I intend, if at all possible, not to talk about politics. I also intend, though this is slightly less likely, not to discuss issues that would fall under the moniker "hot-button", i.e. religion, abortion, sexism in the workplace, or the validity of the spork in modern society. Instead, I have a few random, by which I mean unimportant-to-everyone-but-me, thoughts. Seeing as how this is my blog, though, I should be a little self-indulgent from time to time, by which I mean all the time.
United 93 opens in theaters today, and I say kudos to you, hollywood. There really was far too much turn-around between our tragedies and our dramatizations before. You have finally caught up to Lifetime and Fox with your ability to create films not based on message or quality, but on immediacy and ability to use the marketing phrase "based on real events". Let me clarify, I am no way opposed to this movie, and I don't think its distasteful. I also think that with Greengrass directing, it may turn out to be an excellent film. I think it's important that we document and examine all of the important events of our history whenever possible. However, dealing with an event so soon after it occured, and so soon that people are still very sensitive about it, not to mention that thanks to modern conveniences such as the cell phone we have many records of what actually transpired, that the filmmakers are left to do little more than create a re-enactment. Cinema is not about recreating reality, but about creating a story unto itself that is not only compelling and with the ring of truth, but that through its dramatic structure and choices inspires us and says something profound. When you have to work so hard just to be accurate, and take almost no license, that's not really possible. It's like when Passion of the Christ came out (not talking about religion, not talking about religion). That was a terrible film, if only because it really had no point. There was no drama, no conflict, no choices. Merely a long slow death for its protagonist; a forgone conclusion of the least interesting kind. The argument people made was "but that's how it happened in the Bible". Well, not getting into the artistic merits of the Bible, nor the 'accuracy' of it, my point is that to create a compelling narrative, you can't just imitate something word-for-word. Not to mention (though I am) that there is something to be said for not making that movie when you don't have anything interesting to add to it. Yes, that's what really happened, or yes, that's how it is in the Bible. Well, if that's all there is, and you don't have something fresh to say about it, then don't make that movie. Make one of the other 30,000 screenplays that get submitted each year. Maybe Rob Schneider could get into some sort-of wacky misadventure with Ashton Kutcher and that chick that blows everybody. You know the one I mean.
Okay, that first bit took up a lot of space so I'll cram in my other thoughts in as little space as possible.
Starbucks should build a skyscraper where each floor is itself a separately owned and operated Starbucks. It's where they are going anyway, and hey, I'd go there.
Also, why are we already so eager to convert to HD-DVD. As it is, most people can't tell the difference between widescreen and that cropped nonsense they put on DVDs at WalMart, or tell the difference between good cinematography and the "let's point the lights at the thing we're shooting" mentality of the movies most of them go to see, so why should they care about the miniscule, almost imperceptible difference between DVD and High Definition DVD.
And another thing, why do they still bother to make those bs sheer plastic band-aids (I'm using the brand name for clarity). Sure, the fabric ones may be a little harder to get off, but that's the point. They are hardcore. You don't have to be worried that the slightest breeze is going to rip off your bandage and expose the wound, and you don't have to be worried about sweating or getting the bandage wet. If you even look at one of those plastic ones funny, it'll fall right off. And those "clear" ones aren't fooling anyone - we can see your bandage. No, for quality, its all about fabric. That's right, I said it, and I don't care what you think. Its the truth, and the truth cannot be silenced.
Oh, and what's the deal with airline peanuts?
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
My Brain Hurts Just a Little
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Gring during the Nuremberg Trials
What does it take? Honestly...what does it take before people start to do something, anything about their lot in life? Let me be clear, because it could seem like I'm just yet another commentator on the horrors of the Bush administration, and no, I'm not so crass as to compare George Bush to Adolf Hitler or the Republicans to the Nazis. They are entirely different, but my point is that the tools of the devil can also be the tools of the common thief. Propaganda and manipulation change little through the ages. Where is this coming from? Let me begin.
Bill Kristol was on The Colbert Report tonight, jumping on the bandwagon of Bush-bashing (everyone jumps ship from their favorite captain when the poll numbers hit 32% in a Fox poll), yet supporting every initiative that the Bush administration has backed. He is certainly having his cake and eating it too. When asked about the November elections, he predicted, accurately I hope, that the Democrats would take back the House of Representatives at the least, thanks in large part (this is the part he didn't say) to the recent exposure of just how corrupt the modern conservative politician is. Meanwhile, as the Republican party scrambles to discredit every Democrat they can get their hands on, and pretend that these controversies are libelous hearsay, Mr. Kristol tried claiming that this is just what the Republicans want, for the Democrats to take back the house so that in the two years leading up to the Presidential election they can show the American public just how awful they are, by raising taxes and raping babies, or whatever it is that he thinks they could possibly do to upset people. Here he is telling us that even if the Republicans lose, that it's a good thing for them, and it just means they are going to win big later, hoping that none of us notice that he just made 2 and 2 equal 5.
And while we are being told that George Bush didn't want to be a war President, that he was forced into it when we were attacked, no one seems to care much that the entire world is becoming a more unstable place. Having obviously not learned their lesson, especially since the easily-fooled public keeps putting them back in office, the New American Century crowd now has their eyes on Iran, and probably four or five countries after that. Considering that none of these countries has yet to attack us, I find it hard to follow the logic of "we don't have a choice" when we knowingly choose to ignore threats the likes of North Korea or Darfur (yes, instability and human rights abuse is a threat in the world today, at the very least to our humanity).
There was a brief and shining moment in my early life when I thought that, perhaps, the world had learned a valuable lesson from the Cold War era of nuclear terror, when the doomsday clock edged closer to midnight. Even for a child in the 80's, and era of comparitively little strife, the paranoia and fear were palpable, but it seemed that out of that we might live in a world where real war, aside from peacekeeping and the likes, was a thing of the past; where, maybe, we might be able to slowly move towards disarmament and cooperation. But with the leadership of the neo-'conservative' movement, we've faced not one but two wars in Iraq, the second of which smells vaguely familiar, and a vague war on terror which means that, for the forseable future, war will be the appetizer, meal, and dessert. We live in a state of perpetual war, which can be counted on to create fear, to justify horrible atrocities and violations of law, to manipulate and redefine.
As we struggle to bend the world to our own choosing, we interupt the natural process of national evolution throughout the world. In our attempts to democratize the middle-east, or more accurately make the middle east the puppet of other democracies, we give these dictatorial leaders the tools by which to control their people and instill fear, quelling their natural urges for reform or revolution. Iran is a nation that, left to its own devices, and with encouragement from the western world, could become a free and democratic nation in a part of the world where we clearly don't know how to create such a thing. Yet here we are, ready to fire our weapons before we can speak, killing not only the regime that terrifies us, but the peaceful populace which becomes the human shield.
And what makes me sick is that no one notices or talks about it, that the issues of the day become immigrants and hydrogen cars. And what makes me even sicker is that then I ramble on and sound like some high school anarchist or community college hippie. I wish that the world could be the sort of place that allowed me to be the vacuous, self-indulged person we all long to be. I don't want to care about such things. But when the bully stands up, someone stands between him and the lunch money that isn't his.
What does it take? Honestly...what does it take before people start to do something, anything about their lot in life? Let me be clear, because it could seem like I'm just yet another commentator on the horrors of the Bush administration, and no, I'm not so crass as to compare George Bush to Adolf Hitler or the Republicans to the Nazis. They are entirely different, but my point is that the tools of the devil can also be the tools of the common thief. Propaganda and manipulation change little through the ages. Where is this coming from? Let me begin.
Bill Kristol was on The Colbert Report tonight, jumping on the bandwagon of Bush-bashing (everyone jumps ship from their favorite captain when the poll numbers hit 32% in a Fox poll), yet supporting every initiative that the Bush administration has backed. He is certainly having his cake and eating it too. When asked about the November elections, he predicted, accurately I hope, that the Democrats would take back the House of Representatives at the least, thanks in large part (this is the part he didn't say) to the recent exposure of just how corrupt the modern conservative politician is. Meanwhile, as the Republican party scrambles to discredit every Democrat they can get their hands on, and pretend that these controversies are libelous hearsay, Mr. Kristol tried claiming that this is just what the Republicans want, for the Democrats to take back the house so that in the two years leading up to the Presidential election they can show the American public just how awful they are, by raising taxes and raping babies, or whatever it is that he thinks they could possibly do to upset people. Here he is telling us that even if the Republicans lose, that it's a good thing for them, and it just means they are going to win big later, hoping that none of us notice that he just made 2 and 2 equal 5.
And while we are being told that George Bush didn't want to be a war President, that he was forced into it when we were attacked, no one seems to care much that the entire world is becoming a more unstable place. Having obviously not learned their lesson, especially since the easily-fooled public keeps putting them back in office, the New American Century crowd now has their eyes on Iran, and probably four or five countries after that. Considering that none of these countries has yet to attack us, I find it hard to follow the logic of "we don't have a choice" when we knowingly choose to ignore threats the likes of North Korea or Darfur (yes, instability and human rights abuse is a threat in the world today, at the very least to our humanity).
There was a brief and shining moment in my early life when I thought that, perhaps, the world had learned a valuable lesson from the Cold War era of nuclear terror, when the doomsday clock edged closer to midnight. Even for a child in the 80's, and era of comparitively little strife, the paranoia and fear were palpable, but it seemed that out of that we might live in a world where real war, aside from peacekeeping and the likes, was a thing of the past; where, maybe, we might be able to slowly move towards disarmament and cooperation. But with the leadership of the neo-'conservative' movement, we've faced not one but two wars in Iraq, the second of which smells vaguely familiar, and a vague war on terror which means that, for the forseable future, war will be the appetizer, meal, and dessert. We live in a state of perpetual war, which can be counted on to create fear, to justify horrible atrocities and violations of law, to manipulate and redefine.
As we struggle to bend the world to our own choosing, we interupt the natural process of national evolution throughout the world. In our attempts to democratize the middle-east, or more accurately make the middle east the puppet of other democracies, we give these dictatorial leaders the tools by which to control their people and instill fear, quelling their natural urges for reform or revolution. Iran is a nation that, left to its own devices, and with encouragement from the western world, could become a free and democratic nation in a part of the world where we clearly don't know how to create such a thing. Yet here we are, ready to fire our weapons before we can speak, killing not only the regime that terrifies us, but the peaceful populace which becomes the human shield.
And what makes me sick is that no one notices or talks about it, that the issues of the day become immigrants and hydrogen cars. And what makes me even sicker is that then I ramble on and sound like some high school anarchist or community college hippie. I wish that the world could be the sort of place that allowed me to be the vacuous, self-indulged person we all long to be. I don't want to care about such things. But when the bully stands up, someone stands between him and the lunch money that isn't his.
Friday, April 14, 2006
It's Awfully White Outside
It's often easy to think that in our modern world of Condoleezas, Bryants, and Cents (50) that race relations have improved and that all people, regardless of color, have a fair shot at the good life. Nowhere is this falsehood more appearant than in a big city, for example, New York City. Ride the subway in Brooklyn and you'll find that the vast majority of passengers throughout most of the day are African-American, and a great deal of Hispanic people as well. A young white man such as myself stands out as a minority here. As the train moves up into Manhattan though, get off at Wall Street and what you'll see is a sea of white, mostly male, faces staring back at you. Sure, you may see one or two non-white people, and yes, some women do work on Wall Street, but for the most part this is the stereotypical social club of Middle-Aged Caucasian Males.
The question then becomes, is this an intentional state of affairs, one race kept at arms length by the actions of another, or is it something else. Maybe a person's race determines their inclination towards certain professions, though in reality I think it far more likely that a person's race determines the opportunity and likelihood for them to get certain jobs. Don't get me wrong, I believe every person is, for the most part, a master of thier own destiny. Your place in life is your own doing and your own responsibility. That being said, though, the odds are really stacked against some people, but in ways far subtler than most people even realize.
For instance, the American dream (has been co-opted). As a white, middle-class child in the United States, you're told that one day you could be a doctor, a lawyer, a politician, or just about anything else and you're told this with conviction and support to back it up. Though this dream is shared by all races, it's toned down for some. Minority youth are fed the idea that the best opportunities they have are to join the military or own a store, or at the upper echelons to become a professional athlete or entertainer. Sure, those can be good opportunities, and yes, this isn't true for all minorities, but given that a greater number of minority children are born into lower economic classes, they start life with a fairly serious deficit.
Then, in large part because of economic status, neighborhoods become polarized. Certain parts of the city become dominated by people of a certain race, and that only serves to fuel the idea that you do in fact live in a seperate world and can't be a part of anyone else's. So, you create your own identity. A lingo or style of communication all your own. Perhaps you dress a certain way, or devote your time to certain pastimes, and hang out in certain places. Sure, it creates a community, but a community separate from every other, from which you are now making it harder for you to extract yourself. This "your culture is different" idea is not simply created from within but fostered from without. When different music is promoted to black youth than white, when movies of the all-new blaxplotation are created with all African-American casts and a hip-hop soundtrack and then promoted to and shown primarily only in African-American neighborhoods what they are saying is "here you go, all the junk you like because you can't understand our movies, so fork over your money and we'll insult you some more." The modern segregation doesn't say "you can't drink from this water fountain" it says "you don't like our water".
Racial issues have again been brought to the fore by the recent immigration legislation brought up in our federal government. It's bad enough that the politicians and the media mischaracterize the situation, but even worse than that is the fact that immigrants are playing into it. What we're told is that Mexicans are stealing our jobs and clogging our nation, which is in fact untrue. Firstly, there are an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in this nation, from dozens of nations. Many of them come from Latin America due to poor economic circumstances, political strife, and the close proximity to the United States, however every day we have Irish citizens who overstay their Visa, Chinese citizens who fly in for good, or take the example of just this week when several Canadians were arrested for smuggling Pakistani expatriots into the United States. People come from all over, and despite what you've been told, they are not all swimming across the Rio Grande and they can't be stopped by a fence. Most illegal immigrants enter this country legally, via plane, with a visa, but then don't leave when they are supposed to. They generate billions of dollars in revenue every year, not to mention that they then spend a lot of the money they earn in the United States.
The problem is that while protests take place all over this nation, they are simultaneously telling people exactly what they are pre-disposed to believe. They've called for a boycott on May 1st of all U.S. businesses by immigrants in the U.S. and...wait for it, in Mexico. Nevermind the fact that many of the businesses they've called to boycott in Mexico are actually owned and operated by Mexico, or the fact that most U.S. business interests are supporting the immigrant cause because they like having a large workforce that will work for lower wages. The real point is that with calling for this boycott they've said exactly what Americans watching Fox News fear..."Yes, we're all Mexicans and we've come to destroy your economy from the inside".
We have all accepted our roles without question, and finally the cracks are starting to show. Maybe if we started reaching outside of our own "culture" (and believe me, the fact different races tend to watch different t.v. shows does not, to me, denote culture) we could make it a little less easy for people to so quickly turn us against one another for political gain. Let's stop talking about Hispanics overcrowding our schools and start talking about the real problem that our schools are underfunded, poorly run, and that the only reason illegal immigrants are able to use our school system is because no one is really paying the close attention that our children's education deserves. Let's stop talking about affirmative action and start talking about the real issues of cultural gentrification and disparity. Let's stop talking about the portrayal of minorities in the media and start talking about the portrayal of minorities in our daily discussions and by minorities of prominence (not just rappers and pervert athletes, but liars and nutcases in politics) And let's stop talking about things that SEEM like a big deal, and start talking about things that ARE
.
P.S. Don't think I haven't noticed that this immigration bill which was written by Republicans, voted for by a majority of Republicans, and passed despite the efforts of Democrats to block it (only 36 Democrats, the minority party, voted for this bill in the house) is now being blamed on the Democrats. Republicans are trying to claim that the Democrats didn't put up a serious fight because they knew it was a bad bill that would turn people against the Republicans, so they wanted it to pass, as though they also forced the Republicans to write the bill and all vote for it too. The problem is that while we should be paying attention to this, we're too busy talking about borders and welfare. The problem is not in our fences, but in the people who build them.
The question then becomes, is this an intentional state of affairs, one race kept at arms length by the actions of another, or is it something else. Maybe a person's race determines their inclination towards certain professions, though in reality I think it far more likely that a person's race determines the opportunity and likelihood for them to get certain jobs. Don't get me wrong, I believe every person is, for the most part, a master of thier own destiny. Your place in life is your own doing and your own responsibility. That being said, though, the odds are really stacked against some people, but in ways far subtler than most people even realize.
For instance, the American dream (has been co-opted). As a white, middle-class child in the United States, you're told that one day you could be a doctor, a lawyer, a politician, or just about anything else and you're told this with conviction and support to back it up. Though this dream is shared by all races, it's toned down for some. Minority youth are fed the idea that the best opportunities they have are to join the military or own a store, or at the upper echelons to become a professional athlete or entertainer. Sure, those can be good opportunities, and yes, this isn't true for all minorities, but given that a greater number of minority children are born into lower economic classes, they start life with a fairly serious deficit.
Then, in large part because of economic status, neighborhoods become polarized. Certain parts of the city become dominated by people of a certain race, and that only serves to fuel the idea that you do in fact live in a seperate world and can't be a part of anyone else's. So, you create your own identity. A lingo or style of communication all your own. Perhaps you dress a certain way, or devote your time to certain pastimes, and hang out in certain places. Sure, it creates a community, but a community separate from every other, from which you are now making it harder for you to extract yourself. This "your culture is different" idea is not simply created from within but fostered from without. When different music is promoted to black youth than white, when movies of the all-new blaxplotation are created with all African-American casts and a hip-hop soundtrack and then promoted to and shown primarily only in African-American neighborhoods what they are saying is "here you go, all the junk you like because you can't understand our movies, so fork over your money and we'll insult you some more." The modern segregation doesn't say "you can't drink from this water fountain" it says "you don't like our water".
Racial issues have again been brought to the fore by the recent immigration legislation brought up in our federal government. It's bad enough that the politicians and the media mischaracterize the situation, but even worse than that is the fact that immigrants are playing into it. What we're told is that Mexicans are stealing our jobs and clogging our nation, which is in fact untrue. Firstly, there are an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in this nation, from dozens of nations. Many of them come from Latin America due to poor economic circumstances, political strife, and the close proximity to the United States, however every day we have Irish citizens who overstay their Visa, Chinese citizens who fly in for good, or take the example of just this week when several Canadians were arrested for smuggling Pakistani expatriots into the United States. People come from all over, and despite what you've been told, they are not all swimming across the Rio Grande and they can't be stopped by a fence. Most illegal immigrants enter this country legally, via plane, with a visa, but then don't leave when they are supposed to. They generate billions of dollars in revenue every year, not to mention that they then spend a lot of the money they earn in the United States.
The problem is that while protests take place all over this nation, they are simultaneously telling people exactly what they are pre-disposed to believe. They've called for a boycott on May 1st of all U.S. businesses by immigrants in the U.S. and...wait for it, in Mexico. Nevermind the fact that many of the businesses they've called to boycott in Mexico are actually owned and operated by Mexico, or the fact that most U.S. business interests are supporting the immigrant cause because they like having a large workforce that will work for lower wages. The real point is that with calling for this boycott they've said exactly what Americans watching Fox News fear..."Yes, we're all Mexicans and we've come to destroy your economy from the inside".
We have all accepted our roles without question, and finally the cracks are starting to show. Maybe if we started reaching outside of our own "culture" (and believe me, the fact different races tend to watch different t.v. shows does not, to me, denote culture) we could make it a little less easy for people to so quickly turn us against one another for political gain. Let's stop talking about Hispanics overcrowding our schools and start talking about the real problem that our schools are underfunded, poorly run, and that the only reason illegal immigrants are able to use our school system is because no one is really paying the close attention that our children's education deserves. Let's stop talking about affirmative action and start talking about the real issues of cultural gentrification and disparity. Let's stop talking about the portrayal of minorities in the media and start talking about the portrayal of minorities in our daily discussions and by minorities of prominence (not just rappers and pervert athletes, but liars and nutcases in politics) And let's stop talking about things that SEEM like a big deal, and start talking about things that ARE
.
P.S. Don't think I haven't noticed that this immigration bill which was written by Republicans, voted for by a majority of Republicans, and passed despite the efforts of Democrats to block it (only 36 Democrats, the minority party, voted for this bill in the house) is now being blamed on the Democrats. Republicans are trying to claim that the Democrats didn't put up a serious fight because they knew it was a bad bill that would turn people against the Republicans, so they wanted it to pass, as though they also forced the Republicans to write the bill and all vote for it too. The problem is that while we should be paying attention to this, we're too busy talking about borders and welfare. The problem is not in our fences, but in the people who build them.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Nobody Likes a Know-It-All
Many people are sensitive about their intelligence, obviously since no one enjoys being called an 'idiot' or 'moron'. However, most people spend so much time concerned about not looking stupid that they never give a thought to how seemingly-smart people are treated. Keeping in mind, this doesn't just apply to people who are actually smart, but people who enjoy behavior (i.e. reading, not eating glue) that is considered the domain of the intellectual.
Growing up in Colts Neck, New Jersey, you go to school in a very competitive environment, in every sense. Everyone is competing to be the smartest, best athlete, best student, in effect the best person, and of course this is all instigated by the parents who suffer from their own inferiority complexes. Even there, though, people would often look at you cross-eyed if you chose to read a book instead of play basketball. None the less, it sets you up to always overreach and try to be a genius.
High school was quite the opposite. I found I had to actually dumb-down everything I said in order to even be understood, let alone not made fun of. Whenever someone saw me reading a book, they'd ask what I was reading it for, and when I responded "for fun" they would give me the look you'd give someone who said they enjoyed gargling razor blades. It works the same all over, when you're competing to be the best, the easiest thing to do is not to improve yourself but to knock other people down. Just like honors students will often make fun of the "dumb jocks" who will one day pump their gas, the dumb kids will mock the "nerds" who will never know the joy of wild orgies and football glory.
Let's just say, though, that more than people ever want to acknowledge, intelligence alienates people in much the same way as race, gender, orientation, or economic status. For one, there is a negative correlation between intelligence and religious fervor, meaning that the smarter you are, the less likely you are to whole-heartedly throw yourself into faith in God and the afterlife. So, right from the start, the worldview that defines people is drastically different depending on your intelligence. Even if you are intelligent and religious, chances are that you would be alienated even from other religious people because they would follow faith blindly, and would always question your faith.
Also, smarter people tend to get married later in life, if at all, and tend to be mistrusted by a large part of the populace. Ever wonder why people espouse the harmful intentions of the "liberal, ivy-league, intellectual elite?" Number one, its because people have no problem insulting intellectuals, even though calling someone dumb is considered a massive afront.
On the plus side, smarter people tend to live longer, lead healthier lives, avoid welfare, divorce, unwanted children, and poverty. But what's the point if no one wants to invite you to a party? That's bull', I tell's ya. If we really live in a society that wants to be open and accepting, why are we still so critical of the one class of people most likely to be open-minded? Anti-intellectualism is not merely unjustified, but its just plain stupid. When you let the least informed, or least intelligent people make all of the decisions, what you end up with is a war with a country that has no nuclear weapons while other countries are developing them, an economy of record deficits, and increased social strife and polarization. Is it so bad to think that intelligence is something to be strived for, that all people should always be trying to become smarter, or that we should entrust positions of power to smart people and not well-connected or "average, down home" people?
And maybe we'd be better off without the likes of American Idol, Fox News, and Michael Bay movies.
Growing up in Colts Neck, New Jersey, you go to school in a very competitive environment, in every sense. Everyone is competing to be the smartest, best athlete, best student, in effect the best person, and of course this is all instigated by the parents who suffer from their own inferiority complexes. Even there, though, people would often look at you cross-eyed if you chose to read a book instead of play basketball. None the less, it sets you up to always overreach and try to be a genius.
High school was quite the opposite. I found I had to actually dumb-down everything I said in order to even be understood, let alone not made fun of. Whenever someone saw me reading a book, they'd ask what I was reading it for, and when I responded "for fun" they would give me the look you'd give someone who said they enjoyed gargling razor blades. It works the same all over, when you're competing to be the best, the easiest thing to do is not to improve yourself but to knock other people down. Just like honors students will often make fun of the "dumb jocks" who will one day pump their gas, the dumb kids will mock the "nerds" who will never know the joy of wild orgies and football glory.
Let's just say, though, that more than people ever want to acknowledge, intelligence alienates people in much the same way as race, gender, orientation, or economic status. For one, there is a negative correlation between intelligence and religious fervor, meaning that the smarter you are, the less likely you are to whole-heartedly throw yourself into faith in God and the afterlife. So, right from the start, the worldview that defines people is drastically different depending on your intelligence. Even if you are intelligent and religious, chances are that you would be alienated even from other religious people because they would follow faith blindly, and would always question your faith.
Also, smarter people tend to get married later in life, if at all, and tend to be mistrusted by a large part of the populace. Ever wonder why people espouse the harmful intentions of the "liberal, ivy-league, intellectual elite?" Number one, its because people have no problem insulting intellectuals, even though calling someone dumb is considered a massive afront.
On the plus side, smarter people tend to live longer, lead healthier lives, avoid welfare, divorce, unwanted children, and poverty. But what's the point if no one wants to invite you to a party? That's bull', I tell's ya. If we really live in a society that wants to be open and accepting, why are we still so critical of the one class of people most likely to be open-minded? Anti-intellectualism is not merely unjustified, but its just plain stupid. When you let the least informed, or least intelligent people make all of the decisions, what you end up with is a war with a country that has no nuclear weapons while other countries are developing them, an economy of record deficits, and increased social strife and polarization. Is it so bad to think that intelligence is something to be strived for, that all people should always be trying to become smarter, or that we should entrust positions of power to smart people and not well-connected or "average, down home" people?
And maybe we'd be better off without the likes of American Idol, Fox News, and Michael Bay movies.
Monday, March 6, 2006
The Downfall of Society Continues Unabated
Just so we're clear that there are worse things in the world than the wrong films being handed awards, let's see what's in the news today (or, more precisely, what should be in the news if journalists had integrity and weren't being man-handled by corporate interests in the name of tabloid manipulation of the lowest common denominator).
Another soldier was killed in Iraq as 6 bombs went off in Baghdad alone. Oh, and insurgents have taken yet another civilian hostage because of our failure to create any security infrastructure in this nation teetering on the edge of all-out civil war. The death count of our troops alone is nearly 3,000...not to mention civilians, Iraqis, and of course the record number of journalists killed. But hey, who cares about journalists. Its their own fault for trying to report the truth that we can't depend on our own government to give us.
South Dakota has now passed a knowingly un-Constitutional law banning all abortion, including in the case of rape and incest, in the hopes of overturning Roe V. Wade under the new Bush-appointed (practically) Supreme Court. That's right ladies...if you are assaulted in South Dakota by a rapist or your abusive, drunken father and become pregnant, you are now required by law to give birth to that child. Oh, and if your life is endangered by that pregnancy, the doctor's must further put your life at risk by exhausting every possible option to save the fetus or they could go to jail. There is no penalty however for the mother attempting to have the abortion, oddly enough. The Governor of SD stated that he believes life begins at conception. Well, if your mother is traumatized and too young/poor/irresponsible to take care of you and resents you for your whole life because you were unwanted and remind her of a horrible event...then I guess your life pretty much ended at conception too. (Note, I think people should act responsibly and cautiously so that abortion is never necessary but I can think of nothing crueler than forcing someone to have a child that they may not be able to care for or raise properly. Why ruin the mother's and the child's lives?)
But just so you know that not everything is awful and that maybe there is some hope of justice...President Bush's approval rating is at 34% (or 38% depending on the poll) with a record dissapproval rating over 54%...so while only a third of the people approve of what he's doing, more than half of the people actually think he's not just so-so but actually doing a bad job. There's talk in the Republican party that Dick Cheney may be forced to resign after the midterm elections since he's completely useless and a huge political liability due to his attempted murder of an old man that he thought was a bird and his ties to Halliburton. Jack Abramoff will be sentenced on March 29th, and will most likely give up even more names of people who accepted his dirty money and encouraged his dishonest deeds. Oh, and 74% of the troops stationed in Iraq think the U.S. should get out of there before the year is out. That's right, 3 out of every 4 people who were talking about how great Bush is and how he's the only one that can fight the terrorists now think that we've made a complete mess of Iraq and they don't want to be anywhere near it. So, things are looking kind-of awful, but at least now people are starting to pay attention and realize what's going on. 2006 is the year to start doing something about it.
Another soldier was killed in Iraq as 6 bombs went off in Baghdad alone. Oh, and insurgents have taken yet another civilian hostage because of our failure to create any security infrastructure in this nation teetering on the edge of all-out civil war. The death count of our troops alone is nearly 3,000...not to mention civilians, Iraqis, and of course the record number of journalists killed. But hey, who cares about journalists. Its their own fault for trying to report the truth that we can't depend on our own government to give us.
South Dakota has now passed a knowingly un-Constitutional law banning all abortion, including in the case of rape and incest, in the hopes of overturning Roe V. Wade under the new Bush-appointed (practically) Supreme Court. That's right ladies...if you are assaulted in South Dakota by a rapist or your abusive, drunken father and become pregnant, you are now required by law to give birth to that child. Oh, and if your life is endangered by that pregnancy, the doctor's must further put your life at risk by exhausting every possible option to save the fetus or they could go to jail. There is no penalty however for the mother attempting to have the abortion, oddly enough. The Governor of SD stated that he believes life begins at conception. Well, if your mother is traumatized and too young/poor/irresponsible to take care of you and resents you for your whole life because you were unwanted and remind her of a horrible event...then I guess your life pretty much ended at conception too. (Note, I think people should act responsibly and cautiously so that abortion is never necessary but I can think of nothing crueler than forcing someone to have a child that they may not be able to care for or raise properly. Why ruin the mother's and the child's lives?)
But just so you know that not everything is awful and that maybe there is some hope of justice...President Bush's approval rating is at 34% (or 38% depending on the poll) with a record dissapproval rating over 54%...so while only a third of the people approve of what he's doing, more than half of the people actually think he's not just so-so but actually doing a bad job. There's talk in the Republican party that Dick Cheney may be forced to resign after the midterm elections since he's completely useless and a huge political liability due to his attempted murder of an old man that he thought was a bird and his ties to Halliburton. Jack Abramoff will be sentenced on March 29th, and will most likely give up even more names of people who accepted his dirty money and encouraged his dishonest deeds. Oh, and 74% of the troops stationed in Iraq think the U.S. should get out of there before the year is out. That's right, 3 out of every 4 people who were talking about how great Bush is and how he's the only one that can fight the terrorists now think that we've made a complete mess of Iraq and they don't want to be anywhere near it. So, things are looking kind-of awful, but at least now people are starting to pay attention and realize what's going on. 2006 is the year to start doing something about it.
Sunday, March 5, 2006
The Myth of a Liberal Hollywood
In a year where there are so many good, important, interesting films, it's shocking that many of the awards went to mediocre, boring movies that many people didn't see. I mean, many people didn't see Capote, but the ones who did realized it was great. Same thing for Munich and Brokeback Mountain and Good Night and Good Luck. But Memoirs of a Geisha won awards, and you know what, even the costumes weren't that good. Oh, but it takes place in the past in another country, so we have to give it awards for costumes.
Here's what I don't understand...You have five films nominated for best picture. Every individual guild and critical organization have all agreed which one of them is the best, and everyone else knows that one of those films is really just a placeholder because they couldn't agree on a fifth film. So, who do we give the Oscar too? Let's not give it to an artful, subtle film with an important message or intriguing story. No, let's give it to the place holder.
I liked Crash when I saw it. I should also mention that I liked Trey Parker and Matt Stone's Baseketball when I saw it. Crash was the only decent movie out at a time when every movie was awful. That's the only reason people went to see it, and the only reason people even remember it. Sure, it has a message, but a heavy-handed one that in many ways contradicts itself and destroys its own point.
Oh, but it's an important film, about racism. Yeah, well so is To Kill a Mockingbird, but that was at least well written and had great performances. Plus, for a film that proclaims to be so serious and real, and tackles the tough issues faced by many groups, its hard to ignore that Crash was written, directed, and produced largely by middle-aged, middle class white people, who were clearly exercising their white liberal guilt and attempting to identify with the struggles of minorities. If people in reality acted like the characters in Crash, you'd never get a word in edgewise because everyone would be speaking in angry monologues, and half the population would be dead because the other half of the population would have killed them in some racial misunderstanding while yelling about how they are mistreated. Here's a hint for writers without subtlety...the reason that racism is such a problem in society is because people don't come right out and say they are racist and yell derogatory things at each other. In fact, they are downright nice to each other (to their faces) and when they do say something about race, its not in the form of a poorly prepared speech, but in a whispered aside.
Brokeback Mountain wasn't even my favorite film of the year. I thought both Munich and Good Night & Good Luck were better...but at least it was a good film. It was meaningful without being heavy-handed. It was interesting without being manipulative. It was well directed (as proved by Ang Lee's win) and well acted (as proved by its three acting nominations), and well written (as proved by its Oscar for adapted screenplay) and well shot. What else does it need to win best picture? Were people annoyed by the hype? Were they afraid it would make Hollywood look too liberal? Or were they afraid that if they didn't vote for Crash they would feel like a racist, instead of a homophobe?
I don't know. But hey, if Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind can be considered "best films", why not some mediocre drivel like Crash. So to all those people out there who think that "Hollywood" is too liberal, too elitist, too out of touch with middle america...they just gave the Oscar to the safe-bet, mediocre, middle-brow, popular, suburban drama starring Tony Danza, Sandra Bullock, and Ludacris. Bravo Hollywood, you've proved us wrong.
And made me sick.
Here's what I don't understand...You have five films nominated for best picture. Every individual guild and critical organization have all agreed which one of them is the best, and everyone else knows that one of those films is really just a placeholder because they couldn't agree on a fifth film. So, who do we give the Oscar too? Let's not give it to an artful, subtle film with an important message or intriguing story. No, let's give it to the place holder.
I liked Crash when I saw it. I should also mention that I liked Trey Parker and Matt Stone's Baseketball when I saw it. Crash was the only decent movie out at a time when every movie was awful. That's the only reason people went to see it, and the only reason people even remember it. Sure, it has a message, but a heavy-handed one that in many ways contradicts itself and destroys its own point.
Oh, but it's an important film, about racism. Yeah, well so is To Kill a Mockingbird, but that was at least well written and had great performances. Plus, for a film that proclaims to be so serious and real, and tackles the tough issues faced by many groups, its hard to ignore that Crash was written, directed, and produced largely by middle-aged, middle class white people, who were clearly exercising their white liberal guilt and attempting to identify with the struggles of minorities. If people in reality acted like the characters in Crash, you'd never get a word in edgewise because everyone would be speaking in angry monologues, and half the population would be dead because the other half of the population would have killed them in some racial misunderstanding while yelling about how they are mistreated. Here's a hint for writers without subtlety...the reason that racism is such a problem in society is because people don't come right out and say they are racist and yell derogatory things at each other. In fact, they are downright nice to each other (to their faces) and when they do say something about race, its not in the form of a poorly prepared speech, but in a whispered aside.
Brokeback Mountain wasn't even my favorite film of the year. I thought both Munich and Good Night & Good Luck were better...but at least it was a good film. It was meaningful without being heavy-handed. It was interesting without being manipulative. It was well directed (as proved by Ang Lee's win) and well acted (as proved by its three acting nominations), and well written (as proved by its Oscar for adapted screenplay) and well shot. What else does it need to win best picture? Were people annoyed by the hype? Were they afraid it would make Hollywood look too liberal? Or were they afraid that if they didn't vote for Crash they would feel like a racist, instead of a homophobe?
I don't know. But hey, if Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind can be considered "best films", why not some mediocre drivel like Crash. So to all those people out there who think that "Hollywood" is too liberal, too elitist, too out of touch with middle america...they just gave the Oscar to the safe-bet, mediocre, middle-brow, popular, suburban drama starring Tony Danza, Sandra Bullock, and Ludacris. Bravo Hollywood, you've proved us wrong.
And made me sick.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Ode to a Show That Was Daily
That was the greatest episode of the Daily Show in a while. Shall I explain...
Jon Stewart's guest was a fellow who had written a book called "100 People who are screwing up America" (97 of which are liberals, surprise surprise), one of these B.S. culture war books that try to blame all of our problems on hip hop music from 10 years ago and those "hollywood" types that nobody listens to anyway instead of, perhaps, the people who actually cause our problems like corrupt politicians and the insane and occasionally fascist right wing.
Well, Jon Stewart laid the smack-down on him in journalistic fashion, much like when he was on Crossfire, and I couldn't have been more thrilled. Point by point, articulately, and humorously, he told this guy just how full of crap he was and beat him down, not through yelling and screaming like the fox "news" crowd, but through real debate. Well, not so much debate since the author had nothing worthwhile to add.
But it makes me glad that someone is out there saying what needs to be said. He pointed out that while people might say vulgar things on television more these days, that at least the things that really matter have improved. What's worse, boobs on television, or segregation in schools? Murder depicted on rap albums, or murder carried out by lynch mobs? The fact is that culture is about more than our entertainment, it is about real social values and everyday practices.
But of course, this is how you divide people, motivate people, and distract people. If you have an agenda that no one in their right mind could get behind, say, breaking down the walls between church and state, allowing corporations to control government, and rolling back every piece of civil rights advancement of fifty years, then you need something that can get people behind you that seems urgent. You need to tell everyone that their children and the society is in danger, and that the cause of it is not the legislators, or their bosses, or the people polluting their drinking water, but its those damn people on MTV and the fact that your little Johnny knows the f-word. The culture war is a figment of a deranged imagination, and it collectively belongs to the modern day temperance-victorian movement, the "christian" right (in quotes because I refer not to actual christians, but people who use the title and selectively follow it, such as when they support life when its a fetus but not when its a criminal or a starving child in the third world). They want to act the martyr and pretend that they are under attack, despite controlling every branch of government and having their views forced upon the majority of Americans through popular culture. So, they act like movies, music, and books are all a direct attack on them and that they must be stopped for our own sakes. The fact that we can hear words like "shit" on cable or see partial nudity on television or read about sex in a magazine is not a sign of a crumbling society. They are signs of an open society, where people can be free, and honest, and real dialogue can exist and art can be a representation of reality and have something important to say. "Fuck" is just a word. A breast is just another body part. And hip-hop is just another form of expression.
People who take the bible literally, or worse who interpret it to justify their disapproval of other people's choices, now that's dangerous.
Jon Stewart's guest was a fellow who had written a book called "100 People who are screwing up America" (97 of which are liberals, surprise surprise), one of these B.S. culture war books that try to blame all of our problems on hip hop music from 10 years ago and those "hollywood" types that nobody listens to anyway instead of, perhaps, the people who actually cause our problems like corrupt politicians and the insane and occasionally fascist right wing.
Well, Jon Stewart laid the smack-down on him in journalistic fashion, much like when he was on Crossfire, and I couldn't have been more thrilled. Point by point, articulately, and humorously, he told this guy just how full of crap he was and beat him down, not through yelling and screaming like the fox "news" crowd, but through real debate. Well, not so much debate since the author had nothing worthwhile to add.
But it makes me glad that someone is out there saying what needs to be said. He pointed out that while people might say vulgar things on television more these days, that at least the things that really matter have improved. What's worse, boobs on television, or segregation in schools? Murder depicted on rap albums, or murder carried out by lynch mobs? The fact is that culture is about more than our entertainment, it is about real social values and everyday practices.
But of course, this is how you divide people, motivate people, and distract people. If you have an agenda that no one in their right mind could get behind, say, breaking down the walls between church and state, allowing corporations to control government, and rolling back every piece of civil rights advancement of fifty years, then you need something that can get people behind you that seems urgent. You need to tell everyone that their children and the society is in danger, and that the cause of it is not the legislators, or their bosses, or the people polluting their drinking water, but its those damn people on MTV and the fact that your little Johnny knows the f-word. The culture war is a figment of a deranged imagination, and it collectively belongs to the modern day temperance-victorian movement, the "christian" right (in quotes because I refer not to actual christians, but people who use the title and selectively follow it, such as when they support life when its a fetus but not when its a criminal or a starving child in the third world). They want to act the martyr and pretend that they are under attack, despite controlling every branch of government and having their views forced upon the majority of Americans through popular culture. So, they act like movies, music, and books are all a direct attack on them and that they must be stopped for our own sakes. The fact that we can hear words like "shit" on cable or see partial nudity on television or read about sex in a magazine is not a sign of a crumbling society. They are signs of an open society, where people can be free, and honest, and real dialogue can exist and art can be a representation of reality and have something important to say. "Fuck" is just a word. A breast is just another body part. And hip-hop is just another form of expression.
People who take the bible literally, or worse who interpret it to justify their disapproval of other people's choices, now that's dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
