An Insult to Both Tolkien and America

Oregon Magazine ^ | December 4, 2002 | Larry Leonard

[WaterDragon]

December 4, 2002, Charlie Rose (PBS) -- Viggo Mortenson. He is the actor who plays Strider (Aragorn of Arathorn) in the Ring Trilogy. He is, he says, an American. He appeared on this program with Peter Jackson, the director and Elijah Wood, who is Frodo. Wearing a t-shirt that he made himself, which said "No more blood for oil....(snip)

For Complete Article, Please Click Here.

[Mamzelle]

He has a great voice, but I thought when I first saw him in LOTR that he was a bit young for the role. (Tolkein's Aragorn was in his fifties). Then again, Frodo was too young (also in his fifties).

The disappointment has worn off. When we watched the Extended Version with the cast interview, DH was disappointed with the real live Liv. "Dingaling" he said, "Much prefer her as an elf." Goes to show that actors only create a role, they do not have the stature of the character.

Now that it looks like Peter Jackson will make hundreds of millions of dollars, will we get The Hobbit?

[My back yard]

I was not interested at first either. I mean, c'mon, whats up with that chin anyway -- this guy's a Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster lovechild or something.

But the part grew on me. -- watching the contention between Aragorn and Boromir develop, then recede, as they sat off to the side - like brothers - always watching as others, wise-ards and more important folk, made up their path to the next time they would have to stand in the front and do battle. When Boromir dies I still get all choked up.

[Rastus]

The war party at FR have become as noxious and shrill as the Democrats who were supporting the U.S. attack on Serbia during the Clinton administration. It just goes to show that it really isn't the principle of the thing; it's whether the people in charge have an "R" or "D" after their names. I have no doubt at all that if George II were ever caught in flagrante de licto with an intern, the same people who called (justifiably) for the impeachment and conviction of Clinton would now (for the good of the nation, of course) insist that we "move on." The hypocrisy is palpable.

How can the hypocrisy be "palpable" when it's all based on an event that has not occured and will not occur? For one thing, it's a false premise. Most people here were disgusted by Clinton's behavior in the Oval Office, but few wanted him removed for that. It was the lying under oath, the obstruction of justice, etc. etc. And, yes, if Bush did do those things, you would see the right calling for his removal. Nixon resigned. Livingston resigned. Gingrich resigned. Packwood resigned. You will actually see many here complaining that the Republicans "eat their young" instead of defending them to the bitter end, right or wrong.

As far as supporting only a war based on the letter after the name, that's false, too. I don't think too many Republicans reversed themselves on Iraq when Clinton was beating the anti-Iraq war drums in '98. Nor did we stand in the way during other Democrat administration conflicts, such as WWII and Vietnam. It's more an issue of confidence in the commander-in-chief, which was missing with Clinton.

[irishtenor]

Add Harry Belefonte to the list for his rant against Collin Powell. And Susan Sarandon.

[Rastus]

Add Harry Belefonte to the list for his rant against Collin Powell.

More importantly, for being an unrepentant Stalinist.

[demosthenes the elder]

I was referring to a specific formulation... the notion expressed is probably only slightly more novel than the advent of speech itself ;)

[demosthenes the elder]

It is not the oil, and yet it is the oil.
We are dealing with the totality of the oil, the global industrial oil economy, the entire history thereof, and the results of the Cold War cycles of conflict by proxy in an area made important only by the presense of oil.
Think about it: What if we had somehow bypassed the technological and economic need for oil some 100 years ago, before it had been discovered in significant quantity in what was then a poor, barren, sparsely populated, and utterly insignificant armpit of the world? Or, what if there had simply been no oil fields laid down in the carboniferous period in what would become the Middle East?
Think about it.
Uncounted trillions of dollars would not have been injected into those lands. Advanced medicine and technology would not have become available to them. National boundaries would not have been imposed by competing european empires. OPEC would never have happened. The US and USSR would not have sparred over the territory, funding insurgency groups to destabilize things, funding other thugs to be our dogs in the region. The populations would not have exploded. The people would have remained unsophisticated wanderers and herders. Nomads do not have global imperial ambitions.
If not for oil, the Middle East would never have become important enough for us to become in any way involved with it. 9/11 would not have happened. The entire Middle East would be irrelevant today.
I am not expressing this notion as clearly as I would like. Forgive me - long day. But I trust you have grasped the gist: If not for oil, nobody would give a damn about the Middle East.

[weikel]

Its too late to go back to the sensible realpolitik of employing Saddam as the local anti opec/anti fundi bully unfortunately now we must go in to "maintain the integrity of the firm". Don't worry the Saudis will get whats coming to them Kissinger will make sure of that( I love Henry).

[SuziQ]

You make a good point about the fact that if it were not for the oil there, not many people would give a flying fig for the Middle East. But as for this particular conflict, I don't think it has anything to do with Pres. Bush's desire to take over the Middle East Oil fields or enrich his oil company buddies. The oil companies, I'm sure, would prefer to avoid conflict because that is disruptive to discovery and delivery. He believes because of certain intelligence information that Saddam Hussein is a threat not only to his neighbors, but to us because of the easy delivery of death by proxy, a la 9/11.

[demosthenes the elder]

agreed, but remember that the idiots over there would have no motive, no funds, and no technology required to significantly annoy us if there was no oil, if we had not dumped gazillions of bucks into their economy, etc... SoDamn Insane would have no funds with which to pursue WMD or conventional military dominance in the area nor any motive for doing so. So, again, this looming conflict does revolve around an axis greased by oil. Our immediate motive? Squashing as many ticks as need be so that the rest learn to leave us alone. Not greed, as the "no blood for oil" crowd believes.

[WaterDragon]

Brilliant, SuzyQ!

[demosthenes the elder]

hehn?

[Judai]

Separation of Mosque and State !