i'm not there 2007

10/9 watch I’m Not There todd haynes.   had bn not so int bcs ~ catherine blanchett as dylan feels too..fmlr.  but now am int, d n know had christian bale.  is other char actually a singer, I guess more folk (blanchett dylan more electric, rock).  then heath ledger as movie star plays bayle char, gets the love story like dylans, w charlotte gainsbourg, who I can see here as interesting beautiful.  / so those three as young men Dylan, stars.  then the poet Dylan, a voice.  ben whishaw who is lead in the bbc criminal justice, of wh ‘night of’ is adaptatn.  / then older mythological outlaw figure billy played by gere.  and kid following the mythology hopping trains calling himself Woody Guthrie.  //
pretty cool.  collage poetry ~ in vicinity of idea of this person bob dylan.  int to read about. 
christian bale char, 42 min into film, drunk receiving civil liberties award: “ first of all bcs you’re all young.  and it’s taken me a while to get young; and now I consider myself young. and I’m proud of it.  it aint old peoples world out there.”  /isn’t it? they’re shaping it but ~ the young have it to be within, to react to./  (‘I’m younger now’)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368794/faq   the young boy hops trains and lives with hobos-poor folks, the poorest. He is 'saved' by middle-class white folks, who treat him as a curiosity, but don't pay much attention to his radical political ideas. As an adult, as Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale, or Heath Ledger, he struggles with this 'split'-how can he sing songs about poor folks to middle-class folks…   Each of them struggles with the split differently-through anger, opposition, sadness.  /wh? is it th dffrnt?  I read chr bale as sad.  but also angry.  oppositional.  blanchett all those as well, rt.  ledger mostly angry?//
bale: “you can boo, but booin’s got nothing to do w it.”   “they want me to sing pointing fingers songs, I only got ten fingers.”

/love this movie, crafted  ~
                             rimbaud char speaking throughout as voice poet under all. 
beginning = kid folk wanderer   }  d n see him again after woodie guthrie deathbed   ~ 40 min in . 
           three men in life:  folk singer jack rollins..                 /near beginning, and at 40 min in we see his awards dinner upset ~ end docum/               / .. til near end come back to him as Father John. 
                heath ledger fame love story..   /this starts within and overlaps fr there out/                    quinn (who I actually think as dylan) first seen at ~ 45 min in.  after finished w beginning (kid)  and thr segue of jack rollins seeming end of story, upset public
                        > quinn’s public also upset w him ..   .. near end:  “folk music just a word I dnt get to use anymore”
ending = outlaw { d n see him until ~ 1:15  // his is last story beat, on train. 

political ~ man is animal who speaks

meanwhile d trump.  that debate.  felt like the grownups -civilizatn - might not be able to keep things ~ civil.  reasonable.  not man against man.  trump “it’s one against three” - they were trying.  felt like we need Obama. 
(saw tweet quoting the republ ~ last thing we want is four more yrs of obama. and saying, that is wh we want, that is all we want.)  

trump felt to me like jack nicholson in A Few Good Men.   like Trump, saying he hadn’t paid taxes, or saying sth else, would  - w that hand gesture  let me tell it like it is  yeah I did this  look, this what everyone does  - go too far.  say sth straight up unacceptable.  wh I guess wld have to be legally actionable, immediately.   like j nicholson saying he ordered the code red, and everyone got quiet.      and that was it.  no more question.   and the prosecutor for the us govt kevin bacon had to recover, and arrest the general. 
like that moment where everyone will looks around, clinton too, and then what?
who wld hv bn the authority in that room?   here?  the moderators?  the debate commision? security police?   
...

//this is where I am.  this is personally how I react:  who will keep that room safe?
with the danger I see being?  this one man.  Trump.  to the room.  
threatens to override the civility of the institutions he is within.
/and I might like a radical who disrupts that civility?  if in the name of - well, if acting out of a subjectivity that is appealing and relatable to me?  even, maybe, "burn it all down".  [I'm Not There - christian bale at civil liberties dinner, drunk, getting award, saying he saw in Kennedy's assassin sth he has felt.]      (but also I think that would be contained.  that is danger possible in and from me, but it is not widely present in people, or ~ not in a way they would act on?  that feeling tends to stay more solitary.  doesn't it?  it's not a feeling of people in power, accruing power. usually.  what feeling? despair. > nihilism.)
Trump wants followers.  he wants to be big. famous.  motivated to be beloved and right and to win.  and capable at it. 
bullying.  I mean even if not choosing to be.  will react to any slight with a great attempt to injure.   and is capable at those attempts to injure.  goes all in.  unabashed.  which is powerful.  to meet with Clinton accusers and bring them to family row of debate!  audacious.  and effective, made an impact, created to me huge tension.  ///


 ...   What Is Truth?






what is amazing is th if you trust Trump and distrust Clinton (cause & effect going either way), you think a moment like that almost happened that was -her- -- admitting criminality -- in not denying deleted emails. 
and so trump is saying he wld put her in jail.
and he says she lies and lies.  
and the thing is ‘we’ see this as extreme, coming from him, who hardly has any seeming deference to facts at all. 
vs:    she lies in ordinary political ways of public private not-earnest means-to-ends … we are used to it, accept it as not (newly) dangerous, but we welcome Bernie saying No to it, saying let’s say true things.  let's call it out.  let's not accept but try to fight against the current state of things.  danger already having befallen us. of great inequality. of climate damage. 
we say yes she is not a truth teller.  we say: but Trump just says wildly false things, contradictory one moment to next. 
but to his supporters he seems like a truth teller.  maybe he gets facts wrong; but I guess cld look like he gets the gist?  he believes wh he says.  is this accurate?  he believes wh he says (wh makes it amazing if we are against him and we are considering facts); Clinton believes wh she says only in a complicated way ~ she believes it is worth saying, maybe. 
~~   it’s like incompatible species.  I mean actually.  I mean sort of like clan of the cave bear.  not as an insult.  the neanderthals may have been better people, even better as a species in a way.
but the cro magnons could just do subtraction.  cld just reverse addition.  as a mental process.  and the neanderthals couldn’t get minds around it.  wh also means maybe cld hv appreciated it as an amazing thought, not just a mental manuever (this does not apply to trump, but to someone who is not espclly sharp, but thoughtful?).
 cro magnon mind more sophisticated ~ means what?  can make more movements.  triplicate ratio. 
I don’t know.  incompatible, though. 
and I’d rather the same old status quo lying?    than an earnest hugely wrong (re facts) reactionary style. 
I’d rather smart. 
smart *and* earnest, if you can get it.  (Bernie.)  Obama? compare/contrast.  Obama's selling point is smart rather than earnest.  inspiring.  yes idealism.  but not such a progressive?  (why not?)  Obama is an orator and a leader.  Sanders is a legislator and an activist.   ~ maybe, but cld say same of the other.     
/so, how about ted cruz?  smart, right?  and earnest ~ no.  but let's say he was,  but just earnest about policies I do not like.  wh means what?  policies I do not think *nice* - to those not sharing beliefs, christian stances mainly. ~  to not straight ppl.  to women who want not to have children..
I'd go for not so smart but earnest and careful, maybe, if able to work together with smart. 


 People are different to each other.
   looking at Trumps crowd
 (apparently all white, behind podium in western PA on Monday; but probably some non-white). upsetting.
viewing this as a divide among people - not the two nominees' personalities but the people who support them - (so personalities of the nominees in as much as how they appeal to these ppl, wh ppl see)
left vs right?  liberal vs conservative =  at very basic  =   hope vs fear
(even while Clinton may be pretty conservative, still she does seem to have ideals ..   and pretty certainly people who want the world to progress, to *become* better *for people who are not like them*,  are with her, right? versus people who want the country to *return* to and be safeguarded as prosperity *for people like them* are with Trump? )     

I can see what they like, I think.  “lock her up” goes too far, chanting, bcs aren’t they struck - even if they think her actions are illegal - that chanting for her lock-up is … like a mob? 
so what do I see?  they think open borders is extreme, crazy.  they boo the idea that Hilary wants to rule the world (she doesn’t, but yes I suppose she wld want a more united world!)   vs Trump wants to make the country great again.  against the world.  he will make it so You Win. 
why would you not want a borderless world? maybe you say: bcs it isn’t that. get real.  “give me a break.”  bcs we are at war.  right?  that is the view.  but even as an ideal?   seriously: bcs it means no job for you.  insecurity.  other people getting what is yours.   other people on your home ground hurting you.  you want to be protected. 
govt shld protect its people.  
conservative ~ protecting freedoms first of all.  people get to do what they can for themselves, uninhibited by govt.  get to protect their property.  >> this becomes: get to keep out foreigners, get to not share.  and govt shld do this on the larger scale. 
and not that clinton doesn’t agree, right, that govt must protect from outside threats but her protection from ~encroachers~ even in theory compromised by ideas of fairness (the left). 
and in practice, the bigger deal, she disdains you.  she thinks you are lesser.   
~~  I think she means it that she wants to be president for everyone.  I think she prob is capable of sympathy for most individuals in need.  but as a crowd and a sentiment, does she disdain people who think protectionism has to trump ~decency?  probably.  seems less smart.  bigoted.  / seriously: what is the case for ~bigotry?  in seriousness, mostly a case wld not be made for being a bigot. wld be said that ppl are attacked as 'bigots' for wanting to stand up for thmslvs.  they get attacked as racist, dumb, etc.  ok.  and why is it that standing up for thmslvs has to look like that (open thmslvs up to that)?  bcs not everyone can win.  bcs affirmative action means: someone got your spot.  (you only don’t hv to worry about this if your spot was never in qstn? as an ‘elite’) 

in short, I’d like us not to think “it’s crazy” that ppl cld want trump as president and believe wh he says, but to consider why.  not disdainfully.  like even if we disagree, do not diagnose.  just disagree.  but understand they actually want something here.  right.  they think it will be better.  why do they think that?  because: he’s real, he’s not smug (twd them), he’s successful and he will succeed on their behalf. 
and the readiest most important argument here is probably:  he won’t. he won’t make things better for you. 
that is actually wh shld be conveyed, right? 
it is easy and interesting (to me!!) to get caught up in why this man trump is terrible.  unbelievably reactionary to any criticism, and unthoughtful.   but so what?  his supporters like his demeanor, more or less, and even if they don’t, so what, if they think he will be a better president?  for you.  
wh is pretty much our position, many of us, w Hillary.  we don’t love her ways, personally.  but she’ll do her best and she is very capable. 
trump supporters wld say the same, right: he will do his best, and he is very capable.
and so the thing is, will he?  make things better for you?  even, might he? 
is someone putting out reasoned discussion of why and how he probably will not?
I suppose so, and that is just not what I am reading (other than saying he won’t bcs he is nuts etc).  there are articles saw one today what a trump presidency wld look like.  this seems like the way to campaign against him.  convey to supporters:  Will you get what you want?  No.  (assuming that is the answer.)
like, will be bring back steel and mining to western PA?
(seems bad for envmt I guess, but maybe it's happening elsewhere he says and you are just going to reclaim it.  that aside, will he bring jobs and prosperity to them?)  






////// could I write this in an organized way? 
if I had a very good motivation?  still, not easily?
bcs it is stream.  it's not declarative.  is any of this a declaration I'd want to *make" and *stand by*?  maybe as a declaration of what I think, how it seems to me.... but: as it is?  the part after "I think", not the fact I am thinking that ~~~~