Glinda: The Passive Aggressive Witch

See Glinda’s vacant smile in this picture?

GoodWitchIndeedShe’s smiling because she’s evil! Eeeevil I tell you!

Think I’m kidding?

If you recall, Glinda started the conflict by giving Dorothy the shoes that were Ms West’s only remembrance of her sister, who was so tragically killed by a falling house.

Imagine how you’d feel if the cops gave your dead sibling’s shoes to the person responsible for his or her death.

Glinda is a trouble maker. She interrupts a distraught Wicked Witch, who is trying to find out what the hell has happened to her sister, with the antagonistic, “Aren’t you forgetting the Ruby Slippers?”

Huh?

The Ruby Slippers magically appear on Dorothy’s feet.

The Wicked Witch pleads for the tokens of her sister’s memory.

The very defiant Glinda says, “There they are. And there they’ll stay!”Movies names "The Wizard of Oz"

Meanwhile, you can see Dorothy’s terror. Clearly she does not want to get involved. …and she sure as hell doesn’t want those shoes! – well, maybe.

Glinda further stirs the pot when she commands the Wicked Witch, “Be gone! Before somebody drops a house on you.”

Somewhat unsettled by this, the Wicked Witch takes her leave, – but not before threatening Dorothy and her dog Toto with bodily harm.

Formulating a plan, Glinda says to Dorothy, “I’m afraid you’ve made a rather bad enemy of the Wicked Witch Of The West.”

 You just know Dorothy is thinking,  “Wait.  What?  NO! I do not want to be part of this!”

This is where I think Glinda, upon sending Dorothy off on a wild goose chase, sets her plan in motion.

It's a shortcut to Emerald City.

It’s a shortcut to Emerald City.

In my warped mind, Glinda sets off in her bubble to the Emerald City in order to convince the Wizard to use Dorothy as a means to finally rid themselves of Wicked Witches. Why not? She already killed one witch. what’s another? That’s why she sent Dorothy to the Emerald City by way of the more scenic Yellow Brick Rd, instead of the more direct Red Brick Rd. Everyone in Oz knows Yellow Brick Road runs right past Ms West’s Castle! It’s one of the premier tourist attractions of Oz!

My conspiracy theory comes from one single moment at the end of the film when you realize that Dorothy has been played.

Glinda, with a big smile on her face, says to Dorothy, “You’ve always had the power to go back to Kansas.”

Are you kidding me?!

I just wanted Dorothy to look Glinda straight in the eye and say, “I. Killed. The. Wrong. Witch!”  I wanted Dorothy to beat the living daylight’s out of Glinda. …or maybe look around for another bucket of water. If it worked for one witch, maybe it would work on another.

Glinda, the “good” witch. Ha! I wanna smack that vacant smile right off that bitch’s face!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Advertisements

George Takei: A defeat for DOMA — and the end of ‘ick’

by George Takei (Thursday June 27) Washington Post Op-Ed

George Takei, an actor and activist, played Mr. Sulu on “Star Trek” and is the author of “Oh Myyy!: There Goes the Internet.” Follow him on Twitter: @GeorgeTakei.

 

Forty-four years nearly to the day after drag queens stood their ground against a police raid on the Stonewall Inn, sparking rioting in New York City and marking the beginning of America’s gay rights movement, our nation’s highest court at last held that a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Amazingly, since Stonewall, the question of LGBT rights has evolved from whether homosexuals should have any place in our society to whether gay and lesbian couples should be accorded equal marital stature.

Whenever one group discriminates against another — keeping its members out of a club, a public facility or an institution — it often boils down to a visceral, negative response to something unfamiliar. I call this the “ick.” Indeed, the “ick” is often at the base of the politics of exclusion. Just this March, for example, a young woman at an anti-same-sex-marriage rally in Washington was asked to write down, in her own words, why she was there. Her answer: “I can’t see myself being with a woman. Eww.”

Frankly, as a gay man, I can’t see myself being with one, either. But it’s usually not gays who write the laws. If this woman were in Congress, her personal discomfort might infect her thinking — and her lawmaking. Gays kissing? Ick.

The Supreme Court may be the ultimate interpreter of the rules, but it is still the court of public opinion that matters. And public opinion has shifted — 51 percent of Americans now favor same-sex marriage, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, and 42 percent oppose it. Reflecting this slim majority, Wednesday’s 5 to 4 ruling made clear that “ick” is not a proper basis for constitutional jurisprudence. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his opinion, warned against this specifically, noting that when “determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus . . . ‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual character’ especially require careful consideration.” Kennedy was not prepared to allow the “ick” to remain law, knowing that the result is often embarrassing when judged by history.

For more than 70 years, I’ve watched the “ick” infect American life in a variety of ways and concluded that it’s little more than a function of unfamiliarity. Once upon a time, you never saw two men kissing — for that, you’d have to visit an adult video store.

Even I was taken aback the first time I saw two men being affectionate in public. The “ick” runs deep, instilling unease even in those for whom an act is natural. When I was a child, I knew that my sexuality was not something I could reveal to others. Later, as a young actor, I knew I could not be open about it without serious consequences for my career. It wasn’t until 2005 — when I was in my late 60s — that I came out.

read more at The Washington Post

When you reward bad behavior, expect nothing but bad things. Ball players are not gods. Stop treating them as such.

A girl’s life was ruined by young men who thought they were above reproach. They got that way because we make excuses for athletes. We give them a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card.

More importantly, why do we have to “Teach Boys Not To Rape?” Shouldn’t that come under common sense? Why is it necessary? Does anyone really think there’s even the smallest possibility that these thugs didn’t understand what they were doing was wrong? Seriously?? They knew it was wrong. They did it anyway. Their crocodile tears are a result of being caught, nothing more.

And hey, that phone you’re carrying around, the one used to take pictures of that nearly unconscious girl being assaulted, can also be used to call for help when shit like this goes down. Instead it was used to document horrific behavior for the sole purpose of showing the world what an animal you are. In my opinion, you should go to jail for distribution of child porn.

An unintended side effect to all this is people begin to believe all athletes act like this. That can’t be true. Right?