TED Conversations

Andrea Morisette Grazzini

CEO, WetheP, Inc.

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Who should be more feared. Lions & Tigers & Bears? Or, the Men Behind the Curtains?

The iconic movie The Wizard of Oz premiered August 15, 1939.

it's contributions to cinematic innovation, social identity and philosophical concepts are numerous, if not, uncountable.

Beyond visuals so vivid they can't be missed, the story communicates subtle, often highly sophisticated, themes of human experience and emotion. And how these, engaged with co-relational discoveries and collective action, can result in shared understandings of unseen realities. Specifically: critical truths belied by otherwise accepted facades and conspiratorial agents that undermine common experiences and understandings.

Two pivotal transformations occur in the story that show how appearances can deceive.
-- First are scenes in which Dorothy encounters the heretofore scary characters of the lion, scarecrow and tin man. All, far more flawed than fearsome, as it turns out.
-- Second is the scene in which the powerful Wizard of Oz is revealed to be not only flawed, (just as the others), but more ominously: to be highly manipulative. Playing them, as he does, by amplifying their fears in his efforts to control society.

Contexts in which the original book, the original movie and it's iteration "The Wiz," say much about why the story resonates with so many.

Each was produced during times of civic disparity. Times when gaps between poor and rich were significantly magnified, due to the amplification of fears, fomented and abetted by hidden agents pulling strings that maximized rich privilege by playing on common-fears. From behind closed doors--figuratively or literally.

Given all this and parallels to the times we're in now, it seems prudent to revisit Qs The Wizard of Oz cues up, like:

1. Who should be feared more: Those who coercively communicate, in plain site? Or those who manipulate, beyond common view?
AND --
2. What's more important: Revealing those who conspire to corrupt? Or, facing challenges with efforts that "un-suppress" individual and collective power?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 16 2012: As you pointed out timing is everything. The gap has again widened and movements like the attack on the 1% and the OWS movement implant the salt in the wound. The socialist manifesto is to make all men equal except those who are in charge who are more equal than all of you. Unions say that the owner is the enemy and we must bring him down. So you do now your out of a job. Great plan. Capitalism is build on supply and demand. Once my costs exceed my profits I can no longer operate.

    President Carter and Clinton decided that income should not be a barrier to owning a house and made the banks make loans to people that could never meet payments or maintain the home. This was the basis for the bubble bursting that cause the last economic crisis. Stupid decisions made at that level cannot be controlled either by individuals or collectively. Until the next election.

    On the surface plans such as these look great. Get rid of the rich and we will all be rich ... everyone gets a house ... free medical ... in the end none of these ever work out. The solution is a work ethic and the knowledge of if you cannot afford it don't buy it. We know at our house if the account has no money in it do not write a check. Some how that message cannot be understood at the higher levels.

    In answer to your question if I make a error at my level it is an oops. If those in power make a error it become a crisis effecting millions of people. Attempts to manuplate, bypass laws, and promote a political agenda are by far the greatest danger we face. The fact that we may become surpressed and not even be aware of it for a period of time is a nightmare. However, those dragons exist by passing laws that unread and have no visable means of funding past the first year. Even when corruption is exposed there are those who drink the koolade any way.

    All the best. Bob.
    • thumb
      Aug 16 2012: Interesting thoughts, Bob.

      Agreed. When corruption is exposed there are those who drink the Kool-aid anyway. That said, though I think corruption has something to do with laws, it clearly doesn't have everything to do with them.

      As a tech-entrepreneur during the Clinton administration, my view is the sum of his administrations economic impact can't be boiled down only to the mortgage mess. Many policies during that time abetted our and others' ability to build jobs. A notable one: the release of GPS, a Dept of Defense asset, for private enterprise.

      As to your point that the answer is to replace administrations who's performance is less than ideal, in this example regards Clinton's influence on mortgage lending, it's reasonable in theory, but not practice. The mortgage crisis not only grew after the Clinton administration, but Bush policy supported less oversight of mortgage corruption. A non-partisan corollary is the war in Afghanistan, started during the Bush administration and long understood as a quagmire, continues.

      Another example: The Patriot Act was a Bush policy, disliked by liberals. But, retained by Obama administration. While Bush intended it to combat foreign terrorism and corruption, Obama is also using it to combat homegrown terrorism and corruption.

      All why simply voting out the guy one doesn't believe in, doesn't mean his policies -- for bad or good -- might not be sustained by the following leader.

      And, I'm not fully tracking how OWS movement is "implanting salt" in economic wounds. I'd agree it's drawing a painful light to heretofore unseen disparities, yes. But, though there are tensions, the net effect is participatory democracy. Moving the country from denial into hard conversations is, I'd say, prudent to insure that mortgage fraudsters, etc. are suppressed more than uninformed citizens are. Given the fact many 1% agree with the 99%ers, it's implied they are onto something.

      Andrea

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.