Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
nittany ramModerator
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by
nittany ram.
nittany ramModerator4chan user posted about Epstein’s death 40 minutes before it was reported in the media.
Most likely one of the first responders on the scene.
nittany ramModeratorMy take is different. I think she’s minimizing the ‘possibility’ quotient. Murder in this case is more than just “not impossible” in my view. And i dont think murder is “unlikely.” My own view is, its a completely open question. Just as likely that he was murdered (or coerced) as it is that he simply killed himself.
So for me its just an open question.
I doubt if the mystery is ever resolved.
w
vI agree.
I think she is trying to say that suicide is the most parsimonious explanation based on what is known. Epstein had already tried to commit suicide once before while he was there. The place is a hell-hole and has been for years. It’s underfunded, understaffed, the guards are over-worked and underpaid…that scenario will always lead to huge, seemingly unbelievable mistakes like failing to follow suicide watch protocols or whatever. Given that there is no evidence of a murder (just a bunch of circumstantial head-scratching stuff), I tend to agree that suicide is the simplest answer that fits the facts.
However, it’s not a home run by any means. She’s a little dismissive.
But barring a confession, it’s the most likely (by a smidge) explanation.
nittany ramModeratorLink: https://skepchick.org/2019/08/the-real-reason-epstein-died-is-a-lot-scarier-than-murder/
When the news first broke yesterday that noted child rapist Jeffrey Epstein had died by suicide in jail, I went through a lot of emotions. It started with anger, knowing that he will never be held accountable for his crimes and his many victims will never be able to get closure. Soon my anger turned into worry that his death may end many of the investigations into his dealings and those of the people around him who enabled or even benefited from his crimes. Finally, I was filled with confusion over how this possibly could have happened. Supposedly Epstein was on suicide watch, so if precautions were being taken to prevent him from being able to die by suicide, how was able to succeed at it?
Very soon after his death was announced I logged into Facebook and Twitter and saw many people alleging that Epstein was likely murdered. I’m not talking about right-wing conspiracy theorists like our own president who is alleging Epstein was killed by Hillary Clinton (though that happened as well), but progressive friends of mine. Most of these friends are not the type of people to usually buy into a conspiracy theory, but they pointed to the long list of powerful people who would want Epstein dead and explained how suspicious it was that Epstein would have been able to die by suicide while on suicide watch.
After awhile, I started to believe too. When news later came out saying that he wasn’t actually on suicide watch, I wondered if maybe he had been purposefully taken off it in order to encourage him to die by suicide. If contradictory information is coming out of the jail, how do we even know their suicide claims are true at all? Maybe he was actually killed by a guard or inmate. Certainly the timing of his death seems convenient for many of his friends and confidants whose own crimes may have come out in the investigation against Epstein.
Although I’ve been surprised to see people who usually don’t espouse conspiracy theories dabble in them in this case, myself included, I do think there is something in particular about Epstein that causes conspiracy theories to swirl around him. The fact is, Epstein is at the center of an honest-to-god real-life conspiracy. He truly was running a sex trafficking ring with some of the most powerful people in the world as his possible conspirators, many of whom have gone to great lengths to protect him. There are also still a lot of questions over where he was getting his money from, who his clients were, and what he was actually doing for them. There is even some evidence pointing to a potential blackmail scheme, suggesting he was taping his rich, powerful friends interactions with his underage sex slaves then blackmailing them into investing with his “hedge fund” that was actually just a index fund that he used to launder his blackmail money.
With all this actual conspiracy going on, it doesn’t seem that much of a jump to go from what we already know or suspect about Epstein’s dealings and who it may have involved to murder. After all, jails are dangerous places where inmates do sometimes get murdered, even high-profile inmates. Not to mention that many of Epstein’s conspirators have already attempted and succeeded (at least for awhile) at coverup campaigns to hide Epstein’s crimes. Could these same conspirators have ordered Epstein’s death and now be covering it up by claiming it’s suicide? It’s certainly not impossible.
Over at the New York Times, they are reporting that Epstein had been taken off of suicide watch. He was supposed to be sharing a cell with an inmate, but the inmate that had been housed with him had been transferred out. Additionally, Epstein was supposed to be checked on every 30 minutes, but the corrections officers that were working the night of his death were not checking in on him as they were supposed to. This all could point to a conspiracy if you are looking for one. Why was Epstein taken off suicide watch? Why was his cell-mate transferred? Why did the guards not check on him? Could someone have ordered all these things in order to either create conditions for Epstein to die by suicide or perhaps even to set up a situation where an assassin could have murdered him? As I said earlier, it’s not impossible.
But, it is unlikely. The truth is that the Metropolitan Correction Center where Epstein was being held, like other federal jails, has suffered from decades of budget shortfalls and understaffing. The night that Epstein died, the two corrections officers that were on staff were both working overtime hours, and for one of the officers, it was his fifth night in a row working overtime. In terms of conditions at the jail, Slate writes that “in the Special Housing Unit where Epstein was held, the fluorescent lights are kept on 23 or 24 hours a day, prisoners are prohibited from calling out to each other, and the cell windows are frosted to prevent any glimpse of the outside world,” conditions that can often lead to mental illness and suicidal tendencies. They also point out that even though mental illness and suicide is extremely common in jails, at MCC there was only one psychiatrist on staff for both MCC and another local jail, a population of 2000 prisoners.
In a way, I think I want to believe Epstein was murdered because it’s a tidy end to the story of Epstein. It’s easy to believe that Epstein, by dealing with experts at crimes and coverups, ended up as the victim of one of those crimes and coverups. I want to believe it was murder, but the truth is much scarier.
The truth is that the MCC already had a reputation as an extremely dangerous place that was often mismanaged, creating situations that put their inmates at risk. Slate writes this about the MCC
We know that MCC, the federal prison in Manhattan that also recently housed Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, was deemed “worse than Guantanamo” by someone who spent time in both facilities. We know that cells are infested with bugs and rats so big they’re “more like roommates” and that the temperature swings from unbearable heat to frigid cold. We know that inmates have not received adequate medical care, that a corrections officers was found guilty of raping an inmate, and that officials allegedly tried to cover up the fatal beating of another prisoner.
It seems likely that Epstein was taken off suicide watch early because suicide watch is expensive and they need to conserve their budget. It seems likely that the inmate who was staying with Epstein was transferred out because he needed to be moved and the jail didn’t have the resources or manpower to quickly find a replacement cellmate. It seems likely that the corrections officers who were working the night of Epstein’s death were not checking on him every 30 minutes because they were overworked and tired and likely had many other inmates to check-in on every 30 minutes, along with a lot of other work to do, so doing those bi-hourly checks just fell by the wayside.We don’t need a vast conspiracy among powerful people to explain why Epstein died. We already have the information we need to know what happened, but we don’t want to face it because it means we might have to do something about it. Epstein likely died due to suicide in a jail that didn’t have the budget or wherewithal to be able to fully protect him and provide him with mental health resources when he showed suicidal tendencies. He died because federal jails in the US are terrifying hell-holes with conditions that exacerbate mental illness then do not provide inmates the medical care they need to manage their conditions. It’s not a conspiracy so much as a total lack of regard from politicians and the taxpaying public who vote for them.
Epstein is never going to be held accountable for his crimes. His victims will never be able to face him in court. If you care about that, the answer is not to speculate about the latest conspiracies but pick up the phone and call your representatives and ask them for the funding to change the conditions for inmates in federal jails.
Post
nittany ramModeratorWell, yeah, Monsanto is Monsanto. I wouldn’t be surprised if they used underhanded tactics to discredit Gilliam’s book. That fusion center stuff is ridiculous though. The internal emails just show that Monsanto decided to ignore Gilliam and Paul Thacker.
https://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY12158226.pdf
On the other hand, Gilliam isn’t a journalist. She’s an anti-GMO activist employed by US Right to Know. Their biggest contributor is the Organic Consumers Association, which, along with funding anti-GMO activities, also promotes anti-vaxx propaganda. They and Dr Andrew Wakefield were responsible for the largest measles outbreak in Minnesota in 30 years in 2017. They targeted the Somalia-American community there because they were the most vulnerable to anti-vaxx propaganda.
The EPA is about to say that California can’t issue carcinogenic warning labels for Roundup under Prop 65. California’s own regulatory committee reviewed the research and found it to be non-carcinogenic, but was trying to label it based on the IARC report. Four scientists on the IARC panel have gotten rich in lawsuits against Bayer/Monsanto. So, like Monsanto, when faced with bad news, the Organic industry/USRTK is flooding the internet with negative PR about their enemy, such as the interview above. I’m not saying Monsanto didn’t do what Gilliam says they did, but the Organic Industry uses the same tactics. They secretly pay academics to say what they want them to say, just like they accuse Monsanto of doing. USRTK paid someone $134000 in 2018 but Ruskin refuses to disclose who it was. They accuse scientists working in biotech of being shills, smear their reputations, dox them, etc. etc.
=============
Well, I dont even know what being a “journalist” means in the context of a late-stage-Corporotacracy. What is a ‘journalist’? Someone who writes for the NYTimes? Wall Street Journal? NPR? Is Julian Assange a ‘journalist’? Yes? No?
As per usual, I am left in a state of I-dunno-ville. So I cant say the monsanto-critic-lady is “not a journalist.” Coz i dont even know what the word means anymore.
At any rate, i posted that vid before i watched all of it. Always a no-no. After i watched it, i regretted posting it. There wasnt much there.
But still I’m WAY ahead of the rest of you on points. Because I posted the article on Nuns having Slaves.
Nuns had Slaves. I walk around thinking about that all day long. Nuns had slaves. Its just…so…perfect. A perfect summary of human-kind.w
vWell, what I try to remember when I read about this stuff (and I read about this stuff every day – sad, I know) is that this isn’t David vs Goliath or Good v Evil…this is two mega industries vying for market share.
So I try to cut through all that BS and concentrate on what the science says. The science is what matters to me.
nittany ramModerator“…For most of their history, humans had big, thick toe bones.
The available evidence appears to support this. As a matter of fact, prior to the advent of shoes, human toe bones were so large that only three could fit on the foot of adult males, and in females, the five toes had been reduced to a large, fused, uni-toe-like structure.
It is interesting to note that the necktie and the Windsor knot were developed prior to footwear.
As were the end table, lamp, and sofa which gave them a clear adaptive advantage over the Neanderthals by providing better light and additional seating at dinner parties.
nittany ramModeratorWell first off there’s this, about the author: “…some of his coastal litter surveys have been funded in part by PlasticsSA.”
Doesn’t mean his writing is influenced by Big-Plastic, and it doesnt mean he’s wrong, but…this is why I live in a world of constant-skepticism. In a Corporotacracy, Who should i trust?
At any rate, there’s this:
“…Contrary to a great deal of media coverage which has placed plastic as environmental public enemy number one, I would argue that it’s not in the same league as the climate crisis, consumerism and human population growth which, collectively, threaten the biosphere…”
Its just not very re-assuring to think that the Plastic-Crisis isnt quite as bad as all them other Crises,
that collectively make up “The Situation.”Ya know. 🙂
I drink coffee a lot of mornings, out of a disposable corporate plastic cup. I know I am going to the fifth level of Hell for this.
w
vAll that’s true. I just thought I would bring some potential good news to the board for a change.
Plastic isn’t going to bury us in 10 years.
More like 20.
Yay.
nittany ramModeratorWell, yeah, Monsanto is Monsanto. I wouldn’t be surprised if they used underhanded tactics to discredit Gilliam’s book. That fusion center stuff is ridiculous though. The internal emails just show that Monsanto decided to ignore Gilliam and Paul Thacker.
https://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY12158226.pdf
On the other hand, Gilliam isn’t a journalist. She’s an anti-GMO activist employed by US Right to Know. Their biggest contributor is the Organic Consumers Association, which, along with funding anti-GMO activities, also promotes anti-vaxx propaganda. They and Dr Andrew Wakefield were responsible for the largest measles outbreak in Minnesota in 30 years in 2017. They targeted the Somalia-American community there because they were the most vulnerable to anti-vaxx propaganda.
The EPA is about to say that California can’t issue carcinogenic warning labels for Roundup under Prop 65. California’s own regulatory committee reviewed the research and found it to be non-carcinogenic, but was trying to label it based on the IARC report. Four scientists on the IARC panel have gotten rich in lawsuits against Bayer/Monsanto. So, like Monsanto, when faced with bad news, the Organic industry/USRTK is flooding the internet with negative PR about their enemy, such as the interview above. I’m not saying Monsanto didn’t do what Gilliam says they did, but the Organic Industry uses the same tactics. They secretly pay academics to say what they want them to say, just like they accuse Monsanto of doing. USRTK paid someone $134000 in 2018 but Ruskin refuses to disclose who it was. They accuse scientists working in biotech of being shills, smear their reputations, dox them, etc. etc.
nittany ramModeratorMy ideology places me in the green box.
But as I get older I’m less and less about ideology and more and more about evidence. Policies need to be evidence based.
My priorities are protecting the environment and improving the standard of living for all of humanity.
This will require huge investments in new research and technology. To solve the problems surrounding those issues will require placing ideology on the back burner. I’m anti-Big Corp, but I also understand that research is expensive and small companies don’t have the resources to do it on the scale in which it needs to be done. Administrations need to prioritize science and research. We need a ‘space race’ style effort to find new energy and agricultural technologies.
nittany ramModeratorHow does this happen? He was on suicide watch.
I’m not going to rush to invoke a conspiracy, but that’s some high level indifference and/or incompetence by the correctional facility.
nittany ramModeratorProof that video games do instill violence…
nittany ramModeratorI think there has been decay in social etiquette, if that’s what you’re talking about. People no longer stand when guests enter a room, or remove their hats indoors. There is less…respect…for time and place. People are more brusque and salty generally.
Is that decay or just a change in what is considered normal social behavior? What is lost by not removing a hat indoors or not standing when someone enters a room?
I anticipated that argument, and thought carefully before I made my statement.
It is certainly true that there is nothing empirically “well-behaved” about removing one’s hat indoors, or…you know…making a better wardrobe effort than shorts, t-shirt, and flip flops when going to an upscale restaurant, or a Broadway show. Those are arbitrary markers of Respect, or Class, or Etiquette, or whatever, and have no merit in and of themselves.
I think, however, that those Pointless Conventions demonstrate an awareness of others, and a deference of Ego.
I mean…I think that unless you can show me that the Deference and Respect have been simply altered and assumed shape in some other sphere or behavior, I’m gonna stick with that. I think it reflects a trend towards selfishness, basically. We are now saying, as a culture, “I’m gonna be comfortable doing what I’m doing, and not stop to acknowledge our Common Space as worth respecting. You matter less than this arbitrary convention, and the fact is that I’m comfortable in this chair doing what I’m doing, and I don’t want to interrupt that just because you waltzed into the room. Etc.”
Yeah, I dunno. There was a time when people dressed up when they went anywhere. Is that out of respect for where they where going or more about trying to meet a social standard for appropriate attire. Maybe it wasn’t so much about respect for the venue but more about not wanting to be embarrassed. Perhaps it’s as simple as what is deemed appropriate attire has shifted since then, as it has throughout history.
My wife and I spent a day in NYC a couple weeks ago. We saw the 2pm matinee of “Phantom of the Opera” and an 8pm showing of “Hamilton” on Broadway. People were dressed very casually – shorts, t-shirts, and not just at the matinee – at the 8pm showing as well. To me, it didn’t seem like it was due to a lack of respect, but because it was 90 fricken degrees outside.
nittany ramModeratorI think there has been decay in social etiquette, if that’s what you’re talking about. People no longer stand when guests enter a room, or remove their hats indoors. There is less…respect…for time and place. People are more brusque and salty generally.
Is that decay or just a change in what is considered normal social behavior? What is lost by not removing a hat indoors or not standing when someone enters a room?
July 3, 2019 at 12:47 pm in reply to: the circular firing squad: Sanders v. Warren supporters #102611nittany ramModeratorI agreed with them. Cept, I understand ‘why’ American are ‘stupid’ and ‘dont care’.
Corporate-Capitalism made them stupid and selfish.
w
vI’m probably over-generalizing here but I think Europeans are more community-centered than Americans. Americans tend towards individualism.
Europeans travel a lot more than Americans. Visiting other countries gives you a whole new perspective on things. It promotes thinking globally. It helps you care about how stuff impacts other people.
July 3, 2019 at 10:38 am in reply to: Why the 1.5C global temp limit agreed upon in Paris won’t be met, and why we’re fkd #102606nittany ramModeratorWhat does this mean? It means ALL PLANNED, PERMITTED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION fossil infrastructure must be CANCELLED.
Ok, so there’s still hope then.
We just need to shut all current and future investments in fossil fuel energy down.
Whew. I was worried there for a minute.
nittany ramModeratorWill Jared Goff’s performance as ‘young Bill’ in the upcoming film, “Bill and Ted 3” outshine his performance on the field?
nittany ramModeratorThe homeless are more likely to steal food than a rich person; a rich person is more likely to commit insider trading than a homeless person.
One of those crimes is an act of desperation, the other is an act of pure greed.
But I agree it’s complicated and that character is more a of a product of one’s financial status than some intrinsic moral code.
nittany ramModeratorThe question though is whether the show itself stuck to the “animal” thing or violated it and suddenly had the dragon acting on the basis of some kind of reasoning. After all it’s magic…maybe it’s capable of resenting the thing that in the end destroyed Dany. It’s even there in the room or what’s left of the room in the first place because it sensed something was wrong.
Oh sure, if you want to create some sort of fantasy world where dragons are capable of high order reasoning…
nittany ramModeratorIf you see the sperm-egg combo as the beginning of human-life…then….Ya know. Genocide.
w
vBetween 50 and 80% of fertilized eggs (sperm-egg combo) fail to implant and are spontaneously aborted.
On top of that, 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage.
Man, God must hate babies.
The question isn’t about when life begins. Yes, in the technical sense a fertilized egg is alive. An unfertilized egg and a sperm cell are alive too for that matter.
The question is do the rights of a fetus trump the rights of the woman carrying that fetus?
nittany ramModeratorOne thing that didn’t come up in discussion…the dragon not torching Jon Snow for killing Daenerys. Well maybe part of it is that Jon’s a Targaryen, and the dragon can sense that. He won’t torch family. Another thing is, it’s a very unexpected and interesting move that it torched the throne. Now one part of me said, that’s a little schlockey, and are we to believe dragons can reason like that? But most of me went, interesting. The dragon in its grief and rage destroys the thing it believes really killed Dany. Throughout the series dragon fire was used to destroy Dany’s enemies, and the dragon basically went, well here’s your real enemy right here (desire for power). I found I was actually touched and moved by that and saw it as a very appropriate, resonant, and effective twist. I liked that moment.
I really liked that entire scene. It was visually very beautiful, and moving. I knew either Jon or Dani was going to kill the other during their embrace. Jon went there with the purpose to kill her, but I thought Dani might kill the rightful heir to the throne first.
Since Jon was a Targaryen, could dragon fire even kill him? Can he withstand fire like Dani? Even so, the dragon still could have rendered him limb from limb, so I agree that Drogon spared Jon because of who he is. I don’t know if Drogo’s destroying of the throne was intentional or if it was simply directing its grief and anger away from Jon and the throne happened to be in the way. Although intelligent, the dragon is still essentially an animal. I’m not sure that it would understand what the throne represented. But obviously the melting of the throne was symbolic.
nittany ramModerator
nittany ramModeratorNothing particularly unexpected happened. Acting was solid and it wrapped the series up nicely.
Now looking forward to ‘The Long Night’…the GOT prequel premiering on HBO sometime in 2020. Btw, the name of the series hasn’t been decided for sure but GRR Martin wants ‘The Long Night’ so…
nittany ramModeratorYep. All energy sources and energy production modes plus all utilities should be nationalized and publicly owned.
For one thing, none of it should be competing. They should all be collaborating under the umbrella of rational policies.
And of course none of it should be profit driven. Rational planning, not profit.
Cause. I mean. Jeesh.
Well said. I would put you in charge if all this if it were up to me.
Your official title would be Director of Energy Resources and Scorpion Ballista Deployment.
nittany ramModeratorSomething that serious ought to be owned by the ‘people’ and not a corporation.
w
vOf course YOU feel that way, Fidel.
Actually I’d be cool if all energy was nationalized. We need to fast track new technologies. I’d like the government to prioritize energy research like they did the first moonshot. I want them to create a NASA for renewable energy. It’ll never happen, because unlike the ‘Space Race’, renewable energy is the enemy of a large portion of the government that’s committed to maintaining the status quo (fossil fuels).
nittany ramModeratorThat was really good.
Along with a carbon tax we need to continuously look to improve upon existing forms of renewable energy and develop new technologies. But any serious proposal to stop climate change must include nuclear energy. Global electricity usage is projected to increase by 50% in the next 20 years or so. Wind and solar power alone simply cannot accommodate that demand. Nuclear energy could and it produces zero carbon. Nuclear energy has its own challenges (nuclear waste, etc) but we no longer have the time to ignore viable options no matter how unpopular they might be.
nittany ramModeratorThis story was always a tragedy.
I think it’s a comedy of errors about incompetent military tactics. For example if you are going to defend a walled city against dragons by relying on “scorpion” ballistas, then, don’t just put them on the walls where they can be attacked from behind from the air. Put some on high points inside the city in groups of 4 facing every direction.
See I knew that. Why didn’t they know that.
…
[\quote]
Ah, but that’s also part of what makes it a tragedy.
If they had deployed the scorpions as you suggest, Darnerys and Drogo would be dead, the relatively benevolent Cercei would still be queen, and about 8 or 9 hundred thousand innocent people would still be alive.
nittany ramModerator<Warning – spoilers galore if you are not up to date>
I always knew, deep down, that Game of Thrones (GOT) would not have a happy ending. Once Ned Stark got his head cut off at the end of the first book/season, I think everyone knew this was a different kind of fantasy story. I read the books first, and as I did it became clear that I was reading a tragedy and a horror story, not heroic fantasy.
I have a few thoughts I would like to share as the last episode of the series is ready to air. The people I watch the show with had a range of reactions to the second-to-last episode, but I think it was completely consistent with the story George R.R. Martin has been telling us all along. He has been deconstructing the medieval fairy tale right in front of our eyes, hitting us over the head with the reality that we already know. It’s interesting how difficult it can be for many to just accept that.
The final delusion was that Martin would bring it all back home. In the end the heroes would defeat evil, a good person would sit on the throne, and a golden age would dawn – it’s the Lord of the Rings ending. But come on – didn’t we all know this story was not LOTR?
First, the Night King, the White Walkers, and their army of the dead was always a side show, even if it was the most captivating. Most of the series has focused on the title action – a game of thrones. I liken the Night King to a natural disaster – it’s looming in the background, some are warning of it, but mostly people ignore it while they focus on their short term politics. In the end we are really not prepared when the disaster finally arrives. The living actuality lly straight-up lose the battle of Winterfell. (Don’t get me started on the terrible battle tactics: opening with a frontal cavalry charge, putting your troops outside your own choke point, and not opening with a sustained artillery bombardment, etc. – but that’s a side point.)
I think the lesson there is that death comes for all of us, and the best we can really do when we confront it is to either say, “not today,” or to face it bravely. Somehow life manages to keep crawling forward. It’s like the Plague, in the end it’s a distraction from what we are really interested in, our political battles.
Getting back to the eponymous main story, Martin has, through his characters, pretty much told us directly how this world works. It is brutal and heartless. Power is all that matters – power through wealth, ruthless cunning, personal prowess, and force of arms. If you think about every character arc in the story, the more brutal and selfish they are, the more they succeed. The more kind, honorable, and trusting they are, the more the world chews them up and destroys them.
Take almost any character – Tyrion used to be much more cynical, and earned a reputation for being cunning and ruthless when he had to be (as Daenerys recently noted). As he has become more and more concerned with the populace, with being a good person, the more hapless he has become. All this has earned him was a string of failures. Arya succeeded because she became a deadly assassin. Sansa went from a naive girl to a savvy politician.
There are some good people in the world (Davos, Brienne) but they are generally at the mercy of those in power. They have no personal ambitions, really, and try to stay in the background serving others.
You survive in a brutal world by being brutal. The world hardens your heart, or it kills you. The other thing you do to survive is to cling to those around you, your family, your people. Don’t trust outsiders. The point is made many times. The North doesn’t trust southerners. Jamie says all the horrible things he did he did for his family, with no regrets, and he’d do it again. In the end he had a choice between the honorable Brienne and family, and he chose his sister. Even Tyrion chose to save his remaining family in the end. The Starks reestablished their power and defeated their foes by staying loyal to each other. Theon realized in the end the Starks were his real family, and his tragic failure was in betraying that.
So how does one win the game of thrones? I think Martin is trying to say that you don’t. The game itself is broken. At best you can have temporary success, if you are able to climb on top of enough other people, but your success is never stable. In order to maintain power you need to perpetuate the brutality and inherent injustice of the system.
The Targaryens were able to unite and rule Westeros because they had dragons – the ultimate military power in this world (as we just saw again in the latest episode). When the dragons died out, their downfall was inevitable. Daenerys can only reestablish Targaryen rule by bringing back the dragons. The Lannisters were a powerful house because of their gold mines. When they dried up, their days were numbered.
What is interesting is that as viewers of this show, from our 21st century Western vantage point, we know this world is broken. The answer is not to put a relatively benign brutal dictator on the throne. Daenerys said it herself – her goal is not to win a turn of the wheel, but to break the wheel. Unfortunately, she did not do that. She just gave it history’s most brutal turn. She convinced herself that to save future generations, she had to burn this one to the ground.
There are only the faintest glimmers of a real solution in the world. The Brothers without Banners are onto something by disavowing all feudal ties. Sandor Clegane (the Hound) recognizes that all knights and nobles are “c@#nts”, and wants no part of it. We come to respect this initially villainous character because he gives us a rare glimpse of someone who realizes the world is broken. He doesn’t have a solution, however, just personal vengeance and more cynicism.
Varys is genuinely concerned for the people, but his solution is to support the best brutal dictator. Even Jon Snow, perhaps the best of them, condones capital punishment for minors, leads thousands of his soldiers to their death because someone pissed him off, and is OK supporting a queen who immolates those who don’t bend the knee to her. To him honor is being the one to personally swing the sword when you order someone’s death for, say, abandoning their post.
There isn’t a single truly virtuous ruler by modern standards in this story. Just shades of gray.
What Westeros needs is a revolution. They need a philosophy of enlightenment, a Magna Carta, something that truly breaks the wheel of totalitarian rule. They need to replace the rule of men with the rule of law. That is their only hope. This is why the rule of law is so precious – a fitting lesson for this time, and perhaps any time.
The totalitarian rule of people has no happy fairy tale ending. Deep down we all know that. We all saw this coming. Martin told us directly countless times in the telling of this story. But still, we want the fairy tale. We want the good guys to win in the end. But Martin is making a strong point – in this system, one ruled by the game of thrones, there are no good guys. There are relatively more or less brutal people, and the more brutal people tend to succeed over time.
This story was always a tragedy.
nittany ramModeratorThe best ending we can hope for….
nittany ramModeratorOne theory I have heard is that in the rough waters, it was possible that both the bow and the stern could have been raised by the crests of huge storm waves, and in that case the ship was so heavy with ore that when the middle of the hull was suspended over a deep trough it would have just snapped in half.
…
That sounds reasonable. The wreck was found in two pieces, snapped in half, almost through the exact middle of the ship.
nittany ramModeratorI saw Gordon Lightfoot perform live sometime in the late 80’s. He has a few songs I really like, but none more-so than The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald. He really paints a picture with that song.
“When suppertime came the old cook came on deck and said Fellas it’s too rough to feed ya.
At 7pm a main hatchway caved in, he said Fellas it’s been good to know ya.”Agreed.
More:
They might have split up or they might have capsized
They may have broke deep and took water
And all that remains is the faces and the names
Of the wives and the sons and the daughtersLightfoot changed some of lyrics in deference to the wives of two of the lost sailors. The wives were upset with the line, “at 7pm the main hatchway gave in…” because their husbands were responsible for the main hatch and they thought it implied that their husbands were at fault for the sinking.
So now the line is “at 7pm it got dark and then…”
The new line doesn’t flow as well or evoke the powerful imagery of the original, but it was cool of him to do that for the widows.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
