re: #15 iceweasel

Geller’s psychological issues could no doubt keep several doctors busy for several years, but one has always stood out to me: her fetishistic love of violent death and especially the violent death of women. She fairly revels in it and the most gruesome images she can find, she loves the notion of female ‘martyrdom’ —-and most of all she’s in love with herself as ‘speaker for the dead’.

This surfaces whether she’s raising money for a tombstone that a girl’s family doesn’t want, posting gruesome images, lingering over graphic descriptions of violence, —one of the binding themes is that Geller is somehow specially entitled, specially in tune, with what the dead really want and deserve.

Don’t expect her to have any compassion for the real victims or their families if it upsets her agenda— any more than she cared about the girl’s family’s wishes in that ridiculous tombstone crusade.

Part of the Orson Scott Card “Ender” series is the custom, in his hypothetical future, of funerals at which some one would serve as “speaker for the dead”, and tell the story of the deceased’s life. The good, the bad, the reasons why they did what they did, and sometimes, the reasons why they did what they shouldn’t have done.

Such a custom would leave a lot of good people looking less like saints than we now tell it, and it would help us understand how some failures had a good side and maybe even meant well.

But Geller isn’t into empathy. As “speaker for the dead”, she’d be miscast. When she dies, whoever gets the job of “speaker” for her is going to have her work cut out for her.

Understanding is not the same as excusing, anyhow.

Using 9/11 as a prop to grab the limelight is inexcusable.