Bedlambience

Cyclically fated to hesitantly contend, the animals of the forest aligned themselves en masse, within and without the town which they inhabited, as the habitual schematics of their natures mutated.

The mice were typically afraid of cats who vehemently critiqued their colonialist endeavours, and skittishly hid from them in shadows while they austerely ruled the roost.

Simultaneously, the frisky felines sought haughty refuge from the fishers, who sought them out and about the town and were inclined to facetious wickedness. 

The fishers couldn't hide from the wolves however who were sincerely irritated by their standing, and adamantly composed themselves adroitly to boldly limit their expanding numbers.

One mouse was cunning nevertheless and taught his brethren to unite as one, and chase away the intrusive cats who were causing so much disastrous trouble.

The cats then followed suit and ferociously fought off the wanton fishers, who also abandoned their traditional independence and were able to fight off the wolves.

Not fight off I suppose, a rather messy state of affairs developed. 

Known as the postmodern wilderness. 

In improvised collective verdant flow.

I liked how the bears stayed out of it and just minded their own business, feasting on vegetation and nuts and honey it's a bear's life to be sure ad infinitum.

As far as the madness goes clever civilized rights seemed to be emerging, through the aggrieved disputes and senseless loss of life the affected animals came to an understanding.

Thankfully supernatural order kept the populations reasonably balanced, and no one was able to wildly annihilate their future endemic friends and neighbours. 

If only the reasonable balance could manifest headlines like the alternative.

And keep the populace entranced in awe.

As widespread goodwill acutely flourished. 

Do more civilized people have a higher tolerance for absurdity?

The Dark Knight Rises

Not feelin' it for The Dark Knight Rises.

Don't get me wrong, the rapid pace and intelligent script make for an entertaining thought-provoking film, packed tight with a judicial balance of solid and cheesy lines/imagery/situations, set within an armageddonesque scenario which exemplifies the apotheosis of campy mainstream political drama basking in subtly sensational ludicrousy.

Note that it's just a movie.

Within however, the villain Bane (Roger Hardy), who works in the sewers and is backed by some of Bruce Wayne's (Christian Bale) excessively wealthy competitors, has been using construction workers and freelance thieves to launch a strategic attack which will incarcerate Gotham City's entire police force, set up a kangaroo court to 'judge' the wealthy, get his hands on a source of limitless energy that can be turned into a catastrophically destructive weapon, the whole time acting like a person of the people.

It's a bit much.

And the ways in which construction unions are depicted is frustrating.

Of course it's just a movie, within which Bane is a fanatical lunatic who employs absurd methods to achieve insane objectives.

I mean, what person of the people would destroy a football stadium?

But making him a 'person of the people' does cunningly vilify genuine persons of the people like Franklin D. Roosevelt (who still had to operate in a political dynamic which encountered expedient matters I'm assuming) which is problematic.

He is financed by the excessively wealthy, as mentioned earlier, which logically states that plutocrats are theoretically capable of using popular tropes to achieve despotic ends, thereby making Bane's adoption of the label 'person of the people' all the more problematic.

But this doesn't mean individuals who come from privileged backgrounds don't care about structural issues relating to poverty, individuals such as Jack Layton, and want to try to do something about them using legitimate political methods (pointing out a social democrat's rich upbringing is a divisive tactic used by the right to discredit them, from what I can tell anyway).

Having a source of limitless environmentally friendly power that can be turned into a weapon of mass destruction is also problematic, inasmuch as it indirectly vilifies alternative energy sources while propping up the nuclear/petroleum-based-product status quo.

Obviously, when your economy is seriously dependent on this status quo (see The End of Suburbia, 2004) and the ways in which its revenues fuel social programs, you can't simply change everything overnight without causing mass unemployment (perhaps I'm wrong here, I don't know, but it seems to me that if your economy is functioning with a significant deficit, large scale structural changes to its infrastructure will be disastrous unless they can definitively generate mass profits in the aftermath [which is a pretty big risk to take if you're not flush with cash]).

But at the same time, not trying to find environmentally friendly alternatives to the petroleum/nuclear power base that can't be turned into WMDs or be inexpensively integrated into the grid is equally disastrous (I suppose while searching for such power sources it's important to hire people to continuously monitor whether or not their construction can lead to the creation of WMDs [obviously enough {perhaps this isn't so obvious: it took a very long time to cap the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 because they weren't prepared}]).

People often call me naive, but, whatever: "It was all the more [troublesome] because by nature I have always been more open to the world of potentiality than to the world of contingent reality"(Marcel Proust, In Search of Lost Time, vol. 5 [I don't think I'm like Proust, I just love reading In Search of Lost Time]).

Hence, as an escape, I did enjoy The Dark Knight Rises, but I can't support some of its structural issues inasmuch as, according to this viewing, they aren't very progressive.

There is the issue of Selina (Anne Hathaway) however who is trying to change her life around but can't due to the ways in which her criminal record prevents her from finding employment.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Take 'em or leave 'em.

It spiralled and, I don't know, twisted, became something convoluted and messy, before an arrangement was cultivated wherein which specific designations, broad, leaving plenty of room for innovations (which could modify, alter, redirect), became valued institutionally as representatives of certain facts, conceptually and reproductively, in order so that when I mentioned the word apple, persons could picture the object to which I was referring, and it would become common knowledge that an apple was not a locomotive or a beach, and that there were many corresponding varieties.